Methodologies

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Art Thieme
Date: 24 Feb 98 - 02:40 AM

THE LAW IS whatever the Supreme Court says it is at any given moment.

A folksong is whatever we think it is at any given moment.

In Memphis (Flk.Alliance) you can see that NOBODY agrees on what a folksongs is!

Bill Broonzy said he never heard a horse sing. Just people. So all songs are folksongs.

Mountain climbers say they climb a mountain because it's there. I sing folksongs because (for the most part) IT ISN'T THERE!!

Once wrote a letter to the editor on this WHAT'S A FOLKSONG question saying, "I know what I like! I like folksongs! Other songs (mostly) I don't like (except Thelonious, Bird, Diz, Chet Baker & a few thousand others). So--if ya want to know if it's a folksong just ask me! If I like it, it is one! If I don't like it, it aint one.

Reminds me of a Bellafonte calypso tune called "Man Piab"----IT WAS CLEAR AS MUD AND IT COVERED THE GROUND AND THE CONFUSION MADE MY BRAIN GO 'ROUND!!

Robert Kennedy once said, "30% of the people are against everything ALL THE TIME!" (or does this belong with the Kennedy thread?????) (Whoops, no--it should be an ALL NEW ROBERT Kennedy thread.)

Again I'm reminded of the Buddhist saying about JOYOUS PARTICIPATION IN THE SORROWS OF THE WORLD! (But then this should be in that strange Buddhist thread.)

This is all enough to make one ANTISEMANTIC!

Probably it's time to end this (If it wasn't for time we'd have to do everything all at once!!)

I love it all! Art (SMILE--please)

This

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 98 - 01:32 AM

Earl, I can't imagine that exclusivity is a trait of a true folk song. I think the song becomes part of all who treasure it. It not only expresses community - it builds community among all who share the treasure.
A true folk song is an organic, living thing. It contines to grow and change, but it carries with it all it has been through in the past. "Static" and "archaic" are other traits that don't fit folk songs. Folk songs stem from history and tradition; but they must progress with time, or they will die.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Earl
Date: 24 Feb 98 - 01:01 AM

I basically agree with Joe, as long as we can define "community" very broadly in the modern world. Growing up in a middle class suburb of Buffalo we had no indigenous music. Via the folk boom I developed a love for blues and Appalachian music and later for the roots of both. I feel a definite connection to the musical traditions with very little legitimate connection to the communities that created them.

I've heard performers who seem anxious to turn living folksongs into artifacts. On the other extreme, there have always been performers who use folksongs as the basis for musical experiments. A good song, that tells a good story, like "Barbara Allen" will shine through in both cases.

That's my two cents. Looking forward to the big fight.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 24 Feb 98 - 12:59 AM

Perhaps the battle above is ageless: the scholar seeks to study the history of something, but in order to do so, he must crystalize what he wishes to study long enough to get a handle on it. The problem is that such a crystallization sometimes leads to ossification-the song turns to something like dead stone and ceases to live. (It's after midnight--pardon the mixing of metaphors.)

But if I'm going to go to the trouble of learning a song and singing it with regularity--I want to make it mine, and let it live through me, and as someone who now posseses the song and uses it for my own purposes (whether public performance or private entertainment), I reserve the right to make whatever subtle (or not-so-subtle) changes necessary to personalize the song and make it my own.

The accretion of these changes, as the communal song is made personal and then passed along to others, is the folk process; when a song becomes distant enough from its original composer to have this process wreaked upon it, it becomes a folk song.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 98 - 11:41 PM

Hmmm...could we say maybe that a song becomes a folk song when it loses its identification with an individual songwriter and becomes part of the culture and tradition and history of a community? I think that's where a song starts to become "folk" - when it moves from individuals to a community. If it is truly a "folk" song, it should express the character of the community from which it springs.
That's only the start, though. I think it's a slow evolution. Most songs don't become "folk" until they've gone through many changes. If there's only one form of a song, maybe it isn't really a folk song.
Thirdly, I think a folk song should have a certain timelessness. It should express both the past and the current character of a community. If it is no longer relevant to a community, perhaps it it becomes an artifact, and not a true folk song.
That, in three paragraphs, is my less-than-humble opinion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Bruce O.
Date: 23 Feb 98 - 10:48 PM

This seems like a good place to start a discussion (or big fight).

What's a folksong? A folksong is a song collected from a traditional singer. (What do you mean by 'collected'.) What's a traditional singer? Any brave soul want to start the ball (or battle) rolling?

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Frank in the swamps
Date: 23 Feb 98 - 01:18 AM

Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to sound like I had you guys categorized and neatly boxed. I was exagerrating the approaches that I see in order to make a point. Using you and Bruce made it a little more concrete, as you make it clear your main intent is to get people singing, and if Bruce isn't well researched... well. I've no doubt all the Mudcaters are far more subtle than comes across on the monitor screen. Why even I have been known to get my foot out of my mouth and shoes on my feet.

Frank I.T.S.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Bruce O.
Date: 22 Feb 98 - 02:23 PM

Sorry Joe, several people that contribute here or look in here can attest to my lack of singing ability. I did not say I thought all songs should be sung only the way they were originally written, and I've pointed out under "Dumbarton Drums" that I thought the traditional version from the Beers family was a far superior song than the original. There are others the same. I only want to establish facts and keep straight what are facts, so we don't burn our bridges behind us. That's usually thought to be a rather poor idea.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Feb 98 - 02:29 AM

Well, Frank, I started reading your message, and my first response was, "Oooh, that smarts!" You did soften the blow a little later, though; so now I don't feel so bad. Yeah, I think Bruce and I are probably in basic agreement. Although we may have different perspectives, I'll bet we'd be able to get together and have a great time singing the night away.
My training is in theology and languages, and I've encountered similar problems with the scriptures. I've learned a lot by studying early texts of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek and Latin and King James English and Martin Luther German. However, I read those texts for study, not for inspiration. I prefer something in more modern language for everyday use. I find the most satisfying translations are the ones that don't get too modern, the ones that preserve the tone and dignity of the earlier texts. I guess I feel most comfortable with the Revised Standard Version, although there are may other good translations.
Same goes for modernizing folk songs - I think we have to be careful that our adaptations respect the original tone. I have to say, though, that Bruce's Bawdy Ballads don't need any adaptation. They're great just the way he presents them. Keep 'em coming, Bruce!

Now, Frank, "flavour of the month pop songs"? C'mon! I'm not that bad, am I?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Bruce O.
Date: 21 Feb 98 - 01:43 PM

Frank in the Swamps. Child, ESPB #155, points out two tellings of the tale of "Hugh of Lincoln" of the mid 13th century. I regret that I did not copy down author of title of a subsequent book or article on the subject. My recollection is that no historical basis has ever been found for the charge of ritual murder by the Jews, but it was a widely disseminated belief. I suspect it was drempt up as a post facto justification for the murders of all the Jews from the 1st starting out of the 1st crusade.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Bruce O.
Date: 21 Feb 98 - 01:25 PM

I don't think Joe and I realy differ all that much. I'm concerned that we don't lose the roots, and don't mythologize them. That way, if evolution takes us to a sterile end we've got the originals to go back to.
It seems to me that's what the folk music boom in the 1950's and 60's was all about. There were interesting folk songs that one could sing that related closely with our own experiences and cultural background, and gave us a more realistic view of it than that found in those of the pop and country song singers and writers.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Frank in the swamps
Date: 21 Feb 98 - 07:40 AM

I found this thread compelling enough that I wanted to respond to it, but I sat here for ages thinking "I could just go on and on, what's the point?". I guess the point is that we come to folk music because there's more to it than meets the eye. If Joe Offer and Bruce O. don't mind my singling them out, I'd like to posit them as polar ends of a continuum, if all Joe wants to do is sing, why not just go along with flavour of the month pop tunes? And if Bruce O. is just into arcane origins, why not go solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper? Folk music has the magical quality of bringing the past to life. By singing, or even just listening to these songs, experiences of people long gone are experienced anew. Joe & Bruce are both, I believe, coming to the same place from different directions. I'd love to know the origin of "Little Sir Hugh". Is it a story bred from anti-Semitism, or anti-Semitism overlayed on an old folk motif? Whatever the case, it's a good song and a worthy subject for historical research. Frank I.T.S.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: dwditty
Date: 21 Feb 98 - 06:16 AM

All pretty heady stuff. In the words of a Bahamian street musician I heard once, sometime a song just "complexifies my mind."

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Alice
Date: 21 Feb 98 - 12:29 AM

I think I mentioned this in another thread, but I feel that finding out as much as I can about a song helps me grow into it, so to speak. Then when I feel that I have lived with the song and its history for a while, I can make it my own, adapting a word or note here and there to make it more singable for me. I still treasure what I know about its earliest sources. The fanaticism that clings to an arbitrary idea reminds me of the science fiction novel that was popular back in the 60's, "Canticle For Leibowitz" (sp?).... anyone else remember that one? alice in mt.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: chet w
Date: 20 Feb 98 - 11:12 PM

I'm with you, Joe. I guess the question has to come up, though, how do we find the original form of much of our music? I recall going to the Fiddler's Grove Festivals (just down the road from the Union Grove Bluegrass Festival, each put on by one of the VanHoy brothers) back in the 70's. The whole thing, as far as music on the stage was concerned, was set up as a contest; one for each instrument and one for stringbands. If your band didn't sound a whole lot like the 1920's records (in other words, the first records) of stringbands such as Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers, you had not a chance of winning. Those 1920's records had become their idea of the "original" form, and it was not to be messed with. If you had something as exotic as a mandola or a pennywhistle in your band, forget it. We all played anyway, because they gave you the price of your ticket back. I often wonder how people decide on these kinds of standards. For a non-musical example, how did the Hassidic Jews in New York, a five thousand year old religion, decide that men's clothes fashionable in the 1850's were to be important to them. Beats me. There is a super-fundamentalist college in Greenville, SC called Bob Jones University, where the students wear clothing of the 1950's. I went to another college in the same town; never got a handle on that one. Fascinatingly, they (BJU) at least once applied for a permit to have mounted 50 caliber machine guns in their guardhouse at the gate. Boy were they righteously upset when they didn't get it. I know I've gotten off the subject. It's been a long week and I'm going to bed.

