Song 'Ownership'

Subject: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:57 PM

Last week, in a thread on "traditional musician," Sandy Paton wrote, "Later, of course, when money becomes a factor in the equation, "ownership" of a tune can become a matter of some importance. Among the non-professional folk musicians, no one thought about that sort of thing. Oh, one singer might say, "Yeah, I know that one, but that's Charlie's song," speaking of another local musician. This happened in the Miramichi Festival in New Brunswick. James Brown would never sing his own fine version of "Hind Horn" at the festival because that particular ballad was considered to be another singer's special performance piece but it was not a question of "ownership" in the sense of holding a commercial copyright to the material."

I have been experiencing this same thing at the Friday sessions from almost their inception. Essentially, the way it works is like this: a singer brings in a song new to the session and it becomes "his" or "hers." No other regular singer will do that song if the owner is present. Of course, if the owner is absent on a given night, the song is up for grabs.

From time to time, a newcomer will unknowingly sing someone elses song and that's fine; everyone will clap and otherwise thank the singer and nothing more is said. Now if the newcomer starts coming on a regular basis, someone is likely to commend the singing, but politely explain the custom of ownership. And sometimes, the original owner will relinquish all rights, especially if the new version is obviously better.Do bear in mind that this custom has just evolved by itself.

This topic is very relevant to us right now. Last week, we lost our wonderful friend and singer, Jay Smith. Jay had a rich and varied repertoire. Thus, some of us are trying to remember what his songs were so that others may take them up and keep them alive and strong and so that they may be passed to a new generation.

But, to the point of this thread, does this sort of thing go opn in your musical circles or anwhere else you know of?

Thanks -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:06 PM

We had a very strong song ownership in my first club, to the extent where, if the particular singer wasn't in, their songs were not done.

There was one chap who had a repertoire of 12-15 songs per club. He'd do 2 sets of three, alternating weeks, but as he went to more than one club, he would do different sets at each. It got to the point where you could almost say to yourself 'It's "Grey funnel line", so it must be the 2nd Tuesday at the Sunray', or 'It's the 3rd Wednesday at the Kingswood so it's "Last thing on my mind"'. Those songs became 'taboo' for anyone else, and when the singer, Wally, died, no-one did them again for years.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:13 PM

We sort of do; obviously there are songs we can't do without the banjos, like Dueling Banjos, but I can think of a lot of times that someone has said, "Oh, we can't do that one, that is Bobs'(sic) tune and he's not here." Or something similar.

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:22 PM

You can do 'Duelling Banjo's' with any instrument - Duelling Kazoos is an old favourite!!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:25 PM

LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:26 PM

For us, its not quite the same with tunes. There are a few which only one person can take the lead; if he's not there, we can't play it. More likely, we will hold back on a particular tune or song, if someone who is particularly fond of it or has a great part in it, is temporarily occupied, ie. in conversation in another part of the pub, getting beer or getting rid of a beer.

Please keep the thoughts and comments coming. Thanks again -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: JJ
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:30 PM

I remember this same argument raising a big stink in the old days when Carolyn Hester recorded "Swing and Turn Jubilee" on her first album because it was someone else's song, Jean Ritchie's, I think.

And Joan Baez began her career by stealing her friend's entire set!

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,Peter from Essex
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:40 PM

The idea of song "ownership" was very strong in communities that maintained a singing tradition in this part of the UK.

I have very seldom seen revival singers overtly claiming ownership of a song although regulars at a club or session will usually avoid overlapping each other's repertoire.

I have only once seen somebody visibly upset about "their" song being performed. Both the singer and the "owner" sang the arrangement off a Martin Carthy LP note for note.

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:34 PM

No, it doesn't happen with tunes. I brought one in and someone else took it over...THEN he changed the key to one I can't play in. It was written in that key, but it's a bugger to play it that way. Of course, I don't have any reservations about starting it in the other key.

I've never seen anyone get upset about someone else doing "their" song, and only once have I been told/asked to refrain from singing a song they "owned." One of the reasons I write songs is because certain people do many of the traditional ones I'd want to do. I give up. If you can't sing what you want, write 'em. Then there's no argument.

Unfortunately, the ownership thing has been prevalent everywhere I've lived. It gets interesting when going from community to community. At THIS place, so-and-so does that song, at THAT place, I do it. I can't sing the songs I've learned from certain people around those people because it was theirs first. The Portsmouth Maritime Festival's gonna be interesting because I got half my repertoire from The Johnson Girls and NexTradition, and Ken Schats and Alison Kelley are going to be there.

I think this song ownership thing is proof that something like a tradition continues. We learn songs from elsewhere, then sing them in our communities. I'm sure even in pre-revival, authentic folk singing, songs belonged to certain individuals. Look at who the songs were collected from - those were their songs.

Tom, Sally Gardens is another of Jay's songs, and The Garden Where the Praties Grow. Even though, strictly speaking, he didn't own them, I'll forever hear his voice and remember him when I one of "his" songs.

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:20 PM

Thanks, Jeri, for the two Jay songs. Sally Gardens would have clicked in eventually, but probably not so the Praties. I never did care for the latter except for when he sang it.

Jeri's post puts me in mind of two occasions. One was when someone was singing a song learned from Lou Killen as he was walking in. In another instance a singer was having a 'block' on a verse and was aided by Danny McLeod, whence the song had been learned. He had come in after the song was started and at that moment, no one knew who he was.

Keep those cards an letters coming -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Micca
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:35 PM

Jeri and 'Mudge, does this mean that the songs I sang at the Press room last year are now "mine"???!!!( for the Press room anyway!!

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:39 PM

Of course, Micca. Are you coming back this year? We'd love to see you again -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:45 PM

No, Mudge, no, Micca. Nice try. Mollymauk is MINE, I tell you! MINE, MINE MINE!

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:50 PM

Funny about that one. Barbara, another Press Room sessioneer wanted to do it, but knew I had dibs/firsties/whatever-you-call-it. The compromise is that we do it together. Good harmony! (And when I forget the words, I have help.)

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:51 PM

Sorry Jeri. I only remember Micca doing his own variants of older songs. I must have been at the bar - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Micca
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:56 PM

Jeri, "The Gladiator" is MINE!!!!!!!
'Mudge, sorry mate, no trip this year, a lot of stuff going on.. but if I can make next year I would LOVE to come and visit, and see you and Lyn again!!!
Jeri, I am hoping to send a flask with Morty!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 08:28 PM

Micca, will Morty also come to NH in your stead?

And, BTW, does song "ownership" exist in your musical bailiwick(s)?

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 08:31 PM

Micca, you can keep the Gladiator - it has too many words for me to remember. I'll make sure to suck up be extra nice to Morty.

Just to make an attempt at staying on topic - this is where the song ownership, or perhaps more kindly, song 'guardianship' gets complicated. We travel to a different venue, community, or even country and have to figure out whose toes we might step on. Or maybe it's easier: we can't be expected to know who does which songs so everything's fair game.

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 08:34 PM

Song ownership is a normal (and quite complex) concept among traditional singers; it's only in the Revival that "democratic" ideas (as in "it's traditional so it belongs to everybody, and you have no right to tell me what to do") have confused the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 08:54 PM

If you want to do this correctly, curmudgeon, you have to shout "Dibs!!!!" when you sing the song. :-)

