Breach of Copyright - and Integrity

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 02:24 AM

That would sound about right Hoot
Be interested in a swap?
Doesn't matter - you're welcome to a copy anyway, though we'd have to exchange e-mail addresses - mine is available via C#House (never happy with putting it up openly on Mudcat - bad experiences.
Contact me, or maybe join and P.M. me.
I might have other stuff of interest - who knows.
Best
Jim

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 03:52 PM

Jim I would certainly be interested to hear that, where can I find it? Is there a date?
I have a couple of photographs which I think were taken during a BBC recording around 1957/58

Hoot

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 12:21 PM

As I know it, the person in Morningside asked what he did about sex replied "Ah hae ma tea."

~M~

... and how about that for drift!

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 11:22 AM

Damn - thought I'd just made it up - where do I send the cheque?
Jim Carroll
BTW Hoot - don't know if you're interested, but I've just come across an old radio programme on The Ballads and Blues Club

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 10:42 AM

Well Jim, at least you don't have to worry about copyright. I am sure that joke went into public domain many years back.

Hoot

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 10:15 AM

Don't forger the sex - what would the good people of Morningside do for coal without them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 08:58 AM

Oops! Sorry, Hoot & all. Jimmie indeed.

Obviously Robin would make such admissions when socialising, as we wouldn't be conversing while he was playing. But at one time I saw quite a bit of him. After Troubadour sessions, he would quite often walk home with me as I lived nearby [my family had a hotel in Harrington Gardens where I lived in my bachelor days], & doss out on my floor, rather than catching last tubes back to wherever he was living at the time; so over the months we had quite a few conversations as young men do, about sex, and guitar playing, and sex, and ballads, and sex, and the advantages of unaccompanied singing, and sex, and singing to someone else's accompaniment, and sex...

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 06:14 PM

MtheGM, What do you mean by "much of the time"? when he was performing or when he was socialising. Also as I know you are a stickler for getting things correct can I just point out that it was Jimmie not Jimmy. That was they way he insisted it was spelt.
How is this for thread drift?.

Hoot

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 04:07 PM

"I can't agree that Halls accompaniment added anything but mild irritation to Jeannie's performance".
.,,.
Certainly won't dispute that. Why, it didn't even add much to his own performance; he was a dire guitarist, and lucky, as himself admitted when pissed enough [which much of the time!], to link up with Jimmy
McGregor, who played quite well.

Still not entirely relevant to the thread, mind; but nice to drift on to a point where we can be fully in agreement!

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 02:20 PM

I agree it isn't relevant to recordings of singers being used without knowledge or permission, I believe it relevant to the artistic merits of accompanying a singer like Jeannie Robertson - there are other examples I could draw upon - my own opinion of course - I can't agree that Halls accompaniment added anything but mild irritation to Jeannie's performance.
"How do you think you would respond if a group of young Irish Traveller musican/producers
came to you asking your permission & consent for them to use vocal samples "
Would depend on who they were in relation to the singers.
I would be totally opposed it on artistic grounds and would have no hesitation in opposing such an idea - I don't believe such an approach to the songs and it would not in any way represent any of our singers.
If they were family members I would do my level best to persuade them otherwise - I believe that, given the relationship we had with most of our singers, I would be successful in doing so.
If I thought for one minute that this represented the future for our field recordings, I wouldn't hesitate to lock them all away and leave them for posterity - I don't believe for on minute that this was how any of our singers would want to be represented.
As the "popular music" approach is an ephemeral one, i don't think this is an issue anyway.
"Is this not the problem rather than the concept of building tracks around sampled recordings?"
No it is not - presenting recordings of traditional singers must include the singers choice of what he/she is trying to communicate - not that of a stranger.
Do people here really believe any of this to be in any way desirable - has the revival moved as far from its roots as this - if so, where do I send the flowers and condolences?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 12:52 PM

"we still have the Collector album of Robin Hall accompanying Jeannie Robertson singing My Son David - oh dear!!"
.,,./
Not sure this entirely relevant here, Jim. IIRC, Jeannie Robertson & Robin Hall were together in the Collector studio in Greenford to make this. He played as she sang, and Colin Pomroy [I think it was -- or perhaps Paul Carter?] recorded the performance. I don't think the accompaniment was dubbed on, but that it was made like this with Jeannie's consent and co-operation. You might not like the accompaniment or think it suitable to Jeannie's singing; but I am sure there was none of the post-hoc interference as related on this thread. So perhaps not really a comparable instance?

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 12:34 PM

"badly dubbed, appallingly executed"

Is this not the problem rather than the concept of building tracks around sampled recordings?

The only way to avoid sampling in an era where sampling has become a completely normal part of music making is to keep the recordings under lock and key or for the copyright holders to get litigious. As Matt says, the recordings aren't the singers' actual performances, they are simply a recorded copy of the performances.

The genie is out of the bottle. And I suspect we are dealing with the problems of cultural and generational shifts in perspective.

Meanwhile, I don't understand how anyone can think disrespect for either the songs, the singers or the collectors is on anyone's mind when embarking in a project like this. It's not a comedy album, you know.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 12:04 PM

Jim, you're making your opinion & position clear for anyone else who might consider a similar project to Sam's - fair enough, respect that.

But, and this is a very big hypothetical 'IF'..

How do you think you would respond if a group of young Irish Traveller musican/producers
came to you asking your permission & consent for them to use vocal samples
for a culture mixing Club Dance project they sincerely believed would be a positively benefitial good idea * ?

You don't have to answer this, but like I said I'm just curious.


[* bearing in mind how popular vintage swing & gypsy jazz 78rpm sample and remix dance tracks are on the continent]

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 11:33 AM

"but whether they are desirable or not depends entirely on the music"
No it doesn't - it depends entirely on the performer and what he/she wishes to do with the song.
As far as singing is concerned, unless part of a consciously chosen group, creativity is entirely the prerogative of the individual concerned.
Most English language songs are narrative and, more often than not, unless an accompanist is very skilful and sensitive to the narrative (many aren't) an instrument can push the voice into the background as far as the listener is concerned - you should listen to the recording of Peggy Seeger talking about accompaniment sometime.
As far as Kennedy's dubbed recordings are concerned, this is exactly what happened - at best, the accompaniment was an irritant, at worst, totally destructive.
One track summed up the arrogance of the exercise for me - that of John Doherty, one of Ireland's best ever fiddle players, singing 'Old Man Rocking the Cradle, to a badly dubbed, appallingly executed fiddle accompaniment.
I have nothing against accompaniment, when it is choice of the singer, and when singer and accompanist have worked together to bring their two skills together - I used to sing accompanied all the time and I desperately miss it now my accompanist friend is no longer available.
That aside, without labouring the point, I believe what Sam did to the recordings, at best, added nothing, at worst, it destroyed the beautiful individual creative power of the solo voice - by far the most attractive feature of all British and Irish narrative song.
There is, of course, nothing new here; we still have the Collector album of Robin Hall accompanying Jeannie Robertson singing My Son David - oh dear!!
All academic anyway - I have made my opinion on tampering with someone else's creation - nothing I have heard, here or elsewhere, comes anywhere to persuading me that it not in any way acceptable unless it is done with the full consent of the singers - too late for our lot, I'm afraid!

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:54 AM

"It is arrogant to assume accompaniments either necessary or desirable on behalf of the singers, and more than a little patronising to claim that they would be flattered by it being added.
Jim Carroll"

That is why I carefully chose the words "entertain the possibility that", and I at no point, arrogantly or patronisingly or otherwise assumed or presumed anything at all.

Where I differ is that I don't believe in principles about art, I believe in case-by-case. I already know that accompaniments aren't *necessary*, but whether they are desirable or not depends entirely on the music. If I could hear said banjo accompaniments I could then tell you whether I think they are a good thing or a bad thing.

But that would be an aesthetic argument, not an ethical one. I get the impression, and apologies if I'm wrong, that for Jim any tampering with those songs would be *in principle* like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa. Whereas for me, I would have to hear the music first in order to assess that.

It's worth pointing out that Duchamp's drawing a moustache on a postcard replica of the Mona Lisa was a self-conscious art prank, constituting a debate about value, vandalism and authenticity. Very different in intent to a non-comedic-in-intent (I presume) addition of musical accompaniment. Also worth pointing out that the distinction between a replica of the Mona Lisa and a recording of a voice (both endlessly repeatable, re-copiable, replicatable) are one and the same; nobody's "actual voice" was used but a recording of it. To state the obvious: songs aren't people; and recordings aren't songs.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:20 AM

Correction -- sorry. Tate actually late 17th, not 18th century.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:18 AM

Jim, just to clarify:

"GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:58 AM" "plastercine.." isn't 'me', but I do tend to agree.

But in my case, it would only be the songs I experiment with - not samples of pre-existing recordings.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:15 AM

"sort of like giving Hamlet a happy ending."
,..,

Without getting too involved in the minutiæ of this thread, I feel it might be pertinent to point out that is exactly what C18 Poet Laureate Nahum Tate did, & his versions became the standard ones for production for a while, and have occasionally been revived for historical interest --

"In 1985, the Riverside Shakespeare Company of New York City staged Tate's History of King Lear in its original form, "happy ending" and all" - wiki.

