Tradition or just a bit old?

Subject: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 04:20 AM

As more and more research shows that much of what was considered traditional in terms of ritual dance, social dance and song is not a lot more than a bit old ........

....... does it matter?

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 04:24 AM

No.

eric

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 04:27 AM

Do customs that are traditional carry more significance than those that are a bit old?

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST,greg stephens
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 05:39 AM

I think there is a huge distinction. A tradition is a cultural thing, that a lot of people have made an input into over generations. Either by modifying the thing( whatever the thing is), or just by using it and cherishing it. Something that is "a bit old" may also be a tradition: but equally well it may just be something made by one person, and not particularly valued or used or modified by anyone else. It is the modification and collective use and ownership of something that makes it traditional, not its age.
For example,I dont think a Shakespeare play is traditional, though 400 years old(though it may have traditions attached to it). The "Wild Rover" is, however, a traditional song, though obviously less than 400 years old (in its present form).

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 08:19 PM

At the moment, I'm feeling old enough to be traditional, but not too many people have been using bits of me...

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 08:53 PM

re-hashing one of my favorite points: A word means what you put into it...if you use the word 'tradional' it needs to have a meaning other than just 'old' or 'common'...or whatever. The word was created, as greg stephens suggests and argues clearly, to refer to the various inputs from numerous sources and its subsequent 'recognition'.
Being 'old' can be one aspect of 'trad', though it is not always the case.
If, as you say, Les.."more and more research shows" that the meaning is being diluted, this seems to indicate to me that many people are just being lazy in their thinking and paying little attention to ;meaning', not that 'meaning' has changed.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 11:50 PM

"Tradition" and "traditional" are not univocal. Probably never have been. Persons have traditions, families have traditions, communities have traditions, etc. Word means something a little bit (or a lot) different in each context.

Probably the only words that get used consistently with a single unambigious meaning are found in legal and technical documents.

Ordinary language. Forget it.

Definitional disputes don't get interesting until money is involved.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 05:57 AM

'A tradition is a cultural thing, that a lot of people have made an input into over generations. Either by modifying the thing( whatever the thing is), or just by using it and cherishing it.

It is the modification and collective use and ownership of something that makes it traditional,'

Thanks again Greg, I think this is a realy good working definition. Before I rabbit on does anybody want to add or ammend?

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 06:27 AM

Nothing is just a bit old. For instance, most of the "traditional" set and square dances all across Europe and America seem to have come from the 18th-century court dances - the gavottes and quadrilles.

But presumably these themselves were a fancying-up of plainer earlier dances, and how far these themselves went back is another question!

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 07:01 AM

I think their is a lot in the point you make JTT but some songs are more or less a bit old and some are traditional.

What do we claim for songs we believe to be, by Greg's definition, traditional? I think they are special because lots of people have contribiuted to them, through the oral tradition, and so they have something of the history and culture of of those people and their culture.

A clear example would be Sea Shanties.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: John C.
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 11:07 AM

Here's stray thought (that may help to muddy the waters!). I try to learn several songs a year and, because I have a lifelong interest in traditional song, these are usually (surprise, surprise!) trad. songs. The thing is, although these songs may be a couple of hundred years old (at least), and may contain archaic turns of phrase, words etc. they rarely feel old and I always tend to refer to one of these songs as 'my new song'. Without attempting any further 'analysis' (ie. off-the-top-of-my-head, make-it-up-as-you-go-along waffle) there does seem to be a timeless quality about trad. song and the age of a song rarely seems to be of much relevance (oh no, not that word again!!)to anything.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST,Bob Brooker
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 02:21 PM

Surely the deffinition of 'traditional' also contains the fact that the song is written in a certain idiom, ie maritime tradition, emcompassing all sea songs, tunes etc. I remember much of the comment about such present day composers such as Connolly and Meek of Grimsby, that they write 'traditional songs' hence the age bit disappears. Tradition to me is a category of style, and yes the age bit does influence its style. What is now-a-days modern folk songs? Kate Rusby takes old songs and re-arranges them in a beautiful way, played in a style that is popular at the moment, does that take away its label of a traditional song? I think not. Forget age, consider style!

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 08:04 PM

"...consider style." indeed...but consider what you are saying!

If she does a traditional song in a non-traditional style, what you get is non-traditional music. No law against it...and it may indeed be beautiful. But if you are buying a CD or paying to attend a concert and searching for traditional music, you may be disappointed.(I have been, a number of times)...I even enjoy 'some' non-traditional music and styles at times, but I want to KNOW what I am buying, and it really is not difficult to explain on an album or in concert advertisements, that it IS a 'personal' or 'modern' treatment of the genré.

I have tried for years to make the point that what is being defined by careful use of categories is not quality or beauty, but precisely--*style*...in order to allow folks to find the music that suits them.
    There are 'old' songs which are far from 'traditional'...witness the use of highly stylized counter-tenor arrangements of some 'trad' songs....like Alfred Deller used to do.

(and before anyone says that "well, what is 'trad' changes over time"...let me argue that what is really happening is that there are different 'traditions' being created....traditional rock & roll should not be confused with traditional ballads......which is why I'd like to the term 'folk' rescued and re-instated to refer to stuff like "The House Carpenter" and "Goober Peas", and NOT to Bob Dylan, no matter how much he influenced your musical taste. Ol' Bob had part of one foot in a folk/trad puddle...Woodie Guthrie was wading in a shallow part of the folk/trad pond, and is borderline...Loreena McKinnet could barely SEE the pond from her breathy, ethereal perch..*grin*...)

There are a few songwriters who succeed in producing some songs 'in the tradition', so that it can be tricky to know that they are NOT old and anon., and thus can be considered as 'folkish'...or whatever....but just picking up an acoustic guitar and stringing some navel-gazing lyrics together don't make you no 'folksinger', NOhow...

so...this is sorta my once or twice yearly foray into making a point about language, categories and **practicality**, in order to lable the bins at the music store reasonably and allow me to find that rare concert where most of the music tends toward 'old' and 'trad'.

Thank you for your rapt attention.....he said with a sly wink...

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 04:00 AM

Re Greg Stephens and his earlier comment on "The Wild Rover". Through doing some recent research for a Uni presentation, I found that "The
wild Rover" was written in support of the Temperence movement in the 1830's.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: pavane
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 09:24 AM

No, Guest, it was much earlier than that. About 1680, I believe.

The Good Fellow's Resolution; Or, The Bad Husband's return from his Folly

By T[homas] Lanfiere.

I have been a bad Husband this full fifteen year,
And have spent many pounds in good ale and strong beer:
I have Ranted in Ale-houses day after day,
And wasted my time and my Money away:
But now I'le beware, and have a great care,
Lest at the last Poverty falls to my share:
For now I will lay up my Money in store,
And I never will play the bad Husband ne more.

Printed before the end of 1682

See this thread for a fuller discussion:
Origins of the Wild rover

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 11:46 AM

ohhhhh thanks for that

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 04:19 PM

This thread started with a question which carried some "passengers": implied definitions which were not clearly stated. Within a few posts, definitions of words were being asserted. It's an old game: write out some labels and then argue about what to label with them - whilst someone else argues what the labels should say. It's all good clean fun, but not particularly enlightening.

I taught myself to play harmonica. In fact, I've heard very few folk harmonica players (as opposed to blues). I picked up some folk melodies by ear, from listening to friends playing other instruments. I've written a few tunes, strongly in the "idiom". Are they folk? If they're not folk, then what are they? I assert my right to be just as much a product of my society and background as Willie Atkinson was of his.

But are they "traditional"? I think they'll be traditional the day I walk into a pub and hear a stranger playing them.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 04:31 PM

'A tradition is a cultural thing, that a lot of people have made an input into over generations. Either by modifying the thing( whatever the thing is), or just by using it and cherishing it.

It is the modification and collective use and ownership of something that makes it traditional,' (See Greg above)

I hope we avoid the 'all music is folk I never heard a horse sing' discussion. I think Greg's offer of a definition is pretty close to what most people who have thought about traditional songs and tunes could agree with.

Is the term 'Source Singer' new? It seems to mean a singer who is singer songs from within a living oral tradition. Is this correct?

Source Singers, like those Sharp et al collected from, song all sorts of songs and so do current source singers.

The Irish Tradition is less bothered and I guess most of us aren't that concerned so long as songs are good and sung well.

But traditional songs are a bit different and a bit special. Sometimes people get carried away with this. See the thread on Mummers Plays. People claim all sorts of history with almost no evidence and sometimes none at all.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 04:42 PM

well, Mikefule...if they are truly "in the idiom", then followers of 'folk' harmonica will no doubt be glad to hear them, and may well adopt them....and someday you MIGHT hear them by someone who doesn't know the author, thus beginning the process of becoming folk/trad....but I'd think full membership for a tune only comes when lots of people play it, but few know the origin. (This may be easier with intstrumental tunes than lyrics, which are easier to research and document).

It is not a real big deal unless you WANT credit for your tunes, and would rather, like songwriters, get royalties..etc...while you're here.

My concern is that some songs do not SOUND trad, and yet get included in 'folk' presentation, to my consternation.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 05:00 PM

I remember Willie Scott the Border Shepherd singing a spoof of the Banks of Loch Lomond. Fred Wedlock song all sorts of stuff.

Didn't Hamish Henderson collect one of his own songs (The Freedom come all ye) from Jeanie Robertson?

The tradition is alive and we can contribute just by singing and playing.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 05:55 PM

Followers of "folk harmonica"? Never met one in the 25 years I've been playing. I just play the bloomin' thing because it sounds nicer than a melodeon and is easier to play than a musical instrument. ;0)

I have heard the harmonica played for Morris (rarely) and very rarely in sessions, and I once saw Willie Atkinson live in concert at Nottingham Traditional Music Club - and how traditional is that?: a Northumbrian shepherd as a booked guest playing for money in a pub in Nottingham. Context context context...

The very debate about the definition of "folk" and "tradition" (in the context of music and song) is one which would never have been aired in this detail until people from "outside" the tradition took an interest.

But then we usually forget that modern people, even middle class people, and educated professional people come from a culture too. There is something vaguely comical about insurance assessors (me) or other white collar professionals worrying about whether it is "traditional" for them to sing one version of an 18th century weaver's song or another.

However, the attitude of those insurance assessors and teachers (and electricians, brick layers, stock brokers and nude models - let's not lapse into easy stereotypes) towards those songs is itself an expression of their own culture. So, just as farmers who had never met the Devil and his hounds on a dark night could sing about him, we can sing about whale fishermen and ploughboys even if we've never met one.

The "It's all folk, I ain't never heard a horse sing..." line of argument is trivial. There are significant differences in context and motive between folk and non-folk.

However, as soon as you try to define by style, instrument or method of transmission, you let your own prejudices and preconceptions creep in. Play it for the amusement of yourself and your friends, it's folk. Play it because you picked it up but can't remember where, and it's traditional. The rest is a question of degree.

Thin Lizzy playing Whiskey in the Jar is Rock and Roll. I sang the Ace of Spades lyrics to a 6/8 traditional-style tune in a room full of friends, and that was folk. (It was also bloody awful, but hey!)

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: pavane
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 03:15 AM

Guest - I ope it didn't invalidate your presentation!

My first instrument was Harmonica, which I HAVE played for Morris and in sessions.

Very few instruments in 'folk' use today have much claim to be 'traditional' even if used for 'traditional' tunes.

Harmonica, melodeon,accordion, concertina all invented in the early 19th Century
Use of guitar very recent
Banjo - from Africa?
Fiddle 17th C

Just leaves us with bagpipe, tabor and whistle/flute, I think
Also Harp, but how often do you see one in clubs outside Wales?
'Early' instruments such as shawms do not seem to have been considered folk in UK, although they are still folk instruments in other contries.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: pavane
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 03:24 AM

To return to the original theme

Many of the songs which were collected in the early 1900's are also known from broadsides printed in the 1800's or earlier. In some cases, this may be due to the broadside printing a 'traditional' song, but in many others, the author of the original is know, and MUST have been the source for the oral version.

See, for example, My Johnny was a Shoemaker. Composed c1859 by an American writer, and sung in the 1860's on a concert tour in Europe by his wife, later collected twice in England.

Likewise Tannahill's 'Braes o' Balquither' which resurfaced as Wild Mountain Thyme.

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 10:02 AM

Mikefule...I guess I generalize because there may be more "folk harmonica" players here in the US..I have heard a number of them. Ralph Lee Smith is one of the better examples, and Saul Broudy (used to play with Utah Phillips but does solo stuff also) is amazing...and occasional poster here "Songbob" plays harmonica a lot...when he isn't playing guitar, mandolin or banjo. Add to those a LOT of black blues players, and I've heard quite a variety....including the totally amazing "Harmonica Frank" Floyd, who was the 'Spike Jones' of the harmonica. (I wonder if he is still alive? He was not a young man when I heard him 25-28 years ago.)

Having read your comment that "There are significant differences in context and motive between folk and non-folk.", I think we agree on almost everything except a personal notion of the relevance of terms like 'traditional'. ;>)

Subject: RE: Tradition or just a bit old?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 12:07 PM

Sorry I feel I have tp put this right:

I remember Willie Scott the Border Shepherd singing a spoof of the Banks of Loch Lomond. Fred Jordan (deepest appologies)not Wedlock song all sorts of stuff.

Didn't Hamish Henderson collect one of his own songs (The Freedom come all ye) from Jeanie Robertson?

The tradition is alive and we can contribute just by singing and playing.

And further

I find the term traditional more useful than folk because I think we can agree with what Greg suggested and be fascinated by songs and tunes that have survived against all odds within oral traditions, sometimes passing in and out of print and sometimes going to other continents and coming back.

The problem I have is that sometimes something is declared traditional and given reverence and even a made up history, surely we must be suspicious of this kind of thing?