The Deteriorating Cassettes: Goalpariya Lokgeet Archive
A district cultural centre in western Assam holds 63 audio cassettes recorded between 1978 and 1994, mostly Goalpariya lokgeet performed by singers from villages around Goalpara and Dhubri. A volunteer's notebook lists singer, village and recording date for 48 cassettes, but only 31 have a track list. Nine tapes show mould, five are physically broken, and two cassettes labelled with the same singer contain clearly different lyrics for what the notebook calls the same song. The centre has a grant for 30 hours of audio restoration, one part-time archivist, and a single working cassette deck. A university research unit asks for copies, a streaming platform offers a 'Folk Assam' playlist slot, and the family of one deceased singer asks for payment before any digitisation. The centre's committee wants to 'put everything online by next Bihu'.
1. Set a triage order for the 63 cassettes. Which tapes should be transferred first, and what documentation must accompany each transfer?
Read the worked answer
Triage should not simply start with the oldest or the mouldiest tape. A mouldy tape may be a duplicate, while a playable tape may be the only record of a singer. Score each cassette on four axes:
- Physical risk - mould, broken shell, binder deterioration, previous bad playback.
- Uniqueness - no duplicate, no published copy, variant lyrics or tuning.
- Rights and consent status - performer or family permission, documentary licence, deposit agreement.
- Demand and research value - university request, platform interest, community request.
The first transfers should be unique, physically endangered tapes whose performers or families can be contacted. The two same-singer/different-lyric tapes go early because they document variation, not because they are errors.
Each transfer needs a preservation master (uncompressed, high-resolution, no noise reduction) and a separate access copy. Photograph the cassette, label, notebook page and any letter. Record: singer, village, date, recordist, tape speed, track list, condition, playback equipment, transfer date, consent status, and relationship to other recordings. Play damaged tapes only once on a serviced deck. If the single deck is the bottleneck, outsource the nine mouldy tapes after dry-cleaning rather than playing them repeatedly.
2. The family asks for payment and the streaming platform asks for exclusive rights. Advise the centre on a rights and access framework.
Read the worked answer
The family request and the platform request are separate issues. The recording has layers: the song or lyric may have a composer or be traditional; the performance belongs to the singer; the recording may belong to the recordist or the centre. A payment demand should be handled with a written benefit-sharing agreement, not a verbal promise. The centre can offer a one-time honorarium, a share of licence income, or free copies and credit.
The platform should receive a non-exclusive, time-limited licence for the specific tracks that are cleared, with credit and a link to the archive. Exclusive rights would let the platform lock up community material and would conflict with the university's research access. If the family refuses, do not publish; keep the preservation copy restricted until consent is resolved. Put the platform playlist on hold for uncleared tapes and publish only a small cleared sample. The committee's 'everything online by next Bihu' target is not a rights clearance strategy; it is a deadline that will produce avoidable harm.
3. The archive finds two clearly different lyric versions of the 'same' song. Should the archive correct one, publish both, or do something else?
Read the worked answer
Do not correct one version. The two cassettes are evidence of oral variation; the archive's job is to document, not standardise. Catalogue them as variants with a shared work title and distinct version IDs, noting singer, date, village and lyric differences. Add a short annotation explaining that the notebook's 'same song' label is an assumption.
If the singer or family says one is a mistake, record that claim as metadata, not as a deletion. For the platform, publish both or neither, with a note; do not silently choose the cleaner or more familiar version. This protects research integrity and community ownership, and it gives future performers evidence that multiple versions were in circulation.