DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2

Subject: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 02 - 04:36 PM

This thread was getting a bit long, which causes loading difficulties for some people.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 02 - 04:39 PM

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: lamarca
Date: 28 May 02 - 06:32 PM

This is great! One of my longtime gripes about the DT has been the lack of (or incorrect) attribution for a given set of lyrics. Since the DT started as Dick Greenhaus', Susan Friedman's and Dennis Cook's (and perhaps others') personal lyric collections that they had on computer disc, they didn't always bother to say where that particular set of words came from - it was, after all, his or her personal word book.

Once these entries started being used as a public resource, however, the need for accuracy in transcription and references for the recorded or written source for the material became essential, and their lack a major flaw in the DT.

Going in and correcting mistakes and mondegreens, or even just labelling an entry as "transcribed from Martin Carthy, Crown of Horn" or "words from memory, learned circa 1967" will help future singers and scholars determine how accurate any given entry is. A discography of recorded variants of a song would be nice; a lot of this work has been done by the JHU site. But ultimately, each individual DT entry should have a source listed for that particular set of words, and who actually entered them.

This is a massive effort which couldn't be done by Dick, Susan and Max on their own - I'm glad it's turning into a community project!

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 28 May 02 - 07:43 PM

Let's hope that it's done carefully. To be honest, I'm not sure that anybody who can't load a thread 78 messages long will be likely to be able to help much with this (given the source material that will have to be examined), but we'll see. The first "freelance" go at the format is Alice's DTStudy: Spancil Hill, which we might want to keep track of to see how it goes. My personal feeling is that she has already quoted indiscriminately from old threads (do we really need comments like I promise just to write the words of the song and cut out all the crap in future, and More in a couple of days. 'Till then, Slán.? They really don't seem relevant to the song.

This kind of irrelevant verbiage will have to be edited out at some point in any case, and it might be better not to include it in the first place, so as to save inflicting unnecessary work on somebody else in the future. What we need is a careful digest of the raw material, attributed and dated but without the attendant chat.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 02 - 07:55 PM

Agreed Malcolm,

The comments on Irish 'pounds' vs. Euros seemed a little (totally) spurious too...

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 02 - 08:23 PM

The fact that someone is on a connection that can't cope with long downloads in no way means that they might not have a great deal of relevant expertise, and have information about the provenance of songs that could be invaluable.

As for irrelevances, clearly these wouldn't belong in the edited notes page for a song (or whatever form it takes), that is going to be the part of the exercise that could demands considerable self-discipline.

But when it comes to a thread that is trying to gather the material which can later be edited, it's diffeent I'd suggest. It seems to me that excluding irrelevances is not going to be practical, and could even be less than desirable.

I suppose it would be possible to imagine some system in which people would volunteer to set up DTStudy threads, and have songs allocated to them - but I can't see that working. However when it came to editing the material something of that sort might be needed.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 02 - 08:37 PM

McGrath,

it is the usual custom to start a 2nd thread after 100 posts, due to the technicalities of Netscape / WebTV etc.

For some reason, you decided to start a new thread after 78 posts.

Why? I'm sure you meant well, but???

Oh yes, and as you refeuse to respond to guests (except when you do) I'm called Ian

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Jeri
Date: 28 May 02 - 08:51 PM

It's not the number of posts that causes a thread to be hard to load, it's the amount of text. Does this cause a problem for you?

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 02 - 08:52 PM

You would only have problems with long threads if you used a very old version of Netscape.

WebTV, I don't know about.

What I think Malcolm was trying to say was that anyone without access to decent tools is unlikely to create a masterpiece.

I agree with that, and I'm sorry to say it, but I think this whole idea is fundamentally flawed.

Malcolm wants something very different to Joe who wants something different still to the worrying senile Kevin McGrath

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 02 - 08:55 PM

Whether it's customary or not, at least one person with a lot of useful things to say has indicated that he finds difficulty in downloading threads with more than 40 or so posts on them, because the connection he's on, via TV rather than a PC, works that way.

And I've got a good connection through a cable, in a country with a pretty good communication network - but even so I find that 100 threads takes a long time, and if I log in at certain times of day they may time out.

And thanks for using a name, Ian. I only decided to try to ignore the minority of GUESTS who don't use a name after running up against some pretty unpleasant ones. (But please let's not drift into argument that here.)

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 02 - 09:00 PM

McGrath,

That 'one person' is I assume 'John from Hull'

I don't think we need worry about his contributions if we're looking at an academic discussion

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 02 - 09:16 PM

OK, folks, back on topic. This part of Mudcat is reserved for serious music study.
Bullshit will be deleted. Go to the "BS:" threads if you want to squabble.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 May 02 - 09:23 PM

Right Joe, but how about some proposals to maybe stop this BS though like maybe buidling up teams and directions...

How about content editor in chief, Malcolm Douglas with a team and technical director Joe Offer?

Jon

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 02 - 10:52 PM

No need for a chain of command, Jon. We're just going to work on it - together. I'm hoping people will pick some of their favorites and start DTStudy threads on their own (subject to editing).
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST,Chris
Date: 29 May 02 - 05:02 AM

We're just going to work on it - together

Fair enough Joe, but we'll probably end up with a camel instead of the horse we wanted.

Chris

btw camels *do* sing folk songs...

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: IanC
Date: 29 May 02 - 05:03 AM

Like I said earlier, I'm a little sad this has happened the way it has. I'd been working on an idea like this, but hopefully starting with a reasonably clinical synthesis/summary. The Spancil Hill thread is becoming an illustration of what happens if you don't.

It also shows another Mudcat tendency, that of trying to "diss" information which is honestly provided in order to test statements made here. It seems we're only ever happy with confirmatory evidence. My training shows this is worthless; a correct picture can only be built up by trying to "break" a hypothetical position.

I shouldn't have been surprised, I suppose ... the one time I tried a serious discursive thread (about F. J. Child) most of what I got (except for Malcolm's contributions, which were uniformly polite and well-informed) was abuse for being nasty to their favourite hero. This is despite the fact that few of the contributors had any idea of what Professor Child had or had not done.

BTW Kevin ... you twigged what I was trying to do on that thread, but it was to little avail. (I'm not GUEST)

Oh well ... Best regards
Ian

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 05:24 AM

Ian,

I think you're being a little unfair regarding your 'Child' thread.

You started your final message on the thread with:

Thanks folks, this seems to be developing into a really lovely thread

Changed your mind, now?

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: IanC
Date: 29 May 02 - 05:35 AM

Guest (Ian perhaps?) ... What happened next?

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 May 02 - 05:39 AM

IanC: your past attempt is(possibly) a reason why this new system is more promising. The thread can be edited, and any unnecessary detail removed.
If this is done in a timely fashion it may even remove the need to provide thread splits.
Presumably the editor will keep an electronic or paper version of the thread prior to editing, so that if a disproved suggestion is later repeated he can PM the originator to let him/her know of the previous outcome.
He can also put a short note after the message in the thread to the effect "This theory has been previously disproved, this message will be removed shortly, the poster has been advised by PM" This will avoid the need for others to repeat comments.
Sorry if this message seems long-winded, but it is an obvious candidate for later reduction/deletion, once others have commented.
I have wondered whether deleted/edited messages will continue to be shown in an individual's list of postings ?
Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 05:42 AM

wondered whether deleted/edited messages will continue to be shown in an individual's list of postings?

Nigel,

Write a really nasty, slanderous, racist personal attack on a member, and you'll soon find out *grin*

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 May 02 - 05:51 AM

Of course, "Guests" don't have an individual's list of postings laus Deo

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: IanC
Date: 29 May 02 - 06:14 AM

Nigel

Problem is that serious contributions tend to get discouraged. I might try to provide further verification for the newspaper article I posted in the Spancil Hill thread and more background information, but what's the point when people start from the point-of-view that they'd much rather believe the unverified rumour that is simply circulating than try to confirm what is the truth. Until you've done all the work yourself (which can often take ages), nobody wants to know. What you are suggesting about editing would seem to me to make life very difficult for an editor ... quite a lot of work, and an endless watching eye.

I haven't got infinite time and neither have you, and we've both got better things to do with most of it. I'd rather spend what time I've got in trying to sort out at least a small corner, albeit knowing I won't get thanked much for it. Others may want to do things differently, and I'm pleased to support them in that. My worry is that we can expend an awful lot of energy getting more-or-less nowhere. What I can see so far only confirms this view.

Perhaps I'm being pessimistic. Maybe I should just stick to quizzes.

;-)
Ian

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST,Ed Pellow
Date: 29 May 02 - 07:48 AM

To my mind, one of the main issues is in terms of differentiating these threads from the usual Mudcat 'chat'

In fairness to those contributors who have already added extraneous information to the nascent DTStudy threads, they haven't perhaps understood the purpose, and have hence added their halfpennyworth assuming it was 'just another thread'

The prevailing culture here is certainly in favour of 'banter' as opposed to scholarship.

Given that Max opposes spliting the forum in any way, it it difficult to see how this project can, in practice, work here.

A shame

Ed

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 May 02 - 08:13 AM

I wouldn't get too disheartened just yet Ian and Ed. I do however believe that if this project is to succeed without the more formal type of organisational structure that I'd proposed that people need to be prepared to take advice and even criticism from those most experienced in putting together scholarly pieces of work. Banter, extraneous information and presenting speculation as fact are all capable of severely degrading this project.

Jon

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 May 02 - 08:19 AM

Just an extra thought, which would need help from those actually responsible for the DT; could those songs for which a DTStudy thread has been started have a clicky in the DT to show that an update (at some future time) was under consideration ?

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:26 AM

Of course it's perfectly true that someone with an old browser or a web tv connection may very well have much of use to say or to do, but they will have a lot of trouble trawling through old threads in search of information, as many are considerably longer than the first part of this one.

As to banter and so forth; it doesn't really matter if people post chat or irrelevant material to Study threads, as that can be deleted once any substantive information has been extracted. To save making work for the eventual editor(s), though, they might like to exercise just a little restraint; though many will probably not read the whole thread before posting to it, of course. Material copied from previous discussions, on the other hand, can be edited down before inclusion; though to begin with, elisions should probably be indicated. No criticism of Alice implied, incidentally; just what I hope is good advice.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Jeri
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:28 AM

IanC, I don't really understand the problem with the Spancil Hill thread. The information you posted adds to, rather than contradicts, what's there. (Maybe I'm missing something?) Also, if original assumptions can be questioned, so can subsequent ones. Facts are better than assumtions, but even facts can be wrong.

It would also be nice to have links to major threads about songs in the DTStudy threads. May be too much work though.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:39 AM

elisions should probably be indicated

So I should make a note of every time Catspaw ruins a thread with a joke about farting, of the level that might be expected of a 5 year old?

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: IanC
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:48 AM

Jeri

My problem is simply that the thread is going nowhere. I didn't say there was any contradiction with my information, just that people chose to essentially ignore it (and I'm not even complaining about that). If you read the "Where is Spancil Hill" thread that Alice originally quotes from, you'll find it's better by far that what we've got so far in the new "study" thread.

What's the point in having a "study" thread which is just another thread and which doesn't even give you all the useful information which is already presented in other threads?

There needs to be some summary and synthesis, as I have already said twice. If there is already quite a lot of information in disparate threads (as with this one), then a study thread really has to start that way. Also, I can't actually think of a reason for starting a "Study" thread unless there is already quite a lot of information there.

As I said, I'm probably being pessimistic ...

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 10:52 AM

Jesus Ian!

Do it all yourself then!

Apologies that my contributions don't match your definition of 'academic rigour'

You say you haven't time to do it yourself, yet manage to criticise those who try.

PS

Fuck off!

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 11:06 AM

Agree with you GUEST,

Come on, Ian C

Show us how to do it.

Post a thread, then me might be able to lean from your great wisdom

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Jeri
Date: 29 May 02 - 11:16 AM

IanC, thanks for the clarification.

