Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?

Subject: How can you "own" a song you never wrote?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 06:13 AM

I'd like to understand the practice of "giving" a song (not one you wrote, that is, but in fact someone else's) to another singer. I confess that I find the concept of not singing a particular song because someone else does it regularly at the same venue, limiting. And to have to ask permission from someone who has not written or resorded it, seems dubious at best and silly at worst.

But perhaps I am missing something. So can you help me understand, how this practice came about? I certainly don't remember it happening 30 years ago, when I first joined the folk club scene. But I went "on a break" in the 80's and 90's, which is when this practice seems to have evolved.

Is it to avoid "competition"? But then, how can songs spread, if singers are hamstrung by such practices?

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 06:25 AM

As a matter of courtesy I do not sing certain songs that I know are in the repertoire of other singers when sharing a venue. That is not to say I do not perform those songs when the singer is elsewhere. It is in the spirit of politeness and consideration.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 06:45 AM

I can understand this, up to a point - though it does imply that the other singer would be "offended" by this, and why on earth should they, unless they feel some sort of competitiveness, beats me.

But it gets much worse. I have known of people being reprimanded for singing "someone else's" song even when the other singer is not present. And in some cases I have seen new arrivals at a club being "ticked off" for singing "X's song", even when they don't know "X" or his/her repertoire.

In other words, what starts as politeness (even misplaced one, in my view), ends up as a limiting practice which does not allow the "better" or "more popular" songs to spread, simply because someone else got to them first. So if a young/new floorsinger turns up, what chance do they have, if they have to check first who is in the club, what their likely repertoire is etc...That's why I think it gets silly.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Dita
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 06:45 AM

The practice was common among traditional singers, such as the Stewarts of Blair. Belle, Sheila and Cathie had family songs in common but each had songs that "belonged" to them.
God help anyone who sang "Queen amang the Heather" in front of Belle. Sheila only started singing it in public after Belle died.

john.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: OurPaul
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:19 AM

I think it all stems from the time when 'folk-songs' didn't exist!
I mean the days when 'Fred' would rise from the corner of the Tap Room in his local pub and give a rendition of 'his' song. I have found many instances of certain songs being assigned to certain singers and woe betide the young upstart who dares to attempt 'Fred's Song'. The tradition continued well into the last century in the form of family sing-songs around the piano where everyone had 'their' party piece. This tradition appears to have continued to the present day in the Folk Clubs. However, this can be shield behind which those too idle to learn new material can hide. Those with a jealously guarded small repotoire are the easiest to upset.
My approach is that in my local, regularly visited clubs, where I know most of the members, I wouldn't sing anything I know is regularly sung by another.
On visiting a new club or festival anything goes.
As regards the 'giving' of songs I can agree that in the context of family songs as outlined in a previous mail it would be impolite to use the material and would probably result in a family feud.
In the folk club situation I would say that no-one has the right to 'give' songs unless they are the author and even then, in these days of copyright litigation, it is important to specify exactly what is being given.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: paulo
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:34 AM

OK so it was done amongst "families" of traditional singers, but families are strange entities in the first place.

Having moved around the country a lot (UK) and visited various folk clubs it does seem strange to be told that so& so sings that song reguarly or that that's billy's song.

There are only two reasons for me not singing a song that others sing in any given club:
1)   If the other person who sings it has a limited number of songs that they sing (I can't spell repertoire)
2)   If the other person who sings it is the person I got the words and tune from.

There is a third reason.   I tend not to sing songs when the composer is in the audience.

Cheers
Paulo

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: IanC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:44 AM

Here's a good previous thread Song Ownership.

:-)

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Harry Basnett
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:50 AM

When I am aware a singer has a limited repertoire I tend not to sing any of 'their' songs when they are attending the club ( I might indulge myself when they're not there ).

I do not feel the same obligation towards any singer whose repertoire consists of sing from books/song-sheets, etc., where there has been no attempt at actually learning the song....something else which seems to have crept in over the past few years!

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: My guru always said
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:58 AM

Good point about the song-sheets Harryoldham :-)

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:01 AM

OK, so at best it's a "quaint" custom associated with family singarounds and "old Fred". And at worst it's some sort of turf protection scam (Jerry Rassmussen, from the other thread). In either case it is limiting and serves no-one but the so-called "owner" of the song in a given environment. It certainly harms the spread of folk music, though!

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: IanC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:08 AM

I think it was concluded in the last thread that the idea was less to do with "ownership" on the part of the "owner" and more to do with sensitivity and courtesy on the part of other people who might sing the song.

I'm all for sensitivity and courtesy.

;-)

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: My guru always said
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:13 AM

I try for sensitivity & courtesy too Ian, it doesn't always work though!

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:38 AM

I am all for sensitivity and courtesy too, Ian. But in all the "infringement cases" that I have witnessed, invariably it was the "owner" that was insensitive and incourteous, at least overtly so, by tearing strips of the new arrival in public.

And that's what got me thinking that perhaps sensitivity and courtesy that only panders to some inflated and oversensitive egos has little place in an open society. And we are (an open society) I 'd like to think...Such practices promote a closed world where "establishment" rules and access to music is limited(anybody have a soapbox for me to stand on?)

Don't get me wrong; I am playing devil's advocate here. But consider the flip-side of the argument:

For myself, I LOVE to hear my songs sung by others, even in the same club, whether they do them better or worse than me, in my flawed opinion (and I often think they do them better). So, when I am the first to relinquish "ownership" of the right to sing them, who the hell do others think they are, claiming that "ownership" for themselves? I write them for others to sing, as many as possible, so how about them being sensitive to MY wishes?

And ALL the singer-songwriters I know feel the same, by the way.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: MMario
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:50 AM

I recall a rainy day at a ren-faire - various musicians, actors, and what few patrons there were (very few) were gathering in sheltered spots and music was going on -

I sang a song; and shortly thereafter was ripped into by an actress saying it was "her signature song" and how dare I sing it, etc, etc, etc. Turns out she did not know who had written it (I did) nor did she have his permission to sing it (I did). She had learned it from a bootleg tape - I had learned it from his performances.

*le sigh*

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:07 AM

Going off topic somewhat, but I just wanted to point out that just because someone is using a word sheet, doesn't mean they have made no effort to learn a song. I use sheets for nearly all the songs I do when I sing in public eg at sing arounds, because I have a poor memory (partly as a consequence of depression), and especially when nervous I have have a tendency to suddenly forget the next line or the next verse - sometimes even when I have been singing that song for years. I find I sing much better when I have that safety net, as I am not in a constant panic about remembering the words - certainly a better performance than if I had dried up in the middle of the song.

Having said that I don't give a toss whether someone sings the same songs as me, and it is often nice to hear two different renditions of the same song at a singaround.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: MMario
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:11 AM

Bagpuss - how true - and versions of the same song can be *very* different - even with the lyrics the same!

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: My guru always said
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:16 AM

Song-sheets as safety nets should be widley accepted Bagpuss (I use them sometimes too) - I was meaning those who hadn't really ever sung the song 'out loud' before & were obviously 'reading' the song. Usually makes for a bad performance of a good song as the words aren't always 'scanned' correctly.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: nutty
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:43 AM

The reason I would not sing a song at the same venue where someone else sings it regularly, is that life would become exceedingly boring.
If that song was sung every week by various people no one would eventually want to sing it ..... definitely overkill.

There are far too many good songs around for you to have to double up and sing one that someone else has undoubtably taken a lot of time and trouble to learn.

I pride myself on singing songs that are different and that folk club regulars would not normally hear.
If, as does happen, someone else expresses an interest in the song ...I will leave the song alone and move on.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,GerMan
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:47 AM

Whilst I don't object to anyone singing songs that are in my standard repetoire it seems to upset others! For instance at a session I was at recently someone played a song I normally finish off with. I was then repeatedly asked to it later in the evening. I didn't want to as I felt it wouldn't be right to do it again & as, without bragging, I sing it better it would have felt like I was showing off/having a go at the person who did it earlier.

Since then it's been "will you be doing Xxxxx tonight or will so & so be ruining it". I feel awful about this!

Perhaps the easiest way to avoid such situations would be to leave stuff alone if you know it's in someone else's repetoire.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: MMario
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:53 AM

*grin* A few years back someone heard me doing a song - and asked for the words because he wanted to use it to propose to his SO. Gave him the lyrics and a tape of me singing it...

Last summer became re-acquainted with him - met his lovely wife - and he sang his version of the song for me...I was delighted - but others didn't feel so.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 10:40 AM

I get a little ticked when someone lifts one of my arrangments and doesn't at least give me credit for the version, but I have on real problem with someone singing one of "my" songs.
If, on the other hand, they sing a song that I wrote, and they know that I wrote it, I can get downright hostile. Especially if they didn't bother to get my permission.
Stuff that I have recorded is another matter. What I am talking about are the unrecorded songs that I do in concert or at festivals.
I always try to give credit whenever I can, either to the writer or to the person I learned the song from and I try to avoid doing songs that are a known part of someones repetoire unless I have a very different version.

troll

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM

The criticisms of song "ownership" expressed in this thread are all well-spoken and valid in certain contexts, but irrelevant here.

That's because we're talking about the customs of small groups of individuals who have freely chosen to associate.

Customs often seem "silly" to outsiders because there's always a certain component of arbitrariness to them. But they are quite rational, GIVEN certain goals. If you share the goals, the customs make great sense.

So, what's song ownership all about?

1) It is a way of minimizing competitiveness. If only one person sings the song, comparisons, whether voiced or thought, implicit or explicit, don't get made. That's why the rule holds even if the owner isn't there.

Now, if you think that competition is an unalloyed good, then a group that tries to minimize it might not be the one for you. But there's nothing ethically, morally, or legally wrong or irrational with a group trying to minimize competitiveness.

2) It's about place-holding. If certain items are reserved for certain members of the group, they are guaranteed to have a place in the activity. Granted, that might deny a place to a nonmember, but the presupposition here is that members have priority.

Now, if you think that membership in a group should carry NO perks, then a group that bestows perks on its members might not be the one for you.

3) Place-holding leads to a larger issue. It's about the special respect that the group shows a member of the group. Members the group get it, non-members don't. This special respect is one of the perks mentioned in 2.

4) Ownership is also about dues-paying. Newbies don't get the same treatment as old-timers. Newbies have to learn their place. But, a newbie who gets toasted for singing someone else's song AND graciously treats it as a learning experience AND comes back, passes a test.

Granted,
Small group "rules" can be quite pernicious if they are the norm for an entire society.
Formal law has constantly and consistently limited the options for small groups.
But small informal groups still have some "wiggle room" and the issue of song "ownership" seems to me clearly to fall in this category.

Admittedly, I've been on both sides of that fence.
But I currently have little patience with outsiders who crusade to get things done their way under a smokescreen of efficiency, morality, and pseudo-rationality.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: JudeL
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:14 AM

I'd mostly go with Paulo's ideas of not singing a particular song if either :
1) I know it's one sung by someone else there that doesn't know very many songs. It does take time to build up a repertoire (spelling?) and it can be offputting for someone who's still nervous about getting up to sing to hear the song they were intending to sing sung first by someone else.

2) The person who passed on the words and tune to me is there. Although I may check with them that they are not intending to sing it that evening. I tend to feel that if they were good enough to pass a song onto me they should still have the choiceof singing it, after all they didn't have to pass the song on to me. Unless it's a very long session most people prefer not to have the same song sung twice.

3) the author of the song is there (although again, if I am feeling confident that I'm not about to mangle their work, I may ask them if they mind me singing it)

I suppose I regard it partly as a matter of courtesy, partly as a way of avoiding comparisons and far from seeing it as limiting the songs sung, I believe it actively encourages people to increase the variety of songs that they sing, so that they can avoid repeating one that has already been sung that evening.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:17 AM

Wouldnt catch me giving away one of "my" songs, no Sir. But I might sell them. Anyone fancy buying Streets of London or the Wild Rover? I find I have no further use for them.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:59 AM

well, as a casual singer who does not 'compete', it has bemused me for quite awhile...I know songs which I 'discovered' and was the first to sing in my 'group'...but if they were decent songs, some of the better, for want of a better term "vacuumers" of songs, eventually discovered them and added them to their growing repertoire....then, if I ever did the song again, someone would usually say, "oh, 'so-and-so' does that", with the implication that 'so-and-so's version is the accepted one in these here parts, podner, and that I ought perhaps to stick to the few little items that have been identified as 'mine' ,*grin*.

I have never been seriously maligned for taking someone's song, because I am not serious competition, but I sure see some interesting elbowing go on when a song new to the 'group' arrives and much care taken about when a song is done.

Because I am in an area where there are a number of excellent singers with LARGE repertoires, it is really difficult in a large gathering to sing ANY song which is not known by several of them...I do know, however, of two or three songs of 'mine' which others know, but don't sing when I am around....which strikes me as a bit silly, but then, lots of the dynamics of social groups is a bit silly when you look hard at them, hmmmm???

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: MMario
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:03 PM

*grin* Which is one reason I tried to stick with songs I was pretty sure no one knew while I was down in that neck of the woods.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:15 PM

oh, YOU would have been forgiven...unless you come regularly and make it a habit...*wink*

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:27 PM

A few weeks back I was in company with some folk and one of them sung a song and another asked if they might have the words. The singer said that they had spent a lot of time and effort researching the song in archives and libraries and didn't really feel like just passing on everything to someone else which I felt was a valid point. However where the song is widely available it is different and I do sing songs I have heard others sing regularly but tend not to do them if they are present. That said there have been occasions when someone has asked me to sing a song they have heard me do elsewhere in company of the person who usually does it (unknown to them) I would then ask them if they objected or politely decline.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Micca
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM

On the song sheet question, I am of the view that if it helps the singer to do a better job, wether as a "security blanket" or aid memoir then I am all for it. I personally am more embarassed by forgetting the words anyway, but if you want to try for the Gold star of embarassment
Forget the words of a song you wrote!!!!

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: MMario
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:10 PM

try blanking on the words AND the tune...as I did (when it was requested by my sister at an event last fall!)

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Micca
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:19 PM

sorry that went "post" unexpectedly!! The trouble with songs one has written is that we remeber the Drafts too, and easily can get sidelined or lost in earlier versions and dead ends!! so it takes a long time to get a "definitve " version in MY head!!
on the main issue.
Out of politeness,If I am in a song circle waiting to be caled, I try to have a couple of alternatives prepared so that if someone sings a song I had in mind to do I can switch to an alternative, I only feel irritated by "song ownership" when it is used as a excluding tactic by individuals or groups against newcomers, but on the otherhand it encourages songwriters to do their own songs(it certainly encourages me) so that they are fairly sure they are not stealing someones thunder!!

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:40 PM

Thanks, Micca, I guess you expressed it better - it's the "excluding tactic" that I find irritating. I am certainly not on a crusade here, I thought I had made that obvious with my second posting, and please accept my apologies for taxing your patience, Russ, with my "pseudo-morality". Neither am I an outsider looking in. Nor have I ever been on the receiving end of such behaviour, as I have never infringed anyone's ownership of a song, singing mainly the ones I write. But I have seen people bicker about such things, and wondered how an outsider might feel.

I DO have one "kick" though: I'd like to see more people, and more young people, coming to folk clubs, simply because I love the music, the tradition and the environment, and I think it something worth perpetuating. And in this context, "excluding tactics" bother me.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:56 PM

Oh, and I always forget my own lyrics, for the very same reasons, Micca...glad I'm not alone!

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,MCP
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 02:03 PM

Will Noble used to tell (humourously) of what happened in the Holme Valley when someone died - there'd be a rush to the pub so that singers could be the first to sing a song of the deceased and thus stake their claim on it.

(And I remember Dave Webber telling me that in one of his very early gigs members of the morris side got up one by one and each did one of his songs before he went on! But that was deliberate, so probably doesn't count in terms of this thread).

Mick

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM

I'm of split mind over the "ownership" of songs.

On the one hand, if it's traditional (or an authorized performance of copyright protected material), it's up for grabs.

But on the other hand, "giving" a song performance to another group is sometimes a matter of more than just the show.

From the audience view, a band "giving up" a song that another band performs is usually better show. Trust me - not many audiences (barring St. Patrick's day drunken mobs) are really up for 5 renditions of "Wild Rover". To this end, usually if our group is going to be sharing a stage we check to try to avoid overlap.

From the group view, it's a mark of respect to a degree. If an established group that performs that venue regularly is on the bill, it's polite to at least ask if the song in question is on the night's set list, and then act accordingly. It's best if there's give and take on this - if a newcomer group uses a song on the established group's set as a "signature piece", while the established group just has it for filler material... again, it's polite to make way. By no means would I suggest it's required, and everyone has their limits (as I discovered when asked if we'd eliminate 2/3 of one of my previous group's list because another group "might" want to perform one or two of them).

My personal view is that I try to take it from the audience view. If it's a festival with several stages, or something where there's guaranteed high percentage audience turnover, then it really doesn't matter. 15 groups could do "Molly Malone" and noone is all that likely to care. If it's a restricted bill, or some other situation where the audience will very likely consist of the same folks from act to act, then I'd *much* prefer that as little duplication occurs as possible.

Unfortunately, a lot of performers seem to forget the audience on occaision. When there's a limited number of listeners, a person walking out of your set is likely not just leaving you - they're also walking out of every set that follows.

M

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 05:49 PM

I really liked Russ's analysis of this. It works well for anyone who is a regular participant in a song circle or session. However, it's a lot more difficult if you're parachuting into a new established song circle, something I do two or three times a year in association with vacations and business trips; my safest strategy is usually to lead something which is unique because I wrote it or is familar but radically rearranged. It's much more scary for me to sing something that I suspect someone in the group already leads. When I know someone else present leads a song, I usually acknowledge that in my introduction. And sometimes, in a song circle, I have asked other people who I know have a different take on one of "my" songs, to lead their version of it. I have also "given" songs to other members of my band to lead because they can do a better job of delivering it.

So, let's see, who's song can I steal for the next shanty swap?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:02 PM

"I tend not to sing songs when the composer is in the audience" wrote Paulo.

