Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)

Subject: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Maid in Cyberspace
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:10 AM

Hey--What's the origin of this song? It's an interesting song, and I'm curious if it ever really happened.
MIC

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:55 AM

This song?
(Link to a website giving tribute to the talent of Nic Jones).
Quack!
GtD.

THE GOLDEN GLOVE (Dog and Gun)

Oh it's of a young squire in Tamworth we hear
And he courted a nobleman's daughter so fair
For to marry her it was his intent
And the friends and relations had given their consent

Now a date was appointed for their wedding day
And the farmer he was appointed to give her away
But as soon as the lady this farmer did spy
Her heart was inflamed and bitterly she did cry

And she turned from the squire but nothing she said
But instead of getting married she took to her bed
And the thoughts of the farmer so ran in her mind
A way for to have him she quickly did find

Coat waistcoat and trousers the young girl put on
And away she went a-hunting with her dog and her gun
And she hunted around where the farmer he did dwell
Because in her heart oh she loved him so well

And she oftentimes fired but nothing she killed
Until this young farmer came into the field
And to talk with him it was her intent
With her dog and her gun then to meet him she went

Oh I thought you would be at the wedding she cried
To wait on the squire and to give him his bride
Oh no said the farmer I'll take a sword in my hand
By honor I'd gain her whenever she command

And the lady was pleased when she heard him so bold
And she gave him a glove that was made out of gold
And she told him that she found it (as?) she was coming along
As she went out a-hunting with her dog and her gun

And this lady went home with a heart full of love
And she gave out a notice that she'd lost her glove
And whoever found it and he brings it to me
Whoever he is then my husband shall be

The farmer he was pleased when he heard of the news
And with a heart full of love to the lady he goes
Oh lady oh lady I've picked up your glove
And I hope that you'll be pleased for to grant me some love

Oh it's already granted (and?) I will be your bride
For I love the sweet breath of the farmer she cried
I'll be mistress of your dairy and I'll milk all your cows
While me jolly old farmer goes whistling on his plow

And its when they got married and they told of the fun
How she'd gone out a-hunting with her dog and her gun


This charming tale of transvestitism can be found in a few folk books in various versions. I have no idea where Nic Jones' particular version comes from (which is on The Noah's Ark Trap - an album title I wondered about until he told me it was the name of a chess opening) and I found a similar version in my favorite folk resource, a huge compendium called American Folk Poetry by Duncan Emrich. Unlike most of the songs on the record, no one dies (even though the protagonist is waving a gun around, the song makes it clear that she didn't hit anything) though you have to feel sorry for the jilted squire, left standing at the altar in verse three while the rest of the story unfolds.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:32 AM

John Spiers and Jon Boden in the sleevenotes to Through & Through give a possible link to Lord of Misrule custom:
Golden Glove (but you have to click on Album Sleevenotes on the main site and go to the album title then the song as the pages are not individually bookmarkable.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GEST
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:18 AM

There is some interesting data on origin with source references at http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/17/golden.htm - a page at GEST Songs Of Newfoundland And Labrador. :-)

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,J C
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:48 PM

This is the note to West Clare traditional singer Martin Howley's version on the CD 'Around The Hills of Clare
'Dating back to at least the beginning of the 18th century, though claimed to be much older, this is said to be based on an incident which occurred in England during the reign of Elizabeth I.
The reference in verse six of the farmer 'waiting on the squire and giving him his bride' refers to a marriage custom once popular in England where the bridegroom enters the church on the arm of a bridesmaid and the bride follows accompanied by the bridegroom's man, whose duty it is to give her away.

Other recordings:
Frank Hinchliffe; Up In The North And Down In The South;        Musical Traditions MT CD 311 - 2

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Maid in Cyberspace
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:04 PM

thank you

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:25 PM

I very much doubt any relation to 'Lord of Misrule' customs; the song isn't old enough for that. The suggestion that it related to an Elizabethan incident derives from Dixon, Songs of the Peasantry, 1846; but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the assertion he described as "traditionally reported" (by whom? he didn't say). He (or Robert Bell, who revised the book; offhand I'm not sure which) also asserted "It has been published in the broadside form from the commencement of the eighteenth century." For this, too, no evidence is provided, though it may well be true.

The song was very widely known, having been found in oral currency in most countries where English is spoken; most broadside printers seem to have issued it during the 19th century. I suppose it could date to the later 18th at any rate, but a superficial look around suggests that it is unlikely to be any older than that. If anyone has evidence to take it back further, that would be welcome.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:58 PM

Incidentally, the full notes for Around the Hills of Clare, mentioned above, can be seen at http://www.mustrad.org.uk/articles/clare.htm

Jim Carroll and Pat Mackenzie, who wrote the notes for that cd, evidently got their "information" on the song from Dixon-Bell, but failed to credit their source, instead representing an old, unproven, and unprovenanced, assertion as "fact". That sort of laziness is best avoided.

Another Musical Traditions cd (Up in the North, Down in the South) quotes the essentially same comments, but credits them properly; it also includes a useful reference to a text noted in the late 1770s.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 04:41 AM

"That sort of laziness is best avoided."
You must be a friend of the Musical Tradition's reviewers Wallis and Grommitt.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 05:13 AM

Ref to above
A quick shufti through my books uncovers other references to the custom in Robert Chambers, William Tegg, Charlotte Burne and William Hone; do you KNOW the information came from Dixon or is it just laziness on your part Malc?
Perhaps the authors should have abandoned the idea of writing song notes (just as the M.T. reviewer abandoned the idea of discussing the songs and singers on the Clare CD) - and concentrated on an essay on marriage customs instead.
I followed that nastiness with growing distaste - it still leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 10:23 PM

Dixon-Bell is the earliest source that I am aware of for the suggestion that the song derived from an "Elizabethan" incident; no evidence was given. Naturally I checked it before posting. Carroll and MacKenzie present their assertion as fact, while acknowledging no source of any kind for it. That is laziness by anybody's standards.

The question of marriage customs is another one entirely; I made no comment on that, as I had thought it common knowledge; though Carroll and MacKenzie perhaps ought to have cited sources. I can see that "Guest,Bemusedpunter" may have assumed that I was implying that Dixon-Bell contained comments on it. It does not. That misunderstanding would be my fault for not being more specific.

I do agree that the exchanges in re the review of Around the Hills of Clare became unnecessarily nasty. Much of the original criticism was deserved (though certainly not all of it) but Jim and Pat don't take criticism well in any case. On the whole, it is best to take such things with as good a grace as possible, while of course pointing out where such criticism is inaccurate or undeserved.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:35 AM

Re- Around The Hills of Clare review
"On the whole, it is best to take such things with as good a grace"

This would be true had the criticisms been honestly made.
Can one take seriously a reviewer who objects to the use of the term 'material' when refering to songs and stories after having used the term himself IN EXACTLY THE SAME CONTEXT no less than three times in the course of his review.
Similarly, an objection to the suggestion that television affected adversely the singing tradition might have rung more true had the reviewer not supported the idea himself in a previous review in fRoots.
His somewhat spectacular display of ignorance of the tradition, his inability to read album titles, to correctly identify singers and songs, his mistakenly identifying typos and missing reference numbers (oh - and his clinging to the Bishop of Derry's mother for support) all helped to turn the review into a shambles, and was recognised as such by those I have discussed it with.
His insulting some of the performers and virtually ignoring most of them was something I have never come across in my years of interest in traditional music.
As for 'taking such things in good grace' - did you know that he responded to his own pot boiler being described as a 'pot boiler' by threatening to come after those who had done so with a knuckle duster
(See Irtrad archive).
I am convinced that, on the strength of that review I would never have bought the album had I not been aware of some of the performers on it.
The only mystery for me in all this is why a publication as important as Musical Traditions should publish a piece that virtually ignored the singers under review and totally ignored the songs. It has certainly dented its own reputation - and not for the first time).
I note from a more recent reveiw he has written that the first reference was to the non-appearence of a work of his own, as if that had anything whatever to do with the work under scrutiny (a touch of self-promotion or what!).
By the way, you appear to be under the impression that the booklet was an in-depth study rather than brief song notes and general information. It was already four pages longer than booklets required by Musical Traditions - I was surprised that the editor didn't comment on the reviewer's sugestion that it could easily have been 100-plus pages long.
One reviewer in an Irish paper described the notes as having been 'forensically researched', but I suppose she must stand alongside Breandán Breathnach, Ríonach Uí Ogáin, the late Frank Harte and writers on Irish traditional music in general who were dismissed with the wave of the pen (hatchet?)
There again, us t'ick Paddies have always had to rely on the Brits for for our education.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Jon Boden
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 04:54 PM

Malcolm wrote:
'I very much doubt any relation to 'Lord of Misrule' customs; the song isn't old enough for that. '

The same could be said of the modern-day pantomime, but the link (with Lords of Misrule)is generally accepted.

Are we to assume that songs (and/or the themes they contain) are only as old as the oldest extant text?

Jon

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:41 PM

Not necessarily; but we can only go on the evidence we actually have. In this case, we have no examples from print, so far as can be told, prior to the early years of the 19th century; and no traditional examples that can be shown to pre-date the late 18th (and that only by implication: see, for example, Christie, Traditional Ballad Airs, II, 1881, 114-5).

At this point there is always the risk of running into the truism "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"; but all that means is that we can't say that the song isn't older than that; though there is no particular reason to think that it is. Jim Carroll and Pat Mackenzie suggest that it dates back "at least [to] the beginning of the 18th century", but offer no evidence (nor, so far as I can see, is any to be found elsewhere): their comment, therefore, has to be disregarded at least pro tem.

Dixon (I think it was him rather than Bell?) again presents no evidence or source for his suggestion (unlikely on the face of it) that the song is in some way based on an "Elizabethan" incident; though it's perfectly possible that there is more information to be found on that score and we just haven't got it yet.

Meanwhile, anything based on the possibility that the song is more than a couple of hundred years old can only be speculation. The same would apply to any "Lord of Misrule" connection, I think; not so much on the grounds of age, maybe (my earlier comment was perhaps misleading) as on the grounds of irrelevance. Disguise and cross-dressing are so common in broadside songs that I don't really think we need to look further for enlightenment. Certainly not so far as "pre-Christian mystical imagery"!

Your sleeve notes are good, incidentally: and especially "but that might just be wishful thinking on my part" (!) If only more people were that honest, we'd not have to spend so much time debunking so many modern myths. Traditional music has rather more than its fair share of those.

On the subject of the Carroll and Mackenzie / Wallis business, I must confess that, although I'd assumed that there must be a pre-existing dispute, I hadn't appreciated how Byzantine it actually was. I think I'd best avoid that particular subject in future...

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,bemusedpunter
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 06:23 AM

I thought you might- especially as you appear to be joined to your man by the hip - or something.
You realy should work on your writing style - it's very recognisable

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Jon Boden
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 10:32 AM

Hi Malcolm,

"Disguise and cross-dressing are so common in broadside songs that I don't really think we need to look further for enlightenment. Certainly not so far as "pre-Christian mystical imagery"! ..."

True but women (in such contexts) tend to cross-dress for a good reason (enlisting as a sailor, engaging in a bit of light armed-robbery etc.) The interesting thing about The Golden Glove is that the story is totally nonsensical. If her 'friends and relations' were not going to consent to her marrying the farmer, why would they consent to her marrying whoever happens to find her misplaced glove? Why does she need to dress up as a man (as opposed to any other disguise) in order to give the glove to the farmer? Why a glove anyway? Why not an expensive piece of jewelry?

The frisson of the song is about the subversion of sexual and social roles. Our heroine is casting off social obligations and assuming male power (of which the glove is a symbol) in order to acquire her man. (Interesting also that there is no father figure.) This is a text book sociological analysis of Lord of Misrule folk custom.

Not of course that I'm suggesting that the song had any direct involvement with the custom, just that they are/may be cognates of the same sociological trend.

"...Certainly not so far as "pre-Christian mystical imagery"! ..."

This (in my sleeve-notes) was referring to the golden glove itself, not the cross-dressing (although cross-dressing motifs are quite common in Old Norse sources.) I actually said 'magical imagery' not 'mystical imagery', which is a quite different thing.

It is just speculation, but then a golden glove is a fairly strange item to crop-up out of nowhere in a C19th text. It strikes me that if a 'golden glove' was mentioned in a folk-tale most people would automatically assume there was something magical about it.

In general it has surprised me how resistant the academic end of the folk-scene is to the idea of ancient thematic survival in modern traditional texts. I am no wishy-washy hippy, but it seems to me a fairly modest assumption that, in an aural culture, elements of aural tradition (folk-lore, superstition, fragments of ancient stories) should be absorbed into modern song forms, probably mostly in a sub-conscious form. We are very familiar we the notion of late C19th syntactical versions of C17th broadsides, why shouldn't C17th ballads be versions of C15th aural ballads and so on?

For example The Blacksmith seems to me to be closely linked to the Volundr/Weland legends. Again, just speculation, but then so is the view that they are not linked, yet this seems to be the default assumption of folk-academics. It is clear that the 'grey-cock' motif is a direct survival of pre-Christian belief, so why should any other survival seem so unlikely?

It seems a shame - both for the future of folk-academia (why isn't folk-song at least a option on university English Lit courses?!) but also just for the enjoyment of audiences. Certainly I don't think I would bother singing Golden Glove if I thought it was just a bit of nonsensical doggerel whimsy.

Jon

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Jon Boden
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 10:32 AM

Hi Malcolm,

"Disguise and cross-dressing are so common in broadside songs that I don't really think we need to look further for enlightenment. Certainly not so far as "pre-Christian mystical imagery"! ..."

True but women (in such contexts) tend to cross-dress for a good reason (enlisting as a sailor, engaging in a bit of light armed-robbery etc.) The interesting thing about The Golden Glove is that the story is totally nonsensical. If her 'friends and relations' were not going to consent to her marrying the farmer, why would they consent to her marrying whoever happens to find her misplaced glove? Why does she need to dress up as a man (as opposed to any other disguise) in order to give the glove to the farmer? Why a glove anyway? Why not an expensive piece of jewelry?

The frisson of the song is about the subversion of sexual and social roles. Our heroine is casting off social obligations and assuming male power (of which the glove is a symbol) in order to acquire her man. (Interesting also that there is no father figure.) This is a text book sociological analysis of Lord of Misrule folk custom.

Not of course that I'm suggesting that the song had any direct involvement with the custom, just that they are/may be cognates of the same sociological trend.

"...Certainly not so far as "pre-Christian mystical imagery"! ..."

This (in my sleeve-notes) was referring to the golden glove itself, not the cross-dressing (although cross-dressing motifs are quite common in Old Norse sources.) I actually said 'magical imagery' not 'mystical imagery', which is a quite different thing.

It is just speculation, but then a golden glove is a fairly strange item to crop-up out of nowhere in a C19th text. It strikes me that if a 'golden glove' was mentioned in a folk-tale most people would automatically assume there was something magical about it.

In general it has surprised me how resistant the academic end of the folk-scene is to the idea of ancient thematic survival in modern traditional texts. I am no wishy-washy hippy, but it seems to me a fairly modest assumption that, in an aural culture, elements of aural tradition (folk-lore, superstition, fragments of ancient stories) should be absorbed into modern song forms, probably mostly in a sub-conscious form. We are very familiar we the notion of late C19th syntactical versions of C17th broadsides, why shouldn't C17th ballads be versions of C15th aural ballads and so on?

For example The Blacksmith seems to me to be closely linked to the Volundr/Weland legends. Again, just speculation, but then so is the view that they are not linked, yet this seems to be the default assumption of folk-academics. It is clear that the 'grey-cock' motif is a direct survival of pre-Christian belief, so why should any other survival seem so unlikely?

It seems a shame - both for the future of folk-academia (why isn't folk-song at least a option on university English Lit courses?!) but also just for the enjoyment of audiences. Certainly I don't think I would bother singing Golden Glove if I thought it was just a bit of nonsensical doggerel whimsy.

Jon

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:07 PM

A little accuracy here wouldn't go too far amiss, a commodity that seems in pretty short supply when there are points to be scored.
Carroll and MacKenzie certainly did not present their 'Elizabethan incident' information reference as fact .
Their note reads "Dating back to at least the beginning of the 18th century, though said to be much older, this is REPUTED to be based on an incident which occurred in England during the reign of Elizabeth 1."
Dixon says "it has been published in the broadside form from the commencement of the 18th century, but is no doubt much older.
We could, of course dig him up and ask him where he got his information (and broadsides), but failing that, perhaps, unless information to the contrary is available, perhaps we might assume that he had done his homework.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:14 PM

Whoops - I've started, so I'll finish -
Whatever the truth of the matter it's all a far cry from the ludicrous suggestion in the Wallis review that the song was linked to a local incident in Thomastown, County Clare.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 05:37 PM

Yes, you're quite right that they only said "reputed". A mistake on my part there. Their other assertion is, however, presented as fact; and neither they nor Dixon provide any evidence for that; nor do they cite their source. If we are all going to be accurate, I should point out that Geoff Wallis doesn't suggest that the incident occurred in "Thomastown, Clare", which he goes on to say doesn't exist anyway (I don't know Clare, so I have no idea if that is true); just that some allusion to the location as given in the song might have been appropriate. Personally, I don't think it important; localisation (whether to real or generic places) is commonplace (though admittedly not that often with this song, which tends to stick mostly to Tamworth), and in any case nobody has ever, so far as I know, suggested that this is a song of Irish origin. That particular point made by the reviewer would seem to be no more than irrelevant hair-splitting.

Doubtless much of the review was of the same sort (I really don't want to have to read it all again), though it also contained many legitimate criticisms. I don't know any of the people involved in the original fracas (whatever "BemusedPunter" may think; I'm not sure what he or she meant by that reference earlier to prose style), beyond having exchanged the occasional email with Rod Stradling and Fred McCormick on unrelated subjects; nor have I seen the discussions that took place on the IRTRAD list, to which I don't subscribe, or participated -until this thread- in any discussion relating to the cd.

The whole thing seems to be an unedifying hornets' nest into which I have no desire to look any further. Perhaps we can now return to The Golden Glove.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 06:37 PM

Now, back to Jon's comments.

My understanding is that the academic default position nowadays would usually be a cautious one. Students of folksong in the early years of the 20th century were still heavily influenced by Fraser (for example) and very ready to read all manner of significance into the songs they discovered; commentary on such as The Streams of Lovely Nancy and The Bold Fisherman in the Journal of the Folk-Song Society became positively arcane. It's all thoroughly interesting, and of course there might be echoes in the former of a hymn to the Virgin Mary, or in the latter of Gnostic symbolism; but there are more obvious explanations, and I'd tend to place more trust in analysis that starts from the cultural context in which the songs were actually found. See, for a good example of that approach, Roger de V Renwick, English Folk Poetry (London: Batsford, 1980) chapter 1, 'The Bold Fisherman: Symbolism in English Traditional Folksong'. Renwick's take on the song is very different from Lucy Broadwood's, and, for me at least, far more convincing for concentrating on contextual evidence and involving no leaps of imagination.

Far less emphasis is placed nowadays on the question of antiquarian survivals; to an extent, perhaps, that's the result of the early folklorists having gone rather over the top in that direction. That doesn't mean that such things aren't there at all, but we are probably best off looking closer to home when seeking to understand folksong; much of the time that may tell us all we need to know.

I don't know whether or not The Golden Glove has ever been found as a folktale, or whether it may derive in part from one. It's perfectly possible; the broadside writers drew on any source that came to hand for their material. I wish that Dixon had said more about that alleged "Elizabethan incident". For what it's worth, there do seem to be a few variants on the Cinderella group of stories in which the lost shoe is replaced by a golden glove. Evidently John Clare knew one:

The golden glove wi fingers small
She lost while dancing in the hall
That was on every finger tryd
And fitted hers and none beside
When Cinderella soon as seen
Was woo'd and won and made a queen.

From The Shepherd's Calendar, quoted in Russell A. Peck's Cinderella Bibliography:

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/cinder/cin3.htm

Sorry for mis-quoting your "magical" as "mystical", incidentally. Although I doubt any magical undertone here, I daresay that -if John Clare's example was at all widespread- a glove in a story of this sort might reasonably be expected to be golden. We'd need to know a fair bit more about contemporary usage before we could do more than just guess, though. Barre Toelken has devoted a whole book to the examination of cultural context and assumptions in folksong: Morning Dew and Roses: Nuance, Metaphor, and Meaning in Folksongs (Urban and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995): although it concentrates on erotic imagery, the same principles are applicable to other areas.

On the subject of female cross-dressing in folksong (and, for that matter, in all sorts of literature) you'd find Dianne Dugaw's Warrior Women and Popular Balladry 1650 - 1850 (Cambridge University Press, 1989; since re-printed) very interesting if you haven't already read it. The context she details for the whole thing, though she doesn't deal with such songs as The Golden Glove or Sovay, is so extensive that I'm sure you'll see why I don't think that we need to go back to earlier "Lord of Misrule" customs in order to understand the appeal of this song: and, in some degree, the sociological resonances that it may have evoked or exploited.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Jon Boden
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 12:52 PM

Interesting stuff. Thanks for all the references Malcolm.

