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  February 2013

ARSCLIST February 2013

Subject:

Re: ARSC Conference Program scheduling- Your vote counts

From:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:11:49 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (171 lines)

I think this is a situation where there is no solution that will satisfy everyone.  No matter what is running up agains what, somebody is going to be interested in both presentations and if you eliminate concurrent presentations, it is going to seriously reduce the number of events and many will be sitting around because they aren't interested in the current subject.  I don't envy those who have to make these decisions.

db



>________________________________
> From: Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:07:23 AM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ARSC Conference Program scheduling- Your vote counts
> 
>Tom -- I think you got it backwards.  We do not want similar sessions
>opposite each other, we need different sessions opposite.  Having two
>discographical/collecting sessions opposite each other is what the
>problem is.  Many in the group don't care about the technical and
>archivist cataloging sessions, and some ONLY care about these and don't
>care about the musical content or ancient performers.  
>
>Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]  
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>
>From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>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
>>>
>>
>
>
>

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