Who Defines 'Folk'????

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 04:31 AM

Jim

15 Feb 19 - 03:48 AM

we have a definition which first came into being way back in the 1840s

09 Feb 19 - 02:48 PM

The term 'folk' was first used in 1846 by William Thom, antiquarian to identify people's culture - folklore in particular.
It wasn't a definition - it was an acknowledgement that 'ordinary' people had a separate culture worth identifying and was later applied to song and music.

Do we have a definition going back to the 1840s or is it not a definition? It can't be both!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 04:32 AM

And all this still has sweet FA to do with the original concept of the thread. Which was interesting.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 04:37 AM

Blessed are the pure in heart, Jim, for they shall see God.

Jesus didn't think being thought of as a purist was abuse.

I don't see why you are so shy about the term...purist.

Your concept of 'folk music' is a million miles variance from common English usage. Evrerything from Ralph McTell, to James Taylor, Neil Young - I heard all those called folk music at the funeral this week of someone who thought of herself, and whom the world thought of, as a folk music aficionado.

Its a term like 'sea-green incorruptible'. You know your colours - why not nail 'purity' proudly to the mast. Sing if you're glad to be gay, and all that...

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Iains
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 05:00 AM

Joe I quite like your idea that a tune/song needs history to become folkmusic. Much of that 60's material is way over a generation in age, but I would still label it contemporary out of deference to those that have researched and collected a huge body of "traditional"material.
Maybe I am not explaining it very well but I have a problem with below:
for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character. and oral transmission
Is this in reality sloppy transcription and lack of a pitch perfect ear as the song migrates through the community. We have many examples on this forum of lyrics being misheard when transcribed. It is very very easily done. There is a counter argument that once a song is collected it is effectively fossilised and further variance is frowned on.I would argue that today very little refashioning and re-creation(whatever that means) occurs. The dawning of electronics in everyone's hands further stifles evolution because a perfect copy can be captured. Additionally today there is a commercial aspect comes into play. Airtime is far more likely for popular tunes/songs and I would argue this had far more influence on the popularity of folk music in the 60's in the UK, than Peter the painter types in scruffy duffel coats gibbering in garrets.

Folk encompasses a broad church, why not celebrate this rather than trying to stitch it into little boxes that simply create argument.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 05:17 AM

"Blessed are the pure in heart, Jim, for they shall see God."
Your facile comments are only stirring things up Al
Will discuss your point of anoother thread Dave - the mods have advised us to steer clear of the trolls
Jim

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 05:21 AM

Good point, Jim.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 06:12 AM

The lady whose funeral I attended ran a folk club for many years and was well respected within the folk community. She booked many trad acts.

The only one being arrogant dismissive and bloody ignorant is you and your toadies.

Good point....?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 06:20 AM

I felt the same when I attended the numerous funerals of older sings like Walter Pardon, Mikeen McCarthy, Ewan MacColl, Charles Parker... and the many others who gained my respect - wonder if they count as my "toadies" - I got my views from the time I spent talking to and listening to them
Sadly
Jim

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 06:44 AM

The good point is "Will discuss your point of another thread Dave - the mods have advised us to steer clear of the trolls ", Al.

If there is any way of misinterpreting something, someone on Mudcat will find it and proceed to take offence...

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 08:51 AM

I'm well aware of your contribution. And I admire it immensely. However this attitude of claiming to the alpha and omega of folksong is really insulting to people who have stuck with the English folk club scene.

At the funeral - the character running it said this some of Julie's favourite folk music a song by Neil Young, and she played a record by James Taylor. That is the view of folk music by the general public. They haven't got a bleeding clue, but they use the term, its in common usage.

Julie booked lots of artists specialising in trad folk music... Carthy, Tim Laycock, Derek and Kitty ,,,,
However its possible that someone played a Buddy Holly Song. So what..no one's balls dropped off.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 09:59 AM

'Is this definition open to improvement, and do you have any suggestions as to how it can be improved. Dick Miles'

IMO the only improvement we can give it is to stop calling it a definition, something that is 'finite'. It isn't, as Joe quite rightly says. Nothing wrong at all with the descriptors. I use them all the time.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Andy7
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 04:27 PM

"That which we call a folk song
By any other name would sound as sweet."

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 07:34 PM

hread #58230   Message #3976795
Posted By: Dave the Gnome
15-Feb-19 - 04:32 AM
Thread Name: Who Defines 'Folk'????
Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????

And all this still has sweet FA to do with the original concept of the thread. Which was interesting.

---

Maybe so, Dave, but the subject drifted off the original topic way back in 2009, or maybe earlier. Perhaps the thread would have stayed on topic if it had been titled Whose Music Defines Folk?

But to answer that question (did I note that you yourself failed to answer it?), I would say that the Copper Family and Ewan MacColl best define "folk" in the UK, and Pete Seeger in the US - and they all illustrate vastly different definitions. I wouldn't venture a guess about "definers" in Ireland, Scotland, Australia, and NZ - although Jimmy Crowley might be a pretty good "definer" in Ireland.

As for purists, I was blown away to see a Mudcatter find the term offensive. I would define a "purist" as someone who has a narrow, rigid understanding of something and an inability to accommodate opposing or broader perspectives. Well, maybe it IS offensive, but it's a fact of life in so many realms of discussion. But I think I'm a purist in many ways myself, and I'm proud of it. I'm a stickler for accuracy and attribution in any research I'm involved in, and many people think I'm a "purist" because of that - and they're right.

But yeah, I'll vote for the Coppers, Ewan MacColl, Pete Seeger, and Jimmy Crowley. They define what I think folk music is and ought to be. But as with definitions, I assert that such things are matters of opinion.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 08:56 PM

its only offensive, if you feel no one else has the right to use the term 'folk music'. despite the fact that the world uses the term freely and imprecisely and at will.

'purist' to me marks out the territory occupied by traditionalists here and probably in the USA. Sam Larner rather than Cat Stevens. Frank Profit rather Peter Paul and Mary. no offence is intended - it is a simple use of language that most people would understand.

Language is not the possession of one sector of the community. "Folk' has flown the coop and it used by all and sundry - not just academics - but also record companies and funeral directors.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 09:23 PM

Big Al Whittle says: "Folk' has flown the coop and it used by all and sundry - not just academics - but also record companies and funeral directors.

That bit about funeral directors made me cringe, because I have to deal with what people want for funerals occasionally, and I have to insist that it be "appropriate for liturgy." (i.e., not a recording of Sinatra's "My Way"). But anyhow, I do think it is worthwhile to give definitions of "folk" and other things, but then I think we need to specify the parameters for which a particular definition is valid. For the sake of discussion or research or study, we have to ensure that words mean the same thing to everyone (like "purist," for example).

I think we have to accept the fact that, like other words, "folk" means various things in various situations. I don't particularly care what "folk" means in record bins and Spotify playlists, but I do care what the word means in serious discussions of traditional music. And for that matter, I'm much more comfortable with the word "traditional."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Feb 19 - 11:47 PM

Well there lies the problem. Some people would say Dave Van Ronk was traditional. certainly, much of his material is traditional in source. Similarly Martin Carthy in this country.

But to a purist. Those people are not traditional folk singers.

To the best of my understanding (and I'm happy to stand corrected) a traditional folk artist is someone who performs traditional material from their community. Singing only, in their role as a folksinger, the repertoire of that community.

Everything is else is vapid showbusiness. Men and women chasing filthy lucre. Lost souls in an anomic society.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 12:12 AM

'folk' 'purist' - just words.. sticks n stones and all that...

I, and a huge majority of other sensible folks, are just getting sick and tired
of full grown supposedly mature adults
getting so offended and over reacting,
having hissy fits over what they deem to be 'wrong' words...

we're effin fed up with it...

So much over sensitive stupidity has got into so many folks heads this last few years...!!!???

..and here at mudcat we're not even geting bogged down in controversy about use of inflamatory race and sexuality trigger words...

but 'purist' FFS...!!!!!?????

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 03:51 AM

I did fail to answer it, Joe. Sorry. The question does limit us to just one answer though so I will cheat and nominate a group. The Battlefield Band. :-)

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Iains
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 05:06 AM

One person who arguably was on the scene very early on was Alex Campbell. He started busking in the fifties and to my mind had a huge influence on the folk scene by encouraging younger artists. Sandy Denny first appeared on vinyl on one of his LPs.
"Campbell became involved in the folk music revival taking place in London and met Ewan MacColl, who was an influential figure in the folk movement. However, the two men disagreed on their approaches to folk music, with MacColl taking a very purist view that people should only sing music from their own regional background, whereas Campbell had an eclectic repertoire and sang whatever he liked, whether it was a Scottish Ballad, an English folksong or an American work song."

This split yet inter-relationship is perfectly exemplified by :
MacColl (then married to Jean Newlove) had fallen in love with Peggy Seeger. In 1958, when Peggy Seeger's UK work permit expired, Alex Campbell agreed to a marriage of convenience with her. On 24 January 1959, he married her in Paris. Seeger's USA passport had been withdrawn, and this marriage prevented deportation, and was, according to Seeger "a platonic relationship".[6] Seeger has described the wedding ceremony as "hilarious": at the time she was seven months pregnant with Ewan MacColl's baby and the officiating priest lectured Campbell about his forthcoming lifetime commitment to "the poor girl whom he had got into so much trouble". The following day, Seeger returned to London and settled down with MacColl.[7] Campbell himself settled down with his eventual wife, Patsy, and had two sons.

Both men sang/performed folk music. One according to a very rigid definition, the other far more elastic and eclectic. Both in their own peculiar ways correct. Any definition needs to recognise this!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 05:10 AM

He went through some strange phases. But I liked Alex Campbell. I liked more of his gigs than i didn't.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 06:00 AM

I would agree with Iains above re Alex Campbell and personally believe that he was very influential on the scene from when he first came back from busking in Paris with Joe Locker. He was an entertainer with a wide repertoire and an ability to create a great rapport with the audience.
When Joe went back to the States the Malcolm Nixon Agency kept Alex on as a solo act. He certainly gave value for money whenever I booked him which was frequently.
The first time I saw Alex solo was at a Ballads & Blues evening at a pub in Paddington Green. I think he had been invited up from the floor as I don't think Ewan would have booked him but he had the audience in his hand that night with music & his between songs patter. This was in the days before Ewan & Peggy left their resident performer gig and set up the Singers Club.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 07:31 AM

Perhaps the thread would have stayed on topic if it had been titled Whose Music Defines Folk?

Perhaps life as well as music. I'd suggest Victor Jara.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 08:47 AM

Alex Campbell was correct.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 01:30 PM

Victor Jara is a terrific nomination, Jack. There are lots of Victor Jara performances on YouTube. It's well worth our time to watch a few.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 16 Feb 19 - 03:12 PM

Someone different for everybody I should imagine, and as well as that it would be silly to put that onus/accolade on just one person, so we are just being asked for our own personal preferences I suppose.

In the UK I would propose Harry Cox, using the traditional sources,
Norma Waterson always my biggest and initial influence, and of the new youngsters I don't think Cohen Brathwaite Kilcoyne can be bettered.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 19 - 03:56 AM

I hadn't heard of Cohen until Nick Dow mentioned him to me a couple of weeks back. Yes, I know I must go round with my eyes and ears shut. I have since looked him up and, yes, he is terrific.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Vic Smith
Date: 17 Feb 19 - 06:24 AM

I don't think Cohen Brathwaite Kilcoyne can be bettered.
Totally agree both as a solist and with the trio Granny's Attic. I think Cohen is the best, most interesting singer/musician to come into English folk music in a long time, Such a modest young man to interview as well and clearly working very hard and carefully on his music. I don't think he has any idea of how good he is.
Never miss a chance to see this young man as a soloist or as part of the trio.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 18 Feb 19 - 12:49 PM

One night at the Marsden club in the sixties, Alex Campbell did three songs all night but the crack inbetween was great!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Iains
Date: 18 Feb 19 - 01:44 PM

Although he did not perform it, the craic was 90.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Some bloke
Date: 20 Feb 19 - 12:53 PM

It’s either Jim Carroll or iTunes genre algorithm.

Take your choice then ignore anyway.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 19 - 03:42 PM

Hi Ian. What's wrong with Spotify? :-)

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 02:25 AM

"It’s either Jim Carroll or iTunes genre algorithm. "
I only look into this with some amusement - I 've already said I want no part in it
I've always considered it somewhat despicable to talk behind someones back
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Andy7
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 03:07 AM

There is a kind of paradox here.

If you believe that almost everyone can, and should, sing - which I strongly do! - then hopefully, more people who are inexperienced singers will join a folk club, will have a go, and will gradually improve, with guidance and encouragement from those more experienced.

On the other hand - if a lot of people go along to that same club hoping for an evening's entertainment provided by high quality singers, they are likely to be disappointed by hearing so many they would describe as mediocre or worse, and probably won't come back - they'll go to concerts or watch experienced performers on YouTube instead.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 04:47 AM

The idea that everyone can sing is a laudable one, but bitter experience shows that this is not true. By all means have gatherings where people can be encouraged to sing in a supportive and uncritical environment, but let's not call these folk clubs. A folk club should be a place where one can expect to hear folk music, in all its aspects, performed by people with at least some level of expertise. Self-help sessions for people just learning the craft have their place, but shouldn't be marketed as public entertainment.

One of the problems with the sort of song session I have described is that there is little pressure on people to improve, if they will be applauded and encouraged simply for attempting to sing, no matter how poor their performance. As I said in another thread, if you're a club floor singer about to go on just before Martin Carthy it does encourage you to up your game.

There is a parallel world for instrumentalists, where there are "slow sessions" for those unable to keep up in a normal session. The difference is that these players are usually well aware of their limitations, and go to slow sessions in order to improve to the level where they can participate in normal sessions. I haven't seen this level of self-awareness or willingness to improve at a lot of song sessions, which is why I now largely avoid them.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Andy7
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 05:00 AM

The difference between singers and instrumentalists is that, apart from those with a physical reason not to be able to do so, anyone can open their mouth and start singing; whereas an instrumentalist has had to buy or otherwise acquire an instrument and learn at least some basic skills before they can join in even a slow session. So the instrumentalists are more likely to be aware of their own level and limitations.

However, although they can, people so often don't just open their mouths and sing. Largely gone are the days of family and pub singalongs around the piano, and singing (or whistling) at work. Folk club singarounds at least try to replicate an environment where everyone that wants to can have a go at singing, either solo, or joining in the choruses. I doubt whether very many people would go along to a session called, for example, "For beginners: come and improve your singing technique", as opposed to a friendly and relaxed folk club singaround.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Joe G
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 05:07 AM

Well said Howard. I went to a club several years ago when there were around 8 floor singers before the booked guest in each half of the night resulting in the guest ( a well established songwriter) having very short spots. All were dire. Needless to say we never went back - I believe the club is closed now! At the clubs I frequent most often there are a maximum of three floor singers before each guest performance so people get what they pay for

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 05:40 AM

If you wanted a floor spot on a guest night at a certain folk club I know then you had to 'audition' for it on a singers night at the same club. If you were not good enough, you did not get on. I think that is fair enough and the same club went on to win the folk club of the year award presented at the BBC folk awards so I guess other people agreed. :-)

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 10:48 AM

I'm going off on a bit of a tangent which I'll call

"Who defines folk in the wider public perception..."

Essentially, my excuse for another moan about middle class folkie arrogance and their sense of superiority and entitlement..

Back in the late 1980s I went home from London for a few days to see family and old mates..

I met my mates for an afternoon pint in the small bar of the local Arts centre
which had been our second home since Youth Theatre in the 1970s..

We were enjoying catching up and joking about, when suddenly a small group of upper middle class hippy types at another table
suddenly stood telling us all to shoosh up..

Then a young woman took centre room and started singing long trad folk ballads..

granted she was pretty and had a lovely voice..

But me and my mates, slightly inebriated punky new wave blokes in our 20s,
were subjected to her family/friends giving us the stern evil eye
if we even looked like we were going to open our mouths to continue our abruptly interupted matey banter...

It wsan't a folk session of any sort, they hadn't been boooked or invited,
but just strolled in and took over the bar like it was their god given right...

Bloody stuck up middle class folkies..

Now me and some of my punky mates were actually also folk fans, despite our appearance,
but if we hadn't been
those selfish full of themselves middle class shits would not have converted us......

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 03:02 PM

>>>>>It wsan't a folk session of any sort, they hadn't been boooked or invited,
but just strolled in and took over the bar like it was their god given right...<<<<<<

That is rude and arrogant however you look at it.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 04:18 PM

Agreed ..... but the "middle class shits" do not have a monopoly on it.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 04:55 PM

Yes, arrogant shits can be found in most communities but it does have a greater tendency to follow the money.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 21 Feb 19 - 08:19 PM

Tonight a visit to my local "Folk Club".

Four hours of music, only two folk songs sung, the rest God knows what genre they belonged to, but all instantly forgettable - complete and utter self- pretentious dross. Now only one hour having left the place can I not recall or remember a single line of an lyric sung throughout the entire night.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 12:16 AM

PFR perhaps the fault lay with you, or perhaps the fault lay with the landlord, he could have made it clear what he preferred,
on the other hand those people may have been the majority in the bar,they may be spending more money than you they coyld have considered you arrogant little shits.
i think the fault lay with the pub owner, he only has to make it clear what he prefers

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 08:19 AM

Sandman - yesterday I was in the mood for a moan about something that happened over 30 years ago..
..as best I could remember it...

so you chipping in now theorising exactly who's to blame is a bit pointless so long after the event...

f@ck knows who they were, who the bar manager was and what he was doing, and how many pints were sold that afternoon...

There's unfortunately insufficient evidence and witnesses [reliable or otherwise..] to satisfy public interest for a full invstigative enquiry...

To be honest, I'm not even certain now if it happened in the 1980s or 1990s...
as I'm sure many more pints were sunk later that afternoon and evening.....

Though I do believe such a stuck up supercilious middle class folkie mindset still prevails in UK folk culture to this day....

.. perhaps even more so....?????

..and that "casting pearls before swine" attitude sure don't help present a good welcoming inclusive image of trad folk
to the perception of the mass of ordiary modern music lovers...???

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 09:00 AM

Whatever, dear boy. Xx

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 09:11 AM

GUEST - precisely, folkie condescension at it's finest...

thank you for agreeing and confirming my point...xxx

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 01:42 PM

Jolly good. Carry on. Bung ho !

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 02:29 PM

Sorry, what is middle class about wanting to sing songs in a conducive attitude. I repeat the fault lay with the publican, all he has to do is speak politely to both sides it is his pub ,not yours or the shoosing singers

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Andy7
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 03:08 PM

I think my right to free speech gives me the authority to march into any pub, at any time, start singing at the top of my voice, and tell all the other punters to shut up and listen.

Just off into the town centre to try out my theory ... should be a fun Friday night!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: John P
Date: 22 Feb 19 - 04:19 PM

There are a couple of discussions happening here.

Who defines folk? At my house, I do. At the vast majority of performances I've done, it is irrelevant. No one cares except for a few pedants.

Should bad singers get up and sing in public? God, no. Please learn your craft before taking it out in public, and please stop encouraging those who haven't. If you are never going to be good enough to perform, please don't perform. Just like me not flying an airplane or performing surgery.

I like that folk music is, more than other genres, participatory. I think it is important for non-performers to be able to take part. Camps, living room sessions, workshops, and the shower are all appropriate venues.

I spend a lot of time encouraging people to make music, and sitting with beginners and amateurs so they can experience playing music with and learning from others. Part of what I tell them is that if they want to go farther, they need to practice a lot, and have some way of evaluating their skills.