'Successor' Singers - opinion?

Subject: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: RTim
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 08:51 PM

In a recent CD review (Rum and Raspberry - Jeff Wesley) on the Musical Traditions web mag., Rod Stradling uses (for me at least) a new term to describe singers who he feels are neither "Traditional" nor "Revival", ie.. He calls them "Successors".

As I know, and have known for many years, the singer in question -Jeff Wesley; it started me thinking.
As I said I know Jeff from Nether Heyford Folk Club back in the 1970's & 80's and he used to often come to the Banbury Folk Club when I sang regularly there.

Jeff is a lovely singer and a wonderfully kind and gentle man - and to boot a farmer, right in the mold of the singers of old. However, it is my general belief that Jeff, much like many us, sang songs he liked from any source he had access to.
BUT - because he was a farmer and not in computing or the ilk, etc. he was more accepted into fold by those who wish to categorize.
Maybe if I had continued to be a sheet metal worker/welder I too could be classed as a successor?
Please DON'T take my comments in anyway as being critical of either the singer, whom I admire and like immensely and hopefully can still call a friend, nor Musical Traditions - who I think generally do a great job all round,even when we don't always agree on everything.

However - does anyone else have an opinion?

Tim Radford

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 09:57 PM

There seems to be a need for another term than "traditional" or "revivalist." Living Tradition Magazine has its recordings series called Tradition Bearers, which has issued some nice stuff.

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 02:53 AM

I would go along with Phil on this one - Tradition Berarers is fine by me.
MacColl, back in the mid-sixties suggested that there were many singers who had just caught the tail end of a living tradition, but who had not participated in one (there are plenty of examples here in Ireland, where the singing tradition went on much later than elsewhere in these islands) might be called 'Song Carriers'. That one works for me too.
Revivalist always sounds to me like a religious meeting, but I've never been able to think of an alternative and have always used 'younger singers', but looking in the mirror nowadays - this doesn't work any more.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: GUEST,thurg
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 10:32 AM

On the one hand, I'm uneasy with this sort of categorization, as I'm sure many are, because it implies willy-nilly a certain heirarchy, which is not necessarily helpful, and which at times can be decidedly unhelpful. The term "revivalist", for instance, has the potential to be used to dismiss or denigrate someone who is an inspired artist and a sensitive interpreter of traditional material. As well, the categories suggest a kind of rigidity that isn't always reflected in reality: if I sing a song that I learned directly from a traditional singer, and sing it in the same fashion, am I at that moment a revivalist or a trad. singer myself or something else (successor, etc.)? if the next song I sing I learned from Planxty, am I then a revivalist? what if I don't have any consciousness of a tradition; I'm a pop singer who heard a recording of As I Roved Out and liked it, and adapted it for myself - does "revivalist" seem an accurate term for me? what if I am a traditional singer singing a pop song I learned from the radio - am I at that moment still a traditional singer? or, if I, a traditional singer, add a Planxty song to my repertoire, do I become a revivalist ? and on and on ...

On the other hand, if you are going to discuss these things at all, you have to be able to generalize, which, to generalize, means putting things into some kind of categories. And there may be a need for a term to indicate singers such as Jeff Wesley apparently is, grounded in a local tradition but cognizant of and influenced by popular culture, specifically in the form of the folk revival. The term "successor" is apt in the sense that it implies that "the tradition" ain't what it used to be, but it is not dead either; it has been "succeeded" directly by something like a child that resembles a parent but is quite a different person, subject to influences unknown to the parent. However, is the term appropriate for a situation in which the tradition has not undergone great change? It is my impression that there are places in Ireland, as an example, in which strong singing traditions were maintained through the 20th century to the present, and a young singer in such a tradition could be expected to resent the label "successor", when nothing has been "succeeded"; in other words, the tradition has carried on in its traditional form, so to speak. There is no reason why a young singer in such a tradition should not be simply called something like a "traditional singer".

The weakness of the terms "song carrier" and "tradition bearer" is that, unlike "successor", they don't contain within them any indication of what their point is; that is, they don't indicate in any way how they are distinguishing someone like Jeff Wesley from a strictly "traditional" or "source" singer, whereas "successor", clearly does. Like most jargon, its form might not be terribly important to the cognoscenti, but to the outsider - the casual or accidental reader or participant - it is helpful if the terms have some inherent and relevant meaning.

Whatever term comes to be accepted, I hope it is on the basis of its own appropriateness rather than on what I gather is on occasion some unpleasant interpersonal politics amongst the heavyweights in this field. I think Rod Stradling may be right on this one.

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 10:59 AM

I like the term. Whether I would use it in the same meaning is another question.

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 11:52 AM

I think that there are some interesting ideas being explored in this thread and would like to recommend a recent Musical Traditions article:

'Bob Blake and the re-invented self' by Mike Yates, MT article 184, 8.8.06.

In this article Mr Yates discusses one of his informants, Bob Blake who, it turns out, didn't fit the mould of a 'genuine' traditional singer (whatever that is!!) quite as well as the collector originally thought he did. It's a brave and thought provoking piece and I recommend it highly.

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: Darowyn
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 12:55 PM

Is there anyone else who feels that this whole quest for the pure tradition is somewhat distateful?
At the very best it introduces the hierarchy that Thurg mentions and opens the way to a sort of snobbery.
At its worst it has a flavour of Nazi eugenics.
Surely anyone can see that a person growing up in the post war era, even remotest parts of the world will be influenced by music from outside their immediate tradition.
Can anyone sing an English or Appalachian folk song in the same way as a person of the eighteenth century after having heard Elvis, or the Beatles or Britney Spears?
You can not un-hear what you grew up with, and you cannot avoid its influence.
We are all successor singers, since we are all part of our own traditions and cultures.
The term is too universal to be useful- and the chase after authentic tradition is a delusion.
cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 01:37 PM

It is not a quest but a matter of understanding.

You cannot know who you are if you do not know who you have been.

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 02:00 PM

'Darowyn' - I always feel that introducing 'moral arguments' into such discussions is somewhat spurious. I think that what you're really saying is that, "You can not un-hear what you grew up with, and you cannot avoid its influence" so everyone should just give up and sound like "Elvis, or the Beatles or Britney Spears" - possibly because those are the types of singers who you like (?). What if you, like me, rejected such singers at a relatively early age and 'grew up' listening to trad. singers such as Harry Cox and Joe Heaney and 'Revival' singers such as Bert Lloyd and Ewan MacColl?

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: r.padgett
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 02:00 PM

I find this a very interesting concept and a great many singers who would be know as 'revival' singers would in my view fall into this category whether they be accompanied or unaccompanied

They would roughly also fall into the 'singers of traditional songs' in my view and be traditional song bearers for example

Bob Blair
Jim Eldon
Watersons
Mick Haywood
Jeff Wesley
Keith Kendrick
Roy Harris
Dave Burland
Nick Jones
Bill Price
Tony Rose
Bernard Wrigley
Roy Bailey
Martyn Wyndham Read the list could be a big 'un or would you wish to hone this down?

Some may be also be identified as being actually 'singers of traditional songs' but all are traditional song bearers to my mind


Discuss??

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 03:20 PM

Too much sorting people into categories never seems too useful to me, and it's always been a bit artificial.

Basically, it seems to me, on the one hand there is singing and music as a form of conversation, a way in which people socialise and get along with each other, and on the ither hand there is singing and music as entertainment. And while these are useful enough distinctions, and people tend to fall primarily into one category or the other, there's always been a lot of overlapping and crossing over in both directions.   

And alongside this, there is, on the one hand a repertoire of songs and music which are recognisably in, or arising out of, an essentially oral tradition, and on the other hand, a repertoire of songs which come out of more a formal world of publishing and recording. And, once again, there is a lot of crossing over and overlapping.

The world changes, and we all change with it, but I think those distinctions do still persist, and we can recognise where we find ourselves within it. But I don't think trying for more categories than that is really useful.

As for "successor singer", maybe it's a way of getting beyond the traditional/revival category, which can be extremely arbitrary.   But as a term it has the drawback that, really, anybody who sings in any kind of tradition, including the one of public entertainment, is always a "successor" to the people who were doing it before, and who directly or indirectly influenced them. ("Influence" includes giving people something to try to be different from.)

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: Darowyn
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 06:01 AM

"You can not un-hear what you grew up with, and you cannot avoid its influence" so everyone should just give up and sound like "Elvis, or the Beatles or Britney Spears"
Of course I was not saying that, and I certainly would not attempt to sing like all three at once!
I sing like me, but I sing differently from the way my grandfather would have sung an old song because I have grown up in a different popular culture. He would have heard Church choirs, Music hall songs, Brass band music, some classical music (he knew Elgar)and these would have been his influences. I am part of the generation who heard Rock, Jazz and blues before I heard many folk songs. My ear is good enough to recognise the sources of the improvisations and vocal mannerisms that I naturally adopt, and these sources are mainly African American- indirectly through popular music.
Believe me I hear the same influences in singers labelled traditional.
One of the big shifts in music has been timing. English music of the nineteenth century was normally played square. Notes fell strictly on the beat. Post WW2 most popular music uses a swung feel, the beats in the bar are pulled back or pushed forward from their strict position. We call it "groove". The chances are that unless you work with computer music production you will not notice, but there are very few people who naturally play right on the beat these days.
If you want to hear the difference, listen to a church choir sing a popular song, "Rhythm of Life" for example, and you'll hear something is missing. Getting a groove with a large ensemble takes a lot of musical ability.
For better or worse, the traditional style has gone and cannot be recovered, not should it be. Sing and play ther way that sounds good to you and forget about who did it that way before or where it comes from. You have thousands of ancestors, they are all your history. We're all mongrels. Enjoy the diverse opportunities.
Enjoy the present, it's the only time you've got.

Subject: RE: 'Successor' Singers - opinion?
From: johnadams
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 06:52 AM

Darowyn,

I can see where you're coming from when you write:

"For better or worse, the traditional style has gone and cannot be recovered, not should it be. Sing and play ther way that sounds good to you and forget about who did it that way before or where it comes from. You have thousands of ancestors, they are all your history. We're all mongrels. Enjoy the diverse opportunities.
Enjoy the present, it's the only time you've got."

..but I think you're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If we only take forward the naturally absorbed influences then we lose a lot of detail of style and consequently a lot of skill.

Chris Coe ran a workshop last weekend where the participants listened to recordings of people as far back as Joseph Taylor and picked out bits of style that were particularly interesting. They then learned how to reporduce those things in their own singing, NOT with a view to slavishly copying style or repertoire but just to add to their stock of 'tricks', for want of a better word.

I know fiddle players who do a similar thing with whatever music they are studying.

If we absorb these things and then let them inform our future performing, whatever the repertoire, then traditional style pertains for a lot longer or evolves more slowly, whichever way you want to look at it.

Northumbrian fiddelr Willie Taylor used to learn a lot of tunes off RTE which he could pick up on his radio. The tunes never sounded Irish when he replayed them.

As with songs, I don't think the content is all important - the "Succcessors" are probably carrying the style more than anything. OK it's presently only 4 generations back and relies on recording technology (cylinders in some cases), but it's important.

Johnny Adams