So what is *Traditional* Folk Music?

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 03:10 PM

I agree about excluding songs from the repertoire.

However there is another point here. Singing what we might call for now traditional songs has certainly survived within this area at shepherd meets and in particular amongst the hunting fraternity. Now I have sung along about various hounds with Willy Scott many times in the past and remarkably good it was too. Other groups have made records of hunting songs and good fun they have been to sing along with too.

And yet since the end of legal fox hunting I and others have noticed a qualitative difference in that the songs were not just sung for the pleasure of singing but also "with feeling" if you like, indeed a non-sympathiser said to me "These buggers sing as if they mean it".

And yet I have spent a very enjoyable lunchtime singing about God with great gusto including "Worship, worship, worship Christ the Lord" a sentiment accompanied by a pint of really fine beer - indeed helped along with it and with which I am not normally associated (the sentiment that is, not the beer). Others might have seen me singing along and said "He sings as if he means it".

Again no answers but a number of questions.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 02:03 PM

I suppose we wont be able to sing wren hunting songs soon.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:43 PM

well so far no one has rejected sea shanties,although they are comparitively recent compared to some.
A L LLOYD says The modern form of capitalism that gave rise to the great shipping lines,produced at the same time, the striking body of primitive folk songs that we call shanties.
john mearns[Scottish folklorist, singer broadcaster]remarked in an interview,that songs such as DRUMDELGIE , were not only sung in the bothys for recreation,but used as work songs by the farm labourers,different songs with different rhythms ,were used for ploughing or hand milking.
so logically we should also accept,songs sung in the american chaingang,scottish waiuking songs,and any songs that are used to assist manual labour[even if they are composed].

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:46 PM

I am not sure if this includes prostitutes, singing hit me with your rhythym stick.

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 06:27 PM

The word "traditional" has different meanings in different contexts. The folklorist has a guage by which he/she measures what it traditional by studying the texts of songs and stories told in a sub-culture, generally isolated.

The ethnomusicoligist studies a body of music and compares the style to see if it reflects a culture that dates back many years.

"Traditional" is a term that many have recently applied to a sub-culture-based music collected in rural areas or places where the popular media has not influenced it inordinately but it has survived in spite of the media (radio, recordings, TV etc.)

It could be that "traditional" music is not necessarily folk music if the songs no longer represent a particular sub-culture but are "museum pieces".

The obvious question is whose tradition? Jazz and so-called classical music have a tradition but these may be measured differently by their practitioners.

I think if you put a particular style of music along with traditional, it makes it clear.
"Traditional anglo-American ballads", "Traditional sea chanteys", etc. Then you are talking about a body of work that survives many years not associated with one particular composer or artist but reflects a sub-culture that teaches this way of playing to those within its confines.

I have more to say so I'll post another.

Frank

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 06:55 PM

Soldier Boy, I want to address your ideas.

"1.When I started this thread I intended to raise a question and not to challenge your attitudes."

I think that this is a valid point and the discussion is a worthy one.

"2.I do not believe that "TRADITIONAL" Folk Music means that the original authors must be both unknown and dead or out of copyright. This is just symptomatic of the age when they were spawned without todays advantage of instant recording and down loading via CD/DVD and internet etc."

One of the problems is that CD, DVD, Internet may get in the way of finding traditional folk music because of its inordinate commercial influence on a "folk culture". There have been articles written by ethnomusicologists and folklorists on a kind of "music imperialism" that tended to dictate a choice of music because of the media.


"Levels of education,literacy and the ability to communicate to the masses was very poor so only the most "popular" and therefore handed down songs survived. These songs survived because they were 'catchy', had a strong CHORUS and expressed shared and meaningful feelings and emotions of the time. So it is a 'filtering' process."

To the degree that these songs were evolved through a teaching experience in a given folk sub-culture this is true. Where it breaks down is when the word "popular" is used. We know that "popular music" has become a business which has as its goal selling songs to the public through a commercialized marketing technique. This is antithetical to how songs are transmitted in a living folk sub-culture. In the latter, the media becomes incidental and the marketing irrelevant.

"3.I do also think that "Tradition" is a process of evolution and is not dead. It really is a stream of continuous motion and is timeless. Many of todays "contemporary singers/Traditional-style singers and composers" will create the TRADITIONAL Folk Music of the future. Just because something is "New" does not mean it is not of value. They will live on to form part of the "tradition" for generations to follow."

The "filtering process" that you refer to is happening now in spite of what the media offers as "popular" music. Under our noses, there is a rich folk sub-culture taking place now that we as "folkies" don't even know about. Maybe it involves rap music or other sub-culture-based music.

"The definition of 'traditional' is indeed starting to creak. It is time for a re-think. Why do we love and embrace the past so much yet feel unwilling to equally embrace the present and the future?"

It's not that the past is the focus. It's more about the evolution of a folk-based musical sub-culture that many of us were highly motivated to seek out and discover. For example, the blues. This was an outgrowth of a rural community of African-Americans in the South that eventually found its way to the big city. Why is say "Blind Lemon Jefferson" or "Son House" so important? Well, you don't hear them on the major media but they tell us about the history of African-Americans in our country. The blues tradition goes on today in spite of the media and like the Griots of old, they tell of what happened to our country at various times of our history. This is not necromancy but an attempt to understand our "roots" as a musical nation.


"We owe it to our desendents to express the here and now with our heart felt emotions and observations with less of the seemingly heart felt need to cling,limpit-like, to comfort-inducing images of the past - e.g rather sad, in my view, churning out songs about fishermen,plough boys,milk maids, farmers, hunters,old battles,fair maidens,harvesting,love lost and love gained etc."

Here I agree and disagree at the same time. The "churning out" of songs about fishermen etc. is not really done these days. Many have been collected and rediscovered and in so doing their value is inherent. There are many songwriters writing in a folk-style without being part of a "folk" sub-culture that's isolated or homogenous. It's not that these songs are not important. It's just that the emphasis is different. The "traditional" songs are unearthed through collections and study by those who are interested and can't be replaced by contemporary singer-songwriters who by in large are more influenced by the popular music of the media. There are exceptions such as Jean Ritchie for example who writes beautiful songs but reflect a rich folk heritage that spans generations.


"We always seem to give value to "traditional" and see contemporary as cheap. This is indeed a time warp that needs to be finally shot dead and terminated. Our emotions and feelings are just as relevant today as they were 300 years ago."

Here I emphatically disagree. No self-respecting folklorist or ethnomusicologist would see all contemporary songwriting as "cheap". This is a huge generalization. Our emotions and feelings are different than they were 300 years ago. This is why there is such a fascination for wanting to discover how people felt historically through the tradition-based music.

"Otherwise we create a black hole and our contempory age gets sucked into oblivion."

Respect for tradtion-based music (historical connections), folk sub-cultures will not create any black holes except for the hide-bound poseur who hasn't taken the time to listen to traditional culture-based music handed down through the centuries. There will always be those who have a "folkier-than-thou" attitude about the music and they can be found dressed in anachronistic clothes and insular and self-conscious about their music.

"Nuff said and many thanks for all your very valuable and very well considered input. Please keep it coming if I haven't already turned you off"

Your questions are valid and this opens a door to discovery which is always a good thing.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: Soldier boy
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

Sincere thanks Frank Hamilton for your very thorough and very interesting replies to some of my ideas. This is much appreciated.

Whether we agree or disagree on some points it doesn't matter because all your points are very well considered and just as valid as mine are.

As you say "..this opens a door to discovery which is always a good thing." I think this applies to this whole thread and the many contributors that have added to this fascinating debate.

Many of the points I have raised on this thread have been ideas to throw into the pot to invite and stimulate debate rather than firm and unshiftable convictions. This is because I am still learning and benefiting from all the knowledge and opinions expressed on this thread to date.

When I started this thread I never envisaged the can of worms I had opened. This is a massive subject worthy of detailed discussion and has attracted such diverse and conflicting views that I realise that no one can have the final and definitive answer.

But it is well worth the adventure and the journey of discovery.
Bit by bit I think we are getting there!

Subject: RE: So what is 'TRADITIONAL' Folk Music ?
From: GUEST,Bob Coltman
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:27 PM

To take a fresh tack based on a singer's practical needs and pleasures, let's think about "Era" for a moment.

I sing a very wide variety of songs including banjo tunes, ballads, blues, cowboy songs, broadsides, ancient stuff derived from 19th century pop, prairie songs, love lyrics, work songs, etc. They are almost all folksongs ... traditional songs ... whatever term you prefer.

As to origin, they come from the Anglo-American and African-American traditions. (I love many other kinds of folksongs from Mexican, French and Spanish to subcontinental Indian and Chinese, but they aren't in my repertoire, I just hum them around the house. So I'm leaving those out of consideration here.)

I strongly like some contemporary songs and singers. But in what I really sing -- that must be some kind of acid test, don't you think? -- "era" matters. In short, I find in selecting repertoire I rarely if ever choose a song **newer** than about 1940.

Aha! Found out! you cry. A pre-WWII song chauvinist! And it's true. And why is this?
Simply stated, I just have not found many, if any post-1940 songs that feel essential to my musical heart and soul.

This is pretty harsh of me. It eliminates, for example, some songs I love. Just a few examples off the top of my head, "I Saw Her As She Came and Went," "Got My Mojo Workin'," "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere," "Everybody's Talkin'", Mike Heron's "Hedgehog Song," the wonderful "Geronimo's Cadillac," "Abilene," "Goofus," and "Dirty Old Town" would be some of many, not to mention "Mustang Sally," "Tie Me Kangaroo Down," Tom Waits' exquisite "Tom Traubert's Blues," and "Heartbreak Hotel," which I find riveting quite apart from Elvis.

(By the way it also eliminates every last one of the literally thousands of songs I personally have written, including "Before They Close the Minstrel Show," "Lonesome Robin," "Weaver Bird," "Web of Birdsong," etc., so don't say I'm not principled!)

What seems to matter for me, in staying closest to pre-1940s songs, is style and outlook.

Doesn't matter to me that "somebody known wrote it." Some of the songs I sing are indeed of known authorship, like W. S. Hays' "Curtains of Night" ("I'll Remember You Love in My Prayers:), just to pick one. That's not a barrier.

Arbitrarily choosing a year like this seems puerile and trivial. But before 1940 (and dating back into the 15th century -- roughly as far back as folksongs have survived for us) -- the kinds of songs I have come to love throughout a long life as singer and sometimes performer were generated and sung in styles I have come to feel at home with. After 1940 they weren't. It's that simple.

I'm not alone. Godrich and Dixon, in their standard blues discography, break off after 1942 -- for many reasons, among which are the coming of electric blues and distinct changes in style after WWII due to the national, cultural and racial intermixing the war caused. (Wars always create artistic style breaks for this reason.)

Tony Russell followed suit in his Country Music Records: A Discography, 1921-1942.

Since 1940 collectors of traditional folksongs have at times found good songs -- Frank Warner is an example -- but the songs they collected almost invariably dated back before 1940.

It's not just a matter of my chosen field, traditional songs. Even the popular songs before 1940 were distinctly different from their successors post-1940 to the present. Different in every way, but most of all in viewpoint, and thus in sound. Swing began to destroy the pre-1940s gestalt, rock finished it off -- for better or worse, and I do NOT imply a value judgment in this, I'm only stating a fact.

Showing my age (69) I guess ... but I prefer to sing and play songs that dated from before I was three years old.

So, for me, "traditional songs" are the core of a preference of musical era as well as a preference of genre. They simply sound right to me, as songs. And as a practical matter those kinds of songs don't date any newer than 1940. Regardless how I may dote on newer songs, I, a strongly tradition-influenced American revival singer, don't personally sing them. It's not a matter of self-limiting -- I'd be glad to sing newer stuff if it worked for me. But it just doesn't seem to "go with" me and doesn't feel as good, and would not, somehow, mix well with the core stuff I do.

Oddly, it would be easier to mix "Sweet Georgia Brown" and "April Showers" with my repertoire -- those are two of many pop songs of the same era -- than to mix in more modern things. I don't entirely know why. Does that make me an old fart? (Don't answer that.)

All this contradicts what I've said above, where I've argued that traditional song keeps making itself and will do so on into the indefinite future. That's the difference between ideal and practical points of view.

My singer's viewpoint is very far away from, and less internally consistent than, the points discussed above about legal rights and definitions. This is just one singer's day-to-day preference and bone-marrow feeling as to what is, or is not, his repertoire. My guess is that any of us, as singers, will tend to make these sorts of private definitions about our own songlist preferences based on "feel" -- which may be very different from our attempts to set up definitions or assert idealistic or logical categories.

Not sure how useful, or not, this is. Reading it over, I tend to think not very. Yet similar assertions of preference are implicit everywhere behind the contributions to this thread. In the interests of clarity, I thought it might be interesting to take this different view and see how it plays out.

Wow, what a subject. Easier not to think about, and just sing.   Bob

Subject: RE: So what is *Traditional* Folk Music?
From: GUEST,ray taylor
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 11:06 AM

I'm looking for a tape,which I lost some time ago[still have sleeve]"Tales of Derwentdale "by john Thorpe and Michael Kelly.i see that you have referred to it on your web?