Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy

Subject: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 07:38 PM

A few days ago, Rod Stradling posted an interesting invition on the Musical Traditions site: Enthusiasms No 53 ("A collection of shorter pieces on subjects of interest, outrage or enthusiasm ..."): Peter Kennedy.

Here's his introduction to a list of 35 points:

"In Derek Schofield's article on Peter Kennedy in the current issue of EDS he wrote: 'There have already been calls for an open and critical debate on Peter's lifework'.

"Over the years a file of comments and information has built up in my office. I have now edited it into a series of positive and negative points about Mr Kennedy. I contacted Derek, saying that if I were to publish this in MT and ask for readers' additions and amendments, would he be interested in publishing the result in EDS? He replied that he might well be interested, adding that the Journal might be an even more appropriate place for it.

"Accordingly, what follows is a conflation of comments and information from myself and others regarding Peter's Kennedy's lifework. At it stands, it will seem biased towards the negative - primarily because the published material to date has been almost all positive, as befitted the 'obituary' type of writing which followed closely upon Peter's death. Readers with additions, amendments or corrections are asked to e-mail me with their contributions; I am particularly interested in concrete examples of traditional performers not being paid royalties, not being asked for permission to publish their music, not being informed of Folktrax publications (as in Negative 4, below). [My emphasis - BN]

"I will then subsume these contributions within the piece and submit it to Derek for possible publication by the EFDSS. If they decide not to do so, I will publish it here."

Rod Stradling - 14.9.06

On the Mudcat, Kennedy's name has arisen frequently, mostly in citations of song origins (which threads I did not probe in detail in my search here), but there are just a few comments on the man himself:

Obit: Peter Kennedy (10 June 2006)
Peter Kennedy's Folktrax collections (Oct. 2001)
Voice of the People: SPECIAL OFFER! (Nov. 2001-Jan. 2002)

I know there are some Mudcatters who can speak from personal knowledge (and not just opinion) on the topic. Get yourselves to MT. Meanwhile the usual mud can be slung here. ;-)

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 01:27 AM

Meanwhile the usual mud can be slung here.

Sorry, not that I'm inviting mudslinging, just anticipating the quality of exchange that can sometimes be found here when passions run high...

~ B in T

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 04:14 AM

Peter Kennedy was wonderfully enthusiastic abut traditional music , he was a good player of the button accordion. Kennedy also did a vast amount of collecting [ for which I am personally in debted]he was also responsible for the introduction of the g d button accordion into english folk circles. I met him on two occasions in TOTNES, I consider it an Honour to have known him, He was a Positive man who did a lot of good for the folk revival.
    TO HIS DETRACTORS I SAY THIS. he was not someone who made vast amounts of money from the english folk scene. yes he was a professional and he made aliving out of it, but so do Lou killen and Martin Carthy.The very fact that Peter had to go out and busk when he was quite elderly confirms this. I visited his home twice, his style of living was un ostentatious, and did not fit in with the ludicrous idea that he was somekind of financial ripper offer of folk people, any more than Cecil Sharp was.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 04:33 AM

I have just read Rod Stradlings comments, What a sad man he is, he seems to make ahabit of attacking people, Firstly Nic Dow, AND NOW Peter Kennedy. its my belief that Peter Kennedy and his good points will be remembered longer than Rod Stradling, however I suppose we have Peter Kennedy to blame for the introduction of the g d button accordeon [ and the subsequent elevation to guru for Rod Stradling].Many people had feet of clay [ Ewan Maccoll, Baring gould cecil Sharp ] isnt it better to let them rest in peace, AND JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE GOOD THEY HAVE DONE. Its time Rod Stradling locked himself up inside his button accordeon case and showed some respect for Peters memory and his widow.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 05:17 AM

There was a thread about PK following his death, but I'm b*gg*red if I can find it.

First Ewan McColl, now PK. They weren't angels, but both men did a lot to raise awareness of folk music in their time. I never met Peter but found him very helpful when I contacted him with a query.

Why not remember these people for the good they did, rather than focus on the negative aspects?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 05:35 AM

Yes indeed many people have feet of clay and some have sticky fingers.

IF and I repeat IF the stories of BBC financed tapes going missing from the EFDSS is correct then whoever was responsible does not deserve respect whether or not he/she is recently departed.

As for Peter Kennedy not making vast amounts of money from folk music, how many people have ? I personally know several serious collectors to whom we owe a great big thankyou for finding and recording and issuing mainly at their own expense a large amount of material. Unfortunately they sometimes or should I say usually don't even get that.

With regard to your coments on Rod Stradling, I believe that he has brought the matter to light at the request of several other people and is aking for comments from both pro and anti. I personally think that Musical Traditions does a very good job at keeping the folk following at large well informed and offers all a chance to air their opinions. As far as I am concerned Rod gets my thanks for running a very interesting and informative on-line magazine.

Hoot

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:34 AM

quote[if and i repeat if the stories of bbc financed tapesgoing missing from the EFDSS then whoever was responsible does not deserve respect whether he or she is recently departed ] since this cant be proven its better not to mention it, even by mentioning it doubts are raised against peoples character ,it is totally unfair.[ innocent until proved guilty]
   Rod Sradling has previously attacked Nic Dow on a simliar vein, you do not deny this, wehich makes me suspicious of Rods motives.
   anything that Peter Kennedy did or didnt do needs to be taken in context with the time and attitudes he was operating [ Just like Cecil Sharp]under.
I agree the dubbing on of accompaniments was a mistake, but overall his legacy is a plus. can we not remember the better sides of people . what point does it serve raking over events that happened nearly fifty years ago, and really relatively unimportant events ,talk about tilting at windmills. Rod is becoming the Don Quixote of the folk scene.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Ruston Hornsby
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:35 AM

Suddenly it all makes sense - possibly. 20+ years ago I was playing melodeon in a pub in Barton upon Humber(N.Lincs)following a carnival where I'd been dancing with the morris team. I ended up talking to a few old locals who it turned out had been part of the 1952 one-off revival of the local mumming play - which included a sword dance. In conversation it came out that they felt some resentment towards the "folk" movement as the believed that somebody had "collected their dance and some tunes and songs and gone off and made a lot of money from them". I was suprised at this (I was pretty new to folk then)and thought that they were referring to Grimsby Folk Club stalwarts John Connolly, Bill Meek, Brian Dawson and co, all of which I knew had done a bit of collecting but were all totally honest and driven soley by their love of the music and the need to save what they could of the surviving local tradition. I passed this opinion to them - I hope it did some good - an thought little more of it. Years later I wanted to find more out about the Barrow play and their musician Luke Stanley. I spoke to both John and Brian, and apart from anything else, it was apparent that they had a good relationship with him all the way through - there was no way they were the people that that had caused the ill feeling. Using Google, I discovered Peter's FolkTrax site and it's archive recording of the play and it's music, a copy of which I purchased. Could this have been the root of the problem that led to the door being slammed in Barton as far as the play and music was concerned? If it is, it has to be seen as ill founded - and a great shame. I can see how it could be viewed as somebody profiting from a recording of someone else's playing but we're not looking at a bootleg of the Rolling Stones here, are we? I still think that Peter's work is far more good than harm, how else could I have got to hear Luke Stanley play melodeon?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 09:33 AM

RE RUSTON HORMSBY[we are not looking at bootlegging of the rolling stones]EXACTLY. this is all so petty and small minded.
I feel pretty pissed off with Dave Bulmer, suppressing my recordings, but he bought the recordings when I couldnt afford to do so, so legally he can do what he wants,.
The only thing i can do is re record them .
At least Peter Kennedy never suppressed recordings and made this wonderful music available for all who wanted to hear it, Even if he made an impecunious living while doing it, after all these recordings were not commercial hits. Rod Stradling although professional in the quality of his music has [as far as I know always been semi pro].KENNEDY after he finished working for the EfDSS, had no other means of support, all this has to be taken into consideration when making judgements.
Sometimes it can be difficult for those with steady jobs, to know how it feels not to be able to pay the next phone bill,Would it have been better for him to have become a bank clerk and to have given up collecting ,I dont think so.we would all have been the poorer.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 09:36 AM

If Rod is bringing the matter up for other people , why dont they stand up and say who they are and explain their begrudging attitudes.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 09:48 AM

I would suspect that virtually all of the collectors of that era--Goldstein, Lomax, MacColl, Kennedy etc.--had their share of warts. What can't be denied, though, is that they made the folk music world a far richer place that it would have been without them.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 10:49 AM

If someone is in such a position as to not know how to pay the next phone bill, then I doubt very much if they could afford to carry on collecting.
I know of at least one person that had a full time job and collected a vast amount of material at his own expense and made it available for issue over a number of years, and I am sure there are several more. Any return which he got from this was a fraction what what he spent. In answer to your question it might have been better if one worked as a bank clerk because then you could more probably afford to carry on collecting.

Incidentally I trust that as well as posting to this thread that you are all making your comments known to Musical Traditions as I am sure that there are people who read that mazine that do not read the mudcat threads.

Good luck with your re-recordings Dick.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 01:10 PM

Dick,

On a point of order, Rod Stradling's review of Nick Dow's cassette was written twenty years ago. Therefore, your sentence "Firstly Nic Dow, AND NOW Peter Kennedy" doesn't hold a whole lot of water. Neither do most of your other comments.

I can't speak for several of the points Rod has made. For instance, it's news to me that Kennedy was ever dismissed from the EFDSS. As I recall, he left (maybe to pre-empt dismissal ?) and took the copyrights of the songs he had collected whilst in their employ with him.

However, I can confirm that many other points are true. EG., he issued cassettes without seeking the permissions of the people he had recorded. Moreover, I know of at least one case where he released another collector's recordings without even asking the collector.

Equally, as you point out, Kennedy issued recordings of various traditional singers (Phoebe Smith and Joe Heaney come to mind) with unauthorised backing dubbed on.

Also, it's true that he claimed copyright royalties on behalf of the people he recorded, and was on occasion known to pay up. However, the terms of his agreements with those people were nothing short of outrageous.

For that matter, his Folktrax empire must qualify as one of the biggest rip offs in the history of recorded music. If you don't believe me, look at the costs involved, and look at the prices he charged. Then look at the incredible shoddines of his productions.

I agree, nobody's perfect, and I do sometimes wonder whether there's a positive correlation between folksong collectors and personal shortcomings. But whilst one can level criticisms at Sharp, Baring Gould, the Lomaxes, or whoever, one can usually find something positive to say in their favour. I would need to look long and hard before I could find anything positive to say about the way Peter Kennedy behaved towards others.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 01:34 PM

I can only speak from my own personal experience, as I had no financial dealings with him , I found him charming ,knowledgeable and very enthusiatic about traditional music.
   as regards nic dow.its irrelevant that these remarks were made 5months, 5 years or twenty years ago , it shows to me that he [ rod] has an axe to grind.
what i can say thats positive about peter kennedy is that he has collected and left us with a rich legacy of traditional music, isnt that more important than anything else.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 01:49 PM

No. How he treated the people he collected from is far more important. His failure to regard those people as sensate human beings who made and practised their own artistic culture, and whose lives and sensibilities were reflected in that cluture, undermines just about everything he does.

Regarding Rod Stradling, he was sent an allegedly very poor cassette about and wrote a harsh review of it twenty years ago. That doesn't sound much like axe grinding to me.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 01:50 PM

I can'y comment about kennedy's treatment of people he collected from, I don't know anything other the gossip you pick up. But I do have a serious criticism of his intellectual honesty, whicjh I think is important in the collecting business. For instance, in his big book(cant remeber the title,Folksongs of britain or somesuch) he printed the Cornish songs with the words translated into Cornish. Now, that would have been fine as interesting footnoes or something, but he put the Cornish words in just the same same place as the English words of other songs. This amounts to me as passing off a counterfeit as the real thing: in fact there were tiny footnotes which if read carefully would tell you that they were in fact translations, but you had to be really concentrating to spot them. I know for a fact that this deceived some credulous people into believing that these Cornish words were the originals of the songs. I believe he also rewrote a lot of songs and passed them off as something he had collected, though I have no definite personal knowledge of this. These two points I do find worrying: if someone claims to be a collector, you should be entitled to take what they offer you as what they collected, not something they've made up to back up some theory or other.
    But in general I'm with Captain Birdseye: he left us a fantastic treasure chest of music, and there's maybe not a great deal of point in being too picky about how he went about it, now he's dead and gone. Let's just relish what he rescued. But while relishing it, take it all with a pinch of salt!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:10 PM

Greg, I'm one of those credulous folks who missed the footnotes about the Cornish songs. Thanks for that information.

That's the kind of factual criticism that must be disseminated regardless of whether the perpetrator is otherwise a "nice" person.

I believe that the point of the "criticism" invited by Rod Stradling is not subjective assessment, it's collation of the facts, positive and negative, such that eventually, in viewing the whole, people can make their own subjective judgements as necessary to directing their own actions: like how and whether they use the material provided by Peter Kennedy, and what models they use in proceding with and from their own work of studying and collecting folk culture.

And in this process there is certainly value in assembling the subjective judgements of those who feel that Kennedy's actions had negative effects on them personally, particularly, of course, those from whom he collected.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:16 PM

FRED MCORMICK, contact Nic dow, Nic is avery honest and well respected peformer [ why dont you get his side of the story. You might be misinformed
ON THE SUBJECT OF ROYALTIES. you really make me laugh, I recorded with three different labels,and only Brewhouse ever paid me any royalties.Brewhouse werethe most honest and genuine people on the scene.
It is quite common on the folk scene because selling 1000 copies of an album, which is what most folk artists sell is not financially viable , most artists accept this and see that the[ producers, recording labels are not making much either]neither did PETER KENNEDY, I never saw him driving through Totnes in a silver Rolls Royce , GET REAL.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Peter Kennedy's arsewipe
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:30 PM

Is there any chance of getting Captain Birdseye to write in English (and not shout his points!) so that some of us can actually work out what he's trying to say?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:48 PM

I apologise for shouting,.
to guest 18 sep 2 30 pm , is it necessary to be offensive,is that clear enough, do you understand my English.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Captain Birdseye's arsewipe
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:57 PM

Captain Birdseye, it's fine to respond as you have, but even your latest message is illiterate garbage.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:32 PM

Sorry Cap'n, I'm afraid we find ourselves in opposite corners of the ring (again) on this one.
I have no doubt whatever that Peter Kennedy did a great deal of good with his work in the 1950s in collecting singers and musicians, though it is often forgotten that there were others involved: Bob Copper, Seamus Ennis and Sean O'Boyle for instance. I once asked Ennis how he felt about Kennedy; his reply was unrepeatable.
What is highly debatable in my mind is whether that good has been outbalanced by the harm caused by his insensitivity (verging on contempt) for his informants and also for fellow researchers.
His behaviour in getting informants to sign over the rights to their songs (even, in some cases, to songs they may remember in the future) has left a sour taste in the mouth, certainly here in Ireland and I am sure elsewhere in these islands. These agreements are not worth the paper they are written on, but the people he was dealing with were not to know that. He also asked a number of his singers never to sing for anybody else.
His marketing of those recordings without payment, without consent and often without the knowledge of the singers concerned was inexcusable. As well as showing a total contempt towards the singers and musicians concerned these actions have caused problems for many people who tried to follow up the work who often were met with hostility, which lost us a great deal of invaluable material and information. It must be remembered that these trips were little short of head-hunting forays and that in many cases the singers were never re-visited.
Kennedy's insensitivity was summed for me by his FSB themed series where throughout the albums he dubbed accompaniments and choruses onto field recordings. Had they been in any way skillfully done it would have been like painting a beard and moustache on the Mona Lisa, however, some of them were so inept it was like using a spray-can to do the job (can you imagine an appalling fiddle accompaniment dubbed onto the singing of one of Irelands best fiddlers!)
I believe when somebody investigated the idea of releasing albums of Harry Cox, one of his conditions was that accompaniments should be added.
A friend of mine, a collector, once sent him a set of recordings of a very important ballad singer - just for his own interest. The recordings made their way into his catalogue and, despite decades of requests to remove them, they are still available. The collector had donated the proceeds of the recordings to a Traveller children's education programme – which of course never saw a penny.
Rod Stradling is to be heartily congratulated in raising this somewhat dark period of the folk song revival. Unfortunately, Musical Traditions policy of 'temporary' censorship prevents me from offering my opinions and information. Thank you Desert Dancer for the opportunity to do so.
Jim Carroll
PS Why am I never surprised when correspondents move into anonymous mode when they behave like illiterate louts?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM

"Unfortunately, Musical Traditions policy of 'temporary' censorship prevents me from offering my opinions and information. "

That sounds frightening.

Jim, that was a very enlightening post. I find myself fascinated with this story because I have a great admiration for the collectors who preseved and perpetuated the music. Hearing stories like this has always brought me down to earth to realize that there were many forces at work during the revival periods.

One thing that I found interesting, and I'm hoping you can elaborate on - you wrote "A friend of mine, a collector, once sent him a set of recordings of a very important ballad singer - just for his own interest. The recordings made their way into his catalogue and, despite decades of requests to remove them, they are still available. The collector had donated the proceeds of the recordings to a Traveller children's education programme – which of course never saw a penny."

Are you saying that Peter Kennedy promised to donate the proceeds to the charity, or your friend promised to donate the proceeds? If that was the case, did Kennedy promise your friend that he would pay him for the unauthorized release of the recording?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 05:43 PM

While we're at it, we might as well jump on Moses Asch, who wasn't known for paying people. Neither, as I recall, were the Lomaxes.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:07 PM

To JIM CARROLL,I think you have made some very good points.
    However, I have several of Peter Kennedys books and recordings, and they have been, very useful to me.
      Brief, but literate, Captain Birdseye.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:48 PM

This discussion, in between the lines of backbiting, does raise some interesting questions about Peter Kennedy and other folk music collectors and producers.

