Mudcat Café message #2149245 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #104731   Message #2149245
Posted By: GUEST,guest - mark d
14-Sep-07 - 12:58 PM
Thread Name: how important is the label traditional singer?
Subject: RE: how important is the label traditional singer?
er, I'm a bit confused what this thread is about, is it about song collectors in general (including people like Sharp, Hammond, etc.), or is it restricted to audio recording collectors, or is it just about Peter Kennedy collecting? If it's about what the thread title says ("how important is the label traditional singer?"), then it could relate to a much wider context than just song collecting, and begs the question, "how important in what context?"

As I say, I'm a bit confused, especially as the thread seems to begin in mid sentence with "at the end of the day" as if it's following on from something else... have I missed something here?

If the point of "song collecting" was to make a permanent record of traditional music so that if the song dies out in the oral tradition it is not lost completely (as seems to have happened with so many songs collected by Sharp etc. by the time collectors went out with tape recorders 50-odd years later), then there's no point collecting from a "revivalist" singer who has learned songs from manuscript or recordings, because the songs have already been collected previously. In this sense, it doesn't matter how "good" the singer is, as long as you "collect" the song.

If, however, the point of recording (and now I'm not talking about "collecting" specifically) a song, or songs, is to make available recordings of traditional songs for people to listen to, and thus in some sense to keep them going, then it doesn't seem to matter if the singer is termed "traditionalist" or "revivalist" and whether they are "good" or not becomes more important.