Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:22 PM

I'm not sure if that is true Oggie, at least not here in the U.S.   If it were true, paparrazi would be out of business.

Your school and the local press may be doing the right thing, but I don't think we have a legal precedent. In my own community, my children have appeared in the newspaper for school functions without a permission slip being signed. They are not usually identified by name.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: oggie
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:15 PM

Legally you need permission and a model release form for any photograph used in any public forum. I know it's not often enforced but it can be a nightmare, especially with children. When I do schools' work and the local press are there, only children whose parents have given permission can appear in the local paper.

oggie

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Effsee
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 03:04 PM

Cap'n, as far as I recall, you need no permission to take photographs in a public place.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 03:04 PM

"you had to photograph my friend James Kingston and my partner Cathy Cook, playing outside a pub in Durrus, west cork ,IRELAND some years ago ,without asking permission, and you never paid any royalties"

I believe in most countries you are allowed to take photographs in public without consent.

If a photographer snaps a photo at a football match, he does not have to get the rights from every person in the photo - such as those sitting in the stands.   

There is a huge difference between snapping a photo in public and reproducing someone elses work.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 02:57 PM

Captain Birdseye,

Get your brain into gear!

I am not the 'editor' of 'The Rough Guide to Ireland', but the book's co-author (there is a substantial difference between the two roles). Please tell me upon exactly which page of which edition of 'The Rough Guide to Ireland' this supposed photograph appears.

You won't be able to because no such photograph was ever published in the book.

Before making any future such allegations it would be advisable to check both your memory and actuality.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 02:41 PM

last line should read. at least buy those photographed a beer.and presumably you make money out of this guide.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM

As you are the editor of rough guide to ireland.
perhaps you could expain the cheek you had to photograph my friend James Kingston and my partner Cathy Cook, playing outside a pub in Durrus, west cork ,IRELAND some years ago ,without asking permission, and you never paid any royalties,you have some cheek even to be involved in this discussion.
its customary to ask first and then at least but those photographed a beer.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM

James Henry,

I said absolutely nothing about 'collecting practices' in Glencolmcille! I was only responding to your woeful comments regarding the circulation of private tapes (and your failure to understand that commercial exploitation of these is simply bootlegging).

As for my interpersonal skills, I don't think your own suggest that you are worthy to comment (and look up 'anal retention' in a decent summation of Freud's works when you next have the chance). It would be extremely helpful if posters to this and any other topic on Mudcat actually bothered to read threads fully before commenting.

For the record, in case you aren't familiar with my name, I wrote 'The Rough Guide to Irish Music' and am the co-author of the Rough Guides to Dublin and Ireland, as well as contributing regularly to 'fRoots' and 'Songlines' magazine.

Folkiedave - the NSA does have original copies of PK's recordings, according to its catalogue. However, when I accessed one of these it transpired to be a taped copy of PK's recording of the original BBC master disc, complete with clicks. Since I was only interested in that one disc I did not investigate the rest of the collection (and could not because of the NSA's very restrictive rules of access - plus associated fees).

Captain Birdseye - the NSA's costs for reproducing the contents of its sound archive have nothing to do with royalties, but are simply fixed charges levied for copying material. I suggest you check www.bl.uk/nsa for further details of the NSA's charges.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 12:05 PM

Rod Stradling also says that the NSA archive have copies of his recordings.

I´m not so sure. I think they may have copies of his Folktrax recordings - not the same thing at all.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 10:22 AM

point 26 is intriguing.
stradling says much of the BBC material has been lost through incompetence and unconcern.and that the NSA.fees are expensive. the last point has nothing to do with Kennedy, does the first point either. if the NSA rates are expensive,is this because they are paying royalties.
the man in the moon quote although amusing ,has not got anything to do with Peter Kennedys character,its a classic case of generalising from one particular incident.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:45 PM

One can only surmise whether Kennedy used similar techniques.

No one cannot. We can go with hard facts (concrete evidence as Mustrad calls it) or we can shut up.

I know nothing about the instances to which you refer or about Peter Kennedy, therefore I am not going to surmise.

There is enough garbage about people in the folk world circulating without adding to it by going around surmising.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:47 PM

Geoff
First of all, getting involved in a debate with yourself over collecting practices in Glencolmcille can only disrupt and deflect attention from the primary debate regarding Peter Kennedy. Apologies to everyone for going off topic.
Secondly, have you always had this patronising and condescending attitude in relation to your interpersonal skills or did you take lessons?
Apologies are due for getting your name wrong.

