How To Research the History of a Song

Subject: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 07 Mar 20 - 02:23 AM

Interesting question. One raised by the 38th Katharine Briggs Memorial Lecture about the 'construction' of folklore by collectors and scholars.

How is it done? I mean in general, not in respect of a particular song.

I would include both the finding out and the presentation of those findings as 'research'.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 Mar 20 - 03:38 AM

There is no "in general".

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 20 - 05:03 AM

There are certain key indices and websites to consult. The first is the Roud index which, if you haven't downloaded it already, you can find on the Vaughan Williams Library website. This will tell you how often it has been collected, where, when, geographical spread etc. Often this will lead you back to a printed source. Another good site is this one The Traditional Ballad Index which will give you background. The Bodleian Library has a lot of broadsheets on line at http://ballads.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/search/?query=. You could also try just googling the title, but beware of statements such as "said to be .." or "purported to be ..." as these are often fanciful theories with no proof. Remember that folk song is very poor at history. If you are researching children's songs, then there is no better reference that the Opie books. This site can give you examples of research into individual songs: http://glostrad.com/. Finally, good luck.

Tradsinger

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 20 - 06:16 AM

It's quite rewarding to take your start from any clues the songs themselves might hold
Songs like Lady in her Father's Garden probably have their roots in the 'broken token' tradition which possible has its roots in the 'Gimmel Ring' tradition of making a match with an especially manufactured ring which breaks into two (three in earlier days) to be given to each of the betrothed, and a witness, among the better off

Many of the poaching and transportation songs were inspired by the many centuries seizures of Common land (which have their own interesting history)

The 'Can I go along with you' songs are obviously referring to the armies of 'Camp Followers' made up of wives, prostitutes. tradesmen, etc., which followed the troops into war
SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION TO BE HAD ON THIS

The Ballad of 'Tiftie's Annie' - is crammed with background history - the replacement of the Gentry by the new Trading Classes - the use of female members of the family as a way to climb the social ladder, the lengths ruthless heads of the family would go to protect their female 'assets' -    accusations of the use of witchcraft as a love charm - with a bit of the Edinburgh witch trials thrown in for good measure (with a possible trip to Fyvie Churchyard to see the grave to top it all off)

All good fun and far more fruitful than chasing the rainbows of 'original versions)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Mar 20 - 09:59 AM

Here's what I do (Windows 10)

click on the URL "omnibox"
put the title of the song in double quotes
add history; like this

"on top of old smoky" history
press enter

This search will often take you to articles or notes about the song.
============
If you are making a CD or something like that, I have yet to find a fast and definite way to learn if a given song is copyrighted or not.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Starship
Date: 07 Mar 20 - 10:16 AM

GUEST,Pseudonymous, are you talking about primary or secondary research??

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 08 Mar 20 - 05:23 PM

Pseu
The best way to research the history of a song is to amass as much as you can that is extant about the song, including every version available. Then there are several possible approaches; chronological is the most obvious, putting the versions in order that they appeared, were printed or collected, comparing different versions in as much detail as necessary, plotting charts of stanza occurrence is one approach. Another method would be to look at the geographical migration of the song, where it was/is found. Are there any analogues in other languages?

The most difficult ones to trace are those laments that have been on the go for centuries and have picked up commonplaces from all sorts of other songs. The Died for Love family for instance. Whilst these are very challenging they are also very interesting.

A word of advice would be to check if someone else has already done a study on the song you have in mind. No point in reinventing the wheel although you might turn up something fresh or have a different angle on it.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 20 - 08:02 PM

Pity our knowledge of the oral tradition hardly goes back further than the beginning of the 20th century (probably centuries later than the history you are seeking to research) Steve
Jim

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 20 - 11:27 PM

Thanks to Google Books and Archive.org, We can go back to song collections from the 19th century and earlier. Rather than searching for the song title, I find it more effective to search for a distinctive phrase (or two) from a song, something that is not likely to change or have alternate spellings, and put that phrase in quotes.
There are lots of spellings of "Muirsheen Durkin," so I search for goodbye "sick and tired of".
I also search the Traditional Ballad Index and the Roud Index. In the Origins and DTStudy threads, we try to post every version of a song that we can find, and then we go to work analyzing what we've found.
I'm a big fan of the Traditional Ballad Index, so I try to buy all the significant books that are indexed there. Masato Sakurai and the Late and Legendary Q were able to amass even more books than I have, and we spent years posting everything we could find. I sure miss Masato and Q. And then there's Jim Dixon. He has secret, magical ways of finding things that nobody else can find. I suppose I could compile a list of at least 40 Mudcatters who have done amazing things here. It's kinda nice to think of them and the good times I've had collaborating with them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 05:20 AM

What was behind the negative tone of my comment back there: most of my digging has been about topicality, finding out what motivated the creation of a song or tune and identifying what everything in it means. There are no systematic methods for that once it's drifted far enough into the past. You could end up needing any of the sources historians use: historical dictionaries, newspaper archives, genealogies, historical maps, autobiographies, account books, histories of past technologies or army regiments... and some of the sources you'd most expect to be reliable are no such thing.

By the time it got to identifying the politico-religious references in 17th century satirical broadsides I knew I was in it over my head. There are limits.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 06:36 AM

Here are the thoughts I had jotted down, for what little they may be worth:

1 Remember songs have both tunes and words, which may have different origins.
    Consider features of both which may give clues about dates

2 Ask a person who sings it. Ask around.

3 Look in Child

4 Look in a book

5 Look in all your books

6 Look in all the books you can beg borrow or steal

7 Look in journals/magazines etc. Trace back references to the sources (if any)

8 Online
   Ask Mudcat
   Use other specialist web-based sources
   Look in JSTOR/Google Scholar etc
   Look in Roud online via VWML
   
9 Read album/CD liner notes

10 Look for mentions in contemporary sources: diaries, letters, editions of songs, manuscripts etc

11 Evaluate the sources used

12 Be prepared to encounter variant/type definitional difficulties.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 06:40 AM

And already I can see my ideas can be firmed up using the ideas of other posters. This is one of the strengths of Mudcat, so thanks for the discussion.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 10:22 AM

Jim says 'Pity our knowledge of the oral tradition hardly goes back further than the beginning of the 20th century'. Absolutely.

However, many of these songs have a history that goes back well beyond that. A good number can easily be traced through a mixture of print and manuscript for 3 or 4 centuries. And in some of the versions (not all) it is quite obvious from the nature of the material that they have come from oral tradition at various points. Lots of examples if you want them.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 10:40 AM

As I've indicated on another thread, our knowledge in Scotland goes back rather further (those prepared to look for it).

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 11:08 AM

Since I already have a reputation for being appalling and argumentative, I will say that for me phrases like 'the oral tradition' beg not just one but several questions.

Singular noun, definite article. The linguistic choices here have significance.

Also questions of whose tradition(s) when, and whether these vary according to date, gender, ethnicity/sub-cultural group/region.

Certainly for me, a concept with all sorts of ideological associations. And presumably not always thought of in quite the same way by different people making use of it.   

Also Steve, while deferring to your expertise and experience, what may seem 'obvious' to one person might not seem so to another. For me, and this is just personal, if, while carrying out some research, I came across a piece of what purported to be 'history' (and Brian can mutter about apostrophes as often as he likes I am still putting it in scare quotes) which stated that oral influences on a piece were obvious, I like to think that I would still be looking to see what the basis for that view was, and how the point was argued.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 11:53 AM

Not a problem, Pseu. For me you can be as appalling and argumentative as you like. I'm well aware that some academics prefer the term 'aural tradition' but all of the scholars I correspond with including those here know exactly what is meant by 'oral tradition' and I'd like to bet that say Brian or Lighter or Richard or Steve Roud would have exactly the same idea of what we were talking about.

Now if you, or anyone else here wishes to know what we mean by that when applied to folklore no problem, you just need to ask. It is 'The' oral tradition because it is quite straightforward and can be applied to a large body of material and is a singular thing. I'm quite certain also that you know exactly what we mean by it.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 03:09 PM

But seriously, and please note that I am not at all denying that transmission can and does happen 'orally' or 'aurally', the term 'the oral tradition' as if there were one single uninterrupted stream of heritage does annoy me because I don't think it can be right.

I think I do know roughly what you mean by it. The emphasis here is on roughly. Because even though I am sure you can provide detailed examples overall as a concept I think it might be an oversimplification.

Does 'the oral tradition' encompass Irish, Scottish and English oral/aural transmission of words and tunes, for example, or would it be better to use the plural and drop the definite article?

And it hasn't always been non-controversial and I don't think it is so now. Regarding the past, I was told to look at Wilgus and I did. I rest my case on whether the topic of oral/aural transmission and creation of material has or has not been controversial: it's the main topic of the opening of his book! Not to mention the concept of 'ballad' as equivocally used by Gummere.

Looking at it from another perspective, why not speak of transmission practices rather than use this concept which implies long lineage via oral/aural means when it seems fairly clear to me that written and oral/aural culture have been intertwined for centuries (on this I agree with Lloyd and more so, and also see the arguments of another book suggested on Mudcat, the Literary history of the ballad.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 03:16 PM

'It is a singular thing'... it is a concept, an abstract noun; I think this may be an example of 'reification'?

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 03:33 PM

"A good number can easily be traced through a mixture of print and manuscript for 3 or 4 centuries. "
We know we've had an oral tradition since the 8 hundreds at least, as you said yourself ("However, many of these songs have a history that goes back well beyond that"
We also know Scots shepherds were singing folk songs in the 1500s and that one song identified was still being sung by source singers in the 20th century
Anybody who believes that an oral tradition with that provenance hasn't produced songmakers needs to get out more often and listen to what those singers said instead of trying to assimilate big words that nobody seems to understand
We both know that appearing in print doesn't mean squat when talking about origins, as blusteringly as some people might suggest it does
"I am going to get ridiculed for multiple posting"
Drop in the ocean for you Pseud
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 06:57 PM

Pseu
You are confusing 2 ideas here. Simply by using the term 'the oral tradition' does not mean we are implying that it is over a particular length of time or that it can't be broken by other forms of transmission. If I learn a song from a book and someone picks it up from me aurally and sings it themselves then that is an example of 'the oral tradition'. The only time factor involved is the time it takes for me to have passed on that song/joke/tale/proverb/piece of dialect/tune etc., aurally.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 07:01 PM

'implies long lineage'. Where did you get that idea from? Certainly not from me.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 07:02 PM

Mudcatter Bruce Olson of Washington, DC, spent years researching old songs back as far as he could go. He compiled all his work on his Website, but his Website disappeared shortly after Bruce died in 2003. His family let us reproduce his Website at Mudcat, and it's available here (click) It's a great resource.
(you can also find it on the QuickLinks dropdown menu on most Mudcat pages).

Mudcatter "Richie" Matteson has also done some good research work on songs. You can find his work at http://www.bluegrassmessengers.com/. Richie also has at least two books published by Mel Bay.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 09 Mar 20 - 07:48 PM

Listen to the song.

One might think it obvious but it ain't so. Harry Belafonte's Yellow Bird case in point.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 04:16 AM

@ Steve. Hello. Regarding your post of 6.57. You say:

If I learn a song from a book and someone picks it up from me aurally and sings it themselves then that is an example of 'the oral tradition'.

I've a couple of thoughts on this,

1 Is it? I firmly believe that some people who use the phrase 'oral tradition' would argue that it isn't.

2 For me this example does not quieten the questions I have about whose oral tradition(s). It is an example of a particular practice. Counting this as an example of 'the oral tradition' that could easily render learning a Kinks song from an old LP at one remove an example of the 'oral tradition', and I think I have participated in some examples of this (Dead End Street).

3 If there is just one 'oral tradition' where do its borders end? Europe? Scandinavia? And if there is, then may we stop worrying about cultural appropriation?

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 04:18 AM

@ Jim Carroll. Go away and grow up.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 06:27 AM

https://doi.org/10.1080/0015587X.2019.1585711

Hoping this link to the article which in part inspired me to open this thread works. Well worth a read in the light of the discussion here. You can get hold of the piece online if you persevere.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0015587X.2019.1585711

Have a nice day everybody.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 07:49 AM

@ Pseudonymus Glad to assist

The Unfortunate Rake’s Progress: A Case Study of the Construction of Folklore by

There is a silent majority I meet in the clubs appreciate your efforts

Illegitimi non carborundum , I know its fake Latin, but it gets the message across)

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 10:16 AM

Pseu, the term oral tradition isn't exclusive to any culture or even humans. Blackbirds and parrots actually do it and I'm sure many other creatures. It is just a very simple process of passing from one being to another voice to ear and then reproduction in a slightly or greatly altered form.

I understand you are talking about how we use the term in folk music. fair enough. The example I gave was at the very basic simple end. Yes, others will qualify this and talk about passing material from generation to generation, or within a particular culture or generation, but that's just one way of looking at the term. When we discuss it in terms of folk song the vast majority of times we are talking about how the songs become altered over longer periods, but where are the limits of this 'longer period'? In my book the lower limit is as I described. Steve Roud gives it a little longer. Who's right? Perhaps we both are. Again, like much of our terminology it is not precise with rock-solid boundaries.

Cultural appropriation and language boundaries are irrelevances when looking at the meaning/usage of the term.

Saying that pop songs can't be part of oral tradition is ludicrous in the extreme. As soon as little Jimmy hears the latest piece on his hifi and starts singing or whistling bits in the bathroom that is the oral tradition in process.

The alterations that come about due to oral tradition are something else entirely. That's what we call the 'folk process' for want of better terminology. We can discuss the process in more detail if it helps.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 12:22 PM

@Steve Gardham
"all of the scholars I correspond with including those here know exactly what is meant by 'oral tradition'
"If I learn a song from a book and someone picks it up from me aurally and sings it themselves then that is an example of 'the oral tradition'.

