 sj |
||
|
||
Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Aug 10 - 09:34 AM "Do what thou wilt, Jim - just don't do in the name of The Tradition or The Folk Process." My point exactly Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 15 Aug 10 - 09:26 AM Do what thou wilt, Jim - just don't do in the name of The Tradition or The Folk Process. Otherwise, be true unto yourself. Apart from which - what else can I say? Sorry, on hoof right now... must dash. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Aug 10 - 09:05 AM You still haven't explained how you are allowed to change the whole presentation of a song - its utterence, so it no longer resembles any traditional rendering of it, yet others aren't allowed to adapt it by adding or subtracting the odd word. Methinks thou hast placed thy foot firmly in thy mouth and knoweth not how to extract it. The Critics Group is the stuff of urban legend and pretty much open for any eejit to take a pop at it - as youi have just proved. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Rob Naylor Date: 15 Aug 10 - 08:24 AM The fact that the walk put together in 1955 and named AFTER the dirge doesn't detract from the fact that "tekk up" is more natural sounding to a Yorkshire person than "receive". I *do* object to the replacing of "fleet" by "sleet" in many versions, which does show ignorance of its origins by those doing the replacing...."fire, fleet (flet) and candle-leet" historically being the three comforts of a home (a hearth, a good wooden floor and night-time illumination). |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 15 Aug 10 - 08:15 AM Would I ever be so nickpicking to point such a thing out, Michael? After all, how (for all I know) might those changes be unconscious on your part? For sure, a word ot two might get altered unconsciously in the course of a performance, but the gist of the thing remains intact. This is a very different thing from setting out to deliberately change the words of a song because you think you're somehow making an improvement on them, as many have done with Butter & Cheese & All (though I have pinched the tune for another song altogether, which is a different issue!), or that in so doing you're particpating in The Tradition & The Folk Process, which none of us are. Sorry - you appear to have painted yourself into corner - again. Appearances can be deceptive, Jim - that's because there's another door - one you obviously can't see. A song is a song - as such it is the conceptual springboard of the corporeal performance. I'm not changing anything; most of traditional songs I do I've never heard sung by a traditional singer - like any other singer I'm doing it according to how I do things. That you don't like it is simply a matter of personal taste - and that it differs from revival conventions is because my musical background is a little different. So what? Again, you're looking for trouble where there isn't any. Didn't you see my little smiley face after the comment about The Critics Group? People still talk of TCG in hushed tones - how their seriousness was feared even by God. But that was all a long before my time really, so your influence on my life, and singing, is remote to say the least. When I saw Ewan MacColl he was singing ghastly self-penned trash about Apartheid which I found as patronising as it was embarrassing, but righteous politics were never my thing anyway. If this thread were about revival style it would be a different matter entirely - because I base my much of my musical philosophy on the evident fluity and modality of The Tradition of English Speaking Folk Song. That I prefer drones to chords and improvisation to musical arrangements is, of course, simply a matter of personal taste, but one that derives, ultimately, from the tradition. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Aug 10 - 07:24 AM Suibhne: This might appear a vain & conceited post, but if anyone finds it so I beg pardon as it seems relevant here. You were kind enough to write kindly of my version of Butter·&·Cheese·&·All on my YouTube site [http://www.youtube.com/user/mgmyer], which you were good enough to tell me you considered "masterful again" {I had posted it there in response to a request from you, as you had liked my version previously as the title track on my cassette/CD on the Brewhouse label}. This, I stress, was your judgment, not mine. Yet, according to all you have written here on this thread, you should have disapproved entirely of this rendering of mine, as it follows the principles I enunciated above in my post of 10 Aug, 2.33 pm, and contains many alterations I had made from the version by Sam Larner from which we both learned it — 'in the course,' as I say there quoting my inlay note, 'of making it my own' ~~ which is what I, and those who agree with me, both on this thread and in general, do. I adduce this, I reiterate, not from vanity, but to demonstrate that I think you are not being entirely consistent within your views expressed here as distinct from your most kindly appreciative and favourable comments regarding my performance of that song. Best regards ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Aug 10 - 06:12 AM You appear to be moving away from your not altering things because "they don't belong to us" line "detracting from its essense and - dare I say - authenticity." What YOU do with your songs certainly distracts from their authenticity, and, for me, their essence - so again - why is it permissable for you to do it and not others? Sorry - you appear to have painted yourself into corner - again. The original poster was talking about the changing of someone's nationality - no one here is talking about adding verses of their own; collating different versions to come up with something more satisfying certainly - no problem. "for the purpose it was made." Perhaps I should have said 'the integrity of the song' - that's what I meant. The aim of the Critics Group was far from making singing an academic exercise - I suspect that once again you are wandering into unfamiliar territory, perhaps you might care to prove me wrong by providing some examples of our methods of work - or is this yet another hit-and-run comment in passing? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 15 Aug 10 - 05:55 AM Furthermore... our (British) song tradition tradition is overwhelmingly an unnacompainied one Agreed. and by adding instrumentation, particularly with instruments from elswhere other than those common to the British Isles you are making a profound personal change to the songs. Ultimately culture is determined by the experience of the individual. As I've said elsewhere, I've had folk guitarists get sniffy at the instruments I use and I've had vielded threats in singarounds for using an electronic shruti box. I'd say this had less to do with any allegiance to ant tradition per se as it does to the small minded pedantry one frequently encounters in a revival which seeks to enshrine the colloquial at the expense of the cosmopolitan. At tuch times it reeks of religious fundamentalism, and as with religion, doesn't bare too close a scrutiny either, political or otherwise. My Tradition is, therefore, the Indo-Euporean continuum which is born from the tribal migrations as once eloquently celebrated by A.L.Lloyd to account for the coincidences of modal melismatics from the Himalayas to the Hebrides. Hell, even MacColl was tuning into Islamic melismatics for his own vocal style, just as the celebrated Northumbrian Piper and ne'er-do-well Jimmy Allen was picking up on Indian influences on this travels! |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 15 Aug 10 - 04:52 AM so why is it not permissable for someone else to change words, as long as it is done with skill and sensitivity? I don't do it myself because it falsifies the thing itself, detracting from its essense and - dare I say - authenticity. A traditional singer had intervened in his song tradition, making what he gave us another traditional version - which one should I have sung? As I've said, Traditional Songs existed in a state of fluidity in their natural habitat thus giving us many versions, all of which have equal validity surely? Otherwise, I don't have a problem with dropping the odd verse here & there, but adding a new verse, or changing the text, is a different kettle of fish. For example I seldom sing the final verse of Come Write Me Down, and am duly horrified by the mawkish additions made to Felton Lonnen by Johnny Handle, which have become standard practise even to the point of being enshrined in the Digi Trad. as long as we respect what we believe to be the objective of the song; otherwise singing becomes an acedemic exercise. I would say the impulse to sing is objective enough; otherwise singing is never an academic exercise, though I believe things might have been different in The Critics Group. ;-] perfect example of a song being adapted by people who continue to use it for the purpose it was made. Er - not quite, seeing as how no one really knows why it was made. The LWW association only dates to 1955! |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Aug 10 - 04:25 AM "I was thinking of Bob Roberts..." I might have added another four or five singers to your list but, as I said, our (British) song tradition tradition is overwhelmingly an unnacompainied one and by adding instrumentation, particularly with instruments from elswhere other than those common to the British Isles you are making a profound personal change to the songs. You might add ornamentation to that; the song tradition we received was either an unornamented one, or had long lost an traces of decoration (moot point), so many singers are intervening in the way they are presenting their songs. so why is it not permissable for someone else to change words, as long as it is done with skill and sensitivity? Many of the songs in our collections were made when the tradition was way past its prime; we were recording songs from singers who hadn't sung for thirty - forty - fifty years and were struggling to remember them. What we were given was examples of the tradition as an particular singer was capable of producing it at that particular time from that particular singer in the particular circumstances we he/she learned it (and sang it to us). We recorded a rather beautiful song from a singer named Tom Lenihan; Cailín Deas Crúit na mBó (Pretty Girl Milking Her Cow). I was knocked out by it (still am) and if I had been actively singing I would have had no hesitation in learning it. Some time later I was talking to a collector friend who also knew Tom and he said, "I suppose you know he deliberately left out a verse?" It turns out that one of the verses is somewhat disparaging to women, so Tom didn't sing it for fear of giving offence to Pat. A traditional singer had intervened in his song tradition, making what he gave us another traditional version - which one should I have sung? Our tradition is made up of tampered with, half remembered, guessed-at at songs; if we want them to be listened to and taken up, I think it is up to us, as singers, to present them in an articulate and entertaining form, as long as we respect what we believe to be the objective of the song; otherwise singing becomes an acedemic exercise. Rob; Lyke Wake Dirge: Thanks for that - perfect example of a song being adapted by people who continue to use it for the purpose it was made. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 15 Aug 10 - 04:10 AM PS - Might I just add that as far as Revival Singers go I'm just as likely to listen to John Jacob Niles and Jack Langstaff as anyone who came after them. I'd never heard Jack Langstaff until THIS came out, when it brecame a matter of life & death to hunt out the source! |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 15 Aug 10 - 03:55 AM as remote from the tradition as Peter Pears singing The Lyke Wake Dirge In the history of LWD post-Revival I dare Peter Pears is just as close to the tradition as anyone else really, unless you have a particular source singer in mind for the song, in which case I'd dearly love to hear it. The Dirge came before the Walk anyway, an association that dates back to 1955. A quick search on-line reveals that Tak up seems generally favoured of LWWers. We used to sing it at school on account of a treacher who was very fond of the song, the LWW and Folk in general. Can't remember if we sang tak up or receive though. Did I hear the Young Tradition version back then I wonder? I was just a nipper - 9 or 10, circa 1970-71 - and listening to it in more recent years it's always felt more than a little familar, but certainly no more or less effective than Peter Pears. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo Date: 14 Aug 10 - 10:01 PM "Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?" errrm.. excuse me for being.. well... Uncle Rumpo.. but how come it's taken over 150 replies from all around the world to just agree "YES" .. who cares.. who's gonna arrest you if you do...??? Exhibit A: Old Song "My Husband's Got No Courage in Him" Change: "My Husband's Got No Cyborg Time Travelling Shape Shifting Planet Destroying Future Powers in Him" there.. see.. done.. .. so has the world stopped spinning on it's axis..???? errrmm.. yet ??? oh f@ck.. what have I done.. run for the hills...!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Rob Naylor Date: 14 Aug 10 - 09:24 PM Jim: ...as remote from the tradition as Peter Pears singing The Lyke Wake Dirge... An aside here, but relevant i the context of this thread. Whenever I see the lyrics for Lyke Wake Dirge printed anywhere, the chorus always finishes "And Christ receive thy saule". When I learned the song as a nipper (and when we sang it as teenagers, doing the walk AND carrying a coffin!) we always sang "And Christ tekk up thy saule" This to me seems much more in keeping with how it would have been phrased in Yorkshire dialect, and I'd heard it sung that way so often that when I first started hearing "receive" it grated badly, and still does. I wonder if anyone still sings "tekk up" now, or whether, because it's written down, Suibhne would consider "receive" to be the "correct" form :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 14 Aug 10 - 08:06 PM Would be interested to see a list - I've always been under the impression that, barring a tiny handful of traditional singers, in the British Isles the tradition was overwhelmingly unaccompanied. I was thinking of Bob Roberts, John MacDonald, Davie Stewart & Jane Turriff. Do the McPeake's count? And Margaret Barry? I'm sure I've heard of others too here and there. I was hoping you'd maybe be able to flesh it out a bit. Elsewhere in the English folk song tradition (America / Australia) it's not so uncommon; and singing with instruments seems to have been a pretty standard aspect of human musical activity the world o'er these past 50,000 years or so, so I'm not doing anything too radical. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Artful Codger Date: 14 Aug 10 - 06:07 PM To McGrath: While some broadsides are "strikingly" improved by oral transmission, others are diluted by it. In preparing my own versions of songs, I consider both broadside and collected versions, and revert to broadside wording or apply my own edits more often than I use folk alternatives. Bear in mind that the collected versions have usually been culled, collated and edited before I see them--they presumably represent "the tradition" in its best light rather than depicting the mean. Of course, many broadsides were dashed off and rushed into printing, leaving ample opportunity for improvement. Move to a higher-quality original sources--like the average newspaper poet--and folk erosion versus improvement is more apparent. The folk process becomes largely a matter of too many cooks spoiling the broth: faulty memories that dilute the wording, gratuitous substitutions, deletion of critical bits, loss of vibrancy, misunderstandings, continuity violations... What they add in more natural expression, more colorful wording, tightening and such is usually offset by the defilements that also creep in. Most telling, if improvement were the usual result of the folk process, every folk song would by now be a gem--hardly the case! But this is getting rather far afield from the thread topic, and I know that assailing the vaunted integrity of the folk process is tantamount to challenging someone's religious convictions or debating ecology with a cattleman. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 10 - 08:21 AM PS thanks for the musical illustration BTW - it made my point far more effectively than ever I could Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 10 - 08:14 AM "I don't set out to imitate traditional singers" I'm not talking about imitating traditional singers, and I suspect you know that; your basic approach is entirely different to them, as described above - you cease to become a 'teller' of songs, as traditional singers call it here in the West of Ireland, an become a musical 'performer' of songs. "I can think of numerous traditional singers who used accompany themselves" Would be interested to see a list - I've always been under the impression that, barring a tiny handful of traditional singers, in the British Isles the tradition was overwhelmingly unaccompanied. There are recorded cases of a few singers accompanying themselves - Bob Roberts, Charlie Bate.... and there are also cases of folkies turning up and persuading traditional singers to accompany themselve when they can, even accompanying the singers themselves (a case of this happening at the moment with one new-found singer). "Also unlike other Revival Singers....." Hardly anything you describe here has anything whatever to do with traditional singing - certainly not as I know it. No problem with any of this as a personal choice but if your approach is permissable, ie - eschewing the traditional FORM of singing for approach which is as remote from the tradition as Peter Pears singing The Lyke Wake Dirge, how can you possibly object to someone else changing a few words to suit themselves - it seems to me you are writing a rule-book for others which you do not adhere to yourself. I partly agree with Artful Codger on this, but disagree with the mundane bit (there are more things in heaven and earth....) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Will Fly Date: 14 Aug 10 - 04:53 AM I enjoyed your version of Come Write Me Down very much - and I liked the mixing of voices and instruments. Just the sort of thing that I personally find extremely interesting. We can argue all we like on pages such as these but, in the end, live performance in company is the thing. The more the merrier. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 14 Aug 10 - 04:42 AM You still ahven't explained how you rationalise the fact that the way you sing bears no resemblence whatever to the way a traditional singer. I don't set out to imitate traditional singers in any other respect than to sing in my own voice, which is what traditional singers did, and quite idiosyncratically so at times. I differ because, like most other Revival Singers, I use accompaniment - although there again I can think of numerous traditional singers who used accompany themselves, and I'm sure you could think of a good deal more. Unlike most Revival Singers I eschew the use chords in favour of drones & doubling the monophonic lines of the melody on whatever instrument I'm using (the fiddle is a favourite right now, which several fiddlers have assumed I've tuned to an open tuning because of the drones; being the boring old traddy that I am, of course, I keep it tuned in 5ths). Also unlike other Revival Singers I favour a certain amount of improvisation, though when it comes to the song itself, rarely do I deviate from the melody, unless for comic effect, such as in M'Ginty's Mean an' Ale. As a storyteller, narratives are first & foremost in my mind, though with ballads I tend to sing, and hear them, in terms of images first, story second; which is to say the narrative is secondary incantatory layer which we know anyway, so it's the images that concern me the most, the language of the thing - even with M'Ginty's Mean an' Ale the narrative is essentially occult and to translate the thing, or else make explicit those elements, would be the ruination of the piece. When I'm I'm working with my wife, Rapunzel, it's a little different - we sing in evolved diaphonic harmony, using instruments and traditional material in a way which might be considered unusual by revival terms, but nevertheless doesn't really set out to challenge the listener - on the contrary, given the areas we work in it's in our interest to be accesible as possible without going down the usuial easy listening / MOR roads which have mired the revival since its inception. One gig we did invoked the displeasure of a guitarist on the same bill who accused use of using non-traditional elements because we used a Turkish fiddle & an Indian harmonium to accompany ourseves on Come Write Me Down. As I pointed out, in the world I grew up in these instruments were traditional to the immigrant communities I absorbed the influences of in my childhood, likewise the wider frameworks I've been open to since via the Global Media. And besides the guitar is the least traditional instrument of all, likewise the imposition of chords on essentialy modal lines which tio my ears kill the thing stone dead anyway. Anyway, here's Rapunzel & myself singing Come Write Me Down at our Morpeth Gathering gig earlier in the year; apart from quoting Joy Division's Love Will Tear Us Apart here and there (it was approaching the 30th anniversary of the untimely death of Ian Curtis) all the instrumentals are improvised. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IJQzcyDTQI |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 10 - 06:17 PM That songs are usually improved by the folk process, however, is a myth: the tyranny of mediocrity tends to pull all things to its own level. A glance at the early broadsheet version of any number of songs which have survived and changed through oral transmission demonstrates that typically this results in striking improvements. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Artful Codger Date: 13 Aug 10 - 05:43 PM Why is it not permissible to change a word, but condoned--even encouraged--to muck with the tune and performance style? I think that altering the performance style shows greater "disrespect" since it frequently results in anachronistic mutants, as convincing as your father wearing your son's clothing. Before indulging in such adaptations one would do well to listen to modernized folk arrangements from the 40's, 50's and 60's, and consider how cringeworthy they were just ten or twenty years later (while period performances remain timeless). In comparison to this, changing the wording is a trifle. While I venerate the tradition, I have few illusions about the quality or sanctity of folk songs--as with modern songs, most are doggerel, and can be well served still by judicious editing. That songs are usually improved by the folk process, however, is a myth: the tyranny of mediocrity tends to pull all things to its own level. A single discerning editor can do more good than hundreds of years of "folk processing". Of course, the art of revising should be like legerdemain in a magic trick: it should support the desired illusion while drawing little attention to itself. I see no particular merit in continuing to repeat misguided corruptions which have "entered the tradition". |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM Interesting change there from Don Firth. And it occurs to me that maybe it's not so much a change to the story, but more a question of bringing out one possible meaning that is there all along. Tonight she sleeps in a cold, open field, Along with the wraggle-taggle gypsies-oh might actually have precisely the same meaning as Tonight she sleeps in a cold, open grave, Along with the wraggle-taggle gypsies-oh. After all, sleep often means the same as death in songs - as in Go dig me a grave, both long, wide and deep And strew it all over with roses so sweet That I might lie down there and take a long sleep And that's the best way to forget her |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM Nope. Dick (Landberg), as a matter of fact! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Deckman Date: 13 Aug 10 - 02:59 PM AHA ... "THIMK" ... another Waltism? bob |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Aug 10 - 02:57 PM SO'P You still ahven't explained how you rationalise the fact that the way you sing bears no resemblence whatever to the way a traditional singer. "Folk Police are not very popular." Neither are those people who would stifle discussion with terms like 'Folk Police' - a good example of 'folk policing' if ever I saw one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 10 - 02:42 PM GUEST,Suibhne Astray, I'm not looking for excuses for making the change. Or for any change I might make in a song. Granted, Dick and I didn't know much about the background of the song when we started diddling with it back in the early 1950s, but it turns out that there is precedent, both in the history of the ballad and in variations of the ballad itself. But since then, if I make any changes, those changes are pretty thoroughly research (after learning how to do the research in Dr. Fowler's "The Popular Ballad" class. What precipitated Dick's and my late night/early morning discussion was the matter of verses that appear to be extraneous, especially the ones that slow down the drama, drag the song out, and often bore the hell out of the audience. A couple of cases in point: Greensleeves. Have you ever heard the whole song? All the verses? The song has a lovely melody, but after hearing a couple of dozen verses (as Pete Seeger said, "I gave thee this, I gave thee that" and still she wouldn't hop into bed with him), you want to either run screaming or leap up and strangle the singer. So I sing three verses, four at the absolute most. Enough to get the idea across, but without boring the socks off the audience. Same with Lord Randal. Very dramatic song. But when you get to the "last will and testament" part as he's gasping his life out, by the time you get to "And what will you leave your third cousin on your father's side's pet chicken, oh, ill-fated one?" one is thinking, "Look, mom, just let the poor SOB die in peace, will you please!??" So I drop these verses, singing only "What will you leave to your mother, Randal my son?" (in days long before Social Security, who's going to take care of his elderly mother when he's dead?), and the punch verse, "What will you leave to your sweetheart?" "A rope from hell to hang her!!" And I note that many other singers, including Richard Dyer-Bennet and Burl Ives did the same thing. Made the same cuts. Now, there was a time when a few of the ballads might be a whole evening's entertainment, but modern audiences—including folk music enthusiasts—generally will not sit still for really long songs, particularly ones that are very repetitive, and they (especially folkies) will sit there sighing and rolling their eyes. See many posts here on Mudcat, by folkies, about which songs bore them silly, and why; the longer ballads tend to lead the list! So—what Dick and I were thinking of when we came up with that change in that particular version of The Wraggle-Taggle Gypsies were extraneous verses that don't advance the story or add anything in particular to it. For example, why repeat the exact same verse you have just sung ("Last night I slept in a goose feather bed. . . .") in the third person (Last night she slept in a goose feather bed. . . .)