New Book: Folk Song in England

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 04:01 PM

While we're waiting for this, Jim, straight question: Roud 1080 'Jim, the Carter Lad' folksong or not, in your opinion? There must be plenty of versions on your shelves and in various recordings of source singers.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 03:53 PM

Greetings, Jim
I'm getting the impression you are not too enamoured with the MT CDs of Walter. I have a copy of the album 'A Proper Sort' but you mention several others. Okay, could you please choose one of the other albums, put up a track list for us and then we can all check out the 'insider knowledge' or you can itemise them for us and make it easier.

Desk-jockey Steve

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 03:53 PM

Ha, 'Deep Lancashire' is part of my only link to a (probably) unbroken oral tradition and the influence of commercial recording - that one - on it.

I come from those parts, and Cob Coalin' was something we kids did before bonfire night. The sleeve notes give an explanation. In my case it was late 1950's.

The tune we used wasn't the one Harry Boardman used, but the words were along the same lines. 'Our tune' is not very interesting but suited to the primary age kids we were; it's about the level of a playground skipping tune. Harry's is better.

I left home and in the mid nineties asked some of my fathers generation if it was still going on. They said "yes but they use the wrong tune, they use the one off that record. It's spoiled it."

Our words were always fragmented. In the early 2000's I wondered if the old folk remembered them better. I said that when we were kids our parents told us we were gettig the words wrong. The response was "that's what they told us when we were kids".

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Vic Smith
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 03:03 PM

I never met Harry Boardman but in my early days on the folk scene his name was revered. Everyone who came into contact with him spoke well of him On my record shelves I still have his sublime album Trans Pennine - Topic Records - 12TS215 (1971) where he is partnered by Yorkshireman, Dave Hillary. I also still have another Topic album which he curated Deep Lancashire - Topic Records - 12T188 (1968) which were the first recordings by the Oldham Tinkers, Mike Harding and Lea Nicholson.
When I came to Sussex in 1968 Tina and I started a folk club within a few weeks of moving to Brighton. We asked two other singers to join us as resident singers at the club - One was Lea and the other was Mick Jones. Both were Lancastrians and both were at the U. of Sussex. Both spoke highly of the time and effort that Harry had put into teaching them an approach to singing and to song accompaniment.
It would be easy now to forget the effort and enthusiasm of some of these regional pioneers after such a long time. Fortunately, in Harry's case, there is a webpage that details some of his accomplishments.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 02:51 PM

I agree totally with Brian - Harry may not have been a great banjo player, but he was certainly an effective one on certain songs
You seem to be too ready to dismiss singers on very little hearing - Walter Parddon being a prime example
I htought you were being ironic when you said it was an English instrument - many would argue about that one
It probably originated in West Africa and was developed by slaves in America
The English singing tradition is largely unaccompanied
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 02:33 PM

"I don't understand your basis for disagreeing with them.
"
Then you haven't read the thread properly - I have made myself perfectly clear over and over again - afr more than I needed to
Yous claim came after I explained exactly why I disagreed with them - that is when you first said you didn't understand me
Ther is nothing in any way complicated in what you responded to
"Am I right that you disagree with them"
Do you really have to ask that ?
Sorry - I give up - that is what this whole argument is about
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 01:41 PM

This thread has moved on a long way since I last looked at it. I've nothing especially original to add, but can at least clarify one or two points.

Pseudonymous wrote:

It was stated above that the hand loom weaver's lament was by Bamford. I'm not sure this is right. a) can't find it in online collections of Bamford's work b) found a book dated 188ish online saying it was taken from someone else.

Bamford was a special constable during Chartist times, some of his work seems to reflect a dislike of the movement.

‘The Hand-loom Weavers’ Lament’ appears in Harland’s ‘Ballads and Songs of Lancashire’ (1875), and was collected by John Higson (a Droylsden man who supplied several pieces to Harland) "from the signing of John Grimshaw". Grimshaw was from Gorton and was also the source for ‘Handloom versus Powerloom’.

