New Book: Folk Song in England

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 16 Aug 18 - 04:14 PM

Whilst these interviews with source singers are very valuable and interesting in a number of ways they can only give us a small amount of information regarding the origins and evolution of the songs. Of course differentiating between different genre types would be quite easy as it is for all of us by and large. The vast majority of Music Hall songs are easily distinguished from the ballads both in structure, musical style, even content, but a surprising number did slip through the net set up by the early collectors. The collectors also tended to include quite a lot of pieces that were obviously products of the eighteenth century theatre, though happily very few of Dibdin's got through; too well-known I suppose. I had 2 source singers who happily sang me Tom Bowling and I know people even alive today who love the song despite it being an art song of over 2 centuries ago.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Derek Schofield
Date: 16 Aug 18 - 04:21 PM

We are just about at the 12 month anniversary of the start of this thread. And of course 12 months since Steve Rouds book (remember that?) was published. Plenty of heat since then. How much light?

Derek

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 16 Aug 18 - 04:22 PM

Heat and light often go together, Derek.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 16 Aug 18 - 04:27 PM

Thanks for that reminder, Derek. I personally think this thread has been an excellent advert for the book. The content has been hotly debated and it has encouraged not a few to buy and read it. This is mainly thanks to Jim.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 16 Aug 18 - 04:42 PM

Vic

Yes, it was the discography on Mainly Norfolk. I liked the way you could click through to the full details of each disc, and then for many of the tracks to more information about each song.

Tzu

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 02:35 AM

Two posts disappeared? Moderated?

Interesting . . . . . I'll try to be more vitriolic so that I meet the criteria of the thread.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 03:12 AM

"They just know that they are not attacks. "
That's why you responded and explained - of course is it!!
The silent acquiescence to of your behavior has convinced me that Limerick is a far better resting place for Walter than anywhere in the UK
At least here traditional singers and what they had to say are respected

Your theory is based on the denigration of everything that has gone before - from Child (who can't tell the difference between art and folk poetry, right through to our last big traditional singer.
No wonder traditional song is where it is
You really should be ashamed of yourseves
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM

Thanks Steve for the comments on my "something that most people could remember and join in with".

One thing I was pondering was collection bias making it difficult to test ideas about the style of the text and the tunes.

However, I am coming to realise that the 'folk song' that is the subject of this discussion, to a large extent of the Roud's book, and the interest of collectors referred to here is only a subset of what the folk sang and what was revived in the last 50 years.

The 'argument' here is about narrative verse sung mainly by (and collected from) solo singers.

It's not about things like wassailing, the singing of local carols, work songs, chorus songs sung in the pub or the bawdy songs of the working men and women.

The disagreements here are mainly about a subset of the genre which tends to attract people's romantic sensibilities.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 07:32 AM

It's interesting that Jag says 'working men and women' since our most recent discussion of occupations which might count as 'folk' and which were too far up the social scale was mostly a list of male occupations.

For me there is a lot in what Jag says in his post of 4.38, though I think that one has to add ideology to the causes of attraction. In saying this I don't seek to denegrate left-wing beliefs, as I would situate myself on some sort of left/green position, merely to point out that these beliefs may lead to selective vision on occasion. Consciously or unconsciously.

I know Roud does provide examples of pub singing in the olden days based on contemporary accounts. I'll check the reference for this.

There was a post raising the question of group as opposed to individual singing earlier in this thread, and I had hoped that the discussion would contintue but the thread got lost in the cross fire and I could not find it.

On work songs, I was looking recently at a picture of a weaver with a broadsheet pinned to his loom. It might have been in Palmer's book of history through broadsheets. But the chap seems to have been working more or less alone.

Work songs like chanties were group affairs, but there are already several threads on these.

But generally, it is precisely because Roud does give pictures of what working people through the ages did actually listen to and sing, a full picture as opposed to a limited selective one that Jim Carroll objects to it. And he does so in tones which, for me, tend to belittle the tastes of our ancestors (but not his, as he would appear to identify as Irish).

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 08:19 AM

I was being inclusive of women and exclusive of the bourgoisie over the bawdy songs.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 08:32 AM

Hello Jag

Thanks for your comments and clarification.

Just to clarify.

I wasn't really referring to your last post, but to a conversation a bit earlier and of course I was as much thinking about occupations of men as anybody else was, so I was including myself in the comment.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 09:14 AM

"a full picture as opposed to a limited selective one that Jim Carroll objects to it."
I don't particularly want to ener into a debate with you, given your somewhat unacceptable attitude to traditional singers (despite this somewhat contradictory accusation "tend to belittle the tastes of our ancestors ") but if you are going to quote me, please do so correctly
It is not "my limited selective" definition
Up to the publication of Roud's book, it was more or less everbody's view
THere was no question of lumping together all popular songs that were sung by the people as folk songs - that is Steve Roud's "limited view, which has apparently struck a chord with those who want to believe that the folk didn't discriminate between their genres of song
The folk song revival in Britain ran for decades on a "limited view" of what was meant by the term "folk song", magazines were filled with it, record companies like Topic and Folkways issued recordings of it and we had over a centuries worth of researched literature to back up that choice

We have always had a definition, as flawed as it may have been - that definition was arrived at by an international group working in a specific field of song and music which they termed folk music
THat definition has acted as a rule of thumb right up to this year when a single researcher decided to abandon it and make up his own, apparently without consultation - that definition has been accepted by those here, apparently without being prepared to discuss it's implications
Roud hasn't adapted a definition - he has turned it on its head and lumped all popular songs together in to one incomprehensible, unworkable mass
He has made his own selection of what is a folk song - certainly ont all the songs the folk sang are in his index - how could they be?
On the other hand, why aren't they?
This is the great contradiction of Roud's definition - who decides what is a folk song and who doesn't
I don't see 'You'll Never Walk Alone' with a Roud Number - why - it has been sung widely since Liverpool fans adapted it as their anthem?
Can we look forward to 'The Birdie Song' or 'Viva Espana' being given one - again, if not, why not.
I read Bert Lloyd's book shortly after it was published and it inspired to lift the corner and look underneath - that inspiration has lasted me most of my life
Roud's book, as impressive as it is as a history of popular song, fills me with sense of deep despair and makes me glad I am no longer part of the English scene
Llod's book finished with the statement nobody appears to be prepared to face head-on

"If 'Little Boxes' and 'The Red Flag' are folk songs. we need a new term to describe 'The Outlandish Knight'. Searching for Lambs' and 'The Coal-owner and the Pitman's Wife'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 10:04 AM

Incidently
" And he does so in tones which, for me, tend to belittle the tastes of our ancestors"
The greatest belittling of our ancestors is to suggest, as you (and far too many others) do is to suggest they are not intelligent enough to distinguish one type of song from another
Since when has defining something had anything to do with "taste" - you can't like a definition into existence - a thing is what it is
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 10:55 AM

Readers of Roud's fascinating social history of the music made and enjoyed by working people will be able to judge for themselves, by reading the opening chapters, whether the way Roud's view of folk music is sometimes represented on this thread is accurate.

There they will find not just the 1954 definition that is sometimes referred to but also an account of some of the different views of what folk music is that have been forward over the years.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 11:13 AM

Which of course doesn't answer any of the quesions the book raises or solve any of the problems - the main one being that Roud's definition has no valadity until it has become generally accepted
Roud's definition is diametrically opposite to the'54 one which set out to define the unique nature of folk song - Roud removes that uniqueness.
The book is fascinating but it is not a social history of folk music
Assigning the making of the songs to the broadside presses is equivalent to assigning British Social History to the Daily Mail or The Sun
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Red Rebel
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 11:19 AM

Red Flag uses a folk tune, so why are the lyrics not a Folk Song

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 11:24 AM

Readers of Roud's fascinating social history of the music made and enjoyed by working people will be able to judge for themselves, by reading the opening chapters, whether the way Roud's definition of folk music is sometimes represented on this thread is accurate.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 12:47 PM

"Red Flag uses a folk tune, so why are the lyrics not a Folk Song"
Known author, established and unchanged text, no indications it passed into the oral tradition, has never been accepted as a 'folk song' - no more traditional than Happy Birthday to you' or 'God Save the Queen' or 'The lord's Prayer' or 23 Psalm - all sung regularly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 12:51 PM

"fascinating social history of the music made and enjoyed by working people "
I thought they were made by the broadside hacks - you need to tell Steve they were "made by the people"
You need to tell Arthur J. Lamb and Harry Von Tilzer that 'Bird in a Gilded Cage' was made by the people too - it's got a Roud number
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 01:20 PM

The people's flag is deepest pink,
It's not as red as you might think,
Those socialists, they keep their wealth,
New Labour contradicts itself.

Then raise the salmon standard high.
Under it they'll watch us die,
Though Lib Dems flinch and Tories sneer,
We'll keep the pink flag flying here.

Look round, the Welshman loves its blaze,
The American chants its praise,
In Scotland's hills its hymns are sung
And Cardiff swells the surging throng.

It waved above our cow'ring fright,
When all our hopes were bathed in light;
Though Tony kicks up quite a row,
He's better than that Thatcher cow.

It well recalls the triumphs past,
It dashed the hope of peace at last;
They can't see the wood for the trees,
They search for WMDs.

It suits today the weak and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place
To cringe before the rich man's frown,
And haul the sacred emblem down.

With heads all covered swear we all
To put it down now lest we fall;
Come dungeons dark or threat of death,
We'll hum this underneath our breath.
Jim, thought you might like the above

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 01:38 PM

Jim,
I'm so sorry but your statements are becoming more and more confused. You change tack mid-sentence, you give attributes to the 54 definition that are actually not there. The origins of the songs are TOTALLY irrelevant to whether they are folk songs or not. Please go back and read the 54 descriptors again.

As I've told you before on many occasions, when the 54 descriptors first were put out for discussion, one of the descriptors WAS that the songs had to be anonymous. That was immediately shot down in flames and quietly dropped when the final list was published.


You keep jumping from 'origins' to what is accepted as 'folk song' by the 54 descriptors. There are NO finite boundaries as with all other genres. The descriptors are there as guide lines. Any given song might comply with 2 of the descriptors and not meet one of the others. It really isn't cut and dried, but hey.....we've said all this before.... round and round and round and round...…..

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 01:44 PM

Regarding Steve's extremely useful indexes. Professor Child tried to be inclusive and as he himself stated 'included a whole lot of material that was there beyond his better judgment. (For instance many of the Child ballads show no or little evidence of ever having been in oral tradition.) Likewise, Steve's indexes are inclusive. They include all songs that exist in the anthologies he has included. Had they been exclusive he would have had to spend a lot more time making arbitrary decisions which everyone would be able to disagree with. As it is thankfully YOU are the only one complaining.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 02:46 PM

Hello Steve

Could we clarify for anybody who stumbles across this thread that 'Roud numbers' as mentioned in a post of 12.51 correspond to songs found and indexed by Roud, and that one use of the indexes is to trace 'appearances' of the song in question, whether this be in an anthology or elsewhere.

