1. What are the particular challengesofmanaging folk musicin an increasinglyglobal context?
The music industryisundoubtedlydominatedbymultinational mediaconglomerates,
makingitimpossibletotalkaboutmanagingmusical institutionswithout reference totheirglobal
context(Smiers,2003).Modern capitalismhascreatedinternational standardsforcopyrightlaw and
intellectual property,whichare appliedcut-and-drytoall musical products,regardlessof form.
AnthonyMcCann,citingRonaldV. Bettig,claimsthat‘at thisstage in historyitisalmostimpossible
to separate intellectualpropertyfromitsrole asan instrumentof commodificationwithin capitalist
systems’(Bettig,1996 inMcCann, 2001: 93). However,certaintypesof musicare incompatiblewith
commodification,particularlyfolkortraditional musics(Seeger,2004).With these issuesinmind,
thisessaywill examine the particularchallengesof managingfolkmusicinEngland.
Whetheror notfolkmusiccan be seenas a livingtraditiondependsonitsdefinition,making
it particularlychallengingformanagersof folkmusictoknow whatit istheyare managing.‘Folk’asa
genre iscurrentlyenjoyingsuccessinthe popularmusicindustry,butthe termoftenrefersto
commercial artistsplayingina‘folk’style,whichpuristsmightargue invalidatesitsclaimonthe
word.Therefore,the firstsectionof thisessaywill testsome scholarlydefinitionsof folkmusic.The
secondsectionwill considerhowthe globalisedmusicindustry’s standardsof intellectualproperty
are inappropriate forfolkmusic,leadingtoa shrinkingof the publicdomain(Smiers,2003; Seeger,
2004; JonesandCameron,2005; McCann, 2001). The final sectionwill examine folkmusic
institutionsinEngland,whichhave become increasinglyimportantinmanagingtraditionsthat
cannot be sustainedintheirnatural environment.Iwill considerthe challengesarisingfrom
managingsuchinstitutionsunderthe dual pressuresof commercialismandcultural diversity.
Thisessaywill notdiscussthe managementof ‘Englishfolkmusic’butrather‘folkmusicin
England’.Thisispartlybecause muchfolkmusicisregional,andfreelycrossesnational borders:
Northumbrianfolkmusic,forinstance,hasmore incommonwiththe Scottishtraditionthanthatof
East Anglia.Folkmusicismore likelytobecome boundupwithanation-state whencoercedinto

2. doingso to meetpoliticalends(Keegan-Phipps,2007).Furthermore,folkmusicismanagedquite
differentlyinIrelandandScotland, where itispartof a widerheritage,encompassinglanguageand
othertraditions. ScottishandIrishfolkmusicare exportedonafar widerscale,andthushave a far
greaterinternational presence aspartof the countries’respective nation-brandingstrategies
(Keegan-Phipps,2007: 92). Enoughhas beenwrittenaboutthe ‘communal Prozacof the [Irish]
heritage industry’(LukeGibbonsinMcCann,2001: 89), shownthroughinternational successessuch
as Riverdance,forthere to be little needtorepeatthese argumentshere.Finally,Englandhasa
much largerforeign-bornpopulationthanitsneighbours,creatingaproblematicrelationship
betweenindigenousfolkculture andamulticultural population.Iwill now turntothe firstsectionof
my essay,where Iwill examinesome definitionsof folkmusic.
I - DefiningFolkMusic
Settinglimitsinadiscussionof folkmusicbringsawhole range of problems.The founderof
the Roud FolkSongIndex himself describesthe term‘folksong’as‘annoyinglyambiguous’(Roud
2012, xxxii).Roudtakesanysong‘learntandperformedbynon-professionalsininformal,non-
commercial settings’(ibid,xii) asa workingdefinition,butacknowledgesitsinadequacyinfully
elaboratingonthe term’sconnotations.The non-commercial settingsreferredtoincludehomes,
workplaces(suchasmines,fishingboats,andfields) and‘thirdplaces’,typicallyvillagepubs.The
non-professionalsinquestionare the elusive‘folk,’typicallyuneducatedvillage-dwellerslivingin
pre-industrialisedareasof rural England.
Central to Roud’sdefinitionisthe ideaof oral transmission.Folkmusicisnota literate
tradition,butislearnedandpasseddownbywordof mouth.Cecil Sharp,anearlyfolksongcollector,
describesaDarwinianprocessof continuity,variation,andselection(inKeegan-Phipps,2006: 263).
Individualsaddvariationstoexistingsongs,andthose preferredbythe communitysurvive and
become partof a commonstock. Thisstock isan opensource available toall membersof the
community,andnewsongsare createdthroughthe reassemblyof oldstock.Keepingwiththe

3. evolutionarymetaphor,folkmusiccanbe seenasan organicallyoccurringmusical process,the
expressionof social relationshipsratherthanatradable commodity.Withindustrialisation,itisclear
that these communitystructures - if theyevertrulyexisted –have waned.Theyhave takenwith
themthe potential formaintainingthe puritanicalimage of folkmusic.Traditional musicisnow
almostexclusivelythe domain of ‘thirdplaces’suchasfolkclubs,havinglittle place inhome and
worklife.Ithas changedfrombeingthe musicof the workingclassto that of special-interestgroups.
It isno longera naturallyoccurringphenomenonexemptfrommanagement,butanaspectof
heritage whichsome people feel isinneedof careful protectionandpreservation.
However,the extenttowhichfolkmusiccanbe describedasheritage isdebatable:itis
flawedtothinkof an unbrokenline betweenthe mythical pastandthe modernworld.Folkmusic
reachedthe majorityof the modern worldthroughthe verydeliberateprocessof collectionand
disseminationduringthe twomajor‘Englishfolkrevivals’.In TheImagined Village,(Boyes:1993)
GeorginaBoyesarguesthatcontemporaryfolkmusicisbynature inauthentic.She claimsthatthe
actors behindeachof these revivalshave ingrained theirownphilosophyandworld-view onwhatis
consideredtobe folkmusic.The firstfolkrevival tookplace aroundthe turnof the twentieth
century.GeorginaBoyesdescribesitasa ‘rescue mission’(Boyes,1993: 1). She callsto mindimages
of Englishgentlemengoingto‘knockonunknowncottage doorswitha requestthatthe inhabitants
singto [them]’(ibid:41),hopingtosnatch up the lastremnantsof an oral traditionsoontobe swept
away byindustrialisation.The revivalwastiedupwithclass:upperandmiddle classfolksong
collectorsstudiedthe musicof the poorestclasses,andfoughtforitsinclusionineducational
programmes,all inthe name of Englishnationalism.Boyesarguedthatthe village-dwellerwas
fictionalisedandidealisedforpolitical ends. The post-warfolkrevivalof the 40s, 50s and 60s had a
more bottom-upapproach,andhad more to do withprotestandleft-wingpolitics thannationalist
agendas.Itwas lessboundupwithauthenticityandtraditionalsongthanthe firstmovement,and
was heavilyinfluencedbyAmericanculture.Italsoheraldedthe populargenre of folk-rock,which
combinedtraditionalsongwithcontemporaryinfluences.SingerssuchasAnne Briggsreleased

4. albumsof traditional songs,butalsowrote theirownmaterial.Anymemberof the Sharpian‘folk’
couldlegitimatelydothis,butcanit still be consideredfolkwhenitisdirectedtowardsawide
audience andcommercial gain?
Withthisquestioninmind,itcouldbe askedwhatthismeansfor a contemporarypopular
Englishartistsuchas Laura Marling,whose musicisfrequentlycategorisedas‘folk’.Marlinghas
beennominatedforBBCRadio2 FolkMusic awards,and has headlinedatthe Cambridge Folk
Festival,yetshe isaprofessionalmusicianperformingandsellingmusicina commercial setting,
contrary to Roud’sdefinitionof folkmusic.ForBoyes (1993) the answerissimple:she suggeststhat
such musicisrelatedtofolkinname alone,andshouldbe ignoredinseriousdiscussionsof folk
music.I disagree,andwouldargue anydiscussionof folkmusicmustconsiderthe popular
understandingof the term. JonesandCameron(2005: 260) acknowledge atendencytoover-apply
the label,butaddthat ‘it wouldtake areal puristnotto acknowledge thatmuchmodernmusichas
beenwritteninatraditional style andassimilatedtowhatmanywouldnow call folkmusic’.Their
(ibid.) definitionof folkas‘musicoriginatingamongthe commonpeople of anationor regionand
spreadaboutor passeddownorally’ isusefulforitsemphasison‘origins’,and impliesthatplacinga
folksongina commercial settingdoesnotsomehow invalidate itsstatusasa folksong.Therefore as
longas a piece of commercial folkmusicoriginates froma non-commercialsetting,itcanbe
consideredasfolk.Itisopenfordebate as to whataspectsof a piece of commercial musicmusthave
originsina non-commercial economyforthistohappen.Shoulditbe a questionof the wholesale
reproductionof material- musical andlyrical?Orsimplythe adoptionof certaincharacteristics
associatedwithtraditionalmusic,suchasinstrumentationandvocal style,lyrical subjectmatter,or
harmonicvocabulary?
McCann (2001) discusseswhethermusical soundcanbe saidto carry the philosophyof the
value systemfromwhichitemerged. QuotingSahlins’(1972) theoryof ‘kinshipdistance,’McCann
assertsthat as musicmovesawayfromits origin,itbecomesmore likelytobe commodified,andless
likelytopassonvalues(2001: 95). Thisreturnsto the ideathatwhile the musicof a popularartist

5. such as Laura Marlingundoubtedly sounds like folk,asa piece of commercial musicitcannot
necessarilybe consideredtocarry ‘authentic’folkvalues.Whatshouldwe expectthesevaluesto
be?Nationalism, inthe styleof the firstfolkrevival,orliberalism,inthe style of the second?Itcould
be askedwhethermusical soundcanlegitimatelycarryeither.
A modernequivalentof ancientfolkpracticescanbe foundwith‘bedroomDJs’.These
amateurmusicianssample fromacommunal pool of music,(muchof whichisadmittedlynotinthe
publicdomainina legal sense) andreassemble thisstockintonew music.MargaretFarrel quotes
Breathnachas saying‘[i]tisthe refashioningandre-creationof the musicbythe communitythat
givesititsfolkcharacter’(Farrel,2003). Many share theirmusicfor free online- inanon-commercial
setting- amongstcommunitiesof fellowmusicians.The resemblance tothe puristdefinitionof folk
musicisstriking,butthere are fewwhowouldrefertothismusicas ‘folk’.Clearlythose definitions
that would see folkpurelyintermsof musical practice,ignoringmusical style,are notinstepwith
the dominantuse of the word incontemporarysociety. Itisanunavoidable factthattotalk about
‘folkmusic’istosimultaneouslyrefertothe explicitlynon-commercialsettingthatgivesrise tosuch
music,andthe stylisticcharacteristicsof thatmusic,whichcan of course be appropriatedin
commercial settings.InthisessayIwill considerbothfolk-as-style andfolk-as-practice,toborrow
termsfromMcCann (2001). Having discussedthe definitionof folkmusic,Iwill now goonexamine
the issue of folkmusicandownership.
II - Folk Musicand Ownership
One specificchallenge thatarisesfromattemptstomanage folkmusicisthe problemof
ownership.Here itisdifficulttoreconcile the disagreements,aseachside of the debate hasa
fundamentallydifferentdefinitionof whatownershipis.Partiessuchasthe World Trade
Organisationdefine musicownershipthroughcopyright,atemporarymonopolyovercertainaspects
of a musical work (FrithandMarshall,2005), whilstfolkcommunitiesdefine ownershipassomething
more vague,social andspecial.Onsome level all ownershipcanbe consideredassymbolic,being

6. basedon acceptedsocial normsandconstraints:copyrightissimplyanattempt toratifypre-existing
symbolicnotionsof ownership.Applyingcopyrightlaw tofolkmusicputsitin the publicdomaindue
to itsage and lack of identifiable author,sofolksongcanbe freelydrawnfrominthe creationof
newcopyrightable works.Buttypically certaincommunitiesfeel theyhave agreaterclaimonthe
musicthan others,particularlywhencommercialismentersthe equation.
Amateurfolkmusicispart of a gifteconomy,arguesMcCann(2001: 93): performersina pub
sessionoffer‘riskof self,the tunes,the songs,the chat,the sharedexperience’withnoformal
guarantee of returns. McCann makesa directlinkbetweengifteconomyandcommunal ownership,
quotingananonymousfolkmusicianassaying‘if somebody'stryingtolearnit…it's not yours,so it's
not like youcanholdback’ (ibid.93). However,withinthissymbolicgifteconomythere isscope for
more personal notionsof ownership.Roudclaimsthat‘itwascommonpractice for people to‘own’
particularsongs.These were songsforwhichtheywere sowell knownthatnoone else inthe
communitywoulddreamof singingthemintheirpresence’(Roud,xxix).The performerwho
exercisesamonopolyoveraparticularsong inthiswayis not necessarilyitsauthor;theymayjustbe
particularlygoodat singingit.Thiskindof ownershipretainsanemphasisoncommunityand
commonlyunderstoodsocial practices.Itisnotwithinthe scope of thisessayto outline the
complexitiesof songownershipinfolknetworks,itisenoughtoacknowledgethattraditional
communityunderstandingsof propertyare subtlerthanthose impliedbyintellectual property
regimes.
Thisattitude extendsbeyondthe gifteconomyof amateurmusic-makingandintothe folk
record industry.If anartistrecords an arrangement of a folksongitis withintheirrightstocopyright
that arrangement.However,anotherartistcouldonlybe seenasinfringinguponthatcopyrightif
theirarrangementispreciselythe same (JonesandCameron,2005: 268). Withinfolkcommunities
there existsanunwrittenrule aboutcitingsourcesandinfluentialarrangements,asortof ‘honesty-
box’policy.Thismayinvolve apre-ambleinalive concert,orthe linernotesof aphysical release.
Whenthese rulesare broken,folkcommunitiesfeel betrayed.JohanssonandBerge (2014) describe

7. a situationinNorwaywhere apublicdomainfolksong, Natta ViHar, performedbypopsinger
Helene Bøksle,became apopularhit.Despite Natta ViHarbeingheavilyderivative of traditional
singerAgnerBuenGarnås’earlierarrangementof anothertraditional song,Bøkslewasable toclaim
author’srightsinNorway.Thisledthe Norwegian folkcommunitytodemandchangesincopyright
law. Theysaw the fact that Bøksle hadlegallydone nothingwrongasa red flag,exposingthe
vulnerabilityof the publicdomain.
Thisis an example of Hardin’smodelof the ‘tragedyof the commons’,whichcanbe usedto
demonstrate the incompatibilityof folkmusicwithintellectual propertyregimes(McCann,2001).
Hardin(1968) suggests that whenacommunitysharesa commonresource,if unmanaged,each
memberwill actintheirowninterestratherthanthat of the group, therebyexhaustingthe resource.
Takingthe metaphorof a commonpasture,Garret writesthateachof the herdsmengrazinghis
cattle there receivespersonal benefitsfromdoingso,whilstthe costof overgrazingisspread
amongstthe group. Itwouldbenefitthe groupif eachherdsmanwere tograze fewercattle,butthis
will neverhappeninanunmanagedcommons,asitwouldinvolve eachherdsmanactingtohisown
disadvantage.Asthe fieldisovergrazed,eachherdsmancancomforthimself withthe ideathatif
theywere torefrainfromusingthe field,someone else wouldtake hisplace anyway.
In the gifteconomythatgave rise to folkmusic,whenamemberof a communityplayeda
communallyownedsonginapub,it inno waydepletedthe sharedresource.Introducingcopyright
makesthe situationazero-sumgame,inwhichthe publicresource isreducedasitisutilised.Folk
music’s reliance onstockphrasesandthe constructionof musicthroughreassemblingoldmaterials
meansthat whenfolksongsare privatised,traditional materialbecomeslockedoutof the public
domain.Thismeansthatnewlycomposedfolksongsare obligedtobecome lesstraditional. McCann
(2001) referstothisas ‘corralling’- the gradual andincremental takeoverof the publicsectorby
private bodies.Copyright,ostensiblyputinplace toencourage creativitybyensuringartistsare fairly
remuneratedfortheirwork,therebyerodesmusical traditionsthatfavourcontinuity,variation,and
selection(JonesandCameron,2005: 264). Paradoxically,the WorldIntellectual Property

8. Organisationdescribestraditionas‘animportantsource of creativityandinnovation’in2003 (ibid.
273).
JonesandCameron(2005) consider Lessig’sconceptof the Creative CommonsLicence asa
wayforwardfor Englishfolkmusic.Creative Commonslicensingallowsthe copyrightholderto
reserve andwaive rightsattheirdiscretion, but,inthe case of traditional music,whoshouldbe
responsible forthese decisionsif originalownerscannotbe found?Theyconclude thatitcannot
succeed,asit remainstooheavilybasedonthe paradigmof intellectualproperty(ibid:272). Those
withthe mostintellectualauthorityovertraditionalmusicare the leastwillingtolicenseit,due to
theirobligationstothe widerfolkcommunity.Thisleavesthe musicvulnerabletothose whohave
lesssocial claimonit,as shownby the Bøksle case.Evenopensource licences,typicallyfoundinIT,
require the original ownertoplace a workas opensource.In folkmusicpreviouscopyrightholders
of similararrangementscouldatanypointchallenge the placementof the workasopensource (ibid.
271-272).
There are callsfora radical overhaul of copyrightlaw toprotecttraditional music.Jonesand
Cameronask for‘a systemmore attunedtotraditional knowledge’(2005: 273), Seegerfor‘changed
ethics’and‘recognitionthatnotall musicisnecessarilyappropriate tobecomingacommodity’
(2004: 169) andMcCann fora legal systemthatcanendorse a ‘paradigmshiftfromthe dominant
folklore-as-materialstofolklore-as-practice’(2001:98). If we accept that currentintellectual
propertyregimesare incapable of protectingauthenticfolkmusic,thenthe managementof this
musicfallstoinstitutions:Iwill nowexamine thisinmore detail.
III - FolkInstitutionsand Authenticity
SimonKeegan-Phipps(2007) seesthe institutionalisationof folkmusicasa necessarystepin
itspreservation,butone withaproblematicpast.Folkinstitutionshave commonlybeenusedaspart
of social engineeringprogrammes,andtendtostripaway ‘authenticity’inthe name of instrumental
goals.Folkmusiciscommonlyusedto promote national identity,butinmulticultural countriesthis

9. causesproblems.Keegan-Phippsworriesthatmanymembersof the folkcommunitybelieve ‘English
identityisunderthreatfromimmigration’and‘authoritieswhoseeka“politicallycorrect”image’
(2007: 92). Anextreme example of thiswouldbe the recentcontroversythatsurroundedDavid
Cameron’sphotoopportunitywithagroupof ‘blacked-up’MorrisDancers(McSmith,2014). In
parallel withthe yearly‘Zwarte Piet’debateinthe Netherlands,it raisedquestionsaboutthe origins
of the tradition:supportersargue itstemsfromminersrubbingsootontheirfacestodisguise their
identitywhilstbegging,whilecriticssee itasa racist depictionof Moorishpirates(hence ‘Morris’).
Obviouslythe motivationsbehindsuchatradition’soriginsare insome sense unknowable,butthis
extreme exampleillustratesthe some of the commondifficulties.Folkculture canbe exclusive,and
seenasan aggressive attempttoenforce adominantnational identity. The managerof a folkmusic
institutionismetbythe challenge of celebratingauthentictraditional musicwithoutpromoting
cultural chauvinism.Theymustalsobe able tokeepthe institutionafloatinacapitalisteconomy,
withoutcompromisingauthenticity.
The most well knownfolkinstitutioninEnglandisthe EnglishFolkDance andSongSociety
(EFDSS). Theirtriple purpose istoundertake folkeducation,artistdevelopment,andpolitical
advocacy forfolkmusicinterests.Theyare supportedby‘3000 individualsand800 organisations’on
a subscriptionbasis(EFDSS,n.d.).ArtsCouncil England(ACE) firstgave itfundingin2009 (ACE,
2010). In 2009-11 EDFSS was granted£400,000 a year,droppingto£300,000 in 2012 and creeping
up to £314,879 by2014. ACE has recentlyannouncedanincrease to£432,046 perannum to fund
the creationof an audience anddonordevelopmentprogramme inCecilSharpHouse,aswell asa
‘youthfolkmusicensemble’(EFDSS,2014). ForKeegan-Phipps(2007:87), forwhomthe ideaof a
folkorchestraresonateswiththe Sovietcultural policy- the latterwouldperhapssetoff alarmbells,
but ACE’srhetorichaslittle todo withnation-brandingandmore todo withbackinga winning
market. Thisis encapsulatedinACE’Sstatementthat ‘withbothworld-classartistsandexciting
youngperformersattractinginterestandbreakingintothe mainstream, thereisanincreasingarray

10. of keyworkthat we have supported,andhave plannedforthe future,tocontinue tohelpchallenge
perceptionsandnurture Englishfolkmusic’(ACE,2010).
