Talk:Old Dan Tucker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Old Dan Tucker is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Peer review Old Dan Tucker has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Musicological analyses

I'm currently working on a major expansion of this article, but I've hit a snag. Two of my sources are written by musicologists, so they give great information for the article. However, my own understanding of the terminology they're using is somewhat limited. I'm trying to determine whether the two writers are in agreement about tthe song or if I need to present both of their views as potentially contradictory. Here are some quotes and paraphrases:

First, from Cockrell, Dale (1997). Demons of Disorder: Early Blackface Minstrels and Their World. Cambridge University Press.:

  • Cockrell says that it represents the transition from the Jim Crow era to the more refined minstrel show of later decades. (Cockrell 155)
  • The lyrics are of secondary importance to the music. (Cockrell 156)
  • The refrain includes syncopation that had only ever appeared in minstrelsy in "Zip Coon". (Cockrell 156)
  • "The rhythmic energy generated propels the song along." (Cockrell 156)
  • "The harmonic scheme is effective in supporting the melody." (Cockrell 156)
  • "Most significantly, this is not a song for singing so much as for playing." (Cockrell 156)
  • The song did not even have to be danced to; Cockrell says that the music stands on its own merits. (Cockrell 156-7)

Now for Crawford, Richard (2001). America's Musical Life: A History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.:

  • Crawford says that ODT "illustrates one way in which early minstrelsy translated raw energy into song." (Crawford 206)
  • It does not have a "harmonized melody"; it is "more like a musical framework in which words are declaimed to a strict, driving beat." (Crawford 206)
  • Almost 3/4 of the syllables are on the same note, "indicating that text declamation, not tune, is the animating force." (Crawford 208)
  • Rhythm's primacy is also suggested by the fact that the "phrase endings are given no time to settle in." Instead, verses give straight away to chorus, which ends on an eight note and no rest, which leads into the next coda, which begins in a downbeat. (Crawford 208)
  • ODT's intro is "sound and rhythm" with little melody. (Crawford 210)
  • ODT "represented the dominant voice of early minstrelsy: the black mask, linked with muscular, unlyrical music, that invited white entertainers to mock genteel social customs with fierce intensity." (Crawford 211)

Sounds like Cockrell and Crawford are in disagreement on how "refined" ODT really is. Am I misreading this? Anyone speak musicologese? — BrianSmithson 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of the statements seem to be about how it's all about the music and not the singing. The only possible contradiction is Cockrell's first statement, but I don't know enough about the subject to say whether it's really contradictory. -Freekee 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are some apparently contradicting viewpoints. The contradiction most striking to me is Cockrell's "The lyrics are of secondary importance to the music" a rather subjective and broad statement. Cockrell's statement about the importance of playing over singing also showcases this view, also I see little musical reasoning given to support it. Crawford appears to argue the opposite with "Almost 3/4 of the syllables are on the same note, "indicating that text declamation, not tune, is the animating force."

Both agree on the importance of rhythm. Regarding harmony, again Cockrell's comment is broad and doesn't really contain much beyond a subjective generalization ("The harmonic scheme is effective in supporting the melody") What does effective mean? Unless there is more information, this comment is essentially useless for an encyclopedia article. Crawford's comment "It does not have a "harmonized melody"; it is "more like a musical framework in which words are declaimed to a strict, driving beat." suggests that the harmony, like the melody, is not a driving force in the music.

In terms of their general view of the song, Cockrell cite ODT as part of a transition to "refined" minstrel shows (an oxymoron?) while Crawford calls it "muscular, unlyrical music, that invited white entertainers to mock genteel social customs with fierce intensity". Those points don't seem to agree.

IMO, and from what I can see, Crawford's points make more musical sense. I'm also familiar with his work as a scholar of American music so I trust his intrepretation, although that's all some of this is: interpretation. Let me know if I can help make anything else clearer. Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you. I could be mis-paraphrasing Cockrell; I'll be sure to recheck his work. A for "refined" minstrelsy, he's referring to the later years of that form when the music became a lot more European in character to appeal to the middle class rather than the working class. Again, thanks. — BrianSmithson 04:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sample

Could someone add a sample to the article. It would be great to hear what this song is like. Thank you. CG 14:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm working on it. I'm having problems with Audacity at the moment, unfortunately. In the meantime, there are several sample versions linked to in the External links section. -- BrianSmithson 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Finally figured it out. — BrianSmithson 14:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/l/d/Talk%7EOld_Dan_Tucker_0661.html"