when is music classed as .trad?

Subject: when is music classed as .trad?
From: GUEST,Pip Ives
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:23 PM

I am working on a project at university about music. I have an essay to write, and it is about when music can be classed as traditional. (eg: out of copyright etc.)
Do any of you mudcatters know the rules and regs (laws) and when stuff is out of copyright and what can be classed as traditional.
Any help would be greatly appricieated.
Thanks,
Pip Ives
email: [e-mail]

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Zookie
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:34 PM

I don't have the specifics on US Copywright laws.

If I may quibble over terms, "traditional" generally means of no known authorship.

It sounds like you're referring to music currently in the public domain, which merely means the copywright has ended.

Traditional music is in the public domain, but not all public domain material is traditional.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:37 PM

PIp: I think you will find that being "trad" and being out of copyright are rather different concepts. A song becomes out of copyright a certain number of years after the composer and lyricist are dead, basically. The precise way the law works depends on what country you are in,generally 50-75 years I believe.
    "Traditional" is a word that cause people great difficulty, as does the word "folk". I would say that the quality of being "traditional" in a song consists of the following.
1) The song is perceived by those who sing it as communal property, unlike a song of known author.
2) That the song has been around for a while, so people dont generally know where it came from.
3) It was probably first passed around by word of mouth, rather than books or recordings.
    Different people might disagree on this one, but there's my shot at a definition for you.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:49 PM

There are many threads on this topic (and related topics) here. Perhaps a kind elf will make a set of links at the head of this thread. Beware! the topics create at least as much heat as they do light, and a lot of what is said is opinionated rubbish and sad attempts at wit. There are a number of pages on related subjects in the Oxford Companion to Music (under "F" for folk) which OUGHT to be in your university library.

If you want a good summary of US copyright law, try the Library of congress website. Copyright varies from country to country and the US position still differs from the norm, although it is getting closer in some respects. You should read your 1909 and 1976 acts with care and the best US copyright textbook is by Nimmer. You will find, if you google, many learned articles, some by young Nimmer, some by his late father, and some by the father-son Brylawski team and their various employees and partners (at various times).

For the continental perspective I would expect the Max Planck Institute to offer resources, but have not checked. The French Ministere de la Culture is also useful and can (when it wants to) correspond in English. THey regard the UK and the US as a sort of axis of evil, usually referred to as "les pays barbare" ("the barbarian countries").

You will see a different perspective if you can find international work on the protection of folklore and indigenous culture.

In classical music Vaughan Williams borrowed considerably from folklore.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:58 PM

I would add:
4. The song exists in several versions, and there is no authority to define which version is "right."

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 03:37 PM

Aw, I don't know. Isn't "Puff the Magic Dragon" traditional, even though it's modern and we can identify the author? (Not that I'd bother.)

I say that Western-world music is traditional if:

It doesn't have any fernbar chords - 9ths, 11ths, dim, susp.

If it has lyrics, they have meter and rhyme.

You can readily understand what the lyrics are about.

It has a melody.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 04:42 PM

Well, Leenia, I think you have some learning hurdles to cross, then.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:27 PM

Leenia's criteria may be, arguably, a good way to define "folk," but not so good for the word "traditional."

"Puff," to my mind, may be "folk" but is in no way "trad."

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:42 PM

There is a wide gulf between what is regarded as traditional in England and in America ! Here in UK Traditional usually refers to the songs and music that were preserved purely in the 'oral' traditions of relatively small groups of people . Like the stuff that Child and his associates collected in the late nineteeenth century, as well as the material found by subsequent collectors . IF a song is of a known single source (composed) it MAY be accepted as in the as being traditional style but is almost certainly NOT traditional in the 'pure' UK use of the word .
I get the impression that a lot of American material from the twenties and thirties is Traditional , in the opionion of most US performers , even though the composer may well be easily identified !
A lot of 'old' Appalachian music falls into the UK definition of Traditional just to confuse the issue !

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:51 PM

Isn't "Puff the Magic Dragon" traditional, even though it's modern and we can identify the author? (Not that I'd bother.)

Heaven forfend! It was emetic enough even when it was brand new!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:46 PM

Even for undergraduate work, you'll need to do some serious background reading! Bear in mind that a question asked here may get genuinely useful replies, but may also attract comment from people who understand the subject less well than you do. It isn't always easy to tell the difference when you're starting out.

I assume (because you don't say otherwise) that you're concentrating on Western Europe, where most of the basic definitions were made; and, for convenience, on English language sources (though plenty of work has been done in the Slavic countries, for example). See David Atkinson's  English Folk Song - An Introductory Bibliography for a useful overview of what is available. You'll need to look at Sharp for (provisional) thinking among the collectors of the early 20th century, and Karpeles for more formal working definitions agreed in mid-century, though still based a bit too closely on Sharp's initial conclusions.

Since then, the question has grown murkier. Consult Lloyd, but with an occasional pinch of salt. Since then, no "authoritative" overview, but a lot of material in diverse publications. Good luck...

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 10:47 PM

Leadfingers has pointed out the sloppy and incorrect word usage of many, particularly North American singers and song writers, who throw together material passed down orally, without known author(s) (see Greg Stevens, above), rightly called traditional, and composed pieces by known authors which either have passed out of copyright or were composed before formalized copyright controls by government agencies, thus in either case have become public domain.
Some musicians maintain that a composed piece whose composer was forgotten for many years and then re-identified is 'traditional'; this defies any proper definition.   

Some older pieces of known ancestry have developed versions composed by people adapting them to their own uses; these may be in the public domain if not claimed by the reviser as copyright or have passed beyond copyright into public domain.
Calling them 'traditional' may satisfy the Simpsons and their ilk, but not anyone who cares about the music and its composers, known or unknown.

There are too many threads here on copyright- people will try to put their own interpretation on regulations they have either not seen or misunderstood, and nonsense is rampant in them.
This official government site for USA copyright regulations has been posted in several threads; here it is again: US Copyright

The UK regulations also are on line and may be found through google.

(Rant # 48476, Feb. 07, 2005)

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:02 AM

Not to muddy the waters, but the relationship between broadsides and the oral tradition has to be considered. A theme or plot common to a tradition (or a number of traditions) may be reintroduced by a commericially printed 'original' composition. This 'new' ballad may be re-absorbed into the oral tradition. At what point does it become 'traditional'? I can't answer that question, but I think it is worth discussing.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:22 AM

The oral tradition is less important than the early collectors supposed, and the print tradition more influential than most of them realised or liked to acknowledge. The majority of songs considered "traditional folk songs" at the beginning of the 20th century had appeared on 19th century broadsides. Some were older than that; many were not.

It's an extremely interesting subject, and (though a lot more work has been done on it than is often realised) there is still plenty of scope for exploration. I don't know that it affects materially the working definitions that we'd use today when considering whether or not a song has "entered tradition" or is simply being transmitted aurally (not necessarily the same thing). Copyright issues are, if not completely irrelevant, misleading at best: not useful criteria anyway.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Boab
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:31 AM

Usually has a specific ethnic origin [not always]. And you know that you're on a sticky wicket when Malcolm says "good luck"!!
I haven't the breadth of knowledge of Malcolm, but good luck from here too....

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:44 AM

Leadfingers mentions Child, and he is a good example of how changing definitions may also change the answer to your question. Child intended to collect traditional narrative songs of the common people, which he referred to as "popular ballads." However, he did not collect much from oral tradition as Leadfingers suggests. Because he wanted to ensure that the material was old, he collected primarily from old manuscripts. Thus, many pieces in the Child canon cannot be shown ever to have been carried in oral tradition at all. Child thought he could locate traditionality in stylistic features, which is not the way most researchers do it today.

There are no easy answers to your question. Richard's definition above is a good starting place. The readings Malcolm suggests are useful as well. I would also recommend some of the recent publications in the field of Irish traditional music, which are suggesting that new tunes, created according to traditional models, are themselves traditional tunes, on stylistic grounds...as I said, not how most would define it these days, but essentially similar to Child's practice if not his theory. James Cowdery's The Melodic Tradition of Ireland is an example.

In this sense, Leenia's comments were not as trivial as Richard thought; I think I see what they are getting at. In many contexts, "traditional" merely means "following in a tradition," by which defintion most music is traditional. Indeed there are many who argue that most music is overwhelmingly traditional in Leenia's sense.

In other contexts, "traditional arts" means "those arts that are commonly understood to be important arts," eg. Shakespearean drama, symphonic music, opera, etc. When I first went to work as a folklorist at an arts center, I had to stop my boss from constantly saying she was glad to have me so we could pursue "folk and other non-traditional arts," meaning arts that most arts centers don't traditionally touch. I had to take her aside before a meeting of the State Arts Council and warn her that the Folk Arts panels at the council considered folk arts to be "traditional arts" in a different sense, and that they would be very confused by her way of phrasing things.

Th moral is: what "traditional" means is highly dependent on context and on your audience.

The question of copyright is, as some of us have suggested, an entirely different question.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 05:36 AM

Two at least of Leenia's desired features

"If it has lyrics, they have meter and rhyme.

You can readily understand what the lyrics are about"

are ones that most discussions of folk song accept are often absent in folk song. See the Oxford (op cit).

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: pavane
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:01 AM

The original posting explicitly mentioned copyright, so it is obviously relevant to the poster. Knowing copyright law may be of little help in establishing what is in copyright.

(I did come across a web site which had a list of songs KNOWN to be in the public domain, but I don't have the URL available.)

Some of the complications are:

Many songs are commonly BELIEVED to be trad which are actually still in copyright. Particular examples include Happy Birthday to You, and many of Ewan McColl's songs.

Versions of many 'traditional' songs have been subsquently copyrighted by someone who is obviously not the original composer.

Songs may be in the public domain, but often a particular tune or arrangement may be in copyright - see Scarborough Fair. Recent performers, such as Nic Jones, wrote tunes for many songs found on broadsides.


Note also that copyright attributions found on commercial recordings are not reliable guides to the actual owners.

As Michael Douglas says, very many of the remaining 'traditional' songs were printed on broadsides, many years before being collected.

Some of these have known authors. See, for example My Johnny was a Shoemaker, written and published c1859 in USA (See Levy collection) and subsequently collected in UK.

Some 'traditional' songs can even be tracked back to an original author in the 1600's - like Wild Rover.

However, many of the broadsides appear to have been printed versions of what were already 'traditional' songs, because the texts can vary so widely. Reynardine is a good example of this group - there are some discussion threads here - for example origins: reynardine info?.











By the way, as well as the correct word copyright (I.e. right to copy)
you may find people using the following incorrect words - this could be important to remember when searching.

copywrite : which is presumably what a copy writer does?

copywright : as a wright is a maker, (related to wrought = made) e.g wheelwright, wainwright, this is presumably a person?

copyrite

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:21 AM

A copywright would be someone who makes a living copying things....

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:17 AM

Malcolm-

I agree with your point about the importance of print, but I see print as complimentary to the oral tradition rather than primary to it. A printed broadside with a London / Manchester / Newcastle / Dublin imprint may be the earliest version of a particular song to which we can point, but we also have to consider the degree to which broadside writers borrowed themes, plots, and specific material current among singers (16th through late 19th century). I would say the same about 18th century dance music.

We should also consider the importance of manuscripts in preserving and revising folk material. Many American ballad singers recorded in the early 20th century kept hand-written notebooks to jog their memories (I don't know to what degree this is true of British folksingers). This probably represents something between purely oral transmission and print-driven balladry.

So let's look at native American balladry. Sharp and Child notwithstanding, there are hundreds of ballads (at least)that as far as we can tell were created on this continent (though many of these are obviously related to British material). Some of these remained regional, but others had a wide geographic range. And yet it difficult and sometimes impossible to find commericially printed antecedents to a lot of this material. By the early 20th century, everyone seemed to know ballads and songs such as "Jesse James", "John Hardy", "John Henry", "Casey Jones". John and Alan Lomax's Cowboy Songs and Belden's Missouri ballad collection were both full of material that was fairly well known. G. Malcolm Laws' book of native American ballads collects the more of this material.

So my question: Where are the commercially printed and widely distributed print antecedents to these songs and ballads? Where is the evidence that the native American oral tradition was secondary to print? And I don't mean the odd chapbook here or the local newspaper print over there.

If I am correct and native American balladry was not print-driven but rather has its origins and evolution among singers themselves, then I think it is fair to consider the possibility that British broadside writers borrowed freely from material already current but not written down and copywrighted.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:19 AM

Yes, pavane, one of the neat things about Reynardine is that some broadsides of it were obviously taken from oral performances, so "they lost their former dye" on one broadside is rendered as "the lass of Firmadie" on another; this could hardly be a copyist's error, so the song must have been in oral tradition. However, at the risk of thread drift, I do not think one can prove the sog was "already traditional" by the time it emerged on broadsides. Most broadside texts are very similar, with a couple of major variations that seem much more like literary attempts to make a "new song" than like oral variants. I would guess that Reynardine was in fact written for the broadside press and entered oral tradition from there, like the vast majority of "broadside ballads." But it IS an open question, and smarter folks than me (A.L. Lloyd for one) agree with you on this!

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: pavane
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:29 AM

So a CD/DVD pirate could be described as a copywright who ignores copyright?

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 12:58 PM

Michael, I don't think Malcolm ever said that it was impossible that, in your words, "British broadside writers borrowed freely from material already current but not written down and copywrighted." He also did not say, exactly, that print was more important than oral tradition. He said that oral tradition was less important "than the early collectors supposed," and that print was "more influential than most of them realised or liked to acknowledge."

In other words, if the early collectors thought that (say) 80% of the transmission chain of traditional songs was through oral tradition, and 20% through print, Malcolm would be correct if in fact 60% was oral and 40% through print. Oral tradition would STILL in that case be more prevalent than print, just not as much more prevalent as the early collectors believed.

Of course, this is a bit silly in its specificity. In fact, most singers who have a song today would not have that song if it had never been written down; purely unbroken chains of oral tradition are rare. From this perspective, both print and oral transmission are 100% necessary to practically every traditional song still being sung today. To argue over which was more prevalent, then, is to split hairs over which one saved the song from extinction more times. For most songs, we shall simply never know.

I'm with Malcolm that the early collectors didn't accord print enough importance, for ideological and theoretical reasons. They wanted to believe that old songs were the remnants of a passing, purely oral age. But that was often not the case. I think it would be unwise to venture a guess as to how important print and oral tradition were to a given song's life without sustained and thorough research into that particular song; your examples of Jesse James, John Hardy, etc, are interesting, but I haven't done the research to know about their provenance.

I think the important thing to take away from the perspective of our initial questioner is: the criterion that a traditional song or tune must have been maintained in unbroken oral tradition is

1) never demonstrable

and

2) seldom plausible

about any particular item. So it is not a particularly useful way to define "traditional."

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: squeezeldy
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:07 PM

Ah, yes, the infinitely interesting and unanswerable question of folk and traditional. May I add further confusion? Is there more than one definition of "traditional?"

There is traditional usage, such as the song "Happy Birthday." Countless celebrations have been accompanied by this little ditty. At home, that's fine. At a public gathering, or on a recording, etc. you must get permission (and pay your money) to Time-Warner, who owns the copyright. Many songs fall into the murky situation of being used as a traditional song--Sweet Betsy from Pike, and Hard Times, to name a couple from the US. They are performed by "traditional" musicians and included in recordings of "traditional" songs. However, their composer/lyricist is known, and should be acknowledged, even if the song has passed into the public domain. To find such songs recorded or printed with the source listed as "traditional" bespeaks poor research, and if the song is not in the public domain, may indicate copyright infringement.

Q wrote:
"sloppy and incorrect word usage of many, particularly North American singers and song writers"

Perhaps it is merely a different usage, as in boot, biscuit, and chips. I think that calling a song "traditional" is not quite the same thing as calling it "folk" or "source unknown." Now, I may well get shot down on this, and it won't be the first (or last) time that my opinion has been considered wrong by people who know more about a subject than I do. This is just my interpretation of the word "traditional."

(I will cheerfully rant and rave about plenty of other examples of sloppy and incorrect word usage, but that is thread   creep and belongs in the BS section.)

What about an ancient and "source unknown" song that has lain dormant for years? If I suddenly resurrect the poor thing, is it instantly "traditional?" Whose tradition?

I love these conversations....

I wish you all a traditionally nice day!

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:39 PM

Nerd-

I agree that "both print and oral tradition are 100% necessary to practically every traditional song still being sung today". I was arguing for the importance of the oral component of this process.    I think both origin and evolution must be considered when discussing traditional music. "Streets of Laredo" clearly is related to "The Unfortunate Rake", but show me the American folk singer who learned the first from a broadside print of the second and I'll eat my shoes. Somewhere between the initial broadside and the late 19th / early 20th century ballad, the material entered oral tradition, underwent numerous revisions, and eventually became a separate and (I believe) traditional ballad.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:45 PM

Previous post was from Michael Morris at work.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:55 PM

GUEST,

Granted about Streets of Laredo.

On the other hand, I think almost all people who sing it today learned it from printed songbooks or from recordings, real cowboys included.

Again, neither I nor Malcolm was arguing that oral transmission was not important. Just that print and written transmission are also very important, and that we have to look at both.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:28 PM

An interesting tidbit about Jesse James:

As far as I know, the earliest text of the song is the one collected by H.M. Belden. Belden got the text in writing in 1906, from a man who claimed to have heard it about eight years previously, and then more recently seen it in print. So we know from the very first surviving record of the song that oral, printed and handwritten versions were all circulating prior to that record. It would be tough in this case to say what was "more important."

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:41 PM

Pavane, you should I think reflect that copyright law is jurisdictional: therefore the fact that an item is not in copyright on one jurisdiction is not necessarily (and in many cases not at all) an indication of whether the work is in copyright in another. The situation is slowly being rationalised in that the EU has now made the "comparison of terms" test obligatory, but only for workd that were not already in copyright.

Since in most continental uses, and , I think, the majority of the world, copyright arises without formality or application (which at last is also the case in the USA since 1988, in order to comply witthe Berne Convention) there is no proper use of a verb "copyright" as an active verb.

Much of what you say might have greater force if you acknowledged that you spoke only of US federal law. I emphasise federal law because even the individual states have variations that are not pre-empted - eg California has common-law copyright for a musical work befire it is reduced to a material form (see Nimmer).

On a different tack I simply do not see a proper justification for calling "Happy Birthday to you" traditional.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: GUEST,Michael Morris at work
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 04:00 PM

Nerd-

Again, I agree that both oral and printed transmissions are important and both have played roles in the creation and transmission of traditional material. I will argue again that print antecedents of many native American ballads are either rare or non-existent. If print was a primary agent of transmission, we should be able to locate more print versions of "Jesse James", etc.   And we're not talking about a few songs, but hundreds.

