Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:13 AM

I thought knights were supposed to be, you know, tough or something. Musgrave keels over rather quickly for my liking.

I've always been fascinated by the fact that there's a village in Cumbria called Little Musgrave, not a million miles from Barnard Castle. Coincidence?

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: Saro
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:50 AM

Just one thought about the a comment further back in the thread about how we see the faithful servant as "a vile spy". I'm not at all sure about that - I'e come across at least one version where lady B and Musgrave plan to bribe the pae about their dalliance, but he refuses to be silenced as he is is "Lord barnard's man".
Saro

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:19 AM

That would've just made the song a lot more scandalous and the lord's killing a lot more justified.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: pavane
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:35 AM

I think knight could in some contexts just be a young man (its original meaning). I don't think there is anything in this version, for example, to indicate that he is of the gentry. It certainly has some similarities to Nic's version (Some came down in red velvet, and some came down in Pale)

Musgrove c1690

The whole song might have been better received in many places if the Lord was made out to be the villain, and the commoner the hero.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:55 AM

"fair use"

Is the recording licensed for public performanc?

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 08:06 PM

I think Karen's right: Musgrave is a knight, a member of the gentry, and the same social class as Lord and Lady Barnard, but at a lower position within that class. This is more obvious in some of the verses Nic leaves out, in which Musgrave is described as a knight.

Interestingly, here we have an example where Nic's editorial interventions have caused some ambiguity. It is possible to think that Musgrave is a commoner in this version, and some people do think that, as is obvious from this thread. That is one of the ways in which Nic has affected the meaning of the song. But you can't tell that without doing some comparative analysis.

As for the Folk Process comment, let me explain a bit. I think it's true, as Karen says, that the sum total of all changes made by individual singers is what's important. But in this case, the only individual singer we know of who has made any change is Nic. The versions published in Child, some of them anyway, are printed texts that were over 300 years old when Nic consulted them. There is no evidence that they are the result of a any kind of folk process--just re-printings of a lost original. Given this, Nic has taken a literary work, and selected some verses, left others out, and changed others. I would call Nic's changes a single person's personal preference, rather than a "folk process," which is usually used to mean the sum total of many people's changes.

Because of this, the people above who mention the audience response are also right. What we commonly mean by "the folk process" is some trajectory over time--singers make choices, some are retained by other singers, others are not. If you look at versions of this song obviously influenced by Nic, clearly some of them didn't agree with him on the question of whether Barnard's regret was extraneous. Christy Moore, who uses Nic's tune, returned those verses to the song. So you can use this to look at a certain kind of process, but again, not if you concentrate only on Nic's version.

Finally, most of the time "the folk process" refers to an oral process, rather than sitting down with a bunch of books, or a bunch of texts in one book, and selecting verses from them. That's more of an editorial process. But I grant that there are no hard-and-fast lines between literate and oral versions of this process.

Interesting discussion!

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST,Karen Myers (the author)
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:44 PM

From the author....

The term "folk process" is shorthand for all the singers of all the versions who have altered the song over time to their taste/to their memory's limitations/to the spur of the moment. No assumption of indefensible historical process, no reason to jump down anyone's throat, just two words instead of 40. You have a better term for that process, please feel free to suggest it.

This new blog, where the article resides, is a series of "appreciations" of various cultural items. Not all readers will be familiar with Child ballads, any more than all will be familiar with Greek epic or Scandinavian fiddle music or the field sports. I'm sure the experienced folks here can overlook the necessity to provide some context for civilian visitors. I find this specific version particularly nice, for the reasons I outlined, and wanted to share why it works for me. I mentioned the article here in this forum because I though it might be of some interest, but it's intended for a more general audience.

I will be doing articles about other ballads from time to time, to illustrate other points (e.g., Creeping Jane and her "lily-white hoof" as a comic version of an oral-formulaic line).

For the person who inquired about the audio clip, I own the LP and I believe this falls under "fair use", just like quoting a poem. If it were in print, I would point readers to a place to buy it.

By the way, Musgrave is not necessarily of a different social class. He has lands, a horse, and (especially significant) a hawk, so he is almost certainly gentry.

One interesting item I didn't write about is the persistence of the look from Lady Barnard "as bright as the summer's sun". It makes me wonder what the rhetoric was for this in Marie de France, for example, in similar circumstances; is this a cliched phrase from a couple of hundred years prior to the ballads? I don't have my Arthurian and Courtly Love books to hand to look it up.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:22 PM

Umm, that factor is part of the choice.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST,doc.tom
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM

The 'folk process' is not just "individuals, making a choice about what they will sing" - it is ALSO the audience response. When a behaviour (in this case a song rendition) is 'rewarded' (recieves approbation) by an audience, then the likelihood of its being repeated is increased. If the reverse, the likelihood is decreased. This is the way in which the text becomes 'honed'. This is the (only)way in which the community (en masse) 'creates' the song. This is, I would think, going to hold true whether within the (no longer existing) traditional communities from which the songs were collected - or from within the modern communities of interest (although nowadays, of course, we have promotion, publicity and hype to tell us what we should approve of.) Then, just to complicate things further, many of the ballads we're talking about here were not (but I won't say never) performed FOR an audience - more often within a domestic, even solitary, situation. It is the folk revival that has created a'new' context of performance.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: Brian Peters
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:28 AM

Just off to do the final mixes today! Before the end of the month, I hope.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: HipflaskAndy
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:17 AM

Cheers for the promt reply Brian - when do we see the CD then? - Dunc

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:08 AM

See, that's the problem I have with folklore, songs, in particular, as a discipline. There is no nebulous mass called the 'folk' which suddenly gets the idea into it's collective mind that such and such a verse should read like this..
The mysterious 'folk-process' is SINGERS, individuals, making a choice about what they will sing. We don't always know their names, but they are individuals, much like Nic Jones.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: Brian Peters
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:08 AM

>> Are you around BP? <<

Yes Duncan, I'm around all right, in fact I just beat you to the draw! The 'extra' verse to 'Bonny George Campbell' was written out on a beermat for me (actually the whole song was) by Anne Alderson at the legendary Collingwood Folk Club - the Wilsons' former home patch - in 1981. It didn't occur to me at the time that one verse might not be traditional, although I could probably spot it if the same thing were to happen now. And then the same thing goes and happens to you - the Beermat Tradition may be new phenomenon worthy of learned discussion. Having said that, I now wonder whether the ballad works better without the 'explanation' - the sparseness of the storyline just adds to the mystery.

As to my own versions of Child Ballads, I do anything and everything from taking a source singer's text verbatim, to inserting occassional 'missing' verses from alternative texts, to recasting the whole thing with traditional verses where possible and made-up ones if not - see 'Sir Aldingar' - to writing a whole new set of verses ('Six Nights Drunk'). The master plan is to set out some of the assembly instructions on my website alongside the lyrics, so anyone can see the processes laid bare.

And, like you and Nic, I do sometimes make unconscious changes as well. Don't we all?

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: HipflaskAndy
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 04:54 AM

Folk process ????

I too am looking forward to Brian Peters' Child CD.
I wonder how 'true' to existing text he'll be on it?
(Are you around BP?)
I'm told he sings an 'extra' verse to (Child 210) 'Bonny George Campbell' for instance.
One written not that long ago, if I understand correctly.
At Alcester mini-fest about two weeks back, in my preamble to that song I happened to mention the 'story' was incomplete (as archived) - where was he going? - what happened? - who did it? etc etc
As I came offstage, a lady was waiting for me, she'd taken the time to write down (for me) an 'extra' verse - said Gordon Tyrall/Brian Peters sang this extra verse that filled in the detail.
Now I'm sure there's a thread on here somewhere (haven't time to trawl for it) where a chap 'fesses up to writing that verse - bless!

Nic, of course, (like many others) sang versions as and how they came to him on the day - having researched, he then edited extensively, re-wrote at will, and sang from (a constantly evolving, and occasionally lapse-prone) memory!

Difficult to know what's-really-what, out there, innit! ;0)
It's a great thing, the tradition, I love it.
- HFA (Duncan McFarlane)

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: Brian Peters
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 04:50 AM

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, Anglo. Gordon Hall is an obvious example of a recent 'traditional' singer who collated texts to come up with his 'best' version, and I'm sure Jim Carroll mentioned on one thread here that Walter Pardon did too. Other accounts have spoken of traditional singers using broadsides or books to fill out their lyrics. Maybe most singers throughout history simply sang what they'd themselves heard, as accurately as memory would allow, but I'd bet that a few have always tried deliberately to improve either text or tune, or both.

On a more speculative level, I've always been fascinated by the conversion of the maidservant accomplice in British Isles versions of 'Young Hunting' to a manservant in Frank Proffitt's 'Love Henery' a change which (as the wonderful and sadly late Tom Gibney used to mention in his introduction to the ballad) allows the murderess the opportunity for a seduction attempt. Was this change a matter of memory lapse, or a deliberate attempt - presumably before the song reached Proffitt - to spice up the story with a bit of sex?

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 04:49 AM

If thats the case then all the good tunes and songs are received by "accident".

Sorry but I do not believe that the great music and song I know has come down through a sort of "leave a monkey with a type writer and it will eventually write Shakespeare....". To me the more likely process is that talented singers and musicians rework and invent tunes that others on hearing them are inspired to play.... pretty much what still happens in fact today

Having said that I am sure misheard lyrics, part remembered tunes etc.. all play a part in the passing on.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: Anglo
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 04:03 AM

As far as folk process is concerned, I think the assumption is made that "traditionally" changes are made unconsciously, by lapses of memory in learning the song, or over time; whereas Nic looked at a number of extant texts, chose the bits that he liked, and collated his own version.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 03:59 AM

Just wondering who's collecting the royalties from plays of the audio clip.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 03:49 AM

A minor one: there was no "folk process," just Nic deciding which verses to sing.

Now I'm no folk academic, but I thought every singer chose how to sing any song, and that the "folk process" is not just the choice made by the singer, but how that choice is received by the listeners, who of course include other singers.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: pavane
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:55 AM

I am sure that you should remark on the (blindingly) obvious fact that according to all laws and traditions, Musgrave was totally in the wrong, committing 'fornication' at the minimum, and Lord Barnard had 'right' on his side, killing in a crime of passion, after finding his wife not only in bed with another man, but a commoner at that.

And yet Musgrave is always the hero, all our sympathies are with him, Lord Barnard is painted as a cruel and wicked man, and his faithful servant as a vile spy!

This is surely a remarkable feat of storytelling.

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 12:11 AM

Hi Karen,

I am in my regular life a folklore professor, and a full-time professional writer, among other things. I commend you on taking the time to write about the ballad, and Nic's version of it. I like your post, but think you could develop it much more. If I were to offer constructive criticism for turning it from a blog posting into an article it would be on a few points

(1) you don't clearly articulate what it is you intend to demonstrate in the article--it has no obvious thesis or direction for a good while. You start by describing the ballad in general and then Child's versions, etc., before settling on Nic Jones's version to write about formally. Readers (especially people already familiar with the ballad, who after all are the ones most likely to read it) will want to know where you're going with this before so many paragraphs go by.

(2) you seem to be mostly concerned with proving that Nic's version is the best of all possible versions. But you don't show that it is so, you merely assert or suggest. For example, you say that Lord Barnard's regret over killing his wife and his friend is "extraneous." Why? Just because Nic Jones chose to leave those verses out?

I find the expression of regret to be one of the most poignant and touching parts of the ballad, and one of the most realistic too: even the baddies aren't monsters. In the Arthurian stories, Arthur's internal conflict over whether to kill or pardon Lancelot and Guinivere is often made into the dramatic crux of whole novels. Here, we have the same conflict, after it's too late. Personally, I wish Nic had left those verses in. So I'd say that, while it's possible to argue that such things ARE extraneous, you haven't really done so.

I'd like to see you expand on this, and maybe think of ways in which Nic's version is NOT ideal. That's what usually differentiates "fans-only" writing from publishable writing.

(3) A minor one: there was no "folk process," just Nic deciding which verses to sing. No argument based on the tendencies of the folk process can really apply to this version of this song.

Karen, I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it's intended. You have a lot of good ideas, and you're thinking hard about some works of art that I think are very important. Keep up the good work!

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: The Vulgar Boatman
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:19 PM

Gosh Diane, ÿ æåëàþ ÿ áûëî óõèùðåíí êàê âû. Ìîãó ÿ óïàñòü íà âàøè íîãè?

Subject: RE: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:37 PM

Brian Peters does an amazing Danish ballad Ravengaard og Memering which he calls Sir Aldingar. Child actually classifies this as #59 but there are similarities, as there are also with Gil Morice, #83, (which Child classifies two after Little Musgrave (#81).

This one has absolutely everything in it (except the curtains got in the sale last week). Sometimes I think these ballads need a good sort out, but usually I don't.They're just allegories of people doing what they do and you can shuffle the scripts but nothing actually changes, people still do appalling things.

I'm actually much more interested in the tunes nowadays, but I'm still looking forward to Brian Peters' Child Project CD due out soonish.
.

Subject: Nic Jones - Analysis of Little Musgrave
From: GUEST,Karen Myers
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:42 PM

Just wanted to mention an article I wrote analyzing some elements of interest in Little Musgrave, using Nic Jones's performance as the example.

http://www.rationaldelight.com/2008/03/little-musgrave.html