Some reflections on filk after Contata 2011, resonding to Aya's postings
This was originally intended to be a comment to Aya in her "Filking and Frolicking" LJ, but it was too long. Oh my, Sue Cochran has a lot to say? How unusual for her!
Anyway, here are my reflections about the definition of filk and some other responses to what Aya and some other folks wrote in her journal.
I will venture my toe out into the scary waters of trying to define "filk", or at least how I define it, and what it means to me. I don't agree that "filk is what filkers do." However, I do agree that "music is what filkers do." At Chicon in 2000 (that year's Worldcon), there were several different music rooms to choose from. Steve McDonald was doing primarily Beatles music in one of them, and I happily joined in. Filkers were present and were singing. However, I would not call most Beatles songs "filk music". I don't know enough of their music to say that NONE of their music is filk. It's possible. It's just that I don't consider their subjects to be filk music, they are mostly love songs. There are certainly many songs that are "found filk". 39 is one of those. I'm sorry that Weird Al doesn't like to call his music filk or himself a filker, but I certainly think his song about Anakin Skywalker is filk. It seems pretty straightforward, and I don't see what all the ruckus is about. However, I do think that a person has the right to define himself. If he doesn't want to be called a filker, that is his prerogative. I still think that this non-filker wrote an awesome filk song :)
To me, filk music includes a very broad variety of styles and topics, but it's still narrower than "what filkers sing". I think that maybe a lot of the fighting about the definition of the word "filk" is really about inclusion, about what is "allowed" to be sung in a circle - that some folks think that if a song is defined as "not filk" then it "can't" or "shouldn't" be sung in a filk circle. I think that most cons, and certainly filk cons, have more than one room for filk, so if there is an objection shared by enough people to singing "non-filk" songs, perhaps those who feel that way can go into another room, or grab a stairwell or piece of hallway or lobby.
I know that I have been very happy to be introduced to lots of different types of music, and also to spoken stories by people such as Ian Hanley and Harold Feld, on subjects not necessarily "filk" when I have attended conventions. Before I got into the filk world, I had never heard the folk music of Christine Lavin, Tom Paxton, Eric Bogle, Fred Small, Stan Rogers, and many, many others. I am happy to sing along with these, as well as the songs of Tom Lehrer, and Weird Al, and Alan Sherman, in a filk circle. But there are times when I too want to "get back to the filk music".
So what is filk, to me? Filk is about literary and media science fiction and fantasy, (also collectively referred to as "speculative fiction"), horror, magic, the SCA, superheroes and other comic book people, genre movies and television shows like Star Trek and Star Wars, Harry Potter, Buffy and Angel and Firefly, The X-Files, Babylon 5 and Battlestar Gallactica. Filk is about fandom and filkdom, fanac like going to cons and being a dealer, a gamer, a costumer, a filker, an author, an artist, and the fans themselves. Filk is about technology and the world of science, scientists, and scientific knowledge, and musings about what the future might be like. Songs about space travel. Original music and parodies. Folk and rock and new age. So in my mind, that's a pretty broad definition.
I realize that the borders are murky. Why are songs about dead cats sung at filk sings? Or live cats for that matter? Many fans love cats. What about songs that are social commentary, songs about politics and religion? Again, I welcome those too at a filk circle, but I don't know if I'd call them "filk".
All of this said, I must make a comment about labels and definitions. Lately I have been moving more in the direction of not labeling or defining myself too much. I used to be an ethical vegetarian, for 20 years, until a health problem came up that resulted in my starting to eat meat again in 2004. I tried again for a year after the problem was resolved to be a vegetarian, but after a while I went back to meat. After a few more back-and-forth decisions to and not to eat meat, I decided that I really didn't need to claim some definition in the matter. I eat what I feel like eating, when I feel like eating, and for whatever reason I feel like eating it. Nobody else needs to be involved. I feel better about it now.
In closing, I also want to speak to Aya's posting about the difference between the academic study of music, and music as it exists in the world outside of academia, the practical side of music, if you will. It's the same divide as is portrayed in the classic book, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." In that novel, there is this discussion/depiction/distinction made between the "romantic" and the "classicist" view. The first is the one who enjoys the experiential world of riding a motorcycle. They thrill to the sensations, they love the wind in their hair and the vibration beneath the seat, the sense of freedom to explore, the company of another person to share it all with. But if their motorcycle breaks down, they are at a loss. They have to take it to the person who, on the other hand, is the classicist, who enjoys the motorcycle as a material thing, a vehicle. They love to take it apart, to see how it all works, how the parts fit together, they marvel at it in what might be called an academic way, and they enjoy the puzzle of how to fix a particular problem when the machine breaks down. These two views are also not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm sure that there are people who love all the ways to enjoy their bikes, who love to travel AND who know how to maintain their machine. I'm sure this synergy also creates a whole appreciation of the motorcycle that is greater than the sum of its parts.
These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, much as the enjoyment and importance to someone of the text of a song is certainly not mutually exclusive to the enjoyment of the music of that song. I have written poetry, and I have written songs. When putting words to music or the other way, music to words, in the best cases, the whole that is created is likewise greater than the sum of its parts. There are songs I enjoy hearing on the radio, but part of my enjoyment is taken away when I can't hear the lyrics clearly. Lyrics are fun to read, but they are only a part of the song they go with. Both the text and the music are expressions, are communications, as Tom Smith said to you. When the two forms of communication come together, you can get what my HS boyfriend called a "music-gasm". I have been moved to tears by reading something, but when it's set to the right music, a lyric can be even more incredibly powerful.
Anyway, here are my reflections about the definition of filk and some other responses to what Aya and some other folks wrote in her journal.
I will venture my toe out into the scary waters of trying to define "filk", or at least how I define it, and what it means to me. I don't agree that "filk is what filkers do." However, I do agree that "music is what filkers do." At Chicon in 2000 (that year's Worldcon), there were several different music rooms to choose from. Steve McDonald was doing primarily Beatles music in one of them, and I happily joined in. Filkers were present and were singing. However, I would not call most Beatles songs "filk music". I don't know enough of their music to say that NONE of their music is filk. It's possible. It's just that I don't consider their subjects to be filk music, they are mostly love songs. There are certainly many songs that are "found filk". 39 is one of those. I'm sorry that Weird Al doesn't like to call his music filk or himself a filker, but I certainly think his song about Anakin Skywalker is filk. It seems pretty straightforward, and I don't see what all the ruckus is about. However, I do think that a person has the right to define himself. If he doesn't want to be called a filker, that is his prerogative. I still think that this non-filker wrote an awesome filk song :)
To me, filk music includes a very broad variety of styles and topics, but it's still narrower than "what filkers sing". I think that maybe a lot of the fighting about the definition of the word "filk" is really about inclusion, about what is "allowed" to be sung in a circle - that some folks think that if a song is defined as "not filk" then it "can't" or "shouldn't" be sung in a filk circle. I think that most cons, and certainly filk cons, have more than one room for filk, so if there is an objection shared by enough people to singing "non-filk" songs, perhaps those who feel that way can go into another room, or grab a stairwell or piece of hallway or lobby.
I know that I have been very happy to be introduced to lots of different types of music, and also to spoken stories by people such as Ian Hanley and Harold Feld, on subjects not necessarily "filk" when I have attended conventions. Before I got into the filk world, I had never heard the folk music of Christine Lavin, Tom Paxton, Eric Bogle, Fred Small, Stan Rogers, and many, many others. I am happy to sing along with these, as well as the songs of Tom Lehrer, and Weird Al, and Alan Sherman, in a filk circle. But there are times when I too want to "get back to the filk music".
So what is filk, to me? Filk is about literary and media science fiction and fantasy, (also collectively referred to as "speculative fiction"), horror, magic, the SCA, superheroes and other comic book people, genre movies and television shows like Star Trek and Star Wars, Harry Potter, Buffy and Angel and Firefly, The X-Files, Babylon 5 and Battlestar Gallactica. Filk is about fandom and filkdom, fanac like going to cons and being a dealer, a gamer, a costumer, a filker, an author, an artist, and the fans themselves. Filk is about technology and the world of science, scientists, and scientific knowledge, and musings about what the future might be like. Songs about space travel. Original music and parodies. Folk and rock and new age. So in my mind, that's a pretty broad definition.
I realize that the borders are murky. Why are songs about dead cats sung at filk sings? Or live cats for that matter? Many fans love cats. What about songs that are social commentary, songs about politics and religion? Again, I welcome those too at a filk circle, but I don't know if I'd call them "filk".
All of this said, I must make a comment about labels and definitions. Lately I have been moving more in the direction of not labeling or defining myself too much. I used to be an ethical vegetarian, for 20 years, until a health problem came up that resulted in my starting to eat meat again in 2004. I tried again for a year after the problem was resolved to be a vegetarian, but after a while I went back to meat. After a few more back-and-forth decisions to and not to eat meat, I decided that I really didn't need to claim some definition in the matter. I eat what I feel like eating, when I feel like eating, and for whatever reason I feel like eating it. Nobody else needs to be involved. I feel better about it now.
In closing, I also want to speak to Aya's posting about the difference between the academic study of music, and music as it exists in the world outside of academia, the practical side of music, if you will. It's the same divide as is portrayed in the classic book, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." In that novel, there is this discussion/depiction/distinction made between the "romantic" and the "classicist" view. The first is the one who enjoys the experiential world of riding a motorcycle. They thrill to the sensations, they love the wind in their hair and the vibration beneath the seat, the sense of freedom to explore, the company of another person to share it all with. But if their motorcycle breaks down, they are at a loss. They have to take it to the person who, on the other hand, is the classicist, who enjoys the motorcycle as a material thing, a vehicle. They love to take it apart, to see how it all works, how the parts fit together, they marvel at it in what might be called an academic way, and they enjoy the puzzle of how to fix a particular problem when the machine breaks down. These two views are also not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm sure that there are people who love all the ways to enjoy their bikes, who love to travel AND who know how to maintain their machine. I'm sure this synergy also creates a whole appreciation of the motorcycle that is greater than the sum of its parts.
These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, much as the enjoyment and importance to someone of the text of a song is certainly not mutually exclusive to the enjoyment of the music of that song. I have written poetry, and I have written songs. When putting words to music or the other way, music to words, in the best cases, the whole that is created is likewise greater than the sum of its parts. There are songs I enjoy hearing on the radio, but part of my enjoyment is taken away when I can't hear the lyrics clearly. Lyrics are fun to read, but they are only a part of the song they go with. Both the text and the music are expressions, are communications, as Tom Smith said to you. When the two forms of communication come together, you can get what my HS boyfriend called a "music-gasm". I have been moved to tears by reading something, but when it's set to the right music, a lyric can be even more incredibly powerful.