how important is the label traditional singer?

Subject: RE: how important is the label traditional s
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:17 AM

How about the expression "tradition bearers"?

Subject: RE: how important is the label traditional s
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:12 AM

I think that your first paragraph should have been in quotes, Cap'n. I read it through and thought, 'I've read this somewhere before - the Cap'n's not guilty of plagiarism now, is he?' Then I read the attribution and all was well ... Well, relatively well!

I recognised the quote because it is from a wise and brave article by Mike Yates - but I suspect that you're misusing it because you desperately want to 'prove' a point. The terms 'traditional' and 'revival' as applied to singers are necessarily fuzzy. I'm sure that if you dig deep enough you can find a few more exceptions. But exceptions don't 'prove' anything - they are just that - exceptions!
On the other hand it is possible to point to many more examples of people who fit the categories exactly. I, and many of my friends and acquaintances, for example, are 'revival' singers; Harry Cox, Sam Larner, George Maynard et. al. were 'traditional' singers.

A couple of things from the article by Mr Yates which I urge you to re-read and to think about:

(i) "At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether or not Bob Blake was a 'traditional singer'."

I'd agree with that - at least it probably doesn't matter in an aesthetic sense - but distinguishing between the two types of singer is still useful (if not essential)in an interpretative sense.

(ii) "Also, many people today want a world of certainties, a world where our every thought and desire can be seen in terms of black and white."

Forgive me, but that passage could have been written for YOU, Cap'n! You seem to want to abolish the useful categories, 'revival' and 'traditional' because of the existence of exceptions (well, in this case, one exception). Some of us are more ready to put up with the "unsatisfactory nature of things" rather than to recklessy discard useful categories.

Subject: RE: how important is the label traditional s
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:47 AM

I know (or it is not difficult to find out) whom he recorded - and I can think of people he didn't record. I am sure many of those he didn't record were because he hadn't come across them. Some I would think were bot recorded because they weren't even singing at that time he was working in the field.

But I have no idea who he made value judgements about and didn't record because he thought they weren't "traditional singers".

So let's have a list of them Dick - the people he didn't record because he thought they weren't traditional. Oh yes, and tell us how you know.

Subject: how important is the label traditional s
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:50 AM

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether or not Bob Blake was a 'traditional singer'. Bob, I'm sure, was true to himself, and if a young, inexperienced song collector (i.e. me) was willing to impute a label onto Bob that, with hindsight, was probably inaccurate, then the egg is surely on my face! What really matters is the fact that Bob was a fine singer and luckily we did manage to record him singing some of the songs that he knew. Also, many people today want a world of certainties, a world where our every thought and desire can be seen in terms of black and white. But, of course, life is not like that and, kicking against this, we so often find ourselves suffering from the unsatisfactory nature of things. Bob Blake gave pleasure to many people by singing his songs. Singers like the Coppers, Bob Lewis and George Belton became his friends and accepted him as their equal. I'm glad that I met him and heard him sing, and, at the end of the day, that's what really matters to me.

Mike Yates - 8.8.06 [article in musical traditions]
I agree with Mike Yates,and think judgements should be made on merit of the singer,rather than concern about whether the singer is a revivalist or a traditional singer.Peter Kennedy appears to have thought otherwise.
what do you think.