TheSamba.com :: View topic

Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:38 pm

I am a big fan of the 60's music, and thank goodness for sirius/xm radio. It allows me to listen to it non stop :D

Often, I find myself on youtube searching for songs that I hear so I can watch
the video/artist that goes along with the song. Well, I often see the 60's having songs/artists that are labeled as "folk music".

I have googled what folk music is, but the response I get leaves me even more confused. What makes this music "folk"? I hear songs come on the radio and I can't tell if it's folk or not. It sounds like 60's music to me. On youtube I see it say "folk", bu I don't quite understand why.

Can anyone help me decipher when music is folk or not?
EX: Simon/Garfunkel, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul, and Mary, etc. to name a few artists.

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:11 pm

Next thing you know you’ll be hanging out with other beatniks in a coffee shop😀 whatever you do don’t listen to Pete Seeger.

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:25 pm

Or Woody Guthrie. A quick look at wiki gives a nice answer to your question.

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:31 pm

I think you are mixing genres.

Real Folk is from back before recordings or even writing it down.
Story telling through music handed down through the generations.

Modern Folk was indeed during the 1960's (the music of my youth) a lot of stories set to music, often antiwar themed, a lot of love and of life.
James Taylor, Judy Collins, Harry Chapin, Peter Paul & Mary, etc.

Dave

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:33 pm

djkeev wrote: I think you are mixing genres.

Real Folk is from back before recordings or even writing it down.
Story telling through music handed down through the generations.

Modern Folk was indeed during the 1960's (the music of my youth) a lot of stories set to music, often antiwar themed, a lot of love and of life.
James Taylor, Judy Collins, Harry Chapin, Peter Paul & Mary, etc.

Dave

Agreed and Bob Dylan lost many folkies when he went electric. The wiki definition goes into greater detail.

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:34 pm

Zundfolge1432 wrote: Or Woody Guthrie. A quick look at wiki gives a nice answer to your question.

see, now, when I hear that, that reminds me of the Hank Williams Sr. type music. Old Country Western music. The "folk" music I hear from the 60's sounds nothing like that.

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:36 pm

crankbait09 wrote: Zundfolge1432 wrote: Or Woody Guthrie. A quick look at wiki gives a nice answer to your question.

see, now, when I hear that, that reminds me of the Hank Williams Sr. type music. Old Country Western music. The "folk" music I hear from the 60's sounds nothing like that.

Think bigger folk is world music more than one genre. Chain gang and prison work songs can be considered folk as can slave era work songs. A couple of weeks ago we watched Ken Burns documentary on county music. The earliest forms could be considered folk as well. The takeaway here is music is a work in progress ever changing, it’s fluid.

Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:58 pm

strictly speaking folk music is music that uses the fiddle and the banjo. do you mean bluegrass music?

Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:53 am

Again folk music is worldwide and uses hundreds of different instruments. If you want to pigeon hole to just United States or certain decades then you can narrow it down. Bob Dylan played neither banjo or fiddle how can this be? Yet he is considered a folk musician.

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:07 am

right but youre conflating a style with a genre. the style of music dylan wrote was rock music really, compared to ragtime or to jazz it was radically different. you go back to irish music from the 12th century and its 'folk' music. look at it like this; 'classical music' by definition can be guitar, violin, flute etc. but its composition and style are radically different from other types of music that use the same instruments. 'folk music' here in the united states is usually music that was made int he last 150 years and uses a guitar,banjo, fiddle flute zither,harp etc. 'folk music' in the history of music is whole other game since it would extend back through time to before the 12th century. for ease of discussion you can say that Dylan was Bluegrass, or progressive bluegrass as he used traditional chord progressions, he played stringed instruments and performed mostly acoustic in the beginning. bluegrass is generally considered to have been established in the 1940's so it was also what dylan would have heard growing up. bluegrass is based on folk music. so you can argue that it is a form of folk, but the term folk is a huge genre that can encompass several different styles of music...

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:33 am

Dylan was part of the folk revival that started in the late 1940s and peaked in the mid 1960s, right about the time the Beatles showed up and changed everything. Bob Dylan was most definitely not bluegrass. But I suppose Bluegrass could be considered contemporary folk music.

When you say "folk music" are you thinking contemporary? Or are you thinking traditional music of any culture passed down through generations?

Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:13 am

To my way of thinking folk music is found in every culture all over the world going back hundreds of years. That’s the broad definition however you can surely pick a location and time to narrow it down. I’d say that whatever sounds good and you like, well that’s a win win. As a boy growing up I listened to Django Reinhardt and Doc Watson. Two very different styles but sounded good to me but what the hell I also listened Johnny Winter and Jeff Beck, definitely not folk. 😀

Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:55 am

I have tons of hand-me-down 60' folk records from relatives who said "Hey, do you want some of my old records." Kingson Trio, New Christy Minstrals, etc, along with all the aforementioned singer-songwriters. And of course a bunch of Dylan.

Acoustic Dylan is the only on of the group I can stand for a whole album. The rest seems more like a fad to me. Maybe like a counter-over-reaction to influx of R&B based music.

Later folk influenced rock is more to my taste - CSN, Mamas and Papas, electric Dylan, etc. The biggest value, to me, of the early 60's stuff is it provide some perspective in the development of the later rock oriented stuff.

Also, it's a pre-requisite to understanding the humor in "A Mighty Wind." :wink:

Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:28 pm

Zundfolge1432 wrote: Or Woody Guthrie. A quick look at wiki gives a nice answer to your question.

Woody Guthrie's Pasture of Plenty was re-worked into the title track for "Fistful of Dollars" by Ennio Morricone

Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:53 pm

IMHO ....... true Folk, the stories put to song and handed down through countless generations is probably gone.
This pure folk music requires isolated people groups which in our World today simply don't exist any longer.
That old time folk is now polluted by outside influences and new instruments.
Whatever recordings were made back in the early to mid 1900's are all we have to carry of this music into the future.

At least they were made......

Dave

Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:45 pm

Yes, those first bands you mentioned are considered 'folk music'.

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:33 pm

I never quite understood the allure of the strained, raspy whine that was Dylan. His songs were always much better when sung by someone else.

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:59 am

TDCTDI wrote: I never quite understood the allure of the strained, raspy whine that was Dylan. His songs were always much better when sung by someone else.

You could say the same thing about Willie Nelson. A distinctive nasal sound and he realeased a dozen albums and is a prolific songwriter before he ever gained recognition. So called industry experts said he’d never make it, but he’s 86 years old still popular to 4 generations.

What sets musicians apart from the pack is having a distinctive style, it’s same across all genres. Plenty of cover bands with great musicians never get noticed or they become studio hired guns. Google or wiki “ the wrecking crew” some of those went on to greatness.

Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:29 am

Glenn Campbell
Op research the hurdy gurdy man from mid-evil europe.

Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:06 am

TDCTDI wrote: I never quite understood the allure of the strained, raspy whine that was Dylan. His songs were always much better when sung by someone else.

While a lot of his covers are downright iconic classics, in a sense, they are like a song that's been auto-tuned. Dylan's singing, for all its faults, has much more of a "F.U." attitude in the presentation.

Neil Young is kind of the same. He's a terrible singer, but the emotion comes through in a way more polished singers can't project.