From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>>>> The position of sound archives has weakened - in my view - because
>>>> the international sound recording community (such as IASA)
>>>> foolishly took "video" under its wing.
>>> Thank you, George. Since, as you know, I was the leader of the
>>> resistance movement against the inclusion of video in IASA, it gives me
>>> no joy to realize that some of my predictions are coming true.
>>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
From: George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
>> re Jim Lindner:
>> P.S. Quite another subject is the division between sound and vision
>> and the artificial joining of the two. That issue needs a completely
>> different thread, and I hope to contribute at some stage. G.
-------------------------------------------
From: Jim Lindner <[log in to unmask]>
> 1. While there are examples of Sound Archives being absorbed into Libraries
> there are also examples of Sound Archives that have been split from National
> Libraries. Many Sound Archives have either found shelter in other
> institutions or administrative organizations or have become independent. A
> good example of this is the National Film and Sound Archive in Australia.
> Their particular path has been circuitous but they have become independent.
> The gross generalization that Sound Archives are being absorbed into
> Libraries as a 30 year trend is not accurate. There are cases where it has
> happened and cases where the reverse has happened.
>
> As a practical matter, Sound Archives and many other types of Archives have
> many different types of administrative organization and report to any number
> of different structures. In some cases the reporting structure is
> historical, such as through a Music Department in a University, but in most
> cases the location in any organization relates more to funding and
> management structure then anything else. Any association to the stature of
> an archive by judging the body through which it reports it at best myopic.
>
> Speaking of myopic, stating that one of the causes of the loss of stature of
> Sound Archives (which I do not actually believe to be true) is the
> broadening scope of IASA to include Video is - well.... myopic! I don't
> think it is a competition.
Ah, but it is. Competition for FUNDING. You actually gave a prime
example of what happens when they are combined -- Australian Film and
Sound Archive. More on that later. And more and more the way an
archive relates to the body through which it reports has become VERY
VERY relevant.
> Sound is important and there is allot of it,
> Video is important and there is allot of it, Film is important and there is
> allot of it - you get the concept.
That there is a lot of each of these is exactly why a separate
organization for each was important to avoid any one of them falling in
the cracks. Originally, IASA was for sound, FIAF was for film, and FIAT
was for television/video.
> It has become clear that the old silo way
> of thinking of AV Archives does not benefit anyone, and certainly not AV
> Archivists. This very old and very worn concept was based largely on carrier
> borne issues
That is where your theory completely falls apart. The carrier had
nothing to do with it. It was the content. Period. Movies had already
been invented when sound archives began separately. Movie archives were
developed separately when sound recording collections were already
established. They were not natural partners. It was not a carrier
based difference. It was content. Totally content.
There are people who specialize in sound. They know the quality of
sound, sound recordings that have been made, how sound is recorded, how
sound is reproduced, etc. They don't give a diddley-damn about picture,
whether it be on film, magnetic carriers, oil paintings, or anything
else. They are SOUND PEOPLE.
And then there are film people who are specialists in picture quality,
recording of picture, reproduction of picture, sometimes still,
sometimes moving. Some specialize in monochrome, some in color, and
some in SILENT film. The latter couldn't care less about sound. Those
that deal in sound films and television have sound coming along with
their pictures, but time after time after time they have no interest in
the sound -- they leave it to the sound people. Many film archives that
are only film archives do not have sound people! Or maybe they have
one. Look at UCLA -- they outsource their sound work. Their radio
collection has not had a curator for perhaps two decades.
Just look at the credits on movies and TV shows. Sound is ALWAYS
SEPARATE, and ALWAYS SECONDARY. There can be hundreds of people working
on the visual aspect of the film, and maybe FIVE working on the sound.
WHENEVER sound and visual are combined in ANY institution, sound is
always secondary. Always. Again, ask Ray Edmonson. You're the one who
brought his name up. As a matter of fact, go to his institution's web
site. Look at the home page. Is there ANYTHING about sound there??
Look thru the menus, there is practically nothing about sound there.
http://nfsa.gov.au/ This is typical of many combined institutions.
> - and very clearly, going forward in time, in a file based
> world, AV Archives must and do embrace all of our forms of Audio and Visual
> heritage.... together.
>
> What kind of carrier is of far less importance then the context in which the
> materials were produced and the affect on us and our culture and society
> which is to say the content. While many recordings (of what ever type) do
> have artifactual value, that value is in almost all cases small relative the
> value of the content. As things become more and more similar, new
> associations and learning will be gained by the study of many different
> forms and formats together in one body of knowledge. We have barely started
> on a very exciting path where new tools help make associations never before
> possible.
> Search engines that care little of carrier and greatly of content
> and context.
That's my point. Content. Have you seen a you-tube that is sound only?
No. They MUST add a visual component. Yes, sometimes it is just a
still picture, a title, sheet music, the record label, or something like
that. Have you checked out the number of views? Compare that with a
musical film clip. Of comparable material, the film clip outshines the
audio only clip, but the sound might be dreadful on the film clip.
Picture people often do not care about the sound.
> IASA was correct in their action and their work on TC and Video is a good
> example of how broadening ones vision can give one additional impact to make
> a difference and help preserve cultural heritage materials.
If you play a sound recording to a governmental or administrative money
person, they say "Nice." You show them a movie of a similar nature
--even if it is silent -- their interest perks up higher. Show them a
sound film and it is "WOW!!!" THAT'S where they put the money.
> Indeed the more
> we act in a segregated and silo fashion, the more we appear to the outside
> world as a bunch of out of touch eccentrics.
As I indicated, the institutions know where the money is. It ain't
sound. The most a combined effort could hope for is that they drag
sound along with them, and give some leftovers to sound.
> Most young people view the
> carrier type as irrelevant - what matters is how they can access it. Don't
> believe me? Ask a 14 year old!
The 14 year old is listening to MP3s, or watching a music video.
> We need to work together to increase the visibility and viability of AV
> Archives - striating that support by segregation of obsolete carrier type is
> also obsolete thinking.
As I indicated, your theory of carriers being the basis of the
segregation is incorrect, so the carrier is ALWAYS irrelevant in this
discussion of the values of audio vs. video.
> I am grateful that
> people like Dr. Schueller and Ray Edmondson have spent so much time in
> UNESCO as vocal advocates for AV Archives in general and Sound Archives in
> particular. It is through their efforts that many have been trained so that
> collections could be preserved properly.
I've known Deitrich Schueller for 35 years. I've known Ray Edmondson
for nearly that long. I have visited both of their archives. I
consider them both friends and mentors. I mentioned previously that I
had been the ringleader in the effort to resist the inclusion of video
and film into IASA, and Ray Edmondson was one of my strongest allies. I
watched as Ray suffered through the downgrading of sound in his
institution, especially when they dreamed up that asinine and insulting
new name ScreenSound Australia, which they dropped a few years later.
That name was indicative of a sidetracking of their purpose to move into
public exhibitions. They wanted to become a movie theater. And it
seemed that sound was only important if it accompanied what was on the
screen. It has been years since I looked at it, but I seem to recall
that I discussed Ray's situation in my Open Letter to IASA that was
published in the Journal during the fight against adding the visual
element to IASA.
As for what has happened to the Phonogramarchiv politically, I think
that George has his sources -- published and not -- that explain what
has happened. I am rightly shocked by it as you have been, Jim, but if
what the Austrian government wanted was an Austrian-centric
organization, as George said, you detailed much of the problem yourself.
Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
|