The Folklore Of Prejudice
Abby Sale
the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
Whether through intent or omission I don't know, but he did not post the
verses that reflect the standard (and deadly) anti-semitism that is
taken for granted in this song, and in much religious teaching.
-----------------------
-----------------------
I have never stayed in the same room with the singing of Little Sir Hugh
(The Jew's Daughter, #155) without clear protest. The slander it gaily
portrays resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of innocents.
I tended to think of that song as an isolated incident until I read the
Subj: section of the Incomplete Folksinger and realized that prejudice
is built in at all levels of society. We who preserve and (as best we
can) disseminate a wide selection of the intimate feelings of particular
groups should be sensitive to what they say about other groups.
I personally could never sing even a bowdlerized Lord of the Dance,
knowing that those verses ("The holy people"...) were part of the song's
meaning & intent. I couldn't sing The Rebel Soldier, even omitting "I
hate to see a nigger...". Or the English version of Fair Flower. Or any
other song demeaning _any_ group. [Except wives; it's ok to bash wives.]
I'm sure everybody on this conference hates censorship. But I
personally hate encouraging & passing on prejudice; inciting to
barbarity & murder a lot more. Even if it's a good tune. I think it's
one of those cases of "engage brain before putting mouth in gear."
a=========================================================================
From - | Abby...@animece.oau.org
Abby Sale | ...!{peora!bilver,osceola!alfred}!vicstoy!animece!Abby.Sale
Orlando, FL | "Chat" conference on Intelec, EZNet, RIME, U'NI, FidoNET.
=========================================================================s
Christophe Pettus
>DAVID DALTON, writing about Summer solstice music --- posted many of
>the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
>
>Whether through intent or omission I don't know, but he did not post the
>verses that reflect the standard (and deadly) anti-semitism that is
>taken for granted in this song, and in much religious teaching.
What verses are you refering to? Having reviewed the original lyrics
of LORD OF THE DANCE, I can't see anything that I would call bigoted in
any way.
--
-- Christophe <c...@taligent.com>
"You may not be interested in computers, but there are computers
interested in you."
Scott Coleman
>In article <74084213...@animece.oau.org> Abby.Sale%f137.n...@animece.oau.org (Abby Sale) writes:
>>DAVID DALTON, writing about Summer solstice music --- posted many of
>>the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
>>
>What verses are you refering to? Having reviewed the original lyrics
>of LORD OF THE DANCE, I can't see anything that I would call bigoted in
>any way.
Speaking of this song, can someone remind me which movie featured this
song prominently? Something like Sound of Music, but I'm not sure...
Thanks for your help.
--
Scott Coleman tm...@uiuc.edu
"An Irishman is never drunk as long as he can hold onto one blade of grass and
not fall off the face of the earth."
Greg Bullough
>In article <74084213...@animece.oau.org> Abby.Sale%f137.n...@animece.oau.org (Abby Sale) writes:
>>DAVID DALTON, writing about Summer solstice music --- posted many of
>>the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
>>
>>Whether through intent or omission I don't know, but he did not post the
>>verses that reflect the standard (and deadly) anti-semitism that is
>>taken for granted in this song, and in much religious teaching.
>
>What verses are you refering to? Having reviewed the original lyrics
>of LORD OF THE DANCE, I can't see anything that I would call bigoted in
>any way.
I always find it interesting that those who are so busy being politically
correct that they find can find racism in every song are unable to understand
that they'll never fight racism once they create a society where anyone
can tell anyone else what to say.. ..or sing.
I was rather stunned the other week to find certain verses of the
notable nonsense song "A Capital Ship" may soon be taboo in PC
circles.
"Lord of the Dance" is a song by members of the Christian religion,
for members of the Christian religion, espousing Christian doctrine.
Like it or not, the founder of said religion had a bit of a problem
with certain sub-groups within Judaism.
Now if you don't WANT to sing a Christian song, then sing it as
the "Shaker Hymn" or "Simple Gifts" from which it derives. Of course
they, too, were Christians, albeit wierd ones.
Or write your own religious dogma into the melody. As it exists, it
fits with neither pagan nor Jewish belief systems.
Greg
Daniel M. Rosenblum
Abby.Sale%f137.n...@animece.oau.org (Abby Sale) writes:
>DAVID DALTON, writing about Summer solstice music --- posted many of
>the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
>Whether through intent or omission I don't know, but he did not post the
>verses that reflect the standard (and deadly) anti-semitism that is
>taken for granted in this song, and in much religious teaching.
> -----------------------
> -----------------------
Interesting. I thought "Lord of the Dance" was a recently composed
item (in my previous post, I mentioned Sydney Cart??--whatever his
name is--as the author of the lyrics I've heard), and while Christian
anti-Semitism is certainly not dead, alas, I'd be surprised if Cart??
would have much tolerance for any anti-Semitism at all--it doesn't
fit with the rest of his politics. It seems there are a few songs
called "Lord of the Dance" floating around here--the neopagan one
that David Dalton posted and that Jack Campin skewered, the Cart??
one to the same tune, and perhaps another one. Can we get some
clarification about which songs we mean?
>I have never stayed in the same room with the singing of Little Sir Hugh
>(The Jew's Daughter, #155) without clear protest. The slander it gaily
>portrays resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of innocents.
I haven't been subjected to the experience of hearing anyone so
crassly insensitive as to sing this today, but I think I'd
react the same way as Abby Sale. Pete Seeger tells the story of
Emma Dusenberry, the blind Ozark Mtn. folksinger from whom Lee
Hays learned many songs, who used to sing an anti-Semitic song
(maybe the same one) until she met some Jewish people and found
that they weren't devils; she decided that the song was
inappropriate and deleted it from her repertoire. (As far as I
know, she was not lectured and censored and so forth, so I don't
want to see any responses here about the alleged tyranny of
political correctness; she made the choice herself.)
>I tended to think of that song as an isolated incident until I read the
>Subj: section of the Incomplete Folksinger and realized that prejudice
>is built in at all levels of society. We who preserve and (as best we
>can) disseminate a wide selection of the intimate feelings of particular
>groups should be sensitive to what they say about other groups.
Subject section of the Incomplete Folksinger? Are you talking about
the anthology of Pete Seeger's writing or about something else? If
the former, what do you mean by the Subj: section?
>I personally could never sing even a bowdlerized Lord of the Dance,
>knowing that those verses ("The holy people"...) were part of the song's
>meaning & intent. I couldn't sing The Rebel Soldier, even omitting "I
>hate to see a nigger...". Or the English version of Fair Flower. Or any
>other song demeaning _any_ group. [Except wives; it's ok to bash wives.]
As I indicated above, versions of Lord of the Dance that have been
posted here and that I've heard don't seem to have those verses, so
I've never heard them. I'd be curious to see a reference to them
and also know where they come from. If you don't want to spread
them any further, please send them or a pointer to them along to
me by e-mail.
Also, what's Fair Flower and what's in the English version of it?
>I'm sure everybody on this conference hates censorship. But I
>personally hate encouraging & passing on prejudice; inciting to
>barbarity & murder a lot more. Even if it's a good tune. I think it's
>one of those cases of "engage brain before putting mouth in gear."
I agree wholeheartedly. I hope in this message, aside from asking
for more information, to lay to rest an objection that I fear may
raise its ugly head. Somebody is going to say that Abby Sale is
calling for censorship as the lesser of two evils. But I don't
think that it's necessary to call for censorship. Censorship is
the forcible prevention of speech, usually by a government or other
authority. It's entirely different to *ask* (not require) that
singers not sing offensive material, even if that material is
authentically traditional, and to criticize singers for doing so.
To criticize someone whose art makes a political statement that
one may object to is quite different from calling for that person
to be censored. If Barry Sadler, or whatever his name was, sings
a piece of pro-war propaganda like "The Ballad of the Green Beret"
that I find offensive, I certainly have a right to say just what
I think of him, and he can't deny me my right to criticize because
what he does is art. And while collectors of traditional folk
music have a responsibility to record what's out there, that
certainly doesn't mean that revival singers, or for that matter
traditional singers singing professionally, shouldn't exercise
some judgment that should include not only musical interest,
quality of story, etc., but also whether the song promotes
objectionable goals, ideas, or whatever. Pete Seeger mentions,
in "The Incompleat Folksinger", some verses to the tune of
"Tramp, tramp, tramp, ..." from the Spanish-American war in
which soldiers sang the nastiest insulting stuff about Filipinos
imaginable. The fact that this arose by the folk process doesn't
make it good and doesn't warrant its perpetuation in other than
scholarly research. (Matters can of course get more complicated.
Pete also mentions a song that has the good and the bad all
wrapped up together: it's from sailors in the 19th century
complaining about conditions but also criticizing the captains
for being abolitionists and hiring Portuguese sailors as well
as New Englanders.)
And by the way, I've got to be a little more politically correct
:-) than Abby Sale. Songs that bash wives are usually not OK.
(I can't say always because no doubt someone will come up with
a counterexample for which I'd see a good reason to make an
exception. Maybe "The Devil & the Farmer's Wife" is one,
although it's not clear there that the wife is ultimately the
one bashed, since she seems to do the ultimate bashing.) Pete
Seeger used to include this in his repertory:
I had a wife and I got no good of her.
Here is how I easy got rid of her.
Took her out and I chopped the head off her
Early in the morning.
Seeing as how there was no evidence
For the sheriff or his reverence,
They had to call it an act of Providence
Early in the morning.
Mindful of the extent of battering of women that goes on, he
long ago dropped it. Is it self-censorship? Is it being
"politically correct"? Some might call it that. I'd call it
good sense and a developing consciousness that some things
are inappropriate.
--
Daniel M. Rosenblum, Assistant Professor, Quantitative Studies Area,
Graduate School of Management, Rutgers University (Newark Campus)
ROSE...@DRACO.RUTGERS.EDU ROSE...@ZODIAC.BITnet
d...@andromeda.rutgers.edu ...!rutgers!andromeda.rutgers.edu!dmr
Ruth Cross
Anyone who's been to a Christmas Revels performance knows that the
first act always ends with this song. A fake-Morris dance is done to
it, then the cast pulls the audience out of their seats to dance in the
aisles, lobby etc. while repeating the chorus over and over and over...
I was under the impression that the words were written especially
for the Revels, and those words are certainly very Christian. They
are only derogatory towards the "Scribes and the Pharisees".
Any other Revellers out there who know more about the history
of the song?
ghost
Ok; I'll bite.
You *are* the same Greg Bullough who, a while back in this newsgroup,
didn't want to tolerate kind words about a song by a bunch of women
blues singers about how
"a dog is better than a man because at least the dog comes back home,
eventually",
citing some one woman who treated *you* badly, you said, & forgetting
all those well-documented instances where, culturally
(I have no idea how you personally treat women) the converse is true...
aren't you? If I've got you mixed up with someone else, I'm sorry.
Whoever this guy was, he said he resented the song because he
didn't want to hear a serious subject made fun of, & given from a view
he didn't agree with.
Well, then, try to imagine the feeling of Jews getting "treated" to
"Lord of the Dance" trotted out as some kind of folk-song, instead of
as religious propaganda. I have no 'problem' with it presented as the
vicious hymn it is written as; I have a lot of 'problems' with a religion
that views some poor shmoe twisting on a cross (following a very
Roman style of execution, as the fellow 'had a bit of a problem' with
the Romans as well) as some kind of ultimate dance to be lord of.
(I also have a big 'problem' with a religion that practices/venerates human
sacrifice, even symbolically; you have a much stronger tie-in with
those pagans than you admit.)
So: sing it during your Christmas & Easter pageants;
feel at-one with all those cheery parties during the middle ages who,
on a yearly basis, staged their "Passsion Plays",
then fanned out into the community at large & 'sacrificed' hundreds of
my ancestors, as they were feeling the need for a little human sacrifice
to embellish the symbolic.
I have, it turns out, no 'problems' with Carter's other big hit,
'Julian of Norwich' beyond the epitomal hippy-dippyness of the lyrics,
& possibly of Julian's philosophy,
which I know nothing about except what I get from that song;
perhaps Sydney Carleton stole the tune for that one also, & there are
lyrics as good as the original Shaker lyrics to 'Simple Gifts' to sing
instead?
There are hymns, guys, and then there are hymns...
(And there *was* a group, about 10 years ago, locally,
who apparently felt impelled to use the word "nigger" in a song,
because *their* religion was "folk authenticity".
I was stunned enough to feel as though my chair had fallen through
the floor with me on it, and didn't get unstunned in time to do anything
I felt like doing (such as ripping their lungs out).
I've even blocked on who they are; it was kind of like getting hit on
the head when you thought you were among friends.
Which is just one of the things I feel about 'Lord of the Dance'.)
Jon Berger
> DAVID DALTON, writing about Summer solstice music --- posted many of
> the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
> Whether through intent or omission I don't know, but he did not post the
> verses that reflect the standard (and deadly) anti-semitism that is
> taken for granted in this song, and in much religious teaching.
Maybe, just maybe, it was both intent and omission: maybe it was because
he didn't want to offend sensitive people such as yourself. If so, I'm
sure he won't bother in the future.
> I personally could never sing even a bowdlerized Lord of the Dance,
> knowing that those verses ("The holy people"...) were part of the song's
> meaning & intent. I couldn't sing The Rebel Soldier, even omitting "I
> hate to see a nigger...". Or the English version of Fair Flower. Or any
> other song demeaning _any_ group. [Except wives; it's ok to bash wives.]
Well hey, that's fine. By all means, sing what you want to sing, and
refrain from singing what you want to refrain from singing. This is,
thank God, a free country, and nobody can make you sing anything you don't
want to (unless of course it's the National Anthem); I'm happy and
delighted that you've chosen to exercise this freedom.
However, I have a question about the following:
> I have never stayed in the same room with the singing of Little Sir Hugh
> (The Jew's Daughter, #155) without clear protest...
I'm curious about the form this "clear protest" takes. I'd like to point
out that there's a very substantial difference between the sort of protest
that consists of complaining to your friends or writing outraged Usenet
postings or nasty letters to the Times, and the sort that involves
standing up in the middle of a concert hall, interrupting a performance,
and loudly and vocally informing the performer and audience of your very
important feelings. The first sort is a perfectly reasonable expression
of a difference of opinion; the second is thoughtless rudeness. I have no
reason to suspect that the "clear protest" you feel compelled to make
consists of anything other than postings such as the one I'm responding
to, but I do want to point out that the other sort of protest is not
at all uncommon, and I get real tired of it.
> I tended to think of that song as an isolated incident until I read the
> Subj: section of the Incomplete Folksinger and realized that prejudice
> is built in at all levels of society. We who preserve and (as best we
> can) disseminate a wide selection of the intimate feelings of particular
> groups should be sensitive to what they say about other groups.
Carry that thought a little further. Did it ever occur to you that
drinking songs may be painful to recovering alcoholics, and downright
devastating to those who have had family members killed by drunk drivers?
Do you realize that all nautical songs and sea shanties ennoble a vicious
system of exploitation of 19th-century sailors by parasitic shipping
magnates? Are you aware that anti-war songs cause great distress to
current and past members of the military? (If you're not, cf. the very
heated discussion of the song "Universal Soldier" on rec.music.folk about
a year ago.) Have you ever stopped to consider that virtually every
traditional song about romantic love concerns itself with mixed-sex
couples, and thus perpetuates a stereotype that is offensive to gay
people? That murder ballads condone the most brutal sort of violence?
That songs which mention the burning of Yule logs promote air pollution
and the clearcutting of old-growth forests? That "Three Blind Mice"
incites cruelty to animals?
