Why folk won't be popular now

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 22 Jun 22 - 06:06 AM

.... I can remember in the late sixties, when one's standing amongst one's companions was proportional to the obscurity of one's pop/rock group of choice.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 22 Jun 22 - 06:01 AM

> And some folk song “dirges” are best forgotten.

Depends on the dirge, and on the listener, and often on one's drinking companions. Personally I find most of "On Ilkley Moor Bar t'At" (after the first couple of verses) to be a dirge to a sprightly tune; but a sprightly tune can rescue lyrics usually sung as a dirge ....

As my last act of musical mischief in this life, I have made it Very Clear that I want "Oh God our Help in Ages Past" to be sung at my funeral, but only if it's to the tune usually reserved for Ilkley Moor. (Try it sometime, and see if you can do it without smiling.) After all, I perpetrate filk, so I wish my life to be *celebrated* in an appropriately inappropriate manner.

Meanwhile, back at the subject line ....

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Stort Brian
Date: 21 Jun 22 - 07:55 PM

it is true that the local folk club in my local English town has closed. Pure trad music and song is not what every acoustic player wants to play. Reflecting that, we have a thriving Acoustic Club which encourages anybody and anything that is acoustic. Some of it is folk, and if anyone is tempted to try a folk song, that’s good news.

The guy who used to run the folk club said that the Acoustic Club is the new “folk” club. Folk song evolves and acoustic versions of popular songs are acceptable to me if they are from real life. And some folk song “dirges” are best forgotten. A lot of young people also write their own song, from life experience, that’s even better news - the folk music of tomorrow. Political or not, it doesn’t matter, as long as it gets you in the heart.

Brian, Hertfordshire, UK

Subject: Why folk will be rediscovered
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 22 - 04:42 PM

I would love to watch Stringsinger on CBS 60 minutes in a 20 minute interview produced by Leslie Stahl. Cameos with Phil and big Al or Filk and others could lend friendly controversy a helping hand. We need some new leading global historic voices since the voices of Joan and Pete have faded and are gone.

That Stringsinger can do AND teach is a rare talent. If Folk is going to have respected spokespeople, We're going to have to do it ourselves.
What is unique is the history compared to all other music forms.
As an aside all music forms face a similar fate of having more new music and performances that people will NEVER hear even though its out there.

As for revenue, the secret sauce has always been a truthful personality imbued with an obvious wisdom, pointing at finds the rest of us can pick up. Even the name Stringsinger is a genius truth.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Vic Smith
Date: 17 Jun 22 - 08:39 AM

or even 

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 22 - 06:29 AM

Thumbs up, Matt.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 16 Jun 22 - 09:22 AM

The "now" in this thread's title strikes me as a bit bizarre. Folk music has not been popular in terms of mainstream pop chart success for almost 50 years now. Half a century.

These kind of conversations have been done to death. Folk had a moment a long time ago. A very, very long time ago.

That's nothing to cry about. It doesn't stop me enjoying playing folk music, and hearing others playing it, at folk clubs every week.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 16 Jun 22 - 09:15 AM

Tony: Gatekeepers... is that your not-nice word for all the owners, editors, producers, artists, accountants, lawyers, censors &c &c being themselves and not you? Even McDonald's competes with Burger King, KFC and Subway. I don't care. Not my style.

Who required, and benefited more from, exclusive access to venture capital and media insiders: Seeger & Hamilton at Folkways in the 50-60s or your average 21st century music blogger? Who is/was easier for the so-called gatekeepers to keep gated, or whatevs?

Searched: “Folk” + “Banjo” and got 15 pages of returns on Google, who knows how many on ytube. Same top two for DuckDuckGo and nothing for Adele, Bieber or Beyoncé. Your results may vary:

Folk Banjo: Quick Tips from Ed Hicks: English Folk Dance and Song Society
Best Banjo for Folk Music, by Dave Fox: YouTubeMusicSucks.com

Nobody could keep up with it all long before the internet made it just that much harder to do. That inability comes with its own peril for heavy social media consumers... Fear Of Missing Out (FO-MO.)

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,The Sandman
Date: 16 Jun 22 - 12:11 AM

it is hard to predict the future of anything correctly

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 22 - 08:27 PM

Phil,

You’re right. It’s hard to keep track of all the music on the net.
The 99% is hard to gauge but it’s not just about my taste. To say
that there are not gatekeepers in what gets heard denies the role
money plays in the process. Access is money and vice versa.
Sometimes there is a breakthrough because of a public recognition
that is not predictable. After that it usually becomes MacDonald’s hamburgers.

Tony,

It’s not about simplicity versus complexity but musical maturity. That takes time and seasoning.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jun 22 - 09:09 AM

Catfish Willie? Isn't that a...

Oh, never mind :-)

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: PHJim
Date: 15 Jun 22 - 06:25 AM

"FOLK" - A four letter word beginning with "F" and ending with "K" and if you use it, they won't play your songs on the radio. -Catfish Willie

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Jun 22 - 02:50 AM

yes you are right Jim. i enjoyed your sessions but there are always people out there who are begrudgers

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 14 Jun 22 - 04:30 PM

I certainly did not regard free beer as a measure of inclusivity!

I said that it was always (not just in west Cork) my aim! Who gets this 'perk' is surely down to the management?

No, by inclusivity I meant that visiting singers & musicians were always welcome to contribute as part of the event, that's all, and my being paid made no diffence to that.....

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 14 Jun 22 - 06:10 AM

Why not find out and just ask them?

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 22 - 05:21 AM

That does not inspire confidence. You don't think the EFDSS would even know how many claims have been made on their own insurance scheme ? I find that literally incredible.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jun 22 - 05:08 PM

The actual handling would be by the insurance company not by EFDSS themselves. I doubt that they would even have the figuresi

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jun 22 - 06:20 AM

I can't help but wonder how many insurance claims the EFDSS have had to deal with and settle in the last, say, 10 years. Anyone know of any ?

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jun 22 - 02:43 AM

I live in west cork and run a session which i am not paid for, it is inclusive in that every musician gets a pint.
i attended Big Jim sessions in west cork many years ago whilst jim got his free beer i remember several occasions whenothers did not, it did not bother me, as i had to drive a car, and i enjoyed his music, but i did not feel it demonstrated inclusivity , other people may have felt differently, which might be why as he states they did not return.
personally, i preferred to listen to his music and join in than worry about free beer, but i do remember other people being aggrieved no names no pack drill

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jun 22 - 02:31 AM

Folk in the uk could be more popular if EFDSS promoted their insurance scheme to run events better, if more young people were aware of this financial help, there might be an increase in young people organising song and dance events, even singaround festivals have to have insurance, and cost of insurance is a factor putting off anyone holding events. incidentally how manY people who LIVE IN EUROPE AND THE UK have posted to this thread are members of EFDSS,

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Jun 22 - 01:34 AM

My Experience is that in guest booking clubs in the uk floorsingers up their standard when guests like Martin Carthy are booked

May hap. But I would bet there is a better selection of floor singers when there is a "name" headlining. And if I was trying to sing on a "name" night - I would not sing anything that was:
"just learned this"...........

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 11:37 PM

Frank: ...And soon AI will take over the music business. It’s happening right now. Computers are making music.

Bulletin: They's been a 'droid on drums since back in '72. He ain't no Jack Costanzo... but who is.

A Silicon Valley/ytube bot 'uploaded' your Folkways Nonesuch LP to the "Pete Seeger" account and linked it all to the Smithsonian. Just another Tuesday at the office. Half of internet traffic is machine-to-machine, aka: 'bots.' And even AI can't keep up with just the copyrights & publishing on tens of thousands of uploads daily. Flesh and bone couldn't keep up back in the shellac, 78rpm days. You have never been aware of most music, not even close.

Likewise, platinum records, 80-20 (Pareto) &c are hardly trade secrets. If all else fails, just count the legs and divide by two.

Being unaware of, indifferent to or disliking +99.9% of other people's choices would be normal and that is indeed what you report. You want more of what you want. All systems nominal.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 06:45 PM

Hi Stringsinger, my point is not so much regarding virtuosity versus simplicity/effectiveness (there is, and always has been, room for both in my view) but that here is clear evidence of a cohort of fine musicians, most not even born until the 1990s, who (presumably with their less visible peers) are making a fine job of playing and singing acoustic-based music that has essentially nothing to do with the "music business model" as would be defined by the major labels as set out in the initial premise for this thread. Hence my case that good music will continue to thrive and does not require business investment by the major labels to do so...

I also not in passing that these bluegrass-based types of highly talented young musicians are nurtured by other means, including their families/family bands, local bluegrass associations and competitions, etc. etc., which all clearly have a role to play in progressing the grass roots level of participation, again completely separate from what passes for "popular" music today. Probably some (but perhaps not so well developed) equivalents in other genres as well in the Celtic countries and UK.

Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 05:57 PM

Tony, these musicians are flashy and full of virtuosity. They've really got the BG licks down.
When she gets older and seasoned she may have the heart of a Bill Monroe. Now, it's like: how fast and complicated can we play on five or six chords.

Don't give up your mandolin just yet. Study the great ones and find your own voice. You don't have to play 100 miles an hour with every trick you know in the book to make good music.

Sierra has chops, no question about that. She is young yet and may make some music that
will touch someone's heart, some day.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 05:42 PM

The music merchants may be smart and decent as people, nonetheless, music quality is of a low priority unless you consider high production value as being important over the quality.

I will of course challenge your odds. The business is tanking. And soon AI will take over the music business. It’s happening right now. Computers are making music. Live musicians who make quality music are pushed to the side.

I don’t define the different genres that you mention. This is done by the music merchants.

I challenge that Silicon Valley is making all kinds of music available to the public. Their goal is to sell what they think will be more profitable. It’s the nature of the beast. This is increasingly become more restrictive in that unless there are established acts and musicians, they are not given the promotion they need to exist on say YouTube.
I say they are being winnowed out by business interests.

There are many forms of music out there today but not in the public consciousness.

I don’t agree that “venture capitalism’s business plans won’t intersect much at all”. That’s been the pattern of music business industry historically. The difference is that the people you cite as being smarter than “me or the other half” might be making more money, but if that is the qualification for entry into the music biz, then what’s the point?
That’s the problem, mIoney makes the music, rather than the other way around.

In my experience, I know many of the people you refer to. To survive in the business whether with the Big Three or Silicon Valley, the bottom line is always more important than the quality.

I am hoping for an extended family and friends of enlightened audiences that will require a better product then they are getting. If they are bulletproof against the rampant commercialism
that grinds out meaningless pap, then that’s all to the good.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 05:05 PM

A juke box or record company made 80% of their sales off 20% of the product. The remaining one fifth of the sales was spread out over the other four fifths of the catalog. The bottom 20-50% were done at a loss covered by the cash cows and bargain bins or... out go the lights.

I doubt we know all that many present day major label execs well enough to qualify them as artists, musicians or people. I know I do not. Unless you are some class of perfect, odds are at least half the folks you complain about are smarter and more decent than you and the other half ain't.

When you write things down for yourself, with the hard numerals and engineering units in the columns, you define “folk” & “popular” & “now” – measured precisely how and compared to exactly what. No two people, plans or product will be the same.

I'm thinking your plans and big money venture capitalism's business plans won't intersect much at all. Where they do, the gains are mostly in your favour. Silicon Valley has made it easier than ever to make and distribute all genre of music on an international scale.

Ergo, there is more product (plans) than ever before; competing for a more diverse consumer base than ever before; at lower margins than ever before. That is the business competion you are facing down at your share/niche. It's not the Big Three.

If your "plan" is to have fun making music with and for friends and family... you are bulletproof where the majors are concerned.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 04:28 PM

Some Sierra Hull + band here if you have not seen them play before!

https://youtu.be/bHEhzmQvI1k?t=435 (cued up for the second tune, an original/instrumental).

I think I will give up playing the mandolin now.

- Tony

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 04:21 PM

OK, just checked, Sierra Hull is now 30, Molly Tuttle 29, A.J. Lee is 24, Billy Strings is 29, mostly with players of their own generation in their bands... these players in particular have been playing since they were children, often from musical families (e.g. Molly Tuttle's dad, Billy Strings' stepfather were/are all players). Makes me think that the future of [this brand of] acoustic music is in safe hands...

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 02:56 PM

I hear what Stringsinger is saying but it seems to me unnecessarily pessimistic. OK, I do not go out and search for new music much these days, also my rate of musician discovery is perhaps 10 years late since I enjoy my musical tastes which were mostly formed in the 1970s and 1980s (that probably makes me old, but possibly typical of this list membership!!). Anyway over the past 5-10 years or so, I have definitely been exposed to "younger" musicians coming up, often via youtube performances - in the US country/bluegrass area (have not followed the celtic side so much) I think Molly Tuttle, Sierra Hull, A.J. Lee, Billy Strings... taking the music of their predecessors in part anyway, and presenting it to a whole new generation of their peers I am guessing. Now these folks may be in their 20s and perhaps early 30s by now (still seem young to me) but they are a definite sign that all is not buried in a commercial morass...

- Tony

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 01:49 PM

I’ve been a pro and amateur folk singing enthusiast. I think the roles should be blurred.
There are many who are good at this but we don’t know their names. They are shut out by the star system.

Nothing wrong with making a buck playing music.
It helps pay for the time it takes to develop a career. But the music biz works for the stars,
the cash cows.

OK so what else is new? The general public is degenerating in their tastes for good music.
It’s harder for anything of quality to surface now.

Garage bands were healthy. Do it yourself. Then came the advent of the rich and famous rock star. Flash, virtuosity, mediocrity and glamor.

OK so what else is new? The avenues for good music generally have narrowed over the years.

Even Al Capone appreciated good jazz. He made it available though he made more with illegal hootch.

Concert venues are less. Covid is partly to blame.

What to do? Pick up a song, an instrument, and make music yourself. Mudcat is good about letting people know who’s out there worth listening to.

Fight the commercialization of the music merchants. They are not musicians for the most part and selling the public crap.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 12 Jun 22 - 12:00 PM

Did you hear about the touring folk singer who won a million on the lottery?

    When asked if it would change his life, he said 'Oh no, I'll just keep on doing gigs until it's all gone'

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 11 Jun 22 - 03:17 PM

It is called the music business for a reason - it is what happens when businessmen get involved with the music. For 99% of visible product, the balance is probably tipped massively towards the business end of the spectrum. We should be grateful that there is room for the other 1% there somehow, when then the music somehow retains its integrity through the business process, or bypasses it altogether (i.e. the non-professional scene...) - however even musicians have to live.

I always saw it as a bit of an enigma that in my direct experience, the UK and Australian folk club circuit was run by amateurs in the main, but supported a quite solid set of professional singers - go figure. On the other hand I did not see many of the latter driving Porsches, or in some cases even own a house (although most seemed to figure out a way to do so eventually, at least when houses were cheaper!).

- Tony

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 22 - 04:08 PM

Hi Phil,

I don’t know that I believe that one person is in control of the chaos but I do believe that the execs at recording companies today are not highly musically trained. If they are, they are cynically putting out product they know to be inferior music although glossed with high production values sonically. When the accountants, lawyers and statisticians are in control and the botto m line is howmuch product they can make money with, the musical standards become irrelevant.

Actually, I am a poor demographic for music since my tastes are wildly diversified. I am a jazz enthusiast, a classical music lover, an early music lover and some of the 99% of music I like.
I like some rock and roll, show music, sound tracks, country and rhythm and blues. In short I am a musician therefore the business of music is secondary to my main interest of music.

