What defines a traditional song?

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM

As noted previously, about 35 years ago I documented an area and its people photographically and with personal notes, that was about to disappear. I have never exhibited the images and they never will be shown until I'm dead - hopefully decades from now - because I disagree with the photographer or archivist achieving fame or notoriety on the back of images and words of regular people. I had an opportunity, I did it, the images exist. If they go into public record rather than a gallery with all the baggage that carries it will be a job well done. I don't believe I should be viewed as the 'image carrier'. I had a camera and a note book and thought no-one else would do it. Apart from that it was all them.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:58 PM

Academic study? Hobbyism? What's wrong with 'anon' for a compiler of anon?

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:49 PM

How would you suggest they got to us?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:45 PM

"It takes a special kind of begrudgery to benefit from the work of collectors by taking and singing the songs they have passed on to us, refusing to recognise their role, then boast about it."

A long post to get to your point JC. The songs existed, it takes a special kind of conceit to believe they'd have died without the collector. Perhaps the community had no further use for them? It's a similar position to Columbus discovering America and not telling a few million natives about it first. Anon became the new authorship with the collector centre stage.
Your opening salvo was nearer the truth "They have no role in the 'folk process'...". At least it would have been if there was a folk process.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:37 PM

"their own, family members',"
Should read .....their own, family members songs and those of friends and neighbours...
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:31 PM

"Not if you don't recognise the role of the collector and their view of themselves in the 'folk process'."
They have no role in the 'folk process' - they are reporters not participants.
Saying which, there is no traditional song sung in the revival that has not been collected and passed on to us.
Some of our field singers; Walter Pardon, Stan Hugill, Duncan Williamson, William Mathieson, John Strachan... were collectors in their own right and conciously set out to 'collect' songs from their own community, yet it was collectors who recorded their collections from them and gave them to us revivalists.
Walter Pardon wrote down his family's songs and either remembered the tunes himself or got them from surviving members of his family, preserving them by playing them on his melodeon. We are indepted to Walter's nephew, Roger Dixon, who persuaded him to put them on a tape, which was passed to Peter Ballamy and first recorded systematically by Bill Leader.
Stan Hugill assembled a collection of songs from his fellow seamen and gave them to Seamus Ennis during the BBC's 'mopping up' campaign in the fifties.
Duncan Williamson gathered stories and ballads from members of the Scots Travelling community and was partially recorded by School of Scottish Studies, Peter Hall and others. Eventually his massive repertoire (particularly of stories) was systematically recorded by American researcher Linda (can't remember her family name, but she eventually became the second Mrs Williamson).
William Mathieson collected songs and stories from friends and neighbours in Ellon, Aberdeenshire and was the first singer to be recorded for the School of Scottish Studies by Hamish Henderson.
John Strachan learned songs from his family and from farm servants on his family farm and sang them to Alan Lomax in 1951.
It was common practice for traditional singers to write down their own, family members', and friends and neighbors in exercise books. A number of these were archived by collectors and researchers such as Tom Munnelly and Peter Cook.
And the beat goes on....!
It takes a special kind of begrudgery to benefit from the work of collectors by taking and singing the songs they have passed on to us, refusing to recognise their role, then boast about it.
Well done - keep it coming.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:14 PM

Perhaps what we need are several different definitions to be applied in these different spheres.

Definitely - a "one size fits all" definition is never going to work, unless it's defined at such a high level of abstraction that it's unusable. But then, single definitions are almost always chimerical - define "pop song"!

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Surreysinger
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 04:25 PM

Hi Brian ..... sorry, on re-reading all that, I think the tone of what I said earlier may have been wrong. "Pronouncements" is a somewhat more portentous term than that which I intended, and the phrase wasn't intended to apply specifically to anything you personaly had had to say (certainly not the "grand" bit!), although I obviously then went on to comment on something that you individually had said.Memo to self, never start something like that while sitting on box office desk, in a quiet moment. The quiet moments don't last forever, and then thought processes get disturbed when people are desperately trying to book tickets for something that Little Shelly, offspring of the family, is about to perform in ... :-)

Hmm, superior knowledge - I wouldn't want to claim that.... my comments were prompted by one or two instances which came to mind in comparison with what you had to say (having mugged some of that up to give a talk earlier in the week, it came readily to mind!). I found your other comments re the various singers really interesting reading - thanks for the time and trouble of looking that all up! And your points are well taken, as is your comment regarding relevance. On the whole I think I probably do tend to agree with you regarding that point up to a degree, but I must admit that I achieved a well needed laugh regarding your "occasionally descending into dry, angels-on-a-pinhead arguments" .

I recall as a geographer being told that there were the Heinz 57 varieties of definitions of what geography was. No doubt there still are.I never felt able to authoritatively tell somebody who asked the question exactly what my academic subject of choice was about, since, again, the definition depended to a large degree on the interests and pursuits of the person making it (Marxist Geography, Women's Geography, Behavioural Geography .... they all had their own little cliques and ideas - even the Alice in Wonderland definition of geography, as a list of place names!!!). At the end of the day, I think most of us accepted that there was no overall "right" one.This even more rareified academic alcove of ours is obviously in much the same position?

