Newsletter no. 76, September 2000

Q: In a collective uniform title of the type "Piano music, pianos (2)," should "pianos (2)" go in subfield $t or subfield $m? Initially, I was inclined to keep it in subfield $t since it seems to behave more like a qualifier than a medium of performance. I checked the authority file on OCLC and found that in 11 out of 12 cases, this was the treatment chosen by LC. It was also interesting to note that in the single occurrence of "$m pianos (2)" in an authority record (ARN: 4566639), the bibliographic record cited (86-752268) actually has it as part of subfield $t. OCLC's BF&S does not address this situation but "Music Coding and Tagging" (p. 136) says, "Phrases such as '4 hands' are part of the medium statement EXCEPT when they follow a collective uniform title such as 'Piano music,' in which case they are not subfielded separately. However, consider as a medium statement qualifiers such a 'pianos (2)' that follow a collective uniform title." So, I am happy to comply with this interpretation, but I am curious if you can shed some light on the basis for LC's practice.

A: That quote from "Music Coding and Tagging" isn't very clear, is it? Too many mediums or something. In the upcoming second edition, the explanation is somewhat clearer (I hope), both in the description of subfield $a:

Among the types of parenthetical and other information not separately subfielded are:
    Such phrases as "4 hands" and "pianos (2)" that form part of collective uniform titles:

100 0 José Antonio de Donostia. 240 10 Piano music, 4 hands. $k Selections 700 12 Sor, Fernando, $d 1778-1839. $t Guitar music, guitars (2). $k Selections.

and in the subsequent descriptions of subfield $m:

... Phrases such as "4 hands" and "pianos (2)" are part of the medium statement except when they follow a collective uniform title such as "Piano music," in which case they are not separately subfielded.

100 1 Poulenc, Francis, $d 1899-1963. 240 10 Piano music, pianos (2) 700 12 Beethoven, Ludwig van, $d 1770-1827. $t Lied mit Veränderungen, $m piano, 4 hands, $n WoO 74, $r D major. 700 12 Hensel, Fanny Mendelssohn, $d 1805-1847. $t Piano music, 4 hands. $k Selections. 100 1 Cooke, Arnold. 240 10 Suites, $m recorders (4), $n no. 2

When the statement of medium is the initial element of the uniform title, as it is in many collective uniform titles, record it in subfield $a in the 240, 630, or 730 field or subfield $t in the 600, 610, 611, 700, 710, or 711 field.

100 1 Schulhoff, Ervín, $d 1894-1942. 240 10 String quartet music 700 12 Blavet, Michel, $d 1700-1768. $t Flute music, flutes (2). $k Selections. 700 12 Boyd, Anne, $d 1946- $t Flute, piano music. $k Selections.

The rationale is that the "pianos (2)" portion is simply an integral part of the initial element, which in these cases happens to be the medium of performance. The one authority record cited that was incorrectly subfielded (no97080415) is a machine-derived record and has been fixed.

Q: One of the general catalogers here tells me that LC is no longer using 490/0 for untraced series, but is either authorizing them for tracing or using 500 notes. She argues that there is really no such thing as an untraced series field any longer. I'm trying to confirm this. Are you aware of any recent decisions by LC that discourage or prohibit using the 490/0? What do you recommend to libraries that want to allow access to their 490/0 headings? Do you recommend changing them to 400-440 and creating an in-house authority heading, setting up the system to access 490s, or moving them to notes?

A: LC decided in August 1989 (that's stretching the definition of "recent" just a bit too much) to trace all series being newly established, but did not change the trace/non-trace status of series already established. The decision is documented in LCRI 21.30L. OCLC users should follow the trace/no-trace decisions found in series authority records when they input original records. Users are NOT obligated to follow this guideline locally; that is, they don't have to trace every series in their own local copy of a record. Changing all of your existing series 490s to traced series would be quite a chore and I don't recommend moving the headings to note fields. I would think that getting your local system to index all 4XX/8XX fields would be the best solution, if your system does not already do so. The OCLC keyword "series" search includes 490s, for instance.

Q: Please help me understand the format of durations for sound recordings when they are entered in field 500. AACR2 6.7B10 has an example: "Durations: 17 min. ; 23 min. ; 9 min." Your workshop on the University of Buffalo Web site has an example: "Durations: 1:17:00; 22:40." Should we be using the min. and sec. approach, or the 00:00:00 approach?

A: Music Cataloging Decision 6.7B10 stipulates that durations appearing in the notes area (either in a 500 duration note or in a 505 contents note) are to be expressed in the HH:MM:SS format, with hours, minutes, and seconds separated by colons. When an item contains only one musical work (as defined by AACR2), the total duration is given in the physical description (300) field and is stated in the form "XX hr., XX min., XX sec." according to LCRI and MCD 6.5B2.

Q: Please help, I cannot decipher the difference in code p and code r in OCLC's BF&S and the MARC 21 manual. When you have a sound recording of an item that originally was recorded in the sixties and released again in the 90s or whenever, do you use p or r? OCLC #39861877 uses a p; and #39750408 uses an r. Please differentiate these codes.

A: Which Type of Date code you use really depends on which dates you have available and how much evidence of a recording's pervious existence you have at hand. Remember that the rules do not generally require you to go beyond the item itself to determine such things as bibliographic history and previous manifestations. You also need to keep in mind the priority chart of Date Type codes (on p. FF:25 in the print BF&S, and http://www.oclc.org/oclc/bib/dtst.htm online). If the item you have in hand says, for instance, something along the lines of "Previously released as an LP in 19XX," you would be justified in using Date Type "r" and the "19XX" date in Date2 as the original release/publication date. If the item in hand says something like "Recorded in 19XX," but has no explicit mention of a previous release, you could use Date Type "p" and the "19XX" date as the Date2 indication of the date of the original capture. In a case where you know that an item has been previously released in a different audio format but have no date for that previous release (say, a note that says "Previously released material") and no date for the original capture, you would use Date Type "r" and a blank Date2. Obviously, there are many other possibilities, but I hope that gives you some idea.

Q: Field 041, subfield $b, says, "Do not enter language codes that already appear in subfield $a." Since sound recordings don't use subfield $a, can we ignore that sentence, meaning that you CAN enter language codes that already appear in subfield $d? For instance, if you have an opera sung in French, and there's a synopsis in French and English and German, you'd have:

041 0 $d fre $b engfreger

Your "Music Coding and Tagging" book, middle of p. 90, has this situation, so I'm guessing that the sentence does apply only to subfield $a, not subfield $d. (Though I can't fathom what the difference would be, as subfield $d just substitutes for subfield $a in sound recordings.)

A: Regarding the 041 subfield $b question, I have taken MARC 21 at its word, though I'm not sure my interpretation is correct. For music (specifically Sound Recordings), it reads "subfield $b contains the language code(s) of material accompanying sound recordings if the accompanying material contains summaries of the contents of a non-music sound recording or summaries of songs or other vocal works (not translations of the text(s)) contained on a music sound recording." Both the general definition and the audiovisual materials definition emphasize the use of the subfield $b when the language of the summary differs from that of the text or the sound track. The music explanation does not mention this restriction and I can only guess that it's because subfield $a is not used for sound recordings.

Q: The definition of field 246, 3rd paragraph, says, "For items including several works but lacking a collective title, field 246 is used only for titles related to the title selected as the title proper, usually the first work named in the chief source of information. Titles related to other works are recorded in field 740 or other 7XX." It's the "usually the first work" part that bothers me. If you couldn't find a collective title on your sound recording and the chief source had two titles, each with a parallel title, I thought both parallel titles went in 740s, since neither pertained to the entire sound recording. This rule seems to say that the parallel title of the first work goes in the 246, and the parallel title of the second work goes in a 740, to wit:
What I think:

245 14 The firebird $h [sound recording] = $b L'oiseau de feu ; The rite of spring = Le sacre du printemps / $c Stravinsky. 740 02 Oiseau de feu. 740 02 Sacre du printemps.

What BF&S seems to say:

245 14 The firebird $h [sound recording] = $b L'oiseau de feu ; The rite of spring = Le sacre du printemps / $c Stravinsky. 246 31 Oiseau de feu 740 02 Sacre du printemps.

