<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
ScarTam
User

Gold Boarder
 
 Re:For Kierkegaarde and Kant and cocoa - 2004/11/23 17:49 Keith is of course right. What bemuses me rather is that there is such reference to transcriptions from recordings. Surely the evidence of what Jake actually wrote down on paper and was supplied by him to the publishers of Jake's Progress is enough to be regarded as definitive.
Ian W
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Pam
User

Platinum Boarder
 
 The definitive answer must be........ - 2004/11/23 17:51 In "Jake's Progress", the lyric book written by Jake Thackray, and illustrated by Bill Tidy (page 88) it's definitely cocoa.............. (which no doubt was drunk with the Castleford Ladies at some time)

He should know!
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Pam
User

Platinum Boarder
 
 Pipped to the post - 2004/11/23 17:53 Good thing we agree Ian!
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
aliasmacalias
User

Platinum Boarder
 
 Re:Pipped to the post - 2004/11/23 20:31 Yes. Ian Watson is correct and as a general rule I would take Jake's own version as definitive! This saves me from noting that cocoa is aliterative and has similar soporific effects to Kierkegarde and Kant .

However in a spirit of pedantry I ought to note that Jake's did change some of his lyrics over time and in at least one case - Thomas Haverley - the lyric provided in Jake's Progress differs from the only recorded version which I've heard (on BBC's Camera and the Song) .

The version of Cenotaph in that programme also differs from that which was later preserved on Radio. The changes might be thought of as the song evolving - although in both cases my personal preference is for the earlier versions: but as with a number of things that probably says more about me than anything else!

Ian I got boogie, boogie, in my socks
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
KeithD
Admin

Admin
 
 Re:Pipped to the post - 2004/11/24 10:20 When retranscribing I actually wanted to capture the words Jake sang on the relevant recording. Of course it's possible that Jake meant to sing the words that we have in print, but the lyrics are really provided for people who have the recording and want to know what Jake is singing, not what he might possibly have intended to sing.

Where there are two versions, we have transcriptions of both (and I think that's only for Remember Bethlehem, when surely the live album version suffers from memory lapses, and parts of one other that I've forgotten - plus the updated TV version of LBFP).

I tried to get a head start from Jake's Progress, but I very swiftly doubted that Jake had proof-read the book. Some of the book's lyrics are just plain stupidly wrong, others are iffy, and the punctuation and line-breaks are undoubtedly not what Jake would have used in a great many cases. I would also like to point out that the lyrics on the record sleeves/liners are not always what Jake sings on the accompanying record. I thought it likely that much had happened between Jake supplying his (probably handwritten) lyrics and their publication, so I preferred to go back to the recordings.

If anyone wants examples of what I mean I'll dig out a couple tomorrow night.

Turning to differences, what's on the studio recordings is presumably "definitive" at the time the recordings were made, while there may be some doubt about some songs on the live albums. When we have slightly different versions we can't know whether Jake intended the change or whether he busked for a while because he'd forgotten a few words. Sometimes we have access to alternative "bootleg" recordings, live or broadcast, and that allows some sort of double-check. But I don't think it matters; we capture what he sang at a certain time and it is no more than the version he was then singing.

Ian B notes that some songs change over time. In addition to Thomas Haverley I note the extra last stanza in the earliest recording of "Our Dog" on Edmund's site, which he doesn't sing on the two later broadcasts. I suspect he dropped it as being too saccharine.
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
dmcgovern
User

Expert Boarder
 
 Re:Pipped to the post - 2004/11/24 11:13 For me the fun is in the words as sung, not as written down on a songsheet. Where Jake sings different words, it's interesting to speculate what they are, and why he changed them (forgetfulness, indecision, change of heart, political correctness (never!)). So as already said, there is no "definitive" version, only what you think you can hear.

I only transcribed one song (The Kiss) which I did because it was catchy, but also there were several phrases I couldn't understand, and I determined to work them out. My brain played Chinese Whispers with . . I shall follocking solo munste cision in a smuch, before it finally clicked. The Kiss has some other gems as well.

Sometimes it's OK not to know all the answers, room for a bit of mystery in there as well . . . Definitely cocoa, though.

David
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

This is a non-profit site. If you feel that your copyright has been infringed please contact the webmaster.
The comments are property of their posters - all the rest © The Jake Thackray Website 2003-2007
Design & Hosting by Sneakytrick