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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found the discussion about making it big and how it may cause conflict with the folk community to be interesting. Eric brought up Conor Oberst, but I had a different person in mind. For me, it was Elliott Smith. Elliott Smith really got a lot of attention after "Good Will Hunting" featured his music in their film. He also signed onto Universal Records shortly after. I wonder if this kind of success left much of a negative impression of him on the folk scene. His later releases still retained much of his older sound and lyrical quality, so I feel like he was still honest with what he was doing. For me, outside of any "I don't want other people to know about this artist or band" attitudes or jealousy, the only reason I can come up with for people developing any negative attitude towards an indie folk artist becoming popular would be a fear that the artist would lose his/her more honest roots/sound and cater to the large label's pressures for a certain sound and mainstream audiences' taste. I didn't get into Elliott Smith until way after all of this happened though, so I can't comment on how I would have felt. However looking back on the whole situation, it certainly seems like he kept his folk touch.
DeleteI completely agree! I didn't get into elliott until after he died but I still consider him folk, even despite the fact that a lot of his songs are plugged in with drums and even some brass. Again i think this has to do with the message and lyrical content. Also about the whole signing on with a major label, one of my interlocutors is signed on to one and he said that they do tell you how to write, so the fear of folk musicians changing their music to not be folk is completely legitimate, but like you said if they still retain their old intentions or style then I see nothing wrong with that.
DeleteThis is an interesting discussion and I feel that it also relates back to the issue that Brent brought up in his presentation regarding bluegrass and progressive bluegrass. I've been an Elliott Smith fan as well..yet it never occurred to me that he may be categorized under 'folk music'. It makes a lot of sense coming from his raw vocal style and lyrical content, but audience really is an important thing to consider. In order to be successful in the mainstream market, I think a lot of musicians merge their styles and sound with pop/rock to the point where it becomes "_______-inspired pop/rock". In Brent's case, I personally felt it was bluegrass-inspired as it didn't sound much like traditional bluegrass at all. But now we're just getting pedantic. Either way, whether Elliott Smith's music is folk or not, I think there's no denying that at the very least, it is folk-inspired.
DeleteI like the point you bring up about boundaries weakening between styles of music and "____-inspired" music. It hearkens back to that reading chapter about instrument classifications and how convoluted those categories became, the further away from our perceived norms the instruments (or style) got. It is again down to the obsession westerners have with fitting everything into neat little categories and the frustration associated with when things don't fit. Folk music, to my understanding, is a rather broad categorization and should perhaps be narrowed depending on the situation and instrumentation.
DeleteI think that it was interesting to hear about how folk musicians practice, because learning by ear is very much part of oral traditions and with much of the folk music you talked about I would have thought that it would have been fairly easy to find transcriptions to learn from, but that most don't seem to seek out this method of learning shows a strong oral tradition in the culture. I think, though, that there are quite a few musicians in folk music that practice scales, or other techniques in the form of exercises, much in the way a western classical musician might practice, because there is a logical thought process involved in the use of exercises in practice. I have personally had no lessons on how to play the mandolin, but when I work on a specific technique, such as tremolo, I isolate the technique and practice it without a piece of music until I can incorporate it properly. Scales, I think, work in a similar fashion and can help build, not just familiarity with the instrument, but speed and accuracy. Whether they take these exercises from western classical music is debatable, but I do know many bluegrass musicians who direct their practices in a similar fashion to how western classical musicians practice. So, I don't think that style of practicing can be completely written out of the folk style of practicing, although, I believe that the aural way of learning, and learning technique by listening and attempting to replicate the sound is definitely a huge part of the way folk musicians practice.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it does build up a skill and familiarity with one's instrument but in folk, being extremely proficient at playing your instrument is not the main goal. One of my interlocutors said that Bob Dylan is not a good guitarist, and they he never will be, but yet he is considered one of folks biggest names. So while I do agree with you, skill is not necessarily the main point of practicing in this context. For Bluegrass you described that one of its defining factors is technique so in this case I completely see how certain things need to be isolated in practicing, but folk for the most part is someone strumming a guitar, which really isn't difficult at all.
DeleteI've been thinking about the concept of whether an artist can actually be considered folk when he or she is making a lot of money for the music. I think it is theoretically possible, but given the current system, highly unlikely. I grew up in the open mic scene and would attend several around my hometown each week. To me, open mics and the indie folk music associated with them are about people getting together, sharing their music, and performing in a judgement-free environment. Open mics are a place for you to open up and let others hear your music. This is my interpretation of your "honest music" definition. When you become famous and start making money (and I mean big $$$) for your music, you lose that sense of humbleness. You know that your music is good and you know that people will pay to listen to it. I would say that by making this sort of big money for the music you produce abandons the humbleness and the honesty of the music--essentially what folk music is supposed to be about.
ReplyDeleteThis also relates to the idea that a Blues musician supposedly can't be a "Blues" musician much for the same reasons [nothing to have the Blues about]. I think it is an odd definition for both folk & blues because it sort of seems like a genre that perpetuates one's own doom. I think making money is a part of survival & if someone happens to make a LOT of money for being popular, I don't know if that should condemn them to no longer be considered part of a genre that they'd been in for so long. Of course, if they are perceived as "selling-out" (compromising their aesthetic in some way for the sole sake of getting MORE MONEY) then that may be different - but who are we to really say what is "selling-out"? It seems entirely possible to be humble & honest while still being popular, and I'm sure humbleness & honesty is not a trait maintained by ALL folk musicians. They are not all soft-spoken gentle souls. They are human beings like the rest with virtues & flaws that will emerge regardless of their chosen art.
DeleteIn terms of the open mic scene being associated with folk music, I think it has a large part to do with the convenience of folk music. Largely acoustic with portable instruments, it is a genre conducive to this kind of intimate setting, and I think that is one reason why there has been a strong association between open mic & folk. It would be harder for amplified rock get-ups or classical musicians to set up & perform in this type of setting.
Amy makes a good/interesting point about not being monetarily dependent on one's music, but I wonder if that is the case with the folk musicians we know & love today. Because we know of them & they were relatively successful, are they no longer folk musicians?
I completely agree with Eunah. I mean i understand why making a lot of money would seem to counter what folk is, but a lot of the suffering found in the lyrics of today's folk music deals with existential problems or political problems, and for the most part, unless you are part of the 1% (because then i think you'd support today's mainstream politics), these issues have nothing to do with you're wealth. In fact I think having all this money would probably lead one to battle with other moral issues.
DeleteI also think humility is a state of mind not connected with money. Sure the more money someone has the more powerful they might perceive themselves as having, and actually do become more powerful, but if one is aware of this and avoids this, there is no reason why you still can't be humble.
From your presentation and post, I was given the sense that folk music is sort of a communal music. There is no focus of ownership on the music, but rather on sharing it with others. Then I read Eric's response and it was basically what I was thinking. When one begins to take ownership, and specifically for monetary purposes, is the honest intent lost? However, without receiving some sort of monetary payment, it would be difficult for folk musicians to survive and produce music at the same time. One of my interviewees for my project mentioned that the reason he is able to perform traditional West African drumming in the manner he believes it should be is because he does not rely on his music for his livelihood. He has a non-musical job to pay his bills and can then be selective about where and when he plays his music. It sounds as though this must be the case for folk musicians in order to retain the honesty that is characteristic of folk music.
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting on what could be classified as folk music. I always thought it had a certain type of theme associated with it, it did not know that one of the biggest criteria was to be 'honest' music. The examples you showed in class were eye-opening because how each one sounded differently, yet all of them could be classified under folk. This post and presentation has made me much more open to listen to this genre of music. I also found the dilemma between what constitutes the passing of folk music from one to another, since folk music was oral passed down, I do not fully know if the use of mediums such as youtube constitute that type of tradition.
ReplyDeletegoing back to your progression of questions (listed at the beginning of your post as - what is folk? what are the processes of folk? what are open mics? how are the two correlated?) i think you achieved your goals fairly successfully. the only thing i was somewhat confused about was your choice of open mics. it seems as though your correlation between folk music and open mics was somewhat biased in that you attended open mics that consisted of pretty much just folk music? so i got the sense that open mics were basically folk music gatherings ... is that true? the tradition of folk (as mentioned earlier) is a tricky one. it's hard to study something that is seen by many as a kind of more personal, expressive music with no real strict "boundaries" ...
ReplyDeletehonestly, I went to these open mics because they were the closest to where I lived. The fact that the music played there was folk was coincidental, or not since I figured there was a correlation. What I mean is that I didn't go to them already knowing folk was going to be played. I before hand did not know what kind of music was going to be played. I went to see if folk was played and indeed it was! I'm sure that if I attended any music open mic that most of it would be folk. Which goes to support my original hunch that for some reason folk and open mics are very compatible.
Deletewhat I find interesting is the definition of folk and why it can't be popularized. I feel like many popular songs have meaning behind them too. Additionally, aren't country and blues all about the meaning and feeling behind the lyrics as well? So the genre is still quite confusing to me. However, if this is the general guidelines of being folk, I could see how open mics play a role in helping a player express him or herself. They , would use acoustic instruments making the focus more on lyrics. Additionally being in a casual and welcoming setting can help the player feel a lot more comfortable in expressing stronger emotions.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that they can't be popularizes. folk music has definitely bee popularized, take a look at Bob Dylan for example. What I meant though is that it was never created with the intent of being popularized. Which in some cases I guess is arguable, because if you are raking in a lot of money who are you writing for?
DeleteUnfortunately, I was unable to be a part of any of the presantations on the day you were presenting but I did have a few questions and comments on your topic.
ReplyDeleteWas there something that was unifying about folk artists playing at an open mic night?
When I think of an open mic night, I think of a musician taking a risk, expressing themselves in a manner that would otherwise be unaccepted. It is a chance for musicians to express themselves with little to no judgment. At the same time, the audience expects a certain level of entertainment to be satisfied. As a musician that has played open mic nights before, it is a balance of audience expectations and personal ambition. Once in a while, the two ideas clash, but they can overlap to create a sense of identity and belonging.