I'm still watching with interest to see where this all goes to !! Looking forward to bumping into you again before too long. Regards, Irene

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 04:23 PM

Not if you don't recognise the role of the collector and their view of themselves in the 'folk process'.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 04:01 PM

SO'P
That's the one included in the Picture Post article on him I think (up in the loft so can't check at the moment).
"youtube and its clones"
All of which came through the hands of some collector or other - still makes him/her an accomplice after the fact.
Brian;
A family story of (I think) Sarah Anne O'Neill who was asked by a member of her family who was going to Scotland "Can I bring you anything back?" replied "Bring us back a ballad".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 03:37 PM

This One

100.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM

"English singers"...... "Phil Tanner"

English language anyway. The other day my mother-in-law gave me a ITV book Britain's Favourite Views - A Visual Celebration of the British Landscape the chief delight if which is a full page picture of Mr Tanner in full voice. Definitely one of my favourite views!

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM

"English singers"...... "Phil Tanner"

OOOPS!!

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 02:45 PM

Not at all JC. He'll learn his songs in the public domain of youtube and its clones. The great leveller that will turn all music into the music of the people eventually.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 02:44 PM

Surreysinger wrote:
"Some pronouncements sound grand and promising, but are nevertheless mildly flawed - even from those who are very knowledgeable. For instance, Brian said...
'in terms of the old songs, the accounts of the singers themselves tell us over and over again that songs were learned from mothers, fathers, uncles and aunts.'
However, the likes of Henry Burstow and George Grantham made it quite clear that they learned songs from co-workers and other pub singers. Burstow recorded that he learned his songs from fellow cobblers, bellringers and singers AS WELL AS a substantial number from his father and mother."

Hello Irene. I try not to make 'pronouncements' on here, let alone grand ones. I put out my opinions and impressions, and people are free to contradict or correct them. In the case of Lucy Broadwood's work, I defer - of course - to your superior knowledge, and am interested to hear of your findings. What follows is not an attempt to score points, but to get my own thoughts in order!

Having stated my impressions about inter-familial and trans-generational transmission, I thought I'd do a quick trawl through the 'Voice of the People' liner notes and see whether they backed up those impressions or not. For the English singers, we find that Phil Tanner learnt many of his songs from his father and grandfather (and all his brothers were singers), Walter Pardon mostly from his Uncle Billy Gee (who had them from his own father), Turp Brown from his father ("all of the old ones"), and so forth. The Copper Family story hardly needs repeating.

It's certainly true that many singers supplemented their family repertoire in later life: Fred Jordan added to his father and mother's songs material from local travellers and - later - the folk revival; Harry Cox is well-known for travelling miles to pick up songs from pub singers, but nonetheless learned 'the majority' from his father, and more from other family members; Sam Larner and Jumbo Brightwell learned songs from their fathers (and Cyril Poacher from his grandfather and great uncles), but augmented them in adulthood with songs from fellow workers or singing acquaintances.

Outside England, the story is the same for the likes of Joe Heaney, Eddie Butcher (who sang no songs from outside his family), Sara Makem, Paddy Tunney, Mary Ann Carolan, Jeannie Robertson, and Belle Stewart (brother). All learned a substantial part of their repertoire from family members of previous generations. That doesn't mean that no other sources were significant: Margaret Barry learned additional songs from records and, while Jimmy McBeath had some songs from his mother, most were learned learned in the bothies. Pop Maynard learned songs from his father, brothers, sisters and ballad sheets.

So, no, the story isn't a simple one. But it seems to me that there is hardly a single traditional singer from the 20th century who did not learn a significant part of their repertoire in their own family. Oh, and don't forget Anna Brown and her Aunts!

"As a singer I'm none too sure of the total relevance of it all anyway."

As a singer, I agree it's not necessarily relevant at all. But as someone who tends to bandy about the word 'traditional', I think it does no harm for me to consider what it actually means, even at the risk of occasionally descending into dry, angels-on-a-pinhead arguments.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

"Do we throw these out?"
We don't throw anything out Steve - we accept what we are given - it's where we pidgeonhole it is what we're discussing here.
I believe we used the 'Jolly Waggoner' when we edited the Hamer collection into 'The Leaves of Life' though there are other songs which don't fall under the 'I know it when I hear it' catergory, that we wouldn't have used and would not be happy to see lumped in with folksong at a session to any great extent.
"Jim, I know you won't accept this but 'folk' to practically everyone in the English-speaking world has a different conception"
No I don't - but I would be grateful if you would point out where your infomation came from.
I've said before and now (hopefully for the last time) our great failure has been to fail to engage with "practically everyone in the English-speaking world " or even practically anybody, therefore we rely on the definition we have.
You have not mentioned my comments on the divorce from our literature, research, archives, collections.... that would take place should we move into another language; "You'll find some folk songs in 'The Penguin Book of English Folk Songs' but for god's sake, don't call them folk songs" - come ooooonnnnnn.
Our language and information can develop, but it is too firmly entrenched in our work to be abandoned to open the doors to non-folk folk (that's what this is all about - read the threads. Will you tell Steve Roud or shall I?
"and the small mindedness..."
Not my experience Ralphie; remind me again how many times you attended and whether you actually discussed the club with anybody there.
Glueman;
A thought occurs.
"Sang a rousing selection of shanties with my three year old this very morn JC"
Are you not worried about turning your child into a potential little Fagin by encouraging him/her to partake of the proceeds of a felon - or did you get your shanties from your friendly neighbourhood shellback?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: GUEST,surreysinger at work
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 01:32 PM

Sorry - that last was me. Forgot there was no cookie on the work computer!!

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 01:32 PM

"Why can't we just accept that some words don't have hard and fast boundaries carved in stone?" (Steve Gardham)

I've just staggered through this correspondence with some amusement in places and some irritation in others, and must say that I rather agreed with Steve's earlier suggestion. There's a lot of commonsense and truth in it.

Some pronouncements sound grand and promising, but are nevertheless mildly flawed - even from those who are very knowledgeable. For instance, Brian said in response to a comment from Darowyn

"in terms of the old songs, the accounts of the singers themselves tell us over and over again that songs were learned from mothers, fathers, uncles and aunts. Although we tend to look at pub singing sessions like the ones in East Anglia as a possible opportunity for song exchange, the evidence of Bob Copper and others suggests that singing within the home and within families was where the song tradition was at its strongest."

However, the likes of Henry Burstow and George Grantham made it quite clear that they learned songs from co-workers and other pub singers. Burstow recorded that he learned his songs from fellow cobblers, bellringers and singers AS WELL AS a substantial number from his father and mother. George Grantham, a carter in Surrey that Lucy Broadwood collected from told her that he had learned most of his songs from fellow carters in Sussex. Burstow additionally stated that he learned a large number of his songs from "ballets" that he had bought from local ballad sellers. Lucy herself made the point in her talk to the Royal Musical Association in 1905 that singers "vied with each other" to learn songs with the longest number of verses.She told the story of how Burstow had hidden away to steal a song from another singer .So I'd submit that the "trans-generational exchange of songs in the family was strongest" argument does not necessarily hold good.

From the academic point of view I find the argument interesting, but it's a bit like the matter of a definition of social class. I recall as a trainee social geographer finding that there were numerous - very different- definitions of one's position in the social strata. There was no one over-riding "true" definition. This seems fairly similar to me. As a singer I'm none too sure of the total relevance of it all anyway. If I find a song which appeals to me both musically and in terms of word content/story line etc, whether it be traditional (whatever that may be deemed to be) or modern/quasi traditional, then I will want to sing it, and if possible be able to provide attribution and further information regarding the song should any audience/fellow singers wish to hear about it. But what actually matters to me is the song, not the definition. Maybe I should duck out now ??? [grins and rushes for cover]

Referring to Ralphie's comment that "I do accompany singers.
(Really rather well, actually)And, I rarely play the same tune in the same way." As one of the singers that he accompanies/has accompanied , I can vouch for that on both scores (although maybe I shouldn't boost his ego too much on the quality of accompaniment element :-) ).

"Are they the definitive versions? Who knows...indeed, who cares... Hence, depending on mood, I might come out with 100 different variants."

Very true - he does.... just as I,as the singer, will come out with different variants depending on what the song is "saying" to me, or how I am feeling about it on a particular night - it makes for an interesting collaboration where nothing is set in stone (and sometimes quite exhilerating too). The songs can be traditional (whatever definition that may be .... Some Rival has Stolen My True Love away, which we have been known to perform is, after all, a hand me down version of the broadside ballad "Love's Fierce Desire" from the 18th century)- the rendition may not be (Long Lankin to a reggae beat,anyone? I hasten to add, not normally in public performance ).

"Nobody seems to mind, particularly the tunes.
Of course there is room for collections of songs/tunes. Otherwise, how would they be saved?"

Indeedy. Some academics have suggested that one of the reasons the Folk-Song Society nearly foundered before Lucy Broadwood took over Secretaryship after Kate Lee's death in 1904 was a rather dry academic approach to folksong. I wonder if that extended to definitions of what is or is not "traditional". Very muddy waters .... I'm none to sure that these comments add anything at all apart from one or two passing comments on items that attracted the eye while wading through all the other "stuff", but I shall watch the rest of the argument with interest.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 01:08 PM

"Brian, why do we have to forget the football songs etc? Just because they are a 'living' tradition and are largely restricted to a measurable and definable community doesn't make them any less traditional or folk."

Steve, I never forget football songs. Was singing a few yesterday, as it happens. I was just exploring the effect of postulating a definition based in part on aesthetics, i.e. what a singer in the specialized world that is 'the folk scene' might choose to adopt.

"As for 'Music Hall' song there is a growing number of collectors who do not distinguish between these songs and the broadside ballads and Child ballads when collecting/publishing... Do we throw these out? Jolly Waggoner/ Jim the Carter's Lad etc?"

I wouldn't throw them out, but in general music hall songs have different and more complicated structures than songs composed one or two hundred years earlier... haven't they? You can generally apply the 'know one when I hear one' test to a music hall song, with a strong expectation of being proved right. I mentioned it only to point out the weakness of the 'sounds like a folk song' definition.

"Perhaps what we need are several different definitions to be applied in these different spheres."

I think that what's I was getting at. One definition for a folklorist, another for a CD buyer? The 'folklorist' definition is IMO much the more rigorous, but even that gets into very muddy water when considering (as you suggested) how many times the material must be passed on, or to what extent modified, in order to qualify - or what happens when traditional singers start learning songs off the radio or in their local folk club.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 11:30 AM

"I take it that there's still no response to your "I know it when I hear it" misrepresentation?"

No misrepresentation whatsoever JC. Have a look here, all folk as the title shows. Plenty more if you're still unsure. Folk

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 11:14 AM

Jim,

'It seems to me you start on extremely shaky ground in trying to separate 'folk' and 'tradition'; they are two sides to the same coin - one referring to the origins of our songs etc.; the other to the process that shaped them.'JC

If they are 2 sides to the same coin they are still separate words with different meanings to most of us; 'traditional' applies to the processes involved, 'folk' to the people who evolved them. There is therefore nothing wrong with dealing with them separately if we are looking for a working definition.

Brian, why do we have to forget the football songs etc? Just because they are a 'living' tradition and are largely restricted to a measurable and definable community doesn't make them any less traditional or folk.

I'm sorry, whilst the vast majority of what we now recognise as folk/traditional song is easily recognisable I for one could not use this as part of a definition. I can think of many excellent imitations of traditional song that patently are not traditional.

We seem to be coming at this from several different angles. Perhaps what we need are several different definitions to be applied in these different spheres.

Brian quite rightly states that songs are nowadays passed on in a different way to the old days. So we simply have 2 (or more) separate but similar traditions to define.

Jim, I know you won't accept this but 'folk' to practically everyone in the English-speaking world has a different conception (based on 'sounds-like')to the Mudcat conception. Fair enough, lots of words in the dictionary have many definitions. If we like we can attempt to put out a Mudcat definition of it, BUT I think it would be an easier and more fruitful excercise to try to gain concensus on 'traditional song' first.

As for 'Music Hall' song there is a growing number of collectors who do not distinguish between these songs and the broadside ballads and Child ballads when collecting/publishing (John Howson at Veteran, Rod Stradling at MusTrad for instance) apart from which Sharp/Broadwood let a fair few music hall songs slip into their collections unknowingly. Do we throw these out? Jolly Waggoner/ Jim the Carter's Lad etc? This is one reason why I said I don't recognise putting in time limits or origin limits on whether something is traditional or not. For me it is simply the undergoing of the oral/aural process.

To me 'My Brudda Sylvest' is a traditional song, even though I know it was written in 1908. Perhaps someone would like to tell me why it isn't a traditional song?

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Bert
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 11:04 AM

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 09:19 AM

"Sang a rousing selection of shanties with my three year old this very morn JC"
And I sang myself hoarse last night with a roomful of other enthusiasts.
I take it that there's still no response to your "I know it when I hear it" misrepresentation?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 09:04 AM

No Jim. I play tunes, but, I do accompany singers.
(Really rather well, actually)
And, I rarely play the same tune in the same way. I have a little Filofax with the first few bars of many tunes. (an Aide Memoire, you could say...my memory isn't what it was after all).
Are they the definitive versions? Who knows...indeed, who cares...
Hence, depending on mood, I might come out with 100 different variants. Nobody seems to mind, particularly the tunes.
Of course there is room for collections of songs/tunes. Otherwise, how would they be saved? But, I'm struggling to understand that they should be performed in 2010 in a particular way.
Somewhere else on the web, a recording of McColl/Seeger has been put up, and out of interest, gave it a spin.
Brought back memories of the Singers Club, and the small mindedness that happened there.
Sorry. Not for me.
Academia is a wonderful thing. Small minded pedantry is entirely another.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 08:54 AM

Sang a rousing selection of shanties with my three year old this very morn JC.
The definition is an exemplar of its type, any record shop, radio programme or music magazine will codify folk music with extraordinary accuracy to people who seek it out.
OTOH there are folk song websites that provide traditional tunes played on what sounds like a Casio keyboard. As presented, they'd meet all the 1954 criteria and yet fail in contemporary descriptors of folk music and would clear any club within ten minutes. Therefore we have to deduce that the older definition is redundant or insufficient to supplant the working one.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 08:39 AM

"sounds like folk' is the working definition shared by millions."
Which is....?
I hope you include yourself among the thieves - or don't you sing folk songs?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 08:30 AM

"I know one when I see one".

An instinctive response to codifying any music is the most reliable and genuine method. It places a sound within a matrix of mode, tonality, lyric, structure and context with extraordinary precision. Unreconstructed definitions of folk (1954) deny the reliability of such approaches as laissez faire ("the horse definition") but aural placement is highly developed even in youngsters with modest exposure to musical forms.

The debate isn't surprising as the revival blossomed in an era of romanticism and scientific taxonomy, hence the bi-polar responses to the definition here.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 08:12 AM

Steve wrote:
"There is sufficient expertise on Mudcat and some of the other ballad/trad song forums to formulate our own WORKING definition of 'traditional song'."

Wouldn't THAT be nice? However there remains the problem of who's asking the question. A modern-day folklorist looking for 'traditional songs' would undoubtedly seize on the football chants and playground rhymes often discussed here. A musician (especially one from the 'folk' movement) will be looking for songs that are old and (bearing in mind that musicians are conscious of the issue of authorship) anonymous. However, Child ballads and Sharp-era lyrical songs are rarely if ever passed on in the old way in the present day - and are thus only of historical interest to the modern folklorist - while football chants are unlikely to tickle the fancy of the musician seeking repertoire.

Daryowen wrote:
"I would dispute that it is inter-generational transmission which creates tradition."

This might be true as a matter of principle but, in terms of the old songs, the accounts of the singers themselves tell us over and over again that songs were learned from mothers, fathers, uncles and aunts. Although we tend to look at pub singing sessions like the ones in East Anglia as a possible opportunity for song exchange, the evidence of Bob Copper and others suggests that singing within the home and within families was where the song tradition was at its strongest.

Suibhne wrote:
"we have a vast body of collected material we might think of as English Language Traditional Song which can be discussed as much in terms of its structure, modality & lyrical imagery as its (possible) derivation, distribution and diversification"

This would be one way of drawing up a definition: forget the football songs etc. and keep 'traditional' for that body of old songs that were once passed on orally through generations and have a different structural make-up from more modern songs (including modern 'folk songs'). Even here, though, we've got problems. Any number of 20th century traditional singers had music hall songs in their repertoires, yet those songs are of more recent vintage, not always anonymous, and are structurally quite different from an 18th century broadside ballad. Likewise, in terms of 'lyrical imagery' there is a big difference between 'Colin and Pheobe' and 'The Elfin Knight'.

Drawing up definitions that satisfy everyone (especially when large axes are always being ground) is such a fraught process that's it's no wonder so many people resort in practice to "I know one when I see one".

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 08:08 AM

"Sounds like" can actually be an excellent place to start; tho even better can be its negative: I flatter myself, and always have, that I can tell instantaneously what DOESN'T sound like.., & that is a very good place to start.

{I remember once saying this in one of my 1970s monthly Folk Review columns, which led Leon Rosselson to denounce me in the next issue as "an instamatic electronic traditional song recognition apparatus", or something of the sort. This goes with the person who addressed me recently (January this year) on another forum thread I am a regular on with the words "MGM your pedantry is legendary". Both of them obviously meant a put-down: in both cases I welcomed the intended denunciation as a valued compliment.}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 07:37 AM

JC, 'sounds like folk' is the working definition shared by millions. Anything else is only fit for collectors and other thieves.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 07:06 AM

Thanks for that Sweeney. One for me to re-read and allow to percolate.

"Maybe a good place to start would be sorting out the mess in the DigiTrad, so we might have something worth pointing at around here too??"

Yes!

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:36 AM

If / when arrived at, how would you render such an understanding readily comprehensible to someone completely new to the area, who might lack knowledge of your points of reference?

I think it's already been arrived at, CS - we have a vast body of collected material we might think of as English Language Traditional Song which can be discussed as much in terms of its structure, modality & lyrical imagery as its (possible) derivation, distribution and diversification - whatever sort of life it once enjoyed in its natural habitat as it were. The evidence is impressive, but I think the definitions we're dealing with don't really go deep enough into the creative nature of the beast itself. Like Popular Music today songs were created by individuals steeped in a tradition of creative song making within a genre of Popular Music, however so derived. Unlike Popular Music today, the names of these song makers haven't come down to us; even on the Broadsheets we don't find claims of authorship. Now, whether the broadsheets represent an initial source or a medial literary stage has been debated at length before, but whatever the case, in an oral / aural culture (in which to hear a song casually you generally had to sing it yourself) songs will evolve as they get passed on from one singer to another, especially given the creative nature of singers.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that certain singers didn't sing the same song the same way twice (i.e. Mrs Pearl Brewer of Arkensas, who gives two notably different versions of Child #20 collected within months of each other) which is a further indication of a creative & improvisatory fluidity which, whilst being anathema to Folk Music today, seems to have been the very benchmark of Traditional Song in its natural habitat. This is in the very nature of oral / aural folklore, where the empirical essence of such lore lives and breathes in such a way that its collection and preservation, in effect, kills it stone dead like a pinned butterfly or a piece of choice taxidermy. What we are left with are specific instances, snap shots, shards and fragments upon which the various theories and definitions have been postulated, as romantically as scientifically, and at some considerable remove from the actual context of the thing. In folkloric study context is all, but the context is the very thing we don't have. Besides which, in too many cases the evidences have been falsified and tampered with by people who should have known better, standard works received in good faith by generations of Enthusiasts of Traditional Song have been shown to be as fraudulent as the Piltdown Man, leaving us a little wary of the whole thing as a result.

