As  I recall, there was a Studer which automatically adjusted the playback 
head.   And the Nak Dragon for cassette is not only useful in this regard 
but could be model for a reel to reel device.

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what next??


> Mass digitization-
>
> I agree that is a valuable and, possibly, the only currently viable way to
> preserve LARGE volumes of audio and video material into the future- once 
> the
> material has already been digitized.  Other groups have done it and, while
> there have been some spectacular digital-related losses, it has seemed to
> "mostly" work.
>
> I do, however, have a few serious reservations.  While there is no reason
> you can't automate digital-to-digital migration, no one has been able to
> clearly explain to me how you effectively automate analog-to-digital
> migration.  To the best of my knowledge, any proposed (or existing)
> automated system uses existing analog equipment for the initial playback.
> This equipment was designed to be manually calibrated and
> maintained/serviced.  How do you automate or robotically ADJUST the 
> existing
> equipment to get the optimal signal off the old analog tape?  While there
> are a lot of things that can be done to manipulate a signal between the
> playback and record, if the playback machine is not properly set up for 
> the
> tape you are playing, you may be getting a very inferior or degraded 
> signal
> to work with.
>
> If one is going to leave the world of analog and make a new digital master
> (a new master that is going to be the "ultimate" version to be
> migrated/cloned down thru the generations), doesn't it make sense to
> actually make a good digital master?
>
> That's where the expertise of those on this list is so invaluable.  Of
> course, if someone has made a little robot version of Steven, Tom, 
> Richard,
> etc., please let me know.  I'll set a few of them up in my lab and retire 
> to
> the Bahamas.
>
> Peter Brothers
> SPECS BROS., LLC
> 973-777-5055
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Tape restoration and disaster recovery since 1983
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what 
> next??
>
> One man's opinions here ...
>
> A "standard" is usually a very compromised solution that's a square peg in 
> a
> round hole with all the
> problems on each end of the bell curve. I don't think there's one answer 
> to
> any of this and I don't
> think an uber-dictate is ever a good idea.
>
> What should be done is everyone keep on doing what they're doing but try 
> to
> be less territorial and
> feifdom-oriented. If institution X is already digitizing the complete
> archives of xx and institution
> y is doing that with yy, x and y should get together and make sure they're
> not duplicating work.
> They should instead share resources and expertise. Then both will get
> finished earlier and for less
> money. The saved time and money could be applied by institution z to 
> archive
> the complete collection
> of zz. So, again, instead of asking for a machine I'm asking for the best
> angels of human conduct to
> surface. Everyone in the preservation business should do excellent work so
> it only gets done once.
> And everyone overseeing the preservation should keep their ego in the 
> closet
> and make sure to check
> widely and deeply before committing to preserver something, in order to 
> make
> sure someone else isn't
> already doing it or has already done it.
>
> Just from the few situations I've observed and/or been involved in, I'd 
> say
> if there were more
> efficiency and communication the job time and cost could be cut by at 
> least
> 1/3. And that's with no
> Buck Rogers auto-inhaler machine sucking away valuable dollars. Just
> off-the-shelf solutions done by
> sensible people.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what 
> next??
>
>
>> How can this be structured in some logical, evolutionary way without
> having it take 5-10 years and
>> too many meetings?  Does an organization exist that can oversee such a
> task without klutzing it up
>> with too many initial formal concerns?
>>
>> Could it be done informally first, on the net, to feed into such an
> organization withou the net
>> structure turning wiki?
>>
>> And would that organization be the AES, ARSC, SAA  or some other entity,
> perhaps one hosted and
>> overseen by the preservation office of the LOC?  The more I think about
> it, the more I feel the
>> mission of the host should be preservation, one that has a visceral
> understanding of audio issues.
>>
>> And is someone saving these emails?  Lots of good ideas and comments in
> them can be used to frame
>> up a shoot-downable document to get things rolling.
>>
>> And someone has to be the structural boss, one we all acknowledge as 
>> such.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Steve Smolian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Andes, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
> next??
>>
>>
>> Hold on a second Steve....before we all start handing over blank checks
>> to Jim Lindner.
>>
>> To quote myself:
>> The next step is then agreeing on naming conventions, metadata
>> collection standards, and cross reference sources.
>>
>> Lobbying for money to get some machines, is great (and will get it's
>> due, in time) but if you don't fully understand what to do with the
>> output of your process (or what to call those thousands of files you
>> created), I think you may find yourself in a bit of a bind. You also run
>> the risk of having your funding pulled once your source realizes you
>> haven't thought this ALL THE WAY through. I've "heard" this to be the
>> reasoning behind the halt on a few digital initiatives internally at
>> EMI, before my time.
>>
>> The end goal here has to be identified before deciding on the path.
>>
>> Are we looking to:
>> -simply migrate from Analog to Digital (and why?)
>> -increase accessibility (how far and to who?)
>> -increase our knowledge about what these recording actually contain (by
>> how much?)
>> -hand these digital files off to a repository (either now of in the
>> future?)
>> -other reasons????
>>
>> There's a lot of great buzz words regarding assets nowadays, but without
>> knowing your destination, you're almost sure to get lost.
>>
>> There are many reasons everyone is not going digital with their archives
>> just yet. Jim apparently solved at least some of the Hardware issues (I
>> still haven't seen the system) but we need to put our heads together on
>> figuring the rest of the pieces of the plan out. THEN we can approach
>> the money sources, with a plan in hand. Otherwise, it just doesn't make
>> sense.
>>
>> Ideas:
>>
>> On the grandest scheme, could localized libraries/archives/repositories
>> all be feeding into some uber-data storage site run by the LOC, or some
>> other institution? Shifting the IT end to a centralized location.
>>
>> Could all the small transfer houses buy some machines from Jim, and
>> adhere to a set of standard practice to implement this mega digital
>> initiative? Instead of everyone running in there own direction.
>>
>> Could the costs be spread between different levels of the government,
>> and or institutions? Because there's probably more then one place to get
>> the money, and we'd need to identify them all for a project of scale to
>> be seen all the way through.
>>
>> Don Andes
>> Director of Archives
>> EMI Music
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:24 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
>> next??
>>
>> Good news, Jim.
>>
>> Funding sources are the next (or simultaneous) step.  That means a
>> budget.
>> That means a stepwise approach has to be assembled.
>> Is this a "save our sound" big grant project?
>>
>> It this to be done in a central location(s) or at each individual site?
>>
>> Work would be required to go through each clump (archive, accumulation,
>> etc.) to get a count, figure out what problems exist, decide what other
>> work will be required (creation of ID, cataloging, metadata, etc.) to
>> eventually feed into a general data base and allow the holder to use his
>> own search-and-find system meanwhile.  This should be done by roaming
>> professionals, not in-house guys who have been to a workshop.  Perhaps a
>> team of one of us and one of them would also allow training of the next
>> generation of those comfortable with older stuff.
>>
>> The "important to whom" question comes up.  There are churches and
>> historical societies with cabinets full of cassettes, etc., with
>> interviews and recordings of local historical events.  I've worked on
>> many, and, at least to me, they are often far more interesting and
>> informative than a routine broadcast of the Franck D minor Symphony.
>>
>> The whole target media issue needs further exploration.  Should there be
>> a central location with bouncing computers and backups to the backup
>> generators?  I work immediately next door to a pathology company that
>> tests its two generators every Thursday afternoon.  That's how I know
>> it's Thursday.
>>
>> We must be prepared with lots of info before sitting down at the table
>> with the grantors.
>>
>> Steve Smolian
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jim Lindner" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
>> next??
>>
>>
>>> Let me provide some factual information here that may be helpful.
>> Yes,
>>> and automated system to redo film splices has been made and does
>> exist in
>>> prototype form. That effort was undertaken as part of the  PrestoSpace
>>
>>> project. It was designed for 16mm film and was designed  to be
>> tolerant
>>> enough to consider film that had a very substantial  amount of
>> shrinkage.
>>> The system was also designed to repair damaged  sprocket holes as well
>>
>>> because the splicing tape used was sprocketed  - this is my
>> recollection.
>>> I did not see the machine myself but I did  see several presentations
>>> where it was shown. There were some issues.  I can find out more
>> detail if
>>> there is interest on the list.
>>>
>>> Our company has been working for some time on a new series of tape
>>> cleaners. These machines were under development for over 4 years.
>> They
>>> are dramatically different then any other cleaner made for tape  in
>> many
>>> ways - one of which is that they were designed specifically  for
>> issues
>>> that relate to old tape. They use the familiar tissue wipe  system
>>> although I will rather proudly say- that we have made some  pretty
>> good
>>> improvements on the basic concept which includes sensors  that "look
>> at"
>>> the tissue to tell when it is clean and change speed  of transport as
>> well
>>> as torque depending on the results of those  sensors and others -
>>> including continuous monitoring of tape tension  and motor current.
>> This
>>> is not a sales plug - I just want you to know  that this work as been
>>> done. The cleaners are in production and  available for purchase.
>> There
>>> are different models that vary by shell  size - and have to. So there
>> is
>>> one for the VHS FAMILY (which  includes SVHS... .all the flavors)
>>> Betacam - includes betamax,  digibeta... all the flavors, and
>> Umatic....
