I've enjoyed our selections from Filene's Romancing the Folk: Public Memory and American Roots Music, but one part in particular hit me the wrong way. Leadbelly brandishing a knife against one of the Lomaxes because they did not pay him appropriately?! What? And even more so than that, from Filene's chapter: "For the first eight months or so that he was with the Lomaxes, they used him as their chauffeur and house servant. He drove the car on their collecting expeditions and to and from concertn engagements, and he did chores around teh Lomax home in Wilton, Connecticut. The Lomaxes kept two-thirds of Lead Belly's concert earnings and deducted room and board from the remainder. Lead Belly angrily challenged this arrangement (brandishing a knife) in March 1935, and a shaken John Lomax put him on a bus back to Shreveport, Louisiana. Lead Belly promptly hired a lawyer to press for compensation. Lomax eventually apid a lump sum to settle the matter" (62).
They used him as a glorified servant, took most of the money he earned, and then coldly payed out only after tensions had reach a peak? I don't like this one bit. Arguably, Leadbelly's success was due in part to their marketing, but reading further, we quickly realize that the Lomaxes and Leadbelly were unable to "sell" him as either folk or popular music: he was fatally stuck in that limbo which made his life financially difficult. It just seems against what the Lomaxes valued. They took 2/3rds (more, if his room/board really was deducted from it), and almost left him out to dry until he got a lawyer? Not right. Considering the beginning of this chapter, we know that there was significant arguments between the Lomaxes on many issues, so I wonder if Filene's chapter ignores an important note as to which Lomax brother is most guilty of Leadbelly's financial reimbursement. It seems it could save at least two of the men from scorn if, possibly, one decided on this to the chagrin of the others. So, bottom line, I'd like to know who made those decision, or if it was some unanimous undertaking (doubtful, considering their political differences).
Phew. End rant :). These are important chapters, ones engaging with many of the larger concepts we have delved into this semester. The chapter asks between the lines: what then is folk? Who decides what is popular? What or who can confer authenticity onto a subject? And is the value of hearsay less than that of first hand fieldwork? And if there is a difference, how can the role of the interpreter be dealt with?
Important questions, important ideas. I will be spending the rest of the evening introducing myself to Mr. Bob Dylan :) Of course I've heard the name, the man is a legend. But having been born at the end of 80's (okay barely, 1989), and my mother was not born until the late '60s, our house did not reverberate to the folk or rock influenced Bob Dylan. Even though some of his later (revivals?) were released into 2001, I have until this point never had a memorable "first time I heard Bob Dylan" story ;) Learning at its best!
Have a great week!
They used him as a glorified servant, took most of the money he earned, and then coldly payed out only after tensions had reach a peak? I don't like this one bit. Arguably, Leadbelly's success was due in part to their marketing, but reading further, we quickly realize that the Lomaxes and Leadbelly were unable to "sell" him as either folk or popular music: he was fatally stuck in that limbo which made his life financially difficult. It just seems against what the Lomaxes valued. They took 2/3rds (more, if his room/board really was deducted from it), and almost left him out to dry until he got a lawyer? Not right. Considering the beginning of this chapter, we know that there was significant arguments between the Lomaxes on many issues, so I wonder if Filene's chapter ignores an important note as to which Lomax brother is most guilty of Leadbelly's financial reimbursement. It seems it could save at least two of the men from scorn if, possibly, one decided on this to the chagrin of the others. So, bottom line, I'd like to know who made those decision, or if it was some unanimous undertaking (doubtful, considering their political differences).
Phew. End rant :). These are important chapters, ones engaging with many of the larger concepts we have delved into this semester. The chapter asks between the lines: what then is folk? Who decides what is popular? What or who can confer authenticity onto a subject? And is the value of hearsay less than that of first hand fieldwork? And if there is a difference, how can the role of the interpreter be dealt with?
Important questions, important ideas. I will be spending the rest of the evening introducing myself to Mr. Bob Dylan :) Of course I've heard the name, the man is a legend. But having been born at the end of 80's (okay barely, 1989), and my mother was not born until the late '60s, our house did not reverberate to the folk or rock influenced Bob Dylan. Even though some of his later (revivals?) were released into 2001, I have until this point never had a memorable "first time I heard Bob Dylan" story ;) Learning at its best!
Have a great week!
No comments:
Post a Comment