Bertsongs? (songs of A. L. 'Bert' Lloyd)

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Phil at work
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 08:10 AM

Pavane - isn't it just as likely that those variants are more or less corupted forms of "Reynoldin" or "Randall Ryan"? And, in answer to Richard, the teeth do appear to have been added by Bert Lloyd. I think some shirts are being sewn onto buttons here.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 06:44 AM

Absolutely no offense taken Jeff, in fact I think you have opened up a whole new area for investigation.

I see you writing learned books and giving workshops at Whitby! Best of luck

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: pavane
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 06:16 AM

I am not so sure. There are broadsides of Reynardine and The Mountains High, going back to around 1814. The name of the 'rake' in all the songs seems to be consistent with a more or less corrupted form of Reynardine

(examples Randal Rine, Roynel Doine, Randal Rhine, Rynordine).

It is surely likely that a fox is involved somewhere.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: JeffB
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 06:10 AM

To Les in Chorlton and Brian Peters.

My apologies if you were offended in any way by my post, but please be assured that those remarks were not directed at either of you.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 06:09 AM

Perhaps I should revive a Reynardine thread to say this, but first I am persuaded by the theory that the narrative is an import about the early french brigand, and second I harbour an idea that its resonance to Victorian times lies in its possible reference to the budding of female sexuality. There was both in and before Victorian times a fear of the possibility that men have a largely fixed (and worsening) tumescence-detumescence time, whereas female sexuality may be insatiable: this couples to the fear of vagina dentata, the symbol of castration through sex, to which the "teeth" line (if it is not a contemprary addition) might allude.

IMHO the source of a folk song is the basis of its meaning, and it is well to know (say) that the tune we usually sing to the Lykewake Dirge is actually a Victorian neologism (as IMHO is the Prince Albert verse in "the Deserter" (aka "Radcliffe Highway")

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:53 AM

"Actually Brian, there is an English tradition of werefoxes, ..."

I'd like to know more about it, too but, assuming you're correct, it still ain't true that people in 19th century England were singing folksongs about it.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:50 AM

I was going to ask whether this thread - warts and all - might be conflated with other threads about Bert Lloyd, but then it occurs to me that doing so might cause more problems than might be solved.

I have posted in one of the other threads to the effect that, purely for me, I am not arsed whether a song which I might have sung (in the days when I could sing) has, or has not, been "doctored" ;

nor am I arsed to learn the identity of the person who might have "doctored" said song.

Incidentally, I loved that image of the "folk old gits, sucking their dentures . . . and setting themselves up as the fons et origo of all things folk". There is many the true word spoken in jest . . .

It is, I think, at least arguable that without the alleged "doings" of Ewan McColl and in particular Bert Lloyd, we might still be singing the Clancys' (Clancies ?) recorded canon.

It was the likes of Bert Lloyd who showed me that "folk music" wasn't just 'The Banks of the Ohio' and 'Bould O'Donoghue'.

Please, please do not construe the foregoing as criticism of those who are concerned whether a song has been "doctored", and if so, by whom. Speaking purely for myself, it makes no never mind to me,

if I like the song under consideration.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:49 AM

'The Book of Werewolves' by Sabine Baring-Gould (yep, him).

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,redmax
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:47 AM

This is all interesting stuff. The re-evaluation of Lloyd and MacColl's legacies is certainly valid, but one distinction seems important to me: MacColl seems to have rubbed a few people up the wrong way, whereas everyone who met Lloyd seems to have liked him very much. Hence any criticism of the man seems painful, as he was obviously an amiable and helpful chap.

Was it thanks to Lloyd that folk song LPs tended to include detailed liner notes, giving song provenance details? He seems to have been responsible for a lot of the Topic sleeve notes, and I'm very grateful that this approach became the norm.

I have sometimes wondered, though, reading through some of his comments, if he occasionally embellished some of the information on the sleevenotes. I don't have examples to hand, and I may be entirely wrong, but I remember one or two 'facts' about songs that seemed highly speculative to me.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:29 AM

"Actually Brian, there is an English tradition of werefoxes, ..."

I'd like to know more about that, TVB - where can I look it up?

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:37 AM

Academically, it is important - probably vital. Perhaps Mudcat is akin to peer review, so nobody can complain if it gets a bit harsh; that's how it works provided we can retain some common politeness. For the rest, Domeama for one is too good a song to let slip, and perhaps what is really getting up our noses is that every last one of us has been taken in to some extent at some time.[quote from theVulgarBoatman]
no,once you start using this criteria[a song is agood song] for singing, ignore categorisation,it doesnt matter whether Do Me Amma was traditional or not.,neither does it matter that we have been fooled.
It matters to scholars,but it is not a reason for not singing the song.
was Do me amma entirely a lloyd composition,or a part composition?

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: nutty
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:37 AM

Broadsides developed in many ways with publishers, printers. singers and sellers all responsible for making changes.

They were all in the business of making money and providing material that could be sold .. Songs were changed or adapted to cater for the preferences of the region and the client.

This is why you will get the same song printed in different ways in different areas and where the oral tradition played as much a part in developing songs in the past, as it does today.

I have always believed that there is no such thing as a definitive version of a folk song unless you have proof of its originator.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: pavane
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:16 AM

You can find broadside examples of the majority of "folk" songs. And in some cases the author is known. My Johnny was a Shoemaker, written 1859, is one example. The American composer, and his wife who was a singer, toured Europe in the 1860's, which is no doubt how the song came to be collected from the oral tradition. But did he base it on an older song? Who knows?

The folk song collectors just collected those that were remembered.
But no-one knows where the songs originated, and it is clear that the broadsides were often just existing songs written down (as shown by the numerous variants) and probably edited in many cases to provide a moral or a happy ending.

Nic Jones was one of the revival singers who used broadsides which he had discovered to great effect. But he did provide this information.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:42 AM

Sorry Lighter, I miss-read your post.

"but unfortunately it's worth thinking about."

Not unfortunate at all. The Broadside tradition is clearly interrelated to the cannon of songs collected from source singers at the end of the 19C. I read somewhere, sorry I cannot remember where, that many of the songs collected in the 19C appeared first as Broadsides in the 18C or earlier.

