|
15 Apr 08 - 06:18 AM (#2315986) Subject: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton Much is made of those people who still sing songs that they have learned from within a particular family, extended family or community group. Is this the correct term and do we have any idea how many people can currently be describes as Source Singers? |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:43 AM (#2316041) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Derek Schofield I personally dislike the term "source" singers, as it suggests that their purpose is to be the source for us folkies to learn songs from. whereas, the songs were a part of THEIR lives. Finding an alternative word is not easy. Traditional singers? well, that could be anyone who sings traditional songs, rather than someone who learnt them in a traditional manner or sings them in a traditional way. Village singers? some lived in towns .... Derek |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:47 AM (#2316047) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Leadfingers Source Singer works for me , as they are the source of a lot of material that was not available elsewhere . |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:53 AM (#2316051) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Mr Red Source is OK in Rouge Towers and is easier to say than "related to or in communication with or has been thereto - the source (who was etc etc......)" |
|
15 Apr 08 - 08:04 AM (#2316066) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Ruth Archer I take Derek's point - "source singers" does perhaps imply that these people exist(ed) as a commodity to be harvested, and perhaps doesn't impart an appropriate understanding for them as individuals, and the role that the music played in their lives. As Fred Jordan once said in exasperation on an occasion when he was being a bit over-zealously "collected": "A man is more than his songs..." |
|
15 Apr 08 - 08:29 AM (#2316089) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: r.padgett This is a topic which is likely to go on for ever If I am ever deemed to be or advertised as a "traditional singer" I would be delighted!! Traditional singers I feel have hitherto been equated with "source singers" I would not wish to argue with Derek as stated above, but you may have other ideas? Ray |
|
15 Apr 08 - 08:46 AM (#2316115) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton Before we go AWOL I would like to make the general point that many things like this exist along a continuum. In this case Source Singers at one end and singer-songwriters at the other with all possible shades in between |
|
15 Apr 08 - 08:56 AM (#2316122) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Kevin Sheils It's such a confusing area nowadays with the massive changes in communications and the need to redefine or at least rethink what a "community" is. However "song carriers" seems to cover the ground well enough for me until a better suggestion comes along. Of course the term can be interpreted however anyone likes but to me it suggests a link with a tradition and carrying it on, so reasonably meets the idea of what is "traditional" for me. I;m just working on ideas for my Resonance FM "Traditional Music Hour" show for this Thursday and this has given me food for thought. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 09:04 AM (#2316128) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: The Borchester Echo Way back in the 60/70s it was far more clearly defined. A "traditional" singer was one whose repertoire came from their life and family. We were the "revivalists". Now, with an obviously ever-decreasing pool of "traditional" sources, revivalists are increasing termed "trad singers". However, "sources" are different too. There is, of course, Voice Of The People and massively important recordings of that ilk. But sources to today's younger performers are, ever-increasingly, revivalist: their parents' vinyl and Waterson:Carthy etc boxed set reissues. If you think "source" is too prescriptive you could always use "song carrier". Doesn't cover the tunes though . . . |
|
15 Apr 08 - 09:21 AM (#2316144) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton The Song Carriers are alive and well and live Manchester. This collection of people and they may choose to correct me, have been singing songs in and around Manchester since the '50s. I believe one M. Humphries was associated, although not from the '50s. I am not suggesting that they are "Source Singers", although some maybe, and that's the problem. Isn't it true that the singers that Sharp et al collected from often had a wide collection of songs? Some old, some Music Hall, some hymns, some popular? Sharp picked the ones he wanted and passed them, eventually to us. What wold a data base of Source Singers look like today? I know it sounds a bit fascist and I am not suggesting it, but it might give us some idea of what that aspect of the living tradition actually looks like. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 12:23 PM (#2316308) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: The Sandman why notjust direct people to singers such as Harry Cox, SamLarner,Phil Tanner. singers should be sufficient,or unaccompanied singers.,of traditional music. because a singer is a revivalist it does not mean he is of less importance. the criteria should be the performance,how the singer performs the song. Bob Blake is the classic example.,a revivalist singer who was collected because the collector thought he was a traditional singer. it is all such a nonsense,it could mean a collector collects songs from a not very good traditional singer rather than a better revivalist singer,so the collector is collecting because its from a simger who learned the song in a certain way,so the collector can become guilty of not collecting the best songs or the best performances,but collecting inferior material because it fits into his categorisation. typical examples in my opinion,are certain music hallsongs,and popular songs such as carolina moon,which the singer will maintain he learned from his family,whereas a revivalist singing lord gregory gets ignored.Dick Miles |
|
15 Apr 08 - 01:07 PM (#2316360) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Mary Humphreys Sharp , and other collectors, made value judgements regarding the material they collected and published. It is interesting to see correspondence between collectors , describing some of the material they or others have collected as unworthy of being regarded as folk song. I believe source singers were much more eclectic in their tastes, singing, as Dick Miles has said above, anything that took their fancy. Many of the songs and tunes in East Anglia derive from the music hall and are none the worse for that. And Les in Chorlton: You got it right - I wasn't singing in Manchester in the 1950s. That was JUST a bit too early for an old lady like me. But I was learning and singing Welsh songs in my village community even then. Keep up the good work at the Beech! |
|
15 Apr 08 - 02:05 PM (#2316433) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton Thanks Mary, all you old mates are still in excellent voice! |
|
15 Apr 08 - 02:17 PM (#2316446) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Folkiedave he term I like is "tradition bearer". (Song carrier excludes things like tunes and dance). |
|
15 Apr 08 - 03:26 PM (#2316520) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: greg stephens Surely "tradition bearer"and "song carrier" and such terms are completely different from "source singer". The former two terms are generally used to refer to revivalists who have a particular respect for traditional ways, and make a point of learning from "source singers" and passing the stuff on. "Source singers" are the real deal, however you care to interpret that. "Source singers" are Harry Cox and Leadbelly and so on(But beware: Leadbelly, and Fred Jordan, learned songs from collectors as well!). Other terms are used for Peter Pears, Martin Carthy and so on, those who love traditional songs and have reinterpreted them. Martin Carthy showed greater respect for traditional ways, Peter Pears showed little or none, in his performance that is(I've no idea what he listened to in private). Tunes are quite different, in England at least, in that the "tradition" lasted long enough enough(in the dance bands) to overlap and interbreed with the "revival". Ot at least, that happened in the north. I can't really speak for what happened in the south. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 03:33 PM (#2316525) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice I consider where I get songs from to be the source or sources, whether it be from recordings, such as the VOP series, or Waterson Carthy, or The Watersons or Sandy Denny. These are favourite musicians and I hope I do their material justice. Charlotte R |
|
15 Apr 08 - 04:27 PM (#2316589) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Herga Kitty I think of "source singers" as being the distinction from "not revival" - but they learnt the songs from hearing them rather than researching them, didn't they? How about "Oral tradition singers"? (Of course, lots of them in the 20th C learnt songs from hearing them on the radio....) Kitty |
|
15 Apr 08 - 04:46 PM (#2316613) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Graham O'Callaghan I have never felt that catagorising singers particularly useful, Surely the inportant fact is that we are all singers and thereby contribute to a strand of British culture that should be both respected and promoted. Whether singer 'A' subscribes to criteria 1,2 and 3 and singer 'B' subscribes to criteria 2,3 and 5 is neither here nor there. There have always been singers whose songs have been collected and many, many more whose songs/singing have never been noted down. It is likely that collectors through history have missed the majority of singers contemporary to their time so why do we try and impose a hierarchy? Traditional song was recognised as being in decline in the early 1900's, and this has probably always been the way as society's absorb change. The singers of Sharpe's day would have performed a very mixed repertoire of songs and largely driven because of their love for singing rather than for the glorification of performance. Also during those days and earlier times, no singer would have sung songs with any concious intention of trying to 'sustain' a dying artform - people just sang! Nowadays there is more than a hint of 'preservation' surrounding folk-song through the clubs and festivals network and as a result, the music has been afforded a higher profile platform for its performance and recognition. Long may it continue of course, but anonymous singers will still gather in the back rooms of pubs and sing songs because they love singing and no more than that. They will be the percieved 'source singers' of tomorrow. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 05:45 PM (#2316681) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: The Sandman Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Graham O'Callaghan - PM Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:46 PM I have never felt that catagorising singers particularly useful. hear hear,it drives me to despair.just sing and enjoy. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM (#2316760) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Surreysinger "I think of "source singers" as being the distinction from "not revival" - but they learnt the songs from hearing them rather than researching them, didn't they?" Sorry Kitty, but I'm less than convinced by that. There's more than one case of so-called (and well known) source singers being provided with copies of words of songs that they couldn't remember, and picking up songs from printed sources. Look at Henry Burstow's list of songs, which are many and varied in type. In the chapter on Songs in "Reminiscences of Horsham" he makes it quite clear that he learned many of his songs from his father, from work colleagues, and fellow bellringers.... but he also states "The remainder I learnt from ballad sheets I bought as they were being hawked about at the fairs, and at other times from other printed matter." It is also quite clear from his list of 400 plus songs that music hall items (as Mary quite rightly points out) featured strongly in his repertoire - "Woodman woodman spare that tree" for instance. You refer to "not revival" - but which revival ... mid 19th century, late 19th century, turn of the 20th century ... 1970's ?? Re Mary's statement that the collectors of Sharp's era were selective - absolutely true. In commenting on Burstow's full list of songs Lucy Broadwood (who collected from him in the 1890's - to be followed 10 years later by Vaughan Williams) she suggested that less than 20% of his songs were worth consideration. She, and I have no doubt, the other collectors, were after modal tunes, and old ballads ... not as she suggested things like "Grandmother's Old Armcahir" or even songs of the Napoleonic era (which were presumably considered to be modern songs then?). Graham, I certainly agree with most of what you say - with reference to your statement that traditional song was regarded as being in decline ,at the start of the twentieth century, that rather ignores the fact that even inthe mid 19th century that viewpoint already existed (if not earlier, I have no doubt), giving rise to the private publication of John Broadwood's "Old English Songs..." in 1847, specifically for the purpose of preserving songs just as sung by the rural peasantry of Surrey and Sussex - so yes, I reckon that, as you say, it's probably always been the way. Incidentally, I note with amusement that Richard Sharpe has once again crept into the world of folksong ... Bernard Cornwell obviously wasn't aware of that facet of his hero's background (sorry - couldn't resist - I'm assuming that that was a typo on your part !!!) As to the reason for singing, to revert to good old Henry B again he makes it quite clear why he sang - ".(singing)has been my chief mental delight, a delight that has been my companion day after day in my journey from infancy through every stage of life to my now extreme old age ..... I have never ceased to obtain, and I hope seldom failed to give, satisfaction in this, the best mode I know of expressing the feelings". In other statements in his book he makes it quite clear that he sang both for his own, and for other people's pleasure - it was a shared experience. |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:25 PM (#2316789) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Herga Kitty Irene - yes, I pointed out that so-called source singers got their songs from various sources, including the radio, but would they have been thought of as source singers if they hadn't learned any from oral tradition? Kitty |
|
15 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM (#2316794) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Herga Kitty Oh, and there seem to be comments relevant to the our ghastly tradition and GEFF threads! Kitty |
|
16 Apr 08 - 04:22 AM (#2317027) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton .......do we have any idea how many people can currently be describes as Source Singers? |
|
16 Apr 08 - 06:57 AM (#2317085) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Shimrod I have it on good authority that the vast majority of 'source singers' learned their songs whilst leaning on a five-barred gate, chewing on a piece of straw and thinking idle, rustic thoughts. The songs sorted of floated by and were absorbed almost subconciously. This process probably doesn't happen any more due to pollution and the fact that modern songs aren't very buoyant. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 04:02 AM (#2318023) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton Good point Shim, so, do we need a count of five-barred gates on fields that have a "straw potential"? |
|
17 Apr 08 - 04:12 AM (#2318028) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Shimrod It would be an interesting statistical exercise, Les. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 04:41 AM (#2318036) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,doc.tom Greg wrote: 'the "tradition" lasted long enough enough to overlap and interbreed with the "revival". Ot at least, that happened in the north. I can't really speak for what happened in the south.' This certainly happened in the West Country - Putting the square dance revival of the 50s side by side whith thier own extant traditions, the likes of Charlie Bate and Bob Cann developed the tradition. Add that to the Cornish choir tradition(where would we be without the Methodists)and the repertoires of people like Charlie Hill, - and when the 60s song revival came along, the tradition said "O.K., well done kids, we'll have some of that, you can be adsorbed as well." Tom |
|
17 Apr 08 - 04:59 AM (#2318047) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton Interesting point about the Methodists, didn't they help to stamp out a lot of old Welsh traditions? Les Jones! |
|
17 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM (#2318362) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Russ The WV musicians I consort with use the term "the old people." Quite vague but we know who we mean. Russ (Permanent GUEST) |
|
17 Apr 08 - 01:32 PM (#2318429) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST, Richard Bridge The technically accurate term is "folk singer" and a revivalist is a "folk song singer". But I don't suppose anyone cares. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM (#2318442) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton We all care deeply Richard but many of us have no idea at all what it is of which we care. This enables many of us to be petty, aggressive and sarcastic on almost any issue however small, best wishes from Chorlton |
|
17 Apr 08 - 06:44 PM (#2318771) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST, Richard Bridge We've been over this before. Everyone was so busy arguing that what they did was folk. I'm pretty fed up with it all. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 07:07 PM (#2318788) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Tootler The technically accurate term is "folk singer" and a revivalist is a "folk song singer". Pedantry rules!! I really think this kind of petty distinction is totally unnecessary. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM (#2318799) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Ruth Archer I always find these threads really interesting, not because they solve issues of semantics or etymology to anyone's satifaction, but because they reveal that fundamental difference between people who think that there is a need for specific terms to mean the same things to everyone, and people who see it as a load of pedantic nonsense. I remember when I was at uni (and later teaching my first-year students about essay-writing): a basic academic function is to define your terms. This is key with any specific jargon you may be using, because you need to make sure that the people reading your work understand what you meant by certain words and phrases, and that your meaning is clear. Some people on Mudcat hate this kind of intellectualisation of the folk process, seeing it as pedantic and limiting. On the other hand, some of the people here are working in an academic, or semi-academic, context. For them in particular, the definition of terms probably matters. They are often looking to the future, and wondering how these things will be categorised and defined in 20 or 50 or 100 years' time, if we can't be bothered to make clear delineations now. Why does this categorisation matter? Well, from my point of view it's all part of the caretaking process. Folk is a living entity which ought to be evolving and developing all the time, but there is an element of it which requires conservation. This is an academic process. And I think that the people most concerned with terms and definitions are interested in that conservation, and in the legacy we'll be passing on to future generations. Does that make sense...? |
|
17 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM (#2318800) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Art Thieme As a folksinger for close to 40 years, I knew what I was and I did what I did. That appellation was fine with me. It was an honor to be doing it. ------ Art |
|
17 Apr 08 - 07:56 PM (#2318817) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Surreysinger Richard - where on earth did you get that strange distinction from ? Where and when did the term "folk singer" become "technically accurate" - and technically accurate for what? So far I don't think I've met anybody who describes themself as a "folk song singer" - pretty cumbersome phrase that. As far as I recall (and no doubt I'm standing to be corrected ?) from my ongoing research the term folk song was coined in the late 19th century by the folksong collectors of the day - it was not, however, one that they particularly liked or felt comfortable using, feeling that it was a rather non descript and rather undefined term (not much change there then !!).. They quite often veered between that and the use of the terms "rural" or "rustic" singer quite a lot. Ruth - sounds sensible to me! If we're all using different definitions, how on earth do we know whether we're all talking about the same thing {grin}. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 08:11 PM (#2318829) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Ruth Archer Well, we're usually not - which is the whole problem! :) |
|
17 Apr 08 - 08:24 PM (#2318835) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: dick greenhaus Singers today may--or may not--be the source singers of tomorrow. Problem is, you can't tell. There's such a thing as perspective. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 06:17 AM (#2319105) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,doc.tom I'm with Ruth. If you don't clarify what you are talking about, others can have no idea what you are talking about. If you don't want to clarify what you're talking about, that's fine, of course, but don't expect anybody to take what you say seriously except others who like no definition. Tom |
|
18 Apr 08 - 06:24 AM (#2319109) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Surreysinger Question ... Martyn Wyndham-Read, who used to live on the Lyne estate (former home of Lucy Broadwood) learned the song "The Sweet Nightingale" or "The Birds in the Spring" from Captain Evelyn Broadwood (Lucy's nephew, and owner of the estate in the early to mid 20th century), who in turn had learned the song from his aunt... who had collected the song from George Grantham, the illiterate carter who had lived on the estate in the late 19th century .... so Martyn had learned the song by oral transmission in a line which ran directly from the "original" singer (who presumably had learned it from elsewhere) .... does that therefore make Martyn a source singer in this instance ??? Retires hurriedly after lighting blue touchpaper (muttering ... I'm not sure that it really matters. It's an interesting point, but what matters is the song and its onward transmission and not the singer...) |
|
18 Apr 08 - 06:31 AM (#2319112) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman "The technically accurate term is "folk singer" and a revivalist is a "folk song singer". But I don't suppose anyone cares." OK, reasonable definitions (if you need definitions!) but: 1/what do we call those who are writing and singing songs that might (or might not) become folksongs of the future? 2/....and when does something become a folk song? 3/ Can something still become a folk song, what are the characteristics? Paul |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:32 AM (#2319190) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST, Richard Bridge I think I acquired the distinction from an article by or about Martin Carthy, a long time ago. 1. Singer-songwriters, or acoustic performers - but IMHO an new term that accurately describes new material in the genre of the old is desperately needed so that people can stop saying "folk" when they mean something else. 2. When it meets the 1954 definition (although some attention might be needed to amend the definition so that it does not automatically exclude items of known authorship or items first published in printed form, which I have heard asserted to exclude "the Cutty Wren") 3. See above. It is not a matter of style or form, although the music encyclopaedias will set out characteristics of form, scales or modes used, and language that are found. Those are matters of observation not definition. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 05:59 PM (#2319634) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Shimrod Banjiman, Assuming you've read all the previous threads on this subject (I fervently hope that you have and we're not doomed to repeat it all again!) and that you've read around the subject, outside of Mudcat, as well, what do you think the answers to those questions are? |
|
18 Apr 08 - 06:31 PM (#2319652) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Richard Bridge Thank you Shimrod |
|
18 Apr 08 - 06:38 PM (#2319654) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Shimrod, Yes, I've been over the those previous threads and debates elsewhere. 1/ Before reading the Mudcat debates I would have called songs of a folky style (I'll give examples if you wish, but I don't mean overly emotional singer/ songwriter stuff)....folk. I accept now that this may not be technically correct, but it was the masses would understand. I've been challenged previously to come up with a definition that encompasses these songs/ performers, but haven't managed it yet! 2/ Ditto, my view is that if it sounds like folk it is folk. But again I am willing to accept this is a common man's view of the subject, not a scholar's. 3/ I think I answered with 1 and 2 above. My questions to Richard are a genuine attempt to learn and understand, not a challenge....and I don't really want the what is folk debate again! Paul |
|
19 Apr 08 - 03:51 AM (#2319855) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Shimrod Dear Banjiman, Thank you very much for your considered reply. My point was that some previous posters have asked ingenuous seeming questions and then, when others have replied, have turned on them and accused them of being bigots, folk police etc. It occurred to me that such posters had already decided what 'folk is' but wanted other contributors to confirm their preconceived ideas; when such confirmation failed to materialise they turned 'nasty'. I find such behaviour dishonest. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 03:55 AM (#2319858) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll I get rather bored with being told that these discussions are 'unnecessary' and 'boring' and 'pedantic' - if people are not interested in the subject, fair enough, go and discuss something else. It is often my experience that those who make such claims are usually the ones to whom definitions are extremely important - try telling one of them that they are 'not' a traditional singer - and stand back and watch them throw their toys out of the pram! Categorising your singers is about as 'pedantic' as putting the word 'mushroom' on a tin of soup. Personally, my involvement in traditional singing requires that I have a reasonably clear picture of what is 'revival and 'traditional' (and everything that comes in between). My singing a traditional song no more makes me a 'traditional singer' than my singing Nessun Dorma in the bath makes me an opera singer. For me, the terms we use to describe the singers are efforts to define where they stand in relation to the living oral tradition (that once was - and is no more!) Of the singers we met and recorded, some were 'traditional' (ie: had been around when the singing tradition, within the defined communities we were working in, was still alive and kicking (Walter Pardon, Tom Lenihan, Mary Delaney, Mikeen McCarthy et al) - others were not. Some of these latter had learned their songs from traditional singers, but had not been around when the songs were still in use, and in some cases had never sung the songs publicly, but rather, had remembered them. It is these we need the descriptive terms for if we are going to discuss the tradition and everything it encompasses. MacColl used, (and coined, I think) the term 'song carrier' for his series of 10 programmes of that name (still the best ever done on traditional singing in these islands IMO). In doing so he upset a number of people, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's a good, catch-all term for somebody who didn't come to a traditional repertoire via the revival or through those bloody 'singing lessons' at school. 