morality of collecting

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Scoville
Date: 31 May 07 - 01:48 PM

I met Frank Proffit, Jr., years ago at a music festival and he was quite clear that he considered his dad to be the source only for the version of "Tom Dooley" that became so popular, and in no way for the song in general. Not having heard the earlier recordings, I can't comment on that, but he didn't appear to be making any attempts to be monopolizing it.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 01:48 PM

I 'pick fights' (as you put it) with Friends Of Celtic Music. Or, as I would prefer to describe it, take issue with their utter selfishness and greed.

As for being insulting, I can do that after it's been done to me.

And as for your MySpace page, I'll listen to the uploads later on. Though not SOTCD.
Till then, I'm not qualified to judge how 'special' you are. If at all.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jim Lad
Date: 31 May 07 - 01:50 PM

Don't! I'd rather take my music down than have you spend any time with it at all. And I Will!

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 01:54 PM

Suit yourself.

Actually, I've never googled myself before. It links mostly to my fRoots reviews. And I never bother to write up crap, or even go there. I'd rather send back the comps, stay in and make my own racket. Less bother.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:01 PM

The geneology of the "pop" (Kington Trio) version of Tom Dooley is pretty well documented. Frank Warner collected it from Frank Proffit, who sang it to a somewhat different tune than is usually heard. Frank revised the tune a bit, and sang it frequently. It was picked up by the Folksay Trio (Bob Carey, Erik Darling, Roger Sprung), who speeded it up a bit and added the "hitch"--the syncopation caused by a pause between Tom and Dooley. The Kingston Trio got it from them, sang it essentially unchanged, and made folk/pop history.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:41 PM

True story--which is to say it was told as a true story, complete with names which are no longer important, by someone who knew and was known by both parties.

My point in relating it is that if a resolution is to come of this--it won't be the result of calling Dave Bullmer names.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:45 PM

I'd call him BULMER if I were you.
This is, after all, what his name is.
Or better still, BASTARD.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:58 PM

One hopes that "Dave" isn't reading this thread, or this forum--

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 03:11 PM

Course he is. Especially as his gopher George/Tyke seems to have absconded.
Ah, but no. 'Tis Thursday and he'll be off down t'session at t'Yorkshire Lass . . .

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 May 07 - 03:19 PM

Suit yourself Diane. You are an ignorant individual and not capable of listening to anyone but yourself. You've shown you have the same compassion as Bulmer, and the same lack of caring for anyone but yourself. You aren't showing any compassion for these artists, just your own ego. Your failure to discuss the issue coherently shows that. Enjoy your little world.

Dick, I'm glad you pointed out Grayson and Whitter. I've never had an opportunity to hear it. If you have, how similar was it to Proffit's? I've heard the Folksay version of it (Roger Sprung will sell you a cassette!) and it is amazing how much the Kingston Trio "borrowed" from it.   

Do you know what, if anything, the Warner's did for Proffit? If his version was similar to the one performed by Grayson and Whitter, what was their source?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 03:36 PM

I'm an 'ignorant individual'. That is as a result of having met more or less everyone in the Leader/Trailer catalogue while Bill Leader was recording and some of them are still personal friends. And having lived with the ongoing problem as it grew over two decades. Yeah, right.

You?

There isn't an 'issue' to discuss, let alone defend. Other than that, scroll your way back to my post at 12.52. Don't you dare suggest there's anything to joke about. That's sick.

But you don't have to listen to what I have to say. You don't anyway. Archives everywhere (not just here) are overflowing. Go away and begin to remedy your own ignorance.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 May 07 - 03:45 PM

I'm glad you admitted you were ignorant. That is a first step. Your next step would be to actually read what people are telling you. Not once did I say you were ignorant of the facts. Your ignorance is the way you

I would love to listen to what you have to say on the issue, but all you are doing is insulting people instead of sharing your views. When someone mentions something - like the FACT that contract law has some bearing on the issue, you choose to demean the person instead of putting forth information to help us change our views. That is simply a sign that you can't defend your position in that case and attempt to slander is your only way out of the corner.

Of course I agree, as probably everyone here does, that Bulmer should be a humanitarian and ignore the contract and do the right thing. It is a shame these artists were naive in their youth, but we all make mistakes. Your one-sided views have importance, but you are not going to make youself heard by simply insulting those who might have something more to say.

