Proposal: Revision proposal for RDA 6.28.3, Authorized Access Point Representing a Musical Expression

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Proposal: Revision proposal for RDA 6.28.3, Authorized Access Point Representing a Musical Expression

  1. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I am pleased to see the addition of

    i) one or more of the terms specified at 6.28.3.2–6.28.3.4
    and/or
    ii) one or more appropriate elements as instructed at 6.27.3.

    to the instruction at 6.28.3.1b, clarifying that the general instructions at 6.27 also apply to musical works. I realize this isn’t within the purview of the Music Working Group, but if this addition is useful here, it would also be useful to have something similar at 6.30.3 (expression of a religious work)

    RDA doesn’t specify the order of elements to be added for an expression, but it seems odd that qualifiers seem to hop around in the examples under 6.28.3:

    Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 6, op. 68, F major;
    arranged (Sitt). Notated music

    Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 6, op. 68, F major;
    arranged (Pauer). Notated music

    Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 1756-1791. Requiem, K. 626, D minor (Beyer).
    Performed music.

    Monnot, Marguerite. Hymne à l’amour. English. Performed music (Lynn)

    Monnot, Marguerite. Hymne à l’amour. English. Performed music (Lauper)

    In my opinion it might make more sense for the qualifier to appear at the end rather than somewhere in the middle, at least for the Mozart example. I can understand the placement of the qualifier in the “arranged” examples better.

    That being said, I am really pleased to see these examples of qualified expression authorized access points. And perhaps the point of the examples was to give different possibilities rather than insist on one particular order, which might be more a matter of policy.

    Finally, since the proposal is generalizing the instructions for arrangements (6.18.1.4), why not go all the way and get rid of the exception for “popular” music? Arrangements of *all* kinds of music result in new expressions, whether the works are “popular” or “serious”. The exception makes it appear that arrangements of popular music (except for the two categories listed) do not result in new expressions, which simply isn’t correct. I do not understand why the general instruction cannot apply to all kinds of music.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Regarding Bob’s final point about the exceptional practice for music in a popular idiom (which has been the practice all along but is only now being proposed as an Exception in 6.18.1.4 instead of a sub-instruction), yes, certainly new expressions result all the time in popular music. However, the concept of an arrangement simply is not as relevant in popular music as it is in classical music, where the precise original medium of performance is fixed and can be determined easily. In popular music, the exact medium of performance can vary wildly and cannot always be determined from the resource, which is usually an audio recording. The proposed Exception does not preclude new expressions in popular music; rather it limits the number of cases in which we would actually use the label “arranged.” It is not reasonable to expect catalogers to be able to determine an original medium of performance for every piece of popular music, and the results would be inconsistent anyway. We would be using “arranged” all over the place, which would not do much for our users, since the term just isn’t as applicable in a popular music context. I am speaking as an individual member of MusLA, although I did have some involvement in preparing this proposal.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Hi Bob,
      The variable placement of the parenthetical qualifier in the examples doesn’t have any real intentional significance, especially since it is not even our practice currently to create these kinds of highly specific AAPs for expressions.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.18.1.4, the qualification added to a) & b) “that do not result in new works” creates some very awkward phrasing, and the result is a bit hard to parse. Since it applies to both conditions, it seems like it should be possible to integrate this phrasing once into the introductory paragraph.

    However, I think this phrase is not needed at all — 6.18 is already about Other Distinguishing Characteristics of the Expression of a Musical Work — and thus these instructions are not about changes that result in new works.

    If guidance is needed about what to do if changes result in the creation of a new work, I would prefer to have a separate paragraph with a reference to the appropriate instructions. This could be something like:

    For substantial modifications that result in the creation of a new work, apply the instructions at 6.14.

    I am a bit uncomfortable with adding the term “modifications” to 6.18.1.4.b. Currently, “modifications” only appears 3 times in RDA, once in I.3.1, under “abridger” (For substantial modifications that result in the creation of a new work, see….) and once each in J.2.2 & J.3.2 in describing variations. What the proposed revision is getting at is those modifications that do not “substantially change the nature and content of the work” (phrasing used under “abridger”: leaving the nature and content of the original work substantially unchanged. ) I would really prefer to see this whole instruction recast with that phrasing.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      1st attempt at rephrasing the beginning of this instruction:

      If:
      the expression is an arrangement, transcription, etc. of a work or parts of a work by one composer
      and
      the modifications do not substantially change the nature and content of the work (e.g. a change in medium of performance, a simplified version)
      then:
      record arranged.

