Re: [ARSCLIST] When you die...

[Karl Miller <karl.miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Lindner <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
   
  ***I am sure I am missing something here - but if these are published 
recordings - that have been digitized by others or preserved by 
others because they are NOT unique - and available as access copies 
elsewhere (on the net or not) and the music is available elsewhere - 
and these particular recordings were not owned by someone famous - 
or have some artifactual value for some other strange reason - then 
the value of them other then to yourself as a thing you collect 
because you like to collect things is - - - what exactly?
   
  While I am not quite sure I understand your point, I would like to share a few observations.
   
  Not all commercial recordings survive in institutional collections. A case in point is the LoC acquisition of the collection of Dave Canfield. Another is the LoC purchase of duplicates from Peter Muldavin's collection of children's records. 
   
  The only substantive archives (not affliated with an institution of higher learning) of recorded sound in this country I know of are the collections of New York Public and LoC. In this country, most institutions of higher learning saw the recording as an adjunct to teaching. Record collections were part of the "listening lab" or "learning center." They were not acquired by the library. In later years, when University Libraries assumed responsibility for building the collection of recordings, (at our University it was only 30 years ago) they were often left with scratched discs of the standard repertoire. Rarely did any Music School consider collecting popular music recordings until the last ten years or so. However, one needs to keep in mind that the primary focus, until recently, has been to acquire recordings that have direct application to the teaching process. So, basically university libraries were starting their recording's collections from scratch (pun intended).
 Notions of discographic research are relatively new to the course of study in our educational institutions. Printed music was the stuff of serious research and the way to study less familiar repertoire. Recordings weren't taken seriously.
   
  People like Tom Diamant, and his collection of Mexican and Mexican American Recordings is another good example of the "uniqueness" that can be found in a collection of commercial recordings.
   
  As for the "unique" material. It is often difficult to determine if something is indeed unique. From my personal experience, I was able to supply organizations like the New York Philharmonic, Indianapolis Symphony, Dallas Symphony, Houston Symphony, etc. with recordings of their broadcasts they were unable to locate. Was my copy the only copy...no, but mine was the only one they could track down. 
   
  When I saw Graham's post, and his mention of his interest in library music, it explained to me why he knew so much about the tracks on a CD he mastered of the television music from the old series Superman. I have been doing research on the composer Richard Mohaupt. The liner notes for that Superman CD mentioned Mohaupt and indeed, I noticed, based upon the style of the music, some of it was written by Mohaupt. So, one also needs to consider that depth of knowledge that can be found in the documentation associated with a private collection.
   
  So, from my perspective, having a collection of even commercial recordings, which pulls it all together, can be of great value. 
   
  I also believe the restrictions of the copyright law are such that we still need regional repositories, and of course there is also the notion of duplication as a safeguard for preservation.
   
  As for that collection of my deceased friend...well, we found some copies of Mitropoulos performances Nick Nickson didn't even have. Unique, no, because by friend Dave had gotten his copies from someone else. Worth preserving...I would like to think so. 
   
  Karl