Roud's book includes references to many such songs, so interested readers can look at VWML.org for further information.

So for me it is interesting to know that the Gilded Cage song was 'col
lected' in Sheffield in 1972.

I quite enjoyed it when Roud cited some contemporary witness relating to the music made and enjoyed by ordinary people in the past and cited a Roud number, leading to the indexes for those interested.

Personally, I am trying to avoid going 'round and round', however much it supports the sales of Roud's book!

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 02:56 PM

I think we're playing quite nicely in debating the content of Steve's book and most of what is being posted is very relevant. The only exasperating part for me is when we have to keep repeating the same things over and over ad nauseam because someone has misrepresented what we have said.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 03:16 PM

"For instance many of the Child ballads show no or little evidence of ever having been in oral tradition."
Utter nonsense
THe most important repository of ballads in Britain and Ireland was the non-literate Travelling people
Burns gathered ballads, Maidment gathered ballads Buchan Gathered ballads
The Buchan controversy cebrted around what he did with the ballads he collected, now whether he wrote them
Now you're being spiteful stupid
This now becomes a vicious attempt to ednigrate the oral tradition
Next to you "all folk tales, music and dance educated sources.
And you accuse me of having an agenda

Please don't tell me I'm confused after you,ve just claimed this outrageous rubbish
Your agenda-driven shoddy scholarship becomes tiresome
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Brian Peters
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 03:40 PM

I can't keep up with this thread any more, but many thanks to Joe for putting Jim's two pieces on Walter Pardon somewhere I could download them. Fascinating and thorough - and I don't get any hint of the interviewer 'leading' the interviewee.

I've long been aware of Walter's tendency to drift slightly sharp during the course of some songs, but that doesn't make him any less wonderful a singer. I took Steve's earlier comment about the dearth of other 'source singers' around at the time WP came to our attention to mean that no-one was really expecting to find any more significant traditional singers at all by that time - let alone one this good with such a large and high-quality repertoire.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 03:51 PM

Joe?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Brian Peters
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 04:04 PM

Joe Offer, 16 Aug, 03:27 AM.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Vic Smith
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 04:07 PM

I think he may have managed it this time. It's a pity.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 04:08 PM

Sorry, Brian
I knew what Joe had done. I was simply attracting his attention to the abuse. Thank you for your kind defence. Of course I am a great admirer of Walter's music.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Brian Peters
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 04:21 PM

many of the Child ballads show no or little evidence of ever having been in oral tradition.

I wouldn't have thought this statement controversial, looking at all 305 titles and comparing those with the significant number that Bronson failed to find any tune for, or for which Child himself cited no examples from oral tradition.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 05:06 PM

Steve
> For instance many of the Child ballads show no or little evidence of ever having been in oral tradition.

Jim
>Utter nonsense

Jim, are you really claiming that all (or nearly all) the Child ballads spent some time in oral tradition? Some of them are as unsingable as a lot of the broadsides that you complain about.

I am getting increasingly frustrated by your arguing vociferously against statements that no-one has actually made and avoiding answering some very specific questions that have been asked.

We accept that Walter Pardon distinguished different sorts of songs in his repertoire, though his words that you have quoted seem to focus mainly on whether a given song was old or not so old rather than where it originated. But you have been asked to explain where some of them (whichever of them you choose) show evidence of having been written by the people whose lives they deal with, rather than by the "hacks" or whatever we call them for whom making songs was their livelihood or a substantial part of it. Can you provide that evidence?

N.B We are not disputing that ordinary people could and did write songs. What we are asking you for is evidence of who wrote the songs that were collected and that the traditional singers sang. If it's clear to you who wrote them you should be able to explain it.

While I'm about it (having been off the Mudcat for a few days):

Steve
> Walter was very different in that he was a source singer who had retained the songs from his own family and became something of a celebrity in the 60s as there weren't many source singers left who had a reasonable repertoire.

Jim
> I find this incredibly derogatory

How on earth is it derogatory to point out how unusual and important Walter Pardon was as a singer?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 09:31 PM

"Jim, are you really claiming that all (or nearly all) the Child ballads spent some time in oral tradition? "
I see no reason not to claim that a fair number of them did Richard, do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I have been putting together a file of Child ballads in Ireland and decided to look up ones that made it to America
I have in the past week found Hind Horn, Famous Flower of Serving Men, Queen Eleanor's Confession, Bailiff's Daughter of Islington, Young Hunting, THe Two Magicians and The Two Sisters, all of which were got from singers who went to Ameriica just after the Famine and who had learned them in Ireland from old people who had learned them before Child put together his collection.

Sam Larner learned Henry Martin from Henry Sutton 'OLd Larpin' as a young man at the end of the 19th century - Sutton was said to have had it from his youth - you work it out

Thomas Moran, who probably had the largest repertoire of Child Ballads in Ireland, sang his ballads for the BBC in the early 1950s - he told the collector he had learned them in his youth from an "old, old man who had never crossed a cow-track" (never left his village)

Martin Howley gave us the only version of 'Sweet William and Lady Margaret' collected in Ireland - he learned it at the turn of the century from a non-literate old travelling woman

Non-literate Travellers we have recorded all got their ballads from old people who like them, couldn't read, some of whom had learned them in the 1860s

The non literate Scots Travellers have been the greatest source of Child Ballads - all recorded around the 1950s and 60s and all said to having been passed no by parents and grandparents

It is true that some ballads were never found but when you consider that collecting was never embarked on seriously until the early 1900s when the otral traditions were in sharp decline, it is hardly surprising
Go look at the Greig collection and see how many where
I have yet to explore the Carpenter collection fully, but considering when it was made he would have been ballads learned long before Child put his collection together

Please don't put words in my mouth - I never said "nearly all" - some ballads disappeared anyway, but the majority of them survived in one form or another

THere is strong evidence of Ballads having a strong presence in a largely non-literate oral tradition as far back as you can go

I get tired of this
When Steve first made his statement it was contemptuous dismissal of the idea that the folk made folk songs "starry -eyed naivety" was the term used I think - this included the earliest referenced folk song 'The Frog and the Mouse'
When he was challenged, he hastily withdrew to 'the songs that Sharp et-al collected and said several times that he had always claimed this and that I was "misrepresenting what he said"
Now we have leapt back a couple of centuries with a claim that ballads hardly appeared in the oral tradition
It's becoming extremely difficult to follow exactly what Steve is claiming.

Lett's face it - none of us know who made the folk songs - the evidence simply doesn't exist
At no time has Seve ever been able to produce one of our standard folk songs that he can prove to have originated in print - he has admitted that
So we are faced with two alternatives
On the one hand we have a bunch of bad urban poets working under extreme pressure to satisfy an urban market - despite claims, there is little evidence of how they composed, where they got their information and why they chose the subjects they did and dealt with them in the sympathetic, knowledgeable way they did

On the other you have a section of the population, largely non-literate (recreational reading didn't kick in till the latter half of the 19th century in the towns and in the countryside, very few working people could read fluently until the 1880s (less than one third
They lived in poorly lit, cramped homes and worked extremely long hours, sso the opportunity of learning from the printed word was minimal
Ireland has proved beyond doubt that people not only could make songs by the hundreds but it became a necessity to do so in order to describe what was happening to them
Also, the oral tradition has shown that the singers were capable of taking a song and remaking it into version after version to suit their on backgrounds and circumstances
If people were able to do this, it is far moreJim, are you really claiming that all (or nearly all) the Child ballads spent some time in oral tradition? likely that they made folk songs than the hacks did.

Steve appears to object to me tne, yet I am saying far less than he and others have accused me of - a accuse him of having an agenda - he and others have accused me of just this

I have made a point of answering every one of your questions - you have responded to hardly any of mine (I don't count pointing out typos or obvious errors responses)

“I've long been aware of Walter's tendency to drift slightly sharp or lose pitch during the course of some songs”
Most unaccompanied singers rise in the course of a song, especially the long ones
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM

Sorry about the last night's late-night typos there - Vic can sort them out
As some of you know, I have been involved in a project gathering Irish versions of Child ballads taken from the oral tradition
So far, I have access to well over 100 ballads and versions, all taken from country singers - so many in fact that I an now serously considering tring to get them published as a collection
If that is not proof that they went into the oral tradition, my Jacks a kipper
Below are two I am hoping to find tunes for - one gathered on the Wexford Coast in the 1940s, the other taken down from the singing of a servant woman at a wake in Wexford about fifteen years after the end of The Famine - more evidence that the ballads made it into the oral tradition
Jim

Fair Eleanor. (Fair Annie Child 62)

“Come, comb your head, Fair Eleanor
And comb it on your knee,
And that you may look maiden-like
Till my return to thee.’

“‘Tis hard for me to look maiden-like,
When maiden I am none :
Seven fair sons I’ve borne to thee,
And the eighth lies in my womb.’

‘Seven long years were past and gone ;
Fair Eleanor thought it long.
She went up into her bower,
With her silver cane in hand.

"She looked far, she looked near,
She looked upon the strand ;
And it’s there she spied King William a-coming,
And his new bride by the hand.

“She then called up her seven sons,
By one, by two, by three;
“I wish that you were seven greyhounds,
This night to worry me! ’

“Oh, say not so our mother dear,
But put on your golden pall,
And go and throw open your wide, wide gates,
And welcome the nobles all”

“ So she threw off her gown of green ;
She put on her golden pall,
She went and threw open her wide, wide gates,
And welcomed the nobles all.

“‘Oh, welcome, lady fair” she said ;
‘You’re welcome to your own ;
And welcome be these nobles all
That come to wait on you home.’

“Oh, thankee, thankee, Fair Eleanor !
And many thanks to thee;
And if in this bower I do remain,
Great gifts I’ll bestow on thee.’

“She served them up, she served them down,
She served them all with wine,
But still she drank of the clear spring water,
To keep her colour fine.

“She served them up, she served them down,
She served them in the hall,
But still she wiped off the salt, salt tears,
As they from her did fall.

“Well bespoke the bride so gay,
As she sat in bar chair—
‘And tell to me, King William,’ she said,
‘Who is this maid so fair ?

“‘la she of your kith, ’ she said,
‘ Or is she of your kin,
Or is she your comely housekeeper
That walks both out and in 1 ’

“‘She is not of my kith,’ he said,
Nor is she of my kin ;
But she is my comely housekeeper
That walks both out and in.’

Who then was your father,’ she said,
Or who then was your mother ?
Had you any sister dear,
Or had you any brother“

“‘King Henry was my father,’ she said,
Queen Margaret was my mother,
Matilda was my sister dear,
Lord Thomas was my brother.’

'King Henry was your father,’ she said,
Queen Margaret, your mother,
I am your only sister dear,
And here’s Lord Thomas, our brother.

“'Seven lofty ships I have at sea,
All filled with beaten gold ;
Six of them I’ll leave with thee,
The seventh will bear me home.’ ”

This text was in included in Patrick Kennedy’s Banks of the Borough, (Dublin 1875), where he describes his hearing it sung at a Wake in Wexford.

“Mr. Redmond, having now a right to call, summoned Joanna, the servant maid,before mentioned, to show what she could do. Joanna, though very ready with her tongue at home, was at heart a modest girl, and fought hard to be let off. But one pro¬tested that she was a good singer, in right of a lark’s heel she had (this was not the case, Joanna had a neat foot) ; another, that she was learned to sing by note when Tench, the dancing-master made his last round through the country; another, that he heard herself and a young kid sing verse about one day when nobody was within hearing. So poor Joan, to get rid of the torment, asked what sort of song should she sing, and a dozen voices requested a love song about murder. So after looking down, with a blush¬ing face, for a while, she began with an unsteady voice, but she was soon under the influence of the subject-lay, and sung with a sweet voice one of these old English ballads, which we heard for the first time from a young woman of the Barony of Bargy, in the south.
There is one on the same subject in some collection which we cannot at this moment particularize; but the Wex¬ford vocalists never got their copy from a printed book. Joanna’s version is evidently a faulty one. It has suffered from transmission through generations of negligent vocal¬ists. It is not an easy matter to tag the subject on to any decided point in the reigns of the kings of England.
“There is one on the same subject in some collection which we cannot at this moment particularize, but the Wex¬ford vocalists never got their copy from a printed book. Joanna’s version is evidently a faulty one. It has suffered from transmission through generations of negligent vocalists. It is not an easy matter to tag the subject on to any decided point in the reigns of the kings of England.”

Captain Ward and the Rainbow (Saucy Ward) Child 287
Come all you valiant heroes, you heroes stout and bold:
I’ll tell you of a rover who all the seas controlled.
I’ll tell you of a rover who seldom did appear,
And no one such a rover met this many a day and year.

He wrote our queen a letter on the seventh of January,
To know if he’d go over Ould England for to see;
To know if he’d go over. Ould England to behold,
And for his pardon he would give five hundred tons of gold.

“Oh nay, Oh nay,” our queen replied, “sure that could never be;
To yield to such a rover with me would never agree.
Since he deceived the Queen o’Scots, likewide the Queen o’ Spain,
Oh, how could he prove true to me who proved so false to them.”

His daily occupation was to plunder on the sea,
And he met one of the Queen’s fine ships just at the break o’ day.
She was loaded with silk and satin, a cargo of great fame.
He robbed her of her wealth and store and sent her home again.

Our Queen prepared and built a ship, a ship of noble fame,—
The Rainbow did we call her, you all may know her name.
The Rainbow did we call her, and off to sea goes she,
With five hundred seamen stout and bold to be her company.

We sailed away till we sailed to the spot where Saucy Ward did lie.
“Where is the commander of your ship,” our captain he did cry.
“I’m here, I’m here,” cried Saucy Ward, “my name I’ll never deny;
If she be one of the Queen’s fine ships she’s welcome to pass me by.”

“Oh nay, Oh nay,” our captain cried, “it grieves my heart full sore,
To see our merchant ships can’t trade as they have done before.”
“Fight on, fight on!” cried Saucy Ward, “I value you not a pin,
For if you have got men aboard I’ve powder and ball within.”

At eight o’clock in the morning they began this bloody fray:
It held from that very moment until the same hour next day.
“Fight on, fight on!” cried Saucy Ward, “your fighting it pleases me,
For if you fight for a month or more your master I will be.”

At last the good ship Rainbow tacks; she fires and strikes in vain:
Three hundred of her seamen bold dead on her deck were lain.
“Go home, go home,” cried Saucy Ward, “and tell your oul’ queen from me
That if she rules queen of foreign lands, I rule king of the sea.”

Taken down from Tom Maddock, May 31st, 1943. This is a very old English ballad. Cf. “A famous Sea Fight between Captain Ward and the “Rainbow,” in Legendary ballads of England and Scotland. Ed., J. S. Roberts.
In one of the English versions of this ballad there is reference to two of the queen’s sea-captains, Clifford and Essex.
Clifford would be George, 3rd Earl of Cumberland, who commanded the “Bonaventure” against the Spanish Armada in 1588, and Essex would be the ill-fated Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, a kinsman of the Devereux family of Ballymagir, Co. Wexford. The queen referred to is Queen Elizabeth, but I have been unable to find out who was the impudent individual with the Irish name.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Brian Peters
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 05:01 AM

Interesting ballad versions Jim, especially Fair Annie, which is a rarity.

The Captain Ward ballad is a bit confused chronologically (as Kennedy suggests), since Ward only took up piracy after James I had revoked his privateer's licence, yet variants of the ballad repeatedly mention 'the Queen'. That Dublin text is similar to the version in Roud & Bishop's 'New Penguin' book, from East Anglia via Butterworth, 1913, with all the same stanzas present but quite a few differences in textual detail.

Intrigued to hear about your Irish - American Hind Horn, too.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 05:16 AM

I have to work on the notes Brian - the collector was far from a ballad scholar ot a historian - he was a priest

Hind Horn is a Canadian version, the singer learned it from his Northern Irish mother
It comes with a tune which won't reproduce here
Jim

Hind Horn (Child 17)
OLD BEGGAR MAN.” Taken down from the singing of Mr. Thomas Edward Nelson, Union Mills, New Brunswick, September 28, 1928, who learned it from his mother, who was born in the north of Ireland and died New Brunswick, 1918, aged 85 years. Melody recorded by Mr. George Herzog.

