Does Folk Exist?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 04:30 AM

Of course there are exceptions, but I would say it was no longer a part of these communities' cultural identity, rather an isolated occurence.

Probably all too true.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 04:57 AM

"A minority group have decided society can no longer contribute to making its own indigenous sound by introducing artificial statification. If not racist it's a branch of musical eugenics."

This is a contentious and inflammatory statement, 'glueman'. Who are these 'statifiers' (stratifiers?) - how do they achieve their wicked ends? Musical apartheid happening under our very noses - and I, for one, never even noticed. No-one has tried to stop me from singing - have they tried to stop you? If they have, I think you should name names - we need to know who they are so that we can stop them!

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 05:15 AM

Anyone who suggests a national music 'died' and those who continue to create it are in error are guilty of intellectual mischief. They've decided a music is not characterised by subject matter, preoccupations, themes or even the instruments on which it is played but by its tense, and that contains no present or future.

The conseqence of that sealing is to disenfranchise those who believe there is a popular idiom in which folk continues to be mined and that expression is important to on-going identity. Most people with an interest in folk music see the danger of that position and describe folk in the continuing line from the tradition into the various strands we have today but a few insist common music is dead and by association the common people with it.

That is a political act with ramifications.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 05:29 AM

They've decided a music is not characterised by subject matter, preoccupations, themes or even the instruments on which it is played

Correct.

but by its tense

No. By the way it's created, received and transmitted; by when it's played as much as how or by whom; by what happens to a song after it's been listened to.

a few insist common music is dead and by association the common people with it

This would be insulting if it wasn't such nonsense. Jim again:

"Nowhere has it been suggested that the 'folk' are unable to create their own songs and music, but that, thanks to the development of and accessibilty to technology, they no longer do so."

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 05:48 AM

But folk music is continually spoken about in terms of regional, national or racial identity. If it isn't I have no argument. If it is it leaves nowhere for those who want to explore their local identity through in a traditional idiom without the interest of those who want to declaim what they're doing 'isn't folk'.
My point is people can decide for themselves where boundaries lie but there can be no institutionalised definition of those boundaries that doesn't undermine the prospect for a continuation or revival in the need for that common idiom. It uses language to cap the future potential of that music as effectively as an ex-mine is sealed. No-one can predict where common music will go or what societal changes might bring about its re-evaluation.

Having a running agenda about authenticity is priggish and proprietorial over a subject in which prigs and owners had no stake.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 06:24 AM

So at last we have our answer.

Folk continues to exist, but in forms that are, for whatever reason, altogether invisible to the Folkies. As long as there Actual Folk there will be Folk Music and Folk Song - likewise Folklore, Folk Custom, Folk Tale etc. - but it would seem this Actual Folk will be of no interest whatsoever to the Folkies to whom Folk is tightly bound construct which must comply with the Nebulous Agenda Ridden Aestheticism of the Revival (which Folkies laughingly refer to as The Tradition) which is, most pointedly, altogether invisible to Actual Folk.

What, for example, would members of the Folkie Morris Ring make of the teams who comprise the non-Folkie North of England Morris Dancing Carnival Organisation?

THEY NO LONGER DO SO.

Let that particular shibboleth be writ on the headstone of the revival when the last of us is passed away & it is finally dead, buried and, one hopes, soon forgotten.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:04 AM

'Glueman', let's imagine a community of musically talented people (working class, of course - 'horny-handed sons and daughters of toil') somewhere in England who are participating in a continuation of the Tradition. They sing ballads, based on traditional models, about the Internet, motorways and supermarkets; in their community centre they perform 'up-dated' jigs and reels to the accompaniment of fiddles and electric bass. Every May Day their children dance around a mobile phone mast with ribbons in their hair and bells on their ankles.

So who is stopping them? Is it likely that the fact that Jim Carroll, Pip Radish and I doubt that the Tradition is still operating going to phase them one little bit? Perhaps I'll meet them one day and be invited to join in their Utopian revels (?)

Contrary to your opinion I do not go around saying things like, "stop doing that, it's not traditional!" If asked for my opinion I will give it and may express myself robustly - but I have no power and no desire to tell people what to do, or what not to do.

If Jim Carroll says that the tradition is no longer operating then he may well have a point and has at least earned the right to be listened to (I also happen to be familiar with his work - I'm not familiar with yours, 'glueman'). Don't shoot the messenger!

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:18 AM

As long as there Actual Folk there will be Folk Music and Folk Song - likewise Folklore, Folk Custom, Folk Tale etc.

I completely agree and totally disagree. This goes back to my semi-facetious comments about the Snelgrove Process in an earlier thread. Unless one of us is calling Jim a liar, I think we're agreed that he spent a lot of time and energy documenting something that people collectively used to do, and that he was witness to the fact that people don't collectively do that thing any more. (This isn't because people have changed but because society has changed. There are lots of things in the world that people don't do any more.)

The big controversy seems to be about what we call that thing. Calling it "folk music" doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it obviously bothers you a great deal. But all those are just labels, as someone said - the important thing is that Jim is reporting what he saw, and that he did see something real.

(Where I agree with you is that I do think people getting together and making music - in singarounds, in battles of the bands, wherever - is a folk art, & deserves to be celebrated as such. But I don't believe it produces folk music, 99.9% of the time; not because people have changed but because society has changed, and the place of music in society has changed.)

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM

Jim is looking at a grand old house through a keyhole and claiming he has a firm knowledge of its interior. He can see some beautiful block-printed wallpaper, there's a corner of the Adam firplace and what looks like some tassels on a Turkey rug. He is now happy to pronounce he knows what what all old English houses look like.

If you believe any music is dying and set out looking for dying music you'll find it, of that there is no doubt. It's my misfortune to believe the thing you'll find is what you set out looking for, not the music of the people, or indeed folk music. Both are alive and only sometimes resemble keyhole views.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:33 PM

So where is this 'music of the people/folk music' that you've found, 'glueman'? According to you, "both are alive", so, presumably, you should have first hand knowledge of them and you should be able to point me in the right direction.

By the way, I hope that you're documenting all of this 'neo-folk'(?)

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:38 PM

apparently it also exists in the chimes of Ice Cream vans,Still waiting to hear one play Lord Randall.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

"So where is this 'music of the people/folk music' that you've found, 'glueman'? According to you, "both are alive", so, presumably, you should have first hand knowledge of them and you should be able to point me in the right direction.

By the way, I hope that you're documenting all of this 'neo-folk'(?)"

Here's some. I had a wheelbarrow
About three quarters of the way through this clip you'll hear a song to the tune of Old Smokey. It began one summer evening in the late 1980s when Shrewsbury Town played Notts County. I know cos I was there.

Shrewsbury supporters began singing a song in broad Salopian which the Notts fans could not recognise. It sounded a bit like Old Smokey but wasn't and the words sounded like 'I had a wheelbarrow, the wheel fell off' but weren't. A spontaneous outbreak of the song began which has morphed over the years into various Swing Low Sweet Wheelbarrow and others.

Nobody has ever claimed the song and its eruption was unplanned.
Lots more examples.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 01:02 PM

try again

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 01:10 PM

correct Glueman,I broached this subject myself,in an earlier thread and mentioned this particular song.
Norwich seemed to have a better song but then they are in a higher division.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

folk in action

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 01:55 PM

Football chants may be folk songs of a sort. But it's interesting, 'glueman' that you decide that your chosen example is a folk song primarily because its author(s) is/are anonymous. The fact that many traditional songs have no known author is merely an accident of history. This has been discussed 'millions' of times in threads like this but some people will insist on clinging to the notion that the authors of folk songs must necessarily be anonymous.

As for your second example, surely Frank Sidebottom is a professional comedian? Are you counting ditties by professional comedians as folk songs now?

If both of the above are folk songs, they don't really measure up to the old stuff, do they?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 02:06 PM

But do those football fans describe what they do as folk music? If not what right has anyone to tell them that's what it is?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

I had a wheelbarrow is a folk song because it's sung by the folk. It's credentials are impeccable, a mis-hearing of a different tune to different words in another part of the country, sung spontaneously and transforming into a variety of other songs with the same central conceit.

A voluntary coming together of a large number of people gaining identity through words of no clear meaning but accumulating status through repetition and change. which bit of that isn't a folk song.

So far as FSs dissembling of popular song goes it seems a reasonable supposition that Frank is taking them on the first stage of a folk process. A number of people will know Anarchy through his rendering of it. Plus the audience are the nearest thing to a folk crowd you'll find.

"If both of the above are folk songs, they don't really measure up to the old stuff, do they?"

That statement seems completely subjective.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM

You make some interesting points, 'glueman'. Points which are not easily dismissed. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

Nevertheless, I'm not very convinced by your Frank Sidebottom example.

On the other side of the argument, though, I listened to a talk, last weekend, by the distinguished author, Ronald Blythe (who, as far as I know is not connected to the Folk Revival in any way - nor was the event a folk event). Mr Blythe made the point that few people sing any more - well, not on a daily basis, as they go about their work, as they did in the East Anglian countryside of his youth. He pointed out that most people are now passive consumers of music which is "piped into their heads" (presumably via their iPods).
Perhaps, on that basis, things like football chants are a rare exception to something which was once universal. I don't doubt that people have the potential to develop and transmit a musical tradition - perhaps they think that they don't need to any more - except, possibly, at football matches.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

and rugby matches,
for example the fields of athenry is sung very well at Irish rugby matches,and sometimes at soccer matches,at Cardiff in the last cricket test match,there was also some singing.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM

Unless one of us is calling Jim a liar, I think we're agreed that he spent a lot of time and energy documenting something that people collectively used to do, and that he was witness to the fact that people don't collectively do that thing any more.

There was always more to Folk than the stuff Jim collected. And even though they might have stopped doing that, what they do is still Traditional Folk Music / Song; likewise Traditional Folk Tale, Folklore, Folk Custom, Folk Ceremony, Folk Dance, etc. etc. Once again it's worth considering the aims the International Council for Traditional Music (formerly International Folk Music Council):

to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries.

Now, if Folk are no longer producing Traditional Folk Music (as Jim, Shimrod and Pip seem quite convinced of) just what is it that these people are furthering the studying of?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 03:28 PM

Another fast morphing song form is coach trip songs which I've heard build up through boozy nonsense and spread round the bus to become something solid. Unfortunately factory outings and the accompanying piss up are rarer these days.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 03:45 PM

Folk/Traditional music of the British Isles is one form of 'home-made music' - there are plenty of others. I would make a distinction between music that you make for yourself (with friends or alone) and music that you passively consume. American popular music evolved out of various regional folk traditions. British popular music is based primarily upon American imports (sorry if I generalize, but this seems clear to me). So, in the UK, this sort of discussion takes different directions that it would in the US (or some other country). A better title for this thread would have been 'Does English Folk Music Exist?" - the way you frame your question determines how it can be answered. You do realize that there's a world beyond your little island(s), don't you?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 04:05 PM

"You do realize that there's a world beyond your little island(s), don't you?"

Of Course!

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM

glueman

I had a wheelbarrow is a folk song because it's sung by the folk. It's credentials are impeccable, a mis-hearing of a different tune to different words in another part of the country, sung spontaneously and transforming into a variety of other songs with the same central conceit.

From the point of view of a folklorist, this is clearly folk music, but do the particpants describe it as such?

Don't worry if you don't uderstand what I'm on about, glueman, this isn't aimed at you.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 05:16 PM

Did the people responsible for the tradition ever describe themselves as folk singers or use the word tradition? I imagine they were work songs, hearth songs or just 'the old songs'. The Wheelbarrow is a quasi-worksong, a spectator song, what I believe folklorists describe as a 'blason populaire' a song aimed at the mockery of other nations, counties, or neighbouring villages to expose the difference of the 'alien' and unite insiders.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 05:31 PM

I like the coach song & football song examples. These are situations where people sing together, sing songs they all know & have the opportunity to make the odd change to them as they go. My point is that there aren't that many of those situations left - and there are a lot more situations where music is available on tap.

even though they might have stopped doing that, what they do is still Traditional Folk Music / Song

This is a statement of faith, no more and no less. It's still Traditional Folk Music / Song because...?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 06:20 PM

there are a lot more situations where music is available on tap.

Someone listening to a tune on an iPod is a very different thing from them hearing it in a shopping mall, or a nightclub. The experience of the receptee/s determines the nature of the music, be it pre-recorded or otherwise. The same recording can be very different things according to context; it changes accordingly.   

It's still Traditional Folk Music / Song because...?

...of exactly the same criteria that made the other stuff Traditional Folk Music / Song. Not a statement of faith, but a statement of fact. If Folk Music is about process & context rather than a mere Genre, then even by the somewhat nannying strictures of the 1954 Definition even the above mentioned music-on-tap becomes Folk Music.

Try this: Irlam Royalettes Morris Dancers

It's interesting to note that even the tempo of the music is determined by the principle dancer, the digital sound system having the facility to change tempo without affecting pitch. We saw this happening yesterday at Tram Sunday here in Fleetwood, where the leader danced in the tempo. Amazing stuff I'd say, and a living, thriving, Folk Dance Tradition to boot, with Living Thriving Folk Music to match - at least for those of us who recognise that Folk Music is a whole lot more than Genre - and involves all the things enshrined in the 1954 Definition, and more besides, such as function / process / community / transmission / change / social context etc.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 07:28 PM

exactly the same criteria that made the other stuff Traditional Folk Music / Song

Again, this is just a statement of faith - I mean, exactly the same criteria? What are the chances of exactly the same criteria continuing to apply from, say, 1859 to now? Of course, you can decide beforehand that those criteria have got to continue to apply, and you can define them loosely enough to make it believable. But if you do that - if you include situations where there's no oral transmission; where songs and tunes aren't being shared within a community which pre-exists the music, and altered in the sharing - then we're just going to have to develop a more tightly-defined set of criteria for situations where those things are happening.

Folk art forms are great, and there are a lot of them about - no argument there. But it takes a very specific set of circumstances to produce folk songs, and it doesn't happen much any more.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: GUEST,Chris Murray
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 04:04 AM

Martin Carthy said a few years ago, in a fRoots interview, that football chants are folk music.

Blowed if I can find the interview.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: reggie miles
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 05:11 AM

Yup, folk does exist glueman.
It exists inside me and you man.
It exists in others too man.
Yup, folk does exist.

It depends upon your definition.
And you how grant recognition
As to what can gain admission
Into your folky focus

But rest assured it's still around
And always ever can be found
In cities, villages and towns
Most everywhere

Because folk is alive and cannot die
So dry your tears, no need to cry
Fret no more, stop your sigh
And sing another song

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 05:54 AM

What are the chances of exactly the same criteria continuing to apply from, say, 1859 to now?

Well, sorry to have to tell you this but people continue to make and experience music in communities, the primary context of which is folkloric - social, recreational & ceremonial, be it in terms of festival, holiday, seasonal observance, ritual, customary observance, weddings, funerals etc. etc. The body of songs that interested the collectors, the so-called Folk Songs, are no longer of any relevance to these people because they have moved on to a new body of songs, a contemporary perspective on culture, but the material still functions in exactly the same way because the important things of life never change.

In 1859 (to further indulge your folkish fantasy) one might have found some fiddlers at a wedding, and whilst the extent to which Canonical Folk Music permeated society has never been established, we might assume that said Fiddlers would be playing exactly what they were paid to play - much like the DJ hired for a wedding in 2009. 150 years on and the fundamentals of human life remain intact, just as immediate, meaningful and contemporary as they were back in 1859; there is love, laughter, tears, hope, remembrance, solemnity, ceremony, celebration, festival, and continuity. All of this is affirmed and experienced in the music - be it Fiddlers or DJ or the Local Covers Band (in Fleetwood we have The Jeps who rarely fail to delight & amaze me) the experience of the music determines its true nature and meaning in terms of actual social usage. The grandmother of the bride, born in 1949, coming of cultural age in the mid-60s, will enjoy afresh the soundtrack of her own life, given renewal on her granddaughter's big day; she will weep to the remix of Unchained Melody, or dance her ass off to The Jeps giving their all in 500 Miles.

These are the important elements of any Folk Music - the defining elements of human life as oppose to The Philatelist approach of those hung up on The Old Songs alone, which once removed from their human context have pretty much lost all meaning anyway, save to a handful of Anally Retentive Folk Enthusiasts, morbidly picking over the bones of the past in a search for the Authentic whilst failing to appreciate the living flesh of the present in which Folk Song & Music thrive, and will continue to thrive, renewed with each generation, but in a such a way that will be invisible to the ARFEs who, as we're seeing here, wouldn't know Folk Music if you hit them over the head with it.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 06:28 AM

The body of songs that interested the collectors, the so-called Folk Songs, are no longer of any relevance to these people because they have moved on to a new body of songs

What new body of songs? There's a huge difference between songs that "everyone knows" because they sing them or hear them sung and songs that "everyone knows" because they're on the radio all the time.

she will weep to the remix of Unchained Melody, or dance her ass off to The Jeps giving their all in 500 Miles.

And those songs won't change. Unchained Melody will always be Unchained Melody, and 500 Miles will always be 500 Miles. Folk songs are different, because they're produced differently, transmitted differently and preserved differently.

the defining elements of human life as oppose to The Philatelist approach of those hung up on The Old Songs alone

Come down off that horse, you'll get altitude sickness. All we're arguing about - well, all I'm arguing about - is a label. I can appreciate an acoustic night or a covers band or an MC crew or whatever without feeling the urge to say that they're singing "folk songs". God knows they don't think they're singing folk songs - they'd probably find it more of an insult than a compliment.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:31 AM

There's a huge difference between songs that "everyone knows" because they sing them or hear them sung and songs that "everyone knows" because they're on the radio all the time.

No there isn't; in terms of human experience & meaning there is no difference whatsoever.

And those songs won't change. Unchained Melody will always be Unchained Melody, and 500 Miles will always be 500 Miles. Folk songs are different, because they're produced differently, transmitted differently and preserved differently.

The songs change with every performance, every spin, every remix, every dance because the experience will always be of the moment. These are Folk Songs in the sense that they are known to the folk, cherished by the folk; they have meaning, function, purpose and relevance whatever differences you might wish to fantasise over - or yet the origins of such specious (and redundant) criteria in the first place. But as I've demonstrated elsewhere, the 1954 Definition is so nebulous as to be useless in defining anything other than - er - music. Anything else is determined by your (evidently impoverished) personal faith.   

All we're arguing about - well, all I'm arguing about - is a label.

And since when has Folk Music ever been just a label? We're talking about the essentials of music in relation to human community & life experience, not some pseudo-academic taxonomy which was all so much bullshit anyway.   

I can appreciate an acoustic night or a covers band or an MC crew or whatever without feeling the urge to say that they're singing "folk songs". God knows they don't think they're singing folk songs - they'd probably find it more of an insult than a compliment.

Folk Music is about context, function and usage. When people say There is no Folk Music, then I say of course there is - and I point to it, and I say why it's folk music. Not Folk in terms of some antiquarian fantasy genre, or, worse still, label, which really would be insulting - rather Folk in terms of a living, breathing enthnographic reality of human life which we might look at along with all World Folk Musics and be justly proud. Even if it is just people dancing to some old 78s in the local community centre, or the local covers band, or the local Drum & Bass crew, or the local Irish band, or the local Brass Band, or Choral Society, or even Folk Club, who like most folk singers got all their songs off records anyway.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:39 AM

Seems we're back to "All music is folk music", then. (sigh)

"in terms of human experience & meaning there is no difference whatsoever."

What, between singing and listening??! Huge physiological and psychological and differences, surely?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:53 AM

The Philatelist approach of those hung up on The Old Songs alone, which once removed from their human context have pretty much lost all meaning anyway, save to a handful of Anally Retentive Folk Enthusiasts, morbidly picking over the bones of the past in a search for the Authentic

You mean things like this?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 08:03 AM

We're talking about the essentials of music in relation to human community & life experience

You are, I'm not.

The songs change with every performance, every spin, every remix, every dance because the experience will always be of the moment.

I agree. But the words don't change and the tunes don't change, and one song doesn't turn into two or three different songs. That's why I don't call them folk songs. (Most other people don't call them folk songs either, but I can't speak for them.)

These are Folk Songs in the sense that they are known to the folk, cherished by the folk; they have meaning, function, purpose and relevance

I am not denying, have never denied and would never wish to deny that lots of different musics are known to and cherished by ordinary people, let alone that they have meaning, function, purpose and relevance. This has sod-all to do with whether they're folk songs.

as I've demonstrated elsewhere, the 1954 Definition is so nebulous as to be useless in defining anything other than - er - music

Yes, you've demonstrated that the 1954 Definition can be read in such a way that it encompasses all music ever. However, since the 1954 Definition obviously wasn't intended to encompass all music ever, all this demonstrates is that you're misreading the definition.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 09:14 AM

Folk is too broad a term and carries too many aspirations to only describe the stuff that happens between consenting adults in folk revival clubs. That is historic song singing and long may it continue.

The evolution of common music, folk music, even spontaneous community music, continues outside those contexts and the folk revival and its definitions hold no sway there.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 09:57 AM

What, between singing and listening??! Huge physiological and psychological and differences, surely?

The communal experience of music exists in terms of its performance, social context and function, all which determine the meaning of that experience with respect of the individual and the others in the community. Even the playing of records is in itself a meaningful performance & an essential interaction between performer & audience. We all do it, even the most folkie of us. Hell, how else would I get my daily fix of Brian Peters or find renewed levels of meaning therein even in the same recordings?

*

But the words don't change and the tunes don't change, and one song doesn't turn into two or three different songs. That's why I don't call them folk songs.

Songs change the whole time. In the process of composition there's more than the one song as found itself split into two or three songs, and vice versa of course. The musical process of composition & creation will forever be a complex and intricate procedure in which definitive versions will rarely exist. There are innumerable instances of this; just last night whilst cooking dinner I was comparing the various versions of Robert Wyatt's Moon in June which begins life as two distinct songs, morphs into one big one, loses most of the original lyrics in the process and has the new lyrics completely rewritten for a BBC session. Other example abound. Otherwise - I refer you back to specious criteria.

I am not denying, have never denied and would never wish to deny that lots of different musics are known to and cherished by ordinary people, let alone that they have meaning, function, purpose and relevance. This has sod-all to do with whether they're folk songs.

It has every reason to do with it. Take the Folk out of Folk Songs and all you have are songs relevant to a dwindling body of Enthusiasts of a Particular Type of Folk Song - Traddies in other words, like me, and you, the difference being that my main interest in these Traditional Songs is in terms of their humanity and what they might tell us about ourselves, rather than some quasi-mystical process by which they supposedly came into being. Technology changes, but a fishing boat is still a fishing boat, be it made by the master shipwrights on the shores of the Sea of Galilee circa AD 20 or by the lads on the Jubilee Quay in Fleetwood circa AD 2009.   

Yes, you've demonstrated that the 1954 Definition can be read in such a way that it encompasses all music ever. However, since the 1954 Definition obviously wasn't intended to encompass all music ever, all this demonstrates is that you're misreading the definition.

What it demonstrates is the redundancy of a definition that only makes sense with an Orthodox Reading by the Folk Faithful (or otherwise initiated). Without it, what you have is a fundamental description of the process by which people make and experience music in communities, and whilst this might find an echo in the aims and objectives of the ICTM, it leaves the ninny-nannying of the 1954 Orthodoxy seeming sadly anachronistic to say the least. Hardly the wonder the Orthodoxy of the Folk Revival is an ageing, dwindling, whinging demographic poised on the precipice of extinction; with such a poisonous orthodoxy in place it's a miracle that it's made it as far as it has. Real Folk Music meanwhile - the music of every day people living every day lives giving meaning to their every day experiences - is, and will always be, thriving.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 09:58 AM

Cross post there, Glueman - otherwise: YES and - YES!

