In that case, I do have it backwards. So then make sure a technical program group runs parallel to a 
history/music group as much as possible.

Mike's got a good point also as far as general interest is concerned. Try and set it up so the panel 
on minute opera obscura isn't running opposite the panel on minute database obscura unless the 
expectation is that 90% of attendees will be elsewhere.

I don't mean to short-shrift the cataloging/database field. It's very important as far as the macro 
topic of preservation and successful access by the public is concerned. But it's a very specialized 
area, with true experts involved. It therefore is inherently not of general interest, espcially to 
the contingent of hobbyist/collectors. The same can be said for the dark corners of music and 
discography obscura. All of it definitely as a place in ARSC, of all organizations. But at the 
conferences, care should be taken to have running parallel something of more general interest.

It's helpful to post the audio and some slides after the conferneces. I wish this were done in a 
more timely manner. I'm able to get my companies conferences put to a CD-ROM with complete MP3 audio 
(carved from unedited WAV files) and PDF of slides, in a couple of work days (16-20 man hours, 
working at a relaxed pace). ARSC has three days, rather than one day, and parallel session, so 
reasonably speaking it's more like 40+ man-hours. But sometimes it takes nearly a half year for 
audio to show up online. And why so few slides? Providing slides online should be a requirement of 
being provided a presentation forum at ARSC. I'm OK with making conference content members-only 
access. Let more people pony up the meager membership cost, in fact if more people would join, the 
membership cost could be held steady for a long time or go down.

-- Tom Fine

PS -- I'd also like to see PDF of ALL ISSUES of the ARSC Journal provided online for members. 
Perhaps people who must have the printed version should pay a little extra? That's how AES works, 
and they have greatly reduced their printing costs.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:07 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

> 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
> 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