I'm copy cataloging a videorecording of the 1958 film South Pacific and noticed the following AAPs in OCLC record 891396550:
700 1_ ǂi Motion picture adaptation of (work): ǂa Michener, James A. ǂq (James Albert), ǂd 1907-1997. ǂt Tales of the South Pacific.
700 1_ ǂi Motion picture adaptation of (work): ǂa Hammerstein, Oscar, ǂc II, ǂd 1895-1960. ǂt South Pacific.
700 1_ ǂi Motion picture adaptation of (work): ǂa Rodgers, Richard, ǂd 1902-1979. ǂt South Pacific.
I'm OK with describing this as an adaptation of both the musical and the novel, but seeing two AAPs for "South Pacific" seems incorrect to me, if the play is meant and not two different works (libretto and score maybe?). Wouldn't the preferred title for
the musical play be just the Rodgers name/title?
Looking at the authority file, there are actually TWO NARS for Hammerstein/South Pacific :
n 2015070108 (for the libretto, which seems reasonable), and
n 2009062927 (for the musical as a whole, it seems, and which I think conflicts with heading for the libretto above; in any event it ought to use the heading already established under Rodgers)
My understanding is that in general, the preferred title for a work with two creators would be the first named (or principal) creator and the title proper. Under AACR2r we'd give an added entry for the second author but RDA does not really give a relationship
for co-authors of related works, so I think we would leave off the additional authors when providing an access point for a related work.
So I'd be inclined to remove the Hammerstein/South Pacific 700 and report n 2009062927 for deletion. Does that seem correct to the
collective wisdom? Or should I leave both 700s in and imagine that the cataloger intended to say the film was based on the novel, the libretto, and the play (or novel, libretto, and score); "cataloger's judgment," and all that.
Senior Catalog Librarian
Cleveland Public Library
17133 Lakeshore Blvd.
Cleveland, OH 44110