---
>
>"The Case for Composer Main Entry for
>Videorecordings of Musical Works" by Grace Fitzgerald
>
>In 1991 the Bibliographic Control Committee (BCC) of the Music Library
>Association (MLA) appointed a Working Group (WG) on Bibliographic
>Control of Music Video Material.  The WG was charged with preparing a
>draft guide to the bibliographic control of music related video
>material, articulating problems related to the cataloging of such
>materials, and to suggest issues to be referred to other MLA units.
>
>The issue that has received the most attention, as evidenced by
>discussions on MLA-L and AUTOCAT, is that of main entry for certain
>types of video materials.  The opinions that have been received by the
>WG have not, in my opinion, addressed the central issues relating to
>definitions of work/manifestation, and to works intended for
>performance.
>
>Sheila Intner has stated that
>
>     "By cataloging tradition we have chosen to recognize
>     the technical responsibility in creating a video in a
>     way we have not for other materials"- OLAC Newsletter
>     10:2 (1990), 16).
>
>Hence, catalogers of moving image materials have tended to consider the
>presence of the visual aspect as indicating a "new" work, thus allowing
>for a change of entry.
>
>Music catalogers have, on the other hand, routinely cataloged musical
>works in varying formats (e.g. scores and
>recordings), and have viewed video formats of these works as yet another
>manifestation of the work itself.  Thus, from this point of view, the
>video manifestation of the work would have the same entry (composer) as
>would the score and sound recording.  The method of capture allows the
>recording of the visual aspect as well as the sound.
>
>The division of AACR2r into Part I (description) and Part II (headings,
>uniform titles, and references) presupposes the manifestation of a given
>work (Part II) in a variety of formats (Part I).
>
>A second concern relates to works which are performed, such as musical
>works and dramatic works (plays, operas, etc.).  Musicians, by and
>large, consider the performance of a pre-existing musical work a
>realization of that work (the term re-creation has also been used).  In
>the words of Daniel Harrison, "The score is essentially a very detailed
>set of instructions for a performer about the proper delivery of the
>composition.  It is, after all, a set of 'notes' for the performer that
>indicates in a more or less specific way how the piece should be
>delivered"--Music Theory Spectrum 12:1 (1990), 5.  Only when a
>performance is improvised is a "new" work being created.
>
>Thus, music catalogers have traditionally considered the performance of
>a pre-existing musical work to be a manifestation, rather than a new
>work, and thus having the same entry as other manifestations of the same
>work, whether captured by aural or aural/visual means.  Another way of
>expressing this distinction is that music catalogers distinguish between
>the responsibility for the work itself and the responsibility for the
>performance of the work (responsibility relating to the manifestation,
>not to the creation of the work itself).
>
>The response to the WG's draft Guide (received by Lowell Ashley, Chair
>of the WG) from ALA/ALCTS/Audiovisual Committee (2/24/94) includes the
>following statements:
>
>     "There are a number of areas that need to be revisited
>
>     ... "Experts from two important cataloging communities      are
>arriving at different conclusions when applying the    same set of
>rules; therefore, the problem must lie in
>     the rules."
>
>This difference in interpretation is my primary concern.  It is not my
>intent to "prove" one viewpoint over another; I simply wish to clarify
>the points in question within the context of the rules of Chapter 21.
>In addition to pointing out specific examples of different
>interpretations, I will attempt to suggest possible changes which would
>clarify the intent relating to entry of moving image materials.
>
>
>                         WORK VS. MANIFESTATION
>
>1. Intellectual/artistic content of a work:
>
>For purposes of main entry, the cataloger's concern is with the nature
>and identity of the work, and the identification of those CHIEFLY
>responsible for the creation of the INTELLECTUAL OR ARTISTIC CONTENT OF
>A WORK (c.f. 21.1A1).  According to the Introduction to Part II (AACR2r,
>p. 305),
>
>     "The rules in part II apply to works AND NOT TO
>     PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF THOSE WORKS"
>
>and
>
>     "The rules in part II apply to all library materials,
>     IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MEDIUM IN WHICH THEY ARE
>     PUBLISHED."
>
>Chapter 21 thus relates to the "work" as an abstract entity.  Again, the
>performance of a musical work, an opera, or a play is a realization of
>the work.  The medium of capture (printed, sound, or visual) should be
>considered at the manifestation (descriptive) level.  A play is a play,
>whatever its medium of expression (as the Bard himself stated, "The
>play's the thing"--Hamlet, act ii, scene 2, line 633).  Given a video of
>a play or an opera, what is the "work", if not the play or opera itself?
>
>2. Manifestation at hand:
>
>     "In part I the specificity relates to the physical
>     medium of the item being catalogued'--AACR2r, 0.4.
>
>Any given work (intellectual property) may be manifested in a variety of
>ways, and musical works perhaps more than most.  However, it is at the
>level of descriptive cataloging that all of those concerns relating to
>the manifestation are brought forth, with added entries as appropriate.
>
>Interestingly, the descriptive cataloging of opera videos having title
>main entry often includes a first note (nature or form, 7.7B1) that
>describes the work as "Opera."  If it is in fact a manifestation of the
>opera (as implied by this note), shouldn't 21.19A1 apply, and the entry
>for the video be under the heading for the composer?  The same question
>could be asked regarding the use of a first subject heading "Operas."
>
>The proponents of title main entry for videos of staged operas and plays
>present arguments relating to the manifestation.  Those people involved
>in filming, editing, staging, performing, costuming, etc. etc. ARE
>important to the final product (in terms of the manifestation), but
>these considerations do not relate to the nature and responsibility for
>the abstract work itself, which is the basis for determining main entry.
>
>Another approach to distinguishing between the work and manifestations
>of the work is to consider whether the work captured in this medium was
>created as such or not, i.e. does it exist apart from the moving image
>medium?  Bill Walker (Southern Methodist University) stated that
>
>     There is a distinct intellectual difference between a
>     movie or documentary, specifically made for film or
>     video, and a live performance merely captured on this
>     medium.  In the first instance, ... the final product
>     is the film or video.  In the second case, a work is
>     performed on stage before a live audience; the cameras
>     are there merely to record an event and the viewer
>     becomes in effect a member of the live audience"--
>     Bill Walker, AUTOCAT, 11/20/91.
>
>Essentially, there are many works which exist independently and apart
>from their manifestation in a moving image format.
>
>
>                   JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE OF ENTRY
>            FOR WORKS THAT ARE MODIFICATIONS OF OTHER WORKS
>
>According to AACR2r, the following are specific examples of instances
>where the heading for a modification should or should not be changed.
>
>NEW HEADING:  Types of modification that warrant entry under a heading
>     appropriate for the new work:
>
>--Version in a different literary form (21.10), e.g. a novel based on
>Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet
>--Illustrations for a text that are published separately (21.11B)
>--Original author no longer considered responsible, based on the wording
>of the CSI (21.12B1)
>--Texts published with commentary in which the commentary is emphasized
>(21.13B)
>--Texts published =9Bprimarily| as biographical/critical works
>=9Bincorporating work(s) by a writer| (21.15A)
>--Art work that is adapted from one medium to another (21.16A)
>--Reproductions of two or more art works of an artist with accompanying
>text if author of text is represented in CSI as author (21.17B1) =9Bthis
>corresponds to commentary emphasized|
>--Adaptation of a music work (e.g. transcription, paraphrase, variations
>on a theme) (21.18C1)
>
>NO CHANGE IN HEADING:  Types of modification that DO NOT warrant entry
>     under a new heading:
>
>--Illustration accompanying text (21.11A1)
>--Texts published with commentary in which the edition of the work is
>emphasized (21.13C)
>--Translations (21.14)
>--Texts published with biographer/critic as editor, compiler, etc.
>(21.15B)
>--Reproduction of an art work (21.16B)
>--Reproductions of two or more art works of an artist with accompanying
>text if author of text is not represented as author in CSI (i.e. if
>"edition" is emphasized rather than commentary) (21.17B1)
>--Arrangement, transcription of musical work (21.18B1)
>--Added parts or accompaniment to a musical work (21.21)
>
>Although these instances pertain in large part to print materials, they
>certainly provide conceptual guidelines for determining whether or not a
>"new" work has been created, thus justifying a change in entry.  As can
>be seen, NOWHERE is provision made for a change of heading based on the
>medium of expression (manifestation) of a work.  Thus, a videorecording
>of an opera is still "the opera" and as such no change of entry is
>justified.
>
>                     CHANGE IN MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION
>
>Under the definition of "Works that are modifications of other works"
>(21.9), the first sentence needs a clarification.  The statement "Enter
>a work that is a modification of another under the heading appropriate
>to the new work if the modification has substantially changed the nature
>and content of the original or if the medium of expression has been
>changed."  In this context, the phrase MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION refers to
>the nature of the "work", the intellectual entity (e.g. a Verdi opera
>which is based on a Shakespeare play: an opera is one medium, a play is
>another).  This is NOT a reference to the medium in which the work is
>manifested, and as such does not form a basis for a change in main entry
>for a video of an opera or a play.
>
>Validation of this interpretation is found in the provisions relating to
>entry of art works.  REPRODUCTIONS of art works (in whatever form) do
>not justify a change of entry (21.16B).  Only when 1) the art work is
>"adapted from one medium to another" (21.16A), or 2) two or more art
>works are reproduced with accompanying text AND the author of the text
>is represented in the CSI as author (21.17B1) is there a change of
>entry.
>
>This view is further validated by the context of the discussion; Chapter
>21 (and part II of AACR2r) "apply to works and not to physical
>manifestations of those works."  This change in medium of expression
>would warrant a "Based on ..." note and a related work added entry.
>
>The following represents an application of the above:
>
>NO CHANGE IN MAIN ENTRY:
>
>Twain, Mark,#d1835-1910.
>     Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
>
>This entry remains unchanged for all physical manifestations in which
>the novel might appear:
>     for the BOOK,
>     for a SOUND RECORDING of someone reading the novel,
>     for a VIDEORECORDING of someone reading the novel--
>The point being that whatever the medium of expression (i.e. the
>manifestation or item at hand) the original intellectual/artistic work
>is still the "novel."
>
>CHANGE IN MAIN ENTRY:
>
>Miller, Roger,#d1936-
>     Big river ...
>     500  Based on: The adventures of Huckleberry Finn / Mark Twain.
>     700  11  Twain, Mark,#d1835-1910.#tAdventures of Huckleberry Finn.
>
>This represents a change in the intellectual/artistic work itself; the
>work under consideration is a MUSICAL based on the novel.  This new work
>can also be manifested in various formats, which will all have the same
>main entry, with uniform titles as needed to specify format, languages,
>etc.:
>     --BOOK (libretto)
>     --SCORE (full score, vocal score, selections, etc.)
>     --SOUND RECORDING (staged or concert, selections, etc.)
>     --VIDEORECORDING (staged, concert, selections, etc.)
>
>Again, as long as the intellectual/artistic work being manifestated
>remains the musical, the main entry remains the same whatever the medium
>of manifestation.
>
>As noted above, a change of entry is warranted when there is reason to
>use a note "Based on ...." with a 7xx related work added entry.
>
>                          PERSONAL AUTHORSHIP
>
>Many of the arguments against personal author main entry for any
>videorecording have been expressed based on the concept that a personal
>author has to be the person SOLELY responsible for the creation of a
>work (with a corresponding consideration of the video itself as the
>"work").  AACR2r states that "A personal author is the person CHIEFLY
>responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic content of
>a work"--21.1A1.  21.1A2 expands this to include personal author or
>principal personal author.
>
>An example of "personal author" would be the video from the Barenboim on
>Beethoven series titled Amid tears and sorrow.  The video presents an
>on-stage performance of the Beethoven Sonata no. 3 for violoncello and
>piano, performed by Jacqueline Du Pre and Daniel Barenboim.  Only the
>single work is presented.  Beethoven composed the sonata, and as such is
>the person responsible for the creation of the intellectual/artistic
>content of the work.
>
>                          PERFORMER MAIN ENTRY
>
>The concept of performer main entry is not the deviation from the other
>rules for entry that some have taken it to be.  On many sound
>recordings, the performer functions at the manifestation level, being
>the person/s who is/are realizing the music.  For these items, the focus
>is on the music being presented (the "work/s") and main entry is
>established accordingly (c.f. 21.23A-B and, for collections, 21.23D1b,
>which is consistent with (and even refers to) 21.7C).
>
>For certain types of sound or video recordings, the focus (the "work")
>is on the performance by the performer (whether solo or corporate body),
>either in terms of the performer or the instrument being played (c.f.
>the distinction made in 21.23D).  In these instances the performer is no
>longer functioning at the manifestation level, but has in fact become
>the "author" of a new work, i.e. the performance itself.  Although not
>explicitly stated, this is, in my opinion, the principle behind 21.23C
>also.
>
>The entry for videorecordings of performances of pre-existing works
>should follow insofar as possible the rules for entry for such works in
>all other media of expression.
>
>
>                        PROBLEMS WITH CHAPTER 21
>                   NEW WORKS OF MIXED RESPONSIBILITY
>
>AACR2r addresses the concept of mixed responsibility in new works on a
>very limited basis (21.24 Collaboration between artist and writer; 21.25
>Reports of interviews or exchanges; 21.26 Spirit Communications; and
>21.27 Academic disputations).  Unfortunately, the use of the term "new"
>has resulted in some confusion because the reference is to the "work",
>not the manifestation of the work.  For example, an opera is a new work
>only in terms of its conception and authorship; a video of the opera is
>new only in terms of the manifestation.  Perhaps "original" would be a
>better term, or a combination of the two: "new original."
>
>It is my understanding that in general videos have traditionally been
>viewed as works of mixed responsibility.  However, the concept of mixed
>responsibility for new "visual" works such as ballets (especially when
>incorporating the visual aspect), feature films and documentaries are
>not currently addressed by any of these rules.
>
>The provision for entry under title (frequently cited as the "rule of
>three") is found in two places:
>
>     21.1c1. Enter a work under its title proper or, when appropriate,
>uniform title ... if:
>     a) the personal authorship is ... diffuse (see 21.6C2)
>
>and
>
>     21.6C2.  If responsibility is SHARED among more than
>     three persons or corporate bodies and principal
>     responsibility is not attributed to any one, two, or
>     three, enter under title.
>
>Note that this rule is under those for works of SHARED (not MIXED)
>responsibility.
>
>Perhaps what is most needed are some general rules relating to new
>works, rather than the patchwork "special provisions" currently given.
>One possible approach would be to follow the progression under works of
>shared responsibility (21.6, entry under the the heading for the person
>or body to whom principal responsibility is attributed, or under the
>first named if not more than three, or under title if more than three
>with no principal responsibility attributed).
>
>In any event, there certainly needs to be provision for title entry for
>new works of diffuse, mixed responsibility such as feature films,
>ballets, documentaries, etc.
>
>It should be noted that each of the four conditions cited for entry for
>new works of mixed responsibility (21.24-21.27) provides for entry under
>the heading for the individual named first (although this approach has
>inherent problems given differences in layout of statements of
>responsibility for different publications of the same work), given
>prominence in the CSI, or deemed primarily responsible.  Further, if a
>given video is viewed as a manifestation of a musical work, entry would
>be covered at least in part by the provisions of 21.18-21.22.
>
>
>                        PROBLEMS WITH CHAPTER 21
>                 MUSICAL WORKS AND SOUND RECORDINGS AS
>                    "WORKS OF MIXED RESPONSIBILITY"
>
>The inclusion of the sections on "musical works" and "sound recordings"
>(21.18-21.23) under the heading of "Works of mixed
