LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2011

ARSCLIST January 2011

Subject:

Re: Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal Music Group.

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:00:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (135 lines)

There's a mile of material

There are some yards of material the company would normally preserve, and
given the ongoing costs, probably discard the rest.

It's likely everyone at the company has heard of Bing Crosby and Louis
Armstrong.  But the calyso, the artists in the Sepia Series, May Questel,
the countless other musical nooks and cranies so important to readers of
this list as well as future collectors and likely unknown names to the
discard deciders?  Should they be Dr. Mengeled?  Should the future be denied
access to the things we may not value today but that they will, in their
time, a phenomenon we've seen time and again?

I see this as a major rescue effort.  That we are to be taxed for doing so,
should this prove to be the case, is no different from putting paintings in
a museum, most of which are stored in a basement.  

Be glad, then, America!

Steve Smolian


    

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the Universal
Music Group.

Hi, Tom,

I agree that this topic needs discussion. My one experience with this was
with Library and Archives Canada and they had to determine if they wanted to
collect the artist whose work I had reissued on CD and we were looking for a
home (other than the landfill) for her original recordings. When they
decided that they did want it (I believe it was a committee decision) then
they wanted whatever I had that related to her career and the best copy
available--at that point they wanted gold CD-Rs which I had made, even
though the Legal Deposit copy was a pressed CD.

I understand that they turn down a lot of artists.

It is a hard choice. I recall a book I bought in the 70s which was a
collection of "found" photographs from "America's Attic" that a researcher
had gone through uncatalogued and unsorted boxes in the LoC and found enough
material in snapshots to paint a picture of life in the 1890s (or so--I'm
doing this without the book at hand).

Culpepper was an attempt to come to grips with the storage issues. 
Assuming that it's a mile of shelf space, and that mile has a 1 foot cross
section, it is only a cube of material 17.5 feet on a side. A mile sounds so
long but a 17.5x17.5x17.5 foot cube doesn't sound nearly so big--just the
size of a small two-story house. On the other hand 195.6 cu yd does sound
big again and, if your contention is correct that it is mostly trash, that
would take ten 20-cu yd trash trucks to haul away.

I'm working on a project right now that is a collection of home recordings
by important musicians. I am enjoying the fact that I'm working for money,
but I shake my head with many of these tapes--which would fall into the
category of a phone call to a private client asking "do you really want me
to digitize these?" I wonder who will ever have the time to listen to these.
Unfortunately, having me digitize them to full archival requirements is the
cheapest solution to listening to them in case they contain some gems as the
client can't play them well, and there is no sense doing a non-archival pass
and then selecting some for better processing, as that would only add to the
costs.

As an aside about good quality vs super quality digitization: I did make a
personal decision when digitizing my photographs to digitize my family
negatives to typically 6 MP (18 MB files) and my slides to 12 MP (36 MB
files) using some black expansion (Digital DEE lightly applied). My choice
is then to select a few images and carefully hand scan them at 24 MP and 16
bits per colour (144 MB files). As it is now, with the scan job half done
and my collection of digipix, I have about 1 TB of images in storage. I
suspect finishing the slides will add another TB. I did scan some 5x7 B&W
images to 175 MP or 350 MB files (16 bit) as there were few and it wasn't
worth going back. But I couldn't see quadrupling the storage requirement for
the bulk of the slides and 12 MP is not to be sneezed at.

It is a complex issue and it is what archivists and related professions
study.

Cheers,

Richard

On 2011-01-11 9:19 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Another topic I didn't even touch on, but worthy of some debate 
> because there are two good sides to the argument is SHOULD the LOC 
> accept what amount to vault-dumps? Should the American Taxpayer accept 
> the cost of in-perpetuity preservation of all the junk in these 
> vaults? And, one man's junk is another's "forgotten genius" so who 
> determines what we accept the responsibility and cost to preserve?
> This is one of my pet issues -- preservation vs. accumulation and 
> collecting vs. accumulation. I see accumulation as a fool's errand, 
> but then one needs to figure out a way to make sure and not discard 
> what a reasonably segment of the population may reasonably wish to 
> preserve, and that's a moving target as interests and tastes evolve.
> However, I think if you just do vault-dumps into Culpepper, it will 
> quickly become clogged, unmanagable and a red herring in future budget 
> battles. I think most Americans like the idea of historic preservation 
> but few want to dedicate very much of their tax dollars to it in this 
> day and age. Furthermore, it's impossible to do a decent job once you 
> clog up an "attic" too much. This is a topic that I think deserves a 
> lot of thought and conversation in our organization and others.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Miller" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Your taxpayer dollars being given to the 
> Universal Music Group.
>
>
> Tom,
>
> I find your suggestions to be highly imaginative and worthy of serious 
> consideration. From my perspective, libraries and archives need to 
> redefine themselves.
>
> Karl
>
>

-- 
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager