These two songs go back into the mists of time so have that they are traditional ballads in common, but the stories seem very different. In the past many traditional ballads were given a (Francis James) Child number to identify their story and link similar ballads together. Today we use (Steve) Roud numbers and these two ballads are not deemed to be linked in any way.
The wonderful Mainly Norfolk website goes into detail about the lyrics and origins of the songs. Shirley learned "Nottamun Town" from Jean Ritchie of Kentucky after one of the latter's collecting trips in the UK. More details here... It was allocated the Roud No. 1044
"She Moved Through The Fair" was collected in the very early 1900s from Donegal by Padraic Colum and later a more authentic version was collected from Derry with less "touching up" by the poet Colum. She Moved Through The Fair gives more details and indicates that Roud allocated it the Roud No. 861.
I was referring to the story that is being told, which is a ghost tale. In this case I presume a young man is trying to find his way to his love (in Nottingham?) but finds himself in another world.
Nottamun Town seems to be based on the Irish traditional song She Moved Through The Fair
Much though I hate to disagree with you JJ, there is no link whatsoever between the two songs Nottamun Town and She Moved Through The Fair. What gave you that idea?
I think, judging by a couple of Classical Decca records, and especially the Rolling Stones debut, the transition from flips to no flip sleeve took place in 1964.
--oops... scrub that... Rolling stones no.2 has a flip, with a 1965 p on the labels... so maybe sometime early in that year ?)
The mono original (Decca LK-4652) was definitely issued no later than 1965, as it was reviewed in the June 1965 Gramophone. No trace of a stereo issue in Gramophone or in the few (1966, 1974, 1975) Decca catalogues that I have.
There was an insert with the original issue and the sleeve was not pasted down tabs as far as I have seen, however I would not rule it out as Decca did have more than one 3rd party supplying finished sleeves ( see early CBS for example) However, despite historical deviations it is a handsome and desirable object especially if Decca did this. One historic reissue I am heavily critical of was the Pink Floyd 'See Emily Play' on pink vinyl and wrong pic sleeve which was from the german issue of 1967 which made the whole edifice so wrong.
.... The album, and the music itself is all but legendary as it is, so doesn't really require a review on that score,
...except to say it's just guitar genius Davy Graham offering acoustic accompaniment to Shirley Collins' authentic folk singing, and occasional instrumentals by Graham, and a couple of solo pieces by Collins.
But it's this particular issue that needs some comment, as, perhaps, in the spirit of the best Decca traditions, it's several shades of pissed thinking all at once.... but delightfully so!
Firstly, I've got to mention that this issue comes housed in the Mono issue apparel: Red Decca Mono labels (stereo were blue!), and in a sleeve that also indicates Mono -
- It ain't mono!
...Ah, but that's not an entirely true statement either...
....As, having listened a few times now to be sure, I am pretty certain the opening track IS mono, but that the rest of the tracks are most definitely stereo (!....?...!!!!!.... ?..........!)
And further scrutiny of the labels begins to unpick this oddness... for the patent date given on both labels and sleeve is 1965 - the date of the work itself, but if you look to the perimeter text on the labels, you will see a copyright date (and additional patent date) of 1967.
Now, I have not put this in the notes, as I think it needs some confirmation, but I fully suspect that the reason for this, is that the stereo recording mix, is copyrighted fro 1967, whereas the original work (in any mix) was mono - 1965.
...However, I've looked up and down, round the back of the sofa of the internet, and elsewhere all this while, and can not find any original issues in stereo!
As far as I know, and can find out, this was only ever released originally in mono.
Looking at the back cover photo, which indicates a recording set-up of the two of them across the room from each other, each with their own mics, I should imagine it would not have been that difficult for an engineer to retrospectively separate their two tracks, and make a very good stereo out of it...
(as sparsely arranged as it is possible to get... no complicating factors like more band members and instruments in close proximity hammering the whatssits out of their instruments, and bleeding through to the other's mics etc.)
So I can only conclude that the opening track was perhaps recorded differently... maybe with just one mic, or that they were so close that the separation was lost.
But then there's other wonkiness with this issue:
I believe the original came with an insert of some description... and that the first issue was actually released too late to have been sporting any kind of flip-back sleeve at all!
- original issues don't have it, and Decca were fairly early in adopting a standardised sleeve construction of the non-flip variety (You'd a'thunk that as this was released by Decca, for the purposes of replicating the original... they'd be more aware of the particulars of their own previous releases - just a trot down to the archive might have spared their blushes?)
So it's a might over-Decca'd by some enthusiastic soul at Decca HQ :)
(First issue sporting flips then! - I do love them though, so it's a bonus for me... but also, if you are going to put flips on the sleeve... please get it right: The spine edge flap should be UNDER top and bottom flaps - so it doesn't pull free, as photos of this issue on Amazon and Discogs show ....DOH!:)
And if you are going to go to the trouble of "replicating" the original to the degree of putting flips on it, why not go the whole hog, and laminate the sleeve front, and use silver print on the labels, instead of white?
....but as I wasn't expecting it to be a limited edition of any kind when I bought it... I'm pleased as punch, to have, a fine (though misguided) effort from Decca, which does mean I have the album at last!
--And this pressing does sound great too nevertheless--