>responsibility/Modifications of other works" has contributed, I believe
>to the view that music materials have already been given treatment that
>is exceptional, when in fact the provisions (from the viewpoint of a
>performance as a realization, a manifestation) fall very much within the
>provisions found elsewhere in Chapter 21.  To remedy this misconception,
>perhaps the best solution would be to subsume the provisions for musical
>works and sound recordings under the appropriate provisions throughout
>the chapter, rather than separating them out for special consideration
>(or if they are separated, removing them from their present placement
>within the chapter).  What follows is a brief discussion of several key
>rules for the entry of musical works and sound recordings, and
>suggestions for their revisions.
>
>1. MUSICAL WORKS
>
>The section on Musical Works (21.18-21.22) (which in part addresses the
>entry of operas) is not specific to any particular medium of expression
>or manifestation (it is NOT included in the section on sound
>recordings).  From its inclusion in Part II of AACR2r, the application
>of these provisions applies to the intellectual/artistic work at hand,
>whatever its manifestation.
>
>21.18A. Scope
>
>One current source of confusion concerns whether the scope note, coming
>under the heading General Rule, would be applicable to the entire
>section under the heading Musical Works, as implied by the layout.  In
>fact, only 21.18B-C (Arrangements, transcriptions, etc./Adaptations) and
>21.21 (Added accompaniments) fall within the framework of the scope
>note.
>
>21.19. Musical works that include words
>Songs, operas, musical comedys, pasticcios, ballad operas, and writer's
>works set by several composers are often (but NOT ALWAYS, e.g. a song
>with text written by the composer) works of mixed responsibility.  These
>works are NEW works, not modifications of existing works (except for
>those that are "based on" other works, but this is not the focus of the
>rule--the focus is on the inclusion of text in the musical work).  A
>further clarification that this rule is NOT format specific (or if it is
>format specific, clarify to which formats it is applicable) would be
>VERY useful.  Perhaps this rule be more appropriate under the section on
>mixed responsibility in new works.
>
>21.20. Musical settings for ballets, etc.
>Under the rules as presently stated, ballets are perhaps the most
>problematic of the single works encountered in video cataloging.
>Provisions for entry for ballets (especially videos) properly belong
>under the heading of mixed responsibility in new works.
>
>Additionally, a clarification of what is meant by "musical setting" is
>needed.  Does "musical setting" refer to a manifestation in which only
>the music of a ballet (i.e., the score or recording) is presented?  This
>would be somewhat analagous to 21.11B, Illustrations published
>separately ("music published separately", so to speak).  Or, conversely,
>does "musical setting" mean any manifestation of a ballet set to music,
>including videos which preserve the dance as well as the music?
>
>21.22. Liturgical music:
>This also should properly be under the heading for "new works...."
>
>2. SOUND RECORDINGS
>
>By way of clarification, let me reiterate that the following remarks
>have as a basis the definition of the performance of a musical work on a
>sound recording as a realization of the "work", not as something "based
>on" the work.  Thus, it is difficult to perceive how a performance of a
>work is a modification of that work.  Musicians generally attempt to
>realize the composers' wishes in the performance (or, in terms of the
>quote given in the introduction, to follow the directions given by the
>composer, i.e. the score).  Most would be distressed at the thought that
>they were "modifying" the work.
>
>21.23A. One work
>As a musician, I do not view this type of recording as a work of mixed
>responsibility.  The role of the performer or reader, in spite of
>whatever he/she brings to it by way of interpretation, is that of
>realizing the (musical, literary, or whatever) work itself.  As such
>this rule should be included under 21.4A, personal authorship.  Even if
>the opposing viewpoint is taken, that the performer shares in the
>responsibility for the creation of the "work," the section would then
>belong under the heading appropriate for the "new" work.
>
>21.23B. Two or more works by the same person(s)
>Just as was the case for a single work, these (in terms of the creation
>of the musical works) are not works of mixed responsibility (c.f. 21.4),
>and should be included in the section on personal authorship.
>
>21.23C. Works by different persons or bodies. Collective title =9Band|
>21.23D. Works by different persons or bodies. No collective title.
>
>These rules should be subsumed under 21.7, collections and works
>produced under editorial direction.
>
>Less satisfactory possibilites include:
>1) broadening the scope of the heading for "musical works" (perhaps
>"Musical performances"?) so as to include all formats in which a musical
>performance might be manifested (e.g., to provide for the inclusion
>under these rules of videorecordings of "concert" performances).
>2) having a section for videorecordings similar to that for sound
>recordings.
>
>In conclusion, the primary areas of interpretative differences are those
>involving the definition of work vs. manifestation, and the nature of
>the performance of a work intended for performance (musical, dramatic,
>or whatever) relative to these definitions.
>
>Further, there are problems relating to the rules (or lack thereof) for
>new works of mixed responsibility, and with the inclusion of the
>provisions for musical works and sound recordings under the section on
>works of mixed responsibility/works that are modifications of other
>works.
>
>As stated at the outset, it has not been my intent to
>"prove" one viewpoint as opposed to another, but to aid in the
>clarification of the rules so as to alleviate the problems of
>interpretation when applying these rules.
>
***End of file******************End of file*****
 
 
 
 
Choice of Entry for Moving Image Materials with Musical Content
By David H. Thomas Introduction
 
Over the last several years, a great deal of time and effort
has been expended by members of the Music Library Association
(MLA) to work out guidelines for the cataloging of moving image
materials with musical content.  In 1991, MLA established a
Working Group (WG) to examine some of the issues involved.
Part of its charge was to write a manual to assist music
catalogers in working with these materials.  However, a large >portion of
the time of the WG has been spent debating the
appropriate choice of main entry for such items.  Several
members of the WG have argued that main entry should be made
under the composer of the musical work, parallelling the
practices used for sound recordings.  Others of the WG have
argued that main entry should be made under title, following
the precedent of other moving image materials.  This debate has
been taken up by the MLA membership at large; the topic was
extensively discussed on MLA-L, MLA's electronic listserve,
late last year; during the discussion, it became clear that
many MLA members feel that composer main entry is most
appropriate for this type of material.
 
At the heart of the debate over assigning main entry to moving
image materials with musical content-- hereafter referred to
collectively as music video material, with the recognition that
the term music video is also identified with a particular kind
of moving image material--has been a fundamental disagreement
concerning the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition,
revised (AACR2r) and its intentions regarding the nature of a
work and the nature of responsibility.  According to AACR2r, in >choosing
main entry the cataloger must establish both what the
artistic content of the item is and also who is responsible for
that content (cf. rules 21.1A1, 21.6A1, 21.6B1, 21.8A1).
Proponents of composer main entry argue that the musical work
constitutes the sole significant artistic content of music
video material, thus justifying entry under that heading; those
in support of title main entry feel that both the visual and
musical elements form part of a larger work, making entry under
title the only appropriate choice.
 
