|Author||Topic: Add: Randy Dandy O!|
|dmcg||Posted - 15 May 04 - 03:49 pm|
Now we are ready to head for the Horn,
(Chorus: Way, ay, roll an' go!)
Our boots and our clothes, boys, are all in the pawn
(Chorus: Timme rollickin' randy dandy O!)
Heave a pawl, O heave away!
Way ay, roll an' go!
The anchor's on board an' the cables all stored,
Timme rollockin' randy dandy O!)
Come breast the bars, bullies, an' heave her away,
Soon we'll be rollin' her 'way down the Bay.
Sing goodbye to Sally an' goodbye to Sue,
For we are the boy-os who can kick 'er through.
Oh. man the stout caps'n an' heave with a will,
Soon we'll be drivin' her 'way down the hill.
Heave away, bullies, ye parish-rigged bums,
Take yer hands from yer pockets and don't suck yer thumbs.
Roust 'er up, bullies, the wind's drawin' free,
Lets get the glad-rags on an' drive 'er to sea.
We're outward bound for Vallipo Bay,
Get crackin', m'lads, 'tis a hell o' a way!
Source: S Hugill, 1994, Shanties from the Seven Seas,Mystic Seaport Museum, Conn.
Stan Hugill wrote:
||Posted - 05 Jul 04 - 10:04 pm|
I feel certain that "galloping" and "rollicking" replace the word "ballocky." Stanza 5 is probably altered as well, since "pull out your thumbs" would be both bawdy and idiomatic.
|dmcg||Posted - 05 Jul 04 - 10:34 pm|
Thanks for your comments, Lighter. I will try to get around to giving Stan's remarks about bawdiness in shanties in the next day or so, although in some ways they make the matter more complicated rather than less.
||Posted - 06 Jul 04 - 08:12 am|
From: Tony O'Neill
I've noticed that every time you post the words to a shanty from Stan Hugill's book you always add; Mystic Seaport Museum. I'm curious to know why the reference - my copy of Stan's book does not mention any connection with Mystic
|dmcg||Posted - 06 Jul 04 - 08:30 am|
I try to give the fullest description of the source I have to hand. My particular copy is ISBN 0-913372-70-6 which was printed by Mystic Seaport Museum, Mystic, Connecticut in 1994. The title page shows it was first published in the US by Routledge & Kegan Paul, Inc, New York; it was however first published in 1961 and subsequently 1966 (with corrections), 1979 and 1984. There was then an abridged edition published in 1984. It was reprinted in 1987 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London.
There is a problem we have glossed over a little in how we give references. In some ways, it would be better to give the earliest publication date, particularly for material before, say, 1910, as that would be of most use to people trying to trace things to the roots - the fact such material might have been reprinted in, say, 1980 would be of less value.
Conversely, there is the matter of corrections and alterations, particularly in material about the songs rather than the songs themselves. If new information comes to light, it is better to give the most up-to-date version.
Of course, life is never so simple. Take 'Traditional Tunes' by Frank Kidson. It was originally published in 1891 in an edition of only 200 copies. It is, however, widely available today in a facsimile reprint by LLanerch Press (ISBN 1-86143-0817) from 1999. In this case, both dates are highly significant. Because it is a facsimile rather than completely reset, it can in many ways be treated as if it were the original 1891 edition - every phrase and comment is identical. On the other hand, people might spend their lives trying to find one of the 200 copies, so it is important to draw peoples attention to LLanerch's contribution.
My compromise is to take the easy way out - as it so often is! - and give the version I actually took things from.
Edited By dmcg - 06-Jul-2004 09:23:33 AM
|Jon Freeman||Posted - 06 Jul 04 - 11:55 am|
As far as I'm concerned, our reference should be the actual source we used - that's where we got it from and what we have could even differ from an earlier or later publication.
If we do have additional information such as an earlier publication date, that could be added as a "bonus".