Experts fear labels will lose stored music

Smiley Roberts · From: Hendersonville,Tn. 37075

Long,but very informative. Writen by Craig Havighurst,of the Nashville "Tennessean".
=============================================
Experts fear labels will lose stored music
By CRAIG HAVIGHURST
Staff Writer

Record labels, under severe profit pressure in Nashville and globally, face a future in which finding multiple uses of their recorded music will be more important than ever.
But leading audio engineers say that rapid changes in the digital technology used to record and save that music are jeopardizing the ability to use original studio master recordings needed for re-mixing, editing and ''re-purposing'' music beyond the regular album release.
For consumers, that means favorite songs may never appear in movie soundtracks or as mood music on TV shows. More dramatically, they may not be re-released in next-generation audio formats that take advantage of surround-sound home theater systems.
For record companies, it could mean lost revenue and lost history. Besides the remixing for soundtracks and other specialized uses, studio masters are frequently tapped for out-takes or unreleased material by historically important artists.
Nashville's chapter of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences is at the forefront of solutions to the problem, which dates to the beginning of the digital recording era more than 10 years ago. But leading audio engineers and record label officials say that some studio master recordings from recent years could not be recoverable in the near future, or even today.
''It's a ticking time bomb,'' said Alison Booth, who's in charge of archiving completed albums for Nashville's RCA Label Group. ''The problem is right around the corner. It's only been in recent years that this has started being something record labels have worried about. The real horror stories are going to come in a couple years from now.''
In one recent instance, Booth said, master recordings of a Nashville-made album were sent for remixing to Los Angeles, where engineers discovered numerous parts missing. Those parts were hunted down on an engineer's computer and reconciled with the original track, but it was a costly, time-consuming mistake and the kind of close call that presages bigger problems later.
''We had to pull in the original producer and engineer,'' Booth said. ''Eventually, it was found, but I know of other labels that have been in a position of not being able to find them.''
Executives at Sony Nashville and Capitol Nashville in positions similar to Booth's said they didn't know of any album originals that had been lost. But they acknowledge the problem and support the recording academy's effort to agree on standards.
Dying digits
When studio masters were saved on reel-to-reel tape, recordings could sit in record company vaults for decades. But in the past decade, studio masters have been saved digitally to a variety of media that are growing obsolete and unusable much faster than engineers and labels first anticipated.
The albums themselves are not in jeopardy. But the stereo master that is duplicated onto CDs is just one derivative of what's called a ''multi-track master,'' which contains all the individual parts of an ensemble performance. Those parts can be adjusted for volume, timing, pitch or quality of sound. If the multi-track master is unusable, the lucrative supplemental products become difficult, if not impossible, to create.
Original digital masters are vulnerable for a variety of reasons, say recording engineers who were interviewed. One is rapidly changing software and the computers that run it. Like that resume you carefully typed and formatted in 1997 but can't recover on your new PC, master data files sometimes can be called up only on the studio systems that made them.
Often the settings and parameters of those computer files are poorly documented, making many key alterations to sounds unrecoverable, as if the resume came up without the proper typeface or spacing.
Leading engineer Chuck Ainlay said master multi-tracks had been turned in on wildly inconsistent formats in recent years — including various digital tapes, whose specialized players are no longer manufactured, and hard disk drives, which tend to freeze up if not used frequently. ''The music made during the last couple of years is probably not retrievable. You can imagine the losses the labels will incur when they try to bring the stuff back out,'' he said.
Even the storage media are vulnerable. Barry Cardinael, an ex-pert on audio archiving, said that, in the early 1990s, many in the music industry considered digital audiotape, known as DAT, to be a long-term storage medium. It turns out, though, that those tapes begin randomly losing data in as few as seven years, while traditional analog tape can last for five to seven decades.
Selling solutions
The idea that record companies could lose their most vital assets even if kept in protective vaults is a hard idea to communicate to senior music executives, says Marshall Morgan, vice president of Bridge Media Solutions, which offers data storage and verification solutions to Music Row. The company struck its first deal with the RCA Label Group.
''It's eventually going to be a legal and accounting issue,'' Morgan said. ''When record labels are sold, people are going to say, 'On paper you own these assets. Now, can you verify to us that these all exist and are playable in this day and age?' ''
Bridge Media's president, John Spencer, estimates that up to 10% of major label projects from the past five years are already unrecoverable. He's not alone.
''I don't know that we've lost a whole record, but it's enough to get our attention,'' said George Massenburg, one of the nation's leading audio engineers. ''I think we're all years late. We knew about this three years ago, and we were slow in getting going.''
What got going was a Nashville-based committee of the producers and engineers wing of the recording academy, which has spent the past year and a half developing standards so that all albums will be delivered to record labels in the same format. The group, which consulted with technical people all over the country, includes Massenburg, Booth, Spencer and Morgan, as well as key producers such as Tony Brown and Garth Fundis.
Their core recommendation is to have all albums converted from the brand-specific and computer-specific formats in which they're mixed to an open-source, industry standard software format called Broadcast Wave.
Along the way, the group has had to confront issues that dig to the core of creativity and advancing technology. For example, producers and labels have butted heads over whether a record company has a claim to every take of every song made under contract in the studio or whether the artist and producer have the right to turn in only edited takes they deem worthy of sale.
Noted engineer Gary Paczosa, who works with Alison Krauss and others, says that in the old days of analog tape, poor vocal takes were simply recorded over.
''Now you keep stuff that's out of tune because you can pitch-fix it,'' he said.
Engineers piece together vocal takes from the best snippets of a dozen or more ''passes'' into a final ''performance.'' Many believe generally that the rest should be discarded. ''Our responsibility is to make sure that the artist is never embarrassed later on,'' Paczosa says.
Booth at RCA says that out-takes and alternate versions could become valuable property years later and that because the sessions were paid for by the label, they are label property.
Consider the work of Elvis Presley. ''If there hadn't been out-takes, or him talking in the studio, RCA would have missed so much revenue from not having access to those things,'' Booth said. ''And the way the recording industry is going now, we've got to have everything we can take advantage of later.''

------------------

  ~ ~


  ©¿©  It don't mean a thang,   


  mm   if it ain't got that twang.


       www.ntsga.com

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

Who really gives a damm about the labels.......

The labels have screwed over the artist,musicians,and consumers so bad for the past 30 years,Now their bitchin' and grippin' cause they are looseing the strangle-hold they had.

Let em' die a horrible death !!!

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Thanks, Smiley, I missed that one

.

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

I don't know much at all about the recording industry, so I guess that's why I don't understand what the complaint is. Also, it sorta' sounds like somebody complaining about the possibility of losing their wallet. Yeah, if you're not careful with it, you're gonna lose it. So, if you don't want to lose it, be careful where you put it. Same thing goes for the digital masters -- don't complain about it, do something about it.

Besides, what if the masters ARE lost? There are a million CD copies out there of just about everything -- so throw a couple of those in the vault and forget about it. By the way, comparing Elvis out-takes to todays music is pretty darned funny in my opinion.

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would ever want the original masters of most of the current stuff.

Ken Lang · From: Simi Valley, Ca

While I generally agree with the hose the record company stuff, consider this, which I sure is no surprise to anyone.

We have paper or papyrus or bronze tablets or copper scrolls or just plain scratchings on rocks from thousands of years ago that we can still read today.

In the 1980's our company made a ton of money supplying equipment to 3M to polish the faces of the 8" and 5-1/4 floppy disks popular at the time. I don't think an 8" floppy drive exists at all today, and a 5-1/4 drive, while ancient, may still be around for old times sake. We saved one, just to be able to read and update info to a newer medium, and it is about to join the junk heap of progress.

In a nut shell, what that all means is while we can read stuff from 4000 years ago forever, we can lose forever stuff from 20 years ago.

Odd thing, progress.

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

Good point, BUT -- there's one HECK of a lot more CRAP being put onto storage media these days, including onto digital media, bronze, marble, paper, steel, gold, etc. etc. etc. than there ever was before.

Remember when vinyl platters and magnetic tapes were the only way to store music? I doubt there are very many turntables or tape players still out there on a comparative basis relative to the number of CD players and MP3 players, etc. etc. But, I'm not too worried about anything that may have become lost due to the shift from ananlog vinyl to digital CompactDisk. In fact, I like mostly old music and there's more old music still available than I could ever imagine acquiring in a lifetime.

Besides, as long as we have the media, we have the technology to read it. After all, we built the darned thing once, we can build it again if we need to read something that's all that important.

I guess the point is that changes in data storage technology are bound to occur. But the data that really matters is not going to get left behind except in rare cases where somebody has their head up their . . . well, you know what.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 11 February 2003 at 09:41 PM.]

chas smith R.I.P. · From: Encino, CA, USA

Stephen St. Croix, who writes for MIX, had a column about the ethical dilemma for remixing the old tapes for CD, and that was, 'do you mix it to be the same as it was, "flaws" and all, or do you "fix" it to take advantage of the greater range available'. He put it more like, "Do you mix it to sound like how it was or how you remember it to be or how you wish it was?"

CD's are a lot more delicate than we think they are. Scratch the reflective coating off one and that data is lost.

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Chas--I always enjoy Stephen's columns. I wonder what he's like in person...?

I just finished a 10 hour session mixing/editing on a Paris DAW, which he had a big part in designing. Great system...

Bill Llewellyn · From: San Jose, CA

Chas, I think maybe you're thinking of recordable CDs.... On those, the recorded surface is at or near the outside surface on the label side of the CD. It's vulnerable. If you scratch it or it begins to peel, you lose data. Mass-produced CD have the recorded layer embedded further in and therefore are more robust.

CDs are also almost unbreakable. Ever take one and try to fold in in half? They spring right back with no signs of the contortion at all. Amazing.

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

The issue of "obsolete media" touches not only music, but books, video, and still pictures, as well. Digital technology isn't nearly as forgiving as analog media. A single unreadable byte in a program can render the whole thing useless. On the other hand, losing a page or two from the book "War and Peace" wouldn't be a big deal!

If the standards keep changing (improving?), none of the digital media we have now will be readable (by the vast majority of us) in just a few decades. Analog tape is a proven long-term media, but it's almost all been supplanted by the digital stuff.

Most of us can still enjoy records and pictures (photographs) from 50 years ago, but 50 years from now, all your hundreds of CD's and DVD's will be good for coasters...and that's about it.

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

Donny, with all due respect, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Sure, I understand that if things keep changing the way they are, that in fifty years most of the data storage media will not be readable by most of us. But, that's not necessarily a problem is it? For example, as you've pointed out, in fifty years CD's will be as useless as vinyl records are now. However, you can still listen to a vinyl record if you still have a turntable -- just as you'll still be able to listen to a CD in fifty years if you still have a CD player.

So, I don't understand why in fifty years a CD will be less valuable or readable or whatever, than say, a vinyl record is now. Sure, if you throw out your CD player in the next fifty years, you might not be able to play your CD's. But the same thing can be said about turntables, tape players, etc. etc.

For example, as you've said, analog tape used to be state of the art. But, if you still have your old 8-track player, you can still play those 8-track tapes. You can even transfer the 8-track stuff to a CD if you want to.

If the technology does improve, which I'm sure it will, it doesn't mean everything will get lost, it just means it'll be transferred onto different types of media -- just as has been the case for music with the shift to digital storage technology. The good thing about digital media is that, for the most part, you can copy it to another form of digital media with no loss of data, unlike an analog storage media such as record platter or analog tape. Just my thoughts -- however, I might not be seeing the whole picture for some reason

Bob Hoffnar · From: Austin, Tx

I think the point is that currently digital storage doesn't work so well.

Bob

Chip Fossa · From: Monson, MA, USA (deceased)

Well put Donny, and everyone else; short term.
Bottoms up.

