Folkwrongica

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I got absorbed enough in this Guardian piece to miss my tube stop:

http://music.guardian.co.uk/folk/story/0,,2071468,00.html

A lot of its anecdotal material is good and I can't much disagree with the central argument (tho as they admit Tosches summarises it more neatly) but I didn't like the conclusion - even as a staunch poptimist "the inherent democracy of pop junk" is a MASSIVE handwave.

Comments

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

i found the whole thing a bit problematic. i must admit i didn't know about the r4cist/pureness angle, but it wasn't too surprising. I'm not sure that the Sharp/Lomax Snr definition of "folk" they give even means anything any more though, hasn't the guthrie/seeger wing has been the prevailing view for the last 40 odd years?

having said that, i'm still not sure that teenage boys playing green day/wasis/american pie etc on an acoustical gtr in back bedrooms at parties counts as folk, but i'm having trouble articulating why...

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Because it's the same stuff you can find buskers doing. Proper definition of folk = stuff you can't sing for money, because no-one would pay you!

Not sure about Sharp, but Lomax's name has definitely been back in currency since the O Brother explosion of interest in old-timey stuff.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

There are two Lomaxes (Lomaxi?) though!

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Yes, right, it's his son Alan that's got more of the publicity, I don't really know the difference.

(Actually of course the Lomax revival started at least slightly earlier, when Moby released Play)

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's a big tension between folk-as-genre and folk-as-means-of-distribution/performance here. Major parallels to the infamous late 80s indie chart problem.

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

everything comes back to the 80s indie chart :)

i suppose (he says typing whilst thinking) that because these songs were not originally heard (composed?) as acoustical renditions that's why they don't "count", BUT is acousticalness a defining part of folk-as-genre?

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Acousticalness = more significant of poorer ppl who cannot afford recording studio/electricity/portability of anything more than guitar-on-back. Also, it is more spontaneous.

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

hmmm, not sure there, can also signify pretending to be poor/downtrodden/surfbum. see jack jones...