Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 03:05 PM

Jim, I have to disagree with you,I dont think Walter was a natural performer,he was in my opinion a good singer,but when I think of natural performers, Sam Larner springs to my mind,a man who was in his element singing in his local pub,thats not my opinion of Walter.

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 03:21 PM

Jim, again you are being economical with the truth.Peter Bellamy approached two record companies, Topic and Leader,on Walter Pardons behalf, this led to Walter coming to the attention of a wider public,So it was a combination of both Roger Dixon and Peter Bellamy that led to Walters wider popularity.

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST,Val
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 07:13 PM

Rev said (among other good points) "The informants always have the right to place conditions on the usage of their material. "

In a general philosophical way, and for the most part in the particulars as well, I happen to agree with you, Rev.

However, the one statement above is based upon the assumption that the informant is truly the correct person to make such a decision.

For example, what if some young punk upstart decides he wants to make a fool of the local Elders. He gives a Collector some smattering of Lore (maybe not complete or correct) and grants permission to publish, use, or abuse same? Granted, the Collector may be acting in good faith and "ethically". However the Elders might reasonably be upset at a possible misrepresentation of their culture and/or revelation of mysteries that were not intended for general publication. Yes, the Elders in this example probably would be REALLY upset at the Young Punk Upstart, but they might also be rightly annoyed at the Collector.

Another imaginary example, perhaps more likely in this day and age is: I transcribe a song from some guy who CLAIMS that the piece is "traditional", that he learned from his great-grandpappy who learned it during The War. Turns out it was composed just last year by his ex-girlfriend whom he's mad at and he knows she hasn't recorded it yet, so he's setting her (and me) up for a copyright dispute.

Granted, these are suppositions and one can go mad trying to cover ALL the "What If's". There probably are not any simple or certain answers to avoiding problems, especially when dealing with people who are intentionally dishonest. Hopefully that does not happen too often. But it's also a good reminder of one reason why documenting your sources & research can be important: to prove you acted in good faith if a question arises later on.

Val
(just a hobbyist, not a Collector)

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 07:52 PM

Here's a link to a page about that book Jim Carroll mentioned up the thread Dear Far-voiced Veteran

A much more useful topic, it seems to me, than churning over bad tempered arguments about copyright law.

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST,Rev
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 07:53 PM

Yes, Val, good points. But I also think you're right that when it comes to informants being dishonest or misleading there's really no way to prepare for that. I think that the "ethical" fieldworker also has to utilize a well-honed BS-detector (an essential part of a folklorist's arsenal), and if they feel like they may be getting led down the garden path they should cross-check the facts with others, such as the hypothetical "Elders."

I've experienced, with a number of groups, instances when I've gotten in the middle of an internal power struggle over who is the cultural authority. In those cases I've tried to back off, because those issues can go on for generations and it's not my place, necessarily, to mediate. You know, I just try to be as honest and thoughtful as possible, and trust my instincts.

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 02:32 AM

Cap'n
The information we got (from Walter - maybe he was being economical with the truth?) was that, encouraged by Roger, he made a tape of his songs (wonderful description of his doing this at National Sound Archive), then gave it to Roger, who then passed it on to Peter Bellamy.
I didn't say that Walter was a natural performer; I said he took to a wider audience like a duck to water.
Walter was not a pub singer (is this really your estimate of a good performer -hmmm?) - from what I remember of seeing Harry Cox, this would make him a lousy performer. Walter was somebody who could bury himself in his songs, and in doing so, could pass those songs over to any (listening) audience. I really couldn't imagine a pub audience paying attention to long versions of Van Deiman's Land, or Lord Lovell, or Broomfield Hill - could you?
Comparisons between Walter and Sam Larner are nonsensical; they were very different singers (not better or worse - just different.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 05:26 AM

I said I thought WALTER was a good singer,he was a good performer in a folk club setting,as was Harry Cox,Sam Larner was much more versatile ,Sam could perform well in a pub or a folk club,He was a more extrovert singer than either of the other two.
therefore SAM could get his material,over to a wider audience[not just a folk revival audience].
comparisons between the singers are not nonsensical,as I have just demonstrated,Walter had sung out very little,[it took him many months to remember all the songs,and to get the songs right] before he made the tape for Roger Dixon [why because therewas no local pub for him to sing in,and if there was he would not have got the pubs attention],Sam Larner never had that trouble,all this means, is that Sam was a more versatile performer.
Personally of the three of them I prefer Harry Cox,but then preference for singers is generally subjective subjective.
being a good pub singer is part of being a good performer,but not the only ingredient to being a good performer,Walter and Harry were good performers in certain situations[revival folk festivals,revival folk clubs]the revival gave them a new lease of life.Sam was a good performer in pubs, as well as folk revival situations.
thank god for the folk revival,and revivalists like Peter Bellamy that helped [along with collectors] Walter to pass on his music live.

Just for the record here in Ireland,I regularly sing long songs in pubs[Barbara Allen,Factory Girl,False Knight on the road,occassionally Tam Linn] and the audience listens,its a question of knowing your pub,reading the mood,and knowing when is the right monment,there is a skill to pub singing as there is to folk club singing.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 03:08 PM

I really don't know why I get involved in these silly arguments.
Who says it took Walter many months to remember all his songs? He had been writing them down in exercise books from 1948 and had been singing them and playing them on the melodeon, to himself, right up to the time he was 'discovered, so he had no need to 'remember them'; they were already there.
Who says the pub is in any way a desirable place to sing traditional songs. Sam Larner sang at the Fishermans Return in Winterton - he sang the same song every week for most of his life. Where did he sing his other songs? He told the collector "the serious singing was done at home or at sea".
Pub singing in Ireland is a comparative latecomer, as is the playing of music. Within living memory virtually all singing and music took place in peoples homes at country house dances. Musicians have told us that the music started to go downhill when it went into the pubs. Being able to sing in a pub does not make anyone a good singer or more 'versatile', just an extrovert.   
Your preference for Harry Cox is, as you say, subjective, and without qualification it is about as important as your telling us you prefer white socks to blue ones.
Walter Pardon was a thoughtful and generous man. He often said he regretted never having met Sam Larner and Harry Cox, both of whom lived within 20 miles of him. He would have been mortified to hear a couple of folkies like us arguing the toss over which of them we preferred, he probably would have banged our heads together (no he wouldn't, but I wouldn't blame him if he had). You seem obsessed with competition: better, worse, more important, less important - I think your CCS (Comahltas competition syndrome) is beginning to show through.
Without the Walters and Sams and Harrys and Phil Tanners and George Dunns and Robert Cinnamonds and Mary Ann Carolans and all the other generous people who gave us our songs we wouldn't be having this conversation, I wouldn't have had nearly half a century of pleasure and we'd have no songs to sing - and neither of us would have heard of Peter Bellamy.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 04:25 PM

Jim ,Im quoting from musical traditions,[put a bit of powder on it]according to Walter., it took him all winter to remember about twenty[songs].
First of all I am a philistine,Now I am obsessed with competition.
I have never said any of the three afore mentioned singers are better than each other,I mentioned my own preference that is something different.,and as I said subjective.
Singing is about being able to communicate with audiences,whether they are in a pub or in a folk club,one of the best communicators I have seen has been Bob Davenport, able to communicate in a noisy pub or a folk club.
I advise people to go to the musical traditions site,if they wish to learn more about Walter Pardon.,other traditional singers,and how collectors go about collecting.

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST,Jim
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 05:28 PM

&

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 06:08 PM

Still feels like Bulmer thread with a different name and less invective.

Russ (Permanent GUEST)

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST,JRC
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 09:27 PM

Yes, Jim and Cap'n, maybe you can conduct your pissing contest in another thread instead of hijacking a supposedly moderated one on collecting and ethics.

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jun 07 - 02:58 AM

JRC,
I agree entirely and apologise
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jun 07 - 07:48 AM

JRC,I apologise.

Subject: RE: Collecting,and Ethics (moderated)
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jun 07 - 03:27 PM

Collectors such as Peter Kennedy,have recently been criticised,for not looking after their sources.,[I dont know if this is true or not]
I would hope that any collectors ,collecting today,would give a proportion of any income that they made from sales to their sources.
I believe Harry Cox,said that EJMoeran,was a proper gentleman,and looked after Harry properly, from sales Moeran made.
DickMiles[philistine].