Why reject the term 'source singer'?

Subject: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Ian Pittaway
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:45 PM

At Sidmouth Festival this year I went to a very interesting on-stage conversation with Tony Engle, MD of Topic Records. During a discussion about the proper attitude towards those from whom we get our material, a remark was made by Norma Waterson to the effect that there was something wrong in calling someone a 'source singer'. Now this was only said in passing and the conversation moved back to the main point, but I was left wondering - and wonder still - why this often-used term is any way bad. I've heard lots of people use it since, unaware (like me) that there is any debate about it. I know the language we use is important, as it holds associated ideas that may or may not be appropriate. But I've racked my brain and can't see anything wrong with it. I'm not lying awake at night worrying about this! But I am curious to know what it's all about. Could anyone enlighten me?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:09 PM

My speculation:

You could think of it in comparison to attitudes toward "natural resources": are they something merely existing as resources to exploit, or do you respect them for what they are?

You could see the use of the term either way: these people provided source material (and the source material is the stuff of interest), or that sense of "source" could be meant with more respect, as in, we'd be nothing without these people who provided us with the songs.

I can understand some discomfort with the possible ambiguity. Perhaps Norma would prefer consideration of these people as singers in their own right, rather than sources of songs.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:34 PM

What does it mean?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:02 PM

Let's assume that the usual (maybe objectionable) use of "source singer" is to indicate that the singer is to be taken as a stable, authoritative provider of the song "as it should be", because (s)he is the modern flowering of the tradition, whereas the rest of us are passive collectors, echoes of the tradition, as it were.

This suggests that the life of the song in tradition has come to an end with the "source singer".   It may suggest that any further developments of the song are illegitimate, more modern corruptions of the traditional song. At best it means "This is a singer, rooted in the tradition, from whom I got the song in question," or "from whom one may get genuine traditional songs." That's at best.

It also might suggest that the version sung by the "source singer" is either the best or the only legitimate version, or perhaps the finest flowering of the song's life.

Alternatively, the term source singer might, to some minds, seem to refer to the originator of the song.

That singer, no matter how well (s)he does the song, no matter how knowledgeable the singer may be, no matter how well that version may reflect the song's essence in its traditional life, is neither the writer nor the last word on what the song is, has been, nor can (s)he be.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:05 PM

Hearing the term 'source singer' makes me think of people who walk around carrying those damned cute little bottles of water even when they are less than 100' from a bloody tap. It is an affectation, and one we could likely do without.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:38 PM

I don't drink the stuff much myself, but if you want some water and you're up on stage or in the middle of a crowd, having a tap 100 feet away doesn't really help. (Except that you use it to refill the bottle when it's empty.)
.................................

Seems to me Dave has got the right of it here - the idea of splitting up singers on the basis of where they learned the songs can be a bit daft, and I can understand why someone like Norma might get pissed off at the way it sometimes gets used.

As a sort of technical shorthand in the context of song collection and folklore it's fair enough, a way of recording where and when a particular version of a song was collected by a particular collector - but I don't think it should be used as a kind of honorific. Everyone who sings is a source for someone who hasn't heard the song before.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:59 PM

It is a term that expresses some form of limitation on the part of the singer.

It seems to imply a singer who is good enough to 'steal' material from - but not good enough themselves, to actually perform this material.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:10 PM

How does it imply that?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:31 PM

Maybe someone should ask Norma or Martin why the term might be thought objectionable.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:38 PM

Perfectly good words—often technical expressions or jargon—frequently get picked up by those who don't fully understand the way the word is used in its professional or technical context, and use it in imprecise ways that manage to muddy its original meaning. I think "source singer" may very well be one of these.

I have always heard the term "source singer" used to designate a traditional singer from whom a folklorist or song collector such as Cecil Sharp or the Lomaxes learned a particular song. But in no way does that mean that the "source singer" is not good enough to sing professionally. Case in point, Jean Ritchie. She grew up in the folk singing tradition, added greatly to the store of American and Anglo-American songs and ballads, and then went on to do concerts and make records and such. I would be interested to hear what she might have to say on this subject.

If I were to learn a song from a recording of, say, Joan Baez or Ed McCurdy, I would not refer to them as "source singers," even though their recording was the source from which I learned the song. But I occasionally hear it used that way.

"Where did you learn that song?"
"Well, my source singer was Bob Dylan."

No, no, a thousand times, no!

At least that's my reading of it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:29 PM

It's simply saying that the songs reliably come from a singer who you trust as the source for many songs that, more often than not, allow the hearer/listener to get closer to the roots of this music we call trad folk song. Because of the time I've put into this, I can generally know it when I hear it.

Jean Ritchie and Jeannie Robertson are source singers. Gene Autry is not.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art again
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:34 PM

Seeing it the way I do, there is no reason at all to reject this good and perfectly useful verbiage.

Art

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 11:17 PM

It is a term that expresses some form of limitation on the part of the singer.

It seems to imply a singer who is good enough to 'steal' material from - but not good enough themselves, to actually perform this material.

Says who? This seems like an extremely uninformed position to me. Would that suggest that a Jeannie Robertson, Jean Ritchie, or Sarah Makem is/was not good enough to perform this music? The only limitation I see is the one of your knowledge of folk music.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 12:23 AM

When Don Firth wrote
"Where did you learn that song?"
"Well, my source singer was Bob Dylan."

No, no, a thousand times, no!

he reminded me of Eric Bogle's song lamenting the trials of the folksinger; it had the chorus

No, no a thousand times no!
Not even if my life blood's spillin'!
I'll sing anything,
even God save the King
but I won't sing any Bob Dylan!

Thanks Don, I haven't heard it for 30 years.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Nellie Clatt
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 12:24 AM

It de-humanises people by reducing them to a ' source ' rather than a human being.

Remember when companies changed from having a personnel department to calling it ' Human Resouces ' it still sticks in my throat.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 12:59 AM

I don't see that that follows, Nellie. Not any more than being referred to as a "technical writer" when I was working as a technical writer reduces me to being just a "technical writer" rather than a human being.

I don't see that being referred to as a "source singer" "reduces" the person in any way at all. It merely descibes one aspect of their existence, and a positive one at that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: 12-stringer
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:03 AM

What the hell is wrong with saying, "I learned this song from ... " ? Before my voice turned to a croak and my fingers started numbing out, that was good enough for me. "Source singer" just has a kinda chi-chi tone to me, though objectively there's nothing wrong with it and I don't see it as demeaning the source. Maybe it depends on the tone of voice in which it's spoken?

And if you're singing "The Death of Mother Jones" (it has been done), Gene Autry damn sure is a "source singer." Not to mention a couple of dirty old hokum numbers I used to do just for the pleasure of saying, "I learned this song from a Gene Autry record." Oh you can feel-a my leg, you can feel-a my thigh/But if ya feel my leg ya gotta ride me high ...

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:04 AM

Would that suggest that a Jeannie Robertson, Jean Ritchie, or Sarah Makem is/was not good enough to perform this music?

Yes it would.

So why refer to them in such a limiting way? A singer of songs is a singer of songs.

A writer of songs is a writer of songs.

A singer who also writes their own songs - is a singer/songwriter.

They may well be the ONLY source of this material but you would not call them a source singer - when perhaps such a description would be more accurate. But it would again imply some limitation to their singing abilities (but perhaps well-deserved in some cases).

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:53 AM

I heard a Source Singer sing an Adge Cuttler song one year at Whitby. When someone mentioned Adge as the source, the source singer said he didn't realise that that was so.

I guess this is the living tradition. Many of the people that Sharp et al collected from sang all kinds of songs, very old songs, popular songs musical hall songs and so on. Sharp had his view on what he wanted.

When did the term arise? Was it found useful because Source Singers sometimes sang songs that they learned from the oral tradition that were clearly, not by most definitions, either "folk" or "traditional"

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Declan
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:12 AM

While I wouldn't particularly find the term objectionable, it seems to fit in with a notion that seems to exist that the tradition is frozen in time at the time a folklorist collected a particular song. Its like the notion that no music is traditional any more and that everyone is a revivalist.

Certainly here in Ireland, I would regard the tradition as still being alive and that a new generation of 'source singers' who may have learned all there songs from records will become the 'source singers' for another new generation into the future.

This probably doesn't fit in with formal definitions of the terms as used by academic folklorists, but I think it reflects reality. If the term is useful in a particular context I see no problem in using it.

In any event given that the tradition is a living thing, a 'source singer' can only be regarded as the source of a particular version of a song rather than the definitive source.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: r.padgett
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:19 AM

I am bemuse by much of what has preceded

a source singer is clearly the original source from which the current singer derived his/her material

where that 'source' singer (if deemed a traditional singer) got the song is a matter of song research and tracing back may be problematic

the argument should really be about the terms 'traditional singer' and 'singer of traditional songs' as these two are really blurred

I am currently involved in documenting and referencing such material with Steve Gardham and Mike Parsey and a number of other volunteers who are priceless under 'the Yorkshire Garland', similar to FARNE in the North East of England

Ray

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Tim theTwangler
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:01 AM

Hi Guest Rowan I recently heard that song,for the first time at the Staithes gathering in uk earlier this year ,I thought it was brilliant.
The guy I heard it from A lovely shavey headed bloke whos name escapes me at present.
Later we got it from Tony Leonard as well.
Are those two a source then?
I write songs and would be bit miffed if I wasnt the source for them in ten years time.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:59 AM

I have heard some of the less than polished and non-professional English singers described (or dismissed) as being source singers.

Being described as a source singer in such a way - rather than simply acknowledging a named individual singer as being the source of the song (or at least where you may have first heard it) - is perhaps the cause of any reservations about the use of the term - source singer?

It may be thought to be a subtle difference but I suggest it is an important one.

There is perhaps an element of snobbery involved in this pursuit of the 'real thing' The recent Folk Brittania show was interesting in this regard. I am not sure if she ever claimed to be, but Margaret Barry was with some reverence, thought by many to be the 'source' of She Moves Through The Fair. When her source was in fact a recorded version.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:17 AM

I suggest that the expression "source singer" can only properly be used in relation to "folk song" - and at least in this context the latter has a specific meaning - the 1954 World Council of Folk Music meaning.

In that case, the "source singer" will be the singer who sang the folk song (as a folk song) to the collector who collected the song from the oral tradition. There may of course be more than one such, and the versions of the song may differ but that is the nature of the beast.

There are a number of singers who were the source singers of a number of songs. Walter Pardon springs to mind. Lloyd of course will have been a collector, and therefore not a source singer. MacColl was largely a writer, but he claimed that a number of songs he sang wre traditional. In some cases he will have been the collector, and assuming that his story about Proud Maisrie (or the Gairdner Child), namely that he learned it from the singing of his mother, when he was a child and she puttering about the house, then he learned it as a folk song and he was the source singer.

Curiously, applying that train of logic, the Copper family will largely have been collectors, rather than source singers.

But what I don't understand is how the term is demeaning.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Ian Pittaway
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:06 AM

Wow, thanks folks. I really didn't expect such a response! Becky in Tucson, you said, "Perhaps Norma would prefer consideration of these people as singers in their own right, rather than sources of songs". This seems to hit the nail on the head, and fits in with the current thinking in song books and in Topic's 'Voice of the People', telling the stories of those from whom songs were collected, putting their songs in the context of their lives, attempting to explain how the songs were meaningful to them. This is in contrast to previous books and CDs, where the 'source singers' were simply names, more or less anonymous conduits for the traditional song. I'm not sure how successful these attempts to contextualise the songs in singers' lives have been, as the late 19th / early 20th century collectors often gave us little (or no!) biography to go on, but I can see why the attempt was made.

Richard Bridge, I'm seeing Martin Carthy and Dave Swarbrick tonight. On the slight chance that I get to chat with Martin (as it's not at a folk club, but an arts centre), I will ask him.   

12-stringer: "What the hell is wrong with saying, "I learned this song from ... "?" No one has suggested there is anything wrong with that. The debate is about the use and intended meaning of the term 'source singer', and the baggage that goes with it, as above.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 02:38 PM

Margaret Barry

Describing Leadbelly simply as a source singer may not be judged to be demeaning - as he undoubtably was this (for many people) - but perhaps it would be a less than complete description of the man and his talents?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 02:41 PM

It is an ugly-sounding term.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:03 PM

When I use the term, it is a way to honor the person I am recognizing at the moment. I've done it for the last fifty years. I'm saying THANK YOU to a person who showed me the way. I made my own path after that, but I was always continuing a line that started, for me, possibly, with that inspiring personification of one who was a keeper of the flame.

Jean Ritchie (Kentucky Trad here on Mudcat) and her family were always incandescent holders of the traditional songs and ways of playing the mountain dulcimer. Before that, who of us would've ever thought to use a goose quill as a pick!!!!! Every time I played my dulcimer I took note of her impact on me---and I thanked her for showing me what she and her family knew. Her Father, Balis Ritchie, singing the song I think was "Joe Bowers" has always been a favorite of mine. And I always smile when I think of the time Jean "had red hair". ;-)

Jean, herself, was the one who, just about, single-handedly, brought the lap dulcimer out of Viper, Kentucky and to the attention of the American folk revival---and then, the world!

She, and hundreds of other "source singers", magically transported me to their own special folkloristic pockets of this world we're in. Ms. Jean, thanks again!

Love,

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:12 PM

Hear, hear! Amen to that, Art!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:56 PM

"It is a term that expresses some form of limitation on the part of the singer" is how the Shambkles sees it.

