f4
T
he editor of another maga- zine was once overheard at one of those international showcase conferences
expressing complete puzzlement about fRoots. “Why would they put them on the cover? Nobody’s heard of them. And why do they publish such long features? I mean, who wants to read anything that’s three or four thousand words long?”
Well, here at fRoots we love to give good space to newer or rela- tively unknown artists and musics – because we can, and because it’s obviously what you readers like. This was brought home to us in a massive lightbulb moment back at the beginning of this century when we had a major famous rock god on the cover of one issue and a totally unknown new English folkperson on the next, and sold virtu- ally the same number of copies of each. Oh!
0 0 0 0 So we have a fabulous (and fabulously obscure) band on
this issue’s cover but also something of a historical flavour within, looking back at a couple of fine artists – one living, one sadly dead – from a time when the current generation of performers were barely being born, and at scenes from half a century ago. “You can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you come from,” etc.
I had another lightbulb moment recently when sorting out those pieces on New York’s Folk City and the UK’s folk scene of the late 1950s and ’60s. In both cases, those times are widely known as the ‘folk revival’, so widely that we don’t ever think about those terms and the implications carried within them. But is that really what they were?
In the USA, probably yes. American rural folk music had been widely documented on commercial recordings in the 1920s and ’30s, partly as a way to sell gramophones. So had the political song movements of the pre- and immediately post-war years. With the legendary Harry Smith anthology and Pete Seeger’s circle as catalysts, a lot of what happened in the USA was indeed a straightforward revival of and evolu- tion from those earlier forms. And achieved massive success.
But in the UK? We had hardly any equivalent repertoire of commercial recordings to reproduce and develop. We had not really had a topical song tradition since the days of broadside ballads a century earlier. Yes, some people set out to become clones of the remaining elderly unaccompanied traditional singers, but few caught the public’s imagination.
The key instrument of the British folk movement of the late 1950s and ’60s, the guitar, hadn’t been part of any folk tradition here at all. Far from reviving anything, the English had to invent something new. People like Davy Graham and Martin Carthy had to create local ways of playing that worked (and, like the English people, were mongrels). Others evolved original and uniquely English ways of playing Ameri- can music – sometimes accidentally, by conspicuous failure to copy their sources. Even the Rolling Stones did that.
True, old songs and tunes were rediscovered but the way they were performed began from year zero. It was actually a complete folk re-imagining, a re-invention. Perhaps we should get in the habit of calling it that, rather than a folk revival.
Ian Anderson
Photo: Judith Burrows
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84