|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 10, 2005 13:12:05 GMT
Seems to me though that if any more material was to be wiped in the future sometime, the decision to do so should NOT rest with the BBC (the scenario is a bit like the police investigating a complaint about their conduct themselves!) It's clear that they still have too much power in their hands in this respect (and the BFI are little better either as they only pursue a selective and elitist preservation agenda). No one can say what is / isn't of value now or in the near future. The BBC presumes a lot by taking the decision itself. One thing is sure though - they haven't learned from past mistakes (if they had then it would now be unthinkable to even entertain the possibility of it happening again in future, no matter how small an amount - hasn't enough of the past been lost already?!?). Posterity doesn't come into it (sadly). It's all about potential re-screening value and sales. Our descendents won't thank us for the rag bag of incomplete treasures left to them that are the TV archives. TV Archiving is far too important to be left in the hands of TV archivists. With respect, TV archiving is best left in the hands of TV archivisits because the lessons of the past have been learnt. And if not 'TV archivists' then who? It's like saying librarians aren't fit to look after the British Library. These decisions aren't made in abstract, people are answerable to the Board of Governors ultimately, and there is much discussion within the tv community about archiving policy. Everyone is fully informed about the outlets for archived material, and while those may not be as great at present as we all might like, that's not to say the mistake of assuming there will never be any other outlets in the future will be made again. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it's pretty good, all things considered. I've perhaps painted too doom-laden a picture of what might happen in the future - the point I was trying to make is that you really don't need every single episode of a lot of series to know what it was like, to gauge its contribution to the nation's culture. With a lot of daytime tv, frankly, it would be akin to archiving the entire transmissions of the test card. I suspect if a lot of people here were to actually do this for a living they might have a different opinion of what is important - if only that viewing things in the abstract, having the idea that all television is equally valuable (and indeed *all* valuable intrinsically) is an unrealisitic and I would argue, invalid assertion. No-one is about to wipe any more drama, or sitcoms, or any of the other major genres. Minor genres will at least have representative episodes - but as mentioned above, *don't* for heaven's sake imagine that there's any danger of any more wiping of unique transmission tapes now or in any foreseeable future. We do now realise that would be shooting ourselves in the foot, to say the least... There is, incidentally, also the fact that so much material is produced independently these days, and the companies making programmes all keep their own material (ie copies, not the transmission masters). On the point by Grumbledook about archiving formats - for the moment the main transmission medium (ie master tapes, whether used to download to servers, or directly) which are also the archive medium, at the BBC at least, is digibeta - which while much smaller than the old 2" quad tapes are still not insubstantial. There is also the problem of course that more channels mean more programmes, even allowing for the repetition on some digital channels! (And one individual musician's archive of his output is going to be a lot easier to find storage for, regardless of tape size, than a national broadcaster!) But your saying that not every episode of a series needs to be kept is purely your opinion, Andrew. Others (including me) might think differently. The archive was set up to conserve...but what happens? More junkings right into the 1990s! The fact that Rentaghost (regardless of it's merits - it's fans are out there who would not be happy to know that it was considered by the BBC to be worthless) managed to survive was a fluke in that it happened to be sold elsewhere and only now is seen as having "value" due to unforeseen further repeats. A very short-term view. That doesn't say to me that lessons have been learned. I meant what I said about TV archiving being too important to be left in the hands of archivists though. Too often, an objective view is not held from the inside and usually the wood can't be seen for the trees in these circumstances. For instance, archivists might know about the TV industry but making a decision about keeping a pop music programme is better made by an expert / fan of pop music (and not a librarian). The same goes for, say, cultural historians with respect to current affairs programming and playwrights with respect to single dramas etc etc. This is why many rightly bemoan the state of the archives; they would probably have seen more clearly (even at the time) what was being lost by the junkings although they had no say over the outcome of them. It is a much broader cultural thing than just TV people making unilateral decisions about what they see fit to keep or not. This is our visual history of the 20th century and beyond and those kind of decisions should be made by enlightened people OUTSIDE the industry. Consulting the TV community / governors etc on archiving is a very narrow thing in itself and it needs to be thrown open to cultural commentators of all kinds. Ultimately it also needs will on the part of governments to ensure that money is available to archive properly. And I can't believe that lessons have been learned from past mistakes - if they had been then there would be no need for any kind of archive grading system anyway!
|
|
|
Post by andrew martin on Nov 10, 2005 17:48:48 GMT
Yes the archive was set up to conserve - a respresentative sample of programming, no-one ever said the BBC had to keep everything. As it happens the BBC actually keeps the entire output in important genres, and a very large sample of other genres. You complain of wiping in the (early) 90s as if that means it is happening now - it is over 10 years ago. You say lessons haven't be learned - well they have insofar as even that wiping policy has changed. Saying that specialists need to advise on preservation of genres such as pop music I think is unnecessary - no-one wipes the sort of programmes you mention any more at all, such as pop music or current affairs, and it's not beyond the wit of any archive selector to gauge that these programmes are important. The mass junkings of important (as we realise now) programmes in the 60s and 70s occurred when there was no obligation on the BBC to keep an archive and no such post as archive selector/tv archivist (that is a single executive post, rather than a generic term for people working in the archives, by the way). While those junking are now rightly regarded as a huge tragic short-sighted mistake, the environment is completely different now - but there is really very little that can be done about the material that is lost. It's fairly pointless chastising the BBC for it now, as the people who were responsible don't work here any more (it's 30 years or more ago - they've retired!).
It does come down to money ultimately and always will. An archive also has to be a resource that is used, not just a dead store, and I for one would genuinely love for more access to be available to those who are interested (always remembering - as all niche enthusiasts must) that the great majority of people are not! Money for archiving must come from somewhere, either the licence fee if done by the BBC (with some input perhaps, indirectly, from commercial exploitation, but the majority of archival material can't hope to earn its keep that way), or in some sort of proper national tv archive, presumably government funded. I can think of a number of reasons why neither the tv companies (who after all own the rights) or the government would be keen on that idea - and if it was a government funded archive it would inevitably always be at the mercy of budget cuts imposed by the Treasury! I can appreciate the points you're making, perhaps I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate in a way - but while we may never get the tv archiving policy we might like, surely it's clear that there has been a massive sea-change in policy over the last generation, which is genuinely preserving the tv culture of the country (or reminding us that we used to have one?).
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 11, 2005 9:38:04 GMT
Yes the archive was set up to conserve - a respresentative sample of programming, no-one ever said the BBC had to keep everything. As it happens the BBC actually keeps the entire output in important genres, and a very large sample of other genres. You complain of wiping in the (early) 90s as if that means it is happening now - it is over 10 years ago. You say lessons haven't be learned - well they have insofar as even that wiping policy has changed. Saying that specialists need to advise on preservation of genres such as pop music I think is unnecessary - no-one wipes the sort of programmes you mention any more at all, such as pop music or current affairs, and it's not beyond the wit of any archive selector to gauge that these programmes are important. The mass junkings of important (as we realise now) programmes in the 60s and 70s occurred when there was no obligation on the BBC to keep an archive and no such post as archive selector/tv archivist (that is a single executive post, rather than a generic term for people working in the archives, by the way). While those junking are now rightly regarded as a huge tragic short-sighted mistake, the environment is completely different now - but there is really very little that can be done about the material that is lost. It's fairly pointless chastising the BBC for it now, as the people who were responsible don't work here any more (it's 30 years or more ago - they've retired!). It does come down to money ultimately and always will. An archive also has to be a resource that is used, not just a dead store, and I for one would genuinely love for more access to be available to those who are interested (always remembering - as all niche enthusiasts must) that the great majority of people are not! Money for archiving must come from somewhere, either the licence fee if done by the BBC (with some input perhaps, indirectly, from commercial exploitation, but the majority of archival material can't hope to earn its keep that way), or in some sort of proper national tv archive, presumably government funded. I can think of a number of reasons why neither the tv companies (who after all own the rights) or the government would be keen on that idea - and if it was a government funded archive it would inevitably always be at the mercy of budget cuts imposed by the Treasury! I can appreciate the points you're making, perhaps I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate in a way - but while we may never get the tv archiving policy we might like, surely it's clear that there has been a massive sea-change in policy over the last generation, which is genuinely preserving the tv culture of the country (or reminding us that we used to have one?). I can also appreciate the points you're making, Andrew. But although there has been a big change in attitude towards archiving, it's not nessesarily for the right reasons (monetary rather than a recognition of the value of the recordings as historical documents, although that's how it should be). Also, as you yourself admit, it can't be ruled out that further wipings couldn't occur in future (even if on a small scale). This situation wouldn't happen at The British Library, for instance: "oh, we've got enough first editions of X from that period - if we get rid of a few here and there it won't matter!". What i'm saying isn't directed at anyone personally either. Yes, the 1990s are a decade ago. But in archive terms, that is recent, bearing in mind that most of the junking was supposed to have stopped in the late '70s (and a lot of people probably wouldn't have known about the more recent wipings, which i'm sure the BBC were happy to keep quiet anyway). No, no one said the BBC had to keep everything (although no one said it shouldn't either) but really the barmy selective preservation policy of keeping representative selection policy undertaken by it (and the BFI) is meaningless as it effectively means that - certainly with drama and some comedy with a continuing thread - those shows cannot be repeated in any way that makes sense any more (and in the BBC's terms, that is shooting itself in the foot). The BBC itself is not to blame wholly for the situation of the junking purge of the past, although a lot of what happened refers particularly to it and not to ITV companies (with certain exceptions). Regarding the point about the BBC archive being a working archive though. The last I knew a few years back (I don't know if that has changed - probably not) it was not allowed membership of FIAF (the international federation of archives) due to the fact that it was a working archive and didn't store it's master material in optimum conditions, used masters as working materials with preservation of same not being the primary consideration. Therefore, a "working archive" equals a "library" and not a true archive in the sense that it isn't a place where it's treasures are stored for posterity and the nation. There is a clear conflict of interest there which, as long as it is so, the material is not 100 percent safe (and any claims the BBC makes about responsible archiving / acknowledgement of the importance of the material it holds) can only seem like empty words. The BBC has always had the attitude of "we know the importance of our collection and what is / isn't worth preserving"...well, it WOULD say that, wouldn't it! This just underlines the need for objective outside decisions regarding archiving. I realise you're only playing devil's advocate, Andrew. Nothing personal intended against you or anyone else at the BBC (now or past).
|
|
|
Post by andrew martin on Nov 11, 2005 11:18:00 GMT
Indeed, I agree with many of the points you're making. The archive here (terminology is always difficult, I use the word because most people seem to prefer it) is very much a working library with archival functions. True, the conditions of storage in the past have not always been ideal, but almost no material has ever been lost because of them - and the matter is currently being addressed with new premises being prepared for a move in the near future. Unfortunately, as regards the material we can keep, we are limited by the funding level and regulations imposed on us - in an ideal world, I say again, there would be no need for any material ever to have been discarded... I just find it odd in a way, discussing junking now, when most of my work time is taken up with preservation projects!
(And I think now I've said about all I will on the subject!)
|
|
|
Post by Peter Roberts on Nov 12, 2005 4:12:15 GMT
We can never say that no more programmes will ever be wiped I don't see why this should be. I could archive The BBC's total TV output *myself* if I put my mind to it. I estimate the BBC's Freeview TV channels are 40GB-60GB a day each. A 200GB HP Ultrium 2 backup tape is £22+VAT. So for that money each day *I* could keep the BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, CBBC and CBeebies output complete. The tapes are only 2cm thick. Space surely cannot be a problem. OK, that would not be Digibeta quality. If I was a BBC archivist setting up such a system I would probably archive Mpeg streams at a higher bitrate. But double that bitrate (now we are close to maximun DVD quality) is only £44 a day, and quadruple the bitrate (now way above maximum DVD quality) is only £88. And that is based on buying tapes at consumer prices. the BBC actually keeps the entire output in important genres The Adventure Game is a the perfect example of why archiving according to genre is a fallacy. The Adventure Game was, according to classification, just a game show, and a kids one at that. So it got wiped, despite being a very clever piece of TV with thousands of die hard fans. The same goes for daytime TV. I bet important stuff crops up on there from time to time. A low quality copy at least should be kept of everything. Is it not? the conditions of storage in the past have not always been ideal, but almost no material has ever been lost because of them Maybe, but I'm aware of important things that have disappeared relatively recently, and I'd like to know how. What led to the Live Aid material disappearing, for example? Or the episode of On The Hour which BBC7 say is 'missing from the archive'?
|
|
|
Post by Gareth Randall on Nov 12, 2005 7:29:12 GMT
The Adventure Game was, according to classification, just a game show, and a kids one at that. So it got wiped
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 12, 2005 10:05:06 GMT
We can never say that no more programmes will ever be wiped I don't see why this should be. I could archive The BBC's total TV output *myself* if I put my mind to it. I estimate the BBC's Freeview TV channels are 40GB-60GB a day each. A 200GB HP Ultrium 2 backup tape is £22+VAT. So for that money each day *I* could keep the BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, CBBC and CBeebies output complete. The tapes are only 2cm thick. Space surely cannot be a problem. OK, that would not be Digibeta quality. If I was a BBC archivist setting up such a system I would probably archive Mpeg streams at a higher bitrate. But double that bitrate (now we are close to maximun DVD quality) is only £44 a day, and quadruple the bitrate (now way above maximum DVD quality) is only £88. And that is based on buying tapes at consumer prices. The Adventure Game is a the perfect example of why archiving according to genre is a fallacy. The Adventure Game was, according to classification, just a game show, and a kids one at that. So it got wiped, despite being a very clever piece of TV with thousands of die hard fans. The same goes for daytime TV. I bet important stuff crops up on there from time to time. A low quality copy at least should be kept of everything. Is it not? the conditions of storage in the past have not always been ideal, but almost no material has ever been lost because of them Maybe, but I'm aware of important things that have disappeared relatively recently, and I'd like to know how. What led to the Live Aid material disappearing, for example? Or the episode of On The Hour which BBC7 say is 'missing from the archive'? As a gut feeling, I tend to agree with all of what you say in principle, Peter. But i'm not sure about the wisdom of deliberately archiving to less than broadcast standard (we all do that ourselves anyway most of the time, on tape and DVD). Quality is of paramount importance as all recordings deteriorate over time and so anything archived in poor quality can only get poorer. And some people's tolerance to old b/w t/rs is already shockingly low (and that's for something that's considered basically broadcast standard!) Having said that, as you say, there is so much material on just the two BBC terrestrial channels alone every day of the week. A lot of interesting things will inevitable pop up that are worth keeping (and not just those that the broadcasters deem to be so). Archiving is a big problem though and something that needs more universal recognition as being a special case from the powers-that-be; not by just broadcasting organisations and programme makers but by government, arts bodies, heritage groups and all those holding purse strings or in positions of influence. What we have now is a brilliant and comprehensive (at least from the last 20-30 years) visual record of life. But will it survive in the long-term as comprehensively? Who knows. I personally think it's deeply shocking though that the BBC cannot totally rule out further junkings at some future date. On a side issue, can anyone with expert knowledge here provide more facts about the logistics and long-term reliability of archiving to disc and computer formats (such as MPEG, as Peter suggests). Although i'm not an expert on these issues, maximum quality does need to be maintained, I think . The Adventure Game scenario is a good illustration though of a show that was liked by a certain section of the public and of which they would be sad to see episodes unilaterally junked as worthless by the BBC without their knowledge. If such a thing were to be disposed of, they should definitely offer it to others who like the series first for safekeeping, for the price of the master tape (maybe signing an agreement not to exploit commercially, if that is a concern - that way, the master could still be called upon at a future date by the broadcaster anyway, if they suddenly realised the programme had re-use value!). It's this situation that keeps revealing itself that angers people so much, of a broadcaster taking it upon itself to junk something that some people somewhere would wish to see / enjoy again in future. In an intellectual and moral sense, you could argue that something that has gone out is in one sense in the public domain (as it's logged in people's own memories, it belongs to those people equally). Copyright needs to move on fast, I think. It's still living in the dark ages, despite certain advances in recent years. By the way, Peter, what Live Aid material went missing? I read some articles about the preparation for the DVD release and as far as I can tell, nothing actually went missing / was junked. More it was a case of them having to go to broadcasters like MTV (who were the only broadcaster that seemed to have transmitted certain parts of the event) to use their masters in part - only to find out that their coverage was plastered with captions, logos and fade-outs mid song to go to ad breaks etc! I think though that everything that went out in the UK and the US survives in some form (apart from the bits with satellite link breakdowns).
|
|
|
Post by Gareth Randall on Nov 12, 2005 11:20:22 GMT
I personally think it's deeply shocking though that the BBC cannot totally rule out further junkings at some future date Where is the value in keeping *every single* edition of Bargain Hunt, then? There's no ongoing narrative or character/plot development, every week is the same formula and you don't need to watch them in any particular order. How will the future cultural life of the UK be diminished if only a handful of representative examples are kept?
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 12, 2005 11:59:30 GMT
Who mentioned junking just Bargain Hunt though? It all depends on what the BBC would decide to get rid of (aside from the separate issue that it shouldn't rest with the BBC to make those decisions in the first place). If we were talking only about keeping representative samples of Bargain Hunt and such then that would be a different matter. The Adventure Game, Rentaghost etc (for example - two of the shows mentioned here) are a different proposition though, regardless of whether I like them myself or not (I can take or leave them).
|
|
|
Post by Gareth Randall on Nov 12, 2005 15:51:31 GMT
You stated that you were "deeply shocked" that future junkings cannot be ruled out. Presumably, this can be extrapolated to mean that you would object to any editions of a programme like Bargain Hunt being junked.
Why?
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 12, 2005 18:41:05 GMT
It can't really be extrapolated to mean that, no. The shock is because a) there would be no clear indication of exactly what sort of things would be likely to be junked and b) that it could happen tomorrow if the BBC so chose and no one outside would have a say in the matter (and probably wouldn't even know either).
|
|
|
Post by Gareth Randall on Nov 13, 2005 17:22:36 GMT
It can't really be extrapolated to mean that, no Oh right, so you'd have no problem with the Beeb junking all but a representative sample of something like Bargain Hunt? Cool. I thought Andrew had made it pretty clear that it *would* just be stuff like Bargain Hunt or Cash In The Attic; typical reality/lifestyle daytime TV fodder that generates a lot of tape (and hence needs a lot of room to store), but has no ongoing narrative, no plot or character development, and doesn't have to be shown in any particular order for the viewer to make sense of it - in other words, stuff that doesn't need to exist complete and which can quite legitimately be represented in the archive by a small number of selected editions.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Roberts on Nov 18, 2005 23:53:45 GMT
Four episodes were. The other twenty weren't. That sounds far more like a mistake In another thread: The "Adventure Game" wipings were deliberate Thanks Andrew for all the interesting info by the way. Well the BBC have no sign of the Madeline Smith one in the archive: it appears they've lost it again! I'd love to see that one, it contains the "tea" moment! What's the source of this information? The idea that the BBC have not kept a tape that was returned to them is alarming. It might effect whether I return anything I find.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Roberts on Nov 19, 2005 1:00:19 GMT
i'm not sure about the wisdom of deliberately archiving to less than broadcast standard (we all do that ourselves anyway most of the time, on tape and DVD). Quality is of paramount importance as all recordings deteriorate over time and so anything archived in poor quality can only get poorer. Digital recordings do not degrade in the same way as analogue ones. They tend to work perfectly up to a point, and then degrade very badly. You would need to move them onto some other medium before they got to that point. Archival life of an Ultrium 2 tape is quoted as 30 years. I'm not an expert in tape longevity but I'd guess if stored in ideal conditions it would be much longer. As regards quality, well encoded mpeg at maximin DVD bitrate (for example) is very good. You might be able to do even better with more recent encoding schemes. You don't generally find people complaining about the quality of commercial DVDs, which are at variable bitrate, rising to the maximum when needed. Current digital broadcasts can be a quarter of this (Channel 4, for example) and most people find then fine. I really don't see why, with current technology, everything can't be kept in very good quality. The purpose of my post is to ask if it is, and if not why not? I can imagine that in 50 year's time the entire BBC library will be available to every consumer via the net, and that they will be able to dial up and watch anything in existence, for a suitable fee. I think they will want to be able to browse through a day's programmes as transmitted. If you don't like what's on TV today you could turn your TV back 10 years and watch that instead. You could check out what was being transmitted at the moment of your birth. etc. etc. If you don't keep it that's not possible. It's the same sort of lack of foresight that led to Dr. Who (for example) being junked because at that moment in time there was no commercial use for it. I believe that broadcasters are legally required to keep everything for a certain amount of time (so that, for example, in a police investigation the exact time that a programme finished on a particular day can be checked). In the older Adventure Game thread I read: the BFI tape all the output of BBC1, BBC2 and selected others since 1991 Laurence Piper says the last time he heard, this was onto SVHS / VHS for research / viewing purposes. With modern technology it might be that it is now being kept in much higher quality. I hope some reader of this board can tell us if it is.
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 19, 2005 9:48:10 GMT
As regards quality, well encoded mpeg at maximin DVD bitrate (for example) is very good. You might be able to do even better with more recent encoding schemes. You don't generally find people complaining about the quality of commercial DVDs, which are at variable bitrate, rising to the maximum when needed. Current digital broadcasts can be a quarter of this (Channel 4, for example) and most people find then fine. I really don't see why, with current technology, everything can't be kept in very good quality. The purpose of my post is to ask if it is, and if not why not? I can imagine that in 50 year's time the entire BBC library will be available to every consumer via the net, and that they will be able to dial up and watch anything in existence, for a suitable fee. If you don't keep it that's not possible. It's the same sort of lack of foresight that led to Dr. Who (for example) being junked because at that moment in time there was no commercial use for it. I agree entirely. My whole point is that what appears to be of no value now may well in future be seen differently. History has taught us that. But if any TV company or archive is even considering (no matter how remotely) the possibility of junking anything again in the future, then they will have proved that they have not learned that lesson! The future scenario you paint of being able to call up an entire day's output is an intriguing one (and quite likely, I think). But as you say, if everything is not kept, then it can't be done! This idea of us knowing NOW exactly what will / will not be seen as worth keeping at some future date is very arrogant. More vision is needed.
|
|