This is an "Origins" type question, but related to Revival origins of this song.

I have only ever heard performances of "John Cherokee" that are based (ultimately) in --it seems-- the Robinson/Colcord text version. They may borrow verses from Hugill, the other known printed source, but they do not follow Hugill's melody.

My question for the old-timers and other wise-people is: Have you heard anyone do a rendition based on Hugill's book?

My more burning question relates to the fact that Stan Hugill recorded the chantey in 1962. One reason it "burns" so is because they recording is there but I don't have access! :)
Now: What was that performance like, and how did it compare to both his own written version and the version (MUSICALLY, not textually) that people now generally perform.

My imagined scenario -- for whatever its worth -- not having heard Hugill's recording (I wonder how many have??) is that at some point post-1960s a particular performer(s) worked up a rendition based off of Colcord, and that pretty much set the standard. Of course, other performers since have gone back to the texts, mixed lyrics, added new ones, and changed the tune slightly in their own respective renditions. Being that the song is so popular and recorded so many times, simply poking around doesn't give a good sense of who might have been the originators of the modern version -- that's where you smarties can help.

The main thing that would put a crimp in that scenario is if the modern version actually is based in Hugill's recording. But again, if that is the case, his own recording would differ greatly from his print form (itself, something to note).

Opinion time. I want to perform "John Cherokee," but I'm somehow unsatisfied with the available aural versions. Please forgive me for saying, but I find most performances of the song to be quite hokey. Not to say I could make it any less so, but I envision something different? To me, the hokey-ness comes largely from the rhythms. It sounds artificailly jazzed up, as if people try to syncopate it whilst imagining its "West Indian" origins. The assumption is that all Caribbean or Black music has some kind of syncopation. Really, just my opinion, but based on listening to a LOT of Caribbean music while also learning many of the chanteys, is that this syncopation is misplaced. It may work for a dance-song, but not so much for a work-song. (Not to say that dance songs were not sometimes adapted as work songs.)

Take as the main example the place where the words "john cherokee" are sung. The modern version corresponds to NEITHER one of the printed versions. (Now you see why I'd need to hear Hugill's recorded version!) Based on the intuition I'm claiming (!), either one of the printed versions is more acceptable. The rhythm of Hugill's print form is quite acceptable -- though I'm aware he often made mistakes (or, his brother did) when notating rhythms. If it comes to it, I could try to elaborate on what I think "makes sense" in rhythm and why.

My main goal...the main point of all this rambling....is to try to create a rendition that does some justice to Hugill's version in SfSS -- a version that, from the looks of it, I find most satisfying. But that whole attempt would be pointless if Hugill's own performed version turned out to be very different, and what he wrote in his book was erroneous, now wouldn't it?

Thoughts? and thanks

Gibb