The creative & idiosyncratic genius of the Traditional Singers themselves is something worth looking into. Too often I fear material has been seized upon as being Traditional which should be seen as the creative property of the individual singer. Davie Stewart, for example, was recorded on various occasions remaking McGintie's Meal an' Ale (a song with a known author I might add) afresh, in much the same way that John Coltrane remade My Favourite Things afresh each time he played it. This fluidity stands in stark contrast to the way things are done by revival singers, and not without good reason. In its natural state I would argue Traditional Song was as fluid as jazz; I have even heard it suggested especially gifted singers might extemporize entire songs on the spot - freestyle folk song! Why should this surprise us? We find it in vernacular traditions the world over, from Serbian bards to Rap artists, and certain songs in the English Speaking Tradition would demand a spontaneous verse or two - and I dare say we all know of gifted individuals who can come up with such things today.

What of the song makers themselves? One might think of Tommy Armstrong (1848-1920) as case in point; his masterful compositions are evidently of a tradition, in terms of structure, narrative, imagery and language; he frequently uses Traditional melodies and they remain a cherish window into the long vanished world of the Durham Coalfield. They are the work of one eccentric idiosyncratic genius yet bare testimony to the vast tradition of popular vernacular song he was but a part of. Do we think of them as Traditional Songs? I know I do, but then again I always point to the aims of the International Council for Traditional Music (formerly the International Folk Music Council who gave us the 1954 Definition in the first place) which are: to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries. In this sense the very phrase Traditional Music is tautologous - the very nature of music is traditional and I can't think of a single music that can't be defined as folk according to the 1954 Definition simply because the folkloric remits of 1954 are very different to those of today. Popular Music continues, thrives, evolves, changes, on just about every level imaginable, yet this isn't what we mean when we say Traditional Song because here we're using Traditional largely as a noun. In it's adjective sense it becomes a whole lot wider - certainly too wide for Mudcat, or the EFDSS, or the folk scene as a whole. Certainly too wide for a proposed Mudcat Definition which can only point to the body of collected material be it in the Grieg-Duncan Collection or the Max Hunter Collection (etc.) and say those are Traditional Songs. Maybe a good place to start would be sorting out the mess in the DigiTrad, so we might have something worth pointing at around here too??

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:29 AM

Glueman;
"The same people argued that folk song was easily distinguished by listening to it"
You've had your answer to this one yesterday - you ignored it then and continue to do so.
Here it is again.
"54 and pastiche fillers OR if it sounds like folk music"
"'54 has always been one of the many guides I have occasionally borne in mind in my research work; "If it sounds like..." has been a way of choosing my clubs (as with everybody, I suspect).
I've already said that - pay attention boy!"

I've already said that - pay attention boy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:18 AM

Been thinking about your suggestion and re-read your posting and the question that springs to mind is WHY.
It seems to me you start on extremely shaky ground in trying to separate 'folk' and 'tradition'; they are two sides to the same coin - one referring to the origins of our songs etc.; the other to the process that shaped them.
You say "a song's origin is a total irrelevance to any definition."
Then where does the 'folk' bit come in? It refers precicely to the communities that made them (IMO), took them up, reshaped them, claimed them as their own and passed them on (put them through a traditional process) over and over and over again until they manifested themselves in tens, dozens, even hundreds of differing, identifyable existences. The origins of the individual songs may be irrelevant, to the singer, that is, (I believe you have spent a fair slice of your life trying to sort out individual origins), but the origins of the genre as a whole is not only relevant, but crucial, it is what they are and it is what we are and where we've been. The communities that once cherished the songs no longer do so; so we are dealing with something that is no longer in flux but is fairly solidly set (the rigor mortis set in long ago). Doesn't mean we can't go on singing the songs or making new ones in their image, but pretending that the processes are still alive and kicking is little more than putting lipstick on the corpse   
Taking folk out of the equasion is like dividing the siamese twins and giving the single heart to the one you personally prefer.
"but we are in the minority and it's about time we accepted that.)"
Where are we the minority Steve - on Mudcat, around the clubs, among the people who sort out the album shelves at Virgin Record Megastores? I suggest you take a stroll around your own book shelves, or mine, or those of Vaughan Williams Memorial Library, or The Irish Folklore Society, or The School of Scottish Studies, or The Library of Congress, or all the comparable organisations all over the world who have collected, researched, annotated, articuated and indexed (ie established clearly for the world to refer to) the definitions of 'folk' and 'tradition' we have used up to now and continue to use (I take it you own an 8 volume set of 'The Greig Duncan FOLK SONG Collection', or receive your annual FOLK MUSIC Journal......). What do "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" (sorry CS - and sisters) do to give access to our music to 'the world out there' (to borrow a phrase from those who would have us believe that there is a 54 million strong army with an alternative definition) - announce a U.D.I from our documented and researched material?
We have definitions for the terms we use which gives us an advantage over those who would de-define our music - we have a consensus; something to point to and say "there, have a look at that and see what you think". Compare that fact with Tom Bliss's list of 'definitions' or Sean Sweeney's - could you run a club, or write an article, or give a talk, or issue a CD or explain 'tradition' and 'folk' to somebody interested enough to enquire or ask to participate, using their random gatherings? - buggered if I could.
I've occasionally been accused of inventing my own definitions - often by people who have just made up their own definitions. I've never invented a definition in my life - spent nearly half a century trying to understand and to pass on anything I might have learned about them, but nope - can't think of a single one I can write my name on (wonder if anyone else can).
The irony of all this is that the existing definitions certainly need a revisit and adaptation based on what we have learned, but throwing them out to replace them with something 'convenient' is a little like knocking your house down because the pictures need straightening.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 06:02 AM

One of the first posts I made on Mudcat suggested the true test of a folk song was the sound, i.e. the words and music. I was told in no uncertain terms that was a ridiculous idea and a folk song had to conform to a checklist of criteria none of which were to do with the idiom.
The same people argued that folk song was easily distinguished by listening to it. Cake and eat it definitions are charming but tell us more about the definer than the definition. I return a few hundred posts to suggest the index of a folk song is the sound.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 10:39 PM

Steve;
"For once am in complete agreement."
Didn't realise we were that far apart in our views Steve.
More tomorrow - it's been a long St Pat's Day here, can't focus on the keyboard and my head's still spinning from a two hour music session followed by a three hour singaround
Where's me bed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 07:43 PM

Bert,
Whilst I agree with you in general, a difficult task shouldn't deter us from making the attempt.

Whilst I think everyone here would agree that to be traditional the song (and here I mean collectively all versions of the song) should have evolved in some way, normally in what we call oral tradition, the main bone of contention would seem to revolve around timescale. I for one would not want to impose any timescale, but I would go along with a general concensus.
We also need to accept the interaction with other traditions such as the print tradition. Whilst the interaction here is almost inseparable the two traditions are different (IMO)

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Bert
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:42 PM

Traditional song is very difficult to define.

But Folk Song is very easy.

Folk Song is what we do here at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:38 PM

"which is to say to understand the songs in terms of their genre & idiomatic structure rather than their derivation."

This might sound trite, but that sounds quite complicated and subtle.
If / when arrived at, how would you render such an understanding readily comprehensible to someone completely new to the area, who might lack knowledge of your points of reference? I'm tying in this with what Steve said below.. Which might not be helpful, but I have more thoughts on that which might lead the thread astray..

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM

At the bottom of the dictionary definiions you have two things: agreement (which makes a custom) and longevity. Agreement on matters like songs is purely a cultural vector.

Longevity is a function relative to the rate of change in the culture. When my family bought a house in Maine in the 1940's it was a good twenty years before locals stopped calling the Bonelli house (the previous owners) and allowed as it was the Jessup house. That's a slow rate of change from the view of urbanites who pace themselves by the daily news cycle in New York.

In a different culture, though, changing something less than 100 years old might be seen as headstrong and foolishly hasty.

To the children of the Sixties, the Carter Family's collected songs are viewed as very old and traditional Americana, even though any of them are written about railroad trains.

To a singer of Child's ballads, that sense of time may seem shallow and faddish.

To a child of the Eighties, now taking on the burdens of young adulthood, anything Bob Dylan wrote is probably seen as ancient tradition, let alone songs from World War I.

In short, there is no objective definition; it is a function of agreement about how fast changes occur and are acknowledged, a purely cultural variable.

A

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:26 PM

The rethink I propose is a musicological one - which is to say to understand the songs in terms of their genre & idiomatic structure rather than their derivation.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:19 PM

"Whilst we all have our minor differences on a definition, we actually have a lot in common.
There is sufficient expertise on Mudcat and some of the other ballad/trad song forums to formulate our own WORKING definition of 'traditional song'. Instead of bickering over minor differences let's explore what we can agree on. Obviously some of the more wacky ideas will differ but finding agreement could be very useful and helpful.
So what I'm proposing is a MUDCAT definition to help those genuinely confused by the whole affair."

Yes please!
Focusing on broad commonly recognised and supportable ground, and resigning the minor academic points to appendixes, would be a very helpful idea for assisting anyone new to this territory.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM

"So - maybe time for a rethink."

How would you propose beginning to rethink all this stuff?
I reckon it's time for box of coloured crayons and a giant sheet of paper, and an afternoon kneeling on the floor like a kid..

That's the way I used to approach essays.

Tom Bliss used concentric circles in his analogy. Diagrams can be very helpful to organise material, theories, data etc.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:10 PM

Jim,
For once am in complete agreement.
Just a suggestion.
Whilst we all have our minor differences on a definition, we actually have a lot in common.
There is sufficient expertise on Mudcat and some of the other ballad/trad song forums to formulate our own WORKING definition of 'traditional song'. Instead of bickering over minor differences let's explore what we can agree on. Obviously some of the more wacky ideas will differ but finding agreement could be very useful and helpful.
So what I'm proposing is a MUDCAT definition to help those genuinely confused by the whole affair.
(BTW I don't include 'FOLK' in this. I think we've got to accept that the word has a much wider definition than most of us would like, but we are in the minority and it's about time we accepted that.)

One thing I'm sure we could get majority concensus on right away is a song's origin is a total irrelevance to any definition. Okay that's got the ball rolling hopefully.

One other thing, a working definition doesn't necessarily have to have hard and fast boundaries to be useful.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 04:00 PM

"It is not defined by committees, or lexicographers, lawyers or even Jim Carroll."
Why oh why to people insist on reducing this to personal attacks - I didn't or don't make up my own definitions - I avail myself of the existing ones and pass them on to whoever might find them of use. If you have problems, argue with them not me.
The couple of current threads on definition have brought out the most unbelievable examples of manipulations of the languge I have ever come across - words mean what it suits them to mean.
Defensive responses such as Darryowen's really don't help.
No - dictionaries are not infallible, they are a guide to communication.
Ignore them and make it up as you go along means we all end up living in our own little bubbles and communication with nobody.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: GUEST,Abdul the Laptop on his Bul Bul
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 01:36 PM

(Sorry for the name, couldn't resist it!) (what do you mean what's Bul-Bul? See HERE...)

Anyhoo - what is a song in a Traditional Style? Does this mean they've been aged it in some way, likewise artifically evolved it and accepted it by an imaginary (virtual) community? Or does in mean something more to do with aping the Idiom of Popular Folk Song that most of us think of as being Traditional by default? In which case I think we might be onto something...

S O'P

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray)
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 01:18 PM

How old is old though? I have a pair of old sandals that I bought way back in 2008. And all songs are shaped by evolutionary process and accepted by consensus in a cultural group. This is the very nature of music! So by these criteria everything is a traditional song.

So - maybe time for a rethink. Or just getting out of the box from time to time for an overdue scamper in the fresh air.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 12:38 PM

Three things.

1. It has to be old.
2. It has to be changed through an evolutionary process.
3. It has to be accepted by consensus in a cultural group.

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Darowyn
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 10:44 AM

Traditional Jazz is therefore non traditional, since it came and went within the living memory of one generation.
Louis Armstrong was there in the early days; He was there in the 1960s revival. He was still making records up to his death, when his jazz playing was behind him and Trad Jazz was a tiny cult activity.
As I said before ,"The whole point of Folk and Tradition is that it is what people in their communities once did, or currently do.
It is not defined by committees, or lexicographers, lawyers or even Jim Carroll."
I would dispute that it is inter-generational transmission which creates tradition.
I gave three examples of traditions which have sprung up in very recent times.
Trick or Treat in the UK is another tradition which arose almost instantly and is withering away under the various concerns about paedophilia and anti social behaviour etc.
Lexicographers update definitions according to accepted usage. That is why there are news stories every year about which words have been added to the dictionary, and which have disappeared.
A dictionary is not the infallible word of God Jim.
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: What defines a traditional song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 05:47 AM

It's always seemed to me that whenever there is argument over a definition - why not go to the dictionary. That way, you not only cut down on the 'self-interest' element that seems inevitable in these discussions, but you can always blame someone else when you get it wrong.
Jim Carroll

TRADITION (tra-dish'n) n.
1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.

2. a. A mode of thought or behaviour followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a cultural custom or usage,
b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present,
c. A set of such customs followed in a particular art.

3. A body of unwritten religious precepts.

4. Any time-honoured practice or a set of such practices.

5. Law. The transfer of property to another. [Middle Enghsh tradition, a handing down, a surrender, from Old French, from Latin traditio (stem tradition-), from tradere, to hand over: trans-, over a dare, to give.]

TRADITIONAL (tra-dish'n-'l) adj.
Also tra-di-tion-ar-y (-ari || -erri).

1. Pertaining to or in accord with tradition.

2. Of or pertaining to trad jazz. -tra-di-tional-ise tr.v. —tra-di-tion-al-ly adv.