 |
 |
I, for one, liked the list overall. Sure - I didn't agree with everything on it, and I suspect that someone with an overriding interest in popular music after 1955 would really take exception to it. It is a hard reality for an archivist to swallow is that to most citizens in this fair country, the music and information recorded before the 1960s really "doesn't matter". The Registry list is a nice response to that, although it wasn't intended for that purpose. Also, one of the things I suggested got on. I didn't expect any to make it, so I'm pleased. Good work, LoC. David N. Lewis Assistant Classical Editor All Media Guide 301 E. Liberty Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Farrington, Jim Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Registry I know that a call for nominations was disseminated widely on lists that include both the ARSClist and (I'm pretty sure) 78-L. Don't forget there's always next year as well (and the year after and the year after that). There was a large number of worthy candidates on the first pass, and the decisions about what to include were difficult. Certainly not everyone who was even in the room would have chosen those particular 50 that were announced. Indeed, the panel only acts in an advisory capacity to Dr. Billington, who makes the final decisions. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:32 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Registry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Seubert" <[log in to unmask]> > > If you hadn't seen it yet, the 2002 National Recording > Registry is up on > > the Library of Congress web site: > Having finally seen this (the first post didn't link to the list), I'm > somewhat > surprised what IS on it (some items are historic milestones, > but were only > recorded by accident as a result of having been broadcast...I question > their inclusion in a list of *recordings*...) and what ISN'T > (the first > Mamie > Smith Okeh, for one...Dalhart's "Wreck of the Old 97 for > another...and I > can think of more!) > It would be interesting to omit the items that belong on a list of > historical > milestones rather than recording milestones, along with a few > that appear > to be nods to political correctness, and assemble a list of important > commercial recordings that were intended as recordings! > My opinion only... > ...stevenc >