                    

  

. : 11...]. -.. .... - I u. _ ...I... ~ ., urn; -..-V... :1. .. .01 ...ﬂ _ .
. 1,. I III..II 1.. . .I II all. II II‘! .1 I— «10.0.4033.» £003.... .1171100900} .tl "0.0.0“... «ZNJI’th—fﬁ. .00 .100H0..0£0I0II J.) n.0~.u.‘u10.0...0 .30 .0L0.K~0.W\vouonhtarumi 't.’ .1. I i
. . . . IﬂoﬂchfIRIhvldnkf ... c.8093"?! .3“.‘n..$wﬂﬂ.vuswj:.xhnuu0luJ.W..P.....WJ¥I‘IAQ.5£.¢ .... 9360.0. .0 .390. .:.. I I, v 0» . .0; .
I10. . I’f. gxaloﬁlaih 20.01.- IﬂdoghWn/s . . 9 . I . [.40 .ID If. I. P u 0“, 0.45.00 I ... ... I 0 . 0. .
any—... _ ”5%.? . . 0am
I .

      

I ~ '0 . .v II.
. 00 I I10 I .23: .. 0.9.4... 0!). ..vI \ '0‘)...
I I i050. I I! .2! 0.. 70. 05.0104 3.0? 00. 0.0 7. ..I. 0.1.020. an -«ISMWA‘yun... II—I Pun-0.“. In. «IV-L .K‘ ‘30? (“Kain 00.06%“ “1’. I 00..1"3«00 . .‘L
. I . I . ‘00 ,5 , .0 . 0 I I. I . I. 0 30IT.DJ.:I . II‘IrI .l’ . 0. I 00 .. I. . 0.. 0 . . I I .I 0 .e . 00 0 '0 ‘00 \0 I 0.
. V ., 5. ~05Wa..’0..r\0.l €500" 00.‘.h‘0|0.000.30. 0. “00”...- 0I00 JWIInKuovnruoouq I .00...."0400II-§. 3.30“” “400.00" 00.09sﬂ0. 0:: 1“... 00.: am. I T‘wﬂ’aiiﬁ v.5 {I‘Il .I IthrhIHP. 0... #:0220010 .:...“ﬁ W 0..“ .0‘00’ 0I‘IQ0 0‘ .
I0... T’ux. 0. .‘a I000 ’90.»: 00 . ...“:- 0NAI ... coin IoImIIIIZ. .0301! 1Q 00. II I... 3.000;. .060. .2210... 3 0.000008: .00.. 3.0 .. 0.0.00 ..0 I ~ .6... I I .11....‘33 Ir I. 0‘ ..I‘.. oilI U I
Iain 0. . 0 b” .0 I. . 0- €33... 0 0.}- I I .. 010,-. 0402’ 10).; I 0.1.5.0416 3.00.0.0. 01.0 «.30 .0 . 0. 50*: ... I I. III}. .0 I. o I 1.00... I1 I. :40 I:
. .dh? n: . L. a. . III... .513..- . .q 5%.... ...... .Iu. , . . . . . . . .
”I. .60“. hr, . “I... ...-...“.I I . .3. I I. .

 

"9?... Lang «......Mr. .. . .

”...... 4.9.2.... . I .3. .. ...-$.52”.

..u. ......t..........wx.m. .:.? $.fﬁﬂﬁﬂn Rpm,
A . I

I I II C 0
.00”. ...-".0 :14.- 009w:

I I
. . . . . .:...«Vitt. 2.0m...
. I I . . .00 .0010 I0 I.. . 00.0 In... 0 VI. 0 0. :00 .01.
.00 I. ...0 1’0 .0 . ... .100 0.0.!“ O. 3.00! .635, I:0 04‘0“...” .IuAnL. $000.0 Janis-.— 100.._‘0\0L III %0. 0,800“ :0 .0..1010H0th“,.H30 00(....u.. g
. .0. ”RI! rrtI 0:» 3.1.0....00300‘03V: I... I.......I.£..,.I¢00I_I. 100.80.031.30. :31. .I.I I :1: ....0 0. . ..IIIII .IIII.....0.I.I_,.III.... III I. A I 0.0.. kw 0 .
.0. 0.0-. IIC!I\I.IIW Iﬁo. I I.. a . 0T .. I6 MIGIOII? .0l0I.0,.‘II III 0.0K. .1 III. III. ‘I I .
.. . 9-9, .. ..
0
I 00.
£0 .‘g’b ._
V
0’

 

. O C
. I .I... . 3.. I n. u I; N042$0020¢03V.« I "W4
.. 0' , . .. 00.1.. Os... .0 I.0100,0I .00 7 $00. I
r . . 0... [0.0 I 0&0?! I0~ 40.0.0. .:01I,I0rII.,Io0L 0.0;... 0.0 . .0? II. 0... I .0500 .30.J1....I9 0» :7”??? 03.3., A“... c 00,: 02000~0V0~0I al‘J... I 00?. 0 0
. , . - ...... 2...... .a..ﬂ:..5.....$ ...-.13“... . ... 4.3-4. u.-. «55...... . ......1. ...»... v. ...”: ...... . .... _ 5w. ...
. Q a I III-...: 1....00 ’I. .:. I. 0 0. II. III: I I
.....u. Juana»... 3%. .32.». . 4.x.-. . .9 , . .. a

 

 

   

 

 

... . II II II. ...II....I00
. .0 40 . -0. . .I "I.“ ...-.0003031100000... 0.0.2.1.!- .06.3IL W.0..‘0.V8..l.wu .0...“ VL......0.\n0' I .30. AI 0033”“. . I”. .
. I V . I .500 . I I I I; . 0 . 0 I , {.:. I. 000 \ I0I7I0 ...... I 7}. 0 . 0. 5 I I0 '00 01 .Y. .0..\ I. . .II ' . . 0 00‘ 0 . -..

.I I on ”0. m. 04‘ 0‘... . 0&1; .7 M0. III... ..I. 0 .0 .I '0. ......I’Iﬂuu0 3’0.“qu 0w? ,gg- ..v IJnIJQImI .I. WIN-.0 0.0.9.0.. I’LC..III ”“240. ....II 0 I .0. t I 0- I”. . .0 YIQLII‘ J! “I “.0400 L IWIMI‘I..%I0

:0 .043 . $0 0 00 . . ...! I I - , . .03. .. .0 . 1.00 . . .0202 .00 :0 0. 0103. ... I ...0 1... .:.... 0 J- ...h VIIIIIIt
0’03“? \ I 1.0050305. .. . I06” I! .0 a . . . .. . . . I .l: . ... . I0 60....0 III 0010:0352 I31 .. :0. I I1... 0. .WI...’ ‘72! ., £0.01 ..0 ... 1.. w.
I0, ..00! 01 .0 .0. I . . . it.“ . 000 .00 00 ‘II I217). 330.1000). 0 I. _ a .9 I? a I 1. I .... I. I... .0.» .:.-1. :0...

. ..IﬁofI .55 064.00.... . 'II .IIIIQ 3N1: p I? .

0 a . 0 .

..0-I0I1 s .10.. .0- Id 0300.01.03. 0‘
b. 0 .... ..., I

      

      

     

           

 

 

 

 

 

.I
,0 0.0 0.80.09 I
. .. 00.0.10 I 0......00 .II II... ..ﬁ «00 0... 0.02.... I. 0.030000 .3 00 E
I I I . . ...... I ~.0.0 0007..I 0‘0 . ..II. 0" 00...}. 00. I I .‘0010ir03 00. 00030.0“... .1" .I ..‘0300 Iofﬂ?.0.noq ...-(00.004 I.
. 0 000. I f 00 1.000 It. . . I. .. .gltl. 00. I 00 ......m. 2.01 0.0 0.. 0...... O .I .10 .. I 10.0.. I? 0 20.3.00 «1.00. ..0 IIIII 00 II .....0 '0“... III“’...?
. . I. . . . I. ... 0.00.0. ‘10.“... 9500.. 0...! ..V ...-.0 .03‘10‘. 00%0N409. I. 0. .0. .. 000” II: .IIVIIIIIIW.II.I% ...-10" . ’00“; l I - . I
I r008 . . .0 . . . . w I. atII 5.0.00 III 00-. ..gIIII 000s. ... 10.11,. 3.00.00 I 00$? 0 509:0"VRIIII 0-. 01755! .0 0.0 I ’5‘. .00 ...0 .0 ...0: .0. $10... a 0.111.. 0. I0 I . 0.
m 0.0.35... . ., I .n . _ .I I. 00.13.. ,III0 v 0:55... .0931... .... 10:830.! .. 11.4.2.0?! 0.0.2.0. ._ . {til-I 30:00 I. I... 0 ... :0! 1.9.3:... .. II I: III... e I .10. I. .. 0. III 90:
0.. I. 00 500. .IH ,I. . . w . . ’7 I. 00 ...}ID ... .00 0.I-I0L .0003... '00! 0.09.00.00.910I0:1.90 00.0 00 3.... I..0qQ..-[Lr II 0.1. ..00 000...“ 30P0000 ..«.O {01 0. 0 33"). 00‘020.....I 005‘
J . ..9. I1 . . . . . . . I. .ﬁkidcv I... 0.0.03.3:00 0.0.0.0I .....IIICI 0.0 I: III. . .0‘00 I-.I I0. ..0... 0. ..{N .100 ......II III! 073......J. 310.3001: .0 .0 1,0. .I .‘ .0... 0.. 0 2.0“.” I
I: 0». .03....00‘ . . . .. .001 I. I... . II. .I I. (II-.....II, 3.00.. I INS 1 0.. 0 ... .00. .I 03. .Y¢0~::10.030 ..00 05...... ...,Its :- Iﬁn‘: 0.... .I .2 £99: . I. 7..
I .0 I‘ll... ....l 0- . . . . ....v.’ .3 Rug. In , I. 1 .10.! ... ... 60. 00a: 0.3. 0..- ...9 007.3. ..0 I ...-NI .0 30.00.00. .0. :00 :33. 5...? 0 (0&7! 0 .0 r I 0Q..«.0‘Ii0.06..- I
(H 07.0 0» III . . . , .I : I . . . CIA .:..0... I I 00.. .. 0. .I. 0 500 0.00. ..10.‘..00..1t.’02..0 -..: 000.. 0;. I’vxxo . 031....0: , 3000-}..«0; In. 0. 0 I . .0 C III 0 mm II I |. 0
II .. . 10.. v. 001.0 0“. .03.. . . . . , ., . V . 001.0 I... 0 I02... 00.0.I‘yui0 ... . .010. 0.0.0.00.......U¢...II33“WI 3.30.0.0. 0. 0.. 3200! II. I I.“ «0.20.003... 0.0.00. p..- .I- (2.0.0.... 0.I I... 90X. 0.0 ‘00.: ‘0 00
. .00.: -..-0.0 IIuIngISIF . ... I .I 00! 3000.51.09}. I . ..Ir ...-Iguw“. I... ..0. at»... I 1...?- .2. .II II. 000.. 00010. I 00.. . . 0 2.30.7..- .II. (#011 $0... 00') 0!. I 1.0.} :IIII 0.03.... .00
0. I- 001*. 00..“ ‘0 I I. . I 0 .. . .. . . . . .. . . :00... 70.3036 9 $0000 20:... . ..I... I ...... . :3: 0.0.0 I. 0.0.2.7080 {0.0.0039I10n I... .II;;. 0.00. I I... ..00. . 3 0 1.1,. .0. 00”. O...- .3. , III . .‘0: .0
50003.01 :0 I: ... I ...} 0 ,I o ,0.) I. . ,. . . . . . . . I... ...,II. ....IIIII 0 t , .I.... II... III!000.300.20I..I.0.|:~.I:I a.
I .30.) 0.10. 0g .1! II 60.. I 7.3.. oh.‘ I . . . _ I . 0 d; IJII 30.9.1.0: .000 I . .
0:01 _ ..rI. 40.4.. I0 .. .0320.» «.9... . . . , . . 31.00 0...!
. . £05.30 3...: g. I .I I 3. hr! . . . . ..
I \ :0 0.... I0 . P. 00. i .
1000. I. I0 .8 I. Ink! 0.0 .I 0.0

  

     

0 Q
, . I o I 00 . ‘ 0 . I0. I . , 0 a. II 00 uh
.00... .0- 9 I 0'in30 7.33.5 ......0... I1. 0.040.“..003IHII0ﬂhruhuuﬂm .7: ”J3“... 9.03.0?!- .0. 0%.. $3: 009.? I.
‘20:. 0" ’0‘. .0} 0. {It}... ..0 .I 03.01““ .‘A. .I?!.0ap‘.-00‘.$..I .0310 ...-00 PI..’I. 0 . ..V 5’.“ . 0. I
10.23.90. 30.100...‘ {IV—.... 400. {0.0.0.0. .. . . . V .. . u 0%

                    

                

  

   

  

 

                            

   

D. 03“. 0.0.0.1“ ... 0.3 ....WI‘WIEVE 010IO 00 0.00
4 II. .ﬁ. 00. 0!... 1:... .0... 0.0. 0...... .0001... .2. .:....3400; 0.0 . 1.35.100...- .M .00. .21.... .. I. .....I. 0;. - 3.0 3
. . . z I I I ...-3 . .0 '0..."- 003 .,0 1}. .400 ... .. 501050.050. .900. .0 0. 000,010 ., 2.10.0.0 8.00.. , .0. I 0. 3.0000 ... 0- ~ I.
. 0.00.2.3 I. I 00 I . . “0'0““: u 0" 3.0”». ”J10. .I00 Roan.” 0.00.”...0330 .2“ .09., I 00”.; I... I.” ...IIrI .0’003" . “00540.90". IIXI00L ’IvIw'0iIIWI, . 1000:!00. 0.3.8.. 0.0139000. 0.31,.yﬂuﬂ'0f0. ‘aIIb-I'i. 03.15”“
. 00.5.3.3... ..IIIII. 003:0. ..0 .0 . I i... ... .9} .... I.I . I. 0 ..9 V i I 0... i. .Hn». II». :1! 0300.10.00... I *0? 000.1. 20.0.8.2...91 . ..J. I ....IIIII. 9.. .III... I“: 3.0.2.0 I. II 0.0 .. 19.0. “0.3103030
In. I .Y...... .0. (3.1;...00311 :- 4.2.0.1053”. ..P‘Iﬂwld ’8 19.9 “a. . oyg hang“. ~.I .. 0. 1.00.1... 30 J II {I .0 00.0.0000 IIIIIO: ‘ 10:09 I II. .II ...... i.I20..I.-0.0‘ . 0.00 00M. 0.. -500 .c a." ._ 9.500 01000.0 0I\O 3.9”“. 1.03".
I .I .3 I_.0.I.0J..I I 00.00” “II-20.01% .. I . I . .I 00 v. . II 1 . . _ . 00.0“.810 00.00.301.20}? 0 0.... .00, 0002 000 0.009 000000.00 III? ...I: . .\I.0I... 3.000... 00 0‘ 0 0 II.0.{00f..lt 00.. 3.03%!‘30100. 3-- .II. . 0o
:00 ..HIIII. ...-.4104 0. . In!!!" lIII 0 00"., '10 ".1. I, . . . , . .. ., . {..Irizz .iIIITiI‘SL . 0-: .:.;I 03000.0... ... 1.0.... I .0 . 0.3.0.: {Ii-0.20 ...0' 2‘134 ...... I0} St0..003.....|00$l. .9201 . "....I
"...—0.... .033. ? 1C“! .00 III , 10.00 .Pm"... “04%. . ....II «I .I 00‘? .. . . ., I000. . 00... .....3..IIII I50: .01 .V 3010!. .. .0 I. I.... 3.10 5.20.3.5}.- ‘Iytog. .......II 0.! 1.1.0.100 -00.... 0010. I . I.“ iiéﬁa £00000“..03.0£00&.0 0,002 lat-Vt 0:. V‘af‘
10:03.0 IIIII. III-I ... 30-21021 I} I 0.....0 I...“ I Itcuu’IIIhoIﬂ In». . . , . . . . .0! 0000.000... II II . I. 010...? 00.0130 0)... ...—6.. 00.01.. . .0.- 04. 9.1.0 ..vbl... .:00. 030.. :00... V: ....I: 0.0. In... . II... 0.34 .90205. 202.20.12.33 1... I. 0.: I0 . . .
3-0.4 90?}..00 I... .IIIII.0.0IIJCI~0(0.€. II... I: 0 I0. .. . 000 . . . . .. .. . . . . . :I.. w... '0». .I. 00);}! I III. .0... 0... I I 0 I.\.III ,1 .3231. ..1. I~ 0.0.... «.:.M L .0... .0..>1Iv..:.0m..»n.vw. II... IIII..~0III-!0«... 1.0000 .00: I. . I I. ....
1.00. ...-,1 JGI..0MI J00 04.00. ‘0 .I I ...‘0'0..I.u0001«. ...-0.00.0. I 0 . ., a 00. (.000: 31'00‘0 .IloI 3.0.0 00 0.30.0.0. I .00.:0 IIIIV. .00.30I\.0II. 0.. ‘0. .02. .'_.I,O.9 .090 0.! 0 30350.50}. ...-.00 003090.03... l .0. ldlta‘ .I Ix0... . ...0
ortﬁwit 0. I 1.0.7.0- }: o .00. I .00. .0 III .0. L 0F - . .. 0.9.0....- III‘IIS. .I 0.0.00.2. I0. .I. :0 . . IL. I 3.313.099- ..JI...’ .rII 0":0I.. I ...0. .100. I .I .2330 00. . xIV II!.I.II.IIII0 I. ..I . .31.... .3100000 .‘fﬁz 0.. 00.0 . than...“ 00 ..
.. {0... 70:04.... 35:80. .00. .I .0 00.0v0i0 0.001, . . .0. III . . .... I? 3.0. 0.. ... .I Stilt... t»... 390:... .0 32:00.80: . I105"... ,IV‘IIIIIII: 0.0.. ......0 3.1000... .... I. 50:330....050‘3‘ 0.. .I... 0.00. 53.500 ..0... ”I0 I... 0 6I 0.000
1.5.4.0.. .02.! 0.100 8:21.26: I. .31... ... 3&0)... I J00. I cu. . .0100 .III: I... .II: . ii. ..I 17.03 “If... .MIII . . II. :0. 0. III; .I IIIIII. .5332. 0 3.0.17... {.:.-0.0.. II 1......11 .20...qu .2. 0.04.00.01.00... 0:30, 023-303... . I.\.v . .:...l .0 I.
1.0030! :0: .. I0...0 0.0.0. .1 ......00 I .50. .000 . 0.30 Extrik 10.0 II.00 'II’: ... a. I' 0. II. .1000, 011.000.? I. I 2011:: 10“..- 2h. 1 I .1 I. ‘..£ 3 . .00.; 0010 «02.5.1000 2 ... .0 00.0.3. 0.00. 30:10.)... III-00.0.0. Ia- .Iﬁlu...‘ 0..
..II’ 50 ....1... 0.1.1.0.! $.00..’Mr.00 f. I.. . .000 «I 0.00. III‘ .072 ‘04-. 00.. .I I: '00; {0.30 {17:30 - V.. ...-00... I0 0 ..0 I. .:.... 2301171073.}??0 0 .:.”.00. 1.....0003r00V)..700{0¢..0100 .00 0000000 00
..‘00: .0 L 11! .0 «I!!! I 00. 00300 n?“ .0. 0.3 or .110 I .I‘0h00v It‘ILI 0.00“ .... III 000.. .03‘0. 00.0.. '90. .:. 0.1.05.0:70 .0. -0. .10.. .. ..I. C. 0..., I0 .10 30:00... ... 2.0 [...-00». ... 00.! .W 0. ».00..I.0II 000.0 Id .... I .M.‘ "10.70. _§ 0.
fidarhaiix #85210le In? .500 I. 1.00.. , .004 0.. 50.0. {I ... r511. .0313! 000. 1.. 0.. "0.. I t...~..‘3.!s003=;lt.!a.i 20.22.010.07... .. II... ...II 1.&0I.\VII..L..? ... 000%...11034. 50.. I. .30'0‘3 3% 0.1‘»
C- I A. I 903.0. II. 0.0 0 3.3.0.4231: . . . . I 0.0 .1. : 0. .0 0.... 02.010023 0 ... r0. .0 .I. .I I . 0.90.0. I. z...” I .00 I .1700 .I... It.000003.~2I0.0V000 00.00I0 .01. 00...... ... I? "a. 00.. . I 03.00: 003.0000 .. I. 0.5.: 3093...... .00 I .0. 1.00..
I I I.(01.ul..l£.0... 0'3“.“ 0 .0 10... I5: .. I. . . . . I V I I. 080 I 3:00.255 1 50!». .91 10.5.2100 3.0.0 w ..I‘LII 0.033.. e. 0 $.01-.. ur.‘ .:..3..I0:.I0.:. I I0: .. ..nﬁitusI... , «10:090.! 0300.00.70 ..0t .0 0 7.250

00.0.: 0.3.. ,(‘5 I000 40 I I I 40.00210... . . I I I. . . 9 0! .0000! . 7.01; 0000 V0 0: ..11‘0‘20331 .I 20I 000. 00.9.0u. 30.0: -..00 “7:30-8:115... 00.0...00030. .. I 0 ..0 00.: 0 0.060 \I. .I I .II .3001?) 0 . “0.0105.
I .... II... ...I. 50:10:20.5! .... p. III-0...... .210. , . . . . 9 0401.9 $30.0!) $24.0 0.00.02. I 000.. J’u.z.§0\0ta‘3$0£. ..0 .«I IIIIIIIIII. . .5000}... IJ..I A5000.00.25: ...,IJII: I... .000... 0 II
00 1.2000! 0, 0... . .I I...) KthSXIIIIYI ....Im-iao . . - . .. . . . I 0000 £0.00! IO. 02. 0..I0 .00. III. {.0 Is. (-.. I». 90;? . ...! I 301.0..I.V.V:.l. .. . I II... ..0. HI I. ..Yl... .P' 020.3050. 00.. 30.3090. 3.0.300,
. 04.13.! .... I.“ I0? .I .100... .. 0.0 . . . ..IIle 00.! ... iaﬂﬁaIIIiTI {80.01.010.30 2.2.20.0...020tzy .rt.‘ I05... ... 0. {00.32.00} . .IIIIvI 0... . .. I .:0 05 03.0.0.0:05H... . 05.00! ...
I. II .(I 10.. a}... Ogle?! 0.0.1.041: . ... .... a. 20:0 I- 012.. .. 3.331.... :00. . . I 0 §.§I..IIII..II,.IQ 0...! If»..- :10: ...-I 2.01. 0%! ...: .02.! I- I. 000.200.. .:.. ....4. 0.1.2.0.. I... ((3.02. 10. ..0...
Ho...‘.....30-0d£.00....3. .....uoodf000‘lhu.‘ "03.04... :3. .’ 'o...‘.. 0.0:... 0., mWMIn. 65.. “00.0.. 00 30.000002b09 .. 0.30:: .1940... P .I ..ﬁdmru} 0.0)“)... .....0.000'.0I V2.01? ..II. 7 V... .0050 0).. I. .0. I... 00.0. . 0.00 I; O

I 001’. I w .0. I . ... . . . .. I I .,. .. 0, 00000.00. 00‘. 00000.0III00I.
7. 13-00 I 0’4..0‘..3.¢l.0l)l.3 ..IJRNIKrIRJ.“ I0. 30:00:00.4. m. 0 91.00. I. .9 ... .030. I0 0 I . g 0

.ho. - I
n

00‘...“ ‘Iw, 0" l0

      

00 0 .. . .

... . I,“ ”a 103.0 .0 A0— .00. ...‘I 0-00 I .9 I“.
II. .0 03.0 I tIII. 0 13.000510. . 0028.0I .. 0.. 900.0 CD. PI I 5.64% .0. 05 0’0 . 000.0
'00. .V . . . o I I 00...: hi. I 000.I .4 I i 303‘ 0 0.. I 300)). o...-

r . - .0. 00.00.’I”000.010PIII 0 {duhHI-30-0-I AblaarolrhlﬁG‘O 0

I .
8001000000'Ql’000: I I
. .

 

   

. I 410%.. III.
0.0 I00!- ‘I .I... . 0000.. .00 0 .0309»; I0 .0..0“0I000..0..IIu-’0" .5 C 0 . 03.00.10. I’FIuIIIIILuvtllI‘P’!” I “0",“ 0.10.“..Mr-V-“0u W‘I‘d‘lllmu $0.
10.20500... _ 01:1...0 .I... 0.0.0.0310.th 3.5.3.00.“ I134}? 0!».."1... I 70 0,00 .. "0...“..0. 0hr“. 1.2.0.2.! I. 0.1.3....“I3301 {00:20 ..1 .0 .h...
0. 30: 2.: 040.0 .gle.’J.l. I 30000-50000. .00. .tIIV-I I000... ...! . ,.0»0..: ..II . 00.5.0.1. ..I-S. 70 3 3...... £00 I0. .I. 0. . . . I . \{Is I. I. 0’. 90...“. ....3 0.0.3, .0 .u
II. 0.31.. .00 0.0.4.0010. .2000. 0.00-0NW . .....C 3.: .0 0.. 000 . I000 ...-Iii} I 04V ‘.00J.'.I;.A0.2.r0.0‘ Ii?) 0.I I3. .I I00 .0..III.I”D . .0000 . «tail: 0.. 0.10 .....I 0.0 ,.I «Y1:II.I.I..tIIIIIIII; 000$ .I IV. rr.‘ .000. 0.0... ”fur-.0“ 5%“.0... ‘00.
a...“...-w:-...2.§.....:.....qu.u§ .. ......i......w1.....m..z..ﬁ ...: . ...r}......_- ...“...3......»...ﬁ...§nwfn.t. 2.59. .... ......HIIII.,.I....."....§.3LII......va... .. $21.“... 9.9.05... m?u...:ﬁ§n...u.h. 5.3.9.... . «Ina-
I..‘0.vl I 0.0.. 0‘0; 000-6, ... 3:. I. 0.30000. ha I .01. 4.300%.“- l0_0I. . .. . . .. .. . 0 . I. I. . . . I I .000 ..ii‘II 00000."..00 .02 000 ‘00
I I . 0 0? I I .00. ... . I .. .0. 01 ,I I .30 It. 0‘! .00) 40.0 00.0.3.0! . 0.7.. I'll... 030.: 3 0.0.0.9. . -
“Havana“.........I...a...nnn:ﬁ. ......ungti V.”” .93. .:..I.......I.zm......._u.u .:....m ...: axnnwiw a... ......Ivad... .....ﬂkth int): ”30:90.. ...ImrdwﬁﬂaI .Iu..0..L§_.u.I...... .....ewaeﬂn. .u..n:........ .....I: 939.355.5332. «358...... ..«..9W.:.d.......¢..h.
0007-..: ‘21:}. 0....‘0. .0. 00 a. 00I. 0.0000 ...Jfaa .3ILJ.’IC.II .0”: 050000 ‘90 II‘ 0...: 0..“(I00w. . I? . .Iu . II .. _ . :3 I I 0 I .0 .IIIIOJ. .0 .....00. . . .005. . 2.0.0.. I ....1 HyIIp I000. .04 500.01.70.10 (£3.03. IVOI-IIII 0 9qu C. (.0. a
0.0 020.11 .IJI. .wau in. 0 L0. OI: I4 .0000 00m 3. .ihuﬁ‘”: ..00’0wh004. 000““ 00....0 I0.. 0. n ‘0 w-ow‘Qanvh005rts‘nv’ng. I. {”0 ‘uruvoﬂnhth .0... .009 Ikuha‘r. n ‘TN‘IWHHI p.”..0..§0...l.0.0001’0-0“I. '00.I‘\0 0001-00?!» 00“ .3350... I 0.9.! 01 ‘ 0II 0. I 'In“. 0- 0h
5.». r000..00.0.3... .... ..0 “1 Juu._..n....1) .lﬂu IIInIIIIIIﬂ..l0.; 0.12%..000: , (00h. , . .thI 03 .....It»..\.!.! .0.... . ..QIIEIIIISQI III I m. 06.00,}. .‘ 5...»... Ibo... (I... 2...... ICI0II.00.IO..I_0.!0IIV19.PI0’. . .. .....L . . _
. ...}.1.0...I€III.I t0.-.}.n£..0 . 0) 00.... I .0010»... 7...}.03. . ..l . o 00. .0 .7005“? 0.00. ”0.0.0090... . 0.: 051.3013; 3‘21... . It . I. 0«ﬁ\ 020! ...0 ... . .I I... . 0 . III: I .00II0...I.....0.: ...-3! ... 07550:.
.. . ., .....IHIIWIHRHHhMruthVJ-nn av... 00.3.3.3”. 00.... .0 10....0030 .0100! I37. . 181...... ...-II. .. I ... .. ...-5.....-
I. .

.0 I I - -
, . ..0.I0... 31300 ”.000 ,V‘II I Il...0 0.0. A ‘Pn’. 008.300... I . $000.. I 00.0 0‘.‘...I)II .f‘uiitlt I ... .
I . . . .. 0 I 0.000. I “a Q .Il‘i' .0 000‘ .‘0 0000.0. 0 a 40'. I 4!: I070 I. .0... 0 0 0.II‘.000..0 ﬁr. - 0 I
Jana... In... . 0.23 .:.: .. ..u as. .3. J. ...”...I.......«....:.. I .:.! “sung... 0w .9 a... . .
0 u . \ I

  

  

   
          

      

     

                            

  

      

                       

          

         
  

    

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

      

 
 

         

 

    

          

.:. I0.
0 I0 \030 I. 300.20. .7. 3:00.. 030.0... tr .0... I... 1.11““
. . . . . . . n . . GOivIIIZII .. cl. ..‘IQI-l KIWI...“ d... 501 0000.1. .0. on . ”ﬂlhhhcllz ...—03 I 0rd 1. .010. lﬁghuut I .
I l at: 0 I. I I .00 000‘. ..0I. LI .. 0 1. I- I. . 0.01... 303.00’01 I I 0 '00. .l 0 PQYII. 0.‘ I . .. L4 .00 9. I .. 0.. I . .
. . I ,3. I r . , 0.: 3b.. .00 II .1. 00007.0...”“0 0.0.“! .I Wu... , Lulu“... $003.11 .330 3-08HI0VI0CJO003III0!» 5000.33.20.00 0 III 0.0! III-0.00. 1.001.700 9132.”..w.41.I-.4§V,:002.l 0?! ...;II‘l30200N0I00 .. ...5 $.10. 04000.II.0II.0 I I 0.00I
I I ... .: IIJ I 0— to“ I .I 0:. .0... . . I XXIIHCV ... 0...“... ..V... 0.4:... I. I 2.0. III 00X 1. .:.-001.3. 00 2.1.3.5153? ....40I.:..H.I,.00:00000IIII0I: 1.1.: r"?! I 1...wa 20: {Ina-0.1.4 . 00. 0. 0‘000..- I
00020). I .10... .. "III... . . I. 0. I. .uarhwn. 0.0,. 50.10! . J‘.d0.0 .‘0 ... 00.80000 ...3 I . ... 00V 0.....00000...IIIII!I..I , I. 0" .0..IIII¢III0III.000I 0:00 .0018}. 0002.0»..«00 I. 03?]. .00. 00:09:00 I." . 1&1 0.0.. I... 1.0.0.}:
II 3.0 01.... :0! c 509.9.a0m10100r. ...... I‘d...- vII-l”? 0 '0‘. I... 0‘01?- .0.....I... Ix. 20.00.. 00 I .0. 01.0,. ... I0..I3III.-t l.- I. .. III a I .00 I I a .00I0000n0IOII’! I230.“ .0. 00.10 I. 00.. .III. I. I... III... I 0. 130.1030.- .. 033‘ . I. . 0n
1.0..PRII00JI0'.QO-IC 5.72-2.10. “as... .%I.003070\~0w..0 0 . I. II I. 0...!!!33...‘ tau... 0.: 0. I. .0...‘ I, 1.30005}. .....0 2800000. ..I ...-.0... 0 1. a... .0.\h 0.000 000“ .1 0.10.80.0I.«w..0000.\010.0NI.0I .2‘: “fl“. III-z "0.34.30 £33.!” ...-10.000 0.19.0310 -.
. I I .. . v . O . ... . 0.. .(0 .000. . .0 I 01.. I 2.03:. .0400. .I 0. .0 I 003000.] 0.01.00.00.00. I 7...; ,I I15}. . . 0. 00.0.0.0; . .0 .00 01.000 I‘I 0I. 0... 0c. 0 0., a. .0. ..0 . II, .0 0 3 0,0. I
v.0.0lh0010. .- 0. 043.5... .:...0... wetﬁ. a” 2...}. WhJWDﬂﬂnHIAu-w...7 an I 0 00”..“ 9,. {IJIchII‘N‘IIiJII‘IIJ I0. III-.000 000 0 000.20.. 09 0N0IIII. ...)..0008 00.000 9.200000 0 ...-00.00 ....0... .0050. r t. 02000;».51010 .0 10090.50: .300030003800 II
9.0:! .913. 303.001.? 30...! ,. . . . I. 1.000.. 019.50.sz ...-.5010 41.24”} 1.0.3”. .I ..0 .... If 2.5.x k-” . .. .. .:. .I. t... .:.. .410. . :0, ...I.. 0930!... . ..c ...-.0... .....II 5.3.2.0.. .....IJIIIII.0:., .:.. 3.10..
I. II,m.n.\ . ”0...”. 0. . ..N..LII...0.IL., . shun!“ .3u0...10£0¢ .3000... 300:...“ 00. f (0 (I)... 00.0, {Kb . RI. 0.0.30 .IIILLII§.BIP&.IL0P'.....IHH.XII01..u 5.0.302. .‘ 0.00.: INC-.3108. t”.H0N..J0III,IS0.II.lH.IIn “inn-III”! 0 Or .
I A I. I I 0 0- I .0 . I .0 0 o l 0 0. I 0.. 0.0.. v . 000070.. ... ...-O. I. 0.000. 0 .0 0.. .00. II I 0 .0. I 0 00.4.. I I L . . . 0.: I . .
. . .. ...... sag. ...... .9...9,................lu.:.u . I. .....- . . .9.” a", t a...» r. ... ... z 3...... .. 051:1... .... . 9...}... .-...- .. .-.... .I... . .$-..s . .:................., .. z... .... ...? _
. . 300 I I; 3.500 ...-......” I .n .2 J- I. IV... 9.0. V ”.00. ...... I0 ,0 0 0. 00. I. 0.0.. '0!- Iulolt. I .00 04 ‘0: C. ‘0 .. 00.20. .000 ...-l .00.. I.I.III..I...0I ti. .0. I3..0r_1.:..0I.0.0... 2010. 0%....“ L0. II 0.. IV}? 0.00:...IIQ0 :2... 4.0000 0 ..IIO 50' I 03.1.2.0.)- . -
.... \ . II3... .. ..I 00.. I 0U .4 00... I... .I . ..4. I. . «00.500 I0 00.2005 0 If“... :00. .0000. a . . 0.«I€I.I 2.1.3030... I. III-I?! I: ,..I.I I79... 3.0:...123. 3500.0 II. I . I . .... ..30IvI 91.0300. IE... 0.... 9.1.0070... I 00303.0 23......II021003L .590 0100...... {1. .
. \ .... . I 000. III: I... f}; ...1 .I )SQNIVV..M,02U . 43.10. no! ... 30.00.094.43 , 100.03. . . ,. «I. 43.1.. 0 ..II. 1.0.?! .0 0 ...... 3.1.00 «0.83.22...3...Ii 2.0... 01... 3.0 00:. III... .I, .03.... I ...}..I. I I ...KIIII «0021.: 1... IE... 0.1 I... I003KI0..20.00.1I: 1.000.000.0183 .. I
0 . . 3...; 11200... "00»! IL. I {I o ”I 1...... 7... ”I3 0 5.0... ...-.0 (1.0)....- .¢ . . 009.0 0072.. .1 ”090.33- . 00 ...).9... I. 90.0.9101000. I 0 1 0.0 33' $000.00 . 9.3307015... 9.0.1.!!- .IIO I220}? 3.01.0000 III 0‘I$¥"luu.Iuw..I—XI)11$00.0 0.0... .. Isl.) .:.-0:230:00.- ‘.00. 0.00.0. 000.. 100.00 . . h.
-0 . 0:0 ,. . ... ... .349 0.3.1."...9LIII .... ...IIIIMIIII I .III\II.000.II: . I... 1.0... 2. .0103... 0.2.002; JIIIVIJ. ... 00.. ... 2.0.0....«9’378 ...IIIIIIq II. :02}... I..0....I..I..0..I. 070.. 0.80,. ...... .....I I .0. 000. .0..... I t It ..I ... . 3.00.0 I 000,513.21. .:.... I00.“ 22.230009... II
,.,.. I ...-I0 I 0.21. .531” . ....1 .90 I I00 I 0 It‘d-7000001330,.121I200Ii ... .402. . 0.00. 0 1.1.0.0)..‘ 01.3.0 .... :0", 0.32.0.1? .. 00 0.! .....2‘....I.00.0I...0....I. ...... .I {$0.121 . ......IIII000I. ..I... . 0. 3.0.20. .9. .0 0000-1 .. I—uIao.3..0. 0.00.0: .0. .IJIIIIIQE’IIIE {.2 I’m-0.003..- 012“ 40 I0.
.. . .\I0 . .:.... .0 0.0" 0 . ...: ...IO ‘55.. ... 0.00.300: II! $30.00*}: II II00.mI.00.IP .10... . 0 . I I0.0:... ..I 000.: 0 III-0.0.0.30. ....I... 0.0!. I: .I . .I... . . III I 6...... {II- 0 I..IIIS.!...¢0..II.0.II.I00I.IIM~I 30.3.0.0 I III 0.0.. ..019... 0:000 . 0.3”...‘ 4.0.1:! 0300.0 0.3.0.0001. 0 I. I I 0...
. I I- 0. 00.0.0 I . 0 0 I. ...m I I I I. 0 .005700333 I (00.0. ...I...0.I. .00 .290 I0. Kalil}... 00.0. .:. 0 3‘0. «a III-23:20..“ .GII.I:0:..V 1000... .500 I00.‘.!.0¢00£...00..3. 0. I 3.!(0013 0.3.0.001... ....II’00I0III..“. V 010.7 .70 0.1..0Au830000. .0... I L00 ...-“400001.130 ...-SC} . . 0 000.000
20.2.3210 I0. 0.. 00 u .I 07.01 I+.\.0.I¢., 3.0 0* .....tfir, I”! 0’.) 0.000.003 .0 ..s! 00.}! .0! ..II. I)... . I0, .. I“ 00....00 0 . 0.. .I .II. 0.0.1 00 aiitlIIIO’IIII 0 0.0. 3400:0110. 00.. IIVI’i I}, .0... 00 . .I‘I’ho... I .0000 30.0”“. V... . I £130.80 . I . .II. I rgittitL
0,. \I . SI.I..H....J.I.... I . a I . . .\ .....Pwe . .. it. I 30.0028... ..1. I. .I .3 tillﬂ’u 0.1 .I...I_IIII.I.L\¢. . V.0I .00....50. . 13.0.52 ...? . to... -31.... II. . £01005. .I0...I1... .0.....00t..0.$-.0:.00{.I.:0I.. 1...): I .0! . .. III. ...: x: {1...} :0” .....II’ .III. 0.4:. 32.3.0.” I 300300.. 0 III 0.0.00.0 I”); 0.02.001. .0009.
. .. ......ﬁ ., . 5......- .._....... ,.. .. 1. - ... ......" MI. 2..., ..3.:-£1....u.¥ I... 2. ...... ...: .. .....,,..I........x .:.: $..3§.......... 2...... .. ...... ...-......132.....§.. .25.. 31...... -... .... ....Ia."..u... 5,... :24... “5.2.. ...ud........ ...-....” 3:99.354? .n... I. ......s 0...: 5...... ......tuﬁIIMx-Jsﬁzauuh
. . . . . . . . . I I . 0.0.. .. I . I I. I! I. II . . 3.01.8.0]? .I... . .330. I .00. . I. J0 JAB). I0 .. . III-0041...... O30 . . .. ..I 000 III. 03 0 . . I. I I I .I I.
I .. I . ... .. I. . 0 3:40.»; II 5400”} 70.x.“ 0.1.~m-...$0...I.4. rilgawk.1.VJH.0:UJ§¢-NH 700.03... .00 0.0.0. .000 “7413.30.80. . 00.0 II 30000000.. IkIrIoc mu 0! .0 00.100. I000 200$ . 3:01 .2. .. .20. II.. 1 . 023.000. 00003.01 08. .KN VII-.00.. -.I II 0‘0 000.0 .900.r00.é,0k0210 . Iihuﬁqti‘n (0.01%: 5‘0 040? 405.01.000.00 '0‘3000."
I . I. 0.10,. .. _ ... . 0. I I .:.. ”0... c 00. .10.... .. ~ .02 .04: ..wL. . :0 .. . 3.. 5.00.0. gonad-0 002000;. 0 1310.... .33.... I 00:00.00. 0.1.0. .0. I. I. 3.0.57..." 00.000.000.00I..I.I~00.II.I 0006.0 .4 .:....IIII ...-1...}..100! IIISII ..S’lfildﬂr-‘QIJIV 0.0.0 0.0.2.0. a. 330.. 00”" (0.010100. 020.0200 49? I 0‘ 5.00 I I0. :0!!! 300.0
.0 0.3., .. .II . I . I ... . 0 I I 0 00a . .. . 0.0.2.... I I 7! 0P 9.... 0 0.....IuhuI31...00IV..,:0._a .000... 0 {0.3.00}... I... it. 1.31:0. I03”... -..... III. 0.0.8.:1 8.13.:0 . 00.0.0.9..303: . ....VII..I..,2 :1}. 3:00.... <35»... II. .0... .0410 0.. .Iuvﬂhfckl 10. .:..-.0 «530200.... :0. 40.30.01)!!! 0010...!“ 000. 31.40000;
. . . . . . I 10 I: I 0. 0.7.1.30 ... 0...? 001131110550. .. 10 ...? _ I9. .0. . t.0~.00.....aun0 r2113}. . -. . I! ..II 7.0.... Wail :00: . . 1...... I0 1300:0157}! ... .0. . . 1400.00.21: . 0.. 0.. 0.0. .00.. 003. .021. .0 .0... 0.00.0 I... M... 0.00 0000.0
. .- V . .,. .0. 0.! : I .Q. 0.00 .00.] 003.9... III-0.00:0». .... £30631... {I ......IIII00I5.1.II.. .023 II... 0.. 1:37... . . 0:011:30- III...- I\ .003 IoIIIIl.‘£.III00I.00...1I I .0000. II 0.. 030.00 1%... 011.02.; I. 3.00.3.1}! .. . . (I I00: )‘0000 0.10. .0. 0.! 000.209 .n. 0009-.) 0 III! 0‘
. . .... f0 40.00.0031... VIII. .. P I ..I. I ..I 3.0.020. o .2. I 0- 0.2200 I. 5.0.3 .IIIL.. 008.30.. .. . .. 2.1.0 L 0909. 0:03.. II I 02. ...... -!.JL.. ., . . . 0. 0.0.0.3000. . I .0035... 0: 0100!.-0BIR‘IISIIIJ... .‘s ... I I III. m81...0~..0~ . 00000001.} Ira I303. 00.20. 0I0I
. 00. a .0, I ‘1220. . :10 ..L. 0...: «......Ilr... VI 00.0.I2IIIII....II . 0...0I...l/000 .I0.00 ..0.0I 00.0%”. - N . 2 .00. 0 .31.“.009 .0 01.01.000.300 I I. ...0 2.1.0. ....III» ...vI..I..r..0EII0II2..I0.. ...0 000.0! «I. .0: 000.311.1000 Iii-n0 . :0. 0.0 . OSIIIII! RI 0.... Iii-0:00.00 . 3‘0. 00.0- 19000.0
0... . ... ..o .I...0 . rt 0 ..0. 0.. .I I£0L3IfI1~QnIVTII .00 0.00 I0 .I I w. 3.11.50 .. b I III .2. . .0 ... 00. 43.30,. I -....II. 6.1.3030} I. .III. ..IIIIIIIII.I... 10.3.1.0..III000I? I 3:100:00... III. 0-.. I I 0.000.. :0. 3.1.0.04 .0... I L0. }..N.II0§I.0IIU~II...C.0 0.00.00.10.00 . 2.3.00.0. I; V 0 3030000000.
. 1.1%! I. .0 0.. 3.0.... .. .0. .II- 030N900. . 000030.30!) 0‘. . .I I HVIIIIL: x . I . 10:00.00... 0. 0000.33 : 000.003.603.701. 0......I0IIII.0.I.‘.. 0'020; ,000. I 0‘3: 000.10.29.10 . .. :0. III... .007 1.1.0 0..) III-2.00.3.2 0...?...JIIII0....I . 0 Mil 3.9.2.00. .0. 00 ...-0.00 0 ho.“ 0.00" .. 01.. 00110003000100.3010
. I t. .3. I0. 0: .... 0...! .0. .0 .90 .000 I -... I000. 0I\I. 020. .00. . I . 001 0!i[0.¢. ..100 10.4 I... .30....0. . . . . III... 0 .IIIII 300%.... £00.10. III . . I . . . . . ....I. 0 0.0....333022 ... .00 £0.30 9 .III1 0W« ....II..!$I..I: . .V . . .l!»”.0.‘0.0. :30. 0.0.0 00.2.0.0." 0.
r .\,PI.~..r III! I... .1... 0000:... 50.4. 0. 0 6.060% IozIIﬁonIIJ. I. .I ..... III 0.0 . .:. . 0.0... I. ... , II... 5:10.... .2210 1.4”“ . .V. I... II... 0.... $00.05;!» 3.00.31. I .0 a. 20.0.?! . . . vgﬁjsx’xIvii To: 0.2.0.00. . 0:0 03.30.000.120;
3.....01 II .. I. . .0 '.J ... I 0.20.10 I I. «0.0.. I I... 000 I. I I . I00 ...I . J .2 0. 0...! .. .....I 1,020. 0... .....t...’ .0. .. . .. . ......4:1III0._Y.. ...... 0.1.1.1.).‘0... I. I... $.27;in . .0603. 0.4. 0...... III-00 9.3000010100010001:
0.4.... .IltI I I O 0 0.4. JJHNI‘ v :00]?- 2.050.311. I0. 9v. .0... I I: .0233 ... I... {...-II... .. ... .... 40.0.1. .000 I. .I r0...II 3.0.9.. , . .3}... ... .9. 20100.00 . ...IIIIICIIIIII {90.13.00 .00 V I.” .. D. .../.0 ... 5.0.10.2; x ..
I0. V I 0.. 4 I 0 . .r 0., ...:r III :0 3....[. 2000.51.00. 0-. .I ~00: I 0...! .. 0... a". 000$. I _ ..00.I...I. In... ..Ivviooll 00.. II ..I 00.... .0 .L 003... 0.0"; 0I I... 0 I0... List 0 0 .0... x1003? 000. 9. . ... . 9 I» 0,000! 0‘30..."-
I h. ..n..10..$:.... .0 I. .9”. 1 .:.... .00. It}... .. .0 0 00.0010... 0.0 .0 I I: 1. c! . .. .1. 00:: .I III; . 10.000.10.00. .:.. _ .370... I! .... 1.3 II. 0.}! ...I . 3.1.00.3... $2.3... .... II . 0.. I ‘00 50vaI ..IIIII 0: I 0.0, 0.000
. 0.0. AI 5. . 000.107... 0.103.001... 00!..0. . I. .0 I I... 0.. 3.. 0. 0 0 80 I. 0.10.0. 30:40.05.- .. ..0: 0 000... 0.0100200. 07:30:00.3. 0.... .I ...-.000 III 00 vb?.000g0u.. I. 0001.00. .0071. )0 :0". 0 0 00:00.0. 0. . . . 0 2‘ I 0 .00.“! ”.6 A
. .. .. ...., I 0:01:72. 0 70:0». Vr :1. 20. .1 ....I. I: {Iii-100.! v I 0. .30! I ’00.... II. I... II ...-II . . ......IIIIV- .KI,.I 60.3.40...) ... . .0213... .000: at! 5:5... 7.49.01: .20 0.0.0! . .. . . 300000....‘00000. II I... ‘0 0 0.000. .I .0“ . 8.0.0 I. .
. II . .r I . I. I I 1.7... I. .300... . v . ...... 0030.003: . .II. 0I0000.F\_A..:0' 117. £030... £410 . .2911! I I III: I. . ..IIIIIII VI . 00.03.2033... 0&0...- I..0I.0.I 00:00. . .10.... 5.00.000... I I $0.00 III! 7... 0.00.03.20‘ 0090‘
.. 0 I U «I. ”0......1»: . I 0 . 03.500: 13.3. I)...“ .140 4.? .. .130! £000 4.. 0. 0:9. II. .....IAI. ... . £033.}; .:..Yt..l..0 2.1:... . .. "001.537.290.023... 2....09 I 10. 0.4.20.0 ..II I... 0$II0QQII00€$II 0 .0} 0.021. 02.
...I. . ......I’Ir... 0.....0. 0.0.30. .0...- l‘..s .0 1-00 “I. Iv...ll: 0.01 I . 31.000.310.— . ... 3100' ._ . ...!n’ .0050. 0. 0‘ ,I...00wAII I II. 1.003.!) 2000.21120. 0.0.0 50.0.0.0..3003. HI. . . . .7. 0 0:10.021! 000 . .00.: 0| 3:. I. I.
.."I. . - I 0;. I .0: «00131. BI- . :05. . ..I. II ..‘f..:..-f000.1..12.. . . LII... . 0000000.... I . .. -. . . - 31.1....2303; \I .0: .20.. IHH .0:- 00:00.1 .I.b..I.I..oIIn.0..'I..It In. I}. Z .... . f III-10.. $30331.le II.QQI&I0 I...
. I. I. . 0‘... ..«I -0 70.. 2.00... 0311!...00 .00.0...I.4_0300tIl. 3......- 0..II. .0. .28.... 300.4... .. .I -.. . . .. II? 0 0.00.. 1.105303; 1......100IrIIII .0504...) . .0000 004001.00. 0! 330.10.000.11 Ii: 0 00.851.00.00; 0.10.0.3- . II I00. 90.3 009.53! 17“” 0..
n I .....v. I... I... . .03.... . ..lo: 0 I 0.0.... 00 .01 I .:.. ... .0 .000.- . .faIII‘JItISJ .. 3.0 .0... 0 .1. 1 Juli. . I I I... 07 4'? .0. I0 . ......r! 0.0 ..0 .I...00:0¢K. ..00 0002.0. I I. 0..-...r’. 0.000. .28.} .' 0.000000 *0‘08. 50. 00‘ V3,, 0.005%. 0 III
. . I , . . ... 0 . I.......0 I0 .I 00.. . I. I 0 I .00. . I L 0.9 -0330... I 3.0.0. ... 0. 00 {000‘- 0000; .100... . (0.: 0.. 0 {0‘0 0 0 0 I. II... 00 2.0000 P000. .0. 0 0.1.0 I I 0
0 ...C. .I. In III I ’2! .. 0 . 3 0 00 — ... [I I0 00 . .10.}. . I . . I: 00 . .0.- .II. 00 000 I00 0 000‘.
. . 0. .0 0.0-? ....00 ... .:....IIII... 00., 03:30... :0. 2A. . o. 0 1...... .II. .I .. 1-00010. . . . .. .. {.01 \ 0.0.000. \I , I0... .8 000.. ..- .03....) [50... . I 00 I 0 II 03”.. 0.. III000.90.0.III.I0.0:.01$0I&I. I .70 (1.0.30.0... .03" ‘0’}! III 50"? If! ‘0. (II
.I .00.... ... III. .0. . . 000000 00.. .I. in 0.: 0..I‘.0.0¢~I.I400.000. “..E’.‘3 0»?... 000.. .2141: Q... .I $.63 -..—.0 1.2.. 0.... 3'0 007001 . ...00... 0.0.302”? I 0’. 0-0 3 4!. 0 300‘... I I . 0.0.000.) 00.0‘ .0. lat. ‘. 000.203.! 0‘90
I. .01 '7 .0 I . III. 00:...0 0...: 0.0.53... .YII I: ...II’. 0.-\.wl...00_..._...00:I 0:...III. . . 1:310:30. 0.5?! 1600.... 00.0.1070. I. I 0....000. - . ...... .... 90 0.... 23...... 10.220.00.001 ... I I .. . . . . 04$ .00. «5 00.331030 0' I... 0.0010:
I . . .. 0...... . 0.70 . 0.!0‘03 \4IfI 02/0 003 2...... It 00... III-000. 0 II . 0., I I I .0 . 00000.»...20 0.000.! I.» . ...: .‘II..~I 0100...... 30.0 3.. 1053......- ...-30.33.00. 00“..” 0.1.0.0.-..... . C(10I.I0I’00,II I; .. .roov‘o‘tflﬁ I0. l0ﬂ‘15‘ in!
I. .. . 0 £0 ...». ..- w. .15..- “ﬂ. III. 030.121. {06-..} I . I. _. . ..III... 4.... .. .. I... {£10100 2.50.3... .20 0.. $2.00. {01 2.1 0 It... . . 0- . .....I... I ..0.‘ f .....0V . :t....x...t.¢ .030 \. 0.0I............I.0¢ 10.0.0. 3% 0...]
.0 II 00. .0 ' 0.000 0.0 o. .) .003‘0-‘0 0.0000 (l.0.'...0”.I0. ....z- 9: I000- .. 9.07.0.0: II.» 00.. 3:00.300. ‘0 .00 .00 J I0I00t000-0vo 0.00 r. ... , 3's ‘0. 0.0. ,{03010' 020 ’- LI"....§I':‘ 0 ... . 00000.00. . I90“. 0‘ ;§I'.ll0‘ ‘ .
000- 00 IV. I 0.. . . 00? 00.7. 00 I0 I‘I, .I .02....300 100.0 .. a 0.. 0 IIIIIIII J 0 I I00~H6 00 3’00: . 100.0. . I . a:- - . 0 0: . I0 .0‘01 0.3.0.00 0‘0. 0.00 .4. . I. I . . 0 310-51012? ’00 OII0ol‘la". 30.0 ‘0‘ I000: II
0 I I . . . I... I . .... . 0 I ..II. 0.‘ c 0.. I") 0522. .IC 1&3. .0 0. 03¢ 00:00. 5-. ... I 000 . r 0 00 I I .00 00 f . . «I. . 0010...! 0. 0. I. I100... al.000I1- . . . “131,30 .. ’h‘ 0.0.. - III-.0 003') 0.”.-
0 .1000}..- ,I0 0.. 0 0a.; .. 0 .. II000.'0 10.03...- ‘0 v.0 a: 0| .. .000 0!. ...IIILIII}IH I, . 00.I00.3060III1I0,00I4’ ’00. .I ,I . -. . 00.?10 .00... 0‘ ..II .0 .0 I. , H‘Sflt 10 )0. 00'}: I“ !‘:L‘ .00.!
.I . II .-I I II . 0. I t 0 ...! i3! 00 00.... 0I I. 29.3.03." 20.2.0.0 .. ...? ...... ... ‘30..)000‘001 .90 v :00 421A; 00.. 000.000 .00. XI .... ...-I . I... 1.3!... 0:5.‘00.’000I-.0. I0 003....”0000-I>I 95.3.0.0: I? $00.00...”‘000¢I
. 40 ' I. I 0 i «V .. . ..Olr. 0.. .030 It. 50.0. . 0.0? I0... .0 II .I . .30 .0 10.... .I .2000: 4- ..I 00.0 00\.600.II . Ir... 0'3 00 0,0. .0 . III .1320. II 0,00,..0138005‘00’. 3,0000! ‘00.00. I 00.5.0300
,,I I -.O. .0 , . I I ...... :0 70. 0. 0 II I0 I,.0\\. 0. 0:00.. I.. 00? .. .IPa.'¢II. 0...‘.I:..I0y0 I .III. I... diIt”, ,II 00 ...-.0010}: {€2.00 0. : _ _ 0. I0..£... I 1-0.0! {0.0.0.010 10.. 3.0090"! .30.. 03.09““. $105:
.. 0 I I 0 .....A.. I I I . . .. 00.0.... I .2 00.0.0 I .0... I .90.... .‘I .0 ..0 I .00 II‘ 4. I. 00. 0.1.0.0 . .00.... 0001 0 II .I .0.- II. .00 0.0.000 I0 ”.00 III . I... I 10.. 00...... 0.0%.. 2140‘; 10.0.:- I.0— .. . . .. .80...1~..00I000'Iv00. 09:0 0 l0. 0 520—0.
.. . V . . .OI..0.... 00$. . . I I. . ... I0 000 I. [.030 .. L. 10.7“! 00. I. .4 II 0‘ I... 00.00 00:0. 00.00003. _. 53.0. 0.1000!" :30... .00. Ilia-002.1000. I .000. 1 \0 .. . . 0 2.00.3» 00..»00. 00.03.01.509... 70. I _ ... . .. . 00...: III..‘0..QI IJIDNI00‘110I00 1.0 .0)! 09.00.01.
0 m0 I. l... ..3 . .0 d I. I. uni-ll. 03.10. 00‘ 9'). 05.0 II . I.‘ IOII um... '00.! 00. 20.0200..- 0 I I, up: 1.2.00 00 . ... 5.0.0. .0 0. 7 1.10701... . 0. 0... I .. o I 0.0.06.0 0 I. . . I. :0." .7: 0 I .0 300....la .:.... I I I I . . Ifzg‘ ,..ﬁ0-).’I I00.2. 0.. ‘0 100
0 0 ‘ . J ... .4. ....P: ' I I . .. . 20.0.. 00 I...0.. 0.. 0.0. I I ~0I\I .00.. «0. 1.00 . 2‘0}; ‘. 7 .... ...II0-0I 0 .9030 0900.... I... 0.20.3}? IozEIYIII: 00000....90 . 3...‘_010,II0 . I I- 0.0»0’; ..00 .0..I§ . 0. .:. . I I , . . i:. 00‘ I000.II0.0I 0" ‘0. 00‘
o 0. I I . 00s... ...! I .5...) ITI ...0’0- 0. 0.0 0 I0 *0. .2 0 .0 00.0. ‘00.. 0 III .0. 0.0 .x .. .9 .r . 0. 0. I ”3000: . . .3 0.1.0.0 00 0 .00. I. .{13 I I. . I00. 00... $00.70 0. I000. . . . . 0I V 00 I ..l‘ﬁ‘ .I0. 00. III I . I . I 0.0..00II000009’2100 90.!!3‘1101000
I I . 0 o, . .. .I a. .. I... .I I 2! o o 1. ..I. I... II. . ..0 I I 1.0 I .,. 0.. I... 00.0.... 10.90.00.590 .1 . I 2.0.3300: I. . . {00.0 010:)! 0.. ”0... (2.3301,! .0. I 03000:. . I I JIIII. I I0. .0 If... 0. 0.000000010“ 33.001000...“ I’0.1§§L.04
I L 4 , . . . I. . 0. I . 0O .... I . I .0. .. .. . _ l0 0 0 II I ll: . . .00..\000. ..0 .. .0 I III! 01.00. 0 .I - ... 0.. I‘II'I A. a .0330: I ...-0.5.35.5! . .I. .30." .. 0 I .0 0 00.0. .0. II. I 0 0. I II . V I I0. III‘0.I.I00‘-.l.l.!.0¢ S0: {00“UTIII, 00:.“
. . . I 0.”. I I I4 0.0. . .:.! 00.1. 000.. 10,... ..I 0 H. .00. . 100000.00 7 P0. . 0.. .60 . .0 0:00 .0000! III: 010,333 .0 '. 0 . .10... ...-.000. 0 0‘0! lit ¢I?01.’_I10000 0.. .0:- 00. I . v. I "WI.I_,JO.9'0.,"‘0!I' .13 u 00’- 4 .0‘
. 1- 0, ... .. 0 s I O 0.1. .0 i ..70 0. , ”...... II III... . I ..0 0.00.0 0 III. 0.. .. .04: ..v I: K 7 . . I 0.3000000 c I ...... ..(I 0000. J0. .00 _ . -I .03.‘. ....II. .... 0 IIIILIIIIIIIII ..I-sdu.‘.3. .I! I... .000; l2.,'.00| 0.04.20“. 6.0000 0..., . . ‘£.-0.00. 'S...§‘II.‘000..}.0.I. 0.0.0.00 010.0000
... I I f .0; o .0 . . . 7 .. I 0. 0 I ... L... 1—03 . . . . 9 J!- 00. OvanV- w... I. a 000 .0. .00 .,I...00I I... 00 J0. Is I. ..IpIII.Ib0 . ....0.0I0-00.I‘0.60I.III-I. 0 0.103.201...- ,0 7...; II ...: I .I. .0020? I0. 00000.00: 900.0. .0 I. 30.3040330I05 300...!)039300 L0. .0005 0.00100.
.I- I. ...e. l .0 . .' I .. 0 .I. 0 I .... . I. . ..II. . I .F”. . . I . I ‘I It I :1! ‘3. II..00. .000. .0000 00-: I. ’0. 3. ...l! I 0 00‘ . 03.0.0000- 00 00K . II»: 0.09 I \.,.’ .0 0.I‘.':. . . .DIIIT.I0I02.0. .3 00.013.000.314". 3‘ l. 100‘ I000 .:.. 00 0.400.510.0010000". ‘0'.- .0003??? %0 ..h
0 I I . ...I4I I . . ..III I.-. I 0 I... . . ... o I o, . V. . ...-.0... I .D 2 0 0 : .... II .0....1II00I...0 I .s It- 0 5.70.0.0 I. ...-.11... .:.-10.300 00000 ...-Ii :00! 0‘. 0.000. I .. 0.0000 0.I0 000 ... 00. if 00):.» 0.. l0. , I . V . . I . . .{..ilIsao10l0'03..‘002.0.&0001.l( "000I‘010
. . I I I I .III 0. . 0.0 . . . 30* . IQ..II.. .VII .0 ... ..., 0.0. . .0 . . .00r..0 I I I I .k. 0.902.099 ..II . 0! ,. . . . . $1.00 0.. III- . I. .40. 0 .0. 0. - 3‘. 20:0, 0 0.001.110; 0.0 .....l. v ..00.'0303I.0..8I. .0...‘.5Y‘.0.0.00. I000...~.I00Ir ‘0,.IIVII‘QII0I0I¢II:IZ 7413”“,
1 I . . I0 0 . . .0 I II ...I .. 0.‘ 0 0. . ..I 1‘ 0|! 7.0.5 00 I I. .. I00 0 .II 00. .I . ._ 0.00. 0 100‘. . .427... u . I It. ...-000 I, ‘0. 0 I .0... 000.....0000I . . t .0301... ‘9000I000 {.1000.’0...0Iﬁ0¢\‘1000.’.0|... 0001‘0I020II 0‘.’ 0’ H37 I. .0... 0‘00; . .0. ...I 0010’. I“ 0.
10 .0 I 0 II I . . .0 .I 0 I0 .I. . ,I 0.20.0. I ., o O I .0 . ‘I ,. 0.0 90*- IQIII I ‘III.0_ . I I I .0 Ono-00.0.. ... . .I 03.0 0000 :0 III: I- .II..0.0...0I. I: .IJQIIILI. .0 0.. .0. 000330.01 .000.‘ ...]. 0 1:9 0r.0.I’I.o 000...;0 r. 1.0000500. 1.0.0.003. 0 I} 0.00. 30000-100000? . V’tnI .0 (OI?0’
I I I I .0 I ... 10‘ ... 00.. l .0. .0 II II VI I.I.I 3...: 0, .0 «III '2‘ - . I 01%. A: . 2.1.. l 0 .... 2.33.. .1300 Q. 0 . . . I. 00.70.2330..- 000111... .05 Ii‘rt‘; .00... 0.0.0.0 I .‘0. I003. 13.7.0 100...10”I.7I.0I4¢0 «I0.-. . 1100.0? 000. 10., .00....‘00
. .. I . I . I. I: I 0 I. 0 .0 0 I. 000.. 0 I. 1.000 0 r I I 0 t I 1 3010 0 O I .00 [.00 .00. .-. I I. .I 00 0.0‘0‘. I Z I, .00 I I 0. I0 0, I0 0000 10)..-. 0 . I. .. CAI 0.1 . .00 o '0 .0 .Q} 00.0.00 IIV 0.00.0 ...!lw . II 00000 0.» ’0’ 0 o 0’ 0“.
I. .00 ..I ..0 I 0 I I 0 V 1..I . I . .0 III I... .0 I 0 .0 ... I .‘ 1 1!. I 0050- I I035 II 0 0 II 0- 0 1... § 00“ 1k?! 0 01 £00010
0 I I I I 0 .. 0... I I .. I 0 0 01,0 0 :0 . I 0 l | . L. I II c . . I1 .I . I I III-....) 0.0-. . 0 It: . I: I I00 0:0 I 200000.090. 0I0.IIII 700010.. .4513... 0.0000... $00.20 1.53... I! 0 .‘ .00.....0.06..0l0.0\' ...... 0.. .0004...) .3501, .0 '6 I003! 000.! 00‘ 00.0. 0:831:0Ihi0‘. ‘0‘.
I 0 0 I I 010 . 0 0 . . . . . .50. I I. I I I0 . I .. ... .0 2!. 0 0700. ... I 5;}; 00. . . . . . .. I . . .. 00.00- . [l . I I .900 . .I. I. . 10.04003 2.01.3000.“ 00.0.9 0‘00: .0002. ...-40......30'3 .0: 31:00:00 I0I II 0.0 .0 .00 .....0 3.11 I. ... ... ).00qu‘..0-~000«4 .00—‘10... at...
I 0 III I 0 I II I I- I - . I . . I ... ,~ I), . I .. ..0 . .I .... I 0 . r... ., .. .V.. 30... . ., . . . .- c... I III- .I.. 5.... .. . . . 37.3.0330 3.300... I... .....I. 0.0.3:. 0.! .....\0.... III. .3“! r100? ..III. III... . , .JZJ'IQIII .c 3030.0 ......IIIIO 10.201.133.000... 09.25“"...000 '0'
. . . 0 0 0 . . . I . ... I 0., . . .. ... ‘. I ..., .II. , .00, I 0 0 I 51.100200 0.000 I. .I . '0 3.23.}: .:.-I0 ... 1 I ,I. 0705: I. .2. .1033: 0. 0. 00.00.? .350 .:.-{.990006. .. . 0.04... 0.. 10.0.. I.II. . 03000000200}! I.0.,I..VIL0.0III0I0I0¢0 0.03.0.5 20000.30 [2000095.0
0. I . I I I l .I ... II I .0. ,0 .. I 4. 104.0. I t 0 . 0 . 00,. If V. I. :00. It, I . .I . .. _ .I .. .3100: III. . . . I 0.3.0.! 910210... I. I ... 1.! III-0:10.. .. 0’0. ...,000In000l £0.90 «5000”.00 0.. 0:01.010; . .I(.0....(00I0. 0.0!.0LIK. ..0 ~ SI, 0.0.0.
I I .. 440 .I I .I . .. .106. Q. . I .30» :0. I. ...! I 2v.-. 4 . 0 I .. . . . , . .. I .I 1.... II ... I I .I I . .... 1o}: ... I I... I 00 1.10.32 . 3.0.0 3.1%}. 20.20.! _‘.’I.II0.I.I.. 300.... .I..20....I!.0=00I:I. .222 I 2.8.0.08... . .0‘.0.000.I‘ .081... 0033‘
. _II I . . . , . o I- III. . .... I. ..0 . ‘0 \T . .0 ... I .I0. I... .0 . .02 0 I . 1.: ....r I . ... V, , - I .:.-III: 7. II .0 . 00.3 .I I. 30. .... I. 1‘: $100,000}. 5 . I. - I000. ...-300. 200...“... .I .0300 .000I 00.00 .‘Ia..0....§0.0.‘0l90.0§. IIIIIJ9.I0.DII00IIIIIJI).0.IIIUI0 300.05.0‘00‘0‘00 $50!.
. 0 .. I v I . I 0 ...! . I o 0 0.0 0.3 . III . I 0 ..I 0 . (.30. 0. .0 . .0320... l0 ... . . .. . . .0.. I I, ...! . 0 I _ . .. ... I... 02.0.0 I0.\..III\0..I.. 1;...0‘III‘I 0‘ 0.. 0 0.0.2.0.. I0, 0.0..000-V0.....9.0,0.0I- 000.: 009.1.0' .0010 .0 03. 50......002‘3.’ 5’30'030090'0.
I . . I 0 I . 00. .I 0 I . . . . I .. 0. I I . I 0.. 20...: - .3. .I. .91.. ...,I0 5...... I .:.-it: . I. .. .10}! I: III“. . cat-... I I 0.0. ..Ial‘Iysl . . . II 00.0.)». 5.7.1....10110 CI: .0. 001.000 30.0000... .020. I g.
I I .0 I I . i I I . L0. .. I .0“. I I . .I 0 _ I .0. . F | I 00030 ... . .l 0 .31.. . 0000.. . I .00. 0.. 2!... I I0 III..0 I. ’0 I30. 00...; . 2.01.0" 01 '10’ .21. 0.0.0IIJW03I000 III’0.IH0.?01I0I0 0001501500! at“.
.. I O I 0 r I. _ . 0 r 0. 003' 00. of . .o 00.0.: . . I. 0.0... I 4“. .00.! I 0 .0 r301. 0000.. I: .0 0 00000‘ (0. (40.00.0010 . 3‘70: 000. 00:01, I. I. I. 0 0.0 ...4‘. I1», I I ‘. I I I 1;; ‘¥'\0I
I I Q- I 0 I I I . . a I... .I .1 . . .. 0.0..l000.‘ . .0... 0 . I 00 I I . 0 I .0. 0.0... I II. .0,- II .7900... 02:0,.an 0-0»... I. ....i‘IIIIQIIJ'I. ... . .0.. 0.. SEISIMYIII .7100... \IIIIIIQt.0‘0I0I.LIq
o I - I I X .. .. 0. - 1 I. . II. I ,. 531.00. I I 0. I9 , :00: I. .. 0 .0... .0100 I0 .0... .I ....00; I V .. I .. 0’. 000000" 1.0.4.. 020 I02! 00I£0I....0...QII\00III I 000. 0.030" 0:00.100. I
I0 I 0 ...I . . ... I -I I I . I . II .. . .V. I . I .II ..II . P I . .:.... ,3. . .0... 100...: ... ...-0. . . .. . I .I_WIIII .....III.” . .103. 0000.3. 00.40 1.0.0. 030. 01.017100210000391"!
. I 0 I 0 .I I 0 . II 0 I I .0 . I. ... . ... I II. II It 0 . ,I I ..0\. .II. . ,. ..v... .00 .l O. IIIIQ 000.00.0I-III0 . 0. . .003 2 0.0.. 0 0‘? .. .I. ..0 .0500. 0.0.92.0. I I 3.. ICY‘MMHIOA IIIsIin‘I‘C. 3. 0.000. .0 I\Iv I I I II VI A
I I .- KI I :0 IL .:V .. I . . I .. ..I. . . 0101.031... 1.1.1 .. I. . I .. . ..0 030.7. 0000:...4 I I ..w. r3363 I0...I 30.01.10. 0... I . . .. . . . .04. LIL; 2.0 00..—..0’\.I0I0 0., '0 . .th I DYI $141 I I10.
I 00 I 0.00 J I I I . ..I I 0 I . I 0 0... I V -... I. . . . . 0.000. I T... I . . .. . . . 0 0.0000 . .010 .0501 .0I . I. I . $000.00.. 0-0.0; I .I 0...... «II 0-00 0.0.0., 00 .0 . . . . 000.1 000JIIIII .0. 0 .0?Fu.00‘¥230000 0. 0 ‘0 00.0 0 II I I
. I . I I I _ I. . .1 .I I II. . 0.0.00}... I .. .. . .300... 0 I. . . ....f I ,2. I I: . . .. ..I....II.I ... .. 300.91. 0. I. 3.20.90 . . 31"...an I 400:3. .. ... «(100.0200): 0.302.000-010. 9. 0.0000000 080.
II - , - .I I I I I I. I I 0 . , .I ...! . 0030 I....., I . 40 .. 0 30“: .... ‘I I . I .0; 0.00.. .00.? 006110: 0... .0 Jon .0. I! .0000‘0...‘ 0.0.0.0 .0 .000‘0‘0‘2k0lltﬁg00 003-0130. . .
. 0|. II I I I . I . u I I 000113.00 .:.... U... I 0.0500 1 II I (It 0 Q I I. , .10 0.0!...0. ...?r" .o ... 0...‘ 33.0..00 I ‘00. .f...‘ .0 000 0000‘; 0.01.?
9 II II . . . I0 I I 0 . I I ‘I I 0 I 0.020 I! .0. 1 J uL ... .02.?! I 00‘: 00.3 0 ... .0100 0000 .:.: 5.. 0 ...-$02.... 000....UIII0 .‘3004‘0 0’ 1!: .0140 00.0.0000 000.003.00.00l000.\5 .. III.I.VI
I . .. I I o . I I. 0 I I. .s .0 .. ..I I a 00. 0 .:.! I 0 .0 III .00 0.1. ....0......00 II . . .80.. r. ... 0 0.10 I I r I. . 0. III..0¢..0.0.II0..0140I0I..... 0.0.0 010 . I. . IIIiI.0VIII.IIIIl.D.0..I:K(..0iII, ...":-
. I . - -0 I 7 ’21 ......3 0.0. .. I .,.. I .00 . _. 00.0.... ...-03.... - .0. .... 0.2030. . . n . . . ....‘Z, 000:. 10.01;..‘0102003000000200 fiat. 6.0055009; .‘I'CIISI‘IIIIIHII
0 ' .01 01 0 0 II 0 0 . . I... I ..I.II J... I m... 0.000 0.0 .N\ I. ..... 0004 1.00000 II:00“n¢IJI.VI ...!“ “21“».Iu00I1005. I. I . . .. . , _ . 11’ J . 00.0." “ du’iﬁv’técu I0”..I§0‘ I'd-0n l-I.I..0rav'lu‘.§. “00.03..
. II VI I. . .0 I . . . I... ...... III... ..0 0‘ .1 0 . . a. .0 $0. 0. 00.0 I. .. I .. I .0400! 00 I. .0. i I '00
on I H . 0.. I o I I I s .4 . .0._.. ... . . ._ ... . . ... .. 0. . .. I. . J, “I; . so ...7. I .:.-III .0... I...- I 13.0 00.0I 4. I- .. III-.0000...0rf 4.. 0.... 0—010 3.005230095101120; 00
. . I I I . 0 0 0.. . .0 00. . III II 3 . I .l - I I I: 0.. .031 00. I I ...4 I. . I. I II... 0.0 .0 .IVI.I.II...0...I..I0, I. 00.10. I, .000 .0000-0000 00:30.05.) 0.0000..0-0II00I 0.91000; 1. .I III.
.0 II n r I I I 0 . . - 0 . . a, l! I. . .0 III) .I ..0... I .I.. 301 ...-00 I '0 .0 ‘I 0.. ...... 0 I, I II 0 ...o' .6 .0II 001F011! 0... 090 I0 .0! .:.-Iv: .01 0.~000.049|r?.00 0 I! 50.00 00.0” 0.1.!P0HQII0I’0’0I.
. I I. 00 I, I I 0, 0. I 000'. ..I I . II .... 3.0.0.. .I 0I0. ,I I I: ...-0.. . I. . .:.—I It. -000 . 0 0 II 0.00.... .0: 0...- . I100.) - I [30"IIoaI 000.0 0 00.00-50.03 0.00.. I. ...030 CI 'ho
. I , I . 0.0 0 I‘ ' .1 o I 0 I I II 0 I . .. . .... 0.0] V00. 60.. . ...... m”... .0 .05 . . .. .01 IN": 00 0.0. .. Ila! ..0‘0 “010.! 0.00 0I1 ’00ﬁat¢0ndudvdnunwﬁlﬂpooﬂgu 0.0 04100.0“ 0“
- 0‘ 0 0 I. .0. .00. N . II v . I O'.I0 0 I.I D .0 .1000 I. A I 0 I ‘III I 0 0 02“ .‘0‘ o O... U}bl '! it ... O D ' u .1... {
. - .. 0 .I .II .. 0 0 I. I... It .. .. .....| .0 . . 2‘ II . ..lIJ . .00.. . I I . I. .00... 00.0 32041.. . I ..II. .0305. 0...“..0i00310.I0I0I I ...-0,0...(0L‘zu0 000.13.301.00..500 I
- ... ..I. , 04 I. O I . I . I31... .... 0 .10. .00; I t. :0. .... o 0 II0._0I.I\¢ . ......ooII, 1...: 0:20:03?! 3.000.200. ... .100 0.000 00... 0.08000000000
w \0 In 0 . (I1 .3 I. I 0 - I... . II. .I 0 I 0. 0. 000:. 0.0 I 00. . 0: 0:00. 0 0 I. 0 .vﬁl .:.. .I...I - I 0| I. III ‘2. . .0. . 0.0.0.}.0'0000'1‘00. I 33.0.3.0”: 0!.4‘1 Dix--3000:
0 . a 0. .0 . 0. I 0 0 . I: w) I I ‘ II 0.0 1. :0 I. 0 000.000 0...: 000.0 .030 000 V .0. III. .0... . 00!. .I I. . .I :01 200 .000... 9.00. .0000‘ . ISI- ..I . :00 3103!..‘0. .... .«VI. “LP-.0 00L. 1 O'H‘MQIHNIq
I .0 $ I II 0 II I 00 . 0 I. . 0. . I 0 I .000 0‘ I . I . . .I 0 .I . ... .. .0. 0.! 0.010 . ... .0. .. . .. _I I. . I , _ .I .I ... '90 .00 0.! ‘10; 0 0... .- 00 00 5.00.000- . .C
v I 0. p 0.. I I 0 . ..0. 0 . I. . I. , . O ..00. 010“ 00. III 00. I. I I . . . I. .00 0. I III! {0.0.000 I It 0.... ’- . ... . I. '00.. 0.0 0.0.. . .0 1-0.0I’0005 ‘01.-.. 0.0 10,000 9.00.“! .5. 0.0.0000... 00,.0I0010000Lt! 001
.I , I I I I I I I C I. .1 . ......0. o .0'. .. I . I .. \III :70 .10 I010! . II...II ....03 00.0“ , .... I I ‘I .I 0.I.000.E30L..I 0.00. .2003: 1.0 000,010.2V00IO0I00‘0‘I .:.In; 00“.! ygi‘sgil 0h
0 0 0 I ll- 9 I. I. 0 , , . . I I. 10 .. .0, a ..00. . I I 0 00.0. 0 I ., Iv.001..0. . 0.0 I I ‘00. .0..II0II0. .00.0.00I1A0I'!3g0.0.l 0.0.0. Q ‘ ‘00-’00 -03 '0 0.0?! I0.
I I .0... I 0. I I .. ...I I 0 .0 .0 I0... .00 I. I.I 5! .. .I .0. .. ..000 I. . I ...00 V 0.2.0. I I. Jul-0.0....0.0}0.....E. 11000200 0 I05 ‘0 I. $000I‘.)ﬁ!“1z0!0.<3 00-0!-
. I 0 I . 00 I I . ,. 30.3.0: .t: I) .0. :00 0 .0 v.0I 0" .. . . 0. .I I ...0 0.0 I. 1.6.. 0.0. ...-00 0rd. .0. 00000.0 0.0.0 . I... I.0IV, '00! I000 00 000.3 0.0,; AI. 0"!
... . .00 0| 0 0000.0 0 0 I I... 0 0... I123... I..- Cit-‘1. 0v . . IN... I 0.0“. 0 ~00. . I u «0... .u -. 000...)...0359 00-003 0000.0 0.00 302.03.00.91 ...n.(ol 00.3.2} .ii- I. £3300 0.10.1009'.
. «I I v . I . I. . ... I 00 . .. I 0.! IV 0030.. I) 0 D... .001- 20.0 ...... 0 .0000; 0.0.0.5... . .I . .... .0 "30100 ... 0...: 015,500)!!! Ira-(02.00., {€00.01 .. .. I060..II..I.I§.130‘00
I - 0 0 .. . i I. _ £0.00. 01.00.. I . 00. I . .70.. 0. Ir.0.,I . . 30:00. .0000... .. . 2.0.4.03 I. I. 10......” {’00}: 0“.“00 0.I09.,I..I-I V I0 03,—.‘9.
I. I . .000 0 I . I 0 r a 2. . V. 00. 3.0000... ... . 0. . 0 r... 7.0! 0 I235? ...0.’VII.... £0.00\0I0.0.0I. 0.0.4.0.}. AII I3 [.000 I 00000.00. 0 1.01:0? 00.0.0. nil. 00;
.I .. 0 $ 1 . .. . I .. 0.3.3.00. 0 ..v 0 I ... ... I.I .. .. I .....0I .I . 0.0 IQ”... I 0I.0:. 9.00. 0.0“07'033000‘07 I 0‘50, 00000.0 000’"; IIC'anz‘g Il‘ﬁt‘0v I.
0 I I. . l 0 w . .I 0 0.10 o . I .I . .0 . . . ....0‘... 0 0.0.0.1... .10 I . . .. I I. . . ... I; u. I. '00 000 . .0 0 0 0 I0 LfI: .0 P.$.0 .. 230.02,: .‘000’..0......000I0..01.I ... 0.. 00.00053 .. .FIII 0.00. 00000I0II I III!!! ..
II I . I .0 , _ .4 .0 0 I. . I .v .0. I . . . 0.3... . . 7 .. I 0'. 0 0 I .0 I r .0 I 00.0.1.0...3. .. . . 4 1.... 10100 N..3..;00.0I90I\ 4.. 0.0 3.0.10.0} 0.0I ‘13,..l. 20-.L‘5l‘50lt t 01..
. I I. . I 0 0|. 4. I ‘0 _. .3 . I 0000. I. u: I 00 :I .. 0.3.001... . I .00. I , ,0. . $30.00 9.10.. L. 0:010... I . 3.0.000. 0.0.0.? I. ... 10.00.000.01: I. I 0.05.100 0,0300%..000 00.00040 '0 0
I 70 I 0 0 o I I . . .VII . .00 .0 .0 0 0(.I..0 . I I; 0 I I \‘v 0 I till? 6 00.0.0 .3. 001.. III. .10.... . . .. :0 0030.70.02...“ ,0 .000.5..0.- .~OL 0100,: 0 al.00100.‘ 0‘30““,0000’0‘0 0.03.! 30.. !f1.0.
0 0 0 I I . 0 I 00 0 O 0 I I ’0.- 0 J}... 0.0 . sI 0‘} ...0... . In... -. a ..0. 0 .00 0 ..00 I 00.0 0.. .. . w. .- ‘III‘I...I 10.. .0.I..0¢00.0-..,10.0...r 0 I ‘03;._Iv. 0 0,000.0.0I..\. 0.000.0I 000'00'
Q . . 0 0! I. 0 I I I ‘ II 1 I0 0 .I .01:- 0. 8.0.00.0 .I 0.. I0 0.. 0000 I 0. 00 03.. 0. .I ' .0... I .. Iota: 2‘ .0. 00 30.000.05.000 \00...‘ 000.00.. .0... #000010 07.00 0.‘.00.I‘000II!‘IOI-1‘I‘ .
0.. I I I .1 U. 0 I ..00' v .0000...‘ .0000? 0 . I0‘V....0r,....l. I O .0.0..¢..o 0...}. . 0-30.. 0. I I .. -
. . l . 3 I I .0 .0 . .0. I . . 0 . , . . 0 . 0 l 00 . I . . I0 I 0‘ . 1.0.0. 0 00 020....0}... 000.0,.0C (0.0 10 00 I!
. 0 \r. I - I I I 0 0 I I I . I..I : - . . . I .. I , - I 0,-0-0! 000.. I 00.! b 0 0 0 00.... 00... ....s, 00... l I. . ... 3;..00... 'I’I.0I..
0 . I 0 ‘ - .l 00 I: v . 0 .. .0 . , I. . I I I, .00 .I.. .000; 0' I ...... .. 00.. .0“ 04 -.. I 0 .00 . 0 .I 0 II‘: I... .05... IIO~ ..I I. 0.0 0?
O I I . . II 0 0 0. 0 L .. .. L: _. . 0.0.. I . .00. . ..II.0;._I.:IOI ‘04:.0 1.0006: ‘00:.- .00.) 00.000: . . . A 5..- . ..
I I0. . .I 0' . .0 . I . I . I . 00.00., .I .00. .I -.t‘. .... . 0.0. .006 00II‘0.00I.I.00I~0.. 0.000 0.020.101.033 .0. I}. 0‘ III .0033:
I . 0 . I. I 0 ' III . 05.! . . ‘ 0000.20.01 .. .00.. . 0V! I 0 0... I! I .. .I00 . ..0 0-00.0 I. .0000 0 I.0 I 0 .1 . 0‘
0 '1» 0. -. . I. ‘. I I I000. . 00... .0 . v. y. I I0 0 III III0.I 0 10.0.3.0 o 0 000.‘ 0 00 0.0 000 .0000. .90..I
IV . . 0 I. 0| 0 . I I 0.0-0 I 0:23.10. II}! 0‘00 .0 0...; .000. (III I ,‘0 "I. 0 r! 0-
0( 0 . 0 I 1.. I I I J XII ..0 00.I 0'. I 0 40 0' ' 00 I). 0 0 . 0.00 Q .0! II .0 Q
. I 0 I I I I0 .I 0 I I 0. 40.00....0 ....I.IIII.....I I. 0.0 001.00! .95- IQI
I 00...|. I v. .000 0» O I : . 7 I If 3101...)! 0.0.3.4 . 0.000. . II 0 0 . I I {010090000
0 I 0 L 0 I 0 u. .0: . ..I .' I.IIII'|.I. I I0 IIVI00. 0 00f... I v! .0 II. 0.04.0 :II ..III
I. ‘0 I..-. .0 .33. .Q. 00 (I I1 .00., 00'0P0000“ I000.\uIII 0:0 OIH
C . ‘ I (I000- I . 0 l 1 ill 0’ £1010. .300‘00'00 0.00.0 10’0I P zif~ ....0.‘ .000‘ 0‘ 0 .
. , . . - . I I s- . . . . .-.. V...... . 5...: - . I III“. 3-. .:....I.-......II... .... I... . .... ...u. . .:.... ......
0 I 0 I 0'1 . II 0 I 0 00". I. 00‘.“- 0. I L I .0 0050.0 .10. «00 II 0.00 0 .I 0 .41'00‘ .0 . -0 Q I (at
0" “0 I 1 I 0 0 l 0 0|..... 0 V #03 I I. .. . , oIL a... .00. 0‘ I 0 . 0 III. I . .10. 0' I..r.. Vl..-I..wNII0I 3.7.10: I 0. crux-”'14“ Il’u .II.9,0.0“0000I0‘00 0' I004
. 0 ‘0 9 0 .0. .I .. 0 ..... \0. r‘ I . . . I. I... P 0.0 . 0.... III. 1.010 00.. . . .. ..- .....f 0.070. . ,4 I 1..,0.II0I\.0II.I.I4 .. Ill . I00 If .. 1.0. .0 I;IVI.0I.0.000.‘0. 0 Ir 03'0"
$0 . . I I 0 I V. I I300 0-0 0 . . . .. VII. '00- I 0 .0- ...l...I 0| -. . . vs .- 0.05.0090... 0.0.0.0 0.00... ,OI‘I’Q'IIIQI: 0.?000007‘0Q0 8.00.0.0“. If
I 0". 1.! I . I o . . I . .0020 f 0.00 ... 0-.. ..‘-00.I..I0.b..00 I. . III..- 0'00I0.‘P..06.I.0 . . ...I.0\I.0.>Y.||I00..0I‘IIJIOII.V 0‘1115009000700
I 0 0 . - I 0 I V. . v 0...:- II0‘0 . .0, I 0 '0 0 0 ~04 . VI .004 0. 0:01.- 10 0 . . I04.)2.0.0 V0BII0I0.0IL$'I5I.V...0000 00.1.0.0.) .0 00 0’.
I ,v I . 0 0 000. I. ﬁll I I 00 00 0 I I .I I 0 I...0I.0 0 4 I 0.00. . «I 090100.00 0 $0“... "..I‘a‘ I106: 00000000,]:
V II I I . 0 0.00 I 0 I0. ,I .00 8:000:00 III. 0.‘ D 0\.0. 000. $0,.-l0 0-00.- ’.000I0l' ‘0 ‘0-
IV. I I I I I ..I I I ...-0 IIILI..IO 4 .I 0 1 I0 III
I 0 0 A I 0
I u
I... , I . I
. ' ‘ .u I . I . I I I 0 .0 .0 I I
0 ....Y .
I 0 0 .0'
I III II’I

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE MAKING OF FOLK IDENTITY: POLITICS, CONSUMPTION,
TRADITION, AND REBELLION IN THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL
MOVEMENT

presented by

SHUICHI TAKEBAYASHI

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in American Studies

 

CIA/Er Professor’s Sgeature
(6 W 201C)

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProi/Acc&Pres/CIRC/DateDue.indd

THE MAKING OF FOLK IDENTITY: POLITICS, CONSUMPTION, TRADITION,
AND REBELLION IN THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL MOVEMENT

by

Shuichi Takebayashi

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
American Studies

2010

ABSTRACT

THE MAKING OF FOLK IDENTITY: POLITICS, CONSUMPTION, TRADITION,
AND REBELLION IN THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL MOVEMENT

By

Shuichi Takebayashi

This dissertation examines the folk music revival movement that occurred between the late
19503 and early 19605. Focusing on how and why urban college students, the major
component of the movement, embraced traditional folk music, it argues that their
commitment to folk music resulted revolved around the construction of identity embedded
in the postwar socioeconomic condition. Folk music was not just a leisure activity to be
consumed. It was an experience that contributed to forming their cultural identity
interlocked with the conditions of life in America after World War II. This dissertation not
only explores the intricacies of the folk music revival movement but also considers why
well-educated children from relatively well-off families became fascinated by traditional
folk music created and sung by the rural working-class people. Embracing folk music was a
refreshing experience that helped them ﬁnd an intense connection to the past, present, and

future of America.

Copyright by
SHUICHI TAKEBAYASHI
2010

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for all the support I have received while researching and writing this
dissertation. My deepest gratitude goes to my dissertation committee—David Stowe, my
dissertation chair, for his continued support and guidance during the research and the
entire course of my doctoral studies; Ann Larabee, whose guidance of cultural theories
provided me the foundation of this dissertation; and Kirsten F ermaglich and Sayuri
Guthrie—Shimizu grounded me in the basics of US historiography.

I have presented pieces of this research at the Organization of American Historian
Annual Meeting in April, 2007, and at the International American Studies Association
Meeting in September, 2007. I am indebted to the anonymous members who gave me
insightful comments and suggestions.

I owe many thanks to many librarians and archivists. I especially appreciate the
skilled and patient staffs of Special Collection at Michigan State University Library and
University Archives at Indiana University, Bloomington.

I am also grateful to Karen Klein who edited my manuscript during the writing
process.

Last, and deﬁnitely not least, my gratitude goes to my parents who have provided

continuous support and encouragement.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1

THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL MOVEMENT AND COMMERCIALISM ............... 20
CHAPTER 2

FOLK SINGER AND THE GREENWICH REBELS ......................................... 59
CHAPTER 3

THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL MOVEMENT AND FOLKLORE ......................... 82
CHAPTER 4

CONSTRUCTING THE FOLK IDENTITY ................................................... 116
CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 140
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 148

INTRODUCTION

During the period from the late 19505 to early 19603, young middle-class Americans
became interested in traditional folk music that had been played in rural southern regions
for decades. They listened to hillbillies, blues, country, and bluegrass performed with
simple components of acoustic instruments. Their interest in folk music became
something we can call a movement. Folk music especially attracted college students.
Most of them were exposed to folk music for the ﬁrst time at college and some of them
were immediately fascinated by the folk music tradition. Folk music societies at colleges
around the nation published their folk music magazines and organized folk concerts and
workshops. Many folk singers who would represent the folk revival movement emerged
from these college settings, including such big names as Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Tom
Paxton, Phil Ochs, and Peter, Paul & Mary, as well as the Kingston Trio and other folk
trios or quartets.

In general, the folk music revival movement refers to the period from 1958 when
the Kingston Trio, the young folk trio from San Francisco, burst upon the national scene
with their ﬁrst single “Tom Dooley” that sold millions of copies, to early 1964 when the
Beatles and other British bands began dominating the American popular music chart, or
to the summer of 1965 when Bob Dylan played his new song “Maggie’s Farm” with
electric guitar backed up by the electric blues band at the Newport Folk Festival. During
this folk revival period, there are several moments that have been inscribed on American
people’s memories. Among them are the fresh and soothing harmony of collegiate folk

groups such as the Kingston Trio and the Journeymen, the Sunday gathering at

Washington Square in Greenwich Village, the intimate relationship of the folk diva Joan
8an and the eccentric hobo-like star Bob Dylan, Newport Folk F estivals—especially in
1963, the singing of “Blowin’ in the Wind” by all singers at the ﬁnale including Peter,
Paul & Mary, Pete Seeger, Freedom Singers, Baez, and Dylan“, and the Washington
March in August 1963 with the now legendary “I Have a Dream” speech given by Martin
Luther King Jr., at which Baez, Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, and others sang.

As the names of the Kingston Trio, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, and others suggest, the
folk music revival movement was not a subculture movement.l According to the
deﬁnition of “subculture” by Dick Hebdige, subculture is “expressive forms and rituals of
subordinated groups.”2 The majority of folk revivalists were not subordinated groups
but middle-class and upper-class college students. The folk revival was the movement in
which children from affluent families embraced the music of subordinated
people—mainly, the white working-class and African Americans—~1iving in the South
and Appalachian mountains in the ﬁrst half of twentieth century. Put differently, the folk
revival consisted of college students’ embracement of another’s culture, calling it
“authentic folk music.”

They listened to authentic folk music mainly via records and radio. Major and
independent record labels issued a variety of folk music records during the revival period.
Not only did record companies release new recordings by contemporary folksingers, they
also reissued the records originally sold in the 1920s and 19305. The most famous
reissued album is The Anthology of American Folk Music from Folkways Records, an
independent folk specialty label in Greenwich Village, in 1952. Radio also played an

important role in disseminating authentic folk music around the country. It aired many

folk music programs, among which were Oscar Brand’s “F olksong USA” from New
York and “Grand Ole Opry” ﬁ-om Nashville. In Springﬁeld, a town at the northern edge
of Ozark Highlands in Missouri, KWTO (Keep Watching the Ozark) aired a two-hour
radio program Ozark Jubilee, which became successful, and ABC television put
twenty-ﬁve minutes of the program on its own radio network. Before long, the Ozark
program became a ninety-minute primetime television on Saturday.3

In addition, college folk music societies organized concerts, workshops, and
festivals which allowed college students the opportunity to experience live performance
of authentic folk music on campus. In fact, major universities held two- or three-day
annual folk festivals. Newport Folk Festival starting in 1959, though not organized by
college students, attracted many young revivalists and took on a look of pan-university
folk festival. In New York, folk music impresarios like Izzy Young of the Folklore
Center organized concerts at Town Hall and other places. Young was one of the
co-founders of Friends of Old Time Music, an organization whose aim was to provide
experience of listening to old-time folk music with New York audience. New York also
had a lot of coffeehouses at which folk performances were offered and various types of
folksingers were booked.

The folk revival movement in the late 19503 did not occur all of sudden. It might
be true that “Tom Dooley” by the Kingston Trio was a keystone that geared the
movement in a more commercialized direction, but, before the folk revival began in the
late 19503, there had been at least two major folk revivals in the twentieth century. In the
19203, folk song collectors both from professional folklorists at universities and

commercial record companies conducted numerous ﬁeld recordings in the rural South.

The former category includes John Lomax and Cecil Sharp among others. These
collectors were pioneers in collecting vernacular folk songs and compiling them with
musical scores. They also recorded the variation of lyrics since a folk song was handed
down orally, which allowed the lyrics to be changed. Meanwhile, record companies
realized the potential appeal of old-time music to local and urban audience and began
scouting talents in the South. Ralph Peer of Okeh Records scouted a band and recorded
them naming them “The Hill Billies,” which is the origin of “hillbilly” genre. It was in
the 19203 that the recording industry had established the categories of “hillbilly” and
“race record.”

The second revival of folk music in the twentieth century occurred in the late
19303 and early 19403 when New Deal cultural politics and left—wing activism exploited
folk songs as a means of consolidating workers and unemployed people by creating the
image of the common man. Union organizers were eager to invite folk singers to sing
folk songs before workers. Woody Guthrie, Aunt Molly Jackson, Pete Seeger, and Paul
Robeson were particularly popular at union meetings. During the Depression era, the
Roosevelt administration established new institutions such as the Federal Music Project
under the auspices of the WPA in 1935 and sponsored live performances, programs, and
recitals. The Library of Congress started the Archive of American Folk Song under the
direction of Robert W. Gordon in 1928 and documented folk song recordings. John
Lomax, who was working for the archive, recorded Leadbelly at the Louisiana State
Penitentiary in 1933.

Additionally, in the 19403, record companies began reissuing folk song records.

One of the earliest attempts was Smoky Mountain Ballads from Decca in 1941. In the late

19403 Mountain Frolic and Listen to Our Story, both were collected and recorded by
Alan Lomax for Victor. These reissues were precursors of oft-mentioned Harry Smith’s
Anthology of American Folk Music in 1952 from Folkways Records. The materials used
for those reissued records were originally marketed to the rural audience from which the
music was produced in the 19203 and 19303. The reissued records in the 19403 and early
19503 were targeted to urban audience including teenagers who would become the core
constituency of the folk revival movement.

Before “Tom Dooley” in 1958, there were several important events in the 19503
to chart the course of soon-to-be-popularized folk revival movement: The Weavers made
Leadbelly’s “Goodnight Irene” the most popular song in 1951; Harry Smith’s The
Anthology of American Folk Music ﬁom Folkways Records was released in 1952; Harry
Belafonte’s “Day-O (Banana Boat Song)” ushered in the skifﬂe and calysso boom and
Lonnie Donegan’s “Rock Island Line” (again, this is Leadbelly’s song) became a big hit;
Tennessee Ernie Ford’s “Sixteen Tons,” (the song by the country & western singer Merle
Travis, in 1955) sold a million copies; and the Tarriers made two hit singles “Cindy. Oh,
Cindy” and “Banana Boat Song” in 1957.

The anticommunism atmosphere in the early 19503 also affected the future of folk
revival. The FBI published Red Channels: The Report of Communist Inﬂuence in Radio
and Television in 1950, a 213—page booklet that listed the names of alleged communist
members who worked in the radio and television industry. The anticommunism hysteria

made the Weavers virtually disband. In 1955 Pete Seeger was summoned before the
House of Un-American Activities Committee. His alleged connection to the Communist

Party hindered him from appearing on television and other mainstream medium.

Literature Review

The folk music scholarship has thus far explored its subject from two perspectives. The
ﬁrst is the examination of folk music within the folklore discipline. F olklorists have been
concerned with folk music as an artifact that represented the lives of people living in
pre-modern society or geographically isolated regions, in which they orally transmitted
their vernacular music from person to person, and generation to generation. At the turn of
the twentieth century, pivotal folklorists such as Francis James Child (1825-1896) and
Cecil Sharp (1859-1924) founded the basis of American folk music scholarship. The
Child-Sharp dictum conﬁned the category of folk music to Anglo-Saxon ballads and did
not take non-English-origin folk music seriously into their subject of research.

Because folklorists have been mainly interested in preserving tradition, it seems
natural that many folklorists in the 19503 were opposed to the commercialization of folk
music that changed the face of folk music. The most ardent critic was Richard Dorson,
then the nationally renowned folklorist at Indiana University. He denounced the folk
music in the revival period as “fakelore.”4 Folklorists had a tendency to generalize the
folk revival as a dissatisfaction of the middle-class whites, who romanticized the folk
culture in the South and West. Bruno Nettl at the University of Illinois, for example,
characterized the folk revival as a means of effective identiﬁcation to “offset
disorientation and displacement ... to regenerate an idealized primordial community.”5
Folklorists also examined the transformation of musical style of folk music during the
revival period. D. K. Wilgus at University of California, Los Angeles, observed that the

folk music during the revival period, in order for the music business to be accepted by a

larger audience, began to be homogenized and mechanized.‘5
However, not all folklorists were critical of the folk revival movement. B. A.

Botkin determined that the motivation of the folk music revivalists in Greenwich Village
consisted of the ideas of participation and a do-it-yourself attitude in the sense of making
up one’s own songs. Comparing the folk revival through an analogy to folk rituals,
Botkin pointed out that the role of mass media was a substitute for the role of oral
transmission in the dissemination of folk music. Botkin, one of the few folklorists who
lauded the folk revival, assessed that the folk revival involved “psychological and
imaginative identiﬁcation with the folk and a community rather than the impulse of a
nostalgic wish.”7

The second perspective in the folk music scholarship is the relationship between
folk music and leftist politics. In the 19203 and 19303, leftist organizations in America
ofﬁcially used folk music as their political weapon. With the help of folk music as a kind
of music for the people, by the people, and to the people, they thought, leftist ideology
could appeal to the mass. R. Serge Denisoff at Bowling Green State University was one
of the most proliﬁc scholars who examined the relationship between folk music and
leftist politics. Denisoff s thesis was that the folk revivalists sold out to the capitalist
industry, and because of that, the folk revival movement failed to mobilize the
working-class people. Unlike the leftist movement in the 19303 and 19403 that defended
its ideology against capitalism, Denisoff argued, the folk revival in the 19503 and 19603
was too vulnerable to the overwhelming power of American capitalism.8 While Denisoff
saw the disconnect between the old left musical tradition and the postwar folk movement,

Robbie Lieberman argued that the leftist tradition of the use of folk music laid the

foundation for the protest culture in the 19603.9 Other scholars who were concerned with
the leftist politics included John Greenway, David Dunaway, and Richard Reuss.lo They
have contributed to a solid foundation of literature of the folk music scholarship which
has provided us with a perspective of the political mobilization of folk music throughout
the twentieth century beginning with the Wobblies.

Besides these academic scholars, many insiders of the folk revival movement
contributed to the literature of the revival movement. Robert Shelton and Josh Dunson
wrote many articles on the folk revival scene. Shelton, a New York Times writer, who
reported the Village folk scene and reviewed folk records and concerts on regular basis,
emphasized the positive aspect of popularizing folk music. Dunson, who contributed to
folk music magazines, dichotomized the folk revival between the North and the South,
and argued that the folk revival movement in the South epitomized by Freedom Singers
and the one in the North epitomized by Newport Folk Festival were different movements,
despite the interrelationship between them. The South realized a conventional method of
utilizing the power of singing for political cause whereas the North placed the folk
singing in the popular cultural milieu in which the folk audiences were considered as
consumers who sought for their personal fulﬁllment through folk music.H

The recent scholarship in the folk music revival has attempted to present a
comprehensive view of the movement, not restricted to the folkloristic and leftist political
standpoints, but also including the historical developments of music industry, mass
media, and social structure, and the interrelationship among these factors. Methods of
recent studies vary, but one thing these methods have in common is that they do not take

the “folk” concept for granted as the leftist scholars and many folklorists did. The recent

scholarship has emphasized the ﬂuidity of the concept of “folk” and then has described
the transformation and heterogeneity of the nature of folk music within the revival
movement.l2

Robert Cantwell, for example, attributes the folk revival to ﬁve elements: folklore
and ballad scholarship, rninstrelsy, left-wing politics, popular music and culture, and the
psychological and economic setting of postwar America. The folk revival, he argues,
“made the romantic claim of folk culture—oral, immediate, traditional, idiomatic,
communal, a culture of characters, of rights, obligations, and beliefs, against a centrist,
specialist, impersonal technocratic culture, a culture of types, functions, jobs, and
goals.”13 Cantwell views the revival movement as basically “conservative... cultural
patriotism” adapted by youthful dissidents who felt themselves displaced from wealthy
and educated families. In his analysis, the folk revival was a phenomena that occurred
beyond the middle-class youth born in a time when expanding prosperity was a given.
Therefore the middle and upper-class youth in the 19503100ked at the prosperity from
within and found out that their society had been characterized by functionalism,
technocracy, and bureaucracy. Cantwell understands the revival as “restorative” rather
than “reactionary” or “revolutionary.” The revival, wrote Cantwell, adapted two opposing
class culture3——“the one belonging to a displaced and disenfranchised class and the other
largely to the wealthy, educated, and well-traveled.”l4 The latter having a subtle sense of
displacement from the prospect of the bright future nation’s leaders had promised,
appropriated the former’s sense of alienation in the material sense from the mainstream
society which had beneﬁted from afﬂuence. The folk revival that showed the urban

youth’s allure to the southern folk culture thus represents a connecting point between the

past and the present beyond the class and regional boundaries. Thus the way Cantwell
understands the folk revival demonstrates how it might be situated in a broad range of
perspectives.

In Romancing the Folk, Benjamin F ilene examines a process of popularizing and
canonizing “folk music” by various middlemen since the eighteenth century. With
different aims and methods in different social settings, Filene argues, the musical
middlemen have contributed to the construction of the American musical heritage—the
roots music—through which Americans reﬂect their collective memory. He reveals that
the idea of “roots” or ”folk” has been used not only for constructing public memory but
also for deﬁning American musical experience. From the collection of British ballads by
Francis James Child to the revitalization of folk tradition by Bob Dylan during the folk
revival era, Filene examines how the American musical practice in the past has been
utilized to construct American collective memory. F ilene reveals that the concept of roots
music is unﬁxed and has been made and remade by many musical practitioners including
singers, scholars, and music impresarios. Folk music, as a concept (not as a certain
musical form), can be a tool of both romanticizing American musical past and
revitalizing the American musical future, through which Americans identify themselves
in America’s historical context. Filene’s approach reminds us of one of the most
important characteristics of culture in that the meaning of culture or cultural material is
always repositioned in the context of social transformation.

David Hajdu’s Positively 4th Street deals with the same concern F ilene discusses.
Focusing on the careers of four singers—~Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Mimi Farina, and

Richard F arina—, Hajdu depicts how these four individuals evolved their artistry as folk

10

singers. A3 Filene treats the notion of folk as ﬂuid, Hajdu depicts the early career of
Dylan as a process of acquiring “folk authenticity.” At the beginning of his career, Dylan
had no concrete idea what the folk authenticity meant. With vague idea about folk, he
moved into Greenwich Village from Minneapolis. Dylan scoured the repertoires of folk
music from records and individuals he met to create his own “folk” style. He started as a
follower of Woody Guthrie and within two years he transformed himself into a social
protest singer and then changed his folk persona to a more introspective poet. Hajdu’s
illustration of Dylan’s early career suggests that the folk revival in the late 19503 was not
just a revival of what it used be, but something that renewed the old tradition so that it

could be some reference or connection to the social context of the 19503.15

Purpose of Dissertation

As the researchers have recently explored, the folk music revival was a cultural
movement that centered around the notion of “authenticity” and it was chieﬂy college
students who were mesmerized by the sound of folk music. Why did authenticity matter
to college students in the late 19503 and early 19603? What did authenticity exactly mean
to the college folk revivalists and to American society in the broader sense? This
dissertation examines the discourse of authenticity constructed by young revivalists and
argues that their discourse of authenticity revolves around the construction of identity
embedded in the postwar socioeconomic condition. The folk revivalists exploited folk
music mainly because it helped them learn a valuable lesson about the postwar conditions
of America in which they would live. The folk revival movement provided a venue for

the folk revivalists to consider the relationship between the postwar American conditions

11

and themselves by imagining, Visioning, and conceptualizing “authenticity.”

Authenticity is deﬁned in various ways, but for the purpose of this dissertation the
authenticity reﬂected in folk music which inspired young revivalists meant, for instance:
a primitive style of democracy; a sense of community based on human bond; innocence
free from social and cultural predicaments; musical exchange without economic interests;
and the reality of life. The folk revival movement was a process to authenticate folk
music and the people who sang it and to reﬂect their own attitudes toward postwar social
conditions in America. It was also an attempt for revivalists to connect the authenticity
they learned from folk music to their identity construction.

In this dissertation, the folk revivalists refer to those who embraced folk music not
only for its musical characteristic but also for its underlying signiﬁcance that helped them
construct their collective identity. A3 I stated earlier, the folk revival was a commercial
movement, especially after “Tom Dooley” in 1958. The response to it was of course
varied. For many young people, it was a new distraction replacing rock ‘n’ roll by Elvis
Presley or Chuck Berry and they would ﬁnd another distraction when the boom was
gone. For some, folk music meant a means of protest against social injustice and
corruption. For some others, however, folk music signiﬁed the meaning of life. Among
various types of folk music available in the postwar revival period, the folk revivalists
preferred traditional style of folksinging sung by regional singers in the South to
popular-oriented style marketed to the mainstream audience of popular music.

The folk revivalists consisted of both producers and consumers. The folk revival
scholarship has tended to be concerned with the producers and ignore the folk music

revival audiences, the consumers. The lack of attention to revival audience does not

12

recognize the complexity of the folk revival movement. In fact, cultural studies usually
takes either the production or consumption side approach. The premise to do so is that
these two are to some extent opposed to each other in their interests and that they are
composed of different constituencies. In analyzing a ﬁlm, for instance, we can divide the
producers of the ﬁlm from its audience. But, in analyzing the folk music revival, the
boundary between producers and consumers is obscured by the ideologies of folk music
itself. Of course, there were several production agencies such as record companies and
folk music festival organizers, and, on the other hand, there were a huge number of
audiences, that did not play any roles in producing folk music materials—records,
magazines, festivals, and so forth. Nevertheless, both types of revivalists—~the producers
and the consumers-—shared the same view of the folk music authenticity. Thus this
dissertation seeks to examine cultural politics in the folk revival movement from both the
production and reception sides. '6

The experience of the folk music revival was not just a leisure activity meant to be
consumed: it was an experience that contributed to forming the self identity that was
interlocked with the conditions of life in America after World War II. I do not attempt to
present a single and simple identity associated with the folk revival movement. The folk
revivalists in fact, had different views about the folk music revival and its contextual
understanding in postwar America. I can say, however, at least that they redeﬁned folk
music and reshaped the boundaries between races, classes, social hierarchies, and
aesthetics. To the young generation in the 19503, folk music represented not just a .
traditional musical expression. More importantly, folk music captivated young people as

a refreshing experience that helped them ﬁnd an intense connection to the past, present,

13

and future of themselves and society.

As the chapter structure indicates, I attempt to illustrate the folk revival movement
from four perspectives: Commercialism, rebellion, folklore tradition, and identity
formation. Each of these elements plays a signiﬁcant role in the making of the folk
revival movement. The middle-class and upper—class college revivalists contemplated
these four aspects in their lives as they created the folk revival movement. All of these
factors were the critical issues for them and folk music, they thought, provided a
refreshing solution with them on an imaginary level. In other words, the folk revival
movement was the response of the young generation to the social, cultural, and economic
condition of postwar America.

My contribution to the folk revival scholarship is that this dissertation focuses on
the identity formation of middle- and upper—class college students. Not only does my
project explore the intricacies of the revival movement, it also considers why well-educated
children from well-off families became fascinated by the authenticity of folk music. The
folk revival movement was a response, in one sense, to the postwar higher education
system. Universities, as Christopher Lasch has pointed out, have become a place of a
“conﬂict between the humane values of which the university is uniquely the embodiment
and the knowledge factory.”17 The “humane values” means that university, to quote Mario
Savio, is the “place where people begin seriously to question the condition of their

existence”; At the same time, university has functioned as a “knowledge factory” to
produce new corporate workers to maintain the scientiﬁc management business culture.

Folk revivalists at campus, I think, were encountered these conﬂicting ideas about

14

university. They realized that they needed to create the self identity, projecting folk music
onto such a social conﬂict.
In this dissertation, I use campus folk music magazines as main primary sources.

During the revival period, university folk music societies published folk music magazines
to promote their activities and to disseminate the folk revival movement. The college folk
magazines I use are the ones from Pennsylvania State University, the University of Illinois,
the University of Michigan, and the University of Minnesota. These magazines are very
useful because they tell us why authenticity of folk music mattered to college folk
revivalists and how they constructed their cultural identity through practicing the folk
music revival. Thus far, campus folk magazines have not been explored for scholarly
purpose while New York-based folk magazines such as Sing Out! and Broadside have been
frequently used. My project uses both New York-based folk magazines and campus folk
magazines to present a comprehensive view on folk music. College folk magazines are very
helpful to reveal how college revivalists conceptualized folk music and why they

authenticated it.

Chapters

Chapter 1 discusses the debate over commercialism. As the folk music revival became a
lucrative genre for the music industry and mass media by the early 19603, an angry voice
came up from the folk music community. They charged that folk music had become the
proﬁt-motivated music and lost its tradition and authenticity. This kind of criticism, on

the one hand, resulted from the historical notion of folk since “folk” had been a term that

15

refers to the pre-modern style of life before the advent of commercialization in the
American society. Chapter 1 argues that the commercialization debate played an
important role for the revivalists in shaping the notion of folk. 1 am not arguing whether
or not the folk revival was a commercial movement. My point is that the argument about
commercialization shaped the revivalists’ sense of “folk” and helped them construct the
folk identity, which is discussed in chapter 4. Chapter 1 also chronicles the history of the
folk music revival movement. With this Introduction and chapter 1 readers can grasp an
overall picture of the movement in this chapter.

Chapter 2 explores the connection between Greenwich Village bohemian culture
and the folk revival. Greenwich Village was the central place of the folk revival. Many
folksingers moved to the Village and folk entrepreneurs like Izzy Young’s Folklore
Center and Moses Ash’s Folkways Records ﬂourished. Folksingers mingled with artists
from other genres and shared a similar view about America of the 19503. Beat writers,
journalists, actors, dancers, composers, painters, and political activists interacted with one
another at cafes and bars. Though varied in their artistic and ideological preferences,
these young Villagers established a distinctive ethos of aesthetics, world views, and
self-identity, which was not plagued by widely accepted accounts of their generation such
as “the lonely crowd,” “organization man,” or “silent generation.” This chapter discusses
the afﬁnity between the Beat Generation and the folk revivalists in their use of culture of
others to make their own cultural identities. Beat writers embraced African American
beboppers and legitimated their blackness as an articulation of spontaneity and
autonomy-«hose traits which they regarded as having vanished from the mainstream

American culture. Similarly, the folk revivalists learned the musical tradition in the

16

South, which had been inherited from generation to generation. They found that
traditional folk music could speak to a greater extent for their cultural alienation and their
feeling of displacement from their middle-class cultural structure. As a response to it, the
revivalists created their cultural identity associated with the folk people who sang and
listened to vernacular songs.

Chapter 3 examines the inﬂuence of folkloristic deﬁnition of “folk” on the folk
revival movement. The American folklore scholarship deﬁned “folk music” as the music
submitted to the process of oral transmission. This deﬁnition of folk music was
inﬂuential in the folk revival era. College folk magazines were strongholds of the
folkloristic understanding of folk music. This chapter argues that the folk revivalists did
not necessarily understand folk music as folklorists had explained. Rather they employed
the folklorists’ deﬁnition of folk music as a set of values that helped them ﬁnd out their
vision of postwar society and their future.

Chapter 4 considers the construction of folk identity. The folk revival movement
helped create an imaginary space for the college revivalists to create their cultural,
collective identity. The folk identity was an amalgam of generational conﬂict, postwar
socioeconomic conditions, emergence of popular culture as a source of cultural
identiﬁcation, transformation of function of higher education in society, and
psychological necessity for them to construct identity. Folk identity consisted of
contradictory ideas that generated from the folk revival community connected through
records, mass media, marketplace, and person-to-person interchanges. This chapter. ﬁrst
clariﬁes the structure of identity and then discusses the process of mediation through

which the folk music revivalists constructed the folk identity. Although the chapters do

17

not follow a chronological order, they interrelate with one another. Because the folk
revival was not an institutional history, its structure and mechanism as a movement is
hard to describe chronologically. Rather, illustrating the movement from distinctive
perspectives is more appropriate.

The revival movement struck a deliberate balance between political
pamphleteering against the social inequality and abstract analysis of the postwar
American society. As their involvement in the civil rights movement suggests, the folk
revivalists demonstrated a high degree of commitment to social reform. At the same time
the revivalists shared a nuanced critique of the postwar afﬂuent society, juxtaposing it
with the folk community in which folk music had been produced. The postwar folk
revival movement was short—lived. It became a boom in the late 19503 and waned by the
mid-19603, giving way to folk rock and the consequent psychedelic rock. During the
period, the baby boomer generation began searching for a new way of establishing their
identity through cultural practice. The folk revival was a multifaceted movement,
rejecting simple explanations such as the reiﬁcation of leftist ideology, antithesis to
aggressive rock ‘n’ roll, yearning for the pre—industrial community-based society,
representation of youth generation’s conservatism, among others. While all these
explanations contain a certain degree of truth explaining the revival movement if we try
to understand the revival movement more comprehensively, the identity formation
becomes the key concept. The folk revival movement illustrates how individuals
construct cultural identity through the process of creating and consuming the folk revival
movement. Popular culture like music can shape people’s views of the world, their sense

of selﬂiood and community. This dissertation is an attempt to address the relationship

18

between the folk revival movement and its participants. The folk revival movement
helped shape and deﬁne the folk identity. I hope this project can clarify a signiﬁcant role

of popular culture which helped shape the revivalists’ social and cultural consciousness.

 

1 For deﬁnition of “subculture,” I rely on Dick Hebdige’s work. According to Hebdige, subculture is
“expressive forms and rituals of subordinated groups” and it is “both a declaration of independence
of subordinate status” and “conﬁrmation of the fact of powerlessness, a celebration of impotence.” See
Pick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style (New York: Routledge, 1988), 2.

Ibid.

3 “They Love Mountain Music,” Time, May 7 1956, p. 60.

4 Richard Dorson, “Folklore and Fakelore,” American Mercury 70 (r 950).

5 Robert Cantwell, When We Were Good: The Folk Revival (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1996), 269.

6 D. K. Wilgus, “Current Hillbilly Recordings: A Review Article,” Journal of American Folklore 78, no.
309 (July-Sept 1965): 281.

7.B A. Botkin, “The F olksong Revival: Cult or Culture?, ” in The American Folk Scene. Dimensions of the
Folksong Revival, ed David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel Original, 1967), 99- 100.

8 R. Serge Denisoff, Great Day Coming: Folk Music and the American Left (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1971). This is his representative work on the folk music and leftist movement.

9 Robbie Lieberman and People’s Songs (organization), “My Song Is My Weapon’. People s Songs,
American Communism, and the Politics ofCulture [930-1950 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989).
0David King Dunaway, How Can I Keep from Singing. Pete Seeger (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

1981); John Greenway, American Folksongs of Protest (New York,: Octagon Books, 1970); and Richard A.

Reuss and JoAnne C. Reuss, American Folk Music and Left- Wing Politics, 192 7-195 7 (Lanham, MD.:
Scarecrow Press, 2000).

” Josh Dunson, Freedom in the Air. Song Movements of the Sixties (New York: International Publishers,
I965).10, l 1 1; David Gahr and Robert Shelton, The Face of Folk Music (New York: Citadel Press, 1968).
'2 Cantwell, When We Were Good. The Folk Revival; Benjamin Filene, Romancing the Folk. Public
Memory & and American Roots Music (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000); Millie
Rahn, “The Folk Revival: Beyond Child’s Canon and Sharp’s Song Catching,” in American Papular Music,
ed. Rachael Rubin and Jeffrey Milnick (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001); and Neil V.
Rosenberg, ed., Transforming Tradition: Folk Music Revivals Examined (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1993).

13Robert Cantwell, “When We Were Good: Class and Culture in the Folk Revival Movement,” in
Transforming Tradition: Folk Music Revivals Examined, ed. Neil Rosenberg (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1993), 57; Cantwell, When We Were Good. The Folk Revival.

:Cantwell, “When We Were Good: Class and Culture m the Folk Revival Movement,” 50,54.

”Other sources about the folk revival include Ronald D. Cohen, Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival
and American Society, 19401970 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002), Dave Van Ronk
and Elijah Wald, The Mayor of Macdougal Street: A Memoir (New York: Da Capo Press, 2005); Oscar
Brand, The Ballad Mongers. Rise of the Modern Folk Song (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1962); and
Dunson, Freedom in the Air, Song Movements of the Sixties.

“T V. Reed, The Art of Protest Culture and Activism ﬁom the Civil Rights Movement to the Streets of
Seattle (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005), 289.

I l7Christopher Lasch, The Agony of the American Left (New York: Knopf, 1969), 175.

Seymour Martin Lipset and Sheldon S. Wolin, The Berkeley Student Revolt. Facts and Interpretations

(Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1965), 218.

19

CHAPTER 1

THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL MOVEMENT AND COMMERCIALISM

The debate over commercialization of folk music was one of the most disputed issues
throughout the folk revival period between the late 19503 through the mid-19603. As folk
music became a lucrative segment in the popular music market and an attractive subject
for mass media, a critical voice arose from the folk music community. The purists, or
traditionalists, of the folk music community argued that the essence of folk music lay in
the anonymity of the songs and that folk music and commercialization could not co-exist
because folk music was, or must be, the music that had been developed outside the
commercial interest. The defenders of folk music did not want contemporary folk music
included in their traditional folk music category. Meanwhile the advocates of
commercialized folk music, often called popularizers, thought that the essence of folk
music remained unchanged despite the change of the external structure around folk music
and popular music in general. They contended that the quality of folk music was one
thing and its commercialization another: the value of folk music should be judged by its
music per so, not how many copies were sold, and that the increasing popularity of folk
music enriched the folk music genre.

This chapter addresses several issues that generated the debate over the
commercialization of folk music. First, from a historical standpoint, folk music had been
commercialized well before the postwar revival movement occurred. With technological
innovations such as portable recording machines, radios, and record players, folk music

had became integrated into the music industry in the 19203, and thus became

20

commercialized. Along with this commercialization of folk music, folk singers sought
their means of income in the commercial medium. Put it simply, the notion of folk music
as something separated from commercial interest is myth. Second, folk music’s afﬁnity
with leftist organizations in the 19203 and 19303 created another myth that folk music
was a music hostile to capitalism in which producing and purchasing commercial
products were encouraged. The history of the Weavers exempliﬁes the complexity of this
relationship between leftist politics and folk music. Third, folk music in the 19503 created
new musical styles that attracted a new audience. The majority of folk revival enthusiasts
were the middle-class white college students. Bluegrass was an invention that can be
understood in this context. A number of folk trios and quartets in the revival era such as
the Kingston Trio appealed to college students through their harmony-based singing
style. Fourth, while the revival produced a new folk style like that of the Kingston Trio or
the Journeymen, the traditional style of folk music continued to have an enormous impact
on the urban audience as well. Judy Collins, Joan Baez, or the New Lost City Ramblers
were popular among college audiences. In addition, the Friends of Old Time Music
provided opportunities for an urban audience to experience authentic folk music that was
immune to contemporary ﬂavors such as the songs of the Kingston Trio and other groups.
Despite the fact that folk music had been a commercial enterprise since the 19203
and that most of the postwar revivalists had learned folk music through commercial
outlets, the debate over commercialization played a central role for folk revivalists in
deﬁning the revival movement. Rather than merely one of many musical trends in the
music industry, occurring in the late 195 03 and early 19603, the folk revivalists

understood folk music as an important cultural expression that represented their concerns

21

about society and themselves. For the revivalists, folk music was an enlightening
experience to learn and consider the concern between the postwar American social
condition and themselves.

To examine the way in which the commercialization debate shaped the folk music
revival and the folk identity, I use several primary materials such as folk music
magazines, biographies and autobiographies of folksingers, popular magazines for
mainstream readers, and newspaper articles. In particular, comparing the discourse in folk
music magazines and mainstream magazines allowed me to conduct an insightful
exploration of the formation of folk revival movement. The folk revival discourse
occurred not only within the folk community; the mainstream media also helped
disseminate that discourse throughout the country. The folk community and mainstream
media basically argued the same thing about the folk revival including the tone of
anti-commercialism. It thus can be said that mass circulated media is also responsible for
the creation of folk revival movement. This chapter illustrates through a juxtaposition of
the discourse within the folk community and that of the mainstream magazines that the
folk revival movement became the kind of movement acceptable by the majority of

population.

Folk Music Before the Revival Movement

As noted earlier in this chapter, folk music has been commercial since the 19203. Major
record companies like Columbia and Okeh scouted rural talents in the South to add to
their catalogs. Before long, other companies-major and independent——— rushed into the

South to conduct ﬁeld recordings. The music performed by the southern singers were

22

labeled as various as “old-time,” “hillbilly,” “or country” if sung by whites, and “race
music” if sung by blacks. The records were distributed nationwide via mail-order
catalogs and bought at local record shops in urban areas. Except for the rural people who
could listen to vernacular music at their neighbors, Americans ﬁrst learned folk music
through commercial records.

Radio, ﬁrst aired in 1922 in Pittsburgh, was another channel that made folk music
reach nationwide. Several programs delivered folk music throughout the nation. The
famous Grand Ole Opry, at which Uncle Dave Mason became the ﬁrst country music
star, began broadcasting on WSU in Nashville in 1925. In San Francisco, KF RC started
Blues Monday Jamboree in 1927 featuring country singers like Harry McClintock, who
composed “The Big Rock Candy Mountain.” McClintock also hosted a children’s
program on KFRC called Mac and His Gang during which he played his comic country
songs.

Radio also provided folk singers with a means of livelihood. In 1935 Woody
Guthrie left his hometown in Oklahoma for California after the devastating Dust Bowl.
He migrated to Los Angeles and found a job on KF VD radio singing traditional and
original folk songs. His folk songs successfully attracted widespread public attention.
Guthrie’s appearance on KFVD also brought opportunities to meet other prominent folk
singers like Cisco Houston and Pete Seeger. Not only did he befriend those folk singers,
Guthrie also met unionists, which gave him an opportunity to write a column “Woody
Sez” for the communist daily paper People’s World. In 1940 he moved to New York and
performed at a beneﬁt concert for refugees from the Spanish Civil War, which was his

ﬁrst major appearance. Soon he formed the Almanac Singers with Seeger and Lee Hays,

23

and they toured the country.1

Radio, from its beginning, was a commercial medium. Programs were sponsored
by corporations. Folk music programs were no exception. For McClintock and Guthrie,
local radio stations laid groundwork for their professional careers. For example, Guthrie
earned two hundred dollars a week, a huge amount of money at that time, for the Model
Tobacco network radio program “Pipe Smoking Time” in 1940.2 Guthrie’s success on
radio led him to another success: the contract with RCA Victor to record his ﬁrst album
Dust Bowl Ballads in 1940. In McClintock’s case, the popularity of his radio show in San
Francisco brought him the contract with RCA Victor to release records in 1928.

RCA Victor also signed with a Texan ﬁddler named Eck Robertson who had
rethink his career options in the period of transformation in entertainment. Before his ﬁrst
recording “Sally Goodin’ ” for RCA Victor in 1922, Robertson had been traveling with
medicine shows and playing the piano for silent movies. Robertson desperately needed to
ﬁnd a new medium in place of disappearing medicine shows and silent movies. This was
the reason he traveled to New York to audition for RCA Victor. A decade later as with
the cases of Guthrie and McClintock, he found a job at a radio station in Dallas.

As the genre of folk music became an increasing presence in the market during
the 19403, folk singers went professional and consequently the notion of authorship had
to change. One of the characteristics of being professional in this decade was the notion

of authorship. At the end of 1930s Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Lee Hays, and Millard
Lampell formed the Almanac Singers. They sang union songs and anti—war songs .
wherever they were able to ﬁnd audiences, mainly at union meetings. They also toured

across the US. A good deal of their material. was traditional folk music, and no individual

24

singer was credited as the writer or performer. The group held their principle of
anonymity, an important characteristic of traditional folk music. The Almanac Singers
did not last long. As the US entered WWII, some of its members joined the army and the
group disbanded in 1942. After the war, Seeger created People’s Songs, Inc (PSI) in
January 1946. It was not a folk group, but an organization to help singers write new songs
and exchange traditional songs. For this purpose, PSI published their ﬁrst monthly
magazine People’s Song Bulletin in February of that year. The Bulletin appears to have
had the same goal as the Almanac Singers. The ﬁrst issue declared:

The people are on the march and must have songs to sing. Now, in 1946, the truth

must reassert itself in many voices. There are thousands of unions, pe0ple’s

organizations, singers and choruses who would gladly use more songs. There are
many songs writers, amateur and professional, who are writing these songs. It is
clear that there must be an organization to make and send songs of labor and the

American people throughout the land.3
The statement very much echoes the activities Almanac Singers had undertaken. PSI
attempted to mobilize unions with folk songs, But, contrary to the Almanac Singers’s
anonymity principle, People’s Songs Bulletin gave individual credit to songwriters, a
departure from the anonymity practiced by the Almanacs Singers.

Along with the change of the notion of authorship, the folk music community
began establishing a booking agent for folk singers to earn jobs. In the same year,
People’s Artists lnc., (PAI) was founded. Directed by Bob Howard, PAI served as a
booking agency for folk singers to increase their economic return. PAI supplied talents
for any events—house parties, summer camps, union meetings, left-wing organizations,
and so on.4 The PSI’s abandonment of anonymity principle and PAI’s attempt, as '

“incorporated” in its name indicates, for the economic beneﬁt of folk singers marked a

departure from the traditional notion of folk music.

25

PSI, however, did not last long. After the defeat of Henry Wallace whom PSI had
supported for the presidential election in 1948, PSI ceased its activity. On July 1949, PAI
and PSI had a joint meeting to discuss the role of folk music for political causes. At the
meeting they argued: “the commercialized standards of Hollywood, radio, and Tin Pan
Alley have subverted the musical life of our country. The concert halls reach, at best,
only a very small portion of the American people, and then at prices usually beyond the
reach of working people.” Their solution was to promote “a music rooted in the
democratic past of America and which is an integral part of the struggles shaping our
country today.”5 They remained unchanged in their notion about the relationship between
music and politics.

On August 26, PAI organized an outdoor concert featuring Paul Robeson and
others in Peekskill, New York. The local people in Peekskill reacted negatively to the
name of Robeson. Since the 19305 Robeson had been the central singer performing for
the left-wing political cause. A mob of local people attacked concert-goers before the
concert. PAI canceled the concert and rescheduled it the next week. The rescheduled
concert was held without any injuries, but, after the concert, a mob attacked more than
150 concertgoers.

The Peekskill riots epitomized the anti-communist hysteria after WWII. At the
same time, it taught the folk music community that they could no longer reach a wider
audience through inculcation of left-wing agenda. PSI had already learned this lesson at
the presidential campaign for Progressive Party’s candidate Henry Wallace the previous
year. Not only did they see the defeat of Wallace, they also had to confront the breakup

between the Progressive Party and the labor movement. Because the labor unions had

26

refused to support the Progressive Party, the PSI’s involvement in the campaign meant its
loss of union support.6

As the historian Robbie Lieberman argues in her study on People’s Song, very
few PSI members had organic ties with the labor movement. Even though they were from
working-class backgrounds, Lieberman contends, their world view was close to that of
the middle-class Americans. People’s Songsters supported the labor movement not
because they shared the same experience with workers, but because they held ideological,
romanticized notion about the working-class.7 As declared at the meeting before the
Peekskill riots, People’s Songsters saw music as “an integral part of the struggles shaping
our country.” They had inherited the Old Left culture in the 19205 and 19305 and the
romantic notion of “folk” and “folk music.”

For that purpose, hootenanny was a perfect expression of this impulse.
Hootenanny was an informal gathering at which the audience was expected to sing with
others. There was basically no guest singer featured; everyone could be a guest singer of
equal importance. This practice of audience participatory ideology was part of folk music
culture, in contrast to the mass culture critics’ belief that an audience was to be passive
and forcefully entertained. In 1946, People’s Songs copyrighted “hootenanny” as their
title of folk performances. Consequently, in the late 19403, PSI published How To Plan a
Hootenanny and launched its own record label “Hootenanny Records” issuing 78 rpm
records. Breaking up with the traditional sense of folk music as anonymous product,
emphasizing the sense of folk as participatory culture, and distributing their songs .
through commercial channels, PSI combined the traditional sense of folk music with the

sense of entrepreneurship.

27

 

{—3

rte:

The end of WWII, however, marked an end of hope. As discussed, PSI’s support
of Henry Wallace drove the organization into a miserable state. By 1950, the American
Dance Group and F olksay became defunct. After the demise of PSI, Pete Seeger
organized the “Good Neighbor Chorus,” a teenagers’ chorus group. With his purpose of
the music-wfor social endswunchanged, Seeger tried a different approach to his music.
He observed in Daily Worker: “many ﬁne songs can never be sung right by soloists,
and. . .most glee clubs and chorus groups overarrange the great people’s songs which

”8 Seeger and his

sound best when performed in a direct and straightforward manner.
chorus group met weekly at the 110th St. Community Center and held concerts at
hospitals and welfare institutions. Performing folk music in a chorus arrangement might
have stirred controversy within the PSI/PAI circle. Canadian-born folk singer Oscar
Brand notes that in 1946 there were few “groups” singing folk songs because folk singers
were supposed to be soloists.9 Though not directly addressing Seeger’s Good Neighbor
Chorus, PAI’s newly launched folk music magazine Sing Out! printed a critical reaction
to the chorusing of folk music. It reads that “the compromising effects of commercialism,
political oppression, and the highly developed skills required to manipulate the modern
symphony orchestra and the equally unsingable cantata” isolate singers, “who know what
to sing and how,” from singing. Written by the magazine’s music editor James
Hutchinson, this statement demonstrates how the purist notion of folk music defended the
music from economic, political, and artistic intrusions. There was an assumption in
Hutchinson’s mind that a folk song could only be called authentic if sung by the singer

who knows the condition in which the song was created. We will see that similar

argument recycled in the midst of the folk revival movement between the late 19505 and

28

the early 19605.

The assimilation of folk music into the mainstream popular music, as Hutchinson
pointed out, was observed elsewhere. On January 28, 1950, a memorial concert for
Leadbelly, who had died in the previous month, was held at Town Hall in New York.
Produced by Alan Lomax, the concert brought a variety of musical styles, which not
simply proved the wide inﬂuence of Leadbelly, but also predicted the phase of folk music
in the new decade. The roster for the ﬁrst half of the concert included, New York Times
reported, “Woody Guthrie; the Trinidadian, Lord Invader; harmonica-playing Sonny
Terry; the composer of ‘St. Louis Blues,’ W. C. Handy; Oscar Brand, Edith Allarire,
Tom Glazer, Sidney Bechet (playing saxophone to the piano accompaniments of Count
Basie), and Brownie McGhee, Rev. Gary Davis ..., and Jean Ritchie 3’“)
Canadian-born folk singer Oscar Brand, one of the participants for the concert who had
hosted the folk music radio program “Folk Song Festival” on WNYC since 1945,
recollects the concert:

Woody Guthrie sang duets with Tom Paley right after Hot Lips Page and Sidney

Bechet blew some wild jazz riffs into the rafters. Pete Seeger led The Good

Neighbor Chorus in a program of folk songs, and W. C. Handy followed with a

few of this original blues. Jean Ritchie quietly strurnmed her Kentucky dulcimer

with a goose quill and then left the stage to Count Basie and is real gone piano.

Tom Glazer sang some old ballads, the Lord Invader jangled some calypso tunes

on a West Indian cuatro, The Weavers sang “Irene,” Reverend Gary Davis raked

the audience with his crude gutter gospels, and Bill Dillard’s band jazzed from
one side of the stage to another. There was genial Frank Warner singing a few
from his special, private collection—songs like “He’s Got the Whole World in

His Hands” and “Tom Dooley.” Finally, Leadbelly’s close friends, Sonny Terry

and Brownie McGhee, joined Sticks McGhee in some sophisticated blues. .

Brand concludes that the concert reﬂected the “American music today... the kind of

amalgam. . .which Town Hall provided that night—blues, ballads, calypso, and jazz

29

mingled in what is now popular song.” As Brand argues, the repertoire of the memorial
concert for Leadbelly went far beyond a single musical category. ”

The history of folk music in the ﬁrst half of twentieth century reﬂected
commercial concern, technological development, and leftist politics. These elements
affected the nature of folk music and became integral parts of the folk music landscape.
Commercial forces and radio served as channels for distributing folk music and helped
folk singers gain jobs which in turn made several folk singers known across the
continent. Records and radio were important outlets for folk singers, without which folk
music would not be able to be heard nationwide. Left-wing organizations played an
important role in disseminating folk music among union members. However, during this
time, there was a transformation of American society in which “the
mass”———working-class people—which the leftist organizations targeted, melted away and
a “new mass”————the population accessible to folk music via commercial

channels—emerged.

The Weavers

In 1948 he and Lee Hays, both Almanac Singers alumni, teamed up to form a new group.
They recruited two young performers: Fred Hellerrnan (guitar) and Ronnie Gilbert

(vocal) and named themselves the Weavers. At the very beginning, the Weavers appeared
at the same places as the Almanac Singers did: they performed at hootenannies,
campaigned for Vito Marcantonio, American Labor Party candidate for the House of
Representatives, in 1948, and made recordings for two small labels, Charter and

Hootenanny. Joining in boots, supporting left-wing politics, and recording for PSI-funded

30

label, however, resulted in little success. Hootenanny events by its concept did not bring
them money. As the Peekskill event signiﬁed, left-wing organizations had already lost
their power of mobilizing workers and therefore union meetings were no longer suitable
places to perform. Facing the reality, the Weavers looked for a more commercial venue in
which to perform. In late December 1949 the Weavers were given a chance to play at
Village Vanguard, an avant-garde night club in Greenwich Village. The owner Max
Gordon had featured some soloist folk singers like Dyer-Bennet, Burl Ives, and Josh
White. But a folk singing group like the Weavers was new to him. Gordon gave the
Weavers a two-week tryout. The Weavers proved remarkably successful and continued
playing there for six months.

Technically, the Weavers’s music sounded better than the Almanac Singers’s.
This may have been because individuals of the Almanac Singers lacked playing
techniques or because their ideological need to represent folk people hindered them from
playing skillfully. Whatever the reason, the Almanac Singers demonstrated amateurism.
Woody Guthrie once complained the group’s technical poorness, that “the ability to
perform, play music or sing, had ought to be the ﬁrst requirement. . .if it was going to
grow and spread and have a wide mass following.”l2 They were, in a sense, fortunate
because they were able to count on left-wing organizations which brought in an audience.
The Weavers in the meantime rehearsed and rehearsed whereas the Almanac Singers,
Guthrie joked, had only rehearsed on stage.‘3 Seeger understood Guthrie’s comments on
the technical problem of Almanac Singers. The Weavers pursued musical deftness. The
group was composed of four vocals: two low baritones, one alto, and one tenor. In

addition, the Weavers hid their leftist politics; they changed politically offensive lyrics.

31

Their songs became less politically charged.

After the success at Village Vanguard, the Weavers made a contract with Decca
Records. For their ﬁrst album Folk Songs of America and Other Lands, Gordon Jenkins,
who had arranged for Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong, made orchestral
arrangements. Gordon added strings and horns for song arrangement. The ﬁnal product
was eclecticism. The music, as Oscar Brand points out, “spans the possible gap between

”14

the rural sound and the sophisticated sound which everyone knows. They combined
“good arrangements, sound musical taste, down-to-earth personality[,] and feeling in
their presentations?”5 Their cover of Leadbelly’s song “Goodnight lrene” from that
album reached No.1 in August 1950.

The folk music community, especially the folk-left such as People’s Artist to
which members of the Weavers belonged, were perplexed about how to interpret the
commercial success of the Weavers. The newly launched magazine Sing Out! reviewed
the ﬁrst album with mixed feelings. Generally positive though, the reviewer described
“Easy Rider Blues” (Leadbelly’s cover) as “pretty stiff,” which present[ed] “some aspect
of Negro music.’”6 Irwin Silber, publisher of Sing Outl, reviewed the Weavers’s concert
at Town Hall: “The Weavers would have sounded far better in the more vital and vibrant
Hootenanny setting than they did in their formal attire of the Town Hall stage. . .. if they
are not able to be an integral part of the growing people’s cultural movement, which is
what I am sure they would prefer, they are still maintaining high standards of
performance and artistic integrity in their work.”17 As Silber points out, the Weavers

created a new “artistic integrity” in their work, which, however, made the old-guard folk

traditionalists question for whom the Weavers performed.

32

The Weavers were not a passing fad. They kept releasing traditional folk
materials with modern arrangements—“So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh,” “On
Top of Old Smoky,” and “Midnight Special.” They maintained both commercial success
and a high standard of musical taste. After the success of “Goodnight Irene,” the Weavers
toured the US. In August 1951, Newsweek reported that the Weavers earned $4,000 a
week, which was twenty times as much as they did a year and a half before. '8

The career of the Weavers in comparison with that of the Almanac Singers
indicates more than merely a shift from a left-wing folk group to a popular-oriented folk
group. It was easier in the early 19405 under the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal
policy to unionize. But the Weavers had to ﬁnd a new audience in place of those found at
union meetings or beneﬁt concerts organized by leftist organizations that had been losing
the power of mobilizing workers. The Weavers found their place to perform on radio and
at nightclubs and consequently made a contract with Decca Records. Also important was
the improvement of performance quality and breakaway from the traditional solo-singing
style. The Weavers’s stylistic change did not mean that they had given way only to their
commercial success. Not only did Seeger and other members want to play more
skillfully, they had to adjust to the transformation of the folk music world and beyond. It
was, in other words, a search for a new audience. The audience in the leftist sense had
been disappearing due to anti-communism epitomized by McCarthyism, and to the

general tendency of decline of labor movement. Thus, the Weavers had to reorient toward

a new audience through commercial outlets.

Bluegrass: Commercialized Style of Folk Music

33

During the folk music revival era, bluegrass was considered one of the most authentic
folk styles. Named after Bill Monroe’s supporting band “The Blue Grass Boys,”
bluegrass music gained popularity after WWII, and it appealed to the young urban
audience in the 19505. The musical origin of bluegrass dates back to the early twentieth
century when the southern mountain music was labeled as “hillbilly” with other folk
music styles such as old-time music and country music. Bill Monroe formed a band
called the Monroe Brothers with his two brothers in the late 19205 and earned spots at
several radio programs. The Monroe Brothers disbanded in 1938 and Bill formed a new
band, the Blue Grass Boys. Next Year, Monroe and the Blue Grass Boys made a debut at
Grand Ole Opry in Nashville.

In the 19405 the popularity of Bill Monroe and the Blue Grass Boys sparked and
they toured around the Southeast. The decade witnessed other popular bluegrass bands. In
1948 two members of the Blue Grass Boys, Earl Scruggs and Lester Flatt, left the band
and formed their own band, the Foggy Mountain Boys, named after a Carter Family song.
Scruggs, Flatt, and their band’s ﬁrst recording in 1949, “Foggy Mountain Breakdown”
became their signature tune. Another popular bluegrass band was the Stanley Brothers,
which was formed in 1947 and soon signed with Columbia. Inﬂuenced by Bill Monroe,
Ralph and Carter Stanley formed the Clinch Mountain Boys. The urban audiences in the
19505 embraced bluegrass as an authentic folk music. The musical characteristics of
bluegrass conﬁrmed that it ﬁnely ﬁt into the image of folk music: it did not use electric
instruments; it included a large number of traditional tunes; and it sang about lives of

rural Americans.

It is true that bluegrass presented traditional “folk” style music to urban

34

audiences, but we ought to recognize that it came out of the complex relationship
between commercialism and tradition. Bluegrass music historian Neil Rosenberg calls
bluegrass a “distinctive type of commercial country music.”19 According to Rosenberg,
during and after WWII when hillbilly enjoyed its popularity, the country music industry
developed into a more commercialized one. As hillbilly record sales grew, hillbilly
musicians began shifting their priority from performing at their local radio stations to
making records. In 1944 Billboard began listing “hillbilly,” which was responsible for the
growth of the hit-star system in the country music. Now radio stations began hiring
country singers who had hit records. During this transformation of the industry emerged
the Stanley Brothers and Flatt & Scruggs. Both groups had signed with small labels right
’ after the war and moved to Columbia in 1949 and 1951, respectively.

Musically, bluegrass developed its technicality during the 19405. In traditional
hillbilly performance, the banjo players used two-ﬁnger picking. In the mid-19405 Earl
Scruggs invented three-ﬁnger picking style, which enabled the banjo player to play more
melodically. Fiddle playing evolved into a completely different style from its traditional
Anglo-Saxon style. Inﬂuenced by commercial jazz and swing, the bluegrass ﬁddle
developed a clearly distinctive blues style. Bluegrass also incorporated other popular
styles from ragtime and vaudeville. Almost all bluegrass was performed by white
musicians, though, bluegrass reﬂected an interchange of white and black American
musical traditions.20

If the Weavers’s music represented the mixture of folk music and the mainstream

popular music, the bluegrass music blended southern white hillbilly and

African-American vernacular music. Understanding bluegrass as authentic folk music

35

would thus be inaccurate if we took “authentic” as something genuine or original in the
historical sense. The history of bluegrass reminds us of the arbitrary nature of such
notions as “folk” and “authenticity.” Bluegrass demonstrated its peculiarity in that it
represented authenticity, which satisﬁed the hard-core folk audience, and at the same
time proved commercially successful. The folk music revivalists meditated on these

notions or tried to articulate them. Commercialism was another important notion the

revivalists struggled to interpret.

The Kingston Trio

The debate over commercialism occurred again when the Kingston Trio released “Tom
Dooley,” a cover version of traditional folk song reportedly written by the North Carolina
old-time banjo player Frank Profﬁtt. It was released in September 1958 and soared to the
top of the chart in the same year. Like the Weavers, the Kingston Trio sang in harmony.
The three college graduates—David Guard, Bob Shane, and Nick Reynolds—created a
polished chorus with a ﬂavor of the Caribbean folk music called calypso, which became
popular a few years earlier notably by Harry Belafonte. Also similar to the Weavers was
their clothing. The trio dressed up neatly to be accepted by the mass audience. Pinstripe
shirt with button-down collar was their trademark and they wore crew-cuts and always
smiled at the camera.

The Kingston Trio came from San Francisco. Reynolds and Shane were in
business majors at Menlo College and Guard majored in economics at Stanford
University. Originally named “The Calypsonians” around 1956, they performed at the

local famous club Purple Onion. In mid 1957, the trio became the headline act for the

36

 

club. When Dave van Ronk, Brooklyn-born white blues singer, toured the West Coast, he
happened to be at the Purple Onion and saw the Kingston Trio.
The Kingston Trio had ﬁrst hit it big in Frisco, at a joint called the Purple Onion,
but their version of the folk crowd consisted of boys in neat little three-button
suits with narrow little lapels and skinny little ties, and girls in evening gowns.
Crew-cuts! ....My big problem. . ..was that I didn’t look like a folksinger.“
van Ronk had a similar surprising experience in Los Angeles, too. The people at folk
clubs in West Coast were “more like regular Americans.”22 The Kingston Trio adopted
the collegiate fashion from the beginning of their career. With pinstriped Oxford shirts,
chino pants, and clean-cut hair, the trio looked just a perfect normalcy of the 19505’
American youth and their audience looked like “Mademoiselle and Esquire fashion
models.”23
The Kingston Trio brought a new audience to the folk music world. They changed
the public image of folk music. Completely detached from political activism and social
rebellion, the trio and its audience represented the “regular Americans” of the 19505.
They were the idols for teenage girls. Life magazine featured the Kingston Trio on the
cover on August 3, 1959. The cover story reported that a thirteen-year-girl named
Barbara, who had asked for their autographs, was surrounded by the three. After she got
autographs form each member, Barbara “went to pieces.”24 R. Serge Denisoff
characterized the Kingston Trio as the “synthesis of the Weavers and Elvis Presley,”
pointing out their overtly commercially-driven but grass-rooted manner in their renditions
of folk materials.25

However, the Kingston Trio exempliﬁed more than what Denisoff had described.

The trio boosted domesticity which neither the Weavers nor Presley had represented. All

37

of them married before the age of twenty-ﬁve before or right after they made their debut.
The Life article aforementioned printed two pictures of the three couples. One of the
pictures shows their wives massaging their husbands between song sessions at a
backstage. The other picture shows each couple cuddling with each other under an
overturned boat on shore in New York. The trio’s early marriage well ﬁts into the
postwar domestic ideal shared by middle-class Americans, which was believed to bring
stability and security with them in the context of the Cold War and expanding afﬂuence
of national economy. A tint of rebellious or subversive trait that was able to be observed
in the Weavers and Presley disappeared from the Kingston Trio. For the ﬁrst time in the
folk music history the Kingston Trio successfully appealed to the very middle of the road
of American conformism. Not only did the Trio deliver their calypso-ﬂavored rendition
of traditional folk materials, they also embodied the normalcy of the 19505 by their

backgrounds, education, stage costume, and marital status.

New Lost City Ramblers and the Friends of Old Time Music

While the Kingston Trio demonstrated their eclectic interest in folk music, the New Lost
City Ramblers (hereafter NLCR) introduced the string-band hillbilly music of the 19205
and 19305 to urban audiences. Formed in 1958 by Mike Seeger, Tom Paley, and John
Cohen, NLCR attempted to recapture the feeling of old-time music, as well as its musical
style. Unlike the Kingston Trio who geared traditional materials toward contemporary
tastes, NLCR emulated much the same as they had heard from commercial records,
released in the 19205 and 19305. NLCR signed with Folkway Records in late 1958 and

soon released the ﬁrst album The New Lost City Ramblers. The songs NLCR selected for

38

the album included those of Gid Tanner & the Skillet Lickers, Fruit Jar Drinkers, the
North Carolina Ramblers, Piedmont Log Rollers, and other hillbilly bands, some of
which were complied in Harry Smith’s The Anthology of American Folk Music in 1952.
NLCR’s ﬁrst LP was, Robert Shelton reviewed in New York Times, a “ﬁnely wrought bit
of musical archaeology and reconstruction. The trio have [sic] recaptured the part of the
oldtime string bands with considerable ﬂavor and wit.”26

Tom Paley, born in 1928, and both John Cohen and Mike Seeger in 1932, were all
raised in New York City. They had grown up listening to hillbilly songs on records and
radio. Paley, alumnus of People’s Song, had been playing the banjo since the 19405 and
issued an 10-inch album Folk Songs from the Southern Appalachians from Electra in
1953. He was one of the performers at the Leadbelly memorial concert at Town Hall in
January 1950. Mike Seeger was a half-brother of Pete Seeger and brother of Peggy
Seeger. His father Charles was a musicologist at Harvard University. He grew up
surrounded by an abundant amount of folk music and ﬁeld recordings his father had
collected with the Lomaxes. Cohen earned an MA. degree in arts at Yale University.
Variously interested in folk music, photography, paintings, and ﬁlms, he was part of the
Beat Generation circle including Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and Robert Frank before
becoming a member of NLCR.

NLCR’s urban middle- or upper-class upbringing with college education, similar
to those of the Kingston Trio’s, nevertheless demonstrated a strikingly different notion of
folk music from what the Kingston Trio did. For the album cover of their ﬁrst album,
NLCR used a photograph—a man playing the guitar under the shade of tree——by Russell

Lee from the Library of Congress’s Farm Security Administration collection. The use of

39

 

F SA photograph during the Depression era suggests that NLCR was true to representing
the music they performed not only for its musical styles but also for its social backdrops
to “promote a sense of studied authenticity.”27 Paley, Cohen, and Seeger dressed in
turn-of—the-century plain clothing for performances, contrasted to the Kingston Trio’s Ivy
League pinstriped shirts. They replicated the authenticity of hillbilly music in the
depression era. Cohen recalls that NLCR “stood in opposition to the commercialization
of folk music which was being exploited by the Kingston Trio, the Limeliters, the
Highwaymen, the Chad Mitchell Trio. . ., and other groups with collegiate appeal.”28

As Cohen mentions, there were many musical followers of the Kingston Trio. The
Limeliters——~tluee men group composed of Lou Gottlieb (bass), Glenn Yarborough
(guitar), and Alex Hassilev (banjo)——signed with Elektra, an independent folk label, in
1959. Before the contract they had performed in Aspen, Colorado, L05 Angeles, and San
Francisco. Gottlieb, one of the original members of the Gateway Singers, was an arranger
for the Kingston Trio. The Limeliters was a folk trio skillful in playing and singing. Like
the Kingston Trio, their arrangements and harmonies were “attractive... and well
disciplined.”29 Their repertoire included such traditional songs as “John Henry” and “If I
Had a Hammer.” Gottlieb was also a seasoned comedian and he added comic interludes
to the music. The Highwaymen, formed in 1958 by Wesleyan University students, made
a hit single “Michael, Row the Boat Ashore” in the summer of 1961. Later they moved to
Greenwich Village and began performing at Gaslight Cafe. The Chad Mitchell Trio was
another college-originated folk group, formed in 1958 at Gonzaga University in Spokane,
Washington. In 1959 the Chad Mitchell Trio traveled to New York to perform. With help

from Barry Belafonte and others, the trio was given a series of opportunities to play in

40

The Cumberland Three were from San Diego. One of the members John Steward was
formally playing rock ‘n’ roll and switched to folk while in college. The
Joumeymen~trio of Scott McKenzie, John Phillips, and Eric Weissman~——had been
performing in Greenwich Village before they signed with Capitol in 1961.30 The Brothers

Four was formed in 195 8 by University of Washington fraternity students. They

They recorded their ﬁrst album for Columbia in 1962, and did a nation-wide college tour
across the US. In August 1964, the New Christy Minstrels performed at the Democratic
National Convention at Atlantic City, New Jersey.

In Greenwich Village, the folk music community was puzzled by the sudden
commercial success of these folk groups. Recognizing their musical technique, Robert

Shelton assessed the college folk groups:

A rash of energetic young trios and quartets have been turning to folk music for
material. With almost a surfeit of imagination and technique, these groups have
been tampering with enlarging and distorting folk songs: Viewed through a .
p0pular-music telescope, the proliferation of folk groups 15 probably the healthiest
thing to have happened in years to shake up Tin Pan Alley complacency. But
Viewed through the microscope of folk music, the majority of the groups are

41

wasting energy and talent and deﬁling standards by veering so far away from the
roots of the music.

Shelton, one of the most inﬂuential folk music critics in the Village, confessed his
uneasiness about their ignorance of the folk roots. He continues:
It is not a declaration of esthetic conservatism to say that the slower folk music
changes, the better it is likely to be. . .. most of the groups are simply taking the

shell of folk song without understanding, probing into or assimilating its inner
core.

young folklorist Ellen Stekert comments in a symposium on New York Folklore
Quarterly in 1963 that NLCR “seriously try to understand the culture from which the
song came and who try to go back and absorb this culture themselves so that they can
then produce stylistically the material the way it would be sung in the traditional
culture.”32 This kind of appraisal was repeated over and over by different audiences. For
instance, Sandy Paton, folksinger and collector, aptly summarizes the signiﬁcance of
NLCR in three points: the group emulated “genuine country music sound by drawing
their style, as well as their material, from early commercial recordings”; they presented
their old-time music to urban audiences; and NLCR brought “real country musicians into
the college festivals and concerts.”33

Patton’s third point refers to the Friends of Old Times Music (F OTM). In January
1961, Cohen of NLCR, the mandolin player Ralph Rinzler, and Izzy Young of the
Folklore Center founded FOTM, a non-proﬁt organization to bring authentic folk singers
in the south to New York for concerts. The ﬁrst concert took place on February 11, 1961,
featuring Roscoe Holcomb (billed as “Traditional Singer of Kentucky). In order to assure

the attendance, F OTM brought already popular three folk acts—Jean Ritchie, Greenbriar

42

 

 

Boys (bluegrass band), and NLCR. The second concert on March 25th presented
Clarence Ashley (“Country recording star of the 19205 & ‘305”). New York Times
reporter Shelton was pleased to hear “the real folk music, without any personal or
commercial axes to grind.” Clarence Ashley and his band (“Five farmers from the Blue
Ridge Mountains”), Shelton writes, were “as down-to-earth as the open collars and
galluses they wore,” which distinguishes them from “the slick, technically ﬂashy
Bluegrass bands that roam the South today?”4 The Village Voice editor J. R. Goddard
celebrated the “gen-u-wine article in country music” of Ashley’s performance. Like
Shelton, Goddard seems to have liked the clothes Ashley wore and the manner in which
he spoke, describing that he “sport[ed] an ancient hat and gallus suspenders over a boiled
white shirt, [and] drawled “ ‘Ah’m gonna turn them boys square at ye.’ ”35
FOTM organized fourteen concerts between February 1961 and May 1965.
Except for the ﬁrst concert at which popular folk singers already active in New York like
Jean Ritchie were featured, FOTM presented exclusively semi-professional or formerly
professional less-known folk singers living in the South, some of whose songs, like those
of Mississippi John Hurt, Clarence Ashley, Furry Lewis, and Dock Boggs, were included
in Harry Smith’s Anthology of American Folk Music. The audience who had listened to
Smith’s anthology might have been excited to watch these legendary singers singing on
the stage. The FOTM organizers did not necessarily detest urban pOp-folk performers
who “distorted” folk materials as some critics insisted. FOTM’s signiﬁcance is that it
brought a new dimension of authenticity by inviting traditional singers living in the 19605
to New York. The New York audience appreciated these folk performances not as

legendary singers who had lived in the past, but as performances of current musical

43

expression.

Young Traditional Folk Singers

In early 1961 when F OTM launched a series of concerts, collegiate folk groups had
dominated the national chart. But not all college students favored the Kingston Trio’s
style of folk music. In Greenwich Village tradition-oriented folk singers outnumbered
pop-oriented folk singers. This was true even to young singers. It was just a month before

the F OTM’s ﬁrst concert when Bob Dylan moved to New York from Minneapolis. He

 

was then a follower of Woody Guthrie and playing Guthrie’s songs in the Village. The
twenty-year-old, who dropped out of the University of Minnesota, Dylan did not model
himself after the college folk groups. He idealized Guthrie’s hoboing life and imitated it
in his way. Joan Baez, who had already been popular contracting with Vanguard, sang in
a very traditional manner—following the Marian Anderson or Odetta tradition. Born into
a wealthy family in 1941, Baez became a folk diva in Boston when she attended Boston
University. Her ﬁrst album Joan Baez in November 1960 featured thirteen traditional folk
materials. Phil Ochs was from Columbia, Ohio. Dropping out of Ohio State University,
Ochs came to New York in early 1962. In the Village, Ochs started singing at
coffeehouses and bars. His interest was politics and he produced a number of t0pical
songs.
Although Village folk singers and critics showed their preference for

traditionalism, it did not mean that college folk chorus groups were not welcomed to the

Village in the late 19505. With the rise of popularity of folk music among college

students, Village clubs and coffeehouses booked college folk groups to bring in college

44

students, especially from New York University. For the Village entertainment
entrepreneurs, collegiate folk music was a welcome addition to their programs. College
folk groups were sometime matched with traditional and veteran singers. For example, in
1959, the Tarriers participated in the beneﬁt concert for the F olksingers Guild, a
management ofﬁce founded by van Ronk. College folk groups were able to ﬁll large halls
with their audience. The Kingston Trio had a recital at Carnegie Hall in November 1960.
In August 1961, the Forest Hills Music Festival was crowded with an audience of 11,000
although its lineup was amalgam of different genres—~—Harry Belafonte, the Kingston
Trio, Chad Mitchell Trio, Theodore Bikel, Odetta, Miriam Makeba (South African
singer), Ella Fitzgerald, Judy Garland, Victor Borge, and Johnny Mathis. Rather than
being a distinctive type of pop music, college folk music became an integral part of the
popular music repertoire in New York.

This music was often matched with comedy. Before the folk music revival boom,
Village clubs had offered comedies, occasionally tied with musical entertainments. They
naturally set up the shows putting comedy and folk groups together. The Cumberland
Three performed at Carnegie with comedian Shelley Berman in March 1961. Reporting
that the concert was well received by a 2,700 member audience, Robert Shelton stated
that it was not unusual for younger comedians such as Mort Sahl and Bob Newhart to
play the theater and concert hall circuits with folk musicians.“ The Limeliters had a
cabaret comedy element in their artistry.37 But, the most successful marriage of folk

chorus and comedy was Peter, Paul & Mary. Before the trio was formed, Paul Stookey
acted as a comedian at Village clubs.38 At their debut performance at Bitter End in

December 1961, Shelton reported, Stookey “explores the folklore of the sports car with

45

some amazing sound effects. (‘There is a moment of truth between third and fourth
gears’)”39

At the same time, folk music promoters in Greenwich Village———clubs, coffee
houses, concert organizers—continued presenting veteran folk singers. Veteran singers,
who had been in the scene before the war, maintained their popularity in the Village folk
scene, if not nationwide. Odetta, Burl Ives, and Pete Seeger were regulars at concerts in
the Village and recorded for several labels. Black folk singer Josh White, who gained
fame at his performance at Cafe Society in the 19405, was still on the stage.40 He had
been constantly recording since the early 19405 for several record labels including
Village independent label Elektra Records. In addition, younger singers who pursued the
traditional style of folk singing—Theo Bikel, Jean Ritchie, and NLCR, to name a
few—joined the coterie of folk tradition. The Village folk scene was rich in its number
and variety of style—veteran and young, pop-oriented and traditional, white roots and
black roots, and apolitical and residual radicalism.

Although folk music magazines, professional folklore journals, and some veteran
folks singers expressed their distaste for the mushrooming of folk chorus groups initiated
by the Kingston Trio, the Greenwich Village folk scene integrated the new musical trend
into its gamut of entertainment. This is mainly because clubs, coffeehouse, and concert
organizers were concerned, ﬁrst and foremost, with their business. There was no reason
for the folk music enterprises to miss the golden opportunity of huge popularity of
college folk trio and quartets. Village-based record labels were no exception. Elektra
Records signed with the Limeliters in 1960. Vanguard with the Rooftop Singers in 1962.

While college pop-folk groups did not dominate the Village folk scene, they were not

46

excluded from the scene. The overall folk scene in the Village seems to have been less
ideological than practical accepting and exploiting every part of the revival movement.
The categorization of folk music, with strong connotations of its aesthetic value,
during the revival period became embedded in revivalists’ way of understanding folk
music. Many articles, from mainstream magazines to academic journals, discussed the
folk music revival, most of which associated its aesthetic value with the degree of
commercialization. Folk music magazines such as Sing Outl, Caravan, and campus folk
music magazines had pointed out the inﬂuence of commercialism on folk music as early
as before 1960, but it wasn’t until 1962 that mainstream media concentrated attention on
the anti-commercial aspect of the folk music revival movement. In June 1962 Time ran an
article featuring four female folk singers—Joan Baez, Bonnie Dobson, Judy Collins, and
Carolyn Hester. Titled as “The F olk-Girls,” the article portrayed the four singers with
“scorn of the “ ‘commercial’ ” as the bastion of traditional folk music. Citing Baez’s
words that “folk music depends on intent. If someone desires to make money, I don’t call
it folk music,” the article conveyed the sense that folk music was an anti-commercial
category, from which readers might infer that folk music was far different from other
genre of popular music like rock ‘n’ roll.41 When Time magazine featured Joan Baez on
its cover in November 1962, it categorized folk music into Commercial (Popularizer or
Impures), Pures (Authentics), and semi-purist (Adapters or Interpreters).42
Newsweek reported basically the same story as Time. Although pointing out that
the folk music revival had been ﬂourishing especially on the campus that had an .
“intellectual tradition,” Newsweek dichotomized the folk revival supporters into

“in-group” (which preferred traditional folk music) and “out- group” (commercialized

47

 

folk music supporters). The article then moved to the issue of money. Citing the words of
Baez again (“The minute you start thinking about making money, you lose your spirit. I
know I’m getting paid a hell of a lot. But I don’t care about the money”), the article
emphasized that the “real” folk singers were indifferent to making money.43

The self-defense of commercially successful folk singers like Baez, who insisted
that money was not their primary concern, became commonplace. They all expressed
distaste for being labeled “commercial.” Peter, Paul and Mary, with the huge success hits
such as “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “IfI Had a Hammer,” contended that their motivation
to sing was moral: “If they [critics] want to call us show biz, then let ’em call us show

biz. But if we’re show business, we’re something different, we’re show business with

morals [original italic].”44

Their insistence of priority on “morals” or “spirits” rather than on making money
came not only from the desire to differentiate themselves from other pop-oriented folk
groups including the Kingston Trio, but also from their artistic identity that they were
playing authentic folk music. Being part of a tradition of folk music, Baez and the trio of
Peter, Paul, and Mary implied that they belonged to the folk community that was based
on the imaginary afﬁliation with socio-economically marginalized people who
nonetheless, as the common men, have taken their hardship in stride. Placing themselves
within this folk music genealogy, postwar folk revival singers claimed that they could do
something more than the usual “show business.”

Their insistence on “morals” and “spirits” had a powerful effect on the folk
revival audience. Because folk revivalists understood that this was their own

socioeconomic conditions in which commercial-driven ethos had prevailed in all walks of

48

life and struggled to make sense of it, folksingers’ contention that morality was of prime
importance validated the involvement of the folk revival practice. Prioritizing morals was
the concern not only for successful folksingers like Baez, but also for all folk revivalists

and folk revivalists struggled to ﬁnd a way not to compromise their moral values in the

world of commercialization.

Broadside Magazine and Tapical Songs

The commercial success of folk chorus groups initiated by the Kingston Trio raised the
question of how to reconcile this new type of folk music with the traditional folk music.
Before the Kingston Trio, people in the folk community shared a sense of what folk
music was: it was a music sung by generation to generation; it was a medium for
left-wing politics; and it was a music for oppressed or marginalized Americans. The
Kingston Trio did not ﬁt into any categories of these deﬁnitive imageries of folk music.
The leftist-leaning audience tended to criticize the commercialism because leftist politics
had long antagonized capitalism that, they thought, had exploited workers. Folk music
magazines often printed articles on commercialization of folk music from both pro and
con sides.

In February 1962, a new folk music magazine was published by Sis Cunningham
and Gordon Friesen. They married in 1941 and soon moved to New York. They
befriended with Pete Seeger and his Almanac Singers members. During WWII, Friesen
worked for the Ofﬁce of War Information, but he was soon ﬁred because his political
afﬁliation in the past was questioned by the FBI. After the war when he was working for

CBS, the Red Scare pushed him away from the job again. Meanwhile, Cunningham

49

 

performed and wrote songs for People’s Song. Surviving the pressure of McCarthyism in
the early 19505 and witnessing the folk music revival movement in Greenwich Village in
the late 19505, Cunningham and F riesen conceived an idea to publish a topical song
magazine. They named it Broadside.

Broadside was exclusively a t0pical song magazine. In the ﬁrst issue Broadside
declared that “Broadside may never publish a song that could be called a ‘folk song.”’
Although Broadside admitted that “many of best folk songs were topical songs at their
inception,” what Broadside was concerned with were certain types of songs that dealt
with the reality—problems of current American society.45 Broadside decided to print as
many topical songs as possible so that the magazine would be a medium through which
political awareness would be diffused among subscribers. Following this editorial policy,
Broadside printed “original” lyrics of topical songs, and oftentimes their melodies, too.
The ﬁrst issue in February 1962 contained six topical songs: “Will You Work for Peace,
Or Wait for War?” by Agnes Friesen, a teenage daughter of Cunningham and Friesen—a
song against war; “Boxholder, Local” by Ernest Marrs, migratory worker——a protest
against junk mail; “Carlino” by Gil Turner—an attack on a reactionary New York State
politician who had supported building bomb shelters; “Little David” by Eddie Gottlieb,
school principal—a song against war; “Talking John Birch” by Bob Dylan, who had
already contracted with Columbia Record and whose ﬁrst album was about to come
out—a satire song about the John Birch Society; and “Come Clean Blues” by Malvina
Reynolds, famous veteran singer from the West coast—a song for strikers at the

Colgate-Palmolive plant in Berkeley, California.

Broadside often reprinted newspaper articles relevant to the themes of particular

50

topical songs. For example, when Broadside printed a song about the Cuban missile crisis
in October 1962, a clipping from New York Times reporting the invasion was laid out
with the lyric and notation of the song. New York Times was the most oft-reprinted source
for clippings, including Robert Shelton’s articles on folk music. Among other major
publications used for reprinting included Time, The Economist, The Nation, Village Voice,
and Life. By using clippings from major newspapers and magazines, Broadside

impressed the readers that its topical songs functioned as social commentary on several
issues such as nuclear weapons, civil liberties, the corporate responsibility, war, and the
civil rights.

Broadside’s emphasis on “topical song” appears, in part, to have been generated
from its ambition to publish something different from Sing Out!. As a successor to
People’s Song Bulletin, which was an organ of People’s Song, Sing Out! started in 1950.
When People’s Song Bulletin ceased in 1949, its executive director Irwin Silber
attempted to rekindle the People’s Song Bulletin’s mission by publishing a new
magazine. There were arguably ideological similarities between People’s Song Bulletin

and Sing Outl. Silber recalls:

an America based on the celebration of “working peOple” and the “common
man”; the trade union movement and the hope that it would be the driving force
for a “better” America; a commitment to racial equality; anti-fascism; and a sense
that communism as we knew it was a political and spiritual force in that process.46
Although Sing Out! ’5 ideological bent became thinner and thinner as the 19505 came to a
close, what did not change was no direct reference to the current social issues in America.

The decision of Cunningham and Friesen to publish a topical song magazine was

not ascribed to their sense of rivalry with Sing Out! alone. They had also complained

51

about pOp-folk music because it did not contain a political edge. Echoing the critical
theorist Theodore Adomo, F riesen wrote in the August 1962 issue that many folk songs
in the folk music revival movement were “songs of retreat and even passive submission.”
Singling out songs like “Tom Dooley,” “The John B, Sails (Sloop John B.),” and
“Railroad Bill,” Friesen attacked these songs because, in the case of “The John B. Sails,”
the level of lyrics were as low as that of “Amos & Andy”; in the case of “Railroad Bill,”
the corporate executive never worked for railroad construction; and in the case of “Tom

Dooley,” it was “just another aimless murder story no different from the hundreds of such

stories in the ‘detective’ magazines cluttering up our news stand.” Friesen concluded that

these three songs “give the audience some kicks. Hardly a sound basis for the growth

of a healthy folk music movement.”47

Because of his position as the publisher for Broadside, F riesen’s criticism might

give us an impression that Broadside employed an anti-commercial policy. But this is not

correct: from the beginning, Broadside did not take an anti—commercial stance. It is true

that the magazine printed many songs against big corporations and business corruptions

and ran articles discussing the malicious inﬂuence of commercialism, but it does not

mean that Broadside resisted commercialism per se. Broadside recognized beneﬁcial

sides of the commercialization of folk music. Broadside congratulated its topical
songwriters who signed with record companies even if they were major labels. For
example, when Bob Dylan’s ﬁrst album Bob Dylan was released from Columbia,
Broadside informed the readers of his album. Broadside hoped that Dylan’ 5 song printed
in the magazine would become commercially successful. The New World Singers,

Broadside noticed, “have just ﬁnished recording a batch of singles for Atlantic. Their

52

single-cut song “It’s All Right, Babe,” which appeared in Broadside a few months earlier,
“should be a real hit.” 48 When reporting a folk concert by Phil Ochs at Gerde’s,
Broadside wrote that his live performance was attracting “some of the bigger recording
companies. . .Let’s hope a contract will be waiting.”49 Broadside hOped that these songs
or singers, which and who appeared in Broadside, would become commercially
successful.

Since Broadside preferred to see folk singers becoming popular, it fought against
the media censorship that would prevent some singers from singing in certain venues. In
April 1963, ABC Television began broadcasting a weekly 30-minute program
Hootenanny on Saturday nights. Featuring well-known folk singers and groups,
Hootenanny attempted to capitalize on the folk music movement. Each segment was
recorded at a college campus and guest singers performed before college students. The
program, however, stirred a controversy from the beginning when it banned Pete Seeger
from the program for his alleged communist afﬁliation. The folk music community in
Greenwich Village immediately formed an ad hoc organization called “Folksingers
Cormnittee to End the Blacklist” to express objection against the ABC’s decision about
Seeger. Joan Baez took the ﬁrst action for the organization by refusing to perform for the
program. Other singers such as Tom Paxton, Barbara Dane, Peter, Paul & Mary, Bob
Dylan, even The Greenbriar Boys and The Kingston Trio, followed Baez.50 About this
event, Friesen wrote angrily that it would be a shame for ABC if Seeger was not
permitted to perform for the show because he had been one of the great folk singers
responsible for the development of American folk tradition. F riesen’s anger also. pointed

to the poor quality of the program. The audience looked bored because, Friesen assumed,

53

the songs sung at the program had no appeal to the college students due to the lack of
timely lyrical content. Here again, F riesen argued about the usefulness of topical song
because of its reference to social issues.’ 1

The interesting point in F riesen’s argument is that he appeared to want to watch
Seeger performing on TV. While disappointed by the content of the Hootenanny
program, Friesen did not express antipathy toward TV as a medium. From the inception E1
in 1962 to around 1965 when folk-rock emerged as an edgy pop music style, the

contributors to Broadside were comprised of both unknown and commercially successful t '7

 

 

songwriters. The most frequent contributor was Malvina Reynolds and the second was
Phil Ochs. There was “nothing wrong” with becoming popular, said Friesen, “. . .the
composer should try to reach his or her maximum audience.”52 Broadside hoped that the
magazine could produce commercial hits. While Broadside resisted the commercialized
folk music movement because the movement had produced de-politicized and neutralized
folk songs,53 it would be a mistake to assume that Broadside hated the commercialization
of folk music. In fact, Broadside held a distinctive position in the folk music revival
scene in which the magazine sought to circulate as many topical songs as possible no
matter how they were circulated. Seizing the opportunity of the folk music revival boom,
Broadside attempted to spread its topical songs to a broad and diverse audience,
maintaining its rigid criteria for the quality of song but being less critical about how the

song was disseminated.

Conclusion

Because folk music had been commercial since the 19205, the heated debate over the

54

commercialization of folk music in the postwar revival period seems to be odd. But the
fact is that many people in the postwar era forgot that folk music had been commercial
early on. This gap helped raise an aesthetic question about the relationship between folk
music and its commercialization. The folk revivalists, regardless of their positions,
contemplated the issue of “conunercialization” in the context of an emerging mass
culture society. Raising a question about propriety of commercialization of folk music, or
the debate over authenticity, enabled the folk community to reconsider the nature of folk
music and its relation to the postwar American society. Broadside magazine became a
vehicle for demonstrating the strengths of folk music legacy as social criticism,
reminding readers of folk music’s relationship with left-wing politics in the pre-WWII
period, and presenting an idea of how to reconcile the authenticity of folk music with the
American system of mass consumption. The anti-commercialization argument did not
merely show its conservative nature by attacking the changing nature of folk music and
defending the tradition but also reﬂected a transitional phase of American social
condition.

The purist notion of folk music functioned as an antithesis of the drastic change of
American society that occurred within a couple of decades, rather than as a direct
criticism to folk music whose value had been diluted. The purists, while expressing their
distaste for commercialized folk music and advocating back—to-the-tradition mantra,
delivered a message that something was wrong with over-industrialized postwar
America. The idea of authenticity was brought in to respond to the changing face of folk
music. The sound of college folk groups like the Kingston Trio was so different from

those of traditional folk songs. Deﬁning folk music therefore was an important process

55

for both defenders of authentic folk sound and popularizers to confirm the continuity of
the relationship between folk music and social condition, or at the very least, to learn the
history of folk music.

The contestation of commercialized folk music, the search for authentic folk
music attempted by FOTM, and nostalgic vision of folk music were collective reaction to
the “afﬂuent society,” also the title of a 1958 book by the economist John Kenneth
Galbraith. In this book, Galbraith pointed out the imbalance between private goods and
public goods. America, on the one hand, was producing an overwhelmingly large amount
of private goods such as automobiles and televisions, but, on the other hand, it did not
appropriately invest in social infrastructure such as education and healthcare. At this
same time the folk revival, with its leftist legacy and sympathy toward marginalized

people, became concerned with that other side of America, which was left behind in the

national pursuit of afﬂuence.

 

I Norm Cohen, Folk Song America. A Twentieth Century Revival [Booklet to 4-CDs] (Washington D.C.:
Smithsonian Collection of Recordings, 1990), 19- 22.
2Pete Seeger and Jo Metcalf Schwartz, The lncompleat F olksmger (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972),
32. The title word “lncompleat” 15 not a typo.
3Ronald D. Cohen, Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival and American Society, [94 0-1970 (Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press, 2002), 42.
Ibid., 42-43, 45.
5 1.bid, 62.
:,Cohen Folk Song America. A Twentieth Century Revival, 37. ,
7Robbie Lieberman, “My Song Is My Weapon”. Pe’ople s Songs, American Communism, and the Politics of
Culture, [930-1950 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989), 99.
8Richard A. Reuss and JoAnne C. Reuss, American Folk Music and Leﬂ- Wing Politics, 192 7-195 7
(Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2000), 233.
9Oscar Brand, The Ballad Mangers. Rise of the Modern Folk Song (New York: Funk & Wagnalls,1962),
106.
10 “Memorial Concert Honors Lead Belly,” New York Times, January 30, 1950, p. 29.
:lerand, The Ballad Mongers Rise of the Modern Folk Song, 142- 143
”Lieberman, “My Song Is My Weapon”. People' s Songs, American Communism, and the Politics of
Culture, [930-1950, 57— 58.
:Slbid” 57.
“.B A. Botkin, “The Folksong Revival: A Symposium,” New York Folklore Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1963):

56

 

96.
'5 Ron Radosh, “Commercialism and the Folksong Revival,” in The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of

the Folksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel Original, 1967), 305.
‘6 Cohen, Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival and American Society, 1940-1970, 79.
'7 Reuss and Reuss, American Folk Music and Left— Wing Politics, 1927-1957, 236-237.
‘3 Cohen, Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival and American Society, I 940-] 970, 79.
'9 Neil V. Rosenberg, “From Sound to Style: The Emergence of Bluegrass,” Journal of American Folklore
80, no. 316 (1967): 143.
2° John Cohen, “The Folk Music Interchange: Negro and White,” in The American Folk Scene: Dimensions
of the Folksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel Original, 1967), 65.
For the bluegrass musical style, see Mayne Smith, “An Introduction to Bluegrass,” Journal of American
Folklore 78, no. 309 (1965).
2‘ Dave Van Ronk and Elijah Wald, The Mayor of Macdougal Street: A Memoir (New York: Da Capo
Press, 2005), 123.
22161d.
23 David A. De Turk and A. Poulin Jr., The American Folk Scene; Dimensions of the F olksong Revival
(New York: A Laurel Original,1967), 16.
2‘ “A Trio in Tune Makes the Top,” Life, August 3, 1959, p. 61.
25 R. Serge Denisoff, Great Day Coming: Folk Music and the American Left (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1971), 167.
2" Robert Shelton, “Bluegrass Style,” New York Times, Aug 30, 1959, p. 17.
27 Millie Rahn, “The Folk Revival: Beyond Child’s Canon and Sharp’s Song Catching,” In American
Popular Music, edited by Rachael Rubin and Jeffrey Milnick (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press,
2001), 202.
28 Ronald D. Cohen, “Wasn’t That a Time! Firsthand Accounts of the Folk Music Revival, (Metuchen,
N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1995), 35.
29 Robert Shelton, “Modest Proposal for Disk Jockeys,” New York Times, March 6, 1960, p. 20.

30After disbanding the Journeymen, Scott McKenzie would write “San Francisco” which became the
quasi-ofﬁcial song for hippie movement in the late 19605, and John Phillips formed Mamas & Papas.
3' 32Robert Shelton, “Musical Energy without Style,” New York Times, January 8, 1961, p. 19.

32Botkin, “The Folksong Revival: A Symposium, ” 115.
33 Sandy Paton, “Folk and the Folk Arrival,” In The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong
Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York. A Laurel Original, 1967), 41.
3‘ Robert Shelton, “Folk Group Gives ‘Village’ Concert,” New York Times, March 27, 1961, p. 26. For the
history of FOTM, see the booklet to 3 CD set The Friend of Old Time Music, Smithsonian-Folkways
Recordings [SF W CD 40160], 2006
3’ J R. Goddard, “Folk Music. The Real Mccoy at P s 41 ” Village Voice March 30 1961 p. 12
3" Robert Shelton, “Folk Trio Heard with a Comedian,” New York Times March 13,1961 p 36. In this
article Shelton mentioned that the Kingston Trio traveled with Ronnie Schell

:Robert Shelton, “Limeliters Give Breezy Concert,” New York Times, October 30, 1961, p. 34.

:Van Ronk and Wald, The Mayor of Macdougal Street. A Memoir, 149.

39Robert Shelton, “Two Folk- -Song Groups Pursue New Trails, ” New York Times, December 28,1961,p.
23.
40 Robert Shelton, “Josh White, Son and Daughter Offer Folk Songs at Town Hall,” New York Times,
4September 25, 1961, p. 41.
2 “The Folk Girls,” Time, June 1,1962.

““Folk Singing: Sibyl with Guitar,” Time, November 23,1962.

:“Hoots and Hollers on the Campus,” Newsweek, November 27,1961.

“Alfred G. Aronowitz and Marshall Blonsky, “Three' 3 Company: Peter, Paul and Mary,” Saturday
Evening Post, May 30, 1964, p. 30.

:Broadside, no.1, February 1962.

:Cohen, “Wasn ’t That a Time!. ” Firsthand Accounts of the Folk Music Revival, 96.

:Gordon Friesen, “Whither American Folk Music?, ” Broadside, no. 11- 12, August 1962.

:Broadside, no. 23, March 1963.

49[bid

57

 

5° Nat Hentoff, “Footnotes to Hootenanny,” Village Voice, April 18, 1963. (Reprinted in Broadside, no.25,
Late-April issue, 1963).

5' “Bulletins from the Blacklist Front,” Broadside, no. 32, September 1963; Gordon Friesen, “There's No
Blacklist in Haven,” Broadside, no. 24, April 1963.

52 Sis Cunningham and Gordon Friesen, Red Dust and Broadsides: A Joint Autobiography (Amherst, Mass:
University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 296.

’3 Pete Seeger told the same idea about the role of television. See J. C. Barden, “Pete Seeger,” Hi Fidelity,
January 1963, p. 105. In this article Seeger also mentioned that his transfer from Folkways to Columbia
might have allowed him to reach wider audience.

58

CHAPTER 2

FOLK SINGERS AND GREENWICH REBELS

During the 19505, many young artists and activists lived in Greenwich Village in New
York. Political activists, abstract painters, Beat poets, journalists, avant-garde dancers,
actors, jazz musicians and folk singers congregated with one another and created
distinctive cultural forms in their ﬁelds. Folk singers had personal relationships with
Village artists and activists and constituted a part of the Village rebellious culture.

Greenwich Village became the center of the folk revival movement with many
folk music venues and institutions such as coffeehouses, nightclubs, folk record
companies, and folk music magazine publishers. The coffeehouses, called “basket
houses” because members of the audience put their money in a small basket if they liked
the performance, offered folk music acts to attract customers. In fact, many folk singers
including Dave van Ronk and Bob Dylan started their careers from basket houses.
However, folk music was heard not only in coffeehouses in the Village, but also often in
Washington Square on Sunday aftemoons where folk singers congregated and performed
their own folk music. The audiences and bystanders could listen to several types of folk
music from blues to bluegrass and ethnic folk songs.

A more informal style of folk entertainment than that at coffeehouse was the
hootenanny, a participatory-based folk gathering. Little boundary existed between
performer and audience, and, therefore, everyone could perform regardless of their
technical skills. The hootenanny had been a popular event before WWII among the left-

wing organizations such as PeOple’s Song to mobilize and show the solidarity of working

59

class people. In the revival era, such a political implication became less and less
conspicuous, but the format of hootenanny as a means to promote the sense of
togetherness remained.

The one place in Greenwich Village that best represented the folk music revival
movement was the Folklore Center. Started in 1957, the Folklore Center sold folk
records, instruments, books on folk music, concert tickets, and other miscellaneous goods
related to folk music. Located near Washington Square, the Folklore Center served as an
information vendor for folk singers and the audiences and as a place to meet these people.
Soon after starting the Folklore Center, the owner Israel (Izzy) Young began sponsoring
folk concerts on his own and in early 1960 co-founded the Fifth Peg, one of the first
coffeehouses featuring folk acts on a regular basis.1 In 1962 he co-founded an
organization called Friend of Old Time Music to invite southern folk singers to perform
in New York. Young himself and his Folklore Center functioned as a magnet to connect
the people who were involved in the Village’s folk scene.

Not only did the Village folk scene attract national and local media attention, the
Village also created its own folk journalism. Sing Out!, the most popular folk magazine,
had been published since 1950, and many key ﬁgures including Pete Seeger and Izzy
Young contributed articles to it. Less professional-looking than Sing Outl, but as
inﬂuential, Broadside printed folk songs on topical issues including Bob Dylan’s
“Blowin’ in the Wind,” and its singers committed themselves to the civil rights
movement. Caravan started as early as 1957, providing concert and record reviews and
articles, some of which were provocative arguments about authenticity-versus- I

commercialization. The town weekly Village Voice, a newly launched weekly paper in

60

1955, also covered the happenings in the folk scene in the Village. The New York Times
staff writer Robert Shelton, who ﬁrst reported Dylan’s performance in the Village,
covered various kinds of folk music events. The more pop—oriented magazine
Hootenanny, a companion magazine to the ABC’s program of the same title, attracted a
wider range of audience than these small folk publications mentioned earlier.

In the late 19503 major record companies were searching for a new youth-oriented
music after the sudden decline of rock ‘n’ roll craze, and they began cultivating the folk
music genre. Besides the major record companies like Columbia and Decca, there were
independent folk-specialty labels such as Folkways and Elektra in the Village.
Independent labels were not vulnerable to the major labels; they had released a
signiﬁcant number of folk records and laid the groundwork for expansion of interest in
folk music among the young generation, especially, college students.

This chapter explores the characteristics of Village culture and its relationship
with the folk revival movement. By examining folk singers in the Village and their
relationships with other cultural and political ﬁgures, I attempt to place the folk revival
movement in a broader context of American youth culture in the 19503 and early 19605.
My contention in this chapter is that the culture of Greenwich Village in this period

represents to a great extent the mindset of suburban middle-class youth throughout the
nation. From the Beat Generation to the folk revivalists, the young cultural rebels in the
Village created distinctive cultural practice derived from their middle-class anxiety.
Also in this chapter, particular attention is paid to the relationship between folk
singers and Beat writers, especially their way of understanding artistic identities. in

relation to the postwar American society. The Beats and Village folk singers, as well as

61

artists in other genres, held a common understanding of American society. Having lived
in a society of conformity under the Cold War political tension, these two groups saw
beautiful and simple people as beaten by the society or marginalized by the urbanization
of society. To Beat writers, these beautiful and simple people were black hipsters, and, to
folk revivalists, they were authentic folk singers living in the South.

Both Beat writers and folk revivalists romanticized the culture of others. The Beat
writers embraced African Americans’ bebop, from which they found the notion of
spontaneity or improvisation——something lost in American mainstream that was
controlled by scientiﬁc management and calculation. They thought that the notion of
spontaneity could be their personal revolt against a predominant force of corporate
liberalism.2 Folk revivalists embraced the folk singing tradition still alive in a rural region
that had been alienated from mainstream American geopolitics. They incorporated this
tradition of embracing others’ cultures into their own social backgrounds as middle-class
whites to create their folk revival culture.

Relying on autobiographies by several authors from different ﬁelds who
contributed to making the Village rebellious culture in the 19508, I attempt in this chapter
to construct an overview of the Greenwich Village cultural milieu that has more to do
with the creation of the folk revival movement. Since the folk revival movement was
primarily a culture of the middle-class white students, the selection of figures that appears
in this chapter represents this constituency. I argue that most of the Village cultural
ﬁgures shared the concern that folk revivalists had about American society and its
connection to identity formation. Most of the Greenwich Village rebels were middle-

class, college-educated dropouts or graduates from Cold War suburban families. No

62

matter what their political standpoints or what their works expressed, they were a
microcosm for what happened to the rest of the middle- and upper-class young generation

in postwar America.

The Beat Generation
Sociological accounts of the 1950s have conventionally explained that it was the decade
that overwhelmed individuals and forced them to become a part of the established
society. Sociologists, for instance, have labeled the Americans in the 19505 as part of
“the lonely crowd” or “the organization man,” for instance. David Riesman argued that
the postwar society associated with the Cold War ideological tension, suburbia, and
consumer-oriented market structure, was redirecting the American character toward
other-directedness. Calling them “the lonely crowd,” Riesman pointed out that the value
of other-directed Americans was determined by peer groups of the same social class, age,
and educational background. Meanwhile, William H. Whyte, Jr., called the new
American character “the organization man” who conformed to the system in which he
was employed and who believed in the “Social Ethic” that legitimized social pressure
against the individual. “Social Ethic,” White deﬁned, had three propositions: a belief in
the group, a belief in belongingness, and a belief in the application of science to achieve
the belongingness.3

The Beat Generation was one of the ﬁrst cultural movements that challenged such
a granted view. In 1952, ﬁve years earlier than the publication of Kerouac’s 0n the Road,
John Clellon Holmes published an article “This is the Beat Generation” in the New York

Times. In this article, which ﬁrst used the term “Beat Generation,” comparing his

63

 

a;

.k
v

81

ll I

ll

ES!

"8

lllli

ltc

generation to the Lost Generation, Holmes characterized his generation as having “an
instinctive individuality, needing no bohemianism or imposed eccentricity to express it.”4
Bohemians of the Lost Generation during the 19203, Holmes stated, were the people who
were “occupied with the loss of faith” and who sought “diversion” to ﬁll its blank.
Members of the Beat Generation, Holmes explained, were concerned with how to live
rather than why to live. They were motivated with the curiosity to live, which led them to
become interested in bebop, narcotics, promiscuity, existentialism, and hucksterism.

The Beat Generation was a generation that adored hipsterism. Norman Mailer
explicated the idea that being “Hip” was the key to overcoming conformity in his famous
essay “The White Negro.” The source of Hip came from African Americans who had
been living on the margin in the course of American history. More concretely, Mailer
pointed out, the direct source of Hip was jazz. Bebop jazz players in the 19405 and early
19505 represented the essence of Hip, living for immediate pleasures rather than
postponing satisfaction associated with the Social Ethic. Having adapted this ethos, more
and more white middle-class youth began spending lives in their own way; they seemed
to “divorce [themselves] from society, to exist without roots, to set out on that uncharted
journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self?” They distanced themselves from the
white society to which they, in the sociological sense, belonged and instead invested
themselves into the African American’s marginalized culture. Jack Kerouac observed that
hipsters were the people who “looked like criminals and spoke a language sprinkled

’9')

liberally with such phrases as ‘crazy, man’ and ‘man, I’m beat. Hipsters possess “a long
line of personal experience and vision, nightlong expressions full of hope that had

become illicit and repressed by War, stirring rumblings of a new soul.”6

64

Yet the Beat Generation was not synonymous with hipsterism. While the original
hipsters were homeless beings in the sense that they were cut off from the rest of the
society and they found Greenwich Village a home, the Beat Generation came to the
Village to ﬁnd their home to ﬁll the emptiness derived from their psychological
homelessness. Kerouac was aware that by the end of the 19403 the original black hipsters
had “vanished into jails and madhouses or were shamed into silent conformity; the
generation itself was short-lived and small in number.”7 Thus he dreamed that he and his
generation of white middle-class Americans would live like the original hipsters. With
this understanding that the original hipsters had disappeared when the Beat moved to the
Village, we can read 0n the Road as homage to the original hipsters. 0n the Road was
published in 195 7, but Kerouac had ﬁnished its manuscript by the early 19503. On the
Road, Kerouac explained, was an attempt at “an imaginative survey of a new American
generation known as the ‘Hip’ (The Knowing) with emphasis on their problems in the
mid-century 505 and their historical relationship with preceding generations.” Characters
in On the Road hitch-hiked across the country, which “lasted until 1949 or so... the
19503 began a new sinisterness in America.” The Beat Generation, as Kerouac and
Holmes claimed, was their attempt to challenge this “new sinisterness of the 19503.”8

As Mailer pointed out, the Beats were more idyllic than the original hipsters.9 The
original hipsters came out of a “muted rebellion of the proletariat.”lo They were beaten
down by the society. As the marginalized, whose power could not be materialized in the
realm of politics and economy, they instead became engaged themselves in the cultural
arena in which they could use their spontaneity and primitiveness. Mailer, Kerouac, and

others embraced the hipsterism they discovered in African American culture, but what

65

they meant by “Beat” was different from what they called “hipster.” “Beat” was
conceptual and idealistic; hipster was more existential. In the essay “About the Beat
Generation,” Kerouac explicated the idea of “Beat” and “hipsters.” While hipsters meant
“characters of a special spirituality...the subterranean heroes who’d ﬁnally turned from
the freedom machine of the West,” the Beat Generation was “just an idea in our minds.”11
The Beat writers were born and raised in socially accepted white middle- and
upper-class families. Kerouac was born into a middle-class family in Lowell,
Massachusetts. He enrolled in Columbia University with football scholarship. Ginsberg
was a son of a teacher in Paterson, New Jersey, and also enrolled in Columbia. In their
novels and poetry, the Beat Generation nonetheless cast a doubt about the norm of class
they belonged to.12 The Beat poet Ted Joans said:
we’re the richest people in the world and yet we don’t have truth and love. It’s not
what’s up front that counts, it’s what’s in your heart and brain. There is nothing
wrong with material possessions. But you should use them and not let them use
you. I think everybody wants to conform, but the future of the world lies in the
hands of the nonconformists. . . .‘3
To become nonconformists, the Beat Generation disguised themselves as culturally
marginalized Americans from the middle-class norm. They were not able to ﬁnd out their
raison d’étre in their suburban neighborhood, which they thought was responsible for the
loss of identity. Therefore, they tried to ﬁnd a way out from their middle-class-ness and
found a clue in the culture of hipsterism from African American artists like beboppers.

Hipsterism, they thought, would give them a clue as to how to have “truth and love” in

the abundance of “material possessions.”

Postwar Rebels in Greenwich Village

66

On the ﬁrst night Michael Harrington arrived in New York from Chicago in the fall of
1949, he went out to Greenwich Village and entered a bar named Cafe’ Bohemia on
Barrow Street. The bar turned out to be a lesbian place, but he found it fascinating and
enjoyed a conversation with a lesbian woman.

The next night he went to another bar in the Village named San Remo on
MacDougal Street. It was, Harrington called, the “united front of the Village.” The
customers of San Remo consisted of diverse groups of artists: old writers like Maxwell
Bodenheim and James Agee; writers of younger generation like Allen Ginsberg, Jack
Kerouac, Larry Rivers, and Paul Goodman; dance revolutionaries Julian Beck and Judith
Marina, who would found The Living Theatre; avant-garde dancer Merce Cunningham
and his associate composer John Cage; and painters like William de Kooning, Franz
Klein, and Jackson Pollock. San Remo was also a place for many seamen, some of whom
had joined the Spanish Civil War or were communist party members.

In fact, Jack Kerouac’s novel The Subterraneans describes the people at San
Remo through the eyes of the Ginsberg character Adam Moorad, who were “hip without
being slick, they are intelligent without being corny, they are intellectual as hell and
know all about Pound without being pretentious or talking too much about it, they are
very quiet, they are very Christlike.”M

In addition to the diversity of customers, San Remo was an interracial tavern. A
year later, Harrington took his female friend, who had come from his hometown St.
Louis, to Sam Remo to show her the “real” Village. When they went into the bar, he
noticed that she visibly stiffened not because she encountered some homosexual

customers but because she witnessed that white girls were sitting with black men to

67

chat.l5
Despite such nervousness about cross-racial relationship and other social norms,

some bars in the Village like Sam Remo challenged these norms. Cedar Tavern, on
University Place between Eighth and Ninth Street, was always packed with painters. By
the mid-19505, after the death of Jackson Pollock, Cedar Tavern became a place of
intersection between the ﬁrst and second generations of abstract expressionists, who
called themselves the “New York School.” Although Cedar Tavern was not necessarily
tolerant toward homosexuals and “beatniks”——-a sign “No Beatniks Allowed” appeared on
the door——,’6 its patron painters such as de Kooning and Kline mingled with homosexuals
or beatniks just as the patrons at the San Remo or the White Horse had.

The White Horse Tavern, on Hudson and the Eleventh Street, was another popular
hangout place among the literary and artistic circles. White Horse were famous for the
fact that poet Dylan Thomas frequented the bar and had died at thirty-nine when he was
drinking there in 1953. After the death of Thomas, the White Horse kept attracting young
writers such as Norman Mailer, James Baldwin, Seymour Krim, and Dan Wakeﬁeld.
Vance Bourjaily, who wrote a novel The End of My Life, held a regular Sunday meeting
of writers at the bar. In attendance were Calder Willingham, John Aldridge, John Clellon
Holmes, Herman Wouk, and Norman Mailer.

In addition to writers, musicians, actors, and painters, young politicos also were
important to the Greenwich Village rebellious culture in the 19503. The Young
Democratic Party operative Daniel Moynihan was one of the patrons of the White Horse
Tavern. The Catholic Worker leader Dorothy Day was on the scene and Harrington

worked at Day’s hospitality house for a while before he established the Young Socialist

68

League in 1954. It was at the White Horse tavern that the young journalist Dan Wakeﬁeld
from Indiana received an offer to write book reviews for Commonweal, the liberal
Catholic magazine. The ofﬁce of The Nation magazine was located on Sixth Avenue.
Journalists and activists from different institutions gathered at bars in the Village and
developed friendships despite their ideological differences.

If bohemianism means, as Holmes suggests in his “This is the Beat Generation”
essay comparing the Beat Generation with the Lost Generation, an escape from the social
reality surrounding artists or an attitude seeking a haven from undesirable social
conditions, the young artists and writers in Greenwich Village in the 1950s did not ﬁt
well into such a deﬁnition. The Beat Generation and postwar rebels had little of the
cynicism or nihilism that the Lost Generation did. What they sought was faith—~faith in
themselves and faith in America. They had an “instinctive individuality,” which
contradicts the sociological explanation about the young generation of the 19505. Holmes
explains that the Beat Generation children were brought up during the collective bad
circumstances such as the Depression and WWII. Thus they had little trust in collectivity
and conformism.17

Harrington, born in St. Louis to a middle-class family, described himself and his
cohorts in the Village as “voluntary exiles from a middle class.”'8 In the era of the baby
boomer, economic afﬂuence, the collapse of institutions of social control including the
family, and increased enrollment ,in universities, the traditional work ethic became more
and more obsolete. Growing up in a nuclear family, baby boomers were taken care of;
they had leisure time and didn’t need to work in order to survive. For Harrington and

others, the middle-class norm with which their parents grew up, did not work as a role

69

model for them. That norm was like a vacuum which left them directionless.

In the 19405 and 19503, the Village culture was constructed not only by the
people from families with radical leanings, but also by the people from the middle-class
suburban baby boomers with no particular radical background. As discussed earlier, most
of the Beat Writers came from the middle-class families and, voluntarily, dropped out of
the mainstream American norm or became critical of it. As an ideological haven,
Greenwich Village was a suitable place for them. In the Village they could be free from
the middle—class norm that had bound them.

Folk singers in the Village held the same view about American society as many
Village artists and writers. John Cohen, a member of the New Lost City Ramblers,
moved to the Village in 195 7. Like the Beat writers, he felt a sense of emptiness in the
postwar American society and in his self-identity. To Cohen, the southern old-time music
was his artistic solution equivalent to Beat poets’ interest in jazz and poetry reading.
Cohen’s fascination with southern folk music provided him with an imaginary connection
to the rural ideal life and a sense of community. His embrace of the southern hillbilly
music was not so much a concern with social reform or socialist ideologue as “a search

for real and human values.”19

Cohen and other Village artists believed that the problem
needing to be solved was not the social system but how they would survive in the postwar

entanglement of political, social, and cultural conditions that were all transforming into a

disturbing new era.

Washington Square and hootenanny

During the 1950s, Cohen and other Village folk singers frequented bars and cafes along

70

with well-known Beat writers and other artists. At the White Horse Tavern, for instance,
the Clancy Brothers, an Irish folk group, sang their Irish rebellion songs, in which young
Mary Travers of future Peter, Paul & Mary would join.20 It was at the Five Spot, a jazz
club, that Ginsberg met Harry Smith for the ﬁrst time, who is now regarded as one of the
most important ﬁgures responsible for creating the folk music revival movement, with his
1952 6-LP folk music collection The Anthology of A merican Folk Music for Folkway
Records.21

In addition to bars in the Village, folk singers had another heir place to perform
within the Village. As stated in the introduction to this chapter, since the early 19505 folk
singers and audiences had gathered at Washington Square on every Sunday from April to
October to sing and play folk songs. It was a free concert played by anyone who wanted
to play. The Sunday gathering in Washington Square attracted many onlookers including
tourists. Around the mid-19505, according to Dave Van Ronk, Washington Square
offered ﬁve types of folk performances. First, there were dance groups which he calls
“The Zionists.” By the 19405 several folk dance groups had been active in New York.
The most notable was the American Square Dance Group, founded by Margot Mayo. The
dance company had much to do with folk music. Izzy Young, who would later found the
Folklore Center, recalls that when he went to Mayo’s American Square Dance Group in
1945 he heard Alan Lomax’s records like Mountain Frolic and Listen to Our Story being
played.22 Mayo’s dance company was one of the participants of the ﬁrst hootenanny
“Grapes of Wrath Evening” that took place in March 3, 1940, at Forrest Theater with
many folk singers such as Aunt Molly Jackson, Leadbelly, Bess & Alan Lomax, Burl

Ives, Woody Guthrie, Golden Gate Quartet, and Pete Seeger.23

71

The second type was the singers who sang old union songs. Van Ronk calls them
“Stalinists,” or “LYL-ers” [Labor Youth League]. This type represented the legacy of
folk music in previous decades when folk music was strongly associated with leftist
politics. Singers who belonged to People’s Song like Jerry Silverman were categorized
into this type. However, the political atmosphere had changed and the union movement
lost its edge.

The third consisted of bluegrass players. Discussed in the previous chapter,
bluegrass music advertised itself as an authentic country style although it was actually an
eclecticism of several sources. The urban audience in the Village embraced bluegrass as
an authentic folk music. Bluegrass enabled its players to develop various kinds of playing
styles. For banjo playing, Earl Scruggs began unconventional three-ﬁnger picking. Roger
Sprung developed a distinctive banjo playing style called “progressive bluegrass,”
blending elements of jazz and popular music. Scruggs was born and raised in the
Piedmont region of North Carolina surrounded by old-time music. On the other hand,
Sprung was a New Yorker, born in Manhattan in 1930. Sprung’s family members played
various instruments and he began playing the piano at the age of ﬁve. At eighteen he
began playing the banjo, triggered by his frequent visits to Washington Square. The
bluegrass players such as Sprung and Scruggs—composed of city-bred and mountain
players—at Washington Square represented a new constituency of folk music revival.
Contrary to the ﬁrst (folk dance) and second (union songs) types, both of which had
continuity of prewar folk music tradition, the bluegrass music demonstrated a new
synthesis of traditional folk music, jazz, and popular music.

The fourth and ﬁfth categories were ballad singers and blues singers, which,

72

according to van Ronk, made up the majority of Washington Square’s folk performers.24
A New York Times article in 1959 about the Sunday singing at Washington Square,
headlined “Balladeers Drawing Visitors to Park Every Sunday,” reported that the most
popular instrument was the guitar. The singers with guitars learned their ballad and blues
songs from books and records; very few were original.25 Van Ronk himself was known as
a blues singer. Like van Ronk, most of the blues and ballad singers at Washington Square
were young whites. Some singers such as Jean Ritchie came from the southern region of
the country, but some others like van Ronk were city dwellers.

The Washington Square folksinging was a gathering that had spontaneously
developed. No organizer or sponsor existed. There was no ofﬁcial program that told who
would sing at a particular date. There was no publicity. Singers and audiences would not
know what was to happen at the fountain in the Square until they actually arrived.
Anyone could sing with their instruments. Most of the audience came from outside the
Village. One Villager conﬁrmed that ninety percent of them were tourists from Brooklyn
and the Bronx.26 The singers and the audience who gathered at Washington Square
represented a miniature of the folk music revival movement. These impromptu concerts
provided a wide range of folk music performed by a variety of people and attracted many
onlookers.

Another important informal gathering for folk singers in the Village was the
hootenanny. Deﬁned by Pete Seeger as a “gathering of those interested in folk song at
which several singers sing folk songs,”27 hootenanny played an important role in
constructing the folk revival movement. Its origin goes back to the early 19403 vwhen Pete

Seeger and Woody Guthrie started a series of gatherings of folk singing to pay their rent.

73

As the participants of hootenanny increased in number, the gatherings held moved from
their apartment to Town Hall, and ﬁnally to Carnegie Hall in 1960. Hootenanny was a
long-established tradition for union organizers as a means to consolidate workers to gain
their political goals. Unions organized hootenannies to inspire political awareness in
union members. But as the time progressed, such political implications became less and
less obvious. Hootenanny became recognized as an informal folksinging party, almost
neutral to any political ideology.

As the term hootenanny became widely used to refer to many similar kinds of folk
events, the contents and implication of hootenanny diversiﬁed, but the basic concept of it
remained the same. According to Irwin Silber, publisher of folk music magazine Sing
Out], hootenanny is characterized by audience participation, song’s topicality, variety of
forms not simply folk. music but also other forms of expressions, and openness to
newcomers.28

The folk gathering at Washington Square and hootenannies represented important
elements that resonated with the rebellious culture in the 19503. Both folk events were
based on informality and togetherness between performers and the audience. These
events encouraged everyone to be a part of the event. This kind of participation culture
contradicted the dominant commercial culture in which the consumers and producers
were clearly divided. In a time when American industries were producing an enormous
amount of products and Americans could afford to buy them, the American culture had
become more and more divided: industries produced commodities and the rest of people
consumed them.

Also the Sunday gatherings at Washington Square and hootenannies provided a

74

sense of community with participants. In a time when the suburbia life style, from which

most of the folk revivalists came, had destroyed the community-based lifestyle, these folk
events revived the sense of it, if not a substitution for it. Less hierarchical, proﬁt-seeking,

and ideological, Washington Square and hootenannies in Greenwich Village best

represented the ethos of folk revival culture.

Coffeehouses
As it became apparent that folk music attracted many audiences, bars and clubs in the
Village, including prominent clubs like Village Vanguard, increased their bookings of
folk singers. One of the ﬁrst endeavors to focus on folk acts took place when Art
D’Logoff began a series of folk concerts featuring Pete Seeger and others at the Circle-in-
the-Square Theater next to Actor’s Playhouse in November 1955. Successful in the folk
concert series, D’Logoff opened his nightclub Village Gate in 1958.29 It offered jazz and
folk music, as well as comedies. Dan Wakeﬁeld remembers that at Village Gate he
listened to folk singers such as Nina Simone, Clancy Brothers, and Leon Bibb, as well as
jazz greats like Charles Mingus and John Coltrane, plus many comedians including the
still unknown Woody Allen.30

Meanwhile, European style cafe’s had been in business in the Village since the
19403. They had served Italian-style espresso and cappuccino. Patrons could spend as
much time reading books or talking with friends as they wanted at the cafes. The ﬁrst
European café was introduced in the Village in 1935 when Dominick Parisi imported a
genuine espresso machine into the Village to Open his Cafe Reggio. This was the

beginning of the ﬁrst wave that saw growth and proliferation of European style

75

coffeehouses in the Village such as David Grossblatt’s Rienzi (107 McDougal), Café
Wha? (on MacDougal ), the Lion’s Head, the Fat Black Pussy Cat; and the Figaro (186
Bleecker).31 Although they occasionally held art events such as poetry readings or
painting exhibitions, these coffeehouses maintained the European style—serving
espresso, sandwiches, and providing chessboards for patrons to play on.32

Then, the second wave of coffeehouse emerged around the mid 19505. They
began offering live entertainment including folk singing. Opening in August 1958, Café
Bizarre on Third Street was the ﬁrst Village coffeehouse that featured folk music. It had a
small stage in the back, with a sound system, lighting, and emcee. Folk singer Logan
English directed the show. The opening act was Odetta. Cage Bizarre also featured poetry
readings and poets like Ted Jones and William Morris read their poetry.33 Gaslight Cafe,
on MacDougal Street, mixed beat poetry and folk music. The owner John Mitchell
published The Gaslight Review, an anthology of poetry. It was a non-liquor cafe, but
customers were allowed to bring their own bottle. The most popular spot for poetry
reading, Gaslight offered several poetry readings featuring, for example, Allen Ginsberg
and Gregory Corso. When Van Ronk performed at the Gaslight, he experienced the
beatnik snobbery in which the audience members snapped their ﬁngers instead of
clapping their hands when they wanted to praise his performance.34 At Café Wha?, on
MacDougal Street, the show was split into the day-time part and the night-time part. In
the day-time part, audiences could watch all kinds of second-rate entertainments from
comedy, poetry, song, impersonation, ventriloquy, to hypnotism. Fred Neil organized the
day-time show. The night-time show, on the contrary, offered professional actszi youthful

comedians such as Woody Allen, Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and Joan Rivers, and

76

folksingers like the Journeymen.”

In its early years of the Greenwich Village folk scene, the way folk singers were
evaluated depended on peer approval. For instance, at hootenannies and Washington
Square, the evaluation of singers was ambiguous partly because they were free
entertainment and partly because there was no clear boundary between performers and
the audience. Most importantly, the folk music community was small without a sufﬁcient
number of outside audiences until around 1955; therefore, it had to be self-supporting.
Before the folk revival boom, the folk music community audiences were themselves,
their friends, and well-informed listeners. Therefore, the evaluation tended to be
subjective and self-celebratory. As the folk revival boom progressed, the number of
audiences who did not necessarily have extensive knowledge about folk music
increased.36 Some members of these audiences were even tourists, who just wanted to
enjoy a good time. Thus, a serious, or authentic, solo singing style might not be
appropriately appreciated by them.

After nightclubs and coffeehouses began featuring folk acts as commercial
entertainment, the standard of evaluation to a great extent changed. The owners of these
establishments began providing their own folk music entertainment by paying folk
singers and by charging customers to listen to folk singers as well as other acts like stand-
up comedies and jazz. The folk singers were inevitably evaluated in relation to other
performances. Therefore, they needed to attract the audience not only by their folksinging
but also by something else. For that purpose, some folk groups such as the Limeliters
incorporated a comedy ﬂavor into their folksinging. The most successful folk group with

a comedy element was of course Peter, Paul & Mary. Paul Stokey played the role of

77

 

C0:

C0

cu]

C0

C0

comedian entertaining the audience while the three sang with deliberate harmony.

Conclusion
During the early years of the folk revival movement in Greenwich Village, there was a
cultural force that attracted many artists and writers. There was a “cross-pollination of
music, painting, writing,” said David Arnram.37 The Village artists, Michael Harrington
wrote, built “a kind of organization of disorganization.”38 Challenging the ﬂannel suit
conformity under the Eisenhower America, the Village artists and writers built up a
community with freewheeling spirit. White Horse was their headquarters. Abstract
expressionists explored an improvisation and non-objective art form, rejecting narrative
and representational painting. It was in the 19505 that unconventional poetry by e. e.
curnmings, a long-time Village poet, ﬁnally gained recognition and he was invited to tour
campuses around the country. The avant-garde dance choreographer Merce Cunningham,
having collaborated with John Cage since the 19405, started his own dance company in
1953. African American jazz players and Beat poets collaborated to give improvisational
performances, which resulted in creating a new art form “jazz-poetry.” Improvisation was
not only what jazz players did. Poets like Kerouac skillfully improvised words on the
stage to go along with the music.39

The Village intellectual milieu in the 19503 demonstrated a generosity that did not
segregate particular ideologues. William Buckley, Jr. and his cohorts, who would later
found the conservative political organization, the Young Americans for Freedom, in
1960, frequented White Horse talking with lefty/liberal members like Harrington’s

Young Socialist League. There was, Wakeﬁeld recalls, so much “common ground of

78

conversation and interest with one another.”40 Conservatives and liberals shared concern
for the dignity of the individuals who were struggling for freedom against highly
institutionalized American society."'1 In The Liberal Imagination published in 1950,
Lionel Trilling, English professor at Columbia University, argued that liberals, regardless
of whether it meant leftist liberals or free marketer liberalism, shared the faith that human
betterment was possible. In Trilling’s view, both Buckley and Harrington were the same
“liberals.” Trilling’s notion of liberal, which included left-wing liberals, who insisted on
a larger role for government, and classical liberals, who demanded a free market, a
smaller role for government, and individual rights, reﬂected the Village cultural milieu.
There was not a clear distinction between right or left in the Village bohemia; They were
both concerned with the essential human being.

The folk music revival movement in Greenwich Village sprang up from such a
cross-cultural milieu of the Village during the period in which other cultural genres had
been creating new forms. Folk music itself was hardly a new musical form, but it
sounded new to urban audiences. Greenwich Village folksingers would soon transform
old and traditional folk music into a deﬁnitive expression of their ideologies and
identities. In the Village cultural landscape, folk music was not isolated, but it was a part
of the larger rebellious culture that responded to the Cold War political and social
rigidity. Abstract expressionists, avant-garde dancers, the Beat writers, and beboppers
intertwined with one another and they often showed their works in collaboration with
other genres. There were also socially-minded journalists and political activists in the
Village. Unlike the Village bohemians in the 19203 and 19303 who had been secially

marginalized from the American mainstream, the ﬁfties’ Village bohemians, who were

79

not necessarily socially marginalized but culturally and ideologically marginalized, chose
to live as if they were marginalized because they thought that the American social
condition had spoiled their essence of humanity.

The Village artists were not social critics, who would describe the problem and
how it happened, and then provide prescriptions to remedy social illnesses. Instead, the
Beat writers and the Village folksingers created artistic frameworks as a way to
understand the society to which they belonged. They voluntarily estranged themselves
from their white, urban, and middle/upper-class identity to create their own cultural
identities. The act of alienation linked them to the construction of their own cultural
identity embodied by their works and contributed to the creation of their cultural

movements such as the Beat Generation and the folk revival movement.

 

' For the history of the Fifth Peg, see Robbie Woliver, Bringing It All Back Home: 25 Years of American
Music at Folk City (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986). The Fifth Peg was renamed Gerde’s Folk City in
June, 1960.
2 Daniel Belgrad, The Culture of Spontaneity: Improvisation and the Arts in Postwar America (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1998), 197- 98. See also George Lipsitz, Rainbow at Midnight: Labor and
Culture in the 1940s (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 59-60.
3 William Hollingsworth Whyte, The Organization Man (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2002); David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd. A Study of the Changing American Character (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1950).

:Clellon Holmes, “This Is the Beat Generation,” New York Times, November 16, l952, p. SMIO.

:Norman Mailer, “The White Negro: Superﬁcial Reﬂection on the Hipster,” Dissent 4 ( l 957). 277.

6Paul 8. George and Jerald M. Starr, “Beat Politics: New Left and Hippie Beginnings in the Postwar
Counterculture, ” in Cultural Politics. Radical Movements in Modern History, ed. Jerold M. Starr (New
York: Praeger, 1985), 194.

:Jack Kerouac, Visions of Cody, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1972), 36- 37.

:Jack Kerouac, Selected Letters, [95 7-1969 ed. Ann Charters (New York: Viking). 226n, 409

9Fred W McDarrah and Gloria S. McDarrah, Beat Generation. Glory Days in Greenwich Village (New
York. Schirmer Books, 1996). 5.

0Norman Mailer, “Hipster and Beatnik: A Footnote To ‘The White Negro,” in Advertisements for Myself
(New York: G. P. Putnam s Sons, 1959), 373.

:Jack Kerouac and Ann Charters, The Portable Jack Kerouac (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 559.

:McDarrah and McDarrah, Beat Generation. Glory Days in Greenwich Village. 6

:Ibid, 5.

MJack Kerouac, The Subterraneans (New York. Grove Press, 1989), l.

Interracialism was not a ubiquitous phenomenon characterizing the entire Village culture, of course
Even m the late l9508, Miles Davis was taken to jail because he walked with a white woman (she was his

80

 

friend) to catch a taxi near the Birdland. James Baldwin was beaten up at a Greenwich Village bar when he
was sitting with a white woman. It was as difﬁcult for a black American to rent an apartment in the Village
as in any other white section of New York. See Marc D. Schleifer, “The Village,” Dissent 8, no. 3 (1961).
’6 Ross Wetzsteon, Republic of Dreams: Greenwich Village the American Bohemia, 1910-1960 (New
York: Simon& Schuster, 2002). 551-553.
'7 Holmes, “This Is the Beat Generation,” p. 10.
'8 Michael Harrington, Fragments of the Century (New York: Saturday Review Press, 1973). 43.
‘9 Philip F. Gura, “Southern Roots and Branches: Forth Years of the New Lost City Ramblers,” Southern
Cultures 6, no. 4 (2000): 63-64.
20 Dan Wakeﬁeld, New York in the F iﬁies (Boston: Houghton Mifflin/Seymour Lawrence, 1992). 81.
2‘ Paola Igliori, ed. American Magus Harry Smith (New York: Inanout Press,l996), 107.
22 B. A. Botkin, “The Folksong Revival: A Symposium,” New York Folklore Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1963):
106.
23 Robbie Lieberman, “The Culture of Politics: Communism, Americanism, and the People‘s Songs
Hootenanny,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 85, no. 1 (Winter 1986). Later in 1962, Mayo and Young
would become governing members for an organization to promote folk concerts called the Friend of Old
Time Music.
24 Dave Van Ronk and Elijah Wald, The Mayor of Macdougal Street: A Memoir (New York: Da Capo
Press, 2005). 42.
2’ 26Michael James, “Free Show In Washington Square Is a Hit,” New York Times, May 25, 1959, p. 1.
26Ibid., p. 34.
27 Peter Tamony, “‘Hootenanny’: The Word, Its Content and Continuum,” in The American Folk Scene:
Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel Original,
1967), 83.
28 R. Serge Denisoff, Great Day Coming: Folk Music and the American Leﬂ (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1971). 114.
29 Ronald D. Cohen, Rainbow Quest. The Folk Music Revival and American Society, 1940-1970 (Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press, 2002), 108.
3° Wakeﬁeld, New York in the Fifties, 157
‘ Oscar Brand, The Ballad Mangers. Rise of the Modern Folk Song (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1962),
165-166; Robert Cantwell, When We Were Good The Folk Revival (Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University
Press, 1996), 286.
”JR. Goddard, “Coffee Houses: Many Things to Many Men,” Village Voice, November 30, 1961, p. 1,
314.
33McDarrah and McDarrah, Beat Generation. Glory Days in Greenwich Village, 45; Van Ronk and Wald,
The Mayor of Macdougal Street A Memoir. S4, 71.
3Van Ronk and Wald, The Mayor of Macdougal Street. A Memoir, 146.
35 Bob Dylan, Chronicles (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 10-11.
36 David Hajdu, Positively 4th Street. The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez Farina,
and Richard Farina (New York: F arrar Straus and Giroux, 2001), 48
“Wakeﬁeld New York in the Fifties, 3.
:Hatrrington, Fragments of the Century, 47.
39David Amram, Vibrations. The Adventures and Musical Times of Davzd Amram (New York: Macmillan
Co. ,1968), 294- 95.
:OWakeﬁeld, New York in the Fifties 267.
4|Jerold M. Starr, “Cultural Politics in the 19605, ” in Cultural Politics. Radical Movements in Modern
History, ed. Jerold M. Starr (New York: Praeger, 1985). 244.

81

CHAPTER 3

THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL MOVEMENT AND FOLKLORE

The very basic concept of the term “folk” dominant during the folk revival movement in
the 1950s and early 19603 stemmed from the folklore scholarship. This folkloristic
concept of “folk” signiﬁcantly affected the way in which the folk revival movement
developed. F olklorists conceived folk music as a residual cultural form that had existed in
pre-industrial society before the advent of mass communication technology and
industrialization. Without technology to deliver it, folklorists characterized, folk music
bore the characteristic of oral culture. The folk music literature published in the 19203
and 19303 deﬁned folk song as a song “passed on by word of mouth from singer to
singer, not learned from books or from print.”l
During the revival period, the notion of folk music as an oral culture in pre-
industrial society was shared not only by folklorists and folk singers but also by the
young folk revivalists. Most of the folk revivalists were not disciplined in folklore, but
they embraced the folkloristic idea of folk music and became ardent publicists of the
concept of folk. In particular, college folk music magazines expressed their fondness for
it because it addressed social illness and presented an idealism of human life. What
captivated the college revivalists was the ideological background of folk music as a
music generated by the common people living in community-based societies. Perfectly
resonating with folklorists’ argument, college folk magazines advocated the value of
traditional folk music and its people, especially its “simplicity” concept in which a folk

song is created and handed over. These key characteristics helped the folk revivalists

82

101‘.

for

‘
E1)

of

e:

construct their social criticism and their own cultural identity centered around folk music.

This chapter discusses how the folkloristic concept of folk music inﬂuenced the
formation of the folk music revival movement. To better understand the relationship
between folklore scholarship and the revival movement, I ﬁrst survey the historical
background of folklore scholarship in terms of how it has dealt with folk music. Then I
discuss how folklorists in the revival period endeavored to convey the richness of
American folk music to the public. F olklorists in the revival period collaborated with
record companies to issue and reissue collection of folk songs and also provided a depth
of understanding of the music itself.

The folkloristic notion of folk ﬂourished most at colleges. This chapter also
explores the way in which college folk revivalists understood folk music and the folk
revival movement. They published folk magazines and organized folk concerts and
workshops at campus. Close examination of college folk magazines reveals that college
folk revivalists were the most enthusiastic supporters of folk music tradition and their
way of understanding was constructed within the context of postwar social
transformation. I argue that the college folk revivalists appropriated the notion of

simplicity from folk music and projected this notion on their own social conditions.

American Folk Music Heritage

The American folklore scholarship has dealt with folk music as one of its research ﬁelds
since the late nineteenth century. The Harvard professor Francis James Child (1825-
1896) is today recognized as the pioneer of American folk music scholarship. With his

initial interest in ballads, Child collected lyrics of English and Scottish ballads and

83

published a ten-volume collection The English and Scottish Popular Ballads (1882-
1898). For his works Child collected lyrics including their variants and provided each
song’s origin, theme, and alterations. Child’s focus was exclusively on lyrics, from which
he classiﬁed each song into different categories. Although Child’s focus was limited to
British ballads, Child’s work paved the way folk music should be studied and became a
canon for future folk music scholars.2

One of the earliest attempts to extend Child’s scholarship was achieved by the
English folklorist Cecil Sharp. In 1916, Sharp began collecting Appalachian mountain
songs, which resulted in English Folk Songs from the Southern Appalachians (1917) and
such-subsequent works as American English Folk Songs (1918) and Folk Songs of
English Origin Collected in the Southern Appalachians (1919-23), with co-author Olive
Dame Campbell, who had invited Sharp to the US to collect Appalachian ballads. Sharp’s
selection of folk songs overlapped with those of Child’s and he demonstrated his
adherence to Child’s methodology of text-based classiﬁcation by noting each song’s
origin, variants, lyric, and singer. Moreover, as these titles of books indicate, Sharp’s
interest in folk music was conﬁned to “English” folksongs or “English-origin” folk songs
heard in the Appalachian region.3

Like Child, Sharp held a Darwinian concept about folk songs noting they had
evolved through the course of time, during which selections were made and consequently
variants were produced. With the increasing degree of industrialization, Child and Sharp
thought, folk songs and the rural community, in which folk songs were created, played,
and handed down from generation to generation, were on the verge of extinctiOn.

Researching folk songs was meant to preserve what was doomed to disappear. During the

84

period in which Sharp lived, America underwent the transformation of social and
economic structures. Industrialization threatened to destroy traditional communal lives.
For that reason, Sharp romanticized the Appalachian mountain music, connecting them to
his idealized imagery of pre-industrial rural simplicity.4

It was John Lomax who shed scholarly light on American folk music in a broader
way than Child and Sharp had done. Born in Texas, Lomax was fascinated by cowboy
songs and began researching them in 1906 when he was a Harvard student. Lomax
published Cowboy Songs and Other Frontier Ballads in 1910. With this work, Lomax
added American-origin cowboy songs to the repertoire of American folk music tradition
that had been conﬁned to Anglo-Saxon origin ballads.

Despite his departure from canonizing only British ballads, however, Lomax
followed the path Child and Sharp had paved in terms of the conception of folk music.
Just as Sharp understood English-origin folk songs as a disappearing type of music
resulting from industrialization, Lomax characterized cowboy songs as an isolated
cultural form threatened by the increasingly modernized society and he thought that
cowboys and cowboy songs would disappear shortly.

Though not a professional folklorist, Carl Sandburg, poet and biographer of
Abraham Lincoln, collected folk songs when he traveled around the country and
published The American Songbag in 1927. The table of contents of the book shows that
he had an eclectic deﬁnition of folk music. He included minstrel songs, blues, Mexican
songs, work songs (e. g. for lurnberjacks and railroad men), war songs, gospel, jail songs,
and others. The diversity of folk songs in The American Songbag intended to reach a

popular audience. For this purpose, Sandburg put piano accompaniments to each song so

85

that the reader could sing the song at home or on social occasions.’

In addition to these individual efforts mostly in academic ﬁelds, government
institutions helped augment the notion of “folk” by incorporating folk music into a
national culture in the late 19203. In 1928 Robert W. Gordon, former columnist for an
adventure pulp magazine, was named as the director of the newly established Archive of
American F olk-Song at the Library of Congress (until 1933). Deﬁning folk music as a

“body of song in the possession of the people passed on by word of mouth from singer to
singer, not learned from books or ﬁom print,”6 Gordon collected 78 rpm folk music
records as well as ﬁeld recordings for the archive. He regarded folk music as a p0pular
format of musical expression of a people. His folk music included African American folk
songs and hillbilly songs, both of which academic folklorists had not included for their
scholarly purpose.

During the Depression era, the federal government launched the Federal Music
Project (which was changed to the WPA Music Program in 1939) under auspices of the
Works Progress Administration’s Federal Project to conduct ﬁeld recordings. Other
governmental institutions such as the Folklore Studies of the Federal Writers’ Project, the
Resettlement Administration, and the Folksong and Folklore Department of the National
Service Bureau of the Federal Theater Project, started their own folk song projects for
similar purposes. Key ﬁgures in these projects—Charles Seeger, a Harvard musicologist,

for the Resettlement Administration (and later for the Federal Music Project), B. A.
Botkin, a prominent folklorist, for the Federal Writer’s Project, and Alan Lomax, a son of
John Lomax, for the Folk Music Archives of the Library of Congress—contributed to

collecting a vast range of American folk songs collection.

86

501

110

The New Deal folk music projects also changed the way how folk music was
understood. Unlike Child and Sharp, folldorists in the 1930s did not see folk music as a
disappearing cultural form. Partly because the folk music projects were carried out under
the banner of rescuing the nation, displaying the evolutionist aspect of folk music would
not have ﬁt the New Deal agenda. Rather than focusing on old Anglo-Saxon ballads,
Botkin, Seeger, and Lomax instead worked for providing diversity of American folk
songs that would represent American ethnic and regional diversities. It is important to
note that the folk music projects during the Depression era were mobilized to inspire
nationalism into the Americans’ minds. Therefore, the selectivity characterized by
Child’s and Sharp’s works did not come up as a primal importance. To raise the national
pride, folk music needed to appeal to every American in every region; the music worth
being collected should include every kind of folk music. The Federal Music Project, for
instance, published Spanish American Folk Songs in 1937 and organized the three-day
“American Folk Music Festival” in 1938, at which people coming from all over the
country listened to patriotic songs like “Yankee Doodle.” The mobilization of folk music
as a cultural agent in the 19305 thus reshaped the course of the folk music concept and
transformed the cultural position of folk music from a sacred folkloristic interest into a

more secular and nation-wide project.

Folklorists and Folk Music in the 1950s
In the 19503, the folklore scholarship community relied on the basic concept of “folk”
that was established by pioneering folklorists like Child and Sharp. In 1954, the

International Folk Music Council restated the conventional deﬁnition of folk music; it

87

deﬁned folk music as the music “that has been submitted to the process of oral
transmission” and that is the “product of evolution and is dependent on the circumstances
of continuity, variation and selection.” Moreover, it separated folk music from any
inﬂuence of commercial force, explaining that folk music “can be applied to music that
has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninﬂuenced by popular

”7 Leading folklorists in the 19503 defended these notions of folk music.

and art music.
Richard Dorson at Indiana University expressed his disgust about the emergence of
commercialized folk music that did not bear traditional characteristics of folk music. The
growing commercialization and popularization of folk music, Dorson deplored, resulted
in the distortion of folk music. He distinguished the genuine folk music from the
commercialized folk music which he labeled as “fakelore.” Dorson determined his
distinction of folklore/fakelore on whether the music was a “synthetic product claiming to
be authentic oral tradition but actually tailored for mass ediﬁcation” or not.8

The problem of deﬁning folk music raised the question of the way in which folk
singers performed. In 1948, Musical America, classic-oriented music magazine,
expressed a concern about the contemporary folk singing styles that were “more or less
doubtful in their authenticity, much singing having been labeled arbitrary or capricious
aberration, rather than faithful interpretation.” Like Dorson’s “fakelore” argument that
attempted to authenticate folk music, Musical America criticized a propensity among a
number of folk singers to seek “quick returns on the radio, in clubs, and in intimate
gatherings,” without studying the original materials they sang, and stressed the

importance of recapturing “that which was felt and sung by its creators.” To do so, the

magazine contended, “one must go back to its roots, to its originators—the simple,

88

unsophisticated people who have not been affected by the entertainment level imposed by
the disc jockeys.”9 The article did not identify who were the problematic folk singers, but
it acclaimed those who would match the criteria of true folk singers—Josh White, John
Jacob Niles, Leadbelly, Burl Ives, Richard Dyer-Bennet, among others.

While folklore professionals debated over the changing nature of folk music,
popular magazines helped the American public appreciate American folksong or, more
broadly, the folklore tradition. Popular magazines targeting the middle-class readers
published articles that reported the richness of American folklore and endeavors of
folklorists who had collected folk songs. For American folklore in general, Duncan
Enrrich, chief of the Folklore Section of the Library of Congress from 1945, wrote about
“traditional knowledge and way of life of our people” in Holiday magazine. The essential
character of folklore, Emrich explains, lies in the “difference between the hand-made and
the machine-made, the nonstandardized and the standardized, the individual and the

mass ”10

American folklore is, writes Emrich, a “memory of the American past and a
living heritage.”ll Although Emrich’s article did not develop a detailed criticism of the
standardized mass society, it did emphasize the folkloristic value of true folk music
celebrating it as a defender of a traditional way of life and the people living within that
tradition. Time magazine, in 1955, reported that Emrich, born and raised in Turkey until
sixteen, was ﬁrst fascinated by American folklore when he moved to Colorado to take the
position of assistant professor at the University of Denver in 1940, where he heard the
song of drinkers, miners, and gold prospectors. He was a researcher of Arabic language,

but the songs he heard in Colorado “changed everything.” He began collecting folk songs

and, in 1945, was assigned to be the chief the Folklore Folk Song Section of the Library

89

of for

but:

113C

for

lit:

l
of Congress. 2

Harry Oster, who was teaching English literature at Louisiana State University,
hunted folk songs in Louisiana including Angola Prison at which Leadbelly served in the
1930s. Born in Massachusetts, educated at Harvard, and earning a doctorate degree from
Cornell, the folklorist Oster “gravitated to LSU because he was fascinated by the
diversity of folk music in Louisiana” and he “roam[ed] the streets and backlands of
[Louisiana] to record its rich musical patois—French, Cajun, Negro French, Anglo-
Saxon.”13

P0pular magazines, or middle-brow magazines, contributed to publicizing folk
music and to celebrating folk song collectors for their dedications to preserving the
American folk music tradition and spreading the value of it among the American public.
These magazines played a role in bringing folklorists’ accomplishments into the minds of
middle class Americans. From August 1959 to August 1960, Life magazine featured a
special ﬁve-part series of “Folklore of America.” The headlines for the series were
“America’s Legends,” “A Vivid Heritage Recalled,” “Tales the Indians Told,” “The Rich
Treasury of Colonial Tales,” and “Ballads and Tales of the Frontier.” The series ran
colorful illustrations of American folklore legends and heroes like Rip Van Winkle, Paul
Bunyan, and Daniel Boone, as well as the stories of western frontiers and Native
Americans, folk tales and myths, and so forth. In the ﬁfth run, Life highlighted the
famous folk ballads “Frankie and Johnny” and “John Henry.” The Life special series of
“Folklore of America” was reprinted into a book titled The Liﬁz Treasury of American

Folklore in 1961. The folklore series promoted the awareness of American past and

national pride in the historical perspective.

90

The promotion of richness of American folklore aimed not only at the middle-
class Americans but also at more sophisticated readers. The New Yorker magazine ran
articles about Frederic Ramsey Jr., a jazz historian, who made a ﬁeld trip in the South to
collect folk songs. His collection was released as ten-LP record series Music From the
South. Ramsey was enthusiastic to preserve folk tradition. He not only recorded folk
songs in the South but also photographed the southern folk materials and interviewed the
local people. The eminent folklorist B. A. Botkin, reviewing Ramsey’s composite book
of photographs, interviews, and commentaries, titled Been Here and Gone, wrote that

Ramsey’s work as a folk song collector helped make the Southern folk tradition alive.l4

Folklorists and Folk Music Records
Folklorists’ inﬂuence on the folk music revival movement was enormous. Not only did
they pave the way for the folk revivalists’ understanding of their country’s folk music
tradition and help them organize campus folk song concerts, they also inﬂuenced the folk
record industry. In fact, many folklorists worked with the record industry to produce folk
song records. Folklorists looked for the outlet for their collections of ﬁeld recordings and
record companies looked for materials to sell.|5
In a sense, the folklorists during the revival period were responsible for
preserving the tradition of American folklore. The New York Times listed numerous
folksong collectors including Alan Lomax, Carl Sandberg, and Cecil Sharp and wrote
that, thanks to them and phonograph technology, one could hear “frozen musical
history.”16 As the New York Times article pointed out, the efforts of folklorists were

‘

meshed with that of record companies that issued folk records and folk music

91

m
1011'.

for

lie

Gd
Per
R61
mu
0p

Ca

ill

of

l:

anthologies. Folk music specialty labels, such as Folkways Records, had worked with
folklorists or anthropologists. Folkways Records collaborated with anthropologist Harold
Courlander, who took numerous ﬁeld trips to the South and all over the world. During the
1950s Courlander served as a chief editor of “Ethnic Folkways Library” for Folkways.
He produced more than thirty albums for Folkways.

Some academic folklorists worked with folk record labels. For instance, Kenneth
Goldstein, who would later become a folklore professor at the University of
Pennsylvania, served as folk music director for Stinson and Riverside, and Prestige
Records during the 195 Os. He issued more than ﬁve hundred LPs of various kinds of folk
music including Ewan MacCall and A. L. Lloyd. Harry Oster established a one-man
operation record company named Folk-Lyric and produced an impressive catalogue of
Cajun and Negro music from Louisiana.17

During the 19505, Alan Lomax produced many folk albums. Already a renowned
folklorist by the mid-19305, Lomax worked for the Archive of American Folk Song in
the Library of Congress. In 1939 and 1940, Lomax produced several radio programs for
the CBS radio such as American Folk Songs, Back Where I Come From, and Wellsprings
of Music, with Woody Guthrie and Leadbelly, Burl Ives, Aunt Molly Jackson, and others.
Lomax’s position as an archivist at the Library of Congress legitimized his programs. In
1942 he was assigned to the Armed Forces Radio Service, programming folk music
shows to encourage troops abroad. In 1943 he worked for the Ofﬁce of War Information
to produce morale—boosting radio programs. Not so commercially-driven as other radio

programs, Lomax’s radio programs played a distinctive role in popularizing folk music.

After the war, he produced Mountain Frolic for Brunswick. In 1949, as a director of Folk

92

 

.lr.

ti!

ii

Music for Decca Records, Lomax edited a series of folk albums by folk singers including
Burl Ives, Richard Dyer-Bennett, and Josh White, as well as Kentucky mountain ballads
and cowboy songs. The biggest project was “World Library of Folk and Primitive Music”
a series for Columbia Records. It contained eighteen volumes which overviewed world
music. For folk music proper to America, he produced seven volumes of Southern Folk
Heritage for Atlantic in 1959 and twelve volumes of Southern Journey for Prestige in
1960.

The most inﬂuential folk record for the revivalists of the 19503, however, was The
Anthology of American Folk Music. In 1952 Folkways Records released a six-LP set The
Anthology of American Folk Music. Compiled by Harry Smith, the Anthology contained
eighty-four old-time records issued in the 19205 and 19303. The songs of the six-LP
collection were divided into three categories: “Ballads,” “Social Music,” and “Songs.”
For each song, Smith wrote extensive notes and information.

Smith studied anthropology at the University of Washington in the early 19403.
After WWII, he moved to the Bay Area where he painted, made short ﬁlms, and pursued
other artistic activities. He then moved to New York around 1950 and met Moe Ashes,
the owner of Folkways Records, and began the Anthology project with him. Although he
studied anthropology at university, he was not a professional anthropologist, and he did
not take ﬁeld trips to record folksongs as Lomax, Courlander, Oster, and Emrich all had.
Instead, Smith enthusiastically collected folk music on 78 rpm records. He had bought 78
rpm records for his personal collection since the 19405. In a 1968 interview with John
Cohen in Sing Out! magazine, Smith recalled that the Anthology did not attempt to

showcase all the best records, but tried to demonstrate the diversity of folk music from a

93

 

musi
ltnli
Smi'

3110*

C0

11.

CE

musicological point of view. Before the Anthology, said Smith, “there had been a
tendency in which records were lumped into blues catalogs and hillbilly catalogs.”18
Smith’s Anthology blurred the hitherto distinction between blues and hillbilly and

showcased all of these records under the banner of “American Folk Music.”

College Folk Magazines

The most ardent supporters for the effort of folklorists, who had preserved the tradition of
American folk music, were college students. During the folk music revival movement,

the folklorists’ insistence on the value of American folk music was widely accepted at
campuses across the nation. Students joined campus folk music societies and engaged
themselves in organizing folk music events such as concerts, campus hootenannies, and
workshops. College folk music societies published folk magazines that featured
information of campus, or local, folk music events and articles on folk singers and folk
music, most of which were written by the students of the society or by university
professors of English and folklore.

The close examination of college folk magazines reveals that the college folk
music audiences embraced the basic idea of folk music presented by professional
folklorists and that they mediated thorough the lens of folklorists, or folksingers they
admired. To college folk revivalists—the folk music society members and the dedicated
folk music audiences, folk music inspired them to question, grow, and learn. As the Free
Speech Movement leader Mario Savio would later discuss in the early 19603, the
university was the place where students would “begin seriously to question the condition

of their existence.”19 The sociologist Kenneth Kerriston called the postwar college

94

strict
unite
still:

stc

soci

the
L1

11:”

students “psychological adults,” who were “created out of postindustrial society through
university.” The postwar social condition provided unprecedented privileges with
students that did not require them to be a part of the social structure by earning income.
Psychological adults are in sharp contrast to “sociological adults,” who want to
“[integrate] themselves into the institutional structure of society.”20 Conditioned in such
social and cultural settings, youngsters of folk revival learned folk music that appealed to
them as an idyllic and ideal cultural expression from which they began thinking about the
“condition of their existence.” College folk magazines provide rich evidence as to how
much students embraced the concept of folk as folklorists had presented it, why they
were mesmerized by this concept, and how they associated folk music with the postwar
American social problems.

College folk magazines were published by the university’s folk music societies or
as personal magazines. It is remarkable that, regardless of this difference, the opinions in
college folk magazines bore a striking similarity to those by folklorists, as if the former
were faithful disciples of folklorists. In 1962, John Burrison,“ an undergraduate student
at Pennsylvania State University, started Folkways Monthly. Having two professors at
Penn State on the advisory board—one was a folklorist and the other anthrOpologist—,
Folkways Monthly delivered contents that taught fellow students the quintessence of folk
music, which “must be passed down from one person to another, from generation to
generation,” through which process we could ﬁnd “how life was in the days of old.”22
Young Burrison then deplores commercialization of folk music. Commercialization and
exploitation [of folk music], Burrison writes, “break down a culture, but an enthusiastic

and yet considerate collector, such as prof. [sic] Bayard [folklorist at Penn State, one of

95

the ad

s

1111616

' ll. .
1011

the advisors for the magazine], can keep this heritage alive by recording and stimulating
interest in it, and thus helping to preserve folk culture.”

This article does not identify who was responsible for the commercialization of
folk music, but it discusses two kinds of folk music: “traditional way of life” and
“vocation to pastime?” Jean Ritchie is one of Burrison’s favorite folksingers and he had
heard Ritchie sing at Newport Folk Festival in 1959.

Don’t confuse Jean Ritchie with the recent cult of commercial “mountain” singing

heard so frequently over the radio, referred to variously as “hillbilly,” “country

and western,” and “bluegrass” (the best spokesmen for this type of singing being
perhaps Earl Scruggs, Lester Flatt, and the Foggy Mountain Boys). These singers
yodel through (generally in group harmony) “popular” love songs which are
meaningless and sentimental to the degree of being ludicrous, and they are backed
up by a “swinging” collection of twanging electric and steel (Hawaiian) guitars,
plucking mandolin, thumping bass, fast-as-greased-lightnin’ banjo, and sawing
ﬁddle, which produce, in total, one great pulsating frenzy of sound.24
What distinguishes Ritchie from many other commercial folksingers is that she, with her
“simple, unadulterated country style, represents a “segment of the music and life ways of
the distant past, somehow surviving and relatively unchanged today, strangely out of
place in a technological world marked by television, hydrogen bombs, and the
Installment Plan.” Ritchie is a “ﬁne example of the oral transmission of folk culture”
because she sings “basically the same songs that, two or three hundred years ago, were
being sung by immigrating pioneers and farmers, or perhaps even ﬁve centuries ago by
the country dwellers of the British Isles.”25

Little Sandy Review is perhaps one of the best-known folk magazines published

by college revivalists for its uncompromising purist persuasion. Starting in 1960 as a

personal publication by two students at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis—-

John Pankake and Paul Nelson—, Little Sandy Review printed reviews on folk records,

96

books, and folk concerts, as well as editors’ column on the folk music scene. The main
feature was record review. Little Sandy Review distinguished market-oriented folk music
from tradition-ridden folk music and favored the latter seriously because it had
“intellectual complexity, an emotional commitment, [and] an aesthetic integrity.”26 One
example of how Little Sandy Review dichotomized folk singers into traditional and
market-oriented is seen in the fourth issue where brief comments on folk record labels
appear. For example, Elektra
started out with some ﬁne work back in the 10”[rpm] days and still have some
excellent Jean Ritchie LP’s, but, by and large, Jac Holzman & Company seem to
have grown fat and contented on the likes of Oscar Brand, the Limeliters, Josh
White, and other slick and sophisticated cocktail party folkurn.27
It is easy to assume why Little Sandy Review likes Jean Ritchie and dislikes Oscar Brand,
Josh White, and the Limeliters. Oscar Brand is a popularizer; Josh White and others
entertainment singers; and the Limeliters are too sophisticated. Ritchie, on the other hand,
is from the Kentucky mountains and preserves its tradition. In the same review, Little
Sandy Review criticizes the Cumberland Three because they are market-oriented like the
Kingston Trio. The criticism continues: “[m]ediocrity has become the key word, and
traditionalism, authenticity, and scholarship have fallen by the wayside. Ethics are
completely out of the question. Everybody screams ‘I wrote this, I wrote that’ at the top
of their lungs.”28
Pankake and Nelson believed that folk music could give college students the
Opportunity to think about the profound meaning of life. Before beginning to listen to

folk music at college, most of the students listened to pop music that would “appeal to

both parents and teenager alike—something nice, fresh, and bouncy; something

97

musically pleasing to the ear and mentally unchallenging. [both my italics]” Folk music
for them is the music that comes in between the teenage period and parenthood and that it
should be a “mentally challenging” music. In their understanding of the role of folk
music, the change of musical taste from pop music to folk music inherently involves the
change of attitude toward an individual’s self-identity. Therefore, Pankake and Nelson
did not accept pop-oriented folk music because it was an extension of pop music for
teenagers that did not help develop mental maturity.

Bob Dylan, who came to know Pankake and Nelson when he was a student at the
University of Minnesota and borrowed folk records such as Harry Smith’s Anthology of
American Folk Music and Jack Elliott’s from them,29 would later call Pankake a part of
the “folk police” to refer to their selectiveness.3O With a few exceptions such as the New
Lost City Ramblers and Joan Baez, their selection of folk singers for reviews on Little
Sandy Review heavily inclined toward traditional, veteran singers such as Jean Ritchie,
Pete Seeger, Muddy Waters, Cisco Houston, Harry Belafonte, Malvina Raynolds, the
Weavers, Burl Ives, Leadbelly, and John Lee Hooker.

When Bob Dylan’s ﬁrst album was released, Little Sandy Review applauded his
“terriﬁc” songwriting skill, which was the “best we’ve had since Woody Guthrie sleathed
[sic] his pen,” and his performing style as “Guthriesque cowboy-Texas blues style.” The
magazine remarked that “a star was born.” The ﬁrst album Bob Dylan, released in March
1962, was composed of covers except his two original songs.31 Little Sandy Review spent
an unusual ﬁve pages reviewing Dylan’s ﬁrst album. What satisﬁed Pankake and Nelson
was that not only had Dylan improved his singing and songwriting techniques so quickly,

but also his ﬁrst album assured them that Dylan was on the right track of folk singing

98

tradition with a twist of his own artistry.

But, to his second album The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan released in May 1963,
Little Sanay Review expressed a “great disappointment.” Dylan’s “inventiveness (both as
a songwriter and as an interpreter)” and “natural gift for genuine directness and simplicity
in the ﬁnest folk-derived sense” he demonstrated in his ﬁrst album “barely exist” in The
Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan.32 Critical comments continue: “he has become melodramatic
and maudlin, lacking all Guthriesque economy; his melodies bear more relation now to
popular music than folk music.” Pankake, Nelson, and other contributors to Little Sandy
Review held a prescriptive notion about what folk music should be. As the reviews on
Dylan’s two albums repeatedly suggest, their criteria of folk music, or what they
expected to listen for in Dylan’s music, was whether it maintained to a certain extent
continuity to Guthrie’s folk music. Dylan’s second album consisted of eleven original
songs and two cover songs. Many of the original songs were topical songs that addressed
social issues. The F reewheelin’ Bob Dylan is, Little Sandy Review contends, based
“almost 100 per cent on his own personality; there is hardly any traditional material, and
most of the original material is not particularly folk-derived. It is pure Bob Dylan. . 3’33
Their propensity to favor traditional materials is apparent: singing original songs violates
the unwritten code of folk music. Little Sandy Review does accept original songs, but the
personal expression should retain some reference to the original folk singer (in Dylan’s
case, Little Sandy Review understands Dylan within the frame of Guthrie style
folksinging. So, in their minds, Dylan should be Guthriesque.) or ﬁts into the folk music
tradition lineage.

No other folk magazine more clearly expressed their opinions than Little Sandy

99

Rr‘l‘itjl

Br". 1

611161

tall

353

er"

Review. The magazine often stirred heated debates with other publications or individuals.
But Little Sandy Review was not the only exceptionally opinionated magazine with its
extreme traditionalism. More or less, every college magazine demonstrated rigidity in
traditional folk music and preference of authentic folk singers rather than city-
folksingers. Fully inﬂuenced by the folkloristic framework of understanding folk music
as an antithesis of highly civilized society and mass culture, the college folk music
enthusiasts like Pankake and Nelson tried to secure the realm of folk music against the
invasion by, for instance, popular music and what the Sing Out! publisher Irwin Silber
calls “personality cult.” Folk music, they thought, played a distinctive educational role
for the youth who were moving from adolescence to adulthood. Blurring the line between
folk music and popular music, which would occur in the form of “folk rock” in the mid-
19603, nulliﬁed this distinctive role of folk music. To rephrase by using the terms “form”
and “function,” Little Sandy Review’s undercurrent of notion of folk music is that the
form of folk music prescribes the function of folk music. To keep the function of folk
music working, the magazine acted like the “folk police,” watching every folk record to
see if it maintained the framework of folk music.

The University of Michigan Folklore Society launched its magazine Folkways: A
Magazine of International Folklore in 1959. The main feature of F alkways was songs
with lyrics and scores—similar to Sing Outl—and it also printed short articles about folk
music, folksingers, and instruments. The ﬁrst issue begins with a two-page article “Notes
on the Child Ballad,” which is followed by the song “Lord Randall,” one of the songs in
the Child collection. Then, two songs by Bill McAdoo—“800 Miles” (travel song) and

“Santy Anno” (sea chantey originated during the American-Spanish War)——both

100

111““
iirog‘
lfhris
\‘oulr

gum

0111

appeared in Sing Out!, a two-page article “Blues for Big Bill [Broonzy]” with his selected
discography, the nineteenth century English folk song “The Fox,” “Virgin Mary”
(Christmas folk song of America origin), F tench-Canadian folk song “Ah, Si Mon Moine
Voulait Danser,” a four-page article about the Israel-origin instrument called “chalil,” a
guitar instruction, an article about the Trinidad steel drum with discography, the song
“Strangest Dream” by the New York folksinger Ed McCurdy, an one-page article about
the origin of Tom Dula (Tom Dooley), “Suliram”——an Indonesian lullaby, and Guthrie’s
“This Land is Your Land.”

Unlike Little Sandy Review, the University of Michigan’s Folkways was not so
outspoken about its opinions. Rather, it provided a wide coverage of aspects of folk
music as the title includes “International.” But it shared the tenet of folk music with Little
Sandy Reviews and other college folk magazines. The preface of the ﬁrst issue stated that
folk music has a “functional value above and beyond its esthetic [sic] qualities. It is a
medium through which we may bring together the various ﬁbres of cultures and view
them comparatively.”34 F olkways’s description of folk music’s importance of “functional
value” over aesthetic qualities indicates that folk music is the kind of music that is set in
social structure in which it plays a certain role. Folk music, folksinger Bill McAdoo
commented, “forces one to move around and meet people, to learn of their problems.”35

The second issue begins with the songs “Geordie” (popular folklore of the British
Isle) and “Who Killed Cock Robin” (by Joe Hickerson), followed by the comparison of
two versions of the song called “Te Maid Freed from the Gallows,” which is found in
Child’s English & Scottish Popular Ballads vol.2. It compares lyrics of British and

American versions. Then, the issue continues with Merle Travis’s “Dark as a Dungeon”

101

Illlil SCI

”SOL

fun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with score, an article about the signiﬁcance of folk music workshop, “Don’t Sing Love
Songs” from Lomax’s F olksong USA, an article about bluegrass with selected
discography, “Mighty Day” (about the ﬂood in a Texas town in 1900), an article about
Polynesian folk music Maori,” a biographical article about Peggy Seeger with
discography, “Song of Courting & Complaint,” an article about Leadbelly, “Eres Alta Y
Delgada” (Spanish folk song), the list of recent recordings categorized into four areas:
“Southern & traditional American,” “blues,” “ﬂamenco,” and “miscellaneous,” and
ﬁnally ends with “Tuning by Harmonics” (instruction of tuning guitar).

The third issue “Old Timey Music Issue” contains four articles and ten songs. The
titles of the articles are “Old Timey Music,” “New Lost City Ramblers,” “Bill McAdoo,”
“Picking: Carter Family Style.” The songs are “A La Roo” (Mexican Christmas song),
“Angel Band,” “That Crazy War” (about WWI) “We’ve Got Franklin D. Roosevelt Back
Again,” “Man of Constant Sorrow,” “The Riddle Song,” “Nobody Knows You When
You’re Down And Out” (by Josh White), “Nobody Knows The Way I Feel This
Morning” (by Bill McAdoo), “Sur La Route” (old drinking song) and “Freight Train” (by
Elizabeth Cotten). The third issue also announced the two-day University of Michigan
Folk Festival in April 1960.

Folkways deals with some city-bred singers such as Bill McAdoo and the New
Lost City Ramblers.36 McAdoo and NLCR proved true inheritors of the folk music
tradition. There is no coverage of the Kingston Trio and the Limeliters even though Little
Sandy Review sometimes mentioned these pop-folk groups as the subject of criticism. But
in Folkways, readers see a traditional landscape of folk music as “the very fabric of

human expression,” through which we may “embrace the world and its people.”

102

At the University of Illinois, the Campus Folksong Club began publishing bi-
monthly Autoharp in April 1961. The ﬁrst issue of Autoharp—only seven pages—printed
two traditional songs with words and chords (“Finnegan’s Wake” and “The Grey
Goose”), a one-page article “F olksong on Campus” by Archie Green, the information
about the concert of Sonny Teny & Brownie McGhee at campus, and editorial matter.
The goals of Autoharp were to distribute “traditional material and comment about
traditional material.” The meaning of “traditional” is well explicated by a request to
readers: “if you have any songs which your grandmother taught you, we would love to
have them.”37 The second issue had three songs: “The Battleship of Maine” (one of the
New Lost City Rarnblers’s repertoire), “Indian Massacre”(from John Greenway’s
American F alksang of Protest) and “Malaila” (contributed from a reader). There were
also three articles about the folk scene of New Orleans, Woody Guthrie, and “How to
Make an Israeli Shepherd’s Pipe” (one page each). In the third issue, Autoharp printed
two songs (“John Henry” and Leadbelly’s “In Den Long Hot Summer Days”) and ﬁve
articles (“Chicago Blues,” “John Henry,” “Indian Neck Folk Festival,” “Leadbelly,” and
“Children and the Weather”). The fourth issue printed two songs (Bill Monroe’s 1936
song “Darlin’ Cary” and the children’s song “The Robin” from a reader) and three
articles (“Bill Monroe,” “Jewish Folklore,” and “In Defense of the Kingston Trio”)

Whether it was a song or an article, Autoharp demonstrated a clear preference for
traditional materials as it declared in the ﬁrst issue. This is basically a similar ideological
characteristic among campus folk magazines as we have seen. One difference is that
whereas other campus folk magazines printed articles that were mostly written by staff

writers, many articles in Autoharp were contributions from readers, probably students of

103

the l'
the it

10111

the University of Illinois. One such contribution is “In Defense of the Kingston Trio” in
the fourth issue. As the title indicates, this article values the importance of this
commercially successful folk trio. Autoharp put a disclaimer to the article: “The Opinions
expressed by Mr. Adams [the contributor] are not necessarily the same as those of the
staff of A utoharp.”3 8 Such a disclaimer has not been seen in other contributed articles.

The Campus F olksong Club frequently invited both well-known and obscure
folksingers to the campus. During the years of 1961 and 1962, the club invited Sonny
Terry & Brownie McGhee (the blues duo), Jimmie Driftwood (“Ozark folksinger”
dubbed by Autoharp), Red Cravens & the Bray Brothers (bluegrass), and George and
Gerry Armstrong (English ballad), Lester Flatt & Earl Scruggs (bluegrass), Sleepy John
Estes (blues), the New Lost City Ramblers (old time), Jean Redpath (Scottish ballad), and
Joe Glazer (“labor’s troubador”). This list of folksingers who visited the campus supports
my understanding that Autoharp favored traditional folk styles. There were some young
singers and players in their twenties like NLCR, but most of the singers had reached the
level of being called veteran singers. For instance, Sleepy John Estes was born in 1889
and had reached the seventies in the early 19605. Sonny Terry & Brownie McGhee were
born in 1911 and 1915, respectively. There was no urban folksinger invited to the
University of Illinois. Except NLCR, all of these singers were from the South. Anglo-
Saxon balladers like Jean Redpath and George & Gerry Armstrong suggests the inﬂuence
of Child’s scholarship. There was also a union singer, which was a residual of leftist
politics of the 19305 and 19403.

The collaboration with folklorists also characterizes the strong afﬁnity with

folklore discipline. In a similar fashion to Penn State’s Folkways Monthly that published

104

 

.1111

11110

110

scholarly efforts of folklorists to preserve folksongs and hand them down, Autoharp
helped students learn about folklore courses and speakers. In the May 19 of 1961 issue,
Autoharp told of a folklore professor’s return from Europe and publicized his new course
“English 357: Folklore in American Literature” next semester.39 In February 1962,
Autoharp announced a new course “Music 316: Music Cultures of the World” offered by
another professor.40 Also, Autoharp started an interdepartmental folklore seminar that
would be held bi-weekly, inviting university’s faculty to speak about their academic
interests.4| The speakers for the fall semester in 1961 came from departments of
sociology, German, English, and art. In the spring semester in 1962, the speakers were
from departments of agriculture, music, anthropology, and Spanish and Russian
languages. Not only did it collaborate with the university’s faculty, Autoharp also invited
eminent scholars like Archie Green, a frequent contributor to the Journal of American
Folklore, and Harry Oster, professor at Louisiana State University who had explored
Louisiana folk songs, to the campus.”
To campus folk revivalists, folk music was not simply a musical style or leisure
activity. It was rather a study tool through which they could learn what they had not
known, and it provided, they believed, a mediating space to consider the way in which
revivalists would search the self in relation to society and to the past and future. The
University of Michigan’s Folkways says that folk music has a “functional value,” and
campus folk revivalists understood that to be a set of values traceable to folklorists’
works and the songs of authentic folksingers. Penn State’s F olkway ’5 Monthly states that
folk music, played not by commercial professionals but by the rural folksinger, gives a

“humanistic point of view to ‘how life was in the days of old’ not to be found in text

105

 

lie-01's

10 Cit

the e:

£01111

she I

In:

books.”43 As they discovered the various types of folk music from Anglo-Saxon ballads,
Appalachian mountain songs, cowboy songs, to blues and foreign folk songs, they began
to create an imaginary “folk life” in their minds. To make the real folk music distinctive,
the easiest way was to contrast it with “popular” folk music. If the singer has “no real
commitment to traditional modes or values,” an article in Autoharp contends, he or she is
a “concert” singer.44 Thus, the criteria to judge authenticity of the singer is whether he or
she can demonstrate their familiarity and commitment about/to the material they perform.
The basic nature of folksong is, John Pankake and Paul Nelson sum up, “simplicity,
intimacy, and irnmediacy.”45The New Lost City Ramblers are, Michigan’s Folkways
contends, one of the unusual groups that possess a “deep understanding of the musicians
who made them, the folk culture that produced them, and the emotions and feelings

underlying the songs.”“’

Embracing Simplicity

In the folk music revival era, as Little Sandy Review argued, “folk music” was
synonymous with “simplicity.” This notion bears a notable similarity to the Romantic
movement in the eighteenth century in Europe—Jean-Jacque Rousseau’s “the noble
savage,” Samuel Coleridge’s and William Wordsworth’s retreat from London to the Lake
District, William Blake’s mysticism, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s transcendentalism. It was
during the Romantic movement period that the notion of “folk” was ﬁrst deﬁned as a
term for the folk music scholarship. Seemingly, two starting points were the German
philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder and the English bishop Thomas Percy. Herder

interpreted the term “folk (Volk)” as an opposition to civilization or Enlightenment. Valk

106

lusm

out

irdust

Herd:

(1011'

thus meant the illiterate people living in the lower stratum of society in the rural area, as
opposed to the emerging bourgeois class as wage workers in urban areas. In the pre-
industrial and pre-literate folk, Herder found an escapism from the civilizing society.
Herder collected German folk songs sung by such folk people and published Volkslieder
(Folk Song) in 1778. Inﬂuenced by Herder, the Grimm Brothers collected German folk
tales. Thomas Percy, on the other hand, published old English ballad collection Reliques
of Ancient English Poetry in 1765. Because this was a poetry collection, Percy did not
fully elaborate the notion of folk as Herder did. But Reliques of Ancient English Poetry
was received as a celebration of the tradition of the English folk culture during the height
of the Romantic Movement.47

There is a parallel relationship between the Romantic Europeans and the young
generation in post-WWII America. The former had a critical view of the growing
complexity of the society that was under the process of civilization, and the latter
experienced the Cold War anxiety while enjoying unprecedented economic afﬂuence.
The Romantic Movement was concerned with the excess of civilization which, its
advocates thought, deprived human beings of the traditional values and organic structure
of society. Young Americans in suburbia in the 19503 and 19605 felt depressed by the
high degree of conformity, resulting from the power of the military-industrial complex
and the race of supremacy against the Soviets. Diagnosing the society, social critics

9, 6‘

characterized the society as variously as “white-collar, men with gray ﬂannel,”
“organizational man,” “lonely crowd,” “the status seekers,” and “theory X.” Both the
Romantic Europeans and the Cold War Americans were stranded in a condition of

material abundance and rapid transformation of the social and cultural value, which, they

107

indu

let:

8th

lllll

believed, subjugated their beings.

It was believed that only the “folk” people could possess “simplicity” in a pre-
industrial society. In this context “folk” does not mean the ordinary people as its semantic
deﬁnition tells us: it is rather a term describing the people who live in a less civilized

society. Among the young generation in the 19505, there was an apparent tendency to

understand the “folk” in this way, accepting the framework folklorists had formulated
and in which they had been working.

“I love you [original italicl.” He hung up, and turned to face the world through
the steamy window of the phone booth. Along with his feeling of dizziness was a

feeling of newness—the feeling of fresh, strong identity growing within him. It
was a generalized love—particularly for the little people, the common people,
God bless them. All his life they had been hidden from him by the walls of his

ivory tower. Now, this night, he had come among them, shared their hopes and
disappointments, understood their yearnings, discovered the beauty of their
simplicities and their earthy values. This was real [original italic], this side of the
river and Paul loved these common people, and wanted to help, and let them
know they were loved and understood, and the wanted them to love him too.48
The citation above is from Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s debut novel Player Piano in 1952. Based
on his own experience working at General Electric, this dystopian novel depicted the
hyper-automated society as a future of America, and Vonnegut created the protagonist
Dr. Paul Proteus, the elite technocrat [as “He” in this citation], who dropped out of the
high road to success at the Ilium Works, a ﬁctional company based on General Electric,
and became the leader of rebels who would smash down machines that, they thought,
were ruling the world. After hanging up the phone with his wife whose only h0pe for her
husband was his success at the company, Proteus realized a deep feeling toward “the little

people, the common people” spring up within him because he discovered “the beauty of

their simplicities and their earthy values” in them. Simplicity is not a pejorative word

108

here.

tcho

com;

the e

1535

hi

SIRE

all

Ill}

here, but it indicates an organic relation of the “common” peOple to their society. Proteus
dichotomizes people into two types: the corporate-ethos-ridden people who live in a
complicated and highly mechanized society, and the oppressed people who suffer from
the excess of modernization but live in a harmony with their neighbors. A simple society
is a self-satisﬁed and self-governed society.
After serving the Army during WWII, Vonnegut studied anthropology at the
University of Chicago and took a course taught by Robert Redﬁeld. Vonnegut was
fascinated by Redﬁeld’s lecture on “folk society.” Redﬁeld deﬁned “folk society” as a
small community isolated from other communities and its members who share the code
of behavior, similar to French sociologist Emile Durkheim’s description of the pre-
industrial society that is governed by “the collective conscience” of individuals who
maintain solidarity and social order. Redﬁeld’s lecture, which basically warned against
sentimentalizing a life in folk society, led Vonnegut, however, to daydream of living in
an isolated place.” In the age of technology and scientiﬁc management, in which
rationalism and efﬁciency had become a decisive force, simplicity was an arresting
notion even though it seemed a mere nostalgic attempt to retreat from the reality.
From a folkloristic or anthropological point of view, the prevailing mode of
scientiﬁc thinking in the postwar America is contrasted greatly with the previous era. In
the 19505, the prevailing mindset of folk revivalists was that scientiﬁc development and
increasingly mechanized structure of society had changed the fundamental element of
human life. Thus folk music was an antithesis to this inevitable socioeconomic trend.
They shared the idea of what folk music used to be and they romanticized the primordial

tradition of folk music expressed by the “ordinary folk who were on familiar terms with

109

hard

lliul

fell

hard work, poverty, hunger, and homemade culture” before the advent of science and
industrialization.50

To relate the notion of simplicity with folk music, college revivalists equated a
folk song with the singer who sings the song in terms of their organic relationship. If the
singer sings a song about hardship, the singer must have experienced hardship. If the
singer sings a song about poverty, the singer must be someone who lives in poverty.
Thus, a folk song is an artistic expression of the singer’s identity. Interestingly, simplicity
deﬁned as such represents wholeness. In an organic society, people and society are
related to each other because human beings as organisms have limits and thus they can
know the wholeness of their society. Simplicity can grasp the wholeness because the
word “simple” is predicated on the existence of wholeness. Simplicity is the requisite to
understanding the society as a whole.

“Simplicity” and “wholeness” were not the only words that characterized the folk
music revival movement. Synonymous with these words are other words which include
“primitive,” “sincerity,” “traditional,” and “authentic.” The folk community argued and
deﬁned folk music with these pivotal words. For example: “If a folksong loses its
sincerity [my italic], it loses its most poignant attribute—and it ceased to be a
folksong.”51 Robert Shelton, the folk music correspondent for the New York Times,
reported that at the University of Chicago Folk Festival “the bulk of the music at the
festival was a swig of spring water. The key words were tap-roots, tradition, authenticity
[my italics], and non-commercial.”52

Although the folk revivalists embraced the idea of simplicity in folk Society, they

neither trapped themselves into anachronism nor became pessimists to disdain the society

110

m uhi;
hi 3

to that

Re

Re

in which they were living. Neither were they reactionary nor revolutionary. They tried to
find a way out of the dilemma of modern society and presented folk music as a solution
to that problem. The solution is of course not political. They developed their aesthetics in
folk music, then constructed their cultural identity around folk music. Folk music was a
tool not only as a means of expressing their musical aesthetic but also a medium for
reconsidering their reasons to live and their role in society—who they were, what they
were thinking about, what they could do for the society, and what kind of relationship
they wanted to have with that society.

This is the reason many folk singers, as well as the folk music audience,
supported the deﬁnition of folk music as a representation of life as a whole. Dave van
Ronk wrote in 1965 that folk music is the “musical expression of an entire way of life.”53
Rather than “a body of art,” said the Oklahoma-born folk singer Sam Hinton, folk music
is “a process, an attitude, and a way of life; its distinguishing features lie not within the
songs themselves, but in the relations of those songs to a folk culture.”54 While Van Ronk
was born in 1936 and Hinton in 1917, folk singers in the 19503 and early 19605,
regardless of ages, conceived a similar concept of folk music. So did the Harvard
musicologist Charles Seeger, father of Pete Seeger: folk music is “a summary of way of
life of a culture community, the attitudes and feelings of those who comprise it toward
life and death, work and play, love, courtship and marriage, heath and hearth, children
and animals, prosperity and adversity—a veritable code of individual and social

behavior.”55

lll

 

Conclusion

F olklorists provided the ideological foundation of the folk music revival movement.
While they researched American folk songs within their discipline, they collaborated with
record companies to release folk music records. They also contributed articles on
American folk music and folklore to mainstream magazines to introduce the richness of
American folk music tradition. On the other hand, folklorists expressed their
condemnation of non—traditional style of folk songs that emerged in the late 19505.

Their criticism found audience on college campuses. The young generation at
universities, as a part of their education, learned folk music in various ways through
academic courses, attending folk music events on and around the campus, buying folk
music records, and so forth. They echoed the ideas presented by folklorists because what
folklorists provided was not just a simply nostalgia for the past but a critical perspective
toward postwar society. Youngsters at college compared their rootlessness arising from
their middle-class backgrounds with the “folk” people who were connected to one
another through music that had roots in a particular place, particular musical style, and
particular historical embodiment.

The authenticity had a power of persuasion to the urban revivalists. Folk
revivalists were infatuated with the idea of authenticity and many urban audiences
preferred the authentic folk performance like Clarence “Tom” Ashley singing his
signature song “The C00 C00 Bird.” The urban folk audience projected their feelings that
came from their everyday experiences of modern lives onto the folk music, which
represented what they had lost and at the same time provided them with a critical view on

their modern society. Folk music seemed, to urban Americans, to represent their attitudes

112

mu if

repre-

to ho

rent

eme'

110E

£01

toward their own lives and the society. In the folk revival movement, folk music
represented not merely a type of music they consumed, but a set of values that told them
to how to live better and how to make the society better. They reinterpreted and
revitalized the folkloristic understanding of folk music as a favorable counterpoint to the
emerging mass society, in which mass-production and mass consumption became a social
norm.

The folk revivalists embraced authentic folk music that had been discovered and
collected by folklorists and its historical importance. Not only did folk revivalists inherit
the aesthetic value of folk music from the folklore scholarship, they also gave serious
consideration to the folkloristic ideology and its role as social commentary. It is safe to
say that folk revivalists embraced the simple mode of society and life and juxtaposed it
with their reality in the postwar fragmented and highly sophisticated society. Folklore is a
keyword to understanding the folk revival movement. Folklorists presented folk
revivalists with invaluable insights into the way of mediating the postwar American
society and the way of constructing self-identity. We will see the revivalists’ identity

formation more closely in the next chapter.

 

I Cited from John Greenway, “The Position of Songs of Protest in Folk Literature,” in The American Folk
Scene. Dimensions of the F olksong Revival (New York. A Laurel Original, 1967), 116.

:Francis James Child, The English and Scottish Popular Ballads (New York: Dover Publications, 1965).

3Cecil James Sharp, Olive Arnold Campbell, and Maud Karpeles, English Folk Songs from the Southern
Appalachians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1952); Cecil J. Sharp, American-English F olk-Songs
(New York: G. Sch irmer, 1918); and Cecil J. Sharp, F olk—Songs of England Collected and Arranged
(London: Novello & co., 1908).

James Porter, “Convergence, Divergence, and Dialectic in Folksong Paradigms: Critical Directions for
Transatlantic Scholarship,” Journal of American Folklore 62, no. 419 (Winter 1993): 62, Philip Vilas
Bohlman, The Stuay of Folk Music in the Modern World, Folkloristics (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 198 8) 7.

5For overview of the history of folk music scholarship, Benjamin Filene, Romancing the Folk: Public
Memory & and American Roots Music (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000). See also
Norm Cohen, Folk Song America: A Twentieth Century Revival [Booklet to 4-CD] (Washington D.C.:

113

 

Smithsonian Collection of Recordings, 1990); and Bohlman, The Study of Folk Music in the Modern
World.

6 Greenway, “The Position of Songs of Protest in Folk Literature,” 1 l6.

7 Maud Karpeles, “Deﬁnition of Folk Music,” Journal of the International Folk Music Council 7 (1955): 6.
3 Richard Dorson, “Folklore and Fakelore,” American Mercury 70 (1950): 335—48.

9 Edgar Rogie Clark, “Problems of Folk Song Interpretation,” Musical America, March 15, 1948, p.37.

'0 Duncan Emrich, “America’s Folkways,” Holiday, July 1955, p. 63. Its condensed version appeared in
Reader ’s Digest. See Duncan Emrich, “What Is American Folklore?” Reader’s Digest, October, 1955.

” Emrich, “America’s Folkways,” 113.

‘2 “Treasury of Song,” Time, July 18, 1955, pp. 44-45.

'3 “Folk Hunter,” Time, October 12, 1959, p. 91.

14 “Orally Bequeathed,” New Yorker, August 6, 1955, pp. 14-16; “Skifﬂe and Brass,” New Yorker, January,
1957, pp. 17-18.

'5 Ronald D. Cohen, “Wasn't That a Time! Firsthand Accounts of the Folk Music Revival (Metuchen,
N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1995), 61.

'6 Ross Parmenter, “Folksong Collecting in the Field,” New York Times, November 2, 1952, p. 39.

17 “Harry Oster: A Profile,” Autoharp, Feburuary 8, 1963.

'8 American Magus Harry Smith, ed. Paola Igliori (New York: lnanout Press, 1996), I34.

:2 Christopher Lasch, The Agony of the American Left (New York: Knopf, 1969), 176.

Ibid., 177.

2' After graduating Penn State, Burriosn studied folklore at the University of Pennsylvania. Burrsion took
teaching position in the Department of English at Georgia State University in 1966.
:: lgllin Burrison, “Prof. Samuel Bayard: Dedicated Folklorist,” Folkways Monthly (1962): 9.
l i ., 11.
:: John Burrison, “Biography of a Folk Singer: Jean Ritchie,” Folkways Monthly (1963), p. 5.
Ibid.
26 Cohen, “Wasn’t That a Time! Firsthand Accounts of the Folk Music Revival, 1 10-1 1.
27 “Review of the Soho Skifﬂe Group and the Cumberland 3,” Little Sandy Review, no. 4 (1960), p. 17.
28 “Review of Josh White at Town Hall Et AL,” Little Sandy Review, no. 19 (1962), p. 30.
29 Clinton Heylin, Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions, 1960-1994 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995),
47.
3" Bob Dylan, Chronicles (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 24s.
3' “Review of Bob Dylan,” Little Sandy Review, no. 22 (1962), pp.12-16.
32 “Review of Bob Dylan's the Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan,” Little Sandy Review, no. 27 (1963), p. 24.
2: Ibid. pp. 27-28.
35 “Preface,” Folkways: A Magazine of International Folklore (Spring, 1959), p. 3.

Ann McIntobb, “Bill Mcadoo,” Folkways (1961), p. 34.

36 Note that Bill McAdoo was one the founders of the Folklore Society at the University of Michigan.
37 ., ,, .

38 Autoharp, Autoharp, April 7, 1961., p. l. .

39 chk Adams, “The Defense of the Kingston Tr1o,” Autoharp, May 19, 1961, 23.

40“Folklorist Flanagan Returns,” Autoharp, May 19, 1961, p. 1.

4| “Professor Adriaansz Begins Ethnomusicology Program,” Autoharp, February 16, 1962, p. 2.

42 Jarvis Rich, “Folklore Seminar,” Autoharp, February 16, 1962, p. 3, 12.

“Calender of Events,” A utoharp, March 22, 1963, p. 3; “Folk Hunter,” p. 91; and “Harry Oster: A
Proﬁle,” p. 3.

:Burrison, “Prof. Samuel Bayard: Dedicated Folklorist.” p. 9.
45 “Folkniks: Fact or Fancy?,” Autoharp 2, no. I, 1962, p. 6. .

Jon Pankake and Paul Nelson, “P-for-Protest,” in The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong
4Rsevival (New York: A Laurel Original, 1967), 144.

47 “New Lost City Ramblers," Folkways, no. 3, 1960, p. 14. -

Bohlman, The Study of Folk Music in the Modern World; Filene, Romancing the Folk: Public Memory &
and American Roots Music; and B. A. Botkin, “The Folksong Revival: Cult or Culture?,” in The American
4F; 01k Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival.

49 Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Player Piano (New York: Delta Book, 1952), 102.
Kurt Vonnegut, “Folk Society,” in Facts Worse Than Death: An Autobiographical Collage (New York:

114

 

Berkley Books, 1992), 122-23.

5° Irwin Silber, “Folk Music and the Success Syndrome,” in The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the
Folksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel Original, 1967), 299.

5' Sam Hinton, “The Singer of F olksongs and His Conscience,” in The American Folk Scene: Dimensions
0! the Folksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel Original, 1967). 69.
5 Robert Shelton, “Students Import Folk Art to Chicago,” New York Times, February 12, 1961, p. XI].

53 David A. De Turk and A Poulin Jr., ed., The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival
(New York: A Laurel Original,1967), 21.

5‘ Hinton, “The Singer of Folksongs and His Conscience,” 68.

55 Charles Seeger, “Folk Music in the Schools of a Highly Industrialized Society,” in The American Folk
Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel
Original, 1967), 88-89.

115

CHAPTER 4

CONSTRUCTING THE FOLK IDENTITY

Folk music, to the revivalists, was more than just a particular musical expression. They
considered folk music something that inﬂuenced their lives and their ways of
understanding the society. Dave van Ronk, for instance, in a 1965 folk magazine article,
explained that folk music is “the musical expression of an entire way of life—intimately
linked with the psychology, occupation, a general world view (Weltanschauung) of a

as]

particular group of people, generally literate or semi-literate. Similar explanations were
given by numerous revivalists. What we can infer from their effort to deﬁne folk music as
such is that folk revivalists attempted to situate folk music or the folk music revival
movement within a social and cultural context on both the personal and collective levels.
By discussing folk music from various points of view—commercialism, folklore,
aestheticism, and non-conformism—folk revivalists constructed the concept of folk
identity in relation to social issues, encompassing its past, present, and future.

There is no single or ﬁxed idea of folk identity. It can be found only in a process
in which folk revivalists projected all possible ideas about folk music onto the reality of
America in the 19503 and early 19603. Through the process of practicing the folk music
revival movement in their own ways, they contemplated, one critic puts it, the “symbiotic
interchange among corporate America, popular culture, and our own grassroots.”2
Despite different paths the revivalists took in the courses of their lives and their diversity

of individual preferences, folk identity was a shared imaginary space in which they

searched for historicity—a historical sense that connects revivalists to the past, present,

116

and

her

Spill

..L‘If
...-

and future. Because folk revivalists were the people who psychologically found
themselves dropping out of the rapidly transforming society, they looked for their cultural
space, which, they hoped, might give them the security of knowing who they were.

This chapter attempts to illustrate how folk revivalists connected with the
movement through the construction of their cultural identity. Naming it “folk identity,” I
explore the way in which folk revivalists constructed their cultural identity, which
reﬂected the transformation of America, helped create self-identity, and generated
collective consciousness by conﬁrming the connection, though it was on an imaginary
level, between themselves and authentic folksingers they admired.

Following the cultural studies’ concept of identity as an individual’s response to
external conditions relating to him or her,3 I argue that folk revivalists created “folk
identity” to set a benchmark for understanding the postwar society and for searching to
better understand themselves and the whole external conditions in which they were
situated. As I have discussed in the previous chapters, folk revivalists were concerned
with the social and cultural condition of postwar America and their construction of
cultural identity. At college they encountered folk music as a subject of study, as a means
of entertainment, and as a means of socializing. Through the process of their involvement
of folk music, they found themselves practicing the folk revival movement as a sign of
differentiation from others and as a rebellious form of culture.

At the same time, revivalists saw themselves as sufferers in ever urbanizing
America. The sense of suffering was one of the archetypes of the postwar cultural hero
image. The young generation of Americans found characters in ﬁlm and literature who

suffered from, for instance, generational conﬂict and the “phony” world. Having

117

 

that

reg

consumed several images of suffering heroes from various sources in popular culture,
folk revivalists recognized in folk music yet another sufferer. Folk singers, in revivalists’
understanding, were sufferers because they tried to preserve their traditional way of life
that was in danger due to the socioeconomic transformation of America.

The fact that folk music was the music whose origin is traceable to a particular
region and particular social class or character appealed to the revivalists. The cowboy
song, for instance, was created by the cowboy himself or someone who was familiar with
the life of cowboy in the Southwest or South. This appeal reﬂected the social and cultural
condition of folk revivalists whose identities were not necessarily built upon their
sociocultural background. They had grown up surrounded by popular culture in suburbia.
They did not posses the same kind of culture as southern folk singers who had their own
songs to sing about themselves.

This chapter also considers the role of university as an intellectual milieu in the
context of the postwar American social condition. Many folk revivalists, most of whom
came from middle- and upper-class families, encountered folk music when they were at
college. With relative freedom in terms of time and money, students could not only enjoy
listening to folk music as an extracurricular or leisure activity, but also examine it for the
purpose of constructing self-identities. Faculty provided extensive knowledge about and

insights into folk music in their courses. Folk music societies organized folk concerts and

published magazines.

Theory of Identity

As a central issue to cultural studies, “identity” is an important but complicated concept.

118

“Identity” is sometimes understood as an essentialized category that leads to political
agency like male identity or middle-class identity or as a representation of political
relationship between different social groups. Deﬁned as such, the concept of “identity”
tends to ignore individual differences within the constituency. It does not take
individually speciﬁc experiences into serious consideration. Because the folk music
revival movement did not set any political goals, conceptualizing “identity” as a political
agency does not help us understand the social and cultural meaning of the movement.

The identity of “folk identity” is not the identity that is determined by one’s
already existing social, racial, or cultural categories. It is true that the main constituency
of the revival movement was white middle-class youth living in urban areas, but their
socioeconomic background was not a direct attribution to the making of “folk identity.”
By chance or other reasons, they encountered the folk music tradition and listened to
authentic folksingers on records and at concerts. Then they attempted to understand their
experience of folk music in the context of society, time, and the self. In this process of
identity formation, the folk revivalists constructed folk identity by reﬂecting on the social
and material conditions of postwar America.

The making of “folk identity” shows us a process of constructing cultural identity
associated with the experience of the folk revival. The identity I am discussing here can
be linked to the concept of “self.” Both concepts are constructed as a response to others
including the parents' generation of revivalists, as well as external material conditions. In
the modern world, the historian Warren 1. susman remarked, “the development of
consciousness of self” makes the modern world “modern.”4 Philosophers and sociologists

have tried to account for identity and the self. Back in the eighteenth century, the Scottish

119

 

dirt

rest

11h

_____________ﬁ

philosopher David Hume argued that the self was a bundle of sensations and experiences,
continually changing as one had new sensations and experiences. Emile Durkheim argued
that the individual is a product of society, not vice versa. In the 19305, George Herbert
Mead recapitulated the same argument Durkheim did: “the whole [society] is prior to the
part [the individual], not the part to the whole.”5 Moreover, Mead analyzed the self by
distinguishing “I” from “Me.” According to Mead, the “I” is “something that is
responding to a social situation,” and the “Me” is “the organized set of attitudes of others
which one himself assumes.”6 To Mead, the self plays both subjectively and objectively
and, through the interaction between “I” and “Me”, the self is constructed.

In the late 19505, Erving Goffman described the self as a performance by its
possessor. The self, Goffman argues, “does not derive from its possessor, but from the
whole scene of his action, being generated by that attribute of local events which renders
them interpretable by witnesses.” Goffman deﬁned the self as a “performed character”
that “does not have speciﬁc location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature,
and to die.”7 Like Htune, Durkheim, and Mead, Goffman describes the self as a product
of interaction between a person and his or her external reality.

In his 1963 book Stigma, Goffman changed his terminology from “the self ’ to
“identity.” In the same year, Peter Berger’s popular book on sociology Invitation to
Sociology featured “identity” in its relation to several sociological theories such as role
theory, reference-group theory, and dramaturgical sociology.13 Identity, Berger writes, is
“no longer a solid , given entity... it is rather a process, continuously created and re-created
in each social situation that one enters, held together by the slender thread .of memory.”9

Cultural studies has developed the concept of identity or the self in a similar

120

marine
cultur
trust
reliti
histc
hilt
I€Ct

dct

 

manner. As an active agent, identity is projected onto and positioned in a wide range of
cultural practices in a given socioeconomic circumstance. As continually reshaped,
transformed, and renegotiated, identity exists only in relation to the social reality. This
relationality and ﬂuidity suggest that identity is subject to the continuous interplay of
history, culture, and power. Identity is a social concept. Unlike “personality,” which
indicates more or less a stable characteristic of an individual, identity is being constantly
reconstructed in relation to the social condition to which an individual belongs. With this
deﬁnition of identity in mind, we can reach another deﬁnition of identity: it has a kind of
shared experience and history with others. Because identity is constituted through others,
certain groups, communities, and society, one’s identity can be shared with others. The
identity formation depends on others, which creates a sense of solidarity as “active
agents.”10

In a more popular discourse, the concept of “identity” as we know it today was
popularlized by Erik Erikson’s study Childhood and Society in 1950. It was the ﬁrst book
that deﬁned identity as the normative psychosocial achievements of selfhood that can be
attained in relation to committing oneself to social circumstance.ll With this notion of
identity, Erikson introduced his famous model of eight stages in human development,
among which the ﬁfth “adolescence” (the ﬁdelity stage) plays a pivotal role in identity
formation. Adolescence, according to Erikson, is the period in which one develops a
sense of the self through the negotiation between “identity” and “role confusion.” In this
stage between thirteen and eighteen, a child has to learn the roles he or she will occupy as
an adult. In this process, the child re-examines his or her identity and tries to ﬁnd out

exactly who he or she is, and the sense of self can be hindered because of the confusion

121

 

about

ll'ttilV

idem

expe

thei:

ider

pra

cul

about their role in society.

The formation of identity thus centers around the relationship between society and
individuals. If we understand the issue of identity as such, it becomes clear that the “folk
identity” is not a cohesive identity that permeates one’s life regardless of what he or she
experiences. Nor is it a given identity as essential property to deﬁne who he or she is by
their socioeconomic characteristics like the working-class identity or African American
identity. Any cultural form including the folk revival movement does not deﬁne its
practitioner’s identity by itself. It only becomes a catalyst for the connection between
cultural practice and identity formation.

For adolescents living in a highly developed, sophisticated society such as the
US, identity formation depends on what kind of role in society they choose. And it is
inﬂuenced by social and cultural conditions. The role means not only occupational role in
their future. Rather it indicates their value and belief about the society and themselves. As
Erikson characterized, at the adolescence stage teenagers seek the self identity by
mediating between the self, as the entity with one’s series of life experiences, and role
confusion that they cannot ﬁnd the right answer. They found it difficult to set their role
because the postwar socioeconomic transformation from production-based to
consumption-based society, coupled with the emergence of suburban middle-class as a
major segment of American demography, has collapsed the traditional way of
establishing the self identity.

Traditionally, establishing an identity was achieved by following one’s parents.
Parents might have taught their children how to become an adult, how to live, and how to

think about the world. But, now, postwar children had to ﬁnd their identity on their own

122

luau
that t
who

the)“

11111

11h

because they understood that they were living in a totally different social condition from
that of their parents. To construct identity, they tried to develop an afﬁliation with those
who might hold the same idea about the society or the identity formation. The subject
they had such intimacy included cultural heroes, as well as their like-minded friends.
As I will discuss later in this chapter, many folk revivalists encountered folk

music at college during their adolescence, a time of trying to deﬁne who they were and
what value and belief they construct as their identity. Erikson’s notion of identity,
therefore, provides a useful framework to consider the signiﬁcance of the revival

movement in terms of revivalists' self identity construction.

Cultural Heroes

During postwar America, American adolescents sought heroes in the popular culture of
the day. They looked for heroes who might represent their situation and speak for them.
These popular culture heroes provided an image for them of the ideal self which helped
them construct their identities in the real social, economic and cultural condition. Of
course, the popular culture hero did not solve each adolescent’s identity crisis, but the
hero image did help them construct a sense of self. We understand ourselves and our
society through the negotiation between self and reality. Without the sense of self, it is
difﬁcult to understand reality, and therefore the relationship between self and reality.
These popular culture heroes were not identical to the social roles or the self identities of
adolescent Americans in their real lives, but these heroes had a signiﬁcant impact on
adolescent minds. These heroes, therefore, provided perspectives from which youthful

Americans looked at their reality.

123

Some of these popular culture heroes were found in movies, in books and even in
comic strips. In Hollywood, James Dean acted as a rebellious but sensitive teenager
dissatisﬁed with suburban conformity in Rebel Without a Cause in 1955. His character’s
rebellion might have been done without a cause, but his pursuit of belonging gave many
teenagers a cause to search for the self. In the 1954 ﬁlm 0n the Waterfront, Marlon
Brando played an ex-boxer who ran errands for a crooked boss of the longshoremen’s

union. When his character Terry realizes that he has inadvertently been involved in a
murder, he becomes torn between loyalty to his boss and the qualms of his conscience.
The characters of Dean and Brando are, in short, vulnerable, but rebellious against what
they cannot accept as a social or cultural norm or something that cannot ﬁt into their
echical or moral criteria.

In the 1956 ﬁlm version of best-selling novel Man in the Grey Flannel Suit
written by Wilson Sloan, Gregory Peck plays the main character Tom Rath, an archetype
of “organization man” in the 19505 who wonders whether he has the freedom to make.
any choices in his conformist world. A Madison Avenue advertising executive, Rath lives
in a comfortable Connecticut bedroom town and commutes in and out of Manhattan,
leaving him little time for his wife and children. He is very professional, but frustrated by
the role he plays in business as an “organization man.” Rath soon realizes that he will
have to choose between becoming a fully dedicated company man and maintaining a

healthy work-life balance. Torn Rath’s “organization man” foreshadowed the future of
college students.

In literature, J. D. Salinger published The Catcher in the Rye in 1951, which won

overwhelming critical acclaim and produced many devoted admirers, especially among

124

college students. The 16-year-old protagonist Holden Caulﬁeld, who is plagued by
“phoniness” of his surrounding people and leaves his preparatory school in Pennsylvania
for Manhattan, became an iconic ﬁgure among the post-WWII generation. In 1957, Jack
Kerouac’s 0n the Road was published. In this road novel, two protagonists Sal Paradise
(a self portrait by Kerouac) and Dean Moriarty (based on Neal Cassady) traveled from
coast to coast. Paradise is introverted and struggling about his future; Moriarty, just out of
a reform school, is joyous and reckless. Narrated by Paradise whose monologue

addresses the wasteland of modernity, 0n the Road conveys his loneliness, insecurity,

and failure, all of which are underscored by his longing for friendship with Moriarty who
does not care about what Paradise is concerned.

In postwar America, the traditional image of a hero being extraordinary and doing
extraordinary things changed. A hero was not a great man. Rather he was just an average
man whose effort does not pay off. A hero is, for example, like Sisyphus in the Greek
mythology. Sisyphus is ordered to roll a rock to the top of a mountain. When Sisyphus
raises the rock near the top, however, the rock begins rolling down by its own weight. He
starts it again, but with a futile result. The French existentialist writer Albert Camus, then
a popular writer among American college students, wrote The Myth of Sisyphus, in which
he argued that Sisyphus is happy about this fate because Sisyphus tells us that he
overcomes the fate by accepting his travail. Sisyphus accepts his fate even though he
knows that his effort does not pay off.

Charlie Brown, the main character in the comic strip Peanuts, also ﬁts well into
this category of hero as an average man who suffers from predicarnents. The author

Charles Schulz once said, “has to be the one who suffers, because he is a caricature of the

125

 

average

mun

and. d

COIISE

saw I

V331

obs

 

average person. Most of us are much more acquainted with losing than we are with
winning.”12

In a time when America exerted enormous inﬂuence on international relations
and, domestically, achieved enormous expansion of its economic power and the
consequent social transformation into a consumer society, the baby boomer generation
saw themselves as sufferers who had been disconnected and alienated from the social tie
because of the postwar afﬂuence. C. Wright Mills’s White Collar: The American
Middle-Classes (1951) discussed the propertyless middle-class workers who provided a
vast staff for the ruling elite. White-collar workers in modern industrial societies, Mills
observes, are unorganized and dependent upon large bureaucracies for their existence.
Vance Packard’s Status Seekers (1959) questioned the well-established assertion that the
postwar afﬂuent economy has increased social mobility and blurred class and ethnic
lines. Focusing on the middle-class Amaicans, who have moral dilemma between the
desire for success in business and mass consumption in private life, Packard argued that
America had become more socially divided with a widening chasm between the
“Diploma Elite,” the real upper and upper-middle classes, and the “Supporting Classes,”
the lower-middle, working, and real lower classes, which replaced the traditional class
line. Herbert Gans summed up the character of these middle-class Americans living in
suburbia by observing that suburbanites were “incapable of real friendship; they [were]
bored and lonely, alienated, atomized, and depersonalized.”l3

These negative descriptions of the middle-class Americans were to a larger extent
the counter-image of what the identity-seeking youth wanted to become. After having

consumed existential heroes through popular culture channels, folk revivalists discovered

126

loll 51
model
from
thong
depe
popt
P51"

193

Th

folk singers on records and at concerts. Folk singers became, though imaginary, a role
model for urban folk revivalists, the sufferers, who did not get much material beneﬁt
from the nation’s economic advancement. But for all this predicament, folk revivalists
thought, folk singers in the South could help them from being “alienated, atomized, and
depersonalized.” Their act of singing seemed to be a vindication of it. Moreover, unlike
popular culture heroes who are, as a matter of course, the fabricated image of

psychologically na'l‘ve teenagers in most cases, folk singers were real ﬁgures living in the

1950s

The Folk Identity Formation at Campus
It is thus natural for folk revivalists to ﬁnd their heroes in folk music. By listening to
Woody Guthrie, for example, revivalists created the image of Guthrie as a desperate
working-class hero or a rambling hobo. The young Bob Dylan was inﬂuenced by
Guthrie’s autobiography Bound For Glory, which made Dylan decide to go to New York
to see him. He saw a vision in Guthrie’s Bound for Glory that Dylan was, like the Guthrie
in his autobiography, hoboing the country singing along the road. Guthrie, desperate but
individualistic, was a prototype of folksingers whom many revivalists admired.

The interesting point is that folk revivalists found their folk heroes at campus.
Before Dylan found Guthrie and other folk singers including Odetta, Jack Elliott, and
Pete Seeger when he was a student at the University of Minnesota, his musical heroes at
his high school days were Little Richard, Buddy Holly, and Gene Vincent. He was also a
fan of James Dean and ran around town in jeans, a motorcycle jacket, and-boots. Entering

the university, Dylan learned the Beat literature and folk music at the off-campus hip area

127

called Dinkytown and he came to immerse himself in folk music by playing it.M

Dylan’s transformation regarding his choices of heroes from rock 'n' roll to folk
singer was not unique. Phil Ochs, another prominent folk singer in the revival period,
took a similar path. Before enrolling in Ohio State University, Ochs’s heroes were
Marlon Brando and James Dean. After he watched 0n the Waterfront, he dreamed about
boxing to become a champion. After watching Rebel Without a Cause, he thought that he
wanted a red jacket and combed his hair back like Dean. His favorite singers were Johnny
Cash, Faron Young, Everly Brothers, Gene Vincent, Buddy Holly, and Elvis Presley. He
arrived in Columbus, wearing a red jacket like Dean in Rebel Without a Cause. Before
long, however, he became to learn folk music such as Guthrie, Seeger, the Weavers, and
related political events like HU AC. Ochs decided to become a folk singer.'5

University played a special role in creating the revival movement and the
construction of identity for several reasons. Folklorists had studied folk music for
decades and they had taught their students folk music and folklore at class. Unlike rock
’n’ roll songs that were frequently played on the radio, folk music was less accessible for
high school students. They did not have enough Opportunities to hear folk music in their
hometowns. Accessing folk music for the ﬁrst time on campus, they came to learn more
about folk music. Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary outlines a typical developmental
pattern of how a college student become involved in the folk music revival:

having attended such an affair [collegiate old-fashioned style singing or dancing

event], and felt such elevated feelings as belong to hymn singing and revival

meetings, the student begins by buying certain records, typically by Harry

Belafonte or the Kingston Trio, and slowly becomes acquainted, through friends,

album notes, magazines, books, and other sources, with more “authentic” music

such as that in the Library of Congress collection. Coffeehouse and concert

performances intimate the possibility of her own transformation—and soon she
has retired to her dorm room to compare her own efforts on the guitar to what she

128

hears on the record albums.l6

Major universities had folk music clubs, which organized folk concerts and published
folk music magazines. In Minneapolis, the eighteen-year-old Robert Zimmerman, who
would later call himself Bob Dylan, learned about folk music from Paul Nelson, the
University of Minnesota student who worked at a local record distributor. Nelson loaned
Zimmerman the Harry Smith’s Anthology of A merican Folk Music. As Zimmerman
immersed himself into the world of folk music, he began calling himself Bob Dylan,
changing his look from jeans, motorcycle jacket, and boots to corduroy pants and plain
shirts. His particular interest was Guthrie. While listening to Guthrie’s records, Dylan
read his autobiography Bound For Glory.'7 In Guthrie’s life, Dylan found an image of
outsider who wanders around. Dylan also read Jack Kerouac’s On The Road. Like
Guthrie’s image in Bound For Glory, Dylan found the character Sal Paradise in On The
Road hoboing around the country searching for self. In the meantime, at Ohio State
University, Phil Ochs ﬁrst found his interest in politics such as the Cuban Revolution,
Fidel Castro, and the Cuban missile crisis, and then he met a fellow student named Jim
Glover who brought Ochs to the world of folk music and taught him how to play the
guitar. Combining his dream to become a journalist and his new fascination with folk
music, Ochs found his suitable form of expression—writing and singing t0pical songs.

It is no exaggeration to say that the college atmosphere as an intellectual enclave
created the folk music revival. There were folklorists and faculty from other disciplines
who possessed extensive knowledge about folk music and American folklore. They
served as mentors and reliable guides for folk revivalists at campus. Some of the

revivalists, like John Burrison at Penn State, became folklore professors. And there were

129

well-informed students like Paul Nelson and Jim Clover. Without Nelson, Bob Dylan
might not have been produced. Without Clover, Ochs might not have moved to New
York. From the academic courses on folklore and related subjects to campus folk music
festivals, fraternity or sorority folksinging for recreational purpose, publishing folk music
magazines, and “extracurricular” activities like hanging around coffeehouses near
campus (Dinkytown at the University of Minnesota, for instance), and personal
acquaintances with faculty and fellow students, university provided several channels for
students to discover folk music.

