 sj |
||
|
||
Review: Walter Pardon - Research
Related thread:
Walter Pardon - which song first? (45)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,JoeG Date: 17 Nov 19 - 05:11 AM Well said Joe I keep trying to keep the 'Current state' thread on track and amicable but it isn't easy |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Nov 19 - 05:05 AM Where did you go bonkers? Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll - PM Date: 06 Nov 19 - 02:53 PM ... Oh - and he ate like a pig ... Maybe not quite bonkers but I wouldn't say it was a sane response to Nick's innocent comment either. There are plenty of other examples of your inappropriate and often confusing responses to inoffensive posts that you seem to be attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Nov 19 - 04:17 AM I did that in a hurry and when I was somehat stunned Here's the corrected version without the typos I am going to respond to Joe's remarks fully in the hope that he has the courage to leave my reply up I do not "go bonkers if someone disagrees with me" If I do, can someone produce an example of my doing so I have not insulted anybody here (apart from the troll who has opened a hate thread aimed at me and spread personal and inaccurate details over the forum (which were left there several days befor being removed) I argue as articulately as I am able whenever I disagree with something If that is going "bonkers" I must get a new dictionary I have been told by a mod (not Joe) that I must stop arguing - Joe has described by doing so publicly as "trouble-causing" If we can't disagree passionately over things we feel are important, what the hell can we do So Joe - where exactly have I gone "BONKERS" Steve Shaw has been dragged into this yet he has posted twice to this thread and we hardly meet on other threads, yet he is presenting us as some sort of a Cabal Soething appears to be going on here and I have no idea what it is Perhaps a public explanation might be in order Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Nov 19 - 04:08 AM I am going to respond to Jowee's remarks fully in the hope that he has the courage yo leave my reply up I do not "go bonlers if someone disagrees with me" If I do, can someone produce an example of my doing so I have not insuted anybody here (apart from the toll who has opened a hate thread aime at me and spread personal and inaccurate details over the forum (whih were left there several days befor being removed) I argue as articulately as I am able whenever I disagree with something If that is going "bonkers" I must get a new dictionary I have been told by a mod (not Joe) that I must stop arguing - Joe has described by doing so publicly as "troublecausing" If we can't disagree passionately ofver things we feel are important, what the hell can we fo Noe Joe - where exactly have I gone "BONKERS" Steve Shaw has been dragged into this yet he has posted twice to this thread and we hardly meet on other threads, yet he is presenting us as some sort of a Cabal Soething appears to be going on here and I have no idea what it is Perhaps a public explanation might be in order Jim Carroll I |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: The Sandman Date: 17 Nov 19 - 03:58 AM Steve Shaw has not contributed to this thread has he? I am going to start a thread about Harry Cox, in my opinion one of Englands finest trad singers |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Nov 19 - 03:52 AM "Carroll/Shaw " It really is time this abusing o membesr stops Jowe - it is becoming trollism in its own right There are no "factions" here Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 17 Nov 19 - 01:43 AM "And the point is that this thread is supposed to be about Walter Pardon." Joe - that's the problem. It soon became aparent that this thread wasn't about Walter Pardon. The OP's intention was more likely to exploit Walter Pardon merely as a device for launching an attack on a previous generation of UK Folk researchers... Which is why I suggested extracting any useful information and ideas this thread elicited under false pretences, to form the basis of a new dedicated 'factual' Walter Pardon resource thread... Possibly a moderated perma thread if a knowledgable Walter P enthusiast could be interested in taking it on...??? Then just abandon this thread to sink into oblivion... If the OP still wants a serious discussion on the unreliability of amateur / hobbyist / non-scientific research methods, then it's up to Pseud to try again with less malicious intent, or smug academic conceit... He/she/they may have lost our trust for now, but some of us may be fairly forgiving folks if we think a second chance is deserved...??? |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Brian Peters Date: 16 Nov 19 - 11:17 PM Point taken, Joe, but the trouble is that inflammatory and (more importantly) grossly misleading posts can be expressed in the most anodyne language but nonetheless incense those of us who are passionate about the topic and the need for accuracy.
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Nov 19 - 10:27 PM It's got to the point where I'm grateful for Mudcat shutdowns, because it gives us a chance to breathe. Walter Pardon is a fascinating person to study, and this should be a very fruitful discussion. I acknowledge that Pseudonymous appears to be targeting Jim Carroll, and that is unfair. But Jim Carroll goes absolutely bonkers when anyone disagrees with him, which makes him a ready target for whatever troll wants to come around and make trouble. In short, Jim Carroll draws trolls like flies, because it's certain that Jim will put on a good show whenever anyone says anything that sets him off. I fully realize that the Carroll/Shaw faction thinks all this is the fault of Mudcat, that we should control anyone that Carroll/Shaw deems to be objectionable. And for the most part, they are correct in thinking that such people and posts are objectionable. I won't argue with them on that - but yet they claim that Mudcat is "supporting" these objectionable people, which is certainly not true. The fact of the matter is that there is a limit to the amount that we can control objectionable posts. Once a message is posted, most of the damage has already been done. I suppose that deletion might serve in a way to "punish" the offender, but I honestly think that is of little value - trolls look for immediate effect, and deleting a message five minutes after it's posted has little effect. And when we delete messages, it destroys the continuity of the discussion and more-or-less destroys the thread. So, instead of responding to requests that we delete objectionable posts, we ask Mudcatters not to respond to such posts, and to stay out of combat. A few objectionable posts don't do any harm if the discussion continues, but if the "good guys" respond to the challenge to battle, the thread is sunk. So, we ask Mudcatters not to do battle. It really doesn't matter who's right or wrong - it's the battling that ruins threads. It has been our principle for a long time to close threads when they get bogged down in battle, and to delete messages only sparingly. Some moderator - I don't know who - tried to fix this thread by deleting dozens of messages, but it really didn't fix the problem. I undeleted a few messages that were on topic, but I'm not going to undelete them all - and I'm not going to let such mass deletions happen again. For the most part, Music threads that end up in battle, will be closed. So if you don't want a thread to be closed, don't do battle, even if you're sure you're right. I'm currently watching the "Current state of folk music," "Travellers," and Walter Pardon threads. All of these threads have been the site of skirmishes. If the skirmishes become battles, the threads will be closed. Thank you. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 16 Nov 19 - 08:44 AM As I try to refrain from presenting my personal opinion as statements of fact... I omitted the word "parasites" and phrases like "vampires sucking the life out of music", and possibly far worse that could occur to me, when I refer to certain types of music academics... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 16 Nov 19 - 08:28 AM Jag - you touch on a point I wanted to raise, before this thread went completely kerplunk... Weekly and monthly music papers and magazines have filled millions of pages with interviews, articles, and criticism since the mid 20th century... My youth revolved around the NME, Melody Maker, Sounds and various other short lived publications.. That's basically how most of us aquired our music knowledge decades ago... The journalism could be frivolous, or deadly earnest.. The NME would encourage young writers who were pretentious tosspot wannabe intellectuals, randomly dropping in trendy university jargon words like 'paradigm','hegemony, and 'semiotics' to make themselves sound clever and superior... But it was predominently jobbing jounalism, or enthusiastic fanzine writing.. Doing it mostly for love of music. Not bloody elitist too far up their own arseholes academics, hijacking music, scrabbling for academic status and research funding... Granted though, the more pretentious NME writers made some of us curious about those unfamilar clever sounding words, preparing us for our own problematic encounters with such 'specialist' academic vanity jargon on our own degree courses... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 19 - 08:24 AM THere has never ben any question that anybody ever interfered with what Walter had to say about folk song - this has been plucked out of the air and the fact that it has been presented in a political light, it is clear where it is coming from It is based entirely on the discredited argument that singers were incapable of thinking for themselves As far as Pseudonymous role in all of this, given his behaviour, he should not even be here - he has (hllf) been described as a (T)roll by a moderator and no troll should ever be taken seriously What next - should we hold an enquiry as to whether Travellers are "Thieves, poachers and scavengers" alongside discussing their role as Tradition Bearers? Walter's recordings are already archived in full in several places and in the not-to-distant future will be put on line by The British Library - I suggest that this distasteful aspect of what otherwise should have been a hrealthy discussion of a much loved traditional singer should be formly placed in the dustbin of history There really is much more to learn of this fine singer without cluttering it up with scurrilous innuendo Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,jag Date: 16 Nov 19 - 07:54 AM Thank you Joe Offer for the youtube playlist. I think it would be really good, and in keeping with having "research" in the subject line if someone (Pseudoymous?) collected all the references to sources of information relevant to Walter scattered in this discussion and put them into one post without any comments. However, I am not going to read it again to do that. Most of the criticism of the way that those who met Walter Pardon presented him seems to relate to concerns that there would be with any account relying mainly on interviews and first-hand anecdotes. I am sure the difficulties have been well-chewed over by journalists and oral historians. Sometimes without an appropriate question something would not be said and would be lost forever. With no questions something that was unclear would never be clarified of rephrased in a better way. What seem to be inconsistencies could not be clarified. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Keith Price Date: 16 Nov 19 - 07:44 AM Same here, Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Nov 19 - 06:44 AM Got it, Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Nov 19 - 05:53 AM Thank, but please don't get this thread closed lads - it is too important and mostly enjoyable Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Keith Price Date: 16 Nov 19 - 05:34 AM "Jim Carroll and his whining responses"Joe Offer that's a disgraceful comment in the context of this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Nov 19 - 04:41 AM I must confess that I haven't been following this thread too closely, but, having just caught up, I must say that "whining responses" seems like a very inappropriate and, ironically, a whining response to Jim. I read what Brian says and I recall that he is always polite and mild-mannered here (as in real life). It really is ridiculous that an unsigned-in anonymous person can wade in here by starting a thread that appears to have vexatious intent. It feels like the Wild West. Anyway, that's what I think and I'm sticking to it. And to Irish tunes... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Nov 19 - 02:55 AM Here's a YouTube playlist of Walter Pardon recordings: Pseudonymous, you have some worthwhile things to say, but much of this thread is taken up with your personal attacks on Jim Carroll, and his whining responses. This makes a good mess of what could be an important topic of discussion. Keep this discussion to the topic of discussion. Otherwise, I will have to shut it down. -Joe Offer, Mudcat Music Editor- |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 15 Nov 19 - 12:42 PM It's taken too big a chunk of my afternoon catching up with this thread... But there is a perverse fascination, akin to them olden days tourists visiting Bedlam to laugh at the loonies... Some of the loonies, I'm sure might have been very well educated erudite folks before their minds snapped... If pseud is a genuine academic, I'd caution from my own observed experiences, that there is a lot of mental instability in higher education institutions... This is somethging that needs to be addressed, Universities must work harder on their Duty of care for students and academic staff... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 15 Nov 19 - 09:14 AM The section of dialogue quoted above by Pseudonymous, headed: '9. IN FRONT OF AN AUDIENCE', contains no 'leading questions' at all, as far as I can see. For an interviewer to ask a singer unused to performing in front of any kind of an audience how he reacts to a folk festival crowd is a perfectly sensible question. It is WP, not the interviewer, who brings up the the idea of 'seeing' the action of a song. This is probably the most elaborate and obsessively pursued troll thread I've witnessed in all my years on Mudcat. The OP appears to believe that cutting and pasting a few pieces from Mustrad, then trying to throw doubt on other people's work by lobbing in vague and unsubtantiated accusations of 'inconsistency', 'conjecture', 'bias', etc., constitutes 'research'. There a lot wrong with Dave Harker's work, but Harker is F. R. Leavis compared with this individual. Watching him/her waggling a sagging stick of rhubarb in futile challenge to genuine researchers like Jim Carroll and Mike Yates is like witnessing one of those BBC 'debates' between a distinguished climate scientist with a lifetime of experience and an ignorant shouter with a political agenda. "I now am trying to fit in with the level of discussion on this site (as per eg Brian Peters)." I always try to remain polite on Mudcat, but the sheer volume of misinformation here, and the Quixotic fanaticism with which the agenda has been pursued, has tested even my patience. The remark about 'The Pardon industry' is one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen on Mudcat, and was the last straw, I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 15 Nov 19 - 08:05 AM " Planted by an extremist group"...this just gets more and more bizarre..does it not ? |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,folklorist Date: 15 Nov 19 - 07:49 AM >>>Deispite having potted copiously on the sunject, he displays neitre knowledge of or interest in Traditional Music and his ferevent attempts to silence or denigrate the views ofr anybody vaguely left of Attilla the Hun indicates a political rather than a cultural agenda<<< It would be very difficult to disagree with this statement. It would be even more difficult to be able to read it. It would be more difficult still to work out what this person is on about. How do you people cope with this? |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,jag Date: 15 Nov 19 - 05:21 AM Sorry, typos. "...Knowing that he was [of the political left] makes me think..." "Is there any record how Peter Bellamy's viewed Walter's singing and meterial?" |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,jag Date: 15 Nov 19 - 05:14 AM I don't understand the point about the A L Lloyd sleeve notes "illustrates once again the point made at the outset that Pardon was taken up and marketed by the far left" Taken in isolation I don't think it even hints that A L Lloyd was of the political left. Knowing that he makes me think he was keeping his political stance out of his comments. Though I am curious over the mention of Walter's view of Kipling. But that also reminds me that "at the outset" Walter was introduced to the 'revivalists' by Peter Bellamy. Is there any record what Peter Bellamy's viewed Walter's singing and meterial? |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: The Sandman Date: 15 Nov 19 - 05:10 AM I find it fairly easy to distinguish the truth about Walter , particularly as i knew people who knew him personally. I think Damien Barber knew him, why dont you contact him |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Nov 19 - 03:28 AM I think that might be true too Dave - he was moved about during the war I mentioned Richmond because that's the place he remembered with most fondness " cherry picked" I couldn't agree more P (why do people have to pick three-barreled names - makes lfe very difficult the morning after the night before) There's plenty more to be said about this important singer - not just by me I know Mike had a great deal to say about him, as did many others Bert Lloyd eulogised over his singing after they met in America during the 200 Anniversary celebrations Jim "We have few singers - perhaps none - with such a clear memory for song words & such a fine regard for tune shapes as Walter. I don’t know that he is much bothered about “authenticity” - the folklorists got to him too late for that! But he knows what’s what about a song and he can distinguish neatly between folk products and commercial compositions. He should do; after all, he’s a cultivated chap and a discerning reader (you should hear him on the respective merits of Thomas Hardy & Kipling!) who walks around with a headful of folk songs not so much because he regards them as bits of heritage, but for a far better reason - because he likes the stuff. His voice is still young, and he can handle any sort of song with finesse - big ballads, broadside romances, Victorian tearjerkers, even bawdy bits. He’s a pleasure to know, a joy to listen to. Bravo, Walter, the pick of the bunch. A L Lloyd" 'A Country Life' Topic TSDL392, (1982) (recorded and edited by Mike Yates) |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 Nov 19 - 03:00 AM There is another thing that needs to be corrected in the Wiki article. It says that he was based in Aldershot during the war. I presume that you are right, Jim, and he was actually based in Richmond so you should submit a correction. You always complain about the inaccuracy of Wiki - Now is your chance to put at least one thing right! |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Nov 19 - 11:45 PM Jim - it's a simple point I made... This thread could have been a useful resource for information on Walter Pardon. Where both genuine critical analysis and newbie questions are tolerated as part of valid positive discussion on: His songs. His voice. Relevant aspects of his biography. Analysis of his significance. etc... AS it is, this thread has been trampled into a quagmire of shite, by an OP who has turned out to be a bit of a stalker nutter with dubious motives, and the consquent conflict caused... All I suggested was if a volunteer could be bothered, then the best of this thread could be cherry picked and used to set up a new Walter Pardon perma thread that is possibly moderated. Who would you think would be best up for the idea...??? |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 19 - 08:15 PM "added to the fact his family ware Methodists and he did not go to the pub." Walter wasn't a churchgoer and liked a drink in moderation His family were connected with rather lovely local church as musicians but I am not aware they were in any way God-botherers - I never heard Walter pass a view on religion, one way or the other THe Methodists played a part in rural Trades Unionism in the 19th century, so there may be a family connection there He never married but there was a lady.... she died a long time before we knew him - Walter asked to be buried in the same church where she is buried The only time he lived away from home was when he was called up for the Army during the war He was excused going abroad as his trad was considered essential to the war effort - he spent it working on various military airports - he was based in Richmond, in Yorkshire The last word I would unseto describe Walter's singing was 'boring - he was an intimately quiet singer whose singing invited the listener to share his stories rather tha pushing them in their faces - Mikeen McCarthy was similar in approach With Walter, you met the song half-way - my preference every time I have no intention of responding to anybody who refers to this gentle polite old man as "Pardon" - I find that extremely ill-mannered and disrespectful, especially after what has gone before "Regarding Pardon's supposed use of the term 'folk song'" Walter's "supposed" use of the word folk song has appeared in transcripts I have put up Either I am being accused of faking transcripts or the writer isn't bothering to read what Walter had to say - either is possible, given ..... "Jim - It didn't need to be questioned.. no hidden implication" Didn't suggest you were - Stop being paranoid I was merely pointing out the fact that Walter has proved to be able to speak for himself Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: RTim Date: 14 Nov 19 - 06:47 PM I note that NO ONE has made the point that Walter P. seems to have been Single all his life......added to the fact his family ware Methodists and he did not go to the pub. It seems he only left the village to spend time in the Army- and then as a Carpenter therefore unlikely to have seen any conflict......He seems a very mild mannered and ordinary guy ....and probably very shy. His singing style is not "mannered" in any way....simple and even a little boring, however he did sing about subjects he did not experience himself... Tim Radford |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Pseudonymous Date: 14 Nov 19 - 06:35 PM For me, and this is I know just one point of view, it would help if background information on Knapton was at least reasonably accurate. For example, it won't do to state that because the roads were not made up in Walter's youth, outside influences were few. Just for starters, there was a railway station serving both Knapton and a neighbouring village dating from 1898 for passengers and freight. Cattle used to be sent out by train. There seems to have been a post office from early times. Local men fighting in WW 1 sent letters home. There was a school there prior to Forster's Education Act (mentioned by Pardon in an early interview), so we can presume that Pardon attended school locally. A picture headed 'Knapton School' 1919 in the book shows less than 30 children in total. At least one farmer made additional money in the hard 1920s by taking in paying guests in summer. According to the book I cited before at the turn of the century there was some car ownership, the rector, the doctor, a cattle dealer (who also used a horse and cart - presumably on roads that were not 'made up?) |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Pseudonymous Date: 14 Nov 19 - 05:31 PM Regarding Pardon's supposed use of the term 'folk song'. In one of the earliest interviews I cited, one on the BL website, he is asked whether they called the songs 'folk song's. He replies that they did not: they called them old songs. Folk songs, he says, were something he did at school. So the question is why he started to use the term, and the answer may well be either what he learned at school, plus what he picked up in the Revival. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Pseudonymous Date: 14 Nov 19 - 05:23 PM For me, it is not good enough to assert that tape recordings of Parson provide anything like a transparent window on to the man. I have explained the reasons for this, I feel. Undated quotations are particularly unhelpful. Then, there is the additional question of the validity of interpretations of what he said, when they get advanced in support of some broader theory about 'traditional singers. I would have no interest at all in yet another biased, selective and ideologically driven presentation, there are too many of these already. It would not address any of the problems outlined in the original post. A decent presentation would present assertions that have been made, dated, with the evidence provided in favour of them (if any) cited. Rather as Wiki might expect. By the way, the original post cited Mustrad as a source. Prior to presenting I searched these threads using the site search facility and I made notes. It is an interesting exercise. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Nick Dow Date: 14 Nov 19 - 05:09 PM and it made me contact the man to whom I lent my recordings to see if they were still in existence. Watch this space, now peace is proclaimed. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: RTim Date: 14 Nov 19 - 04:46 PM At least with all this talk about Walter P. (who I have known about since the late 1970's) it made me find the recordings of him I have and listen to them again...and to read Michael Yates notes in "A World Without Horses".... I have an opinion about his singing - but will keep it to myself....... Tim Radford |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Nov 19 - 03:46 PM Jim - It didn't need to be questioned.. no hidden implications... I simply meant you, or one of the othe folks you have in mind... You really must try to be less paranoid and supicious of me and other innocent folks... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 19 - 03:09 PM "Maybe a real Walter Pardon friend/enthusiast" I didn't question this at the tim because I thought i t implied there weren't any of thiose already here, despite mine, Mike Yates's and Brian Peters's postings Personally, I thought I'd put up enough of Walter speaking for himself to make the statement superfluous anyway THre greatest gap in our knowledge of folk song is teh absence of the singers' opinions e have that here in spades from an extremely intelligent man Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Nov 19 - 12:45 PM HiLo - I'll paste my post from earlier. "From: punkfolkrocker - PM Date: 12 Nov 19 - 10:00 AM Maybe a real Walter Pardon friend/enthusiast could sift the wheat from the chaff in this thread, and open and transfer it to a new properly and expertly curated Walter thread...??? Where both genuine critical analysis and newbie questions are tolerated as part of valid positive discussion." It is frustrating when useful information and ideas get buried, even deleted as collateral damage, when threads break down into chaotic warfare... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 19 - 12:36 PM HiLo There's enough of Walter himself here to get anybody's head around what h was about without anybody having to act as an intermediary As far as Walter preserving the tunes of his songs, I think he approached tunes as Peggy Seeger argued they should be, he stripped them down to their basic forms and remembered them that way We once asked him what his Uncle Billy sounded like and he immediately said, "Like Joseph Taylor" - Walter most certainly doesn't I know that Dave Bland or Bill Leader once played him some of the Lincolnshire recordings, so he wasn't pulling the name out of the air I've never been sure whether Taylor consciously decorated his songs or, as it is sometimes suggested, his 'decorations' were in fact controlled vibrato I've always regarded what Ned Adams does at the end of line one of 'The Bold Princess Royal' to be an example of pure decoration If Walter was remembering the basic tune, perhaps the melodeon is the ideal instrument for doing that It's along time since I read Mike Yates's article on Walter's tunes - must look at it again Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Brian Peters Date: 14 Nov 19 - 12:12 PM Regarding WP's melodeon playing, Pseudonymous writes: "And you do understand what I mean by 'data on this originating with Pardon himself', but obviously not. Or you might have given a reference to that data. Too much trouble? The conjectural stuff, as a moment's thought on this might have shown, is the discussions on whether the tunes were distorted by his habit of playing them or trying to play them on the melodeon. Right?" If you expressed yourself more clearly (and took the trouble to do basic stuff like distinguishing between quotes from previous posts and your own contributions), it might be easier to see what you're getting at. Another handy hint, by the way, is that attempting to patronise other posters doesn't raise the tone of the discussion. Here's what I take to be the relevant passage from Jim's account - though since you didn't bother to cut and paste it I can't be sure: "During the long period of not hearing them, at least 20 years, he kept the songs alive for himself by playing the tunes on the melodeon. Did they perhaps get changed then? Were certain phrases easier for him to play on the melodeon? Or was it simply his own creativity, that he preferred certain musical phrases to others? We’ll never know, of course, but certainly Walter’s tunes are a little different to standard versions and very distinctive." I see nothing unreasonable in raising these questions - they're precisely the kind of thing I'd have been asking in Jim's place. One of the questions often asked about song variation is whether it's a matter of individual creativity, faulty execution or imperfect memory. If a singer with tunes as flamboyant and intricately ornamented as - say - Joseph Taylor - had used a melodeon (in many ways a crude instrument) as an aide-memoire, it's reasonable to consider whether those tunes might have been changed along the way. One possible way in which a melodeon might act as a leveller on melodies would be if the player knew only how to play 'on the push', in which case everything would come out in the major. But we know this wasn't the case with WP. I'd also say that the melody for something like 'A Ship to Old England came would be quite counter-intuitive on a melodeon, which suggests that he wasn't dumbing down tunes by remembering them in this way. I need hardly add that many of the same questions regarding individual creativity would apply whether or not a melodeon had been involved. And Jim's would have been an inferior account (the world, indeed, would be a duller place) without the kind of'conjecture' you seem to find objectionable. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 14 Nov 19 - 11:47 AM I know very little about Walter Pardon and was hoping that this thread would be a pleasant discussion of him. However, it has become, like a number of other threads, an unpleasant bit of combat. Why do these things become about one argumentative person and not about the subject at hand. I am disappointed as I DID want to learn more but, same old, same old. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Nov 19 - 11:25 AM This is starting to sound like a band travelling back from a gig in the back of a minivan... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 19 - 11:10 AM I wanna pee again Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Nov 19 - 10:51 AM I feel sick... uuurggh.. sorry.. I couldn't open the window... |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,Joe G Date: 14 Nov 19 - 10:46 AM Are we there yet Mum? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Nov 19 - 10:10 AM The proper line is "Don't make me stop this car!" |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: Jeri Date: 14 Nov 19 - 10:04 AM Pseudomonas provokes Jim, and Jim, who has absolutely no immunity to tro...provocation picks up ball and runs with it. Please, if the posts go meta, bitching about one another or other posters, I will put this as politely as possible - shut the fuck up. Thank you. Please carry on discussing Walter Pardon, and someone, when you feel inclined, delete this damned message. (I'm feeling like the kids are in the back seat, and one keeps whining "Mom, he/she keeps TOUCHING me!" Peace, out.) |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: GUEST,jag Date: 14 Nov 19 - 10:01 AM To clarify that my 14 Nov 19 - 05:53 AM post opens with a quote from one of several posts from Pseudonymous that have vanished. Thanks to Jim for the text of the Eyam/SSH talk. |
|
Subject: RE: Review: Walter Pardon; Research From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Nov 19 - 09:41 AM Walking around the streets in 2019 we kinda got used to strangers walking and talking to themselves... In them old days we could be certain they were nutters. Now we got to consider miniturised Bluetooth headsets.. But what a strange turn this thread has taken today... Pseud - if you haven't already stated it, even if you have but it's lost in the verbiage, please remind us of your purpose for this thread, your vested interst in Walter Pardon. Are you planning a paper of some sort for publication or peer review...??? A media project...??? A movie script [Castiong note for Walter - Harry Enfield]...??? What exactly...???? ..otherwise you are making yourself look like a bit of a nutter stalker... Are you a distant Pardon relation with a revenge grudge like an Agatha Christie or Scooby Doo villain...??? |
| Share Thread: |