Re: [ARSCLIST] cataloging sound recordings

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Steven C. Barr wrote:

> Also, as I have commented before, I think that ARSC might try and define
> a basic core set of fields (in the sense of field types and mimimum sizes
> as well as names) for phonorecord cataloguing. Each user could, of course,
> augment this core set of fields as he/she/it saw fit...but it would at
> least guarantee data interchangibility for the core fields, which would in
> turn make it possible to create an "uber-catalog" comprising as many
> collections as possible. This could be used to:
> 1) Collect data on as many sound recordings (I'm thinking of 78's, but
>    others could be included) as possible. This could be used as a data
>    source on recordings.
>
> 2) Establish, for researchers and other interested parties, a guide to
>    which sound recordings still exists and where they can be accessed.
>
> There are all sorts of other possible uses which suggest themselves,
> or will if this is discussed!
>
> I know of at least present or proposed institutional collections of
> sound recordings aimed at collecting either all such recordings or
> different subsets of them. There were/are other collections of data,
> Not standarizing the digital portion of the process(es) means at
> the very least these projects may wind up working at cross-purposes
> with no practical means of sharing or comparing information on
> activities.
>
> Thoughts?


The MARC record is marketed as the answer to most of these considerations.
I sometimes make the comparison to the CISC and RISC computing. While I
will never market myself as an expert on anything, and perhaps I just
don't know or understand enough, but it has seemed to me that RISC is a
more efficient computing environment. Yet CISC is still with us. I wonder
if that is because of its overwhelming share of the computing marketplace.
I think also of how long it took companies like Nikon to accept the
realities of the use of the computer for both the control of exposure and
then digital imaging...they had always promised your Nikon lenses would
never be obsolete.

There is such a huge infrastucture that has evolved around the MARC
record...There is an interesting similarity in the notion of shelving
books with Dewey decimal versus the Library of Congress systems. Only when
the Dewey system became ridiculously encumbered, did most libraries
convert.

For me, declining library budgets are the only hope for libraries in that
if they are to address their mission, they will be forced to embrace the
technology, and make their cataloging systems more friendly to both users
and those who are employed to input data. This would reduce the time and
level of training required and save money. Right now, subject knowledge is
almost on equal terms (or so it seems to me) to knowledge of the
methodology of data input. If you can simplify the system, you could get
more done without the need of those cross trained in both disciplines
(subject and the methodology of cataloging).

Then I consider, where is one going to find someone conversant in both
matrix numbers, etc. and the methodology of the MARC record. Further, with
librarians not often being users, how is one going to convince them that
things like matrix and take numbers are of significance. Some are
convinced, yet others don't know what you are talking about.

The solution has seemed to be, informed curators setting up their own
files with things like keyword searches for finding aids. While these
sorts of solutions are helpful, they don't address the fundamental issues.

For me (an I know I am rambling, but I figure only those interested in
bibliographic control are still reading), how would one find if there
existed a surviving copy of Koussevitzky conducting Copland's Third
Symphony. Well, OCLC and RLIN aren't any help. However, you might think, I
wonder if Copland had a copy. His collection went to Library of Congress.
So you look on SONIC and there it is.

On the other hand, you may be able to find your friend's Master's recital
cataloged on OCLC. It is not just a question of the methodology of
locating something, but the priorities for cataloging. One institution may
have more money available so they can catalog you friend's
recital...actually something often required by the certification process
for a graduate degree.

For ten points, where can one find some recordings of music of piano
improvisations by Schillinger? The route to that information is not an
easy one...hint...try the Library of the Performing Arts. (New York
Public)

It is a complex problem and from my perspective, a problem encumbered by
the legacy of OCLC and the nature of libraries and library education. I
guess only when it collapses under its own weight,
or when google becomes an accepted part of the research methodology, will
the library establishment once again, as it did when the MARC record was
developed, do a thoughtful reexamination of the methodology of cataloging.

I am reminded of an article I read some years ago...I think the title was
"The end of libraries." The author suggested that, in time, information
would become too valuable to be entrusted to libraries which provide free
access and by their nature, were unable to charge for access and existed
as a public service. Perhaps the leadership of ARSC might like to sit down
with the folks at Google. OCLC has and has developed a relationship, and
perhaps Google might be able to bring libraries into the 20th Century (yes
I mean 20th Century, for, from my perspective they are still in the 19th
Century as they are only now beginning to recognize electronic
information, the recording being the first, as worth considering in a
serious way.) For all of the hype about libraries embracing technology,
it seems to me that much of their application of the digital
technology is still be caught up in the linear modality of the printed page.

>From my perspective "the cheese has been moved" and libraries don't know
it yet. They seem to be looking in the same places. As long as their
cheese is limited to books, they are fine. They seem to look for books in
the digital environment. Maybe libraries are just about books.


Karl