I am posting this to both Phonolist and Phono-L – the two  listserves I 
subscribe to. 
Those of you who belong to the Antique Phonograph Sovciety  (formerly known 
as the Calif. APS) should have received a letter in the mail  this week (or 
will shortly – mine came yesterday) detailing the proposed  merger of the 
APS with MAPS effective January 1, 2014, (I’m guessing MAPS  members will get 
something soon.). I was told that there was a preliminary  meeting of 
members held at the Union show lat month, though no mention was  made in any 
reports of the show on either of these lists. So the mailing from  CAPS was the 
first formal document I saw. 
As outlined in the letter, the two organizations are often  serving the 
same group with  160  members (of MAPS’ 607 and APS’s 400 members belonging to 
both. Economically it  makes sense because postage to mail each society’s 
magazine/journal is the  biggest cost. By combining memberships, there would 
be one dues and this might  attract more members. (Side note here: Every 
person on these newsgroups should  belong to at least one of these 
organizations to support the  hobby.). 
The plan is to take the best of both magazines and combine into  one. 
Currently APS’s magazine focuses on pre-electric phonographs and and some  
recordings – mostly pre-1910 – while ITG (MAPs’ magazine) covers recording  
artists as well as reissues of pre-Lp era recordings.  (As most of you know, I 
have  contributed a monthly – now bi-monthly – column, “Anything Phonographic”
 to  ITG for over 20 years , not missing one issue  yet!). 
I definitely support the merger if it will mean continuing the  great 
volunteer work done by the Boards and contributors of both  organizations. But 
– 
as I wrote in a letter to both boards yesterday – I feel  that the proposal 
to make the name of the new society’s publication – which  would be 
published quarterly with more yearly pages than either has now – “The  Antique 
Phonograph” is not a good move. Personally I do not feel that it  reflects the 
contents if, in fact, the content will be similar to that in the  current 
ITG. “In The Groove” was named 30 years ago by John Whitacre and I  have 
worked with all four of its Editors during that time. It was chosen  because it 
reflected phonographs (I don’t call them “antique phonographs”  because RCA 
45 players from the 1950s are now considered “antiques”) and  records. It 
was a “brand” that no one was using and has a history. The name  “The 
Antique Phonograph” would imply that the publication was only for  “machine 
collectors”. I know some of you – and many who write me about my  column – may 
only have one or two windups but love old records and play them  
electrically or buy reissues on CDs.  
The reason for this (rather lengthy post) is to say that I plan  to vote 
for the merger (the ballots are due by August 7th and I’ll  be on vacation for 
a short time before then ) but I am planning to note that,  as a member, I 
feel the surviving magazine should be named “In The Groove” ,  maintaining 
its 30 year history. (BTW, RCA has an consumer newsletter covering  their 
phonographs and records in the 1940s with the same name!). I encourage  you to 
cast your vote to support the boards, but, if you feel as strongly  about 
the change of the magazine’s name as I do, I urge you to contact the  
combined Board Members of both organizations and let them know your  
preferences, 
WHATEVER they may be.    
Steve Ramm 
(Member of MAPS, APS and  ARSC)

_______________________________________________
Phono-L mailing list
http://phono-l.org

Reply via email to