ldquo;A thoughtful; entertaining history of obsessed music collectors and their quest for rare early 78 rpm recordsrdquo; (Los Angeles Times); Do Not Sell at Any Price is a fascinating; complex story of preservation; loss; obsession; and art.Before MP3s; CDs; and cassette tapes; even before LPs or 45s; the world listened to music on fragile; 10-inch shellac discs that spun at 78 revolutions per minute. While vinyl has enjoyed a renaissance in recent years; rare and noteworthy 78rpm records are exponentially harder to come by. The most sought-after sides now command tens of thousands of dollars; when theyrsquo;re found at all. Do Not Sell at Any Price is the untold story of a fixated coterie of record collectors working to ensure those songs arenrsquo;t lost forever. Music critic and author Amanda Petrusich considers the particular world of the 78mdash;from its heyday to its near extinctionmdash;and examines how a cabal of competitive; quirky individuals have been frantically lining their shelves with some of the rarest records in the world. Besides the mania of collecting; Petrusich also explores the history of the lost backwoods blues artists from the 1920s and 30s whose work has barely survived and introduces the oddball fraternity of menmdash;including Joe Bussard; Chris King; John Tefteller; and othersmdash;who are helping to save and digitize the blues; country; jazz; and gospel records that ultimately gave seed to the rock; pop; and hip-hop we hear today. From Thomas Edison to Jack White; Do Not Sell at Any Price is an untold; intriguing story of the evolution of the recording formats that have changed the ways we listen to (and create) music. ldquo;Whether yoursquo;re already a 78 aficionado; a casual record collector; a crate-digger; or just someonehellip;who enjoys listening to music; yoursquo;re going to love this bookrdquo; (Slate).
#1271138 in eBooks 2013-10-31 2013-10-31File Name: B00GDCAOCS
Review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. The other reviewer wrote "What philosophers are you speaking of ...By AlexThe other reviewer wrote "What philosophers are you speaking of?" when the author literally and immediately listed about five or six philosophers and their statements to illustrate his point about the paradoxical void; including Deleuze and Sontag. Not to mention a quote by Heidegger speaking to the exact same point; which opens the void section. As for the detractors of stasis cinema; the book is filled with quotes by them; folks that define cinema by its movement. Im not sure what book this fella read. Maybe hes holding a grudge.Anyway; book is a solid introductory survey of the genre.3 of 5 people found the following review helpful. Poor scholarship; generally boringBy Post Post MinimalI enjoyed short passages of this book; but overall I was disappointed with the quality of the scholarship. The book primarily focuses on Michael Snow; Andy Warhol; and Derek Jarmon; within the context of film theory. Very little attention was given to monochrome video work; Cory Arcangel is mentioned only as a side note; and there are many other younger video artists that could have been mentioned. His understanding of monochromes as an art form is flawed and seems to be based mostly on the essays of Barbara Rose. I thought it was especially strange not to mention James Turrell whose early light works function as monochromes and relate directly to some of the works mentioned in his section of monochrome films. The sections on Andy Warhol contain interesting responses from artists and critics first viewing these works in the 60s. The Derek Jarmon section however was painfully boring and included pages and pages about the possible meaning of the color blue; I found this to be totally arbitrary and exhausting.After dedicating a significant amount of my time to read this book; I would like to invite other readers to view the following passage from a section titled "The Void" on page 129:"In fact; it is not at all clear why these films should be reductively theorized as optical voids. As many philosophers have noted; a void as such is not possible: a void is not the absence of any content but simply the absence of anticipated content."I will address my response to the author: You titled the section "The Void" are there film and artist critics who have deemed these works as voids? You havent cited any so my understanding is that you have contradicted your own chapter heading. What philosophers are you speaking of? You mention Bergson later but not in direct reference to this statement so I am not sure who these "many philosopher" are and what notes you are referring to.While I was unhappy with writing and scholarship of this book; I did extract a small amount of value from it and perhaps others can do the same.