The Folk Process

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 06:20 PM

Moreover, the process is liable to continue with other people if they sing the song. And that is something in which Sydney Carter rejoiced, and something in which I think many songwriters rejoice - the sense that something you crafted has come to life and moved out of your control, and stayed alive.

Hamish Henderson wanted to avoid publishing some of his songs for exactly that reason - he wanted them to take on a life of their own in oral transmission (or, if they couldn't make it that way, vanish). But in the end I don't think he managed to beat the transcribers for any of them.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 03:41 AM

"if value is to be judged by the process rather than the merits or faults of a song,then we would end up saying that is not a folk songbecause there are very few versions and it has not been processed song."

Dick, there lies the root of our disagreement. You seem to think that the term "folk song" is somehow a judgement on a song's quality. It's not, and neither I nor any of the others arguing for it are using it in that way. The definition of a "folk song" is simply one which has passed through a particular creative process - that's all. Folk songs still stand to be judged on their merits and faults just as much as any other type of song.

The various tunes you mention are all in the repertoire of folk musicians. That does not necessarily make them "folk tunes" in the technical sense, but so what? No is claiming that a folk singer or musician (whether "revival" or "source") is allowed to perform only traditional material. However, I strongly suspect that many of the tunes you mention are already undergoing variation as they get passed around in sessions.

I describe myself as a "folk singer" because I sing folk songs ie traditional songs. I don't consider that restricts me to singing only folk songs, and I will happily sing any song which takes my fancy, and if I feel it sits comfortably alongside the traditional songs I will include it in my performing repertoire. I don't regard the songs by Richard Thompson or Bob Dylan, for example, as "folk songs", they are "Richard Thompson songs" or "Dylan songs". I certainly don't take the view that because I am a folk singer, that makes everything I perform "folk".

What I don't understand is your apparent need to justify performing other songs by redefining them as "folk songs". On the one hand, it's unnecessary, on the other it dilutes a perfectly good, and useful, technical term.

"Folk song" is a jargon term. Specialists in any field need a more precise vocabulary when discussing their subject than does the population at large - that is jargon. There is no conflict between "folk song" having one meaning in general conversation and another, more specific, meaning among specialists. What is disappointing is that on a forum like this one would expect us all to be specialists and capable of using and understanding the jargon sense. However, it appears that is not the case and that the technical usage is now lost to us.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 04:15 AM

S O'P: "I have a notion that the narrative morphology of folk song & folk tale is hard-wired into the human brain as an essential aspect of our preparedness for the structures of language itself."

I think that's an interesting suggstion. Lewis-William and Pearce's book,'Inside the Neolithic Mind' makes a similar point for the origin of religious experience and practice. I'm not sure about the 'hard-wired' as I worry about computer analogies when speaking about the humand mind, consciousness etc. I think I might prefer Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance - but that's an entirely different issue. The concept that similar forms, varieties, ideas and so forth can occur simultaneously across the country - or the world - is one that has never occured to me before with regard to music, whether you call it 'folk' or something else. Nice thought and, for once, some original thinking on the subject!

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 04:21 AM

And that is something in which Sydney Carter rejoiced, and something in which I think many songwriters rejoice - the sense that something you crafted has come to life and moved out of your control, and stayed alive.

Sydney Carter fans might rejoice that And Now it is So Early has taken on a life of its own and might had entirely gratis, cover art and all, from HERE. This is the album he made with Bob and Carole Pegg back in 1970, with most of the songs performed by B&C (a must for Mr Fox fans) with some sterling contributions from Mr Carter himself. So, follow that link and get downloading! Long deleted (as far as it ever existed at all) the prospects of a CD re-issue on this one are as remote as one could wish - might happen if T.Mobile get a notion to use one of the songs in one of their advert, thus inspiring a second wave of Neo-Folkery... A truly charming little record.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 04:40 AM

Nice thought and, for once, some original thinking on the subject!

I am, alas, a simple storyteller invalided out of academia on account of ME, but I have picked up some stuff along the way that has a certain resonance with respect of such things - such as Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, and the computer model of the human brain which, whilst being by no means absolute provides a working model with respect of the hardware / software interfaces of the subjective material brain and the objective cultural stuff it is prepared to receive, understand and, ultimately, transform.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 05:51 AM

"I am, alas, a simple storyteller invalided out of academia on account of ME"

I know the problem - same thing happened to my eldest daughter. However, self-education can be a rewarding experience especially when you take the serendipitous route of allowing one subject to automatically follow another.

The subject or the origin and development of consciousness if one that has intrigued me for decades and, despite almost constant reading, I'm no closer to an answer (Chalmer's The Conscious Mind is about the closest).

Thanks for the heads-up on the Carter/Pegg album - I was just playing Keeper of the Fire last night and admiring the way he weaves folk songs into his own stuff (as in The Boatbuilder).

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 06:17 AM

Jack Campin,here is some advice,you have a heart condition?
take some GENTLE exercise on an exercise bike.
It would do you more good than spending too long in a sedentary position at the computer.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 06:44 AM

ack Campin,here is some advice,you have a heart condition?
take some GENTLE exercise on an exercise bike.
It would do you more good than spending too long in a sedentary position at the computer.

I've asked the staff about that sort of thing several times to make sure I got a consensus answer, as I thought the same way as you. The answer was "not on your nelly" - I'm waiting to have an angioplasty in two weeks, meanwhile I should be doing nothing that needs any sort of effort.

There aren't any songs I can think of that address the experience of sitting around waiting for something drastic to happen.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 08:18 AM

Hope it goes well for you Jack.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:23 AM

I had a triple angioplasty 3 or 4 years ago & it's made all the difference. Hope yours equally successful.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:41 AM

There aren't any songs I can think of that address the experience of sitting around waiting for something drastic to happen.

That might be a good thread on its own. I'm sure it would throw up a few would songs that would qualify. Then we could argue whether they were folksongs or not...

All the best for the op.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:27 AM

yes, all the best, jack.
however,when I went to see a GP recently,she gave me completely the wrong advice about gout,put your foot up she said.
completely wrong,you need to try and move the joint ifits possible get the uric acid crystallisations off the joints .
Jack,I would get a second or third medical opinion
Howard,I do not think the word folk song is a judgement,the judgement is in the minds of collectors,who reject something if the singer owns up to having composed it ,but gladly accept it if the singer says he learned it from his grandad.
``What I don't understand is your apparent need to justify performing other songs by redefining them as "folk songs"``quote hcj Jones.
I dont Howard,I rarely perform anything other than trad songs,if I perform someone else song, I dont use the term folk song,I just credit the composer and give some background.
my point is that this term[folk song ]is not needed,certainly when introducing songs,neither should it be criteria for collectors.
I am saying that too much emphasis is given to the importance of the folk process,by collectors and all sorts of other people,none of us can define a folk song,and your attempt to define it by emphasising [THE FOLK PROCESS]is a fault ridden as the Sanfrancisco fault line.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM

Howard,I do not think the word folk song is a judgement,the judgement is in the minds of collectors,who reject something if the singer owns up to having composed it ,but gladly accept it if the singer says he learned it from his grandad.

That's not true of any collector I can think of, who do you have in mind?

The usual procedure is simply to make sure you record what you can find out about how the piece came into the performer's repertoire. Go look at a few serious modern collections sometime. Or read a few issues of Tocher or whatever.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:19 PM

Dick, any deficiencies in the methodology of collectors are regrettable, but do not undermine the fundamental concept expressed in the term "folk song". Let me be clear that by this I mean "traditional" song, since the technical meaning of the term has long since been overwhelmed by the vernacular usage.

The fossil record, as unearthed by the collectors, shows that a certain body of songs and tunes have undergone a process of Darwinian evolution as they have circulated between singers and musicians. The term "folk song", or if you prefer "traditional song", is useful, but only in certain contexts, to describe this body of music. There are of course other contexts where it may not useful.

I still don't understand your antipathy towards it. If you don't find it a useful distinction then by all means ignore it. But many of us do find it useful, to understand what gives a certain type of song certain characteristics.

You say that "no one can define a folk song". I am perfectly happy to use this as an objective test to define a "folk/traditional" song in these terms because for certain purposes I find it useful. I don't see any problem with doing so. However it is only one of a number of tests which could be applied to a song - personally, being a performer and consumer of music rather than an academic, I give priority to the test of whether or not I like it.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:46 PM

Jack,
P.Kennedy would not record bob blake becauase he suspected he was a revival singer ,fortunately someone else did .
other collectors did not record N Boyle,Fortunately KENNEDY was prepared to let him have his rant about jungle music,and did record him.
Boyle as I understand it would not record unless he could state his views on contemporary[to him] Irish music [jungle music he called it]

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 01:14 PM

Séamus Ennis recorded Néillidh Boyle for the Irish Folklore Commission in 1945.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 01:35 PM

P.Kennedy would not record bob blake becauase he suspected he was a revival singer ,fortunately someone else did .

Well he didn't have an obligation to record anybody in particular, did he? If he thought it was a more productive use of his time to look elsewhere, that was his privilege.

What you originally described was a collector going through a source's repertoire and sifting out anything they'd composed themselves. That's not what you say Kennedy did, and it's not what you find in collections like MacColl and Seeger's book on the Stewarts of Blair - they were delighted to find things their sources had created, and to find their take on things that were frankly pop. Even less so for the really serious end, like Vargyas's book on the music of the village of Aj - he wrote down absolutely everything anybody in the village performed during the time he was there. (The book is available in English, it's fascinating).

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 01:41 PM

Incidentally this article about Vargyas gives you an idea of the kind of methods used by someone serious about their job:

Folk Music Journal on Vargjas

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 06:20 PM

That link to Sydney Carter's record And Now it is So Early that Suibhne gave us looks very interesting, and the download is sitting in my computer now. But it needs a password to allow me to open it.

If you can, let us have it, Suibhne.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Peace
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 08:14 PM

Best of success regarding the angioplasty, Jack.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 08:49 PM

The Folk Process happens ALL the time , even with recently composed material . You learn a song , Possibly from a book or sheet music , possibly from a recording , or direct from another singer . You then sing the song for a while , and for one reason or another look back at what you started from and find !!GOOD LORD !! Its changed !
What the writer phrased 'so' is not QUITE how you would phrase it , so you Re Phrase ! Then , you find that it can work nicely in 3/4 not
in the 4/4 of the original !
Some is Accidental , some is deliberate (One of Buddy Holly's songs was sung tonight in a TOTALLY different format to the original by a guy who was six when B H died )
This is ALL part of the Folk Process !

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Peace
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:12 PM

Buddy Holly? Folk? HAVE you taken leave of your senses?

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:58 PM

Bruce - A few years back that is EXACTLY what my response would have been . Now , with a few more years listening to a LOT of music , there are a LOT of good songs than can be as 'Folk' as any current Singer/songwriter 'Folk' songs !

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Art Thieme
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 10:12 PM

It might be helpful to say, first of all, what the folk process is not.

During the 1960s and/or '70s, in the USA, African Americans had a way of fixing up their hair -- the details of which I have never been informed. It was called THE PROCESS --- and it involved putting "stuff" on the hair that made it rather pliable so it could be sculpted. Also, a cloth piece called a DOORAG was used to hold everything in place for a select period of time -- the object being for the hair style to stiffen up and hopefully stay put.

This unique fashion statement prompted some of us to take note of the fact that, "The folk process is NOT Odetta's hairdo!"

Knowing that, it might be easier, now, to take note of what the good ole folk process IS actually.

Bueno suerte!!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:13 PM

At the beginning of the inlay notes to a record I made 20 years ago [Butter&Cheese&All Brewhouse BH8904], I wrote: "All these songs are traditional, but I suspect that every one will have been more or less consciously modified from original sources in the course of making them my own."

Surely we all do that. I ask, genuinely and with humility, whether this makes me part of the Folk Process. For the record, another revival singer, more distinguished by far than me, Cyril Tawney, was taken by my rendering of one of my songs, 'The Magdalene Green', and included it, duly acknowledged, and in precisely, word-for-word, my 'made·my·own' version, on his next cassette.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 03:14 AM

"There are a LOT of good songs than can be as 'Folk' as any current Singer/songwriter 'Folk' songs !"

...and which probably stand more of a chance of being the folk songs of the future than the current singer-songwriter 'folk' songs do, to boot...

I don't know why, but each time I hear the term "folk process" it makes me think of sausages.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:35 AM

I don't think the "folk process" can easily be measured in terms of the number of changes, the number of singers, or a period of time. Like biological evolution, it is easier to observe with hindsight rather than in real time.

Every singer makes both conscious and unconscious changes to a song. Some of these may be substantial - adding or leaving out verses, changing the order of verses, improving the text or the tune to make them better to sing. Others may simply occur during the process of performing the song over a period of time.

One individual's changes aren't in themselves sufficient to turn the piece into a folk song. However, if enough singers take up those variations, add their own, and pass them on, in time we will find a separate version of the song which is clearly distinguishable from the original. Along the way, it may be difficult to distinguish the long-term variations from individual interpretation.

An example is McColl's "Dirty Old Town". Nowadays, it seems to be sung to a 4/4 tune, which has the effect of dragging out some of the words interminably: "I met my looooooooove ....". In the recording I have of the man himself, he is singing in what appears to be a 6/4 metre, which fits the words much better and shortens these long phrases. However the 4/4 version now seems to be firmly established, to the extent that it has probably taken over from the original. That is the folk process at work.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:19 AM

leadfingers,and everyone else,this is my point,that we dont bother ourselves with the definition but just sing that which we want to sing.
who cares whether buddy holly is folk or not,personally I dont want to sing his songs.
but since some people on this forum want to define folk songs as being songs that have been folk processed,why not include Hitler has only got one ball,and call it a folk song.,or the Wheelbarrow song.
trouble is leadfingers,no one will come and pay good money to hear any of us sing those songs,Because they are crap songs even if they have been folk processed,so we need a new yardstick to judge songs by and that is quality,not whether a song has been folk processed.
there is dross among the tradition,but generally those songs have been forgotten,the songs that have survived have something that appeals to most of us,they either are well written or have good melodies or both.
occasionally revival artists have found old songs then rewritten them or rewritten the melody and improved them.
here is why I like the songs I sing,I like them because they have good words and or good melodies,it is not because they have been folk processed,although they often have,however the modern songs often havent,does that affect their quality,not necessarily.
modern songs do not have to be folk processed for them to be good songs.
so if we define folksongs as songs whose sole ingredients are they are songs that have been folk processed,we start to include songs not based on their quality,the Wheelbarrow song maybe fine for NoTts County fans to sing[EITHER when Sven gets his leg over]or at what they[County fans] call a football match,but its not fine to sing at a folk club or festival.
so logically, if we are no longer singing folksongs[wheelbarrow song] at folk clubs we have to call folk clubs something else.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:48 AM

No, I'm sorry Dick, but again I think you are confused & are muddying the issue. Nobody has said that ALL orally transmitted songs are of equal merit or quality: simply that they constitute a separate category [it's a taxonomic , not a qualitative, judgment] - WITHIN WHICH category various levels of quality may be discerned. But that doesn't mean that anything of good quality must be admitted to this particular category just becoz you happen to like singing it - see my remarks on a post some way back on 'Les Sylphides' being a wonderful dance but that doesn't make it a folk dance, & who would want it to? [even if they'd never seen a fucking horse dancing it!]

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:50 AM

... and it doesn't mean either that anyone is OBLIGED to sing 'Hitler has only got one ball' at every folk club they visit just because it is an orally-transmitted folksong [which of course it is & why did you imply that anyone should think it isn't?]

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:03 AM

The wheelbarrow song is taken up with a gusto folk clubs could only dream of, crap song or not. I agree with your other points GSS.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:08 AM

This so-called 'process' was an historical accident, born of a time when oral transmission (along with its attendant risk of 'Chinese Whispers Syndrome') was the only form of song distribution.

So how come it has now become a 'rule' to be applied to modern compositions, for which a myriad of alternative transmission streams is available?

It's akin passing a law whereby all new motorways must have built-in wagon-wheel ruts. Stark staring bonkers.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 11:24 AM

It's called making a virtue of a necessity Sminky.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:46 PM

in the past people have called their clubs,Traditional song/ music clubs,or Acoustic Music clubs, or Blues club,because they can define what they mean.
now if I see the name Andy Caven,I know what I am going to get,likewise if I see the names Martin Carthy or Dick Miles.,but if we cant define folk song,what is a folk club?
but no one not even BERT lLOYD can define folk song,so why use a term that cant be defined,or means different things to different people.,unless you know who the guest is you dont know what you are going to get,let alone what youmight get from the floor singers .
if folk song is to be defined solely by that fact it has been folk processed,then we let in the wheel barrow song,but exclude Masters of War,Sorry but that is nonsensical.,because one is fine song at a football match for 30 seconds,but a whole night of it or similiar football chants which qualify because they have been folk processed,would empty most folk clubs.
we all make subjective qualitative decisions when we learn songs, most people make that decision based upon quality,the quality of the words or the melody, plus the style, we do not decide that we are going to sing a song only if it has been folk processed.,that is as daft as the singer who says I will only sing a song if it was written before 1900.
   yes,I did meet someone once who defined Traditional song that way.
so why are we calling folk clubs, folk clubs,if we dont know what a folk song is,if we define folk songs as being songs that are exclusively songs that have been folk processed,we rule out alot of quality modern compositions,plus traditional songs of which there might be only one version,but logically have to allow football songs,but the rub is we dont allow football songs ,because the audience would probably vote with their feet.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:47 PM

"Oral transmission" is still the main form of sng distribution. Relatively few people learn the songs they know from written down lyrics with staff notation, rather than from hearing them sung. Of course they may hear them sung on a recording, but its still oral transmission.

The basic "folk process" is living.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 01:17 PM

Mcgrath,Can you back that up with stats.,that is just your subjective opoinion
My guess is that a lot of people hear a song,then look it up on mudcat and get one version,or they buy a cd and if its got a word sheet,they learn the songs that way.
   how many singers alter a JEZlOWE composition[not many is my guess]but does that mean the song is not a folk song,there are other important factors ,style is one.,to say that it has become a folksong purely because someone has altered a word is ridiculous.,and is making a fetish out of the folk process.
IMO the process is part of it ,BUT IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR,furthermore a modern song can be a folk song,even if it has not been learned orally and not folk processed.
lovely joan is in the Martin Carthy song book,it does not cease to be a folk or traditional song because Joe Bloggs learned it from his book.
the tradition would have died out if Sharp and others had not notated and printed books of songs,furthermore some trad singers and trad musicians can, still do and did learn music/songs from notation or learn lyrics from a written source.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 04:13 PM

I'm sure there are a good few people of whom it's true to say, at le4ast sometimes, they "hear a song,then look it up on mudcat and get one version,or they buy a cd and if its got a word sheet,they learn the songs that way."

But I'm also sure that this is true of only a tiny minotioty of people in general. And I'm also pretty sure that for most of us it's not true of most of the songs we know, and could sing in the back of the bus.

So far as the tunes go, it's always oral transmission for me, because I can't read music.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:26 PM

This so-called 'process' was an historical accident, born of a time when oral transmission (along with its attendant risk of 'Chinese Whispers Syndrome') was the only form of song distribution.

We here at Ploughmyth International are currently putting the finishing touches to a new piece of computer software that will Folk Process any song put into it. It features powerful Mondegreen and Nonsense Refrain generator, a Chinese Whisperer, along with several Random Memory Loss and Relocation Processors that will ensure that your song will be wrought into a Genuine Traditional Folk Song at the click of a mouse! A beta version The Folk Processor will be available for free download in time for Samhain. So get writing those spooky songs and don't worry about how shite they are because The Folk Processor will subject them to centuries of Community Handling and Oral Transmission that will turn out a perfect 1954 Approved Folk Song in a matter of seconds!

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:31 PM

we need a new yardstick to judge songs by and that is quality,not whether a song has been folk processed.

Nobody's saying this is about quality.

It's about honesty - on your part.

It is outrageously disrespectful to the creator of the song of you make no effort to find out anything about them. Whether it was written ten years ago by somebody with a dozen CDs out, or whether all you can say is that it came from the musical community of Donegal 150 years ago. You say what you know about the processes of transmission and modiification the song has been through, and you try to know as much as you can about it, or you're just treating the song as something you picked off the shelf at Tesco.

(For that matter it wouldn't hurt to think about who the workers were who got that packet onto the shelf at Tesco and what they did, either).

"Folk process" is a pretty superficial label but it says you've put some effort in the direction of thinking about how that song you have was made, and how its history might be uniquely different from any other song.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST,Bruce Michael Baillie
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:42 PM

...Blimey what a load of old cock!!! Honestly people, read what you have written and then see if you don't agree with me, some people just love to argue for aguments sake!!!

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Cleverthreads (inactive)
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 05:48 PM

Someone, somewhere, once said that some people could start an arguement if they were locked in a room by themselves, I'm beginning to believe that's the truth

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:16 PM

I don't know if I mentioned this before but the biggest detractor of the "folk process"
is the modern copyright law. Performance rights societies try to avoid a public domain
designation for a song because no one can make a buck off of it. A song no longer
becomes part of the possession of the "commons" but becomes an individual's intellectual
"property". This is antithetical to the "folk process".

I have no problem with a song being composed or authored and the creators making money from it but it categorically and specifically not a folk song.

Anonymous and PD are often the determinants of a folk song.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 09 - 06:46 PM

You say what you know about the processes of transmission and modiification the song has been through.

You wouldn't get through too many songs in an evening singaround if you stuck to that rule consistently.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:33 AM

"It is outrageously disrespectful to the creator of the song of you make no effort to find out anything about them."

I disagree strongly. Walking round the British Museaum in awe at the artifacts in there we know can almost nothing about their original creator but their work lives on and inspires us. When we're dead and gone and barely a name in a cemetery file the part that survives is the creation we made - the man is the vehicle for the art.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:57 AM

Stringsinger said ,Anonymous and PD are often the determinants of a folk song.
the problem with that is that no new songs get added to the tradition or become folksongs,unless the composer[does a BertLloyd]and sneaks his own compositions in as trad ,then of course when he gets found out the composer gets slagged off being intellectually dishonest.
the other problem with that statement is style,certain traditions have certain styles,irish music for example is predominantly in four modes,if one starts introducing tunes in the phrygian mode[ some flamenco tunes]they sound alien ,they sound more akin to a different culture/tradition, more akin to flamenco tunes,that doesnt mean traditions cant change,but often to be acceptable to the musicians performing them at that time theth introduction of a new mode has to be subtle and gradual,so that the process is evolutionary.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 05:32 AM

Copyright is a red herring in my view -

creator's lifetime + 70 years = PD

Joseph Lees did very well out John O'Greenfield - good luck to him - now it's 'ours'. Everyone's a winner.

This 'reluctance', shall we say, to admit new songs into the cannon gives rise to an unforgivable side-effect: nobody bothers to ask the creators about their songs.

A recent thread revealed that some folks didn't know that the 'Dirty Old Town' was Salford. Did anyone ask MacColl about the song? And if not, why not? Too late now, of course. A unique opportunity lost forever.

How much more priceless information has gone to the grave along with the song creators because some people choose to look down the wrong end of their telescope?

We are repeating the mistakes of the past. Shame.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 06:15 AM

to get back to my point about style,and why it relates to this thread,very often if a song can be sung successfully unaccompanied it can be classified as a folk song,but it is only one ingredient of many that makes a song a folk song.
youll never walk alone,wheelbarrw song, Athenry,are all sung unaccompanied and work as folk songs in certain contexts,[example at football matches]in fact the sensation of thousand people singing youll never walk alone,is unbelievable,but they dont work out of that context[athenry perhaps does, although I hate it]or if sung in a folk club,neverthelees they are folk songs.
so context or environment, and style are as important [imo]or possibly more important than process.
of course flamenco music is folk music too,but it has different roots.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST,Working Radish
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:06 AM

Sminky: This so-called 'process' was an historical accident, born of a time when oral transmission (along with its attendant risk of 'Chinese Whispers Syndrome') was the only form of song distribution.

I kind of agree with that, although I think 'accident' is a bit dismissive; it's a bit like saying the use of horse-drawn ploughs was a historical accident based on the failure to invent tractors. I'd rather call it a historical reality - and one that existed for longer than the conditions that we're used to. But if you're saying there wasn't anything magical or intrinsically valuable about the 'process', I tend to agree. It's just how things were - and the songs that have come out the other side of that process just are those songs.

So how come it has now become a 'rule' to be applied to modern compositions, for which a myriad of alternative transmission streams is available?

It's not a 'rule', it's a description. There are songs that have been through the process, and there are songs that haven't been through the process. Mostly I prefer hearing and singing the first kind.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:23 AM

it's a bit like saying the use of horse-drawn ploughs was a historical accident based on the failure to invent tractors

Ah, but a by-product of horse-drawn ploughs was that your fields got manured! You wouldn't then specify that tractors had to automatically manure fields as they went along, would you?

It's not a 'rule', it's a description

I'm quite happy to call it a description. However, for some people hereabouts - it's the law.

Mostly I prefer hearing and singing the first kind.

So do I, but that's my personal preference - so it doesn't count.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:40 AM

"However, for some people hereabouts - it's the law."

This claim, or something like it, keeps being made but I have yet to see actual evidence for it. Could you give examples?

"Folk song" has (or had) a particular meaning to describe a particular type of song. Just as the word "cat" describes a particular type of animal; however it is as if some people were to insist the description should also include dogs.