? Two points: 1. In no way were Dick and I trying to turn The Wraggle-Taggle Gypsies into some sort of "morality tale," warning a woman to stay home and be bored stiff with a husband she didn't love and more than likely didn't chose (married to a "suitable husband" by her parents) rather than seek a freer, exciting, and more fulfilling life, lest she wind up lying dead in an open field along with her lover, struck down by the hand of her righteously outraged husband. Not a bit of it! If anything, it would have underlined the callous brutality of the husband and a system in which a man such as that regarded his wife as mere property rather that a person in her own right. You may not like the change we made, but let's not turn our objection into some kind of feminist tract, because that's far from what we had in mind. 2. Even though I (and many others) sometimes pare down highly repetitive songs to make them more palatable to modern audiences, it's not as if we are "ruining" or "destroying" the songs. The full texts of these songs and ballads are still there in a large numbers of books, so anyone who is so motivated can go and look up all eight-hundred and eleventy-fourteen verses of The Geste of Robin Hood. Or the seemingly endless last will and testament of the ill-fated Lord Randal. Again. I don't think one should make changes unless one knows a good deal about the song in question and has a well-thought-out reason for making the change. I've seen and heard too many of what I would consider indiscriminate and unnecessary changes made by people who didn't understand the background from which the song came, didn't understand a technical or perhaps archaic term, or who destroyed an evocative image by insisting on forcing a perfectly good line into an awkward and unnecessary rhyme-scheme. Think! Or as a friend of mine used to say, "Thimk!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 13 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM Very few things in the world are beyond change. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: John P Date: 13 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM I think it is arrogant to change what has been around for hundreds of years . . ./ Perhaps you could say something like, "I personally don't like changing old songs . . ." Calling other people arrogant is, whether you want it to be or not, an attempt to get other people to follow your rules. I you said "I think it is arrogant", but that doesn't really matter. If you want people to understand you and not jump to conclusions about what you mean, you might consider your choice of words more carefully. You see, I don't think it's arrogant. I don't think the folk process ever stopped, and I think that updating traditional songs for modern listeners is part of the process. When you use words like 'arrogant' you are also saying the other person is wrong. Just out of curiosity, why are you so sure our paths will never cross in person? And why are you so sure that you would dislike what the ways in which I play traditional music? It starts to sound like the scholarship is more important than the musical and lyrical quality of the song. John |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,mg Date: 13 Aug 10 - 01:01 PM Listen up. I did not tell people they should not ... I said they could do whatever they want. I reread everything I wrote here..and one place is a little toward that direction I admit. But what I consistently said, and please get it right, is do what you want. I personally will probably not like it and probably lots of other people won't either, but plenty will or will not know the difference. I probably wouldn't know the difference most of the time. I think it is arrogant to change what has been around for hundreds of years, and sometimes in certain locales it is unchanged and sometimes it does have many variants. I don't think the old old songs are mine to change. But our paths will never overlap in person so I am not going to worry about what you do or don't do. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: John P Date: 13 Aug 10 - 12:34 PM S'OP and mg, It sounds to me like you shouldn't change the old songs at all. However, as soon as you start telling other people that they shouldn't do so, you've stepped over the line. Mind your own houses, please. Folk Police are not very popular. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 13 Aug 10 - 05:13 AM Must ballads be governed by this sort of pedantic logic I wonder? Such corrections do run contratry to the spirit of the thing rather - the genuine products of more random elements of The Folk Process all of which add to their - er - folk character. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Phil Edwards Date: 13 Aug 10 - 04:52 AM Don - lucky guess! I wonder if it'd work better if the last verse was in the lord's voice - Tonight you'll lie in a cold open grave, etc. Here are my own bits of patching (the ones I'm conscious of having done, anyway). My additions in bold: But the page, he was Lord Barnard's man And there he would not bide And he was away to the greenwood As fast as he could ride I wanted to emphasise that the page did a triathlon that night (he rode then swam then ran). The other one is a slightly larger change; it's a bit where I reckon that most versions of the ballad are corrupt, as the normal version of the line doesn't seem to make sense: Seven long years they were not past Years had passed but two or three When she packed up all of her gay gay clothing She said Lord Bateman she would go see (If the seven long years had passed she'd have no claim on Bateman any more, so why would she wait so long?) |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 13 Aug 10 - 03:56 AM Before you get on someone's case for making an unwarranted change in a song or ballad, you might want to do a little research of your own. They might have known exactly what they were doing. Or, at least, had made a pretty good guess! Hmmm - is that any excuse I wonder? Seems to me the onus is on the perpetrator to do the research into the variants rather than making any modifications of their own. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 10 - 10:28 PM Okay, mg and Pip— "OK. Here goes. I do not think you improved that song. You changed it entirely. You put her from alive to dead. If you want to do that, fine...but...." Changed it entirely, mg? I don't think so. I ran a Google search on "The Gypsy Laddie" and "Child 200" and hit a long list of web sites. I found many versions of the ballad on one web site alone. The following are the final verses of several versions that end in a manner very similar to what my friend and I came up with at 2:00 in the morning in The Coffee Corral in Seattle's University District bask in the late 1950s. 200A.10It would seem that in some versions, the Lord heaves a sigh and simply goes home, leaving his lady with the gypsies. In some, he kills his lady, then either hangs the gypsies who vary in number from three to sixteen. In some, he may or may not kill anyone, but he drags his lady home, kicking and screaming, Or he kills everyone in an unspecified manner. Here's another variation on the lady's fate: Oh, soon this lady changed her mind,But—let's cut to the chase here. Is this ballad based on a true incident? Yes, it would seem so. And what really happened? The gypsies were expelled from Scotland in 1541 and then in again in 1609. In 1624 Johnny Faa (a title of prominent gypsies) and seven other men were sentenced to hang and Helen Faa and ten women were sentenced to be drown, but the women's execution was stayed.As commentator Paul Harvey used to say, "And now—you know the rest of the story." So Dr. Fowler was right in his belief that there were probably already existing versions that ended violently, because not only were there, but the incident that inspired the ballad in the first place ended violently. There was nothing in the change that Dick and I made that was not already within the tradition. Before you get on someone's case for making an unwarranted change in a song or ballad, you might want to do a little research of your own. They might have known exactly what they were doing. Or, at least, had made a pretty good guess! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Deckman Date: 12 Aug 10 - 09:12 PM "Reimagine" ... neat word ... I'll bet I can get 36 points out of that in a good scrabble game ... I LIKE IT! bob(deckman)nelson |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,Seonaid Date: 12 Aug 10 - 09:00 PM Songs, like genes, live in those who carry them, and it's natural to have old as well as new strains. As the originals of Bach and Beethoven never suffered from the release of rock versions, the virtues of the old traditional stock continue despite imitation, rip-offs and Bowdlerizing. Some were terrified in the 60s that the "Hootenanny" type popularization would obscure the true tradition. Doesn't seem to have happened. There's room (especially given the constantly widening circle of communications)for everyone. New ways of presenting songs and their ideas can bring the songs to new people, who may well be inspired to look further into the field. (For instance, I started with the Clancys and have researched my way into hard Gaelic, but I often sing translations in order to interest newcomers. That has worked well, BTW, and I *always* refer them to the originals.) The circumstances of knowing, singing and transmitting a song change from minute to minute (you can't step in the same song twice, etc.). I believe it's perfectly OK to encourage those who keep the tradition as well as those who reimagine it. As has already been said, that which doesn't work will die out. And meanwhile, we'll get some hot new versions! |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Melissa Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:49 PM Thanks, Deckman! If I had to choose between singing the songs the same as these recordings or not singing them at all, I wouldn't want to keep either of them. In my ear, Denver's Jenny sounds vapid and shallow. In my ear, Axton's Halo sounds like it would be fun to sing in the car but not in public. When I sing Halo, I do it in 3/4. Here's Jenny Rusty Old Halo If I had recordings of me, I'd poke them in here too for comparison in case anyone was interested. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Melissa Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:25 PM wait..after looking back, I see that I didn't write what I meant. He sings "all she could find" I sing "all they could find" |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Deckman Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:17 PM Melissa ... Not being able to hear the two versions, I have to say that I am drawn to your changes. This likely represents what some have referred to as ... "making the song your own." As a singer, this is entirely O.K. to me. bob(deckman)nelson |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Melissa Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:16 PM Fair enough, mg. My question in return is whether you think your opinion is any of my business. Where I live, bugs are squashed. Coins on the track were squished or smashed. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,mg Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:06 PM Yes..and I will give you my honest opinion..which is that the first change is not an improvement to my ears so I don't understand why it was changed.. The second is sort of a draw to me...if I didn't know which was the original I could go either way but maybe prefer squaushed. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 12 Aug 10 - 07:25 PM Change is enevitable. Resistance to change is also inevitable. Nothing in this universe is static; if things didn't change, we would be still in the caves trying to invent fire. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Melissa Date: 12 Aug 10 - 07:25 PM mg, I'll give you a non-folk example of one I change slightly when I sing it. John Denver sang Jenny Dreamed of Trains. When I sing it, I change the phrasing so it feels more storylike coming from my mouth. His version sounds (to me) like a series of nice phrases in a row. My melody is a little bit different also. Words: He sings "No one believed her when she said she heard the trains" I sing "No one believed her when she told them 'bout the trains" Why? Because I think it sounds better than repeating the word 'said' He sings "very next morning, all she could find was a little piece of copper squashed flatter than a dime" I sing "very next morning, all she could find was a little piece of copper smashed flatter than a dime" Why? I don't think Jenny needed proof..I sing it that way so the townfolk catch a glance of the magic (or whatever) I like the eerie surprise of Maybe she went on the train..maybe she's still in town and they won't think she's just a little girl acting kind of strange anymore. I do not change gender in songs. The reason I don't change gender is because some songs don't switch easily and I don't want to limit myself by skipping out on ones I might otherwise like to acquire..but that don't switch gender easily. It would be inconsistent to switch the easy ones and sing the others without switching. I heard a couple phrases of Hoyt Axton's Rusty Old Halo, wanted to see the words and wasn't able to hear him sing it. I got the words and started singing it. My melody is quite a bit different and my chords do not match any recording I've been able to hear after I learned it. I would sing Jenny nearly anywhere, but I'd keep the Halo out of situations where folks would be likely to tell me I wasn't doing it right. Is that the type of example you wanted? |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,mg Date: 12 Aug 10 - 07:13 PM To me it is like pulling up treasures from the Titanic and saying..oh I can make that pottery prettier..just let me take my magic markers out and put some daisies on it. There. What an improvement. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 12 Aug 10 - 06:55 PM Way up there somewhere, my esteemed colleague Catspaw told the truth of it... Folk Music is an art form. It may also be a historical art form. But it's not journalism. And changing a song to reflect a current view of historical accuracy is counter to the true historical significance of the song, which is that the song itself is a piece of living history. As lovers of traditional music, we owe a certain debt to those who came before us, and a responsibility to pass the music on as we received it. As musicians, we will no doubt make changes depending on the venue, the audience,or our own sense of ethics and propriety. But if we do so, it should be with the sense that we are in fact the ones tampering with history. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 10 - 06:29 PM I have since re-evaluated the last line of The Wraggle-Taggle Gypsies and some time ago, pretty much decided that the change is a bit too radical. Rest easy, folks. But I do remind you that Dr. Fowler, as knowledgeable a ballad scholar as anyone I've ever met (including Charles Seeger, patriarch of the Seeger family, whom I met and conversed with at the 1964 Berkeley Folk Festival), thought the change was all right and even remarked that there may be versions that end that way. I'll do some further research. And if I do find one, I may re-re-evaluate my decision. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: GUEST,mg Date: 12 Aug 10 - 06:08 PM I would like to hear from others who have made changes in songs and have them put it out there for honest feedback as to how people find the changes...not for the purpose of stopping them from doing it; they can do it if they like. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Phil Edwards Date: 12 Aug 10 - 05:49 PM Don talks a lot of sense in that comment, but on one point I have to agree with mg - I hate that cold open (mass?) grave. |
|
Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song? From: Deckman Date: 12 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM The above posting by Don Firth is a perfect example of why I love this guy so much. We met in 1953, and he's been teaching me ever since! Bob(deckman)Nelson |
| Share Thread: |