Why reject the term 'source singer'?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 01:13 PM

100

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM

Not for Mick.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 11:34 AM

Mick, that's a really strange question to ask Shambles.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:32 PM

his following comments

I thought I had made it clear that these were Tony Engle's views?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM

So then you admit that you have changed your position?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:55 PM

I contacted Tony Engle and enclosed the first post. He thought that he probably would not have the time himself to enter into an e-debate and that it might be a good idea to alert participants to this and proposed that his following comments are described as – "a quick response" as further thought would probably produce a more developed argument.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the word "source" has the potential for implying that the prime role of a traditional singer is that of supplier of material to the folk scene. In effect, that the folk scene and its (essentially) revivalist singers may be more important than the traditional performers. The use of the term "source singer" has the potential for limiting the position of such a singer to that of merely a source, rather than anything else (creative artist in their own right for instance).

I consider Harry Cox to be a great artist, performer and singer - and with those descriptions in place he doesn't need to be referred to as a source. That he is used as a source is incontestable, but, in my view, it shouldn't be part of his prime definition.

I am not proposing that the term should be rejected but I am suggesting that it should be used in context.
ENDS

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 08:31 AM

Would you be excluded from being described as a source singer if you in fact wrote the songs?

When people talk of these 'traditional' methods - this the most traditional of all methods is not only excluded from the list - it seems to be thought of as being of some less value as other methods.

If the term is to be continued to be used, to my mind, singers who have written their own songs have as much right to be described as source singers as those who may have only added a verse or two of their own or just passed a song on as they heard it.

Are the likes of Cyril Tawney, Ewan McColl and Richard Thompson to be excluded from such a list – after all the fine original songs they have introduced to what is now thought to be the tradition? Especially as many who sing them, do so in the honest belief that that these songs are from a traditional source?

As indeed they unquestionably are.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 06:27 PM

Unless, of course, you're "on the sauce," and then drinking songs can be a lotta fun. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,IBO
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 06:15 PM

ANY ONE WHO SINGS ABOUT SAUCE HAS GOT TO BE NUTS

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Ian Pittaway
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 02:51 PM

Mmmm, we seemed to have moved a long way from the topic I started, while strangely remaining close to it. My question was, 'Why reject the term 'source singer'?', in other words, 'Fill me in on the current debate about the term', a debate which no one here seems to be aware of. Maybe there is no debate - possibly this is just a personal bugbear of Norma's which I happened to hear. Yet some interesting points have been made along the way, not the least the impossibility of nailing down language: what is a good term for someone because of its connotations is a bad term for someone for whom the connotations are different. I still think Desert Dancer (Becky in Tucson) answered my question best of all. Thanks all for your contributions.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 01:24 PM

(whispering)
OK .....

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:58 PM

Let's tip toe softly away from this., whuich Big Mick eloquently identified as "this latest topic of obsession by our resident obsessor".

Maybe come back to it sometime in a different context, because discussions about the way in which songs arise and survive and develop can be worthwhile, and this thread has touched on all these aspects of folksong.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:51 PM

I think source singers originally got their song repertoire from their families and friends, not books or recordings (even if they subsequently hoovered up and sang songs they heard and liked from other sources). The English National Folk Festival was a wonderful opportunity to hear source singers from all over the British Isles, and I'm really sorry that it's lost its venue.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:14 PM

I don't think we should reject the term - much better to use it more often in its correct context and using its correct application - that way, people learn how it should be used.

Every dog has its day - perhaps this term has now had its day?

However you cut it - when you make a point of choosing describe performers (even accurately) and in its 'correct usage' as 'source singers' - rather than simply singers - by this choice, you are making a value judgement and saying in effect that their value as the source of songs is more than their value as a singer of them.

Your intention in using this term may be to honestly pay your respect to the singers but perhaps you should be prepared for the fact that it may not be taken that way by the singer? Especially as some of us have pointed out here that - the term 'source singer' just means not a very good one.

As you can credit and show respect for an individual singer as the source of the song without describing them as a 'source singer', it is perhaps better not to use this generic term at all.

In answer to this - the suggestion was made that the term is still required because there remains a need in certain circumstances for a *general* term to distinguish singers who have learned songs through the traditional process...... Does there, why and if so why this term?

For if learning songs and skills through the 'traditional' process (whatever that may be) made them sound any better - the difference would be obvious and self evident. The fact that musically it isn't - suggests that any perceived extra value of material being passed on in this way is a lot less tangible and hence the need for some, to have a general term.

But as many of those those named here who some would choose to group and describe as 'source singers' would also sing and play material that was taken from records or radio etc - such a discription of these singers would not be entirely accurate.

Foe example: Doc Watson plays much material from many sources - including those that may be considered as being learned by this 'traditional' process. But this is not a factor in one's enjoyment in hearing them, as you would not know which were which.

So why risk offending any singer by choosing to use this term to describe them? Perhaps the problem with the term is that it comes from a time when singers were thought of mainly as a valuable source of material to be collected and not considered as the respected individuals and performers that we tend to see them as now.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:59 PM

I don't think we should reject the term - much better to use it more often in its correct context and using its correct application - that way, people learn how it should be used.

To stop doing something, because there might possibly be a duality of meaning, or confusion - rather than aim for proper useage - that sounds like dumbing down to me.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:46 AM

This thread is about the use and meaning of the term 'source singer'.

At no point have I indicated any lack of value of the source of a song or of the act of attributing this to that source. A read of my posts will show that my arguments have been confined to the question of the continued use of the term 'source singer' only.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:35 AM

It's a term that means a singer of traditional songs who learned them in a traditional manner, from whom others learn songs. Pretty accurate, unless you want to discuss 'traditional'. Value judgements are always up to the individuals involved in a discussion, but the term is one that most will understand.

As far as wishing to argue forever, that's your shtick, Roger.

As to the original question about something being wrong with the term, it gets into the whole traditional/what is folk thing. If, a few generations from now, someone is deemed a 'source singer' because they have a repertoire of songs they learned from their mom, who got it from granny, who got it from etc, and the songs go, "and if you give me weed, whites and wine," and "if I had a hammer," and "we all live in a yellow..."

See, Norma Waterson is a source singer for me, but I'm pretty sure she got involved in a/the revival. (Could stand to be corrected here.)

The people we call 'source singers' are really passers-on of songs. They may be a 'source' for all of us outside their tradition, but inside their tradition, they just learn the songs from someone a generation or two before - their source - and pass the songs on to the next 'source', until someone from outside can discover them and call them a 'source singer'.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:34 AM

Your words:

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.

And later in the thread I asked the following:

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


and you answered:

Yes it would.

Now go ahead and try and twist that, but the record is the record.

And you seem to think that anyone who challenges your ridiculous assertions is bullying you. That is not the case. You are responsible for your own words. When they are silly and uninformed, they are fair game.

Enough in this thread.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:29 AM

Your suggestion that "source singers" are generally folks not skilled enough to perform the music demonstrates that you are quite chuffed with reading your own words, even if they are very foolish.

That was not of course MY suggestion.

It was an observation of how the term can be and is currently used. It was one that was confirmed - in Greg's post. But it is undeniably true that in some people's mouths the term is a put-down(very like Lenin's description of the faithful toilers for the revolution as "useful idiots").

It would only be foolish to continue confuse by ploughing on using a term that had two opposite meanings and uses in practice - just because you may prefer that it did not - as no amount of your usual bullying bluster or sycophancy on our forum is going change the way this term is seen and used by some.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:08 AM

That is typical of the uninformed blather you often put out, Roger. The fact is that it doesn't have "opposite meanings in practice" by anyone who is knowledgeable in more than an ordinary way. That is not to say that everyone must be well schooled to enjoy the music. That is not the case. But when one tries to sit and act as though they are some kind of authority, as your posturing suggests, you only look foolish by trying to change what is generally accepted among practicioners of long standing, and scholars on the subject. Your suggestion that "source singers" are generally folks not skilled enough to perform the music demonstrates that you are quite chuffed with reading your own words, even if they are very foolish. These singers might often be unknown, but once discovered they are sought out, collected, and acknowledged for whom they are.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:58 AM

Why reject the term 'source singer'?

To me, as unrepentant worshipper of traditional folkmusic, "source singer" is a term of high honour. But it is undeniably true that in some people's mouths the term is a put-down(very like Lenin's description of the faithful toilers for the revolution as "useful idiots").

That should be enough.

Whether you think it to be a term of honour and respect or a put-down - the fact that the same term can (and does) have two completly opposite meanings in practice - is perhaps enough reason alone to reject it? As such a situation makes it very difficult to communicate and can only lead to heated misunderstandings........

On the other hand - in the face of what we have seen in this thread - if you wish (for some reason) to carry on arguing forever - then just carry on using such confusing terms.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:20 AM

I think the term "source singer" is a very useful and accurate term.

Perhaps you would accept that it is a term that only has any use if it IS accurately applied and also that so often it is not accurately applied.

A claim like: Her grandmother, for example, was the source singer for the well-known song Bunch Of Thyme which is now widely sung.

It is only the start of many pointless arguments and counter claims - none of which have much to do with the song or the music itself.

Studying and labelling of the music may be judged to be very important (mainly to those who do it). But it will never be as important as the music itself.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scrump
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:54 AM

Can't we just listen to and enjoy the music without worrying about what terms to use to describe it or the performers? Why does everything have to be labelled?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:54 AM

I think the term "source singer" is a very useful and accurate term. Though like all words which cover a spectrum of meanings it is easy to poke fun at the use of the word by looking at the ends of the spectrum it lies on. We all know there is a difference between red hair and brown hair. That does not mean that that an intermediate shade may not be difficult to define.
    I would use the term source ssinger, and I would have thought its normal meaning is pretty clear. Joseph Taylor was a source singer. Now, a Benjamin Britten or Martin Carthy will turn up, hear the recording(or meet the singer), learn the words and tune and re-arrange the song into something else. To use the river analogy (bashed well to death so far in this thread) the songs roll slowly along the stream like nuggets of gold. Then someone hoicks them out after a few million years and makes them into ear-rings or sovereigns. Whether this is an improvement can be a matter of contention.
   Now, the Folk Britannia series definitely presented a view of folk music that evolved, from its rough and ready "source singer" apeman origins into fully-fledged homo sapiens folk-rock, singer-songwriter on stage at Cambridge perfection. Now, if you take that view of folk music, then "source-singer" is a derogatory term, because the implication is that the source singer provides the raw material from which the clever artist makes something worthwhile. And possibly those were the lines that Norma Waterson was thinking along? But I do't know, I didnt hear the discussion. But I do know that kind kind of derogatory use of the term(or concept) is not unknown...I remember an interview with Mary O'Hara many years ago when she basically said"nobody wants to listen to the old shepherds and sailors' versions any more, they want proper arrangements". And her turn of phrase implied she agreed with that judgement. In the context of that sort of stance, the "source singer" is indeed being down-graded.
   To me, as unrepentant worshipper of traditional folkmusic, "source singer" is a term of high honour. But it is undeniably true that in some people's mouths the term is a put-down(very like Lenin's description of the faithful toilers for the revolution as "useful idiots").

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:31 AM

You have just made my point, friend Scoville. Terms are important in the study of things. It is important to have the term to apply to people such as Bess Cronin, and others already mentioned. It is a waypoint on the trail. It is how we preserve for future generations the music and the particular style or lyric. Without these waypoints, the music just becomes a jumbled mess. It is absolutely important.

When windbags try to redefine just to hear themselves talk and seem as though they know what they are talking about, they damage the music. It increases the danger of losing important distinctive points on the folk map. Music becomes homgenized and loses its vibrancy.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scoville
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:20 AM

Does it matter one way or the other? If we didn't call them a "source singer" (which I've rarely heard used, anyway), we'd just call them something else, but we would mean the same thing when we said it. It's just recycling of terminology. Eventually the new term will mean the same thing to us and we'll start griping about the same things all over again.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:01 AM

Please note that this, apparently, is the latest topic of obsession by our resident obsessor. For the uninitiated that means that he will nitpick it to death and continue to pry it apart until you all tire of it.

