© Warren Fahey

As the revival started to subside it left a fragmented 'folk movement'. Most of the established venues had closed from lack of interest. Folk City, for example, had already moved on to become 'Surf City', once again showing the fickleness of the popular music industry. As the folk loyalists shook their heads a new revival started led by some dedicated singers and fans. These were mainly British migrants who had experienced their own revival that had been more serious, geographically more focussed and more culturally based than the American version. I would suggest that Australia's early revival was more influenced by the American example than the British however that it not to detract from the overall influence of the British revival here.

These migrants and locals took folk music by the hand and started new clubs, mainly in hotels, where they could control the social environment, and also laid the foundations for annual festivals and state folk federations. Initially a large proportion of musical repertoire at these clubs and festivals was 'traditional' music and especially music from the British Isles and Ireland. Performers were called 'folksingers' and, at the time, were mainly singing 'folk songs'. Many of the clubs only allowed traditional songs to be performed, possibly echoing the strict policy of clubs like Ewan MacColl's 'Singer's Club', in London. Chorus singing rang out loud. Other types of clubs were established to cater for people who wished to hear songwriters, blues and other marginalised music. In Sydney Pact Folk was successful in this direction.

Year by year the musical mix of the 'folk clubs' changed to allow other forms of music however it was a gradual change fiercely monitored by the 'folk mafia'. Discussions at national festivals were particularly heated as die-hards steamed and stomped. This protectionist policy was most probably a necessity considering the damage suffered in the past. Australian traditional music was considered an appropriate partner for the traditional repertoire of most folk clubs however there was little to be heard, especially since respected artists like Gary Shearston and Marion Henderson had 'moved on'.

A word here about 'bush music'. I would say that the main public custodian of bush music has been the Bush Music Club, based in Sydney, especially if one factors in the dominant role of the late John Meredith. The Club has been more of a movement than a club and, because of its single-mindedness; it has been successful in isolating itself from the main flow of the folk revival. This is not to say they are isolationist for that would be far from the truth. What this small, dedicated band of enthusiasts has done is successfully brand themselves and the music they favour. For one thing they have never considered calling themselves the Bush Folk Music Club. Their use of the word 'bush' to describe what are mostly 'colonial' songs and nineteenth century country dance music, appears to date back to the early 1950s, possibly before the international folk revival arrived. By comparison their southern counterparts called themselves The Victorian Folk Song & Dance Club which, I should imagine, was detrimental to their overall aims of promoting bush traditions.

Certainly writers such as Henry Lawson and A B Paterson recognised there was a 'music from the bush' and Paterson, in his pioneering 1905 work that successfully brought many of the old songs together, called his collection 'Old Bush Songs'. He did not make reference to them as 'folk songs'. The word 'bush' has been applied to many things and, in truth, it works well as a convenient description of the songs and music that came from the bush. It is far better than say, 'colonial music' for it carries with it a particular and evocative flavour that is definitely Australian. I for one am grateful our traditional music is not referred to as 'folk music', especially since, when I started my journey in the early sixties, it was commonly believed that our music was little more than 'Celtic and British music that had been brought over by the convicts'.

In some quarters 'bush music' is still referred to as 'folk music' and this possibly has something to do with the early education system that 'used' folk songs as play-dough. I suspect the revival is also guilty of propagating the generalised use of 'folk music' so it conveniently applies to all and sundry. Maybe they are the worst offenders? I certainly believe the revival has unconsciously done a disservice to our traditional music and, once again, without realising it, they have placed it as just another card in the deck. Maybe I am being too protectionist here? As I see it, the various folk organizations, mostly branded as 'folk federations', folk radio broadcasters and the national Folk Alliance, all have a very mixed and confusing musical agenda.

Look at the Folk Alliance and its major activities of a national forum and regular newsletter. I accept it is all very well meaning and we should all be extremely grateful for all the hard-working individuals that make so much happen BUT what is the focus? It certainly isn't the promotion and development of 'bush music' or whatever description we choose to brand the music that truly represents our cultural heritage.

The Folk Alliance, once again using it as the 'whipping post', appears to have an agenda to service ALL areas of music that can loosely fall under the umbrella of 'folk music'. This, of course, is representative of the musical genres that one can find at most 'folk festivals' in Australia. What a mix and all highly legitimate music expressions: blues, bluegrass, old timey, country swing, a capella choirs, 'world', country comedy, jazz, jug, Celtic, and, dare I say it? soft pop, to name only a handful. You could add storytelling, puppetry, kid's clowns, 'alternative' circus and face-painting too. I am NOT saying this is a bad thing but it certainly is a confusing thing! There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a Folk Alliance to represent all these art forms but what does it say about the use of the word 'folk' and how does its use affect our own 'folk' or 'traditional' music?

A flick through the Folk Alliance newsletters will show extraordinary variety but, maybe not surprisingly, little reference to what I would call Australian folk music, i.e. the music that comes from our Australian experience. This no doubt reflects the membership of the Alliance and isn't some fiendish plot to supplant our heritage with other music. Mention must also be given to the only national 'folk' magazine, 'Trad and Now', edited by Dave de Santi. This brave new magazine also attempts to be all things to all music and, most probably, it is an economic decision since the editor has a well-known commitment to the bush traditions. Maybe a mixed swag is what the readership wants?

The National Folk Festival, staged every Easter in Canberra is another case in point. This grew out of the post-revival revival and has proved to be a very successful formula and major tourist attraction. Its programming, obviously labelled 'folk', is certainly eclectic and echoes the interests of the Folk Alliance however, thankfully, it has always seen itself with a responsibility to promote a healthy program of (this is where I start to scratch for a suitable description)…(Please select word of your choice) Australian Folk/Bush/Colonial/Traditional Music.

Let's look at the performance side of the current folk revival and, in particular, the interpretation of what we could consider Australian. I am avoiding using verbs like 'real' as I feel this denigrates performers of folk-related arts. For the sake of the exercise I will employ 'bush music' as the appropriate description. The main interpreters are bush bands, solo artists and other multiples who are not comfortable being branded a 'band'. There are certainly a lot of bush bands however, most of them stick to the 'folk top 20' and nearly all of them seem to write and sing recent compositions 'in the folk idiom'. I am not here to preach what these bands should perform but I often wonder when I come across such bands who play the old bush songs, usually at a hundred miles an hour and then break into 'The Unicorn' or some other inane song. Many bands also play what has become known as 'bush music' for dancing. This is a hybrid, and most enjoyable music that ranges from old time to frantic Celtic-flavoured. There are a lot of very talented musicians playing and the music is usually quite sympathetic to the tradition. Solo artists, obviously, are entitled to sing whatever they want however I also feel that interpreters of Australian bush music have a responsibility to place their material in perspective. There are some outstanding performers who do this but we could do with a lot more and especially those prepared to dig into the available collected resources.

Songwriters who sing their own songs are not technically 'folk singers' however it is not their fault if they are given or even assume that label. Once again, it is a case of a convenient moniker in a sea of confusion. One could argue that some songwriters are closer to the folk tradition than others – Eric Bogle, Gary Shearston and Enda Kenny being closer than say Jigzag, Mary May Gill or The Waifs – but this would be a pointless and frustrating argument. I certainly believe that songs written in the folk style (whatever that is) can be very effective and entertaining but, once again, labelling them simply as 'folk songs' sends out a very confusing message to an already confused audience.

As a singer of both bush and contemporary songs I have had to confront this demon for decades. I have no problem referring to my 'traditional' repertoire as 'bush songs' and hardly ever describe them as 'folk songs', in fact I actively avoid that description. I am comfortable with 'traditional' too but when one considers I sing a lot of songs from the twentieth century (songs about wars, depression etc) it is further confusion. Even more confusing is the fact that the authorship of many of my songs is known, even songs thought to be traditional. When I sing a contemporary song, for example a Harry Robertson or John Dengate song, I refer to them as 'songs written in the folk style' and, where possible, I try and explain how these songs are in the same tradition of many of the bush songs: a song written about the destruction of our historic buildings is not that far removed from a song about labour struggles during the great shearer's strike.
The ABC recently released two CDs of some of my early work: one of bush songs and another of songs from the city experience. I titled the bush CD 'A Panorama Of Bush Songs' and then struggled over the urban title before settling on 'Larrikins, Louts & Layabouts' – Folk Songs & Ditties From The City'. There! I had to succumb to the same old labelling of 'folk songs'. I didn't think 'traditional' worked for the city songs, especially since some of the material had attributed authors, and the use of 'folk' in this situation seemed the most sympathetic tribute to the material.

There is also the major problem that a great slice of what we recognise as 'traditional' folk music does not adhere to the accepted terms of the international definition. Not that I would worry a 'rats arse' over such semantics but it is another piece of the puzzle that should be mentioned. I recently found a commercially published songbook that included, almost word-for-word, some of the songs recorded from Simon McDonald in the 1950s. Simon, no doubt, wouldn't care a 'rats arse' either, and his repertoire is evidence to that perspective. What about American minstrel songs that moved into our folk treasury? What about songs where we have tracked the original songwriter like 'The Overlanders' or 'Broken Down Squatter'? What about all those songs 'arranged' by A.L..Lloyd that became Australian standards including his versions of 'Maryborough Miner' or 'Flash Jack From Gundagai'? All food for thought but not to worry about!

I guess it all comes down to our general need for pigeon-holes, especially in music. I will think more about this and would welcome opinions from far and wide.