Newsletter no. 77, November 2000

Correction from MOUG Newsletter no. 76, Q & A, p. 11 Sometime between the time Jay sent in his column and when the newsletter got printed, a $m snuck into the following example: 700 12 Sor, Fernando, $d 1778-1839. $t Guitar music, $m guitars (2). $k Selections. This should have been with the "guitars (2)" designation not separately subfielded: 700 12 Sor, Fernando, $d 1778-1839. $t Guitar music, guitars (2). $k Selections. Thanks to Wendy Schlegel of the St. Louis Public Library for spotting this error. The editor offers her apologies!

Q: I have been finding some "strange" sound recording records on OCLC. The one that I am working with now is very odd. I'd like your input on it since I really can't justify how the cataloging agency cataloged this particular title (OCLC #43981816). My disk has "Mozart Strauss" as the prominent feature on the disc itself. The disc then lists the three pieces at the bottom. It then lists the performers and conductor. These people are not "prominent" on the disc. I can't see how 6.1B1 is applied here since the performers are not prominently mentioned even the container or the insert over the composers' and their works.

A: My guess is that the cataloger based the decision on LCRI 21.23C, determining from AACR2 21.23C and D proper that "Mozart Strauss" was presented in such as way as to constitute a collective title. LCRI 6.1B1 (which deals with transcribing the title proper, not choosing the main entry) doesn't state it explicitly, but the implication of the whole RI (looking in particular at its second paragraph) is that, although a single composer name would not ordinarily be a candidate for title proper, the names of more than one composer could be so considered. Looking at the 4th example in LCRI 21.23C ("Music of Chabrier and Massenet") and seeing that the main entry was under the orchestra, the cataloger followed suit. If you check the AACR2 definition of "prominently" (AACR2 Rule 0.8), it says merely that it must be found in one of the prescribed sources of information for that area and class of material. So, if the orchestra and conductor were both on the chief source (the disc/label), that's "prominent" enough. AACR2 21.23C1 says that if there are two or more principal performers, enter under the first named. Anyway, that's my guess.

Q: I have a "split CD" to catalog, with two different rock bands on it, little information, and no title other than their band names, "Wat Tyler" and "Xpensive Dogs." Could you give me a couple of examples in OCLC to look at, and maybe a suggestion of how the title might look?

A: We need to look at a few rules and RIs on both titles proper and items without a collective title. Rule Interpretation 6.1B1 allows us to use the name of a performer as a collective title proper. The RI's head is still in the vinyl era (if an RI can be said to possess a head; it was issued in 1989) and says in part: "If the chief source being followed is the label of a sound recording and the decision is to treat the name as a title proper but one name appears on the label of one side and another name on the second side, transcribe the two names as individual titles (separated by period-space)." [Makes one wonder who writes these RIs. William Faulkner?] Your instance seems to be the CD-era equivalent of this, and that's how I'd suggest handling it. There is additional corroboration in the rule about items with no collective title, 6.1G2 and its reference back to the general rule 1.1G3 and its RI, which suggest pretty much the same. So I think your title field would be:

245 10 Wat Tyler $h [sound recording]. $b Xpensive Dogs.

After some searching I couldn't easily find any examples, though.

Q: If I have a score and parts for an item, and the bibliographic record in OCLC shows only the score or only the parts, am I required to input a new record? Likewise, if I have only the parts and I find a bibliographic record for only the score (or only the score and find a bibliographic record for only the parts) .... I seem to remember these situations discussed in the OLD Bibliographic Input Standards, but cannot find our copy (if it still exists). I see nothing about these situations spelled out in the new manual. I'm interested in documentation as well as the current/past policy.

A: Bibliographic Formats and Standards doesn't refer explicitly to scores and parts, but states more generically: "Analytical vs. comprehensive entry. A record for a multi-part item or serial and records for their individual parts or issues may coexist. If a record for an item as a whole exists, you can create a record for a part and vice versa" (http://www.oclc.org/oclc/bib/4_1.htm or p. 46 in the paper BF&S). It is also implied in the statement for field 254, Musical Presentation Statement: "Absence or presence of 254 does not justify a new record. Specific differences in musical presentation statements (e.g., miniature score vs. playing score) justify a new record" (http://www.oclc.org/oclc/bib/4_2.htm or p. 53), as well as that for 300: "Specific differences in the extent of item ... justify a new record" (p. 55). Separate records for the score, the part(s), and for the score and part(s) are all justified, though you always have the option of using an existing record and editing it for local use (understanding that this may misrepresent your holdings for resource sharing). These policies have always been the same. The only substantive difference between the current texts in BF&S and the text in the final (5th) edition of the old "Bibliographic Input Standards" before it and all the formats were combined into BF&S is, again, implicit. It is in the (now obsolete) "Format" fixed field (p. 33): "A difference in coding of 'Format' alone does NOT justify a new record. Compare 245, 250, 254, 300, etc. Specific differences in the format of a score justify a new record." That BIS is the only old version that I have at hand, but I don't recall anything more explicit than that in even older versions. I know that I've answered similar questions in my Q&A column over the past ten or more years and have always said the same thing.