The ‘Lament’ doesn’t have a known author, but it doesn’t read like the work of Sam Bamford, who used a more poetic style. Some of his work was published on broadsides, however, such as ‘Song of the Slaughtered’, which can be found on the Bodleian site. During the Peterloo period either side of 1819, Bamford was a hardline radical, if he’s judged by his poetry rather than his own revisionist account written later, after he’d fallen out with Henry Hunt and co. By the late 1830s he seems to have been more concerned with gaining respectability by distancing himself from the direct action he’d once espoused and from the Chartists in particular, and he seems to have become a bit of a maverick. Like many of the Peterloo protestors he was a handloom weaver.

Re. Harry Boardman.

I found a Henry [sic] Boardman song on Spotify. He plays that old traditional English instrument - the banjo! And not particularly well.

Harry Boardman was no Bela Fleck, but he was an effective accompanist of his own singing on the banjo as well as the anglo concertina (both instruments were around in England from mid 19th century, FWIW). Harry was a very significant figure in the folk revival, establishing an independent genre of North West folk song (in an area generally neglected by folksong collectors) through settings of industrial broadsides and local poetry by Laycock, Bamford, Waugh and Brierley. It's thanks to him that many of us ever heard any of that material.

So before dismissing him as nothing but a poor banjo player on the basis of one song, Pseudonymous, maybe listen to a bit more?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 01:31 PM

Jim. I have been following the discussion from the start. It helped me to decide to read the book.

I understand what Roud says, I understand what Steve Gardham says about the broadsides. I don't understand your basis for disagreeing with them.

Am I right that you disagree with them?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 12:41 PM

"I give up Jim. You can't be clear about what you mean."
Nobody else has a problem understanding it
You obviously haven't bothered to read the thread
This has been going on for some time now and not a single individual has claimed not to understand the argument - congratulations on being the first
Nice cop-out though
"I like it but I don't want to discuss why"
Jim Carroll
I've asked Joe to post up two articles about Walter Pardon - if that is possible I'll be interested in the reaction, if any

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 12:18 PM

I give up Jim. You can't be clear about what you mean. If you want someone to answer for a point they made please refer back to when they made that point and if quoting it use the exact words and don't paraphrase them using you own interpretation/misinterpration of what they said.

I think it's a good book. It is not written in an academic style - I don't think it should be - but it is precise and clearly set out. There is a good separation of raw material and interpretation. Previous work is acknowleged. Is anything significant missing from the bibliography and is there anything in the bibliography that is not referred to in the text?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 11:45 AM

"So where do you get this idea that broadsides were all written by "desk-bound city hacks who were notorious for their bad poetry"
Sorry - I don't follow you - that is what I am arguing against
Our singer to his father's songs from the oral tradition and gave them to a printer
The argument here has been exactly the opposite, that most of the songs in the oral tradition WERE COMPOSED for the broadsides and make up 90% plus of our folk songs
My argument has always been that most folk songs appearing on broadsides were taken

This is where all this began - a statement by Ewan MacColl at the end of a series of Radio prgrammes

"Well, there they are, the songs of our people. Some of them have been centuries in the making, some of them undoubtedly were born on the broadside presses. Some have the marvellous perfection of stones shaped by the sea's movement. Others are as brash as a cup-final crowd. They were made by professional bards and by unknown poets at the plough-stilts and the handloom. They are tender, harsh,, passionate, ironical, simple, profound.... as varied, indeed, as the landscape of this island.
We are indebted to the Harry Coxes and Phil Tanners, to Colm Keane and Maggie MaccDonagh, to Belle Stewart and Jessie Murray and to all the sweet and raucous unknown singers who have helped to carry our people's songs across the centuries"

This statement was received derisively bt Steve Gardham who described it as "starry eyed nonsense"
The 10 programmes in question covered the entire folk spectrum from the 16th century 'Frog and the Mouse' to an anonymous Irish song made during World War Two - the entire folk reperoire
It has since been adapted to only cover the songs that were collected when the folk tradition was at its lowest ebb, but has wobbled back and forth to our traditional ballads on occasion.
That is the argument here
I really shouldn't have to explain this - it's all old argument
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 11:07 AM

"we spent thirty years recording a ballad seller who sold his father's songs for money" Exactly. I quoted you on that way back in the discussion when it seemed relevant but seemed to have been passed over.