…I'd tend to place more trust in analysis that starts from the cultural context in which the songs were actually found. See, for a good example of that approach, Roger de V Renwick, English Folk Poetry (London: Batsford, 1980) chapter 1, 'The Bold Fisherman: Symbolism in English Traditional Folksong'. Renwick's take on the song is very different from Lucy Broadwood's, and, for me at least, far more convincing for concentrating on contextual evidence and involving no leaps of imagination….

I've had a quick skim (must get round to reading this book properly) and I agree that his analysis is a) interesting and b) based on solid analysis of C19th sexual repression. However he doesn't actually dismiss Broadwood's analysis and is quite open to the idea that the song my have had ancient origins, but had been adapted to the cultural concerns/interests of its hosts.

I'd have to admit to finding Broadwood's Bold Fisherman allegorical analysis pretty far-fetched, but this shouldn't undermine the broader principle at stake. A C19th church may have fragments of an Anglo-Saxon church in its fabric. That doesn't stop it being essentially a C19th church - it's quite likely that most people who have used that church since its construction were unaware of its pre-history. But one wouldn't dismiss an archaeologist interested in finding Anglo-Saxon remnants as a wishy-washy fantasist. Equally it might be of considerable interest to passers by to have the Anglo-Saxon remnants pointed out to them.

…I don't know whether or not The Golden Glove has ever been found as a folktale, or whether it may derive in part from one. It's perfectly possible; the broadside writers drew on any source that came to hand for their material. I wish that Dixon had said more about that alleged "Elizabethan incident". For what it's worth, there do seem to be a few variants on the Cinderella group of stories in which the lost shoe is replaced by a golden glove. Evidently John Clare knew one: …

This is really fascinating Malcolm – thank you for pointing it out. It occurs to me that the story of the Golden Glove is structurally very similar to Cinderella, only with the heroine actively placing the glass slipper in Prince Charming's hand. I'm not too hot on folk-tales. What would be the earliest written source for something like Cinderella?

…On the subject of female cross-dressing in folksong (and, for that matter, in all sorts of literature) you'd find Dianne Dugaw's Warrior Women and Popular Balladry 1650 - 1850 (Cambridge University Press, 1989; since re-printed) very interesting if you haven't already read it…

I haven't but look forward to having a look. Thankyou.

…The context she details for the whole thing, though she doesn't deal with such songs as The Golden Glove or Sovay, is so extensive that I'm sure you'll see why I don't think that we need to go back to earlier "Lord of Misrule" customs in order to understand the appeal of this song: and, in some degree, the sociological resonances that it may have evoked or exploited…

I'm sure you're right that we don't 'need' to – but surely the two areas of understanding are not mutually exclusive? One doesn't 'need' to read Holinshead to appreciate Shakespeare's Macbeth, but it doesn't hurt! It just seems a bit reductivist to almost go out of one's way to avoid a longer term historical / anthropological interpretation of folk-song. Yes the early folk-song scholars may have got a bit tied up in romanticism, but that doesn't mean that they were total loons and that the whole notion of thematic antiquity is worthless.

People are of course entitled to be interested/disinterested in whatever they please, but it just feels like the academic wing of the folk scene is fighting a 30 year-old battle which was basically won 20 years ago, and by doing so is perhaps marginalizing folk-song study from the mainstream of literary criticism. At least in England any way (look forward to reading Toelken though.)

Best Wishes,

Jon

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 02:24 PM

To Malcolm Douglas
Last word from me on the subject of the Wallis review; after all, you raised it in the first place, and are still prepared to continue with your somewhat hit-and-run comments, and pretty much in the same manner as the reviewer – hence my somewhat feeble joke about your writing style.
Despite the fact that I disagree with you totally about Wallis's review, may I express my heartfelt gratitude to you for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.
At the time of the review we were still trying to put right some of the damage done by McCormick's nastiness through his Mulqueen and Cronin efforts. Most of us here adopted the easy way out, kept our heads down and said to ourselves 'the Brits are at it again'.
We couldn't believe that anybody, for whatever reason – (who knows, Wallis might have wanted to join Fred's 'Big League!') would take some sort of satisfaction on the backs of traditional singers.
Even if Carroll and Mackenzie had made twice the number of mistakes that your man accused them of, surely the singers on the CDs deserved some acknowledgement, and maybe a comment or two about the songs wouldn't be out of place.
Those of us whose families have lived their lives with the consequences of mass emigration know damn well that the points that were made on the subject, if anything were understated.
As for the church's attitude to traditional music, five minutes conversation with an older musician would soon put Wallis right (despite his dismissive attitude towards the opinions of one of our great music researchers, Breandán Breathnach).
You will, I am sure, be aware of the damage done by McCormick, in making inaccessible the rest of the extremely important Cronin material. It is to be hoped that Carroll and Mackenzie don't adopt the same attitude towards their own collection, though I have to confess, were it me in their place I would think very seriously about putting anything I value within the not-so-tender clutches of the Musical Traditions reviewers (Wallis and Grommitt isn't a bad name for them.
Thanks to Musical Traditions' behaviour a new phrase has recently entered our vocabulary - people are referring to something having been MTd (vandalised).
Thanks again for raising the subjec and giving us a chance to set the record straight
Over and out

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

Since 'Guest' does not deign to identify himself, let me do so. He is Tom Munnelly and has been waging a vindictive campaign against anything published by Musical Traditions since Fred McCormick's review of the Cronin collection.

Take the time to read Fred's review at www.mustrad.org.uk and you'll discover a reviewer who was bending over backwards to express his appreciation of Mrs Cronin's singing - his critique was directed towards the book, not the singer.

I cannot make any positive comments about the singing of Ann Mulqueen, a showband singer who discovered sean-nos later in life, but didn't leave her previous vocal style behind.

As for 'Around the Hills of Clare', I stand by everything I wrote in my review. The booklet accompanying the CDs is the worst ever written on Irish traditional song by a long mark and is utterly riddled with errors.

I did make numerous favourable comments about the songs in my Musical Traditions review, a fact which seems to have escaped Tom Munnelly, who's reading between the lines as ever.

More importantly, the fact that Breathnach wrote something doesn't make it right and his comments regarding the Irish Catholic Church's attitude towards traditional music were way off the mark. Munnelly should consult historians on the matter.

Then Munnelly makes the ridiculous comment that Fred's review somehow made the rest of the Cronin material unobtainable. This is a ridiculous conceit - it was her grandson's inability to write lovingly and coherently about his grandmother which caused the problems - when a book on a singer doesn't include even a half-decent biography then something must be wrong.

As for 'Around the Hills of Clare', Pat Mackenzie and Jim Carroll should be congratulated for making their recordings available, but when it comes to writing about the singers' sources they have less than an inkling about not very much.

Geoff

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:47 PM

Sorry, wrong again – it seems to be a habit with this writer. In this case, wrong name, wrong part of the country and, as with the Nora Cleary/Siney Crotty foot in mouth, wrong gender.
I did hear Tom Munnely speak at Ballyliffin some years ago and am an admirer of his work, as the reviewer was at the outset of his review – interesting to watch his attitude change – a wonderful case of somebody who can't take what he dishes out. As for my being him – guess again (guess-who-I-am seems to be his favourite pastime).
If Wallis did attempt to comment on the songs or their performance, perhaps he could point those comments out – were the songs good or bad versions, full or fragmentary, were they well or badly sung – sorry, I must have overlooked those bits.
The singers were treated with contempt, the performances of a few of them were passed over with three or four word comments, but most of them were totally ignored. The only thing I learned from the review was that one of them sang like a woman. I'm sure the children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces would have been delighted to read this information, though they can take comfort from the thought that anybody who can't tell the difference between the singing of Siney Crotty (male) and Nora Cleary (female) is hardly qualified to say if somebody sounds like a man, woman or Siberian hamster.
Along with his friend (Grommitt seems to have caught on over here), Musical Traditions seems to have on board two very unpleasant individuals who are quite happy to promote themselves by denigrating the work of others supposedly with the same interest in traditional music. The editor seems to have been quite happy to stand silently by like an over-indulgent parent while his two unruly brats create havoc.
I have no axe to grind with Geoff Wallis – he seems to have his own problems – but I do find myself extremely disappointed that the otherwise excellent Musical Traditions should soil its hands on such behaviour.
You will understand, I hope, why I prefer to remain anonymous. I live in a small, rather quiet town; encouraging an irate hack armed with a knuckle duster into our community really wouldn't endear us to our neigbours. I've heard of vigorous journalism, but this is something I've never come across before
Wallis's review would have carried more weight if it had not been written in such and unpleasant manner, if it didn't contain so many inconsistencies and trivial points and if he had made the slightest effort to review the two CDs – he appeared not to be interested in that side of the job.
By the way – why did he object so vehemently to the use of a word he used himself on three occasions – I'll happily supply the references if he has forgotten them.

Love Mary – but you can call me Tom if it gives you any satisfaction

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:35 PM

I'm utterly bemused by this response, but note, once again, that its sender hides behind a cloak of anonymity. If you're so confident about your 'knowledge', then why not reveal your identity?

Whoever 'Mary' is, s/he clearly is suffering from some form of attention deficiency disorder and is also reading some review which is in her/his head rather than the one actually written.

At no point in my long and varied life have I ever confused the singing of Nora Cleary and Siney Crotty, but this eejit, 'Mary' is clearly in need of some form of psychiatric help which will probably bedevil health professionals for years.

As for the knuckle dusters, clearly irony has no place in the folklore of West Clare. 'Mary', it was meant to be taking the piss regarding Jim Carroll's well-known favour of fisticuffs.

Geoff

You can read more about this debate at http://www.tommunnellyisatwat.com.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 04:04 AM

Your reveiw cites Farewell To Miltown as being sung by Siney Crotty when clearly it was sung by Nora Cleary. Surely listening to the track under discussion would have told you it was a woman singing (and that the song you identified as being another was in fact a very slightly altered version of the same) These are just two of the errors you have so far failed to acknowlege in this unpleasant business, having picked your way systematically through the notes to Around the Hills of Clare in a desperate search for mistakes.
The response the authors made, which your editor, in true tabloid fashion refused to print, list more of your own foot-in-mouths and when the Tom Lenihan howler that you made in your 'Guide' was pointed out to you, your bluster was a sight to behold (still no response to your totally imagined Tom record title?)
You failed to explain why you objected to the adverse influence of television on the tradition when you had supported it in an earlier review. You fail now, as you did then, to explain why you objected to the use of a word you used yourself three times in your review. Both of these alone were enough to convince me of the dishonesty of your 'review'.   
You still refuse to explain why you virtually ignored the singers and totally ignored the songs you were supposed to be reviewing (once again, put up or go away)
I really am tired of armchair folklorists who have never emerged from the protective glow of their computer screens to carry out any real work, but attempt to make some sort of name for themselves by junking the efforts of those of us who have. Wasn't McCormick's 'Big League' phrase a revealing one? Perhaps your knowing my identity would confirm whether I qualify for a place in that fine organisation!
Your own work, when placed side-by-side with that of those you have arrogantly dismissed, such as Rionach Ui Ogain and Brendean Breathnach does not bear comparing. A friend, rather charitably I thought, described your "Guide" as 'airport reading', though she did hasten to add that it lacked the excitement of a good Patricia Cornwell or John Grisham.
Your arrogant proclaimation that your aim is to improve the standard of Irish writing only serves to underline what a self-important individual you are (confirmed again in your 'book wot I wrote' approach to review writing in one of your latest efforts.
You attempt to explain away your thuggish reaction to criticism as 'irony'fails to convince me. If Jim Carroll, or anybody has ever threatened to take a knuckle-duster or offer any kind of violence to those ho disagree, please point the occasion out; as a non - contributing observer of Irtrad, you are the only writer I have ever noted as reverting to such behaviour.
Your unpleasant and irresponsible approach to Irish music is so inept that it stands very little chance of doing any real damage (at least McCormick appears to have some slight experience of the subject), but I do wish you'd stay away from tradition bearers; they really do deserve better.
Perhaps birdwatching or train spotting is more in your line!

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:21 AM

Afterthought
Silly me - I was expecting some sort of an apology to Tom Munnely for having something attributed to him which he did not write, (a change of tactic for somebody who usually accuses people of claiming authorship to the writing of others).
The phrase 'sorry, I made a mistake' obviously hasn't made it to this person's vocabulary. I really should have known this from past experience.
As ever,
Love
Mary (still avoiding the knuckle-dusters - ironic or otherwise)

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 02:34 PM

The author of these messages under the name of 'Mary', who is clearly stark raving mad, has absolutely no grip with reality and exhibits the reading skills of a 2-year old.

However, it's time to reveal all, because said author (masquerading under a female pseudonym and implying that s/he lives in a small town in Ireland) is one William Kennedy who is probably male but definitely lives in the USA.

I am not qualified to deal with his inner madness.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter - Ireland
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 07:15 PM

I should have thought that inner madness is one of the few things you are qualified to deal with.
You also appear to have mastered the art of avoiding arkward questions by resorting to bluster and invective.
Please answer at least one of them - please.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 02:25 PM

I really can't be bothered to go on with this 'debate'

Since the anonymous 'punter' is clearly living in an alternative universe of his/her own creation, there really is little point.

As for dishonesty, what's more dishonest than refusing to identify yourself in this thread?

Veritas - now there's an interesting term.

Geoff

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

Why is my or your identity important - you are a thug, (well - probably not in practical terms; people who make your sort of threats seldom emerge from beneath their anoraks long enough to do any real damage) I don't wish to encourage you anywhere near me - end of story.
You have consistently refused to answer my questions, you have evaded owning up to your own mistakes, you haven't apologised for mis-identifying Tom Munnely and William Kennedy (who next, Harvey the invisible six-foot rabbit?)
You have lied about your review, as did your mentor McCormick, when you both claimed you had discussed the singers and their songs in your respective reviews.
Worst of all, you have both attempted to make some sort of a reputation for yourselves at the expense of traditional performers. You have managed to gain a reputation, but not the one you wished for.
As you say, there is little point in continuing this.
Thank you, and thanks to Malcolm Douglas for the opportunity to put the record straight - I should have spoken out at the time
Game, set and match (is that the term?)

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:58 AM

I don't know who this odious little shite is, and I don't particularly care. Nor am I particularly bothered about the fact that he is too much of a coward to come out from behind a female pseudonym. And I am certainly not interested in what sort of sick, perverted pleasure he gets from these ludicrous attacks. All I know is that he is a certifiable lunatic, fit only for the straightjacket.

However, he, she or shite has publicly called me a liar, and accused me of attempting to further my own reputation at the expense of the singer I was writing about. Those two statements are libellous. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read my "respective" review - of The Songs of Elizabeth Cronin - will know perfectly well that I spent a good half of that review discussing the merits of Elizabeth Cronin's singing, and of her songs. A large part of the rest of it was spent bemoaning the fact that the book's editor ignored the singer, at the expense of the songs.

Yours Sincerely,

Fred McCormick. Who needs absolutely no anonymity.

PS. Don't bother retaliating with threats of libel over my calling you a certifiable lunatic. The proof lies in your apparently endless trail of drivellous submissions to this board. There is enough material in them for an entire conference.

Why is my or your identity important - you are a thug, (well - probably not in practical terms; people who make your sort of threats seldom emerge from beneath their anoraks long enough to do any real damage) I don't wish to encourage you anywhere near me - end of story.
You have consistently refused to answer my questions, you have evaded owning up to your own mistakes, you haven't apologised for mis-identifying Tom Munnely and William Kennedy (who next, Harvey the invisible six-foot rabbit?)
You have lied about your review, as did your mentor McCormick, when you both claimed you had discussed the singers and their songs in your respective reviews.
Worst of all, you have both attempted to make some sort of a reputation for yourselves at the expense of traditional performers. You have managed to gain a reputation, but not the one you wished for.
As you say, there is little point in continuing this.
Thank you, and thanks to Malcolm Douglas for the opportunity to put the record straight - I should have spoken out at the time
Game, set and match (is that the term?)

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM

Oh Fred, I do love it when you talk dirty!
Perhaps you might like to quote the 'good half' of your review which discusses the singing of Elizabeth Cronin - I failed to find anything. The bulk of your rather pompous offering was devoted to showing how much more you knew than the writer, thus confiming your lofty position in your'big league'.
I expressed opinions and asked questions, your friend avoided answering those questions by feining outrage at my anonymity.
My anonymity annoys him, his efforts to denigrate and insult traditional singers offends me - we obviously have differing values.
Your contribution to this debate, couched as it is in immaculate language, confirms a thought that had crossed my mind that Musical Traditions has lost the plot somewhat regarding its responsibility to traditional music.
Why should I threaten libel, your hissy-fit has done far more damage to yourself and your reputation than anything I could possibly do.
By the way - I did enjoy your 'King Lear at Dover' speech on Irtrad
Love,
Mary

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

Grow up Jim

Oh Fred, I do love it when you talk dirty!
Perhaps you might like to quote the 'good half' of your review which discusses the singing of Elizabeth Cronin - I failed to find anything. The bulk of your rather pompous offering was devoted to showing how much more you knew than the writer, thus confiming your lofty position in your'big league'.
I expressed opinions and asked questions, your friend avoided answering those questions by feining outrage at my anonymity.
My anonymity annoys him, his efforts to denigrate and insult traditional singers offends me - we obviously have differing values.
Your contribution to this debate, couched as it is in immaculate language, confirms a thought that had crossed my mind that Musical Traditions has lost the plot somewhat regarding its responsibility to traditional music.
Why should I threaten libel, your hissy-fit has done far more damage to yourself and your reputation than anything I could possibly do.
By the way - I did enjoy your 'King Lear at Dover' speech on Irtrad
Love,
Mary

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:46 PM

Sorry. I forgot to fill in the name box on my posting of a couple of minutes ago, and to mention that the object of my tirade this morning was Jim Carroll.

Fred McCormick.


Grow up Jim

Oh Fred, I do love it when you talk dirty!
Perhaps you might like to quote the 'good half' of your review which discusses the singing of Elizabeth Cronin - I failed to find anything. The bulk of your rather pompous offering was devoted to showing how much more you knew than the writer, thus confiming your lofty position in your'big league'.
I expressed opinions and asked questions, your friend avoided answering those questions by feining outrage at my anonymity.
My anonymity annoys him, his efforts to denigrate and insult traditional singers offends me - we obviously have differing values.
Your contribution to this debate, couched as it is in immaculate language, confirms a thought that had crossed my mind that Musical Traditions has lost the plot somewhat regarding its responsibility to traditional music.
Why should I threaten libel, your hissy-fit has done far more damage to yourself and your reputation than anything I could possibly do.
By the way - I did enjoy your 'King Lear at Dover' speech on Irtrad
Love,
Mary

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 04:13 PM

And yet one more name to add to the roll call; you boys really are gluttons for punishment when it comes to public humiliation – I'm beginning to feel like a dominatrix. Another apology owed I think, though I doubt if the subjects of your guessing games stand much of a chance in receiving their due – the word "sorry" seems to have successfully evaded both of your vocabularies completely.   
Jim now, is it? I wonder why the fact of my being a woman is so difficult for you both to come to terms with; does it really offend your masculinity that much? I repeat, I choose to withhold my name for the reason stated and judging by the somewhat inarticulate viciousness of Fred's offering, my choice is a wise one; – what do they say, 'if Wallis comes, can Grommitt be far behind?"
On the question of the withholding of names, can this possibly be the same Geoff Wallis who wrote numerous letters to Irtrad last year under a pseudonym; surely not? I would not have thought it possible that somebody who has already executed so many foot-in mouths could excel himself in this way.
To date he has objected vehemently to the use of a word he has used freely himself.
He has challenged a suggestion he previously publicly supported.
He has written an extremely long review gleefully pointing out real or invented typing errors and missing commas, while persistently using the phrase "Jim and Pat's" (the least able of my pupils knows the correct form to be "Jim's and Pat's").
He has then gone ballistic, even to the extent of threatening personal injury, when shortcomings to his own magnum opus were drawn to his attention.
Surely, having had these double standards pointed out, he would not now attempt to withhold the right of others to something he has practiced openly himself; nobody could be that stupid – could they?
I note that Fred has failed to provide us with examples of his praises for Mrs Cronin's songs and singing, just as Geoff has declined to show us where he discussed the Clare singers and their songs – not one example between them.
This discussion has now become far too protracted for my tastes, (nearly as protracted as your article in Musical Traditions Fred, in which you took over sixteen-and-a-half thousand words to say little more than "my parcel was lost in the post".
I really find it quite embarrassing to see two adults continue to humiliate themselves publicly. You've both been given the chance to explain your behaviour; I've had my fun; let posterity decide the right of it. I would like to claim credit for exposing you for the people you are, but you managed to do that yourself without my help.
You know, you have the makings of a fine comedy duo, if only you could decide which of you is the clown and which the straight man.
By the way, did you know that Leaguers are a type of potato in Ireland, therefore "Big Leaguers" must be……. it doesn't bear thinking about really!
Love
Mary.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 04:16 PM

Sorry Fred,
That should read three thousand, six hundred - wouldn't want to misrepresent you, would I?
Forgot to sign it too, silly me.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 05:15 AM

Grow up Jim.

Fred McCormick.

And yet one more name to add to the roll call; you boys really are gluttons for punishment when it comes to public humiliation – I'm beginning to feel like a dominatrix. Another apology owed I think, though I doubt if the subjects of your guessing games stand much of a chance in receiving their due – the word "sorry" seems to have successfully evaded both of your vocabularies completely.   
Jim now, is it? I wonder why the fact of my being a woman is so difficult for you both to come to terms with; does it really offend your masculinity that much? I repeat, I choose to withhold my name for the reason stated and judging by the somewhat inarticulate viciousness of Fred's offering, my choice is a wise one; – what do they say, 'if Wallis comes, can Grommitt be far behind?"
On the question of the withholding of names, can this possibly be the same Geoff Wallis who wrote numerous letters to Irtrad last year under a pseudonym; surely not? I would not have thought it possible that somebody who has already executed so many foot-in mouths could excel himself in this way.
To date he has objected vehemently to the use of a word he has used freely himself.
He has challenged a suggestion he previously publicly supported.
He has written an extremely long review gleefully pointing out real or invented typing errors and missing commas, while persistently using the phrase "Jim and Pat's" (the least able of my pupils knows the correct form to be "Jim's and Pat's").
He has then gone ballistic, even to the extent of threatening personal injury, when shortcomings to his own magnum opus were drawn to his attention.
Surely, having had these double standards pointed out, he would not now attempt to withhold the right of others to something he has practiced openly himself; nobody could be that stupid – could they?
I note that Fred has failed to provide us with examples of his praises for Mrs Cronin's songs and singing, just as Geoff has declined to show us where he discussed the Clare singers and their songs – not one example between them.
This discussion has now become far too protracted for my tastes, (nearly as protracted as your article in Musical Traditions Fred, in which you took over sixteen-and-a-half thousand words to say little more than "my parcel was lost in the post".
I really find it quite embarrassing to see two adults continue to humiliate themselves publicly. You've both been given the chance to explain your behaviour; I've had my fun; let posterity decide the right of it. I would like to claim credit for exposing you for the people you are, but you managed to do that yourself without my help.
You know, you have the makings of a fine comedy duo, if only you could decide which of you is the clown and which the straight man.
By the way, did you know that Leaguers are a type of potato in Ireland, therefore "Big Leaguers" must be……. it doesn't bear thinking about really!
Love
Mary.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 01:58 PM

After my initial comment I wasn't intending to get involved with all this; life is too short and there are too many vindictive idiots around to make this type of unpleasantness not worth the effort, particularly when there are far more rewarding things to be spending time on. Intervention on my part would have been surplus to requirements anyway; Mary seems to be doing very well on her own thank you very much. However, as my name has appeared on the rapidly growing roll of honour (it was me you were referring to wasn't it Fred?) I thought I'd have one last word.
I was struck by the differing approaches of the participants. First there was the calm, dignified approach, the summing up of the situation and the questions clearly put (and as yet, unanswered). Then came the squirming evasions, the accusations and innuendos and the smoke-screen tactic of raising the fact that the writer declined to give her full name. If she was to reveal herself as Mary Robinson or Mary Queen of Scots would it make one iota of difference to the argument? It occurs to me that if Geoff Wallis was being 'ironic' when he threatened to use a knuckle-duster on his critics, why are he and his friend so anxious to learn her name? It sounds more than a little sinister to me. Finally you had the bullying foul-mouthed obscenities; you could almost see the flecks of foam at the corner of the mouth. As Fred himself once quoted in a phrase he borrowed (without naming his source) "Breeding breaks out through the eyes of a cat".
Don't get me wrong; I have no moral objection to such language; I've used it myself on occasion. The problem arises for me when it is used as a substitute for argument and discussion as it was on this occasion. There are far too many people around who are inclined to substitute insult and innuendo for discussion.
The questioner didn't need my or anybody's support; she was well able to handle the situation, which she did with skill and humour, and didn't she have two extremely able assistants to back up her case.
Those of us who have been privileged enough to have worked with traditional performers are often struck by the generosity and the trust on their part in passing on their precious load (I hesitate to use 'material'; it seem that that word is reserved exclusively for a self-appointed few). In taking on this load, you also take on the responsibility of passing it on to people who are going to respect it, take care of it and ascertain that it is kept for future generations to appreciate. In the case of our Clare singers, it seems we have erred badly, for which I apologise (posthumously in he main) to Tom Lenihan, Martin Reidy, Nora Cleary, 'Straighty' Flanagan, Pat MacNamara and all the other beautiful people who have been so generous with their songs, stories, music, friendships and time. I can only promise that we'll try to be more careful in the future - we'll certainly think twice before we put our fieldwork within reach of these two.
Thank you Mary, whoever and wherever you are, for bringing some dignity and common sense into this sordid business.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

Well Jim, for once I've got to admit you are right. I ran into Mary just this afternoon and she denies ever having existed.

Fred McCormick.


After my initial comment I wasn't intending to get involved with all this; life is too short and there are too many vindictive idiots around to make this type of unpleasantness not worth the effort, particularly when there are far more rewarding things to be spending time on. Intervention on my part would have been surplus to requirements anyway; Mary seems to be doing very well on her own thank you very much. However, as my name has appeared on the rapidly growing roll of honour (it was me you were referring to wasn't it Fred?) I thought I'd have one last word.
I was struck by the differing approaches of the participants. First there was the calm, dignified approach, the summing up of the situation and the questions clearly put (and as yet, unanswered). Then came the squirming evasions, the accusations and innuendos and the smoke-screen tactic of raising the fact that the writer declined to give her full name. If she was to reveal herself as Mary Robinson or Mary Queen of Scots would it make one iota of difference to the argument? It occurs to me that if Geoff Wallis was being 'ironic' when he threatened to use a knuckle-duster on his critics, why are he and his friend so anxious to learn her name? It sounds more than a little sinister to me. Finally you had the bullying foul-mouthed obscenities; you could almost see the flecks of foam at the corner of the mouth. As Fred himself once quoted in a phrase he borrowed (without naming his source) "Breeding breaks out through the eyes of a cat".
Don't get me wrong; I have no moral objection to such language; I've used it myself on occasion. The problem arises for me when it is used as a substitute for argument and discussion as it was on this occasion. There are far too many people around who are inclined to substitute insult and innuendo for discussion.
The questioner didn't need my or anybody's support; she was well able to handle the situation, which she did with skill and humour, and didn't she have two extremely able assistants to back up her case.
Those of us who have been privileged enough to have worked with traditional performers are often struck by the generosity and the trust on their part in passing on their precious load (I hesitate to use 'material'; it seem that that word is reserved exclusively for a self-appointed few). In taking on this load, you also take on the responsibility of passing it on to people who are going to respect it, take care of it and ascertain that it is kept for future generations to appreciate. In the case of our Clare singers, it seems we have erred badly, for which I apologise (posthumously in he main) to Tom Lenihan, Martin Reidy, Nora Cleary, 'Straighty' Flanagan, Pat MacNamara and all the other beautiful people who have been so generous with their songs, stories, music, friendships and time. I can only promise that we'll try to be more careful in the future - we'll certainly think twice before we put our fieldwork within reach of these two.
Thank you Mary, whoever and wherever you are, for bringing some dignity and common sense into this sordid business.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Michael Morris
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM

If anyone still wants to talk about this ballad, this thread may be a better place to do so.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM

Oh so that's it. I don't exist. Well I can assure you I do exist and my name is Mary. Just because I don't want some knuckle dusting hooligan bursting in on my sleepy little hamlet. (That really would endear me to the neighbors). Well, neither of them could tell Norah Cleary from Siney Crotty, so it's no wonder they can't believe I'm a woman.

