Robert Hodge wrote:
> My responce will be twofold and very easy to document.
> 1-Preserve what funding can be acquired for first.
> 2- Then, preserve, using my own time and resources, what I consider to be important. I gain much satisfaction out of doing that .
> At least sound recordings don't require the large financial outlay that motion picture films require.
> Bob Hodge
It is a pleasure to see reality sneaking into this discussion. <G>
Preservation depends critically on funding. Those among us looking at
non-renewing grants feel that in a way that we independent types do not.
(I've been living on insurance for nearly twenty years now - not very
well but without "gainful employment".)
Given limited resources of time, money and environment (space,
equipment), one must trade off preservation quality and quantity. The
finished product has a similar tradeoff. Each balance between quality of
preservation and quantity has its place; in my opinion, there is no
fault to find with either high-rate, large bit-depth copies or low-rate,
shallow catalogues. Each has its place.
Over the last few years, I have produced a couple of dozen CD-ROMs for
distribution (and a thousand more for my own purposes). Each has of the
order of forty hours of audio in a volume of what I call an Audio
Encyclopedia. Each provides an overview of a topic rather in the style
of the old Book of Knowledge; each stands with respect to the source
recordings much as the catalogue of an exhibition of paintings does to
the exhibition itself.
The most recent disc in the series offers the complete recordings of
Titta Ruffo in both easy-listening and high-rate versions. The
convenience of a single, cross-indexed disc more than compensates for
limited sound quality for the purpose of this compendium. It is the
purpose that drives the tradeoff which in turn dictates the resources to
None of which should surprise anyone on this list.
[log in to unmask]