 sj |
||
|
||
The 'New Folk Movement'?
|
|
|
|||||||
|
The 'New Folk Movement'? |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Sean Belt Date: 11 Aug 00 - 11:18 AM I've got to taske some issue with the "museum piece" view of folk music. I'd defy anyone to listen to the vital, vibrant music that Waterson:Carthy are performing and recording and call it museum pieces. Even though most of the songs they are sing are many generations old, they're still relevant to emotions and situations of today. Maybe it' to do more with the singer than the song??? - Sean |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Naemanson Date: 11 Aug 00 - 05:38 AM Hey gang, We need to be cool in our discussions on music. Mbo made a good point when he said, "The music that I love.... so much a part of me, it's like insulting the body and telling the head it's still cool." This applies to a lot of us but it's easy to lose track of that when we get into our discussions. Alternatively we all need to be aware that others may not be keeping this in mind. If someone says something that really ticks us off we need to take a deep breath, count to 10 ad then reread the post. If it isn't from a flamer or troll it may have an interpretation that isn't so bad after all. I know I've read some posts that seem, on the surface, to be OK but the reaction has been World War III! What is folk music? Folk is not what we think it is because it is, after all FOLK music. It is the music of the folk. Right now that seems to be rap music! Back in the fifties it was.... rock and roll! We may not like it, we may scream in pain that it ain't folk but I got to tell you, FOLKS, folk music is the music of the folk and if it ain't rap music, and in it's day, rock and roll, then what is it? We traditionalists like the old stuff and think of it as folk music and it WAS in its time. Now it is a museum piece. We live in it like the civil war recreationist live in their tents and costumes. We love it and live it. We feel the lift when we sing and play it. But it isn't the music of the folk living today. The folk living today and singing their music are the urban poor. Their folk music is rap music. It speaks to them the same way the bothy ballads spoke to the rural Scots. It addresses their issues and tells their stories. Our folk music doesn't. OK, go ahead and hurl invective (or virtual stones) at my head. I may not be able to answer until Monday for my girlfriend is coming to visit this weekend and I expect to be away from my computer for a while. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Stewie Date: 11 Aug 00 - 05:05 AM Well said, Rick, the idea is laughable. And nor are Tom Russell, Steve Young, Chris Smither, Greg Brown, David Mallett, Ian Tyson etc folk - but fine writers all. I am very fond of Gorka's first few albums, but I find his more recent ones patchy and disappointing. However, I always come back for another listen to songs like 'The Ballad of Jamie Bee', 'Branching Out', 'Houses in the Fields' and 'Raven in the Storm'. --Stewie. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Lena Date: 11 Aug 00 - 04:33 AM Just a new label to box a music article.Never mind press. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Rick Fielding Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:39 AM John Gorka the leader of the "New folk movement"? That is the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Bet he'd laugh as well. John's into his forties now, you would have thought they'd pick someone a bit younger. Plain truth is, they're just discovering him. Bet he wishes they'd done it a few years ago. He's not folk, but he's a darn good songwriter and entertainer. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:34 AM You hit it Seamus........Meebo, you answered it yourself. And EVERYONE when they're young find that "our" music is great and the old folks don't understand it. I'll probably be dead thirty five years from now, but I'd love to talk to you then. Your music is fine, it just doesn't have much appeal to a lot of us. So what? And if want to tell Art that you can't stand his stuff, I'm pretty sure he can take it. If your words weren't so familiar I'd have an easier time typing because I wouldn't be laughing. I know I heard those same words out of somebody's mouth about 1965 or so.........MY GAWD!!! I think it was mine!!!!