 sj |
||
|
||
DTStudy: A Proposal
|
|
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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,>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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:39 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Hrothgar Date: 27 May 02 - 04:26 AM Great idea - especially having the threads in one area! Onya, Jeri! Dick, I agree with your point about copyright, but if anything is copied or drawn substantially from somewhere else, the reference should be cited. Whether the party you copy from begged, borrowed, or stole it is a matter for that party's conscience (or lawyer). |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 May 02 - 12:45 AM I am amicable |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 26 May 02 - 10:43 PM Dicho wondered if this should be tackled systematically. I thought so at first, but now I think maybe we should just make a haphazard start on a few songs that strike our fancy. I started a few so people would get the idea - feel free to do the same with some of your favorites. I know we won't have much on recently-composed songs, so maybe they can just go at a few DTStudy messages in an existing thread on the song. Still, I'd like to eventually review every song we've got. Once we get a few hundred studies done, them amybe we can work out a system. I think it could be a lot of fun. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: dick greenhaus Date: 26 May 02 - 10:30 PM Sounds great to me. DigiTrad started out with two things in mind: 1, to develop the world's best songbook, and 2. to provide a record of what people are singing (NOT just listening to.) I've been providing attributions when I have them, and adding whatever notes I'm capable of adding, but it would be wonderful to have some pooled info and expertise to bear on the process. BTW, attribution --especially as to who originated the song--is very difficult. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, it just means that we should be careful. Copyrights are often misleading and often flat-out lies; so are record notes. On the more cheerful side, DigiTrad has been--and will be--under continuous review, and is open-ended for addenda, corrections, attributions and whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,And Toto Too! Date: 26 May 02 - 10:03 PM And might I also suggest you get Guest, Philippa on board? Now there is a person single handedly contributing to the betterment of DT, with barely a Mudcat member noticing. No posting of threads looking for peer recognition or permission, nothing. Just goes ahead and makes the contribution. Sort of humbling, isn't it?
|
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,And Toto too! Date: 26 May 02 - 09:58 PM Thanks Jeri! It would be SO much nicer, easier and clearer to have it that way. Bravo, and hats off to you. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jeri Date: 26 May 02 - 09:30 PM Click to read DTStudy threads only. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 26 May 02 - 08:46 PM Sources should always be properly acknowledged, and where a text is copy-and-pasted from another website, that site should be identified and a separate link given to the original file and to the home page; any source or background information should also be included. (In the absence of such, the material is probably suspect and oughtn't to be kept). Having said that, a good deal of "sharing" of resources goes on; material has been copied here from Lesley Nelson's site, for example, but she has in her turn drawn on material here. My experience of Cantaria is that it suffers from just as high a proportion of inaccuracies as does the DT; and the majority of sites holding texts for traditional songs credit no source of any kind and give no information at all. One large, UK-based site occasionally referred to here has simply copied the content of other sites (including the DT), without acknowledgement and in most cases without the background information that makes sense of the material. At present the tune files there are in Noteworthy's native format; to my mind about as useful as a chocolate teapot, though I know that many people like it. That particular site is primarily, however, an attempt to sell the material on CD. There are honourable exceptions, of course; Susanne and Henry's songbook contains meticulously compiled background information, though in the main from sleevenotes, and Robokopp has improved vastly over the last year or two, now including source information and tunes in many cases where it formerly did not. There are, as we know, other, more specialist sites as well, where proper academic rigour is applied; Bruce Olson's and Greg Lindahl's for example. There is no reason at all why we cannot develop a genuinely useful and reliable information resource here. The threads will have to be carefully (and ruthlessly) edited, and their existence prominently flagged on the main Forum page; information given without proper source references is unverifiable, and should usually be removed. The "uncritical inclusion" policy that has traditionally pertained here has perhaps now outlived its usefulness; time to get serious about getting it right. Just the editing looks like too big a job for one person, but I don't know how we might get round that, short of assigning threads to specified individuals. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jon Freeman Date: 26 May 02 - 08:44 PM Yep Ed, I too have my reservations in terms of structure but who knows? I certainly don't.. and my inclination is to say "just go for it"... If needs must, with this one, on the understanding that all comes back to MC, I am prepared (with the help of Pip) to create another sort of Annexe (ie small site with a DB) to build on and let Joe take the helm if the structure here doesn't work out. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 May 02 - 08:15 PM This be tackled systematically, by group of some kind- Child, or even simply alphabetical groups? Joe mentioned the work by Alan and Malcolm on the Oxford Book of English Folk Songs and a start could be made here- it might be a good test because mostly only one version is given, and there is much to be added (see recent additions to thread on "As Sylvie Was Walking," 17057: a href="/thread.cfm?threadid=17057"> Sylvie . Songs of the same cluster could be grouped and referenced. Also verses of "Sylvie" cross over to "Green Grow...", etc. Another group is the thread with histories, started by George Seto and Katlaughing, also, I think, mentioned above. I am trying to recall examples where a song or critical information has been taken from a website and not credited. I can't so they must be few. A clickie or an acknowledgement of the website, usually both, appear in the Mudcat postings I can remember. For the thread on "Any Old Iron," I didn't mention a site with a garbled version that has Derby Kell changed to Darby Gel but no one would seriously quote that site. I agree that there is little point in re-doing a good site such as Contemplator. On the other hand, some primary sources of material such as the Bodleian collection will have to be used (and many of the broadsides are hard to read and should be reproduced in fair copy). Material post-1920 should be left for the time being unless directly related to an older version. This might save a lot of argument about copyright, etc. There is more than enough older material to chew over. Finally, I agree with McGrath that there should not be two separate threads. There will be questions and speculations as the thread develops; unnecessary material can be edited out of the "definitive" version. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,Ed Pellow Date: 26 May 02 - 07:16 PM Agreed, Jon, with pretty much everything you say. Hey I might even renew my cookie *grin* However I can't see how this can work properly within the current thread structure. It'll just get really messy and impossible to maintain. I too would (will) be happy to help in anyway I can Ed |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jon Freeman Date: 26 May 02 - 07:05 PM Ed, I'll state my case quite simply in case there is any doubt. Tech wise, factually there are far better than me around here but I will still try to throw in my pennys worth and wil help in any way I can on that score. I am a big believer in trying to make the best of our collective resources as well as (perhaps contary to opinions based on some of my posts) totaly in favour of seening Mudcat make the best of what we collectively have on offer. Project wise, I really do see this as a plus - both for MC now and for the future and again will help if I can. I do not have the excpertise to play a leading role on this one but I think we do have many capable people. Lets all club together and see if combined efforts can make Joe's proposal a reality. Jon (In positive mode) |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,Ed Pellow Date: 26 May 02 - 06:52 PM Jon, I personally think you could offer a good deal of help, particularly in terms of your database expertise. I however (think) I understand your reluctance to 'step on toes' in which case, probably not... Ed |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 02 - 06:43 PM Keep it simple. One step at a time.
