Do purists really exist?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 06:32 AM

Great stuff, Richard - tell us more about the music you played, which (for someone for whom Reggae is a matter of King Tubby's, Studio One, Rockers and the Ark) I probably don't know too much about...

*

You missed the fact..

That's the Folk Purist's Litany right there; to be intoned to the Luke Warm Dirge. But please - you can't conflate the glories of Traditional English Speaking Folk Song & Ballad with the stuff people write in a revival context (though more power to them for doing so). Or was the point of the Revival to create a new breed of Folk Song Writers rather than putting the Old Songs at the heart of our National Culture where they belong? Hell, these days they're not even at the heart of the Folk Scene.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bert
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 06:42 AM

...But please - you can't conflate the glories of Traditional English Speaking Folk Song & Ballad with the stuff people write in a revival context...

Of course not. the stuff people are writing nowadays will have to go through the same forces of attrition that have always weeded out the bad stuff. Then maybe we will be left with a song or two which may get added to the tradition.

One thing that bothers me though, is that the songs that were gathered by early collectors may represent a vignette of what was being sung at the time, and thus may include songs which would have died if they had been left to the natural selection process.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 07:04 AM

The whole thing was dead by way of natural selection anyway, but maybe that's beside the point. One of the great Folk Conceits is that people today are writing the Folk Songs of tomorrow when, in context, the Folk are quite happy with the songs they've got and the processes of Popular Music have continued unabated for the past 35,000 years irrespective of what a handful of Folkies might think. This was the context of the Old Songs when they were new; in the days of Diocletian when there was no Folk Music. Awareness of these idioms filters through into other aspects of our broader culture - Kipling was certainly aware of them, others were too - but they are certainly redundant today, even in that aspect of Folk that cuts through into the mainstream. Rather, they are kept alive in the same way enthusiasts keep old steam trains alive - or even railway modellers strive to preserve picturesque vignettes of the past in plastic and modroc. All of which is admirable - just don't expect Hornby 00 to supply rolling stock to the rail networks any time soon.

The broader picture is one of Tradition Process of Traditional Popular Music which is big, thriving, complex and beloved of billions. The idioms of hip-hop, R&B, dance music, jungle, drum & bass, dub-step etc. etc. are all Traditional Musics subject to the living cultural processes outlined in the 1954 Definition. That doesn't make them Folk, which can only ever be an afterthought, but please, write / sing / play what you will just don't tell me this stuff is in any way shape or form the same as The Old Songs, or will become so in the future.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 08:26 AM

Well, there you go. Just goes to show there's nowt as queer as folk.

Folk is whatever you want it to be, or whatever you KNOW it to be. Problem is, the next person knows the exact opposite to be true.

I wonder if there are heated discussions between symphony know alls and string quartet purists?

As for reggae, you live and learn. Good on you, although then you go and spoil it by saying you know right from wrong. I don't know right from wrong, I admit it. I think I know, but I fear it is like most things, perception. Everything is relative, after all. Just ask Albert.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 09:18 AM

I've got to admit that I've never really understood what THE TRADITION is. For decades I've been fascinated by the vast multitude of traditions that we have in this country, many of them obscure local ones. Most have never been recorded in song, which is why I like to put some of my local ones into my songs. The songs I write are not part of THE TRADITION, but they are about A TRADITION (or a legend, story or whatever). Whether that makes them folk songs or traditional or not I have no idea, nor do I really care.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 09:24 AM

I wonder if there are heated discussions between symphony know alls and string quartet purists?

Of course not, because Folk is predicated on a concept of a music rather than a music in itself; it is a selective concept which ironically proves to be as all inclusive as Mr Armstrong's horse. Thing is, in the context of the Grizzlier End of the 21st Century Folk Scene (though I believe this doesn't apply to clubs in Sheffield), not all music is folk, but all music (or at least imitations & approximations thereof) can be folk. 21st Century Schizoid Club Folk lurks somewhere in the hinterlands between intention on the one hand and result on the other, and thereby great nights are had by all, but maybe not by me (mutter, mutter...).

Is this discussion heated by the way? Doesn't feel that way to me - & besides, it's far too hot for heated discussions: right now I'm loafing on the beach in the shade of my brolly, gazing out o'er the hazy horizons whilst listening to Jananese hip-hop on my iPod trying to figure out if the Morris Dancers presently paddling at the water's edge are real or not. I suspect I'll go home in a mo and get on with some work...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 09:33 AM

Ah but Sheffield apart, (I cut my teeth in Sheffield clubs...) you have the answer there, all music CAN be folk.

So, are U2 folk?

The evidence? Their acoustic album has a recording of Sunday Bloody Sunday on it. Guitars and vocals, a song describing an event that angered people, ensuring the lessons to be learned are not forgotten by the medium of recording it in song. Add in the Irish bit and I doubt anybody could argue it isn't a folk song.

Ewan McColl wrote a few pure unadulterated love songs. No downtrodden workers involved, just lust, love and affection. Recorded by Frank Sinatra, Tom Jones, Rod Stewart, Elvis Presley, Roberta Flack (who charted with "First Time" and there you have it.

Ewan McColl is not folk according to some descriptions here and U2 are.

If you ever need help nailing jelly to the ceiling, I'm always here..

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 10:05 AM

My absolute fave was Derek Harriott's "Message from a Black Man". I might still have that 7". I think it was taken from an earlier soul rendition by the Temptations. I liked the Meters too.

Then there were the great cliches - Prince Buster's "Al Capone", "the Skinhead Moonstomp" - must be others but I should be working.

