Why is there so many rock essentials, and so many classical essentials, so on, but no folk essentials...

>but no folk essentials?
There is one now. See

>Robert Johnson
>folk
Huh?

Traditional blues is by definition folk music.

Attached: B7F028B1-CDA3-4D98-82EE-4944631CAFC9.jpg (316x316, 12K)

Attached: 680B05C5-A9E7-4D79-B468-0EEC70860BF5.jpg (1137x2802, 790K)

there are a large number of recordings of what are known as 'source singers' in archives - the British Library and the Smithsonian for example.

Attached: 9F38D13F-2B89-490A-8EC3-398487B82DA9.png (2049x1991, 810K)

I really like the Smithsonian Folkways collections. Alan Lomax also had a bunch of great recordings

Attached: 9A720A61-7B3E-47FC-B190-D38C69D264DD.jpg (963x807, 162K)

Look for stuff on:

Ocora, Barenreiter Musicaphon, Philips UNESCO, Lyrichord, Nonsuch Explorer, Smithsonian Folkways.

the second he made a studio recording it stopped being folk music and started being popular music you retard

Fuck yourself

Attached: 257782A4-8AA0-4E73-9F3C-A1D96045F4BA.jpg (1488x1051, 610K)

Forgot - also Topic and Argo records.

cause you are retarded? only normies refer to acoustic singer songwriter music as folk.

>if its recorded its popular
that's not how it works, moron

Not the folk the OP is talking about, arguably not even folk at all.

There is also Harmonia Mundi and INEDIT, which are both pretty good.

This.

This is the attitude that made so many people stop visiting or performing at folk clubs in the UK from about the mid '70's. They were run by purist snobs who completely rejected anything that wasn't passed down through the oral tradition, with predictable results.

Attached: 15B24ED0-98C9-4ACA-913D-577266E622C7.jpg (2000x1700, 862K)

That's actually the point I was making earlier:
However, that still doesn't change the fact that traditional blues is by definition folk music, if perhaps not in spirit when recorded commercially.

doesnt mean its not good, interesting, or worthwhile music. just means its not folk by the very definition

here's some popular music for you then..

youtube.com/watch?v=MHVNx_7WIgA

songs become essential because there are so many newer songs than it that borrow concepts and ideas from it
folk essentials can't really exist, because real folk music varies from country to country, whose cultures have existed anywhere from thousands to mere hundreds of years and are extremely different from one another

THE FUCK?

thanks for sharing. that is an interesting piece of music and i was not familiar with the folk tradition that piece came from.

field recordings of traditional musics in their original place and purpose are still folk. but studio recording artists like robert johnson are not who played and performed songs to be bought and sold are not. ie-- alan lomax's field recordings of north american folk songs in peoples front porches, recording of people working in fields, and on the chain gang etc while making music are recordings of folk music . but studio recordings even if influenced or descended from a folk tradition are not and are enherently popular music.

No traditional blues was blues. You might as well stop using the word if you are going to have such a meaningless definition.

Attached: louis-armstrong-folk-music.jpg (500x379, 38K)

these are all barely folk

Why do brainlets need to create their own special terms for genres? And why are their terms always lengthy paragraphs of specific descriptors? In this case, there’s this music called folk, and it branches off into a bunch of folk subgenres like other genres, but that’s just not acceptable to you retards
>that’s not folk, those are field recordings of traditional songs within the folk tradition
>and that’s not folk, that’s acoustic singer-songwriter popular music with certain folk influences
Yeah no. There’s traditional folk, and then the folk revival (which led to folk rock), then later stuff like neofolk and folk-punk

Attached: americana.png (3065x1485, 3.49M)

>There’s traditional folk
Yes.

>and then the folk revival
Arguably not folk.

>(which led to folk rock)
Arguably.

>then later stuff like neofolk and folk-punk
Not folk. At all.

It’s derived from folk, just like post-rock and post-punk. therefore it’s a part of the folk family you fucking retard autist. don’t you have any more irrelevant items to catalogue?

>therefore it’s a part of the folk family you fucking retard autis
So, I guess post-rock is folk too now, right? because post-rock is derived from rock, and rock is derived from folk
what a retard

Rock isn’t derived from folk. Also you know the difference between a sub genre and a wholly different separate genre that branches off of another. You’re pretending to be dense on purpose

I forgot word there but your turbo aspie brain should figure it out

>Rock isn’t derived from folk
Ever heard of blues?

>you know the difference between a sub genre and a wholly different separate genre that branches off of another
Yes. Neofolk and so on is still not folk.

Random hypothetical: if one of these “non-folk folk” guys (people who play folk-rock, neofolk, folk-punk, and the many other “folk” derivatives) played something passed down from the oral tradition. THAT would be folk, right?

Yes it is, actually

yeah, but if they did it wouldn't be folk-rock, neofolk, etc. as those are genres passed down through commercial recordings

youtube.com/watch?v=f_TAxgf02VY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Pretty_Little_Horses
So this is traditional folk, and not neofolk?

that's not traditional folk because its not performed in its traditional form

So if a little kid for instance attempts to sing a traditional folk song, but he gets the words wrong and sings off key cause he’s an untrained little kid, you’d say he’s not even singing the song?
Also, don’t the tunes/lyrics to folk songs always change as they’re passed down? What is “traditional form”?

depends
is he trying to play the traditional version of the song or the neofolk version?

>don’t the tunes/lyrics to folk songs always change as they’re passed down?
sometimes, but that doesn't mean they suddenly start to play in a popular genre

Folk long pre-dates the album format, so a lot of it exists in the form of obscure compilations, singles, etc, which are so plentiful not much of a canon can form.

>depends
Always. There is no folk song with only one standard set of lyrics/tune
>sometimes, but that doesn't mean they suddenly start to play in a popular genre
So neofolk is a popular genre because it’s not based in the traditional history of folk (that being, songs passed down through oral tradition), AND if a neofolk artist plays a traditional folk song, that’s still not folk because he’s playing it in a popular genre rather than within the traditional folk tradition
What is your aversion to just admitting subgenres of folk exist?

what about unanimously loved folk albums, like yasimika?

Is there any list of Alan Lomax recordings? There are a lot of great ones out there

By that logic I guess this is folk now
youtube.com/watch?v=I_2D8Eo15wE
That's how retarded you sound.

robbie basho

No because it’s rock, a separate genre. A rock band is reinterpreting a folk song, that’s different from a folk band playing a folk song like in my example
Let me give you another example
Folk song (or as you would call it, acoustic singer-songwriter popular music with certain folk influences): youtube.com/watch?v=bT7Hj-ea0VE
Anther singer in the same (allegedly folk) genre playing the song: youtube.com/watch?v=hYL9DOifo04
Rock reinterpretation of the song: youtube.com/watch?v=TLV4_xaYynY
Classical reinterpretation of the song: youtube.com/watch?v=hrDfRRecaGk
You can see now the difference between two performers in the same genre vs. a reinterpretation of a song from another genre. A rock version of a folk song isn’t folk, but a folk version of a folk song is folk

Attached: ITAOTS.jpg (390x390, 45K)

Great folk album

Bluegrass folk essentials:
Doc Watson - Self Titled
early Jimmy Martin recordings
Tony Rice - Manzanita
Country Gentlemen - Live in Japan

I could post bluegrass essentials all day but I doubt anyone would listen or know what the fuck I was talking about.

Attached: DW1.jpg (2430x3030, 2.3M)

I like The Dillards a lot

The argument that music ceases being 'folk' and starts being 'popular' when it is recorded is stupid as fuck. A lot of bluegrass music has been recorded but that hasn't lessened the hold of its niche culture. I grew up in a traditional bluegrass household where basically everyone in my family and extended family play instruments. All other kinds of music are looked down upon (by most of them), and bluegrass is all that matters. The culture is pervasive in more rural Appalachian areas to the point where it can't be anything other than 'folk music.' What the fuck else would you even call it?

These sorts of arguments are for remote pseudo-intellectuals to have in stodgy, dirty cities. They don't mean anything to mountain and delta folk that live in places where music is more than some sort of arbitrary hobby. There is no discussion for people like us. The music is as much a part of life in this area as the dirt roads winding through the mountains.

You fucks should treasure these recordings that you say cheapen or invalidate this music as being 'folk'. It's a window into another world that you can't ever really understand until you're on the other side of it.

Attached: string-quartet.jpg (2768x1760, 636K)

And neofolk is a separate genre from traditional folk.
That's a reinterpretation of the original song.

>a folk version of a folk song is folk
Yes, but a neofolk version is not a folk version

>rock is folk
>neofolk is not folk

Why is it called neo-“folk” if it isn’t folk? Is it just a trick to confuse people or something?

Just ignore that guy. People who sit around debating musical genres have no place in a discussion about traditional music.

Bump

lol

This is a folk essential
youtube.com/watch?v=GDFaEBjA7PU

I dumped several GB of the Alan Lomax history onto my server but barely listened to it. I recall it was worth the disc space but so hoard whatever you can and then check Youtube for analysis and opinion..

There are blues essentials, jazz standards, and folk anthologies

This is a traditional folk song. It is played with electric guitars. It is still a traditional folk song.

youtube.com/watch?v=4FuaSdOdpzw

Facts don't care about your feelings. Go listen to your extremely folk folk music like Bob Dylan, retarded cultureless mutt.

This. Fucking retards. It's completely obvious what kind of folk (traditional) music OP meant with the image he posted: Bartok recording Slovakian folk songs in his native Hungary. But you fucking retards wouldn't know any of that, now would you?

When RYM Yea Forumscore genre masturbating faggots read the words "folk music"

Attached: Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg (1024x683, 102K)

>”why aren’t there folk essentials like there are rock essentials?”
>”well, here are some essential folk charts”
>”no those aren’t essentials cause those are recorded and true folk can only be heard irl”
Well that answers your question doesn’t it? Go find a local fucking chain gang and listen to them singing a fucking work song. Maybe go to a church with a traditional hymnal. Obviously there are no “essentials” for an oral tradition, it’s your fault for not living in a remote village pre-internet. You will never hear folk music in your lifetime

>”no those aren’t essentials cause those are recorded and true folk can only be heard irl”
Nobody said this. They're not folk music because they're pop music, they are created mostly by the author/singer/songwriter, not form an old oral tradition and culture. It should've been obvious because of OP's image if you weren't a gargantuan philistine. Try again, faggot.

It's because they predate the album format and unlike classical which also predates the album format, you need the original recordings to be what you want. There are tons of essentials, they just can't be put in an album chart, otherwise you're constantly recommending entire compilations for one or two standout tracks.

Folk revival is one hundred percent folk you fucking retard. If performing and recording songs from before you were born by people whose names are lost to time isn't folk then nothing is. Just because they also wrote their own songs that they mixed in with the traditionals doesn't mean it isn't folk. A lot of folk revival was even artists from the 20's and 30's coming out of retirement before they died so if they were traditional folk before they still were when they came back to do the same stuff for a new generation.

But those charts he complained about literally have that on them. If he can dismiss anything because it was recorded, then that explains why he'll never find a chart of essentials. It seems the essentials list he wants is a list of Wikipedia articles of folk songs and traditions to read about but that he'll never be able to hear.

OP here. folk can be recorded. most folkways releases are folk records for example

So Folk is something that came from primordial ooze centuries ago and was never written by a person? There’s no first writers of those old folk songs?
Not to mention, literally said that traditional folk songs aren’t traditional folk if they’re recorded by a non-folk artist