Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's necessary they be described accurately enough within the catalog system 
to be sure they are reproduced with the proper equipment.   It seems to me 
that this is one of the major functions of the catalog.  It's a preservation 
issue.

Boy, not only did our ancestors walk funny (see silent films for the proper 
ancient gait) but they sound weird on those old graphatropes.

We are all encountering a generation that cannot tell us over the phone if 
what they have are 78s, LPs or 45s.  Why, LPs are the larger ones, of 
course.

Is this something the ARSC education committee sould be looking into?

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?


> Steven Smolian wrote:
>
> > I strongly also endorse lacquer.  It's accurate and easy.  Mike Biel has
> > been adamant about this for years, and he's correct.
> >
> > Steve Smolian
>
> Which is still not going to stop the general public from calling them
> "acetates", any more than they'll stop referring to "Blue Wax Columbias",
> matrix numbers "in the wax" etc.
>
> dl
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Prentice, Will" <Will.Prentice@xxxxx>
> > To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs 
> > lacquer?
> >
> > Surely it has to be "lacquer" - very few contained any acetate. Have
> > there been any instantaneous CUT discs (i.e. not embossed metal discs)
> > which didn't have a lacquer surface layer? Just curious.
> >
> > Will
> >
> > ...................................................
> > Will Prentice
> > Technical Services
> > British Library Sound Archive          Tel: +44 (0)20-7412-7443
> > 96 Euston Road                         Fax: +44 (0)20-7412-7416
> > London NW1 2DB                         http://www.bl.uk
> > UK                     http://cadensa.bl.uk (online
> > catalogue)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> > [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Jacobs
> > Sent: 18 January 2006 18:48
> > To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
> >
> > I recently heard a discussion among catalogers on whether to describe an
> > item as an "acetate" or a "lacquer".  Said item would be an
> > instantaneous
> > recording cut into nitrocellulose on an aluminum, glass or other
> > substrate.
> >
> > So which is the more appropriate term for cataloging - acetate or
> > lacquer?
> >
> > Eric Jacobs
> > The Audio Archive
> > tel: 408.221.2128
> > fax: 408.549.9867
> > mailto:EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > *****
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 1/18/2006