Who's right?

A: On the 246, MARC 21 explicitly states that 246 is to be used for titles related to the title chosen as the title proper (the first title) when there is no collective title. That is the exception to the comprehensive title rule. So your second example is correct (if you add a 740 for "Rite of spring").

Q: I keep reading MARC 21 and BF&S and keep having questions on the 246. Here's one more: Both of these sources strictly limit what kinds of other title information can be put in the 246. The only time you can use 246 has something to do with full form vs. initialisms. Does this stricture mean that, if the title proper has other title information that, by itself, is a useful title, it cannot go in a 246? Such as:

245 10 Opera festival $h [sound recording] : $b arias from famous Italian operas.

Assuming that I think the other title information functions as a useful title, would "Arias from famous Italian operas" go in a 246 or a 740? Looking at the MARC 21 definition and scope of 740, it seems that other title information is not something you can put in the 740, either.

A: Other title information or portions of other title information fall under 246 Second Indicator "0" ("Portion of title"). So in your example, you would have:

246 30 Arias from famous Italian operas

This is justified in the first paragraph of the code "0" definition in MARC 21: "Value '0' indicates that the title given in field 246 is a portion of a title for which access or an added entry is desired, but which does not require that a note be generated from this field." The information that follows in MARC 21 (about titles in subfield $p, alternative titles, initialisms/full forms in subfield $b, etc.) are stated to be examples, but do not exhaust all the possibilities.

Q: I'm working on the Hanssler CDs of Bach's complete works. One CD is particular contains a number of spurious works. There are no headings in the authority file so I will have to come up with some for the 700 fields. I can formulate a basic Bach $t Suites, $m harpsichord, $n BWV 821, $r Bb major , etc. But since this is going to be an original record, I want to make sure that is the correct thing to do with these spurious works that according to New Grove have not been attributed to anyone else. Can I enter them under Bach's name and add a 500 note with the BWV numbers in question?

A: First, you should check the Schmieder (BWV) catalog to make sure the works have not been attributed. The BWV is the authoritative source, has much more detail than New Grove, and is ten years more current if you've got the 1990 BWV edition. If there is an attribution, make the appropriate composer/uniform title entry. If there is no attribution, you have to go with entry by the title (as examples see authority records nr99022421 and n87113482). Music Cataloging Decision 21.4C1 addresses this question indirectly, but it doesn't really help much: "When a musical work has been erroneously or fictitiously attributed to a composer, optionally make, instead of the added entry prescribed by 21.4C1, a name-title reference from the heading for the attributed composer and the uniform title which the work would have if it were in fact by the attributed composer to the heading for the actual composer and actual uniform title, or to the title if the actual composer is unknown (see MCD 26.4B). Apply this option when doing so would improve access to the work, e.g., because an added entry under the heading for the attributed composer alone would be lost in that composer's file, or because the work is represented only by a secondary entry in a bibliographic record."

Q: I have a page numbering question concerning an item that is two scores. Usually, the two scores have equal page numbering, so the solution in this case would be, for example, "2 scores (55 p. each)." However, since one of these scores has a short appendix, one of the scores has one more page than the other. The only place that seems to have any kind of information relating to this situation is MCD 5.5B1. It gives the example of "46, 39 p. of music." However, that refers to a single score with two different page numbering schemes. The only thing I can think of to do is "2 scores," just like you would do for "2 parts."

A: As I see it, there are two options, depending on how strictly we want to read the rules. Rule 5.5B2 reads in part, "If the item consists of different types of score ... give the details of each in the order of the list in 5.5B1, separated from each other by a space, plus sign, space. Add the pagination or number of volumes as instructed in 2.5B." So if these are actually two different types of score (say, a full score and a condensed score), there's no problem. But if we stretch the letter of the rule to include differently paginated scores of the same type (say, both full scores), you could describe them as such:

300 1 score (55 p.) + 1 score (56 p.)

The other option, and the one I think I'd prefer since it is simpler (and requires no stretch, lazybones that I am), resorts to Rule 2.5B21 (which LC locally chooses not to apply, but we needn't feel restrained by that). It reads, "If the volumes in a multi-volume set are individually paged, give the pagination of each volume in parentheses after the number of volumes." The example shows the paginations separated by a semicolon, space. This would result in:

300 2 scores (55; 56 p.)

