Re: English fiddling essay (no mando)
Originally Posted by
maxr
So, does 'modern traditional' mean anything now, did it ever, and does it matter? You could say it's just a convenient label to indicate you're hearing folk instruments and folk style vocals, but how about all those Eastern European and Scandinavian metal bands with folk style vocals, bagpipes, nyckelharpas, hurdy gurdies and so on? Also, there's more and more of a generic European fiddle band sound, well illustrated by at least two of the fine fiddlers above, who could be from any part of Western Europe (I've got CDs to illustrate that). Swarbrick is another good example, because his excellent fiddling tended to be very much in his own distinctive style, which happened to suit English, Irish, and some Scottish tunes equally well. When he played electric fiddle with a loud band, was that suddenly 'rock', or was it still folk? Could we have discerned the difference if listening to a mix of the band with the fiddle turned down?
For me, the good news is that many of the musical barriers between different styles have broken down - many will disagree... Maybe we can leave it with Big Bill Broonzy, who is reported to have said in 1953 (?):
“Some people call these folk songs. All the songs I’ve heard in my life was folk songs. I never heard horses sing one of ‘em yet.”
I'm wary of the labels applied to types of music. Many genres are named by outsiders, often record producers and promoters who want merchants to know where to put a recording for sale in their stores. In the 60's, when people who sang folk songs began to write and sing their own material, often individualistic and reflective, their record companies continued to promote them as "folksingers" because folksong was popular at the time. The result is that most people today have very different ideas of folk music than people in the 50's had. Terms like "Traditional" and "Roots" came later, to describe what was formerly meant by "Folk" (songs, tunes, and lore passed on through oral/aural tradition, or composed in traditional styles). However, these terms too quickly lost their meanings. I used to look through the CD racks at a St. John's record store to try to understand how the staff differentiated between "Folk," "Traditional," and "Celtic" music (sadly, this is how folklorists spend their spare time). All I could figure was that if a person was popular in the 60's, their music would likely make it into "Folk," and if a surname started with "Mc," "Mac," or "O'," the music was likely "Celtic". Otherwise, the rules of categorization seemed to exist only in some employee's mind. Such labelling is further complicated by large stores with "Ethnic," "Bluegrass," and "Down East" or "Maritimes and Newfoundland" sections.
Although I sometimes enjoy the musical results of blurred genres, I do not celebrate the idea that highly differentiated, sometimes complex and subtle, regional and ethnic, musical styles, are blending into one international and commercial genre, familiar enough and easy to understand by outsiders, so that it becomes divorced from the people who originated the music. And I don't think that legendary quote -- this version from Bill Broonzy -- has anything to do with musical barriers breaking down. It's more of a statement that people who play music that scholars study don't necessarily share scholarly interests.
Robert Johnson's mother, describing blues musicians:
"I never did have no trouble with him until he got big enough to be round with bigger boys and off from home. Then he used to follow all these harp blowers, mandoleen (sic) and guitar players."
Lomax, Alan, The Land where The Blues Began, NY: Pantheon, 1993, p.14.
Bookmarks