I was just hopping we could come to some concensus about Bert and I think we probably have but it still needs somebody to sum it up.

As for who wrote Broadsides and what happened to the songs and the writers that really is another story that is well worth digging into.

Best of luck I think you have a job for life

Les

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:11 AM

I've actually often found myself ruminating along these lines, but with no evidence at all, just 'songwriter's hunch'. I'd be fascinated to know if anyone's ever researched this theory. Tom

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM

Merely a reasonable inference, Les. The number of broadside printers was limited and they frequently stole songs from one another. Surely the shop owners would not hire more songwriters than they could afford to pay, and anyone who could write one suficiently good broadside text was likely capable of writing another and another and another. Some of the likeliest writers might be the printers and publishers themselves, not to mention their spouses.

My estimate of "several dozen" (which could mean 100 or 150 or more) was intended to provoke, not stifle, thought about the matter. Our usual assumption seems to be that "common folk" all over the British Isles were constantly creating new texts; perhaps they were, but only a finite number of original songs made between, say, 1800 and 1900 became truly "traditional." A very large number of independently
inspired amateurs writing one or two texts each would not, I think, be necessary to account for all of the superior texts. (And I'm speaking only of texts, not tunes.)

Part (and only part) of the reason that the style of the broadsides is so conventional may be that not many people were behind them.

I'm not claiming any special wisdom here, just raising some possibilities that need to be addressed, if they have not been already.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Vulgar Boatman
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:56 PM

Actually Brian, there is an English tradition of werefoxes, just as there is a Greek (and Romany) tradition of werecats. Shape shifters are not that unusual in folklore.
What tickles me enormously about all this is that I remember going to one club in the sixties where the elders were ranged at the back sucking their dentures over what was traditional(!), revering the works of Messrs Miller and Lloyd, and setting themselves up in the process as the fons et origo of all things folk in the immediate vicinity. There have been numerous examples of bad scholars making a half-decent living out of folk music, largely on account of the rest of us simply not having the time, wit or academic rigour to put them in their places (or maybe we just can't be arsed). Some are charlatans, some thought they were something they weren't ( and in some cases still do), and I suspect many were simply posessed of more enthusiasm than skill.

Kipling had it about right in "When 'Omer Smote 'is Bloomin' Lyre" -"We knew 'e stole, 'e knew we knew...but kept it quiet, same as you".

Academically, it is important - probably vital. Perhaps Mudcat is akin to peer review, so nobody can complain if it gets a bit harsh; that's how it works provided we can retain some common politeness. For the rest, Domeama for one is too good a song to let slip, and perhaps what is really getting up our noses is that every last one of us has been taken in to some extent at some time.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:15 PM

Almost certainly a relatively few writers (several dozen perhaps?)

Really? Evidence please

cheers
Les

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 04:01 PM

There's another issue that should be brought to the surface.

What proportion of our best traditional songs owe their current excellence mainly to the efforts of a few sophisticated rewriters and editors? We don't yet know the answer to that question, but unfortunately it's worth thinking about.

Almost certainly a relatively few writers (several dozen perhaps?) are behind most of the 19th C. broadsides that entered tradition. But those songs have been subject to continual later influences, including the adaptation to (and of) melodies. Modern rewrites tend strongly to be preserved "as is" simply because they're so good already.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:15 PM

JeffB:
I'm a singer, too. I don't need to be reminded that many of the old songs I sing are things of beauty, nor educated on the nature of performance. I just want to know, when I stand up and introduce a piece as "an old song", that it actually is - substantially at least. Otherwise, the whole thing is a hollow sham. I've lost count of the singers I've heard introduce 'Reynardine' as a relic of some ancient superstition about 'were-foxes'. It ain't true!

Whether or not we accept Bert Lloyd as "an authentic product of the tradition" (and like Les, I think there's a bit of a difference between him and, say, Harry Cox), the fact is that his influence over the course and repertoire of the English folk revival from the 1950s onwards was unique (the contribution of MacColl notwithstanding), and on that ground alone his methods and legacy are deserving of scrutiny.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 12:35 PM

I tried to emphasis that there is a gulf between "artists" one on side and "academics" on the other.

Unfortunately for this theory, I'm a singer; I've never even read Classic English Folk Songs (sorry, Malcolm - maybe next birthday).

I did "Reynardine" once, with a couple of changes of my own to bring it closer to "The mountains high". I introduced it by saying that it was a song Bert Lloyd had messed around a bit, and I'd messed it around some more. When I said that, somebody booed. For a lot of people, to say you got a song from Bert Lloyd is a guarantee of authenticity.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 12:13 PM

Jeff,

"Be assured that I for one (and I expect CapnB among others) do understand the issues involved. They are primarily issues of scholarship and provenance."

I started this thread for these reasons of scholarship and provenance.


"you are completely unaware that that your specimens are, in many cases, things of beauty"

No we are not and we have endlessly said so.

" "They mislead if presented as authentic products of the tradition" is meaningless if one accepts, as many do and as no doubt Lloyd did,that the man himself was an authentic product of the tradition."

He was probably unique, of great value and interest and part of the second folk song revival not a source singer from the 19C.

"You would do well to show a little courtesy to fellow enthusiasts.

Jeff most people have but please read your last post. Pots and kettles mate.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 12:07 PM

"Performance is not about educating an audience"

I think we have all attended performances in which the performer clearly felt performance IS about educating an audience. In fact, on this forum, whenever the subject comes up of whether to alter potentially-offensive lyrics, there are always a number of contributors who insist that the songs should be left unchanged for what can only be called pedagogical reasons.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 11:21 AM

Dave Arthur, quoted by Steve Winick in his important discussion of "Reynardine":

"One finds in [Lloyd's] manuscripts informants' names crossed out and changed,...and in the case of 'One of the Has Beens,' a very specific note, 'I heard this from a Vaudeville actor in hospital at Cowra, NSW, on New Year's Day,' was changed on publication to 'a teamster from Grenfell sang the song.'"

Arthur adds, somewhat acidly, that a teamster "sounds more 'authentic' than a 'vaudeville actor.'"

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: JeffB
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 11:01 AM

To Phil at work.   Phil, I tried to make it clear that it was just an analogy and did say that its greatest fault as an analogy was that money was the big issue in Keating's case, as opposed to Bertsongs. I wanted to take some of the heat out of this debate (unsuccessfully it seems) by getting a perspective on a case which has some similarities with this one. I tried to emphasis that there is a gulf between "artists" one on side and "academics" on the other. It seems to me that while the "artists" can cross between the two positions, the "academics" cannot easily do so, if at all.

Now get back to work! Your tea-break must be over by now.

To Malcolm Douglas.    Be assured that I for one (and I expect CapnB among others) do understand the issues involved. They are primarily issues of scholarship and provenance. But it seems that you are, to all intents and purposes, unconscious of the other issues (which I have called "inherent qualities" above) which are also of high importance. The relative importance of of these issues is naturally dependent on individual temperament. Can you grasp this first basic point?

Your fifth para above is significant. Your stress is entirely on "traditional" song as historic artefact, and reveals that you do not understand the issues involved from the point of view of the performer. Performance is not about educating an audience in, for instance, the socio-economic conditions affecting urban labourers in the first half of the 19th C. Performance is a little peice of theatre, for which the performer needs and chooses suitable material. If you were ever aware of this basic fact, which informs the essential nature of song, then you appear to have forgotten it.

It seems to me that while you are assiduously classifying, describing, tracing lines of descent, like an obsessive collector pinning down lepidoptera in neat rows onto a board, you are completely unaware that that your specimens are, in many cases, things of beauty. If so, that is entirely your loss, but might explain the curious antipathy you seem to have towards those who place a different kind of importance on your subject-matter.

You gloss over precisely what you mean in saying "giving a false picture of the past and the traditions he promoted". By "false picture of the past", do you intend the extremely narrow sense of the conditions of workers I mentioned above? If so, you need to give an example of how Lloyd misrepresented them. As for "the traditions he promoted", many would say that adapting lyrics to one's personal taste is precisely within the tradition which he, and many another singer before him, promoted. Your tiresome refrain that "he mislead us as to provenance" is beside *my* point. "They mislead if presented as authentic products of the tradition" is meaningless if one accepts, as many do and as no doubt Lloyd did, that the man himself was an authentic product of the tradition.

Perhaps much of this debate boils down to what is meant by "authentic". To you it seems to merely mean "originating at a known point in the past". But then you are an academic. Academics have their uses of course, and on balance we would not be without them. But for those who put life into words on paper, academics are strictly rear echelon.

I could comment further on your disengenuous sixth para, but it is now time for my rusk and cocoa while watching "Countdown". However, I cannot leave your e-mail of 7.20 am on 29/4 without comment. No doubt that was meant to be scathing and offensive towards those, like CapnB and myself, who have the temerity to argue with you. In fact, such remarks do you no credit as an academic and are laughable in their condescension. Academic study is your chosen field and as far as I am aware no-one has challenged you in that. However, you are deeply and foolishly mistaken if you believe that you have some sort of proprietal authority over English song, which has always and will always belong primarily to singers. You would do well to show a little courtesy to fellow enthusiasts.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Phil at work
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:21 AM

Thanks, Sue. I guess I can't even cover myself by saying I'm at work!

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Sue at work
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:19 AM

Just a point of pedantry Phil, but since we're on about accurate scholarship 'Jenny's Lament' ought to read 'Jenny's Complaint'.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:18 AM

"I see Berts importance to the revival as a performer and contributor,more important than his doubtful scholarship.
if anyone on this thread thinks his doubtful scholarship is more
important,please say so."

It's not one or the other.

"furthermore no one has been able to say why Bert did what he did ,and neither will they be able to."

I think we have a good idea of why Bert did what he did and I tried to describe it above:

"I think Bert wanted to show that when people moved from the land to the industrial towns in and after the Industrial Revolution they took their rural songs and re-fashioned them as industrial songs."

How much evidence existed for this hypothesis?

"that is a secret Bert has taken with him.
the fact of the matter is this discussion will not get far,because it is pure speculation,only one man can answer the question,and he is dead."

I think you over state the case.Much has been written about what Sharp et al were up to 100 years ago and that scholarship has helped us to understand our musical heritage and the people that kept it alive.

Best wishes

Les

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Phil at work
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:15 AM

Bryn - I think it is just you; Skewball and Master McGrath are both about a four-legged animal unexpectedly winning a race, but I can't see many other similarities.

Brian - I don't want to join any kind of witch hunt of a man that I admire in many ways, but I do think there are questions to be asked and tangled threads to be teased out.

Hear, hear.

I'm puzzled by the Tom Keating analogy, for a number of reasons - I think it's actually too harsh in some ways, as well as being too kind in others. First, Keating was an artist who couldn't make a living from his own work, and turned to producing fake rareties instead. I don't think Bert Lloyd's harshest critics would accuse him of rewriting traditional songs because he couldn't find an audience for original material - so it's a bit odd to see this argument apparently advanced in his defence!

Second, Keating turned out new paintings by Samuel Palmer et al, and put them into circulation as the real thing. Again, I don't think anyone's accused Bert Lloyd of writing songs from scratch - he may have put a lot of time and energy into some of his rewrites, but rewriting is what it was.

Third, and most important, Keating was an artist rather than an art expert. As Brian said, Bert Lloyd wrote the book (literally!) on English folk song; he was in a particularly strong position to certify songs as being the product of folk creativity preserved through oral transmission. (It's as if Tom Keating had been an authority in the field of authenticating Samuel Palmers.) He seems to have abused that position repeatedly.

I like Les's argument, but I don't think it's the whole story - perhaps turning a poem called "Jenny's lament" into a traditional song called The recruited collier makes a point about folk culture in mining communities, but what's the political point of the expanded Skewball, the explicit Long a-growing or Reynardine with the added shining teeth? I think a lot of it was down to giving the people what they want - a good story, well-written, with a point that's not too obscure and mysteries that aren't too baffling, and a good tune to carry it. And that is something he was very good at - it's just a shame Bert Lloyd the perhaps-a-bit-on-the-creative-side folk singer was the same person as Bert Lloyd the collector.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:00 AM

I am not afraid of anything.
I also have a very good understanding of the issues involved.
I see Berts importance to the revival as a performer and contributor,more important than his doubtful scholarship.
if anyone on this thread thinks his doubtful scholarship is more
important,please say so.
furthermore no one has been able to say why Bert did what he did ,and neither will they be able to.
that is a secret Bert has taken with him.
the fact of the matter is this discussion will not get far,because it is pure speculation,only one man can answer the question,and he is dead.
Malcolm, why is it necessary to be offensive to those who have adifferent opinion to yourself

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 07:45 AM

I wish I'd said that, Malcolm.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 07:20 AM

Dick's post rather illustrates my point. Discussions like this will never get very far while people who have no understanding of the issues involved insist on poking their oar in.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 07:10 AM

What are you afraid of Dick?

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:44 AM

I can't imagine why Dick thought it necessary to copy-and-paste the entire page here; the bulk of it is irrelevant to this discussion.
in response to phil edwards thread immediately before,to which it is relevant.
secondly, anyone interested in learning, [stewball aka skewbald] to sing,might like to see the alternative versions.
still, I dont suppose that interests the scholars,that someone might want to sing the different versions.
I repeat, Bert did not appear to divulge his motives to anyone now living,so this thread is just idle speculation,which could easily see his doubtful scholarship given too much prominence in relation to his abilty as a performer and his importance in the folk revival.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:44 AM

At risk of thread drift, is it only I who have noticed some similarity between 'Harding B-6 (54) 00668', as posted by the good Captain, and 'Master McGrath' ?

Or is 'Master McGrath another one which Lloyd, allegedly, "doctored" ?

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:29 AM

>> 'In the blusterous wind and the great dark water'
Bert wrote those lines, but he never let on. <<

Oh shit.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:20 AM

It does seem that some contributors to this discussion have not understood the issues involved, and spreading the topic over three simultaneous threads hasn't helped to achieve a constructive focus. To paraphrase what I have said elsewhere:

1. A L Lloyd was a fundamentally important figure in the folksong revival of the 1950s and thereafter, both as a performer and as a scholar.

2. It is unremarkable when revival performers make alterations to material they have learned from others, or from print sources; though it is helpful if they say that they have made changes rather than just characterising their songs as 'traditional', which may mislead. Although there are parallels with the ways in which songs became changed during the course of transmission in the 'old' tradition, revival modifications may be more self-conscious and calculated, and should not be confused with the 'folk process' as it was understood by the song collectors of the first half of the 20th century and before.

3. Scholars, by contrast, are expected to be scrupulously honest about the material they present. To be anything less than frank about their personal editorial interventions is deliberately to deceive, and this is rarely excusable.

4. As both performer and scholar, Lloyd occupied something of a grey area. As a performer, he naturally polished (sometimes completely rewrote) his material; as a scholar, to quote Roy Palmer's words, 'it seems reasonable to suggest that he should have been more forthcoming with details of his editorial interventions'. The trouble is that he often confused the two roles; and, not unnaturally, those who looked to him for material, commentary, and inspiration were also confused and tended to treat it all as gospel.

5. The fact that Lloyd's re-writes were eminently successful from an aesthetic point of view is irrelevant to questions as to their authenticity as 'traditional' songs. Where unavowed, they misrepresent his sources, and have given many people a false picture of the past and of the traditions that he promoted. To argue that none of this matters 'because they are good songs' is to miss the point entirely. It is precisely because they are good songs that they mislead if presented as authentic products of the tradition. I recall 'The Ship in Distress' (as it appeared in The Penguin Book of English Folk Songs) being praised for the lines 'In the blusterous wind and the great dark water' and 'A full-dressed ship like the sun a-glittering' as authentic examples of the poetic genius of the untutored traditional singer of the old times. Bert wrote those lines, but he never let on.

6. Discussion of this kind is not in essence (and should not be allowed to become, as I pointed out in the 'Blackleg Miner' thread) an attack upon its subject; some detailed re-evaluation of the material that Lloyd introduced to the Revival, and his underlying motives is, however, necessary in view of his enormous influence, and in view of the (evidently) wide misunderstanding of its significance. All the earlier prime movers have been the subjects of such re-evaluations, and it is currently the turn of Lloyd, MacColl and Kennedy. It is only through such re-evaluations in the light of new evidence that we can understand what they actually did, and how it has affected our own understanding; and our pre-conceptions.


Re 'Skewball'.

The webpage indicated earlier makes the beginner's mistake of assuming that, because occasionally some of the numbers in Bodleian shelfmarks look like dates, that that is what they are. They are not. The broadside it claims as 'dated 1784' (Harding B 25(1784)) is nothing of the kind, and if the compiler had looked at the next entry he or she would have seen that Harding B 25(1785) is dated 'between 1821 and 1838'; it is just the next in the number sequence.

I can't imagine why Dick thought it necessary to copy-and-paste the entire page here; the bulk of it is irrelevant to this discussion.

As it happens, the Kildare race took place at the Curragh in 1752, when Arthur Mervin's Skewball beat Sir Ralph Gore's grey mare. Gore's bay mare, Sportley (named in the broadside) wasn't involved, though Skewball did beat her in two races in England in July 1747. The incidents were confused or conflated, presumably, by whoever wrote the broadside; quite possibly long after the event. The American 'Stewball' appears to be a separate song on the same subject.

The only substantive comment I can find so far on Bert's 'Skewball' is 'this version is Irish in origin', which tells us very little. In fact it seems only very rarely to have been found in Ireland (Roud lists only one Irish version at present). Whether or not any oral example is known that resembles the Lloyd one I can't say. It might be worth looking into further.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:56 AM

I pulled back from this thread because I was getting concerned about words like "lies" and "deceit" being bandied around willy-nilly. Malcolm Douglas made the point on the other thread that such accusations shouldn't be made without proper evidence. However, I don't think it's sufficient to try and stifle any discussion by saying (a) "He only did what most other singers do", and (b) "He made a bloody good job of it." The point is that Lloyd literally wrote the book on English traditional song, and those of us who gained much of our early knowledge of this music from 'Folk Song in England' would like to be reassured that the things we've believed for decades are soundly based. I don't want to join any kind of witch hunt of a man that I admire in many ways, but I do think there are questions to be asked and tangled threads to be teased out.

