Source Singers

Subject: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:18 AM

Much is made of those people who still sing songs that they have learned from within a particular family, extended family or community group.



Is this the correct term and do we have any idea how many people can currently be describes as Source Singers?

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Derek Schofield
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:43 AM

I personally dislike the term "source" singers, as it suggests that their purpose is to be the source for us folkies to learn songs from. whereas, the songs were a part of THEIR lives. Finding an alternative word is not easy. Traditional singers? well, that could be anyone who sings traditional songs, rather than someone who learnt them in a traditional manner or sings them in a traditional way. Village singers? some lived in towns ....
Derek

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Leadfingers
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:47 AM

Source Singer works for me , as they are the source of a lot of material that was not available elsewhere .

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:53 AM

Source is OK in Rouge Towers and is easier to say than "related to or in communication with or has been thereto - the source (who was etc etc......)"

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 08:04 AM

I take Derek's point - "source singers" does perhaps imply that these people exist(ed) as a commodity to be harvested, and perhaps doesn't impart an appropriate understanding for them as individuals, and the role that the music played in their lives.

As Fred Jordan once said in exasperation on an occasion when he was being a bit over-zealously "collected": "A man is more than his songs..."

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: r.padgett
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 08:29 AM

This is a topic which is likely to go on for ever

If I am ever deemed to be or advertised as a "traditional singer" I would be delighted!!

Traditional singers I feel have hitherto been equated with "source singers"

I would not wish to argue with Derek as stated above, but you may have other ideas?

Ray

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 08:46 AM

Before we go AWOL I would like to make the general point that many things like this exist along a continuum. In this case Source Singers at one end and singer-songwriters at the other with all possible shades in between

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Kevin Sheils
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 08:56 AM

It's such a confusing area nowadays with the massive changes in communications and the need to redefine or at least rethink what a "community" is.

However "song carriers" seems to cover the ground well enough for me until a better suggestion comes along.

Of course the term can be interpreted however anyone likes but to me it suggests a link with a tradition and carrying it on, so reasonably meets the idea of what is "traditional" for me.

I;m just working on ideas for my Resonance FM "Traditional Music Hour" show for this Thursday and this has given me food for thought.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 09:04 AM

Way back in the 60/70s it was far more clearly defined. A "traditional" singer was one whose repertoire came from their life and family. We were the "revivalists". Now, with an obviously ever-decreasing pool of "traditional" sources, revivalists are increasing termed "trad singers".

However, "sources" are different too. There is, of course, Voice Of The People and massively important recordings of that ilk. But sources to today's younger performers are, ever-increasingly, revivalist: their parents' vinyl and Waterson:Carthy etc boxed set reissues.

If you think "source" is too prescriptive you could always use "song carrier". Doesn't cover the tunes though . . .

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 09:21 AM

The Song Carriers are alive and well and live Manchester. This collection of people and they may choose to correct me, have been singing songs in and around Manchester since the '50s. I believe one M. Humphries was associated, although not from the '50s.

I am not suggesting that they are "Source Singers", although some maybe, and that's the problem.

Isn't it true that the singers that Sharp et al collected from often had a wide collection of songs? Some old, some Music Hall, some hymns, some popular? Sharp picked the ones he wanted and passed them, eventually to us.

What wold a data base of Source Singers look like today? I know it sounds a bit fascist and I am not suggesting it, but it might give us some idea of what that aspect of the living tradition actually looks like.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 12:23 PM

why notjust direct people to singers such as Harry Cox, SamLarner,Phil Tanner.
singers should be sufficient,or unaccompanied singers.,of traditional music.
because a singer is a revivalist it does not mean he is of less importance.
the criteria should be the performance,how the singer performs the song.
Bob Blake is the classic example.,a revivalist singer who was collected because the collector thought he was a traditional singer.
it is all such a nonsense,it could mean a collector collects songs from a not very good traditional singer rather than a better revivalist singer,so the collector is collecting because its from a simger who learned the song in a certain way,so the collector can become guilty of not collecting the best songs or the best performances,but collecting inferior material because it fits into his categorisation.
typical examples in my opinion,are certain music hallsongs,and popular songs such as carolina moon,which the singer will maintain he learned from his family,whereas a revivalist singing lord gregory gets ignored.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Mary Humphreys
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:07 PM

