Folk Music

     Why is folk music hard to define? Why can't after hundred of years of "folk" music can society not come up with a concrete definition? Why do so many explanations apply to some folk music but not others? And what is it about this genre that makes it so difficult to define? The answer is hidden between these very questions. Why can't we define folk music as a genre? Because folk music is not a genre. Folk music is not something that can be classified as a singular entity because it is not one. To define folk music is as broad as to define music itself.
     This theory can be proven through reading Bruno Nettl's An Introduction to Folk Music in the United States. This guy tries for two chapters to come up with an example of this versus that and yet nearly every time he is able to find evidence that contradicts his initial statement. So with this knowledge in moving forward to define in a sense "folk" music there are a few things we have to keep in mind. The first being that folk music has changed from the parameters that Nettl talks about. Though "folk" has it's roots in particular regions, its music set to certain economic standards, the world no longer works in this manner. Music is no longer about status, it is no longer divided into social ranking as who can listen to what. And since music is accessible to anyone from anywhere in the world of any class social status and regional location no longer pertain to new folk music.
     This also brings about another point. Now that music is longer regionalized or socially penned up folk music can be molded by many cultures, taking the "original" and making it more unique and globalized. This brings me to one of Nettl's points "communal recreation vs. unchanging over time." The idea that folk has to be molded by people and is in turn for the people, that it is always evolving and changing. Certainly as referenced in the last paragraph this is true in some cultures and sub genres of folk. However there are plenty of artist who play folk that stick to the music of their ancestors. Perhaps it is oral but whoever said oral communication had to be sloppy? So once again we are brought back to the question what really defines folk music, or since folk music isn't really a genre of music what constitutes these genres to be called folk? Well I think Nettl had some idea about it without realizing it in his first chapter when he talked about the "sound and style." 
     If we take a look at what is considered folk music, appalachian, malian, roots, dixieland, there are certain aspects that are similar between them. The first being tradition, sound and style. What makes a particular body of music a certain genre is its truthfulness to the tradition of the music. You can't play appalachian music and label it new orleans jazz or vis versa; it's not done because it is untruthful. And yet even here there us is uncertainty. However I wouldn't consider Native American Songs folk music and those are certainly based in tradition, so what else constitutes these styles? Could it be participation, functionality, complexity, cultivation? WHERE DOES THE RABBIT HOLE END?!!!
     The answer isn't simple, that's why Nettl wrote a whole book about it and he certainly didn't give the answer in the first two chapters. If I really had to sum up I'd come up with something similar to the late Satchmo and perhaps state that folk music is just "folks music." The genres we think of when we should think of folk music should be just that, folks music. And from each of these forms is when it's appropriate to analyze them using Nettl's points. No, Miley Cyrus twerking isn't folk music, but to prove so we would have to isolate it then analyze it. The same hold true for all genres. Why does Nettl have trouble making categories for his music? Because he could only see the big picture he couldn't see the diversity and culture engrained in the fine print. Nettl missed the point of music when trying to define it. He missed the diversity and UNIQUENESS of so called "folk" music. I guess if there's one thing I'd advise to take away from this article is that folk music is folklore, it's the boogeyman, the chupacabra. Folk is a term used to scare away the mainstream average listener from some really good music, and that's why I don't like the term, that's why I won't define "it."Don't scare us away with your  fancy book language, lure us in to the wonderful world of "folk" music.