| Re-read the quote, people | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 11:18 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: SWEENEY TODD selected for the Library of Congress - NightMusic77 09:39 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| It seems very clear that Sondheim is referring to sound recordings in general, not just to cast albums or to SWEENEY TODD. When recordings are added to the Library of Congress National Recording Registry, it means -- among other things -- that their preservation is guaranteed. The registry has added, and I'm sure continues to add, many recordings that are very old and whose preservation might not otherwise be a given. And among all the items added to the registry, I'm sure there are many recordings of music that was never written down; therefore, these recordings are the only record of that music. Even if none of the recordings on the new list fit this category, the larger point remains. I'm really surprised that anyone misunderstood Sondheim's meaning. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Re-read the quote, people | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:33 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | Re-read the quote, people - Michael_Portantiere 11:18 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| I agree with your reading of what Sondheim meant. But that only underscores my point: why are they expending scarce resources pretending to preserve things that do not require preserving? There are, as you rightly point out, lots of recordings that are NOT preserved or at least not well preserved. But preserving obscure recordings gets no publicity, so they make a pretense of preserving something that does not need it. Typical. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Re-read the quote, people | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 11:40 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Re-read the quote, people - ryhog 11:33 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| Oh, I see. Good point, but I guess I would argue that NOTHING should be taken for granted in terms of preservation. Look at the films of MY FAIR LADY and CABARET. Two incredibly popular films, yet, for various reasons, the original elements of both had deteriorated so alarmingly over the years that major restoration eventually became necessary. Yes, my two examples are films, but I think the argument applies to recordings as well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Re-read the quote, people | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:52 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Re-read the quote, people - Michael_Portantiere 11:40 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| In theory, yes, but we can in fact take for granted that the OCR of Sweeney is already well and permanently preserved unless, as I say, there is some digital holocaust. Personally, I think the bigger threat is not preservation but accessibility, as evidenced by what has happened to the Beatles catalogue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Re-read the quote, people | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 11:56 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Re-read the quote, people - ryhog 11:52 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| Agreed. Also, let's face it, addition to the Library of Congress registry generates publicity for old recordings and, therefore, hopefully gains them some new listeners. I'm sure you'll agree that's not a bad thing. Is a significant amount of The Beatles' catalog now inaccessible? That's news to me, and I'm VERY surprised. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| also | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 12:15 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Re-read the quote, people - Michael_Portantiere 11:56 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| I agree it is not a bad thing but I guess my question is whether that's the best use of the LOC's resources. I think it is more important to legitimately preserve music that, as Sondheim notes, is not otherwise known in the form in which it was recorded. And it is not like we have run out of unpreserved recordings. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Re-read the quote, people | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 12:10 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Re-read the quote, people - Michael_Portantiere 11:56 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| The Beatles catalog is owned by Apple, so digitally if you are not in the Apple ecosystem (and we should remember that even though it may seem ubiquitous in the affluent quarters of the US, it is not so universally) you cannot gain digital access. Now this may not seem like a crisis vis a vis the Beatles, but if you extend it out longterm to, say, the catalog of Jason Robert Brown, you can see that the lack of access is something to be concerned about in a digital world. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| the Beatles catalog is not owned by Apple, Inc. | |
| Posted by: | Vint 05:02 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Re-read the quote, people - ryhog 12:10 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| It's hard to keep track of these things, and the rights to the Beatles catalog has a long an checkered history, and there's the whole issue of Apple Records vs. Apple Computers being different companies united only in choice of name, but, as I understand it, at present: EMI (the business successor of Apple Records, formerly part of Apple Corps) owns the Beatles recordings. Apple, Inc. (formerly Apple Computers) has a license to distribute the music via iTunes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| No-just the digital distribution rights | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 05:48 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | the Beatles catalog is not owned by Apple, Inc. - Vint 05:02 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| which they acquired from EMI and which, unless there is a remarkable u-turn, will be the only way to acquire it in due course. That is why you will not find Beatles on Spotify or Amazon as an example. This is what I mean when I say we should me more concerned about access than preservation. None of this music is going to disappear not that it is digitized, but if it is inaccessible or a corporation controls who can access it and at what price, that is cause for concern. And that is especially true in the theatre, where things tend to become obscure fairly quickly and fairly often. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Please take this discussion to email | |
| Last Edit: | T.B._Admin. 06:14 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| Posted by: | T.B._Admin. 06:12 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | No-just the digital distribution rights - ryhog 05:48 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| Re: the rights of Beatles songs. It will be deleted shortly. | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.456347 seconds.