I will be here. I'm not going away, neither are the rest of us.   I have a book to write.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 03:58 PM

. . . y'know, Olesco&Polytunnel&Teddywassname are so desperate to score some petty victory over me (for what?

Cos they want to stick up for their mate Bulmer?

Cos I'm a woman who shouldn't (acording to them) involve herself in 'boy's stuff'?)

that they're tying themselves up in untermale snarlings that are presumably meant to intimidate.

What fragile egos. One could speculate on the underlying problem . . . but the plight of the artists is so much more important.

Sod 'em.

The next Battle of Knaresborough is the one to win.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 04:15 PM

I would love to listen to what you have to say on the issue

No you wouldn't, you patronising pillock. You have never listened to me nor to anyone else who has all the facts ingrained on their inner being.

And there you go again, being patronising to the artists too. They were not naive in their youth. The contracts were standard for the time and caused no problem until many years later when . . . enter D R Bulmer (and N Sharpley).

Nor are my views 'one-sided'. I think as just about everyone else here on the spot feels, give or take the odd (extremely odd) half dozen Bulmer apologists who are doubtless down at the Yorkshire Lass at this minute, hopefully choking on their Black Sheep.

Fer chrissake, it is not a matter of 're-negotiating the contracts' but of buying back the rights and enabling those still left to control thei own work and destiny. I find it very difficult to understand why you bunch of grasping, transatlantic businessmen fail to grasp this. Or perhaps I don't . . .

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 May 07 - 04:31 PM

" y'know, Olesco&Polytunnel&Teddywassname are so desperate to score some petty victory over me (for what? "

No, we are not. This isn't a game. This is meant to be a discussion where we can learn and share views, and you have succeeded in ruining it. Congratulations.

You have little compassion and even less understanding. You seem to be the only one enjoying an opportunity to insult people. You obviously do not practice what you preach.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 May 07 - 04:35 PM

Litigation that would resolve all the ownership, rights, use and contract issues related to the Leader/Trailer catalog would be protracted and expensive, and it is unlikely that anyone involved would gain enough to make it worthwhile.   Short of that, a meeting of the minds would have to occur between Dave Bulmer and the participating artists, their representatives, or their heirs.

Even that "meeting of the minds" would require a significant amount of legal research (sorting out copyrights, for instance) -so it is likely that nothing much will happen, unless someone steps forward with a love of folk music and deep pockets--


An alternative might be a sheparded, one-at-a-time-as-need-arises process, but that would require cooperation--

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 04:39 PM

cooperation

. . . meanwhile, down at t'Yorkshire Lass . . .

Hah!

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 May 07 - 04:49 PM

M.Ted - we have had similar issues here in the U.S. I know many artists signed contracts and lost their rights. Can you think of any cases similar to what happened with Bulmer where no accord could be reached?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 May 07 - 04:55 PM

Ron-
Grayson and Whitter are probably the original source, as far as recordings are concerned. They sang and played music that was current in Kentucky in the late 1920s. Their music is available on CD (I have it on Document and County CDs). I also have a Folktrax recording of Frank Warner singing it.
      I can also supply Frank Profitt's version (on several CDs), the Folksay Trio's version and, in a pinch, I can find a copy of the Kingston Trio doing it.
      Ain't CDs wonderful!

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jeri
Date: 31 May 07 - 05:11 PM

Russ, Dick and whomever - there are other people who read threads and completely skip posts by those who don't have much to say and say it frequently. I'll read yours, though. Please don't change your modus operandi because of the persistantly obnoxious. That you don't get sucked in or scared off is why folks respect you. (Speaking for me and whoever agrees.)

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jim Lad
Date: 31 May 07 - 05:41 PM

Yeah: This time I have to agree. Not too often that we are visited by someone whose only intent is to insult others.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 07 - 05:58 PM

Well, Ron old boy, I told it like I view it. It is not a complicated subject to most of us, in fact it is a rather simple and clear issue of the right thing to do versus the wrong thing to do. You have unfortunately revealed your capacity to play the insult game like a good 'un yet you tar others with the second-hand brush used on yourself first. Why don't you just tell us what you think Mr B. should do instead of sittin' on your high horse pontificating loftily about "how complicated these issues can be" or whatever it was you said. Are you a lawyer, struck off or not?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 May 07 - 06:13 PM

Steve, I'm sorry if you seem to think I am sitting on a high horse. Yes, I do see it as a complicated issue and it appears I am not alone with that thought. Usually when a situation goes on as long as this one has, there is more to the story than appears on the surface.

No, I am not a lawyer - but I do have respect for them. I'm not sure what the term "struck off" means, perhaps you could educate me about that as well.   While it does seem that litigation has become a popular pastime and ridiciulous suits are brought to court, there is a great service they provide. In addition to my radio show,I am the booker for a local folk music club. (Our clubs operate very differently from yours in case you weren't aware.)   We recently moved to a new venue and had to draw up an agreement with the town. There was a lot of negotiation and the purpose was to protect both parties.   We did not sign the agreement blindly, and we made sure our interests were kept.   I also negotiate contracts with the artists who have performed at our club, and again we insure that both parties are satisified. No one is pressured into signing anything.   When artists appear on my radio show, we also make an agreement that no recordings are issued and the artists performances are protected. There are many artists on Mudcat who know me, and I think for you, Diane or anyone else to compare me to Bulmer is wrong.

I do not know what Mr. Bulmer should do because I do not have all the facts. The purpose of discussion was to bring up information and talk about it. You and Diane have more of a desire for those of us who are not familiar with the story to simply take your word for everything.

When I entered this conversation I posed a question. Diane immediately made a comment about my lawn ("sod off") and I will have you know the grass is growing perfectly fine. You then chose to jump at me.    If you wish to play in traffic, you take your chances.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 06:25 PM

I entered this thread at 12.43 to take issue with the dodgy CD salesman who was insulting Bill Leader, and talking completely out-of-order bollocks. Nowt new in that, he does it all the time to try and make out that his mate Bulmer is somehow above board with his dubious collecting and hoarding activities of both the tune and the record label varieties.

Together with the OP and a nice new-and-to-the-point Cornish person called Steve, we hammered home (yes, repetitively) the basic points to the not very nice and definitely dim Murkans who persistently fail to get that that anyone who sides with the beast of Harrogate is going to get the rough edge of our tongues.

So they went off on a particularly stupid diversion to plan an unauthorised, indeed entirely fabricated volume about ME (why?) and they're now waffling on about Tom Dooley and the flamin' Kingston Trio, FFS.

OTOH, WE kept on topic (except for little excursions to Montauk, Lancashire and Knaresborough - not that the last is off-topic as it's where the Beast actually lives)), and snapped at them far less than they deserved for patronising and sexually harassing drivel. Now they're in a petulant strop cos their 'boys' talk has been challenged. Aaaaaah, when it's all they CAN talk about, unaware as they are of the actual issues and they couldn't give a toss anyway.

Tough. How d'ya think the artists feel?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 06:33 PM

Indeed, yes. As Steve says, it's not at all complicated.
Not to the average brain.
You can act humanely and honourably or you can treat people like shit.
The only puzzling aspect is why does Bulmer do it when he's getting sod all out of it himself.
To revive the mantra, 'Do the deal, Dave'.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 May 07 - 06:48 PM

What is a sruck off solicitor?

Bulmer's business partner Neil Sharpley, that's who.
Had a run in with the Law Society for doing something a bit naughty with a client's money.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 May 07 - 06:50 PM

"You can act humanely and honourably or you can treat people like shit."

Well put.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 May 07 - 07:19 PM

DAVEBULMER has been blacklisted by the Musicians union,AND sharpley has been struck off by the law society.
DaveBulmer appears not to have acted honourably, with the exception of MickTems,however there is still time,for him to alter his reputation,

