Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloguing again--ARSC responsibility?

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, steven c wrote:
>
> > 2) I assume that when you say "discographic record" you mean a
> > DATA record, not the PHONOrecord (I use the standard library
> > terms to avoid confusion, since I do a lot of writing and
> > thinking about databases of phonorecords, which can get VERY
> > confusing if both are called "records!"...).
>
> I too, find it confusing. In the world of cataloging one refers to the
> bibliographic record. Bibliography, according to the Oxford English
> Dictionary, refers to books, yet a catalog is not generally considered a
> bibliography, even if it contains bibliographic records. Hence, I tend to
> think of a catalog "record" of a sound recording, to be a discographic
> record, even if the information included is not the same as one encounters
> in a "discography." I guess I just don't know of the appropriate words to
> use.
>
Well, what I was pointing out was the difference between a discographic
database...which provides data *in general* about a certain subset of
imaginary phonorecords (that is, they need not exist in a physical
sense) of a certain type...and a catalog, which provides slightly
different data about a subset of ACTUAL phonorecords which usually
make up the holdings of an individual or an institution. This is
something like comparing, say, the data in a book about Fords (with
pictures of each model year, and the specifications for that year)
with the data listing all the Fords in a specific town (or even a
parking lot). The first shows a picture of a 1949 Ford, which then
implies that all 1949 Fords look like that one (more or less)...the
second one may include YOUR 1949 Ford, which cost YOU $500 and has
a dent in the left front fender (neither will be true of every 1949
Ford...).

> I believe one should be able to prepare a "discography" from a catalog of
> discographic records. I also believe that a comprehensive "universal"
> catalog, with good discographic records could have the potential to
> obviate the need for the compilation of any discography. With such a
> "utopian" database, any "discography" could be created by chosing the
> appropriate search terms and qualifiers.
>
In going from a catalog "discography"/database (which lists the data on
SPECIFIC
phonorecords) to a discographic database, you are assuming the general from
the specific...that is, you are assuming that every copy of Victor 12345
is the same. This is usually...but NOT always...true; thus, there is a
caveat in making that assumption. As well, a catalog database may (usually
will) include data specific to the single copy of a phonorecord to which
it refers. For example, that specific copy is on a certain shelf in a
certain room of a cetain building, and cost its owner a specific price.
None of those facts would apply to EVERY copy of Victor 12345! There are
some facts which would apply to all copies (the artist, the label, the
number, the size, etc.) and some facts which would have to be verified
for each copy (the label design/variety, the take used, etc.)...the former
can be copied from a discographic database to a catalog database, while the
latter need (at least in theory) to be confirmed as correct for the copy
being catalogued.

On the other hand, if your (or someone's) catalog database happens to
include a phonorecord for which no corresponding data record exists
in a discographic database which should include it, you can copy the
data for that specific phonorecord into the discographic database...
and by doing so assume the data applies to EVERY copy of that phonorecord.
This works...until someone shows up with a different copy of that label
and number which fails to fit the description. That's what makes
discography (and record collecting) interesting! (at least to me...)

> In many cataloging circles, (the catalogers I talk to)
> there is the notion of a "typical user." A "typical user," may well not be
> interested in matrix numbers. I wonder how many music catalogers even
> know about matrix and/or stamper numbers. So, the "typical"
> (non-quantifiable) user becomes the standard to determine the depth of
> description.
>
And therein lies the problem! In practice, there is no such thing as a
"typical user." In fact, it's folks like me that are the *A*typical users!
For example, the person cataloguing the phonorecord holdings of a
library may be thinking of "typical users" who are looking for
current hit CD's...meanwhile, an Atypical user may be looking for
"Chamber quartet works of the 18th century" and another looking
for "recordings with Benny Goodman as sideman." Finally, I wander
in looking for a recording which includes the alternate take of
a given Ellington side, just to see whether it was ever reissued
and if so on what CD label...and the vice-president in charge of
cataloguing will be found in some secluded corner tearing out his hair!

> > Finally, one thing that ARSC could (and should) do is to
> > attempt to standardize the formats of these two types of
> > data records! This could in turn make the data from more
> > databases easily interchangeable between users. Remember
> > that what should be done is the definition of a selected
> > set of "core fields," so that each user could add other
> > fields as he/she/it saw fit regardless of whether others
> > needed or wanted to use such fields.
> >
> > Comment ca?
>
> And to make these core fields easy to identify and to make every effort to
> simplify the preparation for the data entry and to identify what core
> fields might be appropriate to what items. Yes, there are some guidelines
worked
> on by IASA and others, but, I believe that the machinations (and yes, I
see it as
> being a plot, perhaps resulting merely from the myopic perspective which
can be
> expected of anyone too close to a problem) of the system, which requires a
level of
> initiation to create, navigate and ultimately use information. It
> inhibits the system from ultimately providing a level of efficiency which
> matches the potential efficacy afforded by the available technology.
>
Agreed...and what fascinates me (and, in fact, has done so since personal
computers finally became reality) is the tremendous power these machines
have to help us organize and collect data! When I first started cataloguing
my half-vast shellac archive, I typed out a 3x5 card for each phonorecord
(actually, I started out listing them on the pages of a (paper) notebook
until it became obvious that method wouldn't work!). When I realized that
I would have to resort several thousand cards to put them in artist order
if I wanted to know which Whiteman phonorecords I owned...well, let's
just say I became aware of the methods shortcomings...vividly aware! If
I had taken the time to type them into a computer (which didn't exist
at the time), it would only take a couple of mouse clicks to re-order
them by artist!

However, the problem is that at some point data entry has to be done...
and data entry, at least at present, requires human beings...but, at
least ARSC could help standardize which data needs to be entered (and
into fields of what name and what approximate size, so somebody
could in theory combine my catalog data with Joe Gabroni's catalog
data...)

Steven C. Barr