Re: [Harp-L] Folk disagreement

[Mojo Red <harplicks@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Winslow and gang,

Shades of "A Mighty Wind" here. LOL!

I don't want to belabor this discussion, but to me,
this disagreement, IMO, is kinda silly. 

"Folk music," in the ~original~ original and
literal sense of the term, is simply music by and
for the common people. 

I don't think anyone can lay claim to much more
than that. Folk purists say it's this, folk
populists say it's that... At best it's an
imprecise term that's evolved and taken on an
amalgum of meanings over the years. We can't help
that... words evolve, especially words describing
musical genres. "Rock" in Elvis' day meant
something pretty different than "Rock" meant in my
day, and "Rock" in my daughter's lexicon means
something else yet again. 

If you look at the definiation I posted, it should
also include blues music, which certainly doesn't
leap to most people's minds when they toss out the
term "folk music". 

At the end of the day... what does it matter what
you call it?

Harpin' in Colorado,
--Ken M.

--- Winslow Yerxa <winslowyerxa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm going to chime in with Thurg here. 
> 
> Folk as I describe it is not a subset of anything
> else.
> 
> It's the origin of the term "folk". This concept
> and this term have
> been around with this meaning for a good 200
> years, maybe longer.
> 
> The practice, as opposed to the term, goes back
> into the mists of time.




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index