Gibb, the universal sentiment that the shanty texts were "doggerel" by ordinary standards was universal because it was undoubtedly true, at a time when the "ordinary standards" of the day were quite literary. Words set to music were expected to have some inspiring or moving quality; comic songs, which were relegated to a second or third tier of quality, were expected to be clever. All songs were expected to be more or less polished and certainly coherent, with something like a satisfying conclusion.

The nature of shanties makes it unlikely that many performances ever had all these qualities, unless the lyirics were just taken over from a shore song. And whne we say that some texts sound too "literary," I think we mean in part that men doing backbreaking work would be unlikely to find them either inspiriting, soothing, or humorous: in other words, no help to getting the work done. A good work song is direct in diction and doesn't require much thinking about the lyrics.

I'd think that shanties with sad themes or melodies might have been sung mostly in miserable weather when it was hard to get up much energy for what had to be done. But that's not to say they weren't sung, or that they might not strike us today as absurdly sentimental.

Doesn't Masefield say that hearing "Hanging Johnny" at night in the rain was one of the most melancholy songs he'd ever heard? Surely he wasn't making that up.

I'm still trying to recover from the disillusioning experience of discovering just how much A. L. Lloyd tinkered with his materials. (And the liner notes always made a point of his whaleship experiences in the '30s!) Take away the element of reality (like hearing Carpenter's singers performing the real words they actually sang in 1880), and traditional music losses much of its appeal. To me, anyway. If somebody like Jody Stecher openly admits improving a song, that's fine. If somebody like Lloyd doesn't, while also implying it's the real thing, I feel a little queasy.