|
09 Apr 02 - 09:29 PM (#686685) Subject: Modernizing the Tradition From: michaelr I'm interested to hear what `Catters think of the trend to arrange Scots and Irish trad songs using keyboards, bass and drums. Donal Lunny was probably the first prominent musician/producer to do this, and performers like Shooglenifty, Capercaillie, Ashley McIsaac etc. have caught on with a vengeance. Do you think this is a good way to keep the tradition alive by getting young people interested with sounds they're familiar with? Or do you see it as an unwelcome adulteration of folk music? Looking forward to your opinions. Michael |
|
09 Apr 02 - 09:51 PM (#686698) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,jonesey Saw a band from California at the Highland Games in Edinboro, PA this past summer called 'Bad Haggis'. It was a jazz combo with a piper. The instrumentation was drums, bass, electric guitar and keyboards. The piper doubled on the keys. They were real good musically and while I appreciated them on that level it sounded a bit forced. The piper had chops to be sure and played the traditional things with aplomb the combination of instruments just didn't work from an aural perspective. It just sounded like someone blowing the pipes over some jazz riffs...which is exactly what it was! I'm all for progress as I've posted before about the jam band I've got with my nephews, but this combination simply didn't work. I've heard other attempts at this type of thing and while I respect the spirit of innovation and the virtuosity it takes most of the time it just doesn't work and ends up sounding like a 'B' movie soundtrack. Of course, there are plenty of people who will disagree. If it generates interest in more traditional stylings then everyone wins. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:41 PM (#686719) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: toadfrog It's an unwelcome adulteration. Because a "folk song" ripped loose from the manner in which it was traditionally sung will finally lose whatever "folk" character it ever had. And I challenge the assumption that "generating interest" is somehow a good in itself, if it is done at the cost of destroying what gives the music its value. Bronson said it better than I ever could: So many today are becoming aware of folk-song through the medium of stage, screen, radio or phonograph that it is well to insist again and again that most of what they hear is at least as far from genuine folk-singing as the broadsides are from traditional ballads. In strict truth, there is and can be no such thing as a professional folk-singer. A singer who has his livelihood to gain through that medium can never consider the song as an end He must attract and hold the attention of many people, and inevitably he must become aware of those particular aspects of his song and of his performance that arouse the liveliest and most immediate response in the majority of his listeners. Inevitably, he will come to emphasize these elements of repertory and of style: so that, the longer he sings, and the greater his success as an entertainer, the further from genuine folk-singing will be his performance. Of all deleterious influences on folk-song, the most corrosive and deadly is the consciousness of audience appeal This is by no means to say that genuine folk-singers do not often bring to their singing a high degree of individuality. But this personal contribution is properly involuntary, inescapable , and below the level of conscious intention. It is an attribute of the song, as in their singing the song exists. A recent collector in Alabama, Byron Arnold, has significantly registered his impressions in this regard. "These songs," he writes, "were sung quietly, naturally, never dramatically, and entirely without the mannerisms and cliches of the concert soloist. It was as if each song, as I heard it, was a creation by the singer for the satisfaction of an inner compulsion. Here is a touchstone of genuineness for our native tradition. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:55 PM (#686727) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: JamesJim Michael, I believe that when "young people" hear the "traditional" sounds of Scots & Irish music, most fall in love with them. Thus, it would be foolish to stray from the traditional instruments that make up these wonderful sounds. I would always encourage experimentation with any music, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to it. I doubt that anything will change (in a popular way)to the traditonal instrumentation of Irish and Scottish music. Jim |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:27 PM (#686740) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: WFDU - Ron Olesko How do you define a "traditional" instrument? It is rather arbitrary. I tend to look at it as a "living" tradition. If keyboards, bass and drums were readily available centuries ago they would be considered folk instruments today? What is the purpose of a folksong? As Toadfrog mentioned "a "folk song" ripped loose from the manner in which it was traditionally sung will finally lose whatever "folk" character it ever had." That is true, but doesn't that mean the song begins to lose character immediately after it is written? When the folk process is at work, singers are constantly adding and changing the lyrics and/or tune. It is done to suit the particular circumstances of the singer. 100 years ago families may have gathered on the porches of Appalachia to share the ballads that were part of their heritage. Banjos, fiddles, dulcimers or guitars were used if available. Here we are in 2002 and we do have modern technology and instruments "invented" or adapted during the last century. Does it make a tune played on those instruments less of a folk song than one sung on a porch 100 years ago? Was it a folk song if someone used one of those new fangled banjos? Guitars weren't even in use in large numbers until the last century. When did a song like "Barbara Allen" begin to lose character? That said, I am not a big fan of keyboards, drums or bass guitars. I do believe the words of the song are what attracts me to folk music and I prefer to hear it as pure as possible. However, am I being true to the folk tradition by not utilizing modern instruments and methods of delivery? Isn't a concert soloist ALSO satisfying an "inner compulsion"? How can we presume to make up rules for this kind of music? It flys in the face of what makes folk music so special!! |
|
10 Apr 02 - 01:32 AM (#686824) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Lonesome EJ Ron is right. It was instrumental folk purists who lamented the selling out of traditional music in the mid 60s by Dylan and other artists who added drums and amplification, but I would say that the Byrds did more to turn on a generation of teens to traditional music in that era than did Pete Seeger. These songs are bedrock, and will bare up under all the modification and instrumentation we can throw at them. The minute they are defined by an instrumental style, they start to wither. We can and should harken back to our earliest accessible forms of the songs, at least to get our bearings, but slavish devotion to those styles breeds imitation in what should continue to be a living, breathing, evolving part of our culture. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 01:58 AM (#686826) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Manitas_at_home I'm not sure Donal Lunny was the first - didn't the ceilidh bands start adding keyboards, bass and drums back in the 1920's? |
|
10 Apr 02 - 03:44 AM (#686842) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: DMcG Last year there was a BBC run contest for people to vote for the best folk album of all time (Yeah, I know, I know...) Anyway, the winning album was "Leige and Leif" by Fairport Convention. Electric and drum kits, you notice? Ever met anyone introduced into folk music by Steeleye Span? My theory, for what it is worth, is that people have always used whatever instruments they have to hand to express themselves though music. In an evolutionary-sort-of-way, the things that work survive and the rest don't. I think, for example, that "Yellow Submarine" is a true folk song simply because of the way it has been taken up and is sung by the general population just for the joy of singing. On the other hand, the things that move me most are the big ballads, so I oftern find interpretations of Child Ballads wonderful, Generally, because they rely on storytelling, the less instrumentation the better. The best renderings I have heard have usually been solo voice. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 04:46 AM (#686851) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,Scabby Doug at work Hummm "Folk songs" when they have been sung accompanied, have always been accompanied using whatever instruments were in vogue and available. Although we nowadays tend to dislike the "Victorian parlour"-type rendition of "folk" songs accompanied usually by piano, you have to acknowledge that as far as keeping songs in currency for many years - it worked. The renditions may have been stilted, and it's probaby taken a couple of decades to release some songs from the printed page. Specifically talking about Irish, Scottish and English music, now... I have heard some really unworkable efforts to fuse jazz and traditional material, but also some others that work very very well. Then again, if you listen to the patterns of drumming in much pipe band music, you'll find no problem at all in making the connection with Samba/Latin or some African music, hence bands like Macumba etc.. So when Capercaillie or Shooglenifty play reels and the underlying rhythms are more like modern "dance" music,it does not trouble me at all. As far as being turned on to folk music by Steeleye Span and the like - I'd have to say "Yes". Steeleye Span, the Corries, Fairport Convention, The Byrds, Five Hand Reel, The Dubliners... Some influenced and inspired me more than others, but electric instruments and drum kits don't bother me in the slightest. I'm willing to bet (but not a lot of money) that the musical instrument that was first invented was the "bones" closely followed by the drum. Amplification only determines how loud you can play. You can't put the music in a box, label it and make it safe. Music is a language of sorts and like all languages, it's constantly evolving, changing, sprouting off in new directions. Some aspects will decay despite all efforts to support and encourage growth. Others will appear to wane and then reflower unexpectedly. Keep doing what you enjoy, let others enjoy what they do, and encourage the diversity. It's an evolutionary thing. The more music we make, the more will survive. The more you try to restrain creativity, the less likely it is to live on. Cheers
Steven
|
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:05 AM (#686936) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: John P toadfrog says: "This is by no means to say that genuine folk-singers do not often bring to their singing a high degree of individuality. But this personal contribution is properly involuntary, inescapable , and below the level of conscious intention." This sounds like toadfrog likes folk music, but doesn't have much respect for folk singers. People don't generally bumble about in an unconscious state. Do you really think that anybody who sings a lot where others can hear them doesn't think about what they are doing? One doesn't need to be a professional performer to perform, and it is human nature to try to put your best foot (or voice) forward. More toadfrog: "A recent collector in Alabama, Byron Arnold, has significantly registered his impressions in this regard. "These songs," he writes, "were sung quietly, naturally, never dramatically, and entirely without the mannerisms and cliches of the concert soloist." Of course they lack the mannerisms and cliches of the concert soloist. They have the mannerisms and cliches of the southern singer. And without knowing what Byron Arnold considers to be mannerisms and cliches, it is impossible to have this statement mean anything. Does he mean the horrible renditions of operatically trained sopranos trying to do folk songs? Are people like Martin Carthy, Ralph Stanley, Jody Stecher, Alan Stivell, and Marta Sebestien using icky mannerisms and cliches, or are they "genuine" singers? toadfrog: "It was as if each song, as I heard it, was a creation by the singer for the satisfaction of an inner compulsion." Do you really think anyone plays folk music in any style on any instrument for any reason other than the satisfaction of an inner compulsion? What, do you think any of us are getting rich or something? John Peekstok |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:26 AM (#686946) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: KingBrilliant Well I don't fancy singing anything quietly and undramatically. Hah! The very idea! I want to sing the song, not have the song sing me. Kris |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:27 AM (#686947) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Les from Hull I think that it is seriously wrong to make 'rules' about how other people should perform traditional songs and tunes. If you don't like a particular performance, avoid it. Personally, I take each one as it comes. I've enjoyed the original Joseph Taylor recordings as much as the Martin Carthy or Steeleye Span versions of the same songs. (But I must admit I draw the line as 'classical' versions). |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:33 AM (#686954) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: sledge DMcG wrote "Ever met anyone introduced into folk music by Steeleye Span?" Me, I still enjoy Steeleye and Fairport but I have an ever growing interest in the type of music that many others might consider traditional. Sledge
|
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:48 AM (#686966) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Ron Olesko Not to sidetrack this discussion, but I notice the Child Ballads have been mentioned a number of times. While I don't claim to be a Child scholar by any stretch of the imagination, it is my understanding that Child was only interested in collecting the words and variations of the ballads. The tunes were not published in the original books, except I believe as a footnote in the final volume. (I could very well be wrong about this, I do not own nor have I read all 5 volumes.) Child was interested in the poetry and variations of the ballads. The tunes that have become attached to the ballads are in some cases the folk tradition at work - a tune blends well with the words and becomes accepted as the defacto "folk song". Perhaps someone more familiar with the work of Francis Child could either verify or disclaim my thoughts. I think it is fitting for this discussion because it shows that "modernizing the tradition" is actually what the "tradition" has ALWAYS been about! Ron P.S. - I recently receive a copy of the new edition of Volume 1 of Child's Ballads. I am trying to find some time to really sit down without distraction and delve into this work. It is certainly a beautiful edition. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 10:00 AM (#686978) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: artbrooks Well, there's the perennial question of "what is folk music", and the other one that's been around about as long: "what does 'traditional' mean?" My time machine is in the shop, so I can't tell for sure, but I'd guess that very little of what was being done 100-200 years ago sounds much like it does today. Consider that the bodhran, the instrument everybody loves to hate, didn't exist before the 1930s! There's some electric Celtic I love, such as Capercaillie, and some I don't much care for, but, in the final analysis, the marketplace will decide. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 10:01 AM (#686979) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: DMcG Ron: You are absolutely right. I don't know if we can be certain Child "wasn't interested" in collecting the tunes, but by and large he didn't do it. So yes, many of the current versions of Child ballads use melodies only put to them fairly recently. You must certainly find time to read through that first Volume, though! I hope no-one thinks I was being disparaging about Steeleye earlier: it is precisely because they were able to link traditional music to modern presentation that many people were introduced to folk. I still listen to Maddy Prior a lot and some of her work with the Carnival Band is amazing (and some passes me by, to be honest). I remember hearing the Topic recordings of Child Ballads when I was 18 or so and being absolutely certain that was the immediate source for some of the tracks on the early Steeleye. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 10:04 AM (#686980) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: DMcG And why can I never turn italics off? |
|
10 Apr 02 - 10:36 AM (#687008) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,Russ My experience has been with American old time music. As a survivor of the first "folk scare" and fascinated and amused observer of the second (which is taking place even as we speak), What have I learned? 1. You cannot keep a good tradition down. If the music itself is fundamentally good/valid/sound (insert your favorite positive characterization here), then popularization and modernization will happen whether we want it to or not 2. Lots of wrong people will get excited about the music for all the wrong reasons. 3. Much bad music will be made in deadly earnest. 4. Money will be made by the wrong people. 5. Musicians and styles and regions will be unfairly and ignorantly emphasized at the expense of other musicians and styles. 6. Bad generalizations with be made and promulgated. 7. Purists will debate endlessly. 8. Hands will be wrung. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! A good tradition can survive all attempts to kill it with kindness. It looks like it is just a price to be paid so that the next generation has its chance to rediscover something old and precious.
So, IMHO the net long term results of the first "folk scare" have been positive by a wide margin. Looks like the kids will do a great job of carrying on. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 10:40 AM (#687011) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: mooman I play Irish and Scottish music and back traditional song on purely acoustic instruments as I grew up in an Irish musical household and that is my background. But I have no problem whatsoever with good and interesting interpretations of traditional song using electric intruments, keyboards, drumkit, etc. A particular current example is Cara Dillon who recently released what I think is one of the finest and freshest debut albums of mainly traditional material. In fact I think some of her arrangements, apart from her beautiful voice, have breathed new life and meaning into some songs that had somewhat fallen into disuse. Similarly I have no problem with Capercaillie, Shooglenifty, Karan Casey, Afro Celt Sound System or others who respect the tradition but bring new sounds and directions. Best regards, mooman |
|
10 Apr 02 - 01:13 PM (#687152) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Don Firth I've had a fair amount of musical training and I could do elaborate, multi-instrumental arrangements of traditional material if I so desired. But I don't. I do like to get together with friends and jam, but when it comes to my performances, most of the time I stick to one voice, one guitar. I'm not saying that other people shouldn't pull out all the stops if they're so inclined, but these are my thoughts on the matter:— Ballads are story-songs. Non-ballad folk songs usually imply a story. To me, telling the story is the important thing. Let's put it this way: suppose you have an exquisite little drawing. You love the drawing so much that you feel it deserves something special, so you put it into a large, ornate, gilded frame. Then people come along, look at it, and say, "My, isn't that a lovely frame!" See what I mean? On another thread, Your Musical Influences, I posted some remarks about one of the most creative and intelligent singers of folk songs I have ever met: Rolf Cahn, well-known in Berkeley, California and Cambridge, Massachusetts in the Fifties and Sixties. . . . on the question of presenting folk songs "authentically" versus exercising one's own creativity, he once said: "One the one hand, there is the danger of becoming a musical stamp collector; on the other, the equal danger of leaving behind the language, texture, and rhythm that made the music worthy of our devotion in the first place. So we . . . try to determine those elements which make a particular piece of music meaningful to us, and to build the performance through these elements." To me, that's always been a good guiding principle. Don Firth |
|
10 Apr 02 - 01:36 PM (#687171) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Ron Olesko Don, You analogy of the frame is perfect. Choosing the proper frame can draw attention to the picture and compliment the artists intention. Too often musicians wrap songs in elaborate instrumental arrangements or add strange instruments, often just because "they can". It is the same thing with driving a traditional tune too fast... the music loses the subtext of the notes simply because the artists feels a need to show off their supposed skill, but often they play fast and skip the more difficult notes. The same with songs, it is very easy to hide a weak voice or a poorly written song in a lush arrangement. By the same token, an artist like Donal Lunny who has a great respect for the traditions can put a song or a tune in a spotlight where the true beauty of the piece can shine through. I guess the bottom line is you can't dismiss anything! Ron |
|
10 Apr 02 - 01:56 PM (#687192) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,Nerd I think Toadfrog's being a bit of a loveable curmudgeon here! I've also been considered curmudgeonly in my time and, like Toadfrog, I love absolutely traditional renditions of songs without any accompaniment at all. But... It's just not true that "traditional singers" were unaware of, or unconcerned with, audience tastes. The fact is that in English circles, Harry Cox and Walter Pardon (no doubt brilliant singers both) are often taken as the norm to whom comparisons should be made. But they lived in communities where a lot of people just didn't care much about traditional songs. Audience taste had comparitively little impact on them because they had comparatively little in the way of audiences! Also, when folksong collectors visited them, they recorded only the most "traditional" (in the collector's mind) songs from their repertoire, and released those recordings that best fit their preconceptions of how traditional singers should sound--the very aesthetic Toadfrog prefers. Among many traditional singers, though, audience was very important, not because the singer made money but because his status in the community was partly based on his singing. In communities with a high degree of occupational uniformity (i.e. everyone is a farmhand or a fisherman), it is often leisure-time activities that confer a certain degree of status. So singers were often quite concerned with how well they entertained their neighbors. Remember, folksinging is almost always social, a way of sharing art and emotion with others. The reaction of others will always be important, no matter how much integrity an artist may have. The whole idea that traditional songs should be sung in an "impersonal" or "detatched" way is more a product of folklorists' values than of singers' preferences. Though the impersonal style was an important one in folk communities, it was not the only option open to traditional singers. Once early collectors established this as the ideal, however, singers either conformed to this ideal or were considered "contaminated by commercialism," and their singing was not collected. The ideal was thus a self-fulfilling process. Personally, I like much of what's done with traditional song and accompaniment. But I reserve the right to dislike anything, too. I respect Toadfrog's likes and dislikes very much, but they are Toadfrog's likes, not based in broad empirical study of folk communities, as he suggests with his anecdotal evidence of Byron Arnold's experience. Byron Arnold, by the way, is not a "recent collector" but did most of his fieldwork in the 1940s. Arnold is expressing an ideal typical of that era, but largely discarded today by academic folklorists. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:13 PM (#687519) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: John P For me, the only criterion has always been whether or not the arrangement works. I've heard unaccompanied "traditional" singers that moved me to tears, and I've heard music in the same style that was god-awful and boring. I've heard rock versions of trad songs that were great examples of both rock music and of traditional music making, where the instrumentation and arrangement complimented the music. I've also heard rock versions that sucked, that seemed to be someone playing or singing a tune over mindless thumping on bass and drums. My own tastes tend to steer me away from jazz interpretations and especially from classical renditions, but I understand that some folks think they sound good, and that's fine with me. I don't give a fig for academic folkloric scholarship when it comes to listening to or playing music. Who cares what the history is? Who cares how the music was played in it's home country? Who cares what instruments someone else thinks you ought to play? Does the music work? Does it sound good? That's all that I need to worry about. John Peekstok |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:26 PM (#687533) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: michaelr Wow John - you said a mouthful! Personally, I like to quote an old saying (which I may have just made up): "Folk music is not a pickle. It doesn't need to be preserved". The songs and tunes stand on their own and will be passed on, regardless of anyone's interpretation of them. (This was, of course, not the case before collecting and recording began.) It makes no sense to decree that Irish dance tunes should be played the way they were in 1850, or 1890, or 1920 (all of which I've heard decreed), or that Irish songs should be played with purely acoustic instruments. IMO, Donal Lunny is a genius with a golden ear, who has done more to bring trad Irish music to younger generations than Paddy Moloney ;-) His work with Moving Hearts and Coolfin is brilliant (and so is Coolfin's fiddler, the goddess Nollaig Casey!), and I believe that he and Capercaillie, along with some others, are a beacon to the future of Celtic music. I have enjoyed reading everyone's comments; good discussion! Thanks, Michael |
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:39 PM (#687539) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I agree with John Peekstok with just about everything he says except the part about "I don't give a fig for academic folkloric scholarship when it comes to listening to or playing music. Who cares what the history is? Who cares how the music was played in it's home country?" Well John, I do agree that the history isn't the factor that makes a song appealing, but the history certainly plays an important role. Your missing out on a tasty treat if you pass that up. Having some perspectived about the song, the singer, or the context in which it was sung can really add detail. I suppose you don't need to know about the dust bowl to be moved by "Grapes of Wrath", but the history certainly makes it more powerful. Ron |
|
10 Apr 02 - 10:22 PM (#687563) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Lonesome EJ Well said, Ron. Tim Eriksen, the young singer and guitarist for Cordelia's Dad has a new CD that modifies and adds new tunes or instrumentation to many traditional songs, but he also reveals a devotion to the origins of the music. If his guitar work is sometimes closer to Leo Kottke than Doc Watson, his vocals are directly derivative of the style and tone of Lee Monroe Presnell, an influence he proudly sights. And not out of a sense of reverence or authenticity, but because Presnell sang the stuff like Farewell to Old Bedford in such a unique and gripping way. |
|
11 Apr 02 - 12:14 AM (#687632) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Nerd I would agree with Ron that the history can enrich our understandings but doesn't have to be the reason for us to listen. (From what I know of John P I think he would agree, too. Am I right, John?) My own invocation of academic folklore scholarship was more or less to point out that even in that community, the idea that consciouness of audiences spoils folk music is a discarded relic of theory. But I also think that applying only the criterion "does it sound good" (by which John presumably means "to me") would be a little solipsistic. When singing or playing (or doing anything) humans are sensitive to what others think. If everyone except you hated an arrangement, you would think about changing it, no? So I agree that "who cares what instruments someone else thinks you should play" on the one hand. But when that someone becomes many, you might care. Also, when it comes to listening to music as opposed to playing it, I think it IS important to bear in mind the history, the way it is supposed to be played in its own country, etc. Most people, listening to a Harry Cox record, would think "this guy can't sing worth a shit" because they are ignorant of the standards to which Cox should be compared. So was Cox a lousy singer? I don't think so, because I have trained myself to a rudimentary understanding of that tradition. Now I enjoy it; but before I got interested in the history and tradition of it I never gave it much of a chance. It would have been my loss if I had remained ignorant of that history. The way communities maintain continuity in folk tradition is through the conservative element, who express the opinions Micaelr mentions above. John's attitude of exploration and not giving a fig is, on the other hand, how folk music changes over time. Both these forces are necessary to keep folk traditions alive and well. So thanks to Toadfrog AND to JohnP! The music would be poorer without you! |
|
11 Apr 02 - 06:52 AM (#687732) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Janice in NJ Well put! A friend of mine likes to say "faulty memory is the driving force of folk music." By that he means when people try to reproduce the music the way they believe they heard it (melody, rhythm, harmonies, lyrics, etc.), they don't always right. Therefore, the evolutionary changes that the folklorists spend their lives studying were not necessarily conscious. On the other hand, revolutionary changes, such as introducing an entirely new class of instruments, certainly are conscious. |
|
11 Apr 02 - 08:14 AM (#687764) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,Ralph Great discussion. My perspective is as a performer who, having cut my teeth on rock and pop 60's, 70's, fell into playing some jigs n' reels with a rock backing and just loved it. This in turn turned me onto the sometimes infectious lure of the music more traditionaly put but it's when the two traditons meet, hopefully with a litle thought and cleverness that my musical heart sings. It's the fusion of the two that produces the electricity in me. When discussion is at an end and the music is actually playing, the emotional impact will decide for the indiviudal the worth of the music. Keep listening :o) Ralph Graham |
|
11 Apr 02 - 09:20 AM (#687805) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: KingBrilliant I'm not sure its just faulty memory. I don't know that people strive that hard to reproduce a tune or song that slavishly. I find that the melody of a song or tune is intimately linked with the shades of meaning - similar to expressing spoken words with different stresses and different rising and falling intonation. So that the source representation (whether read or heard) I'm working from is more of a starting point than a set pattern. I dislike the idea of being constrained to a particular pattern - I would rather absorb and understand the pattern and then perhaps reinterpret that idea & work with it. Modernisation is only an extension of this surely? That seems to me to be more the folk process - successive people reinterpreting and playing with the pattern/ideas, rather than a pattern imperfectly recalled. Kris |
|
11 Apr 02 - 10:14 AM (#687831) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: greg stephens Successful modernisation becomes almost completely unnoticeable in a generation. think of the sounds of the Chieftains, Planxty and theDubliners for example, in the context of Irish folk music.A majority of listeners nowadays hearing a few seconds of any recordings would pigeonhole them as the traditional end of Irish (or "Celtic") music.Of course there was nothing"traditional" about any of those very different sounds, they were three quite separate contemporary attempts to interpret material of folk origin. They were successful. They now sound traditional to everyone except those who have a particular detailed interest in the subject.This is a fact, and has no connection with whether you like it or not, or whether you think it ought to happen or not. Folk music mutates faster than any of us can think or keep up. Great!! (Which should not be taken to mean I like every djembe/didgeridoo/bagpip/computer band I hear at Glastonbury. |
|
11 Apr 02 - 12:56 PM (#687973) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Lonesome EJ I would refer anyone with an interest in this subject to the excellent article sited by Kath Westra in the Dave Van Ronk thread. Here is an excerpt... Although the building blocks of oral culture are plastic, preservationists in a nonoral culture tend toward reverence, and thus simpler imitation--hence the folk revival's slew of earnest groups like the New Lost City Ramblers. As Van Ronk observed in a late 1970s interview in the folk music quarterly Sing Out!, "It was all part and parcel of the big left turn middle-class college students were making.... So we owe it all to Rosa Parks." While black rhythm-and-blues was revving white teens into rock and roll, black folk artists became heroes to young white collegians. The left cast a romantic, even sacramental aura over black (and white) folk art and its traditions, which implicitly stigmatized creative change; the central notion of folk-revival culture, authenticity, meant avoiding commercial trappings and replicating a recorded past.
|
|
11 Apr 02 - 01:27 PM (#687986) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,Nerd I think this is an incomplete picture, though, EJ. While there were a few earnest groups like the NLCR, most of the earnest groups were more like the Kingston Trio, drawing on what the Weavers had done in the 40s. These folks WEREN'T concerned with authenticity per. se., but with gentrifying these traditions into a clean-cut aesthetic that DID happen to be commercial. I would agree that "authenticity" was a structuring principle of some revivalists, but "creative change" was the touchstone of others. So both impulses were there even in the time Van Ronk is talking about. And this didn't neatly break down into left and right, or any other political distinctions. |
|
11 Apr 02 - 01:28 PM (#687988) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: wysiwyg I face this same question each week when I plan and present the music for our church service. The best stuff is the old stuff. But I am not of that culture that spawned it; I know I layer on my own life experience, as much as I may love the originals (whatever THAT means). What I try to do is present things so that they are within my own authenticity, and point the way to the source materials for people to dive in if they wish to capture something of the older sensibilities. I think that's what is fair to expect of anyone-- to know as much as we can about how the music came forward to now, and be a signpost pointing back to the wealth of tradition. We each do that in our own ways, or we would not be artists (or think we are), we would be curators. Both are needed. I think what is true about music, and people, is that there will always be people who love the pure and authentic, and are collectors and teachers and sharers of wisdom, and there will always be people whose interest is in the here and now, and who will make the old songs live in the culture of the day. It's a vast continuum of individual responses to music, and there is a big middle ground, too, because each person who encounters the music responds individually. That's just how music is, and how people are. ~Susan |
|
11 Apr 02 - 02:08 PM (#688011) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Lonesome EJ Nerd, I think the idea that struck me in that excerpt was the bit about "preservationists in a non-oral culture tend toward reverence". We are primarily a non-oral culture, and there is a tendency to deify traditional music at a certain point in its development, most often in its earliest recorded form. This doesn't take into consideration that the recorded form is not necessarily the definitive example, but only a snapshot as it were in the song's constantly changing history. It also doesn't mean that the early rcordings are not extrememly valuable, particularly as a touchstone to the song's sound and feel prior to widespread commercialization or dilution. In our mass-media culture, where music is most clearly entrenched as a business of reaching the greatest number of ears with the most acceptable, least objectionable product, traditional music faces great challenges. Two hundred years ago, folk music was the principal form of popular song, and was passed and modified by generations of people across many lands. Today, we stand the chance of petrifying it as "period-music", unless we find a way to allow, within the context of modern society, those modifications and changes that define the Folk Process to continue. |
|
11 Apr 02 - 03:01 PM (#688031) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,Peter from Essex No worse that using a guitar to accompany an English folk song. |
|
12 Apr 02 - 01:41 AM (#688358) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: John P Ron & Nerd, Yes, I tend to do research about the songs I am learning, and I have been a history nut all of my life, so learning about the societies that gave birth to the songs I love is a joy to me. I love learning about the old songs, and hearing the old recordings of them. I agree that it adds depth to the understanding of the music. It's just that none of this has much effect on the way I play music, or what I enjoy when I listen to music. Which is not to say that I don't try to find the meaning in the music, or that I don't honor the old traditions. This is one reason that I like rock versions of trad music better than jazz versions. Rock music tends toward open chords, straghtforward rhythms, and diatonic or even hexatonic scales. Jazz usually involves more complex chords, "sophisticated" rhythmic patterns, and lots of chromaticism. My personal opinion is the more basic sound of rock music fits better with the older and often diatonic folk melodies. When I said that the only criterion is whether or not it sounds good, I was indicating that I think music appreciation is a very subjective thing. Lots of people like lots of things I don't (just look at the popularity of bluegrass), and I think that diversity of opinion is great. Even though I speak forcefully in favor of a progressive and changing tradition, some of my favorite music to listen to is extremely conservationist renderings of trad music. This liking of both sides of that coin has been a bit unfortunate for my musical success in that the rockers find me terribly traditional, and the hard-core traditionalists think I am too modern sounding. I also strongly feel that an important part of the definition of traditional music is that it is local music. This leads me to the conclusion that learning everything there is to know about a musical tradition from somewhere else and then carefully applying that knowledge to your playing is leaving traditional music making and going more toward ethnomusicology. I live in Seattle. I play Seattle tunes. The fact that the tunes started life in Ireland, or France, or England doesn't mean they aren't Seattle tunes now. Or that playing them in a Seattle style instead of an Irish or French or English style makes them become untraditional. But most stongly I feel that everyone should play the music they are called to play in the way they are called to play it. Even if I don't are for it. John Peekstok |
|
12 Apr 02 - 10:19 AM (#688503) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,Russ Nerd, Preservationists BEGIN with reverence. But in my experience with the American old time music scene that's not the end of the story. Once upon a time our motivation was the naive desire to play it "just like Tommy played it" based upon a host of equally naive assumptions about musical traditions and traditional musicians. We were so much old then. Well, we boomers are now as old as or even older than the "old guys" were when we learned at their knees. We've lived and we've learned. We now know that many of our sources were not all that concerned with preservation. They tended to be musically eclectic and often presented us with a highly selective portion of their repertoires when they understood what we wanted. They were conscious and proud of the fact that they were the heirs of a tradition, but they weren't slavish about it, nor did they feel the need to be. Looks like we're starting to think like them too. Preservation is good and valid and valuable, but a little individuality doesn't hurt. I remember Bob Carlin at a Maryland Banjo Academy workshop. He begin by admitting that he experienced a bit of conflict when playing his copy of a Boucher fretless, skinhead, gut string, minstrel banjo. In the old days he played only such tunes as would have been played on such a banjo in the 19th century. But he felt that the banjo itself had a really cool sound that worked well with other material. He then broke into a passable rendition of "She said I know what it's like to be dead." It's fun to see our kids exhibit the same high purism we once had when they compare the fine points of difference between Melvin Wine's and Ernie Carpenter's "Jimmy Johnson." |
|
12 Apr 02 - 04:59 PM (#688765) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: GUEST,MarkF Suppose the objection against 'ripp(ing) loose (a folk song) from the manner in which it was traditionally sung' were applied conversely, and folk musicians were prohibited from ripping loose popular songs from the manner in which they were sung? The body of folk music would be reduced greatly, at least in the U.S., if you were to cast away every song that originated in the minstrel shows, or as a parlor song composed for sheet music sales, or as a song written and recorded for the main purpose of selling records. As for restyling songs, I'm glad some banjo player 150 years ago got a notion to speed up "The Cuckoo" and brighten up the lyrics, and that Robert Johnson got the idea to make the ancient "Hangman" into a blues number. That's continuing to happy today, but it'll be 30 years or so before anybody can declare what worked and what didn't. I suspect the tradition will continue on two tracks: 'preserved' folk music and 'practiced' folk music, which is open to contemporary influences. Long live them both. |
|
12 Apr 02 - 09:28 PM (#688908) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Bill D traditional music always changes as generations change, but when it was part OF a tradition it didn't change nearly so fast or suddenly. It is one thing to evolve, it is quite another to be grabbed and twisted and gratuitously altered because someone wants to be sure THIER version is different. If a youngish 'folk singer' is casting about for some batch of songs to put on a CD, or sing in clubs, they don't often 'feel' the history and perspective that the song brings with it....they just want repertoire. It is simply a matter of which is to featured...the song, or the singer. I do realize that you can't regulate taste, but I can certainly recognize the effects of a "tradition" being 'modernized' beyond recognition! (I can even admit that occasionally someone improves something old and awkward...I just don't feel that is the usual result). I don't pretend that even I, the old purist curmudgeon, preserves the exact flavor of the older songs I do, but I try to be aware of the general flavor and sense of the song and make my own treatment of it as unobtrusive as possible....that being said, I know that my attitude IS rather in the minority these days of rampant commercialism. ...but I still will not sing a pumping chanty at triple speed, just to get 'em clapping at the bar!..*grin* |
|
12 Apr 02 - 11:30 PM (#688947) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: toadfrog O.k. Bill D. I agree, probably that's the most important thing, whether the song comes first, or the singer's ego, or career. Of course it's true that a lot of the old singers performed for crowds. But I still agree with Bronson that quiet singing, among friends or families is the real bedrock of a folk tradition. No one could possibly sing or otherwise perform songs exactly as they hear them. I was once at a "clinic" where one of the discussion leaders was Bess Hawes, who had been teaching a singing class. One assignement she gave was that everyone should come in and give an exact imitation of a singer they admired. They returned and tried, and no one was able even to guess who it was they were trying to imitate. But, she said, everyone sang a whole lot better than they ever had sung before. A good musician is not only one who is talented or technically proficient, but one who understands the music. That's usually said of classical musicians, but I think it applies to folk singers even more. And it seems to me that understanding music has to come with time, repeated listening, and a respect for the stuff you are singing. |
|
12 Apr 02 - 11:46 PM (#688952) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Celtic Soul I think, so long as the traditional stuff does not get eclipsed completely, it can be a wonderful thing when artists take a few liberties here and there. Sometimes, they are helping to bring new listeners to traditional folk music. I know from my own experience, that, without Jethro Tull as a teenager, I'd likely have not found traditional folk music. I realize that Tull is a far cry, but they were a great "gateway" band. |
|
13 Apr 02 - 11:45 AM (#689129) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: John P Uh . . . Bill D and toadfrog, we're talking about traditional folk music here. Career? Rampant commercialism? Where do I sign up for that? Bill, you made two statements I would like to get you to clarify a bit more. The first: "Traditional music always changes as generations change, but when it was part OF a tradition it didn't change nearly so fast or suddenly." It seems to me that there is still a tradition that traditional music is a part of. Or perhaps there is a tradition again. It's just not the same as the tradition that existed 100 years ago. But young folks still learn the old music from the older folks in their communities. The music still gets acted upon and changed in large and small ways by new players of it. Some folks can read music and some can't, same as always. Some folks do one style all the time and some are eclectic, same as always. Young people try crazy things in everything they do in life, including music, same as always. Most of us now live in cities instead of on farms, and our community can span the globe -- or not, depending on the individual. But the music just keeps going on, somehow. The second is when you said: "I know that my attitude IS rather in the minority in these days of rampant commercialism." You seem to be implying that reverance for the old traditions and commercialism are the only two choices. Is that really what you think? Don't you think there is a way of playing traditional music that isn't based on commercialism but does incorporate experimentation and the conscious introduction of new elements? John Peekstok |
|
13 Apr 02 - 01:39 PM (#689223) Subject: RE: Modernizing the Tradition From: Bill D "You seem to be implying that reverance for the old traditions and commercialism are the only two choices. Is that really what you think? Don't you think there is a way of playing traditional music that isn't based on commercialism but does incorporate experimentation and the conscious introduction of new elements?" short answer...yes, but not being "based on commercialism" does not exclude influenced by and guided by commercial efforts. Very few artists create in a vacuum..they see and hear things and react, even when they are really trying to be innovative...and what is happening in the commercial realm is hard to exclude from one's awareness. as to my all-too-compact statement: "Traditional music always changes as generations change, but when it was part OF a tradition it didn't change nearly so fast or suddenly." I simply meant that when the songs were being sung on the front porch, with no thought or even concept of recordings and 'professional' singing, they tended to remain more stable..(and often were 'owned' by a single performer in a community and seldom done publicly by others)..thus keeping the same 'version' intact longer. With recording and commercialism, there was a lot more distance between the writer/artist/performer and the listener who thought "hey, maybe I'll learn that one...but it needs a better tune and some new verses, and maybe a faster pace"... and regarding your observation.."Or perhaps there is a tradition again. It's just not the same as the tradition that existed 100 years ago. But young folks still learn the old music from the older folks in their communities." I feel that there an equivocation here on the word 'tradition'...sure, there is ALWAYS a tradition, but words are slippery critturs! When I refer to *the way it was before it was recorded and made available to large audiences...etc...etc...*, I need a word that means THAT. If you simply call whatever is the current state of things 'the tradition', it seems to imply that the 'old' state and the 'new' state are equal, or similar, or equivalant...or somehow merged and no distinction is needed.....but since "young folks learning from the older folks" is MUCH less common and colored by other influences these days -(I can argue this..for now I am just stating it)- it might be safer to save THE tradition for reference to the older idea, and use some other construct for 'current trends' or 'fads'.. Yeah, I know...my desire to reserve words that way is not likely to meet with much enthusiasm..*grin*...it makes folks work too hard!...Antique dealers have fairly clear ways to distinguish between 'antiques' and 'collectables' and 'reproductions' and 'stylistic renditions'....I just wish music had a similar system, so that when I see a concert advertised, or browse in the CD bins, there could be labels advising me generally about what I can expect. (Note--I do not universally 'condemn'change or songwriters or interpreters....I just want awareness of what the differences are to more widely publicized...here at Mudcat, most regulars DO understand that Sara Ogun Gunning and Lorena McKinnet are in VERY different realms...but in a music store, they'd likely be tossed in the same bin...if 'ol Sara were there at all...*smile*) gee...I was just gonna whip off a short reply...what was it we used to say in college? "Five pages? I don't have time to write a short paper!" |