Any punk or folk fans fancy answering some questions?

Thebeninator1000 · 06-02-2017, 09:59 AM

Hey guys,

I'm currently working on my dissertation for my music production degree and the title I'm investigating is 'Can there be shared production ethics between folk or punk?'. My basic reasoning is that there's loads out there about similar elements between the two genres in terms of songwriting and attitudes, and there's lots of musicians who have worked in both genres such as Frank Turner, Chuck Ragan or even folk-punk bands such as Flogging Molly or Skinny Lister, but there's not much written about the production of each genres. So I'm producing a folk EP and a punk EP using similar techniques and ideas to whether you can do lots of the same things with both genres in the studio or whether that's a stupid idea.

I'm putting together a survey with examples of the music at the moment but I just wanted to get some preliminary ideas about what it is that people enjoy about the genres from any of you who would like to help!

If you are a fan of either punk or folk then could you tell me what it is that appeals to you about that genre? It could be anything to do with the songwriting, performance, attitudes or anything at all!

If anybody regularly listens to both genres then could you please tell me if you can think of any common reasons that attract you to them? Or if you think they're completely different then that would still be great to know!

Thanks in advance guys, I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys think!

Justthefacts · 06-04-2017, 01:17 AM

Andrew Jackson Jihad/

Lisnaholic · 06-04-2017, 11:06 AM

Well, I'm a big fan of folk music and I'm happy to explain why I like it. Off the top of my head, these are some of the appealing aspects of traditional folk music:-

i) it was portable music. With a decent voice and a couple of instruments it could be performed almost anywhere - no need for either orchestra or electricity.
ii) it was shared music. Songs were built up from variations of music and words that many people already knew, that were already in the public domain. That plus the relative simplicity of the music makes it easy to teach and to pass on to others.
iii) it was both a feature and a celebration of everyday life. Not only was it played at fairs, ale-houses and the like, but many songs were about these topics too. Thanks to that, they have preserved details and descriptions of the concerns of the common man -the sailor, the farmer, the maid, etc.

IMO the folk revival of the sixties retained many of the virtues of traditional folk, though it did become more "arty," more self-conscious and more celebrity-orientated - probably because musicians were being recorded and were trying to outdo each other.

Interesting that you should be linking Punk to Folk, and it makes me notice that, on paper at least, the three points I made about traditional folk could also be describing Punk music (not to mention Blues)as well. However, I think Punk became too aggressive, too determined to shock people. Instead of being the voice of the common man as Folk had been, it became the voice of a select band of brothers - those angry young men who felt at home in the mosh pit.
Or maybe it's just about volume; punk is too loud for me!

**Frownland** · 06-07-2017, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

I think punk is sometimes a kind of folk for bohemians if that makes sense

You have to expand the definition a bit, but I think you could argue that punk is the folk music of the youth.

Tristan_Geoff · 06-08-2017, 12:43 PM

I think punk and folk are similar due to their shared ethos. Both aren't focused on musical skill but rather the feelings and emotion tied to the playing styles. Both are music "for the people", as in not art music, but... folk music really. Punk IS folk when it really comes down to it. It's music for the proletariat, and often folk artists have had the same anti-establishment and socialist ideals that are carried in punk music. What I love about both genres is their diversity and the wide array of feelings that can be conjured and places it can take me to. The two are sometimes opposite in which feelings they evoke, but often they operate for me on the same wavelengths.

The Batlord · 06-08-2017, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. Tristan Rosenstock

I think punk and folk are similar due to their shared ethos. Both aren't focused on musical skill but rather the feelings and emotion tied to the playing styles. Both are music "for the people", as in not art music, but... folk music really. Punk IS folk when it really comes down to it. It's music for the proletariat, and often folk artists have had the same anti-establishment and socialist ideals that are carried in punk music. What I love about both genres is their diversity and the wide array of feelings that can be conjured and places it can take me to. The two are sometimes opposite in which feelings they evoke, but often they operate for me on the same wavelengths.

Punk and folk are not the music of the people. "The people" don't listen to punk or folk. The people listen to Toby Keith and Lil Wayne and Nickelback because the people don't want to think about the proletariat or the bourgeoisie when they're knocking back a six-pack and just trying to forget about their disappointing lives. Many of them have probably never even listened to a Clash album. The only people who'd say it was music for the people are self-righteous punk fans who probably have very little in common with their fellow "people" and would get laughed at if they tried to float that theory to them.

**Frownland** · 06-08-2017, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Punk and folk are not the music of the people. "The people" don't listen to punk or folk. The people listen to Toby Keith and Lil Wayne and Nickelback because the people don't want to think about the proletariat or the bourgeoisie when they're knocking back a six-pack and just trying to forget about their disappointing lives. Many of them have probably never even listened to a Clash album. The only people who'd say it was music for the people are self-righteous punk fans who probably have very little in common with their fellow "people" and would get laughed at if they tried to float that theory to them.

You're an idiot. It's for the people because it's accessible to common musicians, not because it'll top the charts.

Tristan_Geoff · 06-08-2017, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Punk and folk are not the music of the people. "The people" don't listen to punk or folk. The people listen to Toby Keith and Lil Wayne and Nickelback because the people don't want to think about the proletariat or the bourgeoisie when they're knocking back a six-pack and just trying to forget about their disappointing lives. Many of them have probably never even listened to a Clash album. The only people who'd say it was music for the people are self-righteous punk fans who probably have very little in common with their fellow "people" and would get laughed at if they tried to float that theory to them.

Pfft, those aren't real people though. I mean the actual working class, not upper middle class "rednecks"

The Batlord · 06-08-2017, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

You're an idiot.

Why? Because musicians trying to tell everyone what's wrong with them, their country, and the world in general isn't a pointless exercise in stroking their own egos? Because people actually give a **** what musicians think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's for the people because it's accessible to common musicians, not because it'll top the charts.

Common musicians aren't the people. The vast majority of the people have probably never been in a band or even spent more than five minutes trying to play an instrument.

**Frownland** · 06-08-2017, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Why? Because musicians trying to tell everyone what's wrong with them, their country, and the world in general isn't a pointless exercise in stroking their own egos? Because people actually give a **** what musicians think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

You're an idiot. It's for the people because it's accessible to common musicians, not because it'll top the charts.

I think that brings hip hop into the mix of American folk music too.

And hang on, are you implying that punk and folk are entirely political? Just because Tristan dropped the p bomb doesn't mean it extends to the subject matter of those genres lol.

06-02-2017, 09:59 AM	#1 (permalink)
Thebeninator1000 Groupie Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 1	Any punk or folk fans fancy answering some questions? Hey guys, I'm currently working on my dissertation for my music production degree and the title I'm investigating is 'Can there be shared production ethics between folk or punk?'. My basic reasoning is that there's loads out there about similar elements between the two genres in terms of songwriting and attitudes, and there's lots of musicians who have worked in both genres such as Frank Turner, Chuck Ragan or even folk-punk bands such as Flogging Molly or Skinny Lister, but there's not much written about the production of each genres. So I'm producing a folk EP and a punk EP using similar techniques and ideas to whether you can do lots of the same things with both genres in the studio or whether that's a stupid idea. I'm putting together a survey with examples of the music at the moment but I just wanted to get some preliminary ideas about what it is that people enjoy about the genres from any of you who would like to help! If you are a fan of either punk or folk then could you tell me what it is that appeals to you about that genre? It could be anything to do with the songwriting, performance, attitudes or anything at all! If anybody regularly listens to both genres then could you please tell me if you can think of any common reasons that attract you to them? Or if you think they're completely different then that would still be great to know! Thanks in advance guys, I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys think!

06-04-2017, 11:06 AM	#3 (permalink)
Lisnaholic ...here to hear... Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: He lives on Love Street Posts: 4,444	Well, I'm a big fan of folk music and I'm happy to explain why I like it. Off the top of my head, these are some of the appealing aspects of traditional folk music:- i) it was portable music. With a decent voice and a couple of instruments it could be performed almost anywhere - no need for either orchestra or electricity. ii) it was shared music. Songs were built up from variations of music and words that many people already knew, that were already in the public domain. That plus the relative simplicity of the music makes it easy to teach and to pass on to others. iii) it was both a feature and a celebration of everyday life. Not only was it played at fairs, ale-houses and the like, but many songs were about these topics too. Thanks to that, they have preserved details and descriptions of the concerns of the common man -the sailor, the farmer, the maid, etc. IMO the folk revival of the sixties retained many of the virtues of traditional folk, though it did become more "arty," more self-conscious and more celebrity-orientated - probably because musicians were being recorded and were trying to outdo each other. Interesting that you should be linking Punk to Folk, and it makes me notice that, on paper at least, the three points I made about traditional folk could also be describing Punk music (not to mention Blues)as well. However, I think Punk became too aggressive, too determined to shock people. Instead of being the voice of the common man as Folk had been, it became the voice of a select band of brothers - those angry young men who felt at home in the mosh pit. Or maybe it's just about volume; punk is too loud for me! __________________ "Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953