Not of much value to who?
That, it seems, is the underlying issue.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>I would never subject anything of any sound quality or rarity-value to this
>but others might disagree.
>
> My approach is the complete opposite -- do it right and do it once.
>
> I can't see why you need a hoover-vac approach. The vast majority of the
> stuff that will rot away before it's transferred wasn't much value or good
> anyway. Just because some COULD record something doesn't mean they SHOULD
> have. Stuff that is corporate assets (commercial recordings) should get
> handled due to intrinsic economic value. Private recordings, to be honest,
> who cares about most of them except the owner and if the owner doesn't
> care enough to save them before the rot then they weren't of any last
> value anyway. It's all about collecting vs. accumulating.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>
>
>> If tis is to be a thruput situation, either someone will have to sort out
>> the polyester beforehand (more labor, dividing stuff up, admin, etc.)
>> which will drive the cost up and slow the process down. If it won't hurt
>> the tape, it's easier workflow to do it by baking all.
>>
>> If a robot can't be constructed to deal with splices, the slowdown is so
>> great that I doubt it could be done in sufficient number to call it
>> "mass."
>>
>> I do sound preservation for a living as do many on this list. Reality
>> says (to me, anyhow) that most materials have a better shot at making it
>> into the future through automation than selective neglect. Yes,
>> important masters should be treated individually, but the bulk- radio
>> programs, recitals, etc., can benefit from mass attention, properly done,
>> however that gets defined. It's time to define it.
>>
>> Example: A list of categories should be compiled of recording types and
>> an analysis made of their suitibility to automated, semi-automated
>> (however that gets defined) or individual attention. Someone will have to
>> go in and deal with paper leader between selections since it may not be
>> able to be autospliced, given its different tensile properties as
>> compared with tape. etc.
>>
>> The hum, speed and eq problems will have to be left to future processing
>> of the target medium.
>>
>> Steve Smolian
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>>
>>
>>> Boy, if it were my company jewels (assets), I sure wouldn't trust a
>>> robot to fix splices. That's a real skill that takes a skilled person.
>>> Remember that film is sproketed, so perhaps splice-fix-automation is
>>> easier to design.
>>>
>>> Also, why do you say "ALL" polyester tape needs baking? Where do you get
>>> that? Only certain types of know sticky-shed tapes from certain eras
>>> need baking.
>>>
>>> Instead of taking the typical engineer road and trying to invent some
>>> overblown gadget, companies and institutions should realize the need to
>>> spend what it takes to get skilled labor to do the job right. Skilled
>>> labor can do a better job working with relatively simple and non-costly
>>> setups. The biggest threat to archiving is mass-inefficiency and
>>> duplicated labor because of non-communication and fiefdom/stovepipe
>>> mentalities. Again, better to invest in the skilled personnel to run
>>> these organizations correctly.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>>>
>>>
>>>> If we're going to discuss this a possible solution, we need to look at
>>>> the inevitable problems that will arise and figure out ways to deal
>>>> with them beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> Splices have to be checked and remade, tape baked, etc., etc., etc.
>>>> That's real reel time. If that is not done, there will be a lot of
>>>> crashing and (non disc) burning.
>>>>
>>>> Have the film people come up with an automatic splicer (for pre digital
>>>> film?) If so, perhaps that technology could be applied to tape, at
>>>> least, acetate based. ALL polyester would have to be baked and quickly
>>>> also run through the auto-resplicer, should one exist, befor the tape
>>>> becomes sticky again.
>>>>
>>>> There will surely be a need for pressure pad machines, with tape
>>>> candidates requiring their use having been selected by a human, since
>>>> flatening curled tape naturally is time consuming.
>>>>
>>>> We may have to live with out-of-phase stereo in first level storage and
>>>> correct it at playback.
>>>>
>>>> So let's look at this not as a problem but as a design issue.
>>>>
>>>> The sky will fall only if we let it.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Smolian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Andes, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:59 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since we're mostly in agreement, I'll try keep my responses short.
>>>>
>>>> See below...
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:21 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>>>>
>>>> "Andes, Donald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ***It's most likely that our Archeologist friends are better than we at
>>>> developing cost effective plans to achieve their goal, which may be
>>>> easier when justifying project costs against the collection of
>>>> "priceless" artifacts. It is also very possible that we're comparing
>>>> apples to oranges, as they most likely have very different funding
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>> **Over the years I have reviewed many grant applications for audio
>>>> preservation projects. The content and methodology have ranged from
>>>> well
>>>> considered to the absurd. The question really that comes to my mind is
>>>> the notion of cost effective. Grant funding is, by design, not
>>>> predicated on notions of "cost effective." Also, very few proposals I
>>>> have read, address questions of efficiency. It is my thinking that cost
>>>> effective means that it can pay for itself. I believe that the
>>>> copyrights in the US, and the very functionalism of libraries (free to
>>>> the public) prevent libraries and archives from realizing substantive
>>>> financial return for their efforts.
>>>>
>>>> **I guess I don't see that we are comparing apple and oranges, unless
>>>> we
>>>> choose to make such a differentiation. It seems to me that uncovering a
>>>> fragment of a clay pot, is not unlike reclaiming a bit of audio. Once
>>>> the "artifact" has been recovered, there is then the question of
>>>> cataloging it and its preservation.
>>>>
>>>> The apples to oranges retort come from the fact that nothing you'll
>>>> uncover by digging in the ground comes with copyright, performance, and
>>>> estate issues. Also, most of what Archeoloigists are looking for have
>>>> wider appeal, since it connect dots in the greater fabric of our
>>>> existence. Uncovering a audio masterpiece may help us understand a
>>>> composers intent, or help resolve a dispute over chord progressions or
>>>> unresolved notes, but it's still a very niche area. Again scope comes
>>>> into play here.
>>>>
>>>> ***2) The under appreciation/underpaying of Library and Archiving
>>>> staff:
>>>> The world today (more than ever) comes down to profitability. Since
>>>> libraries don't make profits, it falls in line that there not going to
>>>> be handling out high paying jobs working for a Library. High paying
>>>> jobs
>>>> can easily be had in the Finance, Legal, and Medical worlds. This has
>>>> been true for years, but for librarians the cold hard facts haven't
>>>> sunken in. Do I believe they should be paid more, of course I do. But
>>>> do
>>>> I think they ever will, not in my lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> **I agree. I would also suggest that the available salaries for
>>>> libraries will continue to decline due to the decline in use
>>>> statistics.
>>>> I believe it will be increasingly difficult for those charged with
>>>> making budget decisions to justify library budgets. However, one needs
>>>> to keep in mind that libraries and archives exist as "public utilities"
>>>> of a sort. They are funded as we fund our fire departments. They are
>>>> seen as serving a common good. Yet, indeed, as the funding of public
>>>> utilities is being more subject to funding predicated on use, (toll
>>>> roads being but one example) libraries are very likely to experience
>>>> even more substantive reductions in public funding.
>>>>
>>>> **My thinking is that libraries seem to be trying to compete in areas
>>>> where they have already lost. Libraries are trying to counter the
>>>> defection to google and yahoo, by becoming movie theaters and snack
>>>> bars.
>>>>
>>>> **On the other hand, I believe that libraries need to refocus their
>>>> remaining resources more to the preservation of our intellectual
>>>> history...being museums of a different sort.
>>>>
>>>> Not to play the pessimist, but I find Libararies will be following
>>>> records stores to their demise, and I question what can be done, so
>>>> late
>>>> in the game to change the inevitable.
>>>>
>>>> Also, Police and Fire services can be seen as government protection
>>>> against liabilities. Libraries do not offer this function to the
>>>> government with it serves.
>>>>
>>>> ***The fact is that we have massive amounts of history from the 1900's
>>>> in every field. Are we missing important stuff, sure we are. But the
>>>> unfortunate fact is that not enough people care enough about what's
>>>> missing. And more so, not enough profitability can be had from
>>>> collecting what was lost, to make it a worthwhile endeavor.
>>>>
>>>> **Indeed, that is my question, what can we realistically hope to
>>>> preserve. Also tied into that question is the criteria used to decide
>>>> what we should preserve. Who has those skills? What sort of training is
>>>> needed?
>>>>
>>>> I believe we COULD preserve it all, however, we (the archival
>>>> community)
>>>> need to start putting more time into large scale cohesive planning and
>>>> lobbying for funding to support it, instead of running around crying
>>>> that the sky is falling.
>>>>
>>>> Just take a look at what Google books is doing. I'm not in 100%
>>>> agreement with the plan or it's direction, but think of the scale.
>>>> Think
>>>> of what they set out to accomplish. Strange, how no one IN the
>>>> community
>>>> thinks on this level.
>>>>
>>>> ***Think of it: That lost treasure of sound, that we thought the world
>>>> would never hear again. Suddenly found, in pristine condition....How
>>>> many downloads, CD's excetera could you possibly sell? Unless it the
>>>> Beatles or Elvis it's most likely a lot LESS than you would think.
>>>>
>>>> **Having my own record company and having issued historic performances,
>>>> I have some practical experience. I can find no rationale for what
>>>> sells
>>>> and what does not.
>>>>
>>>> **I am often reminded of the interest in the music of Mahler. While
>>>> there were a few of the faithful around when he died...consider the
>>>> notion that since he was not given much credit as a composer when he
>>>> died, nobody preserved his manuscripts. We now have a market for
>>>> Mahler.
>>>> It is difficult to second guess what product might find that "Tipping
>>>> point" and what might not. Thankfully, Mahler's music has been
>>>> preserved. How do you know there is a market for a product unless you
>>>> have the product and make it available?
>>>>
>>>> Well that's what the business is all about. We do market research, sign
>>>> artists, and take chances. We don't sign everyone we could, and we
>>>> don't
>>>> always sign artists that are profitable. Regardelss, it's highly
>>>> unlikely that any "found" audio will reap large sums of money;
>>>> especially in this market already inundated with catalog releases and
>>>> slipping CD sales.
>>>>
>>>> ***3) Metadata concerns:
>>>> Here's the white elephant in the room. Everyone wants to
>>>> preserve/transfer/digitize, but guess what??? If you don't have a
>>>> complete and correct metadata standard in place, you'll probably do
>>>> more
>>>> harm then good. Once things are transferred, the value of storing the
>>>> original drops (to the non archivist) and people assume that they'll
>>>> never need to go back to it. That is until, we try to understand what
>>>> the heck the file is, since your metadata seems spotty, and possibly
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> **Again, I agree completely. While great work is being done in Music
>>>> Information Retrieval, as for the metadata, libraries are having a
>>>> rough time these days. I consider the aborted attempts to revise the
>>>> cataloging rules. I believe it is time for a complete overhaul of
>>>> cataloging (metadata preparation, description, and cataloging
>>>> methodology). It is my hope that some enterprising company will come
>>>> up
>>>> with some highly efficient, less labor intensive, system for the
>>>> creation of metadata, one that is so inexpensive that libraries will be
>>>> forced into making changes.
>>>>
>>>> **I believe it is irrational to expect libraries to do it on their own.
>>>> To abandon MARC voluntarily seems not only unlikely, but
>>>> irrational...there is too much money invested in the old methodology.
>>>>
>>>> Like Google books, I'm sure those outside the industry will figure this
>>>> all out for us, whether the solution is fool proof or not. Regardless,
>>>> it will just verify that our industry is lost and behind the times, and
>>>> our dismal salaries are in line with what they should be.
>>>>
>>>> ****4) Formatting/Migration issues:
>>>> Yikes. This was hiding being the white elephant called metadata. And
>>>> again, unless you figure this out UP FRONT, why bother digitizing?
>>>>
>>>> **I agree in part. While there are many valid points to be made to
>>>> reformat recordings on stable media, I am a firm believer in addressing
>>>> the media which is chemically unstable.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously migrating to avoid permanemt loss is manditory, but
>>>> digitizing
>>>> analog reels in stable condition without connecting all the dots seems
>>>> pointless to me, which is why I advocate against it.
>>>>
>>>> ****5) And finally to address your last statement:
>>>> I think the archiving world has it's blinders on, and needs to pull
>>>> back, rationalize a bit, and find it's place in the modern world of
>>>> business, technology, culture, and government. It's not effort or
>>>> caring
>>>> that this industry lacks; it's scope, direction and rational.
>>>>
>>>> **Again, I agree.
