From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:34 AM

"Sally Brown" Part 3

My third category is what I am calling "Historical Informants". I don't care for the word "informant", and would like an alternative. In a number of the published collections and "mentions" above, the names of actual informants are given, and sometimes the dates for when they actually went to sea or were at sea. Some of these are precise and some are approximate and some are outright guesses. I welcome corrections and better information wherever it can be found.

In this listing, the historical {dates} are given first when they are available. In a few cases I only have the earliest date of publication. These are obviously chronological.

Historical Informants

{April, 1837} Marryat, Capt. C.B. [windlass, halyards]
{1859-60} Robinson, Capt. John
{1861-1872} Whall, 1909-1910 [East Indiamen, with shipmates who sailed before 1815, capstan-anchor; "not a hauling song"]
{1863} J.S. Scott, London, England, August
{1864} James Wright, Leith, England
{late 1865 (Lighter, 2/26)} Adams, Robert Chamblet, [as "Blow, My Bully Boys, Blow"]
{1867-1885} Jack Murray, Aberdeen, Scotland
{late 1860's (Lighter 2/1)} Harding & perhaps Tobago Smith
{1868} Captain Edward B. Trumbull, Salem, MA
{1869} Robert Yeoman, Dundee, Scotland
{1869} Richard Maitland
{1869-1880} Bullen, [ weighing anchor & flywheel pumps]
{1870s} "Old Man Cuffee" who died at age 82 in 1938        
{1870s} George Pattison/capstan & Malcolm Forbes - "old men" in 1924-25
{1872} James Henderson, whaler - Dundee, Scotland
{March 19, 1875} Harlow, [capstan]
Luce, 1883/89(1902) [topsail halyards]
{1883} Thomas Ginovan, Bristol, England
{1885} Capt. Patrick Tayluer         
{1885-1902} Alex Henderson, Dundee, Scotland
{1888-1889} George Simpson, Dundee, Scotland
{1889-1901} Colcord, [windless and capstan]
{1891-95} Masefield, [halliards]
{October, 1914} Hurley, Frank & Shane Murphy, SHACKLETON'S PHOTOGRAPHER, 2001, footnote 38]
{1908} Benjamin Bright
Sharp, 1914 Charles Robbins, London, [pulling-chantey]
        Mr. Allison of Perth
        Short of Watchet
{1915} Shay, [capstan]
{1922-1945} Hugill [hauling, capstan]
A.E. Foster, Sailors Snug Harbor, Staten Island, N.Y., 1927
Francis Herreschoff, Marblehead, MA, 1927
Stanton King, Boston, MA, 1928
David Burrell, Scotland [capstan]
{1929} Greenleaf & Mansfield, [Capt. John Gullage]

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:23 AM

"Sally Brown" Part 2

Please note that the "Published Collections" on "Sally Brown" are listed chronologically by date of publication. This is often later than the actual collection or recording of the song and certainly later than the song was actually sung at sea. The dates within "{1800}" are the approximate dates having to do with actually "being at sea". More on this in a bit.

Here is the second category of multiple attestation, what I am calling "Published Mention". By this I mean mention made of a chanty in publications other than "Chanty Collections", such as travel narratives, historical documents, fiction, magazine articles, etc. I have tried to determine if and when someone has copied from a previous source to avoid duplications. This is not always easy. As far as I can tell, these are "independent" attestations, of somewhat uneven quality. Once again, these are in chronological order of publication.

Published Mention

Marryat, Capt. C.B., A DIARY IN AMERICA,1839 [windlass,halyards, {April, 1837}]
Sauzade, John S., GARRET VAN HORN; OR THE BEGGAR ON HORSEBACK, 1863, [windlass]
Adams, Robert Chamblet, ON BOARD THE "ROCKET", 1879 [as "Blow, My Bully Boys, Blow"]
Mason, John, BEFORE THE MAST IN SAILING SHIPS, 1884
Runciman, James, SKIPPERS AND SHELLBACKS, 1885
Gaunt, Mary, "The Loss of the 'Vanity'", THE ENGLISH ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE, 1892
King, Stanton Henry, DOG-WATCHES AT SEA, 1902
Whitmarsh, H. Phelps, "The Chantey-man", HARPERS MAGAZINE, Vol. 106, Dec 1902 - May, 1903
Wragge, Clement Lindley, THE ROMANCE OF THE SOUTH SEAS, 1906
Melony, William Brown, "The Chanty-Man Sings", EVERYBODY'S MAGAZINE, July- Dec, 1915 [topsails to the masthead]
Robinson, Capt. John, "Songs of the Chantey-Man," THE BELLMAN, July 14 -August 4,1917 {1859-60}
Weld, Frederick, ed. SONGS OF THE SEA, 1919 [YMCA]
Adams, B.M. "Port Some Day", THE OUTLOOK, Vol. 127, January to April, 1921
Minnigerode, Meade, "The Laughing Elephant", NEW OUTLOOK, Vol. 128, May 4-August 31, 1921
Fletcher, R.A., IN THE DAYS OF THE TALL SHIPS, 1930
Thompson, Harold W., BODY, BOOTS, AND BRITCHES, 1939 [from "Old Man Cuffee" who died at age 82 in 1938]
Hurley, Frank & Shane Murphy, SHACKLETON'S PHOTOGRAPHER, 2001 {October, 1914}, footnote 38]
Walton, Ivan, Joe Grimm, & Loudon Guthrie Wilson, WINDJAMMERS, SONGS OF THE GREAT   LAKES SAILORS, 2002, [1932, from Harry and George Parmalee,
    capstan hauls (Capt. William E., "Billy" Clark of Buffalo) and halyards (Capt. Thomas   Hylant)]
Davis, A.K., Jr., FOLK-SONGS OF VIRGINIA, 1965, [from George Basil Hall of Middleburg, VA, August 5, 1930's?]

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:02 AM

I want to give an example of how my "multiple categories of multiple attestation" might work when applied to an actual chanty. From the list above of "multiple attested early chanties with documentation and lyrics", I have chosen to look at "Sally Brown".

While we know that she was sung on board the "Quebec" in April of 1937, we can't prove that she was sung on board the "Julia Ann" between San Francisco and Sydney in 1853-1855. However, by applying these categories of multiple attestation, we can get a sense of the historical and geographical spread of this chanty throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. This gives some substance to establishing an historical context for imagining how "Sally Brown" might have been sung on board the "Julia Ann".

This is going to be a long posting so I will break it up into several parts. I have tried to be as thorough as I can within the limitations of my own library, my abilities on the internet, and my access to the library at UVA. I make no claims at being "complete" in my listings. They are meant to be thorough and suggestive. I will begin with what I call the "Category of Published Collections". This has a good deal of other information in it, which I will highlight later. For now take a look at how often and when "Sally Brown" shows up in collections of chanties.

"Sally Brown" (Part 1)

Published Collections   (24)

Davis & Tozer, 1886
Luce, 1883/89 (1902) [topsail halyards]
L.A. Smith, 1888 [capstan]
Bradford & Fagge, 1904
Masefield, 1906 [halliards, {1891-95}]
Whall, 1909-1910 [East Indiamen, {1861-1872, with shipmates who sailed before 1815},capstan-anchor; "not a hauling song"]
Patterson, 1913
Sharp, 1914 [Charles Robbins,London, pulling-chantey]
    "O Row, Heave and Go" [Mr. Allison of Perth]
    "Roll and Go" [Short of Watchet]        
Bullen, 1914 [{1869-1880}, weighing anchor & flywheel pumps]
King, 1918 [capstan]
Terry, 1921 [windless and capstan]
Colcord, 1924 [windless and capstan
Shay, 1924 [capstan, {1915}]
Frothingham, 1924
Carey, 1924/25 [George Pattison/capstan & Malcolm Forbes]
C.F. Smith, 1927 [getting up the anchor/(capstan)]
Mackenzie, 1928 [Daniel & George Hughton, Pictou, NS]
Carpenter, 1929-1955
        {1863} J.S. Scott, London, England, August, 1929
        {1864} James Wright, Leith, England
        {1867-1885} Jack Murray, Aberdeen, Scotland
        {1868} Captain Edward B. Trumbull, Salem, MA, 1927
        {1869} Robert Yeoman, Dundee, Scotland
        {1872 -whaler} James Henderson, Dundee, Scotland
        {1883} Thomas Ginovan, Bristol, England, 1928
        {1885-1902} Alex Henderson, Dundee, Scotland
        {1888-1889} George Simpson, Dundee, Scotland
        {1908} Benjamin Bright, 1929
        A.E. Foster, Sailors Snug Harbor, Staten Island, N.Y., 1927
        Francis Herreschoff, Marblehead, MA, 1927
        Stanton King, Boston, MA, 1928
        David Burrell, Scotland [capstan]
Bone, 1932
Greenleaf & Mansfield, 1933 [Capt. John Gullage, {1929}]
Doerflinger, 1951[capstan, windless, & pump] [Richard Maitland {1869}, Capt. Patrick Tayluer {1885}] - with additional bibliography
Hugill,1961 {1922-1945} [hauling, capstan] [Harding: log-rolling]
         has 5 variants of refrain
   Tobago Smith's "Walkalong, You Sally Brown" [halyards]
   also from West Indies "Tommy's on the Tops'l Yard" [halyards]                     
Harlow, 1962(1928) [ capstan, {March 19, 1875}]
Abrahams, 1974 ["Feeny Brown"]

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:54 AM

And another interesting one without title with this verse:

"Oh! if I had her,
Eh then if I had her,
Oh! how I would love her
Black although she be."

Hugill goes on to speculate whether the fragment above is related to the Scottish song "Were You Ever in Bumbarton."

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:35 AM

John-

I've been assuming both bits were parts of a single song, verse with mini-chorus followed by grand chorus.

I wouldn't be surprised if this same song showed up in the lumberjack camps. However, there's no mention of such a song in Doerflinger.

Of course, while I was reviewing Doerflinger I reread his account of "the rise of shantying" and he makes reference to a small volume titled THE QUID, London, 1832, which describes shantying on a voyage to the Orient on an East India Company ship:

"Pull Away now, my Nancy, O!"
and two forebitters:

"Jemmy Taylor"

And another interesting one without title with this verse:

"Oh! if I had her,
Eh then if I had her,
Oh! how I would love her
Black although she be."

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 08:03 AM

I like what you've done with "Grog Time of Day", Gibb, and thanks for the summary sheet on this. I would definitely say that this song is well attested early on and it's interesting that it survived down to at least 1916. It might be worth checking out fiddle tunes to see if Mr. Chisholm's verse shows up anywhere else.   I was trying to find out something more on Landsman Hay, but it doesn't seem that there is anything available on the net. I was just at the library yesterday and didn't think to check on that one.

I'm wondering if it's possible that what is quoted is really one song rather than two. Could the "Two sisters courted one man," part be the verse and the "Grog tme of day, boys" be the chorus? The quote itself does not really make clear whether we are dealing with two songs or two parts of one song. It just says "And the second:" Hugill does not clarify this.

Two sisters courted one man,
   Oh, huro, my boys,
And they live in the mountains,
   Oh, huro boys, O.

    Grog time of day, boys,
    Grog time of day,
       Huro, my jolly boys,
       Grog time of day.

I've not been able to find anything else resembling the two mountain dwelling sisters, although the two of them courting one man obviously has overtones of the Child ballad "The Two Sisters", which could have been sung in Jamaica, although I know of no record of that. It was a popular ballad and took many different forms such as the widely known Virginia version "The Wind and Rain".

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM

OK, for fun, here's my marriage of "Grog" and "Doodle."

GToD

I am also showing where I think the rowing might happen. The only other possibility I'd envision is constant rowing. Given the two options, I went for this style, with rests in between and which corresponds to the pace of a halyard chantey. Your thoughts, rowing-masters?

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:57 PM

Gibb-

"Haul away, yeo ho boys"

Might have been a rowing shanty. Nice to have one documented so early in the 19th century.

Oh, I ran across this on-line Nordhoff book titled NINE YEARS A SAILOR, 1866, which includes all three of his previous books: U. S. Naval Service, American and British Merchant Marine, and Whaling Service: Click here for website

There's a great description of sailors on leave in 1848 Valparaiso.

I was hoping to find my "missing" illustration of the screw-jack team but no such luck.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:15 PM

Here's another possible early chantey reference, which I stumbled on while poking around looking for the journal that Lighter had mentioned.

"Waldie's select circulating library", Volume 1 (12 March 1833)

It's an account of an Italian visitor to London, observing sailors singing in a pub, circa 1826, I believe. Apparently they were singing this idly or for fun. The impression is made that it was a work song. However, it does seem a bit highly developed for that. And the lyrics say "haul," whereas such a long form suggests to me a task like capstan work. It may have been that this was a hauling song, just not a timed-pull one -- i.e. it was a stamp 'n' go. Quite probably these were navy men, as the sentiments suggest.

Here's the first verse.

British sailors have a knack
      Haul way, yeo ho, boys!
Of pulling down a Frenchman's jack,
    'Gainst any odds, you know, boys
Come three to one, right sure am I
If we can't beat 'em, still we try
To make old England's colours fly,
    Haul away, yeo ho boys

The rest can be found here, pg. 133

Haul way, yeo ho

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 12:22 PM

Here's a round-up of "Grog time" (which, by the way, has just struck here in EST). Hopefully I haven't made any significant mistakes.

