Does Folk Exist?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:07 AM

and that longing has to be more than attending a singaound.

The singaround is where it happens though, for me at least. Nowhere else! That's the source of the communion, what inspires me to keep the faith, as I say, no matter how imperfect the theology. Without the singaround I'd have lost interest years ago.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:47 AM

A longer reply has disappeared so this is short. I don't have an issue with the singaround but with those who want to dictate the canon. People know what folk is when they hear it and sing it, they don't need a priestly class to mediate it for them.

Traditional music isn't the entirety of folk.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 AM

I'm not convinced of Pip's rote performances as anything more than a perpetuation of the modern phenomenon of Folk Revival, any more than I am of the Nicean Creed's ability to transport someone who was thinking about what they were going to have for their tea.

One answer is that it is a perpetuation of the modern phenomenon of Folk Revival - which is itself a folk art, like graffiti or line dancing.

More fundamentally, I'm suspicious of the opposition between routine and transcendence. Sticking to religion for the moment, I think leaving the house at the same time every Sunday morning, sitting in the same place for the same length of time and saying the same words - together with a lot of other people who are also doing it every week - is a religious experience, and quite a powerful one. The world collectively stops what it's doing for an hour or so, to come together and express a sense that there's something missing frm the rest of the week - a place for joy, grief, yearning for the world to be transformed. In practice, obviously, it's boring and meaningless for a lot of the time, but the constant ritual return and repetition builds up the charge of the sacred over time - a charge that resides in the location and in the congregation, as well as the ceremony. So when you get married you know that church is the place to do it - and when you've got problems you know that you can rely on 'church people'. Obviously that doesn't work all the time for everyone, but I think it does work for a lot of people a lot of the time.

I'm not suggesting you should go to church - I don't. But I think ritual is an important element of our lives, & that routine and ritual aren't all that different.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:17 AM

a good deal of the tradition is formulaic and leads to the suspicion collectors did indeed pick songs that fitted their idea of what old music was

Collectors were mostly pretty explicit about that they were doing, and you're deliberately misrepresenting a completely logical set of priorities. If you're in a community where two sorts of stuff are being performed:

1. songs and tunes deriving from printed sources you're familiar with already and only adapted to a limited extent

2. stuff you've never heard before, which seems to be unknown outside this community, and which might be forgotten in the very near future as this community's way of life comes to an end

which is the more important one to record?

For sure, we now think it is ALSO important to record a complete picture of the community's musical practice, including what they do with materials imported from outside, but the collectors of the early 20th century got their priorities basically right about what to do with the limited time and resources they had.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:24 AM

The problem with ritual is it can quickly become the totality of the thing, in the way that enlightenment C of E bishops say a deity is an important notion for describing the human condition's relationship with nature and the virgin birth is an expression of man's ideas of purity. I prefer the possibly flawed original, even when it defies reason, to a socio-analytic reading that puts custom and practice before substance.

You might argue that in a rationalist age the folk revival has become the vehicle for a communal expression of the numinous with apostolic figures replaced by collectors spreading the true word. I just don't happen to think that's what folk is all about.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:30 AM

Does any music exist?
Some times.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:31 AM

I've just come up with something on another thread which I feel bears repeating here:

Traditional Song is born of the moment, thus does it belong to the future.

Moreover, Traditional Song empowers the moment, giving us a glimpse not of the past per-se but of the continuity by which we have come be where we are and who we are.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

"Collectors were mostly pretty explicit about that they were doing, and you're deliberately misrepresenting a completely logical set of priorities."

I completely agree with Jack Campin here. Just imagine you've just met old Mrs X in Village Y. She's got 21 songs which are made up of 6 ballads, 14 lyrical pieces and a recent music hall song. You've got a notepad and pencil and a limited amount of time in Village Y. Are you going to spend any of that time noting down the music hall piece?
Of course you're not!

Fast forward 100 years and your descendant meets Mrs X's descendant in the same village. This time your descendant is armed with a state-of-the-art electronic recorder. Now your descendant might have the luxury of recording that music hall piece (or 1940s pop song)for the sake of completeness.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

Shimrod and Jack Campin have it dead right. All collectors (the ones I have met anyway) set out with the idea that they will record as much as time and circumstances allow them to, including information.
However, faced with singers like Tom Lenihan (200 songs) Mary Delaney (about the same) and Walter Pardon (around 150) we found ourselves constantly having to prioritise.
We set out as 'folk song collectors', having some idea what we meant by the term, and in the limited time we had available to us, they were our priority. If we (and the singers) had the time, we always recorded everything the singer was prepared to give us, and then get he or she to talk about their repertoire. I suggest you listen to what Walter Pardon had to say about his repertoire, some of which can be found in an article I wrote for Musical Traditions 'Enthusiasms' section, entitled 'By Any Other-Name'. Travelling woman Mary Delaney refused to sing her non-folk songs (mainly C&W), telling us that these were not what we were looking for and "the new songs have the old ones ruined" - she only sang them in the pub because "that's what the lads ask for".
Sharp, who started the ball rolling in England, based his 'Conclusions' on his extensive work in the South of England, Karpeles did so on her work with Sharp and her own in Newfoundland, Greig's massive collection came from is field work in Aberdeenshire..... how far do I have to go?
If they - or we with our 36 years recording farmworkers, fishermen, Irish and Scots Travellers, Irish construction workers in London.... all got it wrong, it really is time that somebody told us where we did so - and maybe compare what we did/do with their own efforts rather than resorting to the usual method (much in evidence here) of argument by innuendo.
It has always been my experience that people who ask such prattish questions as "Does folk exist" invariably do so from the comfort of their armchair, or a folk club, and usually have their own particular agenda, usually setting out to prove it doesn't, as likely as not in order to be able to justify their hangining their own particular preferences on the 'folk' peg.
Incidentally, to whoever suggested that it would be helpful to know what the person coined the term 'folk' had in mind, antiquarian William Thoms (1803-1885)first used the term 'folklore' in 1846. There is an entry on him the Funk and Wagnall Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend, and a gread deal of information on his work and ideas in Richard Dorson's 'The British Folkorist'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM

"Sharp, who started the ball rolling in England, based his 'Conclusions' on his extensive work in the South of England,"
Sorry, intended to add 'and the Southern Appalachians'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

And so the sound of one hand clapping returns to applaud itself.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:58 PM

I thought Jim C. said some very interesting stuff there. Though I do also rather like Glueman's Gnostic analogy below: "People know what folk is when they hear it and sing it, they don't need a priestly class to mediate it for them."

Otherwise, threads like this... I guess it matters much to some, but I'd guess it's the energy of personal investment and such, that err results in a 'need' for a definitive answer or conclusion. Human existence tends to 'happen' in some ways I guess, and thus we describe (and then attempt to define) what happens for pragmatic purposes of communicating those tendencies with other people. IMO, nothing that happens is 'real' as such, apart from what 'tends to happen'.

Yes Folk 'is': something happens, and we describe it as 'folk'.

Bums, it's all too much...!

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:53 PM

"And so the sound of one hand clapping returns to applaud itself."
And that's it?
As I thought - all shadow and no substance. I really thought somebody might have had something worth looking at for a moment - ah well.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:40 AM

all shadow and no substance.

That's folk in a nutshell; rather like Death in Duncan Williamson's story (in which he appears to elaborate on a Scandinavian original) whereby havoc is wreaked in a world where things no longer die. Ultimately however, shadows are best; because shadows are all we've got, like those on the wall of Plato's Cave; shadows implying substance, or permanence, all of which might run contrary to the transient nature of all existence in which all things change regardless, unless they're stuffed up inside of nuts of course, which is a nice womb-like comfort zone no matter how cramped.

In reality, of course, and by his own admission, Jim's sort of Folk died the death long ago; folk in a nutshell, removed from any sort of human context it might have once had because even the singers found better things to do with their free time once they discovered the delights of modern life. Thankfully there's more to it, and Folk lives on as an essentially creative aesthetic derived from all sorts of musical & cultural associations, including Traditional Song & Music, folklore, hip-hop, free-improv, Flann O'Brien, experimental music, feral, wicca, tribal, jungle, hedgewitch, wildlife, bird song, storytelling, early music, modern classical, gamelan, plain chant, death metal, fog horns, Japanese Sapphic Erotica, dead seals, power stations, 1920's novelty dance bands, The Beano, Albert Richardson, Blackpool Tower, the M6, the A6, Catweazle, Bagpuss, etc. etc. with countless musicians diligently ploughing their own idiosyncratic furrows and making some fascinating noises in the process; best make that the folk process which lives on in other ways too. Even outside the Folk Scene - especially outside the Folk Scene - Folk Music is alive and well and thriving in an abundant transience that would make Maud Karpeles proud.

A very worthy thread indeed, and a joy for the most part despite Jim's ominous clouds gathering of late threatening further judgemental downpour. Fortunately, I have my trusty Gamp at hand!

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:50 AM

"And so the sound of one hand clapping returns to applaud itself."

If we're talking about Jim's work as a collector (and the openness with which he's been willing to share his knowledge in this and other places), then there are two hands clapping in this household.

Give me a 'do-er' every time.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:18 AM

"If we're talking about Jim's work as a collector"

I don't think we are. Jim will be here to tell of about that soon enough. We were having a discussion about whether folk exists and if it does where it begins and ends. It's unfortunate that some people only join a thread to trade insults or flog horses that were merely sunning themselves.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: melodeonboy
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:44 AM

"Do folk exist?"?

Oh, as in do heavy metal exist and do jazz exist!

Hmm... might sound all right in certain 19th century East Anglian dialects, but a bit antiquated now!

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:49 AM

"And so the sound of one hand clapping returns to applaud itself." - 'glueman'

You can't resist being snide, can you Mr 'g'? Why not try writing something sensible and comprehensible for a change?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Chris Murray
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:54 AM

Has anybody mentioned the horse yet? I'm scared to look.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:01 AM

"You can't resist being snide, can you Mr 'g'?"

You'll find any thread I've been 'snide' in has been as a result of downright insults. At this point I'm tempted to bite but hope the thread returns to to its former very high standard and the rest return to their cave. Contributions are not compulsory.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:12 AM

Where were we? Ah yes, I'm reminded of Socrates quote 'an unexamined life is not worth living.' Perhaps folk is the last unexamined genre, a musical form completely lacking in self-awareness and reflexivity? Not knowing that it's 'such stuff as dreams are made on' or S O'P's ghosts in the backroom it can only continue so long as it doesn't look at its reflection?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:43 AM

If we're talking about Jim's work as a collector

We're all applauding that one, Brian - and I'm eternally grateful for the cassette he put my way a year or so back which has still to emerge from whatever box we packed it in when we moved. In respect of his diligence, passion, authority in respect of Traditional Singers & Songs over the years I will applaud him long & loud with much respect and admiration.

However...

It's no secret I'm still smarting from him dismissing my own efforts as a ballad singer as being truly awful and akin to bad pop music, which is a sour old approach and not helpful in the slightest. This is an attitude we find in many of his other posts which are cast in the direction of the wayward even as Satan smiting Job with sore boils, as in his dismissal of the inquiry which this thread is attempting to answer as prattish.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:10 AM

"If we're talking about Jim's work as a collector"

I'm not about to defend rude personal remarks whoever they're made by, but since this seems to be (yet another) thread centred upon the alleged existence of a "priestly class of mediators" (which I assume comprises or at least includes collectors), then JC's contribution, as a collector discussing the opinions of the singers from whom he collected songs, seems to be fairly central to the discussion.

"his dismissal of the inquiry which this thread is attempting to answer as prattish..."

Would this be the inquiry which opened with the fair-minded statement "jerks need not apply"?

"a musical form completely lacking in self-awareness and reflexivity?" [glueman]

There is a good point here: the folk revival is way more prone to navel gazing than most other musical genres. My experience, however, suggests that the 'un-definers' are no less keen to pore over the belly button than any high priest of the canon.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:11 AM

"I don't think we are. Jim will be here to tell of about that soon enough"
Glueman - your technique of arguing (regularly used enough to be described as a technique) is one of smear and innuend and then bottling out of either substantiating your smears or withdrawing them when challenged - want me to produce some recent examples in case they have slipped your memory. It is a cowardly and deeply dishonest way of arguing - yet - ''tis but thine own'.
Your smear tactics regarding collecting provoked the response I gave.
I seldom talk about our collecting other than to quote the singers, musicians and storytellers we have recorded - which is, as far as I'm concerned, what it was all about. If this is not the case, can you please prove otherwise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:29 AM

"If this is not the case, can you please prove otherwise."

No. Do your worst Jim.
Then leave us alone to talk about the initial proposition.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:45 AM

"this seems to be (yet another) thread centred upon the alleged existence of a "priestly class of mediators"

You may or may not have noticed that a religious metaphor had been building across a number of posts, the priestly class was a response to that. I used the metonym to include all individuals who seek to create and reinforce boundaries in folk music and to divide people into categories of worthy/unworthy, saved/condemned, correct/wrong, prattish/enlightened.
Hope that helps.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:50 AM

"Hope that helps."

Not if you don't tell us who these people are.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:05 AM

The concept of folk exists. It is differentiated from other musics. A valid question here is not the definition but who gets to define it.

An even bigger question is who today cares? A comparatively small group.

I've tried to discover what it is by singing it myself and listening to others who I felt were part of a tradition. I never claimed to be a part of any tradition of any folk song except when my step-father taught me a blues song he had heard hobo-ing around in the 30's.

The reason I think that it exists is that it contains a kind of aesthetic. 1. It's generally accessible. 2. It has parameters. Not a wide vocal range. Basic language endemic to the culture. 3. Singing style is not classical or trained. 4. It has been passed down.
5. Content is usually narrative. 6. Much of it requires footnotes to understand its background. 7. Harmonic content is simple. 8. It is not adorned with the standard show business physicality of rock or pop or even some classical. 9. It sounds best in a smaller more intimate environment, not on a big stage. 10. People who are part of the culture which spawn the style recognize it as their own. 11. It is associated with working class culture.

There is a folk-like performance style that is sometimes appealing and sometimes contrived in its imitative approach.

I don't think that it can be duplicated by those outside the culture with much success.
There is a genetic as well as cultural component.

What we see in today's performance style that is reputed to be "folk" is more of a show business image thing.

I see it as separate from other forms of musical expression.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:23 AM

A marvellously reasoned contribution Frank. No.1 got me thinking though - is it accessible? Folk seems to have a higher proportion of players and singers than other genres. Might not this skill lend itself to increasing musical virtuosity with all the exclusivity that suggests?

I may be going off at a tangent here but not many folk musicians stop at the few chords rock performers are happy to play in perpetuity (while being aware solo virtuosity is a mark of rock it is not a requirement). I wonder if that specialisation excludes it from casual involvement and the primitive 'folkishness' the term implies, and take it into an acoustic branch of technicianship?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:34 AM

"jerks need not apply"

What was that referring to? I was actually meaning the enquiry Does Folk Exist?

"priestly class of mediators"

Would these be professional folk singers perhaps? Those who intercede between the Faithful and the Theologians with albums containing expositions of the Holy Writ backed up by copious annotations factual, fatuous, misleading or otherwise, but always couched with a certain authority which I for one have always been a sucker for. Whilst happy to ape this example in my own work over the years (not least on JATZ where each piece has a lengthy blog entry by way of a virtual sleeve note) we're currently working on a commissioned album of traditional material which, despite having an overall concept, will very deliberately have no sleeve notes whatsoever! But then again, whilst I get paid well enough for my storytelling I don't think I've ever received a penny for my folk singing, although I do feature Traditional Songs in my storytelling performances, very few of which, come to think of it, occur within Designated Folk Contexts where I'm quite happy to be a Lay Preacher.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:39 AM

Yes, I agree that 'Stringsinger's' contribution above is clear, concise, well-reasoned and free from obscurist jargon and snidey comments. Why can't your contributions be like that, 'glueman'?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:02 AM

And moving swiftly on, not sure about No.11 either Frank, though I'm picking nits, your point is well made.
No sleeve notes would be a massive step forward for folk SOP.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM

Does folk exist - yes it does
It can be found in many of the recorded form in collections such as 'Folk Songs of Britain', the aptly named 20 set 'Voice of The People' (soon to be joined by selections of the BBC project), the ongoing 'School of Scottish Studies series, and the many, many thousands of albums and collectiions of field recordings still available, released commercially or archived.
In published form they can be found in works such as 'The Greig Duncan Folksong Collection', Sam Henry aptly named 'Songs of the People', and the many hundred published and Mss. collections - soon to be joined by the massive Carpenter Collection.
Where are these songs and singers listed? The Roud Index is as about as comrehensive an index as you'll find for both recorded and printed sources of material.
Apart from those who prefer the 'Elephant in the Room' approach ("perhaps if we ignore it then it might go away and we can dump our personal preferences under the label 'Folk'") folk song has never been more available than it is today.
The only place you can't be guaranteed to find it any more is in clubs like those frequented by Suibhne O'Piobaireachd (under a previous persona), where you are more likely to find - and I quote: "Blues, Shanties, Kipling, Cicely Fox Smith, Musical Hall, George Formby, Pop, County, Dylan, Cohen, Cash, Medieval Latin, Beatles, Irish Jigs and Reels, Scottish Strathspeys, Gospel, Rock, Classical Guitar, Native American Chants, Operatic Arias and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad. We once had a floor singer who, in his own words, sang his own composition which he introduced with the Zen-like "...this is a folk song about rock 'n' roll..."."
Is folk still to be found in its raw form in the communities that once made, used and circulated it?
Probably not - modern technology has pretty well put paid to that - but hey - Shakespeare, Beeethoven and Homer have been dead for centuries and many of us still get great pleasure from their work.
any of us came into the folk song revival because it gave us great pleasure and satisfaction. It also gave us a template to create, sing and listen to newly created songs using the folk forms. Long may it continue to do so.
I didn't really expect a positive reply to my request to back up his innuendoes with facts - he doesn't do that sort of thing.
"Then leave us alone to talk about the initial proposition"
I'm afraid if you're going to move me on constable, you're going to have to show me your warrant card.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:09 PM

Phew! Bit of a sudden cloud-burst there - and whilst my gamp is keeping me nice and dry, there's always a risk of flooding - Roud, Child, VOTP, SOTP, Grieg Duncan, blah blah... Let's hope the drains can cope with such an almighty deluge!

Still, every cloud, eh?

Jim, you're like the Roman Catholic Theologian who when asked does God exist? points to the Vatican library...

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:19 PM

"Hope that helps."
Not if you don't tell us who these people are.

Me too. I still don't see an answer to that one.

Ranting about unnamed enemies. It's the usual rhetorical strategy of grandiose cranks.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:24 PM

so Jim,says folk is not blues and not irish jigs and reels, and not shanties ,and not scottish strathspeys.
are you saying Jim that these are not folk, have I understood you correctly,if you are saying that ,I have to say youare talking Codswallop.
string singer says[3. Singing style is not classical or trained.]interesting that THEN excludesPeggy Seeger/maccoll.and all the Comhaltas singers.Seeger/Maccoll did vocal exercises that is training,Comhaltas singers train their voices in a different way,they train to sing in a particular style to win competitions.,but they call themselves singers of traditional songs,traditional songs are considerted by most people to be part of folk music,and neither of the above sing in a classical style.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:32 PM

Jim Carroll

Apart from those who prefer the 'Elephant in the Room' approach

Alternatively, you could try the 'Room in the Elephant' approach aka the Lewes Saturday Folk Club at The Elephant and Castle, Lewes. There, and at our neighbours the Royal Oak, Lewes, you will hear songs from the singing of Harry Cox, Walter Pardon, the Stewarts of Blairgowrie, Queen Caroline Hughes, Pheobe Smith, Louie Fuller, Lizzie Higgins, Pop Maynard, Mary Ann Haynes, Jeannie Robertson, Stanley Robertson, Fred Jordan.... and tunes from the playing of Scan Tester, Walter Bulwer, Lemmie Brazil, Percy Brown, Bob Cann, Will Atkinson Willy Taylor, Joe Hutton, James Hill.... and countless songs, ballads and tunes from the great Anon.

On top of that you'll get songs and tunes inspired by the tradition from people like Graham Miles, Barry Temple, Brian Bedford, Anne Lister, Alistair Anderson....

Not that we're purists. You'll hear music from foreign parts like Ireland, America, France, Kent.... and even a few music hall songs or Victorian parlour ballads.

A couple of fairly typical British folk clubs really.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:07 PM

Although not a consumer of contemporary broadcast media - I do like a nice narrowcast bit o' youtube mind - I turned on the car radio this afternoon being early for an appointment, blew the spiders out and heard Stuart McConey and others talking about musical nomenclature, genres, styles and whatnot.

The conclusion seemed to be that titles were fairly meaningless and music can only be spoken of in terms of comparison or metaphor. They may be onto something. If Ewan MacColl writes a song extolling the virtues of his wife is he a folk singer? When Jon Boden, a chap who knows a fair bit about the tradition and how to play it, makes a record of his own songs has he ceased to be a folkie?
At various times each of us answers to different titles (angler, lecturer, banjo player and grandiose crank at various times apparently) but 'folk musician' seems stickier than most, as though it is a life commitment, a calling, a vocation and those who push its boundaries and muck about with other forms are somehow suspect, letting the side down.

Perhaps folkies are happy with intertextual playfulness, absorbing the zeitgeist and chillin' but it doesn't often appear that way.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM

"Phew! Bit of a sudden cloud-burst there - and whilst my gamp is keeping me nice and dry, there's always a risk of flooding - Roud, Child, VOTP, SOTP, Grieg Duncan, blah blah... Let's hope the drains can cope with such an almighty deluge!"

Well, S'OP you've had plenty of practice at keeping dry after downpours like this:

"Blues, Shanties, Kipling, Cicely Fox Smith, Musical Hall, George Formby, Pop, County, Dylan, Cohen, Cash, Medieval Latin, Beatles, Irish Jigs and Reels, Scottish Strathspeys, Gospel, Rock, Classical Guitar, Native American Chants, Operatic Arias and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad."

Haven't you?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:36 PM

"Ranting about unnamed enemies"

or imaginary enemies done to death by Captain Obvious and his side kick The Paranoid Kid

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:52 PM

The secular priests, guardians, gate-keepers are both hard to define but easy to spot. Anyone, I suppose, who takes it upon themselves to extropolate an abstract notion and turn it into a bunker. Let me say I don't believe folkies as a group are prone to authoritarianism, the ones at festivals seem a liberal and jolly lot by and large, but a few have strong ideas about what is and isn't acceptable and are keen to demand everyone agrees, usually citing 'sources' (an extraordinary thing to do).
A two layer folk is what we have in practice, a pragmatic form and an austere one.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:52 PM

" ... but a few have ONE strong idea that ANYTHING is acceptable and are keen to demand everyone agrees, ... "

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:10 PM

Rifleman,still firing blanks?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:33 PM

My mother used to say 'gamp' or 'umbergamp', I didn't know it was in common usage. She also called sleepy eye snot 'gowly' which I also believed was a family term until it turned up on Call My Bluff for the same thing.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:54 PM

The secular priests, guardians, gate-keepers are both hard to define but easy to spot.

So it should be easy to name one, then.

a few have strong ideas about what is and isn't acceptable and are keen to demand everyone agrees, usually citing 'sources' (an extraordinary thing to do).

If there are so few of them they should be even easier to name.

Name some names or shut up.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:15 PM

"My mother used to say 'gamp' or 'umbergamp', I didn't know it was in common usage. She also called sleepy eye snot 'gowly' which I also believed was a family term until it turned up on Call My Bluff for the same thing."

I see that you're resorting to your usual extraordinary talent for evasiveness when challenged, 'glueman'! I'm sure your family dialect words and sayings are very interesting - but they're not very relevant to this thread, at this juncture, are they?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM

"Name some names or shut up."

Why? Would you walk into someone's house and adopt that tone. Cheeky saucepot.
As for Shimrod, you give me the impression of someone who was bullied and is determined to only hunt in a pack nowadays. Please refer to the original post or deliver yourself hence. You were humoured, then ignored but you still haven't learned politeness. Please do so.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:33 PM

I find the idea of Folk Priests a lot more worrying than the Folk Police. I think I'm going to have to sharpen my gamp...

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:46 PM

Secular priests my arse - ditto abstract concepts - why do people insist on replacing serious discussion with such juvenile invective.
Folk music is far from abstract - it has been recorded, researched and documented enough over the last century to be regarded as a reality.
In the time I have been involved I was lucky enough to have seen singers like Jeannie Roberson, Lizzie Higgins, The Stewarts, Harry Cox, Walter Pardon....... and many others, singing songs we recognised as folk songs - not abstractions but living human beings passing on something special.
Some of us dipped our toes in a little further than just listening and singing and tried to find out more - if we got it wrong, tell us where instead of indulging in infantile name-calling. There is sod-all in the way of counter argument on this thread as far as I can see - just armchair musings.
Bryan:
You are right, and I am grateful that there are clubs like yours which continue to live up to what it says on the tin - I don't think there are enough of them, but we've argued the toss about that one in the past.
Cap'n,
'Jim,says folk is not blues and not irish jigs and reels, and not shanties ,and not scottish strathspeys'
No I don't - far from it - I am saying that if club organisers present ALL the music on SO'P's list as 'folk' and (as he did) define it as such, they are incapable of finding their 'folk' arses with both hands.
What is happening here in Ireland should be a lesson for all concerned with the survival of the music. A clear idea of what constitutes Irish folk music, and an application of standards has guaranteed its survival for the next two generations at least.
SOP
The fact that you equate the reality of folk music with the mysticism of the Vatican library explains much about your attitued and your performance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM

'glueman' (to self):

"Drat! My evasiveness tactic has been rumbled! Resort to alternative tactic: Imply that opponent is morally defective or has psychological problems. Damn! That's been rumbled as well. Hhhhmmm! What's next? Spout First Year Social Sciences mumbo jumbo? No, tried that too many times. Try thinking my opinions through before posting them and talking sense ...? No! Too obvious!"