I'd be with Art on seeing it completely the other way round, a way of paying respect to the singer in question.

Any objection would be because there is an implication that other singers are a bit second-hand and second rate, and I'd be inclined to think that that would be what Norma Waterson would have had in mind.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:10 PM

Art, I was about to make a wordplay joke on your earlier post that Gene Autry was a "Saddlesores Singer" but your last post completely blew me away.

Perfect.....Absolutely perfect.....and beautifully written, eloquently stated.

Anyone not agreeing with me can kiss my ass.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:22 PM

Things to do first.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:31 PM

Thanks Art. I just want to point out that any interpretation other than one of respect, must be from those who are not folksingers. Anyone who isn't posting to just to "hear themselves speak" would makes such a silly statement. It is a term we use to denote honor and thanks for passing it on.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:34 PM

Not necessarily, Mick. As was mentioned above: I learned the song from XXXX XXXX works just as well and certainly sounds less 'exclusive'. If you thought any of my remarks about the term translated into remarks against so-called 'source singers', you are very much mistaken.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:40 PM

I am really referring to Shambles insinuation that somehow this denotes someone of lesser talent, or some such nonsense as that.   I have a pretty good collection of noted folksingers and collectors. I have never heard this term used to denote anything but respect. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, IMO. The term should be exclusive, as it denotes someone who has spent a great deal of their life collecting or singing these songs.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:10 PM

To my mind, it is a term which suggests immense respect - and a value which comes from rarity. I would love to be described in such a way, but it isn't going to happen. It suggests not only a long term involvement in the singing of traditional material, but an integrity of situation with that material - ie to have been brought up with that being part of your environment.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:35 PM

I think it's a good idea sometimes to think about the image underlying a metaphor.

"Source" is about a spring bubbling out of the ground, and feeding into a stream or a river. Something precious coming into the open which has been hidden away until it does so.

A powerful image and one to be treated with respect, and not cheapened by being applied carelessly.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:11 PM

Some people describing Leadbelly and using only the term 'source singer', could be thought to be making a value judgement.

Saying instead that Leadbelly was the source of the song is perfectly respectful and says exactly what you want and no more - without any question of any form of judgement in the statement.

You may not agree that there is any harm in using the term 'source singer' but what the is the harm in not using the term, if it can be avoided - by simply saying who the source of the song was?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:28 PM

TimTheTwangler wrote;
"Hi Guest Rowan I recently heard that song [Eric Bogle's effort about the trials of a young folk singer], for the first time at the Staithes gathering in uk earlier this year ,I thought it was brilliant. The guy I heard it from A lovely shavey headed bloke whos name escapes me at present. Later we got it from Tony Leonard as well.
Are those two a source then?
I write songs and would be bit miffed if I wasnt the source for them in ten years time."

I don't use the term myself and I don't deliberately avoid using it. There are a few songs and tunes that I've learned from various sources and brought into my local folk scene. Some became so popular that they're now played by people from all over and who've never even heard of me let alone played or sung with me.

For some of these I had thought "It'd go better if I changed this to that" and this has allowed me to arrogate unto myself (probably misplaced) responsibility for part of the currency of the item. But I don't regard myself as a source in the sense of the discussions above. Rather, I've thought of myself as just one link in a very long chain or more accurately, several very long chains.

Some links in the chain are identifiable; most aren't. Some links are regarded as anchor points at the beginning of the chain's length. Some chains are very long and others are very short; ditto strong or weak. Some spectacular links join and/or start many chains and a few glow with an incandescence that dazzles.

It doesn't bother me whether my link is recognised, acknowledged or neither but I confess that it is pleasant and delightful when I see that I'm not the last link in the various chains.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 10:24 PM

Pat,
Thanks. Nice of you to say that. I hope you are well these days.

Art

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 10:31 PM

Referring to a traditional singer from whom a folklorist or collector has learned songs as a "source singer" is in no way denigrating. But—

I rarely, if ever, use the term, and then, only in reference to the people that folklorists and song collectors collect songs from. I don't think I've ever used the term in reference to someone that I learned a particular song from. I consider it a specialized term used by folklorists and academic song collectors, and frankly, when used by others to describe the person from whom they learned a song (be it from a Joan Baez or Burl Ives or Kingston Trio record), it sounds pompous and pedantic to me.

Don't use the expression unless you're a folklorist and have academic credentials as such.

There. Problem solved.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Gurney
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 11:47 PM

I've always used the term to denote someone who carries a song that wasn't learned from a record, but from an old source, such as mothers knee. It does, to me, denote an old person, but old isn't demeaning, just a description. I qualify as old.
Perhaps we are talking here of the way this language is changing.
Gay. Queer. Cool. Black. White. Blue. Pig. Feminine. Chauvinist. It's a BIG list.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:20 AM

Greetings Gurney,
Your "old isn't demeaning, just a description" reminded me of a newspaper cutting I came across in South Carolina in 1991. It described all the terms commonly used for people over 45 (old, elderly, senior citizens etc) as being, in the modern argot, "politically incorrect". It then suggested that the only "acceptable" description for such people was "chronologically gifted".

I rolled around the floor laughing at this (as does everyone I mention it to) but I was suddenly struck by a realisation. In most 'indigenous' societies, the older you are the more respect you're likely to be accorded automatically, a bit different to the situation in 'civilised' societies where you're likely to be treated as 'past your "Use By" date'. Also in many 'indigenous' societies, before colonisation by 'civilised' ones, there was usually no such thing as a natural death. Most misfortune was because someone else's "magic" was superior to that of the person who was suffering. From this you could infer that, if you were old, your magic was seriously powerful. Suddenly the serious veneration and respect for the elderly was easily understandable.

And "chronologically gifted" seemed appropriate. Just think of yourself that way and that all the young turks and tyros are chronologically challenged; but getting there.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:36 AM

Anyone over 45? Man, am I ever "chronologically gifted!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:02 AM

Never heard anyone use the term 'source singer', and I assume it means someone who sings sourcey songs.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:41 AM

Never heard anyone use the term 'source singer', and I assume it means someone who sings sourcey songs.

http://www.mustrad.org.uk/reviews/rae2.htm

http://www.footstompin.com/artists/sheena_wellington

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:48 AM

The comparison with Willie Scott is unfortunate.

Though most of us knew and heard Willie in his declining years, he was never anything other than a master of traditional song. He did sing more slowly with advancing years, but his pitch, pace and tone was always very pleasing. The same cannot be said of Joe's singing. In fact, it is the slow pace that draws attention to his faults as a singer. He is guilty of one of my pet hates of trying to hold consonant rather than vowel sounds: Oh, it's whisperrrred innnnn the kitchennnnn...

At times, he has problems with maintaining the tune, especially when he has to cope with an upward jump of a fifth or more, and at other times he employs a vibrato that he does not appear to have full control over. Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Brian Peters
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:32 AM

I always thought "source singer" was a term invented to avoid the confusion Ray Padgett mentions between "traditional singer" and "singer of traditional songs". To my ears it has never conveyed anything other than respect; a sense of being The Real Thing. The problem with inventing new terminology is that someone somewhere will always find something wrong with it, as witness the continuing controversies over acceptable terms to use in the fields of race or disability.

I don't know whether Norma's objection is to an implied commodification of traditional songs, or to a perceived slight against those *not* considered "source singers", but I do know that the days when traditional singers were regarded as croaky geriatrics whose sole value was as raw material for 'proper' singers in the folk revival are long gone. However, any attempt to seek cast-iron definitions is subverted by the actual traditional singers themselves, who learned songs from broadsides, published song collections or records, sang songs the collectors didn't really want to hear, and (in the case of recent examples like Jeff Wesley or Bob Lewis) have absorbed material in the folk clubs they've attended. On of the problems of a folk revival which was born in the sixties partly as an intellectual and political movement, is the tendency to make music jump through hoops labelled "authenticity". Although I'm as interested as anyone in the origins of songs, there does come a time when - as Declan suggests - you need to be a bit less precious and self-concious and just get on with music-making.

PS What was The Shambles' last (italicized) post about? Was something missing?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:32 AM

My experience is that objection to the term "source singer" is coupled with an objection to the use of "traditional singer" to do describe anybody other than "source singers". People who just 'sing traditional songs' are therefore (I think) demoted to being mere "folk singers", although how one is supposed to differentiate between folk singers who sing traditional songs and folk singers who don't is unclear.

Clarity and efficiency of language is very important if the general (national) bemusemement towards the genre is to be combatted. So for my money "traditional singer" = 'singer of traditional songs' and "source singer" = 'a traditional singer whose repertoire is drawn directly from the oral tradition' is the best way forward (the former being something people can aspire to be, unlike the latter). Jon

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 08:30 AM

Interesting thread.

Question:
Do any of the contributors to this thread actually use the term "source singer"?

If so, what do you mean?

If it is a technical term (like, e.g., angioplasty) used by a particular group with a clear definition, it is that group's call whether to use it.