WeenieCampbell.com
Country Blues => Weenie Campbell Main Forum => Topic started by: mdf on April 12, 2014, 09:06:38 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/13/magazine/blues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/13/magazine/blues.html?_r=0)
-
Was just going to post it myself. This is a fascinating article. A must-read if you love unearthing the life around the music we love.
-
Unbelievable.
Mind. Blown.
Thanks for posting.
-
And bravo, John Jeremiah Sullivan and Caitlin Love.
-
Unbelievable, this is thrilling history.
-
This is really better than fiction..amazing! Should net a Pulitzer for sure!
-
A gripping and fascinating article.
-
Brilliant. Let's hope McCormick's archives don't vanish.
-
Great thanks for posting...
-
Fascinating!
-
Very revealing and insightful read, thanks for sharing. Shows how much we?d have almost have lost, especially in the hints of "Had you come only xxx years ago!" Seems it?s the factors "coincidence" plus "good luck" plus, more than all, great (and long) detective work of a few individuals who keep precious biographical info from vanishing forever. Plus, detective work is ungrateful. I am feeling as sorry for the rejected, yet just as well so successful Caitlin as for McCormick himself for not being able to cope with The Monster. I have understanding for this.
Such articles make pre-war blues enthusiasts hungry for more that we now know that is hidden, yet only in unpublished state, in this great private archive :)
I have lots of hope now that many future blues articles and books can be written.
-
Fabulous stuff! Unbelievable.
I modified the topic to reflect the article, and I'm moving it to the main forum.
-
Was Mack McCormick a contributor to the article?
Am I understanding it correctly that they originally used information without privilege? Or did he turn it over to them originally?
Wonderful article though.
-
Randy, as I read it they used McCormick's information without his consent. There's a line where Sullivan writes something to the effect that he hopes McCormick isn't angry. I can't help but believe that the NYT legal department must have approved this. That was only one of the many things that blew my mind as I read the article.
I don't know how McCormick did his documentation, but if he didn't copyright his material, or put copyright notices on it, I suppose it could be fair game. Or, they could have used small enough excerpts that it falls within the fair use doctrine. Not really my area, but that doesn't stop me from speculating.
-
Hi Randy - Sullivan addresses this in the article and it is part of the tension of the piece for me. Mack McCormick gave Sullivan 5 pages of notes and letters about LV Thomas, which contained the key to it all, the the real names of LV Thomas and Geeshie Wiley, and the place Thomas lived, Acres Homes in Houston.
Then there are the 4 pages that Caitlin Rose photographed while working for Mack McCormick. These contain the interview with Thomas that fills in the details about playing with Geeshie, with Texas Alexander, recording in Grafton etc. These are the pages Sullivan wonders whether Mack has left out as a test, or possibly a joke, and that he is warned about when he contacts other researchers, who tell him to be careful and that the content sounds like fantasy. He does refer to it as a "quasi theft", but one which he admires, though there is no real explanation of exactly what happened. E.g was she photographing things as part of the work, was it taking snapshots of something she was intrigued by etc. Sullivan only found out later that she had taken photos of these pages.
All the other legwork and discoveries are their own, and we assume could have been done without the interview pages, since they already had names and places, though perhaps not the name of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church - I don't think it's clear whether this was also in the letters to Paul Oliver that Mack gives to Sullivan.
I would also assume that there would have been standard, professional fact-checking done on this article which would involve contacting those involved, including Mack McCormick. (edited to add as per Kokomo O's post: and quite right, the NYT legal dept.) And that he would have to give permission for the film footage and audio of him talking about his research -- including the part in which he points out that he is even more pissed than everyone else that he has not been able to deal with publishing his research. So I wouldn't say we know for certain that he approves of everything. Sullivan says he doesn't know whether Mack will be angry. And he also says he doesn't know whether the additional four pages were left for them to find, consciously or unconsciously. Perhaps too convenient an interpretation, but who knows. Like I said, for me, this whole story within the story is one part of what makes it a compelling read for me.
Aside from the obvious thrill of this discovery.
-
The writer might have signed a disclaimer initially accepting legal responsibility and covering the Times in case of use without permission causing problems, but if you go to the bottom of the article his name in bold is clickable and goes to his email if you want to write him.
-
I don't recall ever being a big fan of "multi-media magazine" presentations before, but I am now. Wow, maybe I'm just a country blues not, but I thought it was so effective being able to splice in the music, bouncing ball lyrics, audio interview, documents and pictures. Even a modern interpretation of Last Kind Words. What a treat!
-
U.B., of course you're right that McCormick must have consented, as you've inferred from the use of video of him in the piece, although you don't state it with so much certaintly. I'd completely overlooked that, perhaps because I haven't viewed the video yet--I read the piece on my phone, intending to go back and watch the video on my computer when I got home, and I guess it just didn't sink in. But it's just not plausible to think that McCormick consented to the use of his image in the vids but not to the use of his materials and the derivatives therefrom in the text. So I think this is partly his way of getting at least some of his collection of work out there to the public, and he's done so in a very engaging way.
And as others have noted, it's an enormous discovery--just to know that Geeshie Wiley was from Texas, and not from Mississippi or the East Coast, is really something. That there's more to it, and even the lesbian cultural angle, is pretty interesting, especially to me--I lost my 90 year old lesbian cousin last December, a real favorite older relative. Her life was, I gathered, interesting in the NYC of the '40s, '50s and '60s--I can only imagine Houston in the '20s.
I also note the gaps in one individual's knowledge of this music. Of course I knew Geeshie's work under her name. But I was unfamiliar with Elvie Thomas and Motherless Child Blues, even after more than 40 years of fascination with this music, and collecting it on vinyl and CD. And it is an incredible piece, so it's kind of amazing I don't have a copy on my hard drive, where all my CDs have been ripped. Yet another reason to thank McCormick, Sullivan and Love.
-
Excellent article and must agree that the multi media aspect of it really brings it alive in a way that words alone couldn't do.
-
the research was good (if a bit slimy) and the delivery fell short in some ways (playing fast and loose with dumb stereotypes in a few instances). overall a good read.
one thing is clearer than ever ... ms. thomas was a mf'ing gangster.
-
The larger question is whether or not McCormick's research into OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES rightfully belongs to him, and whether or not he should be declared non compus mentus as regards the safe keeping of his admittedly invaluable archive. Perhaps he should be compelled to turn it over to the LOC or the Smithsonian for safekeeping lest in a fit of bipolar despair he takes a match to the whole thing.
-
Yes, getting a taste of his mental state(s) and not knowing what his end-game might be I was thinking the same....
-
I was hoping it was a cunning and well executed plan concocted by Sullivan, Rose and McCormack to catch the eye of someone who could organise an acceptable offer (financially and academically) for his life's work ...
-
research into OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES
Phil,
This phrase that you used in your post gets at the aspect of the article that gave me the most misgivings. Certainly anyone who is a serious fan of this music is excited and amazed to find out more hard information on who LV Thomas and Geetchie Wiley were, but with regard to LV in particular, I found myself thinking that she chose to lead a quiet, non-public life after her time as a blues musician, and it was a conscious choice. She wasn't angling for better-paying work playing the blues or better record deals--she gave it up in all sincerity. I came away from the article feeling that I was pleased to have curiosity about who she was and where she came from satisfied, but as far as getting more information about her life, I don't need it or want it. Let her be remembered the most by the people whom she chose to make her community, is my feeling; it just seems most appropriate given her choices in life.
All best,
Johnm
-
Mack Has a website, well more of a web page. Anyone wanting to follow in this cats footsteps or think they can successfully talk him into revealing more of his hidden gems give it a shot. Tells how to contact him, then use the article to know when to call; since he doesn't want a knock on the door until 1am. I bet the has more seemingly lost gems of information like this in his huge stack of stuff.
http://nonjohn.com/Mack%20McCormick.htm (http://nonjohn.com/Mack%20McCormick.htm)
-
http://www.mackmccormick.org (http://www.mackmccormick.org) will take you to the same place
-
I enjoyed the article. Here's a follow up piece:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/behind-the-cover-story-john-jeremiah-sullivan-on-the-search-for-geeshie-and-elvie/?ref=magazine (http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/behind-the-cover-story-john-jeremiah-sullivan-on-the-search-for-geeshie-and-elvie/?ref=magazine)
While his research is about "other people's lives," it is still Mack's work and should be respected as such.
Upon reflection, it's unfortunate that no one was able to respond to Mack's request in 1976 in a manner that he felt was appropriate and acceptable to him. (Maybe they did, I can't be sure.) Perhaps the results of his researches would have been published over the years.
One thing that struck me was that Mack's bi-polar condition?a condition that can be debilitating--was almost treated as a sidelight. A little more understanding and insight into an illness that no one chooses?as well as its effects--might have been in order. But that's an article for another place and time.
-
Was just going to post it myself. This is a fascinating article. A must-read if you love unearthing the life around the music we love.
+1!
A very interesting article, a very nice reading!
I enjoyed the article. Here's a follow up piece:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/behind-the-cover-story-john-jeremiah-sullivan-on-the-search-for-geeshie-and-elvie/?ref=magazine (http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/behind-the-cover-story-john-jeremiah-sullivan-on-the-search-for-geeshie-and-elvie/?ref=magazine)
Thanks for that link, Stuart!
All the best,
B.
-
Mack's bi-polar condition?a condition that can be debilitating (http://Mack's bi-polar condition?a condition that can be debilitating)
My uncle committed suicide as he succumb to the debilitating effects of bi-polar disorder. He was a fantastic blues guitarist in the Asheville NC area in the 70s-80s and in Myrtle Beach SC in the 90s. As a side note to the impulsiveness that this disorder causes him to hijack my Blindmanbluesfourm name that I left open. His alcohol induced rants were quite cantankerous and a bit rude to some of the other members making it necessary for me to create another account and giving him the one I had. Since we had the same name it was pretty easy and in hind sight kind of funny.
Patience and understanding isn't a strong suite of todays society in the best of circumstances but when a loved one or even acquaintance is bi-polar it is essential that patience becomes an acquired trait.
-
Considering Sullivan's apologetic tone, and the fact that McCormick excommunicated him with a letter, I'm skeptical that McCormick gave this article his blessing. Perhaps he was filmed prior to the excommunication. Sullivan probably gave McCormick the false impression that the article was going to be about him. Was the material stolen? We don't have an idea what McCormick's agreement with Caitlin Rose Love was, but if he fired her, it would be reasonable to assume that she was not given any intellectual property rights to his material.
Sullivan brushes all this aside with the defense that an author is not entitled to his own manuscripts or research if the culture decides the research is important. Somehow I don't think Sullivan would agree to the appropriation of his own work this way. Who decides what's culturally important? Wiley and Thomas are highly obscure, barely known artists. Fred Ramsey's research on the far more important Buddy Bolden sat in his file cabinets for decades. Was a third party entitled to photograph his manuscripts without his permission and publish that material under their name just because they decided the public had a "right" to know about this important artist? I don't think so.
-
JohnM,
Very good point, and one that occupies the greyest of grey areas in the ethical spectrum. There are many precedents. Kafka's friend ignoring his instructions to destroy all his works at his death (thank god!) .
Ruskin burning Turners that he felt reflected poorly on the artist, including some erotica, Clement Greenberg's vandalization of sculptures by David Smith by stripping off the paint Smith had chosen to paint them with. Probably many more.
While I sympathize with the position you detail, my feelings about this are complicated. When an artist CHOOSES to make their work part of the public landscape, by for example releasing a recording, it seems to me that they are knowingly and willingly sacrificing some right to privacy. Does the artist get to determine the parameters of that privacy? In theory they should be able to do so, but as we know those parameters are rarely observed or respected, and this is something every artist also knows or finds out. So I don't think we need to be completely hands off when it comes to people like L.V. in spite of their desire to sink into obscurity. If part of the function of art is to present a goal for others to aspire to, and I think this must be the case, then there is a certain responsibility of availability attending being an artist.
Researchers into the work of artists however have absolutely NO RIGHT to assume ownership of the material or information they collect and to determine its fate. They are conduits pure and simple and need to respectfully collect the data that interests them and allow it to become accessible to the public in an efficient and timely manner. As you can tell I have zero sympathy for McCormick's assumption of artistic temperament. Its not HIS to have!
Also we have no way of knowing how the L.V. of long ago would respond to a world in which Lesbians were no longer in the closet, but had a fair degree of social acceptance, and her music was being discovered, admired, loved and imitated by hoards of young folks. She may very well have embraced that situation. Its hard to imagine why she wouldn't have. As far as the Church being an inhibiting factor, we know it was for Rube Lacy and Thom Dorsey and some others, but wasn't for Gary Davis, Robert Wilkins and many others, so who knows?
-
Researchers into the work of artists however have absolutely NO RIGHT to assume ownership of the material or information they collect and to determine its fate. They are conduits pure and simple and need to respectfully collect the data that interests them and allow it to become accessible to the public in an efficient and timely manner. As you can tell I have zero sympathy for McCormick's assumption of artistic temperament. Its not HIS to have!
That certainly is an interesting perspective. So, researchers have no right to their own work, regardless of how many hours and dollars they spent acquiring said research. What's stopping you from breaking into Paul Swinton's house so we can all assert our "right" to his Blind Lemon research?
-
Let me try to come at the question of what right Sullivan, Love and the NYT might have to McCormick's work about LV Thomas from a technical rather than a moral perspective, although I'll say a little about that too. The technical is natural to me; I'm a lawyer, I work on startups and although I'm not an intellectual property lawyer by training or practice, I end up dealing with IP issues frequently.
I think that McCormick certainly could have had rights in his research on Thomas, but to perfect those rights, he probably would have had to have copyrighted his work. The universe of things that a person can have rights in is much broader than artistic creations, inventions and the like--after all, most non-fiction works are copyrighted. McCormick is not a stupid or naive guy; he probably did copyright his work, if not by filing then by putting a copyright stamp on the document. Moreover, the NYT is neither stupid nor naive, and it also has what lawyers call prudential considerations--it's not in the business of stealing others' intellectual property when its own lifeblood is its IP. So I can't imagine that the NYT published McCormick's work, or work derived from it, without his permission.
Further, I feel certain that the NYT would only have published the video and images of McCormick with his consent. And I can't imagine he would give his consent if he understood that the video and images would be part of an article that contained purloined material from his archives.
Now, once you reach those conclusions, I think you don't need to think about the moral issues regarding the specific subject matter of the article and their publication, as regards McCormick, right?
Now, the question regarding whether Thomas would have wanted the information about her to become public, is a different story. Clearly, it's a question she can no longer answer, having passed, and not being here to answer it, the capacity to answer passes, as any asset might, to her heirs. Not having descendants, it's probably not clear who her real heirs are, and she didn't leave a literary executor as Kafka did. But I gather from the article that enough of her family spoke with the reporters, and were keen to get her story out, that we can conclude that their will was that the newspaper do so, and that this is sufficient substitute for her will at this late date. I suspect this is not the greatest of answers, and that it will probably not satisfy all, but I think it's probably the best answer one can give.
-
@Gilgamesh
I don't know where he lives >:D
-
I think "excommunicated" is perhaps a little strong. It's Sullivan's contact with Mack McCormick's daughter that causes the end of communication, not theft of research, and even then Sullivan says "He wrote me a letter saying thanks for trying". I also think this particular case is somewhat trickier than a B&E at any given researcher's house, if only because we don't know all the circumstances. Plus much of the information the article fleshed out was not Mack's work, but uncovered by Sullivan and Rose later based on leads he gave Sullivan, or it was material Mack McCormick specifically gave to Sullivan. If a reporter is handed information, odds are they will report it if it's deemed to be of interest.
The interview with Sullivan that Stuart posted a link to addresses the questions being brought up about expectations of privacy. "Unfortunately for her it kind of doesn't matter. The music she made was so good that it has importance in American culture." It's perhaps a little cold, but I have to agree. Once you are a figure of any kind of historical importance, then the public's interest and the whims of publishers will determine what gets shared. One can assume Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been thrilled with researchers uncovering his relationship with Sally Hemings, nor would she. But I think the response would be the same: "Unfortunately for them, it doesn't matter."
That interview with Sullivan also expands on how the people from Mount Pleasant Church got involved in the search as well. This is not just one person working to uncover what happened to her, but her church community eager to learn more about her, and share information about her. Likewise the video in the original article featuring the family members -- this was a great part of the multimedia presentation for me, seeing those relatives remember her and helping to present a portrait of a complex woman.
Kokomo O, the only reason I'm not expressing certainty that McCormick gave permission is that it is not stated explicitly. I suspect like you that the most likely answer is he gave some kind of consent. If not, then maybe they'll have a lawsuit on their hands soon enough. Though that would take money.
Last thing, it's interesting to read Sullivan's hope that the article may help uncover more information about Geeshie Wiley, but also generate interest among organizations with the resources to help Mack McCormick do something about preserving and curating his archives.
(If anyone does run into Paul Swinton, please tell him we really want to see that Lemon book, but legally. ;-) )
-
This may be completely peripheral but there is currently a series on UK TV about hoarders. Sometimes it's rubbish that they hoard, throwing nothing away and live in squalor but usually it's genuine collectables that overwhelm their lives and homes.
The pattern is often the same. These people state that they want and need help but find constant, often ingenious, ways of frustrating the helpers.
At the end of the process they express gratitude for their new life but frequently slide back into their old ways.
I'm in awe of this research and grateful to the author and his assistants. No doubt selfishly I hope for more.
-
I tried to sit on the sidelines for as long as I could on this. But after reading many of the responses to this incident and becoming quite amazed at the responses to the article, thought it necessary to point out just a few things. And to ask a few questions that, I believe, aren't being asked.
First, it is quite obvious that Ms. Rose was a plant sent more than likely from the writer of the article, considering they both have ties to Mississippi and this http://www.oxfordamerican.org (http://www.oxfordamerican.org).
So why are we not asking about the long term deception? And why was she fired? More than likely because McCormick began to catch on to what was happening.
Second, as pointed out by a writer who wrote a article previously on McCormick says: ?Yes, the new John Jer. Sullivan @NYTmag story is amazing,? Michael Hall, a senior editor for Texas Monthly, wrote on Twitter, ?but there?s nothing ?quasi? (his word) abt the theft that led to its amazingness.? And the writer plainly admits that Mack was not in on it all here: http://observer.com/2014/04/the-story-behind-john-jeremiah-sullivans-times-cover-story/ (http://observer.com/2014/04/the-story-behind-john-jeremiah-sullivans-times-cover-story/)
Also, when it comes to copyright - copyright is on the document at time of creation. You do not need an arbitrary symbol to say something has a copyright. But this theft actually goes beyond legal ramifications in my mind as it, instead of opening the door to McCormick having more trust, this does the opposite. And if (the writer) or we are truly concerned about this archive why would he risk spoiling the whole of the work on two utterly obscure (to the general public) musicians when, if done correctly, all could be preserved.
Which brings me to this: what was the need to bring this out now? Could he not, if he was concerned about the so-called "monster", work behind the scenes on both securing its safety and the additional research pertaining to the two blues artists? After all, this was not material on Thomas that the world was needing right this moment. After McCormick died, he could have released the information and that extra time would have meant nothing in the scheme of things.
This is something we should all be concerned with. And I truly hope that the writer of this article did not sacrifice the whole of the archive for a sliver of recognition for himself.
-
Some more grist for the mill:
http://observer.com/2014/04/the-story-behind-john-jeremiah-sullivans-times-cover-story/ (http://observer.com/2014/04/the-story-behind-john-jeremiah-sullivans-times-cover-story/)
-
I can see both sides of the debate. For those that love the history of the people, their lives, their stories, the complexity of personalities, for those of us who want to put a person and a life to the music that was written, his quasi-theft is justified. Imagine if everything we now know about classical composers, even the obscure; historical figures in history, politicians, ancient philosophers, and poets were lost because the one person who had the knowledge didn't share it until all the people who could verify the facts were dead (though this did certainly happen.) Imagine Van Goghs life being lost. He was obscure in his life and if he were black this could have easily happened to him.
For those of us how only care about the music and don't really care about who the person was and believes that their lives should be completely private, losing this knowledge isn't a big deal. Who's right is it of us to want to know those details anyway. Mack and other researchers have no obligation to share their knowledge, not with us, not with anyone. It is their knowledge and if history dies with them well so be it. It would have been lost anyway without the researcher. Those of us that feel like this hate what Mr. Sulllivan has done we hate how he took advantage of an old man, no matter how complicated or cantankerous he or she may be.
I am glad that Vincents brother shared the life of Van Gogh with the world. I am glad that the amazing Arabic mathematicians that researched and developed advanced mathematics and the geniuses like Nikola Tesla who research and develop scientific breakthroughs didn't die before sharing it with the world. Am I glad that even though L.V. and Geeshie are seen by some as utterly obscure musicians that their story mattered to a couple of people. But like Bluesdownsouth I hope a match isn't lit to the whole kit and kaboodle and all other research is lost.
But before I condemn the two researchers further I will acknowledge that I have done nothing more than write one letter to Mack. I didn't quit school and go to Texas. I haven't tried to develop a relationship with Mack and travel to Houston to try to do things "the right way" and to my knowledge no one else has either. A website has been up for years where Mack has openly asked people to help him with it. I have failed to do more than write a letter pleading with him to ensure his research ends up in good hands. They have done more than I and more than anyone I know to try and open Mack's Pandoras box. LV and Geeshie were able to escape and for that I am grateful.
Now we have to hope that Macks daughter isn't so jaded against the research that she feels consumed too much of his time that it ends up in a trash heap. If you think something like this can't happen think again. For some of us it would be a tragedy of Maoist proportions. To others of us, at least we have the music. But is that all that really matters?
-
Also, when it comes to copyright - copyright is on the document at time of creation. You do not need an arbitrary symbol to say something has a copyright. But this theft actually goes beyond legal ramifications in my mind as it, instead of opening the door to McCormick having more trust, this does the opposite. And if (the writer) or we are truly concerned about this archive why would he risk spoiling the whole of the work on two utterly obscure (to the general public) musicians when, if done correctly, all could be preserved.
Astute observation. I had similar fears myself. The writer built up some trust with McCormick, apparently a rare privilege, then betrayed that trust by going behind his back to contact his daughter. What a stupid, selfish thing to do. If the L.V. Thomas interview was used without McCormick's permission, which it apparently was, that was yet another betrayal of trust. Because of this behavior, I seriously doubt McCormick will be open to another writer visiting him again, to everybody's loss.
-
With all respect to the salient observations about this story and its writing--as well as the caveat that I don't know all the facts nor the back story--I will point out that the man is a reporter and felt obligated to track down any and all leads. I don't know if he broke trust or not--no comment there, maybe yes, maybe no. But with regard to Mack's daughter, I don't recall reading Mack ever saying she was off limits (if he did, I've forgotten and apologize) and I have to at least respect the journalistic intent to track down any and all leads. The story itself was about the entirety of this situation: the existence of the Monster, the conflicted man who created it, its current state and the tantalizingly near treasures it may hold. As much as it makes me wonder about the ethics of obtaining and releasing the documents about L. V., etc. (and tracking her down), it's not the entire story.
At any rate, I enjoyed reading it and I've enjoyed reading its response in this community. Thanks!
-
The original collector of the information has the ownership rights.
ie. Interviews, research, notes...etc.
I've been shown some amazing items from different collectors that aren't public but it is because it is that collector's livelihood and hard work and reputation that would be violated. I personally think, based on my understanding of the events in the article that the transmission of the photos was the violation to Mack McCormick.
The detective work, however, between the two writers, was creative and was a great piece of work!
-
Once again I have to assert that all that belongs to McCormick is the expectation of some reasonable recompense for his time spent researching. He has NOT as far as I know created ORIGINAL MATERIAL! He has merely compiled information about other people who did. Holding it for ransom to the highest bidder, or hoarding it due to some manifestation of mental illness is not a sustainable position in my view. I think concerns about the safety of this archive are real and that if he does not willingly donate or sell it to a responsible (and fireproof) organization, the court should appoint a guardian to insure its safety and transference to a place of safe keeping. Surely the history voluntarily GIVEN him by the artists, and their acquaintances, is of more importance than his claim of a right as to its disposition. They are the ones who willingly participated, usually with the hope and understanding that their story would be told. To prevent its telling is a betrayal of the means by which it was obtained. VERY distasteful!
Jonas Salk, inventor of the Salk Polio vaccine which saved countless lives, gave away his discovery (read years & years of hard work and hard research) free, that's right..no patent, no royalties..just free.
-
I think what we all can agree on is this: that the material that McCormick collected is of significant importance and should be preserved. I'm also guessing and hoping that this most recent article is not the first time most here would be hearing McCormick's name. That is why I am surprised that here this *new* guy comes along who admits that what he has done is "
quasi- theft" and yet we do not, as a community, rally around the man who we know has done great work and was there when it was happening. Since when did we become OK with not asking questions and just say, "great article." And thanks for those few that have here.
And for those unfamiliar with Mack's work, please see Lightnin' Hopkins, Mance Lipscomb, Henry Thomas, and this:http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/mack-mccormick-still-has-blues. Of which, this is just a simple overview:
"After McCormick's decades in the field, he has amassed one of the most extensive private archives of Texas musical history in existence. He has hours of unreleased tapes, perhaps twenty albums' worth of field and studio recordings by Hopkins, piano players Robert Shaw and Grey Ghost, Lipscomb, zydeco bands, and the polka-playing Baca Band. He took pictures everywhere he went and owns some 10,000 negatives, many of famous artists and many more of the army of unknowns he rescued from oblivion. Then there are his notebooks, which are like the Dead Sea Scrolls, holding thousands of pages of field notes and interviews testifying to the amazing diversity of Texas music, not just blues. Maybe the most important thing McCormick did was to document the lives and music of a broad group of some of the American century's most-influential musicians, people like Lipscomb, Thomas, Hopkins, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Leadbelly, and Blind Willie Johnson. Much of the archive sits in storage in Houston, much more at a place McCormick owns in the mountains of Mexico. And it's in danger. The pages are fading, the tapes need restoring, and McCormick is sufficiently hoary to worry about dying suddenly with no home for it all. As Strachwitz says, "It would be a horrible tragedy if all his stuff disappeared."
This is not to say that there should be a witch-hunt but we must ask the simple question of whether pulling this small bit of info on just 2 artists (for his benefit or interest) was worth the cost of everything. There is ample evidence that the writer of the article had been looking into Wiley for years and if we are to assume that Ms. Rose was sent by him, no wonder she had photographs of this exact material out of the mountain of documents.
And this: "I?d always dreamed of doing blues research like this, the way they did it back in the ?50s, the way Mack had done it. I knew what he meant now when he said that what he did wasn?t research, it was search," I think is one of the keys. But, sorry, you are not doing blues research the way Mack did. You took from what Mack did and instead of doing your piggybacking in secret and wait until either he was gone or the rest of all of his hard work was secured, you couldn't wait to go to the NY Times. And without as much as a credit at the end of the piece to the man himself, the one who provided you everything, without which you would still be lost in Mississippi somewhere.
So, I conclude: in this day and age and with crowdsourcing, etc and from the small circle from which Mack still does have faith in - let us prove that we do respect the ones that brought us original work - like Mack. The same way we respect the Lomax's. Because Mack has done it. On the ground. And think about all those recordings he has in addition to the wealth of biographical information. All of this could bring a hundred Thomas and Wiley stories and most of all, respect to the man who spent much of the prime of his life collecting it.
-
That is why I am surprised that here this *new* guy comes along who admits that what he has done is "quasi- theft" and yet we do not, as a community, rally around the man who we know has done great work and was there when it was happening. Since when did we become OK with not asking questions and just say, "great article." And thanks for those few that have here.
I think the "great article" comments are perfectly understandable and show the CB community's hunger for new information on the artists and music they love. The big picture issues, e.g. copyright ownership, quasi-theft etc, are not nearly as attractive and take a while to sink in. Let folks at least enjoy a minute of glory. It was a great article.
I think the larger worry is not if some *new* guy is going to offend Mack (by contacting his daughter, or quasi theft, whatever) so that he never gives up "the monster" - because it is clear to me, after 50 years of waiting, that he is not going to give it up no matter how much "egg walking" everyone does - the larger danger is that this old man, with whatever mental problems he has, is going to forget he left his oven on one night and burn the whole place down.
Rally around Mack? IMO, 'the monster' is Mack's power and reason for being, The Smithsonian, crowdsource funding - whatever you want to fantasize about - apparently will not budge him. He is holding an important part of American culture hostage. I agree with O'Muck -- it's not his to hold. It belongs to all of us. So culturally rich and important, that IMO, contacting his daughter was a reasonable tact.
None of us experienced Sullivan's interaction with Mack. But Sullivan has made a calculation based on this experience.
-
Uncle Bud, a couple of small observations, and one larger one--if McCormick wants to sue, there's no better place than south Texas. You can find plenty of plaintiff's lawyers there, and many will take a case on contingency. Of course, establishing damages will be difficult in this case.
I think the consent issue is a little complicated. My strong suspicion is that McCormick consented somewhat early on in the process, then the apparent theft of his information occurred, the article got completed, he never revoked his consent, and they went to press. But we'll probably never know for certain unless there is a lawsuit.
The larger observation is that I do think as a matter of law that Randy's right--that McCormick at least potentially had rights in the information he collected regarding LV Thomas. Whether he effectively protected that information, either by copyright or by contract, and then kept it protected, is an open question. It is also legitimate to ask, as you do, whether the law ought to grant him those rights.
-
First, it is quite obvious that Ms. Rose was a plant sent more than likely from the writer of the article, considering they both have ties to Mississippi and this http://www.oxfordamerican.org (http://www.oxfordamerican.org).
So why are we not asking about the long term deception? And why was she fired? More than likely because McCormick began to catch on to what was happening.
I hadn't considered that possibility until you mentioned it, since Sullivan presents Caitlin's apprenticeship to McCormick as something independent of his own interviews with the man. I certainly thought it was unusual that a 21-year-old would independently (a) know or care who McCormick was, and (b) be so interested in his work that she was willing to leave school and move to another state to become his understudy. It could happen, but the fact that both Sullivan and Caitlin are associated with "The Oxford American" magazine (based at the University of Central Arkansas) makes one suspect there is more to the story.
The fact that she would have photographs of the exact interview, out of the thousands of presumed pages of the Monster, that Sullivan wanted the most, at least suggests a potential plausibility to this conjecture. That would mean that Sullivan was lying when he asked her if she, perchance, had a copy of the Thomas interview manuscript.
I guess the only way to clear this up is to get McCormick's side of the story. But I'm not holding my breath.
-
On Geeshie Wiley?s Trail By Caitlin Love
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/on-geeshie-wileys-trail/ (http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/on-geeshie-wileys-trail/)
-
It seems like there might be a way to decode qualities of voice, like a vocal DNA code that could be used to track down living relatives of people who've left only a voice behind.
-
Has anyone else noticed that the voices in the dialogue preceding Pick Poor Robin Clean show that "Gitchie" is the younger less gruff voice and "Slack" is actually the louder, tougher voice, the voice that is singing on "Last Kind Words", which would mean the LV Thomas is actually singing on that track and Geeshie Wiley is actually the voice heard on "Motherless Child"? This is baffling me, is this maybe a labeling error on Paramounts behalf, or am I crazy?
-
I have to say it was a great article in so many ways: it added exponentially to what we knew about Gitchie and L.V., it added a bit to what I knew about Mack McCormick, it introduced tens of thousands of people to both the musicians and Mr. McCormick, and, via the online version, vastly increased the number of people who have ever heard Gtichie's and L.V.'s music, AND it was well written. A big well done to John Jeremiiah Sullivan and Caitlin Love.
It's a bit odd to me to hear so many people speculating about Sullivan and Love having somehow "stolen" McCormick's research. I mean, the only way anyone would have any idea that the research was stolen would be via the article, and Sullivan's openness about where all his info came from certainly indicates that to him (and, of course, to the Times legal department), everything was within the bounds of what is legally and ethically acceptable.
As to those who hope that someone can help Mack McCormick carve some sense out of the jumble of his research before he dies, all I have to say is "ain't going to happen". As someone who has on two occasions tried to help hoarders organize their hoard, I can understand why things didn't work out between McCormick and Love, and why they won't work out between him and anyone who tries to help him organize. While I don't think McCormick is as bad a hoarder as the people I've tried to help, here's how it went with me: Me: "Here's a shoe with no sole and no mate. We can get rid of that." Other: "No, I'm going to get that fixed some day. The other shoe is in my bedroom somewhere." Me: "Ok. Well, you sure don't need this old pizza box." Other: "I do! It's got a phone number on it." Me: "Whose?" Other: "I don't know, but I'll remember someday. I need it. I don't think you're helping me. It isn't working out."
Finally, I tend to agree with O'Muck on who "owns" research. I mean, if someone does research and publishes the results in a timely manner, that's one thing. But research, especially about the fairly recent past, needs to be published or followed up on fairly quickly, before people die, photos get thrown out, records get used as shingles on the hen house, etc. As Sullivan said, lots of people told him "You should have been here a few years ago, before so-and-so died. He could have told you a lot about L.V." While it's true that facts about the life of a minor musician aren't going to change anyone's life, it's also true that once the people who remember are gone, once the photos are thrown out, the information is gone for good, and we're just a bit poorer for the loss. Publish, share, or the information perishes.
-
It's a bit odd to me to hear so many people speculating about Sullivan and Love having somehow "stolen" McCormick's research.
Perhaps because the author explicitly says it was stolen?
"Caitlin was stranded in Houston. I?d still never met her, but the photorealistic detail of her dispatches from inside the Monster had been enjoyable to follow, and I admired the bravery of her act of quasi theft, feeling strongly that it was the right thing to do. You?re not allowed to sit on these things for half a century, not when the culture has decided they matter."
Finally, I tend to agree with O'Muck on who "owns" research. I mean, if someone does research and publishes the results in a timely manner, that's one thing. But research, especially about the fairly recent past, needs to be published or followed up on fairly quickly, before people die, photos get thrown out, records get used as shingles on the hen house, etc.
What I find most striking about this attitude is that is so strangely close to the position that blues people supposedly detest; that is, a record company issuing or reissuing an artist's music without their permission or compensation. I suspect that the people asserting our "right" to a writer's work are the same people who have expressed moral outrage when a record company recorded and issued something without the artist's permission. You cannot have it both ways.
-
"So, I conclude: in this day and age and with crowdsourcing, etc and from the small circle from which Mack still does have faith in - let us prove that we do respect the ones that brought us original work - like Mack. The same way we respect the Lomax's. Because Mack has done it. On the ground. And think about all those recordings he has in addition to the wealth of biographical information. All of this could bring a hundred Thomas and Wiley stories and most of all, respect to the man who spent much of the prime of his life collecting it."
Being in North Carolina makes showing up at his house very difficult and I'm not sure how many members who no longer have to work are living near Houston. If there are I would throw money into a pot to help out , and I would love to live close enough to go myself. I have been hoping to find a family member that is sitting on Blind Boy Fuller, but I digress.
-
It might be a good idea for someone with the means and clout to get things done to get in touch with his daughter and discuss what to do once he dies, or if he ends up having to be placed in long term care.
This is a great reason to crowd source but how many would really chip in? I once tried to get a letter writing campaign to flood Mack to encourage opening up his info and was crucified by several people. I honestly had people spend longer explaining why it either wouldn't matter or why it was wrong than it would to just write the letter. I can only imagine the vile and venom that would come from the haters if real and well resourced effort was undertaken to save it now before it is too late.
-
I suspect that the people asserting our "right" to a writer's work are the same people who have expressed moral outrage when a record company recorded and issued something without the artist's permission. You cannot have it both ways.
I understand where you are coming from but that isn't comparing apples to apples. Songs written by the talent and creativity of a musician hijacked for the financial gain of someone unreleated to the music is different. Mack isn't hording his own creations. He is hording information freely given by people in the know or from the musician themselves. He didn't create it. He is just the third man down the totem pole. The musician created and lived the music and life. Other that knew them told what they knew and filled in gaps. He collected that info.
To justify the "cant have it both ways" comment is to place equal importance and significance to Socrates (who never wrote anything down that we know of) and the person who wrote his teachings down. The scribe didn't own Socrates knowledge and ideas, he simply preserved them for future generations.
-
I was pretty disturbed by the idea of Mack's research being appropriated so I asked Chris Strachwitz about this. He reminded me that Alan Govenar is working on completing the book that Paul Oliver was writing with Mack. Chris Strachwitz is contributing to this book, as is Kip Lornell. It will be published by Texas A&M University Press, but I don't know when that's supposed to happen. So, we can look forward to reading more about Mack's research and maybe there are some more hidden gems in there!!
I still am bothered by the ethics (or rather lack thereof) of the NYT article writer. He piggybacked on a lifetime of work, added a few days of research using the web, and got huge recognition from his cover story. It seems somewhat analogous to the current notion that it's okay to steal recorded music -- also okay to steal someone's research that they've been accumulating over a lifetime?? Especially if it's true that somebody else (authorized) is working on the big book??
Nothing to be done about it but I don't have a very friendly feeling towards this fellow.
-
He piggybacked on a lifetime of work, added a few days of research using the web, and got huge recognition from his cover story.
To be fair, he interviewed people who had known L.V., including church members and surviving family. Sullivan and Love used McCormick's information as a starting point, but added a lot to it, and told not just L.V.'s story, but also the story of their search for information about her. It's a different story than McCormick or Oliver would have told, and Govenar et. al. will tell. I'll probably prefer Govenar's book to Sullivan's article, but Govenar's book won't introduce nearly as many people to Gitchee and L.V.'s music as Sullivan's article did, and Sullivan's article won't prevent one person from buying Govenar's book. If anything, it might increase sales by a small fraction. To me, there's not just room for both, there's a need for both types of presentation, popular and scholarly, in this world.
Just as an aside, I was driving through Rhinebeck NY yesterday. It's a touristy village just up the road from me, and it was filled with people up from New York City for the Easter Weekend. It was a warm day (well, warm in relation to the winter we just finished), I had the window down, and it chanced that as I drove through town, the iPod was playing Gitchee and L.V.'s "Pick Poor Robin Clean". It occurred to me that I must be passing a person or two who would know that song because they'd heard it for the first time while reading the online Times article. I thank Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Love for that.
What I find most striking about this attitude is that is so strangely close to the position that blues people supposedly detest; that is, a record company issuing or reissuing an artist's music without their permission or compensation.
Gilgamesh, please don't go putting words in my mouth or suppositions in my brain. Copyright and patent law have their place in allowing the holder of copyright or patent to profit from their creations/inventions. I fully support that. But copyright and patent have always had limited terms in recognition of the fact that there's also a benefit in eventually allowing unfettered access to the general public to those creations/inventions. It's legitimate to discuss how long a given invention or artistic work should be protected, but I stand firm in the belief that there should be a limit to those protections in the interest of access by the general populace. And I say this as the holder/co-holder of several patents.
-
Wonderful article, what a read!
I would say that there's a bit of revisionist history stating that Geechie & L. V. changed American Music! When an artist is known by less than 1% of the population & whose songs have only been covered by a few souls in the know . . . well, you get the drift. Also, I would argue that they are not necessarily the most mysterious & compelling of the early, unknown blues artists. That sounds like the author's opinion to me. Other than those quibbles, I quite enjoyed this.
Also, I think in terms of importance to the genre & popularity, the recent discoveries made in the life of Blind Blake trump the findings here. Blake is a giant who we should know much more about. G & LV are/were great but they're minor characters that hold more of a niche interest.
-
"Researcher" and "Research Assistant" are both recognized occupations. To appropriate the results of their efforts without permission to do so, and/or without fair compensation, is akin to theft of service.
-
The history behind this idea may have originated with Greil Markus' book "Weird Old America" Where he sites "Last Kind Words" as the only song of equal stature to Bob Dylan's "I'm not There" which he considers the greatest of the great. They are great, but the greatest? A pop-rock drop in to the arcane Blues scene may very well have read that book at some earlier point it may even have served as an introduction and a catalyst..
Wonderful article, what a read!
I would say that there's a bit of revisionist history stating that Geechie & L. V. changed American Music! When an artist is known by less than 1% of the population & whose songs have only been covered by a few souls in the know . . . well, you get the drift. Also, I would argue that they are not necessarily the most mysterious & compelling of the early, unknown blues artists. That sounds like the author's opinion to me. Other than those quibbles, I quite enjoyed this.
Also, I think in terms of importance to the genre & popularity, the recent discoveries made in the life of Blind Blake trump the findings here. Blake is a giant who we should know much more about. G & LV are/were great but they're minor characters that hold more of a niche interest.
-
Wonderful article, what a read!
I would say that there's a bit of revisionist history stating that Geechie & L. V. changed American Music! When an artist is known by less than 1% of the population & whose songs have only been covered by a few souls in the know . . . well, you get the drift. Also, I would argue that they are not necessarily the most mysterious & compelling of the early, unknown blues artists. That sounds like the author's opinion to me. Other than those quibbles, I quite enjoyed this.
Also, I think in terms of importance to the genre & popularity, the recent discoveries made in the life of Blind Blake trump the findings here. Blake is a giant who we should know much more about. G & LV are/were great but they're minor characters that hold more of a niche interest.
I'd agree, Mike, that they are minor figures in terms of influence, and that there's a heavy dash of romanticism in any claims they changed American music. I do think they were pretty much ciphers though, and country blues fans have been very curious to know who they were.
Also, Sullivan notes in his article that his introduction to the music was through the film Crumb. Whenever I talk to people who don't know
country blues music (which I try to avoid doing), they have often heard of Robert Johnson, occasionally Broonzy, John Hurt, even more rarely Patton. But there is another type who know one name besides Johnson, and that's Geeshie Wiley, and that's because of i]Crumb[/i]. When R. Crumb drops the needle on that 78, and Terry Zwigoff lets the entire song play in the film, these people have had the same reaction: what the hell is this? It hits them. So I'd say there are a number of people outside of blues circles who would be curious about the mystery. Still limited to art house documentary viewers, but that's a bigger crowd than the country blues world. :P
-
Phil & Andrew, great points! My intro to Geeshie was the Crumb film as well & the song is indisputably effective & powerful, without a doubt. It's high art, maybe even despite itself.
The reaction the character in another Zwigoff film has to James' DEVIL GOT MY WOMAN may have some root in the reaction he perceived to LAST KIND WORDS in the Crumb film.
I didn't mean to belittle the wonderful work done by McCormick, Sullivan & Love, btw. This is wonderful stuff & so important to our understanding of our favourite artists & music.
How much of all this is due to that wonderful minor IV chord, I wonder?! >:D
-
Does anyone know how Mack McCormick feels about the article? I haven't seen anything myself. He may be pleased as punch, or quietly enjoying the acknowledgement and admiration of his work -- admiration which runs throughout the article, along with the frustration everyone feels about the work being "trapped". Or he could be hoping that maybe someone with the right resources will finally rescue him from the Monster now that he has been featured in the most prominent newspaper in the world. Or he may be angry as hell and planning a lawsuit. Or dismissive. Or somewhere in between. All I've seen so far is pure speculation.
But the fact remains he handed over much of the information to Sullivan himself freely -- and if Sullivan is to be believed, enjoying the reaction it caused. Sullivan, working for a newspaper, confounds all expectations by reporting the information he was given, quoting excerpts while creating an article with a substantial amount of new research. This is not appropriation or theft. And if it is, round up the journalists, and graduate students writing their theses, and countless authors throughout history.
Mack McCormick does not own the fact of where LV lived nor what her real name was. Sullivan and the Times did not simply take Mack McCormick's notes, publish them as-is, and take credit. And as the New York Observer interview points out, Sullivan had to confirm the LV Thomas interview was real by checking a copy that exists outside of McCormick's archives. Either Alan Govenar or Paul Oliver would presumably have had to share the interview with Sullivan for that to occur. And Sullivan then quotes that material, LV Thomas's words.
This fact really reduces the ethical problems of that original "act of quasi-theft" for me. Now Sullivan and the Times are quoting some notes that Sullivan has also had access to legitimately, not just through surreptitiously taken photos (and do we know any of the circumstances under which the photos were actually taken? - maybe she was taking photos of stuff as she went through things in the archive as part of whatever organizational and documentary process they had worked out, maybe Mack had left these out after looking for them again some time after Sullivan left, etc.).
Where the Times did use Mack's creative work as-is -- the images of the contact sheets that accompany the article -- the photo credit clearly says Mack McCormick.
Is Peter Guralnick -- whose Robert Johnson book also relied on Mack's research and also quotes from it, and uses many more facts from Mack's research than Sullivan does in this piece -- guilty of theft or copyright violation? Both authors acknowledge their debt to McCormick and the importance of his research. At the time of the publication of Guralnick's Searching for Robert Johnson, McCormick's Biography of a Phantom about Johnson had allegedly been completed. Was Guralnick's book theft because Mack intended to publish a Johnson biography soon, or some day?
The only thing that comes close to any kind of theft is those original photos taken of 4 pages of an interview with LV Thomas. Which now that we know they matched the interview with a document from Oliver and Govenar, is basically an ill-gotten lead to a single interview transcript. This is not the theft of a life's work. Nor is it comparable to illegally issuing someone's recordings. Solving the mystery of who LV Thomas was could easily have happened without these pages, because Mack already provided the key information about where she lived, freely. To a writer from the New York Times, an editor of Harper's, not someone posing as anything else.
There is also no indication that this has in any way endangered the possibility that Mack's archives might be shared in further ways some day. It could just as easily increase that possibility, now that the historical value of the archive has been brought to the attention of a much wider audience than ever before. I think it's worth noting that this is also a very sympathetic and honest portrait of Mack, that shows the importance of his work, and stands as an excellent argument for why more needs to be done to save it. Not the only one ever made, but a good one and the most recent and no doubt the most widely read.
As for Sullivan and Caitlin Love having a connection to the Oxford American being obvious evidence that Love was a plant and that this was some long planned scheme, to me it is simply very familiar evidence of how a majority of young people get a break in the publishing business or doing research work. They work as interns or part-time staff or work on a couple small pieces for a journal and get recommended to someone at another publication or office who is looking for someone to do some work. "Yeah, I know a kid, a student who just worked for me over the summer, she's sharp as a tack, she'd be good." Sullivan says he found her through a friend in Arkansas. Quite possibly then that friend had some connection to this respected literary publication. I'd frankly be more surprised if this kind of connection couldn't be proven.
-
Thanks UB for the articulate, well reasoned post - excellent reflections.
-
Seconded!
Sent from my HUAWEI MT1-U06 using Tapatalk
-
My guess is that Mack's permission to use his materials was either explicit or implied. Having worked as a researcher and research assistant at a major university, I am familiar with the rules, thus my earlier post. It was not an indictment of Sullivan or Love, just a statement for those who are perhaps unclear about the rules of the road.
There's a lot of backstory that we have no knowledge of. Perhaps the hint of surreptitiously raiding Mack's treasure trove of materials to help solve the mystery was done to spice it up a bit.
Like the rest of you, I have many questions that probably will never see answers, but some of that's the result of another literary technique that I can't fault Sullivan or his editors for.
-
uncle bud, I appreciate your willingness to offer a thoughtful argument on what I believe to be a serious discussion.
It seems easy to get in the weeds with this, so for me it comes down to the facts, things that we know are true. We know that the most pertinent documents that led, not only to the new discoveries but also, I would argue, to most of the material that made it worth publishing and worth reading, belonged to Mack McCormick. (What Mack gave Sullivan is a transcript of an interview with Leon Benton and some letters, none of which would have been enough to fill-in all the life details in the LV interview). We also know that these documents (the most vital - the LV transcript and notes) were photographed and released without permission. This interview coupled with everything that was gained recently from the interview is what made the piece. Knowing her name was LV and that she lived in Acres Homes along with a few other details makes for some nice starting points and interesting facts but not a NY Times article.
Then, we learn later that the transcript existed outside of Mack's archive but it still did not exist in the public domain. Sullivan would not even know such a transcript existed and to check it if not for the initial theft.
And when it comes to Ms. Love, I completely missed it but he admits it himself that he is the one who sent her:
For some months, I kept in sporadic contact with McCormick, and through a friend in Arkansas, got in touch with a young woman, a 21-year-old undergraduate, curious about the old music, who said she was willing to drop out of school for a year to help Mack. She came complete with the made-up-seeming name of Caitlin Rose Love. With the blessing of her school, she packed her bags and moved to Houston.
With regards to the RJ book, it is well known that Mack gives out some information, as he did with Sullivan, but keeps much to himself. Guralnick did not go to his house and start photographing his material to smuggle out.
I look forward to the upcoming book Alan Govenar is working on, as I think Mack will get the appropriate credit and have his name as a prominent contributor and it will not include any wild, personal imaginings on the man himself. And I'm as grateful as anyone to know this new information but I am not a utilitarian in any sense and can't agree with taking someone else's work, no matter how much you think it will benefit people, at the cost of being deceitful. And I still believe that, if you are going to do it - do your research and, out of respect, publish once the one you stole from is gone.
And for all our sake, I hope you're right on the archives.
-
"Researcher" and "Research Assistant" are both recognized occupations. To appropriate the results of their efforts without permission to do so, and/or without fair compensation, is akin to theft of service.
As a research dietitian I can honestly say that the above statement in the scientific community is largely hogwash. I am happy when I have a proper work sited, which happens less than you might think. I have been both the researcher and research assistant and the person being sited and never have I been compensated. No one has been paid for the research that I have sited in the past when publishing my findings or publishing the findings of those I worked for. It is common knowledge in the scientific community that we want to be acknowledged for what we researched but that is the end of it. Have people been paid, I guess but it is less than 1%, a lot less.
A pop-rock drop in to the arcane Blues scene
But what a drop it was. Last kind words stirs emotions in me on par with Willie Johnsons dark was the knight.
-
I look forward to the upcoming book Alan Govenar is working on, as I think Mack will get the appropriate credit and have his name as a prominent contributor
how much more credit could he possibly get or be more prominently named as a contributor in that book? the majority of the article is about Mack, his research (monster), and his relationships with the researchers. making the article largely about him is as prominent as one can get.
Now all things being fair and equal when it comes to research consider this. I acknowledge beforehand that I do not think one is nearly as important as the other, but if it is okay for one kind of research then it should be for another.
If someone was hording research that would help cured cancer or aids and was being withheld from the populace and scientific community would it be okay then to use his research to help develop the cure against his wishes? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The two are not the same but the rules of the game are.
-
Hi all,
I don't know how helpful or fruitful it is to engage in a lot of conjectural hand-wringing on Mack McCormick's behalf, worrying about the disposition of his archive in the future in the aftermath of the publication of this article, etc., etc. etc. If Mack feels sufficiently wronged, he can pursue some kind of legal action. If not, it's crazy to take whatever the imagined offense was (which, in fact, can not be surmised from the information that is publicly available) harder than Mack does himself. Wait and see what happens. The core of information at the heart of the article was sat on for fifty years. Surely people can wait a few weeks or months until there is actually something to talk about.
If I may talk about music for a moment (remember that?), I would challenge your characterization of LV Thomas and Geechie Wiley as minor figures, Mike, in comparison to Blake, a giant. Certainly LV and Geechie recorded only a few sides and never achieved the commercial success and recognition that Blind Blake had, nor the influence on other musicians, but musically, they are every bit his peers, and I think made bigger statements in the Blues. Blind Blake was a superlative guitarist, unbelievably accomplished, and a really nice singer, but I would consider his musical output to be "Blues Lite" in comparison to "Last Kind Words Blues" or "Motherless Child Blues". He just never did anything with that kind of gravitas or deep Blues feeling. He didn't have it in him to sing anything that heavy--and most other musicians don't, either! Those cuts of that duo belong right up there at the top of the heap, with Blind Willie Johnson's "Dark Was the Night", Henry Spaulding's "Cairo Blues", Charlie Patton's "Pony Blues", you name it.
All best,
Johnm
-
You missed my point. Nb. "cite" vs. "site."
When I get a chance I'm going to re-read all of the material and give it some more thought. Perhaps things were not vetted as thoroughly (and properly) as they should have been. It brings to mind the case of Joshua Lehrer.
-
"Those cuts of that duo belong right up there at the top of the heap, with Blind Willie Johnson's "Dark Was the Night", Henry Spaulding's "Cairo Blues", Charlie Patton's "Pony Blues", you name it."
I agree. I love Blake but this stuff is deep, deep, deep.
-
Those cuts of that duo belong right up there at the top of the heap, with Blind Willie Johnson's "Dark Was the Night", Henry Spaulding's "Cairo Blues", Charlie Patton's "Pony Blues", you name it.
spoken like a gentleman and a scholar. Nice to see some Spaulding love.
It brings to mind the case of Joshua Lehrer.
If this is the case it may be very hard to prove. It would also be a multiperson fraud since multiple people were involved. I will have to give benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and if so I will add it to the long and expansive list of things I have been wrong about.
-
Best article I have read in years
-
Surely the history voluntarily GIVEN him by the artists, and their acquaintances, is of more importance than his claim of a right as to its disposition. They are the ones who willingly participated, usually with the hope and understanding that their story would be told. To prevent its telling is a betrayal of the means by which it was obtained. VERY distasteful!
Hardly anyone has picked up on this.
Plenty on McCormack's interests (assumed not known) and ours but what were the motives of those who spoke to him and gave (sold?) him ephemera and photos?
Can they have wanted the information to remain buried in his personal archive? I recognise the possibility that they were merely answering the white man's questions but I'd like to think that they'd have some pride in the achievements of these great musicians receiving some recognition.
-
My rating of Blake as a giant & LV & Geeshie as minor characters was not a comment on the artistic integrity of their music, John, it was a response to the idea that this new info on these Blues artists was the find of the century (where I may have heard from other non-weenie sources). Nothing we'll find out about these two awesome & interesting & talented folks is as important, IMHO, than finally learning the real name & gravesite of one of the giants of 1920s Blues. We have a pic of LV & other info, family connections, etc . . . . MORE than we have about Blake.
LAST KIND WORDS is a very good song but saying it's deep music & Blake is lite music is an opinion & not necessarily fact. Blake's oeuvre & his heft, to me, are as deep as it gets.
-
I certainly wish Wiley and Thomas had recorded more. And they probably did. L.V. remembered recording a dozen or so songs, and, looking at the Paramount Matrix numbers of their sessions, there are 7 untraced numbers between the numbers that appeared on issued records. While it's possible that some of those numbers were used to record other artists while L.V. and Gitchee took a break, there's also the possibility that someone will someday find one or more test pressings by Wiley and Thomas. We can only hope.
And I have one very minor quibble with the facts of the article. One of the last things that Sullivan writes is that we "now know" that all of the Thomas/Wiley recordings were made in 1930, because Thomas was certain that they'd only made one trip to Grafton to record. But people's memories are notoriously unreliable, and Sullivan completely ignores the evidence of the Paramount matrix numbers. The 1930 numbers all range between 257 and 265, while the numbers of "Pick Poor Robin Clean" and "Eagles On A Half" are 824 and 826, respectively. It's possible that in 1931 Paramount for some reason made new pressings of masters made in 1930 and renumbered the new masters to fit in with current recordings, it's much more likely that L.V. just collapsed two trips into one in her memory. (Note: It doesn't seem possible that Wiley made a second trip to Grafton in 1931 with a partner other than L.V. because in the intro to "Pick Poor Robin Clean" the two call each other "Gitchee" and "Slack", and we now know that Slack was a nickname for L.V.)
-
John Miller said:
Those cuts of that duo belong right up there at the top of the heap, with Blind Willie Johnson's "Dark Was the Night", Henry Spaulding's "Cairo Blues", Charlie Patton's "Pony Blues", you name it.
That's worthy of a new topic, if you ask me.
-
Surely the history voluntarily GIVEN him by the artists, and their acquaintances, is of more importance than his claim of a right as to its disposition. They are the ones who willingly participated, usually with the hope and understanding that their story would be told. To prevent its telling is a betrayal of the means by which it was obtained. VERY distasteful!
Hardly anyone has picked up on this.
Plenty on McCormack's interests (assumed not known) and ours but what were the motives of those who spoke to him and gave (sold?) him ephemera and photos?
Can they have wanted the information to remain buried in his personal archive? I recognise the possibility that they were merely answering the white man's questions but I'd like to think that they'd have some pride in the achievements of these great musicians receiving some recognition.
I agree that McCormick is hardly above criticism. We must assume most or all these interviews were arranged with the understanding that he was writing a book about the history of the blues. I believe the book was supposed to come out in 1968 or thereabouts. Why it didn't happen at that time, we cannot fully understand, but McCormick should have realized at a certain point that he owed it to the people he interviewed, at least, to get the information in print, and taken steps to make that happen. And he didn't do that. He may have been suffering from a mental illness, but he was functioning well enough when Guralnick visited him in the late 1980s to gather information for his RJ book. So he could have asked for Guralnick's assistance. He did not.
-
It brings to mind the case of Joshua Lehrer.
If this is the case it may be very hard to prove. It would also be a multiperson fraud since multiple people were involved. I will have to give benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and if so I will add it to the long and expansive list of things I have been wrong about.
To be more specific, Lehrer was able to publish things that had problems that his editors didn't discover until after others pointed them out. His ethical lapses weren't picked up until after publication--that's the similarity I was thinking about.
As for Sullivan and Love committing fraud, like you, I'll wait until all the evidence is in.
-
Gilgamesh: Mack did seek assistance with the material he had compiled in his 1976 letter to Blues Unlimited. This was mentioned in the article. I do not know anything about the details of the response(s) to his request, as well as how they were received, if in fact there were any serious and well intentioned ones.
-
A few have voiced concerns along the lines of "McCormick should..." fill in the blank. Under normal circumstances I would agree but let's not forget the man suffers from bi-polar disorder and has admitted to having had a "small stroke." Having known a few folks suffering from those issues, as no doubt have you all, no generally understood motives truly apply. That may be one of the more tragic aspects of the situations. It's entirely possible that no appeal may bear fruit.
-
Gilgamesh: Mack did seek assistance with the material he had compiled in his 1976 letter to Blues Unlimited. This was mentioned in the article. I do not know anything about the details of the response(s) to his request, as well as how they were received, if in fact there were any serious and well intentioned ones.
Yes, the letter can be read in this forum if you search under Mack's name. It was not a public solicitation for help. Instead, MM states that he is seeking a grant:
"I'm presently seeking a grant for a research assistant to help organize what has now become an archive scattered in several locations and too often inaccessible even to myself."
I guess neither the grant nor research assistant materialized. That statement, you might notice, is depressingly similar to what he says in the NYT article. It's like nothing changed in 38 years.
Toward the end of the letter, MM also says that the 150,000-word RJ book is in the final phase of editing. >:(
-
Mack did seek assistance with the material
he also had someone set up www.mackmccormick.org (http://www.mackmccormick.org) with the page called the The Mack McCormick Archive Foundation. His home address and home phone number are on his site. Would post it but I got barked at for doing so a year ago. He doesn't do email from what I have gathered. It says,Most of McCormick's archives remain unpublished, and thus McCormick welcomes serious inquiries that would result in the preservation and publishing of his archives so that the public could benefit from them.
I honestly believe he wants help with his archive of info. Finding someone with the time, resources, and patience needed will be key, and it very may well have to come from someone that isn't yet a wennie ;)
let's not forget the man suffers from bi-polar disorder and has admitted to having had a "small stroke.
The amount of patience it takes to work with someone with severe or untreated bi-polar is daunting in the best of circumstances and I only pray someone is up to the challenge.
-
Come on, White folks, lighten up! All the records issued on Paramount 12000/13000 discs were intended for sale to African American record buyers, not for W.E. record collectors. Of the so-called "country blues" [a White folks'-created category] Blake and Patton sold, while Wiley/Thomas or Willie Brown did not: there are hundreds of examples of each category of "success" [record sales] could be listed. What W.E. think aesthetically about another culture's art doesn't mean shit except to us as reference points. No matter how I try and train my freckles to gather together, I will always be White and an outsider to African American musical cultures no matter how "accepted" I may have been by many of the practitioners.
e.g. - Apparently, I am responsible for the creation of the category of "Piedmont blues". It was nice of John Cephas to use it, but it was never common linguistic currency amongst Blacks, nor are any of the other categories W.E. utilize. They are words of convenience for us. For Blacks at those times, it was just "music" that was "consumed" at parties/dances/etc. Nothing more, nothing less. Ease up on the angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin shit, guys [and it's mostly men] and just enjoy the music.
I may never have been diagnosed as bipolar, but I fully understand Mack's feelings about his "monster" - I have my own, personal one regarding the SE material I have collected over a decade or so in the past. This sort of stuff is a heavy burden for folks like us due to our being probably the only conduit of the art's dissemination to the world at large. MOST OF THE USA DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT!!! So things are as they are. End of sermon.
Peter B.
-
I may never have been diagnosed as bipolar, but I fully understand Mack's feelings about his "monster" - I have my own, personal one regarding the SE material I have collected over a decade or so in the past. This sort of stuff is a heavy burden for folks like us due to our being probably the only conduit of the art's dissemination to the world at large. MOST OF THE USA DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT!!! So things are as they are. End of sermon.
There's that, too. It probably isn't simply McCormick's intransigence that has prevented the Monster from being published; it's widespread public indifference. We must assume that neither academia nor the publishing industry took any notice whatsoever of the "Open Letter" of 1976. Why should they? The material pertained to a tiny, niche market that they hardly bother with anyway, even when writers bring polished manuscripts to their door and beg them to publish. They certainly aren't interested enough to devote the kind of time and money required to whip the Monster into shape.
-
Most of the US may not give a shit...now. That's ok. The same could be said for any number of now recognizably timeless works of art (e.g. that at one point nobody cared). Those of us who know better have a duty to extol, to preserve, and to make it live.
-
On Easter Sunday, April 20th, a week after it appeared in print and about 10 days after it first appeared online, Sullivan's article was among the top 10 in the "Top Stories " (i.e. most read) on the NY Times cell phone app. This is the online version, with videos of the interviews and links to the songs.
That L.V.'s story resonated with so many people, and that thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people heard L.V's and Gitchee's music for the first time is just totally cool.
-
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 :).
-
I enjoyed the (online version of the) article very much, despite some speculations I wouldn't have missed (e.g. the whole murder-lesbianism chapter). I'm also curious how the Houston saxophone player Don Wilkerson could have been found and interviewed despite his death on 18 July 1986. Maybe there were two artists from the same town playing the same instrument during the same period, but that's rather improbable I guess. Nevertheless, while there's room to improve, a well written article in a world famous newspaper about artists as obscure as Elvie and Geeshie is something to be happy about.
-
Fkeller, that is taking the bull by the horns and working to make something happen. Us fence sitters should applaud you. Have you narrowed your focus about what you want to talk about or are you going to let Mack determine and manage the meeting?
-
I'm also curious how the Houston saxophone player Don Wilkerson could have been found and interviewed despite his death on 18 July 1986. Maybe there were two artists from the same town playing the same instrument during the same period, but that's rather improbable I guess.
I believe that the musician mentioned in the article is John D. "Don" Wilkerson, a singer-alto saxophonist from Houston (and not the Houston tenor sax player named Don Wilkerson who recorded for Blue Note).
-
Wreid75--First off I assume we'll just be getting to know one another. I haven't spoken with him directly yet but my wife spent 90 mins on the phone with him last night. We've got a few things in common :). We'll swap some stories and break the ice. My particular interest seems to mesh with what little I've read about him: the songster area, the pre-war, fuzzily-edged kind of stuff represented by Ragtime Henry Thomas, Papa Charlie Jackson and others. I hope to be able to get to the point where I can volunteer to help with his work but one step at a time. I'm up in Minnesota so that's a challenge but I don't have a day job and I can travel. We'll see where it goes and I'll keep you posted. I know I will learn something and that's the most I can hope for today. But I don't know if I'll get any sleep in the next few days LOL
PS--he assigned me a little reading: his liner notes on Ragtime Henry Thomas which can be found in online pdf format here http://ourblues.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/liner-notes-mccormick-cleaned-up-by-eb.pdf (http://ourblues.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/liner-notes-mccormick-cleaned-up-by-eb.pdf)
-
We'll see where it goes and I'll keep you posted. I know I will learn something and that's the most I can hope for today. But I don't know if I'll get any sleep in the next few days LOL
Hi FKeller,
At the risk of looking foolish, I'd like to make a suggestion.
If you hit it off with Mack, you might try to get Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen involved. He's a guitar player himself and is the man behind Seattle's EMP Museum which started out as a music museum and is still largely devoted to music. And a blues fan too-- he was one of the producers of the PBS Martin Scorsese The Blues film series. https://www.pbs.org/theblues/aboutfilms/producerallen.html (https://www.pbs.org/theblues/aboutfilms/producerallen.html)
He does a lot of philanthropic projects and the money needed to catalog and preserve McCormick's archive would amount to a tiny drop in the bucket.
Jim H
-
That's a great idea! Maybe somewhere down the road it'll come in handy. I'll remember your idea.
I will say I'm entirely and solely focused on having fun and learning something from him. I hope we hit it off but I respect the work he's done and I respect the notion that he feels he's been burned more than once. I'm going in gently, I'm going in with the idea that maybe I've met a kindred spirit, and we'll see where it goes--if anywhere--from there. I have no preconceived notion that I'll wind up being his archive help: none at all. If it develops, ok. If not, I'm cool.
-
If it develops, ok. If not, I'm cool.
However it turns out, you're gonna have one heckuva story to tell.
-
I don't think it's funding that's in the way of preserving Mack's collection. It's Mack himself. Major major good juju to Fkeller for his humanitarian mission!! I'm hoping he'll keep a journal and let us know about his adventures at some point.
-
I was talking to Greil Marcus last week about the article and he said "check this out". He brought up a photo on his phone. It's a picture of Geeshie Wiley leaning against a car, wearing high heeled white shoes, she's dressed to the nines. I was blown away. He said they didn't use it in the article because they couldn't absolutely verify the photo. "But it's her" he said. It was like first seeing the newly discovered photo of Robert Johnson way back when, that "holy shit!" feeling....
-
I was talking to Greil Marcus last week about the article and he said "check this out". He brought up a photo on his phone. It's a picture of Geeshie Wiley leaning against a car, wearing high heeled white shoes, she's dressed to the nines. I was blown away. He said they didn't use it in the article because they couldn't absolutely verify the photo. "But it's her" he said. It was like first seeing the newly discovered photo of Robert Johnson way back when, that "holy shit!" feeling....
what was the provenance of the photo?
-
If there was a legit photo of Wiley out there I would think it would have been at least mentioned by this point. Unfortunately, when it comes to historical blues images, anyone & no one is an expert. I HOPE Mr. Marcus' photo is the real thing, that would be wonderful
-
I'll find out the provenance of the photo and post back here. Greil got the image from the author of the article. He said the purpose of writing it was in the hope that folks would contact the author with much more info. If he does get major additional information, then a book may come out of it.
-
I'll find out the provenance of the photo and post back here. Greil got the image from the author of the article. He said the purpose of writing it was in the hope that folks would contact the author with much more info. If he does get major additional information, then a book may come out of it.
Perhaps you should distract him or ask to borrow his phone and steal the photo and later remind him ... they have no right to keep this research to themselves ... no... not when society has decided it matters.
-
Greil comes into my bookstore fairly often. I would have asked him then about how the photo was discovered but someone came in to sell me used books and cut the conversation short. I think I would have thought to ask... I was discombobulated a tad by looking at it. My guess is the photo wasn't used in the article because of N.Y. Times policy; the absolute verification thing. Or maybe the author of the article is holding it back so if a book comes out of it, the photo will gin up some excitement. I will ask Greil if he'll send me the photo to my email. I wouldn't be surprised if he says he can't. It's gonna come into public view at some point; just don't see how it can't not. Next time I see him I'll find out the background of it.
-
I just emailed John Sullivan asking about the provenance of the photo. I hope I'm not busting Greil, like it's existence is supposed to be a secret or something. Oh well...too late! Hopefully John S. will reply.
-
Perhaps you should distract him or ask to borrow his phone and steal the photo and later remind him ... they have no right to keep this research to themselves ... no... not when society has decided it matters.
Nice try but if it could have been authenticated it would have been in the article. It will be coming out soon. Comparing hording research for 60 years and waiting a few months to obtain proper context is like comparing apples to beef.
-
Come on, fellow anoraks... truth is that almost nobody gives a shit about this stuff except for a miniscule group of culturally slumming record collectors applying their aesthetic and whose numbers are close to zero in the grand scheme of things. Is this stuff important to "us"? Yes. Is it important to the world at large? NO. And it never will be, no matter how hard we wish otherwise. It's amazing that such a piece was a cover story for the NYT Sunday magazine section. How'd he do it??
Peter B.
-
I tried to interest my wife in the story but gave up quickly. Hardly anyone I know is remotely interested in pre war blues but many of course think they know all about Robert Johnson. He IS of interest but the general public doesn't seem to want to see him in a wider context.
Part of this story is the mine of unpublished research Mac seems to have about RJ and a strong sub text to the article is what might be in his files. If so much can be uncovered about such minor players what could there be about RJ?
I think that's why the NYT was interested.
-
I tried to interest my wife in the story but gave up quickly. Hardly anyone I know is remotely interested in pre war blues but many of course think they know all about Robert Johnson. He IS of interest but the general public doesn't seem to want to see him in a wider context.
Part of this story is the mine of unpublished research Mac seems to have about RJ and a strong sub text to the article is what might be in his files. If so much can be uncovered about such minor players what could there be about RJ?
I think that's why the NYT was interested.
I'd argue that, even if you added all the people who've heard of Robert Johnson, you still wouldn't get to 0.00001% of the American population, much less that of the world. And even those people wouldn't have known about RJ if it weren't that the circumstances of his death agree with the stereotype of the blues musician. It didn't hurt any that Columbia did some PR work when the LPs were first released.
Lyle
-
When you talk about blues to people who aren't knowledgeable (the rest of the world minus a few hundred nerds) they tend to respond with comments about RJ provided that they have some interest in rock music.
If that wasn't the catalyst for the NYT's interest I don't know what was.
-
It's not too surprising that few know about the blues, much less pre-war, country, or songster traditions. The music business as it stands is built on the "now," predicated on heavy drums and electrification, and in general geared towards a teen and pre-teen audience. But I do know that when I present this kind of material to audiences I find them to be very interested in it.
At any rate, perhaps this part of the discussion belongs in a different thread. I'd be exceedingly interested in seeing a photograph of any these musicians, much less someone I've come to admire a great deal like Geeshie Wiley. I hope more information about them comes out. Clearly the NY Times thought their readership's interest would be piqued or the article would have died on the editing room floor. The Robert Johnson angle may have been played to titillate or tease those few people who know no more about the music than that name, but the bulk of the article did not concern him.
Ultimately I don't give a damn whether the general public embraces or is told to embrace this music. I like it and I'll do what I can to learn more and tell folks. But I do think that most of the reason for a perceived disdain for this music has more to do with the national attention span having, in general, the length of a mayfly's life.
-
If I wasn't 110% sure the photo was of Wiley I would think twice about posting it online. Anyone that remembers this http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=9103.0 (http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=9103.0) discussion knows that if the information is not absolutely rock solid and of peer review quality they may be cannibalized by their own.
-
I see no problem posting a photo, even if the ID is not 100% certain, as long as the source of the photo and the source of the ID are adequately cited. For example, I'd have no problem with "Photo from the collection of Mike McMichael. Received by McMichael from John Doe in Houston, Texas in 1961. Identified by Doe as L.V. Thomas c. 1930. Photo taken by Doe's aunt Cora Mae Doe." Just do your homework, cite the reasons for your ID and your confidence in the ID's correctness, and you'll be fine.
-
A response to the Sullivan article:
http://observer.com/2014/04/robert-mccormicks-daughter-responds-to-nyt-magazine-cover-story/ (http://observer.com/2014/04/robert-mccormicks-daughter-responds-to-nyt-magazine-cover-story/)
-
Ms. McCormick added that she and her father were considering taking legal action but were still weighing their options.
It looks like he learned much from Steve LaVere. More lawsuits is exactly what is needed. Judging from his daughter we might never know what Mack has. His collection may be seen as a financial asset to her. She must have no idea how little money there is in this kind of music and that kind of research. Hope they filled up a hight capacity flash drive while they had a chance. It is likely the only opportunity to that knowledge anyone will get without writing a very big check.
-
Ms. McCormick added that she and her father were considering taking legal action but were still weighing their options.
I guess that answers the question, "How does McCormick feel about the article?"
-
And so much for the inference that McCormick consented, if perhaps after the fact, to the taking of his notes and their use for the article. Sounds like he's pissed.
-
?I won?t try to make it sound like I didn?t struggle with it,? he said of the ethical blurriness of the situation. ?It?s not the kind of thing you want to do with every story.?
Ethical Bluriness. I like that.
-
Is he mad that the world got to learn about the lives of these real people who made real music? Is he mad that he didn't get to determine who was worthy of learning about this portion of history? Is he mad that for once some of the history that he has hijacked and held hostage for 60 years was rescued? Is he mad that finally life was breathed into the legend and lore of these two singers? Is he mad that people were willing to travel to his home and work without him having to pay anything? He could have written the articles himself many times over. He didn't and these two people are being vilified as if they were Donald Sterling when all they did was free a little nugget of our musical heritage and allowed it to be shared with the world. In doing so they shed light on what is going on inside that house and that family and that is what they are most likely mad about. The complications of Macks mental and physical state was part of the story. His daughter calling Mack an invalid is far more appalling. The balls of her to reduce Macks mental capabilities to such a feeble state when the two other people involved in this story paints a very different picture. If he is an invalid then them taking the info might be in poor taste but his daughter leaving an invalid elderly man to fend for himself is criminal. Something tells me that isn't the case. She used a humiliating term for any sound minded elderly individual to skew the debate emotionally. She was successful unfortunately. I think there is much that both Mack and Susannah are mad about and these researchers are the scapegoats. I might be that he feels Lavere blocked his legacy and that his pursuit of knowledge robbed Susannah.
-
This just means that she's ready to sell and is trying to drive up the price. I hope somebody makes her a good offer.
-
Wow.
The cynicism of some people in this thread leaves me speechless. And depressed.
-
It certainly answers the question of whether Susannah McCormick is pissed. And some of the quotes in the piece sound pretty scripted to me.
I don't think they would get much money for the archive, to be honest. Not that I am an expert. But while most universities would be happy to have this kind of thing, they would be looking for it more as a donation, not a major purchase. Is the Smithsonian in the habit of paying big money for this kind of archival material?
I'd bet the McCormicks would probably get more money for the Robert Johnson photo stashed in Mexico, that may or may not be the Robert Johnson we thought we knew, and the related work, than they would for the other documents that make up the Monster. Though I guess the LaVere business would block that?
Anyway, if this is part of an effort to drive up the price, best of luck and I hope it nets them some dough for it. If it's the prelude to a lawsuit, well, it's four pages of LV Thomas's words, that later seem to have been given to Sullivan by someone else as well, so good luck going up against the Times legal team.
-
Mack McCormick did not "hijack pieces of history". Get real - it's not like the stuff he worked on was just laying around for the taking. He did painstaking detective work following up leads, doing scholarly research, collecting artifacts, interviewing all kinds of people, all without institutional support. At least, if there was institutional support, I've never heard about it. Also, don't forget that there was also a lot of work that did NOT result in fabulous revelations. The work Mack did was his own work and it is not right to steal his work. I'm hoping that the Alan Govenar book whenever it sees the light of day will contain many more wonderful surprises and those will be revealed to us with Mack's blessing.
-
Hey Gilgamesh, don't you know when a lawyer is putting words in a clients mouth?
-
I agree. We know how Susannah feels. Whether she's trying to gin up a little interest, who knows, but who could blame her.
well, it's four pages of LV Thomas's words, that later seem to have been given to Sullivan by someone else as well, so good luck going up against the Times legal team.
That would indeed give one pause.
I suppose the archive could be turned into an asset somehow, but agree, as a lump sum deal it's probably not worth that much. They'd need to do what Tefteller is doing with Paramount posters - turn it into some kind of long term business strategy. I don't see that happening.
-
Hi all,
The scope of this discussion is breathtaking in its variety of views; a few of them sensible.
As one who has worked in an archive, collaborated with other institutional archives (Smithsonian, LoC, Indiana, Fisk and others) and done original fieldwork (John Work III, Sister O.M. Terrell, etc.), I have to say that Suzy T has it right. Mack's work is Mack's. The fact that he hasn't published much of it is probably not by his choice....health issues; the RJ/LaVere legal juggernaut and who knows what else has intruded on Mack's productivity.
Archives don't generally have deep pockets. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, The Country Music Hall of Fame & Museum, The Center for Popular Music, the Blues archive at Ole Miss, UNC's Southern folk archive, Jazz Archives at Rutgers and Tulane and most others rely on donations to build their collections. The only sensible thing said in this thread on that subject (by ?) is the notion of getting Paul Allen interested enough to give up his coffee money for a month to purchase the Monster for Seattle's Experience Music Project.
If it's for sale, which isn't known as yet.
best,
bruce
-
If it were in book form, with Mack's name on the cover as the author it would be Mack's and he would have fulfilled his obligation to the people he collected memories and information from. As filing cabinets full of rare historical information which is NEVER going to be made into a book, a film or anything else by this man, there is zero point in him retaining it and letting it sit and rot or burn. That is a treacherous thing to allow to happen. It places Mack's rights as collector above those of all the people he collected from. Its not as though this were an unpublished novel that he'd written. Nothing is preventing this man from publishing except a crippling mental infirmity which it appears will operate in the same manner forever. Nothing is preventing him from having someone compile an inventory and auctioning it off at Southeby's, Christies or E-Bay.
He can even retain ownership, but the first consideration would be to remove it to a fireproof facility for safe keeping, otherwise it could be gone in an instant. How would that serve anybody?
-
...I have to say that Suzy T has it right. Mack's work is Mack's...
I would venture to guess that everything Mack collected through his fieldwork and research was also readily available to other people--but only if they chose to do the fieldwork and research. As far as I know, no one else did the work.
-
"I have to say that Suzy T has it right. Mack's work is Mack's."
So does that mean that he has the right to never let the world know of these people? Am I to believe that even given the many decades he has had to publish his work and profit if possible that there is no point in time where the world at large should know? Let me say it this way. We know that there are missing gospels. Multiple early Popes quote from the Gospel of Bartholomew which is considered lost. Imagine that before it was lost to the ages a scribe made a copy of it and the other "heretical" gospels, then kept it in a very insecure location (hoarder houses are know to be very high risk for fires.) Imagine this scribe let the world know for decades that he had this special information but flatly refused to make it available to biblical scholars and believers alike. This scribe when elderly finally let one person then another come in to work with his collection before kicking them to the curb. Once gone it becomes apparent that a copy of some of the heretical or missing gospels are still in their possession. They have this one opportunity to share with the world those priceless historic documents before they are possibly lost for ever, but the information is incomplete. Through their own efforts they piece together the rest of the story, a puzzle that had they waited would have been impossible since old people have a peculiar habit of dying. You not only tell where the information came from but how they came to you possession and how you put the rest of the puzzle together. Letting the world finally know of these documents is the crime crediting the crime, is that what I am to believe?
Now I know this isn't the bible but what the same principals apply.
-
I would be inclined to consider Mack a victim had someone broke into his house at gun point and forcibly removed his entire collection and published everything without ever crediting him as the source. These musicians made great music, lived in obscurity, were usually poor from cradle to grave, often repeatedly exploited by far more affluent white men - some even in their elderly years; and forgotten by the people they wrote and performed the music for. Luckily a very small group of amazing young men dedicated a large part of their lives and not only dig up the music and their story but in some cases found the musicians themselves. Most researchers couldn't find enough people to share their information with. Amazing (and some not so amazing) books have been written. Researchers like Wardlow and others freely promoted what they knew, donated to libraries field notes and recordings, and published magazines and books (usually spending more time and money than they ever recouped).
Then there is this one amazing and tenacious researcher who amassed one of the greatest collection of biographical information on these musicians only to refuse them the legacy they deserve. Sitting on the information and not allowing their stories to be told to the world is not different than the exploitation that they endured during their life. It is no different than the exploitation of bands recording their songs after they die and crediting themselves as authors. Instead of exploitation what he is doing is oppression. Mack said in the article that he should have come ten years ago, meaning that people who could have pieced the story together had died. Does Macks ownership give him the moral, legal, and/or ethical right to determine when and if someone who recorded 80 years ago finally get his story told? Does his ownership allow him the moral, legal, and/or ethical right keep it till he dies ensuring that the other people who can fill in the dots are no longer around again robbing artists of securing his or her place in history?
It shouldn't matter "if to the world" is the few thousand people who love this music or the 7 billion on earth. Aficionados and researchers small size shouldn't matter either. It shouldn't matter that he did the ground work if all he is going to do is ensure that their complete story never sees the light of day. Suppression of this information is a form of oppression since he gets to dictate if and when a poor black musician who died a long time ago gets his due.
-
I'm with you on this.
The people who spoke to Mack surely wanted their stories to be told. I don't suppose Mack told them that it was to be solely for his use.
And all the angst on his behalf overlooks the fact that he invited the researchers into his home. On one level at least he must want this stuff to come out or why start the process of engaging with people who clearly wanted to publish.
-
I'd bet the McCormicks would probably get more money for the Robert Johnson photo stashed in Mexico, that may or may not be the Robert Johnson we thought we knew, and the related work, than they would for the other documents that make up the Monster. Though I guess the LaVere business would block that?
Has anyone asked why the most important document McCormick owns is in Mexico?
Considering the fierce possessiveness he has over the Monster, it makes no sense at all that he would leave this photo in the keeping of someone else in a foreign country.
-
Has anyone asked why the most important document McCormick owns is in Mexico?
If I had to guess, and this is only a guess it is because he can't have it taken from him there, even if he was to lose a civil case to LaVere they couldn't find it and take it in Mexico.
-
I would be inclined to consider Mack a victim had someone broke into his house at gun point and forcibly removed his entire collection and published everything without ever crediting him as the source.
Fortunately, the legal system still recognizes that assault and battery is not the only form of theft.
-
Fortunately, the legal system still recognizes that assault and battery is not the only form of theft.
Scheduling weeks ahead, having multiple phone conversations, and welcoming researchers into his home twice with open arms giving them full access to his 'monster' and then then they publish information that they had when the arrangement ended seems like a very difficult theft case to me. Its not like they broke into his car and stole his stereo. It is more like having someone install a new car stereo and when Mack failed to ask for his old stereo back he called it theft. And even that scenario is a stretch hence why the Times legal and editorial staff felt safe in its publication.
-
I guess we'll soon be hearing an argument that Sullivan is the victim here. Perhaps he can sue McCormick for his cruelty in not giving him the Geeshie Wiley file?
Can some you guys follow through on your philosophy and "Sullivanize" Paul Swinton's research? After all, I think we can all agree that Blind Lemon is a way more important artist than L.V. Thomas. He has no right to withold this material any longer. Ask him politely to share it, and if he refuses, take it from him.
-
A few points:
1) My father isn't ?withholding? or ?hoarding? his archive. He is actively working on getting his research out there. I am aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the speed at which he works. Bipolar disorder is a terrible thing to have to live with. He does the best he can.
2) No one has any intention of burning the archive, setting it out by the curb for garbage collection, or otherwise allowing it be lost. My father has referred to it as his ?monster? but it?s also his baby. It represents years of his labors, his hopes, and his dreams. He desperately wants it be preserved, as do I.
3) That said, he is not going to just give it away to anyone. He has very strong feelings about how he wants it to be handled and preserved. As he has every right to, because it is his life?s work. He devoted years of effort to collecting this data and he is entitled to do whatever he wants with it. It is not in the public domain. It does not belong to ?history.? It belongs to him. Whether you approve of his approach or the speed at which he works is irrelevant, because it?s his decision and no one else?s?not even mine. Your enthusiasm to get your hands on it does not magically give you a legal right to take possession of someone else?s property.
4) He is not in this for the money. I am not in this for the money. That does not mean that money is not a factor, but it?s certainly not the most important one. When all is said and done, I am fairly certain that any money that might potentially be earned by my father?s work will be far outweighed by the investment that has gone into it over the years.
5) There has been some talk of burglarizing his home to ?rescue? his work. Please know that we take any and all such threats, even if intended as a joke, very seriously. Any such comments will be forwarded to our attorney and to local law enforcement in case anyone else should decide to follow in Sullivan?s and Love?s footsteps and steal from my father.
6) There is absolutely no purpose in circulating some kind of petition to try and convince either me or my father to do whatever it is you think you want us to do. We don't need your harassment to understand the importance of either his research materials or his work based on them. We already get a daily stream of phone calls and emails from people who want to ?help,? most of whom simply want to help themselves to my father's work. The last person whose assistance he accepted was Caitlin Love, and instead of doing the work my father needed her to do, she rifled through his files and stole what she wanted for her own?and John Sullivan?s?professional and financial gain.
7) Indexing and preserving an archive containing decades of original research and notes is complicated. Writing a book (or in this case books) is complicated. Negotiating with universities, foundations, publishers, and agents is complicated. Living with bipolar disorder is complicated. Coping with age-related illnesses is complicated. There are no easy answers or simple solutions to my father?s problems. We are doing the best we can.
My father still believes he can finish at least some of his work. That belief is what gets him out of bed every day. How dare you suggest that anyone has the right to take that away from him.
If you really, really want to help, leave my father alone and let him work. Instead, call upon John Jeremiah Sullivan and Caitlin Love to return everything they removed from his home, and to refrain from using any more of my father?s work for their own profit.
-
Thanks for posting, Susannah McCormick. I am sure others here like me are glad to hear some of your and your father's perspective on all of this, and the clarifications you've brought to a number of points in the discussion. Something you didn't have to bother to do, so it is much appreciated.
-
Well it appears we have all the answers now, no need for speculation.
-
http://observer.com/2014/05/john-jeremiah-sullivan-responds-to-nyt-controversy-regarding-robert-mccormick/ (http://observer.com/2014/05/john-jeremiah-sullivan-responds-to-nyt-controversy-regarding-robert-mccormick/)
OPEN LETTER
John Jeremiah Sullivan Responds to NYT Controversy Regarding Robert McCormick
By Matthew Kassel | 05/01/14 3:05pm
John Jeremiah Sullivan?s New York Times Magazine cover story on blues singers Geeshie Wiley and L.V. Thomas, published in mid-April, has attracted a lot of attention for having used what some believe to be questionable reporting practices. Mr. Sullivan quotes from an interview transcript he acquired from the home archive of reclusive blues historian Robert McCormick. Mr. McCormick?s daughter, Susannah McCormick, recently spoke to the Observer to take issue with Mr. Sullivan?s decision to publish her father?s research, which he has kept private for decades. Mr. Sullivan?s response is below. It is printed in full and unedited.
It saddens me that Susannah McCormick feels I ?glibly? stole from research done by her father, a person whose work I deeply admire. His achievements in the blues field are a focus of my piece. As I made clear, everything we?ve learned about Geeshie and Elvie begins with discoveries made by McCormick in the early sixties. He was meant to (and I believe does) emerge from the essay a complicated but heroic figure, whose contributions to the field will be seen in the end to outweigh the obstructions he caused.
One statement that has been recycled in the commentary regarding the piece is troubling because it?s factually incorrect, and this is that our research somehow ?rested? or ?leaned? on the documents being debated here, those transcripts of two interviews carried out by McCormick with Thomas in 1961. In fact, the vast majority of what we ended up learning about these singers began with notes and letters McCormick showed me, and which are otherwise accessible through the archive of the scholar Paul Oliver?s correspondence. The clues in those first documents eventually led to Thomas?s family, they led to Wiley?s census records, they led to Mount Pleasant Baptist Church, they led to Don Wilkerson (last man alive known to have seen Wiley), they led to all that and much more. And those leads McCormick freely shared.
What McCormick withheld from us were L.V.?s actual words. Why did he withhold them? That?ll be for his biographer to unravel. But it left me with the question of whether to join him in keeping her voice, the voice of a great American artist, suppressed after fifty-three years of silence. I decided to quote her and would do so again. It was a question to which I gave the most serious thought (and I alone?the name of my research assistant doesn?t belong in this discussion). Susannah McCormick has written that I made the choice because I found her father?s publishing schedule to be ?not convenient.? That description will hardly do. Our sources were literally dying as we reported. Of old age. A delay of months would have taken from us, among other people, Fred Hoxie, Jr., son of the man who signed her death certificate, who alone recalled the name of L.V.?s mysterious first husband (Lester), and whose funeral was late last year.
I can tell you the moment I made up my mind to quote L.V. in her own words. I was driving home from the reunion of L.V.?s relatives, back to Houston, with her nephew Robin Wartell, whom she helped to raise. (Strange that no one has mentioned the other family involved here.) ?Motherless Child Blues? was on the stereo. Robin was holding his eyes with his hands and said, ?This is just unexplainable to me, man. This is unexplainable.? I asked what he meant. ?That that?s my Auntie L.V.!? he said, and shook his head. ?If you knew what this would have meant to my mother. If you KNEW.? His mother, Dally Mae Wilkerson, who had been L.V.?s caretaker in the last decade of her life. She lived until just a few years ago. Susannah McCormick has used the word ?thievery? to describe my quotation of her father?s research. I would submit that, by hiding L. V. Thomas?s voice, by refusing for over half a century to credit or even so much as name the two singers who created those recordings while they or their contemporaries were alive, Mack McCormick committed a theft?through negligence or writer?s block or whatever reasons of his own?far graver than my citation of interviews L.V. granted him decades ago. I don?t think he could help it. I tried to write that too.
Among the last things McCormick told me before he stopped communicating was that his greatest fear is that after he dies, his research will be carted off to the dump. If nothing else comes from any grief the piece has caused, it seems far less likely that this will happen.
With respect,
John Jeremiah Sullivan
Read more at http://observer.com/2014/05/john-jeremiah-sullivan-responds-to-nyt-controversy-regarding-robert-mccormick/#ixzz30WHQxmH2 (http://observer.com/2014/05/john-jeremiah-sullivan-responds-to-nyt-controversy-regarding-robert-mccormick/#ixzz30WHQxmH2)
Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook
-
There has been some talk of burglarizing his home to ?rescue? his work. Please know that we take any and all such threats, even if intended as a joke, very seriously. Any such comments will be forwarded to our attorney and to local law enforcement in case anyone else should decide to follow in Sullivan?s and Love?s footsteps and steal from my father.
Where is this talk? Even with all the discussion, which has been civil when compared to other discussions in the past I have yet to see any weenie want to harm, burglarize, or steal from anyone. If this is a preventative measure I understand but I have yet to see anyone say they want to break into your fathers home.
Could it be possible that Sullivan and Love had misunderstandings while working with Mack? Could it be possible that both of their hearts were in the right place? How is it not possible for their side of the story to be true while at the same time Susannah and Mack McCormick's beliefs on the matter to be understandable even if inaccurate. I have a hard time with the idea of both people being part of a grand conspiracy to rescue the bio of two people that less than 500 people on earth even knew about? It doesn't mean that what the McCormicks are feeling is not valid.
-
Mrs. McCormick-Nix posted the same message at the Real Blues Forum on Facebook where I believe the burglary comments were aimed.
-
I very well could be wrong but hasn't Mack had this research for a very long time, like decades. I can understand a decade or two to start publishing your work but multiple decades is a long time to not be with holding and not hording. If his other research can captivate blues fans and non blues fans like this info has I can't wait. I just hope it is done before anymore of the blues research forefathers leave this world. I think all of you researchers who have pounded the road and knocked on the doors like Mack, Evans, Wardlow, Calt, LaVere, Charters, and so many of the rest of you, you should get to lay your eyes on the monster even if it never gets published. You guys deserve it. I just read your books and articles. You guys are as important as the musicians in my humble opinion.
-
It probably isn't simply McCormick's intransigence that has prevented the Monster from being published; it's widespread public indifference.
This entire story shows that there might be more interest than we realize. This is the most press I have seen on a non-Robert Johnson story in a long time. I bet many more people would like to know about the lives and music of these wonderful musicians. I have had several people talk to me about this article who have no idea about the controversy. As blues fans the research all researchers have given us is precious and I hope that Mack is the only one who is clinging to gems of info that the rest of us here would love to learn about.
-
Susannah McCormick, welcome to WeenieCampbell, and thank you for posting here. Please know that there are many of us on this site who totally support your dad and his work, and regard Sullivan as a thief. What really got my goat was learning that Sullivan had a long conversation with Alan Govenar about "Blues Come To Texas" (the book that Mack and Paul Oliver are collaborating on), and then did not mention one word about it in the article. Oh well, maybe the good thing that will come out of this is --- cover of the NYT book section for "Blues Come To Texas"????
-
I wish the best for Mr. McCormick & his daughter, and for Mr. Sullivan too. The article was absolutely fascinating to read . Some may use the word "thief" in describing the author. None of us can truly know the situation. We weren't there. Emotional responses are one thing. The exact truth of a specific situation is something else entirely. With all due respect to everyone involved; if you weren't there, I'd hesitate before accusing someone of theft.
-
With all due respect to everyone involved; if you weren't there, I'd hesitate before accusing someone of theft.
Couldn't agree more.
-
With all due respect to everyone involved; if you weren't there, I'd hesitate before accusing someone of theft.
I have spent quite a bit of time today looking into Sullivan and with the notable exception of this case he is seen as nothing more than an award winning writer with impeccable credentials and experience working for legit publications. I doubt he would sacrifice his good name for such a inconsequential topic.
Posted by 184.3.31.110 via http://webwarper.net (http://webwarper.net)
This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service
-
I don't know how long you've lived, or what world you've lived in, but the one I've been living in for the last 55 years justifies their level of cynicism and more. We'll probably never really understand all this, but it ain't all folks out to do the right thing all the time--almost never is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It may not legally have been theft, but it sure came across that way ethically to many, many readers of the article. That's a fact, and I also fault him for never once mentioning the fact that the Mack/Paul Oliver collaboration is being edited (the author had a long conversation with the editor, so he definitely knew about it) and will be published next year. To me, that was inexcusable - to not give any credit whatsoever to people who have been working with Mack for many years to pry loose some of his "stuff".
-
I don't know how long you've lived, or what world you've lived in, but the one I've been living in for the last 55 years
Well I am more than old enough and unless you are giving me a gigantic complement for being able to live on another planet you are simply being rude for no good reason. Up until that snide comment this debate has been ten pages and all of it productive and no one calling anyone any names. Good to see you muck it up. Believing that any of us here that seem to disagree with you or have another opinion must be as naive or a simpleton if quite offensive.
Suzy I understand where you are coming from but there is no reason why Mack's collaboration with Mr. Oliver had to be mentioned. Would it have been nice yes but as someone who has had to deal with the restriction of word count in publications that might not have made the cut. I wonder how many collaborations there have been in the last 60 years that began but went nowhere.
-
Hardtime, sorry if you thought I was responding to you. I was actually replying to Gilgamesh's comment about cynicism at the end of page 8 of the thread. I don't know why it took so long for my post to get inserted. No offense intended, to him, and certainly not to you.
-
If you're responding to a specific post, it might be best to quote the specifics when you give your reply. Otherwise, it reads as a general statement to the entire group.
-
Right. Lesson learned. The other lesson, I suppose, is don't post from the phone, because that's the only reason I can think that the post was delayed showing up.
-
Just wondering if anyone has the email for John Jeremiah Sullivan? Thought it might be interesting to invite him over to joint the discussion
-
I would love to hear from Caitlin Love since she has been in the belly of the beast. I bet her story would be very different. It is easy to vilify from afar when few details are known. Three sides to every story and usually more than one lie.
-
Three sides to every story and usually more than one lie.
Or, more likely, three very different honestly expressed points of view.
-
I've been shown some amazing items from different collectors that aren't public but it is because it is that collector's livelihood and hard work and reputation that would be violated.
Randy Meadows earlier post on this topic
If I am to believe Randy then the hording of this kind of precious historical information is commonplace. As a chemist I am use to sharing information and for the most part freely. When we publish our work in peer reviewed journals we usually pay or our employers often pay for the article to be published. When the flow of information hits a snag it unusually due to the sources of the money paying for the research. Even then the information comes to light in comparatively short order when compared to the decades that Mack and possibly others have kept their information as a closely guarded secret. It is sad to think that treasure troves of information collects dust as so many of the people who actually care slowly die off, or get to the age and poor health that they no longer care. I can only imagine how much many of the researchers who have passed such as John Fahey, Stephen Calt, Bernie Klatzko, James McKune, Tom Hoskins, Nick Perls,Bill Barth, Henry Vestine, Alan Lomax and others would have loved to gaze at the hidden away and stored information before moving on to their next destination.
It is likely that this information will sit until the remaining founding investigators leave this world, and if we are to believe Suzy T and Randy this is the way it should be. There on a shelf it sits waiting on the day waiting on its caretaker to set them free. The people who made this music, were they ever really free? I mean free like the upper middle class and above white enthusiasts who devour this music now. No, their lives were often oppressed by much wealthier white men and now their stories are oppressed by much wealthier white men who claim to be so different than the plantation owners of the past. Susannah and Suzy can say that history and the life story of these people have not been withheld, hoarded or hijacked but would LV feel the same way? Would the other people who freely (yes freely as in they were not paid to talk) gave of themselves or loved ones gave for them what it is we know feel the same way, that the stories stay shelved until more white people can make money off of their lives? I doubt it. But for some they still lie there sitting in a box, or on a shelf, collecting dust, not dying but definitely not living and surely not what people thought would happen when they offered up the history of these musicians.
Thank God Alexander Fleming didn't feel this way or many of us wouldn't be here. Thank God Tesla didn't feel this way or we might not be posting here.
-
I do have to push back a little here on your term "hoarding." I can speak with SOME degree of authority and let you know Mack is not and has not hoarded. He DOES have a large collection and he absolutely has been stolen from...and not just with this most recent incident.
I can tell you that he has shared his information. In fact, some of his famed Robert Johnson material he shared with others who wrote a book and made a movie. He has dedicated his entire adult life to promoting and fostering jazz and blues music, going back to 1949 at least. Simply because much of his writing is either out of print or was done for booklets (like the programs for the Smithsonian Folklife Festivals), album notes, or other small run issues does not mean he's been keeping it from the public.
He has obviously not shared it to the extent that many would like. That's too bad and it's his choice. He did do the work, most of it unpaid and on his own time. I will say that he remains an extraordinarily open and accessible man. I admire him more for having met him and I can say that he's still fielding phone calls and visitors. The shame is that many of these phone calls excoriate him for no good reason and that doesn't help him feel willing to hurry up the publication of his material. He is aware of the scolding he's gotten here and other sites as well.
Your desire to know does not preclude the feelings of the fellow who's done this work. Equating the bringing forth of penicillin with the (currently SEMI-private) stories about our favorite artists and their culture seems to me to be spurious at best. Nobody will die if this material is not published in Mack's lifetime. I know I'll be doing my best to help him bring it forth; that's possibly underway, in its beginning phases, and not a subject for further discussion.
I close leaving you with the idea that if you feel in any way slighted by this material not being published, I can assure you Mack feels worse.
-
"Your desire to know does not preclude the feelings of the fellow who's done this work. Equating the bringing forth of penicillin with the (currently SEMI-private) stories about our favorite artists and their culture seems to me to be spurious at best. Nobody will die if this material is not published in Mack's lifetime. I know I'll be doing my best to help him bring it forth; that's possibly underway, in its beginning phases, and not a subject for further discussion."
This is my hobby and I will never have the opportunity to learn everything I want about this music. Many other people are far more invested. Some would like to but don't see the point since they have been getting excited about information becoming available only to have it crushed. They have checked out. Some still hang on. Yes you might (MIGHT) be allowed to get access to some (SOME) of Macks info if everything's goes according to plan, which for most people that has never happened. I hope you are more successful in your current attempts to work with Mack and I applaud you for that. Using any of the definitions of spurious is an inaccurate and slanderous in how it was applied. Nothing I said was bogus, fake or fraudulent, simulated, or deceptive. It wasn't nonsense nor illegitimate. I know several people personally who have tried to work with Mack to no avail. Research and knowledge should play by the same set of rules be it Fleming, Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Franklin, McCormick, or Peter Pan. You say no one will die if the material is not published in Mack's lifetime but the memories of people fade. Eventually those memories die, sadly before the person in many cases. When biographical information of someone vanishes those people unfortunately die twice. Their legacy dies, even if they never knew they had a legacy. There is no assurances that anything will ever be published once he dies. I know that is okay with some.
-
Did L.V. and Geeshie's music start sounding better after all these new revelations? Aren't we all here for the music first and foremost? I was blown away by the original NYT article, but the best part for me was that L.V.'s family was able to appreciate her in a new way. That could've happened without publishing anything. Though this information is interesting to many of us, why should it matter as much as (or more than) the music? I understand all points of view being presented here, but I think everyone might benefit from taking a deep breath and feeling grateful that: a) we are still able to listen to these precious few recordings of these great artists; and b) in some cases we are fortunate enough to learn a bit more about these artists thanks to those that have done the research. Now if someone is actually "hoarding" commercial recordings of these artists that are unknown to the general public... I have some strong concerns. Photographs, details about sexual orientation and/or rap sheets are just scenery. Just my two cents.
-
The sense of entitlement to free information on the Internet or cheap access to information via books (etc) that exists today astonishes me.
You nailed it right on the head. I can't believe the gall of people. The nerve of people to think that they should be able to obtain instant or fast access to information on a topic buying magazines, annuals, cd liner notes, books, booklets, and leaflets using their hard earned money. The sense of entitlement confounds me too. I think that perks of modern society with news agencies, internet, libraries, and printing presses keep spoiling us. No one wants him to not be appreciated for what he did or any researcher has done. People just want an avenue to go and buy a book, leaflet, etc to learn it. Oh yea about going out and getting the info ourselves.................since HoneyBoy died there are no more prewar singers left alive to talk to.
-
Moderators it might be time to shut this one down
-
however Sullivan and Love have been tarred and feathered a bit, but I bet to them it was worth it
-
however Sullivan and Love have been tarred and feathered a bit, but I bet to them it was worth it
haha, of course it was! ;D
-
Moderators it might be time to shut this one down
Why? You guys and gals have been great. A few off the wall opinions or observations, but just move on. It's been a very good thread!
Just remember the weenie maxim, don't take yourself, or anyone else, too seriously. ;)
-
I don't want Mack to be a punching bag. That said its a shame that history can be owned by anyone. Why any one person can legally or otherwise be seen as deserving the right to own the legacy of someone else's life, no matter how big or small, rich or poor that life was eludes me. I understand that he was the researcher to find these performers and ask the questions. Mack isn't a villain and has done nothing legally wrong. Without him the history would be completely lost. My question is this: is it any less lost right now? If this information was being kept with a public institution a freedom of information request might do the job. The Vatican has long been vilified for refusing to let researchers in to see a library rumored to have scrolls from the ancient library of Alexandria as well as gospels deemed forbidden during the Council of Nicaea. Is it their right to keep it hidden if they do have them? Legally they would. The new Pope has given reason to hope that changes, but I digress.
Ragtime Texas Thomas's heirs don't know as much about their legendary ancestor as Mack. That is their fault, or at least their parents and grandparents fault. If they really wanted to know I am sure Mack would tell them, if they knew to go to Houston and find an essentric old man closing in on 90. If his great great great grand kids wanted to know about him and went to a library Macks research wouldn't be there. If they looked on line for a online published book such as Revelation by D.N. Blakey, and it wouldn't be there either. If they looked on a site like this, blindman, tdblues, or others with lots of free info, it wouldn't be there. If they looked on a university site like where Gayle Dean Wardlow freely made his tapes available for anyone to listen to, they wouldn't be there. We know where to go for knowledge but for an outsider like me it took a long time to know who to go to and who to ask for what. I am still learning this. Most people would never know to even look for Mack. Not being a long time collector, researcher, or writer from the time of the rediscovery there are lots of holes in what I know and only so many books, magazines, and liner notes to patch them up with. Many hole will forever go unpatched but I hope that is not the same for future generations. If history can be forever owned it can much more easily be forever lost.
-
I don't want Mack to be a punching bag. That said its a shame that history can be owned by anyone. Why any one person can legally or otherwise be seen as deserving the right to own the legacy of someone else's life, no matter how big or small, rich or poor that life was eludes me.
There are no rights given or implied with virtually any interview that isn't done specifically for a TV broadcast, movie, or something like that, which usually involves a contract. I'm sure 99% of interviews with roots musicians have been conducted informally. Neither the interviewer or interviewee is likely to view such an informal exchange as "owning the legacy" of their life experiences. That is a strange viewpoint. Have you ever interviewed musicians?
I understand that he was the researcher to find these performers and ask the questions. Mack isn't a villain and has done nothing legally wrong. Without him the history would be completely lost. My question is this: is it any less lost right now? If this information was being kept with a public institution a freedom of information request might do the job. The Vatican has long been vilified for refusing to let researchers in to see a library rumored to have scrolls from the ancient library of Alexandria as well as gospels deemed forbidden during the Council of Nicaea. Is it their right to keep it hidden if they do have them? Legally they would. The new Pope has given reason to hope that changes, but I digress.
There's really no comparison there, even if your history was accurate, which it is not. (No gospels were discussed at the Council of Nicea, and no Alexandrian scrolls are hidden in the Vatican. This is Dan Brown-level nonsense.)
Ragtime Texas Thomas's heirs don't know as much about their legendary ancestor as Mack. That is their fault, or at least their parents and grandparents fault. If they really wanted to know I am sure Mack would tell them, if they knew to go to Houston and find an essentric old man closing in on 90. If his great great great grand kids wanted to know about him and went to a library Macks research wouldn't be there.
If you think the musician's heirs care as much about this music as Mack does (or we do), you probably haven't spent much time around old musician's heirs. Claude Johnson most likely never heard a note of his supposed father's music until Steve LaVere showed up at his door, despite it being easily accessible for decades by then. You could multiply that example by a million.
-
Let's try again folks , we were doing so well - thanks!
-
Was Mack McCormick a contributor to the article?
Am I understanding it correctly that they originally used information without privilege? Or did he turn it over to them originally?
Wonderful article though.
Seems he was saying Caitlin had taken photos without his consent but surely all that information he has just sitting there deserves to get out and Mack probably wants the stuff to get out but obviously he seems to have some serious personal issues. I hope he gets it together, if not we can only hope that after he passes away all that stuff will be unharmed and available. Looks like it will need more than a couple of researchers to go through it all and sort it out.
The stuff about the Robert Johnson photos really disturbed me a lot and all my mind is doing at the moment is "please don't let him be right about that".
I really loved that article and the way the story about L.V. got out and it sort of gives an insight into the mystery of Geeshie and that murder and why L.V. just was not very willing to talk about her or her past "life in the world" as it was described. It does seem the old blues world was pretty dark but isn't it wonderful all the same.
-
The larger question is whether or not McCormick's research into OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES rightfully belongs to him, and whether or not he should be declared non compus mentus as regards the safe keeping of his admittedly invaluable archive. Perhaps he should be compelled to turn it over to the LOC or the Smithsonian for safekeeping lest in a fit of bipolar despair he takes a match to the whole thing.
Thank you Mr. O'Muck for saying what I was thinking but actually too scared to write myself, especially the putting a match to it bit. He does have rights to it but surely the rights of all must weigh in the balance. Of course it is possible that we are jumping to conclusions about how far his state of mind has gone and he is of course the man who went and did all the hard footslogging but the very thought he might one day destroy some of or all of it would be the blues equivalent of the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria which perhaps is THE greatest crime against humanity in all of history.
-
I enjoyed the article. Here's a follow up piece:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/behind-the-cover-story-john-jeremiah-sullivan-on-the-search-for-geeshie-and-elvie/?ref=magazine (http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/behind-the-cover-story-john-jeremiah-sullivan-on-the-search-for-geeshie-and-elvie/?ref=magazine)
While his research is about "other people's lives," it is still Mack's work and should be respected as such.
Upon reflection, it's unfortunate that no one was able to respond to Mack's request in 1976 in a manner that he felt was appropriate and acceptable to him. (Maybe they did, I can't be sure.) Perhaps the results of his researches would have been published over the years.
One thing that struck me was that Mack's bi-polar condition?a condition that can be debilitating--was almost treated as a sidelight. A little more understanding and insight into an illness that no one chooses?as well as its effects--might have been in order. But that's an article for another place and time.
Yes bi-polar can be and is a terrible affliction, one that came to light in a very big way a few years back when it was discovered that the great Andrew Johns was bi-polar. Andrew is an Australian sporting icon and perhaps the greatest rugby league player to have ever lived and because he had used marijuana for a time many condemned him for it without ever taking his condition into account, something which angered me as what mattered to me was that he was a genius footballer and his private life none of anybody's business at all. Sorry for deviating a bit from our blues and the article but i feel it is related.
-
(update on the "Geeshie Wiley" photo) It was found in a box of L.V. Thomas' effects. I'm told that there is now considerable doubt about who it actually is, Geeshie Wiley or an unknown friend of L.V. Thomas. And.... that's all folks!
-
I can see both sides of the debate. For those that love the history of the people, their lives, their stories, the complexity of personalities, for those of us who want to put a person and a life to the music that was written, his quasi-theft is justified. Imagine if everything we now know about classical composers, even the obscure; historical figures in history, politicians, ancient philosophers, and poets were lost because the one person who had the knowledge didn't share it until all the people who could verify the facts were dead (though this did certainly happen.) Imagine Van Goghs life being lost. He was obscure in his life and if he were black this could have easily happened to him.
For those of us how only care about the music and don't really care about who the person was and believes that their lives should be completely private, losing this knowledge isn't a big deal. Who's right is it of us to want to know those details anyway. Mack and other researchers have no obligation to share their knowledge, not with us, not with anyone. It is their knowledge and if history dies with them well so be it. It would have been lost anyway without the researcher. Those of us that feel like this hate what Mr. Sulllivan has done we hate how he took advantage of an old man, no matter how complicated or cantankerous he or she may be.
I am glad that Vincents brother shared the life of Van Gogh with the world. I am glad that the amazing Arabic mathematicians that researched and developed advanced mathematics and the geniuses like Nikola Tesla who research and develop scientific breakthroughs didn't die before sharing it with the world. Am I glad that even though L.V. and Geeshie are seen by some as utterly obscure musicians that their story mattered to a couple of people. But like Bluesdownsouth I hope a match isn't lit to the whole kit and kaboodle and all other research is lost.
But before I condemn the two researchers further I will acknowledge that I have done nothing more than write one letter to Mack. I didn't quit school and go to Texas. I haven't tried to develop a relationship with Mack and travel to Houston to try to do things "the right way" and to my knowledge no one else has either. A website has been up for years where Mack has openly asked people to help him with it. I have failed to do more than write a letter pleading with him to ensure his research ends up in good hands. They have done more than I and more than anyone I know to try and open Mack's Pandoras box. LV and Geeshie were able to escape and for that I am grateful.
Now we have to hope that Macks daughter isn't so jaded against the research that she feels consumed too much of his time that it ends up in a trash heap. If you think something like this can't happen think again. For some of us it would be a tragedy of Maoist proportions. To others of us, at least we have the music. But is that all that really matters?
{{ Now we have to hope that Macks daughter isn't so jaded against the research that she feels consumed too much of his time that it ends up in a trash heap. }} << Yikes, heaven forbid, that would be paramount to throwing her own fathers memory onto a trash heap, unthinkable.
I for one do want to know about and have something more to read on the great blues figures and it is part of our history. Not only that but a history where white bigwigs mistreated and vastly underpaid so many great musicians and the tenor of those times is the reason so much information will never see light of day. The work that the searchers and researchers have done in the past and present does something towards righting past wrongs. I do not feel that anyone in this story deserves condemnation, there is way too much GUESSING going on here I feel. let's be thankful to both parties.
Now can we get back to L.V. and Geeshie and talk about them and especially their music ?
-
Hi all,
I don't know how helpful or fruitful it is to engage in a lot of conjectural hand-wringing on Mack McCormick's behalf, worrying about the disposition of his archive in the future in the aftermath of the publication of this article, etc., etc. etc. If Mack feels sufficiently wronged, he can pursue some kind of legal action. If not, it's crazy to take whatever the imagined offense was (which, in fact, can not be surmised from the information that is publicly available) harder than Mack does himself. Wait and see what happens. The core of information at the heart of the article was sat on for fifty years. Surely people can wait a few weeks or months until there is actually something to talk about.
If I may talk about music for a moment (remember that?), I would challenge your characterization of LV Thomas and Geechie Wiley as minor figures, Mike, in comparison to Blake, a giant. Certainly LV and Geechie recorded only a few sides and never achieved the commercial success and recognition that Blind Blake had, nor the influence on other musicians, but musically, they are every bit his peers, and I think made bigger statements in the Blues. Blind Blake was a superlative guitarist, unbelievably accomplished, and a really nice singer, but I would consider his musical output to be "Blues Lite" in comparison to "Last Kind Words Blues" or "Motherless Child Blues". He just never did anything with that kind of gravitas or deep Blues feeling. He didn't have it in him to sing anything that heavy--and most other musicians don't, either! Those cuts of that duo belong right up there at the top of the heap, with Blind Willie Johnson's "Dark Was the Night", Henry Spaulding's "Cairo Blues", Charlie Patton's "Pony Blues", you name it.
All best,
Johnm
I understand your point of view John, to a point. I agree that the bluesiness, or the blues deepness in the ladies recordings is not the type that Blake did but I do not agree that Blake was not "deep", or that he was "blues lite". There is something very very deep to me in many of his blues recordings (not his outright rags, but there is also something I find very deep in them). To play as sublimely as he did, as completely full of genius as he did means to me that he is simply above comparison to mere mortals (yes he was mortal but so was Mozart) and he sits above the stratosphere, maybe among the gods. I would cite a tune like Bad Feeling Blues as having gravitas and brilliant guitar playing all in the one single great tune, deep and beautiful.
What I see in your comments is a matter of differing styles, Blake is big city and country at the same time, he is jazz and ragtime, and blues and ballad all mixed together, not just a great guitarist but a great storyteller, he had a masterful way with words. With Wiley and Thomas they certainly are deep and also brilliant and I think their status today has more to do with the lack of recordings they got to make, maybe that is because as the article implies that Wiley may have killed a husband and she had to get the hell outta dodge. In summation I must say I agree and also disagree with the comparison and I do understand that you are sticking up for Wiley and Thomas and good on you for that. To me Blake is the king, at least of the guitar so maybe I am just showing some bias but I must point out that I love the delta blues deeply, the darker and moodier the bette.r
-
If it were in book form, with Mack's name on the cover as the author it would be Mack's and he would have fulfilled his obligation to the people he collected memories and information from. As filing cabinets full of rare historical information which is NEVER going to be made into a book, a film or anything else by this man, there is zero point in him retaining it and letting it sit and rot or burn. That is a treacherous thing to allow to happen. It places Mack's rights as collector above those of all the people he collected from. Its not as though this were an unpublished novel that he'd written. Nothing is preventing this man from publishing except a crippling mental infirmity which it appears will operate in the same manner forever. Nothing is preventing him from having someone compile an inventory and auctioning it off at Southeby's, Christies or E-Bay.
He can even retain ownership, but the first consideration would be to remove it to a fireproof facility for safe keeping, otherwise it could be gone in an instant. How would that serve anybody?
I am with you, BIG THUMBS UP O'Muck. This stuff is too important to be allowed to "disappear"
-
from the article he seems in sound mind thats why i took exception with the invalid comment from his daughter.
-
I don't pretend to be an expert in any way, but my recent studies have given me some awareness of bipolar disorder. It is very hard to recognize in only a few meetings with a person. Primarily it is characterized by periods of elevated mood, sometimes hypermania with "pressured speech", with little need for sleep, great productivity and self esteem, counterbalanced with periods of depression, inability to complete, irritability and often paranoia. But to the common observer they may just appear moody. Medication is difficult, for instance, attempting to medicate for depression can cause greater frequency of cycling. Mood stabilizers can be effective, but not always, and sufferers often want to go off treatment during manic periods. Often sufferers self medicate with alcohol or other substances. Relationships and holding a job are both difficult. This is a terribly debilitating illness to live with. I have no idea to what level this problem effects Mack and draw no conclusions as to how deeply he suffers, but clearly, by his own admission, these symptoms are at play to some level.
I have noticed another aspect of Mack's research that illuminates how this illness can effect someone. There are two parts to "research" as I understand it. One area is "discovery" which is the exciting story collecting phase. At the time that Mack was most active there was a likelihood that many people who were recorded, or knew people that were recorded, were still alive. Mack spent a great deal of time talking to these people and basically gathering a lot of spoken data, what is termed "hearsay" in a court of law. This was all very exciting, of course. The second aspect of research is "fact checking". This puts the capital "R" in research. This is where an attempt is made to verify those "hearsay" statements. This may represent weeks or months of lonely slogging work, going through records, once in paper form, then dizzying microfiche, finally we have online databases that certainly make this easier, but no less frustrating. At least in the evidence we have from this story, it appears that this aspect of research is what eluded Mack. I don't recall any evidence that he followed up on the information that L.V. told him, except maybe to go to places and try to find people who could tell him more. The loneliness and frustration of fact checking could have easily triggered episodes of depression and made this aspect of research impossible for him. Again, this is pure speculation, but fits the profile of the disease.
Another aspect of this discussion, separate from Mack's illness, is the concept of ownership. To me, a researcher is no different from a newspaper reporter. What a researcher owns is the right to say, "I had a conversation with so-and-so on this date, and they told me this information, which may or may not be true." Now I don't see that they have any ownership rights over the actual information they were given. Someone else could have heard the same information from that so-and-so, or from another person, at some other time, and they certainly have the right to report that conversation, as well. So, like a reporter, the intrinsic value of the hearsay information is in being the first to report. The value of that hearsay information may increase drastically if corroborating records can be found. However, just as the original interviewer has the right to say, "in this interview, so-and-so said this," a person who interviews the interviewer can then state what the interviewer told them the original interviewee had stated. Hearsay of hearsay, so to speak. And if the second interviewer then does the fact checking, finding corroboration thus increasing the value of the information, who owns that?
There was also some talk of manipulation, a young man manipulating an older man into revealing more than he wanted to reveal. How is this different from the young Mack interviewing the elderly L.V. and clearly stating his awareness that she did not want to talk about Geeschie, yet, almost proudly describing how he carefully brought her around to that topic several times?
I would also point out that at the time of Mack's interviews a white man had a tremendous power advantage over a black person in the South, even if he wasn't aware that it was a factor in their conversation. I also wonder whether interviewees were aware that information they revealed was possibly going to be published in a book. This was long before the time of signed "informed consent" forms even became a concept. I also wonder how many of those portrait pictures had signed releases for publication. These are all standard practices today.
I am not making any accusations with these observations. Mack was following standard procedures of the times. Really, I am hoping that these views will depolarize the conversation here, by pointing out that these are very complex issues. What has occurred to me is to wonder what would have happened had there not been a falling out between Mack and Sullivan. Sullivan and Love have shown themselves to be the perfect researchers to do the fact checking that eluded Mack for so long. What a great partnership that might have been. It seems the outcome might have been exactly the same, except of course for the incredible controversy that has ensued. That is exemplary of the sadness of bipolar disorder.
But, heck, what a publicity pump that has been for all, really. There even seem to be two new members who joined primarily to publicize an entirely different book by an uninvolved author, which they mention in almost every post? (wink)
Wax
-
I am hoping that these views will depolarize the conversation here, by pointing out that these are very complex issues.
The simple part is the sneak-thievery that clearly took place. Most everything else is pretty complex. But not that.
Now how you interpret that, whether you're an ends justifies the means type, or whether you are repulsed by it and its effect on McCormick, that gets you back to the muddy waters.
-
(update on the "Geeshie Wiley" photo) It was found in a box of L.V. Thomas' effects. I'm told that there is now considerable doubt about who it actually is, Geeshie Wiley or an unknown friend of L.V. Thomas. And.... that's all folks!
[/quote
thanks for the update, finn. Can I ask how you know?
-
Yes you can.... I talked this morning to the fellow who showed me the photo. That's what he said. He added that it may have been a girlfriend of L.V.'s. Thanks for asking man. I wish I could post the photo but I can't. It is a very striking woman, whoever she is.... The music has got into my blood, my bones. Only reason I'm posting... I don't like the "thief" & otherwise posts on this thread. John Sullivan isn't a thief....I ain't posting on this thread no more. It's all about the history & actually playing the music in front of paying crowds for me. This "he said, she said" shit isn't my cup of brew. I'm way too busy with the music. And I hope that it's y'all focus too. Shit needs to get played in front of paying customers.
-
O.K; guess I can't help myself... ANY historical information about this TRUE American music can't be hoarded. To do so is a crime against our shared cultural history. It's no individual's "right" to make such a wrong. It's selfish. The history of this thing we all love isn't owned by anyone one person. It belongs to the American people. It needs to be shared worldwide. It's a damned shame not to share it with the whole human race.. .
-
We've got no right to McCormick's work, no matter how badly we want it. Doesn't matter if he wants to drag his feet, be selfish or come up with every excuse under the sun. Sure it would be a shame if information was lost. We've got the music that the artist's recorded for sale to the public. Everything else is icing on the cake, but certainly not necessary. It's the music that will live on. I don't see where McCormick owes me or anybody else anything! He's already contributed a lot in his time.
-
I appreciate Mack's work; 'specially his Mance Lipscomb book.... but you're dead wrong. The information he gathered doesn't belong to him . It belongs to the voices he talked to. And those voices need a wider audience. Much more than just a moldy box in storage. This is important American musical history. Who do you think it truly belongs to?
-
There are several perspectives from which one can approach the question of whether what Sullivan and Love did was wrong. More specifically, one can ask whether what was done was legally wrong, ethically wrong (in the sense of journalistic ethics), or morally wrong. Different people might answer each of these differently (although I posit that only the first can have a straightforwardly objective answer). But I'd like to suggest that some of the disagreement in this discussion up to now has occurred when one person is considering one of these, and the person with whom they're disagreeing is considering another.
-
I appreciate your post. I disagree with some of the implications but I see your points. ... suppose I had the only surviving '78 of a major country blues artist. No one's ever heard it. They don't know it exists. Does the music belong to me alone? Or does it rightfully belong to a world - wide audience? How would you answer? It's a question of ethics...
-
O.K; guess I can't help myself... ANY historical information about this TRUE American music can't be hoarded. To do so is a crime against our shared cultural history. It's no individual's "right" to make such a wrong. It's selfish. The history of this thing we all love isn't owned by anyone one person. It belongs to the American people. It needs to be shared worldwide. It's a damned shame not to share it with the whole human race.. .
Yep, and this has to be a factor in why our beloved music isn't more well known to the wider world which I have to say that being a blues musician myself has been a source of major frustration. I live in Australia where pub rock seems to be all the publicans want to book an act for. It's hard enough getting a paid gig for playing electric blues, getting paid for doing country blues (of the authentic variety) almost a pure pipe dream, yet I won't stop trying as there is nothing else I want to do with my life. I for one eat up all this information in blues literature. Without the literature of those who have published it (like Sullivan) I would never discovered country blues in the first place and would probably still be playing Deep Purple covers like I was in my mid 20's. In short I did not discover the music first, it was a fascinating article on Robert Johnson and one on Muddy Waters that made me go out and look for the records and later, into buying dvds of Ari Eisinger, John Miller, Tom Feldmann etc.
-
I appreciate your post. I disagree with some of the implications but I see your points. ... suppose I had the only surviving '78 of a major country blues artist. No one's ever heard it. They don't know it exists. Does the music belong to me alone? Or does it rightfully belong to a world - wide audience? How would you answer? It's a question of ethics...
finn: to whom are you replying above? Without a quote to give context, we don't know what post you're referring to when you say "your post."
-
If you own the record, then yes it is yours. You can do whatever you want with it. Can you direct us to the law that states you have legal rights to something you don't own just because you find it interesting? Until you can, then I'd say its you sir, who are dead wrong.
The only real facts I see here is the fact that Mack McCormick is still alive and we have no idea how this will actually play out.
-
I appreciate Mack's work; 'specially his Mance Lipscomb book.... but you're dead wrong. The information he gathered doesn't belong to him . It belongs to the voices he talked to. And those voices need a wider audience. Much more than just a moldy box in storage. This is important American musical history. Who do you think it truly belongs to?
I am with you on this but i sorta understand what the other bloke is saying. From what I get from the article was no sense at all that Sullivan had done any stealing whatsoever as it seems to me those few pages of L.V. was given t him from Mack. Caitlin Love is the one who seems to have taken a few photographs that Mack didn't authorize and then when Sullivan finds out THEN he gets hands on that info, WHICH IS JUST THE BARE BONES OF IT and then they go out footslogging to verify and add to that information. Then we have Susanna McCormick come on and give her version (as far as I gather she was not present) and there is obviously an emotional response from her but from her open letter I feel encouraged that a lot more information will eventually follow but by then maybe all of it unverifyable due to everyone being dead, I just cannot see how Sullivan is a thief, at least not a first hand thief. I also believe we do have some rights in the matter when so much information has been known by just one single man for 50 or so years already.
-
I appreciate your post. I disagree with some of the implications but I see your points. ... suppose I had the only surviving '78 of a major country blues artist. No one's ever heard it. They don't know it exists. Does the music belong to me alone? Or does it rightfully belong to a world - wide audience? How would you answer? It's a question of ethics...
finn: to whom are you replying above? Without a quote to give context, we don't know what post you're referring to when you say "your post."
Good point... I'm replying to the post directly above me, in the sequence of the thread .. Thanks
-
If you own the record, then yes it is yours. You can do whatever you want with it. Can you direct us to the law that states you have legal rights to something you don't own just because you find it interesting? Until you can, then I'd say its you sir, who are dead wrong.
The only real facts I see here is the fact that Mack McCormick is still alive and we have no idea how this will actually play out.
We completely disagree about "ownership". If I had the only surviving copy of a country blues artist; ethically... the music doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the world. I didn't create it. Just because I found it, does that make it mine? Likewise, if I talked to some people, do I own their voices? Their history? My ethics say... no.
-
Who said McCormick is not going to release this information? He hasn't said that. We already know he's tried in the past to get it out. Just because he hasn't released it within a time frame that you feel appropriate does not give you the right to step in and take over.
What info could he have that is so important? Another picture of Robert Johnson? The particulars about the artists lives, while interesting I have to admit, is not important to the appreciation of the music.
-
We DO know for sure that Mack is going to release some of his information, and I find myself still irritated by the fact that Jeremiah Sullivan, author of the NY Times article, also knew this - he talked for over an hour with the editor of Mack and Paul Oliver's book, "Blues Came To Texas" which is supposed to come out next year, so he definitely knew about this upcoming book - but he did not mention one word about this book in his article. He made it seem like Mack wasn't ever going to share his work, when he knew that was not true. That really got my goat.
But, the good side is, now lots and lots of people know about this beautiful music. I hope that a small fraction of them may be willing to spring for "Blues Come To Texas" when it finally sees the light of day!
That said, "Mine and thine" appears to mean little to either Sullivan or the inaptly named Love.
-
Speaking of covers, anyone remember this one by Lesley B:
http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=1800.0 (http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=1800.0)
No longer available via the link, but fortunately I downloaded it. Anyone know who the singer was/is? Does she have anything on YT?
-
O.K; guess I can't help myself... ANY historical information about this TRUE American music can't be hoarded. To do so is a crime against our shared cultural history. It's no individual's "right" to make such a wrong. It's selfish. The history of this thing we all love isn't owned by anyone one person. It belongs to the American people. It needs to be shared worldwide. It's a damned shame not to share it with the whole human race.. .
Again, I urge you and the others who share your philosophy to go steal Paul Swinton's Blind Lemon research and publish it under your name. What's stopping you? Swinton, according to this philosophy, is committing a crime by not publishing it. There is probably a lot of unpublished work sitting in file cabinets in the homes of people like Oliver, Bastin, Evans, Wardlow, et al. Perhaps some sort of "Justice League" can be formed in which a team of Superfans all over the world go on a mission to raid the homes of these criminals and liberate those manuscripts. They belong to us, not them!
-
Yes you can.... I talked this morning to the fellow who showed me the photo. That's what he said. He added that it may have been a girlfriend of L.V.'s. Thanks for asking man. I wish I could post the photo but I can't. It is a very striking woman, whoever she is.... The music has got into my blood, my bones. Only reason I'm posting... I don't like the "thief" & otherwise posts on this thread. John Sullivan isn't a thief....I ain't posting on this thread no more. It's all about the history & actually playing the music in front of paying crowds for me. This "he said, she said" shit isn't my cup of brew. I'm way too busy with the music. And I hope that it's y'all focus too. Shit needs to get played in front of paying customers.
Tell you what, how about "acquiring" your friends picture and posting it here. I mean its not his right? I'm sure that he'd understand once you explained your philosophy to him.
-
Everyone keep it civil, please.
-
Does this topic really merit so much brouhaha? Be nice.
-
I'm just expressing my opinion; certainly not advocating that anyone steal anything , nothing ridiculous like that. It's not my intention to get anyone riled up. I do appreciate the expression of different viewpoints even if I don't agree with some of them.
-
Everyone keep it civil, please.
10-4 Uncle Bud. Will do.
-
I appreciate your post. I disagree with some of the implications but I see your points. ... suppose I had the only surviving '78 of a major country blues artist. No one's ever heard it. They don't know it exists. Does the music belong to me alone? Or does it rightfully belong to a world - wide audience? How would you answer? It's a question of ethics...
finn: to whom are you replying above? Without a quote to give context, we don't know what post you're referring to when you say "your post."
Good point... I'm replying to the post directly above me, in the sequence of the thread .. Thanks
OK, well, the post "directly above you" was mine, and I'm not sure that what I was trying to say came across, then. My post didn't offer an opinion on whether anything anyone did was right or wrong; it simply noted that sometimes, when folks here are disagreeing, they're not talking about the same thing.
-
I misinterpreted your post then. Some folks it seems have misinterpreted my posts too. Nowhere did I advocate theft. I'm taken aback by such implications. Rather, I am referring to an act of conscience; knowing the difference between right & wrong. An impulse that might arise in one's self within a specific situation. It's my opinion that historical information of such cultural importance shouldn't be held hidden by any one individual. It should be given freely, for the enrichment & greater good of us all. That said, I take nothing personally for those that have a different opinion. I'm grateful that we can all gather here through a shared love of the music, irregardless of differences in opinion.
-
suppose I had the only surviving '78 of a major country blues artist. No one's ever heard it. They don't know it exists.[/quote
I know for a 100% fact that something like this (somewhat) has happened. I know someone with a record that he won't let our of his glass case for nothing and he doesn't need the money. I have begged him to put out for us to buy or at least put in a safety deposit box but no. This kills me inside on a very regular basis.
-
What info could he have that is so important?
So do you get to determine its level of importance or do I get to determine its level of importance, or does Finn, or someone else? Does the level of importance have to be on par with curing Aids or just of cultural significance? This is important.
There was a tribe in Africa at the turn of the 1900s and they knew of an antidote where they would chew herbs and roots into a paste. When someone got shot in the eyes by a spitting cobra (blind in 20 min usually) they could apply this antidote and it would reverse the affects of the poison. The tribe wouldn't give up this info for anything and even went so far as to deny this knowledge even when it had been seen in action. Would this be important enough and if so would it be robbing their rights if a copy of the recipe was photographed. Would you defend the shaman or the people who would no longer be blind. Don't hide behind the (there is a difference). Information is information, research is research, and all things being fair would you still hold the same stance?
-
Suzy T I hope you get paid advertising for promoting Blues Came to Texas. Also when there is a collection of information and the executor has a complicated history when it comes to books not making it to the press you can't be really mad that Sullivan didn't mention a book that might make it to the presses, that is if nothing happens. Lets not act like Mack hasn't started and by some accounts finished some writing projects and nothing ever came of it.
-
Again, I urge you and the others who share your philosophy to go steal Paul Swinton's Blind Lemon research....
Is this an echo or have I heard this already? Did someone already say this in an earlier post? Sounds familiar.
Tell you what, how about "acquiring" your friends picture and posting it here.
Hasn't been keeping it hidden for 50 years and is actively trying to authenticate it as we type so that really doesn't apply. Check back in a few decades if it hasn't turned up.
Fenn you never advocated theft, I reread your posts and those of everyone. Not one person said that anyone should break in and steal him blind. It is kind of like the easter bunny and sasquatch. Wait there is more evidence for sasquatch than for wennies wanting to rob Mack blind.
-
Suzy T I hope you get paid advertising for promoting Blues Came to Texas. Also when there is a collection of information and the executor has a complicated history when it comes to books not making it to the press you can't be really mad that Sullivan didn't mention a book that might make it to the presses, that is if nothing happens. Lets not act like Mack hasn't started and by some accounts finished some writing projects and nothing ever came of it.
At a minimum, this other book being in the works seems to fly completely in the face of your loudly and oft repeated idea of MM hiding his research, no?
I suspect that is the rather simple connection/argument SuzyT is making.
No reason at all to attack her motives.
-
O.K; guess I can't help myself... ANY historical information about this TRUE American music can't be hoarded. To do so is a crime against our shared cultural history. It's no individual's "right" to make such a wrong.
Does this philosophy explicitly advocate theft? Of course it doesn't. One can, however, exaggerate to make a point. Yet the exponents of this philosophy in this thread have not made it clear exactly who makes the decisions on what constitutes a crime against "cultural history." Nor how, precisely, the files, papers, tapes, photos, and manuscripts of these "thieves of souls" (as Sullivan called McCormick) are to be handed over, and to whom. The advocates of this philosophy are strangely quiet about the practicality of putting their ideas into action.
The only reason to ask these questions is simply to expose how absurd this position is. Every writer about blues probably has some unpublished research sitting in file cabinets, not just McCormick. And yet nobody is advocating raiding those files to avenge some romantic notion of "shared cultural history." And needless to say, no one advocating this position would ever allow their own work to be appropriated this way, especially someone who writes for a living, like Sullivan.
-
At this point in this discussion, every dead horse within a 100-mile radius has been flogged till there's nothing left. So unless someone has something useful to say about the actual content of the article, or the music of LV Thomas, or something radical like that, maybe it's time to give the question of who the bad guys are a very long rest. Clearly no one is convincing anyone of anything at this point.
-
Hear, hear :)
-
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.
Good luck and good bye to you too.
-
"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!! >:D
How'd you do that?
Gary
-
It sounds awful Gary - fall and winter Santa Ana winds in May?
We've just had our March dust storms in April/May - otherwise it's very nice here! ;)
-
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.
Not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship ;)
-
Wasn't expecting to see this ...
http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/larry-mcmurtry-lonesome-dove-new-book-interview/ (http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/larry-mcmurtry-lonesome-dove-new-book-interview/)
?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."
-
Wasn't expecting to see this ...
Yeah, I saw that. What's next? --the graphic novel? The mini-series?
"Of all the 78s in all the collections in all the world, she has to pick this one...Play it [again], Sam..."
(My apologies to Casablanca fans--and non-fans, as well.)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
which book are you talking about? This one perchance?
recent message from Arhoolie:
"The Blues Come to Texas: Loping Like A Mule" - The Arhoolie Foundation granted funds toward the completion of a book by acclaimed blues historians Paul Oliver and Alan Govenar. This 600-800 page book, slated for publication by the Texas A&M University Press, is the result of work and research begun by Paul Oliver over 50 years ago with the cooperation of Mack McCormick, legendary Texas vernacular historian. The entire project is being supervised and edited by Alan Govenar, who foresees publication in 2015.
-
Be great if it happens but it was being talked about in Blues Unlimited nearly 50 years ago.
-
Gumbo, I hope it comes out. It will be great and so many of us will pour over every word..........................if it comes out. It also looks like it is the result of work Oliver with the cooperation of Mack McCormick. If it comes out, if and I am rooting for it, I will be jacked up. Hard to get jacked up about anything of McCormicks until it comes to be.
-
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.
The problem I have with much of this discussion, and this quote in specific, is that no differentiation is made between the academic researchers and the, well, rather than "hobbyist", lets say "freelance" researchers. While freelancers may have a broad range of skills and ethics, the norm for the quality of research for a freelancer is well below that of the academic researcher. And not only do academic researchers have a standard of verification for what they publish, they do have a mandate to publish with regularity, and their work is properly archived and generally held in university libraries with access to others. Academic researchers, perhaps including those freelancers from other academic disciplines, (thinking of Paul Oliver for one), have created the bulk of the verified information that we have of the early blues era. Yet I guess the information we have in hand is of lesser value, somehow, than the information we believe has been gathered yet not released, even if it is largely unverified, so we dismiss those academic researchers who have already done the majority of the work and who continue to research, authenticate, and publish.
Unfortunately in this case, due to this terrible illness, we see one of the most disheartening examples of the freelance "cowboy" researcher. Sure his manic phase would have fueled the lightning strikes of following the trail from one interview to another, driving about the country digging for gold, but when it came time for the real research, combing through city state and federal documentation, newspaper files, etc., for verification of the hearsay data, the depression phase seems to have always been at it's worst. And then the paranoia fostered proprietary attitude with it's overblown estimation of the true value of the unverified data, coupled with the anger at publishers reluctant to take on such projects, and again, the far more difficult and demanding task of actually writing a book, yet another opportunity for the depression to halt all progress. It's not hard to imagine that even without the symptoms of a bipolar personality, an untrained freelancer would be daunted by the many roles, each with a different set of learned skills to be mastered, that are required to bring the work to fruition.
But academic researchers are trained in all these areas and carryout their research, from interviews through corroboration, cataloguing and writing, generally in a systematic, professional manner. Perhaps not everyone is an imaginative writer, but at least they are getting good, verified data and getting it out to us. Give them some credit, would ya?
Wax
-
What's the point of research if it's not made available to the wider community?
I understand the privacy, ownership and confidentiality arguments and perhaps they trump the wider interests but it does make all the effort pointless.
I want to know what Mack knows at least partly to credit him for all he's done.
-
For what it's worth in 2008 John Nova Lomax interviewed him at length
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-11-20/news/the-collector-mack-mccormick-s-huge-archive-of-culture-and-lore/full/ (http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-11-20/news/the-collector-mack-mccormick-s-huge-archive-of-culture-and-lore/full/)
-
And also FWIW--as a person who tried his utmost to reach out, to assist, to volunteer, and who even got to type 40 pages of manuscript at Mack's behest--Mack has serious health issues. One of those health issues, his bi-polar disease, makes it nigh on impossible for him to focus on more than one thing at a time (his words). It isn't that he doesn't WANT or REFUSES or truculently wants to DEPRIVE the world of his research. He simply cannot. That is the long and the short of it, I am afraid. There is some hope that he will work with his daughter and grand-daughter; they were having discussions last spring to begin working on the material. But the saddest thing of all is that this brilliant mind with all of its still-fresh memories, all the work that he did over his life to document and collect this material, is quite honestly trapped. He cannot turn it over, he cannot get the work done himself.
I can't imagine what it must be like to live with a disease like that but after my visits last spring, I have as much frustration for what might have been (or what might yet be). But greater than that frustration is my sense of empathy for the man. I'm lucky that I don't have to live with that issue. It truly is a hellhound on his trail.
-
Wax -
I must differ a bit with you as both an academic and a free=lancer. It was the latter (mostly jazz record collectors) who "did" the hard yards regarding all forms of African American vernacular music... and usually Europeans! Academia took way too long to accept the subjects a "worthy" of attention such that they are true Johnny-come-latelies stepping up to the plate very late in the day. The fact that we were dealing with something "Black" and something "popular" hindered any academic action for decades for it is quite elitist in nature.
Without the free-lancers we would know near to bupkis about this music and the people who made it. Academia is last in line for "discoveries" and actually too late to get their feet truly wet. Without the Axel K?stners, the George Mitchells, the Bruce Bastins, the Nick Perls and the NY Blues Mafia, the Peter Guralnicks, the Jacques Dem?tres, the Roger Browns... the list goes on and on, we would be looking at a nearly blank wall without their efforts.
Today, there are some folks in academia, some folks in state agencies (still way to few of those - each state should have one) who have taken on some of the burden, but much of that is theoretical approaches (not that there's anything wrong with that!) rather than the boots-on-the- ground knocking-on-doors hard yakka. The internet has made some things easier as well as some more difficult. Dealing with PEOPLE and not just stats is that way.
People like Mack (and dare I saw it... myself) have beavered away for decades with little to no interest from the outside world. Some of the people we've dealt with were appreciative of our interests and often amazed that any White folks gave a damn! It was a long and difficult decade for myself and I cannot imagine what it was like for Mack who began decades before I did. This forum is nice, if a bit self-centered and blindered, but it is not representative of the real world out there. My decade's worth of field work (recordings, photographs, interviews, various forms of paper-work in the SE) sits moldering away in a storage space in NJ [with my tapes copied in the LofC]. At seventy three (and counting) I fully expect that this will not change and that my son will try and do the right thing about my "stuff" (his mother would chuck it in the bin a.s.a.p.!) when I cark it. It's just a fact of life that the large majority could care less about what folks like Mack or I have done as our life's work. Sad, but true.
I am NOT fishing for support or sympathy or financial aid. I am merely tearing the covering off of our rose-colored glasses POV. Reality check time, folks. We're lucky to have/know whatever it is we have/know and shouldn't look the proverbial gift horse in the proverbial. It may be that you're looking at the wrong end of the beast!
Love and kisses, and happy holidays.
Peter B.
p.s - what say you, A. Young?
-
Peter B.,
Agreed.
I would only add to your named list Paul Oliver and Sam Charters; they went out into the wild when very little was known. Oliver's writing, especially, has held up well.
best to you,
bruce
-
Bruce -
As I said, the list is partial - I left Paul off due to his "day job" as a professor of vernacular architecture, so his academical attachments were not blues. Like me when i taught biology at a college, the vacations left time t pursue our "other" interest! Sam, of course, and Lomax. Some who later went into academe include Kip Lornell, Glenn Hinson, Charlie Wolfe, Bill Ferris, Dave Evans, me, Kenny Goldstein, Barry Lee Pearson, a.o. My point being that academe has always been and always will be the late-coming tail that tries to wag the dog, but that's the price of academic acceptance.
More to the point are the folks who hoard their records or information and prevent their knowledge from being wide-spread and available to others. I went to Penn in the hope of snagging a teaching position, but my timing was off and I was too late with the goods! Both in US and here. At home (US) I was looked at as too White, too male, and too old for consideration in spite of my bona fides - now it's truly too late in the day. Attempts here in Australia were banging the head against the proverbial wall. No go.
Peter B.
-
Peter,
Have you had a chance in the last decade or so to go back and really listen to your old field recordings? The reason I ask is I met an interesting gentleman several years ago who field recorded "traveler music" as he called it in his thick accent or gypsy music from eastern Europe for some University in France. He remarked that his 70 year old ears were able to hear things his 40 year old ears missed. Everything from mistranslation of lyrics to comments about a musicians past that upon the later listen he realized was important to their story. Randy Meadows detailed analysis of Wardlow's tapes online yielded enough information that put into question if Willie Lee Brown was the Willie Brown that recorded with Patton and House. Sometimes there are comments and content in an interview that require fresh ears to realize its importance. Still, I would to one day spend some time listening to your recordings. The history buff in me loves that stuff.
-
wreid -
My recordings of music are (mainly) duplicated and held by the Folklore Archive at the LofC. I browbeat them to copy my field tapes (only) while there with the sainted (?) Lomax while working on what became "The Deep River of Song". This matrial can be listebed to at any time there - copy permission must be cleared with me... they are costly these days, too. Interviews and photographs are not there, nor are the various kinds of paper-work collected by me. I last listened to the music ca 1995 before it all went into storage in NJ and we moved to Australia. So, if you get to DC, knock yourself out at the Archive! There are some 1600 selections gathered over a decade - a few multi-track studio sessions are NOT there. May the farce be with you... it'sour only hope!
peter b.
-
Peter, do you know if the LoC has made your recordings available for streaming on the web? There was an LoC site that I used to wade around in a few years ago that had lots of good stuff, no, great stuff, some from Lomax and some from other sources. I can't seem to find that now, but it does look like some of that got put up on the Internet Music Archive, so maybe your stuff is there.
-
K -
Not to my knowledge and I doubt that the material would be so posted without my permission. That was the key to having it (almost) all copied there. They were a bit pissed as it used up a large portion of that year's duplication budget, but since I was there with "The Ayatollah"* they felt they had to do it. Their holdings of Black secular music from the SE was probably at least trebled by"my" stuff. Sadly, to hear, one must go there! If you re-claim that site(!), you could check for me... try checking Willie Trice or Harmonica Sammy Davis as I'm sure there is nothing by them not from my recordings. Keep me posted.
Peter B.
-
Peter, I haven't been able to find that area on the LoC's site that I was in a few years ago. But I did find this page, http://www.loc.gov/folklife/index.html, (http://www.loc.gov/folklife/index.html,) which purports to permit a search of the whole LoC site, and both Willie Trice and Harmonica Sammy Davis come up empty.
I will try to get there on one of my trips to DC in the near future--fortunately, I grew up there and have a brother and many friends there, and the Library is a favorite spot.
-
K -
Please keep me posted on your attempt - say "hai" to Peter Bartis for me. My one-time fiancee also works there, but... never mind! If you are interested, I can e-mail you a copy of my master book so that you can look for anything specific (save studio stuff).
Peter B.
-
Does anyone know of the status of Macks research? Has anyone learned what Susannah McCormmick Nix's plans are for his vast collection of blues research?
-
Alan Govenar is currently working on putting out a book that McCormick and Paul Oliver never finished (Texas Blues). He said the book will most likely be published in 2017.
-
Okay, I have heard mixed messages from people I know that live near Macks home. I do know a couple of people trying to secure grant money (potential grant money) and have some details ironed out. Money is easier to raise than people who would be willing to join the effort for little to no money. Macks family wants compensation, she said so herself in her post here around page 10. That is the main reason for trying to secure funds plus costs to archive and database the collection. Even with a large team it will take weeks. Small team would take months. I doubt anything will happen at all except that it collects dust and/or gets misplaced/destroyed. Most people here who love the music and history will die before it comes out and that is very very sad.
-
Scanning the printed material and digitizing the recorded material is a very time consuming and painstaking process. The important thing is that it all be preserved and protected. Hopefully Mack's daughter can find an individual(s), an organization or an institution to step in. Setting a price can be tricky. You don't want to give it away to just anybody, but pricing it out of reach is also counter productive. Smithsonian or LoC come to mind as homes for Mack's efforts.
-
The Southern Folklife Collection at UNC or the Center for Popular Music at MTSU would be good candidates as well. That material would benefit from being placed in a stable, well funded and accessible academic archive where it could be processed, scanned etc by professional archivists.
-
Update............all funding has fallen through. There has been a consistent decrease in federal funding for projects like this. After speaking with 14 different universities there is a problem here. They only want it if its donated and then only half would take it. The costs of processing the information is quite high. 4 schools would only take this kind of project if it were donated with additional sources of funding already in place. Friend at ETSU said that the Smithsonian would take it as a donation but that it could take decades before anyone got around to scan in and organizing the information.
-
Anyone try the Schaumburg Library in Harlem?
-
There's also the NYPL performing Arts Library at Lincoln Center. This needs a prominent Black musician to make the proposal.
-
Update............all funding has fallen through. There has been a consistent decrease in federal funding for projects like this. After speaking with 14 different universities there is a problem here. They only want it if its donated and then only half would take it. The costs of processing the information is quite high. 4 schools would only take this kind of project if it were donated with additional sources of funding already in place. Friend at ETSU said that the Smithsonian would take it as a donation but that it could take decades before anyone got around to scan in and organizing the information.
tinpanallygurl, did you try to contact Alex LaRotta (Professor of History, Lone Star College, Houston)? He gave a lecture on McCormick at the Contemporary Arts Museum january last year.
http://youtu.be/jbN68tF0spQ
-
For what it's worth, there is little or no point in people who have no connection to the heirs trying to line up some placement for the collection/archive. If you can't deliver the goods, who cares how much you care about the collection, especially since no one here is able to speak with any knowledge as to the contents of the collection, its condition, how it is currently stored, et al. The value of the collection/archive is all hearsay and supposition at this point, the stuff of legends. For all anyone here knows, the information may have been stored in ways that were only decipherable to Mack McCormick.
Somehow we've all managed to live reasonably interesting lives thus far without access to this collection. Seems like a good choice to continue doing so. Stop obsessing, you'll make yourselves ill. As the cops used to say, "Move along, there's nothing happening here."
-
You're correct, John--you make some very good points. But that doesn't mean that people should not try, as long as they do in with both eyes open. Devoting the time and effort to find a suitable place to archive Mack's work could result in preserving a singular collection of invaluable information about a very important area of American musical culture--Or it could ultimately be a fool's errand. There's only one way to find out. (Hopefully without obsessing over it.)
Alex LaRotta received his M.A. in 2013 and is an adjunct History faculty member at LSC Kingwood.
-
I've been holding off on this for a long time, all through the L.V. Thomas fiasco.
Let's hear it for the academics!
When David Evans dies, his entire life work will already be fully archived and available. He and so many others have contributed so much through hard work, corroborating sources and facts, networking with other researchers, doing the hard research through public records. Yet there's nothing controversial or romantic about an academic, so they get short shrift.
Mack was a cowboy, lets face it, following out the hot leads without bothering to corroborate or fact check. When the trail petered out and the hard boring work needed to be done, he was off to something else. No conviction, no fortitude, no training! Not bothering to catalogue, involved in paranoid legal battles over a photo, hoarding and hiding his notes. A mess.
I'd be really surprised to find out that the L.V. Thomas thing wasn't the crown jewel of all his efforts. He clearly was baiting that writer with it during their first meeting, then seemed to just leave a document out for him to find. Blame it on mental illness? I'm not so sure. I think quite possibly he knew what was coming and gained all the glory he could in his final days. What was money to him at that point? He just wanted people to see what he thought was his biggest achievement. He was the center of a movie published online by the NYT! Crazy like a fox.
The only hope to see what other stuff he might have amongst mountains of useless notes, I'm sure, is for someone like Tefteller to scoop it up and finance the cataloguing. But I'll bet people like him are just as skeptical of what it should be worth as the schools and museums are.
I'm not saying all independents are wanna-bees, many were very methodical, like Oliver, who was an academic in another field and knew the hard work and rigorous questioning that was needed. But Peter B., what happens to your storage container in NJ if a sudden health crisis befalls you? (God forbid!) I mean a lot of us are getting to a vulnerable age, eh?
So I agree, go about your way. Sad that Mack's gone. He was a colorful character and I'm sure he was wonderful to those who were close to him. He was certainly part of the blues scene. Maybe talked to a few interesting people, could tell a few stories. But maybe never really had enough to fill one book? None ever got written. Legends are built upon what we don't know. I'm not trying to be callous, just contributing to a reality check.
I say again, here's to the academics, who take their time, fact check and corroborate their sources, and whose work is archived as they dig it up. Ah, but the unknown is always so much more promising.
Wax
-
WAX -
Basically, I have left all in the hands of my son in my will, who appreciates what I have done WAY more than his mother does. (I'll not repeat the racist things that she has said all those "dead N*****s" that i care about more than she.) It ain't been easy, but I now have an in-house ally and he's been "given instructions". Being in Australia and my shit in NJ and me turning 75 next month and probably not able to physically travel back... . Age is a bitch!
The problem with my stuff is that I have nothing to do with either the so-called Delta or RJ, so interest is low save for a few died-in-the-wool crazies like myself. Fuller sold too many records and did not record for Paramount to be worthy. Such is life, especially when collectors are involved, setting parameters and creating canons - beginning at least with James McKune. Outsider White folks again!
Peter B.
-
If Mr. McCormick's trustees are hoping for an institution to pay a large amount of money for his material, they may want to dig around in his archives for something Robert Johnson-related! That may sound a bit hackneyed, but when celebrity attaches itself (and Robert Johnson is surely the closest Mack's materials come to celebrity), crazy things can happen. Why, Bob Dylan's notebooks and other ephemera were just bought by the George Kaiser Family Foundation ? whose namesake is an oil and banking billionaire ? and the University of Tulsa. The price? $15- to 20-million. If Mack McCormick's archives hold a Robert Johnson lyrics notebook or the fabled third photograph or some such, then his heirs may have a legitimate shot at finding a buyer (though probably not in the range of Bob Dylan dollars).
Here's the link to the Bob Dylan story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/arts/music/bob-dylans-secret-archive.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
-
Update............all funding has fallen through. There has been a consistent decrease in federal funding for projects like this. After speaking with 14 different universities there is a problem here. They only want it if its donated and then only half would take it. The costs of processing the information is quite high. 4 schools would only take this kind of project if it were donated with additional sources of funding already in place. Friend at ETSU said that the Smithsonian would take it as a donation but that it could take decades before anyone got around to scan in and organizing the information.
Do you mind sharing what universities you pitched this to? Was also curious to know if you are working in behalf of the McCormick family or if you were just hunting around for an institution that might have a budget to purchase the collection.
-
No association with the family at all, looking into to it for pure curiosity sake. Due to my line of work I know administrators and staff at 61 different colleges and universities. I emailed and called around hoping to get someone who would say "we will do it". I only corresponded with 14 schools. Some in Texas, Tennessee, California, and Mississippi. If I had received even a wiff of interest to pay for a great collection I was going to try and forward that information to Macks family. Since the sequestration in 2013 federal spending for this kind of treasure is very hard to come by. It might take a Euro to fix this.
-
So I agree, go about your way. Sad that Mack's gone. He was a colorful character and I'm sure he was wonderful to those who were close to him. He was certainly part of the blues scene. Maybe talked to a few interesting people, could tell a few stories. But maybe never really had enough to fill one book? None ever got written. Legends are built upon what we don't know. I'm not trying to be callous, just contributing to a reality check.
It could be that McCormick exaggerated the size and scope of his archive in order to impress people, justify journalistic interest, or to attract donors. Most likely, it was pretty large, but not catalogued or well-organized, and without that no institution is going to offer money to buy sight unseen. McCormick's productive years were 1960-1980. It doesn't appear that he did anything after that. So all the articles that say his archive represented a "lifetime's" accumulation of materials are grossly exaggerated. Still, one can accumulate a lot in 20 years.
The only things I expect (hope?) to see actual publication are Texas Blues and Biography of a Phantom.
-
found this on Google, clipped by Alex Van Der Tuuk 2017 Houston Post 1924
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/8517723/l-v-thomas-ambulance-helperthe/
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=0&id=94998416&width=557&height=2564&crop=1411_1056_578_2710&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1597007666&h=b9153eddc1fcbed57dc412b322a1a82a)
then also this weird coincidence:
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/lv-thomas-obituary?pid=91248471
-
This may be the man who drove the ambulance with LV: Firefighter in Houston:
https://www.fold3.com/page/81773958-jack-stubblefield
https://www.archives.com/1940-census/jack-stubblefield-tx-110840954