Who Defines 'Folk'????

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 07:11 AM

So this thread is refreshed after 6 years. I've read right thru it. Re Ireland: how come nobody mentioned e.g. {& it has to be an e.g.] Seamus Ennis or Paddy Tunney; ditto, re England, Harry Cox, Sam Larner ... oh how I could go on...

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 06:00 AM

I would say that Sun Ra defines Jazz more than Ellington does; Ellington took it only so far (though on Money Jungle shows how he could go) but Mr Ra (who came up through Fetcher Henderson) took it as far back as Ancient Egypt and as far out as Saturn, covering the entire tradition of jazz along the way. Ellington I love dearly - the reason I don't believe in God is because I can't conceive of a greater divinity than that of The Piano Player. Maybe Ra is the anti-Christ of jazz, but he returns it to where it's meant to be.

Is there anyone comparable in Folk? Well, unlike Jazz, the entire concept of Folk Music is a contrived cultural myth, but it has thrown up some amazing music along the way. None of it as amazing as Duke Ellington or Sun Ra, but I'd say the deal was covered by three individuals: Seamus Ennis, Peter Bellamy and Jim Eldon.

In America I'd say either Jack Langstaff or maybe John Jacob Niles!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: TinDor
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 05:01 AM

Interesting thread...from a American POV, I would say Pete Seeger or Leadbelly

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 04:51 PM

Ewan McColl recording "John Henry" was a bit of a laugh too, considering how heavy he came down,in later years, on younger people fancied a dabble in cultures not "their own"(as defined by McColl). Well, I personally fight the corner of English traditional music as much as anyone, but it's never stopped me flirting shamelessly with other cultures!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: lamarca
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 04:43 PM

Hi, Greg - yeah, I forgot about Martin and Ewan's tarnished American folk wannabe past... Martin can still belt out American-style rock n' roll, as evidenced by "Tortoise from Hell" in the style of "Maltloaf", on the first Mrs. Ackroyd Band album, and his great rendition of "Heartbreak Hotel" recently!

I think that music from other cultures has the appeal of the new and exotic, which is why so many Brits from Carthy to Clapton were seduced by American country blues, and so many Americans (like me) are into English and Irish folk songs. I've had several folks say to me "You should learn more American songs - it's your own heritage!" But, really, as a 2nd generation Polish-Italian American raised as an academic faculty brat in the American Midwest, a song from Tennessee or Vermont working class manual laborers is just as foreign as one from England - so why shouldn't I sing what I really enjoy!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Eliza C
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 04:28 PM

Gurney,
No problem at all. But there is a place here I think for the opinions of people like me, as much as anyone who has a proper job (!) and loves folk for a hobby. I didn't take it the wrong way, I promise.
cheers,
x ec

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 04:22 PM

this ain't math. nuthin' needs definin', but if it comes from the heart, round-about or direct, it's folk.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:39 AM

Bit of a mistake in my previous post,,,what it was meant to say was "(Martin) Carthy and Ewan McColl were both into American folk"

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Gurney
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:34 AM

Dear Eliza C., I hope you didn't take my post as an attack on folk pro's, most of whom I hold in high regard. I only wish I could perform as well as that. I meant that I think folk music is not generic and cannot be categorised. I've heard folkies working their way through the Beatles songbook, the Fred Astaire songs, Buddy Holley, 'I Dreamt I dwelt in Marble Halls,' and the like. And who hasn't? While they were singing, it was folk music, but not with a studio recording and orchestral backing. Just the way I feel.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:56 AM

Lamarca made a point earlier about most British musicians chasing American music, skiffle and blues: this majority was contrasted with Martin carthy and Ewan mcColl, who were interested in our own heritage. I think that is highly misleading...Carthy and McColl were bot American folk music, like everybody else, Carthy in skiffle, McColl singing "John Henry", all the usual thing. They moved on, as did so many, to an interest in folk music. They were defiinitely not a contrast to the people you describe, Lamarca, they were part of them. We all started of on Leadbelly/Guthrie etc. Joseph Taylor and Walter Pardon came later!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Jenny Islander
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:11 AM

Points people have made about the dangers of school folk music programs called up a memory for me. We had an ambitious but doomed music curriculum when I was in the lower grades. Year by year, the teachers played recordings from Ghana and Louisiana and Ireland, and while I listened intently the other kids rolled their eyes and made faces and snickered. The teachers handed us acoustic instruments and the other kids refused to improvise or practice as I itched to strike up a bodhran beat. By sixth grade, the books were passed out but hardly opened or referred to. They were intended to build on what had come before, so they made no sense.

The difference between me and the other kids? My mother was a member of the local arts council and a public radio volunteer. Roving folkies stayed at her house. I learned about a dozen of the Child Ballads painlessly from a couple from the mainland who played Kodiak annually; I had no idea for years that they had a common identity other than "really cool songs." She got comp tickets to everything and bought all the records on sale during intermission. And our arts council was (still is) headed by geniuses. Our isolated town has hosted Sally Rogers, Bo Diddley, Dave Brubeck, Lou Reed, John Hammond, Joan Baez, and Jimmy Buffett, who showed up on his own and got into a fight to protect a lady's honor, as the story goes, as well as countless fiddlers, dulcimer players, jazzmen, blues men, classical quartets, Native American performers from all over the continent, every flavor of Celtic musician and a capoeira troupe. We had no TV at our house, but the radio was always on; the dial never moved from 100.1 FM, where you could hear everything from Kiss to live local bluegrass depending on time of day. The kids who sneered at the music curriculum had American Top 40.

But earlier, in preschool and after-kindergarten day care, two nice ladies came in every day and played "Five Hundred Miles," "The Sidewalks of New York," "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean," and a whole bookful of other songs, and twenty-plus years later my old classmates could still remember, with a smile, how they went.

So I'd like to expand on Deckman's insight. I realize now that the best person to name an education program after is Mom, or Dad or Uncle Phil who sings all the time or Grandma who knows every tune in Southern Harmony. Get the kids before they realize that there is a whole music industry aimed at their lowest common denominator and proclaim their independence by submitting to it. Sing them to sleep with "The Skye Boat Song." When they are in a loud mood, play "The Ballad of Sir Geordie Gordon" or "Goodnight Irene" with the volume up to 8 and encourage them to bellow along. Sing "Five Hundred Miles" and "One, I Love" in the car. Yeah, sooner or later they'll rebel. But as with church, when they have kids of their own they'll come back.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Deckman
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:21 PM

Hey Catspaw ... this is a very interesting query. I have been reading it, but as Spring has hit the NorthWest, my deck building business now is keeping me going 7 days a week. However, I do want to take a little time and attempt to add something to this discussion.

Let me preface my comments by telling you, up front, that I will not be able to define "folk", as I understand you to mean, by naming any one person. That's probably impossible, and you'd never get any two people to agree. So, when I think of who really defines "folk" for me, here is who I see and hear in my memory and mind's eye:

I see and hear "Mike." He was a pearl diver at one of the first coffee houses on the "Ave", in Seattle in the late 50's and early 60's. When he leaned back, and sang, acappella, "She Moved Through The Fair," I was frozen! He had it;

I think of "Terry", kind of a will-o-the-wisp. Transitory, very talented, charming, with an incredible ability to match a song and a moment;

I also think of "Roy," from England. He fit the role with his performing experience as an early busker. He charmed the ladies, knew an large number of songs, and was truly a rake;

"Pete", certainly. Besides the obvious qualities already mentioned, he shines because of his years in the trenches;

As does "Burl";

Then there's "Walt'. Consummate performer who studied and perfected his craft, was a wanderer in every sense of the word, and never lost his delight in presenting the song in a simple, straightforward manner that he felt was true to the material;

Then there is "Casey". What a delight. A very large man, who arrived in Seattle in the 50's with a guitar case full of Idaho songs. And his presentation was/is as straightforward and honest as he is;

And I have to mention "Nancy". I have to close my eyes so her beauty doesn't distract me. And what she can do with a ballad, with her pure voice in inflection is breathtaking;

And then there's "Don"; I love to watch his eyes when he sings and plays. I'm seeing the very same delight that I first saw there 50 years ago, but now I'm hearing the wisdom of 50 years of careful study and respectful learning.

So Catspaw, what I am saying is that THIS is the "FOLK" to me. An amalgam of all these people. Some have left us now, many have not. And for those of us that still gather, we just get better and better.

Thanks for bringing this subject up! CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Frankham
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 02:36 PM

Peter T,
Not shy at all but agree completely.   It's why we do what we do.

Community does reflect "folk" and that's where the emphasis does the most good. People own the music, then they understand it.

Getting a figurehead for educating kids is tough because it becomes institutionalized fast....like Jazz at Lincoln Center. Ben Webster's few minutes is a case in point. No mention of Eddie Lang in the Burns documentary. (Daddy of all jazz guitarists). Bound to miss somebody.

Let's give the job to lesser lights and have more of them.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 01:48 PM

If you were looking for an icon to be a starting place for your educational program, you'd have to decide first what part of folk you wanted to teach. If you're going to accomplish anything, you have to do that anyway. I don't know that they've picked Ellington because he's the best way to get at jazz a whole (whatever that is), but maybe he's one of the best ways to get at "jazz that high school bands can play".

Anybody you pick is going to narrow your focus somehow, even someone as eclectic as Pete Seeger has been over the years. The essence of Seeger's approach to music is "means to an end." The collector approach is more of "music for music's sake" (depending on the collector), but your choice of collector narrows it, too. If you picked Lomax, you'd be ignoring everything north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

I have to say that any educational program putting itself forward as the "most unique" has lost way too many points with me in just the first few paragraphs, anyway. :-) And the competitive aspect of it deals the final death blow.
~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:13 AM

I think a more interesting question is, what is the "folk ethos"? That is what gets carried on like some kind of virus. The reason why people mention Seeger and Guthrie is that they embody a stance in the world which is reflected in their music, and in turn the stance reflects the music. The ethos is based on the commitment to the possibility of everyone contributing to music, and that that is an expression of, and a further commitment to, a community. Traditional folk songs (whether mythically or accurately) are part of the threads of common life -- their preservation and continuation are seeds of hope that, just as those songs came from communities, so today there is a hope -- goofy given the world around us but a real hope -- that new communities can come from songs. The songs are seen as seeds of community, even if the folk garden they are to grow is only in the minds of those who sing them, and the people who come out to hear them. I think every folk song sung to a sympathetic audience creates a temporary community around that song, the singer, the event. I think folkies believe this, though some would be shy to admit it. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: mooman
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:48 AM

I would say pretty well everyone who plays every form of "folk" from every corner of the world "from the heart".

Probably not a satisfactory answer to 'Spaw's original question but I wouldn't be able to answer that with any single name concerning jazz, "folk" or any other genre because of the sheer diversity and evolving nature of the various beasties.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Eliza C
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:43 AM

Gurney,
   Do feel like a bit of an oxymoron sometimes... :)
I think that it is good and worthwhile to be a pro (otherwise I wouldn't do it), but it isn't the be-all and end-all.I think being a pro has to be about more than making albums in this field, it has to be.The buck does not stop with the person in the publicity shoot,there has to be an effort to maintain continuity and community, or it just isn't the same animal anymore.
   I like to think of it as the village hall is bigger than it used to be-people have earned their livings or beer money from folk music for hundreds of years, and besides, it gives me full focus to research what I love and it lets me sleep in in the mornings.
xx e

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Gurney
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:02 AM

For the folk who corrected me about the Irish folk revival, many thanks. My information was (very much was) from patriotic Irish folkies, telling a revivalist like me about the crack (and thats traditional spelling) there then.
Doesn't it all beg the question, though. To quote from a previous thread about bumper stickers, 'REAL folksingers have day jobs.' Professional folksinger is an oxymoron.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:18 AM

Methinks I have exposed a serious gap in my education. How careless of me, especially being a 12-string player too! Shame on me...I'll take you up on that, GS!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:58 AM

You won't hear me asking "Who" about Pete Atkin/Clive James, El Greko! I have the 35(?) year old cassette gathering dust in the attic to prove it.
Come and visit and I'll play you some Leadbelly tracks..and I might even get the old twelve out for a live demonstration.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:34 AM

Wrong use of words on my part, Greg, I meant "surprising", not "unpleasant". It's just that in 30 years of following folk, admittedly mostly through trad clubs in the UK, I have had comparatively little exposure to Leadbelly - certainly not enough to call him "defining".

So to arrive at Leadbelly as an answer was "shocking - surprising" for me, just as it would be for someone else if I had arrived at Pete Atkin/Clive James through a similar process (who? I am sure I hear you ask). This says more about me and the circles I move in, of course, and nothing at all about Leadbelly's qualities. But it still serves to illustrate thate point that nobody can define folk.

Apologies for the misunderstanding caused by my wrong usage of English. Put it down to being Greek (I blame lots of things on that, it's handy).

And of course you can call me El, or George!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: lamarca
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:03 PM

I went back and looked at the "Essentially Ellington" website that Spaw linked to, and understand the question a bit better.

We're not trying to define "Folk" here, a topic that has been repeatedly battered to death on the Mudcat ever since I first started posting in 1996. What we're looking for is someone to design an educational program around, that would expose schoolkids to the widest possible variety and wealth of "Folk Music" in their country.

I submit that teaching American schoolkids about American traditional musics from the John and Alan Lomax collections would offer a breadth and depth of exposure that would provide a good grounding. Kids could learn about the patterns and textures of different musical threads that have gone into the American tapestry of folk music. Field recordings, revival versions of those recordings, modern songs and music influenced by those original sources - all of them could be presented to give kids an idea of the richness of American folk traditions. As with an Ellington jazz program, the introduction could lead interested students into exploring other collectors, other styles, and other types of "folk" musics.

Although as an American, I'm not as familiar with the UK, I believe that Cecil Sharp and Ralph Vaughan Williams created a similar curriculum for English schools in the early 20th century, and that any number of British folk revivalists had to get over the general public's memories of their forced exposure to sanitized English folk song in school to show people the excitement and riches in their own heritage. At a time in the late 50's and early 60's when young British musicians were going ga-ga over American traditional music forms like skiffle and blues, it was the revivalists like Martin Carthy and Ewan MacColl who were saying "Hey, wait a minute - we have bloody great traditional music of our own!" A British Isles program shaped around their great collectors from Sharp, Burns, Greig-Duncan, Baring-Gould, Grainger, and early Scottish and Irish tune collectors to later 20th century collectors like Peter Kennedy, Sean O'Riada, Sam Henry, Hamish Henderson, etc could do the same for schools in the UK and Ireland. As I'm not as familiar with the UK, I can't come up with one name that covers the same breadth of British, Scottish and Irish musics as the Lomaxes do for American musics - maybe our UK 'Catters have a good suggestion.

But please, folks - let's not return to the "What is/isn't Folk Music" discussion - that non-folksinging horse has been beaten to death long ago...

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Frankham
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM

Having played Lincoln Center at one time, I think that it'd be hard to find any folk musician that would be really comfortable there. The first thing that hit me when I marched onstage was being blinded by the gleaming gold balconies. It seemed incongrous to sing folk songs there.

I think the solution is to give Wynton Marsalis a beat up Martin, a pair of jeans with patches on it, grow his hair longer and have him do a Child Ballad accapella. Then watch the grants roll in.

Leadbelly admired Richard Dyer-Bennett. For that matter, Satchmo admired Guy Lombardo.

I'm not sure that real folk music belongs on the concert stage. Even Pete Seeger might agree with that I think. He always asked people to consider lullabyes as folk music. Try rocking your child to sleep onstage in Lincoln Center.

I don't think you can educate the public about folk music the same way you can about jazz (If you can do that the way Wynton Marsalis is attempting to do.) Here's the problem. Jazz has stars. Folk music in it's essence is anti-star. It's folks. The best way is to forget a central figure to be a catalyst for this kind of music. The best education is when all kinds of people own the music and are a part of it as a natural heritage or national endowment. Then it becomes alive. Anybody remember the "Hootenanny Show" on TV with the famous folklorist Jack Linkletter?

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:31 PM

Why did the answer shock,Mr Greko,(or may I call you El?). I do think it's an unanswerable question, in fact it's plain daft given the nature of folk music, but I thought, well, if it's got to be answered, I'll give it a go. But what intrigues me is, why did you find the answer shocking? I thought it was pretty obvious. I mean, lots of pepple were suggesting Pete Seeger. I ask you, if it was down to a choice between Pete Seeger and Leadbelly, who would Pete Seeger choose? He worships Leadbelly!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:14 PM

I love your trail of thought, Greg, and find it hard to refute. But of course, arrived at logically, the answer shocks. Which proves that the question was wrong in the first place.

I argue that nobody can define "Folk", for the simple reason that it is not a single thing, but a collection of varied influences, sounds, experiences, lives etc, and organic whole growing as we speak but consisting of independent and distinct organisms; sort of like a colony. To provide a single defining answer you'd have to ignore so many of the differences that the answer doesn't make sense. It's like asking "Who defines human" - would it be a hermaphrodite? I think not.

So, folk is by definition indefineable.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:03 PM

Well, it's a funny question, but I'll hve bash at answering it seriously. Let's stick to North America/Britain/Ireland as that's the predominant discussion areas on Mudcat. Let's pick someone who we can all agree is folk, so let's knock out song writers and revivalists. Let's go for someone who while fulfils all the definitions of a traditional musician, but who also produced magnificent music judged by other criteria. Let's have someone equally influential on either side of the Atlantic, wh inspired folkies and rockers. Let's have someone who does material originating each side of the Atlantic. Let's consider people from diverse ethnic backgrounds...black and Native American combined might be good. Let's have someone who played a Stella 12-string.
Hell let's have
LEADBELLY

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Jenny Islander
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM

I dunno, I saw a clip of Dylan in a tux once and he looked pretty cool.

My definition of folk music is music from someplace (or sometime) where if you want to hear music about the things you care about, you'll have to either compose it yourself or ask a neighbor. Filk is one of the most active, as in sung at every possible occasion by amateurs and pros alike, folk subgenres around, IMHO, because there aren't many songs with SF or fantasy themes on commercial radio (okay, okay, "Sleeping Satellites," "Rocketman," "Major Tom," "Ironman," "Go Go Godzilla," "Rhiannon," but I couldn't fill a CD with the full playlist and "Drops of Jupiter" is actually an extended metaphor).

Somebody they could name a folk music education program after--? Hrm. Okay, it would have to be somebody well enough known that most people would go, "Hey, yeah, it's about time," while some would blink and say, "What, _him?_" For a program in the U.S., I agree with Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger, Burl Ives, Woody Guthrie.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 12:05 PM

Spaw's initial question should have been "Who could you name a folk music education program after that would have the high degree of recognition, prestige, and sophistication that you need to get connected with Lincoln Center?"

The short for of the question is "What famous folkie looked good in tails?" and has no answer.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 10:37 AM

Go out on the street:
The first person you meet
Will perfectly well define folk.
You could even, of course
Just pick on a horse
If it sings( sorry, my little joke).

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Celtaddict
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 10:21 AM

Rick is right.
Who defines folk?
I do. When I sing it.
He does. When he sings it.
You do. When you sing it.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: IanC
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 10:13 AM

Isn't the really important point that, whereas somebody else, like Duke Ellington or whoever, can be a model other styles of music it's me who defines folk.

;-)

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 09:53 AM

Gurney(sorry for thread creep): Ireland had a huge and influential folk revival. Have a think what Irish music sounds like nowadays, and then listen to some Sean O Riada, Dubliners, Chieftains and Planxty. After that listen to some pre-1950 traditional Irish recordings. You will instantly see the huge influence of the revival musicians(and their colleagues) that I listed: the music today has been completely revolutionised by the 50's/60's revival.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Little Aussie Bleeder
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 09:42 AM

I think Musical Poets
Les

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,tossiguest
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 09:15 PM

Like discovering another America to find this site!
Now, who is "ttr" who wrote and rhymed the query eruditely?
Suspect I'll skip work, instead I'll ponder all the comments nightly.

Ok, so it doesn't scan, but I confess to have started the "waulking and weaving" thread in curiosity over background connection to
a 17th C round "Derry Ding Ding Dason" Anyone have further information?

And are you the Frank Hamilton I remember from folk days in the 60s?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 07:11 PM

Okay, ya flippin losers...(to quote BDiBR)...enough of this!

Who defines "Folk"?

I do. That's all you need to know.

Oh. And William Shatner does too. What Shatner doesn't know about Folk is definitely not worth knowing.

End of story.

- LH

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Deckman
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 07:01 PM

Hey Don ... have you ever thought about doing some serious writing? By the way, how's the book comming? CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 02:02 PM

Eliza C mentioned the popularity of River dance-Lord of the Dance- made me re-think my choice of Seegar. I can think of no sole representative or iconic figure. Maybe that is part of "folk."

Folk music has never been generally popular in the States and Canada. Even in the 19th century, composers like Foster and the minstrel lyricists were the rage. In my generation, only the Kingston trio and Harry Belafonte and his banana song made much of an impression on the charts (OK, the latter isn't folk, but most people think it is).

McCarthyism was vile, but even now, many years later, mention Guthrie and Seegar and from older people you get a questioning look and perhaps the question, "Weren't they communists?" Dylan, didn't he have something to do with hippies and flower people?
Burl Ives had a couple of hits, one a remake of an old minstrel piece, but the general public little noted the rest of his work.

Also noticed that Black folk music got little support here. The Negro spiritual perhaps had the greatest influence of any folk music on the public as a whole.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: paulo
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:39 PM

The problem with following this thread is the original question.   This states that Ellington has already been defined, by someone, as the voices of jazz!

If you accept this choice, or not, it seems to me that the basis of the choice was that Ellington was a) a well known name assosciated with jazz and b) someone who played traditional stuff and self pened stuff.

On that basis my choices would be:
USA - Pete Seegar
Eng - Ewan McColl
Ire - Christy Moore
Sct - Archie Fisher
Wales - hasn't got one

Paulo

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Eliza C
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:26 PM

Gurney,
It isn't strictly true to say that the Irish did not have a revival at all. the music certainly was not as popular or widespread,especially among the young, in the 1950s as it is now,as young Irish people got their fill of rock'n'roll just the same as everyone else did. And like now, there were not too many places to play commercially in Ireland,so most Irish musicians travelled to the folk clubs of England to get work if they did play for a living, which fulelled the revival on both sides of the water as traditional musicians realised they may be able to earn a living from music.
There is a case for saying that Irish music and culture had another revival after the Riverdance phenomenon,even if the Irish themselves were gacking on their cereal along with all music lovers anywhere...
cheers,
x e

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Sliding Down The Bannister At My Auntie's House
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 05:48 AM

Who defines folk? Usually the people who compile dictionaries!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Gurney
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 05:02 AM

Everyone will have their own idea, and for me...

If you want an definitive folkie in the English speaking world, it would have to be someone from Ireland, the land where there was no revival, because it never went away. Everyone else is a revivalist or a presumptive pop-singer who sings in folk-clubs.

I know this opinion won't be popular. I'm not Irish, either.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 09:26 PM

Perfectly put. And besides, who else could "sing a song twice at the same time" so well?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Frankham
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:54 PM

Buck, you're probably right about Pete being known by fans of the KT.
I wonder if that guy who found Pete's banjo on the roadside knew of the KT since he claims he didn't know Pete. (Probably did).

Anyhow, I guess the point is to have a figurehead that is identifiable so that an educative process like that of Wynton Marsalis with young people can take place. Wynton himself is a spokesperson for jazz although not Louis or Bird although a great musician. He can educate about Ellington admirably.

The process of folk music though it seems to me is so inextricably bound with culture-based music and has a generational lineage. In American music, we have such a mixture of styles that it seems daunting to find a single person that represents the entire spectrum of American folk music but Pete is certainly one of the great performers of the 20th Century in my view. He was a one-man publicity campaign for Woody, Leadbelly, Sonny Terry and Dylan (he admired him when no one else did) that you'd have to say that Pete is a kind of spokesperson and ambassador for American folk music. If it were twenty years ago or so, Pete would have been the ideal person to be a Wynton Marsalis figure but the government had reservations about giving him his due (funding) because of his time under the McCarthy era. He has left a legacy of many recordings of folk songs that people wouldn't have heard if not for him. This is true of the KT as well as almost everyone I know of that came up through the Revival. Someday, Pete will be vindicated. "America's tuning fork".

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:20 PM

Frankham - all excellent points, and indisputable; but all equally applicable to anyone we could name. Though I'd be tempted to wager (maybe 2 bucks) that anyone who's heard of the KT has also heard of Pete Seeger. But your point is well taken and agreed. Once again though, my argument is not so much that he is a "representative" of the tradition as "iconic" - which obviously is culture-specific. Eminem's fans, no doubt, would have trouble responding with more than "duh?" to any of the names we might propose.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 02:58 PM

LMAO......Beautiful Don!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 02:36 PM

Okay, I've been thinkin'. But I still haven't been able to come up with who I would regard as the quintessential folk singer—the folk singer who would truly represent what folk music is all about. But to flex my mental muscles with an exercise to warm myself up to the task, I decided to try something which is, perhaps, simpler.

Although I am relatively svelte, I love to eat. So I've been thinking about food. What, I asked myself, would be the quintessential meal? That which truly represents the ultimate food, representative of all food.

There is hardly a meal more representative of American cuisine than roast beef, mashed potatoes, and canned peas, followed by apple pie with ice cream for dessert. But then, being a Pacific Northwester, I am especially fond of that ultimate in our regional cuisine, salmon broiled over an alder fire. But I'm also very fond of New England clam chowder. Roast turkey? Actually, I think my favorite part of the turkey is the sandwich. If Benjamin Franklin had had his way, the national bird would have been the wild turkey. I've never had pemmican. Nor blubber. When I was in Kansas a few years ago, one morning in a restaurant, while having a breakfast of scrambled eggs and hash browns, I saw a man eating something I didn't recognize. I asked. It was biscuits and gravy. Chili; I love it! Or good ol' Texas barbecue. Chitlin's? Never had 'em, but I did have a serving of grits once. Jambalaya, crawfish pie, and filé gumbo? Boston baked beans and brown bread, maybe. Tacos? Coney Island red hots? How about a Big Mac with fries and a Coke?

No, no, no! I'm being far too parochial here! How about bubble and squeak? Fish and chips? The celebratory haggis. The Irish potato (actually one of about forty tubers originally from South America) was inextricably linked with Irish history in the mid-nineteenth century. Speaking of potatoes, just across the North Sea is lutefisk with boiled potatoes. Pickled herring. Go through the Chunnel and you could treat yourself to, say, escargot. Paella. Borscht. Vienna sausage actually in Vienna. Melitzanes Papoutsakia. Kazan dibi. Khatta meetha paneer. Satay. How about lox and bagels?

Nope. Can't do it. One food which represents the essence of all foods? Considering just the issue of the immense variety, not even getting into matters of subjectivity, I have doubts that one could come up with one that would be truly representative of all. Certainly not one that would meet with universal agreement.

Now—back to something really tough: the ultimate, representative folk singer. . . .

Well, now . . . uh . . . lemme see. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 11:43 AM

There are so many different styles of music that I would consider folk that it would be impossible to define, as some have already said.

I guess I think of it as music of the people, and if it tells a story, and celebrates the things that make human beings special in a way that I relate to, I would think of it as folk. So where do I draw the line between folk and some country music? It's hard to tell, but I think it has to do with the subject matter. A friend of mine describes some of the music he says is not folk as "oo--ee, reach out and touch me baby kind of music".

All I know is that the music I listened to tonight at a local folk club was definitely folk. That was what I was feeling as I listened to James Fagan and Nancy Kerr singing "Joe Hill" and John Warner's song "Anderson's Coast", as the author sat and listened, and I tried to imagine what a great feeling it must be to hear one's own song being sung. That was a brilliant night, and this might sound silly, but I could feel love in the room.

Jenny

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,returnee
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 11:05 AM

Surely "folk" music is anything (relatively) non-commercial?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 10:51 AM

The question is irrelevant. Just as Duke Ellington, one of the greatest figures in the history of jazz, could not be the "definition" of jazz, there is no person who can be the "definition" of folk.

According to McGrath of Harlow, "Jazz is essentially a local American music." That statement is silly and incorrect. The jazz that Django Reinhardt and Stephane Grappelli were playing in Paris, more than seventy years ago, is not the same local music that King Oliver and the young Louis Armstrong were playing in New Orleans. Nor is the jazz that Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie were playing on 52nd Street in New York the same local music that Count Basie and Jay McShann were playing in Kansas City.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 10:50 AM

(:<)) Thanks Russ....and everyone else....for "going along." I knew this was an impossibility of course, but I also saw it as maybe bringing out some interesting thoughts and discussion....and it has.

Lamarca!!! In all of the hundred plus threads that we have had addressing "what is folk," I think I have finally now seen the most concise, clearly stated, reason as to why we cannot ever be in total agreement. I don't think you said anything new exactly, but I also don't recall it ever being so thoroughly stated in so very few words. I think I will bookmark this thread so I can comeback and steal your post occasionally!!!

Thanks folks.......I'm glad we can still pour over a worn out subject with such thoughtful responses and humor.

Spaw