|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:18 AM With my 'legendary pedantry, accuracy matters' hat on ~~ Harker: Fakesong 1984. Scarcely ½-century; barely ¼ ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:40 AM Oh dear. I get very annoyed when having to fight through the thickets of Sweeney's gratuitous and sesquipedalian philological exhibitionism which demonstrates a far more condescending (as well as obfuscatory) approach than ever displayed by Victorian collectors or revivalists. It does however seem to me curious that while he rejects the entire tenet of folk music, denigrating a very sensible definition (the 1954 definition) without offering any coherent other options, he sees himself as able to define which of his offerings are folk and which are not. On the other hand, it also seems to me that while a ballad may well be a narrative (and may or may not be a folk song) if it is a narrative folk song then no way of presenting the narrative deprives it of that status, given that folk is not defined by form. Indeed I could go further and say that even if it were to be deprived of its ballad status by removal of all coherent narrative, it might well still remain a folk song. For example so much of "Avram Bailey" appears to have been lost that what we have left makes very little sense. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 03 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM he rejects the entire tenet of folk music Not so, I just reject the Horse Definition (and, by association, the 1954 Definition too) as telling us nothing that isn't true of any other music. Simply put I refuse to accept that all music is Folk Music because Folk Song is largely a matter of Form(s) and largely a matter of Context. That said, All music can be Folk Music, but only in very specific contexts. This is all about Pragmatics; a Butcher is a Butcher, but whilst pigs may well fear a Pork Butcher, families need not fear a Family Butcher in quite the same way. Beyond that I'd say the whole thing is too vast, nebulous, wonderful and mutuable a thing to define with any degree of accuracy, or indeed certainty, without reducing it to the sort of idiotic pedantry that isn't entirely untypical in Folk Circles. Thus do I say: Folk Is as Folk Does, which suffices as a sort-of non-definition for me. he sees himself as able to define which of his offerings are folk and which are not. Awkward one really because my passion for Folk is dependent on a very wide cultural Zeitgeist that existed in my childhood and therefore includes a vast amount of (seemingly) disparate influences and inspirations including (off the top of my head) The Penguin Book of English Folk Song (just landed a pristine First Edition paperback in Southport the other week; collecting them is a sort of sub-hobby of mine); The Leaping Hare; The Pattern Under the Plough (etc. any of George Ewart Evans' books will do); A Song for Every Season; The Collected Ghost Stories of M R James (and their TV adaptations): The Singing Molecatcher of Morayshire; The Green Man by Kathleen Basford; The Green Man by William Anderson; The Faber Book of Popular Verse; Engolish Folk Heroes by Christina Hole; The Martyrdom of Saint Magnus; Eight Songs for a Mad King; Shirley & Dolly Collins; the Battle of the Field; Among the Many Attractions at the Show Will Be a High Class Band; the Third Ear Band; David Munrow; The Clemencic Consort; Saint George's Canzona; Rene Zosso; Times and Traditions for Dulcimer; Billy Pigg; Martin Carthy; June Tabor; Peter Bellamy; Music from the Morning of the World; Javanese Court Gamelan Volume 3; The Nonsuch Explorer Series As a Whole; Seamus Ennis; Davie Stewart; A Beuk of Newcassel Sangs; The Northumbrian Minstrelsy; Rhymes of the Northern Bards; The Bay Hotel Folk Club; Ray Fisher; Jane Turriff; Duncan Wiliamson; Robin Williamson; Michael Hurley; The Northumbrian Gathering; Badger in the Bag; Raymond Greenoaken; The Watersons; The Elliots of Birtley; Ewan MacColl; The Bagpipe Museum in Newcastle (nor in Morpeth); The Bridge Folk Club; Strawhead; The Amazing Blondell; the Strawbs; Jean Ritchie; Peggy Seeger; Gentle Giant; Jordi Savall; Willie Scott; Children of the Stones; Aubrey Burl; Janet and Colin Bord; The Readers Digest Book of Folklore and Legends of Britain; Bob Pegg; Mr Fox; Rolf Harris; The Singing Ringing Tree &c. &c. I think we each carry around our own subjective inner-aesthetic of what Folk is, or means to us, and sometimes we might find someone who is of a similar mind, but I would be wary of anything approaching a concensus. Just look along the thread titles of Mudcat and try to divine the Common Factor. I agree about ballads, though I might dispute their primary purpose is simply to 'tell a story'; or that 'telling a story' is ever so simple a thing anyway. Stained glass windows might be said to tell a story, but like a ballad, that story will be well known to the listener. Last night I watched Planet of the Apes (1968) for what must have been the 345th time in my life and yet each time it comes out different for me, as stories invariably do as they catch the listener in different ways whatever the agenda (or otherwise) of the original, or the intentions of the teller or the singer. Ballads, like films, move in terms of image and archetype and all manner of occult levels which even the singer won't be aware of. The receptive mind is not passive; the cultural process whirls in ways we might never fully understand, and so stories will mean things we'll never dream of in a million years. So, like all storytelling, it is never so simple a thing as telling a story, even culturally. Every Easter