Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 10:24 AM

Traditional? Ugh. It's hard to figure out, sometimes. I don't have answers. On the other hand, taking the example of Beatles songs, I generally would not consider them traditional. Many of them meet criterion #2 above. But they don't meet criterion #1; people learned them from Beatles records, not other people. Which is why we have criterion #1, even if it is hard to apply.
quote Robert above
I do not consider them traditional, they are compositions for which royalties are being paid to Members of the Beatles, I would be interested to be a fly on the wall, when somebody went round to Maccas house and said that scholars say they are tradtional so you must pay the royalties back, legally they are lennon McCartney compositions, or Harrison OR occasionally Starkey. they are still not Trad, even if they have been learned by ear from a next door neighbour, it is not just that they have been learned off a recording,
that is the weakness of the following earlier quote
That leaves "Traditional," which is the one term which has a slightly fuzzy definition. There are two parts often cited:
1. Songs which have been handed down from person to person, usually orally That leaves "Traditional," which is the one term which has a slightly fuzzy definition. There are two parts often cited:
1. Songs which have been handed down from person to person, usually orally
2. Songs which people consider their own, so that they have the right to modify them
Note that having an unknown author is not part of either of these. which brings us to Music hall songs which have known composers, and which royalties are still being paid.
they may be good songs but[imo] they are not traditional, someone is collecting money for them, that is their legal entitlement

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 10:31 AM

my reading is not of out of date books,Iagree discussion is good, so please keep it polite,not insulting and not patronising
I do not need to have published data to prove what i have read, you have to take my word for it but since i have been intersted in trad song since 1966, it is unlikely i am making it up
to call me a block of wood is insulting..

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 10:37 AM

Dick I've just logged on for five minutes to have a brew re read Roberts last post to find that you are still making pejorative comments. You have now gained the attention you seemed to need, I am in full possession of your views thank you. Could you please do us the readers, the courtesy of telling us exactly what else you want? If it is merely to be objectionable then I for one will be ignoring your posts.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 10:59 AM

I am trying to discuss the definition of tradtional song, there is nothing pejortaive about saying quotehat is the weakness of the following earlier quote
That leaves "Traditional," which is the one term which has a slightly fuzzy definition. There are two parts often cited:
1. Songs which have been handed down from person to person, usually orally That leaves "Traditional," which is the one term which has a slightly fuzzy definition. There are two parts often cited:
1. Songs which have been handed down from person to person, usually orally
2. Songs which people consider their own, so that they have the right to modify them
Note that having an unknown author is not part of either of these. which brings us to Music hall songs which have known composers, and which royalties are still being paid.
they may be good songs but[imo] they are not traditional, someone is collecting money for them, that is their legal entitlement

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 11:23 AM

Lighter wrote: But suppose I'd learned it from a live performance, determined the correct lyrics from a book, and taught it to somebody else twenty years later with minor changes.

In my book, your version would not be traditional. The version of the person who learned it from you might well be, though. If they'd just absorbed it from you, rather than you saying, "Here, learn this!"

On another topic, an analogy might be useful here,

Around 1905, Albert Einstein published Special Relativity, Brownian Motion, and the Photoelectic Effect. All major advances (although most people think someone else would have developed Special Relativity within five years if Einstein hadn't). In 1916, Einstein published General Relativity, and that was really, truly, and totally new.

In 1927, Werner Heisenberg announced the Uncertainty Principle, and Einstein couldn't take it. He tried so hard to prove it wrong that he fudged his math, then ceased to be a physicist and became an actor pretending to be a physicist. You can argue that he did good in that period (although it was also the period when he was hitting on his second wife's daughter while apparently abandoning his own daughter) -- but he wasn't a physicist, except in his own mind. He couldn't follow the field, because he no longer accepted what was happening.

Of course one can ignore new discoveries in any field. But one can't do it and still contribute to the field. It has moved on. I doubt any of us is an Einstein, but we can still learn from his mistake.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 11:32 AM

Lighter wrote: But suppose I'd learned it from a live performance, determined the correct lyrics from a book, and taught it to somebody else twenty years later with minor changes.

In my book, your version would not be traditional. The version of the person who learned it from you might well be, though. If they'd just absorbed it from you, rather than you saying, "Here, learn this!"
above quote from Robert
Robert
I understand your point about oral transmission, and agree up to a point, dependent upon whether the song was traditional in the first place

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 11:36 AM

ON the other hand it could be that the person who learned the song by a book was not a traditional singer but was still singing a traditional song.
Lighter would not have been a traditional singer because of the way he learned the song, but the song was still a traditional song, when it was learned by oral transmission

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 11:54 AM

alternatively, the song remains a traditional song regardless of whether the singer is a traditional singer., and has learned it by oral transmission

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 03:33 PM

We are moving into unexplored jungle here. Dick seems incapable of accepting that Music Hall pieces can become traditional, i.e., be passed on in oral tradition. In that case what is the difference between a broadside ballad like The Bonny Bunch of Roses and a Music Hall song like Jim the Carter Lad? The latter was long considered traditional and in the repertoires of many source singers, and still is to most of us. We know who wrote 'The Bonny Bunch of Roses' and he did it for commercial reasons, even if he only got a shilling for it.
Dick, you state that Music Hall songs are copyrighted. They were originally, but for the vast majority of the pre 1900 ones that were, the copyright has now expired and I know of no instance where a claim has been made by PRS on anyone singing a pre-1900 Music Hall song. The current expert on this is John Baxter. He'll be along shortly.

The simplest and least controversial way to approach this is to take the Venn diagram approach and allow for overlaps between genres, i.e., why can't a song be traditional and part of the Music Hall genre? That does not mean all Music Hall songs are folk songs, only those collected from oral traditon.

As for Jon's example, I can furnish you with numerous examples from my own family. My grandparents, my mother and some of my uncles all sang several traditional songs. However, even though I sing some of them and have done for 60 years, I did not learn them by osmosis. I was lucky enough to be able to record them in the 60s after becoming part of the folk scene. I am happy to accept that in some parts of America these boundaries are much more blurred as attested by some of the examples given above.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 03:34 PM

Unless one is simply sorting songs into bins, I don't don't find the question "Is it traditional?" to be very interesting - particularly if "traditional" is in the surprisingly fuzzy technical sense (once) favored by folklorist.

If Y learns song A orally from X, and that song in Y's version is ipso facto "traditional," those facts tell us nothing about the nature of the song itself. They only tell us that somebody once learned the song and perhaps made minor textual and melodic changes later.

Nor does whether it has a known (to whom?) author or whether it's now in the public domain.

The song's the thing, not the abstract slots it can be fit into.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 03:45 PM

Some of us have been trying to sort songs into bins for a long time, Jon. If we don't it makes our study arenas far too wieldy. For instance some might say my 750-item database of 'Earliest versions' is far too small and restricted, but there were good reasons for making it that size and I can easily justify it. if I'd tried to include everything in the DT or Roud Index I'd be pushing up daisies before it got finished.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 03:57 PM

Steve Gardham wrote: if I'd tried to include everything in the DT or Roud Index I'd be pushing up daisies before it got finished.

And, as a secondary problem, it's effectively impossible to keep track of all that stuff. The single largest component of my correspondence with Steve Roud is places where I've noticed that two songs should be combined under one number. Tracking everything that has ever been published as a traditional folk song is something only an extreme savant could remember (and an extreme savant would probably have trouble identifying them, because of the limits of savant-hood).

Like Steve Roud, I try to include everything, but I don't obsess about finding every fact about every song. Instead, I tend to try to find what is easily found -- and pick a handful of songs for deep analysis. That's not the same as what Steve Gardham is doing with his Earliest Dates (he's chasing versions; I'm chasing background information), but in both cases, it's making a near-infinite task finite.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 04:07 PM

I'd add one other thought here, on the value of tradition. There is no question, at this point, that I like pedantically nitpicky research because I'm a pedentically nitpicky person. :-p

But why did I choose to be pedantically nitpicky about traditional songs (and textual criticism, and other specific areas), as opposed to the other autistics whose special interests are dinosaurs or Star Wars or models of refrigerator compressors? Because traditional songs tell us something. The earliest ones give us a certain insight into the way non-gentry people thought at a time when only the upper classes could write down their feelings.

Newer traditional songs aren't out only insight into the feelings of the common people, but they are still a source of insight. If there are two songs that participating soldiers wrote about (say) the Battle of the Bulge, and one goes into tradition and the other doesn't, that presumably says something about the traditional song and the story it told. What? That doubtless depends on the song and many other things. But the mere fact that it has become traditional is a piece of information that I did not otherwise have about the song.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 04:57 PM

Songs are for singing.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 05:10 PM

Nobody here would dispute that, Dick. We are all singers and enjoy that part of what we do, but you wouldn't be here talking to us if you weren't also interested in the history behind the songs.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 05:21 PM

If the songs are not sung they become museum items, rather like dead butterflies
I have spent 50 years plus, earning my living singing these songs,    the songs have to be suhg when they are not sung but only studied by scholars they are dead and their categories matter little
A LlOYD understood this., and will be remembered for his overall contribution to the uk folk revival despite his scholastic errors.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 06:29 PM

This thread has moved on considerably since I last posted and most of the questions I had have been answered. That said my quote on yesterdays post referring to Communal re composition, was from memory and incorrect. I should have said communal re creation and credited Phillips Barry. Yes Robert it was more than a few years ago. However it provoked your interesting reply covering the myth of communal composition, which was excellent.
The lightbulb moment for me was Steve's post that suggested that' Any musical genre (in fact most genres) are not finite. As you demonstrate, there are variable factors involved and the relationships between any genres can best be demonstrated by Venn diagrams.'
That's OK if you are familiar with Venn diagrams which I was not. So I
found out and all became plain to me so many thanks Steve (again!)
I have drawn the conclusion from reading this thread, that the term traditional is as controversial as the 1958 folk song definition (or list of descriptors) and the term is used as much outside the the arts as within:- Family traditions, Civic traditions Royal traditions, etc. When we are attempting to use the term in respect of Folk music it is too general to be any useful definition. A Tweedle dum Tweedle dee argument of what is in or out of the tradition is doomed to failure but no doubt will use a river of ink from now to eternity.
I have spent half my life messing about with Gypsy Wagons, for local people and numerous celebrities. I had to work on a wagon for an international Rock Star from one of the world's biggest bands who was also a Gypsy. He wanted a traditional Gypsy living wagon. I had to decide between renovation restoration, or invention, but most of all stay within the tradition. The original I offered him was made up an old lane in 1945 with a selection of hand saws, a hammer and a box of nails. There was not a single screw in it. The front board was rotten. I rebuilt it using power tools and screws and foreign timber. It looked identical to the original and I gilded it in 23.5 carat gold also foreign in origin. Was it traditional? Yes. Was it original about 75%. Was it a restoration or a renovation? It was both to the same percentage. The parallels to folk song are obvious. We hear of the singer who grabbed Sharp by the lapels with tears in her eyes after singing an old song saying 'Isn't it beautiful! The first thing the afore mentioned Rock star said to me as he sat in his wagon looking at the glass cabinet I had repainted was 'I can put my mothers china in here'. Neither artist was bothered about a definition. Traditional songs tell us something quotes Robert quite correctly with this thread most of us have been listening to the songs and to each other and I would like to think we have come away wiser. I know I have.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 11 Oct 24 - 06:53 PM

Nick Dow's story of the Gypsy Wagon inevitably reminds me of the story of what Wikipedia calls the Ship of Theseus, but which I know as a story above axes (as retold by Terry Pratchett, among others).

