Comments on: Comments on 18369

Post number 18369

y2karl — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:54:44 -0800

Without Harry Smith I wouldn't have existed!

Bob Dylan

... I put Harry Smith with the three most dear to me GRAND INTELLIGENCE!! Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Harry Smith...These were sharp motherfuckers... and heavy... talk about heavy!!

Gregory Corso

Harry Smith, a central figure in the mid-20th-century avant-garde, was a complex artistic figure who made major contributions to the fields of sound recording, independent filmmaking, the visual arts, and ethnographic collecting. Along with Kenneth Anger, Jordan Belson, and Oskar Fischinger, Smith is considered one of America's leading experimental filmmakers. He would often hand-paint directly on film creating unique, complex compositions that have been interpreted as investigations of conscious and unconscious mental processes. Smith began as a teenager to record Native American songs and rituals. He is best known for his Anthology of American Folk Music, a music collection widely credited with launching the urban folk revival.

The Anthology is the focus here, but Harry Smith, the artist, avant garde film maker, polymath, musicologist and quintessential hipster must be mentioned, too. Details Within

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:55:34 -0800

The amazing thing is that in the last year of his life he was awarded a Grammy for the advancement of American folk music. He was dressed up in a tuxedo without a tie, and he stumbled trying to climb on the stage. He was given a moment to make a speech and said very briefly that he was happy to live long enough to see the American political culture affected and moved and shaped somewhat by American folk music, meaning the whole rock-n-roll, Bob Dylan, Beatnik, post-Beatnik youth culture. It was a beautiful speech because it very briefly said that he'd lived long enough to see the philosophy of the homeless and the Negro and the minorities and the impoverished- of which he was one, starving in the Bowery- alter the consciousness of America suffiently to affect the politics. Allen Ginsberg Harry Smith collected records during World War II and amassed a collection in the thousands. In 1952, he apprached Moe Asch of Folk Ways Records and proposed The Anthology Of American Folk Music. Had he never done anything with his life but this Anthology, Harry Smith would still have borne the mark of genius across his forehead. I'd match the Anthology up against any other single compendium of important information ever assembled. Dead Sea Scrolls? Nah. I'll take the Anthology. Make no mistake: there was no 'folk' canon before Smith's work. That he had compiled such as definitive document only became apparent much later, of course. John Fahey Here is an article in Granta by Greil Marcus about the anthology. Here is Robert Christgau on the CD reissue. Here, from Perfect Sound, are Tom Paley, Peter Stampfel, John Fahey (from The Anthology liner notes) and Allen Ginsberg. And here is Salon's Alex Abramovitch on The Anthology of American Folk Music. Here is Think of the Self Speaking, a collection of interviews with Harry Smith and here is Hypnotist Collector: The Alchemy of Harry Smith by Darrin Daniel who is one of the book's publishers. Also, the Getty Institute's Harry Smith: The Avant-Garde in the American Vernacular and a review thereof. And here Allen Ginsberg and Paola Igliori discuss the life and times of Harry Smith. Here's Ginsberg again: The people working on rock concert light shows developed their multimedia Fillmore West wall-collage projections from Harry's equipment, including the idea of mixing oils or colors on a mirror which was then projected on the wall: liquid psychedelic flowing moving images. Harry Smith invented the rock light show--until tonight I did not know this--amazing! Also, props to argybargy for mentioning this collection earlier in these pages.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:56:32 -0800

Here, for your listening entercation, are some notes and RealAudio downloads (click on the titles) from the Smithsonians Anthology siteFurry Lewis's Kassie Jones, Cannon's Jug Stompers's Minglewood Blues, Frank Cloutier and the Victoria Cafe Orchestra's Moonshiner's Dance Part One, Blind Willie Johnson's John the Revelator, Buell Kazee's The Wagoners Lad, the Rev. D.C. Rice and His Sanctified Congregation with I'm In the Battle Field for My Lord, the Carter Family's John Hardy Was A Desperate Little Man and Sleepy John Estes's Expressman Blues. Also, here is some information about Volume 4, recently released on Revenant Records, wuith a review by Salon's Andy Battaglia and Rennie Sparks. I can not say enough about how wonderful and mysterious this record set seemed in when I first heard it in the late 60s, or how exquisite the releases on CD are in quality of sound and annotation. My girlfriend gave all these to me as an early birthday present--what a doll!--You can guess from where my shows will be coming in the next few weeks.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:05:07 -0800

Dang, and I forgot the Harry Smith Archives direct link. Pictures, information and links galore...

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:07:16 -0800

you need an editor.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:14:18 -0800

> you need an editor. Karl runs a great radio show on the net. He needs a station, not an editor.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:43:40 -0800

[After only a little click-dippings]That's one helluva a livin' singin' talkin' readin' biography you set up for us, y2karl. Thanks. I'd say this is what I keep coming to MetaFilter for but nobody'd believe me as I come for all the rest as well. But you get my meaning. ;)

By: anathema

anathema — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:34:04 -0800

The anthology is a thing of pure beauty, from the music itself, to the lovingly designed packaging. Smith's esoteric style has added immeasurably to the history of American music. Wonderful post y2karl, and thanks also for a fantastic radio show which I finally had a chance to check out the other night. Oh yeah, people should also check out Bear Family Records out of Germany for more great American roots music.

By: prolific

prolific — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 03:01:10 -0800

I attended Hal Willner's first 'Harry Smith Project' at Meltdown festival in London a few years ago. The line up was amazing, and the lack of ego on display surprising. I was told it was the same backstage. It seemed as if the artists were in awe of Harry Smith's the music more than anything else. Nick Cave jammed with the McGarrigles, Renaud Pion jazzed it up with Rosswell Rudd, Jarvis Cocker crushed a cockroach, Gavin Friday crooned with the amazing Jimmy Scott. It lasted for three hours and I sat listening in awe, mouth agape for the duration. I have some very nice recordings from that night, which I really should um, make available.

By: Marquis

Marquis — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:33:22 -0800

Harry Smith was a visionary and a genius. Thanks, y2karl.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:36:33 -0800

Sweet, I'll just jump on AG to rustle up some samples before I order the anthology. Wait ...

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:32:35 -0800

I first stumbled upon the Anthology in the local public library when I was 15. It blew my mind then and opened tons of doors for me. Harry Smith was a true visionary. This is a weird bit of syncronicity cause I was at this joint and debating over whether to get an "Eck" Robertson(feat. on the Anthology) or a Latin Funk comp, I got the funk. This is y2Karl's way of telling me to go back and get Eck too. You shameless pimp, Karl :)

By: Faze

Faze — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:34:40 -0800

Hold on thar, y2karl. Sure, the anthology was full of great music. And it was fortuitous that someone of Smith's sensibility was able to preserve the music, see its value and work with Moe Asch (a good biography of Asch) to put it out. But that's where his achievement ends. Smith was't content just to assemble the songs and let them speak for themselves. He had to go on and order the music according to these specious affinities in subject matter or sound, and separate them into "Social Music" and other pseudo-scientific categories. The whole effect is intrusive and kind of patronizing (I'd even say imperialistic) toward the music itself. Instead of letting the music speak for itself, Smith has to interpose himself, as if he were adding value, which he isn't. (RCA's "Smokey Mountain Ballads", a near contemporary -- if not predecessor to -- Smith's Anthology, manages to present the same type of material in a straightforward fashion, without all the arty additions.) Beyond the Anthology, Smith was -- to be kind -- an avant garde bore. When you consider the kind of spectacular technical innovation that was going on in popular American film at that time, Smith's film doodles are child's play. Artistically, they've led to nothing -- or at least, nothing anybody in their right mind would ever care to sit through. Really, in every respect except that of having preserved and presented this great, great music, Smith was a failure. A kind of dirty, drunk California beatnik who stumbled around and played at different things, and just happened to luck into this one precious vein of art. Let's not forget who the real artists are here. Not Smith. But Roscoe Holcomb, Gid Tanner, the sacred harp singers. These are the true geniuses.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:50:56 -0800

A kind of dirty, drunk California beatnik who stumbled around and played at different things, and just happened to luck into this one precious vein of art. Faze, that describes most people I admire* and most people I know if they're lucky enough to happen upon their moment of greatness. Obviously the musicians are the real stars here, but smith deserves credit for putting it togethher. He had to go on and order the music according to these specious affinities in subject matter or sound, and separate them into "Social Music" and other pseudo-scientific categories. Most other anthologies of this type of music categorize the music by the race and/or region of the singer and write about the music as if it were an archaelogical artifact rather than a living peice of art. Harry, as loopy as he could be knew better and it shows. *except for the California part. East Caost in the house...:)

By: Faze

Faze — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:07:19 -0800

What gets me, johmc, is the superficiality of his affinities, the way he puts one song after another based upon (if I recall correctly) the lyrical subject matter, or the rhythm or tone of the singer's voice -- you can hear what's he's thinking, and at the same time, sense how trivial it is compared to the almost scary profundity of the music itself. (Not that all the songs are profound. Smith was not much of an editor, and the collection could have been significantly pruned. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the inclusion of so much banal and repetitive material suggests that Smith didn't really have all that great taste. In fact, he may have had no taste whatsoever, being nothing more than a second-rate collage artist who happened to stumble upon a trunkful of great clippings.) According to Greil Marcus magnificent essay on Smith, "Harry Smith once said that his primary interest in American folk music was the 'patterning' that occurred within it." Well, that's just dumb. That's like being interested "Moby Dick" because of the "symbols" in it. As far as these pieces being "a living piece of art," I can appreciate what you're saying. It reminds me of something else the (great) Marcus writes: "What is [The Anthology] about?... An answer came right out of the air: 'Dead presidents,' I'd say. 'Dead dogs, dead children, dead lovers, dead murderers, dead heroes, and how good it is to be alive.'"

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:12:55 -0800

Smith's placement of recordings and performers make patterns all through his anthologies. Some of these patterns are easy enough to follow, such as the string of murders, assassinations, train wrecks, sinking ships and pestilence that ends his original 'Ballads' section. Some patterns are utterly spectral—you simply sense that two songs which in any formal sense could not be more dissimilar have been commissioned by the same god. Greil Marcus That he had compiled such as definitive document only became apparent much later, of course. We record-collecting types, sifting though many more records than he did, eventually reached the same conclusions: these were the true goods. ... But why is this 'folk'? Scholars who write such things have said the the 'folk' is the culture of a group of people who're at least to some extent isolated- whether by class, sex, age, race, language, space, time, religion- from the mainstream. Folk song developed as a common currency climate of comparative isolation, derived from a way of life, and blah blah blah. This is true, no doubt; but why did Smith pick this particular grouping as representative of 'folk' music and why was he so dead-bang right in damn near every selection? John Fahey That's an excerpt from the liner notes, Faze, but Fahey goes on to explain in detail why Smith's choices and arrangement of the songs were far better than any 'folkloric' approach then extant. Asch & minions later replaced Smith's original cover with some WPA photo of a scrawny farmer and Volume 4 was never released in part because a Folkways employee insisted on putting in a 'peoples' song that fit the current American Communist Party/fellow travelers concept of what was folk music but which was far inferior to to anything else Smith had chosen. Talk about your intrusive and kind of patronizing (I'd even say imperialistic) [attitude] toward the music --the whole concept of folk music up to the release of the Anthology of American Folk Music was that bullshit received opinion of left wing urban intellectuals. Over and over in the reminiscences and reviews to which I linked, Faze, people make the point that Smith's arrangements of the songs, idiosyncratic as they are, contribute to the collection. But you have to trash even the one achievement you will concede to him in order to trash him. ...in every respect except that of having preserved and presented this great, great music, Smith was a failure. --Which could be said, apart from the music created, Faze, of every performer on the anthology: all these people were outsiders, and their music was outside and unheard by the mainstream, which is why Marcus refers to them as the Old Weird America-- A kind of dirty, drunk California beatnik who stumbled around and played at different things, and just happened to luck into this one precious vein of art--I think that if you'd clicked on some of the links prior to honking off, you'd be a lot less full of shit in your commentary on this one. Just happened to luck, my ass...

