LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2005

ARSCLIST August 2005

Subject:

Re: More on cataloging

From:

"Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:10:23 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Stinson" <[log in to unmask]>
> I must say that the apples/oranges issue is one I deplore on a regular
> basis and we have covered that well, and often, in the office as well as
> on this list. However, every time RDI comes up getting trashed I must
> respond and point out that before it came along, we had NOTHING to use
> to search for 78s that was remotely like the NUC, fir instance. When I
> came here in 1979, all I could do to locate a recording label, number,
> etc. was to hunt through old Victor catalogs, old Columbia catalogs, old
> Brunswick catalogs, the occasional discography.....well, you get the
> picture. A lot of people in this field, many of whom are now retired,
> worked long to get even that (the RDI) as a step in the right direction.
> A lot of further effort has taken place since 1979; there are dozens of
> discographies, there are more items cataloged online (audio apples on
> the OCLC orange) but there is so much data that it's a huge task at this
> point even with the advent of bigger, faster, cheaper computers, as our
> budgets continue to shrink, or only stagnate and staffing becomes a
> memory. So RDI has meant that I spend lots less time hunting through
> old secondary sources, and while it has its problems it is still a most
> useful tool.
>
> Some of you may not know that we have loaded all the Syracuse entries
> from RDI onto our own library OPAC and our cataloger is in the process
> of, among other things, correcting and adding information as she comes
> upon the need for it in our listings. For any of you who are using RDI
> and have questions, why not contact the institution listed as the owner
> and ask for the correct information - they have the disc and should be
> able to tell you. That is what we do.
>
Well, I was the one that was "bashing RDI" (admittedly, without having
the opportunity to use it that much, which is another one of its
problems!). What flaws I have seen came primarily from the fact that
much of the data entry was done from photographs of phonorecords,
and done by people with no experience in discography or even dealing
with 78rpm records.

As well, it was created at a time when a "state of the art" computer
was an IBM 360 mainframe machine, with (here I quote my old Fortran
textbook) "as much as a full megabyte of system memory in rare cases."

I still recall the reaction of Len Kunstadt at the ARSC convention
where RDI was introduced, when he found out that take data would NOT
be included in data records!

In any case, what I think should be done with RDI is to use it as a
basic skeleton on which to construct some sort of ultimate 78rpm
database...by checking each data record for obvious errors and,
where possible, adding information. The goal would be this: by using
a combination of RDI, the "Abrams Files," print discographic
publications (of which there are many, but a lot are rarities,
often personally distributed to a dozen or so users), surviving
record catalogs and supplements, and...finally...digital (and
possibly other, such as 3x5's or handwritten lists) catalogs of
individual collections insofar as they exist.

This is what the late AVRL was supposed to become...and is one
(or was?) of "Project Gramophone." The eventual result would be
a digitally-based and (one hopes) readily accessible catalog
providing discographic information on every 78 phonorecord
which has ever existed (and how many exist today). I have
dreamed of this since I first read about the Commodore 64,
and especially since I first had the opportunity to use
dBASE III+ and see how much of an improvement it was over
my 20,000-odd 3x5 cards! Admittedly, my old 80286 running
III+ would take several minutes to index a data table
containing 1350 data/phonorecords...but it would have
taken about a week to do the same thing with the cards!

The question now becomes...will the advance of technology
inspire an attempt at this ultimate database before the last
of us silly old fools who actually care about its creation
go to our final reward?!

Steven C. Barr

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager