What makes a new song a folk song?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:11 PM

Guest is completely wrong. Any new song can become a folk song when it passes the tests so well encapsulated in the 1954 definition. There are a number of areas where the definition could be tweaked.

"Folk Song" cannot be defined merely by style for the simple reason that then the folk music of one country would not be folk music in another - simply because the styles of the countries differ.

Bounty Hound misreads the 1954 definition. The reference to evolution qualifies the song not the tradition.

The areas where (I feel) the 1954 definition could be tweaked are as follows.

First "community" could be clarified. It need not be geographical.

Second maybe "oral" should be "aural" - to cover those of us who learn songs by ear from the internet. Maybe even that is too narrow and learning from writings and recordings generally should be acceptable (so long as the other parameters are met).

Third, it seems to me that "unwritten" could be dropped.

It may be worth noting that the definition does not require that an individual composer should be unknown.


Thus, for example, the myriad variations of "Ride On" would make it now eligible to be a folk song.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:32 PM

Round number? I meant, of course, Roud number.

Does Ride On have one yet I wonder? Surely only a matter of time... Nice to see it has a Bridge number anyway.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:37 PM

I just pulled up a thread that contained a statement of the "1954 definition." Frankly, I don't find much of anything to squawk about. It seems pretty comprehensive to me.

Above, I drew the parallel between a folk song and a piece of antique furniture. The genuine antique has a provenance—a history of previous ownership and usage. I think the parallel holds. A newly manufactured artifact is NOT an antique in spite of any claims made in its behalf.

The only people who get "hurt" by this definition are those who wish to claim a status and authenticity for a song they have written which has not yet earned it. Only time and other people learning it and singing it will do that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: mg
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:43 PM

But I don't think anyone is trying to pass something off as antique. Songs like clear away in the morning, the dutchman etc. are not antique but they are known around the world. What is Darcy Farrow? The average folk does not know how old or new the songs she sings area...perhaps we should call a song antique if it is...or maybe call them popular songs in a traditional style.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Elmore
Date: 27 Aug 14 - 10:10 PM

What is Darcy Farrow? A Faux song.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: GUEST,ripov
Date: 27 Aug 14 - 10:38 PM

In view of the part of the anatomy which rests on a chair, antique or not, could one posit an 'anal' tradition here, as well as in folk music - oh sorry, that was 'aural', wasn't it?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bert
Date: 27 Aug 14 - 10:48 PM

Bounty Hound, it is a long way from new to antiquity.

As for which songs are old enough to be folk, I wouldn't know. But there are many songs that are old enough to be 'not new' which are still not folk songs and are not yet antique.

If a song was written yesterday it would not have had time to be distributed enough to be accepted as folk.

Unfortunately most songwriters are not widely enough known for their songs to enter the tradition; however good and folky their songs might be.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:29 AM

"'Darcy Farrow'" is a song written by Steve Gillette and Tom Campbell, and first recorded in 1965 by Ian & Sylvia on their album, 'Early Morning Rain.' Gillette released his first recording of it in 1967 on his self-titled album, 'Steve Gillette.'

"The song has been covered by more than 300 artists, including, most notably, John Denver, who recorded it three times and made it famous. [Many people assume that Denver wrote it. --DF]

"The song was written in 1964, inspired by something that happened to Gillette's little sister, Darcy, when she was 12. She was running behind her horse chasing it into the corral when she was kicked. She broke her cheekbone but had no lasting ill effects. Campbell took a melody that Gillette had written and came up with a story about two young lovers and a tragic fall. The place names are actual places around the region of the high valleys and the Walker River in Nevada, where Tom lived when he was eight or nine years old."

—condensed from an article in Wikipedia.

Don Firth

P. S. Is it a folk song? Looks like it might be on its way. Time and usage will tell.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:26 AM

"Time and usage will tell."
Time, usage and general acceptance as belonging to everybody sounds good to me.
I've never been sure of how copyrighting a song helps that process.
Right up to the 1980s Travellers in England were still making songs about their lives, if you pushed hard enough, you might just be able to find out who made it, it didn't seem particularly important to them who it was.
When you came across it later you would be told "that's a Traveller song" - a sign it had begun to take root.
It had nothing to do with style or subject, just how it was perceived by the people it involved.
The same applied to the hundreds of songs which were made in this part of rural Ireland, certainly throughout the period up to the mid 1950s.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:29 AM

Sorry - that should read "Irish Travellers" in England, they were the people we were recording information from.
I'm pretty sure that the same was happening with Scots Travellers, but I can't speak with any experience on that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:51 AM

Thirty odd years ago, Dave Burland got up to sing in a folk club that rather pompously declared itself a "folk only" club. I had earlier sung one of my own songs and got a glare from the MC.

Dave sang "I don't like Mondays" written by Bob Geldof of course for his band The Boomtown Rats and recently been in the charts back then.

He introduced it as a living folk song. Gave the provenance in his intro, all the rest of it.

It's been my interpretation ever since.

Any chance of giving it a Bridge number?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:22 AM

Airymouse:

The 1954 definition doesn't allow for new songs to enter the folk music lexicon. It condemns the art form to a slow death.

The first sentence isn't really true, although I'd admit it makes it difficult. But even if it was true, why would the second one follow? I've sung about 100 traditional folk songs and would probably recognise about 100 more, and that's scratching the surface of a drop in a bucket - there's loads of stuff out there, enough to keep anyone going for a lifetime. Is the music of Bach condemned to a slow death? (Must be very slow if so - there haven't been any new examples since 1750.)

Bert:

I find that the 1954 definition is somewhat over restrictive; I sing many songs which I introduce as folk songs which don't fit that definition.

In that case the question is what you'd lose by not referring to thos songs as folk songs. (Just as a thought experiment, not a practical suggestion.) I think an awful lot of the confusion around the 'folk' label is sustained by people thinking 'folk is good, what I sing is good, therefore what I sing is folk'. I take the view that when I sing a Child ballad I'm singing a folksong, when I sing the Ballad of Accounting I'm not.

Musket (and others):

If absolutely any song you care to mention can be called a folk song, what's the point of using the word 'folk'? The only advantages that I can see it gives you are (a) being able to tell yourself you're just as 100%-folkie as you ever were and (b) being able to sneak new songs into traddie venues. And - with all due respect to Dave Burland - why would you want to do either of those things?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:17 AM

Because it is a genre, not a discipline.

The folk clubs are all but dead and buried in The UK. Of those left, the average age is rising with the calendar. We have lots of people with guitars and books propped up at the side of them singing Fields of Athenry" and Bob Dylan songs from three chord song books yet call themselves folk clubs.

Show me where I can share the provenance of a Child ballad, note the historical context of the circumstances that the song arose from and get genuine interest for hearing how and why I apply a particular musical style, that cadences were evolving at the time due to the influence of Bach in church music, allowing a freedom of expression in ballad tunes....

See ? Half the buggers are in the bar already.

Folk is an excellent collection hobby. Live music is related but only by marriage. If you want pub acoustic nights to stop calling themselves folk, good luck. If you want lots if people to listen earnestly whilst a retired teacher from Harpenden gives a ten minute lecture on highland crofting before sticking his finger in his ear and clearing the room, good luck.

Folk as a term sits with the term evolution. If your "folk" collection is on iTunes, have a look and giggle at the myriad genres it suggests. An album of A L Lloyd, McColl, Fred Jordan etc on my system seems to be country and western.

Tell you what though. Folklorigists in two hundred years searching my hard drive might defend it to the death.

That's folk....

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:06 AM

I'm going to disagree with you Richard, the song (or tune) is the 'product'

It is the 'musical tradition' that has evolved.

'Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission.'

On that basis, I'm very comfortable with any new song or tune that pays due respect to that musical tradition being described as 'folk'

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: GUEST,ST
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:12 AM

"Show me where I can share the provenance of a Child ballad, note the historical context of the circumstances that the song arose from and get genuine interest for hearing how and why I apply a particular musical style, that cadences were evolving at the time due to the influence of Bach in church music, allowing a freedom of expression in ballad tunes...." "If you want lots if people to listen earnestly whilst a retired teacher from Harpenden gives a ten minute lecture on highland crofting before sticking his finger in his ear and clearing the room, good luck." Why are these two (similar) examples in separate paragraphs?

Is either quoted as an example of a "Folk club"? If so in what way do they reflect the process by which songs originally found their way into what became known as the folk repertoire? Is this what the Coppers were doing all the time, or Sam Larner?

"If you want pub acoustic nights to stop calling themselves folk, good luck." Are you suggesting that the gatherings of 20+ singers down the pub every couple of weeks singing choruses, Child ballads and songs Baring-Gould tried to rewrite should not be considered "folk": nor the monthly session in the bar playing mainly Irish tunes, or the monthly music session led by third generation (at least) instrumentalists playing local English tunes? (OK – perhaps those aren't the acoustic nights you meant.)

True, I'd happily go to the "Child ballad" venue myself whereas I won't go near anything that says "open mic" but I'd not like to claim one was folk and the other wasn't.

Back to the OP – when songs are written they're not folk songs, they're just songs. If they get processed they may evolve into folk songs. So you can have a new folk song but it will already be an old song and it's impossible to detect a precise point at which it became "folk". The thing with evolution is that you usually can't detect it until after it's happened and there's no precise point during the process that you can identify as the only point – you can't predict during the process what it's becoming (you can just identify variation), you can only tell after the process what it has become.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 07:55 AM

Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission.'

The problem here is that this applies to all musical idioms and defines the nature of human music making these past 50,000 years or so, which is the only unbroken tradition that matters: the music we make might be new, but its components are as old as time.

Understanding the various aspects of Folk Song & Ballad in terms of Musicological Idiom is the only thing that makes sense. That a lot of (but not all) old songs have multiple variations is only to be expected given the organic variance of universal process (which begins, or begins again, with The Big Bang) in which the inevitability of entropy is the necessity that mothers invention and renewal. The fact that those variants are just part of that process is something often overlooked by those looking for absolutes; pre-revival, nothing would have been sung the same way twice. To understand its true nature we'd need a crack team of time-travelling musicologists to record every single utterance of any given song from its initial composition and follow it along its various deltas until the point when it died. A mighty river of song indeed.   

All musical idioms are evolving, giving rise to new idioms, every single one of which can trace its lineage back to what went before it. As a description of Music, therefore, the 1954 Definition does quite nicely as a truism, but saying it's unique to Folk Music is akin to citing the Horse Definition, which is, one level, perfectly true - all music, on those terms, must be Folk Music, because all music is made by Folks. The term Traditional Music is a tautology; all music is traditional, just as all human beings are folks, and all human music making is part / parcel of what defines our very humanity. This is NOT the same as saying all music is Folk Music - heaven forfend. All music is NOT Folk Music because Folk Music is an idiom defined by a century or more of mealy-mouthed, upper-middle-class revivalism; it does not get any more mealy-mouthed than the 1954 Definition.

Popular Music is the better term, of which the various idioms accepted as being Folk are a sort of anachronistic sub-species lovingly maintained by cranky enthusiasts in the randomly curated cultural equivalent of the archives of the Pitt-Rivers Museum where everything is a matter of taxidermy and taxonomy lifted / abandoned from / by their initial living context. Meanwhile, the Real Living Traditions of Popular Music continue the path of evolutionary process that left idiomatic Folk Music behind centuries ago thus making it the ideal plaything for those of an antiquarian bent to fuss over to their hearts content.

The Devil is, as ever, in the details. Break it down far enough and nothing can ever be repeated the same way twice. This is the way of the Tao, the entropy of nature against which we're in constant battle but which will, one day, ensure that nothing remains of anything except on some quantum level that beggars simple belief anyway. Meanwhile, human genius keeps the whole think ticking over just nicely and those of us with an occasional passion for singing The Old Songs over a quiet pint or three down at The Fool and Bladder are in pretty good company I'd say, which is the whole point ultimately.

Folk : one tiny unchanging pixel of a very big evolving picture.

Now, back to Coventry.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:01 AM

The problem, which has been debated endlessly in similar discussions and no doubt will be debated in countless future ones, is that "folk" is used both in a technical sense to describe how a musical tradition evolves (let's call it Type A Folk aka 1954 Folk), and as a description of a style of performance (Type B Folk). This leads to endless argument between people who think that their interpretation is the only valid one. They are of course both valid meanings, but the context in which they are being used needs to be recognised. I prefer to describe Type A as "traditional" and Type B as "folk" but even this causes disagreement.

A newly-composed song might be Type B folk because of the nature of its performance. In time it may become Type A, not because age itself is a characteristic of Type A but because time must elapse for it to take on the characteristics of Type A. I think this has become more difficult, not because of the 1954 Definition but because technology means that people will more easily refer back to either the original or a definitive version as a benchmark and this makes it harder for other versions to evolve. More difficult, but not impossible.

A Type A song might not be performed in a "folk" style (think folk-rock) but remains "folk" because of its Type A characteristics.

There is further confusion between folk as it is understood in the UK and in the US/Canada where, as in so many other matters, there are cultural differences as well as similarities.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:25 AM

If a song was written yesterday it would not have had time to be distributed enough to be accepted as folk

There is an anecdote in one of the Opies' books on children's songs about a little ditty from the abdication of Edward VIII.

Hark the herald angels sing
Wallis Simpson's stole our King

It was first spotted in London a few days after the abdication. Without ever having any media exposure, it got to Barra in the Western Isles of Scotland within three weeks.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: BobKnight
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:35 AM

I write songs in traditional folk style. Does that make them "folk" songs? Duh - I dunno.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:22 AM

"I write songs in traditional folk style. Does that make them "folk"
You can't write folk songs any more than you can write hit songs - it's not your decision to make.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:03 AM

Howard,
I like your somewhat simplistic but useful description. It summarises things very neatly.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:17 AM

"Yes" in the stylistic sense, "no" (or "not yet") in the tradition sense

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:56 AM

All it takes is for someone to call it that. THere are, perhaps, a dozen different definitions of "folk song", each valid in its own way. And, speaking as one who was active in the field in 1954, there was NO generally accepted single definition.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:21 PM

Ah but Jim. he can write a song and say it is a hit but it might not be. He can call it a folk song and it is, on the basis of him saying it is alone. Nobody owns the genre, and this thread amongst others proves why.

It is a broad church.. A c17 ballad of someone having lover's balls for the wife of someone else is close to many "pop" songs whilst a song written two weeks ago by me giving an account of the division in society at this particular time is folk. By one definition. By another, it may well be the other way round.

Reminds me of the conductor Sir Thomas Beecham saying the English don't appreciate music, but they love the noise it makes.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:46 PM

He can call it a folk song and it is

Can I write a song on my ukulele and call it heavy metal or jazz-funk? Can I write a tune on my whistle & call it a baroque concerto?

Most forms of music have enthusiasts who are rather keen to stop anyone borrowing the label just because they feel like it. It only seems to be folk where the looters have taken over the shop.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:31 PM

Of course you can. Not sure you will fill The Albert Hall with your concerts mind... I was in a punk band in the late '70s and acoustic versions of some of my songs went down a treat in local folk clubs whilst one punk band I was in did a few up tempo jigs and reels as our encore (and were well known for it.)

Looters haven't taken over anything. If an old bloke with his finger in his ear is the same genre as Seth Lakeman then fine. Anything goes.

If some people want to call something from 1954 definitive, then folk music will die when the last fair isle sweater is stripped from the corpse. If the principle of being fascinated with and loving the abstract of music to give an identification to history is to be cherished, then loosen up.

At a guesstimate, I'd say less than 5% of those "involved" in UK folk have even heard of the ubiquitous 1954 definition and of those, most of us see it as a historical document in the evolution of our hobby.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:05 PM

"You can't write folk songs any more than you can write hit songs - it's not your decision to make."   
--Jim Carroll.

Right on!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Ernest
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:16 PM

Musket et al.,

it is not about "ownership" of the genre, but about the definition. You may well argue about the 1954 definition but you`ll have to concede that it at least tries to find a kind of objective criteria whereas the "everything-is-folk-that-I-like-to-call-it"-criteria is purely subjective.

Also, if every music is folk-music you might as well drop the "folk"-part completely.

As far as I see it if the way we still discuss a definition made in 1954 it must have some value, if no one came up with something better in 60 years.

Last but not least: The "everything-can-be-folk"-definition comes closer to the needs of the music industry than to those of a more scientific approach.

Considering that a majority of folkies considers themselves leaning to the left I find it quite amazing how easily they answer to the wishes of the industry... ;0)

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:12 PM

It did try to put a value but be buggered to dissecting a live fluffy bunny to see how it works. Music is relief from the world around you, not a process of achieving your aims.

By the way, leaning to the left is nothing to do with folk. I note The British National Party claim to sing "John Barleycorn" at their rallies. You may as well note that male folk singers wear sandals and sport beards and that female folk singers eat brown rice.

At a "folk club" the other night with around eight singers on, I noted that the Taylors, Lowdens, Martins and hand made guitars meant at the very least £15k of firewood in the room. Music of the people indeed...

You know, in saying what folk is, you disenfranchise a hell of a lot of bloody good folk music with your pompous pronouncements.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:54 PM

Jim Carrol, the history of popular music is littered with examples of songs manufactured to be a 'hit' so I'm afraid that argument does not hold water! And of course you can write a 'folk' song or tune. If a piece of music is written paying respect to the tradition of the country of it's origin, then that is the folk music of that country as it maintains and develops that tradition.

The point above about instruments is also valid, few of the instruments used to accompany folk are native to the British Isles, so if we are not precious about the instruments, how can we be precious about the songs? The late Tim Hart made the point defending critics of Steeleye a few years back, that at the time the songs were first written they would have been sung either unaccompanied or accompanied by whatever happened to be available at the time, and in using electric instruments, steeleye were merely doing the same.

So the only difference is that we have traditional and modern folk songs and tunes, someone wrote the traditional songs in the first place, and the most important thing is to maintain the tradition, and new songs and tunes is how it evolves!

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:47 PM

if we are not precious about the instruments, how can we be precious about the songs?

What have instruments got to do with anything? The words and the tune are the same whatever you accompany them with.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 07:16 PM

Isn't that what I just said Phil?

The point I was making is that we can't say there is no such thing as a new folk song, but the only songs that qualify as folk are those that have aquired that status by virtue of age, and then accompany them with instrumemts that have little to do with the traditon the song comes from.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bert
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:41 PM

...it must have some value, if no one came up with something better in 60 years...

Well that is not strictly the case. The thing is that the 1954 definition is only accepted by a few adherents. It is either unknown or completely ignored by most of the singing and dancing world.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:02 AM

The tune is never the same on my banjo. Be nice for it to stay in ^#}!!! tune for the duration of one song....

Reading some of the posts here, the authentic side of things preclude most instruments after crumhorns, lutes, clavichords and banging a rock with a stick.

For most of the exciting young folk acts I see and buy their albums, Moog synthesisers are "before my time" historical instruments.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:59 AM

"Well that is not strictly the case. The thing is that the 1954 definition is only accepted by a few adherents."
No it isn't - it has been the basis for all study since its inception and it has never been replaced by anything resembling a comprehensive definition.
Originally, it was conceived from half a centuries work that had taken place beforehand.
"Jim Carrol(l), the history of popular music is littered with examples of songs manufactured to be a 'hit'"
The idea of "manufacturing songs to be a 'hit'" is a relatively new one - most of our folk songs are centuries old.
"Hits" are deliberately churned out in view to them having a shelf life, and being replaced when they have served their purpose of expanding the bank accounts of the industry which markets them - they are products rather than than expressions of opinion and emotion that went in to the making of our folksongs.
Different beasts altogether.
"Ah but Jim. he can write a song and say it is a hit but it might not be."
Then he is wrong in calling it a "hit", just as he would have been wrong in calling it a folk song - far too early to tell in both cases.
Can I make a point here before this revert into the old "old bloke with his finger in his ear" slanging match.
As a singer and a listener, it doesn't matter in the slightest what I call the songs I sing or listen to - I either enjoy them or not according to my personal taste (fairly wide ranging in my case).
As I club organiser I believe I take on the responsibility of presenting what it says on the label so the punter knows what is on offer - matter of personal conscience, I suppose.
When I am writing or talking about folk songs have to be specific what I mean.
As well as their entertainment value, folk songs carry a huge amount of unique social, cultural and historical baggage not included in any other form of artistic expression.
A year ago we walked into our County Library office and asked if they would be interested in putting the four to five hundred songs we have collected in this small corner of County Clare, the idea being that they would take them and immediately put them up.
A year later, they are still not quite ready (October is now the aim).
The Library have had two members of staff working on the project for a year and we have spent a good deal of that period annotating and cross-referencing them.
For us, it has been a massive learning curve in discovering the part that these songs played in the lives of those who made and sang them.
We have been made aware of a whole new genre of songs, over 100 local compositions made on local events, some which have survived, many more that didn't, but simply died when the events were forgotten - all in the surrounding area of a fairly isolated one-street town in the West of Ireland.
We have been lucky enough to find a local man, 90 odd years of age, once a fine singer with a magnificent repertoire but now claiming he is "too old to sing any more".
He is still happy to "give it a go" but, more importantly, he is happy to talk about the songs, their importance to him and his neighbours ad what feels makes good singing and good songs - a far stretch from the "free as birdsong" approach that many people apply to folksong.
In the past, we were lucky enough to meet up with someone who was part of the last knockings of the broadside industry in Ireland ("the ballads, as they are known here) and was more than happy to describe the process of putting them into print and selling them around the fairs and markets in rural Kerry.
All this is a big subject and, in order to make any sense of it, we need a fairly specific definition to work to - not the case if we had stuck to being singers, as originally intended a couple of lifetimes ago.
Pat and I both came into this via the Folk Clubs, sadly, the last place I would direct anybody with a genuine interest in folk song nowadays is a folk club - too many personal agendas and far too many axes to grind - sadly.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:36 AM

Once again, it comes down the same dichtomy found in Jazz, Trad and Progressive. The idea folk is American I find hilarious, but occasionally offensive: America has its heritage in Europe, mostly in the UK. Every area has its own specialities, sure, but do cowboy songs belong in Folk or C&W?
That Mumford are called Folk is a matter of costume, not custom. That BD is called folk was a mistake of the 1960s, thankfully rectified in the 1990s: how glad I was on returning to the UK after many years overseas to discover the midAtlantic adenoidal with a guitar has nearly disappeared!
Another of the old questions is one of origins. We sing from who we are, and that includes who our family are. It means nobody in the UK is likely to sing cowboy balleds, for example: perhaps gymkhana ones...
At the same time, some traditions are specific, such that particular songs in some areas (Essex, for example) can "belong" to a particular singer to the point nobody else sings them.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:38 AM

Can't stop now. Off to write a folk song..

In the wonderful words of Alexi Sayle;

"Oh, I am a computer programmer
I come from Milton Keynes"

I can't recall the rest of the verse but it ends with. "haricot beans." If we make up a few bits each in our own style to end it, Alexi will be the genesis of a true folk song.

Alternatively, anything accompanied with an acoustic guitar will do these days.



(To say it isn't folk according to some, the likes of Mumford &Son are doing quite nicely thank you out of what millions of people recognise as folk... We lemmings can't all fe wrong eh?)

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 05:12 AM

Ok, let's approach this from a slightly different angle.

Was the late Peter Bellamy a folk singer? Now I'm assuming that I get a rounding chorus of 'yes of course' from the assembled company.

So there you are, a few years ago, watching Peter perform, first he sings 'Georgie' (Child ballad, so no problem there then) then 'Fakenham Fair' (origin unknown, but thought by many to be a fairly recent song in the grand scale of things) then he sings 'The way beneath the ground' (his own song about a local legend)

So we're all agreed we are watching a 'folk singer' performing, and all the songs are performed in Peter's own inimitable style.

Which one is the 'folk' song??

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 05:49 AM

The late Tim Hart made the point defending critics of Steeleye a few years back, that at the time the songs were first written they would have been sung either unaccompanied or accompanied by whatever happened to be available at the time, and in using electric instruments, steeleye were merely doing the same.

It is worth remembering that when Cecil Sharp first heard morris accompanied by a concertina it was a relatively new instrument: not that very different in age from the electric guitar now.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:47 AM

Dunno where Rahere goes listening to folk in pubs but cowboy songs by retired teachers with books as aids are all the rage in The UK.

Mumford play folk. Full stop. It says so on the iTunes

There again, I'm heretic enough to call McColl's radio ballads folk.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 08:01 AM

Musket
cowboy songs by retired teachers with books as aids are all the rage in The UK

You really do need to get out more.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 08:21 AM

Ah, but Progressive Folk should still respect Trad.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:39 AM

Please, please, go back and read Howard's point on the 28th 08:01 a.m.

To take this a little further (at the risk of endless repetition on other threads) English is a remarkably elastic language constantly evolving.

Many many words in the dictionary have multiple definitions/meanings.

Surely 'folk' as a word has evolved into multiple definitions in different contexts. You are banging your head against a brick wall if you can't accept that for 'THE FOLK' the word 'folk' has a much wider meaning than what 1954 said.

As a researcher and writer I mostly use the 1954 definition, but then I'm not writing for the man in the street!

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:03 AM

"Surely 'folk' as a word has evolved into multiple definitions in different contexts"
How does this help our determining what we mean by folk song Steve?
The sad fact is that we have woefully failed to attract anything resembling a wide following for our music means that the definitions that exist outside the 'folkie greenhouse' are the ones documented and fairly clearly defined.
Abandoning those definitions on behalf of self-interest and ignorance on the basis of what happens in a dwindling number of clubs does nothing to draw in anybody - on the contrary, it adds to the confusion and ignorance.
You're not happy with '54 - fine - give us an alternative we can toss around and see if it fits.   
What you are proposing is moving away from a definition very much in need of repair into an 'anything goes' situation.
Doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:28 AM

Perhaps Jim, as one who thinks there can be no such thing as new or recent 'folk' song, you might like to answer my question above, as no one else has, posted 29 Aug 14 - 05:12 AM

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:52 AM

"as one who thinks there can be no such thing as new or recent 'folk' song"!
Never said any such thing - I've recorded recent folk songs from communities that still have a living tradition
Britain doesn't any longer, neither does Ireland - the process of communities making and re-processing songs disappeared when we became passive recipients of our culture.
Don't really see what you are saying about Peter Bellamy.
He certainly was a singer of folk songs, the few songs he made himself weren't folk songs and I wasn't aware he ever claimed them to be.
Have got no problem with the idea of 'folk singers' - its the pedigree of the songs they sing that concern me (that is not a value judgement, just a attempt to create a common ground on which to discuss them).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:03 PM

Wouldn't say the UK hasn't, try Northumberland and, strangely, Essex, just about. But if you're right, what has CSH been doing?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:17 PM

It's all folk and has folk all to do with personal opinions. The genre has no definitive body, and I write folk songs.

Snail, if I got out more, I'd eventually slip on your slime trail. I'd say that getting PRS income for writing folk songs for almost forty years isn't exactly reclusive, especially as I perform the buggers at least two or three times a week eh? (At folk concerts, clubs and festivals...)

Yeah OK. One or two would be classed as rock or punk by any half intelligent person, but genre is and remains a personal term.

It'd be strange to say I don't play folk. It'd be strange to say Peter Bellamy was only a folk act when playing traditional stuff. It'd be even stranger to say Shoals of Herring isn't a folk song....

What makes a new song a folk song? Being enjoyed by people who consider it folk of course.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:40 PM

"CSH been doing?"
If you mean Cecil Sharp House - what indeed?
Adding to the confusion of late in my opinion.
Northumberland ?
"The genre has no definitive body, and I write folk songs."
Yes it does Muskie - the fact that you don't accept that definition doesn't alter that fact one iota.
Folk song is probably one of the most researched and documented song-forms in existence - wanna list of books?
One of the great myths surrounding the subject is that the people who sang them and almost certainly made them didn't differentiate between them and other types of songs - they most certainly did and probably always have done, if anybody had ever bothered to ask them.
If you write folk songs, they are, by law, in the public domain - I take it you have no objection to my putting them out or publishing them - if you would be good enough to send me them....?
(Waits for loud bang!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:49 PM

'How does this help our determining what we mean by folk song Steve?'

Who exactly do you have in mind when you say 'we' in this context?

'You're not happy with '54'.
You didn't read my post, Jim. I'm fine with '54'. I'm also aware that millions more people than my few acqaintances and fellow researchers have a different concept of what 'folk' is. The dictionary compilers usually try to follow all of these usages.