This topic demonstrates the wisdom of folks like Art Thieme and Bill D. I remember (way back in time) when the whole "What is Folk Music?" argument started and raged forever. At that time I disagreed with my friends as to what constituted folk music, as opposed to folk type singers and folk type songs. This discussion is doomed to be much like that one. They will ignore the commonly held view of people who really have spent a good portion of their lives in this endeavor, collecting and cataloguing, and viewing their work in a preservationist way. They will parse the word, apply faulty definitions, and generally be very happy with themselves.

I will only say this about the subject. Among learned folkies a source singer is a respected source. They are often very fine singers and interpreters. They are the artists sought out by singers to find songs and historical performance data. Usually they are people, such as Jean Ritchie, who have grown up steeped in the songs and lore, as opposed to a Sandy Paton who sought them out on the front porches of mountain cabins with folks like Frank Proffit or Jeannie Robertson in Scotland. Jean Ritchie's performance artistry has been celebrated and recognized at the highest levels. She is universally respected as a performing artist, as well as a source singer. Jeannie Robertson completely blows the contention that a source singer is something less than a great singer/interpreter. Here is what Dick Gaughan says about her on his website:

The best singer of the Muckle Sangs (classic Scots ballads) I ever heard. She possessed a supreme artistry and what would now be called professionalism with a skill comparable to that of a Shakespearean actor. When she sang, she knew and understood every nuance of the relationships between the characters in the story, their motives and the consequences of their actions - and by the time she'd finished, so did the listener.

The notion of the untrained, primitive unconscious "carrier" of tradition collapses in tatters when confronted by Jeannie.


The source singer then is a person who is the source of a song, or a specific style of performing/singing. They may or may not be a performer on the larger stage, but they have been singing these songs in family and community gatherings, usually their whole lives. They usually are the caretakers of a tradition passed on over the generations, such as playing with a goose quill. They hold within them the evolutionary changes to songs or styles (known as the folk process colloquially) peculiar to their region, community, or even family. A grand example of this would be the source singers of Beaver Island, MI. These were finally collected and released on a CD titled "Beaver Island House Party" where we heard the last of the old ones performing Irish based music and song that had evolved over the generations into a unique form. They, then are the source for those that come after.

The term is an honorific among those that know what they are talking about. This is not in dispute except among the uninformed, or those that just like to read their own words. They have a need to try and pedestrianize the term, I suppose because they don't want to invest the time. These are folks that sit and comment on the process as opposed to participate in it.

I bow to the wisdom of folks like Bill and Art. Should have listened to them years ago.

Just my two cents worth.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scrump
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:27 AM

My view is that the only singers who can in any true sense be claimed or described as 'source singers' and without argument, are those singing their own material

Why not just call them "singer/songwriters" then? :-)

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:41 AM

But I'm out of here now before we all start drowning in definitions.

Or drown in all those bloody rivers - metaphorical or real ones *Smiles*

But if we insist on using such terms - for good or bad - we do tend to be stuck with trying to define them. If we can avoid them - perhaps we should?

My view is that the use of words like 'traditional' and terms like 'source singers' will only ever cause us all problems and will only needlessly threaten to divide those who have musical interests in common.

My view is that the only singers who can in any true sense be claimed or described as 'source singers' and without argument, are those singing their own material.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Brian Peters
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:21 AM

"Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer."

To fair to Vic Smith, who wrote the above, he is making a judgement (in his role as a record reviewer) about the quality of the performance of a particular singer. However much respect we believe is due to source / traditional singers, there is no need to assume that all are of equal quality, especially when it comes to a product being offered for sale. The reviewer's duty is to pass an opinion, and in Vic's case he knows a lot about traditional singing. Nowhere, incidentally, did I see Vic state that the songs on the album were interesting solely as material to be appropriated by revival singers.

"So why then continue to attempt to group so many disparate singers together by using any label and this particlar label at all - when you can effectively credit the source without using this term, by simply saying who the source for the song was?"

Because there remains a need in certain circumstances for a *general* term to distinguish singers who have learned songs through the traditional process (however difficult this may prove to pin down in practice) from those in the folksong movement (I used the term "revival singers" above, though it's not one I particularly care for) who have no family or cultural background in folksong but have learned these songs out of choice and enthusiasm. This thread has already demonstrated that "traditional singer" is understood differently in different quarters, hence the use of "source singer". But I'm out of here now before we all start drowning in definitions.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 05:31 AM

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.

Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer.

Well from the example(s) I provided - these days look to be far gone.

But if they have and many of the other less than positive aspects of the folk revival are gone also - then perhaps the term 'sorce singer' can now safely go along with them?

"Source singer" is in my opinion a useful and unambiguous term, and any implication of patronisation or disrespect seems to me to be only in the mind of the listener.

Of course, if someone is going to be patronising or disrespectful they will be so regardless of the label.

So why then continue to attempt to group so many disparate singers together by using any label and this particlar label at all - when you can effectively credit the source without using this term, by simply saying who the source for the song was?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:40 AM

I have to say that I've not come across the term "source singer" very often, and then only in its technical usage. I've never heard a singer refer to the source of a song in those terms, they'll usually just say, "I learned this song from so-and-so."

I assume that Norma Waterson would have been referring to its technical usage when she made the comment which prompted this thread. I'm still unclear what her objections to it might be.

One interpretation is that these singers should be viewed simply as singers, and that to put them into a separate category is somehow demeaning. The trouble with this is that in many cases, when judged against the high standards now set by professional and semi-professional folk performers, a lot of them are simply not very good singers. Perhaps they are past their best, perhaps they never were much good. If the singer who Vic Smith reviewed had just been an ordinary folk-club singer, he would never have been recorded, let alone been reviewed in a widely-read online journal.

There are a number of traditional singers who you would not choose to listen to for entertainment, but who are nevertheless worth studying for their style and repertoire. Is it then disrespectful in some way to learn their songs and sing them yourself? Or should we only take songs from those singers who are good enough performers in their own right (of whom there are, of course, many)?

Regardless of the quality of their performance, because these singers come from the tradition, their material and singing style gives them a significance which distinguishes them from the not-very-good revival singers you can find at any folk club or session. I believe it is useful to have a label to describe them: "traditional singer" is too loosely used and can mean both someone from the tradition and someone who just sings traditional songs. "Source singer" is in my opinion a useful and unambiguous term, and any implication of patronisation or disrespect seems to me to be only in the mind of the listener.

Of course, if someone is going to be patronising or disrespectful they will be so regardless of the label.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scrump
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:36 AM

So, what is the proper definition of the term "source singer"? Has it been defined above? If so I missed it and I apologise.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:28 AM

Thing is Art, a lot of these people above arguing about the nature of folk music - the purity of its terms, sources and the like....

Well if they heard Dean Martin singing Gentle on My Mind on the radio, they would embrace a fiery death rather than acknowledge its relationship to the folk process.

And it really not THAT big a jump. The only thing that pisses them off is that an artist has found an access point to folk music for simple folk - tatally uncommitted t the world of 'folk music' proper.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:30 AM

Should we stop doing things, which are deemed by us to be reasonable, because some others seem to have a problem with them? There's a question!

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:27 AM

The question was not the word 'source'.

Nor was the suggestion that stating where a singer first heard their song was a bad idea.

It was if the use of the speciic term 'source singer' to describe a performer should continue.

As some do have a problem with its use in this manner and its use can be so easily avoided by simply saying what the source was - perhaps it is a term that should now be avoided when describing an indiviual?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Gurney
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:12 AM

Chronologically gifted, Rowan? Nobody gave me them, I had to live them, and to some extent earn them.
'Rich in years' is a term I prefer.

On the river analogy: There are at least three distinct Avon rivers in England, due to 'Afon' being the Saxon (old English) word for river. That's off the top of my head, and I stand to be corrected. Nothing's ever simple, is it.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:01 PM

In my folk scene photograph collection, which can be viewed at

http://rudegnu.com/art_thieme.html

there is a photo I took of the back of John Hartford's fiddle.

Running around the bottom of the instrument's back are these words from John's mentor, Captain Fred Way:

"Nothing is real but the river, and all else in sham."

Art   ;-)

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:53 PM

It's a pretty analogy though, isn't it

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:50 PM

Which takes me back to my thesis that what is academically referred to as a "source singer" is the specific traditional singer from whom a particular song collector collected a particular version of a song. This doesn't mean that this source singer is the actual source of the song. That actual source is quite possibly some medieval troubadour or minstrel, or some unknown poet/musician (professional or amateur) whose identity is lost in the mists of antiquity. That unknown minstrel is the source of the song, and its first interpreter, like the initial rivulet from a spring or from the foot of a glacier, to which other tributaries add their own interpretations.

But as McGrath points out, one can run this analogy into the ground.

Once again, I maintain that the term "source singer" is a technical term used by folklorists and ethnomusicologists, has a fairly specific meaning, and only gets screwed up when used indiscriminately and incorrectly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:23 PM

It is not just the Australians who gave different names to rivers at different places. The river nationally known as the Thames in England is called the Isis in Oxford, and there are other examples of the same practice.
.............
Single source? In fact pretty well all rivers are made up of tributeries coming together, each of which has its own source, joining to form one single river. And then likely enough ending in a delta, where it splits up once again.

Analogies should not be stretched too far, but that is in fact a pretty accurate account of how songs can develop.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:06 PM

Gene Autry was my source singer of Barney the Bashful Bullfrog. Which is widely sung in my house.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 06:45 PM

Blowzabella uses a nice image of a river. But his image specifies only one source. One could argue this as a very eurocentric notion of a river if one compares it with a different notion widespread among Australian Aborigines. Because rivers of any great size (OK, we've only got a couple) run through several different language groups (about as different from each other as European languages) the different parts of a river each had specific and different names. When Europeans came and imposed 'the one true source' notion and eradicated many of the separate names, the sense that each part of the river's extent was distinctive became diminished, if not lost.

It seems to me that the Aboriginal view stands as a fairly good metaphor for many variants/performances of a song. They're all connectable and may take on widely variant appearances. Very few "rivers" have a single "source" that has the same dimension as the later development of the watercourse. Even if you can detect the location of the spring, that isn't necessarily the source; it's only where the water comes into easy view from underground. Songs, both traditional and recent, may have an extensive "underground" component before they come into view. And then they change.

And in 500 years' time, will our current pedantries matter?

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 02:21 PM

I've been at work today, so can't post, but have been thinking about this ...

If you can think of a song a a river...it has a long journey, along which many things will happen to it, perhaps it will broaden, perhaps get channelled in one way or another - it might well get completely polluted, so that no-one wants to drink from it. Tributaries may run into it and add to it - some of it might be evaporated and therefore recycled into other rivers - but at it's source it is as pure as we can find it. And it can have only one source - that being where it came out in the open for the very first time and people realised it was there.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:32 PM

Of course a "source singer" sometimes learns a song from a collector, and then sings it to another collector. And of course a "source singer" may very well be someone who has made a popint of learnimg songs from other people in the first place. It all gets very complicated when you try to pin people down into categories.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:34 PM

The main point of supplying those two links was in answer the those who had not seen the term used and used in this manner.

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

The example from the other link was as follows.

Her grandmother, for example, was the source singer for the well-known song Bunch Of Thyme which is now widely sung.

It also shows that the use of the term in this manner could so easily be avoided by just saying the person was the source of the song.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 10:41 AM

No sense talking sense to Shambles Snuff. The years of attacking Mudcat and Joe and all have fried his mind and left him with a brain the size of a pea and as empty as a eunuch's nut sack.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Snuffy
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:16 AM

So if I found a review of a different 'source singer' praising his technical mastery and voice control to the skies, would that "more than imply" that all source singers are paragons of their art and should be slavishly copied?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:09 AM

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

It was an extract by Vic Smith, showing an example of where it more than implies that 'source singer' is one who is good enough to 'steal' material from - but not good enough themselves, to actually perform this material.

Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer.

The full article can be found by clicking on the following link.

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

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:05 AM

To address an issue raised a GUEST, two above, a folk singer, is a person singing, within the meaning of the 1954 (etc, see above) folk songs. Once a collector has collected the songs, and the new generation of singers learn them, when they sing those songes, they are folksong singers. Thus the Young Tradition were folksong singers (as is Martin Carthy) and so, which may amuse some, was Lonnie Donegan.