Library of Congress Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings--Music Sections

I've just finished reading through most of the Library of Congress' Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings for the creation of subject headings in music. Admittedly, this was not the most riveting of documents, and it took me three weeks to get through the music sections. I now understand the basics of assigning subject headings.

The primary concern is to provide at least one subject heading that represents the predominant topic of a work. Thus, the first subject heading should be as specific as possible in describing the work. Additional subject headings may be added to increase access. In MARC, there is a way to distinguish primary and secondary descriptors in a {650} field in the first indicator. However, both Ralph and Suzanne Mudge have told me that they do not ever use this indicator with subject headings. It makes me wonder, then, whether it really is all that important to make sure that the first subject heading represent the predominant topic of a work, because OPACs and ILSs search subject fields indiscriminately. I guess the lesson to take from this is the importance of creating subject headings that are as specific as possible.

I also learned about assigning free-floating subdivisions appropriately, such as "Arranged", "Excerpts", geographic, chronological, topical, and form subdivisions. These subdivisions have certain rules for use, and must be ordered appropriately. These rules are detailed in H 1160 of the Manual.

In regard to use of the "Facsimiles" subdivision, I read (and have had experience cataloging actual facsimile scores for this internship) that this subdivision is not applied to the primary subject heading, but in two added subject headings. The first is a generic heading for Music with free-floating subdivisions "Manuscripts" and "Facsimiles", in that order. The second is a subject heading for the composer, with the same two subdivisions added after the name. The example in H 1595 of the Manual looks like this:

650 #0 $a Organ music.
650 #0 $a Music $v Manuscripts $v Facsimiles.
650 #0 $a Bach, Johann Sebastian, $d 1685-1750 $v Manuscripts $v Facsimiles.

Finally, H 1917.5 descrbes music form/genre headings for medium of performance. There are complex rules governing the listing of instruments/voices for which a particular work was composed or arranged. This is complicated by use of genre designations that imply standard ensembles (a symphony is typically played by an orchestra, etc.), creating a number of situations where medium of performance is prohibited. With the huge variety of instruments, instrument families, and virtually endless possibilities for combining instruments and voices in new compositions, the rules quickly become complicated, and many exceptions must be noted. In the end, however, it isn't rocket science, and with some diligence one can read through the rules as needed in real-world cataloging.

Fake books, aleatory music, and Corelli

Well, its been almost another week, and I can hardly believe it. The summer is moving much more quickly than I anticipated. Its now almost July, and I've still lots of things I want to do with my summer. The cataloging internship is going well, however, and I feel that I'm learning a lot of useful skills for a future career in technical services.

I enhanced records for two fake books this week, both published by Sher Music. Technically called "real books", these volumes contain jazz and pop standards from mostly the early 20th century, providing melodies and lyrics with chord symbols that can be improvised by any ensemble. These were pretty straight forward, but I was able to find a complete contents list (each volume had about 200 songs in it) for each volume, which I dumped into a contents {505} note. This provided patrons with the ability to search for individual songs in the fake book, greatly improving access. Today I will go back and add a contents note to another volume already cataloged by our library.

The real challenge last week was a work by Leoncjusz Ciuciura, a Polish composer, who wrote many aleatory pieces in the Sixties. I cataloged his Spirale II, per uno e più. The subtitle for the work says that any set of instruments can be used for the work, but there were 14 scores included in the published work, all for specific instruments. The booklet of instructions for this work was 11 pages long, and although they had English translation, were virtually incomprehensible. To add to the confusion, a sheet designating certain words or sounds to be made by the performers in between two movements of the work was included as a loose leaf, and four color pictorial "ideograms" were included, but the instructions gave no explicit mention of how they were to be used. What a mess! In the end, the physical description {300} looked unique, to say the least.

Finally, I got some really good practice on uniform title creation with a flute quartet arrangement of two movements from some op. 5 sonatas by Arcangelo Corelli. The movements (a saraband and and a gavotte) were from different sonatas, and neither one had a uniform title with subfield p for section of work. Additionally, I think I'm coming to an understanding of the addition of "arr." to uniform titles and name-title authority records. That may sound silly, but it has been a bit confusing to me.

