Re: What's a folk song?

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:27:40 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
Size: 7,691 bytes

 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