Q: I have some CDs with blues music. Here is one that I have in our save file:

511 0  Various artists. 500     Compact disc. 505 0  Why are people like that? / Junior Wells (3:52) -- Credit card blues / Terry Evans (4:45) -- Misery and the blues / Maria Muldaur (4:22) -- Life will be better / Sugar Ray Norcia, Charlie Musselwhite (5:19) -- So mean to me / Luther "Guitar Junior" Johnson (5:09) -- Money / Debbie Davies, Kenny Neal (4:45) -- Love had a breakdown / Son Seals (5:21) -- Killed the goose that laid the golden egg / Kenny Neal (4:17) -- How do I tell my little sister / Lady Bianca (5:01) -- Somebody gotta do it / Sam Lay (3:09) -- If the sea was whiskey / Willie Dixon Tribute (4:21) -- Brutal hearted woman / John Primer (5:00) -- Hen house / Marty Grebb (3:43).

The question I pose is the following. I have listed the 511 as "various artists." I could list them on each piece in the 505. That follows 6.7B18 and 6.7B10 (LCRI) for duration. But the problem is that each piece has four or more performers different from the other. It seems to be a compilation recording or promotional recording. So, your opinion--what would you do? Leave it as is or extend the 505 information out further yet?

A: You'll have to judge how important the information is and weigh that against record and field size limitations. You are certainly allowed to delineate the performers for each individual cut parenthetically (usually after the composer's name and before the separately parenthetical duration). But if this leads to an unbearably long 505 or one that becomes so complex that it's no longer clear, you might want to stick with the "Various performers" 511 field. You also have the option of being selective, listing only the featured performer(s) on each track, if that's appropriate.

Q: In cataloging scores, tag 300, I'm noticing a real divergence in actual practice as opposed to BF&S. A lot of institutions are putting parts for a score in subfield $e routinely rather than keeping them in subfield $a or, if there is a size differential or intervening illustrative matter, putting them in a second subfield $a.

A: Using subfield $e for parts is incorrect. It's an honest mistake, though, because the "+" convention (as in "+ X parts") looks just like the construction for the accompanying material that would properly go in subfield $e. Please report these incorrect records, or feel free to change them yourself on minimal-level records.

Q: I was cataloging this morning and wondered about input standards for UPCs for sound recordings that are issued in multiple containers. The item is a Centaur issue of the "Complete organ works" of Pachelbel. I am cataloging as a set without analytics (at least at this point), and wondered whether or not it would be kosher or appropriate to add volume information after the individual 024 fields.

A: MARC 21 is silent on the issue of parenthetical information in the 024, but LC's internal "Music and Sound Recordings Online Manual" (1999, with updates) says to basically do the same in 024 as you do in the 020 with ISBN parenthetical information. Under field 024 subfield $a, it says: "Parenthetical qualifying information, such as the publisher/ distributor, binding-format, and volume numbers, is included in subfield $a when subfield $c is not present. It is not separately subfielded." By extension, if there is a subfield $c present containing price, availability, or other information, the parenthetical volume number would follow it within subfield $c, again like the 020.

Q: Something mentioned at the OLAC/MOUG scores workshop tugged at my brain and I thought I'd double-check with you. If in a piece of chamber music, a score and a set of parts are published together, is it legal to catalog the score and the parts separately, putting separate records in OCLC? I've always believed the best route to go is to catalog the PUBLISHED ITEM; and to have a very good reason if you don't; and if you don't, to not put it in OCLC. An example is some toys I got stuck doing: Thomas the train engine, Harriet the boxcar, and Annie(?) the caboose. Each was available only as separate items in a catalog. We decided to put together the three train cars and catalog them on one record. But we only did it locally, not in OCLC. Maybe I don't have to worry about that? If determining the published item is important, I've found it's difficult to tell with scores. They're available this, that, and some other way, sometimes the publisher tells you, but often not. Indeed, some publishers don't seem to care. We receive the score, for instance, but were under the impression there were parts, so we call the publisher, and they say "oh sure," and send us some parts, which turn out to be a different font, with numbers that bear no relation to the score, are in their own cover, have a date wildly different from the score, and a different version of the publisher's name. Sounds like the score is one thing and the parts are another thing, but the vendor hasn't noticed, just pulls from various piles according to what the library wants. I've puzzled several times trying to determine if I have one thing or two. Any light you can shed would be appreciated.

A: You are permitted to catalog multi-part items together or separately. As you point out, it is not always easy to determine what the "published item" may have been, and in the case of scores and parts, they may appear in numerous permutations. You are also permitted to combine things into a single record, as you did with the trains.

Q: I've been informed that the rules for cataloging double-sided sound recordings has changed. Under the new rules, one can catalog the sound recording using only a single record instead of the old one record per side rule. We would like to create new records for the work that we are doing on some jazz 78s using the new rules as opposed to simply attaching holdings to the old records that were created using the old rules. What do you suggest that we do?

A: AACR2 Rule 6.1G allows you to catalog such sound recordings either as a single unit without a collective title OR as separate records. That choice is up to you, and those records following either practice are not considered to be duplicates by OCLC. Although LCRI 6.1G1 stipulates that such items should be described as a single unit, that is LC policy and is not binding on OCLC users. OCLC, however, prefers that you NOT enter duplicate records to represent AACR2 cataloging when there is an existing record cataloged (using the practice that you prefer) under pre-AACR2 rules. If I've understood your question correctly, if there are pre-AACR2 records following the separate-record practice and you want to create AACR2 records following the single-record practice (and no record for the single-record practice already exists), you ARE permitted to do so.