I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I find it hard to
believe that you actually read my posting. I tried to explain what the
difference is between archiving and collecting and the various reasons
that an archives would or wouldn't be interested in something, none of
which has to do with it's pedigree. Nowhere did I imply in any way that
the type of content was a disqualifier (I think maybe I just made that
word up) for archival treatment and preservation, I just said that
archives, by definition (you can consult the Society of American
Archivists on this) are not generally going to be dealing with
commercially released, non-unique material. In a comment on our
exchange, Tom Fine expresses his appreciation the his local library can
be his source for LPs and CDs and that is an illustration of what a
_Library_ is there for, not an archives. If an archives were to give
open access to all their holdings and loan them out to the public, they
would be betraying their compact to preserve for now and the future
their valued recordings or whatever else they own. There is nothing
inherent in the term archives or archives as they exist in the real
world that would back up your supposition that they are elitist (unless
they choose to be and they are most certainly entitled to do so). I
could cite any number of "archives" or other institutions that are
entirely devoted to the blues, or any other aspect of culture that the
"common man" might relate to, but I don't get the feeling that it would
make any difference. I happen to LOVE the sort of recordings that you
refer to. Discovering Harry Smith's Anthologies was one of my greatest
eye opening experiences of the last decade and I spend plenty of time
listening to obscure territorial bands and other recordings that inhabit
the nether margins of modern recorded culture, so I really think you are
confusing my presentation of a widely accepted definition with a
personal put-down. I give up.
Peter Hirsch
steven c wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Hirsch" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> As a comment to Steven:
>>
>> I take the risk of being labeled a pedantic nitpicker, but I have to say
>> that your collection would absolutely be rejected by any self-respecting
>> archives since there is nothing archival about it (unless it is made up
>> or demos, one-offs of some sort or another), other than its
>> representation of the part of Stephen C. Barr's life spent amassing it.
>> It _WOULD_ most probably be most gladly accepted by some non-archive
>> repository (library or other entity dedicated to its format or genre).
>> It is not in any way a putdown when I say that archives are committed to
>> preserving unique, UNPUBLISHED (that is un-issued by recording company)
>> materials. I work for the same unit at NYPL that Matt does and we
>> routinely separate out (published) books, musical scores and recordings
>> that come in as part of archival collections and merge them into the
>> holdings of the library with a note in the guide to the collection
>> acknowledging their existence. Of course, if the item is annotated in
>> any significant way, that makes it unique and it is retained and
>> described in the guide.
>>
>>
> And what you have neatly accomplished is to prove my point for me! The
> number of demos, one-offs, and other unique or near-unique items is,
> first, inherently limited by the number created...and, second, provides
> no useful information about the aspects of everyday life in a past (and
> thus, so far, non-recreatable) period of time. To me, one of the main
> functions of a library or an educational institution is to provide for
> its users what they usually wish to know...and that is how life was
> lived by ordinary, everyday people at one or more points in the past.
> In fact, having minored in history while in university, I found that
> also to be a problem in history classes and textbooks...they went
> into excruciating detail about the rulers, and said little or nothing
> about what life might have been lived by the peasants!
>
> There is, of course, good reason behind collecting and archiving
> those unique items, since failing to do so would deprive the present
> day of any record (pun unintended) that the recorded item or event
> had ever taken place. However, in many cases, these items had little
> or no effect on history (in any sense)...in some cases, they
> represented "dead ends" in a development, while in others, they
> went unheard (or un-whatever) by others in whatever field it was,
> and thus had no influence.
>
> Knowing that a, say, clarionet player, had been recorded playing
> an otherwise unrecorded or unpublished piece of music...and that
> the recording somehow was saved for posterity, along with the
> information about it (which often has long since "gone missing"
> when such items are found), tells us little (and that often
> indirectly) about life was about at the time...even life for
> whatever sub-group (racial, ethnic, economic, usw.) was like.
> Listening to a group of popular recordings, OTOH, often tells
> us much about the life of those who listened to them and made
> them popular!
>
> One of the most enjoyable museum visits I have ever had was to
> a small local museum in Goderich, Ontario. It was basically the
> accumulation of an eccentric character who apparently dragged
> home and saved many, if not most, of the discards of his
> neighbours. As a result, once the items had been cleaned and
> put in a neat (more or less) display, they effectively gave
> the present-day visitors a snapshot of life as it had been
> lived in Goderich (and similar communities) between c.1900
> and c.1940. Had I been able, I would have offered to create
> a perfect "soundtrack" for them by copying the recordings
> which had been popular then!
>
> We too often dismiss "everyday" material...especially while
> it is passing through that (ever shorter) "awkward age" of
> being too old to publicly admit to owning, but too new
> to be of nostalgic interest...with a comment like "Oh,
> those are too ordinary...they're all over the place!"
> Somewhat later, we go looking for one of the item...and
> discover that none survived, since they were all discarded
> as being "too common!"
>
> Steven C. Barr
>
>
>
>
|