I propose to create a new category - "unlocated". Some recordings may
have been known to exist in one copy, but if that copy is known to have
been destroyed, such as unreleased test pressings, it is lost.
It may be difficult to know if a recording is lost or unlocated.
joe salerno
On 10/1/2010 9:35 AM, David Lewis wrote:
> I would tend to agree with Kevin; the standard should concur with that for
> motion pictures. If the FIAF database or other archival authority does not
> list a motion picture then it is regarded as lost until a print is located.
> For some reason there is no established practice of this kind in the realm
> of sound recordings.
>
> Uncle Dave Lewis
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Kevin P. Mostyn<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> I would posit that if a recording is not catalogued, even though extant,
>> then it is indeed "lost."
>>
>> I have seen many thousands of recordings in archives and libraries, that
>> are
>> not catalogued, and therefore are, in effect, lost. This especially
>> pertains
>> to ETs and other such recordings that are one-offs. Even the Library of
>> Congress has many such items.
>>
>> --Kevin Mostyn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:57 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Lost recordings/ slightly off-topic
>>
>> With many vintage classical alt takes, the intent is not so different
>> from
>> the released version. More likely it is a matter of execution than content,
>> unless the record was rejected for technical flaws.
>>
>> Given the improvisational character of some jazz, I feel it is quite
>> different.
>>
>> But if a recording is extant, it is not lost, in my definition.
>> Unavailable maybe, but not lost. Perhaps the marketing of "lost"
>> recordings and TV shows has altered our perception of what constitutes a
>> lost item.
>>
>> joe salerno
>>
>
>
|