As for me, I thought I could offer something, but obviously not the right something. I can feel stupid enough without someone telling me I am. Good luck with this - I'll continue to read even though I doubt I'll contribute.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 May 02 - 11:24 AM

When I said to begin with, elisions should probably be indicated, I should have made my meaning more clear. I meant that editorial elisions in a post quoted from another thread should probably be indicated -at first, at any rate- in order not to give the impression that the original is being quoted as it first appeared. It may be that editing may inadvertently alter the tone or intent of the passage, so some indication of editorial intervention may be desirable. In many cases, of course, only a brief précis of substantive information in a message may be needed. Jokes about farting and the like, unless they are germane to the song under examination, can of course safely be deleted without qualm or reference.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: IanC
Date: 29 May 02 - 11:26 AM

Jeri

Sorry. I had no quarrel with what you said, nor did I feel you hadn't made a contribution, nor did I think I was saying you are stupid. I'm just saying what I feel, not trying to make anyone look small. You're quite right about questioning assumptions, I'm only saying that if a thread is going to be the basis for serious study then it would make sense to start with what we have already up front.

:-(

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 02 - 11:32 AM

The point, Malcolm (and Ian-the-GUEST, whom I take it isn't the same as GUEST,"senile"), "trawling through old threads in search of information" is not the only way of getting information. Printed sources, for example, are still pretty useful.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 May 02 - 11:44 AM

You don't need to tell me about the usefulness of printed sources! It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the potential importance of material available hidden away in old, sometimes long, threads; some of which (many of Bruce Olson's contributions, for example) simply is not available in printed sources, or supercedes them.

That said, I daresay that I may have been a little over-sweeping in my original remark, though I do feel that web tv imposes considerable handicaps on anyone wishing to use the web for more than occasional dabbling, and that it is not always pracical to set the pace according to the slowest runner.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Alice
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:15 PM

I thought the goal was to find lyrics in the DT that need correction or elucidation. I didn't intend to just start another S.Hill thread. I quoted the Christy Moore version in the DT because, as has been pointed out, it is quite different than the original lyrics.

Joe, please delete the Spancil Hill DTStudy thread. It seems all it did was start another argument.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: IanC
Date: 29 May 02 - 12:23 PM

Alice

I'm sorry you've been used as the butt of an argument here, especially as I'm - at least in part - to blame. The problem is that we haven't really worked out what these things should be yet. My gripe (if gripe it is) is just that.

I noticed that you did ask Joe if this was the right way to set things out at the top of your Spancil Hill thread. I don't think we know that yet, so nobody can really give any guidance till it's been thrashed out.

Meantime, there's no problem with another thread on Spancil Hill, and this one has come up with a few things.

:-(
Ian

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 02 - 01:48 PM

Myself I tend to believe that just going ahead and doing things and finding out what works and what doesn't work is generally a better way than working it all out in advance. (Not always - bridge building is an example of when it's not a good idea.)

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 May 02 - 02:57 PM

OK, I edited down the DTStudy thread on Spancil Hill, which Alice started admirably. I proofed and summarized what I could, and transferred the extraneous messages over to one of the standard Spancil Hill threads.
We have a number of versions and parodies posted in the Abdul, etc thread. I think all those versions ought to stay in the thread, and we'll let Dick pick which ones he wants to put in the DT. It looks like the commentary on the song might be ready for a summary - anybody want to write one?
Haven't checked Cutty Wren.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 29 May 02 - 04:44 PM

Joe,

I believe that you are in touch with Bruce Olson?

Once we sort out the teething problems of these threads, might you email him and ask him to come back?

He'd be a real help here.

Ed

---

Bruce is never far away, Ed. He ususally drops in when there's something that need his expertise - but a few times I've dropped him an e-mail and ask him to comment.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: IanC
Date: 29 May 02 - 06:25 PM

Joe

Why did you remove the link I put in the Spancil Hill thread to the Irish Independent article? I'm not cpmplaining about my post being removed but it had other information and was essentially an objective source (something we're rather short on).

Just asking
Ian

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 02 - 08:32 PM

Ian,

I understand what you ae saying, but squabbles over 'my post was better than your post' aren't really going to help

But I'm just a GUEST

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 29 May 02 - 09:52 PM

Guest & Malcolm- I am using Web TV (ADSL) and I have no problems reading threads up to around 100-120 posts.However, I feel Guest is correct when he states that I will have little if anything to contribute to an acedemic thread, I believe the member that has problems reading threads more than 40 posts long is McGraths friend greg stevens, who I feel could have something useful to contribute to such a thread, as I know from chatting to him via PM's that he is very knowledgeable about about folk songs and their history, but is currently unable to contribute much due to the limitations of his system (cable TV & NTL Digibox).

John from hull

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 30 May 02 - 08:15 AM

Thanks for the clarification, John. I had no idea that 40-odd posts could be such a problem on some set-ups. Perhaps McGrath was right and I was wrong; though I'd still be against splitting threads as a general rule at much under 100; however, music threads don't usually get anything like that long. Greg would certainly be a useful man to have around more.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: John in Brisbane
Date: 30 May 02 - 10:33 AM

How can I start this on a positive note? First off I haven't read Part 1 of this thread - my apologies.

I was at a festival earlier this year and I heard a person deriding the quality of a couple of Aussie trad songs in the DT - "How c'd y'expect a Yank t' get the words roit f'r Click Go The Shears?"

If there is a widespread desire to amend the words to get them 'roit', then there are plenty of source documents for Aussie trad songs. Aussie songs have in many cases been thooroughly documented.

I don't mind plodding along slowly on this, notwithstanding that others may be better qualified to do so.

Is this the type of thing that was intended by this serious thread?

Regards, John

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 02 - 03:51 AM

Apart from searching for DTStudy in the filter, is there a way to keep the (edited) permathreads at the top of the list (as with the "Big 3" permathreads ? I am sure more people may be interested enough to help with particular songs, who only log in occasionally. "Cutty Wren" has already dropped off a 1 day refresh.
Obviously, if this system goes ahead then there will be a limit to the number of threads which can be prioritised in this way, How about a single permathread like the "Big 3", but with cross reference to each of the DTStudies currently ongoing ? (including the 2 proposal threads).
This thread is obviously due for editing, or we'll be on part three. If it gets edited, could part 1 get edited as well, then part 2 can be shifted onto part 1 (making a smaller part 1 thread, and leaving plenty of room for part two to continue growing? Cheers Nigel

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 02 - 04:47 PM

Uh, I suggested some days ago now (probably in part 1)that somebody get the threads that Guest, Philippa was posting lyrics and information on included in the DT Study program. Not that it is just Philippa, even though she is a goddess of Gaelic lyrics posting! MMario is transcribing, Aine and others are adding, etc

Badai na Scadan is one of the threads--dunno or understand exactly how the DT Study proposal is being implemented in the here and now? Organic is good, but how do we get some of these other music threads in the program?

Is there an application?

A fee?

An audition? ;-)

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 02 - 08:28 PM

What I'd envisage would be a permathread or equivalent which would have a list, with links to the DT, of all songs which have been DTStudied.

The DT entry linked to would indicate that it had been DTStudied, and would have a link to a page consisting of the edited DTStudy result(which probably would take the form of a set of notes or short article); and also it wold have a link to the DTStudy thread, unedited, in the Mudcat archives.

I used the expression "DTStudied", but I hope that wouldn't be used in practice.

Subject: RE: DTStudy: A Proposal - part 2
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 31 May 02 - 08:47 PM

For Guest's benefit, the proposal so far is that "Study" threads are a means of correcting and expanding entries already in the DT. New threads dealing with other songs continue as they always have; unedited and cumulative, awaiting harvesting for the database.

I don't think that it would be practicable to single some new threads out for special treatment at this stage; what we would hope is that harvesters will wait a while for information to accumulate rather than harvest prematurely as has often happened in the past, which is one of the reasons why so many corrections to the database now need to be made.

For myself, I am very reluctant to post lyrics in languages other than English unless I can provide decent translations (though I have done it from time to time in response to specific requests) and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that no song should be harvested until a tune has been provided for it. That's another issue, though, and not my decision.