Re: [ARSCLIST] 21st Century Discographies

[stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

----- Original Message -----
From: "David S Sager" <dsag@xxxxxxx>
> I think that detailed notes concerning how the discographical
> information was obtained is important...eg from companies files, from
> interviews with musicians.  Thank goodness for Brian Rust, however I
> often wish I knew where he had gotten some of his details from!  Same
> for more current general and more focused discographies.
>
> Also useful would be to include technical information if available as
> to types of microphones, room size etc...
>
> I cannot see a discography having sound samples- call me old fashioned-
> a discography is a discography, used to identify factors that made up a
> recording session...it should not be a recording itself.
>
> Photos from  recording sessions would be a nice touch.
1) Some of Rust's data came from original ledgers, where such exist; for
most
entries the label/catalog number data was probably found in the "New
Releases"
sections of trade magazines like "Talking Machine Word," while personnel
were
probably found in periodicals like "Billboard" and "Variety" as well as
other
music magazines. As well, he had access to personal files of musicians like
Ed Kirkeby, who kept lists of all his recording sessions.

2) Technical information is often unavailable...or meaningless, since
cryptic
references are often used which mean nothing to us today.

3) Discographies never included sound samples because there was no practical
way to do so before the "digital age." Note that the sound files would not
have
to be part of the discographic data, but if there were an archive of sound
files (i.e. PrGr) then a relationship could exist between the sound file
archive and the discographic data record, since both refer to the same
phonorecord.
Steven C. Barr