Since I'm the discussion leader this week, I will make my comments slightly more brief than usual.
I admit, my personal reaction to Sharp was one of shock and disbelief (stemming from simply reading his writing... reading the Boyes simply deepened the shock value.) Sharp's views and practices seem to me to be so obviously backward and corrupted by his desire for personal financial and political gains. I would have been slightly less shocked if the timeline of his life had been, say, in the late 18th or early 19th century, but I find it absolutely jaw-dropping that he was operating under such auspices in the early 20th century. Of course, when one remembers what happened during WWII in Germany and Austria, or even during the Civil Rights movement here in the United States one might feel slightly less shocked, but for some reason I assumed that in England the academic establishment was slightly less blind, somehow.
Overall, these readings clearly demonstrated that politics and finances deeply influenced the establishment of the conception of English folk music. As many of the readings from other weeks have also demonstrated, certain conceptions of what is "folk" music or dance in a particular geographical area come to fore not because they are truly authentic, but because they provide the backers with financial gains or because they help to shore up political power. The fact that Sharp's research was upheld as "truthful" for so many years and is only now beginning to be questioned makes me in turn question what I have learned or been taught regarding other folk traditions, or even other traditions in general. My thoughts turn to the revival with which I am the most familiar: the classical music revival, as practiced and taught in our very own conservatory. What sorts of parallels might be drawn between Sharp's revival and CCM or other music schools?
As it turns out, there has been some strong back and forth in academic writings regarding the legacy of Cecil Sharp, and the Boyes is part of that dialogue and should be digested as such.
So interesting. (As mentioned in my post) I did not have such a negative view when I first read the Sharp since I was not yet biased by Boyes. I thought a lot of his ideas were interesting, with a few unusual exceptions as Michelle points out in her post. After reading the Boyes though, it has a totally different tone though. I'm interested to hear about some of the other academic 'back and forth' on Sharp tomorrow.
I agree with Erik. I also read the Sharp before the Boyes so I did not find the ideas too jarring. I can see the logic in some of Sharp's arguments, although I do not necessarily agree, for instance the composer of folk music should be writing music of their own people. It is also interesting how money was such a huge factor for Sharp.
Boyes: The quote explaining the work of Cecil Sharp was interesting in that it characterized folk songs and dances as “living expression[s] of those unchanging human emotions which we share with our ancestors” and as “belong[ing] as much to this generation as to the past.” It concluded with another quote: “Our dances are now what they were and what they always will be.” These seemed very forward-looking attitudes toward folk. More than just preserving something from the past, these tunes were viewed as mutable and a part of the present. It seems like there were many factions in the Gelbart reading that did not view folk material this way (although there were some who did…I cannot remember names right now).
On. P. 55, Boyes discusses the folk equating songs with their performers, not wanting to even perform the song without that person’s approval since it would be “tantamount to theft.” Similarly, villagers felt guilty about even speaking about these songs to collectors. This strong emotional connection to this music is fascinating to me. I think that people in most cultures probably have some kind of emotional connection to music, but I have never heard of equating a tune with a person or refusing to perform for “outsiders” for this reason. Question: are there analogues to this in our society? In other cultures?
Chapter 4’s discussion of folk songs in music education reminded me of the different schools of music education that are still in use today. Orff and Kodaly value the use of folk songs above all else (if I am remembering correctly), while Dalcroze values all music equally.
In general, I was a little confused about Mary Neal’s role in all of this. It could be that we sort of started reading in media res here and that earlier in the book explained it, but the reading kept talking about the rivalry between Sharp and Neal, but I never really got a good grasp of what Neal’s position was or how the rivalry began. I suppose I could have missed something. Did anyone else feel this way?
In Ch. 5, I found it very interesting that Sharp so heavily edited the songs, “fixing” grammar and dialect. The adding of piano accompaniment isn’t quite as shocking to me, perhaps because we have seen so much of that already with the Haydn, Beethoven, etc. versions of folk tunes. But to edit the text seems to conflict with the aims at “authenticity.”
Sharp: I found it interesting that Sharp disregarded performances of songs by young people since they were polluted with modern sounds. It seems that this is contrary to the aims of modern ethnomusicology. However, I suppose when Sharp was writing, ethnomusicology was not an established scholarly practice as it is today. This could all be wrong, however, and Dr. Fiol could shed more light on it I’m sure. It also seems to contradict his opinion that age does not influence beauty (p. 160). Sharp was talking, of course, about the age of the melody, i.e. when it was “composed,” but it seems like disvaluing a “modern sounding” performance of a tune is still making some kind of aesthetic value judgment based on age! What do you think? Is this contradictory?
Sharp also says that the modes originated with the common folk. Do we have any proof of this? I have heard this, but I wonder what the reasoning is. Did Gelbart discuss that idea?
The Goethe quote at the beginning of the Karpeles reading cracked me up. An apt summary of a lot of our quibbles about terminology this year, haha.
"This strong emotional connection to this music is fascinating to me. I think that people in most cultures probably have some kind of emotional connection to music, but I have never heard of equating a tune with a person or refusing to perform for “outsiders” for this reason."
Perhaps in pop music with the performance of covers? One might perform a cover of a very well-known pop song, but it would be performed in deference and in honor of the original performer. UNLESS the covering artist views him or herself as being more important or of a higher stature than the original artist, in which case the covering artist might claim the song for his or her own.
I found the changing of dialect/grammar interesting too - in a way it made sense, since it seems like an underlying reason behind the revival was purifying and uniting England. But I didn't think they would edit the texts as much, thinking that the dialect would have just been allowable local color. In the end notes, Boyes did have a a notice from a paper of a performer singing the songs in dialect, so maybe there were simultaneous performance traditions for awhile?
Around the turn of the 20th century, English social thought became immersed in the revival of English peasant life through folk songs and dances. The controversial figure of Cecil Sharp, as noted by the Boyes article, was one if not the main forces behind the emergence of this movement. He believed that the English folk songs would allow English society and culture (namely the working class) to become pure again and revert back the days of “Merry Old England.” All of the “vulgarity” brought forth into culture by the popular music of the time would be stifled, though it continued to be present.
The establishment of the English Folk Song Society and the later English Folk Dance and Song Society allowed for a wealth of songs to be collected. However, the means by which they were collected was questionable, and the true reasons behind the collection of them was just another way for the aristocracy and the upper-middle class to gain more financial and social clout.
Cecil Sharp was portrayed as the authoritarian folk song dictator of England. He claimed to know the true traditions of how the songs and dances should be carried out, later halting all work done by the Mary Neal and her Esperance Club because she was not in the movement as a “do-gooder” for the working class girls, not for the sake of carrying on the folk song tradition. I think it was a very interesting to see how the Esperance Club aided in another social movement in England, Women’s Suffrage. I am interested to know if there have been other organizations in history (as I am sure that there are) that were considered “unworthy” in their initial cause by a majority of society and were shut down, only to re-emerge later on as an important part of another causes history?
Sharp: the definitions and motivations given were about what I anticipated, but I didn’t expect them to be stated quite so strongly or to have the motivations that blatant, however. There were many statements about the attractiveness of the tunes, being able to easily sort out the good from the bad, and classics like “if the singer is hazy about the melody, it is easy enough to convict him in the course of a long ballad.” (p. 155). Then there are seeming contradictions, like the “age and beauty do not necessarily go together with tunes,” – which to me sort of turns the idea of all folk songs being beautiful and fit for consumption by all “Folk,” young and old alike, on its head. Not all of Sharp’s insights seemed to be completely off the mark, though. “Do what they will, however, it will not be the old life that they will restore” on page 150 seems to take into account some of the problems with revivals in general, and the rest of the paragraph also seems to recognize the inherent romanticism and nostalgia of an early “Merrie Old England.” Page 159 speaks of the difficulty of dating songs. The first few pages of Karpeles were great – I thought that the distinction in between “production” and “reception” theories summed up a lot of the scholarship we’ve discussed so far. Is it “folk” because it has been produced by the “folk,” or can something appropriated by the “folk” be deemed “folk music”? (Given that Karpeles already problematized “folk” with that wonderful Goethe quote). For Karpeles, it is “folk” if it has been orally transmitted, end of discussion – something that I don’t think will apply very easily now in our even more technologically-oriented world (does learning a tune from a friend’s cell phone ring count as oral transmission?). Then Karpeles continues to discuss three additional criteria: continuity, variation, and selection. Problems with regards to these are more readily apparent. It seems like there must be some continuity, which strikes me as problematic for “revivals” in some Native American cultures and historical performance groups. How does this fit with Boyes’s observation of someone being reluctant to share her mother’s songs? Can a song associated so strongly with one person even be considered “folk” music? Variation is recognized, but statements like “it never reaches its final form until the collector comes along…” are shaded with judgments and it wasn’t very eye-opening to read in Boyes, after Sharp’s and Karpeles’s writing, that there was a lot of editing regarding acceptable forms and variations. The last category, selection, ties into continuity – without continuity, the selection process of what is deemed by the community as suitable to survive is a moot point. But it was important to consider that communities, just as much as collectors, probably edited to some degree the material over the years. I find it easy to fall into the trap of thinking of the “folk” tradition as being sort of a scrap heap that indiscriminately collects all sorts of material without recognizing that an extreme form of “variation” could be the accepted disappearance of material. I’m out of space, so I’ll just say that Boyes’s book – at least these few chapters – might have just as easily been entitled “Down with Cecil Sharp.” Lots of interesting critiques of the collection, selection, and ultimate revival movement, and an engaging look at the politics behind the different groups. I think that was what surprised me the most: that in the early 1900s, the concept of “folk” was still so tied into nationalistic sentiment. A lot of the process reminded me of what we had read in Gelbart, when intelligentsia “rescued” Scottish music and German intelligentsia created a “Volk.” Other questions: Words vs. tunes: Sharp holds that the tunes changed less than the words (156). Karpeles “texts have undergone less change than the tunes.” (4). Seeing as how Karpeles is painted as a mindless acolyte by Boyes, the distinction is fairly interesting. Does it really matter which one changed the most, though?
Interesting question. I just assumed that the tunes would be subject to more variety. Just an assumption, but I guess this had to do with the texts being written down in some cases. Just a thought, but I think when words change, even with near synonyms there are shades of meaning that can change, while vocal/melodic ornamentation/variation doesn't necessarily imply change maybe?
Yeah the Karpeles qualification of folk as orally transmitted is interesting, and very nice and neat. I agree that in today's world the definition probably isn't so cut and dry. Also, I think that most people do not think of Indian "classical" music as folk music, although it is certainly orally transmitted. I had a professor who said that it is patronage that qualifies something as classical; If it is paid for by the court or government or powerful church, etc., it is classical. This is problematic too though.
I like your point Douglass about patronage being an important factor in classical music. I also think that the Karples qualification is interesting and clear. I believe that it is important to think of these qualifications and definitions as evolving with time rather than set in stone.
I found the readings this week to be very helpful in finding in my own definition of “folk”. The Karpeles’ argument that oral transmission is a defining factor of “folk song” and therefor is forever changing is convincing to me. Furthermore, the definition provided by the International Folk Music Council is very thorough. However, I do disagree with the IFMC’s stance on popular music since (as I have stated in older posts) it can be proven that popular composed music is not unchanged. Therefore, the only alteration I would make to this definition of folk provided by the Folk Music Council would be to have it accept popular music as a source for folk music to evolve from. I think this alteration could open many doors for how we perceive and transmit folk music today. The readings discussed folk music as ever evolving. Folk tunes would change based on the performer and their own interpretation of the tune. These alterations could be present in the text or rhythm and sometimes melodic embellishments, but tune remained recognizable. I would assume that this evolution of a folk tune occurred over the span of generations. However, I would argue that today we see this evolution occur over the span of a couple weeks. For instance (please don’t hate me for this example), “Let it Go” from Frozen has seen the sort of changes I mentioned earlier. The movie came out relatively recently and within weeks there were videos on YouTube of new arrangements of the song. Some of these arrangements hold very true to the original, while others are much different. Both rhythmic material and in some cases text is changed, but the basic tune remains. “Let it go” is not the best or only example of this. Is it possible then that this process could happen for a traditional folk tune like “Danny Boy”? My other question is, “Could this seemingly instant evolution speed up the creation of a folk tune?” (reaching?)
I really like your idea of adding popular music as a source for folk.
As for your question: I think that's a good example of variation like Karpeles talks about. I wonder how much of the changes in different versions are the result of potential copyright infringements or just artistic liberties, or perhaps both?
“Could this seemingly instant evolution speed up the creation of a folk tune?” I think the internet is speeding the world up more and more, so I'm not sure what the implications for folk music are. Interesting thoughts!
Yes, now that we're a little further into this class I'm wondering about the IFMC's definition too. Especially the "The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character."
Doesn't even the fact that the performance context has changed constitute re-fashioning and re-creating to some degree? I'm thinking about performing a rock hit in a local bar instead of on a huge stage, or about taking "Let It Go" and performing it live instead of the animated movie version - even if somehow the text and music hasn't changed, is just the fact that it's not a CG character count?
Yes and yes! The variation of a traditional folk tune happens a great deal. For instance, the Carter Family's "Wildwood Flower" was originally written by Maud Irving (who was really J. W. Van Namee) and J.P. Webster in the mid-1800's. Many think that it was written by the Carter Family, rather, they made their own version of the song complete with a new title. The Carter Family later created different versions of their original take on the song as well. The Carter Family most definitely speed up the creation and/or notoriety of the song as they made what is considered to be the definitive recording of it. The song has become synonymous with the group and rural American music in general.
I agree about folk being ever changing, which is why I somewhat took issue with Sharp's claim that younger singers's versions of songs were unreliable. Yes, they are different, but I think that's the name of the game with this type of music!
I actually read the Sharp first, then the Karpeles and then the Boyes chapters. I’m quite glad though I happened to use this order. Reading the Sharp with no idea of who he really was, the many problems associated with him, or even an understanding of when he was writing was really interesting in retrospect. If I had read the Boyes first, I think the negative portrait of Sharp would have shaded my reading.
With this in mind, I thought he had some interesting ideas that have popped up in our previous discussions and probably have been influential on scholarship and folk collecting in general. Despite Sharp’s motives, I like the idea of who cares if the tunes are corrupt or authentic? This seems to be what Karpeles talks about as the reception school of thought. As we’ve discussed many times, we’ll never be able to track down the ‘authentic’ version, (whatever that means). It’s better to look at these tunes as a genre that constantly changes and “refashions itself.”
The Karpeles reading is very helpful for understanding the modes of oral transmission. I especially like this quote: “The individual invents, but the community selects.” This is in reference to the third aspect of folksong towards the end of the essay: selection. This idea of a folksong’s “lifespan” is so fascinating (Sharp also talks about this so I think there is some overlap here, which makes sense since Karpeles was a ‘disciple’ of Sharp.) I immediately start to wonder, “How much music is extinct?” I think it is helpful to move away from this idea of fixity when we talk about oral tradition, but then as Sharp noticed, one folksong had remained virtually unchanged for over 200 years! (but I don’t know if Sharp’s work is viewed with a certain degree of circumspect because of his various financial motives – in either case, I am also reminded of the videos we watched in class of the chanting of the Vedas and how precise and ‘fixed’ the oral transmission seemed in this example.) So I’m never quite sure what to think. Anyway, continuity, variation, and selection are really important to keep in mind. I think they are probably inherent to all modes of oral transmission (ie jokes, riddles, fairy tales) not just folksongs.
The Boyes chapters sort of shattered my naïve view of Sharp as this benevolent representative of the folk who was ‘preserving’ the English folk by the sheer good will of his heart. Why is the world such a cynical place? I won’t go into all the problems addressed here, but the most egregious example to me was Sharp monopolizing the copyright of folksongs which he may or may not have “bought” from the rural English. There is something that just does not seem right about this. Some might argue that he should get paid for his work, but somehow it doesn’t seem right.
Final observation: I thought the idea of teaching folk songs and dance as a part of mass education system was sort of like the Latin American articles we read where the state mandated weekly broadcast hours of national music. This all gets back to our discussion of why are the folk identity and song are so ideal for appropriation by the state with the intent of maintaining this national identity. So in this case: Why was English folk dance considered as a potentially effective tool for maintaining national identity?
Fun question...it seems that there are certain dance styles that help in defining a culture and (possibly) a national personality. For instance, the polka is associated with Germany, waltzes with Austria, swing dancing with the U.S., and so on. Maybe the English felt the primitive yet joyful folk dances would help in making England merry again?
Sorry to be so late in adding my comments... I don't think I have much to add besides what everyone has said. I agree with Tyler that this week's readings have been helpful in finding my own definitions of the 'folk'. It seems that the majority of the readings we've dealt with prior to this week problematise the idea of the folk so much that one feels treading on a bomb with any definition. The definition by the International Folk Music Council seems to be as 'safe' a definition one can stick to. The differences between the 'production' and 'reception' theories as Michelle pointed out permeate almost all of our readings so far. It seems to me that we started off holding to a more 'production' sort of view of folk music and have gradually moved to include the 'reception' view as well. The readings this week however seem to belong to the 'production' view, especially Sharp. (Something to do with their age?) I also thought that the parallel with language was interesting - the primacy of oral traditions is equally important in both language and folk music, and as such they are both tied to their respective cultures and susceptible to constant evolution. Sharp's statement 'If they be intrinsically beautiful, what matters if they be corrupt or not?' seems to have raised a few eyerows here... To me it all depends on the purpose and agenda one has in mind.
I am fascinated by that statement regarding "intrinsic beauty"... I think perhaps it is more revelatory of Sharp's motives than at first meets the eye.
One of my overriding thoughts as I read about a folk tradition I’m familiar with was that many of our underlying assumptions about this tradition seem to stem from the English Folk Revival. The Sharp reading laid out a number of these: the perpetual loss of folk innocence, the link between the decline of folk music and the decline of (British) society, the idea of variants (that songs being linked back to one tune family, i.e. that there is a “correct,” “original” folk-text that exists), and the impact of technologies on transmission and dissemination. The Karpeles reading reinforced other assumptions: disagreements between collective and individual composition, the idea of an “original” folk song, the similarities between folk and “classical” artistic processes, the importance of the collective and time with folk value-judgements and transmission (since works are winnowed to the “masterpieces” through these filters), the subconscious nature of folk artistry, etc. We’ve been critiquing a lot of these ideas and assumptions, but the Boyes reading is the first critical evaluation of Sharp that I’ve read. I greatly appreciated her situating both Sharp and the Folk Revival within the historical political context, where revivalism was linked with a perceived decline in the country's musical culture and urbanity and modernity were seen as polluting and contaminating influences. Along those lines, I found an interesting relationship between the reduction of “the perceived uniqueness . . . [of] a team's or village's identity” when their folk culture was represented (pg. 55) and Walter Benjamin’s ideas of a work of art’s “aura.” While I wager the folk were not concerned with the perceived loss of this “aura” for the same reasons German critical theorists were, I think the similar ideas both speak to a larger anxiety surrounding early 20th century sound reproduction, since people were being forced to confront a paradigm shift in how sound (and other media) could be (re-)portrayed. Her criticisms are trenchant, but I don’t agree with her claim (pg. 53) that “Revival collectors' actions must, of course, be considered in light of contemporary, rather than late twentieth-century, attitudes.” Even if these actions were not seen as exploitative at the time, it still clearly was; exploitation is exploitation, regardless of the social and/or historical basis for it, and I think the most telling bit of support is the fact that the informants were regarded so lowly as to have been rarely present in supporting narratives. I’m usually a moral pragmatist, but this seems unambiguously wrong then or now. I wasn’t sure about Sharp’s distinction between “national” and “folk” songs; I’ll give this a re-read, but if anyone has any insights, please pass them along.
Since I'm the discussion leader this week, I will make my comments slightly more brief than usual.
