Editorial Policy:

The copyright and intellectual property right of everything appearing in this magazine remains with the person who wrote it.  Nothing may be reproduced without prior written permission of the author, and the citation of MT as the source.

I will consider almost any kind of contribution, though I am particularly looking for articles, reviews, news and comment of the sort covered by the paper version of MT and followed up by this virtual version over the last nine years.  Broadly: journalism dealing with traditional activities having some sort of musical content.

Views expressed in MT will be considered to be those of the author, not of the editor.  Decisions as to what items fall within the remit of the magazine will be made solely by the editor, but I am always open to reasoned argument from potential contributors.  I will endeavour to maintain a reasonable standard of literacy within published text and will certainly spell-check it, but I cannot be held responsible for factual inaccuracies or misunderstandings on the part of the authors.  I reserve the right to comment upon these, where I am aware of them.

Although 'virtual', the magazine has a permanent existence on the CD-ROM The Complete Musical Traditions, with numbered Volumes published annually in early January, containing the entire output of the magazine (including all the articles from the paper editions Nos 1-12) up to the preceeding December 31st.

Format of Contributions:

1. .htm files
2. ASCII or ANSI text files
3. high quality printed text on paper

If not, please just send plain text.  Please do not send word processor files - they are four or more times the size of the text they contain and cost us both money and time to send and receive!  Most particularly, do not send Microsoft Word Docs - they are among the most common ways of spreading Internet viruses.

If you have composed your article or review in a wordprocessor, use the 'Save As' option and save it as an ASCII text file.  Then attach this file to your e-mail message.  This will save me hours of work trying to figure out which sort of word processor file you've sent me and converting it into readable text.

Graphics

Sound

• Sound files are quite large.  In general, a clip of around 30 seconds is four times as large as the normal size (3" x 3") colour photos we use in MT.
• Therefore, if you want to use sound clips, please try to limit the number of photos to those which are essential.
• Try to limit the use of sound clips to situations where they really make a contribution.
• Try to suggest the shortest clip which will adequately make the point.  Clips longer than 1 minute take too long to download to be generally acceptable to the reader.

• Either return the CD (I'll return it promptly), indicating where you want the clip placed in the text, and the source of the clip - e.g. Track 5, from 1:27 to 2:04.  I can do fade-ins and fade-outs if necessary - please specify.  This is very much the preferred option.
• Or tape the bit you want as a clip, and send me the cassette.  Specify fades, if required.  It might be as well to make the recording slightly longer than required - I can easily edit the clip.

House Style:

• I never use ALL CAPITALS anywhere in the magazine.
• I always italicise names of songs/tunes and records/publications.  You can do this yourself by putting in the html italic tags in your ordinary text, like this: ... and the second tune <I>Soldiers' Joy</I> comes from ......
• Similarly, you can indicate <B>Bold</B> or even <B><I>Bold Italic</I></B> where you wish to add emphasis.
• I never use underlining, as this can be confused with a hypertext link.
• I use "double quotes" only for reported speech.  'Single quotes' are used to quote from publications, cite instances, or indicate oft misapplied clichés like 'folk' music.
• Where you need to cite a publication, please use the formulation: (Author/Editor Surname, Forename/initials, Publication name, Publisher, Location, Year)
  e.g. (Karpeles, Maud, An Introduction to English Folksong, Oxford University Press, London, 1973)

Reviews:

Record labels, book publishers etc, wishing to have a publication of theirs reviewed should send the CD, cassette, book, etc, directly to me and I will pass it on to a reviewer of my choice.

MT reviews - two points worth making:

Publications whose contents fall outside these criteria will not be reviewed in the magazine, except when the reviewer has something of importance (usually critical) to say about that particular publication or performer.

It is pointless for publishers to send me 'folk' records - they will not be reviewed!

Frequently, I receive messages like this one:

In late April I sent a review copy of X's new album, "Paradox of Grace."  Although much of the album is contemporary in feel, X uses some very traditional instruments and/or presents unusual versions of traditional songs such as Woody Guthrie's "Vigilante Man."  I am following up to ascertain that you received the CD and to see if you will be able to review X's music.

2   An MT review has two purposes; it should alert the potential purchaser to both positive and negative aspects of the publication which might not be immediately apparent upon cursory inspection, and it should also raise related issues which are likely to be of interest to readers.  In simple terms, it's an 'enabling' exercise, the aim of which is to help our readers enjoy and appeciate more of the huge amount of music which is available to them today - and that more fully.

It is something of a paradox that, as the audience for real traditional music appears to be dwindling, the quantity and quality of what is being published is increasing.  In the last couple of years an unprecedented number of extremely important publications have appeared which have dealt with traditional music in a fuller, deeper, wider ... a 'better' way than almost any in the past.

What's more, instant global communications via the Internet have allowed the small number of people actually interested in such things to keep abreast of these developments and in touch with each other.  Most of us understand that new standards are constantly being set - and realise that any new publications must live up to these standards.  MT reviews should attempt to reflect these developments, since we are now addressing what has become an extremely educated audience.

Like the reviews in any other music magazine, ours tend to fall into a few broad categories:

1. The 'ordinary' review - "I listened to this CD/read this book; it was good/average/poor of its type; these were its outstanding features; I do/don't recommend it to this or that interest group."  There are lots of these.

2. The 'enthusiastic' review - "I knew nothing about this music before I heard this CD but now I can't live without hearing lots more of it.  Every sentient being on the planet needs this for Christmas!"   There are rather fewer of these.

3. The 'informed' review - "This is an extremely important/disappointing publication for the following list of reasons; this is the background information you need to know about this music; this is how it compares with previous publications; these are the ways in which it succeeds in broadening our knowledge of the subject; these are its failings; and here are some peripheral ideas it's got me thinking about."   There are rather fewer of these, too - although they are really what MT should be about, in my opinion.

4. The 'fan' review - "This is the very latest fantastic album from the wonderful ....... augmented in this instance by ethereal vocals of ....... and the groovy synth work of ....... and so, of course, it is absolutely brilliant!"   I hope there are almost none of these.

Personally, I would far rather hear about the possible failings of a CD before I encounter it as an enticing looking, shrink-wrapped (and thus unexaminable) object in my local record shop.  I would rather know that the glossily produced booklet actually tells me very little about the music or the performer before I shell out £13 of my hard-earnt!

Rather more difficult to answer is the charge that, since the publication in question really is very good and well worth buying, "Why did your reviewed have to go picking holes in it?"  Here, I can only refer back to the point about the constantly improving quality of publications and the standards they inevitably set.  Our own Musical Traditions CDs are a case in point - whenever I'm presented with a new project, one of my major worries is that I won't be able to do as good a job on it as I did on some of the previous ones.  Also worth remembering is the way in which small flaws in an extremely good piece of work stand out far more annoyingly than they would in a mediocre one.

Anyway - I will continue to publish, indeed to encourage, critical reviews (in the best sense of the word) - though I will try to exercise rather more editorial control over those I consider to be needlessly so ... and attempt to do the same with my own contributions as well!  But MT, although an e-zine, is not a fan-zine - and has no intentions of becoming one.

Notes for Reviewers:

Track List:  The track listing from the CD or tape would be a welcome addition to your review.

Number of Words:  I leave it to you to decide how many words - you will have seen that some of our reviews are quite short and others are very long indeed.  I prefer the reviewer to have the freedom to say whatever needs to be said in his/her own way.

Photos:  I usually scan the cover picture from the booklet before sending you the CD, so I have the graphic to go with your words.

Sound Clips:  See above - You might ask me to add a few (not more than 4) short sound clips (40 seconds maximum).  You'll need to send me the CD for this, but I promise to return it immediately.

Sending the Review:  The best way to send the review is as good, simple, hand-coded HTML (see my HTML Coding article).  But for most people, formatted e-mail text or straight ASCII or ANSI text will do just as well (see above).  In fact, I prefer this to the monstrous stuff Microsoft FrontPage and its like produces.  Please send the text either included in the body of an e-mail or as an attachment - but not both!

Feedback:

Rod Stradling - 14.1.04

Correspondence: