Paul, do you have any updates as to John Roberts' condition?  Did he have a 
successful heart operation?
Is there an email address or a snail-mail address to send him well-wishes?
Thanks for any info,
Lisa Johnson

I, too, would like an update.	Marge -----Original Message-----
From: Forum for ballad scholars [mailto:[unmask]]On
Behalf Of Lisa - S. H.
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 9:43 AM
To: [unmask]
Subject: Re: Fw.: John Roberts - he'll be fine, but...Paul, do you have any updates as to John Roberts' condition?  Did he have a 
successful heart operation?
Is there an email address or a snail-mail address to send him well-wishes?
Thanks for any info,
Lisa Johnson

George Ward is keeping updates coming at mudcat.org. It sounds like John is doing better than expected  --  Tom
> 
> From: "Steiner, Margaret" <[unmask]>
> Date: 2005/07/03 Sun AM 09:48:36 CDT
> To: [unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fw.: John Roberts - he'll be fine, but...
> 
> I, too, would like an update.
> 
> 	Marge 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forum for ballad scholars [mailto:[unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Lisa - S. H.
> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 9:43 AM
> To: [unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fw.: John Roberts - he'll be fine, but...
> 
> 
> Paul, do you have any updates as to John Roberts' condition?  Did he have a 
> successful heart operation?
> Is there an email address or a snail-mail address to send him well-wishes?
> Thanks for any info,
> Lisa Johnson
> Tom Hall  --  Master Wordworker  
and Intellectual Handyman

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Has anyone heard the ballad of "Rob Roy" (Child 225)?  Carl Peterson
(Men of Worth), who used to perform at the Highland Games in Eumenclaw WA
has the song in in his "Songs of Rob Roy and the MacGregors" but I never
heard them sing it -- and was surprised to even find this hoary
celebration of the bold bridestealer (a kind of counterweight to "Eppie
Morrie") in a contemporary collection.  Any comments?

On 7/5/05, Jean Lepley wrote:>Has anyone heard the ballad of "Rob Roy" (Child 225)?  Carl Peterson
>(Men of Worth), who used to perform at the Highland Games in Eumenclaw WA
>has the song in in his "Songs of Rob Roy and the MacGregors" but I never
>heard them sing it -- and was surprised to even find this hoary
>celebration of the bold bridestealer (a kind of counterweight to "Eppie
>Morrie") in a contemporary collection.  Any comments?Unlike "Eppie Morrie," where the tune is almost certainly by Ewan
MacColl, there are a couple of old tunes recorded for "Rob Roy."
Their traditional roots are a bit doubtful, though, and the song
appears to have gone extinct. Once again, Ewan MacColl has a tune,
which he recorded; I wouldn't bet on its authenticity, but it is
probably the source of any version you'll hear from a contemporary
singer.-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

For what it's worth, Partick Galvin used the same tune (as MacColl did) 
for "Lowlands of Holland." Don't know which came first.
dick greenhaus
Robert B. Waltz wrote:>On 7/5/05, Jean Lepley wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Has anyone heard the ballad of "Rob Roy" (Child 225)?  Carl Peterson
>>(Men of Worth), who used to perform at the Highland Games in Eumenclaw WA
>>has the song in in his "Songs of Rob Roy and the MacGregors" but I never
>>heard them sing it -- and was surprised to even find this hoary
>>celebration of the bold bridestealer (a kind of counterweight to "Eppie
>>Morrie") in a contemporary collection.  Any comments?
>>    
>>
>
>Unlike "Eppie Morrie," where the tune is almost certainly by Ewan
>MacColl, there are a couple of old tunes recorded for "Rob Roy."
>Their traditional roots are a bit doubtful, though, and the song
>appears to have gone extinct. Once again, Ewan MacColl has a tune,
>which he recorded; I wouldn't bet on its authenticity, but it is
>probably the source of any version you'll hear from a contemporary
>singer.
>
>  
>

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

On 7/5/05, Fred McCormick wrote:>Bob,
> 
>Can we be certain that MacColl wrote the tune for Eppie Morrie? The story is that he got it from his father, a claim which I always doubted until I heard Jimmy MacBeath's tune. The two are not identical, but it seems to me that they are sufficiently similar to suggest a traditional source for MacColl's version.
> 
>It could be of course, that MacColl heard McBeath's version, which is somewhat attenuated as I recall, and decided to alter the tune and give it a fuller text.I hadn't known MacBeath *had* a tune. Interesting.I doubted MacColl's claim on the John Jacob Niles theory: If a songwriter
claims to have something from tradition that exists nowhere else, then
he probably wrote it. :-) If there is another tune that's related, then
that all goes out the window.Bronson says of MacColl's tune of "Rob Roy" that it is related to various
other Scots tunes. It could well be that MacColl looked at the text and
"saw" a tune and assumed it came from his family. It's happened to me at
least once -- and I'm *not* a songwriter, though I've been known to make
up tunes as bridges between fiddle tunes (and forget them five minutes
later).-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

On 7/5/05, Jonathan Lighter wrote:>Isn't MacColl's tune for "Eppie" very reminiscent of the one he uses for "Trooper and Maid" (299) ?Yes, with the note that they have different numbers of lines. :-)>His albums often assert that he learned a melody and some fragment of a ballad from one of his parents, then fleshed the song out with lyrics from elsewhere, esp. from Gavin Greig's collection.  Is there some special reason to believe that he prevaricated about melodies from his parents ?  And which ones ?There is no general reason to think he prevaricated, except that a
number of those tunes are not otherwise attested ("Eppie Morrie,"
"Willie Macintosh," his version of "Rob Roy"). The difficulty is
that he's citing sources that cannot be tested. It's not unlikely
that one or two of the things he claimed to have from his parents
are genuine. But all of them?>Just how many of those melodies has Bronson found to be "untraditional" in form or in relation to other versions of a ballad ?Recalling that Bronson did only the Child Ballads, it appears that
there were two: "Eppie Morrie" and "Willie Macintosh." His comments
on "Rob Roy" were relatively cautious; my warning about that is my
own, based on the fact that Bronson does not consider MacColl's tune
related to the two other tunes he records.-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> MacColl also used it for "The Cold, Cold Coast of Greenland" on his 
> _Thar She Blows !_ album. Is this song a genuine broadside or 
> traditional variation, or did he and/or Lloyd just fake it ? 
>  
> It's good though.
>  
> JL
> 
> */dick greenhaus <[unmask]>/* wrote:
> 
>     For what it's worth, Partick Galvin used the same tune (as MacColl did)
>     for "Lowlands of Holland." Don't know which came first.
>     dick greenhausLloyd included three verses and tune (familiar enough, a 'Dives and 
Lazarus' variant), as 'The Spermwhale Fishery', in 'The Singing 
Englishman' (15-16), identifying no source but implying that it was from 
Lincolnshire. MacColl's set includes those verses, plus others drafted 
in from other versions of 'Lowlands of Holland'. They may have cooked it 
up between them, but the part printed by Lloyd might be genuine. Roud 
lists one example only of 'Lowlands' from Lincolnshire, recorded by 
Percy Grainger (Joseph Leaning, Brigg, 26/05/1908: 2 or 3 verses); I 
don't think it's ever been published, and so far as I can tell isn't in 
the hectographed parts of the collection, either; so not very easy to 
check. It would at least need to be eliminated as a possibility.Malcolm Douglas

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> Malcolm, wasn't it in _The Singing Englishman_ that Lloyd printed an 
> "English"  version of the American whaling song, "'Tis Advertised in 
> Albany, New York, and Buffalo" ? 
>  
> AFAIK, no "English" version has ever turned up elsewhere.
>  
> I hope I'm not misstating; it's been a while since I looked at the text.
>  
> JLYes, it was in 'Singing Englishman', text only. Lloyd didn't actually 
claim it as an English version in so many words, saying -ambiguously- 
"claimed ... by both British and Americans as their own". Roy Palmer 
thought it might be an anglicisation of the text in Colcord, but made no 
comment as to who might have anglicised it. He prints Lloyd's text with 
Colcord's tune in 'The Oxford Book of Sea Songs' / 'Boxing the Compass'.Malcolm

JL said:
(snip)
 
>Anyway, I get very antsy when a patch-up job is deliberately passed off as
"traditional."  
>I can only hope that MacColl avoided that.    
 
I think it would be out of character for McColl to pass off stuff. For
example, I remember on one occasion he regaled me with the story of an
Irishman singing to him a rather well-known song he (i.e. the Irishman)
swore was traditional, entitled "The Shores of Erin". (No jokes about fishy
stories, please...)I believe Ewan had very clear and forthright views on passing-off. It's
worth reading what Peggy Seeger has to say about authorship in her
commentary in "The Essential Ewan McColl Songbook".FWIW that's my two pennyworth.
 
