Finnish Music Group Proposed Revisions for Recording Preferred Titles of Parts of Musical Works Identified by Both a Number and a Title (6.14.2.7.1.3)

6JSC/MusicWG/16/rev
3 August 2015

Finnish Music Group Proposed Revisions for Recording Preferred Titles of Parts of Musical Works Identified by Both a Number and a Title (6.14.2.7.1.3)

 

 

Submitted by Damian Iseminger, Chair, JSC Music Working Group

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Finnish Music Group Proposed Revisions for Recording Preferred Titles of Parts of Musical Works Identified by Both a Number and a Title (6.14.2.7.1.3)

  1. John Myers says:

    As a non-musical cataloger, I will pose the dumb question, especially since the Finnish alternative essentially devolves to it.

    Why go through all the gyrations of 6.14.2.7.1-7.14.2.7.4?
    To synopsize:
    If only a number, use the number;
    If only a title, use the title;
    If always both, then use both IF the titles are distinct, but only use number IF the titles aren’t distinct;
    If sometimes both, then use both when present, and only number when not.

    Is there a principled foundation for this complexity? Or did it merely arise from real estate concerns on a catalog card?

    Wouldn’t it be simpler to have a single rule that states:
    Record the number by which a part is identified.
    Record the title or other verbal designation by which a part is identified.
    When both conditions apply, record the number, followed by a comma and the title or other verbal designation by which a part is identified.
    (I know this would need to be run through the RDA editorial conventions, but hopefully it conveys the gist of what I intend.)

    Optionally, include the Anglo-American “gyration” as an alternative:
    Alternative:
    If:
    each of the parts is identified by both a number and its own title or verbal designation
    and
    the parts are identified by the same title or other verbal designation
    then:
    record only the number of the part.

  2. Steve Kelley says:

    I am not a music cataloger either, but I think that John’s suggestion is eminently sensible, including allowing for the option to do it the way the instructions currently read.

  3. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    John’s suggestion is the serials exception to the general instruction 6.2.2.9. I agree that the proposal is unnecessarily complex. However, I do not think the music instruction should further move away from the general instruction than it already is, so I’m not really in favor of the proposal or John’s suggestion–UNLESS it was applied to the general instruction, 6.2.2.9. I do think it’s sensible, I just don’t think it should be incorporated into a special music instruction.

    And once again (as evidenced by my comments to the other proposals) it isn’t clear to me why there needs to be a special instruction for music that differs from the general instruction at 6.2.2.9. That is, why is there an “exception” for music to 6.2.2.9? What would the result of simply following 6.2.2.9 for musical works?

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    After thinking about this (and about MusicWG/10) a bit more, I think the specifics here belong in the access point instructions, not in the “record” instructions.

    There is no reason not to record the number and title of a part. (Or, in the case of MusicWG/10, to record anything associated with identifying the larger part.) The restrictions that the current instructions propose really are about what ends up in the AAP.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    On the other hand, this identification of the part (number, title, number + title, etc.) becomes part of the preferred title itself. So, breaking this up between “recording” and “creating AAPs” would get complicated….

  6. Diane Napert says:

    I’ve been considering this for a couple of days. On the one hand, it is an alternative and not required. On the other hand, it could confuse things when one cataloger considers the number important and another doesn’t. Preferring the title over the number makes sense if numbering varies between editions for say an opera. Going further and considering AAPs and authority records, I could see a cataloger wondering why one part has a name and number and another from the same work only the name (especially if working on authority). Yes, they can look up the rule and alternative, but something about the inconsistency would bother my “cataloging sensibilities” as one of my friends calls it

  7. Matthew Haugen says:

    I don’t disagree with the proposal, but I agree that there seems to be a simpler approach to this. This isn’t my area but John seems to be on the right track.

Leave a Reply