Talk:Alan Lomax

Untitled

Lomax was one of the major targets of McCarthyism and the "second great Red Scare" of the early 1950's. Fortunately, it did not succede in getting his music education program out of the public school system in Nashville, Tennessee, so fifteen years after the height of the Red Scare and thirty years after he created it, I was one of the beneficiaries of it and know who Woody Guthrie was beyond just being Arlo's dad and still know the tune to "Roll On, Columbia".

Negative Views

http://www.counterpunch.org/marsh0721.html

July 21, 2002

Mr. Big Stuff Alan Lomax: Great White Hunter or Thief, Plagiarist and Bigot?

by Dave Marsh

Seeing Alan Lomax's obituary on the front page of the New York Times irked the hell out of me. Harry Smith syndrome all over again----the Great White "Discoverer" as the axis of cultural genesis. Lomax, wrote Jon Pareles, "advocated what he called 'cultural equity: the right of every culture to have equal time on the air and equal time in the classroom.'"

He did?

In 1993, when Lomax published The Land Where the Blues Began, his memoir of blues research in the deep South, Peter Bochan invited him to do a WBAI interview. Bochan ventured to Lomax that Elvis Presley stood as a great product of the Southern folk cultures. Lomax firmly denied this, and said that Bochan couldn't even know that Presley had listened as a boy to Sister Rosetta Tharpe's gospel radio show because "You weren't there." He said this so persistently and adamantly -- with all the stupid "folklorist" purism that ruined the folk music revival--that Bochan went home and intercut Lomax's prissy voice and dumb assertions with excerpts from Beavis and Butthead. It aired that way...

That's ridiculous. LilDice 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pace Dave Marsh above, here is what Lomax really thought of Elvis:

A way in which Elvis differs absolutely from all the other white singers who preceded him is that he never stops moving for an instant. Here he’s like the black singer. … It’s a high level of energy and dynamics that he’s always giving you. . . . Here he really captures the excitement of the Southern railroad engine pounding through the night, the whiz of the automobile, the rumble of the factory, and the tremendous dynamism of American productive life. I could understand why he was so much attacked. He really made the first white bridge across, in behavioral terms, between the whites and the blacks of the South. – in fact, between whites and blacks in America. Before him, everybody had stood and peered at blacks. Elvis joined them as best he could and took enormous delight in projecting emotion in the way they did, as close as he could do it. --Alan Lomax and Forrestine Paulay unpublished transcription from The Urban Strain study quoted in “Alan Lomax and the Big Story of Song” liner notes by Gideon D’Arcangelo to The Alan Lomax Popular Song Book, Rounder CD82161-1863-2 (2003).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.152.153 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if Lomax was a saint any more than Guthrie was, but he and his dad did record all the songs, transcribed them in books, and gave the gift of American folk music to later generations. If he hadn't, much of this music wold have been lost forever. Parsa (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Purism" (a derogatory term)-- Although, though he liked to tease, and may well have needled Bochan (who in point of fact, probably was still in diapers, if born at all, when Lomax was playing Rosetta Tharpe on the radio), Alan Lomax was not a "purist" in any sense:

"Though Popular Front musical theory is often described as "nationalist" because of its interest in folk traditions, all of the major Popular Front music theorists -- Finkelstein, Elie Siegmeister, Alan Lomax, and Charles Seeger -- rejected national and racial myths of musical purity in favor of what Finkelstein called 'the basic truth that beauty is a product of labor.'" --Michael Denning, The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century (London, NY: Verso, 1997), p. 460.

What's really surprising is how thin skinned some of these rock critics are. They can dish it out, but --24.39.129.178 (talk)July 17, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this?

How can we wrap our arms around Alan Lomax? He was a force of nature who appeared superhuman. I thought of Alan as a Minotaur — half man, half supernatural — who defied life as we know it. His very walk seemed untouched by gravity as he slid gracefully with his distinctive gait. Sally Yerkovich recalls seeing Alan one day at the National Endowment for the Arts as he and his sister Bess Lomax Hawes walked side by side down the hall. Each held reading glasses in their extended right hand. They moved with that familiar Lomax stride that covered great distances and led them both to people and places that we celebrate today. --William Ferris, former director of the National Endowment for the Humanities

Or this?

