THE LETTERS OF RALPH VAUGHAN WILLIAMS

13 Cheyne Walk
Chelsea, S.W.

[About 3 November 1913]

Dear Sharp

I return m.s. which seems to me v. good.¹ I always agree with your conclusions – though not always with the way to get at them – but this is almost impossible to explain & is probably (as you w^d say) “temperamental”.
I’ve put my objections in hot & strong as I thought that was the best way of making them clear.  We go away early next week.  I sh^d like to come down v. much on Sunday but do not see my way to it at present.
Yrs

RVW

P.S. (later) I am afraid Sunday is quite impossible

RVW

P.P.S.  The enclosed may amuse you

RVW

Sharp. Folk-songs

suggestions

p.2  Please cut out the word “lower” before classes – if it is the usual word at present it’s high time we suppress it.  I have known several people who are much put off by references of that kind to the folk-singing class – besides a little more explanation is required “unsophisticated & unlettered” or “untravelled & unlettered” seems to me better – also I shd leave out “classes” & substitute “members” or “portions”.
p.3 bottom line – “found only” etc – this is not true – in the special sense to which you are referring – folk-singers are most usually found in small country towns –  they have doubtless migrated there from the country – but the fact remains – indeed I think the whole distinction between “Town” & “Country” song is misleading – the distinction was not there, probably in older times & is not now.  The distinction is between spontaneous, traditional, oral music & deliberate, written conscious music.
p.3 delete lines 2 & 3 which seem to me out of place in a pamphlet of this kind.
p.6.  “The advent of the grammarian …” etc seems to me more misleading – & seems to suggest that all art-music is pedantry – it is also probable that the folk-song had its peasants pedants also – & probably there was a sort of “etiquette” of folk-singing much more rigid than our musical grammar – which only the geniuses over-stepped – just as savages have customs & taboos much more rigid than our reasoned laws.
p.9.  line 1: “nor again etc”.  This seems to me to draw a red herring across the track
p.11. Leave out the words “voice production” – as this seems to me a most important part of a child’s education – you seem to me to give the words “voice production” an evil connotation – because so much so called voice production is bad & unnecessary – but surely real voice production – the encouragement of a full clear pleasant sound whether in speaking or singing, and (as you yourself go on to say) of clear enunciation is absolutely necessary & a most important part of the development of the child’s best nature.  To take an extreme case supposing a child tried to sing (or speak) with its mouth tight shut the teacher wd have to tell it to open it – & what wd this be but a lesson in voice production?   I heard only the other day of a teacher who told children that when they sang folk-songs they must shout & roar & discouraged a pleasant tone – with the result that the managers of a neighbouring competition decided to have no folk-songs – if it was to mean this – This seems to me the direct outcome of this talk about voice production being unnecessary.
p. A (my mark) line 17. See my remarks before about grammatical rules – this seems to imply that harmony was the result of grammatical rules – harmony is just as much a spontaneous product as melody.
p. B. (my mark) broaden here & elsewhere & include Wales Ireland & Scotland – the E.F.D.S. etc have just as many adherents there as in England.
p. C. (my mark) line 10  “Technically this is … etc” If this is a rule it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance!
p. D.  (my mark) last two lines – what price voice production?!?
p. E. my mark – the analogy with the Elgin Marbles is not correct because it might equally well apply to a Beethoven symphony or a Handel Oratorio

1.  Apparently text of a pamphlet – possibly Folk Singing in Schools, though this is listed in the Sharp biography as being 1912.