| Revision as of 09:00, 18 January 2003 editTUF-KAT (talk | contribs)48,707 edits this page is ridiculous← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:20, 24 September 2003 edit undoOpus33 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,955 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ----- | ----- | ||
| This page is ridiculous. I agree with the POV, but it is still a clear and obvious POV. I'm not sure how to fix it right now, but I will and come back. ] 09:00 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC) | This page is ridiculous. I agree with the POV, but it is still a clear and obvious POV. I'm not sure how to fix it right now, but I will and come back. ] 09:00 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| Article is getting long so I put in section headings; also a little bit on the classical composers who went folksong collecting. Sorry about the clash of prose styles. | |||
| :] 21:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:20, 24 September 2003
Someone wrote:
More recognizable, perhaps, is a type of what is generally called rock and roll called ? or simply "folk," which included performers such as ?, Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, ?, and many others.
I've tried to clarify this. "Folk rock" is used very specifically and is typically far more recognised by instrumentation than form. Many folk musicians of the 60s (Tom Paxton, Phil Ochs etc) sang new, topical material (which distinguished them from traditional folk musicians) but in the folk idiom (acoustic instruments, traditional arrangements and often traditional melodies.)
Re: the comment about "marketers" in the first paragraph. If language reflects common usage, what is now called "folk music" has as much right to the name as any other form.
Gareth Owen
To the latter: fair enough, but does the first paragraph actually imply otherwise? --LMS
I like the page in general but wonder if the following is unnecessarily cynical (implying, as it does, a financial rather than artistic incentive to change musical styles):
- "Some of these performers, of which Joan Baez is an excellent example, began their commercial music careers performing traditional music in a traditional idiom, but soon transformed their style and accompaniment to suit popular tastes."
Ya know, I agree, but I don't know how to change it right off. Anyone else want to give it a stab? --LMS
The deletions are merely of things that seemed redundant. Additions may solve the problem of tone mentioned above. One bit of the original puzzles me, so I corrected the grammar but left it in--but what does "unrecognizable to its source" actually mean?
I like the new additions--lots of good new information here. I added some more. The problem now is that the article is rambling and disorganized, and I am probably not the best person to organize and clarify it. BTW, using the word "purist," without the quotes, makes it sound as if the authors of the article are not purists, which we don't want to imply. :-) See neutral point of view. --LMS
Perhaps someone who knows the facts :-) could add in "Skiffle" music, from whence the Beatles sprang, which was evidently a British folk form in the 1950's. Certainly the Beatles stole (er, utilised!) many folk forms in their music.
I think we are going to need a List of folk musicians at some point soon. user:sjc
This page is ridiculous. I agree with the POV, but it is still a clear and obvious POV. I'm not sure how to fix it right now, but I will and come back. Tokerboy 09:00 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
Article is getting long so I put in section headings; also a little bit on the classical composers who went folksong collecting. Sorry about the clash of prose styles.
- Opus33 21:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)