Skip
repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.5
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (January 2007)Back to main ARSCLIST pageJoin or leave ARSCLISTReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:         Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:44:48 -0500
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Libraries disposing of records
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> > I don't understand what you're advocating. I'm with Philip Holmes -- if "save everything" types want > to actually do that, then they can pay for it and figure out where to store it. Don't involve me or > use my taxes for it (given the recent elections up your way, I'd say Canadians are getting tired of > a high tax burden too). > EXCEPT...this sort of thinking would have said, c.1490, "Why pay to send some crazy sailor to search for lands we know don't exist?! Hire more priests and ratchet up the Inquisition a few notches...!" > I'd rather have my efforts (and some of my taxes) go to intelligent > preservation that attempts to weed out and save the "best" of each era -- knowing full well it's a > biased and stilted representation of the time rather than the experience of actually being there > (only those who live in a time/place get the privilege of "being there" and "doing that", everything > else is a limited facsimile). > Here, the problem becomes "Define 'best!'" By sales to the public? By opinions of whoever may currently be considered "experts?" Or... Further, we have NO way of knowing what will be important generations hence...who could have foreseen, say, the "genealogy" craze that puts lists of tombstone data on web sites? Or that data on a long-ignored pop hit would be needed to sue about "My Sweet Lord?!" > That's what's worked since the Romans and before, so it's good with > me. Main overriding good feature is that it's doable, as opposed to grabbing up and trying to > preserve every last piece of junky "art" just to say "we kept it all." That to me is ridiculous. > Well, what from the "pre-digital" era has survived has done so mostly by accident...and what DIDN'T survive often would be both important and useful to historians and researchers if it had! Whomever saved that single extant copy of "Zulu's Ball" probably didn't do so on the grounds it would someday be an important historical document...and the reverse is true for the various Paramount 13xxx discs for which NO copies exist...! > Alas, the save-everythingers' "dream" is likely to be more true than ever of this current age. > Digital stuff seems to lurk around in some corner of the connected world forever (as some of today's > teens will find out when they finally grow up and decide to run for public office or seek a good job > and their MySpace bare-chested video shoots them down). Barring a nuclear meltdown or return to the > Dark Ages, all the garbage kicking around on the Internet today -- including all the mis-information > touted in places like Whacky-Packia and numerous e-mail legends that circulate around and around and > around -- will be preserved forever and after we all die off, it may be treated as "fact." This is > what "unmediated history" gets you, and I don't think it's any better than the bias and loyalties of > "wise men" written history as it was done up to now. As I said, there is really no way for someone > who didn't "been there done that" to ever really understand it or experience it (latest example is > the rewrite of the Ford years that the mass media did). The best he can do is find some eye-witness > testimony and absorb it. > I didn't suggest "unmediated" history be saved...there would, logically, have to be at the very least some division between "fact" and "fiction" in archived material. Further, it is essentially impossible to record (in ANY way) history without some personal prejudice affecting the contents of the "record"...and anyone who depends on such documents should keep that fact in mind! In fact, that is one argument for saving different documents referring to the same event(s) on the assumption that if one accessed all of these one might be able to come closer to the actual facts...! Steven C. Barr


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main ARSCLIST page

LISTSERV.LOC.GOV CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager