It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:40 AM

Categories 1 and 2 above will always be confused, I think, whether we use Trad or Tralatitional; so we would need to employ the secondary "anon" for "publicly owned" (Category 1) and/or "attributable" for Category 2. Thus for example:

Category 1: Trad (anon), Tralatitional (anon), Tradanon (and why not)
Category 2: Trad (attrib), Tralatitional (attrib), Tradatt

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Scrump
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:45 AM

OK, who will be the fist to start a Tralatitional Music Club?

Are you trying to start a punch-up, George? :-)

"Tra la la la la" sounds tralatitional to me :-)

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone Else
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:47 AM

LoL

Nice try George!

I think the simplest is to go on using the word traditional to describe the process (of any era or nationality), but to credit individual works without using Trad at all.

1) Anon (or Trad anon if you really must)

2) Writer's name, PO (publicly owned)

3) Writer's name (the snag with this being that eventually it becomes PO, but that's down to PRS to know)

4) Writer's name

5) Writer's name (!)

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:47 AM

Sorry Scrump, looks like I missed my Rs - not easily done...

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 08:14 AM

Case in point

in the Ride On thread - I've just read:

'From "Ride On", Christy Moore'

That's how it starts.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,PRS Member
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 05:48 PM

Why is is that whenever anyone mentions copyright to folkies everyone goes quiet and looks the other way?

Can it be that, like Victorians and babies, no-one wants to think about how songs get made?

Is songwriting something to be ashamed of?

Do songwriters not deserve what other creative artists are due?

Is that what folkies secretly believe?

I really do want to know.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 07:49 PM

Hi PRS Member (I am too, by the way); answering your questions in order:

No, not everyone, not even most - in my experience.

Not true - see above - and the discussion on this thread proves it. How are Victorians made by the way? :-)

Again, no; I was never made to feel ashamed of my songwriting, nor have scores of songwriters I can mention; Indeed next week two clubs in my area, Maidenhead and Banbury are running songwriting competitions!

No - I don't think that is what folkies secretly believe.

In answering the above I speak for myself, of course, but I know many who would agree with me.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 08:09 PM

Guest :Someone Else - - - You wrote :-

<< Case in point - in the Ride On thread - I've just read: 'From "Ride On", Christy Moore' That's how it starts.'>>

I don't understand what you mean.
That's how what starts?

One of the first posts in that thread says :-
'It was written by Jimmy McCarthy, if that's any help.'

A further post says :-
2 great versions of 'Ride On'...Christy Moore and Mary Coughlan. Check 'em out. make that three....Maura O'Connell too!

Seems quite clear to me - author of song is named followed by people who have covered the song. What is your problem with that?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Scrump
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 08:24 PM

I was never made to feel ashamed of my songwriting

Of course not George - you should be proud of them - they're great songs! :-)

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 12:20 AM

I would question what "Someone Else" has said. In Berne Convention countries, at the end of the 31st December in the year 70 years after the death of the author, copyright expires. I know of no case on the effect of international time zones in this context. In most cases (but not, in the UK, works in which copyright was already running on the commencement of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) copyright is a particular jurisdiction may be truncated by the expiry (but not seemingly prior termination or forfeiture) of copyright in the work in its "country of origin". This gets particularly exciting with US works because teh US used to forfeit copyright for all sorts of reasons that the rest of the world did not.

Then the work is "out of copyright". If a work is "out of copyright" or if for some reason such as the author and place of first publication not qualifying, then it is often referred to as "public domain" - an expression of which I have never fully approved because it is not defined in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act and so is of debatable meaning in the UK. I have tried since I first qualified as a solicitor and started to specialise in copyright in 1976 to be consistent in this usage, and while I have been called "pedantic" in this I have never been called "wrong".

If anyone can point me to any UK court judgment actually using "trad" or "traditional" in the way Someone Else (I think) suggests I would be interested. I am not aware of it being used in that way in the recent "Procul Harum" judgment which did debate the similarity of "Whiter Shade of Pale" to J. S. Bach's "Air on a G string".

It is, I suppose, my legal background that tends me to think of a "definition" as being set in stone, for certainly in that context if statute or common law provides a specified meaning for a word or phrase, then a use that is inconsistent with that specified meaning is, quite simply, and without possibility of argument, wrong.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 12:32 AM

Incidentally, George, tralatitious may be in Miriam-Webster, but it is not in the Concise Oxford and I will not get a chance to check the Complete Oxford until Saturday.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM

But it is nice to see some posts to the thread that indicate intelligent life - as opposed to those to which the only response can be "Neigh". I was within a whisker of abandoning this thread entirely in the light of some of the twaddle above.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,PRS Member
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:16 AM

Good to see posts on this topic this morning. I was afraid it was going to fizzle out. Sorry for being deliberately provocative but really this is THE most important task we face in the 21st century. As piracy decimates the major music industries on the one side, and media pressures attempt to water down traditional material from the other, while issues like The White Hare attempt to explode it from within, this needs urgently to be sorted, as GUEST Someone Else says.

The 'Neigh'-sayers perhaps want to be able to treat all folk material the same - as their own. But it cannot be morally right to deny writers their dues, plus any blurring of the line between original and anon must lead to a dumbing-down of historical culture, and the loss of vital signposts to our past.

My understanding is also that the PRS make no distinction between Anon, Traditional, Out of Copyright and Public Domain, and I've had this confirmed during the White Hare investigation. Because any legal dispute will tend to involve PRS we can assume that their definitions are based on law and prededent. Richard may know better - but I've been told very clearly that a work resistered as trad, or published as trad (not the same thing) rather than trad/arr, will be de facto public domain/out of copyright, and that this carries legal weight. Trad/arr works are free to use, but may incur royalities if your arrangement can be proved to be identical (unlikely).

The Procul Harum case did not turn on Out of Copyright issues.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:29 AM

PRS, at the highest levels, is a political organisation (likewise the MU) and the temptations that affect the conduct of politicians (not, of course corruption as such, but the pressures to cut a coat according to cloth) affect both, and there is not reason to assume that the PRS definitions are strictly in accordance with the law. For example the "PRS rights" are not 100% coterminous with the legal aspects of copyright directed to pubic performance.

In practical terms - anon = PRS doesn't need to pay any author
Trad - PRS doesn't need to pay any author
Out of copyright - ditto
PD - ditto

So why would they distinguish?

It is right that copyright may in principle be lost by dedication.
There are however a number of principles of copyright law that apply to anonymous and psuedonymous works, and some affect the duration of copyright. The rules as to infringement of copyright for an arrangement are the same as for a wholly original work - reproduction does not need to be exact, merely substantial.

I think that concentration on the legal issue of whether there is copyright or not will not necessarily illuminate our search for a term for music or song that is rather like folk music or folk song but is not within the definition.
n organisation that cannot really be trusted,

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:48 AM

To clarify my reference to Ride On.

Yes - precicely my point. At the top of the thread the writer was identified, and lower down other arrangements were mentioned. But that did not stop one poster quoting a section of lyrics and crediting them to Christy Moore.

Now, either that person just hadn't read the thread, and was re-stating his own ignorance (we see a LOT of that), or - more likely - he'd merely done a cut and paste from one of the many web sites which blithely credit songs to people who've recoded them, rather than to the original author - something else that needs to be addressed.

It's all part of the same problem: A lazy attitude to accreditiation, which is widespread in the folk world, which leads to all the losses outlined above.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:51 AM

Sorry that should be 'widespread within _some sections_ of the folk world.'

Many (most?) people do appreciate the importance of accreditation, of course. But too many don't - and this 'what's traditional/folk' argument is part of the same problem.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:02 AM

Richard wrote: "I think that concentration on the legal issue of whether there is copyright or not will not necessarily illuminate our search for a term for music or song that is rather like folk music or folk song but is not within the definition."

Fair point. That was after all your reason for starting the thread.

I'd say we don't really need a new word to describe 'music or song that is rather like folk music or folk song but is not within the definition' because the definition is so wide as to be outwith definition.

But if you want to have a grey area at the edges, why not just say what everyone does already... 'folky' (perhaps with the emphasis on the 'y').

The reason I've banged on about geting a clear definition of 'trad' is that to a few die-hards, 'folk' does still mean what the rest of us call 'trad.' While this persists, then a clear definition of 'folk' may still be necessary.

I mention the legal issue, because at the end of the day it's important. There wouldn't BE a legal issue if it attributions wasn't important.

Let me suggest the following definitions:

Folk = music and song with easily traceable roots.

Folky = music using styles, sounds or other elements of folk but with less clear roots.

Tradition/al = owned by a community, mainly oral transmission

Anon = no known writer

Source = Anon, adapted by processes that have now ceased to function due to technology etc.

Public Domain (PD) = out of copyright. Used thus:

Writer's Name PD - known writer but adapted by tradition, and now out of copyright.

Writer's Name - in copyright (but check in case they've been dead for 70 years yet, in which case use PD).

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Fidjit
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 05:58 PM

If you're singing other peoples songs and even your own you are doing "Covers".

If you're mixing it with traditiional material, Then you're doing just that. Mixing it.

Chas

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:32 AM

Personally, I think that the issues around ownership and accreditation are quite complex even when it comes to traditional music. Look a the issues around Peter Kennedy, the McPeakes, Wild Mountain Thyme etc. That's before you even put Rod Stewart into the mix...

What's to stop someone making minor alterations to a trad song, and claiming authorship?