Amplified music not the real thing
Garry W
[was '"Free" Concerts (Was: Celtic music on the net?)']
cow*k...@ix.netcom.com (Tim) wrote:
>I hope you and your friends (the dozen or so who will be apble to hear
>the performance) enjoy the show. Many of my performer friends get
>together in homes or other small places to share their music. Doesn't
>make for much of a festival, though.
I'm with CJB insofar as detesting amplified music. There are some instruments
which, when played over a sound system, do still have some vague resemblance
to the actual sound of the instrument, to my ear. Fiddle comes to mind. There
are many others though which, to my ear, do not. Mandolin and piano come to
mind. Then there's the totally unnatural *balancing* of the instruments that
happens when someone in the back of the room controls, by twirling dials, how
loud each person is (effectively) playing. I would prefer that the fiddlers
get really quiet during the mandolin solo. It makes for a different sound.
Classical music performances manage to be, traditionally, unamplified. I have
participated with up to about 1000 people at a time in listening to an
unamplified classical performance. You can't do 5000-person festivals that
way, and everyone does have to get quiet during the performance, but in some
alternate universe a 1000-person unamplified folk festival would be something
I would very much like to attend.
There have been a few times when I've been present at a folk performance when
the sound system has gone out, or could otherwise not be used. The most
memorable was last summer at Fiddle Tunes camp. About 300 of us sitting in the
auditorium there, listening to Martin Hayes, Joe Cormier, Frank Ferrel, etc
etc playing "straight". Unamplified.
It was *wonderful*.
Unlike, for example, listening to Martin Hayes at the SF Celtic Festival (the
opposite acoustical extreme.)
So, I try to avoid commercial concerts, and to attend house concerts instead.
Can't think of anything else to do. The performers aren't as famous, but you
get to actually hear them. The famous ones I might as well listen to at home
through my stereo, anyhow.
garry
PS - I am co-directing the SF Free Folk Festival this year. I mentioned not
using a sound system to my confreres, inasmuch as we typically have a very
reasonable-sized crowd in our concert hall. The reaction was "not a
possibility".
Dale Farmer
Garry W (gne...@ithaca.com) wrote:
: [was '"Free" Concerts (Was: Celtic music on the net?)']
:
: I'm with CJB insofar as detesting amplified music. There are some instruments
: which, when played over a sound system, do still have some vague resemblance
: to the actual sound of the instrument, to my ear. Fiddle comes to mind. There
: are many others though which, to my ear, do not. Mandolin and piano come to
: mind. Then there's the totally unnatural *balancing* of the instruments that
: happens when someone in the back of the room controls, by twirling dials, how
: loud each person is (effectively) playing. I would prefer that the fiddlers
: get really quiet during the mandolin solo. It makes for a different sound.
Thatr is how you tell if the sound gear, and the sound operator(s)
are good, bad, or amazing. What you just described was someone who
doesn't know how to mix for a live audience in that venue for that group.
A *good* sound operator will preserve that "live" sound. (This includes
proper micophones, speakers/amps, and sound equipment placement, as well
as mixing. ) That is just as much an art form as playing an instrument.
Also affecting things: Mixing for the audience or for the recording?
Those are differently mixed, which had priority?
: Classical music performances manage to be, traditionally, unamplified. I have
: participated with up to about 1000 people at a time in listening to an
: unamplified classical performance. You can't do 5000-person festivals that
: way, and everyone does have to get quiet during the performance, but in some
: alternate universe a 1000-person unamplified folk festival would be something
: I would very much like to attend.
Classical music performances. Sure, have 85 players, in a nice
accoustic shell in a nice theatre and you can easily fill the hall without
supplemental amplification. take the same hall and audience, and put a
string quartet up there. They will need amplification to be heard in
the back of the hall. Take that string quartet and audience, and put them
on a hillside, maybe under a tent, and you are lucky if the first ten
rows could hear them without amplification.
So much depends on the intrinsic loudness of the performers, the
accustic enviroment that they and the audience are sitting in, the size
of the audience, external noise influences (HVAC, jets, etc...) and the
quality of the sound system. You have some very specific preferences
for the way you listen to folk music. Not every event is a folk
festival, and not everybody has the same preferences you have.
Live and let live.
:
: PS - I am co-directing the SF Free Folk Festival this year. I mentioned not
: using a sound system to my confreres, inasmuch as we typically have a very
: reasonable-sized crowd in our concert hall. The reaction was "not a
: possibility".
Without knowing the venue, and the kind of performers you are
planning on. Any specific opinion would be foolish to give.
--Dale
A
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dale Farmer Da...@access.digex.net Personal opinions only.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
C.J.B.
Sorry to hear such a poor reception for the concept of no amplification.
I believe as you have noted with classical music - people can be
reasonable when you ask them nicely to be.
Trouble is that promotors are greedy and need ever larger crowds so
that anything that might upset a member such as being asked to be
quiet is avoided at all cost---usually at the cost of the music itself.
Pull the plug on spound and require people to behave and you will
have a great festival and not only that cut loose an expensive
part of the overhead and therefore make the entire festival more
open.
Conrad
Garry W wrote:
>
> [was '"Free" Concerts (Was: Celtic music on the net?)']
>
> cow*k...@ix.netcom.com (Tim) wrote:
> >I hope you and your friends (the dozen or so who will be apble to hear
> >the performance) enjoy the show. Many of my performer friends get
> >together in homes or other small places to share their music. Doesn't
> >make for much of a festival, though.
>
> I'm with CJB insofar as detesting amplified music. There are some instruments
> which, when played over a sound system, do still have some vague resemblance
> to the actual sound of the instrument, to my ear. Fiddle comes to mind. There
> are many others though which, to my ear, do not. Mandolin and piano come to
> mind. Then there's the totally unnatural *balancing* of the instruments that
> happens when someone in the back of the room controls, by twirling dials, how
> loud each person is (effectively) playing. I would prefer that the fiddlers
> get really quiet during the mandolin solo. It makes for a different sound.
>
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft did Garry W a stately USENET-post decree:
: I'm with CJB insofar as detesting amplified music. There are some instruments
: which, when played over a sound system, do still have some vague resemblance
: to the actual sound of the instrument, to my ear. Fiddle comes to mind. There
: are many others though which, to my ear, do not. Mandolin and piano come to
: mind. Then there's the totally unnatural *balancing* of the instruments that
: happens when someone in the back of the room controls, by twirling dials, how
: loud each person is (effectively) playing. I would prefer that the fiddlers
: get really quiet during the mandolin solo. It makes for a different sound.
Methinks you have experienced one too many lousy sound engineers. A good
sound board op knows how to make it sound not like the instrument is being
processed (though he can do that, too), but as if it's right next to you.
He also can figure out how to allow for the natural balancing of the
instruments without sacrificing distinctiveness. (See my comments on
singing with bagpipes, for instance.)
What does bother me, though, is why, when you put a tool to your mouth or
hand to create a particular type or enhancement of sound and call it an
"instrument," that is to be privileged to exclusion over the tool which
you put to your hands to create a particular type or enhancement of sound
and call it a "mixing console."
--Gurk
--
The Stewart Theatre Technical Crew: In Search of Squish
- - http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jwelliot/WWW/squish.html - -
"The day we stop looking, Charlie, is the day we die."
-Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman
George Hawes
"C.J.B." <cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>Sorry to hear such a poor reception for the concept of no amplification.
>I believe as you have noted with classical music - people can be
>reasonable when you ask them nicely to be.
>Trouble is that promotors are greedy and need ever larger crowds so
>that anything that might upset a member such as being asked to be
>quiet is avoided at all cost---usually at the cost of the music itself.
>Pull the plug on spound and require people to behave and you will
>have a great festival and not only that cut loose an expensive
>part of the overhead and therefore make the entire festival more
>open.
Interesting to read this this morning.
Last evening we were at an accoutic concert of Catrional
Macdonald (fiddle) and Ian Lowthian (free-base accordion). These
are two of the finest traditional players in the UK (if not
further afield) and the raport and interplay between them is
amazing. The audience were enthusiastic and excellently behaved
(because UK folk clubs are like that). But it was not their
finest concert - simply because the concert was not amplified.
In this case, amplification can be used to balance the
differences in the sound output of the two instruments. Without
it, Catriona has to reduce her dynamic range to play louder
overall; Ian has to reduce his to play quieter; the result is a
compromise.
Still an excellent concert, but could have been that littlle bit
better.
There is a difference between sound reinforcement - where the
aim is to reproduce the original sounds of the instuments, but
with improved balance and volume, and amplification where the
aim (or the result) is to produce an amplified sound. I really
cannot see any logical objection to the first of these in
itself.
Questions of audience manners are another topic.
Regards
George
>Conrad
>Garry W wrote:
>>
>> [was '"Free" Concerts (Was: Celtic music on the net?)']
>>
>> cow*k...@ix.netcom.com (Tim) wrote:
>> >I hope you and your friends (the dozen or so who will be apble to hear
>> >the performance) enjoy the show. Many of my performer friends get
>> >together in homes or other small places to share their music. Doesn't
>> >make for much of a festival, though.
>>
>> I'm with CJB insofar as detesting amplified music. There are some instruments
>> which, when played over a sound system, do still have some vague resemblance
>> to the actual sound of the instrument, to my ear. Fiddle comes to mind. There
>> are many others though which, to my ear, do not. Mandolin and piano come to
>> mind. Then there's the totally unnatural *balancing* of the instruments that
>> happens when someone in the back of the room controls, by twirling dials, how
>> loud each person is (effectively) playing. I would prefer that the fiddlers
>> get really quiet during the mandolin solo. It makes for a different sound.
>>
Peter Wilton
Peter Saager <saage...@sni.de> writes
>I think it's quite simple:
>The traditional way is: "interacting in a small crowd" (housemusic,
>session corner in a pub, everybody, not only the star contributes, no
>amp, ...)
>
>The commercial way is: "Performing for a big crowd" (festival halls,
>open air fields, only the admired star is allowed to show his skills,
>heavy amplification to reach a big crowd to pay for the star, get some
>backup for the lonely flute (fiddle, wistle, singer), avoid music
>where you have to listen to (sean nos, ...), ...)
Commerce certainly brings about bigger venues. But it's not all so
simple. For example, from what I've read, solo performance to an
audience is very much a traditional way of performing music. There are
examples where the change from solo to group performance is a modern
development. (See for example, Hazel Fairbairn's article "Changing
Contexts for Traditional Dance Music in Ireland: The Rise of Group
Performance Practice", in _Folk Music Journal_, vi (1994) 566-99).
--
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/chant.htm
Peter Saager
"C.J.B." <cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>Sorry to hear such a poor reception for the concept of no amplification.
>I believe as you have noted with classical music - people can be
>reasonable when you ask them nicely to be.
>Trouble is that promotors are greedy and need ever larger crowds so
>that anything that might upset a member such as being asked to be
>quiet is avoided at all cost---usually at the cost of the music itself.
>Pull the plug on spound and require people to behave and you will
>have a great festival and not only that cut loose an expensive
>part of the overhead and therefore make the entire festival more
>open.
>Conrad
I think it's quite simple:
The traditional way is: "interacting in a small crowd" (housemusic,
session corner in a pub, everybody, not only the star contributes, no
amp, ...)
The commercial way is: "Performing for a big crowd" (festival halls,
open air fields, only the admired star is allowed to show his skills,
heavy amplification to reach a big crowd to pay for the star, get some
backup for the lonely flute (fiddle, wistle, singer), avoid music
where you have to listen to (sean nos, ...), ...)
The usual way (at least in Germany) is: "Guinness sponsored drink,
love and rebell songs" (no comment on this crap)
"Video killed the radio star"
"Business kills the trad"
I favour the traditional way (when I am in Eire). But I do have to
accept the commercial way, because only paid musicians come to germany
and it costs to get them. As well you have to pay a lot for a good
concert hall wich makes amplification redundant (Thats why the
organizer does not care). Even if you get one the atmosphere (how do
you spell that) is missing.
As well I am convinced the soundman must be a good musician (on his
instrument, the mixer) as well. He can (and often does) spoil the
music.
The second best choice for me as an alien is good field recordings or
studio recordings considering the spirit of the trad.
just my 2 ecus
Peter
C.J.B.
Once a festival or event is so heavily laden with commerce that
one can not hear the music properly (unamplified) then it is time
for change.
Commerce does not value the tradition or the music.
It values profit!
No matter what the excuses of the soundmen amplification
changes the music. Musicians must play differently for
amplification and you have something between your ears
and the music itself. The tradition is one which demands
that musicians work things out acoustically-this is part
of skill and a part of art. The technician must not medle
with this even though he or she believes that they can make
the sound better. The musicians must be required to solve
their own problems.
Size of audience also should not be of such importance.Once
standards of behavior are communicated and maintained you can
gather a large group.
Participation is another issue. So often musicians sing material
that calls out for group participation. Often the musicians try
to teach the verse or the song with poor results. Bridging the
gap in our literate society is best done with zerox copies of the
lyrics (hey you can always put your concert schedule on the back!)
I find when people have the lyrics in their hands that they are
joined closer to the music. This is more difficult to accomplish
when the audience is distanced from the musicians by technology.
I see so many audiences studying the performers when they should be
one with them.
The end result of course of removing sound systems and those
who run them is the removal of a significant layer of cost and
logistical concern from the staging of festivals.
Without this cost and bother other things can be accomplished.
Free festivals which are open will be soon real!
Conrad
Peter Wilton wrote:
>
> Peter Saager <saage...@sni.de> writes
> >I think it's quite simple:
> >The traditional way is: "interacting in a small crowd" (housemusic,
> >session corner in a pub, everybody, not only the star contributes, no
> >amp, ...)
> >
> >The commercial way is: "Performing for a big crowd" (festival halls,
> >open air fields, only the admired star is allowed to show his skills,
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
There was an old man of Apulia,Whose conduct was very peculiar:
He fed 20 sons upon nothing but buns, that distacting old man of
Apulia-Lear
******************************************************************
You will find most of my internet presence here:
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~cbladey/hutman.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are far too many peasants in the world and far too many
merchants
Ian Anderson
George Hawes wrote:
> There is a difference between sound reinforcement - where the
> aim is to reproduce the original sounds of the instuments, but
> with improved balance and volume, and amplification where the
> aim (or the result) is to produce an amplified sound. I really
> cannot see any logical objection to the first of these in
> itself.
Or the latter, frankly. Some of the most exciting
traditional or traditionally-rooted music made over the last
4 decades has come about because amplification has allowed
the combination of instruments which can't be played
together acoustically. And I don't necessarily mean the
inclusion of bass and drums, or in the UK/USA axis.
--
Ian Anderson
Folk Roots magazine
fro...@froots.demon.co.uk
http://www.froots.demon.co.uk/
Uncle Milty
C.J.B. wrote:
>
> Once a festival or event is so heavily laden with commerce that
> one can not hear the music properly (unamplified) then it is time
> for change.
I've been following this thread (and enjoying it), but I still don't
fully understand what it is you advocate.
> Commerce does not value the tradition or the music.
> It values profit!
And it feeds the musicians. And the musicians are in charge of valuing
the traditions.
> No matter what the excuses of the soundmen amplification
> changes the music.
Not if it's done right.
> Musicians must play differently for
> amplification
Must they? In what way?
> and you have something between your ears
> and the music itself.
Yes, I do have something between my ears.
Now if we could just do something about those pesky musicians that keep
getting between me and the music.
> The tradition is one which demands
> that musicians work things out acoustically-this is part
> of skill and a part of art.
If, in fact, they are playing an acoustic instrument. If so, then they
ARE working things out acoustically.
> The technician must not medle
> with this even though he or she believes that they can make
> the sound better.
WOW! Something we agree upon. (Oh, did I mention that I'm an audio
engineer, specializing in live sound reinforcement?)
> The musicians must be required to solve
> their own problems.
Right again! I can only make things louder. If the musicians can't play
the right notes at the right time, there is NOTHING I can do about it.
> Size of audience also should not be of such importance.Once
> standards of behavior are communicated and maintained you can
> gather a large group.
It isn't the size of the audience that matters. It's the size of the
venue. There are laws of physics involved. (Inverse-square law, to be
specific) I could explain it to you if you'd like to know.
And in terms of audience behavior standards, have you been to a house of
worship lately that DIDN'T use amplification? (And held more than 50
people?)
> Participation is another issue. So often musicians sing material
> that calls out for group participation. Often the musicians try
> to teach the verse or the song with poor results. Bridging the
> gap in our literate society is best done with zerox copies of the
> lyrics (hey you can always put your concert schedule on the back!)
> I find when people have the lyrics in their hands that they are
> joined closer to the music.
Quite a technological paradox you have there (xerox vs. amplification).
And suppose you'll punch out the guy three seats down from you that
happens to rattle his lyric sheet during that special DM7 chord that
gets drowned out.
> This is more difficult to accomplish
> when the audience is distanced from the musicians by technology.
In what way? If the technology is done right, then it only brings the
audience closer to the musicians.
> I see so many audiences studying the performers when they should be
> one with them.
???
> The end result of course of removing sound systems and those
> who run them is the removal of a significant layer of cost and
> logistical concern from the staging of festivals.
Why do I feel like someone who runs a sound system must have insulted
your mother somewhere along the way?
I guess I should mention that I have made a decent living amplifying
acoustic music. I've done everything from cowboy poets to symphony
orchestras, both indoor and out. And judging from the accolades I
recieved from audience members and performers alike, I must know what
I'm doing.
And they (the performers) keep paying me to do it again.
> Without this cost and bother other things can be accomplished.
Like world peace.
> Free festivals which are open will be soon real!
Audiences who like a form of music will soon grow larger!
Then what?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Milt Hathaway | KOR - Tenchi Muyo! - Sailormoon |
| kyo...@basinlink.com | Oldfield - Miyazaki - Zappa - Takahashi |
| Midland, Texas |---------------------------------------------|
| 89 Wineberry GoldWing | This message is ROT-52 encrypted |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim
I guess I'm the only person (who'll take the bait?) who has both heard
and mixed *proper* acoustic music events. I've also heard it very
poorly done, and do my best to make sure I don't perpetuate shitty
mixes, inappropriate sound pressure levels, or "enhance" what does not
need help.
Most of the problems being described are the direct result of using
the wrong microphone, and/or not positioning it correctly; using the
wrong speaker system for the venue; or it is just too damn loud.
Also, we have a generation (or two) of mixers who are primarily
"engineers" and only listen with their eyes. They can plug the rig
up, turn it on and have it make noise. Getting *music* out of it is
another matter. Too many times I've heard so much high end on
fiddles, banjos, and mandolins that the result had no relationship to
the instrument sounds I was familiar with. Perhaps that is more to
the point--people mixing sound who either don't really know what the
instruments sound like, or worse, can't run the system to get that
genuine sound out to the audience.
Straight line, 'don't mess with it' amplification is no demon. Audio
reinforcement is *not* the great Satan. Incompetent or uncaring staff
is the enemy of good music and artistic performance. I'd never send
my rock 'n' roll crews to a traditional music gig, and I don't (most
of the time, anyway) do the heavy metal shows.
As for audio being a major expense for a festival, let me give an
example. The total budget for one of the fests I work is around
US$500,000. The total amount spent for sound is well under $15,000
for 4 stages. They spend over $80,000 for lodging performers. I'm
not sure what they spend on air travel, but I'll bet the could have
bought an airline in the 26 years they have been flying artists!
Finally, remember that the ticket-buying public votes with their
money. If they don't get what they want, they won't be back--right,
wrong, or indifferent.
Tim McCulloch, Project Manger
Pro Audio Systems, Inc.
Wichita KS USA
gne...@ithaca.com (Garry W) wrote:
>[was '"Free" Concerts (Was: Celtic music on the net?)']
>I'm with CJB insofar as detesting amplified music. There are some instruments
>which, when played over a sound system, do still have some vague resemblance
>to the actual sound of the instrument, to my ear. Fiddle comes to mind. There
>are many others though which, to my ear, do not. Mandolin and piano come to
>mind. Then there's the totally unnatural *balancing* of the instruments that
>happens when someone in the back of the room controls, by twirling dials, how
>loud each person is (effectively) playing. I would prefer that the fiddlers
>get really quiet during the mandolin solo. It makes for a different sound.
>Classical music performances manage to be, traditionally, unamplified. I have
>participated with up to about 1000 people at a time in listening to an
>unamplified classical performance. You can't do 5000-person festivals that
>way, and everyone does have to get quiet during the performance, but in some
>alternate universe a 1000-person unamplified folk festival would be something
>I would very much like to attend.
>There have been a few times when I've been present at a folk performance when
>the sound system has gone out, or could otherwise not be used. The most
>memorable was last summer at Fiddle Tunes camp. About 300 of us sitting in the
>auditorium there, listening to Martin Hayes, Joe Cormier, Frank Ferrel, etc
>etc playing "straight". Unamplified.
>It was *wonderful*.
>Unlike, for example, listening to Martin Hayes at the SF Celtic Festival (the
>opposite acoustical extreme.)
>So, I try to avoid commercial concerts, and to attend house concerts instead.
>Can't think of anything else to do. The performers aren't as famous, but you
>get to actually hear them. The famous ones I might as well listen to at home
>through my stereo, anyhow.
>garry
>PS - I am co-directing the SF Free Folk Festival this year. I mentioned not
>using a sound system to my confreres, inasmuch as we typically have a very
>reasonable-sized crowd in our concert hall. The reaction was "not a
>possibility".
How can you be two places at once if you're really nowhere at all?
Firesign Theatre
Lynda Thornton
>There have been a few times when I've been present at a folk performance when
>the sound system has gone out, or could otherwise not be used. The most
>memorable was last summer at Fiddle Tunes camp. About 300 of us sitting in the
>auditorium there, listening to Martin Hayes, Joe Cormier, Frank Ferrel, etc
>etc playing "straight". Unamplified.
>
>It was *wonderful*.
>
>Unlike, for example, listening to Martin Hayes at the SF Celtic Festival (the
>opposite acoustical extreme.)
>
>So, I try to avoid commercial concerts, and to attend house concerts instead.
>Can't think of anything else to do. The performers aren't as famous, but you
>get to actually hear them. The famous ones I might as well listen to at home
>through my stereo, anyhow.
>
and often many of the performers are people not nationally known or
famous, but, they can often be the most talented and impressive
musicians and singers, sometimes better than the headline act! It is a
real eye and ear-opener to go to a smaller festival with small tents etc
because you can be just feet away from a performer, you're able to hear
the true sound, and the whole atmosphere is friendlier and much less
formal. Smaller events (hundreds rather than thousands of people) in my
opinion beat the huge events hands down, because it is so much more
enjoyable to be able to walk through the whole site visiting different
small tents with different things going on, not spending the whole time
trying not to get lost or queuing for hours to get food, visit toilets
etc, whilst being monitored by an army of mirror-bespectacled security
guards with walkie talkies buzzing.
There is usually amplification in the larger tent and none or very
little in the smaller tents. It's a good mixture.
The success of the smaller events is due to the fact that they are so
enjoyable that people book tickets year after year and it's a wonderful
thing to see the same faces appearing in the crowd every time!
Lynda Thornton
C.J.B.
Steve you are missing the point!
Smaller more manageable venues and it works!
you dont need to gather 5,ooo people unless you want to move
large rocks or something!
folk music amplified in any way is overkill is expensive is
unnecessary.,
gathering 5,000 folks and telling them that they will be
hearing folk music is a lie!
Conrad
> good it may be. It's a fact of life....
>
> Steve
C.J.B.
Lynda:
I think you are quite correct!!!
In america I am afraid that if its not huge and making thousands
of dollars or lets re phrase that making nothing but consuming
thousands of dollars in production its nothing!
Its like trying to stretch a small stocking over a large foot.
It fits the smaller ones much better.
The pack em in jack up the prices mentality dillutes the many
dimensions of the music. It distances performer from peasant
and discourages players.
Small festivals are the next wave!
We shall return the music to the players and send the performers
the speculators and the cumbersome support mechanism packing!
CJB
--
Brendan Minish
George...@i-cubed.co.uk (George Hawes) wrote:
>"C.J.B." <cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>
>>Sorry to hear such a poor reception for the concept of no amplification.
>>I believe as you have noted with classical music - people can be
>>reasonable when you ask them nicely to be.
>>Trouble is that promotors are greedy and need ever larger crowds so
>>that anything that might upset a member such as being asked to be
>>quiet is avoided at all cost---usually at the cost of the music itself.
I agree that some promoters are greedy but having run gigs for a
couple of years as well as being involved in a local festival I am
well aware of all the costs of organizing concerts
>>Pull the plug on spound and require people to behave and you will
>>have a great festival and not only that cut loose an expensive
>>part of the overhead and therefore make the entire festival more
>>open.
But with some well done PA you can increase your audience and you
don't need to send the heavies around to keep every one quiet.
PA isn't that expensive anyway, I don't get pay ed half enough <G>
>
>Interesting to read this this morning.
>
>Last evening we were at an accoutic concert of Catrional
>Macdonald (fiddle) and Ian Lowthian (free-base accordion). These
>are two of the finest traditional players in the UK (if not
>further afield) and the raport and interplay between them is
>amazing. The audience were enthusiastic and excellently behaved
>(because UK folk clubs are like that). But it was not their
>finest concert - simply because the concert was not amplified.
>In this case, amplification can be used to balance the
>differences in the sound output of the two instruments. Without
>it, Catriona has to reduce her dynamic range to play louder
>overall; Ian has to reduce his to play quieter; the result is a
>compromise.
I do the sound for them every time that they come here (Co, Mayo
Ireland) The next time is 3rd of July.
I have done PA for Catorina And Ian 7 or 8 times now and would say
that good PA and Monitoring is Essential for their performance.
Catriona has an excellent pick-up in her fiddle although I usually use
a decent condenser mic on it too.
When I am doing PA for somebody I haven't heard before I usually
listen to them acoustically before the sound check to make shure that
I have a good mental Image of the sound of the instruments and in most
cases a good idea of the balance.
I do sound for acoustic music only and am a great believer in
transparency. I.E if the sound is being done properly nobody will
notice me at all!
One of the problems with doing live sound is the number of venues that
have bad acoustics, the only thing that can be done here is to be very
carefully as to how you set up your speakers, Even in rotten venues it
should be possible to have decent sound on stage and reasonable sound
for most of the audience.
Another Problem is Under sized House PA systems, one venue I Do about
once a week (Yard Bar of Matt Mollys Pub, Westport ) has an under
specified PA with Mediocre speakers mounted in a Bad Place (behind the
Stage, flat against the wall) Even in this venue it is possible to get
pretty good sound (and I am working on the Bar to spend some more
money on the system !) But Take that room fill it with Noisy Drunks
and combine it with some truly appalling instrument pickups (Why do
people Buy Beautiful hand made instruments and have the cheapest
pickup they can find to have put into it by somebody who probably
won't even listen to it ) and there isn't much anybody can do.
Thankfully though the audience will usually shut up and listen (might
have something to do with charging them a fiver ;-)
>Still an excellent concert, but could have been that littlle bit
>better.
>
>There is a difference between sound reinforcement - where the
>aim is to reproduce the original sounds of the instuments, but
>with improved balance and volume, and amplification where the
>aim (or the result) is to produce an amplified sound. I really
>cannot see any logical objection to the first of these in
>itself.
Jean-Michel Vellion (Flute) often plays with a bagpiper or Bombardes
in a nice acoustic venue you need PA just so you can hear the flute
and with a decent Mic, a little reverb some care setting up the EQ for
the room, a great big amp (Loads of headroom) and some ok speakers it
sounds wonderful.
One of the reasons I do PA for a living is that I have heard so many
Sound engineers who have come from the rock field buggering up
acoustic Music.
It gets on my nerve when I hear people saying PA is always a bad
thing, there are a couple of old churches here that have concerts in
them from time to time and I do PA in both of them even though they
both have wonderful acoustics, Why- to Keep the balance right between
the instruments and lift the low fequencys abit, the end result is an
improved overall sound.
Another thing that gets me annoyed is musicians who bring their own
effects racks, Equalizers etc but who don't look after them properly.
Last friday I had a guitar player give me alot of hassle during the
sound check when in fact the problem was at his end, I then spent one
and a half hours the next morning repairing a cracked PCB (circuit
Board) in his equalizer (mainly so He wouldn't give the next sound
Engineer as much green as he gave me :-) ) and fixing up a couple of
patch leads that were on the way you. He bought me a Pint (yes 1
Pint..) I had saved his ass in the middle of a tour and done about 30
quids worth of very delicate soldering and re-wiring, none of which
would have been nessacery if he had taken the leads and transformers
out of the back of all the effects units before checking the flight
case in with an Airline.
>
>Questions of audience manners are another topic.
>
>Regards
>
>George
>
>
>>Conrad
>
>>Garry W wrote:
>>>
>>> [was '"Free" Concerts (Was: Celtic music on the net?)']
>>>
>>> cow*k...@ix.netcom.com (Tim) wrote:
>>> >I hope you and your friends (the dozen or so who will be apble to hear
>>> >the performance) enjoy the show. Many of my performer friends get
>>> >together in homes or other small places to share their music. Doesn't
>>> >make for much of a festival, though.
>>>
>>> I'm with CJB insofar as detesting amplified music. There are some instruments
>>> which, when played over a sound system, do still have some vague resemblance
>>> to the actual sound of the instrument, to my ear. Fiddle comes to mind. There
>>> are many others though which, to my ear, do not. Mandolin and piano come to
>>> mind.
Pianos can be trickey but mandolin, Bozuki etc are easy, For low
volume levels use a decent Mic NOT an SM58! and for higher volumes a
pickup is essential. Get a good pickup fitted by somebody who Knows
how to fit pickups properly. Alot of Instrument makers know bugger all
about how to get the best possible performance from a pickup and how
to ajust the way it sits in the instrument to get the right tonal
balance, Using an external equalizer is No substitute to having the
pickup set up properly
Anyway Bozukis,mandolins, Pianos etc are NOT TRADITIONAL Irish
instruments and should not be used in the performance of Irish
music... ;-)
Pipes and the dredded Bodhran are the only Real traditional
Instruments
>>> Then there's the totally unnatural *balancing* of the instruments that
>>> happens when someone in the back of the room controls, by twirling dials, how
>>> loud each person is (effectively) playing.
In most cases I preserve the natural balance of the instruments.
In some cases The balance that the musicians want would not be a
normal balance but any sound engineer worth his salt is going to make
shure that He knows exactly what the musicians want.
>>> I would prefer that the fiddlers
>>> get really quiet during the mandolin solo. It makes for a different sound.
It's up to the fiddlers but I would normally ajust the mix to
highlight solo sections etc.
>>>
>>> Classical music performances manage to be, traditionally, unamplified. I have
>>> participated with up to about 1000 people at a time in listening to an
>>> unamplified classical performance. You can't do 5000-person festivals that
>>> way, and everyone does have to get quiet during the performance, but
Traditional musicians were mainly soloists until fairly recently, and
anyway I prefer concerts where I can sit at the bar, Drink and smoke
but still hear and see every thing.
Brendan Minish (Bmi...@jazzybee.ie)
SayraLiz
Yes ..and besides that...that is how some of make our living.
Performing...
So being heard by a large audience is really not such a bad thing. We
work hard at what we do. And should be heard. SEC
PS This is a ridiculous topic. Opinion is obviously not that of a
working writer or musician. Think about it.
Peter Wilton
"C.J.B." <cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes
>No matter what the excuses of the soundmen amplification
>amplification and you have something between your ears
>and the music itself.
I must say that this was in a way borne out at Sidmouth last year. I think
that sound amplification people are used to amplifying rock bands, so that
all they think it is necessary to hear is bass and percussion. Tim
Laycock's New Scorpion Band played an amplified concert in the concert
tent, and an acoustic one in the Parish Church. The balance was all
wrong at the former, and perfect at the latter. Maybe the musicians
were not playing differently for the two concerts - maybe they were
playing the same, in a way which only worked acoustically, but did not
work with the amplification provided.
Peter Wilton
Uncle Milty <kyo...@basinDELETETHISlink.com> writes
>> Commerce does not value the tradition or the music.
>> It values profit!
>
>And it feeds the musicians. And the musicians are in charge of valuing
>the traditions.
I wonder. The festival I attend every year used to be run by a folk music
society, and made a modest profit. Now privately run, it makes a much
bigger profit, but people are discouraged from expecting a fee out of it. I
can calculate the money I made for this festival last Summer, but, whilst I
was given a free ticket, I was not paid a penny, even though I spent
money researching my workshop, and my income is entirely freelance.
George Hawes
Ian Anderson <fro...@froots.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>George Hawes wrote:
>> There is a difference between sound reinforcement - where the
>> aim is to reproduce the original sounds of the instuments, but
>> with improved balance and volume, and amplification where the
>> aim (or the result) is to produce an amplified sound. I really
>> cannot see any logical objection to the first of these in
>> itself.
>Or the latter, frankly.
Indeed, where that's the intention. My post comes out sounding
more dogmatic than I intended. Thanks for the polite correction.
>traditional or traditionally-rooted music made over the last
>4 decades has come about because amplification has allowed
>the combination of instruments which can't be played
>together acoustically.
Yup, no problem with that statement!
Cheers
George
Uncle Milty
Peter Wilton wrote:
>
> Uncle Milty <kyo...@basinDELETETHISlink.com> writes
> >And it feeds the musicians. And the musicians are in charge of valuing
> >the traditions.
>
> I wonder. The festival I attend every year used to be run by a folk music
> society, and made a modest profit. Now privately run, it makes a much
> bigger profit, but people are discouraged from expecting a fee out of it. I
> can calculate the money I made for this festival last Summer, but, whilst I
> was given a free ticket, I was not paid a penny, even though I spent
> money researching my workshop, and my income is entirely freelance.
It sounds to me like you made the choice to participate for free. I
don't volunteer my time unless I want to, and then I don't whine about
it later.
Why not take some of the other non-paid performers with you and start
your own festival. The audience will follow.
Ian Anderson
C.J.B. wrote:
> No matter what the excuses of the soundmen amplification
> changes the music.
Sometimes beneficially. e.g. balance between instruments
> Musicians must play differently for amplification
So?
> The tradition is one which demands
> that musicians work things out acoustically-this is part
> of skill and a part of art.
Muddy Waters? Zydeco Bands? Most of the great electric
Manding bands from Guinea or Mali? Which tradition?
> The musicians must be required to solve
> their own problems.
They do. They get amplified so they can play quiet stringed
instruments with melodeons, or djembes with valihas, or
in places where people want to have fun dancing . . .
> Participation is another issue. So often musicians sing material
> that calls out for group participation. Often the musicians try
> to teach the verse or the song with poor results. Bridging the
> gap in our literate society is best done with zerox copies of the
> lyrics (hey you can always put your concert schedule on the back!)
> I find when people have the lyrics in their hands that they are
> joined closer to the music.
So what about the oral tradition, or people who can't
read (quite a chunk of the world, you know)
Folkies. Don't you love 'em? ;-)
____________________________________________________________
Royce Lerwick
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:49:16 -0500, Uncle Milty
<kyo...@basinDELETETHISlink.com> wrote:
>> Free festivals which are open will be soon real!
for free. Anyone with any talent gets paid. The more people, the more
they get paid. The better they are the more they get paid. The better
they are the more people they attract. The more people the harder it
is to hear. The less they hear the more pissed they are. The more
pissed they are the less they want to come back again. The less they
come back. the less the artists get paid. The less the artists get
paid, the less they want to waste their time playing for empty houses.
It's a math thing.
Royce
Mike Dana
Ian Anderson wrote:
> <snip> Some of the most exciting
> traditional or traditionally-rooted music made over the last
> 4 decades has come about because amplification has allowed
> the combination of instruments which can't be played
For instance: Tin Whistle and Highland Bagpipes -- wonderful duet
possibilities, providing *both* of them can actually be *heard*!
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
Views expressed by me are mine, not my employer's.
"One road leads home and a thousand
roads lead into the wilderness." -- C.S.Lewis
Kit Lane
In article <339F59...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us>, "C.J.B."
<cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes
<SNIP>
>gathering 5,000 folks and telling them that they will be
>hearing folk music is a lie!
>
>Conrad
So your defintion of folk music is that it has to be acoustic? I can see
no argument or justification for that definition.
--
Kit Lane
Peter Wilton
Uncle Milty <kyo...@basinDELETETHISlink.com> writes
>It sounds to me like you made the choice to participate for free. I
>don't volunteer my time unless I want to, and then I don't whine about
>it later.
I hoped it might be on a one-off basis, and that I could enquire for funding
for a better event in the future. But the attitude seems to be "Most
people do workshops for free, why not you?", and "the money isn't
available". But not all, it seems. I heard rumours about high profits only
later. So if my attitude seems to have changed after the event, that's
why.
George Hawes
Peter Wilton <pj...@beaufort.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Uncle Milty <kyo...@basinDELETETHISlink.com> writes
>>> Commerce does not value the tradition or the music.
>>> It values profit!
>>
>>And it feeds the musicians. And the musicians are in charge of valuing
>>the traditions.
(actually it only feeds a subset of the musicians . . .)
>I wonder. The festival I attend every year used to be run by a folk music
>society, and made a modest profit. Now privately run, it makes a much
>bigger profit, but people are discouraged from expecting a fee out of it.
From various other posts you've made, including on this topic,
you appear to be talking about Sidmouth. In which case you are
presenting an incomplete picture of their financial arrangements
with artists and consequently - I suggest - being very unfair
and misleading. This is most unlike you, Peter.
And of course if you don't like the terms they offer you don't
have to go there.
Regards
George
Uncle Milty
Royce Lerwick wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:49:16 -0500, Uncle Milty
> <kyo...@basinDELETETHISlink.com> wrote:
> >> Free festivals which are open will be soon real!
> But only pathetic hacks will come play them, because only hacks work
> for free. Anyone with any talent gets paid. The more people, the more
<SNIP>
I agree, but please learn how to quote. I DID NOT make the above
statement that is attibuted to me. CJB made that statement, and I simply
quoted it in my reply.
Peter Wilton
George Hawes <George...@i-cubed.co.uk> writes
>In which case you are
>presenting an incomplete picture of their financial arrangements
>with artists and consequently - I suggest - being very unfair
>and misleading. This is most unlike you, Peter.
It might be that my "source" is misleading me of course! But I would be
interested to hear from you (perhaps by private Email) what you know
about it.
Ben Mehlman
This thread most certainly makes the top 10 list of pointless r.a.t.s
threads! What exactly are we arguing here? Of course accoustic music
is best heard in an accoustically perfect space, with an intimate
audience, for free. Well, there will always be smaller shows you can go
to, filled with idealistic and perfectly well behaved crowds (no crying
babies please!). Most of the shows you are complaining about wouldn't
exist if they didn't think big enough to be profitable. Producers need
to make money you know.
Also, times are changing. Audiences (most of them) expect to be able to
hear the music loud and clear. I TD a <200 seat theatre, where for 30
years little or no sound was used.. now I am expected to provide
multiple wireless mics, monitors etc.. in a house where a normal stage
speaking voice is clearly audible in the back of the house. The
audience expects it, and the performers expect it. Our jobs are to
provide the results. You don't like what your producer is asking for-
try to talk them out of it. Can't convince- time to be your own
producer if you care that much.
-Ben Mehlman
b...@staff.prodigy.com
Clive Mitchell
In article <7LjcwBA$$Foz...@lane.demon.co.uk>, Kit Lane
<k...@lane.demon.co.uk> writes
>So your defintion of folk music is that it has to be acoustic? I can see
>no argument or justification for that definition.
Why not make them all use synthesisers and be done with it.
In fact replace the musicians with a MIDI sequencer and sack them all.
--
Clive Mitchell
C.J.B
Actually I dont think we are too far from this reality!
anything to get bigger crowds perhaps also closed circut tv
folks way way in the back-- commerce is ruining the tradition
and the free festival will soon be the only way to go!
CJB
--
_________________________________________________________________
S o m e are lucky they pay me in cash the others In beer and Food!
******************************************************************
You will find most of my internet presence here:
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~cbladey/hutman.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are far too many peasants in the world and far too many merchants
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
There was an old lady whose folly,induced her to sit in a holly.
Whereon by a thorn, Her dress being torn, She quickly became
Melancholy~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E. Lear
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In rec.music.celtic did Clive Mitchell a stately USENET-post decree:
: In article <7LjcwBA$$Foz...@lane.demon.co.uk>, Kit Lane
: <k...@lane.demon.co.uk> writes
: >So your defintion of folk music is that it has to be acoustic? I can see
: >no argument or justification for that definition.
: Why not make them all use synthesisers and be done with it.
: In fact replace the musicians with a MIDI sequencer and sack them all.
All-or-nothing, is it? What's wrong with that lovely word "inclusive?"
--Gurk
--
-------http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/-------Andrew S. "Gurk Damick--
"I think that going Mistic is better than going Snapple or Fruitopia."
--g...@ncsu.edu----------/--D. Andrew "Didymos" Simmons, on Mysticism
Clive Mitchell
In article <5nv02l$3...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>, "Andrew S. \"Gurk\"
Damick" <gu...@ncsu.edu> writes in response to Clive's naughty and
irresponsible trawl.
>: Why not make them all use synthesisers and be done with it.
>
>: In fact replace the musicians with a MIDI sequencer and sack them all.
>
>All-or-nothing, is it? What's wrong with that lovely word "inclusive?"
"inclusive?".... OK, include some hunched animatronic characters which
bounce their feet up and down in time to the music, and place some jugs
of ale next to them.... The audience won't know the difference. :P
(actually I'm just "taking the piss" because I know how outraged the
puritan musicians get when faced with electronic stuff.)
--
Clive Mitchell
Frank Wood
>Ian Anderson wrote:
>> <snip> Some of the most exciting
>> traditional or traditionally-rooted music made over the last
>> 4 decades has come about because amplification has allowed
>> the combination of instruments which can't be played
>> together acoustically.<snip>
>
>For instance: Tin Whistle and Highland Bagpipes -- wonderful duet
>possibilities, providing *both* of them can actually be *heard*!
>
>--
Another thing is, that when you put somebody who can't sing on a mic,
you get somebody who can't sing, VERY LOUD!!!!
Jeri Corlew
>In article <7LjcwBA$$Foz...@lane.demon.co.uk>, Kit Lane
><k...@lane.demon.co.uk> writes
>>So your defintion of folk music is that it has to be acoustic? I can see
>>no argument or justification for that definition.
>
>Why not make them all use synthesisers and be done with it.
>
>In fact replace the musicians with a MIDI sequencer and sack them all.
>
Better yet - virtual reality. All of us audience types can sit around
with VR headsets on, and even play along with the musicians on our
VR instruments. We could have our own little VR sound boards to tune
out those nasty celtic guitars < ;-) > If the performers desire, they
could give interactive VR workshops and sign VR autographs.
Hell, we don't even have to go anywhere. We'd sit in our homes,
drinking our VR beer and...
...uh - never mind.
Jeri
Anti-Spam Alert:
Please change "nonet" to "inet" in my address when replying
Frank Hamilton
pmle...@wavetech.net (Royce Lerwick) wrote:
>>> Free festivals which are open will be soon real!
>But only pathetic hacks will come play them, because only hacks work
>for free.
Very interesting. This eliminates almost all traditional folksingers
who have never appeared on a concert stage. There are a few left.
>Anyone with any talent gets paid.
Another interesting suggestion. How do you define talent? Is it that
which is commercially viable?
Frank
Frank Hamilton
Mike Dana <mike...@nospamboeing.com> wrote:
>Ian Anderson wrote:
>> <snip> Some of the most exciting
>> traditional or traditionally-rooted music made over the last
>> 4 decades has come about because amplification has allowed
>> the combination of instruments which can't be played
>> together acoustically.<snip>
>For instance: Tin Whistle and Highland Bagpipes -- wonderful duet
>possibilities, providing *both* of them can actually be *heard*!
Or traditional Irish instruments, Uillean pipes, fiddle and tin
whistle which balance better under sound re-inforcement. Not to
mention harmonica with these instruments.
Frank
Frank Hamilton
Kit Lane <k...@lane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <339F59...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us>, "C.J.B."
><cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes
><SNIP>
>>gathering 5,000 folks and telling them that they will be
>>hearing folk music is a lie!
>>
>>Conrad
>So your defintion of folk music is that it has to be acoustic? I can see
>no argument or justification for that definition.
The definition has changed, in my opinion. I think a definition is in
order to pursue the discussion.
There is one definition that incorporates only those people in
isolated communities that do not have access to "modern" technology.
There is another that embraces a wider view to include this
technology.
There is still an even wider view that includes almost anything as
folk music.
Frank
Frank Hamilton
Clive Mitchell <cl...@emanator.REMOVEdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>>So your defintion of folk music is that it has to be acoustic? I can see
>>no argument or justification for that definition.
>Why not make them all use synthesisers and be done with it.
>In fact replace the musicians with a MIDI sequencer and sack them all.
There are examples of Afro-pop and Reggae music that use synths and
sequencers effectively. Also, some Irish musicians have incorportated
them. Wouldn't it be strange if some synthesist came up with a MIDI
replica of a string band, bluegrass, trad Irish or something that
sounded like the real thing?
I, for one, would miss the human element, the margin-for-error that
characterizes many folk performances.
Frank
George Hawes
"C.J.B" <cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
> commerce is ruining the tradition
And with due respect that's bullshit! It may be extending the
tradition, but there remain 'sessions' without a trace of
amplification. Indeed, I see signs that on both sides of the
Atlantic such sessions are on the upturn. One reason for this is
that 'commerce', while changing the tradition, is making many
more people aware of it. And some of these people are then going
on to discover the 'roots' of the tradition.
Certainly over here (mainland UK) there has never in my lifetime
been as much interest in the tradition - be it amplified concert
or informal session - amongst young people as there is now. And
many of them are damn fine musicians.
Regards
George
George Hawes
pmle...@wavetech.net (Royce Lerwick) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:49:16 -0500, Uncle Milty
><kyo...@basinDELETETHISlink.com> wrote:
>>> Free festivals which are open will be soon real!
>But only pathetic hacks will come play them, because only hacks work
>for free. Anyone with any talent gets paid.
Not necessarily so.
>It's a math thing.
And like all such, its validity depends on the validity of the
original premise. Which wasn't.
G.
George Hawes
Ben Mehlman <b...@staff.prodigy.com> wrote:
> I TD a <200 seat theatre, where for 30 years little or no sound was used.
Which I find hard to believe . . .
I've heard of 'Dumb show' but . . . ;-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
G.
Peter Wilton
George Hawes <George...@i-cubed.co.uk> writes
>And with due respect that's bullshit! It may be extending the
>tradition, but there remain 'sessions' without a trace of
>amplification. Indeed, I see signs that on both sides of the
>Atlantic such sessions are on the upturn. One reason for this is
>that 'commerce', while changing the tradition, is making many
>more people aware of it. And some of these people are then going
>on to discover the 'roots' of the tradition.
Since you mentioned "sessions", if you mean the so-called "traditional"
Irish session, you could also argue that they had "ruined" the tradition, in
which Irish dance tunes were originally performed solo (until the 1950's
or so). The demise of the traditional environment for this soloistic
tradition meant it would have died out, were it not for the "official"
attempts to encourage traditional music, which brought together musicians
for large-scale events, at which they started spontaneously playing with
each other, and the "session" was born. You could certainly argue that
these events were "artificial". Did these sessions "destroy" the tradition
or "save" it? (See Folk Music Journal 1994).
edward dale
It was the addition of the sound box that killed the wonderful sound of the
lyre when it became a harp.
It was the invention of the bodhran that killed trad - much to loud.
It was the importation of that damn fiddle that killed off the trad - oh
for the good old days.
Did you see young Murphy - he attached a bag to his reed whistle - you can
hear it for miles and it sounds like death - calls it a bag pipe - bag of
trash if you ask me.
It's the resonator on the banjo that was the dead of trad -too much volumne
and it's an african instrument anyhow.
It's that damn bouzouki with all those strings - what's a greek instrument
doing in Irish music - sounds terrible.
Have you heard that machine down at Flynn's - it reproduces (sort of) music
from afar - these recordings and radios will destroy the trad - the sounds
terrible - nothing can replace the live music.
This internet will kill the trad. So much writing and no common sense
talk. Any fool can sound off here. Oh for the good old days of smoke
signals and talking drums - the music hasn't been the same since then.
Bob Cameron
In article <339F5A...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us>,
cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
snip
>
> We shall return the music to the players and send the performers
>
> the speculators and the cumbersome support mechanism packing!
>
> CJB
>
By players then, you mean the hobbyists or the idle rich, and by
performers you mean those miserable money-grubbing hucksters who practice
continually and devote their lives to playing music to the point where
they ( shudder, gasp) actually imagine they can make a living from it?
Uncle Milty
Kit Lane wrote:
>
> In article <339F59...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us>, "C.J.B."
> <cbl...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >gathering 5,000 folks and telling them that they will be
> >hearing folk music is a lie!
> >
> >Conrad
>
> no argument or justification for that definition.
Sure he does: It would have to be folkS music if 5000 folkS were hearing
it. ^_^
I've got it! Lets kill 98.532% of all folk music lovers. Then the
remaining musicians wouldn't need amplification. ^_^
Olin Murrell
C.J.B wrote:
>
> Actually I dont think we are too far from this reality!
>
> anything to get bigger crowds perhaps also closed circut tv
>
> folks way way in the back-- commerce is ruining the tradition
>
> and the free festival will soon be the only way to go!
>
> CJB
>
I've been trying to avoid this thread, for obvious reasons, and perhaps
I should have tried a little harder, but this really irks me.
I paid $700 for my guitar, and if I had to replace it tomorrow, the
newer version would set me back $1,800.00. I have yet to find a music
store that will give me strings for free. I have played for free at many
an event and festival, only to find out later that other acts got paid,
and quite well, thank you, and that the event/festival acutally turned a
profit.
Even at the "free" festivals, the "promoters" I know usually pass a hat
around to help defray the cost of the power, if any, and the food, but
RARELY, if ever, pass a hat to compensate the musician for his/her time
and travel.
Speaking only for THIS musician, I play 15-20 benefit concerts a year,
but I grow exceedinly weary of the notion that if I demand recompense,
that I'm some sort of commercial monster... that commerce itself is
somehow detrimental to the traditional process of making music.
As far as amplification changing the sound, sure it does, but like Ian
says, sometimes for the better. For example, it allows me to jam quite
well with an electric band, using my little old Takemine Harrade
classical guitar, hopped up with a Passac pre-amp and thinline pickup,
AND my guitar normally comes through just about any soundman nightmare
you'd care to mention sounding just exactly like the wooden guitar it so
obviously is.
With amplification, singers no longer have to shout to be heard, and can
actually concentrate on making music with that God-given instrument, the
human voice. When you're not straining, it's sooooo much easier to
capture melodic nuance.
But, the bottom line is, nobody expects food to be free, or cars, or
houses, or electric lights in that precious little unamplified music
room, so why does anybody expect musicians who have trained hard, and
practiced long hours, to work for free? Hmmmm?
--
Olin Murrell
Austin, Texas
http://www.realtime.com/~olin
Tim.Shirley
Dear friends,
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so music is in the ear of the
listener.
I bet the first neolithic human who found that hollowing out her
clapping stick made a stronger sound was treated as going against
tradition by the rest of the tribe.
If it sounds good, I'll listen to it. Whatever produced it.
cheers
tim
"The only constant is change"
Jeri Corlew
Folk mimes
Halls with invisible walls? Hauling on an invisible line?
I feel sick...
George Hawes
Peter Wilton <pj...@beaufort.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>George Hawes <George...@i-cubed.co.uk> writes
>> there remain 'sessions' without a trace of amplification.
<and, as ever, too much more>
>Since you mentioned "sessions", if you mean the so-called "traditional"
>Irish session, you could also argue that they had "ruined" the tradition,
No, please don't. This thread is quite diverse enough as it is .
. . ;-)
George
George Hawes
Peter Wilton <pj...@beaufort.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>George Hawes <George...@i-cubed.co.uk> writes
<Possibly talking about Sidmouth Festival>
>>In which case you are
>>presenting an incomplete picture of their financial arrangements
>>with artists and consequently - I suggest - being very unfair
>>and misleading. This is most unlike you, Peter.
>It might be that my "source" is misleading me of course! But I would be
>interested to hear from you (perhaps by private Email) what you know
>about it.
My point was really that, to my certain knowledge, Sidmouth has
a wide variety of 'remunerative arrangements' with musicians and
others involved. From those who get a full fee to those who do
things for free AND pay for their ticket. Many participants are
happy to offer workshops, etc. in return for a free ticket;
others in return for a ticket and their accomodation expenses.
Simply it's that sort of an event.
But at the same time I am aware of instances where people's
'better nature' seems to be taken advantage of in these
negotiations . .
Also - the shift from the event being run by the EFDSS to a
commercial organisation was at the behest of the EFDSS who felt
that a bad year could bankrupt the organisation as well as the
festival. Clearly the commercial organisers had to operate the
festival on a sound financial footing, including building up a
balance which would cope with the worst possible disaster year
and still leave a big enough balance to rebuild from the next
year. I believe they've been quite successful at this, but I
still don't see them driving round in huge cars . . .
I believe the Sidmouth accounts are open to scrutiny anyway. And
certainly the financial basis includes voluntary fund raising
(by the 'Friends' during the year); these people clearly remain
satisfied with the Festival's financial arrangements.
I would also comment that OVERALL the festival has shown much
improvement over the period of commercial operation; in
particular in strengthening the different facets of the festival
to put them pretty well on a par with each other and with the
Overseas Dance aspect. If your own interests are narrow you can
see Sidmouth today as a number of different festivals taking
place concurrently . . .
I don't always agree with the organisers. There seem to be fewer
artistes booked for the week, or an extended period of it, and
this - IMHO - diminishes the Festival. And things like leaving
the West Country Concertina Players workshops out of the Working
Programme (because their events are not organised by the
Festival itself) is small-minded and unhelpful to those
attending the Festival. Which is to say that no matter how good
an event is it could always be better.
Regards
George
Conrad Jay Bladey
Olin!
Almost Exactly!
I believe that festivals should either be free and run by volunteers
or profit making and run by paid staff. I do not see why organizers
feel they can pay some and not other just so they can make a buck.
As for your strings well....being a musician is more than performance
it is a way of life and theres no free lunch for the living.
The free festival is the way to go though!
It will come to be!
Amplification is the devils work spare the rod spoil the audience.
CJB
Olin Murrell wrote:
>
>
Peter Hughes
Ian Anderson
Peter Hughes wrote:
>Many
> people I spoke to last year in between busking on the prom (that
> was me on the hurdy gurdy) commented that the festival was nowhere
> as good as it used to be! Maybe its just nostalgia...
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head there.
>
> On the subject of amplification, how about banning it from the
> sea front?
Which Andean pan-pipe band were you talking about? ;-)
Ian Anderson
Folk Roots magazine
fro...@froots.demon.co.uk
http://www.froots.demon.co.uk/
Olin Murrell
With great reluctance, he forged ahead into the briar patch.
Conrad Jay Bladey wrote:
>
> Olin!
> Almost Exactly!
>
Huh?
> I believe that festivals should either be free and run by volunteers
> or profit making and run by paid staff. I do not see why organizers
> feel they can pay some and not other just so they can make a buck.
>
That wasn't exactly my point. My point really was that musicians who
play "free" gigs, more often than not, wind up getting ripped off.
> As for your strings well....being a musician is more than performance
> it is a way of life and theres no free lunch for the living.
>
Again, huh? You have no trouble with my having to pay travel and
equipment expenses, expect me to play for free, and then proclaim that
there's "no free lunch for the living." What a weird and convoluted
world you must live in. Please read again what YOU just wrote, and pony
up to pay the fiddler
> The free festival is the way to go though!
> It will come to be!
>
Keep on keepin' on, brother. I gotta tell you, the times I play for free
I get a boatload more hassle than when I'm quite well paid. I'll gladly
come play in your "free" festival the very moment some airline will give
me a ticket... the instant the music store will give me a new guitar...
the absolute second restaurant food no longer costs me any money, and
right before the mortgage company calls to say I no longer need to make
house payments.
> Amplification is the devils work spare the rod spoil the audience.
> CJB
>
Oh, good Lord! ;^)
Christin Keck
Mr. Murrell, I can almost guarantee you that the only fool who thinks
that you should play for free is Conrad. He started this whole thing.
--
Christin Keck
Olin Murrell
Christin Keck wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> Mr. Murrell, I can almost guarantee you that the only fool who thinks
> that you should play for free is Conrad. He started this whole thing.
>
> --
> Christin Keck
Sadly enough, he's NOT the only one. The line for "free" music forms
right behind unscrupulous festival and event promoters, and bar owners
who want to maximize their profit by paying the hired help little, if
any money at all.
Peter Wilton
Peter Hughes <hug...@cartoon.bt.co.uk> writes
>On the subject of amplification, how about banning it from the
>sea front?
You're referring to one group which amplified itself and drowned out
everyone else whilst it was playing for most of the length of the
esplanade last year. As far as I know, this has never happened before. I
don't know if anyone has taken any action on it since.
Dick Gaughan
In article <33A770...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> writes
>Christin Keck wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Murrell, I can almost guarantee you that the only fool who thinks
>> that you should play for free is Conrad. He started this whole thing.
>
Ah, but the rest of them aren't trolls ...
Check out all the threads started by ol' Cornbag - every one a troll, a
couple of them, like this one, quite amusing and highly successful :)
Must admit, he's pretty good at it, even if he is a pain in the
posterior.
Tell him not to bother thanking me - he's so deep in my killfile I doubt
if I'd even read it quoted elsewhere. I'll rehabilitate him when someone
sends me a tape of him singing The Soldiers' Song.
In Irish.
--
Dick Gaughan, Dun Eideann (Edinburgh), Alba (Scotland)
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/ To email, remove anti-spam "XX"
from address. Spam and UCE to postmaster@localhost
Olin Murrell
Dick Gaughan wrote:
>
>
> Ah, but the rest of them aren't trolls ...
>
Well, there is that. ;^)
Like I said somewhere, I DID try to avoid this thread, but it finally
suckered me in.
> Check out all the threads started by ol' Cornbag - every one a troll, a
> couple of them, like this one, quite amusing and highly successful :)
>
> Must admit, he's pretty good at it, even if he is a pain in the
> posterior.
>
He's not bad, as trolls go. I'll grant him that.
> Tell him not to bother thanking me - he's so deep in my killfile I doubt
> if I'd even read it quoted elsewhere. I'll rehabilitate him when someone
> sends me a tape of him singing The Soldiers' Song.
>
> In Irish.
>
Now, I think I'd pay money to witness that. ;^)
Christin Keck
Dick Gaughan wrote:
>
> In article <33A770...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> writes
> >Christin Keck wrote:
> >>
> >> Mr. Murrell, I can almost guarantee you that the only fool who thinks
> >> that you should play for free is Conrad. He started this whole thing.
> >
> >Sadly enough, he's NOT the only one.
>
>
> couple of them, like this one, quite amusing and highly successful :)
>
> Must admit, he's pretty good at it, even if he is a pain in the
> posterior.
>
> if I'd even read it quoted elsewhere. I'll rehabilitate him when someone
> sends me a tape of him singing The Soldiers' Song.
>
> In Irish.
>
> Dick Gaughan, Dun Eideann (Edinburgh), Alba (Scotland)
> http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/ To email, remove anti-spam "XX"
> from address. Spam and UCE to postmaster@localhost
Touche!
;-)
P.S.--just how do you make a kill file anyway?
--
Christin Keck
SPBurris
> Dear friends,
>
> As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so music is in the ear of the
> listener.
>
> I bet the first neolithic human who found that hollowing out her
> clapping stick made a stronger sound was treated as going against
> tradition by the rest of the tribe.
>
> If it sounds good, I'll listen to it. Whatever produced it.
>
Point taken. If it really does sound good, who can say it is not good
music? But man times what a person desires is not just good music, but
good traditional music. What is "traditional"? That's another
question....
Speaking for myself, I find traditional music more exciting when it is
played in a traditional manner. This is because my concern with the
performance is not limited to the pleasant sounds being produced. I am
also concerned with getting that neat feeling that I am sharing in
something that is part of my heritage.
This isn't to say that my ancestors wouldn't have dithced their squeaky
fiddles for midi input devices if the opportunity had been there. But
they didn't have the opportunity, and they did just keep playing on those
squeaky fiddles. Being near my ancestors means, therefore, being near
squeaky fiddles.
Besides, there is an athletic aspect to all this. Consider opera -- what
fun would there be unless the singers had to strain their voices to hit
that high note or fill that auditorium? What fun would there be in a
football game if the kicker came onto the field and operated an automatic
kicking device? even if that device required real skill to control?
And there is a third factor -- easy production often means an
over-simplification in craft. Consider how the convenience of a word
processor removes that pressure to write a good first draft which is
brought on by the limitations of pencil and paper. Too often my students
have whipped off a quick draft, then gone over it with minimal care before
turning it in. Likewise, some modern sound production technologies (such
as a synth) makes it too easy to fill in that "empty sounding" place in
the music with echoing chordal harmonies (a la Enya). Maybe the musician
should have forced herself to "fix" her music with technique, or melodic
variation.
(All this is informed by the fact that Celtic music is typically melodic,
not harmonic, in nature. Just about any chordal accompaniment is weird in
this context. But that is another argument...)
Sorry for the long post.
--
SPBurris at Cornell University
Greek, Latin and bagpipes!
SayraLiz
Me too, Olin! SEC
George Hawes
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> Tell him not to bother thanking me - he's so deep in my killfile I doubt
>> if I'd even read it quoted elsewhere. I'll rehabilitate him when someone
>> sends me a tape of him singing The Soldiers' Song.
>>
>> In Irish.
>>
>Now, I think I'd pay money to witness that. ;^)
But Conrad would refuse it, on principal, anyway!!
George
Chris Timson
Ian Anderson <fro...@froots.demon.co.uk> writes
>> On the subject of amplification, how about banning it from the
>> sea front?
>
Be fair, the God Squad use PA too. I always used to really enjoy the
irony that the only people on the front who felt they required PA were
the ones with a Message which (if true) wouldn't have needed it.
Unfortunately the Andeans last year deprived me of that little bit of
sarcasm...
Chris
--
Chris Timson Have concertinas, will travel
and Phone (UK) 01225 863762
Anne Gregson For our home pages and for the Concertina FAQ:
http://www.harbour.demon.co.uk/
Tim.Shirley
SPBurris wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I find traditional music more exciting when it is
> played in a traditional manner. This is because my concern with the
> performance is not limited to the pleasant sounds being produced. I am
> also concerned with getting that neat feeling that I am sharing in
> something that is part of my heritage.
Of course. I was not suggesting that music played on modern instruments
was in any way superior to that played on original instruments using
techniques common at that time. Its just different.
>
> This isn't to say that my ancestors wouldn't have dithced their squeaky
> fiddles for midi input devices if the opportunity had been there. But
> they didn't have the opportunity, and they did just keep playing on those
> squeaky fiddles. Being near my ancestors means, therefore, being near
> squeaky fiddles.
And its nice to hear the music played as they would have played and
heard it. I play a wooden flute with no keys as well as my Boehm system
flute, and enjoy both. The modern flute is more accurate, but the
wooden one has a beautiful tone even if all the notes are not perfect.
>
> Besides, there is an athletic aspect to all this.
Do you mean aesthetic, or must I run a marathon?
> And there is a third factor -- easy production often means an
> over-simplification in craft. Consider how the convenience of a word
> processor removes that pressure to write a good first draft which is
> brought on by the limitations of pencil and paper. Too often my students
> have whipped off a quick draft, then gone over it with minimal care before
> turning it in. Likewise, some modern sound production technologies (such
> as a synth) makes it too easy to fill in that "empty sounding" place in
> the music with echoing chordal harmonies (a la Enya).
Of course. But many people enjoy the music of Enya and the like, and
who are we to say this is not music?
> Sorry for the long post.
It was very interesting. I don't think we disagree, by the way. My
point was that music has several aspects, only one of which is
traditional or original instrument performance. And that we should not
criticise or look down on those who enjoy other forms of music.
cheers
tim
Keith Dunnigan
: pmle...@wavetech.net (Royce Lerwick) wrote:
: >Anyone with any talent gets paid.
I believe Van Gogh sold exactly 1 painting in his lifetime and lived off
charity.
Keith Dunnigan
Orsino
Just another thought... some people have no talent and get paid a lot, look
at Gloria Jones the 80s singer....
--
"Hell is where there is the absence of reason."
----- Orsino -----
Orsino
This is true about Van Gogh.
There are some English folk singers who were very very talented but were
paid very little. Cyril Tawney for instance recorded some lovely music but
was paid hardly anything.
George Hawes
"Tim.Shirley" <Tim.S...@aph.gov.au> wrote:
>> And there is a third factor -- easy production often means an
>> over-simplification in craft. Consider how the convenience of a word
>> processor removes that pressure to write a good first draft which is
>> brought on by the limitations of pencil and paper. Too often my students
>> have whipped off a quick draft, then gone over it with minimal care before
>> turning it in.
A good analogy. But in either field it depends on whether you
are prepared to accept 'second class' work or performance! You
can (and I would) argue exactly the opposite way round. Because
newer resources make it so much easier to achieve competence,
they also open up to many more people the challenge of aiming
for something much better.
As you commented, not really any fundamental disagreements; just
differences in emphasis.
>Of course. But many people enjoy the music of Enya and the like, and
>who are we to say this is not music?
It is music - but it lacks the 'balls' of the early Clannad
(which was very accoustic in its basis) from which it derives.
Regards
George
Matt Griffin
In article <01bc80e2$d5227260$LocalHost@default>, "Orsino"
<Grafr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ahhh!
Fine precedence for my own "cult following".
Ever see the movie "Ed Wood"?
Matt Griffin
did...@shore.net
Frank Hamilton
"Orsino" <Grafr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>This is true about Van Gogh.
>There are some English folk singers who were very very talented but were
>paid very little. Cyril Tawney for instance recorded some lovely music but
>was paid hardly anything.
>--
Wouldn't it be interesting if Stephen Foster came back to collect his
past due royalties? Would he been in ASCAP or BMI?
By the way, most traditional folk musicians who laid the foundation of
the "Revival" were not all professional musicians. To be a
professional folk musician was something of a misnomer in the 20's and
30's. There are countless singers and players recorded for the Library
of Congress and Folkways Records who made no money or very little for
their efforts. That's why they called it "folk music" as contrasted
from the professional entertainer who traveled about playing on the
circuit. Why collect a song from someone who is ubiquitous in the
show business arena?
If it weren't for these "unsung" talented "amateurs" we would have no
folk music whatever.
Just a little historical perspective here.
Frank Hamilton
Clive Mitchell
In article <5otvek$p...@camel12.mindspring.com>, Frank Hamilton
<ham...@atl.mindspring.com> writes
>If it weren't for these "unsung" talented "amateurs" we would have no
>folk music whatever.
The same applies to all walks of life.
People are either creators or businessmen, and very rarely a mix.
--
Clive Mitchell
Royce Lerwick
On 24 Jun 1997 17:23:46 GMT, ke...@wubios.wustl.edu (Keith Dunnigan)
wrote:
And Van Gogh wasn't at the center of the most popular art school in
the known universe and the Celtic idiom is.
Plus, he played a damned poor fiddle and no bagpipes whatsoever.
Royce
Olin Murrell
Royce Lerwick wrote:
>
> On 24 Jun 1997 17:23:46 GMT, ke...@wubios.wustl.edu (Keith Dunnigan)
> wrote:
>
> >: pmle...@wavetech.net (Royce Lerwick) wrote:
> >
> >: >Anyone with any talent gets paid.
> >
> > I believe Van Gogh sold exactly 1 painting in his lifetime and lived off
> > charity.
> And Van Gogh wasn't at the center of the most popular art school in
> the known universe and the Celtic idiom is.
>
Huh?
Ever stood in a trad music festival campground, and heard 47 fiddles,
playing at 4 different campfires, all within 40 feet of you?
I swear, it'll make you think about throwing rocks at the next clown who
wanders by with a small case. ;^)
> Plus, he played a damned poor fiddle and no bagpipes whatsoever.
>
> Royce
Wasn't his fault. He had an ear problem.
Olin Murrell
Frank Hamilton wrote:
>
> "Orsino" <Grafr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >This is true about Van Gogh.
>
> >There are some English folk singers who were very very talented but were
> >paid very little. Cyril Tawney for instance recorded some lovely music but
> >was paid hardly anything.
> >--
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if Stephen Foster came back to collect his
> past due royalties? Would he been in ASCAP or BMI?
>
He'd be in whichever one he chose to sign up with, including a third
choice nowadays, SESAC.
> By the way, most traditional folk musicians who laid the foundation of
> the "Revival" were not all professional musicians. To be a
> professional folk musician was something of a misnomer in the 20's and
> 30's. There are countless singers and players recorded for the Library
> of Congress and Folkways Records who made no money or very little for
> their efforts. That's why they called it "folk music" as contrasted
> from the professional entertainer who traveled about playing on the
> circuit. Why collect a song from someone who is ubiquitous in the
> show business arena?
>
Go and look at those "collections," some time. Many of them are
copyrighted by one of the Lomax boys, which goes a long way toward
understanding why those from whom they were "collected," never got paid.
> If it weren't for these "unsung" talented "amateurs" we would have no
> folk music whatever.
>
Don't forget the "collectors" who DID profit quite nicely from those
"amateurs."
Ya wanna read an interesting treatise on the music bidness? Check out
"The Hit Makers," and it'll curl your hair. Stories of songs that made
millions while the writer/artist got a new car, and zippo else.
> Just a little historical perspective here.
>
> Frank Hamilton
--
Frank Hamilton
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>Go and look at those "collections," some time. Many of them are
>copyrighted by one of the Lomax boys, which goes a long way toward
>understanding why those from whom they were "collected," never got paid.
Who in particular?
>> If it weren't for these "unsung" talented "amateurs" we would have no
>> folk music whatever.
>>
>Don't forget the "collectors" who DID profit quite nicely from those
>"amateurs."
Not too many folk song collectors are riding around in Rolls Royces.
:) Can't say the same for some songwriters who made hits out of PD
songs.
>Ya wanna read an interesting treatise on the music bidness? Check out
>"The Hit Makers," and it'll curl your hair. Stories of songs that made
>millions while the writer/artist got a new car, and zippo else.
Been there. Had it happen to me on a smaller scale. Knew people.
Happens every day in all kinds of businesses.
As for the "Lomax Boys", they deserve every penny they ever made and
they are not millionaires. They did more for the American musical
culture than many unscrupulous songwriters and publishers who made big
bucks on PD songs. Alan probably has spent most of his money on
collecting and preserving American folk songs. John Sr. wasn't a rich
man, either.
There are two sides to the story, however. Shouldn't an arranger who
makes a PD song a hit get some credit? Or should the money go into
the pocket of the record company?
I think that Micheal Cooney is right. Open a fund for PD songs and
use the money to preserve, collect and foster folk music. Until that
day, thank God for the "Lomax Boys" and all of the great collectors.
They are owed much praise for their hard work on behalf of our
country's musical heritage.
My opinion.
Frank Hamilton
Olin Murrell
Frank Hamilton wrote:
>
> Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>
> >Go and look at those "collections," some time. Many of them are
> >copyrighted by one of the Lomax boys, which goes a long way toward
> >understanding why those from whom they were "collected," never got paid.
>
> Who in particular?
>
Just about anybody who ever got included in a collection. Of course, by
the time those collections occured, most of the original writers had
likely been folk-processed into oblivion.
> Not too many folk song collectors are riding around in Rolls Royces.
> :) Can't say the same for some songwriters who made hits out of PD
> songs.
>
Precious few have gotten "rich" off music in any form, but the Lomax
family certainly did pay their bills quite nicely off the profits of
those books. I am NOT dissing them, please understand, but they did, and
quite often at that, copyright works written by other people.
I've known many a folklore collector. John Henry Faulk was one of my
dearest friends, as IS the young John Lomax, of NashVegas. Certainly
they have all provided a service, but in most cases, they earned a
profit from it.
> >Ya wanna read an interesting treatise on the music bidness? Check out
> >"The Hit Makers," and it'll curl your hair. Stories of songs that made
> >millions while the writer/artist got a new car, and zippo else.
>
> Been there. Had it happen to me on a smaller scale. Knew people.
> Happens every day in all kinds of businesses.
>
And, that makes it right?
> As for the "Lomax Boys", they deserve every penny they ever made and
> they are not millionaires. They did more for the American musical
> culture than many unscrupulous songwriters and publishers who made big
> bucks on PD songs. Alan probably has spent most of his money on
> collecting and preserving American folk songs. John Sr. wasn't a rich
> man, either.
>
Yeah, like that unscrupulous lout who happened to write down that Dula
fellow's little tune. BTW, who said the Lomax Boys were millionaires?
All I said was they profited on the works of other writers.
> There are two sides to the story, however. Shouldn't an arranger who
> makes a PD song a hit get some credit? Or should the money go into
> the pocket of the record company?
>
Well, you and I both know where it's GONNA go. But, arrangers have
always had a place to claim their contribution to the song, and demand a
penny or two for its replication.
> I think that Micheal Cooney is right. Open a fund for PD songs and
> use the money to preserve, collect and foster folk music. Until that
> day, thank God for the "Lomax Boys" and all of the great collectors.
> They are owed much praise for their hard work on behalf of our
> country's musical heritage.
>
I have no problem with Michael Cooney's proposal. Sounds fine to me, but
raising the Lomax family to a pedastal, while denigrating ALL
songwriters into the same cesspool as music business suits goes a wee
bit too far for my taste.
> My opinion.
>
And, I respect it.
Frank Hamilton
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>Frank Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Go and look at those "collections," some time. Many of them are
>> >copyrighted by one of the Lomax boys, which goes a long way toward
>> >understanding why those from whom they were "collected," never got paid.
>>
>> Who in particular?
>>
>Just about anybody who ever got included in a collection. Of course, by
>the time those collections occured, most of the original writers had
>likely been folk-processed into oblivion.
Or they never would have been heard from in the first place if it
hadn't been for Alan. I believe that there are many original
songwriters who would do people a favor by being processed into
oblivion, folk or otherwise.
>> Not too many folk song collectors are riding around in Rolls Royces.
>> :) Can't say the same for some songwriters who made hits out of PD
>> songs.
>>
>Precious few have gotten "rich" off music in any form, but the Lomax
>family certainly did pay their bills quite nicely off the profits of
>those books.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same people. The Lomaxes I know
are hard working, dedicated and not particularly wealthy. They have
devoted their lives to the preservation of American folksongs and
other countries as well. They deserve every penny they've earned, the
old fashioned way.
I am NOT dissing them, please understand, but they did, and
>quite often at that, copyright works written by other people.
Please be specific. Many of the songs that you mention would probably
never have surfaced if it weren't for the Lomaxes.
>I've known many a folklore collector. John Henry Faulk was one of my
>dearest friends, as IS the young John Lomax, of NashVegas. Certainly
>they have all provided a service, but in most cases, they earned a
>profit from it.
And what they have given back, John Henry Faulk included, is as
important as the money they've made which was used for their research
and to subsidize their prodigious talents. They've helped many people
such as Woody Guthrie and Leadbelly to gain an international audience.
In the forties, most people couldn't care a bit about folk music or
songwriters in this idiom. If it weren't for Alan, we wouldn't know
Leadbelly, Woody or even Burl Ives.
>> >Ya wanna read an interesting treatise on the music bidness? Check out
>> >"The Hit Makers," and it'll curl your hair. Stories of songs that made
>> >millions while the writer/artist got a new car, and zippo else.
>>
>> Been there. Had it happen to me on a smaller scale. Knew people.
>> Happens every day in all kinds of businesses.
>>
>And, that makes it right?
No, it means that the excesses that you are referring to are not
peculiar to any particular business. I think the point is that no one
owes anyone a living by virtue of their being in the arts.
>> As for the "Lomax Boys", they deserve every penny they ever made and
>> they are not millionaires. They did more for the American musical
>> culture than many unscrupulous songwriters and publishers who made big
>> bucks on PD songs. Alan probably has spent most of his money on
>> collecting and preserving American folk songs. John Sr. wasn't a rich
>> man, either.
>>
>Yeah, like that unscrupulous lout who happened to write down that Dula
>fellow's little tune. BTW, who said the Lomax Boys were millionaires?
>All I said was they profited on the works of other writers.
Are you talking about Frank Profitt? Or Alan Lomax? Not sure what
your point is. As to the profit motive, which seems to be important
to this discussion, if it hadn't have been for the Lomaxes, those
writers would never have been heard from.
>> There are two sides to the story, however. Shouldn't an arranger who
>> makes a PD song a hit get some credit? Or should the money go into
>> the pocket of the record company?
>>
>Well, you and I both know where it's GONNA go. But, arrangers have
>always had a place to claim their contribution to the song, and demand a
>penny or two for its replication.
Not much of a place in my experience. Arrangers are generally on a
per-hire basis. This is unfortunate because they have made many a
poor song palatable.
>> I think that Micheal Cooney is right. Open a fund for PD songs and
>> use the money to preserve, collect and foster folk music. Until that
>> day, thank God for the "Lomax Boys" and all of the great collectors.
>> They are owed much praise for their hard work on behalf of our
>> country's musical heritage.
>>
>I have no problem with Michael Cooney's proposal. Sounds fine to me, but
>raising the Lomax family to a pedastal, while denigrating ALL
>songwriters into the same cesspool as music business suits goes a wee
>bit too far for my taste.
No it's a matter of appreciating the good things that people do. I'm
not saying Alan is a saint and I believe that he has made mistakes
like the rest of us. But surely we owe a large part of the Folk Song
Revival to him and so do many songwriters who have profitted far more
than he has by the material that he has unearthed.
As to denigrating all songwriters, the word "all" was never used by
me. Nor do I consider everyone in the music business unscrupulous,
however, I do believe that attention must be given to those who are
not part of the music industry in terms of their contributions to the
musical cultural level of our country. This includes many practioners
of folk music, collectors, amateurs, unknown singers that carry this
tradition, musicologists, educators, concert promoters and record
producers and not just the hit makers.
Cordially,
Frank Hamilton
Olin Murrell
Frank Hamilton wrote:
>
> Or they never would have been heard from in the first place if it
> hadn't been for Alan. I believe that there are many original
> songwriters who would do people a favor by being processed into
> oblivion, folk or otherwise.
>
Sigh. Of course there are songwriters who probably should be processed
into oblivion. I just don't happen to find that "collected" works are
inherently better than "written" works, especially in cases where the
writer(s) of "collected" works may well, in some cases, have received
little more than a thank you for their efforts.
> I'm not sure we're talking about the same people. The Lomaxes I know
> are hard working, dedicated and not particularly wealthy. They have
> devoted their lives to the preservation of American folksongs and
> other countries as well. They deserve every penny they've earned, the
> old fashioned way.
>
Please equate "paying their bills on time" with "wealthy." I don't
believe I ever said the Lomax family got wealthy. I said they profited
from others' original work. Seems to me that if you "collect" somebody
else's writings, put them into a book and sell that book, that would
clearly be the case.
> I am NOT dissing them, please understand, but they did, and
> >quite often at that, copyright works written by other people.
>
> Please be specific. Many of the songs that you mention would probably
> never have surfaced if it weren't for the Lomaxes.
>
Same defense used by the song sharks described in the "Hit Maker" book.
> And what they have given back, John Henry Faulk included, is as
> important as the money they've made which was used for their research
> and to subsidize their prodigious talents. They've helped many people
> such as Woody Guthrie and Leadbelly to gain an international audience.
> In the forties, most people couldn't care a bit about folk music or
> songwriters in this idiom. If it weren't for Alan, we wouldn't know
> Leadbelly, Woody or even Burl Ives.
>
Again, I don't believe I ever said their contribution wasn't important.
I just don't tend to place "collectors" on any kind of pedastal.
> No, it means that the excesses that you are referring to are not
> peculiar to any particular business. I think the point is that no one
> owes anyone a living by virtue of their being in the arts.
>
No. You're right about that. Noboby owes anybody a living by virtue of
their being in the arts.
> Are you talking about Frank Profitt? Or Alan Lomax? Not sure what
> your point is. As to the profit motive, which seems to be important
> to this discussion, if it hadn't have been for the Lomaxes, those
> writers would never have been heard from.
>
The point, if there really is one, is that I personally don't see much
difference in a songwriter profiting from another's work and a collector
doing much the same thing.
> Not much of a place in my experience. Arrangers are generally on a
> per-hire basis. This is unfortunate because they have made many a
> poor song palatable.
>
And, many a good song even better. Arrangements are not always on a
"for-hire" basis, and can be copyrighted. Is that, perhaps, the rub
here?
> >I have no problem with Michael Cooney's proposal. Sounds fine to me, but
> >raising the Lomax family to a pedastal, while denigrating ALL
> >songwriters into the same cesspool as music business suits goes a wee
> >bit too far for my taste.
>
> No it's a matter of appreciating the good things that people do. I'm
> not saying Alan is a saint and I believe that he has made mistakes
> like the rest of us. But surely we owe a large part of the Folk Song
> Revival to him and so do many songwriters who have profitted far more
> than he has by the material that he has unearthed.
>
Then, we are in agreement... sort of. :)
> As to denigrating all songwriters, the word "all" was never used by
> me. Nor do I consider everyone in the music business unscrupulous,
> however, I do believe that attention must be given to those who are
> not part of the music industry in terms of their contributions to the
> musical cultural level of our country. This includes many practioners
> of folk music, collectors, amateurs, unknown singers that carry this
> tradition, musicologists, educators, concert promoters and record
> producers and not just the hit makers.
>
When a folk song is dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the closet
and becomes that "hit" of which you speak, sombody will profit. My only
contention is that the writer(s), when they can be clearly identified,
should be in line for a few coins. And, I think it's fairly clear that
they haven't always been. It's true that you've never specifically used
the word "all" in describing songwriters, but you have used terms like
"unscrupulous" in a manner that leads me to believe that you place
songwriters well down the food chain from collectors. If that's an
unfair assumption on my part, then I appologize.
If you wish, Frank, we can certainly continue this discussion via
private email, continue it here, or drop it.
With respect,
Bob Cameron
>
> And what they have given back, John Henry Faulk included, is as
> important as the money they've made which was used for their research
> and to subsidize their prodigious talents. They've helped many people
> such as Woody Guthrie and Leadbelly to gain an international audience.
> In the forties, most people couldn't care a bit about folk music or
> songwriters in this idiom. If it weren't for Alan, we wouldn't know
> Leadbelly, Woody or even Burl Ives.
I was not aware that Burl Ives actually wrote songs,in the manner of Woody
or Leadbelly, or that he was a folk musician before becoming a
professional entertainer. I think he poularized a lot of publis c-domain
songs and works by other people. am I mistaken? I'm old enough, though to
have learned a lot of tunes by listening to his records way back in the
50's.
>
A point- some one ought to note the change in copyright laws since the
early collectors were doing their thing. It used to be the copyright
belonged to the publisher, or to whoever first recoreded the copyright
with the proper authorities.
Now, a work is copyrighted fromnthe moment it is put into a fixed form by
the author- written, taped, filmed, whatever. The author needs to prove
existence of a tangible fixed copy on a particular date, though.
If these collectors never paid for the songs, or gave credit where it was
due, then shame on them, but unfortunately the law was on their side at
the time.
Bob Cameron
> Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
snip
>
> >> There are two sides to the story, however. Shouldn't an arranger who
> >> makes a PD song a hit get some credit? Or should the money go into
> >> the pocket of the record company?
This may be a bit long, but i hope it clarifies the money trail a bit:
The arranger can copyright his arrangement of a PD tune- it's considerd a
"derived work" If he arranges a copyrighted tune, the holder of the
copyright is entitled to royalties as well ( in the US, the amount is
fixed by statute).
The songwriter or arranger gets royalties from two main sources-
Publishing- that's where the songwriter gets paid for the use of the
composition, and recording. The songwriter ( arranger ) gets paid for the
use of the song by the record company ( Mechanical reproduction rights,)
If he's also the performer, he gets paid seperately as an artist. The
record company only has a copyright on the recorded performance, not on
the song or arrangement.
In otherwords, If Elvis were to come back from the dead, or from the
local Taco Bell, and sing Amazing Grace, and Gotcha Records put out a CD
single of the performance, Gotcha records would have exclusive rights to
the recording, not to the song itself. Ski[ppie records would be free to
make a cover with the reincarnted Roy Orbison, or a digitally-rendered
ronal reagan for that matter. as long ats the songwriuter/ publisher/
arranger got their royalties- that would be cool.
Or, If I wrote an arrangement of, say The 79th's farewell to Goobieville,
and it was recorded by Simon Fraser University Pipe Band on Lismor
records, then later the same arrangemnet was used in a Movie, but not the
Lismor recording, a different on- how much would Lismor get for the use in
the movie? not a penny- how about the Band? nothing, How about me as
arranger- yep.
Christin Keck
Frank Hamilton wrote:
>
> "Orsino" <Grafr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >This is true about Van Gogh.
>
> >There are some English folk singers who were very very talented but were
> >paid very little. Cyril Tawney for instance recorded some lovely music but
> >was paid hardly anything.
> >--
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if Stephen Foster came back to collect his
> past due royalties? Would he been in ASCAP or BMI?
>
> the "Revival" were not all professional musicians. To be a
> professional folk musician was something of a misnomer in the 20's and
> 30's. There are countless singers and players recorded for the Library
> of Congress and Folkways Records who made no money or very little for
> their efforts. That's why they called it "folk music" as contrasted
> from the professional entertainer who traveled about playing on the
> circuit. Why collect a song from someone who is ubiquitous in the
> show business arena?
>
> folk music whatever.
>
>
> Frank Hamilton
Interestingly enough, Stephen Foster collected ALL of the royalties due
him on the songs he published. Those that are now being sung are no
longer under copyright to Foster, or his family. In point of fact, over
his lifetime, Foster was paid some $1300 MORE than his publisher
actually owed him. He was a sweet man and his publishing house wanted to
keep him from starving--they knew Foster would not accept charity, so
they "fudged" his royalty records and paid him extra when it actually
wasn't earned. Foster sold the rights to an awful lot of songs for very
little money--"Old Folks at Home" was sold to Edwin Christy (of the
Christy Minstrels) for $110 shortly after it was written.
I'm not criticizing your comments, but I thought it was an interesting
story, myself.
Personally, I think Foster would have been very happy to join ASCAP or
BMI. He didn't care about money so much, but he did appreciate the
protection that his publishing house afforded him. At the time he
published, songs were sold almost as soon as they were written to the
people who would perform them. There were not a lot of laws that
protected songwriters from their words being used to other melodies, or
their melodies being used with other lyrics, and anyone who wanted to
had a legal right to publish his/her 'version' of a song under his or
her name. This led to a lot of confusion about the authorship of some
songs, and Foster was writing and publishing in the heart of this
controversy. There were many songs he wrote, especially early on, that
were printed on sheet music bearing others' names. It wasn't illegal to
do so. Edwin P Christy did this with all of his performed material. It
wasn't until Foster got to be a household name, that he allowed his
publishers to handle the distribution of his music, but by then it was
too late to earn royalties on a lot of them. Out of more than a hundred
songs he wrote, he only earned royalties on about 20.