I don't know what you mean 'oral tradition', because I have seen it used in different ways and your example doesn't help me understand it since you could equally say "that is an example of oral transmission"

Are not the individual steps in a chain of oral (or any other form of) transmission where interesting factors that could be researched come into play? Some of it hard stuff like, as in Jack Campin's example, political satire of a distant time, or requiring particular philological expertise.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 12:23 PM

... don't know what you mean by oral tradition ...

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 01:06 PM

" don't know what you mean by oral tradition ..."
Perhaps this might help - plenty of'big' words here
Jim
Oral tradition in music
The term “oral tradition,” long used to denote a concept of basic importance in the study of folk speech, has been adopted without reserva¬tion by students of folk music in the Western world. It has given good service in that field and in the integra¬tion of the twin studies of speech and music within the more general folklore. Presumably, it could serve also to tie together the studies of the folk and the fine arts of music within the more general musicology—an equally desirable end. But there are several reasons why the term does not serve this second function any too well.
In the first place, it is a curious but incontrovertible fact that the term “oral tradition” and the study of folk music have not only been elaborated outside of musi¬cology, but have never become acclimatized there. On the one hand, to paraphrase Leonard Bloomfield’s re¬marks upon students of (speech) literature, the majority of musicologists are not primarily interested in music, but in the literature of the European fine art of music, its grammar and syntax (harmony and counterpoint), and have dug neither deeply nor broadly enough even in that rich field to find either oral tradition or folk music, except in some rather superficial aspects. On the other hand, the valiant little minority of comparative musicologists—primarily interested in music rather than the literature of music—has not yet worked up far enough from its logical beginnings with primitive music to tie in either the concept of oral tradition or the study of folk music with the fine art of music, European or other. See discussion in SONG: FOLK SONG AND THE MUSIC
OF FOLK SONG.
In the second place, though students of folk speech in the Western world can perhaps afford to ignore the comparatively rare instrumental speech (signal-drum¬ming, Morse code, deaf-and-dumb manual speech, etc.), and while students of folk music can make the term “oral tradition” stretch to serve consideration of fiddle- tunes, banjo-picking, and harmonica-playing, musicians can hardly be expected to regard the term seriously in speaking of a Beethoven symphony. They would recog¬nize the role of oral transmission in the fine art of music if it were explained to them. But they would know it as plain “tradition”—the tradition of Joachim, Caruso, or De Reszke, or of Palestrina or Bach. In the former cases, they would be referring to very concrete musical realities, transmitted largely by word of mouth. In the latter, they would be referring to substantial stylistic generalizations conventionally dealt with in written words. In both cases, they would be journeying far from what the folklorist calls “oral tradition.” The increasing dominance of in¬strumental music in the Western world since 1600 has pushed consciousness of oral processes into the back¬ground and placed main emphasis upon aural processes Musicians recognize “playing by ear” and “singing by rote” (singing what is heard); but traditions of both, together with the allied art of improvisation, are utterly dead in professional life, and no serious consideration— to the best of present knowledge—has been given to their revival. The term “aural tradition” is no substitute. For the mere suggestion, that there were any but heard music, would seem ridiculous.
In the third place, it may be remarked that in the study of folklore in general the term “oral tradition” is used a bit loosely. Three separate meanings in common use may be distinguished: 1) an inherited accumulation of materials; 2) the process of inheritance, cultivation, and transmission thereof; 3) the technical means em¬ployed. This is not an unusual semantic complication and does not confuse us unduly as long as we remain in the field of folk music. But it may confuse us when we attempt integration of the folk and fine arts of music. And the uninitiated musicologist, upon whose coopera¬tion we would largely depend in such an endeavor, might be pardoned if he were to accuse the folklorist of cult- worship in placing such strong dependence upon a con¬cept that must seem almost mystical to him.
A fourth consideration bears upon this misunderstand¬ing. Popularization of the European fine art of music has itself achieved such cultlike devotion that oral tradi¬tion and folk music alike are very generally regarded, by professional musicians, as a low form of musical life Almost universal adoption has been given to a theory of unilinear evolution whereby the art of music progresses ever onward and upward from primitive, through folk and popular, to the fine art. The possibilities that esti¬mable qualities may be lost as well as gained, that the order of historical development may have been different in different places, and that the whole hierarchical con¬ception may be unwarrantably subjective, have ap¬parently been little explored.
With these considerations in mind, it would seem that our difficulty were twofold: on the one hand, ambiguity in the use of the word “oral”; on the other, lack of at¬tention to the basic conditions and processes—the dynamics—of music tradition in general. Oral tradition is only one of many kinds of tradition. Examination of other traditions, or rather, classes of tradition, as they function in connection with music will show that if we range beside each other the main classes of tradition that affect both the folk and the fine arts of music, they cease to be mutually exclusive categories of things, but rather generalizations, useful to study, of a flow of events whose outer limits show well-defined opposite characteristics at the same time that the inner relations show almost unbroken shadings of hybridization or accultur from one extreme to the other. After this is done, may hope to make some progress with the proble oral tradition.
Tradition, as the handing on of acquired charistics, has been said to be the basic distinction be man and the other animals. Korzybski, in adoptiwj more abstract homolog, refers to “time-binding” as abling men to communicate over intervals of time, that the younger members of a group can begin wf the older leave off. According to him, it is man’s prin survival mechanism, in terms of which relative or insanity can be measured. Whether or not acqu- characteristics can be inherited biologically, there can no doubt that they are inherited socially. And whc or not these serve, as Korzybski believes they do, principal survival mechanisms of individual men, t' can be no doubt that they do serve human culture munities in such a way. There would seem to be t grounds for very serious evaluation of tradition in study of cultural activity.
In the schematic outline given below, the main i] to which we already admit the term “tradition,” gether with some additional uses to which it would ; we must admit it, are grouped so as to show a field operations within it, and the environment in which beet are present to us.

