- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
No deceits, some deceits, one deceits; Which version is from where and which do you think works best? In this work of art, I think the only thing that lets it down is the last two lines.
Discuss!;)I always sing "one deceit" meself, as I "collected" the song off "Jake Thackray and songs". But it’s the version that makes the most sense : if using his fires to boil up her sweets is deceitful in any way, then only one such deceit is mentioned, rather than some. And if it’s not deceitful, why mention it ? I think in any case, the "some deceits" version justforces the "deceits/sweets" rhyme a bit more.
I’m a bit bemused by this discussion – perhaps I’ve missed something. Jake’s approved text, as published in Jake’s Progress, is quite clear: They knew their hearts’ desires as love requires with few deceits." In other words, they abandoned the deceit of the blacksmith’s pretence to be God in the belfry and all the flim-flam which accompanies grander love stories (like Romeo and Juliet), and they just got on with the practicalities of living together. "He used his fires to boil up her sweets" is of course both literal and comically metaphoric. Not, perhaps, the most elegant pair of lines he wrote, but not half bad and surely not mysterious.
Ian WSorry to be the cause of your bemusement, Ian!
Having looked through my CD archive I can only find the one version of B+T and this has ‘no deceits’. This is one of many examples where the ‘approved text’ is not the same as live versions, recorded or not.
However I am minded to sing ‘few’ or ‘no’, as I don’t think using his fires to boil up her sweets is deceitful at all (sorry Malcy!).
The transcription on this site says ‘some deceits’. I don’t think that is a typo. Anyone know where that came from?philreckless wrote:
The transcription on this site says ‘some deceits’. I don’t think that is a typo. Anyone know where that came from?
I transcribed all Jake’s English lyrics where I had a recording, and checked the results against existing transcriptions and published versions, so it’s either my transcription or someone else’s transcription that I re-checked and preferred to mine. Don’t know which recording I got it from but I’ll check through what I have and see if it’s a mis-hearing. Can’t load Edmund’s site (again) to check what’s on there.
Re Ian’s mention of Jake’s "approved" text in Jake’s Progress, the instances in that of clearly "wrong" lyrics, faulty punctuation and so on mean that I just cannot believe that Jake did a final proof-read. I consider it to be persuasive but not authoritative. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I feel.
Certainly in the casual studio version on disk 4 of Jake in a box Jake sings "with no deceits" – both the "no" and the plural "s" are very clear.
Just to throw the can of worms back into the arena of mixed metaphor, I listened to the "Jake Thackray and songs" version of "Blacksmith…" this morning and he sings "some deceit". When the words differ from versions of recordings, it’s always hard to tell whether Jake has refined an earlier lyric, or just forgotten the real ones !
Sometimes it’s entire phrases…
"he tries his luck, he’s running amok"
"he’s so obsessed, he gives her no rest"
– Worried Brown Eyes
…and whole sentences…
"I don’t know why I did it, I’m an impulsive sort of bloke, but I suddenly thought I’d give that little hole a furtive poke"
"Well I know it sounds ridiculous, I know it’s awfully odd, But I suddenly felt like giving that little hole a furtive prod"
– The Hole
When I hear re-writes like that which differ from original versions, I assume that Jake thought that the second versions were better, or why change them ? And if songs are an evolving, changeable art form, then why assume there has to be a definitive version ? This is what I think Phil’s asking at the top – there are different versions of the lyrics and which ones do we feel are better or more appropriate.
I’ll get me coat. š
Post edited by: Malcy, at: 2006/04/24 12:31
Malcy wrote:
Just to throw the can of worms back into the arena of mixed metaphor, I listened to the "Jake Thackray and songs" version of "Blacksmith…" this morning and he sings "some deceit".
Thanks for doing that. "And songs" was certainly one of my sources when I was transcribing, partly because on the video version you can often see his lips, which helps.
When the words differ from versions of recordings, it’s always hard to tell whether Jake has refined an earlier lyric, or just forgotten the real ones ! [snip] When I hear re-writes like that which differ from original versions, I assume that Jake thought that the second versions were better, or why change them ?
I agree. Often the differences are apt enough in both versions that the later versions have to be considered as rewrites, and it must therefore be on the cards that Jake preferred the later versions. On the other hand, odd changes like Norman/Bernard are probably down to boredom, and some other differences (eg "some deceit", and that weird tailing off in the TV version of The Prisoner) that lack aptness are probably down to forgetfulness.
[snip] if songs are an evolving, changeable art form, then why assume there has to be a definitive version ?
Tend to agree, but if you’re looking for what Jake preferred then, where later versions differ from earlier ones, it seems reasonable to assume that Jake had considered things and preferred the later versions. Whether singers stick to the latest versions or prefer earlier ones, or even change the words for relevance (eg "his name’s on the poster outside") or in the interest of avoiding offence in the 21st century (see "glorifying rape" thread) should be up to them; so long as they don’t butcher the songs I don’t believe Jake would complain.
This is what I think Phil’s asking at the top – there are different versions of the lyrics and which ones do we feel are better or more appropriate.
I’d go for "no deceit", with "no deceits" in a close second place for the rhyme. I can’t make that much sense of "some deceits".
KeithD wrote:
On the other hand, odd changes like Norman/Bernard are probably down to boredom,I think that he would also occasionaly insert the name of someone he knew to be in the audience
Ian
Something else I noticed in the mono version of Blacksmith: "Her simple heart to disclose". Like it! I’ve always thought that "unclose" was very ungainly, given the tremendously high standard of most of the rest of the lyric
Given that Jake sang "with no deceit" at least once on a recording, that leaves just the "She, she" awkwardness. It always jars, and I very often wonder why Jake preferred this to just a single "She" after a beat, or "Well, she", or almost anything else in fact.
At the risk of dissappearing up somewhere, actually, I like the ‘She, she’ thing. It’s like the first ‘She’ Jake is saying "hey listener, her, that woman we’ve been talking about, you know, HER" then continues his story with the second "she…"
Going to plump for ‘no deceipts’ meself!I concur with Phil’s remarks. On the whole I do not like repetition in Jake’s songs and there is admirably little of it, a sign of the real care he took over his writing (notice the occasional clumsy repetitions in previously unreleased songs, such as Family Grave). However, I believe ‘she, she’ is an effective narrative / colloquial touch.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.