 sj |
||
|
||
The 'New Folk Movement'?
|
|
|
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? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Mbo Date: 10 Aug 00 - 04:35 PM I don't really like art at all. |
|
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: 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 - 05:13 PM Gone to PM. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 11 Aug 00 - 11:27 AM I don't know Gorka but I did investigate Terry Callier who also claimed to be "new folk" because he was described as bringing a jazz feel to traditional folk music. I must say I was disappointed. A pleasant enough voice and guitar backing but he did everything so slooooowly that everything sounded the same and dirge-like. IMNSHO. But then I'm not a folkie, just an ignorant old git who likes a little folk to leaven the jazz & blues occasionally. RtS |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 11 Aug 00 - 11:34 AM "I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was... Now what it is seems strange and frightening..." ---Grandpa Simpson--- "Do your thing, you go in and out of style, but you'll be happy. no sence in chasing trends." :-) |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Metchosin Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:19 PM Fear not Mbo, here is one more old fogey that is a fan of some of what is called "New Folk" Shooglenifty rules for me! Especially if I feel like listening to the music with my body as well as my mind and kick up my heels and dance, besides they are fairly decent musicians to boot. I'm still not too old to partake in a "Whiskey Kiss". Besides, I don't know what to class Richard Thompson and his music as. Guess I just like any music with "soul" and Burl Ives never did do it for me (although he did do a fairly decent version of Ghost Riders in the Sky) but that's not folk is it? There are some very old tunes buried in the DT that could be called Folk just because of their age but they were boring when they were penned a hundred or two years ago and they are still boring,now....gee I guess I'm veering off into the unanswerable, done to death "What is Folk" topic....sorrry! |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Mbo Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:23 PM The only problem I have with what you said Spaw is 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. I'm sorry but I just don't believe in that. This music,just like your folk, will carry on as long as someone is there to enjoy it. Spaw, the music of your youth is just as popular with me as anything else. You think that everyone has forgotten it, just as you "think" the modern music I like will some day? Well FORGET IT! Because even though I didn't live through the 30's, 40's 50's 60's and 70's I still know and love the music that came out then. To say that it has been forgotten and to revert to some older style is stupid. I like the music of your youth even though you may not anymore, and there are a lot of young folks besides me, though you may not see them, who know this music too. I'm SURE the our modern music will be remembered 35 years from now. And if you don't believe me, come to HearMe sometime and I'll sing you the hit parade of 1965. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Naemanson Date: 11 Aug 00 - 01:20 PM Weeellll, speaking of the music of our youth and all, does anyone want to talk about what happened to disco? There are a lot of people out there who loved it when it was hot but are embarassed to acknowledge that now. I mean after all, it was just a way to provide a loud dance rythm. Wait a minute, isn't that what fiddle tunes are? Come on people, 'fess up! Who among us owned the lime green leisure suit? |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Whistle Stop Date: 11 Aug 00 - 02:12 PM This budding war between the generations is pretty silly. Mbo, you like SOME of the music of my youth, as I like SOME of the music of yours. Much of the music from my youth has been lost to the ages, for which we can all be grateful (it wouldn't bother me if more of it were retired). Much of today's music will also fall by the wayside, and rightly so. There was some good music when I was your age, and there's some good music now. With any luck our beloved "folk process" will help separate the wheat from the chaff, and the good stuff will still be around for all of us to enjoy in the future. We may all have our opinions about the worth of certain performers, but they're just opinions at this stage -- we'll just have to wait and see whether people remember Oasis fifty years from now. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Kim C Date: 11 Aug 00 - 03:37 PM Hmmm. I am not really familiar with John Gorka but I do like the song "Winter Cows." I think what happens is that when a singer/songwriter/acoustic instrument-type artist can't be pigeonholed into a standard category, The Great Unwashed just say, oh, he/she must be folk because he/she doesn't fit anywhere else. The music of youth is a funny thing. I will always love the Beatles, and I will always love Chopin. Likewise I will always love Bryan Adams. I don't have much interest in Duran Duran anymore, but have fond memories of those old LPs. (Yes, LPs. We didn't have CDs in those days. Hard to believe now.)There are also artists I didn't like then, that I like now, like the Allman Brothers, and Van Morrison. And then there are those artists & songs that make me roll my eyes and say, holy cow, I can't believe I ever liked that... Mister, who is 12 years older than me, has eschewed most all the music of his youth in the 70s. He rolls his eyes when I wanna listen to a little rock-n-roll. He says, it served a purpose at a certain point in my life, and it doesn't any longer. Fair enough. But if he had his way, all we'd ever listen to is pre-1865 music, and as much as I love that, and make a little cash from it, It Ain't All There Is! Gimme my Tom Petty! And my Georgia Satellites!!! And my Bryan Adams! And my Chopin nocturnes!!!!!!! :) |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Bill D Date: 11 Aug 00 - 05:19 PM well, let's all just take a minute to laugh...here are 3 cards & cartoons I ripped off my wall above my stereo and scanned.... |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: MichaelM Date: 11 Aug 00 - 07:53 PM Is anyone writing folk music? Is the notion of creating folk music that is new unthinkable? If we have relegated folk to pre-1900 (for argument's sake) haven't we created an amber-cast canon fit only for scholastic exhumation or folk-park tourism? An article in Harpers this month discusses the death of small languages. Is folk going the way to dusty death? Michael Miland |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 11 Aug 00 - 08:56 PM This subject is fascinating, and MIGHTY close to home. I play my own SS compositions, and try to match them pretty much one to one with trad songs. This ballence was chosen by Dougie on his 'Craggy Dhu' release which utterly won't leave my mind since I was introduced to it in 1987. It seems a 'fair and rightful' goal. I have been encouraged by many traditionalists to seek the integrity of time honored songs, and I have a great interest in reaching people with songs that relate to their/our lives RIGHT NOW, with no confusing metaphors to peel away. The validity is obvious to both cases, and the corelation between the two makes my audience more informed, and MAKES ME A BETTER WRITER. We learn by studying the masters. If someone is gifted at finding the musical pulse of discontent and happiness in our lives today, then I have something to learn from them. If a song stands the test of time, then it's quality is indisputable (in some reguard) to me now. Pop, Clasical, Country, Blues, R&B, Rap, and even alotta Jazz have their roots in folk music, INDISPUTABLE! If we choose to write songs, or appreciate songwriters, it doesn't make us any less the folk enthusiasts for it. It is quite fun to here the hand me down derividity in all music, and the only danger to doing it is the oft misinterperated put down "this is derivitive". Like anything we listen to isn't? LOL... But these days, people need reminding about folk music, like they need to get into an antique shop and outta the mall. I achieve this by following one of my recently written songs about life as it is today (complete with Polyharmonic Modal Variants) with a triditional song that I love so much about some vaguely simmilar topic. My heart lives for the traditionals, and my career may become dependent upon new sounding stuff... Some of the old songs carry magic though, and I can't presume to understand what it actually is!
