Proposal: Revision proposal for conventional collective titles in RDA 6.14.2.8 and Glossary definitions for conventional collective titles and the term Type of Composition

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Proposal: Revision proposal for conventional collective titles in RDA 6.14.2.8 and Glossary definitions for conventional collective titles and the term Type of Composition

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.14.2.8.2, I agree with the addition of “as the preferred title”.

    In 6.14.2.8.3, I wonder why the same text no longer appears. I think it’s needed.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    The instruction in 6.14.2.8.3 is long and complex. I think it needs to be revised for clarity.

    Something like:

    If:
    a compilation of works consists of, or purports to be, all of a composer’s works for one broad or specific medium
    and
    the works are not of a single type of composition
    then:
    record a conventional collective title generally descriptive of the original medium as the preferred title. Select terms for the medium of performance from a standard list, if available.

    [I’m still not really happy with that “and” clause above…. Rewording suggestions welcomed.]

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    That could mean restructuring the proposed 16.4.2.8.4 in a similar fashion:

    If a compilation of works consists of, or purports to be, all of a composer’s works of one type of composition, record a conventional collective title using the name of the type as the preferred title. Select terms for the type of composition from a standard list, if available.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    I generally like the revised Glossary definition.

    On the really picky side, I think there are a few commas missing (after the first “e.g.” & before the final “or”).

    I’m also wondering about the extent of the 1st e.g. statement. The RDA Editor’s Guide says: Use a parenthetical phrase in an instruction if necessary to illustrate or clarify the meaning of a term. Limit the number of examples given in the parenthetical phrase to three.

    Clearly this didn’t apply to the original Glossary definition, and I actually think that’s fine. However, there are a lot of terms here. I suspect that a few of them could be judiciously trimmed, if they generally represent the same concept.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      That’s fine with me, depending which examples are on the chopping block. I suppose the same idea is being illustrated by all of these terms: capriccio, concerto, intermezzo, nocturne, opera, symphony, and suite. I think it will be important to retain chamber music, motion picture music, sacred music, composition, movement, piece, Te Deum, Mass, and either Magnificat or Requiem.

  5. Matthew Haugen says:

    I generally think this proposal makes sense and agree with Kathy’s improvements.

    I wonder whether the NLNZ proposal (6JSC/Chair/15/rev/2: Revision to 6.2.2.10), should it be implemented, has any bearing on the “become known by” language in 6.14.2.8.1 for conventional collective titles for music, in terms of restricting cases in which conventional titles are applied to compilations of music. Is there a reason for music titles to depart from the general instruction?

    Also, perhaps the caption for 6.14.2.8 “Compilations of Musical Works” should be “Compilations of Musical Works by one composer” or “one Person, Family, or Corporate Body” following 6.2.2.10.

Leave a Reply