Definitions can put you all over the map. I remember seeing a reprint of a magazine article that called Elvis Presley "the Folk Music Fireball." Capitol records had a whole series of recordings in the 40s of blues and country western acts in a "Americana" series with such diverse artists as Sonny Terry, Tex Ritter, Merle Travis, Crown Prince Waterford, and Nellie Lutcher, which would seem to be a kind of broadly-defined "folk' series...

on 3/4/09 4:32 PM, John Cebula at joceb2005@... wrote:

Al,

First, thanks for getting back to me.  My thoughts about who and what is included on the compilations pretty much follows yours.

It is interesting that folk music was one of the musics that we all heard on the radio and television in the '60s.  I think there was a lot more swapping of ideas then than now, even if the results were sometimes bizarre (Lawrence Welk's doing rock and roll--or folk songs, for that matter). (Confession: Lawrence Welk was about as classy as music got in my house. My parents' entire collection of music probably took up no more than 16 inches of shelf space.)

The whole issue of what is or isn't folk music is an interesting debate.  I taught high school for 30+ years, and have three kids of my own, and I know their cultural background is very different from mine.  As a result, the folk tradition has been effectively erased for at least two or three generations of American kids, especially those growing up in urban and suburban communities.  For example, folk songs were part of music appreciation in my grade school.  Most schools don't even make music (or art) appreciation available.  Then too, if kids are exposed to folk music, it's in the context of toddler albums (Barney may have done some good), but I think ultimately that only serves to trivialize and stigmatize both music and the musician. Garcia and Grisman's "Not for Children Only" is a fine antidote for the infantilization of the folk tradition.

Another thing that I witnessed as a teacher is that kids didn't want to do something unless they could excel at it, and I think their parents and teachers encouraged that attitude. If someone knows a half dozen guitar chords, s/he can accompany scores of folk songs.  But kids want to be shred guitar monsters.  When a student told me s/he used to play guitar, but stopped becauses/he wasn't very good, I'd say "I play guitar because I enjoy it, not because I'm good at it."  I wanted to say, "If people only did things they were good at, there wouldn't be many babies."  Can't say that in high schools--or colleges, for that matter. But the beauty of the simplicity of folk music is gone.  Singer/songwriters by and large bore me, because even though they borrow from the folk tradition, their songs are too personal and intimate (kind word), and I think that is self-indulgent.

So much for the digression: to me, folk music not only suggests the traditional, but also the slightly naive.  Folk music is direct, unadorned (I was going to say simple, but the connotation may offend), and rooted in honest emotion.  PPM and the Kingston Trio flirted with not being folk music, and Dylan would take a vacation, even for a song or an album, but I think by-and-large they stayed true believers.

What do you think of country and western music as an off-shoot of folk?  I think many of the earlier performers (pre-'60s or '70s) really were close to the folk tradition.  Back in the late '70s and '80s I listened to a lot of country, but gradually lost interest.  Then, about a year ago through my daughter, I began listening again.  Can't say I enjoyed most of it.  It sounded too over-produced, too much like formulaic rock and pop.  The MTV effect had occurred, too, so most of the artists were too young and too pretty (of course, at my age, most everyone is becoming too young).

Well, I've rambled on way too long (Ramble On? That would make a good song title ;-)  ).

I'd sure enjoy from hearing from folks.

Uncle John