|
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Art Thieme Date: 11 Aug 00 - 10:14 PM Hey folks, The person who started this thread ASKED A QUESTION. They (he, she, whatever) wanted to know about John G. All I did was answer that person. Now I'll just jump on my pony and ride off into the west. I suspect I'll say "giddy-up". And I won't say "WHOA" until I'm pretty far away. ;-) Art |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Paul G. Date: 11 Aug 00 - 11:23 PM Michael's question about the "writing of folk music" and this thread in general brings to mind the following anecdote for me (hope it fits here...)Ask yourself this question: Is the song "16 Tons" a folk song?...(16 tons and what do you get, another day older and deeeper in debt....). The song was written by Merle Travis, as related to me by his son, Thom Bresh, because the label told him they wanted him to write something that sounded like a folk song. It became a huge hit and made the record label a lot of money. Maybe Travis was the leader of the New Folk movement of his time...Thom said that Travis told the label "you can't just write a folk song...they come out of the ground through the people". He wrote the song none the less. As for Gorka, I like a little of what he does enough to keep buying his stuff in hopes of finding the one or two "keepers" he slips onto each album among the mundane balance of his tunes. Give me Richard Shindell any day. Hell, I'll even confess that the last CD this grandfater bought was by the Dixie Chicks. pg |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: GUEST,Barry Finn Date: 11 Aug 00 - 11:47 PM Whoa right there Art, John G's been around this neck of the woods for sometime now & if he happened to move out your way I wouldn't think once of stopping him, I'm not fond of his stuff at all (personnel taste). I don't think it's so much that some of the new stuff is or isn't folk I just think alot of it's trash & will eventually get dumped & what's good might see the light of a new day. Traditional or old/contempory folk has had the benifit of time to sift through the shit, new stuff hasn't & if a buck can be made from the good as well as the bad it's gonna be up to time & personnel choice (or the music industry's choice). I'd say that most GREAT song writers are blessed if they can get one gem out of every 20 they write so if that's even close where does that put all the wantabee's, but yet they can pump 'em out 10 at a time & a new CD every birthday as a present to themselves each & every year. Maybe we can all start a co-op that judges each new song that comes across the table at the board meeting & if a song can score over 5 votes out of 100 then it'll pass & we'll know it's an ok song, bad idea, ok I'll keep to myself about what I think's trash & only time will tell. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Metchosin Date: 12 Aug 00 - 03:59 AM Art, I thought the question was what was what is this "New Folk Movement". If most of us can't come to an agreement about what "old" Folk is, its hardly surprising that the thread drifts a bit regarding a definition of "new folk". |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Rana Date: 12 Aug 00 - 08:35 AM So this thread seems to have drifted into a definition of folk music minefield. Is John Gorka "folk"? As much so as other people that may have been mentioned on the Mudcat - James Keelaghan (who I think Gorka sounds a bit like), Garnet Rogers, Stephen Fearing etc. And then continuing with this list - Stan Rogers, Tom Paxton, Bob Dylan etc etc. Or do you have to have a traditional component to make it folk? - Richard Thompson has written some great "traditional English folk songs" eg Beeswing. I suppose the best thing is to enjoy the music and give up on trying to categorise it. I just saw this on another list serve which acts as yet another (amusing ) definition of "folk" "Folk is when you're too old to rock'n roll, and too dumb for jazz." Seems as good as any other definition! As for Gorka, what I've heard I like, but I will agree with Paul G. above and say that one of my favourite artists' at present is Richard Shindell. When I heard him for the first time this year, he absolutely blew me away. Enough so that we're putting him on at the Flying Cloud Folk Club in Toronto on Sept. 21 (OK a bit of a plug here - I'll put the full list in What's On eventually). Cheers Rana |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: MichaelM Date: 12 Aug 00 - 12:14 PM Rana,I think the distinction between folk and jazz (oh boy, I'm in trouble now) is that folk musicians attempt to communicate with their audience while jazz musicians play to each other. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Naemanson Date: 12 Aug 00 - 12:26 PM Art, you may have answered the question but you cannot ride off because we are beating your mount into a bloody pulp! At least we'll arue it until we are all a little hoarse. I have never cared to categorise music. There are good and bad elements in all forms. There are new rock songs that I like, there are old folk songs that I hate. There are songs that comprise elements of jazz and those that include country or rock. To all boils down to this (note the lack of descriptive adjective): Music is! Music Rules! Music is what we like. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Susan from California Date: 12 Aug 00 - 01:45 PM I want to echo the nominations that Richard Shindell has rec'd and make a nomination of my own--one of my current favorite cd's is "Cry, Cry, Cry" which is Richard Shindell, Lucy Kaplansky and Dar Williams. On this cd they mostly cover other singer-songwritter/new folk stuff and there are songs on there that are darned good, one that is very timely if you are in one of the burn areas of the Northwest-it's about a firefighter in Montana. I can't remember the name of the particular song, and I lent out my copy of the cd...but I sure thought about the song when I was in Montana last week. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Aug 00 - 08:31 PM Most music at any time is pretty dire stuff, and always has been. Most books are pretty dreadful. Most poetry is not worth reading. Most art is appalling.
But there's enough that's the other way that helps make it worth living.
