Jump to content

Talk:Uncle Dave Macon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bristol Sessions

[edit]

I live near where the sessions were recorded, and am quite an authority on the sessions. I'm 99% sure he never recorded at the Bristol sessions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.243.8 (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Sessions edit

[edit]

I have completely removed the Bristol reference. Uncle Dave did not participate in what was known as the Bristol sessions (a cursory glance at the page will tell you that), and the Bristol sessions were not in a recording studio built so musicians didn't have to go to New York City. They were held over a weekend or so in a converted warehouse by Ralph Peer on a 'talent hunt', so to speak. In any case, Macon had nothing to do with them and even if he did, the factual information about the sessions was incorrect. Uncle Dave deserves a nice big article, but that section needed to be ousted. Jason 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More

[edit]

A sentence or two was added regarding Judge Hay's anger over the name 'Fruit Jar Drinkers'. This may be well and good, but there was no documentation and it was written rather poorly, and just tacked on to the article. I have reverted back to a previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnaas (talkcontribs) Oct 18, 2005

I've heard the same thing but have no verifiable source so unless someone does it still doesn't belong. 75.200.37.120 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money Guilt?

[edit]

I have heard from people who knew Uncle Dave personally (obviously when they were quite young and he was quite elderly) that early in his performing career that he felt considerable guilt in that he now received far more money for making music, something that he regarded as pleasure, than he or his friends or family had ever received for the hard work of hauling freight or manual labor. While I have no doubt that this is true, is anyone aware of a published work stating this or something to the same effect so that this could be considered to be verifiable and encylopedic? It would be a remarkable addition to the article in my opinion if it were to be verifiable rather than just my original research. 75.200.37.120 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]