Let's see here. I recently subscribed to KUSC and my gift for giving was music from movies, whether originally composed for the movies or not. Perhaps, it would be catalogued as a collection of music, but then how would you created analytics, if you wanted to? Also Sprach Zarathustra was part of Space Odyssey : 2001, but it wasn't composed for movie. Neither was the Blue Danube. Have they now become expressions of the movie????
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <babra...@mit.edu>wrote: > Lots to think about! Thanks everyone, > --Ben > > Benjamin Abrahamse > Cataloging Coordinator > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > MIT Libraries > 617-253-7137 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:02 PM > To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 > > Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: > > > In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood > > gets "composer (expression"), > > > > " because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the > > moving- image work ". Likewise you later clarified, assign > > relationships as expression-level,"[i]f the relationship involves the > > realization rather than the creation of the work. " > > > > Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, > > the directing, production… all is about "realizing" something. > > Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is "realized" > > has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. > > > > So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly > > part of the "work" and not "simply one aspect"? > > I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the > distribution of responsibility categories between work and expression. I'm > not sure why "author", "director", "director of photography", "producer" > and "production company" are associated with *work* while all other aspects > are associated with the *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, > for example, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary > Oldman (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) > and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the work than > those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola (director), > Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, all of these > people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in relationship to the film. > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Northwestern University Library > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
