³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Certain sections of the folk press have been living in a wierd little world of their own for years and you are not alone in being subjected to their daft cultural boycott!

I'd love to have heard their reaction to "Greensleeves" when it was new too. "Singer-songwriter love you babe want you babe song and not even a madrigal" would I suspect have been the cry...

Interesting question.

I think it comes down to something connecting to you with what's been before and feels like some form of continuity.

To use one of my own shady backgrounds, ie. attempting to play in Irish sessions for 20 odd years, I know that someone could introduce a new tune (Calipoe House comes to mind) and it will fit "instantly". Anthother tune might just feel wrong.

I also believe that such reactions can be felt by a group as a whole and need no discussion. You only need to look round the room to feel if others feel if something fits the setting (or perhaps the tradition) or not.

I will not dispute that ANY song or tune may become (unless known author is the definition) "traditional" in time but, personally, I do dispute the notion that one can simply write to a formula like "meaningful words about the people, a good cause, etc. " and create a "folk song" .

I think there are two ways of looking at this - one is exactly as Reg suggests, and I agree with him entirely. But there is a second point of view - which I also support (ish!); that the term The Tradition (note my capitals) refers only to material made by amateurs and transmitted by aural/oral means. This process was subverted by the invention of recording/radio/records/CDs/the web etc, thus effectively stopping the oral Tradition (apart from in a few niches like Travellers, Sheffield Carols, small islands etc), so now the term should only be applied to (again, two schools of thought) a) Material that can be traced back to before the invention of audio recordings b) musical activities associated with a traditional/communal activity (including folk clubs, football matches) etc.

So, by this second definition (which many 'Folk' reviewers adhere to) some of Reg's songs may become Traditional in time, but are not now. (And some would say by the same token that they are not Folk, either).

Now, though I myself understand this second point of view, I think that it is based on a misunderstanding promulgated by some romantic collectors in the last century. It is becoming clear that even the so-called oral tradition was inextricably interwoven with commercial activities such as song collection, printing and sale, paid performances and writing (specially since Victorian times, whence many of our 'trad songs originate), so the issue is not cut-and dried.

Reg might just as well ask what is Folk Music - but if he did he might live to regret it!

Tom

(Hi Reg)

Tom, I think I'd disagree with the romantic, collectors, etc. notion.

There is IMO a simple feeling element that you pick up just by being part of it in sessions, etc. I've never that I can think of known a what is trad/or folk Internet like discussion in these settings but I feel the "this fits/doesn't fit" exists.

Or at least I think so.

A topic of much debate at these parts of late ironically with contributions from Robb Johnson and Damian Clarke (Pressgang) included I've just interviewed Damian for our online zine www.biguntidy.com and he addresses the issue of The Living Tradition, the interview will be posted soon.
As Reg notions the songs of these guys is surely as much a part of 'The Tradition' as keeping the Child Ballads and the shanties after all without adding to The Tradition can it still be said to be Living?
As for what is Folk Music .........
Perhaps a collection of people can feel if somehting is 'right' or not but is a magazine editor able to sit in such judgement?

I think that's the whole point. We seem to have two different things here: a) a 'living tradition' - obviously alive, and b) 'The Tradition' which is err not dead (because it's still growing through adaptation), but which can't be added to - because the thing which made it ('mainly-oral-but-with-some-printing-and-reading' transmission) no longer functions as it did.

The first includes all of the second, but we should all understand the difference - for the sake of music historians if no-one else.

It's just like archeology or antiques. You need to know the provenance and context to understand the total value of a thing - though you may still treasure it for just some of it's values.

Anyone claiming that Emmylou Harris, Devon Sproule and Seth Lakeman are "rooted in tradition" while Reg Meuros, Steve Knightley and Allan Taylor aren't is probably basing their judgement far more on romance than any systemic analysis of song content.

I love that some seem to think there is some sort of folk Act of Settlement defining that the descendants of the Watersons, the Carthys and the Coppers and their associates ARE folk but that the rest of the UK gene pool isn't.

Hi Tom,
and thanks for your comment.

It is the second point I have a problem with. I don't agree that the tradition has been frozen or subverted by cds, recordings etc.

Like me, you will have taken your songs to folk clubs, vilage halls and house concerts all over the country and felt that interaction. You will have heard and shared stories and emotions with your listeners. Yes, hopefully some will have bought cds (songwriters have to eat too!)Some will have even taken away chords and words to sing those songs in their own voice. But everyone will have taken away the memory of a shared experience.

You compare the tradition to archaeology but it is not entombed or preserved in amber. Songs and tunes are constantly being up-dated and re-arranged by younger players, so why shouldn't the stories and the conditions from which they come also be retold and re 'invented' - as Cecil would have it?

The efforts shown by some purists to protect the tradition suggests that it needs protecting. I don't think it does. Promoting, celebrating, yes, but everything has to grow and scrape its knees and bump into things sometimes. It is not a museum piece, it's the voice of the people.

And no Tom, I won't be asking 'What is folk?' Do you take me for a complete suicidal lunatic!?

Reg

The judgement is not so much about people, Keith - as about material.

The 'gene pools' you list are celebrated for mainly performing material which can be traced back into history, whereas the others you mention are mainly celebrated for their original songwriting. These are different things which different people will value differently. (There are lots of respected specialists in traditional song - the family connection merely adds a strand of authenticity that marks out a handful as possibly having some unique angle less available to others).

Antiques have a different value set to modern works of art - but both are precious. Just some prefer one and some prefer another.

Oh Hi Reg - I didn't notice you coming in :-)

Yes all you say is true. But I think the reason people separate out the pre-mass-media process from the post-mass-media processes is that in the olden days things evolved slowly, and in some isolation - rather as species evolved in niche environments. So you can learn stuff about communities etc by studying their songs. Once people started hearing things on the radio and buying records, that kind of information was lost, because the tributaries were all mixed up.

It's the music historians, and those to whom the provenance/age of a work is as important or even more important as its quality, that want the rest of us to recognise this difference; not to preserve song unchanged (I don't think many want that), but merely to record where we found the songs, and what changes we made to them - so they can track back.

Failing to attribute properly (as Bert Lloyd did) is akin to a metal detector turning up a Roman coin in a field, then selling it under a false name on ebay - so the archeologists can never find the helmets!

So it's not abut preserving songs, as preserving provenance - but not a lot of people have twigged this, and give the history enthusiasts a hard time as a result.

But as I say - your points are valid too. It's a complicated situation.

Keith, I think one needs to look at what is done rather than just their background. That a person may have played say Irish trad all there life will, I think, mean they have a wealth of experience in that area but when they write say their contemporary American style "Blowing In The Wind", that background would at least IMO not make it a candidate for "Irish trad". The person would have moved in another direction.

I think in with the complications, and often overlooked is that within the broadest definitions of "folk", people can and do occupy more than one position. It doesn't fit neatly into the purists vs the "broad minded".

This is something I did once talk about briefly with a fine trad Irish style flute playing friend. In another folk world she's something like contemporary European folk. I think her comment was something along the lines of "people can have different heads".

I think that would go for me too. Often, I seem to try to take a traditional line and do think that way these days in terms of definitions and where my greatest pleasures tend to come from but I've been in places where "Wonderwall" and "She Was Just 17..." were mixed with trad tunes and I didn't feel their presence somehow devalued or polluted the trad.

To be honest, while I might have some questionmarks, not least my own drunken playing at the time, I think the mixture itself was actually right for the particular venue and the "pop" (or are they folk? ;-) songs did engage people where a whole night of diddle-dee perhaps wouldn't have.

That still wouldn't change my sort of feeling for what seems to me to fit or what doesn't on a more trad occasion though.

Personally speaking, I have to overcome some prejudices before playing a CD by a lone 'singer-songwriter'. It has nothing to do with their songwriting or the subjects that they sing about because I have no such prejudices about singer-songwriters with bands - Chris Martin, Noel Gallagher, Seth Lakeman, Steve Knightley, Bono or Bowie. I find 10 or 12 tracks of voice and guitar does not hold my attention and becomes a bit samey.

As to the question 'What is the Tradition?' - it's a body of work that lives because singers and musicians play it, change it, mangle it, have fun with it, experiment, renew it and make it their own. It's a Living Tradition because each generation recovers it and puts their own stamp on it.

How can singer-songwriters claim that their product is 'in the tradition' when their song has not been through this process of reclamation and reinvention yet? I don't think they can - that's for future generations to decide.

How can singer-songwriters claim that their product is 'in the tradition' just because of its subject matter or its style? I don't think they can.

It's not helpful when singer-songwriters label themselves as folk artists - and play not one single traditional song in their set or CD! The two terms are not synonymous. There has to be a balance between new material and traditional stuff - Martin Simpson and Show of Hands are good examples of that balance.

There are quite a few songwriters around (myself included) who make new songs out of traditional ones, either borrowing melodies, or stories, or sections of lyrics - in fact it seems likely that Anon did this quite a bit too! I agree that we should be careful to remember to say 'in a traditional style' or 'from the tradition,' or say, as I try to do, 'folky' (with the stress on the 'Y') - but it's easy to slip up and use the wrong term. And of course it's not always us doing the defining. Other people may describe us as 'in the tradition' when writing promo material - and then it sort of sticks.

Tom

I would say the following:
1. Change is necessary to keep music alive.
2. Some of the most interesting music is that which has a feeling of "tradition" which makes it feel familiar, but also has something new and unexpected thrown in. This is defined by the individual performer, and their personality/style.
3. Music is developing all the time, which is a natural thing.
3. In the end, it's all music, and if you love it, who cares?

I'd be tempted to dispute style as I think people can write in ways that might make us feel the material has been around a long while and somehow might feel "right" from day one. Shoals of Herring and Fiddler's Green, I think are examples of songs.

On the other hand, I'd agree with you that the adoption and adaptation is important. Rightly or wrongly, I do think the "feel" can give a song or tune a greater chance of "instant acceptance" within the more, I think, trad environments but ultimately, people do need to want to sing or play them.

Personally, I think a great thing about that outlook is that while it might take time for some material to gain acceptance and some stuff might never make it, the control is never in the hands of one individual (including saying "this is a folk song" or controlling (eg. folk police) group but will find its own way if/as/when.

Well, I'd add to your last point that folk/traditional music is different to all other genres in that it's not 'just music' - it's also social and cultural history, so it comes with a bit of baggage - shared ownership for a start - that demands certain responsibilities.

Sorry Jon - that was to hellybass

To attempt to get closer to Reg's original post, my feeling is that magazines should be free to set their own "what is trad?" and "what is "folk?" scopes. We may, perhaps strongly, have our own beliefs but I don't believe it would be possible or reasonable to sort of prove one outlook was the only correct way.

On a practical level and with events, I welcome the differences. I love that I can find a night of nothing but Irish dance music. I also love that if I'm able I can also get in an eclectic mix say in a folk club singers night. It might not be for me but I could also respect and understand a group of people who wanted a night of purely contemporary American folk and might be horrified if I turned up with say tenor banjo and melodeon!

Can/could the same be applied to publications?

>>"It's not helpful when singer-songwriters label themselves as folk artists - and play not one single traditional song in their set or CD!"

You have to be Chris Wood or John Tams or Eliza Carthy to get away with putting only a couple of trad songs on a CD and still be seen as "in the tradition"!

I think Jon Boden's commendable non-trad solo CD has just been airbrushed out of some discographies, rather than his being burned as an Apostate, as some Ultra Traddies might have demanded.

All the old songs must have started life somewhere and presumably when first played had never been heard before. I am thinking there might be an argument between a possible folk song "big bang" or was it a case of folk song "evolution"? I suppose a bit of both.
It seems to me that old songs give us little glimpses of life in days gone by, and presumably songs written today will do the same for future generations.
Getting back to the main point, one can have sympathy with Reg and his query about the magazine. Whatever your arguments either way, it's a bit hard to be turned down, when all you want is a bit of recognition and exposure. A guy's got to earn a living.

