morality of collecting

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 02:06 PM

jim carroll,thereis adifference between PeterKennedy ,and Dave Bulmer,Peter,is dead.Dave Bulmer is not and may be open to influence.,and change.
I think there are other differences,but that is just My opinion.
what is important now is the morality of people, still collecting or in possession of other peoples collections.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 02:22 PM

As I said at 11.41 (which is going on for 5 in the morning here) in the course of pointing out that I wasn't and didn't intend to be engaged in house cleaning but was reading a few tunes, the Oxidised Non-Instrument can sod off too.

I was deeply incensed by his (yeah, has to be a him) intensely personal, trivialising shit but decided to ask the Big Mick person how it was he was justifying having a go at me for the way in which I counter the sexist abuse and trivialisation yet was failing to condemn the idiots who spout it in the first place. I said:

I write to topic and, sadly, know the facts of the issue. I'm considerably more impressed by those blokes who cringe at the arrogant gits who don't know what they're talking about, and decide to go for me instead. The issue is far too important to any of us closely involved to have any time for the pompous, testosterone-fuelled (thanks Steve) throwbacks.

Mick mentioned that he thought I was 'unfair' to Mr Olesko, at which I said:

But that's exactly what I mean, he went completely off-topic to talk about ME in a derogatory way instead of what to do about the issues under discussion. When Steve or Dick argue against the, at best ambivalent at worst weasly stance on the villains and even defend me (thanks chaps), they at least get a reply that takes them seriously. All I get is trivialised crap because it is beyond their comprehension that a woman could have anything to contribute. That's why I have to shout to make myself heard. 'Twould be better if I didn't need to, I agree. But I do have to. I suppose they don't even know they're doing it. Ingrained superiority, or as Steve put it, testosterone-fuelled baying.

Don't know yet what he thinks about that.

As it goes, I have known Bill Leader since the late 1960s, was there through his recordings and knew many of the artists, some of whom still talk to me (when not spitting feathers at the situation). I really don't give a toss what many of you (especially 'over there') think of me cos you don't know me anyway. But don't any of you dare diminish what the artists are going through and, as yet, getting nowhere.

And DON'T call me a 'f*lkie. My music extends way beyond that narrow ghetto and I have no wish to be lumped in with (some of) you lot. Thank you.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 05:09 PM

Diane, don''t lead with the chin.

And DON'T call me a 'f*lkie.

You ae a f*lkie

Whtever one of them may be. How about that.

I have called you one. I missed out the bold type. What happens now?

:D

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 05:09 PM

yes Diane.I too knew Bill Leader[probably not as well as you],,Idid my first recording with him,the mastertapes were later destroyed in a fire[so Bulmer doesnt own this one].I can only say he was a pleasure to work with and a real gentleman.
I am in total agreement about dimiminishing what the artists are going through[JimCarroll please note].people are people whether they are revivalists or traditional singer.
Diane is in my opinion,someone who is concerned about these injustices,and needs all of our support,united we stand, and in union we may acheive something.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 06:49 PM

There seems to be no hope that this thread will ever lurch back on course for more than a few minutes at a time, so I'll restrict myself here to comment on a single point that Ralph made a little earlier.

So far as the Grainger material is concerned, 'Celtic Music' owns the rights in the 'new' masters prepared by Bill Leader, not in the original wax cylinder recordings, which are now, I think, the property of the Grainger Museum in Australia. There are copies at the VWML and in the late Peter Kennedy's archive; probably others elsewhere. Peter used to sell cassette and CDR copies, though I don't know whether, strictly, he had the legal right to do so.

