Re: [ARSCLIST] Archival Description of Sound Recordings

[Tim Hawkins <thawkins@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We at the Naropa University Archive Project would also be happy to share
samples of our MARC21 records for anybody who might find them helpful.
Just contact me directly.

Tim Hawkins, Archivist
Naropa University Archive Project
303-245-4751

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Seubert
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 5:37 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Archival Description of Sound Recordings

I don't think there is any one correct way to describe archival sound
recordings. We treat individual recordings and collections of recordings
in a variety of ways, depending on their uniqueness, the nature of the
collection, the ease of describing them and how we define archival.

For commercially issued recordings (78s, CDs, LPs, cylinders, etc.) we
follow AACR2/MARC practice. There is a widely established tradition of
cataloging these items at the item level and there is usually sufficient
information contained on the object for full description. As others have
pointed out, MARC is not perfect for sound recordings (Brandon's issue
that "sound disc" is not particularly descriptive and the problem with
the contents of side two of a recording "floating" at the end of the 245
field to name two), but it works and provides the best and most complete
descriptive information to potential users. In addition to the standard
guidelines for cataloging (AACR2, Smiraglia, LC Music Cataloging
Decisions), the ARSC cataloging guidelines are helpful in creating
item-level records. Personally, I find IASA's rules overly complex.

For unique recordings, it is less clear what is the best way to describe
recordings. For well described recordings, item-level MARC records can
work, but for some collections of recordings, it is far more efficient
to treat them as a collection (or a series within a larger collection)
and describe them using archival rules such as APPM (sorry for the
acronyms) and create a finding guide or MARC record for the entire
collection. As with all manuscript collections, context provides much of
the description. Say you have 100 lacquer discs by artist "X" or oral
historian "Y" or organization "Z." Unless they are incredibly well
documented, it can be absurdly complicated and time consuming to give
each one item level cataloging. But if you describe them as a group
within the context of a larger collection, the users will have a much
easier time locating what they are looking for and you don't have to
fret over how to describe those items with marginal documentation.

I'm always happy to share specific examples of various types of
cataloging and finding guides that we've created for sound recordings.

David Seubert
UCSB

Brandon Burke wrote:

> I was just talking about this with someone last weekend.
>
> In short, I think you'll find that many organizations have invented
their
> own system of cataloging and use proprietary software such as
> Filemaker Pro
> or Microsoft Access.  Obviously, I'm not talking about music libraries
or
> sound archives at major institutions.  They almost uniformly follow
> *standard* cataloging procedures.
>
> I'm referring to the many smaller collections that inhabit this Earth,
as
> they tend to get left out of the picture.  Groups like local folklife
> centers or sound collections at mid-sized universities, etc.  Folks in
> those positions are often less than skilled in archival practice as it
> relates to sound recording -- not their fault, of course -- and simply
> want
> to get the ball rolling.  And who can blame them...
>
> So the answer is...both.
>
> As for AACR2, I have a hard time with the idea that CDs, CD-Rs, 78s,
> vinyl
> LPs, and transcription discs are all "sound discs".  Makes for quite a
> mess
> if you decide to sort by media for the purposes of a preservation
needs
> assessment, as each of those formats require wildly different storage
and
> cleaning conditions.
>
> Olle Johansson at The Swedish National Archive for Recorded Sound and
> Moving Images has suggested a five(?)-level method of describing audio
> media complete with, for example, a level concerning the method by
which
> the information was committed to the carrier [magnetic, mechanical,
> optical].  I think it's pretty good.  A step in the right direction,
> anyway.  Try a search of the ARSClist archives for a thread called
> "cataloging question".  It appeared in late January and early February
of
> this year and includes a brief description of Olle's system.
>
> Good luck with your project,
>
> -- Brandon
>
>
>
> At 12:25 PM 4/7/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> I'm a grad student, working on a project concerning standards for
>> archival description of collections of sound recordings.
>>
>> I've looked at IASA, the Association of Canadian Archivists' RAD, and
>> have read a lot of books and articles by Smiraglia (concerning both
>> cataloging and archival description.) All of these standards seem
valid,
>> but I was wondering what rules for description (if any) are followed
by
>> people who are actually archiving sound recordings.
>>
>> For those of you that have written finding aids for your sound
>> collections, are there any rules for the description of archives that
>> you follow? Or do you make up your own? And if you make up your own,
do
>> you use some archival standard (like APPM or DACS) as a starting
point?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any replies.
>>
>> Dean Jeffrey
>
>
> _______________________________________
> Brandon Burke
> Archival Specialist
> Hoover Institution Archives
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-6010
> voice: 650.724.9711
> fax: 650.725.3445
> email: burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



--
David Seubert, Curator
Performing Arts Collection
Davidson Library
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9010
Tel: 805-893-5444 Fax: 805-893-5749
seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/pa/