Date:Fri, 6 May 2005 09:03:32 -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
Sorry for this being such a long post, but there is a part of me that is
trying to understand...
On Thu, 5 May 2005, A. Ralph Papakhian wrote:
> i'm not quite sure what the so-called MARC record is lacking. here's one
> below. the label no. is there (it's in field 028), by golly, the conductor
> is mentioned twice (in fields 511 and 700)--not to mention the pianist,
> orchestra, and the choir (the way they appear on the recording and in
> their authorized forms). the place and date of recording is noted (518
> field), and the durations are recorded as well (500 and 306 fields).
> additionally you have authority controlled forms of the composer's and
> performers' names, as well as authority controlled forms of the two
> beethoven compositions included.
>
> i see that the matrix number is missing. but exactly what other
> discographic data should be included?
While I have not suggested that the MARC record does not allow for most
discographic information, I believe that the display of it (below) will
clearly illustrate some of the basic problems.
Before addressing those concerns, I will mention, that from my
perspective, it is an encumbered process that tends to discourage
catalogers from entering all of the available information. I would be curious to
know if there is a way to determine how many OCLC records for recordings are
"brief records," records that by their identification provide only minimal
information. Even when I find "complete records" I usually end up
spending at least 20 minutes upgrading with additional information.
For those unfamiliar with the process, the record below is not the result
of a series of data entry screens. It is what the cataloger has to
prepare. The first entry refers to the nature of the items..."s" for sound
recording. There is an assumed delimiter "a" for that entry. Other parts
of that one field include such things as delimiter "e" which in this case
is an "m" indicating mono. The cataloger has to decide which delimiters
are needed and either keep in mind what each delimiter indicates or refer to the
rules. While one can set a default for standard things, like a mono or stereo lp,
anything that is in a less familiar format, and those items that are identified as
archival in nature, require an individual to check what each delimiter
means and then consult the various possible designations for that delimiter. It is
at that point where I would assume any normal person would choose to take
a coffee break.
It should be added that the item below is not complete as it
does not include the fixed fields. Those fixed fields include information
which is often repeated within the body of the record, hence it represents
a duplication of information, albeit, often in a different form than
appears in the body of the record. Further, those fixed fields require a
set of codes unique to those fields.
Several other fields will often require a cataloger to consult rules or a
list of guidelines. The 048 field is devoted to the number of musical
instruments or voices. Those indicators like ka01 etc. refer to
instrumentation. There are approximately 40 such choices for data for that
field. By the way, it is important to keep in mind that spacing with
punctuation is important. Unlike the rest of the world, in the MARC
record a semi colon is proceded by a space.
Also worth pointing out, in this record, there is an error in the 300
field. It needs to include the designation analog, even if that is implied in the
format of the recording. Why? As far as I know, the answer with so much of
this is "it is the rule." No doubt there are, or were reasons, for these
rules. For me, adding implied or redundant information doesn't seem
justifiable. I wonder if much of this duplication was required to assist
in the production of cards.
The 700 fields are there to generate added entries in a catalog. One might ask the
question, how many of us would want to look up performances by the Wiener
Staatsoper...somehow I think only of the Vienna State Opera Orchestra...but the
700, 710 fields are devoted to the "authorized" version of the performer, or
performing ensemble. While I am not in favor of ethnocentricity, heaven
help you when it comes time to set up a uniform title of something written
by Stravinsky. One must consider the original language of the title...Rite
of Spring, aka Le Sacre du Printemps, aka Vesna sviashchennaia.
As you will notice, timings are included in two different places, in this
record, in the 306 and in a 500 field. Unfortunately, neither is close to
the work...as in Concerto No.3 (36:22). However, this could have been
accomodated in 505 field, which is a contents note. However, unless that
information is included in a 505 field, the version the patron sees will require
reading through the entire record and remembering which work is first and
which is second, etc.
The date in the 260 field should probably have [] around it since it is
probably speculative, since there was not a copyright date listed on
recordings prior to 1972...splitting hairs here.
To respond to an earlier question...the cataloger has to create all of the
information you see below, starting, with the exception of the fixed
fields (not shown in this example) and construct the entire record.
The most recent attempt to simplify the process (Connexion) still requires
a cataloger to basically create the entire record, know all of the require
punctuation, codes, delimiters, etc. Why there are not simple screens
which would afford the cataloger the opportunity to input data via a series of
questions and answers, or a group of choices, all displayed, remains a mystery to
me. Perhaps someone more informed can give a response.
Also, to address Steve's attempt to get this discussion back on track,
namely to address the question of what system would be of value for
the private collector, or specialized collection..I don't believe there is an
available system other than EAD/HTML which would be of value. Even
considering the published guidelines for EAD, how it should be
structured for sound recordings might be worthy of consideration by ARSC.
I believe what would be of value is a system where the
basics of data entry were easy enough to use that it would provide an
efficient way to do the process, easy enough that even a private
individual could input data. True there would be errors, but then there
will always be errors, even with professional catalogers. I wonder to what
extent the inclusion of Rigler Deutsch records (prepared by date entry
operators) has inhibited searching even with the restrictive search
engine used by RLIN, a database which loaded the Rigler Deutsch tapes.
I also believe that (authority work or not) all databases (or catalogs, or
discographies) should be accessible via several search engines, both
commercial and non-commercial.
Can this be done? and, is it desirable? Does it place too much
responsiblity on the search engine (due to the limitations of search
engines) and/or user? Might not placing a greater focus on the navigation, provide
an incentive to develop more sophistication in search engines?
Karl
> 007 s ?b d
?d b ?e m ?f m ?g e ?h - ?i - ?j - ?k - ?l - ?m - ?n - > 010 r 65000242
> 040 DLC ?c ICW ?d ICW ?d OCL ?d OCLCQ
> 02801XWN-19078 ?b Westminster
> 048 ?b ka01 ?a oa
> 092 785.664 ?b B393, No.3we
> 090 ?b
> 049 IULA
> 1001 Beethoven, Ludwig van, ?d 1770-1827.
> 24010Concertos, ?m piano, orchestra, ?n no. 3, op. 37, ?r C minor
> 24500Concerto for piano and orchestra ?h [sound recording] : ?b in C
> minor, op. 37 ; Fantasia for piano, chorus, and orch., op. 80 / ?c
> Beethoven.
> 260 New York : ?b Westminster, ?c 1964.
> 300 1 sound disc : ?b 33 1/3 rpm. ; ?c 12 in.
> 306 003622; 002046
> 511 Daniel Barenboim, piano; Vienna State Opera Orchestra; Vienna Academy
> Chamber Choir; Laszlo Somogyi, conductor.
> 518 Recorded in Mozart Hall, Vienna, May 1964.
> 500 Durations: 36 min., 22 sec., and 20 min., 46 sec., respectively.
> 500 Program notes on container.
> 650 0Concertos (Piano)
> 650 0Piano with orchestra.
> 70012Beethoven, Ludwig van, ?d 1770-1827. ?t Fantasia, ?m piano, mixed
> voices, orchestra, ?n op. 80, ?r C minor.
> 7001 Barenboim, Daniel, ?d 1942-
> 7102 Wiener Staatsoper. ?b Orchester.
> 7102 Wiener Akademie-Kammerchor.
> 7001 Somogyi, Laszlo?. ?4 cnd
>