The one essential thing for me is that people aren't just trying to be original. True artists, in any medium, is original because it's the only way to say something that they are trying to say, and to get people to listen to it (or look at it or whatever) and understand.
|
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Paul G. Date: 13 Aug 00 - 12:39 AM Another intersting tid bit...I just returned from a gig in High Springs Florida. Locally, my band was advertised as "Folk-Pop"...Interesting classification, as we are a bunch of over-40's who would call ourselves "new folk" or "contemporary folk". Just goes to show you...the labels are in the minds of the beholder, and really don't mean much. It's music, that's all that matters, as long as someone likes it, listens, and passes it on. Maybe we can get someone to call us the pre-eminent band of the folk-pop movement! pg |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Art Thieme Date: 15 Aug 00 - 09:39 PM Folks, Most of you know that I am 100% certain that I KNOW what folk is and isn't ! There must be traditional components. About 75% of what I feel folk is about are traditional components. Let's just agree to disagree. O.K.? Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 15 Aug 00 - 09:56 PM Daddy? what's a component? |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Bill D Date: 15 Aug 00 - 10:17 PM why, Thomas..a component is.......naahhhh...too easy-go get your dictionary. You'll never learn new things if you don't do some for yourself. Daddy can't always hold your hand. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Max Date: 15 Aug 00 - 10:26 PM In my opinion, there is a new folk movement going on, and I'm way into it. But the artists that I consider leading the charge are Ani Difranco, Martin Sexton, Ben Harper and Dan Bern. Modern no doubt, but if pressed, I am sure I could prove it's folk. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Bill D Date: 15 Aug 00 - 10:37 PM lots of stuff with some folk "roots", Max..*grin*...but I guess I'd better quit even trying to hold on to 'folk' as a useful word...there may be a tiny bit of life left in 'trad' yet, but when that one has been totally co-opted, I don't know what I'll call that older, different stuff Art & I and a few others are trying to defend as a genré..... |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: GUEST,Brett Valentine Date: 15 Aug 00 - 10:39 PM Hmmm... New Folk movement? Anyone still writing today... One of my favorites is still David Wilcox, also, Erica Wheeler. She has grown on me quickly. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: gillymor Date: 15 Aug 00 - 11:18 PM I heard Metallica doing Whiskey in the Jar on the radio the other day so perhaps they're also in the vanguard. F |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Mbo Date: 15 Aug 00 - 11:27 PM Not really Frankee. They were merely covering Thin Lizzy's original rock version of Whisky In The Jar. Metallica is not, and does not want to be folk. The album it came from was a bunch of covers of their favorite songs to play when they were kids. --M |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: gillymor Date: 15 Aug 00 - 11:35 PM Tounge was firmly planted in cheek on that one, Mbo, but thanks for the additional info. Frankie |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Aug 00 - 11:54 PM Hey Bill........This argument was a lot more fun when we could at least all agree on a few simple distinctions. Now we're talking about whether music is good or bad or something. Honestly people, classifications are simply a way to save time and money in the record store or at the coffeehouse/venue. Everybody is free to like anything they wish, but like Bill said, what do we use when the old terms are gone? What was wrong with "Folk" and "Folk-Style".......seemed easy enough to me. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Jeri Date: 16 Aug 00 - 01:41 AM It's OK, Bill D and Spaw, not all of us are buying into it. I do like a lot of other types of music, but it's not folk. If all music is folk music, then why not just call it "music?" Why are you bothering with ANY label? Classical composers who incorporate folk music are still composing classical music. A jazz rendition of a rock song is still jazz. A country western artist who performs a blues song is still singing country western. Why is there some great need to call everything "folk?" My dictionary says "folk song, 1. a song made and handed down among the common people: folk songs are usually of anonymous authorship and often have many variations. 2. a song composed in imitation of such a song." At least with definition #2 there's some tradition involved. The thing that bothers me about pop music swiping the term "folk" is there's nothing left to call songs that fit the dictionary definition. I try to tell people I like folk music, and they automatically assume I'm a Jewell or Bob Dylan fan. (Well, I do like Dylan, but that wasn't what I was talking about.) Before anyone jumps in here with the tired old whine about people being pedantic, please first explain why it's so important to you to call pop music "folk," and why you're bothering with any label if everything fits into the category. If there are going to be labels, they should mean something. Oh well, I think I'll just give up and go to bed... |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 16 Aug 00 - 03:27 AM That intangible quality; call it folk. I like it best when I'm flat broke, Some find it background for a joke Elegant? well,... maybe so... Sad or happy, fast or slow, It doesn't matter, I dont know, Which or when or where to go But this I do know, try it out! Don't analyze and poke and pout... Opinions aren't what its about, Oh Boy! WE DO FOR CHORUS, SHOUT! Preservation gives me hopes The Past will show us the new ropes And believe not now the marketing dopes Just sidestep progress; folk elopes! |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Naemanson Date: 16 Aug 00 - 06:13 AM I think this is the same as arguing religion. We aren't going to change anyone's mind about what is or isn't folk music. But it's fun to discuss it. Let me see if I have the positions right. There is one faction that holds that folk music is traditional music only. I think part of there position is that it can have elements of traditional music in it and still be folk. There is another faction that holds that folk is an amorphous body of work consisting of traditional, traditional style, and new music. I'm not sure how the representatives of this faction distinguish between folk and other forms of music. And there is another faction that thinks this discussion is for the birds. If we like it and we are folkies then it is folk. Plus this faction sees the distinctions only as a way for the stores and the media to categorise music and musicians. I think I would like to take the role of mediator and score keeper in this discussion but, alas, I have my own views on the subject. Music categories are becoming blurred these days though that is not a new problem for music. There have always been cross over musicians. Look at O'Carolan and the classical influence on his music. Look at all the serious composers who incorporated folk and jazz into their "classical" work. I'm afraid I've always seen the singer/songwriter as soft rock wannabes. Some don't seem to be very good at getting there but that appears to be their goal. And, as with ALL other forms of music, some of their stuff is very good. But I agree that categories exist for the convenience of others and all we will ever be able to say is, "I like music." I challenge all of you to honestly say there is some form of music of which you hate all its elements and form. Please note, that some of what you may hate in its original form will be very nice when played in a slightly different style. I have heard Beatles and Rolling Stones tunes played in song circles and on coffeehouse stages that were very nice indeed. It wasn't until the song was half over that I recognized it as being a rock song. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Jeri Date: 16 Aug 00 - 11:31 AM Now that we've got the argument about words out of the way (I hope! At least I feel better now.) we can talk about singer-songwriter, alternative, avant-guarde, pop, whatever music we like. I like James Keelaghan, Garnet Rogers, Darden Smith, Shawn Colvin (although I like her older CD's better, and can leave the latest ones.) I'd probably like Richard Thompson as I've liked most of his songs I've heard other people do. Word on Usenet has it that Eliza Carthy's next CD (to be released soon) will be "pop," so that may fit here. She does both traditional folk and new music, and does them both well. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Whistle Stop Date: 16 Aug 00 - 01:04 PM Susan from California, the song sung by Richard Shindell on the Cry Cry Cry CD is called "Cold Missouri Water," by James Keelaghan. It's a very moving work, and I found myself reflecting on it a lot the past couple of weeks. It's based on a true story, by the way, which was recounted in a popular book a few years ago -- I think it was called "Young Men and Fire," or some such title. Regarding the "what is folk?" question (sorry, I can't resist), it is interesting to me that people who are trying to guard the definition of "folk" don't seem to care about the definitions of other forms of music -- rock and roll, jazz, "pop," etc. (as evidenced by the "that's not folk, it's pop" comments that use the word "pop" as a catch-all). It might be worth exploring this, in order to reveal a greater truth about this topic. What is "pop"? Is it just music that's popular? How popular? Does it have to be universally popular, or is popularity within a specific demographic enough? If so, doesn't that mean that folk music IS pop music, because it's popular among folkies? Consider these rhetorical questions, which point up the silliness of this debate. Like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice In Wonderland," we can choose to make words mean whatever we want them to mean, relying on whatever justifications appeal to us. But we cannot force others to abide by our definitions, no matter how sensible we consider them to be. Ultimately, language is not created (or modified) by the purists, or the pedants, or the self-anointed keepers of the flame. It is made by the people, for the people. It is just as much a folk tradition as anything we've ever discussed in this forum, and it will remain so, everyone's protests notwithstanding. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Jim the Bart Date: 16 Aug 00 - 02:34 PM IMHO Some of John Gorka's stuff is great, some is product. I guess that's what happens when a recording career has to be fed. I'm afraid that the fact that everything and everyone gets recorded as soon as they make their first marketable sound has caused the folk process irreparable harm. Melodies aren't allowed to mature, or lyrics to develop, when definitive versions are committed to tape (or disc). Songs don't mutate they way they used to; they aren't allowed to gestate regionally or locally. Any new development or idea is spread around the world almost instantly, usually before it "grows legs" to stand on its own. So we get a lot o'crap with the occasional dash of pure genius. Me? I'll listen to as much as I can, take the best and leave the rest behind. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: MichaelM Date: 16 Aug 00 - 02:40 PM Susan from California, the book is Young Men and Fire by Norman Maclean (author of A River Runs Through It). I happen to be re-reading Young Men & Fire when I stumbled onto this thread. Frankly I prefer the book to the song. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: GUEST,Russ Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:06 AM Personally, I love the fact that "folk music" is so vague. Sometimes the cat escapes the bag and acquaintances or colleagues at work learn that I am an amateur musician. "What sort of music do you do?" they ask. At that point, I must decide how long I want the ensuing conversation to be. If I want it to be short I answer "folk music." The nice thing about the term "folk music" is that most people think they have some idea what it is. Better, most people know that folk music is NOT pop, rock 'n' roll, bluegrass, rap, new age or any of the other genres they might hear on the radio or TV. Best, most people (outside this forum, of course) think they know enough about folk music to know that it is a genre that they are not very interested in. Thus, "folk music" tends to be a nice, polite "conversation stopper." Sometimes the person I am talking to will say something like "Oh, you mean stuff like The Kingston Trio/Joan Baez/ (your favorite folksinger's name here) did/does?" My personal rule is that no matter whom they name, I say "Yes." That normally ends a conversation that I didn't want to get into anyway. On the other hand, if, in my judgment, the asker can handle a long conversation and discourse, and I am in the mood for such, I answer "Old Time Music." Generally nobody except the people who play it or have friends or significant others who play it have any idea what it is and it takes a while to explain it. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Mbo Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:15 AM I like "I play 'stuff'." It's true. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Art Thieme Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:17 AM I usually say, "The story songs. The ones from history that can (and sometimes do) tell us how we got from there to here and what we did along the way." Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: GUEST,Paul G. Date: 17 Aug 00 - 12:07 PM Russ has added a great twist to this thread. This really hits home with me because I'm frequently asked to categorize, define, explain, or otherwise lable my music. "Folk" or "Contemporary Folk" (yes, I know some of you will consider this an oxymoron) are the easiest of those answers because they elicit notions of acoustic music outside of the pop and country gernres -- though I don't find it a complete or even satifying response, so I usually end up in the long conversations Russ tries to avoid...I once replied "Florida Music" and the questioner said "Oh, like Jimmy Buffett!" So I don't use that terminology any longer... pg |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Sean Belt Date: 17 Aug 00 - 12:24 PM In my sets, I'm likely to sing a combination of 'stuff'. I'll likely include a couple of ballads like 'Lady Margaret' and/or 'Come All You Fair & Tender Ladies', then shift to Old-Time music - 'Handsome Molly' for example. I'll also include 'Hesitation Blues' or 'Delia' because I love blues and ahve played them for years. Then maybe throw in some Richard Thompson, John Prine, or Dar Williams song that fits the mood. And I almost never play an evening without singing "Love Hurts" and "The Dark End of The Street" because I am always effected in a positive way by singing them.
So, some of it's folk and some of it's not. But I like all of it.
If someone asks what kind of music I play, I usually say old songs. If they press for more information, we can talk about blues and folk and old time country and what they mean. And the person I'm talking with probably goes away with a completely different concept of those terms than I hold in my head and heart.