ReplyDeleteI admit, my personal reaction to Sharp was one of shock and disbelief (stemming from simply reading his writing... reading the Boyes simply deepened the shock value.) Sharp's views and practices seem to me to be so obviously backward and corrupted by his desire for personal financial and political gains. I would have been slightly less shocked if the timeline of his life had been, say, in the late 18th or early 19th century, but I find it absolutely jaw-dropping that he was operating under such auspices in the early 20th century. Of course, when one remembers what happened during WWII in Germany and Austria, or even during the Civil Rights movement here in the United States one might feel slightly less shocked, but for some reason I assumed that in England the academic establishment was slightly less blind, somehow.
Overall, these readings clearly demonstrated that politics and finances deeply influenced the establishment of the conception of English folk music. As many of the readings from other weeks have also demonstrated, certain conceptions of what is "folk" music or dance in a particular geographical area come to fore not because they are truly authentic, but because they provide the backers with financial gains or because they help to shore up political power. The fact that Sharp's research was upheld as "truthful" for so many years and is only now beginning to be questioned makes me in turn question what I have learned or been taught regarding other folk traditions, or even other traditions in general. My thoughts turn to the revival with which I am the most familiar: the classical music revival, as practiced and taught in our very own conservatory. What sorts of parallels might be drawn between Sharp's revival and CCM or other music schools?
Replying to my own reaction here...
DeleteAs it turns out, there has been some strong back and forth in academic writings regarding the legacy of Cecil Sharp, and the Boyes is part of that dialogue and should be digested as such.
So interesting. (As mentioned in my post) I did not have such a negative view when I first read the Sharp since I was not yet biased by Boyes. I thought a lot of his ideas were interesting, with a few unusual exceptions as Michelle points out in her post. After reading the Boyes though, it has a totally different tone though. I'm interested to hear about some of the other academic 'back and forth' on Sharp tomorrow.
DeleteI read the Boyes first and I had the same reaction as Brianna, but perhaps to a lesser extent.
DeleteI agree with Erik. I also read the Sharp before the Boyes so I did not find the ideas too jarring. I can see the logic in some of Sharp's arguments, although I do not necessarily agree, for instance the composer of folk music should be writing music of their own people. It is also interesting how money was such a huge factor for Sharp.
DeleteBoyes: The quote explaining the work of Cecil Sharp was interesting in that it characterized folk songs and dances as “living expression[s] of those unchanging human emotions which we share with our ancestors” and as “belong[ing] as much to this generation as to the past.” It concluded with another quote: “Our dances are now what they were and what they always will be.” These seemed very forward-looking attitudes toward folk. More than just preserving something from the past, these tunes were viewed as mutable and a part of the present. It seems like there were many factions in the Gelbart reading that did not view folk material this way (although there were some who did…I cannot remember names right now).
ReplyDeleteOn. P. 55, Boyes discusses the folk equating songs with their performers, not wanting to even perform the song without that person’s approval since it would be “tantamount to theft.” Similarly, villagers felt guilty about even speaking about these songs to collectors. This strong emotional connection to this music is fascinating to me. I think that people in most cultures probably have some kind of emotional connection to music, but I have never heard of equating a tune with a person or refusing to perform for “outsiders” for this reason. Question: are there analogues to this in our society? In other cultures?
Chapter 4’s discussion of folk songs in music education reminded me of the different schools of music education that are still in use today. Orff and Kodaly value the use of folk songs above all else (if I am remembering correctly), while Dalcroze values all music equally.
In general, I was a little confused about Mary Neal’s role in all of this. It could be that we sort of started reading in media res here and that earlier in the book explained it, but the reading kept talking about the rivalry between Sharp and Neal, but I never really got a good grasp of what Neal’s position was or how the rivalry began. I suppose I could have missed something. Did anyone else feel this way?
In Ch. 5, I found it very interesting that Sharp so heavily edited the songs, “fixing” grammar and dialect. The adding of piano accompaniment isn’t quite as shocking to me, perhaps because we have seen so much of that already with the Haydn, Beethoven, etc. versions of folk tunes. But to edit the text seems to conflict with the aims at “authenticity.”
Sharp: I found it interesting that Sharp disregarded performances of songs by young people since they were polluted with modern sounds. It seems that this is contrary to the aims of modern ethnomusicology. However, I suppose when Sharp was writing, ethnomusicology was not an established scholarly practice as it is today. This could all be wrong, however, and Dr. Fiol could shed more light on it I’m sure. It also seems to contradict his opinion that age does not influence beauty (p. 160). Sharp was talking, of course, about the age of the melody, i.e. when it was “composed,” but it seems like disvaluing a “modern sounding” performance of a tune is still making some kind of aesthetic value judgment based on age! What do you think? Is this contradictory?
Sharp also says that the modes originated with the common folk. Do we have any proof of this? I have heard this, but I wonder what the reasoning is. Did Gelbart discuss that idea?
The Goethe quote at the beginning of the Karpeles reading cracked me up. An apt summary of a lot of our quibbles about terminology this year, haha.
"This strong emotional connection to this music is fascinating to me. I think that people in most cultures probably have some kind of emotional connection to music, but I have never heard of equating a tune with a person or refusing to perform for “outsiders” for this reason."
DeletePerhaps in pop music with the performance of covers? One might perform a cover of a very well-known pop song, but it would be performed in deference and in honor of the original performer. UNLESS the covering artist views him or herself as being more important or of a higher stature than the original artist, in which case the covering artist might claim the song for his or her own.
