Talk:The Raggle Taggle Gypsy

Duplication
I have only just spotted that there is a duplication - my article "Black Jack Davey" is much the same as this article on "Raggle Taggle Gypsy". Ooops! Somebody should amalgamate them. It would definitely have helped if the author of this article had made a link to Child Ballad 200, then I would have noticied this article. Ogg 07:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually just started the article The Gypsy Laddie as an attempt to make one main entry on the ballad, and then link to all the variants from it. I picked that title, as that is what the ballad was originally called, and thought it best for it to be the hub of other information about it. My reasoning for this is to have each variation have it's own article, each with a history, known recordings and lyrics, as compared to dumping them all in one super-long article. --jgsampson 14:32, 31 May 2006 (EST)


 * I'm a little dubious about this approach; it seems likely to lead to confusing duplication and forking, and uncertainty about what information belongs where. I further doubt that the ballad needs 3+ articles.  There's not that much encyclopedic information in any one article at the moment.  Lyrics, for instance, should go to WikiSource.  Jkelly 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Perplexion
I am perplexed by these references: TradIre01, MMacArthur01, LOlder01 (and others) within the article. What are these supposed to represent? As far as I can make out they are not record labels, and not serial numbers of records, so what are they? Ogg 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"The first documented printing was in Tea Table Miscellany (1740). Lady Casslilles Lilt (aka Johnny Faa, the Gypsiey Laddie) is in the Skene Manuscripts which holds documents from the 17th century." I don't know the meaning of the phrase "documented printing". The book still exists, so it's not a documented printing. A better rendition would be like this: The earliest manuscript version was in the Skene manuscript (17th century), referred to as Lady Casslilles Lilt (aka Johnny Faa, the Gypsiey Laddie). The earliest known printed version is in Tea Table Miscellany (1740). Ogg 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Although the earliest version seem to be Scottish, several versions are found in the USA." The author of this sentence appears to be implying that if something is found in Scotland, it's unusual to find it in the USA. It would be better so write simply "Several versions have also been found in the USA." Ogg 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Country of Origin?
Exactly what country does the song originate from? The article says it has been recorded by artists from loads of different countries, but doesn't seem to say where it first came from. Can we get some clarifacation of that point? --Hibernian 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC) It's from Scotland, see Black Jack Davy Ogg 13:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A joke?
I now discover that the abbreviations come from this webpage: www.csufresno.edu/folklore/BalladIndexDisc.html The list must have been copied from that website and pasted in here. To remove the confusion of unexplained abbreviations I have re-written the list to give the album titles in full, correcting some errors as I went. The list is really over-kill as many of the artists were recorded in the field, without any biographical information gathered on them, and without recording any other songs by those artists. The profusion of "red links" has been removed, as most can never be fleshed out. Two more sections: - "The Broadsides" and "References" are still very obscure, as they refer to abbreviations and authors whose books are not specified. I feel very included to delete these sections altogether are put a link to a website instead, but I don't know the website where they were copied from. Is number 44 in the "References" section a joke? If it is, will we ever find out? Ogg 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious references
Nobody has responded to my question above, so I have removed the mysterious references. Ogg 14:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge
This merge was originally proposed by User:Ogg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roots music, and seconded by User:TimNelson (that's me). It's also been proposed that the article use the boilerplate at Template:Traditional Song boilerplate (just put into the article and save it, and the next time you edit it, you will be able to put everything in the appropriate sections.

-- TimNelson 08:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And again: There is a third article, covering this same song, The Whistling Gypsy. The three articles should be merged into one. I am not proposing to remove any information, simply to remove deplication and create some kind of uniformity with the other folk song article. Ogg 12:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Gypsy Laddie, The Raggy Taggle Gypsies and the Spailpín Fánach (esp the latter) are not for me the same songs at all... a similar theme, but melodies different. I don't want to impose my view... but the body of the article needs editing to remove/soften reference to Spailpín Fánach cckkab (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Melody counts for almost nothing in the history of folk song. It's the words that matter most. Ogg (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done the merge, Knotwilg, 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.35.195 (talk)


 * The remark that "melody counts for almost nothng in the history of folk song" counts for almost nothing in the history of folk song scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.130.77 (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Obscure writing
I don't understand the "And yet..." in the History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.107.11 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved and histories preserved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Gypsy Laddie → The Raggle Taggle Gypsy – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Compare Google hits:
 * "raggle taggle gypsy" - 142,000
 * "black jack davey" - 93,400
 * "raggle taggle gypsies" - 33,700
 * "gypsy laddie" - 23,700
 * "gypsy laddie" - 20,100

