Ever since the term “folk music” was coined, there have been arguments about what it really means. The word “traditional” clouds the definition even more. Since the modern folk revival took hold in the late 1950’s, folklorists and folk fans have argued about definitions.

What makes a folk song? What makes a folk song traditional? What is the folk tradition??

The word “folk” derives from the German word “Volk” which translates as people or nation. In the 18th century the English began using the word “folk” to describe the working class, or lower class that was based on the developing class system. As interest in heritage began to grow in the 20th century, the music of the people simply became known as “folk music”.

When modern artists began writing songs by updating older songs, or simply using an older tune, their work was scrutinized. Often recognized as the “father” of folk music, Woody Guthrie created his own music by using recognizable tunes as the setting for his words. He was following in the footsteps of the Carter Family. A.P. Carter gathered songs from local residents near his Virginia home and adapted them for the trio to sing. With this process comes ownership issues, and usually there are dollars attached. Should the work of Woody Guthrie and the Carter Family be considered folk – or were they simply singer-songwriters?

I grew up during the folk revival of the 1960’s and began hosting a radio show in 1975. I do not recall hearing the term singer-songwriter until the 1980’s when many musicians did not want to be associated with that four letter word – F O L K.

Here we are in 2006 and the battle still rages. The traditionalists do not wish to hear from contemporary singer-songwriters. Contemporary singer-songwriters are still hesitant about dipping into the well of “tradition”, yet they are more accepting of the term “folksinger”. Even singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen had success with traditional songs on his “Seeger Sessions” CD and tour. The Folk Alliance, an international organization that is helping to nurture the business side of the music, probably has a lot to do with this.

The problems arise when people try to categorize the performance or recording of a song as “folk”. Then word “traditional” starts to creep into the picture. A common definition among musicologists is that a TRUE folk song is a song that has no known author and has been handed down in an oral tradition. This means that the song has been passed along from generation to generation by the act of singing. I can sing a number of songs by heart simply because I heard my mother singing them when I was young. I did not need a book or sheet music to learn it. Presumably, my mother learned some of these songs from her mother, who learned it from her mother and so on. Who wrote the song is unknown and each generation probably added a word or two to fit their own tastes and needs.

Examples of this process can easily be found by browsing through the works of collectors from around the globe. This “folk process” (a term credited to Pete Seeger) accounts for the tremendous variation that can be found. A good example is the song “Black Jack Davy”, which evidences points to first being sung in the early 1700’s. Also known as “Raggle Taggle Gypsy”, “Gypsy Davy”, “The Gypsy Lover” among other titles, Francis Child listed this song as #200 in his collection. Many of the English variations portray the questionable “lady” as coming from nobility – her husband mounts his “milk white steed” as he goes off in search of his wife (in some versions she is a daughter) and her lover. Most American versions ignore the upper class setting and sing a song of average people. The husband now rides off on his “buckskin horse” to find this woman and the lowlife she has run off with! Woody Guthrie penned a memorable version.

So why do we consider this traditional? If this song were written in modern time, we would probably have a chance to discover the authors of the various versions as well as the original. Because there were no modern recording devices available, and no one thought to write the song down when it was created, does this make it “folk song”? Since we know Woody Guthrie wrote a version, does this mean it is no longer a folk song? Well, didn’t he follow in the “folk tradition” by making the words fit his own setting?

See the problem with definitions?

It is easy to dismiss the various definitions and determine by “feel”. “It sounds like folk!!” The problem then becomes one where people will call certain styles “folk” and dismiss anything that does not meet their set of criteria. The study of folklore is the study of a subject in movement, not simply the buried bones of the past.

People blame the proliferation of movies, television, radio, video games and other pastimes for adding to the decline of the singing tradition. More people are finding satisfaction in being entertained instead of creating their own entertainment.

Is it really for us to pass judgment on modern sources of entertainment?

I suspect that most of us are products of the folk revival – some readers were active participants in that era, others of us are able to share in the wealth of what they gathered. The “traditional” songs of bygone eras reflected past cultures that we studied. It was important to record the source singers to get an idea of what made up their heritage. The songs spoke of love, play, work, politics and history of a past time. Browse through the Penguin Book of English Folk Song, or any of the collections from Lomax, Stan Hugill, Cecil Sharp or other folk collectors and you will discover a link to a time when these modern conveniences were not to be found.

Is it fair that we dismiss the topics of modern singer-songwriters who are doing EXACTLY the same work that the shapers of songs did in past generations? The output and structure may be different, and it might not appeal to some of us on an entertainment level, but perhaps that is not its intention. Some of the songs that were collected a century ago were really treasured heirlooms of families that shared their wealth with the collectors. A song that mothers sang to their children was every bit as introspective as the “navel-gazers” that make up today’s crop of folksingers. Sure, the song may have been more accessible to our generation, but to dismiss the current songs is simply a example of not studying modern offerings with the same criteria that we used to study the music of past cultures.

The music may not be made on the front porch or in the kitchen as it was several generations ago, but there is still music being made and shared in a community setting. Folk music is a living tradition and traditional music will continue to be made. We just need to keep our eyes and ears open along with our minds.

I welcome your comments.