 sj |
||
|
||
the folk revival
|
|
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Borchester Echo Date: 01 Jul 07 - 09:13 PM not much imput from women OK I have to confess that my examples of field recordings of women on VotP were entirely fabricated. These were figments of my imagination, as were women collectors, and the backbone of social and ritual dance was kept intact entirely by men, most of whom happened to be rock stars. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 01 Jul 07 - 11:44 PM Alas, Margaret Barry singing "She Moves Through the Faire" has been in my library o' musc since the '50s on an old Riverside sampler w. Ewan an Isla an P.Clayton & Patrick Galvan & Jesn Ritcheee & Obray Ramsay & the 2 Walters==Pegram & Parham------and I just heard it again and fund "She Moves" one of the most beauteous songs ever anywhere. All the years ago, when 1st hering of it, i thought it Banshee-like to the enth degree. And that banjo o hers was pure Neanderthal and out o tune ta boot. But then i dinna like single malt scotch either. Now they are both a part o me like me own skin an nothin fits better 'an that. On top o' dat is de factoid dat M.Barry is treasured here by meself--and the single malt has been ordered out o my life by me health care professionals as dey are known here abouts now. And on top o' dat is Punkfolkrocker sounds elloquent and poetic ta me tonight. What's it mean? Only dat, once ya get used to it, insanity can be de mos' normal ting in de wirld!!! Ott Thayme (as John Hartford used to call me out on the Mississippi River.) |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Folkiedave Date: 02 Jul 07 - 05:28 AM And look how Mary Neal nearly spoiled it for Cecil Sharp. http://www.thedonkey.org/Recycling/so_who_was_mary_neal.html |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 02 Jul 07 - 06:27 AM No ,I think the point was that women didnt sing in pubs very muchin EastAnGlia[The BlaxhallShip,TheEElsFOOT],and rural areas,That doesnt mean they didnt contribute to the tradition.MargaretBarry was a street singer/busker,later she played in folk clubs in England[another traditional performer given a platform by the revival],she may well have played/sang in Irish pubs in london,but LONDON in the 1930 1940 1950,was more all embracing/less conservative than rural east Anglia,at that time. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: greg stephens Date: 02 Jul 07 - 10:27 AM The interesting question about Margaret Barry is this: How much exposure would someone who sounded like that get in the current folk revival scene in England? Radio 2 Best Live Act 2007 Award? I can't see Smooth Operations(who chose their name advisedly) getting very excited by her. Folk music actually scares most people, lets face it. And I would think that if the Lakeman/Rusby axis is your gold standard, Barry and Gorman wouldn't get much of a look-in. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Folkiedave Date: 02 Jul 07 - 12:29 PM I think we have a logistical problem here Dick (Me starting the week off in a non-confrontational manner!!). We do know that women sang - Sharp had a number of female informants. Emma Overd, and Lucy White to name two off the top of my head. Gordon Hall's mother had 2/300 songs he reckoned. A quick glance at Sharp's Appalachians book shows many many more (Yes I know that's American but bear with me). Now we have an image (rightly or wrongly that women (especially those in the Appalachians) didn't go into pubs much and certainly not to sing. We also have an image that men did sing in the pubs. To me these things are not compatible. Either singing was learnt through the family and family get togethers - mainly; or it was learnt in the pub - mainly. If it was learnt in the family and similar get-togethers then that's where the women learnt it. If it was learnt - passed down if you like - in the pub, then it would be unlikely that women would be important song carriers yet we know that they were. (In fact probably the greatest song carrier ever, Bell Duncan seemed to have little opportunity to visit the pub I would guess). Ergo I would suggest that the pub played a lesser part in the carrying of the tradition than is sometimes believed. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: treewind Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:54 PM "the pub played a lesser part in the carrying of the tradition than is sometimes believed." Undoubtedly. Let's not forget too, that just as folk music now means 100 different things to different people, it was the same in the past. We talk of "a" (or "the") tradition, but really there are lots of tiny tradition-ettes all over the country, all different. Sheffield Carols (in pubs, as it happens), The Copper Family with their song book and definitely singing at home, street musicians, bothy ballads, sea shanties, East Anglian "sing,say or play" sessions, dozens of regional varieties of step, clog, sword and morris dance, people everywhere singing at work because they didn't have the radio... well, that's enough but the list goes on for ever. There isn't one tradition and it didn't conform to any one set of rules or generalisations. Sometimes you spot coincidental similarities but it doesn't mean much. For example: the Coppers and the Sheffield carollers both singing in harmony: maybe there's a common influence from the English choral church music tradition but that doesn't set rules about how you judge everything else. Er, now where were we? Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,Blaise Date: 02 Jul 07 - 04:00 PM Tell a story of any kind to one person and wait even 1 year and see how much the story has changed. There are IMHO no "set" "traditions "that arn't altered in some way through time. To believe that "traditional" music began exactly as modern times i.e the advent of written or recorded music and hasn't been altered form it's point of origin is silly. So enjoy what you like and play with passion and conviction to the relevance of the subject of the song. that IMHO is the only way to be true to "tradition". |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego Date: 02 Jul 07 - 05:45 PM Here in the Colonies, I would have to equate the "revival" of folk music as roughly equivalent to "the great folk music scare" of the late 1950's. True, The Weavers, Burl Ives, Woody Guthrie, Josh White and their contemporaries were occasionally heard on the radio, but they - in fact, most folk singers labored in relative obscurity most of the time. The Kingston Trio's hit, with "Tom Dooley," in 1957, marked a turning point, like it or not. Until they proved to the record producers that folk could be commercial, audiences tended to be small and specialized. Thereafter, acts such as Bud & Travis, Peter,Paul & Mary,The Limeliters, The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem, et al, got their day in the sun. Most of these people had been around, performing in coffee houses and small venues, but were virtually unknown except to a small cognescenti. Suddenly, folk was "hot" and the rest was (or is) history. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Folkiedave Date: 02 Jul 07 - 06:58 PM Suddenly, folk was "hot" and the rest was (or is) history. The more things change the more things stay the same....... |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego Date: 02 Jul 07 - 07:51 PM For "Folkiedave" and all others: I can't disagree. Also, I didn't say I necessarily liked the outlined evolution of the recent "folk revival." But, like anything truly worthwhile and with notable intrinsic value, the "great unwashed" don't necessarily know of it, much less pay rapt attention to it until it becomes commercial. I would have to say, though, that an awful lot of people who love, perform and collect folk music might not have been exposed to it at all had it not been for the commercial success of those I mentioned, and others. In that regard, I am probably as guilty as anyone else. What started out as a glorified attention-getting device in high school developed into a lifelong love affair. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: dick greenhaus Date: 02 Jul 07 - 08:13 PM " True, The Weavers, Burl Ives, Woody Guthrie, Josh White and their contemporaries were occasionally heard on the radio, but they ... labored in relative obscurity most of the time." C'mon now. Ives did a hit Broadway show, and had a regular Sunday radio show for several years. Josh White made ths national charts with "One Meat Ball" The Weavers had a bunch of hits, including "Irene" which, as I recall, had record breaking sales. The "folk" that got "hot" was largely pop in style and presentation, although, admittedly, a passel of more traditional performers got a shot at public notice along with the pop acts. On both sides of the pond. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Ruth Archer Date: 03 Jul 07 - 03:20 AM "Ives did a hit Broadway show, and had a regular Sunday radio show for several years" Not to mention starring in a Disney film, and in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer as the snowman. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: PoppaGator Date: 03 Jul 07 - 02:53 PM It's only within the last century or less that people have been exposed to recorded music, and by now there's hardly anyone anywhere in the world who doesn't hear recordings pretty much all the time. The various national and ethnic traditions that developed throughout history were formed and nurtured by singers and musicians whose own listening experience was pretty much limited to whatever sounds were being produced by their neighbors, coworkers, and relatives. There no controversies concerning who was a "traditionalist" and who wasn't: everyone necessarily belonged to one tradition or another. Of course, one tradition (e.g., of some remote rural valley) might be very isolated and unique while another (such as that of seagoing whalers) might be much more cosmopolitan, drawing upon the shared musical experience of coworkers drawn together from all points of the compass. In the 20th century and ever after, we all exercise our differing tastes as we establish our personal preferences among the many musical sounds available to us through technology. In any "revival," on any shore of any ocean during any postmodern decade, different folks develop difference preferences for musical styles that are more or less polished, more or less emotionally expressive, etc. Except where we're talking about some favorite performer born in some relatively isolated region before, say, 1940, there is no longer such a thing as a "traditional" singer or player, in the sense of a person born and bred within the confined world of a given musical style, at least not in the Western world. The rest of us ~ almost everyone still alive ~ have grown up amid all kinds of modern and ancient sounds and selected the musical styles we prefer. In other words, all the above discussion is interesting and stimulating, but it all boils down to personal preference and nothing more. There's no real distinction any more between a "traditional" performer or a "revivalist" (or even a "commercialist"). We each simply sing and play whatever appeals to us the most, as well as we can. There have been times in my past life when I allowed myself to admit to enjoying only certain well-defined styles of music, and I was not being honest with myself. I know, because I now feel great nostalgic attachment to some popular songs from my youth that I would have been loath to admit that I liked at the time. Part of my self-imposed standards had to do with essentially political, ethno-historic factors, and part had to do simply with my personal ability to play and sing certain styles and not others. Now that I'm old and gray, I'm willing to enjoy all kinds of stuff without getting my drawers in a knot about it. I do still feel that human-sounding music ~ stuff that someone, if not me, can manage to more-or-less duplicate and pass along ~ is preferable to techo-monstrous noise, and can be seen as embodying some degree of "folk"-ness. I wouldn''t agree that it has to be solo; some songs whose vocal harmonies pretty much define them do get learned and remembered and handed down the generations. However, as quickly as computerized musical functions are developed and made ever more user-friendly, it's not hard to imagine that there'll soon come a time when even completely synthesized musical numbers develop grass-roots popularity and achieve immortality while being "folk-processed" just as thoroughly as any ancient ballad, any 19th-century music hall number, or any Hank Williams or Bob Dylan or Louvin Brothers or Everly Brothers or Beatles or Motown song. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,Jim Carroll Date: 03 Jul 07 - 02:59 PM "Let's not forget too, that just as folk music now means 100 different things to different people" Anahata, If you are suggesting that 'traditional' singers don't discriminate, but will sing whatever takes their fancy or suits the particular situation, of course you are correct. By the same token, if you thumb through my record collection you will find records by Joe Heaney, Harry Cox, Sam Larner, Maria Callas, Peggy Lee, Frank Sinatra; there are even a couple by Count John albums in there somewhere for when I am in the mood for a bit of strangulated Irish tenor... (but I don't spread that about)! This does not mean I do not discriminate between them and use them for different moods or fancies. Nor does it mean I cannot tell the difference between the various types of songs and singing. If on the other hand, you are saying that traditional singers were unable to tell the difference between say, music-hall, early popular songs, light opera, Sheffield Carols, whatever, I wonder what you base this on. One of the great problems in assessing the tradition has always been that nobody ever asked the singers what they thought, so we simply don't know who knew, thought, believed what. It has been our experience with the handful of singers we asked, that virtually all of them categorised their songs in one way or another. The blind Travelling woman, Mary Delaney, with a repertoire of well over 100 traditional songs referred to all of these as "My daddy's songs", even though she had learned less than a dozen of them from him. Singers here in West Clare talked about "Come-all-Ye's", "traditional" or simply "the old songs". Walter Pardon persisted in talking about "Folk Songs" and while he may have picked the term up from his contact with revival singers, it is obvious from the notebooks in which he wrote down his family's songs that he was sorting them out into categories as early as 1947. Traveller Mikeen McCarthy, storyteller, street singer and ballad seller, who learned the bulk of his songs and stories from his father, a renowned singer and storyteller among both the settled community and travellers in his native Kerry, went one step further when he separated the different types of singing as being "street, pub or fireside" (Margaret Barry was a street-singer and her singing style was suited to this). As far as pub singing is concerned, the Cap'n is quite right; women tended not to sing in pubs, which, for me, as this more-or-less excludes over half the population, suggests that pubs were not the best places to sing. I repeat my statement that the pub singing of traditional songs was a comparatively recent phenomenon. Sam Larner sang every week at The Fisherman's Return in Winterton – in spite of having a repertoire of around 100 songs he sang the same couple each week throughout his life. He told the collector (and we have it on tape) that the serious singing was done "at home or at sea". The Bob Copper books and the interviews they did in the 1950s for the BBC indicates that their singing was done mainly within the family at home. In Ireland, singing and playing traditional songs and music in pubs has been a fairly recent practice and we have been told by a number of older people here that that is when the music started to go downhill. This doesn't mean that there was no singing in pubs – of course there was. But I believe that, if you look at the traditional repertoire, it is obvious that there are songs which require quiet and concentration, - I can't imagine the average pub clientele being subdued enough to sit through, say 'The Outlandish Knight', let alone Clare singer Martin Reidy's fifteen minute version of 'True Lovers' Discussion'! Chorus songs maybe, but the long(ish) narrative songs that form the greater part of our traditional repertoire - that just doesn't make sense to me. When I lived in Manchester, occasionally on a Thursday night I would go along the Stretford Road to a pub which held 'singing nights', where I would hear pop songs (old and new), music hall songs, parlour ballads, country and western and light (and occasionally heavy) opera. The governor would give a couple of quid to the singer he judged to have got the most applause at the end of the evening – extremely enjoyable, particularly as the event had no pretensions at being anything but what it said on the window 'A singing evening'. Ginnette Dunne's excellent study of East Anglian pub singing 'The Fellowship of Song' suggests to me that it was the Stretford Road type of singing that took place in the pubs rather than the 'folk song club' variety. The whole thing was summed up beautifully for me by an incident involving the great Derry singer, Eddie Butcher. Many years ago he was booked to sing at a folk club held in a pub in central Dublin. In spite of having a huge repertoire of traditional songs, he began with 'Danny Boy', followed by 'When Irish Eyes Are Smiling', followed by 'Mother Machree. When asked to sing some of his traditional songs he demurred saying "I know well what type of songs they like to hear in a pub" – in other words, a certain type of song for a certain place. Cap'n, if you're not careful you are going to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back by telling us what a great job we all did in introducing traditional singers to the revival and "giving them an opportunity to sing their songs". The experience of singing in clubs was, as far as I can make out, somewhat 'curate's eggish'. While some of them enjoyed and benefited from the experience, to others the idea singing to a crowd of strangers was an anathema. It was only a very tiny number of the remaining traditional singers who ever saw the inside of a folk club or a festival anyway. I suggest that it was collectors like Alan Lomax and Hamish Henderson (and even Kennedy) who provided the most suitable audiences for their singing, in the comfort of their own homes. We have already discussed the questionable way some clubs treated the older singers they booked and there are plenty of other examples to suggest it wasn't always the most pleasurable of experiences. Jim Carroll PS Sorry this post is so long – despite Diane's reservations (being told by Countess Di that my attitude is dismissive – I really will have to get a grip of myself!) I would have liked to have taken a greater part in this discussion, but we have an acre of garden and if I don't keep the grass down (between the pissing rain) we won't be able to see out of the windows. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Borchester Echo Date: 03 Jul 07 - 03:40 PM Countess Di . . . quite like that. Especially if I can add McCormack . . . Jim, I never take discussion like this completely seriously until one of two things happen: (1) I realise that someone else is taking it less seriously that I am and/or taking the piss or (2) it becomes obvious that certain 'opponents' haven't a clue what they are talking about. I ask you. How can it be so hard to distinguish between musicians from a continuing tradition and a bunch of youthful urban enthusiasts anxious to learn but with not much clue where to start? Jim describes the results graphically: the 'curate's egginess' of pulling the traditional musicians into alien environments. There were, on the other hand, the equally dubious efforts of some of us in 60s city pubs who tried out stuff before we should. But aside from both these scenarios, there was a lot that didn't deserve total dismissal. Like meeting the trad musicians in more sympathetic environments and learning from them, as well as from those revivalists who'd already worked out the way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Jul 07 - 03:42 PM Jim, stating: "If you are suggesting that 'traditional' singers don't discriminate, but will sing whatever takes their fancy or suits the particular situation, of course you are correct." it's the academics who often make the subjective distinction. " This does not mean I do not discriminate between them and use them for different moods or fancies. Nor does it mean I cannot tell the difference between the various types of songs and singing." Yes the differences are clear. "If on the other hand, you are saying that traditional singers were unable to tell the difference between say, music-hall, early popular songs, light opera, Sheffield Carols, whatever, I wonder what you base this on." When it comes to song material, I think everyone can make some distinctions but not always. This would require a certain familiarity and sophistication that many do not have because they haven't had the musical education to make these determinations. Many ot the academic folklorists suffer from musical myopia. " One of the great problems in assessing the tradition has always been that nobody ever asked the singers what they thought, so we simply don't know who knew, thought, believed what." I don't agree with this point. Eloquent members of a singing tradition are often able to articulate their role as a carrier. Jean Ritchie is certainly a case in point. She carries her tradition and is knowledgeable and expresses that knowlege well. Doc Watson can differentiate between the kind of songs that were popular and more traditional and again expresses that well. Big Bill Broonzy was knowledgeable and communicative as well. He thought that Elvis was a great thing to happen because it opened the doors for traditional blues artists such as himself. I do agree about pub singing being recent. It is an offshoot of a popularization of music. The point about drunks sitting around listening to arcane ballads is a good one. Pete Seeger was a one-man PR firm for introducting traditional music to audiences that were unfamiliar with it. He toured for a year with Sonny Terry so that Sonny could reach audiences. I will argue that Pete is largely responsible for the folk music revival in America because it was through him that we find the Weavers, the Kingston Trio and P P and M. Many of the pickers from the New York City area were exposed to traditional southern music because of Pete's enthusiasm and promotion. Now didn't Peggy and Ewan have a similar role along with Lloyd in England? The idea of a traditional singer would not be even entertained if it hadn't been for these dedicated "revivalists". The New Lost City Ramblers opened doors for traditional performers in the US as well. To say that the so-called "revivalist" singers were irrelevant to the appreciation of what we now call "traditional" music just doesn't make sense. Bonnie Raitt traveled with "Sippie" Wallace. Ry Cooder introduced many to traditional blues artists. Rory Block with early blues artists. And one who deserves considerable attention is Josh White who introduced blues to Cafe Society and through him and Pete, Leadbelly (aside from Alan Lomax who promoted him as well). Josh opened the doors for Brownie McGhee and Sonny Terry as well. John Jacob Niles and Richard Dyer-Bennett were highly influential in calling attention to Anglo-American trad singers. Also Susan Reed. It became apparent that through the song material, the focus became where the songs came from. It wasn't all just Top Forty rewrites. The audiences were opened up to dig into the roots. There can be no interest in traditional music without patting the backs of the revivalists who cared enough about the trad music to want to share it with the public and open the doors for it. Even the academics didn't really get interested until the revival made them review what they knew. Now we are fortunate to have a rich musical pallette that is not media-driven by those who were exposed to the Revival as performers or audience. We have alternative audiences for all kinds of music and they disregard the programmed pop as representative of their tastes. This includes "traditional" folk music as well. Alan Lomax didn't get this too well. He railed at what he considered to be the commercialization of folk music but in this he was inconsistent.. He, in one article, lauded the Kingston Trio for their contribution in an early Sing Out! article. It doesn't make any sense that a notion of so-called "traditional" music just grew out of nothing. The Revival ultimately had to create an interest in it by non-academic audiences who were first introduced to seasoned performers by interpreters. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Borchester Echo Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:03 PM Now didn't Peggy and Ewan have a similar role along with Lloyd in England? To a degree but they weren't the only ones. Certainly they taught me what little I know about voice projection and stagecraft (this may not enhance their reputation . . . !). The myths of who Ewan was and what he would do know no bounds. E.g. 'he never sang 'The First Time Ever' (he did) and he despised music hall songs (he didn't and did (occasionally) perform them. And so on . . . |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: greg stephens Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:16 PM Re Jim C's bits on singing in pubs. I mostly agree with him. Purely froma personal view, I often sing acoustically in my local pub in Stoke, but there is only a tiny fraction of the songs I know that I feel easy singing there. On the hand, really late at night with a lock-in in obscure island bars..this can change! No rules are absolute: May Bradley's "Leaves oif Life" was recorded in Ludlow pub I believe, not what we wouyld mostly think of as pub fare. But then, May Bradley, like Margaret Barry, could make anybody listen to what she was at. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM if I might hark back to an earlier post,the male singers at the eels foot leiston [1940-1950s],and The Blaxhall ship were not paid[please correct me if Iam wrong]. Some of the Irish sessions the musicians were ,it was these sessions where women players played MargaretBarry JuliaClifford. I dont draw any significance to this[Idont mean women were avaricious],just that it happened.JIM alotof traditional singers and musicians did enjoy the revival, and I know they enjoyed it here arethe following that I KnowDID. FredJordan,WillieScott,WillAtkinson,WillTaylor,JoeHutton, BillyBennington,TedChaplin,CyrilBarber,CharlieStringer,FontWatling, BobCann,Oscar woods,PackieByrne,Freddie Mackay,Julia and John Clifford,ErnestDyson,GeoffWesley,TomBrown[norfolk],FredaPalmer,BobCopper,BobRoberts[thats 21] |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Folkiedave Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:53 PM I doubt Jeff Wesley would think he used to enjoy singing Dick. I suspect he still does........ And I am looking forward to hear him sing in Sheffield in August. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 03 Jul 07 - 05:01 PM of course Dave,Ididnt mean that hewas an ex singer, 21SINGERS /MUSICIANS is alot in five minutes,and all are people I have had some contact with,Im sure others can think of more. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Surreysinger Date: 03 Jul 07 - 06:03 PM Jeff certainly isn't an ex-singer - I think somebody else was expressing an opinion that he might be a while back. He was somewhat amused to hear this in mid-June at the Dorset singing weekend - where he was, as usual, in good voice!! [grins] |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Borchester Echo Date: 04 Jul 07 - 02:50 AM What Dick asked was is the folk revival an irrelevancy to traditional music? So what exactly is the point of dredging up lists of trad musicians who may or may not still be performing? I'm listening currently to re:Masters, the first series of Free Reed archive releases, from which it is relatively simple to identify what has endured and what, currently, has not. Jim Naughtie's current R4 series The Making Of Music is not presented as 'here is some arcane and obscure stuff that you ought to listen to but as a vibrant chronicle of what has made music what it is today. The revival at its most positive is a continuation and development of what was worth taking from extant tradition. It is those 'revivalists' who simply copy from a trad repertoire who are the irrelevancy because that is just not what trad musicians do, whether in the midst of a so-called 'revival' or not. The 'tradition' must be respected but conventions can, and should, be broken (as Chris Wood said, or something like it). |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST Date: 04 Jul 07 - 03:16 AM Can I make it clear: I AM NOT DISMISSIVE OF THE REVIVAL I loved it- I spent at least 1 night a week in folk clubs for over a quarter of a century; it's where I (and a hell of a lot of others) got our love of folk songs and ballads and where out appetites where whetted for finding out more. It's where I heard Harry Cox, Jeannie Robertson, Walter Pardon, Margaret Barry, Joe Heaney..... and a whole lot of traditional and revival singers who have put enough petrol in my tank to keep me going till I get to where I'm going. I would very much like it for the next generations to have the same opportunities that I had. I believe that the 'Nearer My God To Thee' (let's sing 'til the ship goes down) approach will not make that happen. If the clubs are going to survive in any significant numbers they are going to have to get their acts together and decide what they are peddling and at what standard. My heart lifts when I read about ballad seminars in Lewes, but it plummets when I am told about 'Beatles Evenings' at folk clubs, or 'Let's not be too good or we'll frighten the horses'; traditional song is worth much more than that. Frank says "It's the academics who often make the subjective distinction". The few traditional singers we discussed subjects like definition with were far more conservative and dogmatic about what was "right" or "wrong" than I have ever been; they had their own set of rules about singing, some of which we managed to get down on tape. The problem was that the work we did was probably too little and too late. The only 'living' tradition we encountered was with the Irish Travellers, and that disappeared literally 18 months after we started when they got televisions in their caravans. I still enjoy listening to a good song well sung; the hairs on the back of my neck still tingle when I hear Sheila Stewart singing Tiftie's Annie (as they did thirty odd years ago when I first heard it), or when I heard Martin McDonagh singing 'Young Hunting', or when I hear recordings of MacColl singing any one of the 137 Child ballads he breathed life into. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Folkiedave Date: 04 Jul 07 - 04:23 AM The revival at its most positive is a continuation and development of what was worth taking from extant tradition. Without wishing to get into the semantics of this - and certainly not in a spirit of confrontation - doesn't that really contradict the idea of a revival? For is that not what people always did? |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Borchester Echo Date: 04 Jul 07 - 04:30 AM Yes it is. That's what I'm saying. With the proviso that the copyists are an irrelevance to a 'revival'. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 04 Jul 07 - 10:05 AM Since several of you have mentioned Jeff Wesley, I can report that he came along to my folk club gig in Northampton last night, and sang a song written by Matt Armour, which Jeff had had to Anglicize in order to remove elements of Scots dialect. Jeff, of course, also sings the 'Ninety-Nine and Ninety' version of Child #1, which I imagine came to him from Peggy Seeger via who knows what route. Make of all that what you will, but what I make of it is that at least one singer whom many people would describe as 'traditional' is deeply involved with the 'revival', simply because that's the place he can share songs with others whose tastes are similar to his own. I once asked Fred Jordan how he was enjoying a certain high-profile English folk festival. His reply: "Well, there's a lot of fucking tripe on here, but there's a few good singers." Fred undoubtedly enjoyed the experience of being booked at festivals organised by 'The Revival', but was nonetheless very choosy about his likes and dislikes amongst the other performers. Last weekend I found myself taking part in a ballad session at the small but perfectly formed Four Fools Folk Festival in Lancashire. Seated beside me were Ken Hall and Peta Webb, Alison McMorland and Geordie MacIntyre, Ellen Mitchell and Donal Maguire - several of whom have enjoyed close contact with traditional singers in the past. For two and a half hours we sang ballads ranging from the real heavy stuff ('Tam Lin' and 'Lamkin' from Geordie alone!) to the hilarious Freddie Mackay ballad parody that Ken Hall does. Jim Carroll, I'm sure, would have loved it, as did the audience who sat with rapt attetntion in that suburban secondary school room, oblivious of the plastic seats, the kids's posters on the walls, and the rain pouring down outside the window. If the 'folk revival' can put on events like that, then it's doing something worthwhile. I don't think it's the sort of thing that would go down well in a pub, though. As one who believes that it is necessary to draw a distinction between 'tradition' and 'revival' for the purposes of discussion (somebody's already said that on this thread but I can't find the post), I say that - as of now - we are where we are, and we just have to get on with it, without tying ourselves in knots about whether what we are doing is a continuation of the tradition, or sufficently faithful to it, or whatever. Time will sort the wheat from the chaff. In the meantime I'm in complete agreement with Guest Blaise, who said: "So enjoy what you like and play with passion and conviction to the relevance of the subject of the song." |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 04 Jul 07 - 10:12 AM Jim Carroll: Having based my version of 'Young Hunting' at least partly on the version sung by Martin McDonagh, which was handed to me on a battered cassette containing that one song and no background information, I would love to know a bit more about him, if it's not too much off topic. And I hope this is OK, Jim, but I've printed out your post of 02.59 on 3.7, about the attitude of singers towards the songs in their repertoire, for future use in workshop sessions. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 04 Jul 07 - 02:06 PM BrianPeters;good job I started the discussion then,wasnt it. However Jim Carrolls,Singers who were not entirely happy in the folk revival, were clearly a small minority,as he hasnt bothered to name them. Jim Caroll,says it was only a tiny minority of traditional singers who saw the inside of a folk club or a festival anyway[notso see my previous post].then he talks about the questionable way traditional singers were treated[lets have examples then Jim].in the earlier posts there were only two]when I think how many traditional performers were booked at the national, whitby, Sidmouth Chippenham Fylde and were treated well,I have to laugh at Jim Carrolls preposterous claims.Jim please back up your wild statemernts with facts.,thenI might take you seriously.,in the meantime Brian I wouldnt take Jim Carroll seriously.DickMiles |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 Jul 07 - 02:22 PM This has been an excellent discussion, it'd be a shame if it disintegrates into point scoring. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 04 Jul 07 - 03:43 PM Fair enough George,but statements should be backed up by facts,so that a correct perspective can be seen. Iam under the impression from my own experience that the amount of traditional performers that have been treated badly by the folk revival,is avery small proportion,. Jim Says [the questionable way some clubs treated the older singers and there are plenty of other examples to suggest it wasnt the most pleasurable erxperience]and to others the idea of singing to a crowd was anethma.Iam not trying to score points,but am asking for facts,if Jim can provide facts,it then has to be put into a broader picture ,which includes all the festivals and clubs,where they were treated well,and the many performers of which I have listed 20 who clearly did enjoy the revivals festivals and clubs. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: countrylife Date: 04 Jul 07 - 04:02 PM "This has been an excellent discussion, it'd be a shame if it disintegrates into point scoring" Seems to me it already has...sorry to say |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 04 Jul 07 - 05:09 PM It is important when discussing a topic to give correct information that reflects the OVERALL Picture. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Borchester Echo Date: 04 Jul 07 - 05:26 PM Start to disintegrate? It went sour at #3 when some snigger-snogger told us we were doing it wrong if we weren't soloists or golfers or something. Not a 'revival' I've got any time for. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: countrylife Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:14 PM That's where I got it wrong, I never took up golf... *whistles The Ballad of the Bold Weekend Golfer* |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,AR Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:22 PM Quoted from Brian Peters: "Since several of you have mentioned Jeff Wesley, I can report that he came along to my folk club gig in Northampton last night, and sang a song written by Matt Armour, which Jeff had had to Anglicize in order to remove elements of Scots dialect." Yes, it is proper to root out that awful Scots dialect whenever it crops up - polluting our good and pure English tongue like that! |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:31 PM Anglicise. thats very funny,I know he is a Scotsman but Matt has had the privilege to have lived in Milton Keynes for thirty years,it must be something the Concrete cows do to you,I must get some too and start writing in Scottish Dialect. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:37 PM Captain Birdseye, we have concrete up here north of the border too. It's not all glens full of heather and gorse, you know. Plus, some people (misguided people, perhaps - who knows?) consider Scots a language, not a dialect.
Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Snuffy Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:44 PM A language is a dialect with an army. Discuss |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:49 PM Guest AR: "Yes, it is proper to root out that awful Scots dialect whenever it crops up - polluting our good and pure English tongue like that!" Dear dear, it never ceases to amaze me how participants in internet discussions manage to conjure offence from innocent statements. Not presuming to speak for Jeff Wesley, but I'm fairly sure that what he meant was that for a singer from rural England to affect Scots dialect or pronunciation would be inappropriate at best, ridiculous at worst. And I could have mentioned that Matt Armour - a proud Fifer himself of course - has tried to help Jeff out, with his own Anglicization of the song in question. Diane Easby: Your description of "Snigger-snogger" aimed at the author of message 3 on this thread, does little justice to Bob Coltman, composer of some interesting rewrites of Child Ballads. I don't agree with him about the solo thing either, but the rest of his post was sound. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 05 Jul 07 - 03:51 AM Jim Carroll,I have decided it is correct to start another thread,entitled Traditonal singers and their treatment by the revival. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Edmond Date: 05 Jul 07 - 11:13 AM I'll stick my two pennorth in. Jim Carroll - if you're the Jim Carroll who invited me - Bryn Pugh - to be one of the Manchester Critics in the late 60s, please PM me - I'd love to hear from you. Now - I served me apprenticeship as a die-hard traddie in the mid 60s to the early 70s. I had no time for the three-chord wonders in the denim caps, which seemed to arrive almost like a plague. What goes around might indeed come around - I look forward to seeing Davy Graham, and seeing Bert Jansch, in Concert. I have had, recently, several spine-tingling moments listening to and watching Oysterband, the Big Session, Jim Moray in Concert, and Bellowhead. It seems to me that 'Folk Music' is evolving, and whilst not everyone might like the apparent direction in which it is evolving, it is unstoppable, I believe. That said, Kate Rusby does nothing for me. De gustibus nil disputandum ? An old fart - bus pass, free prescriptions, hearing aid (so I know which ear not to stick me finger in, you understand, steri bottle bottom glasses, and a stick, if I feel nostalgic for the days when a good gig was six quid, me ale and a lift home. I can always dig out Frost and Fire ; Martin Carthy's Second Album ; the first and second Topic samplers ; Bert Jansch ; Rosemary Hardman and Rob Axton 'Second Season Came' ; Horsemusic ;etc. It's amazing what comes out on CD, and I no longer have to sharpen the stylus on the kitchen window sill before playing records. The 'tradition' - whatever that might be - willalways be with us. It seems also to me today that a different interpretation of the 'traditional' songs is occurring. Who am I to criticise ? To me enjoyment is all. Bryn Pugh, sometime singer of traditional song - I wouldn't call me a folk singer. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,countrylife Date: 05 Jul 07 - 01:48 PM "A language is a dialect with an army. Discuss" A language is a dialect with attitude |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 07 - 10:30 AM Brian Marin MacDonagh was a Traveller from Lansbawn, Co Roscommon. He was recorded by Tom Munnelly and Young Hunting is the only example of his singing available (cassette 'Songs of the Irish travellers). The cassette is now unavailable, but if you let me have an address I'll let you have my spare copy. I'm Flattered that anybody should find anything I wrote worth repeating - feel free to use it. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,Jim Carroll Date: 06 Jul 07 - 11:47 AM Bryn, I was that soldier - long time ago. Nice to hear from you again - I remember you as a good ballad singer - is that right? Cap'n, Look forward to your new thread, but don't hold out too much hope in finding too much agreement with somebody prepered to overlook P Ks behavious toward traditional singers becausehe is 'convenient' Jim Carroll Sorry about intermittent response, my motherboard had become a mother******* board - ******* technology. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: GUEST,guest,old curmudgeon Date: 06 Jul 07 - 06:22 PM Jim, who is PK,and whats his connection with the Capn. |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: curmudgeon Date: 07 Jul 07 - 09:07 AM PK is Peter Kennedy and his connection is with source singers, not the Capt - Tom Hall |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: Leadfingers Date: 07 Jul 07 - 09:24 AM The LATE Peter Kennedy ! |
|
Subject: RE: the folk revival From: The Sandman Date: 07 Jul 07 - 12:13 PM PETER KENNEDY was a collector and is such irrelevant to the discussion,and to the new thread,which is how source singers were treated by the revival[ e g club organisers and festival organisers and audiences]. a typical red herring,from Jim Carroll. |
| Share Thread: |