We live in a time of commercialized musical depreciation due to the fact that the gatekeepers of the industry are uncaring about the product they sell. This goes right along with the fact that in
America, we produce very little compared to other countries. The financialization of our economy is reflected in the music that we produce en masse. I have no real feelings one way or another about video games but I know that this isn’t music.

I get the Van Halen reference.

I don’t object to math or a business plan per se. But when that becomes the important aspect of musical acceptance, then we have to evaluate whether this is in service of decent music and what this means for the denigration of our national artistic heritage. We also have to consider what education the public is getting in the acceptance of art and culture.

There is good and bad in everything including music. The arbiters should not be Silicon Valley,
hawking merchants, accountants and lawyers but those who are practitioners of music, musicians.

To say that things will never change underestimates the desire the public has for something valuable. To determine this, they have to be exposed to a variety of music, some of it
not for sale but with intrinsic value.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 10 Jun 22 - 05:42 AM

Vic, by your description of the music in your area it all sounds pretty healthy- mind you it always was. I'm all in favour of more local events & of musicians having other income & most of the ones I've respected over the years had just that.
   I think my own musical activities in West Cork all those years ago were an example of that- a supplement to Francie's goat cheese venture.

   I've always thought inclusivity was essential to the music & I absolutely detest the closed circle which negates that. I was paid in pints and free Beamish, but always tried to include other singers & musicians- no 'quality control' or 'is it folk' rules were applied
   Two observations about those nights- firstly, the local singers & musicians turned up the first time, under the impression it was a 'session'. I had no PA, and it WAS that, but on my terms. On discovering I was paid, most did not return, as in their minds it had become a 'gig'!!
Secondly, there were, and are still many English musiciamns in the Schull/Ballydehob area, so maybe they were just being polite!
I know many of the musicians & singers in the Mizen area in the late 80s & 90s & had been part of the English folk scene- the locals often marvelled that these people could the 'Galway Shawl' or were quite happy to play the 'Maid behind the bar' on a tin whistle.
I think my preference for local sessions like in Brighton area may be granted now, with diesel at £1.85 a litre- it's an ill wind and maybe folk will become 'popular 'again?

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 10 Jun 22 - 04:35 AM

Frank: Charlie Stinson was a Columbia sales exec. Teenage John Hammond was a regular at the Stinson bargain bins. Columbia is with Sony now; WMG and Universal make up the current Big Three. Always been major labels; always been complaints about music made and not made. Columbia also put out I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus and dogs barking Christmas carols, in season of course. Million sellers both.

There were never enough hours in the consumer's day, not ever. The shortfall just keeps getting bigger and that's not going to change. They're checking their smart phones during the live show. A platinum record is about 1:400 consumers or: 399 don't know/don't care/don't like + 1 buy in. That is a raving success!

You believe somebody is in control of the chaos or there's one thing to say about all of it. I know better. Except that +99.9% of it does not concern you, according to you. That's about average for a North American consumer. You have current favorites in your own repertoire; even more stuff you do less often nowadays and at least a few that are better left unplayed altogether. Time & tide.

And… a formal, written business plan, with maths, is absolutely mandatory. Sustainable karaoke in Kemah or a Sony Music national tour – different 'vision.' Google “No Brown M&Ms” just for giggles.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 09 Jun 22 - 06:17 PM

> poisoned [] by money

Verily. I've been saying "Man shall not live by bread alone" since the late 1960s.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jun 22 - 01:43 PM

Hi Phil,
Ideally, yes I’d like to see the Warner Group do more than they do then just win Grammys.

I’d like to see the whole approach in attitude toward music in general and not a cash cow for lawyers and accountants in the music industry.

In any industry, the quality of the product ideally is the best it can be.
Under the present system of fast returns on investment, the short-circuiting of research and development, the financialization of our economy, this is reflected in the music that is produced today.

The cottage industry today is the folk singer (trad or otherwise) who is not being coopted by the so-called music industry. They maybe pro or non-paid but they are the antidote to a poisoned
musical culture by money.

It’s OK to support folk musicians by paying them to do what they do best and like to do but it becomes absurd to
hear undeveloped and obviously specious talent buried under layers of
so-called “production” and making exhorbitant amounts of money for their
“product”. It’s true, that is less today since the music industry is tanking.

In corporate America, the contemporary singer, songwriter, musician or creator is a commodity that is at the whim of planned obsolescence, since what is popular today vanishes tomorrow regardless of musical value.

When exposed to quality music, an audience is generally built for it. Today’s audiences are “narrow-casted”
rather then “broad-casted”. The problem is one of the monopoly on exposure.

WMG would be well advised to look for
decent talent and promote them as was more so done earlier by such A and R men such as John Hammond senior at Columbia Records.

Silicon Valley financial hotshots have their hooks into musical entertainment today.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Jun 22 - 06:43 AM

Furthermore - surely what attracted many of back in the 1950's and 1960's was the dynamism behind that vision

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Jun 22 - 06:41 AM

Perhaps we should stop trying to analyse 'what is', and concentrate on our vision of what we'd like it to be.

After all when Seeger and MacColl were getting things going in our respective countries - they had to be visionaries.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Vic Smith
Date: 09 Jun 22 - 05:42 AM

Dick wrote: -
Vic , my experience is this is fine for tune sessions,and the standard is good but in the uk i have experienced song singarounds where the standard is very low.
One of the song & tune sessions that I am talking about had 35 people there - more than a number of paying folk clubs that I have been to this year. I put photos from it on my facebook page. Have a look at it, Dick, you will see three people who make their living playing and singing in folk clubs.
The people who inspired me and attracted me to folk song and music in the late 1950s did not make their living by singing. Perhaps we are gradually reverting to this. It could be just what the scene needs.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 10:04 PM

Frank: Pete eschewed the label for himself as a “folk singer”. Many of us “folkies” referred to ourselves as singers of folk songs.

Doing that on Folkways Records qualifies for both absurd and semantics methinks. Certainly too long for the inventory tag. In North American retail, the product was found in the Folk aisle/shelf/bin. Just plain ol' Folk.

Belafonte came up through ballroom and saw himself as an actor. Sing-a-longs were his stock-in-trade. The Colgate Hour TV spots made the Calypso album a million seller before it shipped. He won the first dedicated Folk Grammy for Swing dat Hammer. I wouldn't call any of it "authentic" or "traditional" but that's just me. He's Male or Pop Vocal, moving towards Oldies these days.

Rhiannon Giddens identifies as country, blues and old-time. The 2022 Grammy is under American Roots Music. The artist's ytube pages have links to her Homepage, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & Patreon accts. They'll take you to her next show/schedule and a Ticketmaster link. That's how the kids roll these days.

One doesn't win a Grammy without a maximum team effort. Warner Music Group spends a bundle getting the music & the word out. It's what they do. Do you want them to do more or less of that?

You're more likely to see the Almanac Singers, Paul Campbell and Harry Thomas together at your local club than Rhiannon Giddens. If your local gig isn't working out for you, it ain't WMG's doing.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 07:00 PM

The folk scene in Brighton and other places across the pond seems live and healthy.

Paul Campbell was the pseudonym used for
the publishing wing of the Weavers. When they performed live they interacted physically with the audience who invariably clapped on the off beat during gospel type numbers.

Pete eschewed the label for himself as a “folk singer”. Many of us “folkies” referred to ourselves as singers of folk songs.

Through our School, there is plenty of physical interaction between students and teachers, jams and singarounds.

YouTube is the best source for hearing what young folk type singers are doing such as Rising Appalachia, Rhianon Gidens, and others but you have to know about them first. Many who would enjoy their performance don’t know about them.
It’s increasingly difficult to hear new artists live.
Even, because of Covid, seasoned performers are relegated to a small screen. Some of these performances are done with professional production but some aren’t.

There’s no substitute for a live performer. But
they have to be recognized first.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 05:24 PM

Well, by folk you mean boring college folk groups that all sound the same...then yeah.

