"Both Sides the Tweed" by Mary Black Question
The Maley's
the credits to the song being attributed to D. Gaughan. And YET this
melody sounds suspiciously like a Scottish song - "Archibald McDonell of
Keppoch" - an instrumental song I have on a compilation CD of Scottish
music AND a harp recording as well.....
I am confused on this....... I am SURE they are both the SAME
MELODIES..... Something has to be wrong here.....
Anybody who knows anything could you E-MAIL me at ma...@epix.net ?
Thanks!
LAURIE MALEY
Janet M. Ryan
You wrote:
>
> I have a recording of Mary Black singing "Both Sides the Tweed" -
> with the credits to the song being attributed to D. Gaughan.
Yes. We've long suspected the song was written by him.
> And YET this melody sounds suspiciously like a Scottish song -
And Dick sounds suspiciously like a Scottish musician too...
> "Archibald McDonell of Keppoch" - an instrumental song I have on a
> compilation CD of Scottish music AND a harp recording as well.....
> I am confused on this....... I am SURE they are both the SAME
> MELODIES..... Something has to be wrong here.....
Something's wrong all right. :-)
Dick Gaughan, along with many other folk and traditional singers, uses
well known traditional tunes to set their lyrics to...its a conspiracy
known for sometime as "the folk process." The tunes often have many
titles they are known by, especially when the tunes wander from one
region to another.
>
> Anybody who knows anything <snip!>
Oh! So you're an optimist! Well, dunno if the above qualifies as
"knowing anything" or not, but if you go to Dick's website, you can find
out more about him and his songs in particular. And there are some music
websites which have these tunes in them which allow you to
cross-reference tune titles, etc. So you can do some research on-line
into this conspiratorial tendency amongst the folk...
Learning about the music by making these types of discoveries is a lot of
fun, innit? Enjoy!
Janet Ryan
Jeri Corlew
>On Fri, 28 May 1999 12:05:32 -0400, "The Maley's" <ma...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>> And YET this melody sounds suspiciously like a Scottish song -
>
>> "Archibald McDonell of Keppoch" - an instrumental song I have on a
>> compilation CD of Scottish music AND a harp recording as well.....
>> I am confused on this....... I am SURE they are both the SAME
>> MELODIES..... Something has to be wrong here.....
>
>Dick Gaughan, along with many other folk and traditional singers, uses
>well known traditional tunes to set their lyrics to...its a conspiracy
>known for sometime as "the folk process." The tunes often have many
>titles they are known by, especially when the tunes wander from one
>region to another.
Dick's website - http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/main.htm - says "Words trad,
amended by Dick Gaughan /Music : Dick Gaughan" (the music is actually on the
web page.) I haven't heard of any songs he's written or put to music that he
set to traditional tunes. I've never heard the "Archibald" tune, and I can't
seem to find it on the web, so I couldn't say if it's similar. I *do* know that
Gaughan is known for his integrity.
What are the names of the recordings with the "Archibald" tune, and who plays
the tunes?
__
Jeri Corlew
(Remove "XXX" to reply)
EirePiano
yet, though. If that one ALSO has the same melody, then something shady is
going on and it is actually a traditional piece, therefore Mary Black didn't
write it.
Josh
ghost
Mary Black didn't write it. Nothing shady is going on; she never claimed
she wrote it, not to my knowledge at any rate. Dick Gaughan wrote the words
& set them to a traditional melody, which he may have changed around a bit;
that's also a usual practise with trad stuff; both the setting of words
to existing tunes & the rearranging of the tunes to get new tunes.
Gaughan has credited the source melody. Repeat, nothing shady is going on.
Jeri Corlew
>Capercaillie also did a song called Both Sides The Tweed. I haven't heard it
>yet, though. If that one ALSO has the same melody, then something shady is
>going on and it is actually a traditional piece, therefore Mary Black didn't
>write it.
Er...that was Dick Gaughan. I'm holding out until someone comes up with a
version of "Archibald McDonnell of Keppoch" which sounds the same as the tune
to "Both Sides the Tweed" and pre-dates that song.
A search of the Fiddler's Companion at Ceolas yields:
----------
ARCHIBALD MACDONALD OF KEPPOCH. Scottish, Slow Air (6/8 time). D Minor.
Standard. AAB. See "Keppoch A Wilderness" for related history of the
MacDonalds of Keppoch. The tune was first published by the Scots fiddler,
collector and composer Captain Simon Fraser (1773-1852) of Ardachie, near Fort
Augustus. Fraser's work "The Airs and Melodies Peculiar to the Highlands of
Scotland and the Isles" contained many works collected from various sources
during the period 1715-1745. Lerwick, 1985; pg. 71. Martin, Vol. 2, 1988; pg. 20
(includes a harmony part). Matthiesen, 1995; pg. 2. Green Linnet SIF 1047,
Johnny Cunningham - "Fair Warning" (1985). Elke Baker & Liz Donaldson -
"Terpsichore."
-----------
Anybody out there have the Simon Fraser book?
Jeri Corlew
>In article <19990529184108...@ng-ck1.aol.com> eire...@aol.com (EirePiano) writes:
>>Capercaillie also did a song called Both Sides The Tweed. I haven't heard it
>>yet, though. If that one ALSO has the same melody, then something shady is
>>going on and it is actually a traditional piece, therefore Mary Black didn't
>>write it.
>
>Mary Black didn't write it. Nothing shady is going on; she never claimed
>she wrote it, not to my knowledge at any rate. Dick Gaughan wrote the words
>& set them to a traditional melody, which he may have changed around a bit;
>that's also a usual practise with trad stuff; both the setting of words
>to existing tunes & the rearranging of the tunes to get new tunes.
>Gaughan has credited the source melody.
Where does he do that?
Nigel & Nancy Sellars
>
> I don't think Mary ever claimed to have written it, I read the history of
> the words some time ago, but don't have it handy right now, has to do with
> political differences in Scotland.
>
Gaughan adapted a Jacobite era song to modern sensibilities -- the song
is actually about Scotland and England as the Tweed is the river that
marks the border. It's a song about respect and tolerance for each
other's cultures, music, traditions and political differences as well as
celebrating the commonalities of friendship and honor -- something I
wish certain readers of the "English are Celtic, too" thread should give
some consideration to.
Nigel Sellars
Janet M. Ryan
>
>>I don't think Mary ever claimed to have written it, I read the history
>>of the words some time ago, but don't have it handy right now, has to
>>do with political differences in Scotland.
>
>
Then Nigel Sellars wrote:
>Gaughan adapted a Jacobite era song to modern sensibilities -- the song
>is actually about Scotland and England as the Tweed is the river that
>marks the border.
This is my understanding of the song too. Mary Black credits
the song to Dick on her album, as does Capercaillie, who also did a cover
of it on their "Sidewaulk" album. The poetry in the song has an old
feel to it too...its lovely poetry. I think the fact that Mary Black
chose to cover this song shows how powerfully it resonates for Irish
people too.
Then Nigel again:
>It's a song about respect and tolerance for each other's cultures,
>music, traditions and political differences as well as celebrating the
>commonalities of friendship and honor -- something I wish certain
>readers of the "English are Celtic, too" thread should give some
>consideration to.
Very well put, Nigel. And I'd add that it need not be interpreted as
being only about mutual respect and tolerance between English and Celt,
but between all human beings--after all, none of us created these
artificial divisions between us, they were here long before we arrived on
the planet. It could as easily be about Christian Serbs and Muslim
Kosovars--or about women and men.
For me, the song speaks to something that runs very deep in us--the idea
that there is no predestined fate working against us, even when it seems
to be manifest all around us, and out of our control.
The message I take from this song is that we individually decide our fate
by how we choose to react to the suffering and injustice all humans
experience. The song nudges us to come at conflict from a new and
different angle--to have the courage as an individual to make a conscious
decision to turn away from the conventional wisdom of living with and
accepting the centuries of fear, intolerance, and hate in our own
isolation as a fait accompli, and choose to strive towards living a life
ruled by love, acceptance of our differences, and compassion for our own
and others transgressions, instead. And when one person does it
successfully, others see that it can be done, until one day, enough
people have shown the courage to love, so that their entire culture can
begin the difficult work of healing itself. That is how individuals,
cultures and nations are transformed.
For me, the song is a prayer for that kind of healing. Mr. Gaughan's
music makes you think about those things, dunnit?
With kind regards,
Janet Ryan
Janet M. Ryan
>
>>I don't think Mary ever claimed to have written it, I read the history
>>of the words some time ago, but don't have it handy right now, has to
>>do with political differences in Scotland.
>
Then Nigel Sellars wrote:
>
> Gaughan adapted a Jacobite era song to modern sensibilities -- the song
> is actually about Scotland and England as the Tweed is the river that
> marks the border.
This is my understanding of the song too. Mary Black credits Dick on her
album, as does Capercaillie, who covered the song on their "Sidewaulk"
album. Mary Black's choice to do this song shows the resonance it has
for Irish people in relation to the Troubles too.
Then Nigel again:
>It's a song about respect and tolerance for each other's cultures,
>music, traditions and political differences as well as celebrating the
>commonalities of friendship and honor -- something I wish certain
>readers of the "English are Celtic, too" thread should give
>some consideration to.
Well said, Nigel. I would add the message of the song itself is rooted
in ideals that transcend the English and Celtic peoples conflicts in
those islands as well. It speaks just as powerfully to the current
situation in Yugoslavia between Serb Christians and the Kosovar Muslims.
Or to the gender conflicts between women and men everywhere. Or to
the hostilities we so often see in these newsgroups between British and
Celtic, or British and American posters.
One of the beautiful things about this particuar song and the way Dick
arranged it is that the poetry of it has an old feel to it--like the
older lyric poetry feels. Yet it speaks to what we can do as individuals
today to overcome ancient enmities and conflicts. It's artistry in that
regard is quite powerful.
To me, the song suggests that by looking within ourselves first for the
source of *any* conflict we find ourselves in, we as individuals seal our
fate by choosing whether or not to go against what appears to many to be
a predetermined collective fate (i.e. the fate of one's people). The
song suggests that by having the courage to reject our own society's
conventional wisdom about the conflict in question, we can escape
society's demands that we cling to the status quo and live out our lives
in the isolation that fear, intolerance and hate keeps us living in.
That the prison our hate, fear and intolerance keeps us in is one of our
own making as individuals and as a society.
To me, the song nudges us to have the courage to love ourselves for who
we are and what we dream for ourselves and our loved ones to become; to
have great tolerance in accepting what makes us different from others as
a positive and beautiful thing, rather than something to be loathed and
abandoned, and; to have compassion for our own transgressions as well as
compassion for those who have wronged us, persecuted us, etc.
This is an especially hard choice for those peoples who's ancestors have
struggled mightily to survive the violence of dispossession of their
homeland, customs, language, and way of life at the hands of a cruel
oppressor, particularly when the violence between them continues today.
In order to survive, we had to stick together, and segregate ourselves
from those who would harm us. So there is a sense that to turn to love
instead of hate is a betrayal of one's own--and that it means one is
sleeping with the enemy. Its a very, very difficult thing to do.
But as the song suggests, we do have a choice as individuals what our
fate shall be--whether we will live embittered, defensive and cynical
lives "justified" by our suffering, or; to do the much more difficult
work of trying to reach out beyond our fear, our hurts, and the betrayals
of others--especially the painful work of trying to reach out to those
who have caused our pain and suffering. And once enough individuals
risk being dispossessed by their own people and take on that task, we are
given the power to heal ourselves, our communities, our cultures, and our
nations from the wounds of our & our ancestor's dispossession, or of our
& our ancestor's dispossession of others. And that healing must take
place, if we are ever to be able to reconcile with our so-called
"enemies."
Nigel, I too wish we would see a recognition for mutual respect exercised
in our newsgroups. Celtic and English cultures are not one and the same.
But it doesn't mean any of us need to deny the other, as those who
started the "the English are Celtic too" thread have done. That
hostility and arrogance does not disguise such acts for what
they are--aggressive, hostile attempts to dispossess Celtic peoples of
their culture and traditions *again.* It is a hostile, aggressive
attempt to rip open these ancient wounds that are still very present and
real in the relationships between Enlish and Celtic peoples in those
islands in particular.
Such posting is no different than the racist posts we see in
soc.culture.native, or in the newsgroups of other peoples and communities
of color. These are assaults against people's identities, and are
incredibly cruel. Its a violation of our boundaries as individuals and
as a community. Its inexcusable.
If we can't end it in newsgroups where we never have to face one another
as human beings, how will we ever do it in our real lives, where people
are causing such harm to each other, and forcing such degradations upon
groups of people they perceive as a threat?
ghost
Right here on rec.music.celtic, a few years ago.
I don't know if I have his album which had that song & will have
to look up it & its liner notes, but he did state quite clearly right
on this newsgroup that he had set the words to an old tune.
I actually do have my oldest copies of usenet discussions archived on media
that I don't have *easy* access to a player for right now (but I could
get access if I *had* to) & that's old enough be to among these pieces.
Gaughan hasn't posted in the last several years, but his agent John Barrow
posts his clients' tour schedules frequently; you could ask Barrow to get
a statement from Gaughan since you don't seem to believe me.
Jeri Corlew
The question I asked was "where does he do that?" (credited a traditional
source melody) I assumed you would have an answer besides "oh, somewhere on
Usenet a long time ago."
Jeri Corlew
>>>Dick Gaughan wrote the words
>>>& set them to a traditional melody, which he may have changed around a bit;
>>>that's also a usual practise with trad stuff; both the setting of words
>>>to existing tunes & the rearranging of the tunes to get new tunes.
>>>Gaughan has credited the source melody.
>
>>Where does he do that?
>
>Right here on rec.music.celtic, a few years ago.
>
>I don't know if I have his album which had that song & will have
>to look up it & its liner notes, but he did state quite clearly right
>on this newsgroup that he had set the words to an old tune.
Wrong. Here's a link to his 28 Dec 95 message on DejaNews where he states quite
clearly "the tune is mine."
http://x40.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=123081231&CONTEXT=928114925.383320165&hitnum=11
(Despite the fact the above address doesn't look "hot" on my computer, it still
works when copied and pasted into my web browser.)
ghost
>Wrong. Here's a link to his 28 Dec 95 message on DejaNews where he states
>quite >clearly "the tune is mine."
>http://x40.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=123081231&CONTEXT=928114925.383320165&hitnum=11
>(Despite the fact the above address doesn't look "hot" on my computer, it still
>works when copied and pasted into my web browser.)
I can't use Deja-News (or any web-stuff or any other graphics-suporting
stuff) til I get back to work & I don't know that I'm going in tomorrow
just to check *this* out. I will eventually check it out, & if Gaughan
clearly says "I had no existing tune in mind as inspiration"
I'll stand corrected, but not til I read it in his own words.
Craig Cockburn
Bud (the original) <the...@san.rr.com>
>>yet, though. If that one ALSO has the same melody, then something shady is
>>going on and it is actually a traditional piece, therefore Mary Black didn't
>>write it.
>
>the words some time ago, but don't have it handy right now, has to do with
>political differences in Scotland.
>
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), soc.culture.scottish FAQ author.
Find it at http://www.scot.demon.co.uk or http://scotland.home-page.org
Port na Banrighinn, Alba. (Queensferry, Scotland) PGP key available.
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
ghost
>Er...that was Dick Gaughan. I'm holding out until someone comes up with a
>version of "Archibald McDonnell of Keppoch" which sounds the same as the tune
>to "Both Sides the Tweed" and pre-dates that song.
>A search of the Fiddler's Companion at Ceolas yields:
>----------
>ARCHIBALD MACDONALD OF KEPPOCH. Scottish, Slow Air (6/8 time). D Minor.
>Standard. AAB. See "Keppoch A Wilderness" for related history of the
>MacDonalds of Keppoch. The tune was first published by the Scots fiddler,
>collector and composer Captain Simon Fraser (1773-1852) of Ardachie, near Fort
>Augustus. Fraser's work "The Airs and Melodies Peculiar to the Highlands of
>Scotland and the Isles" contained many works collected from various sources
>during the period 1715-1745. Lerwick, 1985; pg. 71. Martin, Vol. 2, 1988; pg. 20
>(includes a harmony part). Matthiesen, 1995; pg. 2. Green Linnet SIF 1047,
>Johnny Cunningham - "Fair Warning" (1985). Elke Baker & Liz Donaldson -
>"Terpsichore."
>-----------
>Anybody out there have the Simon Fraser book?
It seems you have enough references there to look up yourself.
But at any rate; the tune Dick Gaughan uses for
"Both Sides The Tweed" & the tune Andy M. Stewart uses for
"The Valley of Strathmore" are very similar to each other (the chorus
of "Strathmore" is, at any rate; I can't think at the moment if it has
a different-sounding verse) & they're both very similar to the verse
(not the chorus) of the American song I know as "Acres of Clams".
According to A.L. Lloyd in his notes to the Watersons' "Frost And Fire"
album, their tune for "Green Fields" (which is the "Acres of Clams" tune,
though Lloyd doesn't cite it) dates back in one direction to
"Rosin The Bow" & in another to Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring",
with the inference given by Lloyd that Bach
got *his* tune from "Rosin The Bow".
Lloyd gives the "Green Fields" tune a date of 1734, when it appeared
in a London stage show called "The Tragedy of Tragedies or Tom Thumb".
The reason I'm bringing "Rosin The Bow" up is that "Both Sides The Tweed"
& "The Valley of Strathmore" are both squarely in the family of tunes
derived from (or "grandfathered by", to use Lloyd's phrase) "Rosin".
Which doesn't say that they're note-for-note identical, just that they're
very similar. In particular the last lines of all 3 are more different
from each other than the other lines are.
By the way, its really, really stupid to keep looking for "earliest dates
it was written down" with old traditional tunes. All those dates tell you
is exactly what they say they tell you, the earliest date it was written
down. They *don't* tell you who composed it or when, generally, even though the
notator very often put their name on the tune. They tell you who *notated*
it. Notators thought they were entitled to do that back then as a reward for
having notated it. And they *don't* tell you whether the tune spread
because somebody could read the notated copy or whether the spread predated
the notated copy or, even if contemporary with it, was completely independent
of the notated copy.
Jeri Corlew
> Question: what is the name of the tune which Dick Gaughan
> 'borrowed' for this tune??
>
> Carolyn , the tune is mine - it was the *words* I
> borrowed :)
> Or most of them anyway.
>
> Dick Gaughan
Bud, the tune wasn't borrowed. The words he said he borrowed came from a song
of the same name. He said he updated them. I've never seen or heard the
original "Tweed," but I suspect the bulk of the song is original. I believe
Dick said (can't remember where) the original words are in "Hogg's Jacobite
Relics," but I haven't got the book.
Jeri Corlew
>In article <375689f4...@news.tds.net> jeri...@tds.net writes:
>>
>
>>Er...that was Dick Gaughan. I'm holding out until someone comes up with a
>>version of "Archibald McDonnell of Keppoch" which sounds the same as the tune
>>to "Both Sides the Tweed" and pre-dates that song.
>
>>A search of the Fiddler's Companion at Ceolas yields:
>>----------
>>ARCHIBALD MACDONALD OF KEPPOCH. Scottish, Slow Air (6/8 time). D Minor.
>>Standard. AAB. See "Keppoch A Wilderness" for related history of the
>>MacDonalds of Keppoch. The tune was first published by the Scots fiddler,
>>collector and composer Captain Simon Fraser (1773-1852) of Ardachie, near Fort
>>Augustus. Fraser's work "The Airs and Melodies Peculiar to the Highlands of
>>Scotland and the Isles" contained many works collected from various sources
>>during the period 1715-1745. Lerwick, 1985; pg. 71. Martin, Vol. 2, 1988; pg. 20
>>(includes a harmony part). Matthiesen, 1995; pg. 2. Green Linnet SIF 1047,
>>Johnny Cunningham - "Fair Warning" (1985). Elke Baker & Liz Donaldson -
>>"Terpsichore."
>>-----------
>>Anybody out there have the Simon Fraser book?
>
>It seems you have enough references there to look up yourself.
>
Yeah, if I can get my hands on any of them. I'd love to own the Simon Fraser
book, but I'll have to see if it's in print.
<snipped tune similarity info - no disagreement here>
>
>By the way, its really, really stupid to keep looking for "earliest dates
>it was written down" with old traditional tunes. All those dates tell you
>is exactly what they say they tell you, the earliest date it was written
>down. They *don't* tell you who composed it or when, generally, even though the
>notator very often put their name on the tune. They tell you who *notated*
>it. Notators thought they were entitled to do that back then as a reward for
>having notated it. And they *don't* tell you whether the tune spread
>because somebody could read the notated copy or whether the spread predated
>the notated copy or, even if contemporary with it, was completely independent
>of the notated copy.
In this case somebody actually laid eyes on one of the references - the Simon
Fraser book. There's a quote from it on the Slow Airs page at
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/paw/tunes/vari.htm
"This compilation of tunes was collected through various sources during the
period from 1715 to 1745 and was later edited by Captain Fraser. This particular
air was written by and collected from Scots fiddler Ron Gonella."
Finding the earliest recorded source helps when you're trying to find out how
similar a current tune is to an older tune. Of course, if most people who play
the tune now got it from the book, it probably hasn't changed much, if at all.
Some tunes learned by ear from other players start out with the same source and
with time sound more and more different. It's also possible for tunes to sound
more alike with time until they sound almost identical. I'm interested in
seeing how similar the early "Archie" was to the current "Archie," and how they
both compare to "Both Sides the Tweed."
Jeri Corlew
wrote:
>Ann an sgriobhainn, <3752ae64...@news-server.san.rr.com>, sgriobh
>Bud (the original) <the...@san.rr.com>
>>On 29 May 1999 22:41:08 GMT, eire...@aol.com (EirePiano) wrote:
>>
>>>Capercaillie also did a song called Both Sides The Tweed. I haven't heard it
>>>yet, though. If that one ALSO has the same melody, then something shady is
>>>going on and it is actually a traditional piece, therefore Mary Black didn't
>>>write it.
>>
>>I don't think Mary ever claimed to have written it, I read the history of
>>the words some time ago, but don't have it handy right now, has to do with
>>political differences in Scotland.
>>
>and I understand she made an error in the lyrics too.
She has a reputation for that, at least around my neck of the woods. She left
out part of Archie Fisher's "Men o' Worth," and I had a difficult time singing
with people who learned Mary's version of Phil Colclough's "Song for Ireland,"
which I learned from Dick Gaughan's CD(s), because the words were significantly
different.
Jeri Corlew
>In this case somebody actually laid eyes on one of the references - the Simon
>Fraser book. There's a quote from it...
Oops. Not *from* it, *about* it.
Jeri Corlew
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 13:41:26 GMT, jeri...@tds.net (Jeri Corlew) wrote:
>
>>She has a reputation for that, at least around my neck of the woods. She left
>>out part of Archie Fisher's "Men o' Worth," and I had a difficult time singing
>>with people who learned Mary's version of Phil Colclough's "Song for Ireland,"
>>which I learned from Dick Gaughan's CD(s), because the words were significantly
>>different.
>
>I don't see any problem with that. I have 5 versions of 'Foggy Dew', and
>NO 2 of them are identical. That's common in folk music, and most of what
>we refer to as Celtic IS basically folk; Irish or Scots, Welsh, or English
>folk, but...
Without getting into "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" here, it causes a problem when
you try to sing songs (as written by a known author) you've learned from others
with people who've learned the Mary Black version. It would be helpful if she
put the original lyrics on the CDs, or indicated changes she made.
There's no explanation for the missing lyrics on "Men o' Worth, and it leaves me
with the impression that she just didn't know them and didn't feel like finding
out. That may not be the case, but that's how it comes off.
ghost
>In this case somebody actually laid eyes on one of the references - the Simon
>Fraser book. There's a quote from it on the Slow Airs page at
>http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/paw/tunes/vari.htm
>"This compilation of tunes was collected through various sources during the
>period from 1715 to 1745 and was later edited by Captain Fraser. This
>particular air was written by and collected from Scots fiddler Ron Gonella."
OK, that puts it earlier-collected than "Tragedy of Tom Thumb" at 1734
(per Lloyd) but probably not earlier than Bach's "Jesu" or various versions
of "Rosin".
>Finding the earliest recorded source helps when you're trying to find out how
>similar a current tune is to an older tune. Of course, if most people who play
>the tune now got it from the book, it probably hasn't changed much, if at all.
>Some tunes learned by ear from other players start out with the same source and
>with time sound more and more different. It's also possible for tunes to sound
>more alike with time until they sound almost identical.
What I find happens to me is that the one I learned 1st sticks in my head
& the 2nd &/or subsequent versions keep nagging at me but when I try to sing
them I can't, most of the time, get them not to collapse into the 1st-learned
without prompting myself by playing a recording of the later-learned
version (which is cheating; in the old days you'd have to hunt up the
musician who'd played &/or sung it for you to hear the later-learned version
again, & chances are they'd be a lot harder to find than a recording is
nowadays).
What's now playing in my head (in between coming up with "Rosin the Bow"
family members for the "Tweed"/"Strathmore" comparison) is
"Minguelay Boat Song" & "Fearh ah Bhata (sp?)" which are pretty much the
same tune (2nd & 4th lines are the ones that are the most different) except
that I learned "Minguelay" 1st & it also has the feature of being major
against "Fearh ah Bhata"'s Irish-modal, which means the cadences of
"Minguelay" are a more-familiar kind of cadence to me therefore &
fall into place easier for me.
For instance of tunes being in the same family but it not being
immediately evident because the modes they're in are *very* different,
one thing that kept nagging at me for years was one of these
not-publically-available recordings (meaning I can't tell you where
to go buy it because its given freely but is not on any for-sale recording)
of a Baptist hymn in a family's tradition that I finally realized was a
very-modal variant of whatever tune Peter Paul & Mary's "The Cruel War"
is based on. (This one, if a public version ever does become available,
definitely belongs on that list of "Maritime Hymns" someone on another list is
compiling. Its got a same-family tune as "Cruel War", but a completely
different text.)
>I'm interested in
>seeing how similar the early "Archie" was to the current "Archie,"
>and how they both compare to "Both Sides the Tweed."
The problem with playing a 17th century tune from its notation is that
17th century notators both made mistakes as to mode, because they didn't
have ears trained to hearing unfamiliar modes accurately (there's to this
day no way of classically notating most of the oldest Celtic modes;
calling them "Dorian" or "Mixolydian" is only an approximation, & often
not a very accurate one), & in other cases consciously & willfully
forced tunes into major/minor choices when they weren't anywhere near
either of those modes in the original.
I'm a lot *more* interested in hearing where Dick Gaughan or Andy Stewart,
who just *may* have gotten their tunes from living players, make the
variations than in how someone who reads notation interprets 17 century
notation.
Eric Root
make it into my edition of _Airs and Melodies Peculiar to the Highlands,
etc._ , or at least didn't make it in under a title containing the words
Archibald, MacDonald, or Keppoch. My copy is a facsimile edition of
the revised 1874 edition, new copyright 1986, "marketed by: Scott's
Highland Services Ltd. 54 Langton Road, London, Ontario N5V2M1,
519-453-0892" according to info inside the title page. ISBN
0-9691181-1-2 (pbk), with introduction by Paul Stewart Cranford. I
picked it up about a year and a half ago at a Highland Games.
-Eric Root
"If there's anybody here who isn't trying to pick a fight, that's whose
side I'm on."
Janet M. Ryan
>
>>>She has a reputation for that, at least around my neck of the woods.
>>>She left out part of Archie Fisher's "Men o' Worth," and I had a
>>>difficult time singing with people who learned Mary's version of Phil
>>>Colclough's "Song for Ireland," which I learned from Dick Gaughan's
>>>CD(s), because the words were significantly different.
> >
Then Bud the original responded with:
>>I don't see any problem with that. I have 5 versions of 'Foggy Dew',
>>and NO 2 of them are identical. That's common in folk music, and most
>>of what we refer to as Celtic IS basically folk; Irish or Scots, Welsh,
>>or English folk, but...
Then Jeri again:
>
>Without getting into "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" here, it causes a
>problem when you try to sing songs (as written by a known author) you've
>learned from others with people who've learned the Mary Black version.
>It would be helpful if she put the original lyrics on the CDs, or
>indicated changes she made.
>
Well, this sounds pretty silly to me. Why would she include "what I left
out" on her liner notes? Or say "I didn't do it like so and so." As Bud
said, this practice of changing lyrics is so common in folk music, I
can't even believe people are making an issue of it! C'mon! Liner notes
cost money! I appreciate good liner notes as much as the next person,
but I don't expect a history of the song, the people who performed it and
a listing of all the lyrics ever known on an album's liner notes.
Crediting sources is good, but as we all know, there are many, many
artists who don't do that. Some artists credit people who help them
generally or specifically--like Capercaillie has with Morag MacLeod of
the School of Scottish Studies. For knowledgeable folks, it just lets
you know they've done some checking with people who are familiar with the
music generally. But if you don't know who Morag MacLeod is, it won't
make a bit of difference to you anyway! I think its perfectly legit to
leave out the information too, especially if you have a limited budget,
and you want to credit the musicians on your album, people who
were an integral part of the making of the album or in your life
while you were doing it, include the lyrics you *do* sing, that sort of
thing.
> There's no explanation for the missing lyrics on "Men o' Worth, and it
>leaves me with the impression that she just didn't know them and didn't
>feel like finding out. That may not be the case, but that's how it
>comes off.
Comes off to whom? That's a pretty damning statement to make about an
artist. Mary Black has pretty deep roots in the song traditions of
Ireland and Britain, as does her family. She is also a very gifted
singer and interpreter of songs. In Irish tradition, it is the singer of
the song who would have been perceived as the rightful "owner" of a song
traditionally, *not* the composer. That is a very recent development in
the music, which has its roots in the music industry's greed put down in
copyright laws, and has nothing to do with the way the singers or their
audiences perceived the music.
The original poster of this thread was asking about the tune being
similar to another tune she had heard, so was asking if Dick had used a
trad tune for the song, but not credited it. Dick Gaughan (we now know,
thanks to whoever looked up his post) says the tune is his, and that he
nicked the words from an old poem or song, and adapted them. I myself
commented that the poetry in the song had an "old" feeling to it.
That "old" feeling is a rather nebulous but very real artistic aesthetic
which is highly valued by traditional musicians and traditional audiences
alike. That is one reason why *both* words and tunes get adapted and
recycled in folk music. But it is the performance that really matters
most. How original the interpretation is, how beautiful it is, how well
it evokes the emotions--those are the important aesthetics in traditional
songs. Who composed the piece is rarely of importance, unless in the
udar an amhran/reason for the song, it matters. That would be the story
that goes with the song, giving the reason for why it was composed, and
what the composer was trying to say--but again, each singer will
interpret what the composer was trying to say, because that is the more
important aesthetic value in traditional singing.
Now we know what Dick Gaughan said about the tune being his, but I
wouldn't be the least bit surprised if other musicians with a depth and
breadth of knowledge about the tunes came along and said "Aye, but it
sounds here just like "X" tune and there like "Y" tune" y'know? When one
is composing in a music genre, one does work with what has gone before.
One is always trying to recreate a very specific sound that resonates
within the genre. How well one does this either through arrangement or
by original composition is where the true artistry lies, and I think
most would agree, Dick Gaughan pulled it off with this song, as is
evidenced by its being covered by some of the most significant
contemporary artists in Ireland and Scotland.
But this all seems a bit overblown, considering the fact that Dick
Gaughan is an artist with a lot of integrity, so is Mary Black as far as
I know, and the *process* some people insist on debating here is the folk
process itself, which seems a bit redundant. I understand people's
curiousity about "origins" and all that, and that musicians learn a lot
about the music by finding these connections in the music of the various
artists. But jeez, it ain't worth a flame war is it? Why are
some folks getting so bloody self-righteous and hostile about this?
Janet Ryan
Craig Cockburn
Bud (the original) <the...@san.rr.com>
>>out part of Archie Fisher's "Men o' Worth," and I had a difficult time singing
>>with people who learned Mary's version of Phil Colclough's "Song for Ireland,"
>>which I learned from Dick Gaughan's CD(s), because the words were significantly
>>different.
>
>NO 2 of them are identical. That's common in folk music, and most of what
>we refer to as Celtic IS basically folk; Irish or Scots, Welsh, or English
>folk, but...
>
a brand new song which is still under copyright.
Jeri Corlew
>Jeri Corlew wrote about Mary Black:
>>
>
>>>>She has a reputation for that, at least around my neck of the woods.
>>>>She left out part of Archie Fisher's "Men o' Worth," and I had a
>>>>difficult time singing with people who learned Mary's version of Phil
>>>>Colclough's "Song for Ireland," which I learned from Dick Gaughan's
>>>>CD(s), because the words were significantly different.
>> >
>
>Then Bud the original responded with:
>
>>>I don't see any problem with that. I have 5 versions of 'Foggy Dew',
>>>and NO 2 of them are identical. That's common in folk music, and most
>>>of what we refer to as Celtic IS basically folk; Irish or Scots, Welsh,
>>>or English folk, but...
>
>Then Jeri again:
>
>>
>>Without getting into "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" here, it causes a
>>problem when you try to sing songs (as written by a known author) you've
>>learned from others with people who've learned the Mary Black version.
>>It would be helpful if she put the original lyrics on the CDs, or
>>indicated changes she made.
>>
>
>Well, this sounds pretty silly to me. Why would she include "what I left
>out" on her liner notes? Or say "I didn't do it like so and so." As Bud
>said, this practice of changing lyrics is so common in folk music, I
>can't even believe people are making an issue of it!
I was very careful to *not* say "should." I said "It would have been helpful."
It isn't all that common with songs for which the author is known and that
author's version is the one people are familiar with. And it *does* make it
difficult to sing the song with someone who has learned a different version.
>C'mon! Liner notes
>cost money! I appreciate good liner notes as much as the next person,
>but I don't expect a history of the song, the people who performed it and
>a listing of all the lyrics ever known on an album's liner notes.
>Crediting sources is good, but as we all know, there are many, many
>artists who don't do that. Some artists credit people who help them
>generally or specifically--like Capercaillie has with Morag MacLeod of
>the School of Scottish Studies. For knowledgeable folks, it just lets
>you know they've done some checking with people who are familiar with the
>music generally. But if you don't know who Morag MacLeod is, it won't
>make a bit of difference to you anyway! I think its perfectly legit to
>leave out the information too, especially if you have a limited budget,
>and you want to credit the musicians on your album, people who
>were an integral part of the making of the album or in your life
>while you were doing it, include the lyrics you *do* sing, that sort of
>thing.
I believe if a song is copyrighted, (as is "Both Sides the Tweed,") the
copyright holder has to be named?
As far as acknowledging changes you made to the lyrics, if you're going to have
lyrics printed, is it legal to print your version (without comment) and not the
lyrics, as copyrighted? Dick Gaughan sings "51st Highland Division's Farewell
to Sicily" differently than Hamish Henderson wrote it. He indicates where he
altered the lyrics in the notes to the CD.
>> There's no explanation for the missing lyrics on "Men o' Worth, and it
>>leaves me with the impression that she just didn't know them and didn't
>>feel like finding out. That may not be the case, but that's how it
>>comes off.
>
>Comes off to whom? That's a pretty damning statement to make about an
>artist.
Alright - you're very familiar with a song you've heard a few people (including
the author) sing. You hear a different performer do it, (let's say it's someone
you've never heard of,) and there is part, or all of a verse missing. You can
think of no reason for the singer to have intentionally left it out - it doesn't
sound offensive or artistically bad. What would your conclusion be?
Yeah, it's only my perception and that of a handful of people I've talked with.
>The original poster of this thread was asking about the tune being
>similar to another tune she had heard, so was asking if Dick had used a
>trad tune for the song, but not credited it. Dick Gaughan (we now know,
>thanks to whoever looked up his post) says the tune is his, and that he
>nicked the words from an old poem or song, and adapted them. I myself
>commented that the poetry in the song had an "old" feeling to it.
>
>That "old" feeling is a rather nebulous but very real artistic aesthetic
>which is highly valued by traditional musicians and traditional audiences
>alike. That is one reason why *both* words and tunes get adapted and
>recycled in folk music. But it is the performance that really matters
>most. How original the interpretation is, how beautiful it is, how well
>it evokes the emotions--those are the important aesthetics in traditional
>songs. Who composed the piece is rarely of importance, unless in the
>udar an amhran/reason for the song, it matters. That would be the story
>that goes with the song, giving the reason for why it was composed, and
>what the composer was trying to say--but again, each singer will
>interpret what the composer was trying to say, because that is the more
>important aesthetic value in traditional singing.
>
>Now we know what Dick Gaughan said about the tune being his, but I
>wouldn't be the least bit surprised if other musicians with a depth and
>breadth of knowledge about the tunes came along and said "Aye, but it
>sounds here just like "X" tune and there like "Y" tune" y'know?
The really great "new" tunes are ones you feel on first hearing them that you've
known your whole life.
>
>But this all seems a bit overblown, considering the fact that Dick
>Gaughan is an artist with a lot of integrity, so is Mary Black as far as
>I know, and the *process* some people insist on debating here is the folk
>process itself, which seems a bit redundant. I understand people's
>curiousity about "origins" and all that, and that musicians learn a lot
>about the music by finding these connections in the music of the various
>artists. But jeez, it ain't worth a flame war is it? Why are
>some folks getting so bloody self-righteous and hostile about this?
I'm not planning on starting a flame war, opinions are just that, and there are
no sacred cows who are more important than truth.
ghost
>"Minguelay Boat Song" & "Fearh ah Bhata (sp?)" which are pretty much the
>same tune (2nd & 4th lines are the ones that are the most different) except
Oops make that "2nd & *8th*" lines are the ones that are the most different.
I think. Have to check, have to check. Sure about 2nd, obviously.
Janet M. Ryan
Early on in the thread, Jeri Corlew wrote in reference to Mary Black not
giving a written explanation in her album's liner notes as to why she
sang the song differently than Dick Gaughan, the original composer of
said song in question:
>>She has a reputation for that, at least around my neck of the woods.
Then Jeri went on to say:
>>>She left out part of Archie Fisher's "Men o' Worth," and I had a
>>>difficult time singing with people who learned Mary's version of Phil
>>>Colclough's "Song for Ireland," which I learned from Dick Gaughan's
>>>CD(s), because the words were significantly different.
Granted, this is only my perception, but based upon what Jeri wrote, I
felt she not only did not like Mary's covers of Dick Gaughan's songs, but
that she was calling into question Mary Black's artistic integrity for
changing the lyrics to the song and not giving a written explanation
for her artistic and aesthetic reasons for doing so on her album's liner
notes.
Now I'm quoting Bud's response to what Jeri said:
>>>I don't see any problem with that. I have 5 versions of 'Foggy Dew',
>>>and NO 2 of them are identical. That's common in folk music, and most
>>>of what we refer to as Celtic IS basically folk; Irish or Scots,
>>>Welsh, or English folk, but...
And then Jeri's response to Bud was:
>>Without getting into "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" here, it causes a
>>problem when you try to sing songs (as written by a known author)
>>you've learned from others with people who've learned the Mary Black
>>version. It would be helpful if she put the original lyrics on the
>>CDs, or indicated changes she made.
Then I came into the conversation between Jeri and Bud with:
>Well, this sounds pretty silly to me. Why would she include "what I
>left out" on her liner notes? Or say "I didn't do it like so and so."
>As Bud said, this practice of changing lyrics is so common in folk
>music, I can't even believe people are making an issue of it!
Then Jeri responded to me:
>I was very careful to *not* say "should." I said "It would have been
>helpful." It isn't all that common with songs for which the author is
>known and that author's version is the one people are familiar with.
>And it *does* make it difficult to sing the song with someone who has
>learned a different version.
OK--now I am responding to Jeri responding to me (whew, this is tricky,
innit?)
Jeri,
I did note that you didn't say "should," but then you followed up with
"It would have been helpful..." Isn't that really saying that Mary Black
*should* have done it the way you would like her to have done it? ;-)
I'm not clear what you are referring to when you say:
"It isn't all that common with songs for which the author is
known and that author's version is the one people are familiar
with."
What isn't all that common?
And regarding the issue of what an artist's recorded version of a song
does to make it easier or more difficult for people to sing the song
together, well...I'm guessing you are inferring that because Mary's
version is the more popular and better known version of the song, it
means fewer people are familiar with and sing Dick's version of the song,
which is the version you want to sing, is that right?
I empathize with you Jeri, but y'know, there are probably a lot of people
who love Mary's version of these songs too. So what exactly do you
suggest is the solution when they want to sing her version of the song
and you want to sing Dick's? Whether or not you are able to *easily*
sing a song which has several well-known versions circulating in folk
music circles associated, based on recorded versions well-known recording
artists, well, there are ways of working that out, aren't there? It gets
done all the time among musicians, after all. Because it isn't an easy
thing to accomplish is no reason to cast nasty aspersions on the other
artist, or suggest that their artistic and aesthetic choices lack
integrity, which is how I've interpreted what you've said regarding Mary
Black and those fans of her music who wish to sing her version of songs
in this thread.
Then from my first post responding to Jeri's again:
>
>C'mon! Liner notes cost money! I appreciate good liner notes as much
>as the next person, but I don't expect a history of the song, the people
>who performed it and a listing of all the lyrics ever known on an
>album's liner notes. Crediting sources is good, but as we all know,
>there are many, many artists who don't do that. <snip rest of what I said for space>
Then Jeri responded:
> I believe if a song is copyrighted, (as is "Both Sides the Tweed,") the
> copyright holder has to be named?
I don't have the Mary Black album anymore, but my recollection is she did
in fact credit Dick Gaughan on her album, as she has with every known
composer who's songs she has recorded on her albums. So did
Capercaillie. Are you saying Mary Black didn't credit Dick on her album?
Then Jeri continued with:
>
> As far as acknowledging changes you made to the lyrics, if you're going
>to have lyrics printed, is it legal to print your version (without
>comment) and not the lyrics, as copyrighted?
U.S. copyright law for music lyrics isn't the same as it is for printed
material, because musicians change lyrics in their interpretations of
songs all the time, regardless of whether the composer is known, or the
song itself is in the public domain. The issue in the U.S. is whether
or not a royalty is due to be paid to the legal entity who owns the
rights to a copyrighted song. Royalities and permissions for use are not
one and the same, however, so it gets a bit tricky. Another factor
to be considered is that these albums get released in different
countries, which have different copyright laws.
Most professional musicians who are recording artists with work published
in multiple countries share an understanding of what would constitute
"fair use" of a song written and copyrighted by a known composer, I
think--they know they have to credit them and pay them their share of the
royalties.
But as I said in my previous post, I think the expectation that an artist
should give a written explanation for doing their cover of a song by a
known composer differently than other recorded versions of it is silly.
The matter of integrity is that the original composer get credit and
royalties, when they are known. Mary Black has always shown integrity in
this regard, to the best of my knowledge.
>Dick Gaughan sings "51st Highland Division's Farewell to Sicily"
>differently than Hamish Henderson wrote it. He indicates where he
>altered the lyrics in the notes to the CD.
And he is free to do that--its his choice whether he wants to include
that information on his liner notes. But to suggest that an artist who
doesn't do things the way Dick Gaughan does lacks integrity is a bit too
much of a stretch, to my way of thinking. Particularly when we are
talking about folk music.
Back to what Jeri had said originally on the subject in a previous post
about Mary Black covering other artists' songs:
>>There's no explanation for the missing lyrics on "Men o' Worth, and it
>>leaves me with the impression that she just didn't know them and didn't
>>feel like finding out. That may not be the case, but that's how it
>>comes off.
Then I responded to that with:
>Comes off to whom? That's a pretty damning statement to make about an
>artist.
To which Jeri said:
>
>Alright - you're very familiar with a song you've heard a few people
>(including the author) sing. You hear a different performer do it,
>(let's say it's someone you've never heard of,) and there is part, or
>all of a verse missing. You can think of no reason for the singer to
>have intentionally left it out - it doesn't sound offensive or
>artistically bad. What would your conclusion be?
That the artist in question made an aesthetic choice to perform the song
differently in order to put their own unique stamp on the song--something
any artist covering a popular, well known song is trying to do. I
certainly wouldn't leap to conclusions about their artistic integrity, at
any rate. I prefer to give artists a lot of room to do things the way
they envision it. That's what artistry is all about, to my way of
thinking. Its also about respecting an artist's *right* to change the
music to express their musical vision. Mary Black is a very good singer,
and she doesn't just regurgitate other people's arrangements. I would
think Dick Gaughan was honored to have an artist of her stature and
ability cover his songs. It is a great compliment to him. But I'm
confused as to why you are aksing us to believe your hypothetical
listener would have heard of Dick Gaughan and the artists who have
covered his songs, but not Mary Black? I don't understand what
significance that has to our discussion here.
Then Jeri again:
> Yeah, it's only my perception and that of a handful of people I've
>talked with.
Well I can accept it as your perception Jeri. What I have difficulty
swallowing here is what you seem to be inferring about Mary Black, and by
extension, people who choose to sing her version of the song. I doubt
they do it to make your life difficult, after all.
Back to what I said in my first post responding to Jeri again:
>>The original poster of this thread was asking about the tune being
>>similar to another tune she had heard, so was asking if Dick had used a
>>trad tune for the song, but not credited it. Dick Gaughan (we now
>>know, thanks to whoever looked up his post) says the tune is his, and
>>that he nicked the words from an old poem or song, and adapted them. <snip more of what I wrote for space>
Then I went on to say:
>But this all seems a bit overblown, considering the fact that Dick
>Gaughan is an artist with a lot of integrity, so is Mary Black as far as
>I know, and the *process* some people insist on debating here is the
>folk process itself, which seems a bit redundant. I understand people's
>curiousity about "origins" and all that, and that musicians learn a lot
>about the music by finding these connections in the music of the various
>artists. But jeez, it ain't worth a flame war is it? Why are
>some folks getting so bloody self-righteous and hostile about this?
Then Jeri said:
>I'm not planning on starting a flame war, opinions are just that, and
>there are no sacred cows who are more important than truth.
I made the comments about flame wars because I thought you had stepped
over the line, and were stating your opinion of Mary Black as "truth."
And let's be honest here Jeri, what you were inferring was less than
complimentary. I think you intended us to read it that way.
I may be totally clueless as to what you honestly think the "truth" is
about Mary Black in this instance. But I certainly got the feeling that
you were insinuating that Mary Black either is an artist who doesn't
credit the people who's material she uses on her albums (which to the
best of my knowledge is nowhere near the truth), or that she doesn't
care about anyone's music but her own--and even in regards to her own
music, she was being sloppy and careless by not reprinting the lyrics
she didn't sing in her recorded version. I don't know if that's
because you just don't like Mary Black, and so were looking for a way to
disparage her reputation publicly. You did, after all, post this in a
very public forum--its really no different than your opinion being
printed on the editorial page of a newspaper or magazine. And making
statements about specific artists like that is often the spark that
ignites flame wars in music newsgroups.
I really felt what you were saying about Mary Black was not the truth,
and your arguments were specious. I know you are a huge fan of Dick's,
and that the original poster seemed to be making something of specious
argument herself about Dick's having laid claim to the tune. But I don't
think the way to rectify that is by casting aspersions on Mary Black's
artistic integrity.
Janet Ryan
Conrad Jay Bladey
wrong!
It is especially wrong when I do not ask
that a song be placed in my
head. When a song comes off the radio
or from a pub some where and enters my
head the person who copyrights it should
actually pay me to carry it around,
store it =without letting it out.
But if I do let it out it is my own
business and because I am human
no matter how I let it out it will not
be exactly as the version
that went in as such complete
replication is absolutley impossible.
So in effect copyright is wrong.
for more on this topic consult my world
famous and oft quoted
free music pages.
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/1329/freemusic.html
as for dick gaughan I am surprised that
he has anything to do
with anything with royal in the title as
in royalties.
Celtic nationalism is after all
biggotry on behalf of racist
connections.
Conrad
--
$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%%
N E W ! !
9 AKC Longhaired Dachshund Pups Soon to
be for sale!
Write for details- cbl...@mail.bcpl.net
Stop in and see them at:
http://www.toad.net/~sticker/bladodox.html
Main Business Pages:
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~cbladey/hutman.html
%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%%%$$$%$%$%$%$
Jeri Corlew
>
>I (Jeri) said:
>
>>I'm not planning on starting a flame war, opinions are just that, and
>>there are no sacred cows who are more important than truth.
>
>I made the comments about flame wars because I thought you had stepped
>over the line, and were stating your opinion of Mary Black as "truth."
>And let's be honest here Jeri, what you were inferring was less than
>complimentary. I think you intended us to read it that way.
I think Mary Black has an exquisite voice which she uses in the best possible
way. As far as being less than complimentary - that's obvious. I don't like
the way and extent to which she edits songs. If you like the songs as she sings
them as opposed to how they were written, that's your prerogative.
>I may be totally clueless as to what you honestly think the "truth" is
>about Mary Black in this instance. But I certainly got the feeling that
>you were insinuating that Mary Black either is an artist who doesn't
>credit the people who's material she uses on her albums (which to the
>best of my knowledge is nowhere near the truth),
I don't have a clue where you got that.
> or that she doesn't
>care about anyone's music but her own--and even in regards to her own
>music, she was being sloppy and careless by not reprinting the lyrics
>she didn't sing in her recorded version.
Saying it would have been helpful to do something is far different than saying
someone was "sloppy and careless" by not doing so.
>I don't know if that's
>because you just don't like Mary Black, and so were looking for a way to
>disparage her reputation publicly. You did, after all, post this in a
>very public forum--its really no different than your opinion being
>printed on the editorial page of a newspaper or magazine. And making
>statements about specific artists like that is often the spark that
>ignites flame wars in music newsgroups.
I don't *not* like Mary Black
Her changes to songs I find mildly irritating. Removing whole verses I find a
lot more irritating. The speculation about the missing verse and my
interpretation of *why* it's missing vs. yours is only speculation, as to my
knowledge, no one has asked her.
Saying the things that I said only starts flame wars if someone can't stand the
fact that someone else doesn't find a favorite artist perfect. You don't seem
to be as unhappy with the specifics of what I said as with the fact that I
publicly said *anything* negative.
>I really felt what you were saying about Mary Black was not the truth,
>and your arguments were specious. I know you are a huge fan of Dick's,
>and that the original poster seemed to be making something of specious
>argument herself about Dick's having laid claim to the tune. But I don't
>think the way to rectify that is by casting aspersions on Mary Black's
>artistic integrity.
Just for the record, I wasn't upset, and I'm not out to get Mary Black. I think
it's great she records these songs and gets more people to hear them. I also
think that people who learn songs from Mary Black's CDs should know they may be
learning a different version than the author's.
Craig Cockburn
Bud (the original) <the...@san.rr.com>
>On 29 May 1999 22:41:08 GMT, eire...@aol.com (EirePiano) wrote:
>
>>Capercaillie also did a song called Both Sides The Tweed. I haven't heard it
>>yet, though. If that one ALSO has the same melody, then something shady is
>>going on and it is actually a traditional piece, therefore Mary Black didn't
>>write it.
>
>I don't think Mary ever claimed to have written it, I read the history of
>the words some time ago, but don't have it handy right now, has to do with
>political differences in Scotland.
>
and I understand she made an error in the lyrics too.
Here it is:
>No brightness the sun can e'er clear
Although both Mary Black and Capercaillie sing the line this
way, it is literally nonsense, it makes no sense at all. I think Mary
picked it up wrong and Capercaillie took the text from her.
The correct line is 'No brightness THAT GLOOM can e'er clear' and
the 'gloom' refers to the 'corruption and bribery' of the
previous 2 lines.
Jill Gartrell
Craig Cockburn wrote in message ...
MacChris
Well, to be more exact, he re-wrote the lyrics.
O///
<|o>
/_\
| \ Get in touch with your inner piper