Correct the Digital Tradition

Subject: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Bryan Bowers
Date: 23 May 01 - 02:26 PM

About 20 years ago, I recorded a version of a song called "Hot Buttered Rum," written by my old friend Tommy Thompson of the Red Clay Ramblers.

I was just searching through the Digital Tradition and saw that you give me the songwriting credit. Well, it rightfully belongs to Tommy.

Unfortunately, Tommy's now living in a nursing home as he copes with Alzheimer's Disease. You would honor Tommy by giving him the credit he deserves in the Digital Tradition.

Bryan Bowers

---

Correction made. Sorry it took so long, Bryan.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 May 01 - 02:30 PM

You need to drop by the Forum here more often Bryan.....Your name is oft mentioned here.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 23 May 01 - 02:37 PM

It would appear that whoever harvested the song for the DT didn't incorporate any of the supplemental information given in the original thread, where the error of attribution was pointed out on the same day, and corrections to the first transcription provided.  See:  RE: HotButtered Rum

Malcolm

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:01 PM

I'm sure Dick will be happy to correct the attribution.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Bryan Bowers
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:01 PM

Malcolm,

Reading through the the messages in the link you provided, I can see that the correct attribution in this forum has been made several times over the past four years.

That means the mistake in the Digital Tradition should have been corrected four years ago. It appears that whoever is in charge of the Digital Tradition cannot be bothered to make the correction.

I can understand how it might take a few days, or even a few weeks to make the correction. But there is absolutely no excuse for it to take more than four years.

Bryan Bowers

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Hollowfox
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:06 PM

Bryan, since a lot of that sort of thing is done by volunteers, perhaps you could contact Max and volunteer to help with the correction project.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:10 PM

The correct person to contact would be Dick Greenhaus. Also - it should be noted the corrections do NOT appear on this site until the corrected version is uploaded - which does not always coincide with an updated DT.

Meanwhile - as has been noted - the correct attribution is available for those who are reading the forum.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:15 PM

It is also good to remember that there are over 8,000 songs in the DT and that the volunteers, etc. who lend their time are to be appreciated. There are more volunteers sharing some of the tasks, now, than there were four years ago, but it is still very time-consuming.

Also, when something like that is noted in a thread, it is buried with the thread, when it drops down the list. To scan the thousands and thousands of threads for corrections, additions, etc. is a monumental task. It is best, always, if possible, to send a personal message to Dick Greenhaus or Susan DT, or Max at the Mudcat, about such things.

kat

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:29 PM

The people who need to know about this are Susan Friedman ([e-mail]) and/or Dick Greenhaus ([e-mail]). They control everything that goes into the Digital Tradition. There are various people (I'm one of them) who "harvest" lyrics from discussion threads and e-mail them to Susan.

I noticed this same error myself a month or so ago, and I THINK I sent e-mail to Susan about it, but just now, I couldn't find a record of that message. I probably deleted it from my archive.

I don't know how soon changes will appear in the Digital Tradition. It seems the version we can see now hasn't been updated since the spring of 1999.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:44 PM

That's true, kat, but Bryan isn't a member and can't send a personal message. I'll do so now, in case Dick misses this thread. I understand Bryan's frustration, but the DT is huge and the few souls who maintain it have their hands full just trying to add all the new songs that are posted, let alone correcting mistakes. Sorry to hear about Tommy Thompson...I'll make sure Dick understands the significance of the correct attribution.

Bryan, I hope all this doesn't dissuade you from spending more time on the Mudcat. Your music has meant a lot to me over the years (as a former Seattleite, I've always loved "The View From Home"), and your presence would be welcome.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:53 PM

It is my observation that additions (an presumably, therefore, corrections) to the DT proceed with all geological haste!

Case in point: On January 19, 2000, about a year and a quarter ago, I posted "I was born in Cincinnati", a silly song to "The Wearin' of the Green".

On at least two subsequent occasions (months later) I noted that it did not have the "birdie", the mark that shows that a song has been harvested, and posted an inquiry or request. At great length I found that it had indeed been harvested. That was AT LEAST six months ago, I think.

However, the song still does not show up in the DT.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:02 PM

the on-line version of the DT is the Oct '99 version. I believe there is a 2000 version available through Dick that did not go into general circulation due to some technical difficulties. [The rumour is that there are several hundred additional songs in that version.]

ANOTHER version is due out shortly - but at last notice was waiting for the (volunteer) Mac wizard to complete his technological wizardy.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:03 PM

"...proceed with all geological haste."

I need to add that one to my list....Thanks Dave

Spaw

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:04 PM

On the same subject, on July 3, 2000 I posted "The Next Big River". It shows that it was harvested, but the DT search doesn't show it. It makes one wonder if there is a point in submitting songs for the DT.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:20 PM

DAVE! Please read my post above.

NOTHING submitted past 10/99 can POSSIBLY show online in the DT at this time. EVEN though some of those submissions are *in* the DT as available on CD. (Which can be purchased from Dick Greenhaus for a measly 5 dollars)

PLUS - as Dick will admit - there was already a backlog in '99. He only has so much time available for processing - but he has stressed repeatedly he will get as much as possible into the DT.

Do you have any idea how many man-hours are spent in harvesting and processing these songs?

I know *I* only have an inkling - despite having done some pre-processing on about 1500 items in the past year.

and the more items - the longer it takes to double check - each and every time to verify as much as possible.

which reminds me - I've got to input the tune Dave sent me. Thanks, BTW. I appreciate getting it.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:25 PM

My apologies if my reply above sounded a little heated.

In the last year I have grown to truly appreciate just how much work Dick and Susan have put into the DT - which I will remind people - they distribute at a price that barely covers the cost of materials - and certainly does not recompense them for the time they put into it.

This is above and beyod the costs and time that it takes for Max and his elves to keep the 'cat open. (I think we sometimes forget these are two seperate entities.)

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:36 PM

As has been pointed out on the Pledge Drive threads, Dick would be happy to be able to spend much more time on the DT if there was more monetary support, either through donations or through CD sales at Camsco Music. He also was working on getting a grant last I knew.

I am grateful to Dick and Susan and all of the other volunteers who do work so hard on getting the songs and tunes harvested.

Mark, I know Brian can't send a PM, that's why I said, "if possible." I am sorry to hear about Mr. Thompson, too, and like you said, I am sure Dick understands how meaningful correcting this will be.

I would hope that Brian might see fit to join us, as other more well-known folkies have done, in which case he could send a timely PM to Dick or anyone else.

kaywithherbackupabitwhenpeoplestartattackingvolunteers

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Hollowfox
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:48 PM

Ah, Mmario, far too people realize how exacting it is to harvest the stuff, get it in the right format, verify lyrics, authorship, etc., check for typos,...the list goes on. And on. I see it as a minor miracle that we have such fine folks as our DT duo, people who do not sacrifice their real lives to the necessary minutia of such a fine database. Usually to get something half this good, the organizer has to be obsessive near to dementia. I'd rather put up with the delay and let them have a life as well as a database. Thanks, Susan and Dick.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 23 May 01 - 05:04 PM

I'd certainly agree that Dick and Susan do a fantastic job.

However, there are (inevitaby) a lot of errors, typos, misappropriate notes etc.

Would it be an idea to try and get some volunteer help to sort things out?

I'm thinking of the top of my head, but it could perhaps be split, so that one volunteer picked through all the songs beginning with 'A' to check for errors / ommisions, another for 'B' and so on.

Or would this simply give Dick and Susan a flood of new work?

Just a thought

Ed

who would be happy to help

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 23 May 01 - 05:08 PM

Ed - you would have to talk direct to Dick and Susan regarding that. I'm not sure exactly how they divide the labor - tho' I know Dick is the only person at this time that creates the actual Songwrite files.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 01 - 07:36 PM

...unfortunately, the DT is not a simple database that can be tapped into & edited on the fly, or we'd have several volunteers constantly 'cleaning' it...and there ARE some current technical things hanging up the process, but any search on "Hot Buttered Rum" will get the correct info, and it WILL get fixed in all places eventually.

Bill D..
(Bryan...I'm the guy who told you about Winfield about 1974..glad to see you've found us, lots of \nice folks here...including that old, decrepit, lazy bum of a DT administrator, Dick Greenhaus...*ducking and running*)

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 23 May 01 - 07:39 PM

The point I was trying to make was that the corrected information was already in the thread at the time the lyric was harvested; it was posted about 2 hours after the text quoted.  It was not so much a question of correcting an inaccurate entry in the DT (which, for obvious reasons, can take a long time) as ensuring that the correct information -which was available- was entered in the first place.  This should not be taken as a criticism of any volunteer; simply as a reminder that it can sometimes be worth taking a little more time to ensure accuracy, maybe at the cost of entering a few less songs; in the long run it makes for less work and fewer arguments.

Malcolm

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:26 AM

I'm pretty sure I submitted a corrected text to the Digital Tradition within the last year, but the online version of the database is the one that came out in October 1999. As I recall, the text in the Digital Tradition was there before it was posted on Mudcat, but I'm not sure of that. Jim Dixon and I are doing most of the harvesting, and I think we're gradually catching up. Dick and Susan are doing the assembly and editing work, and Dick does the SongWright tunes.
I know it's frustrating that changes don't get into the DigiTrad immediately, but remember that as soon as you post a song at Mudcat, it goes into a searchable database - the Mudcat Forum. I suppose Dick & Susan could recruit more volunteers, but we four seem to be stepping on each other as it is. More volunteers might just make things messier.
Please remember that the Digital Tradition is not a commercial product. The two people primarily involved in the Digital Tradition, Dick and Susan, have to do other things to make a living.
-Joe Offer, on vacation-

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:37 AM

I have never thought it appropriate to mention this before, but there are dozens of incorrect lyrics in the DT (and these are only the ones that I have had occasion to note). The one which springs to mind as I write is Dougie McLean's "Caledonia". In the DT one of the lines reads
"I have travelled far, with coattails flying, somewhere in the wind". COATTAILS ? HELLO?

I also would be willing to offer my services in a volunteer clean-up, but it appears that that is a non-starter. Oh well.

And Bryan Bowers, I think your performance at Cambridge Folk Festival in 1975 was one of the finest I have ever witnessed. Although you will never convince me you weren't playing taped overdubs to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". You just can't do all that on solo autoharp.

Murray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:59 AM

Well, I checked it out, and the version in the Digital Tradition is indeed the incorrect set of lyrics posted by belter in 1997. Perhaps the harvester went through before the corrected lyrics and songwriter attribution were posted. We're working on ways to prevent that, but haven't achieved perfection.
I'm not home, so I can't see if I had submitted a correction. I sent a personal message to Jim Dixon and asked him to make sure a corrected version gets sent to Dick right away.
The best way to submit lyrics is to post them here at Mudcat. That way, other people have a chance to see what you posted and to correct your mistakes - BEFORE your mistakes get included in the Digital Tradition.

If you post a song and don't see ^^ harvesting birdies in a couple weeks, send a personal message or e-mail to Jim Dixon or me and we'll take care of it - I think this is probably better than contacting Dick and Susan, because they get swamped and harvesting is our job.
If I'm not satisfied with the information on a song, I sometimes bookmark the thread and get back to it later, hoping somebody had posted better information. I suppose we should develop a symbol to show that we're watching threads we haven't harvested. We're working on improving procedures but we ain't perfect yet. We've been adding hundreds of songs and tunes a year and we're working on a Windows version of the database, so I think we've accomplished a lot.

