Talk:Coventry Carol

[Untitled]

Hello,

I just added the context in which the song was initially performed as this context brings to light a deeper meaning. Wonderactivist 10:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Versions

The version given in the article is modernized. Until recently, at least, it is the one that has usually been performed. The original is in an irregular rhythm and has "internal" picardy thirds as well as in the final chord. In recent years it has been heard more frequently. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to somewhere where the version you refer to can be seen? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The original three part version is in The Oxford Book of Carols, 1928.Svejk74 (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You can find the original music in "A Dissertation on the Pageants or Dramatic Mysteries Anciently Performed at Coventry, by the Trading Companies of that City; Chiefly with Reference to the Vehicle, Character, and Dresses of the Actors" by Thomas Sharp (Coventry, published by Merridew and Son, 1825) - on pages 113-119 (Song II) <https://books.google.it/books?id=-XJdAAAAcAAJ&dq=Thomas%20Sharp%20coventry&pg=PA113#v=onepage&f=false>

Music is wrong

The second and fourth lines are only given three bars each, and should be four. The minim in bar VII should have five beats; while the dotted minim in bar XIV should have six beats.--Rfsmit (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

General comment: folk tunes have variety and appear in different place and times in different ways. This is the very opposite to (say) Western music in the so-called classical tradition (Bach, Beethoven, Debussy, etc.) for which notation is exact and authoritative. So for much folk music in the absolute sense of comparing to an agreed authoritative source the concept of "wrong" cannot really exist.

Your particular query: If we take the version in OUP's 'Carols for Choirs I' as reasonably close to "authoritative" (in the sense of being a version with widespread use, at least in the UK, the home of Coventry), then the version of the tune given on the article's page ties in closely, give or take occasional repeated notes to fit the words.

Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics may be "difficult to make sense of," but not impossible

(Apologies in advance for beginner's mistakes.) If the entire 19th-century transcriptions were posted, I believe I could make sense of them without difficulty. That may be only a scholarly parlor game. But if it would be a contribution to world knowledge, however small, I'd be glad to help, though I don't consider myself qualified to actually edit Wikipedia articles. I don't want to just post this and vanish, so here is an e-mail address where interested editors/contributors can write to me: grammarfairy@yahoo.com

Here are the three lines which are given in archaic form, in their place between the first and last lines of the fourth verse (as these two lines are given in modern form in the article):

"That woe is me, poor Child for Thee! / And ever morne and may / For thi parting / Neither say nor singe / Bye, bye, lully, lullay"

Here's my modern prose rendition of what the speaker/singer is saying:

"Woe is me (i.e. I feel great woe) for you, poor child, and I will ever mourn, and I may neither say nor sing "Bye, bye, lully, lullay" for thy parting."

When Herod's men arrive, the family and friends may not say their goodbyes to the child before it leaves them, nor sing the child to sleep as a last act of mercy before the soldiers execute it.

Now reintroduce the old second-person wording and move some of the phrases back toward their original poetic positions:

"Woe is me, poor child, for thee, and I will ever mourn, and may for thy parting neither say nor sing 'bye, bye, lully, lullay.' "

Restore the archaic spelling and punctuation and finish rearranging the words to meet the demands of rhyme and meter, and here we are, back at the original version that was supposedly so confusing.

"That woe is me, poor Child, for Thee! / And ever morne and may / For thi parting / Neither say nor singe / Bye, bye, lully, lullay."

208.119.151.49 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC) The Grammar Fairy

That is an interesting interpretation, but Wikipedia policy is that we do not publish original research: we record only views which have already received substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Also, even if we were to take one of the many published attempts to make sense of the words, to include that one alone in the article would be to give undue weight to one opinion. We could, of course, substantially extend the article to give a detailed comparison of all the different published interpretations, but it seems to me that this would be getting the whole thing out of proportion. The present situation, where the article mentions the difficulty and the fact that there are different interpretations, and gives one attempted reconstruction, seems to strike about the right balance. In any case, giving a new hitherto unpublished and non-notable attempt at interpretation would certainly be original research. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

GrammarFairy said some really interesting things about the possible interpretation of the text, and they got me to thinking...which can be dangerous!

With her modern prose rendition of what the speaker/singer is saying, she explains, "When Herod's men arrive, the family and friends may not say their goodbyes to the child before it leaves them, nor sing the child to sleep as a last act of mercy before the soldiers execute it."

Now first, I look at the word "lully" or "lullay". To lull something, is to make it sleepy. As you put a child day to rest, they lay in their lull: it is a lull-lay. And the "by" or "bye" (as in "lullaby") can have a couple of interpretations: (1) bye, as in "bye-bye", or (2) by - aside. Either one works: (1) "Bye" as part of the entire word "lullaby", means "bye-bye baby, go to sleep". It doesn't indicate a permanent farewell, else why would a "farewell and never see you again" be sung to a baby each night (lullaby)? (2) "By", meaning you lay the baby aside ("by") to lull.

This is a long way of saying, that the "bye bye" of the Coventry Carol does not seem to indicate that a mother wanted time to say goodbye to the infant before it was killed.

[NB - I realize that there is a lot of disagreement over the etymology of "lullaby", and many experts will disagree with my humble stab at it. But my point remains. Even if the word originally meant "hunting snarks in April with marshmallows", the purpose of a lullaby is to lull - to ease the baby into sleep. And I don't even want to open this can of worms: the "by" of lullaby - - Bye? By? Or knowing the way many languages shorten words and phrases over time (e.g., goodbye = God Be With You), is the "by" of "lullaby", "baby"? Enough digression; the lullaby is meant to sooth, and in the Coventry Carol the "bye bye" before "lullay" seems to be another way of saying "lullaby", and not a separate thought.]

And now for the phrase "for thy parting". In the aforementioned modern prose version, this phrase ends the refrain. But in the carol itself it comes before the "Bye, bye, lully, lullay".

Thus taken literally, and in the order of the text in the carol:

"For (because of) thy parting, I can no longer speak or sing a lullaby": There is no child to sing to any more, and eternal woe because of the loss; the mother has lost heart.

This seems in perfect keeping with Jeremiah 31:15 "Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not", and Matthew 2:18 "In Rama there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." Br Michael CW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that phrases such as "bye-bye" and "lullay" appear commonly in lullaby songs of the period - the text is relatively simple and straightforward and there is no real debate over possible interpretations, or sense, in academic studies of the carol and the pageant it comes from.Svejk74 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)