interpretation of traditonal songs

Subject: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:00 AM

many years ago I heard a rendition of lord gregory,which made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
I subsequently heard the same singer, a week later, perform the song with exactly the same interpretation.
do other people who are interested in traditional song,feel that interpretation should be spontaneous,and should differ from rendition to rendition,or do they feel that having acheived a superb performance its ok to reproduce it again and again in the same way.
personally I hope I vary my interpretation[although I dont normally give it a lot of thought],I try and just sing and let it happen ,but I would be interested to hear peoples views.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 06:21 AM

So you tend to interpret a song differently each time?
I think that is slightly unusual. A slow evolution to a final personal form is probably more common.
Keith.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 06:38 AM

I don't think they've passed legislation on the subject yet. A degree of personal freedom of choice is still alowed to the performer.

i remember Burl Ives saying about his rendition of Barbara ellen that in his nind he while he was singing he always went through the same cottage door, across the kitchen, up the same stairs, the same bedroom where the same young man lay dying on the same bed.

But that was his approach. I remember talking to one very experienced performer who suddenly added an almost reggae beat to a trad ballad, quite unexpectedly. I asked him about it afterwards, he said - I just felt the audience needed lifting a bit, but that was the song I wanted to sing......

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Surreysinger
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:06 AM

I wouldn't consider a hard and fast arrangement for every time of singing. Although occasionally I will stick to a particular decoration or tune variation for a particular verse each time of singing as it heightens the words in some way, or just feels right, generally variations of tune/decorations etc will be spur of the moment "what feels right now in the moment" things. (Sometimes also dictated by state of the voice - if getting over a cold and having lost the bottom register to some degree different tactics may be required!!!)

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:30 AM

If you play/sing with others tehy need to know what you are about to do next.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:31 AM

very true!

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: dj bass
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:40 AM

Absolutely! When I'm on my own I do whatever I feel like at the time, although songs do "bed in" after a while. In the band it's as close as I can get to what we decided at rehearsals. (Not that I'm any kind of authority on this!)

dj

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:57 AM

I like to hear singers doing the same songs differently - it makes me think that they are actually paying attention to what they are singing, rather than just opening their mouths and singing on autopilot.

There is one singer of whom I've had cause to rant about previously, who has recorded the same songs many times and in many settings and situations.   With only a few exceptions, they are practically identical...

LTS

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST,HughM
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 08:00 AM

I think most of us generally stick to singing a song the way we like it best, but sometimes it can be beneficial to tailor the song for a particular audience as weelittledrummer describes. For example, in the Kildonan Hotel, where the audience were mostly tourists rather than dyed-in the wool folkies, I heard a singer announce that he wouldn't sing "Loch Lomond" in the traditional way, and sang it in a way similar to how Runrig do it. It went down very well. "Raglan Road" is another one which is sometimes is done agonisingly slowly, but would perhaps benefit from being sung faster and more rhythmically for the general public.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: pirandello
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 08:04 AM

I believe that the spirit of the song is more important than trying to be anally true to every nuance of the original performance.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: English Jon
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 08:13 AM

Blimey - An impossible question...

Given that no two performances are ever >exactly< the same, we have to concede there is a stochastic element at play here. So the question is about conscious modification. Obvious points here are venue acoustic/atmospherics - do you need to slow up or speed up the performance to fit the room? Pitch issues - how is your voice today? sometimes I crank stuff up a note or two to get more volume, but these are issues of performance rather than interpretation.

So: Interpretation of the music - has the tune changed? has the phrasing changed because of the way the words are set in a particular verse, ie is the stress pattern different, does the musical phrase subdivide, do you need to breathe? if so what is the dramatic effect of a break in the line? Should the breath be audible or silent?

Interpretation of the words. Presumably the words are more or less constant - have you altered anything since the last performance? If so, what emotive effect does this have on the song?

Personally, I tend to learn a song over a period of time and then let it do it's own thing. I have found though that you can ham stuff up a lot more in song than you can with spoken word. I don't really hold with the "let the story tell itself" approach - I think if you can act a bit you can help these old ballads along no end.

Cheers,
Jon

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: pitheris
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 09:02 AM

Back in the 1970s, I saw Sonny Terry & Brownie Magee. Sonny Terry told the story about how he was asked to play his harmonica for the opening music in the Broadway show "Finian's Rainbow".

paraphrasing:
". . .They told me that I had to play it exactly the same each night and I said that I can't, cause I always play different each time. Then they told me how much they'll pay me and I said sure, I can play it exactly the same."

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 10:49 AM

Whatever works.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Mr Happy
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:14 AM

For some interesting & meaningful interpretations, see here: thread.cfm?threadid=88825

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:28 AM

The messengers of old would memorize a message either in verse or in a monotone narrative and remember it until it was delivered to the intended ears. If you've got the story straight, why tinker with it?

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM

pitheris

Great story but it doesn't always work. I did a recording session with Barney Kessel, James Burton and "Shakey Jake" Morton. Shakey Jake could not play the ending the way it was written and changed it each time. He was being paid pretty well. Harry "Sweets" Edison got on the intercom to the studio and read Shakey out for not being better trained as a musician. Shakey still played it differently each time and they had to select the best take.

Frank Hamilton


". . .They told me that I had to play it exactly the same each night and I said that I can't, cause I always play different each time. Then they told me how much they'll pay me and I said sure, I can play it exactly the same."

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:55 AM

If my interpretations vary at all, it's very slightly. Obviously there will be a little variation if you're playing live but I don't do it intentionally. Just my two cents worth. Neil

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:01 PM

How much the same is "the same"?

Once I've got a song the way I like it, why would I change it each time (unless my perspective on it changed)?

No, I don't expect people to change songs significantly each time they perform them. I never play anything exactly the same way twice, anyway--the ornamentation, etc., varies--but I don't go out of my way to make it really different. How many versions am I expected to remember?

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:14 PM

Interesting. I'm more of a musician than a singer, and more of a unicyclist than a musician, so I'm not supremely well positioned to comment, but I'm not sure that "interpretation" is the right word for what you do to a folk song.

You "interpret" a piece of art music, or a play. Shakespeare in modern dress is interpretation.

You "rework" a jazz standard.

You "cover" a pop song.

A folk song, you sing.

That doesn't mean that you sing it identically every time, but if you start deliberately "interpreting" it, maybe you're using "folk" material for an "art" performance.

I think that each singer finds a way of singing a song that suits his or her style, voice and limitations. As they improve (or deteriorate) their way of singing may change. However, in a folk context, the way a singer sings a particular song develops rather than changing suddenly.

Recently, I've been trying to find a version of "Lowlands" that suits me. I looked at the various versions in Mudcat, listened to the version on a CD I have, cast my mind back to versions I'd heard over the years in folk clubs and Morris sessions, then sang it lots of times. Some verses didn't suit, and some phrases fell wrong to my ear and to my voice.

I took the various bits I liked, chucked out the bits I didn't need and I now have a version that tells the story to my satisfaction without any extra flowery bits. Now I'll just sing it. I won't interpret it. Or perhaps the bit I've already done is the interpretation?

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:32 PM

to guest,my point exactly,that this particular performance of lord gregory had been turned into an art song,because the performer had clearly consciously worked out a dramatic interpretation[it was in fact superb]but when I heard the very same interpretation a week later, it no longer had the same effect,.
the song had become dead.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 01:18 PM

I sing few traditional songs, but I don't see why the question wouldn't have the same validity for any "folk" song (using the wide interpretation of the term here, let's not start another horse dialogue).

Generally speaking, a song can benefit from a wide variety of interpretations; but a given singer is only capable of some of them - and perhaps only one to the best of his abilities. So a lot of the time you get the "slow evolution towards a final personal interpretation" effect that Keith described above. And if the singer is not a regular performer of that song, that's where it stays. So, uncle Bert's version of "Dido, Bendigo" is great, he does actions with it too, and every time he sings it doen the pub - 4 or 5 times a year - it's the same.

A regular performer, if he/she has any nerves at all, will tire of the same interpretation though. I find myself tiring of the way I sing certain of my songs that have become "standards" at my gigs, and despite the fact that I have honed the interpretations to as fine a point as is possible for me, eventually I feel the urge to vary those interpretations. The variations may not be great - a slight tempo change, occasionally a pitch change, very occasionally the style.

But all the time there is a dilemma: I owe it to the audience to give the best I can; so, do I use the tried-and-trusted version, or do I "play" with the song a bit? And also, I owe it to give variety, especially for those who have seen me before (or at least recently): Do I give them same-old-same-old, or do I give them change?

The answer varies depending on venue, audience, which side of the bed I got out that morning, time of the month etc. And I never know myself until it comes to singing the song; I just react to the atmosphere.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 01:19 PM

You can't help that happening, can you? It's like the second time you hear a joke and you know what the punch line is going to be, it's never quite the same. And the emotional effect a performance has on you also varies with the state you're in at the time, too.

By the way, performing an "art song" isn't exactly the same every time either.

In my experience a performance does settle down over time, but then there are random "experiments" that occur on the spur of the moment, and there are gradual changes which you notice if you listen to something you recorded a year ago and think - golly, I don't do it like that/so fast/slow etc now!

"do other people who are interested in traditional song,feel that interpretation should be spontaneous,and should differ from rendition to rendition..."

Erm, excuse me, but what is this word "should" ?
Looks a bit prescriptive to me.

Anahata

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Marje
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 01:24 PM

I think maybe the reason you were disappointed the second time was that you'd really engaged with it so well the first time. If you had a recording of a favourite song and kept listening to that, you might find the same effect.

If the singer does their job well, they'll make you feel that this is the first time the song has ever been sung. Clearly, if you listen to them doing it the same way a few days later, this illusion is shattered, no matter how well they do it - but someone else listening will hear it as you first heard it and be just as thrilled.

On the other hand, sometimes a singer just gets tired and finds it difficult to put the same energy and emotion into a song every time, maybe that's what happened.

Marje

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM

Lord Gregory is a lovely example Birdseye. It's a great song that has many wonderful variations, versions, styles, not to name a multiple other differences that it can be used to interpreted it in so many different ways by so many people that you'd never find a best or 2 doing it the same (unless learned one from another & still they'd be differences over time) BUT when an experienced & well able singer has refined & applied their own chacteristics to all that it takes to sing the song then there would be no need or want for them to change it though they still may over time, after all it takes time to come to where one would finally settle with the way they want to sing it though again they it still may change even though they may not want to do it at the present.
The song may be heard the same with only a week between the hearing but I for one would expect that & if I enjoyed it enough the 1st time I guess I'd enjoy it the next just as well except that I would be expecting no change rather than the joy of listening to myself saying to "whoa, that was a nice turning of that phrasing" or the felling "that was a unique bit of ornamentation", you've already been surprised by the first rendition of the singer singing of that song.
I know that for me I stay pretty close to the way I'd sing a song but I know that it never stays the same for me & I don't intentionally try to keep it the same though I do sometimes intentionally try a change & over time, whither I sing it or not it changes. There are little inflictions that get added or get's dropped, bits of phrasing that might shift (I'm not talking about because of voice changes here as mentioned which is a completely different topic) emphasis may also be made in a phrase or elsewhere. I think for some the change is always happening for some the change is slower than what it is for others & for some it never changes & if they've got it to where changes won't enhance the song then the only reason they'd change it is so it may not sit stale for the singer not the listener but then that's a reason to change it too.

Barry

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Dan Schatz
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 02:19 PM

It strikes me that a performer on stage and audience "out there" is a very artificial way to sing a folk song. Now don't get me wrong - it's one I heartily approve of - but any kind of folk art is as much context as content. If you take a work song, for example, and perform it in an auditorium or a pub, its meaning changes.

When I sing I recognize that I am a contemporary musician with deep roots in traditional music performing a folk song. Some songs may change each time, and some tend to be quite consistent. Often it's the interaction with the audience that tends to determine the different "feel" of each song. But while I have a deep respect for tradition, I don't tend to worry about whether I am being completely true to it, because I'm singing in a very different context.

If I were to sing a lullaby to my baby (expected any day now!), that would be a folk song sung in a traditional context, even if the song itself is relatively recent. I'm sure I would (will!) sing it differently each time. When I recorded the same lullaby on my new CD (expected any month now), I commented to the mixing engineer that "even though it's a lullaby, I don't actually want people to fall asleep listening to it." That's a public performance context with a different purpose - and it's going to be the same every time you play the CD, and possibly largely the same in live performance.

I'm not sure how much sense all of this makes, but I hope it's helpful to the discussion.

Dan Schatz

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 03:02 PM

EXCELLENT point Dan! I am pretty sure that my best performances come from singing for a specific purpose (could be for myself), even if I am in front of an audience. They are certainly the ones I enjoy the most, the ones that take it out of me the most, when (occasionally) I lose sense of time and place. They can occur in the shower, in the car, and on those few magical occasions, in front of an audience that is itself relaxed and "buying" readily into what I have to say - so that I don't feel any pressure to "persuade".

And such performances rarely go "to plan" as far as interpretation goes.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 03:49 PM

I always found that it is best to arrive at your interpretation when you are researching the song (in preparation to sing it). If you are lucky you will find something fresh to hold your attention every time you perform it ( a bit like reading The Good soldier Svejk).
This is particularly true of ballads which always strike me as being fairly unequivocal in their intention. This does not mean that you can't continue to discover nuances in them; but the general meaning is usually quite clear.
One exception was MacColl's re-interpretation of the ballad The Bonny Earl of Murray, which he reckoned he had misunderstood completely in his early days. His later re-interpretation changed it from a lament into a scathingly ironic piece. He wrote a fascinating article on it in one of the folk magazines.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: PoppaGator
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 04:56 PM

We're human beings, not robots, so we can't really perform a song idenitically every time out. The question is really how much variation is preferable.

As a non-professional "hobbyist" performer working within very loosely-defined "traditions," I can offer some thoughts on my own experience:

As I first begin incorporating a new piece into my "working" repertoire, it'll probably sound quite a bit different each time I perform it, as new shades of meaning come to mind and as various vocal and instrumental "approaches" or techniques are experienced, practiced, and improved.

This process of learning and developing a way to get the song accross can be largely unconscious. Even if I'm trying to do it the exact same way each time, my performance can't help but evolve, for better or for worse. Eventually, the end product "matures," or kind of settles in.

Sometimes, unfortunately, the song's treatment doesn't mature so much as it stagnates ~ falls into a less-than-pleasant rut ~ in which case one has to go back and try changing the approach again.

Some performers are more easily bored than others with their own repetitive renditions. The most obvious example is the ever-controversial Mr Bob "Dylan" Zimmerman, who tries so hard to make even his most familiar songs as unrecognizable as possible. (I realize that the original question specifically referred to traditional songs, whereas The Bob restricts himself mostly to his own compositions, which may or may not fit your definition of "folk music." If you find this reference irrelevant, so be it.)

Another angle:

Working within my own set of skills and limitations as an instrumentalist, I find it impractical to consider changing the way I play a piece, as opposed to how I try to sing it. With a new song, I will try to play it exactly the same way every time, with the result that it (hopefully) improves steadily, albeit very gradually, with time. If I figure out a variation or two, I'll work it into the arrangement ~ play the simple original bit for the first few verses/repetitions, and save the embellished version for later in the performance, the big final climactic go-round or whatever. Over time, as the instrumental part solidifies and strengthens, I usually find myself increasingly able ~ freer ~ to concentrate on the singing and to explore different, more deeply interpretive vocal approaches.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:17 PM

When I read the first post above, my reaction was that I always sing a given song the same.

And then, as I read other posts, and thought back to performances that had particularly gone well, I realized that that first answer was, to put it more or less politely, "full of fecal matter".

Though I'll sing the same version, tunewise and wordwise, each time, there are times when the point of the song carries me away, or a good funny line tickles me in a new way, and I'll hold this note longer, or maybe essentially speak rather than sing that line, or unthinkingly insert a sort of half-chuckle on the punchline. Those things happen almost by themselves.

If the result is pleasing to me and/or the audience, I may well adopt that variation as a standard bit in my way of singing the song. Not what I'd considered a cold-blooded, designed "interpretation", though.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Bert
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:57 PM

You've got to sing it the way you sing it.

If you've taken the time and trouble to learn a song, then why would you sing it differently, unless you couldn't be bothered to learn it properly in the first place.

If listeners get bored with it then perhaps you might learn another song.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: bubblyrat
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 08:07 PM

George !!! You told me off for using CAPITALS !! And look at you !!

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 08:11 PM

IMO, this is one of those "what's the problem again?" topics. Any art form has to be about experimentation, or else why are there multiple versions of so many songs, perhaps varying in major/minor, tempo, even ending--e.g. "Gypsy Davey" has two different endings as far as story line, and "Golden Vanity" three. If I really like a song--which is totally personal taste, I want to hone it until I've got every quark of the lyric the way I think it "should be." That means I might change it a lot during the "germination" phase, and then freeze it, but I can always rethink it. Besides, you're entitled to think that I'm ruining it while I think I'm perfecting it, so: it's all about freedom. I don't think you can vary a song "too much" as long as you have enough music sense to know what it is you are looking for.

Chicken Charlie

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:08 AM

I took the Cap'ns question to be about overall interpretation, not nuance.
A singer might well introduce subtleties into a song each time he or she sings it - in order to keep his or her interest in a song alive, if for no other reason. However, altering the interpretation of a song at each performance is a little like setting out from London to Bristol and finding yourself on the outskirts of Birmingham. U turns on the M6 are in no way indications of good driving.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:24 AM

Sorry Roger, got excited there for a mo... Doesn't happen often, at my age.

Jim, I am trying to imagine the singing equivalent of a motorway U-turn; too extreme. But I often take sideroads on the way to frequent destinations, for a change. The singing equivalent of that wouldn't be too bad, I think. But I have beaten this metaphor to death...

In reality, I think there is a limited number of nuances (to the meaning) one could impose on a song, because there has to be some "hook" for it to stick, no matter how tiny; it's a murder, or a suicide, or an accident, full stop. Overall interpretation gives more options for "straying" from one's usual rendition. You indicate your preference for a standard interpretation (standard for the particular performer, that is), but you also indicate that you don't mind subtleties being introduced each time. I would have called that giving different interpretations... I think I am using different meanings to the words from you and end up being confused.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: treewind
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:47 AM

Here's a different angle: maybe that performance Dick heard wasn't so good after all.

Explanation: sometimes you can listen to a recorded performance again and again and discover new things in it each time, even though it's the identical sounds. Other times a perhaps rather mannered performance can seem really effective the first time you hear it but quickly wears thin on repeated hearing.

Jim Caroll said "you will find something fresh to hold your attention every time you perform it" which sort of echoed my remark about random variations - speaking as mostly an instrumental accompanist, I'm often experimenting (even on stage), and the reason for that is because I feel there's always room for improvement, and you should (oops) be sufficiently on top of things to be able to take risks that way.

But unless you have a major re-think, as in the story about MacColl, the basic "feel" and approach to a song isn't likely to change. For instance we always do Hangman/Prickle-eye Bush as a jolly romp, never as a long-faced dirge, and that's policy!

Anahata

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:58 AM

Anahata, I think if you and Mary ever tried to do the Hangman as a dirge there would be a mass uprising from the audiences! You've added a deliciously sinister flavour with the jolliness and stamped that song indelibly, you made it your own. Of course, you are allowed to inject varying levels of mirth as the mood takes you!

But now you opened up another trail of thought: I wonder if your version of the Hangman would have been equally well received 50 or 100 years ago; probably not as enthusiastically, is my guess; in the 50s peope were a tad too formalistic and serious about traditional song for this to happen. In other words, at any time there is something about the current times and environment that enables new interpretations to come forth and be enjoyed. There' that's my thesis - can I have the PhD?

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:08 PM

I am unable to disagree with Jim Carroll.either about interpretation or the good soldier schweik.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST,AA Man
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:08 PM

Jim Carroll, the M4 runs from London to Bristol. You'd only hit the M6 if you were travelling north of Birmingham towards Lancashire. Buy yourself a new road map!

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:12 PM

Typical. Leave two Brits alone for five minutes and they start talking about how best to get from A to B. Do the same in Greece, and they start exchanging barbecue recipes.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:39 PM

We, as a group, tend to have to figure out where the breaks in a song will be. But there is still room for interpretation for whoever is singing the lead vocal. As long as we are excited by the song, I would hope we could convey that to the audience. Perhaps the singer of Lord Gregory mentioned above was not in the mood to sing it the second time. In which case, he should not have included the song in his performance.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:36 PM

Any interpretation of a song has to start and end with the text (the tunes are invariably a moveable feast).
I would be fascinated to learn your rationale for making 'Maid Freed from the Gallows' a "jolly Romp' Anahata and Mary.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM

I think I've got to an age when I can't remember how I interpreted the song last time I sang it, let alone how I sang it when I first learnt it.... I still find that there are songs I sing with my eyes open as a performance for the audience and songs (especially ballads) I sing with my eyes closed because I am concentrating on the song and don't want to be distracted by an audience.

When MCP and I recorded "Dark the Day" with Mick's version of Lord Gregory, he had a different guitar accompaniment depending whether the words were coming from Lord Gregory, his mother or the mother of his child (lass of Lochroyan) whom he done wrong.

Kitty

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM

the day we went to beachy head by way of wigan pier.
I said to the mot we must stop, and have a pint of beer.
we sang a song that was rather long., bout old balls of wax.
In common time,and triple time,I jazzed it on my sax.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:17 PM

jim carroll, re your post to anahata,youve sUrely heard LEADBELLYS version of the gallus pole[Hangman slack thy rope]Which although not a jolly romp,is not down beat.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:32 PM

I think it depends on the song. Some allow for more variation in different performances.

In listening to field recordings of unaccompanied traditional singers, I've noticed that each stanza scans a little differently and the tune varies. I've noticed that even so, there is a consistency in different performances with very little change.

Sometimes I believe discoveries are made which alters the performance of a song. There are those rare times when this happens on the spot. A sudden insight will reveal a new meaning for a word which changes the whole meaning of the song.

I suspect that whenever a song is sung, it is interpreted in some fashion. Even a complete disregard for its content might be an interpretation.

A professional performer will tend to work toward a consistency that has been tried before an audience and found successful. This may not be the case with jazz singers who might change according to which musicians are supporting them. Traditional songs require a minimum of variation since the lyric is generally the most important aspect. Too much variation or vocal "jamming" could obscure the lyric.

Shakespeare can be reinterpreted many different ways but generally is consistent with the interpretation of the director. A trad ballad or song requires a similar consistency to keep it from too much complexity.

This brings into question a larger issue, that of innovation vrs. tradition. How do the two work together?

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:55 PM

Anahata can elaborate further as to the rationale, if he wishes; but I can only say that it works, and how! Don't take my word for it, Jim, talk to their audiences, or even better go to one of their gigs and see them do it live.

Mary and Anahata have a deep respect for the tradition, yet they manage to find new angles to shine the light on it, and that takes some doing. Jon and John also seem to have the same knack.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Tootler
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:17 PM

Jim Carroll wrote:

"Any interpretation of a song has to start and end with the text (the tunes are invariably a moveable feast)."

I disagree. A song is about words AND music. Both are equally important. It is the interrelationship between the two that makes the song. The nature of the melody, major or minor - which can set mood, how the words interact with the shape of the melody, the relationship between the phrasing in the text and the musical phrases and the tempo all affect how you might interpret a song.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:18 PM

There is a lot of boll(plural French for water) here.

When a singer or player takes a song, they do it their way. Unless of course they are Sinatra, (or maybe Dino the Wino) in which case they do it a way that cannot be refused.

You work out how you are going to sing it and play it. Over time that evolves. Tempi change.   Introductory graces change - I was mucking about with "Nelson's Blood" tonight and noticed how I vary the introductory grace on each verse.

Then there is the "dog on the day" factor. This does not include the key (if accompanied) but will include little things. I am currently also working on "Sam Hall". I notice that because it is not (well, in my case) perfomred in tempo, the accents change in each playing.

The words, of course, you will have researched early on. You may have decided that a version does not ring true, and left a bit out, or truncated and elided verses. Thus I never sing the "Albert" verse in Radcliffe Highway. Similarly I have edited the (contemporary) "Princess Alice" to shorten it and I have also got the "Famous Flower of Serving Men" down to 19 verses.

Some bits of the way you do a song will be fixed before you do it. Others may be the subject of "on the night" inspiration.

Which is "interpretation"? In any event either is allowable; that is what folk singers do to folk songs - transmit them via the oral tradition and modify them.

Subject: RE: interpretation of traditonal songs
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:34 AM

very good points Tootler and Richard Bridge.