Print

Print


At 04:08 PM 7/8/2003 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>The sad fact is that society is arbitrary about what gets assigned
>(mainly financial) value and is thus more likely to be preserved.


> > Our criteria
> > will be different in part because preserving one recording does not impede
> > development; however, the resources used for our noble objective will not
> > be available for other, lesser ones - such as preserving buildings or
> > providing pre-natal care to the needy or books for the lending library.
>This assumes that society has resources which are not only fixed and limited
>but inherently available in a small amount. Were we in such a "lifeboat"
>situation, I could suggest a lot of individual indulgences that could and
>should be reduced in favour of more important societal ones! There, however,
>I risk a confrontation with those further right-wing than I am...

Resources for preservation are not only financial. There are a few audio
engineers whose restoration of materials is highly regarded; those with
whom I have corresponded have far more to do than time permits regardless
of funding. Given that many of the sources will be damaged each time they
are accessed (one can hear the effect easily on the Mapleson cylinders),
allowing poor transfer may be worse than letting them be.

However, at heart I believe we are seeing here a difference in philosophy.
In that case, there is no resolution. I hope that criteria can be
established so that we are not "arbitrary". I have no hope that we can be
all-inclusive.


Mike
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mrichter.com/