--
Christin Keck
PAULSBANJO
>>>: pmle...@wavetech.net (Royce Lerwick) wrote:
: >Anyone with any talent gets paid>>>>
If you push alot and push alot and...... and get lucky and
happen to have talent in an area that people have been educated to respond
to.
( you could be the most fantastic "Pan Pipe" player - most people will
only "pay" if your a "Rock Star"
Paul
Frank Hamilton
bcam...@berklee.edu (Bob Cameron) wrote:
>In article <5pbf1i$a...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ham...@atl.mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> And what they have given back, John Henry Faulk included, is as
>> important as the money they've made which was used for their research
>> and to subsidize their prodigious talents. They've helped many people
>> such as Woody Guthrie and Leadbelly to gain an international audience.
>> In the forties, most people couldn't care a bit about folk music or
>> songwriters in this idiom. If it weren't for Alan, we wouldn't know
>> Leadbelly, Woody or even Burl Ives.
>I was not aware that Burl Ives actually wrote songs,in the manner of Woody
>or Leadbelly, or that he was a folk musician before becoming a
>professional entertainer.
I understood that he had a background similar to many traditional
"informants". He wrote an interesting autobigraphy called "Wayfaring
Stranger". He indeed made his professional reputation as a folk
singer.
I think he poularized a lot of publis c-domain
>songs and works by other people. am I mistaken?
No, this is true.
I'm old enough, though to
>have learned a lot of tunes by listening to his records way back in the
>50's.
>>
> A point- some one ought to note the change in copyright laws since the
>early collectors were doing their thing. It used to be the copyright
>belonged to the publisher, or to whoever first recoreded the copyright
>with the proper authorities.
>Now, a work is copyrighted fromnthe moment it is put into a fixed form by
>the author- written, taped, filmed, whatever. The author needs to prove
>existence of a tangible fixed copy on a particular date, though.
This, however, doesn't necessarilly represent a legal copyright in a
court of law involving an infringment case.
>If these collectors never paid for the songs, or gave credit where it was
>due, then shame on them, but unfortunately the law was on their side at
>the time.
Again, it depends upon whether they knew where the authors or
composers were. Folk music by definition has been that the authors or
composers were anonymous.
Cordially,
Frank
Frank Hamilton
bcam...@berklee.edu (Bob Cameron) wrote:
>In article <5pbf1i$a...@camel4.mindspring.com>, ham...@atl.mindspring.com wrote:
>> Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>snip
>>
>> >> There are two sides to the story, however. Shouldn't an arranger who
>> >> makes a PD song a hit get some credit? Or should the money go into
>> >> the pocket of the record company?
> This may be a bit long, but i hope it clarifies the money trail a bit:
> The arranger can copyright his arrangement of a PD tune- it's considerd a
>"derived work" If he arranges a copyrighted tune, the holder of the
>copyright is entitled to royalties as well ( in the US, the amount is
>fixed by statute).
This is where the copyright law becomes murky. In some cases, an
arranger who does this is liable for infringment violation.
> The songwriter or arranger gets royalties from two main sources-
>Publishing- that's where the songwriter gets paid for the use of the
>composition, and recording.
The arranger usually is on a per-hire basis with the producer. The
question is what constitutes an arrangement? This has not been clearly
defined by the copyright law and it would probably have to be defined
in a court case.
The songwriter ( arranger ) gets paid for the
>use of the song by the record company ( Mechanical reproduction rights,)
Not necessarilly and in fact not often.
>If he's also the performer, he gets paid seperately as an artist. The
>record company only has a copyright on the recorded performance, not on
>the song or arrangement.
This is true. And standard practise.
> In otherwords, If Elvis were to come back from the dead, or from the
>local Taco Bell, and sing Amazing Grace, and Gotcha Records put out a CD
>single of the performance, Gotcha records would have exclusive rights to
>the recording, not to the song itself.
The record company would have the rights to the arrangement on the
recording but not necessarilly the arranger.
Ski[ppie records would be free to
>make a cover with the reincarnted Roy Orbison, or a digitally-rendered
>ronal reagan for that matter. as long ats the songwriuter/ publisher/
>arranger got their royalties- that would be cool.
Usually, the arranger would be cut out of the deal.
>Or, If I wrote an arrangement of, say The 79th's farewell to Goobieville,
>and it was recorded by Simon Fraser University Pipe Band on Lismor
>records, then later the same arrangemnet was used in a Movie, but not the
>Lismor recording, a different on- how much would Lismor get for the use in
>the movie? not a penny- how about the Band? nothing, How about me as
>arranger- yep
Yes but conceivably the 79th's publishing company could sue you as an
arranger for infringement violation. Even if you had registered your
arrangement with the copyright office. Somehow, you would have to
have the approval of the publisher or the songwriter to establish the
legal validity of your arrangement.
Cordially,
Frank Hamilton
Frank Hamilton
Hi, Olin,
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
I just don't happen to find that "collected" works are
>inherently better than "written" works, especially in cases where the
>writer(s) of "collected" works may well, in some cases, have received
>little more than a thank you for their efforts.
I'm not sure many of these anonymous writers would have been heard
from if it hadn't been for the work of folk song collectors. That
brings into question the communal theory of folk music. The
assumption is that there is an original writer for every song and that
over the years the song is changed sometimes for the better and
sometimes for the worse. When the song is made better by someone
else, who is to be thanked, the original writer or the one who
improved it?
>Please equate "paying their bills on time" with "wealthy." I don't
>believe I ever said the Lomax family got wealthy. I said they profited
>from others' original work. Seems to me that if you "collect" somebody
>else's writings, put them into a book and sell that book, that would
>clearly be the case.
It depends on who is doing the writing. And whether or not one can
determine the original author. There are many compilations of ballads
that would have been left to obsurity if they had not been collected.
>> I am NOT dissing them, please understand, but they did, and
>> >quite often at that, copyright works written by other people.
>>
>> Please be specific. Many of the songs that you mention would probably
>> never have surfaced if it weren't for the Lomaxes.
>>
>Same defense used by the song sharks described in the "Hit Maker" book.
Yes, but you're talking about popular songs written for the music
industry market. This is a different story. For example, the Beatles
have gone on record as saying that it's a compliment if they "nick"
someone else's song. I think that this is reprehensible but different
than collecting obscure folk material that would never be heard from
if it weren't printed somewhere.
>Again, I don't believe I ever said their contribution wasn't important.
>I just don't tend to place "collectors" on any kind of pedastal.
Nor should one place songwriters on the same pedestal. Each
contributes.
>The point, if there really is one, is that I personally don't see much
>difference in a songwriter profiting from another's work and a collector
>doing much the same thing.
Yes, there is a difference IMHO. One is outright stealing. The other
is preserving material that would be lost.
>> Not much of a place in my experience. Arrangers are generally on a
>> per-hire basis. This is unfortunate because they have made many a
>> poor song palatable.
>>
>And, many a good song even better. Arrangements are not always on a
>"for-hire" basis, and can be copyrighted. Is that, perhaps, the rub
>here?
One would have to be a Quincy Jones or a Burt Bachrach to demand a
percentage of the song material. Otherwise, arrangers are relegated
to a lesser postion in the cutting of the recording pie.
>> >I have no problem with Michael Cooney's proposal.
>>
>> No it's a matter of appreciating the good things that people do.
>>
>Then, we are in agreement... sort of. :)
>When a folk song is dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the closet
>and becomes that "hit" of which you speak, sombody will profit. My only
>contention is that the writer(s), when they can be clearly identified,
>should be in line for a few coins.
This is certainly true.
And, I think it's fairly clear that
>they haven't always been.
Often it's difficult to identify them particularly where variants of
folk songs have been found. For an example, John Jacob Niles has
claimed authorship of "Black is the Color of My True Love's Hair".
Jean Ritchie knew it in her family prior to Nile's minor version. She
sings it in myxolydian mode. Who really wrote it?
It's true that you've never specifically used
>the word "all" in describing songwriters, but you have used terms like
>"unscrupulous" in a manner that leads me to believe that you place
>songwriters well down the food chain from collectors. If that's an
>unfair assumption on my part, then I appologize.
I apologize if I conveyed the idea that every songwriter was inferior
or unscrupulous. That's certainly not what I meant. I just think
that each contributor should be respected for the contribution. I
happen to admire the great songwriters and never intend to denigrate
them. I also see that there is not a lot of interest in collecting
traditional folk music, these days. The singer-songwriter emphasis
have taken the label of folk music to identify what they do. The folk
song collector is not considered as important, today, IMHO. I find
this regrettable since the songs that the collector unearths are as
important as those that have identifiable authors and composers.
I think the discussion merits more imput.
I think we agree more than we disagree.
Cordially,
Frank
PAULSBANJO
I think most of the collectors gave credit for where they /or fromwhom
they/ collected the song. While they may not have given money. If they got
the "copyright" from publishing them in their books. They did the reseach
and the writing.
I also believe that most of these songs should be in "Public Domain"
but I think it takes a court case to put them there, which is very
expensive. (My opinion only)
Paul Schoenwetter
Bob Cameron
> bcam...@berklee.edu (Bob Cameron) wrote:
>
> >In article <5pbf1i$a...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
ham...@atl.mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >> Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
> >snip
> >>
> >> >> There are two sides to the story, however. Shouldn't an arranger who
> >> >> makes a PD song a hit get some credit? Or should the money go into
> >> >> the pocket of the record company?
>
> Not necessarily, unless they hired the arranger as in your example above.
> Ski[ppie records would be free to
> >make a cover with the reincarnted Roy Orbison, or a digitally-rendered
> >ronal reagan for that matter. as long ats the songwriuter/ publisher/
> >arranger got their royalties- that would be cool.
>
> Usually, the arranger would be cut out of the deal.
Unless Skippie used the same arrangement Elvis used. I 'm thinkuing here
of the many arrangements Nelson Riddle did for Sinatra, or Leroy
Anderson, Dick Hyman, etc. for the Boston Pops- the record companies
don't own those.
>
>
> >Or, If I wrote an arrangement of, say The 79th's farewell to Goobieville,
> >and it was recorded by Simon Fraser University Pipe Band on Lismor
> >records, then later the same arrangemnet was used in a Movie, but not the
> >Lismor recording, a different on- how much would Lismor get for the use in
> >the movie? not a penny- how about the Band? nothing, How about me as
> >arranger- yep
>
> Yes but conceivably the 79th's publishing company could sue you as an
> arranger for infringement violation. Even if you had registered your
> arrangement with the copyright office. Somehow, you would have to
> have the approval of the publisher or the songwriter to establish the
> legal validity of your arrangement.
I left unstated that the 79Th"s etc was assumed to be PD tune from the
1800's, sorry.
Actually, the songwriter and publisher have the right to decide who gets
first use this is called reproduction rights, but once a work is recorded,
they can't refuse subsequent covers, but must receive the statutory
royalties. At any rate ,what I was trying to establish was the difference
between publishing and performance royalties, which go to the
Songwriter(s) , Arranger(s) and Publisher(s), vs the recorded performance
royalties that go to the Record company.
To sate it briefly, the record company gets the money from sales and any
use of the P copyright ( performance) some of which goes to the publisher
and songwriter etc as royalties. The Record company does not derive any
royaltieds from The C copyright ( unless it owns the publishing house as
well, or has purchaed the copyright from the authors, etc.)
> Cordially,
>
> Frank Hamilton
Olin Murrell
Yo, Frank,
Frank Hamilton wrote:
>
> I'm not sure many of these anonymous writers would have been heard
> from if it hadn't been for the work of folk song collectors.
I'm not entirely sure I fully agree. It's my belief that a great song
will find its voice, irregardless of how it came to be.
That
> brings into question the communal theory of folk music. The
> assumption is that there is an original writer for every song and that
> over the years the song is changed sometimes for the better and
> sometimes for the worse. When the song is made better by someone
> else, who is to be thanked, the original writer or the one who
> improved it?
>
Well yeah. That pretty much describes the "folk process," i.e., the new
terminology given the tradition of the broadside ballads. As for who's
to be "thanked," it's my opinion that when the original writer(s) can be
identified, they and the new writer who brought it to commercial light
should share in that thanks.
Like you, I have a good bit of difficulty with a songwriter who tacks
his name onto a PD tune and copyrights it. The ONLY way I see that as
even remotely justifiable is if a significant change is wrought in the
song, and even then he should be able to claim copyright on only that
new portion contributed.
> It depends on who is doing the writing. And whether or not one can
> determine the original author. There are many compilations of ballads
> that would have been left to obsurity if they had not been collected.
>
Ah, but the Lomax books I own were all purchased at a book store, and I
paid full price for them. So, somebody got a few pennies of my purchase,
and in many cases it wasn't the original writers. I saw the Lomax name
as the "writer" on many of those songs.
> >Same defense used by the song sharks described in the "Hit Maker" book.
>
> Yes, but you're talking about popular songs written for the music
> industry market. This is a different story. For example, the Beatles
> have gone on record as saying that it's a compliment if they "nick"
> someone else's song. I think that this is reprehensible but different
> than collecting obscure folk material that would never be heard from
> if it weren't printed somewhere.
>
We ARE in agreement. I don't consider it at all a "compliment" if the
big boys rip off one of my tunes. But, consider how many "folk" songs
have managed to find their way into commerciality, and make a lot of
money for somebody. In those cases, I'd really like to see the original
writer(s) get the money, or at least an equal amount as might be paid to
the collector who put his/her name on the tune.
> >Again, I don't believe I ever said their contribution wasn't important.
> >I just don't tend to place "collectors" on any kind of pedastal.
>
> Nor should one place songwriters on the same pedestal. Each
> contributes.
>
Agreed! And, agreed! I'm a songwriter. I used to have this argument with
a local traditional music organization who would allow NO original music
at their shows. I kept asking about that fine old tradition of
songwriting, but never got much of a response.
The ONLY reason I would place songwriters higher up on the food chain
than collectors is that they created the work, while the collector just
found it. :-)
> >The point, if there really is one, is that I personally don't see much
> >difference in a songwriter profiting from another's work and a collector
> >doing much the same thing.
>
> Yes, there is a difference IMHO. One is outright stealing. The other
> is preserving material that would be lost.
>
Provided that the writer(s) are a) dead, and/or b) completely unknown,
that's probably a viable difference.
> One would have to be a Quincy Jones or a Burt Bachrach to demand a
> percentage of the song material. Otherwise, arrangers are relegated
> to a lesser postion in the cutting of the recording pie.
>
Not really. All one really has to have done is register a copyright on
their arrangement. There's no question they're further down in the mix
than publishers and writers, but any arranger CAN put themselves in the
way of cash if they take the right steps.
> Often it's difficult to identify them particularly where variants of
> folk songs have been found. For an example, John Jacob Niles has
> claimed authorship of "Black is the Color of My True Love's Hair".
> Jean Ritchie knew it in her family prior to Nile's minor version. She
> sings it in myxolydian mode. Who really wrote it?
>
Man, I've heard more versions of that song than I care to count. I'd
always thought it to be perhaps several hundred years old. I've not even
seen a version with Niles' name on it.
> I apologize if I conveyed the idea that every songwriter was inferior
> or unscrupulous. That's certainly not what I meant. I just think
> that each contributor should be respected for the contribution. I
> happen to admire the great songwriters and never intend to denigrate
> them. I also see that there is not a lot of interest in collecting
> traditional folk music, these days. The singer-songwriter emphasis
> have taken the label of folk music to identify what they do.
This is true, even when the label is misused all out of proportion. I,
for example, am a fingerstyle solo guitar and voice performer. I tell
stories in between, and sometimes during (ala Gamble Rogers) songs.
Therefore, defacto, I am a folk singer. Never mind that I do primarily
my own stuff, and that its influence is laced with folk, country, jazz,
rock and blues.
'Course, it's ALL "folk" music. Horses don't write songs much.
The folk
> song collector is not considered as important, today, IMHO. I find
> this regrettable since the songs that the collector unearths are as
> important as those that have identifiable authors and composers.
>
I think one of the reasons for that is that most of the homegrown music
has already been discovered. Musicology has seemed to turn more toward
studying an already discovered body of work. I rather suspect that it'll
enjoy a revival afer the passage of time, and the works of current
kitchen musicians and songwriters who never tried for commercial
success, or did try and failed, is dug out of attic trunks and found on
cassettes lying around in the odd spot here and there.
And, I will just bet you that in at least some cases, some of those
writers will somehow not be identifiable, either for real, or through
some mild chicanery.
> I think the discussion merits more imput.
>
> I think we agree more than we disagree.
>
Well, I've thrown a few more logs onto the fire. I think you're probably
right. We DO agree more than we disagree. I'm enjoying the discussion.
Hope somebody else is too.
Regards.
Peter Wilton
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> writes
>> I'm not sure many of these anonymous writers would have been heard
>> from if it hadn't been for the work of folk song collectors.
>
>I'm not entirely sure I fully agree. It's my belief that a great song
>will find its voice, irregardless of how it came to be.
...the agency in the twentieth century being the folk song collectors,
without whom there would have been no other agency, and therefore no
finding of its voice?
--
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/chant.htm
George Hawes
pauls...@aol.com (PAULSBANJO) wrote:
> I think most of the collectors gave credit for where they /or fromwhom
>they/ collected the song. While they may not have given money. If they got
>the "copyright" from publishing them in their books. They did the reseach
>and the writing.
A very reasonable comment, IMHO.
It also strikes me as downright silly to try apply contemporay
concerns about IPR to Lomax's work. Things WERE different then,
and while from our comfortable situations we can be wise about
what he might have done, all I've heard of him suggests he did
all he could - within the awareness of his times - to behave
honourably towards his informants.
No doubt if he did his collecting now he'd do it differently -
except, of course, he wouldn't be able to find the songs . . .
> I also believe that most of these songs should be in "Public Domain"
>but I think it takes a court case to put them there, which is very
>expensive. (My opinion only)
Yes, there's the whole question of whether a particular
informant had any claim to ownership of a song . . .
Regards
George
Frank Hamilton
bcam...@berklee.edu (Bob Cameron) wrote:
.
> I left unstated that the 79Th"s etc was assumed to be PD tune from the
>1800's, sorry.
Yes, that's right. PD material can be adapted without problems.
>Actually, the songwriter and publisher have the right to decide who gets
>first use this is called reproduction rights, but once a work is recorded,
>they can't refuse subsequent covers, but must receive the statutory
>royalties.
The "compulsory license". Arrangers may not as I understand it receive
a royalty under this license unless permitted by the publisher or
writer. The record companies will pay a percentage to top arrangers in
the business. But it is in my understanding, not a usual practise.This
is interesting because it would seem that arrangements of songs are
not considered of primary importance. And yet many a hit record has
depended on musical arrangements to transform the songs.
At any rate ,what I was trying to establish was the difference
>between publishing and performance royalties, which go to the
>Songwriter(s) , Arranger(s) and Publisher(s), vs the recorded performance
>royalties that go to the Record company.
Yes, that's clear. Thank you.
>To sate it briefly, the record company gets the money from sales and any
>use of the P copyright ( performance) some of which goes to the publisher
>and songwriter etc as royalties. The Record company does not derive any
>royaltieds from The C copyright ( unless it owns the publishing house as
>well, or has purchaed the copyright from the authors, etc.)
This is certainly correct. This is why ancillary publishing companies
owned by record companies keep them out of the "red". They can derive
income from the C rights. As a matter of observation, it is this
reaon IMHO that the Singer-songwriter was born. Out of economic
necessity for the record companies. Just my opinion.
Cordially,
Frank Hamilton
Frank Hamilton
George...@i-cubed.co.uk (George Hawes) wrote:
>Yes, there's the whole question of whether a particular
>informant had any claim to ownership of a song . . .
>Regards
>George
George, this is at the heart of what the nature of folk music is IMHO.
Who wrote "Barbara Allen" or "John Henry"? Even Wallace Saunder's
"Casey Jones" wound up considerably different than his original song.
Alan Lomax was interested in preservation and they copyrights were
used to finance his research which gets expensive. This is why the
Folk Archives at the Lib. of Congress needs support.
Thanks,
Frank
Olin Murrell
Peter Wilton wrote:
>
> Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> writes
> >> I'm not sure many of these anonymous writers would have been heard
> >> from if it hadn't been for the work of folk song collectors.
> >
> >I'm not entirely sure I fully agree. It's my belief that a great song
> >will find its voice, irregardless of how it came to be.
>
> without whom there would have been no other agency, and therefore no
> finding of its voice?
>
What you say is quite true. I've never said collectors played no part.
Obviously, they do. However, there are examples of songs that have
managed to find their way to popularity with no apparent assistance, as
in a publisher or a collector. Just got sung often enough that somebody
eventually recorded one.
Olin Murrell
George Hawes wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> A very reasonable comment, IMHO.
> It also strikes me as downright silly to try apply contemporay
> concerns about IPR to Lomax's work. Things WERE different then,
> and while from our comfortable situations we can be wise about
> what he might have done, all I've heard of him suggests he did
> all he could - within the awareness of his times - to behave
> honourably towards his informants.
>
I, for one, sort of agree with what you're sayign here. I'm not trying
to apply modern law to Lomax' work, but there were laws against using
other's property to one's own gain even then. They just were not really
very well written, or universally enforced. Even today, the legitimate
holder of IP must initiate the enforcement of IP laws.
All I've said of the Lomax boys is that they did publish material
originally written by others, and that to some extent, they did profit
from it. That's not conjecture. That's a matter of record.
Nowhere did I claim that what they did was illegal, but what collectors
did do, i.e., putting their own names on collected works, has certainly
fueled the continuing debate over IP today. All I've ever really tried
to say is when the orignial writer(s) of a work can be identified, they
should be in line for a piece of the income generated. With much folk
music, that identification process is often very close to impossible.
> No doubt if he did his collecting now he'd do it differently -
> except, of course, he wouldn't be able to find the songs . . .
>
No doubt.
> > I also believe that most of these songs should be in "Public Domain"
> >but I think it takes a court case to put them there, which is very
> >expensive. (My opinion only)
>
> Yes, there's the whole question of whether a particular
> informant had any claim to ownership of a song . . .
>
As in the other thread on "Tom Dooley." According to one legend,
obliquely referred to in this newsgroup, "Dooley's" name was actually
Dula. What was left out of the reference in the other thread was that
Dula was supposedly a fiddle player, and wrote the song himself, and
sang it on his way to the gallows for murdering his fiance and her new
lover. It was supposedly written down by someone in the crowd, just
waiting, I guess, for the Kingston Trio to come along. ;^)
Frank Hamilton
Hi, Olin,
Interesting points. A few short responses.
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
It's my belief that a great song
>will find its voice, irregardless of how it came to be.
In my opinion, not always. Some are still being found after years of
lying dormant.
it's my opinion that when the original writer(s) can be
>identified, they and the new writer who brought it to commercial light
>should share in that thanks.
Unquestionably right.
The ONLY way I see that as
>even remotely justifiable is if a significant change is wrought in the
>song, and even then he should be able to claim copyright on only that
>new portion contributed.
This is like separating water with a knife.
I saw the Lomax name
>as the "writer" on many of those songs.
Could you please identify these songs? Maybe Alan has some songwriter
skills.
In those cases, I'd really like to see the original
>writer(s) get the money, or at least an equal amount as might be paid to
>the collector who put his/her name on the tune.
This would be nice in theory.
I'm a songwriter. I used to have this argument with
>a local traditional music organization who would allow NO original music
>at their shows.
What they do is preserve and unearth the old songs.
I kept asking about that fine old tradition of
>songwriting, but never got much of a response.
Songwriting practises vary. It's not a definable tradition like the
caning of chairs.
>The ONLY reason I would place songwriters higher up on the food chain
>than collectors is that they created the work, while the collector just
>found it. :-)
I understand, but I believe that everyone should be recognized for
their contributions. In the case of the popular song, honest
producers, arrangers, publishers and executives should be given their
share of the glory.
>> One would have to be a Quincy Jones or a Burt Bachrach to demand a
>> percentage of the song material. Otherwise, arrangers are relegated
>> to a lesser postion in the cutting of the recording pie.
>>
>Not really. All one really has to have done is register a copyright on
>their arrangement.
But they still can be sued.
There's no question they're further down in the mix
>than publishers and writers, but any arranger CAN put themselves in the
>way of cash if they take the right steps.
The first way is to be famous. Clout counts. Sometimes an arranger
is appreciated after a hit is made. And the cash doesn't come their
way. And yet a songwriter can sometimes acheive monetary rewards
without being well-known.
I've not even
>seen a version with Niles' name on it.
Check out "I Wonder As I Wonder" and see if it doesn't make you wonder
where the copyright wandered.
>'Course, it's ALL "folk" music. Horses don't write songs much.
Big Bill Broonzy's quote was intended to keep the definition from
being too restrictive. But the other side is that you'd have to call
Schubert Lieder, Be Bop, Heavy Metal and Beethoven Symphonies folk
music because horses don't do them either.
>I think one of the reasons for that is that most of the homegrown music
>has already been discovered.
Repectfully disagree. It depends upon whose home were talking about.
Many cultures are often ignored in our country.
I rather suspect that it'll
>enjoy a revival afer the passage of time, and the works of current
>kitchen musicians and songwriters who never tried for commercial
>success, or did try and failed, is dug out of attic trunks and found on
>cassettes lying around in the odd spot here and there.
Then we need to clone the Lomaxes to help us discover these.
>And, I will just bet you that in at least some cases, some of those
>writers will somehow not be identifiable, either for real, or through
>some mild chicanery.
Not by collectors as much as unscrupulous publishers, producers, and
yes, songwriters.
>>
>Well, I've thrown a few more logs onto the fire.
Good ones too. I've enjoyed your comments. Thanks
Cordially,
Frank
PAULSBANJO
Olin Murral wrote
>>>>The ONLY reason I would place songwriters higher up on the food chain
than collectors is that they created the work, while the collector just
found it. :-)>>>>
Yes but suppose the anon. author is dead for the last 200yrs (or just
gone to another county or noboby knows who wrote that one) and the
changes in the song have come about because of the imperfect memory of the
various people who have passed the "song" on. Should the last person who
gave the song to the "collector" get the "author's" Share (And If so does
the person he learned from get his/her fair share - till you go back far
enough that the earliest one IS dead) And remember that most of these
"Collectors" were working when most "writers' sold their works to
publishers for peanuts unless they were well known.
Also you seem to think that its harder to sit at home and play with
words than lug a hand kranked wire recorder around the country and earn
enough confidence of people that they will recorde for you. Then get the
"Book" into acceptable form. (Which as a "Writer" you should respect.)
Find a publisher and get it printed etc. - You seem to have the Idea
that a "collactor" just sat there and waited for authors to come running
to them saying "Look here's a great folksong I just wrote, wont you put it
in your collection and make it famous"
You also seemed to complain that "folksingers" should accept
"singer - songwriter" as folk. Well It is not. (period) If you dont know
the deffinition of folk music I cant help it.-- Why should you as a
"singer-songwriter" expect to be more "Folk" than Hoagy Carmichael (
who's works "By NOW may be considered "folk") or for that matter Bach.
yours Paul Schoenwetter.
PAULSBANJO
>>>and the works of current
>kitchen musicians and songwriters who never tried for commercial
>success, or did try and failed, is dug out of attic trunks and found on
Then we need to clone the Lomaxes to help us discover these.
>>>(Frank Hamilton -answered)
MY ANSWER -- But then ITS NOT folkmusic - since it NEVER found its
way into the traditional culture of any group of people. (It may be
interesting as examples of "singer - songwriter" who didn't make it, It
may even give the historian - archiologist - folklorist an insight into
the culture of that period - BUT it is still not folk music.)
Yours Paul Schoenwetter
(I'm tired of the "I like it and the amps. arent too loud, so it must be
"folk music" sloppy thinking.)(Frank - didn't include you in this)
Olin Murrell
PAULSBANJO wrote:
>
> >>>and the works of current
> >kitchen musicians and songwriters who never tried for commercial
> >success, or did try and failed, is dug out of attic trunks and found on
> >cassettes lying around in the odd spot here and there. (Olin Murrell)
>
> Then we need to clone the Lomaxes to help us discover these.
> >>>(Frank Hamilton -answered)
>
> MY ANSWER -- But then ITS NOT folkmusic - since it NEVER found its
> way into the traditional culture of any group of people. (It may be
> interesting as examples of "singer - songwriter" who didn't make it, It
> may even give the historian - archiologist - folklorist an insight into
> the culture of that period - BUT it is still not folk music.)
> Yours Paul Schoenwetter
>
Ah, but who's to say it didn't make it into the "folk culture?" In the
days of the broadside ballads, I'm told cassette tapes and CD's were
rare, so the passing of a song was quite naturally oral only. Today,
it's quite easy for a song to lay around somebody's home, only to be
"discovered" at some later date.
If you wish to not recognize that as "folk" music, that's certainly your
perogative, but for some weird reason, I tend to subscribe to a bit
wider definition that leans toward inclusion, as opposed to exclusion.
> (I'm tired of the "I like it and the amps. arent too loud, so it must be
> "folk music" sloppy thinking.)(Frank - didn't include you in this)
>
>
I must surmise that, by specific omission, that I AM included in this
dismissal. If so, so be it. Though, I find interesting, those who
dismiss others with whom they may disagree as having "sloppy thinking."