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:24:52 -0800

Oh, I see you clicked on a few links as you selectively quote Marcus to protect your ego investment... Let's not forget who gave us this collection in the first place, Faze, allowing you to first hear and then harp on who the true artists are. And let's not forget the accolades of those enough informed to have a worthwhile opinion on Smith either.

By: Faze

Faze — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:58:38 -0800

Over and over in the reminiscences and reviews to which I linked, Faze, people make the point that Smith's arrangements of the songs, idiosyncratic as they are, contribute to the collection. I'm not convinced, y2karl. I think these people are so wildly grateful to have these songs presented to them in any form (and a worthy gratitude it is), they make more of Smith than he deserves. While Smith patronizes and colonizes the artists in "Anthology" through his "patterning," Greil Marcus patronizes Smith by pretending to find value in Smith's imagined insights. Let's face it, Smith knew he had a cultural gold mine, and being an egotist, like all artists, he wanted to slather his name on it for a cheap kind of immortality. That's why, rather than just presenting a judicious selection of these songs ordered so as to meet the listener's reasonable expectation of variety and interest, he came up with this hokey "patterning" device. Marcus, being a decent guy wants to give Smith credit, and works hard to find something nice to say about Smith's patterns. "Spectral" is about the best he can come up with. Yeah, real spectral.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:52:19 -0800

So he collects the records, thousands of them, in a time when records were being recalled to be melted down for wartime shellac needs, carries them around--listens to them and later arranges them. But not to your satisfaction. Having let us know, you again creatively reinterpet selective quotes to support your original bogue contention and keep beating the same dead horse--not unlike in the thread where you went on and on about what wondeful freedoms we enjoy these days--because, once having honked off half-cocked, you must keep honking off because you're married to your ego. I provide meat and potatoes in my post and you provide your ten pounds of predigested food in five pound bags over and over and over, trashing Smith more and more with less and less, and, all of a sudden, the tread's about you. Faze--you are the weakest link: goodbye!

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:13:09 -0800

Why so defensive, y2karl? You presented your perspective, rather exhaustively, and Faze responded with a thought-provoking alternative view. I don't see the need to attack him on a personal level for expressing a different opinion about the sublimely subjective topic of music. I understand that you are passionate about the subject, but that's just silly.

By: Faze

Faze — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:20:46 -0800

I provide meat and potatoes in my post and you provide your ten pounds of predigested food in five pound bags y2karl, I realize that I have my faults as a commenter. But surely, you can't call for my or anyone else's expulsion for not living up to the high standards set by your posts. That would leave you, Miguel, jonmc, mediareport and a few other master posters with the whole place to yourselves. Judging solely from your well-constructed contributions, I would guess you were a careful, patient person with a low boiling point. For some reason, however, I get your goat and provoke these explosive ad hominum attacks that seem way out of character. I regret this, because I admire your insights.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:49:36 -0800

You presented your perspective, rather exhaustively, and Faze responded with a thought-provoking alternative view: From Sure, the anthology was full of great music. And it was fortuitous that someone of Smith's sensibility was able to preserve the music, see its value and work with Moe Asch (a good biography of Asch) to put it out. to A kind of dirty, drunk California beatnik who stumbled around and played at different things, and just happened to luck into this one precious vein of art. to (Not that all the songs are profound. Smith was not much of an editor, and the collection could have been significantly pruned. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the inclusion of so much banal and repetitive material suggests that Smith didn't really have all that great taste. In fact, he may have had no taste whatsoever, being nothing more than a second-rate collage artist who happened to stumble upon a trunkful of great clippings.) to Let's face it, Smith knew he had a cultural gold mine, and being an egotist, like all artists, he wanted to slather his name on it for a cheap kind of immortality. is why. I have had my issues with Smith's presentation in the Anthology , but the fact is he provided the canon--not Moe Asch, nor anyone else. It was his collection and his project from start to end and the subsequent influence on everyone touched by the Anthology is from his work alone. And he managed to accomplish more than a few other things, too, throughout all his failed life, despite his faults and flaws. Whatever your opinion of, say, his film making, he was a pioneer, the first to go there, in so many arenas. It's like, say, Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters--every acid trip thereafter filters through their words. They were there first and defined things.What was an experience beyond language became less of a rush and more of a bummer because of this, perhaps, but let's not freak out about it, OK? My boiling point aside, it stopped being about Smith after your first comment--I wasn't the first person to get defensive here... Having popped off about Smith in the first place, to defend your thought-provoking alternative view, you had to pile on him more and more--with less and less--in every subsequent comment. Which irked me.

By: transient

transient — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:43:24 -0800

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Smith's preservation of his records is a good thing or diminishing the impact the Anthology has had, but just because someone does good things doesn't mean we're not allowed to discuss how he or she has done them. I think it is an interesting question: how much should a preservationist such as Smith, or Lomax, or C. Sharp influence the presentation of historical documents? I mean, how much of the archivist's voice do we really want to hear? Is it even possible to have an "invisible" delivery of things like this (i ask, even though this obviously wasn't one of Smith's goals)?

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:30:56 -0800

It's something I should have to deal with on a weekly basis (but usually do so less often...)--how to arrange slections of music. There are so many things to consider, so many ways to approach the subject. I was put off by Smith's annotations and arrangements at first, but upon reading Fahey's comments in the liner notes, I came to respect his approach. And note what this DJ Spooky said here--now what could he have done with today's technology in any of his efforts? It's interesting to note that Smith attempted to invent a whole system of annotation to transcribe the Lummi tribal dances when only a teenager, so this obsession with patterns was with him from the gitgo. As for his obsessions with collecting--the Smithsonian bought his world's largest paper airplane collection. What I find amazing was that he bought 78s by the likes of Tommy McClennan in Washington state during the war years. This was due in part to the habit of record companies once demanding dealers buy all their catalogs in order to sell any of the records they put out, and, for the happy accident that most companies flooded the market with old stock duiring the war, for another. And Smith collected these 78s as assidulously as he collected anything else. If it were not for his obsessions, would we have heard these songs. I tend to doubt it. It's certainly worth discussing his choices--I was objecting to what I saw as a series of ever more gratutitous trashings to support an initial dubious statement. I guess I was anticipating something not unlike the tenacious set of statements that flowed forth from an offhand and very debatable assertion made in the middle of this comment here. It took a great deal of time to come up with this post, for all its structural flaws. I foresaw--and helped create--an unpleasant derail ahead.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:03:24 -0800

It took a great deal of time to come up with this post, for all its structural flaws. I foresaw--and helped create--an unpleasant derail ahead. We conceive them, shape them, mold them, love them, and then release them into the wild. What happens next, we can neither predict nor control. And this is a good thing. Threads have lives separate from their posts, but only in the most extreme cases, I think, can the thread besmirch a strong post. While I sympathize with your concern, I don't think you have enough faith in your post to survive its Metafiltering intact, if not unscathed. It's not like people came in here and ignored the topic and started posting Eminem* lyrics. Off-topic: Why the hell hasn't Mars Candy sued that guy for copyright infringement/dilution? Seems inevitable in the current legal climate.

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:25:59 -0800

Oddly enough for someone who considers herself a fan of folk music, I had never heard of Harry Smith until two weeks ago, when I read this biography of Bob Dylan. In it, author Howard Sounes claims that not only was Bob Dylan inspired, nay, launched by the music collected on Smith's Anthology but he actually stole it from one of his college buddies!

By: Faze

Faze — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:41:38 -0800

In an interview associated with his latest album, however, Dylan says that he wasn't really that influenced by the Smith Anthology at all, and that he'd really only heard it a few times at Rambling Jack Elliot's apartment. Of course, it's not unusual for Dylan to say odd or contradictory things regarding his past. It's a strange world, which contains Bob Dylans, Harry Smiths, y2karls and Fazes all bumping into one another and trying to figure things out...

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:05:38 -0800

I'm a little late in responding here, anathema, but thanks--to you, too, pracowity!--for the kind words. Bear Family is the greatest! I adore their Little Richard--the photo of him in his Late Cretaceous conkitude they have within the notes is downright spectral... or at least extraterrestrial...) and the new (11 CDs!) Bob Wills box set has me slobberin' like a fasting Homer Simpson in a sudden donut downpour.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:25:59 -0800

Just an added thought==having listened to this collection for the first time in--what?--something like 25 years, I have to stand with Fahey, John Cohen, Tom Paley and assorted luminaries abovelinked: This is the canon. This a a very well arranged set of a golden age that spans a mere five years between when the record companies discovered what we would call certain niche markets and the coming of the Great Depression. It concentrates mostly on the rural musics black, Appalachian, Acadian and others. There simply are no collections to match it. No song is truly weak and even the ones placed for arcane reasons--Henry Lee comes to mind--are strong songs. Moe Asch had thousands of his records and others--never Asch--made some fine records from them--Samuel Charters comes to mind. None of these holds a candle to the Anthology for arrangement. The songs converge on theme and musical motifs echo from one song to the next so there is a seamless symmetry. Fahey split hairs on some choices as do I. Arranging music is something I do, and to some degree understand. I have listened to this collection again and it stands head and shoulders above any of the more limited collections--Smoky Mountain Ballads, for one--mentioned above in scope and execution. And apart from bankrolling Smith, Asch had nothing--nothing--to do with the creation of this collection. Henry Lee was strong enough to be covered by Dylan on World Gone Wrong. Soumes, of course, is right about Dylan and even his appropriation of the Anthology from his Dinktown friends in his college days--it's a story common to all his biographies. And then there is the Allen Ginsberg story linked above of Dylan coming over to Ginsberg's apartment, wanting to talk to Smith and being snubbed. Attempting to suggest he in some interview claimed to be unacquainted with the Anthology is simply specious--unless one has a big enough hair up his ass about Smith as to deny him the credit is due for the Anthology. As for defending what was hardly a thought provoking alternative view initially at length with weak and weaker arguments... I've just heard the thing again and have nothing but contempt for the ones made here. I'm with Fahey on this one: I believe the answer lies in the fact that Smith was acutely aware of a fairly simple truth which took others a great many years and much head-scratching to arrive at: certain multi-cultural traditions were sympathetic to each other while others were not. The White and Black folks found herein, despite the persistent protestations of many White artists (witness Bill Monroe, who most of his life would have us believe he invented bluegrass from whole cloth- nearly true, of course), listened to and drew from each other's musics in a landscape of musical interchange nonexistent during this same period between any other traditions to be found under 'American' music. Smith had an encyclopedic knowledge of 78's and a preternatural feel for the connections between them- across race and ethnic boundaries- not only to codify them for us but also to have this collection persist as an absolutely definitive and essential historical document.

By: transient

transient — Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:22:29 -0800

Random stuff for that last one: 1. Bill Monroe has often credited a blues guy called Arnold Schultz as being a major influence, and I believe he had a very good understanding of both the British and African American foundations of what he was doing (and I realize this is a response to John Fahey and not you). 2. Did I come to this stuff too late? I always thought Henry Lee was one of the standouts of the Anthology. Why do you say it was included for arcane reasons? I mean this as genuine curiosity, not antagonism; was this tune, or Ashley, known at all before the Anthology? But, 3. This is the canon: I have to admit that when dealing with what I consider a living tradition, statements like this make me nervous, and no, I cannot precisely put my finger on why.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:53:22 -0800

Henry Lee had the lowest number of any Childe Ballad in Smith's collection--for which it was given first place. I share your reservations about the word canon. With what he had, Smith created a great anthology, the best of it's time. As for a living tradition--would you call Dixieland a living tradition? Or birds dinosaurs? I've just read How Bluegrass Ruined My Life--Fahey is not without his opinions, Lord Knows. The anecdote about the making of Zabriskie Point that culminates with him punching out Antonioni during a restaurant dinner is priceless. Buried in this dictation from JohnFahey.com is an ongoing intermittent response to Greil Marcus's Invisible Republic in reference to the Anthology which is not without interest--the scary thing is that much of it makes more sense to me now.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:46:14 -0800

RE: RCA's "Smokey Mountain Ballads", a near contemporary -- if not predecessor to -- Smith's Anthology... 1964 as opposed to 1952: contemporary? predecessor? It's a bit of a stretch....

By: y2karl

y2karl — Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:48:28 -0800

oh, just for the record--the new show is all Anthology.