Breach of Copyright - and Integrity

Subject: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 06:12 AM

There's a rather disturbing news item just appeared in Musical Traditions , courtesy of Mike Yates.

It concerns a bootleg recording of English and Scots traditional singers, called Under the Hills and Nearby, to which banjo accompaniment has been added to the unaccompanied singing.

This act of piracy has been perpetrated by somebody calling himself Sam Callow, which is almost certainly a nom de plume. Think of the title and think of Over the Hills and Far Away. Then think of Sam Callow and Sam Cowell.

In a footnote to Mike's piece, Rod Stradling points out that this creep lives in France, and suggests that he may consider himself safe from prosecution under French copyright law.

I can assure him that he isn't. I can also assure him that residence in France doesn't render him immune to a bunch of fives either.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 06:42 AM

This appears to be the item in question. There is an email contact for Sam Callow.


http://celebrationtapes.bandcamp.com/album/under-the-hills-and-nearby

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 06:56 AM

There's no shortage of email contacts. However, I'd like to find out what his real name is and whereabouts in France he lives. Then perhaps we can do something about it.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Leadfingers
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 07:00 AM

Sadly , this happens FAR too often with folk music - I am a self confessed Song Thief , but I DO credit all my sources , and have been known to send 'MY' version to writers before including in an album , an action not always carried out by other singers

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 07:27 AM

One of our recordings there too - 'Coochie Coochie Coo Go Way' (Keach in the Creel), by Jamesie McCarthy, from 'Around the Hills of Clare'.
Peter Kennedy rides again, it would appear - he did exactly the same with the recordings he made for the BBC when he re-issued them on his 'Folktax' label with dreadful inept accompaniments and choruses dubbed on.As he, the accompaniments were so tastelessly bad as to make the songs unlistenable.
Interesting to note he has copyrighted his creations -perhaps it might be possible to pirate them and re-sell them, donating all proceeds to English Folk Dance and Song Society, Irish Traditional Music Archive or The School of Scottish - or the U.s. equivalent.
There cannot be any possible legal objection to doing so, nor a moral one - and as far as Pat and I are concerned, there wouldn't be any objection from us.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 08:26 AM

https://soundcloud.com/4treck-underthehills

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 08:55 AM

I'm happy to let anybody have a copy of the original version of Jamesie McCarthy's Coochie Coochie Coo Go Way alongside a dubbed down copy of the polluted version, which I have lifted from the site, for comparison, free of charge - Dropbox, maybe? (a voluntary donation to The Irish Traditional Music Archive would not be unacceptable) -
All proceeds from the album 'Around the Hills of Clare' from which the recording has been lifted, are automatically donated to I.T.M.A - so it is Irish music that is being ripped off, not us.   
In this case it's all academic anyway - Jamesie's version will be free for listening along with transcribed text, extensive annotations and background information on the singer, when all our Clare recordings are made freely available on the Clare County Library website in October.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Mike Yates
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 09:41 AM

I have just received this from the aforementioned Mr Callow:

This project was only even about playing along to traditional singers just as hobby....and is just an expression of my enjoyment of the music. A friend approached me to put in onto tape for some individually hand recorded tapes. Part of the point of this was to help people become more aware of traditional singers, rather than having the impression that the common perception of folk music is just about singing acoustic standards, and also to provide a bridge into discovering field recordings. I was in touch with Topic about this, and someone at the Alan Lomax archive and contacted the son of one of the recordists - who said it was ok to use a recording. I was trying to find out about some recordings that were attributed to Peter Kennedy (it appears he has put his name to some of Lomax's - but I can't be sure). I was doing all this to perhaps develop this into a proper project, but after seeing the legal minefield, I've given up on it. My bandcamp page is up, but nothing is for sale. I will with a heavy heart dismantle this project, sorry.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 12:29 PM

So if [young ?] Sam Callow's response & apology is sincere,
then surely this looks more like the naive actions of an enthusiastic musician and trad folk fan,
than any wanton act of unethical bootlegging ?

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 12:42 PM

There but for the grace of god go we all.... or many of us.

Only today I contacted a well known singer/songwriter to ask his permission to soundcloud one of his songs. In this case he was more than happy that I am out and about singing it.

What a minefiled it is when you are singing someone's song and someone else then puts it on youtube. Is this not some kind of infringement too but how many do it regularly?

My general motto is that if I do not have the song-writers permission then I will not record it. If others record me doing it then I am not responsible if I miss them doing it. I do usually always ask the singer if I can record if I am out anywhere but also give them assurance that I will not then pass it on to others. It's a strategy that seems to work and shows respect.

Perhaps the chap above really has made a genuine mistake. I guess time will tell.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 12:48 PM

Guest. I agree. It reminds me of another enthusiastic novice who decided to record the singers and musicians at a certain traditional music/song weekend, a few years ago.

No problems. Nobody objected. But then the guy decided to make a CD of the proceedings without asking any of the people he planned to put on the disc. I was one of them and what that says about his musical taste is anybody's guess. All I can say is that I would never have consented to his using the song he'd chosen, had I been asked.

When it was pointed out that you just can't do that kind of thing, it had clearly never occurred to him that he might be breaching the law or people's codes of ethics, and he imediately cancelled the project.

Sometimes it's as well to remember that there are people around who are just not as well clued up on these things as some of the rest of us.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 02:50 PM

As far as I'm concerned, it would be far better if the 'copyright' issue were removed from this altogether.
Whatever this guy's motives, I have been informed via his website that I can still purchase mine, and everybody else's recordings for a minimum of £6.00
During the run up to our putting up our field recordings onto the Clare Library website, we went to a fair amount of trouble contacting the surviving relatives of our singers to obtain permission to do so.
Hopefully, we will not have to now explain to Jamesie's relatives why it is possible to purchase the recording we made of their father on the internet - with a banjo accompaniment, no less!!
Financial aspects aside, around here in West Clare, banjos are regarded slightly higher up the artistic chain than bodhrans.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 03:07 PM

Please distinguish copyright and performers' rights.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:18 PM

I'm sorry if I misled anyone by including the word copyright in the thread title. As far as I am concerned, copyright of the songs is not an issue because the songs are all in the public domain and nobody owns them. What is at issue here is the copyright of individual performances. It is this which needs protecting. That plus the right of any artist not to have their work tampered with.

Actually, I think I smell another copyright isue. Some of the stuff which our Mr Callow has used seems to have come from Topic's Voice of the People. All the material used in that series was remastered from the original recordings, at considerable expense to Topic.

I may be wrong, but I'd have thought that use of someone else's remastering work would constitute another breach of copyright. Indeed I would cite JSP's use of remastered Carter Family recordings which had been carried out by Bear Family. BF sued JSP over same and won.

Finally, one of the reasons why I'm so annoyed about this is that unaccompanied singing is an art in its own right. All of the people on Mr Callow's list (except possibly Emma Vickers, who was known to accompany herself on a melodeon) honed their crafts around the fact that they had no musical instruments to impede them in terms of ornamentation, rhythmic variation, tempo changes or whatever. As an unaccompanied singer myself, I know full well the straightjacket feeling which can arise when some eejit decides to join in on a guitar or banjo or whatever.

We have no way of knowing what the old singers would have thought of their performances being electronically dubbed with banjo accompaniment. However, until someone finds a way of communicating with the dead, we can probably safely conclude that they wouldn't have wanted it, and act accordingly.

They left us these songs to be listened to and enjoyed and learnt from, not to be messed about with.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:26 PM

Cant help with case but certainly if anyone wants to sing, record, put on you tube any of."my".songs.they can. Blanket permission. And i plan to put out a couple more cds which will be.sold for.expenses but people will also be.able to.copy them. Everyone has a different philosophy on this.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:41 PM

"Copyright of original performances" - er - no. Look it up.

Here's a clue

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/II

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 04:55 PM

A.P.Carter and Ralph Peer slapped copyright marks on tons of traditional stuff that they never wrote. Ain't it strange how a worm turns?