Well, I guess there are always fiddle tunes; no nasty offensive lyrics
there. Of course, some of the titles will have to go. "The Growling Old
Man and the Grumbling Old Woman", for instance: ageist and sexist, gotta
be changed. Let's call it "Happy Little Smiling Babies". Hmmm, no,
painful for infertile couples. How about "Sunshine and Flowers"? Do you
know how many melanoma and hay fever sufferers there are in this country?
Maybe we should just settle for "Contra Dance Tune in A Minor", but, wait,
wouldn't people confined to wheelchairs be offended by being reminded of
their inability to contradance?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-__ __ /_ Jon Berger "If you push something hard enough,
//_// //_/ jo...@netcom.com it will fall over."
_/ --------- - Fudd's First Law of Opposition
Trish LeBlanc
If its the same version that I'm thinking of its been
around for ages. I've heard a variety of performances/recordings of it over
the years including John Allan Cameron, Anne Murray, Ryan's Fancy, etc. To
the best of my knowledge it's an old traditional tune, although the earliest
popular version I am aware of is the one by John Allan recorded in the late
sixties/early seventies.
Trish
Jon Berger
> Interesting. I thought "Lord of the Dance" was a recently composed
> item (in my previous post, I mentioned Sydney Cart??--whatever his
The song generally associated with the title "Lord of the Dance" (the one
that starts "I danced in the morning when the world was begun") is by
Sydney Carter -- that is, the words are by Carter, and the tune is a
traditional Shaker hymn. There's a great recording of it on "Lovely in
the Dances: Songs of Sydney Carter" (Plant Life PLR032), featuring a
wonderful Caribbean-style arrangement and vocals by Maddy Prior. Carter's
lyric contains a mildly derogatory comment about Scribes and Pharisees
(specifically, it says that they couldn't dance), and avers that it's hard
to dance with the Devil on your back, which might possibly be
objectionable to devout Satanists, but is otherwise quite inoffensive.
However, note that Ms. Sale's objection was not to the lyrics which were
quoted, but to the lyrics which were not quoted, but of which she was
reminded by the lyrics that were quoted. I could be wrong, but my
impression is that she'd be equally offended by any reference to any set
of lyrics whatsoever to this particular tune, because they'd remind her of
that nasty anti-Semitic verse. So I don't think it signifies much which
version is being discussed.
> >I have never stayed in the same room with the singing of Little Sir Hugh
> >(The Jew's Daughter, #155) without clear protest. The slander it gaily
> >portrays resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of innocents.
> I haven't been subjected to the experience of hearing anyone so
> crassly insensitive as to sing this today, but I think I'd
> react the same way as Abby Sale. Pete Seeger tells the story of
> Emma Dusenberry, the blind Ozark Mtn. folksinger from whom Lee
> Hays learned many songs, who used to sing an anti-Semitic song
> (maybe the same one) until she met some Jewish people and found
> that they weren't devils; she decided that the song was
> inappropriate and deleted it from her repertoire. (As far as I
> know, she was not lectured and censored and so forth, so I don't
> want to see any responses here about the alleged tyranny of
> political correctness; she made the choice herself.)
I have no problem whatsoever with people making their own choices, for
their own reasons, of what will or will not be included in their
repertoires. I have a bit of a problem with people who try to lay these
choices on others, so I'm delighted to hear you say that Ms. Dusenberry
was never subjected to lectures about her "crass insensitivity" by the
likes of you and Ms. Sale. I think the story you quoted is wonderful and
heartwarming, but I think its primary moral is that people will change in
their own time and for their own reasons, regardless of whether they're
lectured and censored or just left alone.
> Also, what's Fair Flower and what's in the English version of it?
She _might_ be referring to "The Flower of Northumberland", wherein a
nasty Scot deludes an innocent English maiden into releasing him from
prison by promising to marry her, and then sends her packing after saying
any number of nasty things to her, including calling her a "brazen-faced
whore." I quite like the song, myself; guess I'm just a crassly
insensitive kinda guy. Do you think this sort of thing never happened?
Do you think that, even though it did, we'd all be much better off not
thinking about it?
> >I'm sure everybody on this conference hates censorship. But I
> >personally hate encouraging & passing on prejudice; inciting to
> >barbarity & murder a lot more. Even if it's a good tune. I think it's
> >one of those cases of "engage brain before putting mouth in gear."
> I agree wholeheartedly. I hope in this message, aside from asking
> for more information, to lay to rest an objection that I fear may
> raise its ugly head. Somebody is going to say that Abby Sale is
> calling for censorship as the lesser of two evils.
Abby Sale is calling for censorship as the lesser of two evils.
There, happy?
> Censorship is the forcible prevention of speech, usually by a
> government or other authority.
It's also censorship when a performer is shouted off a stage by those who
dislike what he's singing. It's also censorship when an individual such
as Rev. Wildmon calls for the economic blackmail of those who don't meet
his personal standards. It's also censorship when a large and important
venue won't book a particular act because of the unpopularity of their
choice of material. I'm not saying that either you or Ms. Sale are
espousing any of these, I'm just pointing out that the old "If it's not
done by the government, it's not censorship" line is complete hooey. It
_is_ true that the only kind of censorship that's explictly forbidden by
law is the kind engaged in by the government, but that doesn't mean it's
the only kind that exists.
> It's entirely different to *ask* (not require) that
> singers not sing offensive material, even if that material is
> authentically traditional, and to criticize singers for doing so.
> To criticize someone whose art makes a political statement that
> one may object to is quite different from calling for that person
> to be censored.
Depends on how and when the criticism is carried out, and that's why I've
asked Ms. Sale, in another posting, to clarify what she meant by "I have
never stayed in the same room ... without clear protest." If that means
that she _has_ stayed in the same room _with_ clear protest, and if the
protest was of the vocal variety, then, yes, I would classify this action
as censorship, not to mention extreme thoughtlessness and rudeness.
I hate to keep bringing this up, but I do because it's the best example of
the consequences of this sort of thinking I ever experienced personally.
At the Vancouver Folk Festival about 12 years ago, Robin Williamson was
performing one of his own works, a song called "First Girl I Loved",
before an audience of something like 12,000. The song related his first
sexual experience, as a teenager, with a girl who gave herself to him as a
birthday present. Because the song contained some explicit, though
poetic, sexual references, and because it used the word "girl" repeatedly,
and because (I suspect) Holly Near was the headliner that night, a large
and extremely vocal group in the audience began booing him, and wouldn't
stop until he left the stage. I'd call that censorship.
By all means, express your opinions. But, just as the fact that it's
authentic folk music doesn't necessarily make it good, the fact that it's
your opinion doesn't necessarily make it appropriate. There are plenty of
proper methods and channels for self-expression; making a scene in the
middle of a concert isn't one of them. Perhaps I'm reading too much into
the "clear protest" phrase, but that sounds like exactly what Ms. Sale is
calling for, and I'm very much opposed to it.
Jon Berger
> (And there *was* a group, about 10 years ago, locally,
> who apparently felt impelled to use the word "nigger" in a song,
> because *their* religion was "folk authenticity".
I see. And yours is liberalism, which is oh so very much more important
than theirs.
I gather you're fully supportive of the groups who, for exactly the same
reason, would ban "Huckleberry Finn" from public school libraries?
> I was stunned enough to feel as though my chair had fallen through
> the floor with me on it, and didn't get unstunned in time to do anything
> I felt like doing (such as ripping their lungs out).
What a charming display that would have been. I'm sure it would have
brought many, many onlookers around to your point of view, and convinced
the surviving members of the band of the error of their ways.
Christophe Pettus
>Well, then, try to imagine the feeling of Jews getting "treated" to
>"Lord of the Dance" trotted out as some kind of folk-song, instead of
>as religious propaganda. I have no 'problem' with it presented as the
OK, now it's "religious propaganda" and a "vicious hymn." Will SOMEONE
please help me out, and post the lyrics that are so objectionable? I
have never seen a single version of the lyrics that I can interpret in
the least bit prejudicially, even viewed with my political sensitivity
setting turned to high.
>I have a lot of 'problems' with a religion
>that views some poor shmoe twisting on a cross (following a very
>Roman style of execution, as the fellow 'had a bit of a problem' with
>the Romans as well) as some kind of ultimate dance to be lord of.
>(I also have a big 'problem' with a religion that practices/venerates human
>sacrifice, even symbolically; you have a much stronger tie-in with
>those pagans than you admit.)
OK, can we cool it on the Christian bashing? It really messes up a
plea for tolerance and understanding to start slinging mud around on
other religions.
Christophe Pettus
>Interesting. I thought "Lord of the Dance" was a recently composed
>item (in my previous post, I mentioned Sydney Cart??--whatever his
>name is--as the author of the lyrics I've heard), and while Christian
>anti-Semitism is certainly not dead, alas, I'd be surprised if Cart??
>would have much tolerance for any anti-Semitism at all--it doesn't
>fit with the rest of his politics.
"Lord of the Dance" was written by Sydney Carter. The version I have
is done on the album LOVELY IN THE DANCES: The Songs of Sydney Carter,
with cover versions (except for one, "I Come Like a Beggar") of his
work. There is nothing on the lyrics that I can find to be the least
be anti-Semitical, even viewed through exceptionally harsh eyes. I'm
curious what these anti-Semitical verses that everyone is refering to
are, since I can find no evidence that they are a part of the song as
written by Carter.
J. Lani Herrmann
message, which says something elegant and pithy about a developing
sense of what is appropriate.}
I agree. It's one thing to be aware of jingoistic attitudes
being expressed in, say, the lyrics to a song, as representative of
the genuine historical prejudices of members of a particular group
or culture, and quite another thing to perpetuate them in performance.
I'd also say, however, that the choice is up to the individual, and
for me at least it would be grounded in good manners and good taste.
This means that I would probably defend someone else's right to sing
those (presumably politically incorrect) songs, though I'd also probably
reserve the right not to have to listen to them. -- Lani
<||> Lani Herrmann * School of Library and Information Studies * South Hall
<||> la...@info.berkeley.edu * University of California, Berkeley 94720
Steve Goldfield
#>{Can't figure out how to quote the last paragraph of Dan Rosenblum's
#>message, which says something elegant and pithy about a developing
#>sense of what is appropriate.}
#> I agree. It's one thing to be aware of jingoistic attitudes
#>being expressed in, say, the lyrics to a song, as representative of
#>the genuine historical prejudices of members of a particular group
#>or culture, and quite another thing to perpetuate them in performance.
#>I'd also say, however, that the choice is up to the individual, and
#>for me at least it would be grounded in good manners and good taste.
#>This means that I would probably defend someone else's right to sing
#>those (presumably politically incorrect) songs, though I'd also probably
#>reserve the right not to have to listen to them. -- Lani
#>
#><||> Lani Herrmann * School of Library and Information Studies * South Hall
#><||> la...@info.berkeley.edu * University of California, Berkeley 94720
I've recently come to the conclusion that the right coined
the term "political correctness" in order to hide the fact
that some want to promote immorality such as racism,
anti-Semitism, etc. Granted, immorality is socially and
historically conditioned--so that what one era considers
perfectly acceptable is considered horrific by another--
we do have widely accepted notions of morality. The term
"politically correct" implies that one side of a political
debate is trying to impose its view on the other as the
antichoice movement is doing. But the issues that commonly
come up in debates about "political correctness" almost
invariably concern oppression of women and people of color
and similar issues. Opponents of "political correctness"
thus are defending that oppression, which, IMHO, is immoral.
When it comes to songs, I'd agree with Lani and go further.
I don't think we should advocate rooting up all the old
sheet music with racist or sexist lyrics and burning it
or writing in new lyrics. But performing such music, IMHO,
should be restricted to historical studies in which the music
is put into a context. And it is certainly not censorship
for those of us who are offended by songs to protest them,
refuse to listen to them, withdraw our support from the
artist who performs them, etc. The forcible prevention
of a performance is censorship. I've heard songs,
for example, that are despicably racist toward Arabs,
particularly during the Gulf war. Those songs derive from
a deep racism in our culture and society, and I don't
see targeting the individual performer as the best way
to confront that racism, although the performer, too,
should be confronted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Goldfield :<{ {>: s...@hera.berkeley.edu
University of California at Berkeley Richmond Field Station
Abby Sale
CP>>137.n...@animece.oau.org (Abby Sale) writes:
CP>>>DAVID DALTON, writing about Summer solstice music --- posted many of
CP>>>the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
CP>>>
CP>>>Whether through intent or omission I don't know, but he did not post the
CP>>>verses that reflect the standard (and deadly) anti-semitism that is
CP>>>taken for granted in this song, and in much religious teaching.
CP>>What verses are you refering to? Having reviewed the original lyrics
CP>>of LORD OF THE DANCE, I can't see anything that I would call bigoted in
CP>>any way.
The single most inflammatory & deadly slander of all; that the "holy
people" (ie Pharisees) killed God for the (non-existent) crime of curing
on the sabbath. (The function of the slander was to remove guilt from
Rome and find a scapegoat, but that's another message group.)
It's sung with such gaiety and the assumption of a taken-for-granted
truth that you may not have noticed it there. But I notice little
things that have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands.
Joseph C Fineman
>And by the way, I've got to be a little more politically correct
>:-) than Abby Sale. Songs that bash wives are usually not OK.
>(I can't say always because no doubt someone will come up with
>a counterexample for which I'd see a good reason to make an
>exception. Maybe "The Devil & the Farmer's Wife" is one,
>although it's not clear there that the wife is ultimately the
>one bashed, since she seems to do the ultimate bashing.) Pete
>Seeger used to include this in his repertory:
> I had a wife and I got no good of her.
> Here is how I easy got rid of her.
> Took her out and I chopped the head off her
> Early in the morning.
> Seeing as how there was no evidence
> For the sheriff or his reverence,
> They had to call it an act of Providence
> Early in the morning.
It is still in my repertory. I think it is a funny song. However, it
is just as funny if you make it
I had a man and got no good of him.
Here is how I easy got rid of him....
and I propose that it be sung that way for 100 years or so to make
things even. After that, both ways, according to sex.
I am proud to be a sexist to the following extent: I believe that the
war between the sexes is genetically programmed & will go on for as
long as there are sexes (maybe 1000 years). To say that one must not
make fun of that imposing fact of life goes a long way toward saying
that fun itself is wicked.
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
239 Clinton Road (617) 731-9190
Brookline, MA 02146
Christophe Pettus
>> Censorship is the forcible prevention of speech, usually by a
>> government or other authority.
>
>It's also censorship when a performer is shouted off a stage by those who
>dislike what he's singing. It's also censorship when an individual such
>as Rev. Wildmon calls for the economic blackmail of those who don't meet
>his personal standards. It's also censorship when a large and important
>venue won't book a particular act because of the unpopularity of their
>choice of material.
There's always a very tough call between censorship and discretion,
especially when one's actions affect the ability of others to see or
hear something. For example, an editor of a major metropolitan
newspaper "censors" a dozen stories a day, by having to make decisions
on what will get space and what won't. Most of the time, this isn't
censorship that gets anyone upset ("OK, the waterworks commission gets
in, the tulip festival doesn't"), but when it starts become a pattern
of discrimination against a particular point of view, the matter
changes quite a bit.
Likewise, I'm not certain I can agree with the statement that a call
for a boycott is, in itself, censorship. I dislike Rev. Wildmon as
much as the next person, but as long as we're talking capitalism, I
think that everyone does have the right to alter their buying habits on
the basis of their beliefs, no matter how frustrating to me personally
I find it. I would definitely not buy a newspaper that took a strong
editorial position anti-choice, and would encourage my pro-choice
friends to do the same. Censorship? Perhaps, but I certainly wouldn't
want to lose the ability to do so.
It gets very tough when you start talking about large venues and their
booking policies. Bill Graham Presents is unlikely to book Sileas into
the Shoreline, not because of some deep-seated prejudice against
Scotswomen, but because Sileas on a good night could fill maybe 250
seats. Is this "censoring" Sileas? Hardly; they have plenty of places
to play in the Bay Area. Now, when BGP refuses to book an act that
could clearly fill any venue they care to throw at it, because they are
"too urban (i.e., black)" or some other dubious reason, we're talking a
very different animal ...
Christophe Pettus
>nasty Scot deludes an innocent English maiden into releasing him from
>prison by promising to marry her, and then sends her packing after saying
>any number of nasty things to her, including calling her a "brazen-faced
>whore." I quite like the song, myself; guess I'm just a crassly
>insensitive kinda guy. Do you think this sort of thing never happened?
>Do you think that, even though it did, we'd all be much better off not
>thinking about it?
Well put. Interestingly enough, the definitive (to my mind) version of
"The Flower of Northumberland" is sung by Dinah LeHoven, who has no
problem with the content. You can consider it a historical record, or
as a cautionary tale for young maidens, or any number of things, all of
which validate it as a good part of the folk song tradition and a
worthwhile song to be sung.
Ugo Piomelli
>thank God, a free country, and nobody can make you sing anything you don't
>want to (unless of course it's the National Anthem);
Pardon my intrusion, but, being a foreigner (except in Italy, of
course) I was ignorant of this fact. Is it compulsory to sing the
National Anthem? In what circumstances? And which authority oversees
the singing? Does the law extend to foreign visitors? To students on
F-1 visas? To permanent residents? What if I have trouble hitting the
high note? Is it alright to hum along or do I have to learn the words?
What if I root for the Giants and dislike Atlanta (the home of the
Braves)? I don't remember seeing anything on this subject on the forms
I filled out at the American Consulate.
Ugo
*************************************************************************
Ugo Piomelli
Associate Professor There are no kings
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Inside the Gates of Eden
University of Maryland Bob Dylan
College Park, MD 20742
*************************************************************************
John Schuster
>In article <jonbC95...@netcom.com> jo...@netcom.com (Jon Berger) writes:
>>This is,
>>thank God, a free country, and nobody can make you sing anything you don't
>>want to (unless of course it's the National Anthem);
>Pardon my intrusion, but, being a foreigner (except in Italy, of
>course) I was ignorant of this fact. Is it compulsory to sing the
>National Anthem? In what circumstances? And which authority oversees
>the singing? Does the law extend to foreign visitors? To students on
>F-1 visas? To permanent residents? What if I have trouble hitting the
>high note? Is it alright to hum along or do I have to learn the words?
>What if I root for the Giants and dislike Atlanta (the home of the
>Braves)? I don't remember seeing anything on this subject on the forms
>I filled out at the American Consulate.
Thank God, indeed, that this IS a free country and NOONE is required to
sing anything, including the National Anthem. In fact, there was a radio
spot not long ago where the host asked people in the street to come up with
the words (didn't even have to try for any of the melody) and almost none of
those asked could do it. The same was done with professional singers and
many of them did not know all the words (in fact, part of one of the "Blooper"
television programs, a year or so back, was devoted to flubs which occured
during performance of the National Anthem) (for those in other countries,
we are talking about the US National Anthem, which has one of the most
tortuious (sp) melodies ever devised.
Regards to all,
cc...@sun1.mcsr.olemiss.edu
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
John J. Schuster Electronics Engineer
POWERS HALL, RM. 302 BITNET CC...@UMSVM.BITNET
UNIVERSITY, MS 38677 INTERNET CC...@SUN1.MCSR.OLEMISS.EDU
Ruth Cross
Abby.Sale%f137.n...@animece.oau.org (Abby Sale) writes:
|>|>
|> The single most inflammatory & deadly slander of all; that the "holy
|> people" (ie Pharisees) killed God for the (non-existent) crime of curing
|> on the sabbath. (The function of the slander was to remove guilt from
|> Rome and find a scapegoat, but that's another message group.)
|>
|> It's sung with such gaiety and the assumption of a taken-for-granted
|> truth that you may not have noticed it there. But I notice little
|> things that have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands.
|>
The holy people said it was a shame.
They whipped and they stripped and they hung me on high
They left me there on a cross to die.
Gee, for all these years I must have missed the footnote to the
song that said "holy people=Pharisees".
I always took that as a sarcastic expression for that group in
*any* population that is willing to condemn others for not adhering
to the "correct" religion.
Rosa Michaelson
things about what is 'offensive' is wether or not they WERE considered
so at the time the 'tradition' was crystalised. So unpleasant words to
Little sir Hugh require a sensitive contextual reading if you choose to
sing them and would be a good start to a debate on the historical roots
of anti-semitism. Personally I have never found the King of the Dance
anti-semitic (further justification for being allowed to say this -
my great-grandfather was a rabbi). It is interesting that there is
that interpretation by anyone. In fact it makes me think of the 'folk
process' - a pre-christian ritual probably associated with
sacrafice transfer (see the Golden Bough) transformed to a namby-pamby
bible glow of victorian cutness and given to us by people
who should know better as a folk song.
What does the palying of 'Hunt the squirrel' at a Greenpeace
demonstration or a 'pro whalers Whaling song' at a anti-vivesection do
for my credability anyhow?
What on earth do I do about my love of blues? Only listen to female
singers? They are fairly raunchy which is good but also pretty
good at accepting the now unacceptable face of human relationships.
I am not very happy about the view that says we should not listen
or perform material which is upsetting -
'Those who fail to learn from history are fated to repeat
the mistakes of the past'.
Of course we all have our particular dislikes and are quite justified
in trying to avoid upsetting things. I try and avoid folk clubs and singers on
the grounds that I don't enjoy folk clubs and singer song writers -
in fact I am often offended by singer songwriters because they present
naive posturings as universal truths rather than shallow and unthoughtfull
meanderings.
The fact this is an old, old issue which does get debated by and
others is a Good Thing. Especially if it leads to enlightening ideas about
the past and present.
By the way: Jon is very good at knocking
political correctness - but I suspect he is really preety politically
correct under neath that 'you have no humour' line %-)
James P. H. Fuller
j...@endor.harvard.edu writes:
> Well, then, try to imagine the feeling of Jews getting "treated" to
> "Lord of the Dance" trotted out as some kind of folk-song, instead of
> as religious propaganda.
What makes you say "instead of"? Does it fry your mind to consider
that racism, religionism and all the other manifestations of tribal feeling
are bona fide folk phenomena? *Strongly* advise you to avoid anything
resembling a real folk; just stick to the folk clubs, where you shouldn't
have to confront anything that hasn't been perfumed and Bowdlerized.
> (And there *was* a group, about 10 years ago, locally, who apparently
> felt impelled to use the word "nigger" in a song, because *their*
> religion was "folk authenticity". I was stunned enough to feel as
> though my chair had fallen through the floor with me on it, and
> didn't get unstunned in time to do anything I felt like doing (such
> as ripping their lungs out). I've even blocked on who they are; it
> was kind of like getting hit on the head when you thought you were
> among friends.
I do understand that poleaxed feeling -- there we were safely in
the folk club, not a nasty smelly folk in sight, and then *whammo!*
Lordy, don't anybody play "Pull the Triggers, Niggers" for this guy.
He'll need the lavender and ammonia for real....
-- jf
Joel Birkeland
>Will SOMEONE please help me out, and post the lyrics that are so objectionable?
I agree. Post the damn lyrics or shut up about them, already.
---
Joel Birkeland
Motorola SPS
birk...@adtaz.sps.mot.com
Christophe Pettus
>The single most inflammatory & deadly slander of all; that the "holy
>people" (ie Pharisees) killed God for the (non-existent) crime of curing
>on the sabbath. (The function of the slander was to remove guilt from
>Rome and find a scapegoat, but that's another message group.)
>
>It's sung with such gaiety and the assumption of a taken-for-granted
>truth that you may not have noticed it there. But I notice little
>things that have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands.
"Lord of the Dance" is responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of
thousands? Goodness, I trust you have a citation for this claim.
No, of course that's not what you meant. But it serves as an example
of how an "obvious" interpretation is not necessarily the correct one.
The verse in question does indeed state that "holy people" were
responsible for Christ's death. Now, without plunging into the
theology and history of that period, how many people who have listened
to "Lord of the Dance" have come away with the conclusion that Jews
deserve to die because they killed Christ? How many have even made the
"obvious" connection of "holy people" to "Pharisees" to "Jews"? I
certainly didn't, and I would warrant I'm more up on that history than
most. In fact, I would suspect that Mr. Carter himself did not do so,
or he would have written the song differently.
Considering that Sydney Carter's humaritarianism is well-known, I
cannot credit him with a hatred motive in writing the song. Given that
very, very few people would draw the "obvious" conclusion that is being
drawn here (and of those, I suspect exactly none would use it to fuel
their hatred of Jews), I can't find the song anti-Semitic.
You don't have to look as far as "Lord of the Dance": JESUS CHRIST
SUPERSTAR's entire plot is based on the Pharisees being the primary
motivators behind Christ's execution, with the Romans going along with
what they thought was pretty much an internal political matter they
didn't care about.
Songs like "Little Sir Hugh" are a much more dubious case, since (while
they don't generalize the claim to "Jews murder children"), there's a
female Jew doing to the killing, and that particular slander was
widespread at the time the song was written. There are, however, TONS
of "ball over the wall" songs of that type (such as Frankie Armstrong's
harrowing "Mr. Fox") that are completely devoid of such slurs, so there
is no real reason to sing that particular version unless you are doing
so for documentary reasons.
Jerry Dallal
> Pardon my intrusion, but, being a foreigner (except in Italy, of
> course) I was ignorant of this fact. Is it compulsory to sing the
> National Anthem?
Not singing it might be taken as a sign of disrespect. Thus,
it would be considered boorish or rude, at best, to make a point of your not
singing it. In some circumstances such behavior could trigger a physical
confrontation.
Jerry Dallal
> In article <74092605...@animece.oau.org>,
> Abby.Sale%f137.n...@animece.oau.org (Abby Sale) writes:
> |>|>
> |> The single most inflammatory & deadly slander of all; that the "holy
> |> people" (ie Pharisees) killed God for the (non-existent) crime of curing
> |> on the sabbath. (The function of the slander was to remove guilt from
> |> Rome and find a scapegoat, but that's another message group.)
> |>
> |> It's sung with such gaiety and the assumption of a taken-for-granted
> |> truth that you may not have noticed it there. But I notice little
> |> things that have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands.
> |>
> I danced on the Sabbath and I cured the lame.
> The holy people said it was a shame.
> They whipped and they stripped and they hung me on high
> They left me there on a cross to die.
>
> Gee, for all these years I must have missed the footnote to the
> song that said "holy people=Pharisees".
Or else you're not culturally literate! ;-)
I do have some sympathy for people who are subjected to something that is very
different from what they bargained for. Thus, I could understand the
distress of a non-Christian going to what was advertised as a folk music
concert only to find every other song a Christian hymn. Personally, I'm one of
the people Jon Berger mentioned who is unconfortable with drinking songs. I
also don't like *truly* bawdy songs sung in mixed company.
But . . . it's kind of hard to have a resurrection song without a death, and
the underlying story *is* an integral part of Western culture.
When LD is viewed under a
microscope, I can understand how someone might find something to object to, but
a broader perspective seems more appropriate.
ghost
>
>
>j...@endor.harvard.edu writes:
>
>> Well, then, try to imagine the feeling of Jews getting "treated" to
>> "Lord of the Dance" trotted out as some kind of folk-song, instead of
>> as religious propaganda.
>
> What makes you say "instead of"? Does it fry your mind to consider
>that racism, religionism and all the other manifestations of tribal feeling
>are bona fide folk phenomena? *Strongly* advise you to avoid anything
>resembling a real folk; just stick to the folk clubs, where you shouldn't
>have to confront anything that hasn't been perfumed and Bowdlerized.
Does it fry *your* mind to consider that there are plenty of 'bona fide
folk phenomena' that have nothing to do with 'racism, religionism
and all other manifestations of tribal feeling', and that they are
performed, as far as I can tell, by persons closely resembling
'real folk'; or, as somebody famous once said,
"ain't heard no horses singing it".
Or do it your way:
No love songs, requited or un,
no instrumental music, because it gets hard to convey the specifics
of those manifestations without words,
& no dancing just for the sake of dancing...lovely world.
You've just ruled out most music, this way.
> I do understand that poleaxed feeling -- there we were safely in
>the folk club, not a nasty smelly folk in sight, and then *whammo!*
>Lordy, don't anybody play "Pull the Triggers, Niggers" for this guy.
>He'll need the lavender and ammonia for real....
I know now that you contend 'real folk don't bath', & this is helping
me build a picture of your (idealized) sort of real folk...
but not where you hear/perform such gems...
Jon Berger
> In article <jonbC95...@netcom.com> jo...@netcom.com (Jon Berger) writes:
> >> Censorship is the forcible prevention of speech, usually by a
> >> government or other authority.
> >
> >It's also censorship when a performer is shouted off a stage by those who
> >dislike what he's singing. It's also censorship when an individual such
> >as Rev. Wildmon calls for the economic blackmail of those who don't meet
> >his personal standards. It's also censorship when a large and important
> >venue won't book a particular act because of the unpopularity of their
> >choice of material.
> It gets very tough when you start talking about large venues and their
> booking policies. Bill Graham Presents is unlikely to book Sileas into
> the Shoreline, not because of some deep-seated prejudice against
> Scotswomen, but because Sileas on a good night could fill maybe 250
> seats. Is this "censoring" Sileas?
No, it isn't. If you'll refer to the section of my original posting which
you conveniently quoted above, you'll find it says "...when a large and
important venue won't book a particular act BECAUSE OF THE UNPOPULARITY OF
THEIR CHOICE OF MATERIAL" (emphasis mine, and who, after all, has more
right?). I wasn't discussing the fact that folk acts can't get booked at
the Shoreline, and I'm not entirely sure why you are.
I don't really want to see this conversation bog down into a bunch of
legalistic hair-splitting about what does and doesn't constitute
censorship. I find the deliberate suppression of people who want to
express certain points of view by other people who disagree with those
points of view to be obnoxious and reprehensible when it's done by the
government, when it's done by a bunch of rowdies in a concert hall, when
it's done by the religious right, when it's done by the liberal left, and
when it's done by a pack of Usenet posters. I don't care whether you call
it censorship, harrassment, rudeness, whining, or make up a new word for
it, but whatever you want to call it, I wish people would cut it out. I'm
not going to hold my breath, though.
ghost
>> Censorship is the forcible prevention of speech, usually by a
>> government or other authority.
>It's also censorship when a performer is shouted off a stage by those who
>dislike what he's singing. It's also censorship when an individual such
>as Rev. Wildmon calls for the economic blackmail of those who don't meet
>his personal standards. It's also censorship when a large and important
>venue won't book a particular act because of the unpopularity of their
>choice of material. I'm not saying that either you or Ms. Sale are
>espousing any of these, I'm just pointing out that the old "If it's not
>done by the government, it's not censorship" line is complete hooey. It
>_is_ true that the only kind of censorship that's explictly forbidden by
>law is the kind engaged in by the government, but that doesn't mean it's
>the only kind that exists.
No; censorship is, as stated above,
"the forcible prevention of speech, usually by a government
or other authority"
Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean just because you want
them to mean something different. Not yet, anyway.
Singing whatever you like on stage is called "freedom of speech",
as well "a performance", and whether you like it or not,
shouting the performer off stage, an act that involves no force,
is just more freedom of speech.
Fan of spontaneity that I am,
I'm suspicious of loud, organized booing, the sort of
thing opera claques regularly engage in, the sort of thing that
met Sinead O'Connor at the Dylan tribute concert.
But these days, even organized booers have usually more than met
their match in these state-of-the-art sound systems
every streetcorner performer has. Its down to a contest of wills.
>By all means, express your opinions. But, just as the fact that it's
>authentic folk music doesn't necessarily make it good, the fact that it's
>your opinion doesn't necessarily make it appropriate. There are plenty of
>proper methods and channels for self-expression; making a scene in the
>middle of a concert isn't one of them. Perhaps I'm reading too much into
>the "clear protest" phrase, but that sounds like exactly what Ms. Sale is
>calling for, and I'm very much opposed to it.
I'll bet you could collect authentically
racist, bigoted, and probably really boring versions of every song
ever sung on earth, if you just tried a little harder.
What a lovely, ideal world you must live in, where every racist
bigot gets their hour or two uncontested, then, about 4 in
the morning as the ground crew cleans up, the maligned finally
get the floor. Don't want to be rude or thoughtless, do we.
And, in a previous article,
From: jo...@netcom.com (Jon Berger)
Subject: Re: The Folklore Of Prejudice
Message-ID: <jonbC95...@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <74084213...@animece.oau.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 18:25:33 GMT
Jon says:
Antisemitism, slavery, and the 3 Blind Mice, all topics of equal
importance to you. How nice.
Really put a lot of work into this, didn't you. Any more examples?
Really see no difference between casually encouraging bigotry
and casually encouraging hay fever?
Between the collective general & the individual specific?
Christophe Pettus
>No, it isn't. If you'll refer to the section of my original posting which
>you conveniently quoted above, you'll find it says "...when a large and
>important venue won't book a particular act BECAUSE OF THE UNPOPULARITY OF
>THEIR CHOICE OF MATERIAL" (emphasis mine, and who, after all, has more
>right?). I wasn't discussing the fact that folk acts can't get booked at
>the Shoreline, and I'm not entirely sure why you are.
Calm down, calm down, this is a different thread. Folk acts don't get
booked at Shoreline because from a 10,000 foot perspective, folk isn't
popular. If a folk act could pull 8,000 people, it would be at
Shoreline in a flash. If it's not popular material, it's unpopular
material. Therefore, folk acts don't get booked at Shoreline because
of the unpopularity of their material. If you meant something else, my
apologies.
I basically agree with you, I was just ruminating on the meaning of the
term, since I've been called a "censor" for refusing to print an
article that I found of low quality in a fiction magazine. If this
rumination bothers you, /c...@taligent.com/h:j works great in a kill
file ... :-)
Abby Sale
DMR>>>DAVID DALTON, writing about Summer solstice music --- posted many of
DMR>>>the lyrics of The Lord of the Dance.
DMR>>Interesting. I thought "Lord of the Dance" was a recently composed
DMR>>item (in my previous post, I mentioned Sydney Cart??--whatever his
Others have posted Sydney Carter, but I thought that was the guy that
found King Tut's tomb. Is this a coincidence?
DMR>>I haven't been subjected to the experience of hearing anyone so
DMR>>crassly insensitive as to sing this today, but I think I'd
DMR>>react the same way as Abby Sale.
I have. I've objected. The only time I've been at a loss is when my
good friend, Martin Carthy sang it with Steeleye in a concert I couldn't
attend. I failed to let him know my feelings. It's also on "The
Steeleye Span Story" on Chrysalis (& elsewhere.) Martin has zero
prejudice. He sings the song. It is partly my fault that he does as
I've never punched him in the eye for it. It's, thus, partly my fault
that others have "learned" that this song is acceptable and that it's
pure slander relates to a possibly true event. I've heard that too.
Greg Bullough seems to think this song should be sung freely.
DMR>>Subject section of the Incomplete Folksinger? Are you talking about
DMR>>the anthology of Pete Seeger's writing or about something else? If
DMR>>the former, what do you mean by the Subj: section?
Sorry, ALL. I wasted by hasting. (My offline reader calls it "Subj:",
maybe yours refers to "Subject" or something else.) I meant that
Seeger's book covers the Subj: of this post, ie The Folklore of
Prejudice, in an article called "The Folklore of Prejudice" on page 418.
He goes on with "Races and Racism: A Singer's View" on page 425.
(Authorized version.)
DMR>>Also, what's Fair Flower and what's in the English version of it?
This you know. The Fair Flower of Northumberland (#9) (sorry for
hasting again) was a subject of recent thread. The English version of
the song is viciously slanderous to the Scottish "race." The version
nearly always sung today is the (probably older) Scottish version.
DMR>>>I'm sure everybody on this conference hates censorship. But I
DMR>>>personally hate encouraging & passing on prejudice; inciting to
DMR>>>barbarity & murder a lot more. Even if it's a good tune.
DMR>>raise its ugly head. Somebody is going to say that Abby Sale is
DMR>>calling for censorship as the lesser of two evils. But I don't
DMR>>think that it's necessary to call for censorship.
DMR>> It's entirely different to *ask* (not require) that
DMR>>singers not sing offensive material, even if that material is
DMR>>authentically traditional, and to criticize singers for doing so.
In the vast majority of cases (but you can see that Greg Bullough is
outraged and reserves the right to spew filth) you are certainly
correct. I reserve the right to stand up and object as forcefully as
needed to protect my life. For it _is_ my life that's at stake. I
object no less forcefully when others are oppressed. In my house there
are no Paddy or Polack jokes, no cheerful Robert Burns songs about rape,
no thoughtless "givens" about what "they" (any "they") are like.
DMR>>To criticize someone whose art makes a political statement that
I got no problem with politics. I got problem with pogroms. Or
politics so vicious (eg White Supremacy) that others are supressed.
DMR>>And by the way, I've got to be a little more politically correct
DMR>>:-) than Abby Sale. Songs that bash wives are usually not OK.
Seeger (same article) suggests balancing a good, honest & well-deserved
wife-bashing song with the likes of Equinoxal & Phoebe. Jean Ritchie
writes that the women in her family used this & many others in a kind of
"Dueling Sexes" with the men. (The women won, she claimed.) Oddly, my
own wife of 27 or so years enjoys singing this same song. Well she may.
But I know many more songs giving the true nature of women then she
knows that slander men.
DMR>>exception. Maybe "The Devil & the Farmer's Wife" is one,
DMR>>although it's not clear there that the wife is ultimately the
The simple & honest point of this song is that the Wife is worse even
than the devil.
DMR>>"politically correct"? Some might call it that. I'd call it
DMR>>good sense and a developing consciousness that some things
DMR>>are inappropriate.
Yes, of course. No more, no less.
Abby Sale
JB>>lyric contains a mildly derogatory comment about Scribes and Pharisees
JB>>(specifically, it says that they couldn't dance), and avers that it's
hard
JB>>to dance with the Devil on your back, which might possibly be
JB>>objectionable to devout Satanists, but is otherwise quite inoffensive.
The statement of this verse is that the Scribes and Pharisees are
Satanists. That is not "mildly" derogatory, it's anti-Semitic. I can
live with simple anti-Semitism.
Another verse accuses the holy people, ie, the Jews of killing the Lord.
That's different; it's the rallying cry of the pogrom. It's not
merely anti-semitic, not merely offensive, not merely "fighting words."
It's harmful - murderous. Get the difference?
JB>>reminded by the lyrics that were quoted. I could be wrong, but my
JB>>impression is that she'd be equally offended by any reference to any set
JB>>of lyrics whatsoever to this particular tune, because they'd remind her
of
JB>>that nasty anti-Semitic verse. So I don't think it signifies much which
JB>>version is being discussed.
However this is meant, it's true. Just as there are no "nice" sections
of Mein Kampf. Prejudice is sneaky, Mr Berger, you've made an
assumption the "Ms" is an appropriate title for me.
JB>>> >I have never stayed in the same room with the singing of Little Sir
Hugh
JB>>I have no problem whatsoever with people making their own choices, for
JB>>their own reasons, of what will or will not be included in their
JB>>repertoires. I have a bit of a problem with people who try to lay these
JB>>choices on others, so I'm delighted to hear you say that Ms. Dusenberry
I don't believe I'm the first to notice a problem here. I quote the
great scholar FJ Child re #155., Little Sir Hugh. _Before_ giving the
song, he gives the historical surround, in which 18 innocent Jews were
hanged. He details the slander, when it entered the folklore, how it
was used politically. "...part of a persecution which, with all
moderation, may be rubricated as the most disgraceful chapter in the
history of the human race."
JB>>Abby Sale is calling for censorship as the lesser of two evils.
If I nicely point out that the knife you're sticking in my or my
neighbor's ribs is beginning to hurt...
And you persist...
And I point out I don't enjoy this and wish you would please stop...
And you persist...
Then I'm going to shoot.
Jerry Dallal
following the rule that disruptive discussions are best
ignored. However, I am particularly distressed at the
religious hatred that some posters appear to be trying to
foment over "Lord of the Dance."
I do not think the Jewish people are, as a group,
responsible for the death of Jesus. On the other hand, as a
Christian, I believe in the New Testament. The Gospel writers
are unanimous in their reporting that while Jesus was
condemned by Pilate, he was brought before him by the chief
priests and elders of the people (Matt. 27, 1-2; Mark 15, 1;
Luke 23, 1; esp. John 18, 28-32:
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went
not into the judgment hall, lest they should be
defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate
then went out unto them, and said, What accusation
bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto
him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have
delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them,
Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The
Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us
to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might
be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he
should die.)
Do I hold the individuals mentioned in these verses
responsible? Yes, somebody surely delivered the historical
Jesus up to Pilate. But I also realize (1) it was necessary
for Jesus to die so that he could be resurrected, (2) it would
be ludicrous to hold anyone today responsible for the actions
of these historical figures, and (3) there is nothing in
scripture to indicate that these particular historical figures
were intended to represent an entire people, let alone future
generations.
I deeply resent the implication that anyone who sings or
enjoys listening to "Lord of the Dance" is, therefore, anti-
Semitic. By extension, should all Christians, who believe in
the New Testament (in particular, in the verses cited above),
be considered anti-Semitic by definition? And if the
extension doesn't work, why not? I would assume that holding
a belief, not merely voicing it, is what is important.
Ugo Piomelli
I like football very much and, when I was a Graduate student, I missed
only one game in five years (I was getting married that day); the U.S.
National Anthem was played, as usual, before every game. True, the
LSJUMB (Leland Stanford Junior University (pause) Marching Band) is
not known for its manners, but they usually behaved in a pretty
disrespectul way, being too stoned to really know what they were
doing. At least half of the student section was either drunk or stoned
too, so they were also too busy to sing. I never saw any physical
confrontation. Does this mean that Stanford students and Alumni are
less patriotic than the people you allude to? Or that they condone
boorish behavior? Or perhaps that they are more civilized?
Perhaps this discussion does not belong in this newsgroup, but I'll be
happy to continue it by email.
Jerry Dallal
> In article <1993Jun25....@hnrc.tufts.edu> je...@hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal) writes:
>>In article <20elur...@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, u...@eng.umd.edu (Ugo Piomelli) writes:
>>> Pardon my intrusion, but, being a foreigner (except in Italy, of
>>> course) I was ignorant of this fact. Is it compulsory to sing the
>>> National Anthem?
>>
>>Not singing it might be taken as a sign of disrespect. Thus,
>>it would be considered boorish or rude, at best, to make a point of your not
>>singing it. In some circumstances such behavior could trigger a physical
>>confrontation.
>
> too, so they were also too busy to sing. I never saw any physical
> confrontation. Does this mean that Stanford students and Alumni are
> less patriotic than the people you allude to? Or that they condone
> boorish behavior? Or perhaps that they are more civilized?
>
> Perhaps this discussion does not belong in this newsgroup, but I'll be
> happy to continue it by email.
>
> Ugo
>
I apologize if I've mislead you. No one is under any compulsion to sing the
national anthem or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, other than the pressure
exerted by society. And the tradition of singing the national anthem at
sporting events is well established. That said,
Consider what happened to Sinead O'Connor when she refused to sing the
anthem at a concert in NJ. It was this act and not tearing the pope's
picture that put the final nail in her career's coffin here.
If you were by yourself in a crowd that took the anthem seriously and started
acting disrespectful you could end up with a fist in your face, just the same
as any crowd would react toward someone who went out of his way to antagonize
it.
The reason no such outbreaks occurred at the football games is that the dictum
of the American newsman George Ade was followed: "People who expect to
be Luny, will find it Safer to travel in a Bunch."
Christophe Pettus
>It is partly my fault that he does as
>I've never punched him in the eye for it. It's, thus, partly my fault
>that others have "learned" that this song is acceptable and that it's
>pure slander relates to a possibly true event. I've heard that too.
>
>Greg Bullough seems to think this song should be sung freely.
As do I. And I stand by that feeling without shame. I strongly
suggest that you do punch your "good friend," Martin Carthy, in the eye
for it, as the experience as to the difference between assault and
battery, and merely being somewhat offended, would probably be
educational.
>correct. I reserve the right to stand up and object as forcefully as
>needed to protect my life. For it _is_ my life that's at stake.
This is highly debatable. Could you produce an example of how "The
Lord of the Dance" has threatened your life? In any event, your
feeling that the song is in some what threatening does not justify its
censorship, simple as that.
>I got no problem with politics. I got problem with pogroms. Or
>politics so vicious (eg White Supremacy) that others are supressed.
"No free speech for fascists," eh?
>The simple & honest point of this song is that the Wife is worse even
>than the devil.
Baloney. It shows that the farmer and the farmer's wife outsmarted the
devil, and proved themselves to be of stronger stuff. It is purely
your interpretation, and a pretty nonstandard one at that, that can
read this is a wife-bashing song.
Christophe Pettus
>Satanists. That is not "mildly" derogatory, it's anti-Semitic. I can
>live with simple anti-Semitism.
This is an outrageous interpretation, and one that displays a complete
lack of understanding of Christian doctrine. It is clearly CHRIST who
is dancing with the devil on his back, as part of his tribulations.
There is no reference to the Scribes and Pharisees in this verse.
>Another verse accuses the holy people, ie, the Jews of killing the Lord.
>That's different; it's the rallying cry of the pogrom. It's not
>merely anti-semitic, not merely offensive, not merely "fighting words."
>It's harmful - murderous. Get the difference?
No. First, I do not see the "holy people" to "Jews" connection, and I
very much doubt that many (any?) modern listeners of the song see it as
well. Second, even if I accept the statement that this verse is "harmful
- murderous," I do not condone any attempt at censoring it. None.
>If I nicely point out that the knife you're sticking in my or my
>neighbor's ribs is beginning to hurt...
>
>And you persist...
>
>And I point out I don't enjoy this and wish you would please stop...
>
>And you persist...
>
>Then I'm going to shoot.
Let's clarify this example, then: Are you, Mr. Sale, advocating the
killing of someone who sings a folk song that you find "murderous"?
Yes or no, please.
Christophe Pettus
>hasting again) was a subject of recent thread. The English version of
>the song is viciously slanderous to the Scottish "race." The version
>nearly always sung today is the (probably older) Scottish version.
Two observations:
(a) I learned Flower of Northumberland from Robin Williamson, not a man
known for his patience on the subject of slanders against Scots.
(b) Scottish folksong is full of disparaging comments about the
English, as is Irish folk music. Shall we delete these from the
repertoire, as well? If not, why not?
M. Jonas
> I have. I've objected. The only time I've been at a loss is when my
> good friend, Martin Carthy sang it with Steeleye in a concert I couldn't
> attend. I failed to let him know my feelings. It's also on "The
> Steeleye Span Story" on Chrysalis (& elsewhere.) Martin has zero
> prejudice. He sings the song. It is partly my fault that he does as
> I've never punched him in the eye for it. It's, thus, partly my fault
> that others have "learned" that this song is acceptable and that it's
> pure slander relates to a possibly true event. I've heard that too.
I'm not sure which version Carthy sang, but the version Steeleye recorded
on Commoner's Crown (without Carthy) very carefully omits every reference
to jews at all. It can be debated whether this was a good idea or not,
because all the people who know only the Steeleye version (probably more
than ever looked into Child) will never know about the background of the
song and that the alleged (!!) murder described in here led to the worst
antisemitic pogroms in English history, and will therefore take it for
just another slightly brutal folk ballad. I like Steeleye's version as
a song, but I think it would have been better, if they had included a
short note in the liner notes explaining the background of the song and
the reason why they changed it. I have no objections to anybody singing
this song (even (and preferably !) in the uncensored and antisemitic
version), as long as they comment on the background. The folk tradition
has its ugly side and it shouldn't be glossed over. The attitude of only
collecting the *nice* side of the tradition led to all the awfully
bowdlerized and cleaned versions of folk songs collected in the 19th
and early 20th century. I can't see the difference between their habit of
omitting all sexual expletives and modern attempts of deleting all
political incorrect parts.
Martin
J Greely
(Jerry Dallal) writes:
>I apologize if I've mislead you. No one is under any compulsion to sing the
>national anthem or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, other than the pressure
>exerted by society.
Actually, the Pledge of Allegiance is making a comeback in the public
schools. Last I heard, it was required by law in Ohio and some other
states. This dismaying fact may explain the recent rise in mindless
flag-waving (metaphorical and actual) in American society. It might
even explain the recent popularity of diversionary military actions...
>And the tradition of singing the national anthem at sporting events
>is well established.
...delightfully (but not gracefully) satirized by Roseanne Barr, IMHO.
>Consider what happened to Sinead O'Connor when she refused to sing the
>anthem at a concert in NJ. It was this act and not tearing the pope's
>picture that put the final nail in her career's coffin here.
Funny, I thought both of those incidents were minor, just reflections
of her poor adaptation to life in a fishbowl. Brought a sigh to my
lips, but didn't affect my interest in her music ("put down that rifle
and pick up the guitar, okay?"). Then again, I've never paid too much
attention to celebrities operating outside their field...
"And did I hear you say,
'my country right or wrong'?"
--
J Greely (jgr...@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
Greg Bullough
Not so much, I think with the anthem. Not singing is sometimes taken as a sign
of being possessed of a merciful spirit and not wanting to destroy the auditory
nerves of those around you. I'm sure the controversy over the American celebrity
who can't sing but was none the less booked to sing the national anthem prior
to a baseball game didn't get over to Europe. She did her best. It was awful.
She almost lost her career.
Perhaps people are too self-concious about such things. I suppose most people
who observe me standing quietly and respectfully, rather than reciting the
"Pledge of Allegience" presume me to be the citizen of another country.
Certainly nobody has ever asked.
Now, the annoying habit that certain of my acquaintances and I have of
substituting:
And long may the Sons of Anachreon entwine
The myrtle of Venus with Bachus' vine
for the latter two lines of the Star Spangled Banner may, just may, get us
in trouble.
But since the rabble is, in general, fairly clueless as to what is going on,
they probably just think that we're confused and think that we're supposed
to be singing the third verse :-)
Greg
Robert Derrick
:
: Songs like "Little Sir Hugh" ...
: is no real reason to sing that particular version unless you are doing
: so for documentary reasons.
Could somebody enlighten me? The only version of "Hugh" that I have ever
heard is Steeleye Span, and I don't recall anything in there that
identifies his tormenter, other than a sick and dememted person.
Am I missing something?
---
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
M. Jonas
> :
> : Songs like "Little Sir Hugh" ...
>
> : is no real reason to sing that particular version unless you are doing
> : so for documentary reasons.
>
> Could somebody enlighten me? The only version of "Hugh" that I have ever
> heard is Steeleye Span, and I don't recall anything in there that
> identifies his tormenter, other than a sick and dememted person.
>
> Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. In 1255, the jews of Lincoln, England, were
accused of murdering a Christian boy, known as Little St. Hugh (still an
official saint! Visit his shrine in Lincoln cathedral), and this allegation,
although completely unfounded, led to the worst antisemitic pogroms in
England. The ballad Little Sir Hugh is about this murder and by far the most
versions of it still contain plenty of antisemitic material. As I have
mentioned in an earlier posting, Steeleye have carefully removed any
reference to jews at all, which leads to people thinking it's a perfectly
non-controversial song (like you did). Look into Child (#155) for a more
complete discussion and the original lyrics.
Martin
Robert Derrick
: (Jerry Dallal) writes:
: >I apologize if I've mislead you. No one is under any compulsion to sing the
: >national anthem or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, other than the pressure
: >exerted by society.
:
: Actually, the Pledge of Allegiance is making a comeback in the public
: schools. Last I heard, it was required by law in Ohio and some other
: states. This dismaying fact may explain the recent rise in mindless
: flag-waving (metaphorical and actual) in American society. It might
: even explain the recent popularity of diversionary military actions...
Lest we RED-WHITE-AND-BLUE dyed patriots, ready to commit violence over
this National Song of ours, forget that on one occasion our own
former and illustrious head of state was unable to recite the
revered Pledge of Allegiange without numerous mistakes.
And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
Jeez, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some "folkies" out there
who are genuinely disappointed that they can't get the Soundtrack
from Bob Roberts. You're really scaring me, you know.
---
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
Carl Fogelin
>And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
>words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
>alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
>in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
>line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
Umm, I'm not positive about this, but I believe the second verse of
the Star Spangled Banner goes something like:
Oh <something> in Heaven,
Where free men shall reign.
I guess I want to be counted as one of the unusual who know there is a
second verse, and to admit that I have had to sing it. I belive the
last time was in grade school (which was a REAL long time ago), but that's
the trivial type of thing I tend to remember.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Fogelin (foge...@pt.cyanamid.com) "All opinions are strictly mine"
Up the long ladder and down the short rope,
To Hell with King Billy and God bless the Pope. -- traditional
ghost
>And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
>words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
>alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
>in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
>line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
>
From memory, On my (dubious) honor (the words are at home, & I've not
read them in years...well, maybe a year)
And thus be it ever
that free men shall stand
between the bla bla
and the war's desolation
and bla bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla bla
bless the pow'r that has made
and preserved us a nation
then conquer we must
when^** our cause it is just
and this be our motto
"In G-d is our trust" ^***
So long may the Star Spangled Banner
yet wave
o'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave
(it'll all come back to me, but I don't want to wait & lose the prize)
^**
(we pc-ers like to say "if", not "when", and balk competely at conquer,
anyway)
(Note 2 mentions of G-d, as 'the pow'r' & as in the $$-bill motto;
(Doesn't the 3rd verse mention JC??
or am I getting confused
with Battle Hymn of the Republic's 3rd:
"In the beauty of the lilies
Christ was borne across the sea
with a beauty in his bosom
that transfigures you and me
as he died to make men holy
let us die to make men free
as G-d goes marching on"
(note Christian imagery but distinct lack of gore, or scapegoats)
(also note mixing up Christ with G-d; they do that a lot)
Do I get any points for complete verse to wrong song?)
Jerry Dallal
> In article <1993Jun28.1...@hemlock.cray.com> ro...@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>>And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
>>words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
>>alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
>>in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
>>line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
>>
>
> From memory, On my (dubious) honor (the words are at home, & I've not
> read them in years...well, maybe a year)
>
> And thus be it ever
> that free men shall stand
C'mon gang. "Oh, thus be it ever . . ." starts the *last* verse.
The second verse begins "On the shores dimly seen . . ."
Why am I so sure? We're talking about my personal bicentennial project, here.
(To learn the whole thing.)
That's what makes America great. You don't have to know what you're talking
about in order to express an *informed* opinion! :-)
David Kassover
>
>And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
>words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
>alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
>in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
>line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
Is that the one that begins "O thus be it ever, when free men
shall stand"?
Or the one about where "the foe's hardy host in dread silence
reposes"?
Damn, I've forgotten. Now where did I put my copy of Asimov's
"All Four Verses"...
I've been told that, at least once back in the mists of time when
TV stations signed off at 0100 or thereabouts, a station
somewhere in in the American Midwest chose to play a voice over
of the third verse, instead of the familiar first verse.
Supposedly, the local law enforcement and the FBI offices were
deluged with people calling in complaints...
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
William C. Gawne
interested.
While we're all guessing at the words of the second verse I'll chime in with
the ones that are lying dormant in the recesses of my mind. Maybe somebody
will actually post the real ones some time soon and end all this ...
"Who doth prosper anew,
When Free Men shall stand
Between their loved homes
And the war's desolation.
[... stanza lost to too many beers or something ...]
...and conquer we must
then this be our motto: "In God do we trust."
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave.
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
-Bill
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Robert Derrick
: In article <1993Jun28....@hemlock.cray.com> ro...@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
:
: > :
: > : Songs like "Little Sir Hugh" ...
: >
:
: Yes, you are missing something. In 1255, the jews of Lincoln, England, were
Wow, and thanks, to you, and to Peter Rayner, who mailed me a copy of the lyric.
And it is awful! There you will get no argument from me. Span did a vast job of
cleaning it up.
But, is it the case that a song must carry it's entire history with it, even
though that history has been expurgated from it?
This is not an easy subject, and there is no easy answer.
For example, Tom Lehrer is often spoken of in wondrous terms here, but his
lyrics ultimately offend nearly everybody on the planet. Is he anti-semitic
when he sings "The Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
The Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews" ?
Is he pro-rape when he sings in praise of pornography?
Pro-child abuse in the dirty old man song?
Is Mel Brooks anti-semitic? "Springtime for Hitler"? Numerous jokes throughout
all of his movies, culminating I think in his performance at the Comedy Awards
where he declared that he was sick and tired of pretending that he was a Jew,
but that Carl Reiner had made him do it for all these years?
Is Mel Brooks anti-black because he has a white woman say "Up yours N----r" (a
word I prefer to not even write) to Cleavon Little?
Anyway, thanks for enlightening me on the origins of this song. I can
understand why it would be upsetting to folks.
---
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
Ruth Cross
|> In article 10...@hemlock.cray.com, ro...@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
|>
|> >And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
|> >words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
|> >alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
|> >in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
|> >line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
|>
|> Umm, I'm not positive about this, but I believe the second verse of
|> the Star Spangled Banner goes something like:
|>
|> Oh <something> in Heaven,
|> Where free men shall reign
I think the lines you've butchered there come from the fourth and last
verse, which starts
And thus be it e'er, when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the wars desolation
....
and ends
And conquer we must, for our cause it is just
And this be our motto, "In God is our trust".
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The second verse starts
On the shore dimly seen, through the mists of the deep..
That's about all I remember, and God knows where you'd look it up,
unless you have a grade-school songbook handy. Maybe a hymnal?
Alan R Light -- Personal Account
verse, though the third verse was dropped during one of the World wars
because it might be offensive to the British, our new allies at the time)
I'll just put in my 2 cents worth -- a historical note.
In World War II in the European theatre, there were several tests to find
out if a suspicious soldier in American uniform was American or a spy. One
of the famous ones was to ask who had won the latest world's series (which
I would certainly fail, and one general did, upon which he was kept in jail
for three days before someone vouched for him). Occasionally spies gave
themself away by using British English (no American would ask where to get
some petrol for his jeep). But my favourite test: Ask the man to sing the
second verse to "The Star-Spangled Banner". If he knew it, he was a spy.
As you can see, Americans don't take all those patriotic gestures too
seriously. Few would give you trouble about not singing the anthem, or
for folding the flag the wrong way, or generally not knowing what to do in
a given ceremony. On the other hand, if someone were to burn the flag, or
to deliberately and loudly protest the singing of the anthem, there might
be some trouble, as can be expected in just about any circumstance in
which someone insults and slanders someone else. A case of form following
function, I guess.
Alan
--
Alan Light | "The fire is alight and will not be put out until it has
Waxhaw, NC | burnt up the earth's foundations." II Esdras 15:15
<<< ali...@rock.concert.net -or- ali...@wheaton.edu >>>
Ugo Piomelli
Good. I started this all, and am happy to see the consensus
(or lack thereof) among you people, who are supposed to know.
I won't feel bad next time I hear the U.S. Anthem if I don't sing. ;-)
By the way, the Italian National Anthem has four verses, and
I have no idea what the second, third and fourth say, either.
The first one, however, goes like this:
Brothers, Italians, Italy has awakened
And is wearing on her head Scipio's [Roman general] helmet
Where is Victory? We will grab her by the hair [It's true, I'm not making it up!]
Because God created her [Victory, that is] to be slave of Rome.
Let us form a legion, we are ready to die
We are ready to die in Italy's name.
Blood and gore aplenty, I'd say, almost as much as the impure
blood of the Marsellaise. It was written by an italian patriot,
Goffredo Mameli, who died in 1848 fighting for the Roman Republic,
attacked by the French Army that had come to bring the Pope back to power.
ghost
This was to be a memory test! And the book I xeroxed
(whoops; copyrights; ..accquired) those lyrics from
*said* *that* *was* the 2nd verse.
I don't know from the shores dimly seen
(without looking it up) and will beg off this one.
Robert Derrick
Jon Berger wrote:
[re The Lord of The Dance]
: JB>>avers that it's hard
: JB>>to dance with the Devil on your back, which might possibly be
: JB>>objectionable to devout Satanists, but is otherwise quite inoffensive.
:
: The statement of this verse is that the Scribes and Pharisees are
: Satanists. That is not "mildly" derogatory, it's anti-Semitic. I can
: live with simple anti-Semitism.
The big danger involved in looking for prejudice is that you will sometimes
get so good at it that you will find it everywhere. Even where it is not.
It reminds me of the Woody Allen character in Annie Hall who was always
sure every time a Gentile said the words "did you" that they were making
a subtle anti-semitic remark. "I didn't go, jew! [didge-yew {did you}]"
Not just sometimes, but every time.
If you go looking for people to hate you, or fear you, or loath you, you
will probably find it, but then it may just be your own hatred, fear, and
loathing reflecting back.
In this case, you went over the deep end. The legend has it that while
Christ was dead for three days, he went down to Hell, and battled with
God's Adversary, and by conquering him, conquered death. He danced with
the devil, Satan, the serpent, whatever, on his back.
Abby, this has nothing to do with Semitism of any kind, other than the
vague corresponce between the Christian devil and the Fallen Angel.
--------------------
rob derrick
Michael Feld
>In article <1993Jun28.1...@hemlock.cray.com> ro...@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>>And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
>>words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
>>alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
>>in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
>>line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
Old Canadian joke:
Sentry: who goes there?
Soldier: a Canadian
Sentry: a Canadian, eh? If you're a Canadian, sing the second verse
to O Canada! .
Soldier: there's a second verse to O Canada! ?
Sentry: pass, Canadian.
--
Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
Jon Berger
> In article <jonbC95...@netcom.com> jo...@netcom.com (Jon Berger) writes:
> >Daniel M. Rosenblum (d...@andromeda.rutgers.edu) wrote:
> No; censorship is, as stated above,
> "the forcible prevention of speech, usually by a government
> or other authority"
Fine. Who cares. I don't want to sit here and argue over the semantics
of what "censorship" means. I intensely dislike it when people make
organized attempts to suppress other people with whom they disagree. If
it would make you happier for me to call these attempts something other
than "censorship", fine, but I'm not going to start liking them any better
just because that particular word only applies to the government.
> Singing whatever you like on stage is called "freedom of speech",
> as well "a performance", and whether you like it or not,
> shouting the performer off stage, an act that involves no force,
> is just more freedom of speech.
Shouting a performer off stage, whatever else it is, is an act of extreme
rudeness. I dislike rudeness. I wish that people were, in general, less
rude. I have no expectation that my wish will be granted, but I persist
in wishing it.
> Fan of spontaneity that I am,
> I'm suspicious of loud, organized booing, the sort of
> thing opera claques regularly engage in, the sort of thing that
> met Sinead O'Connor at the Dylan tribute concert.
Make up your mind. You just claimed that booing -- of any sort, organized
or otherwise -- was just as much free speech as the concert it interrupts;
that you recognize no difference between the two things. Why are you
"suspicious" of it? Don't you support the booers' right to free speech,
in exactly the same measure to which you support the performers'?
> I'll bet you could collect authentically
> racist, bigoted, and probably really boring versions of every song
> ever sung on earth, if you just tried a little harder.
My point precisely. Thank you for agreeing with me. So we should just
stop singing, right?
> >Carry that thought a little further. Did it ever occur to you that
> >drinking songs may be painful to recovering alcoholics, and downright
> >devastating to those who have had family members killed by drunk drivers?
> Do you realize that all nautical songs and sea shanties ennoble a vicious
> >system of exploitation of 19th-century sailors by parasitic shipping
> >magnates? Are you aware that anti-war songs cause great distress to
> >current and past members of the military? (If you're not, cf. the very
> >heated discussion of the song "Universal Soldier" on rec.music.folk about
> >a year ago.) Have you ever stopped to consider that virtually every
> >traditional song about romantic love concerns itself with mixed-sex
> >couples, and thus perpetuates a stereotype that is offensive to gay
> >people? That murder ballads condone the most brutal sort of violence?
> >That songs which mention the burning of Yule logs promote air pollution
> >and the clearcutting of old-growth forests? That "Three Blind Mice"
> incites cruelty to animals?
> >Well, I guess there are always fiddle tunes; no nasty offensive lyrics
> >there. Of course, some of the titles will have to go. "The Growling Old
> >Man and the Grumbling Old Woman", for instance: ageist and sexist, gotta
> >be changed. Let's call it "Happy Little Smiling Babies". Hmmm, no,
> >painful for infertile couples. How about "Sunshine and Flowers"? Do you
> >know how many melanoma and hay fever sufferers there are in this country?
> >Maybe we should just settle for "Contra Dance Tune in A Minor", but, wait,
> >wouldn't people confined to wheelchairs be offended by being reminded of
> >their inability to contradance?
> Antisemitism, slavery, and the 3 Blind Mice, all topics of equal
> importance to you. How nice.
You don't think that animal rights are an important issue? You consider
the treatment of laboratory animals to be trivial and silly? You think
that cutting tails off mice with cleavers is something that it's OK to
joke about? Perhaps I'll just forward your remarks to that fellow who
spent two weeks barricaded in an unfinished building at UC Berkeley in
order to stop the construction of a new animal-research lab.
No, of course that's not what you're saying. What you're saying is that,
in YOUR OPINION, anti-Semitism and slavery are important issues, but
animal rights is an unimportant issue, so therefore, the drawing of an
analogy between a song that casually mentions that the Jews were
responsible for Christ's death, and a song that casually mentions chopping
tails off mice, is ridiculous and worthy of your scorn. What you're
saying is that you get to make the rules. What you're saying is that we
should all avoid singing songs that might offend you, but that there's
really no need to avoid singing songs that might offend someone else -- in
fact, the very idea is laughable to you -- because your opinions are the
only ones that matter. What you're saying is that the world revolves
around you.
> Really put a lot of work into this, didn't you.
Not really. It's incredibly simple. See, I know a whole lot of people
who think it makes them just so very cool and hip to be offended by
things, and consequently they go 'way out of their way to find things to
be offended by. All I had to do was think like one of these folks for a
couple of minutes, and it just flowed out on the screen like shit through
a goose.
> Any other examples?
Sure; my pleasure. Here's a well-known traditional song which casually
encourages abandonment and reckless endangerment of babies:
Rock-a-bye baby, in the tree top
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock.
When the wind stops, the cradle will fall,
And down will come cradle, baby, and all.
Do you think that this song encourages parents to leave their babies
unattended at the tops of trees; if so, will you "rip the lungs out" of
anyone you catch singing it? Or do you think that this is a silly and
trivial example too, because of course nobody would ever leave a child
unattended? If so, I'll draw your attention to that Chicago couple who
got arrested just recently for leaving their kids alone in an apartment
while they went off for a weekend; this is a very real and very serious
issue, or at least the Chicago cops seem to think it is.
Or do you think this is silly and trivial for a different reason: because
you personally aren't offended by songs about babies crashing to their
deaths from the tops of trees?
> Really see no difference between casually encouraging bigotry
> and casually encouraging hay fever?
I was making the point that, if we worry about who might be offended by
every song we sing, we won't have anything left to sing. Of course, I can
see how you would have missed this point, since you don't think we should
worry about who might be offended by every song we sing; you just think we
should worry about whether every song we sing might offend you or not.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-__ __ /_ Jon Berger "If you push something hard enough,
//_// //_/ jo...@netcom.com it will fall over."
_/ --------- - Fudd's First Law of Opposition
Ugo Piomelli
On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream;
'Tis the Star Spangled Banner, o, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and home of the brave.
O, thus be it ever when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto, "In God is our trust"!
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and home of the brave.
ghost
>ghost (j...@endor.harvard.edu) wrote:
>> Singing whatever you like on stage is called "freedom of speech",
>> as well "a performance", and whether you like it or not,
>> shouting the performer off stage, an act that involves no force,
>> is just more freedom of speech.
>Shouting a performer off stage, whatever else it is, is an act of extreme
>rudeness. I dislike rudeness. I wish that people were, in general, less
>rude. I have no expectation that my wish will be granted, but I persist
>in wishing it.
Shouting a performer off stage is actually really not possible, unless
you posess your own loudspeaker system, or produce an awfully big wind
when you shout. The performer leaves because they have been made to
feel uncomfortable, not because they have actually been made uncomfortable,
physically; its their choice. (I've seen performers leave because they
felt they weren't applauded loudly enough, which is off the topic.)
I, also, wish people were, in general, less rude, and unlike you,
I recognize what other people are doing to provoke some of that 'rudeness',
but: Casually reinforcing ancient perjorative racial/ethnic stereotypes
is far worse than rude. Semantics again, which you don't want to argue,
once you've made your mark & left...like the figurative performer
here, you want to emerge smugly unscathed, cloaked in your claimed gentility.
>> Fan of spontaneity that I am,
>> I'm suspicious of loud, organized booing, the sort of
>> thing opera claques regularly engage in, the sort of thing that
>> met Sinead O'Connor at the Dylan tribute concert.
>
>Make up your mind. You just claimed that booing -- of any sort, organized
>or otherwise -- was just as much free speech as the concert it interrupts;
>that you recognize no difference between the two things. Why are you
>"suspicious" of it? Don't you support the booers' right to free speech,
>in exactly the same measure to which you support the performers'?
I'm not of two minds, I was just making an observation.
I don't like organized behavior, of any kind.
>> I'll bet you could collect authentically
>> racist, bigoted, and probably really boring versions of every song
>> ever sung on earth, if you just tried a little harder.
>
>My point precisely. Thank you for agreeing with me. So we should just
>stop singing, right?
>
>
>> Antisemitism, slavery, and the 3 Blind Mice, all topics of equal
>> importance to you. How nice.
>
>You don't think that animal rights are an important issue? You consider
>the treatment of laboratory animals to be trivial and silly? You think
>that cutting tails off mice with cleavers is something that it's OK to
>joke about? Perhaps I'll just forward your remarks to that fellow who
>spent two weeks barricaded in an unfinished building at UC Berkeley in
>order to stop the construction of a new animal-research lab.
>
>No, of course that's not what you're saying. What you're saying is that,
>in YOUR OPINION, anti-Semitism and slavery are important issues, but
>animal rights is an unimportant issue, so therefore, the drawing of an
>analogy between a song that casually mentions that the Jews were
>responsible for Christ's death, and a song that casually mentions chopping
>tails off mice, is ridiculous and worthy of your scorn. What you're
>saying is that you get to make the rules. What you're saying is that we
>should all avoid singing songs that might offend you, but that there's
>really no need to avoid singing songs that might offend someone else -- in
>fact, the very idea is laughable to you -- because your opinions are the
>only ones that matter. What you're saying is that the world revolves
>around you.
Nope. You keep blindly claiming this on my behalf,
& trying to assume the voice of sweet reason as you do,
& I'm getting pretty sick of the pose.
To spell it out, once more:
Songs or speeches or any form of for-the-public presentation
that libel, collectively, groups of people along the lines
of manufactured characteristics that have nothing to do with
those individual people in the group, and that are in fact
fabrications which the rest of society has set up to distinguish
that group, are bad, wrong, evil, use your favorite word here,
and should be protested, on the spot, by the victim if possible,
and by anyone else who volunteers.
If you want to sing a concert of songs extolling physical activity
to an audience of quadriplegics, while we both might agree that's in
very bad taste, very insensitive, you would not be doing anything that
I, were I quadriplegic, would boo.
(Might make me feel even worse, but thats what the blues are for.)
If you choose to sing songs that state that quadriplegics are
worthless trash & should be eradicated from humanity,
or to casually use terms bandied about by people who
commonly endorse that trash-removal policy, I'd boo,
quadriplegic or no.
Clear enough? Want more examples, or can you take it from there?
>> Really put a lot of work into this, didn't you.
>
>Not really. It's incredibly simple. See, I know a whole lot of people
>who think it makes them just so very cool and hip to be offended by
>things, and consequently they go 'way out of their way to find things to
>be offended by. All I had to do was think like one of these folks for a
>couple of minutes, and it just flowed out on the screen like shit through
>a goose.
I don't think I'm cool, I don't think I'm hip, and I don't have to go
'way out of my way' to be offended by recycled, slightly paganized
antisemitism, or by racial slurs. I certainly agree that you're
producing gooseshit here.
Write a song about that one nasty person who thinks your forced gentility
is a reprehensible scam, just a way to perpetuate your good-old-boy
world, name names, sing it loud, sing it clear,
I'll sit around & listen without any snake noises.
Write a song saying "all x did y", or casually dropping collective
slurs, and I'll tell them all just how full of shit you are.
>I was making the point that, if we worry about who might be offended by
>every song we sing, we won't have anything left to sing. Of course, I can
>see how you would have missed this point, since you don't think we should
>worry about who might be offended by every song we sing; you just think we
>should worry about whether every song we sing might offend you or not.
And I was making the point that you are generalizing to a point
well beyond absurdity; no-one needs to worry about every song they sing,
just to recognize that all sentiments are not created equal.
Why do you pick the songs you do pick, then? Just to be as nasty
as you can be, or because they say something, mean something,
that says something to you, which you'd like to convey, if you can?
Did you ever hear the one about your rights to punch ending where my nose
begins? How about your right to hold the podium ending where my
ears begin? I loan you my attention; if you abuse it, I have every right
to take it away, and attempt as well to wake up those around me.
There's real danger in group behavior of any kind, including
audiences for music. Everyone reads about mob psychology & thinks
"they wouldn't get me". Yeah, sure.
Piers Cawley
>Is Mel Brooks anti-black because he has a white woman say "Up yours N----r" (a
>word I prefer to not even write) to Cleavon Little?
Oh for fuck's sake! Nigger is just a word, and on top of that you're
quoting someone, you aren't calling someone a nigger with intent to
offend, so why don't you just write it? Namby Pamby attitude like that
mean that books like _Uncle Remus_ are no longer in print in their
original form in your country, disregarding the fact that they
capture, incredibly accurately and unpatronizingly, the way people
spoke, as well as a superb body of traditional tales that would
otherwise have been lost. You can't tell me that reporting someone's
speech verbatim, with all the cadences of their speech which give the
tales such strength is patronizing. Well, I suppose you can, but I'll
ignore you.
You'll be telling me next that Mark Twain's descriptions of Huck
Finn's nigger say less about the condition of blacks in America at
that time than the kind of `noble savage' books that seem to get
written now. Twain was there and he knew what went on. He also wrote
about it and told it like it was with enormous skill. Sure he's a Dead
White Male, but that doesn't and shouldn't detract from his ability as
a writer.
--
+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Piers Cawley | |
| pdca...@iest.demon.co.uk | THIS SPACE TO LET |
| pdca...@cix.compulink.co.uk | |
+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Piers Cawley
>ghost (j...@endor.harvard.edu) wrote:
Oodles chopped out for the sake of brevity.
>I was making the point that, if we worry about who might be offended by
>every song we sing, we won't have anything left to sing. Of course, I can
We should at the very least consider who may be offended by any song
we sing, even if the conclusion we come to at the end of such
consideration is "Ah fuck'em!". There are some people (in my opinion
I'll freely admit) who deserve to be offended. I hasten to point out
that I don't consider Jews to fall into that category, (the Israeli
government perhaps, but never the Jews as a people). There's a song I
sing by Ron Kavana that not only offends all right thinking tories,
but quite a few right thinking liberals who seem to get offended by
the word `frigging', but I won't stop singing it because the point the
song makes is, to me, important.
Way back at the foot of this thread Abby made the point I hadn't heard
before that _the Lord of the Dance_ (a song I wouldn't be heard dead
singin as it happens) is stunningly offensive to Jews and he
personally wouldn't want to hear it sun. That's fair enough, having
heard the point I am even less likely to sing the song (although if I
had the words to _Simple Gifts_ I would almost certainly sing it as
the song has a lovely tune).
Little Sir Hugh is a slightly different proposition. The majority of
people know very little about the massacres of Jews in this country
and fewer still know anything about the `reasons' for such massacre.
There are also, as others have pointed out, versions of the song
(which I confess I've never heard) that don't make it clear that the
torturer is supposed to be Jewish, so why not sing it? It really is a
matter for the singer of the song and no one else; sure you can
disapprove of my choice of material, but you can't make me unsing it.
Maybe I've made the point before the song that this is an example of
the kind of ridiculous propaganda that was perpetrated by the writers
of ballads, and, that they got away with. Maybe I just don't know the
implications, in which case don't boo me off, just explain your
reasons for being offended so I can decide whether or not to sing the
song again.
>see how you would have missed this point, since you don't think we should
>worry about who might be offended by every song we sing; you just think we
>should worry about whether every song we sing might offend you or not.
Why should he worry about anything other than might offend him? Some
of the horrors I hear of which are attributed to the PC mentality seem
to stem from people who spend too much time worrying about what might
offend others, and occasionally getting far more offended by such
things than any of the people they seek to defend. However, I will
admit that threatening (even if only rhetorically) to rip someone's
lungs out for singing an offensive song is just a little over the top.
Library Reference Section
>As you can see, Americans don't take all those patriotic gestures too
>seriously. Few would give you trouble about not singing the anthem, or
>for folding the flag the wrong way, or generally not knowing what to do in
>a given ceremony. On the other hand, if someone were to burn the flag, or
>to deliberately and loudly protest the singing of the anthem, there might
>be some trouble, as can be expected in just about any circumstance in
>which someone insults and slanders someone else. A case of form following
>function, I guess.
I suspect that Americans may take such patriotic gestures more seriously
than some other nationalitites. e.g. Australians. The general response to
anthem singing at football games etc. here is a kind of apathy mixed with
impatience - waiting for the real events to start. Australians are, IMHO,
much more cynical about such displays of patriotism - sure they're
fiercely nationalistic when it comes to winning sporting events but that
feeling doesn't manifest itself in quite the same ways. I was recently
watching a video of The Highwaymen (Nelson, Jennings et al.) in which
Johnny Cash did a monologue about the U.S. flag. The crowd went wild
with delight at the end of it. I think I can safely say that if someone
did a similar routine about the Australian flag it would not get the same
response and they might even get heckled by some members of the audience.
