Talk:Sea shanty/Archive 1

Featured Article candidacy
High fives all around! Now, what needs to be done to really make this article sparkle? I've added a couple of relevant quotations at the top of the page. Nightsky 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling
Anonymous editor 67.170.224.208 has changed the spellings in the article from "shanty" and "shantyman" to "chanty" and "chantyman" twice now. The information that I have is that "shanty" and especially "shantyman" are the preferred spellings. See. eg: Doerflinger, Shantymen and Shantyboys, Hugill, Shanties from the Seven Seas, Hugill, Shanties and Sailors' Songs, etc. Similarly, an unscientific Google search gives about 500 hits for "chantyman" vs about 200,000 for "shantyman." The S spelling is the more common spelling. Therefore, I am reverting this back to the "S" spellings. If 67.170.224.208 has other information, he/she should post it here before changing this page again and perhaps we all can some to some kind of agreement first. Crypticfirefly 17:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. All the sources I have prefer "shanty", and "chantey" is listed as an alternate spelling in the first line of the article, so there can't be much confusion. Let's keep the spelling as it is. Nightsky 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

mistake?
"Blow the Man Down" is listed as an example under "long-haul" and "short-drag." It can't be both, can it? Foxmulder 15:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And if it can, some explanation of how would be nice. Foxmulder 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The explanation is that these are folk songs, and who is to say that "Blow the Man Down" was not used as a "short-drag" shanty by someone, somewhere. Any given shanty might be adjusted in tempo and even tune to fit a given task.  That said, "Blow the Man Down" is normally categorized as a "long-haul" shanty, and it has one of the usual characteristics of a long-haul shanty: it tells a story over multiple verses.  I've made the change, if someone disagrees perhaps we can discuss it. Crypticfirefly 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dana Citiation
I've removed the first Dana example as it references sailors "singing out" at their lines. Though the wording here does not make it quite clear, to sing out on shipboard is to call out on land. E.g., "sing out when that halyard's fast". Czrisher 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sea shanty singer's connection with 'The Simpsons'
Hi

I have recently developed an interest in sea shanties and I am wondering you could help me answer a question. Does anyone know the connection between a noted sea shanty singer and sailing captain and the title of an episode of 'The Simpsons'?

Thanks very much, Ghfj007 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tune to "Boney"
Anyone know it? I haven't been able to find recordings of the song anywhere. I've just been singing it to the tune of South Australia. Wobblies 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no reason you can't sing it to "South Australia." (That's the folk tradition, right?) But if you want to hear it another way there is a recording of the song as sung by Alan Mills from his 1957 album "Songs of the Sea" available from Smithsonian Global Sound.  It is pretty close to the ways I've heard it sung before.  The Smithsonian page has a long enough free sample that you can get the general idea of the tune. Crypticfirefly 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As children we sang - well scuse me, but in jig time and in C

G F# G A G E C G - A - F  F E D C B D G  G - G - E

Another side with allot of shanty lyrics
http://www.jsward.com/shanty/

Just though I should mention it incase any of you wanted to know..

Luredreier 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Town the oldest?
In a Renaissance Faire a cappella context, I came across the notion that the call & response "Plymouth Town" (there dwelt a maid) is the oldest recorded shanty, at least in English. As time allows, I'll see if I can chase down some cites, or someone else could get there first... Just plain Bill 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's interesting.  Are you refering to the song that also has the words "In Amsterdam their lived a maid, mark well what I do say!/In Amsterdam there lived a maid, and she was mistress of her trade./I'll go no more a rovin' with you fair maid . . ."  Hugill gives the title of the song as "A Rovin'."  In Shanties of the Seven Seas, he writes that the earliest book in English with the lyrics to shanties is Complaint of Scotland published in 1549, which gives several hauling songs.  There is no music, however.  As for "A Rovin'" he notes that some people claim that the words were taken from a song in the 1640 play The Rape of Lucrece, but he is not convinced of this having compared them.  He also reports that "some say the tune [itself] is Elizabethan."  In all, he cites three shanties commonly held to be 16th century: "Haul the Bowline," "A Rovin'," and "Whiskey Johnny."  He says that there is little or no evidence for "Haul the Bowline" (though he says it was a more important line at that time than it was later), that there is not enough evidence for "Whiskey Johnny," and that "A Rovin'" may be of that era but as a land-based folk song only rather than a shanty. Crypticfirefly 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Men may leave all gramys That seylen for St Jamys"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.91.37 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisions, Fall 2011
Hi all, I am in the process of making some significant revisions and additions to this article. Hopefully we can get it so those "warnings" at the top of the page go away. Also, I am trying to give it a more historical tone, rather than the tone of "this is how 21st century lay people connect with the idea of shanties" which I think has been dominant previously. Will supply historical references that are older and/or more primary than the edited collections by song enthusiasts. Would also like to link examples that give more representation to people working within the tradition being described. I welcome help in getting the references all in the right places and the formatting and linking done right, as I am new to Wiki editing. DrBaldhead (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Recombining some sections
Considering recombining some subtopics to be more concise. "Further Reading" is going to basically be a duplicate of the "References" (?), so considering eliminating that section. The only sources it lists that are not/will not be in the references are some very relatively recent books that don't, IMO, add anything new (they are derivative of older sources). The "Samples" (video/audio) section would be less confusing/redundant and more eloquent if those samples were combined into the "Categories"/"Types" section, i.e. as illustration of the types. Is there any benefit in having the "Roll the Old Chariot" as OGG rather than as a link to the Library of Congress mp3? The latter would make things look more consistent. The "Literary reference" section will appear redundant after all the literature quoted to convey the "history and development." Is there any particular type of "literature" that merits its own section? Is it fiction? (most references are in non-fiction). If so, what time period is in mind? Perhaps I'll try covering the non-fiction as part of the history, and the later fiction (eg Stevenson) under "Popular Culture."DrBaldhead (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Whaling song
How do whaling songs fit into this schema, more info required. - FrancisTyers · 09:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"'Whaling songs' usually refers to off-duty (non-shanty) songs, but which happen to be about whaling. So far as can be determined, sailors on whaling ships used the same shanties for work as did merchant sailors. There are a few special tasks on whaling ships, but it has not been documented that any specific shanties were assigned to them. There are a couple big collections of whaling songs (Huntington, Frank), and between the 2 of them, hardly a shanty is mentioned. DrBaldhead (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)"

Needs work
The subject is an important one, but there are fundamental problems with it. To name just a few:


 * It is almost entirely unsourced. This is the biggest problem.
 * There is no historical perspective on the development of shanties.
 * There is little discussion of shanties' portrayal of sailor's life at sea (outside of references to specific tasks) or ashore, or how shanties reflect historical events.
 * There is little discussion of important categories and subgenres like whaling songs or river or lake shanties.
 * The considerable bibliography on sea shanties needs to be more comprehensive.
 * The listing of an apparently random selection of recorded shanties which happen to be available on the internet seems of limited value.
 * There should be at least a brief consideration of non-English language shanties.

Strawberryjampot (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with all of the above. Unfortunately it is a big job to fix this. I will try to see if I can find some sources to begin to add as citations to the existing text when I can grab some time. What cannot be adequately sourced may simply have to be removed.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. A place to start might be with the introduction and notes to the various books in the Further Reading.  Also, some standard CD anthologies of sea shanties have informative liner notes.  I'm not sure if there's a Wikipedia policy about using CD notes as sources, but people like Ewan MacColl and A. L. Lloyd were folklorists as well as performers, and the notes they wrote for their albums can reasonably be considered expert sources.  Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done extensive research on shanties; I've reviewed as many or more sources as anyone out there, constituting a very thorough and critical historical survey. My current bibliography on shanties is 1000 pages long; name a historical source and I will know it. Unfortunately, it has not been published because I have many other more pressing projects. In any case, this needs much work, and I hope to be able to add something as I get time. My fear is that things will get quickly deleted when they don't conform to the present "common knowledge" stuff -- full of misconceptions about this genre. I'm leaving this note as a plea that I been considered as a reputable, knowledgeable contributor, and that edits I might make, while subject to the usual community review and standards of Wikipedia, are not whimsical additions/deletions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBaldhead (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User DrBaldhead, if you are who I think you are, I look forward to your additions to the article. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to say thanks to DrBaldhead for the article improvements so far. As long as we are getting reliably sourced content instead of the unsourced content I am happy. There may be a need for some "wikification" of this article when the current editing is done. It may be a good idea to place a template here until the changes are done.--  SabreBD  (talk)  08:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SabreBD. If you or anyone else sees something that is crying out for a source, feel free to let me know. I have sources for everything, it just sometimes takes a while to find them! One of the issues with this topic is that 1) Very little new info has been published since the 1960s, when Stan Hugill's book seems to have put the final "seal" on everything (history-related, that is) up to that point. Hugill was a charismatic performer with a great pedigree, too, as a sailor/singer. So most of what he wrote has been taken at face value since then. However, Hugill was not a trained historian, and what he presents is a lot of rehashing from books (also by non-historians) written for popular audience. Trying to strike a balance here between the documented history (lots of which was unavailable to 20th century writers -- who didn't have the help of the Internet!) and people's recent concepts, which are equally valid but should be contextualized in their own time period. I agree that "wikification" is much needed.DrBaldhead (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