Sharp , and other collectors, made value judgements regarding the material they collected and published. It is interesting to see correspondence between collectors , describing some of the material they or others have collected as unworthy of being regarded as folk song.
I believe source singers were much more eclectic in their tastes, singing, as Dick Miles has said above, anything that took their fancy.
Many of the songs and tunes in East Anglia derive from the music hall and are none the worse for that.
And Les in Chorlton: You got it right - I wasn't singing in Manchester in the 1950s. That was JUST a bit too early for an old lady like me. But I was learning and singing Welsh songs in my village community even then. Keep up the good work at the Beech!

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:05 PM

Thanks Mary, all you old mates are still in excellent voice!

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:17 PM

he term I like is "tradition bearer". (Song carrier excludes things like tunes and dance).

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: greg stephens
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:26 PM

Surely "tradition bearer"and "song carrier" and such terms are completely different from "source singer". The former two terms are generally used to refer to revivalists who have a particular respect for traditional ways, and make a point of learning from "source singers" and passing the stuff on. "Source singers" are the real deal, however you care to interpret that. "Source singers" are Harry Cox and Leadbelly and so on(But beware: Leadbelly, and Fred Jordan, learned songs from collectors as well!). Other terms are used for Peter Pears, Martin Carthy and so on, those who love traditional songs and have reinterpreted them. Martin Carthy showed greater respect for traditional ways, Peter Pears showed little or none, in his performance that is(I've no idea what he listened to in private).
   Tunes are quite different, in England at least, in that the "tradition" lasted long enough enough(in the dance bands) to overlap and interbreed with the "revival". Ot at least, that happened in the north. I can't really speak for what happened in the south.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:33 PM

I consider where I get songs from to be the source or sources, whether it be from recordings, such as the VOP series, or Waterson Carthy, or The Watersons or Sandy Denny. These are favourite musicians and I hope I do their material justice.

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:27 PM

I think of "source singers" as being the distinction from "not revival" - but they learnt the songs from hearing them rather than researching them, didn't they? How about "Oral tradition singers"? (Of course, lots of them in the 20th C learnt songs from hearing them on the radio....)

Kitty

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Graham O'Callaghan
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:46 PM

I have never felt that catagorising singers particularly useful, Surely the inportant fact is that we are all singers and thereby contribute to a strand of British culture that should be both respected and promoted. Whether singer 'A' subscribes to criteria 1,2 and 3 and singer 'B' subscribes to criteria 2,3 and 5 is neither here nor there. There have always been singers whose songs have been collected and many, many more whose songs/singing have never been noted down. It is likely that collectors through history have missed the majority of singers contemporary to their time so why do we try and impose a hierarchy?

Traditional song was recognised as being in decline in the early 1900's, and this has probably always been the way as society's absorb change. The singers of Sharpe's day would have performed a very mixed repertoire of songs and largely driven because of their love for singing rather than for the glorification of performance. Also during those days and earlier times, no singer would have sung songs with any concious intention of trying to 'sustain' a dying artform - people just sang!

Nowadays there is more than a hint of 'preservation' surrounding folk-song through the clubs and festivals network and as a result, the music has been afforded a higher profile platform for its performance and recognition. Long may it continue of course, but anonymous singers will still gather in the back rooms of pubs and sing songs because they love singing and no more than that. They will be the percieved 'source singers' of tomorrow.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:45 PM

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Graham O'Callaghan - PM
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:46 PM

I have never felt that catagorising singers particularly useful.
hear hear,it drives me to despair.just sing and enjoy.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Surreysinger
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM

"I think of "source singers" as being the distinction from "not revival" - but they learnt the songs from hearing them rather than researching them, didn't they?"

Sorry Kitty, but I'm less than convinced by that. There's more than one case of so-called (and well known) source singers being provided with copies of words of songs that they couldn't remember, and picking up songs from printed sources. Look at Henry Burstow's list of songs, which are many and varied in type. In the chapter on Songs in "Reminiscences of Horsham" he makes it quite clear that he learned many of his songs from his father, from work colleagues, and fellow bellringers.... but he also states "The remainder I learnt from ballad sheets I bought as they were being hawked about at the fairs, and at other times from other printed matter." It is also quite clear from his list of 400 plus songs that music hall items (as Mary quite rightly points out) featured strongly in his repertoire - "Woodman woodman spare that tree" for instance. You refer to "not revival" - but which revival ... mid 19th century, late 19th century, turn of the 20th century ... 1970's ??

Re Mary's statement that the collectors of Sharp's era were selective - absolutely true. In commenting on Burstow's full list of songs Lucy Broadwood (who collected from him in the 1890's - to be followed 10 years later by Vaughan Williams) she suggested that less than 20% of his songs were worth consideration. She, and I have no doubt, the other collectors, were after modal tunes, and old ballads ... not as she suggested things like "Grandmother's Old Armcahir" or even songs of the Napoleonic era (which were presumably considered to be modern songs then?).

Graham, I certainly agree with most of what you say - with reference to your statement that traditional song was regarded as being in decline ,at the start of the twentieth century, that rather ignores the fact that even inthe mid 19th century that viewpoint already existed (if not earlier, I have no doubt), giving rise to the private publication of John Broadwood's "Old English Songs..." in 1847, specifically for the purpose of preserving songs just as sung by the rural peasantry of Surrey and Sussex - so yes, I reckon that, as you say, it's probably always been the way. Incidentally, I note with amusement that Richard Sharpe has once again crept into the world of folksong ... Bernard Cornwell obviously wasn't aware of that facet of his hero's background (sorry - couldn't resist - I'm assuming that that was a typo on your part !!!)

As to the reason for singing, to revert to good old Henry B again he makes it quite clear why he sang - ".(singing)has been my chief mental delight, a delight that has been my companion day after day in my journey from infancy through every stage of life to my now extreme old age ..... I have never ceased to obtain, and I hope seldom failed to give, satisfaction in this, the best mode I know of expressing the feelings". In other statements in his book he makes it quite clear that he sang both for his own, and for other people's pleasure - it was a shared experience.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:25 PM

Irene - yes, I pointed out that so-called source singers got their songs from various sources, including the radio, but would they have been thought of as source singers if they hadn't learned any from oral tradition?

Kitty

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM

Oh, and there seem to be comments relevant to the our ghastly tradition and GEFF threads!

Kitty

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 04:22 AM

.......do we have any idea how many people can currently be describes as Source Singers?

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 06:57 AM

I have it on good authority that the vast majority of 'source singers' learned their songs whilst leaning on a five-barred gate, chewing on a piece of straw and thinking idle, rustic thoughts. The songs sorted of floated by and were absorbed almost subconciously. This process probably doesn't happen any more due to pollution and the fact that modern songs aren't very buoyant.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:02 AM

Good point Shim, so, do we need a count of five-barred gates on fields that have a "straw potential"?

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:12 AM

It would be an interesting statistical exercise, Les.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,doc.tom
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:41 AM

Greg wrote: 'the "tradition" lasted long enough enough to overlap and interbreed with the "revival". Ot at least, that happened in the north. I can't really speak for what happened in the south.'

This certainly happened in the West Country - Putting the square dance revival of the 50s side by side whith thier own extant traditions, the likes of Charlie Bate and Bob Cann developed the tradition. Add that to the Cornish choir tradition(where would we be without the Methodists)and the repertoires of people like Charlie Hill, - and when the 60s song revival came along, the tradition said "O.K., well done kids, we'll have some of that, you can be adsorbed as well."

Tom

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:59 AM

Interesting point about the Methodists, didn't they help to stamp out a lot of old Welsh traditions?

Les Jones!

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM

The WV musicians I consort with use the term "the old people." Quite vague but we know who we mean.

Russ (Permanent GUEST)

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:32 PM

The technically accurate term is "folk singer" and a revivalist is a "folk song singer". But I don't suppose anyone cares.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM

We all care deeply Richard but many of us have no idea at all what it is of which we care. This enables many of us to be petty, aggressive and sarcastic on almost any issue however small,

best wishes from Chorlton

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 06:44 PM

We've been over this before. Everyone was so busy arguing that what they did was folk. I'm pretty fed up with it all.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Tootler
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:07 PM

The technically accurate term is "folk singer" and a revivalist is a "folk song singer".

Pedantry rules!!

I really think this kind of petty distinction is totally unnecessary.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM

I always find these threads really interesting, not because they solve issues of semantics or etymology to anyone's satifaction, but because they reveal that fundamental difference between people who think that there is a need for specific terms to mean the same things to everyone, and people who see it as a load of pedantic nonsense.

I remember when I was at uni (and later teaching my first-year students about essay-writing): a basic academic function is to define your terms. This is key with any specific jargon you may be using, because you need to make sure that the people reading your work understand what you meant by certain words and phrases, and that your meaning is clear.

Some people on Mudcat hate this kind of intellectualisation of the folk process, seeing it as pedantic and limiting. On the other hand, some of the people here are working in an academic, or semi-academic, context. For them in particular, the definition of terms probably matters. They are often looking to the future, and wondering how these things will be categorised and defined in 20 or 50 or 100 years' time, if we can't be bothered to make clear delineations now.

Why does this categorisation matter? Well, from my point of view it's all part of the caretaking process. Folk is a living entity which ought to be evolving and developing all the time, but there is an element of it which requires conservation. This is an academic process. And I think that the people most concerned with terms and definitions are interested in that conservation, and in the legacy we'll be passing on to future generations.

Does that make sense...?

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Art Thieme
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM

As a folksinger for close to 40 years, I knew what I was and I did what I did. That appellation was fine with me. It was an honor to be doing it. ------ Art

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Surreysinger
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:56 PM

Richard - where on earth did you get that strange distinction from ?
Where and when did the term "folk singer" become "technically accurate" - and technically accurate for what? So far I don't think I've met anybody who describes themself as a "folk song singer" - pretty cumbersome phrase that. As far as I recall (and no doubt I'm standing to be corrected ?) from my ongoing research the term folk song was coined in the late 19th century by the folksong collectors of the day - it was not, however, one that they particularly liked or felt comfortable using, feeling that it was a rather non descript and rather undefined term (not much change there then !!).. They quite often veered between that and the use of the terms "rural" or "rustic" singer quite a lot.

Ruth - sounds sensible to me! If we're all using different definitions, how on earth do we know whether we're all talking about the same thing {grin}.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 08:11 PM

Well, we're usually not - which is the whole problem! :)

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 08:24 PM

Singers today may--or may not--be the source singers of tomorrow. Problem is, you can't tell. There's such a thing as perspective.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,doc.tom
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:17 AM

I'm with Ruth. If you don't clarify what you are talking about, others can have no idea what you are talking about. If you don't want to clarify what you're talking about, that's fine, of course, but don't expect anybody to take what you say seriously except others who like no definition.

Tom

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Surreysinger
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:24 AM

Question ... Martyn Wyndham-Read, who used to live on the Lyne estate (former home of Lucy Broadwood) learned the song "The Sweet Nightingale" or "The Birds in the Spring" from Captain Evelyn Broadwood (Lucy's nephew, and owner of the estate in the early to mid 20th century), who in turn had learned the song from his aunt... who had collected the song from George Grantham, the illiterate carter who had lived on the estate in the late 19th century .... so Martyn had learned the song by oral transmission in a line which ran directly from the "original" singer (who presumably had learned it from elsewhere) .... does that therefore make Martyn a source singer in this instance ???

Retires hurriedly after lighting blue touchpaper (muttering ... I'm not sure that it really matters. It's an interesting point, but what matters is the song and its onward transmission and not the singer...)

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Banjiman
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:31 AM

"The technically accurate term is "folk singer" and a revivalist is a "folk song singer". But I don't suppose anyone cares."

OK, reasonable definitions (if you need definitions!) but:

1/what do we call those who are writing and singing songs that might (or might not) become folksongs of the future?

