Something of a milestone occurred on the weekend of February
26 and 27, 2016. A national conference with one agenda: to gather together some
of the most important and influential people involved with radio preservation
and discuss the direction of archival holdings. The Radio Preservation Task
Force was created early in 2014 and grew out of the Library of Congress
National Recording Preservation Plan (December 2012). According to the RPTF, and
I am quoting them verbatim, the organization seeks to (1) support collaboration
between faculty researchers and archivists toward the preservation of radio
history, (2) develop an online inventory of extant American radio archival
collections, focusing on recorded sound holdings, including research aids, (3)
identify and save endangered collections, (4) develop pedagogical guides for
utilizing radio and sound archives, and (5) act as a clearing house to
encourage and expand academic study on the cultural history of radio through
the location of grants, the creation of research caucuses, and development of
metadata on extant materials. (To emphasize the importance: C-Span and CBS
Sunday Morning covered the event.)
The conference
was held at the Library of Congress and at the University of MD, and was
open to the public. There was an estimated 200 to 250 people in attendance, all of whom were a virtual who’s who among the field. While sitting in the audience I
discovered I was rubbing elbows with museum curators, archivists at university
libraries, and well… the most influential people in the country who are
involved with the management of audio preservation at vast archives.
 |
| During the opening keynote address of the RPTF in Washington, D.C. |
Fans and collectors of old-time
radio might wonder how this event relates to them. For the newcomer who feels this
article reads like Greek stereo instructions, bear with me for a moment and you
will see where this is going. (Apologies in advance for the lengthy essay but I promise by the end you will be rewarded.)
They say the first step in solving a problem is
acknowledging that there is one. For both librarians and museum curators, handicapped
with red tape, legal concerns, lack of necessary equipment, staffing issues and
budgetary limitations, the two day-conference gave those individuals an
opportunity to address those concerns and – with sincere intentions – explore
potential solutions. The event could best be described as a “meeting of the
minds.”
The Panels
Among the 20 individual panels were
such topics as “Radio Preservation: The State of the Nation,” “Surprising
Archives/Archival Surprises,” “Material Practices in Archives,” “Metadata and
Digital Archiving,” among the others. (For future reference, metadata is data
that describes other data, an underlying definition or description, which
summarizes basic information about data. In other words, a recording of a radio
broadcast is data, the title of the program and broadcast date which is used to
name that file is metadata.)
Because multiple panels were held at
the same time, no one person could possibly attend them all. Friends of mine
worked out a scheme whereupon we would each attend a different panel and
collaborate notes and exchange recordings made on our iPhones. While these
panels were diverse in subject matter, with each of the panelists representing
a different library/organization, the best of them were those that essentially
involved (1) a brief five-to-ten minute summary or slide show sample of an
archive housed at said library by each of the panelists and (2) a question
posed by each panelist that would aid them in their research with the hopes that
the “minds” in the room could propose solutions. This would be the equivalent
of detectives from various metropolitans getting together, each briefly
explaining a crime they have been unable to solve, and hoping another detective
in the room could suggest a solution.
 |
| Among the slide show presentations was history of an obscure 1937-57 radio program. |
Of the panels I attended, one librarian posed a question about
intra-archival discovery. While researching Subject A for his project, he came
across another collection in the same archive that contained what might be
valuable information for another historian. But how does he make it
known that Subject B is available for another researcher? (The solution involves reporting this discovery on the internet (almost any website would do) so a researcher, using google, will stumble upon the notation and thus the problem is resolved.)
Another question posed at a panel: “We have no doubt that
there are public citizens sitting on archival materials that need to be donated
for preservation. How do we bring to their attention that our facility would
gladly accept that collection for preservation?” One challenging question
plaguing researchers: “If there are virtually little or no recordings in
existence, should radio scripts be taken as the gospel? And if both exist,
which is more reliable?” It was agreed by most in the room that reading a radio
script can be different than listening, because emphasis on specific words and
delivery can change the meaning of the words. Not to mention the time frame
between rehearsal and broadcast can result in script revisions. (One could go into a lengthy essay about this but I will reserve this for a future blog post later this year, derived from experience.)
