Folk Genius?

Subject: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 24 May 05 - 04:06 PM

Just finished reading the Dave Van Ronk's book. Towards the end of the book, Dave muses over the talent that emerged during the 60s and concludes that the folkscene never produced a genius. JUST quality writers. He singles out Dylan and Joni Mitchell, in particular. Dave refers to Bach and Duke Ellington as examples of genius. What do we think about all that?

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 24 May 05 - 05:07 PM

Depends on what he means by "genius"?

Did he happen to eludidate?

If we had his criteria we could argue about that instead of posting our own nominations for folk genius.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 May 05 - 05:35 PM

If Dylan doesn't make the cut as a "genius," I'm not sure anyone else of his generation would. Maybe Dave knew The Bob too well, and too early, to ever see him as anything more than a very bright young con artist.

Dave knew Mississippi John Hurt pretty well, too, and doesn't mention his name, not even dismissively, in this discussion of "genius." John would fall into a different category of "folk artist" than Bob or Joni ~ less self-conscious, more "folk" or "naive" or "primitive" ~ but he is certainly as strong a candidate for "genius" status as any comparable artist of his peer group.

But Dave's criteria were, apparently, just really high. Nobody but Bach and the Duke, huh? Pretty esteemed company...

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 05 - 07:49 PM

For that era Burt Bacharacht

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 24 May 05 - 08:18 PM

Hell, Bob didn't even consider himself Folk. He just needed some songs to sing 'til his first good one came around.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Deskjet
Date: 25 May 05 - 04:14 AM

I've sometimes wondered about this one.I suppose I would place the concept of genius alongside that of revolutionary. To be a genius, one must also be a revolutionary. By revolutionary I mean the breaking of traditonal (tried and trusted) modes of expression, and the creation of new ones. In this context I would place the early Bowie in the genius category ahead of anything Bob Dylan has ever written.(But I'm with Bob!)

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Grab
Date: 25 May 05 - 07:19 AM

If Bach was a genius, I'd class Davey Graham (and maybe John Renbourn) well up there alongside. Definitely revolutionary.

I guess one problem is that it's difficult to point to a genius songwriter, because there's rarely a revolution in songwriting. Revolutions tend to happen in the music and prose/poetry fields, and songwriting merges them.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 25 May 05 - 07:44 AM

There are people who've done certain things with music/songwriting that have never been repeated, and never will.

Bob's one of 'em.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 May 05 - 07:52 AM

Frank Zappa!

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: English Jon
Date: 25 May 05 - 09:46 AM

Leon Rosselson?

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: farmerj
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:02 AM

I can imagine that Van Ronk was highly aware of Bob's musical indebtedness to people like Jack Elliott, Cisco and Woody, old recordings of blues and so on. If you pay a lot of attention to an artist's connections to existing streams of music, it can divert you from the unique way they create. I do think Bob is a genius, and I am stingy with that kind of judgment. But I grant "genius" the right to come from somewhere; I don't need "genius" to stand alone and entirely unique. There are many great Navajo weavers, e.g., but only one may be of the highest artistry and inventiveness. That person could be a genius, drawing on tradition.
--
Skip James over John Hurt any day, and I love John Hurt.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:05 AM

Woody Guthrie was a genius of a songwriter as was Ewan MacColl.

eric

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: alanabit
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:01 PM

This word "genius" is the problem. Obviously Dave Van Ronk could see Dylan's limitations as well as his sources and influences. On Dylan's side, he has produced a very large body of work, which many of us see as stunningly original. That is as a new type of songwriter though, because he penned popular songs which were more subtle and textured than anything which had preceded them. If you don't like him, he comes over as a pretentious show off.
Woody Guthrie had a lifestyle and an idealistic commitment, which made him exemplary in the eyes of many. His songs were much simpler than Dylan's and I see them as being far less ambitious. I felt quite up to writing a dissertation about Guthrie (which I admit was nothing special). However, I would not even have attempted to write about Dylan. You would have to know a whole lot about a whole lot of subjects to write anything about Dylan which was not superficial.
I don't really think that folk music lends itself to producing a genius. It is a field of human activity which tends to focus on participation and taking the best of many rather than picking out just a few of the best.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: jonm
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:24 PM

On the English folk scene, I would suggest Martin Carthy for recognition. It's only when you dig into the source recordings and books that you realise that all those versions of folk "standards" that have been repeatedly recorded are actually Carthy's versions - with tunes written or amended by him, additional verses written by him etc. Although not the most attractive singer, his guitar technique has spawned more imitators than Davey Graham and John Renbourn combined, and surely the number of imitators reflects your influence.

If we ignore the hand-on-the-ear-Arran-sweater-strumming-a-12-string-guitar stereotype of English folk music, the typical material and treatment you would consider would be Carthy. It's just that he created that stereotype as an original.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:37 PM

Girl from the North Country?
Fennario?

Brilliant writer yes, original, not totally, a genius, almost.
Giok

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:46 PM

Bob Dylan, yes. Nobody else connected with the folk revival in Britain, ireland or north America. And of actual traditional folk performers, none. Pretty much by definition. The folk create perfect music that reflects society. Genius creates revolutionary art that attacks and changes(though the art may be constructed from folk ingredients). Different things.
Genius always seems to be separated by a generation or so from the folk from which it springs. Dylan stood away from his folk background, as did Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, the two shining examples of jazz geniuses. jazz was a folk music in New orleans in 1900, but the time Armstrong and Ellington had given it a bit of a going over in the 20's, it wasnt folk any more!

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:50 PM

"The hand-on-the-ear-Arran-sweater-strumming-a-12-string-guitar stereotype."
Martin Carthy invented THAT stereotype? Hardly think so.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:53 PM

Not a lot of English singers that I can think of with Arran sweaters and 12-string guitars. Especially ones with sufficient proficiency to play the guitar with a hand on one's ear.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 May 05 - 01:01 PM

You may be confusing him with either The Clancy Brothers and Tommy makes them, or Val Doonican.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:01 PM

I can think of more Blues singers with 12-strings than Folk singers.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Nelson
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:15 PM

But betcha none have stylish Arran sweaters.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:51 PM

Pedant alert: ignoring how I may or may not have spelt the word in a previous post, they are in fact Aran sweaters. Arran is another place altogether.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:58 PM

don't leave it like that, where are the two aran/arrans then?

nearly all the people mentioned have given me a lot of pleasure with their music. its a sort of genius that decides to make people happy with music, rather then screw things up. if they all want to call themselves geniuses, thats cool with me.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 May 05 - 03:16 PM

The Isle of Arran, Scotland
The Aran Islands, Ireland
Giok.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Joe Moran
Date: 25 May 05 - 04:03 PM

Genius? Joni Mitchell fills all the criteria mentioned above. She was so different. She seemed to be composing songs using a radically different set of ideas than her predecessors. And her influence has been massive.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 25 May 05 - 04:26 PM

Geniuses (Geniae ?) Charlie Parker, Django Reinhardt and all of the above.
There'll be a few more nominations hopefully.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:30 PM

Genius? A very overused word. Mozart, Beethoven we can discuss, but folk music and songwriting in the folk idiom is not the field for genius. For excellence, for brilliance, for many things certainly, but genius is given to so so few.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:07 AM

Actualy, the same genius that applies to Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, et all, can be applied to folk martists. The above composers started within a certain idiom which had standardised forms, and borrowed lots of ideas, indeed phrasings from other stuff, including folk tunes which they reworked.
So if they can be considered geniuses, surely we can't limit ourselves to a narrow definition.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:16 AM

I'll concede that Wolfgang is a genius & Bob isn't, if you like.

But so what?, as Hunter S. Thompson used to say. People are worth listening to or they aren't. Dylan & Joni Mitchell speak to me more than Mozart and I'd rather listen to them. Why should I listen to someone because he fits some definition?

A question like "Is he a genius?" is an intellectual excercise & the answer is of only academic interest and has nothing to do with the music.

The music don't give a good goddam who wrote or performed it.

clint

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 May 05 - 05:14 AM

It does too care who performs it! A rotten performance can ruin a good piece of music.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 May 05 - 07:58 AM

Folk is a genre like any other - and we have our brilliant talents. as well as those who have shone out and changed the world, like Bob Dylan & Joni Mitchell, I think of people like Andy irvine and Judy Small. To be in the company of a great musician and songwriter, to hear them perform a great work - is an irreplacable, magic experience. Like a poet or an artist - a great songwriter can use words and music to communicate   a powerful moment, idea or experience.

It does not take complexity to make a genius - yes, Bach's music is incomparable. But so is Andy Irvine's "Never Tire of the Road".

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Grab
Date: 26 May 05 - 08:22 AM

Chris, Dylan definitely did things with songwriting that hadn't been done before. But they'd been done before in other areas. Stream-of-consciousness writing was already well established in literature and poetry, so if Dylan hadn't done it then someone else likely would have.

Mind you, if another incredibly talent guitarist from the British tradition had gone touring Europe and North Africa, maybe they would also have come up with the same kind of stuff that Davey Graham would have. But it's doubtful - I think he was as original as Django or anyone like that.

Renbourn is more dubious - although he was talented, arranging old tunes for guitar had been done many times before (and often recorded better - Renbourn's recordings are often pretty ropey). Bert Jansch is another in the Renbourn vein - talented but not unique. Carthy is probably more deserving, in polishing and reconstructing a coherent whole from the enormous "back catalogue" of pre-Victorian English folk, which is a concept that might not necessarily have been done otherwise.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 May 05 - 09:54 AM

So Bert and John aren't geniuses.

I'll break the news to them gently....it could be a shock to them to find out at their time of life.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 May 05 - 11:34 AM

The whole argument that someone else might have is silly. Ther point is that THEY did.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 05 - 11:37 AM

we're all genius's if we choose to be

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Pete Peterson
Date: 26 May 05 - 01:34 PM

I think Deskjet has the major part of the answer: a genius has to be a revolutionary, to change the existing order. The term is way overused; in physics Newton would certainly head any list, but I'm not sure I'd put anybody from the 18th century on. . .in the 19th century you have Maxwell for sure. . .
   in music, Van Ronk had Bach and Ellington on his list. Like others, I'd add Mozart and Beethoven.
   In folk music, our reverence for tradition is inconsistent with genius. Genius involves creation, and good traditional music IMHO means that the area in which creation is allowed is so limited that the level of creation can't approach genius. Hazel Dickens both wrote and sang "It's hard to tell the singer from the song." She was right, and it precludes genius.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: jonm
Date: 26 May 05 - 01:35 PM

Thanks to Grab for echoing my sentiments on Carthy.

As a poor civil engineer (is that an oxymoron?) I was trying to contrast the Aran sweater brigade with the Carthy model, but people seemed to misinterpret that.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 26 May 05 - 01:43 PM

Not quite with the thread, but 18th century genius in mathematics: Leonhard Euler.

20th century genius in music: Igor Stravinsky

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Elijah Wald
Date: 26 May 05 - 07:32 PM

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Elijah Wald
Date: 26 May 05 - 07:48 PM

Actually, Dave never says in the book that Dylan wasn't a genius, or that Ellington and Bach were. The only person he names as a genius is Rev. Gary Davis.

What Dave believed was that the 1960s folk scene was thrilling and produced some excellent work, but that it was based on some very limiting artistic models, with the result that people like Dylan, brilliant as they were, were not pushed to the full extent of their abilities. They were allowed to get by with a lot of sloppy poetry and three-chord, repetitive melodies that would not have been tolerated in a scene with higher standards. And the result was that they created some superb work, but didn't maintain anything like the consistent level of an Ellington or a Bach.

Dave's favorite writer out of that crop was Joni Mitchell, because he thought she had done her homework and put more effort into polishing both words and music until they were as good as she could make them.

On the whole, he did not think his friends were in the same class with people like Harold Arlen, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael... But that was not because they were less full of "genius." Dave didn't worry about genius or art; what he admired was someone who studied their craft and kept getting more expert at it -- as he did throughout his life. His motto -- one of many, actually -- was "Take care of the craft, and the art will take care of itself."

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 26 May 05 - 09:09 PM

"It does too care who performs it! A rotten performance can ruin a good piece of music."

I think we're arguing on the same side, Allen. Maybe I expressed myself badly or too obliquely. A rotten performance can indeed ruin a good piece of music, and if it does I'm not going to like it or play it on my CD even if a genius or two composed it.

All this Genius stuff is only good for Talking About music & has nothing to do with appreciating it or performing it.

A library where I worked had a great many shelves of commentary on Shakespeare. You can get all his extant works in one thick volume, and they're just as good (or bad) without knowing if he was thought to be a genius, or gay, or Bacon.

clint

grump, grump

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 27 May 05 - 09:08 AM

I think you're wrong Elijah! Dave did say that Bach and Ellington are/were geniuses and that Dylan wasn't. Unfortunately, I've leant my copy to a friend, and so I can't give page references.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Frankham
Date: 27 May 05 - 05:33 PM

Folk genius? Someone who captured the language of American people in song without formal training and by intuition. The one that comes to mind for me is Irving Berlin.

Just think of all the different types of memorable songs he wrote without the benefir of advanced musical instruction.

That's a folk genius.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 27 May 05 - 05:45 PM

Tunesmith:

Elijah Wald is the coauthor of Dave's book ~ and, because of Dave's untimely death, he wrote the final draft(s) by himself ~ so I think he knows what he wrote!

I just got the book and read it after I had begun following this thread, so when I got to the passage in question, it was easy for me to notice that the work "genius" is never used. The general idea that you recall is about right, though...

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 05 - 06:13 PM

a lot of these nominations are not very close to what is usually considered 'folk'.

The problem WITH folk, is that it is music of the common people, and very good, creative, visionary stuff usually goes beyond what the common people pay attention to. So, folk genius might be simply the ability to present the songs in such a way as to express the musical theme(s) in elegant and moving ways.

There are a number of musicians who have done amazingly well with that process: Martin Carthy, Peter Bellamy, Jeannie Robertson, Ewan MacColl, Eric Bogle, Bruce Phillips, maybe the likes of Johnny Cash and Jean Ritchie...etc....that sort. I never bothered to worry about whether they needed 'genius' applied to them, but some of them had special abilities to weave the story and tune in ways that made the commonplace seem magic...and that IS a sort of genius.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 27 May 05 - 06:31 PM

Just because various folk-art forms are simple should not preclude the possiblity that genius might blossom within their confines, regardless of DVR's opinion.

For example, I'm reminded of a Mudcat thread from a month or so ago, where someone discovered an old music-hall-type song with long and detailed lyrics about having one's grave kept "green," and proposed that this number was superior to, and must have preceded, the blues classic "One Kind Favor (See That My Grave Is Kept Clean)."

I didn't bother to respond at the time, but my opinion is that the succinct, understated blues lyric ~ whether composed by Blind Lemon Jefferson, who first recorded it, or by some unknown earlier artist ~ is far superior, and closer to "genius" than the wordier song. Just my opinion, of course, but I'm not alone in feeling that there is such a thing as "the poetry of the blues," that said poetry consists mainly in subtlety, implication, and understatement, and that the very best practitioners of this art can indeed be considered "geniuses."

(I also thought that it was at least as likely that the composer of the long-winded version might have heard the blues song first and then elaborated upon it, as that Blind Lemon heard the more convoluted lyric and "copied" it in simplified form.)

And, oh yeah, let me add one more name to the list of proposed muscial geniuses, a man who has often been described as a genius: Ray Charles.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 May 05 - 01:13 PM

I did enjoy the DVR book. I have only just finished it. Elijah Wald certainly has made a lovely tribute to the great man.

What makes the book so fascinating of course is the fact that Dave Van Ronk took his work very seriously and he obviously spent his life evaluating and re-evaluating - not just his own work, but also his place within the cultural landscape.

I don't really agree with one or two of his ideas, but they weren't the mindwaste from an idle pontificator - they were the ideas which he used every day of his working life.

They worked for him. I'm sure one or two of them will work for you and give you fresh insights, given the great vantage point that Van Ronk had on that folk world of the 1960's (where so many of us draw our inspiration from).

Dave Van Ronk's world isn't yours, but he was a literate, agile thinker who presented his music in an exciting and creative way.

I think any would be acoustic guitarist/singer /songwriter will find it a terrific read and immensely inspiring.

all the best

Big Al Whittle

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 05 - 02:32 PM

I think I'd add Pete Seeger to Bill D's list.

But "Genius" seems to imply virtuosity and "star quality" and individuality. The genius of folk music is in the "folk" - and I do think there is true genius in the folk process. I admire Van Ronk for many things - but when it comes to understanding folk music, I think Van Ronk just didn't get it. It's not about "stars" or individual "shining lights" or making money.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 May 05 - 03:27 PM

I don't think the genius thing is worth tuppence. Who knows who is a genius. Nobody in Van Gogh's lifetime would have thought of him as such. Would they have treated Oscar Wilde so shamefully if they had any idea of his true worth? James Joyce stayed in the game only because of a wealthy patron - the popular consensus of the time had him down as dirty minded and lazy.

Personally I doubt there would be many of the aspects of folk music that Dave Van Ronk didn't get. However he had no wealthy family in the background to support his project to be a professional entertainer in the folk/acoustic world. from the book, you can learn of some of the weird and wonderful projects he got involved with - many through financial necessity. Moreover his audiences don't seem to have been for the main part the respectful crowd that a Carthy or a Seeger seems to attract.

He had to think divergently to survive, and stay in the game. Of necessity he saw things somewhat differently from the sort of artist whose worth is recognised by the intelligentsia and whose work doesn't have to pitch in the marketplace in competition with every other pleb with a banjo.

al

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 05 - 08:25 PM

yep, Joe...you helped me say it..."virtuosity" and "star quality" are a couple of 'possible' aspects of genius, but genius is by its nature a subjective term.

and Pete Seeger is certainly one who could head the kind of list *I* would make. I saw him in 1961, and was awed by his ability to create the desire to participate and share in 'folk' music. That is, to do something other than be "sung at" in a concert hall. His brother Mike is a better instrumentalist, but Pete emphasizes the music. Even though you know a 'famous' performer is singing, it is the song that is the real star, and the ability to make THAT happen is truly a form of genius.