I've got hundreds, HUNDREDS, of my genration's
greatest music, all on LP vinyl, and to a lesser extent on cassette, and now, even less, on CD.

I have a TEAC 4track w/simulsync analog
taperecorder that I bought used from an elderly gentleman, who used the thing exactly 21/2 times. (get it?)

Those 10" reels are still available, and in my small and diminutive way, will now start
with a purpose to start putting those LPs onto reel to reel.

Whaddaya think? I could actually put the Lp's on the pc, first off, and 'clean them up'.

Or should I just load them on the reels,
"as is"?.

All comments and theories welcomed???????

I've been meaning to do this big transfer
for many years now, ever since I bought my 1st PC; but now it almost seems like this notion has taken on a messianic venture.

Chipper

Glenn Austin · From: Montreal, Canada

Analog storage does not work do well either. Yesterday a gentleman brought me 8 1/4 inch master tapes of his band recorded in the the late 70's to the early 90's. Out of 8 reels only 2 were playable, all the rest were shedding like crazy. ironically, the tapes from the 70's were the ones in the best shape. Scotch 250. If tapes were not kept in a cool dry place then forget it.

Chip, you should invest in a high end turntable like this http://www.oracle-audio.com/delphi/index.html that won't wear out your records, instead of buying a thousand reels of tape. Enjoy those LP's !

Leslie Ehrlich · From: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

I think the issue here is one of software compatibility. If the original tracks were recorded on software that is obsolete, they can't be retrieved again unless they are played with the software that was used record them. Furthermore, newer machines may have operating systems that don't recognize older software. So the problem lies squarely with the computer industry. Software manufacturers are going to have to set standards of compatibility if older data is to be stored and retrieved at a later date. In the meantime, don't throw those old computers and software away!

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

I guess if the issue is whether the masters will be readable in years to come AND if the masters are stored in some sort of off-the-wall format, I can see that there is a potential for accessibility problems down the line if the software changes.

But, if that's true, then why not simply store the data in some format that's not as likely to be outdated? For example, all the tracks of a song master could probably be stored on just one high-density CD. The CD, as a form of storage media, is not likely to fall by the wayside any time soon. So, as long as there are CD players around or CD ROMs, the data will be recoverable -- that is, CD digital sound processing software is not likely to change to the point that old CD's are not readable. And, since a CD player's output signal is analog, you don't have to worry about any type of software or firmware as long as you've got a CD player around.

The only issue would be that the sound quality would be limited to that of the CD technology. But, by the same token, the sound recordings from the 30's and 40's are pretty primitive by today's standards, yet people still dig 'em.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 13 February 2003 at 09:33 AM.]

Chip Fossa · From: Monson, MA, USA (deceased)

AND...How ya'll feel about CD vs LP?

Is it a fact that CDs are "cold" and, almost too precise, then the more mellow vinyl LPs of yore.

When CD's first came out, me and John Macy
happened to be in the same proximity (Colorado). John has always been a great friend, steel player, and all-around knowledgable fellow on recording and production. He knows his stuff.

So John, quipped to me one day, out of the blue, what he thought of this new thing called CDs.

And I'll never forget what he had to say.

He said that CDs, while yes, are a great
new technology and can make things sound just super, without any slurs/hiccups/delays---have another problem. Another problem that only John realized at the time.

So I said, "And John, what would those problems be?" Because to me, CD's sound so superior to LPs and Cassettes!

And John said......"well, there are holes in there."

OH?!?...Well........John tried to explain it
to me. John Macy is one of a kind. He knows exactly what he's talking about. He may not be that astute in getting his ideas across to us mortals. But I've always believed in what he had to say. This guy is busy. Why would he waste his time [or mine] to espouse crappola?

So anyway, what I think JM was telling me back then, was that......CD's are great in one sense....crystal clarity; no skips(?);

but on the downside-----some of the warmth and soul has been subjegated......to this digitizarama.

What ya'll think???????

Chipman

Dave Boothroyd · From: Staffordshire Moorlands

I don't want to start a CD vs Vinyl debate, but comments from the early days of CD introduction are not really relevant to the way CDs sound now.
When CDs first came out the filters used in the Analog to Digital conversion and again in the D to A converter in the player were crude things which in themselves produced the harsh overtones that Hi Fi buffs complained about.These physical filters added tones and phase distortions which are called artefacts, because they are created by the process. It was easy then to have a Vinyl based system that sounded better.
These days there are actually no physical filters in CD machines. They have a software routine called a Finite Impulse Filter or FIR which avoids creating artefacts. You are going to have to pay mega money to get a vinyl deck that sounds as good- don't forget that every vinyl record has its bass compressed and then re-emphasised by the RIAA equalisation circuit in the player- and that creates artefacts too!
There is no comparison between the sound quality of a modern CD player and the early ones.
However, one of the dangers of the rapid change in technolgy is that the production life of the chips is very short. The chances of getting a ten year old piece of Hi tech kit repaired are very poor, because the components to do the job are not available.
You may still have a CD player in 50 years time, and you may still have your CD's, but what will happen when it breaks down and they don't make FIR chips any more? That is the problem for the record business, but on a much bigger scale.
On the bright side, it might mean that they have to go back to searching out and developing new musicians instead of the constant remixing of old stuff. Then we might have to have a live music scene again.
Cheers
Dave
Cheers

[This message was edited by Dave Boothroyd on 15 February 2003 at 01:37 AM.]

[This message was edited by Dave Boothroyd on 15 February 2003 at 01:39 AM.]

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

So that Tom understands a little better, I'll explain my theory on the "technology stamina" problem.

Computer technology moves at an astonishing pace. Just about two decades ago, I bought my first "real" computer...a Global "Hyper-286". It cost $2800, and featured a switchable 8-to-16 Mhz processor, a 20-meg hard drive, and 1 meg of ram...no sound card (they didn't have sound cards then). It came with a mouse, and a 14-inch color monitor.

That's it!

Needless to say, no one makes anything now (other than a monitor or pointing device) that is compatible with that computer. You couldn't buy a new hard drive today for it, and you probably couldn't find new ram or I/O cards for it either. I don't think any of the programs I bought for that computer (yes, I still have all of them!) could be made to run on today's computer's OS's or hardware. In short, that technology is dead, and will probably never be resurrected...there's just no reason to do it. How many people do you know that still need a working 286 computer?

Now, let's look at vinyl...

Turntables are still being made and sold! Records (though very few are still being made) are still a hot commodity, even though they were effectively made obsolete...almost two decades ago. Likewise, tube amplifiers are still a hot commodity. We haven't even made tubes in this country for about 20 years, but people are still building tube amplifiers!

The moral is, technologies that move too fast (like nature's own cheetah) just don't have the "staying power", or stamina to stay around for the long haul...they're "throw-aways". They didn't stay around for decades, and get refined (without being re-engineered) so people could identify with them. Sure, they sell like crazy for a very short while, then fade into oblivion like a shooting-star.

On the other hand...that which progresses at a slow pace usually fades out the same way. Will there still be CD players being sold 20 years from now? Somehow, I doubt it. Hi density static media (like those flash-cards in your camera, and those memory sticks in your digital video recorder) will probably be in wide use by then, and maybe even the motor-driven hard drives will be a thing of the past. Finding a new hard drive for your computer, or a new CD player might be quite a challenge.

Sorta like trying to find a new 8-track player today.

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

I guess my point can be boiled down to this -- it doesn't appear that there has been much (if any) music lost in the conversion of the music industry from vinyl records to CD's. Based on that, I don't see that there is a danger of losing music when the industry converts from CD's to whatever the next format is. As you've pointed out, Donny, if the masters are stored in some off-the-wall format that's only readable by using some arcane software, then sure, it might be lost. But as I've said above, I don't see the necessity in doing that if there are other storage mediums available.