Thischallengesthe puristdefinitionsof folkmusicencounteredearlierinthe essayandbegs
the questionof whetherfolkmusiccould‘breakintothe mainstream’ withoutbeingstrippedof its
essential philosophythroughcommodification.The issueiscompoundedbythe paradox thata piece
of musicconsideredas‘authentic’willsellbetter,surelycommodifyingitfurther.RichardTaruskin
(inWilson,2011: 161) dismissesauthenticityaspromoters’‘propaganda’,butthese daysitis
impossible toignore marketforces(ibid).AnorganisationsuchasEFDSSis obligedtoworkwiththe
marketto receive the fundingwhichenablesitscontinuedexistence.Thisenablesittoundertake
groundbreakingprojectssuchas 2014’s ‘Full English’,whichmade 80,000 pagesof traditional music
fromthe RalphVaughanWilliamslibraryavailable inafree digital archive.Thisprojectmade a
wealthof Englishfolkmusicavailable toanyone withanInternetconnection,ahuge achievement
for the nurturingof traditional music.
The BBC Radio2 FolkAwards,startedin2000, isanotherprojectbackedby publicmoney,
but bringsupdifferentissues.Onthe surface these awardssupportthe wholespectrumof what
couldbe referredtoas folkmusic:evenhavinga‘bestoriginal song’categoryforfolk-influenced
commercial artists.However,concernshave beenraisedaboutthe selectionprocessof these artists:
Laura Marling has beennominatedforbestoriginal song,while the more successful Mumfordand
Sons,arguablyjustas influencedbyfolk,neverhave.The BBChas refusedtodisclose the identities
of the judgesof the FolkAwards,eveninthe face of Freedomof Informationrequests(Hartley,
2013). This meansananonymousandunaccountable groupof people fromthe folkcommunityare
able to setthe definitionof ‘folk’,apparentlysomewhatarbitrarily.Iwouldargue the awardsrunthe
riskof creatingthe ‘folkmusicelite’thatKeegan-Phipps(2007:102) warnedinstitutionalisation
couldleadto.
Conclusion

11. In thisessayI have triedtoshow that whenthinkingof folkmusicinamoderncontextitis
necessarytothinkof it ina global context,inanindustrydominatedbymultinationalcompanies.
Defining‘folk’asreferringbothtoa non-commercialmusical practice andarange of musical styles
that have rootsin thispractice,I expressedconcernaboutprotectionistandexclusiveattitudes
towardsthe term.Puritanical definitions,thatdescribe folkmusicpurelyintermsof itsrole ina gift
economy,are thwartedbythe fact that contemporarymusiciansworkingingifteconomiesare
seldomreferredtoasfolkmusicians.Some elementof musical style isclearlyinvolved.Copyright
law,the standardtool the industryusestoprotectintellectual property,isnotsufficienttoprotect
folkmusicinthe publicdomain.None of the alternativesdiscussedinthe secondsection,suchas
Creative CommonsandOpenSource licensing,are perfect,beingtoosteepedinthe intellectual
propertyparadigm(JonesandCameron,2005). The threat of a shrinkingpublicdomainremainsvery
real, and furtherresearchisneededtofindworkable alternativestocurrentintellectual property
regimesandavoidthe tragedyof the unmanagedcommons.Atthe moment,itfallstodedicated
institutionstoprotectfolkmusic:Ibelieve itisessentialforthese institutionstoaccepta broadand
non-protectionistconceptionof folkmusicsuchas I have described.Inthiswaytheycanutilise the
successof commercial folk-as-style musictowinfundingthatcan be usedto preserve andpromote
more traditional butlessmarketablefolk-as-practice.The successof folk-inspiredpopularmusic
shouldnotbe seenas a threatto the integrityof heritage,butasa meansof bringingittoa wider
audience.