But if not, it's still there, kids are playing it and loving it. It's also evolved into other interesting sounds, like the Bridge City Sinners, taking a bluegrass sound and punking it up. They're far from the only ones.

And yes, there are many kids today playing more traditional music. You're just not paying attention, as the culture evolves.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 05:09 PM

Guest: Folk music, in as long as I've been involved in it, has always been about physical interaction between people. Is that no longer the case?

Nobody on planet Earth ever physically interacted with Paul Campbell. He never was. So either you don't see Pete Seeger as a folk musician and Moe Asch as a folk producer or... you simply have different a genre label for the product. The former is absurd and the latter marketing semantics. Which is it?

Scopitone came way before MTV and the internet. I have 'folk' music on piano roll. It's all good.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 04:35 PM

The interenet is the same as watching the telly. Folk music, in as long as I've been involved in it, has always been about physical interaction between people. Is that no longer the case ?

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 04:01 PM

Popular music is only unpopular when it's too popular for its own good. Burn out. “...never again as long as I effing live, please” gets voted the most popular cover of Wind Beneath My Wings and so it goes. Otherwise, +99.9% of consumers do not care what any one artist thinks, says or does.

1930s Stinson Trading Co. & future Weavers producer Milt Gabler both ran on the business model of not popular but still profitable music…eg: the bargain bin concept and the United Hot Club jazz reissues. What's not to like?

All three parts of the 1940-1970 'pop algorithm' (media sales, juke box plays and AM radio requests) have gone away with the media. Not coming back.

Folk, as a pop genre, was all but gone before the physical media died. It only exists today in music industry awards and the e-commerce world of infinite shelf and floor space. If mainstream “brick & mortar” retail somehow managed a miracle comeback, Folk would continue to be parsed out into Oldies, Country, Pop Vocal, World &c &c.

Otoh… It's never been easier to listen to free folk music on the internet… Weavers, Belafonte, Fred Neil & the 2022 Grammy winner… all courtesy of ytube; Warner Music Group et al, right at your fingertips. Free, save for your utility bills and their commercials of course.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 03:05 PM

Vic , my experience is this is fine for tune sessions,and the standard is good but in the uk i have experienced song singarounds where the standard is very low.
My Experience is that in guest booking clubs in the uk floorsingers up their standard when guests like Martin Carthy are booked

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Vic Smith
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 11:54 AM

From: Stringsinger - PM
Date: 06 Jun 22 - 03:41 PM

The best way for musicians, folk singers, and performers is to by-pass the music industry rather than take them on 

With the gradual opening up of pubs / venues in the Hastings - Lewes - Brighton area, the trend is towards more free tune sessions in some welcoming screen-free pubs. I have been to several in various past month and I have been able to take part in some wonderful tune and song & tune sessions. Mostly not a penny changes hands but in some Brighton weekly sessions the pub will pay a retainer to the central lead musicians to be there each week.
From a musical point this feels healthy.
From a health point of view there, it remains problematic because this mild form of Covid is rife in this area and I could name many musicians (including my wife) who have tested positive and then felt very rough for a couple of days after being infected at folk clubs and sessions.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Jun 22 - 11:09 AM

I think that the notion of “folk music” has always been commercialized by recording companies, radio stations, TV and other media. The difference today is that at least here in the States, the musical culture is being monopolized more than it has ever been before. At the same time, a renewed interest in folk music here is being undertaken by young people but is denied access to the public who is unaware of the enormous talent that exists away from the media. I believe that now more than ever it is a concerted effort to repress music that is not commericial by business interests away even from the traditional music industry which is coopted by Silicon Valley and areas of private enterprise. I think of it as the Walmartization of music. You really have to spend time and energy on ferreting out good music now.
The general public is deprived of it.

When this occurred during the late Fifties, college concerts were prevalent and people like Pete Seeger were opening up new pathways for good music to reach the public. There were coffee houses and small venues available. Today, Covid shut many of these venues down. The situation might be different in Britain, Scotland, Ireland or Wales or Australia but in the US, you see this diminishing availability of new important talent reflected in movie companies such as Netflix, and outlets for classical music and jazz. There is a kind of cancel culture being spread that overlaps into the artistic communities fostered by private business interests. My point it that it is more extreme now than it has ever been.

Solution: encourage people to participate more in music by learning to play it. As this is done, a taste for music is developed and not minimized.
The analogy would be a grass roots participation in local political and social activity rather than going along mindlessly with the popular culture. This is why Mudcat is so valuable.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 07 Jun 22 - 03:12 PM

Stringsinger wrote:

(quote) The role of music in society is an analogue for what we are experiencing now. Artistic pursuits are denegrated to money making or treated as “entertainment” for diversion. Our culture is one of escapism and trivializing rather than reaching for meaning in our lives. Folk music is in danger of being considered a cute pastime rather than an important index into our history (end quote)

Was it not always thus, to varying degrees? Even in the days of the "folk scare" (thinking Greenwich Village early 60s), and through following decades, performers had to make their act "entertaining" enough that promoters/club owners etc; would book them - no audience, no repeat work. In most cases the "entertainment" aspect would then be a "front" for deeper engagement with the music through the set. Presentation of folk music as a serious, academic-only, special interest pursuit has never had much popular appeal even though on some occasions it may be warranted (such as performances by important singers/musicians from the past, received with some reverence hopefully).

Of course there are other areas (such classical music) where the music is expected to speak for itself (appeal directly to the senses) without requiring a veneer of "entertainment", and some folk music does that as well - again part of the mix. But rarely "popular" except perhaps at the peak of the "folk boom" when (e.g.) Pentangle could sell out the Royal Albert Hall, mostly an underground/niche area that relies on local level support for its ongoing existence (I am discounting the folk-pop singers here e.g. the John Denver types who successfully made the transition to the world of popular entertainment - although arguably some have done this as well without losing their integrity, think maybe Alison Krauss, Emmylou Harris etc. on the U.S. scene, not sure who their equivalents would be in the U.K.).

Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 22 - 02:58 PM

it's a long time since folk was popular in the literal sense!

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Jun 22 - 10:47 AM

What do you mean, folk not popular. I was just at an early-music workshop where many people cheerfully by-passed Purcell and Palestrina to play Celtic airs and dances.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 07 Jun 22 - 06:10 AM

> democracy is a smoke screen we can all talk but we are powerless

Much depends on the autocrat. As the owner of a technical talker was once moved to say, while pulling rank to settle a loud dispute:

Democracy is merely the front-end.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Jun 22 - 03:41 PM

The best way for musicians, folk singers, and performers is to by-pass the music industry rather than take them on. The internet allows access for this. It tends to democratize by offering alternative outlets for music that is not controlled by the industry.

Today, the music industry is on a downward trajectory because it doesn’t really meet the honest needs of the consumer. Still, it operates in the same way as main stream news. It impedes access to music that could be heard and appreciated by the public.

There are those who are sophisticated enough to bypass the influences of media control, which is what the music industry is. Others are short-changed because the general public is not given a choice in their preferences.

As a working musician, I am concerned about this issue.The cultural artistic life of a nation is being hampered by a musical imperialism based on the usual profit motive rather than the intrinsic value of the art. Anyone concerned about the value of folk music should be interested in this issue because it affects audiences for this music. You might think that what happens to the music culture of a nation is not personally important to you but as a musician and music teacher I see the corruption of the value of music taking place in the US. The music industry is at fault. Without the true value of art, democracy is meaningless.

The role of music in society is an analogue for what we are experiencing now. Artistic pursuits are denegrated to money making or treated as “entertainment” for diversion. Our culture is one of escapism and trivializing rather than reaching for meaning in our lives. Folk music is in danger of being considered a cute pastime rather than an important index into our history.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jun 22 - 04:24 PM

I have dedicated myself over the last 10 years to running a community based music festival,
democracy is a smoke screen we can all talk but we are powerless

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: michaelr
Date: 05 Jun 22 - 03:48 PM

I respectfully submit that in this day and age, there are better causes to "fight back" for than taking on the music industry, which has been a hopeless case for decades. Let's dedicate our energies to the survival of democracy instead.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 04 Jun 22 - 03:54 PM

Remedial: 2:3 of the Almanac Singers' early record labels were run by active Soviet agents.

The Cold War came after WWII. Your venture capitalists were George Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (VOX) & Marian Distler (Folkways.) The latter was one of the longest suffering souls ever walked the halls of a record label. Not.a.spy.

Let's do the easy one first. Noel Meadow (Stinson) wasn't a 'spy' either. Propagandizing the U.S.S.R. wasn't illegal in the U.S.A.. Fill out all the proper forms; call it 'art' & 'publicity;' good to go. Artkino advertised in Billboard.

Herbert Harris (Stinson) managed the Artkino concessions in their chain of American cinemas. The morning the Nazis invaded the U.S.S.R. – Meadow & Harris were running movies and news reels trying to put a smiley face on Molotov-Ribbentrop. And selling out the whole of the Western European left & center in the process. What a difference a day made, 24 little hours.

Stinson distributed Asch records through the Artkino concessions. Profits from those sales financed the recording studio. Garden variety capitalism with apolitical Jazz at the Phil (Granz) and Wayfaring Stranger (Ives) as top sellers & cash cows for the milking. Plus the content of every Russian record label ever nationalized for the artists' royalty & rights-free bootlegging.

That Stalinist brand of 'venture' capital and 'popular' is not coming back and that's a good thing.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:52 PM

It's so interesting despite the condemnation of Joseph McCarthy, red-baiting still goes on.
I knew a lot of people on the Left pretty closely and the idea of their being subjected to KGB interrogations is risible. We know that the Right Wing dumped on the folk singers as being "communists" when many of the ones I knew had a short stint with CP because many thought it too doctrinaire. Most of the folkies that I knew had never read Das Kapital or any Marx. I personally never saw a KGB agent or any Soviet agent who attempted to sway me in a political direction. This paranoia is with us today even when the Soviet Union, a failed government,
was dissolved.

Associating folk singers with Soviet ties is nonsense. Folkies that I knew were largely unaware of Stalin's atrocities. Many may have been naive about "Uncle Joe" but I think the ones I knew
were sophisticated enough to finally realize that they were mistaken about him.

The movie "Reds" shows what happened when Jack Reed went to Russia. He was attempting to
defend the CPUSA and the Soviet government dissed him. Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger were disillusioned by the Soviet Union and have stated so publicly. To try to paint them as brainwashed is insulting. This smear tactic about Lefty folkies is endemic to the Right-Wing proto-fascist movement which is on the rise throughout the world today.

The new smear tactic reminds me of an old song, "Roll it on the ground, spread it all around, dig it with hoe, it'll make your flowers grow".

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Mr Red
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:25 AM

Where is the affectionate satire,
"A Mighty Wind",
in relation to this discussion, I wonder?

In relation to Folk, I would put it as affectionate, and we can laugh at ourselves, can't we Folks? So realistic you try to remember which group did the "E at Oes" line - was it for real or just allegorical? so clever, either way.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 09:28 PM

too weird. of course a 1940's approach won't cut it 80 years later. no more than a doctor turning up for his first day at work with a bag of leeches would be appreciated.

you do what you can to earn a living. that goes for musicians, bus drivers, television repair men, anything.
I think theres probably more people working as musicians than any time previously in history.   The question is do you fancy the job as is?

Its no use wishing you could get by doing what the Almanac singers did. Society has changed.

I remember reading Mr Jelly Roll when I was 15 and deciding I fancied being a piano player in a brothel.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 08:18 PM

Frank: Having known a great many Lefty leaning folk singers in my time I can honestly say that none would ever take orders from the Kremlin. 

Puh-leeeze! The FBI or KGB interrogating/debriefing you, Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger on the finer points of vinyl chloride polymerization would play like the psychiatrist skit in No Time for Sergeants.

Forget the 'Kremlin'... what can you 'honestly say' about your 1939 lefty folkie venture capitalists & label owners and their purchase orders & invoices? If there is a Keynote &c discography, somebody, somewhere, at some time did indeed take an order from the KGB. Indirectly and unknowingly... maybe... maybe not.

The right got their digs in too. Belafonte's manager (and psychiatrist) were both Yank intelligence operatives. Now... H.B. don't know nothing from PVC neither. They were spying on Dr. King and the southern civil rights movement.

Clean-cut, mainstream, acoustic folk was everybody's anti-rock. Dylan going electric was the white flag and surrender to the folk-rock marketplace. The ultimate betrayal.

Bottom line, a modern revival of the Almanac's folk business model isn't going to fly in today's ESG/sanction driven marketplace. Russian capital, on or off the books, is positively radioactive these days.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: keberoxu
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 07:22 PM

Where is the affectionate satire,
"A Mighty Wind",
in relation to this discussion, I wonder?

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 05:46 PM

A combo of House Concerts and jam (playing together or a sing around) makes a lot of sense to me. I see folk music as a social outlet, a chance to share with others. I see folk music as accessible music for anyone who wants it. It's worth it to work hard at House Concerts.
Performing never seemed like work to me. It was often exhilarating and sometimes very
difficult.

Did you ever have a gig where you are playing to an unsympathetic audience and while you were performing ask yourself "What am I doing here?" Then other times, in the zone, the time goes by fast and you're lifted up by the audience.

Earning a complete living as a performer at this time is damn near impossible. I know two performers who were making a living (not in the music industry) but their careers went bye bye when Covid hit.

Having known a great many Lefty leaning folk singers in my time I can honestly say that none would ever take orders from the Kremlin. This goes for the many folklorists, recording people and musicians I've met that the Left has fostered.. The connection with American folk performers on the Left and the former Soviet Union or KGB is extremely unlikely or non-existent.

Most of the aforementioned became disillusioned with the Soviet Union as did Paul Robeson
who went over there. I even talked to Pete Seeger before he died and he wouldn't even
accept Gorbachev calling him an "apparatchik". The Soviet experiment failed in a big way.
It's amazing how many people today don't understand that and are still fighting a Cold War.
Russia is a Capitalist country.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 04:55 PM

I think (for what its worth) that it depends to a large extent on your field of endeavour.

To make my music. I've used about seventy different guitars over the last 60 years; microphones; PA systems; recording studios, etc.

And that doesn't just apply to pop/contemporary stuff, I've never spent as much on a guitar as my concertina squeezing mates spend on Wheatstones and Anglo's.

Its a personal sort of thing. You don't decide. The music decides what you need to make it. And that decides what you need to do to afford it.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Brock
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 12:58 PM

I'm fairly new to folk and am slightly depressed about how much of my life I spent listening to pop and rock, a lot of it TOO LOUD!
I go to the Focsle Club in Southampton. I love the 'earthiness' of it, especially when there's a song people can join in with. When there are guests there is always 'singaround' as well which is great.

Paul B

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 04:50 AM

> it helps a whole hell of a lot to have a "real job" to support a
> career as a folksinger.

I believe that some Jazz people call their mundane job "the day gig", even if it's a permanent job.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 03:37 AM

I suppose that for most folk performers, it helps a whole hell of a lot to have a "real job" to support a career as a folksinger. One way or another, many people do it. There are lots of really good performers around, and it is so wonderful to see them perform at house concerts instead of at big venues. And yeah, they have to make some sacrifices; but I think they have as good a time at their performances, as their audiences do. Debra Cowan does it exceptionally well, but I know she has to work really hard. I'm sure that's true for a lot of performers I see in house concerts. But they do it.
I am in awe of the people who host regular house concerts, where all the income goes to the performer. But the main thing is that if we want this music, then we have to do it. And we do it in so many ways.

It's not folk, but I have to be proud of my son, Nic Offer, who calls his current musical form "techno." He turns 50 this year, and has made his living as a musician all his life without making compromises. His band is !!! (chk chk chk). He's the one in shorts in the videos.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 03:33 AM

be a degree of confusion as to what this thread is about. I get a definite feeling of cross purposes.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 03:17 AM

WOW!

I mega disagree.

Never have there been as many live performances.
Never has distribution been more egalitarian.
Never has mixing, control and recording been so available.
Never has collaboration been so wide.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

the cigar man would have choked, withered, and died from his own fumes in today's rarefied atmosphere.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 May 22 - 05:56 PM

Folk music will always survive.

It is just a question of how niche you want to be. If you want it popular, it will just bastardize a lot more.

Fashions come in cycles. Cecil Sharp would have shuddered to hear Bob Dylan plagiarise some of his collectings. But Mr Zimmerman did spearhead the rise in Folk in his era.

Who can say what the scenario will be in the future - Folk will rise again, but not in a way I can predict. Futurology is littered with inaccurate prognostications. With minor facets that futurologists can hang their face-saving hats on!

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 31 May 22 - 04:24 PM

"can they avoid engaging with the music industry - the people who can organize and manage things on that scale?" - clearly no. I guess (getting back to the slant of the original post) can they avoid engaging with the big commercial behemoths (the Sonys and CBS's of the present day) and remain more "true to their roots" via independent routes (that have an arguably more artistic, less solely commercial vision)? hopefully yes. I have no doubt that at least some artists come up via the independent route and manage to penetrate public consciousness without completely selling out to the big players (for Australian examples, see e.g. Lior and The Waifs ... I doubt that most "folk" (acoustic / roots / Americana / whatever) artists are really what is (currently) sought after by the major labels anyway, and opportunities for self marketing are probably greater now than they have ever been...

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Sol
Date: 31 May 22 - 04:16 PM

At what point does a successful 'folk singer' turn into 'a show biz personality'? Is it possible to be both? Have they sold their soul to commercialism when the prime object of their performances is profit?
I guess we should just make up our own minds on this one.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 22 - 04:00 PM

I think one aspect is that the profit on a "marketable product" that allows many artists with a small audience to "survive another day" will make an artist a lot of money if it is taken up by a large audience. If that audience allows bigger venues and large tours, and the artist take up the opportunity, can they avoid engaging with the music industry - the people who can organize and manage things on that scale?

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Tony Rees
Date: 31 May 22 - 02:59 PM

I really like Stringsinger's post from 2 or 3 posts above. It encapsulates most of what I feel about folk music also.

In particular, Stringsinger said:

> The struggle is not whether folk music sells or creates an audience. The struggle is one of value. Do we value our musical heritage or accept the trash the media and the industry gives us? The answer lies in how much we want to be a part of the music. And not just on a professional level.

"The struggle is one of value". To me there are 2 different values - the social, "feel good" value of participating at a given time, either as a performer (professional/semi-pro/amateur/living-room) and listener, or as a "cultural object" i.e. persistent record captured of such a performance (think your favourite artist captured in performance, either now or in days gone by) - sometimes that is turned into a marketable product (the business end of the music business, or just to enable the creator to survive another day i.e. provide an income), sometimes not (think field recordings, audience tapes, etc.). "Value" is in the ear/eye of the beholder but I think it can be intrinsic as well as extrinsic - in other words, independent of whether or not a large number, small number, or almost zero people appreciate it at any one time (of course there is rubbish as well, that probably has no value, but who makes that decision??). Think Van Gogh's paintings that could not sell in his lifetime, and now go for millions. I would contend that their intrinsic value as a cultural/artistic object has not changed, even if their monetary value has...

That is why (among other things) I attempt to preserve my documentation (photographs and audio/video recordings) of the folk scene(s) that I have been involved with - cultural value to future listeners and viewers, plus of course those of us around today as well. If I put up a recording on youtube or donate a photo to wikimedia commons, it is there (in my intention) for the "long haul" as an item of either present or likely future cultural value... of course there is a cutoff point (again someone has to act as gatekeeper to avoid swamping the world with rubbish) but in general more is possibly better than less. E.g. I have a book of "complete works of Van Gogh" that includes early works (preliminary sketches and juvenilia) he would probably have consigned to the wastebasket in other circumstances, but are a dream to future scholars... again of questionable monetary value at the time. I guess I am just saying that artistic (and social/feel good) value and commercial value may occasionally coincide, but may also have no connection whatsoever, and we should not confuse them.


Cheers Tony

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 31 May 22 - 12:33 PM

If you search ytube for "Folk+[instrument]+last month" you will get swamped with returns.

The bulk of it is never going to find a marketplace but there's a crappe tonne of fun being had. I don't care if somebody or nobody makes a penny (as long as the ads don't pop up in the middle of the video.)

Video games are the current home of chanties. More funsies. IMNSHO Tina S. covering Guitar Hero tracks is very loud but far from boring. The kids are going to be alright.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 31 May 22 - 12:14 PM

PS: The KGB were more interested in the strategic materials the records were made of than the A&R. Synthetic shellac, aka vinyl, is also a thing of the past. Alas.

Every other sort of industrial/technology theft & spying, howsomever, has never been sportier.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 May 22 - 11:57 AM

There is even a problem with the niche markets and the labels that will exclude music that is valuable or to some degree unpopular with the niche. This formerly had to do with the problem of distribution. Most folk acts rely on CD sales as merchandise at the concerts. This means
that unless you concertize as part of the "folk music business" you as an artist may not be heard. The business of concertizing excludes talented people.

It is my contention that the survival of folk music (whatever definition you give it) depends on
cultivating the interest by participation. People need to feel a part of the music by taking up instrument, voice or both. In so doing they can study folk music on a personal level. They don't need to be professional. These are the people that will become audiences for concerts.

You might say that folk music blurs the line between performer and audience. Singarounds and jam sessions will aid in the discovery and the life of folk music. Songwriting will also. A song at one time in its inception was written/composed. It may have gone into aural transmission where Anonymous was the author/composer. But it was not monetized.

There is the Capitalist myth that every consumption of a product must be monetized to be valued. If this were the case, folk music wouldn't have survived. I still think professional performers should be equitably paid for their efforts but unless there is a sub-structure of interest by people who are personally invested as participants in the music, the professionals
will not succeed.

There is another factor. One person's boredom is anothers enthusiasm. Many find old time traditional ballad singers who offer twenty verses to a song boring. Not me. I think another
set of ears has to be worn to appreciate music that is unfamiliar.

Personally I find video games to be boring and that seems to be more important to many young people than taking up music.

Folk music implies participation of it on a personal level. It's accessible to all who want it. It is denounced by some as boring, simplistic or "there's no money in it". This view is short-sighted and ignorant.

The struggle is not whether folk music sells or creates an audience. The struggle is one of value. Do we value our musical heritage or accept the trash the media and the industry gives us? The answer lies in how much we want to be a part of the music. And not just on a professional level.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 31 May 22 - 11:44 AM

Frank: When folks have to change/ignore what I wrote to disagree with it, I just assume we don't actually disagree about what I actually wrote.

Label = agent
Artist & politician = useful idiot.

"In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders."[wiki]

Keynote Recordings & Stinson were run by the KGB through Artkino. Even they didn't deny it.

The Almanacs aren't coming back because you've got ol' Pooty McPootface where Joe Stalin used to was. Cut from the exact same cloth but it's a pretty narrow niche these days.

2022 = No Google ads, no Mudcat. Three cheers for venture capitalism!

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 22 - 10:36 AM

Folk music has never been exactly popular compared to what the music business pushes. Pop = popular. Folk/Jazz/Blues etc. = niche. There has always been some crossover where niche music of some sort has a brief forray into the popular market and likewise some pop songs make it in niche circles if done properly. They are different genres and every genre has its good and bad. Pop music may be louder than folk/jazz/blues etc. but while it may drown out the minority interests, it will never kill them off.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 May 22 - 09:00 AM

I knew four members of the Almanac Singers and none of them were Soviet agents.

In the Forties, Stalin and Hitler were heroes to some Americans. There was naïveté about these figures.

The Almanacs in the early days were opposed to wars of imperialism but changed when they
saw that Hitler was a threat. Ultimately that happened to every American at that time.
Roosevelt was loathe to attack Germany. Many American figures such as Lindbergh supported Hitler. Not many knew about Stalin's atrocities. They were sympathetic to Russia as it bore
the brunt of Nazi invasions and ultimately brought WWII to and end.

The scapegoating of those who opposed with oligarchs of the Twenties,Thirties and Forties
were not receiving orders from Moscow. They were socialists, followers of Debs and Joe Hill,
and labor unions. This scapegoating and propagandistic lies continues today with the distortion of statistics and weighted political propaganda.

I speak having lived through the early Forties and got my interest in folk music because
of the left-wing movement.

No left-wing movement, no folk revival and hence no Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 May 22 - 07:28 AM

folk music and pop music have no points of confluence.....
I think that's debatable, insomuch as its been debated endlessly on this site.

the trouble is that everyone's got a fish to fry....the folkies use it to defend utterly unmemorable music, the pop lot want any bit of artistic cred that will hopefully vindicate the latest Britpop/shitpop load of cobblers that the Cowells/Watermans etc are churning out.

Life's too short. Play if you want to, don't if you don't want to.

History will decide, if it it can be bothered.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 31 May 22 - 07:25 AM

I'd suggest those asking questions should read my post properly- I DON'T NEED TO NAME NAMES re 'multinationals' but recording companies, distribution companies, media outlets & financial interests of all sorts are in control & yes making pots of money from what is considered 'folk' by the masses.

To repeat, of course there is a sub-culture which refuses to accept this & I wish them all the best in their struggle

Yes, let's have a revolution by all means- oh and a moothie is a Geordie/Scottish term for a harmonica or mouth organ- Oor Wullie used to call it a sookblaw.....

** before you ask, Oor Wullie is a boy in a cartoon appearing in the Scottish Sunday paper the 'Sunday Post'

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Howard Jones
Date: 31 May 22 - 06:32 AM

I'm not sure what the complaint is here. Anyone can make music for little or no cost, but to make popular music costs big bucks - according to this article around $1m. Not only do you need to employ a lot of the very best people, but most of that goes on marketing and distribution. No one is going to invest that sort of money unless they think the song will be a hit (and it may not even then). If people didn't like popular music they wouldn't buy it. But investors aren't committed to any particular genre, and they will invest in counter-cultural music if they think it will sell. The big labels invested in punk and in folk when those genres were sufficiently popular to justify it.

Does this crowd out other forms of music, which can't afford the promotion needed to get airplay? Undoubtedly. But it is wishful thinking to believe that if only people could hear folk music it would then become popular. Some folk still gets onto mainstream media, and streaming makes it easier than ever to explore new music, and some will be turned onto folk by that. However many people, even when shown what folk music is, still decide it's not for them.

Folk is niche music (along with many other genres). It can sound quite alien to people brought up on other genres. It arguably serves a different purpose - I would say the purpose of pop music is to make people feel good, whereas the purpose of folk is to make you think. Folk dance uses unfamiliar rhythms which many find difficult to adjust to. We shouldn't be surprised that many people don't like it, just as many people don't like rap, or jazz, or opera.

If the money men are making popular music sound all the same, so what? Why should that matter to us? Besides, I think it is an exaggeration. In the UK last year the top 10 best selling albums were:

1. Adele - 30 (2021)
2. Ed Sheeran - Equals (2021)
3. Abba - Voyage (2021)
4. Olivia Rodrigo - Sour (2021)
5. Queen - Greatest Hits (1981, re-released in 2021)
6. Dua Lipa - Future Nostalgia (2020)
7. Ed Sheeran - Divide (2017)
8. Elton John - Diamonds (2017)
9. Fleetwood Mac - 50 Years: Don't Stop (2018)
10. Dave - We're All Alone In This Together (2021)

I'm no expert on popular music, but there seems to be quite a bit of variety there.

Popular music is what it is. If you don't like it, don't listen. The same goes for folk, for that matter. They're different worlds, and one doesn't really affect the other.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 31 May 22 - 04:51 AM

Odd how the perspective changes 100km east of Miami, F-L-A. Even at it's peak, the folk genre was still no more than a blip on the commercial charts. Hard to 'come back' if one was never 'there' to begin with.

2:3 of the Almanac Singers' early record labels were run by active Soviet agents. The 'originals' were the non-specific, revolving troupe organized through the New Masses “Progressive Almanac” entertainment column. Up With People with Joe Stalin in the role of Jesus Christ.

They were in on the Nazi's splitting Poland and staying out of The Battles of France & Britain & The Blitz; right up to June, 1941.

The Weavers were greatly toned down Almanacs. No surprise that.

Billboard Year-End Top Singles:
1950 – Gordon Jenkins & The Weavers – #1 Goodnight Irene. Jenkins' solo My Foolish Heart was #22; and he charted twice in '49; and The Jenkin's Chorus is backing the Weaver's cover of Wimoweh.

1951 – The Weavers: #7 – On Top of Old Smoky.

1955 – Elvis took 3 of the top 10, and 5 of the top 15; (Heartbreak Hotel, Don't be Cruel & Hound Dog &c.) Never been done before. Rock & roll scared the trousers off “The Man” on both sides of the Cold War.

Far lefty Pete Seeger jumped into bed with farther right wingnut Adm. Dan Gallery & RCA records. The Yanks responded with… wait for it… calypso and steel drums...?!?

1957 – Harry Belafonte #15 (Day-O)
1957 – The Tarriers #26 (The Banana Boat Song.)
The song was originally sponsored by the British government. Belafonte truly believed he was the 'solution' to the 'problem' of rock & roll.

1958 – Onwards was the vanilla (Neopolitan?) folk era of clean-cut, short-haired, Kingston Trio; Peter, Paul & Mary; Rooftop Singers; Trini Lopez ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 May 22 - 06:16 PM

In the States, folk music as a genre became a record bin for distributors of recording companies.
The cultural connection with a sub-group was no longer material. When the popularization (Van Ronk's Folk Scare) became obsolete then the question arose "what is folk?" Academic folklorists and musicoligists had their own definition. The Big Bill Broonzy/Louis Armstrong
bromide about "horses don't sing it" is not a good syllogism. Horses don't sing any other kind of music that we know about.

But the reason, like for most of consumables these days, is about money. The real oxymoron for me is the notion of a "folk star".

In the States, Ted Jioia believes that the "multinationals" are a part of Silicon Valley who as he says "are eating Hollywood's lunch". Hi tech money is controlling the dissemination of the music industry to the public.

We Mudcatters (and forgive me if I have the hubris to represent many here) need to fight back which actually I think we are doing. In this way I agree with Big Al in that I don't give a shit
for the popularization by media of folk music. On the other hand, it controlled the image
during the Folk Scare and a folksinger was reduced to a longhaired girl with a guitar making up personal statements or a scruffy bearded torn jeans wearing young white boy with a growly voice attempting to represent the rural Southern US. That's a straight-jacket that belies the vitality of the folk "process".

So we can give up on the mainstream media to ever launch a folk revival. The biggest folk revival will and is taking place in the living room not the Net which is being usurped by the money makers who control it.

For me, this is why Mudcat is so valuable. We define folk music. It's important in our lives and when we share it, the world is better off for it.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,JoeG
Date: 30 May 22 - 06:07 PM

I'm sure many of my folk musician friends would love to be making pots of money from folk music! A very small number of folk artists are doing well and I am very pleased for them as they are raising awareness of the music to a wider audience. The vast majority though are playing for a share of door take which will barely cover their expenses. I value them both equally as they contribute to the wealth of folk music there is to enjoy in the UK today.

I think there are more young people involved in, and interested in, folk music now than at any time since I first walked into a folk club in the late 70's. Reports of its death are greatly exaggerated!

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 22 - 04:41 PM

"'folk' as understood by the masses is an industry now, with multi-nationals running it, making pots of money but killing it eventually".
Who are these "multinationals" who are running "folk", even "as understood by the masses"?
Who is making "pots of money" out of "folk, as understood by the masses".
A few examples, please.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: keberoxu
Date: 30 May 22 - 03:51 PM

whatsa moothie, jim bainbridge??

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 30 May 22 - 03:41 PM

We just need a revolution.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 30 May 22 - 03:36 PM

'folk' as understood by the masses is an industry now, with multi-nationals running it, making pots of money but killing it eventually.

In Britain, our industries used to be coal, steel, chemicals, shipbuilding and so on. Now our industries are football, sex, hospitality (this is nmainly about providing a venue for people to get pissed & pay horrendous prices for drink)- sad isn't it.

Now the old ways are gone & not coming back & even worse all the above 'industries'
rely on the money largely stolen by the vile greedy banks and bent financiers ripping off the third world & that's where we are- we rely on these corrupt people, directly or otherwise.

There are many older (sorry Dick!) 'folk' organisers who are fighting this & all credit to them, but big business is winning & our own subversive view of the music, where making pots of money is secondary to the music is disappearing fast.

I don't tour any more, and have now settled for playing my little moothie for our sheep- they don't have a musical agenda...

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: rosma
Date: 30 May 22 - 10:09 AM

I am involved with a small sing-around club. We call ourselves a folk club though any of us will admit that not everything we sing is folk - no need for "what is folk" debates here.

A few years ago I found an article in a local magazine interviewing a chap who was starting a new folk club. He said there were no folk clubs in the area. Not only are there several, maybe dozens of folk clubs within a twenty mile or so radius, but our club was little more than "down the road". What's more it turned out that it would be a guest club, no problem with that, but one presenting a support act and the guest with no opportunity for "floor spots".

Now maybe I'm old fashioned, but for me a guest-booking folk club invites its members and visitors to provide floor spots. When I used to regularly visit such clubs I sometimes enjoyed the floor spots more than the guest, and for that reason those clubs I attended regularly I would attend even if I wasn't particularly attracted by the guest.

What this "club" was providing was in my view a "folk music venue" and not a folk club at all. If it didn't always clash with our club I might go occasionally when there was a guest I particularly wanted to see, but it's not the sort of thing I would become loyal to. I'm sure some will disagree and that's fair enough.

While he has had guests that I might have wanted to see, this is for me a commercialisation of the folk club concept. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if this sort of venue ever takes over from "proper" contributory folk clubs I will be very sad.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 29 May 22 - 04:49 PM

Well said, Dick!

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 May 22 - 11:35 AM

we are all affected, it is important to run non commercial community based festivals and clubs where people can be creative without worrying about commercialism.
the uk folk revival is being messed up by agents, hype, nepotism etc, it is in my opinion important to encourage people to sing and make their own music just for the pleasure of doing so

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 May 22 - 06:21 AM

I don't give a shit. I wasn't popular even when folk music WAS popular. It won't affect me, or most people whose music I like.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 29 May 22 - 05:13 AM

I agree Stringsinger &, on top of the musical practise you mention, encourage socialism/regulationism AND positive nationalism.

Subject: RE: Why folk won't be popular now
From: keberoxu
Date: 28 May 22 - 05:13 PM

Allow me, Mr. Hamilton, to attempt to make a blicky to the link that opens your post.

14 Signs That You Are Living in a Society Without a Counterculture

Always good to hear from you at this forum.

As for what I have been reflecting on lately myself,
it comes under the category of a single popular-music act by a duo.

Jim Seals and Dash Crofts got their start as teenagers from Texas,
getting into a group called the Champs whose instrumental single "Tequila" was so popular that it refused to go away for a long time.
Seals and Crofts were not on that studio recording.
When one or more of the Champs members on said lucrative recording,
quit the Champs rather than tour with the group,
these two young men were hired for the tour.
They met Glen Campbell, amongst others, in that fashion.

Today, Glen Campbell has passed away after coming down with Alzheimer's.
Jim Seals survived a stroke, and no longer plays the guitar or saxophone (which he played on those Champs/"Tequila" tours); nevertheless, Seals is still alive.
So is Dash Crofts, the older of the two.

For several decades, after the demise of the Champs,
Seals & Crofts took their songwriting and performing out on the road,
converted to the Baha'i faith, and got a contract with Warner Brothers.

I don't doubt that these songwriters and performers have seen everything at least once --
the stories that they could tell!

Do you recall the variety show on television, hosted by the Smothers Brothers? I sure do.
I was pretty young at the time, but I recall watching the broadcasts.
It was on the Smothers Brothers TV show that I first saw and heard Seals & Crofts, and I bought recordings by them as a result of that introduction.
What is there today
with which to compare the Smothers Brothers variety show?

Thanks, everyone, for listening.

Subject: Why folk won't be popular now
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 May 22 - 04:11 PM

https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/14-warning-signs-that-you-are-living?s=r

Folk music is now a counter-culture item. Music is being corralled by the music industry which is now being run by hedge funds from Silicon Valley, private equity firms, and slowly becoming so financialized that you won't hear it on media unless these vultures can make money with it.

This is why in the early 40's, there was an interest in folk music in left-wing circles. They appreciated that fact that music was becoming commercialized to the degree that it was a form of exploitation by oligarchic classes. The Left saw it as a usurpation by capitalists who structured it in such a way to make money at it. Non-commercial music such as folk music as Al Grossman, the manager of Peter Paul and Mary said about Llewelan Davis in the movie, "I don't hear any money in it". Al did hear quite a bit of money in what was termed folk music in the late Fifties and early Sixties. The popularization of what was called folk music introduced The Kington Trio. Some people who are on this list were introduced to folk music as a result.


The Weavers split up when some members wanted to capitalize on it but Pete Seeger saw it differently and left the group. The KT went on to fall within the framework of the popular music industry which blacklisted many who were controversial and choked the money stream.
The example of this was the TV show Hootenanny, using a term that was not manufactured by the industry but used as a format for a kind of folk concert that included audience participation. "Sing Along with Mitch" was an attempt to capitalize on this format.

Fast forwards to the present. Private Equity firms, hedge fund managers and financial business people want to own what you listen to, market only what they think you want, and try to exploit it as much as possible. Songs on media begin to sound alike. Movies also.

The radio stations used to have a Top Forty playlist. Now there maybe ten or less. Streaming, planned obsolescence by the passing of the CD, LP or other manufactured devices, Spotify and other net formats are shrinking in what they offer.

Nothing controversial in music will be heard on media unless it makes lots of money. This is why folk music on a grass roots level is so important. It's one of the few weapons we have to confront the juggernaut of the new music industry which dumbs down the musical taste of the public and attempts to financialize anything they can at the expense of actual musical value.

Some may say "so nu?" But it's more extreme now then it has ever been. Artistic musical content is being so appropriated by the business people that the younger brainwashed generation would rather play video games then listen to good music.
Here's my solution. Learn to play a musical instrument, sing a song, and encourage others to do it as well. Tom Lehrer joked about a "Folk Song Army". I think he had something there.
There is a cultural struggle that coincides with a class struggle (sorry if I sound doctrinaire).

We have to fight back before we allow musical zombies to take over our minds through the media and the so-called music industry.

Mudcatters may be aware of the problem and others might be seduced by the marketing ploys.

It's an important topic for those like me who love folk music, jazz , classical or even decent pop music of which there has been some in the past.

We have a folk song tradition if we allow it to flourish.