What's a folk song?
Abby Sale
I _think_ it's been four years since this came up (see the FAQ) - and
_really_ I'm not trying to troll or start anything. I just offer this for
what it's worth. But it's a functional approach rather than an academic
one:
What's a folksong? per Utah Phillips on today's rebroadcast of "Loafer's
Glory"
1) It's not owned. No one can claim a copyright. Everybody can use it.
2) It exists in different versions - it changes to suit the feelings and
experiences of the people singing it.
3) There are no Republican folksongs.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
I am Abby Sale - in Orlando, Florida
Boycott South Carolina!
http://www.naacp.org/news/releases/confederateflag011201.shtml
Joe Fineman
> 3) There are no Republican folksongs.
Would a *scab* song count?
Flag of blue, white & red,
Man's got a right to earn his bread.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: This is the best of all possible worlds, and everything in :||
||: it is a necessary evil. :||
bogus address
>> 3) There are no Republican folksongs.
> Would a *scab* song count?
> Flag of blue, white & red,
> Man's got a right to earn his bread.
Or "This Land is Your Land" with the last verse left out?
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM "Embro, Embro".
Paul Burke
Abby Sale wrote:
>>
> 3) There are no Republican folksongs.
>
Except of course in Ireland.
Paul Burke
Michael Smith
(Sorry). :-)
I don't think copyright has much to do with it. Most of the songs we
sing would have had copyright at some time. In many cases it has
expired, but the song hasn't changed.
The "different versions" bit is visible in older songs, but mostly
because of the oral transition. These days we can buy books with songs
in, so we don't make the same sort of mistakes that were made as a song
moved across a region. Doing deliberate localisations is certainly
common enough, but they tend to indicate that a song needs changing to
be relevant to local hearers. If a song is universally meaningful would
it then be disqualified? Or the opposite.
So what is a folk song.
I think it is a song about people - a song that hits you where you live.
It should stir some emotion joy, anger, laughter, patriotism, disgust.
Maybe even some empathy - that the song relates directly to my life.
Folk songs are usually simple. They don't need to be, but the more
complex they become, the more people will be excluded from the empathy
part.
The musical genre can be pretty much anything - depending on the
audience.
It has taken me along time to accept it, but I believe that rap music
is a folk genre. Not the processed, commercial rap on MTV, but the
rough, earthy rap that kids do on street corners. People are singing
about their lives, and about issues that matter to them. It is folk.
I cannot stand to listen to it, but then my parents cannot stand Pete
Seager.
To go for the single-sentence cliché: Folk is music that means something
to the singer and to the listener.
[1] $0.02 Australian may correspond to a negative amount in $US.
--
Michael J Smith
Semi-Retired old fogey who is thinking of making a comeback.
"Abby Sale" <NO-SPA...@ft.newyorklife.com> wrote in message
news:5ksbfv8dc5ruqdf4d...@4ax.com...
David Rintoul
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
Stephen L. Suffet
> I _think_ it's been four years since this came up (see the FAQ) - and
> _really_ I'm not trying to troll or start anything. I just offer this for
> what it's worth. But it's a functional approach rather than an academic
> one:
>
> What's a folksong? per Utah Phillips on today's rebroadcast of "Loafer's
> Glory"
>
> 1) It's not owned. No one can claim a copyright. Everybody can use it.
>
> 2) It exists in different versions - it changes to suit the feelings and
> experiences of the people singing it.
>
> 3) There are no Republican folksongs.
>
He means for us to believe "Old Abe Lincoln" doesn't count? What about "Mr.
McKinley"? Or "Charles Guiteau"? The subject of the last song was the
disappointed Republican office seeker who killed James Garfield.
--- Steve
John Kruiniger, Systems Manager, HP, Chch, NZ
I think a folk song is just ANY popular song that lasted.
All the songs that we know as folk songs would have been "pop songs" in their
original day.
Oh, and to include contemporary folk, we can just add "songs that are going
to last" ;-)
JK.
peanutjake
John Kruiniger, Systems Manager, HP, Chch, NZ <kruin...@compaq.com> wrote
in message news:CzvMWWT2LA3x@ccad14...
>
> I think a folk song is just ANY popular song that lasted.
> JK.
I am a traditionalist.
If you know who wrote it, it ain't folk.
Although an anonymous parody might be folk.
Woody Guthrie did not write any folk songs
But he sometimes used folk tunes for his lyrics.
A folk song must be old enough to have been passed down from father to son
or mother to daughter.
"Happy Birthday" is not a folk song. It was written by Patty Hill Smith and
is still protected by copyright.
PJ
JesiAna
I think a folk song is just ANY popular song that lasted.
All the songs that we know as folk songs would have been "pop songs" in their
original day. >>
I would beg to differ on this subject. "Pop" songs imply commercial music. Folk
music isn't generally commercial (though yes, there's crossover), but I think
of songs like "Joe Hill," "Dump the Bosses off Your Back," and work songs
including sea chanteys and cowboy songs ("Take This Hammer," "The Old Chisholm
Trail," "Blood Red Roses"). These were not "pop" songs, but rather songs that
were sung at the working level.
Just this woman's opinion.
<< Oh, and to include contemporary folk, we can just add "songs that are
going
to last" ;-)
>>
Can't disagree with this. Songs of contemporary songwriters have already become
part of the folk repertoire (Eric Bogle's and Tom Paxton's work comes to mind).
Jesiana
"If you can walk, you can dance. If you can talk, you can sing."
JesiAna
Paul Burke
>>
Very true, but "Republican" in the Irish sense is nothing like our "GOP."
Ray Baldwin
peanutjake wrote:
These are all good points. When the qestion came up on another list some time
ago I found a rather convoluted essay titled If You Know Who Wrote It, It's
Not A Folk Song, by Michael Cooney, the 60s New York folksinger and one-time
editor of Sing Out! (who, by the way, has recently released his first album in
23 years):
http://www.michaelcooney.com/MC1P013.html
It covers most of the ground dealing with the passing on and ownership of folk
songs and, apart from one other essay from another usenet contributor I can't
find at the moment, it's as good as I need for now.
My own feelings are that the original source of all song comes from a single
note uttered by who knows whom and all that follows has been taken from that
and added to, ad infinitum, with various legal procedures worked out to
prevent wholesale "theft" of the work of true musicians by those less willing
to create "original" work. It also depends on how finely your knife is honed
to slice off the bits needed for that creation.
A good case at the moment, which may be the ultimate in the wilful use of
others' work to enable the passage of folklore, is Bob Dylan's latest album,
"Love And Theft". Dylan, never one to be backwards in using others' melodies
to construct some of the better songs of his canon of work, has produced an
album where it seems the majority of songs have been taken, without
attribution, from the rich sources of the American folk/country/blues/jazz
catalogue and reworked as current and topical folklore. Given the recent wave
of popularity of the roots music of the early 20th century, much of which
Dylan had pointed to many years ago, it's sometimes difficult to be exact
about who was copying what and who was leading who. By the album's very title,
Dylan seems to be stating how he sees the music as a (loved) cultural stream
to be passed on (theft) and given a new life to carry it through the next
several generations where it will be picked up and added to again, thus
consolidating his undeniable right to be one of the true messengers.
In my (and Bobs?) opinion, of course.
Ray.
Michael Smith
folk song n.
1. A song belonging to the folk music of a people or area, often
existing in several versions or with regional variations.
2. A song composed in the style of traditional folk music.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
-------------------------------------------------------
folk song n.
1. One of a class of songs long popular with the common people.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------
folk song n.
1. a traditional or composed song typically characterized by stanzaic
form, refrain, and simplicity of melody
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
-------------------------------------------------------
We can, of course overlay any meaning we like on the words, but I don't
think that anonymous composition is implicit in the phrase.
--
Michael J Smith
michaeljatoptushome.com.au
"peanutjake" <peanut...@SPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80781d701404c2b2...@free.teranews.com...
David Rintoul
"Folk Song: A song of popular or traditional origin or style."
Source: Oxford English Dictionary
"The musical practices of the working people have been so mediated by
bourgeois collectors and publishers that 'folksong' can be no more than an
ideological construction of their making, and can therefore be used only in
a figurative sense."
Source: Oxford Companion to Music
As for me, I'm still sticking to my story.
David Rintoul
I don't think that anonymous composition is implicit in the phrase...
--------
"It is now recognized that folksongs, like art songs, have an author, even
though anonymous, and are not 'communally' created, though the community has
a role in adopting or rejecting songs. It is also recognized that not all
songs are ancient, and that folk repertories are constantly changing.
Change may be spontaneous (innovation) or stimulated by contact with another
group of people (acculturation); new songs are composed and old ones
discarded or put to new uses; modes, scales and rhythms may be changed."
Source: Oxford Companion to Music
----
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
"Michael Smith" <michaeljatoptushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ef83e8c$0$26635$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> -------------------------------------------------------
> folk song n.
> 1. A song belonging to the folk music of a people or area, often
> existing in several versions or with regional variations.
> 2. A song composed in the style of traditional folk music.
>
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
> Edition
> -------------------------------------------------------
> folk song n.
> 1. One of a class of songs long popular with the common people.
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> folk song n.
> 1. a traditional or composed song typically characterized by stanzaic
> form, refrain, and simplicity of melody
>
> Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> We can, of course overlay any meaning we like on the words, but> --
Steve Comeau
To quote Big Bill Broonzy:
"All the songs that I heard in my life was folk songs. I never heard horses
sing none of it." :-)
Definitions of folk music, or any music for that matter, are primarily
useful for helping an audience understand the perspective of the presenter.
Over the past few years, I've taken the time to read some academic and
popular literature on folk music. Many of these books give the definition
of folk music that the author used to prepare and organize their research.
Although we can debate the definitions, they are a useful device for helping
the reader understand the context of the material. For example, why the
author included, or excluded, particular songs, styles or artists. So the
definition is a tool for research and learning, not an absolute dictum.
Every definition of a musical genre seems to have a solid core that includes
example songs or works that fit nicely and a fuzzy edge with songs or works
that barely fit or that generate a lot of debate. If we took all the folk
music definitions in books as well as those discussed in this newsgroup,
we'd probably find a small core of overlap and a significant set of
divergent criteria. Music and art operate over the continuum of human
experience; you can compartmentalize works up to a point but I think that
you'd be hard pressed to draw perfect boundaries around any definition of a
style of music or art.
All that said, the only other significant use of a folk music definition is
to start a debate... :-)
All the best,
Steve Comeau
"Abby Sale" <NO-SPA...@ft.newyorklife.com> wrote in message
news:5ksbfv8dc5ruqdf4d...@4ax.com...
>
David Rintoul
Ginger-lyn Summer
Heh -- I like it.
I happened to catch an informercial yesterday for Time-Life's "The
Folk Years" CD set. Watching old clips was great fun, but omg, I
couldn't believe some of the songs they included (not to mention
muttering to myself "Hey! Where's Ochs? Paxton?"). Jose Feliciano's
version of "Light My Fire" as folk??? Never saw The Doors as a folk
group myself! And another one that had me hooting was Kris
Kristofferson's "Me and Bobby McGee" . Now, it could be argued it
could pass as a folk song, but in the uncut version, he starts out
saying at the beginning of the song "If it sounds country, man, that's
what it is -- it's a country song." In a folk collection? lol!
Ginger-lyn
who is actually very liberal in her definition of folk
J. Byron
The music? No. The lyrics? Maybe, maybe not.
If you want to read my article in HTML, I just posted it at:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=828
Scroll down that page to see it, look for this heading:
Exposing the Happy Birthday story:
An editorial by J. Byron, May 2003, rev. June 2003
In this article, I attempt to answer three questions: 1 - What is that
song Good Morning to All, and how does it relate to Happy Birthday to
You? 2 - Is the melody to Happy Birthday to You public domain? 3 - Are
the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You also public domain? There are many
references to Happy Birthday on the Web. Most warn you of the
copyright claim on it, and that the current owners rabidly defend it.
Many of these "editorials" do not tell you about the song Good Morning
to All - and the few that do, don't tell you about its undeniable
legal status. Is this deliberate, or just ignorance of the facts? I
don't know. Two such examples are an article at Attaché Magazine
<http://www.attachemag.com/archives/01-02/story2/story2.htm> and the
commonly cited article at snopes.com
<http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm>. In addition, some
articles may unintentionally present inaccurate information. An
article posted at lawyers.com
<http://www.lawyers.com/davidrellis/articles.jsp> incorrectly states
that Good Morning to All was written in 1895 but unpublished. That
assertion is untrue, and makes an important legal difference.
There is a 1935 copyright registration for Happy Birthday, but the
melody Good Morning to All was formally published in 1893 as part of a
collection, registered in October 1893, and is public domain by U. S.
statute. (you just can't use the "Happy Birthday" lyrics in public
without paying) However, one site listed in this editorial claims
possession of some early publications that nullify the copyright to
even the lyrics.
Good Morning to All [a.k.a. the birthday melody] included in:
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, pub. 1893
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, revised ed., pub. 1896
[and apparently other pre-1923 editions]
Words: Patty Hill (-1946) Music: Mildred Hill (-1916)
Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.
The song Good Morning to All - from which Happy Birthday was allegedly
derived - is free to use (words and music) by U. S. federal statute.
(Published before 1923, and furthermore published before 1909) Take a
look at Lolly Gasaway's PD chart
<http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm>, or Cornell University's
expanded chart <http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm>.
That version of the birthday melody may suffice for some people -
instrumentalists in particular. Also note that titles cannot be
protected by copyright, and no unique or proper names are involved.
Naming an instrumental CD track Good Morning to All a.k.a. Happy
Birthday to You should be legal. (The law of other countries might
affect the song's status outside the U. S.)
Allegedly, after the publication of Good Morning to All in the Hill's
songbook Song Stories for the Kindergarten, Robert Coleman, and
others, published the "birthday" lyrics with the Good Morning to All
melody. In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the
Hill's published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams.
The Hill family allegedly won a 1934 lawsuit for infringement. In 1935
the Hill family registered the "Happy Birthday" copyright mentioned
endlessly on the Web. (Which does not affect today's public domain
status of Good Morning to All.) Two sources for Good Morning to All
sheet music are PD Info <http://www.pdinfo.com/rp/R002152.htm> (a
small studio, that also sells sheet music reprints) and NetStoreUSA
<http://music.netstoreusa.com/songs/7005/HL00502604~958965.shtml>
which offers Good Morning to All as part of a songbook. In addition,
Google <http://www.google.com> or Altavista <http://www.altavista.com>
might list other sources, or local music dealers might be able to
order a copy. Mainely A Cappella
<http://mac3.a-cappella.com/shop/product_information.asp?number=2115C&aitem=1145>
currently boasts an mp3 sample of Good Morning to All as part of their
On the Good Ship Lollipop CD. (There is also a very simple midi
example on PD Info's "G" page.)
Is the melody to Good Morning to All the same as the Happy Birthday
melody in a legal sense? Except for the splitting of the first note in
the melody Good Morning to All to accommodate the two syllables in the
word hap-py, musically Happy Birthday and Good Morning to All are
identical. Precedence (regarding works derived from public domain
material, and cases comparing two similar musical works) seems to
suggest that the melody as used in "Happy Birthday" would not merit
additional legal protection for one split note. (As separated from the
lyrics themselves.) A contact I made via the Web, claimed that someone
at Warner-Chappell <http://warnerchappell.com> acknowledged this much
to him by phone. It would be the reader's own responsibility to verify
that.
Strip away the public domain material from the Happy Birthday melody
and what do you have? One note - actually half a note. (Mail in your
copyright registration for the note f# for example, and see what you
get back ;-) Does the split note transform the piece in some
substantially creative way? Not in my view. The split note is a
natural consequence of the lyric change, and that split note is not
original in that there are many lyrics that would result in the same
splits. It is my view that you cannot copyright the metric structure
of a lyric (especially within a single measure) anymore than you can
copyright a common chord progression. (Set both versions of the melody
in tremelo and they look identical.) If in doubt, just use a dotted
eighth note/sixteenth note pair, rather than two eighth notes. The
Classical Archives has a midi of Happy Birthday, with variations, on
their Encores <http://www.classicalarchives.com/encores.html> page.
Search for more midi examples using MusicRobot
<http://www.musicrobot.com>.
As asserted in this article, many people are unaware that the public
domain status in the U. S. of the melody from Good Morning to All is
not in question. Many of those who do know about the public domain
status of Good Morning to All nevertheless believe that splitting the
first note of the melody as was done for Happy Birthday would merit
protection and attract Warner's attention. My limited understanding of
the law suggests otherwise, and if my Web contact was correct, the
copyright owner acknowledges the melody to Happy Birthday as public
domain.
Whether or not changing the words "Good Morning" to "Happy Birthday"
should be protected by copyright is a different matter. Although I
could be uninformed, I do not know of any case brought by Warner in
regard to Happy Birthday to You. They have however used cease and
desist letters. An interesting case involving Warner, not related to
Happy Birthday is Sanga Music v. EMI Blackwood Music
<http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/947867.html>. However, adding an original
8-line verse to a pre-existing song is more substantial than changing
2 words of a song! Of course, anyone is free to write their own lyrics
to the music of Good Morning to All. Here is one example written by
myself:
Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas Dear Fri-ends,
Mer-ry Christ-mas to All.
Searching further, I found Katzmarek Publishing
<http://members.aol.com/katzmarek/pdmusic.htm>, a music publisher
specializing in public domain music who claims that he and others have
publications of "Happy Birthday" - with the lyrics, that are not
covered by the 1935 copyright. (Of course there is no public comment
by Warner on this.) Mr. Katzmarek told me via email that he believes
Warner knows that their copyright on Happy Birthday to You could get
ruled invalid in a court of law, and therefore the documentation he
sells acts as sort of a legal shield.
He states on his Web page: "Happy Birthday Document (proving that it
is public domain.) A 1935 copyright is invalid according to us, double
your money back if we are wrong. (Many people have been ripped off by
this dilemma)"
The Katzmarek reprints indicate that the words "Good Morning" were not
substituted with the words "Happy Birthday" by the authors of Good
Morning to All, they were substituted by other people. (Additional
alternative substitutions were also published.) As I previously
stated, except for the splitting of the first note in the melody Good
Morning to All to accommodate the two syllables in the word hap-py,
musically Happy Birthday and Good Morning to All are identical.
Starting in the 1920's, Robert Coleman published the "Happy Birthday"
variant in compilations of his own. One such example that includes
Happy Birthday to You is: The American Hymnal, Robert H. Coleman,
1933. A second example NOT by Coleman is: Children's Praise and
Worship, Gospel Trumpet Company, 1928. [Children's Praise And Worship
ed Andrew Byers, Bessie L Byrum & Anna E Koglin, registered 7Apr28,
#A1068883, renewed 7Dec55, #R160405, Gospel Trumpet Co (PWH)] Several
of Coleman's publications are archived at Bob Jones University
<http://www2.bju.edu/resources/library/catalogs/american_hymn/hl_1921_40.html>
and Southwestern Baptist
<http://www.swbts.edu/libraries/bowld/thadroberts.shtm>. In addition,
the Library of Congress <http://www.loc.gov/> might also have his
publications archived.
It is Mr. Katzmarek's belief that because the "Happy Birthday" variant
was published in these songbooks without copyright notice (and no
author was stated) that it [any original authorship] became public
domain upon publication under the 1909 copyright law. The 1909
Copyright Act required that a proper copyright notice be affixed to
any published copies, and also required registration of the material.
(Reportedly, some legal experts and producers agree, but Warner [the
copyright holder] apparently disagrees.) It is curious that Warner
doesn't challenge Katzmarek regarding his claims. A more recent case
often cited is Bell v. Combined Registry Co., 536 F.2d 164 (7th Cir.
5/14/1976) <http://www.fleurdelis.com/combinedregistry.htm>, cert.
denied 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 530, 50 L.Ed.2d. 612 (December 6, 1976)
although it deals with different issues than presented in the Happy
Birthday situation.
An interesting earlier songbook noted by Mr. Katzmarek is: [the]
Golden Book of Favorite Songs, Chicago, 1915. It includes the song
Good Morning to All printed with the alternate title: "Happy Birthday
to You" - however the "Happy Birthday" lyrics are not actually printed
along the staff. (There could be even earlier publications of the
lyrics in some library.)
In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the Hill's
published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams. The Hill
family allegedly won the 1934 lawsuit resulting in the 1935 copyright
mentioned endlessly on the Web: "Happy Birthday to You was copyrighted
in 1935 and renewed in 1963. The song was apparently written in 1893,
but first copyrighted in 1935 after a lawsuit (reported in the New
York Times of August 15, 1934, p.19 col. 6)" The federal statutes and
one court's 1934 opinion seem to present a conflict in determining
whether or not Happy Birthday to You is public domain:
The original music to Happy Birthday to You was published as Good
Morning to All in 1893 and is securely public domain. The Hill sisters
are credited with authoring Good Morning to All. However, according to
The Book of World Famous Music by James Fuld, the 1858 song Happy
Greetings to All is very similar to the Hill's song. Also in 1858, a
similar tune Good Night to You All was published. Therefore, Good
Morning to All might not have been a completely original song even in
1893 - which would be consistent with folk music. Other [unknown]
people adapted the Happy Birthday lyrics to the song, a few publishers
included it in their compilations (songbooks) and others started using
it in plays and singing telegrams, while Good Morning to All was still
under copyright protection. The song became popular. The Hill family
sued for infringement and won. The next year, a copyright registration
was filed for the Happy Birthday version of the song. That copyright
is now owned by Warner-Chappell/Summy-Birchard. However, just because
a copyright is registered doesn't mean it's valid. A copyright
registration is only prima facia evidence. Just because someone
threatens to sue doesn't mean they would win. One lower court's 1934
ruling couldn't be binding on the whole country, much less the world.
Under the U. S. law of 1909, the effective date of copyright is the
date of first publication. The U. S. Copyright Office states: "The
copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property
of the author who created the work. [The Hills did not create the
Happy Birthday to You version.] Only the author or those deriving
their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright." There
is proof that the song was published as Happy Birthday to You at least
by 1915, which is prior to the public domain mark at 1923. Good
Morning to All was not public domain in 1915, but it is now. Also,
according to the 1909 Copyright Act, publication without notice
forfeited the copyright for the publications in the 1920's. A
copyright registration dated 20 years after publication is not valid
under the 1909 Copyright Act. That would seem to indicate that the
whole song is now in the public domain.
In summary and in answer to my three questions asked in this article,
Good Morning to All is public domain and free to use, even for
commercial use. The Happy Birthday to You melody is probably the same
as the Good Morning to All melody in a legal sense. Happy Birthday to
You (with the lyrics) might be public domain.
My own comments do not constitute legal advice in any way. I am not a
lawyer. This is the result of my own personal study. I accept no
liability resulting from the use or misuse of my article. This is not
an endorsement of any link(s) in this editorial. For more information
on what material is public domain in the United States, refer to Lolly
Gasaway's PD chart <http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm>. Read the
copyright basics <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html> at the U.
S. Copyright Office's Website, and freely access recent case law at
Findlaw.com <http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/>. The Nolo book The
Public Domain <http://www.pdinfo.com/source/N374339.htm> is an
informative resource, written by an attorney. Before using any tune
commercially, it is best to check with a lawyer, or research group
such as Public Domain Report <http://www.pubdomain.com> or Music
Reports <http://www.musicreports.com>, which may or may not agree with
the opinions in this article.
Tony Wesley
news:c5f94a40.0306...@posting.google.com...
> "peanutjake" <peanut...@SPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<80781d701404c2b2...@free.teranews.com>...
> > "Happy Birthday" is not a folk song. It was written by Patty Hill Smith and
> > is still protected by copyright.
> > PJ
>
> The music? No. The lyrics? Maybe, maybe not.
>
> If you want to read my article in HTML, I just posted it at:
> http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=828
> [snip]
Impressive piece of research. Thanks for posting it!
Steve Comeau
Google search to find it. You're right, it says:
If you mention Big Bill Broonzy's quote about horses, you'll get a
sarcastic reply from the editor of a British magazine.
OK, I'll take the guff. However, I'm a die-hard Big Bill fan and, seeing
as how yesterday was the 110th anniversary of his birth, I think I should be
given some slack.
'Nuff said :-)
All the best,
Steve Comeau
"David Rintoul" <david....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:L%DKa.5873$OE2.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Abby Sale
<notco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>we'd probably find a small core of overlap and a significant set of
>divergent criteria.
I think it would be a very short list - moving from provably trad material
to strictly modern singer/songwriter material....
As much as anything for my own benefit, I'm making a short list of "wrote"
songs within, say, the last 50 years, that have largely entered the public
consciousness -- songs that are so much standards in folk clubs that the
wroter's name is often forgotten or the song is thought to actually be
trad. And possibly that makes it so - especially if the wroter declines
to sue... I think a wroter only gets to have one song like that.
Shoals of Herring - MacColl (Was it ever _really_ collected as Shores of
Erin? I have doubts.)
The Edmund Fitzgerald - Lightfoot
Fiddler's Green - Connolly
The Band Played Waltzing Matilda - Bogle
Darcy Farrow - Gillette/Campbell
Paddy and the Barrell - Cooksey (A strong contender for "The Most-titled
Song in Folkdom;" that is, of those having essentially only one
main version.)
Oggie Man - Tawney
The Goodnight-Loving Trail - Phillips
The Frozen Logger - Stevens
Barrett's Privateers - Rogers (A feller well-sang White Coller Holler
[aka The Xerox Line] by Nigel Russell at a house party the other
night. I doubt anyone would ever misteak it for a trad song but
you _want_ to.)
Abby Sale
wrote:
>I accept no
>liability resulting from the use or misuse of my article.
I feel the same about my own.
Thank you for posting this interesting article. It addresses a number of
issues I wasn't clear about previously.
It _might_ rely too heavily on past copyright law (now amended) but that's
a worse quagmire than the original subject matter.
Abby Sale
wrote:
>The music? No. The lyrics? Maybe, maybe not.
>
>If you want to read my article in HTML, I just posted it at:
>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=828
Ok, here's a problem...
Considering that reputed "Happy Birthday" composer, Mildred J Hill was
born June 27, 1859 (d1916) ---- what do we sing for her?
David Rintoul
sarcastic...well...that's another story, I guess...
You made some very good points in your post, Steve. I didn't mean to give
you any guff for it. I think my favourite song by Big Bill Broonzy is
"Black, Brown and White".
Tony Spadaro
commie left wingers got a hold of it and presented it as if it were supposed
to be funny.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Abby Sale" <NO-SPA...@ft.newyorklife.com> wrote in message
news:5ksbfv8dc5ruqdf4d...@4ax.com...
>
Steve Comeau
"Black, Brown and White" is just great. I love a lot of Big Bill's songs.
He inspires me to learn more acoustic blues on guitar. I can play "Hey,
Hey", "Southbound Train" as well as his version of "This Train (Bound for
Glory)" and I'm working on his cover of "Glory of Love".
All the best,
Steve
"David Rintoul" <david....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:X74La.5722$iM4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Rilla Heslin
So, what was it called when the people who were living wrote the
original music what we call folk music today? That doesn't make any
since to me, since all music had to have it's beginnings somewhere and
was at one time current, new and many times the authors were known in
their day. So it couldn't have been folk music then either! Which
traslates to, There has never been any folk music ever.
I once read what I consider the definitive definition (at least it fits
the bill in my book) of folk music. Folk music is music of the common
people, for the common people usually written by the common people.
Usually dealing with their issues, their lives, their problems, their
loves and also used to spread news amongst them, since only the wealthy
people were able to read any local announcements from the hierarchy, or
to be privy of new laws through word of mouth. The common people needed
a way to express themselves and they usually did this by taking already
known tunes (this made it easier for everyone to participate in the
singing or in carry the song to the next village), or sometimes new
tunes that they made up and adding their own words to such. This was
"Low" music and usually not allowed in the high courts of the noble,
hence the term "Folk Music".
I do Not believe that only traditional music is folk, that would be
completely negating it's original purpose of being music for the common
people. Also, that would mean that folk music is a dead music with
never any new music to be added .... like a dead language which is
eventually forgotten. No, I still believe that people like the Eric
Bogle, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Judy Small, Tom Paxton, John
McCutcheon, the late Stan Rogers and ALL of the people current and past
who wrote music for us were and ARE Folk Musician writing Folk Music.
There would also be no point for this genre to exist. I AM a folk
musician folk writing music for everyday, common people.
Rilla
Windbourne
Rilla Heslin
Actually, I think Eric Bogle, Stan Rogers, and Utah Phillips have more
than one. I think I can name a few others by each of them that people
think maybe traditional.
But, "Yes" it is usually one song.
Rilla
Gerry Myerson
Abby Sale <NO-SPA...@ft.newyorklife.com> wrote:
Good list.
Nic Jones had two songs on his Penguin Eggs album that were credited
as traditional, when both were written by Harry Robertson in the 1960s,
both of them whaling songs - I understand the omission was corrected
on the CD re-release.
Si Kahn's Aragon Mill is often presented as the traditional Irish folk
song, Belfast Mill - I think it qualifies for your list.
I think Tom Paxton has an entry or two on the list - The Last Thing
On My Mind, I Can't help But Wonder Where I'm Bound.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Abby Sale
<ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>Nic Jones had two songs on his Penguin Eggs album that were credited
>as traditional, when both were written by Harry Robertson in the 1960s,
>both of them whaling songs - I understand the omission was corrected
>on the CD re-release.
Humpback Whale & Little Pot Stove --- good.
I've heard a lot about Robertson but never actually heard him sing.
Anyone know of clips available? Seems to only be one record out
there....I'll have to ask Camsco.
J. Byron
> I think Tom Paxton has an entry or two on the list - The Last Thing
> On My Mind, I Can't help But Wonder Where I'm Bound.
Gerry Myerson
Abby Sale <NO-SPA...@ft.newyorklife.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:13:49 +1000, Gerry Myerson
> <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>
> >Nic Jones had two songs on his Penguin Eggs album that were credited
> >as traditional, when both were written by Harry Robertson in the 1960s,
> >both of them whaling songs - I understand the omission was corrected
> >on the CD re-release.
>
> Humpback Whale & Little Pot Stove --- good.
>
> I've heard a lot about Robertson but never actually heard him sing.
> Anyone know of clips available? Seems to only be one record out
> there....I'll have to ask Camsco.
So far as I know, there is only one record out there. About three
years ago, it was re-released on CD, with some outstanding liner
notes. It's called Whale Chasing Men.
http://simplyaustralia.mountaintracks.com.au/issue5/screensound5.html
peanutjake
Rilla Heslin <ri...@windbourne.com> wrote
In my opinion, no one sets down to write folk music. Folk music is created
over a period of time. The creater of the music is forgotten and if the
music lives and is remembered and passed on by suceeding generations it may
become folk.
The performers you mention are not Folk Singers. But when they sing
traditional music they are Singers of Folk Song.
You are not writing Folk Songs. You may be writing a modern song in a folk
idiom. If you are forgotten and the music lives and is passed on it may
become Folk Music.
Stephen Foster wrote some great songs but he never wrote a Folk Song.
Although an anonymous parody of one of his song may becone a Folk Song.
That's my traditionalist opinion.
PJ
ham...@mindspring.com
I always like these discussions. They are indicative of the understanding
of the people who post to them.
>
> 1) It's not owned. No one can claim a copyright. Everybody can use it.
I think this is valid but there have been those such as John Jacob Niles who
have copyrighted variants of them and sue.
As far as I know, Alan Lomax copyrighted a lot but never sued over the use
of those he copyrighted. If you look at the Harry Fox list of songs, you'll
find lots of authors for traditional folk music. They can't make it stick
in a court of law though. Paul Campbell (pseudonym for the Weavers)
copyrighted a lot of songs. Some were composed by Lee and Pete, or Freddy
and his writer friend Fran Minkoff. They weren't folk songs in my book.
>
> 2) It exists in different versions - it changes to suit the feelings and
> experiences of the people singing it.
I agree with this as well. I don't agree with the post that states that
songs are better remembered today than in days gone by and as a result
retain their shape. In time, if they change, they become folk songs
>
> 3) There are no Republican folksongs.
The reason for this is that there are probably no folk songs that are
sponsored by any political party. The reasoning is of course that
Republicans tend to be the party of the well-heeled but that seems to be
changing as the rural South and Southwest becomes more Republican. I don't
think that songs that are attributable to specific authors are folksongs
unless they are changed somehow. I would call Eric Bogle's wonderful songs
"art songs" and I think Alan Lomax would've agreed with that. I don't think
there are Communist or Nazi folk songs either. I think that the folk song
is not about an agenda politically and is not meant for that purpose. I'm
not saying that there is not a great body of fine songwriting in the area of
protest or with political agendas. I enjoy Joe Hill and a lot of songs.
BTW Alan said that "Flag of Blue,White and Red" is attributable to a
newspaperman in Southern Illinois and he might still be alive. Don't know
his name.
Barbara Allen is definitely a folk song. So is Streets of Laredo.
There are many. BTW so is Scarborough Fair. (Not necessarilly the Paul
Simon version). These songs have been around a long time in varying forms
known as "variants". This is the key to recognizing a folksong...it's
"variant". In this way there are no original folksongs but variants of one
another.
There are however songs written in the style of folksong. These are kind of
"art songs"...and there's nothing wrong with that appellation. They can be
perfectly wonderful songs. They are not folk songs in the first definition,
however.
The original author theory of folk music is tenuous as evidenced by the
variants that keep popping up, making it a communal endeavor. Even Maude
Irving's Wildwood Flower is now different having gone through A.P. Carter
and others. Angeline the Baker is another one. Originally a Stephen Foster
Song, Angelina Baker, it has been changed and readapted and can now be
classified as a folk song.
Frank Hamilton
LanceU1943
of the folk movement and helped keep folk music alive.
It appears to me that folk music, like chili is somthing that people talk
about, but cannot agree on. I tend to be more of a traditionalist, learning to
love folk music in the 60's, but have seen it grow and expand its scope to
influence contemporary music.
People like Frank and Barbara Dane and Irwin Silber and Pete Seeger are
national treasures because in many respects, they comprise much of the learned
and remembered oral history of folk music as we know it today.
peanutjake
<ham...@mindspring.com> wrote
I enjoy Joe Hill and a lot of songs.
>
> Frank Hamilton
Thanks Frank,
And according to the People's Song Book
the words for Joe Hill were written by Alfred Hayes
and the music was composed by Earl Robinson.
PJ
David Rintoul
If you know who wrote it, it ain't folk.
-------
Hmmmm.....
I know that Thomas Morley wrote "It was a lover and his lass" sometime
between 1557 and 1602 so it doesn't qualify. I know that "Un Canadien
Errant" was written by M.A. Gerin-Lajoie in 1849, so it's a dud. I know
that Sandy Glendenning wrote "A Scarborough Settler's Lament" in 1831, so
it's right out. I know that Otto Kelland wrote "Let Me Fish Off Cape St.
Mary's" so it doesn't count. I know that H.W. LeMessurier wrote "We'll Rant
and We'll Roar Like True Newfoundlanders", so no dice there. We learned not
long ago that Die Gedanken Sind Frei was probably written by Dietmar Von
Aist in the 12th century, so, of course, it's off our list.
And, yet something tells me that if Jake went into a pub in London or
Toronto or Montreal or St. John's or Heidelberg and told them they weren't
singing folk songs, he might have some trouble making it out of there in one
piece. Songs come from songwriters. They don't spring up out of the ground
like barley.
So, Jake, can you give us a list of songs that would qualify? I bet it's a
short one.
Oh, and if it doesn't qualify, is it a bad song, or is it still okay to sing
it?
You can't define folk music. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Abby Sale
>Hi Abby,
Hi, yerself, Frank.
>
>I always like these discussions. They are indicative of the understanding
>of the people who post to them.
>>
True. I'd also much go along with Lance's comments. But this is also
true of Utah Phillips whom I (more or less) quoted.
Not to forget that Phillips' comments are never to be taken without some
grain of salt. Also that his social position (IWW) should be considered.
Part of his comment is a valid attempt to explain to them what haven't any
strong opinion & the rest is the way he _feels_ about it.
Not to put words in his mouth but another aspect is the notion that if a
song is financially controlled & owned, it's just not part of the People's
heritage. Not "folk." That doesn't address the song, itself or the
wroter at all.
>> 3) There are no Republican folksongs.
>
>
>There are however songs written in the style of folksong. These are kind of
>"art songs"...and there's nothing wrong with that appellation. They can be
>perfectly wonderful songs. They are not folk songs in the first definition,
>however.
>
That's fair enough, but Pat Cooksey's certain authorship notwithstanding,
"The Barrell Song" is part of world tradition, an adaptation of an older
folk story and, at least until recently - copyright but uninforced. If
Cooksey decides to follow through and enforce on commercial & mechanical
reproduction I think that would be grand and he deserves it. But I'd
still (in this rare case) think of it as a folk song.
peanutjake
> Peanut Jake wrote
>
> If you know who wrote it, it ain't folk.
> -------
> Hmmmm.....
>
> I know that Thomas Morley wrote "It was a lover and his lass" sometime
> between 1557 and 1602 so it doesn't qualify. I know that "Un Canadien
> Errant" was written by M.A. Gerin-Lajoie in 1849, so it's a dud. I know
> that Sandy Glendenning wrote "A Scarborough Settler's Lament" in 1831, so
> it's right out. I know that Otto Kelland wrote "Let Me Fish Off Cape St.
> Mary's" so it doesn't count. I know that H.W. LeMessurier wrote "We'll Rant
> and We'll Roar Like True Newfoundlanders", so no dice there. We learned not
> long ago that Die Gedanken Sind Frei was probably written by Dietmar Von
> Aist in the 12th century, so, of course, it's off our list.
> David Rintoul
> david....@sympatico.ca
David, the songs you listed are wonderful songs. A song does not have to be a Folk Song to be a
great song.
I might call them Art songs or Old Tyme Songs or Topical-Political Songs or Work Songs or Union
Songs or Protest Songs or what ever category that seems to fit.
It is just that , as a Traditionalist Folklorist, they might not meet my definition of a Folk Song.
But keep singing and enjoying them.
PJ
Tony Wesley
news:KwqMa.6190$Ec2.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> You can't define folk music. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
That sounds like a good definition to me!
bogus address
>> If you know who wrote it, it ain't folk.
[David Rintoul lists a number of obvious counterexamples]
> David, the songs you listed are wonderful songs. A song does not have
> to be a Folk Song to be a great song. I might call them Art songs or
> Old Tyme Songs or Topical-Political Songs or Work Songs or Union Songs
> or Protest Songs or what ever category that seems to fit. It is just
> that, as a Traditionalist Folklorist, they might not meet my definition
> of a Folk Song.
Which makes that "definition" totally useless.
Think about "Erin go Bragh" (the Scottish one, as recorded by Dick
Gaughan). Dick got it partly from Ford's "Vagabond Songs" of the
turn of the century and partly from another singer, who he credits
with showing him how to interpret it. Ford got it from a nineteenth-
century broadside. There were several broadside copies produced at
around the same time, all of which are nearly identical and all titled
"Duncan Campbell"; on my CD-ROM the copy I included differs slightly
from the one Ord used (equally good; I just wanted to provide an
alternative, given how easy it is to find the Ford/Gaughan version -
that's also in Ord's bothy ballad book of the 1930s, still in print).
Some people don't like classifying broadsides as folk songs. In this
case, all the broadsides are anonymous, all were published at nearly
the same time, and all obviously derive from a common original. So was
it some street singer the broadside publishers copied from (as often
happened at the time) or did one of them write it (not so likely, they
usually gave themselves credit) or was it from a stage/music-hall singer
(very unlikely as the singer's name would be a selling point too good to
omit)? By your definition it's folk because nobody knows... yet.
But I suspect that if I really put my mind to it I could find out who
wrote it (looking for copies with handwritten annotations, comparing
style, looking up local newspapers for mentions of the song or the
incident behind it, etc). Does that mean I could turn a folk song of
130-odd years ago into something else by my own actions? If so, using
the concept is like nailing jelly to the ceiling and it it isn't of
any practical value.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
Tim Rowe
<NO-SPA...@ft.newyorklife.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:56:12 -0400, "Steve Comeau"
><notco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>we'd probably find a small core of overlap and a significant set of
>>divergent criteria.
>
>I think it would be a very short list - moving from provably trad material
>to strictly modern singer/songwriter material....
I'd consider a folk song to be a song that folk sing; the sort of
thing that people sing in the bath, in the car, walking along the
street, wherever. That's a /very/ wide category. I'd further refine
it by distinguishing "traditional folk" which is the stuff passed on
primarily by oral tradition, and "in the folk tradition" which is more
modern material in the style of traditional folk. I'd also be careful
not to assume that Folk only applies to rural-dwelling
english-speaking white people...
Kevin Sheils
<peanut...@SPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>In my opinion, no one sets down to write folk music. Folk music is created
>over a period of time. The creater of the music is forgotten and if the
>music lives and is remembered and passed on by suceeding generations it may
>become folk.
>
>The performers you mention are not Folk Singers. But when they sing
>traditional music they are Singers of Folk Song.
>
>You are not writing Folk Songs. You may be writing a modern song in a folk
>idiom. If you are forgotten and the music lives and is passed on it may
>become Folk Music.
>
Hmmm
In a thread on mudcat I placed a quote from WB Yeats which is his view
of folk art.
"Folk-art is indeed the oldest of the aristocracies of thought, and
because it refuses what is passing and trivial, the merely clever and
pretty, as certainly as the the vulgar and insincere, and because it
has gathered into itself the simplest and most unforgettable thoughts
of the generations, it is the soil where all art is rooted."
This fits quite happily with how I view folk and traditional music and
song and in fact doesn't exclude anything simply because you may have
knowledge of the author. The music will sort itself out irrespective.
I suggest you accept whatever fits your own definitions but don't
reject something because you know the name of the composer, it may
still meet your needs.
Kevin Sheils
Frank Hamilton
(variations depending upon which part of the country they turn up). They
have no known author or composer.
Binorie Ballad (The Wind and the Rain)
Barbara Allen (almost lost but revived by print)
Streets of Laredo/Unfortunate Rake
Whoopie Ti Yi Yo/Rockin' the Cradle
Chilly Winds
900 Miles/Old Rueben/Train 45
Scarborough Fair (no Paul Simon didn't write it)
Tom Dooley
Micheal Row the Boat Ashore
Edward Ballad
Pretty Polly
Down By The Greenwood Side-e-o
Dink's Song (collected by Lomax)
Make Me A Pallet On Your Floor (Handy did a rewrite on it called Atlanta
Blues)
Buddy Won't You Roll Down That Line
Railroad Bill
Sugar Babe/Crawdad Song
Darlin' Corey
John Reilly (The story goes back to ancient China)
Mary Hamilton (story goes back to Russia)
Poor Wayfarin' Stranger
These are a few in a vast ocean of songs that have not been copyrighted or
if they have, the copyright would not be honored in a court of law...Tom
Dooley might be an exception even though many variants of it still exist.
That's only because it was such an enormous hit.
If you can't find an author or composer, it's probably PD and a folk song.
Some songs that have been copyrighted have questionable legal authority such
as "You Are My Sunshine".
Some songs have gone through changes that make them a folk song such as
Stephen C. Foster's "Angelina Baker".
"Dixie" is another having many variants from the time that Dan Emmett wrote
it. Same with his other "hit", "Old Dan Tucker".
If there are sufficient variants of the song over years even though the
original version is attributed to a single author/composer, it becomes a
folk song.
Frank Hamilton
"Tim Rowe" <tim@remove_if_not_spam.digitig.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4798gvccg0bp2p0e2...@4ax.com...
Frank Hamilton
> Rilla Heslin <ri...@windbourne.com> wrote
>
> > So, what was it called when the people who were living wrote the
> > original music what we call folk music today?
Answer: It wasn't a folk song then because it didn't have time to mature
and take on variants (variations).
That doesn't make any
> > since to me, since all music had to have it's beginnings somewhere and
> > was at one time current, new and many times the authors were known in
> > their day.
But then they were not folk songs because they had not been assimilated by
any respective culture and changed. "Changed" over time is the key.
So it couldn't have been folk music then either! Which
> > traslates to, There has never been any folk music ever.
No. It wasn't folk music then but later over the time of many people
singing it and changing it to reflect their life and times in their
respective culture, it becomes folk music. That's why Barbara Allen turns
up in England and the Southern Appalachian Mountains as well as parts of the
deep South and New England.
> >
> > I once read what I consider the definitive definition (at least it fits
> > the bill in my book) of folk music. Folk music is music of the common
> > people, for the common people usually written by the common people.
Not necessarilly. Many pop songs are written for the so-called "masses" but
they are not folk songs because the author is known and the performance is
frozen. No changes. No variants.
> > Usually dealing with their issues, their lives, their problems, their
> > loves and also used to spread news amongst them, since only the wealthy
> > people were able to read any local announcements from the hierarchy, or
> > to be privy of new laws through word of mouth.
Sometimes the "broadside" ballad acted as a kind of newspaper but generally
the songs were about adherence to a folk community of people and they often
didn't know what some of the verses were about since they had survived from
antiquity. They were sung, nevertheless.
The common people needed
> > a way to express themselves and they usually did this by taking already
> > known tunes (this made it easier for everyone to participate in the
> > singing or in carry the song to the next village), or sometimes new
> > tunes that they made up and adding their own words to such. This was
> > "Low" music and usually not allowed in the high courts of the noble,
> > hence the term "Folk Music".
Yes, this is accurate. But over a period of time, these tunes would become
folk songs. Sometimes this was a conscious process but the songs had many
authors as a result.
> >
> > I do Not believe that only traditional music is folk, that would be
> > completely negating it's original purpose of being music for the common
> > people.
Folk and Traditional have a connotation of association with a sub-culture.
This in no way negates it's original purpose which is to bind a community
together and identify it. Alan Lomax calls it a "Security blanket".
Also, that would mean that folk music is a dead music with
> > never any new music to be added .... like a dead language which is
> > eventually forgotten.
No, it is going on now. But before it becomes a folk song, it will have to
be changed, disseminated through an aural process or if written down, it is
invariably changed.
No, I still believe that people like the Eric
> > Bogle, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Judy Small, Tom Paxton, John
> > McCutcheon, the late Stan Rogers and ALL of the people current and past
> > who wrote music for us were and ARE Folk Musician writing Folk Music.
No, they are not. They have the image of the folksinger and write in a folk
music style but their songs are not widely known amoung people who are
outside their sphere. There are some obscure folk songs that people may not
know but they can be traced back for decades. They are "art" singers and
their craft is composition of wonderful "art songs".
> >
> > There would also be no point for this genre to exist. I AM a folk
> > musician folk writing music for everyday, common people.
You are entitled to call yourself anything you want but if you are writing
folk style music today, they are not matured enough in the folk process to
be considered folk songs. They may be perfectly fine songs but they are
still attributable to just you and therefore are "art songs". Nothing wrong
with "art songs" in the folk style.
I wish you luck in having them disseminated and hope many people will
eventually sing them.
Frank Hamilton
David Rintoul
ALL of the people current and past who wrote music for us were and ARE Folk
Musician writing Folk Music.
------
Frank Hamilton replied...
No, they are not. They have the image of the folksinger and write in a folk
music style but their songs are not widely known amoung people who are
outside their sphere.
-------
So, they are writing music. They are writing music in a particular style.
The name of the particular style in which they are writing is "folk music".
But they are not writing folk music? It seems to me that you're chasing
your tail, Frank.
What it boils down to is whether a contemporary song, written in a folk
style, is a folk song. I say it is, and so does the dictionary. Anyone can
make up a definition for any word they want, but other people don't have to
accept that definition any more than they have to accept a song someone
wrote.
Words are just like songs. Someone makes them up, they either catch on or
they don't, they turn up all over the place, and they change over time.
You can't define folk music. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Daniel R. Reitman
<david....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Rilla Heslin wrote...
>ALL of the people current and past who wrote music for us were and ARE Folk
>Musician writing Folk Music.
>------
>Frank Hamilton replied...
>No, they are not. They have the image of the folksinger and write in a folk
>music style but their songs are not widely known amoung people who are
>outside their sphere.
>-------
>So, they are writing music. They are writing music in a particular style.
>The name of the particular style in which they are writing is "folk music".
>But they are not writing folk music? It seems to me that you're chasing
>your tail, Frank.
>. . . .
Besides, given Frank's definitions, I'd like to see what he thinks of
filk.
Dan, ad nauseam
Frank Hamilton
> Rilla Heslin wrote...
>
> ALL of the people current and past who wrote music for us were and ARE
Folk
> Musician writing Folk Music.
> ------
> Frank Hamilton replied...
>
> No, they are not. They have the image of the folksinger and write in a
folk
> music style but their songs are not widely known amoung people who are
> outside their sphere.
> -------
> So, they are writing music. They are writing music in a particular style.
> The name of the particular style in which they are writing is "folk
music".
> But they are not writing folk music? It seems to me that you're chasing
> your tail, Frank.
No David. The chasing of tails is being pursued by those that haven't done
their homework.
No they are not writing folk music. Folk music requires a certain time
period, a maturity, and an acceptance by a specific sub-culture over a
period of time that results in the song having variants or variations
continued by others.
>
> What it boils down to is whether a contemporary song, written in a folk
> style, is a folk song. I say it is, and so does the dictionary.
The dictionary is ambiguous about this. Folklorists can present a better
picture for you. They are involved in the act of finding, documenting and
cataloguing folklore and folk songs.
Anyone can
> make up a definition for any word they want, but other people don't have
to
> accept that definition any more than they have to accept a song someone
> wrote.
It's true that as Lewis Carrol points out in Alice in Wonderland, a word can
mean anything you want it to but it doesn't make for good communication.
You can say that orange is purple if you want to but don't tell that to a
trained artist.
>
> Words are just like songs. Someone makes them up, they either catch on or
> they don't, they turn up all over the place, and they change over time.
Yes, and in the way that's what folk music does but the key is "change over
time".
>
> You can't define folk music. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
You need to study folklore. Perhaps take a course in it and you'll have a
better understanding of it.
This way there will be a frame of reference for an intelligent discussion of
it.
Frank Hamilton
Frank Hamilton
>
> Besides, given Frank's definitions, I'd like to see what he thinks of
> filk.
>
> Dan, ad nauseam
I think it might be fun. I like Star Trek.
Frank Hamilton
peanutjake
"Frank Hamilton" <ham...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
Folk music requires a certain time
> period, a maturity, and an acceptance by a specific sub-culture over a
> period of time that results in the song having variants or variations
> continued by others.
> Frank Hamilton
Thanks Frank;
You are my kind of Folklorist.
PJ
David Rintoul
a specific sub-culture over a period of time that results in the song having
variants or variations continued by others.
Not necessarily. As Child pointed out "...If the transmission has been
purely through the mouths of unlearned people, there is less probability of
willful change, but once in the hands of professional singers, there is no
amount of change which they may not undergo. Last of all comes the modern
editor, whose so called improvements are more to be feared than the
mischances of a thousand years. A very old ballad will often be found to
have resolved itself in the course of what may be called its propagation
into several distinct shapes, and each of these again to have received
distinct modifications."
So, we can see that the existence of variants does not necessarily result
from the folk process. Often, it is the result of new versions imposed on
the texts by professional entertainers, folklorists, and other academics.
Both Fowke and Lomax admitted to modifying and combining lyrics as well as
omitting songs and versions of songs as part of their collecting processes.
In any event, variants are not unique to folk music. They can also be found
in classical, jazz, blues, and even in rock music. In fact, the widespread
use of sampling in contemporary music is an example of the development of
variants, applying more modern technology to an existing process that
applies to all music.
As Harker pointed out, "Why do not continuity, variation and selection
represent the conditioning factor for all musical production, amateur or
professional, since such processes might apply equally to the whole (popular
and classical) musical field."
A.L. Lloyd made a related point when he demonstrated that most performers of
folk music have never been illiterate, typically relied on music notation,
learned their repertories from sheet music, and never relied exclusively on
oral transmission.
---------
The dictionary is ambiguous about this.
--------
"Folk song: A song of popular or traditional origin or style"
Oxford English Dictionary
Please explain the ambiguity.
---------
Folklorists can present a better picture for you. They are involved in the
act of finding, documenting and
cataloguing folklore and folk songs.
--------
Folklorists play an important role in preserving folk music. But there is
more than one approach to "preservation". If, by preservation, we mean the
musical equivalent of placing it in a glass box for later study like a
fossilized bone, then I don't hold out much hope for the future of the folk
movement.
On the other hand, if we can take a more pragmatic view of the study of
folklore, considering it as a means to an end, as opposed to an end in
itself, we can view preservation from a different perspective. Preservation
then becomes a process of keeping songs alive so that they can continue to
be performed and enjoyed by successive generations. As the Oxford Companion
to Music points out, the folk process keeps songs alive through two
sub-processes, "innovation" (the constant addition of new material to
existing material) and acculturation (contact with another community and the
inevitable fusion of styles that results).
The Oxford Companion goes on to say, "It is now recognized that folksongs,
like art songs, have an author, even though anonymous, and are not
'communally' created, though the community has a role in adopting or
rejecting songs. It is also recognized that not all songs are ancient, and
that folk repertories are constantly changing...Field workers today have
come to focus on the self-identification of the folksinger and the singer's
perhaps changing repertory, rather than, as in the early 20th century, on
material useful only for some ulterior purpose of the collector."
You're absolutely right. I really don't know as much as I would like to
about folk music. Even after thirty five years, I still haven't got it all
straight.
But, those are some of the thoughts behind what I mean when I say "You can't
define folk music". I just don't usually use quite so many syllables to say
it.
It's still my story, and I'm still stickin' to it!
Rilla Heslin
>
> > Rilla Heslin <ri...@windbourne.com> wrote
> >
> > > So, what was it called when the people who were living wrote the
> > > original music what we call folk music today?
Not quite correct. It seems to me that most folk are confusion
Tradtional Music, with Folk Music. Most descriptions that I've heard
from the people here (not all, but most who say they are purist) are
defining Traditional Music. This may indeed in compase some folk, but
is slightly different. Here is an excellent example defining both
terms.
"As a result, the uninformed man in the street might say it means either
traditional music or popularizations of traditional music, or works
which
have some stylistic similarities to traditional music; and those who
market
music make little distinction between these three possibilities, thus
the
consumer who opines a preference for folk music may be referring to any
mixture of things.
The English term folk, which gained usage in the 18th century to refer
to
peasants or non-literate peoples, derives from the German term Volk
(meaning nation). In truth, the term 'folk music' should cover only
that
music which arises from the speech and circumstances of the common
peoples of a culture. It matters not whether that culture is 18th
century
rural Suffolk or 21st century inner-city Manchester; the material which
can
truly be identified as folk music (and especially folk song, because
language
is more important than musicality in expressing the condition of life)
must
be that music and song which is created by the common people in the
process of expressing themselves.
Music which was created in this way before the rise of mass
communications and mass media, is now termed "traditional music," i.e.,
the traditional music of particular ethnic groups learned by ear, that
is, as
part of an oral tradition, and played on acoustic instruments or sung
with
unaccompanied voice. In those days (bygone, in most of the Western
world,
as we shall see), the motivating forces behind the creation of folk
music
were those of communication, teaching and entertainment. These needs of
the community were met from within the community, through the medium of
folk song in particular."
As excerpted from: Folk music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>
> Answer: It wasn't a folk song then because it didn't have time to mature
> and take on variants (variations).
>
> That doesn't make any
> > > since to me, since all music had to have it's beginnings somewhere and
> > > was at one time current, new and many times the authors were known in
> > > their day.
>
> But then they were not folk songs because they had not been assimilated by
> any respective culture and changed. "Changed" over time is the key.
>
> So it couldn't have been folk music then either! Which
> > > traslates to, There has never been any folk music ever.
>
> No. It wasn't folk music then but later over the time of many people
> singing it and changing it to reflect their life and times in their
> respective culture, it becomes folk music. That's why Barbara Allen turns
> up in England and the Southern Appalachian Mountains as well as parts of the
> deep South and New England.
>
> > >
> > > I once read what I consider the definitive definition (at least it fits
> > > the bill in my book) of folk music. Folk music is music of the common
> > > people, for the common people usually written by the common people.
>
> Not necessarilly. Many pop songs are written for the so-called "masses" but
> they are not folk songs because the author is known and the performance is
> frozen. No changes. No variants.
In absolutely no definition that _I_ have found, does is say that not
knowing the author is a requirment for folk music. That is something
that "our modern society" has decided must be a requirement.
By the way, this nebulous definition of being created by many people
over time and changing it into nebulous music of these people is more of
a definition of Native or Aborignal music. Which might also be termed
as folk, but not to most Western ears.
Rilla
Rilla Heslin
I'm laughing so hard my sides hurt .....
Rilla
Jack Aldrich
"singer/songwriter". In France, they're called "chansoniers" - Jacques
Brel, Charles Aznivor (I hope I spelled that correctly - probably not).
Before Woody, I believe, no one knew who wrote the songs.
Mary Creasey
Frank Hamilton <ham...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bekg7o$t6i$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
PMFJI, but I have a good example here...
OK--given your definition, as from your other post...
=================================
No they are not writing folk music. Folk music requires a certain time
period, a maturity, and an acceptance by a specific sub-culture over a
period of time that results in the song having variants or variations
continued by others
==================================
...then filk IS folk music. Example: a rather notorious Star Trek song
called "Banned From Argo", written by Leslie Fish in 1977. [+] It is one of
MANY Star Trek songs (and other songs based on books, movies and TV shows)
accepted into the rather large subculture of Science Fiction/Fantasy fandom
(and their associated groups--the SCA, the science community, various Pagan
groups, and such)--and it has spawned at least 80 variations I know of. *
The song's tune was based on a folk song called "The Boston Burglar" [verse
only--chorus is original]--but "The Trusty Lariat" (a cowboy-railroad piece)
is a LOT closer to BB than BFA is, in rhythm and meter.
(There are MANY other examples, as Dan and Rilla both well know--but that's
one of the most notorious.)
Be it noted, though, that filk isn't just Star Trek songs, or the movie-TV
stuff; that's a subset called "media filk". Filkers write about everything
under the sun (or around other suns)--computers, cats, politics, real space
history (I can sing you the history of the space program from Sputnik to the
Shuttle in about an hour), future life, and everything in between. And while
much of it IS parodies of existing songs, much IS original. We ARE the
living folk music tradition of the SF community.
(For more details, hang out on rec.music.filk)
Mary the Filker
aka
--
Mary Creasey
Random Factors
http://www.random-factors.com
<shameless plugs for Random Factors>
[+] Available in its original 1977 version on the CD _Folk Songs For Solar
Sailors_
*Said variations have been collected in a songbook, _The Bastard Children of
Argo_, of which there are only about 20 copies left...see the website above
for both.
</shameless plugs>
Brittles
wrote:
<< ...It seems to me that most folk are confusion
Tradtional Music, with Folk Music... >>
<< ...music and song which is created by the common people in the
process of expressing themselves.... >>
<< ...Music which was created in this way before the rise of mass
communications and mass media, is now termed "traditional music," i.e., the
traditional music of particular ethnic groups learned by ear, that is, as part
of an oral tradition, a >>
OK... How about "Home on the Range"? Is THAT a Folk Song?
And how about "My Western Home" - the the original text written by Brewster
Higley, published c.1876 - from which it morphed?
"My Western Home" did/does NOT even have the famous phrase "Home on the Range"
anywhere in it... (But about 80 percent of the orginal words remain.)
The later catch-phrase morphed from Higley's original line:
"...That I would not exchange my home here to range
Forever in azures so bright...."
One of Dr Higley's verses is an amazing convoluted tour-de-force of florid
victorian word-play: (Go ahead... just TRY singing it with a straight face
the first time... ;-)
...Oh! give me a gale of the Solomon vale,
Where the life streams with buoyancy flow;
On the banks of the Beaver, where seldom if ever,
Any poisonous herbage doth grow....
The cowboys figured they'd just "knock the corners off a bit"...
Best-
Ed Britt
Please Remove *UNSPAM* from my address, to e-mail me.
Rilla Heslin
Now that's a definition of folk music.
Rilla
> J. Churton Collins
J. Byron
I'd also be careful
> > not to assume that Folk only applies to rural-dwelling
> > english-speaking white people...
Here is my favorite non-English true folksong - one of the first songs
I ever learned to play...
http://www.circle-of-light.com/El_Condor_Pasa.html
http://www.mtrs.co.uk/condor.htm
excerpted material:
Arrangement of 18th Century Peruvian folk melody by Jorge Milchberg.
Instruments: Los Incas.
EL CONDOR PASA
Music Traditional / Words - Authorship Unknown
Eugenio Huanca charango, quena and pan pipes
Around 1916, Peruvian composer Daniel Alomias Robles notated this
popular traditional melody and used it as the basis for an
instrumental suite. Many varied lyrics have since been written, but
this anonymous version invites the singer to ride on its back high
above the earth where, from that vantage point, one sees no borders,
no frontiers - "all are equal." After a college concert in South
Dakota in the late 70's, I was given these words by a young teacher
named Loren Silver, who said he had been living and teaching in
Bolivia for several years.
Multi-instrumentalist Eugenio Huanca is from Chile, and now makes his
home in Western Massachusetts.
El condor al pasar me dijo a mí, sígueme, más allá, y tú verás
En la espalda del condor me senté, a volar, cada vez más alto, el
cielo alcanzar
Mirar, mirar hacia la tierra, tan distinta de lo que ví
Fronteras no se deben ver, todo el mundo, desde allí, es lo que ví
El condor al cantar se escuchó, repitió, son hermanos, todos iguales
peanutjake
http://cultura.rcp.net.pe/musica/clasica/compoperu/condor.shtml
And if you read Spanish go to
http://www.infoperu.com/tforum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=32
PJ
"J. Byron" <prevent_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5f94a40.03071...@posting.google.com...
J. Byron
> For an other answer on authorship go
> http://cultura.rcp.net.pe/musica/clasica/compoperu/condor.shtml
>
> And if you read Spanish go to
>
> http://www.infoperu.com/tforum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=32
>
> PJ
OK fine, but that does not dispute what I posted. Mr. Robles notated
and orchestrated his own version of a folksong, which is apparently
where Paul Simon got the tune. That does not alter the fact that the
melody was of much earlier origin.
David Rintoul
Alomias Robles on their Taki Ruru CD. Of course, they could be mistaken.
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Byron
> http://cultura.rcp.net.pe/musica/clasica/compoperu/condor.shtml
>
> And if you read Spanish go to
>
> http://www.infoperu.com/tforum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=32
>
> PJ
Robles notated and arranged his own version of an Andean folk melody.
(Which is apparently where Paul Simon got the tune.) How does that
conflict with what I posted?
J. Byron
Sorry for the essentially duplicate posts yesterday, google posting is
sooooo slow.
Here is another example. Is this a true folk song? Opinions, reasons?
"Koliadky and shchedrivky are the oldest groups of Ukrainian folk
songs. They are sung by Ukrainians at Christmas time throughout the
world."
- http://www.brama.com/art/christmas.html#carol
origin:
http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1976/2557626.shtml
different versions:
http://members.shaw.ca/ukrainian-christmas/11.html
another explanation:
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/ufa/articles/30FCarol.htm
Essentially, Leontovych notated and arranged a song in the style of
local folk music. Wilhousky (an American) wrote English lyrics (for
Christmas) and Carl Fischer published it. As with other songs I
mentioned, the melody is PD but the Christmas version is not.
J. Byron
> (variations depending upon which part of the country they turn up). They
> have no known author or composer.
>
> Scarborough Fair (no Paul Simon didn't write it)
Of course Paul Simon wrote the unusual guitar part that people know,
but I figured the melody was the same as in the original. However, one
vintage songbook I obtained shows a very different version of the
melody. What was Paul's source? Anyone know?
David Rintoul
Of course Paul Simon wrote the unusual guitar part that people know, but I
figured the melody was the same as in the original. However, one vintage
songbook I obtained shows a very different version of the melody. What was
Paul's source? Anyone know?
--------
He doesn't say. Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel claim joint authorship of the
adaptation on the sheet music. Child includes Scarborough Fair as a variant
of The Elfin Knight. There are 20 separate versions collected by Child
alone. It would be very hard to pin down an "original" source.
Tim Rowe
wrote:
>Of course Paul Simon wrote the unusual guitar part that people know,
>but I figured the melody was the same as in the original. However, one
>vintage songbook I obtained shows a very different version of the
>melody. What was Paul's source? Anyone know?
He got it from Martin Carthy. Apparently there was a legal case over
him not crediting Carthy for the bits that were original, but they
shook hands and made up a few years later. Stuart Maconie was talking
about this on R2 a few weeks ago.
Malcolm Douglas
The "Paul Simon" guitar part was copied virtually note-for-note from Martin
Carthy; this is a matter of record, extensively explored here and in many
other places in the past. Simon also got the tune and text from Martin; he
in turn, unless memory quite defeats me, got that particular set from the
Yorkshire folk song scholar Frank Kidson's book "Traditional Tunes" (1891).
A few words of no particular consequence were changed; Simon copied those
changes too. Kidson noted:
"The present copy, including the tune, used to be sung by a ballad singer in
Whitby streets twenty or thirty years ago, and is still remembered in the
district."
Paul Simon's contribution to his own recording was the "Canticle" part, a
poem which -again, if memory serves- he had recorded on its own on an
earlier album. The result was a fine piece of work, though most of it was
not his own. That is all resolved, now. There are many traditional versions
of the song, and quite a few tunes, too, so you will certainly find some
which you don't recognise. They go back quite some time, too, so that
probably only a minor deity would be in a position to identify "the
original", I would think.
Malcolm Douglas
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 01/07/03
bogus address
>> Of course Paul Simon wrote the unusual guitar part that people know,
>> but I figured the melody was the same as in the original. However, one
>> vintage songbook I obtained shows a very different version of the
>> melody. What was Paul's source? Anyone know?
> He got it from Martin Carthy. Apparently there was a legal case over
> him not crediting Carthy for the bits that were original, but they
> shook hands and made up a few years later.
Read "Simon paid Carthy lots of money for plagiarizing the whole damn
thing" - the tune is traditional, it was the arrangement that Simon
nicked. All of it. Original contribution, zilch, except choosing
to sing it in a pathetic gutless whine that eliminates all the anger
from the song.
The copyright-1916 version I've got that Sharp collected is not the
same as Carthy's but you can see how one might evolve into the other.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
Tim Rowe
<malcolm...@virgin.net> wrote:
>The "Paul Simon" guitar part was copied virtually note-for-note from Martin
>Carthy; this is a matter of record, extensively explored here and in many
>other places in the past. Simon also got the tune and text from Martin; he
>in turn, unless memory quite defeats me, got that particular set from the
>Yorkshire folk song scholar Frank Kidson's book "Traditional Tunes" (1891).
>A few words of no particular consequence were changed; Simon copied those
>changes too. Kidson noted:
>"The present copy, including the tune, used to be sung by a ballad singer in
>Whitby streets twenty or thirty years ago, and is still remembered in the
>district."
The words Carthy & Simon used are clearly close to the version in
Kidson, but the tune doesn't much match either the one in the main
body of Kidson or the alternative one given in the appendix (the one
in the appendix at least matches the rhythm!), so I don't know where
that came from.
ham...@mindspring.com
As Child pointed out "...If the transmission has been
> purely through the mouths of unlearned people, there is less probability
of
> willful change, but once in the hands of professional singers, there is no
> amount of change which they may not undergo.
The key to this statement is "willfull change". This means that rewrites
for the purpose of popularizing the song on a commercial level is less
likely. But the changes are there and he accepts that in his statement.
Last of all comes the modern
> editor, whose so called improvements are more to be feared than the
> mischances of a thousand years. A very old ballad will often be found to
> have resolved itself in the course of what may be called its propagation
> into several distinct shapes, and each of these again to have received
> distinct modifications."
Some of the modern editors collate the texts for certain songs. But the key
statement here is that a very old ballad propagates in distinct shapes. But
these shapes generally elude most editors of folk songs. They resurface
over a period of time.
>
> So, we can see that the existence of variants does not necessarily result
> from the folk process. Often, it is the result of new versions imposed on
> the texts by professional entertainers, folklorists, and other academics.
> Both Fowke and Lomax admitted to modifying and combining lyrics as well as
> omitting songs and versions of songs as part of their collecting
processes.
The existence of variants that ensue from the folk process are generally not
imposed on a community. I doubt whether most traditional folk singers have
read compilations by Lomax, Fowke or any writer. Exceptions such as Jean
Ritchie have because they are not only traditional singers and performers
but folk song scholars. Professional entertainers, performers and
folklorists tend to "freeze" the songs rather than organically change them
unless they've commercialized them for copyright purposes.
>
> In any event, variants are not unique to folk music. They can also be
found
> in classical, jazz, blues, and even in rock music.
Variants define folk music, blues and jazz as well. Blues and jazz are
part of the folk process at work. Rock music is basically a commercial
entity that is promulgated by recording companies to sell.
In fact, the widespread
> use of sampling in contemporary music is an example of the development of
> variants, applying more modern technology to an existing process that
> applies to all music.
Sampling doesn't represent folk music because it is a technological device
that is used in recording and is not reproduced on an "aural" population who
don't have the equipment to do it.
>
> As Harker pointed out, "Why do not continuity, variation and selection
> represent the conditioning factor for all musical production, amateur or
> professional, since such processes might apply equally to the whole
(popular
> and classical) musical field."
This is an erroneous view when applied to folk music because the difference
lies in the "freezing" of these forms of music. You don't hear variations
done by other composers of popular, classical or any other commercial music
that would violate copyright laws. That would be generally unacceptable by
listeners.
>
> A.L. Lloyd made a related point when he demonstrated that most performers
of
> folk music have never been illiterate, typically relied on music notation,
> learned their repertories from sheet music, and never relied exclusively
on
> oral transmission.
I think that this is not true of all traditional folk musicians. Aural
transmission is part of the definition of folk music and part of the reason
that it changes into variants. Peformers of folk music are not traditional
folk musicians necessarilly.l
> ---------
> The dictionary is ambiguous about this.
> --------
> "Folk song: A song of popular or traditional origin or style"
>
> Oxford English Dictionary
>
> Please explain the ambiguity.
The ambiguity is that there are other definitions of folk music. Webster
has a slightly different one.
Folk song: "a song made and handed down amoung the common people; folk songs
are usually anonymous authorship and often have many versions."
I think I like this better than Oxford.
There is also another definition. "A song composed in an imitation of such
a song." This is murky because what imitation are we talking about?
> Folklorists can present a better picture for you. They are involved in
the
> act of finding, documenting and
> cataloguing folklore and folk songs.
> --------
> Folklorists play an important role in preserving folk music. But there is
> more than one approach to "preservation". If, by preservation, we mean
the
> musical equivalent of placing it in a glass box for later study like a
> fossilized bone, then I don't hold out much hope for the future of the
folk
> movement.
Folk music has never been about that. The fossilized approach is anti-folk
process. Sam Hinton put it best. "A folk song in a book is like a
photograph of a bird in flight."
>
> On the other hand, if we can take a more pragmatic view of the study of
> folklore, considering it as a means to an end, as opposed to an end in
> itself, we can view preservation from a different perspective.
Preservation
> then becomes a process of keeping songs alive so that they can continue to
> be performed and enjoyed by successive generations. As the Oxford
Companion
> to Music points out, the folk process keeps songs alive through two
> sub-processes, "innovation" (the constant addition of new material to
> existing material) and acculturation (contact with another community and
the
> inevitable fusion of styles that results).
Yes, but the folk process is usually resisted by the popular, classical and
commercial media.The process requires however a strong continuity that is
founded on a cultural base. Acculturation generally refers to the mixing or
crossing of cultures. Sometimes this can be an organic process that happens
when one group of people learn songs from another and apply them to their
own cultural needs. This doesn't happen in popular music or classical
music. Definitely not in rock and roll. The "Cover tune syndrome" has seen
to that.
>
> The Oxford Companion goes on to say, "It is now recognized that folksongs,
> like art songs, have an author, even though anonymous, and are not
> 'communally' created, though the community has a role in adopting or
> rejecting songs.
The Oxford Companion if it says this is wrong. It's a hypothesis that is
not based on what many scholars have to say about folk music.
It is also recognized that not all songs are ancient, and
> that folk repertories are constantly changing...Field workers today have
> come to focus on the self-identification of the folksinger and the
singer's
> perhaps changing repertory, rather than, as in the early 20th century, on
> material useful only for some ulterior purpose of the collector."
The key here is "changing repertory".
>
> You're absolutely right. I really don't know as much as I would like to
> about folk music. Even after thirty five years, I still haven't got it
all
> straight.
Well that's true for most of us.
>
> But, those are some of the thoughts behind what I mean when I say "You
can't
> define folk music". I just don't usually use quite so many syllables to
say
> it.
I still think it can be identified and the key components are "aural
transmission" and identification with a specific sub-culture. Also,
variants.
>
> It's still my story, and I'm still stickin' to it!
It has the element of glue which can come apart when tested chemically.
Frank Hamilton
Frank Hamilton
Give it time Mary. It may well be! If not now, maybe in a few decades or
so if it turns up in different places. Anyhow, whether it's folk or not
doesn't really matter because it sounds like a lot of fun.
Frank Hamilton
"Mary Creasey" <cre...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HSoPa.49635$3o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Frank Hamilton
> Here is an excellent example defining both
> terms.
>
thus
> the
> consumer who opines a preference for folk music may be referring to any
> mixture of things.
This is how it is perceived by any number of people. Not correct in my
view.
>
> The English term folk, which gained usage in the 18th century to refer
> to
> peasants or non-literate peoples, derives from the German term Volk
> (meaning nation). In truth, the term 'folk music' should cover only
> that
> music which arises from the speech and circumstances of the common
> peoples of a culture.
I disagree with this definition. The idea of literate or non-literate
people based on Volklied or 18th Century England doesn't necessarilly apply
now. It was changed when collectors and scholars began field studies. For
example, Cecil Sharp decried the use of the five-string banjo to accompany
folk songs because it "bowdlerized" the songs. He was looking for English
folk songs in the Southern Mountains and didn't really find them. He found
something else instead. But these songs were preserved but changed from
their English sources. Later, folklorists and scholars found variants of
these songs all over the United States. They had all been changed.
It matters not whether that culture is 18th
> century
> rural Suffolk or 21st century inner-city Manchester; the material which
> can
> truly be identified as folk music (and especially folk song, because
> language
> is more important than musicality in expressing the condition of life)
> must
> be that music and song which is created by the common people in the
> process of expressing themselves.
This with the omitted component of change or variation of a song that had
longevity. Whether language or musicality is more important here depends on
whom you are talking to. A classical musician might not find any musicality
in the folk music expressiveness but they might be missing something as a
result. The definition borders on the pretension of someone favoring
formalized so-called classical music.
>
> Music which was created in this way before the rise of mass
> communications and mass media, is now termed "traditional music,"
Not necessarilly. Traditional music may be going on now in various parts of
the world. If this definition were to hold true than only Neanderthal man
could qualify as being a traditional musician. :)
i.e.,
> the traditional music of particular ethnic groups learned by ear, that
> is, as
> part of an oral tradition, and played on acoustic instruments or sung
> with
> unaccompanied voice.
Very narrow definition. One that Cecil Sharp might have embraced. But this
could easilly be termed folk music.
In those days (bygone, in most of the Western
> world,
> as we shall see), the motivating forces behind the creation of folk
> music
> were those of communication, teaching and entertainment.
This is true. Also, furthuring a sense of community and identity which is
important to the folk musician.
These needs of
> the community were met from within the community, through the medium of
> folk song in particular."
Alan Lomax calls this a "security blanket".
>
> As excerpted from: Folk music
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> In absolutely no definition that _I_ have found, does is say that not
> knowing the author is a requirment for folk music. That is something
> that "our modern society" has decided must be a requirement.
No, it's about understanding the process by which a folk song emerges. The
original author might be known of a single variant of the song but the song
itself has many variants aside from the original author. If you write a
song, it doesn't automatically become a folk song. If it gets changed by a
specific group of people to reflect their cultural values, in time it may
become a folk song. Usually the author or composer's version is forgotten in
the process of the change.
>
> By the way, this nebulous definition of being created by many people
> over time and changing it into nebulous music of these people is more of
> a definition of Native or Aborignal music. Which might also be termed
> as folk, but not to most Western ears.
It's not nebulous. It's identifiable. I don't see that it becomes
exclusive to Native or Aboriginal music. The people who participate in the
folk process are identifiable and not nebulous at all. These are the
respective folk music traditions that endure as sub-cultural expressions of
our nation. What is nebulous, however, is the contemporary songwriter
passing themselves off as a "folk singer" because they have written a few
songs and accompany themselves in a coffee-house on a shiny Taylor guitar.
They feel that it's their right to be accepted as an inalienable right to be
a traditional folksinger because they imitate that style. And much of it
sounds like imitation and has an ersatz quality to it. Why? Because the
songs are not generally well-crafted and that's used as an excuse to be
"folky".
Frank Hamilton
Frank Hamilton
"Knock the corners off it"...I love it.
Frank Hamilton
"Brittles" <brit...@aol.comUNSPAM> wrote in message
news:20030710234530...@mb-m03.aol.com...
David Rintoul
Blues and jazz are part of the folk process at work.
--------
So...jazz is folk? That's fine with me, but jazz at a folk festival seems
to annoy a lot of purists. After all, you're the one saying that you can
define folk music. If you can't distinguish folk from jazz, it tends to
support my argument, don't you think?
---------
The ambiguity is that there are other definitions of folk music. Webster
has a slightly different one.
Folk song: "a song made and handed down amoung the common people; folk
songs are usually anonymous authorship and often have many versions."
I think I like this better than Oxford.
There is also another definition. "A song composed in an imitation of such
a song." This is murky because what imitation are we talking about?
---------
So, the same term can be defined in two ways? Doesn't that mean it could
include either type of song?
The Merriam Webster Encyclopaedia of Literature defines a folk song as "A
traditional or composed song typically characterized by stanzaic form,
refrain, and simplicity of melody."
That comes pretty close for me, because it defines a folk song based on its
form and characteristics instead of its source. But, you can't define folk
music.
Don't you think that the fact that we can't even agree on what definition to
disagree about kind of proves my point? What good is a definition that
isn't...well...definitive?
---------
It has the element of glue which can come apart when tested chemically.
-------
Glue is meant for sticking. Songs are meant for singing. I suppose either
one might come apart from too much analysis. As long as they don't come
apart in actual, practical use, I'm not particularly concerned about it.
--------
"A folk song in a book is like a photograph of a bird in flight."
--------
Absolutely! Let's just agree on that and agree to disagree about the rest.
peanutjake
> Frank Hamilton wrote...
>
> Blues and jazz are part of the folk process at work.
> --------
> So...jazz is folk? That's fine with me, but jazz at a folk festival seems
> to annoy a lot of purists. After all, you're the one saying that you can
> define folk music. If you can't distinguish folk from jazz, it tends to
> support my argument, don't you think?
> David Rintoul
Jazz is a problem for me.
A Folk Song has variants and the variants are transmitted and sung by
suceeding generations.
Blues, especialy Folk Blues has variants and the variants are transmitted
and sung by suceeding generations.
Jazz has variants, but the variants seem to me to be created and changed on
the spot by the performers.
That's why I don't feel comfortable with jazz at a Folk Festival.
PJ
LanceU1943
sing New Orleans Jazz, you realize that the only thing that changes is the
tempo of the music and the blending of instruments not commonly viewed in the
folk genre. Barbara has sung traditional folk such as Little Maggie, but is
equally at home with Backwater Blues, or Faretheewell (Oh, Honey), and moves
easily into the jazz idiom with her friends who work and work and play jazz for
the sheer joy of loving the music. She has said that her Birthday Concert was
to be recorded and released on CD Rom. I hope so, because she, like Pete Seeger
and Woody Guthrie and Ramblin' Jack Elliott have kept the folk idiom in its
many forms alive so that we could come along later and learn to love it. Think
of folk music as a large family with first cousins and second cousins and
in-laws and outlaws. They share common roots.
bogus address
> Jazz is a problem for me.
> A Folk Song has variants and the variants are transmitted and sung by
> suceeding generations.
> Blues, especialy Folk Blues has variants and the variants are transmitted
> and sung by suceeding generations.
> Jazz has variants, but the variants seem to me to be created and changed
> on the spot by the performers.
> That's why I don't feel comfortable with jazz at a Folk Festival.
There are many kinds of folk music that are or were always improvised.
Norwegian bridal marches, sea shanties, Scottish dreg songs, topical
calypsos, most of the dance music of Hungary and Romania.
Jazz is no more improvisational than any of those and many standards
are played as absolutely fixed compositions.
Jazz is an entirely different idiom from any kind of folk music, though.
In itself that isn't a problem - many kind of folk music are unrelated
idioms - but jazzers have a tendency to believe that their model of
harmony is just plain *right* and that folk music needs "fixing" when
they try to play it. The result is that they just muddy things up with
alien stacked-thirds harmonizations that nobody who hasn't spent years
studying jazz could possibly see the point of. As a self-contained
idiom it's fine, but please could they just do their act, get offstage
and go away?
David Rintoul
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
"peanutjake" <peanut...@SPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e7d5c9e2d5d25366...@free.teranews.com...
David Rintoul
That's why I don't feel comfortable with jazz at a Folk Festival
----
I'd venture to say that's because, as Jack demonstrates, even though folk
music and jazz music have very similar sources and processes, they have very
different forms and characteristics. It's an example of how trying to
define music according to who wrote it, or when, or where, or how many
variants it has, can lead to some very uncomfortable conclusions.
"Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with
confidence."
Manly's Maxim
Sean Cleary
> Rilla Heslin <ri...@windbourne.com> wrote
>
> > So, what was it called when the people who were living wrote the
> > original music what we call folk music today? That doesn't make any
> > since to me, since all music had to have it's beginnings somewhere and
> > was at one time current, new and many times the authors were known in
> > their day. So it couldn't have been folk music then either! Which
> > traslates to, There has never been any folk music ever.
> >
> > There would also be no point for this genre to exist. I AM a folk
> > musician folk writing music for everyday, common people.
> >
> > Rilla
> > Windbourne
>
> In my opinion, no one sets down to write folk music. Folk music is created
> over a period of time. The creater of the music is forgotten and if the
> music lives and is remembered and passed on by suceeding generations it may
> become folk.
>
> The performers you mention are not Folk Singers. But when they sing
> traditional music they are Singers of Folk Song.
>
> You are not writing Folk Songs. You may be writing a modern song in a folk
> idiom. If you are forgotten and the music lives and is passed on it may
> become Folk Music.
>
> Stephen Foster wrote some great songs but he never wrote a Folk Song.
> Although an anonymous parody of one of his song may becone a Folk Song.
>
> That's my traditionalist opinion.
> PJ
I disagree with this traditionalist, and agree with Rilla.
At the risk of enflaming this discussion, here is a (ment to be funny)
song about it:
http://www.songworm.com/db/songworm-parody/SongoftheFolkNazi.html
I am not sure that this is folk, as it is not in the common group of
songs that 'nearly everyone' knows. If it did get that far, then I
think it would be folk. I feel that all campfire songs are folk.
Rilla is a good songwriter and singer. But as most of her songs are
not commonly known, I am not sure that she has graduated to the folk
singer class.
On the other hand, there is a classification that may be folk. It
certainly had folk as its parent or grandparent. The singing cowboy of
the 1930s was singing folk songs of his era. The decendent of this is
C&W. And they have enough radio spectrum that some of the songs get
well known, and commonly enough to be known as folk. And there are C&W
songwriters. They may not know that they are writing folk ballads, but
they are the one place that can produce a ballad that will quickly
become commonly known.
By this defination, Puff the Magic Dragon is a folk ballad.
Sean Cleary
> Hi Abby,
>
> > 3) There are no Republican folksongs.
>
> The reason for this is that there are probably no folk songs that are
> sponsored by any political party. The reasoning is of course that
Even with this writers definations, this is likely off. There were
political broadside sheets that were done to the tune of songs known
in that day, and these are often out of copywrite and out of date.
Example: any broadside done in or before the Am. Civil war. Example:
most civil war songs had some point, Battle Hymn of the Republic was
stating what the war was about from the Northern point of view. And
this tactic went back to before the Am Revolutionary war. Some may
take research to find, some may be things like the national anthem,
but they should all be out of copywrite, and many will be writer is
unknown status, particularly the ones that could get the writer
killed.
Sean
Sean Cleary
> Frank Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > > Rilla Heslin <ri...@windbourne.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > So, what was it called when the people who were living wrote the
> > > > original music what we call folk music today?
>
> Tradtional Music, with Folk Music. Most descriptions that I've heard
> from the people here (not all, but most who say they are purist) are
> defining Traditional Music. This may indeed in compase some folk, but
> is slightly different. Here is an excellent example defining both
> terms.
>
> "As a result, the uninformed man in the street might say it means either
> traditional music or popularizations of traditional music, or works
> which
> have some stylistic similarities to traditional music; and those who
> market
> music make little distinction between these three possibilities, thus
> the
> consumer who opines a preference for folk music may be referring to any
> mixture of things.
>
> to
> peasants or non-literate peoples, derives from the German term Volk
> (meaning nation). In truth, the term 'folk music' should cover only
> that
> music which arises from the speech and circumstances of the common
> century
> rural Suffolk or 21st century inner-city Manchester; the material which
> can
> truly be identified as folk music (and especially folk song, because
> language
> is more important than musicality in expressing the condition of life)
> must
> process of expressing themselves.
>
> communications and mass media, is now termed "traditional music," i.e.,
> the traditional music of particular ethnic groups learned by ear, that
> is, as
> with
> world,
> as we shall see), the motivating forces behind the creation of folk
> music
> the community were met from within the community, through the medium of
> folk song in particular."
>
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>
> >
> > and take on variants (variations).
> >
Does this group like top posting or bottom posting?? I want to obey
the conventions.
I like the defination that the music is common to a large group of
people, generally has words, and over time has varients.
But.. There is something called the folk process, and it is active
here and now. If a song has been thus processed, is it Folk?? I do not
think that it is, as generally the audiance is small. Let me give two
examples.
In the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), there was a time when
the communications were really Mideval. I could not phone a chance met
person, because I met him as (society name) of (society kingdom). Even
if I knew the barony, that barony is likely mapped to several towns in
and around a big city. So if I heard a song, I could not check the
words out in a modern fashion. So SCA songs did mutate as a song sung
in one group was brought to another by a person who had not written it
down, (and we there by dropped to a pre-literary society style of
memory not words,) and sung for a new group where the process may
repeat again. Mutation intense situation for the words, and the tune
also was often delivered by a similar process.
This folk process also happened to at least one Kippling poem set to
music. There are Eastcoast and West coast styles of singing the Picts
song. The music, words used, and mood are completely different. But
the original source is the same.
So, just because it mutates, or even just because it has not mutated,
should not determine if it is Folk, IMHO. For it to mutate quickly, it
helps to be passed along by memory, and that implies a small audiance
per set. Radio cancles this, but I still feel that Puff the Magic
Dragon is folk.
But if you want to abandon every folk tune that does not fit your
small pidgeon hole to some other group, then go ahead. We will need a
name to deal with this, and traditionalist style music seems OK. It
just rips out much of what I consider folk. Better may be a swap of
names, where we call traditionalist style music as folk, and call your
pidgeon holed stuff something else. This will more closer talley with
the uninformed folk's defination of folk, and will there by reduce
confusion. It will require a technical or jargon word for what you are
talking about, restricting the set of songs to those where noone has
researched the writer, etc.
Sean
bongo boy
songs.
Similarly, 'Music of the World' is better than 'World Music.' By
stretching
the phrase out a bit, you can slow people down for a brief moment and
maybe
help kill the degrading and meaningless marketing terms like 'Celtic'
or 'Latin.' Music of the Folk - that covers quite a bit of variety,
eh?
Jed Grimes
BillM...@RichwoodMusic.com wrote on 7/21/03 6:48 AM:
I do subscribe to the thought which 'Music of The Folk' suggests to me: ie
that music which originates from an impulse other than 'art' or 'commerce':
such an impulse might include 'ritual' (fertility rites such as Morris or
its equivalents across the ethnic world map), communal, celebration...
the unifying factor I guess would be that, in its origins, it's music which
has a function, as opposed to music which is produced as a commodity.
The contemporary need to label viz. 'celtic, latin etc' is a seminal feature
of commodification.
Seems to me that jazz slots right in there under music of the folk, along
with Morris, Burundi, ceilidh, dandling song, horo, and on and on...
It does strike me that after 30 years in and around this area of music, I'm
still hearing (and it would seem, participating in) this hoary old debate:
this in a world when 80% (my guesstimate) of the world's music listenership
judges their chosen music on a basis of 'that's nice' or 'I don't like that,
it's too loud/fast/slow/ (fill in your own equivalent)...
JG
Sean Cleary
> You can't define folk music. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
There was a US judge who said that he could not define porn but that
he knew it when he saw it. Are you saying that Folk is like that or
that it is even vauger?
Sean Cleary
> Hi Mary,
>
> Give it time Mary. It may well be! If not now, maybe in a few decades or
> so if it turns up in different places. Anyhow, whether it's folk or not
> doesn't really matter because it sounds like a lot of fun.
>
> Frank Hamilton
>
>
process.
But by the mutated music standard, early SCA music was much more folk
than Filk ever will be. Most of it was transmitted by word of mouth.
Ok, I do like to post, but I want also to sumarize some of the
definations. I think we should just assign technical terms to each
catagory, and let a song be described by several technical terms as it
fits each catagory.
The catagories I have found in this discussion are:
Music of common folk
Music w/o credits (found a peanut, on top of spaghetti, other camp
fire songs, see Kay Shapiro’s impressive collection.)
Political broadsides (Charlie of the MTA, Battle hymn of the republic)
Traditional form (Matty Groves, either original, or Frank Hayes
version or other dirvative)
Mutated music (Matty Groves, but not the original or also the Picts
songs)
Acoustic music
Widely known (Puff the Magic Dragon)
Gone through a non-written distribution (early SCA)
Music done by a known folk singer
Old music (ossified, fixed?)(peroid)
Non-copywrite music
Poetry that sings (Kipling, Service both wrote poems that can be
easily sung, may have had a pop tune in head when writing it)
Authorized Academic definition music
Written by a dead person
Written by a non-verifiable person
Literate content
Illiterate content
songs about people that have emotional content
Work Songs
Any more?
And could you consider putting titles to each?
Sean
David Rintoul
it when he saw it. Are you saying that Folk is like that or that it is even
vauger?
No, what I'm saying is that nobody is going to come up with a definition on
which we all agree. So, this argument isn't really going to accomplish
much.
As I said, what good is a definition if it's not definitive? Anyway, I
noticed that dictionaries were on sale this week at the bookshop.
ADG01369
I love the whole “What is a Folk Song?” shootin' match! It's been going on
for decades. And although I’ve tried to avoid adding to the controversy I
stick to my claim (made years ago) that folk music isn't a kind of music (a
genre if you will) but a description of the music you learn from listening
rather than from written works. It’s handed down from person to person
whether it’s recorded, published, old, new or created right there on the
spot.
The process of learning by listening (by ear we used to say) implies creativity
and, at least here in the USA, purposely adding to or personalizing whatever
you heard to begin with. Thus, early blues, jazz, bluegrass, gospel, cowboy
songs, traditional ballads, sea shanties, etc. etc. become a part of what Pete
Seeger calls "the folk process". It would also include all subsequent
diversions into rock & roll, rap, thrash or whatever! Anyone who learns music
primarily from listening is participating in the process – including artists
who play symphonic music.
The folk process does not account for taste. Anyone can learn something from
the oral or musical traditions. To imply that only specific structures,
contents, instrumentation or whatever can be learned from the folk process is
just plain silly. And to suggest that music derived from the folk process is
not folk music is to remain hopelessly ignorant of what all musicians actually
do.
From the rhythms of the sounds of the trashcans hitting the street in the early
morning to the sounds of the most sophisticated artistry played on the grandest
stage the music spawned from the folk process is folk music. And the songs of
the folk musicians, I humbly suggest, are folk songs.
"Make yourself useless as well as decorational" WWG
Rilla Heslin
Thank you Sean, for that nice comment. No, I'm afraid that my music is
only known to a small group of Windbourne fans. Which is also limited
by the amount of product which we are able to put out. Though we do
have a few albums in almost every country of the world according to our
distributors, we are only talking a handful each. Since the cost comes
out of our own pockets we can't afford to do million product runs, only
a thousand or so at a time. We do of course, do consecutive re-issue
runs as the demand on our albums require. And our appeal, will only
lend itself to small groups of people interested in the genre. Folk
music just is not mainstream, and will only ever get limited air play.
Rilla
Gerry Myerson
Rilla Heslin <ri...@windbourne.com> wrote:
> Folk music just is not mainstream, and will only ever get limited air play.
I dunno. There was a time.... These things go in cycles. Someday
the 60s may happen again, only maybe this time without all the paisley.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Rilla Heslin
And perhaps we could forget the giant daiseys on blouses and dresses as
well ; - }
Rilla
Sean Cleary
> There was a US judge who said that he could not define porn but that he knew
> it when he saw it. Are you saying that Folk is like that or that it is even
> vauger?
> ---------
> No, what I'm saying is that nobody is going to come up with a definition on
> which we all agree. So, this argument isn't really going to accomplish
> much.
>
> As I said, what good is a definition if it's not definitive? Anyway, I
> noticed that dictionaries were on sale this week at the bookshop.
Well then we can define the terms, and have terms.
So
Acedema style folk,
Tradform folk,
Popular folk,
Common folk,
Campfire folk,
Music of common folk,
Old folk,
Broadside/political folk,
Folksinger performed music,
Mutated Music,
as well as the traditional sub catagories, most of which can be found
in the table of contents of Rise Up Singing.
The latest Filk term war was quieted by the following defination: Filk
is what a filksinger sings at a filksing. No matter the content, beat,
or whatever.
There is a strong analogy in this whole arguement to the english lit
profs vs the general public as to what is litature. The engish lit
gang tends to think that if you can not get a paper out of it, it is
not lit. So only the fact that he got a Nobel Prize in Lit keeps
Kipling in, and then just barely. JRRT is likely out by the 'in'
group. SF has just been provisionally accepted. But many of the
non-Professional people would strongly disagree with the 'in' group's
assessments.
Rilla,
I really wish that the songbook that I have seen had much wider
distribution*. Since it is in the hands of one of the best printing
and distribution teams (Lee&Barry) it lacks only you-all's permission.
We would be singing your songs in wider circles if that were so. Also
the songs from that book do not all appear on your tapes and CDs. I do
have many of those, but without a feeling that I really have your own
output.
Sean
* wider than one copy anyway.