Some folk revivalists had, however, experienced folk music earlier in their lives.
Dick Weissman, who would form the Journeymen and made a debut from Capitol
Records in 1961, recalls that his ﬁrst encounter with folk music was at the Progressive
Party Convention in 1948 when he was thirteen. He saw Pete Seeger Sing and play the
banjo there. Before long thirteen—year—old Weissman bought a banjo to play himself. As
he learned to play the banjo, his interest in folk music grew and he began collecting 78
rpm records of Brownie MacGhee, Leadbelly, and Woody Guthrie. In 1952 he enrolled at
Goddard College in Vermont. After graduation, he moved to New York to study
sociology at Columbia University. While studying at Columbia, he recorded some songs.
His ﬁrst recording was for Stinson, accompanying the West Indian singer Dick Silvera.
Then, his ﬁrst album with Billy Faier and Eric Weissberg Banjos, Banjos, and More
Banjos was released from Riverside. In the summer of 1958 he appeared on two TV
programs—NBC special program The Ragtime Years and ABC’s Labor Day'Show.

In a similar way, Ralph Rinzler and Roger Abrahams attended Pete Seeger’s

concert together at Swarthmore College in 1953 when they were students there.

I30

Inﬂuenced by Seeger’s banjo playing, Rinzler and Abrahams began learning to play the
banjo. However, this concert was not Rinzler’s ﬁrst encounter with folk music. Before he
was ten, Rinzler had been listening to the Library of Congress ﬁeld recordings. He knew
the names of folksingers and their songs, and he just liked listening to folk music. It was
just a music he liked, no more, no less. However, it was at the Swarthmore concert that
he sensed signiﬁcant impact from Seeger’s folk singing and banjo playing and thought
that this was what he wanted to do for the rest of his life. Seeger looked “absolutely
coherent” with “everything ﬁt together.” Abrahams recalls that Seeger showed them
“clarity of spirit and vision.”‘8

Despite the difference in when, where, or how they learned folk music, it is at
university that folk revivalists discovered their dedication to folk music. In addition to the
growing population of middle class families that could afford to have their children
attend colleges, the G.I. Bill of Rights allowed returning soldiers to earn degrees.
Universities increased their presence and signiﬁcance after the war. Not only had they
become an institution for educating all Americans, universities played a pivotal role as
central institutions of scientiﬁc development, backed up by the government, to counter
the Cold War race against the Soviet Union. As the size of a university expanded, it
became the same as a large corporation. Many historians and critics pointed out that the
Cold War university had become a place of conformity, which New Left student activists
harshly attacked. A professor’s life had become, as Clark Kerr called it, a “rat race of
business and activity,” just like a corporate organization man’s.19

While American colleges in the late 19508 were the places of confOrmism, folk

music functioned as a marker of differentiation from the majority of students who

131

follower
Thoma:
Richort
Pynch-
he hit
Purl
alout

stud

followed that conformism. In the winter of 1958 at Cornell University, the future novelist
Thomas Pynchon, then junior editor on the campus literary magazine Cornell Writer, met
Richard Farina, who would later move to Greenwich Village to become a folksinger.
Pynchon describes the rebellious manner of Farina: he was “not wearing ajacket or tie,”
he had “more hair than was fashionable,” and he had a “dangerous presence.” At Cornell,
Pynchon writes, undergraduate women had to be inside dormitories or sorority houses by
around eleven pm. on weeknights and midnight even on Saturday nights.20 College
students like Farina politicized folksinging as to differentiate them from other conformist
students and as a manifestation of their deﬁance against what they saw as the oppression
of the university.

At Boston University in 195 8, Joan Baez’s college life began with her refusal to
wear the customary beanie to the freshman class picnic. Unwilling to conform to the
norm the university had set, Baez instead frequented coffeehouses in Cambridge to sing
folk songs. She ended up dropping out of college before her second semester. Despite her
traditional singing style and her contract with the classical label Vanguard, she was a
“rebellious, barefoot, antiestablishment young girl.” In contrast to the feminine image of
that era, she represented the “negative image of Marilyn Monroe; thin, dark, strong,
smart, virtuous—still, young and attractive to men.”21

The music scholar Barry Shank observes that a similar relationship between folk
music and non-conformist students occurred at the University of Texas, Austin, in the
early 19605. At Austin, folksinging students distanced themselves from other student
organizations like fraternities, sororities, and varsity sports teams. Folk music, as it did at

many other colleges, carried an aura of authenticity and at the same time it meant

132

rebellion. Rebellious student groups at Austin gathered at a coffeehouse and they
performed folk songs. In a heavily conformist cultural milieu like Austin, Shank

concludes, folk music became a means of constructing a difference.22

The Legacy of Leftist Politics
Until the early 19505, the perception of folk music as a left-wing cultural weapon to
instill communist propaganda still remained at universities. The Yale graduate John
Cohen, who would form the New Lost City Ramblers, notes that most Yale students in
1952 and 1953, when he was a freshman and organizing hootenannies at campus,
considered folk music strictly left-wing and he was repeatedly cautioned by the
administration that he should quit playing the banjo. F olksinging at Yale, however, began
gradually attracting more and more students. Campus hootenannies were full of students.
But this was in the midst of McCarthyism hysteria and Cohen heard of ﬁst ﬁghting at
dormitories where students attempted to prevent their roommates from going to
hootenannies because they thought that attending hoots might hinder roommates’
opportunities to get jobs.23

By the mid-19505, however, the perception of folk music as left-wing political
propaganda seemed to disappear. The Weavers’ reunion concert at Carnegie Hall in
December, 1955 was a tipping point at which folk music transformed itself into a
politically neutral form of music that would reach a wide range of audience including
college students. After the successful hit “Goodnight Irene” in 1950s, the Weavers had
been troubled with the Cold War political tension. In the same year, Red Channels:

Communist Inﬂuence on Radio and Television listed Seeger as a communist member. In

133

1952 a supposed communist informant testiﬁed before HUAC that Seeger and other
members of the Weavers were members of Communist Party. Since these events Seeger
had been prohibited from appearing in commercial media and, consequently, Decca
Records stopped recording the Weavers.

It was around this period that Seeger began touring colleges. Seeger found his
new audience at colleges in lieu of union workers. The transition of Seeger’s audience
from the working-class union members to the young middle-class audience also indicates
the transformation of American sociocultural condition after the war—from the emphasis
on production to which workers had contributed, to consumption-based society from
which the baby boomer middle-class youth to a great extent beneﬁted. On Christmas Eve
in 1955, the Weavers appeared at a concert at Carnegie Hall for the ﬁrst time in three
years. What the new urban audience saw at the Weavers’ reunion concert was a total
freshness of their sound, lyrics, and harmony, rather than the remnant of left-wing
political atmosphere. Peter Yarrow recalls that the reunion concert was a “unique
experience” of his life. “We don’t copy their devices because they don’t use devices.

They became themselves on stage,” said Yarrow. The record of this concert came out
from Vanguard in 195 7. On the back cover was a quote from the review article of their
Town Hall concert in 1950: “They enchanted a capacity and wildly partisan audience.
And small wonder; they do their best kind of repertoire to perfection with plenty of spirit
and enthusiasm.” Perhaps, the Weavers had not changed their spirit and musical style at
all. The new audience rediscovered the authenticity or “spirit and enthusiasm” in their
unchanged manner.“

The new audience of folk music at universities embraced folk music not so much

134

because they felt sympathy toward the leftist activism, but because they thought that
folksinging represented, as Peter Yarrow mentioned, authenticity and spiritedness. Even
though they might have heard a union song, they no longer sang it as the union workers
did in order to unite and to conﬁrm their working-class virtue. College folk
revivalists—most of whom came from the middle- and upper-class families—were not a
potential political constituency who might gain material beneﬁt from left-wing activism.
They were not protesting against the system, nor were they an economically oppressed
group. Folk revivalists found in union songs that the “spirit and enthusiasm” rooted in the
sense of suffering connected to them as sufferers from the zeitgeist of postwar urban
America. It is the recognition that they were rootless Americans who were trapped in a
psychological ﬁssure in which they found it difficult to identify who they were and what
kind of role they had been playing and would be playing in the future.

In the early 19603, the New Left movement spread out at campuses across the
nation. The New Left, which set a clear political goal for creating a more democratic
society, had several similarities with the folk revival although one was a political
movement and the other a cultural movement. Both movements emerged from campuses
at which middle- and upper-class students, who felt alienation from the rest of society
despite their relatively privileged social background, sought for a new value and self
identity. Students for a Democratic Society, a left-wing organization of college students
that was formed in the early 19605 and created its chapters throughout the nation, played
a leading role in the New Left movement. In the Port Huron Statement in 1962, they
afﬁrmed the human “potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and

creativity.” From this statement, it is possible to assume that SDS had been aware of the

135

issu

hea

fol

\t‘l

issue of authenticity. The search for authenticity, as Doug Rossinow argues, lay at the
heart of New Left.

Folk revivalists held a similar premise as the New Left for their involvement with
folk music. They found themselves trapped into alienated social and cultural condition in
which they found it difﬁcult to establish the self identity. Folk music sounded ideal to
them because the songs they listened to were so fresh and simple. In sharp contrast to
complexity of postwar America, folk music represented what was missing in postwar
America.

As SDS claimed as its core principle of its political movement that full
participation in society was essential, the folk revivalists held an idea that the essence of
their folk revival movement was participation. Many folk music critics pointed out this
characteristic. Robert Shelton aptly called the folk revival “an involvement art.”25 In
contrast to mass culture that, it was believed, brought alienation, the folk revival was the
movement that connected people to people. Of course, folk music was available through
records and a person could listen to them individually in their bedrooms, but the
revivalists did not satisfy themselves simply by enjoying folk music by themselves. The
revivalists sought to recreate a quasi-premodern community similar to the one that used
to exist in which folk music they were listening to had been created. They looked for a
place to socialize, hear songs, and sing along with them.

The involvement principle was demonstrated in their participation in the civil
rights movement beyond the folk community. The singings by Marian Anderson, Joan
Baez, Bob Dylan, Harry Belafonte, Josh White, Mahalia Jackson, and Peter, Paul & Mary

at the March on Washington on August 28, 1963, was one of the most memorable

136

moments in how the folk music revival movement involved itself in the civil rights
movement. But even before the March on Washington, folk singers had actively involved
in the civil rights cause and politics in general. Theodore Bikel supported the JFK
presidential campaign and sang at SNCC-sponsored beneﬁt concerts. Folk music, in
Theodore Bikel’s words, was a “fusion between artist and activism.”26 Before the civil
rights movement caught the national attention, young black folk singers rarely were
involved in the folk revival scene. There were, of course, eminent black folk singers such
as Odetta, Josh White, and Paul Robeson on the scene, but they were veteran singers
having performed since the 19405 and early 1950s. The upsurge of the civil rights
movement in some way helped young black singers join the folk music revival movement
that had been dominated by the urban white middle-class or upper-middle class singers
and audience. At the Albany Movement in November 1961, the ﬁrst mass movement in
the civil rights movement history, two ﬁeld secretaries of SNCC—Charles Sherrod and
Cordell Reagan—held a singing event filled with spiritual songs sung by African
Americans. After the Albany Movement, more and more white folk singers began
participating in the civil rights carnpaigns. The Freedom Singers, a four-person chorus
group formed by SNCC to raise money and spread the SNCC idea, performed alongside
numerous white folk singers including Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan. At the
1963 Newport Folk Festival, the Freedom Singers appeared to sing “We Shall

Overcome” as well as Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” at the closing.

Conclusion

Folk revivalists grew up surrounded by mass-produced entertainment such as movies,

137

radio, records, magazines, and television. They formed their cultural identity through the
process of creating the revivalist movement. Identity is not a static concept. It is always
in motion. Folk music revivalists found out their own meanings in and reﬂections of their
personal experience. As a space for practicing popular culture, these participants
constructed the folk community in an effort to create a sphere of autonomy by
committing themselves to various folk music practices.

The consumption of folk music became a means of identiﬁcation. But this does
not mean that the act of purchasing folk records or other related materials automatically
builds up a community. Forming the folk communities resulted from folk revivalists’
desire to create their own community that would represent their ideas, ideals, concerns,
and tastes. They inscribed their cultural identiﬁcation with heroes such as James Dean,
Little Richard, and folk singers like Woody Guthrie as well as unknown folk singers, but
at the same time, they perceived the notion of folk as something that related their identity
to the society in which they lived, in a historical context.

The folk identity was constructed out of a larger sociocultural landscape in the
19508 and 19603. Identity mattered to the revivalists. Throughout the process of seeking
cultural heroes during their teens, these adolescents encountered folk music which aided
them in creating the image of their own social roles. Nostalgic in part, but future-looking,
the folk identity was a noble concept that enabled them to re-evaluate their lives and

America.

 

' David A. De Turk and A. Poulin Jr., The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival (New
York: A Laurel Original, 1967), 21.

2 Kip Lomell, Introducing American Folk Music: Ethnic and Grassroot Traditions in the United States
(Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 255,

138

 

3 For discussion on identity, see Angela McRobbie, Postmodernism and Popular Culture (New York:
Routledge, 1994), 58; Stuart Hall, “Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” in Identity: Community, Culture, and
Diﬂerence, ed. Jonathan Rutherford (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990), 225.
‘ Warren Susman, Culture as History: The Transformation of American Society in the Twentieth Century
(New York: Pantheon Books, 1973), 271,
5 George Herbert Mead and Charles W. Morris, Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), 7,
61bid., 175, 177,
7 Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959),
252-253.
8 Philip Gleason, “Identifying Identity: A Semantic History,” The Journal of American History 69, no. 4.
(March 1983): 910-931.

Peter L. Berger, Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1963),
100-06.
‘° Angela McRobbie, Postmodernism and Popular Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994), 58; Stuart Hall,
“Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” in Identity: Community, Culture, and Diﬂerence, ed. Jonathan Rutherford
(London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990), 225.
11 Leerom Medovoi, Rebels: Youth and the Cold War Origins of Identity (Durham: Duke University Press,
2005), 5-6; Erik H. Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: Norton, 1964).
'2 John Updike, “Sparky from St. Paul: A Biography of Charles Schulz,” (Review of David Michaelis,
Schulz and Peanuts), New Yorker, October 22, 2007, p.166.
‘3 C. Wright Mills, White Collar: The American Middle Classes (New York: Oxford University Press,
1953); Vance Oakley Packard, The Status Seekers; an Exploration of Class Behavior in America and the
Hidden Barriers That A ﬂeet You, Your Community, Your Future (New York: D. McKay Co., 1959); and
Herbert J. Gans, The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1967).
14 David Hajdu, Positively 4th Street: The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez F arir’ia, and
Richard Farina (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001), 67-68; Clinton Heylin, Bob Dylan: The
Recording Sessions, 1960-1994 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), 33-39,
15 Marc Eliot, Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs (New York: F. Watts, 1989), 13, 17-18,
'6 Robert Cantwell, When We Were Good: The Folk Revival (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1996), 331-332.
'7 Hajdu, Positively 4th Street: The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez F ariria, and
Richard F arir’ia, 70,
'8 Cantwell, When We Were Good: The Folk Revival, 243.
'9 David Kaiser, "The Postwar Suburbanization of American Physics," American Quarterly 56 (2004):
851-852.
20 Richard Farina, Been Down So Long It Looks Like up to Me (New York: Penguin Books, 1983), v-vi,
Thomas Pynchon contributed his introduction to this edition.
2' Cantwell, When We Were Good: The Folk Revival, 342, 344, David Hajdu, Positively 4th Street: The
Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez F arir'ia, and Richard F arir'ia (New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 2001), 21, 61.
22 Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities: The Rock ‘n ’ Roll Scene in Austin, Texas (Hanover, NH: University
Press of New England, 1994), 44-47.
23 Susan Montgomery, "The Folk Furor," Mademoiselle, December 1960, p. 100.
2‘ "Weavers Are Heard in Folksong Concert," New York Times, December 25, 1950, p. 23; "Togetherness,"
Newsweek, May 13, 1963, p. 95; and Ronald D. Cohen, Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival and
American Society, I 940-1970 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002), 102-103.
25 Robert Shelton and David Dahr, The Face of Folk Music (New York: Citadel Press, 1968), 3.
26 Theodore Bikel, Theo: The Autobiography of Theodore Bikel (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 268.

139

CONCLUSION

In its tenth anniversary issue in F ebruary/March 1961, Sing Out! featured a symposium
titled “Folk Music Today.” It asked ten key persons of the folk revival movement—~folk
singers, folklorists, record label managers, etc—about the state of folk music. The
arguments by the ten respondents reﬂected the transitional condition of folk music in the
midst of the folk revival movement. On one extreme, the folk singer Cynthia Gooding,
for example, defended the traditional and folkloristic deﬁnition of folk music as a
practice between singers and audience without any business intervention. On the other
extreme, Dave Guard, for example, one of the members of the Kingston Trio, argued that
professional folk music performers were making their livings “in competition with other
forms of entertainment available to the theoretically neutral public.”

Whichever side of the debate one stood on, we have to admit that Dave Guard
quite accurately understood the cultural condition of folk music in postwar America when
he mentioned “other forms of entertainment available to public.” The menu for
cultural consumption was diverse, especially in New York. There were theaters, movies,
paperback novels, TV, roller derby, boutique, ethnic foods, and so forth. One of other
responders George Avakian, a veteran record producer for RCA Victor, offered a
compromised view. He argued that “there is no opportunity to present the ‘pure’ or
esoteric type of folk material, but with imagination and quality presentation there is an
opportunity to record artists and songs of broad appeal, wherein the need for proﬁt does
”1

not mean violation of artistic and musical principle.

As the Sing Out! symposium suggests, how to reconcile the authentic folk music

140

exper

retit‘

Pres:

lesti

mat

W21

13

experience with the commercial forces had been the center of discussion among
revivalists. And it was this heated debate that enriched the folk revival movement.
Presenting authentic folk singers living in the South before the urban audience at folk
festivals or F OTM concerts not only satisﬁed authenticity-seeking audiences, but also
made the whole community of folk revivalists realize that they had been living in the
wasteland of modernity.

In my discussion of the folk music revival movement, I have often referred to the
revivalists’ nostalgia for and their romanticizing of the past. In addition, I have
suggested that these sentiments did not necessarin reﬂect the revivalists’ pessimism or
hopelessness for the present or future. Instead, the folk music revivalists reinvented the
folk music tradition to create a new relationship between their identity constructions and
social awareness.

In the 19503 the growth of suburbia idealized the middle-class way of life. At the
same time, sociological texts such as Lonely Crowd, The Organization Man, and White
Collar, and popular literature like Sloan Wilson’s The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit
identiﬁed the new type of middle-class American personality. The children of the
middle-class in suburbia felt culturally alienated from the middle-class normalcy. When
they came to know folk music, they imagined the people in the 193 Os and 19405 singing
vernacular music somewhere in the south and found out that folk singing represented
their middle-class values and identities as ordinary Americans. Henry Wallace, then vice
president for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, declared a decade earlier that the twentieth
century was “the century of the common man.” The experiences of the Depression and

WWII highlighted the idea that America had been built by the common men, or the

141

working-class people. Their music was the folk music that might represent the whole way
of life—an organic representation of an archaic but heartwarming, spirited, and
self-fulfilling lifestyle.

The postwar suburban middle-class youth understood folk music as one of the
expressive cultures that embodied the value of working-class Americans in the South. To
revivalists, a folk song epitomized folk people's way of life. They did not belong to the
working-class culture in the sociological sense, but found it fascinating enough to
embrace it as a counter culture of their own. The folk music revival might have
functioned as an imaginary escape from their middle-class conformity, but they also took
this opportunity to create a role for themselves in the Eriksonian sense.

As I discussed earlier, “folk” is not simply a name of musical genre that describes
its musical or lyrical content. During the folk revival, the notion of “folk” became a
means of constructing identity through the process of popularization of folk music. Since
the mid-19503 America had witnessed the emergence of popular culture that affected the
lives of the young generation. They had heard Elvis Presley shouting “Hound Dog” or
watched James Dean or Marlon Brando playing a sensitive hero or anti-hero on the
screen. Then they had read or heard about the Beat literature that rejected the American
prosperity. Rock ‘n’ roll, Dean, and beatniks were all appreciated through commercial
channels. For the ﬁrst time in the American cultural history, cultural producers started
creating products aimed at attracting the youth segment of the population. The 19505 was
the decade in which the transformation of cultural hierarchy occurred and the cultural
division was restructured. It was necessary then to take a look at the overview of cultural

politics in the 195 Os, which helped us understand the commercial success of folk revival

142

and its relationship with the identity formation among the folk revivalists.

The folk revival created a space or community, in which participants were
connected, on the one hand, by personal interactions on campuses or in Greenwich
Village, and, on the other hand, via mass media. Each participant discovered the musical
tradition through records and radio, folk festivals, hootenannies, folk magazines, folk
events on campus, and coffee houses. In Greenwich Village, the Folklore Center
functioned as a physical space for folk audiences to communicate and share their tastes,
ideas, and information. In such a space the revivalists appropriated the old musical
culture adopting it to their own needs to construct their identities. Their interest in the old
musical expression led them to reinterpret not only folk music but also the social and
cultural condition of postwar American society.

It is important to note that terms other than the term “revival” have been used to
describe this movement. Folk singer Sandy Paton, who had performed in America and
England and founded Folk-Legacy Records in 1961, preferred “the folk arrival” to “the
folk revival.” “Arrival” connotes that the phenomenon was the arrival of traditional folk
music, that had been played locally in the urban areas in the 19505. To the urban
audience, folk music was nothing but a new experience. Paton argued that the history of
folk music had been a series of arrival of folk singers in urban America: Leadbelly was
brought to New York by the Lomaxes in 1935; Woody Guthrie left Los Angeles for New
York in 1940; Jean Ritchie moved to New York from Kentucky to work at the Henry
Street Settlement in 1946.2 Recent reissue album of concerts by the Friends of Old Time
Music in the early 19605 was titled “Friends of Old Time Music: The Folk Arrival

1961-1965.” F OTM brought traditional folk singers in front of audiences in New York.

143

“Arrival” thus meant that the southern and western folk singers ﬁnally reached the urban
young audience.

Arguing a different line, the folklorist B. A. Botkin once compared “revival” with
“survival.” As the opposite meaning of “revival,” “surviva ” is “dead-alive” and
something that has outlived beyond its time. After he argued that many folk songs might
be considered in this “survival” category, Botkin confessed that the revival movement
had gone far beyond scholars’ reach and control. Botkin’s sense of difference between
“survival” and “revival” was that “survival” was the subject of scholars’ research, but
“revival” was not because folk music became a business. Put simply, the music business
revived folk music. The reverse is that the folk “survival” has its own value worth
studying because surviving folk music is a token of folkloristic importance.3

Dave van Ronk called the folk revival “the Folk Scare,” by which he meant that
the sudden popularity of folk music changed the lives of folk singers including himself
and the folk community in Greenwich Village, for better or worse. This naming was
intended to emphasize the inﬂuence of the folk music business on the Village folk scene
and on the entire course of folk music.4 In a similar fashion, the folk music scholar Neil
V. Rosenberg termed the movement “the Great Boom,” implying a sense of explosion of
folk music as a cultural product via mass media and its immediate fadeout of the national
attention.5

While it seems that these different terms were mere semantic differentiations, the
variety of names indicates the diversity of the folk music revival in its way of reception
and interpretation, as well as its aesthetics. The folk music audience received the music

not as a given culture, but as an alternative to mass/pOpular culture, to the Cold War

144

conformism, and to the mainstream American way of life. To the revivalists in the 19503,
folk music was an old culture, but they did not take it in the same way the older
generation had appreciated it. Rather, the young revivalists reinterpreted folk music to
resituate it in the socially and politically conservative condition of the 19505 and used it
to construct their identities. The folk revivalists were not monolithic in their
interpretations of folk music. As epitomized by the debate over commercialism, their
ideas of “folk” were often in creative tension with one another. This ﬂuidity of the
meaning and imagery the revivalists projected on “folk” was largely responsible for the
movement.

Also important is that it occurred in Greenwich Village. In the 1950s, inheriting
the Village’s tradition of bohemianism and cosmopolitanism, Greenwich Village had
attracted many artists, journalists, and political activists from all over the country
regardless of their ideological or aesthetic orientations. They created a distinctive cultural
atmosphere that challenged the conventional discourse of the decade epitomized as
conformity. In particular, the folk revivalists shared the same understanding of American
society with the Beat generation and other Greenwich Village bohemians. All of them
observed that America had become overwhelmingly complicated, controlled, and
manipulated by the one-dimensionally prescribed way of life. As a way out, or as a
personal solution, they found beautiﬁll, simple, and mind-soothing culture in the culture
of the past and in cultures from different regions. Beat writers embraced jazz, from which
they extracted the notion of spontaneity or improvisation, which was something lost in
modern America. Folk revivalists found “intensely personal” expression in southern

country blues.6

I45

The folk revival movement did not occur as a natural outcome of the resistance
against capitalistic cultural force and postwar social transformation, but as a result of a
dynamic process between production and consumption. It took place amid the changing
nature of the postwar demographic in which teenagers became a major segment in the
market; teens exerted their buying power, to which the popular music industry responded
by providing rock ‘n’ roll music and then folk music. Rock ‘n’ roll was the ﬁrst music
that targeted the teenage market. Entering college, however, teenagers found folk music
more fascinating in various ways. It represented the culture of the past and its very
presence in the 19503 and early 19603 at concert halls or coffeehouses in Greenwich
Village was taken as a sense of suffering and of jubilation. The suffering and jubilation
seem contradictory ideas, but the revivalists took them as a cohesive set of values
distinctive from the mainstream corporate-centered culture.

The folk revivalists were primarily sophisticated elitists who nonetheless yearned
for the patronage of the masses. They were well-educated youth experiencing the social
reality of the postwar America, and they looked to connect to the common people by way
of constructing a folk identity. The construction of folk identity was a cultural invention
brought about by their search for the sense of what folk meant. Being both creators and
consumers of folk music, the folk revivalists found that those roles shaped their views of
postwar America and their cultural and social consciousness. It was a crucial way to
prevent themselves from being alienated and helped to make a positive relationship
between the revivalists themselves and the society in which they lived.

Yet, at the same time, the folk music revival movement was a movement without

a speciﬁc center. “No one sector has charge of the situation,” Pete Seeger remarked, “not

146

the Right nor the Left, the cynic nor the romanticist, the purist nor the hybridist, the
scholar nor the fan, the money-maker nor the money-spurner.”7 This was the very
sociocultural condition in which folk revivalists struggled to construct their cultural
identity and the very reason why they searched for that identity by participating in the

folk music revival movement.

 

' Sing Outl, F ebruary/March 1961, p. 20.

2 Sandy Paton, “Folk and the Folk Arrival,” in The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong
Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr. (New York: A Laurel Original, 1967), 38-43.

3 B. A. Botkin, “The Folksong Revival: A Symposium,” New York Folklore Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1963):
89-90.

4 Dave Van Ronk and Elijah Wald, The Mayor of Macdougal Street: A Memoir (New York: Da Capo Press,
2005), 179.

5 Neil V. Rosenberg ed., Transforming Tradition: Folk Music Revivals Examined (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1993), 27-33; Ronald D. Cohen, "Wasn't That a Time! ": Firsthand Accounts of the Folk
Music Revival (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1995), 76.

6 Samuel Barclay Charters, The Country Blues (New York: Da Capo Press, 1975), 17.

7 Arnold Shaw, "Gitars [Sic], Folk Songs, and Halls of Ivy," Harpers' Magazine, November 1964, p. 43.

147

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“A Trio in Tune Makes the Top.” Life, August 3, 1959, 61-65.
Adams, Dick. “The Defense of the Kingston Trio.” Autoharp, May 19, 1961, 23-24.

Amram, David. Vibrations; the Adventures and Musical Times of David Amram. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1968.

Aronowitz, Alfred G., and Marshall Blonsky. “Three's Company: Peter, Paul and Mary.”
Saturday Evening Post, May 30, 1964.

“Autoharp.” Autoharp, April 7, 1961, l.
Barden, J. C. “Pete Seeger.” Hi Fidelity, January 1963.

Belgrad, Daniel. The Culture of Spontaneity: Improvisation and the Arts in Postwar
America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Berger, Peter L. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1963.

Bikel, Theodore. Theo: The Autobiography of Theodore Bikel. New York: HarperCollins,
1994.

Bohlman, Philip Vilas. The Study of Folk Music in the Modern World. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1988.

Botkin, B. A. “The Folksong Revival: Cult or Culture?” In The American Folk Scene:
Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk and A. Poulin Jr., New

York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

. “The Folksong Revival: A Symposium.” New York Folklore Quarterly 19, no. 2

(1963): 82-142.

 

Brand, Oscar. The Ballad Mangers: Rise of the Modern Folk Song. New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1962.

Broadside, no. 1, February 1962.
Broadside, no. 23, March 1963.
“Bulletins from the Blacklist Front. Broadside, no. 32, September 1963.

Burrison, John. “Biography of a Folk Singer: Jean Ritchie.” Folkways Monthly, 1963.

I48

 

. "Prof. Samuel Bayard: Dedicated F olklorist. ” Folkways Monthly, 1962.
“Calender of Events. ” Autoharp, March 22, 1963, 3.

Cantwell, Robert. When We Were Good: The Folk Revival. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1996. '

“.“When We Were Good: Class and Culture in the Folk Revival Movement.” In
Transforming Tradition: Folk Music Revivals Examined, ed. Neil Rosenberg.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
Charters, Samuel Barclay. The Country Blues. New York: Da Capo Press, 1975.

Child, Francis James. The English and Scottish Popular Ballads. New York: Dover
Publications, 1965.

Clark, Edgar Rogie. “Problems of Folk Song Interpretation.” Musical America, March
15, 1948, 37.

Cohen, John. “The Folk Music Interchange: Negro and White. ”In The American Folk
Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A. Poulin
Jr., 59-66. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Cohen, Norm. Folk Song America: A Twentieth Century Revival [Booklet to 4-CD].
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Collection of Recordings, 1990.

Cohen, Ronald D. Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival and American Society,
1940-1970. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002.
—-——. “Wasn't That a Time! ”: Firsthand Accounts of the Folk Music Revival.

Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1995.

Cunningham, Sis, and Gordon F riesen. Red Dust and Broadsides: A Joint Autobiography.
Amherst, Mass: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

De Turk, David A., and A Poulin Jr., eds. The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the
F olksong Revival. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Denisoff, R. Serge. Great Day Coming: Folk Music and the American Left. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1971.

Dorson, Richard. “Folklore and Fakelore. ” American Mercury 70 (1950): 335-348.

Dunaway, David King. How Can I Keep ﬁ'om Singing: Pete Seeger. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981.

Dunson, Josh. Freedom in the Air: Song Movements of the Sixties. New York:
International Publishers, 1965.

149

Dylan, Bob. Chronicles. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Eliot, Marc. Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs. New York: F. Watts, 1989.

Emrich, Duncan. “America's Folkways. ” Holiday, July 1955.
. “What Is American Folklore? ” Reader's Digest, October 1955.

 

Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1964.

F ariila, Richard. Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me. New York: Penguin Books,
1 983.

Filene, Benjamin. Romancing the Folk: Public Memory & and American Roots Music.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

“Folk Hunter.” Time, October 12, 1959, 91.

“Folk Singing: Sibyl with Guitar. ” T ime, November 23, 1962, 54-60.
“Folklorist Flanagan Returns.”Autoharp 1, May 19, 1961, 1.
“Folkniks: Fact or Fancy? ” Autoharp 2, October 6, 1961, 6.

Friesen, Gordon. “There's No Blacklist in Haven. ” Broadside, no. 24, April 1963.
. “Whither American Folk Music? ” Broadside, no. 11-12, August 1962.

 

Gahr, David, and Robert Shelton. The Face of Folk Music. New York: Citadel Press,
1968.

Gans, Herbert J. The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban
Community. New York: Pantheon Books, 1967.

George, Paul S., and Jerald M. Starr. “Beat Politics: New Left and Hippie Beginnings in
the Postwar Counterculture.” In Cultural Politics: Radical Movements in Modern
History, ed. Jerold M. Starr, 189-233. New York: Praeger, 1985.

Gleason, Philip. “Identifying Identity: A Semantic History.” The Journal of American
History 69, no. 4 (March 1983): 910-931.

Goddard, J . R. “Coffee Houses: Many Things to Many Men.” Village Voice, November
30,1961, 1,14.
. “Folk Music: The Real McCoy at PS. 41 .” Village Voice, March 30, 1961, 12.

 

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1959.

150

Gura, Philip F. “Southern Roots and Branches: Forth Years of the New Lost City
Ramblers.” Southern Cultures 6, no. 4 (2000): 58-81.
. American F olksongs of Protest. New York: Octagon Books, 1970.

 

Greenway, John. “The Position of Songs of Protest in Folk Literature.” In The American
Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A.
Poulin Jr., 112—29. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Hajdu, David. Positively 4th Street: The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi
Baez F ariria, and Richard F ariiia. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001.

Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” In Identity: Community, Culture, and
Diﬂerence, ed. Jonathan Rutherford, 222-237. London: Lawrence & Wishart,
1990.

“Harry Oster: A Proﬁle. ” Autoharp, Feburuary 8, 1963, 3.

Harrington, Michael. Fragments of the Century. New York: Saturday Review Press,
1973.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge, 1988.
Hentoff, Nat. “Footnotes to Hootenanny. ” Village Voice, April 18, 1963.

Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions, 1960—1 994. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1995.

Hinton, Sam. “The Singer of Folksongs and His Conscience. ” In The American Folk
Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A. Poulin
Jr., 67-71. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Holmes, Clellon. “This Is the Beat Generation. ” New York Times, November 16, 1952,
10, I9, 20, 22.

“Hoots and Hollers on the Campus. ” Newsweek, November 27, 1961, 84-85.
Igliori, Paola, ed. American Magus Harry Smith. New York: lnanout Press, 1996.

James, Michael. “Free Show in Washington Square Is a Hit. ” New York Times, May 25,
1959, 1.

Kaiser, David. “The Postwar Suburbanization of American Physics. ” American
Quarterly 56 (2004): 851-888.

151

Karpeles, Maud. “Deﬁnition of Folk Music.” Journal of the International Folk Music
Council 7 (1955): 6-7.

Kerouac, Jack. Selected Letters, I957-1969. ed. Ann Charters. New York: Viking, 1999.
. The Subterraneans. New York: Grove Press, 1989.
. Visions of Cody. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.

 

 

Kerouac, Jack, and Ann Charters. The Portable Jack Kerouac. New York: Penguin
Books, 1996.

Lasch, Christopher. The Agony of the American Left. New York: Knopf, 1969.

Lieberman, Robbie. “My Song Is My Weapon”: People 's Songs, American Communism,
and the Politics of Culture, [930-1950, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

. “The Culture of Politics: Communism, Americanism, and the People's Songs

Hootenanny.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 85, no. 1 (Winter 1986): 78-88.

 

Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Sheldon S. Wolin. The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and
Interpretations. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1965.

Lipsitz, George. Rainbow at Midnight: Labor and Culture in the 19405. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1994.

Lomell, Kip. Introducing American Folk Music: Ethnic and Grassroot Traditions in the
United States. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Mailer, Norman. “Hipster and Beatnik: A Footnote To ‘The White Negro.’ ”In
Advertisements for Myself. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1959.

. “The White Negro: Superﬁcial Reﬂection on the Hipster.” Dissent 4 (1957):
276-93.

 

McDarrah, Fred W., and Gloria S. McDarrah. Beat Generation: Glory Days in Greenwich
Village. New York: Schirmer Books, 1996.

McIntobb, Ann. “Bill Mcadoo.” Folkways, 1961, 31-34.

McRobbie, Angela. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Mead, George Herbert, and Charles W. Morris. Mind, Self and Society: From the
Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1962.

Medovoi, Leerom. Rebels: Youth and the Cold War Origins of Identity. Durham: Duke
University Press, 2005.

“Memorial Concert Honors Lead Belly.” New York Times, Jan 30, 1950, 29.

152

Mills, C. Wright. White Collar: The American Middle Classes. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1953.

Montgomery, Susan. “The Folk Furor.” Mademoiselle, December 1960, 100.
“New Lost City Ramblers.” Folkways, no. 3, 1960, 13-15.
“Orally Bequeathed.” New Yorker, August 6, 1955, l4-16.

Packard, Vance Oakley. The Status Seekers; an Exploration of Class Behavior in America
and the Hidden Barriers That Affect You, Your Community, Your Future. New
York: D. McKay Co., 1959.

Pankake, Jon, and Paul Nelson. “P-for-Protest.” In The American Folk Scene: Dimensions
of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk and A. Poulin Jr., 140-49. New
York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Parmenter, Ross. "Folksong Collecting in the Field.” New York Times, November 2,
1952, 39.

Paton, Sandy. “Folk and the Folk Arrival.” In The American Folk Scene: Dimensions of
the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A Poulin Jr., 38-43. New York: A
Laurel Original, 1967.

Porter, James. “Convergence, Divergence, and Dialectic in F olksong Paradigms: Critical
Directions for Transatlantic Scholarship.” Journal of American Folklore 100, no.
419 (Winter 1993): 61-98.

“Preface.” Folkways: A Magazine of International Folklore, Spring 1959.

“Professor Adriaansz Begins Ethnomusicology Program.” Autoharp, February 16, 1962,
2.

Radosh, Ron. “Commercialism and the F olksong Revival.” In The American Folk Scene:
Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A. Poulin Jr.,
303-308. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Rahn, Millie. “The Folk Revival: Beyond Child's Canon and Sharp’s Song Catching.” In
American Popular Music, ed. Rachael Rubin and Jeffrey Milnick, 193-210.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001.

Reed, T. V. The Art of Protest: Culture and Activism from the Civil Rights Movement to
the Streets of Seattle. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

153

Reuss, Richard A., and Joanne C. Reuss. American Folk Music and Left- Wing Politics,
1927-1957. Lanharn, M.D.: Scarecrow Press, 2000.

“Review of Bob Dylan.” Little Sanay Review, no. 22, 1962, 12-16.

“Review of Bob Dylan's the Freewheelin ’ Bob Dylan.” Little Sandy Review, no. 27, 1963,
24-28.

“Review of Josh White at Town Hall et al. ” Little Sandy Review, no. 19, 1962, 30—32.

“Review of the Soho Skiﬂle Group and the Cumberland 3.” Little Sandy Review, no. 4,
1960, 15-20.

Rich, Jarvis. “Folklore Seminar.”Autoharp, February 16, 1962, 3.

Riesman, David. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

Rosenberg, Neil V. “From Sound to Style: The Emergence of Bluegrass.” Journal of
American Folklore 80, no. 316 (1967): 143-150.

Rosenberg, Neil V., ed. Transforming Tradition: Folk Music Revivals Examined. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1993.

Seeger, Charles. “Folk Music in the Schools of a Highly Industrialized Society." In The
American Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk
& A Poulin Jr., 88-94. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Seeger, Pete, and Jo Metcalf Schwartz. The Incompleat F olksinger. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1972.

Shank, Barry. Dissonant Identities: The Rock 'N' Roll Scene in Austin, Texas. Hanover,
NH: University Press of New England, 1994.

Sharp, Cecil J. American-English F olk-Songs. New York: G. Schirmer, 1918.
. F olk-Songs of England Collected and Arranged. London: Novello & Co., 1908.

 

Sharp, Cecil James, Olive Arnold Campbell, and Maud Karpeles. English Folk Songs
from the Southern Appalachians. New York: Oxford University Press, 1952.

Shaw, Arnold. “Gitars [sic], Folk Songs, and Halls of Ivy.” Harpers' Magazine,
November 1964,43.

Shelton, Robert. “Students Import Folk Art to Chicago.” New York Times, February 12,
1961, X11.
. “Bluegrass Style.” New York Times, August 30, I959, X17.

 

154

. “Folk Group Gives 'Village' Concert.” New York Times, March 27, 1961, 26.
. “Folk Trio Heard with a Comedian.” New York Times, March 13, 1961, 36.

. “Josh White, Son and Daughter Offer Folk Songs at Town Hall.” New York
Times, September 25, 1961, 41.

. “Limeliters Give Breezy Concert.” New York Times, October 30, 1961, 34.
-—————-. “Modest Proposal for Disk Jockeys.” New York Times, March 6, 1960, X20.
————--—-—-. “Musical Energy Without Style.” New York Times, January 8, I961, X19.

. “Two Folk-Song Groups Pursue New Trails.” New York Times, December 28,

1961, 23.
. “The Folks Out West.” New York Times, July 22, 1962, 75.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silber, Irwin. “Folk Music and the Success Syndrome.” In The American Folk Scene:
Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A. Poulin Jr.,
298-302. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.

Sing Outl, February/March 1961.

“Skifﬂe and Brass.” New Yorker, January 1957, 17-18.

Smith, Mayne. “An Introduction to Bluegrass.” Journal of American Folklore 78, no. 309
(1965): 245-256.

Starr, Jerold M. “Cultural Politics in the 19603.” In Cultural Politics: Radical Movements
in Modern History, ed. Jerold M. Starr, 235-94. New York: Praeger, 1985.

Susman, Warren. Culture as History: The Transformation of American Society in the
Twentieth Century. New York: Pantheon Books, 1973.

“The Folk Girls.” T ime, June 1, 1962, 39-40.
Tamony, Peter. “‘Hootenanny’: The Word, Its Content and Continuum.” In The American
Folk Scene: Dimensions of the F olksong Revival, ed. David A. De Turk & A.
Poulin Jr., 80-87. New York: A Laurel Original, 1967.
“They Love Mountain Music.” Time, May 7, 1956, 60.
“Togetherness.” Newsweek, May 13, 1963, 95.
“Treasury of Song.” Time, July 18, 1955, 44-45.

Updike, John. “Sparky from St. Paul: A Biography of Charles Schulz.” (Review of David
Michaelis, Schulz and Peanuts). New Yorker, October 22, 200.7, 164-169.

Van Ronk, Dave, and Elijah Wald. The Mayor of Macdougal Street: A Memoir. New
York: Da Capo Press, 2005.

155

Vonnegut Jr., Kurt Player Piano. New York: Delta Book, 1952.
.“Folk Society.” In Facts Worse Than Death: An Autobiographical Collage,

122-28. New York: Berkley Books, 1992.

 

Wakeﬁeld, Dan. New York in the Fifties. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin/Seymour Lawrence,
1992.

“Weavers Are Heard in F olksong Concert.” New York Times, December 25, 1950, 23.

Wetzsteon, Ross. Republic of Dreams: Greenwich Village the American Bohemia,
1910-1960. New York: Simon& Schuster, 2002.

Whyte, William Hollingsworth. The Organization Man. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Wilgus, D. K. “Current Hillbilly Recordings: A Review Article.” Journal of American
Folklore 78, no. 309 (July-Sept 1965): 267-287.

Woliver, Robbie. Bringing It All Back Home: 25 Years of A merican Music at Folk City.
New York: Pantheon Books, 1986.

156

 

ill. .
:93 I. .

“ Eilltl l

 

 

“tttttrtttttttrtttttttttr