So what is *Traditional* Folk Music?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 09:03 AM

guest prs;yes,that sounds sensible.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,Bob Coltman
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 05:16 PM

On my records I credited material this way:

Meet Her When the Sun Goes Down (yraditional, Fiddlin' John Carson)

Banjo Sam (traditional, Wilmer Watts)

etc.

This honors the tradition and the song's latest bearer/reviser. It was an approximation at the time, but I haven't found a better way.

Bob

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,Bob Coltman
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 05:17 PM

Um, I didn't actually credit it "yraditional," although that certainly is a pixilated possibility.

Bob

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 05:32 PM

"C'mon folks. Like "folk", "traditional" clearly means different thing to different people. If you're going to discuss it, define what it means for the purpose of the discussion. And if, like many, you think it's all-encompassing, please stop using the term so that folks who dothink it refers to something, and not to something else, can go about their business of using the term."

Dick, I don't think any of us have used the words "all-encompassing" and I doubt that any of us would.

For the purpose of discussion, could you define your terms?   What do you consider "folk" and "traditional"?   You said that the words mean different things to different people, but your last sentence seems to indicate a very solid definition that you have formed.

I am asking in all sincerity and please do not interpret my question as being combative. I truly respect your opinion more than most, and I want to be sure that I understand where you are coming from.

This is a very interesting thread, and I think deep down we are probably closer to agreement than it would seem.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, PRS member
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 05:46 PM

I like your solution, Bob. But mine's a bit shorter - and avoids the dread word which can so easily be twisted.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 04:05 AM

Sorry folks, your arguments don't hold water.
PR Member's definition seems to be rooted firmly in the market place; Ron's is based on the fact that somebody has come along and decided to call their particular music 'folk' or 'traditional' so we can no longer use the term – or, at the very least, we have to define what we mean by what we mean. As far as I can see, Ron's argument makes a nonsense of the language. Some time in the seventies I stopped using the term 'folk' because of the largely commercial mis-use of the term; I can see no reason to retreat from the term 'traditional'. You are all ignoring the fact that there is, and has been for quite a long time, a perfectly workable definition of both 'folk' and 'traditional' which was applied to an easily identifiable poetic and musical group of songs and based on how those songs were created (largely anonymously), transmitted (largely orally) and altered and re-shaped to suit the people who performed them, listened to them and identified with them ( I use the term 'largely' because there are a few exceptions to this definition, but certainly not enough to invalidate it).
If you wish to re-define 'folk' or 'traditional' you have first to address the standard, historical definition and either disprove it or expand it to include the new material, stating your reasons for doing so. It is not enough to say, "from now on I'm going to call this knife a spoon".
As far as the commercial argument is concerned, the English traditional singer, Walter Pardon summed it up perfectly for me.
Walter had passed on one of the songs he had got from his uncle to two revival singers, who had then argued between themselves as to which one of them was going to sing it publicly.
Walter's response was one of puzzled amusement; "They're not my songs, they're everybodys".
There is a certain grim indication of how attitudes have changed to what, as far as I'm concerned should be common property in PRS Member's argument.
A friend of mine, Tom Munnelly, recorded a centuries old ballad, 'The Maid And The Palmer' which was believed to have totally disappeared from the tradition, from an impoverished Travelling man, John Reilly. It was recorded by a 'folk singer' and is now copyrighted by Phil Coulter.
John Reilly died of malnutrition in a derelict house in Boyle, Roscommon.
To all intents and purposes, the ballad is now the property of Phil Coulter.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,PRSM
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:14 AM

Jim
My definitions are not rooted in the market place, but they do, however, attempt to take account of the legal situation - which yours doesn't.

You suggested yourself that the term traditional was redundant - partly because the process which gave it that name is now so pulluted by technology as to have ceased working, and partly because so many people have decided it means something else that there's no point in sticking to the old definition.

A man may call a knife a spoon if he wishes. He will be misunderstood - but only until a majority of the people he speaks to make the same change. Then the language will have changed, and his term will be the correct one. Now THAT's a folk process!

The standard historical definition had its place, at the time it was defined. At that point the music it described was developed in isolation. Songs existed like species in an ecosystem. Sometimes the newts found a new pond and then a new community would spring up, and some of the newts made it back over the hill to add their gene-pool back into the old strain - and so the songs developed.

The process was slow and - assuming one had a time machine - relatively easy to trace back to the original maker.

But 100 years ago all that changed. First of audio recording, then radio, gramaphone records, CDs and now the internet, made the passing of songs lateral as well as linear - to create a much much more complex 'folk process.'

It didn't happen overnight, which is why people went on using the term Traditional without noticing what was happening to the word. And they were happy to include in thier definition all manner of aspects which lay outwith the 'official' definition.

Now we have a situation where only a tiny minority of people even know what the 'official' definition is. Read this tread again, and you can see how confused the picture now is.

