Scholarship? new DT of any value?

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:22 PM

did I say Peter? of course I meant Patrick! thanks, McGrath

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:09 PM

And the DT has that one right. (And the last post went off before I'd finished my paragraph.)

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:07 PM

Actually Bill, no, you don't mean James Kavanagh, but you don't mean Peter Kavanagh either. You mean Patrick Kavanagh.

The odd mistake will creep in...

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Guessed
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 11:07 AM

MMario
Publishers not attributing correctly? I am sure it is not just Soodlums you refer to but some publishers have a very cavlier attitude. Publish and be damned they say. Damn them say I.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 10:23 AM

Pilpul!
People who like pilpul,
Are the shmuckiest people in the world...
Pilpul!
People who need pilpul
Are the yuckiest people in the world.

Arguing and quibbling like children
And festering in grown up pride
Hiding desperate need inside
Acting more like children than children...


Where's Babra when you need her?! :>)


A

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 10:05 AM

well, I just read through the entire thread again, though without yet looking into all the blue clicky things, which I will do, and I must say it has been a fairly civil discussion, compared to many out and out 'Cat fights that I have witnessed. I don't quite think it rises to the level of an example of music thread contentiousness, (though maybe toward the end of the thread a little). I am not angry about any of it, just was wondering what the deal was. It seems like a few posters tried to put words in my mouth and skew it a bit, I guess in an attempt to understand where I was coming from. The title of the thread WAS designed to get a read from people at least, not meant to incite, or indict, and not angry. I didn't say the DT was worthless, I asked with a question mark what is its worth? What is it for? got some reasonable responses, then seemed to be attacked for raising the question. Never said the DT was a piece of anything, don't care about things having my name attached to anything, it's not my information, I enjoy sharing info and working with others. Often proofread mss. for others, not because I like finding fault with thier work, but because it helps to have fresh eyes and people are generaly grateful that what they put before the public is what they meant it to be, correct and complete, and not full of mistakes that should have been easily caught & corrected. I would still like to see the DT rise to a higher level of accuracy and be more of a reliable authority for people's uses than it is. I appreciate that many people are working in that direction, or there would be no need for new editions, just additional song entries. The DT Study Threads are a great innovation, but I guess I thought they would be used more immediately to make corrections, hopefully they will be used at some time in that regard. That said, I apologize to any and all for what they perceived my tone to be, though it was never intended to offend. In my haste in writing my last post I inadvertently wrote 'James Kavanagh' when I meant 'Peter Kavanagh', James is an actor who sang the Sean O'Casey material on Paul Brady's 'Green Crow Caws', which I have aired recently on the radio. That is how some errors are made. Haste to get something done. But then corrected when discovered.

Thanks again to Dick & Susan & Joe for all their hard work, but hoping some constructive criticism and helpful suggestions, and corrections are acceptable as offered toward the same goal.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:38 AM

99.9% of the time, music threads ARE all sweetness and light. People ask for information, you give it to them, and they thank you profusely. Except when they don't, and I suspect that's because they are newbies who don't know how to find the thread again after it's disappeared.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 06:33 PM

When the fussing and feuding over BS and music threads and that gets under way, I've sometimes made a point of reminding people that music threads can get just as controversial bordering on the pugnacious as any BS thread. Because some people seem to think that if it was just music threads it'd all be sweetness and light here.

Next time that comes up I think I'll put a link to this one to show what I mean.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 06:17 PM

Bill: Maybe "snide" isn't quite the right word. My dictionary says "snide" implies sarcastic, and I didn't think you were being sarcastic, but you did sound angry, maybe angry that someone had messed up YOUR playground, or maybe angry that your own contribution had been ignored. It even crossed my mind that maybe you thought there was some anti-Semitism involved in the conspiracy to deprive Mr. Meeropol of his rightful credit. In other words, I was wondering where all that anger came from.

I know it's often hard to judge someone's emotional state from an e-mail message. It's easy to mislead or be misled, and to overreact. I have gotten into trouble over that myself, and that's one of the reasons I now usually try to stay out of any controversy. I do this by staying out of the BS threads most of the time. It's rare for people to get pissed off about something on the music side of Mudcat. This sounded like one of those times. Maybe it's my own sensitivity to criticism. I've put too many hours into DigiTrad to take it lightly when someone implies that it's worthless and therefore my work is all in vain. (Your thread title implies that if nothing else.) That gets my dander up. It makes me, at the very least, want to explain why I don't think the DT is worthless, and I don't think my work is in vain.

But do I really need to explain that? Or can you figure it out for yourself? Did your thread title really mean that you were seriously questioning whether the DT was of ANY value? Or were you just being sarcastic? Either way, it makes me very uncomfortable. And I think you've got a lot of nerve accusing other people of using "cute little digs" and "not...adult responses" when your own thread title already set that tone.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:48 PM

Ah, well, Bill, I'm certainly glad you're not trying to be snide. It's just that you sound that way, and that tends to cloud your credibility. We're doing this for personal enjoyment. It's a pleasure to work with people on things like this, but I'm not interested in fighting.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:30 PM

thanks for the clarification - both Joe and Dick, the standard of scholarship remains: what Joe seems is plausible and what Dick laboriously transcribes from his record collection, correct or not. That's fine as long as it's clear to those who use it. And even if the DT is just a song book, though many 'Catters give it more status than that when directing queries to the DT instead of just answering a question, it should attempt some higher level of authority to be of any use. I'm sure Dick and others have seen 'Home on the Range' attributed to Trad. Does that seem plausible to you, Joe? Is that the info we should collect and offer the public? Not trying to be snide here, but it's hard not to sink to the level of the responses you have made to what was an honest question, not a cavil or a gripe or a personal affront. have no axe to grind, just like seeing people correctly attributed for the work they did, and dislike the continual passing on of misinformation. That's a sorry excuse, Dick and Joe. We have all seen things in print that we know are not true, or suspect are untrue. Do either of you really still have a question as to the author of this song, 'Strange Fruit'? I saw what Dick posted to the thread the first time, it's a ridiculous argument. You can't be convinced? Ok. Sorry to have stepped on toes, I commend you for your project, just think it could be better if it were more accurate. Joe's post about corrections not being in the 2002 DT left the impression that theyt could have been, & yes, Spring 2002 is not July, duh. All of those cute little digs are evasive and not what I would consider adult reponses. (sophmoric aside to WYSIWYG - "Oh, Susan, What a Dick!" LOL, TISMP, GFY) Raglan Road in the DT is not the song of James Kavanagh, but a version, there are many other entries like that. I will look at the DT when it is available on Mudcat, I don't see any reason to download a copy for my purposes. If I see some glaring errors I'll kindly pass them on to you for your edification and possible correction. It's your playground, I just visit every now and then, and pick up the trash, straighten the chairs, sweep the walk, there's one or two in every neighborhood.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 12:12 PM

Well, now that I've had time to sleep on it, I think that the Digital Tradition handles "Strange Fruit" perfectly. If I were Digital Tradition Editor Dick Greenhaus, I'd leave it just as it is - if nothing else, just to aggravate the pedants.

Here's what Dick said in the DT:

Note: I've seen the attribution to Ms. Holiday alone, to Mr. Allen alone and to both together. RG

He reported the question, in very simple terms, and did not attempt to take a position on the question. In other words, he refused to be drawn into a debate that would distract from the purpose of the Digital Tradition.

There is a good, well-documented discussion on the authorship of the song in this thread and others. It's a fascinating issue, but there is no reason to repeat the whole thing in the Digital Tradition.

The Digital Tradition is not a primary resource, or a copyright reference. It is a songbook for singers, and the songs are submitted by the people who sing them. It tries to be reasonably correct, but it usually attempts to state lyrics as they are sung, not exactly as they were originally written. You'll find very few original broadside texts in the Digital Tradition - but then, very few people actually sing from broadside texts. If you want original texts, you can Bruce Olson's wonderful Website (click). Even then, Bruce will tell you that he is not a primary source, and that you should go to the original sources like the Bodleian Library if you are intending to do scholarly research. Keep in mind, though, that you'll have a hard time finding actual, breathing people who actually sing the songs as they were printed hundreds of years ago.

Certainly, we who submit songs should be correct in songwriter attributions. Certainly, there is room for scholarship and "correctness" in the Digital Tradition, but there has to be a balance. If you want to do an exhaustive study of a song and all its versions, the DTStudy and other threads are good places for that - but don't expect that sort of exhaustive information to appear in the Digital Tradition. The Digital Tradition is a collection of songs that people can actually sing. Let it be what it is, and don't expect it to be something else.

That's what I think, anyhow.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:12 PM

Some people like pilpul and others don't, that's the truth. And there's a lot of Mudcatters definitely do, whatever the word used.(So long as it stays good natured, and doesn't set out to annoy, hairsplitting is good exercise.)

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 08:40 PM

I suppose it helps to know a bit of the history of the Digital Tradition. You'll find the full story here. In the beginning, Dick Greenhaus took lyrics from notebooks collected by Susan Friedman and Dennis Cook. As time went by, other singers contributed their favorites, and the database grew. It came to be accepted as a worthwhile source of lyrics for folk musicians, people who expected songs to be "folk-processed" by the people who sang the songs. It was not intended to be a scholarly work - it was just a collection of lyrics for people who like to sing folk songs.

A few copyrighted songs, and even some non-folk songs, appear in the database - most probably, because somebody liked to sing the song enough to think it should be submitted to the database. Dick tries to get songwriter attribution correct, and he's the one that asked me to set up a Songwriter attribution PermaThread. Note that the PermaThread was started in July, 2002, long after the database had been sent to our programmer Mark Heiman.

From its beginning in 1988, the Digital Tradition was a DOS program. Trouble is, very few people do DOS any more. Mark Heiman had developed a Mac version, and has spent the past few years on a Windows version. There was a Beta Windows version that came out more than a year ago. It worked fine on Dick and Susan's computers, but it kept causing my computer to do weird things. I think the current version solves most of those technical problems, and now we can get back to the job of refining the database.

The Digital Tradition is primarily a collection of lyrics. I've started the DTStudy threads as a supplement to the Digital Tradition, to allow people to provide research information. The threads seem to be coming along very well. As time goes on, I'd like to see us embark on a systematic review of all 8981 songs in the Digital Tradition. I expect that will take a bit of time, and you probably will note all sorts of lingering uncorrected mistakes in the next edition of the Digital Tradition.

If you like, you can look at the Digital Tradition and say it's a piece of shit. If that's what you think, you're free to build a better mousetrap on your own. I don't think it is - it's a wonderful thing that's continually being refined. They have programming help from Mark Heiman and a little bit of help from volunteer harvesters; but Dick and Susan do all of the editing of the database, and I think they do a darn good job.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Jon Freeman
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 08:26 PM

I will throw my own thoughts in...

First and formostly, I do see the dt as being an excellent resource. I believe its strongest point is the sheer volume of material it contains. I don't imagine there ever being a better resource for finding a set of words for a song and in many cases also finding a matching tune.

On the other hand, I am doubtful about it's ability to aid much in terms of shcolarship although I have to admit that I am no scholar but am trying to learn (and trying to learn quickly).

Whether the song datbase at folkinfo.org proves to be a good idea or not remains to be seen but it approaches matters differently and rather than try to compete with the dt, attempts a different approach.

Some key points are:

The focus is rather more narrow in that we focus only on traditional songs from known sources.

We attempt to provide detailed notes on each song. This can include notes from our source, links to relavent information such as examples in the Bodlean Library, Traditional Index, Roud, Laws and Child references, etc.

The details are extracted from the threads by trusted volunteers and put into the database. These people are not necessarily forum admins or moderators but people with an interest and a willingness to contribute to a specific area. It remains to be seen how it works out but the idea is that it is much easier for us to spread the load amongst tasks within the whole system rather than have one or two volunteers overloaded trying to do everything.

The database itself is updated on line and the date of the last edit is recorded. In the future, this may allow us to notify people of "what's new" but for now, we can at least ensure that when new information arrives, there is little delay in displaying those changes.

We use abc as our tune source and although we still have a lot to learn, generaly speaking we can provide tunes in abc, MIDI, a draft png graphic of the tune as well as a pretty good quality PDF file for printing.

As I indicated above, I'm still not sure how matters will work out. We also have a lot of "tech/procedural" talk at the moment - perhaps distracting but important I think if we are to be able to get the best we can from a system. On the other hand, we are trying to work out the best possible structure we can (dealing with related songs, varients, etc. is an ongoing debate for example) at an early stage and approach problems when we encounter them - we are all learning, and trying to make the best use of both personnel within the forum (tech advice or song advice) as well as the technlogy avaiable to us and I am at least optimistic that we will succeed.

I do not see this as being a rival project to the dt (although I can't deny that my wish would have been for the dt to take more on board - perhaps asking too much) but I do see it as something that in time perhaps would compliment the dt and as a project that others with more scholarly interests may perhaps at least like to investigate.

Jon

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:50 PM

PS, my apologies for the apparent disrespect reflected by the lowercase j, above. As you may note the post is full of typos, and that was one of them. I always cap it. But I was rattling at such a rate my finger must have missed the shift key.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:49 PM

You mean like this discussion of what "pilpul" means?

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:48 PM

Thanks, artbrooks! Glad to see something sank in from the Torah study group that was gracious enough to let me attend for several months. They loved to discuss... but pilpul was out. I think the idea was this: Life is too short and there is already plenty of accumulated pilpul to get mired down in! *G*

~Susan

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:25 PM

Susan is right on:
Pilpul:

1. An inflated form of analysis and debate used in Talmudic study: i.e., unproductive hair-splitting that is employed not so much to advance clarity or reveal meaning as to display one's own cleverness.
2. (colloquially) Any hair-splitting or logic-chopping that leaves the main boulivard of a problem to bog down in the side streets.
Leo Rosten, "The Joys of Yiddish"

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:29 PM

Bill Kennedy: You seem to think Joe Offer is in control of what goes into DigiTrad. He is not. Dick and Susan are. Over the years they have accepted input from lots of people, including Joe and me. They have repeatedly invited people to send input directly to them. (See Help: Mudcat netiquette query or Some queries or BS: Digital Tradition: How Does It Grow?) Unfortunately, I don't think this information has been added to the FAQ, however. So I will repeat their e-mail addresses here:

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

I sent lyrics to nearly 1000 songs to Susan between September, 2000 and December, 2001. Then I stopped because Susan told me she was swamped with material. I decided I would not harvest any more songs until they brought out a new edition of DigiTrad. Now that they have done so, I may start harvesting again. In the meantime, I have devoted my Mudcat time to responding to requests by looking up lyrics and other information and posting it.

But if I worked at it 8 hours a day, I don't think I could keep up with everything that gets posted at Mudcat. And I haven't had much time to check yet, but it looks like maybe half of what I submitted to Susan got into the latest version of DigiTrad.

I could be screaming that some of my favorite songs didn't make it, but I'm not. I choose to call the glass half full, not half empty.

One of the consequences this being a "labor of love" is that you have to accept that what you love and what other people love are different. They will inevitably devote their time and attention to what THEY love, not what YOU love. Some people love accuracy and scholarship. Some people love having a large selection of amusing songs available so they can learn them and sing them at their local pub or coffeehouse.

And, Bill, I doubt very much that your information about Abel Meerapol (Or is it "Meeropol"? I've seen it both ways.) was deliberately excluded from DigiTrad. More likely they just never got around to processing it, just like they never got around to processing maybe 500 of the 1000 or so songs I harvested. Those are the breaks.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:57 PM

in common usage it's often used dismissively

So we can discuss that...

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:41 PM

Yes, but I believe that in common usage it's often used dismissively.

~S~

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:20 PM

Pilpul (from the Hebrew "pilpel", "pepper") - a dialectical method of Talmudic study, consisting of examining all the arguments pro and con in order to find a logical argument for the application of the Law and at the same time to sharpen the wits of the student.

Source: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia inc., New-York, 1946, Vol. 8.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 03:11 PM

Oh Dick, how subtle! LOL.

~S~

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 03:09 PM

" why not the nearest to the last word possible? why not attempt to do something well?"

paraphrasing my post in the 'official announcement' thread,

because it is a spare time, volunteer project---being a LARGE project does not make it less subject to whims and mistakes. Those who do this ARE trying to to do it well, and changes and updates have been made, and will, no doubt continue to be made.....but I doubt it will soon achieve the status of a scholarly repository of deeply researched music...with 8000 entries, that would prove daunting!

What we DO have is a number of quite knowlegable people reading this forum. Malcolm Douglas, Masato, Art Thieme, etc...(yes, even Bruce Olson, I'd bet)...and an inquiry on a song or subject will soon get replies....which can be found thru the search of threads.

The above disagreement about "Strange Fruit" **IS** available to read, and those who read it can decide which answer suits them. Many additions, corrections, arguements, expositions...etc...have been made in 6 years, and thus supplement very nicely a database which will probably always have its natural weaknesses.

I suppose, if Mudcat can continue indefinately, and if some "organized" project for corrections and updating can be created, it might come closer to what Bill Kennedy hopes for....but mostly it is one 'source' among many...and one with some VERY neat tricks!

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 03:03 PM

If the copyright is awarded to a pseudonym, that's who will probably be listed. My old recording of Strange Fruit lists Billie Holiday and Lewis Allen as authors.

I'd like to point out that amendments, addittions and corrections do not appear until the next edition is released--making it difficult to incorporate a July 2002 correction in a Spring 2002 version of the DT.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 02:31 PM

What is the basis of Bill Kennedy's complaint?
On 25 July 02, thread 49853, DT STUDY, Strange Fruit, he laid out the evidence for Abel Meeropol's sole authorship of "Strange Fruit." (Spring 2002 "American Music," University Illinois) Margolick's book "Strange Fruit," (2000) also has irrefutable evidence. (Clear evidence of the tune's authorship and use in 1937, before Billie Holliday ever saw the song, has been added to this study thread).

On 25 July 02, Permathread 49846, Attributions ---, Bill's posting was pointed out. This note was added by Joe Offer:
"NOT corrected in 2002 Digital Tradition- DT attributes to Billie Holliday and Lewis Allen, which I consider plausible." Joe Offer.

What is the point of the Attributions Permathread if corrections are cavalierly dismissed in this manner?
Moreover, the author's correct name should be given, not just a pseudonym.

DT Study Strange Fruit
Permathread Attributions

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:40 PM

Bill,

You may like to try folkinfo.org

The site is an attempt to create a 'quality' traditional song database.

It's very young at the moment (we only have 30+ songs in the database so far) and we're still debating a few options.

You (and anyone else) are very welcome to contribute (or just read)

Ed

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:37 PM

So Bill, how would you incorporate them? The DT Study threads are a brand-new idea, and there is no way they could have been incorporated already-- how would you ever even know they are or are not definitive anyhow?

~S~

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:29 PM

I thought that's what we were doing! That's the problem! We do it as a labor of love. We post corrections and additions of lyrics, translations of lyrics, history of songs, attributions of lyrics and music, and they are not incorporated into the searchable database. Newcomers are supposed to KNOW how to search the forum for items that have appeared in the last three years, and are dissed and patronized by some for NOT KNOWING how and where to look for info that should be in the DT. I am not in anyway disparraging the efforts and hard work of Dick and Susan et. al., just trying to get a consensus of what it is all for. What do we as a community of committed people want it to be? And if it is not to be that, we can decide how committed we choose to remain. I know better than to respond to trolls, and I ignore the BS threads as a rule, and I am not suggesting that these people who create & post to these threads go elsewhere for their fun and excitement, but that doesn't mean the entire site should be given up as one big joke fest.

I apologize for bringing Jean and Art into my last post, they can speak for themselves, I was not inferring that they themselves had been mistreated in any way, but was just using them as an example of people other than myself, who might be given more respect and credence than the rest of us, and asking if this is how we want to use their valuable resources.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:20 PM

I think it's pretty simple. We are each responsible for our own scholarship, and the threads are one avenue to do it, both in looking up old threads and in starting new ones. The DT I just downloaded includes instructions on how to offer corrections for the future.

I think of the DT as a tool in making it easier to do songs I have decided to do, but I do not assume that I can stop thinking or learning for myself because "it's in the DT." I introduce a song the way I think it ought to be introduced, and singing it the way I think it ought to be sung, by me. Beyond that, I expect others to be responsible for whatever comes out of their own mouths when THEY sing. Maybed they know more than I do about a song. Maybe I know more. Whatever. It's a good song, fine!

We have a thing in our culture now that says we can and should know everything, and right away. It's crept into how we teach science. My kids have assured me a number of times how this or that thing "is," because science now KNOWS it. I remember science being taught as an exciting process of discovery. In fact all we know about science or anything else "now" is merely a cross-section slide sample of all that is. Life in all aspects is an ongoing investigation, and all we "know" about what "is" is what we now THINK and SUSPECT may be partially the case. And even if we can know everything in one heart beat, who cares if we do or if we are plugging along in the moment like we used to think was important?

Wanna trade REAL gibes about accuracy and the folk process? Try entering a dispute about things Biblical.

I believe the jews have a name for commentary on commentary on commentary when it occasionally amounts to small squeaks of upset and hairs split so fine no one has any hair left-- I think it's called pilpul..

Of course someone will want to argue about THAT now too, but this is Mudcat and no matter how "correct" any given thing "is," folkies (face the facts) LIKE to argue, because they LIKE to argue. We don't call it arguing (I call it jabbering), but that's all it is. Sometimes I wonder-- where are the grownups to tell us to knock it the hell OFF once in awhile?

So use the DT as a tool or claim to be a victim of someone else's incomplete achievment-- victimhood also is very popular nowadays and it neatly excuses one from taking any positive initiative. But SING the damn songs; get on with it.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:12 PM

Well maybe Bill could get down to drawing up a list of all the possible mistakes and amendments that he reckons are needed. I am sure it'd be easy enough to arrange for it to be stashed away in some searchable form on the Mudcat, so that it could be consulted by any serious researcher, and it would make the work involved in the next edition of the CD version a lot easier.

As I understand it, there is no one doing paid work for the DT or the Mudcat, it's all a labour of love; so if there's something we really want to be done, the thing to do is surely to do it ourselves,

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 12:57 PM

Yes, not the last word, but why not? or why not the nearest to the last word possible? why not attempt to do something well? Why, if the information is available, and shared by others, and posted in threads, continue to publish misinformation, half truths, non truths, unsubstantiated and verifiably false claims? WHY? Why should Jean Ritchie or Art Thieme, or anyone else for that matter contribute a 'fact' to a general discussion if the 'facts' are ignored and not incorporated into the searchable database? seems like a waste of time otherwise, just some folk music drivel inserted into the general stream of Shatner, flatulence, middle aged ego reality checks, etc. just another internet chat site? shouldn't be, could be so much more, could be a database of reliable information that could be used as a research tool. Or am I expecting too much?

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 05:07 PM

Consider that the publishers of songs of the copyright era do not always attribute them correctly

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 04:52 PM

If the DT is to include published songs of the copyright era, it seems to me that attributions to them should be correct.

Folk and older material is often subject to interpretation. There may be a consensus but that is often muddied by further investigation.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 04:05 PM

The DT is not suppposed to be the last word about anything. There is no last word about anything in this world.

The DT is a great collection of songs, and an enormous amount of information, and the Internet and the libraries of the world and the Mudcat are all there to help people check up on facts and half-facts and legends and rumours.

A useful tool for research. Yes - but that doesn't mean you take it as gospel, any more than any other useful tool of research.

What matters for research isn't that the truth is pinned down in one place, it's that when a story is given, the source of that story is given as well. Compared to most usable collections of songs I've seen, the DT is not at all bad at doing that. But being a tool for research is not by a long chalk what its really all about.

Subject: RE: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 03:37 PM

Bill - what goes into the DT is decided by Dick Greenhaus and Susan of DT; the DT study threads at the mudcat forum hopefully will pull in more information and corrections - but are totaly independent of the Digital Tradition.

as far as misinformation, altered lyrics, misattributions, peoples misrememberings - from what I read - all those problems have been endemic to the field since day one.

Subject: Scholarship? new DT of any value?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 03:00 PM

In the 'Attributions Corrected DT Permathread' Joe Offer says about 'Strange Fruit' that it was not corrected in the 2002 DT, because it 'seems plausible to him' that the old entry is correct. He is wrong. There is much evidence offered in threads on the topic, with reference works cited that, show that Lewis Allen (Abel Meerapol) wrote the lyrics and melody for the song 'Strange Fruit', and that Billie Holiday had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the writing of the song. I hope that the general level of scholarship concerning DT entries, attributions, lyrics, etc. is to be improved, and that past errors will be corrected. Or what are we all wasting our time here for? I don't claim to know everything about anything, but Scholarship is an attempt to get as close to the truth of a thing as possible, not just to accept what seems plausible to one individual. Is the NEW 2002 DT to be of any real use, or are people searching it still going to be finding misinformation, altered lyrics, misattributions, peoples mis rememberings, etc.? What are the DT Study threads for, if not to correct these mistakes and make the DT a useful tool for research?