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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2016

ARSCLIST January 2016

Subject:

Re: A case in point why CDText should have been used for metadata from Day 1

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:48:37 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

Without being anywhere near expert on any aspect of library cataloging. I imagine all of this 
crowd-source mishmash makes it harder to have any sort of uniform information about things. I'd like 
to know this -- is there a uniform standard, used by all library catalogs, of how to express and 
describe classical symphony movements, and has it been applied for all recorded symphonies so far? 
If you want to see what I'm talking about, go on iTunes or Amazon and look for versions of any 
popular symphony. Look at all the different ways a movement is labelled. Also look at how composers, 
conductors, orchestras and soloists are labelled, and how it varies within metadata fields. It's a 
jungle out there! Also look at song titles. Take a popular song with a parenthetical phrase in the 
title. Sometimes the parenthetical phrase is listed, sometimes not. Sometimes songwriters are 
lastname, firstname and sometimes the opposite. Look at all the ways Herbert Von Karajan and the 
Berlin Philharmonic are listed, depending on what crowd-source entered what metadata on what 
recording. It's maddening if one wants to build a digital library with any sort of consistency.

I first encountered this when I ripped all the original Mercury Living Presence CDs into an iTunes 
library, patiently waiting while the software took forever to crunch them into ALAC format. Every 
disc I inserted, I had to do something to correct the metadata so it was consistent with previously 
ripped discs. It's been that way with almost every CD I've ever ripped into iTunes or, later, my 
networked server library. I figure you stand about an 80% chance you'll have  to correct something, 
usually the year of the recording but almost just as often the name of the artist (in order to keep 
the same person under the same name throughout a library). Another really annoying new "feature" is 
parentheticals like "(2012 REMASTER)" after a track name. Who cares? Just put it in the comments 
field.

As you can tell, this definitely annoys me! Aside from the time-wasting inconvenience of bad data, 
it's a problem that should never have happened.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A case in point why CDText should have been used for metadata from Day 1


> What can be done now to create the more accurate cataloging we all desire.
>
> Is this a neglected implied mission of the ARSC Cataloging Committee?
> Properly done, this benefits all, libraries as well as the general public.
> If so should this be on their agenda at the ARSC conference?
>
> AT the moment, the committee  seems to be working on issues related to
> libraries only.  They also have met for the last 2  years opposite the
> meeting of the Copyright Committee.  I'm interested in both but the
> schedulers can't seem to separate the times for them and adjusting the
> present copyright law, which impinges on musical creation, is my priority.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 8:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] A case in point why CDText should have been used for
> metadata from Day 1
>
> The 1995 Smithsonian collection "Big Band Renaissance: the Evolution of the
> Jazz Orchestra" is a great example of group-source metadata FUBAR.
> dBPowerAmp's CD ripper program allows use of multiple metadata sources, and
> by default does some sort of amalgam of whatever sources you've told it to
> check. The amalgam on this set is comical! So I manually checked metadata
> from each source. They are all different, and only GD3 (whatever that is) is
> anywhere near accurate. I find this often happens with compilations -- for
> instance freedB and/or AllMusic will have different top-level stuff like
> titles and whether or not it's a compilation for different individual CDs in
> the same box set.
>
> All of this could have been prevented if the industry embraced CDText from
> the get-go and agreed on uniform naming standards for artists and song
> titles. I remember the arguments back in the 80's -- it's hard enough to
> enter PQ codes into these balky Sony editing systems, and no CD players have
> displays for CDText, so why bother. Very short-sighted. The net-net today is
> that anyone who wants uniform naming and accurate information in a digital
> library has to spend a lot of time editing the crappy metadata that's out
> there in group-source land. And, copyright owners have ceded control of
> their metadata to a group-source no-QC cluter-you-know-what.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> 

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

December 2020
November 2020
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