      Apply this instruction also to a transcription by the original composer.

      [no changes suggested to proposed new “exception” text]

      • Kathy Glennan says:

        In case this phrasing is better to work from, 6.27.1.1 says (in part): For new expressions of an existing work (e.g., abridgements, translations), see 6.27.3

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        Oh yes, the JMWG definitely struggled with the wording in 6.18.1.4 (“that do not result in new works”). Kathy, it almost never occurs to me to change something to the if-and-then construction, but I usually wind up liking the result, when someone else has the idea. Speaking just as a MusLA member, I like your suggestion for rewording, combined with your suggested “For substantial modifications that result in the creation of a new work, apply the instructions at 6.14.” But I might modify your suggested rewording like this:

        If:
        the expression is an arrangement, transcription, etc. of a work or part or parts of a work by one composer
        and
        the modifications are of a nature that does not result in a new work (e.g. a change in medium of performance, a simplified version)
        then:
        record arranged.

        Apply this instruction also to a transcription by the original composer.

        For substantial modifications that result in a new work, apply the instructions at 6.14.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    6.27.3 – 1st paragraph

    While I have no objection to adding “authorized”, this same problem also occurs in 6.29.2 & 6.31.2. If the JSC approves the change to 6.27.3, the same change should be made to those two instructions as well.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    6.27.3 – additional instructions – 1st paragraph.

    I’m concerned about adding this. While the overall guidance is OK, I’m not sure it belongs under an instruction that is about creating an AAP for “an expression”.

    In fact, the proposed sentence singles out only one kind of resource that could contain multiple expressions, and I think that’s too limiting. If the resource contains more than one expression *of any kind*, AAPs should be constructed for each of the expressions.

    Thus, I recommend not including this particular sentence in 6.27.3.

    However, I’m happy with the addition of references to the special instructions in 6.28-6.31.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      On the other hand, similar instructions appear at 6.30.3.2.

      If the JSC agrees to generalize the instructions about multiple expressions in 6.27.3, the impact on 6.30 should be considered.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      I realize that my perception is colored by the fact that I learned cataloging in AACR2, where it was very common to use a single access point with two languages and an ampersand (such as for a vocal score of an opera with text printed in two languages), but I do appreciate having this little tidbit of practical advice here in 6.27.3. However, would it be preferable to generalize the sentence to all expressions by deleting the word “language?”

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.28.3.1.b.ii: I have no objection to this phrasing. However, if the JSC accepts this, the same change needs to be made to 6.29.2.b.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.28.3.1.a: I recommend removing “as applicable” — it’s not in the equivalent instructions in 6.27 or 6.30.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.28.3.1.b:
    I wonder if it would be better to list all of the possible elements (with instruction references) rather than using this construction, which is a bit convoluted.

    This would look something like:

    b) one or more of the following elements, as applicable:

    i) other distinguishing characteristic of the musical work (see 6.18)
    ii) the content type (see 6.9)
    iii) the date of the expression (see 6.10)
    iv) the language of the expression (see 6.11)
    and/or
    v) another distinguishing characteristic of the expression (see 6.12).

    It’s possible that the specific sub-instructions would need to be referenced in i) above — thoughts?

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      If we want to establish/state order, we could add “(in this order) at the end of b) above. (We’d just have to make sure that was the order we wanted! Note that 6.27.3 doesn’t state a order, so maybe that’s a problem….)

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        The proposal uses “in this order” for a) + b) (AAP for work + any expression elements, in that order), but it does not aim to prescribe an order for the expression elements themselves (which is why b) doesn’t contain “in this order”). The WG is kind punting on that larger issue of order of expression elements (6.27 territory). Is that something the JSC wants to look at prescribing?

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Oh yeah, I think that could work. I think i) could be left general (6.18). But it would need to be: other distinguishing characteristic of the expression of a musical work (see 6.18)

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    I’m beginning to be convinced that none of the instructions in 6.28.3.2-6.28.3.4 (proposal numbering — or 6.28.3.2-6.28.3.6, currently) are needed. Their equivalent instructions are already in 6.18. Why shouldn’t 6.28 refer *back* to the record instructions, rather than duplicating (or nearly duplicating) these instructions here? (This is what happens with AAP instructions in all of the other 6.27-6.31 sections.)

    I think the examples remain useful in 6.28 & could be retained with different headings to indicate what they’re illustrating.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Yes, this is a wealth of useful examples specific to constructing AAPs for these types of things. I’m not sure how to handle to correlation between 6.18 and 6.28.

Leave a Reply