Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Feb 02 - 07:19 PM

This is by way of an explanation as to why the update to DigiTrad is taking so damn long. It's not any sort of excuse--I fail to see why a delay in the publication of a freely shared collection calls for any excuse whatsoever.

A few years back, DigiTrad was a full-text-searchable database that was put together (and issued) in a DOS- based format called AskSam, and used a music-playing program based on SongWright that played the tunes on the computers' speakers. The only real problem (for me) was entering songs and melodies, and the database had some notably good features: It located words, phrases, and words within a specified proximity of each other; the music-playing program didn't produce elegant sounds (actually, it sounded something like a constipated melodeon), but it played the tunes on PCs that didn't have sound cards and it displayed the words synchronously with the notes played.

When DigiTrad was first put up on the Mudcat, we originally used a Windows version of AskSam. Like most Windows applications, it was fairly slick, but didn't work as well as the earlier DOS version. It also required me to convert the tunes into MIDI format, which didn't allow for synchronizing words and music. This took additional time and left me with two versions of the tunes--a MIDI for the website, and Songwright for the people who downloaded or paid for disks. I refuse to give up the "follow the bouncing ball" feature completely. Though this system worked, it was a nuisance and it wasn't the fastest search engine around, and pretty soon the increased traffic on Mudcat caused traffic jams. Max instituted a new search engine which was faster, though even a bit more limited in the types of searches it would support. The new search required me to produce an HTML version of DigiTrad, in addition to the more compact and (IMO) better-performing one on the downloaded DOS version. It also demanded more time on my part. About this time, a helpful Macintosh programmer named Mark Heiman graciously volunteered to provide a Mac version of DigiTrad. This worked well until Mac changed its operating system, which caused the whole business to crash. A fixed Mac version appeared a year ago, for download.The Mac version has a couple of neat features: since Macs come with sound cards, you can pick the instrument you want the tune to be played upon. Even nicer, the program displays the score, lets you print it, and has synchronizing capabilities. The search is mouse driven, and doesn't support Boolean (NOT, IF, AND and OR) searches, but on the whole it's a slick package. Mr. Heiman also wrote a Windows equivalent to the Mac version which enabled me to distribute a single CDROM with both the Windows and the Mac version on it. All was well--except that Microsoft updated their operating system. Guess what no longer worked. At the moment, several things are happening (or not happening, depending on how you look at this.) The Digital Traditions forthcoming edition has about a thousand added lyrics, with a bit under 50% of them having tunes. Many errors, glitches, mis-attributions, duplications and typos have been corrected. It's still in the DOS AskSam format, which is the simplest, most convenient one for me to use. Mark Heiman, who has a full-time job as well as several time-consuming projects--he's coming out with the first new edition of Child in a quarter-century--is working on de-bugging the Windows and Mac versions. Since I'd like all the new versions to come out at the same time, I'm holding of on the teejus job of converting my files to HTML until the downloadable disks are ready. Many people have submitted songs for DigiTrad. Some are even in a usable format, and are not duplicates of what we have. Same goes for tunes. That's not where the hang-up is, though---and if anyone wants to take on the chore of converting SongWright Files to MIDI, I'd be glad to send him or her the files (along with software to do this with). I know of no volunteered labor that has been ignored; if such there be, I apologize.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: clansfolk
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 07:10 AM

I have no problems running my "old" copy on XP?

and may I add yes of course a regular update would be great - but there are only so many hours in a year

The groups I appear with get about 150 - 200 requests a year from Charity groups asking to play at their events - and charity fee (free!) we have to say no to 95% of these - it's all down to time management I for one am grateful for what Mudcat has to offer - gift horses etc...

So to you all "THANK YOU" for what is here and if or when an update becomes available I will thank you all the more!

Pete

clansfolk

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:43 AM

It has been obvious for several years that Dick and Susan have tired of their fabulous progeny.

While the MudCat is seriously lacking .... it is Max's sole responsibility....

I do not have the time, nor the inclination to cry "Moose Turd Pie" on such rich a database as the DT.

thank you dick and susan!

Sincerely,
gargoyle

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 11:53 PM

Nice site Joe,

Though you know that letting people know that sites like that exist, will only increase the complaints about the Mudcat...

Thanks for everything you do, Joe (and everyone else who works on the site). I have a small site that has the lyrics of TV theme songs and I get emails every day complaining I forgot their favorite show's lyrics. Of course, 90% of the time it is either that I have not been able to find the lyrics anywhere, or the show was on for 2 weeks in 1964 and everyone but the complaintant has forgotton about it, or the show's song never even had lyrics.

pax yall

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Mr Red - uncooked
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 07:25 PM

There is a kiddes show that spoofed this one with a "leakiest sink" sketch. Yes is was un-plugged!

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 06:23 PM

Yeah, Tom, GUEST is kind of like the Borg, except that it's very unlikely that Seven of Nine has bever been a part of it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 05:10 PM

Gee, and I though my "funny" remark would have garnered the ire of Mudcat members who have issues with me carrying on a conversation with GUEST.

And just a quick note. I use the word GUEST in caps to refer to whomever posts under the GUEST thing. As far as I'm concerned, all GUEST are the same, unless they are cookie-less and identify themselves in the post. This includes those members who intentionaly sign-out so they can "safely" post a comment they are afraid to own up to.

I personally, have never and would never do that. And if THAT is a controversial statement. So be it. I am Blackcatter. My real name is Thomas Edward Cook and I live in Orlando, FL. If anyone hates my opinion, come visit me. We can discuss it human to human. pax yall

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Not if We Can Help It!
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 02:43 PM

Nay, nay, nay--Mudcat and DT will be hijackedd and taken hostage at Antifolk.net. That'll teach the bloody folk nazis around here a thing or two!

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 01:41 PM

Who was it said that if we just had musical threads on the Mudcat we wouldn't run into trolls and other similar creatures?

Maybe one of the advantages of having so much BS is that, most of the time, it keeps the little darlings away from the musical stuff. In Morocco they stick a glass with sugar and mint leaves at the end of the table, and it means the flies and wasps keep out of the way messing around in there while people drink their tea in peace.

When they are doing studies covering what was happening in "folk music" (eg what kind of people were involved, what kind of songs did they sing and what motivated them) - at the start of the century, I predict that the DT and the Mudcat will be a prime source. And they will be doing those kind of studies.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,The Prize Patrol Pedant
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 01:30 PM

Apparently Prize Patrol, you overlooked the rigorous music discussions amongst the MC glitterati in this good news thread of the day:

Ravel, Bolero, Brain Damage on NPR

'Nuff said about that one, met'inks.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,The Prize Patrol
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 01:24 PM

I want everyone to know I haven't paid any attention to this GUEST in this thread.

Blackcatter, you win the award for the stupidest statement on Mudcat today.

The very fact that you're in this thread means you've paid attention. I would also call your attention to that fact that your reference to this GUEST means nothing because there are different guests who have posted to this thread.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 01:19 PM

Mmmmhhhhmmmm, Blackcatter. And do we consider the anon guest in the Drumcree threads to be flaming or trolling?

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 01:10 PM

I want everyone to know I haven't paid any attention to this GUEST in this thread.

And it's so good to see that me refraining from doing so has helped things. I can just feel that the Mudcat is better for it.

Anyway - if you could chose 8 folk performers for a Weakest Link episode, who would they be? By the way did you happen to notice that the Star Trek actors set the record for the highest money won of any of the episodes - celebrity to no?

pax yall

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 12:58 PM

WYSIWYG

"vow never to post a song here again because he was too high and mighty to learn how to do HTML line breaks? "

Get off it and read the frigg'n post again... My point was that ANY MB worth it's salt will do all that fiddley-niggeling crap for you... And the inability to edit posts just compounds the frustration at typing a post up all nice nice, submitting it only to find that it looks like CRAP because one little HTML tag is messed up or missing... how feckin' stupid is that?!?!?! When FREE MB services all over the net offer editing, and html conversion as basic services, why not this place??? It can't really be THAST hard to do...

And well, with the exception of a very few songs requests that I suspected NO ONE else here was gonna be able to help with, I haven't posted lyrics... That's the point I made in this thread... once I found out that Mudcat policy was slack when it came to basic services like that, I shut up about it and dealt with it exactly how I'm telling the trolls here to deal with their displeasure...

High and mighty has nothing to do with it at all... 'can't be bothered if they can't be bothered' is much closer to the truth of it...

"BTW Clinton, I know of no serious academic music researchers who use DT. It is a wonderful source of lyrics for singers, but it isn't a source for music research, per se. And I didn't think the DT folks ever claimed that it was, or am I mistaken about that? "

Ummm... I donno... did I hint one way or ther other??? cause I don't think I meant to... the DT is an interesting little tool, but like all things that you get for free, you get what you pay for... Sure it has some lyric mistakes perhaps, and some crediting errors I guess, but ya know what... I don't really care... I occasionally just thumb through it for laughs... to see what's there... I've found a lot of neat stuff, and I've found a lot of stuff, that if I could edit my version here, I'd pull right out of it... but that's just me eh...

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: annamill
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 12:53 PM

Complain if you like about DT, but to all who have shown my friends Dick and Susan unwarranted disrespect.. FECKOFF!! (Heartspoken)

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Tom N
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 11:45 AM

Here is what is said about DT in the Tradsong Song Index page:

"DIGITAL TRADITION

Available online at www.mudcat.org. Includes full texts of versions and midi tunes. Its all-inclusive and non-critical inclusion policy make it excellent for the singer wishing to locate a text of a particular song, but of little help to the scholarly researcher."

I don't think the above is a nasty, uncalled for criticism of DT. Rather, I find it to be a realistic assessment as to the DT's usefulness to the scholarly researcher.

For those of us who do a lot of song research on-line and off, it is important to have and maintain high standards for that research. As I said, DT is great for singers, but as others have noted, it is of little use to serious researchers. And that is OK, as we need different sorts of resources for different purposes and uses.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Tom N
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 11:39 AM

http://www.tradsong.freeserve.co.uk/Indices.htm

fiddle databases:

http://www.iland.net/~bshull/NAFA/data_l.htm

excellent folk links page (esp Australian):

http://www.folk-sa.asn.au/FolkFederation/links.htm

Smithsonian's Rinzler Folklife Archive links page, exhaustive!:

http://www.folkways.si.edu/linkspag.htm

Celtic Circle's Song Lyric Link page:

http://www.social-dancing.com/lists/

British Song Fa La La: database & song literature 16th cent-present:

http://www.public.asu.edu/~icwwh/

Cantus: database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant:

http://publish.uwo.ca/~cantus/

Medieval Music Database:

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/Audio-Visual/Stinson/medmusic.htm

Women Song Composers Database Published in the United States and England, ca. 1890-1930:

http://musdra.ucdavis.edu/faculty/reynolds/Women_songs_home.html

Fasola, the Shape Note Singing page, includes links to tune collection info:

http://fasola.org/

Indiana University's Archive of African American Music & Culture:

http://www.indiana.edu/~aaamc/index.html

Guide to Copyright for Music Librarians:

http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/Copyright/copyhome.htm

Redhot Jazz Archive, history of jazz pre-1930, w/database of tunes:

http://www.redhotjazz.com/

Freefolk's links page, w/usual suspects:

http://www.freefolk.com/tddata.htm

The excellent Mississippi State Univ's Charles H. Templeton's Digital Sheet Music collection (rags, blues, war songs, popular songs, etc):

http://library.msstate.edu/ragtime/main.html

Max Hunter Folk Song Collection of Ozark Mountain folk songs (in progress, but well worth the trip, due to be complete by summer 2003):

http://www.smsu.edu/folksong/maxhunter/

African Music Archive (includes diaspora music like Jamaica folk music, etc) mostly links to realaudio collections, rather than indices and databases:

http://ntama.uni-mainz.de/~ama/

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Tom N
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 11:38 AM

Here is a list of links to databases and indices which do the job very well. If people took time to visit these, and well known others not listed here, like Contemplator, perhaps some here would begin to see how high the standard is nowadays for on-line folk music databases (even the grassroots efforts). Perhaps then, some here might get an idea of why some people find the DT a bit sub-standard and cumbersome to use.

BTW Clinton, I know of no serious academic music researchers who use DT. It is a wonderful source of lyrics for singers, but it isn't a source for music research, per se. And I didn't think the DT folks ever claimed that it was, or am I mistaken about that?

List of database links to follow in the next message.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Gusty
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 10:33 AM

Yeah, the DT has some mistakes, and yeah, it's huge. Are there any other lyric search engines out there that are completely free of errors or some sort of glitch? I use the DT all the time, and I find it easy enough to work around the bugs. Don't be so friggin' critical, GUEST with no name. Could you do better? Yeah? Well, then go for it. THEN you might have the right to slam Dick and Susan and their flawed product.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: wysiwyg
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 10:29 AM

Am I the only one here who recalls CH's rather rude thread with his vow never to post a song here again because he was too high and mighty to learn how to do HTML line breaks?

Maybe someone who manages a large effort might prioritize with whom he is willing to communicate, given shortages of time. I don't know if it had anything to do with this situation-- I also know of a number of instances when a PM sent around here has not arrived at its destination. And not all e-mails arrive, either, nor is every one that does arrive necessarily seen.

Nor are all messages that are seen, answered. I know there have been many times when I meant to answer something, knew the reply would be long and involved, put it off for a time I could focus on it, and then could not remember whether I had actually sent it or not. But then the people who write to me don't usually assume they are the center of my universe, either, and if I don't answer they don't usually accuse me in public of being an a**hole when an occasion presents itself.

When I offered to help, and Susan told me all that is involved, I understood why they keep the work close to home. It involves a lot of on-the-fly judgment calls. I did NOT feel unanswered, even tho it took awhile to get an answer-- I felt like a peer who also manages a lot of volunteer effort, talking to someone else who does, about how hard that can be.

We're so good at telling everyone what someone SHOULD have done, when in fact we know nothing about the actual circumstances. In the present instance, what CH posted in this thread is what, in football, they would call "piling on." If I had a boatload of messages piled up after a road trip and one was from CH, I'm not sure how fast I would answer him myself. It seems like stinkin' thinkin' to me, the way he took a thread started for making trouble and added to it.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: SINSULL
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 10:19 AM

well, gee...I answered an ad for volunteers at Amnesty International and a group delivering meals to AIDS shut-ins. Neither answered my email/phone calls. But I wasn't a member of the inner clique. And they collect money.

So...if Dick and Susan want the right to ignore offers of help, they will simply have to start charging money. Meantime, I use and recommend the DT daily. And am always grateful for their generosity. Now I am going to go and stand in the corner - self imposed punishment for responding to a troll.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 09:59 AM

As questions have been raised over Dick and Susan's interest in accepting help, I will offer my own experience.

When I was a Joe Clone, I did ask Susan if there was any way I could help with the song harvesting and got a very prompt reply saying "yes please". As it turned out, I gave the matter further thought and I didn't end up helping mostly because I wasn't clear on what songs should be harvested (I didn't feel I had the knowledge when it comes to varients or decisions as to what lyrics posted here qualified).

The main point here is that I got a reply and I think that is more important than having an offer of help accepted.

To follow on from what Mick had said, yes everyone who does anything here are volunteers but we are often reminded of that and how time is precious, it aslo appears to be true that there are a number of people willing to help. I can understand that there may be reasons for rejecting help but quite frankly, not to reply to an offer is insulting and can only create bad feelings.

I'm not saying this is the case here and, as I noted above, my experience with Susan was quite different but I still think it is something people should bear in mind when genuine offers of help are given.

Jon

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Joe Mannix
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 09:13 AM

There have been a number of flame threads at Mudcat that have actually been started by the "victims" themselves in order to spark a love-me thread by the always supportive Mudcat masses. Remember mousie's stalker thread.

Don't discount the possibility that this is yet another such thread.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 09:02 AM

GUEST Tom N, I understand your contention as I have worked with volunteers much of my life. The only thing that I don't think these folks grasp is that Dick and Susan are volunteers too, when it comes to the DT. This isn't something that is a revenue source for them. It is simply a labor of love that they have preserved for us over the years. And it is now, and will become moreso, an invaluable tool for musicologists and researchers as the years go by. One of the best researchers I know when it comes to music is Dan Milner (AKA Liam's Brother). Ask someone like him how important it is to have multiple versions. But I digress. I would suspect this isn't about basic courtesy as much as it is about having to scramble to make a living everyday, and still try and keep up with the emails, etc. that come in. And understand that one of the most important things we do when we use volunteers is to screen them for what they have the aptitude to do best. Another time consuming task. As I say, I don't think it is that Dick is intending to ignore, rather he just doesn't have time.

But to get back to the basic premise of this which was started by a slug.....................it is a free resource, you rummy. Your options are 1)Use it and quit bitchin'. 2)Quit using it and shut the hell up. 3)If you are so damn good, and think that all this that we have been saying is a load of bollocks, then you start your version of the DT and let us judge you.

Mick

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST, McFart of Knowitall
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 08:55 AM

In several threads recently, the sage of Mudcat, McGrath of Harlow, has said that he will not respond to flame threads started by guests.

But, here he is in this thread. I guess he lied again.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Tom N
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 08:31 AM

I've worked in non-profit organizations that rely heavily on volunteers my entire adult life. I can't imagine not responding to a volunteer who has offered to help, even if it is just to let them know that their help isn't needed at the time.

It appears to me that Joe Offer is saying the volunteer offers to DT are seen as a hindrance rather than a help. I understand the importance of the editing job being in only a few hands. And that this is a grassroots effort, not a professionally organized one, so the accuracy and usefulness of the database is less of an issue for me. I don't expect professional standards here, because the DT never claimed to be that. But there is such a thing as basic courtesy, that no grassroots effort can afford to forget about either.

Just another two bit opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: RichM
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 08:07 AM

Dear Guest(s) Dear Guest(s)
You have no complaint
You are who you are, and you ain't who you ain't
So tell us please tell us
if you have a complaint
tell who YOU are, and not who you ain't

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 07:10 AM

Moreover "to be considered useful, a database must be kept up-to-date" is rubbish, in this context. A collection of songs is always useful, however "out of date" it gets. Its not like a telephone directory where people move around and if it's not kept up to date you can't use it to find people. Songs aren't like that.

The songs are there for us to get hold of as and when we want. Revising it and adding extra songs and adding extra verses and extra details and all that are fine and can make it even more useful. But I am incredibly grateful for all the love and attention and hard work that has gone into it and continues to go into it.

Subject: Helping with the Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 06:09 AM

"Yes, all sorts of people have volunteered to tell Dick how to run the Digital Tradition"
I really hope yer not lumping people who are offering to HELP in with that lot, Joe...

Well, the place to help is right here. That's why Mudcat was set up. It's not a question of volunteering to help - find something that needs work, do the work on it, and post what you come up with. Dick has to have a small crew to do the tech stuff and the final editing, or things can get out of hand - but everybody can help by posting well-researched stuff here at Mudcat.

Mudcat is a wide-open opportunity for people to submit information - and it's immediately available because Mudcat is searchable. If the Digitrad lyrics of a song are out of kilter or if a tune is missing, post a message in a related thread and provide the information - preferably, using the Digitrad format and categories explained in the FAQ.

For a near-perfect example of what people can do, take a look at the Penguin Book of English Folksongs (click) thread. Ed Pellow transcribed all the tunes from the book, and then Alan Foster posted all the lyrics that were not in the Digital Tradition. Malcolm Douglas and others added research information and reference links for each song, and I added an index.

If you're posting a single song, please try to put it into a previous thread on a song, or into a thread that's related to a song. If you start a thread to post a single song, the thread gets lost unless there's reason for further discussion. A number of the "spirituals" project songs got lost for that reason. If you are posting a number of songs, it's far better to group them into threads with related songs, or to index them in one thread (as was done with the Penguin songs).

Another idea would be to do a systematic review of songs in the Digital Tradition, adding background information, alternate versions of lyrics, and corrected lyrics.

When you post lyrics, be sure to cite your sources. I know some people are irritated with the Campsite at Drumcree threads, but there are some interesting songs being posted there. I only wish the posters would identify themselves and (most importantly) cite their sources.

Yeah, it was nice when the Digital Tradition was updated twice a year, but that task has become more difficult with the death of DOS and the huge size of the database. You can't just dump a lot of songs into the database - they need to be cross-indexed and compared with what we already have. If you provide the cross-index and comparison information when you post the lyrics, that's a big help.

One more thing: when you post lyrics, please be sure that the word ADD and the song title are in your message title - just type the information into the box that says "Subject" in the reply to thread box. If it's a correction to lyrics we already have, put CORRECTION in the message title.
And please, cite your sources and give the songwriter name and publication date if it's a published song.
Thanks.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 05 Feb 02 - 01:02 AM

Gee, I was hoping this thread was announcing a folk music celebrity edition of the Weakest Link.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Catspaw666 (Pat's evil brother)
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 10:25 PM

Spaw,

The thing is, you're smarter than most other Mudcatters. That's a fact.

If you throw the bait out, you can always be sure that there are going to be some Mudcatters who just can't resist. It's like little Dewey with candy at his dad's company picnic.

666

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 09:13 PM

SOS=Same Old Shit

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 09:03 PM

Oh spaw, get off it... some of us like playing with the weak minded like this...

And the audacity to think that you can TELL people where and when to post or not??? Stuff it eh!

.-)

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 08:39 PM

Who is Roger? she asked interestedly. And Spaw, the rancor in this thread is pretty low key, I think.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Ferrara
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 08:34 PM

Good post Spaw. Bye now.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 08:34 PM

And BTW the Mac Version which came out more recently than 2 years ago works a treat and is a gift of incredible value to me, offered freely and built on the sweat of hundreds of hours of conscientious labor, not a carp or a bitch in the lot. Now THAT's caring!!

A

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:59 PM

And once again, the Troll wins folks!

A troll is a troll is a troll and this one was obvious from the FIRST POST!!! Did anyone actually take this seriously?

When exactly are we going to learn this one and not respond at all. I would have thought that this past weekend would have been enough to solidfy an effort..........Once again, words cannot hurt unless they are believed and you respect the speaker.........Could we all not immediately see that this was a troll and simply forget anything that they had to say? Do we need someone on "Troll Duty" to post to the thread quickly and say.....

TROLL...DON'T POST

or are we just completely helpless but to give in?......geeziz......

Sorry Roger.....Most may have missed your point, but you were and are correct.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:58 PM

"Yes, all sorts of people have volunteered to tell Dick how to run the Digital Tradition"

I really hope yer not lumping people who are offering to HELP in with that lot, Joe...

Cause if you are, then I'm afraid I might have to start siding with Guest here...

If it's the case that they simply do not want people to help, then fine... Let's have a statement to that effect...

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:54 PM

Dick used to bring a computer to the Getaway and make DT disks on the spot for people...and mail them all over the country....

It says somewhere in the disclaimers that 'no one pretends that the DT is a definitive list or is error free'....but it is sure a good place to start!

(thanks kat...I expect it will be fine)

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:47 PM

AND ALL FOR FREE!!! After this latest round of crap, I think Dick and Max would be well justified in imposing fees and/or a way of stopping these kinds of threads.

BillD, good luck, tomorrow.

kat

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:37 PM

See - just another troll, 'cause folks become bored/tired with attacks on Mudcat and members...now it's the DT.

It's very easy for us to forget both the DT and Mudcat aren't democracies. I remember when I first heard of the DT. It was on 3 or 4 discs, and you had to send Dick the blank discs. I remember thinking how cool it was that a few folks had come together and combined their personal songbooks on the discs and were willing to share them with other folks.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:37 PM

leadership?...I was not aware I was being led. Are YOU being led? I am here because it is pretty nice when the trolls shut up and quit howling for awhile...(yes, I AM pissed!...and after tomorrow, I wont be able to express how pissed I am for awhile due to eye surgery, so I guess I am syaing what I think with extra gusto!)

There are people doing the work, mostly in their spare time and in a spirit of trying to make it a decent place......there are others who want it to be "My way or no way", it seems....

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:37 PM

as an addenda - I primarily serve as a funnel for the transmission of the tune data. MANY people have been involved with the search and transcription of the tunes; several have learned either a new notation method or a new computer program specifically to post tunes to the Mudcat forum/DT.

Also there are a number of people, Malcolm Douglas and Masato, plus several more including BruceO, who take the time and the effort to expand on discussions in the threads, post links to variants, older tunes, etc.

But when it comes down to the crunch - the Mudcat is Max's baby and the DT is Dick's. God knows they catch the flak when something is "wrong".

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:31 PM

Love lickin' boots there do ya DB?

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Dharmabum
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:30 PM

To Dick,Susan & everyone else involved with the D.T.

THANK YOU!

DB.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:26 PM

I don't expect the Mudcat royals to change their arrogant attitudes anytime soon, especially when someone makes a statement justifying some one else's rude and arrogant behavior like this sneering remark about the people who have volunteered to help:

"Yes, all sorts of people have volunteered to tell Dick how to run the Digital Tradition - and Dick has very politely not responded to them."

What the hell do you expect people to think, when the Mudcat leadership responds like this? It is so appalling. So, so appalling.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:17 PM

"Yes, all sorts of people have volunteered to tell Dick how to run the Digital Tradition"

I really hope yer not lumping people who are offering to HELP in with that lot, Joe...

"If you don't like the job Dick does on editing, I suppose it's your right to speak your piece. Seems damn impolite to me, though"

Ya!!! And like I said, how do you like the price too?!?!

.-)

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:13 PM

Well, I think "Ann Robinson" is off on her math. The last edition of the Digital Tradition came out TWO years ago, in April, 2000. It is an experimental Windows version. It has some bugs, but it works. If you send Dick five bucks, he'll burn you a copy.

Dick Greenhaus is the editor of the Digital Tradition, and he keeps pretty close control of it. It's his baby, something he's done out of personal dedication since 1988. Susan of DT shares responsibility with Dick, but it's Dick who puts the thing together. Jim Dixon and I harvest songs from the Mudcat and put them into proper format for the DT, and MMario has been working on tunes.

Mark Heiman has been working on developing new versions of the DT that will work on Windows and Mac. What he's developed looks promising, but it still has bugs.

Max converts the Digital Tradition to HTML and posts it at Mudcat when it's available. I don't know why the April 2000 version wasn't posted, but the most recent HTML version is October 1999.

Yes, all sorts of people have volunteered to tell Dick how to run the Digital Tradition - and Dick has very politely not responded to them. He chose Mark Heiman to do the technical work, and he chooses to do the editing himself.

If you want to help, look at the FAQ for ideas. Start a thread on a song or a number of interrelated songs, and do some research on them.

If you're hoping to see lots of singer-songwriter songs added to the DT, forget it. Some will be added, but remember that the database is the Digital Tradition. If you want to see songs get exposure, post them at Mudcat.

So, the answer to "Ann Robinson's" query is that the Digital Tradition belongs to Dick Greenhaus, and it's his right to do with it as he sees fit. If you don't like it, you're welcome to develop your own folk song database. If you don't like the job Dick does on editing, I suppose it's your right to speak your piece. Seems damn impolite to me, though. At the very least, it would be nice if you had the courage to use your name.

-Joe Offer-

Oh, and the information from Bryan Bowers was noted and submitted to the Digital Tradition. There hasn't been a new version of the DT out since I harvested and submitted the information.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 07:05 PM

interesting equation:

"it ain't up to MY standards" = "they don't care"

There are myriads of problems relating to search formats, tune formats, converting to MAC, making the DT work both in DOS and Windows in the downloadable version.

Add to this the time constraints imposed by life and figuring out just what kind of 'help' is needed and how to coordinate it, and, as the old joke goes, "It's a wonder the dog talks at all"

I spent a couple of hours talking to Dick & Susan IN PERSON Saturday, and I can assure you they DO care and are trying to get these issues worked out with Max and the person who does the conversions!....

When you have some perspective about how far this project has come in 6-7 years and just how many damn songs and tunes they have typed in and how complicated it is to edit and compare all the submissions and corrections that people send in........well....you get my drift, I hope.

Cookieless members, trolls, memberless cookies, complaining 'guests', and Congressional committees just need to temper their criticism and understand that things ARE happening whether you see daily evidence or not!

'Corecting' a database like the DT will never be finished...this is FOLK music....it can be better, and it IS better that it was....and will be better still.

as to " Their ignoring of Bryan Bowers, a respected folk artist, " ...this has been answered before!! No one is "being ignored"....It is no easier to do an update of the DT for "a respected folk artist" than it is to do it just because it is ready! The unfortunate mis-labeling of a songs author has BEEN corrected in the forum and the correct attribution is available to anyone who wants to look...it is NOT the end of the world if it takes a bit longer to get ALL references done!

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:45 PM

Gotcha CM#1TRO... I was unaware of your cookie status at work... makes a fair ammount of sense...

Again, regarding contact or lack of it, I can only speak to my exprience and imagine what the issues are...

I do however maintain my opinion regarding fingerpointing and such...

Once the offer has been made to help, it's up to them...

As has been stated above, if the problems with the DT are so great that you find them soooo bad, then you are welcome to not use it...

Besides... how do you like the price eh?

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Herself
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:44 PM

I can assure that my Clinton has quite the member. LOL

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST, Cookieless Member (#1, The Real One)
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:39 PM

Clinton, I am a Mudcat member. In the evening at home on my own computer, I can get my PM's and personal e-mail. During the day at work, I am cookieless.

Furthermore, I am computer programmer with a great deal of technical expertise. Dick and Susan would be aware of that if they read their messages.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:29 PM

"If you're not part of their very small group, you do not rate a response from them."

You believe the Magic Bullet theory too??? How about Area 51??? Obviously the tin foil in yer hat is wrong side out...

What a load of bollox...

I'd imagine (at least MY case I can speak about with authority) that there's been no response because of my admission that I have little or no tech knowledge, and instead have just made a broad offer to "help where and when I can"

In your case, well, I expect that one must be a MEMBER to help out... A MEMBER who can get and send PMs', a MEMBER who can be reached by email, a MEMBER who isn't a nameless, faceless troll...

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST, Cookieless Member (#1, The Real One)
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:22 PM

First, Clinton Hammond sez:

"I've offered, but have never heard anything back from anyone... so well... It's got to the point where I don't even bother checking the DT for lyrics, the 'search engine' being what it is..."

Then, Clinton Hammond sez:

Well guest... If yer not part of the solution eh? So either put up... step up to the plate and offer to help, or shut up... Keep yer pointless criticisim to yourself..."

Clinton, you're far from the only person to have his or her offers ignored by Dick and Susan. If you're not part of their very small group, you do not rate a response from them. Unless, of course, you're ordering something from Camsco.

I've also PMed them more than once to no response. My conclusion is they don't give a shit. Their ignoring of Bryan Bowers, a respected folk artist, and his repeated requests for an important correction, also speaks volumes.

Ebbie, Dick and Susan have proven time and again that they are not interested in volunteers helping them.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:14 PM

Guest..

Having you jump up and down yelling 'foul' at problems we already know exist doesn't help at all...

Any 2-bit feckwit can stand back and find fault...

It takes something more to actually HELP...

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,PaulM
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:09 PM

Clinton makes a fair point.

Lots of people have volunteered to help make it better. There's a hell of a lot of knowledge and goodwill here.

As far as I'm aware, all have had Clinton's experience. i.e. no reply.

No, there isn't to my knowledge anything better, but the DT could be so much more.

There was supposed to be a new downloadable PC version out a while back. This didn't happen because of Windows XP apparently.

Why it couldn't have been released with a not compatible with Windows XP caveat is anyones idea.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:06 PM

But I am part of the solution Clinton. I'm one of the messengers you Mudcatters keep shooting.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Ferrara
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 03:02 PM

You are entirely welcome not to use it m'dear.

Sometimes the search engine does seem to mess up, so I'd like to see people quit sounding reproachful when someone asks for a song that's in the DT, better just give 'em the link or the search criterion -- courteously -- and forget it, IMHO.

But -- not updated in three years? I believe you are sore mistaken.

I work with a lot of all-volunteer efforts and one has to have patience sometimes with people who are doing a huge job for the love of it. However I find that there are almost as many errors and omissions in a lot of business databases ... almost any medical establishment for example, such as the one that closed and managed to lose all of my husband's medical records ... and I get a whole lot more out of the DT than almost anything else on the web.

I repeat, anyone is welcome not to use the DT! But if you consistently refuse to use it, and ask for DT songs in the forum, don't be surprised if your requests for songs get a tepid response after a while....

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:58 PM

Well guest... If yer not part of the solution eh? So either put up... step up to the plate and offer to help, or shut up... Keep yer pointless criticisim to yourself...

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:50 PM

Hey Manitas at home, bigger does not = better, especially when bigger means not only really big, but really fucked up.

A gigantic database with a shitload of mistakes is just that.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:42 PM

Hey Guest,

Do you know of a more complete database of traditional lyrics?

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:37 PM

Another testimonial to the usefulness of DT by a satisfied Mudcat member.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:29 PM

I've offered, but have never heard anything back from anyone... so well... It's got to the point where I don't even bother checking the DT for lyrics, the 'search engine' being what it is...

Easier to just post a request and have the people who KNOW how to use it help me out...

.-)

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:24 PM

Am I hearing calls from eager volunteers? I'm sure Susan and Dick, et al, could use some help... Make sure, though, that you don't have any other commitments.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST, Guest, Cookieless Member
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:19 PM

"So who is one button short of a keyboard???

It must be Dick "we got it at Camsco for on;y two bucks more than anyone else" Greenhaus or Susan of DT. Their keyboards were not Y2K compatible and expired in 1999.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Dead Horse
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:09 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to post twice, but I got this error message - twice - so I assume that having pressed *Submit Message* three times, one of 'em got away.........
So who is one button short of a keyboard???

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: Dead Horse
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:02 PM

Bank!

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 10:50 AM

Oh yes maam Miss Susan. And we love the place so much, we're willing to wade through the forum shite for a decade to find a clue to the information and annotation found therein.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 10:32 AM

I always find viewpoints like this one very amusing because it entirely leaves out the information and annotation contained and always welcome in the forum threads.

I guess some people like to find that someone else has done all the work for them, the story told, the end defined. Me, I like the tools we have here for discovery, for new facets, and for a never-ending possibility of fascinating details.

The DT is great-- it is what it is, and it is enough that it is what it is. And the forum is great too-- 'tis what 'tis, and sufficient. But the two, together-- unbeatable!

~Susan

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: MMario
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 10:13 AM

wrong. check your facts.

Subject: RE: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST, Cookieless Member
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 10:12 AM

LOL

Subject: Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition
From: GUEST,Ann Robinson
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 10:02 AM

To be considered useful, a database must be kept up-to-date. When mistakes are discovered, they need to be corrected in a timely.

The Digital Tradition has not been updated and corrected in the past three years.

Digital Tradition, with three years since your last update, you ARE the weakest link!

Goodbye.