I first became curious about Lloyd's work when I tried to find out more about 'The Cutty Wren', purely because I found it a strange and stirring song and wondered where it had come from. In his earlier writings Lloyd makes much of the performance by a certain shepherd who stamped his foot violently whilst singing it, going on to speculate rather wildly that the song was (here I paraphrase) a relic of medieval protest against baronial oppression, remarking by the by that the tune resembles that of 'Green Bushes'. Actually the shepherd concerned didn't sing it to the 'Green Bushes' tune at all - one wonders how this melody got attached to the song. Interestingly, by the time Lloyd wrote FSIE, he'd thought better of the baronial oppression stuff, and left it out. Perhaps Phil Edwards (above) is right that he was more circumspect that he had been previously when he put FSIE together.

In this context it's also interesting that, in describing 'The Handweaver and the Factory Maid' in FSIE, Lloyd refers to it only as "a broadside from the Oldham district", and makes no mention of Mr. William Oliver of Widnes, whom he told Roy Palmer was the source for the song - or at least the broadside (see Malcom Douglas, above). If my earlier speculation were accurate, and Lloyd was anxious to prove that some kind of oral tradition for industrial broadsides existed, you'd have expected him to have made much of the fact that a man in a North West industrial town sang 'Handweaver' to him in 1951.

Nor does he mention Beckett Whitehead (from whom MacColl had, Jim Carroll reminds us, collected 'Four Loom Weaver' many years previously) in his FSIE discussion of 'The Poor Cotton Weaver'. I realise that merely by stating that such anomalies are curious I am casting aspersions, but "curious" is exactly what they are.

I look forward to the definitive biography.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:31 AM

"lES,what are you up to.Bert is dead,can we let him rest in peace,and can this thread be let to die.Bert has taken those answers with him to the grave.Dick Miles"

I guess this is for me Dick?

What am I up to? Good point.

This discussion started on the thread about with about he origins of Do me ama. It would appear that this is mostly Bert. This opened up the whole discussion about what was Bert and what was traditional.

If, as we have many of us tried to say, this was simply about good songs it wouldn't really be a discussion, Bert collected, shared and wrote many.

But Bert was a scholar with a hypothesis to test. I cannot sum up all that has been said. I think this thread has said it all. The points made by all sorts of people like Malcolm Douglass, Brian Perts, Greg Stephens, Phil in Chorlton and about 20 others make the same point: It was dishonest scholarship and Bert was a scholar. Folk song has a history of scholarship - an attempt to understand the songs and the lives of the people who shaped the songs. Bert has at least confused that study and to some extent discredited it.

I guess Bert was an atheist so what resting means is hard to say. As for taking answers to the grave, this thread shows that is not entirely the case.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Santa
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:02 AM

I still think one point is not being stressed enough. There are songs for which we have a long history in broadsheets, music books, or whatever, and for these we can say what the original was, and how it was changed down the years. For songs without this history, all we know is how it was sung at the time it was collected. We do not know if this was the original song. From the songs that do appear in different collections, we know that they are not always (normally? rarely?) identical. Singers have been changing songs throughout history. In that sense Bert Lloyd was very much a part of the tradition he is being accused (by some) of perverting.

There is a store of recorded folk songs, there for those who care to go looking for them, and the songs live on as the singers change. The collected piece is one slice though the history: not holy gospel as sometimes implied.

One divergent thought has occurred: how much does the modern emphasis on copyright drive the rate of change of these songs? Does the need to produce something different mean that change is much more rapid than in earlier times? Perhaps I'd better raise this in a separate thread, but I'll leave the comment here.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 04:18 AM

he doesnt appear to have been up to anything in skewball,apart from improving the song.
lES,what are you up to.Bert is dead,can we let him rest in peace,and can this thread be let to die.Bert has taken those answers with him to the grave.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 04:13 AM

The more important habit is to try to provide references on CD sleeves and websites.

Tom,exactly what I have said on the froots discussion.
both Nutty and I have already said that if LLOYD were alive today he would act differently and that he was a product of the times,in fact,both of us said it long before Eliza got involved in the discussion.
however the material lloyd gave us, is more important [imo]than his passing off of his own compositions as traditional.
In the present day and age no one is going to attempt to do what LLoyd or Roberts did .
in fact most songwriters are more concerned about getting either kudos or financial reward for their compositions.
one of the aspects, Jim Carroll was talking about in another thread,was the disappearance of sharing of music.,and the changes in attitude in the folk revival[please correct me if I am wrong Jim].
Bert LLoyd was generous with his material,his material was very good,and [imo]the tradition and the folk revival benefited.and IMO that outweighs his doubtful scholarship
Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 03:53 AM

I am sure you have constructed a strong argument Jeff but most of us do not doubt the value of what Bert did as a song writer or arranger.

But as most people have said all through the thread, that really isn't the point. We have clearly been deceived, but that is only a part of the problem.

Almost everybody who ever sang a song, be they 19C source singers giving songs to Sharp, 20C source singers like Jeanie Robertson or revival singers like Martin Carthy - they have all sang songs who's authers were known and they say so.

More competent scholars of folk song will put a better argument than I can but I think it goes something like this:

Folk songs are not just old songs. They are songs that have passed through communities and have been fashioned by the lives of people in those communities. A good example is songs about poaching that were written and passed on after the Inclosures Act. People were transported for taking game the songs tell us about the conflict between the people who took the land and the rural working class who lost it.

I think Bert wanted to show that when people moved from the land to the industrial towns in and after the Industrial Revolution they took their rural songs and re-fashioned them as industrial songs.

Thousands of songs about industrial life were wrtten during the 19C most by individual, known or unknown songwriters, Tommy Armstrong is a good exampl writing songs about the mining industry in the North East.

Most of these songs were not re-fashioned by industrial communities. It looks as if Bert re-fashioned some to make it look as if they had. From our perspective it looks a bit of a waste of time but Bert et al were trying very hard to prove the collective creative ability of the industrial working class so he altered more than a few songs to support that idea.

