Jump to content

Talk:Folk music: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 496: Line 496:


Thanks
Thanks
: "People like Llyod, MacColl and, Lomax and Seeger in America, were somewhat eager to portray the rural idealism of some imagined past community, in which people all worked together and orally passed on their songs and stories."

:Some Trotskyite Marxist writers (notably Dave Harker and his followers) have claimed that "People like Llyod, MacColl and, Lomax and Seeger in America, were somewhat eager to portray the rural idealism of some imagined past community" but a careful examination of their writings does not support this claim. See [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_1_113/ai_86063326 C.J. Bearman's "Who Were The Folk"] for a careful examination of this question.

:It is true that the introduction of the alphabet and the invention of printing both had a marked tendency to stabilize customs and folklore (expressive behavior). The fact is, however, that for most of the past, until about 1950, the vast majority of the the human population was in fact, rural. Books and schooling were confined to the few (in "advanced" industrialized nations, such as England and France, public education and cheap paper for books and newspaper only became widespread at the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries.) Most communication was oral. It is not "idealization" to accept this historical fact. It ''is'' idealization to propose that all customs, save those of the industrial "vanguard" of proletarian workers, be discarded as unworthy relics of a benighted past, on the other hand. Pace [[Eric Hobsbawn's]] "the invention of tradition," all traditions are continually reinvented, both when every generation collectively decides what part of the past to keep and what to discard, and with every individual performance act of a ritual or custom. Think of "ethnic" cooking, for example.

:It is surprising that the point of view of the Trotskyite Marxist coterie acquired such widespread and unthinking acceptance, while the work of legitimate, serious scholars such as D.K. Wilgus and Bertrand Harris Bronson, two name a few, fell into unjustified neglect, although the work they did is in no way superseded. The fact that Lloyd, Seeger, and Guthrie wanted to use folk song to effect social change and the subsequent Cold War reaction against the Progressive movement of the thirties and forties, to which most folk enthusiasts belonged, may have had something to do with it. [[Special:Contributions/96.250.132.201|96.250.132.201]] ([[User talk:96.250.132.201|talk]]) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)July 10, 2008


==An example of a folk ballad==
==An example of a folk ballad==

Revision as of 01:19, 11 July 2008

Template:WP1.0

Folk rock?

Someone wrote:
More recognizable, perhaps, is a type of what is generally called rock and roll called [folk rock]? or simply "folk," which included performers such as [Joan Baez]?, Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, [The Mamas and the Papas]?, and many others.

I've tried to clarify this. "Folk rock" is used very specifically and is typically far more recognised by instrumentation than form. Many folk musicians of the 60s (Tom Paxton, Phil Ochs etc) sang new, topical material (which distinguished them from traditional folk musicians) but in the folk idiom (acoustic instruments, traditional arrangements and often traditional melodies.)

Re: the comment about "marketers" in the first paragraph. If language reflects common usage, what is now called "folk music" has as much right to the name as any other form.
Gareth Owen

To the latter: fair enough, but does the first paragraph actually imply otherwise? --LMS

Cynical remark

I like the page in general but wonder if the following is unnecessarily cynical (implying, as it does, a financial rather than artistic incentive to change musical styles):

"Some of these performers, of which Joan Baez is an excellent example, began their commercial music careers performing traditional music in a traditional idiom, but soon transformed their style and accompaniment to suit popular tastes."

Ya know, I agree, but I don't know how to change it right off. Anyone else want to give it a stab? --LMS

The deletions are merely of things that seemed redundant. Additions may solve the problem of tone mentioned above. One bit of the original puzzles me, so I corrected the grammar but left it in--but what does "unrecognizable to its source" actually mean?

I like the new additions--lots of good new information here. I added some more. The problem now is that the article is rambling and disorganized, and I am probably not the best person to organize and clarify it. BTW, using the word "purist," without the quotes, makes it sound as if the authors of the article are not purists, which we don't want to imply. :-) See neutral point of view. --LMS

Skiffle?

