Newsletter no. 75, May 2000
Q: What is the Language Code if you have a sound recording that is a collection of music, almost all of it instrumental but with voices on a few of the selections. Is it "N/a" or do you pick the language(s)?
A: The Language Code(s) would reflect the language(s) of the sung texts, in the fixed field and in the 041, if appropriate. If it isn't clear from the contents note or somewhere else in the record, you could include the details in a 546 note. For example:
| 546 Third and 6th works sung in Latin. |
Q: How do you search OCLC by ISMN Number?
A: At the moment, 024 is not indexed, but as part of the revamping of the FirstSearch indexing associated with the New FirstSearch, it will soon be. You may be able to find a small selection of ISMNs that appear in 500 fields by searching the number in a keyword "nt" search.
Q: Is it ever appropriate to make a main or added entry for the Catholic Church, when you have recordings of Gregorian Chant?
A: AACR2 Rule 21.22 states: "Enter an edition of music that is officially prescribed as part of a liturgy as instructed in 21.39." It gives two examples:
|
The liber usualis : with introduction and rubrics in English / edited by
the Benedictines of Solesmes Main entry under the heading for the Catholic Church |
|
The restored Holy Week liturgy : practical arrangement of the prescribed
music for the average church choir / by Carlo Rossini Main entry under the heading for the Catholic Church |
Rule 21.39, footnote 11 explains, "Liturgical work" includes officially sanctioned or traditionally accepted texts of religious observance, books of obligatory prayers to be offered at stated times, calendars and manuals of performance of religious observances, and prayer books known as 'books of hours'." Rule 21.39A1 says in part "Enter a liturgical work under the heading for the church or denominational body to which it pertains. When appropriate, add a uniform title as instructed in 25.19-25.23 to the main entry heading." So it appears that, if the recording is presented as a service or as a liturgical ceremony, it would be entered under the heading for the appropriate religious entity. As examples, you might look at OCLC #17584857 (87-753198), #20632184 (89-751752), #21167516 (89-755593), #23837110 (91-751914), #30946620 (94-771275/R/r972), #33160942 (95-704488/R).
Q: Serial numbers within an opus number are sometimes considered separate works and sometimes considered excerpts of the opus number. How do you decide when the work is separate and when it's an excerpt? For example, according to the LC/NACO authority file, Beethoven's three string quartets op. 59 are separate works, while Brahms' two clarinet sonatas, op. 120, are considered excerpts. In each case, the set of pieces was published together. I can't figure how one is different from the other, so I can't extrapolate the reasoning when I run into the same situation with a composer who's not in the authority file.
A: It all has to do with how the composer (or thematic index compiler, perhaps) numbered things and whether the work or works in question are part of a larger sequence. In the case of the Brahms, he wrote only two sonatas for clarinet and piano, and each was designated as part of Opus 120; as a result, their numbering sequence is fully contained within the Opus 120 and they are considered excerpts:
|
Brahms, Johannes, $d 1833-1897: $t Sonatas, $m clarinet, piano, $n op. 120. $n No. 1 $t Sonatas, $m clarinet, piano, $n op. 120. $n No. 2 |
In the case of the Beethoven string quartets (and the Faur? 233; piano nocturnes), the sequential numbering assigned by the composer crosses numerous opus numbers, even though some of those opus numbers happen to have multiple works within them (as Beethoven's op. 18 and op. 59 do). In sequences such as these, AACR2 Rule 25.30C has us add, after the medium of performance, the serial number within the larger sequence and then the opus or thematic index number (plus any numbers within the opus). So the Beethoven sequence goes, in part:
|
Beethoven, Ludwig van, $d 1770-1827: $t Quartets, $m strings, $n no. 7, op. 59, no. 1, $r F major $t Quartets, $m strings, $n no. 8, op. 59, no. 2, $r E minor $t Quartets, $m strings, $n no. 9, op. 59, no. 3, $r C major $t Quartets, $m strings, $n no. 10, op. 74, $r Eb major $t Quartets, $m strings, $n no. 11, op. 95, $r F minor |
Here, the overall numbering sequence (7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th quartet) takes precedence over the opus numbers. The number within the opus number would never be considered an excerpt of, say, "quartet no. 7." All of this can mostly be distilled (in a roundabout fashion) from Rules 25.6, 25.30C, and 25.32, and their respective RIs and MCDs. In short, the difference is whether the complete sequential numbering is contained within a single opus/thematic index number or spread over multiple opus/thematic index numbers.
Q: Shouldn't we encourage the NACO-Music Project members to apply for OCLC Enhance?
A: Taking the list of NACO-Music Project participants from the MOUG Newsletter no. 72 (current through March 31, 1999), I found that of the fifty institutions listed, 28 were already Enhance participants in at least one bibliographic format. In a few cases, subdivisions of institutions that have different NUC symbols but the same OCLC symbol, can also be counted among Enhance participants, bringing the total to an even 30, which is 3/5ths. Because NMP extends beyond just OCLC, of course, some of those NMP libraries are not OCLC members or don't do cataloging online with OCLC, so they would have no use for Enhance capabilities. The doors are always open for new Enhance applications.
Q: Is there such a thing as PCC full records (not core) for scores, sound recordings, and AV? Can one have National Enhance status for PCC without OCLC Enhance status?
A: There theoretically exist both PCC Core and PCC Full records for Books, Scores, Sound Recordings, and Computer Files, but there are currently no National Level Enhance authorizations for Visual Materials format. OCLC grants National Level Enhance authorizations only to institutions that have had BIBCO training from LC or its PCC representatives AND who have passed the Enhance evaluation process, either as part of a previous Regular Enhance application or (if the institution was not currently a Regular Enhance participant) specifically as part of the National Level Enhance application. Q: Which subject heading would be more appropriate for a CD of, say, a jazz saxophonist with rhythm section: "Saxophone music (Jazz)" or "Saxophone with jazz ensemble"? A: According to LC's Subject Cataloging Manual (H 1916.5), such headings as "[Instrument] music (Jazz)" may be used for solo instrumental jazz or "to bring out featured instruments in ensembles on recordings, either real (in the recording itself) or advertised (on the record jacket for promotional purposes." "[Instrument] with jazz ensemble" and "Concertos ([Instrument] with jazz ensemble)" are used when "a solo instrument is accompanied by a jazz ensemble." It sounds like either heading or both headings would be perfectly appropriate. Q: Where do plectral instruments fall in the order of instruments for uniform titles? A: AACR2 Rule 25.30B1 isn't very helpful, outlining the order simply as:
|
"Score order" is open to debate in may cases, especially when instruments not usually found in a traditional orchestra are concerned. New Grove and New Harvard Dictionary of Music agree that harp, celesta, and orchestral piano are usually placed between percussion and first violins (with the solo part of a concerto directly above the first violins, when appropriate). Most examples in the authority file seem to bear this out, although there are some exceptions, which may be incorrect. (Note that many of the records, including two of the three exceptions, are machine-derived headings and have not been verified by humans.)
|
Bax, Arnold, $d 1883-1953. $t Nonet, $m woodwinds, harp, strings [no97-62117]
Bax, Arnold, $d 1883-1953. $t Quintets, $m harp, violins, viola, violoncello [no97-62120] Berg, Josef, $d 1927- $t Sextet, $m piano, harp, strings [no97-81194] Bracali, Giampaolo. $t Quintet, $m guitar, violins, viola, violoncello [no98-9992] Gragniani, Filippo, $d b. 1767. $t Sextet, $m woodwinds, guitars, strings, $r a major [no98-670] Koechlin, Charles, $d 1867-1950. $t Quintets, $m flute, harp, violin, viola, violoncello, $n no. 2, op. 223 [nr99-6195] Lloyd, Jonathan. $t Quintets, $m mandolin, lute, guitar, harp, double bass, $n no. 2 [no98-39593] Mozart, Franz Xaver, $d 1791-1844. $t Sextet, $m winds, guitar, strings, $r a minor [no98-671] Riishojgrd, Knud, $d 1959- $t Quintet, $m piano, flute, clarinet, guitar, violoncello [no98-59369] Süssmayr, Franz Xaver, $d 1766-1803. $t Quintets, $m oboe, guitar, strings, $r C major [n79-140426] |
Some exceptions:
|
Flothuis, Marius. $t Quintets, $m flute, violin, viola, violoncello, harp,
$n op. 97 [no98-60708]
Hoffmann, E. T. A. $q (Ernst Theodor Amadeus), $d 1776-1822. $t Quintets, $m violins, viola, violoncello, harp, $r C minor [n87- 16196] Kummer, Kaspar, $d 1795-1870. $t Quintet, $m flutes, viola, violoncello, guitar, $n op. 75, $r C major [no98-636] |
Q: It's often difficult to find OCLC documentation on the OCLC Web site. Can you help?
A: The central place to bookmark for online versions of OCLC documentation is http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/documentation.htm. It has links to "Bibliographic Formats and Standards," "Searching for Bibliographic Records," "OCLC Cataloging Service Users Guide," "Authorities User Guide," all the recent Technical Bulletins, all of the online Enhance documentation, and many of the other most useful items.
Q: For a living composer, how do you decide whether to pluralize the initial element of a type of composition uniform title, especially if only one of that type has been written so far?
A: LCRI 25.29A is straightforward on this. "If the composer is living, use the singular form in the uniform title unless the work being cataloged bears a serial number (including 1); in that case, use the plural form on the assumption that the composer has written or intends to write more works of the type. When cataloging the second occurrence of a work of a particular type by a composer, if the singular form has been used in the uniform title for the first work of the type, revise the uniform title to use the plural form." The RI goes on to caution that the medium of performance is not a criterion, that two sonatas are two sonatas and the plural would be used regardless of the instrumentation of each sonata.
Q: It seems that in the distant past, there was an effort to determine the order of subfields $k, $l, $s, and $o in uniform titles. Unfortunately, that's all I remember about it. I have a CD with a boy choir singing only the soprano line of "Jesu, joy of man's desiring," with organ accompaniment. Those things make it an arrangement. They are singing an English translation. In the uniform title, after I get through the composer's name and the titles, is it $l English; $o arr. or $o arr. $l English? I saw nothing to help in AACR2, LCRIs, or MCDs. Your tagging book, on p. 136 top, last example under $l, has $o then $l. On p. 139, under $o (the Uhl example), there's $l then $o (with a $k interposed). Is there something I'm missing here?
A: There was an effort to standardize the order of subfields for subject heading subdivisions, but I don't recall any similar movement for uniform titles (which doesn't mean that there wasn't such an effort, of course, and could be just another sign of aging). When you start adding those subfields $, $k, $s, and $o, it gets awfully complicated. The only guidance is in rule 25.35A1: "Make additions in the order given. If $k Selections is added to the uniform title (see 25.32B1 and 25.34C3), add it as the last element or as the next to last element when 'arr.' is used (see 25.35C)." The "order given" is "sketches" (which is not separately subfielded; 25.35B); arrangements (subfield $o; 25.35C); vocal and chorus scores/librettos and song texts (subfield $s; 25.35D-E); and language (subfield $l; 25.35F). Recognizing that the examples in AACR2 are supposed to be "illustrative and not prescriptive" (in the elegant words of Rule 0.14), we can gather from 25.35A1 and the examples throughout 25.35 that the order appears to be: $s, $l, $k. I've got an old LC document called "Descriptive Tabulation: Library of Congress MUMS Format Data" for music records, which lists all the combinations of subfields and their frequencies in LC's files as of September 30, 1987. Lots of things have changed since then, but I don't think there has been any substantive reordering of uniform title subfields. The tabulation (looking at fields 240 and 700) bears out the preference for the $s, $l, $k order, although there are stray exceptions. When you throw subfield $o in the mix, it appears as the final subfield nearly every time with only two exceptions. When subfield $l is present, $l is the final subfield in eight out of nine cases. There were two cases where subfield $s followed subfield $o, but no cases in the other order. Considering all of this, the general order of subfields should be $s, $l, $k. When subfield $ is involved, it usually goes at the very end except when the uniform title ends in subfield $s or in subfield $l, in which cases the subfield $o is appended to the subfield preceding the $s or $l. In the case you cite, my guess is:
| Bach, Johann Sebastian, $d 1685-1750. $t Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, $n BWV 147. $p Jesus bleibet meine Freude; $o arr. $l English. |
It's hard to say without access to the uniform titles themselves whether the tabulated exceptions are errors or legitimate variations under certain circumstances.
Q: In what kind of situation was script-L used in the pagination of pre-AACR2 records? I suppose it implies that the book has a blank or unnumbered leaf or leaves preceding the text. Is this definition correct? And how were they counted? According to the present rules, one leaf counted as "1 [script-L]" not as "2 [script-L]." Is this true in the older catalogs?
A: In pre-AACR2 records, script-L was used to indicate leaves (defined in AACR2 as "One of the units into which the original sheet or half sheet of paper, parchment, etc., is folded to form part of a book, pamphlet, journal, etc.; each leaf consists of two pages, one on each side, either or both of which may be blank"). The old rules required a much more detailed pagination than does AACR2 currently, so blank and unnumbered sequences (which might now be ignored) especially at the beginning or end of the main pagination were often described as so many leaves. A single leaf (or sheet of paper) would have been counted as "1 leaf" if numbered or "[1] leaf" if unnumbered. There are still instances under AACR2 when such leaves would be included in the pagination, but the words "leaf" and "leaves" are now spelled out (see such rules as 1.5B2, many in the 2.5B and 4.5B sequences, for instance).
Q: At some session at MOUG/MLA you reminded us that indicator 2 for multiple surnames was no longer valid. Were you saying that we should stop using X00 first indicator value 2? This seems to contradict what it says in BF&S online currently, so I guess I'm a little confused about what OCLC wants us to do.
A: The X00 second indicator value "2" was made obsolete in USMARC/MARC 21 in 1996, but LC delayed implementation of this until January 2000. The policy in the online BF&S (as of this writing) still reflects the interim policy suggested by LC, but will be fixed along with many other changes in MARC updates to be implemented later in 2000. The second indicator "2" should no longer be used at all. Here is a statement from my colleague Susan Westberg about it that went out to many e-mail lists around the time of LC's announcement. The LC URL has additional details.
|
First Indicator Changes in Authority and Bibliographic Records
January 1, 2000 LC implemented a change to the first indicator value for personal name headings (fields 100, 400, 600, 700, 790, 800 in bibliographic records and fields 100, 400, 500 in authority records). Value 1 (Surname) was redefined to be used for headings with either single or multiple surnames. Value 2 is now obsolete. OCLC PCC participants should follow Library of Congress guidelines at http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/multsur.html when entering data. Authority records requiring changes have been identified by OCLC and will be corrected over the next few months and redistributed through LC. Changes to bibliographic records are not yet implemented. OCLC members should use 1st indicator value 1 for multiple surnames on all new bibliographic records. Headings on existing bibliographic records should be replaced as encountered and only if the record is already being worked on. Authority and bibliographic records may be out-of-sync for some time; however, users should not report first indicator changes to OCLC. Bibliographic records will be corrected through database scans. |
Q: I have a question regarding the correct order to list uniform titles for two works by the same composer on a compact disc. On the disc label, the works are listed separately. So, to give an example, the 245 for two works by Sibelius (this is not what is on my CD) would be:
| 245 10 Finlandia $h [sound recording] ; $b Tapiola / $c Sibelius. |
This is the order that they are listed on the disc label, so that is how you would transcribe it in the 245. However, they actually appear in the opposite order in the recording (this would be noted in a 505). So my question is, would you list the uniform titles to reflect the order that they are listed on the disc label (first the 240 for Finlandia, then the composer/title 700 for Tapiola), or would you list them in the order that they actually appear on the recording (first the 240 for Tapiola, then the composer/title 700 for Finlandia)? I realize that this would be made easier if there were three or more pieces on the recording, because then you could just give a collective uniform title, and do the 700s in the recorded order at the end, but no such luck this time. I checked AACR2 and the appropriate MCDs with no luck.
A: AACR2, the LCRIs, and the MCDs don't seem to address this issue directly, as you discovered. But I think we can take LCRI 21.29 on the "Order of Added Entries" and extrapolate commonsensibly from the statement, "For arrangement within any one grouping, generally follow the order in which the justifying data appear in the bibliographic description. If such a criterion is not applicable, use judgment." Since you are using the label as chief source and transcribing its order of the works as the non-collective titles, I think it's reasonable to keep the 240 uniform title and the 700 composer/title added entry in the same order as the transcribed titles, that is, "Finlandia" first (240; of course, in this case, the 240 would be omitted according to LCRI 25.1, as it exactly duplicates the title proper, but the principle stands) and "Tapiola" second (700). That also has the fortuitous effect of keeping the uniform title in the 240 and the first title in the 245 in harmony, referring to the same work. By the way, since the contents are already outlined in the 245, I don't think you really need a formal 505 note. Instead, a 500 note should be sufficient, to the effect that the works are actually in the reverse order from that indicated on the label.