Traditional vs Tradition

Subject: Tradional vs Tradition
From: GUEST,spb-cooperator
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 11:48 AM

The cogs in my brain have started whirring again, and have come up with, what to me, is an interesting question:

Are traditional or other songs still part of the 'tradition', or have they become largely ephemeral?

To clarify, I see a tradition as something that is:

(a) Continuing in their original environment
(b) Established over a period of time

Examples of what I see as traditions are:

The ceromony of the keys
Social singing and playing
'Folk Dance'.

On the other hand, I see 'Maritime Traditional' as a misnoma, except maybe the continuity from forbitters to mess-hall songs. Shanties can only be ephemeral, as are music hall songs - both are still performed but not in their original environment.

However, how much of what we call tradititional is still performed/enjoyed as part of a tradition. Is the folk-revival sufficiently established t be seen as a tradition?

-

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: GUEST,Singers Knight
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 11:59 AM

Without in any way wishing to detract from the value of SBJ cooperator as a visitor to Mudcat and as a member of the human race, I would say that this subject has been aired in many posts on many threads, usually by the same suspects. No doubt they will all flock to the standard once more. Yawn.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:08 PM

I wonder why those who first rush to answer interesting questions are quite often bored by the the subject - is it a comment on the question or on the responder?
Maybe its like those people who triumphantly declare themselves to be 'the hundredth'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: r.padgett
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:30 PM

I wonder whether there is any mileage in suggesting that Folk Clubs have to some extent taken over the mantel of Music Hall?

They certainly have taken over from the traditional pub singing as performed by the likes of Fred Jordan and other similar singers

To some extent "home made" music of the people continues

Ray

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:56 PM

no comment.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM

GUEST,spb-cooperator wrote:

"However, how much of what we call tradititional is still performed/enjoyed as part of a tradition."

What are we talking about? If you mean Britain, Ireland, the US, Western Europe, industrialized countries? If so, my answer would be "very little, with some exceptions surviving here and there".

"Is the folk-revival sufficiently established t be seen as a tradition?"

My gut reaction is to say "No", but it depends completely on your definition of "tradition". It also depends on what one considers to be folk music or not, and there's no answer to that that will satisfy everyone. I like a lot of the music that has come out of the various "folk revivals", but I don't usually consider it folk music, according to my definition, which is subject to change. Does something have to be "authentic" to be part of a "tradition"? Then what's "authentic"? I've learned most of the folksongs I know from books or records or from the radio. Not very authentic or traditional, in my opinion. On the other hand, none of the songs has ever complained.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: glueman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM

If you fail to acknowledge 'unattributed' as a meaningful category to differentiate music then folk revival songs are folk. I haven't much time for Dylan, The Beatles, McTell, etc., myself but they've been taken up by the people as meaningful reflections on their own lives. Anyway, it's fundamentally un-folkie to demand other people follow your own definitions.
Music is essentially seamless in terms of taxonomy and sound. Most folk definitions smack of hearty plowboys and noble savages and you can't help thinking their singers would cringe at the imposition.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:43 PM

Excuse me, I must turn my steak over!

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 02:03 PM

From: glueman
"Anyway, it's fundamentally un-folkie to demand other people follow your own definitions."

I wouldn't dream of doing this. I don't even demand that I follow my own definitions myself. Not that I'm in the least folkie.

I'm quite interested in actual collections of folksongs, ballads, fiddle-tunes, etc., as well as field recordings. That's about as close to folk music as one can really get. However, a lot of the really old collections were falsified by the collectors and editors themselves, for one reason or another. Folkmusic can't be defined because in a sense, there's no such thing.

I recently bought a box of ten CDs with Country and Western on them. There were a couple of songs sung by B.F. Shelton, who accompanied himself on the banjo. When I heard them, I thought "this is the real thing". They were traditional songs and they could have been collected in the field (except they weren't). I actually have no idea where he learned those songs, though. If I where my (hobby) folklorist hat, this matters, but if I wear my musician hat, it doesn't matter at all.

Must hurry to catch my bus.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:24 AM

There is absolutely no reason why any of the revivals and even independent pockets of these revivals should not be considered as traditions. There is even some crossover/influence of the oral tradition and these revival traditions, but they are largely separate entities, at least in modern-day society.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:40 AM

I now introduce that great song by ABBA

"Mamma mia, here we go again"...

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:54 AM

Maritime music ephemaral? Shanties are music hall?

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: GUEST,spb-cooperator
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:15 PM

In my view both are ephemeral as opposed to part of a continuing tradition.

Music Hall songs were composed or adapted folk/parlour songs for the pirpose of performance in Music Halls

Shanties were made as working songs for sailing vessels (though as I said mess hall songs could be seen as a continuation of forbitters). Fok singers may still be singing the songs (shanties), but if they are not sung any more as working songs, are thye really a continuation of this tradition?

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Celtaddict
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:43 PM

I think spb-cooperator has posed an interesting question, once I figured out what I think the question is. The question of 'what is really folk' has been thrashed over though not out many times, but the distinction between traditional songs and 'the tradition' is subtle though it can be understood. At Mystic, where Marc and others perform shanties to perform sail-raising and other jobs, the songs are both. By 'ephemeral' I take spb to mean they were but are no longer used in the original way, even though the traditional songs are still sung and cherished. This would mean work songs that are traditional and are still sung, but not in the work, are traditional but no longer 'the tradition' as the tradition was to sing them while working. However, I think I disagree with Piers Plowman. I believe there has been established in the last couple of centuries a tradition of collecting songs to preserve them, and a tradition of learning songs from a variety of sources, oral and written and recorded. The 'source singers' for collections had learned a variety of songs, including music hall and 'popular' songs of their time, and I think it most likely they or anyone else with an intense interest in knowing lots of songs would have learned songs from yet more sources if they were available. We have many sources available, and have at this time a fairly well established tradition of using various sources. The best singers of traditional songs I know frequently say 'I learned this from the singing of -----' meaning the recording, not necessarily learning in person; even when the song is first heard in person and the learner asks to be taught it, it seems it is most likely recorded, maybe on a pocket tape recorder instead of 'collector's' gear, and likely the words transcribed as well. This is the traditional way we learn most things now.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:50 PM

Folk clubs really predate music hall.

I once spent some time looking through the event announcements for the newspaper local to here, the Dalkeith Advertiser, in the last third of the 19th century. There was a weekly event in Newbattle (which was then a very small village; the mining village of Newtongrange which I live in was built around it from the 1890s on). The main difference between what they did around 1870 and what Newtongrange Folk Club now does is that they used a piano (a much better idea than everyone bringing their own guitar) and they announced the programme of their singaround a week in advance. The material was a mix of traditional Scots song and numbers by Burns, Lady Nairne and the like, with one or two high-culture items thrown in. More than half of their typical set list could be dropped into the present-day club evening without comment. I have not looked at local newspapers in similar small communities but I doubt if Newbattle was unique.

Glee clubs predate that by a long way, and were the source of a lot of music hall material (much of it too obscene to broadcast even today). Most glee club stuff wasn't adapted folk, though it might use folk tunes.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Celtaddict
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:13 PM

Fascinating, Jack!

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Kent Davis
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:35 PM

Thanks for an interesting question.

Our congregation, a church of Christ here in Appalachian Ohio, is having a Bible school this week. Two of the songs we sang tonight, "The B-I-B-L-E" and "Rejoice in the Lord Always", are of unknown authorship, circulate orally*, and continue to be sung in their original context. Wouldn't they be examples of songs that are both traditional and remain in the tradition?

Here's more information on the tradition: thread.cfm?threadid=104255

Kent

* They also circulate in writing.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:35 AM

Celtaddict wrote:
"However, I think I disagree with Piers Plowman. I believe there has been established in the last couple of centuries a tradition of collecting songs to preserve them, and a tradition of learning songs from a variety of sources, oral and written and recorded."

I don't see how this is disagreeing with what I wrote, which I formulated carefully to avoid imposing my opinion on others. From my point of view, you are defining "tradition" to mean something different from what people generally seem to mean by it.

The problem as I see it is that a false view is being propagated of what folksong is. In fact, a number of different false views are being propagated, depending on where one is, and sometimes even several different false views in the same place. I mean demonstrably false according to a sensible definition of folksong. I think that's all one can really achieve: a sensible definition for a particular purpose.

From my point of view (again), a sensible working definition (though admittedly flawed) of folksong would be "that which is preserved in scholarly (as opposed to popular) collections and recordings of people   who were not too removed from the culture of which the songs were a part". A useless definition (from my point of view) is "we are the 'folk', so whatever we sing is folksong".

I'm just as interested in popular song as I am in folksong, so it would not be an insult to me to be called a popular entertainer rather than a folksinger. Unfortunately, I am neither.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:36 PM

I've been looking for this thread all day!

B.F. Shelton was "the real thing"--an Appalachian banjo picker with a traditional repertoire, and a distinctive playing technique, there are only four known recordings of his, all from the famous Bristol recording sessions--he basically showed up with his banjo, answering the ad for rural singers, recorded his tunes, played amazing banjo, collected his money, and walked off into history.

I have the boxed set, and a lot of the old cuts have been cleaned up nicely, maybe too nicely, as they sound like they might have been recorded yesterday, which is disconcerting to those of us who are used to hearing old scratch versions--

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:45 AM

Glad to find someone else who likes B.F. Shelton! What a shame there were only four recordings. According to something I read (perhaps at Wikipedia?) he went to accompany Alfred Karnes, who sang hymns. Some of them were also in the collection I bought. There were only a few of these, too. I think one or two of the recordings of either or both of them are missing, which is a bit frustrating. I liked them very much, too. He apparently played a "harp guitar" with bordune strings. I've been trying to figure out whether there's more than one person playing and I'm still not sure. I don't think there's a banjo on any of his songs. Maybe "accompany" was being used in the sense of "travel with", I don't know,

I really liked the early recordings in this collection and there are a few gems from later years, such as the songs sung by Molly O'Day. I'd never heard of any of these musicians before!

It's easy to figure out the harmonies of all of these songs, but some of the Western swing guitar playing and especially the pedal-steel playing is pretty fancy.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:48 AM

Not to mention the fiddle and banjo playing and the playing of some of the other instruments. There's some excellent fiddle playing by W.M. Stepp.

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:42 PM

Molly O'Day was truly great--even though she came along later, she didn't record much, owing to having a religious conversion. G.B. Grayson's Omie Wise is there, too--also very striking fiddle work.

I love the Boogie-Woogie swing stuff, with the hot guitar and steel solos, but it's basically dance music--the earlier stuff tends to have a lot of depth--Clarence Ashley, particularly, has a soul penetrating quality to his voice that is truly amazing.

If you want to know more about this music, and the artists, see if you can find a copy of Bill Malone's "Country Music USA"--it is about many of the artists who are in that collection.-I am not sure where you are, but Amazon has it, and they'll ship it anywhere--

Subject: RE: Tradional vs Tradition
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 02:19 AM

It sounds like it might be the same collection, or at least have many of the same songs on it. I don't like a lot of the boogie-woogie (one, or perhaps two, of my least favorite words) numbers, though I do like boogie-woogie piano, especially the old recordings, though perhaps not in large doses.

I love Hank Williams and I've been meaning to buy some CDs just with him for quite a while. I also liked the Jimmy Rogers songs very much. Quite a few songs that made me want to hear more and a wider range of styles than I expected.

Thank you for the book recommendation. I'm originally from the Chicago area but have lived in a town in Northern Germany (famous for its sausage and its university, as Heine put it) for quite a few years now.