|
Subject: Tradtional Ballad Index From: The Sandman Date: 08 Sep 26 - 03:49 AM In my opinion, this is an example of a site that has misleading and has poorly classified inaccurate information. To include composed songs by Tom Paxton, would be an example |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: Robert B. Waltz Date: 08 Sep 26 - 04:26 AM The word "Ballad" in the title of the Traditional Ballad Index is indeed unfortunate; it was inspired by the Ballad-L list, and the title remained, even though the real goal is a reference for traditional song. However, the "traditional" I have no qualms about. "Traditional" means "passed on by oral tradition." As I already demonstrated in the other thread, "traditional" does not mean "anonymous." Nor does it mean "public domain." There are a zillion public domain songs that are not traditional -- just look at any nineteenth century songster. Being public domain cannot be a sufficient condition. But neither can it be a necessary condition, because there were plenty of songs that were still in copyright when Laws included them in his catalog. (Three examples: Naomi Wise, Laws F31; The Wreck of Number Nine, Laws G26; Zeb Tourney's Girl, Laws E18. All are by Carson J. Robison. Laws was cataloging them as traditional even before Robison died, and all three should still be in copyright today. Yet all have been field collected by sources who did not know their origin.) Perhaps the Ballad Index could have been called a "Folk Song Index," but that is an even murkier term than "traditional." At least "traditional" can be given a precise meaning. Songs go into the Traditional Ballad Index based on sources. There are four sorts of sources: Books, recordings, broadsides, manuscripts. With only a tiny handful of exceptions, mostly for cross-reference purposes, there are no entries that do not derive from one of those types of sources. And the sources are listed. A source may be fully or partially indexed. Fully indexed means that I include every song in it. Partially means that I do not include everything in it, specifically because it includes many songs that are not traditional. Nineteenth century songsters are an example: I've now done dozens, all of them partially: I only include songs for which I have reason to think there are field collections. Admittedly a book which consists mostly of traditional songs may sometimes include one or two non-traditional songs. In that case, I have to make a decision whether to omit the song and add a note about the book, or include the song and put notes on it. This is indeed a difficult situation; I am probably more likely to include the song with a note, so as to prevent confusion. Now here's an interesting conundrum: What does one do with a song that has been claimed as traditional when it is not? Since there are always new songs becoming traditional, there will never be a "definitive" version of any folk song reference. (There may be a final version of the reference, when the editor dies or quits, but it won't be definitive.) So consider a song which has been claimed as traditional: Should I include it? If I include it, I can put a note on it saying that there is no evidence it is traditional. If I omit it, then I have provided no reference to allow people to correct the false claim that it is traditional. Similarly, if there is no actual field collection of the song but there are claims that people have heard it sung by people who did not know its origin, should I not include it and document the fact? Note that both those situations apply to Tom Paxton songs. If a song must be in current oral tradition, then at least half of the Child Ballads do not qualify. If a song must have an unknown origin, then at least 20% of songs that have clearly passed through oral tradition do not qualify. "Traditional" is a word, like "popular" or "ancient," that flatly cannot be simplified to a platonic ideal. I err on the side of inclusion, because erring on the side of inclusion is useful. Erring on the side of pedantry is not useful. As anyone who has actually worked in this field, rather than pontificating about it, will know. There is no perfect solution. One solution I know is wrong is to try to substitute single-sentence oversimplification for the actual problem of deciding what is or is not traditional. And I'm pretty sure that thirty years of experience gives me more knowledge about the matter than thirty seconds of oversimplification. The time spent writing this was, of course, not spent indexing traditional songs. Which just shows the silliness of the platonic ideal approach to trying to contribute to human knowledge rather than to invincible ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: Nick Dow Date: 08 Sep 26 - 07:33 AM Invincible ignorance! I love that term. The problem with tradition is that it can cover a multitude of sins. In musical terms, which tradition? Military, Family? Community? Personal? International? Aural does not even show an exit sign to the minefield. I suppose an informal definition is all we can expect or even desire, as in contemporary or traditional, attached to songs and clubs. As Brian O'Lynn said, 'It'll do!' |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: The Sandman Date: 08 Sep 26 - 12:11 PM In 1954, the International Folk Music Council defined traditional or folk music as the product of a musical tradition that evolves through oral transmission. cjtm.icaap.org The Three Core Factors The council stated that three main factors shape this tradition: Continuity: This links the music of the present with the past. Variation: This comes from the creative ideas of a person or a group. Selection: The community decides which forms of the music will survive and stay popular. cjtm.icaap.org Meaning of Oral Transmission Songs are passed down by hearing and singing them, not by reading written sheet music. Every person who sings the song can change it slightly, which keeps the music alive and growing |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: Reinhard Date: 08 Sep 26 - 12:23 PM And in the thread Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition? you have in your charming way repeatedly argued against the 1954 definition, e.g. "just a novel way of wasting time"... |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: The Sandman Date: 08 Sep 26 - 12:31 PM Rambling boy, good song that it is does not qualify, because it doesnot get changed, it remains in its composed state Occasionally a composed song like Fidders dream has been altered because there has been a misprint of sheet music, on that occasion it does not qualify because it has clearly been learned incorrectly from sheet music. Good scholarship involves using terms correctly. The Tradtional BallAd index clearly is ignoring the 1954 definItion. It may not be perfect, but it s better than calLing anything TRADTIONAL. Cyril Tawney who was a friend of mine did not think his songs were Trad, in fact he wanted the royalties from his songs Ewan did not consider his songs traditional.ask Jim Carroll I trust the judgement of Cyril and Ewan. Composers should be credited artistically and fincially which for songwriting are substantially more than for trad arr paid royalties if the trasdtional ballad index lists compositions as trad, there is a likelihood that composerS will not get their correct royalties. Think about it |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: The Sandman Date: 08 Sep 26 - 12:35 PM Reinhard, does it not occur to you that sensible people can change their minds, I have changed my mind on the subject I now think the 1954 definition is the best we have, |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: Robert B. Waltz Date: 08 Sep 26 - 12:53 PM One last response to a certain poster, and then I will let said poster listen to his own AI, since it's apparently able to reduce intelligence into ideas dumb enough for him to handle. The Traditional Ballad Index is not a list of songs that are traditional. Maybe that is something that would be useful to someone, but one thing I hope we can agree on is that "Index" and "List" are not the same word. The Traditional Ballad Index is a reference. It provides information about songs -- songs that are claimed, for some reason or another, to be traditional. Information about a song can include the fact that a song has been claimed as traditional but is not. This can be useful information for someone who wants to learn. And, of course, someone who has enough sense to be able to actually think about the consequences of his own particular prejudices. |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: GUEST,Keith Price Date: 08 Sep 26 - 02:38 PM Robert B Waltz. "The Traditional Ballad Index is a reference. It provides information about songs -- songs that are claimed, for some reason or another, to be traditional. Information about a song can include the fact that a song has been claimed as traditional but is not". The Traditional Ballad Index sounds about as useful as a chocolate teapot. If it is to be useful for someone who wants to learn, who decides whether it's traditional or not. I really don't understand why you believe Paxton songs have gone (very faintly) into tradition. Beatles songs have been recorded by more people, and travelled a lot further. Their songs have entered classical music, jazz, bluegrass, etc. They've been sung in small social gatherings right through to football grounds. What is the evidence to support Paxton songs "passing from person to person without recordings influencing the transmission. |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: Robert B. Waltz Date: 08 Sep 26 - 03:06 PM Keith Price wrote, What is the evidence to support Paxton songs "passing from person to person without recordings influencing the transmission. I make no claim that recording have not influenced tradition. Anyone who claims that they do not influence tradition has not studied oral transmission at all. Print and recordings regularly influence tradition. I already demonstrated this point in the second post in this thread: Three Laws ballads that are composed and are in copyright. Yet they are considered traditional songs. Also, the substantial majority of recordings of "The Wreck of the Old 97" are clearly influenced by Vernon Dalhart, because they contain an error first found in the Dalhart recording. I could go on endlessly, but this is pointless. The evidence is clearly available. The evidence for the five Paxton songs was outlined in the Paxton thread. I will not repeat in detail, but the summary is this: Two children's songs are cited in Averill's Camp Song, Folk Song. Two songs have been claimed as traditional although I know of no field collections -- which point I documented in the Index. One song ("The Last Thing On My Mind") has been cited as traditional (to Paxton's daughter, no less), and there is a reported Newfoundland field collection from someone who apparently didn't know it was a composed song and reportedly had made oral modifications. Also, if the criterion be that people are willing to change a song (a criterion I don't accept, but we're dealing with an actual song here, not a criterion) -- well, there is an obvious "Last Thing On My Mind" gag version in Derek Piotr's archive, beginning "It's a question too late for the asking; I don't know, I don't know." This text in fact was discussed in a mudcat thread "alzheimer parody of Last Thing On My Mind." All of which you could find out if you'd actually look at the Traditional Ballad Index. Go, look, it's FREE. Why is there an objection to a Paxton song in particular being traditional? Because he's alive still? Because his songs aren't old enough? Would you object to calling "This Land Is Your Land" a folk song? "Marching Through Georgia"? "Auld Lang Syne"? "Wildwood Flower"? "Spanish Is the Loving Tongue"? "Lili Marlene" was passed by oral transmission to millions of soldiers in World War II -- it was one of the best-known songs of the 1940s -- but the authors were known and the song was in copyright My criterion is inclusive: If a song may be traditional, I give what information I can. How is it harmful to include extra information? Treat it as hypothetical: Suppose someone collects a song and the informant does not know who wrote it. Would you not call it traditional? If the collector then realizes, "Oh, that was written by so-and-so," would you then strike it from a collection because it was no longer traditional? (You might remove the text because of copyright issues -- that in fact happened with a number of songs in Randolph's Ozark Folk Songs -- but that's a different issue. The Randolph example is illustrative: As best he or anyone could tell, they were folk songs. But they were also composed and in copyright.) |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Sep 26 - 03:19 PM Hi, Keith, I guess I'd say that the Traditional Ballad Index is an index of resources, indexed by the names of the songs that are in those resources. Every time a new edition of the Index comes out, it includes the contents of a number of sources that have been newly indexed. If Bob or one of our indexers does an indexing of a book, they make little or no attempt to sort out songs that aren't "traditional ballads." Ordinarily, they will include all the songs in whatever book is indexed, which is how a few Paxton songs ended up in the Traditional Ballad Index. I've been using the Ballad Index for almost 30 years. I use the bibliography as a songbook buying guide, so most of the books I have on my shelves are indexed in the Ballad Index. It makes my songbook collection so much more useful. Somehow, I ended up on the Board of the Traditional Ballad Index, although I've never indexed a book tor the Index. I've done many indexing projects here at Mudcat, but none of them are as comprehensive as the Traditional Ballad Index. -Joe Offer, Mudcat Music Editor- |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: The Sandman Date: 08 Sep 26 - 03:21 PM The Traditional Ballad Index is not a list of songs that are traditional quote. Then why is it called that? |
|
Subject: RE: Tradtional Ballad Index From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Sep 26 - 03:40 PM Sandman, The Mudcat Cafe is named after a fish that inhabits the wetlands of the Land Where the Blues Bagan, but Mudcat no longer has much blues content. We keep the name because we like it. Some Mudcatters keep changing their Mudcat names [I wonder who]. But Mudcat and the Traditional Ballad Index have chosen to keep the names they started with. This thread started with your personal attack on the Traditional Ballad Index, a very valuable resource. When the Operator of the Ballad Index replied, you had the gall to report his post as a "personal attack." You, sir, are a hypocrite. -Joe Offer- I'm closing this thread. Your comments have become circular. Now, STFU or I'll put you on the bench for a month. |
|
Subject: Traditional Ballad Index Thread Clsoed From: GUEST,Keith Price Date: 08 Sep 26 - 06:03 PM I haven't been on Mudcat for some time. I'm very disappointed the above thread was closed after 13 posts. I won't be hurrying back.
Joe Offer |
| Translate Thread |
