The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #80733 Message #1477528
Posted By: Joe Offer
03-May-05 - 09:12 PM
Thread Name: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
I think it's time to change the title of this thread to something everybody will understand. I also thought I'd include the messages on this subject from the Help Forum. The last message is especially good. -Joe Offer-
Subject: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread
From: nutty
Date: 29-Apr-05 - 12:18 PM
It has been pointed out that we risk offending Mr Melberg by misspelling his name in the thread title.
As Mr Melberg is a 'valued' member of Mudcat and a 'respected' researcher of 'Folk Songs', it would seem that this matter needs attending to.
Could someone please oblige?
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread
From: nutty
Date: 29-Apr-05 - 12:21 PM
Ooops ... sorry. I just keep on causing offence, it should be Mehlberg
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberg Thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29-Apr-05 - 03:14 PM
I haven't heard any complaints from Mr. Mehlberger.
-Joe Offer-
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread
From: nutty
Date: 29-Apr-05 - 03:19 PM
He must be a happy man then
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread
From: Malcolm
Date: 29-Apr-05 - 10:27 PM
I had thought better of you, "Nutty". We've met at least once, I think; and you had worthwhile and intelligent things to say, which I valued. Your current attack on John isn't fair or worthy. His very worse sin is a lack of tact. How many of us have failed in that respect?
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread
From: nutty
Date: 30-Apr-05 - 01:25 AM
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Malcolm. During my years as a barmaid at my local rugby club I heard enough of this sexist twaddle to last me a lifetime and nothing will convince me that this is serious folk music. You also disappointed me by your defence of it.
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread
From:
Date: 30-Apr-05 - 10:17 AM
It's disappointing, you thinking YOUR sensibilities should matter to anyone else, nutty
Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger Thread
From:
Date: 03-May-05 - 12:26 PM
I've been following both of this thread and very disturbed by it. I have also valued many of your posts in the past, nutty, but this is censorship of the worst sort.
Over the centuries, many genres of traditionally transmitted song have been dismissed by the Establishment as trivial or beneath scholarship or crude or unworthy is some other way. Thus we have comaparatively little and too late records of cowboy song, sea and Lake songs (for all the hundreds of records, they are heavily censored), bar songs, rugby songs, children's songs. Even Child falsly applied these standards, eg to animal songs (it is believed).
Bawdry, in particular has been censored, to the extant of driving superb scholars out of academe. Yet the material is vast (say, 10% of all tradition), ancient (some of the oldest surviving art & folk material), and meeting any definition you like of "folk." So much of the common "parlor" material began as bawdy and was progressively Bowdlerized until much essence and meaning became lost. Without systematic collection, such as John's, any possible scholarship of the material - difficult now - will become all but impossible.
Of the genre, we have thousands of under-the-counter books and records but I am stunned that, to my knowledge, there are only three scholarly books on bawdry, and all published in the 1990's. Considering the prevellant obscene material on television, theater, pop song and even comic books, it is amazing that scholars are prohibited from publishing.
I have great admiration for John's honesty and efforts and the significant cost and labor he has given to the Work. He has been collecting in a single location huge resources simply not available elsewhere. Where sizable collections do exist, they are usually restricted or private and all but inaccessable or else commercial and costly.
John makes all freely available to those interested. A quick look at immortalia.com, especially at the songbooks, will quickly show you that when there is a need for students, sportsmen, military, etc. to hand publish for posterity the songs they actually sang and transmitted, it is the bawdy material they print. Many of these books go back to WW I and the songs, much further.
I don't know why you so vociferously object. The vast majority of the material is nothing but funny. You may not appreciate the humor but the intent is humorous 95% of the time. As Cray says, the material is, therefore, rarely actually obscene - you just can't be tittilated while you're laughing. But vociferous objection may have a non-related cause. (I don't pretend to know this in your case, just something I've seen from time to time.) Once I sang a particularly raunchy song and a female friend became wildly upset. (I always ask "permission" of the crowd to sing bawdy songs in the folk club but sometimes people think I mean "off color.") She left the room and wouldn't speak to me for two years. I was bemused but didn't change my behavior. Finally she did some thinking about it and explained she couldn't tolerate such songs because they flashed her back to childhood and being mortified when her uncouth uncle would sing such songs. I asked what songs and she reeled off several titles that I felt were likely Oscar Brand, from the LP "Backroom" series. The timing was right. I said, you know, you should go listen to those songs again - you'll find they were considerably cleaned up and pretty mild as these things go. But they were not suitable for children. She did and, surprisingly, agreed. So now we're friends again and she can tolerate the good & funny material. But she doesn't sing the choruses.
Nutty, you also wrote something about their being anti-female, though I'm not clear in what way. Often most of the transmissions (like other ballads) are mainly through females - both in the US and Scotland. Every sex seems to enjoy them. But yes, a few songs certainly are sexist and some downright psycho-sadistic. No need to sing those or judge the whole field or Mehlberg. You don't have to sing any bawdy songs. Or listen.
Abby