"So you really think a site like Max Hunter can be put up and kept running for 'next to nothing'? What an insult the people who make that site available to you and me and anyone else who wants to dive in and test the waters. Do you think those songs transcribed themselves? Fact is, there are thousands and thousands of songs, ballads, etc. collected from traditional American musicians available on Max Hunter as well as the Wolf Folkore Collection, American Memory (Library of Congress). This music is 'freely available' as you say thanks to the time and money contributed by public and private sources. But I have a hard time believing that the 'everything should be free' types will be willing to pay for something they would rather have for, well, free."

"My motive in raising the question was to suggest that cash needs to be raised to preserve and make available the songs and music of people most of whom are now dead."

You would think that to make the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world, with entries on every conceivable public figure and relevant event in history, in a multitude of different languages, would take a hellofalotofmoney too. But Wikipedia happened. How? A mission to make things free and a lot of people who were prepared to give a little bit of their time and energy away for free because they believed in the cause and because they had access to work with material that was 'creative commons', in other words, copyright-free. Now, they do have to raise some money from time to time, which as far as I've seen has been entirely donation-based. But the great bulk of the work that's done to create the content of the thing is done on a donation-basis. If the huge archives of field recordings were just made available, then you wouldn't need to pay any transcribers, because everyone who's interested in traditional music could go to the site, listen to some bits, do some transcribing, maybe correct someone else's transcription, etc. Costs of webhosting are pretty small, and since they would only need to increase when the user-base increased, it probably would not be too difficult to get lots of small donations to cover the cost, or to get a grant. The FolkWikiArchive. Or something. Think about it.

The point I already made is, "who would do all this work of digitizing, transcribing, categorizing, reviewing, and uploading for free?" - the people who already are: bloggers. Just give them the tools and the raw materials and their love of the music will be more than enough to suffice for payment. Like the old man and the bullock.

The whole problem of the locked up archives is that they're run in a top-down fashion, with tightly controlled access, totally contrary to the spirit of folk music, which is democratic and center-less. But I think we all agree that those locked archives are a travesty. I'm just proposing that the solution may not require as much cash, or expenditure of any one person's energy, and in fact it would be more in the folk spirit if it was a Wiki-project to which every interested and informed person could contribute.

As for the issue of "I already shelled out lots of cash for my 500 cds, now who's going to buy them"

Well, one thing that I would like to point out is that often in any sort of media industry (be it music, book publishing, etc.), as much or more money is spent on advertising and marketing the product than on the physical product. It doesn't matter if you're in a niche market; it can be marketed. "Esoteric Blues-Raga-Fingerpicking Guitar-Soli" is a pretty niche market too, but it's grown explosively in the past few years, largely thanks to new media and forward-thinking labels (ok, it's still small but the good musicians are making a solid living and the fans are passionately into it. what more could you want?).

Sharity blogs have created niche audiences, visit daily, and the bloggers do the marketing for free. That's a hell of an opportunity, don't you think?

Also, with downloads the whole idea is that the physical product isn't changing hands. So right now you have your 500 cds. If 1000 people download your album for free from a blog, you still have those 500 cds, which you can continue to sell at gigs (those who go to your gigs now aren't going because of the blog, so they'll still buy your stuff, and those who found out about you from the blog may not buy that cd, but they may buy others (or that one, out of guilt if nothing else! yes, it does happen...), or at least you've attracted more paying audience members to your gigs, and earned more fans who will continue to watch you and listen to you and be potential future customers. And you got all that second group for free.

So yes, there is 'potential sales loss' in downloads. But there's also 'potential sales gain'. And yes, in a morally just, ordered, world you should be able to decide whether the gains outweigh the losses. But the world is not ordered according to morals. It's constantly evolving, and we must evolve with it.

And look. I know it hurts when you've shelled out money and time for something to sell and then can't make back your money. My dad is a recording engineer. Since the recession, his clients have almost totally dried up. It's happening to all the recording studios. We know that people are still recording music and buying music, but they're going to the studios less and less. Because they're setting up their own home-recording setups. And I'm not talking about just bedroom amateurs. Professional musicians are too.

Apple distributes Garageband for free on all it's computers. No one has questioned their right to do that even though it's driving many competent, highly-qualified professionals who have invested TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars on their recording setup, out-of business. So my dad's business has fallen out from under him. Is he mad? No. Frustrated? Perhaps, but mostly he's looking into other avenues: live sound, narration, etc. to apply his talents. It may be that he becomes principally an audio consultant: people shift from paying him for his technology to paying him for his experience with acoustics and his impeccable ear. The cultural landscape is changing: technology and reproduceable objects are becoming more and more widespread and accessible, so the premium is shifting to other areas: expertise, appeal, and the-art-of-getting-noticed.

Like the article said, victorian candle-makers must have been pretty pissed at Edison. But technology changed the world, without asking anyone or apologizing, like it always does, and everyone had to adapt if they wanted to survive. Did the candle-making industry die out? No, it just changed. Folk music (as an oral tradition) almost died out because of the recording industry. Composers almost died out because of the recording industry. 100 years ago, 90% of Americans played an instrument. Today, 10% do. Conversely, the advent of recording shifted the importance of music from the composer to the performer, and in the process created the profession of the virtuoso. Being the best in the world does no good if you can only be heard by the people in your district, or wherever you happen to travel. The recording industry, merely by existing, has changed us from being mostly-musicians to being mostly-audiences, which in a sense is completely contrary to the spirit of folk music.

And if you look at folk music, in the olde days, very rarely did people try to make a profession at it. They entertained themselves, and continued the traditions because of what the music gave them, rather than the money they got from it. And no, I'm not trying to paint a picture of money-grubbing folkies; I know you're not in it for the money. But the music is totally rooted in the daily lives and culture of the people (usually farming), and when one becomes a professional musician, you're no longer living that daily life that you sing about. And while that doesn't disqualify you from the profession of folksinger, it does create a disconnect that must be reconciled.

Of course, going back still further, there's the tradition of the bards. They had very little wealth in terms of possessions but lived a good life, had plenty of power and influence, and were well-received and taken care of. But to be qualified as a bard, in olde Ireland at least, you had to spend 19 years of study first, which included memorizing and recounting the epic myths word-for-word, and spending an entire year in silence so that you could earn the right to use words for your people, and to exert the power and influence you'd have. So there weren't that many, and the ones that did qualify were justly looked after by their society, because they were recognized as being vitally valuable.

And that here, is the essence of my point. If folk music is relevant for people today (and I hope it is), it needs to be seen to be relevant and necessary (and enjoyable and entertaining and profound etc). Once it has that, it will be supported. So the question is not, "how can I prevent people from downloading my music so that I can sell some cds to raise some money" or "how can we get a bunch of money to do this archive thingy", but rather "how can we make traditional music and musicians valued by a culture which is becoming increasingly saturated with technology and instant-gratification-culture, and is evermore amnesiac and disconnected from the land and traditional culture" because once that's achieved the money issue will take care of itself: when people value something and then that thing is struggling to exist, they'll support it. Or, on a simpler, more immediate basis you might just say "woah, the marketplace is changing. I'd better figure out how I can be a part of the boom rather than being swept aside, and quick!"

And if you can't do that... then, well, I suggest you take up gardening, plant some fruit trees and get involved creating local resilience, because what with the climate and economy and technology and everything, there's beginning to be loads of unexpected changes, affecting everyone in society, and the more resilient you are the more prepared to take those changes you'll be. And play music on the side, to enrich your and others' lives as it always has (at which point people downloading your music, causing 'potential sales loss' but no actual physical loss to you will become totally inconsequential, and in fact preferable, because more people will be enjoying it). Besides, I just think working on the land and folk music go hand in hand, don't you?

But letting go of control is always a hard thing. Until you realize that it actually sets you free.

-T.I.P.