Simon

Hi!	Now that the fireworks are over, here is another Ebay list. :-)	JOURNALS	6966833904 - The Folk-Lorist, July 1892, $5.99 (ends Jul-07-05 
10:00:43 PDT)	BOOKS 	4559294862 - THE STUDY OF FOLKLORE by Dundes, 1965, $5 (ends 
Jul-06-05 12:45:26 PDT)	6543387366 - THE CAMP ON WILDCAT CREEK by Randolph, 1934, $9.99 
(ends Jul-07-05 18:26:26 PDT)	5214758299 - Great Book of Australiana by Wannan, 1977 $5 AU 
(ends Jul-08-05 04:07:05 PDT)	4559709917 - Folklore of the Sea by Beck, 1973, $7.99 (ends 
Jul-08-05 21:13:26 PDT)	4560179375 - 100 YEARS OF AMERICAN FOLKLORE STUDIES by Clements,
1988, $0.01 (ends Jul-09-05 18:30:00 PDT)	8315810817 - LEGENDS AND FOLKLORE OF DEVONSHIRE by Rutley, 1940?, 
1.99 GBP (ends Jul-10-05 15:43:22 PDT)	6543150827 - Powder River - Let 'er Buck by Burt, 1938, $9.98 
(ends Jul-10-05 18:00:00 PDT)	4560077527 - WHEN WE WERE GOOD / THE FOLK REVIVAL by Cantwell, 
1996, $2.99 (ends Jul-10-05 20:18:35 PDT)	4560059424 - A Celebration of American Family Folklore by 
Zeitlin, 1982, $2.99 (ends Jul-10-05 18:47:13 PDT)	5215731570 - Breton Fairy tales by Dixon, 1971, 1 GBP (ends 
Jul-11-05 01:06:42 PDT)	8315890266 - Australian Folk Lore by Scott, 1986, $1.99 AU (ends 
Jul-11-05 02:34:57 PDT)	8315973431 - The Folklore of Tameside by Walker & Nevell, 1998, 
2.50 GBP (ends Jul-11-05 11:11:45 PDT)	6544138879 - Long Steel Rail by Cohen, 1981, $3.99 (ends Jul-11-05 
13:08:03 PDT)	4560210516 - 2 books (Ozark Magic and Folklore by Randolph and 
Folklore From the working class of America by Coffin & Cohen) $4 (ends 
Jul-11-05 13:52:42 PDT)	8316794407 - Folklore of the Australian Railwaymen by Adam-Smith,
1976, $4.95 AU (ends Jul-12-05 01:32:58 PDT)	5215173848 - Folklore of Warwickshire by Palmer, 2004, 1.49 GBP
(ends Jul-12-05 12:04:20 PDT)	4560072525 - Lochlann: A Review of Celtic Studies Volume I by 
Sommerfelt, 1958, $5 (ends Jul-13-05 19:50:47 PDT)				Happy Bidding!
				Dolores-- 
Dolores Nichols 		| 
D&D Data			| Voice :	(703) 938-4564
Disclaimer: from here - None	| Email:     <[unmask]>
	--- .sig? ----- .what?  Who me?

Dear Balladeers,Those who are interested in the English language in Ireland (which
sometimes crops up as a subject on this list) may not know that one of the
items on Dolores's great list of General Folklore books>	4560072525 - Lochlann: A Review of Celtic Studies Volume I by
>Sommerfelt, 1958, $5 (ends Jul-13-05 19:50:47 PDT)contains within it P.L. Henry's remarkable extended essay 'A Linguistic
Survey of Ireland: Preliminary Report'. Though somewhat idiosyncratic in
its phonetic notation, the detail and care with which this work has been
put together -- in surveying traditional dialect speakers from 31 data
points around Ireland -- has not since been excelled in any other published
work. (Some people are put off by the detail -- much of the work lists raw
data, so it isn't what you would call a 'good read'. But consider that the
age of the speakers and the time of the compliation means that the material
he describes goes back to an era which is essentially vanished. I have used
this paper both to draw maps of Irish English dialect features and to
compare contemporary speech with traditional dialect, and I am always
impressed by what I find in Henry's source material.) The article is 208pp.
long and covers vocabulary, syntax, and phonetics, together with historical
comments and various observations on the interactions between Irish and
what Henry refers to as Anglo-Irish. If you were to find a copy of this
journal in a second hand bookshop or at a book fair in Ireland, you
wouldn't pay less than about $50 for it, and possibly a good deal more. I
am afraid there are no ballads in this particular article (but there are
other papers in this issue of the journal, too), but for those with a
dialectological interest, this is a 'must have' paper. I already have a
copy, or I would certainly want to be bidding myself!Jeff Kallen
Trinity College Dublin

I read recently a note where G. Legman complained that
his manuscript copy of "Sailing Ship Shanties" (c.
1958) would never be published because they were
"real" (i.e. stunningly obscene). I believe there was
a passing reference to Stan Hugill in this context,
but it was not elaborated. Does "Sailing Ship
Shanties" exist in any accessible form whatever?
Thanks.And whatever MacColl was doing, he did pretty well--
falling in the category "Coulda fooled me"
(admittedly, not a hard thing.) Of Eppie Morrie,
Bronson says "He learned his tune from his father. .
.I am unable to point to any analogies for the melody,
which does splendid service in MacColl's vigorous
rendition." So i am in good company.C.Perhaps the best-known version of "Blow the Man
> Down" currently performed by shanty enthusiasts, and
> believed by them to be entirely traditional, is the
> bawdy one evidently created and first recorded by
> Oscar Brand (hardly "unaccomplished" as a
> song-writer) for his influential "Bawdy Sea
> Shanties" LP in 1958. Like most of Brand's rewrites,
> the humor is just too elaborate, too polished, and
> too verbally-based to have been thought up in the
> 19th C. 

On 7/6/05, Cliff Abrams wrote:[ ... ]>And whatever MacColl was doing, he did pretty well--
>falling in the category "Coulda fooled me"
>(admittedly, not a hard thing.) Of Eppie Morrie,
>Bronson says "He learned his tune from his father. .
>.I am unable to point to any analogies for the melody,
>which does splendid service in MacColl's vigorous
>rendition." So i am in good company.I don't think anyone would deny that MacColl's "Eppie Morrie"
is a great tune, and traditional-sounding; it never occurred
to me to doubt it until Abby Sale (I think it was) pointed out
its peculiar (lack of) context.And, as I pointed out, it's even possible that MacColl thought
his story true; he might have looked at the lyrics and
"remembered" a tune which he in fact set.-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

And it's possible that Jimmy MacBeath got his tune from MacColl. MacColl
first met MacBeath in 1951, Lomax recorded Jimmy later in the '50s.Ewan McVicar

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

FredAs the old adage has it not, check the files before you spout.From Lomax's transcription of the tape, prior to Jimmy singing Eppie
Morrie.
Appears to have been typed by someone else, then hand-corrected [with
typing gaps filled in] by Lomax, since MacColl is typed McCall.Lomax. And what about that song you gave us one verse. You said you learned
it from - oh, Eppie Morrie . You said you had one verse of it. How did he
sing Eppie Morrie, that man in the bar.
MacBeath.[doubtfully] Eppie Morrie.
L. Aye she grat and aye she spat.
M. Oh, yes yes.
L. How does your tune go to that.
M. It's [sings - Track 12, disc 2, of Two Gentlemen of the Road]
[I had wanted to include the above on the album, but had to trim it.]The first verse of the song text is typed at the bottom of a page, the
second at the top of the next. Above / beside the second verse is the
following at *. I cannot tell to whom it relates : possibly Lordy Hay who
is talked about just before just before the transcript I quote above. Nor
can I tell why it appears where it does. Puzzling.* "He's a bit of a poofie, himself - he got an awful kickin on the road
about it once."  So, not from MacColl then.MacColl recorded Eppie Morrie at the hell of a lick on a 78 I heard in the
late 50s. Somewhere MacColl talks in print of having to sing at double
speed to fit a ballad - this one, I assume - within the 3 minute confines.Ewan McVicar

As I recall, the Patrick Galvin use of the tune was on a recording ca 
1952. FWIW
dick greenhaus
Fred McCormick wrote:> Eminently possible, but why would MacBeath then start singing it to a 
> fragmentary text?
> Does anyone know when MacColl started singing his version? I recall it 
> being issued on an Argo LP in the early late 6os/early 70s, and I also 
> recall MacColl singing it everywhere around about then, as though he'd 
> only just learnt it.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Fred McCormick.
>  
>  
> In a message dated 06/07/2005 14:22:04 GMT Standard Time, 
> [unmask] writes:
>
>     And it's possible that Jimmy MacBeath got his tune from MacColl.
>     MacColl
>     first met MacBeath in 1951, Lomax recorded Jimmy later in the '50s.
>
>     Ewan McVicar
>
>  

On 7/6/05, Ewan McVicar wrote:>Fred
>
>As the old adage has it not, check the files before you spout.
>
>>From Lomax's transcription of the tape, prior to Jimmy singing Eppie
>Morrie.
>Appears to have been typed by someone else, then hand-corrected [with
>typing gaps filled in] by Lomax, since MacColl is typed McCall.
>
>Lomax. And what about that song you gave us one verse. You said you learned
>it from - oh, Eppie Morrie . You said you had one verse of it. How did he
>sing Eppie Morrie, that man in the bar.
>MacBeath.[doubtfully] Eppie Morrie.
>L. Aye she grat and aye she spat.
>M. Oh, yes yes.
>L. How does your tune go to that.
>M. It's [sings - Track 12, disc 2, of Two Gentlemen of the Road]
>[I had wanted to include the above on the album, but had to trim it.]
>
>The first verse of the song text is typed at the bottom of a page, the
>second at the top of the next. Above / beside the second verse is the
>following at *. I cannot tell to whom it relates : possibly Lordy Hay who
>is talked about just before just before the transcript I quote above. Nor
>can I tell why it appears where it does. Puzzling.
>
>* "He's a bit of a poofie, himself - he got an awful kickin on the road
>about it once." 
>
>So, not from MacColl then.
>
>MacColl recorded Eppie Morrie at the hell of a lick on a 78 I heard in the
>late 50s. Somewhere MacColl talks in print of having to sing at double
>speed to fit a ballad - this one, I assume - within the 3 minute confines.FWIW, I just dug up the version I have, from "Popular Scottish Songs"
(Folkways 8757, copyright 1961).It is very fast (but very fun; I think the high-speed approach works.
I once heard MacColl sing it in concert, and he still did it very fast).Interestingly, in the notes he says he learnedit "in part from my
father, partly from Samuel Wylie of Falkirk, and partly from the text
printed by Child."What do we know about Wylie?-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

On 7/6/05, Jonathan Lighter wrote:>MacColl's "Eppie Morrie" was also released in 1956 as part of volume one of Riverside's multidisk series _The English and Scottish Popular Ballads_ (RLP-12-621 thru -629).
> 
>I'm surprised at Bronson's remark that he could find no related tunes. Surely he meant "tunes for this ballad."  Otherwise the resemblance to MacColl's tune for "Trooper and Maid" is a figment of my imagination - and I'm having more and more of those all the time, so draw your own conclusions.I sense it, too, in the version of "Trooper and Maid" I hear in my
head. Though I didn't notice it until you pointed it out.Note, though, that Bronson prints only one MacColl version of "Trooper
and Maid" (his #18). It does not appear to be the version I know. If
T&M1 is similar to Eppie Morrie, and T&M2 is similar to T&M1, does
that make T&M2 similar to Eppie Morrie? Not sure this follows. So
Bronson may not have seen the analogy.-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

July 6, 2005.Dear friends,Pardon the boilerplate message - I had anticipated that George Ward's
updates on Mudat Cafe, from the horse's mouth so to speak, would be keeping
interested parties up to date - but I get home, fire up my computer, and
Mudcat is down. So I'm afraid here's my longer version, which I fear I am
only up to writing once.I was hospitalized after chest pains at the Old Songs Festival, spent ten
days in Ellis Hospital in Schenectady (two blocks from home which made it
relatively easy for Lisa), and came away with a quadruple by-pass.
Fortunately I had got insurance earlier this year, so things could be a lot
worse - I discovered that our simplified bookkeeping practice of making me
owner of the John & Tony record company which puts out our recordings makes
me, as a small business owner, eligible for the HealthyNY state insurance
mandate. But, I digress; what's new?I was discharged yesterday, and will now be working on developing more of an
exercise program than I had before, and a healthier diet. I feel good. I
dodged a little bullet, and need to learn from it.It seems an awful lot of people know the regimen, and I have a number of
friends who've gone through this who have taken the the time to explain
things to me on a more personal note than you get from surgeons. For a
start, I can't drive for a while. Or lift things.I'm afraid you won't be seeing me at the folk festivals and dance camps I
was scheduled for this summer, but I do hope to get back out there soon.
Hey, I can do some serious planning of the solo recording I have been
working on (I use the term loosely) since 1977.Thanks for all your messages of support, cards emails and phone messages.
They help. We have a good support group here helping me out and I appreciate
all their efforts too.Best regards to all,
John Roberts

John, I'm just glad you're okay. The world without you would be a poorer world
indeed. And glad you got in-shoorants. Does Stefan know you've gone through
this? Cohen

John,
We'd all been sending good vibes for your operation and recovery, and are 
happy to get your post!  Keep making those healthy lifestyle changes....
Lisa Johnson & Brian Sullivan
P.S. You were, in one weird way, lucky to have escaped the unbearable & 
merciless heat wave of Oldsongs and get to "enjoy" air-conditioned 
accommodations.   ;)

MacColl was singing it (splendidly) in 1958. I heard
him do it several times.
     Sandy (in Connecticut)--- dick greenhaus <[unmask]> wrote:> As I recall, the Patrick Galvin use of the tune was
> on a recording ca 
> 1952. FWIW
> dick greenhaus
> Fred McCormick wrote:
> 
> > Eminently possible, but why would MacBeath then
> start singing it to a 
> > fragmentary text?
> > Does anyone know when MacColl started singing his
> version? I recall it 
> > being issued on an Argo LP in the early late
> 6os/early 70s, and I also 
> > recall MacColl singing it everywhere around about
> then, as though he'd 
> > only just learnt it.
> >  
> > Cheers,
> >  
> > Fred McCormick.
> >  
> >  
> > In a message dated 06/07/2005 14:22:04 GMT
> Standard Time, 
> > [unmask] writes:
> >
> >     And it's possible that Jimmy MacBeath got his
> tune from MacColl.
> >     MacColl
> >     first met MacBeath in 1951, Lomax recorded
> Jimmy later in the '50s.
> >
> >     Ewan McVicar
> >
> >  
> 

John:Four out of five ain't bad.Now get well.  Eat your spinach, avoid all work of any kind whatsoever, and follow Lisa's orders.  Quietly.  Like a good boy should.I look forward to the time when we will stand once more at the back of the hall sniping ast some folkie's singing.  In the meantime, get well.Ed----- Original Message -----
From: John Roberts <[unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2005 1:49 pm
Subject: Health update - jr> July 6, 2005.
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> Pardon the boilerplate message - I had anticipated that George Ward's
> updates on Mudat Cafe, from the horse's mouth so to speak, would be 
> keepinginterested parties up to date - but I get home, fire up my 
> computer, and
> Mudcat is down. So I'm afraid here's my longer version, which I 
> fear I am
> only up to writing once.
> 
> I was hospitalized after chest pains at the Old Songs Festival, 
> spent ten
> days in Ellis Hospital in Schenectady (two blocks from home which 
> made it
> relatively easy for Lisa), and came away with a quadruple by-pass.
> Fortunately I had got insurance earlier this year, so things could 
> be a lot
> worse - I discovered that our simplified bookkeeping practice of 
> making me
> owner of the John & Tony record company which puts out our 
> recordings makes
> me, as a small business owner, eligible for the HealthyNY state 
> insurancemandate. But, I digress; what's new?
> 
> I was discharged yesterday, and will now be working on developing 
> more of an
> exercise program than I had before, and a healthier diet. I feel 
> good. I
> dodged a little bullet, and need to learn from it.
> 
> It seems an awful lot of people know the regimen, and I have a 
> number of
> friends who've gone through this who have taken the the time to 
> explainthings to me on a more personal note than you get from 
> surgeons. For a
> start, I can't drive for a while. Or lift things.
> 
> I'm afraid you won't be seeing me at the folk festivals and dance 
> camps I
> was scheduled for this summer, but I do hope to get back out there 
> soon.Hey, I can do some serious planning of the solo recording I 
> have been
> working on (I use the term loosely) since 1977.
> 
> Thanks for all your messages of support, cards emails and phone 
> messages.They help. We have a good support group here helping me 
> out and I appreciate
> all their efforts too.
> 
> Best regards to all,
> John Roberts
> 

Folks:Mary Katherine Aldin has just passed on the sad news of the death of Hedy West.  This is a great loss, a great loss to those of us who love traditional song.I will forward details as I get them.Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "edward cray" <[unmask]><<Mary Katherine Aldin has just passed on the sad news of the death of Hedy
West.  This is a great loss, a great loss to those of us who love
traditional song.>>Illinois folksinger Art Thieme has sent out a message containing an
exquisite, lovely photograph of Hedy. With his permission, I've made it
available at:http://members.aol.com/beansnicker/HedyWest.jpgPeace,
Paul

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Hedy will be missed indeed.  And I'd also like to express my condolences to all British members of the list.  My thoughts and prayers are with you all.	Marge 

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 06:36:59 -0700, Jonathan Lighter wrote:>"Sailing Ship Shanties" is not yet available and, if indications can be trusted, may never be.  Word from an informed source (*not* Legman's heirs) is that "it does not exist."
> 
John Mehlberg has been hunting this with might and with main.  His will be
an important word on it.  It may be holy grailish but Legman did claim to
have it in that famous, brief footnote.There's no question that Hugill had the songs.  He refers to the Unprintable
verses often enough in _Shanties_ and is frank about altering them, himself.And one has heard many reports of people hearing, even taping, some on
sneaking alcoholic beverage into Hugill's protesting mouth.  (Of course, one
also hears reports of Elvis.)  "Salty Dick"'s recent CD (consultant: Cray)
has a few.  And is fine singing as well.And, Hugill did write down a huge number of songs.  FWIW, I _believe_.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
	          I am Abby Sale - in Orlando, Florida
	                Boycott South Carolina!
	     http://www.naacp.org/news/2001/2001-01-12.html

Folks:Mary Katherine Aldrin forwards this further information as written by Tony Thomas:Hedy was afflicted with cancer for several years and carried out a courageous battle from people I know who were in regular contact with her and an even more courageous battle with the awful chemotherapy. The cancer had mastiticized a couple years ago, according to a friend of mine who was in contact with her and who tried to get her performing work whenever she felt up to it. Sadly, the impact of chemotherapy made it difficult and then impossible for her to sing. I was told she didn't care to just play the banjo if she could not sing.I remember a very strong amount of dignity that she had both during her career and in the longer time when she was not in the limelight, something I think she attempted to avoid. Friends, particularly women folkies, who knew or spent town with her or hosted her or hired her during tours recount that she had a great and rolicking sense of humor and was a lot of fun.Her father, Don West, was a good poet, a teacher treasured by his students, a sometime preacher, and a better fighter for the rights of labor and for civil rights who was the target of massive persecution during the 1950s witch hunt. Last night I was talking to an old friend from Atlanta who knew Don who repeated a story about him that I had heard him tell a number of times over the years.The Atlanta Constitution which is supposed to be a bastion of liberalism in the South. Its famed columnist Ralph McGill who was supposed to be a progressive Southerner during tha time of segregation in Georgia targeted Don West. McGill would print regular columns in the Constitution in the early 1950s pilloring Don West and saying he was the leading Communist Party figure in Georgia, if not the entire South, with the usual charges and lies leveled at the CP by witchhunters with the special racist twist popular int he South. These undoubtably came directly from the sewer called the FBI. McGill regularly included a public listing of the West family's home address, their telephone number, and where West worked or preached at the time. As a result of this campaign the KKK burned down their home the day after one of these column and Don West and his family and friends were subject to almost daily harassment by anticommunist and racist activists.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Jonathan:Please do.Ed----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Lighter <[unmask]>
Date: Friday, July 8, 2005 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: MacColl, Etc.> Based on some parallel sources, as well as Hugill's and Legman's 
> various printed comments, I have made a few pages of notes on the 
> presumable contents of "Sailing Ship Shanties."  Would be happy to 
> post them here in installments once I dig them out.
> 
> JL
> 
> Abby Sale <[unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 06:36:59 -0700, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> 
> >"Sailing Ship Shanties" is not yet available and, if indications 
> can be trusted, may never be. Word from an informed source (*not* 
> Legman's heirs) is that "it does not exist."
> > 
> John Mehlberg has been hunting this with might and with main. His 
> will be
> an important word on it. It may be holy grailish but Legman did 
> claim to
> have it in that famous, brief footnote.
> 
> There's no question that Hugill had the songs. He refers to the 
> Unprintableverses often enough in _Shanties_ and is frank about 
> altering them, himself.
> 
> And one has heard many reports of people hearing, even taping, some on
> sneaking alcoholic beverage into Hugill's protesting mouth. (Of 
> course, one
> also hears reports of Elvis.) "Salty Dick"'s recent CD (consultant: 
> Cray)has a few. And is fine singing as well.
> 
> And, Hugill did write down a huge number of songs. FWIW, I _believe_.
> 
> 
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> -- -
> I am Abby Sale - in Orlando, Florida
> Boycott South Carolina!
> http://www.naacp.org/news/2001/2001-01-12.html
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 

Thanks, Judy. With our speciality in radical literature, we've always had 
various old Don West books in stock, but I had no idea he was father of Hedy!Paul GaronAt 03:32 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
>For more on Don West and the context in which Hedy grew up, see 
><http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s04/west.html>http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s04/west.html.
>
>Back in 1963, the Campus Folksong Club at the U of I had invited Hedy to 
>campus for a concert.  The scheduled date was November 22.  Trouper that 
>she was, she came anyway.  We have very warm memories of her music and her 
>spirit.
>
>Judy
>
>Judith McCulloh
>Assistant Director and Executive Editor
>University of Illinois Press
>1325 South Oak Street
>Champaign, IL 61820-6903
>(217) 244-4681  phone
>(217) 244-8082  fax
>[unmask]
>Paul and Beth Garon
Beasley Books (ABAA)
1533 W. Oakdale
Chicago, IL 60657
(773) 472-4528
(773) 472-7857 FAX
http://www.beasleybooks.com 

Hi!	Hope that everyone on the list is safe this weekend. John
Roberts - Good luck on your continued recovery! 	Now on the usual list of books. :-) The songster list will be
posted on Sunday and the general folklore list on Monday by the way.	MISCELLANEOUS	4745755024 - Folk Songs from Hampshire, LP, 9.99 GBP (ends 
Jul-09-05 11:00:51 PDT)	 4744419773 - I'm on My Journey Home vocal styles and resources in 
folk music, LP, $3.95 (ends Jul-09-05 15:04:10 PDT)	4744448625 - Aboard The Cutty Sark by Hugill, LP, 1979, $4.99 
(ends Jul-09-05 18:08:51 PDT)	SONG BOOKS, ETC.	4560064264 - OLD ENGLISH POPULAR MUSIC by Chappell, 1961 edition,
$7 (ends Jul-10-05 19:10:43 PDT)	6967660382 - Cornish Ballads and Other Poems by Hawker, 1904, 
9.99 GBP (ends Jul-10-05 04:20:09 PDT)	8316606362 - Curiosities of Essex by Occomore, 1984, 4.99 GBP 
(ends Jul-11-05 07:02:29 PDT)	6966943707 - Folk Song In England by Lloyd, 1975, 16.83 GBP (ends 
Jul-11-05 08:15:05 PDT)	6544183963 - Song of Robin Hood, 1947, $4.99 (ends Jul-11-05 
17:42:48 PDT)	7334876170 - FOLK SONGS of OLD VINCENNES by Berry, 1946, $3 (ends 
Jul-12-05 12:23:58 PDT)	8316195320 - The Seeds of Love by Sedley, 1967, 4.99 GBP (ends 
Jul-12-05 12:50:27 PDT)	7985136002 - A Book of Scottish Nursery Rhymes by Montgomerie, 
1965, $6.99 (ends Jul-12-05 13:07:23 PDT)	6543728552 - The English and Scottish Popular Ballads by Child, 
4 volumes (2-5), 1965 Dover edition, $9 (ends Jul-12-05 14:33:21 PDT)	7334817901 - Roustabout Songs: A Collection of Ohio River Valley 
Songs by Wheeler, 1939, $7.38 (ends Jul-12-05 17:25:00 PDT)	7334948841 - Folk Song Encylopedia by Silverman, volume 1, $6 
(ends Jul-12-05 17:44:03 PDT)	7334988077 - Ballads & Ballad Poetry by Hale, 1902, $3 (ends 
Jul-12-05 20:42:52 PDT)	6543668498 - The British Traditional Ballad in North America by 
Coffin, 1950, $24.95 (ends Jul-13-05 17:15:00 PDT)	6544635528 - SONGS AND BLLADS FROM NOVA SCOTIA by Creighton, 
1933 edition, $9.99 w/reserve (ends Jul-13-05 18:13:59 PDT)	5216821948 - FOLK SONGS OF AUSTRALIA by Meredith & Anderson, 1979,
$9.95 AU (ends Jul-13-05 22:19:16 PDT)	8317630408 - The english & scotish popular ballads by Child, 4 
volumes (2-5), 1965 Dover edition, $15.99 (ends Jul-15-05 09:57:04 PDT)	8316948127 - A Good Christmas Box by Raven, 1967, 5.99 GBP (ends 
Jul-15-05 14:23:40 PDT)	6967479990 - Thatcher?s Colonial Minstrel, 1964 reprint, $19.99 AU
(ends Jul-15-05 17:22:01 PDT)	8317297406 - FOLKLORE AND SONGS OF THE BLACK COUNTRY COLLIERS by 
Raven, 1990, 0.99 GBP (ends Jul-17-05 02:01:14 PDT)	6967675649 - The Shanty Book Part 1 by Terry, 1921, 6.01 GBP 
(ends Jul-17-05 06:28:05 PDT)	7529489848 - THE PENGUIN BOOK OF ENGLISH FOLK SONGS by Williams 
& Lloyd, 1976 reprint, 3.99 GBP (ends Jul-17-05 13:30:34 PDT)				Happy Bidding!
				Dolores-- 
Dolores Nichols 		| 
D&D Data			| Voice :	(703) 938-4564
Disclaimer: from here - None	| Email:     <[unmask]>
	--- .sig? ----- .what?  Who me?