On the Todd-Sonkin recordings (1940-1941) many informants note that they learned particular songs from family members. In other North American collections, variants are credited to family members, co-workers or friends. Others remember transcribing lyrics of newly learned songs and ballads. Far fewer informants report learning new material from commercially printed sources. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it was widespread there should be more evidence.

We should also acknowledge the African-American influence upon native American balladry, and that requires us to axknowledge the degree to which African-American folk music in the late 19th / early 20th century was an oral tradition.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: shepherdlass
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM

Just to muddy the waters further - I'd have thought that Happy Birthday clearly had entered more fully into a popular/vernacular tradition than many songs we'd be happier to recognize as "traditional". If the lack of variation from the original words is the problem, then you could always look to the number of parodies (squashed tomatoes and stew, etc) prevalent in the schoolyard.

Personally (and there's a strong chance that there are no definitives in this question, only a spectrum of personal opinions), I think the definition of "traditional" has more to do with how a song has been used and adapted over the years than the anonymity of its original source. As for copyright, a benefit of using "traditional" songs (as opposed to cover versions of songs within copyright) is that royalties are paid to the arranger. But some Trad/Arr songs might not feel particularly traditional, while a heartfelt cover version of, say "Shoals of Herring", can feel utterly like an extension of an unbroken line of singers....

Do you know, this kind of question arises regularly and we all (self included) wade in, fully aware of the fact that it's endlessly controversial. Daft, aren't we?

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:23 PM

True; but it's also endlessly interesting if the discussion is conducted intelligently, as it has been here.

In another thread that touched on the same topic, Cecil Sharp was described as having said that a song "had to be anonymous" in order to be considered traditional. That was a misrepresentation; he actually said (to paraphrase) that authorship, even if it could be determined (and at the time that was a lot harder; we have resources now that the researchers of a century ago didn't dream of) was irrelevant. What determined the nature of a "folk song" was what had happened to it, not where it had originally come from. A lot of people, relying on second or third hand resumés, have missed that point.

It's arguable that what separates a genuinely "traditional" song from one which is simply aurally transmitted some of the time is whether or not a constant reference point is generally available. Yellow Submarine, because of its second life as a vehicle for songs at (UK) football matches, is often pointed to as an example of a recently-composed piece which has passed into tradition. David Atkinson (I'm afraid I can't remember the reference at the moment) points out that this is a fallacious definition, as it is extremely unlikely that anyone singing a parody of the song will be unfamiliar with the "definitive" recorded version.

Food for thought, anyway. I can't speak to the American experience (Michael and "Nerd" will have to deal with that) and I certainly accept that modes of transmission may have varied there, at least for a while. Perhaps less than is generally thought, though. I've reached the point where I'm surprised if an English-language "traditional folksong" can't be found in print at least 50 years before first found in oral currency.

It may well be that many songs were taken from oral sources and published as broadsides, but the received wisdom of 30-odd years ago that most of them were no longer seems very convincing. We're at a time when a great deal of re-evaluation needs doing, and I look forward to seeing how it develops.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:37 PM

Michael,

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"; just because broadsides didn't survive doesn't mean they never existed.

to play devil's advocate on the Dust Bowl evidence, during fieldwork the answer one gets depends on the question one asks and the informant's expectations of one's wishes. If I ask "whom did you learn that song from?" I will get the answer. But I may not find out how it was learned. Even if I ask "where did you get that song?" the person may assume I mean "from whom"; and finally, many savvy informants know perfectly well that folklorist types prefer not to know if you learned all your songs from books!

Note that I'm not suggesting informants lie; though that, too, sometimes happens. The current generation of the Copper Family could rightly say that they learned songs from Bob Copper--but Bob had them written down in a book. So is this written transmission or oral? Dorman Ralph from Newfoundland learned songs from printed sources, even though he was completely blind; his brother read the words to him. So just because these people say they learned the song from another person does not mean they learned it "orally" or that the event represents an oral transmission.

That said, I haven't heard those tapes, so I don't know how the information was elicited.

To continue playing Devil's advocate, in the section of Laws' Native American Ballads given over to accidents and disasters, 15 of 33 items seem to have been known on broadsides, newspapers, phonograph records, or other published forms before they were widely popular. I haven't seen any of the printed forms, and in most cases neither has Laws, but there is testimony that such forms existed.

Remember that most Native American Ballads that we know of originated shortly before the era of commercial recordings. Once a record was available, broadsides lost much of their cachet, so many of these songs may have been printed only once or twice. It's not surprising that few of the actual broadsides survived. In the case of British songs, which existed for hundreds of years before recordings, and consequently went through many printings, it's not surprising that more copies would survive.

Finally, as to the African-American argument, just because a song was from an African-American did not mean it was composed and distributed purely by oral tradition. As an example, we can take Bill Dooley, composer of Frankie and Albert, Stackolee, and other "folk" songs. Frankie's lawyer stated in court that Bill Dooley sold copies of his compositions on the street for ten cents. I don't know if any of these copies survived.

So in general: yes, we agree, oral transmission was crucial. But the extent to which a song has been transmitted through oral tradition, writing or print can only be discovered through research into individual songs.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:58 PM

Reference the Oral / Written Transmission of songs and Bob Copper in particular - 'Rose of Allendale' was a popular Victorian parlour ballad of the early eighteen forties which passed out of use EXCEPT for whichever of Bobs ancestors collected it , and passed it on , so when 'Grandfather's book' was written in the nineteen twenties it was included . Martin Carthy re introduced it to the more general Folk Public in the early Nineteen Sixties having heard it sung by the Coppers . This is now accepted as a Traditional Song , despite the names of the original composers being knowm (But not by me at this time of night) and having been passed on both Orally AND in Written form !

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 09:25 PM

More to the point, assumed to be a traditional song. The Coppers knew who wrote it and never pretended otherwise. It was in most of the popular songbooks of the day. I've never heard a recording of it that wasn't based on their adaptation, mind you, which is more interesting, melodically and rhythmically, than the original; though very few revival performers have done it justice (Mary Black, who learned it from Nic Jones, though not directly, turned it into a trite -though prettily sung- Country and Western number), or bothered to credit them or the composers (Jefferys and Nelson).

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:19 PM

Malcolm and Nerd-

Thank you for your responses. I will admit that as far as British folk song is concerned, my argument will probably have to remain speculative. Regarding American folk song, I think I have a stronger
case but as you said the research must be done to demonstrate the thesis. One final point: the tremendous diversity among variants of particular American ballads does indicate (I believe) the lack of a stabilizing print influence as has been demonstrated in British balladry.

Postscript: The relationship between the folk tradition and early hillbilly recordings is probably one of the most important questions in American folk song scholarship, but that's a topic for another thread.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Bert
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:36 PM

You're talking semantics here which has nothing to do with music.

Traditional, means within, or coming from, a tradition. So ANY music HAS to be traditional 'cos no music is written in a vacuum. "Happy birthday to you" is obviously traditional and is still in copyright.
"Lincolnshire Poacher" is out of copyright but is also traditional.

Copyright is held until 70 years after the author's death. Again it has nothing to do with music.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 12:04 AM

Tradition also implies continuity; both before and after the fact. By Bert's definition, composers like Cage and Stockhausen would be writing "traditional music", simply because they couldn't but be aware that music of some sort already existed, and couldn't help being influenced by what had gone before. True -so far as it goes- but essentially irrelevant to the matter in hand. We all know perfectly well what Pip Ives meant.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Bert
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 02:45 AM

We all know perfectly well what Pip Ives meant...

Hmmm, he was asking a question. I was giving him one answer. He'll get as many different opinions as there are Mudcatters.

But yes tradition implies continuity.

One such continuity would be, Jimmie Rodgers, Hank Williams, Bill Hailey, Elvis and so on.

Another would start with Jimmie Rodgers and Hank Williams and progress through Slim Whitman, Johnnie Cash etc..

And of course Jimmie Rodgers borrowed from the same folks who started the blues and Jazz.

It's kinda like a big tree. There isn't a specific branch or twig that you can point to and say "traditional" ended there.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: allanwill
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 02:57 AM

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 03:04 AM

This is what I meant by comments way back at 08 Feb 05 - 01:44 AM: by some definitions, such as Bert's, almost all music is very traditional.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Uke
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 04:50 AM

Another possible distinction.

Some say that "traditional" is not so much to do with authorship or written-oral distinctions per se, but rather that a song exists within a community's traditional culture.

It is something of the past that they hang onto and cherish because it's of the past. What kind of community? Well, I suppose, for a start, one that's been round long enough to develop traditions. This would probably also apply to the way a song is sung and when and where.

The problem with this really is how to define a 'community' I suppose - do any and all connections between people, even fairly impersonal ones like listening to somebody's record, join you to a community?

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: GUEST,pavane
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 09:39 AM

Well, that should have provided enough material for an essay, anyway.
You could do one just on what is meant by Traditional, before you even start on the music.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 05:11 PM

It will take you to the issue of whether grammar and the meaning of words is simply a matter of convention -if so the differences between the English and American uses of the word "traditional" are not matters of absolute but conventional usage. Accordingly the same song might be traditional in America but no in the UK. Likewise, since ignorance is more common than knowledge, it will always be right to be wrong....

So

A woman's reticule is a "'ambag" (at least in Chatham), one does not fall from or off a bicycle, but "off of" it, and a lavatory is a toilet.

Light blue touch paper and retire.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: GUEST,PoppaGator
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 05:45 PM

Let's muddy some more waters: Who's to say that there is one and only one "tradition"? Here in New Orleans, there are several living musical traditions, each with its own adherents, including practicing musicians as well as enthusiastic fans.

Recent compositions occasionally earn admittance into the "canon" of a particular tradition's established songbook, but this doesn't happen easily. The piece must first earn a substantial measure of popularity, and absolutely must be performed ("covered") by a critical mass of different artists or groups besides its originator.

The traditional-jazz tradition, for example, is made up mostly of songs and arrangements about a hundred years old, some with known authors and some without. However a very few more recent compositions, like Danny Barker's "Palm Court Strut," have become established as part of the traditional repertoire. But the trad-jazz community is inherently pretty conservative, and new songs do not easily find a place for themselves on this playlist.

The street-parade brass-band tradition is more vital and contemporary, and its "traditional" canon gets updated much more readily. Ancient songs of unknown origin like "Li'l Liza Jane" coexist with fifty-year-old numbers like Smokey Johnson's "Ain't My Fault" and 21st century stuff like Rebirth's "Do Whatcha Wanna" and the Soul Rebels' "Let Your Mind Be Free."

Who determines which songs "become" traditional, and when? The musicians who embody and carry on the tradition in question, that's who ~ and nobody else! A song (or tune) has become traditional when any player within the appropriate muscial community can be reasonably expected to know it well enough to play it.

Subject: RE: when is music classed as .trad?
From: greg stephens
Date: 09 Feb 05 - 06:25 PM

Poppagator raise a very interesting point in his previous post, suggesting that a traditional tune has to be widely known to qualify...in fact not only widely known, but universally known within a particular community of musicians. I don't think this is a very useful definition. In the area he is talking about(New Orleans marching bands), it is undoubtedly true that say "When the Saints go marching in" is traditional by his definition.
   But let us look ahead a few years, when people are even more heartily sick of the tune than they are now. It will largely fall out of use, and youngsters will no longer be familiar with it. But surely, Poppagator, it will still be a traditional tune, and continue to be so even when only 5% of toothless veterans know it?
    Of course, when nobody whatsoever remembers it, I might agree that it is no longer traditional....