Well said, Steve! I agree 100% Melissa
________________________________ From: "srsel...@aol.com" <srsel...@aol.com> To: Phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:37 AM Subject: [Phono-L] Proposed Merger of MAPS and APS and successor publication name 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 _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