I've been looking around for positions at university libraries out West lately, and I've noticed a trend in job listings for technical services librarians. Many are now mentioning that it is preferred that candidates will have Dublin Core or other metadata understanding or experience. I think it important to learn more about this stuff to be prepared for the job market, although it falls outside the scope of this internship. Well, hopefully I'll post another entry soon.

Learning new concepts

Well, it seems like its been a long time since I last made a journal entry, but really there has been only one work day in between the last posting and today's. I've learned a lot since then, particularly on the following subjects:

1. Language Codes {041}: I've learned how to code this field to represent non-musical materials in scores, including translations, libretti, instructions for performance, sung or spoken text, table of contents, etc.
2. Varying Forms of Titles {246}: I've learned when it is necessary to include other forms of title information as added entries. For example, a title such as "Three bagatelles" should have added variant titles for "3 bagatelles" and "Bagatelles" so that the library patron can find the item regardless of the way he or she searches for it.
3. Performance Durations {306, 500, 505}: I've learned both the code field {306} and how to create an appropriate note for durations noted in scores. One thing in particular: when the item contains durations for multiple works, and a contents note {505 field} is included, the durations are noted with each of the works in the contents note. Otherwise, the duration is given a separate {500 field} note.
4. Creation of added analytical entries for personal names {700}: I cataloged an anthology of contemporary marimba music, for which none of the four pieces had name-title authority records. I learned how to research titles and represent my findings correctly on an authority record. We had to do a bit of searching on lots of Polish websites to find information about some of the composers. That was fun.
5. The difference between "1 score (27 p.)" and "27 p. of music" {300}: The difference is that a score is generally considered more than one performer's parts all in one staff, whereas works for solo instruments, including piano (which technically has two staves of music, or one "grand staff") and organ (which may have a grand staff plus another staff for pedals) use "p. of music".

Concerning this last subject, there has been some discussion on MLA-L recently to propose that AACR2 and the future RDA get rid of the "p. of music" designation entirely, and call all notated music a "score". I read through many of the arguments posted on the Listserv, and although many seem to be reluctant to throw out "p. of music" without a compelling reason, I think a compelling reason may be simplicity's sake, especially in light of the fact that RDA is supposed to simplify cataloging rules and practices somewhat. Perhaps something like "Notated music (27 p.)" would be a better descriptive term that skirts the issue of the technical definition of "score". "Notated music (27 p.)" could equally accommodate items that are entirely made up of musical material, as well as books that contain text and notated music (e.g., "lxvi, 55 p., notated music (27 p.)"). The one issue that remains would be a way to correctly note special types of scores (vocal score, miniature score, close score, etc.). Hmmmm.

Working independently (kind of)

I'm sorry I've been a bit behind in writing these blog entries; on Friday I took my laptop to the mac specialists to get it repaired after my daughter pushed the screen back a little too far last week. Unfortunately, I made the decision to go ahead with the $250 repair a little too late in the day, and they had to wait until Monday to order the part. Today is Wednesday, and I hope to have the computer back by this evening. It's been interesting to be away from the laptop for more than a day, much less for more than five. I kind of like the freedom, but then again, all of my school work is on that thing, and I need to attend to a few upcoming deadlines.

Anyway, long story short, I haven't made the time to blog. Oh well, last Friday for the internship, I finished the Pejacevic score and moved on to two more. The process became quicker for these next two, especially because Ralph was sitting next to me and could tell me when I needed to fix something or not. He gave me pertinent sections to music of the Library of Congress Subject Cataloging Manual (Section H)to read. I'm about halfway through, and have learned a lot about the formulation of subject headings, including when it is appropriate to add free floating subdivisions, form/genre headings, headings for composers, etc. Although the readings can be long, and although it is almost impossible to remember every rule in the literature, I still consider the topic interesting and pertinent.

I have heard rumor, however, that LC may stop updating the LCSH and stop assigning subject headings to bibliographic records they create. I see the benefit of controlled vocabulary in bibliographic records, but I'm also aware of the expense required to maintain such a system, given the ability of search engines to be programmed to automatically search for word variants (spelling, language, singular/plural, tense, arabic numerals/spelled-out numbers, etc.), and given the preference users have for keyword searching these days, perhaps a folksonomic system for assigning subject terms may be in order, employing the expertise of the academic communities who may actually read a work in its entirety rather than a cataloger, who, despite years of training/experience in assigning controlled vocabulary to items, is limited in his or her ability to learn about the intricacies the vast expanse of human knowledge. Although not perfect, people seem to be pretty good at applying descriptors to the videos they upload to sites like Google Video and YouTube. Who knows? Although it may sound strange for a cataloger to be advocating a partial relinquishment of control over the sacred bibliographic record, I also believe that the library should be a place of community, of sharing and collaboration, and the library's OPAC can be a center for that kind of scholarly communication to take place.

My First Score; also, PCC, BIBCO, NACO, MOUG (a.k.a., LLA: Librarians Love Acronyms)

I started enhancing my first bibliographic record and corresponding authority records on Tuesday. I spent two hours with Ralph going over the basics. My first score is the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, op. 33, by Dora Pejacevic (1913). Mine is a score for two pianos, one of which plays an orchestral reduction. I've been learning my way around OCLC Connexion Client version, which seems to me a much easier way to catalog than using Workflows' interface. It's fun, and I look forward to continuing my work on the title.

I've also been reading lots of documentation from the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging, and its programs for creation and sharing of bibliographic records (BIBCO) and Name Authority Records (NACO). I've learned the Core Record Standards for books and printed music, and how to identify a record that has been created by a PCC-participating cataloger. With NACO, I read through many FAQs for the creation and maintenance of Name Authority Records (NARs), and I learned about NACO Funnel Projects, one of which is particularly important to my work here at Indiana University. We participate in the NACO Music Project, and Ralph is actually the project coordinator. I closely read through the NMP documentation, including the handbook, which helped me understand the presentation format of information in a 670 field of a NAR. Finally, I also read through "Types of Compositions for Use in Music Uniform Titles: A Manual for Use with AACR2 Chapter 25", a report of the MLA Working Group on Types of Compositions that helps the cataloger assign composition types using correct spellings, usage, etc.

Yesterday I received an email from the MLA Listserv, which said that the Music OCLC User Group (MOUG) is looking for a webmaster. I'm wondering if now would be the right time to jump into such a project. Taking a look at the MOUG website, they could definitely use a freshening. We'll see about it.

Music Uniform Titles and librarian manifestos

Today I finished AACR2 chapter 25, reading carefully the sections on uniform titles for music. My understanding of uniform title creation is to aid in the collocation of identical works that happen to have actual titles that may differ in spellings, languages, arrangements of words, etc. If all manifestations of a work can have the same uniform title in the catalog, the user is able to find all items in the library with that title. If not, he or she would have to guess the various ways "sonata", for example, could be written (sonate, sonata, sonatas, sonatina, sonatine, etc.). Due to the extreme complexity of genre/form designations in music, however, an equally complex protocol for representing works in a catalog is required. I'm sure this will be a source of constant intellectual challenge for me as I enter the practical portion of my internship tomorrow.

In other news, I received a link to a blog posting by K.G. Schneider, librarian, entitled, "The User Is Not Broken: A meme masquerading as a manifesto". She writes a series of short aphorisms meant to highlight what she feels are problems in the communication of information between the library/librarian and the patron-user. Her points span the range of tone, from those that are drole ("The average library decision about implementing new technologies takes longer than the average life cycle for new technologies.") to the pessimistic ("That vendor who just sold you the million-dollar system because 'librarians need to help people' doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, and his system is broken, too.") to the postmodern ("You fear loss of control, but that has already happened. Ride the wave."). Some of the most pointed, I feel, are worthy of contemplation in regard to information access and retrieval by the end-user, which is really the whole point spending so much time and effort on creating a catalog:

"Information flows down the path of least resistance. If you block a tool the users want, users will go elsewhere to find it."

"You cannot change the user, but you can transform the user experience to meet the user."

"If we continue fetishizing the format and ignoring the user, we will be tomorrow's cobblers."

"The user is not 'remote.' You, the librarian, are remote, and it is your job to close that gap."

Almost finished with AACR2 readings

I'm just one chapter away from finishing my assigned readings in AACR2. I forgot how long it takes to get through some of this material--if you don't pay close attention, all the rules start sounding the same after a while. I'm venturing into material (uniform titles and references) I've not read before, which means I need to pay even closer attention. Next Monday I am to start working on real scores, so stay tuned for some more interesting posts.