Pete Seeger recalls that Alan “had a lot of youth and energy and the experience of working as his father’s assistant for a number of years. I think within five years he did more than most other archives had done in fifty years. He was a whirlwind of energy, and with no budget to speak of.”--ibid

The accusation of plagiarism comes from a book about Muddy Waters by a rock musician called Robert Gordon, who accused Lomax of not acknowledging the assistance of black composer John Work on his first interview of Muddy Waters in his book Land Where the Blues Began . Unfortunately, Gordon had failed to read the Acknowledgments page of Land Where the Blues Began, where Work is listed first. Gordon imagined that Lomax's theories of Cantometrics were based on a remark by Work that in the past folklorists had studied texts rather than the music of folk songs, a commonplace statement that could have been (and was -- if Gordon had bothered to check) also uttered by any folklorist of the day before and after Work, since obviously before the invention of audio recording it was not possible to study the music adequately.

In an interview with Alan Maas, editor of the Trotskyite publication, Socialist Worker, Dave Marsh, who is married to the manager of Bruce Springsteen, expressed surprise that, when singing folksongs (attributed to Pete Seeger in the recent CD,We Shall Overcome, for which Marsh wrote the liner notes), Springsteen hadn't been attacked by "purists" for altering them: "I'm actually surprised that he hasn't been attacked more by folk purists--by people who think there is a right way to sing these songs," he says. (Accusing their enemies of being "purists" is a stock in trade of Trotskites and their neocon bretheren.) He also is apparently unaware that changing folksongs is what folksingers always do. Marsh also betrays his megalomania in the same interview, when he similarly expresses "surprise" that some of Springsteen's verses "didn't excite some Bill O'Reilly frenzy." (He is referring to incendiary TV personality Bill O'Reilly!)Mballen (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)August 3, 2008

Trotskyites accuse other people of being "purists" because they themselves are purists for whom no other leftists are left enough. When they became Cold War anti-Communists, no other Cold Warriors were hard line or Anti-Communist (or anti-Muslim) enough to suit them -- hence PNAC, the Project for a New American Century and its call for "A new Pearl Harbor". It all comes down to this: when you are an ideologue you don't have to bother with facts or persuasion. Bullying and bluster will do.96.250.132.58 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Death Date

According to every source I've seen, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Alan Lomax was born in Austin TX on January 15th not January 31st as the article says. I haven't made the edit yet in case someone actually has an authoritative source for the Jan 31st date. Dick Gaughan (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interview with Lomax biographer John Szwed on "negative views"

The following interview appeared in the Washington [D.C] City Paper on May 4, 2010 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/music/2010/05/04/tomorrow-john-szwed-discusses-folklorist-alan-lomax-the-man-who-recorded-the-world/:

WCP: In a July 2002 piece for counterpunch.org, author Dave Marsh attacked Lomax as a prissy, stereotypical folklorist who stole a copyright credit from Leadbelly, failed to pay Muddy Waters, plagiarized and failed to credit John Work of Fisk University, and gained more attention for himself than for the talented musicians he recorded. Do you address these allegations in the book? Did you talk to author Robert Gordon regarding his research that he did for his Muddy Waters bio, and/or look at that work as it relates to Lomax?

JS: Yes, I take up all the Lomax stories, most of which I believe to be wrong. Why they’re wrong is not terribly interesting, but I was obliged to deal with it to get to what I think was the valuable and even exciting parts of his life and work. Let’s just say that Dave Marsh, who has done so much valuable and fine reporting, drove off a cliff with his obituary of Lomax. Talk about kicking a man when he’s down!

I never spoke to Gordon, but I did exchange e-mails with his co-author Bruce Nemerov… I tell a much simpler and less villain-laden story than they do, based on what I believe is more information.

WCP: Because of the passage of time was it hard to do interviews because people have passed away, and documents and tapes and records may no longer be available?

JS: Those are not really problems… There are still a lot of people alive—Pete Seeger, for instance, and many others not so well known.. . And Lomax used the best equipment to record and film, and nearly everything has survived. In fact, a lot of his films and recordings are just coming out now for the first time. The problem, as with everything in life, is sorting out who has first-hand knowledge and who is guessing or passing on stories uncritically. Mballen (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Online legal archive

• Larry Rohter (January 30, 2012). "Folklorist's Global Jukebox Goes Digital". New York Times.

planned for late Feb. --Javaweb (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thank you, Mick Gold, for adding this to the article. --Javaweb (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

The list of Lomax's collaborators on Cantometrics was inexplicably shortened from: nt "Victor Grauer, Conrad Arensberg, Forrestine Paulay, and Roswell Rudd" to Victor Grauer and Roswell Rudd. Grauer and Rudd worked with Lomax only on the very beginning and end of the project, respectively. The others were more important and (arguably) more eminent, especially in the case of Arensberg. Paulay and Arensberg worked on Cantometrics with Lomax for over twenty years. It is misleading to omit their names. Mballen (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity

An editor blanked out this paragraph on the grounds that unless backed by a RS it represented a synthesis to connect Alan Lomax with the United nations:

In 2001, in the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington of September 11, UNESCO's Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity declared the safeguarding of languages and intangible culture on a par with protection of individual human rights and as essential for human survival as biodiversity is for nature, ideas first articulated by Alan Lomax.

In 2006 there was a conference, The Lomax Legacy: Folklore in a Globalizing Century, at the Library of Congress at which one of the attendees was Preston D. Hardison who served since 1995 on the UN Committee for cultural and biological diversity. I don't know this would count as a RS, but I would like to assure the doubting editor and wikipedia readers that it is true that while many anthropologists and biologists shared these concerns Lomax articulated them concerns before the committee was formed. Perhaps another editor will help out. Mballen (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Mballen (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I spent just about 5 minutes reviewing diffs and a glance at quick glance history to try to learn if there is back story on this. So at this point I only have a superficial first thought which should be devalued accordingly. There is a sort of editor-implied cause-effect or credit to Lomax for the declaration. I really don't see this is established by sources. That implied cause-effect would also be a reason for inclusion, but not the only reason. The other is that (possibly without that implied credit) it is simply germane enough to be useful specifically in this article. In your last paragraph, here you provided info that showed some relationship. I would consider that source to be reliable for the specific facts that it states. One idea might be put specifically what is in that source, mention Hardison's participation in both, and a briefer "just the facts" mention of the declaration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, North8000. I agree that there is no cause-and-effect -- not that can be established anyway -- though John Szwed's book mentions that Alan had been lobbying UNESCO for years to give money to document the music of the world's cultures -- though Szwed says that UNESCO never seemed to understand what he was talking about. According to John Szwed, as early as 1950 when he proposed using LP records (then the newest technology) to do this to at a scholarly conference of folklorists, he met with indifference. Lomax said "It made me so mad I decided to do it myself" -- hence the Columbia World Library --and Cantometrics & the Global Jukebox -- though this is a synthesis). I feel sure that at least some UNESCO scholars were aware of him, but have no documentation of that fact. (Lomax wrote so many grant proposals and was such a powerful writer that arts administrators borrowed from them in their mission statements, I have been told -- off the record). There may be a way to fit in UNESCO, making it clear that there was no clear cause-and-effect, nor editorial intention to imply one. It is certain that Cavalli-Sforza, who mapped human genetic diversity, showed an interest in Lomax's projects (according to Szwed). Mballen (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Mballen (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found this:Guha Shankar and Margaret Kruesi, American Folklife Center, Legislating (for) the Folk:

The ideological basis for these projects [WPA and Library of Congress folksong collecting and archiving] was first expressed in legislative programs enacted to provide economic recovery and relief from the Great Depression of the 1930s, otherwise known as New Deal legislation. The Lomaxes’ work for the Library included work jointly sponsored by the WPA Music Projects, WPA Writers Projects, and the WPA Joint Committee on Folklore, all created by New Deal legislation. Subsequently, the cultural documentation work of the New Deal agencies was recast by Alan Lomax as a call for “cultural equity.” Lomax’s somewhat loosely defined notion of democracy for all local and ethnic cultures led him to argue for their right to be represented equally in the media, the schools, and in national cultural institutions ..... The Director of the [Library of Congress's] American Folklife Center, Dr. Peggy Bulger, serves as a delegate to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore. Her participation, as well as representation by the American Folklore Society and other governmental arts and culture organizations from the U.S., has resulted in considerable progress in understanding these critical issues. The broader issue of protection of all “indigenous knowledge” has recently been stated by the United Nations as a tenet of human rights protection."