The King of the Dwarves had as his symbol of authority an axe. After years of use, the handle wore out and was replaced. Later, the blade wore out and was replaced. Then the handle wore out again and was replaced. And then the blade was replaced. And so on. But it was still the Dwarf King's Axe. Because it was.

As long as there is continuous variation, something is, at least arguably, the same, even if the beginning and ending states are completely different. A lesson for students of folklore.

Wikipedia version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus.

Wikipedia traces it to Plutarch, who is responsible indirectly for a lot of folklore, because he inspired so many Shakespearean distortions. :-)

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 02:23 AM

the original poster was inspired to sing a song quote below
Can any great benefactor of the human race give me the lyrics in full, or direct me to them? I'd be eternally grateful.
he was concerned about singing the song, not whether he was a traditionl singer. THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE
Lloyd was interested in singing songs.lLOYD needs to be viewed for his overall contributions to the uk folk revival, I feel indebted to him despite his sometimes faulty scholarship.
Traditional songs tell us something, quote Robert
so do all good songs whatever their genre, but not all tradtional songs are good, but generally speaking the best ones have survived,and the worst ones are gathering dust and only being viewed by scholars

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 03:13 AM

I'm keeping an eye on this. Please keep it civil, folks.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Nick Dow
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 05:02 AM

I think the serious discussion is coming to an end Joe. I hope you'll agree that the majority of the posts have been of a high standard. They have certainly helped me.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 08:53 AM

Hi, Steve. "Some of us have been trying to sort songs into bins for a long time...If we don't it makes our study arenas far too wieldy."

True, but don't we wind up studying the songs we like, based on their subjective appeal? "Trad" or "non-trad" is secondary.

I think of all the really tuneless, inept trad songs that have been collected. Nobody would be likely to study them (as opposed to indexing them, which is obviously valuable) just because they are or appear to be "traditional" according to one or another extraneous definition. A song is, as they say, what it is, and as Popeye might say, "that's all what it is." Or virtually all, if one also seeks inter-song connections.

If, for example, I were to study "The Reuben James," I imagine I'd describe the historical incident in satisfying but not excessive detail, do the same for Guthrie's life and his service in the Merchant Marine, mention "Wildwood Flower" and the Carter family, look at songs on similar events, examine the song's diction and patriotic theme, how it compares to pop songs of the period, its history on vinyl, and anything else I find interesting.

The point is, that's exactly what I'd do regardless or whether "RJ" (or "SW") is deemed "trad" or "non-trad" by me or anyone else. (It's pretty much what I did for the "Johnny" songs.) The labels, while not exactly meaningless, fade nearly into irrelevance.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 09:20 AM

Based on an analysis of Lloyds scholarship, I would suggest that all scholarship needs to be treated, not as Gospel, but there to be carefully studied, before believing hook line and sinker, to accept any scholarship without challenging it is Naive.
I long ago rejected some of Lloyds statements.
So when somebody stats that Lloyd was lies, It might be fairer and more accurate to add some of his statements are fabricated , and perhaps suggest why, at that time he might have done so, and that he did not do it for financial gain, and then actually give examples of his errors, good scholarship involves giving examples of his errors and mistakes.,AND POINTS OUT TO NON SCHOLARS HIS SCHOLASTIC WEAKNESS

With Music there will be crossovers between genres, something I have been aware of since the mid sixties "bluegrass" is an example, AUDIENCES still need to know what they are going to listen to, if i see something described as New Orleans Jazz, and am looking forward to it,I dont want to suddenly be presented with an evening of some other genre..I will be disappointed even if it is a genre i like
if i am expecting an evening of Traditional unaccompanied ballads and this is what i have paid, for I would be perplexed if i am presented with Cosmotheka or Mr Gladstones bag
So categorisation is necessary to some small extent.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 09:30 AM

The Cutty Wren

This song is traditionally thought to date back to the 1300s and have been sung by participants of the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381. Worth noting that wikipedia and academia are both are keen to point out that there is no evidence of this, but people in the trad folk tradition are equally quick to point out in return that academics historically often have little idea about the oral tradition.

In A.L.Lloyd’s excellent Folk Song In England he states:

    (The song) is often thought of as an amiable nursery piece yet when it was recorded from an old shepherd of Adderbury West, near Banbury, he banged the floor with his stick on the accented notes and stamped violently at the end of the verses, saying that to stamp was the right way and reminded of old times.

    What memories of ancient defiance are preserved in this kind of performance it would be hard to say , but we do know that the wren-hunting song was attached to pagan midwinter ritual of the kind that the Church and authority fulminated vainly against- particularly in the rebellious perdio at the end of the Middle Ages when adherence to the forms of the Old Religion was taken to be evidence of subversion, and its partisans were violently persectuted in consequence.

In the sleeve notes of an Ian Campbell Folk Group record, A.L. Lloyd had this further explanation:

    Some of the most ancient, most enduring and at the same time most mysterious English folk songs are those concerned with the attributes and sacrifice of monstrous animals. At the end of the 14th century, when peasant rebellion was in the air, the old magical song of the gigantically powerful bird (presented by a kind of folklore irony as a tiny wren) took on a tinge of new meaning. For here was the story of a great fowl so hard to seize, so difficult to dismember but so apt for sharing among the poor; and what did that suggest but a symbol of seignorial property?
Steve and Robert, what have you to say about Lloyds scholastic musings on these occasions, or is there another connection with Wren Hunting in Ireland? these are questions not statements

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 09:37 AM

There Appears to be differnces of opinion on the subject of scholarship

Originality is the essence of true scholarship. Creativity is the soul of the true scholar.

Nnamdi Azikiwe

Would that be an accurate description of A l LlOYD?

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 01:07 PM

As Nick Dow said, at this point, the valuable part of the thread is probably done, but something Lighter wrote might be worth a minor comment: True, but don't we wind up studying the songs we like, based on their subjective appeal? "Trad" or "non-trad" is secondary.

I personally find it a lot more complicated than that. First, the fact that a song became traditional means that somebody liked it enough to remember it. Yes, any particular collection may have become zersungen, and a lot of the tunes have been damaged by being collected from people who could no longer sing any more! And if a song is only collected once or twice, it might be traditional because it appealed to some weirdo. :-) But if a song is widespread in tradition, it's a strong indication that it appealed to people somehow, and that there is probably a good version somewhere, even if the one you're hearing isn't it.

And what is a good song? One that sounds good? It's more than that. To me, the value of a song rises dramatically by reason of being traditional. For reasons I outlined earlier: The traditional songs that go back a long way have historical interest; even the recent ones have psychological interest.

I agree that simply being traditional is not a sufficient reason to sing a song, except perhaps in a very academic context. I very much like the tune I know for "The Wee Cooper of Fife," but I won't sing it because I don't like the words. We already mentioned "Mary Phagan"; I won't sing that because it's a lie. So being a traditional song is not a sufficient reason to sing a song.

But neither is being a "good song" -- or perhaps we should say an "enjoyable song" (something that surely applies to many Beatles songs, e.g.) -- is not a sufficient reason either.

I won't pretend that I have a precise algorithm to determine what songs to sing (although the idea is interesting... :-p ). But being a good song is a necessary but not sufficient condition, and being traditional (my definition of traditional) also comes very close to being a necessary condition for me -- my active repertoire is something like 90% traditional.

Obviously others' mileage varies, or we wouldn't have a songwriting industry!

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 01:19 PM

if Lloyd is being criticised, it is important to qualify your crticism with examples, it would improve all our knowledge
Lloyd is not here to defend himself, it is only fair to everyone to give examples of weak scholarship

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 01:28 PM

Thanks Robert, With your permission I am going to copy your posts for myself and keep them for future reference. If I quote from them I will let you know in advance.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 02:10 PM

the valuable part of the thread is not done,it is of value to everyone that you qualify and give examples of Lloyds weak scholarship, then we will not have been "misled" by Lloyd

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Oct 24 - 04:47 PM

I think if by "creativity" Azikiwe meant "fudging and faking," he'd have said so.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 13 Oct 24 - 09:02 AM

There are whole books on Bert's creativity/scholarship, Dick, and currently the person we all know who is working on the many examples is Brian Peters. I can give you examples from my own experience but I'd only be repeating what I've previously put on Mudcat. Have a look back through the threads on Bert and you'll find plenty of examples.

By the way, Dick, and this is not being patronising, there are 2 really useful posts you have put up recently which I don't think anyone would argue with.

Once again, and we must have said this a thousand times, all of us have enormous respect for what Bert and Ewan contributed. We just wish they hadn't confused their scholarship so much with their creativity. For a long time Bert was seen on the folk scene as one of the top scholars when it came to the history of the songs so it's only right that today's scholars correct any 'creativity' when it clashes with the facts.

Once again, everyone who has contributed here is as much a singer and lover of the music as you are. It is possible to sing and study though perhaps not at the same time.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Oct 24 - 09:41 AM

it is up to you and Robert[mho suggested his articles were lies] to correct his so called "creativity", you are the "scholars" that have criticised Lloyds works.
MacColl has not been mentioned, until you mentioned him in your last post.
Until you or Nick Dow or Robert produce examples of Lloyds fake scholarship, your allegations are unproven.
It is only fair to everyone that one of the three of you do this, since it was you three that made UNQUALIFIED CRITICISM then people will not be misled when reading his work
Good scholarship involves the person making the criticisms to qualify them.
It is your duty as a responsible scholar to give examples from your own experience.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Oct 24 - 09:43 AM

"Once again, everyone who has contributed here is as much a singer and lover of the music as you are. It is possible to sing and study though perhaps not at the same time. "quote Steve Gardham

whether people are singers or lovers of musIc is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Oct 24 - 02:26 PM

For a long time Bert was seen on the folk scene as one of the top scholars when it came to the history of the songs so it's only right that today's scholars correct any 'creativity' when it clashes with the facts.
quote,Steve Gardham
Then do so,

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 13 Oct 24 - 02:31 PM

There's thread drift and thread drift, but this particular one takes the biscuit. Very little has actually been said about the song that is the supposed subject of this thread. I haven't counted, but it's only half a dozen or so posts.

(GUEST         08 Oct 24 - 04:48 AM) was me, my cookie having evaporated without my noticing. In response to that Robert said "To shear 200 was within the realm of possibility, but I don't think a native Australian would have been likely to claim that. I think that's Bert Lloyd being Bert Lloyd.". Whether that particular bit was introduced by Bert or was there before is not important: the whole song is a tall tale, not expected to be regarded as a true one.

Dick said "Until you or Nick Dow or Robert produce examples of Lloyds fake scholarship, your allegations are unproven." Plenty of examples have been well documented elsewhere and I see no need for this thread to be bloated by repeating them here.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: Nick Dow
Date: 13 Oct 24 - 03:05 PM

Thank you, Richard. You are right about thread drift, but the subject is so wide that Lloyd's scholarship cannot be covered in isolation. It always helps if the contributor knows what he is posting about, not always the case on this thread. I think enough has been said now and bloating is not warranted as you pointed out. It has been very useful and has introduced me to Robert's research, and increased my book collection (again!). I for one will not be engaging in any more arguing here.

Subject: RE: Origins: Billy Brink / Bluey Brink
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Oct 24 - 05:03 PM

The thread drift was not started by me.
I did not raise the subject of Lloyd and scholarship.
Good scholarship involves backing up ones points with evidence.

---

It drifted too far, so I moved some messages from "Billy Brink." See Pamphlet: The Singing Englishman (A.L. Lloyd). -Joe Offer-