Yes, dig, please.And Abby,
"Lobscouse & Spotted Dog" turns up "salted
honey-buzzard" and "salted penguin", but, alas, no
dick.C.< Based on some parallel sources, as well as Hugill's
and Legman's various printed comments, I have made a
few pages of notes on the presumable contents of
"Sailing Ship Shanties."  Would be happy to post them
here in installments once I dig them out.>

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Jonathan:This short essay or exploration is useful in assessing the extent of bawdry in sailors chanties.  Please do add to it.  The question I have is to what degree were the foc'sle songs, and the ballads/songs sung by the shanty boys equally  bawdy.Ed----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Lighter <[unmask]>
Date: Friday, July 8, 2005 9:50 pm
Subject: Camouflaged Shanties Pt. 1 (long)  [Was Re: MacColl, Etc.]> These notes on Stan Hugill's "camouflaged" shanties were made a 
> year or two ago, mostly.  They should not be taken as definitive.
> 
> In his very first book, _Shanties from the Seven Seas_  (Routledge 
> & Kegan Paul, 1961), Hugill writes of  "obscenity in the shanties" 
> (33), and cites some earlier opinions on the subject. The English 
> Captains John A. Sampson and W. B. Whall, for example, both 
> veterans of the British Merchant Service in the latter nineteenth 
> century, disagreed about the level of bawdry in the shanties.  
> Sampson believed that the "alleged coarseness of the Shanties [had] 
> been grossly exaggerated," while Whall stated flatly some years 
> earlier that sailors on cargo vessels carrying no passengers "never 
> heard a _decent_ shanty. The words...were the veriest filth" (33; 
> emphasis in original).  Whall's point is well taken. Aboard 
> passenger liners or if the captain's family was aboard, crews were 
> under severe disciplinary constraint and would not have been 
> allowed to sing anything remotely "obscene" that could be overheard 
> by women and children in particular.  On a cargo-carrying ship at 
> sea or in a foreign
> port songs might be sung unrestrainedly.  But one should also keep 
> in mind that Whall, the elder of these two commentators, went to 
> sea as long ago as the 1860s and wrote his opinion in 1910, at 
> about the sme time that Cecil Sharp and others found it necessary 
> to edit and bowdlerize ruthlessly country folksongs which nowadays 
> seem entirely harmless and in some cases even "sweet."
> Whall, whose writing shows him to have been a rather fussy 
> individual, may have had a far lower tolerance for "indecency" than 
> the average shanty enthusiast of the late twentieth century.
> 
> Hugill's own experience made it "obvious that sailor's working 
> songs did contain a fair amount of gross obscenity, but many 
> versions of the same shanty were quite clean by comparison."   With 
> some exceptions, he says, most all shanties had a "dirty version." 
> A very few existed in a "dirty version" only. (One might contrast 
> that observation with the contents of any modern-day collection of 
> "rugby songs," of which a majority exist in a "dirty version 
> only.")  At the other end of the scale, another few shanties were 
> "entirely [and seemingly always--JL ] devoid of anything obscene or 
> even coarse" (34). 
> 
> For some sense of the bawdiness of shanties, Hugill refers to 
> _Chansons de la Voile "Sans Voile"_ (Dunkirk: N.p. [?], 1935), a 
> book by Capt. A. Hayet (alias "Jean Marie le Bihor").  Hugill 
> apparently felt that the English-language shanties were comparable 
> in the nature of their bawdry to those in French.  
> 
> It isn't clear from Hugill's words whether by "dirty version" he 
> meant an entire, perhaps parodic, song to the same tune as an 
> established "clean" version, or whether he meant that "dirty" 
> verses might be added to otherwise clean shanties at the whim of 
> the shantyman.  "Dirty version" might simply mean a "dirty 
> performance," with the dirt often limited to a few verses in an 
> otherwise unexceptionable song.  The latter appears to be the safer 
> assumption in the light of limited knowledge. (Cf. the attitude of 
> a collector of "Matty Groves" in New York State some years ago who 
> characterized the singer's entire version as a "dirty song" because 
> the final stanza said tersely that Matty had "screwed" Lord 
> Darnell's wife.)  Hugill's statement that  "two or more shanties 
> had a dirty version only" (34) is clearer.  In nearly twenty years 
> at sea, therefore, Hugill probably learned only a few shanties 
> having an _irreducibly_ bawdy or "obscene" theme.  
> 
> Hugill's preface notes significantly that "Some of the songs have 
> had to be altered owing to the demands of the censor, so a little 
> of the real meaning...has been lost.....Students wishing to  know 
> how many of the camouflaged verses went will be able to find them 
> in a book now in preparation, to be called _The Ballad_, edited by 
> G. Legman, Cagnes" (xiv-xv).  
> 
> By my count, Hugill admits to having "altered" or "camouflaged" 
> roughly 55 shanties and forebitters.  The number must be 
> approximate because one can't always definitively count a song as 
> one shanty or two.  What of cases where the bawdy verses 
> customarily associated with one shanty (like "The Hog-Eye Man") are 
> fitted to the tune and refrain pattern of another (like "Johnny 
> Come Down to Hilo")   Two shanties or three ?  Hugill also counts 
> the forebitter "Ratcliffe Highway" as one song and the capstan 
> shanty "Blow the Man Down" as one more, even though the bawdy 
> stanzas of one version of the former were frequently attached to 
> the tune and structure of the latter.  And "Ratcliffe Highway" 
> itself existed in at least three or four distinguishable, though 
> clearly related, forms.
> 
> In Part 2 I'll begin to list the specific songs and versions that 
> Hugill admits to having "camouflaged," with some observations 
> concerning their probable unbowdlerized content.
> 
> JL
> 
> edward cray <[unmask]> wrote:
> Jonathan:
> 
> Please do.
> 
> Ed
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Lighter 
> Date: Friday, July 8, 2005 12:29 pm
> Subject: Re: MacColl, Etc.
> 
> > Based on some parallel sources, as well as Hugill's and Legman's 
> > various printed comments, I have made a few pages of notes on the 
> > presumable contents of "Sailing Ship Shanties." Would be happy to 
> > post them here in installments once I dig them out.
> > 
> > JL
> > 
> > Abby Sale wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 06:36:59 -0700, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> > 
> > >"Sailing Ship Shanties" is not yet available and, if indications 
> > can be trusted, may never be. Word from an informed source (*not* 
> > Legman's heirs) is that "it does not exist."
> > > 
> > John Mehlberg has been hunting this with might and with main. His 
> > will be
> > an important word on it. It may be holy grailish but Legman did 
> > claim to
> > have it in that famous, brief footnote.
> > 
> > There's no question that Hugill had the songs. He refers to the 
> > Unprintableverses often enough in _Shanties_ and is frank about 
> > altering them, himself.
> > 
> > And one has heard many reports of people hearing, even taping, 
> some on
> > sneaking alcoholic beverage into Hugill's protesting mouth. (Of 
> > course, one
> > also hears reports of Elvis.) "Salty Dick"'s recent CD 
> (consultant: 
> > Cray)has a few. And is fine singing as well.
> > 
> > And, Hugill did write down a huge number of songs. FWIW, I 
> _believe_.> 
> > 
> > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
> --
> > -- -
> > I am Abby Sale - in Orlando, Florida
> > Boycott South Carolina!
> > http://www.naacp.org/news/2001/2001-01-12.html
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>        	
> ---------------------------------
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
> 

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Folks:As you may have read here, Jonathan Lighter and I have exchanged emails regarding the number of bawdy songs as a percentage of the entire corpus of traditional songlore.Lighter noted  Legman's estimate that perhaps 15 percent of Vance Randolph's Ozark song collection contained bawdy elements, to use Jonathan's phrase.This estimate is somewhat higher than my own.  In assaying the American corpus while writing the introduction to the second edition of _The Erotuic Muse,_  I guessed at a figure of 10 percent of  all traditional songs in the United States contained bawdy/obscene/erotic material.   That figure would go higher, much higher, if one considered only the songs still circulating in oral tradition; I might even guess at a third to half of all traditional songs now in oral currency.  (Certainly in the very skewed sample my informants represent -- college, military, rugby sources -- the percentage is very much higher still.)I would welcome others joining this discussion.Ed

