transcending silence... 2005 Issue

Return to: Archives


American Folksong, Seeger and DiFranco: The Danger of Invisibility in Mainstream Popular Culture

Caitlin Sutton*


This paper examines the relative obscurity of folksong in contemporary mainstream American culture. I pursue several possible explanations for this phenomenon, which include the following: influence and attractiveness of popular music on youth, the dismissal of folk music by scholars, the controversial nature of folksong and briefly, the effects of censorship on the music market economy. This discussion uses the medium of folk music to draw important conclusions about culture. It must be understood that many American music genres are interconnected and important; however, most contemporary popular music lacks any historical or political significance. Ani DiFranco and Pete Seeger are critical to the folk tradition; they fight for the rights of the working class and their contributions to activism (both in their lyrics and in their lives) are unprecedented. I attempt to demonstrate their importance to American culture and history. I suggest that music listeners have opted for less critical, pre-manufactured music instead of Seeger or DiFranco’s music because history has made folksong unattractive to them. Folk music needs to be rediscovered and appreciated; I argue that an understanding of the complexities that race, sex and class offer can be better understood through the lens of folk music. Resources include song lyrics, previously published scholarly articles, State University of New York at Albany archival documents, a biography, sound recordings and books.


I pity Americans because they have no light, no song in their lives. They are but children in everything pertaining to art – Chaliapin, 1908 [1]

American folklore aims to capture one’s cultural traditions, to collect cultural artifacts from everyday “folks.” [2] As with any culture, collections from many individuals should combine to form an authentic and appropriate cultural history. First Amendment Rights in the United States’ Constitution make it an ideal country in which to garner this type of history; however, the dissemination of folk music is seriously lacking in the contemporary United States. Academic scholars and musicologists’ skepticism of folk music revivals has contributed to its unpopularity. Over the past four decades, folk musicians have increasingly questioned the American government and American values. These two variables have contributed to the eradication of folk music from contemporary mainstream America. In contrast to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, folk music today has importantly become less observational and more critical. Support for mainstream music has left folk musicians unclear about who the “folk” (the people) they sing for and write about really are.

Music can most profitably yield clues to the past by being analyzed, not only for aesthetic qualities and intrinsic worth, but also for its more complex and interesting social role. [3] Contemporary mainstream music has devoured all other music types. The inability to find alternative music types is due to censorship in the media, as well as the relative obscurity of other genres in the market economy. Internet searches on such websites as, and yield no results for folk-rock musician Ani DiFranco. Folk musician Pete Seeger is almost as difficult to locate. Not only did not include Ani DiFranco in the top two hundred for sales in 2004. After fifteen years of performing and four million records sold, she is not even an entry in the pop culture website. On, mindless songs devoid of any lyrical significance like “California Dreamin’” by the Mama’s and the Papa’s remain on the top ten folk music list, even though it was written over thirty years ago. In fact, “good music” used to mean that the station in which the song was played was not programmed according to a “Top 40” or best-selling individual song basis. [4] “California Dreamin’” does not fit the authentic folk category in which it is represented. Controversial songs, authentic folk songs that challenge politics and the status quo in general (“the music of the people”) cannot be found on any of these websites. By ignoring these musicians and their work, a serious disservice is being done to the youth and future generations of Americans; cultural histories are being ignored. Is there a legitimate reason for this invisibility of the “other”?

Ani DiFranco and Pete Seeger are critical, authentic activists who work through their music. Although Seeger and DiFranco are not contemporaries of each other, each singer’s career coincides ideologically with the other. As the leader of a grass-roots music bulletin supporting workers’ rights, Seeger believed that “music, too, is a weapon;” his work had significant impact, two million went on strike in January 1946 and by the end of the year, 5 million. [5] DiFranco also feels similarly for the homeless and the working-class poor. Over the past couple of years, DiFranco has taken swift action to save a local Buffalo, New York Church from demolition. She has helped support the local economy by doing business locally whenever possible. For her deeds, she has received many community awards, including “Citizen of the Year.” [6] Both artists attribute blame to the hierarchy of capitalism for the disparities Americans face; Seeger helped to revise Leadbelly’s “New York City,” which thereafter read “At the Rainbow Room, the soup’s on to boil/They’re stirring the salad with Standard Oil/It’s sixty stories high, they say, a long way back to the U.S.A.” [7] Ani claims “capitalism is the devil’s wet dream” [8] and she warns “whoever’s in charge up there had better take the elevator down and put more than change in our cup or else we are coming up.” [9]

