Reglamento de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Residuos Peligrosos

The application of genre as an organising concept within folklore studies began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Harris 1995). Around this time, Cecil Sharp (1907) developed an understanding of „folk song‟ through his book-length study of the genre. He approached a definition in terms of being „created by the common people‟ as opposed to being „composed by the educated‟ (1907:4). Elements of this approach have been criticised, but the core of Sharp‟s definition, based around the principles of communality, continuity, variation and selection, remain central to many academics‟ and practitioners‟ working definition of folk song. Sharp‟s theory adhered to a particular set of contemporary concepts concerning subjects such as authorship and orality.

Due to academic criticism (both at the time of publication and

subsequently), and the recognition in the later 20th century that any system of categorisation is ever evolving, there has been revision of what is understood as the folk song genre. Detailed work has been conducted regarding this process (Harker 1985; Boyes 1993), which I do not attempt to reproduce here, but it is useful to recognise a couple of key examples that demonstrate shifts in the perspective. Anonymity and the emphasis on communal rather than individual authorship has been challenged by Frank Kidson (1915) who advocates the recognition of known composers. Albert L. Lloyd (1969) includes urban, industrial workers‟ songs to expand the remit of the genre, though this categorisation system remains tied to notions of social class. The emphasis on oral transmission and lack of written transcription as a defining marker of traditional material (which has strong links to the folk repertoire) is demonstrated to be problematic by David Atkinson (2004).

Dave Harker (1972; 1985) attacks what he perceives as the bourgeois decontextualisation of material and the editorial privileges employed by collectors and presents a controversial account of folk song collection from a Marxist perspective. While this work has itself not passed without criticism, in terms of both approach and accuracy (Pegg 1987; Bearman 2002), it is helpful to acknowledge Harker‟s foundational point that the contemporarily

recognised body of folk song has been, and continues to be, engineered through the actions and categorisations of particular folk song advocates.

Although these various progressions have impacted upon the accepted body of folk song for both singers and scholars, the early categorisation devices developed in the context of the specific period in which the genre was established have remained powerful concepts

throughout the development of the genre. David Atkinson defends the use of these established categorisation systems as he states (in relation to

„ballads‟):

singers are quite capable of distinguishing different kinds of song, and by now will most probably know what they have come to be called by more than a century of folk song scholarship, and even employ the terminology themselves. (2002:17)

The interface between singers and scholars provides interesting ground within the contemporary folk scene as many singers have an amateur- academic interest in folk song with an awareness of Cecil Sharp and Albert L. Lloyd‟s works in particular. This results in dated academic theory being enacted through contemporary performance practice. In the meantime, the ways in which the academic community address the phenomena have developed, as Harris observes in relation to the discipline of folklore scholarship:

folklorists have begun to place less emphasis upon the need to validate an item of folklore through hundreds of years of circulation, countless versions, anonymity of creation, or location of circulation, and turned their

attention more to the function of lore within communities. (1995:14-5)

This shows the possibility of a paradigm shift within the field of folk song scholarship. Although there remains an entirely legitimate interest in the historical element of folk song, some scholars are advancing this „lived‟ perspective, including Ian Russell‟s work on contemporary singing by groups such as those associated with hunt songs (2002; 2003), or carol singers in South Yorkshire (2004).

Similarly, Niall MacKinnon‟s work on the British folk scene moves the discussion away from that of material categorisation and questions „whether

the survival of the folk scene and folk music is not more connected to the form of performance and the nature of the folk music event than it is to

musical content‟ (1993:96-7). He notes that this would affect the very criteria for defining folk and traditional music, pointing to a definition located in social meaning.

If we follow this argument and define „folk music‟ as a repertoire performed by a particular group of people, rather than as a body of historical materials, as posited by Philip Bolhman (1988:57-8), there is immediately a complication as these approaches conflate for the current participants of folk singing.

A third potential „folk song‟ categorisation system can be approached through the contexts for production and uses of music rather than by

particular people or through the material texts themselves. Millie Rahn writes of the American folk revival that „singers and audiences alike were more interested in the ideological stance of protest songs than in the musical style or virtuosity‟ (2001:198). Indeed perceived ideological connotations are often more significant to the listening community than an actual textual meaning and there remains a strong association of folk with a political affiliation and with the use of song to comment.

In an analysis of a singers‟ night at a live music club from a social psychology perspective, John Smith finds that „the Glebe environment is conductive to the development of a more critical attitude to song amongst members of the club‟ (1987:169). Simon Frith further explores the

association of folk music with its value structure rather than its material form: Folk…did not describe musical production but musical

values, and these values were derived from a critique of commercialism: the description of folk creation (active, collective, honest) was in fact, an idealised response to the experience of mass consumption (fragmented, passive, alienating). (1981:160)

Frith suggests that the rock music ideology follows this pattern and could potentially be classed as a folk music. Steve Redhead and John Street, however, highlight that „the problem of the folk ideology lies not just in its assumptions about actual communities but also about the way music relates to them. For Redhead and Street, folk ideology runs the risk of

misconceiving the politics of music and encourages an overly deterministic – and hence unsuccessful – merging of music and ideas‟ (1989:183). This association of folk song with critical practices has resulted in the inclusion of demonstration songs and political affiliation of the genre (this will be

discussed further in Section 5.2.1).

While these approaches all contain useful categorisation tools, I suggest they have to be viewed collectively in order to reach any useful understanding of the folk genre. A definitive account of which, however, is something I feel is unattainable, hence my leaning on participants usage of the term rather than attempting to impose one through this research. Keith Negus and Roman Velazquez state that „[i]nstead of folk music (or Latin music) being produced by the folk (or people with a Latin identity), the folk (or Latin identities) are produced by and through the music‟ (2002:137). This is the perspective I take through this thesis, suggesting that the folk singers under study here are bounded in community through the practice of singing an elusive body of songs on which they have placed significance.