On 7/9/05, edward cray wrote:>Folks:
>
>As you may have read here, Jonathan Lighter and I have exchanged emails regarding the number of bawdy songs as a percentage of the entire corpus of traditional songlore.
>
>Lighter noted  Legman's estimate that perhaps 15 percent of Vance Randolph's Ozark song collection contained bawdy elements, to use Jonathan's phrase.
>
>This estimate is somewhat higher than my own.  In assaying the American corpus while writing the introduction to the second edition of _The Erotuic Muse,_  I guessed at a figure of 10 percent of  all traditional songs in the United States contained bawdy/obscene/erotic material.   That figure would go higher, much higher, if one considered only the songs still circulating in oral tradition; I might even guess at a third to half of all traditional songs now in oral currency.  (Certainly in the very skewed sample my informants represent -- college, military, rugby sources -- the percentage is very much higher still.)
>
>I would welcome others joining this discussion.I can't contribute much, but it might be worth thinking about
methodology. For example, only 219 of the 6989 songs in the Ballad
Index as of right now have been tagged "bawdy." Even allowing for
the fact that many of these songs are fragments, and the fact that
songs tend to be "under-keyed" (that is, that few get all the keywords
they deserve, because every indexer has a few favorite keywords and
others that mostly get ignored), the fraction probably does not
exceed one in fifteen.But this is mostly a reflection of the collections: Until recently,
most collectors didn't dare print bawdy stuff.The question is, which collections *do* contain bawdry, and what is
the fraction of those which are bawdy? And does that fraction change
over time?-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Folks:I have read any number of  editors' suggestions that this or that printed collection did or did not  fully represent all that  the collectors had gathered, or had rejected as unfit for polite ears, viz. Sharp, Baring-Gould (a minister, so who knows how his informants self-censored themselves), etc.Patrick Shuldham-Shaw in his introduction to the Greig-Duncan collection notes (p. xiii):  "It is interesting to note that both men, despite their callings and the mores of the times in whih they livedm faithfully noted quite a number of songs with a thread of blue iun them.  Perhaps not a very thick thread nor a very deep blue, but Duncan, surprisingly enough for a minister, includes a somewhat fragmentary version of 'The Clustere of Nuts,' and Greig a good version of 'The Bonnie Black Hare.'  Though the former exits only in shorthand and the latteer was never transcribed into the fair copy notebooks, they are there for people to study.  Occasionally it must be admitted that Duncan comments in his notes that the words were too coarse to be given."Now, if someone would care to go through that  eight-volume collection and count the number of  songs with a "thread of blue"...Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[unmask]>
Date: Saturday, July 9, 2005 12:30 pm
Subject: Re: Bawdy Song Census> On 7/9/05, edward cray wrote:
> 
> >Folks:
> >
> >As you may have read here, Jonathan Lighter and I have exchanged 
> emails regarding the number of bawdy songs as a percentage of the 
> entire corpus of traditional songlore.
> >
> >Lighter noted  Legman's estimate that perhaps 15 percent of Vance 
> Randolph's Ozark song collection contained bawdy elements, to use 
> Jonathan's phrase.
> >
> >This estimate is somewhat higher than my own.  In assaying the 
> American corpus while writing the introduction to the second 
> edition of _The Erotuic Muse,_  I guessed at a figure of 10 percent 
> of  all traditional songs in the United States contained 
> bawdy/obscene/erotic material.   That figure would go higher, much 
> higher, if one considered only the songs still circulating in oral 
> tradition; I might even guess at a third to half of all traditional 
> songs now in oral currency.  (Certainly in the very skewed sample 
> my informants represent -- college, military, rugby sources -- the 
> percentage is very much higher still.)
> >
> >I would welcome others joining this discussion.
> 
> I can't contribute much, but it might be worth thinking about
> methodology. For example, only 219 of the 6989 songs in the Ballad
> Index as of right now have been tagged "bawdy." Even allowing for
> the fact that many of these songs are fragments, and the fact that
> songs tend to be "under-keyed" (that is, that few get all the keywords
> they deserve, because every indexer has a few favorite keywords and
> others that mostly get ignored), the fraction probably does not
> exceed one in fifteen.
> 
> But this is mostly a reflection of the collections: Until recently,
> most collectors didn't dare print bawdy stuff.
> 
> The question is, which collections *do* contain bawdry, and what is
> the fraction of those which are bawdy? And does that fraction change
> over time?
> 
> -- 
> Bob Waltz
> [unmask]
> 
> "The one thing we learn from history --
>   is that no one ever learns from history."
> 

Hi, Bob, Ed, Jonathan,Not wishing to put a damper on the proceedings
BUT..Before we can start quantifying bawdry we need to have a clear definition
of what constitutes bawdry.
Whilst those songs at the extremes of bawdry are obvious and those
containing no sexual content are not bawdry, there is a whole raft of
debatable material in between. One person's bawdry is another person's
innocence.
I have plenty of bawdy pieces in my main folk song index and some debatable
pieces in my bawdry index.
And when it comes to shanties, as Jonathan points out, the indiscriminate
swapping of texts, tunes and choruses make quantifying and classifying a
nightmare (which is one reason why I'm fighting shy of including them in my
master titles index for the moment, hoping that someone with greater shanty
knowledge will take this on).
SteveG

On 7/9/05, Steve Gardham wrote:>Hi, Bob, Ed, Jonathan,
>
>Not wishing to put a damper on the proceedings
>BUT..
>
>Before we can start quantifying bawdry we need to have a clear definition
>of what constitutes bawdry.
>Whilst those songs at the extremes of bawdry are obvious and those
>containing no sexual content are not bawdry, there is a whole raft of
>debatable material in between. One person's bawdry is another person's
>innocence.
>I have plenty of bawdy pieces in my main folk song index and some debatable
>pieces in my bawdry index.This is part of my point about keywording, really. Though I don't
think there is a real problem defining bawdry: It's a song that
exists to talk about sex, as opposed to a song that exists to talk
about something else. :-) (That is, to take an example that came
up recently, Eppie Morrie is a song about attempted rape -- but it's
not a bawdy song, because the point is how Ms. Morrie saves herself,
not a catalog of what Willie attempted to do. Though I'm sure some
editors would have suppressed even that.)There will, of course, be disagreement even about what falls under
this definition. But this isn't really a methodological problem, as
long as the same person is examining the texts. The figure for
percentage of bawdry will fluctuate somewhat with different examiners,
but the overall picture won't change much.-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

At 05:01 PM 7/9/2005 -0400, Tradman wrote:
>Consideriing that most of the songs current in oral tradition in this 
>country are of religious or sentimental nature, I would strongly disagree 
>with that surmise.
>
>In a message dated 7/9/2005 2:28:17 PM Central Standard Time, 
>[unmask] writes:
>This estimate is somewhat higher than my own.  In assaying the American 
>corpus while writing the introduction to the second edition of _The 
>Erotuic Muse,_  I guessed at a figure of 10 percent of  all traditional 
>songs in the United States contained bawdy/obscene/erotic material.   That 
>figure would go higher, much higher, if one considered only the songs 
>still circulating in oral tradition; I might even guess at a third to half 
>of all traditional songs now in oral currency.
>
>I have to agree with Tradman (Mark).  The vast majority of currently sung 
traditional songs these days seem to me also to be of sentimental or 
religious nature.  And many songs that used to contain more violent or 
otherwise "objectionable" content have been watered down.
Lisa Johnson 

In the 'Journal of the Folk-Song Society' vol III (issue 10) 1908, pp 
53-54, there is some discussion of 'The Boys of Kilkenny' and 
attributions to both Michael Kelly and Thomas Moore. Cecil Sharp added 
in a footnote:"For an interesting note on the authorship of the text of 'The Boys of 
Kilkenny', see Crofton Croker's 'Popular Songs of Ireland', p 206: 'The 
Editor believes that this song, although unclaimed, is not incorrectly 
attributed to Mr Thomas Moore.' An opinion, which, in a foot-note, he 
afterwards withdraws."I wonder if anyone who may have a copy of Croker to hand might be able 
to tell me what he actually said in that footnote?Malcolm Douglas

I've got a later edition, so the page numbers are different. But for Boys of 
Kilkenny he gives three pages of notes (I can send you a photocopy if you 
like).
The note starts:
"The editor believes that this song, although unclaimed, is not incorrectly 
attributed to Mr. Thomas Moore, and the reasons for this belief are these:
(1) Moore was a prominent member of the Kilkenny private theatricals about 
the years 1802-3-4.
(2) The melody called 'The old head of Denis' was an especial favourite with 
Moore; to it he wrote his well-known song, in the first number of 'Irish 
Melodies' on the 'Meeting of the Waters' in the County of Wicklow, 
commencing...
(3) The internal evidence of the song itself. The luscious picture conveyed 
to the fancy in the concluding lines of the second, and the beautiful local 
imagery of the third verses, as well as the humour which pervades the entire 
song, partake more of the tone of Moore's mind than of the national 
character.
It was no doubt originally written fo and sung on the Kilkenny stage, and 
the last verse was probably an adjunct by the author when he sung [sic] 'The 
Boys of Kilkenny' in England, where he became a permanent resident in 
1807"....BUT, here's the footnote:
"Since the above was written the Editor has been informed 'by good 
authority' that he was wrong in ascribing this song to Mr. Moore"Steve Roud----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Malcolm Douglas" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:35 PM
Subject: The Boys of Kilkenny> In the 'Journal of the Folk-Song Society' vol III (issue 10) 1908, pp 
> 53-54, there is some discussion of 'The Boys of Kilkenny' and attributions 
> to both Michael Kelly and Thomas Moore. Cecil Sharp added in a footnote:
>
> "For an interesting note on the authorship of the text of 'The Boys of 
> Kilkenny', see Crofton Croker's 'Popular Songs of Ireland', p 206: 'The 
> Editor believes that this song, although unclaimed, is not incorrectly 
> attributed to Mr Thomas Moore.' An opinion, which, in a foot-note, he 
> afterwards withdraws."
>
> I wonder if anyone who may have a copy of Croker to hand might be able to 
> tell me what he actually said in that footnote?
>
> Malcolm Douglas
> 

The discussion of the Boys of Kilkenny begins at p. 196 of the 1886
edition of Croker. The reasons that Croker ascribed it to Moore were
first that Moore was a prominent member of the Kilkenny private
theatricals about the years 1802-1804, second the melody used for the
Boys of Kilkenny was "The Old Head of Denis" which was an especial
favorite of Moore's, and third "the internal evidence of the song
itself" - i.e., the imagery and humor sounded to Croker more like Moore
than the "national character." The footnote, which appears at p. 197,
simply states: "Since the above was written the Editor has been informed
"by good authority" that he is wrong in ascribing this song to Mr.
Moore." Lew Becker>>> [unmask] 7/9/2005 5:35:33 PM >>>
In the 'Journal of the Folk-Song Society' vol III (issue 10) 1908, pp 
53-54, there is some discussion of 'The Boys of Kilkenny' and 
attributions to both Michael Kelly and Thomas Moore. Cecil Sharp addedin a footnote:"For an interesting note on the authorship of the text of 'The Boys ofKilkenny', see Crofton Croker's 'Popular Songs of Ireland', p 206: 'TheEditor believes that this song, although unclaimed, is not incorrectlyattributed to Mr Thomas Moore.' An opinion, which, in a foot-note, he 
afterwards withdraws."I wonder if anyone who may have a copy of Croker to hand might be ableto tell me what he actually said in that footnote?Malcolm Douglas

