Repertoire Categorization and Performer-Audience Relationships: Some Newfoundland Folksong Examples
George J. Casey, Neil V. Rosenberg, Wilfred W. Wareham
Abstract
George J. Casey, Neil V. Rosenberg, Wilfred W. Wareham
Abstract
In 1951, Herbert Halpert pointed out that ... the song is much more significant for understanding the function of folk song in a community than is an infrequently sung or little known older ballad, no matter how much more satisfying the rare ballad may be to our aesthetic sensibilities, or our egos (Halpert 1951:40). Halpert's conclusions suggest that the folksong collections aptly described by D. K. Wilgus as Child and (Wilgus 1959:145ff.) tend to bias our perception of the repertoires of folksingers. Unfortunately the question is a song? is not easily answered. Considerations of composition and content raised by the term local may lead to a classification process which differs only semantically from that pursued by the disciples of Child. Every song in a singer's repertoire is in some way a song, no matter what its content or source. One way of avoiding such classificatory problems is to examine the ways in which folksingers consciously or unconsciously categorize their own repertoires. In a recent paper Kenneth S. Goldstein restated Von Sydow's concepts of active and inactive tradition bearers, showing that particular songs in a singer's repertoire move from active to passive status and vice versa in response to specific factors (Goldstein 1971). Goldstein discusses the informant and his repertoire largely in terms of the informant's personal history. In describing the ways in which singers categorize their repertoires, another dimension becomes important: the relationship between the performer and his audience. A singer interacts with his audiences in the way that a politician interacts with parts or all of his constituency. The good singer is aware of the likes and dislikes of the groups and individuals for whom he performs. He manipulates his repertoire in response to perceived or anticipated performances, giving his constituents what he thinks they would like to hear. He is more or less sensitive to their feedback and thus quick to react in situations in which either his or their expectations are not fulfilled. Most of the data cited in the following discussion was collected in two widely separated Newfoundland communities, one of Irish background, the other of English.
OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In 1951, Herbert Halpert pointed out that ... the song is much more significant for understanding the function of folk song in a community than is an infrequently sung or little known older ballad, no matter how much more satisfying the rare ballad may be to our aesthetic sensibilities, or our egos (Halpert 1951:40). Halpert's conclusions suggest that the folksong collections aptly described by D. K. Wilgus as Child and (Wilgus 1959:145ff.) tend to bias our perception of the repertoires of folksingers. Unfortunately the question is a song? is not easily answered. Considerations of composition and content raised by the term local may lead to a classification process which differs only semantically from that pursued by the disciples of Child. Every song in a singer's repertoire is in some way a song, no matter what its content or source. One way of avoiding such classificatory problems is to examine the ways in which folksingers consciously or unconsciously categorize their own repertoires. In a recent paper Kenneth S. Goldstein restated Von Sydow's concepts of active and inactive tradition bearers, showing that particular songs in a singer's repertoire move from active to passive status and vice versa in response to specific factors (Goldstein 1971). Goldstein discusses the informant and his repertoire largely in terms of the informant's personal history. In describing the ways in which singers categorize their repertoires, another dimension becomes important: the relationship between the performer and his audience. A singer interacts with his audiences in the way that a politician interacts with parts or all of his constituency. The good singer is aware of the likes and dislikes of the groups and individuals for whom he performs. He manipulates his repertoire in response to perceived or anticipated performances, giving his constituents what he thinks they would like to hear. He is more or less sensitive to their feedback and thus quick to react in situations in which either his or their expectations are not fulfilled. Most of the data cited in the following discussion was collected in two widely separated Newfoundland communities, one of Irish background, the other of English.
Key concepts: Repertoire, Categorization, Performing arts, Audience participation, Communication, Sociology, Visual arts, Computer science