LANDSMAN HAY (event from 1811)

Jamaica, stevedore apparently working at capstan

Grog time of day, boys
Grog time of day,
CH: Huro, my jolly boys,
        Grog time of day

[I don't know if the chorus marking is in the original. I've taken this from Hugill. In other references, this whole bit is the chorus]


SERVICE AFLOAT (published 1833, but appears to describe observations from during Napoleanic Wars, so 1815 or earlier)

Antigua, for rowing

Massa lock de door, and take away de key
Hurra, my jolly boys, grog time a day
CH: Grog time a day, my boys, grog time a day,
        Hurra, my jolly boys, grog time a day


WEST INDIA SKETCH BOOK, vol 1 (Published 1834 or earlier? and referring to events possibly as early as 1822 or earlier)

Hurra, my jolly boys
CH: Fine time o' day
We pull for San Thamas boys
CH: Fine time o' day
Nancy Gibbs and Betsy Braid
CH: Fine time o' day
Massa come fra London town
CH: Fine time o' day ETC

Here is Finn & Haddie's revival of "Fine Time o' Day":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DwR-ADStXQ


"Waldie's Select Circulating Library," II (Dec. 24,1833)

Rowing, "well known West Indian canoe song"

The captain's gone ashore;
The mate has got the key;
Hurrah! my jolly boys,-
'Tis grog time o' day!


TAR BRUSH SKETCHES (story, published 1836)

"In Callao Harbor," solo

When de cap'un go ashore,
An' de mate he hab de key,
You want a nigger steward
When it's grog time o' day
[CH:] Grog time o' day [ETC?]


TWO YEARS BEFORE THE MAST (original 1840 manuscript, in reference to 1834-36)

Boston-California. The task is unclear.

"Grog Time a Day" (title only)


TELEMACHUS, OR, THE ISLAND OF CALYPSO (a play, republished in 1879. First performance was given 26 Dec. 1834.)

Gives stage direction for "Music – Grog time of day, boys" Set off the coast of "a West India island." Newly composed lyrics follow.


THE ART OF BALLET (1915)

An anecdote about two sister Austrian ballet dancers touring America in 1841.

"Fanny [one of the dancers] was an especial favourite, and when the sisters left New Orleans, some niggers, who were hoisting freight from the hold of an adjacent steamboat—and niggers are notoriously apt at catching up topical subjects—thus chanted, as the vessel bearing the dancers left the wharf:

Fanny, is you going up de ribber?
        Grog time o' day
When all dese here's got Elssler feber?
        Oh, hoist away!
De Lor' knows what we'll do widout you,
        Grog time o' day
De toe an' heel won't dance widout you.
        Oh, hoist away!
Day say you dances like a fedder
        Grog time o' day
Wid t'ree t'ousand dollars all togedder.
        Oh, hoist away!


C# / Mr. NB Chisholm (1916)

Appalachians, as mnemonic aid to remember fife tune to "Napolean's Retreat"

It's grog time of day, my love
Grog time of day
When Boney crossed the Alps
It's grog time of day.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 10:48 AM

Re: "ch" to "sh."

I've floated my "Gulf creole" hypothesis past a number of phonologists without success. As far as I've discovered, there is no basis to assume that "chant" was pronounced as "shant" in the proper cargo-stowing, cotton-screwing, shanty-singing locations.

However. A colleague informs me that the right switch, from "ch" to "sh" does occur in the far northeast of Scotland: Orkney, Shetland, and esp. Caithness. The Scots also have a propensity for making diminutives with "-ie," so a "chantie/ shanty" would be easily recognized as meaning "a little chant or song."

Sounds great, but it's difficult to imagine why the word "chantie/ shanty"(which we have no early evidence for up there except theoretically) would have spread from the Far North of Scotland to the Caribbean. I'm not saying it couldn't have, just that it was both quite unlikely and there's no evidence of it.

OTOH, perhaps the first people to talk about "shantying" were influenced by Caribbean rather than Parisian French, some Anglo-Afro-French patois in Martinique, for example.

Though why English-speakers might have adopted "ch" to "sh" for "chantie" just on that basis is also mysterious.

Final hypothesis: "chanty/ chantie" really *was* pronounced like "chant" until people started thinking it *must be* from French. If so, the change must have happened way back when, because the testimony of the (few) old sailors who wrote books (and commented on it) is unanimous that the pronunciation was always "shanty." Maybe that view is simplistic.

Linguists hate those exceptional cases where sounds change almost arbitrarily, but maybe that's what happened: "shanty" from "chantie" from "chant" for no good (i.e., systematic) reason. It might even be the simplest hypothesis.

So we're back to Square One as usual.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: shipcmo
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 10:39 AM

Re: grog-time
One advantage of being a ship's Captain, on the high seas, is the ability to declare Noon. And if the yardarm id adjustable (as it was on my schooner), it is possible to declare "the Sun to be below the yardarm", and anyhow, after some "trying work", It is always "Time to Splice the Mainbrace". (I actually had one on the Godspeed.)
Hi-Ho!
Geo

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 10:32 AM

Grog Time / Captains Gone Ashore = pretty damn cool.

To clarify re: Grog Time, I don't know exactly how I've expressed it earlier, but it does not quite fit the "classic" "two-pull halyard" form. The timing is there, just not the "stanza." And we only have it in reference to rowing. (And the similarly formed "Doodle" was ascribed to capstan work.) However, I think it could easily be used for the 2-pull halyard maneuver. It has similarities, but it is not THE typical form.

Just speculating, too, I imagine the rowing would have been well timed to the same points where one might pull on a halyard. If that's the case (we need rowing experts now!), the pacing of rowing songs would vie with the pacing of cotton-screwing (in my estimation) as the possible structural origin of chanties. I know rowing had been discussed earlier. Now I'm wondering if there was a common work-song form that found equal applicability to rowing, jackscrew turning, and halyard hauling.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 10:16 AM

FWIW, you can sing the song pretty much to the tune of "Doodle Let Me Go."

I hope it's worth something, because I have been saying that for a while now! ;)

Incidentally, I was planning to have some fun a record myself singing Grog Time o' Day later on today...after grog-time.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:27 AM

If anybody's posted this, I can't find it. From the magazine, "Waldie's Select Circulating Library," II (Dec. 24,1833), p. 581:

"The pirates pulled merrily for their schooner, singing in chorus the well known West Indian canoe song:

"The captain's gone ashore;
The mate has got the key;
Hurrah! my jolly boys,-
'Tis grog time o' day!"

The author of the story is said to be Capt. Richard Longeville Vowell. He spent over a dozen years in South America.

In light of Dana's evidence, "well known" appears to have been accurate. FWIW, you can sing the song pretty much to the tune of "Doodle Let Me Go."

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:53 AM

John, your ex. from 1836 may explain why Dana deleted "Grog Time a Day" from his list of titles. It may have been the same as the song he called "Captain gone ashore"!

Given the date, one can probably assume that "Fiferail's" is the song Dana heard. If so, it doesn't seem to have been a one-line, one-pull shanty. I suppose it would have belonged to capstan work.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:12 AM

Well, I don't know why you guys couldn't get the "chaunt" and "cotton screwing" issues all resolved yesterday! Along side of dealing with "stamp 'n go" , "sing outs', "short haul" and "not short haul" work songs. I suggest that we all meet at the French Market in NO for chicory coffee and beignets and if we can't get these things resolved in a morning then we can move on to the Sazeracs and take a cruise down the River.

Some seriously good work going on here yesterday. I appreciate the recap on "Hieland Laddie" / "Donkey Riding". We'll never wear that one out! And I don't think any of this has to be all that "neat". Gibb, I can be satisfied with: "I just don't think these stamp'n'go-s cohere into any formal category....So I am not willing to create any major category out of the scanty stamp'n'go material." And into this group we'll put:

"Rise me Up
"Drunken Sailor"
"John Dameray"
"Roll the old Chariot"

I like what you say about "Drunken Sailor", in that it "appears to hail from the earlier navy days, when stamp'n' go was the thing, and when it was actually more often carried out to drumming and fifing (?)." I'm assuming that all of these are candidates for a possible "earlier" rating.

And it's good to get this reaffirmation on the cotton screwing, even if you and Charlie can't agree on which way to heave and haul:

"I am in total agreement that the cotton screwing songs were modeled on two coordinated exertions, and that is what I think may have transfered over to halyards work. Formally speaking, it would not matter whether those exertions were pushes or pulls."

The "stevedore" song came at just the right time in my afternoon's work!

And I think that this little maxim is worth putting up on the wall somewhere:

"I think that distinction (more or less primitive) is a difficult one to maintain; one is better off just describing the thing as it is."

That's one I have to keep reminding myself about all the way through. I'm glad that you brought the "sing-outs" into the discussion. That was going to be my next question. And I can appreciate this qualification:

"it is dicey business to try to distinguish these [sing-outs] from some other songs that have been given the honor (i.e. in collectors' books) as fully-fledged shanties."

And for "sweating up", we have

"Johnny Bowker"
"Paddy Doyle"
    & perhaps
"Cheerily Men"

And for tacks/sheets, with your qualifications - I especially like "curvier":

"Boney"
"Haul Away, Joe"
"Haul The Bowline"

Separating these, by form, from the following HALYARD chanties:

"High O Come Roll Me Over"
"Hurrah, Sing Fare Ye Well"
"Tommy's on the Tops'l Yard"

And introducing yet another form, which "has a fast paced, continuous set of single-pulls...they were not for short jobs, i.e. they could be for longer jobs like halyards (really, I'll bet they originated as some other kind of shore-side work-song)."

"Dan Dan"
"Ek Dumah"

I got all excited about "A Grog Time of Day" and "Doodle" and wasn't paying attention to form. They are 2-pulls. Here's another reference to "Grog time of day" that also mentions "Captain gone ashore":

http://books.google.com/books?id=WjsfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA92&dq=Tar+Brush+Sketches&cd=1#v=onepage&q=grog%20time%20of%20day&f=false

This is from something called "Tar Brush Sketches" by a Benjamin Fiferail, published in CORRECTED PROOFS, by H. Hastings Weld, 1836. I am hesitant to say anything about the genre on this, but it does seem to be another independent attestation for "Grog Time Of Day".

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:59 PM

The emphasis on the intended vowel sound, using "au", makes sense to me. I was intuitively reading it that way, so I can see why they would have done that. But of course, the vowel is not the issue!

Arggh, you're unshakable, Lighter. Every bit of my intuition is telling me that what I am seeing makes the more sense, but I do have to admit that from a purely logical standpoint, you've got me. It is scientifically useless, perhaps, but when I see "chaun" I really do hear "sh" right from the start...there are just certain conventions in English spelling that one develops and instinct for, and I think I can understand why Trelawny would have chosen "ch" spelling...but no way to prove it!!! I guess I will just have to hunt for more evidence.

And it just seems so weird that Jamaicans would be pronouncing "ch" in place of "sh".   A weird direction for a sound shift, no? But anyways, the burden is on me to prove it.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:44 PM

Re: "chant" vs. "chaunt."

The OED is sketchier on this than I'd like, but it appears that "chaunt" was simply a variant spelling of "chant" that arose in the 18th Century for no particular reason and faded away in the 19th.

Possibly the spelling was to emphasize the "ah" or even slightly "aw" quality of the vowel in cultured English; the alternative "aa" vowel (if you see what I'm saying), which is and was the usual thing in some parts of England and all of America, may have been thought low class by some.

As for the Gibb's creole "chaun" meaning "shan't," it suggests to me that in that part of the world "sh" was often pronounced "ch" rather than the other way round. The "other way round" is what we're looking for.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM

The single-pull work-songs are a bit harder to sort.

There are the short pieces that have customarily been considered as formally too primitive to be chanties -- that is, so far as chanties as we have become accustomed to them are more developed and song-like. But I think that distinction (more or less primitive) is a difficult one to maintain; one is better off just describing the thing as it is.

Hugill appears to lump together under "sing outs" at least two different sorts of action. One is constant, such as when hauling in the slack of a rope, hand over hand, quickly and without any particular need of coordination. Let's disregard that.

The other is a song to coordinate a concerted effort. The bulk of that category consists of chants for "sweating up" / "swigging down" (same thing), which is that practice of throwing the weight of ones body down to get the last few inches of tightness on a line. Such a chant was also used for stiff jerks on tacks/sheets. I have a general understanding of these things, but I'm no pro, nor have I done them myself.

I've created a thread that has attempted samples of just about every documented chant of this type -- so far as Hugill compiled most of them in his SfSS.

sing-outs thread

As the discussion goes there, too, it is dicey business to try to distinguish these from some other songs that have been given the honor (i.e. in collectors' books) as fully-fledged shanties.

Description: The sweating-up chants have short phrases, at the end of which is a refrain. Sometimes --notably-- the chorus joins in only on the last word or two. Most importantly, the moment of action usually occurs at the very end.

I want to use that as a baseline, then, and see how short-hauls that have been called "shanties" are similar or different.

I think "Johnny Bowker" absolutely belongs to the sweating-up category (also used for sheets). One could speculate reasons why it has been handed down as a "major" chantey rather than as a "minor" work chant, but I won't.

"Paddy Doyle" is just like any sweating-up form, it just so happens that it got linked, somehow, to the bunting task. Custom, I suppose.

For tacks/sheets are the following.
"Boney" - could also be for halyards if the pulls are timed differently. Indeed, because of its two often rhyming phrases, it can morph into the classic form.
"Haul Away, Joe" - The only thing that distinguishes this and the following from other sweating up forms, I think, is that the end refrain is a bit longer and the melodies a bit curvier.
"Haul The Bowline"

I don't think "Grog Time of Day" or "Do(odle) Let Me Go" belong to these categories. "Grog" was for rowing, "Doodle" was cited as capstan, and FWIW I think, based on form, that both could work for 2-pulls. In any case, I don't think they belong here.

The next few are HALYARD chanties that have one pull. They have the form of the "classic" halyard chanties, it's just that they are described as having only one pull.   The pull did NOT come at the end, as it would in a sweating up chant or sheet chanty. These are not short haul shanties! However, note the commentary:
"High O Come Roll Me Over." Thought to be originally for log-rolling. Hugill thought it should also be used for tacks/sheets. In that case, the pull would come on a different spot. If you ask me, I'd say that spot should be on "over."
"Hurrah, Sing Fare Ye Well." Just like any halyard chantey IMO, 'cept it has only one pull.
"Tommy's on the Tops'l Yard." "mainly for quick light pulls on the royal halyard" -- hence the one pull, and the probable quick tempo. In Hugill's rendering, the place of the pull varies between the first and second refrain. I am skeptical. Noted that this was also for tacks/sheets.

Although "Cheerly Man" has been put in the halyards category (Dana used it for catting anchor, though), it does not share the form of the preceding three. It really is much more like a sweating-up form, that, for whatever reason, came to be used at halyards. Hugill calls it "just faintly removed from singin' out". Perhaps because it's structure is more complex (stanzaic), it wants to go under the "full chantey" category. However, if you break down each phrase of the stanza, it's just a series of sweatin up chants.

A different form altogether is found in "Dan Dan" and "Ek Dumah." This form has a fast paced, continuous set of single-pulls. I'm not sure if I really need to say more. Just listen to it. There are a lot of pulls, meaning they were not for short jobs, i.e. they could be for longer jobs like halyards (really, I'll bet they originated as some other kind of shore-side work-song).

Sorry, but these don't really fit into a nice list!

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM

Hmmm. I seem to have run across something described as "The Revelers-Dusky Stevedore": click here for video!

Good for a break from this arduous work!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:37 PM

Gibb-

I really don't have a clue of where I saw the illustration of four stevedores working with the screw-press. No doubt one of those enumerable web searches which is now "history."

I'm surprised that there are not more images available.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:15 PM

Yeah, there's no walking involved in the cotton-screwing. Just arm action. Once a worker's bar/handle (I still can't make it out) goes beyond a certain degree of rotation, he must either 1) perform the opposite action of what he was just doing, or 2) grab the next bar that comes around. Mind you, I'm still just guessing here.

Any chance we could access the other pictures you've seen, Charley? I fully understand is they are private or in an incompatible medium; just asking.

Wouldn't it be cool, though to get one of these jackscrews set up, say, at Mystic, to give it a try? I am surprised these things aren't sitting around somewhere; perhaps they are, but with the Internet nowadays, one sometimes feels that if he can't find it there, he won't find it anywhere! Since Mobile's maritime museum was a wash when I went there, maybe a trip to Galveston is in order!

A more relevant issue to the present thread, however, is the irksome line in Nordhoff about how the pull on the screw came at the END of the refrain; I was just reminded of that whilst reading the "Maringo" thread. I don't like it, because it messes with the theory that I currently agree with (2 pulls, one on each "fire", as Charley parsed it). I must admit that, I am so content with this theory now (it seems to explain a lot), that I want to disregard Nordhoff's wording as something too imprecise. Yet still, it is there, just as much as Dana's comment.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:43 PM

The more I look at the photo of cotton screwers in Galveston, Texas, the more clear it seems that the four stevedores do not shift their relative positions as they work, and that they heave and haul in turn as the bars rotate. The space is much too cramped for much other movement. So maybe the chant works like this:

Lift him up and carry him along (repositioning),
FIRE (heave), Maringo, FIRE (haul) him away!
Lay him in the hold where he belong (repositioning),
FIRE (heave), Maringo, FIRE (haul) him away!

Every other stevedore would be heaving or hauling at any one time, then shifting operations.

We'll have to try this some time!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:56 PM

Charley, the "Hurrah, Bee-man do!" song is what I've been calling Nordhoff's "Yankee Dollar". Thanks for this morning's discussion. And Gibb, I'm processing your posts. Thanks.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM

Gibb-

If some were pushing and some were pulling on four bars of a screw jack, wouldn't they be getting in each other's way?

We used to have an apple cider press that worked on a similar principle but only required two people exerting effort on a bar that went through the axle; in that case one person pulled while the other pushed, hopefully in coordination, and they wouldn't get in each other's way. But they would switch off grips as the bar worked its way around.

I suppose the cotton screwing gangs would also have to switch grips and reposition themselves as the bars came round. Otherwise they would end up tripping or stepping over the arm that was pressing in the bale, which seems more awkward.

In the Bosun's Locker, edited by Stan Hugill, p. 202, there's a drawing he made of what he thought cotton-screwing looked like. There're only two people working this screw-press but they are definitely "heaving" rather than "hauling."

Hugill, p. 203, also quotes Nordhoff as mentioning several screwing "chants" such as "Old Stormy," "Bonnie Laddie Hieland Laddie," and one other which I'm not sure we've mentioned:

Hurrah, Bee-man do!
Oh, we work for a Yankee dollar,
Hurrah, see-man do!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:38 AM

Here is the exchange between me and Charley trying to sort out the screwing business. Charley's photo link is the last post.

LINK

It looks like the "wheel" is positioned as the wheel of a ship (am I seeing correctly), and that there are bars/spokes/handles protruding just the same. And it looks like they'd be turning towards the right side of the photo, i.e. the right-most man would be pulling towards himself, while the left-most man would have to sort of push. But honestly, I really can't tell; there is imagination involved. And what on earth is the guy at fore (back towards the photo) doing?

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:22 AM

Thanks, Charley. Good Morning!

To clarify, I am in total agreement that the cotton screwing songs were modeled on two coordinated exertions, and that is what I think may have transfered over to halyards work. Formally speaking, it would not matter whether those exertions were pushes or pulls.

However, I am intrigued by your statement that the screwing action used pushes. I know we have discussed this before (you and I specifically). And somewhere I remember seeing references to both pushes and pulls. Then there was one great photo you found, linked, and I believe another that you were unable to share. In the one that I saw, although I hoped it would clear up the action, I still did not get an exact sense. From it, I had tentatively concluded that the work might involve pushing AND pulling (more like twisting), depending on where a man was standing. If you imagine turning a doorknob with your right hand, it is as if your 4 fingers are pulling while the thumb is pushing (?) I may be totally wrong, but I got stuck there!

I don't mean to make you drag up all the old references and posts, but if you've got a way to show that it was probably a pushing action, I'd be grateful to see it.

Gibb

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:52 AM

Excellent analysis!

I've also been wondering about the stevedore "screw-press" work songs, which I believe are also modeled on two coordinated exertions, but pushes rather than pulls. The screw-press gang was generally a four-person team, plus a song-leader/coordinator, and each member would be pushing on one of the arms of the press as follows:

Lift him up and carry him along (repositioning),
FIRE, Maringo, FIRE him away!
Lay him in the hold where he belong (repositioning),
FIRE, Maringo, FIRE him away!