I don't think I have that quite correct so perhaps others can explain what they thought Bert was up to.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 03:48 AM

Tom was one of the first people featured on Channel 4 when it started - a fascinating series, explaining how he made his 'sextons' - as he called them.

An excellent analogy in some ways, as you say, but missing the mark in others (as you say).

I wouldn't personally pillory Lloyd, and I agree that he'd probably do things differently today. As Eliza Cathy has pointed out elsewhere, there was a different philosophy around at that time, and people who 'failed to attribute' their own authorship felt they were doing a good thing - adding to the pool of good 'free-to-use' material, and helping to develop and encourage the tradition.

But it was, we now realise, misguided. And our task is to make sure that everyone understands - so that a new culture of correct attribution can start to flourish.

Pete quite rightly points out that we don't have time when singing live to present a scholarly explanation to every song (well I almost do sometimes and seem to get away with it!) but I do think there should be time for a quick credit - just a name would often suffice.

The more important habit is to try to provide references on CD sleeves and websites.

Tom

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:57 PM

JEFF B,well put.Tom Keating had crossed my mind as well.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: JeffB
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:41 PM

There has been a lot of pain and confusion over Bertsongs in the last couple of weeks. Every who is interested in the old songs is bound to be a little of a historian and musicologist (however humble) as well as a perfomer. Finding out that some old favourites did not date verbatim back to the early 19th C after all can be disconcerting, like when you "see through" an optical illusion and realise the arrow is not pointing to where you thought. Some people, understandably, don't now know what to think about A L Lloyd. But something like this has happened before and people got over it. If you don't mind my squandering a bit of bandwith, in the words of the immortal MB I want to tell you a story ...

There was once a man named Tom Keating; perhaps an unremarkable man except for one extraordinary talent - he was a bloody marvellous painter. Tom could paint in any style from any period - Renaissance, Impressionist, Expressionist, Dadaist: Cezanne, Renoir, Titian - you name it and he could paint it. He knew and loved his craft well. When he was getting on in years and finding it increasingly difficult to get his own paintings accepted by the galleries, he decided to sell some of his home-made Goyas and Canalettos. As it turned out, the art dealers were delighted and completely taken in, despite their expertise. The critics, who knew their subject very thoroughly indeed, were in raptures of praise. Before long, there were Keatings in New York penthouses and Arabian palaces and everywhere between.

For some time everyone was happy. Tom was enjoying the resurgence of his career (even though he couldn't talk about it down the pub), the dealers were making pots of money, and the art-loving public was enjoying beautiful masterpieces. Some of course had been bought as investments, but others simply because people liked what they saw.

Eventually, in the 1970s, Tom gave the game away. I forget whether it was because of disgust over the art market, or whether he had been rumbled. The dealers were furious of course, the critics embarrassed and irritated, and the art investors very nervous. Tom was prosecuted, but the trial was halted because of his ill-health. He refused to say which pictures were his forgeries. (In law they were forgeries because he had put another artist's signature to them). He took the view, I suppose, that they were either 1] good enough to be judged on their own merits next to genuine Rembrandts and Turners, or 2] should otherwise be exposed by the self-proclaimed art experts.

An interesting development is that nowadays Tom's forgeries, "genuine Keatings", (those that have been identified, that is), are highly collectable and fetch high prices. There must be an element of marketeering in this of course, but the bottom line is that people will not spend money on something they don't really like. In fact, so collectable have Keatings become that, ironically, they are themselves now being forged. It needs a real expert to identify a genuine Keating!

This story provides, I hope, a useful analogy to the Bert Lloyd furore. (I say "furore" on the strength of the sheer number of e-mails it has generated. In fact, a clear concensus of opinion has emerged). If "Bert Lloyd" is substituted for "Tom Keating", then the folk song academics are in the position of the art dealers and critics, and we - the singers and club audiences - are the art lovers. Every analogy is somewhat crude of course, and one huge difference here is the absence of money in the business of disseminating songs at one end, and learning and performing them at the other. For "money", try putting in "appreciation of emotional impact, effort to learn". But as an analogy it might help in deciding how you value the "product".

The academics who have invested time and work into English song in general will, understandably, be annoyed at finding some are (in their terms) forgeries. But to those who "bought into" Bertsongs because of their inherent qualities will not be unduly disappointed. To them, the songs are the masterly creation of an artist who was inspired by historical originals. Their response to the songs has not (and should not) change. If there is a changed response on the part of some, we must question why the songs were "bought into" by them in the first place, given that the songs' inherent qualities are exactly the same. That, of course, is an answer only they can give. I hope that, after due consideration, they will decide that what a song means to them is less important than who wrote it.

M'Lud, the case for the defence rests. Until someone objects ...

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:14 PM

I dont feel he has altered the sentiments of the song,just added a bit of colour

It looks to me more like a new song.

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:12 PM

No, Dick. But just suppose a historical linguist was to analyse that lyric in the belief that it was intact as collected? His conclusions would be nonsense.

These are not just old songs, they are historical documents with a value akin to old letters, invoices, workhouse menus or ship's weighbills. Changing them to any extent is not a crime. But failing to explain that you have done so is liable to be construed by historians if not singers as forgery.

Tom

Subject: RE: Bertsongs?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:02 PM

stewball/skewbald wins the race,if LLoyd had had the old grey mare winning the race,then we have a noticeable change of plot.

Subject: Lyr Add: SKEWBALL / STEWBALL
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 05:57 PM

In America, the Stewball ballad was "...most popular in the Negro south, where the winning horse is known variously as 'Stewball' or 'Kimball," and was apparently one of the chain-gang songs. The song was recorded by Leadbelly in 1940 (cd available via the Smithsonian Museum), by Joan Baez (album title Joan Baez/5), by Peter Paul and Mary, and a number of successive artists.

There is a closely-related American song, called Molly and Tenbrooks (also Run, Molly, Run; Old Tim Brooks; Tim Brooks; The Race Horse Song), which celebrates the famous east-west four-mile Kentucky match between the California mare Mollie McCarty and the great Kentucky racehorse Ten Broeck in 1878.

