190 likes | 476 Views
Music Recordings Classification Systems. LIS 7110 Humanities Information Services and Resources Wayne State University Charles Page. Typical Music Collections. Public or small college collections Private collections Orchestra collections
E N D
Music Recordings Classification Systems LIS 7110 Humanities Information Services and Resources Wayne State University Charles Page
Typical Music Collections • Public or small college collections • Private collections • Orchestra collections • Larger NASM (National Association of Schools of Music) collections • Conservatory collections
Music Recordings Classification Systems • Browsable • Library of Congress/Dewey altered systems • ANSCR ( Alpha-Numeric System for Classification of Recordings) • Michigan State University’s classification • Non-browsable • Accession
Library of Congress/Dewey Altered Classifications • Most recognizable • LC uses “M” class • Same as scores • Paul Hindemith’s Symphonic Metamorphosis • LC call number – M1045 .H62 • This can be extended as needed • Dewey could use an altered system similar to the fiction classification in smaller libraries • CD Classical Hindemith • This can be extended as needed (McKnight, 2002) East Lansing Public Library http://opac.elpl.org/search/X
LC and Dewey altered classification M 1045 .H62 K8 CD Classical Hindemith
Strengths and Weaknesses • Strengths • Browsable • Score and Recording classification match in LC • Familiar and easy to use • Weaknesses • Only works for small collections • Extended call numbers could become difficult • Dewey system is not precise
Michigan State University Classification • MSU devised their own system • Initial figure = format • LP = Long playing record • ST = Stereo record • CD, VHS, DVD, etc. • Second figure = production number • Usually truncated • CD 2894 = Mercury Living Presence compact disc 289 434 397-2 • If 2 or more recordings began with the same production numbers an alphabetic designator could be added • CD 2894 A, CD 2894 B, etc. (M. B. Junttonen, personal communication, October 26, 2009) Michigan State University http://catalog.lib.msu.edu/search/X
MSU classification CD 2894
Strengths and Weaknesses • Strengths • Somewhat browsable • Keeps series together • Allows misplaced discs to be placed with empty cases in an easier fashion • Weaknesses • Browsing is not easy • Collection must be shifted periodically • Looks like accession but is not
ANSCR • Similar in look to LC classification • Includes genre, musicians, title and production number • Initial figure = Genre letter • ES = symphonic music • GP = solo piano music • Second figure = First 4 letters of surname, title or topic • HIND = Paul Hindemith • DAVI = Miles Davis
ANSCR (continued) • Third figure = Initial letters of first 3 words in the title or first 3 letters of a single word title • SMT = Symphonic Metamorphosis on Themes of Carl Maria von Weber • 3 = Symphony No. 3 (This exception is used when a work’s title is generic) • Fourth figure = First letter of the major performer’s first name and the last 2 digits of the production number • K72 = Rafael Kubelick , Mercury Living Presence CD 289 434 397-2
ANSCR (continued) • Basic Rule • A music recording should be classified by the first piece represented unless it takes up less than 1/6 of the entire duration. • An exception will be made if the most prominent piece is not first. (McKnight, 2002)
ANSCR Classification ES HIND SMT K72 Lansing Community College http://fish.lcc.edu/
Strengths and Weaknesses • Strengths • Completely browsable • Very little need for extension • Weaknesses • Needs cross referencing • Takes more cataloging time
Accession • Defined as ,”…increase by something added”(Webster’s new universal unabridged dictionary, 1983, p.11) • Most common system in larger college and conservatory libraries • Simple system numbering forward as recordings are acquired and cataloged • CD 1 = first CD cataloged • CD 19,365 will be followed by CD 19,366 University of Michigan http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Search/Advanced
Strengths and Weaknesses • Strengths • Easy to catalog • Weaknesses • Non-browsable
Conclusion • All music collections are different • Clientele • Size • Genres • Decisions should be made about: • Open or closed stacks • Storage space • Organization • Cataloging work
References McKnight, M. (2002). Music classification systems. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Webster’s new universal unabridged dictionary (2nd ed.). (1983). New York: Simon & Schuster.