So because of this thread I have been thinking about something. Even if Mack wanted to unload his info for free tomorrow there isn't a good avenue to quickly make it available to the masses. There are many people who have field notes from their own research. Some of it can become a book but lots of it could hardly make an article. That doesn't mean that kind of research is not worth while. We live in an age where technology can make almost all things possible. It would be quite doable and relatively inexpensive to form an online database that any of us can post items, photos, recordings, videos, interviews, essays, etc. Cloud storage is crazy inexpensive and sites are utilizing the amazing capacity for storage.
Each person that posts their research/information would be the only person (rules would have to be determined) who could alter any of the contents and could remove the data (though sometimes it can never completely removed). There could be a synopsis followed by an external link if someone wanted people to go to their own site. There could be area that researchers could advertise what information they had. This way the researcher could determine who gets particular information and under what terms. If I was to try to write a bio on Peetie Wheatstraw I would have no idea who had what information.
It could be sponsored or done with crowd sourcing, or other means of funding. It could easily be backed up by a third party if need be or backed up by select members (rules would need to be established) It could be set up where no one person owns the site but that it is a collective. If a site could be set up where anyone who joined the site could have limitless access to this kind of research who would be willing to jump in? How many people would be willing to donate? People like Wardlow and Evans as well as others have been amazingly charitable with their research. I understand that some information would be kept secret at the members discretion but I would hope far more would be donated than kept hidden.
Is there anyone who would volunteer some of their own research to such a cause, even if it were a link to your own site where the information was kept? Who all likes the idea? I would love to hear from researchers.
So because of this thread I have been thinking about something. Even if Mack wanted to unload his info for free tomorrow there isn't a good avenue to quickly make it available to the masses. There are many people who have field notes from their own research. Some of it can become a book but lots of it could hardly make an article. That doesn't mean that kind of research is not worth while. We live in an age where technology can make almost all things possible. It would be quite doable and relatively inexpensive to form an online database that any of us can post items, photos, recordings, videos, interviews, essays, etc. Cloud storage is crazy inexpensive and sites are utilizing the amazing capacity for storage.
Hi hardtime,
As a minor-league researcher/fieldworker, among my other activities, I find your idea intriguing. The 1st 'graph is completely sensible, but the problems arise afterwards.
Digitizing materials is much more expensive than you may realize. When I made archival copies of the Wardlow tapes for the Center for Popular Music, the hours were in the hundreds; and when my successor in the audio lab digitized the tapes (to archival standard: 24bit/192K) and put them on line, more hundreds of hours were invested. Multiply this by even a reasonable hourly rate and price the storage needed. And this is just a small group of materials.
Digitizing paper and photos to a high standard (600dpi TIFF) is also time consuming.
But more disturbing is the nature of "digital." Once it's out there it can go anywhere. Let me give you one example: When working with Professor John Work's collection, I turned up the photo of Muddy Water and Son Sims, taken by Dr. Work in 1942. This is the only known photo of Muddy before he moved to Chicago. With the permission of Work's sons, the photo became part of the John Wesley Work III Collection at the Center for Popular Music at Middle Tennessee State University.
The CPM is the agent for licensing the photo and Martin Scorsese, Bill Wyman, and numerous book publishers played by the rules and paid modest fees and, most importantly, GAVE CREDIT to the CPM under the photo. This was invaluable in letting interested folks know about the CPM's archives. Institutional archives live & die by patron usage---states, like Tennessee, must be convinced that the money they allocate to "fuzzy" enterprises (like music archives) are well spent.
Well, to make a long story longer, you can see that photo---unattributed---all over the 'net. I even know that some folks have printed and blown it up for a poster. The CPM doesn't play "cop" with all these people, but one can understand why LaVere does with the Robert Johnson photos.
The digital culture is leading a lot of people to the thought that everything should be free & available. Those of us who earn our living in music have seen this devaluation of music slash our income.
Sorry to go on so long, but I thought it best to express some collateral issues to what you so nicely propose....and which might be suitable in a better world, best, bruce
P.S. The Peetie Wheatstraw example: Your on-line meta-collection would take a lot of fun out of the re-SEARCH....which is the best part of writing a book, making a documentary, etc. I call it "gum shoe work." You find a starting point---the front end of a string, and keep pulling 'till you get to the end. One thing leads to another if you're paying attention. And there's not the temptation to think you've "found it all" as you might with a large database.
Thanks for such a detailed response. Your experience brings up areas I have not thought about. You are right that jumping into something all encompassing is completely unrealistic but starting small a miniature version could be done. Beginning such an endeavor might need to be done as a forum where each participating researcher would include a detailed synopsis of what they have as well as preferred contact information, this would be quite beneficial. Parameters and requirements that each researcher has could also be posted. For many people knowing who has what information would allow them to better research other sources and be even more. I keep going back to science since research is usually layered with the findings of previous research. It is quite easy to find in most areas of science. Since the actual research wouldn't be online would that make anymore willing to support such a site?
Having had posts deleted from this thread with out a "boy howdy".... or any other kind of shout out... I'm gone. I don't take kindly to that kinda censorship shit. G'luck & G'bye!!!
Well Tim, my only suggestion would be for you to go back and read the User Agreement (which reminds me that we need to get it on the Main Menu). I know it's confusing for some, but this is not a public forum, this is a private forum and so rules or laws of censorship do not apply. Basically you are a guest in my living room, we are amongst a group of friends, and if you do not follow proper decorum, as you agreed to, then we will find a way for you to comply.
"Basically you are a guest in my living room" THAT would explain the past few days extreme El Paso heat here on the left coast!! How'd you do that? Gary
Basically you are a guest in my living room, we are amongst a group of friends, and if you do not follow proper decorum, as you agreed to, then we will find a way for you to comply.
?Lonesome Dove? Legend Larry McMurtry on Fiction, Money, Womanizing, and Old Age
"McMurtry has just published his 46th book and his first novel in five years, The Last Kind Words Saloon. Like Lonesome Dove, it?s a fictional yet literal ?end-of-the-West Western,? this time with Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, and other characters from past McMurtry books frolicking toward the climactic shootout at the O.K. Corral, a defining moment in history that McMurtry rewrites as a mere accident.
"Ossana joined the interview about halfway through and sort of took it over. This was after McMurtry had talked about how the name of the new book comes from a song by the blues singer Geeshie Wiley, the subject of a recent The New York Times Magazine article, which in turn caused McMurtry to reminisce about Mack McCormick, the music collector in that story, and how, back in Houston, McMurtry once scouted 22,000 78s that helped keep McCormick afloat for several years."
Perhaps this has been mentioned earlier but the lyric "squat low papa... Keep on worrying me." is wrongly attributed to the song skinny leg blues when it should be eagles on a half. Unless I'm mistaken, I haven't bothered to check.
I'm not saying that this slip undermines the rest of the content or the fact checking of the article, but it doesn't instill great confidence.
On the whole I was very interested in the revelations but the writing did not hugely impress me. So no Pulitzer then. Good to see the country blues get a good airing in the popular press though. Undoubtedly this will ignite a spark in many who have not been exposed to this great music before.
Fkeller on here said a while back that he was getting in touch with Mack. Below is the post. Anyone know if this ended up happening or what came of it?
April 23, 2014, 06:12:25 PM ? So, my wife--who's been working in Houston and knows me only too well--has set up a meeting with Mack for me next Wednesday. I'll let you know all about it
Well, the latest I have heard about Mack (from Chris Strachwitz who tried to visit him in Texas) is that Mack is pissed off at EVERYONE and wants to put the kibosh on the book that he's co-writing with Paul Oliver. I think he has some mental illness issues (I say this with very much respect for Mack and his work). I think the NYT article might have been the straw that broke the camel's back and it's possible that because of that article, Mack may not allow ANY of his work to be published during his lifetime. However, this is all in the realm of "might" and nobody can say for sure what's going to happen with Mack. It is so sad. He has put in SO much amazing work and I do wish that he could get some enjoyment out of having done so much. I can imagine that he might very well be majorly put off at the NYT article. I certainly would be if I was him.
I just read the NY Times piece, and this whole damn thread. I am conflicted about the rightness or wrongness of all sides, and I'm totally entranced by some of the facts about LV and Geeshie I learned.
But of course, the important thing is the music.
I must be the only person who didn't learn about "Last Kind Word Blues" from Crumb. I learned it from a Harper's story a few years back. That was my introduction to the spellbinding notion of a record of which only two or three copies exist.
Anyway, good -- albeit contentious -- thread. I learn so much from just reading this board.
Well, the latest I have heard about Mack (from Chris Strachwitz who tried to visit him in Texas) is that Mack is pissed off at EVERYONE and wants to put the kibosh on the book that he's co-writing with Paul Oliver.
I don't think there were more than a dozen people on this site that thought that book would ever see the light of day. Mack has a history of playing wolf when it comes to his research. Sad but likely true reality is that he will probably die before allowing anyone to make to make his work public. His family will look to cash in what they can. We all know how many billionares have been made from researching this music we love. All of the researchers from the 50s-80s will probably die before the research will be made public, meaning that the people who have invested the most and contributed the most to this genre will pass into this good nite with their story needlessly incomplete.
Quote
But of course, the important thing is the music.
And last kind words might be one of the most emotionally powerful songs ever written. Wouldn't L.V. have loved to know that there are people today that think her and Geechie's contributions. I know she distanced herself from her musical past but I can't help but feel that she deserved to know that there are people passionate about the few recordings that she and her partner created. If only researchers could have known this information sooner. The sad part is they could.