Discussion:
 
The proponents of composer main entry rest their arguments on
several points.  First, they argue that the composer is chiefly
responsible for the intellectual content of the item in hand,
which justifies main entry under composer based on rule
21.1A1.  As a result, a videorecording represents a
manifestation of the composer's musical work, and not an
independent work. Second, some have argued that the composer's
contribution far outstrips any others.  Finally, AACR2r has
made exceptions for other types of material, such as in the
case of sound recordings, where main entry is assigned to the
composer of the musical work performed.  Let us examine these
points one by one.
 
The concepts of intellectual content and manifestation are
central to the discussion.  In AACR2r, persons or bodies named
in the chief source of information are only considered in the
choice of main entry if they significantly contribute to the
intellectual content of the item in hand (21.1A1).  In
examining Chapter 21, however, there is nothing to guide the
cataloger in deciding what constitutes a significant
intellectual or artistic contribution, and, by extension, what
constitutes a new work.  In his 1992 dissertation, Richard
Smiraglia (Smiraglia, 1992, p. 9) outlines a definition of the
work in which "only exact copies (such as two copies from the
same impression), or physical manifestation (such as editions
produced by different publishers) in which no change is made in
ideational or semantic content constitute equivalent
manifestations of a work. Any change in either ideational or
semantic content results in the creation of a new work."
Smiraglia, then, offers a definition of the work that considers
any contribution to ideational content as significant, a
definition that would change cataloging practice substantially.
He offers instead the concept of the bibliographic family, in
which different works are related to one another in varying
degrees through the syndetic structure of the catalog, and not
described as if they were the same work.
 
In contrast, proponents of composer main entry have argued that
contributions to a music video item other than the music are
essentially not intellectually significant, and that such
contributions represent a realization of the composer's
original wishes.  Because the video presentation is merely a
realization of this original work, the moving image item
represents a manifestation of the original musical work, and
thus should be entered under the heading for that work.  This
viewpoint takes as its point of departure the precedent set for
sound recordings of musical works, which are deemed
manifestations of the musical work so that recordings may be
entered under the composer (cf. rule 21.23).  However, if in
fact these other contributions are not significant to the
library user, then there would be little reason for libraries
to collect videorecordings at all, as the significant content
of the performance--the musical work--could be collected
without the image content of the video.  In reality, libraries
do collect videorecordings, in large part because videos
include intellectual content not found on other presentations
of staged musical works.  We collect videorecordings of musical
performances because seeing the performance is intrinsically
different from merely hearing it, and this difference is
important.
 
Moreover, describing the videorecording as if it were a
manifestation of the musical work obscures the fact that the
videorecording is not the same as the score or the sound
recording.  Entering a music video under a composer main entry
implies that it is in essence the same work as the musical
score and that its contents are the same as those of a score or
recording of the same work, when it actually contains creative
elements (such as the costume and set designs) that are not
found in the musical score or recording alone. Grouping such
different items under the same heading undermines one of the
fundamental goals of the catalog--that of enabling the user to
distinguish among items in the catalog.  Entering music video
material under composer misleads the user--at least
temporarily--as the user must examine each record to determine
its true character.
 
With regards to the issue of chief responsibility, many music
catalogers have argued that the composer retains chief
responsibility for the work captured on music video materials,
even though others may have made significant intellectual
contributions to the item.  Fitzgerald states (11/5/94, p. 1)
that, "for purposes of main entry, the concern is with the
nature and identity of the work, and the identification of
those chiefly responsible for the creation of the INTELLECTUAL
OR ARTISTIC CONTENT OF A WORK (c.f. 21.1A1)" (emphasis in
original).  This statement is clear and unambiguous: main entry
shall be assigned to the individual or group who is chiefly
responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic
content of a work.  Because they feel that the composer is
chiefly responsible for the work, then, the composer should
receive main entry.
 
This decision, however, relies on a reinterpretation of AACR2r
rules concerning mixed and shared responsibility.  As Lowell
Ashley has pointed out in numerous postings to MLA-L (for
example, Ashley, 11/20/93), the provisions for assigning main
entry to a chiefly-responsible entity apply only to works of
shared responsibility, and not to those of mixed
responsibility.  Most video catalogers, however, have come to
the conclusion that videorecordings are nearly always of mixed
responsibility. Therefore, in order for music catalogers to use
the chief responsibility clause, the clause must be made
available for works of mixed responsibility as well.  Such a
change would likely have significant impact on cataloging
practice outside of the music community, as all videorecordings
would have to be judged for chief responsibility.
 
Another argument presented has been that music video material
should fall under the same exception that sound recordings
currently have. This exception states that a cataloger should
"enter a sound recording of one work (musical, text, etc.)
under the heading appropriate to that work" (21.23A1).
Underlying this exception is the assumption that without the
composition in the first place, there would not be a production
of the musical work; music catalogers feel that music video
material falls under the same conditions.  While it is
certainly true that a particular music video item could not be
performed without the musical work, it is equally true that the
item in hand would not exist in its current manifestation
without the contributions of each of the performers, that of
the director, the set designer, and so on. Furthermore, an
undue amount of cataloger time is already spent trying to
determine main entry for sound recordings, as demonstrated by
the number of Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI's)
related to the choice of entry for these materials; extending
this exception to videorecordings will only complicate matters
further.
 
In addition to these theoretical points, there have been
several practical arguments for assigning composer main entry
to music video material; most important of these are that
composer main entry is necessary for classification purposes;
and that clients want to see the composer at the top of the
catalog record.  On the first issue, librarians have argued
that, due to longstanding policy, classification and cuttering
must follow main entry.  However, assigning book numbers or
cutter numbers is done to distinguish among items within a
given collection.  As such, there are no firmly established
global policies for assigning cutter number; such policies are
ultimately local and can be adapted as needed. For example, the
Dewey Decimal Classification, 20th ed. (DDC20), in discussing
book numbers, states only that "a common filing device for
small libraries is to give the first three letters of the main
entry (usually the author) on the spine." (DDC20, p. xlix)
There is no further statement, and certainly no requirement,
that book numbers be made using the main entry.  The Library of
Congress does not classify either its video or sound recordings
at all, making such cuttering within its classification system
purely a matter of local policy.  If a library's policy is to
assign cutter numbers based always on main entry, and that
policy fails to meet the clients' needs, then it behooves the
staff to change the policy.  However, such local practices
should not determine cataloging policy at large.
 
The problem of presenting users with information in a familiar
and preferred format is an area with a great deal of research
potential and little empirical evidence.  Libraries have little
sense of what users need in a catalog record, or how they
expect to find that information displayed.  Any attempt to
suggest that users want to see catalog information presented in
a certain way is likely to be based on unreliable evidence.
Furthermore, concerns for the placement of an entry as the
"main entry" can--and should-- be made meaningless in the
online world, where it is--or should be--possible to present
information in any order the client chooses.  This fact should
be abundantly clear given the fact that every Online Public
Access Catalog (OPAC) currently in use reformats the MARC
record for display purposes.  While it is certainly problematic
that many libraries operate OPACs that cannot perform such
manipulation, these concerns are ultimately local ones that
must be solved by installing more responsive OPACs, and not
through catalog code revision.
 
In support of composer main entry is the argument that the user
of music libraries expects to find music video materials
entered under the composer of the musical work.  However, no
one has cited a situation to support the idea that music
library users would be unable to locate these materials were
they entered under title.  One librarian expressed concern that
the composer's name does not appear on screen when a user
searches for opera videos using a keyword search; again, her
concerns, while valid, reflect problems of display within one
OPAC, that should be addressed to the OPAC vendor.  Presumably,
a name-title added entry for the composer would be made in all
cases, thus making retrieval by the user possible.  While some
OPACs will not permit retrieval on added entry fields, this
problem--while serious--is again a problem of local system
implementation.
 
Ultimately, however, the disagreement about assigning main
entry to music video material revolves around the definitions
offered in AACR2r chapter 21, and not on the importance of the
composer to the intellectual content of the item in hand or on
the ability to classify videorecordings.  The disagreement
arises rather when we try to determine whether the
contributions of individuals other than the composer alter the
intellectual or artistic content of a given item enough to
demand title main entry.  Indeed, the disagreement is
understandable; AACR2r is inconsistent in its instructions to
catalogers on determining responsibility.  It instructs
catalogers to assign personal authorship to the person chiefly
responsible in one rule (21.1A1), but states elsewhere that
works of shared or mixed responsibility are those in which two
or more persons or bodies contribute to the intellectual or
artistic content of the item (cf. Glossary entries for Mixed
responsibility and Shared responsibility)--an absolute
criterion.  These two sets of criteria conflict; the first is
based on determination of relative importance, the second bases
its decision on more rigid, absolute judgments.  It is
imperative that these inconsistencies be ironed out so that
cataloging practice can be more reliable, and the records that
catalogers create can be more consistent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
References:
 
American Library Association (1988). Anglo-American
Cataloging   Rules. 2nd. ed., 1988 revision. (Chicago: American
Library   Association).
 
Ashley, L. (11/20/93).  Posting to MLA-L.
 
Dewey Decimal Classification.  20th ed.
 
Fitzgerald, G. (11/5/94).  Position paper in support of
composer main entry.
 
Smiraglia, R.P. (1992).  Authority control and the extent of
derivative bibliographic relationships.  PhD. dissertation.
(Chicago: University of Chicago).
 
END OF FILE