What I want to know is, if I don't exist does Geoff Wallis, or Grommit? (sorry Fred). Perhaps one is a figment of the imagination of the other, or perhaps both these nasty individuals were dreamed up by the editor of Musical Traditions.

At any rate, Geoff Wallis must exist, because what serious author would waste their time writing an airport lounge pot boiler that doesn't even match the excitiemnt of Patricia Cornwell. As for the Rough Guide to Ireland. Well, the less said the better! Obviously, having no luck with those two, he thought that writing an 8,000 word insult to Jim Carroll and Pat McKenzie, and denigrating traditional singers in the process, would get him into Fred's Big League. I bet you wouldn't find Rionach Ui Ogain and Breandan Breathnach in there.

So it must be Fred that doesn't exist, or maybe he just doesn't want to take the wooden pansy for the worst reviewer in the world/armchair folklorist competition. His ego-building reveiws (which make War and Peace look like an epic) couldn't find the point with a searchlight and carry one continuing flaw. When he runs out of snide remarks about the performers, he makes hit and run comments about the booklet writers. Take his review of the Elizabeth Croty CD. What's wrong with the landlady of a pub allowing a few musicians to play on her premises for God's sake ?

I think it's time the two of them left Jim Carroll alone. He seems to be the only one who hasn't lost the plot around here.

Ah well. Got to go now. Got to get back into my non-existent box.

Love, Mary. Not Jim.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Grammar Boy
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:03 PM

I presume that Mary is not au fait with the use of possessive pronouns, otherwise she presumably buys her smalls from Marks' and Spencer's, eats her ice cream from Ben's and Jerry's and buys her books from Weidenfeld's and Nicholson's.

It might seem a trivial point, but it's one obviously well beyond the understanding of Jim Carroll.

Grammar Boy

Eradicating misuse of possessive pronouns throughout the planet.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Bemusedpunter
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:30 PM

'Bye Lads,
Thanks for the sport.
Till the next time - and I'm sure there will be a next time, what with a couple of fine macho-men like yourselves.
I reckon I let you off very lightly - this time.
A chara (whoops, sorry Fred, I forgot - you don't, do you?)
Mary

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 05:32 AM

Sorry Jim. In Ireland, if you want to do it right, you open letters with A Chara and close them with Is Mise, or some similar phrase. I'd have thought that since you live in that fair land, you would have realised the same, but obviously not.

Still and all, if you can't get the hang of possessive pronouns, writing a grammatically correct letter is going to be way beyond your limited literary skills.

Would I consider myself a friend of yours ? Never in a million years, and certainly not after all the genuine friends of mine you've insulted.

Will there be a next time ? Well, you never would let anything drop. Remember the night after The Crucible had been on tv, when you told Singers Workshop that you'd seen Martin Carthy with the devil ? Who else did you see with the devil ? The High Level Wankers, as you used to call them, The Waterworks, Nic Jones, Bert Lloyd (sorry he's been reinstated), and about 95% of the British folk song revival. It must have been quite a party.

Do you know what ? I do believe I've seen Jimmy Carroll with the devil, and I'd be hard put to decide which of them had the cloven hoof.

Fred McCormick.

'Bye Lads,
Thanks for the sport.
Till the next time - and I'm sure there will be a next time, what with a couple of fine macho-men like yourselves.
I reckon I let you off very lightly - this time.
A chara (whoops, sorry Fred, I forgot - you don't, do you?)
Mary

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 03:42 AM

A chara literally means my friends and makes perfect sense in the way it was used which was the only thing that did in the last message.
I thought she was being ironic like the feller with the brass knuckles.
Brian Rooney

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,J C
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 03:48 AM

Yes Fred, I do live here, I read the letters in the newspapers regularly and know how 'a chara' is used.
Congratulations, you might have discovered a chink in Mary's identity. Whoever, as your man points out, perhaps she was being ironic.
I really didn't get any of the other bit - it seems you've been at the funny fags again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 05:24 AM

Brian,

There is no she. That's the whole point. "Mary" is Jimmy Carroll the well known folksong collector and verbal pyromaniac doing his Handsome Cabin Boy act, except that he's not very handsome.

Cheers,

Fred McCormick

A chara literally means my friends and makes perfect sense in the way it was used which was the only thing that did in the last message.
I thought she was being ironic like the feller with the brass knuckles.
Brian Rooney

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: GUEST,J C
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 09:15 AM

Fred,
Please ignore my last posting. I had no intention of carrying on this sorry saga; first thing in the morning is no time to write letters.
I don't know who Mary is; I know she is not me, nor is she Tom Munnelly. I don't know William Kennedy so he will have to answer for himself. Personally, I don't give a toss if you believe this or not as I have as little regard for yours or Geoff Wallis's opinion of me as I'm sure both of you have of my opinion of you. My only motive for becoming involved in all this was that my name was raised as being the person who questioned the review of 'Around The Hills of Clare'.
As far as I am concerned her identity is immaterial. Whoever she is, she made a number of points and asked a number of questions which, as far as I can see, were ignored and replaced by a somewhat undignified scrabble to guess at her identity.
Surely it would have been a simple enough matter to answer her questions and dispute her criticisms with a couple of quotes from the reviews under discussion. However, even this is not necessary as these reviews are to be found on the Musical Traditions web-site along with the relevant correspondence. Further correspondence pertaining to this matter is to be found on the Irtrad archive for anybody with the slightest interest to access. Let them decide for themselves the rights and wrongs of the matter. It should be easy enough for them to see exactly how much space was taken up by   Wallis and yourself in discussing the songs and the singing of the Clare singers and Elizabeth Cronin.
The question of the Clare review is now an academic one; in general the album has been received well, the notes have been commented on favourably by those whose opinions I respect and the sales have been excellent. We are now coming to the end of the second pressing, making it one of the best selling collections of traditional singers for a very long time. The one adverse effect that the review seems to have had as far as I can judge was that it was not reviewed by The Folk Song Journal – you and Wallis may regard that as a victory if you wish.
Initially I responded to the review because I believed and still believe it to be inaccurate, unfair and dishonest. Unfortunately those interested are unable to judge fully for themselves whether this is the case as the editor of Musical Traditions refused to publish our full response.   My concern at the time was that the review might effect the distribution of the album, which I believe would have been a pity as the singers, virtually ignored by the reviewer, were important enough to deserve as wide a circulation as possible. As has been pointed out by others elsewhere, there are few enough new recordings of traditional singers available nowadays. Another loser would have been The Irish Traditional Music Archive to whom the royalties were donated.
I really think it's time we called it a day and accepted that we hold widely differing views on our responsibilities to traditional performers. How can we possibly expect the music that we both claim to be important, to be taken seriously if we don't take it seriously ourselves.
As far as I'm concerned this slanging match is over.

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove (Dog and Gun)
From: Cathie
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 02:19 PM

Subject: RE: Origins: The Golden Glove lovers well
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 12:31 PM