I first ran into this phenomenon (and it's the only time I ever have) at an informal party at a friend's house. Music was going on all over the house and outside, and I happened to be singing Blue Diamond Mines when another singer walked through the door. Name witheld to protect the guilty. She yelled at me, and said, "Why are you ding that song, it's MINE!" "Where did you learn it!" I answered, "I learned it off a Jean Rithcie album and she didn't say anything about the song being yours." Sheesh!!!! But, the woman was REAL nasty about it. I was puzzelled by her reaction, as I'd never run across it. Personally, I think the whole idea is kinda stoopid. I like to hear what other people do with a song that I associate with a particular person. One of my great pleasures is hearing what other musicians have done with songs I've written. Nobody does Silver Queen as well as Roy Harris... certainly not me. And Dave Para and Cathy Barton make all my songs that they sing sound fresh and new. If there's any form of music that shouldn't have "ownership" it's folk music. I realize that some people do definitive versions, and it would be polite and considerate for someone to ask if the "owner" minds if they do the song in their presence. If they're not around, the song is anyone's who wants to sing it, as far as I'm concerned.

There's a lot of funny stuff that goes on in folk music. Some singers get neurotic that they'll do the same song more then once for an audience (not in the same night, but on a return booking.) If that's the way everyone thought, there wouldn't be any folk music. Some musicians do think that they own a song (which I find weird.) I don't "own" any songs, and don't ever want to. I thought that this was all supposed to be about sharing, and passing songs on.

Dave Van Ronk did a great version of Whoa Back Buck. So did Lonnie Donnegan. Who owned it? (Maybe Leadbelly who first recorded it?" I sing it too, and certainly was never intimidated that others had already done great versions. Nobody ever did me. And I've never done anyone else. All this sounds too ingrown for my tastes.

Just my opinion.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:05 PM

Jerry, the last two sentences of paragraph two, pretty well sums up what I think we're doing. While, even on behalf of my friends, I will not credit any one of the group with being "definitive," per se, they are in our local time and place.

And, Malcolm, many thanks for your usual erudition and insight. Please. if you have time. elborate more on your last post.

Tj]hanks -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Song 'Ownership'
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:07 PM

Then there's the other side of the coin, when someone refuses to do a perfectly good song or tune that they do well because it "belongs" to another person with whom they've had a falling out. I used to play in a band that had two fiddlers and the two of them had a parting of the ways. As a result, that band broke broke up but the members regrouped into two new groups with one fiddler each. All of the tunes that had been introduced into the repertoire of the old band by fiddler A were shunned by fiddler B and vice versa. Suggestions for tunes at practice sessions were often met with, "No, I don't want to do that one. That's one of so-and-so's tunes." Sheesh! Can you say "petty"?

Bruce

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:13 PM

There's more songs around than singers. Plenty enough for all to have a few of their "own" if they want to. I would personally think it the height of bad manners to sing a song at a session if I knew someone else was in the habit of doing it. Likewise it would be the height of bad manners to comment if someone sang "my" song, whether they knew or not.Mind you, if they sang it badly, and I'd had a couple of pints I might think differently.
These things sort themselves out . In pubs Ive frequented where oldtimers sing regularly I would say the conceptof song "ownership" was very strongly established, and didnt need to be spoken about.It was respected.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:35 PM

The most detailed work (that I know of) dealing with the concept of song ownership as a social asset (particularly where some singers might have much smaller repertoires than others) in a community is Ginette Dunn's The Fellowship of Song: Popular Singing Traditions in East Suffolk (1980, and long out of print, unfortunately) -an important book that ought to be better-known.

The same principle applies, to a greater or lesser extent, in any discrete and established community; in families, for example. A grandmother may "give" to a grandchild, perhaps, a song that her son or daughter might have coveted (and had learned, but was not allowed to sing in company). The relationship between Belle Stewart and her daughters is full of questions of that sort, and Jeannie Robertson and her daughter Lizzie Higgins had clear (though not always comfortable) lines of demarcation between their respective repertoires.

I'm not saying that it's the way things ought to be; just that, historically, it's the way that things have been. In an established community it isn't all that hard to know where the various boundaries are drawn (though disputes will occur); in an "ad-hoc" community like a folk club or session, it can be a positive minefield, particularly where the competing performers don't know each other. We are territorial animals, after all, and though we are often able to share quite comfortably, there will inevitably be times when we bridle at a perceived intrusion into personal space.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Genie
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 10:22 PM

Tom, something similar happens in a song circle I attend in Portland, OR. Most songs we sing have been done at varying tempos, in various keys and with various styles, but a few folks in the group will often request a particular song repeatedly and a sort of >group norm tends to develop as to how to do that song.
Sometimes that group norm is quite different from the best known version of the song. And often the group rhythm lacks coordination and definition (because the person leading it is inconsistent or because there are "too many cooks".*
It's not so much that any one person owns the song, but if someone requests the song and then leads it in a tempo, key, style, or rhythm different from the way it's been done in the past, there is often resistance on the part of some people, even if quite a few people seem to prefer the "new" version.

When it comes to
performance (as opposed to jams and song circles), I personally have no qualms about doing the same songs other people do--unless our versions are pretty much the same and they do the song better than I do. In one club, I've a couple of times started into a song and had another musician call out, with (mostly) mock chagrin, "Hey, that's my song!" (or something like that) Then I've invited them to join me on stage, and we both (all) jammed on that song. This is great when the people joining you are good harmonizers/jammers and don't try to override your style.

Liz, "Dueling Kazoos!" Love it!

Greg, Re there being "enough [songs] for all to have a few of their "own" if they want to," I tend to agree, with one exception. Sometimes I've kind of made a song "mine," (worked up my own version that I really like, play very well, and have been performing for a long time) before I start going to a particular performance venue or jam/song circle. If someone else there also has made it "theirs," I see no reason why I should have to abandon the song for that venue. (We just probably won't both do the song the same night.) I don't see this as encroaching on the territory of someone who already had it as one of their special songs before I 'adopted' it.

Genie

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 10:41 PM

If someone has done a particularly distinctive version of a song, does that mean that no one is allowed to approach it in their own way, and do a different interpretation? Seems stifling. I remember many, many years ago, someone described a young man getting up at a Ceilidh and singing the Oxen Song... whatever it's called... "I crack my whip and I bring the blood." This song is traditionally done with arms akimbo, preferably wearing a cable knit sweater.This kid didn't know akimbo from beans, and he was a farm kid. He did the song real slow and plodding. And irritated the Hell out of everyone. When he finished the song, everybody jumped all over him for doing it so slow. He answered, quite reasonably, "oxen are slow." :-)

If I had the chops to do it, I always wanted to do Orange Blossom Special as a waltz. Say Eeehah! to that, wise guy!

One of the songs I would never touch was Duncan and Brady that Dave Van Ronk sang. He felt that he had defined the song, and I agree. But even then, if I was fooling around and a different approach worked for me and I thought it gave some freshness to the song, I'd do it.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Bert
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:01 PM

The only time I've come across such song ownership is in a family party environment. For example "Uncle Ted ALWAYS sings 'Sing Something Irish to Me'".

I've found that folk singers generally have an extensive enough repertoire to choose something else if someone sings on of their songs.

I agree with Jerry in thinking that the concept is stupid.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,KingBrilliant
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 03:41 AM

Its a really funny thing innit?
Logically its rediculous! But then logic is cold.
I feel it would be rude to "pinch" someone else's song, and then if someone sings one I like to do then I feel a bit twitchy because then I'll feel odd about doing it myself next time - in case anyone thinks I am nicking it. Stupid!!! Luckily the sessions I go to tend not to be territorial about the songs, so its just one's own natural restraint - no glares or whispers.
I think one way around it is to make the songs your own in terms of the arrangement & performance - then they should be distinct enough from other people's versions so that you don't tread on any toes. BUT then that feeds into one of the other controversies - ie is it OK to change a song?
Hmmmmmmm.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,cookieless Genie
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:52 PM

Wonderful "Oxen" story, Jerry.

Re "definitive versions" of a song, it often may depend on which version you heard first, I think. I have never heard Dave Van Ronk sing "Duncan and Brady," but I do have it on an album (the only album?) by Dave Guard and The Whiskey Hill Singers, and I love their version.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 05:07 PM

It's not so much ownership as custodianship. A bit like the Book people in Fahrenheit 451.

I like the idea really. But at the same time it's good to hear a song done differently. Titanic as a lament rather than a jolly singaround, All for me Grog as a bitter hungover slow drunk song.

I think it seems to work that "owned" songs are generally odd songs that might get left unsung, rather than general songs everyone knows. That way everyone is happy.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 05:31 PM

I think Spider John Koerner's version of Duncan and Brady was spectacularly funny. Good job he didnt avoid it because`it was Dave van Ronk's .

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: BB
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 05:54 PM

I find this very interesting. We started a monthly singaround/music/story, etc. session in our village just a year ago, and a number of village residents come who have had no connection with the folk scene, tradition or revival. However, most of what is performed is folk music, as there are a number of people from around the area who attend and are involved in the scene.

Villagers who want to perform therefore like to 'fit in' by singing folk songs, and, in any case, that's what they're enjoying at the sessions. But where are their sources for these songs? For one couple, the only source they have at present is our two CDs, so they've learnt some of the songs from those, and because they don't know the usual 'etiquette', that's what they sing at the sessions. I certainly don't want to discourage them by claiming ownership of those songs, even though I wouldn't do the same thing, because I've been conditioned through years of contact with the tradition and the revival. In fact, we should probably take it as a compliment! And we are trying to introduce them to other song sources, but it all takes time.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,Storyteller
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 06:56 PM

Malcolm rightly points out the complexity of the concept of song "ownership" within traditional communities and families, and mentioned the Stewart family as an example. I was lucky enough to hear Sheila Stewart at the National Festival earlier this year when she talked about the culture within which she acquired her songs and stories.

She learned most of her songs in her youth from her mother's brother, Donald MacGregor, who in turn had inherited them from his father Dan MacGregor. Uncle Donald was a strict teacher to the young Sheila, making her sing the old ballads over and over again, until she could sing them to his satisfaction (and when she could do this he would give her a few shillings - which made it worth her while!) However he wouldn't "give" her a song until he knew that she could sing it with coigneach, or "from the heart". One ballad, in particular, he witheld from her for a long time (I think she said it was one of the more bloodthirsty ballads - maybe Twa Brothers) until he felt she was old enough to understand the emotion in it.

So a song had to be earned, as well as learned.

There were also rivalries within the family, not least between Sheila and her mother, Belle, over the ownership of individual songs, and it was not until late in her life that Belle allowed Sheila to sing certain songs such as Queen amang the Heather.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 07:04 PM

First of all, many profound thanks for all the contributions. I really enjoy learning.

Barbara, I really think you are doing the right thing. Except for some of the "old guard" who should know better, I would never reproach anyone, especially a newer or younger singer for singing one of "my" songs; that would be boorish to say the least. I also find that limiting myself to singing "appropriated" songs less often makes them more meaningful to me when I do sing them, and also forces me to dig into my mental RAM and revive songs that I haven't sung in years.

And like you, we always are willing to provide newcomers with cassettes, loan of CDs and further recommendations. Sometimes we might even go further by saying, "You should really learn such and such: it would suit your voice and style and you could do it really well."

Just my opinion -- Tom

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Leadfingers
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 08:17 PM

Sod it I'm going to preach again.Once a song has been sung,particularly if its been recorded or broadcast,it has to be in the public domain.Therefore for performance that does not involve monetary gain,any thing goes.Once your making money,the writer deserves his cut,so put in your returns to the PRS.However the stealing of a song,by which I mean using some one elses arrangement and treatment is NOT in my opinion right.By all means use other peoples material,but do it YOUR way,so that it has the stamp of You,not the person you got the song from,and always credit your sources,wether contempory or traditional.Politeness does mean that you leave other peoples stuff alone at sessions they attend,and,if you learnt the song from them,credit them as source at other sessions.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:08 PM

Different ideas of ownership are getting intertwined here. One is to do with property, but thta's not the only thing we mean when we say "my".

I think it was Chesterton (it normally is) who wrote a passage pointing out that when we say my boots, and my wife, and my country and my God, we aren't exactly using "my" in the same sense. Or at least we shouldn't be. My song is another case, and it fits better closer to the end of that list than the beginning. It's not so much it belongs to you as you belong to it.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:16 PM

Well, I'm gonna disagree with bert and Jerry who think the concept is stupid/stoopid. People work to learn songs. I have very few in my repertoire now and if someone decides to knowingly take one of them over, I AM going to be a bit upset. It would then be a matter of who, on a given day or night, could get around to singing it first, and I don't really think folk singing should be competitive. Also, despite the "everyone is equal" warm fuzzy ideals some think should be enforced it is my JOB to sing "Fire Down Below" at our sessions. It's a niche I've created. I like the fact I'm associated with that song. It might be just a song that anyone can walk in and sing to Jerry or Bert, but it means more than that to me. I'm not talking about performing/recording a song. I'm talking about singing it for fun in an established community of folkies, because the songs I sing are a part of who I am in that community.

Singing a song you know someone else does, in their face, is sort of like being invited to someone's house for a holiday meal and deciding you want to be the one to carve the roast.

I'm not rabid about any of this, but I do believe people should at least try to be polite.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:29 PM

Hear, hear! Jeri. I think that you have succinctly summed up some key points of this discussion: Most especially in your comment, "...

I don't really think folk singing should be competitive."

Even older generation folksingers might lean toward a chorus of, "My version's better than your version," if there was no sense of non-competitve "ownership."

See you tomorrow -- Tom

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,Sonja
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:07 PM

Jeri, Suppose there was a new singaround or a new "community of folkies" forming, and when you attended for the first time, you found that someone else had established "Fire Down Below" as "their song." Would you feel it inappropriate for you to share your version with the group?

Is it really fair for someone who has worked hard to make a song part of their special repertoire to be, in effect, barred from doing that song in a group just because someone else has, quite independently, also labored to make it part of theirs?

SWO

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:59 PM

Curmudgeon - I've been wondering about this "ownership" thing in our locality for a while. In the jams and song circles I attend, there seems to be somewhat of an ownership implied for songs, but, as discussed above, not for tunes. Those that can play a lead instrument get to play whatever they want.

The song ownership is generally unspoken, and more adhered to by the veterans in the group. There is one fellow who seems to want to do a couple of songs I've done for years almost anytime he sees me show up. I don't know if it's to be competitive, or if seeing me reminds him of those songs and he then does them. I've made no big deal of it, because I know lots of other songs, and his repertoire is limited. We both do them equally well, I'd say, and I can do harmony when he does them.

Another unspoken "rule" here is to try to avoid playing the same song or tune more than once a night, unless requested by a latecomer. That can affect how one feels about who usurps the "right" to a song. Commonsense and politeness usually is a winner, however.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 11:06 PM

Hi, Jeri: We may be mixing apples and elephants here. I do think the whole concept of "owning" a song that is in the public domain is at a minimum self-contradictory. It seems like what people are getting in to is protecting one's "turf" in a local setting, whether it's a pub, a family gathering, a folk club or a small festival. If I was at a gathering and knew that you had a personal identification with a particular song, I wouldn't sing it, out of sensitivity to you. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't mean that you "own" the song. Far from it. It just means in a small, localized group of singers, you happen to love that song and do a fine job on it. (I'd have to add that I know singers who feel that they "own" a song, who do a lousy job on it but are too lazy to ever expand their repertoire and keep singing the same half a dozen songs.) I guess you could call it pride of local ownership. If I went two towns over, I might do the song if it meant something to me. Maybe someone else would feel that they "own" the song in that town. Perhaps we could have an international registry of who owns each song, and the geographic area in which they own it. There might be disputes over who is the true owner, if more than one person claims it, in which case we'd have to set up a national tribunal to determine ownership. Perhaps when that person dies, they could will their ownership to a family member or friend, and such a decision could be recorded in the international Song Deed Directory.:-)

We're talking two different things here, Jeri, and I think it's the word "own" that is the problem. One issue is respecting someone else's feelings about a particular song when you are singing in their presence. That, I wholeheartedly agree with. The other is presuming proprietary "ownership" of a song that is in the public domain. I do think that's "stoopid." I think that there should be the freedom for anyone to sing any song that they feel in their hearts. If someone knows they are in the presence of another person who also loves to do that song, then I think there should be a friendly conversation about who does it. As simple as that. The other extreme is the woman who started yelling at me because I dared to do a song that she "owned", even though I had never met the woman before, and the song was written and recorded by Jean Ritchie.

I think it boils down to treating people with respect and sensitivity, not a question of "ownership."

The Other Jerry

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 11:48 PM

Well, that yelling incident sounds very extreme.

Jerry, you wrote "We may be mixing apples and elephants here. I do think the whole concept of "owning" a song that is in the public domain is at a minimum self-contradictory." and later "We're talking two different things here, Jeri, and I think it's the word "own" that is the problem." Yeah - I didn't expect anyone would discuss this from the standpoint someone could, or thought they could own public domain songs. I thought the controversial word was used for lack of a better one and I'm pretty sure I understand what Sandy and Tom meant by.

In any case, the whole darned thing comes down to sensitivity, tact, and things there are no hard and fast rules to explain.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Les B
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 01:04 AM

Folk music isn't the only arena where "ownership" is a sensitive issue. A friend, who's also a singer, was telling me of his experience at a recent Cowboy Poetry gathering. For those of you not in western America, this is a phenomena about two decades old where people, generally from rural areas, get together to recite verses they've written about the cowboy life, some sentimental, some humorous, some maudlin - these gatherings also include food and music.

My friend had been invited to return from the previous year and be on the prestigious evening program with some of his songs, and a traditional poem "Lasca," which he does well. During the day another poet, a newcomer who had presented well, was chosen by the organizers to take a spot on the evening program. The newcomer asked my friend what he intended to perform that evening. My friend listed the songs, and mentioned Lasca. The newcomer immediately began pressuring him not to do Lasca, because that was "his" big hit. My friend pointed out that he had been invited back because of "his" rendition the previous year. They went round and round about it, with the newcomer even appealing to the organizers. My friend finally got to do his version at the evening show, but it left a bad taste in his mouth about the whole episode and he had some choice expletives about the lineage of the other cowboy poet!

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Bert
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 01:33 AM

Perhaps the issue really boils down to respecting the fact that some performers have a very limited repertoire.

In one group I used to belong to there were a couple of guys with that problem and we generally avoided singing stuff that they knew. This was kind of an unspoken thing, I think that no one wanted to put our friends in the awkward position of not having anything to sing.

I guess it paid off in the end 'cos after we had applauded many a pitiful performance from one of the guys, he astounded us all at a member's concert and really performed well on a new song that he had just learned.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 03:18 AM

Another thing that stops me singing a song someone else has sung is if I think I'll do it better than them. It would seem rude and perhaps insulting to upstage them.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 06:00 AM

Now we're talking, Guest! I kinda thought that the idea of getting together for an evening of singing was to have a good time, and enjoy and encourage each other. Years ago, I ran a gathering with Dallas Cline that I called a Potlatch. I used that word, because in a Potlatch, the goal is to be the most generous person there. If people had that attitude, there wouldn't be this thread. The group that came together once a month not only respected each other's repertoire, they were encouraging of young musicians (one was still in High School) and showed appreciation for those who had been singing most of their life who had a limited repertoire of just a few songs, who didn't have any interest in learning new songs, and were never going to be very good.

We all approach these threads from our own experience. I guess that I've been fortunate to have been part of a group that was generous and encouraging. The funny thing was, when someone new would come who was really good, they expected special reverence, and didn't get appreciably more than the people who were just beginning, or had a limited repertoire and equally limited talent. The best musicians who came expected a booking to come out of it (both Dallas and I ran concert series) and when they weren't immediately offered a booking, stopped coming. They saw the gathering as a way to impress others. That's not it was. Then, there were other musicians who came loyally and had a grand time who were professional and had released albums, who just enjoyed the mutually supportive and encouraging atmosphere and had a good time being a part of it. Having that experience as my background, with just one experience of someone getting all over me for doing "her" song, this thread has seemed strange to me. The good thing about these threads is that we gradually come to grips with the issues and see why we have such different attitudes.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 07:22 AM

Bert said "Perhaps the issue really boils down to respecting the fact that some performers have a very limited repertoire." The next best thing to being capable of gauging and understanding a given situation is to find some concrete way to look at things you can understand that will have the same effect on behavior. This reasoning may not keep a person from possibly being rude to someone with a large repertoire though.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,eoin
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 07:52 AM

McGrath had a good point, most songs that are deemed to be 'someone's song' are usually odd songs that don't get aired much. I have a few 'odd' songs that I sing at times and I know they are connected to me singing them. What I mean is, I have heard folk say, Oh! that's Eoin's song(not real name) after someone else should sing one of them. It gives me a funny feeing to hear it as I don't think any song belongs to one person. Though I have heard some folk say to a singer who has just heard a song sang that they are known for singing, That's my song, I was going to sing it. The reason I have the 'ODD' song or two is, at singing weekends I would find a lot of the songs I sing are sung by others ovr the course of the evening (or weekend)so its good to have the 'odd' few that you can fall back on. Nothing to do with a small repertoire, as I guess that over a weekend singing I could sing between seventy and eighty songs without repeating myself.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 08:19 AM

I am aware of the notion of ownership and have seen it in action, but it does not seem to play a significant role in the musical circles I inhabit.

In the singing gatherings I attend there seems to be a carryover of the attitude found in American old time tune jams.

In an old time tune jam the concept of ownership is inoperative because everybody plays every tune. The basic idea is to pick tunes that everybody knows or at least that most people know. The rest will learn during the playing. The fiddlers might take turns starting the tunes, but it's more a question of who remembers the tune well enough to start it than ownership.

In some of my musical circles people "own" a tune or song simply because they are the only people who can actually play it or who know the words well enough to be able to lead it.

In one venue we do go around the circle with solo performances being an option, but this month's solo performance can easily become next month's group effort. But everybody who is part of the group understands that and is OK with it.

Subject: RE: Song 'Ownership'
From: Sandy Paton
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 10:11 PM

Reading through all of the above, one realizes that the general principle being applied is simply one of courtesy. I'm all for that. In the traditional community, a singer might be associated with a particular song, perhaps one that he/she had introduced to the circle, and the others would avoid it out of common courtesy and to show respect for the original singer. I think that's just good manners, and has nothing to do with the more commercial meaning of the term "ownership."

At one of the song swaps in the Dutch Barn at the Old Songs Festival, I sang a song that I had recorded. It has a good chorus for people to sing along, was not too widely known, etc. I sang it early on in the evening. Later, another singer, arriving late and not knowing what had been sung earlier, launched into that same song when I invited him to lead one for us. Actually, he had learned the song from my recording of it. Fair enough. I was pleased that he had cared enough for it to have taken time to learn it, and also pleased with the way the rest of the group handled the repetition. No one called out, "We've already sung that one!" Courtesy ruled. Speaks well of the people who love to share this kind of music, doesn't it?

By the way, Jerry does a hell of a fine job on "Whoa, Back, Buck." Stands up well next to anyone's.

Sandy