That's not a good rule to have - I love it when I hear someone sing one of my songs. Even if I don't necessarily like how they sing it, it's a great feeling. More especially perhaps when they've no idea you wrote it, because that way you know it's the song itself they like for itself, and that's what a song writer really wants to happen.

I suppose if you know the person who wrote a song is in the room, it might be a friendly thing to clear it with them, since there appear to be a few people who don't feel that way about their songs - and I suppose, if they were planning to sing it that night, they should have the first right to it. (Though myself, if someone asked me I'd always be happy to give over the song that night, and sing another.)

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,Ely
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 02:29 AM

OK, this comes from the point of view of someone who plays music strictly to entertain herself and whose music circle is strictly amateur.

Even if I spend a lot of time researcing a song--and I have done this on several occasions--it would never occur to me to be selective about who I gave it to unless it was someone (and there are *very* few people who come to mind when I say this) who might abuse the favor. After all, who is to say that the next time I'm trying to track down a song, the person I wouldn't share my last song with isn't the one that knows something about the song I need now?

There is a family among my current musical acquaintances who is notorious for "grabbing" songs--they arrange them to the Nth degree, insist on leading everyone when we play, make everyone buy their tabulature (none of it for original compositions), and are vague about background research (actually, they've started giving credit recently, partly because I _always_ do and I shamed them into it). I *occasionally* rearrange--not just recopy--their stuff for people who are either sick of having to buy public-domain songs or don't like the arrangements for sale. I would never record or publish somebody else's original song or arrangement of a PD song without their permission.

Personally, even if I learn a song from someone, I have a lousy memory and I usually "rearrange" it completely by accident, anyway. You should hear the unrecognizable version I sing of "Old Bangum", filtered through at least two, maybe three people who couldn't remember it right.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: C-flat
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 03:35 AM

As an occassional folk club visitor I have some difficulty with the "that song is sung by so-and-so" mentality. If the club is open to outsiders/visitors then they must expect that there will be occassions when the same song that they've heard before by one of their members will crop up at the hands of a visitor.
Short of asking everybody present to submit a list of "intended songs" for the evening, I can't see how that can be avoided.
Personally I wouldn't want to sing a song that has been regularly performed at a particular club for fear of being boring, nor would I want to become known for singing a particular song, for the same reason.
With regard to Mrs. Ducks friend who wouldn't share the lyrics to a song I must say I find that attitude strange.
As a guitar player I've spent a lot of time and effort learning pieces of music and once in a while you come across the "trick" to a particular song, that could be in the form of a particular tuning, neck position or lick, that gives the song/music that special edge.
If I've ever been asked to show how I played something I could never adopt the attitude that, because I'd done all the work learning it, I wouldn't want to share that with anyone else.
True ownership belongs to the songwriter and he has every right to withhold permission to sing it or impart knowledge of it but I suspect most songwriters would adopt the attitude that McGrath subscribes to and be proud to have a song out there, in the public domain, that others want to sing.
If we all keep our "knowledge" under wraps then what musical tradition will there be for future generations.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 12:24 PM

El Greko,

My closing remark was both snotty and unclear. I apologize for both.

What I meant was that I have been both the newbie trying (crusading) to get a group to do things my (better, of course) way and a member of established groups dealing with such newbies.

I am embarrassed by the former and the latter gave me the perspective that resulted in my analysis.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:34 PM

No worries, Russ - friends again. Heat of the moment stuff; I confess to the occasional imperfaction myself ;-)

Would that we could be newbies again! And I'd take the embarassment with it too...

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Santa
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:36 PM

This thread didn't go the way I was expecting from the title. If I may explain?

You sometimes hear an artist say "I was given this song by X". Now does this mean that the artist was playing with X one night and X taught him the tune? Does it mean that it was one of X's compositions, and the artist no longer needs to pay copyright fees when he plays it? I suspect not. Surely it means more than "I heard this song on X's CD and learnt it from there."

So just what does it mean?

Regarding the main direction of the thread: I don't sing, but my wife does. She learns songs from CDs, or in singing workshops, or sometimes asks help from other singers. If we all followed this "You can't sing this song it is mine" there would be no folk singing at all, songs would never be passed on and never heard away from their place of origin. The whole concept seems to be alien to the folk movement. Indeed, it seems to be alien to any kind of music practice at all.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: C-flat
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:40 PM

My point exactly Santa.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Cas
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 03:38 PM

The very least you could do is credit the author of whichever song you have sung, whether you've been "given" it or not.

LTS masquerading as Cas....

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 03:44 PM

I've been on both sides of this one.

Right from when I first started learning folk songs in the very early 50s, Walt Robertson and others (including Sandy Paton, before he left Seattle) were wide-open and generous about teaching me any songs they knew that I might want to learn. These were folk songs. Nobody owned them and anybody who wanted to sing them could. It was like the Code of Chivalry, or the Code of the Hills, or the Cowboy Way, or whatever. The only way you could wind up "owning" a song was to sing it so well that nobody else wanted to suffer by comparison.

A couple years later, I met a singer who was up from Berkeley and spending the summer in Seattle. He sang a couple of songs that I wanted to learn, and when I asked him, he responded, "Why should I teach you my songs? Get your own!" Others heard that, and I don't think he ever figured out why, from that point on, people around here were polite to him, but very cold. He had broken the Code. Some months later, I found both songs in a copy of Sing Out!, which, of course, is where he'd learned them.

Walt Robertson had a television show on KING in 1952-53. He used Wanderin' as his theme song (same words that Frankie Laine sang on a pop record some years before, but not the same melody). That song became so solidly identified with Walt, that nobody else around here would sing it. Walt is gone now, but I still won't sing it. I wouldn't want the song to drop away and be forgotten, but whoever picks up on it, I certainly hope they sing it well and with respect.

I've always followed a policy of learning and singing any song that I jolly-well wanted to. The only time I recall getting any grief for singing certain songs was from the new wife of a long-time friend of mine. She was somewhat new to this and hadn't really grasped yet what was going on. During the course of an evening, I sang a couple of songs that elicited severe frowns from her. When I had an opportunity to ask her in semi-private what was wrong, she responded haughtily that I was "singing Stan's songs." The implication was that I was usurping his property and "who did I think I was, anyway?" Well . . . first of all, it didn't bother Stan any, and second, I was the guy who had taught the songs to Stan.

There was a period where I did tend to get my nose out of joint a bit. I was singing at one of Seattle's better-known coffeehouses in the University District. The owner operated on a budget big enough to allow him to hire several singers. Singing there was fun because it was like swapping songs in someone's living room, and the audiences enjoyed the banter and informality. But one singer in particular liked the stuff I did—including my accompaniments. He wouldn't come right out and ask me for the words to a song, he would get a couple of confederates to sit there and copy down the words as I sang them. Then a week or so later, he would pop up with the song—and my accompaniment. That is, he attempted to play my accompaniments, but since he played by ear and eye-ball, and some of my arrangements drew on classic guitar and were fashioned after lute-accompaniments, often his attempts were less than successful. Nor was he doing himself any favors by trying to copy my arrangements. My voice was a lot deeper than his, and since most of my accompaniments, runs, etc., were "key-specific," he had to sing them in my keys, and he wound up growling along below his best singing range. Nevertheless, it was damned annoying to come in for my bit and discover that Mike had already sung a bunch of my best songs. I'd go ahead and work them in later in the evening, however.

I think it's a matter of courtesy mixed with self-preservation.
Example 1: Good buddy, one-time singing partner, and long-time friend, Bob Nelson, sings a lot of songs that I really like, because they are good songs and Bob sings then exceptionally well. I do go ahead and learn them, but I won't sing them when Bob is there, nor will I sing them before people who are used to hearing Bob sing them. But for other groups, yes.
Example 2: I sing a lot of songs that Gordon Bok has recorded. Our voices are pretty much in the same range and I love his stuff, so I steal outrageously from him. But if he were in town, I set that part of my repertoire aside. I don't want to be compared to the Real Thing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 05:22 PM

I dislike it intensely when singers announce that they have been given a song as if it confers special rights -or that they learned a song from the singing of -when in fact they mean they listened and learnt it from a CD like the rest of us- but it implies some studious superiority which is intended to be demeaning in a lot of cases. Many folks are alarming name droppers! Personally I will avoid singing songs that I know are in other peoples repertoires who are present and even avoid songs of those who are absent if I consider them a definitive version . I always use song sheets because I have a       pathetic memory and sing better if I know I have access to the words -this is particularly important since I sing in a harmony duet and the right words are crucial. I have never yet remembered the words accurately to my own songs in performance -call me pathetic but thats the way it is -I do not think it detracts from my abilities as a singer although I have had people lecture me on what bad form it is- ironically by people who have no singing ability whatsoever.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 06:11 PM

One of the "funny" moments at the Getaway:
Mick is off in a corner quietly working out the chords of the next song he is going to sing. He later gives Barry Finn a little (friendly) grief, at which Barry starts to sing Mick's song. Anyone close by knew what was going on and Barry only sang the first line...the look on Mick's face was priceless.

I am a rather shy, closet singer and am careful about not ruining a song someone else does well. I am also generous about sharing anything I have. But I did have an odd moment when I was approached by a woman who heard a song I sing and announced it suited her better. She wanted the lyrics and a recording from me so that she could use it. Implied was that I was not to sing it any more because it didn't "suit" me. Oh yeah - that's gonna happen. No lyrics; no recording; no further mention of it. Strange part is there are multiple recordings of it available. So maybe it was one she planned on adding to her collection and never got around to it. I was being warned off. So silly.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 06:45 PM

"Giving a song" really implies the sort of thing that happens when you suggest to somebody that a song you know - maybe one you wrote, maybe one you tend you sing yourself - might really suit their voice, and let them have the words or the tune if need be.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 07:15 PM

Sins, what song?

I think if it's a group of folks who don't know what's in the repertoire of others, any song is fair game. There is a very real reason for not singing other people's songs at established sessions. I have very few songs in my repertoire and I worked to learn them. I don't 'own' them, but I think it's common courtesy to try to avoid eliminating songs someone else could have sung. I do NOT mind if someone wants to sing WITH me at sessions. Those who've been to the Sea Music Session in Portsmouth New Hampsha have witnessed the results of sharing when Barbara & I sing 'Mollymauk'.

I will occasionally hear a song and think "Wow - this would sound good if _____ sang it!" So I tell them about it. I think of this as "telling them about a song," not "giving them a song." I think I could give someone a song I wrote, but not any other song.

I DO remember associating certain songs with certain singers from 30 years ago.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Genie
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:06 PM

I haven't noticed this "ownership" phenomenon much at the song circles and jams around Portland and Seattle-- at least not in the sense that folks get irate if you sing "their song." I have found though, much to my chagrin, that in one of the rather structured song circles, the GROUP seems to have developed a set way of doing certain songs. When one of those songs is one of my special songs (i.e., I like the song a lot and I think I do it well) and my arrangement is different from the way the group usually does it, I find it very frustrating when the group does not seem open to doing the song a bit faster or slower (or with a stronger back beat or some other modification) than they usually do it. I can still sing the song (everyone sings every song), but I can't do it the way I prefer without being, in effect, told that my "timing is strange" or that I'm "doing it too fast," or whatever.

Beyond a song 'belonging' to a given person, where did we get this silly notion that there's only one right way to do a song?

Don F. - Wonderful stories, wonderful examples!
I like that attitude: "The only way you [can] wind up "owning" a song [is] to sing it so well that nobody else [wants] to suffer by comparison.


Nutty, Jeri, and others, I'm generally with you--when it comes to MOST songs in my repertoire.   If a song is your specialty and just another song to me, I'll gladly leave the field for that song open for you. But there are a handful of songs that I've really put a lot of effort into learning, arranging, polishing, etc., and that I consider my best show pieces. I'm not about to forego EVER doing them in a given setting just because someone else does them there, too.
Jeri, as you pointed out, doing the song WITH each other seems one positive way to deal with the 'ownership' issue. (I'm a damn fine back-up singer/harmonizer!)

(Russ, I agree about the [written or unwritten] rules of small, informal groups, but if a group had too many restrictive rules, I probably wouldn't sing with them a lot.)

(Micca, I, too, find it easier to forget my own songs' words than those of other people's songs--from the myriad alternative lyrics that passed through my mind before I zeroed in on just the right ones!)
         
Don, " If the club is open to outsiders/visitors then they must expect that there will be occassions when the same song that they've heard before by one of their members will crop up at the hands of a visitor." Well said.

I can't imagine not being willing to share lyrics, tabs, arrangements, etc. with others who ask - no matter how much work I've put into a piece -- with one exception. I once had a war of wills with a boyfriend who wanted to sing a song I had written. Problem with that was that this was a funny song that sort of had a punch line (in addition to other funny liners), so I knew its BIGGEST impact would be the FIRST time a person heard it. If he were to have sung the song about town, he would have been skimming off my laughs, as it were, before folks heard me do my own song. Since I didn't do a lot of performing back then, I didn't want the impact of my best song diluted. But this kind of song is, I think, a special case.   Most songs actualy grow on you, so that audiences may receive them better if they've heard the songs before.


Genie

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:22 PM

Nothing you would ever hear at the Press Room, Jeri.

The practice of not singing another's song has always struck me as a courtesy more than anything else. Barry always gets a nod from Charlie before going ahead with Yangtze River. I have never yet heard anyone sing Kendall's "Don't Look Good Naked Anymore"; "Fire Down Below" is Jeri's mostly because no one can get it quite as right as she. "Aunt Cora" is Lynn's. Funny but I just dragged out Kendall's first CD with "Maggie May" on it and found it strange to have anyone but Tom sing it. But I can't imagine anyone objecting if a singer chose to. Again, courtesy.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Deni-C
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 01:43 AM

At our club we tend not to do each other's songs becuase that would cut down the number of songs the club performs and would be boring, but how are visitors to clubs supposed to know what club regulars sing.

when they turn up we ask them IF they sing, not WHAT they sing....

Best Wishes
deni

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: vectis
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 07:46 PM

If I hear a song I like and think it would suit my singing style I ask the singer for the words and tune and author.
If they are kind ehough to pass the song on a always attribute it to the author rather than the singer.
PS
Thanks for the song George. If I can't get the tune to the verses I'll take up your kind offer...
Mary

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Grab
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 07:52 PM

Russ,

4) Ownership is also about dues-paying. Newbies don't get the same treatment as old-timers. Newbies have to learn their place. But, a newbie who gets toasted for singing someone else's song AND graciously treats it as a learning experience AND comes back, passes a test.

The test is that he's a sucker and will put up with any crap to be around the "in-crowd", right?

If a new person turns up, do they get told which songs they're barred from singing? If so, and they still do it, that's rude from them - they've been told the rules and chosen to break them. A quiet word from the organiser at the bar afterwards to the effect of "Charlie's not got many songs, so he does that one and we leave it to him" is one thing, but getting "toasted" for it is something else altogether. I strongly suggest the "toaster" chooses their target carefully, bcos verbal abuse plus alcohol is a good combination for a punchup...

Graham.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,T-boy
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:14 AM

And then there are some folk clubs where you cause great offence if you sit in somebody's regular chair !

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:23 AM

Genie,
To me its not the number or restrictiveness of the rules but the quality of the musical experience that is the deciding factor.

Graham,
"The test is that he's a sucker and will put up with any crap to be around the "in-crowd", right?"

That's one valid way of looking at it.

But I see nothing wrong, per se, with following the rules of an "in-crowd". Sometimes the quality of a musical experience makes it worth the effort to put up with some crap, sometimes it doesn't. I can't claim to bat 1000, but I am not as quick as I once was to rule out participation purely on the basis of the crap.

"Toasted" was perhaps too strong a word. I tend to exaggerate for effect. But I've been on the receiving end of what was intended to be a "quiet word" and still felt toasted.

In my experience, it would be extremely unusual for a newbie to be handed a list of "restricted" songs or even simply told at the start what songs were off limits. That presupposes a degree of formal organization which is quite foreign to the sorts of small groups I think we are talking about. Part of the informality is that newcomers often/always learn things "the hard way" because there are no written rules.

Anyway,
These days, to me the issue isn't the number of rules, or their restrictiveness, or the ingroup/outgroup mentality. I'm sort of a bottom-liner here. If I feel that participation in the group is musically worth the effort, I'm willing to jump through some hoops. I'm just not as keen as I once was to have things done my way. I will occasionally submit and be assimilated and then exercise a subversive influence as a mole from within.

In my experience rules look very different depending upon your viewpoint. What looks like arbitrary ingroup crap to a newbie can "feel" right and make a certain sort of sense when you're a member.

The closest thing to the sort of musical freedom some of the participants in this thread seem to yearn for is found doing music with friends I've known and played with for years/decades. They'll put up with almost anything. They'll still whine though.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:47 AM

While I don't mind giving any of the material which I perform to anyone else, I do object to be expected to sit down and write out the words then and there. If the other person is on e-mail it makes life much easier as I have most sets of words on my PC (and my HP Jornado PDA).

At one session that I sometimes go to, there is a particular singer who has "borrowed" a few songs (not ones which I've written) from me, and frequently sings one of my favourites before I get a chance. He is not a very good singer (although he's hardly a beginner) and I've now given up singing several songs at that session, because even when they haven't already been sung, I feel that I might be seen to be "putting down" the other singer when I do sing them.

Subject: RE: Songs 'given' to others-silly practice?
From: Genie
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:39 PM

Russ ( To me its not the number or restrictiveness of the rules but the quality of the musical experience that is the deciding factor.)
I couldn't agree more.

The only thing that really bothers me about having a LOT of 'owned' songs is that it can really restrict the musical experience within that group. If someone who has a different verion of so-and-so's song* doesn't ever feel welcome to perform it, or if someone who does a superb rendition of a song isn't ever 'permitted' to share that because someone else routinely does a mediocre rendition of it, I think that's a real shame.

The time these kinds of 'rules' would seriously detract from my musical experience in a group (or setting) would be when, say, all 20 of my very best songs (my showpiece songs) were "already owned" by someone else in the group, so that I never had the chance to 'put my best foot forward' (in the sense of performing) or to do the songs that were the most enjoyable to me to play/sing.

When it's just a few songs, and I have other places where I can do them, it's no biggie to let a group member 'own' them.

Genie

*I am not talking about songs "owned' by their authors.