I attend the Catholic Triduum to hear a very old story indeed, one that defines much of what I am despite being an Atheist; likewise at Christmas. I hear ballads in much the same way, but always afresh, so it makes perfect sense to sing them in as fluid a way as possible without labouring 'the story' as such, allowing for the fact that there is always going to be more to it than meets the eye, or ear, or the brain, so correctness is a complete anathema to the nature of the thing, however so entrenched the revival orthodoxy might be, largely thanks to the creative genius of Martin Carthy. That said, though aware of the orthdoxy, I'm not reacting against it; I just do things as they feel right for me to do them, and I really hope that's true of everyone, even those for whom the orthodox way is right. Do what Thou Wilt - but for God's sake make sure you encourage others in their efforts to do likewise, then we might have something to go on. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST Date: 03 Nov 11 - 10:41 AM Sorry Mike - slip of the typing finger (tough I did say I'd read it 25 years ago Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 03 Nov 11 - 10:56 AM Sorry, that's one mistake I can't allow : it should be Among the Many Attractions at the Show Will Be a Really High Class Band, which was bought from J&SK at a gig in a Northumbrian public house back in 1976 and remains one of my all time favourite folk albums. Does it exist on CD I wonder? I still play my old vinyl copy at least once a year But chiefly when the wind blows high, in a night of February |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 11 - 11:28 AM There you go again. Zeitgeist indeed. NO. It's not about an aesthetic. If it was, Jim would be right that what you do is not folk balladry. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 03 Nov 11 - 12:17 PM Richard - don't dare to presume to tell anyone that they're wrong, much less insist that you might be right, whatever sort of absolutist logic you might insist upon. Folk is all about the Zeitgeist; it is all about subjective perception (as if there was any other sort) and aesthetics pure and simple. Folk is the beauty in the eye of beholder; it is the mutable wave of collective fashion that we each see very differently indeed. There are no rights and wrongs, only personal opinions. Jim is only right in saying what he does because that's the way he sees it; it's certainly not the way I see it, but then again my Atheism is more inclusive than that, but that's just me, even though we both love the same things. How do I see it? I've already accounted for Child 102, but generally the term Folk Balladry can mean pretty much what you want it too. This isn't a case of the Humpty Dumpties, just a more pragmatic acknowledgement that in music there are no correct procedures, much less terminology on which we might agree upon with severe qualification. For sure, any given A might equal 440, but as to what the relative Major Third then equals very much depends on your temperament. So if I sing a Traditional Ballad then it's Folk by default, like the recording I did last week of The Wife of Ushers Well in which I freely intone Childs's A text (from memory) whilst freely improvising on my 5-string violin (AKA The Accursed Viol - you can add Lovecraft to that list too). Whilst the whole thing is anchored to a drone, it is is otherwise completely atonal, though I think of this as amodality rather than atonality per se. And just as the performance is essentially non-rhythmic, I've added a xenochronous rhythm track on a frame drum which randomly and organically aligns with the voice / viol / drone track. Whilst I'd never attempt anything like this in a Folk Club, or any other Designated Folk Context, I nevertheless think of it as being Folk for reasons of Zeitgeist and resultant aesthetic sensibilities which are as much the consequence of collective cultural circumstance as they are the individual experience of those circumstances. Folk and Free Improvisation were the Chamber Musics of my childhood and adolescence, and it seems only right to bring them together from time to time, for whilst I'd never do anything like this in a Folk Gig, I'd certainly do it in a Free Improv gig. That said, even in my more orthodox folk ventures, there will always be a significant amount of improvisation going on purely because my personal understanding of The Tradition of English Speaking Folk Song is of a phenomenon that was highly fluid and infinitely mutable, in which songs were constantly being remade and changed even from one singing to the next - not out of sloppy dabbling or failing memory, but because such a fluidity is integral to the mastery oral culture and the genre which Folk Song. That one may only stay on top of such improvisation through rehearsing your tits off is one of the supreme ironies of the craft; use it or lose it, as they say. In the collected & recorded annals of Folk Song, I see little evidence to suggest that it was ever any other way. Again, I'm rambling again; I'm actually in the middle of a review I'm doing of the new HUX edition of Heavy Petting which already runs to over 1,300 words and I still haven't mentioned the music. Instead of getting down to editing, I procrastinate over here on Mudcat... Word count: 621 (before editing). |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: theleveller Date: 03 Nov 11 - 12:52 PM "you can add Lovecraft to that list too" Now I'd have had you down as a Machen man - Hill of Dreams and The Great God Pan. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Nov 11 - 01:04 PM I didn't. And there you go again. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 03 Nov 11 - 01:10 PM Machen, Rolt, La Fanu, Baring-Gould, Poe, Blackwood, Edward Gorey, Mark E Smith; so many great writers, so little time. And I love Phil Rickman too - his Merrily Watkins mysteries are Pure Folk, genuinely creep and beautifully written from the heart of darkest Herefordshire... |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,SteveG Date: 03 Nov 11 - 02:18 PM Just discovered a 17th century RH ballad that Child missed out. It has 27 more verses than the Gest. It's called ''Robin Hood goes Astray. I'll get me hat. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 04 Nov 11 - 05:26 AM I didn't. And there you go again. So what else is your rather declamatory NO. It's not about an aesthetic. if not such a presumption? At least have the decency to explain yourself instead of hurling out cryptic one liners. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Nov 11 - 06:50 AM The broadside below is from the Luddite period. "The movement was named after General Ned Ludd or King Ludd, a mythical figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest... The movement began in Nottingham in 1811 and spread rapidly throughout England in 1811 and 1812." wiki --General Ludd's Triumph Tune "Poor Jack" Chant no more your old rhymes about bold Robin Hood, His feats I but little admire I will sing the Atchievements of General Ludd Now the Hero of Nottinghamshire-- Does this not suggest that Robin Hood ballads were known, & being sung, at the time ~ 2nd decade of C19? As I understand, though I canot recollect the source of this, the movement's name came from a somewhat mentally defective youth called Ned Lud, from Leicestershire not Notts, who destroyed his master's stocking-frames due to some grievance about his working hours{?}, & was transported; all some 30 years before the Luddites chose his name for their mythical leader. Anyone know more of this story, or can offer any explanation why his name should have been so adopted? Wiki has nothing to say on the subject in its article on the Luddites I quote above. ~M~ I know this is a bit of a drift; but seems to me relevant here, as the Robin Hood ballads, topic of this thread, are explicitly mentioned at the very beginning of that Broadside ~ IIRC sung by Roy Harris on one of his albums, and quoted in full by Teribus in a thread called 'Lyr Req: Songs of the industrial Revoloution [sic]' seven years ago, which qv if interested. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Nov 11 - 07:30 AM Ah, Sweeney, I thought you were referring to a different remark of mine. But you are still caught between a rock and a hard place. If (which it isn't) "folk" is defined by "an aesthetic" (what the rest of us call, more plainly, style) then your versions under discussion are not folk - because they have changed the style. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 04 Nov 11 - 08:40 AM The devil's in the details, because Style (if you insist, although I night think more of Cool, Groove or Swagger), like The Tradition, is an illusion caused by a myriad of smaller reactions and interactions which are in a state of constant organic flux and never once repeat themselves - assuming it is possible to do so anyway, which is open to debate: as Sun Ra said Nature never repeats itself. If we can reduce Folk Style to so simple a formula then it would be easier, but in insisting upon a more musicological understanding of Folk, I'm resisting the Transferable Imperialistic thrust of the term in favour of a more enthnomusicological appreciation of things, such as we find over at the International Council for Traditional Music, which, as we all know, was once the International Folk Music Council who gave us the 1954 Definition in the first place. As I've pointed out in the past, their remit is pretty wide, but they nevertheless distinquished Folk from a muliplicity of other musics which are just as Traditional. Implicit in any Style is its capacity for change. The overall Folk aesthetic changes from artist to artist, just as a song changes from singer to singer. It's not a catch-all comfort blanket, rather it changes its parameters with every change it becomes subjected to, so much so that any definition must be as mutuable as the thing itself, which, arguably, the 1954 Definition is. But because it was hatched in a hermetic vacuum jar it missed a trick that whilst not all music is Folk Music, all music is, nevertheless Human Music and born of self same traditional process it seeks to enshrine. The class gulf is, therefore, the rather patronising notion of the Individual over the Collective; the Artist over the faceless Community; the rather noxious assumption that The Folk are a different species as that the laws that apply to Them don't apply to Us, and vice versa. So Folk Music is different because the Folk themselves are different; they are lower, nobler; they are ill-educated savages unaware of the significance of their Folkart, which can only be understood by a scholastic elite. As Jean Ritchie said of the time Maud Karpeles denounced her crdentials as a Folk Musician because she'd had an education as was, therefore, all too aware of her craft. This results in the sort pure-blood seeking for the Real and Authentic that I find particularly awkward in European Traditional Music these days, not only because of the Nationalism (and, by implication, Racism) that invariably attends it, but also because even Jim's highly prized Sean-Nos is as much a post-modern invention as the Bodhran or the Celtic Harp. Yes, yes, there I go again. Enough already - or too much! Now back to that Heavy Petting review... |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: theleveller Date: 04 Nov 11 - 09:46 AM SOB, thanks for the reminder about The Leaping Hare - it was on my list to read after T H White's The Goshawk but I forgot about it - and that was about 8 years ago. Like you say, so many books....... |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST Date: 04 Nov 11 - 09:51 AM "You constantly imply you are privy to secret knowledge of how to sing folk songs correctly" You are probably the most vindictively dishonest person I have ever debated with I can't stop you from lying and misrepresenting my opnions but I will continue to point out when you do so. Please indicate where I have ever claimed.... "privy to secret knowledge of how to sing folk songs correctly" - I realise this to be another waste of time as you don't do explanations, (even if you did, am not sure I am qualified to cut my way through your pretentious verbiage). JimCarroll |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 04 Nov 11 - 12:48 PM Jim - when someone mutters words to the effect of 'this is not good ballad singing' then that seems to suggest they're privy to some sort of insider info. of what is good ballad singing. Myself, I don't have those sorts of criteria, but I don't believe in competitions either, something you get a lot of over there I believe, so maybe the judges are more in-the-know with respect of said secret wisdom. If it's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, then fair enough, but whether you like it or not I work very hard on my ballad singing, and regularly put it to the test before appreciative (but hardly uncritical) audiences of all ages & inclinations. So if it's more than just a matter o' taste, which I suspect it is or you wouldn't have expounded so much time & energy telling me how off the map you think I am, then what's the underlying problem here I wonder? |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST Date: 04 Nov 11 - 01:04 PM "....this is not good ballad singing" Sorry Sean - always believed you to be a rotten ballad singer and have said so in the past - I don't have any "secret knowledge" - that's just another of your unpleasant cliches. It really doesn't need special understanding or knowledge to recognise a poor interpretation - or are you an elitist as well as a pratt? You may work very hard on your ballad singing, but it just doesn't reach me in any way at all. Anybody who walks into a folk club has a right to express an opinion - (I've qualified mine and am prepared to do so even further, except you don't appear to be able to handle criticism unless it's yourself dishing it out). You've never hesitated in expressing your contempt for collectors and researchers and your disinterest in what traditional singer have to say) - if you can't stand the heat.... Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: Jack Blandiver Date: 04 Nov 11 - 01:57 PM Sorry Sean - always believed you to be a rotten ballad singer and have said so in the past Just stumbled across this, which seems a more considered an altogether fair minded appraisal to the way you go on it public anyway. Have been thinking about what you said and you are quite right - I had no right to go for you or anybody's singing the way I did - kneejerking seems to be a tendency I have developed with advancing years. I apologise, and am quite prepareed to do so publicly if you wish. It's certainly not the way I or any Critics Group member would have behaved - half a lifetime ago. Should I have been asked to do a crit on what I heard on the clip I would prbably have said: You have a good strong musical voice; No pitch or breathing problems; Confident, competent singing. Instrumentally skilled. I would not have agreed with the way you approached the ballad (seem to remember it was King Henry); but that is a personal thing; your decision entirely. The problem for me is I don't believe that ballads lend themselves to experimentation - far to word/narrative intense - if you take the attention away from them, even for the length of half a line, you can lose the whole thing. But that's a discussion for another place. Sorry again. |
|
Subject: RE: Robin Hood ballads From: GUEST Date: 04 Nov 11 - 04:04 PM If my memory serves me right, I had criticised an example of your singing which somebody had put up for my opinion, along with two other singers - I had no idea who the singer was and I gave my honest view in that ignorance. Perhaps I should not have - I apologised to you for having done so uninvited. Here you have put up a piece of your own singing, presumably for opinions; I gave mine, quite mildly, by my standards, and as honestly and as positively as I could. I had no reason to believe that you were only interested in favourable comments - my mistake. I think you will find that if you sing in public you throw yourself open to the opinions of others, whether they give them to your face or not. I strongly believe that one of the main failures of todays revival is the lack of honest discussion on the singing presented at clubs - it seems that Alex Campbell's "near enough for folk song" has become a reality. You have blown this into an incredibly nasty issue with your deliberate distortions of what I am supposed to believe and said. As I said - if you can't stand the heat... You have never been backward in coming forward with your own, often devastatingly sweeping, unpleasant and often hurtful pronouncements (that is what they often are). Take it like a man my son!! Jim Carroll |
| Share Thread: |
| Subject: | Help |
| From: | |
| Preview Automatic Linebreaks Make a link ("blue clicky") | |