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: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM

the Traditional Songs aren't ours

Whose are they then? Or to put it another way, if William Kimber claimed ownership by saying you can't change his tunes, he was trying it on. Just because you know tunes or songs, it doesn't mean you are the ultimate authority on what those tunes or songs mean - except to yourself.

As for the songs being "accorded more respect" if we didn't sing them, that sounds awfully close to destroying a village in order to save it.

It's simply a fact that songs have bobbed in and out of the written tradition since printing was invented, which is a fairly long time ago now. Both before and after that, they were learnt by singers from other singers and from written sources - "collected" in fact. And sometimes as they get "collected" they get consciously or unconsciously altered by the collector (ballad printer, revivalist, folklorist, child, peasant, worker, folk club singer) to suit their view of what the song is (or ought to be) about, as well as the accidental accretions like mishearing or filling in for poor memory. Credit the "source" singers with intelligence greater than mere human record players- perhaps some were, but perhaps you can just about accept that some were, and thought themselves as, creative artists.

Ballad printers were often back- street Chattertons or McPhersons deliberately and guiltlessly forging their little Rowleys and Ossians for their "Ballads lately discovered", just as Scott and his butties did, as it seems Lloyd and McColl did, and I bet Baring-Gould, Kidson, Grainger, Quiller-Couch and the rest did too. And I also bet you sing some of them!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 03:56 PM

My response to the original question "is it permissible....?":

There are many who will proceed to make changes, constructive and otherwise, without asking permission. And, for those who feel a need for permission, who would they ask?

The word "sacrosanctity" immediately occurred to me when reading some of the more hard-core traditionalist responses. I was pleasantly surprised to see one of the contributors with whom I most wholeheartedly disagree to use that very word:

"I hold the traditional singers and the songs they sang to be sacrosanct."

Admirable indeed. However, in reality (I would argue), what you are holding sacrosanct are versions of traditional songs as transcribed/recorded by collectors. The preservation of a particular version of a given song, as opposed to other interpretations, is an absolute accident of history ~ if Child, or Sharp, or Lomax, or whoever, had wandered into the next valley over, or found his/her way to a different fishing villiage, it's very likely that another variant of the same song (or a similar song) would have become that song's sacred untouchable text. Silly!

Also, we need to keep in mind that our forebearers the folksong collectors were urban educated types with their own preconceptions and prejudices. When they ventured into isolated rural communities, to confront anachronistic and relatively alien subcultures, they were very likely to misunderstand and misinterpret at least a few subtleties of the local idiom and customs.

(I have no doubt that this disconnect often held sway when white northeastern American academics ventured into the very separate world of the early-20th-century African-American south. By extention, I feel safe in assuming that similar problems could have existed when Oxford/Cambridge types visited the more isolated folk cultres of the British Isles.)

Plus which, of course, the local folks may have felt an awareness that they were being perceived as unsophisticated oddities, and might well have deliberately "put on" their interrogators. (I believe the British expression is "taking the piss.") How hilarious that today's sacred untouchable text of some ballad or another might still contain some "primitive" person's idea of a good joke played upon a pretentious visitor to his/her village!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,^&*
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 03:15 PM

terrier

Great to see that one also. Thanks

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: terrier
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 03:12 PM

Suibhne Astray posted: That wouldn't be the same Mexico that was lost off Lancashire on the 9th

December 1886 would it? Be nice to see the song anyway.


Southport Lifeboat Disaster

Listen without to the westerly wind
does it whisper and gently sigh,
or rage and roar, shaking the door,
demanding that seafarers die.

On such a night in the distant past
when the surf raged high up the beach,
the 'Mexico' barque, on a bank she was fast,
no port that night she would reach.

Three lifeboats to her aid were sent,
by fishermen manned, with good intent;
one lifeboat returned, one crew to save,
the others would drown in that terrible gale.

To this place they brought them, herein to rest.
No man can do more than give of his best.
A nation mourned but in mourning new pride,
the pride of a nation, in vain not they died.

Mark well the hour.

At twelve o'clock on the ninth of december,
pray silence and gentlemen rise.
Hark to mine host, as he gives the toast,
"to the coxwains and crews who died."

This is from memory so I can't guarantee I havn't changed some of the words from the original.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM

"would go on to deal with the crew instead."

No - go on deal with the rest of the crew as well. They are all "strangers from many a forign land".

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 11:14 AM

McGrath, I don't think that your suggested line about the captain can be correct.

"The captain of the Mexico, as you may understand" is fine as far as it goes, as an introduction to some description, perhaps, but what is it about to tell about him? That he was tall? That he was aboard? That he couldn't swim?

The verse then would abandon the good captain as the subject of a sentence, but without a verb, and would go on to deal with the crew instead.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 11:02 AM

Getting back to Mariner's original point, looking at the words on this thread, it occurred to me to wonder whether there might have been a mistake in writing it down and the relevant lines might have been meant to be

The Captain of the Mexico, as you may understand,
And the crew was made of strangers from many a foreign land

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 10:53 AM

Is this discussion "a tradition" or "a revival"? It's been around long enough. Around and around and around.

It's quite enjoyable in its way. Maybe it's true that old songs are the best, and the same is true for old arguments. And every now and then an interesting variant comes up, or an old favourite makes its appearance once again.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 08:34 AM

There seems to be a danger of this polarising into a yes-no response; I don't believe it to be that easy.
While I have no principled objection to the changing of words, I share Crow Sister's reservations about 'tidying up' old songs, but I think this permissable, even desirable in some cases, if done with sensitivity. For me, the beauty of many of the songs lie in the words, sometimes archaic, and how they lie within the overall text.
Perhaps the answer to the question should be - "yes, if you feel you must", and only then if it can be done without sacrificing the integrity and the beauty of the song.
I have to say I'm a little at a loss to understand Suibhne's approach to this one.
He and I have fallen out in the past, mainly due to my insensitivity in heavyhandedly criticising his singing of a ballad (for which I apologised to him privately and do so here publicly).
Without wishing to give more offence (certainly none intended), I find his approach to some songs bears no relation to that of any traditional singer I have ever met.
Perhaps I have missed something in his argument?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,^&*
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 07:54 AM

Suibhne

Oh - that bullshit? I agree completely - but it's nothing to do with my point.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 07:49 AM

What, exactly, is "bullshit" here, please?

I hold the traditional singers and the songs they sang to be sacrosanct. Both are dead, likewise the tradition they were part of. The Revival (of which I am part) is, at best, a conceited & impertinent gloss which might serve as a signpost to the unitiated; at worst, however, it is a hell on earth where the glories of (say) The Plains of Waterloo might sit alongside such turgid trash as The Band Played Waltzing Matilda - as they did in June Tabor's early repertoire. Even as a wide-eyed 14-year-old dazzled by Ms Tabor's evident genius one night in the Grey Horse in Shiremoor circa 1976 I rejoiced at the genuine emotion of the former and baulked at the mawkish sentiment of the latter. They were two very different creatures and yet the wisdom was that they belonged together - not in my heart they don't! Whilst we can't preserve a Tradition, we can make some attempt at maintaining the integrity by which it has come down to us. This is something The Revival has singularly failed to do simply by conflating two very different things to the detriment of the status of Traditional Song which is now tainted by association. As I've said elsewhere, it wouldn't bother me if no one sang these songs at all - they have been sung, that is enough.

Do I have to add that this is only my personal opinion and I don't let it inferere with my appreciation & participation in the Folk Scene as a whole? I don't throw people out of my singarounds for changing old songs nor for singing new ones; my mind and heart remain open to all, just my personal Ideal remains intact to define a very particular relationship with the soul of Taditional Song and this is what I'm talking about here. People can, and will, do what they want, but as I said earlier in this thread, to do so in the name of The Tradition and The Folk Process is misleading, unless ingenuous, in which case it's all part of the learning curve.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: kendall
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 07:45 AM

Yes. I will not sing a word that doesn't make sense. Oscar Brand's sea songs are full of them.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,^&*
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 07:02 AM

More generally, much of this discussion seems to reflect the difference between preserving a tradition , in the sense of maintaining some perceived, fixed integrity and keeping a tradition alive in the sense of accepting that change is inevitable. In the latter case, we can only try to ensure that any changes WE (as individuals) make contribute to the song's longevity rather than hasten its demise!

Can I be a bit rude here and say this is complete bullshit?
------------------------------------------------------

What, exactly, is "bullshit" here, please?

FWIW, Suibhne, I agree with most of what you say about "revival" (I particularly like your "revival conceit" concept!). But I live where a tradition remains alive - not without "revival" inputs as well, of course. MARINER, for example, could tell you how to avoid the Keeragh Rocks - and introduce you to the descendants of the lifeboat crew.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:49 AM

More generally, much of this discussion seems to reflect the difference between preserving a tradition , in the sense of maintaining some perceived, fixed integrity and keeping a tradition alive in the sense of accepting that change is inevitable. In the latter case, we can only try to ensure that any changes WE (as individuals) make contribute to the song's longevity rather than hasten its demise!

Can I be a bit rude here and say this is complete bullshit?

Which would make us parrots rather than creative singers - crackers!.

You miss my point. The creativity of being a Revival Singer is in the sourcing, learning & (ultimately) the singing of a song. None of us are parrots, or wannabes in this respect (Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be... Paddy Tunney!) (actually you get far more imitation of Revival singers but that's another issue). What we do is by way of Revival Conceit, not by way of Continuing a Tradition (see GUEST,^&*'s post above - how many others feel this way I wonder?) It is this innability to differentiate between Revival and Traditional that is the most troubling thing here.

I often stop and ponder how different the status of Traditional Song would have been if it wasn't for The Revival messing things up and generally obscuring trhings. If all we had were the collected archives and field-recordings, might there be a greater value accorded to Traditional Song by way of our Genuine Island Heritage on a par with Chaucer, Shakespeare etc. etc.? Just a thought as I say, for folk is my country too, but, as with This England, I oft despair at the way we treat it in the name of Progress or the way it's governed in the name of Tradition!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:45 AM

.........well, it makes more sense than 'the horse on 7th Avenue'!!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: autoharpbob
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:37 AM

My favourite example is when Val Doonican sang "The Boxer" and changed it to "the girls on 7th Avenue". I wonder if he had permission?

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:12 AM

I agree with Jim & SOP - altering an old song isn't the 'folk process', I'm not a part of that community and I didn't inherit these traditional songs orally. I'm a part of the revival community with it's educated professionals and CD's and internet and so-on.

As for tampering not-in-the-name-of-the-folk-process is concerned, I do alter songs when I Anglicise a percentage of the dialect (as indeed I do) - as a Southerner I can't imitate a fake Scottish accent and it sounds stupid!

The 'revival process' that SOP describes with June Tabor etc. alike renderings of traditional songs, is indesputably healthy and well. Though I'd say it's quite an opposite one to the 'folk process' where evolution occurred, because now instead we tend to get standardised June Tabor songs or Anne Briggs songs or Jaqui McShee songs..

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:55 AM

Would somebody like to claim this anon post below that I've copied before the moderators delete it?

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old s
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:20 AM

Skipy said: "Yes! in the song "Edward Hollander" (flying Cloud)I refuse to sing "we hauled those niggers up on deck" I sing "we hauled those negroes up on deck".
"It has the same value in the song & should not offend."

Actually, I'm not sure it does have the same value in the song. The original word has a stronger percussive force, and vividly conveys the narrator's contempt in a way that "negroes" does not. The danger is that sanitising the song allows people to avoid the ugly truth its original wording conveys, and hence fall into a cosy illusion. Better to confront them with the unvarnished facts and let that be proof of how vile the old attitudes were.

I'm always a bit uneasy about this urge to "tidy up" old books, songs and movies to suit our modern sensibilities. I'd suggest either giving a brief intro explaining that the song contains the language and attitudes of a previous era or simply avoiding the song altogether.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:50 AM

"The only branch of the "Folk Police...."
are those who would silence free discussion with terms like "Folk Police".
"My argument is simple enough - the Traditional Songs aren't ours to mess with."
Which would make us parrots rather than creative singers - crackers!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,^&*
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:48 AM

Firstly, I've posted the song which prompted MARINER's question HERE.

Secondly: I recall having the same problem with The Flying Cloud. Like the last GUEST, I felt "negroes" didn't work for me. I simply substituted "bodies" - it held the rhythm, conveyed the horror and yet didn't draw attention to itself as, I suspect, "negro", does.

More generally, much of this discussion seems to reflect the difference between preserving a tradition , in the sense of maintaining some perceived, fixed integrity and keeping a tradition alive in the sense of accepting that change is inevitable. In the latter case, we can only try to ensure that any changes WE (as individuals) make contribute to the song's longevity rather than hasten its demise!

Incidentally, MARINER is a great example of just how alive the tradition is.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old s
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:20 AM

Skipy said: "Yes! in the song "Edward Hollander" (flying Cloud)I refuse to sing "we hauled those niggers up on deck" I sing "we hauled those negroes up on deck".
"It has the same value in the song & should not offend."

Actually, I'm not sure it does have the same value in the song. The original word has a stronger percussive force, and vividly conveys the narrator's contempt in a way that "negroes" does not. The danger is that sanitising the song allows people to avoid the ugly truth its original wording conveys, and hence fall into a cosy illusion. Better to confront them with the unvarnished facts and let that be proof of how vile the old attitudes were.

I'm always a bit uneasy about this urge to "tidy up" old books, songs and movies to suit our modern sensibilities. I'd suggest either giving a brief intro explaining that the song contains the language and attitudes of a previous era or simply avoiding the song altogether.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:13 AM

My argument is simple enough - the Traditional Songs aren't ours to mess with. That the Traditional Singers messed with them is an essential part of their character, composition & diversification; this is how such songs lived and breathed in their natural habitat. For Revival Singers to do so, however, strikes me as dubious practise - and to do so in the name of The Folk Process is to display a decided ignorance of the actual nature of Traditional Song (much less The Folk Process) and a decided lack of respect to boot.

The most important thing any Revival Singer of Traditional Songs can do, therefore, is by way of research & sourcing, not changing the songs to suit their purposes. The interpretation of a song is a different matter entirely, but for a Revival singer to remake a Traditional Song in the name of the Folk Process is ingenuine and bogus (and accounts for the fact that as far as Traditional Song is concerned I only ever listen to Traditional Singers).

I take Will's point about about musical freedom; no one cherishes this more than I, but with respect of Traditional Songs we are free to sing them, somewhat less so to change them. How we choose to sing them is a different matter entirely, but that doesn't effect the integrity of the thing. That said, I've lost count of floor singers who give unaccompanied renderings of (say) While Game Keepers Lie Sleeping which retain June Tabor's ghastly syncopations and mannerisms which are a whole world away from the laid back natural crooning of Bob Roberts. Too often, I fear, there is a notion that Revival Singers are somehow improving upon things, with Traditional Singers relegated to the status of source singer rather than noble Tradition Bearers to be revered and respected.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:07 AM

The only branch of the "Folk Police" that matter are otherwise known as the audience. They are also judge and jury. Somehow, I don't think you'll hang for changing Mexican to Norwegian.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:52 AM

If it improves the song (Accuracy/scansion/rhyme) then do it.
If it doesn't, then why do it?

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:52 AM

Who are you going to obtain permission from?

There's a curious (and, I suspect deliberate and mischievous) misapprehension here - that somewhere there are 'Guardians of Tradition' or (dare I invoke them?) 'Folk Police' who will come down hard on, and punish, anyone who departs from certain inviolable rules. This is, of course, rubbish!

A singer must make his/her own aesthetic choices - and then Will Fly's inherited family saying comes into play, i.e. "Have what you will - and pay for it".

Thanks, Will - that's a very useful phrase!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Will Fly
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:00 AM

One of the sayings that passed down in our family from our Irish great-great-grandmother was "Have what you will - and pay for it". It's a great saying, meaning, to us, do what the devil you want to - and take the consequences.

As musicians we have total freedom to play or sing whatever we wish to play or sing, in any key style or manner we choose - and change any lyrics we want, to suit. And, of course, we take the consequences of that, which is part of the responsibility for having done what we've done. However, the freedom to do it in the first place is something we should cherish.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Deckman
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 09:29 PM

John P ... well said!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: John P
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 09:18 PM

Wow, opinions all over the map. For myself, I'm glad that no one but me gets to make up rules about how or why I play any piece of music. If something works better for me, I change it, lyrics or melody. I don't care if anyone considers it a Folk Process change or a ghastly gaffe, those sorts of rules are for definitions and academia, not for actually playing music. I play almost entirely traditional folk music interspersed with medieval music and I don't pay any attention at all to historical accuracy or authenticity. As I say, caring about that is musicology, not music.

If I had to make a decision on the matter, I'd disagree with Jim Carroll and say that the folk process never died. It just changed with the times, the same way that traditional music has always done. I don't care if I learn a tune from a remote villager or from YouTube, I still learn the tune and I still feel free to do anything I want with it, and I still pass it on, either by teaching to a youngster or by putting out a CD. I don't see any incongruity.

Suibhne Ashtray seems to forget that the 1954 definition is about musicology. Deciding how to play a song is about playing music. There's a big difference between the two. I see no inconsistency in wanting a firm definition of a musical genre or folk process for the purpose of talking about said genre and process, and also not thinking about that at all while deciding what to play and how to play it.

Aren't we lucky the Folk Police don't actually have any authority over us?

John

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 08:24 PM

Dick - errr...session.org don't give a toss about "songs".. all they care about is tunes... :)_

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Genie
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 08:20 PM

[['These are the notes you play, AND YOU DON'T PLAY ANY OTHERS!']]
Of course, that's not saying anything about the ORDER in which you play them ... ; D

I'm with Midchuck and Deckman:

If the "folk process" had been eschewed by our ancestors, we wouldn't have 17+ versions of Raggle Taggle Gypsies/Blackjack Davy/Whistling Gypsy/Gypsy Rover (etc.) How boring would that be?

If the song's author is known, and still under copyright, you'd better get permission from the author and/or copyright owner. (I'd add that if you deliberately change a song of known authorship, even if the author is dead, the respectful thing to do would be to ACKNOWLEDGE that you've altered the original work (especially if you've put the song on a CD or in a songbook). Otherwise, you're falsely attributing words or melody to the author.
I think this is especially important if your "revision" loses some of the poetry of the original work or if you've given that work the "Rise Up Singing" or "Unitarian Hymnal" "politically correct" treatment.

"Rise Up Singing's" habit of changing lyrics to make them more politically correct or "new-age-y" without even acknowledging the changes really annoys me too.


But as Deckman says, if a word or words in an old song are so archaic or regional that they wouldn't be understood or if they are terms that would be very offensive today, I see no problem with adapting them.   It's not always possible to explain the historical context (e.g., that "darkie" was once "the politically correct term") but I would hate to throw out all the American songs of the early 19th C. because some of their original language might be offensive today. Similarly, I don't see a problem with taking a Robert Burns song and changing a few Scots dialect words to words that American audiences would understand, especially if it's a sing-along.   

But when I pass the lyrics to a song on to other people (e.g., on the internet or by printing a lyric sheet), I try as best I can to find and use the original, accurate lyrics (if such a thing can be determined), rather than just printing them out from my faulty memory or changing them arbitrarily on my own.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 07:50 PM

"Take a sad song and make it better" (the Beatles)...

Shoot, if it's okay fir sad songs then it's goota be okay for other songs...

Go fir it!!!

B~

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Tootler
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 07:44 PM

Oh Dear! I have been known to vary tunes. I was told it was OK as it was simply a variant. Mind quite often my variants are the result of my fingers refusing to do as they are told. They get quite wayward sometimes, especially with new tunes [g]

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Young Buchan
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 07:17 PM

William Kinmber apparently used to tell his pupils 'These are the notes you play, AND YOU DON'T PLAY ANY OTHERS!' Fortunately he wasn't a singer so he won't come back to haunt you for your cavalier attitude. Musicians on the other hand had better watch out....

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:56 PM

I don't believe that deliberate change in a situation where the tradition is dead (cat among pigeons maybe) is part of any folk process, but there is nothing wrong with changing words in old songs; traditional singers did it constantly and deliberately, Sam Larner, Walter Pardon, Joe Heaney... have all spoken about doing it, in Walter's case, at great length, so what we have been handed down is the changed article.
Tootler's posting is dean on the mark IMO
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:31 PM

The nice thing is that if your change(s) make the song worse, they'll probably be forgotten. That's the part of the folk process people seem to forget.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Tootler
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:26 PM

As most traditional songs, at least in the English Language traditions, are story based, then the most important thing is to tell the story as effectively as you can. If that involves altering some words for whatever reason then I can't see any harm in it as long as the essential character of the song is retained.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Deckman
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:15 PM

The previous post was by me, deckman, who keeps becoming absent of my cookie for some weird reason! Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:12 PM

As a singer of mostly "traditional" songs, I'm of several minds on this age old question. By the way, being of "several minds" comes easier with age ... try it some time.

Here's where I allow myself to change a word in an old song:

1: the word is so obscure that no understanding would happen, but I try to take care of that problem in the song introduction.
2. The word is so blatently insulting ... but I usually just caution the audience befor I sing it.
3. I forget the real word, then I politely excuse MYSELF and pass the mistake off to "the folk process"!

CHEERS, bob(deckman)nelson

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: skipy
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 05:49 PM

Yes! in the song "Edward Hollander" (flying Cloud)I refuse to sing "we hauled those niggers up on deck" I sing "we hauled those negroes up on deck".
It has the same value in the song & should not offend.
Skipy - who has not had time to read the thread, but saw the title & posted, so if it has already been covered - sorry.
Too busy with prep. for white horse folk fest to do anything really!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Seonaid
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 05:46 PM

Been known to change *every* word in an old song --
Of course, that was in translations... ;o)

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 05:13 PM

Good for you, Tunesmith.

That way, the entire class got to enjoy the song, without one silly student disrupting everything.

I still like to sing that old favorite while I strum my guitar.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 04:11 PM

A while back, I wanted to sing Jamaica Farewell with a class of 7/8 yr olds. Knowing kids, I knew that the opening line " Far away where the nights are gay" would cause some silliness, and so I simply altered the line to " Far away where the warm winds play". Interestingly, after a few weeks of practicing the song, one kid happened to look at my copy of the original lyrics and - as predicted - started making a big deal about the word "gay" .

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: MARINER
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 03:55 PM

Thanks folks, from now on I will give Captain Erickson his proper nationality .To answer Suibhne Astray it wasn't the Mexico he referred to .This Mexico was lost on the Keeraghs Rocks off the Wexford coast on the 20th of February 1914. I think the song also has her port of departure wrong as well. The song says she came from Lithuania, bound for Liverpool but I think she came from the States
Thank you Guest above. On reflection I think it was a fairly good recovery ,but I didn't think so at the time !.However, I didn't feel so bad when some other singers really cocked it up two days after .Guess it was that Feakle beer.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Gurney
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 03:31 PM

It's permissible, but it may not be accurate! All the crew of the ship Mexico would likely be termed 'Mexicans,' Just as the crew of the Bellerophon were called 'Billy Ruffians.'
Just a thought. And a chance to do an interesting intro.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old s
From: GUEST,Paul Slade
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM

Paul Burke's right. Suibhne Astray isn't.

Besides, it's not as if you're destroying the old version, is it? Anyone who wants to retain him as a Mexican is still perfectly free to do so.

Subject: RE: Is it permissable
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 03:23 PM

Stuffed and stamped? In their natural context? What the hell are you on about?

The Old Songs evolved in a societal context very different from our own which we might think of as The Tradition. This was their natural habitat in which they thrived until doomed to inevitable extinction whereupon the remnants were collected by way taxidermy (stuffed) subjected to an appropriate taxonomy (stamped) which gave rise to The Revival. Whilst in both academic & amateur circles the stuffing & the stamping continues, with respect of The Old Songs, The Revival is most certainly not The Tradition and Revival Singers should be respectful of the old traditional songs they sing. Change the song and it becomes something else entirely.

Otherwise, keep it civil, eh, Paul?

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,^&*
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 03:11 PM

Ah c'mon MARINER! Last week you couldn't remember the crews names, this week you think the skipper had a suntan - what next? The cabin boy was a girl?!

More seriously, after The HanToon incident the other day, Phil remarked that "that was the best recovery I've heard in a long time!" i.e. you used the "mistake" to give yet more life to the story. No better man.

At least the line makes it easy to substitute "was Norwegian" instead of "was a Mexican". Go for it, of course. If anyone asks, tell them the story.

Subject: RE: Is it permissable
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:34 PM

That's utter bollocks Sweeney, and only shows that you know little about how evolution works.

1 Change
2 Test
3 If OK keep
4 Else reject
5 Endif
6 Goto 1

So the answer to Mariner's conundrum is simple. You do line 1, everyone else does lines 2 to 5, then the loop starts again.
Chane the song and see what happens.

Stuffed and stamped? In their natural context? What the hell are you on about?

As for the 1954 definition, I didn't read that tedious thread and I don't like horses, especially of the hobby variety.

Subject: RE: Is it permissable
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM

To quote again my own inlay to my own record: "All these songs are traditional; but I suspect every one will have been more or less consciously modified from original sources in the course of making them my own."

It's what we do, surely...

{One example which occurs to me, not from my own singing ~~ the Coppers' Warlike Seamen has as its second line "I'll tell you of a fight my boys on board the Nottingham". But in a later verse we find "They asked from whence we came; Our answer was from Liverpool and London was our name". So the name of the ship has changed in the middle of the song. I wonder if the Coppers ever noticed; surely they must have done, but that's the way it is in The Book, presumably. I know of at least one group who change that line to "And Nottingham was our name"; which doesn't scan quite so easily. I usually keep the Coppers' words when I sing that one, as I find it flows better; but I can see the case for the alteration. I think, anyhow, that it's a great song, either way & whatever...}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Is it permissable
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM

it is permissible but if youdo it on www.session .org beawre of the consequences