DiFranco and Seeger do not stand alone; criticism of the United States via folk song has been in existence at least since the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s with such songs as “80 cent butter.” Some of the lyrics read as follows: “now when you ask the cause of it all, they’ll hand you a lie about 6 foot tall. They’ll cry and scream and tear their hair about the high cost of being a millionaire. [They’ll] take a full-page ad in the Daily News to blame it on the Strikers, the Reds and the Jews.” [10] Songs were also written in the 1940s in order to protest issues important to Americans while World War II was being fought abroad; some titles of note are “50 cent butter and 50 cent meat,” “Join the Picket Line Today” and “Homeless Blues.” Folk singer Pete Seeger became the executive secretary of The Bulletins of People’s Songs, which organized to create, promote and distribute songs of labor and of the American People. [11] These songs addressed inflation rates, hunger and homelessness, the formation of workers’ unions and working conditions. Just as the folk singers of the early to mid 20th century addressed issues that were important to the majority of middle-class Americans, contemporary folksingers like Ani DiFranco discuss problems like male and female equality and equity, gay rights, AIDS, homelessness, domestic violence, the growing income gap along racist, sexist and classist lines, the growing intersectionality of church and state, rape and incest, reproductive rights, housing segregation, and police brutality. [12] Although both Pete Seeger and Ani DiFranco’s material is controversial in nature, it fulfills the guidelines set into place by the forefathers of American folk music. Alan Lomax echoed, “A piece of folklore is a living, changing thing.” [13] The 30s revivalists saw folk music as vital parts of living social systems; folk forms could fulfill the needs of people. Folk functionalists like the Seegers, Lomaxes, and Botkin embraced the whole world around them when they performed or wrote folklore; they desired folk culture to be recognized as a distinctively American form of culture after struggling to create art that was fashioned out of European constructs (specifically British ballads).

A side effect of these beliefs led folk culture to exist as an “alternate source of strength in a time of crisis in America – as a counterculture.” [14] In the 1960s, scholars defined counterculture as a “new reaction to technical expertise and the embourgeoisment of growing segments of the American people.” [15] I believe it is unfortunate that this counterculture exists because the information is not available to all; instead, most information is available to some. One scholar believes that the “counterculture” is derived from intellectual and literary trends from books like Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. [16] Historically, the counterculture has been scorned by scholars; another scholar saw Mark Twain’s book as “inadequate” to be cited on folklore in American literature because it offers no supporting evidence. Furthermore, he argues it is a “horrible example” of American folklore. [17] His disdain certainly arises from the criticism that Twain offers, which is disguised in the story of a boy’s adventure along the Mississippi River. Just like the relative obscurity of Ani DiFranco’s lyrics, [18] Mark Twain had to hide his folklore in the guise of a story for children to read. When the children’s book did reach public attention in the adult’s eye, it was scorned by contemporary authors like Louisa May Alcott and Life magazine editors as “trash.” [19] Ernest Hemingway later laid great claim to Huckleberry Finn as an “American classic.” If Mark Twain’s story is any indication, it certainly seems that in order for critical folk music to survive its contemporaries is for it to exist in the “counterculture.” Are dissenting views forever relegated to the status of the “counterculture?” On the other hand, are messages compromised once they reach the surface in mainstream?