I imagine that the "chaunt" was only raised when the pushing began to get more arduous and there was a need for repositioning, probably similar to work with the capstan where the shanty was changed (or at least modified in tempo) as the ship drew close to where the anchor was embedded and more effort was needed to break it out and haul it aboard.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM

Thanks, John.

The stamp'n'go-s form a funny group. First, "Johnny Come Along" seems unlikely as a stamp 'n' go. Apparently it was ascribed that task in German ships. One could argue that any song with a steady beat and a bright tempo could work, still I think this one is really ill-matched, and more trouble than it's worth. Here's a thread attempting to get at the origins (and my rendition of the chantey form, at the end).

Recall that my categories will by form, which relates to job function but which doesn't correspond exactly. "Hieland Laddie" I've already put into the category of call/response/call/response (Lighter's "stanzaic," or if you will, "classic" chantey form as our discourse is beginning to refer to it). Without the "mock chorus" (my term), it has the form of a typical halyard chantey (and has been ascribed as such), and with that chorus it is suitable for capstan and stamp 'n' go. The related "Donkey Riding" was another possible stamp'n'go. Just WHY these may have been specifically ascribed as such is unclear. Their form, I argue, does not really suit them better to the task than, say, "Marching to Pretoria." I think it was probably more a matter of happenstance that certain songs got linked to that task. Also consider that that task may very well have been circumscribed by constraints like time period and crew size. As I've been discussing, my understanding is that the practice of stamp'n' go preceded (chronologically) the 2-pull halyard maneuver. It did not die out (as evidenced by the German "Johnny Come Along"), but it was more suitable for large vessels with lots of space and for large crews. (Incidentally, I got to do a stamp'n'go a few times last summer at Mystic, but it was on a small schooner, and it felt kind of silly, tripping and running about. ) And, it seems to have been used in later times at braces rather than halyards.

If there were anything about the form of "Donkey Riding" to specifically connect it to stamp'n'go, I'd guess the pattern of three phrases, followed by the long chorus. This is just reaching; I only say it because "Drunken Sailor" also has three phrases. It may just be that the actual lyrics "Way hay, and away we go," inspired the action. But again, I tend to think it was probably just an association that formed. So "Hieland Laddie" is in the "classic" form (Donkey Riding is an adaptation of that).

I just don't think these stamp'n'go-s cohere into any formal category. "Rise me Up" evokes "Drunken Sailor" with its "rise him/her/me up." It's repetition also bears similarity, and that may be a stamp'n'g feature. The same could be said for the repetition in "John Dameray." But the forms are consistent.

Two consistent forms are those of "Drunken Sailor" and "Roll the old Chariot" (to be added to the list). Their form is that of a phrase sung solo, then 2 repetitions of that in chorus, followed by a full chorus. There is no rhyme, no "stanza." It is quite a different beast, I think, from the "classic" chanties. "Drunken Sailor" appears to hail from the earlier navy days, when stamp'n' go was the thing, and when it was actually more often carried out to drumming and fifing (?). [I am trying to bring a lot of things together here, so forgive me for not fact-checking every statement!]

FWIW, other chanties have the form of three phrases repeated at the start. However, I wouldn't say that is specific to chantey repertoire. (My personal, pet name for these is "boring chanties"!) An example is "The Arabella." They generate lots of time-pass, with minimal textual variation or creativity. And I think these could be filed into a category that might reveal a common "origin" (e.g. European, or military songs, or something).

So I am not willing to create any major category out of the scanty stamp'n'go material. Dana may have used them. Howevr, his comment of "a chorus at the end of each line" does not appear to describe the forms of stamp'n'go chanties that are available.

On to short drags a bit later.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:07 AM

Chaun fine my deary hunney, here are the rest of the chanties on my original list, which include "stamp 'n go", "hand over hand", and "short haul", along with Mr. Doyle's boots.

"Drunken Sailor" [stamp 'n go/hand over hand]
"Hieland Laddie" c [stamp 'n go]
"John Dameray" / "Johnny Come Down The Backstay" [stamp 'n go]
"Johnny, Come Along" [stamp 'n go]
"Rise Me Up from Down Below" [stamp 'n go]

"Boney" / "John Francois" [short haul & halyards]
"Haul Away, Joe" [short haul]
"Haul The Bowline" [short haul]
"Johnny Boker" [short haul]

"Paddy Doyle"

And a growing list of possible "one pull" chanties, which are like "short haul" chanties, but used for a "long haul" job, and very labor intensive:

"Cheerily Men"
       "Little Sally Racket" / "Haul 'er Away" / "Nancy FaNana"
['Hill and Gully Rider"]
"Grog Time of Day"
"Do(oldle) Let Me Go"
"Johnny Bowker" (same as above)

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:44 AM

adding to my last post...

I don't know about the "usual" pronunciation of "chaunt." I have seen reference in a music book to its pronunciation "/shän/"-- French inspired, I take it. That was a book in reference to Western art music. I don't know how it was pronounced as general slang.

What I mean is, I don't know if this Jamaican pronunciation ("chaun fine") represented something distinct, or if that was the general way of pronouncing it in other Englishes.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:35 AM

I wonder also how the word "chant" might have been pronounced in various Afro-Caribbean (or "Afro New Orleans") dialects. If it customarily came out as "shant," that would be one mystery solved. Far-fetched perhaps, but worth looking into.

Abrahams (DEEP THE WATER) cites a useful reference. It comes from the WEST INDIA SKETCHBOOK by Trelawny. Abrahams (probably acccidentally) cites vol. 1, but I find the reference in vol. 2, which has a publication date of 1834. Trelawny is describing a plantation scene of slaves at harvest time. He gives a song, with music notation. It is not 100% clear, but it seems like the song is accompanying light work. That is, although he casts the scene as one of joy and celebration, I'm sure work was also going on...though that does that mean this was necessarily a work-song.

In any case, the point of the citation is to show the use of the phrase "Chaun fine." Abrahams believes this was the author's way of spelling "shant fine," which he appears to claim (pg. 14) was still a phrase in use by his informants.

Indeed, I'd have read "chaun" to suggest the same pronunciation (i.e. like the name "Sean"). Cf. also my wondering, above, about the term "chaunt" for African American genres, though it appears "chaunt" had much wider usage for "song" (though perhaps with certain connotations) in the early 19th century.

Here is the passage from Trelawny:

Chaun fine

Elsewhere in the book, I see that Trelawny uses the phonetic spelling of "chaun" for dialect pronunciation of "shan't". "...aw chaun wary no mo" (pg. 16), i.e. "I shan't worry no more." It seems pretty clear to me what he was trying to convey, then, in his "chaun fine" -- a word that sounds like "shan't," but which obviously had a different meaning (i.e. it is a verb, in the imperative form).