My point being that the foolish fashion passed, the originals became the properly regarded and respected texts again; which is what happens when these fads catch on for a bit. It is never fatal to the originals. Whatever one thinks of the doctored recordings and versions we are here concerned with, the originals will not be lost, but will continue to exist alongside, & certainly outlast them.

Not that I don't see Jim's point. I do, very much so; but thought these observations might afford some consolation as a probable future projection.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:14 AM

Jim, apologies, I didn't realise the extent of your ongoing present day collecting.

Full respect to you.

Reading what you have to say makes me so glad I'm not in your shoes, needing to protect promises
to your elderly source singers in this current day cultural climate of musical genre bending mixes and mash-ups.

Just to return to my analogy -

I now remember what I did with parts from the "Airfix" 'Nelson's HMS Victory' and 'Short Sunderland Flying Boat' kits...

The end result looked like some kind of bizarre nightmarish tree house construction;
but gluing it together kept me occupied and amused for a few nights after school when I was 11 years old...
Before I smashed it up, melted parts of it, and glued it back together to see what it might end up as.

Same now as the young kids in my family with their 'free' music studio software and sample pack kits.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:58 AM

"Folkie Plasticine to be moulded at will as tastes changed"

Whereas some music fans would welcome this.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:22 AM

"But these were promises made in an era before the advent of millions of worldwide amateur and pro bedroom project studio and Laptop music producers."
You appear to believe we recorded what we did on a cylinder machine some time in the early part of the 20th century.
We started recording in the early 1970s and we are still doing so - our latest victim is a 95 year old singer with a stunning repertoire, mainly of classic ballads and narrative songs.
We got to know all our singers pretty well and interviewed them at length about their musical tastes and the function that their songs served - all of those interviews are up for grabs in the archives mentioned.
Our latest singer is highly critical of how the old songs are being sung by the younger singers he hears frequently on the radio "they don't seem to have any idea of what they are about" I'd have nightmares imagining what he'd say if we allowed anybody to add accompaniments to his 'Lord Bateman' or 'Lord Lovel' or 'Katherine Jafferey' or 'Keach in the Creel' - I'm damn sure we would never get another song out of him, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't request that we erased what we have recorded already.
Personally, I believe it to be artistic vandalism to take another's creation and change it because you believe it needs 'improving' - sort of like giving Hamlet a happy ending.
Technology may evolve, taste remains with the individual - and with those who took down what they passed on.
Quite frankly, ifg I believed that I was obligated in any way to pass on what we have been given to people in order to do with them what they wished, I would pack them off to one of the Fort Knoxs I mentioned, along with our opinions of the singers concerned and let posterity sort it out.
I love accompanied song supplied by singer/musicians such as the fine Appalachian singers I was weaned on, but Folkie Plasticine to be moulded at will as tastes changed - thanks, but no thanks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 08:37 AM

On the contrary Mo -

Sam, after this brief introduction, seems to me the kind of fresh new blood ailing Mudcat desperately needs.

No idea how old he is - but he definitely has enthusiasm and creativity
to back up his love for trad folk, and valid ideas for promoting it to his contemporaries working in other musical fields.

So hopefully he will return and continue as a regular contributer at mudcat.

                      ***********************

Now in regard to sampling....

Jim, no sensible person doubts or disrespects your pledge, and commitment to honouribg your promises to the source singers and their families.

But these were promises made in an era before the advent of millions of worldwide
amateur and pro bedroom project studio and Laptop music producers.

For good or bad, any Public domain / royalty free samples are all regarded as 'fair game' for their diverse style music production and genre mash-ups.

That's the reality of the present time - good, mediocre, or bad - this new sample based music exists, and has become the norm throughout the internet.

Like collage based art repurposed and recontexted disperate sourced photographs in earlier creative generations.

Any primary school kid with a computer or iphone now starts to make music out of samples,
like we used to cobble together toy models from various leftovers from 'Airfix & meccano kits'

Mostly this new sample based music is all rubbish and only heard by schoolfriends, doting parents, and internet buddies.

Even in Ireland ther are now thousands of sample music producers.
It's not impossible to consider that teenage travellers are indulging in similar computer technology hobby music production.

And how wrong or insulting would that be if young teen travellers turned to your source recordings for samples
to create dance music for their own friends and families ?

Jim, many of us admire your hard work in this field.
You are a genuine ethical man striving to honour your promises
in a time of adjustment to new technologies, cultural shifts, and mass indiference to internet music 'rights and ownerships'.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 08:34 AM

"I feel I must apologise to Sam & Francesco and suggest they stop reading this thread. "
Sorry Mo - can't agree.
As far as I am concerned, Sam and Francesco have exonerated themselves and are no longer the target of this thread (others are free to act otherwise of course)
This doesn't stop this discussion being about the use of field recordings in general terms - very much needed considering the number of them that still haven't seen the light of day.
"the possibility that the original singers might actually have considered it flattering that someone liked their music enough to want to spend their time trying out some banjo accompaniment to their songs"
Quite possibly, but the decision has to rest with someone, and given that nearly all our singers, as far as I'm concerned Pat and I are in the best position to make that judgement.
We spent twenty years recording Walter Pardon and, gentle man that he was, I'm damn sure that we would have had to hang garlic over all our windows to keep is angry spirit from our door.
Walter played both melodeon and fiddle and was quite capable of accompanying himself, should he have ever felt the necessity - he told us specifically that he didn't.
Jamesie McCarty and all our Clare singers spent their lives in a town that was renowned for its fine musicians, Willie Clancy, Bobby Casey, Junior Crehan... piper Johnny Doran was a regular visitor.
All of them were perfectly capable of providing themselves with accompaniment, should they have wanted.
The only time we worked with singers who had ever sung to accompaniment were the tiny handful of Travellers who did street sining, and they made a point of differentiating between "street" and "fireside singing".
It is arrogant to assume accompaniments either necessary or desirable on behalf of the singers, and more than a little patronising to claim that they would be flattered by it being added.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Mo the caller
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 07:46 AM

I feel I must apologise to Sam & Francesco and suggest they stop reading this thread.
It's the way Mudcat works. Someone asks a question or makes a valid point. Someone else answers it. Then two or three people start picking fights and going over and over the same ground.

Just ignore us and stop reading the thread like everyone else does. The question was raised and you have answered it.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 06:16 AM

Furthermore, when talking of "disrespect", you have to at least entertain the possibility that the original singers might actually have considered it flattering that someone liked their music enough to want to spend their time trying out some banjo accompaniment to their songs. Cuts both ways.

Frankly, in this day and age in which people download entire label's catalogues for free, in which Russian websites offer pirated MP3s for sale, Sam Callow and his label don't seem like the Bad Guys to me.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 06:11 AM

Next time, Sam Callow should simply use out-of-copyright recordings. Recordings that were so old they are well out of copyright.

That way, it'd remove all the high-horse "illegal" aspect of the argument, and it would simply be a case of "is the music good or not?"

But there's also a more philosophical argument to be had here. If I make some music using in-copyright material by other people, and put it online, but don't charge for it, what are the ethics there? The only 'capital' I can be said to be making is cultural capital: it can't really be called exploitation as no money is changing hands. All I gain is a rather small, limited amount of prestige or kudos from anyone who thought the music was good. If I wanted to be whiter than white, I could do it anonymously, so nobody could even accuse me of trying to garner any professional prestige or make a name for myself.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:56 AM

I'm willing to bet that were anyone to have a million-selling hit record by overdubbing accompaniment onto trad singing, the singers' heirs and relatives would be only too happy to pocket the cash (even if they hated the music).

Someone mentioned Suzanne Vega above. That was the case there - Vega said she didn't think much of the dance track, but didn't seem to object to receiving royalties.

The same was the case with Moby.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:49 AM

Nerd
"you're worrying too much about Sam registering copyright"
I wasn't, and I never have had such worries over this.
I commented on Sam's statement that he was unaware of the implications of publishing somebody else's material and I questioned his naivety, pointing out that he had was street-wise enough to copyright the material - nothing more than that.
As it happens, I was wrong to make such a comparison; as he pointed out, the copyright comes with the site he used and was impossible to remove - fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.
I do have general reservations about copyrighting traditional creations which belong in the public domain - I think the legality is questionable, but I consider it totally unethical.
One of the most important ballad findings of the twentieth century was passed on to us by a Traveller at the time he was squattiing in a derelict house in Ireland and who shortly afterwards, despite the efforts of the collector and a group of friends and enthusiasts who attempted to alleviate the effects of his poverty, died of malnutrition shortly after.
The copyright of his ballad now rests in the hands of a well-heeled and well-known musician/songwriter whose output has little to do with traditional song - legal, maybe, ethical or what?
Shades of 'Freight Train' I'd say.
Kennedy got singers to sign the rights of their songs over to him, as well as, I understand, "anything they happened to remember in the future".
He told many of the singers not to give their songs to anybody else.
The contacts were not worth the paper they were written on, but the fishermen, landworkers and Travellers who gave the songs were not to know that, and the practice gave rise to a great deal of anger and resentment later.
We were told by one collector how he visited one of these singers to see if she would sing for him (a Northern Ireland singer, coincidentally, included on Sam's compilation).
When the door was opened and the collector introduced himself, the singer immediately grasped him by the lapels threateningly and said, "You're not from Peter Kennedy, are you?"
As I said, a great deal of damage was one at that time - let's hope too much was not lost in the process.   
"but the Mona Lisa is in fact in the public domain"
The Mona Lisa certainly is not in the Public domain - an artistic reproduction of DeVinci's painting may be, but here, the actual recorded voice of the singer was taken and had a moustache painted on it, so to speak - somewhat different, I suggest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:05 AM

PS. Correction to my first paragraph. Say no more about it on this thread. If Fred (or anyone else) makes further abusive postings elsewhere we can respond as appropriate.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:00 AM

Whilst I intervened in support of Michael and stand by that posting, I think we have had more than enough further discussion of that aspect and I beg all concerned to say no more about it.

I think we have also had enough (not more than enough) discussion of the issue that is the proper subject of this thread, so let's also say no more about that unless someone has something significant and new to add.

Richard

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 02:37 AM

Fred, I'll chime in and correct you on Moby. Moby, like Sam, issued the samples of Lomax's field recordings initially without permission. Like Sam, he didn't expect much success, and he assumed that because the songs were in the public domain, the performances also were. The Lomax organization rang him up and he immediately agreed to pay all the appropriate royalties to the families of the singers.

Jim, with respect, you're worrying too much about Sam registering copyright on his recordings, whether he did or didn't. If he did, the copyright would still only be valid on the parts of the recordings he created: the accompaniments. The songs are public domain, and the performances, since already published, already had rightsholders. Those rights don't get transferred to Sam. So the singers keep the rights in their performances, the songs remain p.d., and Sam only has rights in the accompaniments. If Sam did want to register copyright in the accompaniments, and they don't exist in any other tangible form (like sheet music), the only way to do this is to register the copyright on the new recording as a derivative work. He still only has rights to his own work. Copyright is a bit of a blunt instrument in that sense. (In the U.S., these rights are actually automatic, whether registered or not, but registration makes it easier to prove your rights if they are challenged. I'm not sure how that bit works in the UK--or France.)

Also, you made an analogy to drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Not to be a nitpicker, but the Mona Lisa is in fact in the public domain. Sam would be legally entitled to make a copy of the Mona Lisa, including a photo, and alter it in any way he wants. But he's still not entitled to do that to your field recordings. I point this out merely to show that the principles involved actually aren't self-evident to many people, and it's quite credible to me that he just didn't know the issues.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 12:58 PM

"Sam'a album takes nothing away from the original recordings"
That is a matter of opinion, but it is beside the point - which I have just tried to make - ah well!!
It is not a matter of being precious - it is about ascertaining that everybody gets a chance to listen to the hidden trove still buried away in attics, cellars and in archives.
it is also honouring the generosity and trust of the original source.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:43 AM

... so how about you just stop being so pompous and prescriptive; you live your life & I'll live mine; you post your posts and I'll post mine - eh? If they are so 'out of order', the mods will know what to do. If not, you'll just have to put up with them, won't you. Don't like it? Well, tough ɷɷ...
And I hope it keeps fine for you...

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:16 AM

OK, Guest, I take your point. But I still don't think you are taking on board that this is not the first such "joke" on Mr McC's part. And do you really think it such a funny 'joke' at that, even if 'joke' is what it is? I have brought it to the attention of the Mudcat authorities in a PM to Joe Offer, as I continue to regard such a 'joke' as a serious breach of Max's guidelines -- which I commend to your attention if you have not referred to them before. {It used BTW to be unacceptable for a Guest to post anonymously & such posts were summarily deleted -- I never quite understood why that rule was discontinued.}

Have you read Julian ["Downton Abbey"] Fellowes' excellent novel Snobs. I am always struck on rereading by an excellent summary of the most disagreeable of the characters: "He was the kind of man who insults you and then says 'Can't you take a joke!'" One just knows the sort, doesn't one? Do you find them amusing?

Or is it only 'my own, would-be dominating, vanity' to ask?

& if you are such a longstanding Guest & all that, you will be aware of the tradition of 'drift & return to topic' which constantly obtains at Mudcat. Most of us know how to adjust to it, read threads intelligently and selectively, and gain such sustenance as required.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:08 AM

To be honest, I'm sad Sam has taken his recordings down. I'd rather listen to a rough 'n' ready home recorded folk project like this than to the slick overproduced Radio 2 fodder that passes for most contemporary interpretations of traditional song.

Sam'a album takes nothing away from the original recordings which remain in their original state for the relatively tiny band of enthusiasts who want them that way.

I can understand that song collectors get incredibly precious about this issue because they don't want anything messed with, but it's really not that big a deal in the scheme of things. And it was clearly done out of love of the music by someone who is not part of the folk scene or familiar with its arcane and complex norms.

Personally, I think the answer would be to put 'em up as a free download with all the relevant links on the page...

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:04 AM

Sam
Thank you for your gracious response - if I have caused you any embarrassment, please accept my apology, it really wasn't my intention.
I totally agree with you about these recordings not being museum pieces, which is one of the reasons I reacted the way I did.
Time and again we have come up against not being able use locked away archived material, unreachable unless you live within easy reach of where it is housed and are able to spend endless hours listening to it, and even then, the limited access you have to it devalues it tremendously.
One of the reasons all of these establishments give for limited access is that they feel they are not prepared to risk abusing the rights of the original informant by risking misuse of their songs, stories and music - hence, closed shop!!
I'm not sure if people are aware exactly how much valuable (artistically) material lies locked away and virtually unusable in these litle Fort Knoxs.
This is why we have endevoured to put as much as we have on line, and are grateful to our County Library for allowing us to do so.
What they are in the process of preparing represents less than a quarter of our work; they have expresses an interest in our storytelling, instrumental and Traveller (non-Clare) stuff - we'll have to see whether they live up to it their intention to use it, which is why I am so sensitive about not rocking that particular boat at the present time.
I've always been happy to pass on whatever we have to whoever is interested, for learning, enjoyment and as illustrations for talks etc., - feel free to include yourself in that, but only as long as the actual recordings remain untampered with.
As I say, sorry if i have caused any embarrassment
Jim Carroll
B.T.W.
My comment on 'What Will We Do' was aimed at the dirge some singers managed to turn it into when they recorded it - can't do anything about that, nor would I want to, but it doesn't prevent me from commenting on it.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:57 AM

Sorry, I didn't realise that the OP Fred McCormick actually meant that he planned to book a ticket on a ferry
or channel tunnel train,
to hunt down and commit an act of violence on an errant ex pat banjo player living somewhere in France.

In our naevity, I guess many of us just brushed past the 'bunch of 5s threat' considering it to be merely a joke
intended to emphasise a point of arguement.

Now please MtheGM, do us all, and yourself, a favour and take your self indulgent grudge fight elsewhere out of public view.

Btw, I'm a long standing 'guest' of sound reputation and fair intent.
This thread is neither about you or 'me', no matter how much you may try to dominate it for your own vanity.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:57 AM

And who, just out of interest, do you take yourself to be, and what do you consider may be your qualifications, to pronounce me "well out of order", you impudent upstart?

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:33 AM

Why remain anonymous, Guest? Always nice to know who one's interlocutor is.

I do not see this is a "personal feud", or reference to it here as "vain and petty". Did you really not notice the last sentence of the OP? Do you really consider these suitable terms for any "serious discussions" to be opened, and pursued, in? My considerations here are not "egotistical", but out of consideration to the person explicitly threatened with extreme violence in the original post of this thread. Do you not consider that it was a disgraceful way to start what you rubricate as a "serious discussion"; or an irrelevant "invasion" to point out that the perpetrator has 'previous' for such modes of "serious discussion"? How can you, or anyone, take "discussion", initiated from the very outset in such terms, "seriously". Just stop being so inenarrably pompous and take note of what you are lending your valuable support to -- outright threats of violence if the Original Poster doesn't get his bullying way, that's what.

You are the one who should be ashamed of your stupid, unobservant, wilfully purblind self.

And kindly try to remember that I am a member in long and good standing of this forum, and you are a 'guest' on it; and try to remember such manners in regard to such consideration as might be due to host from guest, as you might ever have been taught.

Good day to you.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:13 AM

Please MtheGM, give it a rest.
I said it before - you are proving well out of order invading this serious discussion
with your vain petty pursuance of a personal feud.

Please pack it in and show some self restraint;
and at least a little consideration & respect for those here who wish to continue this thread
without your persistent disruptive egotistical intrusions.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 09:41 AM

... to do likewise.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 09:40 AM

I have never said "Fuck" to you -- or to anyone else on this forum for the last 4 years at least -- Mr McCormick. Perhaps you could at least afford me a like courtesy; free too of references to 'bunches of 5s' and such considerations. I can't see that your history in such matters is so irrelevant to this thread, as it formed a prominent part of your Original Post; which was obviously why I thought it appropriate to draw your past 'form' in such matters to the instant person under threat. Do you deny having opened this "extremely important discussion" with an explicit, true-to-form, extreme threat of violence? So far as I have observed you have yet to express any sort of regret or contrition for having done so; from which I take it you still consider it an appropriate means of conducting your "extremely important discussions" on this forum.

I ask again, why have those in authority on Mudcat given no consideration to such modes of going on. It is surely in breach of Max's guidance as to Mudcat conduct? GUEST Sam appears good-naturedly prepared to overlook the violent and discourteous threat with which you saw fit to address him right from the off. I see no reason why the rest of us, who have suffered longer from your immoderate aggressive yobbery, should be prepared to likewise.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 09:02 AM

I understand now that song collecting should be purely archival and I understand the emotions that run through this debate, especially as it involves the memories of the deceased. But I do feel these field recordings should be heard as much as possible and not remain as museum pieces... another motivation behind this was really as a reaction to hearing glossy over produced 'folk' artist interpretations of songs (just listened to the afore mentioned Mary Delaney song...), this was as Ive said non commercial.

I can also see the effect that those Peter Kennedy experiments had (I didn't know about this until a few months back - and have never heard them). I am admitting that I was wrong and naïve to think that people might be interested in hearing the songs in a new context - and of course I should have contacted Music Traditions, the individual recordists, and most importantly of all the relatives of the singers. As I said, I was in touch with someone from Topic who basically spoke for all the Topic released material regardless of the individual recordists and never suggested I contact you. This project only started as a private expression of my enjoyment of the singing and the sheer emotional joy and sadness in these songs. They weren't randomly selected. And the name has nothing to do with 'Around The Hills of Clare', but as someone mentioned earlier a reversal of over the hills and far away - which I felt expressed the idea of wanting to bring hidden traditions nearby.

The soundcloud page (now)doesn't represent the music I made for this project, that is another project (involving no samples - I play all the instruments). There is one clip left of UHandN(someone filmed me, and posted it - without my permission, by the way)on you tube, which hopefully might stand as a better played and more sensitive example of my 'hommage' to the singers. I would be as uncomfortable as any of you at the idea of an 'electronica' style dance take on traditional singing.

Anyway,I've deleted everything I can. I'm going to start working on my banjo skills a bit more, as I didn't realise they were that awful.

A donation will be on its way.

Sam

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 07:27 AM

M. For fuck's sake drop the matter and let the rest of us continue with what is in truth an extremely important discussion.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:55 AM

Meanwhile, Richard. look again at my posts of 21 July, 1051 & 1104 am -- in particular the fact that this was not first threat of violence to emanate from F McC, who would appear to make a habit of violent menaces, which he recognised as the point of my intervention above: he had previously thus threatened me, after I had apologised for confusing one of his posts with one of Jim's on the Royal Wedding thread. I feel you (et al) had better be aware of this before he gets at you with his version of events as he promises above.
He tried to plead IIRC that he had only meant verbal violence, but shut up that line of argument when I pointed out that I would be fully his equal & have nothing to fear in any such exchange as that, and quoted his actual words [which had been addressed to me, remember, when he knew me to be over 80], with the comment that if they did not constitute a threat of physical violence then they would do until a threat of violence cane along: to which, I repeat, he made no reply -- except to denounce me with egregious relevance as "a concertina player who can't sing"; interestingly, it just occurs to me, it is as a player he denounces me on this thread, and sez nothing about the singing. Not even very consistent in his denunciations, it appears.

Sorry to divert this thread yet again; but would plead that my name has just appeared again as may be seen above. & once more comes to mind that fine French saying, the one about the terribly vicious animal, who has the nerve to defend himself when attacked.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:04 AM

Guest. "cough... ahem.. Lomax field recordings.. Moby... $$$$$$$$"

The Moby samplings are not comparable with the present situation. He sought permission for their use and, AFAIR, didn't unduly muck about with the bits he used. (If anyone wants to correct me on that then I'll stand corrected. However, while the end results were not my cup of tea, I do not recall his using any badly played banjo, or indeed anything badly played.)

Much more important, Lomax had signed royalty agreements with the original artists when he recorded them, and therefore Moby was obliged to pay royalties on the recordings he sampled.

I don't know how much was involved and I've no idea whether he would have acted as ethically if those agreements hadn't existed. What I do know is that those royalty payments were a welcome relief from the poverty which the descendants of those artists normally had to endure.

Richard. Rather than start another flame war, I'll explain the problem with MtheGM when next we meet.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 03:58 AM

The point continues to be missed.
It is not a matter of "thieving" as far as I am concerned, nor has it ever been.
We have never considered ourselves the owners of anything we collected - all is deposited in The British Library, The Irish Traditional Music Archive and The Folklore Department in Belfield, Dublin - all with a stipulation of free access to all interested parties.
In a couple of months time, the entire Clare collection will go up on the County Library website for listening, alongside its magnificent music instrumental music collection.
Whenever anybody has shown an interest in singing in Clare, they have been given copies of the collection for their personal use.
As Walter Pardon once told us, "they're not our songs, they're everybody's".
Our interest has never been in gathering songs as artifacts, but as presenting them as the singers sang them alongside of what they had to say about them - how the songs were sung and how they fitted into the singers lives.
We know that our songs, particularly those recorded from Travellers, are regularly used on local radio here, as they were recorded and, as far as we were concerned, as the singers wished them to be heard and passed on.
We know they have been used in part on soundtracks for documentaries, again, particularly those from the Travellers.
We have never been asked permission for their use, nor do we expect to be.
We hope that permission has been sought for those issued commercially and that royalties have been donated to The Irish Traditional Music Archive, as we have stipulated with all our commercial releases, but if it hasn't 'what a pity' - nothing more.
Issuing recordings of traditional singers in an adulterated form, with a dubbed-on accompaniment, is a different matter altogether - it goes against everything we set out to do forty years ago and have devoted our lives to since - to present traditional singers as creative and critical artists in their own right.
It also betrays the verbal deal we made with all our singers - to preserve them as the singers sang them so anybody in the future might listen to them and take the original singers artistry and tastes into consideration in their own performances - if they didn't wish to, fair enough, they were given the choice.
When Peter Kennedy pillaged the B.B.C. recordings and issued six cassettes worth of them, with inept and tasteless accompaniments and choruses dubbed on, speeding them up or slowing them down, with electronic tricks added, we were appalled, as were many other people.
But at least he did what he did as somebody who had been part of recording them in the first place - quite different from lifting them at random from commercially available recordings he had nothing to do with, without permission.
It would have been a simple formality for these people to request our permission to do what they did - an e-mail to Musical Traditions would have done the trick - Stradling would have forwarded it to us and we would have refused - simple as that.
We have no interest or intention in presenting our recordings in any other form than that which shows the songs as the singers wished them to be heard - any other way would be patronising arrogance on our part.
What today's singers do with the songs we have collected is their own business - we may not like it, we may not approve of it artistically (don't get me started on Mary Delaney's 'What Will We Do?') but we accept we have no rights over them once we have made them public, nor should we have.
The actual recorded versions are a different matter entirely.
What happens to them cuts across what we believe to be important, and more importantly, it stands to effect our personal relationships with our singers and their families and it might well have effected projects such as that with the Clare County Library, and others we have in mind.
A lot of fuss to make about the misuse of one song?
Maybe, but a number of the songs that were used in the manner they have been on 'Under the Hills and Beyond' (interesting title since Jamesie's song was lifted from 'Around the Hills of Clare'!), particularly those by Jeanie Robertson, The Chambers Sisters and The Stewarts, were exactly the songs that drew me into doing what I do in the first place - pretty sure that would not have been the case if they had come with somewhat pedestrian banjo accompaniments - sorry 'bout that.
I really had no intention of taking this beyond making a disapproving comment and leaving it at that, but in light of the continuing total lack of understanding shown here, I would not be unhappy to see a voluntary donation on our behalf made to The Irish Traditional Music Archive, 73 Merrion Square, Dublin - no compulsion - your choice entirely
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Songwronger
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 01:10 AM

Copyright protection is on its way out. Witness the heinous breaches on Youtube of musical performances, clips from films and so on.

The destruction of copyright is being touted as the 'democratization' of creativity. In reality it is being done in order to remove the profit motive from creativity. If you can't make a buck off your protest songs, then you'll quit writing them. The government has effectively silenced you.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:27 PM

cough... ahem.. Lomax field recordings.. Moby... $$$$$$$$

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 09:48 PM

This is hardly a new thing...

Some of you(the cool ones, anyway) might remember that back around 1990, with no permission from anyone, a couple dance music producers took Suzanne Vega's a capella recording of "Tom's Diner" and added a dance beat track to it, and in the process made it a big hit single.

You may also remember that drums, electric guitars and bass were added to Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sounds of Silence" without either their knowledge or permission.

Both, of course, were very successful, which makes all the difference...