Current Festivals

[T.C. Elliott]

I hadn't thought about it, but there is a difference between traditional and in the public domain. I was assuming any song in the public domain would count, but I can see how that might not be correct, especially with 64Guitars definition above. It's an interesting distinction.

One note, though. There are many songs out there that are traditional, but were recorded and copyrighted by an act at some point. A friend released an album and was going to pay royalties to the copyright holder of a particular song from, I believe, the 1940's. But after doing some researched, she realized the song had been around for many years prior to that and was in fact a traditional song. Someone had bought/claimed the copyright trying to get royalty money from people who knew no better.

Also, if you see "arranged by" instead of written by, that usually/sometimes means (but not always) that it's a song from the public domain but *may* have been changed up by structure etc.,.

[Gnasty]

Wiki is only as reliable as those inputting the information.

So true. I wrote all those songs 

[cuthbert]

I've been learning Ae Fond Kiss, which by your definition doesn't qualify although the lyrics were written in 1791. It's not listed as anything in Wiki and I don't have the CD, sheet music etc. It seems crazy that this isn't allowed . . .

here's the Wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ae_Fond_Kiss

I think in this case, although the lyricist is well known, the author of the music itself is much less known with certainty. From some quick research, the music for 'Ae Fond Kiss' is the same as 'Rory Dall's Port', whose authorship is less than certain:

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandssongs/secondary/genericcontent_tcm4556878.asp

Due to the uncertainty of authorship of the tune, I think it qualifies.

I've also been working on a parody of What shall we do with the drunken sailor? (a double fester) which has songwriter unknown but is not listed in Wiki as traditional (it's a shanty 1839) and so would not qualify as traditional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Sailor

Wiki is only as reliable as those inputting the information.

I'd say 'Drunken Sailor' certainly qualifies - there's no known authorship for it. Also, 64G only provided an example via Wikipedia - it wasn't intended to be the only possible source of information regarding whether a song is considered traditional or not.

What we're trying to avoid is getting covers of songs written by Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Joni Mitchell, or any other folk artists, etc., or songs that were written in in the 19th or 20th century by known songwriters submitted for Traditional Fest. Those wouldn't qualify. However, those same folk artists' whose songs were credited to "trad." or "traditional" would qualify.

[64Guitars]

I've been learning Ae Fond Kiss, which by your definition doesn't qualify although the lyrics were written in 1791. It's not listed as anything in Wiki and I don't have the CD, sheet music etc. It seems crazy that this isn't allowed

Yes it does qualify by my definition because Robert Burns only wrote the words. The music is a traditional Scottish air, at least according to the following piece of music:

I've also been working on a parody of What shall we do with the drunken sailor? (a double fester) which has songwriter unknown but is not listed in Wiki as traditional (it's a shanty 1839) and so would not qualify as traditional.

It's traditional (see record label below). Songwriter unknown means it's traditional, at least for our purposes for the fest. However, it doesn't qualify as a double fester because Traditional Fest is meant to be straight covers, not parodies. Tell you what. Why don't you record two vocal tracks - one straight and one as a parody? You can submit the parody for Drink Fest (assuming the parody lyrics are still drink related) and the straight cover for Traditional Fest. You can use the same music tracks for both versions; just the vocal tracks will be different.

[Hilary]

Well you need to strip me of my banner for The Wind That Shakes the Barley because it's credited to Robert Dwyer Joyce (1836–1883) - how dramatic!

[cuthbert]

Well you need to strip me of my banner for The Wind That Shakes the Barley because it's credited to Robert Dwyer Joyce (1836–1883)...

Only who authored the lyrics is known - who wrote the music is unknown, or traditional:

http://violinsheetmusic.org/title/w/the-wind-that-shakes-the-barley-reel/
http://www.flutetunes.com/tunes.php?id=25
http://www.onlinesheetmusic.com/medley-a-the-wind-that-shakes-the-barley-b-the-reel-with-the-beryle-p379999.aspx

[64Guitars]

Well you need to strip me of my banner for The Wind That Shakes the Barley because it's credited to Robert Dwyer Joyce (1836–1883) - how dramatic!

You posted that before I posted the rules, so I'll leave it in the festival jukebox. The same goes for Stuart's "Wild Mountain Thyme" which is a folk song written by Francis McPeake. Although, there is some controversy about the origins of the song according to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Mountain_Thyme#Creation_controversy

Anyway, both songs were posted before I had a chance to post our definition of what's expected, so they can stay in the jukebox.

Oh, and I see that cuthbert has found some links that show the composer of the music for "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" is unknown, so it definitely qualifies.

[Hilary]

The Wind that Shakes the Barley - Wiki clearly states that the ballad was written by Robert Dwyer Joyce - which just goes to prove my point about it's accuracy/inaccuracy.

[64Guitars]

What makes you think these links are correct - it may be traditional but not my your definition

I think you've misunderstood our definition. Basically, our definition is that any song the record industry or music publishers considers traditional qualifies for Traditional Fest. The sheet music in the links that cuthbert posted show that the music publishers consider the song traditional, so it qualifies for Traditional Fest. It seems pretty clear to me. I don't see why there should be any confusion.

[Hilary]

What makes you think these links are correct - it may be traditional but not my your definition

I think you've misunderstood our definition. Basically, our definition is that any song the record industry or music publishers considers traditional qualifies for Traditional Fest. The sheet music in the links that cuthbert posted show that the music publishers consider the song traditional, so it qualifies for Traditional Fest. It seems pretty clear to me. I don't see why there should be any confusion.

Yes, I'm sorry about that and I very much appreciate you taking the time to help (and Cuthbert) but just because it's on the internet doesn't necessarily make it correct - although in this instance it obviously is - it's the Wiki link that's incorrect.

However, it doesn't qualify as a double fester because Traditional Fest is meant to be straight covers, not parodies.

I do understand this completely but it's a shame as it appeals to my sense of irony. The music is still traditional/unknown - oh well, nothing's ever wasted