Monday, August 27, 2007

Naming the beast….

Here’s part 2 of my initial lit.review, which sets out a simple structure and includes references to attempts to define ‘folk’. This was necessarily brief; the word length of the assignment prevented a more detailed discussion.

I have since read a slightly tongue-in-cheek definition that nevertheless highlights the discursive differences that this research seeks to address, i.e. between folk practitioners and the popular music media. It was provided by Stuart Maconie in a Radio Times article about the Cambridge Folk Festival:
Cambridge's definition of folk is dizzyingly broad; basically it means anything not likely to appear on Chris Moyles' show...
…/…

Literature search strategy and aims
My research focuses less on form and more on practices. However, to provide a context of current understandings and debates on folk music in the UK, this paper highlights literature that has delineated academic understanding of both forms and practices of folk music for much of the 20th century (particularly the latter half). It also considers literature on ‘popular’ music, in the specific sense of music produced by cultural industries to manipulate audience tastes and choices.

Debates on the definition of ‘folk’ music provide a starting point. I shall then consider texts that characterise three approaches to the study of folk:

(1) as ‘folklore’ and expressions of social history;
(2) as a musical style and genre, and
(3) as means of expressing cultural identity.

Some sources that fall within the second category also highlight the position occupied by folk as a commodified form within the practices of contemporary music industry. Other texts, which historically may have adopted the ‘folk as folklore’ perspective, relate to the third category of this review through their insights into the sociology of participation in folk music.

Defining ‘folk’ music
Shuker cites the Music Central CD-ROM’s description of folk as ‘…simple, direct, acoustic-based music that draws upon experiences, concerns, and lore of the common people’ (Shuker 2002:134). Inevitable issues of taxonomy arise from his discussion of ‘folk culture’; the term ‘folk’ may encompass a variety of categories including world music, roots music, protest songs, songs identified by their regional origins and the output of contemporary singer songwriters.

Frith seeks to explain difficulties in defining folk through ‘a history of the struggle among folk collectors to claim folk meaning for themselves' (Frith 1988: 113). Attempts by folk musicians to define their art highlight McLean’s view of folk as ‘something of an elastic classification’ (McLean 1996). She cites an interview response by one English folk musician, Seth Lakeman which reflects the view of folk as:
the people's music … That's evident in how many folk music festivals exist. Cambridge is the biggest - I think 15,000 go to it - but there are so many others that are attended by 3,000 or 4,000 people
(See also my earlier post)

Debates on the concept of ‘folk music’ reflect differing allegiances to historical movements and manifestations of vernacular and acoustic music. Pegg* (2007) summarises and contrasts the influences of ‘folk music revivals’ in Europe and the United States, which have established frameworks for understanding the concept but also for division on the authenticity of music that claims to be ‘folk’. She points to the American Folk Revival as one major influence, which:
…came out of the social and economic setting of the 1940s in which many young people believed that the parent generation had gravely mismanaged the world. Figures such as Pete, Mike and Peggy Seeger, and Alan Lomax, promoted engagement by college students and intellectuals in the ideas of populist folksong.
(Pegg 2007 online*)

In contrast, she alludes to two British folk revivals, the first dating back to the collections of middle-class enthusiasts, especially Francis James Child (1825-96) and advocate for an early 20th century folk revival, Cecil Sharp (1859-1924). The second, reflecting post-World War II socialist and Marxist movements, was instigated by such figures as singer and songwriter, Ewan McColl (1915-89) and song collector A.L.Lloyd (1908-82).**

Pegg identifies a subsequent distinction made by participants between ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’ folk music manifested through different styles of folk club, which ‘began to develop “traditions” of their own’ (Pegg op cit*). The former incorporated ‘vocal techniques and mannerisms considered to be intrinsic to a “traditional” style, such as singing nasally with the hand cupped over one ear…’; the latter reflected the influence of new acoustic guitar techniques, epitomised by Martin Carthy: ‘sensitive finger-picking and open-string tunings that enabled drones to be produced’ (ibid).

* These links only work if you are a signed-up subscriber to Grove Music Online

** For more detailed examination of their influences and the emergence of folk as working class cultural expression, see Long (2001: 96-141) and Brocken (2003: 25-42)



literature review    folk music    folk music definition     Stuart Maconie    
Cambridge Folk Festival     Chris Moyles     popular music    Roy Shuker   
folk culture    Simon Frith    Guardian     Seth Lakeman     folk revival     American folk revival    Pete Seeger    Alan Lomax    Francis James Child    Cecil Sharp    
Ewan McColl   A.L.Lloyd    folk clubs    Martin Carthy

Friday, August 24, 2007

Taking stock

Time to get this blog active again! The research hasn’t been dormant since the last entry but it hasn’t been very systematic either – gathering sources, making notes but not really getting engaged with any debate since my visit to Newcastle.

However, I did receive confirmation that the process of undertaking a PGCE – as a requirement for registration of the research at UCE – has been successfully completed. Part of that process was an initial literature review. I’m going to set it out here in this blog but in instalments and with hyperlinks and tags – partly to remind me of what I’ve covered so far and, possibly, to stimulate some discussion – who knows?

So here is the introductory section, which seeks to (pardon the cliché) ‘map the terrain’.

... / ...

My research addresses practices of ‘amateur’ music performance and consumption within the network of folk clubs and music and song sessions across the UK. It identifies discourses inhabited by organisers, performers and audiences and studies their motivations to share folk music in an informal setting.

In tackling these issues, this study addresses a concern raised by Brocken on the contemporary folk scene in Britain in the wake of (at least) two folk revivals.
This folk discourse has become caught up in a consolidation and a permanence that has relations only to, or with, the images created at its own inception. … In what was originally a space for absence of rules, a rejection of music rules, the folk club has now become caught up in the revival’s own rituals. … [It] has now become the tradition, only resembling itself.
(Brocken 2003:124)

While reaffirming this self-contained, self-referential aspect of folk clubs, my research considers evidence of tension between the largely unregulated practices of amateur performance and encroaching institutional, political and cultural contexts in which they operate.

The activity of reviewing scholarly literature on folk music reveals an irony in defining the object of study as ‘music of the people' (BBC, online) – in a literal sense, ‘popular’ music. A clear paradigmatic distinction exists between an extensive body of research on ‘folk’ music as a traditional or vernacular form (e.g. Pickering 1982, Bohlman 1988, Nettl 1990, Russell 1997) and research since the 1980s into ‘popular’ music as a product of a cultural industry (e.g. Frith 1988, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, Toynbee 2000, Wall 2003). Both approaches agree on the notion of music as a form of cultural expression but much of the history of research into folk has veered towards anthropology and the study of ‘folklore’ while the concept of ‘culture’ in studies of ‘popular’ music is often aligned with post-Marxist conceptions, following a trajectory established by Adorno’s (1941, 1991) interests in agencies and practice of cultural production of music as a commodity (see Witkin 1998 and 2002).

Hesmondhalgh and Negus identify 1981 as the year that popular music ‘began to emerge as a recognisable field of academic study…with the establishment of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music and the launch of the academic journal Popular Music' (2002:3). While folk music’s place as a style and influence is acknowledged in some studies of the ‘popular’ (see for example Kassabian, 1999:116-7, Bennett 2001:24, Wall 2003:30-31), a cursory browse through the journal suggests that rock, jazz, hip hop, punk and, in particular, blues are more likely to attract scholarly attention as ‘popular’ forms of music.

1. The New York Times, 7th July 1971, credits Louis Armstrong with the infamous statement, “All music is folk music. I ain't never heard a horse sing a song.”


literature review    folk music    amateur music     folk clubs    
music sessions     folk revival     folk culture    popular music    Michael Brocken    Theodor Adorno    IASPM    Popular Music journal