Why reject the term 'source singer'?

Subject: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Ian Pittaway
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:45 PM

At Sidmouth Festival this year I went to a very interesting on-stage conversation with Tony Engle, MD of Topic Records. During a discussion about the proper attitude towards those from whom we get our material, a remark was made by Norma Waterson to the effect that there was something wrong in calling someone a 'source singer'. Now this was only said in passing and the conversation moved back to the main point, but I was left wondering - and wonder still - why this often-used term is any way bad. I've heard lots of people use it since, unaware (like me) that there is any debate about it. I know the language we use is important, as it holds associated ideas that may or may not be appropriate. But I've racked my brain and can't see anything wrong with it. I'm not lying awake at night worrying about this! But I am curious to know what it's all about. Could anyone enlighten me?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:09 PM

My speculation:

You could think of it in comparison to attitudes toward "natural resources": are they something merely existing as resources to exploit, or do you respect them for what they are?

You could see the use of the term either way: these people provided source material (and the source material is the stuff of interest), or that sense of "source" could be meant with more respect, as in, we'd be nothing without these people who provided us with the songs.

I can understand some discomfort with the possible ambiguity. Perhaps Norma would prefer consideration of these people as singers in their own right, rather than sources of songs.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:34 PM

What does it mean?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:02 PM

Let's assume that the usual (maybe objectionable) use of "source singer" is to indicate that the singer is to be taken as a stable, authoritative provider of the song "as it should be", because (s)he is the modern flowering of the tradition, whereas the rest of us are passive collectors, echoes of the tradition, as it were.

This suggests that the life of the song in tradition has come to an end with the "source singer".   It may suggest that any further developments of the song are illegitimate, more modern corruptions of the traditional song. At best it means "This is a singer, rooted in the tradition, from whom I got the song in question," or "from whom one may get genuine traditional songs." That's at best.

It also might suggest that the version sung by the "source singer" is either the best or the only legitimate version, or perhaps the finest flowering of the song's life.

Alternatively, the term source singer might, to some minds, seem to refer to the originator of the song.

That singer, no matter how well (s)he does the song, no matter how knowledgeable the singer may be, no matter how well that version may reflect the song's essence in its traditional life, is neither the writer nor the last word on what the song is, has been, nor can (s)he be.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:05 PM

Hearing the term 'source singer' makes me think of people who walk around carrying those damned cute little bottles of water even when they are less than 100' from a bloody tap. It is an affectation, and one we could likely do without.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:38 PM

I don't drink the stuff much myself, but if you want some water and you're up on stage or in the middle of a crowd, having a tap 100 feet away doesn't really help. (Except that you use it to refill the bottle when it's empty.)
.................................

Seems to me Dave has got the right of it here - the idea of splitting up singers on the basis of where they learned the songs can be a bit daft, and I can understand why someone like Norma might get pissed off at the way it sometimes gets used.

As a sort of technical shorthand in the context of song collection and folklore it's fair enough, a way of recording where and when a particular version of a song was collected by a particular collector - but I don't think it should be used as a kind of honorific. Everyone who sings is a source for someone who hasn't heard the song before.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:59 PM

It is a term that expresses some form of limitation on the part of the singer.

It seems to imply a singer who is good enough to 'steal' material from - but not good enough themselves, to actually perform this material.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:10 PM

How does it imply that?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:31 PM

Maybe someone should ask Norma or Martin why the term might be thought objectionable.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 09:38 PM

Perfectly good words—often technical expressions or jargon—frequently get picked up by those who don't fully understand the way the word is used in its professional or technical context, and use it in imprecise ways that manage to muddy its original meaning. I think "source singer" may very well be one of these.

I have always heard the term "source singer" used to designate a traditional singer from whom a folklorist or song collector such as Cecil Sharp or the Lomaxes learned a particular song. But in no way does that mean that the "source singer" is not good enough to sing professionally. Case in point, Jean Ritchie. She grew up in the folk singing tradition, added greatly to the store of American and Anglo-American songs and ballads, and then went on to do concerts and make records and such. I would be interested to hear what she might have to say on this subject.

If I were to learn a song from a recording of, say, Joan Baez or Ed McCurdy, I would not refer to them as "source singers," even though their recording was the source from which I learned the song. But I occasionally hear it used that way.

"Where did you learn that song?"
"Well, my source singer was Bob Dylan."

No, no, a thousand times, no!

At least that's my reading of it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:29 PM

It's simply saying that the songs reliably come from a singer who you trust as the source for many songs that, more often than not, allow the hearer/listener to get closer to the roots of this music we call trad folk song. Because of the time I've put into this, I can generally know it when I hear it.

Jean Ritchie and Jeannie Robertson are source singers. Gene Autry is not.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art again
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 10:34 PM

Seeing it the way I do, there is no reason at all to reject this good and perfectly useful verbiage.

Art

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 11:17 PM

It is a term that expresses some form of limitation on the part of the singer.

It seems to imply a singer who is good enough to 'steal' material from - but not good enough themselves, to actually perform this material.

Says who? This seems like an extremely uninformed position to me. Would that suggest that a Jeannie Robertson, Jean Ritchie, or Sarah Makem is/was not good enough to perform this music? The only limitation I see is the one of your knowledge of folk music.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 12:23 AM

When Don Firth wrote
"Where did you learn that song?"
"Well, my source singer was Bob Dylan."

No, no, a thousand times, no!

he reminded me of Eric Bogle's song lamenting the trials of the folksinger; it had the chorus

No, no a thousand times no!
Not even if my life blood's spillin'!
I'll sing anything,
even God save the King
but I won't sing any Bob Dylan!

Thanks Don, I haven't heard it for 30 years.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Nellie Clatt
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 12:24 AM

It de-humanises people by reducing them to a ' source ' rather than a human being.

Remember when companies changed from having a personnel department to calling it ' Human Resouces ' it still sticks in my throat.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 12:59 AM

I don't see that that follows, Nellie. Not any more than being referred to as a "technical writer" when I was working as a technical writer reduces me to being just a "technical writer" rather than a human being.

I don't see that being referred to as a "source singer" "reduces" the person in any way at all. It merely descibes one aspect of their existence, and a positive one at that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: 12-stringer
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:03 AM

What the hell is wrong with saying, "I learned this song from ... " ? Before my voice turned to a croak and my fingers started numbing out, that was good enough for me. "Source singer" just has a kinda chi-chi tone to me, though objectively there's nothing wrong with it and I don't see it as demeaning the source. Maybe it depends on the tone of voice in which it's spoken?

And if you're singing "The Death of Mother Jones" (it has been done), Gene Autry damn sure is a "source singer." Not to mention a couple of dirty old hokum numbers I used to do just for the pleasure of saying, "I learned this song from a Gene Autry record." Oh you can feel-a my leg, you can feel-a my thigh/But if ya feel my leg ya gotta ride me high ...

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:04 AM

Would that suggest that a Jeannie Robertson, Jean Ritchie, or Sarah Makem is/was not good enough to perform this music?

Yes it would.

So why refer to them in such a limiting way? A singer of songs is a singer of songs.

A writer of songs is a writer of songs.

A singer who also writes their own songs - is a singer/songwriter.

They may well be the ONLY source of this material but you would not call them a source singer - when perhaps such a description would be more accurate. But it would again imply some limitation to their singing abilities (but perhaps well-deserved in some cases).

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:53 AM

I heard a Source Singer sing an Adge Cuttler song one year at Whitby. When someone mentioned Adge as the source, the source singer said he didn't realise that that was so.

I guess this is the living tradition. Many of the people that Sharp et al collected from sang all kinds of songs, very old songs, popular songs musical hall songs and so on. Sharp had his view on what he wanted.

When did the term arise? Was it found useful because Source Singers sometimes sang songs that they learned from the oral tradition that were clearly, not by most definitions, either "folk" or "traditional"

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Declan
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:12 AM

While I wouldn't particularly find the term objectionable, it seems to fit in with a notion that seems to exist that the tradition is frozen in time at the time a folklorist collected a particular song. Its like the notion that no music is traditional any more and that everyone is a revivalist.

Certainly here in Ireland, I would regard the tradition as still being alive and that a new generation of 'source singers' who may have learned all there songs from records will become the 'source singers' for another new generation into the future.

This probably doesn't fit in with formal definitions of the terms as used by academic folklorists, but I think it reflects reality. If the term is useful in a particular context I see no problem in using it.

In any event given that the tradition is a living thing, a 'source singer' can only be regarded as the source of a particular version of a song rather than the definitive source.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: r.padgett
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:19 AM

I am bemuse by much of what has preceded

a source singer is clearly the original source from which the current singer derived his/her material

where that 'source' singer (if deemed a traditional singer) got the song is a matter of song research and tracing back may be problematic

the argument should really be about the terms 'traditional singer' and 'singer of traditional songs' as these two are really blurred

I am currently involved in documenting and referencing such material with Steve Gardham and Mike Parsey and a number of other volunteers who are priceless under 'the Yorkshire Garland', similar to FARNE in the North East of England

Ray

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Tim theTwangler
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:01 AM

Hi Guest Rowan I recently heard that song,for the first time at the Staithes gathering in uk earlier this year ,I thought it was brilliant.
The guy I heard it from A lovely shavey headed bloke whos name escapes me at present.
Later we got it from Tony Leonard as well.
Are those two a source then?
I write songs and would be bit miffed if I wasnt the source for them in ten years time.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:59 AM

I have heard some of the less than polished and non-professional English singers described (or dismissed) as being source singers.

Being described as a source singer in such a way - rather than simply acknowledging a named individual singer as being the source of the song (or at least where you may have first heard it) - is perhaps the cause of any reservations about the use of the term - source singer?

It may be thought to be a subtle difference but I suggest it is an important one.

There is perhaps an element of snobbery involved in this pursuit of the 'real thing' The recent Folk Brittania show was interesting in this regard. I am not sure if she ever claimed to be, but Margaret Barry was with some reverence, thought by many to be the 'source' of She Moves Through The Fair. When her source was in fact a recorded version.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:17 AM

I suggest that the expression "source singer" can only properly be used in relation to "folk song" - and at least in this context the latter has a specific meaning - the 1954 World Council of Folk Music meaning.

In that case, the "source singer" will be the singer who sang the folk song (as a folk song) to the collector who collected the song from the oral tradition. There may of course be more than one such, and the versions of the song may differ but that is the nature of the beast.

There are a number of singers who were the source singers of a number of songs. Walter Pardon springs to mind. Lloyd of course will have been a collector, and therefore not a source singer. MacColl was largely a writer, but he claimed that a number of songs he sang wre traditional. In some cases he will have been the collector, and assuming that his story about Proud Maisrie (or the Gairdner Child), namely that he learned it from the singing of his mother, when he was a child and she puttering about the house, then he learned it as a folk song and he was the source singer.

Curiously, applying that train of logic, the Copper family will largely have been collectors, rather than source singers.

But what I don't understand is how the term is demeaning.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Ian Pittaway
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:06 AM

Wow, thanks folks. I really didn't expect such a response! Becky in Tucson, you said, "Perhaps Norma would prefer consideration of these people as singers in their own right, rather than sources of songs". This seems to hit the nail on the head, and fits in with the current thinking in song books and in Topic's 'Voice of the People', telling the stories of those from whom songs were collected, putting their songs in the context of their lives, attempting to explain how the songs were meaningful to them. This is in contrast to previous books and CDs, where the 'source singers' were simply names, more or less anonymous conduits for the traditional song. I'm not sure how successful these attempts to contextualise the songs in singers' lives have been, as the late 19th / early 20th century collectors often gave us little (or no!) biography to go on, but I can see why the attempt was made.

Richard Bridge, I'm seeing Martin Carthy and Dave Swarbrick tonight. On the slight chance that I get to chat with Martin (as it's not at a folk club, but an arts centre), I will ask him.   

12-stringer: "What the hell is wrong with saying, "I learned this song from ... "?" No one has suggested there is anything wrong with that. The debate is about the use and intended meaning of the term 'source singer', and the baggage that goes with it, as above.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 02:38 PM

Margaret Barry

Describing Leadbelly simply as a source singer may not be judged to be demeaning - as he undoubtably was this (for many people) - but perhaps it would be a less than complete description of the man and his talents?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 02:41 PM

It is an ugly-sounding term.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:03 PM

When I use the term, it is a way to honor the person I am recognizing at the moment. I've done it for the last fifty years. I'm saying THANK YOU to a person who showed me the way. I made my own path after that, but I was always continuing a line that started, for me, possibly, with that inspiring personification of one who was a keeper of the flame.

Jean Ritchie (Kentucky Trad here on Mudcat) and her family were always incandescent holders of the traditional songs and ways of playing the mountain dulcimer. Before that, who of us would've ever thought to use a goose quill as a pick!!!!! Every time I played my dulcimer I took note of her impact on me---and I thanked her for showing me what she and her family knew. Her Father, Balis Ritchie, singing the song I think was "Joe Bowers" has always been a favorite of mine. And I always smile when I think of the time Jean "had red hair". ;-)

Jean, herself, was the one who, just about, single-handedly, brought the lap dulcimer out of Viper, Kentucky and to the attention of the American folk revival---and then, the world!

She, and hundreds of other "source singers", magically transported me to their own special folkloristic pockets of this world we're in. Ms. Jean, thanks again!

Love,

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:12 PM

Hear, hear! Amen to that, Art!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:56 PM

"It is a term that expresses some form of limitation on the part of the singer" is how the Shambkles sees it.

I'd be with Art on seeing it completely the other way round, a way of paying respect to the singer in question.

Any objection would be because there is an implication that other singers are a bit second-hand and second rate, and I'd be inclined to think that that would be what Norma Waterson would have had in mind.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:10 PM

Art, I was about to make a wordplay joke on your earlier post that Gene Autry was a "Saddlesores Singer" but your last post completely blew me away.

Perfect.....Absolutely perfect.....and beautifully written, eloquently stated.

Anyone not agreeing with me can kiss my ass.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:22 PM

Things to do first.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:31 PM

Thanks Art. I just want to point out that any interpretation other than one of respect, must be from those who are not folksingers. Anyone who isn't posting to just to "hear themselves speak" would makes such a silly statement. It is a term we use to denote honor and thanks for passing it on.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:34 PM

Not necessarily, Mick. As was mentioned above: I learned the song from XXXX XXXX works just as well and certainly sounds less 'exclusive'. If you thought any of my remarks about the term translated into remarks against so-called 'source singers', you are very much mistaken.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 07:40 PM

I am really referring to Shambles insinuation that somehow this denotes someone of lesser talent, or some such nonsense as that.   I have a pretty good collection of noted folksingers and collectors. I have never heard this term used to denote anything but respect. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, IMO. The term should be exclusive, as it denotes someone who has spent a great deal of their life collecting or singing these songs.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:10 PM

To my mind, it is a term which suggests immense respect - and a value which comes from rarity. I would love to be described in such a way, but it isn't going to happen. It suggests not only a long term involvement in the singing of traditional material, but an integrity of situation with that material - ie to have been brought up with that being part of your environment.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:35 PM

I think it's a good idea sometimes to think about the image underlying a metaphor.

"Source" is about a spring bubbling out of the ground, and feeding into a stream or a river. Something precious coming into the open which has been hidden away until it does so.

A powerful image and one to be treated with respect, and not cheapened by being applied carelessly.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:11 PM

Some people describing Leadbelly and using only the term 'source singer', could be thought to be making a value judgement.

Saying instead that Leadbelly was the source of the song is perfectly respectful and says exactly what you want and no more - without any question of any form of judgement in the statement.

You may not agree that there is any harm in using the term 'source singer' but what the is the harm in not using the term, if it can be avoided - by simply saying who the source of the song was?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:28 PM

TimTheTwangler wrote;
"Hi Guest Rowan I recently heard that song [Eric Bogle's effort about the trials of a young folk singer], for the first time at the Staithes gathering in uk earlier this year ,I thought it was brilliant. The guy I heard it from A lovely shavey headed bloke whos name escapes me at present. Later we got it from Tony Leonard as well.
Are those two a source then?
I write songs and would be bit miffed if I wasnt the source for them in ten years time."

I don't use the term myself and I don't deliberately avoid using it. There are a few songs and tunes that I've learned from various sources and brought into my local folk scene. Some became so popular that they're now played by people from all over and who've never even heard of me let alone played or sung with me.

For some of these I had thought "It'd go better if I changed this to that" and this has allowed me to arrogate unto myself (probably misplaced) responsibility for part of the currency of the item. But I don't regard myself as a source in the sense of the discussions above. Rather, I've thought of myself as just one link in a very long chain or more accurately, several very long chains.

Some links in the chain are identifiable; most aren't. Some links are regarded as anchor points at the beginning of the chain's length. Some chains are very long and others are very short; ditto strong or weak. Some spectacular links join and/or start many chains and a few glow with an incandescence that dazzles.

It doesn't bother me whether my link is recognised, acknowledged or neither but I confess that it is pleasant and delightful when I see that I'm not the last link in the various chains.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 10:24 PM

Pat,
Thanks. Nice of you to say that. I hope you are well these days.

Art

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 10:31 PM

Referring to a traditional singer from whom a folklorist or collector has learned songs as a "source singer" is in no way denigrating. But—

I rarely, if ever, use the term, and then, only in reference to the people that folklorists and song collectors collect songs from. I don't think I've ever used the term in reference to someone that I learned a particular song from. I consider it a specialized term used by folklorists and academic song collectors, and frankly, when used by others to describe the person from whom they learned a song (be it from a Joan Baez or Burl Ives or Kingston Trio record), it sounds pompous and pedantic to me.

Don't use the expression unless you're a folklorist and have academic credentials as such.