On 7/9/05, Lisa - S. H. wrote:>At 05:01 PM 7/9/2005 -0400, Tradman wrote:
>>Consideriing that most of the songs current in oral tradition in this country are of religious or sentimental nature, I would strongly disagree with that surmise.
>>
>>In a message dated 7/9/2005 2:28:17 PM Central Standard Time, [unmask] writes:
>>This estimate is somewhat higher than my own.  In assaying the American corpus while writing the introduction to the second edition of _The Erotuic Muse,_  I guessed at a figure of 10 percent of  all traditional songs in the United States contained bawdy/obscene/erotic material.   That figure would go higher, much higher, if one considered only the songs still circulating in oral tradition; I might even guess at a third to half of all traditional songs now in oral currency.
>>
>
>I have to agree with Tradman (Mark).  The vast majority of currently sung traditional songs these days seem to me also to be of sentimental or religious nature.  And many songs that used to contain more violent or otherwise "objectionable" content have been watered down.I think we have a bigger problem here than we did with the definition
of "bawdy." :-) My observation is the reverse: Religious songs are
relatively rare *in tradition*. That is, they are sung commonly --
but they aren't passed on orally. Most such songs are learned in church,
and while they may be sung outside church, they aren't passed along
from generation to generation.What are traditional songs, these days? Bar songs, mostly, I think.
Songs kids sing in camp. *Irreverent* songs, even more than bawdy.Nobody says we have to like it. :-) I'd rather they were singing
good solid ballads. Morally uplifting and all that. :-) But I do
think that dirty songs have survived better than clean *in oral
tradition* -- because that's the only way they've been permitted
to survive.-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

My thanks to Steve and Lewis for the information on Croker's argument 
and footnote. Later commentary (Lucy Broadwood and Bruce Olson) makes it 
pretty clear that Kelly rather than Moore was responsible for this one, 
but I feel much more comfortable now that, so to speak, the exits are 
covered.EFDSS are once again looking at options for re-issuing Frank Purslow's 
selections from the Hammond-Gardiner collection in some form, so in case 
anything comes of it I've begun to re-visit the notes for 'Marrowbones', 
which are quite brief. Frank mentioned Croker's ascription to Moore, but 
seems to have missed the footnote, and Broadwood and Sharp's comments.Malcolm Douglas

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

On 7/9/05, [unmask] wrote:>Pardon Bob, but again I disagree.  Church learning is still an oral tradition, since most youngsters don't read the hymnals but learn the songs and tunes from hearing them.Possibly. But it's enforced learning. By that definition, the Pledge of
Allegiance is folk poetry. This is one I guess we have to agree to disagree
on -- my definition of tradition requires uncontrolled transmission.>Furthermore, here in Texas, there is definitely a strong tradition of learning the hymns from parents and such who sing these songs on social occasions as well as religious ones.  There are as many bible camps as there are summer camps, the latter of which seems to be much more prevalent in the north-east.  Personally, I've never heard a "bar" song in any setting except a folk-revival festival setting, but I've heard religious singing in myriad non-religious settings by both African-Americans and Caucasions of all ages.  And that also holds true for songs such as Red River Valley, You Are My Sunshine and other sentimental favorites.I can only say that I've never met such a thing in my life. Different
social circles, I guess -- or just the fact that Minnesota is so
strongly Lutheran. I don't mean that people around here don't sing
religious songs -- but they're *all* church songs.No *wonder* the country can't agree on anything. :-)I would note that the larger share of material religious in Randolph,
say, also appears to have church roots. The collections don't give
me much reason to change my opinion. Possibly it's time for some new
collections.
-- 
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

>
>I think we have a bigger problem here than we did with the definition
>of "bawdy." :-) My observation is the reverse: Religious songs are
>relatively rare *in tradition*. That is, they are sung commonly --
>but they aren't passed on orally. Most such songs are learned in church,
>and while they may be sung outside church, they aren't passed along
>from generation to generation.
>
>What are traditional songs, these days? Bar songs, mostly, I think.
>Songs kids sing in camp. *Irreverent* songs, even more than bawdy.I think you have to clarify whether you are referring to "traditional" 
songs still being sung today, and "today's traditional songs", meaning 
songs that are "traditionally" sung these days.  Two different things 
altogether, I believe.
Lisa

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[unmask]><<I think we have a bigger problem here than we did with the definition
of "bawdy." :-) My observation is the reverse: Religious songs are
relatively rare *in tradition*. That is, they are sung commonly --
but they aren't passed on orally. Most such songs are learned in church,
and while they may be sung outside church, they aren't passed along
from generation to generation.What are traditional songs, these days? Bar songs, mostly, I think.
Songs kids sing in camp. *Irreverent* songs, even more than bawdy.Nobody says we have to like it. :-) I'd rather they were singing
good solid ballads. Morally uplifting and all that. :-) But I do
think that dirty songs have survived better than clean *in oral
tradition* -- because that's the only way they've been permitted
to survive.>>And this isn't new -- Robert Winslow Gordon compiled his "Inferno"
collection in part because he recognized in bawdy songs a stream of oral
tradition almost entirely "uncorrupted" by print.I'll go along with Bob; aside from little enclaves like the worlds of rugby
and filk, plus kids' songs, there's not much out there in the way of oral
sung tradition. (I put in the word "sung" because there's a huge oral
tradition of jokes, dirty and otherwise, passed along orally or by
pseudo-oral transmission methods such as the internet. Some of it has some
pretty deep folkloric roots, too -- I remember a joke going around when I
was in grade school that was identical with "The Airishman Learning to
Talk", a story collected on the "Far in the Mountains" field recordings.)
But dirty songs still hang on.Peace,
Paul

Boe aqnd friends:Let me add a further convolution/convulsion:Religious songs, or at least those learned in churchor from hymnals, howewver traditional the tune or words might be are NO longer traditional in that the singers do not feel free to make them their own, that is, to sing them idiosyncratically.Ed----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[unmask]>
Date: Saturday, July 9, 2005 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: Bawdy Song Census> On 7/9/05, Lisa - S. H. wrote:
> 
> >At 05:01 PM 7/9/2005 -0400, Tradman wrote:
> >>Consideriing that most of the songs current in oral tradition in 
> this country are of religious or sentimental nature, I would 
> strongly disagree with that surmise.
> >>
> >>In a message dated 7/9/2005 2:28:17 PM Central Standard Time, 
> [unmask] writes:
> >>This estimate is somewhat higher than my own.  In assaying the 
> American corpus while writing the introduction to the second 
> edition of _The Erotuic Muse,_  I guessed at a figure of 10 percent 
> of  all traditional songs in the United States contained 
> bawdy/obscene/erotic material.   That figure would go higher, much 
> higher, if one considered only the songs still circulating in oral 
> tradition; I might even guess at a third to half of all traditional 
> songs now in oral currency.
> >>
> >
> >I have to agree with Tradman (Mark).  The vast majority of 
> currently sung traditional songs these days seem to me also to be 
> of sentimental or religious nature.  And many songs that used to 
> contain more violent or otherwise "objectionable" content have been 
> watered down.
> 
> I think we have a bigger problem here than we did with the definition
> of "bawdy." :-) My observation is the reverse: Religious songs are
> relatively rare *in tradition*. That is, they are sung commonly --
> but they aren't passed on orally. Most such songs are learned in 
> church,and while they may be sung outside church, they aren't 
> passed along
> from generation to generation.
> 
> What are traditional songs, these days? Bar songs, mostly, I think.
> Songs kids sing in camp. *Irreverent* songs, even more than bawdy.
> 
> Nobody says we have to like it. :-) I'd rather they were singing
> good solid ballads. Morally uplifting and all that. :-) But I do
> think that dirty songs have survived better than clean *in oral
> tradition* -- because that's the only way they've been permitted
> to survive.
> 
> -- 
> Bob Waltz
> [unmask]
> 
> "The one thing we learn from history --
>   is that no one ever learns from history."
> 

