mudcat.org: Remixing Lomax

sj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home Page: [1] [2]

Remixing Lomax

Related threads:
Lionel Rogosin films / blues / Lomax (7)
BBC prgrm: Shirley Collins on Alan Lomax (11)
Lomax in Ireland (4)
John Lomax's credibility, an example (29)
Alan Lomax- Forest City Joe. (9)
Sing Christmas - Alan Lomax - 1957 (9)
In the Footsteps of John A. Lomax (ABC-Oz) (4)
Great Lives Alan Lomax (3)
Review: Lomax Songbooks (7)
The Ballad Hunter - Alan Lomax (3)
Wanting Help finding a Lomax Recording (13)
Tech: Digitising Lomax: AFC crowdsourcing (2)
Lomax 1959-60 Southern Journey NEW LPs (18)
Alan Lomax Recording Locations (5)
Lomax review BBC radio NOW (10)
Upcoming Lomax radio feature (7)
Alan Lomax: Another View (80)
Alan Lomax Archive going online (67)
John A Lomax Jr. (8)
Lomax/Collins BBC Radio4 (17)
Nicki Minaj song samples Lomax recording-Rosie (7)
All of Alan Lomax's recordings online- f (9)
Alan Lomax in the Upper Midwest podcasts (6)
Alan Lomax Southern Journey: new LOC book (4)
Questions Re: the Lomaxes and Copyright (19)
Jean Ritchie on Stephen Colbert (13)
Alan Lomax on Radio 4 (8)
Lomax songbooks, comparison of content (8)
alan lomax documentary here (8)
The Lomaxes on BD (like graphic novels) (3)
New Alan Lomax biography reviewed (27)
Lomax Book containing "Grasshopper Sittin'... (2)
Obit: Bess Lomax Hawes 1921-2009) (34)
PBS t.v. special: Alan Lomax Songhunter (11)
'Lomax the Hound of Music' (3)
The Color Purple with Lomax music (1)
Documentary on Alan Lomax - PBS, 22 August 06 (37)
Blues In The Mississippi Night - Lomax (15)
Alan Lomax & the Ramblers (15)
Alan Lomax Birthday (6)
Happy! – Jan 15 (A Lomax / Sigmeister) (3)
'Land Where The Blues Began' Lomax, Sad. (52)
Obit: Alan Lomax-An Era Passes (1915-2002) (86)
Book: The Land Where The Blues Began (Alan Lomax) (12)
Alan Lomax? recording - Who's singing? (8)
Alan Lomax Tribute at NOMAD (1)
John Henry & Alan Lomax on Radio (5)
Help: Alan Lomax radio programme (5)
Lyr Add: Lomax Recording Trip Index (9)
Link Add: Alan Lomax Website (7)
Allan Lomax suffers stroke (7)
Lomax Collection on-line (16)
The Alan Lomax collection: Southern Journey (3)

Peter T.	24 Feb 03 - 02:10 PM
Cluin	24 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM
Blackcatter	24 Feb 03 - 02:24 PM
Ron Olesko	24 Feb 03 - 02:26 PM
Ron Olesko	24 Feb 03 - 02:27 PM
Cluin	24 Feb 03 - 02:31 PM
Ron Olesko	24 Feb 03 - 02:40 PM
McGrath of Harlow	24 Feb 03 - 03:04 PM
Ron Olesko	24 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM
GUEST,Les B.	25 Feb 03 - 03:42 PM
GUEST,Les B.	25 Feb 03 - 04:08 PM
Ron Olesko	25 Feb 03 - 04:41 PM
Art Thieme	25 Feb 03 - 04:53 PM
Ron Olesko	25 Feb 03 - 04:56 PM
Bobert	25 Feb 03 - 05:02 PM
GUEST,Les B.	25 Feb 03 - 05:09 PM
Art Thieme	25 Feb 03 - 09:45 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko	25 Feb 03 - 10:38 PM
Blackcatter	25 Feb 03 - 10:58 PM
Cluin	26 Feb 03 - 01:25 AM
Michael S	29 Mar 04 - 10:54 AM
wysiwyg	29 Mar 04 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,South-west Dan	29 Mar 04 - 02:50 PM
Art Thieme	29 Mar 04 - 09:41 PM
Lighter	30 Mar 04 - 08:19 AM

Share Thread

Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date

DT Lyrics:

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Peter T.
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:10 PM

I think Natalie Cole should be castigated severely with a severe castigate. Tony Bennett's duet with Billie Holliday is another scandal, from someone I admire. The less said about Fred Astaire and the vacuum cleaner, the better. yours, Peter T.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Cluin
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM

Ron, you know what they say about don't "assume"?

And I'm already an ass.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Blackcatter
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:24 PM

Ron,

I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, what Natalie Cole did was just add her voclas to the existing song done by her dad. It was probably remixed, but his vocals weren't messed with (at least I couldn't tell the difference from the original). If someone else, say myself, chose to sing a duet with Bing Crosby, as long as I didn't change his voice, I don't see the harm in it. Of course, it would still be an issue as to whether you should do anything with the work of a dead artist. I don't know, but I would assume that Nat King Cole would like what his daughter did.

To me it's the modifying of a performance that bothers me - and this may be a fine line that 10 of us would draw in a different place.

pax yall

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:26 PM

No Cluin, it is very easy to make assumptions.   I had to tease.

We are all very passionate about this music and this reaction is to be expected. "Accept No Substitutes" seems to be words many of us live by, but personally I like to see people experiment.

Arlo singing with his Dad on "This Land Is Your Land" can only be described as "fun".   Is it a better recording than Woody's original take on the song? No.   Was the intent to improve upon it? No. You can say the same thing about Natalie and Nat, although I am guessing the Coles made a little more $$ than the Guthries.

Are these examples scandals? Hardly, at least in my book. The point is we STILL have the originals - it isn't as if the original has been destroyed never to be heard again.   When Ted Turner began colorizing movies a few decades ago, the originals were locked up as I remember.   This isn't the same situation with the Lomax recordings.

How will these Lomax recordings sound?   We will just have to wait until they are released, and then we can critique something with a basis for our judgement.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:27 PM

Blackcatter - again I say we have to wait until we hear the recordings.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Cluin
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:31 PM

Sure, Ron. Makes sense.

You won't mind if I don't hold my breath waiting though?

;)

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:40 PM

No Cluin, you don't have to hold your breath. There are a number of projects about to be released that I think will be more interesting - such as the Shanachie boxed set of Kentucky fiddle music. I will await them both, probably play them on my radio show. How much (or how little) airplay they will receive I couldn't possibly guess!

Ron

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 03:04 PM

I can't really see how it'd make any difference if it sounded great. Central to folksong has to be the idea that it's someone making the music or singing the song, not a consruction in a studio. The implication to the listener is "now go and do something like that yourself". There's no insuperable barrier between listening and performing.

And that is what is different about a studio contruction.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM

McGrath - your explanation is a bit confusing. If I'm reading your note correctly, you assume (there is that word again) that the sound will be some sort of studio construction that cannot be replicated by a listener.

Again, we haven't heard the recordings, but it would appear that the producer heard the original recording and then did "something like that yourself". How is it different if I were to pick up a guitar and sing the song myself, or if I were to INTERPRET music via some sort of electonic means. The PC becomes the instrument in the same fashion that the guitar and voice would. The producer merely used modern technology in the "folk process". That may be hard to swallow, but I do think that is what we have here.

I'm not sure if we were ever discussing this as "folksong". Not everything that Alan Lomax recorded would fit an ethnomusicologists definition of "folksong".

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:42 PM

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 04:08 PM

Well I see the mouse gremlin has invaded my computer again. Here's what I tried to say: I have mixed feelings about this, as described.
Although if Dirk Powell is somehow associated it must have some validity. I'm all for artistic experimentation, it's just the making of $ off dead people that makes me leery.

One of the arguments that Ron O. advances is that you can always go back to the originals. So, some youngster hears Almeda Riddle re-mixed and re-timed, goes to her old stuff and is vastly disappointed by her "out of meter" singing. Is that fair to her, or to traditional style singing in general? Also, it's a whole different thing if someone else interprets and performs Almeda's songs - the onus is on that performer, not her.