1 “Whence came ye, or from what counteree ?
Whence came ye, or where were you born ?”
“In Ireland I was bred and born
Until I became a hele and his horn.

2 “I gave my love a gay gold watch
That she might rule in her own counteree,
And she gave me a gay gold ring,
And the virtue of this was above all things.

3 “ ‘If this ring bees bright and true,
Be sure your love is true to you;
But if this ring bees pale and wan,
Your true love’s in love with some other man.’ ”

4 He set sail and off went he,
Until that he came to a strange counteree;
He looked at the ring, it was pale and wan,
His true love was in love with some other one.

5 He set sail and back came he,
Until that he came to his own counteree,
And as he was riding along the plain,
Who should he meet but an old beggar man.

6 “What news, what news, you old beggar man ?
What news, what news have you got for me?”
“No news, no news,” said the old beggar man,
“But tomorrow is your true love’s wedding day.”

7 “You lend me your begging rig,
And I’ll lend you my riding stage.”
“Your riding stage ain’t fit for me,
Nor my begging rig ain’t fit for you.”

8 “Whether it be right, or whether it be wrong,
The begging rig they must go on.
So come, tell to me as fast as you can
What’s to be done with the begging rig.”

9 “As you go up to yonder hill,
You may walk as fast as ’tis your will,
And when you come to yonder gate,
You may lean upon your staff with trembling step.

10 “You may beg from Pitt, you may beg from Paul,
You may beg from the highest to the lowest of them all;
But from them all you need take none
Until you come to the bride’s own hand.”

11 She came trembling down the stairs,
Rings on her fingers and gold in her hair,
A glass of wine all in her hand,
Which she gave to the old beggar man.

12 He took the glass and drank the wine,
And in the glass he slipped the ring.
“O, where got you this, by sea or by land,
Or did you get it off a drowned one’s hand?”

13 “Neither got I it by sea or land,
Neither did I get it off a drowned one’s hand;
I got it in my courting gay,
And gave it to my love on her wedding day.”

14 Rings from her fingers she did pull off,
Gold from her hair she did let fall,
Saying, “I’ll go with you forevermore
And beg my bread from door to door.”

15 Between the kitchen and the hall
The diner’s coat he did let fall,
All a-shining in gold amongst them all,
And he was the fairest in the hall.

This is the first time that “Hind Horn” has been recorded in America, and we are particularly fortunate in getting both a good text and the air from the same person. The copy above was taken down, in 1928, by Mrs. Eckstorm, from Mr. Nelson’s singing. We have also another copy, taken down in 1927, by Miss Smyth, from Mr. Nelson’s recitation. There are variations, as would be expected in copies taken by different persons in different years; but they are hardly important enough to warrant printing both texts in full when a collation of the two is simple and satisfactory.
Knowing that this must become the standard text in this country, we have deliberately adopted three variations from the second copy for the A-text, for the sake of the sense. They will be found noted below in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fifteenth stanzas. We see no good reason why the chance variants of the same singer should not be interchangeable, when either the rhythm or the sense of a text is improved by a substitu¬tion. Yet in this ballad, as in others, the texts have been kept separate, except for these three slight changes—“gay” for “day,” “he” for “they,” and a misleading word omitted.

B.
COLLATION of the two texts from Mr. T. E. Nelson, Union Mills, New Brunswick. The following is the spoken 1927 text, compared by stanza and line, with A.

1 Lacks the first line of the 1928 text. Fourth line shows an important variation, commented upon below, of “hind” instead of “hele.”
2 Fourth line reads, “And the virtue of this was above all else.” The rhyme, lost in recitation, is caught again in the ver¬sion sung.
3 Twice “looks” instead of “bees,” as        sung.        This line        was sung several times in catching the air, but always as “bees.”
4 Line two omits “that.” “Countree,” used instead of “coun¬teree,” possibly the transcriber’s variation, was more likely rhythmic, caught in singing. Fourth line reads, “His truelove was in love with some other man.” “Man” and “wan” were rhymed, a possible indica¬tion of the Gaelic origin of “wan,” with this meaning of “pale” (Irish, bán “white”).
5 Line two omits “that.”
6 Line two omits one “what news?”
7 Lines one and two have “lend” instead of “give me your beg¬ging rig.” Lines three and four are transposed.
8 Line two, “it” for “they.” Line three, “quick” for “fast.”
9 Whole stanza lacking in 1927 copy.
10 Line four, “maid’s own hand” instead of “bride’s.”
11 “And in her hand a glass of wine,” missing the rhyme of “han’ ” and “man.”
12 Line three, as printed. What he sang was, “Saying, Where got you this, by sea or by land,” which throws the question to Horn himself and ruins the sense. Ballad singers have a way of introducing a direct quotation with the word “say¬ing,” which very often is spoken, not sung. It takes the place of quotation marks in print and often is a warning of a change of speaker. A transcriber who understands this use would be justified in not recording the word at all unless it is significant and properly used.
13 Line three, as printed in A. He sang “courting day,” which with “wedding day” as a rhyme was unpleasant; but he recited “courting gay.”
14 “No change in this stanza.
15 Line two, as printed in A. He sang it, “The diner’s coat they did let fall,” clearly an error of sense. The most important difference in the texts is the change from “hind” to “hele.” In 1927 Mr. Nelson said:
“Until I became a hind and his horn,” and he pronounced “hind” with a short vowel, just as Mrs. F. W. Morse did in speaking of “Hind Horn”—possibly Irish usage. But in 1928, Mr. Nelson, in singing, repeatedly said “hele,” “hale,” “heel,” or “hael,” or perhaps “heil,” instead of “hind.” His vowel was not clear and we could not determine it; nor could we understand it. But it does not do to worry a ballad singer; what you do not understand, he often does not understand any better.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Vic Smith
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 07:53 AM

I sing a version of Hind Horn. I really love singing it and it is probably the ballad that I sing most frequently It comes from the singing of Joe Estey, of New Brunswick, Canada. The recording shows his singing to be very similar in style to that of Willie Scott with his deliberate timing, clear enunciation and marked emphasis on certain words. Joe Estey was an old woodsman and ballad singer, a veteran of the lumber camps and he was in his late seventies when Sandy Ives (Dr. Edward Ives of the University of Illinois) discovered him and recorded his singing. He also guided Lee Haggerty and Henry Felt, to his home in New Brunswick in 1962. They were on their way back from the Miramichi Folk Music Festival when they called and recorded several songs from Mr. Estey, but this splendid version of Child 17 stood out as the crown jewel of the bunch. It also has a tune that seems ideal to carry the words of this ballad:-

"Where were you bred and where were you born?"
"In dear old Scotland, where I was bred and born.
I am going for to leave you, so, love, do not mourn
Until the day when I do return."

"Here is a ring; I'll give it unto thee
As a token of true friendship given by me.
And when this ring is faded and worn,
You'll know that your true love is with another one. "

For seven long years he sailed o'er the sea;
He sailed and he sailed to a foreign country.
He looked at the ring; it was faded and worn.
He knew that his true love was with another one.

Then he turned, he sailed o 'er the sea;
He sailed and he sailed to his own country.
The first one he met when he came to the land
Was a poor old beggarman.

"Old man, good man, old man," said he,
"What news, what news have you got for me?"
"Bad news, bad news," the old man did say,
"Tomorrow is your true love's wedding day. "

"Then give to me your rags and your shield,
And I'll give to you my coat and my steel. "
"Your coat and your steel is far too good for me,
While an old beggar's clothes is not fit for thee. "

"Let it be right, or let it be wrong,
The old beggar's clothes I will put on.
I will beg from the richest to the poorest in the land;
Take nothing but the best from the young bride's hand.'

So he begged from Peter and he begged from Paul;
He begged from the richest to the poorest of them all.
He begged till he came to his own true love's home.
He stood on the bridge, he leaned against the gate.

Down came the bride, a-tripping down the stairs,
Rings on her fingers and jewelry in her hair.
The glass of wine she held in her hand,
She gave it to the old beggannan.

Out of the tumbler he drank the wine;
Hack in the tumbler he dropped the ring.
She said, "Where did you get it, on sea or on land,
Or did you steal it off some dead man's hand?"

"I did not get it on sea or on land;
Neither did I take it off a dead man's hand.
It's a token of true friendship when we used to court so gay,
And I have returned it all on your wedding day. "

Rings from her fingers she did pull off,
Trinket from her hair she did let fall.
Saying, "Willie, I'll go with you, for now and evermore,
Supposing that we beg from door to door. "

Oh, between the kitchen and the hall,
The old beggar's clothes he did let fall.
His costly garments they shone far above them all.
He was the finest looking young man that stood in the hall

It was early the next morning, just at the break of day,
This couple hastened off to church and made no delay.
It's now they are married, as you may understand.
No more will he be called the old beggarman.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM

As I understand it Steve Gardam has made two reasonable claims:

1 In respect of the Child Ballads, there is little or no evidence that a substantial proportion of these were in or became part of an oral tradition. As I understand it, the point is also made that the songs collected by Child were taken from written sources, including manuscript (ie hand-written) versions.

2 A large proportion of songs claimed as 'folk' by Victorian and Edwardian collectors can be traced back to broadsheet versions, where, on the basis of stylistic and other features, they appear to have originated.

I don't find these arguments confusing or contradictory. And nor do I find them refuted by what Jim Carroll has said, or by his anecdotes about the distinctions made by some of his informants.

Mr Gardam sometimes writes as 'Dungbeetle' and on the basis of some of his pieces on the MUSTRAD site (eg Dungheap No 26) I am happy that he is a serious scholar of such matters. I feel it is a shame that inappropriate adjectives such as 'stupid' have been used to describe Mr Gardam.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 09:29 AM

Of course, some of Child's sources were 'collectors'.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 09:39 AM

I said
"Jim, are you really claiming that all (or nearly all) the Child ballads spent some time in oral tradition? "
Jim replied
"I see no reason not to claim that a fair number of them did Richard, do you have any evidence to the contrary?".
and
"Please don't put words in my mouth - I never said "nearly all" - some ballads disappeared anyway, but the majority of them survived in one form or another"

You said that Steve's statement "many of the Child ballads show no or little evidence of ever having been in oral tradition" was "utter nonsense". That implies that, in your opinion, only few were never in oral tradition, i.e. that nearly all were in oral tradition.

Some were widely collected. Some were found in tradition very rarely. Some may well have been sung, and passed from one singer to another, but missed getting collected. But a significant number look as if no-one would ever have sung them.

The Child canon is very diverse. Child himself has been quoted in this thread as having a very low opinion of some of the ballads that he felt he had to include.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 10:19 AM

I've just counted the ones without tunes based on their non-appearance in Bronson - not as many as even I thought
A tune implies they have probably been sung
I have yet to check the missing ones, but when you consider that a large number of ballad collections that were taken from the mouths of singers do not include tunes, that is going to be reduced even further
Child was working from print, not from the oral traditions - he included very few tunes in his collection, this didn't mean that the published versions weren't collected from country singers
Child did have a low opinion of some of the ballads he included but he had an even lower opinion of the broadsides
He was in a position to know whether these songs originated on the presses just as Sharp did - neither of them ever claimed these songs otr ballads originated on the "dinghill" presses
I assume you have carried out similar research as I have - happy to swap findings

" there is little or no evidence that a substantial proportion of these were in or became part of an oral tradition"
There is none whatever to suggest that any of them originated on the broadside presses - none
Can you point out any that you guarantee originated from the presses - ?Steve has admitted he can't and his theory is just that - a theory
THe same goes for your second point - the period you refer to is marked by a sharp decline in the singing traditions - judging them on that basis is like judging a racehorse after it has been put out to stud
I'm delighted you regard Steve as a scolar, just as I am that you regard me as untrustworthy
I would be very uncomfortable if it were any other way

The most notable thing about this discussion is how you and everybody have totally refused to respond to my comparison between the two contenders for the role of folk composer
I'm sure if it had been possible you'd have hung a bulb of garlic near it in the hope you might drive it away - a pointed stake would be my guess
You people !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 11:02 AM

>>>>he had an even lower opinion of the broadsides<<<<

Absolutely. He was finding a few jewels amongst an enormous dungheap. And that's precisely what I have been doing.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 11:15 AM

>>>>I've just counted the ones without tunes based on their non-appearance in Bronson - not as many as even I thought<<<<<

So just out of interest, Jim, out of the 305 how many or what percentage did you think were and what percentage did you find?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 11:22 AM

I previously commented that Walter Pardon's 'Cupid the Ploughboy' did not do anything for me. I have listened to it again, and it still doesn't. In fact, bits of it are wince-inducing.

I also previously stated that Pardon believed that his grandfather had learned his songs from broadsheets.

I was not of course setting myself up as a Walter Pardon expert: I was merely quoting from the MUSTRAD web site. There is an article by Yates and Stradling.

Jim has stated that no broadsheets were found in Walter's house, perhaps using this fact against the broadsheet origins view. I do not think that what was or was not found in Walter's house is relevant.

The grandfather in question was a maternal grandfather, Thomas Cook Gee, who played clarinet, and is said to have had lots of written song material. According to the MUSTRAD articles, Walter said:

"My grandfather got the songs from broadsheets, apparently; that's how they were brought round, so they always told me. He could read music, you see; that was unusual. "

Further on in the pieces, Watler is quoted as saying this:

"My uncle Billy, he said he remembered when a man-o'-war sunk off Ireland and someone composed a song about it, and two men come along here with one of those broadsheets and sung the song over to my grandfather. I don't know if he bought it, but I was told the words and music was ruled on it, and they charged a penny. That was how they got them into the villages. I asked Uncle Billy how it was that my grandfather managed to learn a hundred, 'cause that was very seldom he went out of the village - perhaps one day in the year to Norwich, or occasionally to North Walsham, and he said that was how they got round: by broadsheets."

It was Walter's mother's brother, Billy Gee (1863 - 1942), who is supposed to have taught Walter most of his songs. Billy is said to have spent a lot of time with Walter during the hard times of the 1930s.

However, as the same website says: "Walter said that he'd learned particular songs from various family members - but accounts differ dependent upon who he was talking to and when."

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 11:41 AM

None of you are answering my questions yet you keep piling up yours
Enough is enough eh - how about making this a two way street rather than target practice ?
I'm becoming more and more convinced that your main driving force here is a desire not to believe ordinary people made folk songs - I know no way around suh dedication
Put up or admit that your brand new theory is full of holes and needs to be rethought (or thought through even)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 11:46 AM

Incidentally Steve, you once told me that Child was rethinking his attitude to the broadsides
Can you link me to that please?
I asked once before but, as with many requests, I received no answer
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 12:58 PM

The point in respect of Walter Pardon giving different information at different times is that working with tradition bearers is not an unproblematic activity. It isn't intended to be a critisism of Pardon or those enthusiasts who met him and interviewed him.

I find some of his other songs are more enjoyable.

But here, once again, Roud's book is invaluable, with its (or rather Bishop's) discussion of differing aesthetic values.

Personally, at present, I feel more like parodying Jim Carroll's questions rather than responding to them.

"How do you justify your claim that an untalented dauber like da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa?"

But, as will be clear, parody has never been my strong point, so here instead is a link to a page on 'begging the question'.

http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html

And an example of question begging from this thread:

"You have never explained how bad poets could possibly have made so many good songs"

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 01:20 PM

"Personally, at present, I feel more like parodying Jim Carroll's questions rather than responding to them. "
I'm sure you do - it's far easier than answering them - though your Mona Lisa analogy, if aimed at untalented hacks making our beautifully thoughtful folk songs, is a perfect one - I wish I'd thought of it
The lot of you are running around like headless chickens, which, for me, is indicative that none of you have thought this through
You are very reminiscent of Billy Connolly's old joke "If you want to confuse a policeman ask him a question"
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 01:40 PM

>>>>you once told me that Child was rethinking his attitude to the broadsides<<<<
That would be Baring Gould, Jim, who did change his mind several times.

The only reference I made to Child's attitude to broadsides is that he used an awful lot of them considering his aversion. Almost all of the Robin Hood ballads for instance.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Aug 18 - 01:41 PM

1900?