[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marie O'Connell" <azile50@xxxxxxxxx>
Another twist to this is the actual transcript of a sound recording.
Having
worked on hundreds of Civil Rights oral histories whilst working in the
South, I found that often the transcribers put a completely different
emphasis on statements and words, which in turn gave what you were reading
a
completely different meaning. It wasn't until I was reading the
transcript
AND preserving the audio that I was able to put my finger on it.
Ofcourse,
I made notes clarifying this.
In several instances there was one interviewer I recall who actually
added,
he did the transcribing aswell, complete questions and changed the answers
of the 'talent' for purposes unknown! I found this unacceptable. I
believe
these transcripts were originally made where perhaps it was thought that
no
one would listen to the actual recording 30 years down the track.
Therefore, who DO you believe? If someone has only researched the
transcript, then, in my experience, I would only find it more believeable
if
the audio had been listened to in tandem.
My 6 cents worth.
But...ever since magnetic tape became a standard recording medium...there
is NO practical way to be ABSOLUTELY sure that the recording to which
one is listening is an ABSOLUTELY accurate representation of the event
which was (in theory) recorded...! The only sure way to know this is for
one NEVER to have had the recording out of one's physical posession...?!
As well...unless a sound recording (1) was properly made, and (2) is
being played back on a high-quality machine...there will ALWAYS be
places where two listeners CAN...and WILL...disagree as to what
was actually said and recorded...!
OTOH, though...Wikipedia having comcerns about accuracy is
something like Smith & Wesson having concerns about the murder
rates...?!
Steven C. Barr