Talk:Matty Groves

Wording

"...a man kills his wife and her lover after finding her sleeping with another man." Isn't this worded a little awkwardly? It seems to read as though the wife was caught sleeping with another man other than her lover. Surely it should read something like "a man kills his wife and her lover after finding them sleeping together." John1701 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

--Yogyog 07:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Yep, that sounds better.

I can't help feeling that there's a version of Matty Groves somewhere where the sex scene is described as graphicly as the fight scene.

I can't citate this, but I think Matty Groves comes from a tradition of ballards that are the historical equivelent of cheap, sensationalist news-papers: full of sex and violence and only vaguely based on true events.

If there is a more graphically sexual version of this song, it would hardly be very suprising. As you mentioned, ballads were once similar to our sensationalist news publications, and in fact copies of these ballads were once sold on the streets as newspapers later would be.

Also, since Matty Groves is one of the Child ballads, it is likely that Child edited the song somewhat after collecting it, in order to "clean up" the lyrics a bit.

Many similar traditional songs were ostensibly much more obscene and explicit in their content, before being collected by such scholars as Child, Sharp and others. John1701 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See "Bawdy Matty Groves?" discussion at https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=88614 . Acwilson9 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Title and redirection

This song is clearly based on a border ballad usually called Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard and I think it should be listed under that name with redirection from the name Mattie Groves, which is one title among many used for versions collected in the USA and Canada. Joe Fogey (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Any changes need to be based on published reliable sources. They may exist, and they can be discussed here, but you need to direct us towards them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Child (Child, Prof. F. J., "The English and Scottish Popular Ballads" Vol 2 no 81), the first known published version dates back to between 1614 and 1641 (broadsides not being dated in those days) and it was referred to in plays some time before the latter date. The English versions are generally called Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard or a variant of that wording, though sometimes her name is left out. Child published 14 versions of the ballad from Scotland and England. Joe Fogey (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

The guidance on article titles, which we should follow, is WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering... [the] principles [of]...

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles."

So, the article title should not necessarily be based on the earliest name of the song, it should be based on the most recognizable name. Personally, using the title "Matty Groves" makes most sense to me, but it's worth discussing further if other editors are interested. What you would need to do, though, is propose a move at WP:Requested moves - that would highlight the topic for further discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The songs are separate songs each with noteworthy and significant recordings. That one is older than the other should not influence our choice of title.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If they are separate songs, then they deserve separate entries. I can see some merit in that approach, but even if they are considered separate songs they are regarded by folklorists as being related. Hence they share the same number in the Roud Index. At the moment we have an odd situation in which the article states that Matty Groves "is one of the Child Ballads collected by 19th-century American scholar Francis James Child" when Child doesn't mention the name Matty Groves at all. Even the links at the bottom of the pages for the preceding and subsequent Child ballads use the name Child himself used: Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard.Joe Fogey (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! ツ

[I copied this section from User talk:Joe Fogey#Thank you! ツ. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)]

Dear fellow editor;
Thank you very much for adding an external link to the article on Matty Groves today, for Jean Ritchie's recording of the song for Alan Lomax in 1949. When you next visit the article, you will see that I have included this recording into the table, and also created a complete citation for it in the Notes column, so that the full citation now appears in the References section.
With your permission, I would therefore like to remove the link you added into the External links section, unless you would prefer it stayed there instead of in the table, in which case, please feel free simply to revert/undo my latest edit.
Thank you once again for contributing this interesting, historical recording of the song.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 15:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Patrick.

I'm not sure how to reply to your message, so please let me know if you've read this. I find some aspects of Wikipedia puzzling.

Thanks for your message and your comment. I don't mind you including the Jean Ritchie version in your table, though I think field recordings should be shown as distinct from commercial recordings - they are part of a different activity and serve a different purpose. Perhaps a separate table? I'll probably enter some other field recordings when I find them. I think too that it might be useful to other editors and to readers to draw attention to on-line archives such as the Cultural Equity resource and the British Library Sound Archive It seems barmy to me to list dozens of versions of a song on commercial recordings when the process of academic study of folk song is concerned with collected versions and field recordings.

All the best! Joe Fogey (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your reply, which I could see thanks to having entered my initial post, which automatically entered your talk page into my watchlist. So, when you posted your reply above, I could see it as a new edit. Also, you will notice that your reply is now indented, which I did by applying a single colon before each of your paragraphs; for my present reply, I am applying two colons, which will indent my text by one level again. This is explained in WP:THREAD.

I fully agree with your idea to have a separate section for field recordings, and I am therefore going to relocate the content of my recent edit there. When you have found more of them, then I can create a table for you if you wish; feel free to contact me when you're ready and we can synchronize our efforts at that time.

You make a cogent point about the distinction between field and commercial recordings, and our new section will accommodate the former with greater equanimity, and for the benefit of all our readers, whatever their level of interest.

I will update the present post in a minute, after creating the new section.  Done

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: I will now copy the above exchange into the article's talk page, for accountability to other interested editors.

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Patrick. Joe Fogey (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's all done, Joe. Now that we actually have the new section you proposed, do you still see the need for your original entry to stay in the 'External links' section? Or would you be happy to remove it, now that I also created a full citation for your source? Thank you, Joe.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 22:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, not really. Thanks again! Joe Fogey (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Dear Joe;
First of all, thank you for all your recent contributions (3-7 March), including the field recordings and also the useful links you mentioned in the section immediately above. As you will see, I have now also expanded most of the links you supplied as basic ref tags or using 'cite' templates. I did this because the four references that were there earlier had been basic ref tags and bare urls until this time last year, when other editors began to use 'cite' templates. Therefore, I have now applied these consistently throughout the article, including to the references you added recently.
When you have the time, please would you consider pointing this link, (which you added on 29 January 2017), to one (or several) precise page(s), instead of a simple 'search' page? It seems to me that it would be helpful if our readers could be taken directly to a page where the useful details you added (in the second paragraph of the Collected versions section) could be viewed without having to search first. I am suggesting this, simply because I attempted to search for the details myself, and did not succeed, although this failure might simply have been caused by a limitation in my own browser. Also, this is important for reasons of verifiability, as I am sure you know. I hope you won't mind that I brought this to your attention, Joe.
In any case, very many thanks once again for all your scholarly contributions to this article.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 18:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello, Patrick

Thanks again for attempting to lead me into the path of virtue! I'm not sure what to do about this - as you will probably see I've attempted to correct things without success. The link is supposed to lead to the pages on the Roud Folk Song Index (RFSI) which refer to Roud 52, the number for Matty Groves.

There are 302 such pages, each with a stable url, and the search url:

https://www.vwml.org/search?ts=1489608487399&collectionfilter=RoudFS;RoudBS&advqtext=0%7Crn%7C52#

produces a display starting with page 1 and ending with 302, which you can scroll through. There isn't a page for all this info combined, because the RFSI is a database. It is one of the most important sources of information about folk music available, preventing the need for access to a huge library, but I'm not clear how to cite it! Do you have any ideas?

I will re-edit the link to describe the search more precisely, and leave out a URL.

Best wishes! Joe Fogey (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joe;

Thank you very much for your prompt reply, and for providing the all-important link that formed the basis of the analysis you developed for that second paragraph. I would suggest that all we need to do is just add that link in the 'url=' clause for that citation, and simply change the 'title=' clause to reflect the generic nature of the data supplied at that page. I will apply these simple changes during the next few minutes, and then let you decide if you think they have merit. As you say, the target source is a database and the prose in your paragraph has performed some analysis on its contents. However, since that source is now readily available directly (instead of via the earlier 'search' page), I am sure this is much better, since your prose is now verifiable by anyone who is prepared to repeat the effort of your earlier analysis.

This is a very useful improvement; thank you very much, Joe!

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 20:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joe;

 Done!... Thank you very much once again for supplying the useful link! Please let me know if you (dis)approve of my latest changes, and feel free to apply any further amendments you deem appropriate.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Patrick, that is fine - the main point as far as I'm concerned is that it leads to information that people can check for themselves, which is what references are intended to do. I suppose.

Thanks again, Joe Fogey (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Textual Variants Section

This section doesn't seem to make much sense imho. There are a large number of different versions of this song. It's crossed the Atlantic and come back again so that British traditional singers have started singing versions learned from the American tradition. The different names used in different versions don't tell us much except that people have tried to make sense of names they aren't familiar with. Joe Fogey (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Joe! (So soon... )

How would you like to improve that section while retaining its salient points and its sources? I liked the way you summarised the topic in the section above. Would you like to start from there and add details? If you want to work on this, then please consider copying the entire section in a sandbox and modify it there to your heart's content, and I would be happy to assist if you wish. When done, we could agree that your new version is a good replacement for the current section, and we would document that here for accountability to other interested editors.

Just let me know of your intent, and I'll be glad to participate in your effort, if you wish.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it. It's just that there are several dozen names for a song like this (I counted 60 for The Outlandish Knight), and it's in the nature of folk songs that details vary, either because of mishearings or deliberate alteration - to use local names for example. The broadside printers used to leave blanks in the text for singers to fill in - The Girls of _____ shire, for example.

Dear Joe;

By all means; no rush. I'll keep this page in my watchlist so I can see you next update, when you're ready.

(Also, I have taken the liberty of indenting your posts, per WP:THREAD... ).

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Shady Grove (song)" derived from "Matty Groves" - are we sure?

(To all previous editors & commenters: I'm interested, too, which is dangerous to my well-being (JOKE!).)

After reading of the purported derivation of the former courting/seduction/(stalking ?)/wishful ballad from the latter murder ballad, I started digging (very dangerous to one's "normal" life) and got even more confused. (See my recent notes in the "Shady Grove (song)" "Talk" page" and "history". It doesn't help that I am not a musician and cannot read music.) It appears that to me that the Fiona Ritchie's & Doug Orr's book's take on this might have an editing error in it, but of course they are a not an original source.

Anyway, a couple of days ago I found this web stuff (which could distract any curious/compulsive reader for weeks!):

• Matty Groves AND Shady Grove: https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=131461#2966111 "Subject: RE: Origins: 'Shady Grove' a mondegreen" ?
• Shady Grove: https://dakotadavehull.com/airship/
• Shady Grove: http://alexbledsoe.com/2010/02/08/shady-grove-and-the-tradition-of-living-songs/
• Matty Groves: https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=83878
• Matty Groves (by Charles Owston): http://zeegrooves.blogspot.com/2010/02/fairport-convention-matty-groves.html
• Matty Groves (by Patrick Blackman): https://singout.org/2012/02/20/matty-groves-little-musgrave-and-lady-barnard/
• Matty Groves (by Patrick Blackman): https://singout.org/2012/02/22/a-bower-in-bucklesfordbury/
• Matty Groves (by Patrick Blackman): https://singout.org/2012/02/24/god-make-you-safe-and-free/

(One of John Jacob Niles's ballad books awaits me at the Evanston Public Library, because I cannot leave sleeping songs lie... For me, it all started in 1970-71 with Fairport Convention and Quicksilver Messenger Service.) Acwilson9 (talk)...October 2017 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Shady Grove (song)#18th-century?)

Dave Swarbrick, cited in Heylin's 2000 Sandy Denny biog, says: " 'Matty Groves', Sandy and I put the words together from Child. We put it to an American tune..." - the latter clearly Shady Grove. I have made appropriate adjustments to both this article and the one for Liege and Lief. As discussed on various forums (mudcat etc.), there is no other association whatsoever between the two songs. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tony: It appears that you also did the same in the Matty Groves article. Thanks. Acwilson9 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cover versions

I have removed (and re-removed) covers of this song where the album nor the artist are linked. As this song is hundreds of years old, it obviously does not make sense to include every version, regardless of notability. I will also add that none were cited, except for a Bandcamp link which is the same as linking to a Youtube video to establish notability. I see no grounds for inclusion of non-notable covers of this folk song. Is there any argument for including them? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Several of the groups you've removed are notable, I know because I listen to some of them myself on google music where they have several albums and are published by 'real' publishing companies. You can see that there are articles for several of them on non-US wikis. I'm working on linkifying several of them and you constantly removing them makes that task harder. I agree that some of them need to be removed but just removing any that currently don't have articles is not the way to go about it. Suppafly (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Having an article establishes notability (though it can be challenged via deletion). Not having an article does not mean a topic is not notable, but it cannot be presumed notable in lists like this (a source establishing notability is generally required). What I'm saying is, a very very good rule of thumb in situations like this (where there are excessive examples) is to remove inclusions that are un-linked and un-sourced. That's what I did. I don't appreciate you implying that I did anything improper. In lists of notable people or things, links are generally required as an initial gatekeeper of notability. Again, it is a rule of thumb meaning there are certainly exceptions. But if these artists are notable (see WP:BAND for notability standards), I invite you to create articles and link them to this article; in the alternative, I invite you to source the inclusions to reliable sources that verify and create notability of the band and/or the recording. This is an old article and many of the artists removed have been here for years. I would further ask you to remove any entries which you do not contend are notable - as I assume you do not argue that all the entries I remove should be included. If you have questions please let me know. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything, no hard feelings. Suppafly (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)