Sorry about the confusion about "Buttered Rum." I'm pretty sure it will be fixed in the next edition of the Digital Tradition.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:24 AM

As Murray stated, there ARE dozens of incorrect lyrics in the Digital Tradition. That's because the people who submitted the lyrics goofed them up. It's important to be careful about submitting lyrics, and to use writted sources whenever possible (and tell us where you got the lyrics). If you transcribe frm a recording or if you are posting from memory, tell us that. We also get lots of demands for corrections to the Digital Tradition for corrections that aren't sigificant, or for corrections that are incorrect, or for corrections that are just different versions of the songs we have.
Dick used to like to include lyrics exactly as submitted, because he felt he had a duty to honor the work of the person who submitted the lyrics. We've pushed away from that in recent years, particularly with composed (not traditional) songs. We are making better efforts to include proper songwriter attribution and copyright information. It's easier to submit new songs than it is to submit corrections, but we're working on that.

If you think a song in the database needs correction, post the whole song (with all Digital Tradition formatting), not just the corrections that need to be made - include comments that explain where the corrections are, or put the corrections in bold if you can. It's best to post the corrected lyrics in an existing thread on the song, but you can start a new one if there isn't an existing thread. If you want to correct several songs, you might want to start a thread and call it DT corrections, making sure that you post only one song per message in that thread, and that you put Correction & the song title in the message title. It's probably best not to post a single song all by itself in a thread - solitary songs tend to get lost, especially if the harvesters aren't working on the day you post.

It really helps if you post songs in the Digital Tradition format, which is explained in the FAQ.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:44 AM

Joe, that is good concise information. You are now about to be swamped by an onslaught of "Correction" threads ! But not tonight ......

Murray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: SeanM
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:00 AM

I'd also have to add to this one...

Unless you have original sheet published by the original author, or unless you are submitting "Version as recorded by xxxx", then who really is to say that it's incorrect?

I always like to think of the "Digital Tradition" as the continuation of the original "Oral Tradition". People from all over the world, hearing songs they've enjoyed, and giving them to the DT for inclusion so that others may enjoy them as well. As with any such passing of lyrics, changes are introduced.

Now, for attributed lyrics, there is ground for correction as to variations from original lyrics that aren't labeled as such, or from other causes like the misattribution of authorship that started this thread.

But, if you see a traditional song that includes a lyric you don't recognize as 'correct', chances are that whomever posted that song would have a difference of opinion with you over that point.

That out of the way, let me add my voice to the cheers for the work Dick, Susan, Joe and everyone else involved with the DT. Warts and all, it's a wonderful damn resource. Thanks to anyone who contributes to it - it's a joy to paw through.

M

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:17 AM

It IS a wonderful resource, and nobody is blaming anybody here. People take the trouble to post in lyrics, and they should be encouraged to do so.

Almost all of the errors I have noticed arise from lyrics which have obviously been transcribed from a recording, and the sender has misheard what the singer is actually singing. The "Caledonia " example above is a case in point. More will come to light in the near future.

The most bizarre case of misheard lyrics, IMHO (and nothing to do with the DT) happened in Edinburgh some years ago, when a kenspeckle singer was singing "Ringsend Rose", and sang the phrase "street urchin's grin" as "straight arrow thin". When tackled about this, he simply shrugged "Well, that's the way I learnt it". How much other nonsense is being disseminated this way, through faulty hearing?

Ringsend Rose is not a traditional song, I grant you, but there are traditional songs which have nonsensical lyrics, almost certainly the result of the "folk process" being applied hundreds of years ago. Don't even get me started on "Carrickfergus" .....

Murray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Rana
Date: 24 May 01 - 07:46 AM

Ralph McTell's Mrs. Adlam's Angel was also attributed to Brian Bowers (as pointed out by Malcolm Douglas on that Thread). Just wondering if Brian has had any more attributed to him (and I think it is great he took the effort to point the first mistake out)

Rana

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 May 01 - 11:28 AM

Murray McCloud - I have a VHS tape of Bryan Bowers playing "Battle Hymn Of The Republic". It's the sixth finger on his left hand that makes it possible.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 24 May 01 - 06:26 PM

If you want to hear nonsensical folk-processed lyrics, listen to the Carter Family...some people just aren't as finicky about getting the words right as other people are (I'm in the latter group!). I also tend to be finicky about names: Bryan Bowers spells his with a "Y". OK, enough. (You all know where the term "nitpicking" comes from, don't you?)

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 24 May 01 - 06:45 PM

Mark, you know where the term "cheap shot " comes from, don't you? If I were pernickitty about people spelling (or even pronouncing) my name right, I would be correcting forever.

Even SINSULL, bless her, can't get it right , but do you hear me complaining? No, you don't. And why not? Because I want her to send me a copy of that BRYAN Bowers tape, that's why. I still don't believe he has only six fingers on his left hand ....

Murray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:33 PM

Murray McLeod:

You think YOU got troubles?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:49 PM

Sheesh, it's McCloud and Oasterike all over!! **BG**

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:55 PM

Uh, Murray, you weren't the one who misspelled it...not that I was serious, anyway. But seriously, what in the world is a kenspeckle singer?

Aloha,
M

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:58 PM

A well known one.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 01 - 10:22 PM

ken•speck•le

Pronunciation: (ken'spek"ul), [key] —adj. Scot. and North Eng. conspicuous; easily seen or recognized. Also,ken'speck"led.

never heard of it before....seems very local

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 25 May 01 - 12:04 AM

Dave, you see, YOU didn't even get it right ! MacLeod. But I would never mis-spell your name , because having studied German in secondary (high) school, I know that your name is simply the German for "Austria". Or a meringue? ( Scottish joke, don't even ask)

Murray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 01 - 12:21 AM

My gawd, we may have stumbled upon more misheard lyrics!

What a beautiful though I am thinking
Concerning the kenspeckled bird.

Well that certainly clears up the debate over exactly what was meant by "great speckled bird"!!! It was a "kenspeckled bird" instead.......probably a robin.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 25 May 01 - 12:32 AM

Spaw, your hearing problems are obviously greater than mine. You can be "Kenspeckle" but you can't be "Kenspeckled"

Sod it, why don't you buy us both a ticket to Scotland, and I can give you some first hand tuition ........

Murray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 01 - 12:35 AM

HEY!!

Hey!

YOU!!

You!
GIT OFFA' MACLEOD!!!

Sawp (?)

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Bert
Date: 25 May 01 - 12:40 AM

Bryan Bowers, there is absolutely no excuse for anything being wrong ever - If someone else is doing the work.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 25 May 01 - 12:47 AM

Well, Spaw i guess that's preferable to the ancient shepherd's cry

"Hey MacLeod, Get off my ewe"

These were Welsh MacLeods. you understand ..........

Murray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 May 01 - 03:15 PM

Murray - a copy of the tape? Maybe, given that this is Bryan Bowers' thread, you should ask for the title and where to buy it... Mary, being Politically Correct.
And yes I did pay full price.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 May 01 - 03:35 PM

That was said with tongue held firmly in cheek.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 26 May 01 - 12:28 PM

Sinsull, you are of course perfectly correct. I just thought it might have been a tape you happened to have recorded of a television show ........

Muuray

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From:
Date: 04 Dec 02 - 05:29 PM

Hi,

Could you please update http://www.mudcat.org/@displaysong.cfm?SongID=9073 to mention that it's recorded on Marie-Lynn's "Impromptu" CD which is currently available from http://www.marielynnhammond.com

The Stringband version is on the recently released 2-CD compilation, "The Indespensible Stringband" available http://www.stringband.net

Cheers,

Richard

---

Correction noted, Richard. However, that's not the type of information that ordinarily appears in the Digital Tradition. We stick to lyrics, and try to document the source where the lyrics came from. Supplementary stuff gets posted here at Mudcat.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 02 - 06:58 PM

...and try to document the source where the lyrics came from

But we don't try very hard...

---

Well, we're trying harder. It's only the last couple of years that we've been asking people for sources.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Genie
Date: 04 Dec 02 - 09:40 PM

Ed, I like your idea.  I do submit corrections to Dick on occasion, never knowing if someone else has beat me to it.  I'd be glad to "take a letter" and work on the songs I know or can research within that letter.

Or maybe there could be a permathread started where folks could post the name of any song that they have more or less definitively corrected in the DT.  ( I mean, at least checked formal sheet music or liner notes and corrected spelling and major punctuation errors, as well as authorship attributions.)  That way, we could check that thread before spending time reinventing the wheel.

As Joe said, it's important when we post a song, to indicate how authoritative a source we got it from (how certain we are of its correctness).  This is especially important when authorship is known.

Important caveat:  When trying to acknowledge a song's author, please don't assume that the singer who recorded it wrote it, no matter how prolific a songwriter that artist (e.g., Bryan Bowers) may be!

Sean, (Unless you have original sheet published by the original author, or unless you are submitting "Version as recorded by xxxx", then who really is to say that it's incorrect?)  Well, sometimes we get lyrics from a recording by the songwriter (who enunciates clearly).  There are other cases where it's just really clear that the lyrics have been "mondegreened"  (especially when they make no sense, while the way the song is usually sung does make sense).  Still, we can say what our source was.

Murray, one other source of "lyric drift" is "covers" by artists who like to stylize a song and make it their own.  Janis Joplin's version of "Bobby McGee" is a notable case in point.  Sinatra did that a lot, and many jazz singers do it, too.

And, yes, Malcolm, your point about checking the original thread in its entirety before harvesting is also well taken.  An ounce of prevention, as it were.

Genie

Mark, "Nitpicking" -- that's what monkeys do for each other, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Dec 02 - 10:46 PM

Genie, I try to encourage people to post corrections and lyrics here, instead of mailing them direct to Dick. If you post stuff before it goes to the DT, people have a chance to review it for accuracy - and your information is immediately available to eveyrone. Try to find an existing thread on the song, and post your message there - put CORRECTION and the song title in the title of your message. If you're just correcting the name of the songwriter, use the Attribution PermaThread.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: mkebenn
Date: 05 Dec 02 - 07:48 AM

Hey, Macleod, get offa my ewe? OH MY ACHING GUT....Mike

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Genie
Date: 05 Dec 02 - 02:05 PM

Now I'm confused, Joe. I thought you wanted us to do both -- post in the forum and then send Dick a PM with a link to the thread/post with the correction, so it wouldn't be overlooked.

Genie

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Strupag
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 10:20 PM

I've been trying without making a fuss to give a wee bit of essential info to a song in the Digital Tradition, ie the author.
The song is one of my favourites, Faraway Tom and the DT refers to it being sung by Jean Redpath. True, but the guy who wrote it was the January Man himself, Dave Goulder.
If there is a more appropriate way of informing or ammending please let me know. I've tried the FAQs and am a bit confused as where one should make friendly submissions.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 10:44 PM

I've already given that particular information, and I think that Susan has it now for inclusion in the next version of the DT.

The place to post attributions is this thread:

Attribution added: DT authors PermaThread

Though I knew who wrote it, I wasn't able to supply the copyright date and publishing details; if you could add them (and any others that you're aware of and which aren't in the database at present) to that thread it would be helpful.

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 06:11 PM

Judy Dyble - if you have corrections to Fairport Convention lyrics that are in the Digital Tradition, please post them in this thread (click), and we would be very grateful.
Thank you very much for stopping by.
-Joe Offer, forum moderator-

Subject: RE: Correct the Digital Tradition
From: Susan of DT
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:19 PM

I don't think I ever even saw this thread. It seems to mostly have been alive for only a day or so. Not too many actual corrections in it. I'll trace the thread to work on those.

---

I think I'll close this thread and ask people to go to the attributions and minor corrections thread for minor stuff. For major stuff, start a new thread.
-Joe Offer-