Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.9.6 3:18 PM ページ 187

The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 15 (2004)

Commercialism, Counterculture,and the Folk Music Revival:
A Study of Sing Out! Magazine, 1950–1967
Mikiko TACHI *I INTRODUCTION
A cartoon in the February–March 1966 issue of Sing Out!: The Folk
Song Magazine showed bourgeois parents asking their teenage daughter: “Why should we buy you a guitar just so you can sing against our
way of life?”1 The bespectacled, tie-wearing father and the dress- andnecklace-wearing mother sit on the couch challenging the daughter who
stands in front of them, with a stubborn frown of frustration, her ﬁsts
clenched (Fig.1). This cartoon symbolized how the 1960s popularity offolk music was fuelled by the counterculture.2 Yet while folk music,
played with the guitar, represented the counterculture—rejection of themainstream way of life that was characterized by commercialism andconformity—the very means of resisting mainstream culture was achieved
through consumption.
This paper demonstrates how the folk music revival depended on commercialism to prosper despite possessing inherent anti-commercialistroots. The idea of resisting commercialism through consumption wascentral to the folk music revival. Analysis of the folk music magazine
Sing Out!, between 1950 and 1967, reveals that even this left-wing folk
music magazine, intent on circulating the “people’s music” unavailable
Copyright © 2004 Mikiko Tachi. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with thisnotice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be distributed,
electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission from the author.
*Research Associate, University of Tokyo

187

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 188

188

MIKIKO TACHI

Fig.1.

to the public through commercial media, debated commercialism, included ads for folk instruments, and over time even increased the number of ads it carried that were similar to those in the mainstream. The
advertisements in the magazine appropriated the language of anti-commercialism and sold products by stressing the authenticity and the premodern aspects of the product. As Thomas Frank demonstrated in his
study of the advertising industry and the men’s clothing business in the
1960s, mainstream commercialism was not a static antithesis to the counterculture; business rejuvenated itself through anti-conformist rhetoric.3
The complexity of the relationship between mainstream commercialism
and counterculture was exempliﬁed in the folk music revival.4
During the period between the late 1950s and the 1960s, folk music
enjoyed an unprecedented popularity in the United States. In 1960, forexample, Time magazine announced that “the U.S. is smack in the middle of a folk-music boom.” According to the article, the enthusiasm forfolk music allowed some 50 professional folk singers to make decent
livings from performing folk music. At folk music festivals, audiences
brought guitars and banjos and played their own instruments as well as
listening to the professional performances.5 Around the same time,
Newsweek reported that folk music concerts that featured such popularfolk music artists as the Weavers, Theodore Bikel, Pete Seeger, andOdetta attracted so many people that halls with capacities of from 1,000
to 4,000 were easily ﬁlled by ardent audiences, many of whom were fromcolleges and cities.6 The folk music revival was indeed a major social
phenomenon.

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 189

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

189

Western scholars have traditionally deﬁned folk music as anonymousmusic of communal origin that was orally transmitted and played byamateurs, becoming altered through transmission and therefore existingin variants.7 Folk music therefore has been distinguished from popular(commercial) music, which is created and performed by trained professionals for proﬁt and is disseminated through media.8 From the end of
the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, American andBritish folklorists searched for and collected folk music from the rural
South under the assumption that music in rural areas had escaped commercial inﬂuence. The scholars intended to preserve folk music thatwould otherwise vanish in the face of a rapid urbanization. In the 1930s,
folk music came to have a left-wing political bent, as activists came toregard folk music as the voice of the working people and as a weapon
for social change, and promoted songs and folksingers in northern cities.9
Around the same time, professional singers started to sing and compose
folk music, which made the traditional deﬁnition of folk as anonymousand amateur obsolete. As a result, “folk” came to include a wider variety
of music. After World War II, folk music attracted many college-educated young men and women who regarded the music as representing
alternative values to those that dominated mainstream American culture.
This paper follows the following deﬁnition of the folk music revival by
Robert Cantwell:10
Between, roughly, 1958, when the collegiate Kingston Trio recorded an
Appalachian murder ballad, “Tom Dooley,” which sold nearly four million
discs, and 1964, when the Beatles and other British groups began to colonize
American popular music, folksongs, and original songs conceived and performed as such, enjoyed an unprecedented commercial popularity, inspiring
thousands of young middle-class men and women to learn songs, to accompany themselves on folk instruments, particularly guitar and banjo, to searchout and lionize authentic folk musicians, and ﬁnally to dress, groom, speak,comport themselves, and even attempt to think in ways they believed compatible with the rural, ethnic, proletarian, and other marginal cultures towhom folksong was supposed to belong.11

With the rise of the mass media and the increased professionalization offolk music, the deﬁnition of folk music as non-commercial music had
become quite fragile in reality by the time of the folk music revival. Still,
the anti-commercial aura of folk music was becoming ever more present
and important to young people opposing mainstream contemporary
American culture. As Susan Douglas has noted, folk music was anMikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 190

190

MIKIKO TACHI

antithesis of commercial, popular music that offered an expression of thecounterculture:
Contemptuous of the commercialization that seemed to infuse and debase
every aspect of American culture, and hostile to bourgeois values and the
proﬁt motive, members of that loose yet cohesive group known as the counterculture were revolutionizing almost every aspect of American culture. And
music was central to their individual and generational identity, their sense of
having a different, more enhanced consciousness about society, politics, andself-awareness.12

In addition to anti-commercialism, anti-mass culture sentiment was central to the folk music revival. Folk music appreciators considered themselves different from the masses in the sense that they preferred obscuremusic and rejected mainstream popular culture. As one commentator put
it at the time, “they like folk music because the whole country isn’t singing it.”13
Scholars have pointed out the post-war conformity and consumerism
that pervaded the nation during the 1950s and also the discontent of thewhite middle class which led to the New Left activism, the student movements, and the counterculture of the 1960s. For example, Wini Breines
has portrayed the discontent of white middle class young women with
conformist domestic ideals and their search for “authentic,” “real,” or“genuine”14 experience. Elaine Tyler May has argued that consumerism
was a strong Cold War ideology.15 Doug Rossinow argued that “new leftradicals launched what many have called a ‘postscarcity’ radicalism,
directing their basic criticism at the ‘afﬂuent society’ itself, which they,along with many liberals and conservatives of the 1950s and the 1960s,
considered an achieved fact.” According to Rossinow, authenticity was
the remedy for alienation in a society characterized by abundance, massconsumption, and bureaucratization.16 As Cantwell has noted, folk music
was considered authentic because of its marginal and pre-modern
origins. On the other hand, Thomas Frank contends that the consumeroriented, conformist mainstream American culture to which the counterculture was opposed also went through changes, negating the binary
narrative of the “conformist ﬁfties, rebellious sixties.”17 This paper
extends the work of these authors with a close examination of Sing Out!,
which has rarely been studied, from multiple perspectives, including its
producer’s testimony, published opinion articles, and advertisements.

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 191

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

II

191

SING OUT! HISTORY AND ITS COMMERCIAL DILEMMA:PRODUCERS’ PERSPECTIVE

Sing Out! began in 1950, before the folk music revival became prominent, as a left-wing periodical that published “people’s music”: folksongs that expressed the “hopes and fears and lives of common people.”18
It was established by Old Left activists who criticized capitalism and thecommercialism that it spawns. Irwin Silber, who served as editor during
the period 1950–1967, recalls the ideology that was held among thefounders of Sing Out! as follows:
An America based on the celebration of “working people” and the “commonman”; 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.19

In the ﬁrst issue of the magazine, Silber argued that contemporary music“[had] nothing to do with the people anymore” and he emphasized themagazine’s mission to collect and distribute songs that “serve the common cause of humanity.”20
The idea of using music for the betterment of society was not new.
The precursor of Sing Out! was People’s Songs, a monthly bulletin
started by artists and enthusiasts who sought to combine music with
political activism, such as Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Lee Hays, Paul
Robeson, Alan Lomax, Irwin Silber, and Earl Robinson, who founded
People’s Artists Inc. While the bulletin contributed to the rise of topicalsong making, it alienated labor unions who, with the beginning of theCold War, sought to distance themselves from groups of intellectuals
suspected of being communists.21 People’s Songs went bankrupt after
the 1948 presidential election, in the run-up to which “People’s Songsand its resources had been pressed into service for the candidacy ofHenry Wallace and the Progressive Party.”22
Although Sing Out! was the successor of People’s Songs, the magazines had different audiences. Sing Out! attracted a young, college-educated audience whose “collective energy would soon be aimed for socialchange and humanitarian causes.”23 As Pete Seeger recalled, middleclass young people were the bearers of the folk music revival, contradicting the 1930s intellectuals’ prediction that the revival would emerge
from the working-class.24 According to a later editor, Sing Out! magazine

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 192

192

MIKIKO TACHI

was “the primer for this nonconformity” in the sense that the magazine
was dedicated to music involved with social causes, as opposed to music
for art’s sake, or music for commercial proﬁt.25
The magazine was not widely read during the early 1950s, partiallybecause of its overt political outlook. Irwin Silber remembers that themagazine was a “hand-to-mouth operation” to the extent that they would
not have minded taking advertisements in the early days. However, thecirculation was too small to attract advertisers, and in addition, “in the
McCarthyism years, most ‘commercial’ advertisers did not want to be
seen as associating with us.”26 Circulation rose dramatically as folk
music became a boom in the late 1950s, rising from 500 in 1951 to 1,000
in 1960, then growing to 20,000 in 1964, and 25,000 in 1965.27 Sing Out!
started to attract advertisers who regarded the magazine’s audience as apotential market for folk-related music products. Silber and others in
Sing Out! accepted ads on the grounds that they “promoted products—
instruments, records, artists—that were clearly of interest to the readers.”
However, he recalls, “as the boom peaked and as our circulation grew,some of the ads took on a more commercial tone. Many of the ads thatcame in were designed by professional agencies.”28 Roger Deitz reported in the 45 year anniversary issue of Sing Out! that “corporate America
was devouring folk music as we knew it, and regurgitating it in its own
image, and Sing Out! got a boost from the movement.”29
There was an internal split in the editorial board of Sing Out! in termsof how to reconcile commercialism and the political mission of the magazine. Silber insisted on maintaining a political stance and refused tosoften the magazine’s politics in order to attract advertisers. He believedthat the magazine lost some potential advertisers because of its politics.30
On the other hand, Moses Asch, the founder of Folkways Records andthe other owner of Sing Out!, was in favor of reaching a wider audienceby making the music more eclectic and softening the magazine’s politics. Ironically enough, however, Silber was more tolerant of commercial advertisements than Asch, who had his own record company but
could not afford to employ professional advertising agencies.31
Despite Silber’s determination to maintain the magazine’s politics, it
was gradually depoliticized. As Robert Cantwell argued, the magazine
started to disassociate itself from its political predecessor, and by theearly 1960s “its credo was that of a global youth movement without anarticulated politics.”32 The new commercialization was most evident in
the increased number of advertisements in the magazine. In the ﬁrst sev-

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 193

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

193

eral years, advertisements in the magazine resembled announcements.
However, by the turn of the 1960s, advertisements for guitars, banjos,
instruction books, songbooks, and records became more common and,within several years, advertisements “represented nearly every folk record label and instrument manufacturer.”33 For example, the September
1965 issue of Sing Out! has thirty-two pages of advertisements, nearly
half of the volume. However, as the folk music revival declined, themagazine lost its readers and ﬁnally stopped circulation due to lack offunding in 1967. When it was resumed in 1968 with a new editor, themagazine refashioned itself as a guide to making personal songs, further
dissociating itself from politics.34
The history of Sing Out! demonstrates that while the magazine wasintended to disseminate non-commercial music, it was highly inﬂuenced
by the commercial success of folk music. However, it was not as though
the anti-commercial magazine simply gave in to commercialism. The
producers of the magazine made a conscious effort to maintain the magazine’s identity. On the other hand, the advertisers, too, “understood thattypical commercial hype would be counter-productive to them” and so
tailored their advertisements to ﬁt in the magazine. To Silber, the way
to reconcile folk music with commercial activity was “dependent on
remaining small—on the fringes of standard business. Attempts to standtotally clear of such things as advertising in a magazine such as ours
was—and still is—inevitably futile.”35
III

DEBATES OVER COMMERCIALIZATION: ARTICLES FROM SING
OUT!

Negotiations over commercialism also took place in the text of Sing
Out! as participants in the folk music revival sent in opinion articles tothe magazine. Along with the commercial popularity of folksongs, came
criticism of commercialization, and Sing Out! included articles on thedebate. Central to these arguments is the question of authenticity—who
are real folksingers? As historian Benjamin Filene has demonstrated, theauthenticity of folk music and folksingers were important concepts infolk music. Filene argues that authenticity was often deﬁned in terms of
Otherness: authentic folk musicians were “expected to be premodern,unrestrainedly emotive, and noncommercial. Singers who too closely[resembled] the revival’s middle-class audiences [were] rejected bythose audiences as ‘inauthentic.’ ”36 In Sing Out! articles, too, someMikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 194

194

MIKIKO TACHI

critics remained suspicious of the folksong “revivalists” from urban,
educated backgrounds who were commercially successful. On the other
hand, other critics regarded them as the inheriters of folk traditions who
would eventually become part of those traditions themselves. The debate
revealed not only the ways in which people identiﬁed the positives andnegatives of commercialization but also the ways in which these critics
attempted to ﬁgure the position of commercialism in the folk music
revival.
In an article titled “Commercialism and the Folksong Revival,” Ron
Radosh argued that commercial folksingers lowered the quality of folk
music and folklore. He wrote: “Today, in 1959, America is enjoying its
largest ‘folksong revival.’ It is a revival, however, devoid to a large degree of any of the content or understanding of the folk tradition whichcharacterizes the art form.”37 What characterized the art form, according
to Radosh, was the “sincerity and meaning that have distinguished itfrom the contrived music of Tin Pan Alley.”38 Radosh wrote that commercial success itself was not a problem; for example, the Weavers’commercial success was justiﬁed because they were true to the spirit of
traditional folk culture. The Kingston Trio, however, according to
Radosh, had brought “good folk music to the level of the worst in Tin
Pan Alley music.” He concluded his impassioned article by warning that
serious appreciators of folk music should stop “patronizing prostitutesof the art who gain their status as folk artists because they use guitars
and banjos.”39 One can see from his criticism the assumption that authentic folk music should remain traditional and keep its distance from themainstream commercial music of Tin Pan Alley.
Alan Lomax and John Cohen exchanged opinions in the Summer 1959
issue. Lomax argued that the folk-song revival “that began back in thethirties as a cultural movement, with overtones of social reform,”40 was
gaining college-educated middle-class audiences as well as a proﬁtmotivated attention from business in the late 1950s. Lomax criticizedurban folksingers who “translate folk music in ways that make it more
understandable and acceptable to their market—an urban middle-classgroup, with a college background,”41 because they left out the “singing
style” and “emotional content”42 of the original folksongs. According toLomax, urban folksingers learned songs from books and spent only ashort time on music techniques. So, Lomax identiﬁed rural folksingers
as the authentic carriers of tradition and the urban revivalists as those
who imitate the traditional music superﬁcially.

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 195

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

195

In response, John Cohen, a member of the urban folksinging group
New Lost City Ramblers, wrote “In Defense of City Folksingers”43 andchallenged the authenticity attached to rural folksingers. Cohen argued
that city folksingers had contact with traditional folksongs through ﬁrsthand research and Library of Congress recordings, not just from books.
Cohen also refuted the idea that urban singers were inferior imitators of
the authentic rural singers. For example, he claimed that urban singers
had the merit of being free from the kind of limitation that rural folksingers had. The “individual search for value” was “becoming the tradition of the city” and city folksingers were developing their own folk
music.44 Cohen thus contended that the urban folk revival singers were
the bearers and makers of tradition.
Another angry attack on the commercialization of folk music, “Folksongs, Fakelore, and Cash” by G. Legman appeared a year later.45
Legman expressed his anger toward music professionals and academics
who he thought co-opted folk music with greedy motives and on the basisof dubious qualiﬁcations. Legman insisted that the “development of folkarts into commercialized frauds is getting to be standard.” In contrast to
Lomax, who criticized “folkniks” for lacking direct contact with rural
folksingers, Legman attacked folkniks for their lack of education—
Legman’s folkniks were so lazy they never made the effort to go to the
Library of Congress or to go through published folksong collections. The“folksongers” indiscriminately sang songs from exotic places in theworld without any belief or knowledge in them and “folklore-fakers”
plagiarized folksongs collected by others and published them under theirown names. Legman summarized the situation by claiming that they “areall out for the money, plus a goodly bit of cheap public attention andacclaim.” Describing the folk music boom as “this new infestation ofentertainment-industry leeches and lice,” he insisted that the “quickbuck” trend in contemporary folk boom would undermine serious folklore.
In response to Legman’s attack, in particular regarding the fake folklore scholarship that Legman criticized, folklorist D. K. Wilgus defended folklore scholarship by arguing that “the noisy surface of the revival
is on the one side hardening into hysterical cult, and on the other beingcommercialized for the mass market. The serious remnant is quietly capturing the academic bastions and will soon speak for itself far better than
I can.”46 Wilgus therefore contended that the folklore scholarship avoided taking either of the two extreme arguments and remained sound.