In volume 1 of the book, "chaun" is also used to render "shan't" (pg. 307).

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 10:03 PM

Gibb, our messages crossed. "Johnny Booker" indeed shows that formal simplicity is independent of chronology.

Pointless to speculate, but the "framework," without the name "Johnny Booker," might still be older than the minstrel song.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM

A one-line, one-line chorus, one-pull shanty is *formally* more primitive than a "stanzaic" shanty with two solos and two choruses. But that doesn't mean that the "more primitive" shanties really arose before the others. Though one "feels" that the one-pull form came first, simple and elaborate forms may both have arisen simultaneously. There's no way to be sure.

However, Gibb may be on to something very important in the idea that two-pull shanties are more effective and require more discipline. If the packet ships of, say, the 1820s really did require more work from smaller crews, that would be a possible cause for not just more shantying but for the use of more formally complex shanties.

A new way of doing things would help explain why there are no clear shanty references in the period before Dana. A decade earlier, let's say, any shanties that were "sung" might have been so improvisational, lyrically inconsequential, and relatively tuneless that few writers would have cared about them.

Isn't there supposed to have been a boom in transatlantic or Caribbean shipping around 1825, that might have encouraged shanty development further? If so, it might finally be possible to answer the question, "Where are the 18th Century shanties?" with more than just guess work.

Except for something as primitive as "Paddy Doyle's Boots," there may not have been any. (Or have I said this already?)

I wonder also how the word "chant" might have been pronounced in various Afro-Caribbean (or "Afro New Orleans") dialects. If it customarily came out as "shant," that would be one mystery solved. Far-fetched perhaps, but worth looking into.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 09:25 PM

"Johnny Bowker" is a good example of a short drag that must have come later, it being from a minstrel song.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:58 PM

I'm down with the regulation solo line thing, too.

To elaborate on Lighter's "My Son of David" example (hopefully not distorting it):

Yes, looking back we might think we had a different/distinct shanty if we were to keep a rigid textual analysis. However, with the "framework" definition, it would just be a possible variation. From the text evidence, we only get a snapshot of a specific variant that occurred at one place/time. If the "shanty" as a concept/framework were some big blob, then the recorded instance is like taking a cross-section of that, a thin slice to be laid down upon a slide.

John,

Are you saying that a one-pull response is perhaps more basic/earlier in form than a two-pull response, and that a one line call with one line response is perhaps an earlier form than call/response/call/response?

Yes, earlier. I have been arguing that it predates the term "chant(y)," while suggesting that most of the songs associated with the term are the 2-pull form. And I am also suggesting (or at least subscribing to some ideas of others) that the 2-pull form, chant/y, spelled a very specific mode of *working* that might not have existed before that time period. It was a more disciplined and well-paced (arguably) style of work. It may have originated out of the absolute necessity of small crews handling heavy yards. Earlier, large crews could walk away with the halyard, or, pull hand-over-hand or maybe even pull willy-nilly! I hoisted the boom on a schooner (much lighter than yards on a square-sail) once out on the ocean and even with a small group, since they raised no chantey or even a 1-2-3-pull!, we just pulled willy-nilly. Heavy yards, by contrast, would require some sort of discipline if the crew was small. That discipline, in earlier times, may have been provided by the one-pull songs (re: Dana). However, my feeling from some experience having done that (mind you, not much) is that those one-pulls are not nearly as effective as the 2-pull form.

Backtracking... it may have been the work, in the new packet ships, that necessitated the 2-pulls. Yet it may also have been that the 2-pull style was in use in cotton-screwing, and it was adopted simply by custom, after which it was seen to work better. The 2-pull style does seem to have replaced the 1-pull at halyards (if the latter ever was very common to begin with).

What is the difference between a one line call/one line response, with a single pull, and what is usually called a "short haul chanty"? I know this is elemental, but I barely know one end of a rope from the other.

They are the same, so to speak. That is, the short haul chanties have 1 pull, whereas it is possible (in a few cases) for a long haul maneuver to also use a chantey with only one pull (examples of such chanties are in one of my subcategories, above). In the latter case, the chanty would go quicker. For the short haul chanty, think of fewer total pulls needed for the job, and stronger bursts of force. In general (though not necessarilly), each pull on the short haul doesn't take as much rope, so it is jerkier. Whereas the long haul pull gains more distance and is smoother.

short haul = power, for short job
long haul = stamina and pacing, for long job (cf. turning cotton jackscrews)

The short haul songs shade off into the very elemental cries of "sing-outs" "sweatin' up chants," etc.

And, if a chanty conforms to single call/single response, with single pull form, then it may be a candidate for an earlier time frame, even if we can't find a proof text to document it. Again, if I am understanding this correctly, it makes sense to me. I'm looking forward to some more examples.

Perhaps. Though it is not to say that many single-pulls could not have been made up later, too. For instance, I am fond of the idea that "Haul Away Joe" might have been cut from the same Big Blob as the minstrel song "Jim Along Josie." Perhaps not, but as there never ceased to be a need for short drags -- probably the most common task -- then we can't close the door on them.

As for examples, when I was earlier sorting your list into categories, I never got to a short drag category. Perhaps if you'd like to throw some potential titles up, we could mess with them. ;)

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:12 PM

I concur with Gibb that a shanty is well defined as a "framework," i.e. a melody and a solo/chorus pattern. I'm strongly tempted to add to that at least one "regulation" solo line to confirm the song's identity, but I won't insist that it's necessary - yet.

To take an imaginary counterexample: if a shantyman began singing the words of the ballad "My Son David" in the framework of "Highland Laddie," with no overlapping filler verses, I think we'd still say it was a different shanty on the basis of the lyrics.

I thought of "My Son David" because the tune Jeannie Robertson used in the renditions that made her famous really does resemble "Highland Laddie"!

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM

Gibb, my "careful methodology" is based on a wide-open imagination. Feel free to add away. I think that it is just fine to have several things going on at once here. I am using your "notion of a "chanty" as a "framework" rather than a "piece," as my baseline. I think juxtaposition generates creativity.

I want to be clear about what you and Lighter are suggesting. Are you saying that a one-pull response is perhaps more basic/earlier in form than a two-pull response, and that a one line call with one line response is perhaps an earlier form than call/response/call/response? What is the difference between a one line call/one line response, with a single pull, and what is usually called a "short haul chanty"? I know this is elemental, but I barely know one end of a rope from the other.

And, if a chanty conforms to single call/single response, with single pull form, then it may be a candidate for an earlier time frame, even if we can't find a proof text to document it. Again, if I am understanding this correctly, it makes sense to me. I'm looking forward to some more examples.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 05:37 PM

This is jumping the gun -- and maybe destroys John's careful methodology -- but in this exercise of "historical imagination," I'd like to eventually add other possible chanties that are very similar to the ones determined. My rationale would be that, as per my notion of a "chanty" as a "framework" rather than a "piece," other chanties of very similar framework (and within historical reason, textually) could be re-considered. An example would be "Grog Time of Day" suggesting that "Do(odle) Let Me Go" may have also existed. They have the exact same form, I think, and if the language of the latter does not bar it from the time period, then OK. There will be no proof that "Do Let Me Go" was existing, however, for imagination's sake, one might include it.

Gibb

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

Lighter,

Also, I don't recall if anyone has commented on Dana's remark that his "songs for capstan and falls" have "a chorus at the end of each line." It would be unrealistic to assume that he meant that was true in all cases, but I think we can assume that he meant it was most usually the case. That suggests to me a rather primitive shanty style, with one improvised line and a short repeating chorus (like "Haul Away, Joe!" or "Haul on the Bowline!"), rather than the more elaborate four-line rhyming stanza that we think of as the "classic" shanty form. "Round the Corner, Sally!" fits the earlier form. If that's what Dana meant, and the more elaborate form was still rare, it's a further suggestion that shantying was still in a formative stage in 1835.

That is was I was also expressing in my 01 Mar 10 - 06:07 PM post. Glad to see it's not just me who gets that sense from the description.

However, I am not sure about "Round the Corner." As it is known now, it is in fact in the "classic" shanty form as I see it. I am open to the idea, however, that it may have been performed differently in those times (e.g. with just one pull, on "SALly"). One could see it fit into either style. Too bad we don't have any lyrics to give more clues.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM

Q, there was some back and forth between this thread and the "Lost Shanties" thread earlier on. I had raised the question about these three chanties on Hugill's list of Dana's chanties because I could not find them. Apparently no one else could either. And now we know they weren't in either the original manuscript or the 1840 first edition - according to Kemble's edition.   Here are two earlier posts:

thread.cfm?threadid=126347&messages=316#2815482

thread.cfm?threadid=126347&messages=316#2816121

Unless somebody "finds" them somewhere in Dana I will continue to set them, or at least "Cheer Up, Sam" and "Roll the Old Chariot" aside until later.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:40 PM

"Neptune's Raging Fury" aka "The Gallant Seaman's Suffering" is certainly not a shanty but was reprinted in SEA SONGS AND BALLADS, edited by Christopher Stone, published by Oxford at the Clarendon Press, © 1906, pp. 22-25.

The most interesting sea song in this book has to be one titled "Earliest Sea Song" which does have some pulley/hauley lines such as "Hale in the wartack!", "Hale the bowelyne!" and "Y how! Taylia! The remenaunt cryen, And pull with all theyr myght." This level of archaic nautical talk is even a little much for me to fathom.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM

I would guess that Dana knew the poem, Neptune's Raging Fury, since it has gone through many printings between the 1600s and c. 1840, was known to Pepys and appeared in collections of the Roxburghe Ballads (online, google books).
It apparently started life as "Countriemen of England" and is known by 1635.
None of that, of course, gives any indication of it evolving into a chantey.
The other two also would have been known to Dana as songs but perhaps not as chanteys.

This is probably repetition of previous posts, but there is now a lot to read through.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:24 PM

The three additional shanties are not mentioned, so far as I can tell.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:13 PM

Good work, Lighter! Are we to take Kemble's edition as the "authoritative edition"? If so, it gives us "Round the Corner, Sally" as an early chanty with multiple attestations. And it gives another significant early attestation for "Grog Time of Day". It would seem to remove "Cheerily Men" from Dana's "list". However, Dana does mention "Cheerily Men" in actual use in at least four other places (in the 1911 edition from Google), on p. 118 to cat the anchor, on page 197 to bring the anchor to the head, on page 301 to bring the topsails to the masthead, and on page 316 at the halyards.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NM4PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA118&dq=%22Cheerily+Men%22&lr=&cd=13#v=onepage&q=%22Cheerily%20Men%22&f=false

So some version of "Cheerily Men" was being used whether or not Dana included it in the famous "list". I don't know what to do about the other two chanties that have all of a sudden disappeared. As I recall the earlier discussions, there were suggestions for what "Dandy ship and a dandy crew" and "Tally high ho!" might be in the later literature, but nothing really conclusive on either one of them.

The more troubling question though is why would Dana make these changes in this paragraph. It seems like he lost control of his first edition in 1840 to the publishers and later regained his copyright and "revised" the book for the 1869 edition thirty years later. Which is the "correct" version? Presumably the "original manuscript". It seems a strange place for the publishers to edit something. Were they prohibitionists?

Still no sign of Hugill's mysterious additions though. I wonder if they might be referred to somewhere else in the Kemble edition? It was published in 1964, after Hugill's book in 1961, so it would seem doubtful that he had seen it. Perhaps he had an original 1840 first edition, or his sources did. Lighter, can you do a quick run-through to see if "Roll the Old Chariot", "Cheer Up, Sam", and "Neptune's Raging Fury" are mentioned?

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 03:24 PM

Just got it back from the shop.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

Lighter-

I see that your time machine is in full operation again!

John-

"Napoleon Bonaparte Chisholm" of Woodridge,

Check!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:05 PM

I have good but somewhat peculiar news. First of all, Gale's quotation is quite accurate. Second, Dana wrote at least three different versions of the same paragraph, each one different, for no obvious reason.

The version that includes "Cheerly men," "Dandy ship and a dandy crew" and "Tally high ho!" comes from Dana's 1869 revision of his 1840 publication. That's a nearly thirty-year difference. Those three titles do not appear in the earlier versions of the paragraph.
The 1869 edition is the one usually reprinted.

Gale cites instead the edition published by John H. Kemble in 1969, which combines the wording of the 1840 first edition with that of Dana's original manuscript. Kemble restores material that had been edited out, presumably by Dana's publisher. According to Kemble, Dana's manuscript paragraph includes the title "Grog Time a Day," just as Gale quotes it. Also significant is that Dana originally wrote "Round the corner, Sally!" rather than just "Round the corner." That makes it more certain that the shanty with the fuller, familiar title is the one he heard.

Also, I don't recall if anyone has commented on Dana's remark that his "songs for capstan and falls" have "a chorus at the end of each line." It would be unrealistic to assume that he meant that was true in all cases, but I think we can assume that he meant it was most usually the case. That suggests to me a rather primitive shanty style, with one improvised line and a short repeating chorus (like "Haul Away, Joe!" or "Haul on the Bowline!"), rather than the more elaborate four-line rhyming stanza that we think of as the "classic" shanty form. "Round the Corner, Sally!" fits the earlier form. If that's what Dana meant, and the more elaborate form was still rare, it's a further suggestion that shantying was still in a formative stage in 1835.

Subject: RE: From SF to Sydney - 1853 Shanties Sung?
From: John Minear
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:43 PM

I should have added that this is in the opposite direction from Charlottesville from Brown's Cove, which is where Paul Clayton lived for a while. Woodridge is in the direction of the James River and Brown's Cove is at the base of the Blue Ridge.