Thanks everyone who's written in. There's a couple of points I'd like to answer:

First, Anontradarr (the clue is in the username!) I think you will go a long way these days to find a 'Lone' Singer/Songwriter album. If you were to listen to any of my albums you would find they are chock full of the finest musicians a man can scrounge together, including Martin Carthy, Phil Beer, Jackie Oates, Rabbit Bundrick, Sarah Allen, Roy Dodds etc etc.. and that applies to the majority of singer/songwriter albums made these days.

My point being that the only difference between us and the people you mention is that the band may change from album to album. Yes, Variety too !

Secondly, I think you may have answered my question with these two phrases:

" it's a body of work that lives because singers and musicians play it, change it, mangle it, have fun with it, experiment, renew it and make it their own. It's a Living Tradition because each generation recovers it and puts their own stamp on it."

"How can singer-songwriters claim that their product is 'in the tradition' when their song has not been through this process of reclamation and reinvention yet? I don't think they can - that's for future generations to decide."

This sounds like the prejudice of the purist.

As Hellybass rightly points out 'All the old songs must have started life somewhere'.

For a song to be subjected to the processes that you deem necessary to validate it as 'of the tradition' it has to be recognised as true to the styles and the 'voice' and the living history of the people, but that won't happen unless you first of all listen to it ( see point 1.)
and then let it be judged or (back to my original blog ) reviewed and passed on to others so they can make up their own minds.

I'm not sure about a big bang but with songs passed down by oral means, I think you will find evolution as words get added or lost, names change, etc. I'd imagine Little Musgrave and Matty Groves were once the same song for example (and they still are if we read the plot).

I think we also have our own "survival of the fittest" in that I don't believe every song or tune created has reached us but I think we have the ones someone(s) cared enough about to sing or play. Rather than a content based argument, I think it's possible to suggest what we have are collections of things people liked.

I think the ability to record changed everything and once in a while, I do wonder what would happen if that ability was removed. I think our little comunities such as people getting together to play some tunes or sing some songs would keep going but personally, I find it easier to imagine some pop songs and perhaps songs from other sources such as musicals getting through with a wider public as I suspect they will have reached more of "the people" than many folk songs have.

In a sense, I can feel that "the music of the people" has lost touch with "the people". Perhaps I should begin to question myself over whether those artists who seem to reach a wider audience but might put out material that, personally. I'd need to be told falls into the folk category are doing the right thing?

On the other hand, perhaps I should give up trying to think and analyse when these debates come up, once in a blue moon even revising my own ideas (they have changed over time) and just sit back and enjoy simple pleasures like joining in with a group of others who get the same delights from the music as I do - after all the collective enjoyment and the buzz you can get when everyone is sort of connected playing together for each other and for the music (maybe I'm romantic but I feel it can get far bigger than any one self) is the single most important thing to me in folk.

Difficult isn't it?

Re the big bang theory.. people more learned than I have suggested that it's possible that a lot of the really great trad songs, the ones that have survived the process of natural selection, may have originated from a comparatively few pens. Some even suggest there may have been a 'Shakespeare' of folk songs, who came up with most or them (bearing in mind that old Bill borrowed heavily from contemporary sources too). It's certainly believed that there have always been collectors, and that a comparatively few working/travelling singers/collectors may have had a major influence on the spread of songs around the place. It's certainly fascinating to study regional variations (some radically different, but collected only a few miles apart), and think about people back then getting the same frisson from the story as we do today. Obviously there were songwriters all over the shop too, and some songs - specially work songs, such as chanteys - were communally made, but you can often spot the tell-tale fingerprints of 'expert' writers in the best songs. There were certainly plenty of people around who understood the craft. Tom

Froots uses the ‘rooted in the tradition’ phrase to describe its niche and specialism. The phrase is vague enough to allow the magazine to distinguish artist A from artist B, but as a consumer I find it totally meaningless and unhelpful.

The phrase seems to have been seized upon by singer-songwriters to market their songs to the folk audience (but more likely, to market the product to Froots). The artists put forward all sorts of convoluted reasons as to why their product, while not being traditional, should be seen as ‘rooted’ in a Tradition.

They probably mean that they are heirs to the tradition of storytelling, commentating, celebrating events and places – but pop songs or easy listening songs can do that.

Think of some powerful, resonant pop songs that are timely stories, commentaries or descriptions of landscapes and people - ‘That’s Entertainment’ by the Jam, ‘Ghost Town’ by the Specials, ‘Solsbury Hill’ by Peter Gabriel, or ‘One Day Like This’ by Elbow for instance. Would it be accurate and honest to say that they were rooted in the Tradition? If you follow the logic of Reg’s argument then the answer is ‘Yes’.

That can’t be right, surely? Froots would have to review the likes of Muse, The Streets and Bubbz if that were the case.

Paul Weller was in the Imagined Village and Eliza Carthy is performing with him on his forthcoming ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Session, so on previous experience, fRoots probably does class "That's Entertainment" as "in the tradition"!

I really think that the traditional roots argument is a mask for what is actually a stylistic issue and a question of stylistic preference.
To take a couple of examples, Thin Lizzy's version of "Whiskey in the Jar" is firmly rooted in the tradion of Irish folk song- but it's not in the folk style. It bears all the style markers of Rock in the tempo, arrangement, instrumentation, vocal delivery and voice production.
The same could be said of Led Zep's "Gallows Pole" - and to my mind they both stand on their own merits as great performances on record.
On the other hand, there are countless versions of Raglan Road- poetic to the point of incomprehension, or Linden Lea- pure Victorian parlour style musically, which do seem to pass the folk muster.
It just seems to be a question of what is stylistically acceptable.
I'm interested in Tom's exploration that many apparently traditional songs may have come from a very small group of composers, long ago. The folk process, in that it refers to the alterations and adaptations which take place over time and distance, seems to be very analogous to the spread of urban legends. The stories are given relevance by placing them in a context familiar to the audience.
Thus the murdered sister in the song lived in Scotland, The North Country, The Bows of London... probably quite close to Matty Groves!
I have observed a folk process taking place in social dance too. If you go to a place where the DJ is playing party music, and you travel around, you will notice that there are local variations in the daft party dances, such as the Macarena, Saturday Night, even the Time Warp.
Clearly although the words are fixed by the recording, the dance has been adopted and changed by different communities. They are becoming folk dances.
OK you Morris sides, after four:-
"Oops up side your head......"
Cheers
Dave

Re: Darowyn's last comment about morris dancing - you might be interested in a video I discovered on Youtube. If you type in "Morris Dancing Funk" I think you will find it. Get on down!

Correction - "Morris Dance Funk" to be more accurate.

I think that views on what is 'of the tradition' are very likely to be subjective. Or is there a widely accepted definition regarding what is part of the Living Tradition. I doubt it.

You can no more define this than define what is meant by a folk song.

Refusing to review certain songs or artists is a personal decision - saying that the decision is based on the fact that 'it's not of the tradition' sounds a bit pompous to me. And not an acceptable reason - I mean excuse.

Traditia - that's my traditional name.

..Shreds & Patches, a Shropshire magazine have printed a wonderful review of Reg's album Dragonfly in their latest edition. The reviewer makes some very interesting comments regarding the topic of this blog,'The Tradition'
You can read the review by going here and reading his blogs: www.myspace.com/regmeuross

I don't care whether a song is traditional or written. (And surely the traditional; songs had to be originally written anyway?)

Bert Jansch's "Needle of Death" isn't traditional; he wrote it himself. But who cares?

On the other hand, many traditional songs are rubbish, especially those of the stupid, jokey "Buttercup Joe" type.

Quality, not historical credentials!