Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Gurney
Date: 29 Dec 09 - 10:46 PM

Hey, guys, I like ballads, and I used to sing them, and still do if I'm with a 'committed' group, as I said as the first respondent. And yes, I do have the right to comment. It is based on experience, and I have heard the best over the last 40+ years.

Jim and Mary, how can ballads be the epitome of 'folk'songs when they were largely written and performed by professional troubadours? They are just long songs that some scholar recorded for posterity. Getting dangerously near ('What is a folksong here.') You like them, and so do I, but the people who paid to get in didn't come to be educated, they came to be entertained.

I stand by my statement about 'most' audiences. Smedley has it right, at 07:39

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 04:34 AM

"Jim and Mary, how can ballads be the epitome of 'folk' songs when they were largely written and performed by professional troubadours?"
You have the advantage over me there Gurney - for all the time I've been interested (and despite recent arguments to the contrary) I have no idea, and certainly no evidence of the name of one single author of one single ballad. Bronson once presented a lengthy essay claiming that 'Edward' was writted by Sir David Dalrymple - Lord Hailles, but personally, I found his argument unconvincing.
As for the troubadours...... weeeeell!
I only know that over the last forty years, if I wanted to hear any ballads from 'the folk' and not from somebody who had learned them from books, or from somebody who had learned them from somebody who had learned..... I would more likely to have found them at my local Travellers site from a community of people who didn't read or write. Failing that, we got them from Irish fam labourers, or Norfolk carpenters, or fishermen.... the essence of 'the folk'.
Who says what people pay to listen to - I found Lloyd and MacColl's approach to ballads - a mixture of entertainment and information - has been enough to stimulate my interest and keep it going for nearly half a century.
"Getting dangerously near - What is a folksong here"
It's a bit like 'Jaws', isn't it? It's always lurking out there somewhere, and if it should come up, don't forget; you were the first to draw attention to 'the elephant in the room'.
"I stand by my statement about 'most' audiences."
But appear not prepared to back it up with argument.
The question of accompaniment is a vexed one with me. I'm certainly not opposed to using instruments, but somewhere along the way they came to dominate performance and acted as a distraction - at the very best you found your attention torn between the voice (narrative) and the instrument, which presents sometimes insurmountable barriers to appreciating both songs and ballads - particularly the latter because they can be so long. The most hilarious example of this for me was Steeleye Span's recording of Lamkin, where they gave the impression of having become bored with it and played an Irish reel in the middle.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 04:34 AM

they were largely written and performed by professional troubadours

What's your evidence for that?

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 04:53 AM

JIM: I'm certainly not opposed to using instruments, but somewhere along the way they came to dominate performance and acted as a distraction - at the very best you found your attention torn between the voice (narrative) and the instrument ==

If done with reasonable judgment — as e.g. in both the, similar but just that ineresting bit variant, Martin Carthy & Nic Jones renderings of Clydewater or The Mother's Malison, I can't say I find such accompaniments incompatible with enjoyment of the ballad. It was in the early days of the electronic bit that groups would go OTT. Steeleye generally kept this tendency under control, even when combining versions and even different songs as in On Board The Victory, which I have always thought worked superbly. But Trees, and even to a slightly lesser extent Fairport, would stick an interminable instrumental break into the middle of absolutely everything, so that, when it finally ended, you would have forgotten what the bloody song was about. "That's villainous and shows the most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it" (Hamlet III.ii).

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 05:12 AM

I see no harm in putting instrumentals in the middle of ballads, same as any other song really, though not necessarily the Irish Jig approach taken by Steeleye Span. This raises another issue about ballad accompaniment, interpretation & arrangement which might be worthy of discussion.

*

As for Professional Troubadours composing ballads - well, in one fell swoop such an idea wipes out hundreds of years of exacting craftspersonship in the ballad-making genre. Whilst I argue for master song-makers, I don't see them as being in anyway aristocratic professionals (as the actual Troubadours were), rather everyday working class men & women with a canny knack for shaping a song within the genre of what we have come to think of as The Tradition - which was, just as any such tradition, essentially a creative one.   This ongoing singing, song-making & sharing & modifying & re-invention accounts for the mechanics of the Folk Process, just a shame their names got lost along the way, as is the way with folklore & oral-tradition even in our own day & age.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 05:21 AM

A master of the sort of enhancing accompaniment I wrote about a couple back has always been Paul Brady. Just played on YouTube his masterly 1977 version of Arthur McBride [not a Child ballad, I know, but nonetheless a long song with a strong narrative]. Paul's elaborate but perfectly judged and matched accompaniment, to my mind, fully enhances and brings out every overtone and nuance of this fine song. His diction is a model too — not a word lost or unclear thruout, despite the concentration that such a complex accompaniment must have called for. Bravo!

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 05:26 AM

I've just noticed one of the TV music channels has a show today called "The Top 50 Power Ballads of All Time". Somehow, I don't think any Child Ballad will make the list. "All Time" indeed, humph!

I've always loved the story telling aspect of the ballads and agree that I don't actually remember the words as such: remember the story and the words flow from it. I've never been that keen on the more repetitious ballads though (eg "The Maid freed from the Gallows" aka "Hangman, stay your hand" etc), perhaps because the repititions don't do that much to advance the story.

When I do sing them at sing-arounds (which is quite rarely!), my approach is always to say I'd like to sing a ballad thats about twice the length of a 'normal' song, so if people are happy I'll forgo my turn this time round and sing it next round; otherwise I'll do something shorter now; which would people prefer?

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 05:48 AM

Re Maid Freed From Gallow, DMcG: I always find the repetition a great enhancer of the ultimate effect — the audience is lulled into expectations which are finally frustrated at the climax, the lover's "Yes, I have brought you gold". I have seen audiences almost literally jump with amazement and delight at that point. I think the folk who made this ballad, and perhaps went on as far as "I think I see my second-cousin's nephew's mother-in-law coming", knew what they were about!

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 06:01 AM

SO'P
Totally disagree with sticking tunes into the middle of anything as narrative intensive as a ballad - as far as I'm concerned it was evidence of Steeleeye's desire to turn folksong into something else and displayed a total lack of feel for what the ballads are about.
This was beautifully confirmed by Maddy Prior's 'In Praise of Ballads', and hour+ long programme where she, rather than sticking to her brief and talking about and playing ballads, did a Desert Island Discs on it and played some of the worst examples I have ever heard of ballad-mutilation. She topped it off with a discussion with a psychoanalyst who was obviously totally unfamiliar with the genre telling us why they were so ingrained in our tradition. I always play the programme when I need cheering up.
However, can I say, after all our disagreements, how pleasant it is to find myself (almost) 100% in agreement with the latter half of your posting - we'll have to watch it - 'People Will Say We're in Love'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM

I take your point, MtheGM, but I simply find those songs less interesting. Not all repetitous ballads, though: take version B Prince Heathen (or any of the Carthy versions of it); the repeated defiance is one of the things that makes the story. Ditto Willie's Lady, where the repetition is the undoing of the various spells that have been listed earlier. No. it's just there seem to be a few songs that lots of people record that I find simply dull ("P stands for Paddy" is another, for some reason).

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 06:29 AM

We only put instrumentals in where appropriate, like in King Orfeo where he plays the Gabber Reel, or King Henry where he takes to bed with the Griesly Ghost. We might stick something into Alison Gross & True Thomas too, which might be considered a little gratuitous, but we're a fun sorta group, you know? Nothing too heavy. Check 'em out on our Myspace Page.

*

how pleasant it is to find myself (almost) 100% in agreement with the latter half of your posting

Which is no different to what I've been saying all along...

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Brian Peters
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 06:51 AM

Gurney wrote:
"how can ballads be the epitome of 'folk'songs when they were largely written and performed by professional troubadours? They are just long songs that some scholar recorded for posterity... the people who paid to get in didn't come to be educated, they came to be entertained."

The authorship of ballads - and of much of the entire folksong canon - has been discussed here at length very recently. There are strong differences of opinion and the matter may never be finally settled (although 'professional troubadours' have not figured prominently in the discussion so far). However, authorship isn't really relevant to the present argument.

Ballads aren't "just long songs" - they don't necessarily have to be long at all. What they are (the traditional ballads, at least) are old songs that tell old stories. Many of them deal with supernatural subjects such as ghosts, demons, shape-shifters, witches and faeries, that later songs from a more rational age tended to avoid. They also tell tales of love, lust, jealousy and revenge, reminiscent in their bloodsoaked, epic scale of the Jacobean tragedies of a similar period. The best of them (and of course not everything canonized by F J Child falls into that category) are simply bigger songs than anything else in the tradition. The fact that they are old also has the side-effect of having subjected them to additional centuries of 'folk-processing', so that the range and scope of their variant versions is richer than that of more recent songs. All of this helps to explain why so many singers become fascinated by them.

I'm not sure why singing songs possessing some of the best storylines around should count as 'education' rather than 'entertainment'. Conceivably some singers may have been guilty of presenting ballads as if they were a nourishing but unpalatable medicine 'for the good of the soul'. Those people deserved the cold-shoulder. Much better to make the ballads as exciting for the audience as they are for the singer.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MikeL2
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 07:11 AM

hi everyone

This thread appears to be going the way of most threads here.

Am I different to most I ask myself.

I actually like most kinds of music. I also dislike some of most kinds of music.

Analysing why and I find myself coming up with the obvious answer. They have to be done well for me to enjoy them.

And I guess that this is the difference in some of the opinions posted here.

In the case of folk clubs particularly I am able to lower my expectation when going to a singers night or a singalong. Because I know that some performers are not (yet) experienced and I am able to understand that.And I like to see audiences enjoying themselves.

Trying to get back to the thread....With ballads I believe that inexperienced ballad singers are inadvised to try to sing in "inexperienced ballad audiences." They are special and require special treatment which the beginner may not yet have.

A great ballad singer ( they've all been named above) may be able to sing and get the attention he/she deserves even in the most hostile atmospheres.

I cann't give a folk example of what I mean but some ...nay many years ago I went to a Nana Mouscouri concert. The previous acts had been poor and the audience quite noisy and unattentive.

Nana Mouscouri came on and within 10 seconds the audience was spellbound and stayed so for two whole hours......most of which she had sung in Greek !!!

Believe me I am no Nana Mouscouri but from that day I have tried to capture an audience the way she did.

Is the answer all you need is not love....but TALENT ??

Happy New Year

Mike

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Diva
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 09:01 AM

My first dip into the ballads was through Steelye Span in the 70's and then I bought the Muckle sangs LP and found Kilmarnock Folk Club........and I prefer unadorned ballads but I know they are not to everyones taste. I try to judge (wrong word) an audience and a situation and pick an appropriate song or ballad.   Unless I am feeling particularly thrawn and I'll sing a ballad for no other reason than that the mysie is upon me!!!

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 09:59 AM

Diva;
"thrawn" - lovely word - very much at odds with its meaning.
Brian - Nice 'put in a nutshell' posting - plenty to things to think about in MikeL2's as well - not sure of what you mean by "This thread appears to be going the way of most threads here." though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Maryrrf
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 10:33 AM

This is one of the best threads we've had on Mudcat in a long time. Lots of good discussion, and everyone has remained civil! Long may it continue!

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM

Amen! Lotsa good stuff here!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Gurney
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 03:00 PM

Well said, Mary and Don.
My original comment, at the very top, contains advice to Crow Sister to pick your audience. If you look at the audience in a folk festival, there are a good number of enthusiastic 'folkies' who will appreciate the 'Big' ballads, -that's what we're talking about, unless you have a very different interpretation of the term 'big ballad' to mine. They will gravitate together and enjoy each others contribution, and good luck to them, I might be there myself.

In a club, another story, often. A proportion of the people are there because they are 'with' some more enthusiastic patron. Another sub-set are awaiting their turn to perform their meagre three numbers, and won't appreciate anyone who uses twelve minutes on one song. There are people who only really like particular genres, like Irish songs or Irish music, or witty stuff like Thackray or Lehrer. None of the above are likely to be enthralled by Long Lankin or Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford.
In the words of the parody 'The Folker:'
"In Sir Patrick Spens I clean forgot the 42nd verse
so I sang the 27th, out of turn and in reverse, and no-one noticed!
I laughed for hours...."

There is another thread current where a young lady is asking for suggestions on developing a repertoire, and a regular contributer suggests TWO repertoires, rather than committing to one. That is very sound sense IMO.
I stand by my opinion that travelling players were not 'folk,' but professional performers, thereby automatically disqualifying their songbook from inclusion as 'folkmusic.'

Everyone is allowed to differ, of course. I've been wrong before, in other peoples opinion. ;-)

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 04:52 PM

MtheGM said
> A master of the sort of enhancing accompaniment I wrote about a couple back has always been Paul Brady. Just played on YouTube his masterly 1977 version of Arthur McBride [not a Child ballad, I know, but nonetheless a long song with a strong narrative]. Paul's elaborate but perfectly judged and matched accompaniment, to my mind, fully enhances and brings out every overtone and nuance of this fine song. <

If the performance in question is the one mentioned on the "Lyr Req: Arthur McBride by Paul Brady" thread, viz this one , then for once I have to disagree with Mike.

The clip on YouTube starts with 40 seconds of instrumental, then the singing starts in the middle of the ballad. Either the beginning of that performance is missing, in which case there was at least a 40 second interruption in the story, or the first few verses were left out and this was a 40 second introduction. Either way the ballad would be much better without it IMHO.

I would prefer to hear the instrumental on its own, as a piece of music, and the ballad with either a much sparser accompaniment or none at all.

Richard

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 06:20 PM

"I stand by my opinion that travelling players were not 'folk,' but professional performers, thereby automatically disqualifying their songbook from inclusion as 'folkmusic.'"

So it's an opinion, then, and not anything based on evidence? In my experience people who invoke 'travelling players' or 'minstrels' don't know anything about folk music and are making it up as they go along.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 06:35 PM

Okay, maybe putting the Morris tune Idbury Hill (aka London Pride) in the middle of Alison Gross is more than a little gratuitous - especially as I do so on the pipe & tabor; but, like I say, we're a fun kinda group. AND the new version of True Thomas we recorded today comes in at exactly 4'.33" - including instrumentals - how cool is that?

Anyway, my new 5-string fiddle arrived today & very nice it is too; have a look HERE.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 07:02 PM

I agree with Richard Mellish[although that is not the 1977 version].
Bradys diction is also appalling,what the f;;; is he mumbling about ,however this version is not as bad as the one he did more recently on geantrai,in which he appeared tO have trouble with his breathing
no non no,instrumental breaks in ballads are a nonsense that is one of the few criticisms I have of Martin Carthy,the best way to sing them is straight through without any instrumental breaks, the only purpose instrumental breaks have is to show how good the instrumentalist is,it is one of the most stupid things I have ever come across.
sing the song, tell the story, make sure the words are clear ,the words are important,dont ponce about with instrumental breaks.
Ewan was right.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 09:43 PM

==The clip on YouTube starts with 40 seconds of instrumental, then the singing starts in the middle of the ballad. ===

No, Richard; NOT that one. I was careful to specify the 1977 rendition. So go back to the one you mentioned in YouTube & click on the one I was ref'g to in the side panel. It was when he was that young fella with the long hair, begorrah...

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 09:54 PM

I see, tho, Richard that GSS aka Dick Miles agrees with you. But that is an uncharacteristically prescriptive post from him; he is usually more tolerant than that and aware that there is more than one way to do anything. Ewan said "Do it this way", so that's what Martin, or Paul, or whoever has got to go on doing for ever? Away you, Dick. Even if Jesus had said that in Sermon On The Mount you wouldn't be obliged, you know. Try to judge pragmatically and on merits.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Gurney
Date: 30 Dec 09 - 10:58 PM

Shimrod, the sort of people who look for 'evidence' in anything written and performed four or five hundred years ago are scholars. They will muse over documents left by other scholars, and document their conclusions. For yet other scholars.
I folkprocess songs that I have records of! Performance is transient, and trying to rivet it down is, to my mind, futile. When I was really interested, I researched songs, and I tried to think myself into the mind of the performer or narrator, from the position of another performer/narrator, not a desk-pilot. Not a historian, either, although I know some.

You may like to consider the idea that almost anything in any book, -non-fiction book, anyway,- is opinion. Almost everything is written by scholars after the event, collected and collated sometimes much later. War history is written by the winner's scribes with little input from the losers, science is reported by scientists and promptly refuted by other scientists. And history of the social 'sciences' and arts are also written from someone's point of view. Or opinions.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 03:52 AM

sing the song, tell the story, make sure the words are clear ,the words are important,dont ponce about with instrumental breaks.

I think the only circumstance in which I wouldn't put an instrumental break in a ballad is if I was singing it unaccompanied. I don't do unaccompanied any more, for whatever reason, and feel the odd chorus (in jazz terms) as an instrumental is perfectly acceptable. So do what thou wilt - but above all have fun & let the sun shine through into your heart. On my Myspace Page presently (track #6) is a rendering of King Orfeo on which I accompany myself on a Tibetan singing bowl. No instrumental breaks here of curse, but I was tempted.

Ewan was right

Ewan was right for Ewan; Martin is right for Martin; Dick Miles is right for Dick Miles; Brian Peters is right for Brian Peters; Crow Sister is right for Crow Sister; Sedayne is right for Sedayne. There are no rights and wrongs here - just individual approaches all of which are equally valid.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 04:08 AM

"You may like to consider the idea that almost anything in any book, -non-fiction book, anyway,- is opinion."

Right, Gurney, I've considered that and, broadly speaking, I agree with you. But there are opinions (interpretations?) based on evidence and there are opinions based on guesses - and I know which I respect the most.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 04:19 AM

"Ewan was right for Ewan; Martin is right for Martin; Dick Miles is right for Dick Miles; Brian Peters is right for Brian Peters; Crow Sister is right for Crow Sister; Sedayne is right for Sedayne. There are no rights and wrongs here - just individual approaches all of which are equally valid."

Yes, I'd agree with that.
To return to the OP, my query concerned "how do 'you' tackle the long ballads", rather than "how 'should' long ballads be dealt with."

I think it's a case with any creative discipline, that you need to find out where your personal strengths & weaknesses lie and adapt how you personally work with that discipline, to accommodate those strengths and weaknesses.

It is interesting and helpful knowing how other people go about things, whether others prefer to perform strictly according to long-standing traditional conventions, or do things utterly uniquely, or even a bit of both.

As for instrumentation, I can see the value where the narrative suddenly shifts pace or certain events takes place like riding a long distance (which takes time, but may be abruptly dealt with in the verses), a sex scene/romantic interlude which isn't explicitly dealt with, a scene of music and dancing contained in the story itself, a long sea journey. And so-on.

But like the rest of it, I guess it's gotta come down to you being 'in it' somehow - rather than stomping on it.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 04:31 AM

"Ewan was right"
This is getting dangerously close to us squabbling - which would be an awful shame.
I never heard anybody dictate to anybody else in the revival how things 'should' be done when it came to singing, if for no other reason than I never knew anybody who was in the position to do so.
The Critics Group was as near to a 'musical democracy' as I have ever experienced. When it came to working on singing, the running was made by all of us for though group discussion, analysis and suggestions.
There were plenty of Ewan Emulators on the scene, just as there were Joanie Clones and Martin Mimicers and Bellamy Bleaters and Waterson Warblers, but in my experience, MacColl was one of the first to criticise this when he became aware of accusations that the Group members all sounded like him or Peggy (a number of recorded examples of him doing this) but he argued exactly as SO'P did in his last sentence "Martin is right for Martin; Dick Miles is right for Dick Miles; Brian Peters is right for Brian Peters; Crow Sister is right for Crow Sister; Sedayne is right for Sedayne."
Giving advice and arguing your corner is one thing (well, two actually), dictating how things should be done is another.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Smedley
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 04:48 AM

Agreed, Gurney. 'Objective' scholarship is a myth, and an unhelpful one.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 05:07 AM

A bit out of my depth with this – a little technical, but here goes – I apologise in advance if I don't explain it properly.
While I don't subscribe to the 'shortened attention span' theory, I do believe that one of the major problems of listening to ballads is connected with the length of some of them.
Following the making of the Radio Ballad, 'Song of a Road' MacColl and Charles Parker, with the help of a group of schoolteachers they were working with, began to take an interest in comparing concentration lengths in connection with vernacular and educated speech.
They came up with the idea that, after a certain period of time listening to speech (in the 'Road' Ballad for instance) delivered in a certain manner, the brain/ear connection appeared to become less efficient, causing the listeners to lose concentration. The length of time appeared to vary with different types of speech.
With the help of the schoolteachers they experimented by playing various recordings to young teenagers of, say, some of the technicians working on the M1 motorway, planners, draughtsmen, etc., and found that the attention span of the listener was much longer when listening to, say a bulldozer driver from Connemara or a concrete layer from East Anglia, than it was to a surveyor or inspector or manager.
Where they put some of it down to the content of the speech, they found that much of it was due to the manner of delivery, dynamic, change of volume, tone and effort, sometimes very slight, as used in vernacular speech, compared with educated/trained speech which tends to be all on one level; (several examples of this in Song of a Road).   
MacColl became interested enough to apply some of the findings to his own singing, particularly of the longer songs – the ballads
He reasoned that if you have a ballad say of twenty-plus verses with a four-line tune – A-B-B-A structure (one of the most common) for instance, you had to do something with that tune to keep the attention of the listener; he called it "making the ear work".
His solution was to divide the ballad up into sections and select places where he would make changes, subtle ones, but enough to retain the listeners' attentions. These would take the form of slight structural variations to the tune, small bits of ornamentation, little alterations in dynamic or tone… a whole bunch of devices that served to prevent the listeners' attention drifting.
He was aware that this could become an exercise in technique rather than interpretation, so he argued that it should always be related to the contents of the narrative, using it as emphasis of a part of the plot, such as time or circumstance or location changes.
If overdone, it could become theatrical; for me (especially in his earlier recordings) it occasionally did, but most of the time it worked – for my taste.
It was argued by some that traditional singers never resorted to such techniques, though we only caught the dying embers of our tradition, so we really don't know what the singers did at its height.
One of the things that we have certainly lost is the familiarity with listening to the unaccompanied voice.
The lack of variation, both within a song and throughout a whole set (or even a whole night) of singing is, I believe a major problem in the revival.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: GUEST,PaulS
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 05:19 AM

While there is no single 'right way' to sing a ballad, there is a wrong way - one that puts the audience off listening either to the singer, or to ballads as a style of song. I love ballads - just as well as I am married to a ballad singer - but there are singers (some renowned) who make my heart sink when they launch into a ballad.

I remember looking through the window of a door in a big singaround where the audience was almost entirely mirroring the singer's favourite posture - leaning back in their chair, and staring at their boots. Admittedly it was late in the evening, but I am sure that at least a quarter of the audience woke up suddenly when the clapping began.

A ballad is a story; you wouldn't tell a story in a dirge-like fashion unless trying to encourage a sleepless child to drop off. Singing that way doesn't help paint pictures in the mind of the listener.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 05:58 AM

"Agreed, Gurney. 'Objective' scholarship is a myth, and an unhelpful one."

So, Smedley, are you saying that scholarship should not be undertaken or the fruits of scholarship should be ignored because no-one can guarantee 100% objectivity?

My own view is that scholarship based on firm evidence, gathered in as unbiassed a way as possible, can be very valuable. The fact that it might be refuted in the face of further evidence, some time in the future, is just the way that science works.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 07:06 AM

I am judging on merits MGM,the clip Richard Mellish provided,his[BRADY] diction is unclear.
Ewan MacColls diction[On the clips i have listened to] was always good.
however you are right the 1977 version is much better,and is very good.,his breathing is good.,i still cant see the point of the instrumental break in the middle,the most appropriate place is at the beginning.,it [imo]interupts the flow.and why repeat the first verse at the end.
I once got a lecture from L Killen, for repeating the first verse at the end of a song, he was right if it is a story song, the only excuse is to encourage people to join in, almost like a chorus,other wise it is nonsensical.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 08:01 AM

I mean if you were to sing tam linn or thomas the rhymer or lord randall or matty groves ,would you sing the first verse at the end again?its nonsense.i mean if you going to do that why not sing it through again and stop halfway in the middle.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long bal
From: Matt Seattle
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 08:33 AM

Depending on the ballad, singing the first verse again can be a closing of the circle. The first verse has a different meaning after you have heard the whole story. It's beyond logic. You go on a journey, and when you return, home is the same but not the same.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:14 AM

Scholarship is scholarship, and matters to people who care about it. An opinion backed by scholarship is more interesting & more worth taking seriously, to people who care about scholarship, than an opinion without the back-up. For people who don't care about scholarship, of course, my opinion and their opinion and Ewan MacColl's opinion and Lucy Broadwood's opinion are all just that - opinions.

(Whether there actually is anyone who doesn't care about scholarship is another question.)

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:16 AM

In the song under question, Dick, the point is surely that they resumed their interrupted walk. Not like you anyhow to be so excessively biddable - Louis Killen is a fine singer, but he's not God.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:20 AM

Nice point Matt. When I sing Death and The Lady (a short version learned off Shirley Collins), I like to start at a 'bright' pace - she's just stepping out for a walk on a May morning and everything's nice and dandy... By the end of it she's obviously dead! So when I sing the repeat first verse, I do it more mournfully. Err, I like to imagine this perhaps lends a degree of poignant counterpointing to the initial naive gaiety of the first verse.

Or something like that.. ;-)

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:33 AM

Some songs seem to positively demand the repetition of the first verse at the end- Young but Growing being one, and to my mind the meaning of the "bonny boy" who is growing moves from the husband to the child. (I'm not sure if this is a "big" song, is there a standard for size?)

I once chided Eddie Murphy of Salmontails for repeating the first verse- the next time he was singing, he didn't do the repetition, and the song sank like a brick in a bucket. He cast such a sad look at me, I had to admit I was wrong.

Others don't demand the repetition. It's all a matter of taste and part of the storyteller's art, which I sadly lack much of.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:45 AM

no, he is not god,but the song he was discussing he was right i was wrong,
and in arthur mcbride why sing the first verse again.
"I'm not sure if this is a "big" song, is there a standard for size?)"
it is not thsize of what youve got but what you do with it..
MGM I have my [argue in an empty room hat on] you know "devils advocate"

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Maryrrf
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 09:49 AM

That was an excellent suggestion shared by Jim Carroll about devices to keep the audiences interested in a long ballad. I would venture to say - the longer the ballad, the more skill necessary in order to keep the audience's attention, especially if it's unaccompanied. Certainly what this thread has brought out is that there are just so many ways to approach a ballad - and you won't be able to please everybody, so go with you gut about what's right for you, and what fits your interpretation of the song. If you love and respect the ballad, and work at it, you probably won't go too far wrong. Some basics should always be kept in mind - projection, diction, and not letting the instrumentation detract from the ballad itself. If it's there, it should be just for enhancement and shouldn't overwhelm the song.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 10:04 AM

Well, just to oblige your disputatious headgear, Dick — in this particular song, as I suggested above, the repetition implies that the singer & his cousin Arthur just casually resumed their interrupted walk, shrugging off the few minutes violence in which they had been involved as a sort of matter of routine — the sort of thing that two such whacking·shillelagh-armed bould spalpeens would expect to happen when they went out for a tramp.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Willa
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 10:22 AM

Thanks to all posters to this thread, which I've found fascinating and, on the whole, amicable.

I do agree with S O'P's comment.'There are no rights and wrongs here - just individual approaches all of which are equally valid.'Long may it be so!

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long bal
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 10:34 AM

While I'm an a cappella singer of ballads, I do admire the use of skilled, usually unobtrusive, accompaniment by some instrumentalists. Some of them take an instrumental break at a point in the ballad where the story has you on edge--a matter of heightening the tension by making you wait for a resolution in the plot (sitting on the edge of one's seat...). A fine storyteller/balladsinger can use the instrumental break the way a great raconteur like George Burns used his cigar...

Timing.

--Charlie Baum

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 10:55 AM

I know there are some of MacColls ballads on YouTube, I don't know if anyone might like to point out any other recordings of ballads online? It'd be jolly interesting to hear some detailed comments about what people like / dislike in a given recording. I might try to source a few, and flag them up here for people to offer their thoughts on what they think either works well or doesn't work.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Smedley
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM

Shimrod, I'm all in favour of scholarship (just as well, as I work in a university.....) but in areas of culture & history there will always be interpretations rather than conclusive proof.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Gurney
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 01:10 PM

On the matter of keeping the audience listening: I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned Vin Garbutt. He sometimes uses the most outrageous introductions to slightly tedious songs, songs that do not naturally capture my keen attention, anyway. As a device, it works brilliantly.
I've listened VERY carefully to 'Flora on the Banks of the Dee,' waiting for the drowned gorilla!

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long bal
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM

thought id stick me oar in. I think the difficulty with ballads is that the length and therefore musical repetition can put people off. (if theyve heard the theme 22 times, theyre going to be less interested in hearing it a 23rd.) At a guess, the trad way to deal with this was ornamentation and strong plotlines. Plus maybe people had a habit of listening for longer and love of a good plot whether familiar or not.

The habit of listening intensely to long unaccompanied song is probably gone for ever except in very select audiences. (Doesnt mean they wont ever listen, but you will have to work hard to keep their attention.) Instrumentation is probably better these days and people are used to hearing improvisation and bridges, so i dont see why you wouldnt use those things to hold on to attention. (So long as it doesnt really mess the narrative up obviously.)

Id tend to try and concentrate on the words I suppose and give any decent musicians around a short break if they want one. I try and pick up the pace a bit too. You get through the song quicker and any slowed up tragic bits get more impact.

Is it worth asking why pub audiences often react really well to shanteys and not to ballads? Shanteys are shorter i suppose but often more repetitive too.

Subject: RE: Taking on the Big Boys? - classic big long ballads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 01:46 PM

".....some detailed comments about what people like / dislike in a given recording."
Sheila McGregor/Stewart's Tiftie's Annie - in my opininion, one of the most sublime pieces of ballad singing ever - after over 40 years of listening it still brings a lump to the throat.
The clear, sharp tone of her singing cuts right to the heart of the tragedy encapsulated in the story and her clarity of diction..... don't get me started - can feel the lump in the throat already!!
The ballad itself is superb, basically a tragedy of family opposition to a young woman's suitor.
Story:
Miller's wife and daughter standing at the gate watching a local Laird's entourage passing. The mother admires the handsome herald (trumpeter), Andrew Lammie and the daughter says she has been secretly meeting him in the woods. The family are outraged by the fact that he is merely a servant, lock her in her room and try to dissuade her by belittling him.
When this fails the father writes to the Laird protesting the liason and has the servant sent away (more later).
The family begin to beat the girl, eventually killing her by breaking her back (on the Temple-stane of Fyvie).
All this and also a wonderful sub-text.
The ballad was current at the time when the nobilty were losing their influence to the new trades. A marraigeable daughter was a powerful asset to the well-being of an ambitious family and would be married off simply to increase the family wealth and influence = woman as commodity.
The miller writes to the Laird:

"And Tiftie's penned a long letter,
And sent it off to Fyvie
To say his daughter was bewitcherd
By the servant, Andrew Lammie".

Used always to equate "bewitched" with bothered and bewildered, but in fact he is being accused of influencing her by witchcraft and is sent off to Edinburgh to face trial for same. It's a great lesson on how easy it is to miss hidden information in a ballad.
The ballad is based on real people, Have seen the statue of the trumpeter on the ramparts of Fyvie Castle, the graves of the Miller and Annie in Fyvie Churchyard, and (can't verify this) but we were told that when they were excavating for the park below Princes Street in Edinburgh they discovered hundred of skeletons of witches that were drowned in the river there as a test.

Anyway - that's what I'd take on a desert island with me along with The Good Soldier Schweik (the book- I hasten to add - sorry Dick!) and Shakespeare - wouldn't bother too much with the Bible unless it was the King James one with the beautiful text.
Jim Carroll