Mass culture has had a devastating effect on the arts. Like folk music, it has guidelines that force it to exist in a particular fashion. According to Ortega y Gasset (1957: 18):

The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated. And it is clear that…nowadays, “everybody” is the mass alone. [20]

On a grand scale, music in this cultural context came to be known as a lower order of art called kitsch. Kitsch can be defined as products manufactured “solely for the mass market.” [21] One of the premier targets of kitsch opponents has been popular music. [22] Popular music is instantly accessible to anyone who is culturally inclined to take part, even the musical novice. Successful pop music, which is often measured in terms of its commercial success, is usually performed by charismatic performers who look attractive, are fashionable and can dance well. [23] In a related vein, mass art has been identified as having five critical properties. One is that it is profitable when it has a high sales volume, the second is the mass art can rarely control or define its problems. The third definition involves the economics of the mass market as it determines the content or art and its form. The fourth part is that it has to capitalize on some “meaningful” aspect that affects the audience (of course according to the audience). The final part of the definition includes having an audience large enough to justify a competitive return on an investment. The part of this definition that capitalizes on a “meaningful” aspect in the perspective of the audience has much to do with “youth market” research with samples of adolescent and young people to determine attitudes and preferences. The intersections of capitalism and mass art have portrayed the United States as devoid of culture, of true folklore. Sex, pornography and commercialism are what drive the youth market today. Protest, feminism and activism are not selling points for popular culture in the twenty-first century. How can we rectify this unfortunate situation and bring folk music to the forefront?

Historians have responded to protest music/activism (essentially counterculture materials) with scorn. The Journal of American Folklore has displayed troubling representations of American folklore. In 1959, author Richard Dobson typified seven categories of folklorists: comparative folklorists, cultural anthropologists, folksong and folk music specialists, special pleaders, regional collectors, literary historians and populizers. Dobson sees special pleaders and the literary historians as troubling categories. Special pleaders refer to those who practice folklore in opposition to American values, in the name of those involved with the class struggle (Frazer, Freud and Marx). Pete Seeger and his involvement with the Communist Party during the McCarthy era would certainly fall under this category. Dobson leaves no room for acceptance of this group; he advises the student of American folk materials to not dally along the “garden path of the special pleaders even if they appear seductive- which they don’t.” [24] Clearly, this author ignores the existence of the early forms of protest music during both World Wars. He compares special pleaders to the serpentine evil in the Story of Adam and Eve. This comparison is a valuable admission; folklore is a powerful information source and this truth can have serious repercussions. It is important to uncover the reasons why folk song is not prevalent today. Have scholars made the possibility of becoming a folk enthusiast too discouraging or have Americans missed their criticism, the lyrical content of songs and the point altogether because of other factors?

Norman Studer (director of a New York State Folklore Camp from 1940-1961) supported Seeger’s approach to American Folklore. Since Camp Woodland’s inception in 1940, Seeger and Studer believed that in order to educate someone about the realities of the world, one would have to cultivate one’s feelings to run along with the development of the mind. An example he provides for this cultivation is those who have seen the spectacle of millions who know in their minds the consequences of the nuclear bomb, but in their feelings, they cannot comprehend the horrible example of Hiroshima and the devastation it caused. [25] Studer and Seeger held a high esteem for political activism and he believed that if speaking out was “un-American” then the world should be considered “upside-down.” It is in this same vein that Studer defended Pete Seeger when he was called to the House Un-American Activities Committee for his involvement with the Communist Party in the United States, as well as his activism in the labor movement. Studer and Seeger redefine patriotism; a patriot is someone who criticizes in order to improve rather than ignore issues and let them fester. Studer and Seeger were also concerned with the development with the adolescent mind at Camp Woodland; they hoped to influence youth so that the content in the “youth market” might change; the educators wanted to teach youngsters to value important issues rather than support the pre-manufactured music of the mainstream today.

