Fun Stuff > BAND

QC techno reference

<< < (6/6)

KharBevNor:
If we're playing it like that, Industrial now means Powerman 5000, house is Daft Punk and dubstep is Skrillex.

If you dissemble you're a pissy pants pedant.

KvP:
No I'm agreeing with you, people shouldn't use "folk" to describe Akron/Family. And yeah, sign me up for the pedant club. I'm nothing if not a genre-jockey.

TheFuriousWombat:

--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 23 Apr 2011, 23:30 ---If I wanted to be really pedantic I could make a case that recorded music can't be folk music. Folk music implies that, to some degree, the artist draws on a greater storehouse of tunes, lyrics, subjects, chord progressions etc. that have been developed sometimes for centuries before being written down, and passed from performer to performer via the act of performance, and which, ideally, the artist should treat with the curious mixture of irreverence and respect such a weight of human achievment deserves. Note that this definition of folk music extends across all cultures. If someone picks up an acoustic guitar or an accordion or a fiddle or whatever and writes a song from scratch that song really doesn't strictly have anything to do with folk music, no matter if it sounds a bit like folk music or the singer has a folksy twang or whatever.

Saying "definiions of genre change", as if that somehow dismisses the need for discussion and negates any possibility of the original and useful definition of the word in question being argued for and maintained is a classic thought-terminating cliché. You must at least provide a new definition of the word 'folk' that isn't a meaningless, thoughtless marketing term.  

--- End quote ---

ok so where do you draw the line then? What you're saying is that there's a fixed, finite pool of folk songs and templates and everything that came later, even if it adheres exactly to the sound or style of songs in that pool, are actually imposters or not genuine or something like that. My question is, who defines that finite pool of "traditional" songs that supposedly are the only real folk songs in your (in my opinion) misguided or overly holistic definition? When did songs stop becoming folk and start becoming the shallow impersonations you seem to view them as? Is "real" folk music even possible today, as a consumable entity, or do you think folk cannot possibly be commodified lest it lose something essential? Could you give some concrete examples of who you would privilege with making "real" folk music and then an aesthetically similar counter example that doesn't count and explain why the former is the only one deserving of the title? That isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious because it's my impression that you're wrong and I'd like to hear a more concrete argument.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page