Do We Think We're Better Than Them?

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,S O'P (Astray)
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM

Sweeney - that is all totally irrelevant.

Richard - I was with you until you used the term Folk-Art...

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:53 AM

It may not affect how much a singer likes a song or how they perform it, but source singers often did know where their stuff came from. Look at the repertoire of the Stewarts of Blair as printed in the MacColl/Seeger book "Till Doomsday in the Afternoon" - Belle Stewart had a word (which I forget) for songs derived from the music hall and similar sources. She thought it was nice to know the difference between these pieces and those that had been circulating orally for centuries longer, as do I.

For a song from the other side of the Atlantic that we nailed an author for on Mudcat in the last couple of years, look for threads on the origin of "Oh Death".

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:51 AM

Sweeney - that is all totally irrelevant. The 1954 Karpeles definition does not require that a song be anonymous. That was a gloss of Sharp's. The Mirriam-Webster meaning for "traditional" does not require that a tradition be of unknown origin.   

No-one (AFAIK) has ever suggested that no-one composed the songs that became folk songs. Who says that the originators and reproducers and arrangers were not skillful? This ire of yours in defence of an supposedly oppressed and patronised peasant or working class is based on an imagined wrong, is wholly irrelevant to the concept of a folk-art, and is the more bemusing when it is couched in a language seemingly comprised of baffle-gab, obscurantist academic, and management-speak.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:27 AM

Does it matter if we know the original author of a song?   They all originated somewhere, whether from an individual in a village pub, a group of farmers on a street corner, or a broadside hack. Jim's evidence tells us that his sources didn't regard the origin as being important, but if the origin were to be known, would that alter the status of those songs within the local tradition? Surely not. A song's status as traditional or otherwise cannot depend on the extent of our own knowledge or depth of academic research. The Wild Rover, which surely ticks all the boxes to be a folk song, cannot be disqualified simply because a researcher has now identified the original version.

Surely what is significant is what happens to a song after it has been created. It either passes into the tradition, where it may be susceptible to change, either through faulty memory, mondegreens, or deliberate reworking, or it may be forgotten.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:30 AM

Is there evidence of an origin of Wild Rover Jack - we have several versions that bear little relation to the common one with all the indication that of it being a rural composition (thatch - barns etc.)

The thatch and barns are also what you'd expect a rural singer to add to an urban song to localize it. I noted Lanfiere's song from the 1680s as the antecedent here after seeing its incipit in the Bibliotheca Landesiana index; Malcolm Douglas dug out the full text and posted it. The familiar Wild Rover text has modified a few details and toned down the moralism, but adds no really new idea to Lanfiere's original and the verbal formulas are unchanged.

In Scottish tradition, The Hills o Gallowa is probably the best-known song generally believed "traditional" which has a known author. At one point there were a lot of Martin Parker's songs floating around in oral transmission, but probably not for 150 years now.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,S O'P (Astray)
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:59 AM

You are still making crass, unsubstantiated statements and your responses are still as evasive as they were in the beginning.

The point I was making is that the songs themselves are evidence of them having been composed. Where else did they originate? Just as dry-stone walls don't build themselves, songs don't write themselves, and my suggestion is that they were written by people who were, in effect, masters of the idiom in which they were working. That their names haven't survived is hardly surprising - and even if they had survived, it's unlikely that source-singers would have divulged them on account of the attention they were getting from the agenda-driven collectors who wouldn't have been interested if a song was the work of a known composer thus indicating that their precious Oral Tradition wasn't quite what their faith told them it was. Never bite the hand that feeds you; although Disney's men once drove lemmings over a cliff edge to prove a myth too...

I've worked with traditional storytellers who were very much story-makers and freely admitted to it, albeit rather sorrowfully, in their cups, and well off the record, though it always seemed pretty obvious to me & I applauded them for it. A lot of traditional songs have known composers; my favourite of all is McGinties Meal & Ale, George Bruce Thompson's masterpiece which has found its way into The Tradition with numerous variations on the original, perhaps most notably by Davie Stewart, but Andy Stewart did a cracking version too. I would also argue that the songs of Tommy Armstrong are similarly idiomatically traditional & in his use of traditional melodies & structures that shaped the canny knack of his craft he displays the same mastery we see in the anonymous songs.

