Wikipedia

Talk:English folk music/Archive 1

< Talk:English folk music
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Sabrebd in topic Time to archive?
Archive 1Archive 2

I have uploaded the following photos, but someone who is capable of making them an appropriate size and placing them should do so. Tuf-Kat

Done. Images below: Lupo 18:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looks like my resized images got lost. Use the new image markup to resize them, e.g. (Lupo 15:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Image:Londonstreetfiddlerc.1880.jpg
[[Image::Londonstreetfiddlerc.1880.jpg|180px]]

The Modern Period

The text is currently: 

Nic Jones, Davy Graham, Roy Harper, Ralph McTell, June Tabor, Shirley Collins, John Renbourn and John Kirkpatrick were among the more innovators of this period, who often criticized the electric folk-rock artists. When Martin Carthy "plugged in" in 1971, the English traditional scene erupted in an uproar of criticizing. Ashley Hutchings and Bob Pegg had been earlier innovators of the fusion, and Hutchings helped propel Fairport Convention into the star position of the English folk-rock scene, starting with

+++++++++++ Wow! That's a garbled piece of prose. "Among the more innovators" - I suggest this should be changed to "were among those who balanced innovation with tradition". As for "often criticised the electric folk-rock artists" I think this means "often criticised the worst excesses of folk-rock", though to be honest I can't think of an instance of anyone other than Martin Carthy or Karl Dallas criticising folk-rock.

"starting with" - an unifinshed sentence. I suggest this should be "starting with their album What We Did on Our Holidays" Ogg 08:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Art" music

After the mentions of Handel and Mozart [sic] this article veers away from "classical" music. Yet there is an interesting history of English art music in both performance and composition. The first half of the 20th Century saw much interest in using folk music as a source, and this was the golden age of specifically English composition. So, what's the standard view on articles like this? Should it be confined to music with nationalistic roots? (in which case Mozart is completely outside the topic). Or can it be extended to include concert-hall trends as well? I would draw the arc from the great choir festivals and Elgar, from the folk revival and Vaughan Williams/Holst/Grainger/Delius, through to the BBC and their sponsoring contemporary composers throughout much of the 20th Century. I'm no expert but I can take a stab at summarizing this. Does it fit? David Brooks 07:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I think it fits to whatever degree it doesn't overlap with music of the United Kingdom. If the trends you mention apply just as much to Wales or Scotland as England, it should really go to MotUK, maybe with a brief discussion here, but if it was entirely or primarily an English thing, then it should be here. Tuf-Kat 22:09, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Non-Folk Modern Period music

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion

Most of The Modern Period section of this article deals with folk and derivatives. Considering it deals with the period from the 60s onwards, this doesn't really seem to make a great deal of sense. Indeed, The Beatles weren't even mentioned among the notable 60s/70s bands. If someone could expand the section with more information on other genres that'd be great.

  • Agreed. The modern section is basically Non-NPOV due to its huge bias regarding folk/roots music ( we obviously have a avid folkie contributing here ). Devoting a couple of paragraphs to the likes of The Oysters, Carthy, ED II and then lumping a few other bands together in a single line ( which are all far more world-influencing than the previously mentioned artists ) is not indicitive of a factual Encylopedic article. I can't see anything other than a complete re-write of this section being applicable, with no bias towards any style of music. Angelstorm 12:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No additions here since my last edit. Unless someone comes up with a very real and valid objection I am going to rewrite the modern music section in the next week or so. This article has become completely folk/world music biased. Angelstorm 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind slightly. I will have no objection to this article staying as it is if a) the classical sections are removed and b) the article is changed to "Folk Music of England" ... seems a shame to lose the hard work that has been put into it but as it stands this article can't remain as it is :P Angelstorm 21:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Please change this. It's incredible deceiving. :D. But thanks to whoever likes folk music THAT much.
          • I would recommend starting a new wiki-entry "Music of england". This entry is not indicitive of "music of england" as it deals primarily with folk music. It was either move the article, delete the majority of content or delete the whole article. The first option I considered to be the best all-round choice. ps, I left at least a month for valid objections and had NO feedback whatsoever in that time. Angelstorm 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ridiculous

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Doesn't even mention hip hop, drum and bass.--74.128.175.60 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Then add them! Barnabypage 17:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this IP user is right. This article isn't complete without even mentioning influental band in genres like IDM, electronics and the genres mentioned above. I would add a section about that myself but I'm too lazy and don't have the information. - Jack's Revenge 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred Jordan

Where did anyone get the idea that Fred Jordan was from Yorkshire? He was born and lived all his life in Shropshire. I've removed the reference.

English Music?

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
  • Umm... How come when I type in English Music, this page comes up. When musicians refer to 'English Music', we mean anything post Elgar, i.e. Vaughan Williams, Walton, Matthias (even though he's Welsh), Britten and co. Not folk songs... really.
This is a mare's nest. The trouble is the definitions are organically expanding or ramifying, without definite boundaries and with frequent cross-fertilization between genres.
(1)'English music' should disambiguate to 'English classical music' and 'English traditional music'. Also possibly 'English rock music', 'English music (modern)', 'English rap' and maybe other primary categories which I am not competent to define.
(2)'English classical music' (a label of convenience) needs its own outline lead article, which might then subdivide into 'English mediaeval music', 'English choral music' (with sub-article 'English polyphony'), 'English opera', 'Opera in England', 'English symphonic music', 'English chamber music' and various other possible articles within 'English classical music'.
(3)'English song'. This is a vast category and needs a lead or cover article describing the whole history of it from ancient times to present, with lots of links to sub-articles and named composers for each stage. It could make an immediate split into 'English classical song' and 'English traditional song', 'English popular song', 'English folk song' and 'English song (modern)', (and, dare I suggest, 'English art song'), and from those articles into other sub-divisions descending finally to articles on individual composers or singers.
(4)'English traditional music'. In a sense 'roots' and 'folk' need to be subsidiary articles under the heading of 'traditional', since they are forms of renewal and composition and reinterpretation of the traditional (as distinct from classical) idiom. 'Folk' as used in this present article seems to have lost its meaning. Possibly it should be restricted to the period of rediscovery and reperformance of traditional English music which is termed the 'folk revival', i.e. really Baring-Gould and Cecil Sharpe, Grainger, etc, what used to be called 'English country (or even 'county') music'. This is obviously not the same thing as Steeleye Span or Jethro Tull, or the Nick Jones/Don Sheppard/Tim Laycock/Vin Garbutt types of folk musicians despite the fact that the latter have connections with it. I notice this present article gives a description of morris dancing, which is not 'folk music' but 'morris dance' equally where do you put the monologists, the story-tellers and performers, the step-dancers, the broom-dancers, the squeeze-boxists, the people who play on saw-blades with violin bows, the wooden-doll-dancing, etc? The present article seems to me to be a jumble. Somehow there is a vast lot of work to be done in writing, and a start has to be made on creating a hierarchy of articles within which the relevant information can be parcelled out. Dr Steven Plunkett 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. 'English folk song' already exists. Also 'Patter song'. And no doubt various others. Dr Steven Plunkett 10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right- we need to make English music into a disambiguation page as you suggest. It appears that some of the articles may exist in some form but not necessarily in the most obvious place and not anything substantial - there is an article at Classical music of the United Kingdom which summarises each era and something here on popular/folk music Music of the United Kingdom. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that English folk music links to Music of England on the latter page so that is clearly wrong and needs to probably be redirected to English music or the other way round? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This article at present is utterly hopeless and useless, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. It covers (at least) three separate issues, each of them very poorly; traditional English folk music, English composed music, and the British folk-rock revival of the 1960s onwards. If I have a moment I will start work on this, using English music and Music of England as disambiguation pages. Or I will be glad to contribute to anyone else who starts the process. --Smerus 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to work out the existing and future preferred article structure before we actually start writing anything new- below is a list of articles that are of relevance:

and the following subarticles of the above:

someone also questions why it is entitled UK music when Music of Northern Ireland redirects to Music of Ireland (i.e. British music or Music of Great Britain might be better?).

and other things in Category:British music

Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    • OK you guys (and gals?) I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom. Please go there and contribute and together we may be able to clean this situation up. Please add all your suggestions and feel free to change anything I have put up on the existing page - I just had to start somewhere .... And tell anyone else you know on WP, who may be interested, about it. Then we can co-ordinate our efforts. -Smerus 07:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

'English Music'?!

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

How wonderful, I feel like the male midwife in John Layard's Celtic Quest, from chaos being in at the birth of a dancing star. Let's hope I don't turn out to be the bad fairy. There is a need to be very careful about the whole ethnocultural and nationalistic thingummies here, and not to walk casually into a minefield. There is going to have to be a lot of DEFINING OF TERMS, and no casualness about 'English' being allowed to absorb any other cultural group.

