Heyall,

Just got around to catching up on this thread(which started out great and somewhat shifted focus:)

A great subject. A few of my thoughts, internal conflicts , etc.

First though my endorsement of the "more than lyrics" notion of this site. I chime in primarily because it feels good to be connected to a group of folks who seem to share a love of the songs and some sensitivity to the earth, its peoples, its history and traditions. I sing this music because it is more than its lyrics, it has a direct connection to and is is a vibrant reflection of this earth, its peoples, its history and traditions. If I could speak many more languages I would sing many more traditional songs, I just happen to have been wired with a fondness(and geneaology) that favors trad English/Celtic etc. stuff. My point being simply that conversations around the music, philosophy, intent, boundaries, etc. are just as fun and important as the songs themselves.

Back to objectionable. In another eway community we had a similar discussion centered around jokes and humor. In my soul search at that time I discovered some interesting internal contradictions which I'm not very happy about, but there they are, and they also apply to my approach to what I sing. One of those contradictions is that I tend to judge objectionable on a WIT scale. That is, it can be pretty crude, but if I find it witty then I don't find it objectionable. If it is just crude(nudge, nudge, wink, wink) then I find it offensive.

Now I thought Sandy's opening bit was rather cute and not at all objectionable. But then I'm pretty thick skinned when it comes to religion, even though I'm a practicing Christian. I had an interesting experience at a meeting last week. They were discussing apocryphal stories about Jesus, most of them feeling these were either acceptable or interesting. I described "Bitter Withy", a song that really tickles me and just feels so right as an attempt to understand the dilemmas in contemplating Jesus as a real boy(and the tradition from ancient practices, which we too quickly dismiss, to early Christianity). Anyway, as I related the lyrics I saw their eyes grow bigger and knew that I'd pushed these good people into a territory they were not at all comfortable with. The notion of Jesus as a possible murderer of other children was just too awful to them, or even contemplating the notion. Now it's not that I think Jesus would necessarily have done such a thing but it's a logical extension of the notion of a divine adolescent with supernatural powers and human tendencies. And intriguing to contemplate.

So, on the religious plane, for example Bitter Withy is a part of my repertoire and I do sing it sometimes for shock value, sometimes for educational purposes, and sometimes because it is just a good song.

On another note, I find it very interesting that we are generations of shantey singers who sing versions of shantey's and foc'sle songs that are extremely tamed down, mostly due to publishing restrictions, as if the tame versions were the authentic oral tradition. Hooey. And yet most of us would be hard pressed in most settings in which we find ourselves, either with audience or fellow singers, to sing many of them in the way they were probably originally sung. Though I've often contemplated producing an "Uncensored Shantey Sing" concert.

Which brings up another thought. Songs that I find myself having a harder and harder time singing, even if they're clever, are songs about violence to women, Dick Darby, for example, or Wee Cooper of Fife(not that those two are necessarily clever). Even with Rambling Sailor, one of my favorite songs, I usually wind up doing Nine Times a Night or the Kangaroo, right after to balance the equation. This has not to do with my attitude toward the SONGS, but stems some deep feelings I have about the treatment of women, and dehumanizing of people in general. Just my stuff. AND to put it in some perspective, I would never censure or even refuse to enjoy someone else singing these songs in a set just cuz they didn't have the same reluctance as me.

Also, I do think there is a general degeneration of thought and language that has and is occuring in our civilization which does disturb me(no, I don't find Married with Children, or Beavis & Butthead amusing, even though I know they're satire) and I think in time it leads to a coarsening of discourse and relationships. So I'm not fond of the use of a lot of profanity or sexual innuendo. But I do sing "Johnny Be Fair" and night visiting songs without blinking an eye. (and isn't it interesting that I have difficulty singing songs about wife-beating but don't have much trouble singing songs about one-night stands that leave the poor lady pregnant and alone while the father traipses across the world - excuse me while I go sing the Kangaroo again:)

On the other hand, there are some songs, including a bunch of Pogue songs, that I love and rarely can sing because of the preponderance of "fuck" in the lyrics. And dammit, the word WORKS. Take "Bottle of Smoke", a song I love because the poor sod actually wins at the track and gets to change his life. I've tried and tried but there is no phrase that carries the lyric and descriptive weight of "like a drunken fuck on a Saturday night". Or even of "twenty fucking five to one". Sometimes I just mumble something when I really want to sing them.

And finally as regards to postings. When the basis of the community is mutual respect, admiration, common interests, sensitive awareness, good intent, caring, wit, etc. Like this one is. Then let everything come. Because of the foundation we should be able to trust people to have good intentions when they right and to expect people to "deal" with what they find objectionable. And should sign their names or at least a moniker.

As I recently said in a similar discussion on that other eway community, the eway is a free, living medium by NATURE. To make it less through control or censorship is to necessarily debase it. The prevalence of this medium will force us all to confront the awesome terror inherent in TRULY FREE EXPRESSION, a notion we prattle about but rarely want to actually engage in. We are accustomed to picking our environments and companions much more narrowly, to avoid differences. It requires one to be able to handle viewpoints, expression, language, feelings, etc. that are perhaps markedly different than one's own WITHOUT disengaging(and being centered enough not to be driven off-center. It has no true precedents because similar live gatherings of such a scale across the same geographic and social boundaries would be impossible. We are and will learn ways to cope with extremes that occur on the eway as we have in other mediums. But in this case, shutting them up, is not the answer because that constitutes an essential violation of the medium itself. Freedom is freedom.

And personally I love it, even with listening to things that I don't agree with, like, approve of, etc. Listening doesn't require me to endorse, mimic, or anything else. Just hear. And hit the delete key if I choose(the other side of the efreedom equation).

None of the above suggests that simply because we're visiting on the eway means we need to throw out notions of civility, respect, concern, courteous conversation, hospitality, communication responsibility, etc. The rule of thumb I use for myself when I hear, or overhear, eway conversations that I find difficult, is "what would I do if this were taking place in a live gathering? Would I confront the person? Intervene? Let it slide? Express my opinion or feeling? Nod politely?" All the above have been answers in different situations. But as a ROT it's worked well.

More of a soapbox than I intended there, sorry.

A truly final thought. When weighed against the pre-occupation with sex and innuendo, the violence and language, prevalent on most public mediums, including "non-fiction" news, the worst folk song we could throw out there would not even make a blip.

Keep the faith. Marc B