Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

This is wonderful!  Not only a new printing, but newly typeset with the
corrections and addenda in the text rather than in appendices, and an
on-line component for searching!  On the web site, they're polling
interest for a CD-ROM and hard-cover versions, as well as a reprint of
the "Students Guide..." (the one-volume distillation).Thanks for the alert!-Don Duncan

Thanks to Ed Cray and Tom Hall.  If you ever open a songster and see New
York Girls looking at you in the face - not that I believe you either should
or ever will - please let me know.Many thanks.All the best,
Dan----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Cray" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: New York Girls> Sorry to come in so late on this:
>
> William Doerflinger (Shanty Boys and Shanty Men, p. 58) notes that the
> polka as a dance swept out of Bohemia and became a [European] craze in the
> 1830s.
>
> Cyril Pearl, (The Girl in the Swansdowne Seat, p. 169) asserts that the
> polka was introduced to London society in 1844 from Paris, starting a
> craze there.
>
> The chanty, much of it "unprintable," according to Hugill (Shanties from
> the Seven Seas, pp. 369-373) was apparently first printed in J. Davis and
> Ferris Tozer, _Sailor Songs or `Chanties' (London: Boosey & Co., 1887).
>
> If it was sung to a popular song, you may at least have dates of
> composition.
>
> Ed
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, tom hall wrote:
>
> > >Has anyone ever seen a source or reference that would indicate a music
> > >industry rather than a maritime folk origin for "New York Girls" (or
"Can't
> > >You Dance the Polka")?
> > >
> > >Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > >All the best,
> > >Dan Milner
> >
> > Colcord, in Songs of American Sailormen,  states that the words are of
> > "...sailor composition, but the tune is 'Larry Doolan.' "
> >
> > Terry included it in The Shanty Book , Part II, but I only know that
from
> > the advert on the back cover of Part I.
> >
> > And from somwhere deep in old childhood memories is a vague notion of
the
> > tune with non-nautical words, perhaps from some pre-1950 TV kids show.
> >
> > Certainly the tune smacks more of the music hall than the fo'c's'le.
> >
> > Good fishing  --  Tom
> >

Folks:Mark Heiman is the publisher at Loomis House Press, which is bringing out
the new edition of Child.He is interested in your suggestions of other books in the area of folk
song/ballad and folklore which he might reprint.I immediately proposed Motherwell's Minstrelsy Ancient and Modern; and
Ford's Vagabond Songs.While I have a half-dozen other titles in mind, with Heiman's permission,
I am soliciting your recommendations for reprints.I will forward all such notices to Heiman.Ed---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:56:01 -0600
From: "Mark F. Heiman, Loomis House Press" <[unmask]>
To: Ed Cray <[unmask]>
Subject: Re: folksong/lore booksEd,
Thanks for your suggestions.  Please pass along any other titles you can
think of, and share the request with others.  While pre-1923 works are
easiest to manage with regard to rights, we're not averse to attempting to
obtain rights for a newer work that would be of particular value.
Naturally, we're particularly interested in titles with both scholarly and
popular interest.We expect to be concentrating on completing the Child set over the next
couple of years, but if there were something smaller (and what isn't?) and
particularly interesting suggested, we might work it in between volumes.Thanks again.Mark F. Heiman--On Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:29 PM -0800 Ed Cray <[unmask]>
wrote:> Mark:
>
> I can suggest a number of titles in both folklore and folk song/ballad.
> First and foremost would be an annotated reprint of William Motherwell's
> Ancient Ballads.  I would also suggest Robert Ford's Vagabond
> Songs.  Neither of these have been reprinted, so far as I know.
>
> I can list a dozen more titles without much thought, all in the public
> domain, all long out of print.
>
> Would you object if I were to forward your query to a a list of ballad
> lovers, scholars?  I think you would get a flurry of replies from folks
> who have spent time looking for this or that volume.
>
> I should mention too that others like myself have expressed interest in a
> CD-ROM of Child, which we could easily search.  (I have Ken Goldstein's
> Folklore Press of Child reprinted in 1956 [?] in three volumes.)
>
> Ed
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Cray <[unmask]><<While I have a half-dozen other titles in mind, with Heiman's permission,
I am soliciting your recommendations for reprints.>>Cecil Sharp's material, both English and American -- I think it's mostly out
of print now.
Carl Sandburg's "American Songbag"
Mary Wheeler's "Steamboatin' Days"
Perhaps A.L. Lloyd's industrial folksongs. Okay, I'm mostly post-1923.William Francis Allen, Charles Pickard Ware & Lucy McKim Garrison "Slave
Songs of the United States" (1867).
Henry Edward Krehbiel "Afro-American Folk Songs" (1914).Peace,
Paul

Sandburg's American Songbag (or is it Sondbird's American Sandbag) was
reprinted in 1990 by Harcourt Brace; I believe it's still available.
Norm Cohen----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stamler" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: folksong/lore books (fwd)> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Cray <[unmask]>
>
> <<While I have a half-dozen other titles in mind, with Heiman's
permission,
> I am soliciting your recommendations for reprints.>>
>
> Cecil Sharp's material, both English and American -- I think it's mostly
out
> of print now.
> Carl Sandburg's "American Songbag"
> Mary Wheeler's "Steamboatin' Days"
> Perhaps A.L. Lloyd's industrial folksongs. Okay, I'm mostly post-1923.
>
> William Francis Allen, Charles Pickard Ware & Lucy McKim Garrison "Slave
> Songs of the United States" (1867).
> Henry Edward Krehbiel "Afro-American Folk Songs" (1914).
>
> Peace,
> Paul

How about Robert Gordon's articles in the NY Times?  Or a complete set of
his columns from Adventure Magazine?  Maybe too esoteric.
An excellent collection, even tho quite post-1923, is Al Friedman's Viking
Bookof English Ballads.  Is anyone working ona reprint of this?
By the way, what they are doing with Child sounds like a magnificent
project.
Norm
=
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Cray" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: folksong/lore books (fwd)> Folks:
>
> Mark Heiman is the publisher at Loomis House Press, which is bringing out
> the new edition of Child.
>
> He is interested in your suggestions of other books in the area of folk
> song/ballad and folklore which he might reprint.
>
> I immediately proposed Motherwell's Minstrelsy Ancient and Modern; and
> Ford's Vagabond Songs.
>
> While I have a half-dozen other titles in mind, with Heiman's permission,
> I am soliciting your recommendations for reprints.
>
> I will forward all such notices to Heiman.
>
> Ed
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:56:01 -0600
> From: "Mark F. Heiman, Loomis House Press" <[unmask]>
> To: Ed Cray <[unmask]>
> Subject: Re: folksong/lore books
>
> Ed,
> Thanks for your suggestions.  Please pass along any other titles you can
> think of, and share the request with others.  While pre-1923 works are
> easiest to manage with regard to rights, we're not averse to attempting to
> obtain rights for a newer work that would be of particular value.
> Naturally, we're particularly interested in titles with both scholarly and
> popular interest.
>
> We expect to be concentrating on completing the Child set over the next
> couple of years, but if there were something smaller (and what isn't?) and
> particularly interesting suggested, we might work it in between volumes.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Mark F. Heiman
>
>
>
> --On Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:29 PM -0800 Ed Cray <[unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Mark:
> >
> > I can suggest a number of titles in both folklore and folk song/ballad.
> > First and foremost would be an annotated reprint of William Motherwell's
> > Ancient Ballads.  I would also suggest Robert Ford's Vagabond
> > Songs.  Neither of these have been reprinted, so far as I know.
> >
> > I can list a dozen more titles without much thought, all in the public
> > domain, all long out of print.
> >
> > Would you object if I were to forward your query to a a list of ballad
> > lovers, scholars?  I think you would get a flurry of replies from folks
> > who have spent time looking for this or that volume.
> >
> > I should mention too that others like myself have expressed interest in
a
> > CD-ROM of Child, which we could easily search.  (I have Ken Goldstein's
> > Folklore Press of Child reprinted in 1956 [?] in three volumes.)
> >
> > Ed
> >

Vaughan Williams/Lloyd: Penguin Book of English Folksongs, this time on
acid-free paper.Peace,
Paul

I saw it (the 1990 paperback 'edition') about an hour ago at my local
Borders Bookstore.Bruce OlsonNorm Cohen wrote:
>
> Sandburg's American Songbag (or is it Sondbird's American Sandbag) was
> reprinted in 1990 by Harcourt Brace; I believe it's still available.
> Norm Cohen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Stamler" <[unmask]>
> To: <[unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: folksong/lore books (fwd)
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ed Cray <[unmask]>
> >
> > <<While I have a half-dozen other titles in mind, with Heiman's
> permission,
> > I am soliciting your recommendations for reprints.>>
> >
> > Cecil Sharp's material, both English and American -- I think it's mostly
> out
> > of print now.
> > Carl Sandburg's "American Songbag"
> > Mary Wheeler's "Steamboatin' Days"
> > Perhaps A.L. Lloyd's industrial folksongs. Okay, I'm mostly post-1923.
> >
> > William Francis Allen, Charles Pickard Ware & Lucy McKim Garrison "Slave
> > Songs of the United States" (1867).
> > Henry Edward Krehbiel "Afro-American Folk Songs" > >
> > Peace,
> > Paul

Hi!        I feel a little strange posting about old editions of Child
amidst all this talk about a new one but here goes.        1479817572 - another complete set of the Dover edition; opening
at much higher price than the last set.
        1480878638 - Scottish and English Ballads published in Edinburgh
in 1872
        1480692827 - Songs of the Sea by Stan Hugill This is not his
large classic book of shanties but a later (1977) coffeetable size book.                                Happy Bidding!
                                Dolores--
Dolores Nichols                 |
D&D Data                        | Voice :       (703) 938-4564
Disclaimer: from here - None    | Email:     <[unmask]>
        --- .sig? ----- .what?  Who me?

I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that "Mad Maudlin"
referred to a sister asylum of Bedlam. Is this true or am I
misremembering? Thanks for any information you can provide.Cris

Maudlin is  another way of  referring to the hospital of St. Mary Magdalen
( Maudlen)>I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that "Mad Maudlin"
>referred to a sister asylum of Bedlam. Is this true or am I
>misremembering? Thanks for any information you can provide.
>
>Cris

On 11/1/01, Cristilyn Schoenborn wrote:>I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that "Mad Maudlin"
>referred to a sister asylum of Bedlam. Is this true or am I
>misremembering? Thanks for any information you can provide.You are quite correct. Magdalene ("maudlin") hospital was a
female asylum corresponding to Bethlehem ("bedlam") hospital
for men.--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

"Bedlam" is the English pronunciation og "Bethlehem"--the name of an
asylum. Magdalen was another--pronounced "Maudlin". So help me!Cristilyn Schoenborn wrote:> I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that "Mad Maudlin"
> referred to a sister asylum of Bedlam. Is this true or am I
> misremembering? Thanks for any information you can provide.
>
> Cris

Thanks to everyone who answered! I had searched the web without success,
but thought someone here must know.Thanks again,
Cris

An excellent collection, even tho quite post-1923, is Al Friedman's Viking
Bookof English Ballads.  Is anyone working ona reprint of this?-- I have it on good authority that Penguin/Viking once asked Friedman
about doing a revised edition; not at all unreasonably, he said
[approximately], OK, but how about dressing it up with a few
illustrations? And the bean counters said no. That seems to have been the
end of that. As I recall, it went out of print in 1986, after a sterling
30-year run.Cheers / MB

Paul Stamler wrote:>Vaughan Williams/Lloyd: Penguin Book of English Folksongs, this time on
acid-free paper.The English Folk Dance and Song Society has recently discovered that they
appear to hold all the rights to that book, apart from the typefaces
originally used and the "Penguin" part of the title. There is a good chance
of it's being re-issued in some form before very long, though I don't think
that any concrete plans exist just yet.Malcolm Douglas

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Jon Bartlett wrote:
>
> Who as the character who said, "Think of me as Santa Claus"?
> My personal wishlist
> 1. Journal of the EFDSS (the whole thing, in 1 vol.)
> 2. Last Leaves and Folk Songs of the NE, Greig
> 3. Bronson, Trad Tunes of the Child Ballads
> 4. Sharp, Appalachians
> 5. John Ord, Bothy ballads
>
> re Songbag: I just bought a 2nd hander on eBay for $3.
> Jon BartlettJohn Donald Publishers Ltd, Edinburgh, reprinted
John Ord's 'Bothy Ballads' about 1997 in paperback,
with a new introduction (with pictures) by Sandy Fenton.I got it severals months ago, but publication
date isn't given. ISBN 0 85976 303 XYou can locate it at www.bookfinder.comBruce Olson--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
broadside ballads at my no-spam website - www.erols.com/olsonw
or just <A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click </a>Motto: Keep at it; muddling through always works.

<<You are quite correct. Magdalene ("maudlin") hospital was a
female asylum corresponding to Bethlehem ("bedlam") hospital
for men.>>And the building which housed one of them (I forget which -- and each one
had at least two locations over the centuries) is now the Imperial War
Museum.Peace,
Paul

>> I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that "Mad
>> Maudlin" referred to a sister asylum of Bedlam. Is this
>> true or am I misremembering?
> Maudlin is  another way of  referring to the hospital of
> St. Mary Magdalen (Maudlen)"Magdalene asylums", at least from the 18th century on, were houses
for reforming prostitutes.  See Linda Mahood's "The Magdalenes"
(Routledge, 1990).=================== <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> ===================

In conscience, I can only recommend something I don't already have and would
actually buy.  "Last Leaves," Greig & Keith and "Ballads & Sea Songs,"
Greenleaf & Mansfield would be most welcome.All the best,
Dan Milner----- Original Message -----
From: "W. B. OLSON" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: What to reprint> Jon Bartlett wrote:
> >
> > Who as the character who said, "Think of me as Santa Claus"?
> > My personal wishlist
> > 1. Journal of the EFDSS (the whole thing, in 1 vol.)
> > 2. Last Leaves and Folk Songs of the NE, Greig
> > 3. Bronson, Trad Tunes of the Child Ballads
> > 4. Sharp, Appalachians
> > 5. John Ord, Bothy ballads
> >
> > re Songbag: I just bought a 2nd hander on eBay for $3.
> > Jon Bartlett
>
> John Donald Publishers Ltd, Edinburgh, reprinted
> John Ord's 'Bothy Ballads' about 1997 in paperback,
> with a new introduction (with pictures) by Sandy Fenton.
>
> I got it severals months ago, but publication
> date isn't given. ISBN 0 85976 303 X
>
> You can locate it at www.bookfinder.com
>
> Bruce Olson
>
> --
> Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
> broadside ballads at my no-spam website - www.erols.com/olsonw
> or just <A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click </a>
>
> Motto: Keep at it; muddling through always works.

[unmask],InetGW2 writes:
>In conscience, I can only recommend something I don't already have and would
>actually buy.  "Last Leaves," Greig & Keith and "Ballads & Sea Songs,"
>Greenleaf & Mansfield would be most welcome.The Folklore Department at Memorial University in St. John's was talking quite recently about reprinting Greenleaf & Mansfield.  I'm not sure how far the plans have gotten, though.I would also second Jon's call for reprinting of Bronson.  Even unaffordable copies are difficult to find!Making Child available on CD-ROM is excellent news.  Does anyone know if it will include everything (headnotes, bibliography & sources, etc.)?Cheers
Jamie

An electronic edition (on CD) of  any standard work would be extremely helpful,
if a full-text search engine were incorporated.
The technology is relatively cheap and simple, and the advantage over a printed
index/table of contents is immense. Further, there'd never be a problem of going
out of print or  finding enough orders for a new press run.

I was going to ask for The Shanty Book by R. R. Terry, but a search on
bookfinder.com revealed a new two volume edition. However, when I clicked
on that, I got an out of stock message.Does anyone know more about this work? publisher and availability?Many thanks  --  Tom

Just out of curiosity, anyone have an idea of the value of the Bronson volumes? I have the full set, bought years back as they were being published, in excellent shape. Not that I'm thinking of selling them, but that I sort of want to have an idea of value as I leave them to my kids in my will! I also have the hardcover Child set published by Cooper Square Press, condition good (some covers a bit loose, all pages intact), and Sharp's English Folk Songs From the Southern Appalachians, 2 volumes, Oxford University Press, London, 1932, also in good condition. Any guesses at value would be appreciated.Mary Stafford
[unmask]

>Just out of curiosity, anyone have an idea of the value of the Bronson
>volumes? I have the full set, bought years back as they were being
>published, in excellent shape. Not that I'm thinking of selling them, but
>that I sort of want to have an idea of value as I leave them to my kids in
>my will! I also have the hardcover Child set published by Cooper Square
>Press, condition good (some covers a bit loose, all pages intact), and
>Sharp's English Folk Songs From the Southern Appalachians, 2 volumes,
>Oxford University Press, London, 1932, also in good condition. Any guesses
>at value would be appreciated.
>
>Mary Stafford
>[unmask]Go to bookfinder.com, enter author and/or title. This will give you some
idea of what booksellers are asking for the specific books. You may have to
do this over a period of time as not all your books may be available at any
one time.  You may find widely differing prices; some booksellers are
notoriously high.--  Tom

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Mary Stafford wrote:> Just out of curiosity, anyone have an idea of the value of the Bronson
> volumes? I have the full set, bought years back as they were being
> published, in excellent shape. Not that I'm thinking of selling them,
> but that I sort of want to have an idea of value as I leave them to my
> kids in my will! I also have the hardcover Child set published by
> Cooper Square Press, condition good (some covers a bit loose, all
> pages intact), and Sharp's English Folk Songs From the Southern
> Appalachians, 2 volumes, Oxford University Press, London, 1932, also
> in good condition. Any guesses at value would be appreciated.
>
> Mary Stafford
> [unmask]
>Mary:For just the same estate reasons, I have been noting prices of various
books on folklore and folk song since 1998.My notes indicate that the last time a Bronson volume was offered, in
2000, it went for $250 for the single volume.Child in the Cooper Square edition, ex-library, went for $600 FOR THE
FIRST OF THE THREE VOLUMES ALONE.  I have seen the Dover reprint offered
(and sold) for $500 to $900.  Andrew Carnegie's bound, presentation copy
of the original edition -- he underwrote some of Child's expenses -- sold
earlier this year for $5,000, I believe.  A full set of the Child was
available for $4,500.I have not seen Sharp-Karpeles, 1932 or 1952 offered.  It's price will
similarly be in the hundreds.Ed

Right, Paul- the Imperial War Museum is on the site of the former Bedlam.  In
fact, I think
that it still uses the original main building as part of its now-larger
building.Paul Stamler wrote:> <<You are quite correct. Magdalene ("maudlin") hospital was a
> female asylum corresponding to Bethlehem ("bedlam") hospital
> for men.>>
>
> And the building which housed one of them (I forget which -- and each one
> had at least two locations over the centuries) is now the Imperial War
> Museum.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Hi!        A number of books have appeared in the last two days. Most are
dedicated to the study of a particular state/province.        1481218455 - Songs and Ballads from Nova Scotia by Creighton
        1481513450 - Ballads and Songs from Ohio by Eddy (1939)
        1481506644 - South Carolina Ballads by Smith (1928)
        1481497260 - Ballads of the Kentucky Highlands by Fuson (1931)
        1481495105 - The Ballad of Tradition by Geraould (1932)        Most of these are being sold by the same bookseller.                                        Dolores--
Dolores Nichols                 |
D&D Data                        | Voice :       (703) 938-4564
Disclaimer: from here - None    | Email:     <[unmask]>
        --- .sig? ----- .what?  Who me?

Guys:I need help, specifically, the source of the tune Woody Guthrie used for
his "Ship in the Sky."  The song, written in November 15, 1941, is a
seen-from-a-child-eye restatement of Franklin Roosevelt's Arsenal of
Democracy program.The first stanza runs:A curly headed kid with a sunshiny smile
Heard the roar of a plane as it sailed through the sky.
To her playmates she cried with a bright twinkling eye,
My daddy rides that ship in sky!   My daddy rides that ship in the sky (2)
   Mama's not afraid, and neither am I,
   So my daddy rides that ship in the sky!  etc.The tune source lurks just beyond memory, flitting in and out of my grasp.
Will someone put me out of my misery?  (Full credit granted in my
forthcoming biography of Guthrie.)Ed

Dear all,I thought you might like to reflect on this gaffe in a student essay."The album consists of 6 traditional, but little-known, English songs.
This album has no celtic flavor, being entirely folk."Perhaps we are being confronted with a new bona fide meaning here? The
perpetrator in question is definitely a product of the urban discotheque
culture whose presence in my course is more likely due a need to meet
the minimum semester credit requirements rather than any interest in the
topic, but I just wonder if "celtic" really has become a "style" - you
know, like skiffle, blues, beebop, rap, house... !!!! Stranger things
have happened to words.Andy

<<Perhaps we are being confronted with a new bona fide meaning here? The
perpetrator in question is definitely a product of the urban discotheque
culture whose presence in my course is more likely due a need to meet
the minimum semester credit requirements rather than any interest in the
topic, but I just wonder if "celtic" really has become a "style" - you
know, like skiffle, blues, beebop, rap, house... !!!! Stranger things
have happened to words.>>It certainly has; you take a couple of traditional instruments like whistle,
add layers of synthesizer, drench the whole thing in artificial reverb, and
presto. It's become formulaic, in the same way that bluegrass did a couple
of decades ago.Peace,
Paul

Andy:The very word "folk" in commercial music circles means anyone who plays an
acoustic guitar and sings.EdOn Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Andy Rouse wrote:> Dear all,
>
> I thought you might like to reflect on this gaffe in a student essay.
>
> "The album consists of 6 traditional, but little-known, English songs.
> This album has no celtic flavor, being entirely folk."
>
> Perhaps we are being confronted with a new bona fide meaning here? The
> perpetrator in question is definitely a product of the urban discotheque
> culture whose presence in my course is more likely due a need to meet
> the minimum semester credit requirements rather than any interest in the
> topic, but I just wonder if "celtic" really has become a "style" - you
> know, like skiffle, blues, beebop, rap, house... !!!! Stranger things
> have happened to words.
>
> Andy
>

At 11:16 AM +0100 11/3/01, Andy Rouse wrote:
>I just wonder if "celtic" really has become a "style"        Can't speak for your student's taste but, from a marketing point of
view, "Celtic" is a "style." Both of the major shops here in N.O., Tower
and Virgin, have a "Celtic" section though it is clear that the staff has
little idea what "Celtic" means unless it is part of the CD's title or a
bagpipe appears on the cover. In the book section of these stores and other
book shops in town one finds at least three or four "guides" to recorded
"Celtic" music.Cliff

Aww, come on.  Celtic music has something to do with ethnic Celts, with
REAL sources -- you kow, Irish, Scots, Cornish, Manx, Welsh, Breton,
Galician.
That other stuff with heavy reverb and tin whistles, bodhrans and stuff
added on -- that's CELTOID.  Been using this useful term for years.Back to lurking -- including some VERY interesting and enlightening posts,
thank you.Mary Cliff, TRADITIONS
WETA Radio - Washington, DC

Well, Pete Seeger put it best when he said that folk songs are just songs
sung by folks.  I just cringe everytime I hear someone repeat that.A year ago, I was thinking of recording some songs of Irish and Scottish
origin under a Celtic banner but I was strongly advised that the
entertainment world had by then perverted Celtic to mean ethereal, English,
New Age, etc. (stuff we humorously used to call Celtoid) and the recording
would miss its intended audience by using the "C" word.What are you going to do?  We're just a few folks against all those "folks."All the best,
Dan Milner----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford J Ocheltree" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: hmm> At 11:16 AM +0100 11/3/01, Andy Rouse wrote:
> >I just wonder if "celtic" really has become a "style"
>
>         Can't speak for your student's taste but, from a marketing point
of
> view, "Celtic" is a "style." Both of the major shops here in N.O., Tower
> and Virgin, have a "Celtic" section though it is clear that the staff has
> little idea what "Celtic" means unless it is part of the CD's title or a
> bagpipe appears on the cover. In the book section of these stores and
other
> book shops in town one finds at least three or four "guides" to recorded
> "Celtic" music.
>
> Cliff

Ah, yes, Mary.  Great minds think alike.All the best,
Dan Milner----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Cliff" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: hmm> Aww, come on.  Celtic music has something to do with ethnic Celts, with
> REAL sources -- you kow, Irish, Scots, Cornish, Manx, Welsh, Breton,
> Galician.
> That other stuff with heavy reverb and tin whistles, bodhrans and stuff
> added on -- that's CELTOID.  Been using this useful term for years.
>
> Back to lurking -- including some VERY interesting and enlightening posts,
> thank you.
>
> Mary Cliff, TRADITIONS
> WETA Radio - Washington, DC

On 11/5/01, Dan Milner wrote:>Well, Pete Seeger put it best when he said that folk songs are just songs
>sung by folks.  I just cringe everytime I hear someone repeat that.
>
>A year ago, I was thinking of recording some songs of Irish and Scottish
>origin under a Celtic banner but I was strongly advised that the
>entertainment world had by then perverted Celtic to mean ethereal, English,
>New Age, etc. (stuff we humorously used to call Celtoid) and the recording
>would miss its intended audience by using the "C" word.My local music store, which SHOULD know better, is guilty of the same
thing: If it comes from the British Isles, or is an American recording
of British songs (e.g. Connie Dover or the local Irish acts), it's
"Celtic."Personally, I use "British Isles" if it's from the British Isles,
and use "Celtic" only if I can't understand the words. :-)--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

[unmask] writes:
>Ah, yes, Mary.  Great minds think alike.
>
>All the best,
>Dan MilnerThanks for the compliment, Dan. *-)
And for reminding me I'm overdo for a good sea song set.Mary Cliff, TRADITIONS
WETA Radio - Washington, DC

I was taken aback a year or two ago in Borders, when I saw a CD
titled something like "The Celtic Sounds of Roy Orbison," with a
cover picture of an Irish pasture or suchlike. Thinking it might have
been some long lost roots project or a Phil Cunningham-produced remix
I checked the back cover, but it was just another repackaging of his
standard hit selections.John Roberts.

> --On Monday, November 5, 2001 1:00 PM -0500 John Roberts
> <[unmask]> wrote:
>> I was taken aback a year or two ago in Borders, when I saw a CD
>> titled something like "The Celtic Sounds of Roy Orbison," with a
>> cover picture of an Irish pasture or suchlike.This is a perfect example of both the use and uselessness of the term
"Celtic" for, perhaps atypical consumer, me.
My attention is caught by the term... enough to check out the
CD/Festival/Show/Program/Whatever. If I can't get further definition of
what they mean by "Celtic" then I rarely risk the money or time, but they
succeeded in gaining my interest, at least momentarily, and that's the
point of marketing.
I find the same thing when looking at other areas of interest to me such as
Ballads. I was uncertain of the parameters of the term when I joined this
list, and now see that many people misunderstand/misuse it. I want more
information on what this performer/producer is presenting as a ballad
before I commit.
And as far as "Folk", again speaking as a consumer only, I find the term to
have become almost totally useless.
Kathleen--
Kathleen Conery
[unmask]

In a message dated 11/5/01 3:02:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [unmask]
writes:I find that using the expression "Traditional Folk" or "Traditional Ballads"
at least makes people figure that I'm referring to something different than
singer-songwriter  with guitar or Bing Crosby crooning.I believe the "Folk songs are songs sung by folks" line comes from Woodie
Guthrie, although Pete Seeger no doubt used it on occasion.  My recollection
is that the actual line was more like.  "Folks songs - well I ain't heard no
horses singing them"Mark<< I find the same thing when looking at other areas of interest to me such as
 Ballads. I was uncertain of the parameters of the term when I joined this
 list, and now see that many people misunderstand/misuse it. I want more
 information on what this performer/producer is presenting as a ballad
 before I commit.
 And as far as "Folk", again speaking as a consumer only, I find the term to
 have become almost totally useless. >>

And probably also for a good Newcastle set....
The pages at
http://www.geocities.com/matalzi/geordiesang.htmlWill soon receive another 40 songs as we are still the leader in bringing
geordie songs to the internet-unfunded too I might add.ConradMary Cliff wrote:
>
> [unmask] writes:
> >Ah, yes, Mary.  Great minds think alike.
> >
> >All the best,
> >Dan Milner
>
> Thanks for the compliment, Dan. *-)
> And for reminding me I'm overdo for a good sea song set.
>
> Mary Cliff, TRADITIONS
> WETA Radio - Washington, DC--
He left his home in the heart of the North
To seek streets paved with gold
But when he reached the golden land of dreams
He found he'd struck fool's goldNow some men work for love of  silver.
And some men work for love of gold.
And some men work for bugger all.
And that's all they can afford- The Whiskey Priests, Streets Paved with
Gold

In a message dated 11/5/01 3:02:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[unmask]
writes:<<I find that using the expression "Traditional Folk" or "Traditional
Ballads"
at least makes people figure that I'm referring to something different than
singer-songwriter  with guitar or Bing Crosby crooning.>>Although a few years ago, the Grammy award for "Best Traditional Folk
Recording" was won by Greg Brown, a talented singer-songwriter but still not
a singer-songwriter. In some circles, "Traditional" now means "no drums".<<I believe the "Folk songs are songs sung by folks" line comes from Woodie
Guthrie, although Pete Seeger no doubt used it on occasion.  My recollection
is that the actual line was more like.  "Folks songs - well I ain't heard no
horses singing them">>That quote ("They must be folk songs -- I ain't heard no horses singin'
'em") was a catch-phrase of Big Bill Broonzy back in the 1940s-1950s. Got
picked up and attributed to all sorts of other people, including Lead Belly
and Louis Armstrong.Peace,
Paul

Yes, Celtic is definitely a style, though it may not be codified, nor may it
have the same definition nationwide (or throughout the English world).  I
guess that begs the question of how many people have to agree that a style
exists before it is a style.I think of "Celtic" as a new-age form, with prettified lyrics and some Irish
roots.  Album covers are often a little out of focus with some pastoral
scene.  There for a while, Celtic bands seemed a dime-a-dozen in the US
southeast and I got the feeling they were sometimes formed as a lifestyle
statement.  This might be a trifle unfair, but I should think that a Celtic
band ought to have at least one practising wiccan (preferably drawing her
power from past Driudic priestesses) and several of the members should be
packing crystals.I put Celtic in a different category than the Irish and Scot popular music
that also evolved from the traditional music of those islands (and might be
compared to bluegrass -- though those musician seem more self-conscious than
bluegrassers).I know several traditional Irish musician who intensely dislike the term
"Celtic Music."So, I see nothing at all contradictory in the statement:  "The album
consists of 6 traditional, but little-known, English songs.  This album has
no celtic flavor, being entirely folk."Brent Cantrell
Executive Director
Jubilee Community Arts
Knoxville

> That quote ("They must be folk songs -- I ain't heard no horses singin'
> 'em") was a catch-phrase of Big Bill Broonzy back in the 1940s-1950s. Got
> picked up and attributed to all sorts of other people, including Lead Belly
> and Louis Armstrong.
>
> Peace,
> Paul... a bit like the legendary riposte to a naive query "What exactly is the
appeal of jazz?"-- not only attributed to Satch, Duke, "somebody," et al.,
but with versions ranging from "There's some people that if they don't
know, you can't tell 'em" to "If it has to be explained to you, you'll
never understand it."

Hi, folks.  I need you all to weigh in on what you would prefer: right now,
the list option on replies is that unless your mail program overrfides it,
your reply will go only to the person who sent the message.  Would you like
that to continue, or would you rather that your replies go to the whole
list?  I'd like to see what the consensus is before I decide to make the
change.  Thanks much.        MargeE-mail: [unmask]

On 11/6/01, Marge Steiner wrote:>Hi, folks.  I need you all to weigh in on what you would prefer: right now,
>the list option on replies is that unless your mail program overrfides it,
>your reply will go only to the person who sent the message.  Would you like
>that to continue, or would you rather that your replies go to the whole
>list?  I'd like to see what the consensus is before I decide to make the
>change.  Thanks much.I would vote for replies to the list. If I see a message to
Ballad-L, my general tendency is to react to the list. I expect
to have to change the address if I want to reply to the individual.I've made this mistake too many times. :-)--
Robert B. Waltz  - - - - - - - - Ballad Index Editor
1078 Colne Street
Saint Paul, MN 55103-1348
651-489-1930 - - - - - - - - - - e-mail: [unmask]The Ballad Index Web Site:
http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore/BalladIndexTOC.html

A broadside recently turned up on ebay-
an advert for Theatre Royal Covent Garden London
It mentions
Harlequin Guy Fawkes
or
The Fifth of November
Pantomime.Anyone know of a good source for the score/text of old Pantomimes
Early 19th century?interesting chant turned up on the bottom a new one for the collection
Remember, remember
The Fifth Of November
Gunpowder, Treason and plotwe see no reason
Why gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgotGuy Fawkes, Guy
With his lantern so sly
Got into parliament house.Conrad

>Hi, folks.  I need you all to weigh in on what you would prefer: right now,
>the list option on replies is that unless your mail program overrfides it,
>your reply will go only to the person who sent the message.  Would you like
>that to continue, or would you rather that your replies go to the whole
>list?  I'd like to see what the consensus is before I decide to make the
>change.  Thanks much.
>
>        Marge
>
>
>E-mail: [unmask]Oh, to the list, very much to the list!Peace,DavidDavid G. Engleemail:  [unmask]
web:    http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore
        http://www.csufresno.edu/forlang        The Traditional Ballad Index:
        http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore/BalladIndexTOC.html---

Marge:I, for one, would prefer to be able to answer privately, with the option
of adding "ballad-l" on the cc: list.  Just as I did with this message.EdOn Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Marge Steiner wrote:> Hi, folks.  I need you all to weigh in on what you would prefer: right now,
> the list option on replies is that unless your mail program overrfides it,
> your reply will go only to the person who sent the message.  Would you like
> that to continue, or would you rather that your replies go to the whole
> list?  I'd like to see what the consensus is before I decide to make the
> change.  Thanks much.
>
>         Marge
>
>
> E-mail: [unmask]
>

>Unless I stop and think, I tend to assume my replies are going to the
>list. That's what I'd prefer.Kristine Batey
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.  USA
[unmask]

I go along with most of the rest of the folks -- I'd like replies to
automatically go to the list. Is it possible, though, for it to be
individually selectable, so Ed can have it go to the sender?Peace,
Paul

Put me down for replies to the list. I can always
reply to poster easily enough if it's not of general
interest, but most matters brought to the list ARE of
general interest.Linn***************************************************************
Linn S. Schulz
Writing - Editing - Print Design & Production
phone/fax 603-942-7604
Mailing Address: PO Box 4402, Portsmouth, NH 03802
USA****************************************************************__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

To the list, please. That's how I find out who here has expertise and
interests in particular areas, and we cover a lot of areas.If replies are off list then list members don't know what has already
been answered in that manner. It can lead to needless duplication of
effort.Bruce Olson--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
broadside ballads at my no-spam website - www.erols.com/olsonw
or just <A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click </a>Motto: Keep at it; muddling through always works.

It should certainly go to the list. A list is what this is.At the moment it is variable (my computerese is far too limited for
me to know why), some posts reply automatically to just the sender,
some to the list.Obviously it's easy enough to reply individually by inserting the
sender's name in the "To" field, but an "unthinking" reply should be
there for all to see :-)John Roberts.

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 12:50:56PM -0500, John Roberts wrote:> It should certainly go to the list. A list is what this is.        Absolutely.> At the moment it is variable (my computerese is far too limited for
> me to know why), some posts reply automatically to just the sender,
> some to the list.        If the poster's e-mail program sets a "Reply-To: " header line,
the list manager program keeps that.  Otherwise, it inserts its own
"Reply-To: " header pointing to the list.  Thus some (such as I) who
have set up to have their "Reply-To: " set will get individual replies,
whether they want them such or not.> Obviously it's easy enough to reply individually by inserting the
> sender's name in the "To" field, but an "unthinking" reply should be
> there for all to see :-)        Agreed.        Enjoy,
                DoN.--
 Email:   <[unmask]>   | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
        (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
           --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Please have messages go to the entire list for all the good reasons already
stated. Once in a while, for reasons beyond my ken, a reply I had intended
for the list went only to the individual poster  -  very frustrating. As
others said, one can easily PM the individual.--  Tom

On 11/6/01, Jon Bartlett wrote:>List or personal?  List, please.  I have another question: I'd like to circulate a draft paper (on "Lamkin") to the list for comments.  I'm not an academic and don't know whether this is kosher; if it is, is there a separate subsite for it? (I just see short-form responses on this list but maybe there's some other "room" I don't know about).(Sounds like Bluebeard).The basic rule is, "No attachments to the list," sez I. If you can
post it as text, and it isn't unreasonably large, do it and see what
happens. But if you want us to read a Microsoft W*rd file -- count
me out.--
Robert B. Waltz  - - - - - - - - Ballad Index Editor
1078 Colne Street
Saint Paul, MN 55103-1348
651-489-1930 - - - - - - - - - - e-mail: [unmask]The Ballad Index Web Site:
http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore/BalladIndexTOC.html

Jon Bartlett wrote:
> > I'd like to circulate a draft paper (on "Lamkin") to the list for comments.
And Robert B. Waltz replied::
>
> The basic rule is, "No attachments to the list," sez I. If you can
> post it as text, and it isn't unreasonably large, do it and see what
> happens. But if you want us to read a Microsoft W*rd file -- count
> me out.If anyone wants to circulate a document or other file to the list,
feel free to send it to me personally ([unmask]) and I'll
post it on my website.  You can then post just the URL to the list,
and everybody's happy.-Rob

Appologies from your inept listowner.  I just checked with our university's
list administrator, and, apprently, the list is configured as it should be,
so that replies should go to the entire list.  It may be that some folks are
having issues with their individual mail programs.  sorry about all this: I
don't have to do this stuff very often, so there you are!        MargeE-mail: [unmask]

Hi, folks.  I'm not sure what else to suggest.        MargeE-mail: [unmask]-----Original Message-----
From: Peg Bassett [mailto:[unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:00 PM
To: [unmask]
Subject: Re: the message that sparked all thisFW: hmmMarge,The list is configured correctly; the problem is with the email client that
your subscriber is using.  He/she will need to get assistance from their
local support person to change the behavior on replies.PegPeg Bassett
UITS Messaging Team
IUB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marge Steiner" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 3:55 PM
Subject: the message that sparked all thisFW: hmm>
>
>
> E-mail: [unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Stamler [mailto:[unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 2:17 AM
> To: Marge Steiner (Ballad-L)
> Subject: Fw: hmm
>
>
> Hi Marge:
>
> For some reason, my stuff gets posted to the list with the automatic
setting
> of "Reply To:" me rather than the list. See John's message to me
(following
> my signature). I don't quite see how to fix this in my e-mail program; is
it
> a list setting?
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Roberts <[unmask]>
> To: Paul Stamler <[unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: hmm
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Here's the preamble to one of your mailings to the ballad list as it
> comes to me on Eudora:
>
> Delivered-To: [unmask]
> X-Priority: 3
> Date:         Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:01:57 -0600
> Reply-To:     Paul Stamler <[unmask]>
> Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> From:         Paul Stamler <[unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: hmm
> To:           [unmask]
>
> Compare the "Reply to" field with those below. Mark Gilston and Ed
> Cray have it set to reply to the list; you and Dick Greenhaus have it
> set so replies are sent to them. It seems about 50/50. Bruce Olson
> gets reply to the list when he posts as "Bruce Olson" - when he posts
> as "W. B. OLSON" the reply field is back to him. Beats me. I'm not
> sure where that gets set. I just get annoyed with myself when I
> forget to check.
>
> Cheers,
> John.
>
>
>
>
> Here's the preamble to a couple more:
>
> Delivered-To: [unmask]
> Date:         Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:42:28 EST
> Reply-To:     Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> From:         Trad Man <[unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: hmm
> To:           [unmask]
>
>
> Delivered-To: [unmask]
> Date:         Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:38:35 -0800
> Reply-To:     Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> From:         Ed Cray <[unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: Bronson
> To:           [unmask]
>
> Delivered-To: [unmask]
> X-Accept-Language: en
> Date:         Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:59:11 -0500
> Reply-To:     [unmask]
> Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> From:         dick greenhaus <[unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: What to reprint
> To:           [unmask]
>
>
>
>
> ><<I did it again dammit! Everytime I use your email as a route to a
> >reply it goes to you rather than to the list. If I pick another post
> >from someone else it goes to the list automatically. Have you got
> >your "reply field" set differently or something?>>
> >
> >I don't think so...nope, nothing obvious poking up in my settings. Odd;
> does
> >this happen when you reply to anyone else?
> >
> >Peace,
> >Paul
>
>
>

Replying to the list works for meMargaret MacArthur
Box 15 MacArthur Road
Marlboro VT 05344
802/254/2549
[unmask]
http://www.margaretmacarthur.com
from the heart of the Green Mountains

----- Original Message -----
From: Marge Steiner <[unmask]><<Hi, folks.  I'm not sure what else to suggest<<The list is configured correctly; the problem is with the email client
that
your subscriber is using.  He/she will need to get assistance from their
local support person to change the behavior on replies.>>Local support person? Ha! I'm an individual user, and I'm using a M-------t
product. Their motto is, "You want support? Buy a kidney belt."I'm one of the people whose stuff gets replied to off-list (in fact, I found
out about it because John Roberts accidentally sent a reply to one of my
messages that only went to me). Anyone here know how to make Outlook Express
sit up and do right?Marge is another -- at least, I just replied to her message, and had to
paste in the list's address.Peace,
Paul

Could people who are having problems sending replies let me know, and also
what mail clients you use?  Once again, I'm not a computer nird at all, but
I can inquire.        MargeE-mail: [unmask]

Fascinating.  When I hit "Reply" for this it came up "To" the list
address, but when I do the same with other messages, including those
from Marge, it comes up "To" the individual!>Replying to the list works for me
>
>Margaret MacArthur
>Box 15 MacArthur Road
>Marlboro VT 05344
>802/254/2549
>[unmask]
>http://www.margaretmacarthur.com
>from the heart of the Green Mountains--
john garst    [unmask]

On 11/6/01, Marge Steiner wrote:>Could people who are having problems sending replies let me know, and also
>what mail clients you use?  Once again, I'm not a computer nird at all, but
>I can inquire.
>
>        MargeSome help here for people: The problem is not in the e-mail clients
of the RECIPIENTS of messages to the list. It's in the program
of the SENDERS. (Though whether it's a problem is one of those
unanswerable questions. It actually means, ironically, that they
have configured their software correctly. :-)The key here is the Reply-To: field in individual messages.
If a message has a "value" in this field, a reply will go to
that address. For example, messages from Marge Steiner contain
the lineReply-To: [unmask]So when I replied to *this* message, the reply "tried to"
go to Marge Steiner until I overrode it.Other messages contain the "correct" Reply-To: value
of the list address.It is my understanding that LISTSERV and most of its relatives
will INSERT the Reply-To: value of the list if no Reply-To:
value is specified by the sender, but will "respect" the
Reply-To: value of the sender if there is something there.Thus, the behavior of the list is "proper" for LISTSERV. But
it's not what we want. :-) What we want is an override: We
want the list to set the Reply-To: value to Ballad-L
*no matter what*.I don't know if that's possible with this software. But you
can try explaining it to the computer guru there.--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Folks:Michael gave permission for me to post this reply to my query.  The
"Midnight Special" family tree is particularly interesting.Ed---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 21:51:52 -0700 (MST)
From: Bell Michael <[unmask]>
To: Ed Cray <[unmask]>
Subject: Re: Ship in the SkyThe tune source lurks just beyond memory, flitting in and out of my graspDear Ed-- I empathize. (See below.) I'm no good at this, either; too bad
John Hartford and Sam Bayard aren't around to tell us. But the tune of the
first line reminds me of "Old 97" (tho' the latter is a few notes longer),
& Woody's second follows from the first, in a way. To my ears, the
4th-line melody echoes popular music more than a folk source. That's as
much as I can think of right now.For years I was bugged by a distorted, just-beyond-memory echo in John
Hurt's "Richland WOmen Blues," & finally realized that if you speed it up,
you get CHuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen." A ripoff of which, "Surfin'
U.S.A.," was like a second-stage rocket to the pop music of the 1960s.I mentioned this to a summer folklore class years ago, & a student came up
afterward & said, "You realize that tune is 'The Midnight Special,' don't
you?" I could have throttled the kid where he stood. He was absolutely
right.All best / Mike Bell

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Marge Steiner wrote:
>
> Hi, folks.  I'm not sure what else to suggest.
>
>         Marge
>
> E-mail: [unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peg Bassett [mailto:[unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: [unmask]
> Subject: Re: the message that sparked all thisFW: hmm
>
> Marge,
>
> The list is configured correctly; the problem is with the email client that
> your subscriber is using.  He/she will need to get assistance from their
> local support person to change the behavior on replies.
>
> Peg
>
> Peg Bassett
> UITS Messaging Team
> IUB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marge Steiner" <[unmask]>
> To: <[unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 3:55 PM
> Subject: the message that sparked all thisFW: hmm
>
> >
> >
> >
> > E-mail: [unmask]
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Stamler [mailto:[unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 2:17 AM
> > To: Marge Steiner (Ballad-L)
> > Subject: Fw: hmm
> >
> >
> > Hi Marge:
> >
> > For some reason, my stuff gets posted to the list with the automatic
> setting
> > of "Reply To:" me rather than the list. See John's message to me
> (following
> > my signature). I don't quite see how to fix this in my e-mail program; is
> it
> > a list setting?
> >
> > Peace,
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Roberts <[unmask]>
> > To: Paul Stamler <[unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: hmm
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Here's the preamble to one of your mailings to the ballad list as it
> > comes to me on Eudora:
> >
> > Delivered-To: [unmask]
> > X-Priority: 3
> > Date:         Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:01:57 -0600
> > Reply-To:     Paul Stamler <[unmask]>
> > Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> > From:         Paul Stamler <[unmask]>
> > Subject:      Re: hmm
> > To:           [unmask]
> >
> > Compare the "Reply to" field with those below. Mark Gilston and Ed
> > Cray have it set to reply to the list; you and Dick Greenhaus have it
> > set so replies are sent to them. It seems about 50/50. Bruce Olson
> > gets reply to the list when he posts as "Bruce Olson" - when he posts
> > as "W. B. OLSON" the reply field is back to him. Beats me. I'm not
> > sure where that gets set. I just get annoyed with myself when I
> > forget to check.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the preamble to a couple more:
> >
> > Delivered-To: [unmask]
> > Date:         Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:42:28 EST
> > Reply-To:     Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> > Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> > From:         Trad Man <[unmask]>
> > Subject:      Re: hmm
> > To:           [unmask]
> >
> >
> > Delivered-To: [unmask]
> > Date:         Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:38:35 -0800
> > Reply-To:     Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> > Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> > From:         Ed Cray <[unmask]>
> > Subject:      Re: Bronson
> > To:           [unmask]
> >
> > Delivered-To: [unmask]
> > X-Accept-Language: en
> > Date:         Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:59:11 -0500
> > Reply-To:     [unmask]
> > Sender:       Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
> > From:         dick greenhaus <[unmask]>
> > Subject:      Re: What to reprint
> > To:           [unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ><<I did it again dammit! Everytime I use your email as a route to a
> > >reply it goes to you rather than to the list. If I pick another post
> > >from someone else it goes to the list automatically. Have you got
> > >your "reply field" set differently or something?>>
> > >
> > >I don't think so...nope, nothing obvious poking up in my settings. Odd;
> > does
> > >this happen when you reply to anyone else?
> > >
> > >Peace,
> > >Paul
> >
> >
> >Sorry, I wiped out my unneeded "Reply to" address at one time (see Don
Nichols posting), but somehow it got back in. (Probably after reloading
Netscape following a bit of a system crash I had some months ago) I've
now deleted it again, so the 'Reply' address will revert to the list,
not to my email address."Reply to" seems to be usefull only if your posting web address is
different from your receiving web address.Since Don's message apparently hasn't been well understood, let me
expand a bit on it:Note that the way the listserv server is set up (unlike the older
majordomo server), it is up to the POSTER to set up his own email
WITHOUT a "Reply to" if he wants replys to go to the list. If there is a
"Reply to" in his or her own postings (a default somewhere in his or her
own email sending setup), then the listserv server will use the poster's
"Reply to" address as the "To" address for a reply, and not put in the
list address as the "To" address. In my old Netscape this "Reply to" is
at Options/ News and Mail Preferences/ Identity.Note that Marge Steiner has a "Reply to" address in her own email setup,
so a click-on 'Reply' to her postings will go only to her, not to the
list.Since we can't change the listserv setup, it's up to each poster to take
care of it in his or her own email setup.Bruce Olson

Jon:I would welcome seeing your "Lamkin" article.  I would welcome anyone's
contributions.  As I have said before, the nicest thing about this group
is the wisdom of its members -- and their kindness to strangers.EdOn Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Jon Bartlett wrote:> List or personal?  List, please.  I have another question: I'd like to circulate a draft paper (on "Lamkin") to the list for comments.  I'm not an academic and don't know whether this is kosher; if it is, is there a separate subsite for it? (I just see short-form responses on this list but maybe there's some other "room" I don't know about).(Sounds like Bluebeard).
>
> Jon Bartlett
>

This was listed in the Garland catalogue for (I think) a couple of years
running, and I tried to get it at the time, but without success. I seem to
remember some correspondence with him that it was 'nearly finished' but I'm
pretty sure it never saw the light day. It's a shame, because its 'imminent
publication' stopped me from attempting to publish my own bibliography on
the subject.
Steve Roud----- Original Message -----
From: <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 10:12 PM
Subject: Rainer Wehse - Bibliography> The Library of Congress OPAC shows:
>
> Street Literature in Great Britain and America: A bibliography/Rainer
Wehse
> New York; London: Garland Pub., 1985
>
> The LC Clasification states "8506 BOOK NOT YET IN LC"
>
> I can find this listed no-where else. Can anyone confirm the apparent
> probability that it was never published?
>
> John Moulden
>