There are several versions of the Molly/Ten Broeck saga, as well, and Folklorist D.K. Wilgus believed there was a connection between the Skewball ballad and that of Molly and "Tenbrooks." In the real race, which Ten Broeck won, Mollie was distanced in the first (and final) heat, an incident seen in the Baez version of Stewball.   
Up until the 19th century, broadsides were the most inexpensive means of disseminating information in Great Britain, the earliest dating to the sixteenth century. Popular songs printed on a single side of a sheet of paper sold for a penny or less, and treated a broad variety of subjects, from the political to biblical, from medieval romance and very old ballads to contemporary events treated in a satirical vein. The ballad broadsides were often set to already familiar tunes. They were frequently illustrated with woodcuts.

The Bodleian Library of the University of Oxford has a substantial collection of over 25,000 items, in named collections which have been donated over the past 300 years. Among these are a collection bequeathed to the University in 1975 from Walter N.H. Harding, and within the 15,000 broadside ballads in this collection are several versions of Skewball. To see images and actual appearance of the original broadsides, and the thousands more in the Bodleian collection, all organized in a very useful on-line database (search for ("Skewball"), please visit the Bodleian Library Broadsides Ballad collection.

   


Some recordings of this song in various versions include: "Timbrooks and Molly" (Warde Ford, The Hole in the Wall (AFS 4210A1, 1939, AMMEN/Cowell); "Molly and Tenbrooks" (Bill Monroe & His Blue Grass Boys (Columbia 20612, 1949); "Molly and Tenbrooks" (Sonny Osborne (Kentucky 605, n.d.); "Molly and Tenbrooks" (The Stanley Brothers (Rich-R-Tone 418, 1948). The versions were noted by Wilgus in Kentucky Folklore Record V. II, No. 3; Vol. II, No. 4.

Below are two of the five versions of Skewball from the Bodleian ballad broadsides; the one on the right is dated 1784, the one on the left undated, but it appears to be the older of the two. To show how lyrics change over time, the Steeleye Span version of Skewball (from Ten Man Mop or Mr. Reservoir Butler Rides Again, available on cd from Shanachie Records Corp. (� 1989)) and the version (Stewball) sung by Joan Baez on the album Joan Baez/5 (Vanguard: VSD-79160), the latter set to a tune by the Greenbriar Boys. Beneath those are different versions of the saga of Mollie McCarty and Ten Broeck, where Skewball/Stewball starts making an appearance.

Skewball (Harding B-6 (54) 00668)

You Gentlemen Sportsmen I pray listen all
I'll sing you a song in the praise of Skewball
And how they came over you shall understand
By one Squire Irvine the Mell of [of] our land.

500 bright guineas on the plains of Kildare
I'll bet upon, Sportsmen, that bonny-grey mare
Skewball hearing the wager, the wager was laid
He said loving master, its don't be afraid.

For on my side thou'st laid thousands of pounds
I'll rig in thy castle a fine mass of gold.
Squire Irvine he smiled, and thus he did say,
You gentlemen-sportsmen to-morrow's the day

Your saddles and bridles, and horses prepare,
For we will away th [to] the plains of Kildare.
The day being come, & the horses bro't out,
Squire Irvine he order'd his rider to mount.

All the people then went to see them go round
They swore in their hearts that they ne'er touch'd the ground.
And as they were riding this was the discourse
The grey mare will never touch this horse.

O, loving kind rider come tell unto me,
How far is the grey mare behind you said he...
O loving master you bear a great smile,
Grey mare is behind me a large English mile

For in this country I was ne'er seen before
Thou hast won the race & broken lord Gore.

Skewball (Harding B-25 1784 10198)

Ye gentlemen sportsmen I pray listen all,
And I'll sing you a song in praise of skewball,
And how he came over you shall understand,
It was esquire Mirvin a peer of our land.

And of his late actions is I have heard before,
And how he was challenged by one Sir Raph Gore,
For five hundred guines on the plains of kilder,
To run with Miss Sportsly that charming grey mare.

Skewball then he hearing the wager was laid,
He to his kind master said be not afraid.
For I on my side you thousands will hold,
I'll lay on your castle a fine mass of gold.

The time being come and the cattle led out,
The people came flocking from east, west, and south,
To beat all the Sportsmen I vow and declare,
They'd enter their money all on the grey mare.

Squire Mirvin he smiled and thus he did say,
Come gentlemen sportsmen that's money to lay.
All you that's got hundreds I will hold you all,
For I will lay thousands on famous Skewball.

Squire Mirvin he smiled, and thus he did say,
Ye gentlemen sportsmen to morrow's the day,
Your horses and saddles and bridles prepare,
For we must away to the plains of kildar.

The time being come and the cattle walk'd out,
Squire Mirvin he order'd his rider to mount,
With all the spectators to clear the way,
The time being come not a moment delay,

These cattle were mounted away they fly,
Skewball like an arrow past Miss Sportsly did fly,
And the people stept up for to see them go round,
They swore in their hearts he ne'er touch the ground.

And as they were just in the midst of their sport,
squire Mirvin* to his rider begun this discourse,
O loving kind rider come tell unto me,
How far is Miss Sportsly this moment from thee.

O loving kind master you bear a great style
The Grey Mare is behind me a full English mile,
If the saddle maintains as I warrent you there
We ne'er shall be beat on the plains of Kildar.

And as they were running past the distance chair,
the gentlemen cry'd Skewball never fear,
Although in this country thou wast never seen before,
Thou beating Miss Sportsly has broke Sir Ralph Gore.

*Corrected the next year to: Skewball to his rider began this discourse

Skewball (Steeleye Span)

You gallant sportsmen all, come listen to my story
It's of the bold Skewball, that noble racing pony
Arthur Marvel was the man that brought bold Skewball over
He's the diamond of the land and he rolls about in clover

The horses were brought out with saddle, whip and bridle
And the gentlemen did shout when they saw the noble riders
And some did shout hurray, the air was thick with curses
And on the grey Griselda the sportsmen laid their purses

The trumpet it did sound, they shot off like an arrow
They scarcely touched the ground for the going it was narrow
Then Griselda passed him by and the gentlemen did holler
The grey will win the day and Skewball he will follow

Then halfway round the course up spoke the noble rider
I fear we must fall back for she's going like a tyger.
Up spoke the noble horse, ride on my noble master
For we're half way round the course and now we'll see who's faster

And when they did discourse, bold Skewball flew like lightning
They chased around the course and the grey mare she was taken
Ride on my noble lord, for the good two hundred guineas
The saddle shall be of gold when we pick up our winnings

Past the winning post bold Skewball proved quite handy
And horse and rider both ordered sherry, wine and brandy
And then they drank a health unto Miss Griselda
And all that lost their money on the sporting plains of Kildare   Stewball (Joan Baez/5)

Stewball was a good horse
He wore a high head,
And the mane on his foretop
Was as fine as silk thread.

I rode him in England,
I rode him in Spain,
And I never did lose, boys,
I always did gain.

So come all you gamblers,
Wherever you are,
And don't bet your money
On that little gray mare.

Most likely she'll stumble,
Most likely she'll fall,
But you never will lose, boys,
On my noble Stewball.

As they were a-ridin'
'Bout halfway around,
That gray mare she stumbled
And fell on the ground.

And away out yonder,
Ahead of them all,
Came a prancin' an' dancin'
My noble Stewball.

Stewball: A Version
Source: Fiddle Players' Discussion List, Meghan Merker

Way out in California
Where Stewball was born
All the jockeys said old Stewball
Lord, he blew there in a storm

CHORUS: Bet on Stewball and you might win, win, win
Bet on Stewball and you might win

All the jockeys in the country
Say he blew there in a storm
All the women in the country
Say he never was known

When the horses were saddled
And the word was given: Go
Old Stewball he shot out
Like an arrow from a bow

The old folks they hollered
The young folks they bawled
The children said look, look
At that no good Stewball   Stewball: Another Version
Source: Fiddle Players' Discussion List, Meghan Merker

There's a big race (uh-huh), down in Dallas (uh-huh)
Don't you wish you (...) were there? (...)
you would bet your ( ) bottom dollar ( )
On that iron ( ) grey mare ( )
Bet on Stewball & you might win, win, win
Bet on Stewball & you might win!

Way out / in California / when old Stewball / was born
All the jockeys / in the nation / said he blew there / in a storm

Now the value / of his harness / has never / been told
His sadlle / pure silver / & his bridle / solid gold

Old Stewball / was a racehorse / Old Molly / was too
Old Molly / she stumbled / Old Stewball / he flew

Run Molly Run
Source: Kingston Trio ("Goin Places")

Chorus: Run Molly, run (oh, Molly). Run Molly, run.
Long John's gonna beat you, beneath the shinin' sun.

Long John was the youngest horse and Molly was the old.
Molly was an old grey mare and he was a stallion bold,
oh, Lordy, he was a stallion bold.

Long John said to Molly, "You're runnin' your last race
'Cause when I turn my head around I'm gonna see your face,
old gal, I'm gonna see your face."

Molly said to Long John, "Don't take me for a fool.
If you didn't cut your ears and tail, I'd think you were a mule
(Yeah!) I'd think you were a mule."

Long John, he got mad, oh, Lord, and shook his wooly mane.
"Last time that I run, old girl, I beat the Memphis train.
I beat the Memphis train."

Chorus

See them waitin' on the track. The man, he hollered, "Go!"
Long John runnin' fast, Lord, Molly runnin' slow.
Molly runnin' slow.

Long John said to Molly, "Take a last look at the sky.
'Cause baby when I pass you by, my dust's gonna blind your eye,
oh, Lord, my dust's gonna blind your eye."

Run, Molly, run. Look out for the turn,
oh, Lordy, Lordy, here she comes!

Long John beatin' Molly. Wait, what do I see?
Molly passin' Long John. Molly runnin' free,
oh, Lordy, Molly runnin' free.

Run Molly, run (oh Molly). Run Molly, run.
Put old Long John out to stud and let old Molly run!   Molly and Tenbrooks
Source: Steve Gillette and Linda Albertano, Cherry Lane Music, 1967

Tenbrooks was a bay horse, had a long, shaggy mane
Rode all around Memphis, beat the big Memphis train.
Run, Tenbrooks, run, if you don't run
Molly gonna beat you to the bright shinin' sun.

The women were weepin', their babes cryin' too.
The nine proud horses came thunderin' through.
With molly the leader, her head tossin' high.
With Molly the leader, with Tenbrooks behind,
She came flyin' by.

We shouted to Kuyper, you're not ridin' right.
Molly is a beatin' Tembrooks out of sight.
Kuyper, oh Kuyper, Kuyper my son,
Give him the bridle, let Tenbrooks run.

Tenbrooks looked at Molly, your face is so red.
Been runnin in the hot sun with a feverish head.
You're fallin' behind me, I'm out here all alone
Molly says to Tenbrooks, I'm leavin' this world
I'm a goin' on home.

Oh, run fetch old Tenbrooks and tie him in the shade.
They're buryin' Molly in a coffin ready made.
Out in California Molly done as she pleased,
Back in Kentucky, got beat with all ease,
Got beat with all ease.


A Related, Possibly Older Version
Source: "E.L."

chorus:
Run Molly, run
Run Molly, run
Tembruck gonna beat you
Bright shinin'sun.
Bright shinin' sun, oh lordy, bright shinin' sun.

They ran the Kentucky Derby on the 24th of May,
Some bet on Tembruck, some on Molly Day.
Some on Molly Day, oh lordy, some on Molly Day.

chorus

Piper, oh Piper, you're not runnin' right
Molly's beatin' Tembruck way out of sight.
Way out of sight, oh lordy,way out of sight.

chorus

Piper, oh Piper, oh Piper my son
Let old Tembruck have his head,let old Tembruck run.
Let old Tembruck run, oh lordy, let old Tembruck run







Skewball was a Racehorse The Ballads Was Skewball a Skewbald?






Home   Historic Sires   Historic Dams   Portraits   Turf Hallmarks   Breeders   Genetics   Resources   Contributors   Search   Store   E-mail




©1997 - 2005 Thoroughbred Heritage. All rights reserved.

with respect LLoyds[steeleyespan] version is the best,I dont feel he has altered the sentiments of the song,just added a bit of colour,much as Roberts did to Gamekeepers lie sleeping,
he is certainly not putting any political agenda over in this song.