To Name the Tradition... Or the Future? Folk-Lore, Posfolklore, Folk-Link: Doubts, Comments and Proposals

Abstract

To think about analyze the way in which politics, nation and folklore articulate itself in Latin America implies, at least, to understand to understand the variations in time and reality and the names that refer to it. Also implies the need to adjust corresponding definitions, which we do here for investigation scopes. So in this paper “neofolklore”, “posfolklore”, “folk-communication”, as well as “folklore projection” (folklore showing) and “modern folklore”, are designations analyzed. Briefly tracing the history of theoretical concepts with which folk science proposed to approach author creation, not anonymous, allows us to glimpse how people were conceived, the nation and the art that tried to represent them. Limitations of transferring those concepts to popular music, now, require new points of view, like “affective turn” in social studies. This is especially important when the music whole that includes “creator/issuer, performer, and receivers (actually co-makers)”, transforms it in “musics of use”.

All this leads us, in transcendent substantial cases, the close of that special circle of observation, creation, emission, reception and reimpact in new artists, that in popular creation and when are founded through entire trajectories, constitutes what we call “folk-link”, definition we propose here. Links that, of course, to be such, must be generationally relevant.