Not an exact parallel, but close, maybe?
I found the changing of dialect/grammar interesting too - in a way it made sense, since it seems like an underlying reason behind the revival was purifying and uniting England. But I didn't think they would edit the texts as much, thinking that the dialect would have just been allowable local color. In the end notes, Boyes did have a a notice from a paper of a performer singing the songs in dialect, so maybe there were simultaneous performance traditions for awhile?
DeleteAround the turn of the 20th century, English social thought became immersed in the revival of English peasant life through folk songs and dances. The controversial figure of Cecil Sharp, as noted by the Boyes article, was one if not the main forces behind the emergence of this movement. He believed that the English folk songs would allow English society and culture (namely the working class) to become pure again and revert back the days of “Merry Old England.” All of the “vulgarity” brought forth into culture by the popular music of the time would be stifled, though it continued to be present.
ReplyDeleteThe establishment of the English Folk Song Society and the later English Folk Dance and Song Society allowed for a wealth of songs to be collected. However, the means by which they were collected was questionable, and the true reasons behind the collection of them was just another way for the aristocracy and the upper-middle class to gain more financial and social clout.
Cecil Sharp was portrayed as the authoritarian folk song dictator of England. He claimed to know the true traditions of how the songs and dances should be carried out, later halting all work done by the Mary Neal and her Esperance Club because she was not in the movement as a “do-gooder” for the working class girls, not for the sake of carrying on the folk song tradition. I think it was a very interesting to see how the Esperance Club aided in another social movement in England, Women’s Suffrage. I am interested to know if there have been other organizations in history (as I am sure that there are) that were considered “unworthy” in their initial cause by a majority of society and were shut down, only to re-emerge later on as an important part of another causes history?
This is the mission statement at BlackPanther.org:
Deletehttp://blackpanther.org/MissionStatement.html
Sharp: the definitions and motivations given were about what I anticipated, but I didn’t expect them to be stated quite so strongly or to have the motivations that blatant, however. There were many statements about the attractiveness of the tunes, being able to easily sort out the good from the bad, and classics like “if the singer is hazy about the melody, it is easy enough to convict him in the course of a long ballad.” (p. 155). Then there are seeming contradictions, like the “age and beauty do not necessarily go together with tunes,” – which to me sort of turns the idea of all folk songs being beautiful and fit for consumption by all “Folk,” young and old alike, on its head.
ReplyDeleteNot all of Sharp’s insights seemed to be completely off the mark, though. “Do what they will, however, it will not be the old life that they will restore” on page 150 seems to take into account some of the problems with revivals in general, and the rest of the paragraph also seems to recognize the inherent romanticism and nostalgia of an early “Merrie Old England.” Page 159 speaks of the difficulty of dating songs.
The first few pages of Karpeles were great – I thought that the distinction in between “production” and “reception” theories summed up a lot of the scholarship we’ve discussed so far. Is it “folk” because it has been produced by the “folk,” or can something appropriated by the “folk” be deemed “folk music”? (Given that Karpeles already problematized “folk” with that wonderful Goethe quote). For Karpeles, it is “folk” if it has been orally transmitted, end of discussion – something that I don’t think will apply very easily now in our even more technologically-oriented world (does learning a tune from a friend’s cell phone ring count as oral transmission?). Then Karpeles continues to discuss three additional criteria: continuity, variation, and selection. Problems with regards to these are more readily apparent. It seems like there must be some continuity, which strikes me as problematic for “revivals” in some Native American cultures and historical performance groups. How does this fit with Boyes’s observation of someone being reluctant to share her mother’s songs? Can a song associated so strongly with one person even be considered “folk” music? Variation is recognized, but statements like “it never reaches its final form until the collector comes along…” are shaded with judgments and it wasn’t very eye-opening to read in Boyes, after Sharp’s and Karpeles’s writing, that there was a lot of editing regarding acceptable forms and variations. The last category, selection, ties into continuity – without continuity, the selection process of what is deemed by the community as suitable to survive is a moot point. But it was important to consider that communities, just as much as collectors, probably edited to some degree the material over the years. I find it easy to fall into the trap of thinking of the “folk” tradition as being sort of a scrap heap that indiscriminately collects all sorts of material without recognizing that an extreme form of “variation” could be the accepted disappearance of material.
I’m out of space, so I’ll just say that Boyes’s book – at least these few chapters – might have just as easily been entitled “Down with Cecil Sharp.” Lots of interesting critiques of the collection, selection, and ultimate revival movement, and an engaging look at the politics behind the different groups. I think that was what surprised me the most: that in the early 1900s, the concept of “folk” was still so tied into nationalistic sentiment. A lot of the process reminded me of what we had read in Gelbart, when intelligentsia “rescued” Scottish music and German intelligentsia created a “Volk.”
Other questions: Words vs. tunes: Sharp holds that the tunes changed less than the words (156). Karpeles “texts have undergone less change than the tunes.” (4). Seeing as how Karpeles is painted as a mindless acolyte by Boyes, the distinction is fairly interesting. Does it really matter which one changed the most, though?
Interesting question. I just assumed that the tunes would be subject to more variety. Just an assumption, but I guess this had to do with the texts being written down in some cases. Just a thought, but I think when words change, even with near synonyms there are shades of meaning that can change, while vocal/melodic ornamentation/variation doesn't necessarily imply change maybe?
DeleteYeah the Karpeles qualification of folk as orally transmitted is interesting, and very nice and neat. I agree that in today's world the definition probably isn't so cut and dry. Also, I think that most people do not think of Indian "classical" music as folk music, although it is certainly orally transmitted. I had a professor who said that it is patronage that qualifies something as classical; If it is paid for by the court or government or powerful church, etc., it is classical. This is problematic too though.
DeleteI like your point Douglass about patronage being an important factor in classical music. I also think that the Karples qualification is interesting and clear. I believe that it is important to think of these qualifications and definitions as evolving with time rather than set in stone.
DeleteI found the readings this week to be very helpful in finding in my own definition of “folk”. The Karpeles’ argument that oral transmission is a defining factor of “folk song” and therefor is forever changing is convincing to me. Furthermore, the definition provided by the International Folk Music Council is very thorough. However, I do disagree with the IFMC’s stance on popular music since (as I have stated in older posts) it can be proven that popular composed music is not unchanged. Therefore, the only alteration I would make to this definition of folk provided by the Folk Music Council would be to have it accept popular music as a source for folk music to evolve from. I think this alteration could open many doors for how we perceive and transmit folk music today. The readings discussed folk music as ever evolving. Folk tunes would change based on the performer and their own interpretation of the tune. These alterations could be present in the text or rhythm and sometimes melodic embellishments, but tune remained recognizable. I would assume that this evolution of a folk tune occurred over the span of generations. However, I would argue that today we see this evolution occur over the span of a couple weeks. For instance (please don’t hate me for this example), “Let it Go” from Frozen has seen the sort of changes I mentioned earlier. The movie came out relatively recently and within weeks there were videos on YouTube of new arrangements of the song. Some of these arrangements hold very true to the original, while others are much different. Both rhythmic material and in some cases text is changed, but the basic tune remains. “Let it go” is not the best or only example of this. Is it possible then that this process could happen for a traditional folk tune like “Danny Boy”? My other question is, “Could this seemingly instant evolution speed up the creation of a folk tune?” (reaching?)
ReplyDeleteI really like your idea of adding popular music as a source for folk.
DeleteAs for your question: I think that's a good example of variation like Karpeles talks about. I wonder how much of the changes in different versions are the result of potential copyright infringements or just artistic liberties, or perhaps both?
“Could this seemingly instant evolution speed up the creation of a folk tune?” I think the internet is speeding the world up more and more, so I'm not sure what the implications for folk music are. Interesting thoughts!
Yes, now that we're a little further into this class I'm wondering about the IFMC's definition too. Especially the "The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character."
DeleteDoesn't even the fact that the performance context has changed constitute re-fashioning and re-creating to some degree? I'm thinking about performing a rock hit in a local bar instead of on a huge stage, or about taking "Let It Go" and performing it live instead of the animated movie version - even if somehow the text and music hasn't changed, is just the fact that it's not a CG character count?
Yes and yes! The variation of a traditional folk tune happens a great deal. For instance, the Carter Family's "Wildwood Flower" was originally written by Maud Irving (who was really J. W. Van Namee) and J.P. Webster in the mid-1800's. Many think that it was written by the Carter Family, rather, they made their own version of the song complete with a new title. The Carter Family later created different versions of their original take on the song as well. The Carter Family most definitely speed up the creation and/or notoriety of the song as they made what is considered to be the definitive recording of it. The song has become synonymous with the group and rural American music in general.
DeleteI agree about folk being ever changing, which is why I somewhat took issue with Sharp's claim that younger singers's versions of songs were unreliable. Yes, they are different, but I think that's the name of the game with this type of music!
DeleteI actually read the Sharp first, then the Karpeles and then the Boyes chapters. I’m quite glad though I happened to use this order. Reading the Sharp with no idea of who he really was, the many problems associated with him, or even an understanding of when he was writing was really interesting in retrospect. If I had read the Boyes first, I think the negative portrait of Sharp would have shaded my reading.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, I thought he had some interesting ideas that have popped up in our previous discussions and probably have been influential on scholarship and folk collecting in general. Despite Sharp’s motives, I like the idea of who cares if the tunes are corrupt or authentic? This seems to be what Karpeles talks about as the reception school of thought. As we’ve discussed many times, we’ll never be able to track down the ‘authentic’ version, (whatever that means). It’s better to look at these tunes as a genre that constantly changes and “refashions itself.”
The Karpeles reading is very helpful for understanding the modes of oral transmission. I especially like this quote: “The individual invents, but the community selects.” This is in reference to the third aspect of folksong towards the end of the essay: selection. This idea of a folksong’s “lifespan” is so fascinating (Sharp also talks about this so I think there is some overlap here, which makes sense since Karpeles was a ‘disciple’ of Sharp.) I immediately start to wonder, “How much music is extinct?” I think it is helpful to move away from this idea of fixity when we talk about oral tradition, but then as Sharp noticed, one folksong had remained virtually unchanged for over 200 years! (but I don’t know if Sharp’s work is viewed with a certain degree of circumspect because of his various financial motives – in either case, I am also reminded of the videos we watched in class of the chanting of the Vedas and how precise and ‘fixed’ the oral transmission seemed in this example.) So I’m never quite sure what to think. Anyway, continuity, variation, and selection are really important to keep in mind. I think they are probably inherent to all modes of oral transmission (ie jokes, riddles, fairy tales) not just folksongs.
The Boyes chapters sort of shattered my naïve view of Sharp as this benevolent representative of the folk who was ‘preserving’ the English folk by the sheer good will of his heart. Why is the world such a cynical place? I won’t go into all the problems addressed here, but the most egregious example to me was Sharp monopolizing the copyright of folksongs which he may or may not have “bought” from the rural English. There is something that just does not seem right about this. Some might argue that he should get paid for his work, but somehow it doesn’t seem right.
Final observation: I thought the idea of teaching folk songs and dance as a part of mass education system was sort of like the Latin American articles we read where the state mandated weekly broadcast hours of national music. This all gets back to our discussion of why are the folk identity and song are so ideal for appropriation by the state with the intent of maintaining this national identity. So in this case: Why was English folk dance considered as a potentially effective tool for maintaining national identity?
Fun question...it seems that there are certain dance styles that help in defining a culture and (possibly) a national personality. For instance, the polka is associated with Germany, waltzes with Austria, swing dancing with the U.S., and so on. Maybe the English felt the primitive yet joyful folk dances would help in making England merry again?
DeleteSorry to be so late in adding my comments... I don't think I have much to add besides what everyone has said. I agree with Tyler that this week's readings have been helpful in finding my own definitions of the 'folk'. It seems that the majority of the readings we've dealt with prior to this week problematise the idea of the folk so much that one feels treading on a bomb with any definition. The definition by the International Folk Music Council seems to be as 'safe' a definition one can stick to.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the 'production' and 'reception' theories as Michelle pointed out permeate almost all of our readings so far. It seems to me that we started off holding to a more 'production' sort of view of folk music and have gradually moved to include the 'reception' view as well. The readings this week however seem to belong to the 'production' view, especially Sharp. (Something to do with their age?)
I also thought that the parallel with language was interesting - the primacy of oral traditions is equally important in both language and folk music, and as such they are both tied to their respective cultures and susceptible to constant evolution.
Sharp's statement 'If they be intrinsically beautiful, what matters if they be corrupt or not?' seems to have raised a few eyerows here... To me it all depends on the purpose and agenda one has in mind.
Congrats on your lecture recital Henry!
DeleteI am fascinated by that statement regarding "intrinsic beauty"... I think perhaps it is more revelatory of Sharp's motives than at first meets the eye.
One of my overriding thoughts as I read about a folk tradition I’m familiar with was that many of our underlying assumptions about this tradition seem to stem from the English Folk Revival. The Sharp reading laid out a number of these: the perpetual loss of folk innocence, the link between the decline of folk music and the decline of (British) society, the idea of variants (that songs being linked back to one tune family, i.e. that there is a “correct,” “original” folk-text that exists), and the impact of technologies on transmission and dissemination. The Karpeles reading reinforced other assumptions: disagreements between collective and individual composition, the idea of an “original” folk song, the similarities between folk and “classical” artistic processes, the importance of the collective and time with folk value-judgements and transmission (since works are winnowed to the “masterpieces” through these filters), the subconscious nature of folk artistry, etc.
ReplyDeleteWe’ve been critiquing a lot of these ideas and assumptions, but the Boyes reading is the first critical evaluation of Sharp that I’ve read. I greatly appreciated her situating both Sharp and the Folk Revival within the historical political context, where revivalism was linked with a perceived decline in the country's musical culture and urbanity and modernity were seen as polluting and contaminating influences. Along those lines, I found an interesting relationship between the reduction of “the perceived uniqueness . . . [of] a team's or village's identity” when their folk culture was represented (pg. 55) and Walter Benjamin’s ideas of a work of art’s “aura.” While I wager the folk were not concerned with the perceived loss of this “aura” for the same reasons German critical theorists were, I think the similar ideas both speak to a larger anxiety surrounding early 20th century sound reproduction, since people were being forced to confront a paradigm shift in how sound (and other media) could be (re-)portrayed.
Her criticisms are trenchant, but I don’t agree with her claim (pg. 53) that “Revival collectors' actions must, of course, be considered in light of contemporary, rather than late twentieth-century, attitudes.” Even if these actions were not seen as exploitative at the time, it still clearly was; exploitation is exploitation, regardless of the social and/or historical basis for it, and I think the most telling bit of support is the fact that the informants were regarded so lowly as to have been rarely present in supporting narratives. I’m usually a moral pragmatist, but this seems unambiguously wrong then or now.
I wasn’t sure about Sharp’s distinction between “national” and “folk” songs; I’ll give this a re-read, but if anyone has any insights, please pass them along.
Sorry, originally posted this in the wrong week.
Delete