Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:33:08 -0500



In article , dickeney@access5.digex.net (Dick
Eney) wrote:

>Filk is _deliberately_ changing the words; folk process is changing them
>more or less by accident.
>
>This is not a new discussion on this group :) IIRC in a previous run of
>this thread, it was revealed that in the Middle Ages, filk was called
>"Contrefait" and referred to both writing a secular song to a religious
>tune and writing a religious song to a secular tune. 

With claims like these, we can "prove" that filk dominates the world and is
mysteriously failing to get its due. But please, let's try to be realistic.
First, folk singers do know how to write new words to old tunes; they were
doing it long before there was filk music. Drop in on any folk festival or
coffeehouse and you'll hear examples.

I suppose one can claim that religious songs are "filk" because they refer
to supernatural beings and thus are "fantasy"; but even as an atheist, I
think that the distinction between songs addressed to supernatural beings
which one believes exists and songs about supernatural beings which one
recognizes as fictional is vital. Whether or not religious songs are
fantasy songs in fact, they aren't fantasy songs in intent, and thus are
not filk.

-- 
   Gary McGath     gmcgath@ultranet.com
   http://www.ultranet.com/~gmcgath

--
Filk Digest
(echomail and newsgroup readers disregard this as it doesn't apply to you)
To post to the list, send a message to filk-d-l@bdragon.shore.net
To (un)sub-scribe, send a message to listserv@bdragon.shore.net
with "subscribe filk-d" in the message body
|Gateway: Black Dragon Inn
|GateOp: root@bdragon.shore.net