Seems like you have a good handle on what's in your shelves. I'd argue that you are more a collector
than an accumulator. The accumulator would simply have an endless stream of boxes of records, no
rhyme nor reason, piling up with no hope of ever being sorted or tallied.
Junk is the crap you find in the $1 bin at most used vinyl stores -- mostly bad music by most
standards (70s disco, for instance) in terrible condition. In the 78 world, junk is the
played-to-death piles found in grandma's lamp table. Again, if it's not totally obscure, it's
probably been reissued on CD, from the metal parts with some engineering skill involved in the
transfer. Yes, some more obscure old stuff is a matter for a collector -- but a true collector would
never bother with the played-to-death moldy old disks better usd for target practice.
Price has nothing to do with junk, by the way. For instance, I've seen stuff get bid up on eBay
that's not properly graded or clearly is damaged (one LP that bid up to over $50 had a clearly
visible gouge on one side!). On the other hand, I walked into a used vinyl place in upstate NY over
the weekend and found a small pile of Mercury MG50000 series mono -- some original early 50's, some
the late 50's reissues, all in excellent sleeves and vinyl in VG or better shape -- for 50 cents
each. Needless to say, I quickly flashed the small bills and walked out with the pile. I mainly
bought these for the sleeves, which are in better shape than the family collection.
I should probably say something else here. Those of us who speak with strong words about a high
quality ethic don't say this just to be arrogant or to elevate ourselves to some alleged plain of
"golden ears." It comes down to what Steve Smolian and Bob Ohlsson have been saying about being
respectful and true to the original artist and product. THAT was where the real talent lay -- in
both the musicians who made the unforgettable takes and in the engineers and producers who captured
them for history. We do those people a disservice and show disrespect when we settle for less than
the excellence they practiced.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger and Allison Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Podcasting--explained a bit...
> Clarify what you mean by "junk".Those of us,who are true collectors,have the common, the rare,and
> the unknown.The common stuff,in my case,being things like more common pre-stereo RCA,and Columbia
> classical,and more conmmon Mercurys, etc.,as I am trying for nonoperatic completeness.(I also own
> unissued lacquers.)And as for rock/R&B,I own more common commercially successful records,from the
> 60s,and 70s,as well,as unknown records,that were never comped/reissued,or have only been in the
> past couple of years.And yes,everything IS great condition,and at least of cultural/historic
> importance.
> Roger Kulp
>
> Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There's definitely a difference between an archivist and a collector. And there's also a big
> difference between a true collector and an accumulator. As any fan of jazz knows, true collectors
> are gold because they'll have a great-condition version of a record -- be it 78RPM or 45 single or
> even LP -- for which the master tape is lost or deteriorated. You see transfers of 45 and 78
> versions end up on Mosaic sets all the time, for instance. On the other hand, the accumulator is
> not
> as useful because has just, well, accumulated. He probably doesn't even know what he has because
> he
> doesn't stop to take measure -- he just keeps filling his space with boxes and boxes and boxes of
> records. Most of them are junk, not even worth the sweat equity of hauling in. The junk clutters
> the
> whole scene, making it nearly impossible to find the gems. There's a psychological problem related
> to blind acquisition of things, I forgot what it's called. Collectors (and archivists) have our
> own
> psycho problems, so I certainly shouldn't throw stones! An archivist is one step beyond a
> collector. He's usually a funded professional, who has learned the standard methods of preserving
> and cataloging his material. He is focused on preserving and accumulating excellent samples of
> whatever genre his archive is all about. The achivist is a natural friend and sometimes student of
> the collector, whose passion may have led to arcane knowledge way beyond the scope of the
> archivist's formal education. The accumulator is kind of a pilot-fish to the whole process. He
> might
> well have some very deep and arcane knowledge, and is thus worth knowing, but usually he doesn't
> even really know what he has and is too busy accumulating to take the time to dig deep and see.
> Sometimes, though, he's generous enough to let the archivist or collector sift thru the mountains
> of
> junk (hopefully wearing masks and gloves to avoid mouse contamination) and there may be gold in
> them
> thar stacks -- not likely but it does happen. As time goes on and the genre or artist or subject
> of
> interest becomes more and more out of date and obscure, the accumulator becomes more valuable to
> the
> archivist because history has a tendency to become more and more completist over time. You get 50
> years out and the only "new" shine you can put on something is to release every rejected take or
> amateur live recording you can find. You get a thoroughly mined artist -- and legend -- like
> Charlie
> Parker, and all you're left to do is release amateur wire recordings of solos only (not even
> complete tunes). And lo and behold, there will be at least a few buyers for all of it! Meanwhile,
> out in the real world, the vast majority will have long forgotten the whole thing and the
> archivist
> will have to fight for every penny every year. Guys, we live in a strange universe.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lou Judson"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Podcasting--explained a bit...
>
>
> Steven, I wonder if there is a idfference between and archivist and a
> record collector? You definitely seem to be the latter. I wonder if
> someone can get a grant to come and actually archive and digitize your
> collection?!?
>
> A true archivist does not want to "modernize" the sound of your 78s -
> merely to preserve and protect them, and make them available to more
> people I truly hope that your collection will outlive us both but how
> likely is it that they will end up in landfill after we go?
>
> Perhaps you are the perfect person to recieve the several older Macs I
> am pondering what to do with as they take up space in my storage that I
> pay for monthly... Maybe we could take up a collection to pay for
> shipping them up there so you can play to your heart's content with
> preserving and spreading your collection!?!
>
> Lou Judson . Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
> On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:20 PM, steven c wrote:
>
>> 3) Finally, keep in mind that I have been listening to 78's since they
>> were actually state-of-the-art records...and particularly since about
>> 1973, which was well before the invention of either digital applications
>> to modernize the sound of 78's and such...as well as digital sound
>> itself. =
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
|