  • Those late Victorian/Edwardian/Georgian composers are thought of as an 'English' movement, but several were not English strictly (Vaughan Williams, Stanford?????). This opens a large set of questions
  • But then take the Frankfurt gang - Bantock, O'Neill, Quilter, Grainger & co - so central to that idea of 'English' music - and their training is off in Germany in Brahms-Schumann land. This opens another large set of similar questions
  • Defining music nationalistically is a fairly awful thing to do, because music transcends boundaries and speaks around the world in all languages and to all nations - the great healer in fact, and the great civiliser. Example Barenboim's Reith Lectures.
  • Many of the greats in English music composers aren't English - Handel, Mendelssohn, etc, and many pieces of music that portray England or Britain are by 'foreigners' - take Bruch's Scottish Fantasia for example.
  • many of the great performers who have made their careers and lives in England - the great music-makers in England - are not English in origin or nationality, yet they are fundamental to whatever is musical in England. This is the human side of the 'civilization' theory - Great musicians, and indeed all musicians, show the world the way to rise above the petty boundaries of all nationalism, and make the world a better place because of it.
  • Both classical and 'folk' music in England are essentially eclectic, i.e. drawn from many different cultural strands, which have long ago merged into a common melting pot. The 'soup' may have particular English forms and variants, and these could be worth defining as 'English' music, but one would need to be very careful where and how one defined things. We are not talking about there being any kind of music which has emerged parthenogenetically from the soil of England, like hobbits from their holes.
  • There are composers who seem strongly English - Elgar, Purcell, Britten, Dibdin, Gay etc - but look closer and their textures and phrases are also international and universal. Are we talking about the Music being English, the Composers being English (songs of Spohr, Haydn??), or the market of consumption being English (Dibdin - Royal Navy, Sullivan, that good old 'English' name! etc: but he wrote 'For he is a Hinglishman' all the same...).
  • Music may accompany speech in recitation and song, but it is not written in any language but notes.

Now I feel like Cassandra. I think this project has something very useful to contribute to Wikipedia, but it should tread VERY carefully and thoughtfully. I think what I'm saying is, the category 'English' is useful because it enables one to gather together English people, performances and traditions, but as a 'brand' for music it is a detestable idea. Dr Steven Plunkett 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the move of Music of England to Folk Music of England really confused things because it goes against all the other articles Music of Ireland, Music of Wales, and Music of Scotland. I think what you are getting at is perhaps we should consider having a page Music of England or Music in England page and a page English music ? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could transfer this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
All the interesting points that Dr Steven Plunkett makes are good reasons to continue with the nomenclature "music of England" rather than "English music". Barnabypage 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
So do you favour moving this page back to Music of England in conformance with the other U.K. articles (note a large part of those also covers "folk music"). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the current arrangement is clearly silly - in that the article Folk Music of England is not just about folk music. Perhaps in an ideal world Music of England could be an overview page with links to Folk Music of England, Classical Music of England, Rock Music of England and so on and so forth. Is there a standard for other countries? Barnabypage 14:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the UK things are rather confused as a lot is covered at Music of the United Kingdom and then by era pages (see my list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom) so we really need to work out what is going to be covered in these articles that cover the separate parts of the U.K. Music of Cornwall, Music of Ireland, Music of Wales, and Music of Scotland that is not already in the other articles? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay...this is how I think it might look in an ideal world:
- Music of the United Kingdom or maybe Music of the British Isles as an over-arching page - the latter being possibly IMHO preferable because there is so much linkage between music of Eire and music of the UK - but I realise it is likely to be a politically sensitive suggestion. (For the sake of brevity, I am assuming in the rest of this proposal that we go for UK - the principles could be easily extended if we decided to cover the Republic too.) You'll see that personally I prefer breaking down by type and, to an extent, geography rather than to divisions by historical period.
- Folk Music of the United Kingdom or maybe Traditional Music of the United Kingdom, serving as an overview of more detailed pages on Folk Music of England, ditto Scotland, Wales, and here we encounter the Irish question again in that separate Folk Music of Northern Ireland and Folk Music of the Irish Republic articles would be somewhat absurd. Possibly these in turn could lead to pages on specific counties/regions where there is sufficient material and sufficient distinctiveness in the music of that area.
- Classical Music of the United Kingdom, not broken down by region (I don't believe there is sufficient regional distinctiveness) but leading where justified to pages on specific types/genres, e.g. Opera of the United Kingdom, Church Music of the United Kingdom, etc.
- Popular Music of the United Kingdom, again not broken down by region but leading where justified to pages on specific types/genres, e.g. Rock Music of the United Kingdom, Dance Music of the United Kingdom, etc.
- I'm really not sure whether jazz should be a high-level category of its own or considered part of popular music.
This is all kind of hypothetical - I don't for a minute suggest that we rush out and implement such a big restructuring straight away, but maybe it will help us reach some clarity on a better organisation overall. Barnabypage 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with all this 'United Kingdom' thing is that the UK is a very restrictive time-zone - 1800 to present. If what we mean is music (of any or whatever kind) in the area now defined as the United Kingdom, it has to go to 'Music of the British Isles' or even of 'Britain and Ireland' in order to make sense of the classification. See some discussion on page ref Classical music of the United Kingdom. Dr Steven Plunkett 23:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point - though isn't there a precedent in Music of Italy etc.? The article would be, implicitly, Music of the areas that today constitute the United Kingdom - just a little more snappily-phrased. ;) Barnabypage 13:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Stephen was also trying to say that it is hard to regard Classical music in Ireland as a separate entity? As there is no separate article for Ireland perhaps we could agree with Irish participants to have one merged article? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes - I agree entirely that Music of the British Isles is preferable to Music of the United Kingdom (as I said a bit earlier in this conversation). My point in my last comment was that if it is to be Music of the United Kingdom, I don't see a big conceptual problem in that including pre-Act-of-Union Scotland etc. Barnabypage 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to consult with people at Music of Ireland and possibly the Irish portal/Wikiproject wherever they are. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Music. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
  • As a lot of the content isn't even folk music, Oppose. It needs to be moved back to Music of England- we can then start another separate article on folk music if necessary. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this will solve none of the broader problems concerning the article's lack of focus, as noted by User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel. Additionally, "of England" is probably better nomenclature than "English", as discussed under "English Music?!" above. Barnabypage 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I rather oppose moving this this article until it is is decided what it is about. If it is about music in England then a Byrd and some Beatles need to be included, to mention no others. If it’s about English folk music then some other title will need to be created into which to split off the stuff here which is useful but not too pertinent to folk music in England, —Ian Spackman 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed from Folk Music of England to English folk music but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made some merciless cuts. If the title refers to folk music, then operas and Big Bands don't deserve more than a cursory mention. Ogg 15:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wesley and Elgar

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm slightly uneasy about having a photograph of Elgar on this page. He was a nationalist, but he had nothing to fo with folk music. A photograph of Cecil Sharp would be more appropriate, even if it duplicated the photograph on his own article. In very strict terms, the music of Wesley isn't folk music, but it was sung by many people. Would anyone object if I added him? If that's unacceptable, how about more on hymns, or so-called "galley music"? Ogg 08:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I got fed up with the Elgar photograph so I replaced him with Grainger, copied from the Grainger article. If anyone had a more appropriate image, please replace it. Ogg (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

West country

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To describe Amy Birch, Sophie Legg or Charlie Bate as "famous" is putting it a bit strong, so I have re-written this section.

Google hits: The rewrite has:-

  • Bazeley Rice - 9,560 hits on Google


  • "Bob Cann" - 1,500
  • "Boscastle Breakdown" - 536 hits

The old version had:-

  • "Charlie Bate" - 721 hits
  • "Sophie Legg" - 672 hits
  • "Amy Birch" folk - 290 hits
  • "wet-tuned accordion" - 52 hits

Ogg (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned Article

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reading the above discussion the shift of material elsewhere seems to have left this article clearer in topic but without much structure. I would like to undertake a rewrite, but think perhaps it is best to do this by dealing with the relevant sub-articles (eg. the regional scenes and forms of music such as shanties) first. Any material here that is not reflected in them could be moved to them and a summary given here (as is the Wikipedia style). This process would also make it easier to add the in-line references which this article lacks at the moment. The folk music template could then be expanded like other major genre templates and this would be the central article for a related group. I will begin this process soon unless there are major objections. Comments and suggestions for what might make a useful sub-article welcome.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Time to archive?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Most of the above is long and no longer relevant. I will archive it soon unless their are major objections.--Sabrebd (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_folk_music/Archive_1&oldid=1190127455"