Pete Seeger and his father Charles embarked on a historic journey for Pete’s career when they traveled to Asheville, North Carolina, where they could attend an annual Folk Song and Dance festival (Bascom Lamar Lunsford’s). Pete “discovered there was some good music in my country which I never heard on the radio…The words of life had all the meat of life to them. Their humor had a bite, it was not trivial…In comparison, most of the pop music of the thirties seemed to me weak and soft, with its endless variations on ‘Baby, baby I need you.’” [26] Seeger is not the only one to credit his interest in folk to the disillusionment of the romanticized rock lyrics of his time; Ani DiFranco also mimics those who don’t thirst for quality in life (“we start out sugared up on kool aid and manifest destiny and we memorize all the president’s names like little trained monkeys and then we’re spit into the world so many spinny-eyed t.v. junkies”). [27] There is an important distinction between the earlier stages (forties and fifties) of rock and roll and the later stages (sixties and seventies). Scholars have claimed that in comparison to folk lyrics and protest music of the sixties, rock and roll lyrics of the forties and fifties sounded unintelligent and lacked meaning. [28]

I believe that the rock music of the sixties has importantly influenced folk music. I take issue with the scholars of the 60s and 70s who have suggested that rock music has taken over completely the role of folk music. [29] The authors claim that rock and roll and folk are similar because they both operate in the present and their art is only for the moment. However, when DiFranco and Seeger talk about the downfalls of capitalism and gender relations, they are clearly not creating art for pure enjoyment. Their lyrics encourage involvement and an understanding of the troubles that plague our nation over great periods; history repeats itself. Moreover, unique elements of rock and roll (electric guitar and back beat) has combined with folk music in order to create a new genre of folk-rock. The fusion of rock and folk has produced a tremendously powerful result, the style of rock and roll is more attractive (especially to a mainstream fan) than Pete Seeger’s days of playing the banjo. Pete Seeger himself realized this phenomenon at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival when Bob Dylan played the electric guitar and forever changed the way folk music was heard. [30] Although Seeger was initially discouraged by this turn of events, he realized that “every revival contains within itself the seed not only of its own destruction… but also new revivals.” [31] This idea of “new revivals” is what connects Seeger and DiFranco even though they are not contemporaries of one another. Bob Dylan’s entrance into the music world from the folk arena was important because it began to change the ways folk listeners (and interested rock and roll fans) could identify with the important issues he addressed in his music. As a transitory figure, Dylan introduced thematic rock and roll concepts to folk music, which Ani was able to glean from for her musical presentation. Musically, Seeger and DiFranco are similar not because of their style, but because of their content.

Ani DiFranco’s popularity in the “counterculture” demonstrates how the folk/rock phenomenon does not necessarily mean that content quality is sacrificed. Similar to Alan Lomax’s belief that folk music is “living and changing,” Ani has said, new arrangements of songs are “examples of how [they] are living and changing things; the same song, like the same person, is a very different thing after 5 years. Or after 5 minutes it seems sometimes.” [32] More importantly than her integrated history in folk music past, DiFranco has improved and renovated folk traditions to include women and issues related to women. The voices of women have been neglected until recently; this disappointing phenomenon is supported by the example of Hannah Studer. As Norman Studer’s wife, Hannah can be credited for documenting her husband’s life and his work. Hannah Studer was not only instrumental in the establishment of Camp Woodland but also very active in its operation, serving as the Camp Registrar for its entire existence. Sadly, absent from the Norman Studer collection is any substantive documentation of folklore representing the female perspective. [33]

In the same way that Seeger has identified with the voice of the people [34] and upgraded from the music of the 30s, Ani DiFranco is also a stylist, updating the music of the 60s. Although the Lomaxes’ 1934 book American Ballads and Folksongs claims, “a life of isolation, without books or newspapers or telephone or radio, breeds songs and ballads," [35] DiFranco, Seeger and various protest song writers demonstrate how this cannot be true. DiFranco’s unperformed poem “the interview” reads, “how can one talk on the role of politics in art when art is activism, and anyway both are just a lifelong light shining through a swinging prism.” [36] Race, gender, sex, sexual orientation(s), disability, discrimination, age, creed, religion, national origin, economic status, etc. present overwhelming complexities that ordinary, contemporary United States’ citizens must face on an everyday basis. In today’s age of censorship paired with the promise of instant gratification, [37] folk music’s survival depends on its ability to freely address these problems and work towards solutions.

