Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Chicken Charlie
Date: 24 May 01 - 03:50 PM

Good thoughts. Here is a mediocre one to add: There are a couple of different ways to go.

Originally "Ol' 97" said, "It was on that grade that he lost his average," meaning average air pressure in the brake lines. Very, very few people would understand that, so I have no prob staying with "lost his air brakes," even though that isn't original.

On "Faded Coat of Blue," the chorus "should" end "when a robe of white is GIVEN for a faded ...." I changed that right off to "TRADED for a faded" which gives what my lit teacher Ms. Stutz would have called an internal feminine rhyme. I change a Dylan song that way too, I think it's "Just Like a Woman." It's just more effective that way.

There are indeed wrong words--"Among the Spanish brave" above is a great example. Mondegreens are wrong words. Another case of a garbled original is the Rev. Andy Jenkins' "Wreck of the Royal Palm." He's got that train racing down the curve at 40 mph, making time amid the drenching shower, when in fact Royal Palm was 'drifting' the siding when Ponce de Leon rolled through an improperly set switch. So I sing it, "Then coming round the curve, at forty miles an hour/Ponce de Leon was making time...." I also omit the verses of Engine 143 which name the wrong train crew, which is no great sacrifice given the fact that that ballad has a zillion verses and variants.

So, if have a good reason for the change (more poetic, more understandable, more correct) then change. Do whatever you do consciously, for your own reasons, and the two halves of your brain should be in sync.

PS. Isn't it, "In eighteen hundred and FIFTY-three???"

CC

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: GUEST,djh
Date: 24 May 01 - 03:48 PM

In many cases there isn't even an argument to be made for #2 many traditional songs have already been altered in countless ways by performers who came before.
Reverance KILLS. "Anything that cannot be imitated perfect must die" - Bob "the birthday Boy" Dylan. Don't put the music in some sacred untouchable shrine. It is a disservice to the form.
What is the worst that can happen- someone butchers a song, If the older version is good it will survive the transgression. If the transgression is good the tradition grows.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:27 PM

Snig snog, snaggle taggle foo botheration. Inkwarts ravel upwards on my praddling thiddums. She loves me, yes, yes, yes. La dee da dee dum dum words that make sense are easier to remember. Twaddle oddle oddle loddle twong! Fweeeeee. Mishearing is understandable. Shnoo shnoo shnooze. Righteously defending a misunderstanding as "folk process" is nonsense. Snig snog, snaggle taggle foo botheration.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: CRANKY YANKEE
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:14 PM

There is no such thing as "The wrong lyrics to a folksong"For instance," Greenland Whale Fisheries", The date is usually in the first verse, therefore it's easy to follow this one through the folk process. Anyone who thinks that time and usage don't improve on the "original" just follow this one through the process. I pretty much sing the version that starts, "In eighteen hundred and sixtty three on June the thirteenth day,our gallant ship her anchor weighed and for Greenland Bore away BRAVE BOYS for Greenland bore away."
Compare that with the earlier versions. Which one is better poetry? My contention is that anyone who would prefer the "oldest" version of this song to more current ones has his (or her) head up his (or her) ass.

You make up your own mind. If anyone complains about your choice, just tell them to "go piss up a rope". If it's a woman, this is extremely hard to do.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Orac
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:32 PM

I went to see Ralph McTell last week. He was talking about "Streets of London". There is a line that is incorrect in any printed version of this song. (And he was very adamant about the correct words ... for those that say it doesn't matter) The line should be "And, held loosely by his side, yesterday's paper telling yesterday's news" ... not "Hand held loosely by his side, yesterday's papers telling yesterday's news".
So its not "hand" but "And," and "papers" should be singular.
He says that even though he has many times told the printers the correct words they still haven't put it right.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: mousethief
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:19 PM

Singing a song is interpreting it. Unless you do it exactly the way you heard it, including instrumentation, verbal nuances, timing, EVERYTHING, you are subtly changing the song by singing it. In that way every singer makes a song his or her own by including it in their repertoire -- changing the lyrics is just a further step in this process, not something new and completely different from it.

So sometimes I will change a word or 2 in a song if I feel it makes the song better. Even if the songwriter is still alive. Without their permission. "Better" here may mean better suited to the audience (bowdlerizing songs for younger audiences, for instance), or aesthetically better to my ear, or whatever.

Alex

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: GUEST,Les B
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:06 PM

My sentiments are with the group that believes if you're not singing for a recording or a sold-out concert hall, why worry too much ? Suit yourself.

That said, I tend to research puzzling words and verses in songs, and assemble verses and chord structures that make sense to me.

Case in point. I had heard Mother Maybelle Carter's version of "Faded Coat of Blue" years ago, and told myself that one day I'd learn it. When that day came, and I wrote out her verses, I realized I'd always been puzzled by her singing "... he sank faint and hungry among the Spanish brave...". I just didn't associate blue uniforms with the Spanish-American war. With more research I discovered it was a Civil War song, and, when I found the original words, they were "... sank faint and hungry among the FAMISHED brave ..." obviously a mondedreen on her part. I now sing the correct words.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From:
Date: 24 May 01 - 11:06 AM

I tend to number 2....I don't believe in changing the words willy nilly. Yes if they are racist or terribly offensive, but then with footnotes saying you have. No if you want to change from a man to a woman singing. That really bugs me. Then no one knows what the original was. of course they don't anyway. But it just sounds icky if you it is a common song and you hear different words. Yes if you can even out some rough edges I guess...when the rythm is way off...

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 01 - 11:05 AM

My cousin sang:

"My heart is withered like a banjo
Of a rose I saw dying today..."

Put me with those who have an idea of what they're trying to say!

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 24 May 01 - 09:21 AM

Just another quick thought. Perhaps its not always lack of knowing the original words - perhaps there's also the effects of our old friends forgetting-the-bleeding-words and making-something-up-quick. ??

Kris

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 24 May 01 - 09:19 AM

Speaking as both a singer and a songwriter, I am firmly on the side of #1 on this. Music and songwriting are creative pursuits; I much prefer creativity to a paint-by-numbers approach, so I prefer the people who take what they know of a song as a starting point, and then make it their own. And I REALLY enjoy hearing someone excercising their creativity on one of my own songs, taking it to places that hadn't occurred to me, and incorporating their own thoughts and personality into the song in the process. The songs just have more "life" that way.

Of course, as in all things, some people do this well, and some people do it badly. I prefer to listen to the ones who do it well.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 24 May 01 - 09:05 AM

If you can's sing with conviction, is there any point in singing the song at all? I have found that when a line does not make sense, I can alter the words to something which ,to me, fits the spirit of the song, and then can sing it happily. It might be an Americanism which does not translate into English, or possibly a garbled original recording.
As an example, there were some interseting discussions in a recent thread about lyrics sung by Uncle Dave Macon See this Thread . If you listen to his singing, it is sometimes impossible to decipher some of the words. Do we then totally ignore his works, or do we attempt to guess whet the words might have been, based upon the context of the rest of the song, and also any other information about his place in time, the society he lived in and its prevailing political views.
Sing what suits you best. Even songwriters alter their lyrics and sing them incorrectly on recorings.
Quack!

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: John P
Date: 24 May 01 - 09:00 AM

I prefer it when people change songs I write to suit their own experience and performing style. It makes me think I'm writing folk music. I freely change any piece of music I learn to suit myself. It the composer doesn't like it, too bad. They don't have to listen.

As for traditional songs, doing a bunch of research is an academic pursuit. The folk process is, in many ways, the exact opposite of an academic pursuit. If no one learned the lyrics "wrong", we wouldn't have half the wonderful phrases we have. And if everyone did careful research, we would have a bunch of scholars and not much living tradition. The singer who is singing is usually much more interesting than the scholar who is researching and writing.

John

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:57 AM

There is three reasons a song would be sung differently:
1. a singer could choose a song based on the way it was heard because they enjoyed it...(in one of the earlier examples, maybe "never saw my face" seemed so much deeper than "never saw my place")

2. a conscience decision to change lyrics to make them more appealing or relevant to the singer or audience.

3. a lack of knowledge of the "original" words.

Out of these reasons, I think only number 3 is bad...and then it is only bad if the singer is performing the song for others...if it is for their own enjoyment then it doesn't really matter.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Gary T
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:49 AM

Interesting topic. In the case of "Wildwood Flower," I assume Maybelle was going from her memory of what she'd heard, as we all do in various instances. Better to sing and enjoy than to get hung up on academic perfection. Now we have access to the original, and more sensible, lyrics. I prefer them because they seem less like nonsense, but if you're singing with a group who knows the Carter version, you either go along with the gang or make it a learning experience for them. Either way, it should be made enjoyable rather than pedantic.

BUT, then you have cases like Roy Clark doing "Yesterday When I Was Young" and singing nonsensically about his house "built to last on weak and shifting sand" rather than the original and understandable "built, alas, on weak and shifting sand." What, Roy Clark can't afford to buy the sheet music and get the words right? If he chose to make the change for artistic reasons, which I seriously doubt, that's his right. But I'd bet anything it was just a matter of mishearing and not bothering to check any resources. Since the song conveys a powerful message through its lyrics, I think he did it an injustice through laziness and unnecessarily weakened it. If I were singing such a song, I'd want to put a little effort into presenting it at its best.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Abby Sale
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:42 AM

As has been sain in a recent Chantey thread, they don't have to make sense to "work" or be effective or satisfying to the singer/autitor. I want to know what everything I sing means but I'm not a source singer or a professional - it's an intellectual, not a visceral interest.

I'm minded on a story Ken Goldstein told lo these many years back. He'd been up collecting Lizzy Higgins and she sang a song with chorus, "Here comes a Russian Jew." That phrase was complete nonsense in the context of the song. Great Hamish (who'd given Goldstein her address, etc) had primed Goldstein to request this song and given Goldstein the probable back translation to Gaelic (I can't remember) which did makes sense. That is, the song had retained its Gaelic (sensable) chorus untranslated but as the Stewarts learned to, all they had was this 'Russian Jew' mondegreen.

Lizzy agreed with Goldstein that her phrase made no sense and that he was most likely right about the original. But, she hadn't the slightest interest in changing her song either to the Gaelic or in creating a Scots translation of it. (Hamish had told Goldstein what it meant, too.)

My point is that the way you learn it - "processed," mondegreened or 'wrong' is the way you learned it and thus the right way. Ask any child - they'll fight for the right to sing it the way they learned it.

Not me - I'll often go over to Olson's pages and find an oldest (not "Right") printed version for a line or a verse to collate when I'm not satisfied with a text. But I ain't a Folk, as I said.

Here's one. Most versions of "The Keeper" (filename[ KEEPERGO is one such) as we learned in primary school are heavily Bowdlerized & leave out the last verses. You know it's a bawdy song but you can't quite get it. "Better" versions often it ends simply with 'The last one then he stopped, he kissed / Where they are now they won't be missed."

But ref. to Olson gives us that an early version was "The Five Deers" and much better. I just picked a single line and am now much happier with my own singing:

The third doe, he shot at, he missed.
The last one then, he stopped, he kissed,
And laid her down where no man wist [had factual knowledge of]
Among the leaves so green-o.

But I don't think my third-grade teacher will be teaching me that. And many autitors will say that I am Wrong, that's not the way they heard it!

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: GUEST,redhorse
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:27 AM

What do you do with something like the Carter Family "Wildwood Flower"? The words as published are obviously garbled, but that's the way it's sung: should we copy the recorded version warts and all or re-interpret to make sense of it?

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:20 AM

Yes, but if you don't know that they make no sense and if the majority of people listenting don't know that they make no sense, does it matter terribly much if a few people sing it wrong? Its just a mangled instance of the song, it doesn't usually do any damage to the actual song.
I used to work with a lady who sang all the time - little snatchlets of mangled songs - cobbled together as she went along. It was lovely, and I always so admire the fact that she had the urge to sing while she worked & just went ahead and ad libbed. She was actually quite shy other than that. Such a nice lady.

Kris

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: kendall
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:09 AM

I hate to sing lyrics that make no sense. Oscar Brand did some of that in his songs of the sea. He has obviously never been to sea. As an example, he sings..I took in all sails and cried "Way, hold up now" the right words are,.."I took in all sails and cried WIEGH ENOUGH NOW. Meaning the boat is moving fast enough, the word weigh being the seamans word for motion, or headway. Why not just do it right? Is it that much of a bother? If you are going to sing lyrics that make no sense, why not just do Rock?

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Robby
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:02 AM

After years of singing what I thought I had heard as some of the lines and chorus of "Water is alright in tay", but being uneasy with them. So, I posted an inquiry here and MMario gave me the lyrics as written by S. McGrath. Click here If I did that right you should now have a Blicky.

Anyway, my thanks for the lyrics noted that I could not believe how badly I had been mangling the lyrics. His observation was that this was the folk process at work. So I guess I'm with those who believe that if there is a definitve version, as composed by a songwriter, that should be the one to sing.

Robby

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: paddymac
Date: 24 May 01 - 07:01 AM

I think that both views as as "correct" as anything can be in the world of folk, so long as "personalizing" doesn't change the basic story of message of the song. Languages and useages within are continuously evolving, and the "message" of a song can be lost if the wording doesn't keep up with the vernacular. Look at Shakespeare as but one example. His clever use of metaphor and the colloquialisms of his day are lost in varying measure on many of today's audiences without either (a) a prior gounding in Shakespeara's english, or (b) some degree of "up-dating" of dialogue.

And then there's the case where the "bowdlerizer's" goal IS to change the meaning of a song, while still leaving it instantly recognizeable as its former self. The limits of "art" are nearly impossible to define with precision.

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: Suffet
Date: 24 May 01 - 06:56 AM

When I first heard Tim Hardin sing "The Lady Came from Baltimore" at the Night Owl Cafe in New York City in the 1960s, he sang, "She didn't know that I was poor, she never saw my place..." That's how Tim recorded it.

A couple of years later, Joan Baez covered the song on one of her own LPs and sang those lines as "She didn't know that I was poor, she never saw my face..." That struck me as all wrong. How could she not have seen his face? Did he wear a bag over his head when he courted her?

Cut to the chase. The next time I heard Tim Hardin, he was also singing "face" instead of "place." To me it was wrong. But hey, it's Tim's song, and if that's how he sang it, it had to be right!

--- Steve

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: SeanM
Date: 24 May 01 - 06:49 AM

I'd say in all cases I can think of - if you're doing (and claiming you are doing) a specific version, do it right. If you're doing your own version, or if you just don't care, do it however you feel happy with.

As to lyric sources? Once again - if it's a version with a stated source, try to get them correct. If not, who's to say WHAT version is the 'correct' one?

M

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 24 May 01 - 06:42 AM

My first posting was looking at it just for trad stuff with no living songwriter. However, I think I'd still go for the same answer even where the writer is still alive - but only for casual singers like myself - it would be a bit cheeky to change anything if you were singing more formally (I s'pose I mean where people would look to you as an authority sort of).
If a 'proper' singer wanted to change anything then it would be reasonable to approach the writer & get their permission?
I expect different writers would have different attitudes to this question. Any writers care to comment???

Kris

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: KitKat
Date: 24 May 01 - 06:25 AM

I think it depends - if the songwriter is still alive and the lyrics are easily available to find as the songwriter intended, it seems perverse (and discourteous) to sing it any other way. As for traditional songs, where there is room for debate, sing what you think best interprets the song.

Where does that put me - about 1.5 I guess.

Pat

Subject: RE: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 24 May 01 - 05:46 AM

Just had a look in an online dictionary, which gives one meaning for castor as 'A heavy quality of broadcloth for overcoats'. So that could fit in with the tailor references OK.
So - then castors away or cast us away is probably endlessly debatable. Not having time to await the outcome of an endless debate I recommend we all just sing whatever we are happiest with.
I don't really see why anyone should need to do any research on a song unless they want to. Sing for the joy of singing, and sing what you like to sing - and bugger propriety.
So I'm definitely with the number 1 point of view.

Kris

Subject: Are folk lyrics ever 'wrong?'
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 24 May 01 - 05:21 AM

This has recently resurfaced in the Correct the Digital Tradition thread, but I think it's an interesting enough question to deserve it's own.

As I see it, there are two opposing points of view:

1. Folk songs change and evolve, therefore any change in lyrics (even as a result of a mishearing) is part of the folk process and is, as such, valid in terms of being a variation.

2. No, there are enough resources available to learn the 'proper' version, and any change in words suggest that you haven't / can't be bothered to do some basic research on the song. If you're going to sing it, at least sing properly.

Obviously, these two views are at opposite ends of a continuum, and most of us probably sit somewhere between the two.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, but as an example of the dilemma, let's take the song Benjamin Bowmaneer.

The song has a refrain of 'Castors away' which makes no sense at all. A l Lloyd, in the Pengiun Book of English Folk Songs, suggests that it might actually be 'Cast us away' To me that makes a lot more sense, and that's what I sing.

Am I wrong? Or did Mary Spence (who collected the song) mishear it?

Interested in your thoughts on any of the above.

Ed