what is folk music

in these days of blurred genres
these days of infinite artistic fusion
when it hardly serves any purpose whatsoever
to regard anything as purely jazz
or rock or folk or even classical
what with nigel kennedy on the loose
what purpose might it serve to attempt to
clarify a definition of folk music?

i truly believe it serves music excitement to a certain degree
for artists to incorporate style and sentiment
from more than one music genre
i think of the intense harvesting in the late 19th and early 20th
century when classical composers were exploring the folk idioms
of their own nations
we think of bartok and copeland and dvorak and gershwin and scriabin
and vaughn williams

i think also of my friend chris kachian
who has added some excitement to
the performance of baroque music
by utilizing ideas in cadenzas
deriving from the blues
something noteworthy for classical guitar performance

but the question perplexes me
what can we call folk music today?

if theyz all folks
then theyz playin folks music, ain't they?
some then would regard hiphop as folk music
and others the urban grunge sound

i wish to make a few distinctions

in my definition of folk music
the creator and performer
have no intention of carrying the music
beyond the immediate source of inspiration
perhaps the back porch
or the kitchen
whereas hiphop artists are by and large
vying for some sort of notoriety
the music of simple origins
(of which admittedly there may be almost none)
is content in it's own locale

amos asch spent countless hours
travelling and recording people who
were perhaps known in their town or county
but spent little or no energy
aspiring for broader recognition

i am thus calling for a music
that is unpretentious in its conception
as well as its performance
music that may be recorded at some point
but does not set out to be involved in the
popular idiom of commercial recording

is this too idealistic?
i think not

music is meant to happen
it is meant to happen in the home
in the neighborhood
in the community
we are now too attached to the stage
of the recording studio
somehow we have come to the notion
that that is where music must happen

it is the contention of this writer
that we would discover something vital
and a wellspring of creativity
were we to limit our horizon
to the immediate surroundings of our lives

make music where you are
refuse to be recorded
refuse amplification
(unless absolutely impossible)
infuse everyday life with live music in the flesh
refuse the world of recorded sound
keep it away from your ears
the only real purpose of a recording is the preserve
something of value
and 90% of recorded music is destined to be forgotten
in a matter of time short time

i will here admit
that if john coltrane had not been recorded
had charlie parker not been recorded
had mississippi john hurt not been recorded
had joni mitchell not been recorded
had stan rogers not been recorded
my musical awareness would have been impoverished
but i listen to those masters
as a student listening to the teacher

music must strive to be deep
innocent
and beautiful
the humility of the folk musician will be
in this day and age
the attitude the eschews all manner of conveyance
beyond the immediate making of music

so is it fair then to say that
bruce springsteens' treatment of the
pete seeger songbook on CD
is a bastardization of something not meant
for that sort of venue?
(i suspect that there will be folks
who hear songs they would not listen to otherwise
and that is extending the importance of the music
but i suspect as well
that the understanding and appreciation becomes for the most part
superficial at best)

i say...yes it is a bastardization

bruce would do better simply to
play the music
for people when they gather at his house
or on the street corner
in amboy or newark

folk music must avoid the spectacle at all costs