Regina-- in this instance the examples for 2.3.1.7 and 2.5.2 are correct. In the 1st, the "Musical theatre for classical singers" has unique contents for each of the voices; the volume for alto (as well as the ones for mezzo, tenor and bass/baritone) contains a completely different repertoire than that for the soprano. Thus, it is different from, as in the 2nd example, an edition for Tenor of the same music, set for a different voice range in a different edition.
I hope this helps clarify what seems to be a contradiction, but isn't. Regards, Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shapiro, Regina Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:47 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 There appears to be a contradiction between the following two instructions: 2.3.1.7. Title Proper--Titles of Parts, Sections, and Supplements MLA recommendation: Follow LC-PCC PS. EXAMPLES: 245 00 Musical theatre for classical singers. $p Soprano (p. 8) AND 2.5.2. Designation of Edition The most common designations of edition in music resources fall into category g), "a statement indicating ... a particular voice range or format for notated music." Treat a statement indicating a particular voice range that is not grammatically linked to the title, other title information, etc. as a designation of edition, whether or not it includes the word "edition" or its equivalent. EXAMPLES: 250 Tenor. (p.14) -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd) "Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21." http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf Interesting, and a lot of work. I was surprised to see no examples of $4 relator codes or $e relator terms. I was surprised to see examples of 260, when PCC has said that no new RDA records are to have 260. I was also suprised to see the copyright symbols used in 260 examples, as opposed to "c" and "p". I was surprised to see no examples of 336 RDA media content, but rather examples of 344 and 347. The fact that samples were not in field tag order, I found confusing. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ Connect with Queens Library: * QueensLibrary.org http://www.queenslibrary.org/ * Facebook http://www.facebook.com/queenslibrarynyc * Twitter http://www.twitter.com/queenslibrary * LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/queens-library * Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/116278397527253207785 * Foursquare https://foursquare.com/queenslibrary * YouTube http://www.youtube.com/queenslibrary * Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/qbpllid/ * Goodreads http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/58240.Queens_Library The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