Music is a wonderful thing, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Feb 98 - 10:49 PM

I have mixed feelings on this issue. I love to study the origins and development of songs, and I think it's important that songs are somehow preserved in their original form.
On the other hand, I love to sing, and to involve other people in singing. Songs that are 400 years old just don't work for group singing unless they've been adapted a bit. I would hope that the adaptations would be tasteful, and that they would preserve as much as possible of the original song. I'm sure many here would disagree with me, but I think performers like the Kingston Trio and Peter, Paul and Mary did a lot to bring traditional music to my generation. If it hadn't been for groups like these and the changes they made to the old songs, I think there are many of us here who wouldn't be calling ourselves "folkies." It's a wonderful thing to preserve these treasures, these songs that have been sung for centuries - but the primary purpose of music is enjoyment, and I'll do whatever it takes to make the music enjoyable for the people I'm with.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: chet w
Date: 20 Feb 98 - 08:06 PM

I just remembered a great line from Thelonious Monk while writing on another thread. He once said, I think in response to some critics, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." He was a great artist, very quotable, and interestingly enough was the biggest-selling artist Columbia Records had before John Hammond the first discovered Bob (Zimmerman) Dylan. He also "discovered" Billie Holliday and Bruce Springsteen, and his son, the current John Hammond, is one of the finest artists and scholars on the blues of our time. If you happen to be a blues fan, look for the younger Hammond's documentary called "Searching for Robert Johnson". Then get a record and listen to the boy play. He reveres his roots, but his artistry, even when playing a Robert Johnson song, is his own. I guess that's sort of what I'm trying to promote.

Enjoying the discussion, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: chet w
Date: 20 Feb 98 - 07:44 PM

I think it's fine to look for and study the origins and the stories behind the songs. It appeals to me and I think it enhances my enjoyment of the music. But let's face it, such pursuits are not artistic, rather they are scholarly, which again is a fine thing if that's what one loves. But it's just that I've seen a number of my musical friends over the last few decades that took up this scholarly approach with such zeal that they became really boring as musicians, as artists, and sometimes as social company. From my point of view some moderation is in order. The friends I mentioned, who tend to be fiddlers, sometimes won't play a song unless they know at least one verifiable title for it. For me, I couldn't care less. If it's fun I'll play it. Most of the traditional tunes that I've been playing for a long time I don't even know a title for anymore, so if it comes up I just make one up. ("oysters in the henhouse" or some such. I'm truly not trying to convert anyone to this point of view, except to hold forth that scholarship and artistry, both admirable, are not the same thing.

Hard to be articulate on Friday night, Chet W.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Bob Landry
Date: 20 Feb 98 - 05:16 PM

I'm no musical scholar - as a kitchen musician, my eclectic tastes revolve around one basic requirement, that the music be good. But I do like to learn a little (and sometimes a lot) about the story behind the song I'm singing. I very much enjoy reading background information on tunes that I've known for a long time, the debates on whether a theme is factual or allegorical, the roots of a particular song, finding out who wrote it, the variants and additional verses, the different interpretations that appear throughout the folk process. These things make the music come alive for me and they greatly enchance my appreciation of the music. For this reason, Mudcat has become my favourite web site, the one I return to every day to see what new information you, my fellow Mudcatters, have posted about many of my favourite tunes. The diversity of your experience, the depth of knowledge you continue to express constantly amazes me. Keep it up. I'll keep coming back.

Subject: RE: Methodologies
From: Bruce O.
Date: 20 Feb 98 - 03:17 PM

I've stated my views, and I think I'm done. I want to go back to researching old songs, that's my bag, really. It's also pointless to argue about beliefs; 'facts' of one are opinions of another, and the winner is almost always the most fluent, and not necessarily the one best informed.

Subject: Methodologies
From: Peter Turner
Date: 20 Feb 98 - 02:58 PM

I have been following a couple of threads (info on Barbara Allen; origins of John Henry), and I have noticed a new conversation has sprung up inside of them. It is a healthy and somewhat fierce debate on the fundamental question of how to think about, approach these songs that we all love. In essence, it is a question about methodology and, therefore, about one's philosophy of music appreciation. It seems an important question and one that is (for me) full of fascination and vigour. I would like to hear what a greater number of you think about the questions raised. Since the debate is no longer really about poor John and Barbara, I thought I'd try to liberate it from them and them from it, by creating a new thread. To anyone interested, check out those two threads and chime in here.