Topic: Man sitting by Preacher while everyone else stands- 1920s-(Patton?)

[Slack]

I just wanted to know the source of the critic 
Thats fair..

Well, the poster you were referring to has his name in a link as part of his posting signature.  Judging from your "Robert Johnson" post and your lack of observation on the above, I'd suggest that you read more and post less.

What's fair Randy is that everyone gets to decide whether they want to use their real names or not. It's not something you decide.

But slack, If I was a betting man Id bet that you have never even set foot in mississippi.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything - I suppose you are now challenging my "country blues authenticity" or some such silly thing - but you lose again.  FYI, I've toured the state Mississippi for a week, which I chronicled for readers on our old yahoo website.

You are challenging the wrong guy Randy - and we will continue to challenge your unsubstantiated posts  - guaranteed.



 

[Stumblin]

But slack, If I was a betting man Id bet that you have never even set foot in mississippi.

In all fairness, I don't think that's really the point. From your profile, Randy, it looks as though you're already in Mississippi, why not take a little road trip and see what more you can discover about this fascinating photograph?
Heck, I'm probably not qualified to comment here, I've never even set foot in the United States.

PS. Posted simultaneously with Slack's post above, delete if appropriate, I won't mind.

[Rivers]

So Randy, tell us, from where did you obtain the photograph, and where is it now?

I guess I'm curious to know what else you have that you have not told us.

By this I mean cold hard facts, not speculation that so-and-so just happens to look like somebody famous in a print you obtained from who knows where.

[CF]

Randy, to put it as politely as I can, & I've said as much to you on other boards, your talent seems to be in the digging up of this great historical material  . . . & decidedly not in commenting on it. Slack's right, you need to read more & learn more before you say more.

[Slack]

A number of people have suggested that Randy provide some comment, a source, a visit, to at least READ the page next to the photo he posts from a book - ANYTHING to back up the photos he posts.  No comment from Randy.

I'm beginning to think Randy is a troll, trolling for some kind of blues guy adulation based on nothing more than simply living in Mississippi.

Looks like that is not working to well here.

[bnemerov]

Rivers,
the same photo is on Ancestry.com
I think this research--the census and death records, etc.--mostly comes from subscribing to this genealogy site.
While this can be helpful in confirming dates, places, etc., it's not a substitute for primary research.
A good example of the vagaries of these records is the death certificate of George Jefferson, where the information was given by the landlady of the house outside of which George Jefferson's body was found.
The only compelling fact on the document that leads one to believe this is Lemmon Jefferson's D.C. is the notation that the body was shipped to Texas.
Research is tricky stuff. As lawyers and journalists well know, confirmation from multiple sources is essential.....and even then....
best,
bruce

[wreid75]

I totally know why there are so many blues enthusiasts and researchers that are sitting on a lot of information and research.  No one likes having their hard work ripped apart.  Like wise many people feel like they are being taken on a wild goose chase if iron clad indisputable facts are not present.  Being in a hen house it is just a fact of life that sometimes the feathers get ruffled.  Now I know for a fact that Randy is likely putting in more hours of feet on the ground research in Mississippi of anyone.  He has been killing it lately and trust me if he saw a blues man behind every photograph we would be reading a LOT of posts. 

Copernicus and Newton had their lives put in real danger for wild and unsubstantiated claims that would take a while to become mainstream.  We are at the point in blues research where it is becoming harder and harder to get the stone cold facts that will silence all critics.  Several of the original group of blues researchers have butted head to the point that books have been written taking shots and naming names while others tried to sue the other into oblivion.  Others couldn't even be in the same room with each other for an extended periods   Newton and Copernicus were shouted down at one time and even forced to denounce their own unsubstantiated claims but in the end the other enthusiasts saw things their way.  Hopefully that will happen with Randy.  How sad would it be if all the mysteries in prewar blues stayed that way.

[wreid75]

I know that tempers are getting the best of us but to call him out as a  troll is not right.  That is the furthest from what is reality.  Hell his work with Wardlow is enough to prove that.  The post referenced on another page was not reaching for anything other than clarification if you read it through.  He got the clarification he wanted, even if it was rudely delivered, and he moved on.  There was nothing left to post.

[CF]

Who in God's name is sitting on research because they're afraid of being yelled at by a bunch of guys on a blues forum??
Seriously? Who? I think maybe they've seen other questionable theories shot down by those with better historical method & so they suddenly go, 'Jeez, maybe this picture of a black guy with a guitar is NOT my favourite blues singer.' No shit Sherlock.
So asking people to treat this material with respect & knowledge & familiarity is somehow a great offense?
UNBELIEVABLE!

[Stuart]

He got the clarification he wanted, even if it was rudely delivered...

Hah! Just goes to show how things are misperceived! Actually, it was tongue-in-cheek delivered. I had the info simply because I had read it long ago in a book that I have on my shelf, something that I hope would have been subtly implied by the page numbers, publisher's info and ISBN .

[wreid75]

"So asking people to treat this material with respect & knowledge & familiarity is somehow a great offense?"

I guess treating others with dignity and respect even when disputes arise is no longer the norm.  This is why more people browse forums than post.  And yes there are those sitting on research and some of them are very well respected in the pre war community.  The prewar community is small as we all know and a large number of us belong to forums like this.  Why go to the trouble to publish time consuming papers if you are going to be torn to shreds the first time there isn't a peer review quality source?  I get it and I know why, to them it just isn't worth it.

[CF]

They should always publish their findings, they should do solid work & if they venture into the academic arena of exegesis or commentary they have to be big boys & girls & be upheld to a standard. Is this not a basic tenant of scholarship?

[CF]

BTW, where was Randy's respectful tone earlier when he addressed Slack wreid? THAT's how this started.

[wreid75]

well I guess your right on the publishing of work but some cats I know are old now and would just as soon put it online and directly to the fans of this music.  watching this board and others like it and the tone and hostility that though not common is not rare, to quite a few is not worth the hassle.  sadly several will rather let their work die with them than subject themselves to this kind of hostility.  sad but true.  right or wrong it is what it is.

[wreid75]

"BTW, where was Randy's respectful tone earlier when he addressed Slack wreid? THAT's how this started. "

We all have to choose between two doctrine's "eye for an eye" or "two wrongs don't make a right"