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  July 2013

ARSCLIST July 2013

Subject:

Re: NYT film archiving article

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:27:58 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (153 lines)

Hi Jamie:

The problem is that "we" don't have anything to do with it. It's a matter of business, simple 
economics. There aren't enough "we's" interested in high-quality sound in the first place. The 
business model of the owners of the master tapes has been permanently constricted, musical tastes 
and cultural norms have changed, and demographics weigh against much interest in the "old white 
masters" (and indeed "old white rockers" and "old white crooners") in the future.

In fairness, I think about the generation that made the "golden era" recordings, including my 
parents. They were not stuck on reverence for the past. In fact, they considered the past recordings 
of poor, forgettable quality, which is why they struck out to harness then-new technology to make 
brand new recordings. I don't recall my parents being hung up on older performances, either. It is 
probably a symptom of our times that our generations are hung up on accomplishments, both technical 
and musical, of 50+ years ago. I admit being underwhelmed by just about all aspects of the "modern" 
(since the 1980s) classical music scene. To my mind, the best was already done and thus recent 
activity is just rehashing and dead-ending. The same can be said of jazz since at least the mid 70s. 
And, for that matter, rock since the end of the punk era or at least since the end of the last metal 
resurgence. Western music has failed to advance except on the more extreme fringes (some of which, 
like gangsta rap/hip-hop, have caught mainstream appeal with the younger generation -- but much of 
that music is cutting and pasting and thus rehashing beats, riffs and themes from decades previous). 
So music in general is losing mass relevance with each succeeding generation. It's omni-present 
background noise, a subliminal way to trigger consumerism or mindless "connectivity" and "social 
networking." It's not something to sit down, pay close attention and tune into.

The bottom line is, all of the older recordings LOSE their value as time goes on, because they are 
forgotten and/or ignored by more and more people (hence a smaller and smaller market and thus less 
and less budget for reissues). I am in favor of copyright reform, but I will say that the death of 
quality reissues of old material will occur when the material goes into the PD. With no 
proprietorship, there is no market force compelling a quality reissue. Even if the former copyright 
owner offers very generous lease terms for the master tape (which they will still own), what company 
will want to spend the money for a high-quality remaster when its immediate duplication and no-cost 
distribution will be perfectly legal?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jamie Howarth" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] NYT film archiving article


> We have to stop accepting that "reality"   - the sound quality differentials are not yet marked 
> and distinct perhaps, but there's no reason to presume that 44/16 is anymore permanent than wax 
> cutting. Someday there will be better delivery system and there will be an efficient way to do it.
>
>
>
> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone
>
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:20 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jamie:
>>
>> It's unrealistic to think that most non-hit material will ever be remastered if a viable digital 
>> master exists. There is no business model for it. The hits will be remastered over and over in 
>> every latest-greatest technology. The "long-tail" catalog, which includes most older classical 
>> recordings, will live on as 44.1/16 forever. The few items that weren't reissued the first time 
>> around (remember, there was a huge boom in classical and opera reissued in the late 80s through 
>> mid-90s, before there was a massive bust) get transferred in higher resolution as a matter of 
>> course today, but that doesn't always guarantee a good sound quality for the end product. It 
>> takes budget to provide an excellent analog playback in the first place, and budget isn't usually 
>> present. That's the economic reality of today. Remember that music sales are half the peak of the 
>> boom, and margins are lower on the reduced sales.
>>
>> So saying "we simply have to go back ..." is just a pronouncement that carries little weight vs 
>> business realities. I am not sure how different it is in the movie business, it may be a little 
>> less tight. Hollywood always had bigger budgets and thus could afford better technology.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamie Howarth" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] NYT film archiving article
>>
>>
>>> Per Tom's comment:
>>> We simply have to go back to the tapes on anything 44.1/16 period the end. Getting UMG is a 
>>> chore but necessary in the long term.
>>>
>>> The Everests could have been better, nobody plays mag like we do. The best guy in LA is awesome. 
>>> Best shop is Chace.
>>>
>>> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stewart:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the kind words.
>>>>
>>>> The most likely motivator for UMG/Decca will be swift sales of the current box sets. Proof of a 
>>>> continued market is the only convincing argument for classical reissues in today's business 
>>>> climate.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see the rest of the material remastered for CD get back in print one more time, 
>>>> and I'd like for UMG/Decca to bring out a few titles not remastered for CD, but not "all of the 
>>>> rest." There is not enough market for mindless completism, but there is a market for the few 
>>>> superb performances not reissued on CD. All told, I think a third, smaller box set could 
>>>> emerge. One big problem is that the margins on a box set of new remasters is much lower, 
>>>> especially if the remastering is done correctly. To their credit, UMG has set a high bar for 
>>>> quality, and success will hinge on holding to the standard.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I do believe strongly is that what gets newly reissued will have to be based on 
>>>> performances rather than sound quality alone. The key determining factor will have to be, is 
>>>> this a great and/or unique performance of this work, or is this a compelling work not recorded 
>>>> elsewhere or rarely recorded and/or by lesser performers. I think the first criterion requires 
>>>> a careful look at the Dorati, Paray and solo-performer recordings not yet reissued, and the 
>>>> second criterion requires a careful look at the Hanson mono catalog. Careful culling would then 
>>>> yield enough candidates to fill out a third box set, in combination with the not-yet-boxed CD 
>>>> remasters. There are also some late-catalog recordings that deserve consideration.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Gooderman" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:00 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] NYT film archiving article
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr Fine,
>>>>>
>>>>> You most certainly know more about this than most: how many recordings from the entire Mercury 
>>>>> Living Presence catalog have yet to see the light of Cd-day? I'm almost done wading through 
>>>>> the second box set and continue to be in awe with the sheer beauty of the sound these 
>>>>> recordings possess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who does one contact to plead with Universal to release the rest of the original CD series and 
>>>>> to remaster and release what is left, including the pre-stereo recordings?
>>>>>
>>>>> DrG
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of Mercury's 35mm magnetic film masters, whatever wasn't digitized in the 1990s 
>>>>>> (when all of the existing films were playable, as demonstrated by the sound quality of the 
>>>>>> 1990s CD remasters) didn't EXIST anymore. It's not a matter of "things not being 
>>>>>> transferred." Inept management at Polygram/Philips in the 1970s and perhaps the 1980s ordered 
>>>>>> some 35mm destroyed, and other appear to have been forever lost (assumed destroyed) by the 
>>>>>> contracted warehouse-storage companies. During the CD remastering project's 10-year span, 
>>>>>> exhaustive and never-ending efforts were made by Polygram vault/library personnel all over 
>>>>>> the world to find any and all Mercury Living Presence tapes. Under early Universal-era 
>>>>>> management, all of those tapes were assembled at the vault operations of Berliner Studios in 
>>>>>> Hanover Germany. That vault has since been outsourced to a unit of BMG, and I think it is at 
>>>>>> a different physical location in Germany now. I do not know if every single cache to former 
>>>>>> Polygram tapes in the world is now assembled in Germany, but I do think that every Mercury 
>>>>>> tape or film that existed in the 1990s did end up in one place.
>>>>>
>>>
>
> 

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