Date:         Fri, 13 May 2005 21:32:54 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Cataloging: Libraries and private collectors
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
> ERMA has an enormous amount of work to do to harmonize its titles before
> condering its serious use.
>
> Interest has been shown in this thread by the Library of Congress and
other
> cataloging biggies.  It is also making its way into some of the thinking
of
> those revising the AACR rules. I fantasize that what gets posted here may
> influence what they do.
>
> When dividing the cataloging record into sections, the last is that
relating
> to the individual copy.  That section is where personal opinions would go.
>
> The performer section should include a series of fields, one of which
> indicates the relationship of any of the performers to the selection being
> recorded: created role, world premiere, composer's son-in-law
> (Sibelius-Jalas, for instance), composer supervised, etc.  I'd also
indicate
> in a Performance Notes section if a Mozart vocal selection uses
> appogiaturas.  The former, if properly constructed, could be searchable
and
> listable, the latter just by key word.
>
> In many cases, a field can be left open when doing the basic cataloging,
to
> be filled in at a later time, either by the user or from an external
source.
> As this thread progresses, fields should be divided into which require
input
> to establish the basic entry and which are optional.  In addition the
former
> should be split into those for which an authority file must be (created
and)
> consulted and those which are ok to enter in a less structured way.
>
> Since the composer relationships seriously affect record value, it can be
of
> great use to private collectors who, as a rule, are more concerned with
the
> dollar value of their records than are instituitions.
>
> For reissues, I would definitely include who did the transfer work.  I
will
> often upgrade from one CD to another,based on this information.
>
> As to including reviews, it may be possible to refer and link to them.  I
> wouldn't include them here.
Actually, this reply (and others in the thread) illustrate an important
point about cataloguing sound recordings. For an institution, the time
needed to fill all these fields reaches the point of impracticality; for
individuals, the problem would be a lack of interest.

I have developed a MS Access application I use to catalog my collection;
it doesn't include a lot of the items above but does include fairly
extensive discographic data on the recording. However, I suspect that
anyone else using my application would simply skip over most of my
fields, either because they had no idea where to find the applicable
data or because they simply weren't interested and didn't expect to be!

Basically, the point of a catalog, for both an individual or an
institution, is "do I/we have this record, and if so where is it?"
Of course, it is possible to create a more complex data table, enter
the requisite data and then add the remaining item at a later date.
In fact, I have another data table which contains only label, country,
catalog number and which milk box the disc "lives." It has the
advantage of being easy and quick to complete, but the fields
can by moved to the main table and the data record for the
phonorecord completed there as time permits.

Steven C. Barr