One concern addressed was the subject of sensitive materials.
A historian discovered that a specific producer of radio programs in the 1940s
was deeply involved in homosexual relations. Would there be legal ramifications
if she disclosed this in her published findings? Would the family of that radio
producer approve? How exactly do you define the moral ground when history is
history and facts are facts? Publish or not to publish, that was the question.
If you ask any journalist who writes for a major metropolitan newspaper, you
will more than likely be told that it is better to celebrate than expose. More
importantly, if the purpose of your research is to document and preserve a
radio program, would exposing this factoid distract the readers from the
initial agenda or overall message your book or magazine article was meant for?
A librarian who confessed their holdings have not yet been
digitized and explained the reason for the holdup is confusion. “We do not have
proper information about the recordings. (Titles, broadcast dates, etc.) We
need proper metadata first before we transfer the recordings, else we cannot
title the audio files properly.” In defense, a second librarian pointed out
that time was against them. The stability of the archival formats is breaking
down. The transfer of at-risk audio-visual material is essential. Metadata, the
second librarian rationalized, can be applied to the audio files after transfer.
The first librarian, however, was a wet blanket: “Oh, no. Library policy is
that we have to identify the recordings first.” The second librarian rationalized
that at his facility they have so many recordings that they have four units
running at the same time, eight hours a day. They admitted the con to their
process: “We cannot have an intern listening to four recordings at once to
identify what is on them and label the files accordingly. The transfer process
is primary. We can then have all the time needed to listen and identify the
recordings.”
One librarian questioned whether it was essential to transfer
thousands of hours of Arthur Godfrey radio broadcasts, or would it be better to
transfer one for each calendar month to best represent the progress of his
radio delivery over the years. The library has 800 plus recordings from
Godfrey’s 90-minute morning program and not enough interns to do the transfers
before the wire recordings go bad. Many argued that all of those recordings
were historic and all of them should be converted to digital. (Others
disagreed simply because the host was Arthur Godfrey.) But wouldn’t recordings
of Grandma Jones, a local radio host in Chicago, less known to radio
historians, be just as important as a national figure? Who is to judge what
recordings are more culturally significant than others? The answer to that last question is relative. As stated many times in this essay, there is no black and white, only grey.
These were among the challenges and concerns that librarians
hoped solutions have been found at other institutions, so they can return home,
report and either influence the powers-that-be to initiate revised policies, or
at the very least be motivated to take the first steps in removing the barriers
of red tape.
 |
| During the slide show seminars there were cool treasures revealed. |
The Definition of a Collector
The fact that librarians and curators were gathered in one
place to discuss and address their concerns, shared by mutual interest, is a
public confession that the preservation, access and education of radio
broadcasts of our past is endangered. For the most part, all of the libraries
represented are suffering from the same problems. For most, the transfer of
recordings needs to be done in-house and cannot be staffed by external volunteers
– only interns. The reason for this is not just library policy but libraries
have to maintain integrity and out-sourcing removes complete control of where
the recordings go after they leave the library. Most volunteers are sincere
but the hidden motives of a few have tarnished what potential possibilities there are with out-sourcing.
If I may inject personal commentary here: If policies are preventing or
handicapping preservation methods, then policies need to be revised. But archivists are staff, not policy or lawmakers. No
policy is constructive or advantageous if that very policy is the center of the
problem. A few librarians confessed that they found ways to break past the
barriers by establishing exceptions to library policy and most of those
acknowledged their solutions, with pride, applying the adage: “the ends justified the means.”
No policy is carved so deep in granite that an exception cannot be made.
Most of the good folks reading this article
need to understand three classifications: the collector, the historian (also
known as the researcher), and the archivist. The collector seeks copies of
recordings to hear, shelve, catalog, label and inventory what they own. The
collector buys, copies, swaps and downloads. More serious collectors will buy
transcription discs, wire recordings and cylinders from eBay and other
collectors, and will transfer from these master recordings for personal use (often for trade purposes). Less serious collectors download. No fault to either collector; their taste and preference is all dependent on how much -- or little -- they appreciate old time radio.
The historian is focused on gathering metadata from various archival
sources, to help identify recordings, broadcast dates and the history behind
the performers, writers, directors and of the program itself. They research
(i.e. travel and do the legwork) and publish their findings. (And yes, historians
have a collection of recordings in their possession but that does not make them solely classified
as a collector.) And you might be surprised to know that a recent study
discovered 55 percent of all extant sound recordings remain undated. Historians
contribute to lowering that percentage. You can thank one historian for having
reviewed all of the Popeye, the Sailor radio
scripts during the past year. You know those four Popeye radio broadcasts that have
circulated among collectors over the past few decades? We now have broadcast
dates, cast list and official episode numbers! Collectors who forget the role researchers play can momentarily thank the historian for that task. It took him two weeks to read all those radio scripts just to identify those four broadcast dates.
The archivist is responsible for the preservation aspect. The
archivist converts sound recordings to a digital medium, usually in broadcast
wav format (BWF), from the original cylinders, wire recordings, transcription
discs and other formats. The archivist catalogs and inventories, scans archival
documents and photographs, and performs all of these tasks using the best
equipment and software available. A collector generally maintains his or her
collection from private residence using standard hardware and software. An
archivist generally works from a library that is federal, county or state
funded, working with industry standard hardware and software. An archivist would never consider working from compressed mp3 files circulating on the internet. An archivist is concerned with the state of the original source material and working directly from the original source material.
As explained by the keynote speaker,
Paddy Scannell, Professor of Communication Studies at the University of
Michigan, “Collectors are generally not concerned about the historical aspect
of radio broadcasts. They are not content driven.” A collector hears the radio and a historian listens to the radio. “Hearing and
listening to radio is not the same,” Scannell explained. A historian listens to
the content of speech and voice, how words are spoken, and will decipher the
meaning and context. The collector hears Bob Hope tell a topical joke and
chooses to laugh – or not laugh – with the audience. A historian listens to
what Bob Hope said and laughs with full understanding of what the joke was
referring to. The success of Kate Smith and Arthur Godfrey, as Scannell
demonstrated, spoke not to an audience of millions but to one person – you, the radio listener. The
plea to purchase a War Bond was scripted and anyone could have delivered the message... but it was how Kate Smith delivered
that plea that helped her sell more than $40 million to aid the war cause.
The RPTF conference was open to the
public but I observed no collectors in attendance. I met Jeannette Berard of
the Thousand Oaks Library in California, who I communicated with by e-mail and
phone many times over the years. Now I can put a face to the e-mails. I was
introduced to Gene Fowler of the Border Radio Research Institute. I shared
lunch with Jack French, editor of Radio
Recall for the Metro Washington Old-Time Radio Club and author of Private Eyelashes. I chatted briefly
with Jason Loviglio of the University of Maryland, who is digging deeper into
the history of Judy and Jane
(1932-35). I since sent Jason some material pertaining to Judy and Jane that will aid in his search for more information, and
a researcher friend of mine has also sent him material as well. I talked
briefly with David Weinstein of the National Endowment for the Humanities about a
book he is working on, focusing on the career of Eddie Cantor, and his efforts
to unearth discoveries never before documented in prior publications. Others I
exchanged brief conversations with: Frank Absher of the St. Louis Radio
Society, Wendy Shay of the Smithsonian, David Hunter of the University of
Texas, Mary Huelsbeck of the University of Wisconsin, Laurie Sather of the
Hagley Museum and Library, and Jerry McBride of Stanford University. I chatted
briefly with good friend Dr. Michael Biel, one of the most knowledgable historians in the field. Ruta Abolins from the University of
Georgia answered a question that puzzled me for years. In short, while the event was open to the public, all of the
attendees were scholars, historians and archivists. There were virtually no
collectors.
 |
| Chuck Howell of the University of Maryland talks about Vox Pop. |
Clearing Up Misconceptions
Anyone who attends conventions (fan
gatherings to be specific, the majority of attendance being collectors) is aware that collectors in the hobby of old-time
radio exchange common misconceptions. Facebook has given people a social platform
to speak from a soap box and sadly, many collectors have used this podium to
spread those misconceptions to a broader audience. On Facebook, regardless of
what accuracy is provided by historians to correct those myths, many of these
collectors feed off each other until, twenty comments/responses later what was
an assumption is now misconstrued as a fact. Dave Thompson wrote in the introduction of Sherlock Holmes FAQ (Applause Theatre & Cinema Books, 2013), "While chroniclers of modern pop culture insist the Internet has democratized the art of criticism, allowing every user to voice his or her own in a public forum, the truth of the matter is somewhat different. Rather than voice a personal opinion, many people regard the Internet as a place to insist that their opinion is hard fact, will not acknowledge any contrary viewpoint, and actively spend their time trolling other sites in order to harshly dismiss any they might find. And for many of these sad and lonely middle-aged men who still live with their mothers, the Internet is the center of their universe."
To set the record straight on one
of these misconceptions, libraries housing archives of radio programs are in
the service of patrons. Libraries are not hoarding recordings. With but one or
two minor exceptions, there is no vast treasure trove of non-circulating radio
broadcasts in private collector hands. There is no old man in California sitting on 4,000 "lost" radio broadcasts of Og, Son of Fire. Truth be known, libraries want to make
their recordings and archives available to the public. That is the service they
provide. If it was not for red tape or policies, and if budgets would allow,
they would make their archives available for download from their websites. So
the next time a collector wants to start accusing archives and libraries and other private
collectors (of which they themselves don’t know the names of those they are
accusing) of hoarding, they may want to be cautious: criticizing the very
people and organizations that are making recordings available for free to the
masses is not exercising good judgment.
Evident from attending this weekend
conference was the general consensus among the field that the archivist works
for the benefit of the historian and researcher, deemed larger importance than
that of the patron. This is because the historian and researcher provides a service in return. During a recent trip to a public library half way across
the country, my secure relationship with the staff and reputation as a
historian and author granted me permission to scan over 500 archival
photographs pulled from storage. Normally the library charges a
fee per photo. But since my project was archival and for research purposes, they
granted the exception. At one time during my two days at the library I observed a woman who
sought a newspaper article about her great-grandmother. The patron found what
she was looking for and asked the librarian if she could have the photograph of
her relative scanned because laptops and scanners were not permitted in the reading
room. She was provided a form to fill out and told the fee would be $36, which
helped cover the cost and labor, and the photo image would be e-mailed within
72 hours. The patron asked why she had to pay a fee to get a scanned copy of a
photo of her great-grandmother (as if she was putting a dollar value on what
was obviously a treasure) when “that young man” was scanning all those photos with his laptop and scanner and not filling out any forms or paying for it. That young man, she was
referring to, was myself. The librarian made up the excuse that “he works
here”… and so the patron paid the $36. If the patron had explained that she
needed the photograph for genealogy and research purposes, and been polite about the matter, the librarian might
have granted her an exception.
While it may be discouraging to
report that such diversity exists in the academic field, it should be noted
that the gift of an archive has been taken for granted many times. Policies are
placed into effect for a reason; the donor may have had stipulations regarding
how the recordings and photographs are to be used. Collectors sometimes seek
recordings for personal gain and take advantage of the libraries; thus causing
revisions to the policies. Preservation is not illegal. Streaming, file
swapping and downloading recordings, for profit, is illegal if the
recording is still protected under copyright. And just because the recording is
old does not mean it has fallen into the “public domain.” Dropbox and other on-line file swapping software provides an element of privacy that cannot be monitored by the copyright holders. True, file swapping
is the modern-day equivalent to what collectors used to do in the 1980s and
1990s – copy audiocassettes and CDs and swap disc-for-disc. Many people have
gotten away with modern-day accumulations for such a lengthy period of time, and
know of others who do the same, that they forget that they are still liable for
what they do on the Internet... downloading included.
The rumors of large collections of historical papers and
archival materials being tossed in the dumpster does have a basis of truth. When a
new station manager walks through the door, their first decision is to chuck
the history in the dumpster because they do not know how to monetize it. When
the question comes up as to who is responsible for the discarding of radio
preservation, the answer usually falls on corporate decisions. (Remember when David Letterman retired and CBS ordered the destruction of the studio props, which today would be considered museum pieces by tens of thousands of people? People were literally dumpster diving because they wanted to save a piece of television history.) Collectors,
historians and archivists cringe when they hear such stories. But what happens
with the archival materials that is saved from the dumpster is dependent not
just with the individual who had the foresight to rescue the materials, but
what they do with the materials. And collectors who store these archives in
their basement, attic or garage with careless disregard for preserving them are
just as guilty as the people they claim are “hoarding.”
Which brings me to the last aspect of clarification. A "hoarder" in this subject of conversation is defined as someone who acquires
archival materials, including recordings, and does nothing with them except to
serve as bragging rights. They are not saving or preserving history through
this method. We are not discussing mp3 files downloaded off the Internet; those
are considered “copies” and downgrades from archival maters. What we are
discussing are transcription discs, photographs, radio scripts, scrapbooks, and
other materials that are archival in nature and considered original source material. If
permanent loss for all of time occurs as a result of flood or fire, the greed
of the hoarder is solely responsible for that loss. If, however, someone
rescues a transcription disc from the dumpster and arranges for the transfer to
digital files, and off-site backups to ensure the recording will never vanish,
then they are not – and should not – be classified as a hoarder. In fact, the
defense should be made that they truly rescued the material and deserve respect
and acknowledgment for taking the time to make sure such recordings are preserved. The pattern of behavior that stems from excessive
acquisition and the unwillingness to preserve original archival materials will
cause more than significant distress to the community. Among collectors, the
words “hoarding” and “hoarders” is branded about too often and with little
basis of knowledge.
 |
Closing keynote speech of the
first day by Sam Brylawski.
|
Closing Observations
At the close of the two-day seminar
a number of questions remained unanswered. For some of these concerns,
technological or theoretical, there is no black and white; only grey. Transferring
recordings from archival masters offers archivists the opportunity to improve
the sound quality better than the equipment used throughout the 1930s and 1940s.
But is that an alteration or a restoration, and is that a good thing? If an
archive has more recordings than they have both expense and staff at their
disposal, what is considered historically and culturally important, and who
determines which recordings to salvage first? Are local voices just as
important as national voices?
So what conclusions were formed
after the weekend? There were multiple reminders that there is no one archive
that houses a collection focusing on a particular subject. If you plan to research and perform an
archeological dig and publish your findings about any given subject, there is
more than one archive to visit. A scholarly committee agrees in general that
radio broadcasts from the 1950s is widely underestimated. Half of the solutions
proposed involved a uniform and one-stop source for metadata – including, I kid
you not, the proposal of having every collector in the country log and document
their entire holdings so everyone knows where every recording exists. (Anyone
with an I.Q. higher than room temperature can think of half a dozen reasons why
that proposal would never succeed.) At least four such proposals were mentioned
along similar grounds: unifying databases that involve countless factors that
would not make such a thing possible. There were three questions that have no
black and white answers and anything that resembled an answer was acknowledged
as subjective. Time could have been better spent avoiding those subjects.
There is “contested authority,” a growing divide between
archivists. It was unanimously agreed that much of the subject matter involving
radio broadcasts is hardly exciting, but historically significant and necessary
for preservation and there were differences of opinion regarding methods of
transfer, format and storage. What was unanimously agreed was using the best
software and hardware available to make those transfers – which of
course, requires the largest budgets. (Someone during the conference joked that
maybe archivists could turn to collectors for assistance because collectors commonly use freeware
downloaded off the Internet to improve those inferior mp3 files downloaded last week off the Internet. The
response from another was, “Why not buy a used Ferrari and then go to Wal-Mart and
buy the cheapest tires?”) As someone once described, collecting mp3 files is the equivalent to collecting pine needles.
Oral recorded history entertains the
collector but for historians, while they fill in gaps, interviews and
recollections are still suspect and unreliable. Also concluded was that every
institution believes they are under-staffed and not well-funded. And these were
decided unanimously, and are now considered uniformly standard.