Regards

James Henry

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:04 PM

James Henry's message above really does reveal that he hasn't a grasp of the situation regarding field recordings and their relation to commerical album releases.

Firstly, James, my name is Geoff, not 'Geoffry'.

Secondly, he writes this:

>I was merely adding this observation to the general debate as an >indicator of the number of unauthorised recordings that must be >circulating of James and other Donegal fiddlers. It's surely not >beyond the realms of belief that sometime in the future (when we are >beyond worrying about it) some of these recordings are going to >resurface and be made available, at a price.

Whether we've stopped 'worrying about' it or not anyone who exploits such recordings commercially is nothing more than a bootlegger. And, it's also not beyond the bounds of possibility that increasingly sussed musicians have already copywritten their arrangements.

It's fine for private tapes to circulate, but not so if anyone attempts to exploit their commercial potential.

>I don't know what arrangement Feldman had with James but as you have >revealed money was offered and accepted. Who knows what agreements >are made between two people in a pub without the necessity of a >signature at the bottom of a contract? It used to be called a >gentlemans' agreement and was sealed by a shake of the hand. In >Kennedys' day this was possibly the way that agreements were also >conducted?

James, you clearly haven't taken in the information provided in one of my postings above. Yep, Feldman did pay James Byrne a derisory sum, but that, as far as James was concerned, was for a private recording, not for the commercial recording (the 'missing' Topic Donegal fiddle album) which Feldman was in the process of making.

One can only surmise whether Kennedy used similar techniques.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 01:00 PM

I have been re-reading this thread anticpating the return of some of the contributors from the Frank Harte Festival. I came across this gem.........


Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick - PM
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 05:26 AM

A few years ago, there was a long discussion on the IRTRAD_L message board about Kenedy and copyright. Most of what I said here, I said there also. Ditto for Jim Carroll. We were not alone in condemning Kennedy.

Neither of us can be accused of waiting until Kennedy was dead before laying accusations. Neither are we the only ones. Rod Stradling commented on Kennedy's methods while Kennedy was alive. So did Karl Dallas. Doubtless, there are others.

Therefore once again Fred can I point out that he seems not to be the litigant that people made him out to be? Did you receive writs? Did you take him on?

Incidentally, I forgot to add the question of dubbed accompaniment to my list of facts, but that is a terrible thing to do to anybody.

I agree.

I also forgot to mention Kennedy's ineffectiveness when it came to collecting royalties on other people's behalf. When he attempted to extract payment from the Campbells for their performance of The Nightingale, they told him it wasn't the Cantwell's version they were singing. End of story. Did Kennedy tell people there would be no chance of proving ownership in a court dispute, and that therefore, these "agreements" were fit only for wiping people's arses with ? I hardly think so.

No Fred I think that he probably said that since The Campbells were in denial the chances of winning what could have been a very expensive court case would be by no means certain and their money would be better spent elsewhere.

And what would your advice to the Cantwell´s have been Fred? Hire a lawyer and sue? I´ll lend you the money and you can pay me back when you win? As you say Fred, "I hardly think so".

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:41 AM

If mcormick and carroll, and dallas did say anything to Peter Kennedy when he was alive then that was good,

Indeed. But that it is not the same as publishing a stream of anonymous allegations and then asking for "concrete examples" to show the veracity of those anonymous allegations. [Emphasis in the original].

And if they did do so and no litigation ensued it hardly makes Peter Kennedy the vexatious litigant he was purported to be.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM

Does anyone know what sean o boyle opinions of Kennedy were.
looking through a 1956 editionof the efdsss journal it seems O BOYLE who was a collector in northern ireland for the BBC, worked and recorded with Kennedy , allowing him to record his father charles o boyle in 1952.
He must havetrusted KENNEDY to allow him to record his father,or was KENNEDY alright at this period, but not allegedly later.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 06:25 AM

If mcormick and carroll, and dallas did say anything to Peter Kennedy when he was alive then that was good, and should have made him aware, of what was overstepping the bounds of good ethics       however a clear case either way should have resulted in litigation,.
perhaps his detractors did not have ENOUGH evidence.
   PERHAPS kennedy wouldnt have been able to clear his name[ we will never know].
alternatively kennedys threats of litigation could be interpreted as him having a strong case,[ we have so far only tiny amounts of concrete evidence ]otherwise stradling would not be having to ask for evidence against Kennedy.
clearly either side did not have the money to take it to court,.   
    which suggests that kennedy didnt make pounds but pence, that doesnt excuse Kennedy, but puts a proper perspective   on the matter.
so that level headed judgement[[ rather than emotive phrases like [ripping off]]]can be made.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 05:27 AM

"I just wanted to add that a good book which covers the collecting practices of Cecil Sharp, Baring-Gould etc. is 'Fakesong', by Dave Harker."

In my opinion 'Fakesong' is a pernicious load of old rubbish which, in particular, did great damage to the reputation of a great collector, Cecil Sharp!

A couple of years ago Chris Bearman did a superb demolition job on that section of 'Fakesong', which dealt with Sharp, showing it to be poorly researched, extremely partial and outrageously politically biased. Bearman's article is called: 'Cecil Sharp in Somerset: Some reflections on the work of David Harker'. The Bearman article can be found at www.findarticles.com.

If you must read Harker's mischievous travesty of a book make sure that you read Bearman's article as well!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:52 AM

to oggie, no your quite right you didnt, but FRED MCCORMICK did . I was not intending to imply that you had, but that somebody had , if it does appear like that , I apologise.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 03:40 AM

With astonishing anal retentiveness Geoff Wallis accused me of "astonishing naivity." I didn't assume that you'd never been to Glencolmcille Geoffry. I was merely adding this observation to the general debate as an indicator of the number of unauthorised recordings that must be circulating of James and other Donegal fiddlers. It's surely not beyond the realms of belief that sometime in the future (when we are beyond worrying about it) some of these recordings are going to resurface and be made available, at a price.
I don't know what arrangement Feldman had with James but as you have revealed money was offered and accepted. Who knows what agreements are made between two people in a pub without the necessity of a signature at the bottom of a contract? It used to be called a gentlemans' agreement and was sealed by a shake of the hand. In Kennedys' day this was possibly the way that agreements were also conducted?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 02:51 PM

JamesHenry wrote, with astonishing naivety, 'If you go to Glen in the first week of August, every man and his dog has a microphone pointing at James and every other notable fiddle player there. At least Feldman "slipped him a few bob"'.

Thanks for assuming that I've never been in Glencolmcille in August. None of the people who might be pointing a mike at James went so far as to assume that he'd be utterly agreeable to his works appearing on an album. But that's exactly what Feldman did, without James's permission!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: oggie
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 02:27 PM

A point of clarification only, nowhere in my message have I used the words 'ripping off' as the Captain Birdseye's post seems to imply.

oggie

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 08:01 AM

TO GUEST JON, are you calling the whole of my post codswallop,or are you doubting that codswallop is lemonade,are you doubting that i have been exploited,or are you saying we should take our grudges to the graves and never forgive.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:53 AM

JAMES HENRY,your last line aboutPETER KENNEDY, is exactly why i brought cecil Sharp into the discussion.
Douglas Kennedy was Peters father, undoubtedly Sharp and his collecting would have been discussed in kennedys home, SHARP may well have been an inspiration to Kennedy when he was a child, adolescent etc.
Kennedy undoubtedly kenew that early collectors didnt pay for their songs, and didnt pay for royalties, therefore his folk society and home environment influenced his behaviour in both good and bad ways And was responsible for his attiude. any man that puts up two unknown inebriated strangers in his home is basically a good hearted person.which was also my own impression of Kennedy,
    he made mistakes he did things i wouldnt have done o k. we dont know their magnitude, because there is very little concrete evidence.
to OGGIE . any judge when passing sentence takes into account the size of the crime, he will sentence differently someone stealing an apple differently from someone stealing 500 pound or 50000 pounds ok they are still a theif but to use emotive words like ripping off when we dont know the size of amounts stolen , doesnt contribute to making level headed judgement,.
other correspondents have suggested the amounts were probably small[ quite likely]but not proven.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:27 AM

Good post Uke, Henry Kissinger couldn't have put it better.

