 sj |
||
|
||
DTStudy: A Proposal
|
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Nigel Parsons Date: 27 May 02 - 05:57 AM Great idea; I've already looked at the started threads, and won't be able to avoid adding my two pennorth! Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: IanC Date: 27 May 02 - 07:23 AM Joe This is partly what I'd hoped to avoid in my PMs to you. There is no doubt that the DT is inaccurate and contains some peculiar versions of things. This is a problem, but could be dealt with by updating the DT when someone points out the inaccuracies (I accept this may take some time). For many of the songs - e.g. The Cutty Wren - we have quite a lot of information in threads which now needs to be summarised and synthesised so that people looking can be pointed to a source of information which begins as accurately as we can get it without being pointed to ten different threads, each of which contains a mixture of good info and total claptrap. These good threads (possibly permathreads) could then be added-to as new information arrives and re-synthesised from time to time in order to keep them relatively accurate and tidy. This is what I had volunteered to kick off. Unfortunately, what we seem to have in the new "Cutty Wren" thread is another thread on the Cutty Wren theme, perpetuating the old problem. Perhaps this should have been in a PM, but I begin to despair.
Very best regards
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Nigel Parsons Date: 27 May 02 - 07:30 AM Ian: the advantage with the new DTStudy threads is that, as permathreads, they can be edited. Thus inaccurate information (repeated from however many sources) can be removed. It will not even be essential to leave in the rebuttals of these, but the thread can at least be summarised and then shortened. Whilst a lot of this may have been covered in earlier threads, they often go of-topic, and become too long-winded. I see this as a great opportunity to have an 'open forum' which should, eventually, give solid entries to the DT. CHEERS Nigel (hopefully not stepping on Joe's toes) Joe's toes are intact. [grin] That's exactly what I meant, Nigel. I think, though, that maybe I should move substantial posts out of the DTStudy threads when we're done with them - instead of just deleting them, I can transfer posts to another thread about the song in question. I think it's appropriate to delete messages that just ask a question or add a brief comment. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: DMcG Date: 27 May 02 - 07:39 AM Following on from IanC and Nigels remarks, I strikes me that in some cases it might be appropriate to disentangle several threads from a single DTStudy thread once it is edited. For example, I could see some cases where we ended up with a 'song' thread, a 'historical background' thread and 'common stories' about the song, such as the "Peasant's Revolt" comment in the Cutty Wren song. In no way am I suggesting this should be the norm, but occasionally it might be helpful. Much more work for the editor, unfortunately. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 May 02 - 08:38 AM Setting the record straight about misinformation about songs can be quite imnportant. Songbook and record slieves do pass on an awful lot of tosh sonetimes. It's really a type of folklore in itself.
I think Joe's haphazard approach is the right way. Costructing some elegant and scholarly framework isn't going to happen, I'd predict, and if it did, it'd turn out to be the wrong framework anyway. Organic beats engineered in these matters, I think. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Mr Happy Date: 27 May 02 - 09:08 AM agree with most of above, except to remove 'incorrect' lyrics/ verses i feel this kind of defeats the concept of progression/ development/ regional variations in songs comments? |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: IanC Date: 27 May 02 - 09:21 AM MrHappy Re: inaccuracies in DT. It depends how they came there. An awful lot are due to poor transcription in the first place and it would be worth removing these. Incorrect attributions (which abound) could also be removed with impunity. For example, "Bonny at Morn" is Northumbrian, not Scottish.
:-) |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 27 May 02 - 09:27 AM Organic in the first instance, yes, but the eventual editing will need to be rigorous and clear, so that the (ongoing) "fair copy" is properly organised and concise ("elegant" indeed, if you like). The various mythic "explanations" of the origins of the Cutty Wren, for example, can be condensed into one short paragraph: none are provable, so no discussion of that aspect need be retained. With due respect to Joe, we certainly don't want to end up with something like the FAQ thread, which is large, unwieldy and possibly intimidating for beginners, and might better be organised as a series of static pages with the permathread retained for contributions. I certainly agree with Ian that, if this new approach is to succeed, the editor(s) must have no compunction about condensing where necessary, and removing all irrelevant or misleading material once it has been discussed.
Many DT files are transcriptions from commercial recordings, made by ear, and often contain errors of transcription; thus, "incorrect", as they are not what they purport to be. Equally, if a revival singer has substantively altered the tune or text which they received from tradition (directly or, more often, at several removes), this needs to be noted as it is, in effect, no longer a traditional version: this is not to say (as people persist in misunderstanding when I point it out) that the revival form is less valid in its own way; simply that it is a different animal, and in order properly to appreciate what is going on, we need to know what the source was; that way comparison can be made and the new form placed in its proper context. This is completely different from asserting a single "correct" form of a traditional song, which nobody is proposing. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 May 02 - 09:39 AM Well, I can't resist throwing in another penny's worth... I pretty much agree with Malcolm here. Organic is fine as a starter and I believe valuable lessons can be learned by adopting such a method. I do however believe that the final version needs to be clinical, clear and to the point. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: IanC Date: 27 May 02 - 09:43 AM Malcolm Thing is, with a lot of these things we've already "done" organic. What I was suggesting to Joe was the next stage ... and volunteering to do at least one to show what I meant.
:-) |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 May 02 - 09:55 AM Ian (or anybody else for that matter). If you really want to put up a sample as a proposal and require powers of editorship, please feel free to use the "Mudcat Emergency" forum on the Annexe where a poster can edit thier own posts. Normally, I avoid music over there but I think perhaps that on this occasion, I can allow an area for experimenting with the hope that a format may develop and return here as a set of permathreads or what ever. Jon (hoping this offer will be taken as a positive effort to help and not as a take over bid from me). |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST Date: 27 May 02 - 09:57 AM The forum itself is possibly too organic, IMO. That's why I like the approach of separating off the threads which Jeri showed us. We could at least keep on-topic posting only there, making the thankless task of the editor(s) manageable. And Malcolm, I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the discussion of the sources should be deleted once clinical editing begins? Or are you suggesting a list of sources, with the consensus as to the veracity of source information, be summarised and retained in the threads? I would favor that, but not eliminating dodgy sources altogether. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: IanC Date: 27 May 02 - 10:08 AM Thanks, Jon I needed some time rather than anything else. Joe was perfectly happy to sort out the rest for me. He just took me by surprise before I had the chance to do anything ... I'm still working on it, just worried that what I've got will probably drown in a whole lot of organic(!)
Cheers! |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 27 May 02 - 11:38 AM Re. sources: I'm suggesting a summary, with specific references where available; sometimes this will need to be quite long, but in the case of vague "I heard somewhere it's a pagan ritual" type comments, where no source for the assertion is identified or evidence adduced, the ensuing discussion will probably be of little help, and can be condensed down to something on the lines of "sometimes alleged to have pagan origins". I've often wished that I could edit some of the threads where I've posted detailed lists of references to related material, in order to incorporate new links and information in one spot rather than spread all over the place (and, I have to say, eliminate some irrelevant "thread-creep" in otherwise serious discussions). Where I've linked to earlier discussions, I usually now include a brief summary of what is actually in that thread (often only one useful post out of many!) so I'm naturally interested in this initiative as a manageable way of achieving what I've been trying to do myself for some time: I haven't as a rule re-posted the information itself because of considerations of space. The model I've arrived at works within its inherent limits, but editable threads should make possible greater concision and a far more coherent end-result. It's an experiment I'd like to be involved with. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: dick greenhaus Date: 27 May 02 - 12:24 PM On a few songs, where notes were copious and authoritative, we created files of notes only, linked to the individual songs. This, I think, isn't a bad system. Check a search for Aroon or Granuaile. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Big Mick Date: 27 May 02 - 12:38 PM I am taking immense enjoyment out of following this thread. Seems to me that Dick's last post hits it. A criteria for posting to the thread should be correct sourcing as pointed out earlier by Garb. Perhaps if there were an e form that popped up or something like that so that folks would know what is expected? I am just free thinking here, but we all know that lyrics take on a life of their own and even end up changing meaning over time. HMMMMMMMMMM. Much to think about here. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 May 02 - 01:19 PM The point surely isn't that the DT entry and it's notes should say everything there is to say about a song, and supply all the variants, but rather that any information that is given should be accurate, and tied down to sources.
Rumours have their useful place in the process of chasing down the facts - very often someone puts up a rumour or a speculation, and that prompts someone else to come up with the facts that lie behind it, of which maybe contradict it. That can sometimes happen a long time later.
But there a distinction needs to be drawn in DT notes (or whatever) between claims that have some solid backing (it may still be speculative, but speculation with a basis), and stuff without any real substance. (Which isn't to say they mightn't be true.) And then there are stories that persist but have been proved to be false. (Such as the story of the Fields of Athenry really having been published first in the 19th century.) |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Big Mick Date: 27 May 02 - 01:24 PM Which is my point, Kevin. If one had a guideline they had to follow, then they would post the type of data we would like to see. And a secondary benefit is that we would be training folks how to properly source things for the future. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,Martin Ryan Date: 27 May 02 - 06:54 PM Jeez... I leave the place for a few days rooting in bookshops in Edinburgh and find ye go all academic on me..... I'm for it! Regards |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Mr Happy Date: 27 May 02 - 09:23 PM bravo jon freeman go on, go on, go on, make a space on annexe for music! and if ye want, make a big song & dance about it! if i post many more new things/posts here, someone's bound to give me a ticking off slainte, mr happy |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 May 02 - 09:38 PM Not with you Mr Happy. The Annexe was really an attempt at trying to allow this place to focus more on music by trying to take on some of the off topic stuff. I had offered a spot to Ian (or any one else) purely as the system I use does allow users to edit posts which possibly could be useful in trying to discuss layouts, formats, etc. Back to the topic, ultimately I hope to see this project succeeded and to be firmly rooted at Mudcat. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 27 May 02 - 10:18 PM OK, so to get an idea of how to start, take a look at the DTStudy threads that are already going, and at the threads on the Penguin Book of English Folk Songs. Start with a copy of the DT lyrics, and I think it would be good to have a copy of the entry from the Traditional Ballad Index up at the top. Then, people can review our DT lyrics and make corrections in particular, add source information if available, correct the categories and DT, Laws and Child numbers, and point out related songs. If you have alternate versions, please post them (make sure you document the source of the lyrics). In addition, I think these threads should be used to explore the history and meaning of songs. When the discussion starts to die down, anybody can post a summary. We'll edit out what's extraneous every once in a while - I did some of that today. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,>gargoyle Date: 28 May 02 - 12:08 AM Dear Mr. Happy - What is the source for your statment "Bonny at Morn" is Northumbrian, not Scottish?
Just Curious, Gargoyle |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Nigel Parsons Date: 28 May 02 - 07:11 AM Jeri's clicky helps, but I had to get back into this thread to find it ! For the non-technical (like me) just type "DTStudy" in the "Filter" box, and hit "Refresh". That much I should be able to remember! Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,pavane Date: 28 May 02 - 07:44 AM Another small suggestion - should we also post details of any recordings of the specific song in a thread? A kind of Discography by song rather than artist. Sounds like a good idea, Pavane. Let's try it and see if it works. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 28 May 02 - 08:06 AM There's certainly the point that a lot of the older DT files refer to recordings of songs; I gather that this was done while the DT was still a small private-circulation thing, and assumed that everybody would know what was meant (I was puzzled for some time over frequent references to "John and Tony", until I found out who they were) and that those references were not necessarily to recordings of the version actually given. This still confuses people, and is one of the details which might need some amplification. If we are to refer to recordings (aside from recordings of source singers) then, as Pavane suggests, we should be sure that those are recordings of the specific version actually under consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jon Freeman Date: 28 May 02 - 08:16 AM The filter is the best way but if anyone does want to give a link, the URL is: (http://www.mudcat.org) /threads.cfm?Title=DTStudy&age=365 Jeri didn't use the age paramater in her link but the default here is just to show one days worth of threads. My example gives a years worth but that could be increased when needed. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 May 02 - 04:39 PM I've started a part 2 since this thread was getting too long for some people to load. Best post there. |
| Share Thread: |