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:12 AM

You know, I actually agree with most of that. (Are you and Suibhne taking turns on the good cop/bad cop rota?) I think there's a bit more to the trad. repertoire than simply being "historic songs", but it's fairly debatable. (Try bringing a rugby song to a singaround. Wait a minute, I'm arguing against myself now...)

I'm just being selfish: I love the songs* & would like to have more chances to hear & sing them. And as we know, sometimes if it says "folk" over the door you're in for a good blast of the Old Songs, but other times... not. Mostly, in fact, not. In practice "folk" seems to consist partly of stuff I love, partly of stuff I quite enjoy and partly of stuff that sends me to the bar; the Beech singaround has an 80/20/0 split on an average night, but that's very unusual (20/50/30 is probably more typical). Maybe we need a Revival...

*No hyperbole - I've never heard a traditional song I didn't like. Well, maybe one or two. I'm not wild about John Blunt. But the rest**, I like.

**As God is my witness, after typing these words I sat here for two solid minutes trying to think of another traditional song I don't like***. There is perhaps such a thing as taking Mudcat too seriously.

***Got one! Hares on the Mountain, that's bobbins. Hares on the Mountain, John Blunt, can't be doing with them. The rest are fine.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:25 AM

Real Folk Music meanwhile - the music of every day people living every day lives giving meaning to their every day experiences - is, and will always be, thriving.

Music always has meant a lot to people and been used to give meaning to their everyday lives, and hopefully always will. That has nothing to do with the processes - which are entirely physical, and not remotely mystical - by which music gets created, transmitted and preserved.

As for "Moon in June", there's nothing 'folk' about a musician writing a song and then changing it! The folk process is all about music being carried by a community and changed as it goes - it's a collective process of listening and imitating and remembering and singing and listening. I Had a Wheelbarrow is a great example. Moon in June isn't.

Really, what's so intolerable about the idea that I'm describing something that people (mostly) don't do any more? Society changes, and people's lives change with it.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:32 AM

This will sound trite, but my own not very intellectual take on it, is that 'folk' being a word in a language, is probably really just whatever people generally think it means.

Ie: the meaning of the term, is defined by it's popular usage. Like most others. It's just too short and already thoroughly well-embedded in general usage, for its essential meaning to be subject to much tinkering now.

The only people who don't seem to share a common understanding about what it means are, err about half a dozen, very clever and learned, members of Mudcat. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but I do find it somewhat entertaining... :-)

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 11:32 AM

The only people who don't seem to share a common understanding about what it means are, err about half a dozen, very clever and learned, members of Mudcat.

Yeah but what you've got to understand, CS, is that those people are all wrong. I mean, glueman and Suibhne are wrong, obviously, but they're not nearly as wrong - in fact, compared to all those people who don't even think about what 'folk' means, they're almost as right as me.

See? It's not easy being a clever and learned Mudcatter, you know...

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 11:46 AM

I think there's a bit more to the trad. repertoire than simply being "historic songs", but it's fairly debatable.

I like this Historic Songs tag, makes a lot of sense to me. If such things aren't happening now it's not for the want of folk music, rather a shift in the means by which music is created and consumed. Music is still created and consumed; the creative processes still exist, just the methods and results are a little different in terms of permanence. However, it seems more likely that these Historic Songs & Ballads are the result of a Tradition of Songwriting, Craftmanship & Creation rather than a theoretical Folk Process, which is to say the Traditional / Historic Songs are not born of collective / anonymous transformation but of very definite and purposeful mastery of a craft. As with song-smiths & ballad-mongers, then so with joiners, woodcarvers, coopers, blacksmiths etc. These were all creative individuals working within a tradition of master-craftsmanship. I agree that no-one could write one of these songs today any more than we could build a medieval church or cathedral; that articular tradition is long dead which is why these Historical Songs are so valuable. Even so, when I sing (say) Butter and Cheese and All I feel the same sense of craftsman ship as I do when examining the idiosyncratically mischievous carvings on a medieval misericord. That idiosyncrasy is an individual creative genius at work within a collective tradition.   

Really, what's so intolerable about the idea that I'm describing something that people (mostly) don't do any more? Society changes, and people's lives change with it.