In either case, you might want to mention the presence of the short appendix in a note, if appropriate.

Q: Should I be using the 546 tag for the language of song texts in scores? I have always seen just 500 used, except for sound recordings. Is this something new since I was a student? I'm kind of embarrassed that I've been putting language in a general 500.

A: That depends on how long ago you were a student. Until Format Integration about five years ago, the language note field 546 was valid only in Serials and the Archival Control formats. Now, 546 should be used for language notes in all formats, including Scores and Sound Recordings. Use 546 only when the note is devoted pretty much exclusively to the languages/scripts of the item's main content; notes including information about the languages of program notes, for instance, would be coded 500.

Q: For the first time in several years, I have to input a new record for a book of hymns without music. My instincts are telling me to use the scores format, even though there is no music, and I think I've read about this in the past (when all the manuals were separate before format integration), but I can't find anything in the documentation. Should I use books or scores format?

A: The treatment of hymnals without music has, indeed, changed since Format Integration. Current practice is to treat hymnals without music as books (Type "a").

Q: I'm cataloging a bunch (100-150?) of original cast recordings. Now that I'm about a fourth of the way through, a question occurs to me. If there is a statement on the disc itself, to the effect that this is a cast recording, it typically reads "Original Broadway Cast Recording" or "Original Cast Recording." In some instances, though, the statement "Original Broadway Cast" appears, without the word "Recording." I've been blithely transcribing all of the above as other title information, but it seems to me that "Original Broadway Cast" is really a statement of responsibility. Should we regard the phrase "Original Broadway Cast" as a statement of responsibility rather than other title information?

A: If we look at AACR2 rules 6.1B1, 6.1E1, and especially 6.1F1, and their respective LCRIs, it's clear that performers in the so-called "popular" idiom MAY be included in the statement of responsibility. Without getting into the debate over "popular" versus "serious" and the performer's intellectual responsibility, my gut feeling is that musicals would be grouped with operas in this respect, in that the performer's responsibility generally does not go beyond "performance, execution, or interpretation." LCRI 6.1F1 would have us shy away from including performers of musicals in the statement of responsibility. I don't really have a problem with including the statement "Original Broadway Cast" as other title information, since the missing word "recording" seems to be a logical implication. (If that makes you uncomfortable, you could add the missing word in brackets.) Alternatively, you might relegate it to either a quoted note by itself or as a quoted introduction to a 511 note that details the performers.

Q: In #17156763 field 041 has a first indicator of "0" (no translation in sight). To be correct this would have to apply only to the sound emanating from the disc. It is not a translation. It is German. But, the program notes are in three languages and the libretto is translated from the German into three languages. The answer must be that only subfield $b has no translation in sight. Therefore, indicator "0" is correct. If we take into account the other written translations the indicator should be "1." Is "0" the correct indicator?

A: The value of the First Indicator of field 041 in both Scores and Sound Recordings is determined by consideration of the main content of the item itself, not of any accompanying material. (There is one exception. When a score includes a translation of the vocal text printed as text, it is considered to include a translation.) For the recording in question to be considered to include a translation, it would have had to be sung in a language other than German, the original. So for a sound recording, when subfield $d contains only the original language(s), the first indicator is "0".

Q: I am originally cataloging a piece of music entitled "Gran trio concertante" by Valentino Molino. I noticed other records of this same work in OCLC read "Grand trio concertante." One might apply AACR2 1.0F and write "Gran[d]" in the 245. However, on the title page, the cover, and the title page verso, the spelling is "Gran," which leads me to believe that perhaps this is a variant spelling of this title, rather than an omission of the letter "d." This is further given credence by the fact that the preface gives the title on the original manuscript as "Grand trio...," so maybe this is a variant form of the title. However, I am not totally sure about this, and so if you could please share your thoughts on the matter, I would be most grateful.

A: Since the variant spelling appears virtually everywhere on your item and does not seem to be a title-page typo, I think it's safe to assume that this is a true variant spelling for this particular edition. Because the original edition had the spelling "grand," however, it also sounds like this spelling would be the proper uniform title. You could also supply a 246 title with the "grand" spelling.

