Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 26 Mar 11 - 04:45 AM a fantasy green man grafted on to a local legend - done for nefarious reasons...... Okay, let's roll with it. What would be possible outcome of this heinous behaviour......? and which cur would stoop so low? |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 26 Mar 11 - 04:49 AM It's all online for you to enjoy! http://thecompanyofthegreenman.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/the-legend-of-cartmel-priory/ First you get the modified story, then my objections to it... |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 26 Mar 11 - 05:00 AM Where this definition is strikingly different to many (but by no means all) other genres that is that the concept of an 'authorative version' is apparently deliberately omitted. I can't think of any music in which there is an authorative version of anything; each classical piece is interpreted afresh with each performance and the mutabity of Pop Songs is part of the fun. Every recording I've got of Purcell's 3 Parts Upon a Ground in D is very different as to be unrecognisable from any other. And as for Jazz... Anyway; must go... |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST Date: 26 Mar 11 - 05:09 AM Yes, suibhane, each performance of a classical work reinterprets the concerto (or whatever) afresh and in, say, ballets, it becomes the convention to omit or reorder certain movements. Even so, the written composition of Chopin or whoever has an authorative status of a kind that is not present in the 1954 definition |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Mar 11 - 05:25 AM To continue th etheme ... As someone who has hung around theatre of all types, 'Broadway Musicals' are often rehashed, songs dropped or new ones written, verses added in midrun, and if there are any nonsinging dance routines, they are chopped around mercilessly. Also local topical references are often worked in for each new town in a run. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 26 Mar 11 - 05:39 AM Even so, the written composition of Chopin or whoever has an authorative status of a kind that is not present in the 1954 definition The beauty is that there will always be new interpretations whilst not a note of what Chopin wrote will change. Even so Chopin was part of a Tradition nevertheless and his pieces can be used for effective Improvisation, or just exploring their subtle nuances. The other beauty is that not everything in any given tradition has to change - if it changes fine, if it doesn't then that's fine too. The important thing is that it was the result of the change and mutability inherent in any musical tradition. I mean, who's going to mess wityh Teo Macero's definitive edits of Miles Davis that comprise Bitches Brew? * I know a violist who has one beautiful old violin; when he plays classical stuff on it it is a violin, when he plays Folk on it, it is a fiddle; same instrument, but it becomes different depending. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Will Fly Date: 26 Mar 11 - 05:43 AM You get an extended version of this chopping and cutting in seasonal and local pantomimes. I was recently MD for "The Pompeii Panto" - written by a professional writer called Jim Sperinck - and the script was littered with directions such as "insert local shop" - "insert local town" throughout. Which happened and, on the night, the players inserted off-the-cuff jokes about people in the audience whom they knew - forgot lines and had hilarious impromptu dialogues with the prompt lady, etc. Great fun. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: DMcG Date: 26 Mar 11 - 05:47 AM Oops, the Guest above was me. Sorry about that. I can't really comment much on jazz, as it is not something I've been very involved in, except to say jazz was one of the genres I had in mind when I said "by no means all" have an authorative version. But again, speaking as a complete ignoramus on the subject, the impression I get is that jazz seeks to have an original performance every time, so to that extent it eschews the inheritance component of the 1954 definition as far as practical. The musical theatre one is certainly an area I hadn't considered before, but I suspect there is still the authorative version, even if it is rarely performed. I'm thinking of the "I've got a Little List" song in the Mikado, for example, which has been updated with topical references from the outset so the original is probably almost never performed and in a weird way it would be less authentic to do so. I suppose the concept I have in mind is best expressed diagrammatically. Some genres have a central core - the authorative version - and all around it are performances, which are versions in their own right, so can be used as further versions. However, the overall structure is of a 'dense bush' with lots of branches off the centre and nothing more than a few steps from the central core. The 1954 definition has a thin, treelike structure, with comparatively few branches off the root, then branches off branches off branches off branches ... And of course, reality is such that examples of everything in between can be found as well! |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Will Fly Date: 26 Mar 11 - 05:52 AM Suibhne - I had a look at the Green Man blog you mentioned. Very interesting. Your comments in it are quite right, in my view. The Cartmel Green Man story was initially presented in such a way as to appear to be a real legend, and it was only with the challenges posed in your replies that the OP admitted to mucking about with the story with the excuse of making it more colourful. Nothing wrong with that - but only if he'd prefaced his tale with that time-honoured phrase "Once upon a time..." - the distinguishing point between the passing on of a legend and the telling of a fictional tale. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Smedley Date: 26 Mar 11 - 06:12 AM I love these threads!! (And this one mentioned Sutton-in-Ashfield - surely one of England's grottiest towns! But I never knew it had a folk history.) |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 26 Mar 11 - 08:42 AM About 20 years ago, I did a guitar class in Sutton. As a climax to the course, about thirty of us turned up at a folk club and played all our two chord songs. Jambalaya, Skip to my lOU, sINGING IN THE rAIN, The manchester Rambler. Within 6 months some of my ex-pupil;s were running the club. A couple of them became pro musicians. It was one of the most successful clubs in Nottinghamshire and I suspect it still continues in some form and at some unknown venue - Maybe the The Staff of Life, for about 20 years, it was at the Royal Forresters. Hundreds of musicians, hundreds of songs - some of them folk - hundreds of singers getting a start... starting other clubs. Not really folk though, eh...? Not in the 1954 sense. Dear Suibhne. I'm sorry i couldn't agree less. Theres this bloke saying he can light the excitement in the eyes of children with tales about a Green man, and i say good for him - its a good trick. Theres plenty of time later to learn that dinosaurs never really did chase cavemen. And if they're too dumb to understand that, its not going to impact greatly on their lives. Also look at the wasteland by Eliot - where the legend of arthur and the Holy Grail gets mixed up with The Fisher King and God knows what else. It remains a wonderful metaphor the knight coming to the stricken wasteland, for Eliot coming to England where Noyes AND LIONEL jOHNSON were writing English as a dead language and he came and reconnected us with our own poetic sensibility and its connection with street language. And robin Hood and little John turn up for a guest appearance in the Hal and Tow song. If there were no mystery, we would miss out on the revelations that mysticism can bring us. al |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Mar 11 - 09:22 AM Though far from perfect, the 1954 definition as a rule-of-thumb has worked for me for coming up to 40 years as a collector and researcher, and as a listener, 20 years longer than that as a guide to knowing which tins to open (no longer the case, sadly). It is in much need of updating and improving with all the information that has been gleaned over the last half century plus, but as the only alternative on offer appears to be the abandoning of all definitions - tearing all the labels off all the tins - the original will probably see out my remaining days comfortably. Suggesting '54' is a 'rule' is little more than tilting at self-constructed straw men; it never was, nor was it intended to be; a rule-of-thumb, no more. As the fat geezer with the cigar once said about capitalism, "by no means perfect, but it'll do till something better comes along." Jim Carroll |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,SteveT Date: 26 Mar 11 - 10:00 AM The suggestion that the 1954 definition attributes a Darwinian evolution to folk music (DMcG 26 Mar 11 - 04:14 AM) got me thinking. Perhaps to extend the analogies further one should apply a Linnaean binomial classification to "folk". If I have my science right, the genus is an inclusive group but the species is an exclusive group. This means that the generic taxon looks for any similarities that may be shared and "things" get added to the group if they share enough common attributes. The specific taxon is exclusive and works by excluding "things" on the basis that they have something different from any other specific taxon. Linnaeus decided that using local names (in our case English) for classification would not work because these meant different things to different people so he chose Latin, as a "dead" language, where word meanings did not change. Thus you have terms like "viridis" which was applied instead of "green" (e.g. Hydra viridis). As time progressed descriptive specific names were replaced by latinised versions of the person who first discovered/described that species (e.g. Spartina townsendii). {Apologies - I can't get the computer to do italics} Thus all music could be generically "folk" but when you get to the specific bit you throw out the kinds of music/song that are not the same into separate taxa and then name accordingly. Your own version/species of music/song within the genus "Folk" can only join another "species" in that genus if all who are already in that species agree that it does not have anything different from their own versions; if they don't all agree you stay in your own species. You could be "Folkus lloydii" or "Folkus donovaniensis" or even "Folkus suibhneastrayus" or "Folkus whittleus" (not an attack on these contributors' views, just names chosen for illustrative purposes of two here who seem to have fairly strong and clear views). This classification system should keep everyone happy – if you want to you can be the only one in a species but if you want to join with a pre-existing species of folk music you would, by definition, agree with the others in that species. On the other hand, that might end the discussions and then where would Mudcat be? |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,glueman Date: 26 Mar 11 - 12:21 PM Whoever said we need more threads like this - I agree. At least they have therapeutic value and people can get opinions off their chest. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Desert Dancer Date: 26 Mar 11 - 01:09 PM Guest,SteveT, I find your premise appealing, but inevitably the same conflicts would arise between the same splitters and lumpers, just as among biologists. And there's no genomics to save us, here... We tune because we care... we argue because we care... ~ Becky in Tucson |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 26 Mar 11 - 01:19 PM Brilliant! Folkus Whittleus! My Uncle Ernie ( a keen trade unionist and lifelong devotee of Harold Wilson) used to say, 'When the barricades go up! Then you find out who's on your side!' I don't think I'm too fussy who is in my species. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:31 PM the impression I get is that jazz seeks to have an original performance every time, so to that extent it eschews the inheritance component of the 1954 definition as far as practical. The rootedness of Jazz even at its most exteme is even more of an issue than it is in Folk. Just check on the work of Sun Ra and Rahsaan Roland Kirk - two guys renowned for exploring the outer limits but both Ra and Rah were forever banging on about inheritance as the crucial factor of the music, Miles likewise - check the autobiography, where the inheritance component is celebrated almost as a sacred ancestral lineage. Rah did this most explicitly in pieces like The Seeker, whilst Ra would regularly eshew his outer-space raps to school the audience on musical inheritance and continuity. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Mar 11 - 09:52 PM This is the best discussion of the 1954 definition I have ever read, here or anyplace else. I used to disparage the Brit view, but since, I have come to appreciate the standpoint of those who hold to that definition. I'm a Canadian, and the history of my culture is likely rough around the edges for a folk who have a remembered-past that precedes all we have in this country, and that includes the Viking ships sunk near Channel Port aux Basque about 1000 years ago. The British Isles (no offense meant to those who recognize Erse or Welsh as their mother tongue) had to deal with the government of William the Bastard (aka the Conquerer and the First) lived through the Romans, Vikings, French and Margaret Thatcher. Such cannot be said of others. That in itself pretty much ensures that longevity isn't the problem. But looking at some threads and taking them to heart, I do see the change that takes place in song when left to the devices of common folk--which I perceive us all to be. Personally, the song that came first is the starting point for all that follows--good, bad or indifferent. Losing that starting point makes us penurious despite our protestations that that isn't so. I love this thread. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: DMcG Date: 27 Mar 11 - 04:11 AM The rootedness of Jazz even at its most exteme is even more of an issue than it is in Folk. Just check on the work of Sun Ra and Rahsaan Roland Kirk Thanks for the suggestion: I will certainly do so. However, there is a distinction between rootedness of the genre in terms of techniques and conventions and rootedness of the individual piece. As I freely admit I know nothing about jazz, I don't know if Ra and Rah explore that and to be able to say anything more I'll give an example from ballet, where I know a touch more. "The Nutcracker" is a critical work for most companies. On a recent BBC programme the English National Ballet said it accounted for about one third of their entire box office takings for the whole year, for example. So you have various options. The Royal Ballet have got a version that has been around for many decades and, within the limits of cast changes, costs, scenary decay, etc, they produce essentially the same version every year (it does gradually alter, nevertheless.) Other companies, such as ENB, Northern Ballet, Matthew Bourne's Adventures etc, try to get their market share by doing something less predictable. Even so, all these alternatives are 'true to' the classical ballet conventions and the story. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Will Fly Date: 27 Mar 11 - 04:58 AM Jazz is an interesting music in many ways. As a common-or-garden jobbing player in (say) a mainstream band, you're expected to know - depending on the style, of course - a large number of tunes ("standards") which form the repertoire. And, for ones that you don't know, you're expected to be sufficiently au fait with the form and harmonic conventions to be able to pick something up instantly. However, although the repertoire may be well-known, even conventional, every single performance of every single tune - if you're doing your job right - is different. Different improvisational lines from soloists, melodic links being picked up and tossed around between soloists, 'head' arrangements (group arrangements emerging spontaneously) are all the essence of jazz. And it's very easy to fall back back on repetition from performance to performance which makes some bands sound tired and old. As for the roots of the music, the early churches were in New Orleans, Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago, and one of the fascinations of the music is watching - over the years - the enthusiasms and counter-enthusiasms, the assertions and counter-assertions about the rightness and direction of the music. For the Ken Colyers of the jazz world, New Orleans was the shrine and the old-style bands weaving their continuous lines around the melodies were the gospel. Any deviation from that was heresy and that music, in its turn was scorned by the modernists, who called the traditionalists "moldy figs". And so on, and so backwards... All this, of course, is a world removed from the individual geniuses quoted by Suibhne - Sun Ra, Kirk, Coltrane, Davis, Bailey, etc. - who were in a galaxy of their own, love them or not. Whatever the standard, whatever the style, the enduring fascination, for me, about jazz is that it's a 'traditional' music which - to be worthy of its name - has to be different every time it's played. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:10 AM Folkus suibhneastrayus Thing is, if Folkies want to abide by the 1954 Definition, if they find it helpful to do so, then that makes sense as long as they remain aware that all music can be defined similarly, bar none. Whilst this does not make all music Folk Music, it does mean that all music (and all human action, creative or otherwise) is rooted in what went before it (ad infitum) and is the consequence of cultural process, adaptation, change and continuity. A song - any song - is sung as a unique event in space and time, mutable according to a myriad factors which are themselves dependent on the occasion and the history of the community to which the singer belongs. That said, the impression I get from Sharps seminal encounter is that John England was singing his Seeds of Love alone as he went about his business; viridis digitus. Folk might be seen a long running Fad integral to the 20th Century Zeitgeist. Whilst it speaks of Change, it is a reactive consequence to the modern era of Hyper Change, a seeking for the comforts of an imaginary unchanging past, bucolic, cultural, personal, traditional, and always perceived as beneficial to the believer. Maybe this is why Folk engenders the AOR / MOR safety zones and Mudcatters still fear rap music which is fair enough - we are mostly talking of an ageing demographic here: I myself will be fifty in August this year and can still count myself amongst the youngest in the room (and on the forum). One can't become a Folkie without taking on a small amount (at least) of the academic mantle. Who doesn't love the enduring & erudite posts of the late Malcolm Douglas? Or else revel in the nitty gritty of hand-on research occaisionally detailed by the likes of Brian Peters and Jim Carroll et al? I know I do. As a lover & singer of Traditional Folk Song I'm seduced into the exploration of Source and Provenance espite being aware the shortcomings of Folk as a methodology. Thus I might question the usefulness of the 1954 Definition as a tool, and be wary of it as an article of a very particular (and at times very orthodox) faith, which is, I suppose, only natural too. The very nature of the Folk Revival is, ironically, compounded by its own Folklore as objectvity remains as elusive as ever it was, much less any clear idea as to nature of the beast itself. Part science, part religion, part ritual cult, where the beautifully ironic inclusivity of The Horse Definition is routinely sneered by those who feel they are somehow In the Know. In its place we have the 1954 Definition, which basically tells us the samething as The Horse Definition, although to the Faithful, it's telling them just how different their music is from other musics. All music is different; all music is the same; all music is Traditional; all music is Human; all Humans are Folks; all human music is the consequence of community... These days, with respect of What is Folk? then we can draw a few lines in the sand and feel quite safe therein, although nothing exists in isolation. It never did either as a look at the repertoirs of the Traditional Singers will reveal. [Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn2UTXDIDCA] My own feeling is that anything sung by Folkies is, by default, Folk Music, especially if done so in the name of Folk in a Designated Folk Context. This is the stuff of Folklore - places, rites, rituals and occasions. Like - what happens on Cooper's Hill the rest of the year? And those bars and hotel lounges that are stuffed to Folk Overflow during festival time - what becomes of them? Folk is thus both Mutuable and Repetitious; it is the concensus of a community who by their very impermanance are perhaps forced into a more ordered conservatism than most (though I would argue that they're not alone in this). Maybe this is why a recording of the Spinners doing Whip Jamboree from 1964 sounds little different from how you might hear it done (with gusto) in any one of a thousand Folk Clubs today. Tradition? or ritual? Either way, you'll find me at the bar. This then, is the essense of Folkus suibhneastrayus, it is that of the Godless Theologian who nevertheless believes unreservedly in Human Divinity and the Kiplingesque dictum of The People, Lord, Thy People in respect of an all inclusive music (bar none) which might never be defined to the satisfaction of all BUT we all know it when we hear it which I suppose is the main thing. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:20 AM I don't know if Ra and Rah explore that and to be able to say anything more I'll give an example from ballet, Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uRnvMwD6jM Play loud; rejoice. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:10 AM "Irony of Horse Definition" ··· Dreary rather than ironic IMO ~ "a dreary axiom" was Bert Lloyd's summary. Still, I suppose Satch, an intelligent man & wonderful musician, meant it ironically. But the trouble with irony is when people less intelligent than the perpetrator will take it at face value. Think of Warren Mitchell's story, when he was Alf Garnett in Till Death Us Do Part, telling of how he was always meeting people who thanked him for "having a go at the wogs", and replying "No, can't you see it's you I'm having a go at!" ~ but they still didn't get it. So would Armstrong have said it with all that :irony: if he had realised the misuse to which so many fools would put it, I wonder? (If it was Armstrong - also attribd to Broonzy). & what would he have said if taken up in such terms as "So is Swan Lake a folk dance then; I never saw a horse do 32 fouettés?" ~M~ |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:35 AM Hmmm - in which, however so less pithy the 1954 Definition must be ironic too then. From what I gather from a post some years ago from the sainted Jean Ritchie, Maud Kapeles sense of humour was either similarly sharp, or else entirely absent with respect of her inner volkish demons! Thus might we raise visions of esteemed Folklorists chastising the May-revelling villagers of Padstow for not doing it right... Anyway - no one's answered what Bert Lloyd's Folk Music of Yugslavia has in common with Gary & Vera Aspey's From the North (or whatever it was) other than 1) They're both on Topic Records and 2) Neither of them were played by horses. * Getting back to something Brian said earlier... 1. The 'Folk Process' is demonstrable. Take a look at Bronson. 2. Nobody's believed in 'collective composition' for decades. Was is The Folk Process if it isn't collective composition? * Getting back to something Al said earlier... and i say good for him - its a good trick We might nurture the light of wonder in kids eyes without subjecting them to bullshit & ruining our more all too fragile heritage in the process. Kids have a natural wonder anyway, I hate to see this exploited by those with a specious agenda as is the case with that Green Man story. * Off topic, I've just noticed an advert for Watermaster (Uniquely Versatile Dredging indeed) in the space below the Submit Message button. Check it out at http://www.watermaster.fi/ where you might access a promotional video, PDF Presentation and Newsletter promoting the miracle of Backhoe dredging, suction dredging and pile driving capabilities in ONE machine. Right on! We live in the age of miracles and no mistake. Is this another aspect of Mudcat's new Folklore Collection remit I wonder? |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:36 AM So... Not so much a dreary axiom as a truism, which is just as dreary. So is the Folk Music of Yugoslavia mispackaged as Folk? To me Ethnic music would be a more suitable term; ethnomusicological documents, which is one approach to such things that wouldn't be appropriate to a Gary and Vera Aspey album, where Folk fits like a glove. Now that the IFMC are the ICTM then that fits, to a point. We might draw a line in the sand between Folk and Traditional Music - i.e. the Music of Revival and the music of Tradition - though the majority of Folkies I talk to don't think there's a difference, they think they're part of The Tradition, which seems a tad conceited to me, especially when the vast majority of the songs they sing aren't what we might think of as Traditional Folk Songs. Even in singing TFSs I'm not carrying on a Tradition, I'm just singing Traditional Folk Songs which are products of a Tradition, just as any song is. I recently started a blog about this called An Oblique Parallax of English Speaking Folk Song which features examples of me performing TFSs in a way that would have me linched if I did it in a Folk Club but which comes vbery natural to my creative sense as an experimental / free improvising musician. Another dilema you see, because as much as I love this stuff, I can't swallow the Folk Faith; all I see is genre, idiom, mastery and continuity, same as with all musical styles. Folk is just another umbrella for various stles of music which must include Big Al Whittle as much as it does Brian Peters or Michael Grosvenor Myer or... |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:47 AM I was speaking as an ex-schoolteacher who found it a difficult trick to pull off. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Howard Jones Date: 27 Mar 11 - 09:37 AM The 1954 definition was intended for use by academics, to set out parameters for academic study. It was never intended to define what should be sung in folk clubs, or in which display rack to find albums in record shops. Also, language has moved on and "folk" has a much broader meaning than it did in 1954. Nevertheless I still find it useful, if only as a guideline rather than a strict "definition" of a particular type of music. I see a difference between, for example, "The Outlandish Knight" or "Seeds of Love" being sung by an old man in a pub and "My Way" being sung by an old man in a pub - even when its the same old man and the same pub. That distinction is siginificant to me, even if it's hard to pin down, let alone define. I feel the difference is sufficient to justify giving them a different name - whether that's "folk" or "traditional". Of course it's equally possible to see them both as part of the same thing - the two views aren't exclusive. I just don't think it's helpful to conflate "My Way", or jazz, or opera, into "folk" simply because they may be performed in a certain environment. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 27 Mar 11 - 11:40 AM Well its nice to be included, but even I can see that I'm not doing the same stuff as Brian. I'd like to think that some of my best stuff has a foot in the same camp as Mike's urbane creations - though obviously not his traditional stuff, where we probably differ is that I think the debt all three of us owe to the 1960's songwriters - Tom Paxton, Bob Dylan, Donovan etc. is very great indeed. Ewan MacColl and his generation may have started the folk club business. But the the factor that spread it to every corner of this island, and captured the public imagination was the songwriters. I think it changed the meaning of the words folk music in common parlance and usage. I occasionally mess about with pre-1965 folkmusic, but its not engaged me creatively like songwriting has. Most floorsingers can do a better job on traditional material than i can. But do I belong to the folk movement? I believe so. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Mar 11 - 12:04 PM By my "urbane creations", Al, do you mean the Bogle & Bellamy, e.g.? I do no sort of 'creations' of my own, lacking the 'creative' gene to my great regret. Most I have ever managed is a good tune for Unhappy Bella ~~ which maybe I shall put on my u-tube channel some time, at that. ~M~ |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 27 Mar 11 - 01:05 PM My imagination, did I not see you in the new city songster one time. Anyway I used to read your record reviews and think - wish i could write like that. You used to write for fred Woods magazine - didn't you. I always had you down as a bit george melly-ish in your approach. You tell me - do you not write verse..... I always think of you as a recognised wit! |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 01:41 PM That distinction is siginificant to me, even if it's hard to pin down, let alone define. I feel the difference is sufficient to justify giving them a different name - I agree, but we can bypass the 1954 definition to say what that difference is can't we? It's a musicological thing - all about style, idiom & musical preference. In one breath the same singer might be singing Seeds of Love, in the next My Way... Talking of which, and what Al said about being different to Brian.. They are indeed certainly different but on same day I witnessed both hold audiences spellbound a mere 50 yards and 9 hours apart; not the same audience I grant you, nor yet the same venue, but people were still talking about both performances the following year. That's the diversity of Folk - it's big enough to include Big Al having an otherwise civilised audience rolling in aisles with his songs of uxoricide which aren't really too different from Brian's masterful essaying of The Demon Lover, though of course no one was laughing. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 01:53 PM Actually come to think of it, Al was late on the Saturday night in the New Boston & Brian was first thing Sunday morning in The Mount - but 9 hours sounds about right... |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST Date: 27 Mar 11 - 01:53 PM ' his songs of uxoricide which aren't really too different from Brian's masterful essaying of The Demon Lover' Brian, what can I say ....no offence mate? A serious artist like yourself would not wish to be confused with a silly sod like myself, I can understand that. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Mar 11 - 02:09 PM Yes, maybe a bit of verse, Al ~~ often to win New Statesman or Spectator prizes &c; I am in two of the New Statesman Competition anthologies. But no tunes there ~~ tho as I said I have put occasional tune to verses, like above-named from Orwell via Penguin Comic & Curious. But none of my own on u-tube channel, which seemed to me what you might have been referring to. As to being a wit ~~ matter of perception & opinon, I suppose. {Now, drat it!, where have I left that red nose & that conical hat?} Tee-hee! ~M~ |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Mar 11 - 02:39 PM ... and yes, I certainly did write for Fred Woods' Folk Review ~~ including the back-page Taking The Mike column for several years, as well as all the other reviews & features. I think maybe that is particularly what you recall: tho I was also a theatre, folk record, folk book critic for The Guardian & The Times & Plays&Players at the same time. Oh, oh, oh; where did I find all that energy from? & where has it all gone? I have told you all before: beware of getting old ~~ or you might end up as boring as me... ~M~ |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:12 PM "The 1954 definition was intended for use by academics, to set out parameters for academic study." Sorry Howard, it was no such thing. It was an attempt, largely by academics, but also by singers too, to make sense of a specific body of song that had caught the imaginations of singers and scholars alike around the time the BBC was carrying out its 'mopping up' campaign (aimed at producing a series of programmes for public consumption - 'As Roved Out' . Organisations like Topic Records (non-academic) pretty well adhered to it, as did editors of "Folk" magazines and "folk" song collections. There were clubs who ahdered to it so closely that they wouldn't let you in with a musical instrument and who asked you not to sing recently composed songs, even if they sounded 'folk'. Events like the Keele Festival, with with lecturers/performers like Bert Lloyd and guests like Harry Cox and Jeannie Robertson comfortably catered for both scholars and folk fans without there being any conflict of interest or any doubt what was on offer. There were always people who latched onto the label because they had no identification tag of their own, and it when these gained dominance that the problems really began and audences were no longer given a choice in what they wanted to listen to. "Also, language has moved on and "folk" has a much broader meaning than it did in 1954" Not really - what has happened is a fairly loose definition has been abandoned totally (not replaced) in the interest of people who neither understand nor like folk music (too long, finger-in-ear, et al). Jim Carroll |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Brian Peters Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:21 PM Well, I thought I was getting a burning sensation in the shell-likes, and logging back on to this thread I realise why. My name's been taken in vain a few times here, so I really ought to respond. Firstly, yes, I do bestride some of the same stages as Al and we're both performers on the same circuit. 'Serious Artist' versus 'Silly Sod'? Well, I think of myself as an entertainer whether I'm doing 'The Demon Lover' or 'Shame, Shame, Shame' (Jimmy Reed, not Shirley & Company), and I'm sure Al would describe himself similarly. However, on more academic matters, SA said: "Getting back to something Brian said earlier... 1. The 'Folk Process' is demonstrable. Take a look at Bronson. 2. Nobody's believed in 'collective composition' for decades. What is The Folk Process if it isn't collective composition?" Simple answer is that the folk process is the way in which an existing song evolves. 'Collective composition' is a theory regarding the origins of folk songs and tales that originated with German scholars, including the brothers Grimm, who developed the concept of the Volkslied. Some of F. J. Child's colleagues and followers were convinced by the idea that the ballads had been created by the collective improvization of a group of singers and dancers, but although Child himself flirted with the idea, he eventually wrote that "they do not compose themselves as William Grimm has said... a man and not a people has composed them". A major academic controversy erupted over this question, and as a result the theory of communal composition has had no significant adherents in recent decades. Although it's true that Child believed that oral transmission and 'folk process' would inevitably result in the degeneration of the ballad, others such as G. H. Gerould believed that "communal recreation" tended to actually improve ballads - that old Sharpian idea of the pebble being smoothed by the action of the waves. That the 'folk process' consists of nothing more than (to quote SA) "the sum total of bad memories and mondegreens" has not been the consensus of folklorists for decades, and I can't remember ever seeing that position argued on Mudcat. The 1954 definition, whatever its other merits and failings, specifically allows for constructive communal recreation in describing "variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group". Anyway, I'm off now to fry some chips, then away to Glossop Labour Club for a few tunes, so no time now to compare and contrast the Aspeys and the folk music of Yugoslavia. TTFN. PS: Howard Jones is quite right; I can't think of even the most traditionalist of performers, or venues, that filters repertoire through the 1954 filter. PPS: Nice to see this one's a bit more civilized than previous 1954 threads! |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:41 PM One of the more intriguing (and convincing) aspects of the 1954 Definition hasn't been mentioned yet, to wit: The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character. I think the first part of this can be dismissed as ineffable twaddle (I can think of hymns and the National Anthem - even Folk Songs as they were taught in schools - talk about Ironic) but what do we make of this thing Folk Character? Well, there is a unique quality to the Traditional Folk Song which gleams as a polished patina on a 600-year old choir stall arm rest. I'm not saying it can't be faked, but even in faking it, it's qualities are being acknowledged - something maybe folk processed and well polished by masters or master of a very exacting draft indeed. I like this a good deal actually, it draws me in to its hoary genuiness in the same way as aforementioned choir stalls. I get strange dreams when I'm working up certain traditional Folk songs - ballads can get a bit weird, but Butter & Cheese & All and Leg of a Mallard are two that really spook me, as if they carry another layer of significance. Maybe it's going to be different for everyone, but how else do we understand Folk Character I wonder? |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Mar 11 - 04:00 PM Cross-post there, Brian but I think you've covered it (Folk Character) - in a nutshell... |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Steve Gardham Date: 27 Mar 11 - 04:38 PM But it's the same old stuff being regurgitated! |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Desert Dancer Date: 28 Mar 11 - 01:29 AM In the words of the OP: "... I am decidedly NOT trolling for another 500 posts 'What is Folk Music' thread." Oh, well! |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: J-boy Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:06 AM This is some good stuff from intelligent people who know what they're talking about. I can't get enough of it. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:52 AM Hmmm - the more I dwell on this Folk Character thing, the more I'm beginning to realise there might be something in this 1954 lark after all! |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Howard Jones Date: 28 Mar 11 - 03:06 AM I've been checking the website of the International Council for Traditional Music (as the International Folk Music Council is now known) and it appears to me to be substantially an academic body. I'm sure singers and performers contribute to it, and it includes in its objectives the dissemination of traditional music, but I suspect it's not very interested in what goes on at Much-Piddling-in-the-Marsh Folk Club. Of course the 1954 definition was of interest to those active on the folk scene - it attempts to encapsulate what characterises this music, and I think it still does this pretty well, even if it's possible to argue with some of the detail. I think the antagonism arises because the meaning of "folk" has broadened since 1954. On the one hand you have those like Jim who (quite reasonably imo) believe we need a clear term to describe a particular type of music, and on the other hand there are those who feel their own type of music should be described as "folk" even if it doesn't fit the 1954 definition - again, not unreasonale if you consider how the meaning of the word has broadened. My own theory is that the modern meaning of "folk" emerged from the surge in interest in folk in the 1960s, which was initially an American movement. I can see a much closer connection between traditional American music via Woody Guthrie to Bob Dylan, through which it is not necessarily wrong to describe his (and other singer-songwriters) music as "folk". In the UK that connection is far more tenuous and the relationship between trad and singer-songwriter is far less obvious. However it is the American meaning which has taken over, and I don't think there's much we can do about it. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 28 Mar 11 - 03:25 AM A labour Club in Glossop....? Abit like the music hall joke about the Conservative Club in Moscow. Folk Character......it has a ring of that Thurber cartoon... 'I come from haunts of coot and hern...' http://omf.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html?widgetType=BlogArchive&widgetId=BlogArchive1&action=toggle&dir=open&toggle=MONTH |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 11 - 04:33 AM The word may have broadened, but the nature of the Traditional Folk Song hasn't. It's an all too rare beast on the Folk Scene these days I'd say - an endangered species even within the revival. As for the ICTM, it never hurts to quote their obectives in full The aims of the ICTM are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries. I keep meaning to join and find out how they view the 1954 Definition these days. Things change very fast in Folklore studies, though in the popular view of things it's all pagan fertility rites and children's rhymes frok the Black Death. Even on Mudcat the use of the term Folklore is a tad antiquated (says he still smarting from the Folklore prefix being removed from his Slang Words for Female Masturbation thread...). If the chapter on Folk Music wasn't so naff I'd insist you all read Bob Trubshaw's Explore Folklore. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: GUEST,999 Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:08 AM I used to disparage the definition until I understood it functions as an anchor when the winds of newer music get forceful and strange. Mr Carroll was a pain in the arse for three years to me . His posts regarding the definition were unreasonable and antiquated. I couldn't appreciate why someone could be so bloody dense! Three years later I'm surprised at how much he's affected my thinking about it all. Jim, you are a researcher and keeper of the tradition and you rank with the Cecils and Malcolms of folk. I am sorry for being so un-understanding. What you do is very important, and I apologize for my past attitudes, decisions and assholedoms of what I hope is my yesteryears. If we forget or ignore our collective past, we will have to start over. On that journey we will rewrite "A Canticle for Leibowitz", something we don't have to do thanks to the keepers, one of whom Jim Carroll is, imo. Anyway, Jim, thank you. Bruce M. |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: MikeL2 Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:16 AM Hi Mike <" I have told you all before: beware of getting old ~~ or you might end up as boring as me..."> Lol Occasionally pedantic maybe Mike , but boring ......never. Regards MikeL2 |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:24 AM Gee, thanks, Mike ~Mike~ |
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:24 AM 100 |
Share Thread: |
Subject: | Help |
From: | |
Preview Automatic Linebreaks Make a link ("blue clicky") |