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: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 05:35 PM

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 I think the audience should have information about what you have done. If I knew a person was doing that willy nilly in all sorts of songs, I would not listen to them, buy their CDs etc. If they have a lot of skill, let them write new songs and make up their own stories. I don't think we should change the story that dramatically...or at all..even if we don't understand what the story is. I don't think you have to announce everything at a concert what you did..but maybe tell people that you have a habit of doing that and yu think that your changes improve the song but that they might want to research other older versions. mg

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,schlimmerkerl
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM

My favorite example is that Jon Boden took Feste's song from Twelfth Night, "The Wind and the Rain", completely re-wrote it, added new verses, deleted others, new title ("The Rain it Rains"), and gave it a brand new (very nice) tune-- all confirmed by him in email correspondence. The other night, someone in a local group sang it, completely unaware of the Shakespearean origin.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 05:07 PM

What was the figure? 90 different versions of "Barbara Allen" found in one county in Virginia alone?

If you learn a song from a collection by Sharp, Lomax, Sandburg, et al., that's the version that that particular collector picked up from that particular singer, who may very well have made changes, either intentionally or inadvertently, from the version that he or she learned from someone else. Who in turn—

Little dogs have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em.
And little fleas have littler fleas,
And so ad infinitum.

And the same goes for learning songs from records. What I said above holds for both field recordings and commercial recordings as well as for books. Many people, including me, have learned, and continue to learn, songs from commercial recordings, a very rich source of material. And there is much variation there. For example, I have two recordings of The Unquiet Grave, one by Joan Baez and the other by Andrew Rowan Summers. They differ. Only slightly, but a word here and a line there. And I believe Baez sings a verse that Summers does not. Along with this, I have texts of the same ballad in several books, all essentially the same, but each one differing a little from the others. The version that I sing is a blending of several of the versions that I have heard and read, mostly this one, some of that one, and a bit of the other.

But all the versions tell the same story and tell it quite effectively.

Check the Child collection. There are sometimes dozens of versions of the same ballad, all telling, essentially, the same story, but with many variations in the way the story is told.

In the late 1950s, I took a class in "The Popular Ballad" from Prof. David C. Fowler in the University of Washington English Literature department. Dr. Fowler has written a book or two on the ballads, and he sang a bit himself. When the class was finished (along with the final exam), one of the students who sang and played the Celtic harp, invited the class to her home to have a song fest. During the course of the evening, Dr. Fowler asked if anyone knew a version of The Gypsy Laddie, Child #200. I knew one: The Wraggle-Taggle Gypsies. So I sang it.

But a couple of years before this, late one night, a singing friend of mine and I sat in an all-night restaurant over coffee, going over the words of The Wraggle-Taggle Gypsies, which, incidentally, both of us had learned from a Susan Reed record. We came up with the notion that if one small change were made in the final verse, it would really add a dramatic punch to the song, which we both felt it seemed to lack.

The second to last verse goes

"Last night I slept in a goose feather bed
With the sheets turned back so bravely-oh.
Tonight I'll sleep in a cold, open field,
Along with the wraggle-taggle gypsies-oh."

The final verse in the "official, ordained, and certified" verse merely repeats the same thing, but in the third person.

Last night she slept in a goose feather bed. . . .

What we came up with at two o'clock in the morning over coffee was to keep that verse in the third person, but change one word. So it came out

Last night she slept in a goose feather bed
With the sheets turned back so bravely-oh.
Tonight she sleeps in a cold, open grave,
Along with the wraggle-taggle gypsies-oh.

Ka-POW!! Maybe that's a bit much, but it certainly gives the end of the song a dramatic punch!

Okay, back to the class song-fest. I'd been singing the song that way for a couple of years, and that's the way I sang it that night.

Dr. Fowler's eyebrows went up.

"Where," he asked, "did you learn that version? That last verse?"

I figured, "Uh oh! I'm busted!" I confessed what my friend and I had done along with our reasoning on the matter, and threw myself on Dr. Fowler's mercy.

"You're right!" he said. "It really ends the ballad with a shocker."

"But," I stammered, "I'm not sure that we should have been messing around with a traditional ballad like that."

"I like it," he said. "I don't know for certain, but there may be versions already in existence that end that way. It makes sense dramatically and it does lend impact to the ending. I don't believe field collectors and scholars should make changes, even though many of them did, thinking they were 'improving' them, or 'cleaning them up' and making them less shocking to the easily shocked. That's poor scholarship, really. But performers—now, I think that's different. Changes should not be made indiscriminately, but if you have a good reason for it, then why not, if it makes for a better story?"

And then he used what I consider the magic words: "That's a minstrel's prerogative. Minstrels and traditional folk singers [Emphasis mine—DF] often altered words for the very same reason you did."

I knew that what Dr. Fowler said was true. I felt guilty and vindicated at the same time.

But before one starts making changes right, left, and center, I think they should ponder the matter carefully and have a darned good reason for making a change. If changing of a word or two makes the line easier to sing and doesn't alter the meaning, then why not? Or some verses may be a bit of a jolt or a distraction to an audience, in some cases possibly eliciting inappropriate snickers from the immature. For example, going back to The Unquiet Grave. The "task" verse in some versions:

"Go fetch me water from the desert,
And blood from out of a stone,
And fetch me milk from a fair maiden's breast
That young man never has known."

I've had the occasional audience member either look shocked or get the giggles at this verse. A distraction from the narrative and from the point of the song. So I've dropped it. And—since the moral of this particular ballad is that one should not mourn overlong for the departed because it was believed mourning overlong would disturb them in their grave and "wet their winding sheet with tears." So mourn, yes. But after a decent interval (a year at most), get on with your life and let the dear departed rest. I included this verse from another version, putting it toward the end.

"Mourn not for me, my own true love.
Mourn not for me, I pray,
For I must leave you and all the world
And turn down to my grave."

Then he asks "When shall we meet again?" and she responds, "When the autumn leaves that fall from the trees turn green and spring up again." Meaning, it isn't going to happen, so let it go. And get on with your life.

A sad lesson, really, but one to take to heart.

The problem with making changes that are simply not well thought out is that all too often someone will not understand a word or two and will change it to something they do understand, not being familiar with what might be, say, a technical term in a sea chantey or other work song. Or certain traditions behind a song. A little ballad scholarship can help avoid this. Learn as much about the background of the song as you can. If you don't really understand a word or a line, probably best to leave it alone.

And some really dumb changes take place sometimes when a perfectly good line containing an evocative image doesn't rhyme. Someone changes a word or two to make it rhyme, producing a line that sounds awkward, is awkward to sing, and at the same time, loses the image. If it doesn't rhyme, probably best to simply let it go.

As Dr. Fowler said, if you are going to change a traditional song or ballad, know what you are doing, and have a good reason for any change you might make.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 04:09 PM

Off topic a little, but can I highly recommend a newly published book on the work and gleanings of the early English collectors entitled 'The Late Victorian Folksong Revival' (The Persistence of English Melody 1878-1903), by E.David Gregory; loads of songs and good commentary which provide an excellent background to our folk repertoire.
It's a meaty book (583pp) at a meaty price, but if you feel like re-morgaging your grandmother, it's available on the net.
For those who havent come across The Book Depository, they have a good stock, including this, and don't charge postage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 03:58 PM

The thoughtfull comments on this subject continue! One way that I KNOW I have purposefully changed songs that I've sung over the many years is that I sometimes now emphasize interpretations that were always in the song, but I didn't have the wisdom to recognize them when I was younger.

Maybe I should sue myself, as a blaspherer of tradition songs ... anybody know a good lawyer! bob(deckman)nelson

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM

But there isn't 'A tradition' there isn't 'A revival' - not here at my house.

There was only ever singing. My mum sang, so did her mum, they had a piano - in his youth my dad played an auto harp, we had a piano at home.

I have had people come and ask me about the songs I sing, but I can't tell them much about them - I don't take songs off records only hear people singing them and write them down. OK these days I can't manage to remember a song at one hearing like I used to do and it bothers me when I look around for written down words and can't find the rest to the bits I remember.

I know I have put in thee's and thou's in places - my dialect is from Barnsley South Yorkshire - it is my natural way of speaking and surfaces when I get angry. It is not a conscious changing of the words, I just open my mouth and those are the words that come out.

I think there is studying songs and there is singing them and it might be interesting to collect, and being the man on the bicycle seems a bit of a cushy number to me, but I am 60 years old next April and life is too short for such luxuries.

I sing my songs to my grandson, not to pass them on but because that is what a nana does.

And it shuts him up, diverts him from things he should not be doing and lulls him to sleep.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 02:55 PM

Folks, permissible has nothing to do with it.
We do what we do. I never sang a song the same way twice. If the director of my old NPR radio show was telling me we were out of time, I'd figure a way to sum up the song and end it. Hell if a great folksinger decides to be another gender, who is to say anything about permissible??!!

The more things change, the more they get different. It might take an individual a few decades to understand the complete truth of that, but it is the way of this world. Hell, it's the way if this universe------and a few others maybe.

Love,

Art

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 02:51 PM

"It is like going into a forest in a national campground and saying I am going to make this tree my own, not by sitting under it and photographing it etc., but by trimming the branches and painting happy faces on it or whatever"

No, it isn't. A tree is damaged forever by such 'improvements' whereas if I change a song that I sing to my dog, no material damage is done and no one really even knows the difference unless I talk about it.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 02:34 PM

I guess I have sort of what we think the Native American philosophy is to the land, and we may or may not have heard it right..but that they are not "our own"...maybe unless we wrote them and even then if we took extreme legal measures somehow. I think they belong to the community, certainly the community they are about or that created them, but also a worldwide community, as in whoever likes them, barring certain sacred songs, can sing them.

It is like going into a forest in a national campground and saying I am going to make this tree my own, not by sitting under it and photographing it etc., but by trimming the branches and painting happy faces on it or whatever. mg

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 02:24 PM

mg, my comments were in the context of a discussion about whether it's "permissible" to change words in songs. My comment in full reflects my point. Here it is, again (12XU!) . . . "Everyone changes songs, and there's no point in singing folk songs if you're not trying to make them your own. Why slavishly recreate someone else's work? They have paint-by-numbers if you like that sort of thing." My friend sings The Galway Shawl, which he learned from his mother. He does NOT sing it precisely as his mother sang it. He has learned more verses, smoothed out the diction, substituted some awkward bits, etc. That is an example of what I mean.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 02:05 PM

"I'm not throwing stones, Jim "
Yes you are SO'P and it seems to be one of your favourite occupations.
In the past you have accused collectors and researchers of lying and distorting the information we have collected in order to 'invent' an oral tradition; here you have toned it down somewhat by suggesting we are stupid by allowing ourselves to be conned by a bunch of lying and distorting traditional singers who have fed us the information they believe we wanted.
You never produce evidence to back up these claims - which collectors work have you researched and what have you uncovered to have reached the somewhat low opinion you appear to have of us? I have to say that reading your postings quite often leaves me with the overwhelming feeling of "Why the **** bother; why don't we just archive it and let the future decide".
Regarding the somewhat bizzare distinction between changing words and tune - sorry; don't understand a word of it.
Listening to your recordings leaves me with the impression that the path you have chosen is that of musical theatre - the difference in your approach and that of a traditional singer lies not in alteration of word and tune, but that of a change in the function of a song - it is no longer the narrative piece that is started out as, but has become something else - nothing wrong with that, it just has lost its traditional objective - that of communicating a story.
Mike,
Agree with what you say about Mrs Hogg - to an extent - I believe that literacy and publishing has had an effect on the songs and singing, but not necessatrily as she believed they would.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 01:53 PM

there's no point in singing folk songs if you're not trying to make them your own...


------
Say what???? That sounds nonsensical to me. There are all sorts of reasons to sing them as you found them. Because your grandmother sang them. Because you like things the way they were in the olden days. Because the words and tune are very pretty. Because there is some important history contained within. Because you have a philosophy that is of preserving them. All sorts of reasons I thought of in about 5 seconds. mg

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 01:38 PM

I've come across some interesting analogues in visual art.

I once met a woman in Greece who did Orthodox icon painting. She was an American convert, so much into Orthodoxy that the only music she listened to was Byzantine chant. She claimed that nobody could tell one of her paintings from one done a thousand years before - the iconography was absolutely fixed. (She also thought this was a good thing).

Some time in the 1980s some arm of the Australian government decided to protect Aboriginal rock paintings as if they were mediaeval church art, with nobody allowed to touch them. This conflicted with what the Aborigines themselves wanted - they would regularly overpaint them as a sacred ceremony. Their position was that as they'd been doing this ever since the Dreamtime, they were the authorities on how those paintings should be cared for. I believe the Aborigines won the argument. This was not quite the same situation as the Greek artist's work. Over 50,000 years, the images must have drifted a bit, even though nobody could observe the change in one lifetime.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 01:29 PM

"I'm a bit of a stickler for tunes"

I'm pretty sure that in past threads you've told us that you often improvise tunes. And tunes and words go together, so my comments weren't entirely off topic. And my original point remains - Everyone changes songs, and there's no point in singing folk songs if you're not trying to make them your own. Why slavishly recreate someone else's work? They have paint-by-numbers if you like that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 01:02 PM

Is it permissible? No, certainly not - the tradition forbids it.

Can you do it? Yes, of course - who's going to stop you?

Two very different questions.

Personally I regularly change lines to make them more singable or patch a song together from two different versions; if I can't find the right patch, in Child or on a broadside, I have been known to interpolate a line of my own. I don't preserve songs unchanged in the belief that preserving songs unchanged is What A Folk Singer Does. On the other hand, I don't glory in changing songs in the belief that changing songs is What A Folk Singer Does; I change them when I need to in order to make them work, and don't shout about it (although I don't deny doing it either).

A bit boring, but I'll take Thou Mayst If Thou Hast To (But Don't Go Mad About It) over Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not any day.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: MikeL2
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM

hi

Here we go again.....

I belong to the view of the members who say that any singer that sang any songs regularly changed them either conciously or sub-conciously...and the World still goes on !!

Do you know that if you google Folk music and folk music you get the same thing !!!

cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 12:32 PM

You yourself take considerable liberties with melody and phrasing (if your youtube postings are representative), so why are you up there on that hobby horse telling the rest of us what to do?

Messing with the words is what we're on about, and doing so in the name of the tradition, the folk process, or because source singers did it etc. etc. Do I really take liberties? Phrasing maybe (largely determined by chronic asthma) but saving the odd thing I've supplied myself, I'm a bit of a stickler for tunes. Accompaniments are a different matter - in the words of The Great Beast, do what thou wilt.

with the implication that that means two wholly separate things.

There is a point where Traditional Singers have intersected with The Revival, but not to the extent where it wasn't clear what was going on. The Revival pretty much invents & determines Folk as a cultural concept, even The Tradition to a certain extent, which owes both it's taxonomy & taxidermy to The Revival. To be honest though, I don't lose sleep over any of this.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM

Suibhne keeps on asserting that "The Tradition and The Revival are two entirely different things" - with the implication that that means two wholly separate things. I'd say there's always been an overlap and a degree of continuity. It's useful enough to keep the distinction between those two terms, as a way of navigating these waters - but as the saying goes, the map isn't the territory.

The assumption that its possible to draw a line in the sand and proclaim that "the Tradition" is ended and completed is a bit like that young historian who decided that the end of the USSR marked "the end of history". But history wasn't listening...

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM

"My argument is simple enough - the Traditional Songs aren't ours to mess with"

"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."

Everyone who sings traditional songs changes them, to some degree or another. They aren't museum pieces, and if they were there would be no need to sing them at all - we could just go back to the recordings. You yourself take considerable liberties with melody and phrasing (if your youtube postings are representative), so why are you up there on that hobby horse telling the rest of us what to do?

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 11:55 AM

Sedayne aka Suibhne Astray

The quote comes a polemical blog on the same page, TheSnail. Like most polemical writing this sets out a series of ideals rather than a practical code for living, other than to delight in their myriad wonders of course, which is what any revival singer of traditional material is doing anyway - myself included - not by way preserving the tradition, or being part of the folk process, but by simply doing what they want to do. After all, who's going to stop them?

Of the traditional material on that site you'll hear The Collier's Rant sung in a traditional manner with fiddle; two sets of Gently Me Johnny, one trad.,the other Bowderised by C#; Child #19 : King Orfeo sung to the traditional melody using a Tibetan singing Bowl as a drone; Seeds of Love sung traditionally with feral hurdy-gurdy in an otherwise freely-improvised context; and Child #49: The Rolling of the Stones sung with freely improvising viola, pocket cornet & frame drum accompaniment. Maybe this gets back to an earlier post of Jim's (which I've just read) but in all of these examples the inspiration comes from the Traditional Source rather than a Revival reading of same. In my adolescence I was faced with a choice of two roads - one way said FOLK MUSIC, the other said EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC. After a momentary deliberation I decided to go off into the uncharted wilderness between the two, which certainly accounts for the songs on my myspace page, which is just revival folk, just my non-traditional accompaniments might not be what you're used to. Whatever the case, I would never purposefully change a traditional song to suit my own needs. The closest I come to this is with those ballads that don't have traditional tunes - The Wee Wee Man and The Twa Corbies - or those I've first come across without tunes, such as The Wife of Usher's Well, for which I've composed my own in the traditional idiom, but not in the tradition.

As I said in my second post to this thread: Seriously, do what you want, but to do so in the name of The Tradition or the Folk Process is, to borrow one of Richard's words, asinine.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 11:53 AM

Crow Sister-
if the regular folkies can't afford a "leather bound set of Bronson", might I suggest that they might consider investing in the hard (but not leather)bound four volumes ($50 per) or the soft-bound 4 volumes ($40 per). Or possibly in Bronson's single-volume condensation ($50/$40 for hard/soft cover versions.) Or even the single CD-R version of the entire 4 volumes in a searchable PDF format ($40).

All available from CAMSCO Music, of course.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: NormanD
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM

I've been listening to Joseph Spence today. Did he change a word here and there in old songs? No, he changed the whole song here and there.....

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 11:26 AM

I have to admit that the Band played...is not a folk song, but it stands at the top in whatever category it does belong in.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 11:08 AM

"There is nothing wrong with changing the words to a song, what matters is if anyone takes a blind bit of notice of the change. I don't think anyone on this forum has the influence."

Good point. I've no idea about who does - or who doesn't - on this forum, might happen to have 'the influence', but it's certainly true that many 60's revival artists *have* indeed had that influence, and it remains an enduring one.

Not only on words (check any lyrics site for this traditional song by Sandy Denny, or that traditional song by June Tabor) but on stylistic presentation and so-on. I count myself among the many who have in fact absorbed the revival plus all the trimmings as a consequence of resorting to revival recordings in order to traditional songs.

But then I'd wager that few enough regular folkies own a leather bound set of Bronson and I'd guess few regular folkies on modest incomes own the twenty volume VOP set either. One can but wonder WHY?

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 10:41 AM

GUEST,Suibhne Astray

The problem is that there is a very definite cut off point between the cultural and social conditions in which the traditional songs arose, and that which exists now. We have lost the continuity in which these songs came into being and as such the only thing we should do with them is observe, and source, and delight in their myriad wonders.

Sedayne aka Suibhne Astray

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Don Day
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM

There is nothing wrong with changing the words to a song, what matters is if anyone takes a blind bit of notice of the change. I don't think anyone on this forum has the influence.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 10:29 AM

Jim: Take most of your points here, but don't entirely agree re Mrs Hogg being 'correct' ~~ at risk of vanity, let me nevertheless quote from what I wrote about Mrs Hogg in my article on Folklore in The Continuum Encyclopedia Of British Literature [NY 2003]:

'"They were made for singin' and no for readin', but ye hae broken the charm now, and they'll never be sung mair." [Mrs Hogg's] words have been called 'prophetic', but the resultant decline in living folklore was probably a factor of the same influences that led to the folkloric researches of Scott and others in the first place — awareness that urbanization and the spread of easily accessible forms of popular entertainment (pleasure gardens, music-hall; later, radio, cinema, television, recording) were undermining those popular roots on which the uninhibited spread of living folklore depends, and a consequent desire to preserve what could be saved before it vanished entirely. Although the folk forms have turned out tougher than this pessimistic view suggested, it is true that, from the invention of printing onward, every technological and popular artistic development had tended to fix the form. Mrs Hogg, alas, was too late.'

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 10:17 AM

I'm not throwing stones, Jim - just pointing the disparity between the Source and the Collector which has long been known & accounted for, something which, as long ago as 1941, Flann O'Brien was using to hilarious effect as part of An Béal Bocht.

Otherwise...

I'd argue that Tommy Armstrong was part of the tradition he was writing within; his songs are therefore traditional in every sense and well known in his lifetime. George Bruce Thomson likewise, whose masterpiece M'Ginty's Meal an Ale was written for Grieg's column in the Buchan Observer in 1910. The notion of change in the 1954 Definition is a singular caveat which can't be a deciding factor in whether song can be considered traditional or not simply because, as we've seen, the tradition gave rise to written songs by known authors whose work remained essentially unchanged thereafter. The notion of literature in vernacular usage comes through in various songs considered to be otherwise Traditional - The Kerry Wedding is one, The Limerich Rake is another. I'm currently working up a version (with fiddle) of Paddy Tunney's translation of An Bunnan Bui which no one seems to know a fat lot about (see thread Lyr Add: An Bunnan Bui / The Yellow Bittern), least of all myself, though wading through the various versions and translations I reckon none is in quite the same league as Paddy's which is a work of singularly sublime perfection which features very much as part of the tradition.

If there were a body of skilled songmakers turning out enough songs to supply either the British or Irish repertoires, we never came across any evidence whatever, neither did you from the sound of it.

I come across it whenever I look at a traditional song - songs made and sung by true masters of their vernacular craft; the ordinary working class people, uniquely gifted, as ordinary working class people can be, much to surprise of Middle-class Folklorists, who insist on emphasing collective random process instead of considering the evidence in hand. I'm not talking about some elite school, any more than the kids I see churning out virtuouso heavy-metal licks in Manchester music shops of a Saturday belong to an elite school, or the teenage London rappers once in evidence on Channel U (when I had access to such a thing) who were upping the anti on anything coming in from America at the time. No doubt they still are, whilst holding down regular jobs too. There is great Vernacular Music everywhere I look - of all genres - the creative genius of popular culture is alive and well. Even in the Folk Scene where songwriters such as Ron Baxter, Wendy Arrowsmith, Scowie and Ted Edwards (to name but four) have created some pretty impressive stuff within an idiomatic revival tradition; Peter Bellamy likewise, who recognised that Rudyard Kipling was deriving much of his inspiration from the same vernacular sources he celebrated in many of his poems.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 09:01 AM

"A controversial point here I know but to what extent might your sources have been feeding you what you wanted to hear? "
You mean we asked for the name of an author and they didn't give it to us because they knew we really didn't want one - oh, come on, keep this discussion on ground level!
Do you have any evidence whatever that this is the case with our work, or anybody's working in the same field - just a little hint will do?
If we hadn't wanted to know we wouldn't have asked and just gone ahead and made unsubstatiated claims - in pretty well the same way as youi are at present
Even the anecdote you cited concerning Sharp is little more than a myth.
Your falling back on throwing stones from your armchair again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:50 AM

PS

(even the singer who gave us the above song, made within his lifetime, couldn't give us the name of one of the makers).

A controversial point here I know but to what extent might your sources have been feeding you what you wanted to hear? It was well known that cannier sources knew what was expected of them when faced with song-collectors & folklorists whose primary agenda was determined by pre-conceptions of the sort of a beast an Authentic Folk Song was - essential anonymous, collectively determined by the community viewed across the gulf of class condscension etc. etc. I often ponder how many well known songs were passed off as trad / anon. simply because the collectiors wouldn't have been interested in them otherwise. One is reminded of the anecdote in which singers in America warned each other to put their banjos away and sing unaccompanied otherwise Cecil Sharp wouldn't be interested!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:41 AM

"Jim - and as I said last time, the process you describe exactly accounts for what I mean by creative masters - "
But they don't - not in our experience anyway.
Tommy Armstrong's song are not a bad example of songs that didn't go into the tradition but stayed within the pages of books unaltered until they were ressurected by the revival.
One of the features of songs written by identifiable authors is that 'the folk' tend to treat them with a deference that leaves them as they were first composed - the act of writing them down and in particular, publishing them, sets them is stone.
There are several examples around here of poems written by local poet, Thomas Hayes around the beginning of the 20th century, which are fairly widely sung throughout the county, all in exactly the same form as they were written (1 version of one of these includes a verse that other local singers considered superfluous and left out, but that is all).
This is what makes James Hogg's mother's statement to Scott so correct "They were made for singin' and no for prentin', and noo they'll never be sung mair."
If there were a body of skilled songmakers turning out enough songs to supply either the British or Irish repertoires, we never came across any evidence whatever, neither did you from the sound of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 08:27 AM

it's an important part of the Folk process to keep the songs alive

We see this sort of thinking a lot here. Doesn't anyone appreciate that The Tradition and The Revival are two entirely different things and for members of the latter to tamper with the songs of the former is nothing to do with The Folk Process, rather a particular conceit the revival seems to have with respect of improving things - be it the songs themselves or the versions that have come down to us via the recordings of so-called source singers? My question is as rhetorical as it is long-winded, otherwise the Folk Scene would be devoted primarily to Traditional Song and the Singers Thereof, rather than fawning over the revival stars who have removed the songs yet further from the vital context that was their nautural habitat.

*

The condition of traditional song is perilous enough without subjecting them to any further interference. Treat them as listed buildings, the interiors and exteriors of which amount to irreplaceable national treasures all too vulnerable to the ravages of time and ill-advised DIY make-overs. What else is Liege and Leif but a sequence of tasteless, bland modernisations of some nice old characterful properties; the wattle & daub of the originals ripped out and replaced with mass produced breeze block and plaster board; sash windows replaced with UPVC and the open fires with flame-effect gas fires?

The problem is that there is a very definite cut off point between the cultural and social conditions in which the traditional songs arose, and that which exists now. We have lost the continuity in which these songs came into being and as such the only thing we should do with them is observe, and source, and delight in their myriad wonders.

In a nutshell, they are not ours to mess with in the first place - not in any way, shape or form - and God knows there is enough work still to be done in simply learning and singing them with resorting to such underhand methods as addition, alteration and interpretation.

We lovers of traditional song are not so much the keepers of a tradition, rather the volunteer curators of a museum, entrusted with the preservation of a few precious, priceless and irreplaceable artefacts: hand-crafted tools we no longer know the names of (let alone what they were actually used for) ; hideous masks of woven cornstalks (which are invariably assumed to be pagan) ; and hoary cases of singular taxidermy wherein beasts long extinct are depicted in a natural habitat long since vanished.

Not only is such a museum a beacon for the naturally curious, it's a treasure in and of itself, an anachronism in age of instant (and invariable soulless) gratification, and as such under constant threat by those who want to see it revamped; cleaned up with computerised displays and interactive exhibits and brought into line with the rest of commodified cultural presently on offer.

But not only is this museum is our collective Pit-Rivers, it is a museum which, in itself, is just as much an artefact of a long-vanished era as the objects it contains. It is delicate, and crumbling, but those who truly love it wouldn't have it any other way - and quite rightly so.

(Polemic episodes extracted from the old Harvest Home forum and collected into my blog The Liege, The Lief & The Traditional Folk Song, May 2008.)

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Ethical
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 07:25 AM

Oh yes, I agree it is ethical and often a very good thing to do. I do a lot of Irish ballads, and have done a lot of research into them. It's very common to come across several words that have changed from the original, usually making no difference to tthe song, and more often improving it, and as somebody else correcting it. As Pete Seeger sas in his book Rise Up Singing, it's an important part of the Folk process to keep the songs alive and add or remove things as long as it improves the song. And if it's good enough for Pete it's good enough for me.

Desi C
The Circle Folk Club
Coseley West Mid's

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 07:24 AM

I would be interested to learn the name of one of these 'creative masters' if you had one - if not, why not?

We've been here before, Jim - and as I said last time, the process you describe exactly accounts for what I mean by creative masters - i.e. the uniquely gifted working-class people entirely immersed and fully coversant with the idioms & conventions of traditional song as they were with their every day labours - be it cooper, farrier, brewer, carpenter, mason, wheelwright, bricklayer, ploughman, fisherman etc. etc. I could name a couple whose names have come down to us - George Bruce Thompson, who wrote M'Ginty's Mean an' Ale circa 1911, and Tommy Armstrong (1848-1920) who wrote innumerable songs & ballads in the traditional idiom, using traditional melodies. One thing's for sure, the songs didn't grow on trees but sprang from such individual genius - however so roughly at times - and were shaped according to the genius of others and so it goes on. Names tend not to be attached to oral folklore, any more than I could tell who came up with any of the jokes currently doing the rounds. At least that particular Oral Tradition is alive and well anyway...

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 06:29 AM

"As I've said here on innumerable occasions the Traditional Songs were made & re-made by creative masters of an exacting idiom "
And you've been challenged on innumerable occasions on the same issue.
Within a living tradition, such as existed in West Clare in Ireland at least into the 1940s, some (a tiny handful) of the songs were written by people known as songmakers and poets, but most that we know about were made (in some cases, not even written down) by people with hardly any skill at all and were taken up by others who firmed them up and re-shaped them until they reached a form good enough to be accepted and established by the community. We know this from descriptions of the circumstances of some of these having been made.
One song we know of, dealing with an arson attempt at a local police station during the Irish War of Independence, was made by four men standing on a street corner throwing lines and verses at each other until they finally came up with a roughly arrived-at product, which we were lucky enough to record in 1976.
Even songs that must have been made within the lifetimes of the singers who gave them to us, all came without known authors (even the singer who gave us the above song, made within his lifetime, couldn't give us the name of one of the makers).
The same applies to the Travelling communities which were still making songs here up to the middle of the 1970s, yet all of their self made ones still come with the signature 'Anon'. Several songs we've recorded come with descriptions of having been composed in similar circumstances as 'The Quilty Burning' as described above - by people passing ideas to one another until some sort of final product was arrived at. Quite often it appears that the songs were not launched as finished works of 'creative masters, but of mud-caked rough diamonds, very much in need of cutting and polishing, and the recipients, far from being exacting, did the best they could, then passed them on to the next singer to add his or her efforts.
It appears, to us at least, who have spent some time interviewing traditional singers on the subject, that the songs are the products of many singers of various levels of ability, over time, sometimes centuries. each adding and taking away what suits or doesn't suit them. What we have was the product of the end of that process.
If your argument has any validity whatever, the songs would have come to us with known authors and some knowledge of the people who composed them, especially as songmaking went on within a thriving tradition here in West Clare right up to the beginning of the 1950s, and still goes on in a very reduced and stumbling form.
The existence of a 'school' of anonymous composers using similar techniques to make songs which were so well composed and accepted as to have lasted for centuries, is inconceivable.
I would be interested to learn the name of one of these 'creative masters' if you had one - if not, why not?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Marje
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 05:42 AM

I see traditional songs as our songs. They don't belong to anyone else, do they? Who would give or deny permission to adapt them?

We (the revivalists, the song carriers, whatever you like to call us) have inherited these songs and have every right to adapt and use them as we wish. We and the generation before us have been doing this now for about half a century, which may not be long enough for some people to regard it as a "tradition", but it's getting close to one by any definition.

We should remember that any version of a traditional song that has been recorded, either on paper or in sound, is simply a snapshot of how one (or several) singers sang a particular song in a certain place one day, probably in the early 20th century. It's a big mistake to assume that this version is somehow definitive or original - there were earlier versions which almost certainly differed in some respects, just as there will be later ones.

The "oral tradition" is neither the only method of transmission used in the past, nor extinct today. The singer who is regarded as a "source" singer may have learnt the song orally within the family, or from a printed source such as a broadside version, or a family song-book. Similarly, many modern singers have learnt the tunes of their songs orally - there are many singers who can't read music - and in some cases the words too. Most of us will know, for example, several popular shanties we've never seen in print.

So in my view, all this gives us the right to make modest changes to the words of songs to suit us and our audiences. Exactly what sort of changes constitute an improvement is a matter for further debate - some people want to modernise the context, change the genders, or remove offensive words, while others simply want to regularise the rhythm and the rhymes, and perhaps tweak the vocabulary if it doesn't make any sense to the modern ear. Many singers shorten songs by omitting or conflating verses, and it's quite common practice for a singer to consider several "traditional" versions and then combine them into one that seems satisfying and complete. Why anyone should object to this is beyond me. As someone has pointed out, if a change spoils the song, it's not likely to be taken up and perpetuated by other singers.

Marje

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 05:02 AM

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.

Oh but I do. As I've said here on innumerable occasions the Traditional Songs were made & re-made by creative masters of an exacting idiom and as a consequence existed in a state of fluidity even from one rendering to the next. But this was in their natural habitat - The Tradition if you like - as evidenced by the collections and versions which have come down to us, which are, as PoggaGator suggests, a chance of a partuicular collector hearing any given song at any given time. Go to the Max Hunter archive and you may hear the same song sung differently by the same singer on separate occasions - not as a consequence of bad memory, rather because they shape it differently each time they sing it, so undoubtedly the next performance of any collected song would have been different. We find many accounts of The Folk Process on Mudcat, and a good number seem to favour poor memory, mondegreens and other such random factors. Earlier on someone spoke of correcting them, and in another thread it was shown how The Shepherd of the Downs derives from The Shephed Adonis which I would imagine is less of a mondegreen than a deliberate change in order to remove the Arcadian element and bring it closer to home. Whatever the case, it remains an area that makes for fascinating exploration on any level, from casual amateur to professional academic, and though no purist myself, I do derive much pleasure from those whose dedication to Traditional Folk Song gives us a glimpse into a world now lost to us.

As for The Band Played Waltzing Matilda... Like I say I first heard this sung by June Tabor in a set of otherwise traditional unaccompanied songs when I was just getting into going to folk clubs and it struck me just how incongruous such material was alongside the real stuff. At the time, aged 14, I was naive enough to believe that Folk Music should be devoted 100% to traditional material in which I found salve from the cares of 1976, and provided respite from the ear-bashing I regularly subjected myself to listening to prog & Krautrock and emergent punk. Like kicking over ancient clay pipe-bowls in the furrows, or pondering overgrown mills and following along old wagonways, the songs gave a human dimension to a landscape whivch, like the old songs, was shaped by a very different history than that into which I was born. The Band Played Waltzing Matilda had no place in such a context; I felt (and still feel) that such songs belong elsewhere, that The Revival has become diluted by such material to the extent where most folk clubs I've been to over years favour that sort of folk over the real thing. There was worse to come of course - I stopped going to see June Tabor entirely after hearing her sing Unicorns and (horror of horrors) The King of Rome - songs which have me fleeing for the door even to this day. Anyway, some good has come of it, for if wasn't for The Band Played Waltzing Matilda, Ron Baxter would never have written Morecambe. Just personal taste though; and after a few pints I'll even sing along quite happily - hell, after a few pints I'll even sing along with Sally Weatley!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM

MG, I'm not clear whether by "my songs" you mean songs you have written, or songs which are in your repertoire.

I don't mind the gender being changed, provided it is done in a way which is sympathetic to the original sense of the song. Even if the original composer had a specific person in mind, a singer may well have someone of their own in mind, which gives the song a particular meaning for them.

For composed songs, then it is a matter of courtesy (and I believe copyright law) to get the original composer's permission to make changes. With traditional songs, it is different - there is no "correct" version, and singers throughout the ages have made changes, either deliberately or by accident. In either case, what is important is the integrity of the song.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 08:13 PM

Thanks Bob....

It's funny..I don't mind if people change words to "my" songs, which I don't consider mine...maybe unless they changed the gender which drives me nuts..first it hurts my ears if I have heard another version, and whichever version I hear first I think is the correct version and what if I heard the wrong one? Then I would spend the rest of my life in confusion. Also the song is about a particular person. A particular person is generally a man or a woman and it does not matter what the singer is..or they match the person in the song...to me at least.

To me, that is the most outrageous reason for changing words in a song and I can not think of ever it being a good idea. mg

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,Betsy
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 07:27 PM

Simple answer is yes - unless you ruin the integrity and intent of the original song e.g Oh yes John yes John Oh !!!!

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 07:27 PM

I also have heard awful renditions of many a fine song, but the rendition is one thing and the song another.
The Band Played Waltzing Matilda is one of the best songs I have ever heard, and Eric Bogle likes the way I did it. That's good enough for me.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM

Hi Genie ... Funny that you should mention "Sam Hall." Last Fall I was teaching a class in "History As Found In Folk Music." I wanted to include "Sam Hall" as an example I wanted to make. I cautioned the students about the rough language they were going to hear. It was well received and I didn't get fired! bob

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Genie
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:35 PM

GUEST said "I'd suggest either giving a brief intro explaining that the song contains the [currently offensive] language and attitudes of a previous era or simply avoiding the song altogether."

I think an awful lot of very good songs from earlier eras would be lost if everyone followed that rule.   Many music programs are not meant as history lessons per se and don't work well with extended explanatory introductions to songs. Plus, sometimes there are people in the audience who would, perhaps rightly, still be very offended by the use of some words, even if you've explained the context.    I think if altering the words can minimize such offense without really changing the character of a song, why not modify them as needed? But if 'sanitizing' them (e.g., "... You're a bunch of stinkers all, gosh darn your eyes") really messes up a song, don't sing that song for that audience.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule that applies for all songs and situations.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:28 PM

Kendall - I've heard some dire, turgid and mawkish renditions of the Band played Waltzing Matilda, but June's wasn't one of them!

(The first song I remember hearing June sing was Dido Bendigo, round a campfire at Sidmouth festival in 1968...)

Kitty

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:23 PM

I'm finding this thread rather interesting. I'll make a couple of comments in the hope that it adds to the discussion:

Back in 1959, I had the pleasure of meeting James Stevens, the composer of "The Frozen Logger." The occasion was a live TV show we were preparing for and we were in the green room, just before the show started. Don Firth (GREAT SINGER) had just sung "The Frozen Logger" for Jim, but in his best Swedish accent. Jim LOVED it, but he said, with some heat, that "no one sings it the way I wrote it." The third line of the first verse is usually sung: "A forty year old Waitress ...". Jim said: "I wote it: a six foot seven waitress ...". I've always made point of singing it that way since.

Another thought, and this might bring a smile to Mary Garvey's face. By the way, in case you don't know it, Mary is a superb and prolific songwriter. Mary, do you remember a couple of years ago when we were having lunch in Illwaco, and I asked your permission to change two words in your wonderful song: "Bring The Salmon Home"? You gave me permisison and I did. But I wanted your permission first ... I feel that the composer of a song has "first rights"!. CHEERS, bob(deckman)nelson

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:17 PM

Well, given the ages of some of the singers whose songs were collected by Sharp, Baring-Gould etc, I think there were quite a few senior moments that resulted in oddities. Including the version of Young Edwin in the Lowlands Low sung by Mrs Hopkins and included in the Penguin Book of English Folk Songs, where the rhyming pattern changes in the final verse, and I think that's just because the lines came out in the wrong order...!

Kitty

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:08 PM

Whoever tried to rhyme warrior and bore ya should have that line changed by everybody.

It certainly wouldn't rhyme where I live - but I have often heard Americans pronounce "warrior" in a way that makes that a perfect rhyme.
.............................................

Of course it's as well to remember that a lot of songs were collected from people trying to remember and reconstruct songs they hadn't sung in a long while and maybe weren't too sure of all the words in the first place. If a version of a song looks like it's got the odd mondegreen, there's nothing disrespectful to the tradition in trying to correct that.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:01 PM

The band played waltzing Matilda turgid trash?
Well, you don't want to hear my opinion of that statement.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:38 PM

houdl they change Belfast City to Belgrade City in I'll tell my ma if they are from Belgrade?

Bad example. That song wasn't a Belfast song; that is only the most widely known version of it. My mother knew a version from west of Manchester (UK) from her childhood in the 1920s.

So in that case, no problem changing it to anything that can be made to scan. And as, I argued, by the same token no problem with changes to any other song either.

Subject: RE: Is it permissible-to change a word in an old song?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:24 PM

I am firmly in the group that says I would really rather you didn't although I won't press charges, that is unless you go around changing male to female and back again.

I think you must, unless perhaps you are in a small, private company of scholars, delete the word "nigger" in songs. There are some others as well that are offensive.

If someone has not made it scan nicely, my opinion is that in that case you can. This would not be true in the case of most old songs so it is not usually a worry.

Whoever tried to rhyme warrior and bore ya should have that line changed by everybody.

But in general, people generally do a bad job changing words and lose some of the beauty as well as the history. Shoudl they change Belfast City to Belgrade City in I'll tell my ma if they are from Belgrade? They probably couldn't help it. Should they change Aragon Mill to Belfast Mill? I would rather they didn't but again I won't press charges..I can see why they would want to.

Can they improve on songs by Stephen Foster? Robert Burns? Gordon Bok? They try but I have never heard an improvement, alhtough in SF sometimes words now considered racist should be taken away.

Oh well..most "improvements" are anything but and changing male to female is awful in my opinion. Most people do not have the ear or the skill to improve a song or the sense to leave it alone. But to each his own. mg