It may well be that Dave Bulmer couldn't re-issue that material (even if he wanted to, which seems unlikely) without negotiating a new license agreement with the copyright holders. Equally, there is no obvious reason why new, digitally optimised masters cannot be made from copies of the original cylinders (or even from the cylinders themselves if they are still playable), provided the appropriate permissions are obtained. 'Celtic Music' would have no rights, moral or legal, over such.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 07:00 PM

You are so right, Captain Birdseye. There is nothing that Dave Bulmer would get more amusement from than seeing people who basically agree with each other about what a true git he is squabbling over the ways in which we talk to each other about him. Diane fights the bloody good fight, fellers. Slack must be cut and the testosterone pools in the trouser turn-ups must be mopped up. Diane is passionate, feisty and a pain in the butt but all power to her bloody elbow say I! :-)

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: johnadams
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 07:06 PM

It may well be that Dave Bulmer couldn't re-issue that material (even if he wanted to, which seems unlikely) without negotiating a new license agreement with the copyright holders. (Malcolm)


...... and that goes for a large percentage of the traditional content of the Leader catalogue. The source tapes are owned by people like Roy Palmer and Janet Kerr, etc. That's why Rod Stradling was able to do a new album of George Dunn on the Musical Traditions label. Other re-issues could be done be more up to date research notes etc.

Probably the only stuff we're being denied is the revival albums which is a shame but not quite such a catastrophe as if the traditional stuff were locked up.

If there really IS a market for all the traditional stuff then we'll see it reflected in Rod Stradling's and John Howson's recent sales figures. Then they'll be confident about putting out more.

The morality of the finances is not really an issue - if the sales are there and the money earned then people like Rod and John will do the right thing, no question.

J

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 08:27 PM

If the sales are there and the money earned would Mr Bulmer ever do the right thing? Just think. Release of the early Nic Jones albums would go down a storm. Who'd like to estimate how many copies would be sold! Of course, I'm talking about ~real~ CDs, and there would need to be good publicity, but why wouldn't there be?   Mike Harding and even Radio Three would joyfully play the buggers to death and Froots and the rest (and definitely NOT "...and the rest") would eulogise. There would be no losers, not Mr B, Nic or all the rest of us.   Clearly, there's something about psychology I haven't quite cottoned on to as yet...

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 08:54 PM

Dave (and others)-
Re CAMSCO co-operation.

Co-operation in what? I've already offered to give royalties (out of my pocket) to any artists who are entitled to same and are not getting them from Celtic Music (nobody's asked as yet). My only reason for carrying CM releases is simply that they're good music that's otherwise unobtainable.
   All of the Bulmer-haters seem to agree that CM has the rights to these recordings, regardless of how fervently anyone would wish otherwise. Should I also refuse to carry recordings of material collected by, say, Lomax, who cheated Leadbelly unmercifully? Or Green Linnet recordings, since they've been accused of stiffing recording artists? Or Peter Kennedy's Folktrax series, because Kennedy's actions were apparently less than ethical? Or recordings by Rounder, who are "sitting on" a large number of out-of-print CDs? I'm not responsible for someone else's ethics and business sense, or lack of same.
    Look, my interest is making good folk music available. I won't carry illegally pirated recordings. The amount of money I have made, am making or can make from the sale of CM's recordings is trivial. Outside of some recorded by The Kipper Family or Sid Kipper himself, I doubt that I've sold more than fifteen in toto (that would come to a fat $32.75 US in royalties, assuming that the various artists were owed royalties for these CDs.)
   I fail to see how refusing to carry CM's releases would do anyone a damn bit of good.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 09:03 PM

It's a bit like buying Israeli new spuds. You don't know whether the chap who grew them is getting anything out of the knock-down amount you're paying, or whether the money's going to some Palestinian-basher. Being an ethical buyer or an ethical middle-man is very tough these days.   Follow your well-informed conscience and don't sell any Bulmer CD-Rs!

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 09:48 PM

Please.. [ok.. more frustrated plea..] for f@cks sake !!!???


please.. for the benefit of new entrants into this long running tagic saga.

PLEASE can you most longly entrenched individual combatants

just keep simply to the point..

its hard anough work
just trying to read all the way through these threads
to get a clearer idea of whats wrong and how it could be made beter

without all this ego fueled one upmanship clever clogs
middle class over educated drivel
about herrings and f@ck knows what else clouding the main issues..


PLEASE just stick to the main points for the sake
of effective reasonable communictive discourse.

sorry.. didn't get served in time for last orders so i'm relatively sober this weekend.........

thank you mates..

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,N. Spencer
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 10:18 PM

Can I add my voice to those of Diane, Steve, Captain etc? I think this goes way beyond testosterone fuelled cut 'n' thrust of quasi-intellectual debate: this is about real, living people and the music they've made. No wonder people get passionate. It's no good coming over the big fake dad and pretending that because a similar thing may have also happened 50 years ago there's nothing we can do about it and we all should stop whingeing. Additionally this whole Bulmer thing is doubly ridiculous in an era where albums can be reissued very cheaply via MP3 - cutting out the manufacturing and distribution costs that might arguably make CD reissues prohibitive. There are even download sites like Woven Wheat Whispers that specialise in folk and would do most of the work for Mr B! And they pride themselves on having an MCPS license and doing things the honourable way, in terms of recompensing the artist. In the 21st century, there's really no longer any excuse...

Best Wishes,

Nigel

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 11:43 PM

" Mick mentioned that he thought I was 'unfair' to Mr Olesko, at which I said:
But that's exactly what I mean, he went completely off-topic to talk about ME in a derogatory way instead of what to do about the issues under discussion."

Excuse me, but I never talked about you in a derogatory way until you called me a scumbag, and even then I restrained myself. IF you think that defending myself from your unfounded remarks about me, then you are wrong again.   If you think because I take a questioning attitude toward your remarks my attitude toward you was "testosterone fueled", then you hav an odd way of looking at people.

You aren't perfect, as we have seen in this thread. You take a position and other people question it, and you attack. That is not a passion to be proud of. Yes, there are real people involved, but you did not make your case and give those of us who want to find out more no reason to do so.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,pfr
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 11:52 PM

aaarrgghh !!!!??

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 01:24 AM

All I get is trivialised crap because it is beyond their comprehension that a woman could have anything to contribute.

Nothing could be farther from the truth regarding most of the male members of the Mudcat. Of course, if you dish it out but can't take it, you will get a spirited response, then you could twist it into some kind of generalised condemnation, ala above, and you would be wrong.

kat

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:46 AM

Mr Olesko

May I remind you and anyone else that you entered this thread with an entirely off-topic, trivialising declaration from nowhere that you intended to write my biography (and this was why I called you a scumbag) and some slimy creep called M.Ted offered to contribute amusing 'aneccdotes', to which you replied: 'My lawyer will call your lawyer', at which point Joe Offer closed the thread.

Then it mysteriously re-opened and you described yourself as a 'old dinosaur'. You said (as your first vaguely on-topic contribution):

This is a complicated subject. A contract is a contract, and while 'moral' issues may be present, there are also 'ethical' questions. I'm not defending Bulmer, everything I have read about him makes him sound slimey. Still, I think there are other sides to the issue.

Steve Shaw said:

Yes indeed, there are other sides to the issue all right. Here's one of them. One of the very finest singers in the English or any other tradition made some sublime albums. The rights to those recordings passed to a bloke who will not allow this wonderful man to make a single penny from them, in spite of the fact that he came upon very hard times and was unable to perform ever again.   Please do not bore me with you weasel, moral, ethical or contractual issues.

And I said:

The 'other side of the issue' is exactly as described by Steve Shaw above. Although not obliged in law to do anything at all, Bulmer's publishing company could perform a humanitarian function not only for the artists but a lucrative one for himself as well as them by selling the rights back. Please do not bore me either with attempts to justify why he should not.

After which Mr O treated Steve Shaw with polite contempt and me only with contempt. He says that I 'take a position' and attack when other people question it. Bollocks. I describe how it is, I have no need to manufacture positions. Whereas you and your testosterone-fuelled cohorts including the ridiculously-named Rusty Dobro simply fling in misinformed, usually off-topic insults. You don't address the topic because you can not.

Hope this helps Katlaughing who is obviously far too busy getting to know all the male members of Mudcat to address a serious issue about real people herself.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 04:08 AM

Happy Sunday everybody.
Just a few points.
Interestingly, Joe Offer has closed the Phoebus thread. I wonder who it was that asked him to do that?
Hardly surprising I suppose. This whole sorry saga must make strange reading to our friends across the pond. And the vitriol released in that thread (inc me, Mea Culpa) Has obfuscated the very deep feelings felt by a lot of us Brits over this affair.
Malcolm. (and John Adams hi!)
Thanks for your input, It's really good to know that the rights to some of the rarest recordings remain safe.

It would be wonderful if this collection of recordings could be made available.

Messrs Howson, Hall, Stradling, Engle.
I would be happy to help in the process.

Mr Greenhaus.

From what I know, you have been absolutely clear about your dealings "With the Trade"
Of course, you are running a business, no problem.
You deal with whoever approaches you, in your own way.
But, as has been stated many times, this isn't about money.
I know that you have been squeaky clean in your dealings with Julia Jones (Mollie Music). And I salute you for that.
It's wonderful that these compilations of Nics work are available in the US.
But, what a shame that the original recordings of the first 4 albums are being sneakily put out, (a sort of, meet you in the car park, and I'll slip you a copy, sort of way)
I just find it very sad.
Everbody else, Thanks for your input, but lets just stay with the facts, and stop sniping at each other.
Oxygen of Publicity
Great phrase, but it can turn round and bite you, if you're not careful.
Joe can close as many threads as he likes, but, sadly this topic (sic) won't go away, (I really wish it would)
Have a nice day

Ralph

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 07:23 AM

Thanks Malcolm Douglas and John Adams, for your posts it clarifies the situation.
I think revivalist material is equally important as source material.
Roots are important,but so is development of material[hence the interest particuarly in Nic Jones].

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: johnadams
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 07:47 AM

I agree Dick. The recordings of today are tomorrow's resource. As tradition carriers it's important that we just keep bashing on. In the long run, the stuff will not be lost as it's spread all over the world on vinyl and culturally, it's the content that's important. The accessibility and morality things are a vital but separate issue.


In the short term, some people not a million miles from me have discussed re-recording their albums. Others have apparently already done it.

Where this is not feasible (for a variety of reasons including death!), that's where the focus of this struggle should lie.

J

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 09:42 AM

"This whole sorry saga must make strange reading to our friends across the pond."

"Strange" would be an extremely mild adjective to describe the impression that this and the related threads give of the English folk scene. I'm not saying that any of you should care, of course ...

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:06 AM

"May I remind you and anyone else that you entered this thread with an entirely off-topic, trivialising declaration from nowhere that you intended to write my biography "

Ms. Easby - May I remind you that my point was not off-topic as the original post discusses the act of a collector acknowledging their sources with some sort of compensation.

While it may have been beyond your comprehension to understand that I was making an analogy, that is exactly what I was trying to illustrate. Instead, for some odd reason you felt that I was actually writing a book and somehow that meant it would be an attack on you. All readers to this thread seem to have understood that, except you.

I have addressed the topic several times, and you keep sidetracking it with insults and dismissals. Your lack of ability to connect with others and rude behavior is the source of my contempt. People like you serve as roadblocks and have no effect in making change in the world. You have done your own cause a great disservice.

I am still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions, and please do tell me to do research and starting reading other threads. If you cannot summarize your thoughts in a simple post, then the issue is more complicated - as I originally stated.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:11 AM

(I believe that should read: " ... and please do NOT tell me ... " - You're welcome!).

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:23 AM

(Oddly enough, I wrote this right after Ralphie's post and before Ron's.)

Ralphie, based on magazines and websites I've read, I've noticed there's a BIG difference between the US and the UK when it comes to how much nastiness is acceptable. There are some around here who are able to hit threads often and at length, until the thread becomes focused on them. There are some here who enjoy fighting on a personal level enough so they don't care if they disdainfully ignore the topic or look like assholes to others. I suspect a thread where that happens just won't last long. Mudcat (IMO) was meant to be a place for people to freely discuss things, and NOT have to constantly worry about getting attacked. It may be what you're used to, but I don't believe it's right, and I don't believe it's what the majority here want.

Dick, as far as I can understand, wants to make the recordings available to those who want them. He's tried everything in his power to make sure the musicians aren't getting screwed. I believe he's written to most, and most (if not all) haven't replied.

On the other hand, the subject of Bulmer's release of recordings is such a sore subject with some that perhaps they don't want to deal with it at all, to receive a possibly small amount of royalties from one distributor. Additionally, they would then be in the position of taking money from someone who wasn't responsible for paying it to them and letting the truly responsible party get out of his obligation.

In my opinion, the primary reason for all of this is that many feel that these guys have screwed enough people for long enough that there is no possible way for them to 'make nice' and stay in the business. If they did everything right (like THAT might happen), a significant number of people would still not want to do business with them. I suspect a boycott wouldn't work though, as enough people don't know what's happened or don't care.

I don't know what the best solution to this might be, or even if there IS one. Of course, no one else does either, or these threads would be so ubiquitous.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:49 AM

Mr Olesko

I don't have a 'cause'. I'm in business to help artists trapped in a tragic and unfair impasse if I can, some of whom are personal friends, one of whom actually asked me to do what I could and gave me permission to speak on his behalf.

Steve Shaw summarised 'the other side to the issue' as succinctly as I have ever heard it. Let that suffice and cut the weasly words.

And if on another occasion you feel obliged to drag someone's name into your bizarre attempts at justification of the indefensible, don't let it be mine. Your jokey-blokey mates had a field day of testosterone-fuelled (I do like that expression though it wasn't mine) off-topic, sexist, denigrating boys' talk which diverted and damaged what some of us are trying to achieve.

Ah, and I've remembered now. You were the one who, when Chris Conder was announcing the world exclusive first play of Bellowhead on Cool As Folk, you came on bleating that you'd played Bellow a few times.

Ahem.

Bellow = Spiers&Boden duo 2nd album.
Bellowhead = later 11-member band.

Is this the standard of accuracy your radio show listeners are accustomed to?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:52 AM

Jeri said:

I believe he's written to most, and most (if not all) haven't replied.

Good grief, and why do you think that is?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 11:14 AM

LMAO...the only way she can "make her case" is to slag off at the rest of us. Won't do much for her cause, imo.

I've been here for ten years, if I don't know the fellahs by now, they ain't worth knowing. Obviously you aren't.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 11:25 AM

Diane, you missed, or didn't understand, the next paragraph:"... the subject of Bulmer's release of recordings is such a sore subject with some that perhaps they don't want to deal with it at all, to receive a possibly small amount of royalties from one distributor. Additionally, they would then be in the position of taking money from someone who wasn't responsible for paying it to them and letting the truly responsible party get out of his obligation.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 11:54 AM

Well, as I type this kat has made three contributions to the thread, none of which makes any sort of case for anything remotely to do with the thread. I wonder what she thinks of Mr Bulmer/the morality of collecting. Maybe one day I'll find out. End of muse.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Dave Earl
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 12:03 PM

Steve

We have one Countess/Diane with her way of going about things.

Don't, please go down that road yourself.

Kat responded to an unnecessary swipe by DE and your reaction to that is in just what we have come to expect from she who was formerly known as Countess.

Dave

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 01:17 PM

katlaughing:

Are you trying to tell us there's something about you and Mr Bulmer we don't know?
Phew, there's a relief.
The appalling sidekick Mr George 'Tyke' Clarke (recently disappeared) was trying to palm him off on me the other day.
You're welcome.
Oh, and I really must apologise for only being here for 4 years.
We in the UK are just so technophobic.
And suspicious of some of the very peculiar men (and not just men) with very creepy attitudes crawling around here.
Even if it is the internet.
As I said earlier to the extremely peculiar Mr Olesko, I don't have a 'case'.
There are people, many of whom I know, that I want to help.
You don't care? Sod off then and leave it to those who do.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 01:46 PM

My reaction is, as ever, to try to elicit responses apropos of Mr Bulmer and sympathy for Nic Jones. At least I have something to say, as does Diane. That is what discussion forums are about and that is the path I take, tho' occasionally robustly. Now YOUR point Mr Cap is...?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 02:02 PM

Steve: I believe Cap's point is to urge you not to do exactly what you seem to be both doing and, at the same time, criticizing - that is, getting sidetracked from the core discussion to deal with what you feel are irrelevant personal remarks.

That the sum of my point.

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

"And if on another occasion you feel obliged to drag someone's name into your bizarre attempts at justification of the indefensible, don't let it be mine. Your jokey-blokey mates had a field day of testosterone-fuelled (I do like that expression though it wasn't mine) off-topic, sexist, denigrating boys' talk which diverted and damaged what some of us are trying to achieve."

Your paranoia speaks for itself.   There was no "bizarre" attempt on my part to "drag" your name into anything. If you feel that "off-topic", "sexist" and "denigrating boys talk" was not necessary, why did you choose to make fun of Dick Greenhouse's name, call me (and others) scumbags, and denigrate everyone who so much as questions your statements. You may think you are the royal highness, but you've revealed yourself to be a royal pain in the ass who resorts to gutter tactics when they realize they can't discuss something intelligently.

Sod off yourself lady.

"As I said earlier to the extremely peculiar Mr Olesko, I don't have a 'case'."

I'm not sure why you are saying you don't have a case, and I am not sure why you have to resort to more name calling. I did not do that to you.

Diane, all of your spin doctoring and remarks are available for all to see. You can't hide from yourself. My remarks are also out in the open. You can say what you will, but I think most normal people will judge it accordingly.

Also, I think you have me confused with someone else - I have no idea what you are referring to about "Bellowhead".   I don't recall every playing such a recording here in the U.S.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:41 PM

Bellowhead".   I don't recall every playing such a recording here in the U.S.

That was rather the point. It turned out you'd been playing tracks from Bellow

When I say 'I don't have a case', I mean (as any fule kno) that it's unnecessary to make one for behaving decently and ethically.

a royal pain in the ass

Indeed I am. First correct statement you've made. And I won't be stopping till those artists who want one get a deal.

Very odd people, these Murkans. Ooooh, must look at the small print first and see how we can screw these artists even more . . .

Must be a result of far too much Bushification.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:46 PM

It appears, sadly, that Guest meself (brave name, btw) and Ron are attempting to do all in their power to hijack this forum away from the substantive and very important issues to hand. They have given up contributing opinions on the said issues and prefer the much easier path of indulgence in personal attacks. As I said, just the stuff to have Mr Bulmer laughing all the way to I don't know where.   You do have to wonder at the motives of these two chaps. Hey, Guest 'n' Ron, would you or would you not like to hear 10,000 Miles on a real CD by Nic Jones in the knowledge that he'd be receiving royalties from your purchase?   Yes or no? Or is it too complicated to answer? And if yes how do you think we can achieve that outcome? Or would you rather just carry on attacking Diane who I just know would answer those two questions the way the vast majority of us here would answer them?   Have either of you actually got anything to say at all?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:57 PM

" That was rather the point. It turned out you'd been playing tracks from Bellow "

I think you have me confused with someone else. I do not recall ever playing anyting from Bellow either, and I checked my library and it is not there.

Steve, no, this is not an attempt to hijack the thread. When you and Diane choose to attack individuals rather than the point we make, we are forced to defend ourselves. I know it makes you feel like a "robust" individual, but you are not fooling anyone by trying to change the focus.

As I've previously answered your question, I will do so again because it seems as if you did not understand. Yes, I would love to see Nic Jones recordings released on real CDs and to have him earn real royalties. Was that too complicated an answer for you Steve?

Unfortunately, I doubt the royalities would be as high as you imagine, but still it would be a help - and it would help others realize just how good Nic Jones was. A generation has grown up that never heard Nic Jones live. Here in the United States, Nic Jones is unfortunately not well known at all. It would be wonderful to have recordings to share of his original recordings. The new Topic disc is nice, but it cannot replace the originals.

You ask how you can achieve that outcome? I wish I knew. Everytime I , or others, bring up a question we are insulted or browbeat. What I do know is that neanderthal responses will not serve your purpose and artists would starve to death in the streets before the public takes notice of messages like the one you are delivering.

Get over yourself and stop your personal attacks on those who are trying to discuss the issue. You are the one that is making it possible for Bulmer to continue on in his merry way. Is that your intent?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 04:01 PM

I'll answer since no-one else seems inclined.

(1) Yes. All four lost albums in a boxed set. Until that happens, keep on buying Unearthed (Mollie Music MMCD02/03).

(2) Er, short of setting off to Yorkshire with a shotgun, isn't this what we are supposed to be deciding?

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 04:17 PM

I haven't attacked anyone. Being direct is not the same as attacking. You're a very sensitive man obviously. I am far from Neanderthal, btw, as my appearance would reveal. Would you like me to send a photo? Actually, I suppose I could regard being called Neanderthal a personal attack of the kind you purport to eschew were it not for the fact that I regard the Neanderthals as a wonderful and noble race of humankind who were in harmony with their environment. Apart from that your post bears puzzlingly little relation to anything I've discussed. Act if you will to unfurrow my brows.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 04:45 PM

Sorry Steve, your doublespeak isn't working. I guess I am sensitive when a stranger calls me a scumbag, weasal - and worst of all, a lawyer.   

I know my posts are not puzzling to anyone, even with your spinning. These tactics are wearing thin. Enough. If you don't wish to discuss the subject, just say so.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 04:52 PM

OK.
People.
Please stop this.
It's becoming unpleasant, and does not reflect well on the contributors to this thread.
All the arguements (Pro and Con) have been made.
Nothing will change re CM and Mr Bulmer.
I've been trying to get my head around this situation fo 20 years or more.
I'm actually going to give up the fight now.
Mr Dave Bulmer won....
I just hope he is happy
Goodbye
Ralph

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 05:12 PM

Steve:

I believe I have made two brief posts to this lengthy thread - and both were, however misguided, well-intentioned attempts to draw the discussion back to its focus. In one - way, way, back - I made a mild and cheerful suggestion that Ron and Diane apologize to each other. Unfortunately, they both ignored me, and things soon got beyond the point where that would seem be any kind of a possibility. In my last post, I was explaining what I took to be the sensible advice of another poster - and which it seemed to me you had misinterpeted - to stick to the topic and avoid the temptation to slide into personal squabbles. Your response to this was to imply that I lack courage, to state that I'm trying to 'hijack the thread', that I'm making personal attacks because that is easier than discussing the issue, that I have some ulterior motives, that I have been attacking Diane and enjoying doing so, etc. I'm a little bewildered by that response, but PLEASE do not try to explain.

You are welcome to check to see if I made any other posts; I can't be bothered. I may have. I'm sure, though, that far from having "given up contributing opinions on the said issues", I never DID contribute an opinion. And, no, as a matter of fact I don't "have anything to say at all" about the issues. I don't know anything about the situation and the persons involved other than what I've read on this thread, and I hardly think that qualifies me to start running off my mouth. I don't even know anything about this Nic Jones, other than that he appears to be a very respected figure in the UK folk scene. If you really want an opinion from me, here it is: if Nic Jones and others have been subjected to an injustice, I would like to see that righted. Is that good enough?

As for the issue of the use of pseudonyms for posting, it's often been discussed here, but you can always start a thread in the BS section to discuss it again. Depending what else I have on my plate, I may drop in to 'contribute' or I may not.

Once again, I would encourage you to talk about the topic at hand, and stop looking for, or trying to create, enemies. Look at the posts you've made so far - how much have YOU had to say about the topic, and how much about ... other things? That's a rhetorical question.

All the best.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 05:33 PM

The only mildly off-topic remarks Steve Shaw has made have been in defence of me, for which I thank him.

There are those contributing to this thread who are committed to the pursuit of justice, and those who are in it for some kind of game with no regard whatsoever for those whose livelihoods have long been, and still are, at stake.

Yes, I am a pain in the arse and will continue to be one until this is resolved. All I can do is shout and argue at those who, inexplicably, fail to recognise the injustice.

Others, such as Ralph who will be the capable, practical one who will bring the re-releases to fruition when the time comes, is now in despair and talks of giving up. Will someone else please call him and beg him not to do this. Right now, I can't do it.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 05:45 PM

Let us rumble on below the surface, Diane. Ralph is right about this reflecting badly on the contributors. Whilst a couple of the testosterone-kids smirk, I squirm. This will run and run but perhaps not in this thread.

And, as a parting shot to the conspiracy theorists, I haven't a bloody clue who Diane is and she hasn't a bloody clue who I am, but if she's ever in Bude the Doom Bar's definitely on me. :-)

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 05:52 PM

Steve and Diane - if you are ever in NYC, the round is on me.   I truly think we could have a civil discussion face to face. There is too much "testoterone" being used here, on both sides of the fence.

Trust me, I am not smirking. I am sorry this discussion went this way.   If you treated those of us who were asking questions with a little more respect, I think you would have succeded in convicing many people of the need to pressure Bulmer to "do the right thing".   Instead, you helped create doubt, which did no good.   I'm still left with unanswered questions, and searches of the internet show that there are others like me who also have some doubts. The only way to get the help that is needed is to show the cause. You failed to do that.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 05:54 PM

Yes, thanks for the broadside at the conspiracy theorists. I meant to add such a comment myself.

And of course Ralph is right. He usually is. Not about giving up though.

See ya in the Doom Bar. Some day.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 06:13 PM

Cobblers, Ron, as ever. But I'd give you the benefit in NYC even though I don't know about that frozen apology for "beer" you have over there. We could put the world to rights over a pint of ten of Doom, Diane, of that I'm certain. And Ralph, it's not about winners and losers. What we want is for everyone to win. Even that funny feller in Yorkshire. I speak with venom scarcely concealed as I'm a Lancashire lad missen. :-)

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 06:15 PM

A pint OR ten that would be. What is said can be unsaid.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 06:20 PM

Hey - just as you have become friends - don't start arguing on the merits of American beer, please.

Having been to the US of A twice I can confirm that spend a little time searching - some good beer out there.

Not much mind you...but some......

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 06:39 PM

I've never found any good beer in the US.
Nor in Cornwall, actually.
Steve, since you're a Lancashire lad, can we re-arrange that to Boddington's pub instead?
I speak as a Yorkshire woman/drinker who'd actually prefer Black Sheep.
But not in Harrogate.
Obviously.

Subject: RE: morality of collecting
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 06:52 PM

hold your horses.... at the risk of starting another fight, you don't know s#*t about beer in the U.S. !!!!!

I'm not going to drift this thread anymore than it already has, but I can guarantee you that you are drinking the wrong stuff. We are more than Bud and Coors.   I've sampled Boddington's, and it isn't bad - at least the stuff they export here, but it doesn't compare to our microbrews. There are more styles of beer brewed in the U.S. than in any country in the world. You probably never sampled even a Samuel Adams, and I doubt you were ever exposed to anything from Stoudts, Riverhorse, Smuttynose, Flying Fish, or Anchor Steam.

Yes, I think we do want to see the "right" thing done, but there is still a lot of factors and work required to get to that point. I really suggest listening to others to help you get to that point.