Newsletter no. 73, August 1999

Q: Determining the title proper of compact discs has become increasingly problematic. We've had several examples of a disc containing several pieces by one composer with a nice collective title, then one piece at the end by a different composer. I've found one example by LC where they cataloged it as if the second composer did not exist, then added a note, something to the effect of "Also includes [name of piece] by [name of composer]" and made an added entry for it. That seems eminently reasonable to me, but I only saw that one example. Have you run into this? The one I'm facing now has the collective title "Classic Oboe Etudes [by] Barret, Brod, Ferling," and then right after that on the face of the CD "Britten: Six Metamorphoses after Ovid." The Britten takes up 12 minutes of the total 60 minutes of music on the CD. The copy I'm working from solved it thus:

100 1 Zupnik, Marilyn $4 prf (she's the oboist) 245 10 Classic oboe etudes $h [sound recording] / $c Barret, Brod, Ferling. Six metamorphoses after Ovid / Britten.

One should only use principal performer main entry when you have a collective title. This title is only "kind of" collective; the first half of it is. Any clues or suggestions?

A: You're right about not being able to use principal performer as the main entry for sound recordings in the so-called "serious" idiom when there is no collective title (21.23D1b) and I agree that in the instance you cite, there is no truly collective title. I've seen other similar examples where LC has fudged this when there's a little piece (often by the same composer) added to fill out the disc in addition to a major work (#31488546, #32550767, #30948194), or when there are miscellaneous pieces added to something(s) larger (#40053240, #39079360, #35564446, #34477490). Though I see the common-sense advantage of this practice, it strikes me as a sort of lazy shortcut. Since LC resorts to it on occasion, I can't really argue against it. But whether you choose the no collective title option or the "also includes" note option here, the question of the main entry remains. As I read 21.23D1b, the only choice you have for the main entry is the heading for the first work, in this case the Barret etude.

Q: We sometimes get videos or audio cassettes of sessions from conferences. Usually a single lecturer, sometimes two, with or without a question-and-answer session. Never is it the complete proceedings of the conference. Heck, MLA used to do this, audio taping sessions and allowing you to order the tape from whatever company MLA contracted to do the taping. As I revise the work of our rather new AV Cataloger here, I find a video situation like this and discover I cannot explain to her why the name of the conference would not be the main entry. I guess I have always made the conference an added entry. But the video, to me, seems to "emanate" from the conference: though not actually publishing the video, the conference appears to have caused the video to be issued (I actually re-read 21.1B2). Does it depend on the relationship of the publisher of the video to the conference, assuming one could determine that? In this case, the publisher seems to have repackaged the material, making some of the sessions into a Distinguished Lecture Series, but it also appears this company--with the useless name University Video Communications--does sessions of other conferences, too. I think I'm missing something; I don't really want to make the conference the main entry, but can't say why. Can you help?

A: The operative phrase related to your question in 21.1B2d (and LCRI 21.1B2, Category D) is "collective activity." That is (as the RI states), "It must deal with the activities of many persons involved in a corporate body covered by the category, not with the activities of a single person." So a video, sound recording, or print version of just one or two lectures or papers from a conference would likely have the personal author as the main entry with an added entry for the conference (see part 3 under the RI's "Applicability" section), though you'd have to go through the usual intellectual process to determine that.

Q: I have been studying about field 711 and have a question about the use of "2" as a second indicator indicating that the item contains the item represented by the added entry. I have a sound recording of the music from a benefit concert (War Child (Concerts)) (see record #40137390). Since the music from the named meeting is included, the field becomes:

711 22 War Child (Concerts) $d (1998 : $c Modena ...)

In checking, I searched WorldCat for similar uses, but found none. I then searched using the examples included in Bibliographic Formats & Standards (p. 7:12-13). I was not able to find the examples "Mostly Mozart Festival. $e Orchestra" nor "Council of Trent" nor "International Symposium on Standardization of Hematological Methods." I wonder in what cases the second indicator "2" is used.

A: The second indicator "2" in added entry fields (700, 710, 711) is used only for analytical entries; that is, when the work represented by the added entry is contained within the item being cataloged. Since the second indicator structure was simplified a few years ago as part of Format Integration Phase 1, you can be fairly certain that any 700, 710, or 711 field that does not contain a subfield $t (title) cannot have a second indicator "2."

You would use value "2" when the item in hand contains the work represented by the name-title added entry, for instance, individual musical works found on a sound recording or in a score. You would use "blank" in all other cases, including when the added entry is not for an analytic or when no information has been provided as to whether the added entry is for an analytic. Value "blank" would always be used when the personal, corporate, or meeting name in the 7XX field is NOT accompanied by a title. Use "blank" also when the work represented by the name-title heading is a related work, not contained within the item in hand.

In the case of your 711 for "War Child (Concerts)," although musical selections from the performance are presented on the disc, the entity represented by the heading "War Child (Concerts)" is not actually contained within the item itself.

Now speaking theoretically, if the entity known as "War Child (Concerts)" had issued (let's say) some sort of declaration of rights for children of war, and Pavarotti had read it at the concert, and that reading were included on the recording, then you could have a heading such as:

711 22 War Child (Concerts). $t Declaration of rights for children of war.

which would legitimately have a second indicator "2" because the work represented by the name-title heading was contained in the recording.

The "Mostly Mozart" example in BF&S on page 7:12 is doubly incorrect and should be fixed to have a first indicator "2" and a second indicator "blank." The "Council of Trent" and "International Symposium on Standardization ..." examples are OK (though they may have been invented), as they each include a subfield $t.

Q: This has probably been asked and answered before, but I have not encountered it anywhere and am not sure of the answer. When one is cataloging a recording (usually a CD) with multiple dates of earlier recordings (and, presumably, releases), and one can ascertain a "release" date of the item in hand, either from the c date on the notes or the latest p date on the disc, should the DtSt be r, with the earliest p date as Date 2, or should it be s, with only the release date of the "compilation" (presumably not previously made)? Or should it even be p, with either the earliest actual recording (from 518) or p date from the disc or notes? (Or even t?) My inclination in these situations, since the item being cataloged is "new" as a whole, is most always to use s and the date of the compilation's release in Date 1 (with no Date 2, and with a 500 note stating the date of the compilation) but my cataloging supervisor and I do not see eye to eye on this. She favors the r DtSt with the earliest p date given. And, of course, many catalogers use the p DtSt, with the earliest date of recording from the 518 as Date 2, although one or more of the works on the disc have been previously released. Is there a "right" answer to this/these questions(s)? (And I know I have not mentioned all the possible combinations.) Any help will be appreciated.

A: The possibilities DO seem endless, don't they? First, you need to determine what dates you actually have. For the collection you have in hand, you are correct in trying to discern the publication date from the latest date associated with the item, be it a copyright date on the notes or booklet or the latest phonogram copyright (p) date. All of those other phonogram copyright dates can be slightly mysterious, even if we give publishers the benefit of the doubt and figure they are applying them correctly. I think these "p" dates are really supposed to signify original (previous) publication. Even an anthology recording that collects previously released material from multiple sources DOES qualify as a re-release. Date2 would contain the earliest of those original release dates and the DtSt would be coded "r." If on the other hand, the other date information you have refers to the date(s) of original sound capture (the sorts of recording dates you would put in field 518) and you have no evidence of a previous publication in any form, then DtSt would be coded "p" and again the earliest recording date would be Date2. The hierarchy of DtSt codes can be found in BF&S on p. FF:25 or http://www.oclc.org/oclc/bib/dtst.htm in the online version, or in USMARC under field 008/06-14. It would never be correct to use DtSt code "s" when you knew that the recordings had been published previously in any form or when you knew that the original date(s) of capture was not the same as the year of release in its present form. Even if you cannot determine the original date of capture or the date of previous release, you would code DtSt accordingly and code Date2 as an unknown (or partially unknown) date.

Q: I'm on a music CD cataloging rampage, and I would like to know how others treat musical groups that have a lead performer backed up by other musicians. The item in hand is "Imagination" by Gladys Knight and the Pips. I have done it this way:

110 2 Gladys Knight and the Pips (Musical group) 700 1 Knight, Gladys.

I intentionally did not make an added entry for "Pips" since to my knowledge this combination of performers has never been known that way. Whereas, I would do an added entry, "Supremes" for a work by Diana Ross and the Supremes, in addition to a main and added entry as shown above. My reasoning here is that at one time the latter was known only as "Supremes." Is this practice correct?

A: First of all, I hope you are checking the LC Authority File before you start creating added entries for either personal or corporate names. You'll find that there are established headings for both "Pips (Musical group)" (n82063181) and for "Knight, Gladys, $d 1944-" (n82063180), and coincidentally none for the two together.

This situation of named individual with group is covered by LC Music Cataloging Decision 24.1A: "When the name of an individual performer appears in conjunction with the name of a performing group, ordinarily do not consider the person's name to be a part of the name of the group, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." There is also a reference to this MCD from MCD 21.23D. Since issuing these MCDs (in June 1990; they were published in the September 1990 "Music Cataloging Bulletin"), LC has tried to be consistent, but I bet one can find exceptions.

