Re: [Harp-L] Folk disagreement

[fjm <mktspot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Winslow writes:

> This is not to comment on the honesty or good will of those people or
> on the musical or social value of what they do. Though clearly,
> Michael's "subset" description points to a distorted understanding that
> does not sit well with people who understand the origin of the term and
> who value what it means.


I'd argue that traditional music is a subset of folk.  Music that has an 
aural tradition and generally chronicles the lives and times of the 
people performing the music.  That would make singer songwriter a subset 
of folk.  It would also include a lot of the earlier blues genres along 
with the more modern Chicago era electric blues.  Wang Dang Doodle for 
instance and the more obvious songs that quickly appeared after the 
assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Much of what we slot as world music 
would fall into the broader category of folk.  Woody Guthrie did take 
melodies and write new words to them which I would think is completely 
in a folk tradition but if you'd like to exclude that subset of his 
music there is also his completely original work that chronicles the 
dust bowl era and the great depression.  The Tohono O'odham Waila music 
is an interesting genre of dance music that I'd include in folk.  There 
is also the entire genre of corridos many of which fall into the 
category of folk either by virtue of their traditional origins or how 
topical they are.  I think it would be very difficult to get a narrow 
consensus regarding the definition of folk.  There is much contentious 
writing on this subject.

Winslow adds:  (quoted out of order)

> Folk as I describe it is not a subset of anything else.

I would completely agree with this statement.  fjm