Traditional singers and musicians certainly did get short shrift (try saying that with your teeth out) by contempory standards but probably not in era under discussion here. Intellectual property rights and performers' rights would certainly have to be respected today and rightly so. You say that you are certain that Rod Stradlings' intentions are good. Perhaps that generosity should be extended to include Peter Kennedys'contribution as a pioneer in the ethical climate that prevailed during his work as a collector?

Regards

James Henry

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Uke
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:44 AM

I just wanted to add that a good book which covers the collecting practices of Cecil Sharp, Baring-Gould etc. is 'Fakesong', by Dave Harker.

I think you'd have to say Peter Kennedy was also a pioneer and probably had the faults of a pioneer. Should he have known better with some of the things he is alleged to have done? Maybe - maybe not.

It all comes down to your standards of ethics. In an area like collecting, ethics evolve. These days, if you're attached to a university and want to record people playing folk music you usually have to get signed permission from them. This is because people's rights are seen as more important (+ there are liability issues).

We should learn from the mistakes of past collectors and those (now) cringe-worthy actions - but we shouldn't completely judge them by our contemporary standards. Nonetheless, we can learn only by knowing the details. Perhaps Rod's article seems a little harsh at first reading, but I'm certain his intentions are good. After all, he's doing an important job supporting serious writing about traditional music, especially about the role of traditional singers and musicians, who undoubtedly got short shrift by earlier generations of collectors.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:38 PM

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis - PM
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:13 PM

Folkiedave wrote:

'Then despair away Fred, for you cannot see how publishing something that is written anonymously and publishing something that is written anonymously is identical.'

To make sense of that you have to include all of it Geoff, including Fred´s initial response. But to put it another way, Fred could not see they were identical. I can and since you regard it as tautology, so can you!!

But what I was puzzled about was you said I had missed a vital word out..Quote.....

"Well, of course it is, but I think Folkiedave might have omitted a vital word from this assertion".

What I want to know is what is the vital word I missed out?. Simple question and response I would have thought!!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: oggie
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:24 PM

I have read this thread with a mixture of sadness and anger.

Let's get back to basics 'let those amongst you without sin cast the first stone'. So I assume that no-one here has ever taped a record, downloaded a track or photocopied rather more than allowed without paying a royalty to the copyright owners. No-one's ever borrowed more of a tune than's allowed without acknowledgment.

Yes, there are flaws in PK (and many others) but I find the level of vitriol (from the original Mustrad article onwards) upsetting and I feel unwarranted, and I wonder how many of us are squeaky clean.

oggie

PS before someone says 'It's a matter of degrees', to paraphrase a longer story, a whore is a whore if the fee is £5 or £50,000

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:14 PM

Hear, hear, Cap'n.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:08 PM

Codswallop

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:01 PM

codswallop is lemonade.
I have pointed out, I would have acted differently from Peter Kennedy. I myself have been exploited, but I pick myself up get on my bike[ in the words of Norman Tebbitt] and get on with life and try not to make the same mistake again, Its called survival, life isnt fair,but lets enjoy it ,instead of carping on about things that can no longer be rectified, whats past is past, whats gone is gone.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:28 PM

"what a load of codswallop."

I have no idea what codswallop is, but I don't think I want to get it on my shoes.

As I've said several times, I find this conversation fascinating. I am sort of on the fence. As the good captain pointed out, it really is a tempest in teacup. I've never noticed a folksinger, collector or independent record producer to drive around in a BMW.

A collector does have expenses and other considerations to consider. Hopefully we all do something that we love - either for pay or as a hobby. Frankly, I consider my "hobby" to be my vocation - even though I do not receive a penny for it. Luckily I have a good job that takes care of the basics and leaves something for me to pay for my pastimes.

The travel, recording, meals, promotion, etc. all add up and can be quite considerable. Collector John Doe will not become rich by selling a cassette tape of Joe Public playing his dulcimer.   It might buy him just enough gas money to help preserve another musician or song that would have become lost through time.

With that said, I do think it is important that collectors and other such individuals be upfront and honest.   I host radio show as many of you know. I've had the honor of presenting live performances on the show and recording concerts and festivals.   I would not dream of doing ANYTHING with these recordings without the consent of the individuals involved. A few years ago we made a premium CD for our fundraiser. I made sure that all artists were asked and allowed me to release the material, even though there is legal precedent that gave me ownership of this material. The CD was given as a premium for donations to our radio station's fund drive - and that was it.   I would feel that I was exploiting the artist if I did not ask permission.

I would like to think that collectors would treat their sources with the same respect. I cannot see paying someone more than a stipend for this recording (frankly a pint sounds about right), and then a percentage for any commercial sales - unless the artist waives whatever pennies they may earn to assist the collector to continue their work.

There are hundreds of dollars to be made in folk music if you look hard enough.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:01 PM

he was Cecil sharp not cyril sharp. so when were royalties invented.
Danny o donnell was a very fine fiddle player, I dont see his relevance to this discussion.
so its not ok for Peter Kennedy to exploit his source singers, but its ok for sharp to do it because royalties werent invented.
Actually neither were doing much exploiting because they only made shillings out of it .talk about a storm in a teacup, what a load of codswallop.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Effsee
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:27 PM

This from the fROOTS Forum:-

Hi all,

My friend Fred Wilhelms, an attorney in Nashville, has been battling SoundExchange on behalf of recording musicians. SoundExchange has appointed itself the collector and distributor of royalties for digital media such as satellite radio, internet streaming, etc. The problem is, SoundExchange has done an extremely poor job of distributing funds and has used FEMA-style efforts to locate musicians: abandonment of the task. Royalties not claimed by December 15 will be forfeited.

Thanks to Fred's pressure, today SoundExchange finally published the list of artists they have not yet located, nearly 9000 musicians many of whom you will know. I was floored to see so many folks I know, and I'm sending this in hopes you can help alert them they are due royalties.

PLEASE LOOK THROUGH THIS LIST and contact artists, artist managers, labels, or artist heirs with whom you have contact. The list is a veritable Who's Who of World, Canadian, Cuban, Hawaiian, Tex Mex, blues, traditional, jazz, Americana, songwriters, and folk music. It'll leave you breathless, in fact (SoundExchange claims to not have found a way to locate the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, for example).

I'm forwarding Fred's letter along with the url listing musicians whom SoundExchange owes money. Please distribute this widely; feel free to post on listserves if it hasn't appeared.

Susan Martinez

---

I've been circulating the following message. Feel free to forward it to any mailing lists, message boards and telephone poles in your neighborhood.

Fred

AN URGENT MESSAGE TO RECORDING ARTISTS

SoundExchange is the entity that collects and distributes broadcast royalties from digital distribution of music. This includes streaming Internet broadcasts (not downloads) and satellite radio services. These royalties have been payable since February 1, 1996. If your music has been played on the Internet since that date, you are entitled to a share of the royalties.

On December 15, 2006, any royalties that are unclaimed for performances up through March 31, 2000 WILL BE FORFEITED.

If you, as an individual or as a member of a recording group, are not registered with SoundExchange by December 15, 2006, you will lose all rights to your royalties earned before March 31, 2000.

There are thousands of identified artists who will lose these royalties unless they act before the deadline. SoundExchange has listed these "unfound" artists on their website.

http://63.236.111.137/jsp/unpaidArtistList.jsp

Take the time to read the list. If you are on it, follow the instructions for filing a claim. It costs you nothing and it does not take much time. If you register now, you will receive the unclaimed royalties and will received future royalties automatically.

Friends and families of recording artists should also check the list. If you know anyone on there, PLEASE LET THEM KNOW IMMEDIATELY. You will note that there are a number of deceased performers on the list. If you know any surviving relatives, let them know about this.

This money belongs in the hands of the artists who created the music.

Fred Wilhelms

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM

Geoff, I am trying to understand the circumstances and your description is not exactly clear.

What you are saying is that he doesn't even remember if it was even Feldman or if there was ANY compensation.

I am not sure about laws in the UK or anywhere else, but my understanding in the U.S. is that anytime there is an exchange of goods or services, there is an agreement. IF you tell the person that they are being recorded and they agree to it without any additional stipulations, then they do lose their rights. The person with the recorder now owns the performance contained on that tape. IF you record the person without their knowledge, such as bootlegging a concert where recording is prohibited (by announcement and/or signs) then you cannot do anything with that recording.

Simply put, if I walk up to you and ask if can buy you a beer in exchange for being allowed to record you playing the kazoo, I can then later make a CD that will make me a millionaire and I won't owe you a penny.   Would that be ethical? Hell no. Would I be within my legal rights - I believe I would.   Should I do it? Again, hell no.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:04 PM

> It seems to be the fashion to wait for the death of a celebrity before
> attacking him. Certainly Kennedy had his faults--many of which he
> shared with other collectors of the era, and some which were his very
> own. I seriously doubt that he will be remembered for those faults,
> but rather for the music he made available to all of us.

That's possibly the whole point - an alternative explanation for the timing of the mustrad article

A death usually involves obituaries, obituaries tend to be somewhat eulogistic. For anyone who felt wronged (and obviously they are out there), such an article would be cruel twist of a long rusty knife whether it be reality or perception. Perhaps the article was intended to provoke a healthy interest rather than let sychophancy rule the current day and all those that follow.

In twenty (fifty?) years these threads will be as nothing. The obits in the Times (or wherever) will be seen as gospel and those with first hand experience will no longer be here.

Histories are usually written by the victors and their successors not by those that were trampled on the path. If there is a more complete truth to be understood then surely now is the time to discover it.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM

Geoff

If you go to Glen in the first week of August, every man and his dog has a microphone pointing at James and every other notable fiddle player there. At least Feldman "slipped him a few bob"

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:44 PM

Ron, why are you being 'fuzzy'? James remembers someone giving him money to play a few tunes but has no idea who the person was!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:40 PM

Geoff,

Sorry, but I am still fuzzy.   

You said that James did not remember anything about Feldman but you also said that Feldman slipped James a few bob for recording him?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:36 PM

Ron,

Sorry, I should have pointed this out. When I met James to discuss the tunes which would have appeared on the album (I only know about this because I have a copy of the aborted project) he remembered absolutely nothing about Feldman. Further questioning revealed that no contract had been signed nor had James ever given anyone permission for his music to be reproduced in any kind of format elsewhere - for those familiar with James this is long before 'The Brass Fiddle' or his solo CD for Claddagh.

In other words, Feldman slipped James a few bob for recording him and thought he could get away with releasing those tracks on a commercial album without any attempt to sign a contract or seek the musician's permission.

Come to think of it, this is far worse than Kennedy's activities.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM

Again, speaking as a complete outsider who is fascinated by this discussion - I have one question of Geoff.   If I am reading your story correctly, James Byrne was paid by a pint of beer for recording an album for Allen Feldman. Was he promised anything more? Did he sign a contract?

I was at a crafts fair once and met a found a woman who made beautiful embroidered hand towels. She was selling it for $3.   I asked her how much time it took to produce and she said a couple of hours. When I asked her why she was selling something for only $3 when her materials combined with labor spent were so much greater, she replied "who would pay more than $3 for a hand towel?".

As much as I hate exploitation, the individual has to shoulder some of the blame if they make a decision to give away their material. Perhaps they do not know what the market will bear, but often it might be that we have higher expectations then what it is actually worth.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Effsee
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:24 PM

It seems the Dishonourable practice has moved into cyberspace if fROOTS Forum is anything to go by!!!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:13 PM

Both Folkiedave and Captain Birdseye seemed nonplussed by my question, so here it is again.

Folkiedave wrote:

'Then despair away Fred, for you cannot see how publishing something that is written anonymously and publishing something that is written anonymously is identical.'

This is sheer tautology and meaningless.

More relevantly, Captain Birdseye is completely off the wall when he keeps harping on about Cyril Sharp and royalty payments since the whole concept of royalties had not been invented at the time of Sharp's collecting activities.

I am completely in agreement with Jim Carroll's comments:

'The greatest damage [PK] did was to hang a price tag on the tradition and make it a commodity, thereby setting a precedent. In the process he showed disregard, verging on contempt for the people who preserved and passed on the music I care about, and that is what I find unforgivable' [and, most especially]'Don't forget the goods he was dealing in were amassed on behalf of the BBC and paid for by the licence/tax-payers money. They are all of our heritage, not one individual's.'

Some of us have been questioning PK's activities for a long time (not least Jim and Fred and a whole host of other people I might mention, but the list would be too long) and the fact that the man has died makes absolutely no difference in our consideration of his collecting activity.

I know more about the work of collectors in Ireland than other areas and the worst example of exploitation I've ever encountered involved Allen Feldman - you can read more about him at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/steinhardt/db/faculty/1346/Dept_design/0.

Said site claims that he 'conducted ethnographic field research in Northern Ireland' except that's only half the story. Much of his work for the book 'The Northern Fiddler' was undertaken in County Donegal. As part of this he recorded the Glencolmcille fiddler James Byrne for an album which never saw the light of day for reasons too numerous to mention. When I asked James how much he'd been paid for his efforts he reckoned that it was either 'a few pints' or 'ten quid' and that was at a time when an Irish tenner was worth around £6 or $6. No contract ever exchanged hands, but the tracks James recorded were due to appear on a Topic album until Danny O'Donnell, bless his soul, kiboshed the whole affair.

That's sheer exploitation and exactly the kind of tactic that Kennedy used.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

dick greenhaus is correct - I can't help thinking that waiting for a person to die before emerging with accusations against them is a cowardly way to do things. If there is any evidence or substance in any allegations against the person, why wait until they die before coming out with them? Perhaps the evidence is not very strong if this is the case.

Collectors have left us a legacy which would have disappeared forever without their efforts and deserve our thanks for that. If they stepped on a few people's toes along the way, that's a shame, but nobody's perfect.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 11:35 AM

apologies to jim and fred, they have not vilified sharp.
to dazbo         if it was a few shillings, why are his detractors so venomous to kennedy[ ripping people off] has connotations of thousands, its not normally associated with a few shillings.
Ishall remember Kennedy for all the music he has left us, and try to forgive his faults.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 11:21 AM

It seems to be the fashion to wait for the death of a celebrity before attacking him. Certainly Kennedy had his faults--many of which he shared with other collectors of the era, and some which were his very own. I seriously doubt that he will be remembered for those faults, but rather for the music he made available to all of us.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:48 AM

I did intend to put this in at the time but forgot.

Some one said earlier on about the ALLEGED victims sueing Peter Kennedy. The no win/no fee arrangement with law firms has, I believe, only been allowed in the UK (and possibly Ireland too) from very recently, the same goes for the small claims courts. Many minor financial disputes (and I think everyone agrees that the actual amounts involved are relatively very small) were never taken to court due to the cost. I would have thought it highly unlikely that any source singer could have afforded to take their case to a solicitor and probably even less likely that a solicitor would be willing to take the case on. If the source did make any noises a 'legal' letter would put most people, and not a few cash poor institutions, off any further action and risk being bankrupted over a few shillings.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 09:08 AM

hOOTENANY , IHAVE NOT vilified kennedy or Sharp, that has been Mccormick and Carroll..
I am asking questions so that Kennedy can be compared to other song collectors of note , such as Sharp,   moeran, BaringGould, Kidson. iF CecilSharp didnt pay for his songs or pay royalties on his arrangements to his source singers , are stradling , mcccormick Carroll, going to burn his collections and Cecil SHARP HOUSE [iHOPE NOT].MCCORMICK still hasnt told us whether his paid his share or not.
    what do you mean he,s dead thats alright then[ own goal].thats what kennedys detractors are doing, as well as causing upset to his grieving family.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 09:03 AM

You should be sending your concerns to him and I believe that you will get an honest answer.

I believe that the request for concrete evidence is acceptable. BUT if allegations positive or negative are anonymous then they are NOT concrete.

Thank you. I have already made my concerns known to Rod Stradling. He is out of the office until October 3rd. I wrote to him before I wrote on here. He has a co-editor of the magazine who is Fred McCormick and I have made my concerns known to him via this thread. Sometimes he chooses to answer my concerns and sometimes not. Maybe I will have better luck from Rod Stradling.

Those concerns are principally that Mustrad is prepared save up allegations "over a number of years", and then to publish those allegations without attribution - in this case about Peter Kennedy - and then ask for "concrete evidence" to back those allegations up.

As far as opening up a discussion is concerned, I suspect any conclusions that may come out of such a discussion are already known at the Mustrad office. Indeed Fred has hinted as such in this post.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick - PM
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 05:26 AM

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Snuffy
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 09:02 AM

In the case of books etc, no royalties were due to the source singers as the songs were traditional, not their composition.

In the case of recordings both writer and performer are due royalties. If the song is in the public domain the singer should still get royalties, even if the writer won't.

The argument about Kennedy seems to be that singers did not receive royalties due on sales of their recorded performances.