Cap'n,
This thread has been turned by you (I would guess, in an effort to divert our attention away from a couple of foot-in mouths – or should that be feet in mouth) into a critique of Peter Kennedy, a subject you appeared to have had little knowledge of several threads ago – now you appear to have become a born-again Kennedy expert! Nobody disputes his behaviour towards revival and traditional singers, what is questionable is the crass suggestion that he aspired to being recognised as a traditional singer; he was neither traditional (nor a singer to my knowledge).
Thanks to your efforts, we have now arrived at a debate on singing versus research - as if the two were separable.
Surely any singers worth their salt research as many different versions of the songs they wish to sing as are available to them in order to become aware of all the alternatives.
I believe that the learning of a song falls into a number of stages (not necessarily in the following order).
You are attracted to a song, say by the tune, the story, by the singer you heard it from, from having to find a song on a specific subject for a performance, even by a few lines that catch your fancy – a whole number of reasons.
You learn the words and tune (and accompaniment if necessary) and begin to practice it. You tackle any pitch, tone, breathing, articulation or any other technical problems.
You examine the structure of the text to see if there is anything which will help your performance of it, (Irish songs, for instance, make great use of lyrical imagery and poetry, and have a great knack with internal rhyming as a humourous device).
You dig a little deeper into the background of the song; the circumstances surrounding it, does it have any historical or social implications, are there any archaic or vernacular references you don't understand, are there any folklore references; in other words, you get to know the song inside out.
You decide what you feel about the song: how you relate to it, do you empathise with the characters or sympathise with their situation. In other words, you make the song your own.
Through this work, you not only help yourself to sing the song and your audience to enjoy it, but you also give it a better chance to remain in your repertoire than if you had treated it as merely a set of words and a tune.
ALL THIS TAKES RESEARCH.
In my opinion, any singer who doesn't carry out some preliminary work on a song, other than just learning it, is quite likely to be a very shallow, one-dimensional performer (before you do a King Lear on us - no Cap'n, I'm not referring to you – I've never heard you sing) .
Ballad scholar Lowrie C. Wimblerly, in his introduction to his 'Folklore in The English And Scottish Ballads' wrote: "An American Indian Sun-Dance or an Australian Corroboree is an exciting spectacle for the uninitiated, but for one who understands something of the culture whence it springs it is a hundred fold more heart-moving".
By approaching songs this way, singing (and listening) can be a permanent cerebral and emotional, as well as enjoyable experience.
You need to remember that many of us involved in research have a slight advantage over those who consider themselves 'just singers'. Most researchers I know came to the songs as singers – been there, done that, decided to take it further: (Vic Gammon, George Deacon, A.L. Lloyd, Fintan Vallely, Pádraigín Ní Uallacháin, Peter Hall, Frank Harte; all recognised as both researchers and singers). I notice singer Tom Brown has "Dr in front of his name – congratulations Tom, I assume it's music related?
Earlier you gave us your revival- traditional comparisons and said you would rather have a good revival singer than a poor traditional one (I can't help noticing that you often tell us who are good singers, but you never say why they are good – most of the ones you mention certainly don't ring any of my bells).
Even the most asthmatic, croaky traditional singer I've ever listened to brings something to a song that I seldom, if ever I get from even the best of our revival singers; a commitment, an involvement with his or her song which was obtained by a lifetime of listening and singing.
Phil Tanner brought a joyous energy to his singing which outdid any singer I have ever heard a fraction of his age.
Sam Larner gives you the impression that when he sang it was like hearing the song for the first time, even though you might have listened to it (and he may have sung it) a thousand times. He also managed to give the impression that he was singing just to YOU.
Harry Cox's identification with the characters in his songs and their situations often moved a listener to anger or tears. Listen to his bitter comments on 'Betsy The Serving' Maid (about a servant who is transported to America by the parents of the son of the house because the he falls in love with her) – "and that's what the buggers thought of us". Or Dillard Chandler, after singing 'Little Mattie Groves' describing what he'd have done to Lord Barnard if he'd been there. Get that level of involvement into your singing and you know your songs are working for you, and almost certainly for your audience.
Mary Humphreys was right; the older singers may be an acquired taste, but once you have acquired it, it will give you something invaluable for your own singing, something you will never get from a revival singer.
I wrote that I enjoy controversy and debate; I do not enjoy the type of divisive harangue you have managed to turn this into.
Jim Carroll
PS Your somewhat martyr-like bemoaning of your treatment at the hands of us 'academics' fell somewhat flat by your comparing yourself to Alan Lomax; Lomax WAS an academic himself.
PPS I am not!