Etc.

(Lomax's position, of course, was that more than mere collecting and archiving needs to be done to support traditional cultures, i.e., active advocacy and support for local artists who are "culture bearers", education projects in the schools, performance venues, and so on.) The paper also reports that the Library's position is that the rights to the material are held by the "producers" (i.e., artists and collectors), and are not in the public domain as commonly assumed. Mballen (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is more, from Barry Jean Ancelet, "Lomax in Louisiana", an article first published in the 2009 Louisiana Folklore Miscellany. Barry Ancelet is a folklorist and chair of the Modern Languages Department at University of Louisiana at Lafayette:

Every time [Lomax] called me over a span of about ten years, he never failed to ask if we were teaching Cajun French in the schools yet. His notions about the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity have been affirmed by many contemporary scholars, including Nobel prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann who concluded his recent book, The Quark and the Jaguar, with a discussion of these very same issues, insisting on the importance of "cultural DNA" (1994: 338-343). His cautions about "universal popular culture" (1994: 342) sound remarkably like Alan's warning in his "Appeal for Cultural Equity" that the "cultural grey-out" must be checked or there would soon be "no place worth visiting and no place worth staying" (1972). Compare Gell-Mann:

Just as it is crazy to squander in a few decades much of the rich biological diversity that has evolved over billions of years, so is it equally crazy to permit the disappearance of much of human cultural diversity, which has evolved in a somewhat analogous way over many tens of thousands of years… The erosion of local cultural patterns around the world is not, however, entirely or even principally the result of contactwith the universalizing effect of scientific enlightenment. Popular culture is in most cases far more effective at erasing distinctions between one place or society and another. Blue jeans, fast food, rock music, and American television serials have been sweeping the world for years. (1994: 338-343)

and Lomax:

carcasses of dead or dying cultures on the human landscape, that we have learned to dismiss this pollution of the human environment as inevitable, and even sensible, since it is wrongly assumed that the weak and unfit among musics and cultures are eliminated in this way… Not only is such a doctrine anti-human; it is very bad science. It is false Darwinism applied to culture – especially to its expressive systems, such as music language, and art. Scientific study of cultures, notably of their languages and their musics, shows that all are equally expressive and equally communicative, even though they may symbolize technologies of different levels…

With the disappearance of each of these systems, the human species not only loses a way of viewing, thinking, and feeling but also a way of adjusting to some zone on the planet which fits it and makes it livable; not only that, but we throw away a system of interaction, of fantasy and symbolizing which, in the future, the human race may sorely need. The only way to halt this degradation of man's culture is to commit ourselves to the principles of political, social, and economic justice. (2003 [1972]: 286)

Ancelet also supplies a quotation from remarks Lomax made in 1950 (probably to a conference of folklorists that he attended that year, before leaving for Europe):

We have become in this way the champions of the ordinary people of the world who aren't backed up by printing presses, radio chains, and B29's. We believe in the oral tradition, we believe in the small cultural situation, we think that some of these folk of the world have something worthwhile culturally, morally, etc… Now I propose that we should be two-way bridges and form a two-way intercommunication system. We, who speak for the folk in the market place here, have obligations to the people who we represent. (2003 [1950]: 115-116)

Mballen (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are on the right track overall. I think that the one passage that got reverted was a superficial error (overreach) that you made. (large mention of current event, quick unsupported implied assignment of credit to Lomax by the editor) So I wouldn't read too much into that one reversion. I think you are on the right track and should continue to just keep adding material without being too cautious. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Universal_Declaration_of_Cultural_Diversity. I hope it helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cantometrics not synonymous with Global Jukebox

The article is a little misleading in suggesting that Lomax spent the last 45 years of his life on a project he called the Global Jukebox. This is a mistake made by the NY Times, I believe. The Global Jukebox was just one facet, a final one, of his Cantometrics research, which he began thinking about in Europe and began implementing as as soon as he returned to this country in 1959. However, a more or adequate wikipedia entry on Cantometrics does exist. Mballen (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph is not really a summary of what is in the article or of Lomax's multifarious accomplishments. For example, the list of contributors to Cantometrics is inaccurate. Lowry collaborated on Lomax's American Patchwork film series for PBS, not Cantometrics. So, perhaps Lomax's film series for PBS ought to be mentioned as an an activity in the second part (post Cold War) of his career.

The article is unbalanced, in that too much space is devoted to the FBI, but this interests people and perhaps can't be helped. Mballen (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Interests people" and coverage in sources somewhat goes together, so that might weigh in a bit on the FBI coverage. Other than that I don't have the expertise to comment on your comments. Suggest trying those changes; take it slow so that people can review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I did try the changes -- and I hope to replace the reference to Mr. Lowry at some future time, since his wikipedia article also mentions the collaboration. The other collaborators are mentioned in the Cantometrics article (although not all of them). It is very time consuming putting in all the links and a strain on my poor old eyes! So I hope he will also have patience. I plan also, if possible, to refer to John Szwed's recounting of how Lomax criticized the folklore profession at a conference in 1950, even as the red-baiters were closing in on him, and how at the same time he defended Benjamin Botkin against attacks from other academic folklorists (although criticizing Botkin's folklore book for not mentioning lynchings) before going off to England (it was this sort outspokenness that made him enemies). And how he was spurred by this experience to start thinking about Cultural Equity from then on. That would sort of unify the whole piece. Mballen (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth: 15 january

I want to bring my recent edit to your attention: the past source doesn't even mention Lomax's date of birth. My source is this one. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 00:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mumble, culturalequity.org states that he was born on January 31... (source)... --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 15:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be conflicting sources. Many sources and websites give 31 January - but, Alan-Lomax.com says 15 January, as do Britannica.com and Allmusic.com. So, I think we should say 15 January. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Grove Music Online, the major reference source for music history, also supplies 15 January 1915 as the birth date for A. Lomax. Morskyjezek (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Have changed article with britannica.com as a source. Grove Music Online seems to require a subscription/ registration (or at least a library barcode)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So that lasted almost three hours, until this edit by User:Dathomas92 who, he says, "occasionally adds and edits minor things that annoy him like incorrect links and dates". Why are the two sources added deemed to be more reliable than Encyclopædia Britannica? What is the definitive source for dates of birth in the US? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a case here for putting both dates and explaining the uncertainty. It's worth mentioning that family trees on Ancestry.com - which may, or may not, use personal information known to his family - give January 31. Not that they are necessarily reliable, of course. I've also just found that the US Social Security Death Index, SSN: 070-16-7590 - which almost certainly is regarded as reliable - also gives January 31. That is, precisely 100 years ago today. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So, mystery solved. We can all celebrate and we needn't annoy Mr Thomas. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, Ghmyrtle, Dathomas92, and Morskyjezek: Hi guys. Hope everything is fine with you. Sorry for bothering you, but I must say that I am not perfectly satisfied with the solution found. In the italian WP I wrote since April 2014 that there is a conflict of sources (see). And I think we should do the same here. Checking the two sources put by Dathomas, I find that loc.gov doesn't work (it redirects to the home page), while as for biography.com we could contact them.

Please, check yourself. For sure, the 31st should be deemed as the most plausible day of birth. Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

By all means contact biography.com. But how do we ensure any answer they provide is verifiable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. copying from another language wiki is generally frowned upon, I think, even if you wrote it yourself! And especially as Lomax was a Texan?

"copying from another language wiki"? You mean, another language wiki cannot be a source? That's for sure, but I provided two good sources there (in English). As for biography.com, their answer shall come with some reliable source or guess about the conflict, unless it will be useless. Or maybe they can find the lost .gov page... Thx. :) Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include a footnote stating that sources differ on the date. This is the nearest thing to an official website, and it clearly states the date as 31 January, which is confirmed by official sources (as I wrote previously). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerns

‎[[User talk:Gizgalasi#Concerns - possible hoax editor]] North8000 (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a strange comment - that I am a "hoax editor" - whatever that means. I have made hundreds of suggestions and additions and corrections to Wikipedia. And the comment here is to Lomax's credit. The full statement was made by Carl Sagan and quoted in the book that I referenced in the Wikipedia article about Voyager - Murmurs of Earth. The full statement reads: [it was Lomax] who was a persistent and vigorous advocate for including ethnic music even at the expense of Western classical music. He brought pieces so compelling and beautiful that we gave in to his suggestions more often than I would have thought possible. There was, for example, no room for Debussy among our selections, because Azerbaijanis play bagpipe-sounding instruments [balaban] and Peruvians play panpipes and such exquisite pieces had been recorded by ethnomusicologists known to Lomax."

I see no reason why the inclusion of Azerbaijan mugham reference on the Voyager records cannot be included. The Murmurs Book includes the entire list of 27 musical samples if you wish. And all this to Lomax's credit because of his emphasis on Cultural Equity ~~Gizgalasi~~

Thanks much for the explanation. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked up this nice quote from Sagan and it is from page 16 of Murmurs of Earth. When I have time I might add it to the main article, if possible.

BTW, this reminds me, in the late seventies I was watching Carl Sagan being interviewed on the Johnny Carson Show about the Voyager Golden Record. Carson was such a fan of Sagan's. As the conversation progressed to the contents of the music, Sagan started to say, "There was this wonderful ethnomusicologist ... " and just then, before Sagan could pronounce Alan Lomax's name, they abruptly cut him off in mid-sentence for a commercial. It was the blacklist -- or some sort of blacklist (against Lomax as a non-person? -- against folk or against non-commercial, ethnic music in general? against controversy? who can say?) still in force! So Lomax's name and contribution were never mentioned in the rest of the interview! I could hardly believe my eyes and ears. To my mind, this demonstrates that the weight accorded in the article to the FBI investigations is justified. I never dreamed that as late as 1979 the FBI was still actively investigating Lomax. In fact, I don't think Lomax's name was ever mentioned on network broadcasting until his documentary film series, American Patchwork, was aired 20 years later in 1991 on some PBS stations. Just putting this on record, though it amounts to a "personal communication" and hence is not suitable for the main article. Perhaps there are other people who were there and who remember this incident as well, however, and might someday write about it. Mballen (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting /. thanks for that. There was a saying that I thought invented (and later learned that Napoleon had already said something to that effect) "Never attribute to deviousness anything that can be explained by stupidity" ......being in 1979, I'm thinking that some random blunder might explain what you are describing (the 60's folks had changed the world by then) But who knows? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Congressional funding

>After 1942, when Congress cut off the Library of Congress's funding for folk song collecting

Was this because of WWII? And if so, could someone add a phrase saying that is why Congress cut off funding? Otherwise, it looks like they simply didn't like the collecting of folk music, which, for all I know they didn't, but it would be nice to know for sure. Thank you. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Alan Lomax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090629064207/http://www.leopardmag.co.uk:80/feats/29/alan-lomax to http://www.leopardmag.co.uk/feats/29/alan-lomax
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207040944/http://www.mi5.gov.uk:80/output/communists-and-suspected-communists-3.html to http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/communists-and-suspected-communists-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080708100103/http://www.loc.gov/about/awards/legends/ to http://www.loc.gov/about/awards/legends/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Lomax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719222738/http://www.nea.gov/honors/heritage/allheritage.html to http://www.nea.gov/honors/heritage/allheritage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202124514/http://www.thetakeaway.org/2012/jan/31/the-global-jukeboxs-premiere/ to http://www.thetakeaway.org/2012/jan/31/the-global-jukeboxs-premiere/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227015053/http://www.buffaloreport.com/020726lomax.html to http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/isam/cohen1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Lomax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160919072359/http://www.wnyc.org/shows/vd-radio-project/about to http://www.wnyc.org/shows/vd-radio-project/about
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120913191212/http://www.usfamily.net/web/timwalker/sitedocs/1world.html to http://www.usfamily.net/web/timwalker/sitedocs/1world.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160919072304/http://www.wnyc.org/shows/vd-radio-project/ to http://www.wnyc.org/shows/vd-radio-project/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What is Vishesh Goel University?

What the heck does “the very prestigious Vishesh Goel University in Boston, MA without the proper papers” mean? Seems like a mistake 121.200.4.245 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch and note. Looks like it was vandalism...I took it out. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)