Modern recordings seem to prefer "The Raggle Taggle Gypsy," such as those of The Waterboys, Celtic Thunder, and The Chieftains featuring Nickel Creek. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but noting that we need to preserve both page histories, and both talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Roud & Bishop
This and similar quotes provide, I am convinced, an excellent general introduction to those folk songs that they discuss. To delete it is extremely deleterious. If the person objecting can think of a better place to put it, that's another matter, The general standard of articles on folk songs is of mixed quality, to put it mildly. No doubt they will be improved, expanded and converted to a comparable style in time. After that, is the time for imposing uniformity.DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We try to keep the lead an overview of the article - and I'm happy to see this is making progress. A solution might be to create a "Reception" section lower down and move the quote there. It's a bit too specific to be in the lead. I did download some sources for this page, which unfortunately I've lost, but at some point I'll try to find it again and add more. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any real problem with the citations in the lead, however, the quote from the book is going too far. I agree that the general standard of articles on folk songs is of mixed quality. However, we do not improve them by contravening well-established guidelines for Wikipedia articles. Hohenloh+ 13:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is addressing the wrong problem. Generally speaking, the folk song articles don't remotely conform to "well-established guidelines for Wikipedia articles". The problem with this particular article is that somebody created a History section, which made it appear to be organised on more typical Wikipedia lines. When I have time (tomorrow, probably) I propose to insert a section before 'History'. This will probably involve stripping some information from what some call the 'lead' and other the 'lede'. The Roud and Bishop quote is what establishes the context of the song as a folksong. Without the context, the history is reduced to random information and that rather fanciful confection of Nick Tosches. Above all, the removal of my quote has made the song seems much less important than it actually is.DavidCrosbie (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best to recast the article with a very short le(a)d(e) and a number of sections in what seems to me to be a logical order. I've moved some material around, but tried not to lose or distort anything. There remains the problem of integrating the 'Broadsides' list into the references. Also some minor problems — links to non-existent pages and a bit of duplication. If this structure meets with approval — or absence of disapproval — I'll try it (or something like it) on another folk song. Conversely, I might try to import the recording-table format from other articles. DavidCrosbie (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It will need a more developed lead and I'm not sure the popularity section should go first. In literature articles the sections normally go something like background and history, plot, theme and style analysis, followed by a reception (popularity) and legacy section. That's why I'd moved the long quote down with the thought that section could be developed more. The bolded variant names should probably go in the lead and can be repeated in the body of the article. I'm happy to see you take these on though. Nice work. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Folk songs texts aren't like literary texts. The factors I've grouped under 'Popularity' are those which shape and define the song. Even when the original author is known, this is of little importance. The background to the creation of a folk song is generally unknowable — although folklorists in the past have made some far-fetched attempts. The history of the song as an artefact is what I've put under the heading 'Popularity'. Almost all the knowable history consists of performance in the tradition (by oral transmission and broadsides), publication by collectors (highly significant in this particular instance), and dissemination by recording. There should probably be an brief historical account of mainstream performance of the Cecil Sharp version as if it were a composed song, but I'm not qualified to write it. The history and reconstructed pre-history of the text is interesting, but, I strongly believe,not nearly as important as the two sections I've placed before, attempting to:
 * show the factors and events which shaped the song (the equivalent of your 'background and history' for literary works)
 * describe the range of narrative elements (the equivalent of your 'plot' for literary works)
 * 'Description' is an obvious heading for (2). I'm open to suggestions if you don't like 'Popularity' as a heading for (1).DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.There's no treatment of the tunes. Few people are equipped to write authoritatively, so it may be some time before a volunteer comes forward.  DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly true of this song. I had downloaded, and now lost, a document that follows the history with all the 18th and 19th century variations or the story, where the variations seem to have been published - I actually found lots of early publication information. I just never followed through. But anyway, structure it however you think is best. Was only making suggestions. We generally begin with background sections - whatever the discipline or the subject. But to be honest, I know very little about writing about music - although the lyrics of this shows up also in lit anthologies. I do think it would be nice to get a structure pinned down for other such ballads. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The performance in oral tradition is the background. The broadside history is an important contributing factor, but without the phenomenon of traditional performance, it simply isn't a folk song. Yes, there's a lot of documentation history of the text, but this is of secondary importance — arguably a question of literary scholars muscling in on non-literary culture. The 'early publication history' may well cast light on the origin of the song, but it would still be the same song if those versions had never been published. In fact, there's far too much documentation of textual history and variation for the level of generality of  an encyclopaedic article. Even Steve Stroud doesn't attempt a summary — merely remarking that there's plenty of material for scholars to work on. Somebody has inserted a 'Broadside' section in the article, but this is just a sample of references to raw data. A full account would be of book length. DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper, I wrote the above while you were adding your final sentence. I will, indeed, try out this basic structure on another relatively developed folk song article, possibly 'Barbara Allen'. I see no need to distinguish all traditional ballads from other traditional folk songs. Yes, some have been published as poetry and so belong also in the literary canon. This should be reflected in articles for such ballads, but not for a song like this. As I've already said, there's a case for considering Sharp's published version of 'The Raggle Taggle Gypsies O!' as a mainstream song, outside the folk tradition, but I've never seen the text alongside 'Sir Patrick Spens' etc in anthologies of poetry.DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to unwatch here, but just want to make the point that the oral tradition applies both to literature and music. I can't imagine literary anthologies without examples from the oral tradition, and frankly in the 19th century much folk material, whether songs or tales, were documented in various forms. So, in my view the literary culture muscling in doesn't really fly. As it happened, I mentioned that as a structure because that's an area where I tend to work and was merely using it as an example. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Whistling Gypsy
A merge has been proposed but nobody has acted on it. I've made minor repairs to that article. It now says the song is 'similar to' all the songs here, implying that they're the same but 'The Whistling Gypsy' isn't. Can somebody who knows the recordings discussed in the Whistling Gypsy article decide whether or not it's in any useful sense the same song? On the face of it, it seems obvious, but Roud lists only one version with the title 'Whistling Gypsy' and it's not obviously related. I have only the vaguest memory of hearing the Clancy Brothers version, and that may well be a false memory, so I'm doing nothing.DavidCrosbie (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I've found a clip on YouTube of the Clancy Brothers singing it. Of course I remember the song now. It sounds like a pop song loosely based on the traditional ballad. If it really is traditional, I suspect it was cleaned up to be used as a lullaby. The happy ending makes it completely different in tone. What I propose to do is put a cross reference in the 'Related songs' section and, more drastically, delete the bit in the summary which describes a happy ending. I always thought that was weird. If you can show that I'm wrong, please alter it back. DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an original song written by Leo Maguire. Still very popular in Ireland. Based perhaps on the story related in the other Gypsy ballads, but the theme is also to be found in song from other European countries, for example Germany.Hohenloh+ 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the claim that it was written by Maguire. If you're sure of your facts, why not add the information here? I don't think it's necessary to delete reference to it. Some people seem to think it's the same song. DavidCrosbie (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Earlier than 160?
In the Origins section there is a mention of "dated earlier than 160" for which available references give me no further clue. Surely the date of 160 AD is impossible in this context. What should it be? Snezzy (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Misquote from 'The New Penguin Book of Folk Songs'?
"Definitely in the top five Child balls ..." under Popularity looks wrong. Surely it should be ""Definitely in the top five Child ballads ...". Can somebody with access to the book check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkelringelhuth (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Songs
Taj Mahal sings a very unique version of this song that should be added to the list. I have no idea how as I have just signed up. This is the Album: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanapepe_Dream

Also, there is a pattern in naming that should be taken into account with the proposed merge. Gypsy Laddie is the first version, Whistling Gypsy Rover is British, Raggle Taggle Gypsy is more modern Irish, Black Jack David or Davey is more American. Tammy Rosner (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A "merge" was carried out in 2008. Please read the articles referred to above for provenance of the songs in question.Hohenloh+ 15:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Began as a folk parody of King Orfeo (Child 19)
Judith Ann Knoblock detailed in " 'The Gypsy Laddie' (Child 200): An Unrecognized Child of Medieval Romance" that this song actually began as a folk parody of King Orfeo—a folk ballad which is only preserved in a very fragmentary form.

Knoblock also suggests that it is possible that the actual King Orfeo ballad survived at all long enough to be recorded only because of the somewhat more isolated nature of the Shetland Islands. Knoblock suggests that, on the mainland, " 'King Orfeo' was undoubtedly laughed away".

Ought we to include this information? Tharthan (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Popular recordings
I have removed a number of artists who do not appear to be notable. If there are sufficient secondary sources, their recording of the song could be re-added, although the entire section is currently unsourced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Inchtabokatables
I'm missing The Inchtabokatables and their "Three gypsies" version from their "White Sheep" album: https://lyricstranslate.com/de/inchtabokatables-three-gipsies-lyrics.html 176.5.138.34 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)