So where do you get this idea that broadsides were all written by "desk-bound city hacks who were notorious for their bad poetry" I would have thought that those were the ones that didn't find their way into oral transmission.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 10:51 AM

"No, the argument has been that someone having got money"
No - the argument has always been about the origins of folk songs and their uniqueness
You need to read the full thread
Nobody has ever argued that people didn't make money from the songs - we spent thirty years recording a ballad seller who sold his father's songs for money
If you are nt prepared to debate that I see nothing we have to say to each other
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 10:41 AM

No, the argument has been that someone having got money for the creation or money having been involved somewhere along the line of transmission or in performance does not bar a song from being a folk song.

I would not argue with that sentiment.

But the 'discussion' about commerciality also touched on Bert Lloyd's view as quoted above that we now call 'folk music' originated in a particular era out of a synthesis of commercially created music by minstrels and others. This came in the middle of a rather Mortonian bit about social change in a particular century.

I am aware that Lloyd was not always consistent in 'Folk Song in England' but this is one of the things that he said.

Jim has already responded to this. His point, as I understood it was that Chapter One of Lloyd's book is a better reflection of what Lloyd thought folk music was. Jim expressed a view that minstrel songs of that century were nothing like folk music. Jim also referred to the point as 'shadow boxing' because it touches on the 'origin' question which I don't intend to debate any more. However, it serves to illustrate the point that when writing that particular chapter Lloyd did not seem overly concerned that 'folk music' had commercially produced material at the heart of its origins.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Vic Smith
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM

Jag wrote (with reference to the Taylor/Lloyd interview) wrote:-

Interesting comment about the exclusive blokes with 'spiky titles'.

That stood out for me as well. Is there anyone who would like to hazard a guess as to who Bert Lloyd might have been referring to?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 10:30 AM

"Why should I answer it? I didn't suggest it. I don't recall anyone suggesting it. Does Roud?"
Stever Gardham, who has featured largely in all these arguments ahd clamed that 90% plus originated this way - you can't really have missed this
Roud only says a"a high percentage" and does not commit himself to a specific figure.
Few of Laycock's songs entered into the tradition - I put him up as somebody from a working background who was capable of making songs/poems.
My question remains - if working people were capable of making songs, why didn't they make our folk songs?
That is the question everybody is avoiding like the plague
I have been somewhat underwhelmed at the response to my offer of posting off our article on Walter Pardon - it seems people, (you included) woould rather talk about Walter without knowing what he had to say
I am going to ask Joe Offer to link to the article so at least we have the voice of a Traditional singer in this battle of academics and researchers
Pity I have to, but that seems par for the course nowadays
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 10:27 AM

Observer. Pace egging would extend it to Easter time. But it was instrumantalists I was thinking of.

For example the weaver Richard Ryley who's diary for 1862 is at http://www.village-music-project.org.uk/?page_id=141

See for example May 1 to May 3 Or this:

July 7th. No work. In the Afternoon went with four others on a playing excursion, to the Crook’s House first 3d. Then to Gledstone Hall, where after playing for some time we were very genteely informed that they could not give us anything. I think they must be very Poor!. Then to the Poor Gardener who very cheerfully gave us 4d. then to Marton Scar, 6d. Thomas Hunter Esq. Stainton; 3s. Stainton Hall 1s. Ingthorpe Grange 3d. Marton House, East, 6d. Then to West Marton where we got about 4s. more, On dividing we had 2s. 1d. Each.

He also gives details of his income from weaving and of his costs of living.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 09:57 AM

I was not speaking for Vic, I was saying that I hadn't read his post that way.

If you mean why not tell me why these songs should be the products of desk-bound city hacks who were notorious for their bad poetry?

Why should I answer it? I didn't suggest it. I don't recall anyone suggesting it. Does Roud? I didn't notice it in there.

I was pressing the issue of Laycock because you introduced him to the discussion and I have known for 50 years that his biographer said that he wrote poems that were sold and sung in the streets and I knew I had that description on the shelf behind me to quite from. I don't know much, but it is enough to make me suspect the accuracy of what you say.

I don't know the background of all the broadside writers, neither do you or anyone else. So we don't know if there were people similar to Laycock (and maybe the Muxton carter who is described in a quote in Roud's book) going back through the centuries.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 09:55 AM

" I would suggest that there is plenty of evidence that, particularly in the dog days of winter that the rural poor with any talents were pleased to join the plough stots, mummers, tipteerers, morris etc. in their rounds. Of course they were doing it for the love of it, anything that would lift spirits in their drab existence was welcome - but so was the sharing of the money that they collected for performing outside the pubs and from their pre-arranged visits to the vicarage, the manor and the various landed gentry." - Vic Smith.

Well Vic that would cover from what we now know as late December to mid-January, and as we are mentioning "evidence", the evidence suggests that these were local men - not bands of wandering players - which brings us back to - So if there was some form of social event in the community they had to do it all themselves ......"

History of Morris Dancing

"'as with many folk customs, the origins are hidden in the mists of time and coloured by later perceptions, which may or may not have been correct' Alun Howkins

Over time the dances were assimilated by the established church, and by the 1500s Morris was being performed for Easter, Whitsuntide, and saint's days. In fact Morris dancing became so much an accepted institution that medieval churchwarden's accounts show that accessories were provided by parish funds. St Lawrence Church Reading, accounts show "Moreys Dawncers" perfomed on Dedication Day 1513 and were given 3d for ale.

The accessories mentioned included shoes and bells do you honestly think that parishes doled out money for passing troupes of itinerant morris dancers? I do not think so, those making up the members of the troupe were locals. Why would total strangers have to black their faces to avoid being recognised in a particular parish? Locals would. The 3d for ale brings us back to - the only form of payment they might get, if any, would be in the form of food and drink.

Besides I do not believe that there were that many Plough Stots, mummers,tipteerers or morrismen doing the rounds in Scotland, Ireland or Wales.

There is also documented evidence that traditionally the music for the above was originally provided by a flute or a whistle and a tabor or a drum, very basic. Other instruments only became common much later when people were actively reviving the art.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 09:37 AM

You are still not responding to my point and it becomes obvious that you are not intending to, despite the fact that have assiduously responded to all of yours - no change there
I think Vic is quite capable of speaking for himself
"Please remind me what the points that need answering are."
Are you really not reading what I put up, neither has anybody else -
15 Aug 18 - 06:32 AM

I certainly don't accept Vic's " 14 Jul 18 - 10:11 AM" offhand dismissal even touches the points I made
This is really pissing against the wind
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 09:04 AM

The argument has been that money has played a major part in the creation of our folk songs since the days of the minstrels

No, the argument has been that someone having got money for the creation or money having been involved somewhere along the line of transmission or in performance does not bar a song from being a folk song.

You appear to be suggesting that the songs were created for "the sharing of the money ... I didn't read it that way.

You seem to be responding to things that people didn't say.

Please remind me what the points that need answering are.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 08:05 AM

The argument has been that money has played a major part in the creation of our folk songs since the days of the minstrels
You appear to be suggesting that the songs were created for "the sharing of the money that they collected for performing outside the pubs and from their pre-arranged visits to the vicarage, the manor and the various landed gentry."
If that is your argument, of course I don't accept it - does anybody ?
Now - can I have some responses to my points please ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Vic Smith
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 07:41 AM

You haven't responded to mey request - the same goes for you Vic

Could I politely refer you to my post at 14 Jul 18 - 10:11 AM

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 07:33 AM

Jag: true.

On this 'insider knowledge' argument, I have a thought which might well result in a torrent of exasperation from certain quarters, but there are fairly obvious questions to be asked about the ways in which what is asserted to be such knowledge may have been obtained.

They sometimes used to use a metaphor based on the concept of 'observer interference' from physics in social sciences. Basically this usage refers to the problems involved in face to face interviews and experiments in which people know they are being observed. Another way of putting this would be 'experimenter effect' or 'observer expectancy'.

It seems possible to me that some of the contexts which have been described for the collection of the views of tradition bearers are those in which the collectors plainly had strongly held personal views, often highly policitised ones, about the nature and function of folklore though history, and that this may have affected the nature of the responses they obtained. This is without any question of bias, even if not conscious, in the selection and presentation of the data obtained in the interviews.