The idea of steadily correcting errors and gaps in the DT, and having accurate infotrmation attached to the songs, and using the goodwill and varous expertise of Mudcat members to do that seems a very good idea, and it should be enjoyable and interesting seeing how it works out.
But any idea of trying to have some separate elite forum of the knowledgeable doing it all just strikes me as... not too good a way of operating.
Whether a folksong variant comes from a book or has been put on to a website somewhere, I can't see much difference. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,And Toto too! Date: 26 May 02 - 06:41 PM Guest--they are referred to all the time in Mudcat threads. Some can be found via the links on these pages. No other site has beaten the quantity of lyrics in the DT. But many have consistently beat the quality of the product, it's accuracy, etc. More and more we see people stealing from the better quality sites (this happened very recently in regards to the theft of info from the Cantaria website, or perhaps from Dick Gaughan's links page to Abby Sale's Happy Archive, regarding the song "The Sick Note". BTW, Abby's and many other sites do clearly state: "Copyright - all rights reserved". People are frequently going out onto the web and using search engines to find the answers to questions asked here, returning to Mudcat and providing answers from other websites, without any credit to the original source who initially did the research. Is it any reason Abby refers to Mudcatters as "duffers" under those circumstances? |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Jon Freeman Date: 26 May 02 - 06:30 PM Yes Joe, no point in drifting in this thread. Are there any ways would be supporters like myself who can not add much/anything in terms of knowledge but would wish to help the project assist in any way? Jon You're quite good at collating information, Jon. You haelped a lot on the FAQ. You also know more about songs than you admit to. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST Date: 26 May 02 - 06:13 PM And Toto too! Please tell me where these "other really high quality lyrics sites" are. I'd be grateful for some links Thanks in advance |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST,And Toto too! Date: 26 May 02 - 06:01 PM An excellent idea, Joe O. I also agree with Gargoyle, that we should have a totally separate space at the Cafe dedicated to it. Otherwise, we still have to wade through all the juvenile wisecracking "humor" bullshit that always seems to ends up taking over the serious music discussion threads. Also, I am uncomfortable with the idea of taking lyrics from other people's websites & posting them here. That is a big no-no among researchers. We should refer people to the other sites with blue clickies, web addresses, etc. If you don't set it up that way from the gitgo, in an effort to empress others, I think we'll end up seeing Lesley's Contemplator site cut and pasted into the DTStudy threads, which really undermines that person's hard work. Much harder work than has been put in over the years at DT/Mudcat to maintain a quality product. So careful, careful in that regard. Don't step on the toes of others who have and are continuing to do a tremendous amount of work to create and maintain very high quality lyrics sites. We don't have the right to steal their work, just to pick up the slack for DT/Mudcat not maintaining their site over the years. I know that sounds harsh to those who love this place, but that is the bottom line. Max, Susan and Dick haven't maintained their resources over time. And it shows, especially in comparison with the other really high quality lyrics sites. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: MMario Date: 26 May 02 - 05:40 PM So - regarding tunes - a DTSTUDY thread could be started on say: Londonderry Air; or Villikins and Dinah, collecting links to various lyrics to the tune and or variations on the tune? Likewise if in a DTSTUDY thread there is a common tune normally used for the lyric but someone can document it being sung to another tune then that (second) tune could be linked in?
Exactly, MMario. I forgot to tell you that I assumed you will make sure there are tunes in every study thread. |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 02 - 05:26 PM Well, everyone seems to agree that it's a good idea. But wouldn't it be a good idea to stick to discussing it and refining it, rather than drifting into another philippic about how the Mudcat's not what it used to be and so forth.
Couldn't that be saved for a different BS thread, and this one remain focussed on this initiative? |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 26 May 02 - 05:25 PM Well, if people don't do "good research" in these "DTStudy" threads, I think people should question them. That's an important part of this - documenting our sources of information. It WILL happen, if we challenge people to do it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal From: GUEST Date: 26 May 02 - 05:11 PM That's a good idea, Garg But you know as well as I that it won't happen Shame... |
| Share Thread: |