Mark Cryle - refc...@central1.library.uq.oz.au
Jack Campin
resurfacing of the same issue on rec.music.early (thread "Ethics and
the early musician") with very similar positions being taken about
what you do with racist or misogynist material. The discussion there
started with an article by Larry Rosenwald in "Historical Performance"
that might be worth looking for (I haven't seen it yet).
I still stick to the position I took there, that this stuff *ought* to be
performed precisely *because* of its nightmarish historical role, with
*both* its persuasive power *and* what it led to given equal weight; we
haven't seen the last occasion when music was used for repulsive ends, and
deconstructing it will do more to prevent it happening again than trying to
forget such things ever occurred. The example I quoted there of how to get
it right was the local industrial noise band Test Department, who did a
performance based around the English militarist anthem "The Agincourt
Carol": massively amplified to the threshold of pain with a multiscreen
slide & video show of British military atrocities. It would be easy to do
a similar performance incorporating anti-semitic propaganda songs or pieces
about wife-beating.
Just leaving out the offensive stanzas from an all-out pogrom incitement
and trying to fool the audience that it's innocuous helps no-one.
--
-- Jack Campin -- Room 1.36, Department of Computing & Electrical Engineering,
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
TEL: 031 449 5111 ext 4192 FAX: 031 451 3431 INTERNET: ja...@cee.hw.ac.uk
JANET: possibly backwards BITNET: via UKACRL BANG!net: via mcsun & uknet
Ruth Cross
|> By the way, a further contribution to the discussion: ;-)
|>
|> On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep
|> Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
|> What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep
|> As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
|> Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
|> In full glory reflected now shines on the stream;
|> 'Tis the Star Spangled Banner, o, long may it wave
|> O'er the land of the free and home of the brave.
|>
|> O, thus be it ever when free men shall stand
|> Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
|> Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
|> Praise the pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
|> Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
|> And this be our motto, "In God is our trust"!
|> And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
|> O'er the land of the free and home of the brave.
|>
|> *************************************************************************
|> Ugo Piomelli
I looked through my songbooks last night and finally found the
full anthem (in the Baptist hymnal). Ugo has beat me to the 2nd and
4th verses. Here's the 3rd, which I think someone said was officially
deleted during WWII to avoid offending the British.
BTW, in case you were wondering, the song was written by
Francis Scott Key, who had been on a ship watching the British attack
a U.S. fort. They didn't know if the British had succeeded until
dawn, when they saw the U.S. flag still flying over the fort.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood had washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave
Next we can do all the state songs (good FAQ material here :-) )
Eric Ogata
Piomelli) writes:
> By the way, a further contribution to the discussion: ;-)
> On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep
> Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
> What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep
> As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
> Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
> In full glory reflected now shines on the stream;
> 'Tis the Star Spangled Banner, o, long may it wave
> O'er the land of the free and home of the brave.
As a beer-swilling, apple-pie eating, flag waving, certifiable,
star-spangled-banner singing, red blooded American, I could have sworn
this verse was actually something like,
On the shoordim lee scene, through the something something
hmmm hmmm hmmm hm hm something,
humm hmmm etc...
Oar the lah and of the Brave, and the home of the Free!!!
Oh well, I can't sing it anyway :)
--
eric
og...@degas.nswc.navy.mil
James Langdell
>ro...@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>
>>And most people in this country would be hard pressed to recite the
>>words to the parody of Anacreon In Heaven all the way thru, let
>>alone sing it. And I would be astounded in you could find one person
>>in a hundred, or maybe even a thousand, who could even give you one
>>line from the second verse. Yes, boys and girls, the Second Verse!
>
>Umm, I'm not positive about this, but I believe the second verse of
>the Star Spangled Banner goes something like:
>
> Oh <something> in Heaven,
> Where free men shall reign.
>
>I guess I want to be counted as one of the unusual who know there is a
>second verse, and to admit that I have had to sing it. I belive the
>last time was in grade school (which was a REAL long time ago), but that's
>the trivial type of thing I tend to remember.
>
Hey, there are at least four verses to "The Star Spangeled Banner."
I'll post them all shortly, if I don't see someone beating me to it.
And, if you want to talk about censorship of singers, just try to
continue singing the *second* verse of the anthem at a ball game.
For the sin of holding up the game you'll be shut up so fast it'll
make your head spin before it strikes the floor!
--James Langdell jam...@eng.sun.com
Sun Microsytems Mountain View, Calif.
Steven Levine
>
>Umm, I'm not positive about this, but I believe the second verse of
>the Star Spangled Banner goes something like:
>
> Oh <something> in Heaven,
> Where free men shall reign.
>
>I guess I want to be counted as one of the unusual who know there is a
>second verse, and to admit that I have had to sing it.
But how can anyone ever forget the immortal:
Then fight on we must
For our cause it is just
Let this be our motto:
"In G-d is our trust."
I probably could come up with most of the second and third
verses, but that's because they always seemed like parodies
to me.
--
Steven Levine
ste...@cray.com
Steven Levine
> Christ was borne across the sea
> with a beauty in his bosom
> that transfigures you and me
> as he died to make men holy
> let us die to make men free
> as G-d goes marching on"
Isn't that "let us live to make men free?" This is from memory,
but the contrast of the lines impressed me when we sang it in
high school choir (with the marching band for a football game,
no less). Maybe we sang an altered version.
--
Steven Levine
ste...@cray.com
Abby Sale
JD>> (2) it would
JD>> be ludicrous to hold anyone today responsible for the actions
JD>> of these historical figures,
Ludicrous or not, the holding of responsibility is so common in modern
times that I wonder that it's questioned. I'm not questioning _your_
attitudes, but rather the acknowledgement of modern history. I believe
someone already posted that until 1965, the Catholic church officially
held all Jews responsible. At least they have now made an official
stand on this. The various Eastern churches have not. Most Protestant
churches are also mute. That's reality.
That there have been endless murders, _in_modern_times,_ citing this
slander as a rationale is also reality; eg. eastern European pogroms
(especially under the Cossaks and B. Chmielnicki), the Holocaust, & the
Kielce, Poland pogrom of 1948.
Extend that where you will.
I certainly do _not_ suggest that you or S. Carter or _anyone_ in this
newsgroup advocates anti-Semitism or any other hateful or offensive or
even unpleasant thing.
And I am grateful to Mr. Dallal for detailing the initial Christian
teachings involved. Several people have been reluctant even to connect
the death in the song to anything to do with Jesus or Jews.
There's still one additional step to take.
a=========================================================================
From - | Abby...@animece.oau.org
Abby Sale | ...!{peora!bilver,osceola!alfred}!vicstoy!animece!Abby.Sale
Orlando, FL | "Chat" conference on Intelec, EZNet, RIME, U'NI, FidoNET.
=========================================================================s
Robert Derrick
: In article <1993Jun28....@hemlock.cray.com> ro...@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
: >Is Mel Brooks anti-black because he has a white woman say "Up yours N----r" (a
: >word I prefer to not even write) to Cleavon Little?
:
: Oh for fuck's sake! Nigger is just a word, and on top of that you're
No, you misunderstand. I have no problem with you, or Mark Twain,
or Rudyard Kipling, or Richard Prior, or whoever, using the word.
It is for personal reasons that it is very painful for me to say it,
or even write it. And so I don't.
So when Peter Bellamy sings "Loot", he sings it the way that
Kipling wrote it, and that is fine. But were I to sing it, I
would change that word.
I also chang the word "pickaninnies" in "Peach Pickin' Time In Georgia"
to something I find less offensive to me. In the end, I do not tailor
songs to the sensibilities of my audience so much as I tailor them
to me. Just the way I am. I would not sing about "the darky Sunday school",
but I might sing Baptist Sunday school. I suppose that means that I care
less about the sensibilities of one group but not the other. And that
is probably true. So it goes.
On the other hand, I think that the music from Hair, and specifically
the song "Colored Spade", is great. Consistency is not something that I
get hung up on. But I probably wouldn't sing it myself. Probably. ;^)
But what you do is your own personal choice. Nor was I/am I offended by it.
---
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
James Moore
>And, if you want to talk about censorship of singers, just try to
>continue singing the *second* verse of the anthem at a ball game.
There's an old joke from WWII about this. Seems that sentries on duty
would challenge any intruders with
Halt! Who goes there?
Private Smith!
Recite the second verse of the Star Spangled Banner!
Anyone who could actually recite the second verse was shot immediately,
as it was clear they were a German spy.
--
James Moore /|\ ja...@wrs.com
Wind River Systems \|/ Alameda, California
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half
didn't mean anything at all"
James Moore
>"Who doth prosper anew,
>When Free Men shall stand
>...
Sorry, not even close. It's:
Play Ball!
:-)
James Langdell
Here's the words to all four verses of "The Star Spangled Banner,"
as they appeared in a musical edition from 1814, published by
Thomas Carr. This version was transcribed in the collection
"Music In America," compiled by W. Thomas Marrocco and Harold Gleason,
published by W.W. Norton in 1964.
1
O! Say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming.
And the Rockets' red glare, the Bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our Flag was still there.
O! say does that star spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the Land of the free, and the home of the brave.
2
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses;
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
'Tis the star spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the Land of the free, and the home of the brave.
3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, shall leave us no more,
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star spangled banner, in triumph doth wave
O'er the Land of the free, and the home of the brave.
4
O! thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their lov'd home, and the war's desolation.
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land,
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our Trust";
And the star spangled banner, in triumph shall wave,
O'er the Land of the free, and the home of the brave.
------------------------------------------------------------
So, does anyone want me to copy out *six* verses of
"Anachreon in Heaven"? I have them.
--James Langdell jam...@eng.sun.com
Sun Microsystems Mountain View, Calif.
Abby Sale
RD>>[re The Lord of The Dance]
Now that James Langdell has taken the trouble to cite accurately, I see
that we (I) should accept third-party quoting slowly.
A few things should be obvious to all:
2
I danced for the scribe
And the pharisee,
But they would not dance
And they wouldn't follow me.
Simple statement of "fact." Non-derogatory.
3
I danced on the Sabbath
And I cured the lame;
The holy people
Said it was a shame.
They whipped and they stripped
And they hung me on high,
And they left me there
On a Cross to die.
Big problem. Direct statement that Jews killed Jesus. (If Mr Carter
personally claimed that this is just an unfortunate juxtaposition - that
he meant "they" to denote "Romans", and not "holy people", then I would
believe him; but slowly. At _best_ a causal relationship per standard
Christian teachings.) No internal implication of other Jew's blame.
Nevertheless, commonly so used in reality.
4
I danced on a Friday
When the sky turned black--
It's hard to dance
With the devil on your back.
Matter of Christian theology. None of my business. Big
misunderstanding. Sorry for confusion.
RD>>It reminds me of the Woody Allen character in Annie Hall who was always
RD>>sure every time a Gentile said the words "did you" that they were making
RD>>a subtle anti-semitic remark. "I didn't go, jew! [didge-yew {did you}]"
When I was a student at Penn (U.) Castro was still welcome in the US &
spoke there. He kept saying "I want to tell the Jews of this
country..." Although Penn had a large Jewish population, many non-Jews
wondered why he had no message for them too! The Spanish speakers
finally explained the pronunciation difficulty between Y & J. ("Youth")
But there is also the well-known problem of the black getting slow
service in a restaurant. Discrimination happened often enough that the
question _must_ be raised if service is slow for everybody. Clinical
paranoia takes on an interesting light for the paranoid who is
nevertheless truly being persecuted.
Jerry Dallal
both together now.
I deeply resent the implication that anyone who sings or
enjoys listening to "Lord of the Dance" is, therefore, anti-
Semitic. By extension, should all Christians, who believe in
the New Testament (in particular, in the verses cited above),
be considered anti-Semitic by definition? And if the
extension doesn't work, why not? I would assume that holding
a belief, not merely voicing it, is what is important.
AS>Extend that where you will.
AS>I certainly do _not_ suggest that you or S. Carter or _anyone_ in this
AS>newsgroup advocates anti-Semitism or any other hateful or offensive or
AS>even unpleasant thing.
How do you square your statement that you do not suggest that anyone is
advocating anti-Semitism with your claim that LotD, which merely restates
events that Christians hold true, is "fighting words" which you have likened
to having a knife thrust into you?
Let me be explicit. I have no problem with LotD because it describes events
that Christians believe occurred in the life of the historical Jesus. Do
you consider anyone who holds these events as true an anti-Semite? Please
extend us the courtesy of an equally explicit answer.
Piers Cawley
>Piers Cawley (pdca...@iest.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jun28....@hemlock.cray.com> ro...@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>: >Is Mel Brooks anti-black because he has a white woman say "Up yours N----r" (a
>: >word I prefer to not even write) to Cleavon Little?
>:
>: Oh for fuck's sake! Nigger is just a word, and on top of that you're
>: quoting someone... so why don't you just write it?
>
>No, you misunderstand. I have no problem with you, or Mark Twain,
>or Rudyard Kipling, or Richard Prior, or whoever, using the word.
>It is for personal reasons that it is very painful for me to say it,
>or even write it. And so I don't.
Fair enough, that's your decision. BTW, don't get me wrong I wasn't
railing against you, just the people who have a kneejerk reaction to
something without looking at context.
>So when Peter Bellamy sings "Loot", he sings it the way that
^^^^^
It's *sang* now I'm afraid; Peter committed suicide about two years
ago now. A very great loss to the scene.
>Kipling wrote it, and that is fine. But were I to sing it, I
>would change that word.
Hmm, Kipling wrote it that way for a reason. If you were reciting the
poem would you change the word, or would you just not recited the
poem.
>I also chang the word "pickaninnies" in "Peach Pickin' Time In Georgia"
>to something I find less offensive to me. In the end, I do not tailor
>songs to the sensibilities of my audience so much as I tailor them
>to me.
Again fair enough.
Just the way I am. I would not sing about "the darky Sunday school",
but I might sing Baptist Sunday school. I suppose that means that I
care less about the sensibilities of one group but not the other. And
that is probably true. So it goes.
I don't know the song, but aren't you in danger of (excuse the term)
whitewashing it?
>But what you do is your own personal choice. Nor was I/am I offended by it.
Likewise, I just went a little non-linear on that posting (I still
stand by what I said, but nothing in it was intended to be taken
personally).
Anselm Lingnau
writes:
> By the way, the Italian National Anthem has four verses, and
> I have no idea what the second, third and fourth say, either.
With us over here in Germany, it's all different. The German National Anthem
has three verses but we only sing the *third*. Doesn't have blood nor gore,
either.
Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau .................................. lin...@math.uni-frankfurt.de
Still, I'm told my first cry was `main(){...', or sounded like it anyway.
--- Jack Campin
William C. Gawne
(Anselm Lingnau) writes:
>[...]
>With us over here in Germany, it's all different. The German National Anthem
>has three verses but we only sing the *third*. Doesn't have blood nor gore,
>either.
Is that Deutschlandlied? Used to be Deutschland Uber Alles?
Has anybody else ever had occassion to sing a tune out of the Episcopal
hymnal that is performed to the tune of DUA? Weird feeling.
-Bill
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Iskandar Taib
>
> Anyone who's been to a Christmas Revels performance knows that the
> first act always ends with this song. A fake-Morris dance is done to
> it, then the cast pulls the audience out of their seats to dance in the
> aisles, lobby etc. while repeating the chorus over and over and over...
