 sj |
||
|
||
Is it Really Folk Music???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:09 PM The record I learned the song from—and a song book I found later—both listed it as "MacPherson's Fareweel." As in "Fareweel, ye dungeons dark and strong. . . ." I saw it listed as "MacPherson's Rant some years later in another song book. It seems a bit picky and pointless to argue over whether "Lord Randal" should be spelled with on "L" or two. Does it matter that much? #### I was sitting one day in The Folklore Center, a music store devoted to various kinds of folk music, on Seattle's University Way back around 1960 or so. Big John, proprietor of the store stocked a number of inexpensive guitars, a banjo or two, and strings of all kinds, along with music instruction books, song books, and a huge stock of folk records. Big John and I, along with a couple of other people, were listening to one of a recent shipment of LP records that had just come in. It consisted of an interesting variety of folk songs and ballads, And the singer had a round, rich, obviously trained bass voice. He was singing the songs very well. Unlike a number of classical or operatic singers who occasionally add a folk song or two to their recital programs, and who make the mistake of giving the song the full operatic treatment. I once heard the great American basso, George London, who does a marvelous job of singing Wotan in Wagner's "Ring of the Nibelungs" and the title role in "Boris Godunov," sing "Lord Randal," treating it like the "Boris's death" scene in the aforementioned opera. Gawd-bloody-awfull!!. But this singer obviously knew what he was doing. He was singing the songs straight, with none of the pyrotechnics that some classical singers try. As we listened, a fellow came into the shop wearing a back-pack and lugging a guitar case. He stood there and listened for a few minutes, then threw a hissy-fit. He pointed at the turntable with a trembling finger and shouted, "That man has NO RIGHT to sing those songs! He's a classical singer! That's a folk song! He has no right to sing those songs with a voice like that!!!" Turned out the guy had hitchhiked up from Berkeley, and was one of the klatch of hard-nosed ethnic purists of the ilk that Bob Nelson and I had encountered in 1959, when we were barnstorming in the Bay Area. They tried their damnedest to sound like field recordings, and I think those who had naturally good voices were forced to gargle with Drano. What this fellow didn't know was that the singer on the record was Win Stracke, who was the co-founder in 1956, along with Frank Hamilton (who adds his knowledge and wisdom to these threads from time to time), of the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago. Win Stacke, along with Frank Hamilton, has done more to further an appreciation and understanding of folk music in a large number of people than this unwashed college drop-out would ever be able to comprehend! When he calmed down a bit, he said that he had come to Seattle looking for singing jobs. I did hear him sing at a songfest a few evenings later. He was a pale imitation of Woody Guthrie and an indifferent guitarist, and sneered a lot when other people sang. Some Good Samaritan took pity on him and allow him to sleep on his couch while he looked for singing jobs. The Good Samaritan told me later that the guy did nothing but complain and never left the apartment, apparently expecting Sol Hurok to come and beg to be allowed to act as his agent-manager. He kept raiding the G. S.'s refrigerator without offering to contribute. Bitched the whole time he was there. Didn't bathe. After about a week, he declared Seattle to be the "asshole of the world," then picked up his guitar and headed for Vancouver, British Columbia. Never heard from or about him again. After reading some of Mr. Hinkle's criticisms of those who've never served time in the hoosegow having the audacity to think they can sing folk songs, I was somehow reminded of this guy. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:13 PM Yeah, but you can always pretend! Think of singing as being a form of 'acting'......where you try to make the character come alive, empathize as much as you can, and put your 'soul' into it. I think singing folk songs can be viewed that way. But it's also ok to play the part of 'historian' or folk revivalist bringing back a tradition. I say different strokes for different folks. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: TheSnail Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:17 PM Jim Carroll No - and your point? I would have thought that, as people actively involved in the performance of 'folk' or 'traditional' or 'come-all-ye' or 'local' or Norfolk' or 'Traveller', or simply 'old' songs, they might have had a lot to contribute. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:22 PM Henry, what's your opinion of actors? |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:25 PM Robert Mitchum called himself an actress. He had no respect for the acting profession. And I agree. I think it's silly. (:-( P)= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:29 PM ", they might have had a lot to contribute." They did, when they were asked. The conference, as far as I can make out, was an international overview of people working in the traditions who pooled their collective knowledge and experiences to arrive at some sort of a consensus. Their conclusions were useful enough to me for thirty odd years fieldwork, (if much in need of updating by people who emerged from their folkie greenhouses for long enough to have something to offer) I'd be quite happy to consider your alternatives, or were you too busy slagging off books you hadn't read to arrive at one? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 23 Aug 12 - 04:56 PM Hmmm. There's a lot of slightly macho posturing from our Mr Krinkle going on and I don't know what any of it has to do with having a deep and abiding affection for the best of the old songs. Here's a thing. I was in a recording studio today with a bunch of youngish (25 - 40 year old) musicians from the North of England. They recorded a version of Rebel Soldier, a song collected by Sharp and Karpeles around a century ago. Now, as far as I am aware, none of these young(ish) Englishmen have ever been 'rebel soldiers'. They've faced neither muskets nor cannons that lumber loud and none of them have built castles on some green mountain high. Yet, the arrangement and singing of this song brought a lump to my throat and a tear to my eye - they performed it absolutely beautifully and the singer inhabited the world and the experience he was singing about. You want to know why? It's because i) they are a talented and dedicated bunch of musicians; ii) they love and respect the best of this music; iii) any song worth its salt transcends the specifics of what it reports on and speaks to a more universal human truth; iv) (to misquote Martin Carthy) the worst thing you can do to folk songs is not sing 'em. Here endeth. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:06 PM Well spoken, Spleen Cringe. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:11 PM It is contrived. I don't watch TV shows for that very reason. But millions love TV. You're entitled to present whatever you want. Don't expect everyone to approve. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:11 PM Thanks, Larry! |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:17 PM Larry's right. Good singing IS a form of acting. It's an essential part of the minstrel's art. #### Having never heard me, Krinkle, you actually feel qualified to make judgments like that? Well, for your enlightenment and education, here's a review of a concert that Bob Nelson and I did together a few years back: Read it carefully, Mr. Krinkle. The reviewer, Jordan Myers, GETS it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:28 PM How about some youtube links? I can better form an opinion. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:28 PM But Mr Krinkle, what is okay in your book? I hear lots of naysaying, but little in the way of positive endorsements of folk how you think it should be. For me, getting in touch with the 'universal human truths' in the songs is the key. Maybe for you that's not enough. Anyway... |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:34 PM I think Hank Williams had it down cold. But he had to develop. George Jones is the greatest singer who ever lived. Kitty Wells. I think you need to know yourself. And sing about you and your life. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: PHJim Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:47 PM I was surprised to see another thread about "Is this folk music?" People have been trying to define this for many years and have come to many very different conclusions. I think we should just agree to disagree. For anyone who's interested, here are some definitions. Perhaps one of them is correct. -Music transmitted by mouth -Music of the lower classes -Music with unknown composers -Old songs, with no known composers -Music that has been transmitted and evolved by a process of oral transmission -Music that originates in traditional popular culture or that is written in such a style -Music, usually of simple character and anonymous authorship, handed down among the common people by oral tradition -Music by known composers that has become part of the folk tradition of a country or region -The music must be very old; that it is a particular style of music; that the author is not known. An art song is one that is written by a trained composer and is passed on in written form, whereas a folk song is one which is passed on in the oral tradition rather than in written form (Nettl & Myers, 1976). -The International Folk Music Council adopted this definition at its Annual Conference in London in 1952. It is "music that has been submitted to the process of oral transmission. It is the product of oral transmission. It is the product of evolution and is dependent on the circumstances of continuity, variation and selection." The music may change and evolve as it passes from person to person (Karpeles, 1955, p. 6-7). -The music also has a simple melody. Brand (1962) described the American folk song as "distinguishable by a special sound, a kind of 'simple' noise" (p. 10). -Rhodes (1966) said that folk music could be defined by its sociological function because it is a kind of social behavior. "Interpreted in this light, it can reveal a great deal regarding the interests, thinking and feeling of the people" (Rhodes, 1966, p. 18). -Bohlman (1988) talked about folk music's ability to "express the most profound of human values" (p. xii). -Historically, both folk and popular music are learned through hearing and performing, but that performers of "serious" music have formal training in music theory, composition, and more (Denski, 1992). -There are two kinds of popular music, the folk and mass forms. The folk form is performed live, and the mass form is recorded (Cutler, 1985) -Forcucci wrote in 1984 that: 1. Folk songs represent the musical expressions of the common people. 2. These songs are not composed in that they are not the works of skilled, tutored musicians. It is more accurate to say that they have been created rather than composed. 3. These songs are ordinarily the product of an unknown person or group of persons. The credits often read: Anonymous; American Folk Song; Traditional; or Southern Mountain Song. [But Forcucci notes that there are folklike songs where the author is known, but that these songs are "patterned to fit the mold of what typical American folk songs should sound like," p. 18.] 4. The words or lyrics of folk songs are usually colloquial in nature to reflect the speech patterns and expressions of a particular people or region. 5. These songs are highly singable, primarily because they were first presented with the singing voice rather than have been written down in musical notation beforehand. 6. Folk songs are simply structured, both musically and verbally. It is their naivete that gives them their charm. 7. These songs can be effectively performed without instrumental accompaniment. When they are accompanied, a less formal instrument (such as a guitar, banjo, accordion, dulcimer, or Autoharp) is considered appropriate. 8. Folk songs are indigenous to a particular region or people because they reflect the musical/verbal preferences of that people or region in their materials. (Forcucci, 1984, pp. 18-19) -Folk music is a vital, living art, not an archeological antiquity. It continues to be a medium through which the people express their thoughts, feelings and interests even as the folk did in the past. The subject matter and the musical style have changed with the changing times, but the fundamental principle of folk song and its relation to the people have remained the same. (Rhodes, 1966) -Michael Cooney's definition can be found at Michael Cooney's definition -Michael also said, in a less scholarly moment, "If it takes more than two trips to get your gear from the car to the stage, it ain't folk music." -Catfish Willie said, "It's a four letter word that starts with F and ends with K and if you use it, they won't play your songs on the radio." -Perhaps the most famous definition of folk music is Big Bill Broonzy's - I guess all songs is folk songs. I never heard no horse sing 'em. -There has been an ongoing debate about the definition of folk music going on in the pages of Sing Out! magazine, starting in the early 50s and going on to the present. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: TheSnail Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:51 PM Jim Carroll The conference, as far as I can make out, was an international overview of people working in the traditions who pooled their collective knowledge and experiences to arrive at some sort of a consensus. But limited, apparently, to ouside observers and excluding the people who were actually doing it. I'd be quite happy to consider your alternatives Quite simple. treat Walter Pardon, Phoebe Smith, Harry Cox, Duncan Williamson, [TheStewarts of Blairgowrie], Texas Gladden, Joe Heaney, Jane Turriff as if they were normal human beings with valid opinions based on their own experience rather than objects of study in the way that an ornithologist might study birds or a palaeontologist might study fossils. or were you too busy slagging off books you hadn't read to arrive at one? Lost me completely there, Jim. If that was meant to be some sort of personal attack, try and make it comprehensible but better still, stick to the subject under discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,Stim Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:53 PM No offense intended, but you're actually pretty much a poser (well, poseur) yourself, Henry. Tossing around all those really shallow, superficial barbs about folk music and folk musicians as if you knew what you were talking about. You are taking a whack at a straw man, and and a pretty old and worn out straw man, at that--with little evidence that you know much about the subject. I like the attitude, though. It fits in. Most important to know, (if you don't) you've just restarted a discussion that is one of the cornerstones of Mudcat, and has been running since before Gargoyle stopped signing on with his real name. You haven't really tweaked anyone's nose. They've been going on like this for years. Without the squabbling, I suppose Mudcat wouldn't be nearly as much fun-just a bunch of threads about banjo tunings, Mandolin pegs, and debates about Martin dreadnaughts from the 1970s, with the odd chat about the origin of the melody for "The Night Before Larry was Stretched", with links to broadsides at the Bodleian Library. The squabbling makes it almost as entertaining as Professional Wrestling. However, one tends to focus on the conflict, and to overlook Jim Carroll's amazing knowledge of singers, songs, and sources. Not to mention the tasteful simple and expressive way that Don Firth has been applying voice and guitar to traditional ballads(which, if I am not wrong, he's been doing since before Son House actually began playing in the Blues Revival). Then there is The Snail, who is a part of that Lewes scene where they make old music sound new or new music that sounds like it is old. And then there is Blandiver, who, underneath all the rantings, creates what a program director might be tempted to call "Traditional Music for the 21st Century". Again, no offense intended--someone has to keep the interest up, but you should know that underneath the free-for-all, the real deal is lurking. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 05:53 PM I figured. Purists. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 07:21 PM I didn't start with barbs, insults, cursing, namecalling and misspelling of names. That's where other folks quickly went. It appears some can dish it out, but they just can't take it. Don't care much for freedom of speech here, do you. You can insult me with impunity. I toss a little of your own medicine at you and it gets deleted and edited. Shades of Stalin. (:-( O)= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 07:29 PM "Purists," eh? Hank Williams, George Jones, and Kitty Wells were all commercial Country and Western singers. What was the question again? "Is it Really Folk Music???" (It is to laugh!!) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:03 PM Bob Dylan. Commercial. Joan Baez. Commercial. Peter Paul and Mary? Commercial. Johnny Cash. Commercial. All those names have been invoked in my thread.Any time you record to sell you are commercial. Kitty Wells had more Folk in her than all the Mudcatters combined. Your kind of Folk compares to children putting on costumes or playing dress-up. (:-( o)= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:04 PM Which is to say that Hank Williams, George Jones, and Kitty Wells were all fine singers. But were they folk?? Eh? Wot? Hmm? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:05 PM "I toss a little of your own medicine at you and it gets deleted and edited." May I ask what got either edited or deleted? |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:08 PM I know this is a long standing argument with you pseudo folkies. I brought it up earlier. Why do you think I started the thread? Hot debate. Toss a little gasoline on the fire. And watch you smoke. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:10 PM So your criterion is that if someone gets PAID for singing, they aren't folk? I believe Jean Ritchie has been paid for singing concerts. I know that Lightnin' Hopkins, Mississippi John Hurt, and Mance Lipscomb have all been paid for doing concerts. Almeda Riddle has been paid. So was Elizabeth Cotton. Enlighten us, oh, wise one! Don Firth P. S. Do you even know of the singers I mentioned? |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:21 PM I know Elizabeth, Lightnin, Mance. You made the distinction about commercial music. Not me. Hank had more Folk in him than Peter Paul and Mary could dream of. And they were put together by a record producer to make a buck. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:29 PM So big deal! Nobody here claimed that they are "folk singers." "Singers of folk songs," yes, for the simple reason that they sing a lot of folk songs. I have never claimed to be a "folk singer." You're wasting a helluva lot of bandwidth just to feed your sick ego, Krinkle! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:33 PM If Son House wanted to call us monkeys. and Jim Carrol wants to call us passive recptors, and its generally agreed by everyone who knows anything that we know nowt - sod 'em. Just enjoy what you can, you're a folk - if your music doesn't qualify for the little lion on the eggshell - so bloody what. The blokes who taught Joe Heaney and Son House didn't get the approval of anyone either. Its their vitality -that they donated freely that carried the music forward, and that's what you've got over all those buggers who are dead - and its that, that the music depends on. Folk music - not a historical fact in a library - the birthright and practice of living musicians. They decide what is folk music - it not given to experts to arbitrate - its something arrived at by you and me, and all the other monkeys and dupes and generally worthless types. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:40 PM It's about having fun with music. Not being a narrow minded grumpy old fart. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:42 PM Right Al. Up to your personal interpretation. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,pubkfolkrocker Date: 23 Aug 12 - 08:51 PM Shame, I expected a mod would swiftly delete 'that' nasty self damning post from Krinkle. He provided himself with enough rope and he decisively hung himself. Please reinstate it. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:05 PM Why are posts deleted? Paid advertisers might go elsewhere? Why can I be cursed and insulted? Why can't I curse and insult back? If you can't take it, don't dish it out. (:-( P)= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:09 PM And do please reinstate my deleted posts. Please. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:13 PM And just who here is being the "narrow minded grumpy old fart?" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:26 PM Son House? (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:30 PM But I really do think alot of you just like to play dress up. Put on a cutesy costume and act like somebody else. (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:40 PM Wot the hell are you talking about, Krinkle? I don't wear costumes. I dress like a normal human being, go out in front of the audience, and I sing. Then I pick up my check and go home. THAT'S what's griping your ass, isn't it!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:55 PM I didn't mean literal costumes. I meant when you play songs that aren't part of your culture, you're putting on a costume. Your culture is likely nothing to sing about. I have more interesting things to sing about in my real life. I just need to put words to them. I gotta get organizized..... (:-( ))= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 09:58 PM Yes, yom most certainly do. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 23 Aug 12 - 10:14 PM You talkin' to me? I don't see anybody else here. You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? (:-( 0)= |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Aug 12 - 10:26 PM And just who here is being the "narrow minded grumpy old fart?" That would be me. Best rock song ever happened is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ul-cZyuYq4 unless you like Gene Vincent, or Dave Edmunds, two of the best R and R'ers ever. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,effsee,sans cookie Date: 23 Aug 12 - 10:37 PM Why is everbody feeding this Troll? |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Aug 12 - 10:51 PM Because music is better than bullshit. Yoo, myy man, here it be-> |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Aug 12 - 11:07 PM And that my friend is pretty much what I have to say. Except this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrURe9s572I . |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 Aug 12 - 11:11 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrURe9s572I Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Aug 12 - 11:56 PM "Why is everbody feeding this Troll?" Well, it's a slow evening on television. And my momma always told me to be kind to dumb animals. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 24 Aug 12 - 03:14 AM Why is everybody getting so excited? It's only a difference of opinion. Henry's actually quite consistent in raving about the "folk' aspects of Kitty Wells and Hank Williams as they did sing what they know. Myself, I kind of liked Peter, Paul, and Mary too. But hey! They're just singers. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: theleveller Date: 24 Aug 12 - 03:44 AM This really is the funniest thread I've read on Mudcat since the Re-Imagined Village. I just wonder what anyone new to the folk (for want of a better word) scene would make of it. "its generally agreed by everyone who knows anything that we know nowt - sod 'em. Just enjoy what you can, you're a folk - if your music doesn't qualify for the little lion on the eggshell - so bloody what." Ah, some sense at last. I think Big Al should be made President of the EFDSS - or at least its Public Relations Officer. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Aug 12 - 03:47 AM Quite simple. treat Walter Pardon..... as if they were normal human beings with valid opinions Which is exactly what was done - not to the extent I would have wanted, as I have said elsewhere, but the definition was based on information received from such people. That was the type of information we gathered and have made available through archiving and giving access to our collection. The shortcomings of the early collectors in not fully seeking such information has made it necessary to update the prsent definition, but until that is done, we're stuck with the one we have - which, as I've said, worked for us for long enough. "Jim Carrol wants to call us passive recptors" Isn't that what we have become Al, or have agricultural labourers, miners (whoops, sorry, Maggie did away with them), soldiers, seamen et al continued to make songs that reflect their lives occupations and aspirations? We saw what I believe to be the last thriving songmaking tradition in these islands die before our eyes when Travellers stopped making songs and went to Comet and brought home portable television sets - the death throes lasted 18 months, between 1973 and 1975. There are signs within the Travelling communities (certainly in Ireland and Scotland) of a revival, but that's all it is. Whether it becomes big enough to stimulate a return to what was happening in the early 70s rmains to be seen - it didn't happen in the settled communities. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it Really Folk Music??? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 24 Aug 12 - 04:07 AM See? Don can call me a dumb animal. And it stands. If I call him a washed up old has been it gets deleted. I like Peter Paul and Mary. But it was a contrived act put together by Albert Grossman.Commercial to the core. Like The New Kids on the Block. It wasn't folk. It was fantasy. Putting on a costume and playing make believe. (:-( P)= |
| Share Thread: |