 sj |
||
|
||
Changing Traditional Lyrics
|
|
|
Subject: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Naemanson Date: 03 Jul 02 - 11:59 AM This just occurred to me. I was using my lunch time to transcribe some lyrics from the Alan Lomax recording of sea chanties in the Bahamas (1935). I typed the following lines:
Now he bring him to the launchin' I realized there might be some people who think the gender in the first line should agree with the gender in the second line. I've made up my mind. What is the consensus? Should the modern singer "correct" the source? |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: MMario Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:04 PM Is there internal proof the two lines refer to the same person/object? Is it not possible "he" brought "him" and Rosa (whom I would assume whould be a "she") brought "her"?
|
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Wincing Devil Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:09 PM It looks like the lines are refering to two different people. I wouldn't "fix" grammatical errors in songs, they lose flavor that way. As to shanties in general, Stan Hughill regularly "cleaned up" shanty lyrics.
Sailors were bawdy fellows, that's all there is to it. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Naemanson Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:15 PM There are two names in the song, besides John Bully. The liner notes state that Liza and Rosa are the names of boats built by John Bully.
|
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: MMario Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:25 PM hmmmmmmm.....if I changed anything - it would probably be the "he" to "she"; not the him or her. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:08 PM I can't think of a less good reason to change the lyrics of a song. Of course, to each his own, but unless the lyrics are terribly racist etc.. or they just plain sound awful...I would never personally, under any circumstances, change the gender of a song. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: MMario Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:15 PM my only rational would be that it appears to be two boats bringing people to the launch - in which case it should be "she". and gender changes in song lyrics are probably the most common thing to change besides place names. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: GUEST,maryrrf Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:38 PM Personally I think it's acceptable to modify folk songs - adapting them to yourself and your singing style. It's part of the folk process and there are probably no real "definitive" versions out there - there would be many variations already and you've just as much right as anybody else to put your own "twist" to a song. As a matter of fact I have done it inadvertently to some songs I've been singing since childhood. I thought I was faithfully reproducing them but upon hearing the originals again after many years I realized that changes had crept into the lyrics I was singing (minor ones) and that there were slight melody changes as well, that I hadn't set out to do - it just happened. It's a little different if you're dealing with a known author's song. I also think it's okay to change the gender if it's more comfortable for the singer. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: pavane Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:47 PM Changing words because the singer doesn't understand them is obviously part of the folk process, but in the past this has led to the whole meaning of songs being lost or changed. Look at a recent example, No Mans Land (aka Green Fields of France), where
"Countless white crosses in mute witness stand" Is change a good or bad thing? It must depend on your viewpoint. Academics want the 'pure' version, singers need something they can sing.
|
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 02 - 06:52 PM "Academics want the 'pure' version" - that'd depend on what they were academic in.
For an academic concerned with the study of the way songs change in the oral tradition, new variants would eb meat and drink. A song that didn't change over the years would be the last thing they'd be looking for I'd imagine. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: KingBrilliant Date: 04 Jul 02 - 05:26 AM Just sing it the way you like it best. Simple. Bugger whether its right or wrong! KRis |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: greg stephens Date: 04 Jul 02 - 07:11 AM I would imagine that the Devonian seadogs who took the English language to the Bahamas were asvague in the gender of pronouns as modern Devonians are. I believe it is caused by a conflict between a consistent set of old dialect pronouns and the mainstream standard English set ( "er" is commonly male in Devon, for example). I was brought up in Devon, and though I have little or no accent left pople do occasionally comment on my strange choice of pronouns, of which I am not consciously aware. Anywy, on the original question posed, leave them as they are. They sound grand to me. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Jul 02 - 08:06 AM Changing the gender is an interesting point, I am in the process of helping Translate Cân y Melinydd in another thread. I've found it easier to translate 'ebol' (colt or foal) as 'filly'. It aids scansion and rhyme. However, I still believe I am being 'true' to the original. Having slight problems with one verse tho' so if anyone thinks they might help it's at Translation needed. Presumably it is not attracting a large number of responses because people are assuming they can't help with a translation from Welsh. But that has been done, now we're song-crafting. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Declan Date: 04 Jul 02 - 09:47 AM When I sing the song "Once I Loved" (which I learned from the singing of a number of Irish Traditional singers, although I understand it may not have originally come from the Irish tradition) I sing "I a young man" instead of "I a young girl" at the start of the second verse. However in a later verse I sing "give it (the ring you once gave me) to the false young maiden". This means that in my version my (presumably female) partner gave me a ring and has now turned lesbian and is giving the engagement ring to another woman. I wouldn't feel comfortable, or think it was credible for me to sing "I a young girl" so the gender thing gets a bit mixed up. No-one has ever commented to me on this, but I often think its a bit odd. Its a beutiful song and I intend to keep singing it this way. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: greg stephens Date: 04 Jul 02 - 09:57 AM Declan, the bit you put in parenthesis in your first sentence is unnecessary. We'll just assume it in all your future postings, to save you trouble.%-$>": That doesnt look like someone laughing, perhaps I'm doing something wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: the lemonade lady Date: 04 Jul 02 - 09:59 AM Declan: I agree with you - I don't feel comfortable singing a song as tho' I'm a man (I'm a woman BTW!) My favourite is 'Indian Lass'. Instead of opening with 'As I was a walking on a far distant shore' I sing ' As a sailor was walking...etc'. Unfortunately Pete Grassby (he won singer of the year at Sidmouth one year with it)and I had a little difference of opinion about this. I learnt the song from him, and he from Nic Jones. Sal |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Janice in NJ Date: 04 Jul 02 - 10:13 AM Changing the lyrics -- and the tune, the rhythm, the harmonies, the instrumentation, etc. -- are all part of what we call the folk process. All traditional music is the product of a dialectic between our preservationist and our evolutionist (sometimes revolutionist) impulses. Did I really say dialectic? It's those deeply buried but pesky and tenacious Marxian roots reasserting themselves again! [grin] |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Naemanson Date: 04 Jul 02 - 10:55 AM The folk process is one thing. Consider that the song I am working on had been evolving up to the point that Lomax recorded it. Then the recording becomes a snapshot of that place and time. Is it our duty, as folk singers, to preserve that snapshot? Do we have the right to play with it? Do we have the right to "make it ours"? We certainly haven't been out there in the hot sun, working to launch a boat, with a background of being victims of prejudice and poverty. How can the song be made ours without that connection? |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: greg stephens Date: 04 Jul 02 - 11:01 AM Save it as it was. It tells a story. that's the story I'd like to hear. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jul 02 - 01:59 PM Interesting thread from yesteryear. Back in the late Fifties while at the University of Washington, I took English 401, "The Popular Ballad" from Dr. David C. Fowler. Dr. Fowler said: "I don't believe field collectors and scholars should make changes, even though some of the early ones did, thinking they were 'improving' them. Poor scholarship. But performers—now, that's different. Changes should not be made indiscriminately, but if you have a good reason for it, then why not, if it makes a better story? Minstrel's prerogative. Minstrels and traditional folk singers often altered words for the same reason you did." (He was referring to a word change I had made in a traditional ballad.) I do make small changes from time to time, but—I think about it long and hard first. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Naemanson Date: 06 Jul 02 - 02:00 PM Don, thanks for that input. Dr. Fowler may be right. When I started this thread I had decided not to make any changes. Not I am uncertain. However, it may be too late. I am learning the song and changing something at that stage could be a problem. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 02 - 04:57 PM Another related thread from last year. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: RolyH Date: 06 Jul 02 - 05:27 PM Folk songs are continually updating.They didn't stop as a snapshop at the time of the revival,so update them. That's what they are all about. We still have a record as to where they came from if we need to refer to it.(which is more than our predecessors had) |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 06 Jul 02 - 05:39 PM Dr. Fowler had a point, but to say that the collectors shouldn't make changes, but performers can. Who makes the distinction ? I collect a song, decide to perform (and change) it, then harvest the new version to my 'collection'. Has it been changed by a performer or collector ?. As long as the collector quotes his sources, and identifies any subsequent changes, surely this is acceptable. In my personal opinion. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jul 02 - 09:23 PM Nigel, what Dr. Fowler meant was that the academician (call 'em song collector, folklorist, ethnomusicologist, anthropologist, whatever) who collects in the field for purposes of archiving and study should not change them. They should be archived as he or she found them. Once that is done, if that same song collector (or anyone else) wants to perform the song, he can go ahead and do it, making whatever judicious changes he feels would make for a better performance (or not). That way, the song as collected in the field is still available for study, and it's available for other performers who want to sing it as collected--or who want to make their own changes. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Naemanson Date: 07 Jul 02 - 09:38 AM I think the important point, Nigel, is to publish the original collected song as it was. When you present it to the public (wearing your folk singer hat) then you can quote the source and sing it as you've changed it. That accomplishes three things. One, it legitimizes the song as an original even if you've changed it. Two, it allows someone else to find the song and change it to meet their own needs. And three, it allows people to look it up and then accuse you of not singing it "right"! |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 07 Jul 02 - 10:16 AM Half of the point I was making would be that if a singer can change it, the 'collector' might find himself collecting from the singer, or from the singer's source. Attribution is everything. If the collector can check with the singer, and find His source still available then he can back track and get the earlier version. We are still dealing with a song as heard at one 'point in time', but which version is collected depends on the collector, thus if he is not himself making changes, he can still have an effect on what changes are included by deciding whether or not to try to contact the 'earlier' source. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jul 02 - 01:56 PM I'm not sure that these days it's possible to collect songs in the same way that the early collectors did. Percy, Scott, and others regarded ballads and folk songs as "ancient poetry" that nobody actually performed anymore. Child was pretty much the same, and he worked hard at getting the earliest version of a song that he could find, regarding later versions as "corrupted." Sharp was an innovator in that he actually collected from living singers (and, bless his heart, was one of the first to write down the tunes as well as the words). Many, if not all of these collectors were not above "prettying up" a song if they thought it was too crude. Several bawdy songs were cleaned up and turned into nice but somewhat wimpy love songs (e.g., Gently Johnny My Jingalo) by Sharp and others because they were either outraged or embarrassed by its explicitness. Or they though they could improve the poetry. It was this that Dr. Fowler objected to. During that time there were not all that many song books and certainly not any mass communication media or recordings. Songs went through a natural evolution, modified by the singer's taste or by lapses of memory, and there wasn't much of anybody around to say, "You're not singing that right." These days, we're inundated with song books, recordings, singer/songwriters, popular songs being appropriated by people who regard themselves as folk singers, folk songs appropriated by pop and rock singers, and many arguments about "What the hell is a folk song, anyway!??" (see innumerable threads) Our semi-egalitarian society no longer admits of a peasant class (the Folk), and lots of people insisting on widening the concept to include everybody ("Hey, we're all just folks!"), so who do folk song collectors collect from anymore? Messy business. My feeling is this:— If my Orkney-born great-grandfather were still alive and if he sang any of the "old songs" (I understand that he did), and if I had a chance to learn (collect) songs from him, I would write them down exactly as he sang them. Then, if I wanted to sing them myself, and if I decided to change a few words here and there, I still have a copy (archive) of how he sang them. And if the Library of Congress wanted to add his songs to their collection, I would send them copies of the songs as he sang them, not as I sing them. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 07 Jul 02 - 08:59 PM Exactly as you say, but with the caveat that Sharp was rarely outraged or embarrassed by the material he found; he knew fine well, however, that he would never get it published if he didn't tone some of it down to accord with the sensibilities of the day. Even Sabine Baring Gould, who re-wrote some songs wholesale because, as a clergyman, he felt that the originals were "coarse", nevertheless preserved those originals in his manuscripts. On the broader issue, I'd say that anyone should by all means make whatever changes they wish to a traditional song, provided those changes are made in an intelligent and informed manner (I'm talking about deliberate alterations, here, not minor changes made due to lapses of memory); but they should bear in mind that their changes are subjective and probably not informed by the kind of understanding of the idiom that genuine traditional singers may have, so the re-made song should never be passed off as "the real thing". The majority of recordings made by revival singers nowadays seem to be of (often rather bogus) material learned from records made by earlier revival performers; now that it's so easy to get hold of source material deriving from genuine tradition, that seems a pity. Everybody has to start somewhere, mind, though it should be considered a start only; there isn't much to be gained from copying somebody else's reworking of a song when anybody who's prepared to put in a bit of time and effort can make something of their own from the same raw material. If it's any good, it may survive; don't let's pretend, though, that there's anything traditional about it just yet. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: WyoWoman Date: 07 Jul 02 - 11:35 PM I change lyrics relatiely frequently, to the chagrin of a couple of my purist friends. For instance, "East Virginia," I change to "there I met a fair young fella ..." and so forth. I try to sing from my heart as much as my voice, and it's hard for me to jump over the gender barrier and sing as though I were a man. But at least I 'fess up that i've monkeyed with the lyrics ... Does that make it better? So if someone is "collecting" a song I'm singing, they'll know it's a little bastard and they probably need to go to a purer source ... ww |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: MAG Date: 08 Jul 02 - 04:04 PM This all reminds me of two stories. One isn't mine and I won't tell it; the other is. Many many years ago in another life we -- me and the people who asked me and everyone else they asked -- were working up a music program for the New World REsource Center in Chicago ( agroup formed by returned Peace Corps volunteers doing anti colonial, anti-inperialist work). One song in particularcaused some discussion: "O Freedom." Some wanted to change the hymn-like lyrics -- "home to my Lord to be free." to something really profound like "fight for the right to be free." One fellow name of Bob trying hard to restrain himself, I think, talked very seriously about the folk process and how generations of people have sung these songs and they have a lot of history and accumulated meaning, and if you're gonna change 'em, you better be .... sure you are changing it for the better. In this case he was absolutely right. This song was a marching song song by the volunteer Afro-American units in our U.S. Civil War, and they were singing quite literally about dying for freedom. The same debate goes on in my storytelling circles. Don't change it unless you really know the story and all about it. One could add, don't TELL it unless you have done your homework.
The same debate came up somewhat obliquely on a children's literature discussion I belong to. Some ancient Norse revivalist group had rewritten a bunch of Mother Goose to their specifications, and the listserv moderator brought it to our attention. They would have been funny if they weren't so very very lame. Mother Goose has much more genuine ancient resonance. (hinkery pinkery cutery corn, OK. Off my soapbox. -- MA |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Naemanson Date: 08 Jul 02 - 09:38 PM Very interesting discussion. Now for some thread creep... [The rest of this post deals with Sandy Ives. For those who do not know of him he is a folk song collector of the old style. Now he is in his mid 80s but in his youth he wnadered through the Maine woods and the Maritime Provinces collecting and archiving. He worked for many years in the Library at the University of Maine (Orono) and has written several scholoarly works on the music and the people he recorded.] Yesterday I was at a party with Sandy Ives and I asked him why so few of the songs he had collected had choruses. He explained that the tradition was for a man (in the lumber camps) to sing his song and for the rest of the men to just listen. There was little or no chorus singing as we do today. He said the culture did not run to choral singing. I thought that was pretty interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: MAG Date: 10 Jul 02 - 12:09 AM Is he the one who collected "The gool old State of Maine?" Always loved that song -- used to have a lyrics sheet, but two moves is as good as a fire ... -- MA |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Naemanson Date: 10 Jul 02 - 12:35 PM That's right. Mag. PM an email to me and I'll send you the page from the book. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: EBarnacle1 Date: 11 Jul 02 - 11:21 AM I find it interesting that Child went from Harvard to England to collect and Sharp went from England to collect. Both got related material. Could it be that neither saw what was in front of them? "Rude utterances of the common folk," huh? This is the most durable poetry/music in the Anglo American language except for Beowulf. Its preservation is even more amazing when you consider that it all entered the oral tradition. |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: EBarnacle1 Date: 11 Jul 02 - 11:23 AM I find it interesting that Child went from Harvard to England to collect and Sharp went from England to America to collect. Both got related material. Could it be that neither saw what was in front of them? "Rude utterances of the common folk," huh? This is the most durable poetry/music in the Anglo American language except for Beowulf. Its preservation is even more amazing when you consider that it all entered the oral tradition. [Joe, please delete the previous entry, as I forgot a word. Thanxx] |
|
Subject: RE: Changing Traditional Lyrics From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jul 02 - 12:08 PM Actually, EBarnacle, Child never went to England. Amazingly enough, he did all of his collecting by correspondence while he remained at Harvard. He had all kinds of contacts digging through old manuscripts for him. I don't think he ever collected from living singers. Don Firth |
| Share Thread: |