Rec.music.folk.traditional?
Paul J. Stamler
although I'd point out that a portion of the territory, the American
string-band tradition, is being well covered by
rec.music.country.old-time. That's an exceptionally good
newsgroup, with a high level of expertise and an equally high level of
mutual respect. Of course, including the traditional subjects in
rec.music.folk, as we do now, always provides the possibility of exposing
some new people to it...
Peace.
Paul
Jerry Dallal
: Maybe it _is_ an appropriate time to have a traditional music newsgroup,
I'd vote for it. I spent an hour trying to draft a charter and RFD
but got bogged down trying to avoid the "what is folk music" trap. The
best I could do was to say what type of discussion would *not* be
encouraged, namely, songs and tunes crafted by living writers and
composers. But I have a personal dislike for things crafted in the
negative.
--Jerry
BTW, there's always going to be an unavoidable trade-off between exposing
trad folk to people who might be inclined toward it and giving those who
have no interest in singer-songwriter material an easy way to avoid it.
The arguments for rmft are (1) there is a core of people interested
exlusively (or, at least, primarily) in trad folk and (2) the majority of
posts have nothing to do with trad folk.
Also, BTW, I have no arguent with the traffic on rmf. For better or
worse, as evidence by radio programs and concerts that label themselves
"folk music", the topics discussed here are in keeping with the way the
term "folk music" is used in common parlance.
Finally, BTW, there *is* a problem with dealing with the issue of trad
folk and non-trad folk at this late date. rmco-t has a lock on old
timey. rmb, in theory (I don't follow it), has a lock on blues. It's not
clear how rmft would be viewed by these other groups. But, that's what
an RFD is for.
NesAuction
I really care little about singer songwriter music of the pop music
variety. But how to draw the distinction between traditional and pop?
SNe...@power.net
Kevin Rolph
: I concur with you.
: variety. But how to draw the distinction between traditional and pop?
I too concur. Drawing this distinction is going to be difficult. Is age
a suitable starting point? Say tunes & songs dating from >80 years ago?
--
Kevin Rolph
"..the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life."
BYM Quaker Faith & Practice, quoting 17th century Elders.
Rudi Schmid
>NesAuction (nesau...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I concur with you.
>
>I too concur. Drawing this distinction is going to be difficult. Is age
>a suitable starting point? Say tunes & songs dating from >80 years ago?
>
Because folk music is hard to define to begin with, as various discussions
here have amply demonstrated, I think it would be exceptionally hard to
distinguish between traditional folk music and whatever is not traditional,
once one excludes specialities as "country.old-time" and "celtic," which
alrady have their own newsgroups. Incidentally, a few weeks ago I proposed
on rec.music. country.western a splitoff called "rec.music.counry.classic".
The dividing point was circa 1965, when the Nashville sound had become
firmly entrenched. Procs and cons were about equally split about the pro-
posal, though I've not had to time to do a tally.
--Rudi Schmid, Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley (sch...@garnet.berkeley.edu)
Tracy Hart
Rudi Schmid <sch...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Because folk music is hard to define to begin with, as various discussions
>here have amply demonstrated, I think it would be exceptionally hard to
>distinguish between traditional folk music and whatever is not traditional,
>once one excludes specialities as "country.old-time" and "celtic," which
>alrady have their own newsgroups. Incidentally, a few weeks ago I proposed
>on rec.music. country.western a splitoff called "rec.music.counry.classic".
>The dividing point was circa 1965, when the Nashville sound had become
>firmly entrenched. Procs and cons were about equally split about the pro-
>posal, though I've not had to time to do a tally.
I had a response to the discussion that evolved from the "5 Folk Albums for
a Desert Island" thread. I was one of those who posted albums within a
very broad interpretation of "folk". Not surprisingly, my favorite artists
are David Wilcox, Shawn Colvin, The Story, L.J Booth, etc. Anyway, I would
definitely vote against authorization for "rec.music.folk.purist" and maybe
against "rec.music.folk.traditional" as well. Even though most of my favs
are "singer-songwriters", I am interested in the widest discussion of folk
that we can have here. (I also read "alt.music.alternative.female")
I was at a folk gathering here in Berkeley called "Teton Tea Party" last
Saturday night, where people play their own stuff as well as folk
standards. Teton Tea Party has been around for more than 30 years. One of
the original folkies was joking that it used to be the case that a folk
song had to be a) more than 40 years old, or b) of unknown origin, or both.
But Bob Dylan came along and blew that litmus test out of the water. I for
one like to wander among it all: the sea shanties and protest songs as well
as those awesome singer-songwriters (Freedy Johnston, Jane Siberry) that
would never be folk in our lifetime.
My point is that anything goes for folk as far as I am concerned as long as
it tells a story in an acoustic setting, with the emphasis on words and
music and secondary emphasis on musical skills/expertise. I like to remain
open to all new things -- Tracy.
Craig Cockburn
> I too concur. Drawing this distinction is going to be difficult. Is age
> a suitable starting point? Say tunes & songs dating from >80 years ago?
>
Traditional music is a style, so age is meaningless. Flower of Scotland,
Freedom Come All Ye and Caledonia, three excellent "traditional" tunes were
all written in the last 40 years.
--
Craig Cockburn (pronounced "coburn"), Edinburgh, Scotland
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Tom Neff
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <DAs87...@primag.co.uk> ke...@primag.co.uk "Kevin Rolph" writes:
>> I too concur. Drawing this distinction is going to be difficult. Is age
>> a suitable starting point? Say tunes & songs dating from >80 years ago?
>
>Traditional music is a style, so age is meaningless. Flower of Scotland,
>Freedom Come All Ye and Caledonia, three excellent "traditional" tunes were
>all written in the last 40 years.
With all due respect, this is good-hearted rubbish. "Traditional"
music encompasses a millenium of profoundly varying compositional
styles, from the earliest Breton or Moorish skirl to the full blown
post-colonial Hebrides deployment, and the only thing they all have in
common is that they're pre-20th century in form or sensibility. So age
is indeed the MacGuffin. I can fake out a "traditional" tune here in
the post-Cobain era and so can you, but we know what we're doing and we
do it quite cannily.
The Chieftains have got the drop on us with this one, small surprise.
They gave their very best go at mixing a traditional performance
resource with the modern creative sensibility, and we end up with LONG
BLACK VEIL where they end up as an exotic rhythm section one notch above
Kate Bush's Bulgarians.
Don't get me wrong, you can identify "traditional" music stylistically,
and if you insist on creating rec.music.thistle-and-shamrock then God go
with you, but in so doing you'll duck an important issue of interface
with the rest of the folk world.
--
"WATCH INSIDE PIKE CAUGHT WITH BARE HANDS KEEPS GOOD TIME" - Tass headline
Tom Neff :: tn...@panix.com :: <URL:http://www.panix.com/~tneff/>
David Harley
: Anyway, I would
: definitely vote against authorization for "rec.music.folk.purist" and maybe
: against "rec.music.folk.traditional" as well. Even though most of my favs
: are "singer-songwriters", I am interested in the widest discussion of folk
: that we can have here. (I also read "alt.music.alternative.female")
I've no quarrel with anything you say: however, "rec.music.folk.purist" was
*not* a serious suggestion. I've had many a promising argument with people
who state their position as "I'm not a purist, but...."
David Harley
ICRF
Florence Rapp
My $0.02:
Traditional songs were composed, too. Just because we don't usually know
who wrote them doesn't mean they appeared out of thin air. So where's the
split? Some of the songs being composed now will be "traditional" in the
future. Folk music should be a rather all-encompassing genre, because
folks sing such a wide variety of songs.
Florence
Craig Cockburn
> With all due respect, this is good-hearted rubbish. "Traditional"
> music encompasses a millenium of profoundly varying compositional
> styles, from the earliest Breton or Moorish skirl to the full blown
> post-colonial Hebrides deployment, and the only thing they all have in
> common is that they're pre-20th century in form or sensibility. So age
> is indeed the MacGuffin. I can fake out a "traditional" tune here in
> the post-Cobain era and so can you, but we know what we're doing and we
> do it quite cannily.
>
Age is not - If I hear a tune for the first time and cannot tell if it
was written yesterday or 500 years ago then it is a traditional-style
tune and so it is traditional music. We might know whether a tune is
traditional or not but so what? Is it not the audience which classifies a song.
An Ubhal As Airde (recently in the UK top 40) is a traditional style song
based on a psalm. It was written in the 1980s Where would you put this?
Where would you put any original Gaelic song by Capercaillie or Eilidh
MacKenzie?
> Don't get me wrong, you can identify "traditional" music stylistically,
> and if you insist on creating rec.music.thistle-and-shamrock then God go
> with you, but in so doing you'll duck an important issue of interface
> with the rest of the folk world.
I've listened to Fiona Ritchie's UK equivalent of that show - Celtic
Connections and really only a small proportion of the music sounds Celtic.
Too often bands are labelled Celtic because they happen to come from a
Celtic country. This is ludicrous! A distinction has to be made between
the nationality of the artists and the genre of music they play. Would
you call the Eurythmics Celtic because Annie Lennox comes from Glasgow?
An blues or Jazz band from Edinburgh would probably find it hilarious
that they were called Celtic because they were from Scotland. Music should
be classified by how it sounds, not where it is from, where the artists
are from or how old it is.
George Hawes
>Traditional music is a style, so age is meaningless. Flower of Scotland,
>Freedom Come All Ye and Caledonia, three excellent "traditional" tunes were
>all written in the last 40 years.
>With all due respect, this is good-hearted rubbish. "Traditional"
view which is good-heartedly wrong.
Which really is the crux of the matter - you and many other hold one view,
Craig, myself and others hold another. Without resolving that genuine
difference of opinion rec.music.folk.traditional becomes divisive.
In the end it doesn't really matter why Craig and I disagree with you, but
for what it's worth some of the points are:
1) You may fake traditional tunes, but even within western societies there\
remain performers who inter-relate with the music in the traditional way
and so continue to produce work in the true traditional vein - in particular
I cite various Irish communities, although there are other possibilities. If
you then extend consideration to non-western societies there are traditions
which are more clearly continuous to (at least very close to) the present.
2) You seem to imply traditional musicians some how worked in a different
way to their modern contemporaries; I don't see this.
3) Like you, I perceive a vast range of "profoundly varying compositional
styles" (although I'm not too clear on what constitutes a "full blown
post-colonial Hebrides deployment". Within both traditional and non trad.
musics (let alone the "cross-overs") I see a complexity which can't be
categorised by datestamping.
As I said, we disagree. Does that matter? Surely it's only the music
that matters, not our different views of how to categorise it.
George Hawes
Cambridge UK
George Hawes
>Traditional music is a style, so age is meaningless. Flower of Scotland,
>Freedom Come All Ye and Caledonia, three excellent "traditional" tunes were
>all written in the last 40 years.
and I would agree (possible with non-scots examples) (and anyway Hamish Henderson
cites Freedom Come All Ye as having a traditional tune, anyway - which illustrates
the problem with divisions by date).
Rather than traditional/non traditional, I suggest there is a more important but
even less enforceable division - between the "Folk as an extension of the Heritage
Industry" approach ("that was a delightful little song, I must capture and
preserve it . .") and the Living Tradition approach - the belief that folk
material engages across the years (or months . . ), needing to be used - as is,
adapted or for inspiration . .
OK - see which camp I'm in?
It's easier to say what's not folk music
"If it doesn't shout at you it's not folk music"
Andrew Cronshaw (as frequently misquoted, but not too inaccurately)
and as anyone who knowa Andrew's music can vouch, that shout doesn't have
to be loud and raucous (but can be).
Let's leave pigeonholing to the pigeons and pick up threads according
to our own tastes.
George Hawes
Cambridge UK
Tom Neff
have the problem that music has a million different sounds worldwide and
through time! There aren't just a few neat categories, except when we
get out the meat cleaver and try to create some by brute force, which
usually pleases nobody.
Music is really a mass of "traditions" ranging from brand-new to
vanishingly ancient. Any educated composer is inhabiting one or more
traditions (perhaps mixing them together) when writing or interpreting
a song. (An illiterate composer will tend to do the same, but without
knowing it.)
What we call "traditional music" in the current thread's context is
really just "traditions we've picked out and decided we like" based on
rough stylistic proximity to a few favored sounds and times. Is Delta
blues a tradition? Tin Pan Alley? Township jive? Salsa? Yes, yes,
yes and yes, but they are beyond the pale.
I think that this question is sufficiently complex that there will
always be some argument about it.
Kevin Rolph
: ..not interested in singer-songwriters would not
: have to sift through the vast..
Thanks for making this point (again). I for one am fed up with ploughing
through 300 posts a day, to find practically nothing of interest.
: As for defining "traditional", the more I think about "folk music whose
: author is unknown or deceased" the more I think it'll work.
Yes (hesitantly).
Is the name "traditional" a snag to all this. Everyone no doubt
considers their own favourite flavour to be the "traditional" one. Pity
we cant sensibly have r.m.f.author-deceased-or-unknown.
Is there another word that encapsulates this?
Is "traditional folk" (because of its indigeneous (sp?) nature) a
contradiction in terms for an _international_ group??
Is an Australian likely to agree with a French definition of "trad"
unless it is something crude like an age cut-off?
Would we do better to each have a (country).music.folk to spread the
load a little?
Can we separate off the singer-songwriters instead? Thats probably
easier to define.
--
Kevin Rolph
Bodhran player from Cambridge, England.
A flock of birds. A pride of lions. A shoal of fish.
An unkindness of ravens. An excess of bodhrans.
Jerry Dallal
:
: So where's the
: split? Some of the songs being composed now will be "traditional" in the
: future.
That's the point. Some will, most won't. Many already have and many of
us are interested in that subset exclusively. *That's* the split.
As always, no flame intended.
--Jerry
Jerry Dallal
: Can we separate off the singer-songwriters instead? Thats probably
: easier to define.
This has been suggested before and rejected. I reluctantly agree. There
are many of use who feel that the language has again been debased by the
way "folk" is used, but language can't be legislated and "folk", for
better or worse, has come to represent the range of styles currently
discussed in rfm. As more posters gain net access, those
interested in singer-songwriter will continue to gravitate toward
rfm. Better to establish
rec.music.folk.traditional than always coming off like offensive sob's by
constantly trying to shut out those interested in singer-songwriters.
BTW, I much prefer rec.music.folk.traditional to rec.music.traditional,
if only to make the group easier to fine. But, indeed, since traditional
music is a subset of folk music, rmft seems a better choice than rmt.
Hey, is this turning into an RFD!?
Jerry Dallal
: are David Wilcox, Shawn Colvin, The Story, L.J Booth, etc. Anyway, I would
: definitely vote against authorization for "rec.music.folk.purist" and maybe
: against "rec.music.folk.traditional" as well. Even though most of my favs
: are "singer-songwriters", I am interested in the widest discussion of folk
: that we can have here. (I also read "alt.music.alternative.female")
Anyone interested in the common, broader definition would subscribe to
both. The advantage to establishing rmft is that those who were not
interested in singer-songwriters would not have to sift through the vast
majority of rmf postings that were not of interest to find the few
concerning traditional music.
As for defining "traditional", the more I think about "folk music whose
author is unknown or deceased" the more I think it'll work. Thus,
Guthrie (Woody) would qualify, Guthrie (arlo) and Dylan would not. Summer
camp songs would. The group would collectively work out the boundaries,
as it has done with rfm.
Steve Goldfield
Jerry Dallal <gda...@world.std.com> wrote:
#>Paul J. Stamler (psta...@crl.com) wrote:
#>: Maybe it _is_ an appropriate time to have a traditional music newsgroup,
#>: although I'd point out that a portion of the territory, the American
#>: string-band tradition, is being well covered by
#>: rec.music.country.old-time. That's an exceptionally good
#>: newsgroup, with a high level of expertise and an equally high level of
#>: mutual respect. Of course, including the traditional subjects in
#>: rec.music.folk, as we do now, always provides the possibility of exposing
#>: some new people to it...
#>
#>I'd vote for it. I spent an hour trying to draft a charter and RFD
#>but got bogged down trying to avoid the "what is folk music" trap. The
#>best I could do was to say what type of discussion would *not* be
#>encouraged, namely, songs and tunes crafted by living writers and
#>composers. But I have a personal dislike for things crafted in the
#>negative.
#>--Jerry
#>BTW, there's always going to be an unavoidable trade-off between exposing
#>trad folk to people who might be inclined toward it and giving those who
#>have no interest in singer-songwriter material an easy way to avoid it.
#>The arguments for rmft are (1) there is a core of people interested
#>exlusively (or, at least, primarily) in trad folk and (2) the majority of
#>posts have nothing to do with trad folk.
#>
#>Also, BTW, I have no arguent with the traffic on rmf. For better or
#>worse, as evidence by radio programs and concerts that label themselves
#>"folk music", the topics discussed here are in keeping with the way the
#>term "folk music" is used in common parlance.
#>
#>Finally, BTW, there *is* a problem with dealing with the issue of trad
#>folk and non-trad folk at this late date. rmco-t has a lock on old
#>timey. rmb, in theory (I don't follow it), has a lock on blues. It's not
#>clear how rmft would be viewed by these other groups. But, that's what
#>an RFD is for.
I don't want to pose as an authority; I specifically created
rec.music.country.old-time as an unmoderated newsgroup because
I didn't want to be put in that position. That said, I think
the reason that newsgroup works is because there is an old-time
community that has a sense (though difficult to define; read our
FAQ on that) of what old-time music is. The newsgroup is a place
for people who consider themselves part of that community to
come together and talk about items of common interest. (I
certainly wouldn't suggest that it's totally cohesive, that
there aren't grey areas, etc., but that isn't relevant to my
point.) The question is whether there's a community that
thinks of itself and refers to itself as the traditional folk
community. If there is, I'm not aware of it. Old-time music,
at least most of it, is certainly traditional, i.e., it comes
from a long and very much alive tradition. But I don't see
the point of discussing old-time music in a group that doesn't
have the name of the music somewhere in the group name.
As to old-time, though it seemed a bit picky at the time, I
would interpret the very strong sentiment for the name old-time,
as opposed to old-timey, as a statement of community. In other
words, we have a pretty good idea who we are and what we want
to be called. (That's right, 80 percent of us don't like old-timey,
and many consider it an offensive term. At least 80 percent of
those who voted in our straw poll.)
What I'm saying boils down to this (and it's probably more of
a news.groups point than a rec.music.folk point): The logical
boundaries of a newsgroup should be roughly congruent with some
existing community with a common interest. If you create a
newsgroup such as rec.music.traditional without such a fairly
well-defined community, you'll either get a group like this
one with a whole bunch of subgroups or you'll have trouble
attracting people because they don't understand from the name
what goes on there.
I'm not arguing for or against the group. I'm only trying to
clarify what I think makes a coherent group, i.e., one that
works well.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve Goldfield :-{ {-: s...@coe.berkeley.edu
University of California at Berkeley Richmond Field Station
Aaron R. Priven
gda...@world.std.com (Jerry Dallal) wrote:
>As for defining "traditional", the more I think about "folk music whose
>author is unknown or deceased" the more I think it'll work. Thus,
>Guthrie (Woody) would qualify, Guthrie (arlo) and Dylan would not.
So Pete Seeger is not traditional, but Phil Ochs and Steve Goodman are?
=Aaron=
--
Aaron Priven; San Jose, CA, USA. aa...@chrysopylae.com, aar...@best.com
Self-indulgent home page: <URL:http://www.chrysopylae.com/>
Craig Cockburn
> Can we separate off the singer-songwriters instead? Thats probably
> easier to define.
>
I agree and would generally favour this split although I think that
rec.music.folk.north-america would be easier to define and would
make life a lot easier for the rest of us who are interested in folk
music but not American singer-songwriters, many of whom are classified
over here as "Country". It would also avoid trying to define "traditional"
music as would be the case for rec.music.traditional
Has anyone analysed what proportion of the postings concern North American
artists?
Belvoir
Hear! Hear! Hear!
The purpose of a split (which clearly won't be a clear-cut one)
is NOT to denigrate eithe SS or Trad. (or anything else). It's simply
that this newgroup has become so diffuse as to be totally unfocussed
(which isn't necessarily bad) and so large that wading through it
takes entirely too much entirely too muuch time and effort (which IS
necessarily bad.)
Those interested in broadening the scope of "folk" --I
never
heard a horse play the B-Minor Mass either--can simply subscribe to both;
those interested in a narrower focus can find what interests them more
readily.
dick greenhaus
<digi...@world.std.com>
Kevin Rolph
: rec.music.folk.north-america would be easier to define and would
I think this is an excellent line of thought. Splitting rmf
geographically (continents?) would work well IMHO.
It would reduce size of groups, allow the 'broad minded' folkies to
subscribe to all of them, it would concentrate info re festivals etc
into sensible localities, and tend to concentrate discussion towards
what each culture regarded as 'folk' rather than the superset.
Would only need 4 groups (?) America, Europe, Asia, Australasia
(traffic need for last two?)
--
Kevin Rolph
cliff
>>Would only need 4 groups (?) America, Europe, Asia, Australasia
which are inhabited...... presumably with "folks"
cliff
--
Cliff Furnald
cl...@rootsworld.com
RootsWorld: Getting Roots Music On The 'Net
http://www.rootsworld.com/rw/
Adam C Schneider
>Can we separate off the singer-songwriters instead? Thats probably
>easier to define.
Yes, yes, let's do it!! It seems like the comments in favor of this
idea have come from people who want to get rid of the s-s traffic, but
I'm saying it from the point of view of someone who would have a new
favorite newsgroup. I've no interest in traditional/Celtic/whatever,
and a singer-songwriter newsgroup would be perfect. It would focus,
obviously, on people like Mary Chapin Carpenter and David Wilcox, but
it could reach back to the 70's (Carole King, etc.) as well.
Adam
==-=--=---=----=-----=-------=--------=--------=-------=-----=----=---=--=-==
Adam Schneider schn...@maroon.tc.umn.edu Minneapolis, MN
If you want guitar chords for Mary Chapin Carpenter, Indigo Girls,
Mary Karlzen, Nanci Griffith, etc., go to my World Wide Web page:
http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m161/schn0170/acs.html
==-=--=---=----=-----=-------=--------=--------=-------=-----=----=---=--=-==
Paul M. Gifford
distinction between "singer/song writer" music and "traditional" folk musics,
in practice----I mean on this board here----the distinction would probably not
last.
Most of the conversation on this board deals with tours, records, etc., which
is probably the bulk of the type of conversation on most of the other music
boards. With the possible exception of inquiries concerning lyrics, most of
the questions I've seen, whether they refer to "traditional" music or
"singer/song writer" music, are of this type.
I see "traditional" as meaning something that is not record-, star-, or
coffeehouse-oriented. Thus conversations might revolve around descriptions of
particular traditions, without the orientation towards "stars." But since
conversation topics will inevitable revolve around performers and their tours
and records, I don't see the point of splitting the group in this way.
For those people who are trying to make a living at it, making records, etc.,
they have reasons to try to set themselves apart from the crowd----thus the
new songs, etc. So the commercial imperative determines not only what they
do, but compromises the traditional, noncommercial spirit.
Paul Gifford
Tom Neff
>Craig Cockburn (cr...@scot.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: rec.music.folk.north-america would be easier to define and would
>: make life a lot easier for the rest of us
>[rest of post relevant but not duplicated]
>
>I think this is an excellent line of thought. Splitting rmf
>geographically (continents?) would work well IMHO.
There is not an enormous amount of non-North America folk discussion
here. Certainly nothing approaching 50%. So splitting off a North
American group would mostly be moving everthing elsewhere - except that
it wouldn't work because everything would be crossposted here "just to
make sure."
Newsgroup splits are SUCH a dreary topic; they're practically automatic
in any group, and I wish people would apply a couple of hard earned
lessons before getting caught up in it.
1. It never works to try and split a group by creating a place to SEND
discussions YOU don't like. People have to want to go, or they won't
go. Splits should occur because YOU want to be somewhere else.
2. The only splits that really "take" satisfy three criteria:
a. The proportions are substantial - if not 50-50, at least 60-40 or
at worst 70-30; 90-10 splits are useless (except for moderated
"announcement" groups, which are a special case).
b. The split is *functional* in terms of topics. If you can look at
all traffic in a group and fairly categorize it into two or three
"basic subject types," then that is a candidate for a split.
Splits should not be predicated on ZIP Codes, favorite colors, or
other arbitrary boundaries not delineated in the articles
themselves.
c. Both potential constituencies of a split must agree that it's a
good idea. You cannot banish people, and you cannot run away
from people who want to discuss things with you.
This is not to say no useful split of r.m.f could be done; only that you
need to be careful how you do it, and you need a consensus.
My own view is that anyone with a decent newsreader (one that supports
threading, searches and killfiles) ought to be able to keep up with the
group as it exists today.
Rick Lee
: ke...@primag.co.uk (Kevin Rolph) writes:
: >Can we separate off the singer-songwriters instead? Thats probably
: >easier to define.
: Yes, yes, let's do it!! It seems like the comments in favor of this
On my server, it's called rec.music.makers.songwriting
Quite active, newsletter offers, humour threads (22 so far), guitar
design, Dutch band seeks English Grammar, copywriting, etc.
Hope it suits you. There are also, of course, usenet groups and web
pages for some of the folks you listen to.
Rick
Jerry Dallal
: In article <DAt6K...@world.std.com>,
: gda...@world.std.com (Jerry Dallal) wrote:
: >As for defining "traditional", the more I think about "folk music whose
: >author is unknown or deceased" the more I think it'll work. Thus,
: >Guthrie (Woody) would qualify, Guthrie (arlo) and Dylan would not.
: So Pete Seeger is not traditional, but Phil Ochs and Steve Goodman are?
I don't claim the distinction is perfect, but I could live with that. If
a folk performer's work is strong enough to outlive him/her, it's
certainly giving evidence of entering the tradition. You're under no
obligation to do so, but would you care to offer a counter-proposal?
--Jerry
Tracy Hart
>
>: >Can we separate off the singer-songwriters instead? Thats probably
>: >easier to define.
>: Yes, yes, let's do it!! It seems like the comments in favor of this
>
>On my server, it's called rec.music.makers.songwriting
>Quite active, newsletter offers, humour threads (22 so far), guitar
>design, Dutch band seeks English Grammar, copywriting, etc.
>
"listeners". The conversational bent differs considerably from the
singer-songwriter listener threads here. I was originally hoping that we
could keep "rec.music.folk" in one piece, but if the "traditionalists"
are so ready to jump ship, then I would love to spin off with
"rec.music.folk.singers-songwriters". I don't like the thought of having
singer-songwriter stuff implicitly labelled as non-traditional. It is just
the newer wave of the same genre of folk. Then we could leave the purists
behind in "rec.music.folk" (but is that implying that those left in
rec.music.folk aren't singer-songwriters?). Anyway, after listening to
Ellis Paul and Carrie Newcomer perform live last night, I am jazzed to
discuss these folks in a place that is safe, rather than having to look
over the proverbial shoulder for those who like to tend the gates of what
constitutes true folk music.
Mark Spittal
mentality. I would love to see an acoustic/folk oriented singer/songwriters group.
Mark
MDRubin
All I want to know is where I can read about folk music and never have to
read about some singer/songwriter.
Sure, Charlie Poole and Uncle Dave Macon qualify as "singer/songwriters"
but within a folkloric tradition.
Today, we have seem the devolpment of a whole new definition of "folk"
that has become so inclusive as to allow what I remember hearing as a kid
as "pop" played on a acoustic guitar. It is to "folk" as Eric Clapton
un-plugged is to blues. Inspired by, in the tradition of, and totally
forgotten in two generations, dismissed as an historical footnote.
I don't want to be caught on this dissicusion saying how un-inspiring this
trend, and it's adhereants, is. But there needs to be someplace free of
this influence du jour.
The definition <folk.singer/songwriter> would allow me, and a lot of
ya'll, the opportunity to not subscribe to it, and hence reduce depression
and rancor over the subject.
Thanks for listening,
Mark Rubin (a moldy fig under 30)
Bad Livers /Austin TX
Craig Cockburn
> There is not an enormous amount of non-North America folk discussion
> here. Certainly nothing approaching 50%. So splitting off a North
> American group would mostly be moving everthing elsewhere - except that
> it wouldn't work because everything would be crossposted here "just to
> make sure."
>
A similar argument arose recently when soc.culture.celtic split and
formed additional subgroups of soc.culture.irish, .scottish and .welsh
People were saying that a welsh group could hardly be sustained as there
wasn't much welsh traffic in soc.culture.celtic. After the creation of
soc.culture.welsh however, there was so much traffic there I couldn't
keep up with it! Creating a group creates a forum and provides an opportunity
for both existing and latent demand to flourish. Existing traffic is only
a very rough rule of thumb as to whether a new group will succeed. I suspect
one of the reasons that there isn't much non-American traffic here is that
most non-Americans don't think this group is relevant for them and is too
US-biased.
I would agree that a geographic split, besides being easy to define, also
makes it convenient when posting details of concerts and tour schedules.
> a. The proportions are substantial - if not 50-50, at least 60-40 or
> at worst 70-30; 90-10 splits are useless (except for moderated
> "announcement" groups, which are a special case).
The welsh traffic in soc.culture.celtic before the split was probably
about 10-20%.
It seems that the two main proposals so far are to split by musical
genre or by geography. What does the rest of the group think would be
best?
Craig
James Lewis
>> future.
Wanna bett?
--
Jim Lewis - jk...@freenet.scri.fsu.edu
. . . Without ecology . . . there would _be_ no economy.
ghost
>It seems that the two main proposals so far are to split by musical
>genre or by geography. What does the rest of the group think would be
>best?
If you gotta go (go now?) go all the way.
At once.
rec.music.folk.your-country's-name-here.trad-&-trad-style
rec.music.folk.your-country's-name-here.poppy-singer-songwriter-mostly-crap-some-good
or for consistency, & since we know that the US & GB will be the 1st to
split off, but putting country-name 1st would curtail other countries from
joining the fray:
rec.music.folk.trad-&-trad-style.your-country's-name-here
rec.music.folk.poppy-singer-songwriter-mostly-crap-some-good.your.country's-name-here
at some pt, of course, the trad-&-trad-style will want to break down
into somethings more specific. Of course.
at some pt, of course, the poppy-etc will want to differentiate into
styles, too.
The possibilities are endless, but also inevitable.
Kevin Rolph
: Kevin writes:
: >>Would only need 4 groups (?) America, Europe, Asia, Australasia
:
: 4 groups? One for each continent? I seem to remember 7, at least six of
: which are inhabited...... presumably with "folks"
Fair comment but note "(?)". Wide rather than strict interprtations were
intended to make a sensible split. Is r.m.f.antarctica needed? :-)
--
Kevin Rolph
George Hawes
<cut for brevity>
>All I want to know is where I can read about folk music and never have to
>read about some singer/songwriter.
> . . .. It is to "folk" as Eric Clapton un-plugged is to blues.
>Inspired by, in the tradition of, and totally forgotten in two generations,
>dismissed as an historical footnote.
EXCEPT that, even as an historical footnote, he will have led more people
to what Mark regards as the real blues than Mark or I could ever hope to.
Let's try to broaden people's tastes, not cast them into (musical) ghettos.
As a Folk Roots cartoon character once said "If you insist on pigeonholing
all you end up with is plenty of bird shit" (interestinly(?) the cartoon
strip was called Borefolk, now I think about it). Thanks to Lawrence Heath.
George Hawes
Cambrige UK
Alyn Iorwerth
>It seems that the two main proposals so far are to split by musical
>genre or by geography. What does the rest of the group think would be
>best?
As most of the traditional music of North America owes its origins to European
origins, and many traditional songs and tunes are found on both sides of the
Atlantic, a split by genre seems to me to be more appropriate.
Bruce Blood
snip, snip a lot more stuff I agree with...but here's the rub:
> My own view is that anyone with a decent newsreader (one that supports
> threading, searches and killfiles) ought to be able to keep up with the
> group as it exists today.
>>>>
As usual Tom hits it on the head. I don't have any of the above but threading,
and I don't have much trouble keeping up - 'cept on Mondays:-).
I LIKE the diversity of r.m.f. and feel either a .trad or .s-s split would be a mistake.
I myself am singer-songwriter, but my interests are far more wide-ranging, and I
appreciate the exposure to dang near anything new (or old for that matter).
If I'm not subsequently enthralled by the subject I just skip it. Seems easy enough.
IMHO folks (oops!) betimes get way too hung-up on definitions and titles. I think
rec.music.folk especially valuable precisely because "folk" can be construed to
include so much.
So... if some of ye wish to splinter, I wish you the best, but my hope is that the
nature of this usegroup remains mostly the same.
Bruce Blood
**** As usual, these opinions have nothing to do with my workplace.
Chris Timson
cr...@scot.demon.co.uk "Craig Cockburn" writes:
: I suspect
: one of the reasons that there isn't much non-American traffic here is that
: most non-Americans don't think this group is relevant for them and is too
: US-biased.
This is the first posting I made to this group in a while, and this is
the reason. I would support a split, and have argued for one before
several times. The actual split point is less important to me than that
there should be one. Regardless of the pros and cons of the (endless)
discussion of what is or is not traditional it seems to me that as the
net grows groups will have to subdivide simply to control the volume
of traffic. What if r.m.f had 4-5 times the current amount of traffic?
--
Chris Timson Have concertinas, will travel
and Phone 01225 863762
Anne Gregson Global disclaimer: who, us?
Craig Cockburn
iorw...@hursley.ibm.com "Alyn Iorwerth" writes:
I see alt.music.america got created today.
lvm...@primenet.com
>From: schn...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Adam C Schneider)
>Subject: Rec.music.singer-songwriter?
>Date: 29 Jun 1995 09:51:44 -0500
>>Can we separate off the singer-songwriters instead? Thats probably
>>easier to define.
>Yes, yes, let's do it!! It seems like the comments in favor of this
>idea have come from people who want to get rid of the s-s traffic, but
>I'm saying it from the point of view of someone who would have a new
>favorite newsgroup. I've no interest in traditional/Celtic/whatever,
>and a singer-songwriter newsgroup would be perfect. It would focus,
>obviously, on people like Mary Chapin Carpenter and David Wilcox, but
>it could reach back to the 70's (Carole King, etc.) as well.
Yes, I agree that singer-songwriters and traditional music should be in
separate groups. After recently seeing threads about Cat Stevens (Cat
Stevens!?) and the New Christie Minstrels (!?!) I feel that rec.music.folk is
almost meaningless in its current form. Actually, since the 60's, the meaning
of "folk music" has been pretty watered-down anyway. Nowadays the term
"traditional" is more true to the original meaning of "folk". I vote for the
formation of two distinct groups - "rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter" and
"rec.music.folk.traditional".
My $.02.
Joe Root
James Lewis
: rec.music.folk.north-america would be easier to define and would
Well, let's make it rec.music.folk.na
The way I type, I'd never get logged in to something that made me type
out north-america. Took me five tries to get on to
rtec.music.country.old-time (see!!!!!) yesterday. :-)
Florence Rapp
>Sure you can split any newsgroup down to thread level if you want, let's
have
>100's of newsgroups from australian.didgeridoo to zulu.banjo (if there's
much
>call for it?). But aren't we being slightly parochial, if not zenophobic
in all
>this? The real benifit of the internet lies in its ability to turn the
world
>into a global village. The more cultures, music and folk that pass this
way,
>the more we are all enriched.
>
>If Scotland had set up a cultural border centuries ago, then how would the
>bagpipes ever have arrived from the Middle East, or golf from China :) or
the
>Enterprise ever recharge its delerium crystals ?
>
>Now, lets see....alt.sex.startrek.fetish hmmmmmm - see you guys later
>
>
>
Hear, hear! But it's alt.sex.fetish.startrek - wouldn't want you to get
lost in space.
Florence
MCramton
unarguable level. I see value in discussion among people who don't all
agree on everything. I'm not real interested in singer/songwriters and to
me a lot of that music is just another flavor of pop, but I also don't
visit the celtic, bluenote, and old-time groups much (all of which I'm
interested in) because there are just too many other things to do in life.
If this group splits into n number of additional subs, I don't think I
would bother.
There is a lot to look at in this group, but why not try a scheme of
labels as prefixes in the subjects (rec.gardening does this, and it's
bigger) to make it even easier than it already is to jump to threads of
interest.
Andy Greig
In article <804469...@scot.demon.co.uk> cr...@scot.demon.co.uk writes:
>It seems that the two main proposals so far are to split by musical
>genre or by geography. What does the rest of the group think would be
>best?
newsgroups from australian.didgeridoo to zulu.banjo (if there's much call for it?). But aren't
we being slightly parochial, if not zenophobic in all this? The real benifit of the internet
lies in its ability to turn the world into a global village. The more cultures, music and folk
that pass this way, the more we are all enriched.
If Scotland had set up a cultural border centuries ago, then how would the bagpipes ever have
arrived from the Middle East, or golf from China :) or the Enterprise ever recharge its delerium
crystals ?
Now, lets see....alt.sex.startrek.fetish hmmmmmm - see you guys later
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andy Greig EMail an...@techtrac.demon.co.uk |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bon...@netcom.com
>"traditional" is more true to the original meaning of "folk". I vote for the
>formation of two distinct groups - "rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter" and
>"rec.music.folk.traditional".
Keep in mind that no part of a Usenet newsgroup name may be longer than
14 letters. Therefore, an alternative would have to be suggested for
.singer-songwriter.
Bonnianne
bon...@netcom.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"All music's gotta be `folk' music. I ain't never
heard no horse sing a song."
- Louis Armstrong
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--
ghost
>lvm...@primenet.com writes:
>
>>"traditional" is more true to the original meaning of "folk". I vote for the
>>formation of two distinct groups - "rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter" and
>>"rec.music.folk.traditional".
>
>Keep in mind that no part of a Usenet newsgroup name may be longer than
>14 letters. Therefore, an alternative would have to be suggested for
>.singer-songwriter.
This makes it even more difficult.
"rec.music.folk.sing-song" would imply that they could write simple tunes,
when most of them can't. How about "rec.music.folk.tuneless"?
Or "rec.music.folk.pretentious"?
Or "rec.music.folk.gods-goddesses", which just makes it in under the
14-letter wire. "rec.music.folk.s-ser" would sound to the uninitated
like some new kind of torture group, which would be about right.
[I would perhaps be friendlier if you would all chip in & install
air-conditioners for every room in the apt (there aren't that many),
as well as setting up a fund for payment of the electric bill to run them.
Whole-house cooling is out unless you want to buy the landlord a new
heating system too (not a bad idea at all, but they won't spring for it
any time soon). And while you're at it, its getting really boring having
to pry the letter "T" up on this keyboard or think up words without
"t"s in them. This is Boston. This is only the start of July. Its not
supposed to get this hot til August, at least. What lies ahead?????]
Seriously:
As the size of the community grows, splits are inevitable unless the group
as-a-whole remains adamant that splitting would dry up any interesting
discussions. Informative subject lines would help, but not that much.
What you want to pay attention to is that many of the better
singer-songwriters, & quite a few of the worst, already have mailing lists
dedicated to them. This does look like the wave of the future so far.
It would be helpful if someone would post an FAQ every-so-often
directing people to these mailing-lists. (I'm not volunteering.)
Ian Anderson
>
> Kevin writes:
> >>Would only need 4 groups (?) America, Europe, Asia, Australasia
>
>
> 4 groups? One for each continent? I seem to remember 7, at least six of
> which are inhabited...... presumably with "folks"
>
You beat me to it, Cliff!
My favourite traditional musics are from places like Guinee, Gambia,
Madagascar, Okinawa. Can I have my ball back, please?
I.A. ;-)
Ian Anderson
>
> As most of the traditional music of North America owes its origins to European
> origins
That's an interesting theory. Explain those Mississippi fife and drum
bands, the 5-string banjo . . .
I.A.
Ian Anderson
> It's easier to say what's not folk music
>
> "If it doesn't shout at you it's not folk music"
>
> Andrew Cronshaw (as frequently misquoted, but not too inaccurately)
> and as anyone who knowa Andrew's music can vouch, that shout doesn't have
> to be loud and raucous (but can be).
>
Misquote! (he said pedantically). The exact quote (Page 15, Southern
Rag 14, Oct '82) was "If it's not exciting, it's not folk music, it's
chamber music - it should scream a bit at you. There's no problem with
what's folk music and what isn't - you can hear it, it has got a
vitality"
He was right, b.t.w.
I.A.
Ian Anderson
>
>I don't like the thought of having
> singer-songwriter stuff implicitly labelled as non-traditional.
Er . . . This is one of the more puzzling comments I have so far
read in all this debate, somewhat akin to "I don't like the thought
of having swimming pools labelled as non-people"
Over to our underwater correspondents ;-)
I.A.
David Harley
Yes... but I think I see what she means. It's a pity to put the McColls (I'm
thinking of Ewan more than Kirsty...) and Tawneys into the same bag as some of
the out-and-out C&W critters who feature here.
Bubble, bubble...
David Harley
ICRF
Alyn Iorwerth
the more reason not to split by geography.
Tracy Hart
Ian Anderson <fro...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>th...@are.Berkeley.EDU (Tracy Hart) wrote:
>>I don't like the thought of having
>> singer-songwriter stuff implicitly labelled as non-traditional.
>
>Er . . . This is one of the more puzzling comments I have so far
>read in all this debate, somewhat akin to "I don't like the thought
>of having swimming pools labelled as non-people"
>
"rec.music.folk.traditional" split have a "purist" attitude about what
constitutes folk. Distinguishing "traditional" folk from "other" folk
lends a sense of exclusivity to the genre of "traditional" folk. By the
very nature of being folk music, I think that it is best to keep fluid
boundaries. I am averse to splitting this group, especially if the split
is by some convoluted traditional/non-traditional definition. Those who
hem and haw about having to pour through what they consider
"singer/songwriter" aka pop/rock aka "non-traditional" music need to keep
an open mind. I certainly don't mind being exposed to more "traditional"
music, since, at the age of thirty, I am rushing not only to keep up with
music being written today but also to sample folk from generations past.
If you are still puzzled, I am amenable to explaining this more clearly.
Tracy.
Jerry Dallal
: I am averse to splitting this group, especially if the split
: is by some convoluted traditional/non-traditional definition. Those who
: hem and haw about having to pour through what they consider
: "singer/songwriter" aka pop/rock aka "non-traditional" music need to keep
: an open mind.
In the limit, with that argument, we'd have only rec.music.
As another poster stated, the criteria should be whether there's an
identifiable subset that a sufficient number of posters/readers would
like to focus on exclusively. This is where I feel rms-s is weak and
rmft is strong. No one has ever suggested establishing rms-s because
they wanted to focus exclusively on s-s, but many have expressed that
kind of interest in trad folk. People are always free to
subscribe to those groups of direct interest, so those who want a broader
experience would not miss out on anything.
The rec.music hierarchy includes .dylan and .beatles and I can't recall a
single post asking that .dylan be folded into folk or .beatles into some
all inclusive rock group.
AbbySale
<fro...@cityscape.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> As most of the traditional music of North America owes its origins to
>European
>> origins
>
>That's an interesting theory. Explain those Mississippi fife and drum
>bands, the 5-string banjo . . .
>
>
"most" not "all." And I'd be interested to be corrected, but I'm not
aware that fife & drum stuff is well-established as African, anyway. May
derive from (or partly from) English military stuff.
But of course there's the banjo & washtub bass & some blues elements. But
the tune & verse structure, even for, say, Delta blues, is clearly
European. Not to mention "mainstream" folk.
Craig Cockburn
iorw...@hursley.ibm.com "Alyn Iorwerth" writes:
> You're right - for 'European origins', substitute 'other parts of the world'.
> All
> the more reason not to split by geography.
I wasn't proposing splitting the group by musical origins. When I suggested
rec.music.folk.na, the intention was that the na would refer to music
being played in North America (ie European artist on tour there), musicians
from NA (ie. Nanci Griffith discussions), or music written in NA
Craig
lvm...@primenet.com
>From: th...@are.Berkeley.EDU (Tracy Hart)
>Subject: Re: Rec.music.singer-songwriter?
>Date: 3 Jul 1995 16:22:56 GMT
>Maybe I can clarify this for you. Several of those who have suggested a
>"rec.music.folk.traditional" split have a "purist" attitude about what
>constitutes folk. Distinguishing "traditional" folk from "other" folk
>lends a sense of exclusivity to the genre of "traditional" folk. By the
>very nature of being folk music, I think that it is best to keep fluid
>boundaries. I am averse to splitting this group, especially if the split
>is by some convoluted traditional/non-traditional definition. Those who
>hem and haw about having to pour through what they consider
>"singer/songwriter" aka pop/rock aka "non-traditional" music need to keep
>an open mind. I certainly don't mind being exposed to more "traditional"
>music, since, at the age of thirty, I am rushing not only to keep up with
>music being written today but also to sample folk from generations past.
I think it's great that you're interested in learning more about traditional
music. But why could't you subscribe to a "trad" group as well as a "s-s"
group? Separating the two doesn't imply that one is superior to the other,
only that they are for the most part exclusive of each other. In analogy, I
wouldn't look for celtic music in the blues section of a record store and
vice-versa, but I still love both kinds of music.
Joe Root
Phil Preen
>This is the first posting I made to this group in a while, and this is
>the reason. I would support a split, and have argued for one before
>several times. The actual split point is less important to me than that
>there should be one. Regardless of the pros and cons of the (endless)
>discussion of what is or is not traditional it seems to me that as the
>net grows groups will have to subdivide simply to control the volume
>of traffic. What if r.m.f had 4-5 times the current amount of traffic?
>--
As another UK based person, I sometimes find it a bit tedious
ploughing through a lot of American stuff - but the same can be said
of the Internet in general. This is simply because there are more
Americans about than anyone else!!
I would now like to contradict myself totally by saying that sometimes
I quite enjoy scanning through all the articles in this newsgroup, I
reckon that although about 90% of it doesn't interest me much, it is
still worth while, just to find that other wonderful 10%.
In summary I think a split (or several) in this newsgroup would be a
good idea, but I would still subscribe to both or all groups.
BTW was the geographic split that was muted meant to split the readers
or the music, geographically? i.e. would rec.music.folk.europe be for
people to discuss European folk music, or for European people to
discuss folk music?
I for one would love to see a rec.music.traditional.english, which is
my current area of particular interest (mostly).
Phil Preen
there are people in favour of each of the following groups:-
rec.music.folk
rec.music.traditional
rec.music.folk.singer.songwriter
rec.music.folk.na
Therefore why not have them all?
ANDY BLUE
Seeger, Gene Shay, Cathy Fink, Shawn Colvin, and joni mitchell say it
is.
John Peekstok
: I've stopped trying to categorize it? What's Folk Music? Whatever Pete
: Seeger, Gene Shay, Cathy Fink, Shawn Colvin, and joni mitchell say it
: is.
The reason a lot of people want to split the newsgroup is because, to
many of us, you've just named several pop singers.
--
_______________________________________
John Peekstok john...@cyberspace.com (My own opinions, of course)
Telynor tel...@aol.com
Craig Cockburn
andy...@aol.com "ANDY BLUE" writes:
> I've stopped trying to categorize it? What's Folk Music? Whatever Pete
> Seeger, Gene Shay, Cathy Fink, Shawn Colvin, and joni mitchell say it
> is.
>
Do they sing in languages other than English?
A.J. Davis
>From: andy...@aol.com (ANDY BLUE)
>Subject: Re: Rec.music.folk.traditional?
>Date: 6 Jul 1995 23:07:03 -0400
>I've stopped trying to categorize it? What's Folk Music? Whatever Pete
>Seeger, Gene Shay, Cathy Fink, Shawn Colvin, and joni mitchell say it
>is.
... or whateveer all those 'primary sources' named and unnamed, dead or
living, said or say it is ... ?
Andrew Davis
Chris Timson
: I've stopped trying to categorize it? What's Folk Music? Whatever Pete
: Seeger, Gene Shay, Cathy Fink, Shawn Colvin, and joni mitchell say it
: is.
I think you have nicely summed up the argument in favour of
rec.music.folk.traditional
--
Chris Timson Have concertinas, will travel
and Phone 01225 863762
Anne Gregson Global disclaimer: who, us?
AbbySale
Peekstok) writes:
>>ANDY BLUE (andy...@aol.com) wrote:
>>: I've stopped trying to categorize it? What's Folk Music? Whatever
Pete
>>: Seeger, Gene Shay, Cathy Fink, Shawn Colvin, and joni mitchell say
it
>>: is.
>The reason a lot of people want to split the newsgroup is because, to
>many of us, you've just named several pop singers.
Be fair. six pop singers and one very involved & knowledgable popular
interpreter of folk material.
Joseph C Fineman
>I've stopped trying to categorize it? What's Folk Music? Whatever Pete
>Seeger, Gene Shay, Cathy Fink, Shawn Colvin, and joni mitchell say it
>is.
I have no wish to deny those estimable persons the right to make a
living by selling what they have to sell, but I most emphatically do
deny them the right to define folk music. That is _my_ right, and it
springs from the very fact that I do _not_ make my living at it. Folk
music is any music that I might imagine singing or playing without
compensation or coercion, especially while washing the dishes.
That, evidently, is no sound basis for cleaving this newsgroup, but it
will serve as a satire on all such suggestions. Permit me to suggest
(if I may be constructive for a moment) another partition, which
presents few or no problems of definition & would be useful at least
to me:
rec.music.folk.music
rec.music.folk.musicians
Here I take "musicians" in the broadest sense, to include persons who
compose, sing, or play music or any two or all three of the above. As
to what makes musicians or music "folk", we would be no better or
worse off than we are now. But between plotting the orbits of
performers and discussing the content, history, & subject matter of
songs there is a clear line, and if those topics were in different
spaces I know where I would spend most of my time.
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
239 Clinton Road (617) 731-9190
Brookline, MA 02146
Paul J. Stamler
: performers and discussing the content, history, & subject matter of
: songs there is a clear line, and if those topics were in different
: spaces I know where I would spend most of my time.
This brings up another set of questions. In circling around the idea of
"rec.music.folk.traditional" we seem to be assuming that it will
basically follow the pattern of "rec.music.folk", with a smaller list of
subjects. I'm not sure how useful that would be, and would like to offer
a comparison between "rec.music.folk" and "rec.music.country.old-time".
My few months of reading "rec.music.folk" convinces me that the majority
of participants in the newsgroup can be loosely described as
"fans"--people who enjoy attending concerts of folk music (using the term
with the widest possible range of meanings), buying records and CDs,
trading tapes, etc. Much of the traffic concerns tour schedules, new
releases, rereleases of old material, etc. I'd guess (without scientific
backup, just the seat of my pants) that about 75% of the postings are in
this area, while about 25% of the postings are from people looking for
song lyrics, wanting information about a song, or discussing issues
(i.e., what is folk music, should there be a new newsgroup, etc.).
In contrast, "rec.music.country.old-time" seems to be about 90% occupied
by performers of old-time music, either on a professional,
semi-professional, or amateur basis. Old-time music seems to be like
poetry: most of the people who read poetry in a serious way also write
it, and most of the people who are interested in old-time music wind up
playing it. (FYI, I fall into the "semi-pro" category: I play for pay,
but it's not my sole source of income.)
I strongly suspect that people who are interested in traditional folk
music are the same way: the people who like it, sooner or later, wind up
playing it. In an earlier posting, Steve Goldfield (who instigated
RMCO-T) postulated that a viable newsgroup can only happen if it
addresses the needs of a pre-existing community (whose boundaries may
well be fuzzy). I submit that such a community does exist, and to a great
extent exists within the boundaries of this newsgroup and related groups,
such as RMCO-T, "rec.music.blues", "rec.music.celtic", etc.: the
community of people who are active participants in traditional music,
whether by singing and playing it, or by support activities such as
archiving, producing recordings, staging performances, etc. I'd certainly
not want to exclude people whose main interest is in passive consuming
(buying records, going to concerts), but I think the focus in
constituting the newsgroup, if it forms, should be on participants and
participation.
Well, this is my third posting on the subject, and maybe I'll pipe down
for a week or so and hear what folks have to say. To summarize the three
postings:
1) It may be time to think seriously about a newsgroup focusing on
traditional music and songs, as "rec.music.folk" is predominantly
focusing on singer-songwriters.
2) A good working definition of "traditional" might be a process
definition, focusing on the process by which a song or tune comes to us,
rather than stylistic considerations.
3) The main constituency for such a newsgroup might be people who are
active participants in traditional music and song, whether paid or unpaid.
Peace.
Paul "I guess that's $.06 so far" Stamler
MayA548980
>active participants in traditional music and song, whether paid or
>unpaid.
I hope this would include music educators who believe our folk heritage is
getting lost in a shuffle. I personally have received help and ideas from
this group. Being a Kodaly trained educator, I use the folk music of the
students I teach as the basis for teaching music literacy. I have been
spreading the word around my colleagues about this group.
Many of us are involved in folk music research from time to time. Just
point us in the right direction of the group we need to be with.
Peter Dwyer
'traditional' in the future", you replied "Wanna bett?"
Judging by the number of requests on this Newsgroup for words to recent songs
which are already out there - and are taken as 'traditional' - yes, I do
"Wanna bett(sic)".
Look at the requests for songs written by composers such as Eric Bogle. The
fact that these songs are already being passed on by word of mouth classes
them ,IMHO, as 'traditional'. BTW I believe that Eric and other such composers
are entitled to acknowledgement and, where applicable, performing rights for
their works as long as they are copyrighted.
Peter Dwyer
Australia