|
Subject: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Janice in NJ Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:22 PM Two weeks ago I spent an evening with a young (30-something) woman I met in Toronto. At the time she was struggling to learn Belle Starr, a Woody Guthrie song. She was working from a leadsheet and set of lyrics, and she was having a terrible time fitting each additional stanza to the melody. This young woman, by the way, was a professional back-up singer who had done a lot of studio work with pop singers, including some stars. As far as she was concerned, the only right way to learn a song is note for note, word from word from the printed page. Belle Starr is a song I have been performing for a long time. I possess two different printed versions, I've heard Guthrie's recording, and I've heard the Kossoy Sisters sing it in person. The last thing I could imagine would be doing the song exactly like any of those sources. That's because I never learn a song by memorizing exactly it from a song book, from a recording, or from a live performance. What I do is try to get the essence of the song -- the story line, the significant aspects of the text, including rhymes and key phrases, and an identifiable but rough approximation of the melody. Then I combine these to recreate the song every time I sing it. Now two performances are alike, and none matches anyone else's performance. Yet the song is clearly recognizable. In the case of Belle Starr, I edited out lots of words to make the text better fit the music, I rewrote the tune to better fit my vocal style, and I changed Woody's I-IV-V-I chord progression to I-IIm-V-I. So, what do my fellow Catters do? Memorize -- in other words replicate or reproduce -- or recreate? Maybe a bit of both? |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Beer Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:33 PM Not close to what you are doing, but the worst habit I ever got into was to start writing down the words instead of memorizing them. Beer |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Amos Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:34 PM The best recreation of a song is one that actually recreates the three-dimensional moment it is about. That's what I aim for; in the process, I sometimes butcher favorite "received versions" of others, either because my version came from somewhere else or because I have altered under my poetic A |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Russ Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:35 PM For music, I prefer to be on the preserver end of the spectrum rather than the creative end. When I am doing a song or tune that I have learned from a specific individual I want it sound like like original without sounding like an attempt to duplicate the original. Did that make sense? |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:58 PM All roads lead to Rome. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Alaska Mike Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:19 PM I learn all my songs exactly the way I wrote them. I never seem to remember to sing it the same way time after time though. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: mg Date: 31 Oct 05 - 11:24 PM I am more or less a preserver too at least philosophically...what I hate the most is when people change the gender of the singer for whatever reasons I presume make sense to them. I believe in keeping them as close to the original as I can although if things were truly offensive I would change that and if there are too many syllables to the rhythm I think that is always a good enough reason to change things...but we can rarely rarely improve on classics...mg |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Kaleea Date: 31 Oct 05 - 11:44 PM Ya just do what works for you! Everybody's different. When it comes to Music which I am given on a printed page, I memorize it from the page. For Music which I'm given or "find" by hearing-be it on an album or in a live performance, I learn it from hearing it. For lyrics not on printed Music, as opposed to a tune, I sing the words till I know em. On occasion, when the lyrics do not seem to make sense cronologically, I sometimes write them down, then sing them as I read them till I remember. I once tried to learn some session tunes by reading them (as given to me by someone who wrote them out) as I played, but it wasn't working, so I had to get out of the printed Music & just PLAY! |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Nov 05 - 12:27 AM I don't believe that you have to change the words or the melody to make a song your own. I can think of many examples where a song was done radically different, with almost exactly the same words and melody. This is particularly true in gospel music, but not limited to that. When I am learning a song, I only go back to a recording or the printed words to touch base with the original words and melody. At the same time, I don't set out to change words or melody. If there is a line here and there that I find awkward to sing, I may try to make it feel comfrotable for me, fitting it more smoothly with the rhythm and rhyme scheme. Sometimes, though, I like the awkwardness of older songs and feel that something would be lost, rewriting a line to make it "better." Or more comfortable. Most of all, I don't have any preconceived ideas about a song. I do honor the lyrics and melody though, for the most part. I figure that is a song has hung around in a particular form for longer than I have, it's for a reason. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Cluin Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:49 AM I often change things on the fly and might not do the same song the same way twice. It's gotta LIVE, man! |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:29 AM I sing songs from memory, and because of that I justify to myself making slight changes to the song (I could have misremembered it). I do acknowledge the author, but I would not knowingly sing their changed song in their presence without asking. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Mo the caller Date: 01 Nov 05 - 05:54 AM I'm not a singer myself (I just join in the chorus). Is it different when you are singing a traditional song which has been changed over the years or a "written " song with a known author. If I'm calling a dance I feel free to change it to suit the occasion but acknowledge that I've done so e.g. "there's an Irish version and an American version of this dance, this is my version" (I dont want to annoy anyone who already knows the dance)or I give it a new name - Geoff Todds "Katie Jane", simplified for drunken begginners becomes "Katie Jane's Chicken". I wouldn't change a complicated, modern "Danceer's" dance though, call it or leave it. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Paul Burke Date: 01 Nov 05 - 06:40 AM I'm not much of a singer, but I think you have to make the song yours before you can really sing it. That can mean anything from working out how it fits your voice, breathing etc. right through to changing whole verses where you disagree with the original, or feel it can be expressed better for you. There might be some difference if the audience is expecting you to give them a comfortably familiar version of a well known song, but I'll sing the Wild Rover, no never, no more. Or to make the language accessible to the hearers - for example, if I were singing to an American audience, I wouldn't load a song with Lancashire dialect that could be avoided, for example change "Hoo sez as hoo knows when hoo's hurt" to "she says that she knows when she hurts". |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Janice in NJ Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:03 AM Good points, Paul. If a song is a sing-along standard like Run Sinner Man or Puff the Magic Dragon, I will pretty much leave it alone. But overall I am a performer, not a preservationist. I change tunes and lyrics all the time, sometimes to fit my musical or literary voice, sometimes to elicit a particular response from my audience, sometimes just to discover what happens. Even when I intend to replicate a song as I heard it or read it, it doesn't always come out the same way. That's because, as I wrote at the beginning of this thread, I recreate a song each time I sing it. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Rapparee Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:39 AM I do both -- I can't very well sing it without knowing the words, even if I insert what I think I hear and that's not what was written (but I do have a pretty good ear). I will also write down the words if that seems the only way I can learn them -- not to memorize them from the paper, but it helps me learn them. Of course, being a trumpeter I don't sing and play at the same time very much.... |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Amos Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:45 AM Ya need to bring your other orifii into play, pal. A |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jeri Date: 01 Nov 05 - 10:17 AM I try to learn the song as accurately as I can from whatever source. I then sing it a bunch without listening or reading. My personal opinion, which is right, is that if you change bits of a song just to put your personal scent mark on it, it's evidence of an insecurity that often comes across to people as an ego problem. You don't need to change stuff on purpose. You're not making the song your bitch, you're seducing it. Sing it from the heart, sing it so it feels right, and you can't help but add your own personal touch. If you like it a certain way, do it that way. Just know that other people may 'own' the song you're singing just as much as you and your changes may be quite unexpected and jarring. People may think you changed something just to leave that scent trail I mentioned earlier, as in, "Hey, I whizzed on that third verse there - it's MINE!" No matter how much you think other people SHOULD accept what you do, if you want them to like what you're doing, think about whether they WILL accept it and like it. It's tough to gauge, and it's the difference between creative genious and arrogant asshole. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 01 Nov 05 - 10:36 AM I believe in doing whatever works for you. Sometimes that means I sing or play a song pretty much the way you learned it, other times I might go in for a pretty radical restructuring. Each song is its own case; I don't apply any rules to this. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:29 AM Just an observation. The term "memorize" is loaded with negative connotations for many people. It's very different than "learn." Just memorizing something sounds boring as hell, and brings back memories of having to memorize crap in school that you never ended up using. Memorizing seems to suggest just learning something by rote without internalizing or personalizing it. On the other hand, "learning" implies to me gaining an understanding, and appreciation for something. You can learn a traditional song, or song written more recently in such a way that it becomes "your" song, expressing your feelings, without changing a word. The reason why I love traditional music so much is not that it's musty, or outdated or needs rewriting. For me, a traditional song takes me back to a time and place I could never visit, and in learning it, I can experience the song very personally. An example: Spring of '65 I woke up one morning in the Spring of 65 I thought myself quite lucky to be found alive I geared up my mules, my business to pursue Instead of hauling four loads, I only hauled two I would have no clue as to how to rewrite that verse to make it more accessible to people. I also have no need to rewrite it. I have awakened many times in my life and thought I was quite lucky to be found alive. I've never geared up mules, but I've tackled my work for the day, feeling inadequate to the task. I've had days when I only hauled two loads, instead of four. I could go through each verse of the song and explain why I can identify with the singer and the setting, and I love it that I feel brought back to a more rural life, feeling the rhythm of the days. And I can relate to it, without wanting to change a word. For each of us, we can only speak for ourselves, no matter how objective we like to think we are. Simply speaking for myself, I enjoy "getting in" to a song, as it exists. If there is more than one version of the song, I may end up combining verses from different versions... a practice as old as the songs themselves. If others find more pleasure in changing songs, good for them. It just ain't me, Babe. But, that said, I learn songs. I don't memorize them. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: leftydee Date: 01 Nov 05 - 12:51 PM Folk music has a life and needs to be allowed to grow. That being said, I think there's always a need for preservation too. It's a roots v. flowers thing. You need both. I can't imagine that I'd prefer to hear the original version of, say,.... Black is the Colour of My True Love's Hair, not to say I wouldn't like to hear it at all,when I could hear Christy Moore's version instead. It, surely, is sweeter to my ear. I get a little miffed with Irish "purists" who ask for folk songs then are disapointed when they get a newer version than the Clancy Bros did. They don't really want the pure quill, they want the 1960's version. I always delight in playing some rebel tunes as jazz for the "That's not traditional" crowd. It puts them into orbit. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Val Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:20 PM "Back in the day" - when aural/oral tradition was the only way to record and preserve a song - I suspect that in some cultures there was a great importance placed on learning & repeating the song exactly. At least amongst those people who were entrusted with the task of preserving knowledge (Bards, skaalds, Christian monks, etc). Certainly the folk process was also at work cultures (or other segments of the same cultures), and there were a lot of entertainers (troubedors, minstrels, etc.) who regularly changed lyrics to match the current circumstances. For example, an itinerant singer might well alter a "standard" song to praise his current patron. The next month, as a guest at a different household, he might change it yet again to include the host's name & deeds. Now in our age of printed music & lyrics and sound recordings, both of these traditions are fading. We do not have the same cultural need for performers to preserve our heritage - that's done by computers these days. So there is not as much emphasis placed on learning a folk song note-for-note and word-for-word. By the same token, a recording of a song can become widespread and thus becomes thought of as the "right" way to perform it - and anyone who changes it is "doing it wrong". There's also the whole ugly issue of copyright and how much you need to change an arrangement of a public domain song to avoid infringing upon someone else's money - but I think that issue has been hashed out in other threads. As for me personally, I'm of the camp that you need to internalize a song & make it your own in terms of arrangement - as long as you're a soloist. Just realize that significant changes to melody and/or lyrics may throw other people off. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: DonMeixner Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:39 PM I learn a song as it was written. If it is a song with some age on it like The Golden Vanity I learn a version I like. As time goes along and I am singing the song the nuances that make a song sound like me begin to appear and after awhile they are always there. I can't imagine doing a song by just getting the flavor of it and then doing it out. Obviously my taste may be different. This is my prime bitch about a lot of rocked up trad tunes that are now the mainstays of the Celtic Rock trend going on. The melody to "Tell My Ma" is sparse enough but I usually hear it reduced to three notes and sung by a boozer with no voice to begin with. I think this shows a lack of respect for the song, lyrics and melody. This has nothing to do with arranging a piece of music to suit your style. I will English up a dialect to suit the needs of my audience. But I won't turn it into white bread either. Thats the job of Pat Boone. And I won't reduce a song to mono tones and a pulsing rhythym either. Thats just laziness. There is a fine line here where this conversation can go from constructive to a fist fight I imagine and I hope not to cross it. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Cluin Date: 01 Nov 05 - 02:14 PM Songs ain't written in stone. They're written in words, notes, sounds, syllables, phrases. It's easy to tell from a song when it has been painstakingly crafted, either lyrically or melodically, and it's kind of a sin to betray the composer's hard work and intention and mess with that. However, if the alternative is that the song is never heard... Trad stuff I have no qualms about hacking apart and throwing back together in a way that suits me--the folk process at work. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Peace Date: 01 Nov 05 - 02:48 PM Play it 'til I got it. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: leftydee Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:25 PM Don, Don't misunderstand me. I don't cut and paste, chop and sift a song just to make it different. There is plenty of that stuff going on and generally it's kind of lame. I try to make any song I do the very best I can perform it. Sometimes this takes me down unexpected paths. I do this with all due respect to the writer but with the freedom to give my own interpretation. When doing "Bold Fenian Men" as a jazz piece, I think I'm honoring the writer by making it the best I (with limited gifts)can make it. There are other tunes that I do as I first heard them because, once again, it's the best I can do. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:29 PM I'm with Jeri, Don and Mary on this one. You have to understand what you're dealing with before you interfere with it on purpose. Never forget that the song is more important than the performer. As for deliberately "hacking apart and throwing back together" a traditional song: that isn't the much misunderstood "folk process". It's the self-conscious editorial re-making of traditional material to suit prejudice or preconception that the early 20th century collectors and publishers like Cecil Sharp and Sabine Baring-Gould are so often attacked for. It smacks of arrogance and, all too often, ignorance. Re-interpretation and mis-interpretation are not the same thing; nor are they of equal value. It is equally unwise to confuse the natural process of evolution, with all its inevitable dead-ends (the "folk process", if you will), with deliberate genetic manipulation; which tends to produce unnatural results, even if (because consciously manipulated) they may appear superior at first sight. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Amos Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:03 PM Oh, well said, Malcolm. A |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Janice in NJ Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:52 PM Malcolm, you may be with Jeri, Don, and Mary on this one, but I'm with Blind Lemon Jefferson, Leadbelly, Woody Guthrie, and a host of others from the American folk tradition who kept recreating songs throughout their musical lives. Look at what Leadbelly did with The Maid Freed from the Gallows, or what Woody did with The Gypsy Davy, or with Lonesome Valley, for that matter. In each case the text and the tune are recognizable, but the song as a whole is as much a creation of Mr. Ledbetter or Mr. Guthrie, respectively. Now jump forward to the early 1960s and see what Bob Dylan did with In My Time of Dying, with Man of Constant Sorrow, and with Gospel Plow. Really something fantastic, as far as I'm concerned. Preservation has its place, but it's primarily someone else's concern, not my own. As I wrote earlier, I learn a song by learning the story, the major aspects of the text, and a recognizable approximation of the melody. Then I combine those elements to recreate the song anew each time. That's my way, no better and no worse that your way, just different. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: EBarnacle Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:09 AM What you do with a song depends on what you see it as. If you see "Sammy's Bar" as a Cyril Tawney piece, you sing it the way he wrote it. If you see it as his maritime interpretation of the genre of "St. James Infirmary," you might fiddle the words a little to meet your own needs. It's called the folk process. As long as you credit the originator and say it's your interpretation, no one can really fault you. If the piece is trad, you have even more latitude. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:18 AM It's a long way to the shop when you want a sausage roll. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 02 Nov 05 - 08:34 AM I would not agree that the song is necessarily more important than the performer. I think it's all about communication, and sometimes the performer can more effectively communicate his vision by taking liberties with the song as it was given to him. Jazz is a good point of reference for this. To take a well-known example, when Coltrane performed My Favorite Things -- a lightweight ditty from a lightweight musical -- which was more important: the song or the performer? How about when Monk performed April In Paris?Or when Robert Johnson performed some of his cobbled-together blues, using assorted verses from other, older songs, was it the song that mattered most, or the expressiveness of the performer? In my opinion, there is no need to construct barriers to creativity. If a particular performer chooses to express his vision by radically revamping a traditional tune, why would I discourage him? |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:01 AM In today's world there are many ways to "preserve" a song. There is written music that allows one to recreate the song note for note, word for word. Of course, nuance is sometimes lost in this process. There are tones and timing that are not easily translated to paper and are lost in the act of notation. There are all of the recorded formats: CD's, tapes, MP3's and all of the rest. There can recreate the actual performance. Of course, performance's can vary greatly over time, so what has been recorded is just one performance and can miss what has been performed at other times. If you perform with music in front of you, you are more likely to preserve the tune. If, like me, you learn from other's performances (often in the recorded form), the song is likely to grow and evolve (or devolve) the longer you perform it. I have returned to the "original" versions of songs I perform and found that I have made substantial unconscious changes in words and melody. But I have also made conscious changes in songs. Sometimes because the song speaks to me to make the changes. Other times it's to make the song "performable" for me due to my limitations. When Janice in NJ talks about Guthrie and Lead Belly I have to think that the change process was more conscious. When I look at different versions of Child ballads, I tend to think the changes were of the unconscious sort we call "folk process". However, it is just as possible that the changes undergone by these ballads were the result of conscious decisions. I think there are many ways to "honor" a song. That's what I try to do when I perform a song. I think that is what the "preservationists" are doing as well. Neither is good or bad, but I thinking makes it so. Roger in Baltimore |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Charley Noble Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:25 AM Janice- You do what you do, but you've asked for feedback. My process of learning a new song is to gather all the information I can about it: the lyrics, the melody, what inspired it. I then try to sing it in its original form and after some time I usually find myself altering a word or a line because it sounds better to me or makes more sense, and the same with the music. But I know where I began, and I think that implies a level of respect for the source of the song. I tend to sing traditional songs the way I first heard them, although in that case the different versions one later becomes aware of can provide a lot of choice with regard to which verses or melody to use. And I've even been known to fill in "missing verses." Newer songs I'm less likely to change, other than the minor changes needed to lead it at all. If I'm adapting a poem for singing, I am much more likely to radically edit the original so that it makes in my opinion a better song. However, it doesn't surprise me when I find other people taking my "finished song" and processing it further. And I'd generally be very pleased if some form of that song survived generations of processing and was later collecred as "traditional." So where do we get one of your CD's to listen to, and reprocess! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: DonMeixner Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:40 AM Hi Leftydee, I imagine we are of a similar weave. You haven't said anything that I disagree with. One St. Patrick's Day I was nearly lynched for doing "Danny Boy" as a Bluegrassish tune. No because I felt that was the best way to do the tune. But because I could and it was a little different. And it was great fun watching the crowd. Topical songs tend to evolve over time. New verses are added because the need is there. Topical songs of the 18th century seem to show up again as a piece done again because something current is so similar to the song the irony can't be missed. Mark Twain said it for me, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." (or words to that effect) Don |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jeri Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM Janice, you may have misunderstood what I said. I don't believe in re-creation. A huge reason people refuse to sing in public is that they 'can't sing like...' If a song is worth singing, it's worth caring about. If it's worth caring about, you're gonna get a little of the song on you, and the song's gonna get a little of you stuck to it. I don't have a problem with gentle, natural changes. I have a problem with intentional, wrenching changes. You ever know a song well and try to sing on the chorus with someone who's tweaked the holy hell out of a song for no apparent reason other than to change it? I don't have a problem with someone creating a new version of a song, whether it's Leadbelly, Woody, Dylan or Bob Coltman. I have a problem with someone offering next to nothing in the way of creativity and shoving in a few indelicate changes in an effort to dominate and subdue a song. That's likely not what they intended, but that's how it feels to me. And maybe in the end, all it comes down to is the grace and respect with which changes are made. Oh, and talent -- the big thing no one's mentioned yet. If the changes suck, I won't enjoy them. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: MMario Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:11 AM You ever know a song well and try to sing on the chorus with someone who's tweaked the holy hell out of a song for no apparent reason other than to change it? AMEN to that! I have one acquaintence who does that to virtually every song - and she will use *her* version to accompany you when you are singing which makes it seem like YOU are off... Now I am guilty of changing songs - not always consciously (sorry Don, Jeri, and others) though sometimes consciously (Sorry Mike) but when singing with others I try to conform to a "standard" version - or adjust to the version of whoever is leading. I get tripped up a lot of times because sometimes even though the lyrics and melody are the same different groups do songs with very different tempos and/or interpretations. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Paul Burke Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:28 AM Standard versions!!!! The only standard is that there IS no standard. I remember Derek Eliot getting very annoyed at a folk club in Sheffield once. He sang "Here's adieu to old England", and everyone joined in the chorus- Martin Carthy's version of the chorus, not his. We were guilty of NOT LISTENING. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:52 AM I find myself in a rather humorous situation in this thread being a songwriter who apparently is one of the few who finds great value in presenting traditional music with real appeciation for the original versions. Many songs have multiple "versions" and that's fine. But, I like to retain the language of the orginal because to me, words are at the heart of the whole feel of the song. Some songs are so deeply rooted in time and place that wholesale changes to the song would destroy it for me. While we're at it, why not rewrite Twain or Melville, or Frost? There are many reasons why people sing. One of them is to make a song their personal expression. That's a valid reason, but it's just one. My great love of traditional music is because it is not about me. It's not about how I feel, or think. It's a window into someone else's world and I love it for that. Traditional music brings other cultures alive in a way that a book or poetry can't. So come on... where are you Art? Where are those who treasure traditional music as a passport to another time and place? Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,John Hernandez Date: 02 Nov 05 - 04:02 PM Unless I am mistaken, I believe Janice is asking the most fundamental question about how we learn songs. That is, do we learn them as precision made entities, either from the printed page or from another performer? Or do we learn them in a more impressionistic manner, in which we learn the boundaries but reconstruct the details within those boundaries? This is a different question than of that of consciously altering a song's music or lyrics. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: MMario Date: 02 Nov 05 - 04:04 PM Jerry says: why not rewrite Twain or Melville, or Frost - well Jerry - some people do that, and even more mis-quote. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,mg Date: 02 Nov 05 - 04:31 PM It just hurts my ears to think of Danny Boy, especially on St. Patrick's day, or what was it?? Bold Fenian Men, severely altered like that. I think you have a right to do it, but especially Danny Boy..that is almost religious..it is like doing Silent Night to bluegrass on Christmas Eve..someone somewhere would like it to be sure and it might make the singer feel good about something..his or her cleverness perhaps...but it is trampling on iconic songs for no particularly good reason that I can understand....if it is a not so great song (in my opinion a bluegrass version absolutely saved "How can I keep from singing" but then others would disagree and say how could they? "" If the audience came to hear their traditional songs, as I presume they would on St. Patrick's Day, and they have to listen to them being ridiculed anyway in places like Mudcat...and then they hear it down way differently...it is not a good feeling...not that you can't do it but what is the point on a very significant day with very significant songs for many people of my persuasion...And that is a song as a woman I won't even sing because I always heard that women were not supposed to sing it...not a tradition, rule, whatever that I plan to break. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: DonMeixner Date: 02 Nov 05 - 05:15 PM Yeah MG, It hurt a lot of ears. But I was young, dumb, and without a lick of commonsense at the time. Luckily those Auburn, NY Hibernians have forgiven me and gotten over it and have hired me many, many times since then. MMario, are you accusing me of misquoting Mark Twain? Gasp! Can it be I am mistook? Jerry there is no one I know who is as respectful of tradition as I am when it comes to performing folk songs. There are surely few better windows into the past than the songs and stories as sung by our ancestors. There are histories we would have lost were it not for our oral and aural traditions. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Alaska Mike Date: 02 Nov 05 - 08:50 PM No need to apologize to me Mmario. Anybody who wants to sing my songs is welcome to change them as they see fit. In fact, most of the folks who are singing one or more of my songs have already changed some of the lyrics and tweaked the melody a bit. Its totally fine with me. I'm just thrilled that they thought so much of my creations that they wanted to include them in their performance. Whoever says you can only sing a song a certain way is missing out on a whole lot of inventiveness and joy. Granted, sometimes the changes will suck, but that's the creative process. Don't dig yourself such a deep rut that you can't, ocasionally, break free of and try something new. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Peace Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:09 PM I can recall doing Dylan's "North Country". Loved the song. (Yes, I'm aware it is not the traditional song on which he based HIS song.) After a while I went (G modal) If you're travelling in the (F add G) north country (G modal) fair (C) Where the winds hit (G modal) heavy on the (C) border (D) line, etc. Got so I liked doing the song that way and it worked for me. It didn't 'hurt' the song in any manner. That is the key for me. Stay true to the intent of the writer, and if a few things get changed along the way, welcome to the 'folk tradition'. However, I have great respect for traditional tunes/words, and I have done some where I stay with the original all the way. I have never changed a song just to change it. A fellow recorded a song I wrote more years ago than I care to think about. He changed a few things. Frankly, I prefer what he did to what I did. Some things on Earth have to remain Holy. Barbara Ann (by the Beach Boys) is one of those things. I was aghast to see that some Madison Avenue type had taken the song and changed the words so's to sell Barbeque Sauce. That was disgusting. Change just to change things doesn't mean it's a step 'up'. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Peace Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:18 PM Sorry. That should read "Girl From the North Country". |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:41 PM Once again, I think this thread is comparing apples to orangutans. I don't think anyone would feel that it is sacriligeous to change a word here and there, change a chord progression or the rhythm of a song. I've done it with traditional songs myself, and friends have changed rhythms and chord progressions on songs that I've written. A friend of mine even wrote an additional verse to one of my songs. All that I asked was that they acknowledge that they'd added a verse (and tell them which one, as in that particular case, I thought the verse didn't add anything to the song.) On the other hand, I would hope that if people change a song that's been around in a fairly consistent form for many years, they'd do it with care. I've seen all extremes over the years... performers who are musty caretakers with all the personal charisma of an undertaker, studiously presenting songs in such a way that I wish they were dead and buried (the songs, that is... not the performers.) I've also seen one inch shallow rewrites of songs with very little understanding of the original song, and no respect for its history. Some songs not only don't need to be changed (in my not particularly humble opinion,) but would lose something if they were. Those are songs that speak plainly about a past time in a way that defies rewriting. An example: We Are Anchored By The Roadside, Jim We are anchored by the roadside, Jim As we've oft-times been before When you and I were weary from sacking on the shore The moon shone down in splendor, Jim, it shone on you and I And the little stars were shining, when we drank the old jug dry But that was in those good old days, those good old days of yore When Murphy run the tavern, and Burnsy run the store When whiskey flowed as free brave boys as waters in the brook And the boys all for their stomache aches, their morning bitters took But times they have now altered, Jim, and men have altered too Some have undertaken for to put Rum Sellers through For they say that whiskey's poison, Jim and scores of graves has dug Ten thousand snakes and devils have been seen in our old jug But never mind such prattle, Jim, though some of it may be true We'll lie where we're a mind to, together me and you For the drink they call cold water, won't do for you nor I And we'll haul the cork at leisure, and we'll drink the old jug dry MAN, that song never ceases to get me! I can walk right in to it. There may be variants on the song, and I may not remember every word exactly as it was recorded, but I love the song. If I felt the desire to change a word or two, I'd do it with some respect. But when I sing it, it isn't any musty Museum piece. I don't sing it to preserve it. It helps preserve me. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Peace Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:50 PM "I don't sing it to preserve it. It helps preserve me." That statement may be one of the more profound things I have read on the Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,leftydee Date: 02 Nov 05 - 11:05 PM Don Meixner, Hearing a bluegrass "Danny Boy" would do my heart good. My litttle band does "Boys of the Old Brigade" as a bluegrass tune, and boy, it sounds sweet. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 02 Nov 05 - 11:33 PM two performances are alike, and none matches anyone else's performance
A most common "coincidence" when both performers, lacking in training, talent, practice.... SUCK!!!
The most effective "cure for suction/vacume/empty-holes" in schedules is to fill in the program with a "utility performer" someone that is professional, FLEXIBLE, and ENJOYS the audience (for "them" it ain't just a gig.)
Outside "The Circle" the other "guest" performers are experiments....anyone, in "The Circle" can and WILL fill in at a moment's notice. Outside "The Ciricle" live creatures of the unknowsn, (ICE, Meths, H, are NOT flexible - they know "their grove" and anything outhside the scheduled hours creates stress and DRAMA.It is a form of drama no mama want's her child to witness.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: M.Ted Date: 03 Nov 05 - 12:24 PM It's the whiskey, Jerry, and not the song that preserves you--as to the song, how know you what the "original" or authentic version sounded like? |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 03 Nov 05 - 12:50 PM No one knows what the "original" version was like, M. Ted. But, in many songs, I see no reason to put my own "spin" on an old song, or rewrite it to make it "better." And yes, songs do preserve me. Music preserves me. It helps to keep me grounded, it reminds me of all that I have to be thankful for, it helps me to see the humor in difficult times, and it can help to restore my faith in people. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Peace Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:12 PM It still hasn't taught you to spell humour. Alas . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:44 PM Many of the songs I found and chose to sing over the years were the ballads like "Belle Starr"--ie. "East Texas Red"---"the Hobos Last Ride"---"The Pokegama Bear"---"Billy Vanero"---"The Death Of Robin Hood", etc.. Sometimes a word or two would get dropped in favor of making it scan better in any given performance of a song, or possibly, I just needed to take a breath, or an extra breath in a given place in a song. Those moments would change my performances of a song so that I never, or rarely, did songs the same way twice. Extra instrumental bits in between lines or verses were often ways that songs got changed, and I could always use that ploy as a way to take the extra breath and/or make an unruly line "fit". Therefore, I was always recreating songs on the fly!! Whatever, do it your way----and it will come out feeling right for both you and the audience. That's a big reason why I was always a solo performer. It's easier to be individual and personally eratic outside the confines of a group. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:53 PM Jerry, I always felt that you ALWAYS recreated the song to fit your different drummer---if ya know what I mean. Your temos were usually quite q bit different, even when you tried to slavishly recreate a performance. That was how you MADE your own personal musical cliches. And those personal cliches, along with what you bring in from mentors and favorite performers you strive to emulate, those taken altogether, are where what others think of as our personal styles come from. That's just how it looks to me from here. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 03 Nov 05 - 03:14 PM Gee, Peace, my Websters Dictionary spells it "humor." Maybe they spell it humour in Canada. I've always been lousy with foreign languages. Hey, Art; The problem with communicating is that we have to use words. In the context of this thread, the emphasis has seemed to be on rewriting songs. I do believe that we all make the songs our own, in one way or another. It happens through time. But, it happens for me (and you I think) in a more organic way... as we live with a song, and are playful as we play it, we find ways that we change a line, or a chord progression or a rhythm. I have never tried to imitate anyone else, and I don't believe that you have either. I have never had the desire, patience or gift to sit down in front of a machine and try to reproduce a song the way it was recorded. But, I think that there is an essence to a song that you assimilate through time as you let it become a part of you. It's not as much a conscious decision to rewrite a song as it is to put on the song and let it fit you. Somewhere in all these words, I'm trying to express my appreciation and respect for the old songs. If I make them mine by changing the accompaniment, shortening a line (in order to be able to get it out)and combining verses from more than one version, it's still the same song in my mind and heart... like your old rifle that you've had for years, even though you've replaced the lock, stock and barrel. I know your love for the old songs even exceeds mine, Art. While they may evolve in the way that we perform them, we want to carry them on. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Ebbie Date: 03 Nov 05 - 06:52 PM At the Getaway I frequently noticed that the (singing) audience muted their input until the lead singer's phrasing became clear. (I am in awe of FSGW and the Mudcatters in those audiences.) With my singing partner, I frequently alter phrasing that strikes me as awkward or silly. I know a woman (Heavens forbid- NOT KT!) who sings 'comfort' in 'How Can I keep from Singing' as 'com FORT'. Now, tell me that ain't silly. Same reasoning with 'Tennessee Waltz'. I sing 'beautiful' as one recognizable word by holding the space after it just a tad longer. I don't like the oft heard, plodding 'bee yew tee full'. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 03 Nov 05 - 08:05 PM Darn, Ebbie: I agree with you. I think people who say Bee You Tee Full are downright Ugghh a Lee! Jerr-ee |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Ebbie Date: 03 Nov 05 - 08:37 PM hahah I agee! |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 04 Nov 05 - 08:21 AM "That's a big reason why I was always a solo performer. It's easier to be individual and personally eratic outside the confines of a group." Great point, Art. That's one of the reasons I love performing solo; it allows me to give my quirks free rein. Jerry, I think that songs can change naturally or "organically," as you describe, and that's a great thing. I also think it's perfectly legitimate for the change to occur deliberately. I sometimes really enjoy putting songs through a radical restructuring; words and music are both fair game, in my book. It doesn't necessarily make my version better or worse than the original, but it does sometimes allow me to make a deeper personal connection with the song. And I figure it's those deep personal connections that allow us to realize the full meaning of music. In the end, though, we all have our own approaches to this, and I'm happy we do. |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 Nov 05 - 09:48 AM I'm wih you, whistlestop. While I care deeply about the old songs and approach them in the way that is most meaningful for me, everyone pursues them in their own way. I love the songs, but they are not sacred to me. I really liked what Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps did with Frankie & Johnnie many years ago. It rocked out, but it was still Frankie & Johnnie. In my mind, you've made the ultimate distinction in approaching old songs... do them in a way that allows you to "make a deeper personal connection with the song." If you sing the song exactly as it was recorded, imitating the vocal timbre and dialect of the musician, let me know when you're finished so I can come back in the room. If you change a song beyond recognition, I'll approach it for what it has become. Just make some acknowledgement that it's an old song, and that you've changed it to make it your own. Dang, think I'll sit down right now and rewrite Barbara Allen and make it Bobby Joe Allen with a rousing chorus to sing in a bar! Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Recreating versus memorizing a song From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 04 Nov 05 - 12:02 PM In 1962 a friend and I were traversing the USA for the first time when we met Del Bray in a bar across from our hotel room near the old train station in Cheyenne, Wyoming. I had my guitar with me and was looking for folk songs. We decided to buy a 6-pack and swap some songs in the hotel room because the bar's juke box was just too loud to compete with. Del Bray was a retired beat up old cowboy. I mentionmed that I was looking for the old story songs---and he sang his "Cowboys's Barbara Allen" for us. I wrote it down the best I could on a found piece of paper and stashed it in my duffle bag. I never found out from Del Bray where he got his song. He might've written it. He went home that night, and we headed to San Francisco and Mexico City. I put the song to what I remembered as the tune he used---but who knows? It could well be a mixture of tunes I'd heard the ballad "Barbara Allen" sung to. BUT Del's song was definitely a cowboy version of the ballad. It's in the DT. The first verse hooked me in---and I was blown away by it even though I was really quite young---just 20 years old. Near Medicine Bow where I was born, There was a fair maid dwellin', Made all the boys ride saddle sore, And her name was Barbara Allen. In 1976 or so I put Del's song on my first LP----Kicking Mule Records KM-150. Fantasy Records owns the entire Kicking Mule record label now, and they've shown no signs of putting it out until I pass on or whatever. SOOOO, I included a different performance of the ballad on my 1998 CD called "The Older I Get, The Better I Was" for Waterbug Records. www.waterbug.com Possibly Del Bray re-wrote the old song to fit his life and what he knew. The Library Of Congress Archive Of Folk Song issued a whole LP of various collected versions of "Barbara Allen"--many different sets of words and different tunes. Samuel Pepys said in his diary that he'd heard B.A. sung in London --- in 1666. And here was Del doing it for us in Cheyenne almost three hundred years later. Folks forgot words and tunes and patched it together as best as they could. Why? Because they liked the tale about two young lovers and their failure to honestly communicate their emotions and feelings---and the sad repercussions that led to. The lesson, I guess, was to not be like them! Recreating and memorizing has a real part to play in the process called the oral tradition. Now it is an "electronic oral tradition" --- with recordings, of all types, greasing the interaction --- like K.Y. jelly ! And always remember, as I'm fond of saying, "When your memory goes, forget it." Art Thieme |
| Share Thread: |