From what I've been able to gather about LC practices, when the individual's full name is stated, MCD 24.1A is followed, as in the separate headings for Gladys Knight and for the Pips. When only a first name (or a fanciful name) is stated, the established heading for the group tends to include that individual name (with the conjunction depending on predominance in the published works, presumably).

n94116228: Freddie & the Dreamers (Musical group) n9158379: Echo and the Bunnymen (Musical group) n91120888: Siouxsie & the Banshees (Musical group) n9153842: Mike + the Mechanics (Musical group) nr8912007: Derek and the Dominos (Musical group)

Considering full personal names and the group name to be separate headings also alleviates the identity problem when careers diverge or when the group's name included the individual's name (in varying degrees of fullness) at different times in their careers.

no922593: Reeves, Martha. no922595: Vandellas (Musical group) n88626491: Robinson, Smokey, $d 1940- n8834850: Miracles (Musical group) n88619772: Valli, Frankie, $d 1937- n88619775: Four Seasons (Musical group) n8263191: Young, Neil. n91121880: Crazy Horse (Musical group) n8289447: Ross, Diana, $d 1944- n85269719: Supremes (Musical group) n85235764: Burdon, Eric, $d 1941- nr8911896: Animals (Musical group)

So if you've checked the authority file and found nothing helpful, you should keep MCD 24.1A in mind when establishing headings for musical performers.

Q: In most (maybe all) of the chapters in Part I of AACR2R, Rule X0.B1 lists the chief sources of information, followed by a sentence that states, "If information is not available from the chief source, take it from the following sources (in this order of preference):" and then lists things like container, accompanying material and the ubiquitous "other sources." My question is at what point do you bracket a title which does not come from the approved chief sources? If I have no title at all on the face of my CD nor on the insert which shows through the jewel case but do have a perfectly acceptable title on the spine or back of the jewel case, do I bracket the title? Or if I have a set of slides where the only place I find a title is on the accompanying material, do I bracket it? I think I never have bracketed such titles, just put them in the 245 and add a note saying where I found the title. I now realize that I have adjusted that rule in my head to: if the title is not on the chief source but is somewhere else on the item or on things that come with the item (e.g., accompanying material, containers), give it without brackets and with a note. If the title comes from outside the item (e.g., publisher's catalogs, my own head) then bracket and add a note. But that's not exactly what AACR2R says. It lumps accompanying material, containers and "other sources"--which to me means things outside the item, including cataloger-supplied titles--all together, as if titles from all these places should be recorded in the same way. Can you clarify?

A: AACR2 Rule 1.0A1 says "Enclose in square brackets information taken from outside the prescribed source(s)." In most of the Part I chapters, the prescribed source for the title and statement of responsibility area is the chief source of information. Definition of the "chief source" differs from chapter to chapter but it tends to cover a wide choice of sources, its name notwithstanding. In Chapter 5 for music, for instance, it eventually says "use the title page or title page substitute (see 2.0B1) as the chief source of information." The phrase "title page substitute" covers a lot of ground, judging from 2.0B1 and the specific information in each chapter. In the sound recordings chapter, 6.0B1 in part says, "Treat accompanying textual material or a container as the chief source of information if it furnishes a collective title and the parts themselves and their labels do not." In the graphic materials chapter, you find similarly broad interpretations of "chief source" in 8.0B1, concluding with "In describing a collection of graphic materials as a unit, treat the whole collection as the chief source."

This is all pretty confounding, as you've noticed. I think it generally boils down to using square brackets when the cataloger is supplying information, when information comes from a source external to the piece in hand (a publisher's catalog, for instance), or when the title and statement of responsibility have a mixed heritage (when a subtitle appears only on a container, for example, but is included as other title information with a title from a sound recording label).

245 10 Steel wheels $h [sound recording] / $c [principally] written by Jagger/Richards. 245 00 From dusk till dawn $h [sound recording] : $b [music from the motion picture]. 500 Subtitle from container. 245 10 [Euro-Landerkarte 1:800.000. $p Deutschland : $b mit Ortsnamenverzeichnis und Entfernungstabelle]. 500 Title derived from publisher's catalog.

You will want to indicate in a note the source of information when appropriate.

Q: If my item says "with accompaniment for rehearsal only" and the WorldCat record does not, is this enough difference to justify a new record? This situation sometimes results in contradictions within the same record, for instance a 500 note that says "with piano accompaniment for rehearsal only " but a subject heading that includes the "Unaccompanied" qualifier.

A: Generally, works that are said to include piano accompaniment intended for rehearsal purposes only are still considered to be unaccompanied, since they should be performed without the piano. My guess is that some catalogers don't notice the presence of such accompaniment or simply fail to mention it. If everything else matches (plate and/or publisher numbers, pagination, etc.), I think you can consider them to be matches.