And the fantastic vocals from Desmond Dekker and/or Toots Hibbert.

I might still have analogue tapes of some of the vinyl.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 10:13 AM

all music CAN be folk.

By which I meant it only becomes Folk in a Designated Folk Context. This is my Falsifiable Hypothesis which I think of as my Folk as Flotsam Theory. Anything that floats CAN be Flotsam, but not necessarily IS Flotsam - it only becomes Flotsam in a very specific context. In one context it is Flotsam, but it remains a fishing crate, football, used condom, dead fish, rubber duck (&c.) which it would be anyway. As one chap just said over on the Fleetwood Folk Club facebook page:

"Folk" to me doesn't mean a genre of music, it means people, and Folk has always been people music. Matters not If it's ballads klesmir rock blues reggae or punk its the on the level delivery person to person and when I've done... my bit be clapping and singin or dancing to the next person (after a fag of course). Older people you can learn so much from and younger people you can be inspired so much by. In this world of tragedy and despair we are truly blessed. That's why I go to Folk Clubs :-)

That's the reality of Folk; it may not float my boat, but so what?

Otherwise - I personally don't think you can call U2 Folk any more than you can call JSBach or John Cage Folk, but if someone turns up in your local folk club singing U2 songs to the wrong chords (or even the right ones) or doing their damdest to essay Bach on their out of tune guitar, or performs 4'33" in 4'36" then that's Folk. By that point of course I'll be back home with my feet up with a nice cup of cocoa watching my I, Claudius DVDs, but, hey, that's just me. Again I say - Purist? Moi? Nah - I'm just an irksome snob who feels that whilst musical ability is seldom an issue, aethestic intention has to be.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 10:16 AM

I liked the Meters too.

God yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-6_0YqgeI

But it's not reggae...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 10:21 AM

"Folk" to me doesn't mean a genre of music, it means people, and Folk has always been people music. Matters not If it's ballads klesmir rock blues reggae or punk its the on the level delivery person to person and when I've done... my bit be clapping and singin or dancing to the next person (after a fag of course). Older people you can learn so much from and younger people you can be inspired so much by. In this world of tragedy and despair we are truly blessed. That's why I go to Folk Clubs :-
NoNOno, you cant call jazz, folk.jazz is jazz and is defined by improvisation, folk music can be jazz if it involves improvisation,, but if it doesnt it aint, and never will be.
blues is folk music, punk is not it is a version of tin pan alley,Klezmer is, and can also be jazz if it involves improvisation, calypso is, reggae is not

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 10:25 AM

PS - Those Morris Dancers I mentioned a couple of posts back turned out to be Black-headed Gulls (Chroicocephalus ridibundus who flew off as soon as I ran over to check them for their flagrant abuse of The Tradition. I really must get my eyes tested...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 10:35 AM

NoNOno, you cant call jazz, folk.jazz is jazz and is defined by improvisation, folk music can be jazz if it involves improvisation,, but if it doesnt it aint, and never will be.

If my Folk as Flotsam hypothesis holds, Captain (which is does BTW, as tight as any brandy barrel) then it's yesYESyes. Folk as Flotsam you see - besides - the sort of Jazz you'll hear in a folk club won't be real Jazz, it'll be some vernacular approximation in which improvisation might play a part but it's not going to make you howl at the moon; could be a beginner, or a rank amatuer who can't get to play amnywhere else, though at a recent session we had a trombonist and a bass clarinetist turn up who tore the place apart, especially on the Irish stuff. I suspect they were proper musicians though - and they could improvise, and how. I improvise on ballads all the time BTW but I'd never call it Jazz, even in a Free Improv context I've always been the token folky...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 11:15 AM

McGrath of Harlow: For example, would it be unreasonable to expect that the menu in an Indian restaurant should prfereably not be dominated by dishes such as shepherds pie or chicken chow mein? Even if these are dishes you might very much enjoy.

Actually, the menu in an Indian is likely to be dominated by either Bengali pastiches of Indian regional cooking, dishes cobbled together out of the wreckage of empire sensibilities, or dishes/ styles of cooking that were *entirely* generated in the UK in the last 30-40 years (Tikka Masala, Balti, etc). If you've lived your life sampling the cuisine only from UK or US "Indian" restaurants then you'll be gobsmacked the first time you try "authentic" Indian food.

There's an analogy there somewhere, and as JC said, it's probably quite apt :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 11:18 AM

"Purist means pandering to your own nostalgia."

True or not...that's the best line in this entire thread. ☺

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 12:30 PM

Bert;
"You missed the fact that when most of us started, we couldn't sing worth a damn."
Didn't miss it at all; that's a problem we all had to face no matter what kind of music we chose to follow, but in an atmosphere like the one created by nasty little discussions like this one, the job is made a damn sight more difficult by snidey intolerant infantile name-calling like this that take the piss out of other peoples' tastes when you're attempting to draw youngsters into your music.
All this has nothing whatever to do with this argument and doesn't alter the fact one iota that youngsters are flocking to "purist" traditional music in Ireland while in the UK........; somebody must be doing something right somewhere!
"You missed the fact that if we don't listen to new self penned pieces then the tradition will certainly die."
Didn't miss that one either; the person who influenced me most in the time I've spent following folk song was the best singer of traditional songs I ever met, yet he managed to write ten times more contemporary songs based on traditional styles than anyone I know, some of which have become all-time classics that are often mistaken for real traditional songs.
I was referring to some of the navel gazing, introspective self-indulgent angst that passed for folk-song in many of the clubs I no longer go to exactly for that reason.
In the end I don't give a fiddler's fart who listens to or sings what, when or where; what does piss me off is ignorant and intolerant attacks on other peoples tastes, usually from people who throw all their toys out of the pram when their own music is criticised in the slightest way.
One thing is sure; if every 'folk' club in Britain were to be struck by a tsunami tomorrow, the music that would survive as 'folk' would be that which has been defined, collected, documented, researched, archived, published and generally made available as "folk" – the stuff that people sneer at here as "purist".
How about a bit of "live and let live?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 02:55 PM

It ain't the mix I used to play (as far as I recall) but I'm sure I used to play this in the reggae club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36ojJymYh40&feature=related

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 06:32 PM

Well, music is a sensation that we seek out, and we do not have to seek out music that we do not enjoy. To me it is the sound that is produced. I do not care of monkeys at a typewriter produced it, or space aliens or computers or someone yesterday or someone 500 years ago. Although I give extra points for 500 years ago..or even yesterday...So it is not being disrespectful to other musical preferences to not want them to enter into a group that is already established and enjoys what it enjoys. The trick is to meet kindrid souls and join them and not disturb people who do not want to hear jangly music or old songs about shepherds or too many sea shanties at once or whatever. A bit of stretching the envelope is OK..too much and people who have been attending something for 20 years just don't return because it does not sound like what they want to hear. A percentage of them will have purist tendencies, but most will not like the new sound. If the new people produced equally pleasant sounds, and some do and some don't, they would be more welcome. In the meantime, thank heavens most of us live in free countries and can assemble with others of our musical persuasion.

The key, as always, is not to impose musical preferences on established groups, arguing that it is folk music really or whatever. See if there is interest and acceptence, and not mere politeness, and go from there. If there is not interest, or you want to sing rugby songs and they want to sing heavy metal, have separate groups or start an "I like all kinds of music" group..and many people do like all kinds of music..I personally have a pretty narrow range of what I like..I like pretty voices singing pretty tunes with a good steady rhythm. I can not stand to hear jazz. It makes me want to run out screaming. ALl the scholars in the world could not make me like it. I don't want it at a folk club I go to, if I were so lucky as to live near one. To each his own, said the old woman as she kissed the pig. mg

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 07:41 PM

I realize I have outlived my own context. But, to me, that context will always be what folk is.

Art

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 09:32 PM

I was recently, indirectly, maybe, accused of being a purist because I happened to like the tune to which a certain song had been set, two and a half centuries ago. The accuser had found the lyric in a book of poems and set their own tune to the same lyrics, not knowing that it already was a well-known SONG; not an unpleasant tune by any means but had failed to use this wonderful tool of the internet to find out it if there was already a tune to the same lyric (it could have been found in less than 2 minutes!). Having listened to both versions, I would still unfailingly go with the original as being he better tune: but does this make me a purist, just because I prefer the earlier tune? REALLY?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 03:40 AM

I hear what Jim Carroll is saying, and his long association with the filing cabinet side of folk prompts him to have such views. I respect that, perhaps a bit more than Jim has previously respected my take on folk.

However, sorry Jim, if a tsunami hit every UK folk club, the music that would survive? Well, for starters iTunes would be the universal oracle on what is folk, and tell you what, the interestingly diverse offerings that have a folk genre attached by these experts in UK folk, (Californian corporate executives) is a thread in it's own right.

In any case, you live in Ireland where folk for the masses is second only to American country and western. Something that has always bemused me. The serious nature of traditional music in Ireland can be summed up by when you are doing the tourist bit and listening to music in Templbar or at Johnny Foxes. The tenor banjo player isn't just introduced as Shamus, Michael whatever, no. He has to be the three year running all Ireland tenor banjo champion.

You don't get that over here....

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: glueman
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 03:48 AM

There are gate keepers and gate openers. Each think the other are in dereliction of their duty.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 04:12 AM

If anyone would care to look back at the dictionary definitions above only one appears potentially relevant, and because it requires two value judgments, one as to what purity is and the other as to what is excessive, the question of whether there are purists cannot objectively be resolved. I know there are some who assert that the issue of whether something is "folk" or not can be determined by the 1954 definition and indeed I am close to that position although I can see some parts of the definition that might be put in more certain and more modern terms. There may be others who assert that something can only be "folk" if it is done as it used to be done - and I do not agree with them, and indeed I don't think I've ever met any.

But horse definitioners seem to mistake those positions for the assertion that something is ipso facto bad if it is not folk. That, I think, is never in fact asserted.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 04:33 AM

Can folk possibly be pure? Can any music be totally pure? Can anything be pure? The whole concept of Purity is complete anathema to the mongrel nature of all things, on all levels.

We may speak of The Pure Drop or of Pure Nard but very few things depend on purity for their quality; even a fine single malt with have been conditioned in a brandy barrel. No indeed, the Purists of this world are those with a deeper agenda of personal inecurity they extend to their politics, music, religion, cuisine etc. Blinkered, and entirely mistaken, one would think...

For whilst many the mountain stream runs sparking and pure from the bubbling source, they all end up in the same heaving ocean eventually.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 04:39 AM

"and his long association with the filing cabinet side of folk prompts him to have such views."
Nice bit of denigration of my position and experience Willie.
And the forty odd years association as audience, singer, organiser ... counts for nothing I suppose - ah well.
itunes - doesn't beat researched and verified information, background information, especially when 'folk' has become a convenient catchall for anything you have no other designation for - sort of like "misc."
A pit to hiss in, little more.
Suggest you take a look round the shelves of the British Library, Lib. of Cong. et al.
Didn't understand the folk for the masses/cw ref. - the situation here is indicative that all musics can exist side by side without schoolyard name-calling, sadly lacking here with displays of intolerance such as this, I'm afraid.
Perhaps we should tell the kids not to bother - waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 05:02 AM

Suggest you take a look round the shelves of the British Library, Lib. of Cong. et al.

Doesn't that confirm that Folk is (partly) the reserve of Academia - a study of a music rather than a music in itself? This stands in stark contrast to the source of the thing, much less to the feral nature of music as a whole. I suppose Folkies can think of themselves as Purists because of the way this stuff was skimmed and selected and hermetically sealed therafter - entirely removed from its initial context. The taxidermical approach to zoolology is all very well, but tells us nothing of animal behaviours, calls and rituals; much less their tracks in mud and snow. Indeed, it depends on killing them first in order to ensdur their survival - albeit stuffed in a glass case, far removed from their natural habitat.

I'm not wanting a fight here, much less agree with your rather irksome foe, just trying to put some flesh on the bones of the Folk Beast so we might understand IT as a living entity, and not just as a bunch of myths and shibboleths about The Tradition, The Folk Process and the 1954 Definition. Methinks a wee measure of objectivity goes a long way...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 05:05 AM

You know Jim, I didn't mean it as a denigration, just as a catch all for the mechanics of what is behind the music, and those who work diligently for it. Bugger me mate, it was a compliment.

However, you did rise to the bait so here goes. You say you are also a singer and audience. Quite. So are 99% of the people here. You spice up your posts with pointing out why you are an authority, with lovely anecdotes, reasoned arguments and always concerning your "filing cabinet" usefulness.

Library of Congress? British Library? Yes, quite true, but back in reality, your scenario assumes folk would carry on. Yes, but not through dusty archives in buildings, but through the medium that 75% (according to PRS) of people use, commercial catalogues such as iTunes, Amazon etc.

The pit to piss in decides what the vast majority of people listen to, so purism such as that comment is denial of the finest form. Don't forget, whilst discussing purism, the idea of I like what I like doesn't enter into it. The complaint seems to be those forcing it on others. Apple Inc. are better qualified at that than you and I. And that is sad.

Turning to dictionaries doesn't help either. if there were one dictionary in one language I might be drawn into such a debate, but they are subjective too. As I have said in these threads for a few years now. Think about folk, think what it is and whatever you decide, that is what it is.

For you anyway.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 05:07 AM

Surely what you say Sweeney tends to indicate your conjuration of what you see as purism - as I hinted above.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 05:16 AM

Tattie Bogle said:

"I was recently, indirectly, maybe, accused of being a purist because I happened to like the tune to which a certain song had been set, two and a half centuries ago. The accuser had found the lyric in a book of poems and set their own tune to the same lyrics, not knowing that it already was a well-known SONG; not an unpleasant tune by any means but had failed to use this wonderful tool of the internet to find out it if there was already a tune to the same lyric (it could have been found in less than 2 minutes!). Having listened to both versions, I would still unfailingly go with the original as being he better tune: but does this make me a purist, just because I prefer the earlier tune? REALLY?"

I don't think anyone did accuse you of being a "purist". What I saw was an apology and an explanation from the person who set the song to a new tune. Very much a live and let live philosophy and a slight embarrassment that her messing with the tradition upset anyone enough to warrant a discussion on an internet forum!

Paul Arrowsmith

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 06:11 AM

all the old usual clichés Willie - filing cabinets, dusty archives, purism, forcing it on others.....
Wonder when expressing preferences became "forcing it on others".
It is you and your like who has set out to give offence by attaching nasty little labels - is that not "forcing it on others".
Maybe we should tell the kids over here to try the UK model - that seems to be packing them in, doesn't it?
"what the vast majority of people listen to"
Certainly not folk music - defined or undefined.
"it was a compliment." and no - it wasn't a compliment, certainly when you set it next to "dusty archives".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 06:22 AM

Paul, point well made in your usual diplomatic style. Personally, I have no problem with setting a poem to a particular tune, no matter how many times it has been done in the past. Same things goes for using a traditional tune for a new song - how many thousands of times has that been done? If you don't happen to like it, don't listen - and let those who do enjoy it. After all, it's only your opinion.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 07:17 AM

Before the days of The Internet when I lived miles in the countryside and spent my leisure time in my study surrounded by old books of tuneless ballads, I would frequently sing them to my own tunes, many of which I still might use. In fact, I might still do this - like The Wife of Usher's Well which I sing to a tune I made up myself, or rather chanelled, subconsciously, mediumistically, which fell under my fingers when free-styling it on the fiddle.

I think The Tradition here is one of Freestyling tunes to old texts in modal idioms which are themselves both ancient and traditional. This depends on how we see the Tradition Idiom operating in terms of genre - I hear many fine new session tunes in English, Irish, Northumbrian, Scots & French trad. idioms, but I've heard few* new Folk Songs that capture The Spirit of the Old Songs because the living idiom has been lost to us. The musical idioms are maybe still there though - I was brought up with Scots and Northumbrian traditional folk music; I'm not saying I'm a master - far from it (though I know a few) but I will say it's in my blood, which is why I do it & love it.

S O'P

* New Folk Songs in the Traditional Idiom that is; Peter Bellamy had a knack of this craft, and others might occasionally hint at it, but what are the efforts of a few grizzled enthusiasts to what was once as much a living musical tradition as Hip-Hop and Dub Step are today?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 09:53 AM

"I've heard few* new Folk Songs that capture The Spirit of the Old Songs because the living idiom has been lost to us"

My experience has been rather different to yours. I think the thread linking us to the past still exists, but often at a very local (or even family) level and that new songs are emerging from this but they probably won't be heard outside this small niche, nor do they tend to exist in isolation, more as part of memories that are passed on.

I agree with Art Thieme that context is paramount. If you've the patience to bear with me, I'll give you an example which I've quoted before. I used to know an old Yorkshire Wolds farmer who would sometimes come to the first folk club I went to and, as well as telling us about how farming used to be, he loved to sing a version of "We're All Jolly Fellows Who Follow the Plough" that I've never heard since. Incidentally, The Watersons happened to be at the club one evening and were fascinated by the song and asked him to sing it several times (I don't know if they ever performed it themselves). I later asked my grandfather (who had been a ploughboy in the Wolds at the age of 12) if he knew the song and he said he did recall it.

Anyway, years later I wrote a song based on what the old farmer had said about the change from heavy horses to tractors and it starts with a verse of the 'Jolly Fellows' song. This has now been passed on to my folkie-inclined daughter together with the story. Whether it will go any further I don't know. As an aside, we once sang the song in a pub, appropriately called The Chestnut Horse, which happened to be in the very village where my grandfather had gone to school. After we'd finished, a massive, weather-beaten old chap turned round and, with tears in his eyes, said that the song exactly captured his memories of losing the heavy horses on his father's farm, and he asked us to give him a copy of the words.

I think this is a good example of a new song having a resonance and preserving a memory that goes back much further. It's not an isolated example; I know a number of local singer/songwriters who are doing a similar thing with their songs and that's what I would call new folk songs. Maybe one day a collector will chance to hear one of these songs and preserve it – but I doubt it because I suspect the collectors are themselves a dying breed.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 10:46 AM

That's lovely to hear, the leveller - moving too, but my own Folkie concerns aren't with the past at all; at least not that sort of past. I like things of the past, things with provenance and continuity, but I wouldn't actually write of it unless by way of literature or history. In fact - one of the things I love about Traditional Song is their complete lack of any agenda other than their immediate textual jouissance. Like Seinfeld, they aren't about anything - there's no message, no sentiment, much less any nostalgia. Rather they are vivid, immediate, contemporary - and as such their potency remains, by ad large, inimitable. Unlike modern Folk Songs, they don't tell, rather they show; they don't preach, they just are. I guess the first stage of the Folk Process is the removal of both the sentiment and the angenda that might have inspired them in the first place; to remove the individual from the equaion and give them a more common heart. From our perspective, of course such songs are old, even other-worldly, and like other old things they engender a certain urge, a familiar purpose, but personally I wouldn't like to get too close to saying what that was. To some it remains the very essence of Folk, to me it's a part of something that I remain very wary of, however so seductive (at times) I might find it...

*

As a non-Purist Traddy, I seldom write anything in the name of Folk, but occasionally one slips through the net, like the day a couple of years back when my wife and I were watching the North American Tree Porcupines in Blackpool Zoo, all of them looking out very intently to some distant horizon which made us ponder - what are they looking at? We already had the basic outline of the music, so all that remained were the words, which I came up with the following day. It's a song that came out of a personal understanding of certain Traditional Idioms, one that doesn't reference the past per se, yet sings of a common sort of longing I suppose! Just posted an early demo up on Soundcloud, so ignore the strange sounds at the beginning & have a listen HERE.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 11:00 AM

Wow Jim, what a bundle of laughs it must be discussing precious subjects with you. Touchy touchy..

I do respect if not always agree with what you write here in Mudcat so I will seek to clarify and unfortunately disagree yet again.

Dusty archives is a good use of words there Jim, (quoting you rather than me) I reckon the image is a fitting one for recording heritage. There is a huge difference between collecting knowledge on an abstract subject and using that to tell everybody else what it is they enjoy. Sadly, you have form in that regard. You say the vast majority of people do not listen to folk music. Might be true, might not be. A few million listened to Bellowhead on Jools Holland at the New Year and over the next few days, their Hedonism album sold hundreds of thousands of copies. err.. downloads of it did anyway, on iTunes, the media you say has no input to folk. Tell you what, you keep telling us what folk is and most others will enjoy it for what it is, abstract entertainment.

Abstract because all songs are about a subject but you don't have to empathise with the subject to enjoy it. Elton John says the song of his that he is requested to sing most is Daniel. Wonder how many of those know it is about a Vietnam vet who is blinded? When "I don't like Mondays" was in the charts, did it sell because of the tragic story it related, or we were just waiting for Boomtown Rats to release a follow up to "Mary of the Fourth Form" so we could buy it?

Sir Thomas Beecham summed it up far better than I ever could. "The English don't understand music, but they love the noise it makes."

Quite.

I will listen all night to somebody expressing history and context to songs and tunes, I sit there happy as Larry listening to their knowledge. But when somebody tells me I am singing something wrong and it shouldn't be like that, I see a halo over their head with purist written on it. (Ok, the halo says "tedious fucker" but I digress.) There are four people I know of including myself taking carbon fibre guitars to clubs. Chatting, it seems we have all been told the concept doesn't fit in or whatever inane waffle some people come out with. I suppose the next time I want to make a good impression, I should have a thatched roof fitted to my jag before sticking it in the pub car park.

Final thought. There have been a few references to dictionary meanings etc in this thread. Pop music is a shortening of popular music. if 51% of the public listened to folk music more than any other type, would we have to start calling it pop music? That's the logical conclusion of some of the posts up there...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 11:07 AM

Pop music is a shortening of popular music. if 51% of the public listened to folk music more than any other type, would we have to start calling it pop music? That's the logical conclusion of some of the posts up there...

Prof Child famously called his collection Popular Ballads; it's exactly the same usage that's in Popular=Pop Music. I have books on Popular Art that some would now call Folk Art. Popular as in People not Popular as in Numbers. Pop and Folk - the words are synonymous, yet Folk is driven by a wonky agenda by which some might say otherwise, which is a bit of a shame really but each to their own.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 11:46 AM

"when somebody tells me I am singing something wrong and it shouldn't be like that" - I don't think people do do that, do they? Surely this is something that people make up as an accusation against differing views.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 11:54 AM

"Yes, but not through dusty archives in buildings",
"(quoting you rather than me)"
Whoops, must be someone else posting under your name; come across that a lot lately.
I think you'll find that archives have changed a lot since the days of the quill pen - at least the ones holding our stuff have.
We archive our material to make it as accessible as we can to anybody interested, for present and future use - any alternatives to offer?
We've issued half a dozen albums of it, and have around the same number of radio programmes of it under our belt; lost count of the talks we've given using our singers and storytellers as examples - festivals, clubs, libraries, schools and colleges - all given a chance to hear English, Irish, Scots, Travellers, fishermen...... singing and talking about their soongs and lives.
How about your songs/music?
Again I remind you, as you seem to have skated over the fact; it is you and your friends here who have chosen to throw your schoolyard taunts at our varying tastes in music - not the other way round, as you have claimed; a sure sign of insecurity I've always found; you seem to have chosen to ignore the "live and let live" request.
Not bad for a bunch who have not been able to scratch up a decent definition or descriptin of folk music between you -
If you want to debate the various merits of our music, bring it on, but please try t raise the level above the misrepresention and name-calling you lowered the discussion to so far.
And if you feel the need to snide at other people's music and tell them what they should be listening to, please try to learn a little about it beforehand.
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 12:38 PM

I don't think people do do that, do they? Surely this is something that people make up as an accusation against differing views.

As I said earlier, the few times I've encountered self-confessed Purists it was to tell me 1) I was in causing offence by using an electronic Shruti Box, 2) contravening some holy law using a Turkish fiddle for accompanying traditional English folk songs and 3) that I was by using self-looped phrases and drones on a Kaossilator I might as well be using a backing tape. In all three cases they called themselves Purist, and in all three cases they were fecking idiots.

Mercifully such incidences are rare!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 12:54 PM

I must be going round the bend (again.)

I am not sure I or anybody in broad agreement with any stance I put have taunted anybody for their taste in music. If I have told people what they should be listening to, then be buggered if I can find it, (or write it for that matter.)

Jim, you are sounding like an MP who "fights" the closure of his local hospital on the understanding it isn't closing in the first place and he then claims credit for the fact.

Or keeping it to the thread;

1. The thrust of my argument has been live and let live. Hence describing what I see as purists, who certainly don't live and let live. Stop saying I ignored your plea for live and let live. You are confusing it with encouraging debate, (the idea of threads in Mudcat apparently.)

2. I did say dusty archives, but you were the one quoting me out of context. Are you SURE you aren't a politician?

3. My songs and music? Not doing too bad actually. I get a stiffy when I hear others recording and playing them as always, and enough are published that after I am long gone, somebody could still come across them, both in dusty archives or on albums available on err... iTunes as well as CD (even a bit of vinyl here and there, just to show my age...) I don't call them folk, I just note they are played in folk clubs.

4. Dozy bugger, it isn't that I cannot scratch up a decent definition, its my personal view that a definition cannot be scratched up, as the word means it is definitive, and the whole folk ethos is subjective in the first place.

5. I note you put "And if YOU want to debate the various merits of OUR music..." Ah, sat in the bus peering out eh? It isn't your music any more than it is mine mate, despite your archives. I know that is hard to take on board, but by defining something, you infer it has a form and how can it when it means different things to different people?

6. If ever I did wish to snide at other peoples' music, I most certainly wouldn't try to learn about it beforehand. That would spoil the fun and miss the point. Luckily, I for one never would, and I'm not sure I have read of anybody else doing that on this thread. if they are, then they are purists and Hallelujah! between us we will have defined the buggers! Thanks for your help Jim.

Other bits, he says, reading up... Oh yes, M'Unlearned Friend. "I don't think people do do that, do they? Surely this is something that people make up as an accusation against differing views." Not sure what you are saying there and I really would love to give you the benefit of the doubt for once, however.. If it hadn't happened a few times, I wouldn't have put it. Many people on Mudcat have related instances of being made as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit because there was something "unpure" about what they sang.   

Everybody else; So sorry, but you know sometimes it is cathartic to tell the emperor he has no clothes. In order to do so, it is necessary to become a boring idiot yourself, and I apologise. But when it comes to getting low, I'm a lifelong volunteer. Pricking the bubble of pomposity is a wonderful hobby, just turns respectable people off, hence hiding behind this absurd monicker.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 03:34 PM

In my mind, there are purists who know what a folk song is, how it was originally done, what the context is, etc. And that's what they like. I love 'em, as long as they don't try to tell others how to play music.

Then there are purists who want to tell you all about it if you are doing it "wrong". Maybe purist isn't the right word for that. Perhaps we need a qualifier, like purist asshole.

So -- I'm a purist in that I want to hear traditional folk music if that's what I've been led to expect. I know the difference, and expect people who claim to be playing it to know the difference as well. I'm not a purist in that I don't care if my trad music is played on 400 year old instruments or electric guitars or whatever, as long as the musicians are any good and believe in what they're playing. Again, I know the difference between historical performance and living tradition and like both.

What I want to know is why are 'non-purists' so sensitive about the possibility of being criticised by 'purists'?

I once played a Bulgarian padushka at the end of the first set. As usual, several members of the audience came up during the break to talk about the music and look at the odd instruments. I was in the middle of a very nice chat with a fellow when a loud and irritated-sounding voice cut in to say, "I hope you don't go around telling people you play Balkan music. That's not how they do it!"

I don't know if sensitive is the right word. Pissed off covers it better.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 04:18 PM

Well, I'd in many cases be tempted to call people doing some things "pretentious", but that's different. It's a criticism widely found in rock as well. I would not criticise (as I have seen) a singer of Indian folk songs who used her I-phone to generate the rather typical drones - it's not a pretension merely a sensible convenience (although a bit quiet beside the traditional drums).

And there are differences between people who have changed words (or tunes or timings) and those who have erred - classic examples being mondegreens which are mistakes (and will get perpetuated if not corrected).

But I really don't think I have seen or heard much of people saying things are "Wrong". I knew one woman who used to tell people how to play the timing of rigs and jeels, but since a stopped clock was in time more often than she people just used to laugh at her. She also used to say that a certain Irish tune was "supposed" to be played in such and such a key, but again people ignored her - not least because she frequently confused the starting note of a melody for its key and did not understand the difference between the start note of a mode and the key of a mode. But she is I think the only person I have ever heard repeatedly tell people they were "wrong".

Ironically there is a right and wrong in much contemporary music, because we still have the original versions and the most popular interpretations to guide us.

However the difference between folk music or song is not one of style, and is not subjective. The best working definition we have is the 1954 definition, and it fits with other concepts of folk arts and folklore so I must disagree with those who say that the concept of "folk music" is a romantic construct. It seems to be well understood in many non-English cultures (including for this purpose Irish Scottish and Welsh as "non-English) so I fail to see why it arouses such hostility in England and the USA.

But having said that, the statement "That is not folk" (whether right or wrong) is not a statement about quality, and it seems to me that it is horse definitioners who take it as such.

I stand where I did. I have not seen a prevalence of this "purism".   I don't like Americana and country and so on, but that is a different question. I don't much like most Irish music either now although once I much admired the Chieftains and saw them several times in big venues, but it's nothing to do with "purism". It's to do with what I do and don't like.

Reverting to Mr Fluids - sorry, but Jim is long since a part (and a pretty expert part but the expertise is not the point) of the Irish folk thing - you ain't (AFAIK). That makes his usage of "our" correct. And the only view I've ever heard about Rainsong carbon fibre (or graphite) guitars, or the top line Ovations with whatever backs and carbon fibre fronts is envy and lust! Yes, I have heard "It's lovely but I'd rather play a guitar" - but that's just a defence mechanism, little different from banjo or bodhran jokes.

It still seems to me that the threat of purism is if not wholly imagined at least seriously exaggerated. If the concept is absolute it has not yet been defined. By the definitions cited the question is what is "excessive" - and we are going round and round the question without getting any closer to an answer, although some who apparently dislike the concept of folk music are doing, it seems, their level best the generate heat rather than light.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:41 AM

"I guess the first stage of the Folk Process is the removal of both the sentiment and the angenda that might have inspired them in the first place; to remove the individual from the equation and give them a more common heart."

Suibhne, that's a fascinating insight and, as such, I would agree that I come to my music from the opposite end of the spectrum - connection rather than a detachment which immediately made me think of early English translations of the Bible - though not, perhaps, the Psalms. By connection I mean a personal connection with the landscape, the people, the legends and the events of the area where I live and where my family comes from, and a sense of continuity which this brings. Without getting too new-agey, it's what, from my earliest childhood, has produced a visceral excitement that can be intense when I stand in ancient sites, old buildings, woods and even places like abandoned factories, railway sidings and canals; places that have seen profound human interaction that is, to me. actually palpable.

This is the connection that, I think, E M Forster was invoking at the start of Howards End when he says, "Only connect the prose and the passion..." and there is a long literary precedent here, running from Beowulf through Piers Plowman and Willam of Palerne, to Blake and on to Heaney and Hughes. OK, folk it ain't in the purest sense but it is embedded in the human condition and folk memory. Which brings us back to the subject of "purism" - anyone claiming to be a purist must first explain their own definition of what is "pure". It's a fascinating debate but one which, I think, will always be cyclical.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:51 AM

theleveller,

I really wish there was a "like" button on Mudcat. I agree strongly with your middle paragraph.

Suibhne ..... where's your heart and soul man???

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:55 AM

...an afterthought: when you say "to me it's a part of something that I remain very wary of, however so seductive (at times) I might find it..." I would agree - you've only to read Machen's The Great God Pan or The Hill of Dreams to see where that can lead. LOL!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 04:14 AM

Surely so few claim to be purists while so many claim to be offended by them, so those claiming to be offended should either provide a definition (or use the existing dictionary definitions and show their applicability).

And indeed those who choose to challenge definitions of "folk" as for example sentimental should show where the sentiment lies in the challenged definition.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:10 AM

which immediately made me think of early English translations of the Bible - though not, perhaps, the Psalms.

Whilst I'm a King James man in general, give me Common Prayer for the Psalms every time! In fact, Purcell's setting of the first verse of Psalm 102 is probably the most devasting 2+ minutes (depending on the choir) of music ever written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKijWFSkIdE

Just as well he didn't set the rest of it, I doubt I could have coped.

where's your heart and soul man???

I agree with everything the leveller says here; I'd even bring in Kipling's landscapes and continuities - especially The Puck Songs (Puck's Song itself being one of the most definitive celebrations of the human landscape there is), likewise The Land, of course). But sentiment ain't heart nor is it soul, and so much of what I hear these days is mired in a bathos I find quite - inhuman! In Traditional Songs we might weep at the intimate human truths which have a more common resonance - both heart and soul - which is much of the appeal I reckon. Stuff like An Bunnan Bui (not strictly speaking traditional but in Paddy Tunney's translation it takes wings) is hard to sing for the tears.

Funny though - between maybe 1988 and 1996* we had one of the finest singers clubs in the country at The Colpitts in Durham. Not 100% Traditional - regular songs included Andy Barne's The Last of the Great Whales and Harry Robertson's Ballina Whalers. The first is regular folky fair that doesn't move me in the slightest - nice to sing and harmonise on, but even as a lifelong member of Greenpeace I'm indifferent to the emotion of the thing. The second one, however, just tears my heart out. How's that work? Maybe it was just the musical power of the chorus, or the resolute humanity of the thing, but much as I'm gravely concerned about the wales of the world, whenever I hear Last of the Great Wales all I think of is that old cartoon about the opera singing wale (actually, that's quite moving too, used to freak me out as a kid - just watched it now on YouTube & it still does!). But those Weep-All-Ye Folk Songs (The Band Played Waltzing Matilda etc.) leave me cold & they always have; way too obvious; whereas The Plains of Waterloo is a different matter, or Hamish Henderson's Banks of Sicily both of which I had to stop singing because I could never get through them without cracking up.

* 1996 is when Rachel left university to do her nurse training in Lancaster; it was never the same after that somehow. We were back in 2000, but largely absent for five years owing to me giving up smoking (the associations of Sam Smith's OB, Folk Songs and Golden Virginia were too strong) so sadly missed out on The Boden Years. It's always been a good club though, attracting great singers, but at The Colpitts we were all crammed in this tiny old room so the sound was just - transcendant! And there was a cameraderie back then I've never really found in a folk club since... Sniff, sniff... Maybe I should write a song about it?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:28 AM

OK, I see where your heart and soul is. I was worried you'd lost it for a minute!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie or Fluids or whatever
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:37 AM

Leveller makes a few good points and I wouldn't wish to disagree, the personal connection thing is what makes a song a folk song. Whether it be a traditional dirge about carrying a ruddy coffin over the North York Moors, Vin Garbutt singing about operating a lathe or a punk band writing a song asking what else there is to live for other than getting your tits off on cheap available drugs. They are all folk songs.

I do like leveller's emphasis on your connection.

My connection with what I think of when people say folk is my experience of the folk scene, same as many others have said. I could also talk of my connections with Rock & pop, having been a musician in that arena and how many songs keep the old nostalgia going. (A pop song from the '70s might relate to an old girlfriend, a rock song might remind me of a great time at a festival, or hearing a bloke I don't know sing a sing at a folk club might take me back to another place I connect that song to.)

That said, I have never written songs about the industry my community was associated with and I worked in. No reason one way or the other, just haven't. By some definitions here, that makes me a consumer not a feature of folk? Reading some of the above, you would have thought so.

For me, the thrust of this thread was perfectly displayed by M'Unlearned Friend four or so posts up. He said that Jim Carroll has every right to be "we" and I therefore don't belong. Mind you, being somebody who has had a smattering of legal training, he slips in the "Irish" bit in order to be technically if not morally right. Funny, I never said otherwise, and Jim's knowledge and expertise is far more than just Irish, (I'd be offended by his comments too if I were you Jim, as you like to sound offended.)

I pointed out that a few users of carbon fibre guitars have had a few snide comments, although Bridge's use of the words envy and lust are new ones to me. One person who said my new guitar doesn't fit in folk clubs had a Fylde, now that I can lust over but cannot justify the cost.

Thanks for sitting there proving my point with just about every post you put M'Unlearned Friend. Just keep looking for the monsters under the bed if I were you. I for one don't need a dictionary or other definition to be pissed off when some precious sod tests my performance against their idea of what it should be. Many have such thoughts in their head I suppose, and the nicer people keep them there. I learn from constructive criticism of my performance, but never from criticisms of my right to do what I do. I use my inbuilt clapometer for that, thank you very much. And I clap vigorously when I pop down to a singaround type club and hear people using the event to sing publicly, which is fun in itself, regardless of whether you have read the 1954 definition of something that cannot be defined.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:47 AM

I'm not looking for monsters under the bed. I'm wondering if they are there and if they are the type of monster named.

Feel as pissed of as you have a right to be - but if you are saying that you are pissed off at purists, then say what a purist is - or is it just someone, anyone, who pisses you off?

Have you a "right" to do what you do? Why? If you go to a club or singaround don't you find out what is locally acceptable before you strut? Why should you be entitled to offend (if you do)?

Why do you say that "folk" cannot be defined? Is it merely that you don't like the best working definition we have got?

If you'd say something internally consistent or logical it might be easier to find some sympathy for you. Right now it looks like "I'll do what I like, and if you don't like that then you are wrong and so stuff you". About what I'd have expected I suppose.