> I was under the impression that the words were written especially
> for the Revels, and those words are certainly very Christian. They
> are only derogatory towards the "Scribes and the Pharisees".
> Any other Revellers out there who know more about the history
> of the song?
I always thought the melody was from an old Shaker hymn called "Simple
Gifts". Don't know about the lyrics.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NT...@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
Jerry Dallal
> Has anybody else ever had occassion to sing a tune out of the Episcopal
> hymnal that is performed to the tune of DUA? Weird feeling.
>
After a particularly moving session of singin hmymns, a friend of mine claimed
that he could write a hymn to *any* tune. His undoing was "Barnacle Bill, the
Sailor."
Alan R Light -- Personal Account
I might as well post the _Best_ anthem, though strictly not national but
international as it was the anthem of 11 confederated states, and I don't
know if it ever became official. Note that there is no mention of blood
or gore, it is simply an expression of what a wonderful place we live in:
DIXIE
I wish I was in the land of cotton, old times there are not forgotten,
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
In Dixie Land where I was born in, early on a frosty mornin',
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
<Chorus>
Then I wish I was in Dixie, hooray! hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie,
Away, away, away down South in Dixie,
Away, away, away down South in Dixie.
Old Missus marry Will the Weaver, William was a gay deceiver,
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
But when he put his arm around her, smiled as fierce as a forty pounder,
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
<Chorus>
There's buckwheat cakes and Injun batter, makes you fat or a little fatter,
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
The hoe it down and scratch your gravel to Dixie's Land I'm bound to travel,
Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
<Chorus>
----
There's at least a couple of other verses, and all sorts of various other
verses that have been put to the music. A great tune, btw, and singable.
Alan
--
Alan Light | "The fire is alight and will not be put out until it has
Waxhaw, NC | burnt up the earth's foundations." II Esdras 15:15
<<< ali...@rock.concert.net -or- ali...@wheaton.edu >>>
Ruth Cross
odd tunes. _The_Prairie_Home_Companion_Folk_Song_Book_ has a section
devoted to to this.
One of my favorites is singing Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a
Snowy Evening" to the tune "Hernando's Hideaway"--
Whose woods these are I think I know
His house is in the village though
He will not mind me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow (OLE!)
William C. Gawne
Of course that's the state hymn. Anybody know what the Texas national
anthem was in the Republic of Texas days before 1836? Was there even one?
[If anybody in Dallas is reading this try calling June Welch at UTD.
He'll know if anybody does.]
Amy Elizabeth Ksir
>In article <1993Jul1.1...@hnrc.tufts.edu>, je...@hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal) writes:
>|> >
>|> > Has anybody else ever had occassion to sing a tune out of the Episcopal
>|> > hymnal that is performed to the tune of DUA? Weird feeling.
>|> >
>|>
>|> After a particularly moving session of singin hmymns, a friend of mine claimed
>|> that he could write a hymn to *any* tune. His undoing was "Barnacle Bill, the
>|> Sailor."
>
> This reminds me of the practice of setting well-known poetry to
> odd tunes. _The_Prairie_Home_Companion_Folk_Song_Book_ has a section
> devoted to to this.
>
the Steeley Span one :)
Tell me why the stars do shine
Tell me why the ivy twines
Tell me why the sky's so blue,
And I will tell you just why I love you
Oh beautiful for spacious skies
For amber waves of grain, for pur-
ple mountains' majesties, above
The fruited plain, America.
Now is the time for all good men
To come to the aid of their parties
The quick brown fox jumped o-ver
The lazy dog, America.
In the event of a sudden loss
Of cabin pressure, the panel above
Your head will open [??? I forgot]
Grasp the mask firmly, and breathe naturally.
etc....This song cracked me up when I heard it.
I was about to apologize for possible copyright infringements, but it
occurred to me that the lyrics of this song are probably public domain. :)
Amy
--
Amy E. Ksir aek...@rice.edu
I don't know where this opinion is, but I know it's mine.
"Conventionality is not morality.
Self-righteousness is not religion." -- Charlotte Bronte
Charles E Olson
Whenever I'm in the mood to have things thrown at me, I like to belt out
"Amazing Grace" to the tune of the "Gilligan's Island" theme song.
--
-Chip Olson. | ol...@world.std.com | ceo@{gnu.ai,silver.lcs}.mit.edu
This article is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Jeff Green
>Why should he worry about anything other than might offend him? Some
>of the horrors I hear of which are attributed to the PC mentality seem
>to stem from people who spend too much time worrying about what might
>offend others, and occasionally getting far more offended by such
>things than any of the people they seek to defend. However, I will
>admit that threatening (even if only rhetorically) to rip someone's
>lungs out for singing an offensive song is just a little over the top.
As an editor of a magazine I am keenly aware of how people can find
themselves to be offended by items we have published. Moreover, I am
also aware that sometimes people should be offended by something that
they read, or hear, or see, if it can be used to make a point and help
to foster a better understanding.
I was always under the impression that Folk music, being music of the
people, should contain marterial that people felt like singing about,
and I also was under the impression that 'folkies' (of which I count
myself a member in good standing) would understand that the world is
not all peaches and cream. That individuals are allowed, no,
encouraged, through their music to express their opinions about life and
whathaveyou.
I've listened to "Lord of the Dance" before (this is what started this)
and enjoyed the melody and the performance. If it has been deemed
anti-semetic I'm sorry, but I can seperate the song from it's today and
it's yesterday. Englishmen might still be offended by Yankee Doodle, but
the words are witty, the tune catchy and it tells of the feelings of the
(original) singer and tunesmith, ergo, a folk song.
In our society it is difficult for a singer not to offend. Don't some
think that Tom Paxton might offend "Ten Million Lawyers" and "Yuppies in
the Sky"? Sure, many of us look at these tunes as humorous, but someone
has to be the butt of that humor. Can it not be the same for others?
Can we not allow an artist to make a statement we do not agree with and
try to understand *why* they fell the way they do? If we encourage this
interaction will not this world be a better place? And what better way
to do it, then by music?
I'm off to the hills for a few days and will miss you all until then.
Jeff
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green, Editor Internet:jgr...@ModemNews.win.net
ModemNews Magazine RelayNet:Jeff Green->MODEMNEWS(465)
An Alternative Media TriNet :Jeff Green (Net Chat)
BBS 203.359.2299 CIS :71726...@Compuserve.com
M. Jonas
of Greensleeves on the Weaver's 1955 Carnagie Hall Concert. Gives you a whole
new approach to the lyrics (you know, where he gives a rap-version of
Greensleeves to a down-home country banjo tune).
Martin
Robert Derrick
: Talking of lyrics to strange tunes, I have to think of Pete Seeger's version
Hoyt Axton does a version of Greensleeves that blends the original
tune and words with House of the Rising Sun, in what I feel is a
great effect, but it sure disturbs other people greatly.
---
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
Gary Martin
Can we not allow an artist to make a statement we do not agree with and
try to understand *why* they fell the way they do? If we encourage this
interaction will not this world be a better place? And what better way
to do it, then by music?
And can we take it one step further and not automatically assume that
the singer agrees with every sentiment expressed in every line of every
song he/she sings? Maybe a singer sings a song (or even writes a song)
that simply shows a slice of reality (or someone else's opinion) because
the singer and the audience are deeply moved by that image, perhaps
in different ways.
When I hear, say, "The Wee Cooper of Fife", I don't think the singer is
advocating wife-beating. My first reaction is to think how much our
attitudes have changed since the song was current. My second reaction is
to think how little our behavior has changed since then. (Not that anyone
sings this song anymore. Jean Redpath apparently has stopped singing it
because its content is offensive.) If this were a contemporary song, I
might react differently because of the final verse, which advocates
wife-beating as a general solution to the cooper's problem. But without
that last verse, even as a contemporary song I'd find it just fine -
domestic violence is a fact, and to portray it honestly and matter-of-
factly in a song is likely to make a more powerful anti-violence statement
than if the song preaches and moralizes.
--
Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
Mar...@cis.umassd.edu
Dorothy Westphal
Of course, it was a hymn first, as you can see when you check
the date in the hymnbook. Before it was DUA it was
"Gott Erhalte Franz den Kaiser" ("God preserve the Kaiser") and you
can be sure these words predated DUA.
Incidentally, DUA did not really say we will winn over
other countries, it was more like our country is best.
Kind of like america the beuatiful and God Bless America.
--
Dorothy Westphal, Sunnyvale, Calif. % Always expect the good. %
west...@zuni.litc.lockheed.com % %
Barbara Swetman
|> >
|> > Has anybody else ever had occassion to sing a tune out of the Episcopal
|> > hymnal that is performed to the tune of DUA? Weird feeling.
|> >
|>
|> After a particularly moving session of singin hmymns, a friend of mine
|> claimed that he could write a hymn to *any* tune. His undoing was
|> "Barnacle Bill, the Sailor."
Lots of words can be combined with lots of different tunes. Hymnals are
often very helpful because they will actually list the meter. They will
have something like 8,8,8,8. Meaning that the tune is meant for any
words with 4 lines of 8 syllables each. Several meters are so common
that they are just called CM (Common Meter) or LM (Long Meter) or SM
(Short Meter) I forget what they all are, I think CM is 8,6,8,6. So all
you need to do is find words and tunes with the same meter & you can mix
and match to your heart's content.
I've heard Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer done to a Sacred Harp tune as
one example. I'm not familiar with Barnacle Bill, the Sailor, but I
suspect it's meter is unusual or irregular & that's more difficult.
Our library has a 19th century hymnal, that instead of being arranged
topically like modern hymnals, is organized by Meter. On the left side
of the page will be one or two tunes of a certain meter. On the right
hand side are about 5 hymns of the same meter. There are several pages
of the most common meters. Then you get to PM (Particular Meter) where
there is maybe only one or 2 hymns that fit a tune. It's kind of fun to
sit & look at the possiblities.
If you know the meter to secular songs, you can probably find some hymns
to fit. Then you can reverse the process & put folk or other more
secular words to some tune that people connect with hymns.
Barbara
Charles E Olson
Wow, that's *really* appalling... almost as appalling as singing "Jabberwocky"
to the tune of "Greensleves", which I've heard done.
Jerry Dallal
> In article <1993Jul1.1...@hnrc.tufts.edu>, je...@hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal) writes:
> |> >
> |> After a particularly moving session of singin hmymns, a friend of mine
> |> claimed that he could write a hymn to *any* tune. His undoing was
> |> "Barnacle Bill, the Sailor."
>
> Lots of words can be combined with lots of different tunes. Hymnals are
> often very helpful because they will actually list the meter. They will
> have something like 8,8,8,8. Meaning that the tune is meant for any
> words with 4 lines of 8 syllables each. Several meters are so common
> that they are just called CM (Common Meter) or LM (Long Meter) or SM
> (Short Meter) I forget what they all are, I think CM is 8,6,8,6. So all
> you need to do is find words and tunes with the same meter & you can mix
> and match to your heart's content.
>
The problem wasn't finding words, the problem was being able to take it
seriously as a hymn! Another poster suggested Amazing Grace/Gilligan's Island
as a ludicrous combination. What surprises me is that after a couple of days
I'm starting to like it--as a hymn!
Bruce Adelsohn
>In article <1993Jun2...@usht10.hou130.chevron.com> nor...@usht10.hou130.chevron.com (Ruth Cross) writes:
>>
>> I was under the impression that the words were written especially
>> for the Revels, and those words are certainly very Christian. They
>> are only derogatory towards the "Scribes and the Pharisees".
>
>> Any other Revellers out there who know more about the history
>> of the song?
>
>
>I always thought the melody was from an old Shaker hymn called "Simple
>Gifts". Don't know about the lyrics.
>
Despite what some people here would have their readers believe, there are at
least two distinct sets of lyrics to this song. One is clearly Christian,
and the other is a modern composition, written by and for the neopagan
(Goddess) movement. Some people within the latter group claim that their
version is older than the Christian; I have seen no definitive evidence of
this. However, those who claim that there is ONLY a Christian version are
clearly speaking from ignorance, as well.
As for the tune, the most common one is "Simple Gifts." However, I have
heard at least one other, which, though closely related, is NOT that
Appalachian shape-tune.
- Bruce -
br...@src4src.linet.org OR BADELSOHN on NVN, new home of the flat rate.
"A man should live forever, or die trying."
-- Spider Robinson
Joseph C Fineman
>Wow, that's *really* appalling... almost as appalling as singing "Jabberwocky"
>to the tune of "Greensleves", which I've heard done.
That sort of grotesquery is apparently a folk custom in certain
circles. Quite a few examples are given in _The Prairie Home
Companion Song Book_ by Pankake & Pankake. I myself have heard the
Marine Hymn ("From the halls of Montezuma...") sung to the tune of
"The Ghost Riders in the Sky", with the chorus
Gung ho! Gung ho!
The United States Marines.
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
239 Clinton Road (617) 731-9190
Brookline, MA 02146
Jens Kilian
It *still* is "Deutschland ueber alles". The only difference nowadays is
that the third verse is sung. Those who haven't learned anything still sing
that unfortunate first verse.
The third verse is about "Unity and Justice and Freedom". I guess that nobody
can remember the text of the second verse, which is a shame - it's about
Wine, Women and Song :-)
Bye,
Jens.
BTW, since someone mentioned metrical compatibility:
The Deutschlandlied (former West German anthem, now German anthem),
"Auferstanden aus Ruinen" (the former East German anthem) and
the "Ode to Joy" (Schiller, melody from Beethoven's Ninth) that was
once used as an "Olympic Anthem", are all metrically compatible.
Each one can be sung to the tune of one of the others.
--
Internet: je...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.com | Phone: (0|+49)7031-14-4785 (TELNET 778-4785)
MausNet: Jens Kilian @ BB | Fax : (0|+49)7031-14-2049
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible.
Christophe Pettus
>Despite what some people here would have their readers believe, there are at
>least two distinct sets of lyrics to this song. One is clearly Christian,
>and the other is a modern composition, written by and for the neopagan
>(Goddess) movement. Some people within the latter group claim that their
>version is older than the Christian; I have seen no definitive evidence of
>this. However, those who claim that there is ONLY a Christian version are
>clearly speaking from ignorance, as well.
OK, one more time.
1. The tune of "Lord of the Dance" is the Shaker hymn "Good to Be
Simple," as has been posted here previously.
2. Sydney Carter wrote a very Christian song, "Lord of the Dance," to
that tune. He wrote this (still copyrighted, by the way) song in the
1950s-1960s time frame.
3. Others wrote Filk versions of "Lord of the Dance" with Pagan
lyrics.
Both the Christian and Pagan versions are modern compositions. The
Christian version predates the Pagan filks of it. They are all pretty
good songs.
--
-- Christophe <c...@taligent.com>
"You may not be interested in computers, but there are computers
interested in you."
Corun MacAnndra
>
>OK, one more time.
>
>1. The tune of "Lord of the Dance" is the Shaker hymn "Good to Be
>Simple," as has been posted here previously.
Um, the Shaker hymn is best know by the first line of the hymn "'Tis a
Gift to be Simple." Not "Good to be Simple." And I'm not sure, but I
don't think that's really the *title* of the hymn, but rather "Simplicity,"
as the chorus goes;
When true simplicity is gained
To have and to hold we shan't be restrained (not sure of this one)
To turn, turn, will be our delight
till by turning, turning we come round right
It's been a long time since I've sung it, and I may not have the lyric
right in the second line, but that's essentially the original lyric to
the chorus.
Bb,
Corun
--
==============================================================================
Corun MacAnndra | Q: What's the difference between Jurassic Park and
Dark Horde by birth | Microsoft? A: One's a high-tech theme park dominated
Moritu by choice | by dinosaurs, and the other's a Steven Spielberg film.