I recognise your definition. But if you merely use the word Traditional, many people will misunderstand you - because they mean something else by the word.

If you were happy to change your term to one that has, for now, not lost its meaning - for example 'collected' everyone would know what you meant.

It's a pain, and maybe a shame - but that's language for you all over!

PS can you clarify the Reilly / Munnelly / Coulter route for me? I'm not sure I follow what happened. Has Coulter got copyright of the work (impossible in the UK - well, the courts would have to sort it), or only of his arrangement of the song?

PPS Walter was right when he was referring to songs that come to him the way they did. But he'd not have said the same thing about a song written (assuming it could have been in his repertoire) by Paul McCartney!

PPPS Agian, your defintion: "created (largely anonymously), transmitted (largely orally) and altered and re-shaped to suit the people who performed them" only works pre-audio recording technology. It doesn't hold water today - and anyway, a lot of songs even back then WERE written down, both by writers and by 'unofficial' collectors - and that's one of the ways the newts multiplied!

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 09:48 AM

"Ron's is based on the fact that somebody has come along and decided to call their particular music 'folk' or 'traditional' so we can no longer use the term – or, at the very least, we have to define what we mean by what we mean. As far as I can see, Ron's argument makes a nonsense of the language. "

That is not at all what I said.   I am not sure how you came up with that interpretation Jim.

With all due respect Jim, I was trying to account for the "historical" aspects that you stated - "how the those songs were created, transmitted and altered and re-shaped to suit the people who performed them, listened to them and identified with them." IF that "perfectly workable definition" that has existed for some time is accurate, then you should be able to apply it to contemporary music to define "folk".

The arguement that a tradition "dies" simply because of changes in technology, habit, etc. does not hold water. Traditions are constantly evolving and adapting based on the criteria that you stated.

What I was trying to say in my earlier posts is that in order to define "folk" or "traditional" we need to look at the process that creates such songs, the times in which they were created, and how the songs were used. Most people simply disregard contemporary music because it does not fit THEIR definition based on DATED criteria. What bothers me about most of the definitions is that they do not take into account other factors of the individuals and the time period in which they are created.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,PRSM
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 10:12 AM

I agree, Ron. Personally I'm suspicious of any romanticisation of The Tradition: This notion that a process existed which somehow created the songs, that the talent lay with the singers not the writers, and that's therefore where reverence is due. That's wrong. The songs were created by talented people who had something to say, just as songs are today. The bad ones never got handed on. The good ones were, and occasionally they got better in the process, more often they got more confused and corrupted. Words were lost, tunes were simplified, floating verses added to muddle the listener. Many trad songs you hear on records or in clubs today are actually quite poor in pure song terms if you stop to examine them (though there are many that are pure gold). Sometimes spoiled ones were or are rescued by talented singers and revitalised, and then of course credit is due - but it was only worth dong that if the song still had something worth rescuing - and if it did, that's down to the original writer, not those who've mussed it up over the ages, and made it need revitalising!

But Jim's definition is valid and well recognised. So is yours. But they're not at all the same thing. Hence why we now have to bow to the inevitable, drop the word, and find new terms that say what we each mean.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Scrump
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 10:27 AM

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' - Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll

That's just what I intend to do with "folk" and "traditional". It's the only way folks!

:-)

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, PRSm
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 11:07 AM

That's fine for 'folk' but not for 'traditional' becuase what happens is people put 'trad' on their CDs and then, because 'trad' has a legal definition, the work's ownership can become lost, and rightful payments not made.

It's happened scores of times and its very hard to re-establish ownership once lazy people have committed this crime - and yes, it is actually a crime in law. It's called theft.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,Hugh
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 10:58 PM

What a fascinating discussion. We are French Canadian. I had often wondered what was the difference between our stuff and what the 'English' call traditional or folk.

The best description of French Canadian traditional music is a style of playing / singing. This has been reflected in some of the previous posts. For example, "You don't apply to join a tradition; you are born into it and grow up with it all round you as part of your life."

For example, we employed an 'English' (means his first language was English not French, round here) musician last year (we are professional). He was a really excellent musician and had played with really top (international) artists and groups. But he just didn't well sound right - despite playing all the right notes and even playing them in the right places.

Originally French Canadian music was unaccompanied, so re-arrangement is normal. Plus my wife is a devil for re-writing the lyrics, never seems to be the same song twice as far as she is concerned. But again that is in the tradition.

This evolving form has appeared in other posts about non-'English' folk / tradition.

Thanks guys, very interesting indeed.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:25 AM

Don't forget Scrump, Humpty Dumpty was created as an example of self-destructive pig-headedness - look how he ended up!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:32 AM

Humpty Dumpty was pushed.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Soldier boy
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 10:15 PM

Hello there. Lots of truly superb contributions on this thread drawn from years of professional experience and research.

I know that there are lots of different and challenging views on this subject and we may never arrive at some kind of agreement.

I do wonder if too much of this debate looks introspectively at the 'romantic' ideal of the past and yet fails to consider the processes of the here and now and the potential for the future.

MaColl is quoted on this thread as saying that "..unknown singers who have helped to carry our peoples' songs across the centuries"

Bob Coltman said that "..songs pass hither and thither via heresay..like a rumour..growing (or dwindling) and changing as they move" and he also said that "tradition is a moving force onward into the future..continuous drive and initiative to learn and pass down songs..people must be song carriers or tradition fails."

Just consider the power and the impact the internet can play now and in the future on the transmission,exchange and survival of folk music.
Jim Carroll has said much on this thread about the subject of 'Community' and I agree with him, but is there not a new Community developing across the globe right under our nose?
-The community of the internet that now passes on and hands down information about folk music at lightening speed and also broadcasts and promotes events and communal gatherings of like minded people.
By this way we now form a close community and year in and year out we gather to get together, meet up and enjoy this 'family' of folk just as our ancestors did in isolated hamlets and villages.

All you have to do is to take a quick look look at the threads appearing on Mudcat today:

Requests for Origins of music/Lyrics/Tunes
Invitations and announcements about folk clubs/festivals/getaways/gigs/whats on etc etc

Surely all this is the modern equivelent of the tradition of passing on and handing down customs and practice from one generation to the next.

If you look at the future how does it alter our perspective on the past?
Surely it is a continuous stream and long may it live and prosper without all the nonsense of date boundaries,dead or still alive authors,known or unknown authors,best before and sell by dates.
We are not talking about perishable foods we are talking about creative material that will deserve to be passed on and collected by popular requestfor years and maybe decades to come.

Can we still be bound by definitions written in the 1950s' (or whenever) written in tablets of stone!

I think not. I just invite you to look more closely at the way we can put things into perspective in terms of how we think and communicate today and might do so in the future especially with all the technology to hand.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 04:18 AM

Every time these arguments come up I wonder why some (romantics?) are so anxious to claim to be part of what is basically an archaic tradition; why is it important to prove that Ralph McTell's songs come out of the same stable as 'Riddle's Wisely Expounded' or 'Van Dieman's Land'?
For me, the most important defining factor of the song tradition is its oral nature; it is this characteristic which produced two hundred plus versions of 'Barbara Allen'. By saying that 'Streets of London' is from a different family tree to 'Lord Randall' is not a value judgment on either song; it is a statement of fact and historically, nothing will ever change that fact - unless we all throw away our recording machines and our word-processors and start composing songs in our heads, memorising what we have composed and singing them to our neighbours. Now that would be romanticism!   
I have always accepted MacColl's argument that the traditional forms were a perfect template with which to create new songs. I believe that the anonymous poets, who made 'Banks of Sweet Primroses' and 'Clerk's Twa Sons of Oxenford' and the equally anonymous singers who came after them, took their songs up and reshaped and re-created them, made a magnificent contribution to our culture and were capable of using language as skillfully, sensitively and passionately as Shakespeare, Donne and Milton. Understanding that tradition and those forms will perhaps make it possible for our own and future generations to produce new Shakespeares, Donnes and Miltons and perhaps, as Malcolm Douglas suggested, leaving those who come after us something worth having.
In the end, the point is an probably an academic one as long as songs continue to be made, re-made and sung, but knowing where we stand in relation to the tradition is, I think, an important part of our understanding it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, PRSm
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 06:17 AM

You have a good point Jim, but Soldier Boy's is equally valid. There are two main schools of thought here.

1) Those like Jim who mean something quite specific by the term 'The Tradition', an oral process which could only exist in a wold without mini discs, mp3s, myspace etc so which has of course died out _as a process_ even though the material is still around (and still changing). Jim - and probably MusTrad, EFDSS and others - need a word which ONLY describes this oral process, and the material which came down to us through it, and then became, to a certain extent, preserved in aspic and/or otherwise diverted by (some) collectors.

2) Soldier Boy and others need a term that describes the evolution of music by any means, including Jim's, but also many others including myspace and ipods, 70's album tracks, The English Book of Penguin Folk Songs, jotting down a tune in a session etc.

As long as these two camps are trying to use the same word for these two very different things there will be trouble - the worst of which being a blurring of the LEGAL definition of 'tradtitional' (and here again the law is inadequate also), which results in authors being denied roylties, and, equally wronly, arrangers acquiring copyright of work they did not create and do not morally own.

I'm suggesting that Camp 1) should take a deep breath and start using the word 'Collected' rather than 'Traditional' to decribe 'their' material, and also - when needing to describe the oral process - to qualify 'traditional' with 'oral,' 'rural,' 'seafaring' etc. as a matter of habit.

Meanwhile Camp 2) should also drop the word 'trad' and use perhaps 'folk' as that word has, most would agree, now broadened sufficiently in definition to describe what they mean adequately. So this on-going process becomes the 'folk' process - which, of course, includes ALL the previous traditional definitions and the rest.

And I've already suggested how the legal definitions might be shaped up for use when publishing.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 06:46 AM

PRS member is very keen that we should use the word "collected" instead of "traditional". So, what does he call a traditional song that hasn't been collected yet?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, PRSm
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 08:20 AM

Mmm, thought someone would ask that.

Well, there can't be ALL that many 'unknown, out-of-copyright and as yet unpublished' (which is what it would have to be to qualify) material left, but you could make a case for saying that as soon as a piece is recorded, or published, or performed in public, or enters the modern public domain by one means or another, it does at that moment effectively become 'collected', even if not by someone who calls themselves a Collector in the normal sense. So the term would still work. You could call them Source Songs if you prefer I suppose.

I don't like it much either, but the current situation is a mess.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 08:21 AM

Uncollected?

Waiting to be collected?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 08:35 AM

Well, PRSM, I'm not sure hwo many uncollected songs there are(byt its nature, not an answerable question). BUt as regards tunes(which is what I know about): in Ireland Scotland and the north of England(and also to some extent in the south) there are thousands of traditional dance tunes. And, as the dance band tradition never died, these have just been passed down along the line. So, if I play Soldiers Joy or Miss McLeod's Reel, I didn't get it from, or via, a collector. I just got them from other people who played them, who got them in turn from other people who played them. And I call them traditional tunes. And will firmly continue to do so. And incidentally, if I record one, I'll put "Trad arr G Stephens". in the hope of gttimg some modest royalties which will otherwise end up in somebody else's pocket who hasn't contributed anything to the process. doesnt deserve them.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,PRSm
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 08:43 AM

I have no problem with that - as song as 'written' tunes, that ARE still in copyright, are not treated the same way - which they very often are, because by the very nature of the beast people tend not to say where tunes came from in sessions so things slip through the net. It's a slightly different issue to the one we we discussing just above - but it still needs to be debated.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 08:55 AM

Sounds like our postal service!
Sorry, I've already retreated from 'folk' - you'll all have to put up a better argument than those so far if I'm going to retreat from 'Traditional'.
Aren't we being somewhat exclusive here by assuming that everybody has access to computers and the Internet. Here in the West of Ireland, which had a thriving tradition up to three or four decades ago............... but I'm sure you don't want to know that.
PRS member - I do wish you'd desist from hanging a price tag on what, by definition, is common property - it's like living through The Enclosures again.
The much demonised MacColl put many hundreds of traditional songs and ballads back into circulation and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER at any stage attempted to copyright them. Most of the time, with one exception (First Time Ever - not one of his best) he didn't even bother too much about his own compositions, but was pleased and proud to have them sung. One result of the money that came from F.T.E. was Blackthorn Records, which gave us, among other things, probably the definitive collection of traditional ballads, Blood and Roses.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, PRSm
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 10:17 AM

Actually I'm casual about the use of my own songs, love to hear them sung (even if mangled), not really bothered about the money (as you'd see if you visited my site), and am deeply honoured when any are mistaken for trad.

But the principle of copyright is important, and not only for financial reasons.

"I do wish you'd desist from hanging a price tag on what, by definition, is common property"

But I'm NOT! Not, not, not, not!!!

I'm reminding people of the price tag that DOES exist on what is NOT common property, but which is being treated as such out of error or laziness!

Let me put it for the third or fourth time:

Because people confuse your 'oral/source/collected' definition (which DOES refer to common property) with Solder Boy's 'it's-all-one-on-going-process' definition (which includes SOME common property but ALSO includes much which is NOT common propety) people can end up treating copyright works as out-of-copyright.

That's what I'm seeking to prevent.

Partly because its not fair, but also because it devalues those who make this music worth listening to and playing in the first place. The people who can turn your soul with a cadence. Bring a lump to your throat with a phrase. Set the hairs on your neck waving with story. Make your blood rush with a tune.

We need properly to respect songs and tunes, by respecting their makers, and hear less of the 'its good enough for folk' and 'I do it this way because that's how I play/sing' attitudes.

I do love the inclusive, let's-all-join-in nature of the UK folk scene, but - and it's a BIG but, we won't see this music treated with respect by the population at large until the material and its makers are respected.

Recognising the true value of this music by learning to recognise the value of its makers, is the only way I can think of to turn the situation round.

And if that also means that the folk scene then becomes able support more great writers and players, who can afford to tour and make CDs and make this music their life's priority - and so help tell the rest of the world see how great it is (while also taking nothing away from all of us who want to join in and play our part) - so much the better!

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 02:27 PM

PRS Member (would you mind if I called you P? – PRS Member is such a tooth-loosener, and I was always rather fond of Q, James Bond's armourer – was he a relative?)
I concede your point; you are referring to songs where the composer is known, which means of coure at long last we may be getting somewhere with this somewhat convoluted argument.
You do realise that you've just presented the perfect argument for keeping traditional and newly-composed songs seperated!
One of the characteristics of traditional songs is that the authors are not known, ("traditional – of obscure or unknown origin") therefore, how can we possibly describe newly-composed songs, or songs where the authors are known as 'traditional'?
Jim Carroll
PS I Googled PRS Member and didn't find your web-site.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,P
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 05:28 PM

This is what I've been trying to say all along Jim.

Under your widely accepted but NOT exclusive definition of the word Traditional, there is no problem or issue about ownership. The material that exists within your definition of the word is all out of copyright and in common ownership.

But as we can see from this discussion, that is not understood or respected by all of the folk community.

A lot of other people have decided, for good or bad reasons, that the word traditional NOW means something else; something more general, more continuous - and generally open to a MUCH wider interpretation.

You can decry this, but it's happened. And the cat will never fit back into the bottle.

So. When the term Traditional is applied in this second way it can and often will include works which are either still in legal copyright, or which deserve, morally, to still be associated with a maker's name (it's not only about money, its also about respect - as I've said before - think O'Carolan for example).

Yet because people believe that it's ok to do what you like with traditional materal (because that's what your gang are telling them) and what the law seems to imply, and anyway its only folk and it's all everybody's anyway, the result is artists feel free to use copyright material without consent or credit, denying rightful royalties, making ownership hard to re-establish, and devaluing the contribution made by original thought to music.

It is this confusion that I want to end by dropping the word Trad.

We need ONE word to descripe the thing your talking about. And DIFFERENT word to decribe what Soldier Boy (and perhaps now a majority of people in the folk world) are takling about.

Now you can hang onto your definition if you like, but you'll have to stop all the others using it, and I think it's just too late for that - don't you?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 04:20 AM

This, as the Monty Python team regularly observed, is getting very silly.
I have just had a quick shufti round our book collection and have come up with the following: Folk Songs of the North East, Folk Songs of Somerset, Traditional Tunes of The Child Ballads, Last Leaves of Traditional Ballads, The Ballad of Tradition, English Folk Songs From The Southern Appalachians, The Ballad and The Folk, Folk Songs of New England, Folk Songs From The Catskills, Anglo American Folksong Scholarship Since 1898, The Greig-Duncan Folksong Collection, Ancient Irish Folksongs, North Carolina Folklore – Folk Songs, The Journal of the Folk Song Society, The Folk Music Journal, The British Traditional Ballad In North America, The Penguin Book of English/American/Canadian/Australian Folk Songs, The English Traditional Ballad, Folksong In England – we have a large number of books so the list is somewhat extensive.
It appears to me that those of us who are happy with terms like folk and traditional have history on our side – we've got a pedigree folks (if you don't mind my using that term!) that stretches back nearly a century.
Doesn't it strike anybody as a trifle presumptive that people should come along and inform me, Bronson, Sharp, Greig, Duncan, Gerould, Gummere, Fowke, Crichton, Coffin, Goldstein, Flanders, Brown, Broadwood, Kidson, Grainger, Cazden, Henderson, Shields, Joyce, and those of us who are comfortable with the F and T words, that we can no longer use them and from now we must call them 'source songs', or 'collected songs' or even 'waiting to be collected songs'?
And what about the related disciplines? Do we now have to refer to 'A Dictionary of British 'Waiting To Be Collected' Tales, or Italian 'Collected' Tales, or The Motif Index of 'Source' Literature, or maybe even Modern Greek 'Good Old Days' Tales.
I wont even begin on our folklore (or should I say 'old timey' lore) or tradition (or 'what we did centuries ago') collection.
And what about the organisations, magazines and web sites? Traditional Song Forum, English Folk Dance And Song Society, Musical Traditions, The Living Tradition.
Poor old Nicholas Carolan of the Irish Traditional Music Archive in Dublin has just undergone an extremely expensive move of premises; which of you is going to be the one to tell him he is now going to have to reach into his pocket again and cough up for a new nameplate for the front door?
And what guarantee are you going to give us that you're not going to come along in six months or a years time and tell us we've got to change again because you like our name better than yours and you would like to use it?
Gi'e us a break Jimmy!
However, don't despair; perhaps there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Those of you advocating change have not even attempted to come up with a half-decent definition (Bob Coltman tried - sort of, but he was rather diffident, as if he wasn't quite convinced himself). Nor have you tried seriously to challenge the established definition, but rather, have taken the beautifully apposite path trodden by Humpty Dumpty in saying "a word means what I want it to mean" (it appears to be purely fortuitous that you don't want to call your songs hip-hop, or opera or tralaleri). Might I suggest that how you identify the various types of songs under discussion is your problem, not ours. We have perfectly acceptable terms which not only identify the songs but go some way to describing their creation and dissemination. As much as I'd like to help, it really is up to you to find a suitable name for YOUR songs – sorry – this seat is taken.
It should be remembered that no matter how often words are misused or mispronounced, genealogy will always be an 'alogy' and not an 'ology'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, P
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 06:19 AM

Indeed - it's a facer, isn't it!?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: greg stephens
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 06:25 AM

Well, I'm 100% with GUEST a few posts back(I assume Jim Carroll). I've been forced to give up "folk", the rising sea levels have swamped it, but I'm buggered if I'm giving up "traditional" without a fight. "Collected" indeed: pshaw!

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Soldier boy
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 09:35 PM

I agree Guest,P but what do you think should be THE word to replace 'traditional'?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 02:25 AM

And why does it need to be be replaced?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Scrump
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 04:19 AM

Yes, Humpty Dumpty was right after all! :-)

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, p
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 05:59 AM

Language happens. What's needed is a debate to recognise the dichotomy, rather than any dictat on new words. People who prefer to avoid being misunderstood first notice the dichotomy, then realise they may be being misunderstood, then change their language to avoid confusion. Eventually a consensus forms and the language changes, and finally the confusion is lost. Meanwhile 'Traditional' continues to have at least two incompatible meanings - with the consequences I've outlined.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 06:55 AM

Guest p, has presented a logical case,.
what is needed now is discussion and consensus for a new word.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 03:57 PM

Well, if "traditional" is no use any more, how about "folk"? used to do the job perfectly.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 07:09 PM

P
Some suggestions so we are not working totally in the dark
1 Define tradition (references to your sources would be welcome).
2 Give us examples of which songs you would like to take the place of those currently understood as traditional.
3 Explain what makes them fit in to your - and (as definition relies on general understanding and agreement) our definition of your understanding of traditional.
4 Advise as to how we are going to persuade all the many hundreds working in the field of traditional music who, in their ignorance, fully accept the current use of the term, to now switch over to your new definition: (what is it that has been suggested so far as a substitute; collected - waiting to be collected – source music)?
5 Suggest why I should walk away from forty years experience, (which includes thirty years of collecting work among er… source – collected - waiting to be collected - singers) at the behest of somebody who has not had the courtesy to identify themself so that I might judge whether their efforts (as a middlingly well known performer) fits in with our estimation of what traditional songs or singing is going to sound like should I accept your argument.

If somebody new to traditional song were to ask me where they might hear good examples of the genre I would probably give them a copy of 'The Song Carriers' (which comes with an excellent commentary).
If they were to enquire where they might find good printed collections of such songs I would have no hesitation in pointing them to 'The Penguin Book of English Folk Songs' or 'The Singing Island'.
If they were to say they wished to learn more about traditional song I would suggest they read A L Lloyd's 'Folk Song In England', or David Buchan's 'The Ballad And The Folk' or David Kerr Cameron's 'The Ballad And The Plough' or Evelyn Wells' 'The Ballad Tree' or, somewhat further afield, Jan Ling's 'A History of European Folk Music'. None of these are by any means perfect, but they are all extremely informative and highly readable introductions to the subject.

I wonder how you would respond to such requests; have you any solid examples of your particular brand of tradition – do you have any accessible research which has been reached by study or debate or even historical precedence to back up your re-definition, or is your suggestion purely whimsical?

If I suddenly decided I would like to learn more about - say opera - I would approach somebody who understands the subject for advice. I would hope they would tell me what I wanted to know in terms I could understand – in other words, I would expect them to start from their own standpoint of experience and knowledge and not patronise me by coming down to my level of inexperience and ignorance, and I certainly wouldn't wish to have someone tell me, "well, because you are quite likely to be confused by all this, we'll throw in Julie Andrews for good measure".

Are there really people out there who actually don't understand the term 'tradition' or are incapable of picking up a dictionary and finding out its meaning.

So far this debate has been a little like wrestling fog - you have not addressed one point that has been put to you. I suppose this is too much to hope for so let's see how you get on with these.
I won't hold my breath.
Greg;
Now go and wash your mouth out!
Cap'n:
I have to say you are very easily persuaded. I am trying to sell a clapped out old van which is at present blocking my driveway – are you interested?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 08:47 PM

Well said, Jim.

I have one further question to add. When exactly was this "legal definition" of "traditional" that equates it with "out of copyright" made law? It would be helpful if "Guest P" would enlighten us on that point. Until we know that, we might be inclined to consider it PRS interpretation of law, which is not above challenge.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, P
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 08:54 PM

Jim I understand your position, I really do. And I would indeed support your stance under my real name (not least because my career depends upon it!), but there's a very good reason why I'm forced to conclude that it will probably be 'your camp' - rather than the people who perhaps don't understand how important that pure definition might be, and are thus the eroders of your term - that will eventually have to find a new phrase to descibe the thing you now call 'traditional folk music'.

And it is this:

When the term Traditional was first applied to folk song and music it was not unique to that definition. It was not a noun, it was an adjective - and a very general and commonplace adjective too. (The noun, 'THE tradition,' came later - precisely becuase the adjective was already proving inadequate as a descriptor).

At that time, the word Traditional could ALSO be applied to lace making, archery, Masonic rites, domestic decoration, marriage ceremonies, cuts of beef, marmalade, and the manufacture of perry, mungo and pig iron.

Amongst other things.

And the word 'Traditional' continued to have a meaning to millions of people who had never even thought about folk music, let alone listened to it, or tried to understand the processes which your gang believed that the term was describing.

So when, with the revival, people re-encounterd this thing you call The Tradition, they were perfectly within their rights to make the assumptions which many have expressed in this thread.

You see; those who feel the word descibes an on-going process, (which did NOT stop with the collection of songs which had heretofore only been known in remote rural locations and had arrived there purely by aural and oral means) are in a massive majority.

A MASSIVE majority.

Because they include ALL English-speaking people, including those who don't give a morrish-shtick for folksong.

Which is a LOT ot folks.

And they ALL know what the proper, dictionary definition of the word 'Traditional' is. They all know it has little or nothing to do with music. It's entirely general - and their use of it is entirely correct in the wider grammatical and syntactical terms of the English language.

This may be unfortunate for those of us who want the word only to refer to a cultural process and a musical catalogue which existed in certain communities between about 1550 and 1890. But it's just tough, I'm sorry to say.

You see, when the term Traditional was first applied to folk music it was entirely appropriate.

But time has shown it to be lacking. If only they'd used a new and unique word!

Remember - I'm ONLY talking about language here.

I have shelf full of books too. And I'm not reaching for the tippex. Yet. But ask me about this is 50 years. (Well, you won't need to)!

So.

To answer your points:

1 Define tradition (references to your sources would be welcome).

There are three basic defitintions: 1) Yours, 2) Solder Boy's (which concurs with perhaps 75% of the population of the Atlantic, American and Australian islands), and 3) whatever legal definition applies in your parish which may be the same as 1) or 2) or not.


2 Give us examples of which songs you would like to take the place of those currently understood as traditional.

None at all. You're missing my point COMPLETELY!

3 Explain what makes them fit in to your - and (as definition relies on general understanding and agreement) our definition of your understanding of traditional.

Again - this challenge is irellevant to the point I'm making. I'm talking about language, and language only. Songs and tunes are nice, or less nice, according to personal opinion. And that's all.

4 Advise as to how we are going to persuade all the many hundreds working in the field of traditional music who, in their ignorance, fully accept the current use of the term, to now switch over to your new definition: (what is it that has been suggested so far as a substitute; collected - waiting to be collected – source music)?

I haven't a clue; I'd much rather the other lot changed their term! BUT as there are only 'many hundreds' in your camp, and many millions in the other, I think i know what will happen.

5 Suggest why I should walk away from forty years experience, (which includes thirty years of collecting work among er… source – collected - waiting to be collected - singers) at the behest of somebody who has not had the courtesy to identify themself so that I might judge whether their efforts (as a middlingly well known performer) fits in with our estimation of what traditional songs or singing is going to sound like should I accept your argument.

I'm not saying for one minute you should walk way from anything. I'm merely suggesting that we need to separate the stuff you're taking about from everything else (as you said, the old from the newly-made). So that writers don't get ripped off. So that good material flourishes. So that the heritage remains available. So that the general public finally appreciates how important this stuff is.

But if we want that to happen we can't keep using the same word for two things.

I know you understand because your understanding informs the subtext of all your posts.

The ony issue issue is; Who changes?

Time will tell.

Me? I've been to William Hill and placed my fiver.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,p
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 09:01 PM

Malcolm - I don't know. But the law is the law.

If you want to change it that's a different mater.

Make your case here, and if I agree I'll meet you at 3.30 on the 15th of December at the gates of Downig Street. With a big placard.

IF I agree.

If not - well, best of luck!

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 09:39 PM

I'm not in the business of making a case, but I thought that you were. My question still stands; is it the law? Or just a powerful pressure group's interpretation of what may or may not be law?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, P
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 03:47 AM

As I understand it, in law, material is either in copyright or out of copyright. If a work is credited as Trad or Anon, it's assumed to be out of copyright - by PRS, MCPS, equivalent organisations overseas, and everyone else, and treated accordingly. Sometimes, just sometimes, someone may know better and then the tag may be rectified.

Again, as I understand it, PRS/MCPS is not a pressure group. It has a mandate from government to administer royalties in the UK, so in common law that makes their definition the legal one. But I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.

In any event, if the dichotomy was cleared up, the legal problem would disappear.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 04:15 AM

Quick reaction.
Traditional is, always has been and always will be understandable to those involved - it will be just as understandable to those who (hopefully) become involved in the future.
It is as accurate when applied to song and music as anything that has ever been suggested in my hearing - the pretty dismal suggestions that have been made on this thread (even if it were necessary to accept change) would do nothing to our or anybody's perception of the subject.
It seems I was wrong; we have not only been wrestling fog, we have been wrestling semantics.
There has been enough work done to ascertain that the music will always be there to be accessed. If it is to cease to be performed, so be it, changing the name will not make one iota of difference.
The Titanic would still have sunk, even if the name had been changed to 'The Good Ship Lollipop'
More later- when I have woken up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST, p
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 04:28 AM

"Traditional is, always has been and always will be understandable to those involved"

And that's why we have this problem.

Because ONLY 'those involved' understand. Everyone else is just hearing music.

"it will be just as understandable to those who (hopefully) become involved in the future."

I fear you may hope in vain Jim. It may already be too late and too many people may already hold the wider definition to be correct. Take a poll of the posters on this thread...

My fear is this: As long as the people who have the best access to ancient material (through shelves full of books) feel that folk music is something you have to be 'involved' in before you can understand, or appreciate it, or use it correctly, it will stay a minority interest, and the number of people who understand will dwindle.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: greg stephens
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:25 AM

Interestingly, Christy Moore was on Libby Purves' talk show on radio 4 this morning. And he used the word "traditional" to describe one sort of song knocing around on the folk scene, as opposed to ewan McColl's newly-composed songs. In fact, he used the owrd traditional in exactly the same sense as me, Jim Carroll, Malcolm Douglas, or any one of a number of contributors to this thread. And it seemd to fit in to the conversation quite naturally in the studio, and I'm sure people understood what he went.
He didn't feel the need to say"Of course I shouldn't say 'traditional' really, I should say 'collected or possibly soon to be collected if some latter day Cecil Sharp gets around to it'".
   Christy Moore was quite happy with "traditional" in ordinary converation, and so am I. If I need to qualify the word in some very precise bit of analysis, I can do so.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: greg stephens
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:34 AM

This GUEST PRS chappie says he(she?) can't reveal his/her identity for fear of jeopardisng his/her career. Now, I've been trying hard, but I'm finding it difficult to imagine what kind of job you might be in that would forbid you from discussing the meaning of the word "traditional". It may be terminally boring, but in what circumstances could it be a sackable offence?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:52 AM

I assume PRS member is a songwriter. It's hard enough for songwriters to get gigs at trad clubs and festivals without appearing to hold contoversial views. A lot of organisers read mudcat. PRS member has always chosen his or her words carefully, yet has still been completely misunderstood a number of times in this debate. Its very easy for people reading a forum to get completely the wrong end of the stick even when one is not being controversial. I think he or she was well advised to remain incognito. Furthermore, his or her band might not appreciate being assocated with even a mere devil's advocate - perhaps they also have mortgages.

It matters not who put the motion - this thread has proved that debate is neccesary.

Time will take care of the outcome.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 11:31 AM

TO JIM CARROLL, I said guest p has presented a logical case.
so why I should want your clapped out old van, your statement defies all logic.,
   to GREG STEPHENS because Christy Moore used the word traditional doesnt mean he was being clear in his definitions, because someone is a good singer, it doesnt follow his terminology is precise, in fact his terminology isnt always precise ,hence we have The Lakes Of Ponterchrain, when it should be The Lake[SINGULAR] OF Ponterchrain.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:10 PM

correction; correct spelling is lake of Ponchartrain.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: greg stephens
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:24 PM

There's no such thing as "right" you know, cap'n sorr. You've had two cracks at it, but I think you'll find that Pontchartrain also has its adherents as the "right" spelling, so there's three ways for a start. And, as it is indeed a traditional song, you can't really object if Christy Moore's version is the "lakes" (plural). That is how it is sung, those are the words. If you want to sing it in the singular, go ahead. The world of traditional song is Liberty Hall.
   I think you might find that there is now one lake, but there used to be a few(like Tarn Howes in the lake district, which used to be called "The Tarns" when there were three, but a dam caused a certain amount of amalgamation).
    And as regards Chrity M: I knew what he meant by "traditional", so communication was possible. The English language is defined by usage, that's the way it is. There are no legal defintions(except in law, and that varies too!). Dictionaries can provide guidance, but only guidance.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:37 PM

Usage determines "correctness".