ACCURACY DOES IT MATTER ?
The "Is thorough research important, or am I just another anorak ?" page
Whilst the history of pop music is not of earth-shattering importance to many people, enthusiasts would surely agree that information provided (often at considerable cost) in modern pop music reference books and the like, should be as carefully researched as possible. Unfortunately many of the current "bibles" contain an unacceptable amount of inaccurate, and often misleading detail, certainly as far as 50s and 60s acts are concerned. In many cases the companies involved in producing these publications appear to have little interest in correcting their mistakes, even as in the case of the Guinness British Hit Singles book, which is now published annually. In the latest edition (volume 16) there are several hundred errors and omissions within the 50s & 60s entries alone (they even feature many incorrect label numbers). Some of these errors are minor, some not, but how difficult is it to put right ? They were originally given the opportunity to correct the entries early in 1995 (for volume 10), yet they claimed they were not in a position to pay anything for the information, despite the fact that it took me several weeks to identify all the errors, by checking each entry with the label information from my own complete collection of hit 45s and 78s from the era. Note : This is one of the biggest-selling music books in the world !
In June 2001, I was finally asked again by Guinness to provide a listing of all the errors (by this time as featured in volume 14). This took me several weeks, as by this time the book was including a certain amount of biographical information on the artists featured. Not surprisingly this resulted in even more mistakes. When I contacted them to give them an idea of what I had found, they initially took the easy route, and declined to respond. Eventually they told me that they had amended the entries relating to the examples I had already sent them, and that they would send me a complimentary copy of volume 15, so that I could "provide them with an accurate tally of what I would have to add in the way of changes". After receiving the new edition, I checked every entry again, and sent them further examples (as they had requested), and details of the nominal charge for the work. Their reply was "I think we can manage (although it will take more time) to get there without throwing more money at the problem". This would suggest that they regard their profits as more important than their product ! Note : Guinness describe this book as "the bible of pop". What is particularly relevant (to all the above) is that they also state at the beginning of the book that "every effort is made to ensure accuracy". Who are they kidding ? Many of the errors have featured within every edition published since 1977. The most worrying thing is that the British Hit Singles book is used as the text book within much of the 'oldies' industry. For what it's worth, it's recently been revealed that the charts they use for their 60s entries were not even the most representative of the era, the New Musical Express featured the most accurate hit parade.
Continuing on the Guinness theme, in their Who's Who Of Sixties Music published a few years ago, check out their Amen Corner biography (the first UK group entry).
Were they a sextet ? - No!
Was their drummer's surname Bryn ?
- No!
Was it the Amen Corner line-up
they specified that recorded the group's first single Gin
House ? - No!
Was Blue Weaver also known as
Wynder K.Frog ? - No!
Did Blue Weaver play with Mason,
Capaldi and the rest ? - No!
Did he go on to work with Keef
Hartley ? No!
Was he Mick Weaver? No
!
How do I know all this ?
a) I obtain all my information from original untainted sources.
b) I checked with Derek 'Blue' Weaver himself !
Sadly this style of poorly-researched information is subsequently used by future biographers, compilers etc, until myth is regarded as fact ? A highly-regarded British archivist recently accused me of being an "anorak" when I queried some of his published information, yet his web site states that "he is well-known for accuracy and reliability, a factor sadly lacking elsewhere". When I pointed out some mistakes I'd spotted whilst I was fulfilling some research for a new American rock encyclopaedia, he told me that "I shouldn't lose any sleep about it". Sadly this typifies the attitude portrayed by many of the writers, compilers and publishers who specialise in the genre. Even Record Collector, the invaluable (& much respected) magazine, shows no interest whatsoever in accepting details of important errors within their publications.
I should add that my experience with American writers and publishers (notably Old Goat Publishing's Blues-Rock Explosion) suggests a very different attitude. As a result I tend to concentrate my activities towards the Stateside market, where serious research is clearly a priority.
Of course archivists like myself can be accused of taking it all too seriously, but certainly what some publishers (many of whom are basically only in the business to make money) fail to understand, is that enthusiasts expect to be provided with authentic information, carefully researched by experts within the field. Anyone can make mistakes, but failing to take the opportunity to amend errors, is, I feel, inexcusable. Whilst all this might seem somewhat pedantic, I can assure you that the pop artists themselves get very uptight about some of the misinformation that has been released about their careers and recordings, and these are the very people who provided the inspiration for all the pop encyclopaedias and the like.
LET'S GET THE FACTS RIGHT !
Let me know your views
Contact me at julian.barker@virgin.net>