Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:37 AM

Sorry - cross posted.
I knew that Mike - again my point was the irrelevancy of 'name change'.
Karl responded topointing out his use of various names thus:
"....not a few of your readers might wonder who the hell I am, whether I call myself Karl (my first name, after Marx, which Ewan MacColl always used in addressing me), Fred (my second, after Engels, which I used as a communist activist, to avoid confusing readers of my newspaper reporting), or indeed Frank Davies, the name under which I first leapt into print as a schoolboy contributor to Challenge, the Young Communist League paper in the late Forties."
Living Tradition letters no 37.
My point has always been that the question of name-change is totally irrelevant expept when it comes in handy as yet another stone to throw at Ewan MacColl/Jimmy Miller - as illusrated perfectly by ollaimh
Jim (sometimes known as Jimmy, and here in Ireland often confused with my wife's name and called 'Pat') Carroll

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 07:29 AM

I went to see a concert by the Carolina Chocolate Drops when they did their first British tour two or three years ago. They were superb. Most of their material came from the Medicine Show hokum tradition of the songs and tunes that both black and white performers played in these shows, but they varied their repertoire and included a couple of unaccompanied ballads from the Child canon that had been sung in the southern states black tradition - bloody good they were too.

Then Rhiannon Giddens sung a song in Gaelic which she did not say much about. I was gob-smacked. At the interval, I made a beeline for a Gaelic-speaking fiddle-playing friend of mine who was in the audience. What was her Gaelic pronunciation and accent like, I wanted to know. "Pretty damned good!" was Stephen's somewhat startled reply.

At the end of the concert Rhiannon was on merchandise and I managed to ask her how that song had come to the Carolinas. Apparently there was a cluster of plantations that were owned and worked by Gaelic speaking families so, of course, the slaves learned that language and absorbed that culture. After liberation the slave families clung to Gaelic for a while and early song collectors collected some Gaelic songs and stories from the black population.

This sounded so unlikely to me that I came home and did an internet search and found that there were masses of examples of Gaelic-speaking amongst blacks in the southern USA. My favourite reference came from http://www.ogmios.org/ogmios_files/303.htm where it mentions my favourite be-bop trumpeter:-

The Irish and Scots-Gaelic word bunkum (buanchumadh) is derived by all Anglo-American dictionaries from a shaggy-dog tale. As the story goes, during the 16th American Congress, a long-winded congressman from Buncombe County, North Carolina, spoke endlessly on a particular bill, while other members impatiently waited to vote. From then on, as the etymological bunkum goes, to talk "bunkum" meant to speak as endlessly as that long-forgotten politician from Buncombe County. (See: Bartlett, American Dictionary.)
Ironically the old congressman from Buncombe County may have been speaking Gaelic buanchumadh (pron. buan'cumah, a long made-up story) after all. North Carolina had an historic Scots-Gaelic and Irish-speaking population up until the beginning of the 20th century. The jazz musician Dizzy Gillespie's family were African-American Gaelic speakers from North Carolina and Alabama. So Buncombe County may have been the origin of bunkum as buanchumadh, (pron. buan-cumah, "a shaggy dog tale") after all.
"Under an enormous image of (Dizzy) Gillespie beamed on to a wall at Sprague (Hall), Yale music professor Willie Ruff salutes his old friend and explains to the audience how this musical journey began. "Dizzy used to tell me tales of how the blacks near his home in Alabama and in the Carolinas had once spoken exclusively in Scots Gaelic. He spoke of his love for Scotland....." (The Scotsman newspaper, Sept. 25, 2005.

So the Gaels were amongst the oppressors as well as the oppressed.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Baz Bowdidge
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM

Many Jewish songwriters and entertainers changed their names to avoid prejudice whereas Jimmy Miller changed his name to create prejudice.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 07:58 AM

Vic
"So the Gaels were amongst the oppressors as well as the oppressed."
For cultural 'oppression', you should try tip-toeing your way (very carefully) through Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann's attitude to English language singing in Ireland.
Traveller John Reilly (the man who gave the world 'The Maid and the Palmer' after its centuries-long absence from the traditional repertoire, was discovered destitute, squatting in a derelict house in Boyle and his cause was taken up by Tom Munnelly and others, who tried to get him bookings to raise some money to help him.
CCE refused to participate on the grounds that he "wasn't Sean Nos".
Reilly died of malnutrition shortly after.
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 08:39 AM

Jim Carroll wrote:-
"Traveller John Reilly (the man who gave the world 'The Maid and the Palmer' "

The story that Jim tells is part of the whole sad story of John Reilly's life given on the comprehensive sleeve notes on the long deleted Topic album The Bonny Green Tree 12T359 (1978). It is among the top treasures in my huge collection of recordings. That song that Jim mentions - it is called The Well Below The Valley on the album - went on to become really widely sung on the folk scene, especially after it had been recorded by Planxty.
However, the best track of the many gems on that album for me is Lord Baker, John's name for "Lord Bateman", is the very best of all the recorded versions of that ballad.

Lord Baker was a very rich man:-

"You have houses and you have living,
And all Northumber belongs to thee."

For some reason this put me in mind of another very rich man, Kenneth Baker, who was the Tory Lord Chancellor around the years when I was listening to this album all the time.
Kenneth Baker ended up as Baron Baker of Dorking which I always thought made him sound like a pantomime character.

I wonder if Baron Baker of Dorking was, like Bob Dylan, interested in equality?

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 09:04 AM

"So the Gaels were amongst the oppressors as well as the oppressed."

Surely history tells us that every ethnic group has the potential to be both?

"Many Jewish songwriters and entertainers changed their names to avoid prejudice whereas Jimmy Miller changed his name to create prejudice."

Unless you want me, and others, to dismiss this as a completely fatuous and stupid remark, BB, perhaps you should explain what you mean by it.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 10:17 AM

Little Hawk wrote:-
"A change of name is very common in the performing arts"

Indeed, a change of name has been forced on many performers in the UK if they want to get their all important Equity card from the trade union that caters for "singers, actors, designers, stage managers, stunt performers and variety artists amongst a wide range of performers." You can read this at their website at http://www.equity.org.uk/about-us/join-us/how-can-i-join/your-professional-name/ where it also explains why they restrict members' use of names to "avoid duplication of names amongst our members".

I believe that is why Jo Fraser had to change her performing name to Jo Freya.

Still, at least it would eliminate all those, "Which Ian Anderson/Rod Stradling/Chris Bartram are you talking about?" conversations that you get.

Aren't there two dance callers - both called Vic Smith - that get booked at English folk festivals?

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 10:38 AM

Catspaw49 - Your insight on this general subject is, of course, brilliant as always, illuminating to the discussion, spectacular in its subtlety, and vast in its degree of comprehension....but the really odd thing is that it draws no critical reactions from anyone on the thread, not even from the most paranoid, defensive, and combative of our UK residents. That suggests to me either that you have been elevated to the status of a living saint on this forum...or...that no one gives a shit.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Owen Woodson
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 10:48 AM

Vic,

There was a considerable influx of Gaelic speaking Highland Scots to North Carolina in the eighteenth century and the whole thing is documented in The Highland Scots of North Carolina by Duane Meyer, a one time history professor at Missouri University. It's so long since I read the book that I'm not even going to try to discuss it. Certainly, I don't recall Meyer saying anything about slave owners teaching their slaves to speak Gaelic. However, if they spoke it themselves, I suppose it's only natural that they'd make sure their slaves spoke Gaelic also.

And yes, the Scots/Gaels/highlanders/Celts were/are as capable of oppressing their fellow human beings as anyone else. I doubt you need me of all people to remind you of the highland clearances.

Just a thought. If Dizzy Gillespie owed something to Gaelic speaking slaves, could it be that Bunk (Buanch) Johnson had a similar lineage? Maybe there's something in this idea about jazz being Celtic after all.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Baz Bowdidge
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 10:54 AM

>Many Jewish songwriters and entertainers changed their names to avoid prejudice whereas Jimmy Miller changed his name to create prejudice."

Unless you want me, and others, to dismiss this as a completely fatuous and stupid remark, BB, perhaps you should explain what you mean by it.<

Neither 'fatuous' nor 'stupid' as Jimmy Miller wanted 'you and others' to PREJUDGE him as a true Scot which if he used his real name would have suggested otherwise.
Incidentally he married twice as Miller.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 11:15 AM

No, BB, you haven't succeeded in redeeming yourself. You've just engaged in a pointless and petty tirade which achieves nothing.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Baz Bowdidge
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 11:48 AM

Why would I want to succeed in redeeming myself when my point was quite clear?
'Tirade'? You must be thinking of someone else on this forum.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 12:07 PM

"And yes, the Scots/Gaels/highlanders/Celts were/are as capable of oppressing their fellow human beings as anyone else."

And linguistically we have to remember that Scotland (prior to standard English being officially imposed by an anglocentric Scottish elite in the late 19thC) hadn't always been Scots and Gaelic speaking. In the mid first millenium Gaelic was only spoken by a small percentage of the people of Scotland in Argyle and the southern Hebrides and the Anglian forerunner of Scots was only spoken in the extreme south by Northumbrian Angles. The bulk of people in Scotland at that time would have been P-Celtic speakers. The imposition of Gaelic and Scots on these peoples caused the complete demise of the their own languages. Not to mention the later Norn of the Northern Isles and Hebrides etc. Both Gaelic and Scots had been expansionist languages themselves.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 01:24 PM

Jim Carroll

I apologise for re-opening this thread; this should have gone off on Thursday but I have been away since then and have just returned.
Of course Brian Creer is right - I do owe the organisers of his club an apology for my inexcusable remark.
It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part to what I believe to be the condoning by trivialising unexceptable behaviour towards a group of people who have given many of us a great deal of pleasure and encouragement from folk music - in my case, most of a lifetime's worth.
This in no way excuses my suggestion that the other organisers of Bryan's Lewes Club share his views and would in any way condone the behaviour we have been discussing so heatedly.
My sincerest apologies for my remark.
Jim Carroll

Thank you, Jim. As one of the organisers of the Lewes Saturday Folk Club I would like to thank you for that much needed apology. We do indeed share the same views when it comes to showing the utmost respect for our guests, our floor singers and our audiences and of course, the music.

It's a pity that you managed to combine apologising with being gratuitously offensive in one post but, since I am in an excellent mood following on from the superb day of song we had yesterday at The Royal Oak, Barcombe ((I gather that today's ballad session went well as well), I shall try and overlook that and simply ask why you believe that my description of Brune's actions as being irresponsible is " trivialising unexceptable behaviour". Actually, having re-read the interview with Sheila Stewart, I realise I misunderstood part of it and would now upgrade my judgement of his behaviour towards her as reprehensible. Equally, I think MacColl's treatment of her leaves a lot to be desired.

P.S. Never describe the LSFC as the Lewes Club. Vic gets very annoyed.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 02:11 PM

I was just working up to having a quick burst of self gratifying pedantry but Allan Conn has pre-empted me.

It is debatable whether the Gaels were aboriginal inhabitants of the British Isles. "Celtic" culture arose in what is now southern Germany in the first half of the first millenium BC, by which time the British Isles had already been occupied by human beings for several thousand years. Callanish and Stonehenge were already old. What happened to the pre-Celtic occupants is not recorded but I doubt if it was pleasant.

Be that as it may, the Gaels were certainly not the aboriginal inhabitants of Scotland. The Scots invaded Scotland from Ireland in the late 6th and early 7th centuries AD previously occupied by (probably amongst others) the Picts who were, as Allan says, from the P-Celtic language group* ie. Britons. They were subsumed and their language lost by th e10th century. At its height, the Kingdom of Northumbria extended up the eastern half of the lowlands to the Forth and the British Kingdom of Strathclyde took up the western half as far as the Clyde.

Haven't probed deeply but as far as I cam make out, Mc and Mac, meaning "son of" didn't emerge till the 12th century.

*Celtic is a language classification not a race.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 02:30 PM

"Why would I want to succeed in redeeming myself when my point was quite clear?
'Tirade'? You must be thinking of someone else on this forum."

OK, I suppose I need to spell it out:

Bob Dylan, George Orwell, Hugh McDiarmid, Elton John, Bill Wyman, Johnny Handle, Sting, Bono (and as far as I know, 'Baz Bowdidge'!) etc., etc., etc. all changed their names and no-one (as far as I know) fatuously accused them of "prejudice".

So you didn't like Ewan MacColl - get over it and stop pointlessly and mindlessly belabouring his corpse!

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:53 PM

"Haven't probed deeply but as far as I cam make out, Mc and Mac, meaning "son of" didn't emerge till the 12th century."

And they were patronyms not surnames. The general use of surnames itself was imported from outwith Gaelic speaking Scotland. It isn't always obvious if a family name comes from Gaelic either. Some like my own (ie Connochie) have the Mac dropped. Others took Lowland sounding names on. And like I say that is only the one line anyway. My name is from the Gaelic but I can trace my paternal line back to the 18thC and all the female spouses had names more associated with the Borders. It's quite possible for someone with an Italian name or whatever to have many Gaelic speaking ancestors. It seems that poor old Jimmy Miller stands accused of the terrible crimes of his parents comng from the wrong towns, speaking the wrong language and having the wrong surnames! Unless the other poster can actually come up with any proof that MacColl was anti-Gaelic. I've not seen the slightest hint of it myself :-)

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM

mac mc or m' in front of a name is a prenom that comes from a language other than english. IT'S GAELIC!!

Judas Maccabeus? Lou Macari?

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 03:51 AM

The Snail, MacBeth, son of Bedha, son of Finlay (various spellings) reigned in the mid 11th century.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 04:03 AM

"trivialising unexceptable behaviour."
I have said all I intend to say on this - I suggest that, unless you wish to continue to make this a one-to-one on this thread we take it elsewhere, otherwise let people decide for themselves on the basis of what has already been written - I very much doubt if either of us is likely to change our minds.
As far as the Stewart's book is concerned, I'm afraid I find all this somewhat Kafka-esque
I have read the book with great pleasure twice, and when the controversy surfaced I re-read the authors' notes searching for the offending commentary - and failed to find it; I wonder if anybody can enlighten me?
The few references that touch on personal matters and may have given offence are accompanied by transcriptions of speech from members of the family - is it being suggested that the authors forged these transcritions - or that the conversations were recorded surreptitiously - what??
I am not disputing that offence was taken, but I am totally in the dark as to what that offence was, and as far as I can make out from the lack of information, so is everybody else not directly concerned.
I certainly do not believe it was either intended or manufactured - why should the authors set out to deliberately offend a family who, as has often been said by both sides, had total respect for each other? As far as I know they remained friends right up to MacColl's death in 1988.
I do know from personal experience that making public, information you have been given as collector can be a minefield. Our first efforts in doing this was spoken commentary from Clare singer Tom Lenihan, who described to a friend whose recordings of speech we used for the album, how a local dancing master would "hit the pupils' legs hard with his walking stick if they got a step wrong".
We were gently corrected by a family member of the D.M. for including this (it might have been more serious if the family member had not been a friend).
We have recorded hours of information from Travellers that we will never use publicly because we have been asked not to - including the best Traveller-made song we have ever come across.
I am somewhat uncomfortable debating this on an open forum - it has always been our practice not to drag traditional singers into public arguments - it really isn't what they signed up for when they generously gave us their songs, stories and information. One bitter experience by a vengeful reviewer who was quite happy to take his spite out on our singers some years ago has reinforced this opinion.
I am only pointing this out to explain why my input into this topic will be limited.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 05:29 AM

Jim Carroll:-
"I am not disputing that offence was taken, but I am totally in the dark as to what that offence was, and as far as I can make out from the lack of information, so is everybody else not directly concerned.
I certainly do not believe it was either intended or manufactured - why should the authors set out to deliberately offend a family who, as has often been said by both sides, had total respect for each other? As far as I know they remained friends right up to MacColl's death in 1988."

You speak about protecting the sensibilities of members of the traveller community on a public forum - admirable - but you again raise the matter of why the Stewarts were offended by Till Doomsday In The Afternoon on a public forum which seems somewhat inconsistent.

Jim, you must know that the only person who can answer your question is Sheila Stewart - the only surviving member of the generations of her family that were interviewed for the book. Sheila uses email frequently - I am in contact with her and we exchange news and messages. Surely, if you were genuinely interested in this information. you would seek it from her directly which would seem to be the best way of doing so to me and the way you appear to do when you say I am somewhat uncomfortable debating this on an open forum - it has always been our practice not to drag traditional singers into public arguments.

You should feel uncomfortable - this is not the right place for such statements as you have made. PM me asking for Sheila's email address if you really want to know the answers to your confusion.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 06:30 AM

Jim seems to have moved on to insulting bigger fish than me so I'll leave him to it.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 06:34 AM

Jim McLean

The Snail, MacBeth, son of Bedha, son of Finlay (various spellings) reigned in the mid 11th century.

You are quite right, Jim. That occurred to me in the early hours of the morning. Sloppy research on my part, I do apologise. I think the general drift was right though.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 06:48 AM

"MacBeth, son of Bedha, son of Finlay" You are right in that Mac was used but not as a surname. Surnames weren't used until later. Macbeth MacFinlay (anglicised) was the son of Finlay. The personal first name Macbeth as I understand it did not mean 'son of Bedha' and was in fact not even really a patronym but was a first name meaning something like 'son of the church' or 'holy person'

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 07:43 AM

"but you again raise the matter of why the Stewarts were offended..."
No Brian, you raised it, I responded to your doing so.
"Actually, having re-read the interview with Sheila Stewart, I realise I misunderstood part of it and would now upgrade my judgement of his behaviour towards her as reprehensible. Equally, I think MacColl's treatment of her leaves a lot to be desired."
Given your objection to MacColl and SEEGER'S (you seem to be selective in your lying the blame) behaviour to the Stewarts, I thought you might be able to enlighten me on why their behaviour was "reprehensible" and "leaving much to be desired" - apparently you can't.
"Jim seems to have moved on to insulting bigger fish than me"
Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel; I said that having read the book twice and searched deliberately for the examples of offence, I have failed to find them.
I made a point of saying "I am not disputing that offence was taken, but I am totally in the dark as to what that offence was,"
Have you actually read the book?
Please climb out of your gutter for a few minutes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 08:09 AM

Oh Dear! Oh dear! here we go again....

Jim Carroll:-
"but you again raise the matter of why the Stewarts were offended..."
No Brian, you raised it, I responded to your doing so.

Actually, it was not Bryan (please, once again, note the spelling

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 08:19 AM

Whoops - I'll try again

Oh Dear! Oh dear! here we go again....

Jim Carroll:-
"but you again raise the matter of why the Stewarts were offended..."
No Brian, you raised it, I responded to your doing so.

Actually, it was not Bryan (please, once again, note the spelling) but Vic Smith who posted that comment.

Jim Carroll (to Bryan Creer) 20 Jan 12 - 03:04 PM :-
"My sincerest apologies for my remark."

Jim Carroll (presumably to Bryan Creer - it is not totally clear) 23 Jan 12 - 07:43 AM
"Please climb out of your gutter for a few minutes."

Is it just me, or is this thread taking a totally surreal quality?

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 08:45 AM

Jim Carroll

"but you again raise the matter of why the Stewarts were offended..."
No Brian, you raised it, I responded to your doing so.

You have a long record of attacking me for things I haven't said but I think you have surpassed yourself this time.

"Actually, having re-read the interview with Sheila Stewart, I realise I misunderstood part of it and would now upgrade my judgement of his behaviour towards her as reprehensible. Equally, I think MacColl's treatment of her leaves a lot to be desired."
Given your objection to MacColl and SEEGER'S (you seem to be selective in your lying the blame) behaviour to the Stewarts, I thought you might be able to enlighten me on why their behaviour was "reprehensible" and "leaving much to be desired" - apparently you can't.

I know nothing about Peggy Seeger's behaviour towards the Stewarts so I'm not in a position to comment on it. It was John Brune's behaviour towards Sheila Stewart that I described as "reprehensible" not MacColl's (or Seeger's). In the full knowledge that I will receive a torrent of abuse in return, I will explain why I described MacColl's (but not Seeger's) behaviour to Sheila Stewart as "leaving much to be desired".

In the interview, Sheila Stewart says -

"Ewan MacColl had got a bee in his bonnet that there was one particular song that I had to learn, because he wanted me to open the programme and finish the programme. So he sent this wee Austrian man John Brune to teach me a song that had seemingly been collected from a Maggie Johnson down in England, but I had to sing it in an Irish style. And I said, 'Well I'm sorry John, but I cannae waste time, I'm at berrypicking, I need the money, I've got kids to raise.' 'That's quite all right.' he says, so he came out to the berryfields with me and he walked up and down the berryfields with me, teaching me this song, how to sing it.",/i>

Having re-re-read that passage, it is unclear whether it was MacColl or Brune who went up to berryfields to teach her the song. Be that as it may, it was clearly MacColl's decision that she should sing it and it's pretty clear that she didn't particularly want to. One of MacColl's famous policies was that people should only sing songs from their own native tradition but here he is insisting that she sing a song she didn't know from someone she had never heard of in an Irish style for godness sake. Even if Maggie Johnson had been real and the song genuine, I can't see the justification for that.

There is another example of MacColl's attitude further on in the interview -

Once, a long time ago, at the end of a festival, she was cajoled on to the stage to sing Hank Williams' Jambalaya. "I got the first verse and the first chorus out; everybody was a' jiving and dancing, then the door flew open and this man come up. 'STOP!' he said. And of course everybody stopped. 'I am gonnae get in touch with Ewan MacColl,' he says, 'to tell Ewan l that the Stewarts of Blair have gone pop!' My face was like a beetroot. I put the mike down and come off stage. Three days later, I got a tape through the post fae Ewan. 'I think you need taking down a little bit Sheila. I've just had a letter and a 'phone call from this man, saying that you've gone pop.' And he sent me two songs, must have been forty, fifty verses each, 'don't ever, ever let me hear that you've been singing other than your ballads.' He played hell with me for doin' it, so I've never ever done it again - never ever tried to sing with music again."

What in heaven's name made him think he had the right to talk to her like that? (I wonder who "this man" was.)

"Jim seems to have moved on to insulting bigger fish than me"
Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel; I said that having read the book twice and searched deliberately for the examples of offence, I have failed to find them.
I made a point of saying "I am not disputing that offence was taken, but I am totally in the dark as to what that offence was,"
Have you actually read the book?

No, I haven't read it but I have read what Sheila Stewart said about "This horrible book!". The Stewarts were clearly outraged. You clearly don't realise how offensive you are being by making light of their feelings.

Please climb out of your gutter for a few minutes

A while ago, I asked if you really wanted to take part in an intelligent adult discussion. Clearly not.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 08:51 AM

@%$£*&@! Forgot to Preview. Sorry for repeating a long post but this one is more intelligible.

Jim Carroll

"but you again raise the matter of why the Stewarts were offended..."
No Brian, you raised it, I responded to your doing so.

You have a long record of attacking me for things I haven't said but I think you have surpassed yourself this time.

"Actually, having re-read the interview with Sheila Stewart, I realise I misunderstood part of it and would now upgrade my judgement of his behaviour towards her as reprehensible. Equally, I think MacColl's treatment of her leaves a lot to be desired."
Given your objection to MacColl and SEEGER'S (you seem to be selective in your lying the blame) behaviour to the Stewarts, I thought you might be able to enlighten me on why their behaviour was "reprehensible" and "leaving much to be desired" - apparently you can't.

I know nothing about Peggy Seeger's behaviour towards the Stewarts so I'm not in a position to comment on it. It was John Brune's behaviour towards Sheila Stewart that I described as "reprehensible" not MacColl's (or Seeger's). In the full knowledge that I will receive a torrent of abuse in return, I will explain why I described MacColl's (but not Seeger's) behaviour to Sheila Stewart as "leaving much to be desired".

In the interview, Sheila Stewart says -

"Ewan MacColl had got a bee in his bonnet that there was one particular song that I had to learn, because he wanted me to open the programme and finish the programme. So he sent this wee Austrian man John Brune to teach me a song that had seemingly been collected from a Maggie Johnson down in England, but I had to sing it in an Irish style. And I said, 'Well I'm sorry John, but I cannae waste time, I'm at berrypicking, I need the money, I've got kids to raise.' 'That's quite all right.' he says, so he came out to the berryfields with me and he walked up and down the berryfields with me, teaching me this song, how to sing it."

Having re-re-read that passage, it is unclear whether it was MacColl or Brune who went up to the berryfields to teach her the song. Be that as it may, it was clearly MacColl's decision that she should sing it and it's pretty clear that she didn't particularly want to. One of MacColl's famous policies was that people should only sing songs from their own native tradition but here he is insisting that she sing a song she didn't know from someone she had never heard of in an Irish style for goodness sake. Even if Maggie Johnson had been real and the song genuine, I can't see the justification for that.

There is another example of MacColl's attitude further on in the interview -

Once, a long time ago, at the end of a festival, she was cajoled on to the stage to sing Hank Williams' Jambalaya. "I got the first verse and the first chorus out; everybody was a' jiving and dancing, then the door flew open and this man come up. 'STOP!' he said. And of course everybody stopped. 'I am gonnae get in touch with Ewan MacColl,' he says, 'to tell Ewan l that the Stewarts of Blair have gone pop!' My face was like a beetroot. I put the mike down and come off stage. Three days later, I got a tape through the post fae Ewan. 'I think you need taking down a little bit Sheila. I've just had a letter and a 'phone call from this man, saying that you've gone pop.' And he sent me two songs, must have been forty, fifty verses each, 'don't ever, ever let me hear that you've been singing other than your ballads.' He played hell with me for doin' it, so I've never ever done it again - never ever tried to sing with music again."

What in heaven's name made him think he had the right to talk to her like that? (I wonder who "this man" was.)

"Jim seems to have moved on to insulting bigger fish than me"
Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel; I said that having read the book twice and searched deliberately for the examples of offence, I have failed to find them.
I made a point of saying "I am not disputing that offence was taken, but I am totally in the dark as to what that offence was,"
Have you actually read the book?

No, I haven't read it but I have read what Sheila Stewart said about "This horrible book!". The Stewarts were clearly outraged. You clearly don't realise how offensive you are being by making light of their feelings.

Please climb out of your gutter for a few minutes

A while ago, I asked if you really wanted to take part in an intelligent, adult discussion. Clearly not.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 09:05 AM

Sorry - this is getting convoluted; and most of the misunderstanding is mine.
My response was to "I think MacColl's treatment of her leaves a lot to be desired." which I assumed referred to the book, and I mistakenly misread it as coming from Bryan; that is not the case, my apologies.
There has never been any suggestion whatever that Sheila was reluctant to sing the songs; they were to open and close the radio ballad as examples of Traveller made songs. Had Brune's fakes gone in as such it would have undermined the credibility of the whole programme - this is why I feel it an important issue.
As far as the offence given, I have never trivialised it, nor have I attempted to deny it - I simply do not know what it is - I am insulting nobody.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 10:04 AM

Having re-re-re-read that section, I realise that it WAS Brune who went up to the berryfields to teach Sheila Stewart the song so I reinstate my judgement of him to "reprehensible". In her account, she sounds considerably less than enthusiastic about learning the song.

Had Brune's fakes gone in as such it would have undermined the credibility of the whole programme - this is why I feel it an important issue.

But they didn't because Brune himself prevented them from doing so. Judge the man (and he has much to be judged for) for his whole actions not just selected parts. As I said from the start, I don't think he intended any harm to the Traveller Community. His target was MacColl and he thoughtlessly used Sheila Stewart to that end for which he is much to blame.

As far as the offence given, I have never trivialised it, nor have I attempted to deny it - I simply do not know what it is - I am insulting nobody.

Then find out. You could start by reading what Sheila Stewart said in the interview and then, as Vic suggested, contacting her yourself before issuing airy "I don't see the problem" comments. Sheila Stewart says there is a problem therefore, there is a problem. To suggest otherwise is an insult to her and her family.

I notice you have not commented on my evidence for why I think MacColl's behaviour towards SS left much to be desired. (Who was "this man"?)

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 11:14 AM

The Scots travellers were some of the finest singers of Country & Western songs that I have ever heard in these islands. Around 1972 I remember that Sheila Stewart was at our table at the Kirklands Hotel in Kinross at one late late session during a TMSA festival. It must have been sometime after 2am and through a haze of alcohol I can remember that Aly Bain, Tom Anderson and Peerie Willie Johnson playing some Eddie Lang/Stephan Grappelli/Django-style jazz and people were enjoying it but blethering away over it. Aly Bain then announced, "Ye'll hae tae listen now. I gonna' call up oor wee lassie vocalist." Up struggles Jane Turriff on her crutches and with the trio accompanying her she sings a selection of Jimmy Rodgers songs - complete with really excellent yodelling. Sheila noticed how much I was enjoying it and said, "A' the travellers love Country & Western, Vic. It's what we sing maist efter oor ain sangs."

Next morning, Jane Turriff was in a concert singing her ballads in a way that sent shivers down my spine. She was only one of the great singers who could sing both styles without compromising the other.

Another time, during a Blairgowrie Festival, Tina and I were at a ceilidh at the Stewarts house in Rattray which had all their freens which included many of the great Scots traveller singers, Whytes, Stewarts, Higginses, McPhees etc. Amongst the large crowd there were a handful of young folk enthusiasts. Shuggie (Hugh) Higgins latched on to Tina and I knowing the sort of people we were and said, "I've got just the sang that you two would enjoy; and with a twinkle in his eye he launched into:-

South of the Border.
Down Mexico Way.....

He was looking at us all the time he was singing to gauge our reaction. He finished the song and then said, "Now, what do you think of that?" As far as I remember, I said something to the effect that my mum has a recording of Frank Sinatra singing that song, but that I preferred his way with it. Whatever I said, it must have be the right sort of response, because he then said something like, "Well, here's something that you will enjoy" and sang a stunning version of The False Knight On the Road. I remember thing that though I had my cassette recorder with me that it would have been inappropriate to get it out at that point.

The travellers were cute. They knew what they had; they knew what was important but it didn't stop then enjoying and indulging in other aspects of popular culture. And certainly, time after time, I felt myself being tested out to see what my reaction would be, just as I was in the example that I have given.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 12:16 PM

Jim wrote:-
"My response was to "I think MacColl's treatment of her leaves a lot to be desired." which I assumed referred to the book, and I mistakenly misread it as coming from Bryan"

But, Jim, that comment did come from Bryan (22 Jan 12 - 01:24 PM)

Please read comments carefully before responding without attributing things that Bryan did say when he didn't and what he didn't say when he did.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 12:32 PM

But, Jim, that comment did come from Bryan

But did not refer to the book. I think Jim needs to cut down on the knee-jerk reactions.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Bob Coltman
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 09:07 AM

With MacColl's set of preconceptions, there is no possible way he could have found Dylan even half listenable.

I myself enjoy and am inspired by Dylan as one of the most vital songsters of the 20th century. But his early days, as represented by his presence after coming to NY and what we hear of it on his 1st album, he had everything to make the folk world hate him. There was little sign then that he was not a poseur, bad imitator, destroyer of perfectly good songs, etc.

He was first recorded before he was ready. He had to grow up and become seasoned in public and some of the results were less than good. In the year or so thereafter his difference continued to be just too drastic. He got a lot of rejection—just like anyone who changes things too sweepingly.

The greatness began emerging with the second album, which began to show he wasn't just hacking around. And it took some people a long time to see it. For example, in my book Paul Clayton and the Folk Revival I quote the late, great Sandy Paton who bridled at seeing Paul carrying Dylan's guitar to a gig, saying flatly that Dylan was not fit to carry Paul's guitar.

My own conversion to a Dylan fan happened, oddly enough, not before, but ~when~ he went electric. What went before had some really good songs ... but IMHHHO he only came into his own as a world-class performer when he had the electric backing and could work with it—one of his great less-noticed talents has been his restless creativity in welding a group of disparate musicians into a dazzling lever for innovation. And IMHHHO not until then were his creative talents fully developed.

Okay, fine, take a crack at me ... but you needed to be there as everything was changing to feel how powerful the resentment against Dylan was, Jan 1961-mid-1963, in the honest hearts of a number of musicians and audiences.

And I say this as an enthusiastic fan who loves the broad range of his life's work.

Bob

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Bob Coltman
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 09:31 AM

As to specifically why MacColl didn't like Dylan, put yourself in his shoes. He revered above all the great world of British balladry and song lore. He preferred singing unaccompanied much of the time.

The following is just an interpretation based on best guess. I did not know MacColl but I heard most of his traditional song recordings, solo and with A.L. Lloyd and others. This is how I think he must have been stricken, as many traditionalists were, by the Brave New World of folk rock represented by Dylan's rise.

The pure note of the old way of singing closed his mind to many kinds of innovation. Certainly he was far from ready to enjoy folk-rock as it thrashed through its growing pains. The style was too foreign, the instrument playing crude to his ears, he who at most favored the kinds of sensitive accompaniment—song always coming first, sound second—that Peggy Seeger could provide.

He seems to have been somewhat more liberal when dealing with song compositions, and he had an appreciation for what that sort of folk-based accompaniment can do. It has always surprised me that he wrote "The First Time Ever," which was so unlike his style. But even that departure, and others like "Dirty Old Town," were quiet and reflective. At most he could be strident in a good cause. But an innovation in sound was likely to turn him off.

I think people today who were born into a rock world, with all its assumptions about the variety of sound possible, and who haven't passed through that change, can have no idea what a catastrophic overturn it was. It is an imaginative feat to put yourself in a world without rock—without Dylan in fact, he was that revolutionary—that had no conception of what was coming.

It was like war, folks. And, as usual after a war, things settle down in the new orientation, and people coming later wonder what all the fuss was about.

I wish I could express it better, but there it is. Between the worlds of Ewan MacColl and Bob Dylan was a spread of light-years in comprehension. When the rest of us crossed that gulf, McColl's profoundly and admirably retro musical tastes, along with those of many others (just think of all the pop bandleaders!) were simply left behind.

In fairness, MacColl could and did change. I heard MacColl, Peggy Seeger and their son in concert late in his life, and with his son's driving guitar accompaniment MacColl, on some songs, appeared to be making an accommodation with the big new sound. Whether he was comfortable with it, or merely felt it necessary if he was to engage a contemporary audience, I don't know. In his own way he was an innovator; but no two people differ so clashingly as a couple of innovators in disparate styles.

Perhaps Peggy would have some useful insight on this.

Bob

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 09:45 AM

Excellent couple of posts, Bob.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 10:05 AM

To widen Bob's comments......Those of us who grew up in the UK in the 1960s probably remember the initial reaction of our parents to Dylan,The Beatles,The Rolling Stones et al.('call that music!?','Turn that infernal row off!' etc.etc.) In that sense, MacColl was a product of his generation. What really takes the biscuit though is the shere unadulterated arrogance in his remarks in the Melody Maker interview, at least in the remarks Robert Shelton quotes in his book. A trip to The British Library or The Public Records Office (for example) ought to reveal the interview (assuming that newspapers,periodicals etc were/are obliged to supply copies to such institutions).
       Come to think of it, MacColl must have been close to a coronary with the treatments Fairport,Steeleye,Lindisfarne,5 Hand Reel, etc.,etc.......gave to traditional numbers.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM

That was an absolutely great set of posts, Bob Coltman, the best explanation of what happened that I've heard yet. My initial reaction to Dylan's sound was very negative....and that was because I was a folk purist...wedded to the old sound, just like a lot of the other people in the folk audience who rejected the young Bob Dylan. He sounded too extreme to me...not like "folk music".

But I barely listened to him at all or even thought about him at that time...1961 to 1968, approximately.

I was listening, though, to all the other rising young folk stars such as Joan Baez, Peter/Paul/Mary, Simon & Garfunkel, Judy Collins, Buffy Sainte-Marie, Ian & Sylvia, Leonard Cohen (a bit later), Joni Mitchell (again, a bit later), all of them people who, unbeknownst to me, admired Dylan's work and were certainly influenced by it. (I don't know if Paul Simon admired Dylan...he made fun of him in one song...but I can't help thinking he was influenced by Dylan).

I also, funnily enough, liked the Dylan songs that Joan Baez had recorded better than anything else she was singing...and I was aware that Dylan had written those songs, so I decided that although I didn't want to hear him sing them, he was a really great songwriter. To that extent, I accepted him.

So here I was, this folk purist, hated the way Dylan sounded, but was very impressed by his songwriting. And I basically ignored his music until 1969....at which time I suddenly "got it"! (mainly because the one person in the world whose opinion I most respected at the time advised me to buy "Highway 61 Revisited" and actually listen to it all the way through at least 3 times.)

I listened to it once and was totally converted into a huge Dylan fan, and I agree with you that he "came into his own as a world-class performer when he had the electric backing and could work with it". That resulted in 3 incredible albums in '65 and '66 that will stand forever.

I also think, though, that his earlier acoustic work from the 2nd album on was often stunningly good and that it changed everything in modern folk music from that point on. He wrote the songs nobody else had written...and that (by his own testimony) is why he wrote them...because he simply couldn't find cover songs or trad songs that said what he personally wanted to say. He opened the door to everything that followed, not only in folk music, but in rock music too.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 12:37 PM

Come to think of it, MacColl must have been close to a coronary with the treatments Fairport,Steeleye,Lindisfarne,5 Hand Reel, etc.,etc.......gave to traditional numbers."
and rightly so, most of the time they were a waste of time,Steeleye [imo]were the best of a bad bunch,probably due to Martins influence,folk and rock[imo] just does not gel, it would be interesting to get some of Martins quotes and earlier opinions on Steeleye.
in fairness to Steeleye, I have heard many folk rock bands since, and they have all been pale imitations, that in comparison have faded into insignificance.
in my opinion, to make folk rock work the musicians need to have absorbed and been steeped in both folk and rock, very few musicians come into that category.
the same goes for musicians trying to blend folk and jazz, to be successful the musicians need to be steeped in both kinds of music, not many are

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 01:14 PM

"I think people today who were born into a rock world, with all its assumptions about the variety of sound possible, and who haven't passed through that change, can have no idea what a catastrophic overturn it was. It is an imaginative feat to put yourself in a world without rock—"

Yes, rock has become a dominant form which nearly eclipses all others within the 'popular' musical genres. I suspect that for many people, of the last few generations, who don't have specialised musical tastes, if it 'doesn't rock' it 'doesn't compute'.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 01:48 PM

I was initially utterly contemptuous of all rock music in all its popular forms, and I wouldn't listen to it. That was when I was a folk purist...between about 1960 and 1968. It was also, basically, when I was a teenager. I probably would have agreed wholeheartedly with MacColl's view of Dylan at that time.

In 1969 that all changed. In a process that took literally one DAY I came to totally appreciate Dylan's electric music, unite it firmly to my already existing love of traditional folk forms, and after that I loved both folk music AND good rock music (by "good", I mean with lyrics that are worth listening to). There's been quite a bit of good rock music by now, although how much of it gets on the radio? Well, a bit of it...amongst a sea of dross.

Is it a good thing to be narrow? I don't think so. That's why they call it "narrow-minded" when you are. I dropped my narrow-minded outer style-based folkie prejudices in 1969 and I increased my appreciation of popular music tenfold from that point on. Who do I thank for that? Bob Dylan. And the respected friend and teacher who advised me to listen carefully to him.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 02:12 PM

I always find myself ruefully amused, LH, to be told that people who don't particularly like rock music are "narrow-minded"! Surely rock is a limited, highly stylised form that has been heavily promoted over the last few decades. Personally, I think that people who are fixated on the rock form, and ignore most other musical genres, are the truly narrow-minded ones!

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Will Fly
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 02:43 PM

Surely rock is a limited, highly stylised form that has been heavily promoted over the last few decades.

Oh well, here we go: define "rock". No easier than defining "folk", is my guess.

No music is a "waste of time". Whether you like it or not is just personal taste. If it has validity for someone, it's not wasting their time. I like bits of Bob Dylan, Steeleye Span, Fairport Convention, Martin Carthy, Lindisfarne, Davy Graham, Bert Jansch, Dave Swarbrick, Anne Briggs, June Tabor, Cream, the McPeake Family... blah, blah, blah...

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 03:10 PM

I am not suggesting that "people who don't particularly like rock music are "narrow-minded", Shimrod. You misinterpret me. I don't expect everyone to like rock music any more than I expect everyone to like opera...or jazz...or folk music.

I was suggesting that people who have become deep enthusiasts of ONE particular style of music AND who automatically look down their patrician noses at virtually EVERY other style of music are narrow-minded.

I'm not suggesting you are such a person, so you need not take it personally.

I'm just explaining what I meant by the word "narrow-minded".

What I "always find myself ruefully amused by", Shimrod...is my own self as a younger person, utterly sure of his own tastes, who was a folk purist to the core, and who despised virtually all other forms of popular music, looked down his nose with disgust at any person or group who played rock music, country music, pop music, bluegrass or ANYTHING at all that I didn't rate as "folk music". I was inexperienced, narrow-minded, arrogant....and very young. I eventually grew up some. I started to appreicate music in many different genres...not all of them...but many.

My argument, Shimrod, is not some kind of attack on you or someone else here on this forum. It's my reaction and reflection upon my own youth, the youth that I left behind when I became a bit less narrow-minded. The only real enemy I will ever have in this life, Shimrod, is the negative voice inside ME. For about 10 years of my life it shut my ears to a whole bunch of very good music and fooled me into thinking I was more "special" than some other people because of that. That was a lie, but I didn't know it at the time.

Maybe that's why Dylan replied to the young man in England in 1966 who yelled at him "Judas!" (for playing electric music).....Dylan replied to him "I don't believe you. You're a liar!" He was right. That kid was a liar, but he just didn't know it at the time.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 03:28 PM

little hawk,you are suggesting that people who didnt like rock were narrow.
ISAID I DIDNT LIKE FOLK ROCK, that is not the same as saying i do not like rock, even if i didnt like rock that would not make me narrow, neither did i say i only liked folk.
if you like Dylan that is great,but dont expect everyone else to do so. as a matter of fact I like some of his songs but not others, Ithink he has written some good songs and also some crap, same as EWAN.
I would be more inclined to singing Ewans songs though probably mean more to me as a singer, you probably feel that way about Dylan, DOES THAT MAKE EITHER OF US NARROW. NO

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 03:28 PM

"folk and rock [imo] just does not gel"

Try this: Shelagh McDonald: The Dowie Dens of Yarrow

Enjoy!

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Acorn4
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 04:01 PM

I think the Oyster Band have probably consistently done the folk/rock thing the best, though I appreciate that many will not like their approach.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 06:22 PM

No, GSS I am NOT suggesting that people who "didnt like rock" were narrow. Not liking rock would merely be a matter of personal taste. Nor am I suggesting anything personal whatsoever about you in this or any other comment. Reread my previous post a lot slooooooower this time, think about what I actually said in it, and you may this time get what I was actually saying. It's all there in the previous post.

And it's summed up in this one short statement:

"I was suggesting that people who have become deep enthusiasts of (any) ONE particular style of music AND who automatically (therefore) look down their patrician (or otherwise) noses at virtually EVERY other style of music are narrow-minded."

I obviously wasn't saying that about YOU. Or Shimrod. I was saying it about myself at the age of, say, 16 years old. I was a musical snob who thought nothing was any "good" except folk music, and it had to be folk music that was sung a certain way too...Bob Dylan sure didn't sing it that way. I was verrrry particular.

I've seen a lot of 16-year-olds with that kind of snobby attitude about the music they liked. I've seen a few older people with it too. It's understandble in a 16-year-old.

Subject: RE: Why didn't MacColl like Dylan?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 06:34 PM

LH, I never take offence at anything that you write. Although, occasionally, I may not agree with some of your views or opinions, you are obviously a thoughtful and sensitive person and I have only respect for you.

I believe strongly that we should all be able to engage in vigorous debate, on this forum, without giving each other offence.

Having said that though, it does sometimes bring out my 'competitive' side and, well, nobody's perfect!