Replacing 'informant'

Subject: Replacing 'informant'
From: Stephen R.
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 10:24 PM

Among the valid criticisms of the established way of collecting and publishing folksongs is the observation that the collector pretty thoroughly upstages the singer. I don't know if we can do much to redress this in respect of the old classic collections, but I would at least like to have a better word to describe those who gave the collector his/her stock in trade than "informant"--as A. L. Lloyd once said, a "hateful word."   I wonder what participants in this forum would suggest as the most appropriate replacement.

Stephen R.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 10:47 PM

what about "musical source"

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 11:46 PM

On the nail.

A

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 12:43 AM

Bingo.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:08 AM

Not only a hateful word, but a double agent's dream... ;^)

I don't particularly like 'musical source' either... it is a bit of a distancing mechanism, and is not entirely respectful. It is part of the 'up staging' when a collector does not enjoy making the performers more famous... "I got this rendition from (so and so)" or "(so and so) sang this this version", maybe even an anecdote... The honoring of a performer is no threat to the fame that is due a collector... different leagues, oranges and apples.

All the best! ttr

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:43 AM

good point TtR, but its solving it's the prob. here goes again!

how about "local collector" , caretaker, or ..

I think musical source is a step better than informant, which is a step away from dog.. (jail informant)

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 02:34 AM

OK... whatever... I'm discussing music.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 03:51 AM

'Collected from' has always been standard, I like 'shared with/by'.

LTS

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 09:43 AM

Great point, Stephen. I guess my perception was always that the person listed under "collected by.." was lucky to have been in the presence the person described as "from the singing of ....." who was always the "star", so to speak. This has caused me to rethink this. This could be a really great thread.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 09:45 AM

If the collector hears the song from the source, why not use the word "source"?.


A

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 12:46 PM

Because it's confusing, Amos... the 'source' of a folksong is never the singer. If we are talking about 'snogwriters' thats different, and we say 'sniger snogwriter' so and so... But the song usually comes from a 'source' that no collector will have the opportunity to meet without a time machine at his/her disposal. Personally, I find the issue somewhat irrelevant... But it's as if, in an age of copyrights and creativity... the collector is also simply trying to verify 'non ownership' of a song... which makes it available to singers and players everywhere for royalty free recordings...

Cheerio!
ttr

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: GUEST,a guest
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 12:59 PM

If I may add a uneducated opinion,my late husband played a Hammered Dulcimer and over about 6 years listened to the music played as Applachian Music down in the Carolinas now he put diferent names to the same music as all originated in Scotland or Ireland. Point being someone plays it and another hears music but not title so gives it a new one and on and on it goes will any one a hindred years from now even Play some of todays "music" will they last long enough to be collected, for the writer's sake I hope so I am also sure few remember who wrote the old fiddle tunes. Sorry to take up your time.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:06 PM

I think you are wonderful, guest, and you can take up my time any time! You have a lot to offer, and you certainly don't need to appologize... Happy Holidays!

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:08 PM

The best collectors gave the name of the informant. Too bad so many omitted the names and background. The worst claim it for themselves or revise and add without noting their 'contributions'.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:08 PM

At first I sort of liked "from the singing of..." but then I thought about some of the field recordings I've heard - maybe it should be
"from the monotoned, out of key, half-remembered chanting of ..."!!!

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Leadfingers
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:51 PM

'Source Singer' always seemed perfectly acceptable to me.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: GUEST,Stephen R.
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:54 PM

I have never said "sniger snogwriter" in my life! It sounds as bad as "informant."

Seriously, folks, I do use "collected from" where possible; one also sees "taken down from" and that's fine too. But I need a noun. I can't write "The collected from was a fifty-year-old plumber." "Source" won't quite do for reasons explained above, and "music source" is one-sided: the person in question also provided the word set. So let's keep the suggestions coming in please!

Stephen R.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 02:44 PM

Surely if you are performing the piece before a live audience is not the following sufficient without getting too complicated or "hi-fallooting" about it?
" I would like to sing my version of a song I heard sung by a singer at a club/session/concert/or whatever in Cardiff e.g."

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 03:56 PM

It does seem that Stephen R. is talking about a noun to be used in written works, rather than on-stage song intros.

Stephen, how about the person's name?? e.g., rather than The informant was a fifty-year-old plumber..., why not Mr. Monkeywrench was a fifty-year-old plumber...? If you're using the label to apply to a particular person, then their name is probably the best label you've got.

If you're writing about such people in general terms, you still might need such a noun, as in The informants in this area of England were mostly working-class people..., or I visted each informant at least three times.... I agree the term is cold, and I'd expect to see such sentences restricted mostly to scholarly discussions --- and even there I'd rather hear/read The singers were mostly working-class people.... That doesn't work if you collected more than just songs, but surely something like that?? The people I collected these songs and stories from... Once you've established who you're talking about the usual collective pronouns ought to serve. Any single label will be distancing, ultimately, and is necessary only for the kind of academic writing where you don't use first person singular (which surely is acceptable in the world of folklore/folk arts). (Such used to be the rule in the sciences and led to overuse of of passive sentence construction.)

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Stephen R.
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 06:51 PM

Desert Dancer, you got that one right! I am looking for something I can use in the context of academic prose. "Singer" is the best suggestion so far. Thanks!

Stephen R.

Subject: RE: Replacing 'informant'
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 07:28 PM

Becky makes very good sense. My own preference would be for "singer" where a generic term is required (though it doesn't fit all situations, and there will be times when "source" or, indeed, "informant", may be pretty much unavoidable), and "noted from" or "recorded from" depending on the circumstances. "Given" is rather a loaded term which might be best avoided (as emerged in another recent discussion, it is horribly misused by performers of folk song these days) except where it is literally the case; and I'm afraid that "shared" really wouldn't work; even in the very different context that Hugh seems to be thinking of, it would probably attract more sniggers than anything else. I do confess to being an over-user of passive constructions; partly through caution, probably, but also because there are times when "I" am irrelevant to the matter in hand.

Hugh does raise an interesting issue, though, as he seems only to envisage situations where folk club performers learn songs from other folk club performers. Admittedly, singers belonging to the continuous tradition are getting relatively thin on the ground, but there is an enormous amount of material in written or recorded form that those now dead have left with us, and it would be a pity if revival singers were to neglect all that in favour of simply taking in each other's laundry, so to speak.

The relative scarcity today of long-standing surviving musical traditions has led to a sizeable body of ethnomusicologists deciding that one's own backyard is now an appropriate field for study; a pub session I participate in has now featured in no less than three such studies. That's more the application of sociological principals to the situation, though; group dynamics and approaches to repertoire and its interpretation. The actual musical material is incidental. What I don't think that anyone past their first undergraduate year would seriously attempt would be to "collect" songs from each other which they may all, in any case, have learned from the same records made by slightly older singers: that would seem rather sterile. Having said that, there is probably room for a detailed study of the mechanisms by which songs are transmitted among revival singers, many of whom may never have met a representative of the older tradition. I don't think I'd fancy doing it, though.