Folks:Late on a Saturday night:I am grateful for Jonathan's sober ( I am not at present) comments re: bawdy songs.I will attempt some coherent comments in the morning, thought I would bet good monay that I DO NOT have them or expect to have them.  In the morning.Ed----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Lighter <[unmask]>
Date: Saturday, July 9, 2005 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: Bawdy Song Census (long)> The methodological problems in defining "bawdry" will almost 
> certainly prevent us from ever establishing "scientifically" a 
> precise ratio of bawdiness in folksong.  But I think we already 
> know enough to make some fairly incontrovertible obervations no 
> matter what plausible meaning of "bawdry" we prefer. 
> 
> 
> 1.  The available collections of Randolph and Gordon alone prove 
> that in the period roughly between 1890 and 1950 there was an 
> important and persistent strain of American folksong dealing 
> primarily with illicit, physical sexual relations and, to a lesser 
> extent, with simple, often emetic, scatology.
> 
> 2. Other unexpurgated collections of older traditional material, 
> like that of Guy Logsden confirm the reality of bawdy singing in 
> the U.S. during the same period.  The brief comments of Lomax, N. 
> Howard Thorp, W. B. Whall, and Stan Hugill about the "unprintable" 
> nature of some of the songs they collected are completely 
> consistent with what's been found and published recently. 
> 
> 3. Cray's collection reveals a significant number of bawdy songs, 
> many of them lengthier and verbally more sophisticated than the 
> older material, that were current in college fraternities and among 
> junior military officers during and since World War II.
> 
> 4. Roger Abrahams and Bruce Jackson collected a large number of 
> extremely bawdy, ballad-like "toasts" current among underclass 
> African Americans in Philadelphia and in the Texas State 
> Penitentiary in the late 1950s and 1960s.  These collections prove 
> that the impulse to create metrical bawdry and pass it on crosses 
> racial barriers in America, even when specific songs and "toasts" 
> do not.
> 
> 5. The numerous collections of bawdy songs sung by American 
> aviators, most of whom come from middle-class backgrounds, during 
> and since World War II confirm the significant role played by bawdy 
> songs like those published by Cray. The military aviation material, 
> from the Air Force, Army Air Corps, Navy Aviation, and Marine Corps 
> Aviation, demonstrate that the impulse to "folk bawdry" also 
> crosses class lines in America.
> 
> 6. Extensive collections of often intensely bawdy songs sung in 
> Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and now America by rugby players 
> prove that the impulse to folk bawdry is an international 
> phenomenon in the English-speaking world.  There are also British 
> military collections showing a repertoire partially overlapping 
> with that of the U.S. armed forces, again during and since World 
> War II.  Comments by memoirists and a few fugitive publications 
> like _Immortalia_ (1927) show that bawdy songs were also well known 
> in the armies of the first World War.
> 
> 7. Burns's Scottish _Merry Muses_, assembled around 1790, along 
> with Buchan's "Secret Songs of Silence," collected about forty 
> years later, prove the existence of bawdy traditional and 
> semitraditional songs in Scotland during that period, reinforcing 
> the international nature and interclass nature of folk bawdry. 
> These collections, as well as bawdy English songsters of the 18th 
> Century and early 19th Century, prove that the existence of such 
> material at the "folk" level is not a new phenomenon resulting from 
> an assumed "decay of decency" in the past hundred years or so.
> 
> 8. All of the above-mentioned 20th C. collections tend strongly to 
> support the perhaps intuitive idea that bawdy singing, though 
> sometimes engaged in by women, has been far and away more prevalent 
> among men, especially men in predominantly male social groups.
> 
> 9. Randolph's and Cray's collections, especially, show that even 
> American children have their own bawdy rhymes and songs. Wendy 
> Lowenstein has shown the same is true of children in Australia.
> 
> 10. The popularity of sexually and scatologically graphic lyrics in 
> rap songs, a performance style descended directly from the above-
> mentioned "toasts," proves again that the popularity of metrical 
> bawdry crosses ethnic and class lines in the English-speaking world.
> 
> 11. The large number of bawdy folksongs, by any plausible 
> definition of "folksong," is quite comparable with the large number 
> of "dirty jokes" and "dirty limericks" assembled from mostly 20th 
> C. sources by Legman. 
> 
> 12. The many classic collections of American folksongs from British 
> sources offer few American versions of the far less bawdy, yet 
> formerly "unprintable," English songs collected by Sharp, Baring-
> Gould,and others.  Whether this inequity results mostly from 
> collecting or publishing practices (an important consideration) or 
> else a genuine dearth of such songs, is not clear.
> 
> 13. Despite everything written above, it remains true, as Mark and 
> Lisa have just said, that most American folksongs are of a 
> religious or sentimental nature.  (Country music, whose core 
> audience probably shares musical tastes similar to those of the 
> singers who contributed songs to the early American folksong 
> collectors, is well known for its preponderance of sentimental and 
> religiously-oriented songs.)  Americans have always liked songs 
> that fit pretty straightforwardly into stock emotional categories.
> 
> [14. This may be somewhat less "incontrovertible."  Songs collected 
> from military and prison groups in the past sixty-odd years tend to 
> be more elaborately and studiously offensive to "ordinary standards 
> of good taste" than most of the older bawdy material--though no 
> less so than the older bawdy limericks.]
> 
> We can draw the obvious and overarching conclusion that folk bawdry 
> has long played a significant role in American traditional singing, 
> and that the classic published collections, despite the occasional 
> comments by collectors, do not even suggest the number and content 
> of such songs. 
> 
> To bring this ramble back where it belongs, if even one American 
> folksong performance in a hundred was / is bawdy, that's a lot of 
> performances and a lot of songs, hardly any of which came to the 
> attention of scholars till Ed's 1969 _Erotic Muse_. John Mehlberg's 
> efforts, still in their early stages, will undoubtedly have more to 
> teach us. 
> 
> My apologies for having gone on so long.
> 
> JL
> 
> "Lisa - S. H." <[unmask]> wrote:
> At 05:01 PM 7/9/2005 -0400, Tradman wrote:
> >Consideriing that most of the songs current in oral tradition in 
> this 
> >country are of religious or sentimental nature, I would strongly 
> disagree 
> >with that surmise.
> >
> >In a message dated 7/9/2005 2:28:17 PM Central Standard Time, 
> >[unmask] writes:
> >This estimate is somewhat higher than my own. In assaying the 
> American 
> >corpus while writing the introduction to the second edition of 
> _The 
> >Erotuic Muse,_ I guessed at a figure of 10 percent of all 
> traditional 
> >songs in the United States contained bawdy/obscene/erotic 
> material. That 
> >figure would go higher, much higher, if one considered only the 
> songs 
> >still circulating in oral tradition; I might even guess at a third 
> to half 
> >of all traditional songs now in oral currency.
> >
> >
> 
> I have to agree with Tradman (Mark). The vast majority of currently 
> sung 
> traditional songs these days seem to me also to be of sentimental 
> or 
> religious nature. And many songs that used to contain more violent 
> or 
> otherwise "objectionable" content have been watered down.
> Lisa Johnson 
> 
> 
> 
>        	
> ---------------------------------
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  - No fees. Bid on great items.
> 

Mal and Others:What are the publishing options you mention re: the Hammond-Gardiner materiels?Ed----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Douglas <[unmask]>
Date: Saturday, July 9, 2005 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: The Boys of Kilkenny> My thanks to Steve and Lewis for the information on Croker's 
> argument 
> and footnote. Later commentary (Lucy Broadwood and Bruce Olson) 
> makes it 
> pretty clear that Kelly rather than Moore was responsible for this 
> one, 
> but I feel much more comfortable now that, so to speak, the exits 
> are 
> covered.
> 
> EFDSS are once again looking at options for re-issuing Frank 
> Purslow's 
> selections from the Hammond-Gardiner collection in some form, so in 
> case 
> anything comes of it I've begun to re-visit the notes for 
> 'Marrowbones', 
> which are quite brief. Frank mentioned Croker's ascription to 
> Moore, but 
> seems to have missed the footnote, and Broadwood and Sharp's comments.
> 
> Malcolm Douglas
> 

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:50:29 -0700, Jonathan Lighter wrote:>These notes on Stan Hugill's "camouflaged" shanties were made a year or two ago, mostly.  They should not be taken as definitive.Very good notes, Jonathan, thanks for posting.  I much look forward to part
II.I'm pleased to see the documentation and reasonable attempt at statistics.  I agree with your comments, rarely noted elsewhere, that there was a
considerable difference from ship to ship in the type of singing permitted.There is a common tendency to view all of chanteying as a single body of
material.  We well-know it changed much over time, shipping line, boat type
and captain.  I cannot document where I read (likely Doerflinger) that many
captains, New England in particular, did not allow singing at all.  They
would claim it was not only sacrilegious but _impeded_ the work.  Others, of
course, felt it greatly enhanced it.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to find
that those captains that felt they'd make more money with singing were quite
liberal about the amount and content.Of all the bawdy chanties, the most curious to me is "Leave Her, Johnny,
Leave Her."  It is often cited as the dirtiest of all.  It was used as the
final pumping-out chantey and sailors were permitted to sing any thing they
wanted about the officers.  Sung at any other time "it was tantamount to
mutiny."  (My greatest flaw - I was never able to bookmark my brain well
enough to verify/document the data there.)Yet I've never seen any bawdy verses for it at all.  One word, 'bitch,' is
all.Did the New England sailors sing "rough" verses around captain's dsaughters,
Colcord & Fox Smith.  Seems they did; Roughish, anyway.On losing these:
In her _A Book of Shanties_, 1927, page 8, Smith remarks: 	"The average Victorian looked upon shanties, as upon the old songs 
	of the countryside, as exceedingly vulgar, and often "unprintable" 
	songs sung by distinctly undesirable people, socially considered...
	the day ad not yet dawned when everything "folk" was regarded as 
	worthy of being reverently "collected" and preserved...	Hence, at the very time when shantying was at it's best -- roughly, 
	between 1830 and 1875 -- nobody ever thought of noting down either 
	words or music: and there must be scores of shanties which have 
	either been completely lost or survive only in a corrupt and 
	degenerate form.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
	          I am Abby Sale - in Orlando, Florida
	                Boycott South Carolina!
	     http://www.naacp.org/news/2001/2001-01-12.html