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 196

196

MIKIKO TACHIThe debate over commercialism continued in 1962, with Stephen
Fiott’s article “In Defense of Commercial Folk Song.”47 Fiott argued thatcollegiate, commercial folksingers should be given credit for bringing
folksongs to the wider American public. Also, Fiott argued that since allfolk music was made at some point by someone and tradition was constantly created, it followed that contemporary commercial folksingers
also created tradition as opposed to ruining it: “And after all, folk means
people. People make traditions—maybe the Trio has started a new tradition.”48 He criticized folk music purists who called commercial folksingers fake: “Traditions, songs, and styles are born every day. Today’s
tradition in folk music is commercialization; the folk want it way.”49
Thus Fiott proposed a view that regarded commercialism as a factor thatdeveloped folk music instead of something that ruined the music.
In response, an article titled “ ‘Commercial’ Folksongs—Product of‘Instant Culture’ ” by Dan Armstrong appeared in the February-March
1963 issue.50 Armstrong refuted Fiott’s idea that the commercializationof folk music was a new tradition. To him, tradition meant “men working and building and trying to get along in hard times and singing to makeit all a little easier and meaningful.” He argued that the new folk music
had been conceived as part of the “Instant Culture” that had come to characterize America. Folk music, according to Armstrong, had been “prettied up,” “watered down,” and made “safe” and “unoffensive.” Far fromstarting a new tradition, Armstrong argued, the Kingston Trio introduced
conformity into folk music. He further argued that in order to truly carrya folk tradition the revivalist should follow the footsteps of Pete Seeger—
travel and empathize with the folk in order to uncover tradition. Armstrong regarded commercialism as a negative force in the developmentof folk music, tied to a sense of conformity that folk music had initially
opposed.
Articles that appeared in Sing Out! revealed that the relationshipbetween commercialism and the folk music revival was complex andcontested. The critics did not agree on what commercialism meant, who
the “real” folk singers were, who were not, or, even if that distinction
existed, but seriously debated how to resolve the apparent contradiction
between folk music and commercialism. In fact, the critics by that time
could not ignore commercialism in assessing the folk music revival.

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 197

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

197

IV CONSUMING THE ANTI-COMMERCIAL MUSIC:COMMODIFICATION OF THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL
Not only was folk music commercialized and made into a commercial
product, but also the experience of participating in the folk music revival
was commodiﬁed through mass produced goods.51 Robert Cantwell suggested that the tendency to consume folk music was inevitable. He
argued that in the 1950s, “American neighborhood and community life
became ﬁelds of industrial production, distribution, and consumption.”
Fueled by the wartime ethos toward consumerism, “[n]o longer was it[participation in the market] an appeal, a seduction; it had become compulsory.”52 Cantwell also pointed out “the sad contradiction inherent ina process that can grow off commercialism and other forms of hegemony only by means of them” and noted that the folk music revival “would
ultimately evaporate in its own commercial medium.”53 Just as for the
teenage girl in the cartoon mentioned at the beginning of this paper, formany young middle-class men and women who joined the counterculture through folk music, resisting mainstream commercial culture took
the form of consuming commodiﬁed products such as instruments andrecords.
Entry into the folk music revival by means of consumption was apparent as a practice from as early as the early 1950s. In 1953, Pete Seeger
held a concert at Swarthmore College and converted at least two students
who would later become important folklorists. Ralph Rinzler and Roger
Abrahams, both then students from bourgeois families, attended the Pete
Seeger concert and were extremely moved. They recalled: “We realizedthat this was what we wanted to do for the rest of our lives.”54 Rinzler
and Abrahams went out to buy banjos immediately and “in a few years
both were well established as revivalist musicians.”55 While the two men
were attracted to Seeger’s sense of authenticity, of the “coming together of ideology and musicianship,” the ﬁrst step they took was consumption—buying banjos. This anecdote suggests the extent to which
the folk music revival was dependent on commodities. That Rinzler andAbrahams could just go out and buy banjos also suggests the availability of the instruments.
The ease with which people became “folksingers” was ridiculed byMikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 198

198

MIKIKO TACHI

jazz critic Robert Reisner, who pointed out the same phenomenon: “Folkmusic is the shortcut to becoming an ‘entertainer’ these days. . . . You
buy a guitar, learn three chords, and you are set.”56 On the surface Reisnercriticized the insigniﬁcance of the folk music craze. However, his comment also reveals that guitars were easily available for purchase. The
popularity of folk music depended on the mass production and distribution system, provided by the corporate system that the counterculture
opposed.
The commodiﬁcation of folk instruments is discussed in Sing Out!
magazine in 1965, when folksinger Barbara Dane reported on the convention of the National Association of Music Merchants in Chicago.
Dane pointed out that musical instruments had become a big businessdue to the popularity of folk music. The business targeted folksong enthusiasts as potential customers and provided products for all levels ofamateur musicians, for example, a “ ‘Chordomonica’ with a ‘built-in harmonic structure which makes discords impossible and permits chords
that were previously unavailable.’ ”57 In other words, “people are trying
to spend money for music and there is really something for everyone.”58
Dane noted a huge shift from when she “had to tramp many a mile toﬁnd decent strings, when the average music store never heard of an autoharp or a guitar other than Hawaiian, orchestra, or cowboy.”59
Dane believed that people should actively play music by themselvesrather than passively listening to professional musicians, encouraging
amateur musicians with the call “Up with homemade music.” She clearly agreed with the opinion of one of the wholesalers at the convention
that “there remains a substantial desire on the part of Americans to beentertained rather than entertain themselves,” nonetheless “people musthave the opportunity to play for enjoyment.”60 Obviously, there are different motives behind the support of amateur musicians and the “do-ityourself” position encouraged by folksingers; while the instrument
wholesaler wanted to gain a larger share of consumers to rival record
companies and concerts, the folksinger wanted to promote music-making as a reaction against a passive mass culture.
In a similar vain to “Chordomonica,” a short-cut to becoming a folksinger was promoted in an advertisement that appeared in Sing Out!. The“Elektra Folk Song Kit” provided instructions to the impatient consumer
who wanted to become a folksinger instantly. According to the ad, the“kit” include the following (Fig.2):

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 199

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

199

Fig.2.

Complete guitar instruction course for beginners!
Special long-playing 12” record with step-by-step instructions—and recorded examples of 20 favorite folk songs
Spirited survey of American folk music by Lee Hays
Extensive data, bibliographical material, and photographs61

The whole kit was “beautifully boxed” and sold at the “special price” of$5.95. The kit, representing a commodiﬁcation of the process of becoming a folksinger, showed that the central credo of the folk music revival
was also intertwined with commercialism.
Commodiﬁcation of folk music, manifested in the mass production ofguitars and banjos, was needed to achieve the anti-mass cultural goalsof the folk music revival. “Do-it-yourself” was a central credo of the folk
music revival. Endorsed most typically by Pete Seeger, this idea encouraged enthusiasts of folk music to play and make music instead of simply listening to professional singers. Even at concerts, audiences wereencouraged to “sing along,” a practice for which Seeger was especially
famous. Folk music appreciators were at the same time encouraged toplay (and preferably compose) music on their own accompanied by guitars or banjos. Everyone participating in this way needed guitars.
Folk instrument sales increased dramatically, with the growth of thefolk music boom. Pete Seeger remarked as early as 1956 that annual guitar sales exceeded half a million.62 In less than a decade, the guitar industry became a multi-million dollar business. In 1965, Business Week had
an article entitled “Guitars hit a cashbox crescendo” to report the dramatic increase in guitar sales. It read: “The music of $100-million a year
in sales is sweet to the ears of manufacturers. So great is the boom, somedealers are pleading for instruments and imports are ﬁnding a big market.” According to the article, between 1960 and 1965, guitar sales

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 200

200

MIKIKO TACHI

increased from 420,000 units to 1,065,000; $22 million retail sales to$95 million, while an estimated 150,000 used guitars were sold in 1964.63
In the meantime, banjo sales also increased by ﬁve times between 1959
and 1960.64
There were other good arguments to justify commodiﬁcation than simply that mass-produced instruments helped music-making. For example,
Moses Asch suggested that consumption of recorded music did not necessarily contradict the spirit of folk music as anti-commercial. He argued
in his article “Is Cash Killing Folk Music?” that the serious folk music
appreciator should listen to folk records “in a quiet corner” rather thanimmersing himself in festivals and coffeehouses.65 Asch therefore contended that the apparently passive act of listening to recordings was also
an authentic part of the folk music revival. Commodiﬁcation of folk
music catered to a variety of interests and motives, from ardent folk musicians wanting to spread music-making to business people seeking to
make proﬁt.
V ADVERTISEMENTS IN SING OUT! MAGAZINE
Despite Sing Out!’s anti-commercial outlook and origins, the advertisements placed in the magazine reﬂected the changes that took placein the mainstream commercial world during the 1960s. Furthermore, thedevelopment recapitulated the history of mainstream advertising outlined by historian Roland Marchand in his study of advertising in the
1920s and the 1930s.66 According to Marchand, American advertising
went through a dramatic change at the turn of the century, moving fromadvertisements which explained products rationally to those that employed extensive visual images and stressed the consumers and the impact the product would have on them. Modern advertising assumed therole of an advisor, teaching consumers how to cope with changes broughtby modernity. This change in advertising style was apparent by the
1920s; however, the older style survived and coexisted with the newer
style. Similarly, advertising in Sing Out! also made the transition fromannouncement ads to producer-oriented ads to consumer-oriented ads
that offered consumers solutions to the problem of living with socialchanges in the 1960s. Mainstream advertising of popular culture and folk
advertising in fact were parallel.
The ads in Sing Out! also reﬂected the changes that took place during
the 1960s in the advertising industry. In his study of the relationshipMikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 201

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

201

between the counterculture and advertising, Thomas Frank argued that
contrary to the common assumption that all business embodied the conformity that counterculture opposed, advertising agencies were in theforefront of breaking out of the conformity that had characterized the1950s. According to Frank, during the 1960s, “the makers of American
advertising would rank among the country’s most visible critics of themass society.”67 A prime example of anti-mass culture, anti-conformity
advertising that nevertheless encouraged consumption of mass produced
goods was that produced for Volkswagen, which acquired a hip image
despite its Nazi origins as a result of its advertising campaigns.68 Frank
argued that advertising agencies went through their own counterculture,
the Creative Revolution. By 1965, advertising styles had changed dramatically from “square” to “hip.” As a result of the Creative Revolution,
advertisements became self-referential, cynical, and stressed individuality.
In the early 1950s, Sing Out! contained few advertisements, with the
exception of the occasional appearance of songbooks. In the next decade,especially after 1958, the magazine became highly commercial. Whole
pages were devoted solely to advertisements, with pictures and elaborate explanations of the product. By 1965, almost half the pages of themagazine were devoted to advertisements.
Advertisements from the 1950s resembled announcements and werecloser to the type of early advertisements discussed by Marchand—small, inconspicuous boxes with companies’ names. For example,
Terminal Music company in New York posted a small, modest, andstraightforward ad, about 1/4 of the page, simply stating what they had(Fig.3).69 The ad did not tell a story, did not include an image that theaudience identiﬁed with; it simply gave pertinent information about the
products.
More elaborate advertisements appeared in 1961 (Fig.4).70 The Guild
Guitar ad stressed brand identiﬁcation, a typical tactic of the new advertising which ﬂourished in the 1920s. In addition to listing the company’s
name and address at the bottom, as the earlier ad did, this ad had thecompany’s name in big letters, thus reinforcing brand identiﬁcation.
Anti-mass culture sentiment was expressed in the phrase “Traditional
Craftsmanship!” on the top of the ad. In the body of the ad, a picture
showed a man making a guitar. Underneath it says, “Guild. Two months
in the making, from craftsman’s hands to yours . . . the new Guild Classic
Guitar inspires, excites, commands your audience . . . reserve your copy

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 202

202

MIKIKO TACHI

Fig. 3.

of our Classic brochure now, without obligation.” In addition, the slogan, together with the picture of the guitar being hand-made, suggested
that the guitars made by this company were not mass-produced and therefore more suited to the spirit of the folk music revival. As in the earlier
ads, the emphasis was still on the product.
Other advertisements stressed the “craftsmanship” of the producers of
the instruments. For example, the Ode Company’s banjo advertisement
insisted that their banjos were handmade and that they were sold to thecustomers without the intermediary step of buying from retailers (Fig.5).
The ad reads: “The Exciting Revival of ‘CRAFTSMANSHIP’ ODE‘Hand-Crafted’ Banjos SOLD DIRECT FROM FACTORY TO CONSUMER. From $79.”71 Although it is not clear what the quotation marks
around the words “craftsmanship” and “hand-crafted” were supposed tomean, their selling point was in accordance with the anti-corporate, anticommercial sentiment shared by folk music fans.

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 203

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

203

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Some ads used celebrities as endorsers. For example, the Vega company showed Pete Seeger’s portrait beside a picture of a banjo to advertise the product. The ad read (Fig.6):

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 204

204

MIKIKO TACHI

Fig. 6.

The pre-eminent banjo of all times is the VEGA. The PETE SEEGER
MODEL is used by the great majority of the prominent folk artists, such as
The Kingston Trio, Bob Gibson, The Limelighters, The Cumberland Three,
The Brothers Four, Eric Darling, and others.
The EARL SCRUGGS MODEL is now available and features the novel“Scruggs Tuners” to change pitch. It is distinctive in construction and justthe perfect tone for country-western music.72

Instead of explaining the product’s inherent quality, the ad sold the product through association with famous professional singers. While thefocus of the ad is on the product rather than the consumer, there was achange in rhetoric.
The issues from the 1960s demonstrated the transition from the olderstyle, product-based ads to more emotional, visual, and consumer-oriented ads. The consumer-oriented ads featured images of consumers
after they had purchased the product instead of focusing on the product.
More and more pictures were employed to convey the image.
The Oct.–Nov. 1961 issue included a “New York Martin” guitar advertisement which showed young people on the grass in the backgroundwith their guitars and banjos while a young woman played the guitar,
sitting comfortably on the grass apart from the crowd (Fig.7).73 In thelower right-hand corner was the close up of the guitar itself. The ad did
not explain much about the product except for the price and the note thatsaid the guitar was used in the May Wind Gap Folk Festival. The major
appeal of this ad was the picture which revealed the contrast between thecrowd and the individual—the woman sitting alone with a guitar waspotentially part of the crowd while maintaining her individuality. More

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 205

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

205

Fig. 7.

than anything, the ad promised a way of life through the idyllic picture
showing young people surrounded by nature; the possibility of maintaining individuality while still being part of a crowd. The tension between individuality and the mass was thus clearly illustrated in this ad.
The ad represented the idea of asserting individuality through consumption, sending a similar message as the Volkswagen ad that Frankanalyzed.
By the late 1960s, advertising stressed the individuality that stood out
in the crowd while also portraying an attractive way of life for consumers. Especially after folk music turned electric in 1965, advertisements became even livelier and more obviously commercial. For
example, the Feb-March 1966 issue included an ad for electric guitars
with pictures of young men and women dancing. It read (Fig.8):
FREE RIDIN’ BEAT OF FOLK-ROCKHear that beat?

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 206

206

MIKIKO TACHI

Fig. 8.

That’s HAGSTROM’S hard drivin’, foot stompin’, FREE RIDIN’ melodious BEAT. There’ll be no holdin’ you, now that you’ve got a HAGSTROM
electric guitar or bass goin’ for you.74

In addition to reﬂecting the turn of the folk music revival into folk-rock,the ad illustrated the way of life that the product would provide. The
word play and the use of colloquial language exempliﬁed the shift ofadvertisements from “square” to “hip.”
The July 1965 issue announced a “Sing Out! Advertising Policy” on
the opening page, listing six guidelines for advertisements. The guidelines emphasized the importance of truthfulness and appropriateness ofads. For example, the second rule stated, “All advertising shall be subject to the same rules of good taste that the editors apply to articles andsongs that appear in SING OUT!” Although there was no deﬁnition ofwhat constitutes “good taste,” the policy insisted that the ads should conform to the atmosphere of the magazine. In terms of the truthfulness of
the ads, the policy stipulated that “All ads shall be truthful” and that “theeditors reserve the right to ask advertisers to submit advertised products

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 207

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

207

Fig. 9.

and/or premiums for examination before accepting the advertising.”75
The policy suggested that the editors were making a conscious effort tocontrol advertising. The editorial board of the magazine tried hard to contain commercialism, to ﬁnd a way to reconcile both their principles andcommercialism (Fig.9).
Thus Sing Out! magazine between 1950–1967 demonstrated the history of the advertisements making the transition from inconspicuous
announcements to product-oriented ads to consumer-oriented ones. Thischange over time recapitulated the longer history of mainstream advertising itself. Conventional advertising techniques, such as brandidentiﬁcation and endorsements of celebrities were used. In particular,
addressing the anti-commercial, anti-mass culture sentiment of the folk
music revival, the ads emphasized the “craftsmanship,” the fact that the
products were sold directly from the factory, and the speciﬁcity of eachMikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 208

208

MIKIKO TACHI

product. They also stressed brand names and asserted the individualityof the products at the same time. As well, the advertisements from thelate 1960s showed what Thomas Frank would call hip consumerism bystressing individuality and non-conformity. As Sing Out! advertising
policy indicated, the advertisements appearing in the magazine attempted a compromise between commercialism and the folk music revival.
VI CONCLUSION
This study of Sing Out! magazine demonstrated that the folk music
revival in the 1950s and the 1960s, although having a strong anti-commercial and anti-mass culture aura, not only resisted but was aided bycommercialism. The attitude that the folk music revivalists and supporters had toward mainstream commercialism was neither a straightforward rejection nor a blind acceptance. The business side, too, as
represented by the advertisers, addressed anti-commercial sentiments
central to the folk music revival. The ambiguity of the relationshipbecame apparent in the 1950s and the 1960s as participants in the folk
music revival, just like those involved in the New Left activism, emerged
from the population that lived closely with post-war afﬂuence and consumerism. Political activism, a search for authenticity, and critiques ofmainstream America were therefore intertwined with commercialism, as
manifested in various aspects of Sing Out! magazine.
Sing Out! circulated both songs and ideas and served as a forum forserious critics to discuss issues related to the folk music revival. The
opinions expressed in the articles in Sing Out! magazine revealed thatthese critics tried to identify authentic folk music and to assess the effectof commercialism on the folk music revival in a variety of ways. The
series of debates centering on the question of whether commercialism
aided or harmed folk traditions demonstrated the different interpretationsof commercialism proposed by critics. The differences served to negate
the binary view of the relationship between “authentic” culture and mainstream commercialism.
Commodiﬁcation of folk music played a major role in the folk music
revival. Although the popularity of folk music rested on its anti-commercial, anti-mass culture roots, it also depended on a post-war prosperity characterized by mass production and mass distribution.
Consumption was a major way to enter into the folk music revival. The
anti-mass culture credo of the folk music revival of “do-it-yourself” alsoMikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 209

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL

209

depended on a large supply of commodiﬁed products, such as instruments and instruction books. This was another way in which commercialism was intricately intertwined with the folk music revival.
Advertisements from Sing Out! demonstrated that mainstream commercialism was not static but transformed itself to accommodate thecounterculture. On the one hand, ads increased and became more elaborate, reﬂecting the development of mainstream advertising; the increased advertisements also challenged the principles of the magazine.
On the other hand, the ads addressed the anti-commercial and anti-mass
culture sentiment. Furthermore, through regulating advertisements, themagazine’s editorial board tried to contain commercialism within thebounds of their principles.
This study of the folk music magazine served as a case study of counterculture’s complex and contested relationship with commercialism.
The relationship is counterintuitive, as one might expect a clear andstrong rejection of commercialism in this historical moment when anticommercial sentiment was the strongest. This case study demonstrated
that even the most anti-commercial and anti-mass culture movement
negotiated with commercialism and sought for ways to live with its principles as well as the commercialism necessary for the success of the folk
music revival.
NOTES
1Sing Out! 16 (Feb.–Mar. 1966), 1.
The “counterculture” in this paper refers to the anti-establishment values and lifestyle held and promoted by young people in reaction to their parents’ generation during
the 1960s. Accordingly, the “counterculture” does not refer exclusively to the hippies
culture in the late 1960s.
3Thomas Frank, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and theRise of Hip Consumerism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).
4
A similar argument concerning rock music was made by Timothy Miller, whoargued that while the hippies regarded rock as representing anti-commercial values, themusic enjoyed commercial success. See Timothy Miller, Hippies and American Values(Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991).
5“Folk Frenzy,” Time, July 11, 1960, 81.
6“It’s Folksy . . . It’s Delightful, It’s a Craze,” Newsweek, June 6, 1960.
7
Bruno Nettl, Folk Music in the United States: An Introduction (Detroit, MI: Wayne
State University Press, 1976 [1960]), 22–23.
8
Ibid., 26.
9
Robbie Lieberman, My Song Is My Weapon: People’s Songs, American Communism, and the Politics of Culture, 1930–1950 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1989).
2

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 210

210
10

MIKIKO TACHI

There are different interpretations as to when the folk music revival started. The
most common understanding is the late 1950s, and scholars including Ronald Cohen
and Robert Cantwell agree. See Ronald Cohen, Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival
and American Society, 1940–1970 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002)
and Robert Cantwell, When We Were Good: The Folk Revival (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1996). Pete Seeger and Alan Lomax, on the other hand, identiﬁed the1930s as the beginning of the folk music revival in the U.S. See Howard Grafman and
B. T. Manning, eds., Folk Music U.S.A. (New York: Citadel Press, 1962), 9–11.
Benjamin Filene emphasized the continuity of the folk music revival throughout thetwentieth century. See Benjamin Filene, Romancing the Folk: Public Memory andAmerican Roots Music (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000).
11
Cantwell, When We Were Good, 2.
12Susan J. Douglas, Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination from Amos ‘n’Andy and Edward R. Murrow to Wolfman Jack and Howard Stern (New York: Times
Books, 1999), 268.
13
Quoted in Cantwell, When We Were Good, 332.
14
Wini Breines, Young, White, and Miserable: Growing Up Female in the Fifties(Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 136.
15
Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (NewYork: Basic Books, 1988), 163.
16
Doug Rossinow, The Politics of Authenticity: Liberalism, Christianity, and the New
Left in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 2.
17
Frank, Conquest of Cool, 15.
18“The First Issue,” Sing Out! 1 (May 1950), 2.
19
Irwin Silber, [no title given], in “Wasn’t That A Time!”: Firsthand Accounts of the
Folk Music Revival, ed. Ronald Cohen (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1995), 96.
20“The First Issue,” 2.
21
Roger Deitz, “ ‘If I Had a Song . . .’ A Thumbnail History of Sing Out!,” Sing Out!
(March 1995), 17.
22
Ibid., 20.
23
Ibid., 21.
24
Pete Seeger, The Incompleat Folksinger, ed. Jo Metcalf Schwartz (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1972), 24–25.
25
Deitz, “ ‘If I Had a Song. . . ,’ ” 21.
26
Irwin Silber, personal communication via e-mail, June 3, 2003.
27
Ibid., 24; Cantwell, When We Were Good, 280.
28
Silber, personal communication.
29
Deitz, “ ‘If I Had a Song. . . ,’ ” 24.
30
Silber, personal communication.
31
Ibid.
32
Cantwell, When We Were Good., 280.
33
Silber, personal communication.
34
Deitz, “ ‘If I Had a Song. . . ,’ ” 25.
35
Silber, personal communication.
36
Filene, Romancing the Folk, 63.
37
Ron Radosh, “Commercialism and the Folk Song Revival,” Sing Out! 8 (Spring1959), 27.
38
Ibid., 27.
39
Ibid., 29.
40
Alan Lomax, “The ‘Folkniks’—and The Songs They Sing,” Sing Out! 9 (Summer
1959), 30.

Mikiko TACHI(p187) 6/2 04.7.18 0:08 PM ページ 211

COMMERCIALISM, COUNTERCULTURE, AND THE FOLK MUSIC REVIVAL
41

211

Ibid., 30.
Ibid., 31.
43John Cohen, “In Defense of City Folksingers,” Sing Out! 9 (Summer 1959), 32.
44
Ibid., 33.
45
G. Legman, “Folksongs, Fakelore, Folkniks, and Cash,” Sing Out! 10 (OctoberNovember 1960), 29–35.
46
D. K. Wilgus, “All Is Not Nonsense and Hard Cash,” Sing Out! 11 (Feb-March
1961), 26.
47
Stephen Fiott, “In Defense of Commercial Folksingers,” Sing Out! 12 (DecemberJanuary 1962), 43–45.
48
Ibid., 44.
49
Ibid., 45.
50
Dan Armstrong, “ ‘Commercial’ Folksongs—Product of ‘Instant Culture,’ ” Sing
Out! 13 (February-March 1963), 20–22.
51
Sociologist Simon Frith, who presented the concept of “music-as-commodity” as atwentieth century phenomenon, pointed out the irony of rock fans who would “treat
record-buying as an act of solidarity” so as to reconcile their anti-commercialist position and their acts of consumption. See Simon Frith, “Rock and Politics of Memory,”
Social Text 9/10 (Spring-Summer 1984), 66.
52
Cantwell, When We Were Good, 163–64.
53
Ibid., 332–4.
54
Ibid., 243.
55
Ibid.
56
Quoted in David Dunaway, How Can I Keep from Singing: Pete Seeger (New York:
Da Capo Press, 1981), 248.
57
Barbara Dane, “The Music Merchants’ Show: A Folksinger’s Report,” Sing Out!
15 (November 1965), 53.
58
Ibid., 53.
59
Ibid., 49.
60
Ibid., 53.
61Sing Out! 9 (Summer 1959), 27.
62
Dunaway, How Can I Keep from Singing, 189.
63
“Guitars Hit a Cashbox Crescendo,” Business Week, May 8, 1965, 155.
64
“Folk Frenzy,” Time, July 11, 1960, 81.
65
Josh Dunson and Moses Asch, “Is Cash Killing Folk Music?” in The American Folk
Scene: Dimensions of the Folksong Revival, eds. David A. DeTurk and A.Poulin, Jr.
(New York: Dell, 1967), 310–313.
66
Roland Marchand, Advertising the American Dream: Making Way for Modernity
1920–1940 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
67
Frank, The Conquest of Cool, 76.
68
Ibid., 67–68.
69
Sing Out! 10 (Oct-Nov 1960), 31.
70Sing Out! 11 (April-May 1961).
71
Sing Out! 11 (Dec.-Jan. 1961–62).
72
Sing Out! 11 (Summer 1961).
73
Sing Out! 11 (Oct-Nov 1961).
74
Sing Out! 16 (Feb-March 1966).
75“Sing Out! Advertising Policy,” Sing Out! 14 (January 1964), 2.
42