It was generally agreed that
scholars and historians are needed for preservation and libraries should
collaborate with historians and scholars. This is probably why libraries service historians before patrons/collectors. It was also pointed out that
historians worked with both collectors and the archives, forming a working
relationship, a conduit between the two. One woman, working on a biography
about Jack Benny, having never written a book before, now questions the motives
of half the collectors she talked to and the reliability and accuracy of
information provided to her by the collecting community… and this she picked up from experience.
She admitted that the Internet led her down the wrong road too many times,
found hundreds of errors on multiple websites, and the only true accuracy stems from major discoveries found in archives across the country. This proves that
if you go to the source, you can avoid third-hand unreliability scattered
across the Internet. It was also agreed by the majority that the Internet was
not self-correcting, but self-evolving.
Libraries agreed that it is a disservice to amass, shelve and
store more material than they can catalog. For many libraries, polices dictate
in-house transfers and a lack of staffing due to limited budgets. During one
panel, I witnessed an archivist, representing the library she worked for,
waving about a wet blanket – she confessed they did not have the staffing
(interns) but when it was suggested by other librarians how they sought and
acquired exceptions to library policies to get the job done, she insisted that
the heads above her would not make an exception. Certainly not a proactive
position.
Established more than once was the fact that research of
old-time radio contributes to a genealogical resource. This includes someone
seeking the exact date of broadcast when her grandmother was a contestant on a
radio quiz program in the forties, or someone seeking the extant audio of their
father who was a guest on a radio interview program such as Vox Pop.
There were three different archivists over the weekend
providing brief ten-minute slide shows about subjects they were presently
working on, pleased to have an audience that appreciated the subject matter.
Each of them seeking sources of information and leads to further their
investigations, but none of them were aware of the first four essentials all
researchers of old-time radio use as a starting point when beginning any
project. This came as a surprise to me until a colleague, over dinner that
evening, mentioned his observation, “Archivists are not researchers.” This is
not to downgrade archivists in any way… remember, they were there to ask for
leads and take notes. If I can offer an observation of my own: the panelists
did a good job keeping the panels and comments moving smoothly and ending on
time. But resolutions to concerns and questions were conducted during an
exchange of notes and e-mail addresses between panelists and members of the
audience, following each panel, not during the caucus itself which could have benefited multiple people at the same time.
Historians and researchers during the weekend clarified the
difference between a web search and an archival search, local newspapers vs.
trade papers, and recording ownership vs. rights ownership. It was mentioned by
one panelist that the average public citizen have little
access to scholarly resources. Sadly, she was mistaken. What services are
provided today by local libraries is not only staggering but beyond anyone’s
expectations if they know what specifically to ask for and what to receive. (When
a friend of mine said he was unable to find information on a given subject, I
suggested he visit his local public library. “No, they don’t offer that
service,” he told me. “Wanna wager a box of donuts on that?” I asked. He was
dumbfounded when he discovered his public library gave him free magazine
subscriptions, complimentary access to portals that used to be available only from university
libraries, and access to free recordings that make Netflix and Redbox
obsolete.) If anyone thinks having access to the Internet from their home
computer is a vast countryside of websites, they have no conception of how many
equivalents to the Internet are available at their disposal thanks to their
local library.
Also clarified was the undisputed agreement that the Internet
should never be used as reference, but rather as a tool for reference. No
serious scholar, researcher or historian uses Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but
they will explore the links at the bottom to learn the whereabouts of archives,
gather contact information and discover titles of published reference works
they did not know existed. The Internet both compliments and challenges the
scholar/historian. The Internet has added confusion and spread myths. This was
agreed unanimously.
The Diogenes Syndrome
The Internet opened the door for what I term as “The Diogenes
Syndrome” among collectors who download free radio programs by the tons, disrespecting
quality for numbers, obsessed with the “more is better” mantra. They claim ownership of tens of thousands of audio files, not radio recordings (I had to
clarify the difference). Statistically, these collectors have more programs
than they have hours left in their life, and without proper education unjustly
gripe on social media that hoarders are responsible for the reason why they do
not have more. (If you ask them who these hoarders are, they can rarely name
names.) They consider themselves among the hobby of old-time radio; nothing can
be far from the truth. Many of these individuals do not buy or read books on
the subject, are not members of old-time radio clubs, and do not subscribe to
the club newsletters. Even fewer attend conventions (fan gatherings).
“That
carried me back maybe 15 or 18 years to my first trip to the home of the aging
founder of the KRA (Kentuckiana Radio Addicts) club in suburban Louisville,”
author and historian Jim Cox told me. “I was absolutely appalled out of my
wits not merely by the sophistication and range of his recording equipment but,
far more, by the bookcases, closet shelving, tables, desks, boxes, drawers, and
floor space appropriated for hundreds of thousands of shows. I had never
seen anything like it in a private collection. So surprised was I that I
inquired, ‘Have you listened to all these programs?’ He stunned me with his
retort: ‘No, and I won’t live long enough to do that.’ I couldn’t let it
pass. ‘Then why do you have so many?’ I asked. ‘So I’ll have them,’
came his instant reply. Here was the best example of the Diogenes Syndrome I
ever saw. That man died three or four years hence. And his wife made
a deal with a distributor in another state to clean out the house a short time
afterward. It all seemed like such a waste of time and money.”
While the limits of collecting is relative, the first
indication that someone is suffering from this syndrome is not compulsive, but
the decline of living quarters. If a collection extends beyond book shelves and wall
space, and starts taking up floor space, restraint is required. Sadly, there are many who sacrifice their living quarters (or a section thereof) in exchange of owning recordings they may never listen to in the first place. Burdened widows have thrown much in the dumpster after their spouse passed away. In the long run, children and grandchildren gain disrespect for "that old stuff" as a result of the inconvenience.
 |
| Bill Kirkpatrick of Denison University delivers his slide show. |
In Closing
For the most part everyone spoke with respect and proactively
throughout the weekend. Though collectors in the hobby were practically
non-existent, this may have been a blessing. The RPTF was neither the time or
place to gripe about “hoarders” or brag about the size of their – ahem,
collections. There were no egos here. Challenges and concerns were explained
both clear and concise, and suggested resolutions were proposed from both
experience and from a “meeting of the minds.” If I could be critical for a brief
moment, I believe more could have been accomplished if the panels that featured
five or six speakers were limited to three. The time allotted for discussion
and proposals for resolving concerns were limited. Most of the resolutions,
from what I observed, happened during break times.
One concept revisited during the weekend included the “Black
Hole Factor,” where libraries (thankfully only a few of them) sit on vast
collections for a lengthy period of time and do practically nothing but debate
when and how they are going process the collection. One solution proposed by a
library that boasts a successful track record was “a ten-year window policy”
from the date of donation to the completion of archival and cataloging. It
would seem private individuals who hoard collections should follow this advice.
I can name two other examples that occurred in the past two
years where, everyone agreed a digitization process was essential for
preservation, and volunteers donated both time and money to accomplish the task
that decades-old policies and red tape prevented. From experience, obstacles
are overcome when exceptions are made and volunteers – and out-sourcing – is
embraced with open arms. And what better public relations could an institution
ask for than a national magazine reports how decision makers formulated a plan
to temporarily cut red tape and allow private donations and volunteers do the
job that everyone agrees, “the ends will justify the means.” Would this not be
inspirational, trend-setting and set precedence for others to follow their
lead?
If the RPTF holds a second conference next year, my hope is that a seminar offers three historians and researchers the chance to demonstrate what obstacles and firewalls they have experienced from libraries and archives.
If anything was accomplished through the seminar that weekend
it was the general acceptance and acknowledgement that libraries housing
archives need to do better. And they want to do better. And these archivists
acknowledge the challenges they need to overcome to find immediate solutions. No
one was pointing fingers; no one was blame-shifting. There was a positive
outlook throughout the entire weekend. Challenges were defined: digitizing,
inventory records, costs and funding, targeting and inclusion, metadata, and
the suggestion of establishing intern programs to resolve staffing issues. And
everyone was taking notes on notepads, iPads and laptops throughout the
weekend, hoping to return with possible solutions to such challenges. But I
guess the only way to judge whether the weekend was truly a success is whether
progress reports are delivered at next year’s conference.
For more information about the Radio Preservation Task Force, visit:
