I'll be back with commentary

*start swipe*

I'm still struggling to "get" folk music, to be honest.

My interest in folk has always been largely anthropological in nature but for a range of reasons, I've never been able to forge an emotional connection with it.

Like, I can dig the Dylan strain and the post-rock stuff, but I just can't grab on to the Engish and Irish ballads and some of the traditional American songs. Probably because in the era in which I grew up (of course, I know you grew up in the same era).

I remember reading a Frank Miller interview in which he said he never felt a connection to the radical politics of the 1960s because around the time he was in high school, all his teachers were hippies or ex-hippies, so their whole culture to him felt like the establishment that he rebelled against.

For me, those songs are the tunes that came pre-programmed in your Fisher-Price toy phonogram... or they evoke for me dorky, beardy camp counsellors strumming acoustic guitars around the bonfire. Or worse yet, their melodies recall nursery rhymes (obviously they come from the same sources as most popular nursery rhymes). So somehow, the shit just feels childish to me.

I struggle to conceive of a time that playing and listening to this kind of music was at one point considered the extremely hip thing to do. I understand it on an intellectual level but I don't get it!

>I'm still struggling to "get" folk music, to be honest.

To clarify, what you're talking about here is
-traditional folk music: ballads, breakdowns, etc., mostly stemming from Anglo-American repertoire and styles
-modern spinoffs thereof (bluegrass, some singer-songwriters)
-Interpreters of traditional music that aren't members of trad music communities (ie, interpreters like Pete/The Weavers, Odetta et al)
-vocal/pop-folk, esp. of the classic late '50s/early '60s variety (New Christy Minstrels, Rooftop Singers, Brothers Four, Kingston Trio, Serendipity Singers, etc.)

correct?

I'm asking b/c while all those (and more) are part and parcel of 'folk music'*, you can look at them within the same continuum or as separate species worthy of independent consideration. I usually try to take a balanced view I can go into in more depth as we look at it.

*along with international ethnic music; though I sense that's not really something you have the same issue with, it's represented an integral part of the modern folk movement since the '40s.

The vast majority of the music I listen to is stuff that was recorded either before I was born or before I was old enough to actively participate in the scene that birthed it. So it's always important to me to understand the music's context in order to mentally and emotionally reconstruct for myself the world that it came out of of and represented.

For some reason, I just can't fully get that emotional feeling for the folk scene of the late 1950s and early 60s. I mean, I know the facts... I understand that how in the Eisenhower era of rapid progress and "space age" modernization, in the age that Madison Ave became a powerhouse and plastic became the al-purpose miracle material and American culture became overwhelmed with glossy artifice... I understand how the disaffected youth felt the need to reconnect with something "real" from a simpler, seemingly more honest point in history.

I get how this impulse manifested itself in various arts, from cinema to theater to music.

But I just can't really emotional grasp HOW folk music at this point was considered "cool," "hip" and especially "sexy"

And I like my music to be sexy. If it ain't sexy, I can't feel it!

>To clarify, what you're talking about here is
>-traditional folk music: ballads, breakdowns, etc., mostly
>stemming from Anglo-American repertoire and styles
>-modern spinoffs thereof (bluegrass, some singer-songwriters)
>-Interpreters of traditional music that aren't members of trad
>music communities (ie, interpreters like Pete/The Weavers,
>Odetta et al)
>-vocal/pop-folk, esp. of the classic late '50s/early '60s
>variety (New Christy Minstrels, Rooftop Singers, Brothers
>Four, Kingston Trio, Serendipity Singers, etc.)

Alright... now when I talk about "folk," I am primarily referring to its emergence as a "pop" form in the 1950s onwards.

I can appreciate the original source materials that this crowd drew from, I dig the Folkways and Smithsonian collections and all that.

I dig Leadbelly. I dig Woody.

I don't dig Pete Seeger and the Weavers as much.

I like New Christy Williams, because the were kinda "rockish."

I like Odetta.

I can't grab on to the Kingston Trio or a lot of Peter, Paul & Mary. *Emotionally.* Like... I can understand the music and even appreciate it, but it's hard for me to really conceptualize that at one point if you were a radical college student or a hip intellectual that you'd listen to stuff like that... They sound like children's songs to me.

Bluegrass... I like. I grew to love it over the years, though I have to admit that for a long time it made me think about "The Beverly Hillbillies." Some of the stuff from the period in question still sounds like that to me.

>*along with international ethnic music; though I sense that's
>not really something you have the same issue with, it's
>represented an integral part of the modern folk movement since
>the '40s.

Ethnic styles... *sigh* This gets complicated. I am going to approach it from the context I have specified above: the Eisenhower era.

I have great admiration for Harry Belafonte but it's also hard for me to fully understand what made him such a sensation at the time as his records of that period sound overproduced to me, his voice too pristine (not to mention some of the costumes he wore).

Miriam Makeba suffers from some of the same thing.

lol btw it is absolutely CRAZY to me that at one point, some people in the industry really believed that rock & roll was a fad that was about to be supplanted by calypso: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBBCQHJvY0w

>For some reason, I just can't fully get that emotional feeling
>for the folk scene of the late 1950s and early 60s.

understandable... a lot of that stuff, like on the clips of the olde Hootenanny TV show, was like... the Pat Boonefying of folk. The bands were taking traditional music and repackaging it as a homogeneous white-washed, dry-fraternity, Eisenhower-era friendly music. And typically for those acts, a lot of the songs were re-written and stripped of their previous context and emotional resonance, whether b/c:
- there was no other viable option in presenting the song (ie, Mbubue/Wimoweh),
- the original version wouldn't have flown in sensitive times. A classic example of this is the Kingston Trio's 'Worried Man' - they take a song that was about a runaway slave, and turn it into this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjXRiIHmnw


And the acts that weren't necessarily doing that - the Weavers - their record labels were doing it for them, in the belated recognition of 'folk''s commercial potential.



>But I just can't really emotional grasp HOW folk music at this
>point was considered "cool," "hip" and especially "sexy"
>
>And I like my music to be sexy. If it ain't sexy, I can't feel
>it!

lmao


>Alright... now when I talk about "folk," I am primarily
>referring to its emergence as a "pop" form in the 1950s
>onwards.

alright, alright

>I can appreciate the original source materials that this crowd
>drew from, I dig the Folkways and Smithsonian collections and
>all that.


> They sound like children's songs to me.

With good reason, that's what I'm saying.

Twofold

1. A lot of traditional songs have lost their original context, whether as field songs, minstrel ditties, or whatever. Hence the inclusion of the grisly 'You Are my Sunshine' in every child's repertoire alongside blackface classics like 'Blue Tail Fly' and Ring Around the Rosie, which was OG about the plague, if memory serves. Horrible stuff. And yes, my kids' toys DO come preprogrammed with this shit with electronic sounds designed to sound vaguely like banjos or player pianos.

2. Just like with rock and roll, a lot of this shit was recontextualized and whitewashed - in childish ways - for the audience/times. I'll go into that a bit more below.



>Bluegrass... I like. I grew to love it over the years, though
>I have to admit that for a long time it made me think about
>"The Beverly Hillbillies." Some of the stuff from the period
>in question still sounds like that to me.

well, the guy the predominant bluegrass banjo style is named after DID play the theme.


>I have great admiration for Harry Belafonte but it's also hard
>for me to fully understand what made him such a sensation at
>the time as his records of that period sound overproduced to
>me, his voice too pristine (not to mention some of the
>costumes he wore).

My pop snuck into a Belafonte concert at the Phila. Academy of Music at about age 15 or 16. Very funny.

Personally, I think Belafonte's calypso records are great, but his 'folksinger' schtick was overdone.


>Miriam Makeba suffers from some of the same thing.

Unsurprising considering she entered the American recording industry as Harry's protege. And her first album was one of my mom's favorites.

then again, recontextualize it again and think about how amazing it really is that a white girl from suburban Pittsburgh could be so captivated by a Xhosa wedding song, no matter how cornily presented. To me, that's pretty frickin' awesome.

>lol btw it is absolutely CRAZY to me that at one point, some
>people in the industry really believed that rock & roll was a
>fad that was about to be supplanted by calypso:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBBCQHJvY0w

lmao, that clip is like, they don't know which of the current big trends will last out the yer, so you might as well throw a little of everything into one movie!

Not to sidetrack things, but when I clicked the link to that Kingston Trio "Worried Man" clip all I could think of was this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_vn48ZiO4k

>Not to sidetrack things, but when I clicked the link to that
>Kingston Trio "Worried Man" clip all I could think of was
>this:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_vn48ZiO4k

bring up that movie, since all the acts in it are based on real performers, and they all poke fun at exactly the kinds of issues AF has with this era/style of folk.

The Folksmen are really pretty clearly the Kingston Trio, though they could just as easily be the Brothers four or a host of other sweater-clad frat-folk bands.

The New Main Street Singers are basically the New Christy Minstrels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KLWNecE6L8

a band that included at various tmes, Barry McGuire (on the intro here), Kenny Rogers and, umm... Kim Carnes. They had a few big hits,most notably 'green green.'

There was plenty more where that came from, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrThyvv4sko

etc. etc. It's almost hard to believe that 'don't let the rain come down' song ISN'T taking the piss, it's so corny.

And while I love that stuff, I can't contest AFKAP's main points wrt any of the material or acts - it's corny, sophomoric and completely unsexy... it's like the folk version of the Lawrence Welk show.

>lol btw it is absolutely CRAZY to me that at one point, some
>people in the industry really believed that rock & roll was a
>fad that was about to be supplanted by calypso:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBBCQHJvY0w

(to me, the calypso fad was an extension of the Folk Revival, both due in part to its early US promotion by the Lomaxes and from Belafonte's embracing of the wider sphere of folk songs & forms)

Anyway. It always cracks me up when I read about pop stars and the like jumping on the folk bandwagon; it's hard to imagine that this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SCt8JPAkgU (as much as I like it) hit #3 in 1963!

Another example I like is the failed (but excellent) Sun country singer and then rockabilly Charlie Feathers, who after the huge chart success of the KT's 'Tom Dooley' (I think 1959) suddenly became a folk singer.

But then again, some good things did come out of that trend; Doc Watson was actually a boomerang who was making his living playing *electric* guitar in contemporary country bands before he decided to try his hand at the music he'd grown up around.

i often think of folk music as being THE music which passes on story and history

id have thought afkap wld really get behind that notion and even if he doesnt listen to bestbuy's definition of folk music... he'd give ti a pass just based on that

>i often think of folk music as being THE music which passes
>on story and history

it can be, not necessarily 'is'... it can also be music of up-your-own-arse purism & conservatism.

>id have thought afkap wld really get behind that notion and
>even if he doesnt listen to bestbuy's definition of folk
>music... he'd give ti a pass just based on that

I'll let him answer, but obviously my subject line is a gross oversimplification of 10 years of conversation on the subject, triggered by that bit I swiped from a post yesterday.

>i often think of folk music as being THE music which passes
>on story and history
>
>id have thought afkap wld really get behind that notion and
>even if he doesnt listen to bestbuy's definition of folk
>music... he'd give ti a pass just based on that

I just can't connect with the *emotion*

acting like we know each other and shit

In the end, it's all about tradition. The "New Left" musicianship/culture-bearers (Guthrie, Seeger, Leadbelly, Lomax, Asche, etc.) used a type of folk music (Mainly re-hashed workers songs) as a tool for social change --- and the Dylan's, Cohen's, Och's & Baez's turned that movement into a hugely popular strand of music.

I think people often misconstrue the meaning of folk with the general core of the movements of the 60s. Yet, folk music is essentially ANY carried-on tradition of music... folk doesn't necessarily denote any single musical form.

In truth, there's very little music that truly escapes the realms of "folk music" as any playing style, lyrical manipulation or imagery that is carried down from musical tradition. Every music has a precursor.

But Prince is hugely mistaken. His music, playing-style... even persona... is manifested in tradition.

>But Prince is hugely mistaken. His music, playing-style...
>even persona... is manifested in tradition.

not P%%%%; this came out of a conversation in another post with OKP AFKAP_Of_Darkness.

I'll have more to say about your comments later.

Were you into this stuff before you started working for Sing Out!? How'd that happen anyway?

>
>>But Prince is hugely mistaken. His music, playing-style...
>>even persona... is manifested in tradition.
>
>not P%%%%; this came out of a conversation in another post
>with OKP AFKAP_Of_Darkness.
>
>I'll have more to say about your comments later.
>
>Were you into this stuff before you started working for Sing
>Out!? How'd that happen anyway?


HAHA.. oops. I thought this was a direct Artist Formally Known As P@#$%... quote. Most of my reply still stands, though.

I was into Dylan and Guthrie for a long time, but I didn't really get too deep before working here. I've been doing my homework. Hah.

>In the end, it's all about tradition. The "New Left"
>musicianship/culture-bearers (Guthrie, Seeger, Leadbelly,
>Lomax, Asche, etc.) used a type of folk music (Mainly
>re-hashed workers songs)

the leftist political thought of the time tended to view any traditional music (as well as new songs written by traditional musicians) as music of downtrodden/underrepresented/minority voices. Hence the willingness to accept brand-new labor songs by writers like Guthrie or Joe Hill as 'folk music' b/c the view of folk as 'music of the people'.

There's a fairly good book that I read many moons since when working on my sr. thesis...

http://www.amazon.com/Fakesong-Manufacture-British-Folksong-Present/dp/0335150667

As I recall it though, the author conflates 'folk song' with 'labor song' to such a great extent that it really winds up deflating his argument. Unsurprisingly he's entirely critical of any commercialization of folk music. *shrug*



>as a tool for social change --- and

The *was* an important part of the vibe; the leftist kumbayah rhetoric of the Almanac Singers persisted into the 1960s, though much of the audience wasn't necessarily engaged in that (esp. the pop-folk audience).


>the Dylan's, Cohen's, Och's & Baez's turned that movement into
>a hugely popular strand of music.

More than that, I think they were able to grasp onto two primary and oft-interwoven strands of the original folk revival writers of the '30s and '40s and '50s:
-first, the quasi-traditional original songs, which drew heavily on trad melodies and lyrical themes (see Dylan songs like Blowin' In the Wind, Farewell, etc.)
-second, the vaguely leftist political ideals, with the hot topic transferred from labor to social justice and peace.

But the real break from (or extension of) the earlier writers' oeuvre was the turn toward the intensely personal and frequently abstract. This move away from the main themes of the last 40 years of folk revival, along with increasingly electric instrumentation, enabled the erstwhile folk singers to reach much broader audiences (although the pop-folk singers of the preceding 5 years had also reached equally broad audiences, albeit briefly; they were radio and TV friendly, unlike those who were launching themselves from the Newport campgrounds.)

>I think people often misconstrue the meaning of folk with the
>general core of the movements of the 60s. Yet, folk music is
>essentially ANY carried-on tradition of music... folk doesn't
>necessarily denote any single musical form.

Yes, and no. I mean, I agree with the 'it's all folk music' idea to an extent, in the sense that EVERYTHING is music of the people, and it's all tied to some traditional forms or others if you can trace it back far enough. But on the other hand, I like to maintain a somewhat practical purpose in my terminology, and while it's flexible esp. in a conversation like this, taking that 'it's all folk' idealism to its logical extreme removes any kind of practicality from the conversation.


>In truth, there's very little music that truly escapes the
>realms of "folk music" as any playing style, lyrical
>manipulation or imagery that is carried down from musical
>tradition. Every music has a precursor.

>The "New Left"
>musicianship/culture-bearers (Guthrie, Seeger, Leadbelly,
>Lomax, Asche, etc.) used a type of folk music (Mainly
>re-hashed workers songs) as a tool for social change --- and
>the Dylan's, Cohen's, Och's & Baez's turned that movement into
>a hugely popular strand of music.

LOL @ this, though:
;
>But Prince is hugely mistaken. His music, playing-style...
>even persona... is manifested in tradition.

He wasn't talking about *that* AFKAP!

if we're talking old time folk tunes (This Land is Your Land, Home on the Range, etc) I have a nostalgic appreciation for those (are those types of songs even considered "folk" songs?)

But what is folk music really?

I mean do we consider Dylan, Crosby,Stills&Nash, Simon&Garfunkle folk? or is that folk/rock?

I hear a lot of "folky" music these days, but is it really folk music?
is folk music simply the color of a genre (not racial color, just color of the sound...ie, acoustic guitars, singers with marginal voices, no drum kit) or is it the content of a song which makes it a folk song?

I have a coworker who listens to nothing but wilco and a bunch of singer/songwriter type dudes that go by their first and last name and sing mediocre whiny songs with mediocre voices about heartbreak and all that...is that considered folk music? people always describe it as "folky"...if that is what folk music has become, i'm not a fan...but I love me some old Woody Guthrie songs though

that's why I tried to set out the scope (which itself is of course open for conversation and debate) in #1. But there is an archive where someone asks about good folk music and recommendations are all over the place from neo-traditionalists to what were disparagingly called WG2s in the oversaturated early 90s Boston scene.

>if we're talking old time folk tunes (This Land is Your Land,
>Home on the Range, etc) I have a nostalgic appreciation for
>those (are those types of songs even considered "folk"
>songs?)

Depends on your definition. This Land is not a 'traditional' folk song as the author is known, but the author came from impeccable traditional music credentials and the song fits somewhat neatly alongside his more traditional work (as do most of his originals).

Home on the Range is I believe a traditional folk song.

There is of course the question of whether a song need be 'traditional' in order to qualify as a folk song. What hat I wear on questions like that kinda depends on the tone of the conversation.

>But what is folk music really?
>
>I mean do we consider Dylan, Crosby,Stills&Nash,
>Simon&Garfunkle folk? or is that folk/rock?

S&G's first (? I think) album had a tagline that said 'exciting new sounds in the folk tradition.'

Obviously fine toothed genre delineations are tough, but in general I consider the post-Dylan singer-songwriter pool to be its own genre, even though their music is an integral part of the modern folk scene.

>I hear a lot of "folky" music these days, but is it really
>folk music?
>is folk music simply the color of a genre (not racial color,
>just color of the sound...ie, acoustic guitars, singers with
>marginal voices, no drum kit) or is it the content of a song
>which makes it a folk song?

Again, depends on the scenario.
In my most basic opinion, a folk song is one with no specific author that is old enough to be considered 'traditional.' In this case the arrangement of the song is completely irrelevant.
In my secondary opinion, a folk song can also be one with a known author but that fits neatly into the same general guidelines as traditional music and can be seen as a logical extension of traditional forms and styles. A great example of a modern folk song is Richard Thompson's 1952 Vincent Black Lightning.

>I have a coworker who listens to nothing but wilco and a bunch
>of singer/songwriter type dudes that go by their first and
>last name and sing mediocre whiny songs with mediocre voices
>about heartbreak and all that...

I'm having flashbacks to the 1990s.

>is that considered folk music?
> people always describe it as "folky"...if that is what folk
>music has become, i'm not a fan...but I love me some old Woody
>Guthrie songs though

To a lot of people, 'folk' is primarily about the sonic aesthetics - meaning quiet, acoustic instrumentation, regardless of whether the songs being presented are in any way folky or not.

the contemporary folk scene as a whole (particularly represented by thhe major folk festivals) basically embraces all of these ideas, though in the case of modern whinesters it's been somewhat reluctant and also a somewhat blatant attempt to get that indie rock cash/audience. The question of what is folk isn't really such a big deal anymore, and imho most folk festivals have moved toward becoming music festivals where the idea of any strict 'folk' standards are passe. Which is fine, really.

music as an oral tradition...songs and stories that are who knows how old that continue to move the people...

and yes, they may be corny from time to time but I appreciate the idea of these songs much more than a lot of music that comes out today...To me, the magic of music is immortality and traditional folk songs are an illustration of that...its funny how people are caught up in record sales and endorsements and accolades like that when the true test of great art and music is longevity and adaptability...AFKAP may be right in his assessment of folk music, but if I wrote a corny-ass song that people were still singing 50-100 years after my death, my ashes will be smiling...

so i suppose "folk" is another genre like "rock" or even "hiphop" that doesn't really hold the meaning it originally had, but it is used to describe a certain type of instrumentation rather than an idea or ideal...

First I have to assume he's specifically talking about American folk, and not 'folk music'. Does he feel the same way about Nigerian folk music? I'd garner a wager not.

>I'm still struggling to "get" folk music, to be honest.

Now this 'get' I'd guess is synonymous with 'connect' and if so I think I understand where he's coming from.

>My interest in folk has always been largely anthropological in
>nature but for a range of reasons, I've never been able to
>forge an emotional connection with it.

This reinforces that.

>Like, I can dig the Dylan strain and the post-rock stuff, but
>I just can't grab on to the Engish and Irish ballads and some
>of the traditional American songs. Probably because in the era
>in which I grew up (of course, I know you grew up in the same
>era).

Now he through the English and Irish in here and that throws it off, but I'm thinking he still means majority American folk.

>I remember reading a Frank Miller interview in which he said
>he never felt a connection to the radical politics of the
>1960s because around the time he was in high school, all his
>teachers were hippies or ex-hippies, so their whole culture to
>him felt like the establishment that he rebelled against.

This is telling. Because I think there are connotations about American folk, which I personally associate with either hippies or Norman Rockwell. These two images aren't necessarily the my image of America. It's inflated in the Norman Rockwell since. Think "this is America" infomercials. That stuff really turns me off. I can get into the hippie stuff, but not without the occasional snicker. The thing for me with it though is that I know I'm not the intended audience. It's not *my* folk music, so I accept the need to listen to it from the outside.

>For me, those songs are the tunes that came pre-programmed in
>your Fisher-Price toy phonogram... or they evoke for me dorky,
>beardy camp counsellors strumming acoustic guitars around the
>bonfire. Or worse yet, their melodies recall nursery rhymes
>(obviously they come from the same sources as most popular
>nursery rhymes). So somehow, the shit just feels childish to
>me.

Thing about this is that 'folk' music is supposed to be 'childish' because it's supposed to be the stories that are passed on to the children. It's supposed to be tings they can grasp really quickly at a surface level so that it grows to ake deeper meaning with them about their culture as the get older. For adults its supposed to be the memory, the rememberance. Reaffirmation of where and what you come from culturally, that should stir up the joyous emotions you felt when you first learned it as a child.

>I struggle to conceive of a time that playing and listening to
>this kind of music was at one point considered the extremely
>hip thing to do. I understand it on an intellectual level but
>I don't get it!

This again is talking about the lack of context. It's not *his* folk music.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

RIPL - http://www.rhythm-incursions.com/category/podcast/presented-by-primus-luta/
Read me write - http://themoshi.tumblr.com/

>First I have to assume he's specifically talking about
>American folk, and not 'folk music'. Does he feel the same
>way about Nigerian folk music? I'd garner a wager not.

again, hence post #1.



>Now he through the English and Irish in here and that throws
>it off, but I'm thinking he still means majority American
>folk.

The conversation this came from was specifically about Irish music, and he's currently reading Positively 4th St. But again, see #1 (and keep in mind that as I've argued in the past, more of the Black music tradition than is commonly recognized has a fair share of its roots in British Isles music as well.)


>This is telling. Because I think there are connotations about
>American folk, which I personally associate with either
>hippies or Norman Rockwell.

Rockwell? WHAT?

MAYBE the Kingston Trio/vocal group type suit-and-tie guys who were clearly commercial folk artists cashing in on the success of Goodnight Irene etc.

> It's not *my* folk music, so I accept the need to
>listen to it from the outside.

As I say whenever the 'what is folk' topic comes up, it's many things to many people - and noone is really 'wrong.'


>Thing about this is that 'folk' music is supposed to be
>'childish' because it's supposed to be the stories that are
>passed on to the children.

Froggy went a-courtin'

>It's supposed to be tings they can
>grasp really quickly at a surface level so that it grows to
>ake deeper meaning with them about their culture as the get
>older.

The Blue-Tail Fly/Jimmy Crack Corn

Worth reading up on interpretations of what that song means. Hell of a thing to be teaching pre-K kids, you know? But somehow that's where the song's stuck.

>For adults its supposed to be the memory, the
>rememberance. Reaffirmation of where and what you come from
>culturally, that should stir up the joyous emotions you felt
>when you first learned it as a child.

Except that we generally live in a post-traditional society, and so that when we hear it for the first time, there are no memories to be stirred.


>This again is talking about the lack of context. It's not
>*his* folk music.

Again, I'm going to suggest we put all this in the wider context by watching the documentary FESTIVAL!

http://www.amazon.com/Festival-Newport-Folk-Joan-Baez/dp/B000BC8SVA

I've posted about it before but it really does a fantastic job of capturing folk's role in the '60s counterculture, the way the scene balanced its competing interests and segments and presenting them in a unified way to an audience that largely grew up post-traditional.

>stuff, but not without the occasional snicker. The thing for
>me with it though is that I know I'm not the intended
>audience. It's not *my* folk music, so I accept the need to
>listen to it from the outside.
>

>Thing about this is that 'folk' music is supposed to be
>'childish' because it's supposed to be the stories that are
>passed on to the children. It's supposed to be tings they can
>grasp really quickly at a surface level so that it grows to
>ake deeper meaning with them about their culture as the get
>older. For adults its supposed to be the memory, the
>rememberance. Reaffirmation of where and what you come from
>culturally, that should stir up the joyous emotions you felt
>when you first learned it as a child.
>

>First I have to assume he's specifically talking about
>American folk, and not 'folk music'. Does he feel the same
>way about Nigerian folk music? I'd garner a wager not.
Actually I don't think AFKAP would be into Nigerian folk music too much. Most of the music he writes about is actually "modern" Nigerian music. And by modern music, I don't mean "contemporary". Keep in mind that even Highlife music is not folk music.

I have tried playing some Nigerian folk music for other people and it's really not that enjoyable for them. Just last week I played some for a Nigerian friend of mine and she literally begged me to turn it off...lol If I wasn't steeped in the particular culture of the folk music that I listen to, I don't think I would have an ear for it either. The stories are great but it's kind of simple and repetitive and sparse.

I am curious. Have you heard any *folk music from Nigeria?

>I am curious. Have you heard any *folk music from Nigeria?

Only yoruba stuff, which I'm guessing doesn't qualify as 'folk' or does it. I've probably heard some more secular stuff as well but nothing is jumping out at me.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

RIPL - http://www.rhythm-incursions.com/category/podcast/presented-by-primus-luta/
Read me write - http://themoshi.tumblr.com/

i'd like to hear how it "feels" to you the first time. i'm always curious how music sounds to virgin ears but especially cats that are already open to new sounds and ideas of music.

p.s. some of the yoruba stuff you heard might be "folk". just depends on which ones.

Yoruba forms like juju and apala are often confused for folk forms, but they are actually modern genres.

Though when you get down to it, they ARE folk forms too. I mean, what kind of music ISN'T "folk music"? Like Louis Armstrong said, "all music is folk music... I ain't never heard a horse sing a song!"

I'm much more into modern Nigerian music than I am into "folk" stuff, but I do nevertheless have an appreciation for it. (It's probably more "anthropological" too, though... I mean, I don't throw on stuff like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2b9UIZTTOo

or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmyWMp-NY2A

when I'm chilling in the crib on a Saturday afternoon.

The quote by me that lonesome_d cited was specifically referring to the American (and European) folk "scene" of the 1950s and 60s rather than "folk musics" in general. Though if I really think about it, the reason that I am not heavy into that kind of music is the same reason that I am not too deep in to many Nigerian folk musics: I just don't identify with the world they are describing.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2b9UIZTTOo

LOL @ the intro explosion.

>or this
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmyWMp-NY2A

This one intrigues me because of the description. I guess that can still be a folk song, but I wish I understood it more.

I mean I grew up with my moms playing "Drums of Passion" monthly, so I have an ear for the like. Will I pull it out to bump over dinner, maybe not, but kinda like how I just went back and started listening to Bessie Smith again, it's in my repertoire, and for enjoyment not just analysis.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

RIPL - http://www.rhythm-incursions.com/category/podcast/presented-by-primus-luta/
Read me write - http://themoshi.tumblr.com/

are the modern interpretations of the material like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ffAbBsT_Ug

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jkk445gb5c

>My interest in folk has always been largely anthropological in
>nature but for a range of reasons, I've never been able to
>forge an emotional connection with it.

Not unusual at all, especially when as you mention below our earliest familiarity with traditional songs presents them in disposable ways that you're supposed to outgrow. I was thinking of your comments this morning as my 9 month old's 'music table' belched out a pre-programmed 'Turkey In the Straw.' More on this later.

I've always been a folk fan and have always been drawn particularly to traditional stuff. But even when I was first exposed to the recordings of traditional music from the '20s, my reaction was 'man, this is painful to listen to, but at least I can use it for good source material.'

Obviously since then those old records have grown on me enormously, but to these days I still frequently prefer *interpretations* of traditional ballads to the actual recordings of traditional ballad singers. As we've discussed before one of the things I love the most about folk music is the preeminence of the song, and how it fluidly survives and mutates and resurfaces in other parts of the world and in other versions. A few weeks back I posted about how delighted I was to find Jean Richie's 'Hangman,' a version of the trad 'The Maid Freed From the Gallows' and sung more famously by Leadbelly and Led Zeppelin as 'Gallows Pole.' It's a bit like a mystery or a puzzle, putting together the history and whatnot. I'm kinda glad I didn't choose to get my phd in that stuff, but it's fun as hell as a hobbyist.

I'll be back in a little bit...

>Like, I can dig the Dylan strain and the post-rock stuff,

okay.

But how do you feel about Dylan's first few records? Or the Simon & Garfunkel songs from before Simon went to England, where they sound like the Everlys but singing traditional songs?

Sometimes the link between Dylan's folk roots and what he turned into after 1964/5 can seem tenuous, but it WAS a pretty natural and organic process in terms of his songwriting and where it came from... sort of like how Nick Drake's guitar playing is so otherworldly, but if you listen to his demos you can hear how he's aping Bert Jansch, Davey Graham and other guys who were aping Rev. Gary Davis and Big Bill Broonzy.

> but
>I just can't grab on to the Engish and Irish ballads and some
>of the traditional American songs. Probably because in the era
>in which I grew up (of course, I know you grew up in the same
>era).

I've got a few years on you, but probably more to the point, I'd wager my folks have a few years on yours (not to mention the cultural differences). My parents were both teenagers and young adults when the folk revival was at its commercial apex (say 1950 - 1965); they were drawn to folk only slightly less than rock and roll. It was just another pop music option, sometimes even played on the same TV shows and radio stations. So even though THEY grew up post-traditional, they loved Pete Seeger and The Weavers, S&G, The Byrds, PPM, Kingston Trio, and as a kid I was exposed to those records. And as I've noted elsewhere my pop had a repertoire of 10 or 12 songs from those days he used to play for us on his tenor guitar.

None of which really explains why I love the traditional ballads so much.

But I guess one thing that CAN help to explain it is that as I refined my aesthetic tastes in the pop music of my time - rock - I began to recognize that those same aesthetics were frequently holdovers from earlier forms. And a lot of those - clever words, beautiful stories, flexibility in arrangement, minimalistic studio intervention - were present in these songs older than my grandpop, no matter what kind of presentation they came in.

I think what _Spread_ references - the very fact that these songs have been around so long - also has some innate appeal for me, regardless of whether or not it speaks to the quality of the ballad or the veracity or universality of teh tale it tells.

One thing that cracks me up is when ballad researchers assign qualitative judgments... reading the liner notes for this Jean Richie comp that's been killing me lately the annotator commented that Bangum was a 'degradation' of an older, richer ballad. I think I scoffed out loud and muttered 'and who the fuck are you to be shitting on this version?'

>But how do you feel about Dylan's first few records? Or the
>Simon & Garfunkel songs from before Simon went to England,
>where they sound like the Everlys but singing traditional
>songs?

even when Dylan was performing that material, as much as he was trying to channel Woody Guthrie, his sensibility was heavily informed by the blues... to an extent that (as far as I can tell) exceeded many of his peers.

You know that my tastes tend toward the "gritty" side and Dylan brought that. It makes him easier for me to swallow than someone like Joan Baez, who has an incredible voice but just strikes me as hopelessly square.

I just can't visualize a world in which her music was ever considered cutting edge. Ditto someone like Carolyn Hester.

>Sometimes the link between Dylan's folk roots and what he
>turned into after 1964/5 can seem tenuous, but it WAS a pretty
>natural and organic process in terms of his songwriting and
>where it came from... sort of like how Nick Drake's guitar
>playing is so otherworldly, but if you listen to his demos you
>can hear how he's aping Bert Jansch, Davey Graham and other
>guys who were aping Rev. Gary Davis and Big Bill Broonzy.

I see Dylan's evolution to be completely organic... I find no incongruity there at all. I haven't really heard his earliest recordings, but from what I can tell, he was heavily rhythm-driven quite quite early in the game. So much so that his work sounds futuristic compared to someone like, I dunno... Dave Van Ronk.


>I've got a few years on you, but probably more to the point,
>I'd wager my folks have a few years on yours (not to mention
>the cultural differences). My parents were both teenagers and
>young adults when the folk revival was at its commercial apex
>(say 1950 - 1965); they were drawn to folk only slightly less
>than rock and roll. It was just another pop music option,
>sometimes even played on the same TV shows and radio stations.

As I understand it, the folk really came to prominence during a brief gap at which rock & roll seemed to have been a passed fad... when Elvis was drafted, Little Richard went to church, Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry were downed by sex scandals and the industry had replaced them with commercial facsimiles like Frankie Avalon and Fabian.

It's like there was that moment before the British Invasion came and revitalized rock & roll that folk was the realest "real thing" out there... but that moment is kinda my blind spot.


>But I guess one thing that CAN help to explain it is that as I
>refined my aesthetic tastes in the pop music of my time - rock
>- I began to recognize that those same aesthetics were
>frequently holdovers from earlier forms. And a lot of those -
>clever words, beautiful stories, flexibility in arrangement,
>minimalistic studio intervention - were present in these songs
>older than my grandpop, no matter what kind of presentation
>they came in.

I can feel you there.

>I think what _Spread_ references - the very fact that these
>songs have been around so long - also has some innate appeal
>for me, regardless of whether or not it speaks to the quality
>of the ballad or the veracity or universality of teh tale it
>tells.

Like I said, I have anthropological interest in these songs. So I do appreciate the history and all...

I just can't get any sexy from them.

I just can't see taking your girl to the dance and getting down to "On Top of Old Smokey" or trying to feel some titties as some Stephen Foster shit plays in the background.

>One thing that cracks me up is when ballad researchers assign
>qualitative judgments... reading the liner notes for this Jean
>Richie comp that's been killing me lately the annotator
>commented that Bangum was a 'degradation' of an older, richer
>ballad. I think I scoffed out loud and muttered 'and who the
>fuck are you to be shitting on this version?'

hmmm... Well this is another subject I'm kinda tossing around in my head because... as pretentious as I feel it is, I can feel where the annotator is coming from.

Maybe I'll be able to verbalize my feelings better as we go along.

>even when Dylan was performing that material, as much as he
>was trying to channel Woody Guthrie, his sensibility was
>heavily informed by the blues... to an extent that (as far as
>I can tell) exceeded many of his peers.

well, you ite Van Ronk below, but Van Ronk was actually a much more accomplished blues picker and, while a well-rounded folkie, much more 'purist' in his views (at the time, though like most he outgrew that).

So maybe what you're getting at is that Dylan brought the best of all possible worlds to the table?

>Joan Baez, who has an incredible voice but just
>strikes me as hopelessly square.

I dunno about square, she comes across as pretty chic sometimes to me in interviews etc., but her music frequently leaves me cold. It reminds me of listening to Paul Robeson singing folk songs - the studied vibrato and vocal flexing are at odds with what the songs are SUPPOSED to be. And that shouldn't really matter, but it does.

>I just can't visualize a world in which her music was ever
>considered cutting edge. Ditto someone like Carolyn Hester.

lmao @ Carolyn Hester.

I suggest you try some Barbara Dane and Karen Dalton, though, if you haven't already.

>I see Dylan's evolution to be completely organic...

But 'the scene' definitely lagged behind in more ways than one, and I agree with that. And like Dylan, the people who had those same qualities split the scene and moved on.

>As I understand it, the folk really came to prominence during
>a brief gap at which rock & roll seemed to have been a passed
>fad... when Elvis was drafted, Little Richard went to church,
>Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry were downed by sex scandals
>and the industry had replaced them with commercial facsimiles
>like Frankie Avalon and Fabian.

Yeah, but what I was getting at above is that the commercial folk stars were like the Pat Boones of the scene. While the Kingston Trio and the Brothers Four made hit records, the hardcore folkies wouldn't appear on Hootenanny b/c they'd blacklisted Seeger.

>It's like there was that moment before the British Invasion
>came and revitalized rock & roll that folk was the realest
>"real thing" out there... but that moment is kinda my blind
>spot.

The idea that the commercial folk was the 'real thing' is kinda bogus. Not that (just like Pat Boone) they made no worthwhile music, but it was a... false veneer put on for presentability and cashing in.

At the same time, the other side of the spectrum, the Van Ronks, especially the strict revivalists like the New Lost City Ramblers, were up their own arses to shit on the popsters. It's kind of an interesting parallel to the underground hip hop of the 1990s and beyond.

PPM kinda bridged the gap, both by covering the best songs from the new crop of songwriters and by maintaining an allegiance to a gentrified version of the classic folksong guidelines (traditional material, social justice, respect for the originators, etc.)


>Like I said, I have anthropological interest in these songs.
>So I do appreciate the history and all...
>
>I just can't get any sexy from them.

Well, another thing I had going for me was that I also came to these songs by working backward. Imho there's a lot of sexy in the arrangements of trad songs from bands like Fairport, Steeleye, Johnny Cash, even the Pogues.


>I just can't see taking your girl to the dance and getting
>down to "On Top of Old Smokey" or trying to feel some titties
>as some Stephen Foster shit plays in the background.

well see now, that's what the breakdowns were for.

There's a big difference between ballads, which were designed to be listened to, and the 'social music' that was designed to be danced to.

Have you ever really been square or contra dancing?

I'm asking b/c while on one hand it's the height of corniness, what we were taught in the '70s in elementary school gym class (long since abandoned), but on the other hand... it's a fucking good time and a great way to meet girls (in the right dance crowd).

>Maybe I'll be able to verbalize my feelings better as we go
>along.

likewise.

>I'm asking b/c while on one hand it's the height of corniness,
>what we were taught in the '70s in elementary school gym class
>(long since abandoned)

ummm, i was taught it in the early '90s in elementary school gym class.


>but on the other hand... it's a
>fucking good time and a great way to meet girls (in the right
>dance crowd).

i wish i were a natural dancer


>>Maybe I'll be able to verbalize my feelings better as we go
>>along.
>
>likewise.

carry on, chaps; good discussion so far

I like old blues and stuff with cool voices and sick guitar-playing but Seeger, Guthrie as well as Dylan, Baez and that whole strand is not my thing at all and outside of Neil Young and a few others, I don't like rock that follows that template either. Of course, I LOVE¤ the Byrds and their followers but it's a different thing I think even if they had strong folk-roots. It's the same reason I can never truly get into most country(bluegrass is obviously different); it's too much emphasis on lyrics and top-line melody for my tastes; the "backing" is not very happening to my ears.

I feel the same way about swedish folk:the Bellman tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Michael_Bellman) of balladeers who sit down and strum a lute and sing stories bores the shit out of me while I really dig the chord-progressions, melodies etc. in the instrumental stuff made for long walks, funerals, dances etc. even if I must confess that I prefer them in a jazz- or rock-context.


BTW, the thing about relating, I can not "relate" to at all; I grew up on metal that had practically nothing to do with the outside world-it was totally insular music that really said nothing to people about their lives (actually, that's a common critique against metal of the "true" variety:"It says nothing to me about my life") and I REALLY dig that approach to music; to create its own universe which you HAVE to enter on its own terms. Cecil Taylor and Miles Davis classic 60's quintet are other favourites that to my ears made music according to those principles and that's like the best music ever.

Anyway, that aspect of AFKAP's post is truly alien to my sensibilities but I agree about the lack of "sexiness" (or edge or whatever)-it's just not a very appealing subculture...

>I like old blues and stuff with cool voices and sick
>guitar-playing but Seeger, Guthrie as well as Dylan, Baez and
>that whole strand is not my thing at all and outside of Neil
>Young and a few others, I don't like rock that follows that
>template either.

As much as I love Pete, he did set the template for the kumbayah ideal.

> Of course, I LOVE¤ the Byrds and their
>followers but it's a different thing I think even if they had
>strong folk-roots.

I've got the Criterion DVD of Monterey Pop and one of the funniest comments in the liners is the author calling it 'the largest aggregation of ex-folksingers in history.' But of course you can't call any of what was staged there real 'folk' (with the possible exception of S&G).

>It's the same reason I can never truly get
>into most country(bluegrass is obviously different); it's too
>much emphasis on lyrics and top-line melody for my tastes; the
>"backing" is not very happening to my ears.

alright

>I feel the same way about swedish folk:the Bellman tradition
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Michael_Bellman)

learn something new every day!

>balladeers who sit down and strum a lute and sing stories
>bores the shit out of me while I really dig the
>chord-progressions, melodies etc. in the instrumental stuff
>made for long walks, funerals, dances etc. even if I must
>confess that I prefer them in a jazz- or rock-context.

Again, not surprising.

>BTW, the thing about relating, I can not "relate" to at all;

>Anyway, that aspect of AFKAP's post is truly alien to my
>sensibilities

I'm of two minds about it. I think if a song can have some degree of universality, it helps; but it's not necessary. As far as ballads go, I like the song to tell a good story too - though not everyone is gong to really enjoy stuff like a sailor volunteering to sink an enemy ship by hand in exchange for the captain's daughter, then being betrayed by his own captain and left to sink in the lonesome sea.

>but I agree about the lack of "sexiness" (or
>edge or whatever)-it's just not a very appealing
>subculture...

I dunno guys, go to a folk festival or something. HIPPY CHICKS!

In a folk-ballad version:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD00vM35iWg

In a pathetic 80's goth-rock version that was a big hit here back in 86, this video is so pretentious it makes me sick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaM_0PGmqGc

In a doom-metal version with operatic vocals and english-translated lyrics (swedish band though), the amusing thing here is that this 18th century song sounds JUST like many of their original songs in melody and progression, they didn't have to change a thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CduFZnYTBwI

Anyway, VERY dark and moody tune, swedish and suicidal-sounding to the core...

>I like old blues and stuff with cool voices and sick
>guitar-playing but Seeger, Guthrie as well as Dylan, Baez and
>that whole strand is not my thing at all and outside of Neil
>Young and a few others, I don't like rock that follows that
>template either. Of course, I LOVE¤ the Byrds and their
>followers but it's a different thing I think even if they had
>strong folk-roots. It's the same reason I can never truly get
>into most country(bluegrass is obviously different); it's too
>much emphasis on lyrics and top-line melody for my tastes; the
>"backing" is not very happening to my ears.

I can feel you there... I empathize to an extent, but not all the way.


>BTW, the thing about relating, I can not "relate" to at all; I
>grew up on metal that had practically nothing to do with the
>outside world-it was totally insular music that really said
>nothing to people about their lives (actually, that's a common
>critique against metal of the "true" variety:"It says nothing
>to me about my life") and I REALLY dig that approach to music;
>to create its own universe which you HAVE to enter on its own
>terms. Cecil Taylor and Miles Davis classic 60's quintet are
>other favourites that to my ears made music according to those
>principles and that's like the best music ever.

Well, to a degree you are really encapsulating my view... When I talk about trying to "relate" to folk or any other kind of music, it's not about me needing the music to match my own worldview or personal experience. I'm quite willing to meet the music (and its attendant culture) where it's at, on its own terms.

The lives of heroin-shooting hipsters in dark clubs, snapping off beat to jazz and listening to beat poetry has nothing whatsoever to do with my life, but I can understand the culture and completely get into the groove of bebop (apart from the basic excellence of the music itself).

The problem with folk is that I just can't understand the culture or even some of the aesthetic priorities of it. I can't get what they appreciated about certain performances, about what made one great and another mediocre. The culture, while not necessarily being insular, is just impenetrable to me.

And yes... the lack of "edge" is very much a problem for me too. But I get the feeling that the people involved with that scene DID feel a edge there. And that's what I just can't get!

>The problem with folk is that I just can't understand the
>culture or even some of the aesthetic priorities of it. I
>can't get what they appreciated about certain performances,
>about what made one great and another mediocre.

But you've already articulated that you do understand that above. Maybe not in the same way that Bob Gibson did, but you've def. got a grasp on it.

>The culture,
>while not necessarily being insular, is just impenetrable to
>me.

you're not white!

>And yes... the lack of "edge" is very much a problem for me
>too. But I get the feeling that the people involved with that
>scene DID feel a edge there. And that's what I just can't
>get!

http://blogs.citypages.com/pscholtes/images/We%20Shall%20Overcome%20at%20Newport.jpg

A lot of the edge for that scene/time I think came from two things which are somewhat lost on us today:

1. Political edge:

It was DANGEROUS* (and exotic) to align yourself politically AND physically AND spiritually with Freedom Singers, Freedom Riders and the people they were supporting.

And keep in mind that at the time that was taken, Seeger was still considered a Communist by mainstream America... while he seems cuddly in retrospect compared to rock stars, he was even more dangerous than Elvis had been ten years earlier; Elvis coulda fucked your daughter, but Seeger was trying to fuck the country.

2. Exoticism: It was incredible to some degree that enormous numbers of people were so excited and inspired by digging up old musicians that would have been lynched for flirting with their grandmothers. It was cultural voyeurism, prepackaged perhaps but still unattainable in any other venue to the average Festival attendee, to see the Moving Star Hall Singers or Spokes Mashiyane or Theo Bikel singing Jewish folk songs.


*though not necessarily in Rhode Island, you get what I mean.

>>The culture,
>>while not necessarily being insular, is just impenetrable to
>>me.
>
>you're not white!

Originally, I was going to offer this as a serious consideration as to my alienation as I generally perceive this as one of the "whitest" possible music scenes ever to exist!

But of course, there WERE Black musicians in it (though few and far between)... and I don't get them either, for the most part. I have a hard time contextualizing them in my understanding of Black music history.

>http://blogs.citypages.com/pscholtes/images/We%20Shall%20Overcome%20at%20Newport.jpg

Ha! I was just searching on Google for this photo right now!

Was there any real, substantial audience for these Black folk singers in the Black community? Or were they some sort of noble savages "singing for the honkeys"?

>A lot of the edge for that scene/time I think came from two
>things which are somewhat lost on us today:
>
>1. Political edge:
>
>It was DANGEROUS* (and exotic) to align yourself politically
>AND physically AND spiritually with Freedom Singers, Freedom
>Riders and the people they were supporting.

Yes, I understand that... intellectually. lol

>And keep in mind that at the time that was taken, Seeger was
>still considered a Communist by mainstream America... while he
>seems cuddly in retrospect compared to rock stars, he was even
>more dangerous than Elvis had been ten years earlier; Elvis
>coulda fucked your daughter, but Seeger was trying to fuck the
>country.

Looking at it in the context of the Red Scare does add an interesting perspective that I had not considered. And I suppose that the folk adherents' propensity for peasant-style clothing could also be viewed as commie sympathy.

To be honest, the "Babylon" episode from Mad Men season 1 kind of illustrated this for me... seeing Don Draper in his slick suit and slick hair in the folk club with these bearded weirdos playing dulcimers and harps and listening to a chick reciting free verse about making out with Fidel Castro... I sort of got some idea of the vibe from that.

>2. Exoticism: It was incredible to some degree that enormous
>numbers of people were so excited and inspired by digging up
>old musicians that would have been lynched for flirting with
>their grandmothers. It was cultural voyeurism, prepackaged
>perhaps but still unattainable in any other venue to the
>average Festival attendee, to see the Moving Star Hall Singers
>or Spokes Mashiyane or Theo Bikel singing Jewish folk songs.

That might even be part of what bugs me... The idea of college kids and intellectuals dressing up lime farmers and singing songs from the turn of the century. It's a bit too much like a costume ball... but I am fully recognizant of how vain it is to criticize folkies for their "inauthenticity" when musicians (and fans) of all genres have always reinvented their identities through the music they love.

Maybe because this is a music that seemed to be so ardently reaching for "authenticity," it just appears all the more disingenuous?

No... I don't think that's the main thing. It's probably more that it feels like an academic exercise to me.

Maybe that's why I like Dylan... because he started writing his own songs, songs that lived in the presence even as they drew from the traditions of the past. And the scenesters originally looked askance at him for performing original compositions... it just feels really conservative and hidebound in some way.

Woohoo for Jakob.

>I remember reading a Frank Miller interview in which he said
>he never felt a connection to the radical politics of the
>1960s because around the time he was in high school, all his
>teachers were hippies or ex-hippies, so their whole culture to
>him felt like the establishment that he rebelled against.

yeah. He's from VT and grew up in the 1970s, right? Explains a lot.

>For me, those songs are the tunes that came pre-programmed in
>your Fisher-Price toy phonogram...
> or they evoke for me dorky,
>beardy camp counsellors strumming acoustic guitars around the
>bonfire.

Already discussed above a bit, but I'd just like to mention again that those contexts - the kids' toys, the dude in Animal House who John Belushi El Kabonged for singing The Riddle Song - are more or less divorced from any original context the songs may have had, frequently complete with either false gravitas (Joan Baez singing 'One Johnny Cuckoo' as though it were a dirge) or false humor.

>Or worse yet, their melodies recall nursery rhymes
>(obviously they come from the same sources as most popular
>nursery rhymes). So somehow, the shit just feels childish to
>me.

Now that's interesting to me, because no matter how stilted a performance may be, I've never heard balladry's melodies being called into question.

First of all, there's an endless variety to a lot of ballads too choose from. As I've discussed with you in the past, one of my favorite things about traditional music is tracking down the various paths a particular song has taken and comparing/contrasting elements of various performances and versions. The folk process, as it were.

Second, the folk melodies, while lacking the 'sophistication' of the pop traditions you hold so dear, are nonetheless at the foundation of those traditions.

Third, I know you have an... appreciation (? probably isn't the right word but will do for now) for minstrelsy and other facets of the Black experience.

that's not to say your reaction to groups like The Clancy Brother is wrongheaded or anything, of course.

>I struggle to conceive of a time that playing and listening to
>this kind of music was at one point considered the extremely
>hip thing to do. I understand it on an intellectual level but
>I don't get it!

I don't really, either. I *do* however empathize with the counter-cultural impulse toward it, but how that achieved groundswell status is a bit of a mystery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FISHEO3gsM

but.. im not getting it. lol. maybe if i was a dope junkie.

over the past two weeks by virtue of probably being one of the worst songs ever to be recorded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jkk445gb5c

It's become a massive hit on iTunes in the past week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9t4reFRPNU

So somebody recorded a version of it as (it would have been) performed by Bob Dylan.

Kinda the same shtick as when Jimmy Fallon performs teenpop and other dumb novelty songs as Neil Young.

I'm curious if someone is doing this to make a point. Is the world just getting that dumb? Is that possible? Do people actually think this is great or am I really missing something?

whether this is "real" or just an elaborate good.

It seems they were pretty serious about it, though... Ms. Black announced today that she is very hurt and feels like she's being bullied by the entire Internet.

but it's bad


>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jkk445gb5c

don't think you meant to post that link!


>So somebody recorded a version of it as (it would have been)
>performed by Bob Dylan.
>
>Kinda the same shtick as when Jimmy Fallon performs teenpop
>and other dumb novelty songs as Neil Young.

definitely loses some impact if you're (I'm) not familiar with what's being parodied. But people have been making fun of Dylan that way for ages, so *shrug*

here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0

On the real, it's not the worst song I've heard this year... let alone ever.

And the Dylan joke isn't exactly new, either but I kinda like the fact that whoever did that one didn't overplay it like so many people do.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jkk445gb5c
Did this Joy Nwosu have any other songs?

This is right down my alley. the whole pseudo-opera thing. the simple guitar licks. the restrained horns. and just the lady vamping. if i had a "rock" band, this would be my template. just grooves and alot of wailing and maybe three or four words per verse...lol...i know you prefer "songwriting" type of songs though...haha

p.s. never got around to copping volume two of this compliation. played volume one into the ground though.

As much as I stress "songwriting" it's not necessarily about having a lot of varied words... it's more about just the grooves and riffs and everything else having some sort of structure and direction... which this has.

I just don't care as much for all kinds of meandering jamming and grooving (though I do like that sometimes too... just don't "respect" it as much, I guess!)

Joy Nwosu does have some other stuff... I'll rip one of her albums for you. I think you'd probably appreciate Mary Afi Usua (another classically-trained singer who incidentally made a great album with Dan Satch Joseph)

I never copped that Nigeria Special 2 either... For a long time I didn't even know it existed! And a while ago the label gave me the opportunity to get multiple comp copies of anything in their catalog and I forgot to ask for it!

>As much as I stress "songwriting" it's not necessarily about
>having a lot of varied words... it's more about just the
>grooves and riffs and everything else having some sort of
>structure and direction... which this has.
true. as i read over that, i realised that songwriting is obviously more than lyrics or conventional structure as long as there is A structure. this song actually has a chorus...it's just well hidden as a non-flashy refrain.

>I just don't care as much for all kinds of meandering jamming
>and grooving (though I do like that sometimes too... just
>don't "respect" it as much, I guess!)
ok i can dig that.

>Joy Nwosu does have some other stuff... I'll rip one of her
>albums for you. I think you'd probably appreciate Mary Afi
>Usua (another classically-trained singer who incidentally made
>a great album with Dan Satch Joseph)
PLEASE send me both. had to say it twice...lol

Cause that's my shit.

The lyrics alone are enough to keep me interested, and the lush production is mesmerizing to me. Because the production on their CDs is so strong, I can't say that I like them as much live, but the tunes are nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHw7gdJ14uQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKFTEdhPQ9A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJIEiekJpGM&feature=related

Sam Beam's my n-word

I mean, how can you fuck with lyrics like this (I'm still blown away so many years later):

Love was a promise made of smoke
In a frozen copse of trees
A bone cold and older than our bodies
Slowly floating in the sea

Every morning there were planes
The shiny blades of pagan angels in our father's sky
Every evening I would watch her hold the pillow
Tight against her hollows, her unholy child

I was still a beggar shaking out my stolen coat
Among the angry cemetery leaves
When they caught the king beneath the borrowed car
Righteous, drunk, and fumbling for the royal keys

Love was a father's flag and sung like a shank
In a cake on our leather boots
A beautiful feather floating down
To where the birds had shit on empty chapel pews

Every morning we found one more machine
To mock our ever waning patience at the well
Every evening she'd descend the mountain stealing socks
And singing something good where all the horses fell

Like a snake within the wilted garden wall
I’d hint to her every possibility
While with his gun the pagan angel rose to say
"My love is one made to break every bended knee"

what with the cannibalization of styles and influences and such ...

it's folky, but their audience is primarily from the indie rock crowd and their music has a lot of the sonic characteristics I (at least) associate with indie. So while I personally don't consider that stuff to be *quite* folk music when splitting hairs, most of their fanbase DOES consider them so. And the folk version of the academy has come to embrace that style as well, both as a natural evolution of the folk spectrum and an attempt to expand the aging/waning base of more classically defined 'folk.'

Over the past few years, the Philadelphia festival's had everyone from Son Volt to Iron & Wine to Decemberists. It's changed the tone of the Fest somewhat, but I can't be mad about it as I don't particularly mind any of those bands (and actually love much of SOn Volt's work).

of the early '60s folk scene.

It's interesting that today it seems to us to be so... dry. The pop-folk is certainly Disneyfied, cute-but-wholesome, sweaters around shoulders and long full skirts.

But again putting oneself in context of the times...

I still don't know if there's much 'sexy' in the way of the music. There's certainly some sexiness in the 'exotic', voyeuristic aspect of it; Josh White in particular was noted for his sexual energy on stage and you can hear it in his later 'folk singer' period (as opposed to his early 'blues man' recordings, though they are also sexy). You know the Newport crowd went apeshit for Howlin' Wolf, so it's not like there was something wrong with sexy.

But there's also something to the comportment of the women... more than just Judy Collins having delicious eyes (http://www.nicomokveld.com/webwijzer%202006/muziek/covers/images/Judycol3.jpg). Just like you may have overlooke the edge of leftist politics and the aftermath of the Red Scare, it's easy to overlook the women's liberation movement and the affect it had on young women. The changes in what was considered acceptable behavior for women during the period we're talking about changed dramatically and a lot of it came about in the roots of the eventual counter-culture.

A lot was mode of it when Joan Baez came on, unannounced, BAREFOOT. That seems like such an inane thing to us today but in 1959 for an 18 year old girl to be that free-spirited was... revolutionary. And while Joan's singing does leave me cold, her personality that comes across off-record as a young woman is very magnetic, way sexier than her physical appearance would indicate.

And Mimi Farina >>>> Joanie.

You can't forget Mary Travers (as long as you don't Google images of her from the '00s). Another one who was not a classic beauty, her presence on stage was elegant but incredibly confident and, yes, sexy because of it - and I feel moreso that no matter how corny the repertoire, Mary's sexual confidence came across in her records as well (certainly better than Joan's). I think this clip from FESTIVAL really captures it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUKB3PxG-0E

It's definitely sexy in a Bohemian way, but it's sexy.

conversation, though the conversation appears to be done

http://www.folkways.si.edu/explore_folkways/ballad_of_folkways.aspx

enjoy!

everyone has different tastes

.

which is also not the point, but would be interesting since you're not a poster who usually chimes in when the subject comes up.

but the conversation's generally been narrowed to a specific strain/era among a wealth of possible qualifying musics, and the difference and distance between the intellectual understanding of that strain's historical importance and its emotional resonance.