Q: Why do I often see "Compact disc" notes coded as 538s in OCLC records?

A: Sometimes the simplest questions have the most involved answers. This one is a long story. In March 1996, an example was added to the then-USMARC Bibliographic Format with the text "Compact disc" as a 538 field (System details note). Apparently, the addition of this example had bypassed certain of the usual review processes. At the 1998 Music Library Association meeting in Boston, the Bibliographic Control Committee discussed the issue and decided that the "Compact disc" note referred only to physical description (AACR2 6.7B10), and so should be coded as a general 500 note. LC practice had always reflected this. The misleading 538 example no longer appears in the print version of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format or in the concise version on the Web, although it may not have been corrected yet in all print documentation. The 1999 edition of LC's "Music and Sound Recordings Online Manual" includes the "Compact disc" note among the examples in the 500 field. The BCC has issued an announcement that encourages "all sound-recording catalogers to return to the previous practice of coding "Compact disc(s)" notes in the 500 field."

Q: Recently, I found a Web site with guitar tablatures for Nanci Griffith's songs. This particular site has only the tabs, no scores. For a Web site, there is no 300 field, but for a paper version, would the 300 field be something like:

300 30 p. of music : $b ill. ; $c 28 cm.

Also, would the subdivision "$v Scores" apply to the subject heading? I searched OCLC but couldn't find an example of anything with just the tabs, although I did find things with scores and tabs.

A: For reasons that have never been entirely clear to me, LC has generally excluded chord diagram books from their music file. So if the site you cite consists of chord diagrams, it would be considered Type "a". I answered a related question in "MOUG Newsletter" no. 69 (April 1998, p. 16), which I append here:

Q: Some time ago, I had sent in a Type Code change request for OCLC #11193392, which is entitled "Mel Bay's dulcimer chord encyclopedia." I wanted it changed from "c" to "a." It seems to me that chord diagrams are generally treated as books by LC, not as scores. For example, see #31520339, Neal Hellman's "Dulcimer chord book." I can find other examples, especially of guitar chord books, if need be, to support this argument. You said something in the latest MOUG Newsletter (no. 68) about this very issue, where you leaned towards scores format for such items. The item in question really is not in musical notation. It has a representation of the fret board of a dulcimer with dots where the fingers are to be placed to give the chord, represented as a letter symbol at the top of the diagram. Do you really think that is a type of score? A: In various Q&A over the years, I have said to consider such items as scores even when they do not have traditional staff notation. To my mind, this seemed in line with other things that do not have staff notation but are still considered scores (scores that consist entirely of performance notes, all sorts of graphic notation, etc.). As backup evidence, I found numerous LC records that seem to treat such guitar chord collections as scores, but there were as many where they were treated as books. As I so often do when it comes to the REALLY difficult questions, I deferred to the Library of Congress. Deta Davis was kind enough to provide the following definitive answer: "You might not like my answer since it contradicts your position. We do not consider chord diagram books to be scores if they are exclusively chord diagram books. We even have a policy statement to that effect at the beginning of the Music-File Input-Update Manual under "Scope of the Music File." [The relevant passage in that internal LC document is quite explicit, had I thought to refer to it: "Records for books and book-like materials relating to music but whose primary content is not music notation, such as librettos, songbooks without music, books of chord diagrams, etc., reside in the BOOKSM file." That is, they are coded as Type "a."] We treat them as books. If a piece of music is written in chord diagrams or a chord diagram book had enough music in it to be considered music, then we would consider it a score. Another way of looking at it is, since the chord diagram books generally are not musical compositions but information on playing an instrument, then they should not be treated as music. As a result of [this] query I examined our practice and discovered some recent chord diagram books cataloged in the Music File as scores. We will be correcting those records and sending a reminder to the catalogers of what the appropriate treatment should be."

In other words, such an item would be described simply as "p." rather than as "p. of music" since chord diagrams are not considered to be music, bibliographically. That would also suggest that the form subdivision "$v Scores" would not be appropriate. Check out #33407843, #38174460, and #9394154, for example.