Bruno Nettl - Folk Music

For me, folk music is defined as a specific genre of music that pertains to a specific group of people or "folk" (regional, race, religion, etc.). The music mainly tells a story regarding the history of that said group of individuals.

In Bruno Nettl's essay, An Introduction to Folk Music in the United States, Nettl doesn't give an exact textbook definition to folk music, but states that the origin and how the music is constructed and presented determines whether or not it is truly folk music. At the same time, Nettl proposes various binary oppositions to help distinguish folk music from other types of music. Nettl brings up some valid points that I certainly agree with (how folk music is structured compared to other music and such), and some that I may have second opinions on. However, my biggest issue with Nettl is his harsh tone towards folk music, that he preaches to his readers that folk music is meant for those of lower social class and is "primitive".

When comparing folk music to cultivative music there are some significant differences that characterize the two. Cultivative music appears to be more complicated, especially with its melodies and harmonies. Cultivative compositions use an assortment of pitches and rhythms. The melodies are constructed on many levels of texture. Folk music, on the other hand, tends to have more simple melodies and is monophonic and follow a strophic form frequently. I don't agree with the notion that folk music isn't played by professionals or well-known musicians. The iconic Bob Dylan and his music for instance can be classified as folk music by some people. The song "Tangled Up in Blue" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwSZvHqf9qM) best represents Nettl's description of folk music. It follows a simple melody throughout, but still tells of a story with heart and passion that captivates its listeners.

This comparison by Nettl is a prime to the point I mentioned before of him downgrading folk music's purpose and segregating it from cultivative music's elegance. He portrays cultivative music as the superior genre by calling it "sophisticated" and "composer-known" and saying it is meant for only the upperclass. Meanwhile, Nettl stamps folk music with label of "primitive" and being recognized as lower-class music. Unlike folk music, cultivative music is written down, thus emphasizing its prominence among its music brethren.

My problem with Nettl is that he fails to realize that folk music, though different to cultivative music in many fashions, has an equivalent importance to its listeners. Primitive music, in comparison to cultivative music, uses different and few pitches, scales, and tonal patterns. Its tones are "unessential". Its melodic phrase are concise and concentrated. In essence, folk music doesn't have the "beef" to tussle with cultivative music which uses deep, broad, flowing phrases alongside with more challenging time signatures (folk music typically use the standard ones: 4/4, 3/4, 6/8). I don't see what's all the hubbub around this debate. There is no dominant music style or genre because each one pertains to its own unique audience. In my opinion, folk music is substantial. Each type of music touches someone differently, good or bad. Folk music hits home for some because it's more narrative than others. Listeners are able to connect with folk music either on a religious level, cultural level, etc. In fact, I feel as if folk music is a step above cultivative music in the sense of how open and independent it is, where cultivative music can be straight forward. Folk music's oral tradition enables it's freedom in the music community and allows it to evolve over time. Also, who cares if a song wasn't written or composed by someone famous. Personally, music is solely about the enjoyment of it, not its popularity.