>>>>
>>>> **I believe that the pressures from the private sector are forcing
>>>> libraries and archives to reconsider their place in society. I would
>>>> wager that many of us have plenty of good ideas as to how to
>>>> significantly increase library productivity and perhaps even provide
>>>> some cost recovery...and I am not taking about coffee bars...I wonder
>>>> if
>>>> there is anything that can be done from within the profession, or if we
>>>> just need to sit back and wait for the changes to be forced from the
>>>> private sector. I guess I just don't see libraries and archives taking
>>>> the initiative to change...and sadly, I believe a great deal of our
>>>> history stands to be lost in the process of waiting.
>>>>
>>>> **Sadly, I see libraries ignoring (I use the word ignore since such a
>>>> small percentage of ARL member's budgets is devoted to preservation)
>>>> what I see to be their greatest resource, their unique holdings.
>>>>
>>>> **Yet, for me, the question remains, is there some way to significantly
>>>> realign priorities within libraries? It seems to me that the changes
>>>> need to come from outside the preservation profession. The question is,
>>>> what is the best marketing strategy and how do we go about mounting our
>>>> advertizing campaign.
>>>>
>>>> Marketing and PR are taken to be in opposition to public use and
>>>> non-profit, but the two can actually work had and hand quite nicely.
>>>> The
>>>> problem goes back to re-identifying what libraries and archives are,
>>>> what they could be, and what they should be. When I was a kid,
>>>> libraries
>>>> didn't have any direct competition beyond the local bookstore. But now
>>>> with Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, Blockbuster and Virgin Megastores
>>>> competing in BOTH the brick and motar AND online space it's no wonder
>>>> the public isn't flocking to libraries. I myself haven't found the need
>>>> to go in years.
>>>>
>>>> **I used to wonder if part of the problem had to do with the way
>>>> society
>>>> views the role of music. Our copyrights seem to deal with it as a
>>>> consumable. Yet I then consider how we have such things as a "Museum of
>>>> Broadcasting." We seem to place some value on consumables. But do we
>>>> place more value on "I Love Lucy" than we do on Perry Como...or
>>>> "Omnibus" versus some of the more esoteric bits of our musical
>>>> heritage.
>>>> It would seem the answer is yes. Then the question comes to my mind,
>>>> will Lucy be as valued 100 years from now as say an Omnibus program
>>>> featuring Frank Lloyd Wright. I wonder...then, should the library and
>>>> archive world be more concerned with what is not economically viable
>>>> and
>>>> leave that which has a potential for "cost recovery," to the private
>>>> sector.
>>>>
>>>> We all have to remember that the populous doesn't even scratch the
>>>> surface beyond commercially availible music and film releases. I enjoy
>>>> genres of music that have never had commercial success in this country,
>>>> and most likely never will. I have literally thousands of records that
>>>> could vanish without anyone understanding their ramifications. But I
>>>> understand, I'm in a niche, of a niche, of a niche. These recordings
>>>> connect the dots for a few very low key genres but do not register on
>>>> the radar of the public scope.
>>>>
>>>> Question: If we could look back in great detail on the times of any
>>>> ancient civilization, what would be more relivant: the tastes, and
>>>> likings of the masses (aka the Mozarts, Michalangelos, and
>>>> Shakespeares), or the concerns and pickings of the trivial ubergeeks
>>>> like ourselves (obsure no name, short lived, fringe artists)?
>>>>
>>>> **Should an organization like EMI, donate (the objects and the rights)
>>>> whatever holdings it sees as having no revenue potential to the
>>>> non-profit, public sector?
>>>>
>>>> EMI UK, does have a non-profit historic trust, and donates a wide
>>>> variety of older reordings and technologies to it. I am currently
>>>> trying
>>>> to establish something here in the US along those lines, but cannot
>>>> discuss it any more than that.
>>>>
>>>> **Karl
>>>>
>>>> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Music from EMI
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be
>>>> legally privileged. If you have received it in error please advise the
>>>> sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your system.
>>>> The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of this email
>>>> is strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44
>>>> 20 7795 7000.
>>>>
>>>> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
>>>>
>>>> Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
>>>>
>>>> Registered in England No 229231.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date:
>>>> 5/16/2007 6:05 PM
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
>>> 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007 6:05 PM
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
> 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007 6:05 PM
>
|