Folklore: Has the folk Process died?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:01 PM

Yebbut can the folk process involve computers and writing things down...?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:05 AM

Steve, only if you are dyslexic

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:38 AM

We did clog dancing. NW type.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:39 AM

Well, they danced; we played.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:44 AM

and we got the dances out of books, so not folk process. And I think we were all pretty middle class, middle class lefties mostly with one or two I'm not sure about with hindsight may even have been Tories on the qt.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:58 AM

The oral transmission of stories maintains integrity, the aural transmission of "ethnic music and song" reputedly must mutate like a flu virus as it transmits from host to host.
In reality the latter must be happenstance and not a compulsory process
So perhaps the folk process, as defined, is simply incorrect and causing much unnecessary conflict?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:01 AM

species to species, not host to host

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:31 AM

For some reason, I'm hearing potential chimes with Fukuyama's claims about the end of history?

Not sure whether Iain's is suggesting that the definition is wrong, or that the 'folk process' is wrong.

I'll maybe have to interpret this in line with my knowledge of Iain's politics, one of my 'things' being looking for underlying bias in discussions of folk. And they appear to be of a sort with which , have to say, with respect, I find myself in no sympathy whatsoever.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:48 AM

As I said above, I don't think oral transmission of stories neccesarily maintains integrity. I find the mututation of song and music more convincing as an observation of something that often happens than as a requirement. If one's interest is in 'the folk process' it seems reasonable to set aside songs for which it demonstrably has not happened.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:54 AM

I am suggesting that the insistence that a song must undergo some kind of transition by the people before it can be accepted as legitimate folk
is erroneous. It may happen, equally it may not. If the process may or may not occur it would seem rather silly to insist that it is an integral part of the folk process. That argument is valid regardless of political affiliation.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 06:06 AM

If one accepts that a song written by one of the folk can be a folk song even if it is handed on without change then it opens up another bag of worms. Who are the folk?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 06:11 AM

Who are the folk?
The unattributed their names lost in the mists of time. If we did know their names would it still be traditional folk?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 06:29 AM

https://www.terriwindling.com/blog/2019/08/the-child-ballads.html

According to Child the folk process died years ago
"Child was a textual scholar rather than a field collector, and he put his massive ballad compilation together by seeking out every manuscript copy of ballad material he could lay his hands on, with the help of a small army of fellow scholars searching out songs and fragments of songs throughout the British Isles. Another reason he depended on manuscripts rather than the memories of folk musicians was that the British popular ballad, in his view, was no longer a living tradition. The ballads he sought were the ancient ones -- not the “broadside ballads” that dominated the nineteenth-century folk musician’s repertoire. Broadsheet ballads were authored song lyrics designed to fit traditional tunes, cheaply printed and sold for pennies on street corners from the sixteenth century onward. These were contemporary compositions, rather than ancient poetry from the oral tradition -- though sometimes broadside ballads mimicked the language of much older songs, and determining which was which was a problem Professor Child was both intrigued and vexed by.

His view is not one that I share. It almost comes down to the following argument: We ain't got a clue who the author is therefore it must be genuine folk rather than plastic manufactured folk
My view is simplistic: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
then a duck it surely is. If you want to argue whether it is a muscovy duck or a khaki campbell duck, or a Welsh harlequin duck that is a choice for you. .

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 07:13 AM

Tunes (both instrumentals and the airs to songs) get processed a lot more than texts, and the processing usually passes unremarked. Hamish Imlach came up with his tune for "Black Is the Colour" when (probably in a drunken stupor) he couldn't remember the John Jacob Niles one properly. Most people in Scotland now sing it his way: it's a great improvement. And they also don't realize it's different from the original.

Then there's accidental plagiarism. Gordon Duncan coming up with "The Sleeping Tune" on waking up from a drunken coma at Lorient after hearing the "Kerfank 1871" an-dro the day before; Dick Gaughan composing his tune for "Both Sides the Tweed" by a subconscious shift of mode and tempo from "Rosin the Bow"; Phil Cunningham turning "She Was Poor But She Was Honest" into "Sarah's Waltz" by some associational process Sarah would probably prefer we didn't think about.

And virtually any instrumental dance tune is fair game for mutation. It's unlikely that any professional will take up an amateur-generated version as their own, but they'll always do the same sort of recomposition.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Kenny B(Inactive)
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 08:01 AM

Jack is this the sort of thing you mean
BTW my uilleann contact formerly a member of the Battlefield Band doesn't remember piper w Jig Doll in Glasgow ill keep asking

Female Drummer

Yelows on the Broom

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 08:04 AM

RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died? - No but it has changed**.

In the 1980s, at a regular Folk Club, I used to tell lightbulb jokes. They thought I was getting cheap laughs. As if!

But after about 6 months I revealed (in print) that I had been demonstrating Folklore to a bunch of Folkies. To this day, I am not sure they all got it.

I guess it might work better now fashion has moved on.

So is it fashion or folklore in the modern idiom, and after a time (please specify) is there a difference anyway?

**that's the Folk Process for you!

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 08:15 AM

Adam McNaughtan is a very self-aware scholar and I doubt he used that tune for "Yellow on the Broom" without knowing exactly where it came from. A better example of an instinctive tune sponge would be Matt McGinn, who hardly ever used a traditional tune without changing it in some way - his compositional process seems to have been much like that of a football-terrace bard.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 08:24 AM

> If we did know their names would it still be traditional folk?

As somebody once said (more or less) long ago, "A peasant-made pot is still a peasant pot, even if we know the name of the peasant."

Let's not fall into the fallacy of defining things by their origin (in folk studies, usually presumed origins) instead of their nature.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 08:39 AM

How about a peasant-style pot made by an anonymous non-peasant who has learned and practiced the skills of a peasant pot maker?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 12:20 PM

That's a peasant-style pot.

If we know it's been made by a non-peasant.

If we don't know, it's just a peasant pot. And the laugh's on us.

If we do know, and we know it was sold as authentic by a con artist, then it's a fake peasant pot.

Which has no effect on our appreciation of real peasant pots. The knowledge is annoying, though.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 12:53 PM

Is a rustic vessel to cook gamebirds a peasant pheasant pot?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 01:32 PM

Why might we appreciate a peasant-made peasant pot more than an aesthetical and functionally equivalent fake peasant pot?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:01 PM

If you used it to cook gamebird flavoured quorn would it be a fake peasant phoney pheasant pot?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:12 PM

> Why might we appreciate a peasant-made peasant pot more than an aesthetical and functionally equivalent fake peasant pot?

Because we don't like to be fooled.

But if you're just talking about appearance and functionality, without regard to the place of the pot in the tradition of peasant pots, or as evidence of that tradition, then possibly (and with reason) you couldn't care less.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:17 PM

Lovin it!

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:23 PM

Thanks, Steve.

As an umpire at home plate once supposedly said, in his own defense, "I call 'em like I see 'em."

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:24 PM

What I want is a proper peasant pheasant cooked in a proper peasant pheasant pot.
I may be off my dot but I want a peasant pheasant from a pheasant peasant pot
Plastic pheasant pots and porcelain peasant pots, they're no use to me!
If I can't have a proper peasant pheasant pot, I'll have a pot o' tea.

Oh, and I'm a pedant!

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:39 PM

But, but, but was a peasant pot thrown or coiled?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:43 PM

In the span of four human generations the Anglo-American Merchant Marine adapted pop minstrelsy to chanties and launched a thousand 'authentic' folk songbooks.

Commerical phonographic (no TV, radio, print &c) credits currently listed on Discogs:

Paul Campbell = 425
Woody Guthrie = 1519
Ewan MacColl = 1124
Pete Seeger = 2333

Paul Campbell – not folk process. Very fake but likable enough for a few represses here and there. 'Twas ever thus.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:58 PM

Coiled only I'm afraid. None of that phoney modern technology for us pedants (sorry, peasants)

Subject: RE: Folklore:
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 03:10 PM

At the risk of opening the usual can of worms, you can't answer that question 'Has the folk Process died?' without either defining what you mean by 'folk' or at least giving us a brief summary of who you think can be included in the term. Once you have established some sort of concensus there you then need to remind everybody precisely what the 'folk' Process' consists of. Not too difficult if you accept the descriptors given in the 54 description. (I won't call it a definition but that's just me).




