Thanks Simon, that's more the sort of answer I was looking for. I do hope that case will to be made and the point of difference made clear.
I agree "competing" was the wrong word to use. These types of complementary and overlapping activities are common in the sector: research libraries, public libraries, special libraries and university libraries are not "competing" with the National Library, the National Portrait Gallery is not competing with Te Papa's collections, they all have their niche. Sorry if it sounded defensive.
BTW, the National Library is still a bit of a mystery to me, but if you're dealing with legal deposit, I'm guessing you're probably dealing with the New Zealand Music, Sound, Audio-visual collection, not the Archive of New Zealand Music. The latter does sound more like the concept described above. It is part of the ATL Manuscripts collection, so I assume its focus is the unpublished writings & works of musicians:
Manuscripts also are often called archives. They include things like letters, emails, journals, diaries, notebooks, reminiscences, speeches, scrapbooks and minute books.
At any rate, I hope you'll find out a bit more about it, even if it is only so you can clearly distinguish between it and the proposed new archive. It may even be worth a visit - but not til we re-open in 2012... And we may even be able to provide some support (for example, in digital preservation, a Natlib specialty).
PS: Just realised Natlib has a third Music Collection.
Apologies for typos in the above. Distracted by hungry two-year-old.
The frustration is that it doesn't. It really doesn't do much more than store a couple of copies of everything. It is a collection, a library. And that, only of finished copies.
I tend to think that it was doing everything that was urgently needed, there wouldn't be such a sense of loss and panic in the recording industry.
Quick disclaimer: I am also Natlib people, though I don't know much about the Archive of New Zealand music. I'll flick this thread on when I get to work though.
But I have two thoughts on this.
First: Are you sure? Russell's summary describes a the same sort of research library with better industry relations and better access for customers than we currently provide. He even calls it an archive.
And (not being an expert) I am pretty sure that some of the things said in the two short posts above about the Natlib archives are incorrect. Example: I gobsmacked by the clam that the Natlib role is "not to curate" a collection. Um, that's like, what we do. Or that it stores "only of finished copies". Pretty sure that's false too.
Second: Why do you suppose the Natlib collection is not meeting your needs? Based on what I know of working in other parts of Natlib, I'll hazard this guess: money (lack thereof).
A problem that would be compounded by setting up a competing archive and redirecting resources and energy elsewhere.
Having said that, I am arguing from relative ignorance here. But in the long term I just can't see two similar institutions being better than one.
Turns out there's already a brief paper circulating amongst potential stakeholders – RIANZ included – aimed at laying down the basis of a New Zealand Archive of Recorded Music.
You all know we already have an Archive of New Zealand Music, right?
Is that one broken? It sounds like it already does everything described, apart from having a fancy website.
Aaron appears to have dynamited his blog. Whither now those of us who wanted to re-read the epic saga of how he won back the Auckland mayoralty for Banks?
Never fear, we collected it, though the NDHA access module is being upgraded, and it looks like you can't view the archived copies right now (should be back in action by Wednesday).
The National Library has copies of three different blogs by Aaron Bhatnagar taken at different times between 2007 and 2010. Search on find.natlib.govt.nz for details.
In a bizarre way this is not unique. One remembers the US of A HoR fully supporting the Patriot Act.
That may be what one remembers, but that is not what actually happened:
Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)
In the other games Uruguay take on Ghana in an 'old World Cup' meets 'new World Cup' sort of way
Isn't Uruguay both? 'old World Cup' and 'New World cup', you might say.
I think relegating four teams at a time was too much change. I suggest relegating one or two teams this year (from the bottom of the table, no messing around), and then playing two-down-one-up for a few years until there are the "correct" number of unions in each division.
And how could we forget... parental correction.