In a message dated 6/12/03 3:08:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>  IMHO, people with such an approach have no business is the preservation
>  field.
>  Steven Smolian
This is certainly true if being in the "preservation field" means being paid
to do professional restorations or rearchiving.  However not everyone who has
access to historic material is in the audio profession or has the funds to
hire a professional.

If a person has a choice of making a copy with the equipment on hand or
seeing the material destroyed (by deterioration or the lack on interest leading to
disposal by the actual owners) should they simply walk away because they are
not official "preservationists"?

My advice to a question like this is to try to see to it that the original
material is preserved if possible, but also do the best you can to make some
sort of copies so the information content of the artifact will be preserved, even
if the fidelity may not.

I have enjoyed many hours of OTR and documentary material that I never would
have heard if only "broadcast quality" copies were distributed or preserved.

Right now there must be thousands of hours per minute of AV. material being
generated worldwide by everything from major movie studios to home camcorders.
How much of it can possibly pass through the hands of professional

If we are in the business of passing on the culture of the past to future
generations we should encourage the preservation of as much as possible, not just
the "golden chalices" with sufficient value to justify the expense of
professional care.

Mike Csontos