There. Problem solved.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Gurney
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 11:47 PM

I've always used the term to denote someone who carries a song that wasn't learned from a record, but from an old source, such as mothers knee. It does, to me, denote an old person, but old isn't demeaning, just a description. I qualify as old.
Perhaps we are talking here of the way this language is changing.
Gay. Queer. Cool. Black. White. Blue. Pig. Feminine. Chauvinist. It's a BIG list.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:20 AM

Greetings Gurney,
Your "old isn't demeaning, just a description" reminded me of a newspaper cutting I came across in South Carolina in 1991. It described all the terms commonly used for people over 45 (old, elderly, senior citizens etc) as being, in the modern argot, "politically incorrect". It then suggested that the only "acceptable" description for such people was "chronologically gifted".

I rolled around the floor laughing at this (as does everyone I mention it to) but I was suddenly struck by a realisation. In most 'indigenous' societies, the older you are the more respect you're likely to be accorded automatically, a bit different to the situation in 'civilised' societies where you're likely to be treated as 'past your "Use By" date'. Also in many 'indigenous' societies, before colonisation by 'civilised' ones, there was usually no such thing as a natural death. Most misfortune was because someone else's "magic" was superior to that of the person who was suffering. From this you could infer that, if you were old, your magic was seriously powerful. Suddenly the serious veneration and respect for the elderly was easily understandable.

And "chronologically gifted" seemed appropriate. Just think of yourself that way and that all the young turks and tyros are chronologically challenged; but getting there.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:36 AM

Anyone over 45? Man, am I ever "chronologically gifted!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:02 AM

Never heard anyone use the term 'source singer', and I assume it means someone who sings sourcey songs.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:41 AM

Never heard anyone use the term 'source singer', and I assume it means someone who sings sourcey songs.

http://www.mustrad.org.uk/reviews/rae2.htm

http://www.footstompin.com/artists/sheena_wellington

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:48 AM

The comparison with Willie Scott is unfortunate.

Though most of us knew and heard Willie in his declining years, he was never anything other than a master of traditional song. He did sing more slowly with advancing years, but his pitch, pace and tone was always very pleasing. The same cannot be said of Joe's singing. In fact, it is the slow pace that draws attention to his faults as a singer. He is guilty of one of my pet hates of trying to hold consonant rather than vowel sounds: Oh, it's whisperrrred innnnn the kitchennnnn...

At times, he has problems with maintaining the tune, especially when he has to cope with an upward jump of a fifth or more, and at other times he employs a vibrato that he does not appear to have full control over. Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Brian Peters
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:32 AM

I always thought "source singer" was a term invented to avoid the confusion Ray Padgett mentions between "traditional singer" and "singer of traditional songs". To my ears it has never conveyed anything other than respect; a sense of being The Real Thing. The problem with inventing new terminology is that someone somewhere will always find something wrong with it, as witness the continuing controversies over acceptable terms to use in the fields of race or disability.

I don't know whether Norma's objection is to an implied commodification of traditional songs, or to a perceived slight against those *not* considered "source singers", but I do know that the days when traditional singers were regarded as croaky geriatrics whose sole value was as raw material for 'proper' singers in the folk revival are long gone. However, any attempt to seek cast-iron definitions is subverted by the actual traditional singers themselves, who learned songs from broadsides, published song collections or records, sang songs the collectors didn't really want to hear, and (in the case of recent examples like Jeff Wesley or Bob Lewis) have absorbed material in the folk clubs they've attended. On of the problems of a folk revival which was born in the sixties partly as an intellectual and political movement, is the tendency to make music jump through hoops labelled "authenticity". Although I'm as interested as anyone in the origins of songs, there does come a time when - as Declan suggests - you need to be a bit less precious and self-concious and just get on with music-making.

PS What was The Shambles' last (italicized) post about? Was something missing?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:32 AM

My experience is that objection to the term "source singer" is coupled with an objection to the use of "traditional singer" to do describe anybody other than "source singers". People who just 'sing traditional songs' are therefore (I think) demoted to being mere "folk singers", although how one is supposed to differentiate between folk singers who sing traditional songs and folk singers who don't is unclear.

Clarity and efficiency of language is very important if the general (national) bemusemement towards the genre is to be combatted. So for my money "traditional singer" = 'singer of traditional songs' and "source singer" = 'a traditional singer whose repertoire is drawn directly from the oral tradition' is the best way forward (the former being something people can aspire to be, unlike the latter). Jon

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 08:30 AM

Interesting thread.

Question:
Do any of the contributors to this thread actually use the term "source singer"?

If so, what do you mean?

If it is a technical term (like, e.g., angioplasty) used by a particular group with a clear definition, it is that group's call whether to use it.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:05 AM

To address an issue raised a GUEST, two above, a folk singer, is a person singing, within the meaning of the 1954 (etc, see above) folk songs. Once a collector has collected the songs, and the new generation of singers learn them, when they sing those songes, they are folksong singers. Thus the Young Tradition were folksong singers (as is Martin Carthy) and so, which may amuse some, was Lonnie Donegan.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:09 AM

PS What was The Shambles' last (italicized) post about? Was something missing?

It was an extract by Vic Smith, showing an example of where it more than implies that 'source singer' is one who is good enough to 'steal' material from - but not good enough themselves, to actually perform this material.

Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer.

The full article can be found by clicking on the following link.

http://www.mustrad.org.uk/reviews/rae2.htm

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Snuffy
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:16 AM

So if I found a review of a different 'source singer' praising his technical mastery and voice control to the skies, would that "more than imply" that all source singers are paragons of their art and should be slavishly copied?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 10:41 AM

No sense talking sense to Shambles Snuff. The years of attacking Mudcat and Joe and all have fried his mind and left him with a brain the size of a pea and as empty as a eunuch's nut sack.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:34 PM

The main point of supplying those two links was in answer the those who had not seen the term used and used in this manner.

Never heard anyone use the term 'source singer', and I assume it means someone who sings sourcey songs

The example from the other link was as follows.

Her grandmother, for example, was the source singer for the well-known song Bunch Of Thyme which is now widely sung.

It also shows that the use of the term in this manner could so easily be avoided by just saying the person was the source of the song.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 01:32 PM

Of course a "source singer" sometimes learns a song from a collector, and then sings it to another collector. And of course a "source singer" may very well be someone who has made a popint of learnimg songs from other people in the first place. It all gets very complicated when you try to pin people down into categories.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 02:21 PM

I've been at work today, so can't post, but have been thinking about this ...

If you can think of a song a a river...it has a long journey, along which many things will happen to it, perhaps it will broaden, perhaps get channelled in one way or another - it might well get completely polluted, so that no-one wants to drink from it. Tributaries may run into it and add to it - some of it might be evaporated and therefore recycled into other rivers - but at it's source it is as pure as we can find it. And it can have only one source - that being where it came out in the open for the very first time and people realised it was there.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Rowan
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 06:45 PM

Blowzabella uses a nice image of a river. But his image specifies only one source. One could argue this as a very eurocentric notion of a river if one compares it with a different notion widespread among Australian Aborigines. Because rivers of any great size (OK, we've only got a couple) run through several different language groups (about as different from each other as European languages) the different parts of a river each had specific and different names. When Europeans came and imposed 'the one true source' notion and eradicated many of the separate names, the sense that each part of the river's extent was distinctive became diminished, if not lost.

It seems to me that the Aboriginal view stands as a fairly good metaphor for many variants/performances of a song. They're all connectable and may take on widely variant appearances. Very few "rivers" have a single "source" that has the same dimension as the later development of the watercourse. Even if you can detect the location of the spring, that isn't necessarily the source; it's only where the water comes into easy view from underground. Songs, both traditional and recent, may have an extensive "underground" component before they come into view. And then they change.

And in 500 years' time, will our current pedantries matter?

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:06 PM

Gene Autry was my source singer of Barney the Bashful Bullfrog. Which is widely sung in my house.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:23 PM

It is not just the Australians who gave different names to rivers at different places. The river nationally known as the Thames in England is called the Isis in Oxford, and there are other examples of the same practice.
.............
Single source? In fact pretty well all rivers are made up of tributeries coming together, each of which has its own source, joining to form one single river. And then likely enough ending in a delta, where it splits up once again.

Analogies should not be stretched too far, but that is in fact a pretty accurate account of how songs can develop.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:50 PM

Which takes me back to my thesis that what is academically referred to as a "source singer" is the specific traditional singer from whom a particular song collector collected a particular version of a song. This doesn't mean that this source singer is the actual source of the song. That actual source is quite possibly some medieval troubadour or minstrel, or some unknown poet/musician (professional or amateur) whose identity is lost in the mists of antiquity. That unknown minstrel is the source of the song, and its first interpreter, like the initial rivulet from a spring or from the foot of a glacier, to which other tributaries add their own interpretations.

But as McGrath points out, one can run this analogy into the ground.

Once again, I maintain that the term "source singer" is a technical term used by folklorists and ethnomusicologists, has a fairly specific meaning, and only gets screwed up when used indiscriminately and incorrectly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 07:53 PM

It's a pretty analogy though, isn't it

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 09:01 PM

In my folk scene photograph collection, which can be viewed at

http://rudegnu.com/art_thieme.html

there is a photo I took of the back of John Hartford's fiddle.

Running around the bottom of the instrument's back are these words from John's mentor, Captain Fred Way:

"Nothing is real but the river, and all else in sham."

Art   ;-)

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Gurney
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:12 AM

Chronologically gifted, Rowan? Nobody gave me them, I had to live them, and to some extent earn them.
'Rich in years' is a term I prefer.

On the river analogy: There are at least three distinct Avon rivers in England, due to 'Afon' being the Saxon (old English) word for river. That's off the top of my head, and I stand to be corrected. Nothing's ever simple, is it.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:27 AM

The question was not the word 'source'.

Nor was the suggestion that stating where a singer first heard their song was a bad idea.

It was if the use of the speciic term 'source singer' to describe a performer should continue.

As some do have a problem with its use in this manner and its use can be so easily avoided by simply saying what the source was - perhaps it is a term that should now be avoided when describing an indiviual?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:30 AM

Should we stop doing things, which are deemed by us to be reasonable, because some others seem to have a problem with them? There's a question!

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:28 AM

Thing is Art, a lot of these people above arguing about the nature of folk music - the purity of its terms, sources and the like....

Well if they heard Dean Martin singing Gentle on My Mind on the radio, they would embrace a fiery death rather than acknowledge its relationship to the folk process.

And it really not THAT big a jump. The only thing that pisses them off is that an artist has found an access point to folk music for simple folk - tatally uncommitted t the world of 'folk music' proper.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scrump
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:36 AM

So, what is the proper definition of the term "source singer"? Has it been defined above? If so I missed it and I apologise.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:40 AM

I have to say that I've not come across the term "source singer" very often, and then only in its technical usage. I've never heard a singer refer to the source of a song in those terms, they'll usually just say, "I learned this song from so-and-so."

I assume that Norma Waterson would have been referring to its technical usage when she made the comment which prompted this thread. I'm still unclear what her objections to it might be.

One interpretation is that these singers should be viewed simply as singers, and that to put them into a separate category is somehow demeaning. The trouble with this is that in many cases, when judged against the high standards now set by professional and semi-professional folk performers, a lot of them are simply not very good singers. Perhaps they are past their best, perhaps they never were much good. If the singer who Vic Smith reviewed had just been an ordinary folk-club singer, he would never have been recorded, let alone been reviewed in a widely-read online journal.

There are a number of traditional singers who you would not choose to listen to for entertainment, but who are nevertheless worth studying for their style and repertoire. Is it then disrespectful in some way to learn their songs and sing them yourself? Or should we only take songs from those singers who are good enough performers in their own right (of whom there are, of course, many)?

Regardless of the quality of their performance, because these singers come from the tradition, their material and singing style gives them a significance which distinguishes them from the not-very-good revival singers you can find at any folk club or session. I believe it is useful to have a label to describe them: "traditional singer" is too loosely used and can mean both someone from the tradition and someone who just sings traditional songs. "Source singer" is in my opinion a useful and unambiguous term, and any implication of patronisation or disrespect seems to me to be only in the mind of the listener.

Of course, if someone is going to be patronising or disrespectful they will be so regardless of the label.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 05:31 AM

I don't know whether Norma's objection is to an implied commodification of traditional songs, or to a perceived slight against those *not* considered "source singers", but I do know that the days when traditional singers were regarded as croaky geriatrics whose sole value was as raw material for 'proper' singers in the folk revival are long gone.

Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer.

Well from the example(s) I provided - these days look to be far gone.

But if they have and many of the other less than positive aspects of the folk revival are gone also - then perhaps the term 'sorce singer' can now safely go along with them?

"Source singer" is in my opinion a useful and unambiguous term, and any implication of patronisation or disrespect seems to me to be only in the mind of the listener.

Of course, if someone is going to be patronising or disrespectful they will be so regardless of the label.

So why then continue to attempt to group so many disparate singers together by using any label and this particlar label at all - when you can effectively credit the source without using this term, by simply saying who the source for the song was?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Brian Peters
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:21 AM

"Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer."

To fair to Vic Smith, who wrote the above, he is making a judgement (in his role as a record reviewer) about the quality of the performance of a particular singer. However much respect we believe is due to source / traditional singers, there is no need to assume that all are of equal quality, especially when it comes to a product being offered for sale. The reviewer's duty is to pass an opinion, and in Vic's case he knows a lot about traditional singing. Nowhere, incidentally, did I see Vic state that the songs on the album were interesting solely as material to be appropriated by revival singers.

"So why then continue to attempt to group so many disparate singers together by using any label and this particlar label at all - when you can effectively credit the source without using this term, by simply saying who the source for the song was?"

Because there remains a need in certain circumstances for a *general* term to distinguish singers who have learned songs through the traditional process (however difficult this may prove to pin down in practice) from those in the folksong movement (I used the term "revival singers" above, though it's not one I particularly care for) who have no family or cultural background in folksong but have learned these songs out of choice and enthusiasm. This thread has already demonstrated that "traditional singer" is understood differently in different quarters, hence the use of "source singer". But I'm out of here now before we all start drowning in definitions.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:41 AM

But I'm out of here now before we all start drowning in definitions.

Or drown in all those bloody rivers - metaphorical or real ones *Smiles*

But if we insist on using such terms - for good or bad - we do tend to be stuck with trying to define them. If we can avoid them - perhaps we should?

My view is that the use of words like 'traditional' and terms like 'source singers' will only ever cause us all problems and will only needlessly threaten to divide those who have musical interests in common.

My view is that the only singers who can in any true sense be claimed or described as 'source singers' and without argument, are those singing their own material.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scrump
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:27 AM

My view is that the only singers who can in any true sense be claimed or described as 'source singers' and without argument, are those singing their own material

Why not just call them "singer/songwriters" then? :-)

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:01 AM

Please note that this, apparently, is the latest topic of obsession by our resident obsessor. For the uninitiated that means that he will nitpick it to death and continue to pry it apart until you all tire of it.

This topic demonstrates the wisdom of folks like Art Thieme and Bill D. I remember (way back in time) when the whole "What is Folk Music?" argument started and raged forever. At that time I disagreed with my friends as to what constituted folk music, as opposed to folk type singers and folk type songs. This discussion is doomed to be much like that one. They will ignore the commonly held view of people who really have spent a good portion of their lives in this endeavor, collecting and cataloguing, and viewing their work in a preservationist way. They will parse the word, apply faulty definitions, and generally be very happy with themselves.

I will only say this about the subject. Among learned folkies a source singer is a respected source. They are often very fine singers and interpreters. They are the artists sought out by singers to find songs and historical performance data. Usually they are people, such as Jean Ritchie, who have grown up steeped in the songs and lore, as opposed to a Sandy Paton who sought them out on the front porches of mountain cabins with folks like Frank Proffit or Jeannie Robertson in Scotland. Jean Ritchie's performance artistry has been celebrated and recognized at the highest levels. She is universally respected as a performing artist, as well as a source singer. Jeannie Robertson completely blows the contention that a source singer is something less than a great singer/interpreter. Here is what Dick Gaughan says about her on his website:

The best singer of the Muckle Sangs (classic Scots ballads) I ever heard. She possessed a supreme artistry and what would now be called professionalism with a skill comparable to that of a Shakespearean actor. When she sang, she knew and understood every nuance of the relationships between the characters in the story, their motives and the consequences of their actions - and by the time she'd finished, so did the listener.

The notion of the untrained, primitive unconscious "carrier" of tradition collapses in tatters when confronted by Jeannie.


The source singer then is a person who is the source of a song, or a specific style of performing/singing. They may or may not be a performer on the larger stage, but they have been singing these songs in family and community gatherings, usually their whole lives. They usually are the caretakers of a tradition passed on over the generations, such as playing with a goose quill. They hold within them the evolutionary changes to songs or styles (known as the folk process colloquially) peculiar to their region, community, or even family. A grand example of this would be the source singers of Beaver Island, MI. These were finally collected and released on a CD titled "Beaver Island House Party" where we heard the last of the old ones performing Irish based music and song that had evolved over the generations into a unique form. They, then are the source for those that come after.

The term is an honorific among those that know what they are talking about. This is not in dispute except among the uninformed, or those that just like to read their own words. They have a need to try and pedestrianize the term, I suppose because they don't want to invest the time. These are folks that sit and comment on the process as opposed to participate in it.

I bow to the wisdom of folks like Bill and Art. Should have listened to them years ago.

Just my two cents worth.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scoville
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:20 AM

Does it matter one way or the other? If we didn't call them a "source singer" (which I've rarely heard used, anyway), we'd just call them something else, but we would mean the same thing when we said it. It's just recycling of terminology. Eventually the new term will mean the same thing to us and we'll start griping about the same things all over again.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:31 AM

You have just made my point, friend Scoville. Terms are important in the study of things. It is important to have the term to apply to people such as Bess Cronin, and others already mentioned. It is a waypoint on the trail. It is how we preserve for future generations the music and the particular style or lyric. Without these waypoints, the music just becomes a jumbled mess. It is absolutely important.

When windbags try to redefine just to hear themselves talk and seem as though they know what they are talking about, they damage the music. It increases the danger of losing important distinctive points on the folk map. Music becomes homgenized and loses its vibrancy.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:54 AM

I think the term "source singer" is a very useful and accurate term. Though like all words which cover a spectrum of meanings it is easy to poke fun at the use of the word by looking at the ends of the spectrum it lies on. We all know there is a difference between red hair and brown hair. That does not mean that that an intermediate shade may not be difficult to define.
    I would use the term source ssinger, and I would have thought its normal meaning is pretty clear. Joseph Taylor was a source singer. Now, a Benjamin Britten or Martin Carthy will turn up, hear the recording(or meet the singer), learn the words and tune and re-arrange the song into something else. To use the river analogy (bashed well to death so far in this thread) the songs roll slowly along the stream like nuggets of gold. Then someone hoicks them out after a few million years and makes them into ear-rings or sovereigns. Whether this is an improvement can be a matter of contention.
   Now, the Folk Britannia series definitely presented a view of folk music that evolved, from its rough and ready "source singer" apeman origins into fully-fledged homo sapiens folk-rock, singer-songwriter on stage at Cambridge perfection. Now, if you take that view of folk music, then "source-singer" is a derogatory term, because the implication is that the source singer provides the raw material from which the clever artist makes something worthwhile. And possibly those were the lines that Norma Waterson was thinking along? But I do't know, I didnt hear the discussion. But I do know that kind kind of derogatory use of the term(or concept) is not unknown...I remember an interview with Mary O'Hara many years ago when she basically said"nobody wants to listen to the old shepherds and sailors' versions any more, they want proper arrangements". And her turn of phrase implied she agreed with that judgement. In the context of that sort of stance, the "source singer" is indeed being down-graded.
   To me, as unrepentant worshipper of traditional folkmusic, "source singer" is a term of high honour. But it is undeniably true that in some people's mouths the term is a put-down(very like Lenin's description of the faithful toilers for the revolution as "useful idiots").

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Scrump
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:54 AM

Can't we just listen to and enjoy the music without worrying about what terms to use to describe it or the performers? Why does everything have to be labelled?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:20 AM

I think the term "source singer" is a very useful and accurate term.

Perhaps you would accept that it is a term that only has any use if it IS accurately applied and also that so often it is not accurately applied.

A claim like: Her grandmother, for example, was the source singer for the well-known song Bunch Of Thyme which is now widely sung.

It is only the start of many pointless arguments and counter claims - none of which have much to do with the song or the music itself.

Studying and labelling of the music may be judged to be very important (mainly to those who do it). But it will never be as important as the music itself.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:58 AM

Why reject the term 'source singer'?

To me, as unrepentant worshipper of traditional folkmusic, "source singer" is a term of high honour. But it is undeniably true that in some people's mouths the term is a put-down(very like Lenin's description of the faithful toilers for the revolution as "useful idiots").

That should be enough.

Whether you think it to be a term of honour and respect or a put-down - the fact that the same term can (and does) have two completly opposite meanings in practice - is perhaps enough reason alone to reject it? As such a situation makes it very difficult to communicate and can only lead to heated misunderstandings........

On the other hand - in the face of what we have seen in this thread - if you wish (for some reason) to carry on arguing forever - then just carry on using such confusing terms.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:08 AM

That is typical of the uninformed blather you often put out, Roger. The fact is that it doesn't have "opposite meanings in practice" by anyone who is knowledgeable in more than an ordinary way. That is not to say that everyone must be well schooled to enjoy the music. That is not the case. But when one tries to sit and act as though they are some kind of authority, as your posturing suggests, you only look foolish by trying to change what is generally accepted among practicioners of long standing, and scholars on the subject. Your suggestion that "source singers" are generally folks not skilled enough to perform the music demonstrates that you are quite chuffed with reading your own words, even if they are very foolish. These singers might often be unknown, but once discovered they are sought out, collected, and acknowledged for whom they are.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:29 AM

Your suggestion that "source singers" are generally folks not skilled enough to perform the music demonstrates that you are quite chuffed with reading your own words, even if they are very foolish.

That was not of course MY suggestion.

It was an observation of how the term can be and is currently used. It was one that was confirmed - in Greg's post. But it is undeniably true that in some people's mouths the term is a put-down(very like Lenin's description of the faithful toilers for the revolution as "useful idiots").

It would only be foolish to continue confuse by ploughing on using a term that had two opposite meanings and uses in practice - just because you may prefer that it did not - as no amount of your usual bullying bluster or sycophancy on our forum is going change the way this term is seen and used by some.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:34 AM

Your words:

It is a term that expresses some form of limitation on the part of the singer.

It seems to imply a singer who is good enough to 'steal' material from - but not good enough themselves, to actually perform this material.

And later in the thread I asked the following:

Would that suggest that a Jeannie Robertson, Jean Ritchie, or Sarah Makem is/was not good enough to perform this music?


and you answered:

Yes it would.

Now go ahead and try and twist that, but the record is the record.

And you seem to think that anyone who challenges your ridiculous assertions is bullying you. That is not the case. You are responsible for your own words. When they are silly and uninformed, they are fair game.

Enough in this thread.

Mick

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:35 AM

It's a term that means a singer of traditional songs who learned them in a traditional manner, from whom others learn songs. Pretty accurate, unless you want to discuss 'traditional'. Value judgements are always up to the individuals involved in a discussion, but the term is one that most will understand.

As far as wishing to argue forever, that's your shtick, Roger.

As to the original question about something being wrong with the term, it gets into the whole traditional/what is folk thing. If, a few generations from now, someone is deemed a 'source singer' because they have a repertoire of songs they learned from their mom, who got it from granny, who got it from etc, and the songs go, "and if you give me weed, whites and wine," and "if I had a hammer," and "we all live in a yellow..."

See, Norma Waterson is a source singer for me, but I'm pretty sure she got involved in a/the revival. (Could stand to be corrected here.)

The people we call 'source singers' are really passers-on of songs. They may be a 'source' for all of us outside their tradition, but inside their tradition, they just learn the songs from someone a generation or two before - their source - and pass the songs on to the next 'source', until someone from outside can discover them and call them a 'source singer'.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:46 AM

This thread is about the use and meaning of the term 'source singer'.

At no point have I indicated any lack of value of the source of a song or of the act of attributing this to that source. A read of my posts will show that my arguments have been confined to the question of the continued use of the term 'source singer' only.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:59 PM

I don't think we should reject the term - much better to use it more often in its correct context and using its correct application - that way, people learn how it should be used.

To stop doing something, because there might possibly be a duality of meaning, or confusion - rather than aim for proper useage - that sounds like dumbing down to me.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:14 PM

I don't think we should reject the term - much better to use it more often in its correct context and using its correct application - that way, people learn how it should be used.

Every dog has its day - perhaps this term has now had its day?

However you cut it - when you make a point of choosing describe performers (even accurately) and in its 'correct usage' as 'source singers' - rather than simply singers - by this choice, you are making a value judgement and saying in effect that their value as the source of songs is more than their value as a singer of them.

Your intention in using this term may be to honestly pay your respect to the singers but perhaps you should be prepared for the fact that it may not be taken that way by the singer? Especially as some of us have pointed out here that - the term 'source singer' just means not a very good one.

As you can credit and show respect for an individual singer as the source of the song without describing them as a 'source singer', it is perhaps better not to use this generic term at all.

In answer to this - the suggestion was made that the term is still required because there remains a need in certain circumstances for a *general* term to distinguish singers who have learned songs through the traditional process...... Does there, why and if so why this term?

For if learning songs and skills through the 'traditional' process (whatever that may be) made them sound any better - the difference would be obvious and self evident. The fact that musically it isn't - suggests that any perceived extra value of material being passed on in this way is a lot less tangible and hence the need for some, to have a general term.

But as many of those those named here who some would choose to group and describe as 'source singers' would also sing and play material that was taken from records or radio etc - such a discription of these singers would not be entirely accurate.

Foe example: Doc Watson plays much material from many sources - including those that may be considered as being learned by this 'traditional' process. But this is not a factor in one's enjoyment in hearing them, as you would not know which were which.

So why risk offending any singer by choosing to use this term to describe them? Perhaps the problem with the term is that it comes from a time when singers were thought of mainly as a valuable source of material to be collected and not considered as the respected individuals and performers that we tend to see them as now.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:51 PM

I think source singers originally got their song repertoire from their families and friends, not books or recordings (even if they subsequently hoovered up and sang songs they heard and liked from other sources). The English National Folk Festival was a wonderful opportunity to hear source singers from all over the British Isles, and I'm really sorry that it's lost its venue.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:58 PM

Let's tip toe softly away from this., whuich Big Mick eloquently identified as "this latest topic of obsession by our resident obsessor".

Maybe come back to it sometime in a different context, because discussions about the way in which songs arise and survive and develop can be worthwhile, and this thread has touched on all these aspects of folksong.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 01:24 PM

(whispering)
OK .....

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,Ian Pittaway
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 02:51 PM

Mmmm, we seemed to have moved a long way from the topic I started, while strangely remaining close to it. My question was, 'Why reject the term 'source singer'?', in other words, 'Fill me in on the current debate about the term', a debate which no one here seems to be aware of. Maybe there is no debate - possibly this is just a personal bugbear of Norma's which I happened to hear. Yet some interesting points have been made along the way, not the least the impossibility of nailing down language: what is a good term for someone because of its connotations is a bad term for someone for whom the connotations are different. I still think Desert Dancer (Becky in Tucson) answered my question best of all. Thanks all for your contributions.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: GUEST,IBO
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 06:15 PM

ANY ONE WHO SINGS ABOUT SAUCE HAS GOT TO BE NUTS

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 06:27 PM

Unless, of course, you're "on the sauce," and then drinking songs can be a lotta fun. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 08:31 AM

Would you be excluded from being described as a source singer if you in fact wrote the songs?

When people talk of these 'traditional' methods - this the most traditional of all methods is not only excluded from the list - it seems to be thought of as being of some less value as other methods.

If the term is to be continued to be used, to my mind, singers who have written their own songs have as much right to be described as source singers as those who may have only added a verse or two of their own or just passed a song on as they heard it.

Are the likes of Cyril Tawney, Ewan McColl and Richard Thompson to be excluded from such a list – after all the fine original songs they have introduced to what is now thought to be the tradition? Especially as many who sing them, do so in the honest belief that that these songs are from a traditional source?

As indeed they unquestionably are.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:55 PM

I contacted Tony Engle and enclosed the first post. He thought that he probably would not have the time himself to enter into an e-debate and that it might be a good idea to alert participants to this and proposed that his following comments are described as – "a quick response" as further thought would probably produce a more developed argument.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the word "source" has the potential for implying that the prime role of a traditional singer is that of supplier of material to the folk scene. In effect, that the folk scene and its (essentially) revivalist singers may be more important than the traditional performers. The use of the term "source singer" has the potential for limiting the position of such a singer to that of merely a source, rather than anything else (creative artist in their own right for instance).

I consider Harry Cox to be a great artist, performer and singer - and with those descriptions in place he doesn't need to be referred to as a source. That he is used as a source is incontestable, but, in my view, it shouldn't be part of his prime definition.

I am not proposing that the term should be rejected but I am suggesting that it should be used in context.
ENDS

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM

So then you admit that you have changed your position?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:32 PM

his following comments

I thought I had made it clear that these were Tony Engle's views?

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 11:34 AM

Mick, that's a really strange question to ask Shambles.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM

Not for Mick.

Subject: RE: Why reject the term 'source singer'?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 01:13 PM

100