Awaiting tirades of indignation, but this is not intended personally. These are points that future generations of researchers are bound to bring up. I guess some of them have been brought up.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 07:18 AM

I don't dismiss impressions. I am aware that impressions, including my own, may be wrong.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 07:04 AM

And the jibe about these not being 'arguments'. That at least, though deliberately "equivocal", has a touch of humour to it.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 07:03 AM

"It's not academic arrogance. "
I'm afraid it is if you dismiss impressions and can replace them with nothing else
You haven't responded to mey request - the same goes for you Vic - you've had your turn - mine now
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:46 AM

It's not academic arrogance. As Lloyd said "If one's dealing with a thing on any plane of scholarship, then it's necessary to be as precise as one can."

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Vic Smith
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:46 AM

Jag calls for "evidence" and so do I on a different atatement.
Observer states with a considerable degree of confidence:-

So if there was some form of social event in the community they had to do it all themselves and those who played instruments did so because they could and it was their contribution, the only form of payment they might get, if any, would be in the form of food and drink. As Jim put it - They did it for the love of it.

My response would be "What is your evidence for this?" I would suggest that there is plenty of evidence that, particularly in the dog days of winter that the rural poor with any talents were pleased to join the plough stots, mummers, tipteerers, morris etc. in their rounds. Of course they were doing it for the love of it, anything that would lift spirits in their drab existence was welcome - but so was the sharing of the money that they collected for performing outside the pubs and from their pre-arranged visits to the vicarage, the manor and the various landed gentry.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:43 AM

I crossed with Jim there, so the last post was not a response to his.

But it will do apart from adding that it sounds more like an declaration of faith rather than a reasoned argument.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:43 AM

"'I know one when I hear one' or 'the old singers could tell' "
The Wiki editors know nothing of folk songs as far as I know - the contributors should
As for the argument istself, it would be a fairly weak one of we had anything better to go on, but if you believe that the singers knew less about their songs than we do, we're not speaking about the same people
That is academic arrogance in the extreme.
We don't know who wrote the songs - wr probably never shall
All we can do is gather what we do know and add common sense - personal perception by thingers and those associating with them has to be a major part of that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:36 AM

Hootenanny

I took the wiki jibe as aimed at me.


Tzu

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:36 AM

Jim's Wikipaedia comment was to me.

Do you people think Wikipedia's editors (or even its algorithms) would accept the 'I know one when I hear one' or 'the old singers could tell' or 'I can tell from my melodeon bellows' means of identifying the true folk songs?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:32 AM

"What is the evidence that any named folks songs "
What evidence is there that they didn't?
Evidence not backward extrapolation please

Enough of this anonymous waterboarding
I have made my position quite clear
I firmly believe that the folk were capable having made their folk songs - nobody here has ever suggested that they couldn't have
I belive that to have been the opinions of researchers and anthologists since the beginnings of folk song research until a bunch of new kids on the block came along, redifined folk songs as "anything the folk sang" and claimed otherwise
It is logical to me that sailors songs fairly accurately describing life at sea and on shore might well have been made by the people the songs were about
The same with soldiers, and farmworkers and miners and rural dwellers and navvies.....
I believe that on the basis of talking to traditional singers who accepted the "truth" (authenticity) of the songs they sang
I also believe that if Irish rural dwellers in similar situations ot their English counterparts made the me=any hundreds of songs describing their lives, why not the English - a cultural deficiency maybe?
THese were not Dibdin's "jolly Jack Tar' pastiches or Marie Antoinette's Versailles tableau Shepherds and Shepherdesses - they were realistically described people in realistically described situations using genuine-sounding vernacular language and an apparent knowledge of country and trade practices and lore.
It has always been the down-to-earth universal reality that has impressed me about our folk-songs
Now - instead of these fingernail-extracting interrogations, why not tell me why these songs should be the products of desk-bound city hacks who were notorious for their bad poetry?
These discussions are not being turned into "arguments" - that would involve two sets of ideas - not one sid offering only one-sided stonewalling
Your turn now, I think - that's an offer to anybody here, by the way
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:26 AM

Jim,

In your post at 05.13 you seem to be confusing me with someone else.

Only the "whimsical story" was mine. I do not use Wikipaedia.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:09 AM

What is the evidence that any named folks songs or their tunes that date from from before the time of the late 19th century collectors where created by 'the people'?

Evidence. Not backwards extrapolation.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 06:06 AM

Speaking for myself I am trying to have a conversation, though it does seem difficult for it not to turn into an argument. However, I have read and absorbed what Jim has said, to please take it that from herein on none of my remarks are addressed to Jim. I can see when I'm not wanted!

Again, speaking for myself, I have expressed interest in the investigation suggested by Steve Gardam. As a point of information I also consulted the Mustrad page linked to some CDs about Walter Pardon and earlier posts on this thread.

Jag: as I understand it, Jim Carroll's main objection to the book by Steve Roud is that it adopts a 'use' definition of what folk song is, whereas Mr Carroll believes that we should use the term to apply only to songs that originate with what he sometimes calls 'the folk' and sometimes as 'traditional singers','ordinary people', 'working people', 'the people'.   

Jim also argues that the 'origin' definition has been the orthodoxy for more than one hundred years. My own view is that this is not the case, on the basis that a defition internationally agreed in 1954 gives a 'use' plus subsequent oral transmission definition, which is the one presented and discussed by Roud. Jim refers to A L Lloyd, whose view of English history was heavily influenced by a Marxist historian called A L Morton who wrote a book about England framed largely in terms of class struggle. Lloyd's book on Folk Song in England is, for me, something of a patchwork of ideas, drawing partly on Morton and also drawing heavily on the work of folklorists from behind the iron curtain as well as other sources. (NB Arthur's biography of Lloyd had some interesting information on the uses made of the old communist regimes of folklore)

On Walter Pardon, this appears to be a contentious subject as scrolling back through this thread, some discussion took place last November. Jim provided a list of songs which, he says, Walter Pardon did not regard as 'folk songs'. Jim's argument there appears to have been that even if Walter did include material in his repertoire that was not 'folk', then Walter himself did not claim it to be folk.

Naughty Jemmy Brown
Old Brown?s Daughter
Marble Arch
One Cold Morning in December
Peggy Band
Ship That Never Returned
Skipper and his Boy
Suvlah Bay
The Steam Arm
Traampwoman?s Tragedy
Two Lovely Black Eyes
The Wanderer
We?ve Both Been Here Before
When The Fields Were White With Daisies
When You Get Up in the Morning
Wreck of the Lifeboat
Write Me a Letter from Home
All Among the Barley
As I Wandered by the Brookside
Balaclava
Black Eyed Susan
Bright Golden Store
British Man of War
Cock a Doodle Doo
A Country Life
Faithful Sailor Boy
Generals All
Grace Darling
Grandfather?s Clock
Help one Another Boys
The Huntsman
I Traced Her Footprints
I?ll Come Back to you Sweetheart
I?ll Hang my Harp
I?m Yorkshire, Though In London
Irish Molly
I Wish They?d Do It
Shamrock Rose and Thistle
Lads in Navy Blue
Miner?s Return
Mistletoe Bough
More Trouble in my Native Land

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 05:57 AM

"In my experience, shepherd, lad [land?] workers, labourers were not paid for playing at dances, most of them did so for the sheer pleasure of doing so - money has only recently become an issue and has, in my opinion, done as much damage as 'the Folk Boom, in killing off the democracy of the music and replacing it with a need to 'make a name'
This at the time folk song in Britain is sinking out of sight and needs all the volunteer dedicated support it can get" - Jim Carroll.

I think Jim is spot on with that. The idea that those part time local musicians had to have been paid in coin is current thinking transposed back in time. Back in the times we seem to be talking about people worked incredibly hard, the little leisure time they had was extremely precious. They lived, worked and "played" together as a community that was interdependent on the skills, talents and abilities within that community. So if there was some form of social event in the community they had to do it all themselves and those who played instruments did so because they could and it was their contribution, the only form of payment they might get, if any, would be in the form of food and drink. As Jim put it - They did it for the love of it.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 05:13 AM

Hoot
Your whimsical story of a collector imposing his view on Walter suggested just that - you certainly wouldn't be the first to suggest that
I apologise if I have your meaning wrong
"If you think the Wikipedia page on Walter Pardon contains fatual errors why not correct them?"
Because life it to short to correct errors on a web-page notorious for making them
If you want to find our abour Walter read him up on reliable site s- Musical Traditions carry several excellent articles on him by Mike Yates
I would have thought a good way to qualify yourself to discuss him was to listen to what he sang at length
Cupid the Ploughboy - you have to be joking !
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 05:00 AM

Jim,

"(more or less what Hoot has just put up)"

You have got it wrong again. In no way was I implying that Walter was a simple country man. I thought it might be his way of cutting short a one sided and probably boring conversation.

I might describe Walter as a country man but never simple.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 04:59 AM

I'm only partway through the later interview but feel the need to mutter about some typos/misprints/spelling mistakes/call-them-what-you-will. Perhaps the worst is a reference to someone named "Peggy Singer".

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 04:51 AM

(last GUEST was me)
I think the argument is about whether or not Roud's book gives fair account of what 'the folk' sang and to what extent criticism of the book stands up to scrutiny.

If you think the Wikipedia page on Walter Pardon contains fatual errors why not correct them? At least two people who have made changes to it seem well read on the subject of folk song.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM

Who suggested sme songs didn't come from broadsides - certainly not me
The proliferation of broadsides at the end of the 19th century were part of the destruction of the oral tradition
Actually walter only ever sang for revival audiences with the exception of one song
I've described how he wrote down his songs from having heard family members sing them and put them together with tunes he remembered after the family singers were all dead
He said he never saw a broadside and as his grandfather was so poor he and his family ended up in the workhouse, he doubted if he ever owned many broadsides - just that he had learned "some" from them
Walter had an uncanny knack of being able tto date his songs by their texts and tunes
The fact that traditional songs appeared on broadsides in no way proves (or even suggests) that they originated on them
That is what the argument is about
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 03:36 AM

Walter had several hundred songs 'Cupid' was among the poorish broadside versions

So is it correct that he did learn it, he did sing it, and it did come from a broadside?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 18 - 02:57 AM

Walter had several hundred songs 'Cupid' was among the poorish broadside versions
If that's the only effort your prepared to make to find out about one of the three most important singers in England I'm afraid you're wasting your time, and so am I
I really can't be bothered arguing with Wiki researchers

THere were at least six albums of Walter's singing the best o them in my opinion were the first four
AS far as going through the "insider knowledge" thing again - I've done that and found it to be pointless
If people can't see the different approach Traditional singers ahd don't believe what I have said about what we have been told, I see no purpose in going through it all again
Personally, I find someone who reads an anonymous Wiki entry and takes its information above twenty years of fairly intense interviewing and who says "You end up not knowing what to believe" tantamount to suggesting either I am telling lies or Walter didn't know what he was talking about.

The overall feeling I am left with here is that people will believe what suits them what ever the singers thought and said and whatever past researchers over the lst century have discovered and written up.

If you wish to believe that ham-fisted hacks who's very title suggests bad poetry made our folk songs and that money played a major part in one of the most important and neglected body or creative culture in our history, please feel free to do so.
I've become rather tired of being waterboarded by people who only want my responses but are not prepared to give their own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 14 Aug 18 - 09:22 PM

I got to a Pardon song about Cupid the Ploughboy, and I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me. I've also found something on Mustrad which was interesting.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 14 Aug 18 - 09:11 PM

When Walter Pardon's name was mentioned previously I looked him up on Wikipedia. It says there he sang music hall songs and gives the title 'Old Brown's Daughter as an example. It also says that Pardon learned many songs from an uncle who learned them from Pardon's grandfather. It says that Pardon believed that his grandfather got his songs from broadsheets.

You end up not knowing what to believe.

Did somebody say he used his melodeon to work out tunes: this suggests that he was learning new ones from a non-oral source?

I think it would be interesting to carry out Steve's suggestion. It would be good if the songs chosen were ones on Spotify, so that those of us who don't have the CDs can listen to them. Could we have a list?

