Folkwrongica
May. 4th, 2007 10:22 amI 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.
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.
in conclusion
Date: 2007-05-04 09:54 am (UTC)"is there any way left to defend classifying some songs as one, and others as the other? Is there any such thing as a real folk song any more? Probably not. Let's jettison these old ideas of folk music, then. If we do, perhaps we can celebrate the inherent democracy of "pop junk",
has a lot to recommend it. the use of scare quotes around "pop junk" - isn't that trying to say "what you call junk, this is as important as your fetishised folk"
Re: in conclusion
Date: 2007-05-04 09:56 am (UTC)Re: in conclusion
Date: 2007-05-04 09:59 am (UTC)and we're into manufactured v 'wild' pop. the manifest idea of folk is 'wild pop'.
Re: in conclusion
Date: 2007-05-04 10:03 am (UTC)Re: in conclusion
Date: 2007-05-04 10:01 am (UTC)isn't this just a way to talk about the songs that everyone likes, the first past the post 'what shall we sing on the terraces/round the bonfire'
Re: in conclusion
Date: 2007-05-04 10:04 am (UTC)calling London Bootleg Orchestra
Date: 2007-05-04 10:25 am (UTC)Re: calling London Bootleg Orchestra
Date: 2007-05-04 10:29 am (UTC)Re: in conclusion
Date: 2007-05-04 09:58 am (UTC)