19
2005Popular bibliographic description
2 Comments | Posted by Steve in Cataloging/Classification, Technology
I subscribe to the Web4Lib listserv and for the last 8 or 9 months there has been a steady stream of comparisons between popular online web services (namely Google) and what we do in libraries. So my mind has trained lately to notice the differences between a librarian’s notion of what is important when it comes to information and what the rest of the world thinks of the world of information.
So I stumbled upon something that left me a little bit shocked: unless I am missing something, the iTunes music program does not provide a display for the record label of a given song. Does it strike anyone else as odd that this little bit of bibliographic description does not make the cut for the popular music catalog of the iPod era? Am I just a librarian for thinking this is odd or is “record label” beyond the 4/4 time signature of what is needed to identify and browse a music collection?
(I did check and it turns out that the Gracenote CDDB that provides the service for the getting track names into iTunes does contain a much richer bit of metadata for an album than Apple uses in its program. So it appears to be a conscious decision to use a weak set of descriptive elements.)
2 Comments for Popular bibliographic description
Author comment by Dave | July 21, 2005 at 10:04 am
Author comment by Barry | August 2, 2005 at 5:48 pm
I always thought that iTunes is such a brand name that part of their marketing is to get music consumers (because that’s what we are) to think of iTunes as their only source. I know it sounds minor, but if a teenager, or someone new to music thinks of where their music comes from and they think Apple rather than Matador or Merge or Sony or Warners, then the iTunes marketing has succeeded to another level. Hence the unavailability of tracking your songs by label.
Could you track the label by manually inputting it into the “Other” field? Would you be able to display that field?
Slightly related to this is that I recently subscribed to eMusic.com. They offer 50 free downloads to try it, and if you continue, it is $9/month for 20 songs and on up. eMusic focuses on indie labels, so its catalog is not the most comprehensive, but if you are into indie rock, electronica, or pop, it’s a pretty good deal. One of the best selling points is that they allow users to download mp3s rather than encrypted files, which allow for multiple copying and playing across formats. One month in and I am a happy customer.
Leave a comment!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Steve -
Recently a database-driven website for new acquisitions was piloted, then launched at my library. The website allows users to see what books and things have been acquired each recent month, and is organized by call number. The early version – devised by systems people – did not include publisher name, extent (number of pages), and whether it was illustrated.
Understandably, the bibliographers lit up. A book on Iraq published by Verso is nowhere near a book about Iraq published by Norton. Page numbers indicate the “seriousness” or “scope” of the scholarship, and illustrations are important for monographs on art, history, and many other disciplines.
I see that as analogous to your point about record labels. Publisher and label indicate a point of view, a stance in a wash of publishers and labels, that give users a starting point. As a young poetry reader, I always read books published by New Directions, City Lights, and others, and listened to music on Dischord, Merge, and Matador. What would I have done without that information? How would I have moved on?