Weakest Link: The Digital Tradition

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 11:45 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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,.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: 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: 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.