List of performers: Relevance and Notability
My opinion of the list of performers, while there is definitely room for flexibility, is that they should be performers of shanties and sea songs as their primary focus. Lots of sailor songs have been popularized as "folk songs" and here and there sung by folk music performers and (usually derivative of the folk singers) and pop performers. But that would mean an enormous number of people who have no primary identity as "Performers of Sea Music" -- and the list we could make of performers who do have that identity would be huge enough. Peter Bellamy is an example. He did make up some sea-related songs and recorded a few shanties. But he was performing "English folk music" as his genre, and most of the English/Irish folk musicians had adopted a few shanties and sang them in their folk clubs. The Clancy Brothers probably sang more, for instance. A.L. Lloyd and Ewan MacColl were also broadly "folk" performers, though what they performed in the way of shanties was much more substantial than someone like Bellamy or Cyril Tawny (who had some navy songs he wrote). General folk music performers like The Almanac Singers, Burl Ives, and Paul Clayton recorded entire albums of sea music; why don't we associate them with the genre? Seems like a bias thing -- maybe undue weight on people who are making up new maritime music and adapting material, and not enough of people doing stuff that is squarely located in the "center" of the subject.

If necessary to include these people, maybe distinguish a separate category of "folk and pop music performers who have included several chanties in their repertoire," or something. Another possible way to do it is to divide by country, though I wouldn't prefer that.

There is a bias towards North American performers right now. I don't think any of the many UK groups are represented (I will work on that, instead of just complaining!). Even for North America, needs more folks who do the stuff that the article is mainly talking about. Would be good to have more European "choirs", too. But now how does that fit into "notability"? If they don't have a Wiki page, can we call them notable? Yes, I think we can, by providing a reference/link even if they don't have the commercial success/clout to get their own article :-)

I guess why I'm posting this is because: 1) After more performers have been added to balance the bias, there will be quite a lot of names, and some of the more "marginally" relevant ones will go. I understand that's somewhat subjective; we can discuss. 2) People will periodically continue to add their "pet" favorites. Having a clearer sense of the criteria of relevance will help it from looking too "random". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBaldhead (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-fair use rationale for Hugill photo
I've added additional details on the image page, and I've added some more sentences in the article to make clear why an image of Stan Hugill (for which there are no free ones) is important to have. If one imagines the "tight shirted" folklorists of the early 20th century and then sees Hugill, one quickly understands how his book --though it was less scholarly than some others-- shot to prominence as the so-called shanty "Bible." Check it out, and see if the rationale is adequate, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBaldhead (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If his appearance is genuinely significant, can I ask why it is not discussed in the article? Vague, unsourced claims about "[t]he way he presented himself" do not make for a good fair use rationale, and you have offered no further explanation of why the album cover is required. Non-free content must be used as a last resort, when an article could not be fully understood without it, as per the non-free content criteria. I cannot imagine a reader looking through the article and thinking "that's all well and good, but I wonder what that album cover/this author looked like." (As an aside, as per the NFCC, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that this content is required, not vice-versa. As such, I have removed the images again for the time being. I do not mind discussing this with you, but let us err on the side of caution.) J Milburn (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do apologise, I've just noticed that you have actually added some sourced commentary to the article about the author's appearance- as such, there actually does seem to be a good fair use rationale here, which is unusual for images of this sort! I'll probably make a few tweaks, but I will not be removing the image again unless a different issue arises. What of the album cover? J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the rationale and the caption of the portrait, as it is important to tie them in to the text. Feel free to tweak as necessary. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your consideration. It helps in improving the quality of the article and its eligibility towards GA status! I've removed the album cover image because, you're correct, there is no good rationale. I'll look at the minor additions on the Stan Hugill picture and tweak the wording, later, if needed. DrBaldhead (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)