Is a collection of music is a collective work? If it is, treat it as a collective work. Making the whole-part relationship explicit in a bibliographic record depends on users' benefits. See if it helps users to search and find resources. Regarding recording relationships, I remember that Thomas Brennodorfer has mentioned four conventions in a previous email.
My thought. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Gene Fieg <gf...@cst.edu> wrote: > 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. > > -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
