Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:

> k 15/16 ips. This is the speed of mini-cassettes used in portable recorders.
>
> However, this is also the professional speed of for instance multitrack
> aircraft communication surveillance tapes (and the masters for William
> Shatner's 'Dial 911' )
>
> ----- are the cataloguing rules meant to be used in registering by people who
> have only vague ideas of the material and in searching by people on whom the
> description would fit, although they have different scopes?

I would assume this to be correct.

> It would be lovely if modern cataloguing were associated with an expert
> system, requesting the cataloguer to answer questions regarding direct
> observation of the item, and from the answers to generate the proper
> descriptors. One of the questions could be "is the record flexible?", and one
> of the answers could be "no, it was not".

My experience with cataloging is limited but I do believe the process
could be more user friendly. As with any process, there will be instances
which require expert knowledge. Music catalogers need to know an immense
amount of information just to deal with the aspects of the music, from the
numbering systems of Vivaldi works to Schubert Deutsch numbers versus the
opus numbers, to concepts of instrumentation, uniform title, etc. Add on
to that the MARC format...for me, I would rather be grading papers in a
graduate class devoted to invertible counterpoint and fugue (one of the
reasons I stopped teaching) than catalog in the MARC format.

>From the OCLC and RLIN records I have encountered in my 25+ years in
libraries, my guess is that a cataloger with the knowledge of music,
discography and technology would be difficult to find.

One could say that the majority of materials being cataloged are
commerical issues and that indeed, they do not require much in the way of
discographic or technical knowledge.

I wonder what percentage of MARC records are for unique or historic
recordings...my guess is less than .0001% From my perspective, it is due
to having such an encumbered, user unfriendly system. They can't even
get the commerically issued stuff done. I would guess that most places can
barely afford someone to copy catalog the commercial stuff.

I guess my point remains, the old ways just aren't making it happen.

Karl