Or perhaps not!

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 03:42 PM

A long, long time ago
I can still remember when the process used to make me smile
I can't remember if I cried
When I thought it said his Windows bide
But something touched me on the side
The way the folk process died

And we were singing (with our fingers in our ears)...

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 03:54 PM

Nice one, Dave.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 03:58 PM

The way the folk process died!

Is that the 4 verse with 20 choruses or the 40 verse version. We need to know these things.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Joe G
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:07 PM

'Starry, starry night.....' Sorry no stars allowed in the folk scene

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:22 PM

Has the folk process died?

Whose folk process, where?

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:38 PM

Definition of Folk Music, decided by the International Folk Music Council in 1954.
@Steve Garham.
Definition of Folk Music, decided by the International Folk Music Council in 1954.
    Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: (i) continuity which links the present with the past; (ii) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and (iii) selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives.
    The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community.
    The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character.
I have more than a few problems with the defintion of 1954.
1) continuity which links the present with the past; To me that reads pretentious bullshit. Perhaps someone can rewrite the phrase where it actually has some meaning.
2) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group;
Correct me if I am wrong but we appear to have a rough consensus that
a)stories pass down essentially unchanged
b)Lyrice may change due to mishearing word, they may be deliberately changed for whatever reason, but may remain unchanged
c)Tunes may or may not change
There is no compulsion for a,b, or c to occur.
3) selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives.
To be crude, if it is popular it will hit the charts if it is unpopular it will be found in a dusty tome(hopefully)
Having got the above out of the way what are we left with?
1(A popular song will survive, regardless
2)The lyrics may or may not change
3)The tune may or may not change
What we are left with is a kind of medieval top of the pops defines folk. But transmittal today is electronic
therefore the 1954 definition says there is no more folk music being created. Most posting totally reject this idea. Back in the sixties
new folk creations were commonplace.
working man
only 19
Both these songs sound like folk to me.
I am quite happy to see someone shred this post, I do not have aproblem that others may see things differently.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Kenny B(Inactive)
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:48 PM

In relation to the obviously heathy reports of the UK Folk scene by the people actively involved is it safe to assume that the process is healthy too

what is the Folk Process

Related threads:
Folk Process - is it dead? (244)
The Folk Process (181)
Steps in the Folk Process (54)
The New Folk Process (youtube link) (19)
What does the term 'folk process' mean? (23)
Tthis has been discussed amicably in similar threads before and it still appears to be healthy. What I want to know is,if it has died where and when is the funeral and what will the hymns be?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Joe G
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 04:53 PM

Glad to see the folk process process is healthy :-)

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:14 PM

You keep suggesting this idea, Iain, that stories (or folk tales) are 'passed down essentially unchanged'. In my experience I find this quite wrong. IMO stories vary verbally just as much as songs or ballads as they are passed on. Just one example, Snee Vitchen und der Sieben Dwarven (excuse spelling) comes from the same root as 'Goldilocks'. Not many people know that, but think about it. The characters have changed and G is much simpler but it's the same plot told in very different ways. Similarly 'Tom Tit Tot' is essentially Rumplestiltskin but the wording is as different as 2 versions of the same ballad.

The concepts in the 54 are quite simple and easily digested. I don't have a problem with the continuity element. I agree it hardly needs stating in light of 2 and 3.

Your 2b is quite right and should have been included (See later historical comment).

I agree there is no compulsion, which is why I refer to them as descriptors/guidelines, rather than hard and fast principles. They are very likely to happen but they do not stop a song from being part of the process when taken individually.

Surely 3 can't be argued with. It stems from the Darwinian evolution thesis of the survival of the fittest, putting it crudely.

By mentioning what happened in the 60s and today with newly created folk songs you are falling into Jim's trap of using 2 quite different meanings of folk music. The use of the word when applied to oral tradition is only part of the meaning when applied to what is perceived by the words in today's world. You can't apply the same rules to both. What sounds like folk is part of the modern day wider meaning and the 54 descriptors were never meant to apply to this.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:15 PM

To say the process is healthy would suggest the 1954 definition is in dire need of revision. Yea or nay?
It is having one hell of a wake judging by the number of venues indulging. Perhaps it is a Finnegan's Wake. Perhaps we should blame the morris dancers.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:23 PM

Hymns for the funeral:

Jerusalem ?

I quite like Blake

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:28 PM

Sorry if I'm splitting postings but I've spent ages typing out long threads recently and in the past only for them to disappear into the ether.

IFMC history. In 54 reps from many countries (about 60 I think) got together to come up with a working definition, at the instigation of Annie Gilchrist of the EFDSS (and president of IFMC) and a few others. There was a lot of disagreement even then as you would expect with so many different traditions. Quite a few of those present wanted to include all sorts of stuff others wouldn't allow in. In the end they had to accept democratic vote which they agreed to and the definition was actually drawn up by AGG and approved by the majority. Even this had to be tweaked a few months later as one of the descriptors in the original had been that folk music must be anonymous, yes, I agree, ludicrous and unworkable. It was immediately dropped after several noted folklorists pointed this out. (I can expand if necessary). Since the 'definition' was adopted there have been all sorts of holes poked in it. I think it still stands because there is no longer enough interest in folklore matters internationally to be bothered to change or qualify it.
All of this is from memory (I was only 7 in '54 but I had read the wonderful Opies' book on childlore) so it might not be totally accurate.
Having said all that, in my own researches it still is workable as a crude set of guidelines and I do use it, as do other researchers in the field. I do not however know anybody, scholar or academic, who tries to apply it rigidly.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:29 PM

Iain, please remember that the second revival was only in its infancy when the '54 descriptors were put together.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:48 PM

Iain, you are still confusing songs from the oral tradition with what is happening on the folk scene today and since 1950. One forms part of the other. By all means have a go at defining the wider meaning of folk, but I'll guarantee we'd all come up with something different. I'm quite happy with a broad sweep of, 'if it sounds like folk it is folk'. As others keep saying other genres don't need hard boundary definitions and they get along fine. Why should we be different? Don't pander to the trolls.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 05:51 PM

May I float the idea that sometimes people get the definition problem base over apex.

I think Steve (who I know has supported the more 'factual' approach of Roud) might find something to sympathise with in the idea that you have a look at what happened (which isn't always possible) and then find words to describe it afterwards.

Whereas (and here I risk getting on my hobby horse) sometimes, it seems to me that within 'folk', people adopt definitions for ideological grounds and then seek to select the data to fit them.

It isn't even as if I dont' sympathise fully with a lot of leftie stuff (though often it is just so out of date viz a viz climate crises/identity/race etc), just that the analytic/historical side of me sees it so clearly whereas people inside what I sometimes call 'the bubble' don't.

Sorry if I appear to be trolling, let me know if this is how you see it and I shall go away (once bitten twice shy)

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 06:00 PM

And obviously, sometimes the 'right', especially nationalistic varieties, also seeks to make use of 'folk' too.

Again, sorry if this comes across as off piste / trolling.

It is not intended to disrupt, though I am aware it sort of 'interrupts' a very interesting discussion between Steve and Iain - which I look forward to hearing more of.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Joe G
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 06:00 PM

Thanks for that summary of how the definition came about Steve.

Must admit until Jim mentioned it I had never heard of it.

Totally agree with you - if it sounds like folk it is folk to me and that is all that really matters :-)

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 06:16 PM

Sue
You have provoked some interesting discussions and appear to be coming from a different angle. As far as I'm concerned this surely must be welcomed. I think you are absolutely correct in your second sentence (The others are pretty good too he added hastily). I do think that Harker has something sensible to say on this. The early collectors are a perfect example. They assembled this body of selective material and then 50 years later their followers decided to justify this with a 'definition'. There was definitely an English lead on this and a lot of the objections from other countries' scholars were based on this selectivity.

However, the descriptors do largely work for this body of selective material. Unfortunately for them some of the descriptors also work on some of the material they rejected.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Has the folk Process died?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 06:22 PM

One nun dead!