6JSC/Music/3

From CCDA
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 40: Line 40:
 
[[User:Kathy Glennan|Kathy Glennan]] ([[User talk:Kathy Glennan|talk]]) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (PDT)
 
[[User:Kathy Glennan|Kathy Glennan]] ([[User talk:Kathy Glennan|talk]]) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (PDT)
  
MLA says: OK to change to "and/or." Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 18 September 2013
+
'''MLA says: OK to change to "and/or." Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 18 September 2013'''
 +
 
  
 
I'm confused by the first example at 6.15.1.5.3. Why are clarinet/piano and viola/piano listed separately, when "piano" is the consistent instrument? The alternative/doubling instrument in this example is clarinet vs. viola. The intellectual difference between alternative and doubling instruments (represented in the layout of these examples) will be lost on most non-music experts. Is there really an important difference in recording these in separate fashions? If so, and MLA can provide me with a brief statement as to why, I can include that rationale in the ALA response, since it could come up in the JSC discussion.
 
I'm confused by the first example at 6.15.1.5.3. Why are clarinet/piano and viola/piano listed separately, when "piano" is the consistent instrument? The alternative/doubling instrument in this example is clarinet vs. viola. The intellectual difference between alternative and doubling instruments (represented in the layout of these examples) will be lost on most non-music experts. Is there really an important difference in recording these in separate fashions? If so, and MLA can provide me with a brief statement as to why, I can include that rationale in the ALA response, since it could come up in the JSC discussion.

Revision as of 07:36, 18 September 2013

6JSC/Music/3 Proposed revisions for medium of performance (RDA 6.15.1, 6.28.1.9, 6.28.1.10, and Appendix E.1.1)

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment. You must be logged in to comment.

Please include in your comments:

  • Your name/liaison organization
  • Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

General comments

Text of proposal


I'm hoping Tracey can clarify something about this proposal. I'm assuming it's a wholesale replacement of 6.15, but just a selective replacement of 6.28 (6.28.1.9 & 6.28.1.10) -- in other words, 6.28.1.11 will remain untouched. This is not explicitly stated in the proposal. Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


Right, we did not look at 6.28.1.11. Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 6 September 2013

More on the wholesale replacement of 6.15 and selective replacement of 6.28: Kathy has said she is interested in CC:DA’s comments on "the concept behind the proposal – clearly separating the 'record' function in 6.15 from the construction of authorized access points in 6.28. Note that the terms recorded in 6.15 can differ from what would be used in the AAP." We wanted to allow music catalogers to be quite specific when they record medium of performance per 6.15, but we didn't want to disrupt the authority file too much. So, while the proposed instructions in 6.15 allow a good deal of specificity, the proposed 6.28 preserves legacy practice (for the most part) for AAPs, which often means using more general terms for medium of performance and omitting certain pieces of information from AAPs that IS recordable per proposed 6.15. Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 6 September 2013


I don't think that the phrasing for recording the number of percussion players (6.15.1.3) is explicit enough (p. 8). Shouldn't it read more like:

If the term percussion is used (see 6.15.1.4), record the number of players if there is more than one, followed by the term "players."

Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


I'm having a problem interpreting the (existing) exception language for percussion instruments in 6.15.1.4. What does it mean if "the names of the individual instruments are not specified by the composer in the original title"? This language does not appear in AACR2, so it had to have been created for RDA. Does this mean that you'd only specify the percussion instruments if the original title (presumably from the 1st manifestation) listed timpani and cowbells, but if that instrumentation was only indicated in the score itself and not in the title, you'd simply use "percussion"? Is it worth providing some alternative wording/clarification in the ALA response, or should that question just go back to the RMJWG? Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


In the final example block of 6.15.1.5.1, should "organs (2)" really be an example? If so, shouldn't an explanation be present about why the number of hands is *not* recorded? Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


In the optional addition for 6.15.1.5.2, should it be and/or, rather than just or? What if the terminology used is "B-Flat Tenor Saxophone", for example? Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (PDT)

MLA says: OK to change to "and/or." Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 18 September 2013


I'm confused by the first example at 6.15.1.5.3. Why are clarinet/piano and viola/piano listed separately, when "piano" is the consistent instrument? The alternative/doubling instrument in this example is clarinet vs. viola. The intellectual difference between alternative and doubling instruments (represented in the layout of these examples) will be lost on most non-music experts. Is there really an important difference in recording these in separate fashions? If so, and MLA can provide me with a brief statement as to why, I can include that rationale in the ALA response, since it could come up in the JSC discussion. Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


The examples do not show the application of the "in addition to" aspect of the alternative to 6.15.1.6. In fact, these examples only show the individual instruments as part of the accompanying ensemble, rather than the full instrumentation (e.g., flute, string ensemble for the 1st example). Wouldn't recording "flute" "string ensemble" "violins (2)" "viola" and "cello" actually be misleading in this case? Is "in addition to" really advisable as part of the alternative? Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


I do not agree with the proposed change to 6.15.1.8, introducing the concept of "one or more terms for the accompanying ensemble." I believe there's only one accompanying ensemble, and that's what should be named. Even if this language is supposed to include the alternative at 6.15.1.6 (that I'm concerned about above), I still think there's a problem. If this is supposed to refer to a work that truly has multiple accompanying ensembles, an example is needed. Kathy Glennan (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


I think the exception in 6.15.1.11.4 is worded oddly & needs fixing. I don't think exceptions restate the original instruction, followed by conditional clauses. More appropriate might be:

For two or more works by one composer that have the same preferred title, record the number of parts of voices. (The 2nd sentence & examples are fine.)

Kathy Glennan (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


In 6.28.1.9.1, should there be a reference in the 2nd paragraph to the instructions for naming an accompanying ensemble (6.15.1.6-6.15.1.7), or is the existing reference to all of 6.15 sufficient here? Kathy Glennan (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2013 (PDT)


Generally agree with the proposal to separate the instructions for recording elements from those about building authorized access points.
OK with moving punctuation conventions to Appendix E.
Slightly uncomfortable with removing current table 6.2 from RDA entirely. The same arguments used for being explicit in the medium of performance for "string quartet" could be applied to giving the number of players in a duet -- why is one embraced while the other shortcut persists?
OK with adding alternative terms (not to use) for piano
Agree with deleting list of keyboard instruments in 6.15.1.5
Agree with naming an instruction "number of hands"; this solves some problems
OK with leaving order of elements instructions only in 6.28
OK with adding new subsections to 6.28.1.9, even if they only refer to 6.16 & 6.17

Kathy Glennan (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2013 (PDT)

Again, as a non-music cataloger, I have just enough wherewithal to navigate the introductory paragraphs. My response is YES, YES! I was particularly bothered by the carryover of AACR2 restrictions and the conflation of recording elements and constructing access points during the RDA drafting process. A clean articulation of the recording function, regardless of usage in the access point, is a important regularization of these rules that brings them in line with the overall mechanisms employed elsewhere in RDA. I leave it to my more musically experienced colleagues to wrestle with the specifics. But by all means, continue in this vein. MYERS, CCDA liaison to MAC, 2013/09/09

Constituency responses

All responses

Summary of ACOC response: Agrees.

Personal tools
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/Music/3&diff=9956&oldid=9955
wikis.ala.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-23
25620
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BZJQ25IG3576V3IPAWD6ZPGHBICKT6RU
<urn:uuid:50b16da1-4cce-4e78-9723-9fd751e68574>
2014-07-24T08:35:34Z
208.113.146.31
sha1:WOCGJLZYDFDFKAEDLUL6A4M2OEB46VML
<urn:uuid:a9cc29e3-219f-44bb-862c-a281a7673641>
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/Music/3&diff=9956&oldid=9955
response
<urn:uuid:78638ac7-f8c1-40c6-adeb-914341e28f69>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-33-131-23.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-23
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for July 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf