>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.