>>> same story. They  accommodate large and small cassettes in their
>>> respective families.  These are state of the art devices with computer
>>
>>> interfaces and we  have written software to interface to them. They
>> are
>>> being sold with  our without software - so if you wanted to "roll your
>>
>>> own" software  to control your cleaning machine just the way you want
>> to -
>>> we will  give you the protocol and go to town. These are professional
>>> machines  and we obviously are not making a huge amount of them. So
>> they
>>> are  not inexpensive - but they work and do a much better job then any
>>
>>> other machine ever made to clean tapes.
>>>
>>> We are working on a machine for reel to reel tapes. We are using the
>>> successful design for the cassette devices and are using as many of
>> the
>>> same design elements in these units as we can. We have also  solicited
>>
>>> outside design input from some people - a few are on this  list. We
>> are
>>> not done - but the cleaner will use the tissue cleaning  system as
>> well as
>>> our sensing system and will accomodate reels from  2" to 1/4".
>>>
>>> We have not done any work on an automated splicing system, but I
>> believe
>>> that the work done on film system could likely be transported  to a
>> reel
>>> to reel device for audio tape.
>>>
>>> But - and here it would be very important to hear from you - the
>>> "industry".
>>>
>>> These devices are expensive. They are expensive to develop and
>> expensive
>>> to manufacture. Since we are not making thousands of them -  it is
>> likely
>>> that they will continue to be expensive to produce - and  there has to
>> be
>>> a "market" for the devices - because there isnt much  point in making
>> them
>>> unless there is a real market with people with  real money who are
>> willing
>>> to pay for them to do mass digitization  work. The machines are cost
>>> effective in an environment where many  tapes need to be processed and
>>
>>> time and quality are important factors  - this means that this is not
>>> hobbyist gear.
>>>
>>> For years people in this field complained that there was no vendor
>> who
>>> made the kind of equipment that was needed. Now there is - but  what
>> we
>>> need to know - is that now that we have done all of this work  and
>> spent
>>> all of the money - now that the possibility really exists  to do the
>>> work - how many people are going to step up to the  challenge and
>> start
>>> doing it. We  are having very good success in the  Broadcast and
>> Library
>>> sectors - what about the other sectors? In  particular - the archive
>>> sector - which was the initial market we  targeted in the first place.
>>>
>>> So - if we all agree that Mass Digitization is important - what I
>> want to
>>> know is - how many of you are willing to step up to the  challenge and
>>
>>> start really working on it? The gear now exists. We are  eager to hear
>>
>>> about people willing to take out their checkbooks and  start to work
>> out
>>> THEIR strategies to make this all work. We offer  the building blocks
>> - no
>>> one has ever done that. No one ever made a  TBC that was designed
>>> specifically for Archival tapes - now it exists  - Broadcasters are
>>> buying, Libraries are buying, what about you - the  restoration
>>> specialists???? I am eager to hear what you have to say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Lindner
>>>
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>   Media Matters LLC.
>>>   SAMMA Systems LLC.
>>>   450 West 31st Street 4th Floor
>>>   New York, N.Y. 10001
>>>
>>> eFax (646) 349-4475
>>> Mobile: (917) 945-2662
>>> Office: (212) 268-5528
>>>
>>> www.media-matters.net
>>> Media Matters LLC. is a technical consultancy specializing in
>> archival
>>> audio and video material. We provide advice and analysis, to  media
>>> archives that apply the beneficial advances in technology to
>> collection
>>> management.
>>>
>>> www.sammasystems.com
>>> SAMMA Systems provides tools and products that implement and optimize
>> the
>>> advances in modern technology with established media preservation  and
>>
>>> access practices.
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 17, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Robert Hodge wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not even film can be spliced automatically due to the fact that it
>>>> shrinks
>>>> and will not fit on a splicer fixture designed to accept non shrunken
>>>> film.
>>>> As the shrinkage percentage can vary widely in both longitudinal and
>>>> horizontal planes, I suspect that any attempt to automate it will be
>>>> doomed to failure.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it takes a skilled preson to do it correctly !  Without Question
>>>> !!
>>>>
>>>> R. Hodge
>>>>
>>>> Robert Hodge,
>>>> Senior Engineer
>>>> Belfer Audio Archive
>>>> Syracuse University
>>>> 222 Waverly Ave .
>>>> Syracuse N.Y. 13244-2010
>>>>
>>>> 315-443- 7971
>>>> FAX-315-443-4866
>>>>
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] 5/17/2007 3:53 PM >>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: 269.7.3/809 - Release Date: 5/17/2007 
> 5:18 PM
>