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 05:02 PM

It wasn't Carter or Peer who turned. It was Bear Family. The Carter Family stuff was out of copyright. What Bear family argued was that JSP had no right using other people's remasterings.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,tony Rath aka Tonyteach
Date: 20 Jul 14 - 07:54 PM

I teach singer/songwriters and guitarists. I always urge them to register their creations and to be careful if they think someone is going to rip them off. I have also had to point out to one of the above that his tune sounded like something one of the Beatles wrote and that he should think again.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:37 AM

"I can also assure him that residence in France doesn't render him immune to a bunch of fives either."

.,,.

Ah. That charming Mr McC marshalling his customary convincing intellectual arguments yet again, I observe.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 05:44 AM

Ahh, so we've got it. MtheGM is the real Sam Callow. He's the one who's been bootlegging all these wonderful old recordings, and dubbing on tasteless banjo accompaniment. He's probably done it to boost his pointless, overblown and totally irrelevant ego.

If anyone thinks I have maliciously maligned MtheGM, and wants to know what further proof I can offer, he is the only person on the planet who plays that badly.

Good job you didn't try and sing along on any of them.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 10:30 AM

"a bunch of fives"? I've never heard that expression. Fred, are you threatening to beat MtheGm with your fists?

I believe that's technically illegal. Further, you don't just sound annoyed, you sound like a nutcase.

MtheGM is a good man and a good catter. Leave him alone.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 10:45 AM

Leenia. If you'd read the entire thread, you would have realised that I was not referring to MtheGM, but to somebody who calls himself Sam Callow, and who is currently offering bootleg recordings of traditional singers with banjo accompaniment dubbed on.

Just for the record, I realise that MtheGM is not Sam Callow. However, as he is a pompous right wing chronic bore of a Thatcherite, who regularly intervenes in various threads with inane accusations, which are usually addressed to me, I thought I'd have a laugh at his expense.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 10:51 AM

Thank you, Leeneia. In fact it wasn't me he was threatening this time, but this other man Callow -- though he did so threaten me on a previous occasion, the one to which he knew I was referring.

Odd history: I once accused him of ill manners when he said the Royal Family made him want to vomit. The only response he could think of was to go on and on about what a terrible singer I was, though most of those who have gone on to my youtube channel have expressed approval:- "You have excellent taste in songs," was, for example, the judgment of Brian Peters, no mean member of the folk community here.

What this F McCormick thinks he can prove by such obsessive rants I have not ever established; but I just let him get on with them. It's his hobby to go on about how I am not a very good singer, & nobody else seems to take much notice so it does me no harm.

If you would like to judge for yourself, in case you have never done so, my youtube channel is at



http://www.youtube.com/user/mgmyer

Best regards


~Michael~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 10:56 AM

X-posted --

There you have a fine example of McC thinking. "Thatcherite - right-wing -". Well, dear me, that's me told, eh? Behold me: destroyed; demolished; dismayed and dismantled.....

hehehehehehehehehehehehohohohohohohoho

☺〠☺~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:01 AM

MtheGM - objectively, you are well out of order.

This was a rare sensible on-topic thread until you butted with no good relevant reason.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:04 AM

And his other hobby, expressed in OP and ref'd above by me as he appreciated, is to threaten physical violence ('bunches of 5s' &c) on this forum to those of whom he disapproves for any reason.

Not quite in the highest of Mudcat tradition, might one say? Have Max or Joe or the mods anything to say about this habit of his, I can't help wondering?!

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:04 AM

Hello everyone.

I am Francesco Consolini - one of the two person behind the tape "label" Celebration - in fact, just two friends and music enthusiasts releasing other friends musical projects we find pleasant to hear.

First of all, I can assure you that Sam Callow is not a "nom de plume", but a real UK native living in our city of Reims and a very active musician in other projects.

Second point is, we insisted to release what was a "hobby project" for him, a tribute to all this traditional music from the United Kingdom (sorry for my lack of precision on the geographic origin, but you can easily guess that I'm far from being a specialist) without any idea of improving them in anyways; I can't speak for him but I genuinely think he just wanted to play with this wonderful cultural legacy, and we were more than happy to release this "sans prétentions" excerpt of this still badly known culture in our country.

We didn't won any money on these; it was a less than 50 tape release that costed us more than the price we sold it (mainly to our friends & family in fact).

Sam gave us this description that was online and in the tape and everywhere when the tape / recordings where still available (we deleted it as soon as we heard of the problem - thanks to Mr Stradling for informing us); I think it speaks for itself :
'Under the Hills and Nearby is a project whereby old folk song collector's recordings of peoples' songs are accompanied by 5-string banjo.

Started a few years back, Under The Hills and Nearby has developed from being a part of the 4tRECk set in to a new project in its own right.

This is a project of Sam Callow ... who also plays as 'one-man-band" under the name 4tRECk. I simply provide banjo and/or apallachian dulcimer accompaniment to field recordings of traditional singers from around the British Isles.
The source material is all traditional music, passed down through generations, with each new singer adding his/her own interpretation,and each song branching off into different evolutions.

Visit Topic records (the Voice of the People series), and Alan Lomax's series Folk Songs from Britain and Ireland (Smithsonian) to learn more... and I recommend you buy some too!

I am open to any propositions to play live. Contact me on : sam_callow[at]yahoo.co.uk"

As I said to Mr Stradling, we acted like enthusiasts but clumsies amateurs ; we are really sorry for the copyright we infringed, naively thinking this was a good way to promote the same music you all seem to promote here. Moreover, and that may seem unbelievable to your ears, we really enjoyed Sam's accompaniment - and some people outside France seemed to enjoy it too.

In the end, and to correct a point I read in this thread, everything has been deleted as soon as we heard of this story; one question that will remain is why the gentlemen who have been the most injured by Sam's accompaniment haven't made the effort to write us an e - mail before getting on their high horses.

Best regards,

Francesco Consolini

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:06 AM

Guest. I totally agree. This is a serious discussion on an important topic. MtheGM's intervention had nothing to do with that discussion. It was simply to have a pointless dig at me.

Perhaps I should not have risen to the bait, but having done so, I would like to say two things.

1.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:07 AM

...& Don't we all love aggressive and denunciatory 'Guests' who are so sure of their virtous ground that they sedulously avoid identifying themselves!

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:16 AM

I'm Guest Date: 20 Jul 14 - 12:29 PM, & Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:01 AM.

At least be thankful this small amateurish Euro Indy cassette lable project
has not sampled the source field recordings for Hardcore Club Techno Dance or Industrial Death Metal tracks.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:18 AM

Sorry, the Submit button ate my posting before I'd finished it. The entire missive should have read as follows:-

"Guest. I totally agree. This is a serious discussion on an important topic, and one about which I feel particularly aggrieved. MtheGM's intervention had nothing to do with that discussion. It was simply to have a pointless dig at me.

"Perhaps I should not have risen to the bait, but having done so, I would like to say just one thing.

"Michael Grosvenor Myer, why don't you butt out and allow the rest of us to continue this conversation in peace?"

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:22 AM

"why the gentlemen who have been the most injured by Sam's accompaniment haven't made the effort to write us"
Because we shouldn't bloody well have to - you have as much right to right to take an artists work and deface it as you have to draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa because you think it will draw in more punters.
Nor have you the right to take the results of anybody else's field-work and resell them, no matter how few to whoever... simply a matter of manner and consideration, obviously in short supply as far as you are concerned.
I asked before, rather than apologising for breaking copyright, would you care to address the damage and potential damage your behaviour might have caused?
Rather than help promote traditional song, your behaviour does much to ascertain that much of it remains on archive shelves, safe from the hands of predators such as yourselves.
I was prepared to put your behaviour down to naive ignorance - your arrogance indicated that I was premature in my judgement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:28 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Mike Yates
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:33 AM

Can we, please, get back to the original thread! Thank you Francesco for your imput. But, you say, " one question that will remain is why the gentlemen who have been the most injured by Sam's accompaniment haven't made the effort to write us an e - mail before getting on their high horses". When I started this thread (actually on the Musical Traditions website) I had no idea who had dubbed his banjo etc onto the field recordings. Rod Stradling of Musical Traditions found out and so I did send an email to this person. I then gave his reply on this thread. So, as I said, I did make an effort to make contact.

Perhaps you do not undrstand why I raised the point in the first place. It was nothing to do with copyright, but rather about what I thought was a lack of respect for the source singers. When I recorded these people I did so because I wanted people to be able to listen to "real" folksingers, such as Fred Jordan, Walter Pardon, Johnny Doughty etc. I never envisaged any others "improving" the singer's work with their own accompanyments. By all means, learn the songs from these recordings. Listen to how they were sung. And, by all means, sing the songs. But, please, show some respect.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,GUEST - Francesco
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 12:03 PM

To Mr Mike Yates :
I didn't knew that you made contact with Sam, and I am grateful you did as I am grateful for your constructive and patient answer.

I understand that you felt Sam ' s approach as a lack of respect; I am personnally sure it was a respectful tribute or, even better, one more interpretation of these several times before interpreted songs.

Moreover, Under The Hills And Nearby gave me the chance to listen to these original recordings, which I am now very found of (even if I don't understand all the lyrics, but the musicality of the singing still "gets" me).

I understand -maybe too late - that these recordings were not meant to be dubbed instrumentally, but I can't prevent myself from liking the idea of using something in an unsual / creative way - and it is even better in this case because it doesn't destroy or alter in anyway the original (and fully described as)content - this is just to clarify the "damage caused" reproach of this dear (but a little too aggressive in my opinion) Mr Caroll.

Sam tried to contact the singers, or their heir and heiress, not knowing that the rights (of the recordings) were owned by the companies, as Mr Stradling patiently explained to me.

I hope the damage caused is now repaired; thank you for your patience and enlightenment (and sorry for my poor english).

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 12:38 PM

"this is just to clarify the "damage caused" reproach of this dear (but a little too aggressive in my opinion) Mr Caroll.(sic Carroll)"
Sorry - it clarifies nothing
As far as I'm concerned, adding accompaniment is little more than poor taste and ill manners.
Using the recordings of others without permission is both unethical and illegal.
Using the recorded voice of a tradition singer without permission undermines thirty to forty years of work and could have, and still may have put us in bad standing with the family members of those singers, who are now our neighbours and whose good will we rely on in order to make future use of the songs we collected.
No effort has been made to contact either us, nor the singers families to obtain permission - it would have been a relatively simple matter to seek such permission - none of us use pseudonyms and e-mail addresses are easily obtainable!
As I said, I was prepared to pass this of as naivety, now it appears to have been a case of predatory dishonesty.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 01:03 PM

If we give these apparently inexperienced Euro producers/musicians the benefit of the doubt,
they are now aware mistakes have been made, and seem willing to listen to reasonable explanations
of why they are in the 'wrong'
and how they should consider the 'ethics' af any future projects they may enthusiastically persue.

Jim you are right to be annoyed, but maybe in this context you are over reacting somewhat
with continuesd accusations of deliberate dishonesty ?

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 03:25 PM

"....and seem willing to listen to reasonable explanations of why they are in the 'wrong'"
I would happily accept your point and listen to such explanations, this not a one-way street - so far, no sign of that changing.
I was never "annoyed, not up till now, anyway, amused to mildly irritated with a pinch of incredulity at how somebody could lift and sell the work of others while at the same time, be street-wise enough to copyright the products of their/our efforts - but let that pass.
We entered into an unwritten contract with all the singers we recorded that no use would be made of those recordings without their permission, and that any money arising from them should either go to them or ploughed back into traditional music - we have always honoured that undertaking.
It was never a matter of 'ownership' or 'copyright' of the songs or the recordings and it was for our benefit as much as theirs - try persuading singers to part with their songs when they learned that, not only are they being sold, but also copyrighted (is is hard to notice that nobody has seen fit to respond to my point about Peter Kennedy) other than Mike Yates' mention of his sharp practices.
Kennedy behaved similarly as this in selling and copyrighting material that he and other people collected, often without their permission, and in two spectacular cases, without even their knowledge.
That behaviour did inestimable damage to the song traditions of these islands which has yet to be put right.
Apart from our collecting, we also spent a considerable among of time and energy attempting to set up an English traditional music archive to bring together some of the known collections and to entice out tome of the large number of small, private ones i order to make them available.
We have not yet begun to scratch the surface, not in the England anyway.
The sort of behaviour here can set back any possibility of it ever happening years.
Of course I'm more than happy to overlook this if it were a genuine mistake or even thoughtless laziness (though the absence of any indication of an attempt to contact either singers families or collectors while being prepared to go to the lengths of copyrighting the recordings casts some doubt on either of these.
I am not prepared to let pass a failure to acknowledge any potential damage done, nor am I prepared to accept being made to feel guilty about feeling increasingly angry about the dismissive attitude on display here.
This type of behaviour wouldn't be given the light of day were it applied to an other musical or art form - sorry, Mr Jagger, just thought you'd sound better with an indifferently played banjo accompaniment - didn't think you'd mind if we sold it - give us a break folks!!
Damn - just missed University Challenge!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 03:36 PM

I watched it on i-player live as I sat here. Shan't tell you the result as a spoiler, as you should be able to see it on i-player tomorrow.

Z~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Francesco
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 03:59 PM

Just to say, we didn't copyrighted anything. There is no copyright on any of our cassettes in fact; the copyright mention you can find on bandcamp can not be removed - I think it's a copyright mention for the bandcamp trademark and / or design.
Also this type of behaviour is common in other musical and art forms : call it sampling (which created whole music forms), tribute, or pop art (I think someone wrote about Marcel Duchamp ?)or what you want, it's another discussion.
Oh, and Sam tried to take contact too, as he told Mr Mike Yates.
We have made several mistakes - and we apologised for them - but treating us several times of thieves is becoming a little annoying Mr Caroll, even if it seems "amusing" for you; all I can say is that we took this matter seriously and with all possible respect as soon as we heard of it. Sorry for making you miss University Challenge, maybe you can find a re - run on the Internet.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Francesco
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:26 PM

... And it also seems that Mr Jagger also made a little bit of sampling or covers, and have been covered several times : http://www.whosampled.com/Mick-Jagger/

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:30 PM

I'm coming in a bit late on this, but I wish to support MtheGM.

Fred appeared to be threatening the perpetrator of the offending recordings with common assault. Michael made a sarcastic comment about that, which Fred described as "a pointless dig at me". It was not pointless, because it was directly relevant to what Fred had said.

By contrast, Fred's comments about Michael ("the only person on the planet who plays that badly" and "pompous right wing chronic bore of a Thatcherite") were not only extremely ill-mannered but entirely irrelevant to the thread.

BUT, can we please stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the rights and wrongs, and on the adequacy of otherwise of the apologies and explanations that have been offered.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,sam callow
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:33 PM

Hello everyone,

This 'project' only came about by my own love of the songs and the recordings made by people such as Mr Yates, and many others. I have been a keen listener and purchaser of many collections over the years, and have been greatly informed and inspired by The Traditional Music Hour amongst many musicians.
I took up playing the 5-string banjo about 7 years ago and many of the melodies I had been listening to seemed to fall into place quite easily on this instrument (many chords are implied within the tune, and this is enhanced due to the resonances of the open banjo tuning). I found myself quite naturally being able to play these songs. This is as natural as hearing a song and wanting to sing it - and is of course the way songs are handed down and left to evolve and live on in a healthy folk tradition. It only came about by chance, that one day I happened to be listening to Harry Cox singing 'knife in the window' and my banjo happened to be in the same key (capo6 open g), led me to trying, and I stress to play along. This was nothing more than a hobby, a way for me to feel closer to the songs. It also became a way of feeling closer to my English origins, and grew into (I see now) as a rather naïve purely fan-driven project to make people more aware of these songs and recordings. I did a handful of house gigs with lyrics projected onto walls (and the translations) and the reaction was generally warm (in that the humour and tragedy came across and people could engage in the songs - leading people to discover that there even was such a thing as traditional music the other side of the channel from anywhere other than Ireland). I must stress that the scale of this is miniscule - a handful of people were at these gigs, and that I'm not at all trying to improve on these songs. I prefer the original unaccompanied versions completely, and have always directed people to the sources. My bandcamp page had catalogue numbers, recordist's names, dates etc and I always urged people to seek out the originals.

Basically at the end of last year I was asked if I'd like to try and record something for some friends who wanted to make (by hand) cassettes to be distributed to friends and acquaintances around Christmas time. I hastily cobbled together this album in 4 weeks(also to serve as a couple of xmas prezzies for my parents to be honest). I think I went well overboard with the addition of instrumentation with hindsight, and was a mistake. There was never any commercial intent, however I did make 5 Cdrs and sent them to various people for reactions/comments, and started carrying out research into who owned what in terms of rights. I was in contact with someone from Topic (he quoted me a price), and the Alan Lomax Foundation (who didn't mind the concept), I managed to get the email of a son of one of the recordists who said I could use the recording (he didn't like my accompaniment), I tried to find out about the Peter Kennedy attributed recordings (he seems to have put his name to many alan lomax recordings, by the way). Anyway, all that was to find out about the legality of it all with the naïve idea to maybe approach a real label with this idea. Anyway the whole complexity of it all and various correspondence with musicians, led me to give up on that idea - too disheartened, and it struck home that these voices had real backgrounds and the recordists had real intentions to preserve these moments in time. I've only skimmed through this thread, as to be honest, it has been a bit of an emotional and tearful shock, but I'd just like to say again that, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to spoil the songs for people(I don't want to state the obvious, but drawing a moustache on the mona lisa defaces the painting, but these recordings are copies and the original moments of beauty remain intact).

Anyway, I've told Celebration to delete their page. I've stopped the whole idea. If any money has been gained from this tell me where I can send it (Cecil Sharp house?)If ever I bring myself to play traditional songs again I will sing it myself (not a pretty prospect!)and everyone in France can go back to their Mumford and sons albums, blissfully unaware that there is such a thing as traditional singing.

Apologies again

Sam

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Francesco
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:43 PM

One last point here : we would be more than happy to continue the diffusion (and / or to let anyone "pirate" it) of Sam interpretations and give all the possible incomes to the English Folk Dance and Song Society (and the Irish and Scottish equivalent, of course), because we really enjoyed listening and learning from these songs, even if it seemed like someone was "messing" with them.
I didn't knew of these structures; if so, I would have took contact with them a long time ago.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 04:59 PM

A bit of an anticlimax, I am aware, after those last two important posts; but it would be impolite of me not to express appreciation of Richard Mellish's support. Many thanks, Richard.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 07:35 PM

I fully understand Mike Yates', Fred McCormick's and Jim Carroll's point of view on this. However I've listened to a few of Sam Callow's tracks on Soundcloud and it seems to me that he's coming from a very different musical background, one in which sampling other recordings is part of its own culture. He appears to have approached this with a genuine love of the music, but from a background which regards existing recordings as a resource to be used, and without understanding the significance they have for others. He is also part of a culture which rightly or wrongly sees it as normal to share music via the internet without proper consideration of the rights and legalities involved.

Sam and Francesco now understand that they made a mistake and caused offence, but I believe this was not intentional. I think they have acted entirely honourably in admitting their mistake and correcting it without quibble, and by removing the offending recordings. The point has been made and taken, and any further protest would I think be an over-reaction.

I'm sure this is not the first time source recordings have been used in this way, and I wonder whether this would have caused the same outrage if the accompaniments had been more sensitively done than was apparently the case, or if they had been by a more established artist in the UK. After all, the much-praised "Full English" album includes a track where Joseph Taylor's "Brigg Fair" segues into an instrumental fantasia around the tune - no one seems to have objected to that, and it was "Best Album" at the BBC Folk Awards.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 09:48 PM

This is hardly a new thing...

Some of you(the cool ones, anyway) might remember that back around 1990, with no permission from anyone, a couple dance music producers took Suzanne Vega's a capella recording of "Tom's Diner" and added a dance beat track to it, and in the process made it a big hit single.

You may also remember that drums, electric guitars and bass were added to Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sounds of Silence" without either their knowledge or permission.

Both, of course, were very successful, which makes all the difference...

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 14 - 11:27 PM

cough... ahem.. Lomax field recordings.. Moby... $$$$$$$$

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Songwronger
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 01:10 AM

Copyright protection is on its way out. Witness the heinous breaches on Youtube of musical performances, clips from films and so on.

The destruction of copyright is being touted as the 'democratization' of creativity. In reality it is being done in order to remove the profit motive from creativity. If you can't make a buck off your protest songs, then you'll quit writing them. The government has effectively silenced you.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 03:58 AM

The point continues to be missed.
It is not a matter of "thieving" as far as I am concerned, nor has it ever been.
We have never considered ourselves the owners of anything we collected - all is deposited in The British Library, The Irish Traditional Music Archive and The Folklore Department in Belfield, Dublin - all with a stipulation of free access to all interested parties.
In a couple of months time, the entire Clare collection will go up on the County Library website for listening, alongside its magnificent music instrumental music collection.
Whenever anybody has shown an interest in singing in Clare, they have been given copies of the collection for their personal use.
As Walter Pardon once told us, "they're not our songs, they're everybody's".
Our interest has never been in gathering songs as artifacts, but as presenting them as the singers sang them alongside of what they had to say about them - how the songs were sung and how they fitted into the singers lives.
We know that our songs, particularly those recorded from Travellers, are regularly used on local radio here, as they were recorded and, as far as we were concerned, as the singers wished them to be heard and passed on.
We know they have been used in part on soundtracks for documentaries, again, particularly those from the Travellers.
We have never been asked permission for their use, nor do we expect to be.
We hope that permission has been sought for those issued commercially and that royalties have been donated to The Irish Traditional Music Archive, as we have stipulated with all our commercial releases, but if it hasn't 'what a pity' - nothing more.
Issuing recordings of traditional singers in an adulterated form, with a dubbed-on accompaniment, is a different matter altogether - it goes against everything we set out to do forty years ago and have devoted our lives to since - to present traditional singers as creative and critical artists in their own right.
It also betrays the verbal deal we made with all our singers - to preserve them as the singers sang them so anybody in the future might listen to them and take the original singers artistry and tastes into consideration in their own performances - if they didn't wish to, fair enough, they were given the choice.
When Peter Kennedy pillaged the B.B.C. recordings and issued six cassettes worth of them, with inept and tasteless accompaniments and choruses dubbed on, speeding them up or slowing them down, with electronic tricks added, we were appalled, as were many other people.
But at least he did what he did as somebody who had been part of recording them in the first place - quite different from lifting them at random from commercially available recordings he had nothing to do with, without permission.
It would have been a simple formality for these people to request our permission to do what they did - an e-mail to Musical Traditions would have done the trick - Stradling would have forwarded it to us and we would have refused - simple as that.
We have no interest or intention in presenting our recordings in any other form than that which shows the songs as the singers wished them to be heard - any other way would be patronising arrogance on our part.
What today's singers do with the songs we have collected is their own business - we may not like it, we may not approve of it artistically (don't get me started on Mary Delaney's 'What Will We Do?') but we accept we have no rights over them once we have made them public, nor should we have.
The actual recorded versions are a different matter entirely.
What happens to them cuts across what we believe to be important, and more importantly, it stands to effect our personal relationships with our singers and their families and it might well have effected projects such as that with the Clare County Library, and others we have in mind.
A lot of fuss to make about the misuse of one song?
Maybe, but a number of the songs that were used in the manner they have been on 'Under the Hills and Beyond' (interesting title since Jamesie's song was lifted from 'Around the Hills of Clare'!), particularly those by Jeanie Robertson, The Chambers Sisters and The Stewarts, were exactly the songs that drew me into doing what I do in the first place - pretty sure that would not have been the case if they had come with somewhat pedestrian banjo accompaniments - sorry 'bout that.
I really had no intention of taking this beyond making a disapproving comment and leaving it at that, but in light of the continuing total lack of understanding shown here, I would not be unhappy to see a voluntary donation on our behalf made to The Irish Traditional Music Archive, 73 Merrion Square, Dublin - no compulsion - your choice entirely
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:04 AM

Guest. "cough... ahem.. Lomax field recordings.. Moby... $$$$$$$$"

The Moby samplings are not comparable with the present situation. He sought permission for their use and, AFAIR, didn't unduly muck about with the bits he used. (If anyone wants to correct me on that then I'll stand corrected. However, while the end results were not my cup of tea, I do not recall his using any badly played banjo, or indeed anything badly played.)

Much more important, Lomax had signed royalty agreements with the original artists when he recorded them, and therefore Moby was obliged to pay royalties on the recordings he sampled.

I don't know how much was involved and I've no idea whether he would have acted as ethically if those agreements hadn't existed. What I do know is that those royalty payments were a welcome relief from the poverty which the descendants of those artists normally had to endure.

Richard. Rather than start another flame war, I'll explain the problem with MtheGM when next we meet.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:55 AM

Meanwhile, Richard. look again at my posts of 21 July, 1051 & 1104 am -- in particular the fact that this was not first threat of violence to emanate from F McC, who would appear to make a habit of violent menaces, which he recognised as the point of my intervention above: he had previously thus threatened me, after I had apologised for confusing one of his posts with one of Jim's on the Royal Wedding thread. I feel you (et al) had better be aware of this before he gets at you with his version of events as he promises above.
He tried to plead IIRC that he had only meant verbal violence, but shut up that line of argument when I pointed out that I would be fully his equal & have nothing to fear in any such exchange as that, and quoted his actual words [which had been addressed to me, remember, when he knew me to be over 80], with the comment that if they did not constitute a threat of physical violence then they would do until a threat of violence cane along: to which, I repeat, he made no reply -- except to denounce me with egregious relevance as "a concertina player who can't sing"; interestingly, it just occurs to me, it is as a player he denounces me on this thread, and sez nothing about the singing. Not even very consistent in his denunciations, it appears.

Sorry to divert this thread yet again; but would plead that my name has just appeared again as may be seen above. & once more comes to mind that fine French saying, the one about the terribly vicious animal, who has the nerve to defend himself when attacked.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 07:27 AM

M. For fuck's sake drop the matter and let the rest of us continue with what is in truth an extremely important discussion.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 09:02 AM

I understand now that song collecting should be purely archival and I understand the emotions that run through this debate, especially as it involves the memories of the deceased. But I do feel these field recordings should be heard as much as possible and not remain as museum pieces... another motivation behind this was really as a reaction to hearing glossy over produced 'folk' artist interpretations of songs (just listened to the afore mentioned Mary Delaney song...), this was as Ive said non commercial.

I can also see the effect that those Peter Kennedy experiments had (I didn't know about this until a few months back - and have never heard them). I am admitting that I was wrong and naïve to think that people might be interested in hearing the songs in a new context - and of course I should have contacted Music Traditions, the individual recordists, and most importantly of all the relatives of the singers. As I said, I was in touch with someone from Topic who basically spoke for all the Topic released material regardless of the individual recordists and never suggested I contact you. This project only started as a private expression of my enjoyment of the singing and the sheer emotional joy and sadness in these songs. They weren't randomly selected. And the name has nothing to do with 'Around The Hills of Clare', but as someone mentioned earlier a reversal of over the hills and far away - which I felt expressed the idea of wanting to bring hidden traditions nearby.

The soundcloud page (now)doesn't represent the music I made for this project, that is another project (involving no samples - I play all the instruments). There is one clip left of UHandN(someone filmed me, and posted it - without my permission, by the way)on you tube, which hopefully might stand as a better played and more sensitive example of my 'hommage' to the singers. I would be as uncomfortable as any of you at the idea of an 'electronica' style dance take on traditional singing.

Anyway,I've deleted everything I can. I'm going to start working on my banjo skills a bit more, as I didn't realise they were that awful.

A donation will be on its way.

Sam

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 09:40 AM

I have never said "Fuck" to you -- or to anyone else on this forum for the last 4 years at least -- Mr McCormick. Perhaps you could at least afford me a like courtesy; free too of references to 'bunches of 5s' and such considerations. I can't see that your history in such matters is so irrelevant to this thread, as it formed a prominent part of your Original Post; which was obviously why I thought it appropriate to draw your past 'form' in such matters to the instant person under threat. Do you deny having opened this "extremely important discussion" with an explicit, true-to-form, extreme threat of violence? So far as I have observed you have yet to express any sort of regret or contrition for having done so; from which I take it you still consider it an appropriate means of conducting your "extremely important discussions" on this forum.

I ask again, why have those in authority on Mudcat given no consideration to such modes of going on. It is surely in breach of Max's guidance as to Mudcat conduct? GUEST Sam appears good-naturedly prepared to overlook the violent and discourteous threat with which you saw fit to address him right from the off. I see no reason why the rest of us, who have suffered longer from your immoderate aggressive yobbery, should be prepared to likewise.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 09:41 AM

... to do likewise.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:13 AM

Please MtheGM, give it a rest.
I said it before - you are proving well out of order invading this serious discussion
with your vain petty pursuance of a personal feud.

Please pack it in and show some self restraint;
and at least a little consideration & respect for those here who wish to continue this thread
without your persistent disruptive egotistical intrusions.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:33 AM

Why remain anonymous, Guest? Always nice to know who one's interlocutor is.

I do not see this is a "personal feud", or reference to it here as "vain and petty". Did you really not notice the last sentence of the OP? Do you really consider these suitable terms for any "serious discussions" to be opened, and pursued, in? My considerations here are not "egotistical", but out of consideration to the person explicitly threatened with extreme violence in the original post of this thread. Do you not consider that it was a disgraceful way to start what you rubricate as a "serious discussion"; or an irrelevant "invasion" to point out that the perpetrator has 'previous' for such modes of "serious discussion"? How can you, or anyone, take "discussion", initiated from the very outset in such terms, "seriously". Just stop being so inenarrably pompous and take note of what you are lending your valuable support to -- outright threats of violence if the Original Poster doesn't get his bullying way, that's what.

You are the one who should be ashamed of your stupid, unobservant, wilfully purblind self.

And kindly try to remember that I am a member in long and good standing of this forum, and you are a 'guest' on it; and try to remember such manners in regard to such consideration as might be due to host from guest, as you might ever have been taught.

Good day to you.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:57 AM

And who, just out of interest, do you take yourself to be, and what do you consider may be your qualifications, to pronounce me "well out of order", you impudent upstart?

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 10:57 AM

Sorry, I didn't realise that the OP Fred McCormick actually meant that he planned to book a ticket on a ferry
or channel tunnel train,
to hunt down and commit an act of violence on an errant ex pat banjo player living somewhere in France.

In our naevity, I guess many of us just brushed past the 'bunch of 5s threat' considering it to be merely a joke
intended to emphasise a point of arguement.

Now please MtheGM, do us all, and yourself, a favour and take your self indulgent grudge fight elsewhere out of public view.

Btw, I'm a long standing 'guest' of sound reputation and fair intent.
This thread is neither about you or 'me', no matter how much you may try to dominate it for your own vanity.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:04 AM

Sam
Thank you for your gracious response - if I have caused you any embarrassment, please accept my apology, it really wasn't my intention.
I totally agree with you about these recordings not being museum pieces, which is one of the reasons I reacted the way I did.
Time and again we have come up against not being able use locked away archived material, unreachable unless you live within easy reach of where it is housed and are able to spend endless hours listening to it, and even then, the limited access you have to it devalues it tremendously.
One of the reasons all of these establishments give for limited access is that they feel they are not prepared to risk abusing the rights of the original informant by risking misuse of their songs, stories and music - hence, closed shop!!
I'm not sure if people are aware exactly how much valuable (artistically) material lies locked away and virtually unusable in these litle Fort Knoxs.
This is why we have endevoured to put as much as we have on line, and are grateful to our County Library for allowing us to do so.
What they are in the process of preparing represents less than a quarter of our work; they have expresses an interest in our storytelling, instrumental and Traveller (non-Clare) stuff - we'll have to see whether they live up to it their intention to use it, which is why I am so sensitive about not rocking that particular boat at the present time.
I've always been happy to pass on whatever we have to whoever is interested, for learning, enjoyment and as illustrations for talks etc., - feel free to include yourself in that, but only as long as the actual recordings remain untampered with.
As I say, sorry if i have caused any embarrassment
Jim Carroll
B.T.W.
My comment on 'What Will We Do' was aimed at the dirge some singers managed to turn it into when they recorded it - can't do anything about that, nor would I want to, but it doesn't prevent me from commenting on it.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:08 AM

To be honest, I'm sad Sam has taken his recordings down. I'd rather listen to a rough 'n' ready home recorded folk project like this than to the slick overproduced Radio 2 fodder that passes for most contemporary interpretations of traditional song.

Sam'a album takes nothing away from the original recordings which remain in their original state for the relatively tiny band of enthusiasts who want them that way.

I can understand that song collectors get incredibly precious about this issue because they don't want anything messed with, but it's really not that big a deal in the scheme of things. And it was clearly done out of love of the music by someone who is not part of the folk scene or familiar with its arcane and complex norms.

Personally, I think the answer would be to put 'em up as a free download with all the relevant links on the page...

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:16 AM

OK, Guest, I take your point. But I still don't think you are taking on board that this is not the first such "joke" on Mr McC's part. And do you really think it such a funny 'joke' at that, even if 'joke' is what it is? I have brought it to the attention of the Mudcat authorities in a PM to Joe Offer, as I continue to regard such a 'joke' as a serious breach of Max's guidelines -- which I commend to your attention if you have not referred to them before. {It used BTW to be unacceptable for a Guest to post anonymously & such posts were summarily deleted -- I never quite understood why that rule was discontinued.}

Have you read Julian ["Downton Abbey"] Fellowes' excellent novel Snobs. I am always struck on rereading by an excellent summary of the most disagreeable of the characters: "He was the kind of man who insults you and then says 'Can't you take a joke!'" One just knows the sort, doesn't one? Do you find them amusing?

Or is it only 'my own, would-be dominating, vanity' to ask?

& if you are such a longstanding Guest & all that, you will be aware of the tradition of 'drift & return to topic' which constantly obtains at Mudcat. Most of us know how to adjust to it, read threads intelligently and selectively, and gain such sustenance as required.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 11:43 AM

... so how about you just stop being so pompous and prescriptive; you live your life & I'll live mine; you post your posts and I'll post mine - eh? If they are so 'out of order', the mods will know what to do. If not, you'll just have to put up with them, won't you. Don't like it? Well, tough ɷɷ...
And I hope it keeps fine for you...

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 12:58 PM

"Sam'a album takes nothing away from the original recordings"
That is a matter of opinion, but it is beside the point - which I have just tried to make - ah well!!
It is not a matter of being precious - it is about ascertaining that everybody gets a chance to listen to the hidden trove still buried away in attics, cellars and in archives.
it is also honouring the generosity and trust of the original source.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 02:37 AM

Fred, I'll chime in and correct you on Moby. Moby, like Sam, issued the samples of Lomax's field recordings initially without permission. Like Sam, he didn't expect much success, and he assumed that because the songs were in the public domain, the performances also were. The Lomax organization rang him up and he immediately agreed to pay all the appropriate royalties to the families of the singers.

Jim, with respect, you're worrying too much about Sam registering copyright on his recordings, whether he did or didn't. If he did, the copyright would still only be valid on the parts of the recordings he created: the accompaniments. The songs are public domain, and the performances, since already published, already had rightsholders. Those rights don't get transferred to Sam. So the singers keep the rights in their performances, the songs remain p.d., and Sam only has rights in the accompaniments. If Sam did want to register copyright in the accompaniments, and they don't exist in any other tangible form (like sheet music), the only way to do this is to register the copyright on the new recording as a derivative work. He still only has rights to his own work. Copyright is a bit of a blunt instrument in that sense. (In the U.S., these rights are actually automatic, whether registered or not, but registration makes it easier to prove your rights if they are challenged. I'm not sure how that bit works in the UK--or France.)

Also, you made an analogy to drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Not to be a nitpicker, but the Mona Lisa is in fact in the public domain. Sam would be legally entitled to make a copy of the Mona Lisa, including a photo, and alter it in any way he wants. But he's still not entitled to do that to your field recordings. I point this out merely to show that the principles involved actually aren't self-evident to many people, and it's quite credible to me that he just didn't know the issues.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:00 AM

Whilst I intervened in support of Michael and stand by that posting, I think we have had more than enough further discussion of that aspect and I beg all concerned to say no more about it.

I think we have also had enough (not more than enough) discussion of the issue that is the proper subject of this thread, so let's also say no more about that unless someone has something significant and new to add.

Richard

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:05 AM

PS. Correction to my first paragraph. Say no more about it on this thread. If Fred (or anyone else) makes further abusive postings elsewhere we can respond as appropriate.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:49 AM

Nerd
"you're worrying too much about Sam registering copyright"
I wasn't, and I never have had such worries over this.
I commented on Sam's statement that he was unaware of the implications of publishing somebody else's material and I questioned his naivety, pointing out that he had was street-wise enough to copyright the material - nothing more than that.
As it happens, I was wrong to make such a comparison; as he pointed out, the copyright comes with the site he used and was impossible to remove - fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.
I do have general reservations about copyrighting traditional creations which belong in the public domain - I think the legality is questionable, but I consider it totally unethical.
One of the most important ballad findings of the twentieth century was passed on to us by a Traveller at the time he was squattiing in a derelict house in Ireland and who shortly afterwards, despite the efforts of the collector and a group of friends and enthusiasts who attempted to alleviate the effects of his poverty, died of malnutrition shortly after.
The copyright of his ballad now rests in the hands of a well-heeled and well-known musician/songwriter whose output has little to do with traditional song - legal, maybe, ethical or what?
Shades of 'Freight Train' I'd say.
Kennedy got singers to sign the rights of their songs over to him, as well as, I understand, "anything they happened to remember in the future".
He told many of the singers not to give their songs to anybody else.
The contacts were not worth the paper they were written on, but the fishermen, landworkers and Travellers who gave the songs were not to know that, and the practice gave rise to a great deal of anger and resentment later.
We were told by one collector how he visited one of these singers to see if she would sing for him (a Northern Ireland singer, coincidentally, included on Sam's compilation).
When the door was opened and the collector introduced himself, the singer immediately grasped him by the lapels threateningly and said, "You're not from Peter Kennedy, are you?"
As I said, a great deal of damage was one at that time - let's hope too much was not lost in the process.   
"but the Mona Lisa is in fact in the public domain"
The Mona Lisa certainly is not in the Public domain - an artistic reproduction of DeVinci's painting may be, but here, the actual recorded voice of the singer was taken and had a moustache painted on it, so to speak - somewhat different, I suggest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:56 AM

I'm willing to bet that were anyone to have a million-selling hit record by overdubbing accompaniment onto trad singing, the singers' heirs and relatives would be only too happy to pocket the cash (even if they hated the music).

Someone mentioned Suzanne Vega above. That was the case there - Vega said she didn't think much of the dance track, but didn't seem to object to receiving royalties.

The same was the case with Moby.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 06:11 AM

Next time, Sam Callow should simply use out-of-copyright recordings. Recordings that were so old they are well out of copyright.

That way, it'd remove all the high-horse "illegal" aspect of the argument, and it would simply be a case of "is the music good or not?"

But there's also a more philosophical argument to be had here. If I make some music using in-copyright material by other people, and put it online, but don't charge for it, what are the ethics there? The only 'capital' I can be said to be making is cultural capital: it can't really be called exploitation as no money is changing hands. All I gain is a rather small, limited amount of prestige or kudos from anyone who thought the music was good. If I wanted to be whiter than white, I could do it anonymously, so nobody could even accuse me of trying to garner any professional prestige or make a name for myself.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 06:16 AM

Furthermore, when talking of "disrespect", you have to at least entertain the possibility that the original singers might actually have considered it flattering that someone liked their music enough to want to spend their time trying out some banjo accompaniment to their songs. Cuts both ways.

Frankly, in this day and age in which people download entire label's catalogues for free, in which Russian websites offer pirated MP3s for sale, Sam Callow and his label don't seem like the Bad Guys to me.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Mo the caller
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 07:46 AM

I feel I must apologise to Sam & Francesco and suggest they stop reading this thread.
It's the way Mudcat works. Someone asks a question or makes a valid point. Someone else answers it. Then two or three people start picking fights and going over and over the same ground.

Just ignore us and stop reading the thread like everyone else does. The question was raised and you have answered it.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 08:34 AM

"I feel I must apologise to Sam & Francesco and suggest they stop reading this thread. "
Sorry Mo - can't agree.
As far as I am concerned, Sam and Francesco have exonerated themselves and are no longer the target of this thread (others are free to act otherwise of course)
This doesn't stop this discussion being about the use of field recordings in general terms - very much needed considering the number of them that still haven't seen the light of day.
"the possibility that the original singers might actually have considered it flattering that someone liked their music enough to want to spend their time trying out some banjo accompaniment to their songs"
Quite possibly, but the decision has to rest with someone, and given that nearly all our singers, as far as I'm concerned Pat and I are in the best position to make that judgement.
We spent twenty years recording Walter Pardon and, gentle man that he was, I'm damn sure that we would have had to hang garlic over all our windows to keep is angry spirit from our door.
Walter played both melodeon and fiddle and was quite capable of accompanying himself, should he have ever felt the necessity - he told us specifically that he didn't.
Jamesie McCarty and all our Clare singers spent their lives in a town that was renowned for its fine musicians, Willie Clancy, Bobby Casey, Junior Crehan... piper Johnny Doran was a regular visitor.
All of them were perfectly capable of providing themselves with accompaniment, should they have wanted.
The only time we worked with singers who had ever sung to accompaniment were the tiny handful of Travellers who did street sining, and they made a point of differentiating between "street" and "fireside singing".
It is arrogant to assume accompaniments either necessary or desirable on behalf of the singers, and more than a little patronising to claim that they would be flattered by it being added.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 08:37 AM

On the contrary Mo -

Sam, after this brief introduction, seems to me the kind of fresh new blood ailing Mudcat desperately needs.

No idea how old he is - but he definitely has enthusiasm and creativity
to back up his love for trad folk, and valid ideas for promoting it to his contemporaries working in other musical fields.

So hopefully he will return and continue as a regular contributer at mudcat.

                      ***********************

Now in regard to sampling....

Jim, no sensible person doubts or disrespects your pledge, and commitment to honouribg your promises to the source singers and their families.

But these were promises made in an era before the advent of millions of worldwide
amateur and pro bedroom project studio and Laptop music producers.

For good or bad, any Public domain / royalty free samples are all regarded as 'fair game' for their diverse style music production and genre mash-ups.

That's the reality of the present time - good, mediocre, or bad - this new sample based music exists, and has become the norm throughout the internet.

Like collage based art repurposed and recontexted disperate sourced photographs in earlier creative generations.

Any primary school kid with a computer or iphone now starts to make music out of samples,
like we used to cobble together toy models from various leftovers from 'Airfix & meccano kits'

Mostly this new sample based music is all rubbish and only heard by schoolfriends, doting parents, and internet buddies.

Even in Ireland ther are now thousands of sample music producers.
It's not impossible to consider that teenage travellers are indulging in similar computer technology hobby music production.

And how wrong or insulting would that be if young teen travellers turned to your source recordings for samples
to create dance music for their own friends and families ?

Jim, many of us admire your hard work in this field.
You are a genuine ethical man striving to honour your promises
in a time of adjustment to new technologies, cultural shifts, and mass indiference to internet music 'rights and ownerships'.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:22 AM

"But these were promises made in an era before the advent of millions of worldwide amateur and pro bedroom project studio and Laptop music producers."
You appear to believe we recorded what we did on a cylinder machine some time in the early part of the 20th century.
We started recording in the early 1970s and we are still doing so - our latest victim is a 95 year old singer with a stunning repertoire, mainly of classic ballads and narrative songs.
We got to know all our singers pretty well and interviewed them at length about their musical tastes and the function that their songs served - all of those interviews are up for grabs in the archives mentioned.
Our latest singer is highly critical of how the old songs are being sung by the younger singers he hears frequently on the radio "they don't seem to have any idea of what they are about" I'd have nightmares imagining what he'd say if we allowed anybody to add accompaniments to his 'Lord Bateman' or 'Lord Lovel' or 'Katherine Jafferey' or 'Keach in the Creel' - I'm damn sure we would never get another song out of him, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't request that we erased what we have recorded already.
Personally, I believe it to be artistic vandalism to take another's creation and change it because you believe it needs 'improving' - sort of like giving Hamlet a happy ending.
Technology may evolve, taste remains with the individual - and with those who took down what they passed on.
Quite frankly, ifg I believed that I was obligated in any way to pass on what we have been given to people in order to do with them what they wished, I would pack them off to one of the Fort Knoxs I mentioned, along with our opinions of the singers concerned and let posterity sort it out.
I love accompanied song supplied by singer/musicians such as the fine Appalachian singers I was weaned on, but Folkie Plasticine to be moulded at will as tastes changed - thanks, but no thanks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:58 AM

"Folkie Plasticine to be moulded at will as tastes changed"

Whereas some music fans would welcome this.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:14 AM

Jim, apologies, I didn't realise the extent of your ongoing present day collecting.

Full respect to you.

Reading what you have to say makes me so glad I'm not in your shoes, needing to protect promises
to your elderly source singers in this current day cultural climate of musical genre bending mixes and mash-ups.

Just to return to my analogy -

I now remember what I did with parts from the "Airfix" 'Nelson's HMS Victory' and 'Short Sunderland Flying Boat' kits...

The end result looked like some kind of bizarre nightmarish tree house construction;
but gluing it together kept me occupied and amused for a few nights after school when I was 11 years old...
Before I smashed it up, melted parts of it, and glued it back together to see what it might end up as.

Same now as the young kids in my family with their 'free' music studio software and sample pack kits.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:15 AM

"sort of like giving Hamlet a happy ending."
,..,

Without getting too involved in the minutiæ of this thread, I feel it might be pertinent to point out that is exactly what C18 Poet Laureate Nahum Tate did, & his versions became the standard ones for production for a while, and have occasionally been revived for historical interest --

"In 1985, the Riverside Shakespeare Company of New York City staged Tate's History of King Lear in its original form, "happy ending" and all" - wiki.

My point being that the foolish fashion passed, the originals became the properly regarded and respected texts again; which is what happens when these fads catch on for a bit. It is never fatal to the originals. Whatever one thinks of the doctored recordings and versions we are here concerned with, the originals will not be lost, but will continue to exist alongside, & certainly outlast them.

Not that I don't see Jim's point. I do, very much so; but thought these observations might afford some consolation as a probable future projection.

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:18 AM

Jim, just to clarify:

"GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:58 AM" "plastercine.." isn't 'me', but I do tend to agree.

But in my case, it would only be the songs I experiment with - not samples of pre-existing recordings.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:20 AM

Correction -- sorry. Tate actually late 17th, not 18th century.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:54 AM

"It is arrogant to assume accompaniments either necessary or desirable on behalf of the singers, and more than a little patronising to claim that they would be flattered by it being added.
Jim Carroll"

That is why I carefully chose the words "entertain the possibility that", and I at no point, arrogantly or patronisingly or otherwise assumed or presumed anything at all.

Where I differ is that I don't believe in principles about art, I believe in case-by-case. I already know that accompaniments aren't *necessary*, but whether they are desirable or not depends entirely on the music. If I could hear said banjo accompaniments I could then tell you whether I think they are a good thing or a bad thing.

But that would be an aesthetic argument, not an ethical one. I get the impression, and apologies if I'm wrong, that for Jim any tampering with those songs would be *in principle* like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa. Whereas for me, I would have to hear the music first in order to assess that.

It's worth pointing out that Duchamp's drawing a moustache on a postcard replica of the Mona Lisa was a self-conscious art prank, constituting a debate about value, vandalism and authenticity. Very different in intent to a non-comedic-in-intent (I presume) addition of musical accompaniment. Also worth pointing out that the distinction between a replica of the Mona Lisa and a recording of a voice (both endlessly repeatable, re-copiable, replicatable) are one and the same; nobody's "actual voice" was used but a recording of it. To state the obvious: songs aren't people; and recordings aren't songs.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 11:33 AM

"but whether they are desirable or not depends entirely on the music"
No it doesn't - it depends entirely on the performer and what he/she wishes to do with the song.
As far as singing is concerned, unless part of a consciously chosen group, creativity is entirely the prerogative of the individual concerned.
Most English language songs are narrative and, more often than not, unless an accompanist is very skilful and sensitive to the narrative (many aren't) an instrument can push the voice into the background as far as the listener is concerned - you should listen to the recording of Peggy Seeger talking about accompaniment sometime.
As far as Kennedy's dubbed recordings are concerned, this is exactly what happened - at best, the accompaniment was an irritant, at worst, totally destructive.
One track summed up the arrogance of the exercise for me - that of John Doherty, one of Ireland's best ever fiddle players, singing 'Old Man Rocking the Cradle, to a badly dubbed, appallingly executed fiddle accompaniment.
I have nothing against accompaniment, when it is choice of the singer, and when singer and accompanist have worked together to bring their two skills together - I used to sing accompanied all the time and I desperately miss it now my accompanist friend is no longer available.
That aside, without labouring the point, I believe what Sam did to the recordings, at best, added nothing, at worst, it destroyed the beautiful individual creative power of the solo voice - by far the most attractive feature of all British and Irish narrative song.
There is, of course, nothing new here; we still have the Collector album of Robin Hall accompanying Jeannie Robertson singing My Son David - oh dear!!
All academic anyway - I have made my opinion on tampering with someone else's creation - nothing I have heard, here or elsewhere, comes anywhere to persuading me that it not in any way acceptable unless it is done with the full consent of the singers - too late for our lot, I'm afraid!

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 12:04 PM

Jim, you're making your opinion & position clear for anyone else who might consider a similar project to Sam's - fair enough, respect that.

But, and this is a very big hypothetical 'IF'..

How do you think you would respond if a group of young Irish Traveller musican/producers
came to you asking your permission & consent for them to use vocal samples
for a culture mixing Club Dance project they sincerely believed would be a positively benefitial good idea * ?

You don't have to answer this, but like I said I'm just curious.


[* bearing in mind how popular vintage swing & gypsy jazz 78rpm sample and remix dance tracks are on the continent]

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 12:34 PM

"badly dubbed, appallingly executed"

Is this not the problem rather than the concept of building tracks around sampled recordings?

The only way to avoid sampling in an era where sampling has become a completely normal part of music making is to keep the recordings under lock and key or for the copyright holders to get litigious. As Matt says, the recordings aren't the singers' actual performances, they are simply a recorded copy of the performances.

The genie is out of the bottle. And I suspect we are dealing with the problems of cultural and generational shifts in perspective.

Meanwhile, I don't understand how anyone can think disrespect for either the songs, the singers or the collectors is on anyone's mind when embarking in a project like this. It's not a comedy album, you know.

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 12:52 PM

"we still have the Collector album of Robin Hall accompanying Jeannie Robertson singing My Son David - oh dear!!"
.,,./
Not sure this entirely relevant here, Jim. IIRC, Jeannie Robertson & Robin Hall were together in the Collector studio in Greenford to make this. He played as she sang, and Colin Pomroy [I think it was -- or perhaps Paul Carter?] recorded the performance. I don't think the accompaniment was dubbed on, but that it was made like this with Jeannie's consent and co-operation. You might not like the accompaniment or think it suitable to Jeannie's singing; but I am sure there was none of the post-hoc interference as related on this thread. So perhaps not really a comparable instance?

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 02:20 PM

I agree it isn't relevant to recordings of singers being used without knowledge or permission, I believe it relevant to the artistic merits of accompanying a singer like Jeannie Robertson - there are other examples I could draw upon - my own opinion of course - I can't agree that Halls accompaniment added anything but mild irritation to Jeannie's performance.
"How do you think you would respond if a group of young Irish Traveller musican/producers
came to you asking your permission & consent for them to use vocal samples "
Would depend on who they were in relation to the singers.
I would be totally opposed it on artistic grounds and would have no hesitation in opposing such an idea - I don't believe such an approach to the songs and it would not in any way represent any of our singers.
If they were family members I would do my level best to persuade them otherwise - I believe that, given the relationship we had with most of our singers, I would be successful in doing so.
If I thought for one minute that this represented the future for our field recordings, I wouldn't hesitate to lock them all away and leave them for posterity - I don't believe for on minute that this was how any of our singers would want to be represented.
As the "popular music" approach is an ephemeral one, i don't think this is an issue anyway.
"Is this not the problem rather than the concept of building tracks around sampled recordings?"
No it is not - presenting recordings of traditional singers must include the singers choice of what he/she is trying to communicate - not that of a stranger.
Do people here really believe any of this to be in any way desirable - has the revival moved as far from its roots as this - if so, where do I send the flowers and condolences?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 04:07 PM

"I can't agree that Halls accompaniment added anything but mild irritation to Jeannie's performance".
.,,.
Certainly won't dispute that. Why, it didn't even add much to his own performance; he was a dire guitarist, and lucky, as himself admitted when pissed enough [which much of the time!], to link up with Jimmy
McGregor, who played quite well.

Still not entirely relevant to the thread, mind; but nice to drift on to a point where we can be fully in agreement!

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 06:14 PM

MtheGM, What do you mean by "much of the time"? when he was performing or when he was socialising. Also as I know you are a stickler for getting things correct can I just point out that it was Jimmie not Jimmy. That was they way he insisted it was spelt.
How is this for thread drift?.

Hoot

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 08:58 AM

Oops! Sorry, Hoot & all. Jimmie indeed.

Obviously Robin would make such admissions when socialising, as we wouldn't be conversing while he was playing. But at one time I saw quite a bit of him. After Troubadour sessions, he would quite often walk home with me as I lived nearby [my family had a hotel in Harrington Gardens where I lived in my bachelor days], & doss out on my floor, rather than catching last tubes back to wherever he was living at the time; so over the months we had quite a few conversations as young men do, about sex, and guitar playing, and sex, and ballads, and sex, and the advantages of unaccompanied singing, and sex, and singing to someone else's accompaniment, and sex...

~M~

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 10:15 AM

Don't forger the sex - what would the good people of Morningside do for coal without them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 10:42 AM

Well Jim, at least you don't have to worry about copyright. I am sure that joke went into public domain many years back.

Hoot

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 11:22 AM

Damn - thought I'd just made it up - where do I send the cheque?
Jim Carroll
BTW Hoot - don't know if you're interested, but I've just come across an old radio programme on The Ballads and Blues Club

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 12:21 PM

As I know it, the person in Morningside asked what he did about sex replied "Ah hae ma tea."

~M~

... and how about that for drift!

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 03:52 PM

Jim I would certainly be interested to hear that, where can I find it? Is there a date?
I have a couple of photographs which I think were taken during a BBC recording around 1957/58

Hoot

Subject: RE: Breach of Copyright - and Integrity
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 02:24 AM

That would sound about right Hoot
Be interested in a swap?
Doesn't matter - you're welcome to a copy anyway, though we'd have to exchange e-mail addresses - mine is available via C#House (never happy with putting it up openly on Mudcat - bad experiences.
Contact me, or maybe join and P.M. me.
I might have other stuff of interest - who knows.
Best
Jim