Becky, thanks for re-initiating this discussion.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:50 AM

Ron Olesko
The collector in question had donated proceedings from the recordings to a Traveller's education programme. He sent copies of those recordings to Kennedy as a fellow collector for his interest (they were probably the most important recordings of ballad singing in the field).
Kennedy issued them commercially without permission, never paid for them and persistently ignored requests to remove them from his catalogue (this dates back thirty years). They remained in that catalogue up to Kennedy's death and presumably are still there.
Cap'n
What you appear to be saying is that as long as you are supplied with material it doesn't particulary matter to you how it was obtained, rather like it doesn't matter which sweat-shop your cheap tee-shirt came from - hmm - I'll have to think about that one.
By the way, I wasn't having a pop at you - I presume you're not 'Guest, Captain Birdseye's Arsewipe'. I thought I recognised the style of the writer of that pearl of wisdom as that of one of out leading traditional music academics.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:54 AM

This discussion will achieve nothing positive, it wont prevent rogues from operating on the folk scene,.
I can understand the frustrations of more scrupulous collectors and the problems they can encounter due to insentivity etc.I repeat there are people much worse than Peter Kennedy. at least he made his work available,[unlike someone resident in yorkshire]             and to me its been very useful, I agree Seamus Ennis and Bob Copper and many others behaved better and are more important[ as they didnt adulterate part of their work].
    sadly I dont think this discussion will put off the unscrupulous,.
However with the use of the computer they can be perhaps exposed more quickly. in the meantime its important to Remember Peter Kennedys good points   I believe most of Peter Kennedys books and most of his written collection is unadulterated and very useful, He is not here to defend himself, can he not be left to rest in peace.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 04:18 AM

If a collector collects traditional songs from a singer, does he owe the singer anything? Obvioucly, if the singer wrote the song then yes, but if it's traditional, does the singer have any right to expect any kind of royalties? Just wondered what the position is.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 04:27 AM

Interesting one scrump, legally preobably not. Morally ,debatable. if it was me i would give them half the the royalties, what would fred mcormick and jim carroll do.
      I was hoping that Malcolm Douglas [ I know he is very busy] might be able to give an insight into how much of Kennedys work was adulterated with accompaniments, and how much written work was altered. my Impression is that both are a small proportion, since the matter has been raised ,what is needed, is precise and informed opinion.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 04:34 AM

In the case of Peter Kennedy and his alleged royalty expropriation, I believe the question of royalties extended to mechanical performance only. IE., reproduction of the singer or musician's performance, or what we nowadways describe as their intellectual property. In other words, Peter Kennedy had no right to release recordings of other people without seeking permission of them or their descendants, and without paying royalties.

Folksongs are, by their very nature, in the public domain. They belong to all of us and that makes a nonsense of the idea that they can or should be copyrighted.

Not that such considerations ever bothered Kennedy.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 05:43 AM

I would like to bring look at this from a different point of view.

Why is Rod Stradling building up files on people? Clearly he built up a file on Peter Kennedy - because he says so. Who else does he have files on? Are these kept with the Data Protection Act in mind?

I have often heard of the folk police but never realised they had manifested in Stroud. Since Rod is asking for evidence of wrong doing - what are the criteria we can use to send material?

And since people are sending him material would he ask their permission to publish their names? Personally as I go around the folk world I need to know who is reporting back to whom.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 05:52 AM

Ah, fair point. If a collector issues commercial recordings of a singer then obviously that singer should get royalties - and of course the singer should have to give his/her permission in the first place. I didn't realise that was what was happening here.

If an artist releases a trad song, do they get the royalties that would otherwise go to a composer? I guess that's why you often see "Trad. arr. Fred Bloggs" on records - does Fre Bloggs get the composer royalties for just "arranging" (i.e. singing) a trad song?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:00 AM

This is all getting very paranoid. Rod edits Musical Traditions magazine. I know because I am the magazine's co-editor and the piece was published in response to an article by Derek Schofield in the current issue of English Dance and Song. In that piece, Dereck called for 'an open and critical debate on Peter's lifework'. Rod's response can be seen at http://www.mustrad.org.uk/enth53.htm

Rod has edited Musical Traditions for about ten years now. During that time, Kennedy's name has come up in various pieces of correspondence. Rod, like any good editor, keeps all MT correspondence on file. All he has done is to collate and post that correspondence as part of what some of us hope will be an open and critical debate. There is nothing sinister or thought police about that.

Having seen some of the contributions to this thread, however, I'm beginning to wonder if an open and critical debate is possible.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:26 AM

Fine Fred, clearly Rod rejects nothing, but puts it away in a file. Which he then produces now the subject is dead.

Are you saying nothing would have been done with this file if Derek hadn't mentioned it? Kept ad infinitum?

And I ask again - who else are there files about? And what do they contain? And are they kept with the Data Protection Act in mind?

Ask permission from the correspondents to publish their names and anyone who refuses to have their names published withdraw the allegations. You of all people Fred should be aware of the dangers of publishing anonymous material.

Rod is aking for "concrete examples......." Strange way of behaving to my mind, publishing the allegations and then asking for the evidence.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:51 AM

when something is trad arr, the proportion of royalties is very small, unlike when something is composed by somebody. thats why lennon and macartney were so much richer than the other beatles . as someone who has written songs and also perfomed trad material, which have been played on national radio.Iam speaking from personal experience
the amounts you get for trad arr, even when played on national radio is very small compared to self penned songs, something like six per cent as against 100 per cent,.
so what KENNEDY would have made would have been pence, or at the most [ national radio, a couple of pounds]on every play, enough maybe to cover his travelling expenses, if anyone can produce facts and figures to refute this please do, so lets get all this into perspective
I appreciate fred mcormick and jim carrolls contributions ,If they can produce financial evidence to prove that i am wrong then please do so. now this matter has been raised its only fair its clarified . if I hear nothing; viewers can make up their own minds. Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:57 AM

Sorry I had no wish to remain anonymous.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 08:34 AM

Reading this thread with interest but not having any knowledge of Peter Kennedy's doings (alleged or otherwise) but to me Dick, your argument in your last post ("so what KENNEDY would have made would have been pence...") strikes me as saying that it doesn't matter that Peter Kennedy stole from his sources because it was only a few pence or poundsat a time. Honesty and integrity don't come on a sliding scale, you are either honest or you are not.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 08:54 AM

yes ,but in any judgement the magnitude of a crime does make a difference, judgements are being made about Peter Kennedy ,it needs to be put in perspective.
If he allegedly misappropriated royalties the size and the amount does make a difference. any judge , magistrate, takes the size of an offence into consideration when sentencing, so this is important . while I disapprove of dishonesty, And have made it clear I would not have acted like this, no one yet has proved that he was legally not entitled to do this.
Before anyone starts ranting on about principles, let me say everything here is only alleged. and when principles come in the door CommonSense goes out the window.
Peter kennedy may have not been a saint , and un doubtedly was not as important as Seamus Ennis,but through his collections has given more pleasure and knowledge and done more good than bad , and his legacy is plus 7 out of ten as far as I am concerned.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:01 AM

kennedy probably justified this to himself [ if he did it]as being expenses. I am not justifying it either , but trying to understand.in life not everything is black and white often there are grey areas. finally a lot of this happened fifty years ago, there is someone resident in Yorkshire who is a bigger problem,and whose legacy is about 2 out of ten.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:31 AM

Jim, thank you for the explanation. One more question if you don't mind - you said your friend donated proceeds from the recordings to a Traveller's Education program. Does that mean that your friend had released the recording commercially? I am not sure how he would have received proceeds if it wasn't a commercial release. If that is so, when he gave a copy of a commercially releaed recording to Peter Kennedy which was then released on Folktrak, it would seem that your friend would have certain legal standing and precedent to sue.

It boggles my mind that someone could have done business like this if there were so many "issues", such as those we are hearing in this thread.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Ruston Hornsby
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:47 AM

All this makes you think. I've appeared as a musician for morris on the Whitby video a number of times, the Sidmouth one at least once - all of which were commercial videos - should I really be looking to claim royalties from all of this? Should we charge an up front fee from anyone wishing to video our performances or take photographic images? Where do you start, where do you stop with all of this?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:58 AM

All this makes you think. I've appeared as a musician for morris on the Whitby video a number of times, the Sidmouth one at least once - all of which were commercial videos - should I really be looking to claim royalties from all of this? Should we charge an up front fee from anyone wishing to video our performances or take photographic images? Where do you start, where do you stop with all of this?

Interesting questions. My feeling is that if I appear in a video/DVD briefly, it will actually give me a bit of free publicity, and possibly kudos, depending on what it was. Then I'd probably be happy and wouldn't want any fees, although I guess if it was a huge seller (e.g. a DVD of a Hollywood blockbuster) I might think differently.

But if for example a whole concert I was in was filmed and sold, then I would obviously like a share of any profits.

Depending on the circumstances, I would think it could be counter-productive to always demand royalties for any appearance, regardless of other factors, but others may disagree (and probably will!)

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:04 AM

"I've appeared as a musician for morris on the Whitby video a number of times, the Sidmouth one at least once - all of which were commercial videos - should I really be looking to claim royalties from all of this? "

Here in the U.S., crowds are often told in advance that they are being filmed or taped. The performers would sign waivers to participate or to allow the production to be recorded.

My daughter appeared briefly on network television this past weekend. Her high school band was videotaped as part of a reality-based program that happened to be taping in our town. No one received payment. They were asked if they would like to appear, they said yes.

Frankly, productions like this would probably dry up if every performer had to be paid.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Ruston Hornsby
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:10 AM

Yep - this is the point - where do you draw the line? The thing with the Kennedy collection I suppose is that it seems the beg the question of how much of what he recorded would have disappeared without trace and have been lost forever if he hadn't have done what he did?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:33 AM

" I suppose is that it seems the beg the question of how much of what he recorded would have disappeared without trace and have been lost forever if he hadn't have done what he did? "

I'm not sure if the end justify the means in "saving" this material, but it is a good question.

I'm not sure if we will ever know. Would there have been others that would have collected these songs? Would they have truly disappeared? If a song has been handed down for generations, would the chain have been broken and the song lost without the intervention of a collector?   We can only speculate.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,mick
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:48 AM

I've got a copy of Kennedy's ballads at home .In my opinion it's a treasure and if he made a few bob out of it good luck to him.I only met him once ,over thirty years ago in Totnes when me and a couple of friends were a bit worse for wear and stuck for a place to stay for the night after a concert he had put on. He took a chance and put us up without knowing us at all . A decent man ,that's the way he struck me. But even if he hadn't been you'd still have to respect him for his collections( despite the terrible translations of the Irish songs).

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Anglo
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:53 AM

One of Peter Kennedy's habits when producing recordings I found particularly irritating was his assembling "musical collages" of ballads, for example doing the first section of a ballad with a few verses from Harry Cox, then a few of someone else, then someone else again. He did this, for example, on some of the Caedmon Folksongs of Britain series (later released on Topic in Britain). Even more irritating, some of these collages were made up of three singers (with similar texts, but different tunes and keys) going in rotation one verse at a time. It's unlistenable!

His rationale was that space was limited on the LP and we wanted to present as much material as possible, but the texts in the notes only gave the verses that were actually presented on the recording. I thought he might get rid of this notion when some of these were published on CD, with more time available, as part of the Rounder Lomax series (two volumes of Child Ballads and the Songs of Seduction are the only CDs that were released as far as I'm aware); but no! not only are the old collages still there, but he actually made up new ones.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:12 PM

I never met Peter Kennedy, but I did correspond with him a few years back. I was attempting to produce a CD compiling all the recordings of the Donegal fiddler Néillidh Boyle (or Neil O'Boyle as he appeared on some 78s). As I explained to Peter in my letter requesting permission to use his own tapes of Néillidh this would be a limited release of 1,000 copies with all proceeds to go to the Donegal Fiddlers' Association.

In response I received a very strange reply asserting that Boyle was an Irish fiddler, not just of interest to Donegal (I think I know what he was getting at) and that PK would grant permission to use 'his' recordings - I won't go into the provenance issue - if he were to receive 75% of the income derived from all retail sales! Agreeing to such terms would have rendered the whole project ridiculous, so I wrote back to tell him so.

Now, of course, PK's Boyle tapes are out of copyright, and it's time to get that compilation back on the road.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:54 PM

The following is a RANT:
By a Yank, to boot.

Granted, the monetary amounts involved are relevant.

Granted, if it came to a trial, a number of participants in this thread would apparently be glad to appear as character witnesses for Kennedy's defense.

Nevertheless...

Something is missing in this discussion.

It is also usually missing from discussions like this one.

In such discussions, whether they be about Kennedy, Peer, Sharp, Lomax, Thomas, Niles, or A.P. Carter, the focus is always on the perp.

Nobody wants to talk about the victims.

It would be perfectly reasonable for the victims to ask, "So what are we? Chopped liver?"

Nobody wants to talk about the impact of the perp's behavior on real human beings, and their friends, and relations, and the musical traditions themselves.

Nobody wants to consider the ramifications of broken promises and betrayed trusts.

For example,
John Morgan Salyer was so dismayed by the stories he heard about the predetory relations between "collectors' and traditional musicians that he stopped playing in public and refused to allow anybody to record him.

The only recordings we have of his playing were made by him. His family consistently refused to share those recordings with anybody outside the family until Bruce Greene came along.

Such an impact on a particular traditional musician is not trivial. Now multiply that by 10 or 100 and think of the impact of sleazy collecting practices on an entire musical tradition.

To paraphrase a remark made TO a patronizing collector of traditional music BY someone who wasn't impressed with the collector's "credentials",
"These people aren't a bunch of ignorant natives on some island, they are my friends"

I personally am appalled by Kennedy's disrespect for his sources.

Russ (Permanent GUEST)

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:46 PM

Since Dick Miles ("Captain Birdseye") invokes me, I ought to say that, while I am following this discussion, I don't have any useful information to add to it. I didn't know Peter Kennedy. I have heard many opinions of all sorts about the way he conducted his collecting and publishing activities; some from people who knew him well and others from people who know even less about him than I do. I am not in a position to say what is accurate and what is not. That needs to be left to people who know the facts and can back them up.

What would, perhaps, be helpful would be if innuendo were made specific. So, for example, Jim: who is the collector whose recordings Kennedy issued without permission? Dick: who is this "someone resident in Yorkshire"? What does he or she have to do with the discussion?

And Russ: are your comments based on things that you know Kennedy to have been guilty of, or are you just making a generalised assumption? Do bear in mind that, while some contributors to this thread seem to be speaking from specific (and, presumably, verifiable) experience, others apparently are not. If it is to be a useful discussion, then we need to be quite clear on which is which.

Note that I am expressing no opinions of my own on Peter Kennedy's work. I would, however, like to see it made clear what, in this discussion, is opinion and what is fact. One of the strengths of Mudcat is the diversity of experience and knowledge that people bring to it; one of its weaknesses is the tendency of some to launch into knee-jerk reactions without any real understanding. It isn't always easy to tell which is which, so we need everybody to be clear and specific about what they say if we are going to get anywhere.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Murray on Saltspring
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:12 AM

Perhaps this is relevant: a note I sent last June to Folktrax - to date, unanswered.


Dear folks:
First, let me offer condolences on the death of Peter Kennedy.
On checking your site, I see you have for sale cds of the material in PK's excellent book 'Folksongs of Britain & Ireland'. But I noticed some anomalies in the description of the contents of the 'Seduction' section. For all I know this may be the case with others. Namely, on comparing the contents of the record as listed with the book in front of me, I notice:
no 176 'The Haslebury Girl' - book: from Harry Cox; disc, Bill Lowne.
no. 179 'The Lady o the Dainty Doon-by' - book, from Lucy Stewart AND Jeannie Robertson [??] ; disc, Lucy Stewart alone.
no. 185 'The nightingales Sing' - book from Raymond and John Cantwell; disc, Fred and Ray.
no 190 'She was a Rum One' - book, from Davie Stewart, 1956; disc, Jeannie Robertson, 1953.

As you can see, there are quite a few mistakes of one sort or another. Please explain this, or correct it. If I order the disc, I'd like to know exactly what I'm getting.

Murray Shoolbraid
Editor, BC Folklore.

-----------------
Has anyone else noticed this sort of thing? Quite apart from PK's questionable ethics, about which I can have no opinion, there's this bother about questionable scholarship.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:44 AM

A shadow has been cast upon Peter Kennedys character,.
anybody who does this should be able to back it up with facts, figures, amounts of money,that people were defrauded of etc, if they dont or cant,. come forward , with proper evidence of financial malpractice, they should apologise and be quiet.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:59 AM

"Quite apart from PK's questionable ethics, about which I can have no opinion, there's this bother about questionable scholarship.
"

Murray, I am not familiar with the CD's and I'm not 100% sure if I understand the point you were trying to make. Do you take issue with the artist selection on the CD not matching the source listed in the book? IF that is the case, is it really necessary that the two different products match?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:28 PM

A few weeks ago my wife was reading the obituary colmn to see if we were in yet.
She said, this bloke's died who wasan old boy of your school - Leighton park - folk song collector did you know him?

Well i didn't. if he was as miserable as i was at that place though, I crave your indulgence on his behalf - we're all damaged goods.

Dik cadbury of Decameron was there too.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,mick
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:34 PM

"Quite apart from PK's questionable ethics, about which I can have no opinion, there's this bother about questionable scholarship."

Aren't you expressing an opinion about PK's ethics by saying they are questionable?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:47 PM

Dick, you are asking for people to come up with facts and figures regarding Mr Kennedy.

Did you ever come up with facts and figures regarding your problems with a man in Yorkshire that you mention but don't name, and give details?

There is a posting above where a straightforward and logical question was asked of Folktrax which was ignored. Why I wonder.
Incidentally one of the tracks mentioned in that posting by the Cantwells had an accordeon accompaniment which when I bought it on vinyl I assumed to be one of the Cantwells. I was however informed by another collector that it was Peter Kennedy playing the instrument. Why would a collector include himself on a field recording of traditional singers I ask??

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:49 PM

Since people have started asking for facts rather than assertions, here's a few to start the ball the rolling.

