Mudcat Café message #4029708 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #157878   Message #4029708
Posted By: GUEST,Pseudonymous
23-Jan-20 - 02:57 AM
Thread Name: Dave Harker, Fakesong
Subject: RE: Dave Harker, Fakesong
Jon Dudley's post was interesting in more than one way and corrected some errors at least one of which I had noted myself. I'm glad he posted it: thank you.

It also illustrated several of my points: a) there is more than one way to tell the same story b) each way of telling, each selection of what to put in and what to leave out, reflects the teller as much as the facts of the matter.

I am sorry that Vic Smith is upset. His last post sketches in some useful and additional background, but for me nothing in it detracts from or contradicts the points I have made about the fascinating Copper family. Vic is of course entitled to interpret my posts however he sees fit. He writes of his 'discomfort at the way Bob's intention and motives are portrayed by Pseudonymous here'. I am left to guess what interpretation of what I put he came up with that left him so discomforted. But I hope he will accept that I intended no insult either to him or to the Coppers.

I admit that I did get a bit annoyed when I was given an incorrect grammatical analysis of the modal verb 'might' as used in the verb phrase 'might have felt' (an example of epistemic modality in the verb phrase; in this case occurring in a noun phrase functioning as the subject of the main clause whose verb was the declarative 'was') but I just let Brian have the last word on the matter to avoid getting into an argument. NB When Jim Carroll tells me I don't understand Shakespeare because I haven't been paying attention, I just laugh aloud. Such is the world of Mudcat.

As far as I am concerned (and Ord wrote a good PhD on similar topics relating to folk) and appearance of being shambolic would be apt for the folk genre, giving an authentic feel, in line with folk's tendency to see itself as being in opposition to the rest of popular, slick, commercial music and therefore appearing 'endearingly shambolic' - the key word here being 'shambolic' would be a feat of consummate showmanship. A lesser showman would just appear shambolic.

So this is sort of an apology, sort of not.

Returning to Harker, the thread could go on for ever. What he has to say on Child and balladry (ie post-Child 'research' arising from Child, Gerould etc) could be discussed in another thread, as could his comments on Lloyd. 'Breathtaking arrogance' was one phrase he used in connection with Lloyd, though at the end of his section on Child he sort of teams up with Lloyd by quoting a less than 100% admiring paragraph Lloyd wrote on Child's selection.

So for me, since this thread has got very long, I wouldn't mind if it did close. It has been interesting to discuss Harker's book, and I have got some more ideas for stuff to read, and have also had some pleasure listening to the Copper family singing again.

Thanks all. Have a good weekend.