Talk:Northumbrian Minstrelsy

[Untitled]
The Northumbrian Minstrelsy definitely needs an article about it, but as written, the article needs much work.

The opening sentence is already problematic - the book is as important as much for the pipe tunes in its second part, as for the ballads and songs earlier on. Calling it a 'songbook' is thus misleading.

It is incorrect to describe the songs as being popular at the time of publication. They are largely drawn from John Bell's collection from the beginning of the century, while the book was published in 1882. Some of the songs remained popular, others on more topical subjects probably survived only in print.

The book was edited by Bruce and Stokoe, but much of the research was done earlier by the Ancient Melodies Committee of the Newcastle Society of Antiquaries, notably William Kell.

There seems little point in listing the entire contents, page by page.

Any discussion of this book should perhaps focus on its role in the revival of interest in the folkmusic of the North East, somewhat before the similar revival in the South of England. It should also discuss the relationship between the book and its sources - unfortunately a major problem with the book is that it makes no mention of the sources, such as Vickers, Bewick, Peacock and Topliff; the versions of some tunes in the book are drastically simplified, thus altering the tradition the authors aimed to revive. These sources, and the Ancient Melodies Committee's manuscript, can be found on FARNE, and the article needs at least a link to this site.

The apparent lack, in the book, of tunes collected from living musicians is also remarkable at this time - the Cloughs had been playing throughout the century, and thus could have provided a link between the historical sources used by the authors and the tradition that was still current. The authors seem to have believed the tradition had died out, and that they were reviving it.

The book may contain little biographical information about its editors, but the article as written, seems to suggest that none is known - this is far from the case, and a paragraph (or link to separate articles) might be worthwhile for each.

John Gibbons 3 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for note and comments, quite detailed and definitely constructive. I accept and agree with virtually everything. My idea was initially to get an article on the subject up and running, and secondly, the intention was to concentrate on the contents

Opening para - I will/have amended this

Para 2 – ditto

Para 3 ditto

Para 4, The main, and only editors as such credited are Stokoe and Bruce. I have/will add a section on the background, but cannot discover much in my other reference works, about the other committee members, White, Fenwick or Kell. Stokoe and Bruce are already both subjects of separate articles

Para 5 I think the list contents should remain, but maybe be moved to a separate linked article

Para 6 I appreciate that several of the songs have been amended for a variety of reasons. But this appears to be quite normal in all of the songbooks/chapbooks, sometimes from carelessness (particularly on some of the cheap chapbooks), or accidentally, for reasons of space, of for “political” reasons. I personally don’t feel competent to comment on this beyond the remarks made in the forward of the revised edition of the book. I have added a couple of references for specific songs/tunes from Farne, but am unable to locate any copy of the manuscript, but maybe that’s just me

Para 7 The original purpose of the book was to be historical, and therefore I can understand why the editors did not include any more modern writers/works; but whether they should have gone beyond their brief, is a different question.

Para 8 – as para 4 - Stokoe and Bruce are covered by separate articles, the rest I can find little about. If you have any other information, please feel free to add, or amend this or any other part of the article. Alanfromwakefield (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)