One solution might be to make Thursday all music/discography day and Saturday all 
technology/archiving day, with Friday being some sort of mix with a longer morning session for ARSC 
business. This could then help people like Steve and myself avoid being torn between something of 
curiosity to us (ie something historical or musical) vs a technical session that we know we should 
attend to justify the cost of travel (ie it will help our business, which funds the travel).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ARSC Conference Program scheduling- Your vote counts


> Some academics get travel funds only if they participate in a program.
>
> I agree with Mike both in the too shortness of many presentations and in the concurrent sessions 
> issue.  When there is a conflict, I almost always go to the technical sessions and deeply resent 
> not being able to attend those relating to recording history.  Grrrr!
>
> As an occasional presenter with a 35 minute limit, I cram as much as I can into that time, and to 
> heck with questions.  So do others.  Lots of bad info floats around unchallenged.
>
> On the other hand, I generally dislike the zombie panels where old stars reminisce.  I spend the $ 
> 1,000 it costs to travel and register for information, not entertainment.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Tom Fine
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ARSC Conference Program scheduling- Your vote counts
>
> One man's opinions ...
>
> It seemed to me, observing in Rochester, that there was a reasonable percentage of presentations
> that were more about "making your bones in academia" than being relevant to ARSC members. Very
> obtuse subject matter, more appropriate for a doctoral thesis presentation in some cases. In other
> cases, ill preparation sabotaged what might have been interesting material. So you could cut out
> some fat and have longer presentations of substance. Number of presentations is not a good measure
> of anything, in my opinion.
>
> Maybe this would work -- first-timers get 35 minutes max. Let them prove themselves. It's then up 
> to
> the presentation committee to decide if they are worthy of an invitation to present again at a
> future conference. Maybe let them know this going in, so they make it a point to make that a good 
> 35
> minutes because their reputation is on the line with ARSC. Those who have been deemed interesting
> enough to be invited back should be told that there's a standing invitation but the invitation 
> will
> be re-evaluated each time they present. This encourages people to stay on their A game. The
> returning veterans should be given up to 60 minutes, but should have to justify to the committee 
> why
> they need more than 35 minutes. This will allow them to consider carefully if they really do have 
> 60
> minutes of material or if they could condense it to 35 minutes.
>
> 20 minute slots should be eliminated unless they are mini-presentations as part of a panel
> discussion (i.e. setting out the parameters of the discussion, or presenting some audio before the
> discussion).
>
> There should probably be a separate discussion about if these rules would work equally well for
> history/discography and technical topics. The way ARSC is today, there needs to be a heavy 
> technical
> emphasis in the programs, and some technical stuff is a very deep dive and may even take more than
> 60 minutes. That said, I thought some of the technical sessions I attended were overly long -- in
> other words a lot of jargon around very little action or accomplishment. Do you really need 35
> minutes to tell everyone how you "assess" a grooved record (i.e. look at it and see how scratched 
> up
> it is)? On the other hand, if you're laying out a complex database/metadata structure -- which is
> likely to be of great interest to others tasked with that job -- you should have the amount of 
> time
> you need to get enough information across to be of use to those in attendance, otherwise it's not
> worth any amount of their time, or yours.
>
> A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for historical/discographical presentations might be, if it's
> very specific (i.e. one artist's time on one label, one piece of music or one album, one little
> record label, etc), keep it to 35 minutes. If it's something sweeping, like for instance the 
> history
> of jazz in Kansas City, that deserves an hour but make sure the presenter is willing to do the 
> work
> to fill the hour with interesting material.
>
> Another possibility to consider -- if someone is basically re-iterating something published in 
> ARSC
> Journal or some other printed outlet (like a doctoral thesis), perhaps they should be restricted 
> to
> 35 minutes. If they are presenting new, interesting (as deemed by the presentations committee)
> material, give them more time because that will encourage them to develop enough material for a 
> good
> ARSC Journal article, hence a virtuous cycle.
>
> Bottom line -- number of presentations is meaningless if short time slots lead to shallow, useless
> presentations. Very few things can be well-explained in 20 minutes. A few things need more than 35
> minutes, but I think taste and discretion need to trump egos and "debt to longtime members." It
> should only go long if it's worth the extra time, possibly at the expense of someone else's
> opportunity to present. Not to be given lightly, but should be given when deserved.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Ramm" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ARSC Conference Program scheduling- Your vote counts
>
>
>> In a message dated 2/23/2013 6:32:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> [log in to unmask] writes:
>>
>> It is  not an easy job putting the
>> schedule together, and I sometimes wish the  Prog Chair would ask some of
>> us for advice.
>>
>>
>> I'll remind ALL on the ARSC list who are paid members - and thus get to
>> vote in the upcoming election that the decision is yours. There were be
>> candidates for Second Vice President/Program Chair. in the ballots going out
>> next month. The winner of that office will be program chair for the 2014 and
>> 2015 ARSC conferences. So it's up to you to exercise your vote and decide who
>> would make the better Program Chair. It is that person's job to plan and
>> schedule and accept (or reject) program papers.  (I will remind you, of
>> course, that without concurrent sessions, there will be 40% less papers
>> presented. (and it they are 60 vs 35 minutes in length, there will be 65% less
>> papers than there were in 2012.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>