To stretch the point ridiculously, (thinking of the John Wayne beer commercial) what if some producer superimposed Almeda's face on the body of a nubile young performer in an XXX-rated film, would that be fair to Almeda? I suspect not.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 04:41 PM

Les, your point may be streteched, but it is valid.    I think the question becomes who owns the footage LEGALLY.   In the case of Lomax, I believe the ownership is not in question - the foundation has the rights to this material. The John Wayne footage/image has a "owner" that acts in the interest of the Wayne family. THEY approved the beer commercial. I doubt if they would approve of the Duke's image in a XXX film, and I doubt that the Lomax Foundation would grant permission for a XXX film to use Riddle's. However, I do see your point - the artist doesn't have a say anymore and it is in the hands of the "owner".   If Riddle were with us, I would hazard a guess that she would have a say.

Of course this opens up a whole new can of worms in regards to ethics and the legalities of "owning" a performance.

Les, if that youngster goes back and is disapointed by the "out of meter" recordings, how is that the fault of the "new" producer? That youngster probably would never have gone back.    Yes, I do see your point about the onus being on the performer, but in this case the performer is the producer, not Riddle.

Again, let's not jump to conclusions as to who is making $$$ off of this. The Lomax organization has shown themselves to be fair in giving artists their dues in recent years (see the stories about "O'Brother") and I don't think any of the original artists will be taken advantage of. Of course that is my opinion, but lets wait until we get all the facts and hear the recording.

One last point about "out of meter" recordings.   Don't forget that many of these recordings were made on wire recorders or disc recorders.   This technology was susceptible to a number of problems.   If you are like me, you probably had your first taste of the old silent films by watching television broadcasts in the 50's and 60's.   You probably remember the jerky motion and the sped up action.   The original films, in many cases, were shot with hand cranked cameras and shown at different projection speeds. Yet for many of us, we will always picture Charlie Chaplin with an off-speed image.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Art Thieme
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 04:53 PM

Bovine stomach, by any other name, is still tripe.

"To ere is human, to forgive, bovine !!"

Art Thieme

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 04:56 PM

Cute Art, but most people consider tripe to be a delicacy.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:02 PM

I'm stickin' with the position of "cleansed" but not "dubbed". Hey, it's not like Woody Guthry's or Nat King Coles songs were forever "dubbed". If you want to hear Woody or Nat, sans the kids, then you can still do it.

Now, again, I'm looking forward to this CD but I hope there isn't a bass guitar where there wasn't one when it was recorded in some prison in Georgia in the 40's.

Or, if their is, at least give the guy thre respect of presenting him without the "dubbing" first.

Bobert

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:09 PM

Ron - as I say, I've got mixed feelings. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.

One of the differences, of course, between John Wayne and Almeda is that he was instantly recognizable and was intentionally used in an "appeal to authority" persuasive argument to buy a product. She isn't as well known, and may be used simply because she has a riveting sound. One hopes she will be clearly identified.

I hope it's not like some of the midi "lifts," where a musician's guitar riff or drum lick is appropriated and placed in another's recording, often without acknowledgement.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Art Thieme
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:45 PM

Ron,

They know not what they do. ;-)

Art

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:38 PM

Art, I assume you mean the tripe - I wouldn't touch it either!

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Blackcatter
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:58 PM

I still think that the dead are dead and their work should be left alone in nearly all cases.

What I'd like to see with these new recordings is that the original track would also be on the CD. That would really encourage the listeners to hear the originals ('cause to be honest, just how accessible are these originals?).

By the way - why do people still eat tripe?

pax yall

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:25 AM

Because they lost a bet.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Michael S
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 10:54 AM

We discussed this "remixing Lomax" project last year, though none of us had head it yet. Rounder finally released the CD last month--full title is Tangle Eye: Alan Lomax's Southern Journey Remixed.

For those interested, NPR's Weekend Edition did a piece on the project yesterday, including a few partial selections and an interview with producer Scott Billington. At least for a time, you can listen to it by going here. One interesting feature at the web site allows us to listen to a few selections as Lomax recorded them, and then compare them to the Rounder remix.

After scanning last years debate, I'm not sure that anything here will change any minds but--to me--it remains an interesting project.

---Michael S

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 11:15 AM

I missed this till now. I'm hysterical after hearing the few samples on NPR. It's wrong, wrong, wrong... the black folk I know would be feeling toally ripped off all over again.

If these people are so desperate to "create" from an inherited foundation, why can't they sing the damn songs their own sorry ass selves? Every week our band does material in church influenced by, among other things, the Lomax collection of spirituals as we have heard them and as they have taken root and grown into our own heads and hearts in today's time. THAT is where my creative license begins and ends-- to dub under or over Vera Hall-- no, no, no!!!

What a slippery slope is ethics.

~Susan

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: GUEST,South-west Dan
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 02:50 PM

What a wonderful discussion!

I fully agree with those who find the tampering with the work of deceased artists abhorrent.   Like Don Quixote, I hate the negative changes that new technology is having on those parts of the world that I like the best.

Still most modern (and granted, uneducated) listeners will not tolerate the variations that appear in a one pass field recording.   Their aesthetic demands a certain studio-polished sound for a recording to merit a legitimate listen. It may be sad, but nonetheless true, that Almeda Riddle's only chance to reach a new audience lies in the ability of Rounder's engineers to "clean up" her vocals into a more "polished" form without losing the unique authentic quality that makes the original recordings of her work so important. It would be horrible, if the new sound of her recordings devalues or obscures the originals. Unfortunately, it is probably also inevitable.

Given their unquestionable appeal, I do believe that the old Lomax field recordings can never be completely lost to the general listener. Still I can envision a time when the original, imperfect, recordings are of interest to a few academically inclined musicians, and touched-up versions the only things easily available. This is definitely not a good thing, but it's not automatically bad. If the modernization of old recordings helps keep the music a part of the current culture, maybe even a popular part of the culture, that would be good.

As irritating as this fact is, many people under age 30 see the sound-sampling engineer as much a contributing musician as the singer, guitar player, or violinist. The attitudes of the young always prevail over those of the old; that's in the rules we were forced to sign up for. Many young electronic musicians believe that recorded sound belongs to us all. Each of us has the right to incorporate it into our own artistic expression. It time, this attitude will prevail.

This brings up a recurring Mudcat discussion: copywrite and entering the public domain. Using some formula, like 70 years after your death, your work will enter the public domain. By that time, anyone who wants to can use any recording you leave behind for any purpose they like. You are unlikely to notice this. (Here I am depending on other assumptions, of course.) If the rule were something like "10 years after the works origin", you would be more likely to get to enjoy this revision of your music. This is something to factor into you ideas about fair copyright protection.

Let me finish with a marginally related comment. The above is one reason why I admire Bruce Philips so much. His attitude towards his music has always been to let it be free. Once shared, it's no longer his. It's easy to say this, but harder to live it. I sometimes don't know how he can stand this loss of control over his art, but he does. I hope all of us that perform his songs remember this generosity, and express our thanks in a tangible way.

Dan

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Art Thieme
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 09:41 PM

I heard the NPR show. Again, what tripe.

Next they'll let Ted Weems, Stanley Black and their ilk redo and "enhance" Bob Copper.

Art Thieme

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Remixing Lomax
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:19 AM

So obvious nobody has mentioned it: It's all about CASH. Rounder can make more CASH from hoked up, tricked out, and screwed over remixes than it can from the originals. So they go for the CASH.

Far worse is recycling the living record of real singers into a mere source of exploitable (i.e., CASH-producing) sound, which is then pureed into musical Soylent Green.

Sure the originals will still exist (till deleted by Rounder), but odds are even fewer stores will carry them. And the remixes themselves say the originals are obsolete - SOOOO 20th Century!!!

Listen to that NPR story - if you can stand it. Will the unlettered and unlawyered singers or their heirs receive any royalties from this project? Don't bet on it. That's one tradition Rounder is unlikely to mess with.

"A man ain't nothin' but a man," says John Henry. Tough luck for a man.

But that's show biz.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Share Thread:

Reply to Thread

Subject:	Help
From:

Preview Automatic Linebreaks Make a link ("blue clicky")

Mudcat time: 21 October 6:17 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.