As others in this discussion have stated, the distinction really shouldn't be about labels, but about quality and sincerity. Or something like that, anyway. - Sean |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Bill D Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:34 PM ah, Sean...that is truly as nice a way of getting at it that I have heard in ages...You manage to explain that there IS a difference without pretending to label and 'define'......I should learn to be so gentle with it... |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Jim the Bart Date: 17 Aug 00 - 02:12 PM I tell people I play "Neo-Folk and Americana". What does it mean? Whatever you think it means is fine with me. What do I mean by it? Some stuff you've never heard and some stuff you think you heard a long time ago, but it sounded different then. Mostly it's whatever the hell I feel like singing today with acoustic guitar and harmonica, to boot. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Kim C Date: 18 Aug 00 - 10:22 AM Let us also note that some of the songs considered "folk" today were popular songs when they were written, such as the works of Thomas Moore, or George Root, or William Bradbury. They were popular songs that were handed down through history and so now they're "folk." But they weren't when they were written! So consider the possibility of the Beatles being "folk" music 100 years from now, because I'm pretty damn sure people will be handing those songs down for years to come. |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Rana who SHOULD be working Date: 18 Aug 00 - 10:37 AM It is also interesting to listen to "folk-singers'" versions of songs that were note originally "folk" Dick Gaughan made the Rolling Stones' Ruby Tuesday into a superb "folk-song". Norma Waterson's solo CDs have interpreted many songs really well. As has June Tabor's 'non-folk' stuff. What it comes down to is there is that there is no black and white, just a very large area with differing amounts of grey. The problem comes when people want to impose strict definitions which eventually begin to contradict themselves which is clear from a different thread on the Mudcat. However, if it is good music it will stand the test of time, no matter what the label. People are arguing over the label, which at least, shouldn't detract from a whole load of excellent music Cheers Rana |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 18 Aug 00 - 12:28 PM I like old books. I like songs that speak of the richness of life. I like the term 'folk' musician too, because it tells people what they want to hear. Some of the words that come to mind are... Introvert, Radical, Conservative, Hippie, Malcontent, Christian Revivalist, Moldy Fig, Labor Unionist, Protester, Campfire Singer, Upbeat Storyteller, Depressing Balladeer, Singer/songwriter therapist, Acoustic (Rock Wannabe), Aging Rocker, Traditionalist... But between you and me,... JUST WHAT IS THE ROOT OF ALL FOLK? I've been looking through a nifty old book called "Aesthetic Motive" by Elizabeth Schneider. Here's a quote... "If the solution of the problem is, as many writers believe,that each artist restates eternal truths in terms of his own generation-then what are these eternal truths? and why does each generation find at least as much "inspiration" in the art of the past as in that of its own time? Moreover, although there is no general agreement that contemporary work in any art is superior to all past art, nevertheless there are generally recognized and unmistakable changes from age to age in what gives aesthetic pleasure, as in the history, for example, of musical concords, where we find that the now pleasant concord of a major third was once a discord. There are, to be sure, those who believe that the pleasure derived from old writers and artists is merely a conventional cult, without reality and that actually, art of the present is always superior to that of the past. But in general those most intensely interested in art do not feel this to be true." |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Aug 00 - 06:34 PM Then again,...Folk will take on whatever form the young and the restless like it in. Which is more important,... form or content? |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: Art Thieme Date: 21 Aug 00 - 07:05 PM Thomas, I plead guilty to just about everything on your good list -- at least some of my time was spent with all those various aspects of the subculture. Substitute beatnik for hippie and anything at all for rocker and I'd be your man. For some reason I'm left thinking about an organization that Utah Phillips wanted to form back about 25 years. It was called Y.A.W.N. Stood for: YOUTH AGAINST WHATEVER'S NEXT !!! Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: The 'New Folk Movement'? From: MichaelAnthony Date: 21 Aug 00 - 11:06 PM Elliot Smith (Good Will Hunting soundtrack) and Aimee Mann (Magnolia soundtrack) are two writers that show me I should check out contempory writers with an open mind. I have to search, but I'm finding things.
|
| Share Thread: |