A tradition is not the songs themselves, rather it's creative idiom in which the songs were made, and re-made, as they are created, learned, half-forgotten, and re-imagined. In a non-literate culture this becomes all the more evident, but we see the same thing today as novels are made into films which are remade as other films, or else re-told as stories, comics, graphic-novels; we see the same thing in popular music too. In their pre-tech habitat these old songs existed in an evident fluidity which is pretty much the essence of what creative music is - such things exist in a state of flux by default, and, accordingly traditions evolve and the material likewise. This is no different from any other music; it is what music is; all music is thus Traditional in the sense of the word as used by the ICTM which embraces not only folk, but popular, urban and classical musics too. I would also argue that this makes more sense of what the Oral Tradition is, than the romantic assumption of a volkish collectivity, which is to fail to see the creativity of the working-class men and women who were The Tradition, a creativity which was all but denied them by a revival that cherished the anonymous as the authentic.   

And when did I ever say I didn't believe in research? You keep throwing this at me, but a source would be nice so I might give it some sort of context - something that your increasingly reactive side-swiping seems entirely devoid of. I can assure you all my conclusions (as far as they are conclusions, given the nature of the subject matter) are the result of my ongoing researches into traditional idioms of folk song & folk tale which I take very seriously indeed. And I have heard your recordings; you sent me a tape once (misplaced shortly afterwards in our move but it will turn up) and I note your contributions to VOTP etc. My heresy is simply that on such sound foundations I dare to interpret that material differently from the tattered anachronistic shibboleths of a fast-fading Folk Revival which has failed to establish the cultural significance of that which ought to be appreciated as the national cultural treasure but which is, largely thanks to said revival and the attitudes therein, a national embarrassment.

If only John England had been singing Tit-Willow on that fateful day back in 1903 how different things might have been...

S O'P - Heading North. I may be gone some time...

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Will Fly
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:28 AM

The work of jazz and blues musicologists Brian Rust and Paul Oliver in the 50s and 60s went a long way to establishing that the roots of the banjo were probably in Northern and Western Africa.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Marje
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:23 AM

"Banjo? African?"

Allegedly, yes. At one time the white people in in some parts of the US were uncomfortable with this explanation of its roots, but at the moment it seems like the best theory so far:

http://www.rhisong.com/blackbanjo/banjo.html

Marje

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:40 AM

Is there evidence of an origin of Wild Rover Jack - we have several versions that bear little relation to the common one with all the indication that of it being a rural composition (thatch - barns etc.)
It is claimed elsewhere that many of our songs originated on the broadside presses, but no information has been offered for this
Be interested to know.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:28 PM

NO, DESPITE STRENUOUS EFFORTS WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO TRACE ONE TRADITIONAL SONG BACK TO ITS COMPOSER - HAVE YOU?

Lanfiere's original of "Wild Rover".

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:11 PM

"I realize it's probably a waste of time to even ask, but can you provide any documentation for these sweeping generalizations?"
It is indeed a waste of time. Our pontificator has said elsewhere that he does not 'do' research, and he always makes a point of abusing and belittling those who do.
"Anonymity is no indication of collectivity"
Neither is the naming of principle sources.
"I bet you could name a fair few, Jim - just check your source singers."
Do you have any grounds whatever for this arrogant statement? Have you spoken to our source singers, or listened toy our recordings? NO, DESPITE STRENUOUS EFFORTS WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO TRACE ONE TRADITIONAL SONG BACK TO ITS COMPOSER - HAVE YOU?
"bricklaying, plasterwork, drystone walling, pottery, coopering, joinery"
Go to any elderly resident in this village and they will name you some of the finest tradesmen living here back as far as two generations. Joe Cooley, the great box player was a plasterer, Willie Clancy was a carpenter, dry-stone walling ran in families; there are still members of those families in the trade. The same applies to blacksmithing and curragh-making. There are even studies and books written on the latter. Yet - guess what - nobody has ever been able to give us the name of the composer of The Wreck of The Leon (any of the 4 separate songs on the subject), De Valera's Election Victory (at least three songs) The Quern Fishing Disaster, The Rineen Ambush (4 songs), Mac and Shanahan (two), The West Clare Railway (4 - maybe five), The Drunken Bear, The Quilty Burning....... all local songs on events which took place during the lifetimes of the singers who gave them to us. We do have information that the latter was started by four young farmers standing on the street corner the day after the day occurred, but we have no idea what form that early composition took.
"The evidence is right there"
Then it should be a doddle to point it out - where is it? Why have we all missed it. Why did Ruth Finnegan (Oral Poetry) or Leonard Trask (The Unwritten Song 2 vols) or Maurice Bowra (Primitive Song) or John Blacking (How Musical is Man)... and all the other researchers bother when all they had to do is lock themselves in a folk club, stare at the ceiling for long enough and the answer would come to them "there is no oral tradition - it's all a figment of our imagination".
You are still making crass, unsubstantiated statements and your responses are still as evasive as they were in the beginning.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 04:25 PM

Blimey, Mathias Longbottom surely had no idea where his music would lead, eh?

Ain't it *complicated* these days though, from just a song that got hummed and sang to all of this...

Who'd a thought?

Peasants to Professors?

Well, there are some Professors who understand that the Peasant has as much knowledge as himself, just in a different field, but there are many who look down on the lowly peasant as being er...lowly, and therefore stoopid, especially if he no longer understands the new rules and regulations of his own music...

The very beautiful...
Marks in the Grass - John Barden

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM

There are also people in the UK with Mediterranean genes, people have been moving around the world for centuries. No evidence at all of a direct connection between Mediterranean musical traditions and Appalachian music. The simplest, most likely answer is what we've know for some time: Appalachian music (and Southern American music in general) reflects interaction between traditions of British Isles and Africa, in the context of intermingling of populations and cultural practices in the New World.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:34 PM

DNA tests are showing a definite Mediterranean origin for many people, just like they said for centuries. mg

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:33 PM

" . . . read up on Melungeons..doesn't Appalachain music sound like it has a bit of Turkish/Morrocan etc . . ."

'Melungeons' are more likely mixed race European/African/Native American than Mediterraean/Turkish in origin. And I that 'non-western' thing you hear derives more from the African-American influence upon Appalachian music. Africans in the New World carried Arabic/Islamic influences in there various musical traditions. And of course, those gapped scales and circular melodies that sound 'foreign' to modern ears do have roots in northern Britain, remember that American and British vernacular musical styles diverged over several centuries.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:53 PM

"The Oral Tradition is the consequence of very wishful folkloric thinking that has so effectively removed individual creativity from the equation and views working-class humanity as a collective mass of instinctive, unthinking, ill-educated primitives."

"Once more, I fear, were back to the gulf of class-condescension which has so effectively denied the individual mastery of the working classes, seeing them as passive carriers and random generators of material rather than the specific creators of it."

I realize it's probably a waste of time to even ask, but can you provide any documentation for these sweeping generalizations? Because I know you didn't get this from anyone who posts on this site, nor can these silly ideas be found in the work of folklorists such as D.K. Wilgus, Archie Green, Norm Cohen, Mark Wilson (to name but a few), nor from musicians who themselves were collectors such as Bascom Lamar Lunsford or Max Hunter. If you did bother to cite sources, you would have to go back a century or more to find examples of the 'folklore as product of dancing, amorphous horde' school of thought that you presumably believe is the current state of the field.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:50 PM

Banjo? African?

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:43 PM

I for one do not buy that American (however defined) music has roots in Appalachia, or that Appalachian music is all that Scottish or Irish..does it sound like it to you? To either one? There is something else coursing through its veins..read up on Melungeons..doesn't Appalachain music sound like it has a bit of Turkish/Morrocan etc. in it..perhaps using some Scottish songs as a basis but really..I have never heard that much Scottish sound..words yes...

There is way more to American (yes, that would include Guatamala, Greenland, Labrador etc.) than Appalachian, which is a subset of American. mg

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:27 PM

Marje and Howard, I see your point(s). And Howard, your post of Feb. 14 8:19am makes a lot of sense. I think I understand better now why this subject is under so much discussion.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Marje
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 08:59 AM

MichealR - What do I think the roots of American music are? Well, they're partly British and Irish, but they've also been influenced by Hispanic and African cultures, not to mention other European influences. African-influenced Blues, in particular, is a recognisably American sound that permeates much US popular music in both folk and pop. The guitar (Hispanic) and the banjo (African), and also the dulcimer (European)in the Appalachians, have all made contributions to the distinctive sounds of American music.

Add to this the fact that the US has been developing in its own way for the last couple of centuries or so, while British and Irish cultures have developed in theirs, and it becomes clear that the cultures and the music are now, although related, quite distinct.

It's paralleled, in a way, by the use of the English language, which has evolved into two (more or less) mutually intelligible forms, now quite different although both spring from the same roots.

Marje

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:48 AM

Michaelr, yes American folk music has roots in British folk music, but it has also absorbed other influences and evolved differently. In particular, the use of instruments and especially the guitar to accompany singing has shaped the melodic and harmonic structure of tunes, giving many them a distinctly American flavour. It was the American influence of the early folk revival which established the guitar as a folk instrument in Britain and which most directly influenced the "contemporary folk" style.

I am not suggesting this divide is somehow the fault of the Americans, simply trying to explain how it may have arisen, why it is a deeper divide than may be apparent to outsiders, and we we get so worked up about it. It lies at the root of all the interminable "what is folk?" and "what can be sung in a folk club? threads which are never satisfactorily resolved.

Nevertheless, as I have pointed out before, the divide may appear to be deeper and more acrimonious on Mudcat than it is in the real world. Those clubs which take a firm "trad only" or "contemporary only" line usually make this pretty clear in their publicity. Most other clubs have a fairly broad tolerance of what can be performed.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: michaelr
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 07:35 PM

Marje - American-influenced folk music, although very popular over here, comes from different roots

And just where do you imagine those roots to be from? Inner Mongolia? American folk music has its roots in Appalachian mountain music which is directly derived from the Scots and to a lesser extent Irish and English tradition.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 03:04 PM

I don't believe there is a dividing line that traddies, or anyone else for that matter, strickly adheres to. Apart from in the mind of some people. What is perceived as a barrier is not - It is just a guide as to what kind of music to expect in what kind of venue. I said in another thread it is unfair to have all kinds of music in all venues - how would we know where to find what we enjoyed most if that happened?

As to the academia surrounding some music - surely that would enhance it for some people. I, for one, enjoy learning about the roots and history of a song as much as I do hearing it. Why would anyone want to deprive me of that? Surely the main thing is that the song is sung and people get enjoyment out of it. Why get annoyed if someone goes on to say it was collected by Professor Looney von Loonybum in 1842 at Coppers Nob in Bogieshire?

And why insist that the peasent is any better than the professor?

DeG

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:59 PM

PS - and just to make something else clear - I don't think that I am better musician than all singer songwriters or contemporary acoustic musicians. John Barden for example can sing my socks off, and many many people of all types can play me into the ground on any instrument. I even like a fair bit of contemporary stuff both "in the tradition" and not "in the tradition" in stylistic terms.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:55 PM

Well, there is another thing to be said for taking folk music seriously - it keeps flibbertigibbits out.


Sweeney - you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as folk music, because collectors denied that any contribution to the shaping of older material was purposeful.

As I have said above, the way(s)in which older musical materials (including for this purpose words) may have included intentional changes, and they may have included accidental changes. Certainly the phenomenon of "Chinese Whispers" is a known phenomenon and I cannot imagine that you deny that it occurs. Likewise, before bit-for-bit replication became possible all forms of replication were imprecise and repeated replication became a source of imperfect replication. To suppose suddenly that all changes in an old work were the result of the intentions of perfect craftsmen would be an extraordinary assumption.

You, however, set up an aunt Sally that goes further. You assert that the collectors and analysts before you universally proceeded on the basis that the evolution of old works arose ONLY from error, and unthinking error at that. One wonders that so many of them might have made such an assumption until you (and Glueman) arrived to set them right. It seems to me the better view that they did not make that assumption.

Both the above arguments are fatal to your bedrock.

But even if you were right on both accounts, the answer would still be "so what?" There would still be a body of collected (and uncollected, yet, maybe) work (to which, if you can accept recent "Chinese whispers" and planned changes as equivalent to the effects of oral transmission, there is continued accretion) that would be the result of modification in transmission, and that had currency in divergent forms in particular communities - rather like the differences between the Bonnie Raitt version and the Freddie and the Dreamers' version of "If You Gotta Make a Fool of Somebody", or the word changes between "If You Gotta Go, Go Now" and "Si Tu Dois Partir" and the greater changes that would result if one translated the latter back into English.

That leaves one with two questions. First, what is the true source of your hostility to folk music, and why do you want to use the expression "folk music" for something else? Or are you simply trying to say that you are cleverer than everyone else, which might be inferred to be your intent from your frequent resort to the bafflegab thesaurus. Alas my attempt to parody it seems to have been too successful for some, but why do you do what you do and why do you express it like that?

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:38 PM

"Lord Flasheart brings up some rather steamy visions, Dick....I'd embrace it if I were you...."
Agreed - is that a canoe in your pocket or.............?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: MikeL2
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:13 PM

Hi Howard

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Howard Jones - PM
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:19 AM

< "MikeL2 said "there isn't the rift of differences between the different styles of music in America">

I tried to say in one sentence what you have eloquently explained here.

cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: MikeL2
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:09 PM

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:49 PM

" That distinction between American and British/Irish folk music which you explain is the thing that underlies many of the misunderstandings on this forum. The two types of music that most of us recognise in these islands tend to merge into one in the US, so it's hard for Americans to see the difference that we're referring to. "

We know a lot more about "your" music than you give us credit for, Marje. As far as the misunderstandings, most of them have nothing to do with either Americans or American music. The chief combatants are your homeboys-

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:43 PM

Lord Flasheart brings up some rather steamy visions, Dick....I'd embrace it if I were you....

Oh, just don't get me going on the things Lord Flasheart would be doing with his concertina though...but I feel he'd have a very big smile on his face!


That reminds me..Jimjimjimmyjimjim Causley's folk programme is on! Gadzoooooks! I'm missing it! Hope he's gonna play more Oysterband songs...

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:27 PM

Peter,I am referring to your behaviour on Concertina net

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:26 PM

In Somerset once, we went into a pub. There were two bars. On one hung the sign 'Locals' and on the second door was 'Others'

There is a dividing line put there by Traddies, over which those who love other types of music should never cross.

The thing is, as I've said many a time, my music embraces traditional, (or it used to) acoustic, soul, blues, classical...the list is endless, but some have such a narrow view, and their music does not embrace mine, rather...it is shunned.

I have actually been put off traditional music by the crazy academia that surrounds it.

Oh...yawwwwwwwwwwwwwn!


John Tams is a man I loved to watch, not seen him for ages now..because he brings in humour to music...and he sings all kinds of songs, folk, traditional, acoustic...whatever.

By all means love to study your songs, but don't have a go at anyone who doesn't, 'cos we're not all the same, and we like the songs for different reasons..and some of us are NOT up our own arses about them all...because..they are JUST SONGS!

And once, they were sung by a happy peasant on his way home from the fields, whilst his head was filled with the thought of making love to his jolly peasant wife, on his jolly peasant mattress!

He did not go home worrying what key he was singing it in, or whether he had the exact same words as Mathias was singing earlier in the pub...he didn't even worry when he got through the door to find A Man Called Cecil busily writing down all his wife was saying....because ALL he was thinking about was having a good evening's loving....

Sigh....

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:24 PM

From: Tim Leaning - PM
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:34 PM
As anewcomer to folk it didnt take you long to get the hang of orchestrating a "Squabble" of folkies.

Looks like I've bin rumbled!

*scarpers sharpish*

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:20 PM

May I remind you that each exchange we have had on this site was initiated by your good self? Go away. Leave it alone.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:17 PM

no, Peter I am not and neither are you.
what name suits you? Troll?

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:06 PM

The you obviously haven't spoken to somebody who has been part of a living tradition.

I have actually, having worked alongside a fair few traditional storytellers & singers in my time. But all creative people are essentially part of a living tradition; my favourite traditional storytellers these days are actually the blokes down the pub who get a roll with endless up-to-the-minute jokes and have the place in stitches.

If this is the case why don't we know who any of them were?

Anonymity is no indication of collectivity. And though we do know many of the names (Absjorsen, Grimm, Child & other collectors named their principle sources) we can say that these are the works of individuals in much the same way as when we look at bricklaying, plasterwork, drystone walling, pottery, coopering, joinery, etc. we know we looking at the work of exacting individuals who were time served masters of their trades. Or are such things the random by-products of Chinese Whisperers too?   

Surely if an individual is that gifted his/her identity would be known?

I bet you could name a fair few, Jim - just check your source singers.

It really would be helpful if you provided some evidence on which you base your extremely sweeping, unqualified and loaded statements.

The evidence is right there - it's in the collections that form the backbone of any traditional repertoire, be it story, lore or song. The difference is simply one of interpretation. Where you see the random consequence of illiterate blundering Chinese Whisperers banging away like a thousand monkeys, I see something a good deal more purposeful, precise & exacting - no more random than the exacting master craftsmaship of coopers, wallers, farriers, ploughmen, sparks, hedge-layers, heavy metal guitarists, street dancers, MCs, and Fluffy Morris dancers.

*   

Umm, does that translate as, "But Mum, that boy started it!"

Hardly that, CS; all I'm doing is playing nicely as part of an ongoing discussion. That Boy, on the other hand (like the old man above) is forever spoiling for a fight. At least said Old Man knows what he's on about & I'm in his debt anyway for sending me some field recordings 18 or so months ago although the tape hasn't as yet surfaced since moving house - see here.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:57 PM

And the Flash name suits you ;-)

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:54 PM

But you're a special case Dick. Aren't you?

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:36 PM

Peter Laban,complains about internet forums,but I have to say that if a poster goes around calling people silly names,such as Lord Flasheart,as Peter Laban has done in the past,what does he expect?
if a poster goes around flaming or trolling,he deserves whatever he gets ,its internet karma.
however despite Peter Labans ,silly name calling,I did not respond but ignored his comments,however it doesnt surprise me that others have been rude to him.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:34 PM

"Umm, does that translate as, "But Mum, that boy started it!""
LOL I seem to remember one Crow sister starting it.

As anewcomer to folk it didnt take you long to get the hang of orchestrating a "Squabble" of folkies.
I'll get me coat.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:42 AM

From: Suibhne O'Piobaireachd - PM
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:07 AM
With respect, VT - Richard's the one at fault here,

Umm, does that translate as, "But Mum, that boy started it!"

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Marje
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:16 AM

Howard, I think you've put your finger on it. That distinction between American and British/Irish folk music which you explain is the thing that underlies many of the misunderstandings on this forum. The two types of music that most of us recognise in these islands tend to merge into one in the US, so it's hard for Americans to see the difference that we're referring to.

What US folkies (and even some UK folkies) don't always understand is that American-influenced folk music, although very popular over here, comes from different roots and is delivered in a different way from traditional (and in-the-tradition modern) songs. Much of the pop music over here is in the American, R&B-influenced style (which in turn is related to American folk music) so it seems quite natural to many British/Irish people to sing and play in this way. That's one reason why traddies feel the need to defend and protect their songs and the settings where they sing them, and also explains why the American-style folkies feel that folk clubs should welcome them.

It's not an easy issue to resolve, but it helps if we can understand where each side is coming from.

Marje

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:40 AM

"It now appears that I might come under the category of "traddie"!"

Heh, I know! Now where'd I put me bleeding Ph'D?

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:39 AM

"What I'm saying is the Oral Tradition is the consequence of supremely gifted creative individuals inventing within the disciplines of their given cultural idiom."
The you obviously haven't spoken to somebody who has been part of a living tradition.
If this is the case why don't we know who any of them were?
There are several poets from this area whose work is still popular; Michael Hayes actually published a small collection around the beginning of the 20th century. While a couple of his songs are still circulating as songs they have never altered from the printed version.
On the other hand there are literally dozens of songs dealing with events which took place in the first part of the 1900s which are still sung, have passed into numerous versions and are all anonymous. Surely if an individual is that gifted his/her identity would be known?
It really would be helpful if you provided some evidence on which you base your extremely sweeping, unqualified and loaded statements.
I too have great trouble in following your gobbledegook.
Incientally, the most basic form of oral tradition is 'Chinese Whispers' - or is that the consequence of supremely gifted creative uindividuals.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:20 AM

Suibhne O'Piobaireachd

I am sorry you feel so, but I have to say I cannot follow your writing.   Because I cannot extract your meaning, I tend to just give the benefit of doubt kind of nod. Others however, may find your style of expression somewhat condescending.

RB - to me can be just as unfathomable.

From my perspective, the two of you are cut from the same cloth when you write over ordinary folks heads.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:19 AM

MikeL2 said "there isn't the rift of differences between the different styles of music in America"

I'm not sure if he meant the supporters of different styles or the music itself, but I think the root of the difference (such as it is) is because there are significant differences in style between traditional and contemporary British folk. I don't just mean in performance style, but the whole musical structure.

I am no expert on American folk music, so I may be wrong (and no doubt there will be plenty on here to say so :) ), but it appears to me that contemporary singer-songwriter American folk has much closer links to traditional American folk. Woody Guthrie was working within a folk tradition rather than bringing in something completely different (besides his own talent). Modern American singer-songwriters are building on that tradition.

In contrast, I can see little or no connection, whether in terms of musical structure, subject matter or sentiment, between the music of, say, Donovan, Nick Drake or John Martyn, and traditional British folk music. That's not to make a value judgement or to say whether the music is good or bad, simply that it has different roots.

So whereas in America contemporary folk may be seen as a natural extension of traditional folk, in Britain it's as if a completely different genre of music has come along and established itself within the folk tent. Traddies don't generally have a problem with modern composed songs which respect the idioms of the tradition, it's the music which seems to come from different roots which is the issue.

What might seem to an outside observer as inconsequential is actually founded on quite deep differences. Few would be surprised if a punk band, or a rock band, or a string quartet for that matter, were not considered appropriate in a folk club, no matter how good they might be in their respective genres, but a particular type of acoustic music is expected to be acceptable because it has acquired the label "folk".

So on the one hand we have the traddies, faced with limited opportunities to listen to and perform the music they enjoy, who feel their turf is being encroached upon by a sub-category of pop music with no roots in traditional British music. On the other hand, we have the contemporary folkies who also feel that the folk club is their natural environment and who may also not have other outlets for their music, who feel unwelcome and looked-down upon. It's not surprising there are disagreements.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: melodeonboy
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:18 AM

Taken from the original post:

"Lot's [sic] of squabbles on Mudcat between the umm Traddies and the Folkies."

Curious how language changes! For donkey's years I've considered myself (and have usually been considered by others) as a folkie. It now appears that I might come under the category of "traddie"!

Blimey, guv! What's goin' on? And which one should I put on my next job application form?

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:07 AM

SoP and RB - to your corners until you both learn to use everyday English and how to treat others with respect.

With respect, VT - Richard's the one at fault here, resorting to personal put-downs which I refuse to rise to in the context of this or any other discussion. That's twice he's done it in so many weeks. God alone knows what's biting his arse but I could really do with it - and you coming in implying that it's somehow my fault.

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: Marje
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:02 AM

Richard: When I said that contemporary folk relied more heavily on strong chord sequences, I didn't mean to imply that there are no chords in traditional song. There is always an implied harmonic structure, and one of the delights of hearing a good unaccompanied singer is appreciating the way he/she indicates this structure by subtle inflections in the intonation of the singing.

Will Fly: yes, you have a good point there - I think maybe it's the performance of traditional song that is vulnerable rather than the songs themselves. As you imply, the selective "folk process " has often created songs that are enduring, flexible and hard-wearing. But I suppose it's difficlut to separate the two: the songs are unlikely to stay alive and evolve if the social contexts in which they are sung are threatened, or taken over by other forms of music. If the songs were to survive only in printed form or on archive recordings, and no one knew how to sing or even to listen to them, we'd have lost something very precious.

Marje

Subject: RE: Do We Think We're Better Than Them?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 07:24 AM

Traddies think the traditional gene pool is being diluted by singer-songwriters who flip between the two forms. Complete nonsense of course.
One of the characteristics of new folk artists is many are able to knock out a set of eng trad., self-penned and music hall without hand-wringing or explanations and an engaging treatment of each. If the alternative is a pedestrian and talentless rendition of authentic ballads, gimme summat new.

I also agree that "the Oral Tradition is the consequence of supremely gifted creative individuals inventing within the disciplines of their given cultural idiom".