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: GUEST,seamus kennedy Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:17 AM Right on, Mbo. Folk is what people are singing 50 or a hundred years after the originators are longone; so what the kids today are singing will be the folk music of future generations (with one or two exceptions.) All the best Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Mbo Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:09 AM Well, I'm not into rap much at all, but if it is cleverly conceived and well done, I like it. Probably the only rap I like is Will Smith (fellow Philly dude) 'cause he's clean, and funny, and his music is fun, not angry. Oh, and the Fat Boys were cool cuz they rapped about food! Of course, I always get this argument that "just because we don't like the music you like, doesn't mean we don't like you." Well, I don't believe in this much. The music that I love, especially the 2 or 3 I enjoy the most, are so much a part of me, it's like insulting the body and telling the head it's still cool. I know katlaughing enjoys Art Theime, but I wouldn't be caught dead saying "Oh that Art Theime, he sucks. I'd like to throw rocks at him, and his puns are dumb." Because I respect other's kinds of music (not to mention Art would be all over me like stink on a monkey for a crack like that!) and like the defend music that often gets a bad rap (no pun intended). The music that is popular with my generation is spit on a lot by the older folks, who believe their music is better. Call Oasis "bastards," "losers," "utter drivel", etc, and they say "Oh that's just our opinions, don't take it personal." But if you say something about "boring old fogey tunes" it becomes a vendetta! How dare you young punk with your loud music insult our time-honored traditional songs? Well, how dare you insult us kids love without even trying to understand it? And why does it have to conform to YOUR rules of what is good? If rock sounded more like folk, it wouldn't be rock, it would be folk. See what I mean? Also, I don't get Art's offense to the "Whoa Oh" chorus. Countless Irish songs with the popular "Whack fol the diddle" seem to have endured pretty well, as well as the English "hey derry dol" type chorus. Also, think about the Scots Gaelic wauking song. I've read up on a lot of them, especially the ones from the Hebrides, and mostly they are a very simple story in the verse lyrics, with a nonsensical chorus of "ho ro" vocables. Sounds quite similar to the "Whoah oh"ing, does it not? Now I know that wauking songs were for keeping time when stretching tweed, but nowadays, we sing them for entertainment. Perhaps the nonsensical "Whoa ohs, yeah yeahs" are merely a evolution of this tradition? Also, I really like that line in the Gorka song "I am here, you are there, love is our cross to bear." I can totally identify with it. And that's what young people like, to be able to make a personal connection with the music to their own lives. Something like "Knoxville Girl" is definately something I cannot relate to, so it seems more distant. Of course, I happen to enjoy Irish & Scottish war songs very much...not very relatable to my life, but they pander to my great interest in military history, which I've had since I was 10 years old. And as the older songs dealt with things that occured in their own particular time peroid, they are fun to sing, but a lot of then are not something we could really relate to anymore, though they give is a glimpse into what it was like for the everyday lives of the "folk" back then who created them. Some folks thing that our modern music won't last either. I think as long as people can make that personal connection with it, it will endure. But then again, if it doesn't some people in our future may look back and find this music that was so despised in it's own time, and bring it back to find a rebirth in popularity. Look at Bach. He was not very well known be the general public at all in his own time. It was the work of Felix Mendelssohn a long time after that sparked the interest in his music. Vivaldi was very obscure in his own time, but his music was made popular again after his mandolin sonata was used in the soundtrack of the movie "Kramer Vs. Kramer" in the 70's. We now think of these guys as classical music superstars...but they were really ignored just like some of the younger generation may feel. Maybe someone hundreds of years from now will look back and say "Look at this old band called Oasis. People thought they sucked, but this music is better than anything on the top 40 for 2230!" **BG** --Matt (21 years old and don't know nuffin') |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Sean Belt Date: 10 Aug 00 - 11:19 PM Tsk, tsk, Mbo! Never fear. It's not that I don't like the music that those folks I mentioned above turn out. Much of the time I do like it. But it's more akin to pop music than folk. That's all I'm saying. As a general rule, I like almost any music that's well put together and not too awfully full of itself. I've never been able to appreciate rap, for which failing my daughter frequently shakes her head, saying, "But Dad... you love all that groany old blues stuff. Rap is just the same only modern." Of course, she's only 22 and doesn't know anything ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Naemanson Date: 10 Aug 00 - 05:13 PM Gone to PM. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Downeast Bob Date: 10 Aug 00 - 05:07 PM Aye, Naemanson. I be's close enough (Newcastle) and will probably come over. Where are you? |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Naemanson Date: 10 Aug 00 - 04:55 PM Budwieser! You know why they serve it cold? So you can distinguish it from urine! Folk vs Singer/Songwriter - I don't know what the big deal is. The stuff that Gorka, et al, writes isn't folk and it isn't rock. It isn't pop and it isn't alternative. So what is it? I don't know. We can moan and complain all we want but that doesn't stop the penning of the music. And it shouldn't. I prefer traditional but I listen to this singer/songwriter stuff (SSS) because, quite often, it's the only thing on the radio that comes closest to folk. And the stations that play SSS sometimes slip up and play real folk. And the people who write it have a closer attachment to folk than those who write the popular stuff. And because a lot of it is pretty good. Also, just because a lot of people like something does not make that something good. It only makes it popular. Appealing to popular taste is why United Statesian TV (I can't speak for others) is so vapid these days and why "modern" music is so predictable. It is why so many of today's performers look alike and sound alike. What happened to being independent and unique? Look at the bands that were active at the same time as the Beatles. Remember how easy was it to tell the difference between the Moody Blues, the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Emerson Lake, and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Jefferson Airplane, The Allman Brothers, America, Zappa and the Mothers Of Invention, etc. Have you noticed how many radio stations focus on the "classic hits" and not so much on the modern stuff? Mbo, you have used a favorite complaint about us old fogies and our focus on folk. I like that phrasing and stand tall as one of those people. I would never diss modern music except to explain that it is no longer for me. There was a time when I loved it but I lost interest though the 70's, 80's, and the 90's. I kind of keep in touch with it because I have 2 teenage daughters ("One is almost your age, Mbo," he said with a twinkle in his eye) and I haven't heard much of a return to what I loved about rock and roll. Every once in a while something will leap out at me but it is usually lost in the general mush of other stuff. Don't let it get you down. You are communing with a widely divergent group with a widely divergent set of ideals and many of us will never agree. No big deal. You keep on rocking, Mbo, and don't hesitate to play what you like. Some of us will get it and some won't. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Mbo Date: 10 Aug 00 - 04:35 PM I don't really like art at all. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Aug 00 - 04:33 PM Its not a case of whether Bill or Art or anyone else likes or listens to other forms of music......and if you had ever bothered to actually read what they say, folk does change, the songs are sung in different ways, new songs enter the idiom because they are sung and passed on and stand the test of time.......the folk process/oral process/aural process. There are n awful lot os songwriters whose material is 'folk-like' in sound and content and if they get passed along through the process, they become folk songs. Geeziz Meebo, I love an awful lot of other people that aren't "folk." Tom Petty wrote a nice little ditty with a folkie kind of feel (Wildflowers) but it ain't folk. Maybe sometime it will be. "When You and I Were Young" was not a folk song when it was written. Play and sing what you like.....nobody cares that you do. If other people don't like the stuff....so what? But some of us detest certain singers/groups/sounds and just like you, we're entitled to an opinion. Quit going off everytime someone doesn't like your "rulers." Your tastes are broad, mine used to be broader than they are now.........But what does it matter? Are you this same way about art? Is it all great? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 00 - 04:26 PM "You All"? why Mbo, it looks about even so far...*grin*.. if there IS a conspiracy, it is to bury all the wonderful OLD songs some of us love under a pile of hurriedly written trivia designed to make $$$. No law agin' it, but the system just encourages speed, volume and repetition rather than lasting quality. We 'dis' what we wanta 'dis'...popularity does not =good!...wanta get me REAL riled?...start me on Budweiser Beer! |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: bigchuck Date: 10 Aug 00 - 04:18 PM But Mbo, so much of it _is_ drivel. Us crusty old farts are just trying to guide you to the path of RIGHTEOUSNESS, TRUTH, JUSTICE and the AMERIKAN WAY. Listen to yer elders, boy. It builds character. Sandy ( tongue firmly stuck in cheek ) |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Mbo Date: 10 Aug 00 - 04:05 PM ARG! I knew it! It's all a conspiracy! First they bad mouth our modern rock music, now even "Modern Folk" is being dissed! Where will this madness end? I said it once and I'll say it again (with a few changes) You all won't be happy till everyone is a folk clone playing the same old crusty songs, with no change, no variation, no evolution, till evety young person is told "Don't play what you hear around you! Play OUR music instead! Learn OUR songs, cuz your stuff is 'utter drivel'!"
Why don't you leave them boys alone and let 'em sing their song? Written about Hank Williams, Ernest Tubb, Waylon Jennings, and Randall Hank Williams. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Sean Belt Date: 10 Aug 00 - 03:59 PM From what I can tell, the New Folk Movement is all about singer/songwriter types (the above mentioned John Gorka being a good example) who happen to play their stuff on acoustic instruments. Possibly there's a consideration for topical/political content in there somewhere, too. I've also seen and heard reference to Dar Williams, Tom Russell, John Wesley Harding and several others as new folk singers. Mostly I enjoy their stuff. Some of it even resonates with me enough that I want to learn it and play it. But in my opinion, folk music it isn't. Of course, then we get into the whole mess of defining exactly what is and what isn't folk music - - a question that has been argued fruitlessly for just about ever. And I'm not sure that's a debate I want to get into here. - Sean |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 00 - 03:58 PM depending on whether you want to stop or speed up the new folk 'movement', Kaopectate or Ex-Lax might help....(I guess I can't blame John Gorka...$$$$ are hard to ignore, and once in awhile someone actually writes one with something TO it...) (still giggling over Art's exquisite capture of the WHOAAAAAAA phenomenon) |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: GUEST,T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird) Date: 10 Aug 00 - 03:07 PM The notice is a brief one, and you can find it at: http://www.portland.com/go/music.shtml No blue-clicky thingy because the URL is probably good for one day only, i.e. tomorrow there will be different "music" news at that page. T. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Naemanson Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:43 PM Hey Downeast Bob! If you are close enough to read the Portland papers you should be close enough to make it to the Chocolate Church for the Mocha Cafe coffeehouse this Saturday! I want to hear that Bandolin, er, Manjo, er, whatever it is! Come on down! Brett |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:20 PM Big John Gorka fan here... Almost as big a fan of him as I am of Garnet Rogers, James Keelaghan, Steven Fearing to name a few other contemporary folk singers... {~` |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Midchuck Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:15 PM The New Folk Movement would doubtless be horrified at California Joe because it Glorifies Violence Against Native Americans. Folk 'em all, I say. (the Movement, not Native Americans.) Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Art Thieme Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:45 PM The only song of John's that I really liked was "Down In The Mill Town" (I think that's the title). Most of what I heard are mod variations of "moon, spoon, June and croon"---in other words, pop music. It has it's place. Sometimes, once in a while, I can get my head there and I can like that music a bunch---but not a huge bunch. Nice enough, but "Buffalo Skinners" and "California Joe" and "Lord Thomas & Fair Ellender" and "The Great Silky Of Sule Skerry" it ain't. But I'd be willing to say that John, a real nice guy from all I can tell, is selling a ton more recordings than the above songs. But if I hear another chorus that goes---"WHOAOAOAOAOAOA WHOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOA WHOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOA WHOAOAOA WHOAOAOAOAOA WHOAOAOAOAOAOAOAO WHOA WHOA" one more time, I just might not listen to him again. Just one guy's opinion. Please, don't take offense. If you do, you'll let the sheep out! And I'd need to go elsewhere for sex. ;-) Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: death by whisky Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:43 PM Maybe they had the bran muffins theyre talking about on the Oasis thread |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: JedMarum Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:37 PM maybe they just mean it's music from new folks. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Mbo Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:06 PM I've heard some John Gorka and I like him a lot. He folky with just the slightest bit of country and rock influences. Personal favorites are the beautiful "Love Is Our Cross To Bear" and the haunting "I Saw A Stranger With Your Hair". If he's the leader of the "New Folk" movement, I'm already digging it. --Matt |
|
Subject: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Downeast Bob Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:02 PM Today's Portland (Maine) Press Herald made a reference to the "New Folk Movement," quoting Rolling Stone as saying that John Gorka is the "preeminent male singer/songwriter" of said movement. Never having heard John Gorka, I feel terribly ignorant. I'm an old folky who started out listening to the Almanacs, Pete Seeger, country blues singers and old-time country fiddle/banjo tunes. For years, that's mainly what I've listened to. So what's this New Folk Movement that I've never heard of? |
| Share Thread: |