Perhaps someone who knows the facts :-) could add in "Skiffle" music, from whence the Beatles sprang, which was evidently a British folk form in the 1950's. Certainly the Beatles stole (er, utilised!) many folk forms in their music. (date of question unknown, but it predates the answer below by months.)

There is already an article on Skiffle Music.
Skiffle started in London in 1956, with the Chas McDevitt Skiffle Group.

John Lennon, of the Beatles, formed a group called The Quarrymen in 1957. Later, Lonnie Donegan brought skiffle to a wider audience. G4sxe 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going to need a List of folk musicians at some point soon. user:sjc

POV

This page is ridiculous. I agree with the POV, but it is still a clear and obvious POV. I'm not sure how to fix it right now, but I will and come back. Tokerboy 09:00 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Article is getting long so I put in section headings; also a little bit on the classical composers who went folksong collecting. Sorry about the clash of prose styles.

Opus33 21:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Old list

I removed the following list of folk styles, because I think it's too highly debatable to include without annotation. Maybe it could be moved to List of genres of folk music or something, but I'm not sure of the value of such a thing given the lack of any terribly agreeable definition of folk music. Tuf-Kat 20:41, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

"horses" remark

Is there any citation for the remark attributed to Louis Armstrong? I believe I've heard pretty much the same attributed to Bill Broonzy and I bet this obvious joke was made more than once. If it is there as a direct quote, it should be cited, otherwise at least it should be worded as an indirect quote. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a quickie Google search found:
http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/l/louis_armstrong_937.php
On the other hand, I'm not really that crazy about having the quote in there at all; back when I was editing this page, I left it in simply as a courtesy to a previous editor. It's perhaps useful as a way of illustrating different attitudes about what folk music is, but I'd prefer to emphasize the view of people (scholars) who've studied it seriously. If you'd like to just take it out, Jmabel, it would be fine with me. Opus33 22:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's a citation for Broonzy saying this: [1], probably from a better source than a generic "quotes" site. And another: Michael Cooney, citing it here, is a pretty solid folk-revival musician himself (although he misspells "Studs Terkel"): [2]. Another site says it's attributed variously to Big Bill Broonzy, Woody Guthrie and Igor Stravinsky. [3]. Someone could probably do a pretty good article on the history of this quotation. I think I'll keep the quote in the article, use a better wording of it than the one there right now, and indicate how unclear it is who said it. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

"Many feel"

In the section "Variation in folk music" the phrase "Many feel..." begs for some citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

It certainly does. Please give me a few days, I need to get the references from a library. Opus33 00:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Horses again

I feel that the horse passage is really landing us in a muddle--we've got Igor Stravinsky as a popular musician now, which surely isn't right. The passage adds a lot to length, and it's not helping readers to understand folk music. So I excised, hoping not to elicit rage (or reversion)...

I'm intrigued that the saying has been attributed to so many people, and think it might be worth installing elsewhere--say, in the Louis Armstrong article, or in Wikiquote?

On another front, I pondered, and decided that the "Many feel..." passage is utterly POV and should go, too. Opus33 05:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the removed paragraph (as I had left it, but with one further edit -- I had missed that misplaced word "popular") reads:

Louis Armstrong, Bill Broonzy, Woody Guthrie and Igor Stravinsky have all been credited saying that all music is "folk" music: as Broonzy is claimed to have said to [[Studs Terkel, "I never heard no horses sing none of it!" [4], [5], [6] This emphasizes the universality of people's love for music (which folk music also attests), but it also misses a distinction. Stravinsky, of course was a classical musician. Armstrong was a gifted performer within a sophisticated music tradition, which by his time had evolved to be very different from its folk origins. Broonzy and Guthrie were also professional musicians, albeit both with strong folk roots.

Probably doesn't belong in this article, perfectly glad to be rid of it. Wikiquote might be a good place for an extended version of this. Surely not in the Louis Armstrong article: I'd venture that he is one of the least likely of the people to whom it is attributed. My vote would be for Broonzy; Studs Terkel is still alive, so someone just might be able to get confirmation of that from the horse's mouth, so to speak. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

The Singers' Club

"the Singers' Club and was the first, as well as the most enduring, of what became known as folk clubs" Neither the first (Newcastle's folk club began in 1953) nor the most enduring (it closed its doors in 1991). The Troubabor lives on, as does Edinburgh's Sandy Bell's.

  1. The Singers' Club (as the "the Ballads and Blues Club") was also 1953. [7] Any particular basis for claiming that the Newcastle club started earlier in the year?
  2. "Troubabor": I assume that's "The Troubador"? Yes, that was founded in 1954 and would now be far older than the Singers' Club ever got to be. Has it been in continuous operation? If not, with what degree of interruptions? Anyway, you should edit the article accordingly. Probably the Singers' Club should still be mentioned for its uncommon purity of concept (it was an acoustically good room with no amplification at all). -- Jmabel | Talk 09:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Gundula Krause

Is Gundula Krause well-enough known to merit mention in this article? I will readily admit to never before having heard of her. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Germany she´s wellknown under the name "göttliche Teufelsgeigerin" (divine fiddler of devil). Audax 12:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Márta Sebestyén

Same question about Márta Sebestyén. I love her work, but is it that influential? --JButler 22:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty major star in her own country, known worldwide, and unlike Krause, working in the folk tradition of her own country. I'd tend to think she belongs in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

References

Anyone know why in "References", Charles Seeger is a sub-section of Richard Middleton - or is this just a formatting error? -- SGBailey 22:19, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Seeger is cited in Middleton, I've never seen nor touched the Seeger book. Hyacinth 04:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Traditional music

I have redirected traditional music here, and added a paragraph on the term (please clean up the paragraph -- I can't think of a more graceful way to explain it). See talk:traditional music. Tuf-Kat 21:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Anglocentric Viewpoint

Since both ethnic music and traditional music redirect here, this article ought to be written from a culture-neutral point of view. As it is, nearly all the examples are from the American/English/Irish traditions only.

Especially without the list of folk styles (above), the whole article gives the impression that folk music applies to certain cultures only, which is lamentable.

Maybe a "folk music around the world" section would be in order? I'd also love to see "foreign" examples mixed in with the existing ones in the rest of the article also. --CodeGeneratR 18:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think this article should be mostly generic, meaning that it should just discuss what separates folk music from popular or classical music; this will, of course, require using a few examples, which should probably come from a variety of regions. Trying to explain any individual kind of folk music here is a bad idea, because it would not really be neutral to only explain some kinds (even a balanced description of one Western European style, one East Asian style, etc, would still be ignoring many other kinds). It would be better to keep this article generic and have a link to an appropriate page for someone looking for a specific kind of folk music (I've been working on User:TUF-KAT/List of genres of music by region, which would be a good pointer once it's complete). However, I should also note that most English-speaking people probably don't use the term folk music very precisely, and may come here looking for information on folk-rock or singer-songwriter or something else, and we should make it easy for those people to find a more appropriate article. Tuf-Kat 20:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

RiotFolk?

Is RiotFolk really of enough significance to merit a mention in a general article about folk music? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

it should probably be moved to see also. --Buridan 17:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
done -- Jmabel | Talk 17:51, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Traditional music again

See talk:traditional music. I'd appreciate anyone's comments on what to do with that article (as well as trad and roots music, while we're at it). Essentially, I redirected traditional music to folk music some time ago, then took a wikibreak. During the wikibreak, someone made an article on trad, and there was a VfD about it, and it was redirected to traditional music on the basis that some non-folk compositions are credited "trad", and so a redirect to folk music would be inappropriate. I can see the logic here, but I don't know what traditional music could ever be about -- the practice of citing traditional popular songs as "trad"? That seems an absurd subject for an article. The user in question is no longer active, so I'm posting here in the hopes of getting some other opinions. (Roots music is completely unrelated to the current discussion, but I thought I'd bring it in since it's a related topic and may as well be dealt with at the same time) Tuf-Kat 04:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

POV?

Recently added paragraph beginning "Yet the ability to sing 'reasonably well' can be defined many different ways… seems to me like pure POV. I won't revert unilaterally, but I'm seeking consensus on that. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but than that it's a bit baffling. The writer is obviously expressing support for something but I can't quite see what. Flapdragon 22:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JMabel. Opus33 14:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think one must be extremely careful in using the term 'tradition' or deeming music/songs to be 'traditional'. Firstly, both imply the fixed and unchanging existence of a concrete 'tradition,' which is quite simply false. Secondly, these debates have been the centre of disucssion by academics, artists and fans for decades and there is as yet one, unified definition of such terms. Some interesting reading could be done of some works by those like Philip Bohlman or Ron Ayerman and Andrew Jamison (amongst a hundered others; especially 'Poplore' by Gene Bluestein) and these would highlight certain aspects regarding this subject. Primarily, i feel such works are quite correct in their identifying no singular 'tradition' of folk music and therefore the impossibility of 'traditional' music. It is true music may belong to a 'tradition,' but only in its borrowing of particular practices or musical elements from the past. Thus, tradition is always the recreation of the past in the present moment, and as such 'tradition' is often created by those with political ideals for political purposes - as was the case with both the British and American folk song revivals. Thus, people like Llyod, MacColl and, Lomax and Seeger in America, were somewhat eager to portray the rural idealism of some imagined past community, in which people all worked together and orally passed on their songs and stories. To an extent this is true and oral transmission is a fundamental part of the folk process, but the singers/performers of these rural communities were not themselves 'traditional' as such, as they were only recreating the past in the present in their own time, which we can see in their appropriation/continuation of Child Ballads and other European ballad-forms in Virginia and Appalachia. However, to portray a unified community and the identity created through this is extremely useful propaganda for left-wing parties in particular who can use and have used the music to firstly, build national pride and secondly, unify large numbers of people under an ideology.

Like i say, many have written entire books on this subject alone and therefore its somewhat difficult to say everything here but, just a few things to consider.

Thanks

"People like Llyod, MacColl and, Lomax and Seeger in America, were somewhat eager to portray the rural idealism of some imagined past community, in which people all worked together and orally passed on their songs and stories."
Some Trotskyite Marxist writers (notably Dave Harker and his followers) have claimed that "People like Llyod, MacColl and, Lomax and Seeger in America, were somewhat eager to portray the rural idealism of some imagined past community" but a careful examination of their writings does not support this claim. See C.J. Bearman's "Who Were The Folk" for a careful examination of this question.
It is true that the introduction of the alphabet and the invention of printing both had a marked tendency to stabilize customs and folklore (expressive behavior). The fact is, however, that for most of the past, until about 1950, the vast majority of the the human population was in fact, rural. Books and schooling were confined to the few (in "advanced" industrialized nations, such as England and France, public education and cheap paper for books and newspaper only became widespread at the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries.) Most communication was oral. It is not "idealization" to accept this historical fact. It is idealization to propose that all customs, save those of the industrial "vanguard" of proletarian workers, be discarded as unworthy relics of a benighted past, on the other hand. Pace Eric Hobsbawn's "the invention of tradition," all traditions are continually reinvented, both when every generation collectively decides what part of the past to keep and what to discard, and with every individual performance act of a ritual or custom. Think of "ethnic" cooking, for example.
It is surprising that the point of view of the Trotskyite Marxist coterie acquired such widespread and unthinking acceptance, while the work of legitimate, serious scholars such as D.K. Wilgus and Bertrand Harris Bronson, two name a few, fell into unjustified neglect, although the work they did is in no way superseded. The fact that Lloyd, Seeger, and Guthrie wanted to use folk song to effect social change and the subsequent Cold War reaction against the Progressive movement of the thirties and forties, to which most folk enthusiasts belonged, may have had something to do with it. 96.250.132.201 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)July 10, 2008[reply]

An example of a folk ballad

I removed a link to a sound file, which is a recording of one version of folk song "Barbara Allen". Folk music around the world is very differnt, it would be anglocentric and biased to offer only a sample of English folk music in the article (that should be) about all folk music. This is an English language Wikipedia, not bound to any country. If we offered an extensive amount of folk music samples, this page would get immense. So let's offer nothing here, and instead put them in the articles about specific music styles, OK? -Hapsiainen 15:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. No offense, but that's the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. If you thing it's anglo-centric (a debatable point in-and-of-itself), then by all means feel free to find other song files (with acceptable copyright status), upload them, and add them to this page. Your claim of "Anglo-centricism" does not justify making the article less informative. →Raul654 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand my reasoning at all. I wrote that there should be no example song or sound files in this article. They should be in specific articles, like in Australian folk music, Moroccan folk music etc instead. I know that "Barbara Allen" is known in several English-speaking countries, but there is still bias. The song isn't known worldwide. Oh, and you can't ask someone to not take an offence, when you describe someone's thoughts very stupid. -Hapsiainen 18:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I wrote that there should be no example song or sound files in this article. " - this is just flatly wrong. *OF COURSE* our article on folk music should have folk music! Wikipedia is supposed to be informative -- our article on folk music *should* have nice media examples. Making people jump through hoops to find useful content is a BAD way of writing articles. It is *not* biased to only one have song in here, if that's the extent of what we have available, your contention not withstanding. →Raul654 20:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should an article about music have some music, too? It would be silly. Content is only useful in the right context. In this context, the file gives too narrow view on the folk music. I'm waiting for other people's comments on this because this isn't a never visited page. -Hapsiainen 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Should an article about music have some music" - yes, it should! Music should contain a samplying of differnet kinds of music found in the world, just like History of music does. In the case of this article, if the file gives too narrow a view on music, then add more! Fix the article by making it more informative, not less. →Raul654 21:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the History of Music article, and I changed my mind a bit. The files are there in the right context, in the sections about certain music styles. (I talked about articles before that.) But this article isn't divided by music styles, this tries to say something about them in general. The Music article is similar. You can't express anything general by some music samples. -Hapsiainen 00:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sample is a plus. I'd love to get half a dozen other samples which together would give some indication of how broad a category folk music is, but certainly a sample of one of the most durable folk songs in the English language is appropriate to an article on folk music written in any language. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a good inclusion, though ideally there would be a number of diverse samples (there are a few dotted about the wiki here and there), each of which would be used to specifically illustrate something relevant, but including the sample is useful in and of itself. Also, "Barbara Allen" is, as Jmabel noted, one of the most famous and widespread folk songs of any part of the world, so it's a very defendable inclusion. Tuf-Kat 04:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roots redirect

I'm surprised that Roots redirects me here - artists performing "Roots" music often don't consider themselves to be Folk artists, though they can see the (musical) link Gwaka Lumpa 17:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is a separate topic there, you can turn a redirect into an article in its own right. Certainly a link to this article would belong somewhere in that one, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Folkies

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkies, it was decided to merge Folkies into this article. Enjoy. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Folk Music as a hobby on my user page and I am a Folkie, so I agree. G4sxe 18:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Merged. Well, as best I could! SilkTork 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i created Template:Contemporary folk music-footer last night but didn't add it to any pages as i then thought it would probably be better to move it to Template:Folk music-footer and expand it to link to other styles of folk music. thoughts on what else should be added? --MilkMiruku 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Room for Breton Folk music

As this article is written in English, the place of Breton Folk music is very poor here, why so? There is much to say, even if we want to speak only of the influence of artists as Alan Stivell in the English speaking world.

User:E1 14:05, 6 April 2006

Natural Selection

From "Variation in Folk Music": "A perfect process of natural selection would not have permitted these incoherent versions to survive." This line should be deleted, as it shows a poor grasp (or simply non-understanding) of the theory of natural selection (especially Dawkin's concept of Memes) and is simply put not true. Ebolart 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently removed. When you find statements made without citation, and that don't appear to be true, feel free to cut them yourself (with a clear edit summary, and it remains good to also mention it on the talk page). - Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that as a nation industrializes, and folk music is replaced with popular music, the scope and duration of copyright tend to increase at the same time. Could fear of being caught performing popular music in public without a license, along with the strongly disputed affordability of public karaoke licenses from BMI and the like, be part of the reason why people lose musical skill? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely on all fronts. Presumably, the reduction of lessons in school compared to mid-20th-century has had a detrimental effect on American musicianship, especially on the instruments not much used in contemporary popular music, but it's not like there is an enormous fall-off to be accounted for. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy

Why should Cindy remain? It's because this article is long on opinion and short on fact. In Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let the facts speak for themselves, there is the example of an article on Hitler:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Cindy dispassionate listing of variant lyrics lets readers see for themselves how folk music morphs, as each singer changes existing verses to suit himself, and creates entirely new verses. Isn't that preferable to pseudo-experts pontificating from on high?

And as far as being a "near-stub", of the twelve articles remaining in that list, six are shorter than [Cindy] and six are longer. ClairSamoht 07:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the length of the "Cindy" article is quotation of lyrics. Why single out this one song? If it is there to illustrate a particular point, linking it as a see also fails to do that; discussing it as an example might. There is no apparent reason to link to an article about "Cindy" than to an article about any of a hundred other songs. - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article starts out saying "Folk music, in the original sense of the term, is music by and of the common people", but then it completely ignores that in the rest of the article. The references are all from people who analyse folk music, who study folk music, who categorize folk music - but the common people don't do that. They play folk music and they sing folk music and they dance to folk music. In that regard, this article has NO valid references, just false authorities.
Are there a hundred folk songs that have articles in Wikipedia? If this is the only article that shows how folks songs morph, that strikes me a good reason to link to it. ClairSamoht 05:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are far more than a hundred individual folk songs that have articles in Wikipedia; sticking only to English-language songs, there are more than one hundred articles on the Child Ballads; some are stubs, but several show the evolution of a folk song. One that leaps to mind is "The Unquiet Grave", which I think goes on a bit long with minor variations. Even many of the stubs link to multiple variants. "Wildwood Flower" is another article that shows a very interesting case of the folk process, albeit on a song not of folk origins. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Calls

This is an excellent article which has provided an immense amount of knowledge to myself. however, I must take exception to one passage. Let me provide the quote fom your article:

"Other sorts of folk songs are less exalted ...In the armed forces, a lively tradition of jody calls are sung while soldiers are on the march."

As an ex-soldier of the Australian army, I will take exception to that remark. The only army in the world to use "jody calls" is the American - let me be more precise - the only armed forces to use "jody calls" in the world are the American armed forces.

Much to the merriment and cynical comment of myself and my fellow diggers when we first encountered an exhibition thereof.

The German army sings marching songs and then shuts up. The English army has a sergeant calling the step "Left. Left. Left, Right, Left" and then the sergeant eventually shuts up. The Australian army justs shuts up

The reasons I take exception to your passage are twofold:

1. "In the armed forces" - what and whose armed forces? There a few more armed forces in the world than the american forces. I would appreciate your being more precise. Maybe using this term would be more correct "In the armed forces of the United States of America,..." as this solves the concommitant problems of "whose armed forces" and "which part of America", a rather large land mass situated somewhat to the west of Europe and occupied by more than one sovereign state.

2. The underlying assumption in the article that only the United States of America need be considered is unthinkingly arrogant - a problem I have with many, if not most, of the entries in the Wikipedia. There are other countries in the world, all with their own culture and traditions. The best example of this unthinking arrogance is probably the address of the wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org. Had the wiki been initiated in Australia the address would be http://en.wikipedia.org.au, or in New Zealand, http://en.wikipedia.org.nz or in Germany http://en.wikipedia.org.de.

The arrogance in the wiki entries lies along these lines - general discussion of subject as applicable to USA, then sub-sections of the discussion applicable to other countries. Why is the USA treated as special or different to the rest of the world?

I must apologise for the vehemence of my remarks. As I said earlier - the article is excellent and has taught me much. Unfortunately, I arced up over the mention of the army. My apologies.

John McLaren203.164.193.195 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment. Next time for this sort of thing you could edit the page and fix it yourself (I've fixed it, hopefully satisfactorily, for now). However, obviously one person cannot deal with the entire problem of American bias on Wikipedia. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which tries to deal with these issues. There are Wikipedias in other languages as well, [de.wikipedia.org] is a very large wiki, and probably has a German systemic bias. The English Wikipedia has an American bias, because mostly Americans edit it, and it shows. We are working on it, but it's still a problem. You can help, just by fixing little things like that only Americans use jody calls. Thanks, Mak (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nut Hill Productions

I cut the following (somewhat poorly formatted) external link, because it seems premature

[[8]]over 150 hours of exclusive interviews with some of American Folk Music's most important and influential performers, educators, and experts.

I see no indication that those "150 hours of exclusive interviews" are anywhere on their site. If I'm missing something, please elucidate. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references were listed by hand. We should make use of the php reference system: Wikipedia:Footnotes. I converted two in-paragraph references to this, but the older references are just a bulleted list with no links to them anywhere in the article. If anyone has any idea what was cited from what, they should go through and mark the citations. Otherwise, we might want to consider moving these to the further reading section. Bjart 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in article from anon

no real change: I just love the wording. it captures the essence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.18.253 (talk • contribs) 06:17, December 3, 2006

Original research

This article needs a lot of more of references its looks like Orginal Research at the moment (Gnevin 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've had to add the {{tl:fact}} to nearly every line here .This article need major work . The whole decline section looks made up (Gnevin 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Good article Review of GA status

This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. Teemu08 23:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted GA

Since it's been technically warned for about 5 months and its still quite un-good, I think that was more than a fair amount of time to expect changes, and i've delisted this article. Homestarmy 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i love folk music but where exactly did it originate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.114.89 (talk • contribs) 11 March 2007.

It depends on what folk music. There are folk musics in pretty much every culture. - Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long

This article is extremely long and dense. I would take inspiration from printed encyclopedias in editing this down to a size that makes it usable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random task (talk • contribs) 21 March 2007.

Major changes to World, Folk, Roots, and Traditional music pages

Hi all. I think the pages for World music, Roots music, Folk music, and Traditional music need some changes. I've documented the ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Definitions; if you could all respond on the talk page, that would be great!

-- TimNelson 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck.

This article is just a mess. —Gaff ταλκ 08:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the only singers to recieve an Order Of Canada"

It says in the article "Simultaneous to the American folk movement was the Canadian folk movement, exemplified by artists Gordon Lightfoot, Leonard Cohen, and Joni Mitchell, all three of whom would become the only singers to receive an Order of Canada, and all of whom would achieve varying degrees of lasting international success."

I thought K.D Lang (also a singer) has got an Order Of Canada? There may be others too?

Beckyramone 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Europe and Balkans

The East Europe and Balkans part is pure nonsence. Music of Southeastern Europe says: The music of the Slavic countries of southeastern Europe is quite significantly different to that the music of Eastern Europe, which includes the Slavic states of the former USSR. The latter was much more influenced by the common eastern Slavic culture, notably by Kievan Rus and more recently the USSR. What the Music of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Music of Montenegro or Music of Republic of Macedonia, which btw are not mentioned in the subsection at all, have incommon with the music of Belarus or Ukraine?! This is nonsence. The Balkan sound is dystinctive, its a story of its own. Dzole 12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the United Nation's webpage: Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings count most of the Balkan countries as belonging to South Europe or Southeastern Europe. Dzole 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans and East Europe::

I think groups like Mazowsza or Ślansk from Poland need to be mentioned as notable examples of "State-approved" folklore, using clothes, songs and dances from folklore but with classical singing styles. I think it is also important to mention the "post-folklore" movement which seeks to return to more "authentic" forms. Also... isn't Bulgaria in the Balkans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.39.98 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Caruso

There are two links to Enrico Caruso sound files. I will delete them unless somebody comes up with good reasons for keeping them in this article. Ogg (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has spoken up in favour of them so I have deleted the two Caruso sound files. Ogg (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volk

The translation Volk (meaning people or nation) is incorrect. The word Volk simply means many. It was originally used in an agglutinative form to discribe a large number of individuals which are connected through a collective criteria. It's like saying volk of wikipedians instead of lots of wikipedians or volk of writers instead of lots of writers. The meaning is different to people or nation.--90.187.143.116 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Shouldn't Peter Paul and Mary and many others have more complete writeups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.95.7 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folk_music&oldid=224927845"