2/....and when does something become a folk song?

3/ Can something still become a folk song, what are the characteristics?

Paul

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:32 AM

I think I acquired the distinction from an article by or about Martin Carthy, a long time ago.


1. Singer-songwriters, or acoustic performers - but IMHO an new term that accurately describes new material in the genre of the old is desperately needed so that people can stop saying "folk" when they mean something else.

2. When it meets the 1954 definition (although some attention might be needed to amend the definition so that it does not automatically exclude items of known authorship or items first published in printed form, which I have heard asserted to exclude "the Cutty Wren")

3. See above. It is not a matter of style or form, although the music encyclopaedias will set out characteristics of form, scales or modes used, and language that are found. Those are matters of observation not definition.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 05:59 PM

Banjiman,

Assuming you've read all the previous threads on this subject (I fervently hope that you have and we're not doomed to repeat it all again!) and that you've read around the subject, outside of Mudcat, as well, what do you think the answers to those questions are?

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:31 PM

Thank you Shimrod

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Banjiman
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:38 PM

Shimrod,

Yes, I've been over the those previous threads and debates elsewhere.

1/ Before reading the Mudcat debates I would have called songs of a folky style (I'll give examples if you wish, but I don't mean overly emotional singer/ songwriter stuff)....folk. I accept now that this may not be technically correct, but it was the masses would understand. I've been challenged previously to come up with a definition that encompasses these songs/ performers, but haven't managed it yet!

2/ Ditto, my view is that if it sounds like folk it is folk. But again I am willing to accept this is a common man's view of the subject, not a scholar's.

3/ I think I answered with 1 and 2 above.

My questions to Richard are a genuine attempt to learn and understand, not a challenge....and I don't really want the what is folk debate again!

Paul

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 03:51 AM

Dear Banjiman,

Thank you very much for your considered reply.

My point was that some previous posters have asked ingenuous seeming questions and then, when others have replied, have turned on them and accused them of being bigots, folk police etc. It occurred to me that such posters had already decided what 'folk is' but wanted other contributors to confirm their preconceived ideas; when such confirmation failed to materialise they turned 'nasty'. I find such behaviour dishonest.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 03:55 AM

I get rather bored with being told that these discussions are 'unnecessary' and 'boring' and 'pedantic' - if people are not interested in the subject, fair enough, go and discuss something else.
It is often my experience that those who make such claims are usually the ones to whom definitions are extremely important - try telling one of them that they are 'not' a traditional singer - and stand back and watch them throw their toys out of the pram! Categorising your singers is about as 'pedantic' as putting the word 'mushroom' on a tin of soup.
Personally, my involvement in traditional singing requires that I have a reasonably clear picture of what is 'revival and 'traditional' (and everything that comes in between). My singing a traditional song no more makes me a 'traditional singer' than my singing Nessun Dorma in the bath makes me an opera singer. For me, the terms we use to describe the singers are efforts to define where they stand in relation to the living oral tradition (that once was - and is no more!)
Of the singers we met and recorded, some were 'traditional' (ie: had been around when the singing tradition, within the defined communities we were working in, was still alive and kicking (Walter Pardon, Tom Lenihan, Mary Delaney, Mikeen McCarthy et al) - others were not. Some of these latter had learned their songs from traditional singers, but had not been around when the songs were still in use, and in some cases had never sung the songs publicly, but rather, had remembered them. It is these we need the descriptive terms for if we are going to discuss the tradition and everything it encompasses.
MacColl used, (and coined, I think) the term 'song carrier' for his series of 10 programmes of that name (still the best ever done on traditional singing in these islands IMO). In doing so he upset a number of people, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's a good, catch-all term for somebody who didn't come to a traditional repertoire via the revival or through those bloody 'singing lessons' at school. 'Source singer' or 'tradition bearer' works just as well I suppose, though the latter is possibly more useful to include music, dancing, customs, lore and stories.
Mary H:
All collectors make, and have always made judgements of one sort or another - they'd be daft not to. They set out to collect what they believe to be 'folk-songs' and in order not to come home with 20 versions of 'Yellow Submarine', they apply their definition to their work - most of the time, in my view, they have made a pretty reasonable stab at it. Sharp, Baring-Gould and all the others of that generation are to be congratulated for collecting songs they didn't approve of (even if, for one reason or another they didn't publish them).
In the end it all comes down to a personal perception of the tradition, and also the time, opportunity and budget you have at your disposal - let's face it, if you were a part-time collector faced with having to make a choice, what would you rather come home with; a version of Lord Gregory or ten of 'The Miner's Dream of Home'?
A good 'folk song collector' records as much as he or she is able to, given the restrictions they are working under. If they are social or musical historians or ethnomusicologists, that's a totally different ball game.
Cap'n,
You still have a very superficial and inaccurate concept of what collecting is about.
The best collectors I know of; Bruce Jackson, The Lomaxs, Sandy Ives, Hamish Henderson, Ken Goldstein, Parker and MacColl, recorded far more than 'good versions of songs'. As well as doing just that, they provided us with information that gave us an insight into our oral tradition - priceless as far as I'm concerned.
Your comparison between recording 'revival' and 'traditional' singers because (in your opinion) the former may be 'better' singers with 'better' songs is really not what it is all about. Comparisons between the technical abilities of an octogenarian source singer and revival singers with all their bits in good working order totally misses the point, and is bloody unfair to boot! Anyway, as good as a revival singer is, I have yet to hear one who brings anything nearly as 'good' and 'important' as the contribution made (to my enjoyment and understanding at least), by Phil Tanner, Sam Larner or Mary Ann Carolan, as far past their sell-by date as these might have been.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 04:18 AM

Sorry if I was short. I half suspected I was the one accused of being sarky. Did you find the 1954 definition Banjiman? It's on here in several threads. I think if you go carefully over it line by line you will see that it makes a decent stab at distinguishing the body of inherited music from created music, testing by reason of the fact of passage into an oral tradition, yet allowing for the ingestion of new music into that oral tradition. Of course after Brasser Copper, the Coppers did not transmit orally, but via written songbooks, so the idea of oral transmission (without writing) as the touchstone becomes questionable.

I don't necessarily agree that purely oral transmission is the be-all and end-all of it - but that form of transmission does exist still. There are two songs that I do that I only ever heard sung once, and indeed in both cases before I became a performer (if I am). In both cases after I became a performer (if I did) I decided I wanted to do them and reconstructed tehm out of memory. But both had a logical progression that made the rebuilds easy. One is "The Frog and the Vicar". The other is "The 5 Constipated men".

I suppose that the singers I heard sing them had learned them from somewhere, the first probably off vinyl, but the latter more likely as a rugby or drinking song. My point is that if I can learn at least some songs well enough from one listening to be able later to work the song out and perform it, others probably still can too, so "oral transmission" is not necessarily dead.

Must make a list and go shopping.

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Banjiman
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 04:19 AM

Shimrod,

No I'm not looking to attack anyone (though I may have been known to defend myself vigorously when attacked!).

I think a more interesting question than "what is folk", is why you want to/need to define "folky" music in a particular way. What is the purpose of your definition.

Jim's post above does an excellent job in explaining why he thinks it is important to have very clear terms and derfinitions.....I would say (and I'm sure he will tell me if I'm wrong), from a scholarly, academic point of view (and I'm not accusing him of being a museum curator) I get his point.

I come form a slightly different (probably less pure) place than this. Most of my activities are involved in "selling" (with a small S) folky music to people in my role as a Folk Club Organiser (KFFC) and as my wife's (Wendy Arrowsmith) unpaid agent.

Both of these endeavorers involve packaging a mixture of traditional, self penned and interpretations of other peoples songs into something that "people" want to see/ buy. I need a handy (if academically incorrect)label for this....hence my use of the word folk. To call it anything else would confuse my market places even more than using this term.

Just a thought what do you call your vacuum cleaner? I bet you call it a hoover even if it is not?

Paul

Subject: RE: Source Singers
From: Banjiman
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 04:23 AM

Sorry Richard, we cross posted or I would have addressed my reply to you also.

Enjoy the shopping!

Paul