Date:Mon, 2 May 2005 09:29:23 -0500
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: cataloging sound recordings
Comments:To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, A. Ralph Papakhian wrote:
> on the other hand and as an alternative view point, i would like to
> celebrate the cooperative work of hundreds of library catalogers
> over the past ca. 35 years. oclc's worldcat now includes some
> 1,947,819 catalog records for sound recordings (along with
> 22,367,876 locations for those recordings). and all of those
> records have been produced with fairly well defined, structured
> standards designed to meet the needs of many if not all "information
> seekers."
It would be foolish to deny the remarkable accomplishments of OCLC and
RLIN, yet, I believe there are technological developments, coupled with
the quanity of information created, that should prompt a reconsideration
of the methodology of cataloging.
I believe that the process of compiling a MARC record is unnecessarily
encumbered and much of the search mechanisms of most online catalogs,
depending on your local system, are not easy to use and/or interpret.
> reach of those who could benefit from it" i think it is fairly
> evident there is also quite a bit of information available for
> those who could and do benefit from it. having a few individual
> collectors energetically cataloging their collections using
> idiosyncratic home-grown cataloging systems cannot (and i predict
> will not) take the place of systematic and organized cataloging
> provided by (mostly non-profit) libraries who are committed to
> following nationally and internationally agreed upon standards.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that home grown catalogs will take the
place of "home-grown" cataloging...however, I do not believe all
"home-grown" cataloging is idiosyncratic. While OCLC was not the result of
the disposition of an individual, and while it was assembled with some of the
finest minds in technology and librarianship, it was designed for a
technology that is almost 40 years old, designed to print cards and not
designed for sound recordings. Further, it seems to me that our
entire conceptualization of the use of the digital technology is evolving.
While OCLC and RLIN have adapted to some extent, they are designed to
control information versus, navigate information.
As I mentioned, I don't know the answers, nor do I even suggest I know the
question, but what I personally encounter is a difficult time locating
recordings, and should I find a cataloging record, it often leaves me with
many more questions. I question why this is so.
You mention that world cat contains information on 1.9 million recordings.
Consider the era of the wide groove recording. I know of no estimates of
the number of cylinders that were recorded, yet very few have been given
MARC records. The Rigler Deutsch project addressed the basics of discs
through the introduction of the microgoove recording. While some discs of
that period have been given MARC records, it is a very small percentage of
the approximately 750,000 titles addressed in Rigler Deutsch. I have read
that there have been estimates of an additional 250,000 discs from that
period. I believe LC is adding wide groove disc listings (discs not listed
in Rigler Deutsch) to Sonic. For starters, we have about 1Million items
not addressed with MARC records.
As for the LP era...estimates range from two to five million titles
produced. I have never read any estimates on the number of cassettes and
CDs issued commercially.
So what would one consider as a reasonable estimate of the total number of
recordings issued commercially? For a guess, I will offer a range of
1Million wide groove discs, ? cylinders, 3 Million LPs, ? 45 rpms, 2
Million CDs, ? cassettes. 1.9 million OCLC records would seem to be
perhaps 20% of the total?
While there are MARC records for some non-commerical recordings, the bulk
of the non-commercial recordings are not cataloged...let alone
reformatted.
So what of the non-commercial materials...
The Commission on Preservation Access has offered the notion that "humans
will create more information in the next three years than in the 300,000
years of history dating to the earliest cave paintings and beyond..."
What needs to be saved? Addressing this question our Vice Provost said to
me..."well we are forming a faculty committee"...What do they know of
preservation...nothing...what do they know of what might be unique...nothing.
As Henry Gladney wrote in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
"Selection even by disciplinary experts is as much governed by fashion as by
stable, objective criteria, exacerbating an already formidable challenge."
It would seem that we might even be clueless as to what to save.
Gerry Gibson's survey published back in 1994 by IASA suggests that the
world wide holdings of audio to be about 50 Million hours with an annual
growth rate of 5-10%. Whew!
Then consider the quality of the data in OCLC.
Catalogers have a very great challenge with every item they catalog. It is
always a question of how much information should be included and what can
be omitted. Even when I find a "hit" in OCLC, I usually spend, on average,
about 30 minutes expanding the 511 field, and, in turn, rekeying
that information in a 700 field. I look at things like the 007 field with
its delimiters (can you believe having to use delimiters these days!)
which includes information also noted in the 300 field. Why
must this information be duplicated and why is some of that information
included in the fixed fields as well? These are some of the more obvious
aspects of the format that I see as keeping the cataloger from making the
most of the use of their time.
Why such an encumbered process? The only responses I ever get are,
"this is the way the system is set up," or, even worse, "there is a
substantive infrastructure that supports MARC." From my perspective,
considering the exponential growth of information, we have are left with
the information haves and have nots. For me the system is self-defeating.
Then, what about the recordings not extant in the form of an object?
Having minored in Musicology, I can appreciate the notion of order and
control of information. I appreciate the immense knowledge required to
prepare a MARC record, yet I am also appalled how encumbered the process
is...even if some catalogers are not. I am concerned because I wonder if
what I might be looking for really does exist somewhere and yet I don't
know that for a fact.
Then, what of private collections. I think of the listing Allan Ho has
done on his research on concerted works for piano and orchestra. I can
look at his online listing and at least find out if a work exists in a
recording...not that his listing is complete, but, I would wager that at
the very least, 10% of his listings cannot be found in OCLC or RLIN.
Again, I don't mean to belittle in any way the remarkable accomplishments
of catalogers and MARC...yet I wonder how much more could be done making
use of the technology of today; making a format that would be easy enough
for a private collector to use and one which would place the emphasis on
navigation over "control." I dread my first encounter with AACR 3. Will
that mean that every time I encounter an A level record will I need to
upgrade it as well? I dread the thought that AARC 3 might be another
attempt to beat, if not a dead horse, a very over burdened one.
Karl