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 18 - 07:18 PM

"Mike Yates had no problem getting Walter to sing this material that he dismissed."
Mike was an occasional visitor to Walter - he had the ggood r=grace to ask if we minded him recording Walter, though he had no need to - Walter was his own man
If you are suggesting I am inventing Walter's attitude to Music Hall songs then we're finished here Steve
You no damn well what Walter thought if you've followed these arguments - I've put the interviews up verbatim several times
When Tom Munnelly fell ill, several of us got together to put together a feststshrift for him - Pat's and my contribution was entitled 'Walter Pardon - a Simple Countryman?'
It was based on the crass suggestion of a well known folkie who said just that when we suggested Walter could sort out the wheat from the chaff when it came to folk songs "How could he - he's a simple countryman"?" (more or less what Hoot has just put up)
Our article was based on what Walter actually said about his songs and their importance
Anybody who wishes to read a coppy of that article is welcome to a copy, thouugh I don't seem to have had a lot of luck persuading people to actually listen to what our singers and scholars ahd to say - it seems people would rather make up their own minds without any of that stuff.
You fellers have never broken free from the "You sing them", we'll understand them" world.

You know damn well what I mean by "insider knowledge" Steve - we've argued it out often enough
Your argument was that these hard pressed broadside hacks assiduously researched newspapers to familiarise themselves with sea terms or the use of farming equipment, or the superstitions which appeared in our folk songs - excuses rather than researched facts, of course
We had a long, stupid argument about chimney sweeps I seem to remember

Walter said what he said and believed what he believed - as I have described it.

In my opinion, some of the views expressed here represent the cause of the greatest gap in our knowledge, collectors treated the songs as artefacts instead of what they really are - pieces of the lives of past generations.

We went to collect songs, thefirst singer we ever recorded, an Irish Traveller, convinced us immediately that what singers had to say was just as important as their songs - if not more.
The singer, 'Pop's' Johnny Connors sang us 'The Ballad of Cain and Abel' and told us how it told that the story it told was an explanation why Travellers first took to the road - it was the centuries-old ballad, 'Edward'
Not a bad motivation for a non-literate Traveller, don't you think?
Singers had their own agendas and carried a great deal of information that could have cut across much of this argument - what a shame nobody sought to gather it in.

Incidentally Vic - Barry Taylor's interview, which I, as the editor of the Singers Club Magazine, instigated.
Barry was right to an extent - Bert had become a peripheral figure - by choice, when that interview took place.
He no longer sang at The Singers Club, nor anywhere else in London at that time, he had largely ceased broadcasting - a couple of television programmes - one on Doc Watson, another on Hebridean music - little else
I would have loved to hear Bert sing, but was never given the opportunity

A rather strange thing happened after that interview - Barry spent the day doing it and the following day received a phone call from Bert with a list of subjects he had covered he wished not to be used.
Bert had a fairly definite opinion of which face he chose to show to the world - he was a very private man.
Jim

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 14 Aug 18 - 03:53 PM

Thanks, Vic Smith, for the links to the Lloyd interviews. Very interesting reading. It's hard to believe he was speaking 44 and 48 years ago**

For me his answer including "If one's dealing with a thing on any plane of scholarship, then it's necessary to be as precise as one can. In the past, I've certainly not been precise enough." addresses the (mainly later?) criticism well enough.

When taking about the relationship between pop (and the variants he notes), folk song and art music he comes over as being extremely broad minded. Interesting comment about the exclusive blokes with 'spiky titles'.

I don't see any significant inconsistancy between his view and Roud's conclusions. There is just the difficulty of identifying which in the body of songs originated amongst 'the folk'.

I see that he includes the lowest levels of management, mine deputy George Purdon, in 'the folk'.

** Said in 1970 the bit about computers is almost prophetic.

Subject: RE: New Book: Folk Song in England
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 14 Aug 18 - 03:50 PM

"Walter dismissed music hall songs - it was difficult to get him to sing them"
Looking at the Musical Traditions CD mentioned above it would appear that Mike Yates had no problem getting Walter to sing this material that he dismissed.

As an amused onlooker looking at much of the above I am reminded of the story of a well known collector visiting Walter and spouting off in a "scholarly" manner about how important his material was etc etc. At the end of the guy's waffling on Walter took a long draw on his pipe looked up and slowly said "Well XXXXXXXXX, I reckon you could be right"

I wonder if this guy then went away thinking that Walter had just given his approval to what had just been said to and about him.

Just a thought.