'Source singer' or 'tradition bearer' works just as well I suppose, though the latter is possibly more useful to include music, dancing, customs, lore and stories. Mary H: All collectors make, and have always made judgements of one sort or another - they'd be daft not to. They set out to collect what they believe to be 'folk-songs' and in order not to come home with 20 versions of 'Yellow Submarine', they apply their definition to their work - most of the time, in my view, they have made a pretty reasonable stab at it. Sharp, Baring-Gould and all the others of that generation are to be congratulated for collecting songs they didn't approve of (even if, for one reason or another they didn't publish them). In the end it all comes down to a personal perception of the tradition, and also the time, opportunity and budget you have at your disposal - let's face it, if you were a part-time collector faced with having to make a choice, what would you rather come home with; a version of Lord Gregory or ten of 'The Miner's Dream of Home'? A good 'folk song collector' records as much as he or she is able to, given the restrictions they are working under. If they are social or musical historians or ethnomusicologists, that's a totally different ball game. Cap'n, You still have a very superficial and inaccurate concept of what collecting is about. The best collectors I know of; Bruce Jackson, The Lomaxs, Sandy Ives, Hamish Henderson, Ken Goldstein, Parker and MacColl, recorded far more than 'good versions of songs'. As well as doing just that, they provided us with information that gave us an insight into our oral tradition - priceless as far as I'm concerned. Your comparison between recording 'revival' and 'traditional' singers because (in your opinion) the former may be 'better' singers with 'better' songs is really not what it is all about. Comparisons between the technical abilities of an octogenarian source singer and revival singers with all their bits in good working order totally misses the point, and is bloody unfair to boot! Anyway, as good as a revival singer is, I have yet to hear one who brings anything nearly as 'good' and 'important' as the contribution made (to my enjoyment and understanding at least), by Phil Tanner, Sam Larner or Mary Ann Carolan, as far past their sell-by date as these might have been. Jim Carroll |
|
19 Apr 08 - 04:18 AM (#2319864) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST, Richard Bridge Sorry if I was short. I half suspected I was the one accused of being sarky. Did you find the 1954 definition Banjiman? It's on here in several threads. I think if you go carefully over it line by line you will see that it makes a decent stab at distinguishing the body of inherited music from created music, testing by reason of the fact of passage into an oral tradition, yet allowing for the ingestion of new music into that oral tradition. Of course after Brasser Copper, the Coppers did not transmit orally, but via written songbooks, so the idea of oral transmission (without writing) as the touchstone becomes questionable. I don't necessarily agree that purely oral transmission is the be-all and end-all of it - but that form of transmission does exist still. There are two songs that I do that I only ever heard sung once, and indeed in both cases before I became a performer (if I am). In both cases after I became a performer (if I did) I decided I wanted to do them and reconstructed tehm out of memory. But both had a logical progression that made the rebuilds easy. One is "The Frog and the Vicar". The other is "The 5 Constipated men". I suppose that the singers I heard sing them had learned them from somewhere, the first probably off vinyl, but the latter more likely as a rugby or drinking song. My point is that if I can learn at least some songs well enough from one listening to be able later to work the song out and perform it, others probably still can too, so "oral transmission" is not necessarily dead. Must make a list and go shopping. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 04:19 AM (#2319865) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Shimrod, No I'm not looking to attack anyone (though I may have been known to defend myself vigorously when attacked!). I think a more interesting question than "what is folk", is why you want to/need to define "folky" music in a particular way. What is the purpose of your definition. Jim's post above does an excellent job in explaining why he thinks it is important to have very clear terms and derfinitions.....I would say (and I'm sure he will tell me if I'm wrong), from a scholarly, academic point of view (and I'm not accusing him of being a museum curator) I get his point. I come form a slightly different (probably less pure) place than this. Most of my activities are involved in "selling" (with a small S) folky music to people in my role as a Folk Club Organiser (KFFC) and as my wife's (Wendy Arrowsmith) unpaid agent. Both of these endeavorers involve packaging a mixture of traditional, self penned and interpretations of other peoples songs into something that "people" want to see/ buy. I need a handy (if academically incorrect)label for this....hence my use of the word folk. To call it anything else would confuse my market places even more than using this term. Just a thought what do you call your vacuum cleaner? I bet you call it a hoover even if it is not? Paul |
|
19 Apr 08 - 04:23 AM (#2319867) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Sorry Richard, we cross posted or I would have addressed my reply to you also. Enjoy the shopping! Paul |
|
19 Apr 08 - 04:23 AM (#2319868) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Steve Gardham Jim, As a collector, researcher, singer, may I echo all that you have said. I learnt songs from my own family repertoire in the sixties, BUT only after hearing The Watersons singing them in a folk club. Although I still sing my family repertoire I would never consider myself a source singer. I am 100% a product of the revival. Steve Gardham |
|
19 Apr 08 - 05:48 AM (#2319894) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll Col - whoops Banjiman. Can I just re-iterate a point I have made before. Definition is not just a subject discussed by academics and researchers. Our problem is we have very little information on how traditional singers considered themselves and their songs - collectors in general never thought it worth the bother recording such information, assuming largely that they never thought about what they sang (free as birdsong). Although our own work on this was really too little - too late, this was not our experience. The singers we broached the subject with, mainly Tom Lenihan, Walter Pardon and Mikeen McCarthy were highly vocal and (certainly in Walter's case) extremely articulate on what constituted traditional and other songs, though they might not have chosen thsoe words exactly. They all descriminated and catergorised what they sung and how they sang it in one way or another Jim Carroll PS Thank you and hello Steve |
|
19 Apr 08 - 06:33 AM (#2319909) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Jim, I understand that from a song collection point of view that categorisation is important, I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm also (and never would) argue that contemporary songs are traditional. My point is that we have different needs from the terminology we use....mine is to try and communicate to as wide a number of people as possible to get them interested in something they might like. Yours (I think, again, please correct me if I'm wrong) is to be as specific as possible to preserve and understand traditions as clearly as possible. I accept that this as at least as (and probably more) worthwhile than what I'm doing. Ask a person in the street what is meant by folk music....and you'll get many different responses....I need to try and interest all those people. Giving them a lecture on what is and isn't folk music is not the starting point to getting them involved. "Col - whoops Banjiman." The subtlety of this one is lost on me??? Paul |
|
19 Apr 08 - 08:02 AM (#2319946) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll Banjiman - Paul, (sorry - confusing you with Banjovey - an old friend) No, Without opening up interminable arguments; if I am away from home and I read in the local paper that there is an evening of folk-song at the local pub - I want to be certain that if I switch off the telly, go out in the pissing rain and walk though cold dark, damp streets, I am not going to be treated to an evening of 'Knees Up Mother Brown', 'Circles of my Mind', 'Heartbreak Hotel'... et al. This is not to say any or all of these don't have merit, I just like to know what I'm buying. When we first visited the West of Ireland in the early seventies (in the middle of the 'ballad boom') I thought all my birthdays had come at once at the number of pubs advertising 'ballad nights'. My point is, and has been for some time now, that much of the revival is very greatly out-of-step with the tradition in defining what they mean by traditional/folk music (whatever label we choose). You win more people for your ideas by slugging them out rather than watering them down; and when push comes to shove the man in the street couldn't give a toss one way or the other what you call it. I think we've argued this before, but genealogy will always be an 'alogy' until it is defined differently, and the idea of 'popularising' folk by wrapping it up in pretty paper and re-labeling it eventually did more damage than good to the general understanding. Here in Ireland good, well-played, uncompromising traditional music is on the crest of a wave thanks to the doggedness of a tiny handful of stubborn old bastards who, twenty-odd years ago, would have been thrown out of a pub if they had dared to take a fiddle out - and as for pipes - the governor would have called in the vermin-control people. The singing pullovers, Moving Hearts, The Bothy Band, Planxty, the 'ballad' singers and navel contemplaters have all been and gone and, thanks to people like Junior Crehan, Michael Doherty, Brendan McGlichy, Joe Ryan, John Kelly, Joe Heany and all the other 'purists' we can now sit back and listen to the best of the music. In this small town last St Pat's day 2 local music teachers, both young women, managed to turn out around 60-70 pupils all playing good traditional music on an assortment of pipes, fiddles, flutes, whistles, concertinas.... etc, so we are pretty confident that the music is in safe hands for at least another generation. Jim Carroll |
|
19 Apr 08 - 08:35 AM (#2319954) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll Sorry, Meant to add - defining a singer or song is just that - it is not (though it is often regarded so) an attempt to be judgmental or critical. Jim Carroll |
|
19 Apr 08 - 08:38 AM (#2319956) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Jim, OK help me out here.....do you have a suggestion of what to call the mix of music I have described above? People would need to understand it and it needs to be no more than a couple of words! Singer/ songwriter...no it isn't all and anyway that would immediately turn off a group of people (who like traditional music)who may well like some of what we are doing. Acoustic.....well yes it is, but this term is already used to describe something different, again usually singer/songwriter stuff with a more introspective take than the recently penned folky stuff that I am talking about (Think "Fiddler's Green", listen to "The Visitor" on Wendy's site above as well). Help! Paul |
|
19 Apr 08 - 11:20 AM (#2320042) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll Paul, MacColl always resisted calling any club he was associated with 'folk' or 'traditional' because he felt it would be to restrictive, and he never claimed his own compositions, which made up at least a quarter of an evenings performance, as 'folk - hence the name 'Singers Club'. I have honestly never seen anything wrong with the term 'Song' or 'Song Club' - plain enough, no pretensions - it would certainly work for me. Jim Carroll |
|
19 Apr 08 - 12:13 PM (#2320066) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton ................ er ........ do we have any idea how many people can currently be describes as Source Singers? |
|
19 Apr 08 - 12:33 PM (#2320076) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll Hello Les, Don't know the number exactly (by my definition) but would say there are very few in the UK; probably more in Ireland as the tradition went on much later here. Thanks to the intervention by the revival and the academics at the School of Scottish Studies and Elphinstone, Scotland seems to be the best off, particularly among the Travellers. Jim Carroll |
|
19 Apr 08 - 01:34 PM (#2320129) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton Thanks Jim, that's a start. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 01:45 PM (#2320133) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: BB "I have honestly never seen anything wrong with the term 'Song' or 'Song Club' - plain enough, no pretensions - it would certainly work for me." That's fine if that's all that's going on at that club - but misleading if there's music, stories, etc. as well. Barbara |
|
19 Apr 08 - 02:40 PM (#2320180) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll Les, It would be interesting to start making a list to see who people have in mind. Barbara, Quite agree - can't think of anything else at the moment. jim Carroll |
|
19 Apr 08 - 03:55 PM (#2320230) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Steve Gardham Whilst source singers and revival singers are fairly easy to define and identify there are a number of singers who have/had a foot firmly planted in both areas. Bob Copper is probably the best example. He was source singer, collector, and revival. Even somebody like Fred Jordan who initially sang his family songs, learnt songs as part of the revival and was heavily influenced by the revival and was in some ways a parody of himself. Some of the singers who we think of today as source singers started out learning their songs from their own culture, but now are more involved in the revival. Jim was right about England, there are are now very few purely source singers left alive. Even the Scottish travellers have for a long while been heavily influenced by the revival, some of the more celebrated augmenting their ballads with versions from books. These are not criticisms, merely observations. The revival is a new tradition, but it is a tradition, and it has its own peculiarities mostly quite different from the older oral tradition. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 08:38 PM (#2320413) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Folkiedave The "Sheffield Carols" for a quick shorthand way of desribing the traditional carol singing that takes place in Sheffield aound Xmas time is generally accpeted as traditional singing. I have never learnt the songs except by listening to oral singing by the community in which I (almost by a mile or so live) and anyway - it used to happen in my local twice or so each Xmas. I first started going to a carol singing pub within twenty minutes walk from my house. Apart from the fact I am a hopeless singer - does that make me a traditional singer? And if not, why not? |
|
20 Apr 08 - 03:03 PM (#2320865) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll I honestly don't know Dave. Is everybody who goes out on St Stephen's Day in Dingle and joins in the 'Wran' song, or sings on May Day at Padstow a source singer? All of these communal events are unique, very different from the act of hearing, adapting and passing on the songs in the usual 'traditional' way. It's a question I've never considered - thanks. Jim Carroll |
|
20 Apr 08 - 05:57 PM (#2320989) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Steve Gardham Dave, I'm stickin' me neck out 'ere and am willing to be shot down in flames but I'm gonna say definitely not for similar reasons to why I don't count myself as a source/traditional singer. (And I also know you're stirring it/ playing devil's advocate as usual because United beat City on Saturday) You came to the carols as someone steeped in the revival otherwise you probably wouldn't have shown any interest in them. You have become heavily involved but more as a historian and archivist, or as some would say an 'incomer' or 'interferer'. As folklorists/researchers whatever, however we get involved in what's going on we are still coming at it from a different angle. Well that's my twopennorth. |
|
20 Apr 08 - 07:50 PM (#2321081) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Folknacious Genuinely puzzled question and not a wind-up: Where do the Young Coppers fit in all this? Was there a point down the Copper generations (perhaps after Bob) that they changed from being traditional/ source singers to revivalists? I read somewhere that John Copper was influenced back into the family tradition by Pete Bellamy. |
|
21 Apr 08 - 12:23 PM (#2321586) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: BB I also wondered about some of the younger generation folk artists that the Young Coppers have on their CD. It has been almost impossible, I think, for the 'revival' not to influence the 'tradition' at least from Fred Jordan onwards. Barbara |
|
21 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM (#2321591) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman "It has been almost impossible, I think, for the 'revival' not to influence the 'tradition' at least from Fred Jordan onwards." A genuine question.......why does this matter? Surely as long as the songs survive (and evolve as they always have)........? Paul |
|
21 Apr 08 - 12:54 PM (#2321614) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Hi Paul Well in terms of the quality of the songs as music, and the singers as music-makers it doesn't matter at all, so all we need to do is make sure the songs are sung (and to respect the singers interpreters though the years and the original writers). But - and it's a biggie - folk music has an element of 'musical archaeology ' (which is sometimes as or even more important than the quality). So just as the Time Team must record as they dig and know what it is they are looking at, so we need to know how these influences work if we're to track back with any reliability. Tom |
|
21 Apr 08 - 01:34 PM (#2321659) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST, Richard Bridge I am glad to see you say that Tom. And well put, too. |
|
21 Apr 08 - 02:48 PM (#2321750) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: BB Excellently put, Tom. And I wasn't necessarily being critical of what the Young Coppers (or for that matter, Fred Jordan) were doing, just stating what I see as fact. Barbara |
|
21 Apr 08 - 02:49 PM (#2321751) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Thanks Tom, So are we trying to track how a song evolved.....or something else? Paul |
|
21 Apr 08 - 03:07 PM (#2321770) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Ruth Archer I think we're trying to record the steps along the way. It will certainly help those collecotrs that come along in 100 years' time! Re the Coppers: while they were clearly influenced by the revival, the method by which their family songs have been transmitted makes them part of the tradition. I think. "I also wondered about some of the younger generation folk artists that the Young Coppers have on their CD." Like who? I have the CD, and all I hear are Coppers... |
|
21 Apr 08 - 03:23 PM (#2321794) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Ruth Thanks, I don't think I've managed to ask the question I really want an answer to yet. I'll try again! OK, I understand that there is a need to catolouge (as with stamps) but what do we hope this will tell us? Is it about the correct/ original context of the song, evolution or something I'm missing? Is this to inform how a song "should" be performed? Or is it just the (usually) male need to have the biggest collection, the rarest, the best.......? Or is it a desire to somehow "own" the song because you collected it from the source singer? I'm not looking for confrontation here, I'm just genuinely interested in what is the motivation to "collect". Thanks Paul |
|
21 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM (#2321798) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Tradsinger I find this a very interesting thread, and from the varied replies it is obvious that you cannot pigeonhole singers simply as revival or traditional. It's a lot greyer than that. In my collecting activities I have recorded singers who learnt their songs from a variety of sources, including friends, family, 78 rpm records, etc. I show more interest in the songs which have come through an oral tradition simply because, as someone said above, there is an element of 'musical archeology' in this subject. If an illiterate traveller sings to me, say, 'The Cruel Ship's Carpenter', then that gives me a buzz to think that I am hearing something which has been handed down like an heirloom. However, for aught I know, that song might have been learnt from a printed broadside 2 generations previously! So what I am saying? Well, what I think I am saying is that in order to understand the 'folk process' we need to take a broad look at a singer's repertoire, background, motivation and singing context, and not just note the songs. So where does that leave us? Well, I learnt 'Around her leg she wore a yellow garter' from oral tradition. Does that make me a traditional singer? Perhaps half of one percent of one. I sing songs I recorded from source singers - does that make me a source singer myself? Think about - I am just one link in a chain, as was my source singer. Some of the gypsy singers I recorded learnt some of their songs from George Formby and Jimmie Rogers 78s - does that remove their credentials as 'source singers'? I think what it comes to it is this - by source singers, we are talking about people who have not learnt their songs from the folk revival or the media. However, there will be numerous exceptions to this. This is a bit rambling, but I hope it shows that it is dangerous to label singers one way or the other. I have been collecting for 40 year and I am still not sure of the answer. The important thing is to keep singing. Tradsinger |
|
21 Apr 08 - 05:07 PM (#2321935) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: The Sandman The important thing is to keep singing. Jim Carroll,there is nothing more to be said,tradsinger said it succinctly in seven words. Dick Miles |
|
21 Apr 08 - 05:20 PM (#2321949) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Banjiman Tradsinger, I'm not sure if your post was a reply to my questions, but I found your post hugely informative, thanks. I think you explained your motivation for collecting extremely eloquently. As someone who tends to be drawn to songs purely for how the "performance" of them makes me feel, think etc (I am pretty agnostic to the songs source, I don't mind if they are trad or written yesterday just that I think they are good songs), I start to understand why the provenance of a song is important to others. Paul |
|
22 Apr 08 - 03:59 AM (#2322294) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Jim Carroll "The important thing is to keep singing." Dear Cap'n, Why do you insist in forcing your own priorities onto others. I wouldn't attempt to start making a list of people who don't sing, can't sing, don't wish to sing, find singing a chore, can't afford the time to practice singing and will never make singers while they have holes in their arses, yet without whose contribution, we wouldn't have any songs to sing or to listen to. Suggesting that the only activity important to the future of folksong is singing is somewhat arrogant, bullying and tunnel visionsed. A MODEST PROPOSAL Why not do your own thing and allow the rest of us to get on with ours. When push comes to shove, all you are entitled to state is what is important TO YOU! All the very best wishes in your endevours, Jim Carroll |
|
22 Apr 08 - 04:45 AM (#2322327) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Tom Bliss I tend to use two analogies to explain the importance of provenance in songs (other tradarts). Archaeology is a good one to explain why we need to know who passed what to whom and when and how (oral, print, recording etc). That can be academic, but also visceral. Like bringing up an Elizabethan breastplate from 30 meteres and knowing we were the first to see it since the man wearing it went down with his ship. Some songs can give you that. But perhaps an appreciation for antiques is more universal. You can admire the workmanship and materials of a Tudor chair, but the patina is also crucial, because it tells you about where that chair has been, and you think of who has sat in it, and how they lived. And it may be worth more than a Victorian carver with more wood, and more decoration. Some will like one, some the other - and others still will prefer the modern reproduction because its new, or even the Ikea one because they saw it on Property Ladder. But they all keep your arse off the floor. So yes - singing them is vital, but always make sure you credit where it came from, so those who want or need to track back can do so. Tom |
|
22 Apr 08 - 05:02 AM (#2322337) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: The Sandman Jim, Tradsingers comment,But one with which I agree. I think Tradsinger meant those that wish to sing,I dont think he /she meant that singing should be forced,on people who do not wish to do it. Dick Miles |
|
22 Apr 08 - 06:56 AM (#2322395) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Brian Peters Banjiman wrote: 1: "OK, I understand that there is a need to catolouge (as with stamps) but what do we hope this will tell us? Is it about the correct/ original context of the song, evolution or something I'm missing?" Yes to your second sentence. Tradsinger and Tom B. have already answered this partly, but to me it's a simple matter of human curiosity. For instance, my early experience of the folk world was in North West folk clubs (particularly Harry Boardman's), where the 'local tradition' was seen in terms of the songs of the cotton mills and other industries. Two of the best-known songs of that genre - both of which I've been known to sing - are "The Four Loom Weaver" and "The Handweaver and the Factory Maid". I can't understand why anyone would choose to sing those songs without being at least mildly curious about where they came from, who composed them, who actually sang them a century or more ago. In both cases it turns out that their provenance is murky, with probable or definite editorial intervention by Ewan MacColl and Bert Lloyd respectively. That doesn't mean that they're not worth singing, but it does mean that I would feel the need to be careful about introducing either song to an audience with words like "Here's an old song that Lancashire cotton mill workers used to sing." 2: "Is this to inform how a song "should" be performed?" Some people who have spent a lot of time listening to traditional/source singers find it more difficult to enjoy the efforts of modern performers (particularly with respect to things like accompaniment, pace, storytelling, etc.). All of us have our own ideas about how songs should be performed (usually defined as the way we do it ourselves), but most of us are aware that these are only opinions. Telling someone that the way they're singing is 'wrong' is plain bad manners. Suggesting to that person that they might enjoy listening to a particular performance - perhaps a 'source' version, perhaps not - would be a bit more subtle. |
|
22 Apr 08 - 07:27 AM (#2322420) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton Thanks Brian, I am contributing to three threads at the moment: Do me Ama, The Blackleg Miner and this one. Brain has put his finger right on the issue in question: "I can't understand why anyone would choose to sing those songs without being at least mildly curious about where they came from, who composed them, who actually sang them a century or more ago. In both cases it turns out that their provenance is murky, with probable or definite editorial intervention by Ewan MacColl and Bert Lloyd respectively. That doesn't mean that they're not worth singing, but it does mean that I would feel the need to be careful about introducing either song to an audience with words like "Here's an old song that Lancashire cotton mill workers used to sing." |
|
22 Apr 08 - 08:55 AM (#2322475) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Yes nicely put Brian. To this bit Paul "is this to inform how a song "should" be performed?" I'd say yes to 'inform' but no to 'should.' The more you study how things were done in the past, the more options you have as craftsman. You don't have to use a wooden plane to make your new dulcimer, and it wouldn't sound any different if you did, but you might enjoy using one, and some might enjoy knowing that you'd done so. I'm no musicologist or folklorist, but I do enjoy encountering that knowledge, and doing my own little bits of research, and I do know it informs my writing, my playing - and even (given that I have totally the wrong type of larynx and am not trying to do it 'right' anyway) at times my singing. But it doesn't control any of those things - because I'm also influenced by loads of other stuff which I also value equally. That's my choice, (and I get or don't get bookings accordingly)! T |
|
22 Apr 08 - 02:11 PM (#2322759) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: r.padgett See told you, will last for ever this! Even contributions from Steve Gardham and Dave Eyre!! We perhaps need a term to cover the category of "revival traditional singers" ~ in my opinion ~ as opposed to "source singers" and "traditional singers" or does "folksinger" cover this? I ain't even gonna attempt to define any of these terms Ray |
|
22 Apr 08 - 02:40 PM (#2322797) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: Les in Chorlton How about honest? |
|
22 Apr 08 - 05:38 PM (#2323014) Subject: RE: Source Singers From: BB Ruth, my apologies. I had glanced at an ad. recently, which I mistakenly took to be an ad. for their CD but which was, in fact, for their CD launch. I will reserve judgement about how much they've been influenced by the revival until I have actually heard them. Sorry. Barbara |