To conclude,itisworthstatingthat the foundersof the firstfolkmusicdegree inEngland
claimthat while theyencounteredsignificantdifficultiesreconcilingfolkpractice withhigher
education,theyfeltthatif theydidnotdoit ‘thensomebodyelse[was] goingtodoit,and maybe in
a way that [they] reallywouldn’tagree with’(KathrynTickel inKeegan-Phipps,2007: 103). The same
argumentcouldbe extendedtothe managementof folkmusic:whilefolkpuristsmayobjecttothe
way‘their’musicisusedinthe globalisedmusicbusiness,if theydonotmanage it,otherswill.The
managementof folkmusicmustnecessarilybe undertakenbythose knowledgeableabouta

12. vulnerable piece of heritage,butpragmaticenoughtomanage itinboth commercial andnon-
commercial settings.Yet,asdemonstratedbythe BBCFolkMusic Awards,a degree of transparency
and accountabilitymustbe involved,tomaintainanatmosphere of accessibility,andavoidthe
creationof a musical elite whichcouldhinderratherthanhelpthe tradition.
Bibliography
ArtsCouncil England,2010. ‘Folkmusicinvestment2009-11’ [online] Availableat:
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/funded-projects/case-studies/folk-music-investment-2009-
11/ [accessed16.12.2014]
Boyes,Georgina,1993. The Imagined Village:Culture,Ideology and theEnglish Folk Revival
Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress
English FolkDance and Song Society,n.d.‘Whatwe do’ [online] Available at:
http://www.efdss.org/efdss-about-us/what-we-do[accessed16.12.2014]
English FolkDance and Song Society,2014. ‘ArtsCouncil EnglandNational PortfolioFunding’[online]
Available at:http://www.efdss.org/news/81-july-2014/1560-arts-council-england-national-portfolio-
funding[accessed16.12.2014]
Farrell,Margaret,2003. ‘WhoOwnsThe Tunes?AnExplorationof CompositionOwnershipinIrish
Traditional Music’[online] Availableat:
http://www.academia.edu/8893914/Who_Owns_the_Tunes_An_Exploration_of_Composition_Own
ership_in_Irish_Traditional_Music_2003[accessed16.12.2014]
Frith,SimonandLee Marshall,2004. ‘MakingSense of Copyright’inSimonFrithandLee Marshall ed.
2004, Musicand Copyright,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,pp.1-20.
Hardin,Garret, 1968. ‘The Tragedyof the Commons’in Science162:3859 pp.1243-1248
Hartley,Emma,2013. ‘BBC Radio2 FolkAwards:bottomof the class’[online] Availableat:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/01/bbc-radio-2-folk-awards-bottom-of-the-class/
[accessed16.12.2014]
Johansson,Matsand Ola K.Berge,2014. ‘WhoOwnsan Interpretation?Legal andSymbolic
Ownershipof NorwegianFolkMusic’in Ethnomusicology 58:I,pp.30-53.
Jones,RichardandEuan Cameron,2005. ‘Full Fat,Semi-skimmedorNoMilkToday – Creative
CommonsLicencesandEnglishFolkMusic’in InternationalReview of Law,Computersand
Technology, 19:iii,pp.259-275.
Keegan-Phipps,Simon,2007. ‘DéjàVu?FolkMusic, Education,andInstitutionalizationin
ContemporaryEngland’in YearbookforTraditionalMusic 39, pp 84-107.
McSmith,Andy,2014. ‘DavidCameroninRace Row AfterPosingWithBlacked-upMorrisDancers’in
The Independent[online] 13.10.2014, available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/david-

13. cameron-in-race-row-after-posing-with-blackedup-morris-dancers-9791733.html [accessed
10.12.2014]
McCann, Anthony,2001. ‘All ThatIs NotGivenIs Lost:IrishTraditional Music,Copyright,and
CommonProperty’in Ethnomusicology, 45:I,pp.89-106.
Roud,Steve,2012. ‘General Introduction’in TheNew Penguin Bookof English Folk Songs ed.Steve
Roudand JuliaBishop(PenguinBooks,London:2014) pp.ix-xli.
Seeger,Anthony,2004.‘Traditional MusicOwnershipinaCommodifiedWorld’in Musicand
Copyrighted.SimonFrithandLee Marshall,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPresspp.1-20
Smiers,Joost,2003. ArtsUnderPressure:Promoting CulturalDiversity in the Ageof Globalisation
NewYork:Zed Books.
Wilson,Nick,2011. ‘The Businessof Authenticity:A False Relation?’in ArtsMarketing:An
InternationalJournal1:ii,pp.159-170.