Fact. Under the royalty agreements which Kennedy drew up, 50% was split between "our informants, collectors, authors and arrangers", and the remaining 50% was claimed by Kennedy. Source. Folk Review. March 1974.

Fact. When Geoff Wallis asked Kennedy for permission to use some recordings for a non-profit making CD, Kennedy asked him for 75% of the retail price ! Source. This thread. NB., I have seen the correspondence Geoff refers to. I have also seen Kennedy's grovelling response when Geoff pointed out that the recordings were almost out of copyright and would shortly be available at a much less extortionate rate elsewhere.

Fact. The collector, Tom Munnelly once sent a tape of the singer, John Reilly to Kennedy for interest purposes only. Without consulting Munnelly or Reilly, and without paying a red cent in royalties, Kennedy published the tape in Folktrax. Source. The IRTRAD_L discussion board.

Fact. In 1979, Keith Summers attempted to record Maggie Murphy of Tempo, Fermanagh. (She had previously been recorded by Kennedy when she was still Maggie Chambers.) She was extremely reluctant, saying that Kennedy had got her to sign "a piece of paper", assigning not only the songs he had recorded from her but any she might remember in the future. Source. A lecture which Keith gave in Hermitage, Berkshire, in May 1984., plus a copy of that lecture which I have in my possession.

Fact. Folktrax products fall way below anything resembling acceptable standards. They were copied onto poor quality cassettes, using recorders which often sounded as though the heads were badly in need of cleaning. And the notes consisted of single sided A4 photocopies - often illegible. Source. Take a look at a few. N.B. I once bought a tape of Yugoslavian music from Kennedy. The tape had already been used to record some English folk duo or other. It hadn't even been wiped before the Yugoslavian music was dubbed on.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:52 PM

there is a law of libel, this is a public forum, any defamatory comments should be carefully considered and able to be proven in law. as far as i am aware the only thing that could be proved in law is Peter Kennedys dubbing on of accompaniments.
can fred mcormick give details and prove that Peter Kennedy stole mechanical copywright royalties[ and what was the amount stolen]how does the law stand on ownership of songs that are in the public domain[ perhaps the onus is on the victim to have claimed it]iF fred knows the answers to these questions or if anybody does it may be useful to this discussion.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:04 PM

Malcolm Douglas,

My rant was not based on any knowledge I have of Kennedy's practices.

The last sentence in my post was improperly worded.

I should have said
"If the allegations are true, I personally am appalled by Kennedy's disrespect for his sources."

For the mis-statement I apologize.

However...

My rant was a general criticism of discussions of this type.

It was prompted by my interpretation of the remarks of some of Kennedy's "defenders."

I respect those who defend Kennedy along the lines of "Based upon my own experience and to the best of my knowledge Kennedy is not guilty."

What set me off were those who appear to be defending Kennedy along the lines of "no blood, no foul."
Some participants appeared to suggest that so little money was involved the issue is hardly worth worrying about, and as if that were the only significant factor.

My point
If guilt is eventually proven or admitted,
and if we are comparing the pros and cons of Kennedy's efforts,
Then we don't simply ask accountants to furnish us with balance sheets.
We don't simply ask other appropriately credentialed collectors to evaluate this methodology.
We should take a serious look at the impact of blameworthy practices on the individuals and traditions involved.
IMHO the last would be the most significant factor.

Russ (Permanent GUEST)

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:17 PM

"Fact. Under the royalty agreements which Kennedy drew up, 50% was split between "our informants, collectors, authors and arrangers", and the remaining 50% was claimed by Kennedy. Source. Folk Review. March 1974.

Fact. When Geoff Wallis asked Kennedy for permission to use some recordings for a non-profit making CD, Kennedy asked him for 75% of the retail price ! Source. This thread. NB., I have seen the correspondence Geoff refers to. I have also seen Kennedy's grovelling response when Geoff pointed out that the recordings were almost out of copyright and would shortly be available at a much less extortionate rate elsewhere."

To me, that sounds like a businessman - and I do not fault anyone from trying to earn an HONEST dollar.   Was he cheating anyone? In the above examples, I don't see any problem.

Were the "informants, collectors,authors and arrangers" forced to enter into an agreement? Was Geoff Wallis forced to accept the terms? Was any artist forced to sign a paper that gave exclusivity to Peter Kennedy?"   I don't know the answers, but I am guessing it would be "no" to all.

"Fact. The collector, Tom Munnelly once sent a tape of the singer, John Reilly to Kennedy for interest purposes only. Without consulting Munnelly or Reilly, and without paying a red cent in royalties, Kennedy published the tape in Folktrax. Source. The IRTRAD_L discussion board."

If this is indeed a fact, then Peter Kennedy was seriously wrong. Did Tom Munnelly take it to court? Is there more to this story?

"We should take a serious look at the impact of blameworthy practices on the individuals and traditions involved."

That is very true. I think part of the "problem" is that the field of collecting and independent productions have very little control or peer judgement.   In other fields, there are usually trade groups and other concerns that set standards and prices. Can we point to any one group or groups that are doing that for this field?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:06 PM

A few comments on the above.

To Captain Birdseye - unless New Labour has slipped in a recent amendment to the law of libel it's legally impossible to libel someone who's dead.

To Ron Olesko - PK's demand for 75% of the retail price of the CD compilation which I proposed ignored the fact that he had absolutely no claim to eight of the tracks which would have appeared (and were recorded by Néillidh Boyle in the late 1930s), but he still wanted his shekels. There was no question of the fiddler being involved in the arrangement since he was sadly long dead.

PK's commercial exploitation of Tom Munnelly's tapes of John Reilly was simply fradulent, and about that there can be no doubt. But he did exactly the same thing with James Foley's recordings of the Tyrone singer John Corry. That's just two examples from Ireland. How often did PK use the same methods regarding UK collectors?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:09 PM

TO GUEST RUSS , I am asking for the matter of    alleged defrauding of royalties to be clarified, that way people can make their own judgements.
Does it occur to anyone that the people that these songs were collected from, might through their own lack of understanding have an exaggerated idea of their financial worth, and no understanding of Peter Kennedys travelling expenses, and [possibly ]unfairly felt resentment.the people who peter kennedy collected songs from did not own them[ morally ]any more than the person they learnt them from.
      All traditional songs were written by someone at some point. the fact that the original author or broadsheet writer no longer had them under copyright does not mean that they were the singers property[ because they were not the singers creative work]unlike self penned material.they were no more that persons property than they are mine.
the difference is that if i choose to arrange a song [i can copyright my arrangements] but these songs were
unaccompanied and therefore unarranged. in my opinion part of the problem here is that these source singers did not understand that they did not own the song, because it was not their creative work, but the creative work of a broad sheet seller.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:22 PM

Does Ron Olesko live in the real world?

"Did Tom Munnelly take it to court?". Business Man ? Honest dollar?

I assume that you are a US resident in which case you should realise how impractical it would be to take a matter such as this to law.

Trade groups and other concerns to set standards and prices for field collectors?

Who writes your scripts Ron?

Most collectors that I know do/did it for a love of the music and have a lot of respect for their informants and most of them paid for their collecting out of their own pockets. Some of them placed their material in various archives where it would be readily available to interested parties.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:52 PM

There is no call to be rude and arrogant Hootenanny. If you wish to have a discussion, be reasonable and civil.   If my observations were wrong or you disagree you should point them out, but there is no need to turn a discussion into an excuse for insults and jokes. Every response here should be treated with some respect.

I have no knowledge of what occured with Tom Munnelly and I asked a legitimate question - what did Munnelly do? Granted courts would probably dismiss as it would fall under a petty crime due to the financial issues, but I curious as to how this was handled.   Did Munnelly confront Kennedy, and if so what was the response?

Yes, MOST collectors do this out of love and pay out of their own pocket, but there are, or at least were, individuals who took it beyond an amateur pastime and turned it into a profession. Did they treat everyone fairly? Not all the time. I did not know Peter Kennedy and I find this discussion quite eye-opening. I am not defending him, nor am I attacking him. I am trying to learn something here. Hopefully I can do that without being insulted.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM

Does Captain Birdseye live in the real world ? I quote him chapter and verse and give sources and he accuses me of libelling the man. Then he virtually accuses me of accusing Kennedy of stealing mechanical copyright royalties. Sorry Cap'n, there's a law of libe dontcha know.

As for Olesko. If Kennedy was a businessman out to exploit the artistic culture of the numan race, that would be bad enough. He wasn't. He was a collector who worked for a good part of his life on a publicly funded stipend. His recordings of Neilly Boyle were made while he was on that stipend. The terms he tried to raise with Geoff were outrageous.

As for Tom Munnelly. The vast majority of the people Kennedy ripped off were in no financial position to do anything about it. That is why he was able to get away with it.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:57 PM

Before anybody picks me up on it, that should have read law of libel, not libel.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM

McCormick - I do agree with you that anyone who "exploits" the artistic endeavours of any culture is not someone that I would want to do business with.   My questions and playing devils advocate was to try to understand the situation. Again, I have no dog in this race.   I am not defending anyone, just trying to understand. I do feel that situations like this have reprecussions and it is an important topic to be discussed in forums such as these.

Also, when I was referring to "trade groups", I probably used the wrong set of words. But, just as archivists have organizations that share practices and information, this is an important field that could use some scrutiny based on some of the stories being shared here. Was I wrong to suggest that some sort of group be available to help prevent problems like this from occuring?   Where would a Tom Munnelly go if he is getting ripped off?   Who is to say that 75%, 50% or 10% is fair or unfair?   Should someone who devotes enormous time to these endeavors be forced to take a vow of poverty?   Perhaps it is because everyone is creating their own sets of rules that we have problems like this.   Maybe it is a good thing that at least a discussion like this occurs.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: nutty
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:56 PM

This has been a fascinating thread but I keep wondering about the position of the EFDSS in all this.

Given that it has been suggested that the recordings were the property of the EFDSS - why did they not make any move to recover them or to prevent them from being put up for sale.

Surely the EFDSS would have been the appropriate agency to prevent these source singers and musicians from being exploited ..... if indeed they were.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:58 PM

I said can fred mcormick give details, and prove that Peter Kennedy stole mechanical copywright royalties[ And what was the amount stolen].
that is a question not an accusation/Ihave not accused you of anything. my remarks about libel were not aimed at you specifically, but a reminder to every one to be careful,.
you still havent given details of the amounts stolen, this is important.
I have not accused you of anything,you owe me an apology. its impossible to virtually accuse anyone of something, you either accuse them or you dont, read my post carefully, i have not accused you of anything.
finally traditonal material does not belong to a source singer [ only self penned material belongs to somebody ][[or an arrangement ]]that traditional singer has no more right to royalties.than the collector or his next door neighbour. some broadsheet writer wrote the song, so its his / her material, not the source singers. now personally I would not have behaved the way Peter Kennedy is alleged to have done. But without kennedys work the folk scene would be poorer, the source singer plays an important part but there are no rules as to how they should be rewarded, it is matter of individual conscience.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 04:27 PM

The Captain is right. Peter Kennedy should be no more accused of "stealing" from the source singers than they should be accused of "stealing" from the original writers/composers. His endevours should possibly even be celebrated if he collected and issued recordings of the material at his own expense.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: nutty
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 04:44 PM

I think you might be missing the point Dick..

The assertion has been made that Kennedy did not have permission from these performers to offer the recordings for sale. That is a very different matter from him being accused of stealing.

I agree that without his efforts much would be lost to folk music but how he would have been applauded if he had made this material freely available. I believe that this is the case with the material he collected that remained with the EFDSS.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 05:12 PM

tO HOOTENANY, I have replied to malcolm douglas in a personal message. to Nutty...
Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick - PM
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 04:34 AM

In the case of Peter Kennedy and his alleged royalty expropriation, I believe the question of royalties extended to mechanical performance only. IE., reproduction of the singer or musician's performance, or what we nowadways describe as their intellectual property. In other words, Peter Kennedy had no right to release recordings of other people without seeking permission of them or their descendants, and without paying royalties.

Folksongs are, by their very nature, in the public domain. They belong to all of us and that makes a nonsense of the idea that they can or should be copyrighted.

Not that such considerations ever bothered Kennedy.
SO fred says without paying royalties,i am asking how much were they deprived of [ or how much was taken ..stolen by kennedy.please nutty read the posts carefully.
logically if folk songs belong to all of us, Kennedy has as much right as the source singer to copyright them.
if an enterprising source singer copyrighted them, would you be condemning him in the same way as you are kennedy.
folksongs have been written at some point, alot of them by broadsheet writers, they are not the intellectual property of the source singer or the collector, if they are arranged then the composer of the arrangement owns the copyright to the arrangement only.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 05:52 PM

May I just clarify something regarding royalties paid on the public performance of recorded work. For example I mentioned in a posting above a recording by the Cantwells. If or when this recorded work is played on radio or television or in a pub, club or similar then the radio station, tv station club or pub pays a licence fee to (in the UK) PPL, Phonographic Performance Limited. The amount collected if any, is paid out to the actual performers on that recorded work. By imposing their accompaniment onto a performance - and obviously a producer would only do this to improve it's appeal ho ho - then the producer becomes a performer and can also claim royalties. OK so we are not talking vast amounts in the folk field but that is the way it works. The copyright on the recorded work runs out after fifty years but if the company re-masters the recording and re-issues it then it starts all over again. There is an effort being made by some long lasting pop singers to have this increased to 75 years but I believe that this has been covered in another thread.
This doesn't happen in the USA as there is no similar licensing body for the public performance of recorded work, or if there is then it is only recent within the last say two or three years. Before anybody mentions ASCAP, this is for royalties of a different nature.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 07:47 PM

This discussion was started by Rod Stradling´s admission that he had kept a file on Peter Kennedy. Unless it`s components manifested themselves in his office of course. It seems from what his co-editor in his defence says that Rod saves everything that is sent to him. And presumably files it under,.......well who knows. Clearly he had a file marked "Kennedy".

When I send letters to magazines etc. I mark them "for publication" or "not for publication". I expect the ones marked ""not for publication" not to be published. It is clearly an editor´s right not to publish material marked "for publication". I do not regard it as an editor´s right to publish material that has been rejected for publication to be published later when a person to whom it refers is dead. I cannot imagine any decent editor or co-editor saving material on such a basis. Clearly Rod does do so, since according to Fred, Rod does keep all material sent to him on file. And he has now decided to publish it.

Now either Peter Kennedy was the only person who Rod was sent material about or there are others. Why not tell us who Mustrad has other files about, and at what point will they be published?

I have no idea what Peter Kennedy´s practices were regarding copywrite, royalties and so on. I know Fred is not sure since he uses the phrase "In the case of Peter Kennedy and his alleged royalty expropriation"... and I know Rod is not sure since he asks for "..concrete evidence".

I have spoken to many artists who maintain they have been ripped off by all sorts of other well-known organisations as far as royalties are concerned. There is a long thread about Green Linnet for example on Mudcat. So clearly Peter Kennedy is not the only one to indulge in this sort of thing. No doubt Mustrad has files on....well again, who knows?

Fred, whilst I am not a lawyer and do not purpport to give legal advice, I reckon I am on pretty safe ground to tell you there is no need to write "alleged". The dead cannot sue. The only people to be upset are his family. But I am sure you and your co-editor have taken their thoughts on this into consideration when you started all this. Or perhaps you believe that they don´t read Mustrad?

Actually Fred, despite the description on Mustrad of Peter as "....he seemed to be very litigious" (Pt. 13) I would have thought that anyone with a half-decent file on Peter Kennedy would know that such a threat was totally hollow. So you could have published all this previously. But as Rod says it has built up "Over the years". Maybe it just makes a decent article about now. Coincidentally of course.

Fred, you went apeshit when material about you was published anonymously. And you were correct to do so, but apparently it is OK to publish material about Peter Kennedy anonymously from Mustrad files. You should ask permission of all the people who have sent "comments and information.. [that]...has built up in my office" and those that are not prepared to have their names added to the comments and information should have their allegations discounted.

I have no quarrel with those like Jim Carroll and others on this thread who have put their names to what they have written.

My argument is not about Peter Kennedy and what he did or did not do.

It is about Mustrad admitting that they keep files on people which are then brought out anonymously as "critical reviews". And then almost holding a sword over Derek Schofield´s head - if he doesn´t publish I will.

I did believe Mustrad had higher standards. Now I am not so sure

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 09:05 PM

The rights to profits from a public domain traditional folk song and the rights to profits from a recording of a private performance of a traditional folk song by an individual are two radically different things which seem to be getting mixed up here.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 03:15 AM

Since these alleged mispractices have been going on for fifty years,why wait till Peter kennedy can no longer defend himself .
a file has been built up on Kennedy, what would have happened if these allegations were brought out during his lifetime, or have they not been brought out because his critics, know they would have lost.is it because they know that with his death, they are safe from libel.
       now I am not making accusations ,only asking questions that need to be answered.
   Becky, yes right they are different.
somewhere FRED talks about kENNEDY RIPPING PEOPLE OFF, can Mcormick give us detailed financial information about the amounts involved, as he and Rod have a file on Kennedy.
onthe subject of fred mcormick and Jim carroll, why is jim temporarily censored by mcormick and stradling and why does Fred mcormick query Jims collecting credentials , just curious.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 03:49 AM

Well looking through this correspondence here. i would appear that at least this character set it down in writing that these interpretations of folksongs were an intellectual property.

Surely ownership and the rights and responsibilites involved can surely be settled at a date when the possible owner go about their business and put in claims. As a songwriter that is what you have to do. Last year, by looking through the internet I found one of my songs had appeared on a couple of albums and there was a sum of money owing to me.

How many more artists and publishers have neglected to give writers their royalties - without didscovering a single folksong. Writers like John Connolly seem to have gotten the point where finding their work described as traditional seems par for the course. I know Ewan reached that point as well.

I remember owning a Ping Pong and Prance Society book where the Leaving of Liverpool was described as from the singing of Seamus Ennis, I wondfer how many artists who recorded that song have bestowed a similar honour on the man.

Seems to me there is some element of collective responsibility here.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:12 AM

I remember owning a Ping Pong and Prance Society book where the Leaving of Liverpool was described as from the singing of Seamus Ennis, I wondfer how many artists who recorded that song have bestowed a similar honour on the man.

Not too many I would guess

W. M. Doerflinger ("Shantymen and Shantyboys," New York 1951)
collected this song from an ex-seaman, Dick Maitland, who first
heard it in 1885. "I was on deck," says Maitland, "one night,
when I heard a Liverpool man singing it in the foc's'le. Yes
sir, that song hit the spot." The song is included on a
Prestige record of sea songs by A. L. Lloyd and Ewan McColl (both now
"up aloft," God rest their souls).

Of course Seamus Ennis may have collected it elsewhere.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:27 AM

Don't recollect this geezer Maitland getting too many mentions on album covers either.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:30 AM

I confirm what Fred McCormick wrote about Tom Munnelly being the collector and John Reilly being the singer.
Tom is my friend and neigbour and would not dream of taking anybody to court.
The amount made by Kennedy is totally irrelevent, I believe Kennedy set the tone for collecting in these islands and fouled the water for others; the water is still not clear.
He ripped of traditional singers and colleagues alike and did great disservice to traditional song.
Incidentally, in spite of Tom's and other's efforts to raise money for John Reilly who was living (sic) in a derelict house in Boyle,
John died of malnutrition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:35 AM

PS
Why wait till Kennedy is no longer able to defend himself?
I still find myself looking over my shoulder waiting for the solicitor's letter to land on the mat.
Throughout his career Kennedy threatened legal action against thosae who used HIS songs and those who spoke against his actions.
The EFDSS, who were well aware of the controversy, chose to stay silent
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:47 AM

In a recent book of papers on folk music ('Folk Song - Tradition, Revival and Re-Creation' eds. Ian Russell and David Atkinson, University of Aberdeen, 2004) there is a fascinating contribution by E.David Gregory: 'Roving Out: Peter Kennedy and the BBC Folk Music and Dialect Recording Scheme, 1952 - 1957'. This meticulously researched essay makes it clear the Peter Kennedy did a truly prodigous amount of collecting, in Britain and Ireland, in the 1950s.

As a lifelong fan of British and Irish trad. music I would like to know why I have only heard a tiny fraction of this material - especially as it was gathered with public money? Gregory lays the blame firmly at the door of the BBC: "One cannot avoid the overall conclusion that while the BBC helped to build up, during the 1950s, a tremendous library of recorded traditional music, it undervalued, under-utilised, and hoarded this resouce ... Nor did it take its archival responsibilities sufficiently seriously."

I welcome the debate on Peter Kennedy but I hope that this debate will focus on what happened to this material and address the question of how enthusiasts, like me, can get to hear whatever remains of it (at a reasonable cost, of course).

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:59 AM

I can't see a problem with a magazine informing readers of the origin of their printed material. Take any number of people who have learned a song aurally from one source and I would bet that in a very short time there would develop either naturally or by design an almost equal number of slight variations on the original, it's known as the folk process. I would assume that the magazine in question was merely clarifying that that was the way a particular singer performed the song.

Is it not still common practice at a folk club for a singer to inform the audience the origin of their version of a song?

I can sympathise with the Drummer above if he has written songs and not been credited but he should not confuse his writing of modern songs with the performance of traditional material which I thinks is what is being dicussed here.

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

Jim Carroll. Why wait till Kennedy is no longer able to defend himself?

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.

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 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.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:06 AM

Re. the dubbed accompaniment - seems a strange thing to want to do, unless he was trying to pretend that the unaccompanied singer was accompanied when the recording was made - is that what is being alleged?

Otherwise I would have thought it was easier to just sing it again (or hire someone who can sing, if you can't) with accompaniment. Or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:45 AM

I am still waiting for my question re the alleged financial misappropriation of royalties[what was the amount] to be answered by Fred McCORMICK.as far as I am concerned and anyone else who wants to make a level headed judgement, it is relevant. I am sorry to hear John died of malnutrition, but that is the responsibility of the IRISH SOCIAL SERVICES AND GOVERNMENT, It is their duty to look after citizens in need, [ if we knew how much kennedy ripped off, of reilly we could make a considered judgement]as to whether or not he contributed to it, are we talking about five shillings, five pounds, fifty , 500pounds, five thousand pounds,50 thousand pounds, i am sorry but it is relevant and it does make a difference.I agree it is very sad when someone dies of malnutrition,but care is needed in apportioning blame and making judgements.
if you accuse someone of ripping someone off,I would like to have detailed financial evidence[ amount wise],perhaps you can make me change my mind .
if the case was so strong against Kennedy why did no one take him to court,Dallas, mccormick, carroll etc.
   I would be prepared to change my assesment of Kennedy if you can give me more information.
       Finally collectors need to make it clear, that traditional songs are not necessarily the property of those who sing them,any more than they are of collectors. Honesty is required, no one should be coerced into letting a collector record the song they are singing, if the deal doesnt suit both parties.
But IN criticising Kennedy,is it going to prevent others operating Similarly or worse in the folk field.
I have three recordings owned by someone in englandthat are being suppressed, that even if I didnt see a penny in royalties , I would prefer to see giving pleasure to people, and publicity to myself, but this discussion I am sure will not convert THAT PERSON on the road to damascus.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:59 AM

to Scrump. I think that hewas trying to claim it as an arrangement, which of course is wrong artistically and morally[ without their permission].
but all this suggests to me someone who was trying to make a few pence wherever he could ,rather than someone who has made thousands out of exploiting source singers.Iam not excusing it just trying to get a clearer picture of the man. perhaps if he had been properly funded from the english government this may have never happened. on the two occasions i met him i found him a charming , generous man and i still treasure his books that i they have given me great pleasure.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 07:25 AM

Cap'n

If as you say "I think that hewas trying to claim it as an arrangement, which of course is wrong artistically and morally" I presume you are referring to his accompaniament added at a later date.

If this was so then let us suppose that 'John Doe' was recorded singing a ballad. Peter Kennedy added himself to the recording. Assume that this accompaniment did not double the sales of the recording as people brough it to hear 'John Doe' not Peter Kennedy. Now let us suppose that this recording earned £x for the artists involved. By simple arithmatic 'John Doe's' earnings would have been £x but they are now actually £x/2. Has not half of 'John Doe's' earnings been taken by Peter Kennedy?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 07:56 AM

well if we accept that, then how much did Kennedy take,was it half of fifty pounds or half of five hundred . but do you not take into consideration peter kennedy as the promoter,and his capital outlay, is he not entitled to something for that. Kennedy should have been more detailed with his singers, he should have informed them of his sales and paid them royalties. I have recorded with several companies, Brewhouse have been the only ones to pay me
ROYALTIES. this sort of thing is unfortunately quite common.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,MikeofNorthumbria (sans cookie)
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 08:34 AM

People with longstanding grievances against Peter K should have raised them while he was still alive - either one to one privately, or in some appropriate public forum. Some of the posters in this thread say that they did indeed do so, but clearly they were unwilling to keep on pressing their case until they got satisfaction.

That being the case, it seems rather mean-spirited for them to revive these accusations here and now - firstly because the man can neither defend himself nor (if appropriate) apologise and make recompense, and secondly because his family must still be grieving, and all this can only distress them further.

In due time,historians will gather in all the available data, and weigh up the positive and negative aspects of Mr K's life and work. In my opinion, his good works will then be seen to have far outweighed his transgressions - but let's not condemn him out of hand before we know all the facts.

Wassail!

Dr Mike Sutton
Northumbria University

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 08:45 AM

Hear Hear. Please show some respect for his family.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 08:45 AM

Captain Birdseye,

Re your rhetorical question:
"Does it occur to anyone that the people that these songs were collected from, might through their own lack of understanding have an exaggerated idea of their financial worth, and no understanding of Peter Kennedys travelling expenses, and [possibly ]unfairly felt resentment.the people who peter kennedy collected songs from did not own them[ morally ]any more than the person they learnt them from."

This approach to the problem under discussion has a name. It is called "blame the victim."

Russ (Permanent and sometimes Impertinent GUEST)

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 08:57 AM

Since previous comments on Peter Kennedy detailed by Fred McCormick in this thread failed to bring forth litigation, clearly that was never a worry. Presumably point 13 on Mustrad suggesting he was litigous will be withdrawn.

Here´s what Fred thinks when people talk anonymously about him....

I have now been told - and I have good reason to believe this intelligence is true - that some nameless individual took my review, removed all the positive aspects and doctored the rest to make it look complete. It was then circulated to various people in Ireland and presented to them as though it were an exact reproduction of what I had written. The intention was to discredit me and my review, and I find it incredible that anyone who calls themselves a human being could resort to such treachery.

Apart from the fact that this is clear breach of copyright, it is also a monumental breach of human ethics. And it is difficult to imagine the kind of warped and twisted psychology which it would take for someone to stoop to such verminous tactics. However, it does explain why all the attacks on me and on my review have focused solely on my coverage of the book, and why various denigrators keep insisting that I ignored the book's subject entirely.

As co-editor of Mustrad you have published an edited version of a file which you tell us has been gathered over the years which consists of anonymous contributions.

I would be really grateful if you could explain why this is not a "monumental breach of human ethics", "twisted psychology" and "verminous tactics".

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 09:43 AM

Cap'n

If this is true:

"Fact. Under the royalty agreements which Kennedy drew up, 50% was split between "our informants, collectors, authors and arrangers", and the remaining 50% was claimed by Kennedy. Source. Folk Review. March 1974."

It seems to me that 50% was claimed by Kennedy for his efforts and expenses in collecting plus the share of the other 50% to the person who collected (i.e. Kennedy), the arranger (i.e. Kennedy)etc etc.

Why are you so hung up on the actual amount?

Would you be happy for me to borrow one of your CDs and make a copy for my self? After all you're not likely to actually earn more than a few pence from the sale. So that's alright then?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:05 AM

Sorry Dave, if you can't see the difference between circulating half a review, specifically with the intention of discrediting the entire review, and publishing edited highlights of correspondence - positive as well as negative - then I just despair.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:17 AM

Who's making the money out of the article gleaned from "source" informants here and is any being redistributed?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 11:59 AM

ToRUSS, no you misunderstand me, how am I blaming the victim , I am not blaming anyone .Istand by my point, They did not know how much Kennedy was making so assumed he was making a lot more than he was, thats not their fault, as I said in one of my more recent posts, Kennedy should have informed them how the sales were going.and paid royalties.
he perhaps should also have explained his own expenses, then this misunderstanding and bad feeling probably would not have arisen.
finally source singers do not own the material, because its not self penned, it was perhaps learnt from a relative or a neighbour but originally was written by somebody[ who perhaps sold it in broadsheet form ],so its not their creative work.
now as i have explained before, I would have acted differently from KENNEDY, he made mistakes ,
I dont think he made a lot of money out of all this [please show me figures to prove me wrong],he was not a double dyed villain as some are trying to portray him. he did things I wouldnt have done .but i still believe with all his faults he did more good than harm.
to DAZBO NO SOURCE SINGER, HAD TO AGREE TO SINGING FOR KENNEDY,if they didnt like him they could show him the door.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:13 PM

PETER KENNEDY was somebody I saw busking when he was quite elderly.he lived in a fairly modest house in Totnes. I am afraid that doesnt fit with the image of someone who made thousands or more from ripping off source singers.
please prove me wrong show me evidence that he stole tens of thousands or however much he did steal.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:13 PM

Then despair away Fred, for you cannot see how publishing something that is written anonymously and publishing something that is written anonymously is identical. The difference is that one has the publisher´s name attached. The other doesn´t. They both consist of anonymous and edited material.

The fact is Fred, that if I were a magazine publisher and people sent in material about you and I had saved it all over a period of years and then later published the "edited highlights" with derogatory material as well as anything positive, un-attributed to any source then you would be up in arms and you would be right.

Personally Fred I despair at your double standards.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:40 PM

Sorry Dave, who did you say gave you permission to reproduce my letter?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM

Captain Birdseye,

You are focusing on a word, "blame," instead of the concept.

The phenomenon is ancient and widespread, but I got the terminology from "The Women's Movement." (Don't know what is was called in the UK)

When the term was invented, I assume that "Blame" was a conscious choice and that the intention was to create a pejorative term. That was also my intention when I used the term.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:17 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.'

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

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:34 PM

Did Cecil Sharp have permission from his source singers, for his arrangements and did he pay them royalties.
Fred mc cormick you havent answered John henrys question, does that mean you havent distributed royalties as well,that would mean your a bit of a scallywag.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:36 PM

Sorry Dave, who did you say gave you permission to reproduce my letter?

Fred, your understanding is underwhelming. Tell us all where it was published, tells us all where I copied and pasted it from, and let us all decide whether it was in the public domain or not. Or by publishing it on Mustrad were you trying to ensure that no-one read it?

Since we are going down that road who gave you (and your co-editor) permission to publish the file (that had "built up over the years") on Peter Kennedy? Did each and everyone of those people who had submitted material "over the years" give permission to publish it in the form you have? Don´t you and your co-editor feel you ought to tell us?

And to Geoff Wallis, you really have lost me. I genuinely lack understanding to what you are referring. Feel free to contact me either openly here, by PM, or via my personal email [e-mail]


Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 07:36 PM

yes,Geoff has lost me too,Dave.
   Since you keep files, Fred could you obtain the review of Nic Dow, and Rod Stradlings comments. I found stradlings comments on Dow offensive and unfair, I have known Dow for thirty years and would describe him as an honourable man. it seems you might [the two of you] have a bee in your bonnet, about other collectors, and possibly have an axe to grind.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:47 AM

Whenever the name Peter Kennedy comes up I am always surprised at the number of people who either don't know or don't care about his behaviour towards traditional musicians and singers. There is no doubt in mind that most of the stories I have heard about him are true – I have met too many people who have had first hand experience of him, and have seen the results up close.
What people need to decide is; (a) did he do the things he is accused of and (b) does it matter.
As far as I am concerned, yes he did and yes it does. The greatest damage he 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
It is quite true that there is not a great deal of money to be made out of traditional music – not unless you set up a cottage industry and market it on a large scale – isn't that exactly what he did? Aren't shoddy, cheaply produced goods to a captive market every entrepreneur's dream. 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.
I don't know if Moe Asche and Alan Lomax were guilty of the same practices; I haven't seen the evidence and until I do I am not prepared to make a judgement.
As for my own actions and others, (including Fred McCormick), I think we did what we could to draw attention what was happening, but given the disinterest of EFDSS and the BBC we didn't get very far.
As far as I am concerned, I am as proud of the fact that I never once bought a Kennedy product as I am that we never bought South African goods throughout the anti-apartheid boycott.
Well, I'm off to the Frank Harte week-end – now there's a man who loved the music and respected the people who gave it to us.
Jim Carroll
PS Cap'n; as a long-time admirer of MacColl, I managed a wry smile at your suggestion that as Kennedy was now dead we should ignore his faults and let him rest in peace.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:12 AM

YES seamus ennis likewise. but that doesnt alter the fact that kennedy collected a colossaal amount. hewas much more active ten times more than anyone else.re read my MACCOLL posts again, you are doing me a disservice.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:19 AM

TO JIM, i dont think it doesnt matter ,Idont give it as much importance asyou, in the final overall picture. Kennedy as regards volume was a colossus amongst collectors, and has left us with a rich legacy despite his mistakes.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:59 AM

"The greatest damage he did was to hang a price tag on the tradition and make it a commodity, thereby setting a precedent."

No more or no less than anyone who takes a traditional song or tune, puts it on a cd and sells it to the public with (traditional, arranged.....whoever)

Ever since the first collector decided it was his or her mission in life to go forth and "organise" the wealth of traditional song and music in these islands of ours they wittingly or unwittinglg opened the flood gates for commercial exploitation. An entire industry has since developed where someone, somewhere is making money from the resulting archives. I think it unwise to point the finger or single anyone out for criticism, especially someone who is no longer here to defend themselves. I was always taught, "Never speak ill of the dead." I still regard that as good advice.

James Henry

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:32 AM

If it should prove true that Peter Kennedy did indeed "rip off" his source singers as has been alleged, what is the next step? IS there anything that can be done to rectify the alleged wrongdoing, given that Peter K (and I suspect many of his sources) are no longer around?

Or is it just a case of "setting the record straight" for historical reference purposes?

In other words, what is the purpose of digging this up after his death?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:37 AM

TO JIM carroll,    Ihave been back through all my posts re ewan maccoll, ihave consistently praised him as a fine songwriter, in fact all my post have contained praise. if you cant get this right how can anyone take you seriously.
why didnt you take him to court if you felt so strongly, was it because you didnt have a case. I endorse everything James Henry says.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:39 AM

In the same way that Jim Carroll knows little about the work of Moe Asch and Alan Lomax I know little of the work of Peter Kennedy - which is why I am not prepared to join in a slanging match about him.

There does however seem to be a general belief that there is loads of money to be made with recordings of folk musicians however obtained. Somehow I doubt it. And certainly not in the field of traditional musicians like Peter Kennedy recorded. However having said that, people should get their due.

Like you Jim I never owned a Folktrax record, do you Fred? And if not why not?

And you still have not made it plain why you feel I should not have reproduced your letter from Mustrad? I am genuinely puzzled since I assumed that it was in the public domain? Am I wrong?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:55 AM

no one has come forward with information RE Cecil Sharp. if Sharp did not pay his source singers royalties, or pay them for the songs he collected, is it surprising that KENNEDY[ with his background]thought this was acceptable practice,.
rather than slag someone off is it not better to understand that environment can affect the way people are. now if Sharp didnt pay his dues, like kennedy is alleged not to , that doesnt alter the fact that the collection of songs that sharp collected, like kennedy was colossal, and we are all indebted to both of them.
why not attack all the early song collectors who didnt pay royalties or treat their source singers as equals.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:04 AM

What is all this rubbish about keeping files ?

I feel pretty certain that most posters on this thread keep files, or do we call them archives? It's difficult not to if you are a singer or record collector and are sufficiently interested to find out more about the origin/development of the music and the people involved. If nobody kept files our knowledge of the past would be sadly lacking. If you are running a magazine it is impossible NOT to keep files. There is nothing sinister in it.

As for the query on Cecil Sharp, I was quite unaware that he issued recordings by the singers from whom he collected songs. I would like to know how much he paid his informants and how much profit he made was it pennies, pounds hundreds of pounds? But wait he's dead so that's alright then.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:23 AM

I feel pretty certain that most posters on this thread keep files, or do we call them archives? It's difficult not to if you are a singer or record collector and are sufficiently interested to find out more about the origin/development of the music and the people involved. If nobody kept files our knowledge of the past would be sadly lacking. If you are running a magazine it is impossible NOT to keep files. There is nothing sinister in it.

Correct as far as it goes.

Tell me hootenanny, if someone had kept a file/archive about you, consisting of material sent to you over a period of years, not stuff you yourself have noted,and then published it in the form that Rod Stradling has, with anonymous contributions, would you be upset?

Especially when the publication calls for "concrete evidence"?

Keeping files as you seem to do is fine. However if I send you some anonymous jottings about people I don´t like, do you really think it is ethical to post them on an internet magazine?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 06:46 AM

I believe that what Mr Stradling is doing is opening up a discussion. 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.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:44 AM

Iam asking for further information on cecil sharp .
Iknow he published arrangements of folk songs. did he send his source singers royalties, did he pay his source singers for the songs when he collected them.
Collectors make money out of books as well as recordings, did he have the source singers permission to make arrangements, after all its really the same asthat which KENNEDY did. except the arrangements appear in abook rather than arecording.
I would appreciate information about Baring Gould AND Kidson.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:40 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 - 02:44 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:08 PM

Codswallop

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Sandman
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 04:28 PM

to GEOFF WALLIS, please refrain from being rude.
while there may be no law about paying royalties,you are making money out of this guide. if you take photographs of specific people[ not crowds at football matches]to enhance your book. morally, you should insruct your photographer to at least have the decency to ask is it o k.
most tourists do this when taking photographs of buskers, and drop a contribution into the hat,.perhaps you should change your policy,and make sure your photographer does make a contribution, then your in a better position to take the moral high ground,
   check back the period 1992 to 1998, look under the west cork section.the bar as i recall it was Caseys bar.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: JamesHenry
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:47 PM

Geoff

Was Feldman not engaged in "collecting practices" when he recorded James Byrne in Glencolmcille and paid him a "derisory sum"?
As for my "woeful comments" regarding the circulation of private tapes, well please forgive me for not expessing myself to the satisfaction of a big shot like yourself.

"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."
What's that all about? I know who you are but I'm sorry that you feel the need to use that as leverage to put over your point of view.

Touche regarding the interpersonal skills as I do find myself decending to your level but the difference between us is that I know it isn't permanent in my case.

As regards anal retention, I was thinking along the lines of meticulous, parsimonious or obstinate and definately not "full of shite" honest.

PS I'm thinking of writing "The Ruff Guide to Dogs" and I'd be grateful for any Pointers.

James Henry

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 06 - 05:59 PM

I´d like to draw back this discussion to the original post, since I feel it has drifted away.

Mustrad saves files on people over a period of years. We know this because Rod Stradling says so. ("Over the years a file of comments and information has built up in my office".) And because Fred McCormick (co-editor of Mustrad) tells us that nothing is thrown away. ("Rod, like any good editor, keeps all MT correspondence on file".)

He has waited until the particular subject of this file is dead and then......under the guise of a critical re-appraisal.........and with as far as we can tell no thought to the family.........

Mustrad publishes an edited version of the file (we know this because the editor says it is edited.("I have now edited it").

It consists of a series of positive points which have no qualification whatsoever attached to them (i.e. presumably the editor agrees) and a much longer series of negative points. The negative points begin with the words: "It has been alleged that :"

Apart from one all these allegations, positive and negative are anonymous.

The editor says he is "particularly interested in concrete examples..." of at least some of the allegations that have been made made anonymously and which he has just published. In other words he seeks evidence to support the anonymous allegations he has just published.

He then suggests that if another editor does not publish his version ("I will then subsume these contributions within the piece") then he will.

I happen to think this is a disgraceful way to behave, and I am interested to hear who else will have this technique applied to them in the future. Ready to tell us Fred, or will it only happen when we/they are dead too?


Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:20 AM

This argument appears to be turning in on itself - can we get back to basics?
I and most people who have been involved in traditional music as long as I have, (somewhere between thirty and forty years) have been aware of Peter Kennedy's activities for most of that time. There is much documentary and anecdotal evidence to substantiate the accusations made against him: I have seen the some of the forms he persuaded his singers and musicians to sign; I have seen some of his demands for royalties and I have heard directly from some of the people who have been affected by his cynical manipulations concerning what is arguably the most important collection of traditional songs and music from these islands. These are not malicious rumours, urban legends, exaggerations, lies, fantasies or idle gossip; as far as I am concerned they are widely recognised facts.
When I raised the question of Kennedy's ripping off of the John Reilly recordings I deliberately did not name names – I felt it was not my position to do so, though I was prepared to confirm the facts when somebody else (Fred) specified who it was. I note there has been very little reference to this unsavoury incident – which means either the pro-Kennedy camp don't believe it happened or they feel that ripping off a destitute Traveller (or, as John Reilly was already dead when Kennedy's cassette was issued – Traveller children) is acceptable behaviour for somebody who has taken advantage of the generosity of the people who kept alive the music and unselfishly passed it on to our safe keeping. I did not become involved in traditional music to tilt at windmills, but to follow an interest and a love of an art form and to try to pass it on to others. I said my piece when I was able but like most people in my position (or non-position), I got on with what I loved and valued - as somebody put it to me in Dublin this week-end, "We all knew what he was up to, but we kept our heads down". Unfortunately, the people who were in the position to make a difference, the BBC and the EFDSS, did the same.
The fact that musicians and singers were not paid is not the point; what is important is that the recordings were marketed without their permission and often without their knowledge AND THIS WAS WRONG. It is common collecting etiquette that the collector makes quite clear from the outset what use is to be made from the material recorded and that this assurance, contract, whatever you call it, is adhered to. THIS WAS NOT DONE.
Little discussion has taken place around Peter Kennedy's fellow collectors – it is still being referred to as the Kennedy Collection, even though Sean O'Boyle, Bob Copper and Seamus Ennis played as important a part in the collecting as he did. I don't know what Sean O'Boyle thought of his behaviour Cap'n, but I do know that it was O'Boyle who recorded his father Charles and not Kennedy – listen to the recordings in the VWML. O' Boyle did most of the Northern Ireland recordings as well, as far as I can make out.
Seamus Ennis did a magnificent job in The Hebrides and was well respected by the singers there. I know what Ennis thought of Kennedy, you should have heard what he had to say when he learned that Kennedy has issued a tape of him playing fiddle (Ennis was a magnificent piper but an indifferent fiddle player!) Included in Kennedy's catalogue were also recordings made by Alan Lomax, Hamish Henderson and others.
I don't know how good a collector Kennedy was; we only have the songs and tunes he collected with hardly any background information from the informants (are the master recordings still in existence?) I tend to believe he was in the right place at the right time with the right financial backers (the British tax/license payer).
Why is it important to raise the question now that Kennedy is dead?
For a start, if is an important part of the history of the revival and, as such, deserving of discussion. I am delighted that Musical Traditions has decided to give it the attention it merits, and will be very interested to see if Dance And Song (or any other EFDSS body) approaches the issue.
The future of the collection is now in question; what is now going to happen to the recordings? So far the collection has had very little use, apart from a financial one. They were originally used for the radio series 'As I Roved Out'. They were issued in edited form (omitted verses and stitched-together versions) on the highly influential Caedmon series. They were used by MacColl on the magnificent 'Song Carriers' series (now thankfully available again after a gap of forty years. Apart from the odd appearance in various radio programmes (including having the piss taken out of them by the 'My Music' team), they have had little public airing (unless you are luck enough to drop into Cecil Sharp House and spend a few hours listening to the set held there) I know that only a part of the collection has ever seen the light of day and those that have been made generally available are on shoddily made cassettes, unmastered and with no background information (the quality of the Folktrax productions have hardly been commented on by participants in this discussion).
Where do we go from here?
Jim Carroll
PS Cap'n, I was not aiming my remarks specifically at you regarding MacColl, but observing that the noble art of grave-dancing is still alive and thriving some sixteen years after his death; though I have always been aware that comments on his supposed 'clay feet' usually come from people who never saw him with his shoes off.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:00 AM

If we are going back to basics then this thread started with the Mustrad "Enthusisam."

I happen to think that rumours and anecdotes circulating around the folk world are often just that. Jim has spent many an hour refuting those about Ewan McColl and despite that those same rumours persist and are repeated as gospel. Having said that, I am happy to agree with Jim in all that he knows about personally and puts his name to.

As far as I am aware the grave dancing on Ewan MacColl started a quite a while after he was dead.

Mustrad chose to publish its anonymous allegations within three months of Peter Kennedy´s death, with, it seems, little thought for his family.

I think publishing anonymous allegations about people is wrong, I think publishing anonymous allegations about people and then asking for concrete evidence to back them up is disgraceful. And I think doing it within such a short time of someone´s death only compounds it.

Do you not agree Jim?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:22 AM

TO jim,Thankyou for your post.I got my information regarding Charles oBoyle,from the EFDSS journal 1956 .thankyou for correcting it,it states quite clearly, recorded by kennedy and o boyle, transcribed by kennedy and micheal bell, its not unreasonable to have assumed that this was correct.
    I think where we go from here is to lobby, that they remain in England,The alleged stolen tapes if they are in kennedys possesion should be returned to CECIL SHARP HOUSE,any recprdings made without permission should be returned to the owners relatives.The quality of the folktrax recordings is only important [in my opinion]if it becomes impossible to discern the words and the airs of the songs, after all Martin CARTHY was able to discern through the crackles of joseph taylor and pass the songs on to the public. your clay feet remarks are mis informed as far as I am concerned, but I have deliberately kept them to myself, as I prefer to remember the legacy of fine songs he has left us.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 05:20 AM

Bit difficult to dance on someone's grave before they are dead. But if you were around the London folk scene in the 60's you would know that many people then had very similar opinions of MacColl as to those being aired now AND they didn't keep quiet about it.

I can't always agree with Jim Carroll's postings but I hope that his most recent will put paid to some of the blinkered acceptance of what a wonderful man Kennedy was. Listen to the facts for and against from the people involved and make a balanced judgement.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 05:35 AM

I agree, don´t listen to anonymous allegations from Mustrad.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:16 AM

point 13 of stradlings negatives, he was very litigous,he was always threatening to take people to court and his detractors always backed off.
his detractors must have known they were going to lose,seems a logical conclusion.
litigous means to carryout a lawsuit [not to threaten to carry out one], I dont think kennedy was ever involved in a lawsuit, therefore he was not litigous.
I tend to agree with folkie dave that this discussion would have been in better taste if it had been left till afer his estate, and will was known, lets hope hes left his collection to CECIL SHARP HOUSE.
Knowledge of the size of his esate, and of how much he inherited from his parents would give clarification to the financial allegations.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:32 AM

I withdrew from this thread because, instead of sewing the seeds of a practical debate on Peter Kennedy, it has turned into one of the most fatuous and ill-informed debacles I have ever witnessed.

I have returned to it because I want to endorse Jim Carroll's e-mail, which summed up the Kennedy situation admirably. Unlike many of the contributions to this thread it has not been written from a position of ignorance over what Kennedy did and didn't do.

On that score, I was surprised to see one detractor admitting that he didn't know very much about Kennedy, whilst another has been seen elsewhere asking who was the collector who recorded Joseph Taylor! I'm sorry, but that is such basic common knowledge that I would have expected anyone, who considered themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to add to this thread, to know the answer.

What's more, that questioner has also been asking whether there was any animosity between the folk song and dance sections of the Edwardian revival. (Sorry, I can't quote directly without navigating away from the page and losing what I've just written.)

Dick, you obviously don't know anything of the stuff which has been written about that period over the past couple of decades. The literature is not huge, but is significant nonetheless, and you will find a few sources at the end of this message. If you don't know of the existence of that literature, then it suggests that you are sadly under-informed about the British folk revival in general, and therefore of Kennedy's role in it. Instead of attacking people who have studied that revival in some depth, you would serve yourself better by getting up to speed with what a few of us have known for years.

To get back to the matter in hand, I named John Reilly and Tom Munnelly purely because somebody (Dick Miles, I think) asked for facts. I presented them, complete with sources, and I was not very pleased to be erroneously reminded of the law of libel. Sorry Dick. Facts are facts and sources are sources. I did not libel Kennedy and I did not libel his memory.

I have no desire to rake over most of the things which have been said in this thread. However, there are one or two other issues which need to be put right.

First of all Dave Eyre would have been well advised to study the following statement on the Mustrad home page.

"The copyright and intellectual property right of everything appearing in this magazine remains with the person who wrote it.
Nothing may be reproduced without prior written permission of the author, and the citation of MT as the source."

Copy appearing in Mustrad is subject to the same rules of protocol and laws of copyright as those which cover any other form of published media. Dave Eyre should have asked my permission before posting my letter on Mudcat.

While we're at it, Dave Eyre might have cast his eyes over the following;
"The views expressed in all articles, reviews, etc, are those of the author of each piece, not of the Editor."
There are one or two mistakes in Rod's script, which I'll point out to him when he comes back. Otherwise, I stand by what he said. But Dave Eyre should have recognised that Rod is the author of that piece, and his comments are his responsibility.

On the score of litigation, so far as I can recall nobody has ever accused Peter Kennedy of suing people. The accusation is that he threatened people with court action. Those people who realised his "contracts" were little more than elaborate toilet paper told him where to go. Kennedy must have known his agreements were unenforceable before he got people to sign them. In other words he was acting fraudulently.

Incidentally, the Campbells refused to treat with Kennedy over the Nightingale, but I recall that the Dubliners recorded that same version on an early Transatlantic LP. Does anyone know who they credited the song to, and whether the Cantwells benefitted ? I ask because I've been told that a third party absconded with Harry Cox's royalties to The Black Velvet Band and the Dubliners made up what was owing to him out of their own pockets. If so, it's good to see that there are some honourable people around.

On the subject of Folktrax, unlike several other contributors, I have quite a stack of them. A few were bought by me years ago as part of a bulk order, before I realised what Kennedy was at and before I realised how shabby they were. I bought a couple more - second-hand I should emphasise- a few years ago, because they were of Frank Proffitt, who was a great musical hero of mine. Finally, I recently inherited a substantial number. Therefore, when I say that the production standards beggar belief and that they are a rip off, I know what I am talking about.

Incidentally, I take exception to Dick Mile's statement that the quality is "only important [in my opinion]if it becomes impossible to discern the words and the airs of the songs". If I buy a record of Harry Cox or Belle Stewart or Elizabeth Cronin or Frank Proffitt, or any of the great practitioners of the tradition, I do not want to use it just to get the words and the tune. To regard those singers purely as source material is offensive to their memory and to their artistry. These people were masters of the song tradition, and I want to be able to enjoy what they had to offer. Many field recordings were made on substandard equipment in adverse conditions, and poor sound quality is often something we just have to put up with. The BBC recordings were made on state of the art equipment and the sound, for its time, is generally very good. To put that collection out on shoddy cassettes with shoddy notes and shoddy sound quality demeans the tradition and cheats the purchaser.

Finally, a story about Seán O' Boyle which under other circumstances, might be amusing. As it is, it is highly illuminating. It was told from the stage of the Bothy folkclub in Southport, Lancashire, about the year 1988 by Paddy Tunney. Michael Gallagher (Paddy Tunney's uncle) had a version of the Keech in the Creel. According to Tunney, Mickey Gallagher, being a religious man, and sensitive to the song's "salacious" content, agreed to sing it for the BBC only on the condition that it would never be published. It subsequently appeared on volume 2 of the erroneously titled Folksongs of Britain; Topic 12T 161, where the collectors are identified as Peter Kennedy and Sean O' Boyle.

Again, according to Tunney, Mickey Gallagher was so incensed that he wrote a stiff letter to the BBC in Belfast and addressed it to JOHN BOYLE, ENGLISHMAN!
I will not be wasting my time with further rejoinders to this thread. But I hope that any debate which emerges in Musical Traditions will be better informed than this one.

Anyway, here's a few of those written sources.

Richard Sykes, The Evolution of Englishness in the English Folksong Revival, 1890-1914 Volume 6 Number 4 (1993). Folk Music Journal: Volume 6 Number 4.

HUGHES, and STRADLING. The English Musical Renaissance 1860-1940: Construction and Deconstruction. . RKP. 1993. ISBN: 0415034930

Georgina Boyes . The Imagined Village: Culture, Ideology and the
English Folk Revival. Manchester U.P. 1994. ISBN: 0719045711

Dave Harker. Fakesong: The Manufacture of British Folksong 1700 to the Present Day. Open University. 1985. ISBN: 0335150667.

C.J. Bearman. Cecil Sharp in Somerset: some reflections on the work of David Harker. The Journal of the Folklore Society. 2002.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:34 AM

point   25 of the negatives.refers to his dismissal, was he dismissed, or did he leave of his own volition, until we know from EFDSS the reason for his alleged dismissal[ if he was dismissed]its no point speculating,one could speculate and assume it was a cost cutting exercise.
perhaps someone from EFDSS    could clarify whether he was dismissed or not.
even if they dont want to give the reason.they must have recordsfrom the period.I seem to remember his leaving was his own decision and he was not dismissed.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:47 AM

Fred McCormick, you may be very knowledgeableb but there's absolutley no reason to be so rude to people who are genuinely attempting to learn facts (especially on this fanatstic website which is celebrating it's 10th anniversary and deserves better!).

I'd be scared to ask anything for fear of getting my head bitten off.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:33 AM

dear fred,
I was not asking about the folk revival.[ of which I am fairly knowledgeable, having been part of it as a performer and audience since 1964,] but about the early song collectors something totally different, most people refer to the folk revival as 1956 onwards.
in my dictionary, litigious means involved in court action,inclined to engage in lawsuits,. he is described by Stradling as litigious, he.was never engaged in lawsuits, therefore he was not litigious. this statement of Rods is incorrect.
I do agree with you that its preferable to have good quality, when trying to appreciate good singers, but not absolutely essential if you are trying to learn words or melody.
I feel that I am able to have an informed discussion with Jim Carroll,it doesnt help your case to be rude or to get over excited. so your probably right that its a good thing you leave this discussion. meanwhile Jim Carroll is putting across arguments that are making me reflect differently upon Peter Kennedy.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:38 AM

fred,I have made a note of the isbn number of [still growing english traditional songs] bY VIC GAMMON, I think that looks suitable.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:04 AM

I have had occasion to disagree with Jim Carroll on the subject of Ewan McColl's sainthood(or otherwise), but I must say his contributions to this thread are illuminating and help to clarify things for a lot of people.
This is an interesting thread, but marred (as always) by the ill-temper of some conributors. What I find really silly is the continuous attacks on Musical Tradition's habit of keeping files, as if this is some kind of disreputable surveillance activity. Personally, I can't imagine how you run a magazine without keeping files.
Anway, I have just had to tidy up my spare bedroom for some guest, and it was looking more like Tutankahmen's tomb(minus the gold) than a bedroom. In the process I had to move(and look into) about twenty large banana boxes full of papers, and I can safely say that I have got files on pretty much everybody active in the folk revival since c1960. And a lot of that is gossipy private letters.So watch out!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: oggie
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:04 AM

When reading Harker it is important to remember the political background which I believe colours the work. Harker was (is) a Trotskyite whereas MacColl, Lloyd et al were CP (most likely Marxist/Leninist). As a student in the seventies I well remember the vitriol that each side poured on each othereven though they were technically both of the left. (Also remember that even Trotskyites fell out, SWP, WRP, WSL etc) In the Trotskyite mindset EVERYTHING is politcal, even traditional folk music, and anything done by Marxists is, by definition, at least misguided, at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine the true meaning of the revolution etc.

I read Fakesong when it first came out, when this was fresher in my memory, and I must admit I dismissed most of it because of it's (to me) distortion by a particular political lens (and no, I am not a Marxist either, I got expelled from the Labour Party for being too right wing, but that was in the seventies and I am still far to the left of Blair)

oggie

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:21 AM

"The copyright and intellectual property right of everything appearing in this magazine remains with the person who wrote it.
Nothing may be reproduced without prior written permission of the author, and the citation of MT as the source."

Copy appearing in Mustrad is subject to the same rules of protocol and laws of copyright as those which cover any other form of published media. Dave Eyre should have asked my permission before posting my letter on Mudcat.

Fred is quite right. I therefore humbly apologise for taking his writing and publishing it without his permission.

There are two points here.

1. Since the letter published on Mustrad is to my mind anyway a plea to discover the perpetrator of a fraudulent piece of writing I am surprised that Fred wishes it to remain on Mustrad and not to be widely disseminated. I would quote the relevant portion of the piece but I daren´t for fear of breaching copyright.

But that it his choice and I am sorry I misunderstood his motives.

2. Since this thread was started by a "cut and paste job" from the pages of Mustrad then I cannot understand why Fred (clearly precious about the copyright issue and things being taken from Mustrad and posted on Mudcat) was not quick to condemn it, as quickly as he did my "cut and paste job". In fact he hasn´t yet condemned it at all. I really do fail to understand the thinking. Does me a favour Fred and explain.

On the score of litigation, so far as I can recall nobody has ever accused Peter Kennedy of suing people.

Well Fred I would love to point out where it says this on Mustrad but I daren´t for fear of interfering with Mustrad´s copyright.

Would you be kind enough to go to the current edition of your own magazine and post it on here for I cannot do so? Try point 13 in Peter Kennedy: An appraisal.

There are one or two mistakes in Rod's script, which I'll point out to him when he comes back. Otherwise, I stand by what he said. But Dave Eyre should have recognised that Rod is the author of that piece, and his comments are his responsibility.

That´s good Fred, that you stand by what Rod said. The problem is that he didn´t say it.

For what Rod published and I assume you accept that there is a difference between publishing and writing, is at least in part what other people have written. We know this because he says so. It is anonymous and it is allegations. We know this because there are no names attached and the derogatory comments are prefaced "It is alleged that:"

Now Mustrad is in the business of publishing anonymous allegations and asking for concrete evidence to back some of them up or it isn´t. Why not tell us Fred?

And Fred, why hide behind the pages of your own magazine?

Try a rejoinder on here.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:27 AM

What I find really silly is the continuous attacks on Musical Tradition's habit of keeping files, as if this is some kind of disreputable surveillance activity. Personally, I can't imagine how you run a magazine without keeping files.

I am not attacking Mustrad´s habit of keeping files.

I am attacking Mustrad because it says itself it has built up a file of anonymous allegations over a number of years and then published them shortly after someone´s death with a request for concrete evidence to back some of them up.

I am sorry Greg if you fail to see the difference.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:04 AM

Folkiedave,
Just out of idle interest, was the 4 volume Bronson 'Traditional Tunes....' on Ebay that belonged to Maud Karpeles that you were trying to sell for £800 part of Peter Kennedy's estate and if so, is there more to come?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:46 PM

Yes it was. And I am not sure of the answer to your second question. I am currently in Spain and will be able to answer it when I return on November 2nd or thereabouts. And it is sold.

Next question and feel free to sign your name.......

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:05 PM

You know for a purveyor of previously cherished folk books I was a bit slow there. Sorry.

Let me have your email and I will include you in the next list I send out before Xmas. Cracking copy of Bronson (all four volumes) in there too. Nice covers, ex-library but not well destroyed by librarians stamps. Probably around 750 quid.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:31 PM

Captain Birdseye wrote:

'To Geoff Wallis, please refrain from being rude. While there may be no 'law about paying royalties,you are making money out of this guide. If 'you take photographs of specific people to enhance your book, morally, 'you should insruct your photographer to at least have the decency to 'ask is it OK. Most tourists do this when taking photographs of buskers, 'and drop a contribution into the hat. Perhaps you should change your 'policy and make sure your photographer does make a contribution, then 'you're in a better position to take the moral high ground. Check back 'the period 1992 to 1998, look under the west cork section.the bar as i 'recall it was Caseys bar.

Who's being rude? You accused me of taking a photograph of your 'friend James Kingston and my partner Cathy Cook, playing outside a 'pub in Durrus, West Cork, some years ago without asking permission, 'and you never paid any royalties,you have some cheek even to be 'involved in this discussion.' This is utter balderdash.

For the absolute record, The Rough Guide to Ireland did not include any photographs until the 5th edition, published in 1999. That edition does not include any photographs of musicians taken in West Clare, nor do any of the succeeding editions.

I think you might have confused my book with another publication.

Dick, I think you owe me a major apology!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:53 PM

to geoff wallis.
I am talking about west cork, not west clare, you evidently dont know where Durrus is ,and yet you produce a book called the rough guide to Ireland ,I know I saw this photograph in the rough guide, however as I dont have any copies in the house,   I will accept that you are telling the truth, and I apologise.
I hope you willagree with me that the most important thing now is that this collection stays in england and hopefully goes to Cecil Sharp house.
I really cant see much point in all this carping on about alleged injustices that cant now be righted, apart from putting pressure on the consciences of the Kennedy family to do the right thing now, if this is achieved then it will have been worth it, but if not its been pointless. history will make its own judgement.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM

TO GEOFF WALLIS I apologise again.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: BB
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 05:57 PM

Only just caught up with this thread as I've not had access to a computer for a while.

Back in the '70s, a recording was made of singing sessions in the Padstow area over a few days around Mayday. It was known by the participants of said singing sessions that they were being recorded. It was not that long since reasonable quality portable cassette tape recorders had become widely available, and recordings were quite commonly made. A while later, these recordings were released commercially under the name 'Singing Out the Oss'. All those who led songs (mostly revival singers) were identifiable, though not credited, and action was taken to stop sales of the tape and for the master tape to be destroyed. In the process, it was discovered that it was a criminal, not civil, offence to sell such a tape without the written permission of every single performer on that tape. One of the performers was a solicitor, and he sorted the whole thing out without requiring any payment. Knowing how much time he had to spend on it, I am certain that most, if not all, source singers would not have been able to afford to engage a solicitor to do the same.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the songs themselves were copyright, but purely about the commercial exploitation of the singers' performances. How much money could be made from the release of such a recording is neither here nor there. It is a criminal offence, or at least it was back then, and I doubt that that situation has changed.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 01:31 PM

Ihave just finished visiting folktrax and have discovered that I am there, dick and sue miles ,bald headed end of the broom on a cassette , that i knew nothing about.
as a matter of fact I dont mind because the lp is no longer available and I got the music from Peter Kennedys book in the first place. so heres one exploited person who doesnt mind.
that doesnt alter my opinion that Bob coppers and Seamus Ennis tapes should be returned to their rightful owners.
The irony of all this is that this was recorded with sweet folk all whose master tapes are now owned by Dave Bulmer. I would rather peter kennedy, made pence, or even pounds, than it was suppressed by dave bulmer .

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 01:49 PM

correction ,
just in case Dave Bulmer is viewing, this particular master tape was lost in a fire at Alan Greens house'/Studio so it is not in the possession of Dave Bulmer, Nor is it available any more. apologies to Dave Bulmer. The lp was called The Dunmow Flitch .sfa 106

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 01:58 PM

Captain Birdseye,

Apologies to you too! I meant to write 'West Cork', but Terry Allen's 'New Delhi Freight Train' was playing on the stereo and triggered a reference to the West Clare Railway.

For the record, there's more than one Durrus, including the pensinsula just west of Kinvarra.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Kevin Rietmann
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 02:15 PM

Regarding the Leaving of Liverpool:

"Of course Seamus Ennis may have collected it elsewhere." I have three seperate recordings of Seamus singing this in America, 1964; on Oct. 8 he said he'd learned the song about six months earlier.
I paid something like $20 US for each Folktrax Ennis CD, which is a lot for felt tip pen labels and a dub of an Outlet LP. I notice there's another CD with one track of him playing pipes and Peter on the fiddle, anybody have that? I'd like to hear it.
Kevin Rietmann

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Greg B
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM

Curious...does Seamus sing 'when I think of you' or
'when I think of thee?' Doerflinger collected it as
'you' from Dick Maitland, which of course doesn't rhyme.

Certain of the New York crowd INSIST that anything but 'you'
is highly improper, and bolster their argument saying that
'thee' although it rhymes is archaic. Which apparently shows how
far it truly is from Manhattan to Lancashire.

Most singers seem to have taken the 'thee' up, and by the
60s the Clancys were certainly singing it this way (in Manhattan).

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 03:48 PM

this has got me thinking.
Any lawyers out there, what would be my position if I was to brimg out a cd from ,The Dunmow flitch lp,since the master tapes were destoyed in a fire, before Joe stead sold Sweet Folk all, and greenwich Village, they are nothing to do with DAVE BULMER.
shame about the lp with, martin carthy playing guitar though,Cheating the Tide, looks as if it will never see the light of day as a C d. Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 03:59 PM

Just a thought while we sit around arguing the toss.
Whatever PKs strengths and weaknesses, in the not too distant future the fate of the collection will have to be decided.
When it was suggested some time ago that the VWML was sold there were at least two American academics bearing blank cheques waiting in the wings.
As far as I'm concerned one of the most important collection of field recordings ever to be made in the UK and Ireland should (does) belong to the nation.
I wonder who will end up owning it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 04:18 PM

Is this not the time for the efdss , to stand up and demand the missing tapes back .

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 05:08 PM

Cap'n
The EFDSS has a full set of the songs, now digitised. The question is what use can be made of them.
In the past this has been restricted by that fact that Kennedy assumed ownership and demanded money and conditions (dubbed accompaniments) for their use.
The actual field recordings would be useful academically, but the first job is to establish rightful ownership.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 05:28 PM

Jim, I didn't realise that the EFDSS had digitised copies of all the recordings. If they all originate from recording trips funded by the BBC then surely there is no question that they are the property of the BBC.

I know that commercially issued recordings i.e; records that were available via normal commercial outlets go out of copyright after 50 years which is why Cliff Richard has apparently headed a campaign to get this extended to 75 years as he is obviously short of a few bob. I'm talking here of the actual issued recorded version of a piece of work, re-mixes and later issues start from scratch. This does not apply of course to writers and composers. PD material would therefore not be affected by this. However, I digress.
If the recordings owned originally by the BBC have never been issued commercially then it would seem logical that the BBC are the rightful owners.

Hope that makes sense ?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 02:48 AM

Hootenany,
It does - but.............
Once 'As I Roved Out' finished the BBC appeared to lose interest in what happened to the project.
As I understand it, originally they kept a multiple supply of each song on acetate discs. after a couple of plays each disc was smashed until the supply dwindled. I have no idea if they were ever replaced and what the state of play is now.
The EFDSS set was at first kept on disc but has recently been digitised.
As the project was a joint BBC/EFDSS one it would seem that the material belonged equally to both organisations.
Kennedy claimed ownership of the collection and was never challenged.
It would be a dodgy situation if the collection was reclaimed by the BBC as they would charge the going rate for their use; they don't discriminate between an old traditional singer and the latest pop superstar (the rate for use stood one time at (I think) £3 per second).
As far as I can see, the responsibility lies with EFDSS to see that the collection is reclaimed for us.
Anybody interested can look at the BBC's excellent index to the collection at Cecil Sharp Housse
Jim Carroll
PS Your posting seems to be far more articulate than mine - late night!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 03:17 AM

I realise everyone must behaving a laugh at my expense, having tried to defend PETER KENNEDY and then finding he had recorded Bald headed end of the Broom, without my written permission [It was arranged by Dick AND Sue Miles].the song was originally heard by myself from the playing of Alan Ashwell.I then found the melody and words in Kennedys book.
THE ARRANGEMENT features bass clarinet and guitar, and was way beyond Peter Kennedys musical accomplishments.However as a commercial rival, one track on a cassette[ recorded illegally from the BBC off OUR l p]is a non starter. If however the track was sold on to somebody [lets say an advertising firm who used it as a jingle on t v,] the situation would be different.THIS is concrete evidence of kennedys wrong doing.I havent talked to Sue yet , She may feel differently about it.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 03:44 AM

It seems Dick that you have some of the concrete evidence that Mustrad is looking for. As did Jim of course. Thanks you both for putting your name to what you have written.

Still seems a strange way for a magazine to go about things to me, making anonymous allegations and then asking for concrete evidence.


Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 03:45 AM

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 03:51 AM

I apologise to Fred MCORMICK he was right and I was wrong. however I am indebted to Kennedy, I have had great pleasure from his recordings and books,It is very sad that he had to spoil his work with his attitude, as regards dubbing and illegal ownership.
Dick Miles.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 05:30 AM

RE., Jim Carroll's questions about ultimate ownership of the "Kennedy" collection.

I think it's vital that we find out what happens to it and where it will eventually end up. My understanding of British copyright law is not good, and my knowledge of U.S. copyright is far worse. Therefore, please bear with me if there any errors in the following. I am concerned with the overall scenario, and how it could affect the ultimate destiny of the collection, rather than with exploring the legal minutiae.

However, at the present moment (this may change once the Gowers Committee reports and its findings are drafted into legislation), mechanical copyright expires fifty years from the date of first issue, or from the date of recording in the case of unissued material. What's more, I gather that around 60% of the collection has never seen publication in any form. Thus, it looks as though a very large part of the "Kennedy" collection is now out of copyright and the rest will follow in due course.

The situation in the U.S. is rather different. There, mechanical copyright runs for 95 years for published recordings and 120 years for unissued recordings. That might be a significant inducement for someone to buy the collection and re-house it in America.

What I don't know, and what we perhaps need to find out, is whether U.S. copyright law can be applied to a collection bought overseas, when it consists almost entirely of non-US recordings. Also, if the copyright of the "Kennedy" collection could be renewed by its transfer to the U.S., how does that affect the situation over here. Does the status quo, as it existed before sale, still apply ?

Let me point out that, since the National Sound Archive and EFDSS hold digitised copies (plus, I believe that Taisce Cheoil Duchas Éireann hold digitised copies of the Irish recordings), the issue is not where the collection ends up. The issue we need to address is how any change of ownership of the collection will affect public access.

If those scenarios are realistic, then there could be severe ramifications, vis-a-vis the "American academics bearing blank cheques", of which Jim speaks. That is problem No 1.

Problem No 2 is that "American academics bearing blank cheques" may not be all that familiar with what they are trying to buy. They may not know that a large part of the collection was not gathered by Kennedy, that large parts of it have been pirated from other sources, and that his claims to copyright are largely spurious.

I don't want to turn this into a debate on the legal niceties of copyright, and I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't swamp this thread with corrections, unless they know something which undermines the scenario I've just offered.

But it seems to me that the best way to protect this vital part of our national heritage, and one which was garnered with public money and ought to belong to the public, is to clarify Kennedy's fraudulent behaviour once and for all.

BTW. Dick, the cassette of which you speak. If you mean the one entitled, The Bald Headed End of The Broom; Songs of Uneasy Wedlock, that has been in the Folktracks catalogue (as it was then) for at least twenty years. I cannot be sure whether we're talking about the same one because the catalogue in front of me doesn't specify the performer(s) on that cassette. No disrespect to you, or your performing abilities, but I wonder if anyone bought it expecting to hear an anthology of field recorded traditional singers.........

"Just a thought while we sit around arguing the toss.
Whatever PKs strengths and weaknesses, in the not too distant future the fate of the collection will have to be decided.
When it was suggested some time ago that the VWML was sold there were at least two American academics bearing blank cheques waiting in the wings.
As far as I'm concerned one of the most important collection of field recordings ever to be made in the UK and Ireland should (does) belong to the nation.
I wonder who will end up owning it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 06:45 AM

To fred,
Rod asked for concrete evidence, its there, click under performers go to m. Miles Dick and Sue england duo 1984, the Bald headed end of the Broom radio, FOLK ON TWO CASSETTE 0453.The whole point is that it was recorded illegally without our permission, without the permission of Sweet folk all recordings[as far as i know]. it states quite clearly who the performers are, it doesnt say its a field recording.DickMiles

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: nutty
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 08:17 AM

Peter Kennedy has not just one Graeme Miles Song but 11 TAPES worth of Graeme Miles material that is offered for sale by Folktrax.
Surely this material should be returned to Graeme rather than put up for sale with the rest of Kennedy's recorded material (if indeed it is put up for sale).

Come to that, have Fred or Rod Stradling ever contacted Graeme about the use of his material by Kennedy? If not - I suggest that they should do so.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM

likewise I noticed the old hat party. Im sure John Howson wouldnt have given permission.
The reason its taken me twenty two years to realise, is that until I acquired a computer, [which was recent] .I had no reason to look at folktrax,s catalogue.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 09:33 AM

Bald Headed End of The Broom. It looks as though we're talking about two different cassettes. Sorry. It's just that the one in the old Folktracks catalogue didn't say who it was by.

Regarding Kennedy's expropriation of other people's material, I'm not suggesting this should be reclaimed for the nation. It should of course be restored to its rightful owners, plus any money owing to them.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 09:53 AM

Let me point out that, since the National Sound Archive and EFDSS hold digitised copies

Fred, you state that with a clarity and certainty.

Tell me how you know. Have you checked with the EFDSS or NSA? If not why not? Seems important not to make statements that mislead people.

But it seems to me that the best way to protect this vital part of our national heritage, and one which was garnered with public money and ought to belong to the public, is to clarify Kennedy's fraudulent behaviour once and for all.

I agree with the first part of that in its entirety, as far as ".......ought to belong to the public...." I am not sure how the second half follows. In fact I can envisage circumstances where any such exposure could be a hindrance.

Now following from that fine piece of rhetoric Fred on how this all ought to belong to the nation and how access to all and sundry ought to be guaranteed where do you suggest this happens? And who will fund it?

To dispel any possible doubt in all this let me say I believe that the collection should have been be kept in its entirety, all of it.

Find me a place who will guarantee to store all of it, tapes, films and photographs etc. under the expensive conditions that it ought to be stored, with proper archiving and cataloguing. Tell me an organisation that has the space, time and staff. And who will then allow reasonably priced access to the general public in the terms you suggest.

When you have thought of some names Fred, write, telephone and/or email them and see if they are busy enough with the materials they have already got, see if they are prepared to supply the conditions necessary for the delicate storage particularly of the tapes, copy them to make sure the originals are preserved, see how much staff time they are prepared to invest in all this and see how they will give access to the general public.

And then come back on here and name some names. I´d be delighted to hear them.

You see Fred it is alright making grand statements about what ought to happen - making them happen is not so easy. And believe me Fred, copyright is the least of your worries.

And whilst you are at it Fred, tell us all how Mustrad publishing anonymous allegations built up over a period of time and then published with a request for evidence to support them, helps all this.

And finally Fred when you have a moment, why not use it to think how the family feels? Imagine how you might feel to read such wranglings over any heritage you left behind.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 10:07 AM

I thought to myself why leave someone else to do the work so I got in touch with Malcolm Taylor at the EFDSS.

Here is his reply prompt reply - reproduced with permission as you can see.

....please pass on the fact that we don't have any digitised material from the PK collection. We do of course have the BBC discs, which might or might not amount to the same thing. But nothing from Peter. We bought a number of Folktrax cassettes in the 70s (before my time) but that is all we have direct from him.

Now Fred, get in touch with the NSA and see what they say.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 10:27 AM

Dave,

I don't whether you are deliberately trying to get up my nose, but you are damned well succeeding. Indeed, I am fast coming to the conclusion that your contribution to this thread is entirely scurrilous.

My email said nothing about retaining the collection in this country. I merely pointed out that if it is sold abroad it MIGHT run into copyright problems which could rebound on public use in this country.

Dave, do you think I am sufficiently out of touch not to know whether the National Sound Archive has digitised copies ? Do you think I would be stupid enough to make such a statemnt without checking first ?

If you had bothered to check, you would have found that the collection is listed on the NSA's on-line database. Perhaps I could introduce you to a friend of mine. His name is Andrew King. He was paid by the NSA to catalogue the damned things.

Please don't talk drivel about writing grand statements when you are plainly incapabale of reading and understanding what I wrote.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 10:39 AM

Re. Dave Eyre's bit of "research". There was talk some time ago of the EFDSS obtaining a set of the digitised NSA copies. Someone else referred to them having a set and I assumed that work on obtaining them was in progress or complete.

However, from the point of view of my original statement, it doesn't matter a twopenny damn whether the EFDSS has a digitised set or the original 78s. The fact is that they are in the NSA, and they are available for public use. My concern is not with where the materials of the collection end up, but with who finishes up owning Kennedy's entirely spurious copyrights.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 11:45 AM

Well Fred, you wrote that the EFDSS had digitised copies of the Kennedy Collection and it turned out you were wrong. I couldn´t imagine you would be stupid enough to make such a statement without checking it first - but you did. Of course that gets up your nose.

I am also pretty sure that the material that Andrew King catalogued was in fact the complete Folktrax catalogue not the original tapes. And I am happy to be wrong about that. But I am damned if I am going to do all your checking for you.

And no need to introduce me Fred, I met him a couple of times and when his contract was coming to an end at NSA I wrote a letter of support for his further employment. I had a nice reply thanking me.

But it seems to me that the best way to protect this vital part of our national heritage, and one which was garnered with public money and ought to belong to the public,

then in the next email you wrote:

My email said nothing about retaining the collection in this country

Do you not see those as mutually exclusive? Semantically maybe not, I would think any normal person would read that as a plea for the collection to be kept in this country. But in fact it makes little difference to my point which as usual you fail to address.

Where will it go? Make a list Fred, anywhere in the world contact them and ask them if they want it. It may seem strange to people reading how important that this collection is, consisting as it does of a whole melange of folk-related material that many of us would properly regard as priceless, cannot be found a home.

Suppose I was in a position to offer it to Fred. He would need somewhere to house it with high quality storage conditions, someone to catalogue and at the same time digitise it and the equipment that goes with that, someone to copy the original tapes and photographs, copy the films, and then look after it and make sure it is accessible to the general public. On top of all that it would need someone to start tracing the original copyright holders and their successors and check that what is there is so legitimately. And start paying people royalties.

And that I might respectfully suggest is the serious problem. Compared to that copyright is a minor issue.

Any comment on my other points yet Fred? The one about Mustrad publishing anonymous allegations and the other about how the family might feel?

Scurrilous Fred? No, just anxious to ensure that the facts don´t spoil a good story.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 11:54 AM

Re. Dave Eyre's bit of "research".

Well Fred it may have been a bit of "research" to you. I wouldn´t have called it that and didn´t. It was checking facts to me.

Now Fred go and check if what Andrew King catalogued was the original tapes or the complete Folktrax catalogue. I suspect you will find it was the Folktrax catalogue and I hope I am wrong.

Any news on the anonymous allegations and family questions yet Fred?

And found anywhere to house the collection?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 12:11 PM

Dave Eyre is right, whoever gets the kennedy collection, they must be able to preserve them and keep them in good condition,.
from my point of view, if either EFDSS OR COMHALTAS or any museum, library in the british isles or ireland ,with appropriate storage facilities gets them ,great.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM

As I have said at length Dick, it is finding someone who wants them and can make them available to people, not just a matter of preservation.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 01:33 PM

How many times do I have to say this ? I was not raising the problems of archiving and preservation. I was wondering what is likely to happen to happen to the copyright situation if the colection ends up in America.

Got that Dick ? Got that Dave ?

Not archiving and preservation. Not making great statements or worrying about storage space or archiving costs or any of the myriad problems which surround archiving a collection that size.

Copyright pure and simple.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM

Got it Fred. Got it loud and clear. You don´t care where the collection ends up because the EFDSS and the NSA have digitised copies.

Will it matter then if they don´t? Will you be happy to let the original Kennedy tapes go abroad?

For despite your bluster Fred, you were wrong about one of them.

What you wrote was:

There was talk some time ago of the EFDSS obtaining a set of the digitised NSA copies. Someone else referred to them having a set and I assumed that work on obtaining them was in progress or complete.

See that Fred ....based on gossip and assumptions. Let´s hope you are right about the NSA. I am not so sure and unlike you who bases his assertions on gossip and assumptions I intend to find out.

I take it you are not bothered about the films and the photographs then, and you don´t see these as part of the national heritage.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM

O.K. Dave. You go and find storage space to house this archive and the money to maintain it, since it has suddenly got to be so easy. This afternoon you were sniggering at me for allegedly ignoring the problems. Now you're sniggering at me for recognising that the problems exist.

I don't know what your game is, or what you hope to get out of it, but ever since this thread started you have sought to belittle those of us who have known what the rest of the world did not; that Kennedy swindled people.

Throughout this entire thread you have not contributed one positive comment. All you have done is to twist my words and the words of those who expressed concern at Kennedy's culpability. And I am beginning to wonder why.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 02:17 PM

Fred, you seem very uptight,
If I want to talk about their preservation ,I am entitled too.The subject is reflections and critcism of Peter Kennedy. in the tone of Just A Minute, we have all deviated somewhat. I am going to deviate and have a beer ,why dont you give it a try.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 02:27 PM

The recordings held by EFDSS and NSA are by and large the same ones that are being sold on the Folktrax label.
I worked extensively on the collection at Cecil Sharp House; I know it inside out and have compared it to the Folktrax cassettes I have come across.
Why has storage facilities now become an issue - it sounds somewhat of a red-herring. Does anybody know how they are stored at present? The last thing I heard was that they were kept on open shelves in a centrally heated room.
Certainly NSA has ideal facilites for storing them, and adequately knowledgeable staff for looking after them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 02:42 PM

Dick,

I'm sorry. I wasn't having a go at you, but I would have expected everybody on this thread to have read my original message and to have discerned precisely what I meant.

I have come to the conclusion that Dave Eyre appears to have no interest whatsoever in the matter of Peter Kennedy, or in getting to the truth of the accusations which have been levelled against Kennedy. Rather, and for reasons I can only guess at, I suspect that he is being deliberately mischevious and malicious towards me. If you disagree with that hypothesis, then study his postings on this thread and watch the way he has continually tried to twist my words around and to decontextualise whatever it was I was trying to say.

His present posturing over the problems of archiving and copyright are absolutely typical. Does he seriously think that I have no idea of the problems involved in trying to preserve an archive of that size in the elitist climate which pervades this country and everything we try do in terms of preserving its folklore ? Does he seriously think that I would rather see it go to the USA than be kept in this country where it belongs ? And is he such a berk that he doesn't realise photographs and films can be digitised ?

Bear in mind that I have been on the receiving end of two weeks of crap from this so and so and from several other people, yourself included.

You at least seem to have realised that there is something in what Jim Carroll and I and several others have been saying. And BTW., thanks for pointing out the eleven Graeme Miles cassettes. I had no idea that it had climbed to that number and I'm wondering whether GM even knows. I have only met him once, at a conference last year, and he struck me as a very pleasant inoffensive old man. Not the sort of person I would want to see ripped off.

Dave Eyre however persists in trying to obscure the main issue, and I am seriously beginning to wonder if there is something which he personally is frightened of coming out.

And yes, I'm off out for a pint and a listen to some bloody good New Orleans jazz, and the company of some sensible, convival people. It's nice to know that a few of us exist.


Fred, you seem very uptight,
If I want to talk about their preservation ,I am entitled too.The subject is reflections and critcism of Peter Kennedy. in the tone of Just A Minute, we have all deviated somewhat. I am going to deviate and have a beer ,why dont you give it a try.

Subject: the Leaving of Liverpool
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM

Greg,

Seamus sang "thee." The Chicago show from 1964 is hilarious - he tells the story of the piper who won the competition with the other gentelman's piper, by composing a tune on the spot. "I don't what the prize was, these days it'd probably be in LSD..."
Kevin Rietmann

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: oggie
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 04:27 PM

Is this a fair summation of the situation so far;-

Most of us accept that PK did valuable work on collecting folksong and music and was employed by the BBC and EFDSS whilst this was happening.

It is possible (or highly probable) that a lot of that material ended up in his possession and he has exploited it for commercial ends.

There are questions as to whether a) he had the rights to this material, b) whether those from whom he got the material received (or were due) recompense.

On Folktrax there is seems to be some copyrighted material which he had no right to sell. There is also an issue with the quality of the 'offer'.

How much of the archive is duplicated by the EFDSS (at least some) is not really known but the BBC almost certainly don't hold any.

The future of the archive is a matter for debate.

A lot of people have had quite bad experiences either at the hands of PK or other collectors.

I am not making any value judgements here. I am trying to pull some parts of this together to get it clear in my own mind.

All the best

oggie

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 06:26 PM

Well what a spat from Fred.

Let us go through my agenda Fred because it is very simple and there is no hidden motive. Don´t bother guessing there is nothing to guess at. I have already said it a number of times on this thread and you have ignored it so far and no doubt you will ignore it again. But at least I personally feel I have tried.

The magazine of which you are a co-editor said it had kept a file over a number of years on Peter Kennedy. We know this because your co-editor Rod Stradling said so.

This file consists of anonymous allegations. Some of these are positive towards Peter Kennedy and the majority are not. The positive contributions have no comment from the publisher and the negative ones are listed under "It is alleged that:".

This published file is edited.

The piece then goes on to ask for concrete evidence of these allegations. (Emphasis in the original).

Now Fred, tell me honestly, is keeping a file of anonymous allegations, editing it, and then publishing the allegations, asking for concrete evidence to support them, the sort of standard you expect others to adhere to? For you seem happy to avoid the question however often is asked as to why Mustrad does this.

So there it is Fred, in black and white and said, I would hope, plainly enough. If you are not sure what it all means, Fred feel free to ask. For I can do patronising as well.

To ask why I have no interest in the accusations against Peter Kennedy is to ignore what I have written in this thread. But then Fred I get used to that from you. But I am happy to state it here again and it is no different from what I have written before.

I do not know enough about the collecting, copyright, and royalties aspect of Peter Kennedy´s practices to form a judgement about the man. I understand from what people tell me that they are not exactly honourable. Some of those people are people whose judgement I trust and are happy to put their name to what they write. Mustrad is not included in this because under "Peter Kennedy:An Appraisal" it publishes anonymous allegations.

I do not accept the word of someone who relies on gossip and assumptions, as you did when the question of the EFDSS and digitisation came up. Can you blame me?

I know there are other collectors and record companies whose practices are questionable and I fail to understand why Peter Kennedy has been singled out in this way. I can only imagine that the file at Mustrad is not large enough on them yet.

As for twisting your words, I doubt if you realise what you have written sometimes. But quote me an example where your words have been twisted and I will gladly retract them. I may have put words from one email in conjunction with the words in another email in a way which you did not intend but that is the way of the discussion list Fred. And it does succesfully point out the contradictions in what you write.

I have only ever quoted your own words and just because they contradict each other or show double standards does not mean they have been twisted.

But continue to ignore the awkward questions Fred.

Any views on how you think the family might feel yet?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:10 AM

If mustrad had contacted people like myself, and informed them that they were on the folktrax catalogue, and checked with them about permission, a lot of unnecessary argument could have been avoided,.      
mustrad could also have presented a stronger case. Fred I suggest you try and contact Graeme Miles and find out first whether he has or has not given permission Before we jump to conclusions, Iknow its likely, but best to be sure first. Meanwhile this inoffensive middle aged man has given you some evidence, but I am not sure whether your very concerned.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:20 AM

Oggie,

I think you have summed it up rather well. One minor thing, I doubt if he was employed by the BBC and the EFDSS at the same time. I imagine that he was employed by the BBC seconded at that time from the EFDSS.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:24 AM

Hi Dick,

Yes, I agree, Mustrad should have found out the evidence for its anonymous allegations and then published them as statements made with first-hand knowledge.

Unfortunately they didn´t, they chose to do it the other way around. Clearly it was easier to publish anonymus allegations and then ask for the evidence to back them up.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:35 AM

As far as I'm concerned Oggie's summation of the situation is spot on - this has been the situation since Kennedy decided to adopt the collection as his own and remains the situation now. The only thing that has changed is that Kennedy's death has made it possible to discuss the collection openly. It is to the credit of Musical Traditions that they have instigated this discussion
If the bodies that allowed him to act the way he did had lived up to their responsiblities none of this would have been necessary and the future of the collection would not now be in doubt.
If we address Oggie's points rather than nit-picking and mud-slinging we might (just) reach a consensus - though personally, I really think it is down to EFDSS to sort out the mess they have been partially responsible for.
Dave, you really do present us with a Catch 22 situation - we couldn't discuss the collection while he was alive because of his threats, now we can't discuss it because he is dead. We've all said what we think of his behaviour; perhaps if we now concentrated on the collection and its future we might get somewhere.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:10 AM

To fred, if youhave difficulty contacting Graeme, a good friend of his Robin Dale goes to the Darlington folk workshop,at the brittannia pub DARLINGTON. Graeme can sometimes be hard to get hold of.jim your correct, every efdss member should now be asking questions at the efdss annual meeting in relation to the future of this collection.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:27 AM

Jim I have to disagree with you here.

I feel there should have been a discussion before Peter Kennedy´s death about his practices and his archive. I believe it would have been honourable to do it when he was alive and to wait until his death to do so is a bit cowardly. But, I can go along with a discussion after his death. Personally I think it is a bit early to start "grave-dancing" since he only died on June 10th, but if people want to do that I can hardly stop them and I have no intention of trying to do so.

I understand from Fred McCormick that you and others have discussed his practices openly before he died. Since I feel sure I would have heard if Peter Kennedy had sued then I think it is safe to assume he didn´t.

I believe the idea that Peter Kennedy would have sued is nonsense anyway. He may have huffed and puffed a little but that is all. Anyone who felt they had right on their side would have challenged him successfully and at little if any cost.

My point is that I feel it is a wrong to save a file of anonymous allegations, publish those allegations about someone shortly after their death and then ask for concrete evidence to back them up and I am sorry you feel that that is the right thing to do Jim.

With you, I also think we ought to be concentrating on making sure his legacy in the form of the original tapes, photographs and films etc. is preserved. That way scholars would be able to sort the rights and wrongs of this issue much easier. We would also be able to sort out copyright royalties etc.

And yes Jim, there are a couple of institutions that bear some blame in this. The problem is that one has little money to spare and the other prefers to spend it on other things.

Oh, and like you Jim I don´t own any Folktrax material either!

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:50 AM

Dick,

I'm sorry if this response seems a bit off hand, but I'm extremely busy right now. However, I should explain that Musical Traditions is concerned with the tradition, not with the revival. What's more, the revival is something which I have very little interest in or contact with. To make things worse, I live on Merseyside, and very seldom get as far as the North East. Also, I have only met GM once, and I doubt he would remember me from Adam. I wonder how he would take it if a complete stranger rang him up to ask whether Peter Kennedy ripped him off ?

I have to say though, that if Kennedy really did publish eleven casettes of Graeme Miles, without seeking his permission, that would beggar belief.

Therefore, while I'm naturally concerned at any form of intellectual property theft, and I'd certainly like to get to the bottom of this one, I don't feel that I am best placed to take it on. Is there anyone else out there who could look into it ?

Having said all that, we don't of course know whether Kennedy did publish anything of GM's illegally. The facts that he did so in your case and in those of other people are no grounds for assuming that he did the same thing here.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Scrump
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:37 AM

Thanks to Oggie for providing that summary of the position - I was beginning to lose track of it with all the personal messages in between.

In Oggie's summary, the most important point now is this one, IMO:

The future of the archive is a matter for debate

What PK did and whether it was right or wrong may be relevant, but it's in the past now and it's what happens from now on that matters.

Presumably these matters need to be decided:

1. What happens to the archive - will it be made available commercially or otherwise?

2. What recompense can be made to anyone who feels they were "ripped off" in terms of unpaid royalties, and who can make such recompense?

3. Should PK's estate pay anything if allegations of him "ripping off" others is proven?

And probably other things I haven't thought of?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:55 AM

Captain Birdseye
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 03:17 AM

I realise everyone must behaving a laugh at my expense, having tried to defend PETER KENNEDY and then finding he had recorded Bald headed end of the Broom


I don't think anybody should laugh at somebody that's big enough to admit they were wrong.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 07:55 AM

Thankyou, to fred, I find you a little inconsistent, You ask for concrete evidence, when you could have found it for yourself.
mustrads point no6, mentions Isabel Sutherland and Robin hall, BOTH REVIVAL PERFORMERS, Yet when I am mentioned[ You claim to have no interest in the revival].
I knew Isabel Sutherland quite well, sang many times in her club at Groombridge, benefited from her singing advice, and considered her a fine singer, but she was a revival singer.
Please can mustrad be more specific about exactly what kind of concrete evidence they want, and why did they go about in this half cocked way. ,instead of going through the Folktrax catalogue, and contacting likely candidates who may have been exploited, a letter or email tactfully explaining the situation would have been possible., [ no need to ring someone up and start off about rip offs].
Finally in my opinion your attitude to the revival is flawed,the revival is only a continuity of what has gone on before. Fred Jordan is an example of a traditional singer who learnt songs from his parents
but who later became part of the revival ,likewise Willy Scott. you remind me of a person many years ago who when asked how did he define a traditional song replied thats easy ,anything before 1900, anything after that is not.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:22 AM

Whether Kennedy would have sued anybody is a moot point - he kept the threat of legal action as a weapon in his armoury and nobody ever mounted a serious challenge to him. Apart from occasions over the last year or so, my own comments have always been extremely guarded and aimed at people who knew the facts - Kennedy was a windmill I had no interest in tilting, particularly as I realised that any efforts on my part would meet with little success without the support of those who could have made a difference.
If you want a concrete example of the effect of his behaviour, Karl Dallas launched a proposed 10 volume set of themed songbooks. By volume two the publishers had become so tired of persistant demands for royalties that they abandoned the series.
Why is it necessary to bring all this up now? Because the future of the collection will be decided in the near future and - as with the contents of the VWML - there will be plenty of takers for the collection.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:22 AM

Dick,

I was speaking from a personal point of view. Rod may want to take this up. I certainly don't. Isabel Sutherland was a revival singer but she sang traditional songs in a traditional manner and she learned both songs and singing style from traditional singers. That is why she comes under Musical Traditions' editorial coverage.

I know nothing about Graeme Miles, but there is a world of difference between Isabel Sutherland and somebody who writes and sings their own material, as I believe he does.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:27 AM

here from Vagrant songs of Scotland a description of Isabel Sutherland on topic records 12T151, Isabel is a traditonal style singer, she was among the pioneers of unaccompanied traditional singing in London from the earliest days of the revival.
    clearly a REVIVAL SINGER, yet you[ or Rod] choose to bring her up in your allegations against Kennedy, and then choose to dismiss me because I am a revival singer. Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:55 AM

Yes, fred, but I sing traditional songs in a traditonal style and learnt songs and style from listening to traditional singers, so why dismiss me- if your prepared to use Isabel Sutherland.there is not a world of difference between Isabel Sutherland and myself.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:13 AM

there will be plenty of takers for the collection.

Who Jim?

Gimme a for instance?

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:31 AM

"Does he seriously think that I have no idea of the problems involved in trying to preserve an archive of that size in the elitist climate which pervades this country and everything we try do in terms of preserving its folklore ? Does he seriously think that I would rather see it go to the USA than be kept in this country where it belongs ?"

If you read through the forums here on Mudcat, there seems to be an attitude that those of us in the United States have an elitist attitude, but when I read statements like that, I begin to wonder.

I surely understand, respect and support the idea of a nation (any nation) wishing to preserve their heritage. It is vital and more attention should be paid.

However, in 2006, is it really that important where the physical collection is stored?   As long as everyone has access to the material it could be stored anywhere on the globe.   Electronic databases and servers can allow ANYONE to research, study and download material from this or any other collection.

Here in the United States, the Smithsonian Institute has become OUR repository for many collections including Alan Lomax, Joe Glazer, Fast Folk, and others. There are numerous universities that have done the same for other collections.   Everyday, access to this material is improving. I think it is fair to say that around the globe we have greater access to these collections then ever before.

Pride should not stand in the way of preservation.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:40 AM

Hi Ron,

I think it is great that the Smithsonian should take such a collection were it to be offered to them. And I agree that where it is housed is of little consequence these days and that accessibility is important.

I also think we ought to have an institution capable of housing such a collection in the UK since it is largely UK recordings and the collecting was funded publicly. However it seems not. To take such a collection and digitise it etc. is a monumental task and I doubt if there any UK institutions who wish to do so. It might be that there are one or two in Ireland. I believe a lot of the material is Irish.

The British Standard for archiving such material is BS 5454 and to just get hold of the details is over 100 pounds!!

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:40 AM

Gotta agree with Dave on that last point. Archives OUGHT to be keenly sought after and protected as part of our national heritage, but try and get someone - anyone - other than a private collector to take a custodial role.

I was asked to find a home for an important and fascinating (non-folkie) archive a few years ago. The university I worked for wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, and nor would any other "appropriate organisation", including the Museum of the Moving Image and several other similar worthy bodies. Too expensive, too time-consuming, too much of a headache. Most museums, for instance, can only ever make available to the public about a TENTH of the stuff in their collections. The rest gathers dust in basements.

So the archive I was offered is still mouldering in some containers in London - what hasn't already gone to America to be sold off privately, that is.

The Kennedy stuff OUGHT to stay in the UK. It OUGHT to be valued and appropriately curated.

Whether it can/will be is another matter.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:54 AM

I know that $$ is always a concern.   The Lomax collection was operating on a shoestring budget. As part of my "day job", I did some work for the Paul Robeson Archives by digitizing older films and videotape. I know that private organizations like these are seeking grant money, and that money can be found - but it is a slow process. Even the Smithsonian cannot afford to digitize everything at once, they are doing it in steps.   The important thing is that steps are being taken to preserve. Steps are also improving on allowing more access.

Joaniecrumpet's mention of the Museum of Moving Images reminds me about how many silent films have simply been lost to the ravages of time.   At one point in my career I worked for CBS and one day I was in their massive library and saw the librarians pulling old tape to be thrown out or reused.   Our heritage is rapidly being lost.

Whether the collection winds up in private hands or in another country, lets just hope that it is preserved and others will have access.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Spider Monkey
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:22 PM

Admit it, Folkie Dave,

Having bought Kennedy's library, you're trying to broker a deal to sell all his sound recordings to the US (and shame on you for doing so).

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:45 PM

The two potential buyers for the VWML were Lomax and Goldstein; both now dead but presumably acting for somebody.
No - I don't think it should go to the States.
Thanks
Jim Carroll
PS Ron Olesko
Completely off topic; do you know if Paul Robeson's Moscow concert ever released commercially?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:52 PM

Yes, I it was issued a few years ago on Telstar. I'm not sure if it was the complete concert.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:53 PM

Just a PS - I'm not lobbying to have the archives come to the "states", but I do think that efforts need to be made to have it housed somewhere. As I said earlier, in the age that we live in it really doesn't matter where the physical material is housed - so long as it is accessible to the people who would benefit from it.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: oggie
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:10 PM

For the archive to survive two things are required, a) a willing seller and b) a willing buyer. For it to survive in the public domain the buyer needs to big enough and have the infrastucture to sort it, preserve itand make it available.

I do not know about the willing seller.

As far as buyers go there are a number of thoughts. If the BBC/EFDSS think the material is theirs then that can stop any purchase until legal issues are resolved. Whether the EFDSS hasthe resources either to litigate and, if successful, to curate the collection is debatable.

I cannot think of a UK based academic purchaser who would take on the collection. Possibly lottery funding would help but a) this takes time and b) it may be too english to attract funding (check out the inclusion and diversity sections of a grant application).

It may well be that the best option is for an overseas institution to but it. Let's face it Mudcat talks across continents and unless one wants to handle the physical artifacts this is as good a way as any so long as the archive is available at a sensible cost.

In the first instance the biggest problems seem to be a) establishing ownership b) establishing a willing seller c) stopping the piecemeal disposal of the archive and then finding a suitable buyer.

All the best

oggie

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:33 PM

Oggie,

You are very perceptive and I commend you on what you have written.

It is as you suggest a very complex issue.

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 03:43 AM

Oggie, Thanks for your summing up. I totally agree, with one exception.
The biggest problem is in activating the organisation whose behaviour led to the situation we are now in - not mentioning any names but it begins with E and ends with S.
Unless and until they act the collection will be lost to us.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 03:44 AM

PS
Thanks for the Paul Robeson information Ron
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 04:49 AM

Popping my head above the parapet on this one.

I've followed the thread; vituperative posts included and refrained from comment, as I had minimal knowledge of Kennedy or his "dubious practices". An earlier post taking someone to task ( a bit harshly, I thought)for talking about something they had no knowledge of ensured I stayed quiet till now.

Given the current uncertainty over the future of this collection, surely establishing copyright and ownership is important in order that it is dealt with (sold/retained/properly archived) in a manner acceptable to the legal owner(s).

If the archive becomes a de facto "Kennedy collection" then control over it's destiny will rest with the family and not the BBC/EFDSS: therefore its status must be established prior to permission for a sale/bequest being given by the Kennedy estate.

Furthermore, if the archive was acquired dubiously (in terms of copyright and practices- as has been debated ad infinitum) by Kennedy; then at the same time as re-establishing ownership reparation must be made to the people who were recorded.

It should be a matter of principle, not of the amount concerned.

Oh and I take issue with the comments from oggie in that the collection is "too English" to attract funding. It's anything but...

Whilst it had been mostly commissioned by the EFDSS (and the British Broadcasting Corporation) it is a British and Irish archive and I would have thought that, as I suggested in the other current "Kennedy/EFDSS" thread, members of the relevant bodies of other constituent parts of the UK and Eire, should be lobbying for retention in these isles and for access to it, regardless of the cost.

andymac

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 09:52 AM

Unless and until they act the collection will be lost to us

I am not sure that follows Jim.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 11:40 AM

Well, 300-odd CDs of this collection are available for sale to the public. And, since Mr. Kennedy didn't choose to package them in a manner suitable for sale (discs identified with hand-written numbers and almost indecipherable notes), CAMSCO Music (with Peter Kennedy's permission and blessings) has been repackaging them with proper labeling , notes and jewel cases. To date, CAMCO has released 37 of the Folktrax titles, and is currently working on a dozen more.THey sell for $18 US (a bit under 10 quid.)

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: GUEST,Spider Monkey
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 01:14 PM

Folkiedave has ignored my allegation about his attempts to broker the Kennedy sound collection to potential purchasers.

Either that means that I am correct and Folkiedave is hoping nobody realizes as he quickly tries to shuffle the evidence under the carpet
or I am wrong but I doubt it.

Folkiedave it's time to come clean about your dealings in terms of Kennedy's collections!

Though I'm a longstanding Mudtracker I'm being anonymous about this because I'm distantly related by marriage to the Kennedys and don't want to cause a family row if it can be avoided.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM

I was curious about this as well,i distinctly smelt something like a vested interest.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: nutty
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 02:24 PM

And when you sell them Dick .... who does the money go to?

Do you pay royalties to the songwriters/preformers?

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 07:43 PM

There is absolutely no question or any truth in any rumour or statement that I am trying to broker the Kennedy Sound Collection. I am not in a position to do so and any thought that I might be is sheer round spherical objects.

Nor is there any truth in me having bought Peter Kennedy´s books.

Apart from that, not a bad try!! So you were wrong.

As it happens I am currently in Spain. Here´s my telephone number, feel free to ring me. You will need to put 0044 in front of this number. 9588881086

958 is the code for Granada province. My house is in Almuñecar.

Strange thing to do leaving England for Spain (September 20th, returning November 2nd) in the middle of such negotiations!!

However since it is hardly a secret, except it seems to everyone on this thread, it appears that Halsway Manor Society were gifted something by Peter by Deed of Trust(precisely what I am not sure) it may have been everything to do with folk music that Peter owned, such as sound tapes, field notes, films, photographs, books etc. I really do not know and unlike others I am not prepared to make ill-founded or anonymous allegations based on speculation. But if it turns you on, feel free to do so. I shan´t sue.

As for ignoring your questions sometimes I am in front of the computer and sometimes not.

I have answered every single question asked of me on this thread honestly and truthfully.

The only question that has not been answered as far as I am concerned is why Mustrad published anonymous allegations from a file saved up over a number of years and then asked for concrete evidence to support them.

Now I am happy to sign my name to the things I write. So care to withdraw what you wrote about me - whoever you are?

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 07:57 PM

Incidentally I receieved an email from someone calling themselves Sean Gallagher with a Yahoo email address.

Dear Dave,

I've read your messages in the Kennedy thread on Mudcat and it's clear to me that you're up to something.

Are you actually seeking a broker for Kennedy's sound recordings in the US?

This is what I replied.

1. Sean,

No, I prefer them to remain in the UK. All I can promise you is that I will reveal all when it is appropriate.

But than you for opening up al ine of communication. Tell me more.

Best regards,

Dave Eyre

2.

You will forgive me for writing again I am currently in Spain where I have a house ,and I may have given a wrong impression last night. This was entirely due to the fact it is Fiesta time in my "barrio" and I had drink taken!!

I have no control over what we might call the "Kennedy Archive" and I ferevently wish it to remain in the British Isles.

I would like to hear who you are etc. so again thanks for writing. Would you be kind enough to reveal your own interest in the matter?

Now would the real Sean Gallagher like to step forward and confirm that is exactly as I replied?

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 08:28 PM

Nutty-
I have no knowledge of who gets or doesn't get royalties on any of the CDs I sell; I can only assume that the listed copyright holder owns the copyright. As I've said before, if any artist who's entitled to a royalty isn't getting one, please have him/her/them contact me and I'll pay it personally. Don't expect anyone to respond, though--royalties are payable only when recordings are sold, and represent 15% of the list selling price. At the rate that Folktrax CDs sell, for example, an artist would probably be better off accepting a pint instead.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 03:11 AM

I am afraid that this thread is getting bogged down with material about the collection (s) when it ought IMHO to be concerned with Peter Kennedy and the Mustrad allegations. That is after all the first post on the thread.

I have therefore started a new thread called Kennedy Collection here.

If you do continue posting to this thread to discuss Peter Kennedy here is a small challenge. Think about saying whether you would like anonymous allegations about you collected over a period of time, posted on the internet, and with a request for evidence to back those anonymous allegations up. And think how your family would feel if these came out shortly after your death.

And if you wouldn´t like it about you, then there is no reason to support it about anyone else.

Subject: RE: Reflections/Criticism of Peter Kennedy
From: johnadams
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:19 AM

Jim Carroll wrote:

The two potential buyers for the VWML were Lomax and Goldstein; both now dead but presumably acting for somebody.
No - I don't think it should go to the States.
Thanks


As a Trustee of the VWML I can inform you that the library is not presently up for sale, to the best of my knowledge has never been up for sale, and while I have been a trustee there has been no talk of it going up for sale.

I trust that clarifies the situation.

John Adams
EFDSS Vice Chair Marketing and Promotion.