The next chantey that I propose to be among the "broken-link" ones is

"Hilo Johnny Brown"

Print: Hugill; Terry; Whall
Performers (recorded): Louis Killen (1964); Roy Harris, A.L. Lloyd et al (1974); Danny Spooner; some Polish groups

This one fits well into the issues of what went down in the English chantey-revival in those seminal years of the mid 50s to mid 60s.

Lou Killen's recording is well known, but I don't think Hugill recorded it (nor any one else before that time, 1964). I do not have Terry's "Part II" text, or Whall's, but I am guessing that they did not have a bearing on that recording. It would be great if someone with those books could compare the tunes (Hugill says that they are very similar to his tune, except that Whall's uses a G#, what would be a major seventh degree in a minor key-- so that's probably not it).

A bunch of people around here I'm sure know Lou Killen. Insight would be welcome as to what his process was, in those early days of his singing career, for learning and working up chanteys.

The issue with this one is that his tune (and in a way, chorus words) do not match Hugill's notated version. Was this learned orally from Hugill during such interactions as those mentioned by Lighter on Date: 06 Apr 09 - 06:50 PM ? --In which case, as is not unusual, Hugill's print version is "off" from how he'd sing it? Or was it learned from the text and...mis-read? If the latter is the case-- and with no disrespect to Killen, one of the great and influential voices of the UK revival-- then...so far as other renditions tend to be derivative of this recording...we can say that the oral link to this chantey's past does not exist.

About Hugill's notated version:
He has the chorus as "Way sing Sally". In Killen's recording it becomes "Way sing Sally-O." In the notation, "Sally" is followed by "Oooh!", but in the first verse only where, by the convention established elsewhere in the book, its spelling and the ~squiggle~ notation over it indicate that it is part of the solo. Some rhythms and pitches are different, too, but in my opinion those are less significant indicators of a possible reading-mistake since they are just as easily a notation-mistake. For comparison purposes, here is an example of a closer approximation to the tune that Hugill notated. example

In sum: The folk process is one thing. But there seems to be a "mistake" here, either in Hugill's book or in Killen's (and subsequent) recordings. Either way, it is notable that this chantey went off track.

Gibb