Noteworthy article on preserving audio heritage

Interesting.

SHould the government be spending money to preserve the things that apparently nobody cares enough otherwise to preserve?

I would tend to say no. Let the open market determine what is worth preserving. I do not want my taxpayer dollars going to preserve every last thing that someone else deems worthy (probably mainly because some special interest group greased their palms to get them to make that determination).

Whatever. I'm sure I won't see the savings back in the form of lower taxes that I can then spend to buy some more recordings anyway.

And so it goes.....

unfortunately the concept of music as culture, or music as art with importance and value, dies a little every day. I'm not sure what the answers are, but we may be the last generation to give a hoot. 'the only thing certain is change'.

Let the open market determine what is worth preserving.

The market does not preserve. This is why we have museums. Also, heritage and history.

"The market does not preserve."

I understand what your saying. True historical sites of significance require preservation to prevent destruction. Also original artifacts.

However, recordings are marketable items readily available for reasonable cost to all, if there is interest. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Ellington, Elvis, The Beatles, even original roots blues artists are readily available and retain followings based on value. IS government action really needed in the case of recordings? Its more debatable for me at the least.