![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Filk as Folk
This is the first installment of the "ethno/musicological" discussion of filk that I promised everyone several days ago. I have to tell you that I was incredibly encouraged by the number of responses to that post, the insightfulness of these comments, and by the depth of passion displayed for this genre (or "movement," as I've been corrected). Please keep the ideas and the criticisms coming, friends!
I figured that I would start out my musings on filk with a discussion of folk music influenced by Simon Frith's 1981 article in Popular Music, "'The Magic That Can Set You Free': The Ideology of Folk and the Myth of the Rock Community." I'll also be drawing from the chapter, "'Strangers No More, We Sing': Filk Music, Folk Culture, and the Fan Community," from Henry Jenkins's book, Textual Poachers (1992). Jenkins, as many of us know, is one of the few scholars to have devoted considerable time and pen space to filk as a genre--work that has been published in several important books on fan culture.
The purpose of Frith's article is to debunk rock's status as a folk art and at the same time to discuss how rock is, despite this, "used by its listeners as a folk music." In spinning out his argument, Frith gives several definitions of filk from figures such as Jon Landau (the Rolling Stone), Sir Hubert Parry (a late-19th-century English composer), and A.L. Lloyd (an early 20th-century English folk singer and folk song collector). When considered together, these definitions highlight several important aspects of folk music that, when compared to what we (the collective "we" that really means "I") know about filk, fully endorse Jenkins's assertion that filk is a true folk art.
Jenkins spends a good portion of his article on filk discussing its folk status, giving several qualities, endorsed by scholars, common to all folk music: "oral circulation rather than fixed written texts, continuity within musical tradition, variation in performance, and selection by a community that determines which songs are preserved, which discarded." He also explores the practice of communities' refashioning and recreating of folk music to continually serve the current identity of each community. He very clearly and effectively presents filk as an authentic folk music based on these qualifications.
Moving beyond Jenkins's discussion of folk music, though, we find presented in Frith's article several other ideological qualities of this art. As part of his argument, Frith intimates that folk music should rise from the creativity of folk who are related by experiences other than music. Frith frowns on rock's status as a folk genre because the "community" it serves is not tied together by anything other than the music it claims. While we might argue with this claim, it does not preclude filk as a folk music.
According to all the accounts I have read on the emergence of filk from the midnight creativity of fan cons, it is music made by a community that is already tied together by their dedication to their fan interests. Jenkins affirms that filk pulls together this group, "resolving the differences separating them, providing a common basis for interaction." The SF&F community is not built on its music making--its music making reinforces its existing foundation.
More important than folk music's role as a tool for already-built communities is the fact that, within it, there is no elite. The lines between performer and audience are minimal or nonexistent. A.L. Lloyd stated that "the main thing [in folk music] is that the songs are made and sung by men [sic] who are identical with their audience in standing, in occupation, in attitude to life, and in daily experience." While within rock, the audience is encouraged to believe that their stars have risen from their ranks and have remained there in some small fashion, in filk the audience is the performer, and the performer is a member of the audience. They share attitudes, interests, and a dedication to media culture. Filk celebrates the in-references found in SF&F fandom, the sense of ownership that the fans feel over their preferred media, and the right of the fans to comment upon and critique these texts. Elitism is minimized within this community.
By far the most striking requirement for folk music, as related by Frith, is its "authenticity." According to Landau, authentic music "articulates an attitude, style or feeling that is the genuine reflection of the performers' experience…." In a "true" folk music, emotions are not faked and the situations of the community are sincerely (if sometimes farcically) related. In acting as the voice of the fans, filk distinguishes itself as a music that authentically expresses the attitudes and desires of those fans.
Sir Hubert Parry presents a lovely, somewhat idyllic view of folk music: it "grew in the heart of the people...because it pleased them to make it, and what they made pleased them; and that is the only good way music is ever made." This is another, admittedly optimistic, view of music making that makes the requirement of "authenticity" nearly impossible to reach. The motives of the music must be pure--the music must be made simply for the joy of making it.
And, incredibly, filk seems to meet this difficult requirement. Filk is made because fans enjoy it. It was not created--and still is not created--to make a significant income or to gain significant fame, but for its specific community's pleasure.
As I mentioned, Jenkins provides a more exhaustive discussion of filk as folk. In Frith's article, however, we have found several more requirements of folk music that identify filk even more securely as a denizen of folk culture. At its heart, filk's authentic nature, its edification of an already-existing community , and the equality it celebrates between performer and audience have identified it as a folk music in a society and time in which true folk music is rare.
The discussion of the classification of filk as folk could fill a book, and this poor blog would bend under the weight of all that info, but lets discuss this. Criticism and commentary are welcome!
And in the meantime, happy TTOs to all!
mh
(This entry has been cross-posted at my Wordpress site.)
I figured that I would start out my musings on filk with a discussion of folk music influenced by Simon Frith's 1981 article in Popular Music, "'The Magic That Can Set You Free': The Ideology of Folk and the Myth of the Rock Community." I'll also be drawing from the chapter, "'Strangers No More, We Sing': Filk Music, Folk Culture, and the Fan Community," from Henry Jenkins's book, Textual Poachers (1992). Jenkins, as many of us know, is one of the few scholars to have devoted considerable time and pen space to filk as a genre--work that has been published in several important books on fan culture.
The purpose of Frith's article is to debunk rock's status as a folk art and at the same time to discuss how rock is, despite this, "used by its listeners as a folk music." In spinning out his argument, Frith gives several definitions of filk from figures such as Jon Landau (the Rolling Stone), Sir Hubert Parry (a late-19th-century English composer), and A.L. Lloyd (an early 20th-century English folk singer and folk song collector). When considered together, these definitions highlight several important aspects of folk music that, when compared to what we (the collective "we" that really means "I") know about filk, fully endorse Jenkins's assertion that filk is a true folk art.
Jenkins spends a good portion of his article on filk discussing its folk status, giving several qualities, endorsed by scholars, common to all folk music: "oral circulation rather than fixed written texts, continuity within musical tradition, variation in performance, and selection by a community that determines which songs are preserved, which discarded." He also explores the practice of communities' refashioning and recreating of folk music to continually serve the current identity of each community. He very clearly and effectively presents filk as an authentic folk music based on these qualifications.
Moving beyond Jenkins's discussion of folk music, though, we find presented in Frith's article several other ideological qualities of this art. As part of his argument, Frith intimates that folk music should rise from the creativity of folk who are related by experiences other than music. Frith frowns on rock's status as a folk genre because the "community" it serves is not tied together by anything other than the music it claims. While we might argue with this claim, it does not preclude filk as a folk music.
According to all the accounts I have read on the emergence of filk from the midnight creativity of fan cons, it is music made by a community that is already tied together by their dedication to their fan interests. Jenkins affirms that filk pulls together this group, "resolving the differences separating them, providing a common basis for interaction." The SF&F community is not built on its music making--its music making reinforces its existing foundation.
More important than folk music's role as a tool for already-built communities is the fact that, within it, there is no elite. The lines between performer and audience are minimal or nonexistent. A.L. Lloyd stated that "the main thing [in folk music] is that the songs are made and sung by men [sic] who are identical with their audience in standing, in occupation, in attitude to life, and in daily experience." While within rock, the audience is encouraged to believe that their stars have risen from their ranks and have remained there in some small fashion, in filk the audience is the performer, and the performer is a member of the audience. They share attitudes, interests, and a dedication to media culture. Filk celebrates the in-references found in SF&F fandom, the sense of ownership that the fans feel over their preferred media, and the right of the fans to comment upon and critique these texts. Elitism is minimized within this community.
By far the most striking requirement for folk music, as related by Frith, is its "authenticity." According to Landau, authentic music "articulates an attitude, style or feeling that is the genuine reflection of the performers' experience…." In a "true" folk music, emotions are not faked and the situations of the community are sincerely (if sometimes farcically) related. In acting as the voice of the fans, filk distinguishes itself as a music that authentically expresses the attitudes and desires of those fans.
Sir Hubert Parry presents a lovely, somewhat idyllic view of folk music: it "grew in the heart of the people...because it pleased them to make it, and what they made pleased them; and that is the only good way music is ever made." This is another, admittedly optimistic, view of music making that makes the requirement of "authenticity" nearly impossible to reach. The motives of the music must be pure--the music must be made simply for the joy of making it.
And, incredibly, filk seems to meet this difficult requirement. Filk is made because fans enjoy it. It was not created--and still is not created--to make a significant income or to gain significant fame, but for its specific community's pleasure.
As I mentioned, Jenkins provides a more exhaustive discussion of filk as folk. In Frith's article, however, we have found several more requirements of folk music that identify filk even more securely as a denizen of folk culture. At its heart, filk's authentic nature, its edification of an already-existing community , and the equality it celebrates between performer and audience have identified it as a folk music in a society and time in which true folk music is rare.
The discussion of the classification of filk as folk could fill a book, and this poor blog would bend under the weight of all that info, but lets discuss this. Criticism and commentary are welcome!
And in the meantime, happy TTOs to all!
mh
(This entry has been cross-posted at my Wordpress site.)
There might be some debate over this one. There are recognized "stars" within filk, whose songs or performances are especially admired. They're invited as guests to conventions with their travel and room paid. There are, perhaps, two people in the world who try to make a living as musicians and make filk a significant part of their repertoire. But on the whole it's true. Even the "stars" are expected to join in the circles and take their turn like everyone else (though sometimes they get flooded with requests). A few people who've blatantly tried to position themselves as filk stars have faced ridicule. Stardom, to the extent it's achieved, comes by merit, not by image-making.
I'll hand this one to you because you're obviously right. Although, one could argue (and I'm sure they have at some point or other) that *no* musical tradition is completely without a hierarchy of performers, even within the idiom of folk music. There will always be those who the people are more interested to hear.
What this means, really, is that I shouldn't have been so black and white with that statement. So, strike "nonexistent" and just leave "minimal." [grin]
Cheers! Thanks for the thoughts!
However, I kind of wonder about "authenticity." After all, Much, if not most, of filk is about impossible or inaccessible experiences. I'd go so far as to suggest, at the risk of offending my filk friends, that inauthenticity of subject matter is at the heart of filk music. I'm interested in your idea of authenticity.
another fun thing--while there are a lot of recordings available, a whole lot of songs are transmitted by live performance. There are "hits" that emerge in the filk community, but you are more likely to hear them the first time sung live than on a recording.
Or something to that degree. Thanks for making me think!
There is also a generational transmission of experience that can occur in filk, most notably in my experience between those who grew up with memories of the space race and the Apollo missions and those born beyond that time. It is unfortunate that my first space-flight related memory is of the Challenger disaster. But through a song like Hope Eyrie or Phoenix I can have a connection back to that time on an emotional level. I can feel a bit of the experience of optimism and hope that existed back then, and some of the sadness I've seen in some who have felt we have squandered our earliest chance of realizing some of those dreams that were described in science fiction.
You know, your point about "generational transmission" is tres cool. A lot of "folk music," especially in less Westernized cultures, is oral tradition that helps to share history. Filk may be young, but it's now a few generations old, and has already started to share events and feelings from years past. That's really neat.
Thanks again!
Perhaps this is the appropriate time to reference Kanefsky's "Song of the Folk Nazi". :)
And, you pose an interesting point here. Filk draws its material from inauthentic sources--the media--but it speaks to the authentic experiences of the fans, whether those experiences are actual experiences or imagined. Regarding this latter point, I think that we can still call the experiences "real" from the point of view that the fan shares his/her response to an imaginary world.
So, basically, I was looking at the *fan experience* as authentic, and therefore at filk--which shares fan experience at different levels--as authentic...even though the fan experience is largely based on inauthentic material.
What do you think? Is that fair? I think the *activity* of filksinging itself, in a group, is authentic at least.
However, just to shed a little light on the question for myself, what makes music inauthentic? What would filk have to be like not to count as authentic under the definition of folk you are working with? What is an inauthentic music?
I really enjoy the discussion that you've been triggering in your LJ, and look forward to what you and the others have to say as you explore this in the future. I hope I'm not being an argumentative troll in my comments, I hope I'm acting like more of a thought-provoking devil's advocate. Because authentic or not, Filk, be it a genre, community, or scene, is important to me, and a bright spot in my life.
Hmmm. Very good question. I suppose that it would come down to motive. *In*authentic music would be music that is not made simply to share experience and culture, but for some other means. I would consider, for instance, music that is made to make money (as most music is once a band has been signed to a label) inauthentic.
Even though the music itself may be inauthentic, it doesn't follow that your *experience* of this music would be inauthentic. I believe that this is a point Frith was getting at when he was debunking the folkiness of rock. Though the audience used the music as folk music, it was not actually so, since the primary motive of making the music had changed to more commericial concerns.
So, if we were to look at, oh, Stargate (because it's my favorite), I think we'd agree that it is inauthentic. But our experience of it becomes personal, and therefore authentic. And that experience is what makes filk authentic.
And now I need to go back over all this and re-evaluate it all. Make sense in my head...because I sense several loopholes in what I just said.
I'm enjoying the discussion, too! I have to say, when I was working on vaudeville, I had to pull even my advisor's teeth to get some feedback. So this is a lot of fun, and I'd be disappointed if there weren't people pointing out all the mistakes in my arguments.
Thanks!
Are we over-analysing "authentic" for the purpose of defining folk? (or are we arguing ourselves into a corner?) I'm wondering if maybe "authentic" just means that people are singing songs that comes from the community itself, and not from outside. If that's so, check out the requirements for the Pegasus awards. They exclude songs that may be filky in style and content, but do not come from the filk community--a Weird Al Yankovich, for instance, is not eligible for a Pegasus.
I'd sure hate to have to justify my songs as "authentic!"
So making money doesn't imply inauthenticity as such, but it creates a motive for producing music other than the kind you personally care for. If no one's paying you, chances are you wouldn't bother.
On the Weird Al bit, some *could* actually argue for some of his songs falling in under the filk umbrella--though I'm sure that's what the Pegasus rules are there to prevent. :)
And, I hear you about the justification bit. It certainly would be frustrating to continually have to make the case that your music still belongs in the community you've written it for and in, Especially with such a subjective requirement as "authenticity." It's a nice word to mull over and tear apart, but not a nice one to actually use.
Thoughts
I think filk does function as folk music, because as you said, it is done for fun far more than for money or fame. It's also done by ordinary people rather than just by Performers -- competence is not a requirement.
There are now some filk music companies that produce quite excellent sound quality in their recordings, but the earliest filk albums were "basement tapes" and that style still survives. I've actually heard arguments that some contemporary filk is "too polished" and doesn't have a proper folky sound.
Re: Thoughts
"Solar Sailors" master tape was recorded in the Ohio State University studios. This is one of the few recordings of the time released on vinyl.
You might want to talk to the people who did the early recordings, most (if not all) are still active filkers.
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Do filk music companies make their wares in order to make money, or simply because they want to provide the service for their friends? I don't know how these companies are set up--perhaps they've found a lucrative market? Or are they created by filkers themselves who want to push forward the dissemination of filk?
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
The Creaseys are filkers, their company is called Random Factors. They're re-releasing a lot of Leslie Fish's songs.
Bill Sutton is another filker/producer (Bedlam House).
Re: Thoughts
And thanks for the encouragement.