|
30 Apr 07 - 12:29 PM (#2039529) Subject: Fol di rol etc? From: GUEST, Tom Bliss Here's a thought - which struck me mid-gig last weekend. As any fule kno, eeeny meeny miny moe means one two three four in Pre-Celtic/Druidic* And, some say hickory dickory doc is eight nine ten. (Doc is still ten in some parts, hence dec). Anyway Could all those generic choruses be from the same language do you think, and if so what do they really mean? Come sing with me? Come fill my kirtle with mead? Give me a groat of oats or I'll bonce thy noggin? The Lyre player's out of tune again? Does anyone know? Tom *(cf Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas in 'The Hiram Key' and elsewhere :-) |
|
30 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM (#2039560) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: Mikefule I thought "fol de riddle" was middle English for "Bop showaddywaddy" And "fol de ray" was middle English for Sh'boom sh'boom. |
|
30 Apr 07 - 03:08 PM (#2039667) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: Jack Campin The singing tradition with the most impressive collection of different ways to say "hey nonny no" has to be Kurdish. Almost any Kurdish song will be half made up of nonsense. |
|
01 May 07 - 02:17 AM (#2040076) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: GUEST,Ian cookieless Tom, I am speaking from ignorance here, so this is a genuine question, but what does "Pre-Celtic" actually mean? (I once heard a radio programme in which a historian put the view that the idea of Celts is a modern construct and there was no such group, but that's all I can remember.) What period of time? Do you / the book you cite suggest that the Druids had their own language, or is this just suggesting a period of time? I'd love to know. Seems to me that even if *some* ancient words appear as apparent nonsense in songs, doesn't mean all the apparent nonsense is made of ancient words. I thought much of it was mouth music, rhythm with no intended meaning. |
|
01 May 07 - 03:52 AM (#2040110) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: George Papavgeris Agree Ian. Anyway, quite a bit of nonsense is made of contemporary words, too! |
|
01 May 07 - 04:07 AM (#2040115) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: GUEST,Tom Bliss I don't actually know. I used the term (as others do) to describe a rather vague period in the Olden Days! I believe the Druids were contemporaneous with both Celts and Romans - it needs a scholar to answer really. I think the suggestion is that they had a strong language which somehow survives in unexpected places, such as nursery rhymes. If one of those is indeed song refrains, it might explain why some choruses are actually quite difficult, phoenetically, to sing - having unexpected 'words' which the requirements of mouth rhythm would not suggest. Eg Tooraladdy whackfoladdy toora loora ling. Why 'Ling'? 'Ing' is a hard sound to sing well on a drawn note. Maybe singers were replicating a harp riff? But then why do you get 'whack' all the time? It's a different sound altogether to touralooraladdyooraloollydooa etc. And you get it with all the fiddlididdlyfoddledaddly sounds too. I just found myself wondering if this was some remnant of language rather than sound for sound's sake. I've nver been convinced about Non Sense (as Mervyn Peake called it) 'happening' in songs. A song-writer putting nonsense in a song is going to want it to be just as clever as his 'proper' words, surely? |
|
01 May 07 - 04:51 AM (#2040134) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: George Papavgeris I think that's just contemporary songwriters, Tom, that want everything to make sense (I have yet to write a "tra-la-la" chorus, pray god I never will). My guess is that in the old days, with fewer instruments available, nonsense words might have played the part that an instrumental bridge would today. And sounds would be chosen for effect as much as anything - "ling" has a kind of ring to it, for example. Neither is the art of nonsense words in song forgotten today; take scat-singing for example. Now, we know for a fact there was no ancient language behind that one, as it was invented in our times, so to speak. |
|
01 May 07 - 05:03 AM (#2040143) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: Les in Chorlton We, who ever we are, and many cultures from here to India speak Indo-European languages. They were probably spread by the first farmers moving out of soem in south central Europe, if that means anything. For thousands of years Indo-European has been evolving but the many contempory languages have word in common and perhaps other features of culture. But "nonsense choruses are probably just good choruses: Down, down deeper and down! |
|
01 May 07 - 05:43 AM (#2040159) Subject: RE: Fol di Rol etc. From: Waddon Pete Hello, Good thread. Here's my sixpennyworth! Some of the mouth music style choruses are just such fun to sing that it is possible that the singers just sang them out of sheer exuberance (a bit like individual instruments taking the lead in an instrumental session. Perhaps such choruses were to show of a singer's prowess? Or... because there were not enough verses to go round and it was a great tune? Or...because they disguised risque or seditious words that might have caused trouble if they got out? Or...perhaps the source singer forgot the words, improvised and became a legend in his own lunchtime? Or...none of the above! Best wishes, Peter |