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

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "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.
>
My experience in cataloguing my collection (all 78rpm records) has
convinced me that one thing needed is a large text field for
"REMARKS" (or something similar. This is used for all the items
about a given phonorecord that doesn't fit in any of the fields
(regardless of how many fields you include!)

Steven C. Barr