Posting to Autocat
On 18/11/2014 2.56, Thomas, Kirsti wrote:
Several productions of Richard II have been done in the last few years, so I think it’s important to distinguish this “2013 RSC production starring David Tennant” from other versions like the “2012 BBC Two production starring Ben Whishaw” or the “2011/2012 Donmar Warehouse production starring Eddie Redmayne” or even the “1978 BBC Shakespeare production starring Derek Jacobi.” Our users are typically looking for specific versions by specific directors or with specific actors, so I come down on the side of providing a qualified uniform title. I guess the new RDA term for that is “Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression” 😉
If I understand correctly, this seems to be equating individual performances with expressions. This would be something new I think. For instance, in music if someone wants a copy of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, they search for
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 5, op. 67, C minor.
and then they select what they want from the different records. But you cannot further specify *within the heading* that I want one conducted by Von Karajan, or Bernstein. So, catalogers do not create headings with specific conductors such as:
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 5, op. 67, C minor. Toscanini, Arturo, 1867-1957.
or with specific orchestras:
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 5, op. 67, C minor. NBC Symphony Orchestra.
and we certainly do not create something like:
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 5, op. 67, C minor. Toscanini, Arturo, 1867-1957. NBC Symphony Orchestra. Carnegie Hall, March 22, 1952.
All of that information goes into the *record*, but not in the heading. The catalog itself is supposed to provide that access but people actually had to do some work. In a traditional catalog, such as in the LC catalog, we can see how it has always worked. This is a search for the uniform title for Beethoven’s Fifth, and people are still expected to examine each record to choose which one they want.
Of course, it’s easier with keyword searches. Even the search for the specific performance works in Worldcat:
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 5, op. 67, C minor. Toscanini, Arturo, 1867-1957. NBC Symphony Orchestra. Carnegie Hall, March 22, 1952
Things also change in faceted catalogs. Here is the search for just the uniform title in Worldcat
Today with the facets, we can see different conductors: Furtwangler, Toscanini, etc., or you can limit by date (i.e. date of production, not date of performance). Facets can be made from any fields in the record. This means that it would be easy enough to make corporate bodies display in the facets so that you could limit by NBC Symphony Orchestra (if it has been put into the record), which for some reason do not do so now. Everything can be changed or improved in almost any way someone would want.
On the other hand, a translation of a libretto of an opera warrants a new expression, e.g.
Wagner, Richard, 1813-1883. Ring des Nibelungen. Libretto. English
Changing the idea of the expression for works of the performing arts (theater, film, music, etc.) so that an expression is determined not only by the author and the piece of music (Beethoven, 5th symphony) but also by the performer(s) and perhaps even by the individual performance is an interesting idea. I know that when searching music on YouTube for, e.g. a Rolling Stones song, I want the Rolling Stones and not something recorded by little Johnny’s garage band. Or, I may want something *very specific* such as the Stones’ “Under My Thumb” but not just any one. I want a specific performance: the one at Altamont in 1969 where the Hell’s Angels killed the spectator and many things in society changed after that. This was a historic and important performance–not just any performance by the Stones.
It works in Google for the actual performance! https://www.google.it/search?q=rolling+stones+under+my+thumb+altamont
(it ends just before the violence at the end. Not a very good performance but they were all obviously very unhappy)
For catalogers to give that kind of access through formal headings would be quite a bit more work than what we do now. Prudence dictates that we should first determine if the extra effort is warranted (and sustainable!), especially when it can be demonstrated that people can find these materials right now in other ways. I think we should just let the catalog work its magic, so that when we search for keywords, we get it (as happens now) or put IT to improve the facets. That would be a lot cheaper and easier than adding zillions of new “expressions”.