Topic: Lyric Transcriptions--The Song or the Performance?

[Johnm]

Hi all,
I think the recent discussion in the Mississippi Sheiks lyric thread has clarified for me a significant issue pertaining to the lyric transcriptions we have been doing here and which are still being done--Are we transcribing the song's lyrics or the performance? With regard to the "Stop And Listen Blues" transcription currently under discussion in the Mississippi Sheiks thread, waxwing has made a very carefully considered and good faith attempt to transcribe Walter Vinson's vocal performance of the song. My problem with that is that much of what is included in the transcription is not actually the song's lyrics, but rather Walter Vinson's delivery of those lyrics. Does the delivery constitute the song's lyrics? From my own point of view it does not, because if it did, every person who subsequently performed the song would have to deliver it in the same fashion. The various drawn out syllables in the transcription and elisions of concluding consonants are, in fact, not the words to the song, but rather Walter's delivery of the words to the song.

I feel that lyric transcriptions that present a performance of a song rather than the lyrics themselves are much more limiting than a matter-of-fact presentation of the words would be. Simply giving the words to a song presumes that whoever may subsequently sing a song will sing it in accordance with his/her own sense of phrasing, regional accent, sense of musical style, etc. By presenting a transcription of a performance as the song lyric, it sets up what were various interpretive decisions on the part of the original performer as intrinsic elements of the song, which I would contend is most often not the case, but rather a matter of that performer's personal musical style and taste.

If a transcriber wants to acknowledge some aspect of the original performance in the transcription, I think it makes more sense to add a note to the beginning of the transcription, for example, "In his delivery of "Stop And Listen Blues", Walter Vinson consistently did three falsetto leaps in his singing of the tagline of each verse." This seems a clear way to differentiate between the words themselves and the way that the performer delivered them.

I should say that I have presented drawn-out syllables in a bunch of my own transcriptions, as well as elisions of concluding consonants in words, especially those ending in "ing". It was seeing such a careful transcription of a performance that clarified my own thoughts for me on the subject of whether to transcribe lyrics or a performance. I welcome other thoughts on the issue.

All best,
Johnm   

[Stuart]

Thank you, John. Your post is well thought out and well written.

Some random thoughts:

I think the distinction is very important, although not absolute because the transcription is usually of a specific recording. Nevertheless, I agree that the transcription should focus on the lyrics and not the other aspects of the performance. My suggestion is that the other aspects, which can also be important for understanding the lyrics, can be noted below the main body of the transcription.

I used the word, “representation(s),” because that is what writing and writing systems are. We have been using the standard English spellings of words, with some modifications, to represent the words—the lyrics—we hear sung. But there are times when the standard pronunciation and spelling of a word and the sound of the word as it is sung differ to the extent where a modified spelling that represents it is perhaps is in order, if only to be placed below the main body of the transcription. As an example, in “Stop and Listen,” V1/L4, Frank transcribed the line as, “Crying, seems like tomorrow is the same old way.” For me, “tomorrow” is undecipherable, even after numerous listenings. Wax transcribed as, “to-oooomor.’” A note below the main body of the transcription that simply reads, “V1/L4: “tomorrow” sung as “to-oooomor’” as per Wax,” would be helpful.

Of course, the counter argument is that as long as one has access to the recording, one should simply listen to it for the variations in pronunciation, etc.  But that doesn’t always yield the best outcome for each and every individual. Thus, I err on the side of being helpful.

“Variants” could also be placed below the main body of the transcription. For example, in V4/L1, Frank has, “bell did tone,” Wax has, “bell it to’” and Blues Vintage hears, “Bell intone.” In cases such as this one, noting the differences in the perception of sound might be appropriate.

A week or so ago I mentioned that it would be helpful to have a synopsis below the original transcription. I didn’t mention it at the time (a lapse on my part), but I was thinking of how the comments regarding a song transcription are not necessarily all grouped together in a thread, with some being posted after the initial cluster and being separated by other songs, their transcriptions and comments. Synopsis was probably not the best choice of words. What I was driving at was that the various comments, corrections, variants, etc. could be collected, sorted through and placed below the main body of the transcription. –Essentially, a “variorum,” Weenie Campbell style.

IMHO, what needs to be discussed, clarified and decided upon are the guidelines and format for the main body of the transcription and any notes, variants, and/or other comments to be placed above or below it. And of course anything else that comes to mind. My initial suggestion is for an introduction for the song, followed by the main body of the transcription, a separator line below which any comments, variants, annotations, etc., would appear after being edited and organized according to an agreed upon format. It’s essentially what we have now, but with a few modifications and refinements.

Finally, some of our members and visitors are not native English speakers. They should be considered when deciding on the spellings used in the main body of the transcription, and the representation of variations in pronunciation entered below it.

[Stuart]

I listened to the 1931 version of Blind Willie McTell's "East Saint Louis Blues" this morning and wrote out the lyrics, which I have posted below the YouTube videos in my original post.

As a convention, I used standard English spellings in the transcriptions. I marked pronunciations that differ from the standard spellings with an asterisk* and listed those below the main body of the transcription. Other items in the transcription that I think require a note are marked by an asterisk and are noted below as well. I also included a section for "comments," although it is empty at this time.

I think comments on the format and any comments re: style sheet guideline should be placed in this thread. This way they are separate from the Blind Willie McTell lyrics thread.

This can function as an example of me following a proto-Weenie Campbell "style sheet." You can look it over and work it over when time permits. We can use it as a starting point and make modifications and changes as we deem appropriate. And of course, there's more than one format and/or style sheet we can follow.

I'm a firm believer that my toughest critics are my best friends and I don't confuse rigorous critical evaluation with negative personal criticism, so have at it.

[Johnm]

Hi Stuart,
I have to admit that when I read your suggestions about variorum and synopsis I thought they were gilding the lily in most instances and basically making work where work was not necessary. When I listened to the '31 version of "East St. Louis Blues" and read your transcription and saw how your suggestions played out in a case in point, I really liked how it worked, and especially liked not having phonetic re-spellings of words in the transcription.  I have a couple of small suggestions with regard to the content of the transcription (how it was heard) which I'll put in the McTell lyrics thread as per standard practice.

I do think that where transcriptions don't require changes or are in agreement with regard to changes that are made, synopsis and variorum may or may not be necessary. The great majority of transcriptions end up having consensus with regard to content and only require two or three additional posts to arrive at the final version. 

[Stuart]

Hi John:

Thank you for your post and for your insightful comments.

As I mentioned, my "East St. Louis Blues" transcription is a starting point and something tangible to work with. I agree that where there's agreement after due attention is given to problematic sections, and the subsequent posts are more or less in close proximity to the original, there is no reason to once again list the "variants" discussed in the thread under the main body of the transcription. And a link back from the Weeniepedia entry will suffice for the person who lands there first and wants to work through the process of refining the transcription.

There are cases though where the level of uncertainty is such that noting variants may be appropriate. The first line of Charley Patton's "Down The Dirt Road" comes to mind. The discussion covers pages and I don't know if there will or can ever be certainty about what Charley's intended lyrics were. But we might agree on an effectively functional transcription, one that makes sense, but also acknowledges that there are other possibilities that should not be dismissed. These could be placed in the variants section for convenience. --Just an example.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying that although we might settle on guidelines, we should also be flexible and make our decisions on a case-by-case basis.

[waxwing]

I am stunned by this suggestion that African American culture should be stripped away from vocal transcriptions of songs recorded during the Jim Crow era in order to better enable their use in essentially white male hegemonic cultures. African American Vernacular English (AAVE, sometimes known as Ebonics) is established as a separate language from, not a dialect of, Standard American English (SAE). To translate out of AAVE is to lose the rhythm, sometimes even the imagery, and possibly what is the blues in the original language.

I feel that lyric transcriptions that present a performance of a song rather than the lyrics themselves are much more limiting than a matter-of-fact presentation of the words would be. Simply giving the words to a song presumes that whoever may subsequently sing a song will sing it in accordance with his/her own sense of phrasing, regional accent, sense of musical style, etc. By presenting a transcription of a performance as the song lyric, it sets up what were various interpretive decisions on the part of the original performer as intrinsic elements of the song, which I would contend is most often not the case, but rather a matter of that performer's personal musical style and taste.

This makes the somewhat dubious claim that by presenting a vocal transcription, or a representation of the AAVE of the singer, as opposed to “the lyrics themselves”, that is, a translation to SAE, that the person utilizing the transcription to create a performance is encouraged to be limited to only using the words in the same form as the transcription. Yet, when a translator changes the words into Standard American English, the performer is somehow liberated to utilize “the lyrics” to express their own personal and cultural message. I know many performers, theatrical and musical, and can’t imagine any that have not progressed beyond this elementary notion. Performers are well aware of their own need for personalization of the material they perform, to attain the level of commitment required for performance, however they chose to achieve this. This claim that a true transcription is limiting is a straw man argument as it seems to me that the act of removing the African American culture from “the lyrics” through translation to SAE would be leading the transcription user to move away from use of the AA culture, which is more limiting. I think it is best to transcribe the vocals in AAVE, as they are sung, allowing the performer the most latitude going forward, to make their own decision as to how much of the original language they would like to incorporate. Most performers I know are attempting to broaden their abilities and style, not stay tucked into the cultural niche into which they happen to have been born.

By assuming the existence of “the lyrics” as a separate, seemingly already existing, document, the argument also denies awareness of the fact that there is very little notion of written history in African American culture. AA history is an oral tradition, due to the fact that slaves and Jim Crow era Blacks were largely made ignorant of reading and writing by their owners or landowners. Yet the music they made, and the lyrics they created, reveal a highly intelligent people. I think in the vast majority of the recordings from the Jim Crow era there was rarely ever any written or printed lyric sheet previous to the recording. The only record that survives is the vocal on the recording. In one recent discussion it was suggested that Walter Vinson saw the word “supple” written or printed, and he mispronounced it as “souple”, even tho’ it was shown that “souple” was given in dictionaries as a dialectic variant, and was also a French word (Creole French being the primary language of the large African American Creole population centered in Natchitoches Parish, LA, about 200 miles due west of Jackson MS, and considered a strong influence on AAVE). I had to chuckle because Vinson was the writer credited on the original record label. If there is some antecedent it is most likely that he only heard it, and knew what it meant.

So, we have to wonder how “the lyrics” are to be created for publication in Weeniepedia as a “transcription”. Basically, it’s a small group of white men discussing/arguing about what is being sung, and then, I guess, translating that into Standard American English by adding a lot of sounds or words that were never recorded. What do you want to see when you look for the vocal transcription of a song? We often get requests for “the lyrics to...” and the poster is usually advised to do their best at transcribing and we will help fill in any blanks. If they are looking for a transcription of Charley Patton’s “Some Of These Days”, are they looking for the sheet music by Shelton Brooks, as recorded by Sophie Tucker? Or do they want to know what Patton is singing? How about William Brown’s “Ragged and Dirty”? Should we publish the lyrics to Sleep John Estes’s “Broke And Hungry” as “the lyrics” because that is clearly the song that Brown is covering (even tho’ he denied it on the tape)? I think most people want to see a transcription of what Charley or William are actually singing and they can make of that what they will. They are also listening to the recording as they read along, eh? At least a true transcription encourages that you do listen, as opposed to “the lyrics” in Standard American English, packaged and ready to be morphed into a different culture.

I feel very strongly that to whitewash the Jim Crow era lyrics is to deny this period of American history, and also to deny that this music has been a major influence on popular American music, not to mention much popular music in Europe and elsewhere. But the music and vocals are there to do with as you please. I have always argued that at Weenie Campbell we should be inclusive of all approaches to performing the old blues. If you wish to create your own arrangement, or set a song to an arrangement from another song, fine, go for it! It you want to create new songs in the old styles that reflect your own modern-day fears and worries, have at it! Or if you are moved by the power and the meaning of an existing arrangement or recording, and feel like your feelings are best expressed by an homage to an artist from the past, we are here for that, too. Your performance is your performance. Own it.

The old blues was a music that helped a very downtrodden people get through a very difficult time. Those times are not really over and we need this music today. I resist those who would remove an aspect of the music and culture from us.

I think we should create as near a transcription as possible to present in Weeniepedia. If someone feels that they want to add a SAE translation to aid those who wish to move away from the original as a second entry, fine. But we should not ignore those who wish to consider the original language in the creation of their performance.

I would really like to hear from members as to what they are looking for when they look for a vocal transcription on Weeniepedia.

Wax

[CF]

Everyone has an accent.

We want to know the words and ideas and images a Blues singer has in their mind when they're singing. Beyond words these are images/ideas/scenes that we can also see and which lead to understanding.

Folks are not interested in replication of the sound they are hearing, they want to know the thoughts, words, ideas, scenes that are being spoken of. If Bukka White is singing about imprisonment and shares specific examples and scenes of that situation, what does phonetic representation achieve? To say that Bukka is more invested in the sound of the words more than the meaning is incorrect, I think.

To transcribe lyrics phonetically serves very little purpose. It's almost like saying the meaning and intent and ideas in the English words being used HAVE NO REAL MEANING or  IMPORTANCE.

To me, that sounds racist.

[Thomas8]

I'm not sure why this has suddenly become an issue. We're transcribing the lyrics not the vocal all the threads are titled (Insert artist name here) Lyrics not vocal transcriptions. That'd be like transcribing sounds rather than words which is baffling. Ebonics is still English and I don't see how changing something like Baltimore to Baltimo' (as an example) would add anything except confuse and possibly turn off people. By that reckoning we'd have to start transcribing "ma" instead of "my" and such until a song would become virtually unintelligible probably even to the original artist.

Things seems to have been getting a bit heated here recently and I'm not sure why, can't we all just relax and bask in this wonderful collective we have going on?

It's a bit disheartening to see fellow blues pals get so serious about the way a singer delivers a vowel.

[Norfolk Slim]

Spot on CF and Thomas.