Stylistic quirks in folk music

Subject: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: the button
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:14 PM

As a follow on to the "Accents in folk music" thread.

There's no doubt that a lot of traditional singers have/had certain quirks (can't think of a better word -- and I don't mean it disparagingly at all) in their delivery. Walter Pardon dropping in pitch at the end of lines. Fred Jordan's vibrato. The more "decorated" style of American singers like Texas Gladden.

Now... there seems to be something like a consensus (well, as close as you're going to get on Mudcat) that singing in your own accent is the thing. But (and here's the thing) what about adopting the stylistic quirks of traditional singers?

Is it a good thing, bad thing, or what? Does it matter whether it's conscious or unconscious?

I want to say "It's OK unless it sounds forced." But then I think of Peter Bellamy (one of my favourite revival singers) who must have had the most stylised delivery going, and who consciously set out to adopt a "folk style." So maybe it's OK if it sounds good. Hmmm.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:47 PM

I dunno. I take a rather dim view of singers who imitate the stylistic quirks of other singers, or for that matter, who make a studied effort to adopt stylistic quirks of their own. One of my pet peeves is the person who naturally has a perfectly nice sounding singing voice who thinks that "because it's folk music" they have to sing as if they're eighty years old, toothless, and just rode into town with a truckload of parsnips. Phony, phony, phony!

On the other hand (and it may sound like some kind of double standard, but it's not), I see nothing wrong with singing, say, a Scottish song with a touch of an accent—if one can do it well. I've always been pretty good at picking up accents, and when I learned songs like "Bonnie Dundee" and "MacPherson's Lament," it never occurred to me not to use an accent. When it comes down to it, trying to sing songs like that without the accent would sound pretty bizarre.

I've been doing it for well over fifty years, and I've never had anyone criticize me or take me to task for it, including genuine Scots. In fact, I defy anyone to sing something like "The Braes of Killiecrankie" without putting on an accent. You'd wind up spraining your jaw or chipping a tooth. Without it, the song would sound just weird!

I do use accents if they seem "natural" and appropriate to particular songs. But as far as stylist quirks are concerned, if I have any at all, they've developed naturally and unconsciously. I just try to sing the best I can, and what comes out is just what comes out.

I mention it here because some folks on the other thread are getting kind of unreasonably nasty about it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: the button
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:15 PM

There are certain things I wish I could imitate about traditional singers. Phil Tanner's breath control would be nice.

I suppose it can be a fine line between "learning from" and "imitating." Walter Pardon's version of "The trees they grow so high" completely changed the way I think about that song (which was one of my favourites already), and when I sing it now, it's definitely in the light of having heard him. I leave it to those unfortunate enough to listen to me to decide whether I've made it my own -- insofar as we can ever make these songs our own. I.e. not much.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:17 PM

breath control is technique.
breathing exercises can be learned from opera singers,thats the easy bit.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 12:08 PM

I would be happy to be criticised for sounding like Peter Bellamy, apart from that irritating habit of dropping off the end of lines with fallng cadences - I simply can't do that and come back to pitch in the next line.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Bee
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:38 PM

I think I object more to people who try to perform songs exactly like the first singer they heard perform it. Unless, of course, they are a novelty act, like the local guy down here who is able to perfectly mimic Johnny Cash but freely admits not being able to sing anything else.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Peter Beta
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:48 PM

Don Firth-

Why not put some examples of your singing on the internet? Just occured to me, you seem to have lots of opinions about how folk should be sung; which may be spot on for all I know; but how about sharing some good examples with us? I'm anxious to hear ya!

Yours in anticipation,
Peter.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:52 PM

Copying another performer exactly makes you a "tribute singer" and no more. Like giving people photocopies of a worthwhile article rather than your own take on the subject or at least writing it out longhand. That said, adopting one or more "stylistic" quirks from other singers and then using them in your own way on additional material is not mimicking but learning from others, and then doing something new with what you learned.

We all have our own quirks too. Identifying them, moulding them to fit the mood of a song and using them to good effect is something to strive for, I think. And dropping one or two quirks of others into the mix can do no harm, if sensitively done - quite the opposite.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:53 PM

During a discussion - cum- argument we were once having with Peter Bellamy (on vocal mannerisms), he described his own singing as his "Larry the Lamb" impersonation.
For all the dedication he showed to folk song, and for all the research work he put in to building his repertoire, his vibrato prevented me from coming anywhere near to liking his singing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Gene Burton
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

Some singers just have a lot of naturally occuring vibrato- I couldn't switch mine off even if I wanted to.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 02:04 PM

well Jim,in my opinion you have bad taste,he was a great interpreter of a song,he was also a sexy singer.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 02:05 PM

Peter, I just recently got some halfway decent recording equipment with the idea of "home-brewing" a CD--assuming I can figure out how to run the gear! Also, one of my neighbors (whom I learned a couple days ago is a singer-songwriter) just put a couple of her songs on MySpace. She's out of town right now, but when she gets back, I'm going to check with her to find out how she went about it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: trevek
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 02:13 PM

I find that if I learn a song from the singing of another singer (particularly from tapes/cds)I might pick up the quirk, however after a few performances and intimate contact with the song I'll begin to drop them (known to do that after a few pints too!).

However, sometimes I find these quirks are also interesting techniques which can be used in other songs (some of Christy Moore's vocal mannersims for example)which might be utilised (sans accent of course).

I'm sure more than a few of my techniques have been picked up from someone else and incorporated. I dare say it's pretty common. I don't think I'd deliberately set out to imitate another singer unless it was for a parody or something.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Artful Codger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:10 AM

The way someone sings a song is often what I find most appealing or interesting about the song--it's what makes me really want to learn it. So for me, some of that style is integral to the song, and I wouldn't want to drop it without compelling reason.

What I detest is when people feel they have to fit a song to their accent and style or, worse yet, to whatever affectations are trendy. Each song has a heritage and performing context, and to rip it out of that context to "modernize" it seldom quite succeeds, to my mind. I also like variety, and a singer who sings everything in his signature style becomes dreary to listen to.

As for accents, if you can do them well (and don't overdo them), I say go for it--accent is also an intrinsic part of many songs. Could you get away with singing country/western without a twang or calypso without a Jamaican lilt? When I sing, I can't really help but adopt an accent, largely because my family lived so many places (including England--I first spoke Britexan with a Midwest/Scottish accent), and I've studied so many languages.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: quokka
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:45 AM

some songs insist upon the accent, such as Scottish songs 'Jamie Raeburn' or 'Ae Fond Kiss'. After hearing them done properly I'll not attempt again ( well maybe 'kiss' i think I got away with it) but no' Jamie!!!Or Portree Kid... can anyone translate PK for me??
Cheers
Quokka

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 08:09 AM

Personally , if I learn a song from someones CD and then find it sounds like a copy of THEIR singing , I put the song a way for a while , then come back to it later , when HOPEFULLY it will sound like ME singing it and not Tom , or Eric or Ralph or whoever !

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Hamish
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 08:18 AM

Whatever you may think about Maddy Prior, I think she's done a lot of damage. Too many people have adopted her quirks.

While I'm here, I'd say El Greko got it pretty much spot on.

~8^)

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 08:33 AM

In case anyone is put off listening to him by his own self-assessment, I should add that Gene Burton does NOT sound like Larry the Lamb or Peter Bellamy and is well worth a listen anyway.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:49 AM

Actually, you can hear a couple things by Don Firth (including one video) at this page, along with several other nice recordings of some PNWF members.

I'd like be 'quirky' like Don...*grin*

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 04:22 AM

I've just learned 'The Birth of Robin Hood' from Spiers and Boden but I wonder if the high note in the second and third line of each verse is a Jon Boden affectation. It occurs in other songs of theirs, 'Brown Adam', for example, but as I've never heard another version of either song I sing it as Jon does. To change it by simply singing it in the same way as the first and fourth lines means changing the chord. Does anyone know what the 'correct' melody is? Or are they simply putting their own melody to Child 102?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Suffolk Miracle
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 06:27 AM

I would probably not be upset by someone using Fred Jordan's vibratto; but if they tried to put in his "hoh" between lines that would be a very different matter. Likewise anyone trying to put Elizabeth Cronin's 'um' at the end of each line. I'm not sure that anyone but Charlie Wills could get away with the laugh in the voice in sad ballads like Barbara Allen. Sam Larner's spoken interpolations....

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Vin2
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 09:10 AM

I occasionally like to sing Jez Lowe's 'Coal Town Days' and find i can't help slightly giving it the accent (not sure how well) that i've heard Jez sing it in for so long.

Personally i think it's inevitable that you will imitate, often without realising it, to some extent other's styles or 'quirks' especially if singing unaccompanied. As George Pap says, it can even be done as a tribute to that person or the song's origins.

When i first learnt 'Banks of the Nile', it was from a Young Tradition album called 'Revisited' so as that was the original influence i try not to imitate Peter or Royston's style.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: lady penelope
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 12:35 PM

As has been pointed out, some songs have 'accent' built right in and, frankly, singing songs like The Dowie Dens O' Yarrow in a straight english accent would sound rediculous. But at this point we're really looking at a language difference, rather than just an accent.

However, I don't find it at all surprising that people pick up accents/quirks/habits in songs from other singers. We pick up our own accents from how the people we grew up talked, it's no different learning the same from the singers we grow up with. In fact it can be quite hard to differentiate the melody from the arrangement until - as Trevek says, we get to know the song better.

As Terry McDonald has pointed out, sometimes we don't know that a song can be sung a different way. If I can, I like to find more than one recording of a song I like, just to hear what the differences are. But often this isn't possible, or practacle - it can get real expensive real quick having to buy albums for just one track...

But then there's also the point that the accent/quirk is the thing about the song that you like, that makes the song in your ears. At this point we're down to simple preferences. And what's meat to one is another's poison. Captain Birdseye critisised Jim Carroll for not liking a certain singer, but that's the point isn't it? It's all subjective. If you find a particular habit or accent or 'quirk' in someones singing annoys you, that's your point of view. Others may have a different point of view which is equally valid.

People that deliberately go out of their way to adopt quirks etc? I tend to find that as they continue singing a song, they'll lose the 'adoptive' bits, whether they mean to or not, unless those quirks really sit well with their voices.

Most of us, I would say, sing in a style that has evolved with us as we've learned songs and techniques. A hotch-potch of quirks and habits but eventually all of a piece and our own.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:06 PM

yes, it is subjective.
BUT what annoys me about Jim Carroll is that I have yet to hear him praise a revival singer other than Maccoll,he doesnt like Killen,Carthy,Rose,Bellamy,Davenport,he criticises Ralph Mctell but then admits hes not familiar with his repertoire.,he appears to have an axe to grind .

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:14 PM

and June Tabor,Shirley Collins.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

I definitely agree with what you say, lady penelope. Some songs absolutely require accent or dialect or they sound ridiculous.

And as to "I tend to find that as they continue singing a song, they'll lose the 'adoptive' bits, whether they mean to or not, unless those quirks really sit well with their voices," I have a friend who was just a listener to folk music, but we attended the 1960 Berkeley Folk Festival together, where he first heard Ewan MacColl. He followed MacColl around almost like a puppy-dog at the festival. Then a couple of months later, he started singing at song fests. He had adopted almost all of MacColl's mannerisms, including singing while straddling a chair backwards and cupping a hand behind an ear. He even sounded like MacColl.

Then he started listening to records of the Clancy Brothers, and boy! did he sound Irish! In fact, when he first learned a song, he would sound like the person he learned it from.

But by a year or two later, he had learned a lot of songs from a lot of different sources, and all of it seemed to blend together and then drop away. He became one of the better singers in this area. With a style and mannerisms all his own.

Whatever does the job.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:26 PM

Captain Birdseye said, "he appears to have an axe to grind."

Of course Jim Carroll has axes to grind, I mean him only really liking Ewan MacColl... Wasn't he, Carroll a member of The Critics along with Pat Mackenzie, and MacColl himself, among others?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,blim
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 03:54 PM

And what's worse is that the only opinions Jim respects are his 'own' - all derived from MacColl.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 04:05 PM

Others may have already discovered this but the following made for interesting reading for me.

To The Guardian Re: 'The Voice of the People' Guardian, 27 May 1999

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 04:21 PM

Try James McMurtry - he embodies full misery into his songs, a great folk singer.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 05:15 PM

thanks Def Shephard,Iam sure most people would like to hear these missing radio ballads.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 05:25 PM

Being from Birmingham myself, I would love to hear The Jewellery and A Cry From The Cut.

Oh and a related point of interest, Ian Campbell is appearing at the Moseley Folk Festival in Birmingham. He'll be performing on Sunday 31st August

Moseley Folk Festival lineup

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 05:48 PM

You can really only sound like yourself. Imitation is the sincerest form of vocal damage.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 05:56 PM

I would be very happy never to hear anybody imitating Hamish Imlach's mannered squeaky wheezes on "The Cod Liver Oil and the Orange Juice" ever again. For that matter I would be equally happy never to hear Imlach doing it ever again. God knows why he thought it would be funny to listen to the sound of an overweight nicotine-choked alcoholic with a type-A personality sending up the sound of an overweight nicotine-choked alcoholic with a type-A personality gasping his way towards a fatal heart attack.

Traditional singers can get caught up in self-parody too. I've heard Jock Duncan doing Jock Duncan imitations at times.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

Ian Campbell's contribution to the radio ballads and the two ballads in question are discussed in Peter Cox's book on (the whole of the) Radio Ballads.

It's called "Set into Song" and is obtainable from the author here.

And I am not on commission!

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 06:26 PM

Yes, I've already ordered the book, and am aware of the content

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: melodeonboy
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 06:35 PM

"Some songs absolutely require accent or dialect or they sound ridiculous."

No. On the contrary, people often sound ridiculous when they attempt to sing in accents which are not their own. I would both feel and sound ridiculous if I sang in an accent which is not mine (with certain exceptions, e.g. theatre or parody). Whether I'm singing "Keel Row", "She Moved Through The Fair", "Bonny Dundee", "Jug of This" or "Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette", I sing in my own accent. Nobody has ever suggested that I sound ridiculous for doing so. I can't honestly imagine singing the songs listed above and going from Geordie to Irish to Scottish (or would that have to be a Dundee accent in particular?) to West Country to American (Southern States?). To impose a series of cod accents on an audience during the course of an evening depending on where the song originated from would be laughable.

For me, people putting on accents when singing evokes images of pop music, karaoke, Opportunity Knocks, Butlins Talent Contests, Stars In Their Eyes, tribute bands etc., etc.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: melodeonboy
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 06:45 PM

.....not forgetting Dick Van Dyke's memorable attempt to sing and talk like a Cockney in Mary Poppins!

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

There are the "quirks" you have because they are part of your musical heritage.
There are the quirks you choose.
If the point is to make a sound pleasing to your ears, what difference does the source of the quirks make?

Russ (Permanent GUEST and traditional singer)

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 08:18 PM

". . . people often sound ridiculous when they attempt to sing in accents which are not their own."

True, some do. But it depends on how well they do it. I heard one fellow once sing a couple of Scottish songs and he did it so well I thought he was a Scot. And I was not the only one. Turned out he was from Indiana.

But he was also an actor, and he had spent some time studying dialects as an adjunct to his work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: trevek
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 05:02 AM

Don, dialects or accents (or both)?

The acting profession seems to get them mixed up.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 05:11 AM

Hamish - Maddy Prior's quirks? What did you have in mind? I came to this stuff by way of Ms Prior's singing, and the only adjective I'd apply to it now is 'plain'.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Vin2
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:55 AM

Hey Def Shepard, what brilliant news to hear of Ian Campbell performing (at Mosley Folk Fest). I've wondered for ages what had happened to the great Ian. Excellent!!

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Marje
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 12:06 PM

Peter Bellamy's a bit of an acquired taste. I was once listening to a mixed folk album in the company of my stepmum. When a Peter Bellamy track came on, I said, "We had him in the back of our car once" (which is true, but I'll spare you the details).

Stepmum listened for a few moments longer and then said, "Well if he was in the back of my car, I'd stop and tell him to get out!"

Marje

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 02:35 PM

I'd agree with that comment about Maddie, Phil. Plain and unadulterated I would say - Possibly very clear.

But anyway what has all this to do with Stylistics? Yes, they were quirky, especialy that falsetto voice and the microphone head hair do's but it was the 70s after all. And I wouldn't call it folk music...

:D

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:45 PM

Unless one could identify distinct groups (perhaps working distinct club circuits) who'd learnt, rehearsed and subsequently transmitted slightly different interpretations of "Betcha By Golly Wow", with some of them perhaps singing "Bet You By Golly Wow"... Do club singers await their collector?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:11 PM

The Greasy Wheel. (Trad with words I. Campbell)
Collected in fragmentary form by Charles Parker of the BBC for a radio programme about life on the narrow-boats (A Cry From The Cut), this song captures the brief glory of the men who manned the steam barges at the end of the last century. Their glory was brief because the steam power which gave them their ascendancy had already, in the form of the locomotive, made the canal system obsolete.

This track can be found on Something To Sing About - The Ian Campbell Folk Group

Pye Records PKL 5506 LP 1972

It appears that this song was the only one from the two "non-canonical" Radio Ballads, to have made it in recorded form.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:23 PM

A google search for the difference between "dialect" and "accent" turned up the following definitions:

A dialect is usually spoken by people who live in a certain region of a country. Those people speak their mother tongue in their own individual way. For example, many Scottish people have a dialect.

An accent usually describes the way people pronounce words of a language that is different from their mother tongue. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks English with an Austrian accent.

And here's another:

Accent and Dialect

Most people think of an accent as something that other people have. In some cases, they speak disparagingly about one accent compared with another. The truth is that everyone has an accent, because an accent is simply a way of pronouncing words. The reason that you can tell the difference between people from Boston and the Appalachians, or between London and Manchester is because each group of people has a different way of pronouncing the same words. In other words, accent is all about sound.

When it comes to changes in vocabulary in different regions, then you're talking about dialect. Dialect refers to differences in accent, grammar and vocabulary among different versions of a language. For example, depending on where you live in England, one type of baked goods could be called buns, cobs or rolls. It is likely that when you speak in the dialect of a particular region, you will also speak in the accent of a particular region. However, incomers may speak the dialect of a region with a different accent. This may also apply to people who have emigrated from one country to another. They may speak a different form of a language from those born in that country.

So I think we're talking about both"dialect" and "accent."

Lots of good information out there.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Marje
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 12:51 PM

It's quite simple: dialect is about vocabulary and grammar. Accent is about pronunciation.

But you're right, Don, to point out that everyone has an accent. I don't know about in the US, but in the UK, people who speak RP (the predominantly south-eastern and "educated" English accent) tend to believe that they don't have an accent and everyone else does. Most other people understand that it's impossible to speak without an accent and that we all have one.

Mind you, I thought this thread was supposed to be about vocal and stylistic mannerisms, which are a whole nother issue and don't necessarily involve accent. There are all sorts of interesting mannerisms used in singing (use of vibrato, glissando, nasal delivery, whiny singing, "choir-boy" diction, throaty "old-man" singing, Dylan's mumbling, Cara-Dillon's little-girl style, etc etc). We each have our favourites and our pet hates too - any nominations? I'll start by saying I just love Maddy Prior's singing and if I were clever enough to copy her, I would do.

Marje

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: trevek
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:07 PM

Funny, I already wrote a reply but for some reason it hasn't appeared.

Yes, Marje's definition is precisely what I wrote (in my missing post).

My original point was that for some annoying reason the acting profession has a habit of asking actors what 'dialects' they can do (and I have a book about doing accents which uses th D-word) when they mean 'accents'.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 05:09 PM

Can I make one thing plain.
MacColl's strength wasn't that he inspired people to either sing like him nor think like him. The work of the Critics Group was aimed at getting singers to sound like themselves - this in a revival where, if you threw a stone, if you didn't hit a Carthy sound-alike, you hit a Rose, or Bellamy, or Prior or Dylan or Baez or Watersons or YT sound-alike.
As all the Critics Group meetings were recorded and archived, MacColl's and the group's approach to folk music is on record in the MacColl archive at Ruskin and in the Charles Parker archive in Birmingham Central library for those prepared to get up off their arses and find out for themselves - but once again, it's easier to build a wall of shite around somebody who's been dead for nearly twenty years.
My own greatest influences and opinions came from the traditional singers we met and recorded, but that Cap'n's tastes don't seem to extend that far.
I'm happy to discuss these with anybody anytime rather than the snideswipes that some people seem to substitute for discussion.
"Of course Jim Carroll has axes to grind, I mean him only really liking Ewan MacColl."
My tastes extend far beyond MacColl Cap'n and to be found elsewhere on this forum - as you would know if you weren't so self-obsessed and removed your head from your own arse long enough to read the answers to some of your own questions.
Don,
MacColl's 'mannerism' of singing atraddling a chair was a relaxation technique he got from the theatre. The 'singing with one hand over the ear' has been used by unaccompanied singers for centuries, probably millenia, to assist them stay in tune; I'm not sure whether it was MacColl or Lloyd who first used it in the revival. The Watersons sang with both hands over their ears.
Maybe your mate actually found the techniques helpful!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 05:22 PM

some of us leave our pulpits and actually go to The Birmingham Reference Library and research. The Critics Group in and of itself interests me not, it's The Radio Ballads, both the originals and the new ones,ground breaking and brilliant, that have my attention,
Once again, I believe it's time that the two so called lost ballads (the non MacColl/Seeger) were made more widely available.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM

My own greatest influences and opinions came from the traditional singers we met and recorded, but that Cap'n's tastes don't seem to extend that far.
I'm happy to discuss these with anybody anytime rather than the snideswipes that some people seem to substitute for discussion.
"Of course Jim Carroll has axes to grind, I mean him only really liking Ewan MacColl."
My tastes extend far beyond MacColl Cap'n and to be found elsewhere on this forum - as you would know if you weren't so self-obsessed and removed your head from your own arse long enough to read the answers to some of your own questions.
the above is a quote from Jim Carrolls post.
My likes in music include traditional singers such as Harry Cox Phil Tanner,Jeannie Robertson,Sam Larner,Bob and Ron Copper.plus the traditional singers on the cd Around the hills of Clare.
2.that is a quote from someone elses post not mine,I did not say Of course Jim Carroll has axes to grind, I mean him only really liking Ewan MacColl."that was somebody else, not me. Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: BB
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:35 PM

That was Def Shepard (who he?). What Dick actually said was: "I have yet to hear him praise a revival singer other than Maccoll,he doesnt like Killen,Carthy,Rose,Bellamy,Davenport,he criticises Ralph Mctell but then admits hes not familiar with his repertoire.,he appears to have an axe to grind." which was what DS picked up on.

IMO, that's Jim's prerogative - he likes who he likes, and most of his points are well-argued. Bellamy's singing *is* an acquired taste, and many people never acquire it. Jim said: "For all the dedication he showed to folk song, and for all the research work he put in to building his repertoire, his vibrato prevented me from coming anywhere near to liking his singing." thus showing that he did appreciate things about Peter - just not his singing. Dick said that Peter was a great interpreter of folk song, and few would disagree with that - it doesn't necessarily follow that they enjoy listening to his voice. I find that I can appreciate his interpretation and listen to it, even though I can't really say that I like his voice.

I find it very sad that this became a slanging match - and that from both sides of the fence. Why do people find it necessary to be rude to others with whom they disagree on such matters?

Barbara

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Anglo
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:42 PM

We fight so hard because the stakes are so small.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:45 PM

"The 'singing with one hand over the ear' has been used by unaccompanied singers for centuries. . . ."

Fully aware of that, Jim. I sometimes do it myself sometimes when singing unaccompanied. In fact, a voice teacher I had long before I even heard of Ewan MacColl suggested I do it while practicing. And my friend did it first because he saw MacColl do it, then because he did find it helpful. Shortly thereafter, he took up the 5-string banjo, and that occupied his hands other places.

(I am really amazed at the number of people here on Mudcat who insist on explaining things to me that I already know)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:34 AM

Re missing Radio Ballads.
I have heard both 'Cry From The Cut' and 'The Jewelry' neither of which in any way fit into the Radio Ballads format as I understand them.
As I remember them they were both a leap back into the old announcer-actuality format, a mould which the radio ballads broke completely. The music and song gave the impression of being tacked on rather than being an integral part of the structure.
While there were some techniques which were used in making the main radio ballads, I remember coming away with the differences rather than the similarities.
It's worth comparing another production by the Parker/MacColl/Seeger team which borrowed from RB techniques, this time performed entirely by Critics Group members. This was the version of Romeo and Juliet set in the East End of London and done as a schools programme - far more successful, but also quite different.
I apologise for my persistent differences with the Cap'n spilling over onto this thread. More and more recently I am finding that I either totally disagree with him or fail to understand his points he is making. This seems to be a more-or-less permanent situation nowadays, so I think it is time I re-visited an earlier resolution of avoiding him permanently, and hope he will grant me the same courtesy, as we appear to have nothing to say to each other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 02:56 AM

Getting back to the original issue. I believe that most people can sing & some of them do it well. Some have good voices but don't sing well & on the other hand some don't have good voices but do very well with what they've got. It's fewer in my opinion that have good voices to start with & find their unique gualities within their voices & find a way to incorporate that into their own style & the more unique the gualities the more entriging the voice thus making their songs stand out all the more. If I'm correct in what Jim was saying about the Critic's Group it's goal was something along those lines. To Hear a song, from say it's original source & then trying to sing it exactly the same way is great for trying to keep it as it was but when one thinks about where that source singer got their song from it may be that it was sung some what different but each source singer in the chain of the song's history most likely added their personnal mark to the song (no one told that that they had to sing it just the way they 1st heard it) which in turn kept the life of the song virbrant & alive. "Red Is The Rose" sung by Joe Heaney is quite different from the Makem version. Joe says he got it from his Grandfather as a kid when watching him shave. I hear it sung the way Tommy sang it & many try & sing it JUST like Tommy, I'd rather hear it sung by a singer whose given it their personnal mark, like Joe marked his songs. Please let's not go into a thing about who sung Red is the Rose "more better" I was only trying to make a point. I believe that the better the song is by the singer that uses all their voice's characteristics (with Taste & not all in one song) & it makes for a better singer. Judy Collins has her own style, I hate it but some people love what she does with her voice, Dylan's voice ain't all that hot but he uses it to his advantage. Dave Van Ronk had a rough, gravel voice, not great but what he did to a song was uncanny. I really think that many singers listen to much to the song & how "it should be sung" rather than listening to their voices & seeing how with their certain qualities "how it could be sung". Some singers don't even know that they posses a voice that fully explored can pack a whole world of differences into what they sing. Pasty Cline had a voice that others with great voices just can't seem to get the same raw emotion that she could. She could slide up & down on her approach to a note that others would just love to hit but they couldn't work their way up to it like she could, that was one of her marks, it's chilling what she could draw out of a phrase. I think, from what Jim says (correct me Jim if I'm off) that the Critics Group was exploring this in each of their personnal voices because they saw the value in taking a song from another singer, learning the song the way the singer sang it then moving beyond that by adding their individual vocal qualities & thus enhancing the song. If this is on the mark, I'd say that they were what I'd think was making the most with what they had & how can you improve upon that?

Barry

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Genie
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 03:16 AM

How many folk singers started singing "thee" instead of "thuh" ("the") and "aay" instead of "uh" ("a") because they listened to Dylan in the early sixties?

Or did Dylan copy that quirky pronunciation from someone else?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 04:40 AM

Cap'n,

I feel moved to point out that some of your posts are very hard to follow. One of the big problems, that I have, is related to your refusal to use quotation marks. It is very difficult to separate your opinions from those of some previous poster who you have chosen to quote. Those little marks, " ... " could make all the difference.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 05:27 AM

ok shimrod,
I will find out how its done.or could you pm, me and explain.
BB,I have made a point of not being rude to Jim,the rudeness has been one sided.,
however I cannot fail to respond,when I am accused of saying things that I havent said,as a survivor on this forum I am acutely aware of being very careful with my posts.
finally,pissing competitions have to involve two people,they are not the prerogative of one person,if what I said was incorrect, all Jim had to say was I like Alison Mcmorland etc etc,not all that other stuff,self obsessed, head up arse,not liking traditional singers nonsense.
Jim ,every poster on this forum including you,are supposed to abide by the rules that includes not subjecting other posters to abuse.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:33 AM

Cap'n
**** ***
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: trevek
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:36 AM

Maybe it's something to do with traditional theatre/music forms, but there does seem to be a lot of slagging. I belong to a Martial Arts forum and used to contribute to Punch and Judy forum. The bitchiest by far was the P&J.

Is this a stylistic quirk too?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 09:34 AM

Cap'n,

Om my keyboard the single quotation mark (") is accessed via
'Shift' and "

'Shift' is the upward pointing arrow above 'Ctrl' at lower left of keyboard and " is above the '2' on the top row, third from left.

Just insert the cursor before the quote and do 'Shift' and ", then insert the cursor after the quote and repeat.

I hope this helps.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 09:43 AM

"thanks".

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: melodeonboy
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 09:51 AM

'I really think that many singers listen to much to the song & how "it should be sung" rather than listening to their voices & seeing how with their certain qualities "how it could be sung".'

Spot on, Barry. I couldn't agree more.


(PUERILE HUMOUR WARNING!)

By the way, I suspect that Pasty Cline was so named due to a poor diet and lack of exercise! Or was it just that she had a liking for meat and potato pies?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Genie
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 12:08 PM

Or maybe she made and sold those little sparkly nipple hats that strippers used to have to wear?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 12:34 PM

J. Carroll says, "I have heard both 'Cry From The Cut' and 'The Jewelry' neither of which in any way fit into the Radio Ballads format as I understand them."

Regardless, I believe they deserve the same audience as the so called canonical Radio Ballads.

re BB's (who he). Why assume I'm male? For all that it matters I'm female with 40 some odd years in community service and the music business.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Prince Pedant
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

It would also aid understanding if Captain Birdseye veered even slightly towards standard punctuation, abjured square brackets and treated capital letters with far more sensitivity.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

Def Shepard
"Regardless, I believe they deserve the same audience as the so called canonical Radio Ballads."
I totally agree with you, as do a whole bunch of radio programmes make by the same team, not forgetting the Sam Larner/Harry Cox film and the work done with film-maker, Phillip Donnelan. There is a treasure trove of material in The Charles Parker archive and elsewhere which is screaming out to be re-aired (dare I mention again 'The Song Carriers', the finest overall analyis of the singing traditions ever made in these islands!)
The point I was making anout 'Jewelry' and 'Cut ' was that, IMO they don't measure up well as radio ballads (I just wrote radion ballads). This was due to a number of circumstances beyond the makers' control, but that was the way it was.
Can I take this opportunity to apologise to those of you who feel they have become 'collateral damage' in my latest spat with another member of this forum - it will NOT happen again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Def Shepard
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:44 PM

Jim, I live in Birmingham, so when time allows, I'm at the Reference library. I must admit, I had heard of The Radio Ballads etc..but it was only within the lat year or so that I discovered the archive, now it's abit of an addiction.
Do you have anymore details on the Sam Larner/Harry Cox film? that HAS piqued my interest.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 03:41 PM

DS
The film is entitled 'The Singer and The Song' and was made around the time of 'Singing The Fishing' by Charles Parker and Ewan and Peggy.
It was filmed in Harry's and Sam's homes (they never met) and gave a nice picture of the lives of a farm labourer and a fisherman.
If you are a visitor to Birmingham Central library, they have copies of 'Jewelry' and 'Cut' - don't know what the listening facilities are like nowadays.
Jim Carroll
PS Peggy Seeger once said that at 80-plus, Sam Larner had more life in him than all the men she'd ever met rolled into one!

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: BB
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:40 PM

Listening to Sam Larner is an absolute delight - quite apart from his singing, which is superb, he's got a really impish sense of humour - and absolutely lives the songs! I'm sure Peggy was right. I would love to have met him.

DS, my reference was to the fact that you were apparently having a go at Jim without letting on who you actually are, which at least Jim and Dick both do. Whether you're male or female matters not a jot, at least not to me, and it wasn't particularly an assumption, but 'Who s/he?' seems a little fussy. Sorry if I offended you.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:24 AM

Barry Finn,
Sorry, I intended to reply to your earlier posting - earlier.
The aim of the Critics Group was mainly aimed at work on singing, and fell into two basic parts:
To begin with, technical work, starting with basic voice and relaxation exercises, then, when these were established, fine tuning by members of the group throwing in ideas and suggestions following a performance of anything up to half-a-dozen contrasting songs.
The basic voice exercises were incredibly useful right away, but it took a bit of getting used to making these odd sounds. There's a story in Luke Kelly's (an early member of the group) biography, when he was staying with friends in Grimsby and he was doing the exercises in the shower; his hosts thought he was having a fit and broke down the bathroom door.
The second part was the analysis, the different genres, folkloristic, social/political/historical... etc significance of the songs and how all these different aspects could affect the singing of the song, thereby (hopefully) helping a singer become a better one.
All the work was based on group discussions after a performance - with MacColl acting as chairman to sum up and sort out conflicting advice.
Part of the technical work involved imitating other singers - of all types, traditional, music hall, pop, opera... not to perform like them but in order to find out technically how different sounds in singing were produced. The singing excercises we were given when we first joined included short pieces of Gilbert and Sullivan (speed and accuracy in diction), Wagner (range and unusual intervals) and mouth music (2 choruses and a verse of Tail Toddle sung in one breath) (breath control and articulation).
The overall aim was to enable a singer to select from the whole of the repertoire and to be able to handle as wide a range as possible - from light, lyrical ornamented songs through to the big ballads and the shanties. Above all, the singer, having made their own analysis of the song, was expected to sound like him or herself when publicly performing - to have made the song their own.
MacColl's attitude to the work was summed up in a six month long interview he gave to us in 1978/9.
"Now you might say that working and training to develop your voice to sing Nine Maidens A-milking Did Go or Lord Randall is calculated to destroy your original joy in singing, at least that's the argument that's put to me from time to time, or has been put to me from time to time by singers who should know better.   
The better you can do a thing the more you enjoy it.   Anybody who's ever tried to sing and got up in front of an audience and made a bloody mess of it knows that you're not enjoying it when you're making a balls of it, but you are enjoying it when it's working, when all the things you want to happen are happening.    And that can happen without training, sure it can, but it's hit or miss.   If you're training it can happen more, that's the difference.   It can't happen every time, not with anybody, although your training can stand you in good stead, it's something to fall back on, a technique, you know.   It's something that will at least make sure that you're not absolutely diabolical……………
The objective, really for the singer is to create a situation where when he starts to sing he's no longer worried about technique, he's done all that, and he can give the whole of his or her attention to the song itself, she can give her or he can give his whole attention to the sheer act of enjoying the song".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:54 AM

The voice is a musical instrument,to obtain competence most musicians practice,if singers wish to improve, practising is essential.
knowing what to practice is essential,breathing exercises are important as are practising different scales,including singing chromatic scales,singing intervals etc.
much can be learned from opera singers as regards warm up exercises etc,this doesnt mean that folksingers who use these exercises will end up sounding like opera singers.
Interpretation of the song should be a personal thing.
Style and stylistic quirks help to prevent the fok scene becoming bland,making singers like Peter Bellamy and Martin Carthy instantly recognisable.
the problem as I see it with groups such as the Critics group,Is that singers can end up sounding too similiar to each other,and unduly influenced by the leader of the group.
Its better in my opinion to listen to lots of good singer both traditional and revival and gradually develop ones own style.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 05:15 AM

Isn't that essentially what the Critics were doing? The 'workshop' approach would presumably speed the process through mutual evaluation and feedback, helping participants to avoid too much time wandering down dead-ends. As Jim describes it, I don't see how anybody can quarrel with the method. Plenty of people do, of course, but they usually seem to have little knowledge of what was actually involved.

In any artform it is necessary to begin by acquiring basic skills, and by imitating. Only when we have grasped what the stylists we admire or consider important (and, come to that, at least some of those we don't) are doing, and how they do it, can we begin to synthesize a real style of our own. Some will remain imitators (and continue to rely on fake accents, perhaps, failing to understand why that isn't necessary) while others will transcend their models and achieve an individual voice. There's no instant gratification of any value to be had; it's a long and hard journey -as is the learning, and mastering, of anything worthwhile.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 05:45 AM

"Isn't that essentially what the Critics were doing? The 'workshop' approach would presumably speed the process through mutual evaluation and feedback, helping participants to avoid too much time wandering down dead-ends."
as regards technique and technical exercises, I would rather go to a voice teacher,or a classical singer,and learn to sing correctly[from the diaphragm ],and learn traditional style from gradual absorption.
I hear a strong influence of Maccoll,in most of the singers that were involved in the Critics group,Maccoll was of course a good singer,but his style is not the definitive style,
Far better in my opinion to go away and listen to Phil Tanner,HarryCox,Sam Larner,Charlie Wills,Fred Jordan, Walter Pardon etc.
Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:21 AM

The options are not mutually exclusive. There is room for all of the approaches you mention, and I can't see why anybody would seriously suggest otherwise. You do sometimes seem to allow personal prejudice to get in the way of good sense. As a professional actor, McColl certainly knew about singing from the diaphragm, though some of the traditional singers he and the Critics listened to, and learned from, may not have.

Since you mention it, who would you consider to have 'the definitive style'?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:14 AM

I dont consider there to be a definitive style,
I really like Phil Tanner,Jeannie Robertson,Sarah Makem,Harry Cox Sam Larner,Paddy Tunney.,Sara Carter,Isobel Sutherland,Copper Family Voice Squad.Wilson Family.Kevin Mitchell ,Ron Taylor.Jimmie Rodgers.
My point was that technique [imo] can be learned from any qualified person be it a classical singer, Ewan Macoll or any other experienced voice teacher.
there are many different styles that are good,so I dont like a definitive style to be taught,that it is my argument with Comhaltas,Comhaltas are trying to standardise traditional music,with the result that if they had their way certain regional styles would not be played in competitions,because the competitors think that by doing so they [the competitors are] not going to win.
Styles should be absorbed and grow through listening,
Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:05 PM

Whenever I hear someone say that the singers in the Critics Group sounded like MacColl I am tempted to ask 'which particular MacColl?'
More than any singer I have listened to, MacColl approached his songs as separate items, each one requiring individual treatment, using chest tones, nasal tones, soft, hard, edgy, light..... whichever he thought the song required. The efforts he used were heavy, light, soft hard, fast slow.... again, determined by the song.
Because of this, he was the only singer I have ever known who could take a whole club evening on his own (with the possible exception of Peggy when she was on form).
MacColl's singing was summed up for me by a workmate of Pat's who, when she was played one side of Manchester Angel asked "Which one was MacColl?"
Nobody in the Group sounded remotely like MacColl, and if they did, they would have been told about it, by him and by the other members.
The only singers I ever heard who remotely sang like MacColl were those who tried to.
As I have said before, the aim of the group was to enable singers to sound like themselves; whether it worked or not depended on how much work you were to put in.
I am willing to discuss with anybody (with one exception) in terms of tones, efforts, voice production, phrasing, any member of the Critics Group who 'sang like Ewan).
Ewan never ran classes, he was asked to by a number of singers in the early sixties, and he refused, instead opting for a self-help, all participating group, thus avoiding passing on his own way of singing - it worked for me, and the others I worked with.
The last thing I would suggest to anybody wishing to learn to sing is going to a voice trainer or a classical singer to learn to sing folk songs. We spent hours in the 20 years of workshops I was involved in unteaching trained singers who had been classically taught.
Classical singers/teachers neither like nor understand the traditional open-toned way of singing - I have had it described to me as 'ugly', and there are numerous stories of Ciáran MacMathúna in Ireland and Charles Parker in England being told by their programme managers to take their recording away and go and find singers who can sing! Has anybody heard the choir shantyman Stanley Slade was given to work with by the BBC in the late 40s?
Ireland is at present suffering from an 'infestation of singing teachers'.
A couple of years ago at a singing week-end I decided to try and brush up my singing technique by attending a class. I, and the rest of the class were given a text and were sung a tune which we then had to learn like I learned my times table as a child. I came away having neither improved my singing nor learning the song I was given.
I have since attended two other classes, both run on exactly the same lines.
Give me the Critics Group/London Singers Workshop method any day!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:24 PM

I never suggested anyone should go to a classical teacher to learn how to sing traditional/folk songs.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:01 PM

"The last thing I would suggest to anybody wishing to learn to sing is going to a voice trainer or a classical singer to learn to sing folk songs. We spent hours in the 20 years of workshops I was involved in unteaching trained singers who had been classically taught.

"Classical singers/teachers neither like nor understand the traditional open-toned way of singing. . . ."

I was just checking in momentarily and I don't have time to argue the points right now, but that is absolute bollocks! It shows a complete misunderstanding of what voice teachers—classical and otherwise—teach.

I'll be back, maybe tomorrow if I can.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:15 PM

Okay, so I've got a little time.

I took lessons from three different teachers. One was a soprano who had retired to Seattle after singing for years at the Metropolitan Opera. She started me off with correct breath support and had me singing scales and various other vocal exercises—with a relaxed and open throat. Although this was in the early 1950s, she was familiar with a couple of folk singers and knew a bit about folk music, although she was not intimately acquainted with it, and was fully aware that I was not looking to sound like an operatic bass-baritone. When I sang for her—songs I chose—her critiques concentrated on making sure that I was singing with good support and a relaxed throat.

She concentrated, as a voice teacher can only do, with bringing out the best that my voice could produce. A voice teacher cannot make someone sound like an opera singer or lieder singer unless that person already has that kind of voice. That is, is born with it. Not everyone is! In fact, we backed off a bit when she noticed that I was starting to sound a bit operatic.

The second voice teacher I had was a bass-baritone, like me, although he was a singer of lieder (art songs). He had me bring my guitar to the lessons, and toward the end of the lesson, he would have me sing a song or two. Most of the criticisms and suggestions he made had to do with breath support, phrasing, and keeping my voice open and relaxed.

He did stop me from time to time and ask, "What does that line mean?" He knew perfectly well what the line meant. But he wanted to make sure that I knew what it meant. He insisted that I know what I was singing and that I hadn't just learned the song by rote. "These ballads are story songs, and you need to understand the nuances of the stories so you can tell them well. After all," he would say, "you are following in the ancient tradition of the minstrels and troubadours."

I'd say that, for all intenets purposes, both of these teachers understood folk music pretty well. And it may not have been their choice of songs that they wanted to sing during their active careers on stage, but they certainly liked and understood them well enough for my purposes

So—what did I wind up sounding like? I can sound a bit operatic if I choose to, but to sound that way takes a bit of concentration. Due to good breath support, I can turn up the volume on my voice enough to fill a good-sized auditorium without amplification, if I need to. When singing folk songs and ballads, what comes back to me from the tape recorder (or the new digital stuff I recently acquired) sounds, at least to me, a bit like Gordon Bok on an off day. I can live with that.

But most important. I can sing easily, with a relaxed and open throat, without fear of doing any damage to my vocal mechanism.

Don Firth

P. S. I can understand how someone who has taken voice lessons for a considerable period of time, with the intention of becoming a classical singer, and practicing that way long enough to become fairly accomplished at it, might have to be "untrained" a bit if they make a switch to wanting to sing folk songs in a traditional manner. But that's not the same thing as someone who, from the outset, wants to sing traditional songs and then takes some voice lessons from a qualified teacher.

P. P. S. There is the occasional voice teacher who, no matter what you want to sing, may insist on having you practice singing art songs. A little of that is not bad—as an exercise to stretch your ability a bit—but if that's all they're about, find another teacher.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 02:36 AM

Not my experience Don.
One member of London Singers Workshop who came back to singing folk after a period of classical training told us that her teacher told her "The first thing we have to do dear is get rid of THAT voice of yours".
My neighbour when I moved to London, who was a music teacher, said more or less the same.
There are people who teach voice specifically for folk (Frankie Armstrong) to fill the existing gap.
If I remember rightly Frankie was classically trained herself and had to 'unlearn'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 04:23 AM

"But most important. I can sing easily, with a relaxed and open throat, without fear of doing any damage to my vocal mechanism."
well said ,Don.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 01:27 PM

One has to use one's judgment, Jim. There are voice teachers and voice teachers.

When I was a senior in high school, I had several friends who were taking singing lessons (a few of whom went on to do quite well as singers), and although at the time I had no idea of what I would ever do with it, I took several months' lessons just for fun. From Edna Bianchi, the retired Metropolitan Opera soprano I mention above. For all of the vaunted heights to which her active career had taken her, she was a very down-to-earth lady with a good sense of humor and knowledge and appreciation for all kinds of music.

When I became interested in folk music a few years later and decided to study music at the University of Washington, and (by then, realizing how valuable a bit of voice training is to preserving one's voice into a ripe, old age), I decided to resume voice lessons. I interviewed the four voice teachers on the U. of W. School of Music's staff and although they were all competent teachers, I found that their interest in what I wanted to do ranged from lukewarm to negative. So I decided to go back to Mrs. Bianchi.

In addition to the lessons, she and I talked a great deal about singers and singing—of all kinds. She thoroughly understood what I was about. As did George Hotchkiss Street, the bass-baritone I took lessons from later. I went to him after I had not taken lessons for awhile because I thought that, since he had the same kind of voice I did, he might have a few insights that Mrs. Bianchi, a soprano, might not have. But I think his major contribution to me was his strong emphasis on interpretation.

Here's the point:    at the University of Washington School of Music, the voice teachers thought they were interviewing me to see if they wanted to take me as a pupil. Perhaps so. But the important thing to me was that I was interviewing each of them to see if any one of them was a teacher I wanted to take lessons from.

You've got to use your head. If you don't think a particular teacher understands what you are about, find another teacher.

Don Firth

P. S. And, by the way, both Mrs. Bianchi and Mr. Street had been classical singers themselves and were "classical" voice teachers.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 02:27 PM

Don,
You sound as if you've had more luck with voice trainers than the ones I've met.
"A voice teacher cannot make someone sound like an opera singer or lieder singer unless that person already has that kind of voice. That is, is born with it."
Would be interested if you could elucidate on the above statement; I've always considered that the way one sings is down to nurture rather than nature.
I was once doing some electrical work for a man who I was later told was the musical director for the BBC.
During the course of the day around half a dozen nervous looking young women appeared at various times, each clutching music manuscripts, and sat in the hallway waiting to be summoned into your man's office.
Once inside, there came the most excruciating sounds of quavery-voiced women singing and a roaring of "higher! higher!.
Eventually the victim would emerge and disappear out of the house - invariabley in floods of tears.
Do you think I misconstrued what was happening?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 02:32 PM

no, but you are generalising from the particular again.
there are good and bad in every trade including electricians.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 06:00 PM

If you attend live opera with all the trimmings, you'll notice that there is often a great deal of ensemble singing, and that in the solo singing, arias and such, often the singer needs to make himself or herself heard over a full symphony orchestra going full-blast. And most opera houses do not use amplification. An operatic voice has to be very, very big. I once heard two of Seattle Opera's lead singers, a tenor and a soprano, sing the love duet from Madame Butterfly (to a piano accompaniment) in a meeting room that seated about 150 people maximum, and I was astounded at how bloody loud they were! I'd heard both of them on the stage of the opera house, but I had no idea that, up close, they would be that loud!

I do have a fairly big voice and, as I said, I don't have any trouble bouncing my voice off the back wall of a fairly sizable auditorium. It is a big voice (great for chantey singing), but although I've uncorked it a few times just to see what I could do, I'm not sure it's actually big enough to sing opera.

My wife has a lovely singing voice, and she frequently sings in a church choir, and occasionally she solos. But she's singing in a fairly small church that seats about 200 people, and it has excellent acoustics (Bob Nelson and I sang a concert there last October). Her voice, lovely as it is, simply does not have the power it would take to sing live opera under the usual conditions, and I don't think all the voice lessons in the world would give her that power.

There are "classical" singers that you see—or, at least, used to see—in movie musicals. One who springs to mind is Kathryn Grayson, who appeared in movies like "The Desert Song," and "The Vagabond King" during the 1950s. Lovely operatic sounding voice. But no matter how much breath support she could put behind it, it was just too small for the opera stage, so she was limited to movies, radio, and records. There a many such, both male and female.

One outlet for classical singers with small voices is the recital stage, singing Schubert lied, art songs, and such. There are many excellent singers who have made fine careers that way. Sometimes they will include a few operatic arias, but in this setting, their only competition is their piano accompanist.

But that's just talking about the matter of simple volume. There are a number of other factors, such as voice quality; not whether the voice is "good" or "bad," but whether it is the kind of voice that is appropriate with a particular category of songs. The voice is a musical instrument. And in the same way that flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoons, all similarly constructed instruments and all working on the same principle (a vibrating column of air), but differ in sound quality, human voices differ also. Different sizes of vocal cords, different sizes and shapes of throats, mouths, and nasal passages (resonating chambers) produce different kinds of tonal qualities, some quite appropriate for one kind of song and inappropriate for others. These are physical factors, about which nothing much can be done.

One thing that would keep me off an opera stage, even if nothing else would, is the matter of range. My voice is bass-baritone quality, but I can't make the upper range of an operatic bass-baritone. I can sing lower than a lot of them can, but I can't make some of the high notes demanded of bass-baritone roles (Mephistopheles in Faust has to be able to sing a G above middle C; I can't even come close!). Mrs. B. and I tried to develop that upper range, but it just wasn't there. So we backed off. As Mrs. B. said, you can develop a range that is potentially there, but one way to ruin a singing voice is to try to force it beyond what it is capable of.

So why am I a bass-baritone rather than a bass? Voice quality. Even though my voice is deep and I can sing the range, it sounds a tad lighter than a full bass. I don't have that same deep, "somewhere near the shoe-tops" rumple that a genuine bass has.

In the same way that certain physical endowments are crucially important to one's success in sports, the same kind of physical characteristics exert a major influence on the kind of singing voice one is capable of developing.

It's in the genes.

All that a voice teacher can do is to work with whatever natural endowments you have, and teach you correct vocal technique—breath control and tone production—and bring out the best that is already in you voice. They cannot give you anything that isn't already there. All they can do is help you bring out the potential that is there.

Now—should a voice teacher discover that a singing student unknowingly has extraordinary endowments (there's a genuine Natalie Dessay or Ezio Pinza lurking in that throat), that teacher would be remiss if they did not tell the student what their potential is and then let them decide whether or not they want to develop it along those lines.

But if a particular teacher is not willing to work with what you want to do, there are plenty out there who will. After all, you are paying them.

Don Firth

P. S. Jim, your hearing the BBC music director "working with" the young women and urging them to sing "higher, higher," reminded me of one of the teachers I encountered at the University of Washington. After talking with him for a few minutes, I mentally scratched him off my list. I later learned that some of the voice students there (now taking from other teachers) referred to him as "the Strangler." I know of at least one promising girl student whose voice he just about ruined before she got smart and went to another teacher—who promptly sent her to an laryngologist because she had developed chronic laryngitis working with her old teacher.

A good voice teacher can be a tremendous help. But, unfortunately, almost anyone can declare himself of herself a voice teacher, and there are a lot of charlatans out there. You have to have your antennae up.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Genie
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 12:04 AM

What Don's been saying.

At the recent Singtime Frolics in NW Oregon, we had some great vocal workshops with Mark Bosnian, a marvelous singer and vocal coach who has many blues and folk singers, among others, as clients.   Much of what he teaches is basic to any singer, but he also went into some of the technical differences between singing styles.

And if anyone thinks that professional pop, rock, blues, and country singers don't avail themselves of the services of good vocal coaches -- to good advantage --, think again.

G

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Genie
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 12:20 AM

Don Firth said: "In the same way that certain physical endowments are crucially important to one's success in sports, the same kind of physical characteristics exert a major influence on the kind of singing voice one is capable of developing."

When I hear folk (or country or pop or rock) singers say they don't want vocal coaching for fear that they will end up sounding operatic, I'm reminded of when I was studying kinesiology and working as a fitness trainer. Nearly every day I would have to try to assure some very soft, feminine newby that she did not have to avoid working with weights because she didn't "want to build."   Without using steroids, most women simply could not look end up looking anything remotely like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his Mr. Universe days if their life depended on it.   
Nor could a natural soprano become a tenor.
Nor could Bob Dylan end up sounding like Luciano Pavarotti - or probably vice-versa.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 04:15 AM

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here.
In the Critics Group, and any other workshop I have worked with, the purpose was to help provide the wherewithal for a singer to develop their natural abilities to a point where they were usable to sing folk songs and to suggest ways (exercises) in order to keep it there. We always worked on the premise that (barring actual physical defects) anybody can sing, and if they were to put in the work, they can sing well.
Even if I were convinced of the wisdom of going to a voice trainer, which I am not, the idea of paying somebody to train me would be neither practical nor desirable, unless I had major problems which I was unable to tackle myself. In an extreme case, a singing teacher would be an emergency cord.
Don says:
"But if a particular teacher is not willing to work with what you want to do, there are plenty out there who will".
Don't know where you live Don (Washington?), but not here there ain't; they're pretty thin on the ground in rural Ireland.
There are plenty of 'singing teachers' here, they're spreading like fungus, and doing a great deal of damage to the singing scene - so much so that I'm beginning to believe that a regular cull would be in order. The plague of 'head-voice' singing in women is largely down to the 'singing teacher' syndrome of "that's the way women 'should' sound".
Basically I believe that folk singing is entirely different from classical singing in one crucial area. English language singing is narrative; the older singers we have recorded have made it clear to us that they considered themselves storytellers whose stories came with tunes. They tend to sing in or around their speaking pitch and their phrasing is narrative. A good example of this is Sam Larner's singing of 'Butter and Cheese and All, where he used to interrupt the last verse with speech - The dogs they barked, the children screamed, out ran the oled women all - (then spoken) "And you know what they are, don't you?". The speech becomes part of the singing.
This is why, even though I like them both, I would put my recordings of Texas Gladden on a different shelf than, say Martha Schlamm (or even Kathleen Ferrier); same type of song (sometimes), different objective.
A perfect example of the confusion of 'trained' and 'folk' singing is to be found in the work of CCE, where a number of their 'star' singers sound like low-key versions of light opera stars.
My introduction to workshop work was to be given a list of singers to listen (not to imitate in performance) and to try and work out how they were producing their voices. I was also introduced to a series of exercises; basically 4 vowel-type sounds, half a dozen sung pieces, and probably most important of all, relaxation exercises; I was told that when I had mastered these they would always be there, and if I did them regularly, they would help keep my voice in trim.
While I was singing I found that to be the case, and when I stopped doing them and began to sing less regularly, due to other directions my interests took me into, my voice became rusty and tired.
The exercises were compact and simple and took about twenty to thirty minutes to work through. There were other exercises aimed at pushing the boundaries of my voice, but those above were the basic ones for keeping my vocal tools usable.
One of the great problems with work on technique is that it can be an object in itself. For me, MacColl's point remains the valid one:
"The objective, really for the singer is to create a situation where when he starts to sing he's no longer worried about technique, he's done all that, and he can give the whole of his or her attention to the song itself, she can give her or he can give his whole attention to the sheer act of enjoying the song".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Richard Spencer
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 07:00 AM

Jim, I would be really interested in more detail on the exercise program you mentioned above. Did any of this get published anywhere?

Richard Spencer

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 09:35 AM

Richard,
Not yet - but it's being thunk over.
In the meantime, I'll see if I can't dig out something.
Will contact you if I manage it - bit busy at present.
Jim

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 10:32 AM

"The objective, really for the singer is to create a situation where when he starts to sing he's no longer worried about technique, he's done all that, and he can give the whole of his or her attention to the song itself, she can give her or he can give his whole attention to the sheer act of enjoying the song".quote from Jim Carroll
been doing that for years, Jim,without needing to go to a MacColl/Frankie Armstrong workshop.
[imo]if youare going to sing in a style be it jazz OR traditional,You need to absorb the style,you need if you are performing several nights a week to perform in away that will not strain your voice. why have some folksingers had to have operations for nodes on the vocal chords?because they have damaged their voice by singing from the throat.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 01:26 PM

Cap'n,

Are you saying that MacColl deliberately taught people to sing from their throats?

Well I can tell you definitively, having once attended one of his workshops, that he didn't! Don't know about Frankie Armstrong (where did she spring from?).

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

No.
I said, that I never felt the need to go to a MacColl workshop.
I said that people have throat problems through singing incorrectly.thereis no connection as far As Iknow between Maccolls workshops and throat problems,why would there be?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 03:00 PM

Shimrod
Don't try!!!!
Would be interested to know where and when you attended one of Ewan's workshops - and if it was recorded.
If it's no trouble, please pm me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 03:49 PM

Incidentally, it's not singing from the throat, or any other part of the body (as amply demonstrated by La Petomane!) that does the damage; it is forcing the voice.
Last time we got together, Terry Yarnell, the most skillful singer in the Critics Group (and arguably in the whole of the revival) was practicing Mongolian Throat Singing "just for the hell of it". Don't know how he got on, but if anybody could manage it, he could.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 04:07 PM

Hi Jim,

It was nearly 40 years ago now - although it feels like yesterday. I have never forgotten it (although some of the detail may have faded with time). I still consider that it was one of the most important educational experiences that I have ever had - brilliant and inspiring stuff. Sadly, I am pretty certain that it wasn't recorded.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 06:05 PM

I don't know what voice teachers are like in the British Isles (at least in rural Ireland, if any at all), but it would seem, from what Jim says, that they are a whole different species from most of the breed. And I also note from Jim's description of what he was taught in the workshops that it's the same sort of thing that the voice teachers I have encountered teach. The advantage of working with a teacher or coach over a period of time is that there is another pair of ears there to monitor how you are doing. One can be given a series of exercises in a workshop, or get them out of a book, or download them from the internet, and practice them assiduously, and still not do oneself much good—actually do oneself harm—without at least some initial guidance, and, ideally, occasional spot-checks.

I am not, in any way, suggesting that the ambition of someone who wants to sing folk songs should be to try to sound like Kathleen Ferrier, who is primarily a classical singer, or like Richard Dyer-Bennet, whose repertoire is primarily folk songs and ballads, but who sings them like art songs. To begin with, you can't sound like Kathleen Ferrier or Richard Dyer-Bennet unless you have that kind of voice to begin with.

I take a pretty dim a view of singers who deliberately set out to try to sound "folk;" those people who seem to list a bunch of characteristics of what they consider to be a "folk voice," and then tie their throats in knots trying to achieve that sound. I can list out a number of singers, some well known, who have obviously done exactly that. But singers such as Jean Ritchie, Frank Proffitt, Jeannie Robertson, Margaret Barry, and many others are not among them.

I take an even dimmer view of those folk-type singers who claim total ignorance of any formal musical training themselves and strenuously advise others to avoid it like the plague or it will ruin their "natural style" and destroy their ability to do folk music—and then I discover that they had ten years of piano or violin lessons when they were a kid, and/or sang in their high school choir (where you do generally receive some vocal instruction), and can also read music like a pro. I've uncovered a few of those! A couple of them descended on me when they found out that I was changing my college major to Music. I'm convinced that they pull that kind of crap because they're afraid of competition and want to maintain a secret advantage!

My goal in taking voice lessons—after I became interested in folk music—was to learn to sing in my own natural voice and attempt to bring out its full potential in terms of range and resonance, and avoid the traps of flawed technique, such as singing with a tight throat or lack of good breath support, and most certainly not forcing my voice, which are things that can cut a singing career short. Having already had some lessons from Mrs. Bianchi, I went back to her because I knew that this was what she could help me with.

"The objective, really for the singer is to create a situation where when he starts to sing he's no longer worried about technique, he's done all that, and he can give the whole of his or her attention to the song itself. . . ."

That is exactly the point of taking voice lessons:   to learn the correct techniques of voice production and then practice those techniques until they becomes automatic, and you no longer have to think about them. Then you can turn your full attention to the song itself.

Silly (but accurate) analogy:   when playing a guitar, if you have to stop and think "Okay, that's a C chord, so I have to put my 3rd finger on the 3rd fret of the 5th string, my second finger on the 2nd fret of the . . . " you'll wind up braiding your fingers. Same thing with vocal technique. You want to have it so well absorbed that you don't have to think about it.

But having that extra set of ears, especially those of a knowledgeable person, can be invaluable in making certain that your practice is not going astray and that you are doing yourself more harm than good. One possible alternative is to record your practice sessions regularly and listen to them with a critical ear—provided you fully understand what to listen for.

It would surprise me greatly if Pete Seeger ever had any voice lessons. He seemed to sing freely and openly, but I could hear a tightness in his throat when he sang. It was also there when he spoke (by the way, radio announcers need to use good vocal technique also; I've known a couple whose broadcasting careers were cut short when their voices gave out). Pete's 89 now, and a few years ago I heard him performing at the Northwest Folklife Festival. His voice was shaky and he couldn't sustain a tone. He comment that his voice was "shot." Considering his age, he's had some pretty good innings as a singer. But he didn't necessarily have to lose his voice.

Here's an example of what the lifelong use of correct vocal technique can do for a voice. Mark Reisen is a Russian operatic bass (and again, good vocal technique isn't going to make you—or allow you—to sound like him unless you were born with the same kind of vocal equipment he was), and here he is, performing on the stage of the Bolshoi Theater—at the age of 90! His voice is still full and rich.

CLICKY.

I find that kind of inspiring.

Don Firth

P. S. Yes, almost everyone can sing, at least after a fashion;   some quite well right off, some not so well. One big factor is being able to hear tunes accurately and reproduce them with your voice, which takes ear-voice coordination. To most people, it comes fairly naturally. To some folks, unfortunately not.

My suggestion that some vocal instruction might not be amiss is directed at those who plan on singing a lot, not just occasionally for a bit of fun. If you intend to make a career out of singing, or just sing a lot, you might find it wise to take a few precautions about preserving your voice so that you won't wake up some morning with a whole schedule of gigs ahead of you and a voice (if any at all!) that sounds like an asthmatic fog horn.

I've known it to happen. Most distressing!!

Not to mention expensive!

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:44 PM

Don,what an excellent post.thankyouvery much.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:39 PM

"he was the only singer I have ever known who could take a whole club evening on his own (with the possible exception of Peggy when she was on form)."

One I've heard do it is Adam MacNaughton. I didn't think to analyze what he was up to, but come to think of it he does use a fair variety of sound - it isn't just that he's a verbal magician. Comments from anybody out there who has observed what he does, technically?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:14 AM

Don,
We are obviously going to have to agree to disagree; our experiences and and situations are obviously very different. Doubt if your scenario could happen over here, in practical as well as in musical terms.
Most of the reason for this is that folk song, in the UK especially, has never really been taken seriously by the musical establishment, and the likelihood of being encouraged to pursue it is virtually nil in my experience.
Even in the field of education, some years ago, when a University head closed down a folklore department (including a music section) he dismissed them contemptuously as 'tree huggers'.
Personally, I have always got great satisfaction and pleasure from working with a group of my peers, on my and their singing, people who know exactly where I am coming from, singing-wise, and whose approach and objectives we can all relate to. There are a number of places where folk singing is being worked on in its own right. Frankie Armstrong has been working on voice for years; Newcastle appears to be going great guns, Terry Whelan ran a workshop in Manchester for years (hopefully the members continued after his death). Many of the people who have worked, or are working on folk voice have based their approach on MacColl's pioneering work, which was derived both from his vast knowledge of traditional singing and his theatre work. IMO, these workshop activities are vital to the future of the performance of the songs, which desperately needs to be taken seriously, from within and without the revival. We certainly need to get away from the 'cloning sessions' which are masquerading as singing lessons.
I enjoyed your Bolshoi clip - but at the risk of infuriating the opera buffs out there, it emphasises my point perfectly. As much as I enjoy listening to 'some' opera - as vocal music, I would never want to sing like your man - at 19 or 90.
As I said earlier - our songs are narrative, and for all their eventual reduction in physical faculties, I would far rather listen to Sam Larner, or Dillard Chandler, or Mary Ann Carolan, or Texas Gladden - that's where the real passion lies for me.
Jack,
I know what you mean about Adam's singing, though I have always found his technical abilities a little limited. I think his skill of holding an audience lies greatly in his material, particularly in his own songs.
We have an Irish equivalent in Con 'Fada'O'Driscoll.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 05:50 PM

Apparently our situations are quite different, Jim. But I have experienced the failure on the part of some classical musicians and teachers to grasp the nature and cultural importance of folk music.

When I first applied to the University of Washington School of Music in 1956, I was asked (by the registrar) about my goals. I already knew that I didn't want to take lessons from any of the University's four voice teachers because Mrs. Bianchi knew what I was all about and was happy to work with me. So I specified "classical guitar," and was immediately told that the school did not recognize the guitar as a "serious" musical instrument—this, despite the fact that Andrés Segovia had played a concert at Meany Hall on the University campus only a few months before. So I was refused admission.

Professor John Verrall, who was a resident composer at the school, heard about it. I didn't put him up to it, but a friend of mine who also knew Prof. Verrall told him what had happened. Prof. Verrall asked me to come in for an interview. We talked awhile, then he asked me to play and sing for him, which I did. He said that it was "ridiculous" that I had been refused admission and arranged a special audition for me with Dr. Stanley Chappell, the head of the school. I played and sang for Dr. Chappell. He agreed with Prof. Verrall and he issued orders to the registrar that I be admitted.

I continued to take voice lessons from Mrs. Bianchi, and later, George Street, along with classic guitar lessons from Emilio Bonsilau, then Edward Hern. I attended the U. of W. School of Music for two years, studying what I really wanted to learn there—music theory.

Prof. Verrall and most of the other teachers understood what I wanted and were sympathetic to what I was doing. But there were a couple of teachers, and some fellow students of the snootier sort, who would say things like, "When are you going to stop messing around with that 'cowboy music' and get serious?"

I finally dropped out of the music department because class and homework demands were cutting into my time so much that I actually didn't have time to practice or learn new songs, while, at the same time, and I was getting an increasing number of singing jobs. I was learning what I wanted, but the university setting and routine was turning out to be counterproductive. As an alternative, I looked up a local woman composer I had heard of named Mildred Hunt Harris, who took private pupils in music theory. She was marvelous! Although she was involved in what might be regarded as the modern extension of classical ("serious") music, she loved folk music. And during the lessons, she understood immediately when I would sometimes say things like, "That chord change is really interesting, but I think it might be a bit 'posh' for a simple song like that. Not really appropriate."

Later, wanting to expand my general musical background even more (and take such courses as "The Physics of Music" and "The Business Side of a Career in Music"), I enrolled in the Cornish College of the Arts, a private school and conservatory here in Seattle. Lockrem Johnson, then the head of the Cornish music department, said, "I don't care if you play tissue paper and comb. As long as you're serious about your music, that's all that matters." There were four other classic guitarists and one other folk singer at Cornish.

It is with some satisfaction that I note that some years ago, the University of Washington School of Music, which, in 1956 did not recognize the guitar as a serious musical instrument, initiated a guitar department. The first head of that department was Steven Novacek, a concert and recording artist and an acquaintance of mine. He recently retired and has been replaced by Michael Partington. One of the recent graduates of the U. of W.'s guitar department is Elizabeth C. D. Brown, who plays lute, Baroque guitar, and modern classic guitar, and who, within a few short years, has established herself playing recitals, both solo and with early music groups, and has recently been appointed as the head of the guitar department at Pacific Lutheran University, near Tacoma, Washington, some thirty miles south of Seattle.

I like to think that, back in the 1950s, I played some small part in kicking the door open.

"As much as I enjoy listening to 'some' opera - as vocal music, I would never want to sing like your man - at 19 or 90."

As I have said several times on this and other threads, unless you were born with the same kind of vocal equipment that Mark Reisen had, all of the singing teachers in the world, and a lifetime of singing lessons and diligent practice could not make you—or let you—sing like him. Believe me, there are many young singers who aspire to sing opera—or lieder or oratorios or other kinds of classical music—who wish that enough lessons with the right teacher was all it took.

What it takes to sound like Mark Reisen or Luciano Pavarotti or Renée Fleming or Marilyn Horne is the right genes—and enough lessons with the right teacher.

Have no fear! Taking enough lessons to learn to sing in your natural voice, consistently on pitch, with good breath support, and with a relaxed and open throat so that you can sing with ease and minimize the risk of developing chronic laryngitis or nodes on your vocal chords, allowing you to keep on singing into a ripe old age, will not make you, or allow you to, sound like an opera singer. Not bloody likely!

That's a bit like expecting someone built like Benny Hill to be able to dance like Rudolf Nureyev after taking a few ballet lessons.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 01:27 AM

"unless you were born with the same kind of vocal equipment that Mark Reisen had, all of the singing teachers in the world, and a lifetime of singing lessons and diligent practice could not make you—or let you—sing like him."
You should have heard MacColl - or Terry Yarnell - (both up with the best singers of traditional song), sing "Tis ended, the everlasting work", or "By evil craft fashioned Alberecht" (Wagner at his worst).
Come round one bath-time - I can still make a fair job of them both. Still not convinced on the 'nature-nurture' question.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Hamish
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 02:37 AM

Sorry, Phil, I took my eye off this thread which I know I shouldn't have done, having posted a controversial opinion about the rightly influential Maddy Prior. For me, her stylistic quirks are the swoops and glissandos, and the falling off from notes at the ends of phrases that make her singing so individual. However, in lesser mortals' larynxes it doesn't always have the same allure.

And yes, of course we've all - me included - come to a lot of great music through Maddy.

--
Hamish

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 04:43 PM

One of the things that pretty well convinces me in the "nature/nurture question" is that I inadvertently had a chance to see it in operation as I was growing up.

In high school, I tended to hang out with the music and drama crowd. Roosevelt High School was a pretty big school, and they had a fair number of pretty talented kids there. And I had a chance to hear them a lot. The school had a big auditorium with a full-size stage (good enough that professional groups made use of the facilities from time to time), and high school productions were surprisingly ambitious. But the kids were up to it. One year, the big musical stage production was the musical "Show Boat," and another year they did Victor Herbert's operetta "The Fortune Teller." Another year, they took a whack at some Gilbert and Sullivan. And although the performing was all done by high school students, it was really amazing how professional the productions were.

A good friend was Frank Bouley, who, even at the age of sixteen, had a full, rich baritone voice. He was taking singing lessons, and his fully developed ambition was to replace Nelson Eddy when he retired. He didn't quite achieve his ambition, but he did sing in one movie (with Bing Crosby) then wound up on Broadway. He understudied the lead in "Damn Yankees" and performed in other Broadway musicals, but never a starring role. Almost made it into "West Side Story." But he made a successful career for himself singing Broadway show tunes in a big tourist hotel in Miami for pretty big money.

Ken Davenny, who also took lead roles in the musical productions, couldn't figure out whether he was a tenor or a baritone, nor could his voice teacher. Very big voice, but too light to be a baritone, too "dark" to be a tenor. After he graduated, he went to New York to study voice. I talked with him when he came back on vacation. He said that the New York voice teacher had him pegged as a "heldentenor." Like Lauritz Melchior or John Vickers. "Now," Ken mused, "I have to figure out if I really want to sing Wagner." It was genes, not training, that governed the kind of voice he had.

Eleanor Flagler had a lovely, sweet little voice. Very little, which would not increase in size, no matter how many voice lessons she took. I believe she ended up directing a church choir and doing occasional solos.

Barbara Johannsen was a big girl. Not fat at all, but solidly built. And she had a HUGE soprano voice. She could bend walls out. Amazingly big voice for anyone, especially for a kid. The big voice was there before she started taking lessons. Almost predictably, I saw her recently on stage at Seattle Opera during the Wagner Festival productions of "The Ring of the Nibelung." There she was, in "Die Valkyre," spear in one hand, shield in the other, wings on her helmet, "Hoy Oh Toe Hoeing" right along with the other warrior maidens.

I talked to her some time later, and she told me that she had been a regular at Wagner festivals all over the place. She enjoyed it, but she said there were a lot of other roles she would like to have sung, such as Violetta in "La Traviata." But Violetta calls for a lyric soprano, and Barbara was a dramatic soprano. Her voice just wasn't suited for the role. Bellini's "Norma" might be a possibility. Genes. She said she was thinking of retiring, "before I become the world's oldest Valkyre! How about that? 'Valkyre emeritus!""

There are several others whom I saw develop as singers and had a chance to see where their careers went. Much of it, it seems, was dictated more by matters over which they had little control, such as the type and characteristics of the voice they were born with, despite, on occasion, attempts to train them in another direction.

Folk singer Walt Robertson, my initial mentor when I first took up folk music, had a very good voice for the kind of music he wanted to do. But on one occasion, he got pressed into service to sing the role of Eliza Doolittle's father in a stage production of "My Fair Lady" (Stanley Holloway did it in the movie version), and Walt brought it off very well indeed!

Soprano Eileen Farrell is best known for her operatic roles. Big voice, particularly good for Wagnerian roles, like Barbara Johannsen. But I've heard her sing torch songs, which she can do very well, and if you didn't know, you would never suspect that she's an opera singer. Barbara J. could do that sort of thing, too.

Sopranos Renée Flemng and Kiri Te Kanawa, and Baritones Thomas Hampson and Bryn Terfel, in addition to their operatic roles, have recorded a lot of Broadway show tunes and pop songs, and although they're awfully good at it, if you didn't already know, you might not peg them as primarily singers of opera. But folk songs? They could certainly sing them, but . . . it certainly wouldn't be what we're used to hearing!

But the point is, all the voice lessons in the world will not make you sound like an opera singer if your voice doesn't have that potential to begin with.

And if it does—well, you might want to consider your options. . . .

(Do you have any idea what successful opera singers get paid!??)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 10:06 AM

I well remember from my privileged days as one member of the Manchester Critics at the same time as Jim Carroll (to whose generosity and dedication I owed a great deal, whilst I was still singing) singing a ballad from 'The Long Harvest', and getting bollocked from other members for allegedly 'trying to sing it like Ewan'.

I took this as a high compliment at the time, but also revised my way of singing it.

Maria L and I sang a unison version of 'Long Lankin' one evening at Critics - pity, as was pointed out, we didn't always sing the same version :-).

For the record : I have infinite admiration for those singers who take seriously their craft, but do not take themselves too seriously. For me, a sense of humour is vital to singing - it enhances the pleasure.

We PLAY folk music - we don't WORK it. I believe that the exercises whch Jim learned from Ewan, and then taught other members of the Manchester Critics, were invaluable, to me, at any rate - even if I did feel like the celestial prat with a box over me head, trying the vowel sounds.

I beleive I can speak for he other members of the Manchester Critics that we owe Jim C a great deal, and Ewan MacColl much more, for their generosity and dedication. Any stylistic quirks I might have picked up, unconsciously or subconsciously, were soon ironed out. Please note that I am not saying that I developed an individual style - like Martin Carthy, I beleive 'style' to be offensive, in singing traditional material.

S'pose the fertiliser will have a close encounter with the air conditioning, having written this.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: BB
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:15 PM

Throwing nothing dirty around, but I am intrigued by what you say Martin Carthy believes - that 'style' is offensive in singing traditional material. Are you saying that Martin Carthy has no individual style? Or for that matter that the likes of Walter Pardon do not?

Barbara

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 02:11 PM

"I believe that the exercises whch Jim learned from Ewan, and then taught other members of the Manchester Critics, were invaluable, to me. . . ."

I'd be very interested in hearing what these exercises are.

On the matter of "style," maybe I don't understand what people are meaning by the word. I've always been under the impression that every singer has a style. The question, it seems to me, is whether it is something that develops naturally, or is it something the singer adopts in a studied fashion, such as trying to imitate someone else or adopt quirks that are not already natural to them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 05:28 PM

Jim

I'd also be very interested to have the exercises you learned from Ewan. From what you've said in the past, some of them I may do already, but would be good to hear them all.

Thanks
Sue

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 12:03 AM

Thanks Jim for that reply. I do follow what you're explaning & fully agree.
Don when you say genes played more a part of those that you've known, I'd say that in those folks that you've refered to they sang to roles & parts that were laid out, ages before them & they by their voice grade were predestined to sing to those spots. They were taught & studied to the already preplanned tests & so they scored roles fitted for them. Traditional singing & songs do not have roles already set for the singers to fail (intended pun) into. So it's not a matter of your voice setting the grounds rules 1st but the other way around where you make what you can with your voice 1st & then apply it to the songs you sing.

I have never had lessons, never trained, breifly been shown breathing some exercises, had only a brief encounter with warm up proceedures when working with a theater troup for a one off show. What I would have given to have given to have had a group to study with so that what I did learn on my own could've been cut by decades. I have listened, my whole adult life to singers that I've love & those that I haven't cared to much for. Finding out what I liked in others that I could also do & what I didn't like in others, that I could also do. I also found things that I could do that others don't do. Some of that I liked & some I didn't. Some songs I do require me to do things completely different things with my voice. Listening to as many styles as I found to my liking & some I couldn't stand. I think if one keeps an open mind & an open mouth & doesn't intend to sound like some one else or goes past that, that they can find an inner voice that they can work with that will help them find there own style. There are some people that don't sound like anyone else & they sound great you jus can't get enough of them & there are some people that sound like a whole host of other that you can compare to yet they grab hold of your ear & tug on it & it's their own style that pulling you towards them. It's not there training, you can train a dog to howl, you can teach some one to sing but style is what they find within themselves & from how I read Jim & what the Critics group was doing was that they were in what I'd compare to as a musical group therapy sessions. A sort of self help where all laid bare their musical souls & each & every member confronted, critized, supported, gave constructive criticism & generally pushed the process through a grinder so what would've have taken your say "normal source singer" (had fun with that combo of words) years to land upon their own style, it pushed the members light years (well maybe not 'light years') ahead of would might be called a normal learning curve. Who would not want to take advantage of a study group like that. All more the praise I have for the Critics Group. And I always thought that they were just playing around with the songs.

If there's more on any of the excerises I'd like some of that too.

Barry

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Peter Cox
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 03:59 AM

A note for Def Shepard and others who have expressed interest in the 'Birmingham Ballads' - The Jewellery and Cry from the Cut. I have copies of both I can burn for anyone interested. Def - perhaps we could talk, if you'd like to contact me off-thread via www.setintosong.co.uk.    I discuss them in the book.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 04:05 AM

I have undertaken to sort out something from the recordings I have from Critics Group/Singers Workshop on the exercises we did. Have been using the excuse of being busy for too long, so I will get it sorted soon.
There is a move afoot to make available all of the work we did, which goes beyond the introductory exercises; something I would very much like to happen, but it's still up in the air so far.
Regarding Martin Carthy's comment on style, which I have never heard before; I think I know what he means, and I think I agree with him.
Yes, all singers have a 'style', their own or a borrowed one (all too often the latter), but the problem arises for me when those (often very consciously developed) stylistic elements dominate a song to its detriment. This has happened very occasionally with certain traditional singers, but here in Ireland it has become very much a problem with revival singers.
The English language repertoire here (as it is nearly everywhere) tends largely to be narrative, yet the 'style' adopted by many singers, as breathtakingly skillful as many of them are, is slow and very highly ornamented. This is such a widespread phenomenon that sitting in a singing session can be like trying to wade through a field of treacle, especially when it happens with half a dozen songs on the run. Eventually all the songs, as good as they may be, merge into one and become mesmerising, and even soporific, rather than interesting and entertaining.
MacColl used to talk about 'ringing the changes' and 'making the listener's ear work' in a performance. Basically, he was referring to varying the performed repertoire so that your audience doesn't go to sleep on you, which means not only selecting your own songs carefully, but also listening to what your fellow-performers are singing - which all-too-often doesn't happen.
Thanks for those kind comments Bryn - and the nice memories; the cheque's in the post. I don't think I 'taught' anybody anything, I think we all learned together, which has always been the value and the pleasure of the workshop method of working for me.
Hope America went well, and you didn't dent Anglo-American relations too much.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 05:54 AM

The English language repertoire here (as it is nearly everywhere) tends largely to be narrative, yet the 'style' adopted by many singers, as breathtakingly skillful as many of them are, is slow and very highly ornamented. This is such a widespread phenomenon that sitting in a singing session can be like trying to wade through a field of treacle, especially when it happens with half a dozen songs on the run. Eventually all the songs, as good as they may be, merge into one and become mesmerising, and even soporific, rather than interesting and entertaining.quote from Jim Carroll.
very intersting Jim,isnt this a good reason,why singers should have varied repertoires,so that this kind of thing can be avoided,or alternatively the singer should have the cop onto know that two long ballads is best followed by a humorous or up tempo chorus song.
when a singaround is being run by an mc who knows what he/she is doing,and knows the repertoires of his/hers singers this can be avoided.he/she will deliberately select a running order that will maintain variety,Chris Wilson[WilsonFamily]is one of the best at this.
this of course can only be acheived if the mc knows the singers and their repertoires,singers themselves have a responsibility to have varied repertoires and know when to sing certain songs if the singaround is going to be successful .Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 06:00 AM

I agree entirely Cap'n, but in the long run it has to be the responsibility of the singer
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 06:07 AM

yes,its aquestion of singers not being self indulgent,but having a team mentality,so that the overall singaround is varied and interesting.
guestPeterCox,I have tried to email you without success,I would like copys of both please please
.www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 05:32 PM

"Don when you say genes played more a part of those that you've known, I'd say that in those folks that you've referred to they sang to roles & parts that were laid out, ages before them & they by their voice grade were predestined to sing to those spots. They were taught & studied to the already preplanned tests & so they scored roles fitted for them. Traditional singing & songs do not have roles already set for the singers to fail (intended pun) into. So it's not a matter of your voice setting the grounds rules 1st but the other way around where you make what you can with your voice 1st & then apply it to the songs you sing."

No, Barry, I'm afraid that what I'm trying to convey is simply not getting across.

In the same way that genes predetermine your height, body-build, eye color, hair color, and many other things about your physical make-up (modifiable to a small degree by such environmental things as health issues and nutrition—someone malnourished as a child may not achieve their potential full height, etc.), genes predetermine the potential of your vocal mechanism, e.g., the size of your larynx and the length and thickness of your vocal folds, the size and shape of your throat, mouth, and sinuses, and your lung capacity. It is these things that determine—predetermine—the potential range and quality of your voice, both speaking and singing. These same factors also limit what one can do with this voice.

Let me put it this way:    just about everyone who can recognize a tune well enough to whistle it or hum it can sing folk songs. They can also quite probably sing most popular songs, and a whole variety of other songs as well. Just about anything that strikes their fancy. And, indeed, most people do, in the shower if nowhere else.

I am addressing those people in particular who have a serious interest in singing, particularly those interested in singing folk songs, because that is what I am primarily interested in myself (as are many of my lifelong friends). Oftentimes this serious interest involves performing for others, up to and including performing professionally. This entails certain responsibilities, such as keeping one's singing voice in good condition so you don't have to keep canceling engagements because your voice is having problems.

We're all familiar with people who yell and scream up a storm at sports events, to the extent that at the final whistle and into the following couple of days they can hardly talk. When this happens, one has done some damage to one's vocal mechanism. Usually it heals up in a week or two's time and they're back to normal. I have also known a few enthusiastic singers of folk songs who have lost their voices as a result of singing several evenings in a row at a coffeehouse or club, or after a couple of hours of chantey-singing at a folk festival.

If one does this repeatedly, one can do permanent damage to one's voice. And lose the ability to sing at all!

I have also known people who can sing every night of the week and/or yell their lungs out at a football game with no ill effect. Whether as a result of a bit of vocal training, or by lucky happenstance, they get the desired effect by using good breath support and their natural vocal resonance, not by brute strength—forcing their voices to the extent of damaging them.

There are simple techniques that, with a little practice, allow even an untrained singer to do this.

Okay, let's cut to the chase. I don't know how many threads I've seen here on Mudcat where someone has said they are having problems with their singing voices. When they describe the problem, I—and others—recognize where it's coming from, and as a permanent solution to the problem, recommend that they take a few voice lessons or get some vocal coaching so they can solve the problem once and for all.

Almost immediately, someone will post an objection to the idea of voice lessons, saying "Don't do it! A few sessions with a singing teacher and you'll sound like an opera singer!!!" Or words to that effect.

That is unmitigated sewage!!

A sufficient number of lessons to teach you good breath support, how to sing with a relaxed and open throat, and to "place" your voice to make good use of your resonating chambers (chest, throat, mouth, sinuses) will not make you sound like an opera singer. But it will teach you how to sing (or talk, or shout) without damaging your voice.

Repeat the above paragraph at least ten times.

To be able to sing opera (other than in the shower) requires certain characteristics which not everyone has. In fact, only a limited number of people have. And these characteristics are determined by hereditary factors. Genes. The fact that Luciano Pavarotti's father was also a tenor with a big voice is not a matter of random happenstance.

But these genetic factors are not sufficient by themselves. A vocal mechanism that has the characteristics necessary to sing opera or lieder or art songs in general, is like a Stradivarius violin. It cannot play itself. To bring out what it is capable of requires a musician, and in the case of a singing voice, the only person who can play the musical instrument is the person in whose throat the instrument resides. And to learn to play it well enough to fulfill its potential requires, not just a few lessons, but years worth of lessons and years of diligent practice.

But even with the capabilities inherent in a violin like a Stradivarius, there's no law that says someone couldn't play fiddle tunes on it.

But even so, even classical voices have their limitations. A light lyric coloratura soprano such as Natalie Dessay is brilliant in such roles as Lucia in "Lucia di Lammermoor" or Violetta in "La Traviata," but she would ruin that extraordinary voice of hers if she tried to force it beyond its capabilities by tackling roles like Brunhilda in Wagner's Ring Cycle or Bellini's "Norma." Likewise, my friend Barbara Johannsen, a big dramatic soprano, is right at home in such roles, but her voice is not light and flexible enough to sing the sort of roles Natalie Dessay sings.

These characteristics, too, are determined by genetic factors, and all the lessons in the world will not change those factors any more than lessons, prayers, and incantations can change the color of your eyes from blue to brown.

By the way, lots of composers of opera and other classical works for voice, wrote with specific singers in mind. There was one particular soprano that Verdi was fond of, and soprano roles in several of his operas were written with her in mind.

Okay, so why the knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that someone who's having vocal problems take a few voice lessons?

One is sheer ignorance of what voice teachers teach. And the fact that, even if the voice teacher tried to get someone to sing like an opera singer whether they wanted to or not, it wouldn't happen unless that person had the potential in the first place, and even then, it would take several years of lessons and very diligent practice on the part of the student.

Another and more insidious possibility—and it happens from time to time—is a deliberate attempt to mislead. When it became known that I was taking voice lessons from Mrs. Bianchi—and later, when I started taking classic guitar lessons—and worse still, when I wanted to learn something about music theory—one person in particular kept beating me about the head and shoulders and telling me that if I kept taking lessons from these people, I would never be able to do folk music. He gave me a lot of guff about how Mrs. B. would have me sounding like an opera singer within a few short weeks, the guitar teacher would somehow prevent me from playing simple chords if that's all a particular song called for, and learning music theory would lumber me with a lot of rigid rules that would prevent me from doing anything at all. He claimed he had never taken music lessons and couldn't even read music.

Then, I learned later on from his sister that he had taken nine years worth of violin lessons when he was younger and could indeed read music, quite well, in fact!

So what was that all about? Fear of competition perhaps? As a performer? For available singing jobs?

Don Firth

P. S. One of the reasons I would like to know what sort of exercises were taught in the Critics group is to see if the kind of voice training that I have been suggesting is precisely what these exercises cover. I tend to suspect that this is, indeed, the case.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 03:37 AM

Don,
Voice training aside (what you are saying on that runs totally counter to my own experiences), I think I agree with you.
We are all born with certain abilities and restrictions determined by our physical make-up – no argument. A child left to its own devices will make sounds which are, for the want of a better word, 'natural'.
However, when a child heads towards adulthood, certain pressures come into force so that the sound made becomes determined by outside factors – the natural sound becomes affected, not by physical factors alone, but by social ones; parental training, school, employment, aspirations of social status, where you spend your leisure hours... etc.
MacColl's example when he first introduced me to exercises was a fairly convincing, if a rather extreme one.
He was asked to give a seminar in Sheffield, in those days a thriving steel-producing area. On the first morning he found that nearly all the men in the class spoke and sang loudly and tended to pitch their voices up to the top of their range. In the evening, he and Peggy went to a local pub with some of the class, and found that everybody in the pub shouted and screamed at each other – he said that it was the noisiest pub he had ever been in.
Simple solution; it was a steel-workers pub and the bulk of the customers spent 40-plus hours a week in an environment in which they had to shout to be heard – and that was the voice that they took home with them.
This, as I said, was an extreme example, but it can be applied to the opposite situation, and most situations in between, for instance, to someone who spends a large part of their life in an office and is constantly having to control the volume, and quite often the pitch of the voice to suit their surroundings.
The aim of the exercises was to initially find the real natural voice of the individual singer, then to develop that voice as far as it would go in all directions without doing damage.
More later – still half asleep.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:07 AM

I find most of this thread instructive and interesting, aside from the personal attacks which seem to be diminishing as posters warm to the topic at hand.

There is an evident lack of "shared language" for discussing this topic, but there is a wealth of experience to draw upon.

One performer of "folk songs" I found particularly interesting was Frank Warner, who collected the songs from primary sources in the Appalachian Mountains, upstate New York, and other rural areas of North America. Warner also recorded his own versions of many of these songs and made a deliberate effort to sing them in a similar (not identical) fashion to how the singers sang them. Some of his source singers were quite old and he certainly did not attempt to replicate their degraded voices, but the result providing a much wider range of singing than one would encounter by listening to the "contemporary folk singers" of the early 1960's. I was intrigued at the time and still find Warner's recordings valuable to return to as a reference point.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 02:56 PM

"Shared language"
Once we had the basic exercises under our belt we went on to the vocal 'fine-tuning'; that is the further development of the 'natural' tone.
MacColl took a series of exercises he adapted from his theatre work which were based on Laban's theory on dance movement (efforts).
Basically, each effort was divided up into three parts - speed, weight and direction
For instance
A press (probably the most common effort used by male singers); slow, heavy and direct
A thrust (used particularly for shanties) fast, heavy and direct.
A wring (shanties again -and some dramatic ballads) slow, heavy and indirect.
A float (when a great deal of ornamentation is used) fast, light and indirect.
And so on - the basic idea being that if you changed one of its parts you changed the effort.
Sounds much more complicated that it actually is - it all makes sense when you can hear it demonstrated.
MacColl always stressed that this was technical work - sharpening up the tools to learn how to use the voice fully; it should never become an end in itself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:34 PM

Jim-

Words to describe what we strive to do? What a novel concept for those of us over in the States who prefer to muddle along! It only sounds interesting to me now after years and years of voice-abusive singing. I would have had no patience to even consider such "methodology" when I was in my twenties.

Another comment from above that resonates with me was the observation that Pete Seeger might still be singing well if he had not "abused" his voice for so long. I remember my uncle lamenting the fact that Seeger had mentioned to him his concern about his deteriorating voice, and my uncle was someone who was well trained in how to develop and sustain one's vocal potentials. But Seeger would not follow any of my uncle's advice and my uncle was very saddened by the loss. They had known each other for forty years, going back to the Almanac House rent party days in Greenwich Village.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:50 PM

I wouldn't think there would be all that much difference between voice teachers in the UK and the US. but maybe there is. Or maybe I've just been lucky. When I was taking voice lessons off and on through the 1950s, most of the teachers around were retired singers with established résumés as performers, or people with training who, for their own reasons, had chosen to teach rather than perform.

I just checked the listings in the local phone book yellow pages, and there are a lot more voice teachers now than there were in the '50s. And they seem to cover all genres of music, from classical to "contemporary" (whatever that is) to jazz, pop, rock, and even "folk." I cringe to think what their idea of "folk" might be! And judging from the pictures in some of the ads, many of them don't look old enough to have had much experience at anything! Caveat emptor!

Both teachers I took from were older and had retired from active singing careers. And both were open to various kinds of music, knowing that many of their students were not looking for careers in classical singing, so they were willing to work with the kind of singing that their students were interested in. This didn't require much of a stretch on their part because the fundamentals of voice production are the same for all kinds of singing based on Western European music traditions—which includes British and American folk songs and ballads (some may quibble with that statement, but I'm on solid ground and can defend the point 'til Sunday breakfast if need be).

I did find teachers whom I suspected would have tried to force me into a preconceived mold, such as the four teachers at the University of Washington with whom I talked before I decided that I would be better off going back with Mrs. Bianchi, who knew what I was about and was willing to work with me along those lines. George Street was the same, and we worked with the songs I was learning at the time. He was a stickler for making sure I knew what the songs were all about and that I wasn't just singing them from rote.

If I were having vocal problems or felt that my voice needed a "tune-up," I would probably go to my old high school friend with the big voice, Barbara Johannsen (married name, Barbara Coffin). She has retired from opera and is now teaching, although she takes occasional gigs from time to time. She teaches a very popular evening class at the U. of W. entitled "Anyone Can Sing," in which she explains basic voice production to the whole class, then works with each individual in front of the class, with the idea that the whole class can learn from listening in (also gets them used to singing in front of other people). She also takes private students, and she only lives a few blocks from where I do. Her own musical tastes are pretty open, she doesn't take herself too seriously, and she has a zany sense of humor. One of her regular gigs is clowning it up at local Sonics basketball games. Example. She's a real snort! Always has been.

Jim, I've gone through your post just above (23 Jun 08 - 02:56 p.m.) several times, and maybe I'm thick, but I don't really see what the exercises are composed of or how they work.

The exercises I use for regular practice consist of such things as loosening the jaw and opening the throat (drop the jaw and wobble it back and forth until I feel it is free and relaxed, then yawn a few times, which opens the throat and relaxes it—and also fills the lungs).

Then I practice some breath control exercises. There are several good ones. A quick inhale that feels like I'm "breathing from my stomach," which is anatomically impossible, of course. When you breathe fully with your diaphragm, it pushes everything below the diaphragm down and it feels as if you're breathing with your abdominal muscles. Take a few deep breaths like this (but don't overfill the lungs). Then try such things as blowing a thin stream (as if you're blowing at a candle flame enough to make it flicker and flutter, but not enough to blow it out) while counting slowly (one count per second). See how high you can go before you turn blue and collapse to the floor. Twenty's good. Thirty is very good.

Here's a good one George Street gave me:   "While riding the bus, for example, take a breath and hum very softly and smoothly on a comfortable note. Try to keep it from wobbling off pitch. And sustain it as long as you can. Hum so softly that the person sitting next to you doesn't even hear you humming." Mr. Street put it this way: "Anybody can get a loud sound out of a violin by sawing the bow hard across the strings. But what takes real strength and control is to play a smooth, sustained tone very softly. The humming exercise is a great one for the diaphragm."

They both wrote out exercises for me to practice on my own that consisted mostly of singing parts of scales and up and down the notes of a chord. The usual procedure was to start on a comfortable low note, sing the exercise, take it up a half step, sing it again, and so on, until I went as high as I could comfortably go, then back down again by half-steps. I found similar practice exercises on the internet. CLICKY #1 (instructions and suggestions starting on page 4) and CLICKY #2, which I downloaded and printed out. [Sorry. I don't know of any "tablature" for the voice. It really pays to be able to read music, at least a little bit. And it isn't that hard.]

I don't usually practice them all at one shot, and I don't always use the syllables recommended, often just singing on an open vowel (e.g., "OH" and "AH"). Loosening up the jaw, yawning a couple of times, then practicing some of these for a few minutes every day can really get you warmed up and ready.

Keep your throat relaxed and open, and as you sing the exercises (or when you are singing in general), try to feel the tones vibrating in the "mask"—the front of your face and your forehead—as well as through your throat and chest. And never force your voice beyond what it can do comfortable. "Nudge" your range from time to time, but don't beat on it.

At least that's my routine.

It's also a good idea to have someone who is knowledgeable about good vocal technique listen to you sing from time to time to see if they can detect any gremlins in your voice, such as undue tension. It doesn't have to be a voice teacher. A church choir director might do just as well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 02:28 AM

Charlie - Don
The point of the exercises was for singers who wish to explore the whole of the repertoire, from big ballads, shanties, lyrical songs, mouth music, straightforward narrative, sean nós... the lot. It was to make the voice flexible and versatile.
The tendency with singers is to consider a song and either adapt it to their particular way of singing - or not sing it.
If you go through, say the BBC collection of recordings you will find who types of styles and techniques, cradle style, the use of implosives, some of the great canntaireachd pieces.... all to be found in our tradition, and all seldom used. Listen to the techniques used by some of the great Appalachian singers, you'll find the same repertoire of techniques.
Don rightly described the voice as a musical instrument; the exercises were designed to extend the singers skill for the full use of that instrument.
The primary exercises were designed to keep the voice in good basic shape, the ones I've just described were to enlarge the scope that the voice could cover.
They were fairly quickly and easily mastered, and once you had them you kept them. The terminology used; press, thrust, wring, dab, flick, glide, slash... were so that the singers in the group could discuss the various ways of producing the voice, thus helping each other with their singing.
Personally, I no more see the need for a singer to go to a singing, or voice teacher (even if they could find one who would give them what they wanted), any more than I would run to a garage every time my tyres needed pumping up, unless, as I said before, they had a real problem that they couldn't handle themselves.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 06:03 AM

I'll endorse Jim's latest post. It might - I do stress, 'might' be coming over, in the written word, that what we did at Manchester Critics (obviously I can't speak for Critics, London) was hard work.

Not a bit of it. It was strange - which new experience is not ? - but it was, believe me, a lot of fun, and I (speaking only for self, you understand) got a great deal of enjoyment from it.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 02:41 PM

Jim, I still don't get what you mean by "press, thrust, wring, dab, flick, glide, slash." It sounds more like something from a martial arts class. I'm trying to visualize, or better still, hear in my mind's ear, what these exercises are. What do they sound like? What do you do with your voice with each of these?

I looked up Laban's exercises in movement for dancers, and apart from general physical conditioning, frankly, I don't see how this relates to the singing voice. What am I missing here?

I'm not suggesting that someone needs to rush to a voice teacher every time they wake up in the morning feeling like they're full of sludge and have to spend ten minutes clearing their throats before they can talk. Or every time the singing doesn't go well. There are all kinds of temporary things that can affect one's voice. But—if you find that you get hoarse after an evening of singing, and especially if this happens repeatedly; or if high or low notes that you used to be able to sing fairly easily start getting difficult to hit without pushing, or if they start disappearing on you; or you find that you are tending to sing flat on some notes when you didn't before—and if this doesn't go away in a few days, or if it happens repeatedly—then you may very well have a problem that needs serious attention and that you may need help diagnosing and fixing.

This is not something trivial like a soft tire (tyre). This is more like a growling sound developing in a front wheel, possibly symptomatic of a worn out wheel-bearing. If you don't get it taken care of as soon as possible by a competent mechanic, the affected wheel could seize up on you unexpectedly when you're speeding down the motorway, with most unpleasant results! Chronic laryngitis or developing nodes on your vocal cords could by very serious indeed.

I haven't had a voice lesson since 1964. So far, the initial lessons with Mrs. Bianchi, in which she taught me the basics, have stuck with me and served me well. But should I start having vocal problems, or hear something coming back at me from my home recording equipment that I don't like, and if I can't diagnose it and solve myself, I would not hesitate for one instant to seek help.

The first person I would go to would be Jim Peterson, the choir director at the local Lutheran Church. He's an excellent musician (piano and organ) and a fine singer (tenor), and he's helped a number of choir members get their voices in shape and keep them that way. If he felt my voice needed more serious attention, I'd either go to whoever he recommends, or look up my old friend Barbara, the retired Valkyrie.

I value my voice. Singing is one of the great joys of my life, and I intend to keep singing until they close the lid on the box.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:36 AM

Don,
Difficult to explain in writing - am working on it.
The overall aim is complete awareness and control of how the voice is produced so that while the song is being worked on so it can can be fine-tuned and adapted as you go along.
Laban did exactly the same with dance movement. MacColl got the idea from his ex-wife Jean Menlove, who was an expert in the technique at Theatre Workshop.
Will try and find the transcript of the relevant discussion and post it.
It not only helped in working on a song, but was particularly useful for busy singers when the voice wasn't at its best due to physical problems. Ewan and Peggy used it all the time for this purpose, as did other members of the group. It enabled singers to adapt to the present conditions of their voice rather than cancel.
Top-of-my-head breakdown.
Voice divided into three elements; speed, weight and direction, each of which add up to an effort. All of these efforts are applicable to the voice, identifiable and in regular use when singing - this is just labeling them for working purposes
Press = slow - heavy - direct
Thrust = fast - heavy - direct
Wring = slow - heavy - indirect
Slash = fast - heavy - indirect
Float = slow - light - indirect
Glide = slow - light - direct
Dab = fast - light - direct
Flick = fast - light - indirect
There is one combination of elements which impractical; can't work it out this hour of the morning.
Apart from making the singers aware of how the voice is produced it gives them greater control over their voice while working on a song. In workshop conditions it is a shortcut - a vocabulary to fine tuning the voice. Have some recorded examples somewhere of it being used in the workshops with remarkable results.
One of the great thing about the efforts is that they proved extremely useful in solving interpretive problems with songs. Just by changing one element opened up a whole range on new possiblities of approach - but that's another story.....!
As I said earlier, easily learned and once grasped, never forgotten - haven't used them for nearly twenty years, but managed to work them out while I was typing.
I can't emphasise enough that these are techniques for working; make them an end in themselves and they can damage the enjoyment of singing; use them properly and they enhance it.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Peter Cox
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:59 AM

Jim, Don

Just picked up this thread about the Laban method as applied to the voice. In my Set Into Song I cover it briefly on pp 168-9, when I'm interpreting Ewan's comments on analysing speech patterns after the second of the 'Radio Ballad' series, Song of a Road. It's described in both Jean Newlove's book Laban for Actors and Dancers (Nick Hern Books, 1993) and Howard Goorney's The Theatre Workshop Story (Eyre Methuen, 1981.

The words used in Jim's explanation are different from those I've lifted, but they're clearly the same - and his late night memory's spot on (well, for that anyway - Ewan's second wife wasn't Menlove, Jim, but Newlove, an intriguing Freudian slip! she was, of course his new love, for a while...).

Ewan had asked himself the question - why do the voices of the roadbuilding navvies enthral me, but their bosses, and surveyors and engineers simply bore me? This is what Ewan said -

'Listening to them, we found that our concentration would begin to dissipate after two or three minutes. To our "uneducated" speakers, however, we could listen for long periods without any decline in concentration. Now this was odd since the soil-chemists, designers, planners and surveyors were (or so it seemed) getting far more job satisfaction from what they were doing than, say, the navvies, dump-truck drivers or joiners. We analysed the speech in several tapes chosen at random and came up with some interesting facts. Our managerial informants tended to use an extremely small area of the vocal effort spectrum. Their most characteristic effort was that of pressing, combined occasionally with short thrusts; or that of gliding or, less frequently, with subsidiary dabbing efforts. Irrespective of the subject under discussion they scarcely ever varied the tempo of delivery. Almost all of them made constant use of the impersonal pronoun. They were consistent in their use of tenses and rarely changed direction inside a sentence or phrase. Verbs were given no more vocal weight than nouns, and similes and metaphors were almost totally eschewed.'

And he goes on to say of the roadbuilders that they -

'…used both similes and metaphors liberally. They changed tense constantly, often to emphasize a point or to sharpen an argument. They made use of extended analogies and emphasized verbs in such a way as to give every sentence an effort-peak. Almost all of them used the first person singular and the present historical with equal effect. Their single speaker would, in the course of an extended passage, sometimes use presses, thrusts, glides and dabs in much the same way that a boxer in the ring might use his body. A project manager drew attention to the two language groups in the course of defining the functions of a ganger: 'He's the link between us and them. I sometimes think we'd be no worse off if they were speaking Swahili.'

Hope that helps, Don. If not, I can only apologise! I'm only late on the scene - it's Jim who learnt it all first-hand from Ewan and Peggy.

Peter, www.setintosong.co.uk

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:03 PM

Sorry, gentlemen, but it's still not getting through.

". . . press, thrust, wring, dab, flick, glide, slash. . . ."

Apparently this is a specialized language known only to those who have participated in the classes or workshops, and convey little or no meaning related to the singing or speaking voice to anyone who has not.

"Press" is something one does to one's clothes with an iron, or one presses a doorbell with one's finger. I fenced for years, and I would "thrust" with my foil. Or one might "thrust" oneself into a conversation. "Wring" is something one does with a wet cloth before hanging it up. "Dab." Brylcreem slogan, "A little dab 'll do ya." One might "flick" a bit of lint off one's sleeve. An aircraft might cut it's engines and "glide" into a landing, or a figure skater "glides" over the ice. In one of the now outlawed student duels at Heidelberg university, one combatant "slashes" the cheek of another, giving him a livid scar he can brag about in the future.

All of these words have various meanings. But so far, I have seen nothing in the attempted explanations above that relate these terms to anything that one does with the singing or speaking voice. When you "press," or when you "glide," what is it you are doing with your voice?

I'm not trying to be difficult or obtuse, I really want to understand what you are talking about. After all, I may find them quite useful myself.

Please elucidate.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

Thanks for that Peter - great book by the way; hope to get to read all of it when I manage to wrest it back from the present occupant.
Regarding the 'Song of the Road' quote, Charles once told me that he actually tested the recordings on students in Birmingham to see how long it was before their concentration wandered.
Menlove... where did that come from..? met the lady several times.
Don, Sorry - works perfectly when you hear it.... I'm looking for the recording of the first time Ewan introduced it to the group, but have around 300 un-indexed cassettes to work my way through. When I find it I'll send you a copy.
In the meantime I'll try and compile a list of examples of singers who use some of the more common of the efforts.
Jim
By the way Peter-did you manage to pick up any of the wonderful 'Charles Parker' stories during your researches?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:48 PM

Thanks, Jim. I would really appreciate that!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:27 PM

I agree with Don, those terms are mystifying! and no one is explaining them very well. From what I can gather, they're ways of vocalizing/singing/speaking, rather than actual voice excercises?

Sue

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:44 AM

Sue,
It's a little like trying to describe a spiral staircase without using your hands - will pass on what I have as soon as I put it together.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Peter Cox
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 06:42 AM

Jim, on the question of Charles Parker stories, there are some in the book and many more out there. I tell a story at the start of the chapter on Charles Parker after the Radio Ballad period. Doc Rowe told me that Charles was staying with Doc's parents in Torquay while researching for his controversial (of course...) programme on the blind, the Blind Set. We could precisely date it, because Doc said they saw Cathy Come Home the night before and argued about it into the night. When Doc came down to breakfast Charles was already up (had he even been to bed?) and was reading the paper, listening to a tape he'd recorded the day before, and trying to spread cheese on his toast thinking it was butter. Pretty normal behaviour, I guess. Have you got any?

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:05 AM

Peter
Bianca - Angel Lane Market - King Farouk's Palace.
Probably in the book, but let me know if they're not and 'll e-mail them to you.
Jim

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:44 PM

Peter,
Plus Jack Hamilton story and Charles and the horse - they're all coming back to me!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

This is a fascinating discourse, like listening to a session from outside the pub with just an occasional word or phrase coming through over the general din, but fascinating anyway.

There were scraps of dead old choruses and snatches of old tunes
That we surely knew in other worlds and under other moons;
There was singing on the fo'c's'le with a sky so full of stars,
And bits of tipsy shouting outta gaudy glaring bars...

From "Old Fiddle" by C. Fox Smith.

Keep it up!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

Sorry Charlie,
My fault; very bad mannered of me.
I'm sure you know Charles Parker as the producer of the Radio Ballads - lovely man - very BBC, very English Public School and a genius of an editor - if a little eccentric at times.
He and a member of the Critics Group were recording street atmosphere in Angel Lane Market for an updated version of Romeo and Juliet set in The East End of London (Mods and Rockers instead of Montagues and Capulets).
Charles found that his spool of tape had run out so he began to replace it just at the moment when a woman dragging an extremely reluctant bawling child walked past giving forth a magnificent soliloquy of Cockney abuse.
He put the new spool on the recorder and sprinted after the woman. When he found her he said in his best BBC voice, "Excuse me madam; would you mind repeating that?"
As I said, lovely man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: BB
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 04:39 PM

Do tell the Jack Hamilton story if it's not derogatory. Jack died quite recently, and I'd love to be able to pass it on to his widow if she doesn't already know it.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: GUEST,Peter Cox
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:34 AM

At the risk of sending more scraps floating through the pub window... I take it Bianca was the exotic young lady Charles 'accidentally' got into bed with while staying at Ewan and Peggy's. 'So sorry - Charles Parker, BBC'. King Farouk's 'pink confection of a palace' was accidentally bombarded by Charles from his sub in the war from the Med. But the horse story and Jack Hamilton I don't know. Jack was the diminutive bulldozer from Cork on Song of a Road who lights up the programme when asked about the bed in the hostel he's staying in, saying - and I paraphrase - 'Humps and hollows, humps and hollows, like on a camel's back. Me arse is all blisters and carbuncles...'

Incidentally, although Charles certainly seemed very upper-middle, he was the son of a disabled railway clerk who sold paraffin from a barrow in the streets of Bournemouth, and a mother who (like Ewan's...) had been a domestic servant. But a scholarship to Bournemouth grammar school, the Navy, history at Cambridge, and the BBC, transformed his voice and attitudes - till he met Ewan MacColl and the Miners. He'd realised by then that his speech had ossified and completely lost the vigour he was now hearing from working men.

Stop, stop - I'm writing the book again.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:36 AM

Hi Barbara,
Jack was driving this enormous concrete laying machine when they were laying the M1 - both Ewan (who was prone to exaggeration) and Charles described it as being "as big as a house".
Charles, with his tape recorder hanging from his shoulder, clambered onto it like a mountain climber, leaned into the cab and said in his best BBC voice, "tell me, do you have any special feelings for the work you do?"
It was Jack who said about his machine, "It's simple really - even a lady could drive it".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:45 AM

I think Barbara might be referring to a different Jack Hamilton,the one that used to run Broadstairs Folk Festival.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 05:00 AM

the idea of JackHamilton from Broadstairs driving a concrete layer is quite amusing.
Broadstairs Jack always reminded me more of Raffles,or perhaps a P G Wodehouse character,all this time and he had a secret life as a concrete layer,well I never.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:54 AM

Sorry for the confusion if the Cap'n is right Barbara.
The Jack Hamilton I was referring to was a Sligo man who worked on the building of the M1.
In many ways it is to him that we owe the rest of the Radio Ballads (Song of a Road was the second one).
Ewan always said the the subject of the first, John Axon, was ready made as a dramatic piece - the death of a train driver who stayed with his train when the brakes failed and died on the footplate.
'Road' totally convinced him of the importance of the speech of 'ordinary' people as a powerful and poetic form of communication.
Jack Hamilton's name kept coming up whenever he discussed the idea.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: BB
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 03:13 PM

Indeed I was thinking of Jack H. from Kent. Never mind, love the story!

Barbara

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:37 PM

thankyou so much for a good laugh,Jim if you knew the Broadstairs Jack,I am sure you would laugh too.
he was a sort of Burlington Bertie with the Raffles charisma
I remember the very first Broadstairs festival,that I did,we had done our spots for the day,and Jack comes up and say oh we are having a bit of a party tonight,would you like to come.
what a friendly man we thought, but when we arrived we found;;;;; there was an admission charge.
considering we were playing the whole week for two and twopence,I was flabbergasted.,inviting performers to a party,and then springing an admission charge,a greatfundraiser was Jack.

Subject: RE: Stylistic quirks in folk music
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 08:37 PM

Peter-

If we provoke you in doing more writing about this fascinating era, we are doing good work!

There are the songs, but the stories associated with them provide essential dimensions.

I'm thinking back to the bawdy party tapes our friends from away would send us periodically, and how the sounds of their party enhanced the singing of the songs, providing its social environment so to speak.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble