Talk:English folk music/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rewrite

Are you intending to undertake? There are problems to be sorted; mainly that the article tends to read like a lot of editorialising upon the boundaries of folk, courtly and ecclesiastical with large paragraphs that are not really about folk music at all from the article's POV, like;

"Renaissance influences made the acquisition of musical knowledge an almost essential attribute for the nobleman and woman, and the ability to play an instrument became a necessary social grace.[9] There was also an internationalisation of courtly music in terms of both instruments and content: the lute, dulcimer and early forms of the harpsichord were played; madrigals were sung; the pavane and galliard were danced."

Now no doubt there are many influences from courtly Elizabethan music into Victorian folk repertoire, but the article does not delineate these. It fails to report the importance of the Romantic movement - Wordsworth and the later nationalist romantic composers - in creating the whole idea of "folk". To the extent that the theories concern folk-music as such, the place for all this is at the general folk music page. And we need to dispense with sheer convolutions like;

"since, even after the invention of musical notation, until the late medieval period only ecclesiastical music, then later that of court musicians, tended to be recorded,"

- especially since this too is merely pursuing the same POV. The article improves a lot with the "second folk revival" but up till there it reads largely like a personal essay on the general nature of folk and a primer on ordinary music history. It needs to follow sources (such as Lloyd, V-W, Sharp, Scholes) in outline, not just adapt them to the details of an original synthesis. Redheylin (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused as to what is being said here. There should be less consideration of the nature of folk, but more on how the romantic movement helped define it? I do not see editorialising, but simply an attempt to set out very briefly a pattern of development that is widely accepted and which is carefully referenced. The article does follow the shape of sources, but these are recent scholars such as Sweers, Boyes and Broken, not the older (and now considered rather partisan) works of members of the revival. If the article does not distinguish between the music later to be defined as folk and other forms, what exactly should it do, just ignore them? There was in fact a conscious attempt to avoid this kind of editorialising in the expansion of this article. Where sentences are convoluted they should be changed, but this should maintain their meaning where possible. Some of these are my fault from the expansion of this article, but others were an attempt not to remove all previous work even if I did not care for the style myself. The comment on Elizabethan to Victorian links suggests to me that some of this is just that the text is unclear, because I thought that the opposite was being suggested (i.e. court music goes one way - so now we wont be talking about it - and what becomes folk goes the other). When I reverted some of your last set of edits I limited myself only to those that seemed to change what was being said. Where it was evident that something was unclear, I tried to make it clear. Two passages are highlighted above and I will attempt to sort those out. If there are others I think it would be helpful to highlight them here or edit them yourself and keep the meaning - eventually we should arrive at some clear version. On more substantive issues, if you are suggesting a major rewrite perhaps you could set out clearly what that would be here so that editors can comment and we can reach a consensus.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are working across a rather fuzzy background in which "folk" has a variety of meanings that collide with other terms such as "traditional", "world", "acoustic" - and that background needs sorting out first of all. I have noticed when looking through wiki ethnomusicology that many pages proffer arguments of various persuasions as to the nature of folk music.

I note you have also worked on the general article Folk music. In the present case, I feel a lot of these arguments do not belong here - that is; the distinction of art, court, religious, commercial and folk music needs to be founded on a general article that is founded upon authoritative sources and just briefly referenced here. In this case there should certainly be less consideration of the nature of folk music per se (though it certainly should be noted that "folklore" was invented in England in the time of the industrial revolution and the romantics and that the subject of the article really only comes into being then).

There are also articles on general music history, such as English Renaissance music etc. that, similarly, do not require rehearsal here. What is required is that "English" folk music be defined here in musicological terms against a consistent background. That means modes, rhythms, function, instrumentation etc. that is particular to England.

I find in the most common sources, such as the Oxford Companion, Lloyd's "Folk Song in England" etc, agree in employing the EFDSS' definition of folk music, which depends on lack of notation. Since full notation only exists in post-mediaeval Europe, it follows that folk music only exists in that time and place since the distinction cannot be made in the case of, say, a Javanese gamelan. It is not possible, therefore, to differentiate "English folk music of 400CE" since, as the article states, no music was notated at that time. The attempt to follow a historical exposition and to confine the very originators of the concept of folk-song to their sequential place in history is misguided and doomed, so the article should be reformatted. It is like trying to explain electronics by beginning with Roman history. Electronics begins with Volta: Folk music begins with Bishop Percy. If the founders of "English folk music" were partial, then let the arguments be added - the founders ought not be expunged.

I understand the need to respect existing text etc and I certainly respect your work and your feelings too: I am sorry if the above seemed dismissive, but quite a few similar comments had been made over some time. BTW I think it was a very good idea to split off British folk revival and deal with that and its American equivalent specially, since this helps explain and iron out a good many uses of the general term "folk". Redheylin (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I can more clearly see where you are coming from. I agree on some points, but not on others. I agree that the definitions should be on the general pages. I did make some minor edits so that the term "folk music" was not used for before the eighteenth century (when it begins to be defined as such). However, I cannot agree that the origins of forms, which are later defined as folk music, should be disregarded. It is logical to demonstrate where they come from, even if they did not bear the name. Frankly the EFDSS definition is a nonsense and not widely accepted now, Sharp promoted this because of his own bias in favour of certain sorts of music. The analogy with electronics is a false one: it could be argued that your position is like arguing electricity did not exist before Volta, good news in a medieval lightening storm, but lacking a name does not mean that a phenomenon does not exist. Where are these other comments over time? There has been very little comment since the article was expanded.

On the setting up of British folk revival, now that is done some sections of this article can be reduced to summaries. I will do this when I get time and then perhaps you could take a look at it.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above I have looked at your last edit. I very much do not want to get into an editing war, but you are changing an article fundamentally without getting a consensus. Until a short while ago the article dealt with "Folk music" as a term used in England to describe traditional, traditional based music and music that may be based on other folk traditions. But you have changed this to just traditional. You do not have a consensus for this, and this looks like pushing a POV. Please stop making major changes until we can achieve consensus.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"On the setting up of British folk revival, now that is done some sections of this article can be reduced to summaries." - Yes, that is great.

"Until a short while ago the article dealt with "Folk music" as a term used in England to describe traditional, traditional based music and music that may be based on other folk traditions." - to me that would be ""folk music" IN England". The problem arises because, as I say, the terms of the article's title are not defined from the outset according to notable verifiable authorities, referring to a general definition of "folk music". The confusion between the two led to the assertion in the lede that "American folk is known as English folk". The term "popular" is used elsewhere to mean "commercial" music as against "traditional", so it really needs to be supported and explained. Please just insert a cited clause that is wide enough to include, say, Richard Thompson et al, if you really feel that these are not part of "revival". I do not have any POV myself.

"Frankly the EFDSS definition is a nonsense and not widely accepted now, Sharp promoted this because of his own bias in favour of certain sorts of music." That may be, but to present counter arguments without the context of the arguments of the people who actually defined the genre is one of the main reasons that this article looks like original synthesis far removed from the most accessible standard authorities. There is no problem dealing with Sharp's bias; he saw it as town v country, largely, but Lloyd absolutely refuted that. Yet both Lloyd and Scholes give the EFDSS definition even if they qualify it. Lloyd even mentions how these days "Blowin in the Wind" is "folk".

"The analogy with electronics is a false one: it could be argued that your position is like arguing electricity did not exist before Volta, good news in a medieval lightening storm, but lacking a name does not mean that a phenomenon does not exist." Here's the lede:

Electronics is a branch of science and technology that deals with the flow of electrons through nonmetallic conductors, mainly semiconductors such as silicon. It is distinct from electrical science and technology, which deal with the flow of electrons and other charge carriers through metal conductors such as copper. This distinction started around 1906 with the invention by Lee De Forest of the triode. Until 1950 this field was called "radio technology" because its principal application was the design and theory of radio transmitters, receivers and vacuum tubes.

The study of semiconductor devices and related technology is considered a branch of physics, whereas the design and construction of electronic circuits to solve practical problems come under electronics engineering. This article focuses on engineering aspects of electronics.

You will note that it does not begin "for centuries man feared the nameless energy of the lightning etc" and attempt to give a two-thousand year history - it starts right in with the time the term was defined. The other approach may be poetic but, without a citation, it looks like OR.

I am sorry to have caused offence, but I must say that you seem to revert rather readily - perhaps that is what is giving you the idea that there is an "edit war". I am looking forward to your post-revival edit. Meanwhile please see the passage below;

Because of the close cultural connections between England and the USA, from the late twentieth century, the term has also been used for forms of music based on American roots music, traditional and folk music. English folk music has been the subject of a number of 'revivals' and periods of resurgence, particularly since the late nineteenth century. It has been seen as an important element of English national and working-class identity.

In what way does this NOT say that the term (Folk music of England) has been used for American roots music, and, if it has, where's the cite, please? Elsewhere "roots" music is defined as genres related to reggae! I doctored references to "musical form" to reflect standard terminology.

Redheylin (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the difference between electronics and electricity, but I was suggesting it was a false analogy and not challenging the nature of electronics. This discussion is getting very complex and taking in many points, I do not have time to comment on every point at the moment, so I suggest we take each major point to a sub-heading so that it can be dealt with clearly and one by one. Just one thing to say first: I revert good faith edits like yours very reluctantly and I do not believe there is now and edit war, but I am saying that I want to avoid one. I am actually not offended, but want any major changes to be discussed and the outcome of consensus.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

American folk

I take the point over music of/in England. What this was trying to get around is the problem that the term folk music is used to describe music that English artists create and perform which owes as much, or more to the American singer-songwriters than traditional English music (John Martyn and Ralph McTell would be examples). A useful definition that tries to deal with these and other problems is in Ronald D. Cohen Folk music: the basics (CRC Press, 2006), pp. 1-2 and includes the following: "...we have to include in our story not only the development and collection of old songs, with no known composers, but also labor songs of the nineteenth century broadsides ... singer song-writers, such as Donovan and Bob Dylan, who emerged in the 1960s and much more." (Bearing in mind the subject discussed in that book is not just folk music of England). I think what is in the article doesn't say this very clearly, so perhaps we can come up with a form of words that makes that clear and balanced.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see the complexity. The Cohen quote is absolutely the thing. It is not too long to quote verbatim. But I think he is talking about "folk" as such, and so this is exactly the stuff that needs to be at the top of the Folk music page itself. Bear in mind there are lots of pages such as List of Asian folk music traditions that may link to it: I am not a traditionalist but seeking a sensible overview that cites the most accessible authoritative sources. Meanwhile, as promised, Lloyd (Folk song in England p 14);

"And more recently, with even slenderer title, Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind"" (along with Loch Lomond, Stephen Foster and "national songs" etc).

He says that this is too wide, then contrasts Bartok's approach, offers a critique of Sharp - because he himself wants to include industrial folk-song, rightly so. But there is no doubt that ol Bob and all the English singersongwriters often get called "folk", he admits it (and here we ARE talking England). Now, you and I know, the album that contained "Blowin in the Wind" WAS folk; a good many of the songs are traditional English, picked up by Bob in English folk clubs and rearranged - Lord Franklin, Nottamun Town, Lord Randall. And then he made out he was a hillbilly kid who had sung all these things for Cecil Sharp in his shack. Beatles loved him, sold buckets, wrote like Ginsberg, suddenly there's a marketing category, there's a folk Grammy, there's folk-rock and a couple of dozen notable English folk-poets. It's folk. It's in folk clubs. What can you do? Has to be explained clearly. But this is the post war revival and the strong links with the American popular music business, the blues revival etc. Prior to that, though, the idea of "Folk" had been around since the mid 1700s, derived from folklore, a lot of countries call it "folkloric music". And wherever in the world there is a distinction between peasant-lower-class-ordinary-popular and the court/temple music, there are similar terms, but mostly they do not have notation even in art music, so the EFDSS definition becomes nonsense again outside the west. But nevertheless, those are the principles of Sharp, both Lloyd and Scholes (Oxford Companion) quote it, even if to refute it - they have to be stated here. We need a little history of the whole concept of "folk music" made out of quotes in standard sources. Cohen is great. And in that context can be discussed the whole deal. Yea, also let there be an article on 60s English folk jazz, and let it have John M and Davy and Pentangle, yea even unto Nick the Drake thereof, by all means, I must say. And let it be briefly explained at the top, with a pointer to that "folk revival" page and the general "folk music" page to see the cites, and then let us get straight on with the genres and the regions, how bout dat? We actually get down to the ol Wynkyn and Playfords. Redheylin (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular music

I have had a little time to look into definitions of popular music. I was using it here in the technical sense of "of the people" (as in The English and Scottish Popular Ballads), but I can see that it does have many meanings and this might be confusing to some readers. Some of the references could simply be changed to "traditional", but there are instances cases where that doesn't quite make sense - I think we can work around those, finding something case by case. Changing the one in the opening sentence in this way would significantly change the scope of the article, but possibilities include "traditionally based" or we could just remove "popular" altogether, since that sentence goes on to define what it is not. You may have another suggestion.--Sabrebd (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be coherent with the Popular music page, exactly. That's why I zapped that - too complex to use without explanation at the top. Might need to edit THAT page - are the Border ballads mentioned? Redheylin (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)