Revisions to Additions to Access Points Representing Compilations of Musical Works (6.28.1.11)

6JSC/MusicWG/12
31 July 2015

Revisions to Additions to Access Points Representing Compilations of Musical Works (6.28.1.11)

 

 

Submitted by Damian Iseminger, Chair, JSC Music Working Group

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Revisions to Additions to Access Points Representing Compilations of Musical Works (6.28.1.11)

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    CHANGE #1

    In the 1st paragraph, I think the word “compilation” needs to be substituted for the word “work” In the 1st & 2nd lines.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    Hmm, I think it might even be better to replace the “work” in that first line with “compilation of musical works”

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      Then the 2nd “work” (2nd line) might still be OK, since you could have a conflict between the title of a compilation and the title of a work (both with the same creator).

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    The more I look at this, the more I think that there’s no need for 6.28.1.11 in the first place. Why is there a need to make separate instructions for musical compilations? (Yes, I know that this basic instruction is already in RDA….) The WG has already noted (final paragraph of “issues requiring resolution”) that the equivalent instruction in 6.27.1.9 doesn’t explicitly address compilations.

    My analysis relies on the following assumptions:
    1. Compilations are works
    2. “Selections” is added to the **preferred title** per the Alternative to 6.14.2.8.4.
    3. Authorized access points are made by using the name of the creator/composer and the preferred title. These may need additional elements if they aren’t unambiguous.
    4. Musical works either have distinctive or non-distinctive titles
    5. Additions to the AAP for musical works (individual works and compilations) with non-distinctive titles are at 6.28.1.9
    …a. Medium of performance is already the first of these additions.
    …b. With the exception of “form” (sort of the base part of the title part of the AAP per this instruction), the other suggested additions in 6.28.1.11 (date, place of origin, other distinguishing characteristic) are already listed.
    6. Additions to the AAP for musical works (individual works and compilations) with distinctive titles are at 6.28.1.10.
    …a. With whatever revisions are made per MusicWG/11, additions to AAPs for compilations with distinctive titles should be addressed by this instruction.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      Having seen my comments to the other proposals, you will not be surprised to know that I agree with Kathy 🙂 There’s no reason the general instruction can’t be applied to musical works.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    CHANGE #3

    I do not agree with the WG that 6.28.1.9 should only apply to individual works. This would mean a serious re-evaluation of the existing examples in the Exceptions to 6.28.1.9.1, which includes things like:
    Mitchell, Joni. Songs
    Widor, Charles Marie, 1844-1937. Symphonies, organ
    Monteverdi, Claudio, 1567-1643. Madrigals, book 1
    Hailstork, Adolphus C. Spirituals, mixed voices, orchestra
    Sor, Fernando, 1778-1839. Songs, guitar accompaniment
    Bennett, Sharon. Vocalises, unaccompanied

    Making such a change would mean a lot of work to analyze what constitutes an individual work vs. what constitutes a compilation, just so the examples would be correct in 6.28.1.9. I simply don’t see this as a useful distinction, since the instructions to construct AAPs for compilations of works should already be addressed by 6.28.1.9 (or 6.28.1.10).

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    CHANGE #4

    For the same reasons articulated for Change #3, I do not support adding the suggested 1st paragraph.

  6. Matthew Haugen says:

    I agree with Kathy’s comments. However, if 6.28.1.11.1 is retained, it would help to have examples illustrating an access point without medium of performance, and one with an addition specified at 6.28.1.11 following “Selections.”

  7. Steve Kelley says:

    I also agree with Kathy’s comments.

Leave a Reply