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 07 - 07:20 PM

It is ridiculously disingenuous to wring your hands as if the artists who "signed away their rights," or however it happened, were canny, grasping, devious individuals who knew what they were doing and were somehow taking a high-level calculated risk with their intellectual property in order to make a quick buck or something. Your average soul in the folk music world is just not like that. Ordinary chaps and chapesses they were, and are, who on the whole don't do legal stuff not least because it's perceived to cost an arm and a leg, so they, foolishly maybe and I'm the first to admit it, let someone else do the unwise deals. In other words, rip them off. Somebody please tell me where the morality is in a situation in which some bloke who does nothing but sit on recordings (not manuscripts or arrangements or tune-books but RECORDINGS, in which the artists did ALL the work, the blood, the sweat, the tears, the umpteen hundred takes, played and sang every note and probably impoverished themselves in the process by doing it instead of a day job, and much to the delight of all of us) and refuses to let the artists make a single penny out of their work for decades. Ron, old chap, I'll tell you how "complicated" an issue it is. It's a conflict between legal-technical and fairness-humanity. Who's side are you on, Ron? "Complications" are assuredly in the eye of the biased beholder.

Hands up all who want to hear "Ten Thousand Miles" in glorious CD-not-R quality in the knowledge that that wonderful piece of artistry will at last make a few quid for Nic Jones. Is your hand up, Ron, or are you contemplating all those complications?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 May 07 - 07:38 PM

Steve. I NEVER, EVER said I was on the side of "legal-technical". I do think that fairness-humanity is the right way for all of us to live our lives.   However, we live in a world where we have to deal with "legal-technical" and it impossible to fight that with ONLY good intentions.

"Complications" are NOT only in the eye of a "biased" beholder, and while I admire your steadfast dedication to seeing the right thing done, you will never accomplish that until you learn how to educate and speak with those who either have different views or less access to the story.

The behavior that you and Diane have shown to us bears little resemblance to anyone who professes to have "fairness-humanity" as their mantra. The name calling and insinuation is not something that I would expect from someone in the folk community here in the U.S.

Steve, the issue that you raise - about someone sitting on their works and not allowing the artist to earn from it is not new. If you look at contracts that performers signed for movies and television in the early days, they also signed away their rights and did not earn a penny when their work was shown in syndicated reruns and now on DVD's. (Plus there is the issue of public domain, which may be different in the UK. "Intellectual property" becomes public domain after a period of time.) Many of these actors signed away their "intellectual property", and if you ever come to New Jersey I will be glad to take you the Actors Home in Englewood and let you meet some of the people who lost out.

The idea should be to change the future. Prevent Bulmers from every again screwing an artist. It is a shame about what happened, and I think people should be made aware.   Is he releasing recordings? Is there a boycott? How is it publicized?

I am just curious to know - has Bulmer released ANY of these recordings to artists? If so, at what price? Has he made offers? What is his relationship with Dick Gaughin?

All of this is a sidetrack to the original topic, but I guess there is a relationship.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,bored
Date: 31 May 07 - 07:45 PM

Somebody please tell me where the morality is in a situation in which some bloke who does nothing but sit on recordings (not manuscripts or arrangements or tune-books but RECORDINGS, in which the artists did ALL the work, the blood, the sweat, the tears, the umpteen hundred takes, played and sang every note and probably impoverished themselves in the process

I suspect he paid for them.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 07 - 08:02 PM

Well, bored guest, that clinches it then. Money talks. More than fairness, humanity, sympathy, honesty. A few quid up front and sublime art can be hidden away forever, and you argue in favour of that!   Well, my non-complicated view is that Mr B's pounds are as nothing when put beside the wonderful work of the likes of Nic Jones, and I do know what I'm on about as I have an ancient, rotting but much-cherished cassette of Songs And Ballads and Noah's Ark Trap. Yep, pirated sometime way back in the mists of time and with as much hiss, wow and flutter as you could wish for. Wound the bugger back in with a pencil more times than I care to recall. Break into my house and nick that and I'd mourn. Maybe I should ease my conscience and send Nic a fiver. You know, if those recordings were released on proper CDs, reviewed in Froots and all that, played by Mr Harding and all that, I'd bet a tenner that you'd sell 20,000 copies in no time.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 07 - 08:12 PM

What the flippin' 'eck has public domain got to do with this, Ron? And don't give me all that bullying association-by-name-calling accusation stuff. Just talk about the issue. I'm so sorry that you were offended ever so slightly by being called weasly. We are robust types around here and we robust types soak up the knocks and resume discussion of the issues.   Now do you want to hear Nic singing Ten Thousand Miles on a proper CD that he gets royalities from or don't you? How hard is that? Un-weasel yourself, guv!

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,Member
Date: 31 May 07 - 08:43 PM

"DAVEBULMER has been blacklisted by the Musicians union"

Name your source please I do not believe this is true?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Big Mick
Date: 31 May 07 - 09:14 PM

Diane, I get your points. I understand, and in some ways, agree. This is an important topic. What I don't understand is why you need to be a horse's ass in making the point. Actually, I do get it. Some folks, like little children, just act out to get attention. Congratulations, it worked. But being an asshole doesn't help folks to understand your brilliance. But then again, you really couldn't give a shit about that. You simply want attention. You got it.

Mick

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 31 May 07 - 09:52 PM

Them that has...... gets

Them that dont's ....don't

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

"morality?" Open the doors - and see all the people!!!! look inside....there ain't no "steeple"

Some pay 99cents - others spend 99 minutes and collect on-line.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 31 May 07 - 10:05 PM

I have reel to reel recordings from the early 70's

They are in MY possesion - they belong to ME - when they are digitized and web-posted they "belong" to the world.

Now....do I sit, like a "setting hen" and sit and sit and sit (the recordings are mine...all mine) or seek out the original players and colloborate on "release dates????".....

SORRY...the recordings are mine....damn the writers, performers, studios....once "the genie has left the bottle" you will never get them to return.

CAMSCO is needs changing - the professional "folk" I know... cut out the "middle-man" five to eight years ago....CD's sell at $15.... from the artist direct....with 12.50 going directly to the artist.

Do It Yourself - DIY

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 May 07 - 10:30 PM

Garg-
Glad you don't seem to have tired of beating the same dead horse. I'd point out that YOUR tape recordings only belong to you when the artist has assigned rights to you. And, once that happens, then they're YOURS to do with as you see fit.
    The "professional folk" you know aren't recording for any known label--if they were, they'd pay the company a good piece for the efforts of recording and promoting them. If you don't want to buy from CAMSCO, that's fine. If you don't think that a retailer provides a service, that's fine, too.
    CAMSCO has done some reasonably good work in helping artists get their work out. Peggy Seeger, Ewan MacColl, Margaret MacArthur, Skip Gorman, Louis Killen, Danny Spooner, Almeda Riddle, Bob Coltman---maybe they're not up in the ranks of the "professional folk" you know, but I think that a few people may have heard of them. CAMSCO has re-released authorized editions of their recordings. Then, too, where would you go to find labels like Document, Fledg'ling, Fellside, Springthyme, Sleepytown, Harbourtown, Veterans, Claddagh and a couple of dozen others that don't seem to be in your local music store.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:40 PM

If Dave Bulmer was the shrewd entrepreneur and exploiter of talent that some believe, one suspects that he would have come up with something more lucrative than recording folk music;-)

One is inclined to think that his limitations as a businessman, and his personal idiosyncracies are the factors that shaped the situation. I doubt that he sees anything wrong with the way he has handled things--all the entrepreneurs I have worked with were equipped with a resiliant self-confidence, even in the face of utter disaster--

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,highlandman
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:46 PM

Sheesh, y'all.
I initially read this thread -- and have kept coming back to check -- because I thought I might learn something from it.
I have, but not what I had in mind.
O wad some power the giftie gie us....

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 01:11 AM

Tae see oorsel's as others see us. Or something like that.
To Gargoyle's rare but valid point.
In the past, all artists struggled until some company would take them on for a "Budget" recording. If the album failed, they were dropped but often remained tied up in some kind of contract for a while.
If they were successful, they were immediately tied into contracts which would keep them in poverty but provide some kind of fame.
Today, these companies and promoters pick up young bands, help them to produce albums which they cannot afford and put them out on the road with very little in the way of support or wages until they are beyond exhaustion. Slave Labour.
The independent artist can and does, sit in his/her office, manufacture his/her own albums, hire his/her own producer & studio, book his/her own gigs and create his/her own promo without ever leaving the swivel chair and would be a fool not to.
The technology is here and the timing is right.
Nothing at all to do with royalties but a noteworthy observation, none the less.
The less successful you are today, the better. In some ways.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 01:50 AM

don't give me all that bullying association-by-name-calling accusation stuff. Just talk about the issue

Oh, but they never do. Because they can't. They don't know because they don't think they need to and don't care anyway. After all this time and acres of explanation, all these pontificating, patronising suits can come up with is worship of their sort of business practice and tinpot legal 'theory' as though it were gospel, or more importantly, 'right'.

All the uncomplicated, unvarnished, shameful CM history has been unfolded YET AGAIN in recent days in the Bright Phoebus thread, yet still these pompous arses bleat that they know nothing of unauthorised sneaky CD-R releases, of the MU Notices against CM freely available for public viewing, Sharpley's Louth shenanigans, CM's Game Set Match injunction or what Dick Gaughan has had to say about his past association. And now it's our fault for not having TOLD them and for getting exasperated at their inability to do a tiny bit of basic research.

They're whingeing about having 'less access to the story' now. Bollocks. It's just a case of acquainting yourself with facts before placing fingers on keyboards. But no, they think they'll get by on ridicule, harassment and customary putdown of those who have been here all along. We don't 'have a different view'; other than having no explanation for Bulmer's motivation (who has?), we know what's actually occurred whereas you patently do not.

You talk about a 'folk community' in the US that behaves in a certain way (i.e. cow-tows to you?) but I don't see it on a map. Where is it? Even if such a Glockamara concept exists it has sod all to do with a shady company screwing musicians, and for what? And the very opposite of syndication and mass-produced commercial DVDs. You can. after all, take on Disney and WIN . . . (c.f. The Lion Sleeps Tonight).

Big Mick inquires why I have to be a 'horse's ass' in making these points. Simple. Just take a look at what I'm trying to get through to. But am I getting attention? Sadly not. Far more importantly, is Nic Jones et al getting attention? Far more sadly not. But that is what the aim is.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 02:33 AM

I swear to God, I thought she was away to bed!

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 02:52 AM

Another recruit to The Order Of The Patronising Gits, I see.
It's past 0700 here.
Isn't it time YOU got off to bed over there?
After a sleep maybe there'd be a chance of a post with some vestige of coherency and relevance to the topic.
Or a tune that's rewritten out of 6/8.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:09 AM

I don't know why but you have been nothing but rude to me, right from the start and if you care to check you will note that I was actually standing up for you.
Now please, read your prescription a little more carefully in order to avoid any more episodes like this one.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:25 AM

Standing up for me?

No you weren't. You were trying to have a go at Greenhaus, Olesko & Co (worthy enough in itself) but got it wrong.

Then you descended into sexist crap, which is what I find rude and inappropriate (and off-topic).

Musically, I was thinking in particular of a tune like The Star Of Logy Bay which, when dehackneyfied, becomes half decent. Not rude, but helpful advice if you want it.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:32 AM

Sexist? Me?
The Star of Logy Bay ... Dehacknefyed?

What the heck are you talking about?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: treewind
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:54 AM

""DAVEBULMER has been blacklisted by the Musicians union"
Name your source please I do not believe this is true?"

Dave Bulmer hasn't by name, but Celtic Music, the business for which he is effectively 100% responsible, has been listed in the "special notices" (now retitled "ask us first") section of the Musicians Union magazine.

Obviously it doesn't go into detail for good legal reasons, but gives this advice: "Members are advised that offers of engagement by or on behalf of the following should be reported to the relevant MU official BEFORE acceptance" followed by a list of business names and MU contacts. The list is updated every issue, but Celtic Music has been included in it in every issue for years.

As a matter of fact Dave Bulmer as an individual is a MU member and even on one of its regional committees, a cause of concern to some other members.

Anahata

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 07:04 AM

I apologise DAVE BULMER has not been blacklisted by the Musicians Union,the company WITH which he is involved, Celtic Music has and is.
Celtic Music has been blacklisted.
so could CELTIC MUSIC or Dave Bulmer [whichever one is reponsible and whichever one has a remnant of moral values],behave decently, release NicJones cds and give Nic a good deal,Nicwas/is an inspiration to many people,and gave/ could still give,alot of pleasure to a lot of people ,it is the least Nic Deserves.
Dave Bulmer did the decent thing to Mick Tems,.Dave, do your image afavour and help Nic Jones .

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 07:04 AM

150