The main question that I went into this project having was, is there a correlation between open mics and folk music, and if so what is it. Questions I went to answer as the project progressed were: What is folk? What are the processes of folk? What are open mics? How are the two correlated?
These latter questions I believed would help me answer my primary question. Through various interviews, attendances to open mics, and armchair analysis. These are the answers I found. Folk music technically has no known origins, but in the past has been ascribed to the working class. It was a way for workers to feel unified in their struggles and hardships. Today however, it can be described as honest music, music of the people, because after all it is called 'folk' music.
Now on to the next question. The processes of folk I found to be loose and not really defined, and by processes I mean songwriting, practicing, and transmission. Songwriting, I found, is completely up to the musician, there is no set way to write a song. It can me melody first, lyrics first, both at once, or wait till it hits you. As for practicing it is far from the traditional idea of practice. Practice in the folk sense means sitting and learning by ear, either listening to a record, watching a youtube video, or watching someone play. This last method is also how folk music is passed around. One musicians learns from observing another or passes on his/her music by teaching. Either way it is open to interpretation and in this sense folk becomes music of the people. It is passed around and allowed to be manipulated from different perspectives.
Open mics are clever little way in allowing anyone to be a performer. The setting is casual and anyone is welcome to be an audience member or a musician or both. This is where I draw the correlation. Folk is music of the people and open mics are for the people. There are no judgments in either because it's not about how good one is but that one feels like they have an outlet, but are also contributing creating a comfortable community for all who are a part of it.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Entry 11
This blog post concerns the third interview I had with the woman who essentially started up the open mic routine at Kettle Coffee and Tea. I feel like some background information is needed here to show just how strong of a commitment she feels towards the need for keeping an open mic running.
Before this coffee shop had an open mic night, the event used to be hosted at someone's house. It was described to me as a open mic potluck so that even if you weren't playing you were participating somehow by bringing food. Unfortunately something happened and the even could no longer be held at the house it used to take place out.
Fast forward to today (or to be more accurate the day of the interview)
Note: This wasn't much of an interview rather than me being informed about what constitutes an open mic and why it's important, or why it's held together...
It is geared towards a community event, and the way it differs from a solo show is that you are sharing the stage with ten or fifteen other people, so that it essentially becomes a place where people come to play but also to network. My interlocutor described how many of the musicians who come to play are now friends outside of the cafe, or now collaborate because of having met there.
She states that the whole idea of having the open mic at her house previously was to create a comfortable atmosphere where it wasn't awkward. She also states that originally a house was preferred over a cafe because people were more attentive to the music, whereas in a cafe not every one was paying attention to the stage.
She describes that she tries everything in her power to make the open mics respectful to the musicians, to avoid a situation where one just goes to see their friend play and leaves. Because it is about supporting the community as a whole. She describes simple doings such as moving tables and chairs to face the stage or asking that no laptops be used in respect to the performances and therefore the whole open mic community.
She describes an all volunteer based system, where the 'sound guy' (my previous interlocutor) will train those who want to do the sound for a night, or if anyone wants to host, all they must do is contact her. Like my last interlocutor, she mentions the rotating host system, where everyone can take part. All this is volunteer based, and it works because people care about this individual open mic community. Before she accepts anyone as host though she makes sure they are on par with the open mic ideals by giving them what she calls the "open mic guidelines"
It's about being part of a community where everyone participates and contributes and encourages to create this sustainable thing (for lack of a better word).
Before this coffee shop had an open mic night, the event used to be hosted at someone's house. It was described to me as a open mic potluck so that even if you weren't playing you were participating somehow by bringing food. Unfortunately something happened and the even could no longer be held at the house it used to take place out.
Fast forward to today (or to be more accurate the day of the interview)
Note: This wasn't much of an interview rather than me being informed about what constitutes an open mic and why it's important, or why it's held together...
It is geared towards a community event, and the way it differs from a solo show is that you are sharing the stage with ten or fifteen other people, so that it essentially becomes a place where people come to play but also to network. My interlocutor described how many of the musicians who come to play are now friends outside of the cafe, or now collaborate because of having met there.
She states that the whole idea of having the open mic at her house previously was to create a comfortable atmosphere where it wasn't awkward. She also states that originally a house was preferred over a cafe because people were more attentive to the music, whereas in a cafe not every one was paying attention to the stage.
She describes that she tries everything in her power to make the open mics respectful to the musicians, to avoid a situation where one just goes to see their friend play and leaves. Because it is about supporting the community as a whole. She describes simple doings such as moving tables and chairs to face the stage or asking that no laptops be used in respect to the performances and therefore the whole open mic community.
She describes an all volunteer based system, where the 'sound guy' (my previous interlocutor) will train those who want to do the sound for a night, or if anyone wants to host, all they must do is contact her. Like my last interlocutor, she mentions the rotating host system, where everyone can take part. All this is volunteer based, and it works because people care about this individual open mic community. Before she accepts anyone as host though she makes sure they are on par with the open mic ideals by giving them what she calls the "open mic guidelines"
It's about being part of a community where everyone participates and contributes and encourages to create this sustainable thing (for lack of a better word).
Friday, May 24, 2013
Entry 12
On Wednesday night I attended a second open mic in Escondido at a Pub called O'Sullivans. It ran from 9:30 until past eleven.
Since it was in a bar, there were more people there than at the last open mic, but these people were less attentive, for the most part. The crowd was mixed: it appeared that some people were there to go out and eat, others to grab a drink and catch up, and then there was a pair of what looked to be businessmen, who all dressed up ate their meals and left. Throughout the night there was a constant trickle who were not there for the open mic, but other than that the crowd consisted of those who were performing or where there to support the performers.
The performers played on a stage in a corner that was decked out with a chair and a mic. The only instrument used that night was the steel string guitar (with the exception of my 'sound guy' interlocutor playing a banjo) , and every act was a solo act. The music played was predominantly folk (meaning that there is no other way to describe it, you can't say it was pop, or rock. It was folk), with the exception of a much older man who played some blues. Each musician played for about ten to fifteen minutes, and there was a mix of original and cover songs. It seems like the crowd was more drawn to the cover songs, most likely because they recognized them.
A couple of posts ago I wrote about Kettle, I described that I did not see much of a community, but when compared to this open mic, I now believe differently. Kettle's open mic, although smaller have a more attentive audience. People did not go to the cafe to get coffee of pastries, but rather they went for the open mic. Or course cafes don't necessarily attract a lot of people at night, whereas pubs do, but still there was a difference. The pub featured only guitars and more folk music "whatever this means", while the cafe featured different acts with a variety of ages and instruments.
Comparing the two different open mics, it is clear that they harbor a place for anyone to sign up and play. What is played though is not the same, and this can depend on a number of factors. For example, for legal reasons, Kettle doesn't allow covers, unless they pay a monthly fee. The pub on the other hand does allow covers, quickly garbing the attention of costumers who maybe didn't go for the music. Taking these things into account it seems that the audience at Kettle was solely there to hear original music by the everyday person, if not to hear then to play. This is not to say that O'sullivans had no community. It was just dispersed within the crowd. The performers and those there for the open mic were very supportive, but those just there for the pub were mere bystanders.
Although I only attended two open mics, it is safe to say that no two are alike and this depends heavily on the location and how it is run. Either way they open an outlet for the everyday person to perform. As for they type of music played, I can't say there is a set way to know, but to be sure folk IS played, but again this is heavily dependent on what one considers folk.
Since it was in a bar, there were more people there than at the last open mic, but these people were less attentive, for the most part. The crowd was mixed: it appeared that some people were there to go out and eat, others to grab a drink and catch up, and then there was a pair of what looked to be businessmen, who all dressed up ate their meals and left. Throughout the night there was a constant trickle who were not there for the open mic, but other than that the crowd consisted of those who were performing or where there to support the performers.
The performers played on a stage in a corner that was decked out with a chair and a mic. The only instrument used that night was the steel string guitar (with the exception of my 'sound guy' interlocutor playing a banjo) , and every act was a solo act. The music played was predominantly folk (meaning that there is no other way to describe it, you can't say it was pop, or rock. It was folk), with the exception of a much older man who played some blues. Each musician played for about ten to fifteen minutes, and there was a mix of original and cover songs. It seems like the crowd was more drawn to the cover songs, most likely because they recognized them.
A couple of posts ago I wrote about Kettle, I described that I did not see much of a community, but when compared to this open mic, I now believe differently. Kettle's open mic, although smaller have a more attentive audience. People did not go to the cafe to get coffee of pastries, but rather they went for the open mic. Or course cafes don't necessarily attract a lot of people at night, whereas pubs do, but still there was a difference. The pub featured only guitars and more folk music "whatever this means", while the cafe featured different acts with a variety of ages and instruments.
Comparing the two different open mics, it is clear that they harbor a place for anyone to sign up and play. What is played though is not the same, and this can depend on a number of factors. For example, for legal reasons, Kettle doesn't allow covers, unless they pay a monthly fee. The pub on the other hand does allow covers, quickly garbing the attention of costumers who maybe didn't go for the music. Taking these things into account it seems that the audience at Kettle was solely there to hear original music by the everyday person, if not to hear then to play. This is not to say that O'sullivans had no community. It was just dispersed within the crowd. The performers and those there for the open mic were very supportive, but those just there for the pub were mere bystanders.
Although I only attended two open mics, it is safe to say that no two are alike and this depends heavily on the location and how it is run. Either way they open an outlet for the everyday person to perform. As for they type of music played, I can't say there is a set way to know, but to be sure folk IS played, but again this is heavily dependent on what one considers folk.
Entry 10
In attending my first open mic for this project at Kettle Coffee and Tea, I asked one of the performers, also the main sound guy for the open mic, if I could interview him. A little over a week later we sat down in the same coffee shop and this is most of what he had to say....
Concerning what is played at open mics...
covers and original folk songs. Not incidentally, he mentioned that a lot of open mics get shut down for allowing cover songs to be played. (the following is my input) So although they might seem like a good venue for someone to go play their favorite songs, doing so leads to the deterioration of the open mic community. Not only that but not allowing cover songs to be played leads to a slow down of passage through oral communication. (back to the interview) BUT there is some good out of this, there is a greater need for originality and creativity.
Defining Folk...
Well for the most part it's acoustic, but it's really it's "music of the people", people singing about what is going on. (This is consistent with the definition of folk that I got online and wrote about in my last post). My interlocutor also described a criteria for folk music, that is has to be extremely honest and about real life, or that it's not good folk music. This term, honesty was also used by my first interviewee to describe the basis of what folk music is.
Who plays folk...
During the interview we would get sidetracked and talk about other musicians and their projects. For example he described to me a musician who is a psychedelic rock organist. Definitely not folk, but yet this musician has a folk project going on, and my interlocutor accounts this to the notion that everyone has a side folk thing going on, even if they don't share it with anyone. (my analysis) Again this reinforces the notion that it's "music of the people". He describes that anyone can play folk music...(he pauses he and makes an great point)... "But there's blues"...
"But there's Blues"
Although it seems simple enough to define what the premiss of folk music is and who might play it, it's not that easy to categorize it, as is evident by the title of this section. When asked what marks the difference between blues and folk, there was no real answer. (my analysis) It something that is hard to define, as we talked about in class, one can't play the blues if they haven't got something to play the blues about! This is on par with the notion that folk must be honest, and if using these criteria to define such musics (define in a non musical sense, of course there are musical differences, but these are not the ones being addressed), then it is clear to understand why it's difficult to separate the two.
Why acoustic music is played at open mics...
"It's gentle". In the sense that it is hard to set up a bunch of equipment when your set time is only ten minutes.
"Unconditional positive regard"
My interlocutor describes the role of being the host for this specific open mic, and emphasizes the need to support and encourage every musician alike. He also describes a practice that this specific open mic has, that of rotating host. The idea is that each week there is a different host announcing musicians. He describes that the purpose of this is to create a greater sense of community and all around support for everyone.
This is the bulk of our interview, BUT he went over into the cafe kitchen a brought out one of the employees who is actually in charge of of the cafe's open mic! This led to my third interview
In conclusion he stated that the reason to keep open mics going, or at least this specific one, is because there is no music scene in North County and so to him it is a vital part of the community. He attributes the continuation of open mics and other casual venues like house shows to the reason that in these environments "no one is buying your bullshit", that people want to feel at home, and these intimate settings provide that.
Concerning what is played at open mics...
covers and original folk songs. Not incidentally, he mentioned that a lot of open mics get shut down for allowing cover songs to be played. (the following is my input) So although they might seem like a good venue for someone to go play their favorite songs, doing so leads to the deterioration of the open mic community. Not only that but not allowing cover songs to be played leads to a slow down of passage through oral communication. (back to the interview) BUT there is some good out of this, there is a greater need for originality and creativity.
Defining Folk...
Well for the most part it's acoustic, but it's really it's "music of the people", people singing about what is going on. (This is consistent with the definition of folk that I got online and wrote about in my last post). My interlocutor also described a criteria for folk music, that is has to be extremely honest and about real life, or that it's not good folk music. This term, honesty was also used by my first interviewee to describe the basis of what folk music is.
Who plays folk...
During the interview we would get sidetracked and talk about other musicians and their projects. For example he described to me a musician who is a psychedelic rock organist. Definitely not folk, but yet this musician has a folk project going on, and my interlocutor accounts this to the notion that everyone has a side folk thing going on, even if they don't share it with anyone. (my analysis) Again this reinforces the notion that it's "music of the people". He describes that anyone can play folk music...(he pauses he and makes an great point)... "But there's blues"...
"But there's Blues"
Although it seems simple enough to define what the premiss of folk music is and who might play it, it's not that easy to categorize it, as is evident by the title of this section. When asked what marks the difference between blues and folk, there was no real answer. (my analysis) It something that is hard to define, as we talked about in class, one can't play the blues if they haven't got something to play the blues about! This is on par with the notion that folk must be honest, and if using these criteria to define such musics (define in a non musical sense, of course there are musical differences, but these are not the ones being addressed), then it is clear to understand why it's difficult to separate the two.
Why acoustic music is played at open mics...
"It's gentle". In the sense that it is hard to set up a bunch of equipment when your set time is only ten minutes.
"Unconditional positive regard"
My interlocutor describes the role of being the host for this specific open mic, and emphasizes the need to support and encourage every musician alike. He also describes a practice that this specific open mic has, that of rotating host. The idea is that each week there is a different host announcing musicians. He describes that the purpose of this is to create a greater sense of community and all around support for everyone.
This is the bulk of our interview, BUT he went over into the cafe kitchen a brought out one of the employees who is actually in charge of of the cafe's open mic! This led to my third interview
In conclusion he stated that the reason to keep open mics going, or at least this specific one, is because there is no music scene in North County and so to him it is a vital part of the community. He attributes the continuation of open mics and other casual venues like house shows to the reason that in these environments "no one is buying your bullshit", that people want to feel at home, and these intimate settings provide that.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Entry 9
So I found this really awesome site that has a bunch of links and articles dealing with folk music. Here are some interesting points that I found.
http://folkmusic.about.com/od/historyoffolk/a/Folk_History.htm
This folk 101 section also shed light on the important fact that folk is not just one genre, it is ever changing and incorporating many different styles. maybe all the music at open mic is folk . It described how folk rises out of a need to for the worker to express their toils but also have hope. The article depicts that folk music provided a place for the worker to escape to, and realize that there is hope for something other than hardship in the world. In this section, the example of spirituals is used to describe the folk music of slaves working long and hard days. Later though, as new struggles arose, folk continued to become relevant in people's lives. Exploitation of child labor, the crash of the stock market, the Vietnam War/fight for civil rights, and most recently the concern of rights for members of the LGBT community and tension in the Middle East , have all been focuses of folk music, and have all led to a new swelling of folk but with a new style. Respectively, each era saw a new change: the adaptation of baptist hymns with a change to relevant lyrics (this can be attributed to Joe Hill), the creation of bluegrass after the 30's (although not to forget Woody Guthrie during the 30's), the emergence of the 60's folk revival (mostly associated with Bob Dylan), and most recently the emergence of alt-country and Folk Labels.
http://folkmusic.about.com/od/historyoffolk/a/Folk_History.htm
The folk 101 section describes folk as having no know origins, and that it is "more tradition than entertainment", because of this it can be said that folk songs can be considered "oral histories". A lovely term because it describes that folk is part of an oral tradition but also because it has substance, a function. It's like a medium for preserving history. And my preserving I don't mean in the sense that is most commonly used in our text books like recording a music to preserve the culture. What I mean is that certain community's (described in this article as the working class' music) hardships, coping mechanisms, and stories are preserved within these songs. It describes that "by definition, it is something anyone can understand, and in which everyone is welcome to participate". I think this is because it deals with the human condition as a whole, that everyone goes through hardships, and since everyone is welcome to take part, it becomes everyones music. This is the tying factor (at least to me) between folk music and open mics, because in open mics everyone is welcome to take part.
This folk 101 section also shed light on the important fact that folk is not just one genre, it is ever changing and incorporating many different styles. maybe all the music at open mic is folk . It described how folk rises out of a need to for the worker to express their toils but also have hope. The article depicts that folk music provided a place for the worker to escape to, and realize that there is hope for something other than hardship in the world. In this section, the example of spirituals is used to describe the folk music of slaves working long and hard days. Later though, as new struggles arose, folk continued to become relevant in people's lives. Exploitation of child labor, the crash of the stock market, the Vietnam War/fight for civil rights, and most recently the concern of rights for members of the LGBT community and tension in the Middle East , have all been focuses of folk music, and have all led to a new swelling of folk but with a new style. Respectively, each era saw a new change: the adaptation of baptist hymns with a change to relevant lyrics (this can be attributed to Joe Hill), the creation of bluegrass after the 30's (although not to forget Woody Guthrie during the 30's), the emergence of the 60's folk revival (mostly associated with Bob Dylan), and most recently the emergence of alt-country and Folk Labels.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Entry 8
This last Thursday I went to Kettle Coffee and Tea's open mic night. It's a little coffee shop located in Escondido and the open mic ran from six to eight thirty.
As I was doing my "deep hanging out" these are things I observed:
The venue was a small business and the atmosphere was extremely casual. No silence was demanded and phones weren't asked to be turned off.
The audience was mixed and included young children and their families, older adults who went alone, various couples, and others that one might call regulars. Chairs and couches were moved around to circle around the stage, and those seated in the back engaged in quiet laughter and conversation.
The stage itself was small, taking up a single corner of the cafe. Two microphones, an amplifier, and two chairs were provided for the musicians. A single friendly announcer introduced the acts and entertained while the set up each set.
Each act was allowed a ten min set, and not all performers were musicians. The performances were for the most part musical, but not limited at all to indie/folk music. They varied from classical to spanish rock, to pop/rock, to folk/indie. Other non-musical acts included a magic show and a poetry reading. Instruments that were used were predominantly acoustic steel string guitars, with the exception of the nylon classical and a twelve string. There was one keyboard and one electric bass. The performances never consisted of more than two musicians and in fact only one performance, the spanish rock set, consisted of two people. The rest played alone.
As the night went on performers would leave after their sets and the crowd would get smaller and smaller. This is contrary to my original thought that open mics create a sort of community. Originally, I believed this because open mics consist of everyday individuals going to perform their songs to a group of strangers. This of course is the case, but I thought it created a sense of community because only people who think this community exists would go support everyday musicians who might not even be that good at performing. I thought the support would be there because audience and musician are interchangeable, which they are, but maybe not consciously, and if it is not conscious then there is no bases for community. Attending this open mic opened a new perspective: that these people are only there to play and to leave. That the whole event is driven by self interest. This can be inferred by the observation that as the night went on the crowd shrunk. Eight o'clock is not late by anyone's standards, so the shrinking crowd can't be due to the time. It can instead be said that as each performer played their set, they had no reason to be there anymore. The musicians who were considered the audience at some point during the night were only waiting to become the performers.
This of course is my assumption. I managed to get an interview with the last performer, who also happened to be 'the sound guy', hopefully I will be able to get a different opinion of this from a regular at that specific open mic.
Unfortunately, I am a little disappointed. I did not see a great interaction that led me to believe that this was a big community reinforcer. I of course might have gone on a slower night, or maybe since it was my first recent open mic i failed to see it from lack of comparison to other's. My next open mic will be at the pub, O'sullivans, right across the street from Kettle. Hopefully their differences and similarities will bring a consensus about what an open mic generally is and what it is supposed to be like.
As I was doing my "deep hanging out" these are things I observed:
The venue was a small business and the atmosphere was extremely casual. No silence was demanded and phones weren't asked to be turned off.
The audience was mixed and included young children and their families, older adults who went alone, various couples, and others that one might call regulars. Chairs and couches were moved around to circle around the stage, and those seated in the back engaged in quiet laughter and conversation.
The stage itself was small, taking up a single corner of the cafe. Two microphones, an amplifier, and two chairs were provided for the musicians. A single friendly announcer introduced the acts and entertained while the set up each set.
Each act was allowed a ten min set, and not all performers were musicians. The performances were for the most part musical, but not limited at all to indie/folk music. They varied from classical to spanish rock, to pop/rock, to folk/indie. Other non-musical acts included a magic show and a poetry reading. Instruments that were used were predominantly acoustic steel string guitars, with the exception of the nylon classical and a twelve string. There was one keyboard and one electric bass. The performances never consisted of more than two musicians and in fact only one performance, the spanish rock set, consisted of two people. The rest played alone.
As the night went on performers would leave after their sets and the crowd would get smaller and smaller. This is contrary to my original thought that open mics create a sort of community. Originally, I believed this because open mics consist of everyday individuals going to perform their songs to a group of strangers. This of course is the case, but I thought it created a sense of community because only people who think this community exists would go support everyday musicians who might not even be that good at performing. I thought the support would be there because audience and musician are interchangeable, which they are, but maybe not consciously, and if it is not conscious then there is no bases for community. Attending this open mic opened a new perspective: that these people are only there to play and to leave. That the whole event is driven by self interest. This can be inferred by the observation that as the night went on the crowd shrunk. Eight o'clock is not late by anyone's standards, so the shrinking crowd can't be due to the time. It can instead be said that as each performer played their set, they had no reason to be there anymore. The musicians who were considered the audience at some point during the night were only waiting to become the performers.
This of course is my assumption. I managed to get an interview with the last performer, who also happened to be 'the sound guy', hopefully I will be able to get a different opinion of this from a regular at that specific open mic.
Unfortunately, I am a little disappointed. I did not see a great interaction that led me to believe that this was a big community reinforcer. I of course might have gone on a slower night, or maybe since it was my first recent open mic i failed to see it from lack of comparison to other's. My next open mic will be at the pub, O'sullivans, right across the street from Kettle. Hopefully their differences and similarities will bring a consensus about what an open mic generally is and what it is supposed to be like.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Entry 7
Last Monday I interviewed someone who is a listener of Folk/Indie music. Instead of typing out the whole thing I will summarize the main points and connect them back to what I found important in my armchair analysis.
One of the first things brought up is what constitutes indie. A point that the interviewee brings up is that indie no longer is "people making music in their basements". This would have been a perfect time to ask why this is? Might it be that because this genre is passed around orally the sound and process of how and where it is played changes? He also brings up the point that to him, indie is more explorative than mainstream music, again i didn't think to ask why he thought this, but again I think it has to do something to do with how it is passed around and how creativity is greatly valued within this genre.
The way he distinguishes folk is more based on lyrics and their honesty rather than the actual music. This might seem surprising since folk is a type of music and not a literature, but why do lyrics mean so much ? The website http://folkmusic.about.com/od/historyoffolk/a/Folk_History.htm describes that folk ranges to all different sorts of subject matter and that "it is something everyone can understand and in which everyone is welcome to participate". My interviewee also greatly emphasized the 'universality' of folk music, and perhaps this is why lyrics are so important, because they describe things everyone can identify with.
He also mentions that today indie/folk bands are able to play in big venues, but that in the past this type of music was mostly played in smaller venues like bars. That today it is more mainstream music. He also goes on to say that open mics are great for individual musicians who just want to play and see how they sound in such a setting. He mentions that the benefits are that open mics are free and the sound set up is already there, so it's as simple as someone showing up with their guitar with a couple of songs to play. This clearly makes performing and sharing of music accessible to any individual who wishes to do so, emphasizing the community and its open arms.
But when asked the reverse, what type of music is played at open mics, his answer was "all types" and not necessarily just indie or folk. Which can contribute to the idea that the boundaries of folk/indie are so blurred and not precise.
When asked what is valued, creativity or skill? the answer was creativity with skill as a bonus. For example my interviewee states that Bob Dylan wasn't the best guitarist but still he had/has a huge following. And this is because of his message of the lyrical content of his songs, the creative aspect.
Even then, my interviewee states, it's not about how good one's lyrics are but how they convey them, how honest they are with their efforts. He boils his description of folk down to honesty. Perhaps this emotional honestly is why I heard people describe some folk songs as being whiny, in the sense that whoever is doing the singing/playing is too emotionally unstable, and for some this just doesn't fly.
Concerning the topic of how folk music is learned and passed on, my interviewee said traveling, which is interesting because of its implications. I thought he was going to say something along the lines of watching people play or listening to an album and learning it by ear, but traveling hold so much more. it implies that this music is not stationed in one geographic area but gets around and is then most likely learned through observation (I make this assumption because the concept of traveling implies that one is not in any location for too long, so it is most likely that musicians wouldn't have time to write out their songs but rather just show how to play them). It also backs up the previous point that folk/indie has something that is heavily identifiable with, since it can so easily and quickly be picked up by people in a different area. My interviewee also mentions that the oral learning of this music leads to more creativity because there are no rules, just guidelines, and that no one ever tells you what to do. Therefore songs are very heavily open to interpretation. He brings up the point that were a classical musician go to play with a folk musician there would be conflict because a classical musician is used to reading off of a paper and reads the dynamic marks and tempo that are written, but that a folk/indie musician just feels it and these factors are always changing within context. I would argue that this is not really the case, but the point is that there is a distinction between styles and how one takes in the music.
Dealing with the subject of practicing, I went in with a set notion that the average person who plays indie/folk does not really 'practice', and by practice I mean they don't sit down and play scales and do warm up exercises, and then go and work on a piece for an indefinite amount of time using up all their energy and concentration. BUT when I asked my interviewee if a folk/indie musician practices, his reply was "oh no, they practice". But his definition of practicing for a folk/indie musician is getting a record, listening to it, and going home and learning it by ear. This to many might not be practicing, this might be a fun thing to do. And in fact he mentions that "it's actually really fun" and this is possible why I wouldn't consider it practicing, because to me, the act of practicing is a chore something that no one really wants to do but that must be done in order to improve. According to my interviewee it still constitutes practicing because how else are you going to learn these songs! He does also mention that the method is a little bit different today because now there is the internet where countless you tube videos and tabs exist.
When asked about the folk community or scene, the answer was that compared to pop music the scene is much more tight knit and that a lot of the time musicians will go out and play together, and go out tour together and just play, because there is no record company or producer that they are pandering to. He mentions that if they do get discovered it's because they were just always playing for the heck of it and happened to catch someone's eye. This can be reinforced with the fact that a lot of the time these musicians are label-less or just end up creating their own label (as I talked about in a previous post with Saddle Creek Records). He again compares indie to pop and says that indie/folk is an art and pop music is a product made to sell. Again we see the value of creativity.
Towards the end of the interview, my interviewee brings up an interesting point that a sense of community is being broken down because of computers and access to innumerable amounts of music. He describes that today one can learn to learn how to play this type of music without talking to anyone who actually plays it, but that "you're not gonna be as good". There is a great value placed on human interaction. He can't exactly pin point why this is but based on his above answer one can draw a conclusion that human interaction is so valued because folk/indie deals with human connections in various different aspects. For example its lyrics deal with the human condition, the way it was originally passed down is a face to face method, and if one is trying to replicate a video online, where is the creativity? He mentions that this becomes the classical version of folk. Folk is at it's best when free flowing among individuals who connect within the moment and exchange ideas, and this leads to the progression of folk/indie. It's ever evolving; people learn from others but always make it their own.
So maybe one can conclude that the definition of folk is this recycling of music but always in a different manner, but always with honesty and understanding for other's. Maybe it a huge part of it's definition is music that is passed down and ever-changing but somehow remaining the same with its intent. As my interviewee put it, it's reassuring and this is why it's still around. It's reassuring because it parallels one's own thoughts, even if the song is ages old.
One of the first things brought up is what constitutes indie. A point that the interviewee brings up is that indie no longer is "people making music in their basements". This would have been a perfect time to ask why this is? Might it be that because this genre is passed around orally the sound and process of how and where it is played changes? He also brings up the point that to him, indie is more explorative than mainstream music, again i didn't think to ask why he thought this, but again I think it has to do something to do with how it is passed around and how creativity is greatly valued within this genre.
The way he distinguishes folk is more based on lyrics and their honesty rather than the actual music. This might seem surprising since folk is a type of music and not a literature, but why do lyrics mean so much ? The website http://folkmusic.about.com/od/historyoffolk/a/Folk_History.htm describes that folk ranges to all different sorts of subject matter and that "it is something everyone can understand and in which everyone is welcome to participate". My interviewee also greatly emphasized the 'universality' of folk music, and perhaps this is why lyrics are so important, because they describe things everyone can identify with.
He also mentions that today indie/folk bands are able to play in big venues, but that in the past this type of music was mostly played in smaller venues like bars. That today it is more mainstream music. He also goes on to say that open mics are great for individual musicians who just want to play and see how they sound in such a setting. He mentions that the benefits are that open mics are free and the sound set up is already there, so it's as simple as someone showing up with their guitar with a couple of songs to play. This clearly makes performing and sharing of music accessible to any individual who wishes to do so, emphasizing the community and its open arms.
But when asked the reverse, what type of music is played at open mics, his answer was "all types" and not necessarily just indie or folk. Which can contribute to the idea that the boundaries of folk/indie are so blurred and not precise.
When asked what is valued, creativity or skill? the answer was creativity with skill as a bonus. For example my interviewee states that Bob Dylan wasn't the best guitarist but still he had/has a huge following. And this is because of his message of the lyrical content of his songs, the creative aspect.
Even then, my interviewee states, it's not about how good one's lyrics are but how they convey them, how honest they are with their efforts. He boils his description of folk down to honesty. Perhaps this emotional honestly is why I heard people describe some folk songs as being whiny, in the sense that whoever is doing the singing/playing is too emotionally unstable, and for some this just doesn't fly.
Concerning the topic of how folk music is learned and passed on, my interviewee said traveling, which is interesting because of its implications. I thought he was going to say something along the lines of watching people play or listening to an album and learning it by ear, but traveling hold so much more. it implies that this music is not stationed in one geographic area but gets around and is then most likely learned through observation (I make this assumption because the concept of traveling implies that one is not in any location for too long, so it is most likely that musicians wouldn't have time to write out their songs but rather just show how to play them). It also backs up the previous point that folk/indie has something that is heavily identifiable with, since it can so easily and quickly be picked up by people in a different area. My interviewee also mentions that the oral learning of this music leads to more creativity because there are no rules, just guidelines, and that no one ever tells you what to do. Therefore songs are very heavily open to interpretation. He brings up the point that were a classical musician go to play with a folk musician there would be conflict because a classical musician is used to reading off of a paper and reads the dynamic marks and tempo that are written, but that a folk/indie musician just feels it and these factors are always changing within context. I would argue that this is not really the case, but the point is that there is a distinction between styles and how one takes in the music.
Dealing with the subject of practicing, I went in with a set notion that the average person who plays indie/folk does not really 'practice', and by practice I mean they don't sit down and play scales and do warm up exercises, and then go and work on a piece for an indefinite amount of time using up all their energy and concentration. BUT when I asked my interviewee if a folk/indie musician practices, his reply was "oh no, they practice". But his definition of practicing for a folk/indie musician is getting a record, listening to it, and going home and learning it by ear. This to many might not be practicing, this might be a fun thing to do. And in fact he mentions that "it's actually really fun" and this is possible why I wouldn't consider it practicing, because to me, the act of practicing is a chore something that no one really wants to do but that must be done in order to improve. According to my interviewee it still constitutes practicing because how else are you going to learn these songs! He does also mention that the method is a little bit different today because now there is the internet where countless you tube videos and tabs exist.
When asked about the folk community or scene, the answer was that compared to pop music the scene is much more tight knit and that a lot of the time musicians will go out and play together, and go out tour together and just play, because there is no record company or producer that they are pandering to. He mentions that if they do get discovered it's because they were just always playing for the heck of it and happened to catch someone's eye. This can be reinforced with the fact that a lot of the time these musicians are label-less or just end up creating their own label (as I talked about in a previous post with Saddle Creek Records). He again compares indie to pop and says that indie/folk is an art and pop music is a product made to sell. Again we see the value of creativity.
Towards the end of the interview, my interviewee brings up an interesting point that a sense of community is being broken down because of computers and access to innumerable amounts of music. He describes that today one can learn to learn how to play this type of music without talking to anyone who actually plays it, but that "you're not gonna be as good". There is a great value placed on human interaction. He can't exactly pin point why this is but based on his above answer one can draw a conclusion that human interaction is so valued because folk/indie deals with human connections in various different aspects. For example its lyrics deal with the human condition, the way it was originally passed down is a face to face method, and if one is trying to replicate a video online, where is the creativity? He mentions that this becomes the classical version of folk. Folk is at it's best when free flowing among individuals who connect within the moment and exchange ideas, and this leads to the progression of folk/indie. It's ever evolving; people learn from others but always make it their own.
So maybe one can conclude that the definition of folk is this recycling of music but always in a different manner, but always with honesty and understanding for other's. Maybe it a huge part of it's definition is music that is passed down and ever-changing but somehow remaining the same with its intent. As my interviewee put it, it's reassuring and this is why it's still around. It's reassuring because it parallels one's own thoughts, even if the song is ages old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)