At 05:07 PM 1/27/2008, Doug Henkle wrote:
> >Only if you consider discography to start with a physical artifact.
> >If, as has long been established, it starts with the creation point
> >of the music (i.e., the recording session), then you can document
> >plenty of things that may NEVER have been issued.
> Maybe I am the only discographer in the world who does believe
> this. I must be the only one who writes strictly for the music fan
> who wants to know what exists so he can start searching for it with
> the reasonable expectation of purchasing it and listening to it.
I hope they have deep pockets. However, in many situations, just
knowing is enough. If one wants to know details of the first time an
artist performed a particular work, even if it hasn't been recorded
or issued, shouldn't there be a way to answer this? Discography is
but a subset of biographical chronology. Who did what where and when?
Just because you weren't there to see or hear it doesn't mean it
didn't happen. Have a look at the discography of Bill Kirchner that I
created, with his assistance:
Hundreds of things that you can't hear, but plenty of things that you
can learn. It's not all about purchasing and listening. For example,
the very first entry shows that Kirchner and trumpeter Bud Burridge
played together (recorded even!) twenty-some years before they are
commonly known to have. Kind of interesting and it might lead to
further inquiries for a researcher.
> From this point of view, what is the point of my listing a song
> that was recorded, never released, and with reasonable certainty
> never will be released? In other words, nobody will be able to
> listen to it, ever. What am I not understanding here? What is the
> audible difference between a recording of a song that will never be
> heard by anyone except the people in the recording studio at the
> time, and an unrecorded song that was performed in a concert last
> night? I can't listen to either one of them right now, today.
I know this is ARSC domain with an emphasis on the RS part, but this
fixation on the "audible" is too restrictive. It is well established
that there is plenty to be learned about music and history without
actually hearing things. We've never *heard* Mozart or Bach and yet,
studying what documentation survives is quite elucidating. If that
unrecorded song from last night's concert is documented, then 15
years from now when the artist DOES record and issue a rendition,
someone can look for clues as to why it took 15 years or whatever or
maybe later someone in the audience last night will talk about the
great version - and forgets which concert that happened at - well,
documenting this information answers that kind of question. There are
plenty of examples of performances that only surfaced as recordings
much later. By documenting them prior to issue, a great deal of
research and study can be done so that when they do appear, it won't
be out of the blue.
> >And besides, procedures for cataloging even streaming audio
> >have been documented, so the world will adapt.
> Please post where these procedures can be found. I really
> want to know how documentation can be written today, published in
> print, and it will be completely accurate and sufficient in order
> to find a specific MP3 file and listen to it 75 years from now.
It may not pass your particular test, but by the time you prove it,
I'll be dead anyway. Even so, I reaffirm that the world will adapt.
mike at jazzdiscography.com