Today’s folk music and its relative obscurity illustrates how there is no one kind of “folk”; people can choose their favorite author if they are not dominated by censorship. Like Seeger’s argument about Dylan’s electric conversion, it could be argued that Ani’s hard-edge, shrill, possibly angry sounding lyrics distract from the meaning of her words. It could also be argued that these characteristics are what hold Ani to the counterculture in which she thrives. Folks who listen to Ani agree with her too much to listen to mainstream; they feel Ani tells their story better than mass media. DiFranco has founded her own record company to ensure production of her labels. [38] Even if she desired it, this artist will never be released into mainstream music because the issues she addresses are too volatile and controversial, they hit too close to home. So too, have Seeger’s fans supported volatile issues he addressed in his lyrics. In some ways, the issues Seeger raises in his music were more dangerous because of the time in which he lived; McCarthyism, the Red Scare and World War II were events that challenged Seeger’s autonomy in a way Ani DiFranco’s had not been.

Both Seeger and DiFranco have elaborated upon the intent behind their lyrics in other written forms. The People’s Bulletin and Camp Woodland Papers have allowed Seeger to expand upon his ideas of democracy and freedom. DiFranco has commented about the positive response from her fans in her own writing. In the cd booklet of So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter, she writes, “it’s so affirming for me to realize how many of us agree on certain things that are not represented in the media.” In “tis of thee,” DiFranco attacks the criminal justice system and the formation of white suburbia. The lyrics read: “they caught the last poor man on a poor man’s vacation/they cuffed him and they confiscated his stuff/and they dragged his black ass back to the station and said, ‘ok the streets are safe now./all your pretty white children can come out to see spot run’/…and they looked around but they didn’t see no one.” [39] Ani DiFranco offers a respectful distant analysis of “the other,” while chastising her own race for its lewd insensitivity. Ani’s forceful lyrics are supported by her repetition of related subjects in other songs of hers. In “subdivision,” Ani claims, “white people are so scared of black people, they bulldoze out to the country and put on houses on little loop-dee-loop streets.” [40] Since DiFranco has started producing albums in 1990, over fifteen studio albums and four live albums have been released. [41] This is not just another superficial trend in the music industry. Her songs are essentially authentic documents of contemporary American life.

Ani DiFranco’s devotion to women’s issues is undeniable while Seeger fails to mention gender issues at all. In “hello Birmingham”, she draws a connection between the 1964 church bombing that killed 4 little girls and the attempted bombings of abortion clinics in Buffalo. [42] She compares these two events together and analyzes her apathy associated with voting: “and I am feeling oh so powerless in this stupid booth with this useless little lever in my hand and outside my city is bracing for the next killing thing… praying for the next Doctor Martin Luther King”. In another context related to women, DiFranco contextualizes domestic violence in the United States. She writes, “he says he loves her he says he’s changing and he can keep her warm and so she sits there like America suffering through slow reform.” [43] In the end of the song, the speaker tries to tell the victimized woman that there are “plenty of really great men out there” but the woman does not hear because she’s fixing her hair for (presumably) the man. This song uses this woman as part of an analogy; in the same way the woman isn’t listening to the speaker, the United States isn’t helping women fight against abuse. Historically, this type of denial has placed blame upon women but DiFranco instead finds our culture as the culprit and supporter of domestic violence. In another song that speaks to the deletion of women in history, Ani writes, “because the music [2nd verse- marriage 3rd verse- revolution] business is still run by men like every business and everything but we can still sing like a sonofabitch make them twitch around their eyes girl, make him apologize.” [44] These words convey a sense of empowerment that have propelled women into a new place, into recognition.

There are additional similarities between Ani DiFranco and Peter Seeger that cement them as common threads in the interwoven history of folk music. Both are college dropouts; DiFranco took a few classes from the New School but never graduated and Seeger dropped out of Harvard after his first year. [45] Both have made important contributions to introducing and representing “the other” in a politically correct fashion while Lomax and other “founders of folk” have failed to do so. [46] Although Pete and Ani could be considered professionals, they do not choose this label as revivalists of the 1930s have. Ani describes an “invigorating synergy of gathering together with a bunch of other human beings that propels me through my live performances.” [47] Similarly, Pete’s favorite part of performing was the sing-along technique he embraced. [48] Both musicians fail to let accusations of being “un-American” or “unpatriotic” cloud their words. In fact, Pete Seeger was brought up on contempt of Court charges when he appeared as an “unfriendly witness” in front of HUAC because he claimed the 1st Amendment Rights instead of 5th. [49] Lastly, both DiFranco and Seeger contribute positively to local communities; Ani dedicates her work to the city of Buffalo while Seeger contributed greatly to the Catskill region.

It is a tragedy that 1960s scholars could dismiss DiFranco and Seeger as temporary, insignificant artists. I argue that history, specifically generations of Americans before us have discouraged artists from bringing important and inherently controversial issues to the forefront. This paper attempts to examine what areas of politics and mass culture have made this so. Are young Americans of the twenty-first century products of the choices made by their parents and grandparents’ generations to be patriotic and unquestioning of our government and values or has the mass media successfully manipulated them into purchasing a pre-manufactured and pre-selected tastes? Have scholars successfully squashed the folk “rebellion” that originated in the 1930s and thrived with the addition of latter rock and roll themes of the 60s? In order to understand the ways in which young people today dislike trends in activism, one needs to begin answering these questions. It seems reasonable to assume that the economic control of the mass market will be unrelenting unless important political and social issues once again become “attractive” to young people of today. It is undeniable that songwriter/singers like DiFranco and Seeger will continue to speak out today and in the future. Folk artists seem to be especially geared for this task. What can we do to make people start listening now?



1. Alan Levy and Barbara Tischler, “Into the Cultural Mainstream: The Growth of American Music Scholarship,” American Quarterly v. 42 (1 1990): 62. (Return)

2. Definition of “folk music,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia On-line, 2005, <> (accessed March 4, 2005). (Return)

3.Levy and Tischler, 70. (Return)

4. Carl I. Belz, “Popular Music and the Folk Tradition,” The Journal of American Folklore v. 80 (316 Apr. –Jun. 1967): 132. (Return)

5. David Dunaway, How Can I Keep From Singing? (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), 118. (Return)

6. Jeffrey Pepper Rodgers. “Ani DiFranco Saves Hometown Church from Demolition,” Audio Recording, NPR- "All Things Considered," 9 January 2004, <> (accessed March 25, 2005). (Return)

7. Dunaway, 100. (Return)

8. Ani DiFranco, “Serpentine,” Compact Disc, Evolve (Righteous Babe Records, 2004). (Return)

9. Ani DiFranco, “Coming Up,” Compact Disc, Imperfectly (Righteous Babe Records, 1992). (Return)

10. Bob Miller and Emma Dermer, People’s Songs, Inc. Supplement to No. 3, Norman Studer Papers, Albany State Archives, 1929, Box 34, Folder 13 (accessed March 7, 2005). (Return)

11. Almanacs, Paul Kent, C. Anthony and J. Trenbke, People’s Songs, Inc. v. 1 (2 1946), Norman Studer Papers, Albany State Archives, Box 34, Folder 13 (accessed March 7, 2005). (Return)

12. Danah Boyd, “Ani DiFranco Lyrics,' Righteous Babe,'" <> (accessed March 4, 2005). (Return)

13. John Lomax and Alan Lomax, eds., Our Singing Country: A Second Volume of American Ballads and Folk Songs (Macmillan, 1941), xi. (Return)

14. Benjamin Filene, “O Brother, What Next? Making Sense of the Folk Fad,” Southern Cultures v. 10 (2 2004): 55. (Return)

15. Jens Lund and R. Serge Denisoff, “The Folk Music Revival and the Counter Culture: Contributions and Contradictions,” The Journal of American Folklore v. 84 (334 Oct. – Dec. 1971): 394. (Return)

16. Lund and Denisoff, 395. (Return)

17. Richard M. Dorson, “A Theory for American Folklore,” Journal of American Folklore (1959): 200, Norman Studer Papers, Albany State Archives, Box 31, Folder 15 (accessed March 7, 2005). (Return)

18. Ani DiFranco, reference to the non-proliferation of her music, “[I want the FCC] to ban one of my songs, I guess you have to start playing them before you can stop playing them,” Track nine, Disc 1, So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter (Righteous Babe Records: 2002). (compact disc) (Return)

19. “Introduction to Huckleberry Finn,” Cliff Notes On-line, 2005, <,pageNum-6.html > (accessed March 10, 2005). (Return)

20. Serge R. Denisoff and Mark H. Levine, “Youth and Popular Music: A Test of the Taste Culture Hypothesis,” Youth & Society v. 4 (2 1972): 238. (Return)

21. Denisoff and Levine, 238. (Return)

22.Denisoff, R. Serge, “Massification and Popular Music: A Review,” Journal of Popular Culture, v. 9(4 1976): 887. (Return)

23. Definition of “pop music,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia On-line, 2005,
<> (accessed April 26, 2005). (Return)

24. Richard M. Dorson, “A Theory for American Folklore,” Journal of American Folklore (1959): 200, Norman Studer Papers, Albany State Archives, Box 31, Folder 15 (accessed March 7, 2005). (Return

25. David Dunaway, “Interview with Norman Studer” (Tape 1 Paper Version: 16 April 1976): 2, Norman Studer Papers, Albany State Archives, Box 1, Folder 9 (accessed March 7, 2005). (Return)

26. Benjamin Filene, Romancing the Folk: Public Memory & American Roots Music (North Carolina: University Press, 2000): 180. (Return)

27. Ani DiFranco, “Serpentine,” Evolve (Righteous Babe Records, 2004) (compact disc), (Return)

28. Carl I. Belz, “Popular Music and the Folk Tradition,” The Journal of American Folklore, v. 80 (316 Apr. –Jun., 1967): 134. (Return)

29. Ronald D. Cohen, “The Delinquents: Censorship and Youth Culture in Recent U.S. History,” History of Education Quarterly, v. 37 (3 Fall 1997): 255. (Return)

30. Filene (2000), Chapter 5. (Return)

31. Lund and Denisoff, 399. (Return)

32. Ani DiFranco, So Much Shouting, So Much Laughing (Righteous Babe Records, 2002) (compact disc), (Return)

33. Peter Runge, “Finding Aid for the Norman Studer Papers,” Archives of Public Affairs and Policy, 1817, 1920-1988 (APAP-116 April 2003) (accessed March 25, 2005). (Return)

34. R. Serge Denisoff, “Protest Songs: Those on the Top Forty and Those of the Streets,” American Quarterly v. 22 (4 Winter 1970): 807. (Return)

35. Filene (2004), 62. (Return)

36. Ani DiFranco, Evolve (Righteous Babe Records, 2004) (compact disc) (Return)

37. Ronald D. Cohen, “The Delinquents: Censorship and Youth Culture in Recent U.S. History,” History of Education Quarterly, v. 37 (3 Fall 1997): 258. (Return)

38. Danah Boyd, “Ani DiFranco Lyrics,” Righteous Babe, < > (accessed March 4, 2005). (Return)

39. Ani DiFranco, “Tis’ of thee”, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up (Righteous Babe Records, 1999) (compact disc), (Return)

40. Ani DiFranco, “Subdivision”, Reckoning (Righteous Babe Records, 2001) (compact disc) (Return)

41. Danah Boyd, “Ani DiFranco Lyrics,” Righteous Babe, <> (accessed March 4, 2005). (Return)

42. Danah Boyd, “Hello Birmingham,”Ani DiFranco Lyrics, 1999 <> (accessed March 4, 2005). (Return)

43.Danah Boyd, “Fixing her hair,” Ani DiFranco Lyrics, 1992 <> (accessed March 4, 2005). (Return)

44. Danah Boyd, “Make them apologize,” Ani DiFranco Lyrics, 1992 < > (accessed March 4, 2005). (Return)

45. Filene (2000), Chapter 5. (Return)

46. Filene (2000): Chapter 5. (Return)

47. Ani DiFranco, So Much Shouting, So Much Laughing, (Return)

48. Filene (2000,: Chapter 5. (Return)

49. Filene (2000), Chapter 5. (Return)


Belz, Carl I. “Popular Music and the Folk Tradition.” The Journal of American Folklore v. 80 (316 Apr. - Jun., 1967): 130-142.

Boyd, Danah. “Ani DiFranco Lyrics,” Righteous Babe, < > (accessed March 4, 2005).

Bromberg, Minna and Fine, Gary Alan. “Resurrecting the Red: Pete Seeger and the Purification of Difficult Reputations.” Social Forces v. 80 (4 2002): 1135-1155.

Cliff Notes. “Introduction to Huckleberry Finn.” Cliff Notes On-line. 2005. <,pageNum-6.html > (accessed March 10, 2005).

Cohen, Ronald D. “The Delinquents: Censorship and Youth Culture in Recent U.S. History.” History of Education Quarterly v. 37 (3 Fall 1997): 251-270.

Denisoff, R. Serge and Levine, Mark H. “Youth and Popular Music: A Test of the Taste Culture Hypothesis.” Youth & Society v. 4 (2 1972): 237-255.

Denisoff, R. Serge. “Massification and Popular Music: A Review.” Journal of Popular Culture v. 9 (4 1976): 886-894.

Denisoff, R. Serge. “Protest Songs: Those on the Top Forty and Those of the Streets.” American Quarterly v. 22 (4 Winter, 1970): 807-823.

DiFranco, Ani. Evolve. (Righteous Babe Records, 2004) (compact disc).

DiFranco, Ani. Imperfectly. (Righteous Babe Records, 1992) (compact disc).

DiFranco, Ani. Reckoning. (Righteous Babe Records, 2001) (compact disc).

DiFranco, Ani. So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter. (Righteous Babe Records, 2002) (compact disc).

DiFranco, Ani. To The Teeth. (Righteous Babe Records, 1999) (compact disc).

DiFranco, Ani. Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up. (Righteous Babe Records, 1999) (compact disc).

Dunaway, David K. How Can I Keep From Singing? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.

Filene, Benjamin. “O Brother, What Next? Making Sense of the Folk Fad.” Southern Cultures v. 10 (2 2004): 50-69.

Filene, Benjamin. Public Memory & American Roots Music. The University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

Levy, Alan and Tischler, Barbara L. “Into the Cultural Mainstream: The Growth of American Music Scholarship.” American Quarterly v. 42 (1 1990): 57-73.

Lomax, John and Alan, eds., Our Singing Country: A Second Volume of American Ballads and Folk Songs. New York: Macmillan, 1941.

Lund, Jens and Denisoff, R. Serge. “The Folk Music Revival and the Counter Culture: Contributions and Contradictions.” The Journal of American Folklore v. 84 (334 Oct. – Dec. 1971): 394-405.

National Public Radio (NPR). 2005. <> (accessed March 25, 2005).

Norman Studer Papers. State University at Albany Archives. Boxes 1, 31, 34, and Finding Aid.

Wikipedia, The On-line Encyclopedia. 2005. <> (accessed March 4, 2005).


* Caitlin Sutton holds a double major in Women's Studies and Psychology. She expects to graduate in December of 2005. She was enrolled in Professor Vivien Ng's class, "History of Women and Social Change," in the Spring of 2005. She has an interest in politics on all levels, particularly women's issues, law, gender and sexuality. She is considering attending law school after graduation. (Return)


Back to Top