6JSC/EURIG/Discussion-1

From CCDA
Revision as of 09:25, 28 September 2012 by Tracey Snyder (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/1 Musical arrangements: discussion paper

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

MLA disagrees with the discussion paper, and offers the following specific comments on the paper's three sections.

1.1

- Although it is indeed sometimes not clear cut whether to consider something an expression of an existing work or a new, related work, the types of musical arrangements described in this paper seem to fall quite clearly in the realm of expressions. If the basic musical content of the arrangement is the same as the existing work, then it's the same work.

- The paper’s distinction between composers as arrangers and performers as arrangers is problematic. It doesn't matter who does the arranging, and the proposed arbitrary difference in treatment depending on who the arranger is would lead to inconsistency in cataloging. See the comments on section 1.3 for further elaboration on this point.

- The paper conflates arrangements and adaptations by citing 6.28.1.5 in an attempt to argue that "RDA admits that some arrangements can be regarded as new works." In fact, 6.28.1.5 outlines the criteria for deciding that something has gone beyond mere arrangement and is instead an adaptation, and therefore, a new work.

- When an arrangement has a different thematic index number and/or a different title from the original work, we suggest that this information could be coded in an expression record for the arrangement. The expression record could also have a variant access point under the name of the arranger. We agree that it would be useful to capture this information in a systematic, accessible way, even if we don’t agree with going as far as naming the arrangement under the name of the arranger in an authorized access point.

- We fear a loss of the collocation function of authorized access points in the landscape that the paper promotes. If we consider arrangements to be new works, the arrangements will not collocate with the original version.
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/EURIG/Discussion-1&oldid=8941
wikis.ala.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-27
15795
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:N6Z674FPKKEM4NCEQQ5UCUENY4BGNJCM
<urn:uuid:67ea57ab-8363-408e-b28e-7f8ca540f916>
2015-07-01T21:18:44Z
216.80.72.149
sha1:THR3KYBXKELGYN6IJM36VLJXMR3SBBRP
<urn:uuid:ff06e221-927e-4806-9eb5-db3d1edc8953>
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/EURIG/Discussion-1&oldid=8941
length
response
<urn:uuid:ca8ad2b1-a205-4a15-ae8d-53347f3c8525>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-179-60-89.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-27
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf