"To suggest that people would be happy to 'contract out' the recording of these experiences is as nonsensical as suggesting that sailors didn't bother making songs and spinning yarns because Herman Melville and Richard Henry Dana had done the job for them - this goes for mining, the textile industry, agricultural labour....." So true. Jim, do you teach? You should.

I do a lot pondering over the broadside phenomenon and exactly what it's impact has been on the oral tradition. I was deeply fascinated when I learned that the words Danny Boy had not always been married to the ancient Irish melody. In that case, the broadside effect was this:

The tune was so beautiful, there was a certain competition among lyricists. Many broadsides came out with same tune, different lyrics. The Irish knew this was their tune but their attitude toward all these lyrics was, "If we like 'em, we'll sing 'em, if not, we won't." Eventually, it was the Irish themselves who chose the lyrics to Danny Boy. They picked the ones that resonated in their Irish soul.

Although I have learned much through careful text analysis, I believe melody is a much greater indicator of oral currency (love that term :-)Jim, I note that anything from any sort of underground group stands a better chance of being the kind of material we are looking for, due to their unpublished, unbroadcasted status, don't you?

So Steve, going back to the Jacobites (and I love how you ignore me by the way), there are roughly two things to consider here.

1.) Jacobites were a secret group, very oppressed in their own way. When you belong an endangered group, you don't stand on the street corner and sing about how much you hate your oppressors. I remember when I learned about the banning of pipes in Ireland and Scotland, it struck me as absurd. I thought, "How ludicrous to take pipes away from a Celt. How unnatural is that!" But they did it because it had been determined by the powers-that-be that it gave Celts an advantage on the battlefield. And indeed it did!

But the point I am making here is that oppression is real, not abstract. Oppressors do not allow you to express yourself or declare your identity.

2.) The real reason Lord Lovel as a ballad never made it to the top ten is because it was such a screaming hit as a parody, burlesque, comic version, whatever (Who cares? You pedantic nuisance! :)) is because the people who were in power, the Jacobite's oppressors, the Horace Walpole set, buried it in ridicule- so that it's published legacy reflects mainly that. It was one of their special favorites to poke fun at and the loud legacy they created, that one of ridicule, carried forth into the future long after origins were "forgotten." When the North found themselves with a Confederate officer named Mansfield Lovell? Oh, you bet they did! Time for another round. So even though the time, place and other circumstances change, this ridicule tradition persists.

In my mind, what did Lord Lovel the greatest damage as a ballad were the efforts of those who attempted to pass it off strictly as a ballad with the gay tune and "silly sooth" lyrics. It is not. When a man goes to sea, he may not return. She may not be there when he gets back. The tone in Nora Cleary's voice and melody is solemn and haunting, not silly.

But back to these ballad destroyers. Percy, Childs, most definitely the "Percy Society" who told us that Lord Lovel should be sung to the tune of Johnny Cocklesmuir. I don't think so. They were probably rolling around on the floor laughing when they wrote that one. This artful composition might even have fallen right down the memory hole had it not turned into a tavern joke.

So you have in Lord Lovel 75E, a perfect Jacobite text in mint condition from a reputable dealer. John Francis Campbell was no ordinary song catcher. More like an anthropologist. He learned Gaelic and faithfully recorded the stories and songs of a vanishing point of view and way of life. The people of Islay loved him. They did not want to be forgotten. I love the way he slipped LL into the record under Child's nose, without saying anything about Jacobitism. He knew certain people would get that.

Also. I think it was written as a period piece. Go look this one up on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cyvYI_DDJg

It's not a good quality link unfortunately but the performance is exceptional so bear with. It would not be the same melody of course, but in terms of tone and style, I believe that this is how it came across in song. What do you think?

And one more thing, this whole "she died, he died" thing does not belong to Lord Levett. Lord Levett is being haunted by a dream. And if you take a look at tragic love ballads that truly belong to the British, that "she died, he died" thing comes up a lot. That link above, The Three Ravens, same thing. And naturally the composer of LL is English because Campbell said he learned it from the singing of an Englishman. He told you. It's like when Tom Lenihan says the rose-briar motif belongs to Lord Levett. Heck, you have to believe somebody, right? And it stands to reason that this Englishman is without a doubt, a Yorkshire type. And do we know that? The white rose. Thank you. And if you don't claim this poor defamed Jacobite ballad for the House of York, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

He's a mess, isn't he Jim?