 sj |
||
|
||
Communal folk music or individual?
|
|
|
Subject: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 11 Feb 07 - 01:40 PM The more I study songs the more I see that they emanate usually from a single individual and that the versions of the songs that are supported supposedly by many different contributions don't seem to hold up. Usually it's one singer or performer who makes a definitive version of a song popular and lasting. In this way, what we call folk music is really a form of art song. Many of the "folk" songs are composed in the way that Schubert composed songs that are now "folk" in Germany. This brings into question how important the traditional base of the song may be. We find that in discussions about such people for example as Ewan McColl, he not only changed his name but his interpretation may be far different than his sources and he places his stamp on the material giving the audience an erroneous impression that it is somehow more "traditional". Each song comes from a particular individual who places his/her stamp such as Leadbelly did with "Goodnight Irene" or folk-style songs such as written by Woody Guthrie or Ewan. The performers who find themselves on the concert stage today singing folk songs are more like art singers than specific representatives of a homogenous folk culture. Not sure about this but it bears discussion. How "folk" is folk? Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Feb 07 - 02:34 PM WEll, the existence of numerous different versions of songs rather goes against this. The one that is most commonly found today will typically not be the earliest known version. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:04 PM I enjoy singing certain songs,I dont care whether they are folk or art songs. Possibly the only true folk songs, are those being sung on the football terraces,I am not sure I want to sing any of them.,at a paid gig[although Iwould join in if I was at a football or rugby match] I made a point in a recent thread,that I considered the most important thing about music [songs and tunes]was its performance,the desire to show respect for your material, by trying to do it justice and perform it as well as you can,Rather than be concerned about what category, it falls into. the songs and music performed at folk clubs and festival is probably art music,but then how many folk clubs would book me if I sang the Wheelbarrow song and other football folk songs,. I suggest we start calling folk clubs and festivals, fart clubs and fart festivals,because they are a mixture of folk and art music, yours boring old fart http://www.dickmiles.com |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:43 PM I agree with at least one point there. But why should football terrace songs be regarded as folk songs? They are invariably derivative in tune. And - define an art song. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:05 PM i would define an art song as one that is primed for performance; these are usually the memorable ones. There are many versions of folk songs but the one that is most memorable is the one associated with a particular singer. It's that variant that is significant. Besides not all variants of a particular song are equal. Some are more appealing. I think this is why certain songs continue and others are forgotten. not to labor the point, the performance often makes the song happen and this is what the listener remembers more than the actual song itself unless there is an academic interest in the song which sort of works against the emotional effect receiving the performance. When we hear a song, we are hearing an interpretation of that song which relies on the skill of the performer as much or if not more than the song itself. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:35 PM Dave Eyre, Fields of Athenry is a football song,its tune is not derivitave,neither is You,ll never walk alone,neither is the Red Red Robin keeps bob bobbing alone,or I am forever Blowing Bubbles. They are folk songs because they are aurally transmitted,and because they are sung by the people,The FOLK. Frank Hamilton has given a definition of an art song in his post. many folk/ tradional songs are derivative in tune, look at all the songs to the Tramps and Hawkers tune,Dives and Lazarus has a few different songs to its tune too,and there are many more traditional songs with derivative tunes. by asking your question, your implying that folk/traditional songs are not derivative. I think fart music is very apt. music that most teenagers, would describe as sung by boring old farts, and talked about by boring old farts,. probably both Dave Eyre,and I come into this category,in the eyes of young people. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Alec Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:55 PM I have noticed that with recorded music, the version of a song that people tend to like best is the version they were first familiar with. This has implications for Folk in a society where a recording is the normal way a song is disseminated. I believe that Folk music is an art form for everyone and I do not believe in The One True Way of doing anything. These beliefs are currrently unfashionable but I think they will return as the likes of "YouTube" result in more people actually making music. I accept that football chants are Folk but have to say that the most popular local one "Toon Army" does not really compare with anything Geordie Ridley wrote. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Bill D Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:58 PM It is true that certain songs get associated with one person...in certain groups and times.....and it is also true that some singers simply have more ability to interpret and 'present' a song than others - but all too often it is simply notoriety and/or fame that is involved. Over the years on Mudcat, I have seen posts asking for "Joe Blow's" version of some song...right down to the exact chords and mis-pronounced words! And I usually don't reply because I know 3-4 much better versions. Luckily, the group(s) I am around most of the time know many versions and do NOT expect to hear simply the most famous one. To expand on Frank's last point, it is sadly the case that some performers use a changed, re-written or mangled version of a song to showcase themselves...not the song. "Look how fast and cute *I* can do this...and with new verses, too!" well...maybe. But the way I really remember a performer is by how well the song does from his treatment...that is, I don't 'usually' want to even think about WHO is singing during the song....but you can be sure I will know next time who I'd like to hear do it! It's a subtle distinction, but most will get what I'm saying. An interesting example is "Darlin' Corey". I used to hear Bluegrass versions that were written to show how flashy the banjo player could be...but long ago I heard Burl Ives do this slow, poignant, minor key version, and ever since, that's the way I 'hear' the story....and that's the way I try to present it. I just read Dick Gaughan's memorial of Jeannie Robertson where he makes the point that she was a consummate 'interpreter' of the song, and thus gained fame because of this. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:59 PM Te truth is the opposite. It demonstrates that the folk song is a folk song and the contemporary acoustic music that is confused with it is not. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:00 PM "My composition has since been 'discovered' by many an aspiring folk-singer." --John Jacob Niles |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:42 PM I suspect there may be some differences here on the two side of the Atlantic. It is common in this country to hear, in singarounds and such, quite a number of variations in the text and even the tune of many songs, including ones written within living memory or by living writers, and including songs which have become popular through professional recordings. Sometimes that's a matter of oral transmission - people singing a song they heard someone sing, and misremembering something. Sometimes it's a matter of people searching out a pre-existing variant for its own sakem, when an older or traditional song is involved. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: mick p r.m s.c Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:58 PM I would think that "FOLK MUSIC" is quite a recent title for TRADITIONAL music. My idea of trad songs are songs sung with the basic of instruments i.e. concertina,fiddle and some sort of percussion instrument. Although I would think that 100 years or so ago musical instruments among the majority of the populas were few and far between,so maybe unaccompanied songs are the original folk songs. songs sung by the majority of people. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Alec Date: 12 Feb 07 - 03:13 AM I was thinking earlier abot the Labbi Siffre song "Something Inside (So Strong)" This was written about the experience of Black People under Apartheid.Now that Apartheid has,quite properly,been consigned to the dustbin of history,the song has (in the U.K. at least)been taken up by the Disability Movement as accurately reflecting their experience. This seems to have been done more or less spontaneously. This song is still in Copyright but its transference from one area of struggle against injustice to another seems to have been facilitated by ordinary people looking for a song which reflected their experience and finding one. No one would claim this song as Folk music & yet it seems to have become the subject of folk process. So how do we interpret that? |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 12 Feb 07 - 05:10 AM The football songs I hear, and as a lifelong Sheffield United supporter I have been going to football home and away for over 40 years, use tunes from somewhere else. Fields of Athenry was written by Pete St. John in the mid -70's. It is sung as a complete song (well, usually most only know the chorus and one verse if you are lucky) and other songs are not sung to that tune, likewise You'll Never Walk Alone a pop song, top ten hit and adopted by Liverpudlians and Celtic supporters. I have never heard any other chants sung to those tunes. At Beautiful Downtown Bramall Lane we don't sing either of them anyway. They are associated with other teams. We sing "Greasy Chip Butty" to the tune of John Denver's Annie's Song and whilst I don't remember it starting it was definitely well after he wrote it. Probably made up by one person and others sang it. You can call them folk songs if you want to and certainly Fields of Athenry is written in a traditional style, but being sung by the folk does not a definition make. Chants made up on the spot are often about something that happened during the game and these do not make sense elsewhere, (One Team in Tallin, there's only one team in Tallin being a fine example)no-one sang it this weekend when Sheffield United beat Spurs for example, and I doubt if it will ever be sung again: or about players and sometimes their wives - (She's here, she's there, she's every *****where, Paddy's wife, Paddy's wife) but from known tunes. Unless for some reason you believe a mass crowd of people can all come up with an identical new tune out of thin air, then you have to accept they are sung to existing tunes. That definition of an art song makes Owen Brannigan and Kathleen Ferrier folk singers. Their interpretations of folk songs were memorable. Never saw them booked for a club though. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 12 Feb 07 - 05:25 AM Frank, One of the things we had to get used to when we started working here in the West of Ireland thirty-odd years ago was that we were quite often recording songs which must have been composed within the lifetimes of the singers, but to which no authorship was attached. Typical of these were those concerning the struggle against British rule; in which case it would have made sense for the author to remain anonymous - certainly up to 1922, the time the British pulled out of Ireland. The one exception to this was a song called 'The Quilty Burning' concerning a local incident, where the singer was able to describe the composition of the song by four local men standing at a crossroads shortly after the event. Included in the anonymous repertoire were dozens of songs of exile which had passed into the local tradition; in these cases there was no reason whatever for the authors to remain anonymous. I believe it is unwise to attempt to attach one method of composition to traditional song. Songs were circulated by ballad sheets, by returning emigrants, by Travellers coming into an area, by itinerant labourers - a whole host of methods. What makes them traditional is their acceptance and adaptation by a community. The anonymity of songs is a common feature rather than a definitive factor. Football chants probably fall within the definition of traditional, but only when they have been altered and adapted; quite often songs are taken up and remain as composed (You'll Never Walk Alone). By-and-large they may be periferally 'folk songs' but to me they are crude and unsophisticated and lack the artistic qualities of what I have come to regard as 'traditional' songs, which is to be expected from anything taken up as a group by a large number of people. It seems to me that, where the composers are known, quite often the songs have the characteristics of individual composition; the oral tradition had a knack of smoothing out, de-self-consciousing and knocking the corners off (there are exceptions of course). mick p r.m s.c Sorry – there is no evidence of an accompanied tradition in these islands, certainly not within the last couple of centuries; this despite the fact that there was easy access to musical instruments, certainly here in Ireland. Time and again we have been told by singers that they regard the narrative of the songs to be the most important element of their singing. The case is, of course different in the US, where both accompanied and unaccompanied singing was the order of the day. Cap'n, With respect, although it may not be of importance to you, you are not a traditional singer so your attitude to your songs does not affect the definition one way or another. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Grab Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:12 AM Since when did we have a "homogenous folk culture"? I thought folk was all about individual experience? Everyone's version is their own correct version - although it might not be someone else's correct version. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Jack Campin Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:31 AM Could somebody post the words to "Greasy Chip Butty"? *Any* alternative words to "Annie's Song" would have to be an improvement. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:37 AM You fill up my senses Like a gallon of Magnet, Like a packet of Woodbines, Like a good pinch of snuff, Like a night out in Sheffield, Like a greasy chip butty Like Sheffield United, Come thrill me again, na na na na nar nar...........repeat ad infinitum. My pleasure Jack..... |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Scrump Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:40 AM I suggest we start calling folk clubs and festivals, fart clubs and fart festivals,because they are a mixture of folk and art music I somehow think that might be counter-productive if we are trying to attract people to these venues and events. Maybe the open-air festivals would be the most popular :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:00 PM Jim, thank you for your thoughtful post. In the US there are also many tunes that are unattributable or anonymous. There is a tradition to back them up. With this caveat, there is also a tradition of songwriting that comes out of jazz, pop and other composite forms of music that is not just for making money but is an art-form. Sometimes there are examples of anonymous songs which have a popular song base because at one time they were associated with musical shows such as Dan Emmett's "Old Dan Tucker" or Stephen Foster's "Angelina Baker" which became "Angeline the Baker". if what you say is true, what makes a song traditional is its acceptance by a community than it has to be argued that the American popular swing songs are a form of "tradition" as well. (Not to ignore Rock) Many of what makes for Folk Music came out of performances by songwriters attempting to pass the hat in one way or another. "You'll Never Walk Alone" I assume is the song featured by Rodgers and Hammerstein in "Carousel". It can be argued that their creation of the song reflects some kind of tradition as well and not just a desire to make a buck. It must be stated that in order for a song to acheive success on the Broadway stage, it will have to have been altered and rewritten and re-performed many times before it is "frozen". Then often it is accepted by the "community" of people who attend the show and incorporate it into their own experience and recreate it once again. I can assure you that there is nothing crude about "You'll Never Walk Alone" compared to much of the folk song doggerel that is passed off as traditional. Ireland is a different place than the US and the idea of fostering the music of the Nation has to have a self-conscious aspect to it but this doesn't in any way denegrate the important work of the CCE. Irish music is beautiful and I am an ardent fan although I'm sure there are academics who would take exception to my being enamored of the "Celtic Woman" and the "Clancys and Tommy Makem". In this way I see Irish music as I do American, that which takes root because individual performers bring it to life in their own way. Needless to say, Tommy Peoples is probably not accepted by the CCE, but he is a fine example of a great interpreter of Donegal fiddling. The problem with Traditional music is that it needs to be interpreted and received by a public that appreciates what the individual performer does with it. I would have to disagree with the notion that only the "oral tradition smoothes out individual composition because I believe that each song sung is changed by the person who sings it regardless of who wrote it and therefore a smoothing process has taken place. When you look for the anonymous songs, generally, there is a starting point by a composer. Maud Irving's "I'll Twine Midst the Ringlets" becomes "Wildwood Flower" by A.P. Carter's delightful tinkering and the smoothing process that makes the song the unofficial anthem of the rural South US is attributable to the Carter Family's re-interpretation. Is not Sean-Nos an unaccompanied tradition? i think in the case of any better songwriter, the narrative of the song becomes important. Narration however is not always tied in with the utility of every song. it might be that the idea of "tradition" is a slippery slope because it continually needs to be redefined. Even in an old variant of a song, poly-traditions seem to play a role. When we speak of Irish music, of which tradition do we refer? Certainly not some fog-laden mystic Celtic Druidism but the influences of European, Spanish, and American early pop music are inherent there. Even Middle-Eastern if we are to believe what some musicologists have said. i am thankful for a David Downes or a Bill Whelan who takes and reinterprets the music that they hear around them and if some want to call that "trad" that's OK by me. But I don't see much difference between that and what some academics call "trad" which contain various musical influences that constitute a style. I see "traditional" as a word bandied about by academics who want to rarify their musical tastes without exploring the nature of works that fall outside of their purview. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:16 PM Jim Carroll,neither are you[or anyone else on this thread,so far] a traditional singer,. since when are traditional singers, the only people entitled to give an opinion. traditonal singers are not necessarily the best performers of traditional songs,. in my opinion, Tony Rose,was a far better interpreter of tradional ballads than Gordon Hall |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM Folkiedave: Isn't the point about football chants that they are surviving remnants of the oral tradition in action? Of course they are all parodies of an eclectic range of song forms, but they take on a life of their own within the community of football supporters. Many fans will never have heard the original "Quartermaster's Stores", but they will have heard umpteen parodies based on the "He's here, he's there...." model. Likewise every team in the country now seems to have it's own version of "Who needs Mourinho?", sung to the tune of "La Donna E Mobile". It's difficult to make out any detail of the chants from TV coverage - the song variants are spread by rival groups of supporters in football grounds stealing each other's efforts and adapting them. They exhibit elements of "folk process" - whether or not you consider them "folk songs" - in just the way that the schoolyard rhymes catalogued by the Opies do. (I really like the "Chip Butty" song, by the way - do you lot over the Pennines still smoke Woodbines and drink Magnet?!). As far as Frank Hamilton's original point ("folk songs usually emanate from a single individual") is concerned, I can see how - for instance - the version of "Wild Rover" familiar to the wider populace owes its popularity to a single recording by the Dubliners of a particular version (the provenance of which has been argued over on Mudcat fairly recently). But I'm not sure how this applies to the tradition pre-1900 (ignoring for the moment the original provenance of broadside material), when there were no mass media to assist the ascendancy of a particular version. But maybe that wasn't what Frank was talking about. I can accept that today's professional performers of traditional song are "more like art singers" but these people nowadays tend to cover alternative versions of songs, in radically different styles, so I don't see how any one version is going to become definitive. The days are more or less gone when you could hear singers in folk clubs covering songs from MacColl's repertoire in MacColl's voice, and with his mannerisms - and also a long time since anyone believed that MacColl's style was the apogee of traditional authenticity. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 12 Feb 07 - 05:03 PM I am not sure Brian, you make an interesting case and I like to think I have a broad mind. Yes indeed they are mas singing but they are stolen and derivative and all those things and I just don't see it. Call it my instinct. I'll leave discussions of the Opies and Children's rhymes until I have had chance to look at their books (I have all of them!!) I need to check what I say!! We do drink Magnet - never been a great fan of it - but since I am barred from the three decent local pubs (what a phrase to work into the conversation) to get real ale I have to sup it locally if ~I want to watch football - another passion - at the same time. The Woodbines part is interesting. by the time that song was written early 1970's Woodbines were rarely smoked for filters had taken over. As it happens Sheffielders smoked Park Drive, because there was a local distribution centre so even when they were smoked they weren't - if you see what I mean!! So why Woodbines? I tried other cigarettes from the time and few seem to work as well in a poetic sense as Woodbines!! But the largest part of what we call "traditional songs" did come from broadsides - I don't see how you can ignore them as an important influence. I don't see any singers on the folk scene as what I understand as an art singer - but I do agree about different versions in alternative styles. I well remember Barry Dransfield doing the Wild Rover in a slow style and drawing gasps from the audience. Mind that was mostly from the women. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:19 PM Can you still buy Woodbines? I thought they'd gone the way of so many other things. Here's something that Google came up with when I asked it about Woodbines - it demonstrates that we aren't the only people arguing about football chants, including the very one Folkiedave gave us. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:22 AM I feel sure that students of "The Argument" would have a great time here. These clearly is a very thoughtful thread - nobody has mentioned horse music -sorry. I think 2 extremes can be defined in general: Art music is composed by a known musically lierate person Passed on in written or recorded form Relatively new Generally upper class Folk music often anonomous Passed on orally by often musically illiterate people Relatively old Generally rural or urban working class Many songs fit somewhere along the line in between. A community that keeps folk songs alive may be more or less aware that they are doing so and they may contribute to that process by accepting music from elsewhere and by creating new music of there own which may or may not be like the music that has been theirs for a long time. The communities of rural Irelend have kept a tradition alive and in a different way the communities of the second folk revival have helped to keep a tradition of music alive. Some of the music overlaps but the processes of survival, renewal and regeneration are often quite different. As to the original question, somebody once said their is no such thing as Society but she was wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Jim Lad Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:37 AM Was that this Jim Carol ? |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Jim Lad Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:38 AM |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:44 AM Nar - I have seen him - nothing like him!! You had better start defining musically illiterate. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Jim Lad Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:47 AM Well now. I've always (and I mean always) considered myself to be a Traditional Singer. Not a researcher nor a historian. That's for others. Their's is a much more tedious task which is entirely unsuited to me. But I can deliver and that's what pleases me. Isn't that how it works? |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Jim Lad Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:49 AM "You had better start defining musically illiterate." Huh? |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:50 AM Dave, Without wishing to get too academic over the "Chip Butty" song, the more I look at it, it seems both nostalgic and self-parodic (football fans are generally characterised as inarticulate, violent morons, but never underestimate their powerful and sometimes self-deprecating sense of humour). Maybe by harking back - however ironically - to some mythologised, cloth-capped era, the Sheffield fans are exhibiting a craving for those bygone days when the Blades could actually win anything. That era would coincide, I suspect, with the widespread use of snuff. As far as the origins of the chants goes, in my days on the Stretford End it was common to hear small groups of mates cooking up some new parody between them, then bawling it out as loud as they could in the hope that the whole 'end' would take it up. Sometimes it came off, sometimes it died the death. But that's where the innovation came from. How did you get banned from all those pubs, anyway? I'll think twice about arguing with you now...... Going back to Frank's points, I don't think many people would argue against the proposition that commercial popular song can both borrow from (or originate in) an existing tradition, and then in its turn become 'traditional' in popular culture. You can argue that country music, or rock'n'roll' or rap, are the contemporary manifestations of various long-running traditions and, equally, that anything sung during a karaoke session has itself become "traditional". To attempt definition is indeed to step onto a slippery slope, but a lot depends on where you are standing to begin with. An academic is going to look at it differently from a music-lover with a taste for the kind of songs (for instance) collected by Cecil Sharp. However convincingly a theoretician might argue me that "You'll Never Walk Alone", "Yellow Submarine" and "Searching For Lambs" are all 'traditional', there remain between them substantial differences in musical language, and it's not unreasonable to have a preference for one or the other. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:50 AM "the widespread use of snuff" That will start to kick in, I suspect, from July on, when the pubs will become smoke free. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Scrump Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:53 AM LOL! I'm looking forward to seeing all the sneezers in the pubs come July. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM I think there is undoubtedly something in what you say about nostalgia - though there is no-one alive nowadays who can remember the days when Sheffield United won anything. (Doesn't it get boring supporting Man United? Ronaldo dived for a penalty again and Neville contested every single decision that went against us without getting booked, so nothing new happened........) The major snuff making factory in G.B is Sharrow Mill in Sheffield. Naturally being innovative and up-to-date, the snuff grinding machinery is water-powered. So environmentally good. There are two factories in Sheffield (still) scions of the same Wilson family as far as I know. I also have been in a group of parodists who were intent on getting chants taken up - in our case especially chants for players - so long lived were most of them I cannot remember any. As for being barred - it is self-barring: racist landlord; idiot landlord; and dog-loving landlady, who seemed to believe the local dogs bought more beer than I did. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Scrump Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:39 AM Here's a song about snuff - I haven't done this one for years, but it may come into vogue this summer ('twas written by Acker Bilk/Adge Cutler's old bass player John Macey): If you take snuff it surely shows With waistcoat stained, and so's your nose But don't 'ee fret, it ain't so rough No-one's been known to die of snuff. Sniff, sniff, sniff up thy snuff There's a snuff mine in Yatton got tons of the stuff. Now Doctor Wills will cure all ills Without no potions or no pills He treats his patients like himself To an ounce of snuff on National Health. Sniff, sniff, sniff up thy snuff There's a snuff mine in Yatton got tons of the stuff. Bride and groom on honeymoon First time alone in double room The bride blushed to her golden locks When groom pulled out his old snuff box. Sniff, sniff, sniff up thy snuff There's a snuff mine in Yatton got tons of the stuff. When we get old and turning grey No longer boasting twice a day When time comes round to go to bed You'll take a pinch of snuff instead. Sniff, sniff, sniff up thy snuff There's a snuff mine in Yatton got tons of the stuff. Old Dan'l Kane who lived near Chew When he died were ninety-two He took snuff since he were seven So let us pray there's snuff in heaven. Sniff, sniff, sniff up thy snuff There's a snuff mine in Yatton got tons of the stuff. Sniff, sniff, sniff up thy snuff There's a snuff mine in Yatton got tons of the stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 13 Feb 07 - 08:34 AM Apologies for hopeless thread drift, but I can't let this go: "Doesn't it get boring supporting Man United? Ronaldo dived for a penalty again and Neville contested every single decision that went against us without getting booked, so nothing new happened......." I *could* say that at least Ferguson has sufficient dignity not to get involved in unseemly touchline brawls with the opponents' coaching staff, that the Reds' recent glory days have been based around a core of locally-born players - in telling contrast to most Premier league clubs - and that when it comes to diving and dissent they are but amateurs. But the truth is that these days I'm just an armchair Red, and my live football is enjoyed at Edgeley Park, where a vigorous push for promotion is now in full swing, you can turn up and pay on the gate, and somehow it feels more like proper football as I remember it from the Busby days. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:58 PM I was disgusted by the behaviour of neil warnock,when sheffield united played Reading. bringing the game into disrepute,he should be sacked,and never allowed near a football team[if thats what you call sheffield united] or football pitch again. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:24 PM Frank, We seem to be talking at cross purposes here. Some of us have given a great deal of thought to other forms of music, especially those of us who have been around long enough to remember the devastation wreaked on both Jazz and Folk by being taken up by the Music Industry. You will probably remember this included a massive dumbing down of both musics (and the dressing up of the performers in monkey suits!) We are still living with aftershocks of their involvement I often worry that one of these days they will latch on to Irish Traditional music in a similar fashion – I have little doubt that Comhaltas would be a willing participant in such an enterprise given its willingness to jump into bed with the Irish Musical Rights Organisation in its efforts to copyright traditional music; also the favourable mention Riverdance got in in Labhrás Ó Murchú report to the Oireachtas in 1999. On the one hand we have a body of songs which reflected, to one degree or another, the lives, aspirations, opinions, passions, experiences, of the people who made, sang and listened to them; while on the other, we have a number of musical forms, swing, jazz, rock, etc., which in no way represent our lives, which come as ready produced and as pre-packed as a Bernard Mathews turkey and over which we have no influence whatever, apart from the decision whether to purchase or not to purchase. We have become passive recipients rather than creators of and participants in our culture. It is not just acceptance, but a whole number of features which made the tradition 'traditional'; acceptance being just one of those features. Whoever made the traditional songs and however they were made, there is no doubt in my mind that they in some way reflected the lives of people who otherwise would have had no voice; they are not just a body of songs, but an important piece of social and cultural history. The tradition provided the 'ordinary' people with a voice, and when we lost that tradition, we lost that voice. It was the dream of people like MacColl, Lloyd, Lomax and others that the revival could give us that voice back, but somewhere along the way we appear to have dropped the ball. Our clubs dwindled almost to nothing, the audiences fell, the number of albums and books of traditional songs and singers declined, the representative body of the tradition staggered from crisis to crisis (and continues to do so), and what was once a promising folk scene all but died. One university in the UK, when deciding whether or not to continue to fund the department that dealt with the tradition, described them as 'tree huggers', and we all know what politicians feel about supporting us. I really don't mean to be gloomy but I do believe that by recognising where we are, we might do something to change things. Yes, Sean Nós singing is an example of an unaccompanied tradition; I said that I didn't believe there to be evidence of an accompanied tradition. I referred to 'You'll Never Walk Alone' not as being 'crude', which it is not, but as an example of a song which has been taken up by the football terraces unaltered (in this case Liverpool FC supporters), though how much it reflects the lives of those attending a performance of Carousel is, to my mind debatable. Cap'n, I know I'm not a traditional singer, I presumed you thought you were, otherwise your comments on what you like to perform have no relevance to the subject in hand; nor does the fact that you prefer Tony Rose to Gordon Hall. Personally, I find comparisons between traditional and revival performers a little offensive; traditional singers should never be subject to the same scrutiny as those coming from outside the tradition. For my taste I find Tony Rose's' singing somewhat tediously contrived, but that's only my personal opinion, which also has nothing to do with this thread. Jim Carroll PS Sorry Jim Lad, wrong Jim Carroll PPS Sorry again, you may well be a singer of traditional songs but I very much doubt if you are a traditional singer either. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:25 PM why are comparisons between traditional and revival singers offensive, Fred Jordan was both.Bob Roberts was a traditional singer, and a singer songwriter,there are lots of grey areas here. I am a traditional musician[having learned traditional tunes from a traditional fiddler who learned his tunes aurally,and taught me them aurally],yet other tunes I have learned from revival performers.Many of my songs have been learned aurally from traditional singers, via records,.that doesnt mean I can,t sing them well,or possibly even better than the original performer. I dont care a fiddlers fart whether I am a traditional singer or a singer of traditional songs,I would rather listen to LOU KIlLEN AND TONY ROSE than a mediocre traditional singer,who cant hold a tune or can,t interpret a song.[that doesnt mean I dont appreciate PhilTanner ,or Harry cox. performance of the song is of prime importance. Tony Roses,s superb singing will be remembered by many long after youll be kicking up daisies. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:30 PM Gracious of you to admit to being an armchair fan of Man U Brian and even better to know you go and watch Stockport, it is not easy to support lower league clubs. I speak from vast experience :-) I have supported the local team wherever I have lived or stayed temporarily - whilst retaining a lifelong love of Sheffield United, who I go and watch at every opportunity, aided by concession tickets due to old age. Much better than some people who express opinions without really knowing anything about football at all. Even when they may have seen it themselves on TV they still refuse to accept the facts. As an excellent example of that sort of thing, Dick Miles happens to have mentioned the brawl between the coaching staff of Reading in the person of Wally Downes and the management of Sheffield United in the person of Neil Warnock. However the facts show that Wally Downes encroached the technical area of Sheffield United in a threatening manner, that despite provocation Neil Warnock did not retaliate, and Reading were charged by the F.A. with failing to control their coaching staff. Sheffield United were not charged with anything. These charges were based on what actually happened at the game rather than Dick Miles opinion of what happened. It is believed that the F.A prefer to rely on video evidence to decide these things rather than take Dick Miles' opinion. Sorry for the thread drift. I try and refrain from answering Dick when he makes daft statements. I usually fail and this is an example. Back to the Opies. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:49 AM Yes Cap'n - we know all that Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 14 Feb 07 - 08:16 AM I watched this particular game on television[so probably had abetter view than you Dave],saw the incidents repeated several times.Neil Warnock tried to provoke a Reading player,Came to the touchline,made gestures and shouted etc,after a SHEFFIELD UNITED player[who had only been on the field a minute]assaulted a Reading player. as a neutral hoping to watch a game of football,rather than a brawl,I consider Gillespie [sheffield] and Warnock to have been at fault,Downes was clearly provoked,and should not have retaliated.,but Gillespie should not have hit a reading player first,and warnock should have sat quietly as the Reading manager did.,Sorry about the thread drift,but this sort of boorish behaviour[Gillespie and Warnock] is what turns millions of people off football,and brings the game into disrepute. Jim, I am a Traditional musician and a revival singer ,and also a singer, songwriter. I appreciate good traditional singers and good revival singers,but I make my judgements on their performances not their labels. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:01 PM Cap'n Once upon a time, long before we'd ever heard about Letterfrack and the industrial schools, or the Magdalene Laundries, or all the extra-curricular activities the clergy got up to in their spare time, the priests held sway in this land and everybody did what they said without question. In a small village in North Kerry there was a Protestant man who fell in love with a Catholic girl; but in those days the only way that a Protestant could marry a Catholic was if the Protestant changed his religion and promised to abide by the laws of the church - so that's what he agreed to do. One Friday, a couple of weeks after the wedding, the priest was passing the couples' house and the first thing he was greeted with was the delicious smell of bacon. He got off his bike and went into the house and he found the man sitting down at the table with a meal of bacon and cabbage in front of him. 'Paddy' said the priest, 'don't you know us Catholics don't eat meat on Friday?' 'I do father' he said, 'but it's awful hard to do without a good feed of meat, even for a day'. The priest replied, 'any Friday you should feel the urge for meat coming on you, you should say to yourself, '' I'm a Catholic, I'm a Catholic, I'm a Catholic'; that should do the trick'. So a couple of Fridays later the priest decided to check that all was going well with the couple, so he jumped on his bike and he rode over to the house. The first thing he noticed was the delicious smell of meat. Furious, he jumped off his bike, strode up the path and went in to the house. Inside he was greeted by the sight of Paddy sitting down at the table with a delicious steak in front of him, chanting, 'You're a fish, you're a fish, you're a fish'. Despite your claims to the contrary, it would appear that it is extremely important that you be recognised as a traditional singer; in which case it should be a fairly simple matter to resolve the matter. Why not give us your definition of the tradition, accompanied by a couple of relevant quotes from the many hundreds of studies of the subject (just to prove you're not making it up as you go along), thereby proving beyond all doubt that you do indeed belong to that noble band of brothers and sisters. You said some time ago that we have never been able to agree on what it meant by 'tradition'. I suggest that most of us are perfectly aware of the meaning; the only people to be confused by the term are those tiny handfull of bollixes, who can't, (or can't be bothered) to look it up in the relevant literature Jim Carroll PS If you don't know why it is unethical to criticise traditional singers in the same was you would revival singers, perhaps you could go and write for an internet magazine, though you will have to become a member of the big league!! |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:39 PM There are some people who think of literature in this kind of way - there is a fixed list of authentic literary figures, and that's it; or maybe there's a procedure for adding the occasional newer one. The truth is, whether in literature or song or music, there isn't just "the tradition". There are any number of traditions, and some are ancient and some are relatively new, and some are still being born at any time. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:40 PM no Jim, what is important is to try to sing the songs as best as you can, I wish to be recognised as someone who sings traditional songs well,that is not necessarily the same as being a traditional singer,. I can think of a number of bad traditional singers,there are of course good and bad singers in every musical category,I can also think of a number of good traditional singers. The difference between you and I, Jim is that I am using my critical facilities when judging traditional singers,and judging them on their musical interpretation of songs,their intonation,etc,as I would also judge a singer of traditional songs,. I am sorry, but I think your talking hogwash,if you think traditional singers are some revered species,that shouldnt be judged on the performance of their songs,why should their music be judged differently, because they learned the music aurally from a relative. I bet you have personal favourites amongst your collection of traditional singers,how do you make those judgements. I am not prepared like you, to say that all traditional singers are good,although I like a lot of them. I get the impression JIM,that apart from Ewan you probably dont like any revival singers,and that you have some idiosyncratic idea that because someone is labelled Traditional singer,they should be judged not on their musical performance,but treated in some special way,and that in some way you consider to be a traditional singer is better than to be a revival singer[regardless of quality] please enlighten me. and please less fishy stories and red herrings. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Stephen L. Rich Date: 14 Feb 07 - 07:42 PM "Communal folk music or individual? " Yes! |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Rowan Date: 14 Feb 07 - 11:14 PM I'm fascinated by how so many thread titles can converge on the same topic, with the same characters saying much the same things in all of them. Normally I keep out of debates about "folk/trad/etc" attributes because I rarely hear/see anything that I didn't hear/see on the subject 30 years ago. But this thread title invites discussion of 'subjectivity' as a criterion, in a way that most of the others seem to avoid. As an individual I have an individual experience of whatever's going on around me, whether I'm solo or part of a well integrated and communal setting. That seems to imply, or at least I can infer, that any music can be both 'individual' and/or 'communal' at the same time. Whatever filters/categorisations I may attempt to apply to that experience end up as subjective, however objectively I may try to apply them. There was a time when I was bolshie enough to take on the people (eg commercial radio station librarians) who wished to apply their categories willy nilly over the the music I valued by asserting that lots of examples of traditional music were every bit as classical as anything in the art music canon, and that some performers of their own writing were applying exactly the same attributes as were performers of 'classical' music. They couldn't/wouldn't see it; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it sing. Sigh! Cap'n, while I respect much of what you say and stand for, on one of your statements I'll contradict you flatly. If I understand you correctly, in many of the contexts in which I sing/play/recite/dance/etc I fit all the attributes you'd give to a performer of traditional material but I suspect you'd go on to say that I'm not a traditional singer/player/etc. performer. Within the context of bushwalking/camping/climbing and possibly even army songs, I'd suggest you couldn't mount any argument, let alone a successful one, that I shouldn't consider myself a traditional singer. You mightn't like the material (and I find some of plainly offensive these days) but the context met all the criteria I think you'd apply for categorisation as "traditional". I'd be interested to see your assertion(s). Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 07 - 04:13 AM Cap'n, I certainly have my favourites among traditional singers, and I don't believe them all to be superb singers. My point is that traditional singers are not part of our revival, and therefore should NEVER be subject to the criticism we would level at REVIVAL singers like yourself - nor should they ever be compared to revival singers - THAT IS UNGRACIOUS AND OFFENSIVE. Their agenda was never ours and should never be judged by our expectation The hardest part of recording traditional singers has always been in persuading them that, by getting them to sing into a microphone they are not going to humiliate themselves. Very few of the people we recorded regarded themselves as singers, but they were prepared, with enormous generosity, to pass on the songs that they had learned from family members, neighbours, visitors to the areas, songs that, without their generosity, would have been to lost to us. I'm appalled that someone should reward that generosity by comparing them with TONY ROSE!!!!! As much as I have disagreed with you in the past I had put you a little higher up the food chain than that. One of the most moving set of recordings I have ever heard was a group of songs that were recorded by a friend of mine some thirty years ago from a local farmer. They were wonderful songs, including a superb version of 'The Robber'; (Child 283). Unfortunately the singer croaked his way through the songs through a terminal dose of throat cancer. Are you going to compare his singing with that of a revival singer in full health? At 80 Sam Larner could bring more interpretation and involvement to a song than any revival singer (a fraction of his age) I have ever heard. This despite the fact that he tore his insides to shreds during a lifetime of hauling soaking nets of herring over the side of his boat. How are you going to judge his singing? Mary Delaney, one of the most stylish Traveller singers we recorded, is a chronic asthmatic who now lives her life on a site in Cork City via an oxygen cylinder - which one of our folk superstars are you going to compare her to? You wrote some time ago that without singers like yourself we wouldn't have any any songs - you couldn't be more wrong. Most of what has been collected from traditional singers has been, or will be archived; some has been published and a little of it has been put out on disc. Those recordings are housed in libraries and archive and are there for posterity. If I have gained anything as a field worker over the last thirty years, it's the pleasure of knowing that people will be listening to Mary Delaney and Bill Cassidy and Mikeen McCarthy and Tom Lenihan and Walter Pardon long after you and I have become worm stew. Yes, there are revival singers other than MacColl who I enjoy listening to; people like Len Graham and his wife Padrigín, Kevin Mitchell, Bob Blair, Gordeanna McCulloch, Con Fada and others; not as many as there used to be, but there are still a few good revival singers around. One of the common factors in all the revival singers I have spoken to and whose singing I enjoy. is their outright respect and gratitude for the sources of their material, the traditional singers, in my experience it's only the gluggers who fail to recognise and acknowledge the debt to our benefactors. Martin Carthy, whose singing I can take or leave, is formost in acknowledging that debt to the older singers. It really is time that you got your head around the fact that without the generosity of these people, a generosity stretching back centuries, none of us, yourself included would have got the pleasure that (I certainly) have throughout the larger part of our lives. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 07 - 06:20 AM Well said Jim. In their early days the Watersons would ask for local traditional singers to be included if they were to do a festival. Martin was brought into folk music by seeing and hearing Sam Larner. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 15 Feb 07 - 06:38 AM no Rowan, its Jim carroll,that says that,. I would listen to your singing,hopefully enjoy it,and wouldnt worry a fiddlers fart whether you were a traditional singer or a singer of traditional songs,,what is important to me is whether you perform your songs well. Jim, I too have respect and gratitude for my sources,but when I decide I like someones singing,I make my judgement PRIMARILY on their performance, of course I make allowance for age,but I do that with revival singers too,some of whom are in their sixties and seventies [and still sing well]but differently from when they were twenty. I wrote without singers there would be no songs[ I didnt mention myself, please stop quoting me incorrectly]. Surely that statement makes it clear that I appreciate their generosity,Instead of accusing me of writing half digested gibberish,stop misquoting me, and read what I say more carefully. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 15 Feb 07 - 07:02 AM Martin was brought into folk music by seeing and hearing Sam larner,was he indeed, I read an interview where Martin states he was trying to learn Freight Train,from Pete Stanleys sister and she wouldnt show him the chords. Martin is born in 1946[i think],I reckon he would have heard skiffle[1955/56]hewas certainly trying to play freight train [libby cotten ]american folk music, sam larner was discovered in 1958,I think what Martin meant was he was brought into english traditional music by Sam larner[not what you said]Folk music encompasses much more than english trad muSic |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:55 AM Martin was born may 1940,he was 18 when Larner was discovered,larner was again recorded in1959.and in 1960 Ewan and Peggy produced singing the fishing[these are facts not gibberish]. highly unlikely that he was not originally influenced by skiffle,he has publicly stated that he was trying to learn freight train,,Iam sure this is pre Larners discovery .Martin sounds nothing like Sam Larner,he has also said in the past that he listened to wax cylinders of Joseph Taylor,there is in my opinion more influence of Taylor in his singing than Larner,. in the late fifties early sixties,I first heard an lp called folk song today,songs collected by PETER KENNEDY,I still listen to it today, it has many traditional singers,Bob Roberts[also a song writer]Jeannie Robertson,Harry Cox,Shirley collins[it says who learnt most of her songs at home in Sussex]so not100 per cent traditional singer,FredLawson[who has himself made new songs on old tunes[[singer songwriter]]Frank mcpeake. a mixture of traditional singers and others,I absorbed this music and revival performers like Lloyd and Maccoll, and appreciated the music of all whether they were revivalist, songwriter or traditional singers. http://www.dickmiles.com |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Rowan Date: 15 Feb 07 - 04:20 PM Ah, Cap'n, I owe you an apology. When you wrote "neither are you[or anyone else on this thread,so far] a traditional singer,." (12 Feb) I had not yet appeared on this thread. And, while your points are usually interesting (if sometimes typed a little fast) I've not yet read anything by Jim Carroll that I would take serious issue with either. It's 30 years since I was anywhere around UK or Eire so it's likely I've met neither of you. One day, perhaps. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 07 - 04:27 PM Cap'n, Why is it whenever you place your feet squarely in your mouth you then try to change the subject by introducing irrelevencies into the the argument, therby digging yourself deeper into the mire. You insisted on comparing the singing of a traditional singer with that of a revival singer - I said, and believe that is ungracious in disrespective towards the people who provided us with our raw material to make such comparisons. Your attitude towards traditional singers is that which I have come to expect from self-serving review writers. I also said that, apparently unlike you, Martin Carthy shows respect towards these people - I don't profess to know, and don't care who introduced him to traditional music. Jim Carroll PS Stephen L. Rich - absolutely - both. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:28 AM Frank, I said earlier that I believe it unwise to try and pin down one rule for how traditional songs were made. It seems a peculiarly American pastime to try and find authors for traditional songs. B H Bronson wrote a long (and to me, a totally unconvincing) essay on the authorship of the ballad Edward, and other US scholars have similarly tried to pin down specific authors, particularly for the ballads. I think it fairly safe to say that, as far as we can judge, we do not have convincing evidence for the authorship of one single ballad out of the 305. On a couple of occasions we have come across songs with known authors which have passed into the tradition. Two local examples here in West Clare, 'Farewell To Miltown Malbay' and 'Nora Daly' (aka 'Miltown Malbay Fair') appeared in a published collection of poems by a local poet, Thomas Hayes in the early 20th century and were to be found in the repertoires of several singers in several versions up to thirty years ago. On the other hand, I wrote earlier of the composing of 'The Quilty Burning' by 4 men, following the attempted burning down of the police barracks during the War of Independence in the 1920s. The Travellers were still making songs up about members of their community right up to the 1960s. One of the longest we came across from several singers was about an arranged marriage (a common practice here in Ireland up to the middle of the 20th century both in the Travelling and the settled communities). One of the singers of this described how, on the day of the wedding, he and half-dozen other men sat on a bank at the side of the road outside the church throwing in suggestions for lines and verses.The song has around six verses and its text seems to have remained fairly consistent. We were asked by most of the singers who gave it to us not to make it public because the couple were still living; though it was included on the John Reilly LP as ''William Delaney' - not the correct name of the people concerned. I think it probably best not to define traditional songs by who composed them, but by what happened to them once they had begun to be sung around - ie put through the traditional mincer. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:11 AM Jim.I believe what I said was that both traditional and revival singers should be judged On their performances not on the basis of their category,I said I would prefer to listen to Tony Rose than Gordon Hall,am I not entitled to have personal preferences. Logically my argument is no different,from saying that I prefer Nic Jones version of Farewell to the gold to Paul Metsers[singer songwriter, who wrote the song], Metsers version is good Jones,s,was excellent. I am not showing disrespect to Metsers, without him we would not have had the song,I am saying that one persons performance is in my opinion better than the other. songs like Farewell to the gold[may be the traditional songs of the future,FiddlersGreen[JohnConnolly]has already been mistaken for traditional,Farewell to the Gold has been mistaken for traditional by Bob Dylan. I have great respect for good traditional singers like Jeannie Robertson,I also have great respect for Isobel sutherland[Revival],I prefer Jeannie Robertson,not because of her category,but because of her performances. And dont say im not comparing like with like,they are both unaccompanied scottish singers of traditional songs,one is a traditional singer because of the process of learning the song the other is a revival singer of traditional songs,both sing their songs well,but my preference is for Robertson, because of her superior interpretation,not because of category. I would prefer it if you could be polite. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:44 AM jim carroll, the travellers are not the only people making up songs,about their communities,I was given a song written about Dan O mahony[All Ireland champion wrestler] that was written within the last ten /15 years,I learned the song by the aural process,the author is unknown,. does that make me a traditional singer,or a revival singer singing an unknown singer songwriters efforts, Donnelly and Cooper is classified as a folksong[by peter kennedy]but was obviously written by somebody. how do you classify William Delaney,It could be classified as a contemporary song composed in a traditional style,rather than a traditional song. Lennon and Macartney composed some songs together,whats the difference between a song composed by two or by six people,.[it is still a communal effort. it could be argued that William Delaney is no more or less of a a traditional song/traditional style song contemporary song or folk song ,than Penny Lane lennon/macartney . |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Feb 07 - 02:07 PM So is it disrespectful towards a "revival singer" to compare them to a traditional singer? Is it disrespectful to compare two traditional singers to each other? Comparing one thing with another is a crucial part of understanding and appreciating them. The only way we can actually avoid comparing two singers is to avoid listening to them Obviously it is possible to be cloth eared and insensitive in comparing singers, and to fail to appreciate aspects of what they are doing, or give undue importance to other aspects. But that's another matter entirely. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:05 PM Cap'n All songs were written by somebody but all songs didn't go through the process of being selected and adapted by the folk (don't ask - we've already been there). Don't get your point I'm afraid. MOH Most of the traditional singers I have met have been willing to give us their songs, but, with very few exceptions, that is as far as it went. They never considered themselves singers. In the UK it has been very rare to find singers under the age of say late sixties - have a look at the ages of those the BBC recorded sometime. Even when these recordings were made there was no platform for their singing so quite often you were getting songs from them which had not been sung for decades. It is grossly unfair to compare elderly singers who haven't sung for this length of time to those decades their junior who sing regularly. What they bring to the songs is not technical singing skills, but a lifetimes experience and involvement which, for me, bring the songs to life. Up to fairly recently it has been an accepted convention that you didn't criticise traditional singers - that's not what they signed up for, they gave us their songs, and that's enough for me. If you would like an example of gross insensitivity, a couple of years ago one prat of a reviewer asked of an elderly singer from North Clare 'why does he sound like a woman'. The singer in question was dead, and even during his lifetime, the chance of his seeing the review was slight, but that was not the case with his family. Quite honestly, if I thought for one minute that everybody was going to behave as insensively as the Cap'n our recordings would have stayed on the shelf out of harms way. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM PS What do youi want folks, 'Thanks for the songs - by the way, your singing was crap'. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:30 PM So just because someone is in their sixties the assumption is that the come off worse in a comparison with people younger by a few decades? I just don't think that's true, either of traditional singers or revival singers (who are often enough in their sixties by now). There are, on occasion, stupid and insensitive people from time to time among stupid and insensitive critics who can't recognise skilled singers when they hear them, and don't have the manners to make allowances for people whose voices are falling, or whose skills lie primarily in their memory of old songs than in their ability to sing them. But the kind of hands-off edict that Jim Carroll seems to be suggesting threatens to undervalue the amazing abilities of so many of the older singers whose voices we are now fortunate enough to be able to hear for ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:49 PM jim carroll ,the purpose of collecting is to save valuable songs,and extend and further their circulation[Ithink that was Sharps view anyway].,some of these songs will be sung by revival singers,. I find your attitude rather precious[only people who agree 100 per cent with Jim Carroll will be allowed to sing the songs ,certainly not the insensitive captain]who do you think you are,to start designating who can or can not sing the material you collected.,You may have played an important part in collecting it,but the songs belong to the people ,of whom I am one, THE SINGERS were happy to give you the songs,expecting them to be passed onto lovers of traditional music like myself, without any conditions. I never said thanks for the songs but the singers are crap,I have mentioned several traditional singers who I think are excellent,Cox Robertson ,Tanner,Jordan,Here are some more Elizabeth Cronin,Sarah Makem,Bob Hart,Bob AND Ron Copper,But there are a few whom I find uninspiring[ Gordon Hall,s version of Lord Randall I find tedious]but these are a small minority. you are also insulting me as a performer,by suggesting your recordings should be kept away from people like me,.,but then you misquote me,accuse me of talking half digested gibberish,so i;m hardly surprised. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:24 PM I find your attitude rather precious[only people who agree 100 per cent with Jim Carroll will be allowed to sing the songs I've not seen where he said that Dick. Can you show me where? Dave Eyre |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Sue Allan Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:35 PM This thread seems to becoming something of a tit for tat argument between two parties. Can I throw in some observations which seem, to me, to indicate that the situation is far less polarised than the two protagonists here seem to be making out. My experience and knowledge is of music and song in Cumbria, and I would like to point out that many of the 'traditional' singers I have heard eg at hunt and shepherds' meets, or on the 'Pass the Jug Round' album (archive recordings from the 1950s, recorded in north Cumbria)which I was instrumental in getting out as a commercial recording, are in no way unselfconscious, but are generally those who are noted for singing: it is what they do. They regard themselves as performers. Therefore to an extent should be judged on performances. Agreed many were old when recorded, or when I heard them perform, and one does make allowances for this. There are also hunting song competitions, and ballad competitions at eg Newcastleton Traditional Music Festival which 'traditional' and revival performers take part in. Where do these fit in? What about Robert Burns' re-workings of traditional songs - or indeed his own ballads, which are theoretically art songs but then 'went back' into the tradition? Robert Anderson 'the Cumberland Bard' wrote many dialect songs in the early 1800s which were so popular locally that they also 'went into' the tradition to the extent that they were ater 'collected' by Vaughan Williams, Lucy Broadwood, Frank Kidson and Annie Gilchrist. And some of my recent researches into Cumbrian, and some Scottish, broadside ballads seems to indicate that many originally came to prominence as 'art songs' from the ballad operas popular in the 18th century (step forward Allan Ramsay, who was responsible for quite a few!) ... although who can say whether the Allan Ramsays of that world didn't pick up a song or two in the pub and re-work them for the stage? Alternatively they might have been ballad opera pieces performed on stage originally, but after being printed on to broadsides were sung much more widely - and also ended up being notated or recorded by the late 19th and early 20th century collectors, from 'traditional' singers in the depths of the English or Scottish countryside, or from travellers. Fiddlers too took tunes from popular stage 'operas' and made them their own, as some of the surviving fiddle manuscript tune books show. My point is (and sorry to be so long-winded about it) that there is a huge crossover between so-called art music and so-called traditional music and we should be just grateful for the richly layered wonderful mix that it is. Sue Allan (in, and from, Cumbria) |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:53 AM I had the privilege of learning many tunes from a friend of mine, traditional fiddler Jamesie Kingston[who had no problem about Learning tunes from the wireless]as well as learning them aurally from other fiddlers,. Both he and John AND Julia Clifford,encouraged me to keep playing traditional music,and were most generous with their tunes. James Kingston was a good player but he was not in the same league as Julia Clifford,Neither was he as good a player as Seamus Creagh[traditional and revival]. I have fond memories of James Kingston,but I do not consider it disrespectful,to make judgements of quality.,with other musicians ,. there are always going to be in all forms of music,subjective judgements. all three of the fiddle players I mentioned were good,Some in my opinion better than others. jim carroll said,if I thought for one minute that everybody was going to behave as insenstively as the captain,I would have kept the recordings on the shelf out of harms way. Most people would interpret that as an insult,the reason Carroll would not let me have recordings, is because I disagree with him. however I respect the opinions of traditional musicians,like Kingston and the Cliffords[who were happy to pass on their material to me and many others]more highly than Carroll. James Kingston would have had no problem playing [art music ,The Minstrel boy or SKIFFLE music Putting Onthe style[lonnie donegan]or The Stack of Wheat[junior crehan composition]or the Blackbird traditional. Musicians play music, academics talk about it,try to pigeon hole it,and now in Carrolls case, threaten to not let people have access,to collected material,because he believes thay are behaving insensitively. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:25 AM Musicians play music, academics talk about it,try to pigeon hole it So what about academics who play music or musicians who are also academics? Where do they fit into these stereotypes? Where would you for example put Vic Gammon, academic, Course Director in a university - just finishing a book about beer and folk song, lecturer, concertina player, session player and a good song writer. Or his predecessor, Alistair Anderson - who was a musician - where would you put him? When I meet with academics (to sell them books I hasten to add!) it invariably ends in a session. They are musicians too and love playing and singing. People who stereotyped music in the past include Child and Sharp. Were you not singing their praises recently? Or did you not consider Child - someone who only rarely heard people sing, if at all - an academic? |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:59 AM Frank Hamilton asked how folk is folk.,I echo Sue Allans sentiments. FOLKIE DAVE,I was hoping you might be off to watch Sheffield United,play their version of football,or is it barefist boxing. some academics are musicians and singers, many are not.Jim Carroll by his own admission no longer sings and plays,. Alistair and Vic,are fine singers /musician Jim Carroll and I had better agree to disagree,and let other people who want to stick to the thread do so. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:22 AM Folk music has no place on the concert staGoing back to the original question, in order to get a clear view of folk music you have to break out of the various subcultures and look at everything together. People used to make music for the hell of it. The folk revival came along and people started doing the homemade music thing to make money - and as a result it stopped being homemade music. How folk is folk? I don't know, but it strikes me funny that Pete Seeger made a big deal about Woody Guthrie's lackadaisical take on copyright, but never really made anything freely available himself. Pete was a pop star. Woody was a folk musician. Twenty years ago I wrote Pete a letter asking him why everything in Sing Out! was so focused on stage performers hocking original songs. Usually bad original songs. He wrote me back (even did the little banjo scribble in his signature) asking me to send the letter to Sing Out! I thought it was cool to hear back from Pete, but I thought is sucked that he didn't tell me what he thought. After thingking about it for a while I just stopped reading Sing Out!, stopped listening to Pete, gave the folk community (and every other musical subculture) the finger and all these years later I make sure that everything I have to sell is also freely available. At some point the letter writing, debates and patronizing bullshit has to stop and be replaced by action. Folk music isn't about what you play, how yoiu learned to play or who you play for. Folk music is defined by your life. It's who you are. It's a reflection of where you come from. If you fit in anywhere, under any classification, you're probably faking it. -Patrick http://howandtao.com |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:25 AM Cap'n Only second name terms now - does this mean the wedding's off????? As Folkiedave asked, where did I ever refuse you - or anybody - access to our recordings. Not only have we released several albums of our field recordings but an almost complete set of our work has been housed in the National Sound Archive at the British Library and at the Irish Traditional Music Archive in Dublin for nearly twenty years WITH FULL PUBLIC ACCESS. Songs we have recorded have been taken up and performed by revival singers and included on their albums, often not very well, but we have no say in that, nor should we. We have taken a number of the singers we have recorded to folk-clubs so that others may get the same pleasure from hearing them sing as we have. The only thing we have asked is that they are shown some respect and that it be recognised that they are neither professional nor even practiced singers and that not only are they not used to appearing before large audiences, but in many cases they have never had an audience other than their immediate family for their singing. Given this, it seems to me grossly unfair to compare them to a revival singer who sings regularly and who is accustomed to appearing in front of an audience. McGrath of Harlow is quite right when he talks about 'the amazing abilities of so many of the older singers whose voices we are now fortunate enough to be able to hear for ourselves'. More often than not I find myself preferring the committment, understanding and involvement of older singers, to that of revival singers with all their parts in full working order, but whose interpretation of and involvement with their songs is at ground level. Sue (from and in Cumbria) we really don't need to make allowances for the technical shortcomings of the traditional singers; they more than make up for this with other aspects of their singing. Cap'n (or should I say 'Miles'); I really would like you to point out where I have ever refused you or anybody access to our recordings,(please don't quote my 'leaving them on the shelf' comment; that was entirely aimed at the treatment of the singers at the hands of revival detractors like yourself). Carroll PS The last two sentences in Guest Patick's posting should be read, digested and memorised by every revival singer on the planet. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:04 PM revival detractors as you incorrectly describe me,are still people and have a right to access,. when I used to go to Sharp house,Nobody stopped me from using the library because I was a revival singer. collections Of traditional material, should be available to all interested parties,regardless of race, colour or creed . many traditional singers/Musicians are practiced,Fred jordan, willie Scott,Bob Copper,Gordon Hall,Bob Cann,Margaret Barry, Packie Byrne,julia clifford Paddy Cronin etc,its is an indication of the weakness of the tradition when they are not. now perhaps you,ll stop telling us all[revivalists] what we should be doing. I have been playing traditional material since the age of eight it is as much a part of my life,as it is of any traditional singer,since you have been advising revival singers what to do,why dont you learn a musical instrument,my advice to you, is it is never too late to learn. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:52 PM Cap'n, I take it that you are now going to ignore your original statement that I refused to give anybody access to our recordings; not another foot-in-mouth so soon after the last one surely? None of the above has any relevence to anything that has been said. Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:43 PM relevance,is the correct spelling. Patrick said at some point the letter writing, debates and patronising bullshit has to stop and be replaced by action. Jim,take up music,Its great for the soul. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 18 Feb 07 - 04:17 AM Cap'n, Nope - didn't really expect a reply. Might ask you to point out where I have ever 'told' people 'what to do', but I suppose you'd hide behing a typo to avoid that one as well! Tried taking up the music once, but the scene was full of tossers who thought the universe revolved around themselves, so I moved on to less ego-driven people - traditional singers. Back to the real world, this type of discussion, with all its diversions, can only take place if we are quite clear of our terms (ie traditional - revival - folk etc), that is why I feel it necessary to make the point that as far as I am cocerned, the tradition is all but dead. Jim Carroll (you called me Jim again, does that mean you'll still marry me? |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 18 Feb 07 - 04:47 AM Jim lets agree to disagree. We both love traditional music,I have the greatest respect for many traditional singers/Musicians. which tradition is dead. here in IRELAND it is stronger,people are still learning by the aural process from traditional musicians,. I am sure in other parts of the world the tradition is not dead either. most people who are performers have a big ego,Fred Jordan , , Harry Cox[Who once remarked about Sam Larner]Idont need a pint before I can sing. most adults learn to control it, and both Jordan and Cox,controlled their egos well,but normally having a big ego, goes hand in hand with confidence ,an essential ingredient for performing well,. confidence can also come with a singer being well practised Gordon Hall/BobCann/James Kingston were well practised.the latter one never had a goodword to say about other local traditional fiddlers.which im convinced was his big ego. so traditional musicians can have big egos too . Jim, Whats all this marriage squit. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 18 Feb 07 - 09:16 AM Cap'n Sorry, my subtlty was lost on you See you at the church Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 18 Feb 07 - 09:21 AM Cap'n PS Agree to disagree - truce. Here's to the next time! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Rowan Date: 18 Feb 07 - 05:55 PM The two most recent posters appear to have some history beyond the thread; don't we all? And it seems to me that many similar discussions revolve around the relationship of folk music/song activities (never poems/recitations/dance apparently) to money or proprietal ownership. In the folk industry, such things are important, there's no denying, but I suspect many people think of "industry" and the money aspects of "folk" as merely a subset of what interested them and involved them. To protect myself against accusations of bias I ought to declare my "interest" in such a discussion. I have, in the past, worked hard to be able to perform and give people ("customers"?) value for their money when they've had to pay to participate, and I've been happy to receive quite handsome monetary reward. But, while I've tried to take a professional attitude towards my performance behaviour, I've never seen my activities as part of a way to earn my living. I got into it out of interest, I've always treated it as an ongoing and serious interest, any monetary reward was on the basis of being good at a hobby. and I still prefer to engage myself with the material, the activities and the intellectual & social discourse of the context without money coming into it. I suspect there's lots of us in a similar position or with a similar attitude. I'm lucky enough to have been able to indulge myself this way and I don't think negatively of people who think differently. Mostly. This means I enjoy the luxury of engaging, as an individual, with folk music and all its various contexts, while revelling in its communality; another luxury. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:26 PM Jim and I have never met,,neither have we corresponded before, encountering each other on mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:08 AM Rowan and Cap'n As Cap'n said, we have never met, but we do seem to go head-to-head on a regular basis. I should say, though we have had several disagreements, I find Cap'n's postings extremely stimulating and I hope he adopts the same attitude as I do in believing that while we might disagree, it is not personal - though I do wish sometimes that................ (joke, of course!!!!!) As someone still unable to post under my registered name (received confirmation of my name, address and password, but have it rejected when I post) I am totally dependent on people like the Cap'n for starting interesting threads in which I can participate. I am interested in the question you raise Rowan, coincidentally I am involved in a discussion on the subject at present on the Irish music forum, Irtrad. Will try to get some of my ideas down (if they are of any interest to you). Jim Carroll PS Cap'n; hope to be in and round Ballydehob in a few months, tracing out the Summer route of a Traveller family I hope to compile a book on - do I need a crash helmet? |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 20 Feb 07 - 04:01 AM no ,be pleased to meet you. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 20 Feb 07 - 10:11 AM McGrath of Harlow wrote: "So just because someone is in their sixties the assumption is that the come off worse in a comparison with people younger by a few decades?" Indeed, not, McGrath. I've never had much patience with the caveat often raised about traditional recordings, along the lines: "of course the singers were well past their prime when recorded, but just think how much better they would have been if the collectors had only discovered them earlier". As Jim (I think) pointed out somewhere, it's difficult to imagine Phil Tanner singing "Henry Martin" better than he did at the age of 75, and my experience is that most singers of folk songs get more skilled in interpretation as they get older. Roy Harris once gave a terrific workshop on traditional singing style in which he played recordings of Sarah Makem singing "The Month of January" on two occasions separated my some twenty years. In the later version you were certainly aware you were listening to an older person, but the slower, more world-weary performance got the heart of the song better than the earlier recording. But I don't think that's the point Jim was trying to make. I reckon you use different criteria in evaluating the performances of a traditional singer on the one hand, and a revival singer on the other. For a start, many of foremost performers of the folk revival (Carthy, Jones, Kirpatrick, yes, and Tony Rose) have been judged as much for their instrumental skills as for their singing. Secondly, any professional performer trying to sell his or herself to the listening public, even within the narrow folk scene, is going to have to conform to conventional notions about singing proficiency in a way that traditional singers - even those experienced in performing to an audience of their immediate peers as described by Sue Allen - do (and did) not. This does not mean that traditional singers never tried to improve their craft, but in a world in which music is ever more processed and technical perfection the norm, even accomplished performers like Tanner, Joseph Taylor and Walter Pardon, are going to sound very strange to the untrained ear. Walter Pardon, for instance, would tend to drift sharp over the course of a song, which diminishes my enjoyment of his singing not one bit, but would have a record producer demanding a re-take if *I* were to do that in the studio. More than once I've been forced to the barricades to defend traditional singing against self-defined "folk music fans", who nonetheless dismissed it as out-of-tune and feeble. And I have to admit that, in the first instance, it took me a little while to get used to the sound of traditional singing as well. So I think it's fair to apply different standards. To Guest Patrick, who wrote: "Folk music has no place on the concert stage", I'd concede that to put it on a concert stage certainly changes its essence, to the extent you could argue that it's no longer "folk music" (although this gets us into the usual definition minefield). However, the traditional repertoire certainly has a place on the concert stage, at least in the sense that performers play it and many people like to listen to it. The larger the stage, the less like folk music it becomes, but personally it makes me happy that the old songs continue to get sung and the old music played, by whoever and in whatever context. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 20 Feb 07 - 01:19 PM Walter Pardon may have drifted sharp,but that doesnt mean that other traditional performers did. my whole point,is that there is no need to make allowances for traditional singers,because there were good, very good and excellent traditional singers,there were traditional singers who not only could hold pitch all the way through a song,but could it interpret it well too.,that in my opinion makes them a better singer than the good interpreter who couldnt hold pitch. some revival singers Tony Rose,Ron Taylor,lou killen ,RoyHarris can interpret their songs when singing unaccompanied and accompanied as well as any traditional singer,.neither of those three do I think of as stunning instrumentalists who sing [Ron and Roy dont play],but as really good traditional style singers who can accompany themselves tastefully .there is no difference in my opinion between verygood traditional style singers and very good traditional singers ,apart from the manner that they learned their songs. I still prefer Tony Rose,s,version of the Sheath and Knife,TO Gordon Halls, Lord Randall,they were both of similiar age their intonation was good,but ones interpretation was much better than the other[whether they had different labels is irrelevant]. singers should be judged on their performance not whether they are traitional or revival[Fred Jordan and Packie Byrne were both,] |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:28 PM it may be necessary to separate the song from the singer.But the performance must change from singer to singer regardless of his/her cultural background. The song might change slightly but show its antecedents. Is it a new song when changed? Even by so-called traditional performers? The technique of singing varies so greatly even in the art-song world that it's difficult to pin it down. The same is true for the "collected" field-recording singers by folklorists. It has to be remembered that Cecil Sharp in search of English folk songs in the American southern mountains considered the five-string banjo a new-fangled technical innovation that "bowdlerized" the music he was collecting in his opinion. Even so-called traditional singers learn from recordings. They may however retain the style of singing and expression that was learned from their culture. Now if it is folk music, the folk must represent a sub-cultural unit. This is where it gets sticky. Who defines that unit? Sam Hinton called in 1950's the folk music of today the "musical sub-culture of the early atomic period". Academia is interested in the music as something to catalogue and define though they play it for themselves. I have seen in the field of jazz musicians who copy Louis Armstrong solos and Hot Five (or Seven) recordings to the exact scratch in the disc and will not accept later innovations as being authentically jazz. Many of these are jazz academics. Because jazz (it used to be jass) is so oriented toward the individual creativity of its exponents, by definition, it must change and become something else. Can this also be the case for what we call folk music? Also, are those who do the cataloguing and the musicology able to transcend their scholarship and recreate the experience of what they consider to be traditional? Are they then by their own definition part of the tradition or separate from it? So, I'm sure many will say it comes down to what you like to listen to and what you think is important. The value judgements as to what is "good" and "bad" are interminably linked to a subjective opinion. What is "technical" to Sharp may not be to later folklorists. it seems the definition expands as time moves on. There may be a time when the "tradition" of any given sub-culture dies out and then a new one comes in. How will that new one be defined? Will it be in the old way of Sharp or even Lomax? And then does folk music as we know it become self-conscious excluding certain aspects of performance as defined by the "new" scholars? Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Rowan Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:56 PM Greetings Jim, Guest, I'm always interested in ideas. Although the (seemingly endless, and certainly repetitive) debates over categorisation were common around my neck of the woods 30 and 40 years ago I suspect there are differences between the contexts that are having an influence over the participants, possibly without any of us realising so. Australia and most of America are both post-colonial societies (in the sense of having been the colonised), whereas Britain (including Ireland, however unwillingly) were the source of much of the colonising. If I were to resort to evolutionary terminology, I suppose I would say that the sense of "folk" (whether one sees from a communal or an individual perspective) has different roots; more autochthonous in the source countries and more allochthonous in the recipient countries. Australia and America (I include almost all the two bits on either side of the Panama Canal) are places where the immigrant society has become dominant and thus much of the current society's sense of roots, tradition or folk has contained a lot of 'transferred' material, which may or may not have blended with the indigenous material; all of the immigrant societies have had to take account of the indigenous ones, somehow. From where I view Britain, the boot's on the other foot; the indigenous society is still dominant, but having to deal with immigrants. This might explain some aspects of what other threads have explored, such as the lack of interest in English folk song, music and/or dance. I might be barking up the wrong tree but, there you go. On top of this, all three societies have experienced enormous changes in the way their traditions have articulated with their economies, their view of work, their leisure etc. Stereotypically, US citizens are very gung ho (!) about seizing opportunity and turning a dollar. This might be behind a range of things some have identified as 'more American', such as the search for authorship of apparently traditional items; such searching satisfies a search for roots as well as avoiding litigation about proprietorial concepts and helps support notions of individualiyt in the process. Australians stereotypically have a more laid back approach to all of the above, which may be leading to a different take on such concepts, whereas Brits (again, styeretypically) rest on their laurels as having invented it all and find other things more interesting to celebrate or wax eloquent about. I can't say I nail my colours to any of these masts; they're just thoughts that have crossed my mind about the role(s) of the individual in the communality implied by the term "folk". Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:36 AM singers should be judged on their performance not whether they are traitional or revival[Fred Jordan and Packie Byrne were both, Hi Dick, I am not sure what you mean by the idea that Fred and Packie were both traditional and revival singers. Would you be kind enough to explain? And as for your knowledge of Sheffield United - would you be kind enough to tell me how often you go to games? Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:09 AM well as I understand it Fred Jordan learned some songs from his parents in the aural manner ,he later extended his repertoire by learning songs from other revivalists. please give me your thoughts on Packie Byrne. Bob Lewis,Isnt he both, or is he a revivalist singer[things get murkier and murkier]. jeff wesley, what is he.I listen to these singers and judge them on their merits, not on their category. Sheffield united ,along with every other team in the premiership,I see regularly on irish television.Television with its slow action replays allows you to see things clearer than actually being at the match.Sheffield United V Reading was televised,as a neutral I thought Gillespie and Warnocks behaviour was disgraceful and provocative.,DOWNES was wrong to retaliate[Gillespie hit hunt twice] as lover of football played well,there are only a few teams that are good to watch Arsenal, Man utd,Liverpool, on occasions one or two others,one of the basic skills in football is learning to pass well ,keeping possession,sheff utd do not do this, which is why they are near the bottom of the division. in my opinion Sheff utds manager and Gillespie on that occassion brought the game into disrepute,personally I am not interested in tribal loyalties. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:08 AM It seems to me we are at a watershed. The folk revival in England, with its origins in a mixture of musical experiment, self-identification and politics, has been with us for fifty years now. During that period the working-class singing tradition of this country has been continuing its gradual winding-down, its stubborn survival in shepherds' meets, hunt suppers, village carolling, football matches and school playgrounds notwithstanding. Jim Carroll thinks it's more or less dead, and I'm not about to disagree with someone who's been collecting from this tradition for so many years. Meanwhile, the folk revival itself is changing, the folk clubs that provided an informal performance environment analagous to the singing pubs like the Ship in Blaxhall gradually declining (see the current Mudcat thread), and concert stage performances, more strongly resembling 'art music' in style and context, becoming more popular. 'Folk Music', as defined by the media and many of the wider audience, is becoming an increasingly technically proficient and polished product, to the extent that some would say it has little resemblance to real 'folk music' at all. At the same time, the academic study of musical and folkloric tradition, which has been going on for more than a century, has begun to overlap with the learning of performance skills through courses like those in Newcastle and Glasgow. Quite where all this is going to lead us is something none of us can predict. Captain Birdseye has suggested elsewhere that the terms "traditional" and "revival" will have lost any relevance when the time comes that the old rural singers have all gone. Maybe, but the archive - recently expanded massively by digital technology and the commercial release of traditional performance on Voice of the People and the work of Veteran, Mustrad, etc. - will still be available and I suspect that future musicians will still refer back to it. Although no-one, I think, would argue with Frank Hamilton's point that musical change has always been a feature of the evolving tradition, the technological, social and contextual changes that traditional music is going through right now are of a different order of magnitude. To comment on another couple of points, it may well be that contemporary performers copy slavishly Louis Armstrong licks but, in England at least, folk revival performers have made little effort to copy traditional ones. A few have tried to absorb elements of their style, but I've never heard anyone - even their greatest fans - try to produce a carbon copy of Jeannie Robertson or Willie Taylor. Going back to the Captain's earlier post, I don't remember anyone saying either that it's inappropriate to compare one traditional singer with another, or that he's not allowed to prefer Tony Rose to Gordon Hall. I prefer Dylan to Sinatra, and apples to peaches, but that doesn't mean I'm judging them by the same criteria, which is what my previous post was trying to get at. Gordon Hall was in any case a particularly idiosyncratic example of a traditional singer, with his confrontational delivery and preference for compiling extended versions of songs from printed sources. Tony Rose was a very accomplished folk revival performer and, if I'm honest, I'd be more likely to play one of his records in my car than one of Gordon Hall's. Doesn't mean I'm comparing like with like. I agree Ron Taylor is an excellent singer, but there's a difference between Ron and, say, Sam Larner that goes deeper than "the way in which they learned their songs". Roy Harris is a revival performer who has got closer to the essence of the tradition than pretty well anyone and I'm quite happy to agree with you about his unique skills. Lastly (and completely off-topic) I have to disagree about football and tribal loyalties. Without tribal loyalty, what exactly is the point? Why should I get excited because a collection of highly-skilled overseas footballers enjoying what in most cases will be a brief residency in Britain, and collectively bearing the brand-name "Arsenal", are playing in Holland against a team containing two Dutchmen? Far more exciting to take the short drive to Edgeley Park and watch my local team beat top-of-the-league Walsall, surrounded by the smell of meat pies, cigarette smoke and sweat, and deafened by the singing of "We are Stockport, Super Stockport, Jimbo is our king!" (to the traditional tune, "Knees up Mother Brown"). Football, like folk music, is about community or it's about nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:33 AM You right a lot of sense Brian. The interesting thing to me is that the introspection that tends to be shown on message boards like this is rarely if ever shown about any other genre of music. Ever heard classical fans discussing if Penderecki is classical? Or if Bartok/Kodaly is folk? As I remember Ireland from my days there in the early sixties - brief as they were, few distinguished between genres of music. As for watching SUFC on Irish TV, I am pleased you are getting the cream of the games over there in Ireland Captain, but how many times have you seen a full game? And Stockport County have an ex -SUFC man in charge!! |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:55 AM "The interesting thing to me is that the introspection that tends to be shown on message boards like this is rarely if ever shown about any other genre of music." Very true, Dave, and particularly in the English folk scene. Too many intellectuals, too much self-consciousness, too many people up themselves. (Although, come to think of it, the blues community was always torturing itself over whether white men could sing it or not) Nonetheless, I'm here on the forum, so I must be enjoying the introspection at some level! "And Stockport County have an ex -SUFC man in charge!!" Well yes, he was with the Blades for a year, but it's the ten years as a player with County - a loyal and popular member of the County community - that has made him such an effective manager. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:57 AM fair enough ,but I prefer to see excellent skill[re football] I once watched peterborough v stockport live, neither whom I support,as regards entertainment and skill it was a bore. Iwould be happy to watch australia v west indies at creeket[as Boycott calls it]although I support neither side,becausethe players are skilful. masochism comes in all forms,and is supposed to be the English disease. ,each to their own. football is about big business ,dont kid yourself.,the reason why you might get excited about a bunch of foreigners playing the game well ,is because they are playing it in a beautiful manner,they have worked hard at their skills,and are a pleasure to watch,in the same way I get excited listening to seamus ennis or missippi john hurt or nic jones singing and playing canadeeio,. and on the subject of communities its folkclubs not folk festivals that are more likely to use music as a way of bridging gaps and building communities building communities. folk festivals are annual,folk clubs are generally weekly ,to a lesser extent fortnightly or monthly,support your folk club . remember football is the new opium of the people.,like the sun and bums and tits,its being used to keep the people subservient,how many people apart from you Brian,folkie Dave,and a tiny minority of other football supporters on this forum,out of the vast number of football supporters challenge or question the Establishment. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:06 AM "on the subject of communities its folkclubs not folk festivals that are more likely to use music as a way of bridging gaps and building communities building communities." I entirely agree. This is what we are in danger of losing. "Iwould be happy to watch australia v west indies at creeket[as Boycott calls it]although I support neither side,becausethe players are skilful." But better by far to have been there there for the Ashes Test at Old Trafford in 2005, Dick. Flintoff and Hoggard roaring in, Ponting playing a magnificent rearguard innings, but above all, the huge passion of a partisan crowd. "remember football is the new opium of the people" Yes, but like opium it tastes great! |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:39 AM Ikeep away from opium,its addictive. you cOmpared tony rose and gordon hall on performance,that is what i,m on about. here is another football comparison.amateurs and professionals or women and men,similiar to revival and traditional singers,amateurs and pros, women and men, both play football, tennis etc. all can be skilful there is no reason why a woman cant be as skilful as a man at tennis /football,im sure serena /venus williams would beat jeremy bates, and rod laver [when hewas amateur]woulsd also beat Bates,their judged on their performance,so ron taylor/tonyrose/roy harris are better singers, in my opinion than Gordon Hall[trad].Jeannie Robertson[ trad] is the best of the lot in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:26 PM It seems to me that each musical approach has to be evaluated with different ears. Dylan says one thing (more about lyrics) and Sinatra another (about singing performance and the interpretive wedding of words and music) though both have their own obvious merits. I think that in comparisons to different styles of music, certain highlights take place. The "traditional" singer has a unique place in the aesthetics that define that performance. It can't be judged like a Sinatra or other forms of expression. The manner of singing is different through tonal quality and approach and when compared to other forms such as popular music today or a few decades ago, it is clear that its difference reflects a mind-set of the audience that hears it. This would be true with cross-over trad to revival approaches to songs. The mind-set has to be different there too. Ewan or Pete Seeger are revival singers and have their own aesthetic qualities to be observed and appreciated. Sometimes the distinction between the Revival and the Traditional gets muddied and blurred. Here, I feel, is when the individual interpretation exceeds the cultural basis for its evaluation. I believe that each musical style requires a different mind-set for understanding it. The future of what we call folk music is going to depend on the education of that mind-set. That is one of the purposes of this forum in my opinion. Ewan MacColl has place the value of unaccompanied singing in a "traditional" manner as a kind of "art song" in which there are ways of listening to it that require an understanding of how it evolved, why it's necessary to keep it that way and the emotional appreciation of an audience that respects and enjoys it. It has decidedly different musical criteria to be considered for its enjoyment. (Different ears). At the same time the so-called "revival" performer has a role to play in the future of what is called folk music. Without this individual approach to the re-creation of older forms of expression, there can be no folk music. It melds often with the ubiquitous "folk process" and is sometimes indistinguishable from that underground river that flows beneath the standardized popular media. There is something to be said for the fact that many of the "traditional" performers of folk might have been the "revival" performers of their time. When we make the distinction, we are talking about different musical styles of expression that will vary from one individual to the next. This is the problem with Cantometrics in that it obscures the individual approach to a cultural-based musical context. Alan was fighting so hard for the "tradition" that he may have lost touch with the nuances that change when the folk music goes through the process. I'm reminded of the Herskovitz approach to anthropology as opposed to the Sol Tax view. The first says that to study a culture, it must be frozen and observed from the outside. The second says that as soon as you start interacting with that culture in any way, you change it. I see this in the context of folk music. Once you are a part of it in any way, I believe you change it and it becomes something else. I think in the future, "traditional" and "revival" will meld to keep the music alive. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Songster Bob Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM Back in the 80s and 90s (1880s!) the early folklorists wrestled with the question of whether ballads were created by single composers or by the whole group. One prominent theory was that ballads came from communal dances, and the group would sing words merely for the repetition, till someone changed the words, added a line or couplet, and the whole group then sang those words, till someone else fixed the scan or rhyme, then they'd sing those, with various group members adding lines till the story got told. Really, that's what several of those blokes thought. Were they serious? Now, it's much more likely that a local wordsmith put together a story, a poem, chant, or song, and introduced it to the others in his community. Then the group began to process it, learning it, maybe making conscious or unconscious changes, till a local "version" emerged. A few miles or streets away, another group (family, town, parish, team, company, whatever made it a separate "group") learned some version of the first group's song, and began to process it the same way. Voila! Two groups, two versions. Maybe one in one of the groups was a "performer," and placed his stamp on it. If that guy traveled at all, then "his" version got learned by listeners in other communities. Perhaps his style of singing was so distinctive that others aped him when singing first that song, then other songs. Over time, his range of influence might lead to a "regional" singing style, NOT limited to that one song. Now we live in a time when groups are not small and physically contiguous, with communications allowing, for example, Mudcatters from the US and Blighty and Woonglongagongland (down under) all to have similar interests and shared experiences. Of course, many of the experiences are not shared, so the cohesiveness of this group is less than of a Cornish village or an outback shed's denizens, but you see what I mean. Ewan MacColl (who lead a hand-to-ear existence) is an example of a song-stylist who strongly influenced others. So is Gordon Bok, as is Tony Rose, Gordon Hall, and Jerry Rasmussen. But we won't be hearing a regional style based on Ewan's singing, nor on Gordon's (either one). Because the group they appeal to is not a regional group. The folk "world" these days is not traditional, despite having folk-like aspects (shared interests, shared material, etc.) and even group traditions. (For example, who outside the Mudcat universe understands "blue clicky?"). Don't mistake the influence of pop culture, mass communications, or the professional world of the performer for tradition. But don't expect all traditions to be "folk" in the way you want them to be. Rugby and football parodies are traditions, and, to my thinking, folksong, but there won't be a Francis J. Child collection of football songs on many university library shelves anytime soon. Thank God. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Folkiedave Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM Dick would I be correct in thinking what you saw on Irish TV was edited highlights of the Reading v. Sheffield United game? I cannot find - despite a lot of research - where it was shown live. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:12 PM I think it was shown live in the afternoon,rte1 or rte2,They quite often show live matches,although this next saturday, its edited highlights,because of a live rugby match,and we,ve got sheffield united again. |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:41 PM I'd heard previously of neither Cantometrics nor Herskovitz, but when Frank Hamilton talks about "different ears" I think he's making much the same point I was trying to. As Frank says, tradition and revival are certainly blurred at the edges, but maintaining them as separate concepts is nonetheless helpful in any attmept to analyse the music. "many of the "traditional" performers of folk might have been the "revival" performers of their time." This puts me in mind of Bob Copper, who as a young man (assisted byh his cousin Ron) kept the family singing tradition alive in the face of the ridicule of their peers in Rottingdean, and who proved a uniquely gifted proselytiser through the written and spoken word for the music he loved. Good point too about enjoying folksong through its history and evolution as well as just its musical aspect, but to me the latter has to take precedence. What interested me in this kind of music in the first place is that it SOUNDED GREAT - and different. Songster Bob hits so many nails on the head that we're never going to get that lid off now..... |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Rowan Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM "Songster Bob hits so many nails on the head that we're never going to get that lid off now....." So true! And I love the "Woonglongagongland (down under)"; I can only suggest the Down Under bit deserves capitalisation, if not capitulation. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Leadfingers Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:49 PM Pigeonholes are just labels , and differentiating between sorts of folk song in the current scene of mass music transmission by radio , television and such seems a bit pointless to me ! You can all no doubt shoot me down in flames very easily , but I call myself simply a folk Entertainer , having learned a lot of stuff from other people aurily , a lot of stuff from records , and a few little bits from books ! I am a Self Taught player of guitar , banjo , mandolin and whistle , and regularly get paid for so doing ! I MOSTLY sing with accompaniment , but occasionally sing unaccompanied traditional songs . I have NO pretentions to be trying to maintain a semi religious art form and am just enjoying the music (ALL Of It) as much as I can , and just hope the audience is getting some enjoyment as well ! |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: Leadfingers Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:50 PM And I LOVE getting 100th posts in too !! |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:58 PM I believe as a singer and performer of folk songs that it's incumbent upon me to share with the audience the historical value of the material I present and that means not only the history of the song itself but the people who gave it to us and something about the sub-culture that they represent. It seems to me if you respect the material, you have to respect its source. The reason to make it clear as to how it differs from other forms of music is one of education about what it is. Folk music is different than songs composed for the pop industry, Broadway stage, classical venues and we serve a function in bringing the awareness to the public as to why this music is important. In this way, we carry forth a kind of tradition that coheres with the informants collected by folklorists and musicologists. I think it would be folly to try to emulate much of the collected field recordings if you come from a different culture but at the same time, the source should be respected and interest in the source performers can be fostered by an awareness of how they should be received and appreciated. Here, I believe the cohesion between the revivalist and the traditionalist is important. One would not exist without the other. I was dismayed at the attitude of a prominent folklorist putting on a concert at a major university who refused to allow anyone not deemed by him to be "traditional". Joan Baez was excluded because in his view she was not the real deal. This lack of foresight avoided the fact that Joan would bring in an audience to listen to the lesser-known but representative performers of a sub-cultural tradition. Let's face the fact that many people learned to love the old-time traditional field recordings by having been introduced to folk music in the first place by the likes of the popular revivalists. Pete Seeger has always attempted to bring people that he feels are important to his concerts and in this way furthured the acceptance of a Big Bill Broonzy or a Sonny Terry. Peggy and Ewan certainly paved the way for this kind of acceptance also in their projects. Mike Seeger did this with American trad country music although he would not be considered by some folksong scholars to be the real deal. Burl Ives made people aware of the ballad through a trained voice (he was able to interpet Schubert Lieder). In this way, the folklorists and musicologists carry on their jobs which are important but sometimes shoot themselves in the foot and run the danger of being too definitive thus stopping the process of encouraging folk music to be understood by the public. Unless the public gets behind the idea of a cultural heritage and begins to understand the process, the commercialization of music begins to obscure and replace the folk music. It's the old argument, about the tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it. Because of the work of performers such as the Seegers, Ewan, Kennedy, Ives etc. (who are often dismissed as revivalists by grey-bearded insular academics), there is a resurgence of interest in all kinds of traditional sub-cultural music. There was a time when listening to a backwoods singer hollering the blues or a ballad would have been laughed at and not at all appreciated. Here I think is where the revival singer coheres with the earlier source. They open the door. I remember Big Bill Broonzy saying that he really appreciated Elvis because he opened the door for venues for him. It wasn't about the money either. Bill wanted to reach an audience. He had something unique and important to contribute. I cite him as an example. So in this sense, the individual performer becomes a catalyst for the community which grows into a different form. Even Alan Lomax would cite certain performers as being better than others. Not all folk music is pleasant for everyone to listen to. Again, it depends on the mind-set of those who hear it. Is the public educated enough to appreciate a Jeannie Robertson, Blind Willie, or those who Harry Smith revisited in his important documentary Folkways trilogy? I submit that here is where the breakdown of the revivalist and traditionalist cheese meets the binding. To separate the performers on the basis of arbitrary categorization is pig-headed but to reject some performances of which some don't understand because they have no frame of reference to appreciate it is lamentable. Here, I'm talking about the appreciation for the field recordings of many fine folk artists. So we are all part of the process whether we see that or not. But it is in the interest of those who appreciate all forms of folk music to distinguish this form from other types of performance. BTW, as soon as an informant records for the folklorist at all, they instantly become a performer. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: Communal folk music or individual? From: The Sandman Date: 26 Feb 07 - 04:32 PM Frank,an excellent post thankyou |
| Share Thread: |