The same collective urge that empowers the musical experience of every day folk is as alive and well in 2009 as it ever has been. This urge needs no revival, it's there by way of human social necessity by which we must celebrate in terms of festival, ceremony, ritual, courtship, or whatever. Music will always be part of that - and this is the musical experience of the people, the Folk, and is, therefore, Folk Music. What is intolerable is the situation whereby the Historic Songs that were rejected by the actual folk are said to be the only real Folk Music because of some hoary old nebulous shibboleth written by a cranky old nannying antiquarian folklorist over fifty years ago.      

As for "Moon in June", there's nothing 'folk' about a musician writing a song and then changing it! The folk process is all about music being carried by a community and changed as it goes - it's a collective process of listening and imitating and remembering and singing and listening.

As touched upon above, in concentrating on the communal Folklorists and Song Collectors are prone to over look the creative role of the individual writers and singers. In this sense The Folk are the faceless collective proletarian masses there to do the cultural bidding of the intelligentsia. As I've pointed out, however, all musical creativity - even the Folk Process - is determined by the creativity of individuals. The Moon in June is a pretty obvious example of this, as far as any one person is an individual in the sense of their own community and the traditions thereof. In Robert Wyatt's case it came about within the community that was the Soft Machine, resulting in the still-painful (to him) reality that the other members were keen to get rid of their pop-group past and refused to play on it, which meant he had to do all the instrumental parts himself. This is the version that appears on Third, which is all Wyatt except the 6/8 instrumental theme & organ solo which was recorded separately with Hopper & Ratledge. However, Hugh Hopper maintained that this wasn't the case at all, rather that it was Wyatt's preferred way of recording the song after the original demo from 1968. Whatever the case, all three members contribute to the 1969 BBC session version and one might watch a live 1969 trio version, recorded 2 months previously, HERE in which Wyatt changes the song so much it almost becomes an instrumental! In this sense the song is carried by a community & evolved therein, likewise most rock & pop songs, prog, jazz, etc.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 12:42 PM

"The Old Songs"... I like that. I'm sticking with it.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

Alas, it seems the Glueman Group has won here.

Art

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 01:07 PM

"compared to all those people who don't even think about what 'folk' means,"

Yes, most people probably don't attempt to precisely dissect and delimit those words they use in everyday language. But how many words in common usage *are* determined or defined by a process of analysis by an intellectual (be it academic or dilettante) elite?

Words are generated by the pragmatism of human need to communicate something mutually experienced. They are then tumbled like pebbles in water, by the flow of that same ongoing human communication which shapes and sometimes changes them unrecognisably. And yet the collectively *understood* meaning of the word, remains somehow, albeit in a different shape. Thus many words become multi-varianced, subtly nuanced, loaded with a plethora of ragged and unruly associations. These things are understood and accepted, as part and parcel of our everyday ordinary human intercourse. They tend only to become subject to intense scrutiny, when used in the context of critical analysis within drama or poetry, or err court cases.

Of course think tanks create new terms to describe particular notions which have been arrived at, *via* analysis, but they don't tend to try to 'pin down' and clip the wings of terms that are already in popular usage.

Words like 'folk' are like err wild flowers or something, they don't want to behave according to the terms of nice tidy middle England lawns. So why attempt to make them? Just create a nice shiny genetically modified word, one of those sterile F1 hybrids in Latin, that does exactly what it say's on the packet?

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: glueman
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 01:23 PM

"Alas, it seems the Glueman Group has won here"

Never came to win anything, just provoke debate. The win/lose, triumphalism/defeat thing is far too deeply rooted in the folk revival as it is. It seems self-evident to me that the entirety of the folk process, even The Folk process if you buy into such stuff, cannot be fully accounted for in the practices of folk clubs.

I'm perfectly happy for people to sing historic songs to their hearts content so long as they don't annexe the real world as it exists today with their rhetorical bouquets.

Subject: RE: Does Folk Exist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 01:32 PM

Actually, I think language, is possibly one of the greatest ongoing bastions of the 'Folk Process' at it's pragmatic, anarchic and fecund best!

Check the Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/

As soon as we accept a Newspeak dictionary, we know we're fully in the depths of a classic gnostic dystopic nightmare.