Music tradition, as envisaged here, is a function of culture—a dynamic conception. With respect to the finr sense of the term “oral tradition” to which reference wm made above, this appears to us, however, as an accumu¬lation of material products-a repertoire of songs, dancesi etc.-and so, structural in character. But we must not be deceived by this illusion, which is entirely subjective and a direct result of our individual existences in generic! space-time. The repertoire as a whole and its relatic® to the culture of which it is an accumulation of tradi¬tions are in a constant state of flux.
With respect to the second sense of the term to whicr reference was made above, we must recognize two main types, oral and written, which combine in a variety of ways that we may conveniently set down as: predomi¬nantly oral, mixed (more or less equally) oral and writ¬ten and predominantly written. Unquestionably, pure oral tradition can only be found in the more primitive musics. Whether or not a pure written tradition, com¬parable to the higher mathematics of speech, exists or
here ^        ^ ^ mUSÍC need not be sPeculated upon
With respect to the third meaning of the term, atten¬tion should be called to another type of tradition, that operates not only through the persons in the field which is studied, but also through the persons who do the study¬ing of the field. Traditions of control are of two main types: intrinsic, D, operating within the music activity, and extrinsic, E, operating from outside the music activ¬ity, in the environment-the general field of culture. We aie conscious of traditions of control in the field of municipal, state, national, and international politics, and even in the politics of organizations and other groups. In our study of folk music, as elsewhere, these operate laree- y below the threshold of consciousness and receive little if any criticism from their owner (though plenty of it from his f
ellows!). It is evident that both carriers and students of folk music hold a variety of traditional attitudes toward their respective activity—attitudes fostered and expressed, often as not, qua oral tradition, rr want it, or expect it, to change; or they do not bk it or do not expect it to do so. They want to ve it, but not to put it to new uses; or vice versa. They i to preserve it for themselves, or they want to popu- it. And so on. Sometimes they want to do two are apparently contradictory things at once, or at ent times, or in different ways. These attitudes and ! actions that flow from them are essentially critical I character. But we seldom subject them to disciplined sm, because they appear to us as self-evidently . good, desirable, or beautiful. In fact, they present thoughts and feelings about what is right, good, ible or beautiful, not only in musical terms, but in • of life and culture in general.
This map has been made as comprehensive as possible within a small space. It is not to be confused with the territory mapped. There is quite a bit of dead reckoning in it, and there are many omissions. It is based upon a competence solely within captions A.5 and B.2 of the field. The validity of captions ^4.1-5 and £.1-4 is, how¬ever, customarily granted by scholars for purposes of discussion. As to captions A.6-9, the question marks indi¬cate a doubt their reality is more than suggestive.
We may presume that in using the term “oral tradi¬tion” students of folk speech and of folk music have taken for granted that what the voice produces is sound and that it is heard. Extension of the term to include sound produced by instruments has not disturbed them, though it might well have done so. Oral-ness easily implies aural-ness, and avoids the clumsy hyphenated term. The heart of the problem of the use of the term “oral tradition” in the integration of folk music and the general study of music is reached, however, when we face the tradition of writing—written tradition. Both music and speech must have been purely oral up to the time writing—even the crudest visual-oral correlations other than gesture—was introduced, and they have re¬mained so ever since in many places where writing has not been cultivated. A very vigorous oral tradition in speech can flourish among people who are literate in speech. Music literacy being even rarer than speech literacy, oral tradition in music is probably the more widespread. But without a very vigorous oral tradition of writing, neither speech nor music writing can be learned. Writing cannot be read—either in song or upon an instrument—without recourse to that same oral tradi¬tion. What the connection is between the oral tradition of folklore and the oral traditions of speech and music writing in general is difficult to say.
Though competent students may disagree upon the amount of material (A and B) for which there may be provenience in written tradition and the amount of influence music literacy may have upon the processes (C and D), there seems to be general agreement that both provenience and influence are ponderable. What we conventionally call “oral tradition" in folk music is, then, only predominantly oral (or even oral-aural). For though in many cases we cannot prove written provenience or influence, there are so many cases in which we can prove it, that the inference is: folk music is definable in part by survival in it; upon a “lower” social level where writing is rare, of traditions that have sifted down from a “higher” social level where writing is more common. It seems untenable today to say it is exclusively this, but equally so to say it is none of it. A theoretical 50-50 normal ratio between the dying survival of written tradition and the living creation of oral tradition would seem to be the safest working hypothesis. This would apply, of course, to the field (A.5 and £.1-4)—the accumulation of materials—and might, with respect to individual products (songs, dances, etc.) vary theoretically from a ratio of 1-99 to one of 99-1, but ordinarily within a much narrower neighbor¬hood of the norm, 50-50. We are, however, speaking here mainly of norms, rxot of the infinite variety of departures from them.
Taking all these considerations into account, it would seem the better part of wisdom to confine the use of the term “oral tradition” to bona, fide word of mouth (os, oris), substituting for it, as the main technical process of folk music, the less picturesque but more accurate “unwritten tradition,” with the understanding that by “unwritten” we mean “predominantly unwrit¬ten.” This would seem especially desirable in connection with the discussions now being held more and more frequently on both sides of the Atlantic relative to the problem of the notation of folk music.
The Occidental (international) technique of music notation—probably the most accurate and most widely used throughout the world—is a development of the fine art of European music. With its use, throughout more than a thousand years, this art has been able to individualize its products and assure reproduction of them wherever its traditions are elaborately maintained with a high degree of accuracy. Ur-texte have become defined by their composers, during the last century, with increasing precision. This means with increasing elab¬orateness. Today, notation of very minute inflections of phrasing, accentuation, nuances, etc., are a sine qua non of the typically unique product of value. The tendencv shows no sign of abating.
When we range beside such products a product of foli. art, we see at once they are upon two very different levels. If one were asked, “Where is the First Prelude of the Well-Tempered Clavichord?” one could say, “Here." And if it were played within established norms of scholarship, that would be it and all of it. But if one were asked, “Where is Barbara Allen?” the answer. “Here,” followed by the best rendition of an excellent informant, might be difficult to explain as “both it and not it, and certainly not all of it.” One could sing only one variant of one version.
The gap between the highly individualized identity of the product of fine art and the highly generalized identity of the product of folk art must not be under¬estimated. Their treatment by a science of folklore oi by musicology demands two very different techniques. Their evaluation in terms of critical method involves two very different sets of criteria. The single standard of musical value, maintained by many historico-musicol- ogists, cannot serve here. And the study of folk song might help to demonstrate that it should not serve any¬where.
The last matter to be stressed at this point is the usefulness of a revised concept of oral tradition in cor¬recting unilinear theories of the evolution of music in another connection. If the above analysis can stand, the order of historical development is definitely as in sec¬tion B of the conspectus, i.e. there can be no folk music in the proper sense of the word until there has been for some time a fine art of which it can be in part a dying survival. The common confusion of primitive and folk music, as idioms, should be clarified from a music- technical as it can be from an anthropological viewpoint. We can then envisage the formation and differentiation of music idiom as twin processes of ac¬culturation: a) between families and b) between idioms, with the potentiality always that both may operate at once or separately and in various ways in one and the same situation.
Perhaps in conclusion the reader should be reminded that the latter part of the preceding argument applies solely to the Occidental family of music tradition. The relationship of oral and written traditions undoubtedly differs greatly in the other families. One of the most important tasks of comparative musicology is to clarify this relationship upon a world basis. This will involve a revaluation of the notation system and a thorough critical and technical revision of the whole concept of written tradition and its relation to unwritten tradition. For the basic differences between the idioms and their respective products are largely the result of the notation system and the elaborate traditions by which its cur¬rency is maintained.
The Occidental notation system is par excellence a control system, and its use is a process by which traditions of control of the most varied, even opposed, kinds may be exercised. It is a set of directions for the reproduction of products so as to conform to the peculiar traditions of the Occidental fine art. When, therefore, we notate in it a product of the traditions of the folk art, the reproduction is almost bound to be as much, if not
more, in the traditions of the fine art than in those of the folk art. The act, in short, is one of translation from one idiom into another. The notated folk song is, then, not a primary but a secondary datum of study. Employment of special diacritical symbols to indicate deviations from the 12-tone equal temperament, short¬ening or lengthening of the duration of notes and rests, presence of slides, waverings, peculiar attacks, releases, etc., not traditional in the fine art, may increase the accuracy of the translation. But at the same time, it may lull the student into an illusion that it is not a translation and that he has before him a product with something of the individuality of a product of the fine art.
To offset these dangers, we have fortunately, in an increasing number of cases, the sound-recording-a primary objective datum for study, especially when it is accompanied by motion-picture film. Furthermore, it may perhaps not be premature to mention the fact that both in Europe and in the United States electronic- mechanic devices are being experimented with by which at least the single, unaccompanied melodic line may be automatically and objectively graphed. With the perfection of these devices, the rigorously scientific study of unwritten tradition in music (and possibly also in speech) can finally get under way, clear not only of the inaccuracies of our conventional techniques of writing, but of the subjective element inherent in even the most conscientious and skilled use of added dia¬critical symbols.        
CHARLES SEEGER

Standard Dictionary of Flklore, Mythology and Legend, Funk and Wagnaall 1950

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 01:06 PM

" don't know what you mean by oral tradition ..."
Perhaps this might help - plenty of'big' words here
Jim
Oral tradition in music
The term “oral tradition,” long used to denote a concept of basic importance in the study of folk speech, has been adopted without reserva¬tion by students of folk music in the Western world. It has given good service in that field and in the integra¬tion of the twin studies of speech and music within the more general folklore. Presumably, it could serve also to tie together the studies of the folk and the fine arts of music within the more general musicology—an equally desirable end. But there are several reasons why the term does not serve this second function any too well.
In the first place, it is a curious but incontrovertible fact that the term “oral tradition” and the study of folk music have not only been elaborated outside of musi¬cology, but have never become acclimatized there. On the one hand, to paraphrase Leonard Bloomfield’s re¬marks upon students of (speech) literature, the majority of musicologists are not primarily interested in music, but in the literature of the European fine art of music, its grammar and syntax (harmony and counterpoint), and have dug neither deeply nor broadly enough even in that rich field to find either oral tradition or folk music, except in some rather superficial aspects. On the other hand, the valiant little minority of comparative musicologists—primarily interested in music rather than the literature of music—has not yet worked up far enough from its logical beginnings with primitive music to tie in either the concept of oral tradition or the study of folk music with the fine art of music, European or other. See discussion in SONG: FOLK SONG AND THE MUSIC
OF FOLK SONG.
In the second place, though students of folk speech in the Western world can perhaps afford to ignore the comparatively rare instrumental speech (signal-drum¬ming, Morse code, deaf-and-dumb manual speech, etc.), and while students of folk music can make the term “oral tradition” stretch to serve consideration of fiddle- tunes, banjo-picking, and harmonica-playing, musicians can hardly be expected to regard the term seriously in speaking of a Beethoven symphony. They would recog¬nize the role of oral transmission in the fine art of music if it were explained to them. But they would know it as plain “tradition”—the tradition of Joachim, Caruso, or De Reszke, or of Palestrina or Bach. In the former cases, they would be referring to very concrete musical realities, transmitted largely by word of mouth. In the latter, they would be referring to substantial stylistic generalizations conventionally dealt with in written words. In both cases, they would be journeying far from what the folklorist calls “oral tradition.” The increasing dominance of in¬strumental music in the Western world since 1600 has pushed consciousness of oral processes into the back¬ground and placed main emphasis upon aural processes Musicians recognize “playing by ear” and “singing by rote” (singing what is heard); but traditions of both, together with the allied art of improvisation, are utterly dead in professional life, and no serious consideration— to the best of present knowledge—has been given to their revival. The term “aural tradition” is no substitute. For the mere suggestion, that there were any but heard music, would seem ridiculous.
In the third place, it may be remarked that in the study of folklore in general the term “oral tradition” is used a bit loosely. Three separate meanings in common use may be distinguished: 1) an inherited accumulation of materials; 2) the process of inheritance, cultivation, and transmission thereof; 3) the technical means em¬ployed. This is not an unusual semantic complication and does not confuse us unduly as long as we remain in the field of folk music. But it may confuse us when we attempt integration of the folk and fine arts of music. And the uninitiated musicologist, upon whose coopera¬tion we would largely depend in such an endeavor, might be pardoned if he were to accuse the folklorist of cult- worship in placing such strong dependence upon a con¬cept that must seem almost mystical to him.
A fourth consideration bears upon this misunderstand¬ing. Popularization of the European fine art of music has itself achieved such cultlike devotion that oral tradi¬tion and folk music alike are very generally regarded, by professional musicians, as a low form of musical life Almost universal adoption has been given to a theory of unilinear evolution whereby the art of music progresses ever onward and upward from primitive, through folk and popular, to the fine art. The possibilities that esti¬mable qualities may be lost as well as gained, that the order of historical development may have been different in different places, and that the whole hierarchical con¬ception may be unwarrantably subjective, have ap¬parently been little explored.
With these considerations in mind, it would seem that our difficulty were twofold: on the one hand, ambiguity in the use of the word “oral”; on the other, lack of at¬tention to the basic conditions and processes—the dynamics—of music tradition in general. Oral tradition is only one of many kinds of tradition. Examination of other traditions, or rather, classes of tradition, as they function in connection with music will show that if we range beside each other the main classes of tradition that affect both the folk and the fine arts of music, they cease to be mutually exclusive categories of things, but rather generalizations, useful to study, of a flow of events whose outer limits show well-defined opposite characteristics at the same time that the inner relations show almost unbroken shadings of hybridization or accultur from one extreme to the other. After this is done, may hope to make some progress with the proble oral tradition.
Tradition, as the handing on of acquired charistics, has been said to be the basic distinction be man and the other animals. Korzybski, in adoptiwj more abstract homolog, refers to “time-binding” as abling men to communicate over intervals of time, that the younger members of a group can begin wf the older leave off. According to him, it is man’s prin survival mechanism, in terms of which relative or insanity can be measured. Whether or not acqu- characteristics can be inherited biologically, there can no doubt that they are inherited socially. And whc or not these serve, as Korzybski believes they do, principal survival mechanisms of individual men, t' can be no doubt that they do serve human culture munities in such a way. There would seem to be t grounds for very serious evaluation of tradition in study of cultural activity.
In the schematic outline given below, the main i] to which we already admit the term “tradition,” gether with some additional uses to which it would ; we must admit it, are grouped so as to show a field operations within it, and the environment in which beet are present to us.

Music tradition, as envisaged here, is a function of culture—a dynamic conception. With respect to the finr sense of the term “oral tradition” to which reference wm made above, this appears to us, however, as an accumu¬lation of material products-a repertoire of songs, dancesi etc.-and so, structural in character. But we must not be deceived by this illusion, which is entirely subjective and a direct result of our individual existences in generic! space-time. The repertoire as a whole and its relatic® to the culture of which it is an accumulation of tradi¬tions are in a constant state of flux.
With respect to the second sense of the term to whicr reference was made above, we must recognize two main types, oral and written, which combine in a variety of ways that we may conveniently set down as: predomi¬nantly oral, mixed (more or less equally) oral and writ¬ten and predominantly written. Unquestionably, pure oral tradition can only be found in the more primitive musics. Whether or not a pure written tradition, com¬parable to the higher mathematics of speech, exists or
here ^        ^ ^ mUSÍC need not be sPeculated upon
With respect to the third meaning of the term, atten¬tion should be called to another type of tradition, that operates not only through the persons in the field which is studied, but also through the persons who do the study¬ing of the field. Traditions of control are of two main types: intrinsic, D, operating within the music activity, and extrinsic, E, operating from outside the music activ¬ity, in the environment-the general field of culture. We aie conscious of traditions of control in the field of municipal, state, national, and international politics, and even in the politics of organizations and other groups. In our study of folk music, as elsewhere, these operate laree- y below the threshold of consciousness and receive little if any criticism from their owner (though plenty of it from his f
ellows!). It is evident that both carriers and students of folk music hold a variety of traditional attitudes toward their respective activity—attitudes fostered and expressed, often as not, qua oral tradition, rr want it, or expect it, to change; or they do not bk it or do not expect it to do so. They want to ve it, but not to put it to new uses; or vice versa. They i to preserve it for themselves, or they want to popu- it. And so on. Sometimes they want to do two are apparently contradictory things at once, or at ent times, or in different ways. These attitudes and ! actions that flow from them are essentially critical I character. But we seldom subject them to disciplined sm, because they appear to us as self-evidently . good, desirable, or beautiful. In fact, they present thoughts and feelings about what is right, good, ible or beautiful, not only in musical terms, but in • of life and culture in general.
This map has been made as comprehensive as possible within a small space. It is not to be confused with the territory mapped. There is quite a bit of dead reckoning in it, and there are many omissions. It is based upon a competence solely within captions A.5 and B.2 of the field. The validity of captions ^4.1-5 and £.1-4 is, how¬ever, customarily granted by scholars for purposes of discussion. As to captions A.6-9, the question marks indi¬cate a doubt their reality is more than suggestive.
We may presume that in using the term “oral tradi¬tion” students of folk speech and of folk music have taken for granted that what the voice produces is sound and that it is heard. Extension of the term to include sound produced by instruments has not disturbed them, though it might well have done so. Oral-ness easily implies aural-ness, and avoids the clumsy hyphenated term. The heart of the problem of the use of the term “oral tradition” in the integration of folk music and the general study of music is reached, however, when we face the tradition of writing—written tradition. Both music and speech must have been purely oral up to the time writing—even the crudest visual-oral correlations other than gesture—was introduced, and they have re¬mained so ever since in many places where writing has not been cultivated. A very vigorous oral tradition in speech can flourish among people who are literate in speech. Music literacy being even rarer than speech literacy, oral tradition in music is probably the more widespread. But without a very vigorous oral tradition of writing, neither speech nor music writing can be learned. Writing cannot be read—either in song or upon an instrument—without recourse to that same oral tradi¬tion. What the connection is between the oral tradition of folklore and the oral traditions of speech and music writing in general is difficult to say.
Though competent students may disagree upon the amount of material (A and B) for which there may be provenience in written tradition and the amount of influence music literacy may have upon the processes (C and D), there seems to be general agreement that both provenience and influence are ponderable. What we conventionally call “oral tradition" in folk music is, then, only predominantly oral (or even oral-aural). For though in many cases we cannot prove written provenience or influence, there are so many cases in which we can prove it, that the inference is: folk music is definable in part by survival in it; upon a “lower” social level where writing is rare, of traditions that have sifted down from a “higher” social level where writing is more common. It seems untenable today to say it is exclusively this, but equally so to say it is none of it. A theoretical 50-50 normal ratio between the dying survival of written tradition and the living creation of oral tradition would seem to be the safest working hypothesis. This would apply, of course, to the field (A.5 and £.1-4)—the accumulation of materials—and might, with respect to individual products (songs, dances, etc.) vary theoretically from a ratio of 1-99 to one of 99-1, but ordinarily within a much narrower neighbor¬hood of the norm, 50-50. We are, however, speaking here mainly of norms, rxot of the infinite variety of departures from them.
Taking all these considerations into account, it would seem the better part of wisdom to confine the use of the term “oral tradition” to bona, fide word of mouth (os, oris), substituting for it, as the main technical process of folk music, the less picturesque but more accurate “unwritten tradition,” with the understanding that by “unwritten” we mean “predominantly unwrit¬ten.” This would seem especially desirable in connection with the discussions now being held more and more frequently on both sides of the Atlantic relative to the problem of the notation of folk music.
The Occidental (international) technique of music notation—probably the most accurate and most widely used throughout the world—is a development of the fine art of European music. With its use, throughout more than a thousand years, this art has been able to individualize its products and assure reproduction of them wherever its traditions are elaborately maintained with a high degree of accuracy. Ur-texte have become defined by their composers, during the last century, with increasing precision. This means with increasing elab¬orateness. Today, notation of very minute inflections of phrasing, accentuation, nuances, etc., are a sine qua non of the typically unique product of value. The tendencv shows no sign of abating.
When we range beside such products a product of foli. art, we see at once they are upon two very different levels. If one were asked, “Where is the First Prelude of the Well-Tempered Clavichord?” one could say, “Here." And if it were played within established norms of scholarship, that would be it and all of it. But if one were asked, “Where is Barbara Allen?” the answer. “Here,” followed by the best rendition of an excellent informant, might be difficult to explain as “both it and not it, and certainly not all of it.” One could sing only one variant of one version.
The gap between the highly individualized identity of the product of fine art and the highly generalized identity of the product of folk art must not be under¬estimated. Their treatment by a science of folklore oi by musicology demands two very different techniques. Their evaluation in terms of critical method involves two very different sets of criteria. The single standard of musical value, maintained by many historico-musicol- ogists, cannot serve here. And the study of folk song might help to demonstrate that it should not serve any¬where.
The last matter to be stressed at this point is the usefulness of a revised concept of oral tradition in cor¬recting unilinear theories of the evolution of music in another connection. If the above analysis can stand, the order of historical development is definitely as in sec¬tion B of the conspectus, i.e. there can be no folk music in the proper sense of the word until there has been for some time a fine art of which it can be in part a dying survival. The common confusion of primitive and folk music, as idioms, should be clarified from a music- technical as it can be from an anthropological viewpoint. We can then envisage the formation and differentiation of music idiom as twin processes of ac¬culturation: a) between families and b) between idioms, with the potentiality always that both may operate at once or separately and in various ways in one and the same situation.
Perhaps in conclusion the reader should be reminded that the latter part of the preceding argument applies solely to the Occidental family of music tradition. The relationship of oral and written traditions undoubtedly differs greatly in the other families. One of the most important tasks of comparative musicology is to clarify this relationship upon a world basis. This will involve a revaluation of the notation system and a thorough critical and technical revision of the whole concept of written tradition and its relation to unwritten tradition. For the basic differences between the idioms and their respective products are largely the result of the notation system and the elaborate traditions by which its cur¬rency is maintained.
The Occidental notation system is par excellence a control system, and its use is a process by which traditions of control of the most varied, even opposed, kinds may be exercised. It is a set of directions for the reproduction of products so as to conform to the peculiar traditions of the Occidental fine art. When, therefore, we notate in it a product of the traditions of the folk art, the reproduction is almost bound to be as much, if not
more, in the traditions of the fine art than in those of the folk art. The act, in short, is one of translation from one idiom into another. The notated folk song is, then, not a primary but a secondary datum of study. Employment of special diacritical symbols to indicate deviations from the 12-tone equal temperament, short¬ening or lengthening of the duration of notes and rests, presence of slides, waverings, peculiar attacks, releases, etc., not traditional in the fine art, may increase the accuracy of the translation. But at the same time, it may lull the student into an illusion that it is not a translation and that he has before him a product with something of the individuality of a product of the fine art.
To offset these dangers, we have fortunately, in an increasing number of cases, the sound-recording-a primary objective datum for study, especially when it is accompanied by motion-picture film. Furthermore, it may perhaps not be premature to mention the fact that both in Europe and in the United States electronic- mechanic devices are being experimented with by which at least the single, unaccompanied melodic line may be automatically and objectively graphed. With the perfection of these devices, the rigorously scientific study of unwritten tradition in music (and possibly also in speech) can finally get under way, clear not only of the inaccuracies of our conventional techniques of writing, but of the subjective element inherent in even the most conscientious and skilled use of added dia¬critical symbols.        
CHARLES SEEGER

Standard Dictionary of Flklore, Mythology and Legend, Funk and Wagnaall 1950

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 01:18 PM

Thank you Jim.

It leaves me less convinced that Steve's example is a good one. And it was what he meant by it that I am not clear about.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 01:23 PM

Pseud, there's no theoretical limit to the range of such a study.

Try out this one: ' "The Best Antiwar Song Ever Written" ' (2012).

PM me for details.

The same author has also been working on "Mademoiselle from Armentieres/ Hinky Dinky Parley-Voo/ The German Officers" for years. Even for this "family," there's more information available than any one person could handle.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 01:37 PM

"It leaves me less convinced that Steve's example is a good one. And it was what he meant by it that I am not clear about."
The oral tradition has been applied to traditional song for so long, I simply can't see the problem with undestanding it
Even Pseaud could probably tell you what it means -it's as basic as that :->
Jim

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 02:11 PM

Well, you did ask, jag!
Jim, I am having problems with this agreement lark. That's twice now. What is Mudcat coming to?

jag, it isn't a good one at all. As I stated it is a bare minimum possible example. There is a lot more to it than that, but as Jim is saying here, the concept is very simple and straightforward. There is a print tradition, a manuscript tradition and all sorts of other traditions, but all the 'oral tradition' is is passing on information by mouth to ear, and it is a tradition that still happens today, although much compounded by modern technology.

Charles Seeger's long-winded approach is that of a musicologist. I'd rather read one by one of his children, Pete, Peggy, Mike. We'd then be able to understand it, and it would be much closer to what Jim and I are saying.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 02:24 PM

"Charles Seeger's long-winded approach is that of a musicologist. "
Sed the feller who spends hours discussing 'mediation'
Charles was an established and world-wide respected musicologist dealing with a wide range of musics non an amature academic
Backbiting and internecine warfare seem to be the in-thing with researchers nowadays - a legacy from Dave the Rave maybe
I'd be fascinated on you view of quantum physics

I have come to despise the 'freemasonry' approach to folk songs which excludes so many from the self-appointed 'inner circle', but I take my whatsits off to the specialists
Peggy's expertise lay largely in instrumentation - she tended to leave things like the oral tradition to Ewan, though she was a mine of information on American source singers due to their dropping in for a chat with Charlie and Ruth
Did you know that Elizabeth Cotton 'mislaid' child Peggy during a =vist it a local department store
Not a lot of people know that !
Jim

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 02:32 PM

'Backbiting and internecine warfare'. It's all in your head, Jim.

To be honest I couldn't follow half of it.

Sorry, I got thrown out of physics in the 3rd year. I only stayed in chemistry so I could suck the citric acid crystals.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 02:48 PM

"There is a print tradition, a manuscript tradition and all sorts of other traditions, but all the 'oral tradition' is is passing on information by mouth to ear, and it is a tradition that still happens today, although much compounded by modern technology."

I get that, but it's a jargon term, as Jim's quote fo Seeger demosntrates. My initial reaction to Pseud's OP was that to do serious original research one usually needs to understand the terminology that previous researchers have used.

But it is jargon and if what is meant is passing from person to person orally then 'oral transmission' is a compound where the two words still have, just about, their common English meaning. Needing to look up the etymology of 'tradition' and then ponder over what it might mean in the context is an extra step.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 02:59 PM

Ah, get where you're coming from now, jag. Of course it's jargon but so what! Isn't that the whole idea of jargon, that a particular interest group can use certain terms that they all understand to keep things concise? Is it really such a crime to use the words 'oral tradition' instead of 'oral transmission'?

I shall bring this up at the next TSF meeting and tell them all how naughty they have been! And then the musicology police can cast us all in prison.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 03:16 PM

I will say this: you can rely on Mudcat for an interesting discussion.

By the way, I am ignoring all comments by a certain person, following the self-stated example of Jack Campin, so any cheap jibes therein are wasted on me.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 03:38 PM

"By the way, I am ignoring all comments by a certain person, "
Obviously yo are not - that's why you keep referring to me obliquely
Yo may lack the wherewithal to join in the conversation - that' different
Jack Camipin (who you keep scurrying behind, is an internet bully who prefers to do his bullying from a distance, as most bullies do

"To be honest I couldn't follow half of it."
Neither could I Steve, but neither of us are musicologists
I never had the benefit of a higher education - wouldn't it have been cheaper to just by a Jif Lemon ?

I met Charles on two memorable occasions - he was one of the most down-to-earth academics I've come across
The first was at a Critics meeting he attended
It was my first day at work in London and I fell asleep while he was speaking, so he kindly took me aside after the meeting and carefully explained what I had missed

The second time was during one of our marathon interview sessions with Ewan
Wenever Pat and I paused for thought during our questioning, Charles would jump in with a question of his own - a lovely addition to the night

I suppose you know of his inventing th 'meloograph', which he intended to use to measdure folk tunes
Bob Thomson described how he spent hours explaining how it worked to him
Unfortunately, before he could put it to use, the computer had overtaken it and made it obsolete (as ir more or less did with Cantometrics)
Isaac Asssimov was right - you shouldn't turn your backs on these ***** machines
Jim

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 10 Mar 20 - 06:38 PM

The crystals were free. (I nicked em). However poetic justice ensued. I burnt a hole in the roof of me mouth.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 02:36 AM

Regarding 'jargon': this word has a number of meanings. and I think it might be helpful to distinguish these, because some of them are more pejorative than others.

I agree with Steve that within a specialised field, certain words will function as a sort of shorthand. You need to do the background work, or at least some research, to discover what the technical or theoretical significance of these words are. This is an example of one definition of 'jargon'.

But the word can also mean both pretentious, unnecessary and disliked uses of vocabulary and expressions and, by extension I suppose, nonsense.

I think that there are sometimes cases where a person who does not understand specialised vocabulary dismisses it as jargon more or less because they do not understand it. It's easier to say 'this is nonsense' or 'this is pretentious' or even 'I think people use language like this to cover up their stupidity rather than to display their intelligence' than it is to make the admission 'I don't understand it'.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 02:42 AM

I've been called 'stupid' and 'lacking intelligence' on these thread because I challenged certain points of view.

I am neither, and, I believe, my concerns about some uses of the phrase 'the oral tradition' are not based on any lack of understanding of what that phrase means, but genuine concerns and questions about the way in which the phrase is used.

Thinking back to definitions of 'jargon': sometimes the phrase is used in a technical and, I believe, theoretical way; sometimes it is used out of pretentiousness; and sometimes it is used in a way that amounts to nonsense.

By the way, it appears that the term has different meanings in British English and American English, with pejorative meanings being more common in American English. This is based on Collins online dictionary.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 04:08 AM

dear o dear ,i must get back to playing some music

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 04:29 AM

"I burnt a hole in the roof of me mouth."
I fell asleep with a lemon sweet in my mouth once and had a serious speech problem for a month

"I've been called 'stupid' and 'lacking intelligence' "
I only remember 'ignorant' which is curable if you work at it, stupidity tends to be incurable
Your tendency to ride hobby horses in the wrong direction is an indication of which you are
Jim

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 06:01 AM

I think the meaning of jargon that I had in mind was clear. My " the terminology that previous researchers have used" was there to help. I think that is the way Steve understood it.

That said, my concern is that the concept behind "oral tradition", if different from "oral transmission" (which would do for Steve example), could, for the experts in the field, carry meaning that isn't obvious from the example. I am using Steve's post to labour the point. I know what he meant.

To me any concept described using a term including the word tradition risks carrying a load of complicated baggage. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition .

It can be hard for the non-specialist to know if a jargon term includes potential bubbles that other specialists think need pricking. I quoted Joseph Jacobs regarding "the Folk" above.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 06:06 AM

No sorry I quoted Joseph Jacobs on another thread "The Folk is simply a name for our ignorance... ... Yes, I repeat it, the Folk is a fraud, a delusion, a myth."

The on topic point is that researching something may involve reading about concepts that some specialists in the field don't agree with. Simply quoting "the academic literature" is risky.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 06:36 AM

""The Folk is simply a name for our ignorance..."
Quoting an anthologist of fairy tales is meaningless Jag
The rerm has been accepted as correct since the first half of the 19th century - Jacobs was very much in the minority and his opinions need to be weighed against that reality - some would put them on par with his highly enjoyable fairy tales
You are still studiously avoiding examining the culture of the 'mythological' 'folk'- why ?
Jim

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 06:36 AM

Interesting comments, Jag. I cannot claim to be a specialist though I cam make some claim to be a musician and I have done a fair bit of background reading in both 'folklore' and relevant fields. As Wilgus points out, there is a certain amount of crossover. I agree with you that simply quoting 'the academic literature' is risky, as this will have its own assumptions. I think that today the use of explicit analytic frameworks is encouraged, partly to provide evidence of academic 'rigour' and also on a view that these may help bring assumptions, attitudes and beliefs into the open. There will be disagreements within academia of course, some more and some less passionate. Intelligence testing is an example from my own educational background (English and Psychology, honours degree level). I think my background in Eng Lang and Lit is one reason that some work on folklore eg books about the development of the ballad form interest me.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 11 Mar 20 - 05:16 PM

I really don't want to get back to these nit-picking arguments about definitions. What about custom and usage? We've had these discussions over and over and over. The English language, like many another, is very fluid. Dictionaries sometimes struggle to keep up with usage. I am not an academic, I'm a writer/researcher, and to be absolutely honest I'd rather listen to the word on the street than pick up a dictionary or accept the word of some academic who has to toe the line. The various meanings of 'folk' are well-known in the circles I inhabit and I'm quite aware of the broad meaning Joe Public uses. We are talking about words that millions of people use every day. They don't all use the word in quite the same way but there has to be some concensus or total confusion would ensue.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 12 Mar 20 - 03:28 AM

Agreed on nit-picking arguments about definitions. Sorry if I appeared to be going down that road.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,jag
Date: 12 Mar 20 - 05:12 AM

Some of my picking at definitions is because I am not entirely convinced about the research practices of the past. It appears that others are not happy with practices espoused by more recent workers (such as Steve Roud).

The word I had been avoiding, because is quite a 'long' one was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm I had only come across it in a science. However, the Wikipedia page has an interesting section on its use in the social sciences, which I think is more like what we are talking about here.

As I read it, Jacobs (in his discussion on the 'the Folk') and Harker (in the introduction and final paragraphs of Fakesong) were both challenging current paradigms relevant to 'folk song'.

That's why I am 'poking a stick' at the use of phrases that carry meaning, or baggage, amongst a specific group of researchers. I know that some people with a lot of experience have challenged them and think others use them simply as a shield when challenged.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 20 - 06:19 AM

"(such as Steve Roud)."
Who is an adimirable 'paper-pusher' who has exprssed a disinterest in the singing of songs in the revival
Researches of the past have involved themselves heavily in songs as they are sung rather than how they appear in print - that seems to have reversed
Sorry about that - carry on navel-gazing

Jim

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: GUEST,Pseudonymous
Date: 12 Mar 20 - 06:59 AM

@ Jag. I have encountered the word 'paradigm' in social science too, and also the term 'paradigm shift'. I think the latter originates in the philosophy of science. It describes how new discoveries can radically change the view that scientists have of the world. But people may tend to provide an account of the history of a song or a singer or an event that reflects the folkloric paradigm within which they are working, I suppose.

In the piece I cited at the start of the thread, Jenkins makes use of another concept from social science that has relevant potential: 'confirmation bias'. It can be described as a tendency to select and interpret and recall new information in a way that strengthens existing beliefs. The phenomenon has been well documented in Psychology and Jenkins applies it to the emergence of the 'misleading tale' about the origins of The Cowboy's Lament. He says that cavalier attitudes to evidence and sheer carelessness (as in the Dublin/Cork error) played a part but says that 'the role of preconceptions in the selection of evidence and the encouragement of unsupported and often unacknowledged speculation' while 'inconvenient counter-indications' are ignored.

He says that self-belief and considerable investment in their own sense of being an authority may have made it harder for some people to acknowledge that they have got it wrong.

So when researching the history of a song and evaluating what has been written about it, these are factors to consider taking into account.

                   **************************

I should perhaps clarify that I enjoy a discussion but that I do not like it when a discussion turns combative or descends into insults. Harker somewhere uses the phrase 'bullshit anti-intellectualism' and I think perhaps we may have seen hints of it on Mudcat from time to time.

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 20 - 07:04 AM

" turns combative or descends into insults"
You make the most combative postings on this forum, particularly about source singers and collectors and you constantly insult those who disagree with you, you've made a name for yourself for both - happy to provide examples
You really need to take a hard look in the mirror
One of your star victims
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: How To Research the History of a Song
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 20 - 07:08 AM

I think we've exhausted this subject.