McTyre started the discussion on a humorous note, asking a tough old question in an innocent tone of voice: “Weeding LPs. . . Is there an easy way?” This brought forth immediate warnings against the tendency to try and save everything. Then followed a “quick and dirty” approach: go to the MLA-L Archives, where an excellent discussion of this issue took place a few years ago

NC DOCKS at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Nelson, William "Mac"

English

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Hot Topics in Music Librarianship  By: William M. Nelson  Nelson, William M. (2007). Hot Topics in Music Librarianship. MLA Newsletter 149 (31) June 2007, 5-8.  ***© Modern Language Association. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from Modern Language Association. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document. ***  Abstract:   McTyre started the discussion on a humorous note, asking a tough old question in an innocent tone of voice: “Weeding LPs. . . Is there an easy way?” This brought forth immediate warnings against the tendency to try and save everything. Then followed a “quick and dirty” approach: go to the MLA-L Archives, where an excellent discussion of this issue took place a few years ago.  Keywords: music librarianship | newsletter | topics  Article:  ***Note: Full text of article below continued from previous pagefor example, video recordings allowthe viewer to see other cultural as-pects of musical performances. ABasic Music Library cannot docu-ment everything important in ethno-musicology, so Danielson recom-mended limiting the focus to a fewspecific topics and describing themwell. For music librarians, she sug-gested limiting the scope of collec-tions to primary source materials. The final speaker, Ed Komara,commented further on plans for thefourth edition of BML in his presen-tation, “A Basic Music Library andthe Challenge of Musical Canons.”Komara stated that the first three edi-tions of BML served as an acquisi-tions guide and tool with which toassess their collections. The purposeof his talk was to initiate discussionas to whether the fourth editionshould be “basic” or “canonical” andwhether there was a difference be-tween the two terms.The first section of Komara’s talkdescribed the circumstances that leadto selectivity and may make canonic-ity inevitable. Librarians cannot buyeverything, and sometimes cannotcatalog what they do have. Amongresearchers, every article of musiccould be important to someone, butrealistically, some will be mentionedmore than others, and some will bemore influential than others. Choicesmust be made about which works todiscuss.Komara made the point thatwhereas selectivity is inevitable,canonicity results from the adoptionof a particular collection of works byseveral people, either through inclu-sion in a syllabus or in an anthology.Furthermore, those works not in thecanon become “extra-canonical” andare at risk of being rejected as such.Komara recommended not rejectingthese works outright because if noth-ing else, they are useful as contextfor the canonical works.Komara did not reject the idea ofcanonicity as inherently bad as it canshow the derivation of a commu-nity’s values and culture. He usedthe example of Robert Johnson’s gui-tar blues, which are viewed ascanonical by most modern blues androck guitarists while the piano blueson which Johnson’s are modeled arenot. Komara accounted for the differ-ence by stating that guitarists aremostly aware of the guitar repertoryand not so much that of the piano.The second section of his talkaddressed ways in which “canonical”does not mean “basic.” A canon isassigned value and greatness by con-sensus and has its roots in ecclesias-tical study. The notion of a musicalcanon has been built in the historyof the Western tradition; is it appro-priate to consider this for non-Western musics? “Basic” as applied tomusic refers to its properties: time,melody, harmony, rhythm, instru-mentation, forms and structures. Inorder to create a basic music libraryin the truest sense of the word, mu-sic librarians can either be completeand collect everything, or be com-prehensive and collect throughoutthe whole field representatively.Komara discussed why BMLshould not be mistaken for a canon.BML could be considered a canon ofMLA, though with 11,000 citations, itwould be more practical to view it as a collection of canons. Even as acollection of canons, not everyonewould divide the citations among thesame groups.Komara concluded by explainingthat “basic” as a basis of acquisitionsmay be categorical according to theproperties and genres of musicrather than canonical. The materialswould have to support more thanjust one group of patrons, be theyundergraduates or graduate students,or performance, history, or theorymajors. In his words, the fourth edi-tion of A Basic Music Library isbroadening its intended scope fromthe third edition by recommendingmaterials that are needed to gaincomprehensively a basic understand-ing of individual aspects of music asthey are performed and exercisedaround the world.Mac Nelson, University of North Carolina,GreensboroModerator Ruthann McTyre (Uni -versity of Iowa) brings a cool headto Hot Topics in Music Librarianship,as do many of her MLA colleagues,162 of whom attended this session of the 2007 annual conference.McTyre’s talent for engaging such alarge audience in vibrant communi-cation made for an intense, well-paced ninety minute discussion. McTyre started the discussion ona humorous note, asking a tough oldquestion in an innocent tone ofvoice: “Weeding LPs. . . Is there aneasy way?” This brought forth im-mediate warnings against the ten-dency to try and save everything.Then followed a “quick and dirty”approach: go to the MLA-L Archives,where an excellent discussion of thiscontinued on page 6M L A Newsletter • No. 149 5Annual MeetingPlenary III continued . . . Hot Topics in Music Librarianshipcontinued from previous pageissue took place a few years ago.Also noted were some problems presented by LP recordings of solo literature: CD replacements are oftenunavailable, and those that are re-issued soon go out of print. ScottLandvatter (University of Chicago),who is now in the final stages of a50,000 LP project, offered a goodrule of thumb: “Keep the rare stuff—and prepare for the big challenge ofmaking it accessible.” Re-visiting a hot topic from lastyear’s session, Christine Clark (Theo -dore Front Musical Literature, Inc.)responded to the question, “How dolibraries go about buying rentalscores?” She explained that there was a “surge of hope last year whenrequests were submitted,” but addedwith regret that a number of librari-ans have been unsuccessful in theirsubsequent attempts to securescores. Clark is currently working tomake rental scores available for purchase. In her capacity as a go-between for publishers and libraries,she hopes to secure regular printcopy, or, at the very least, copy ondemand. Bonna Boettcher (MLAPresident, Cornell University) saidthat this issue will be raised at thespring Board meeting with publishers. Library instruction, in all its vari-ety, was perhaps the most pervasiveof the hot topics discussed. Under -graduate bibliographyand research instruc-tion: successes and fail-ures elicited numerouscomments, some of themquite impassioned. McTyreintroduced this subjectwith her own brief tale ofwoe (which she somehow madefunny) regarding the failure of a onecredit offering in arts research atIowa. Alas, only one student signedup, so the course was scrapped. Ona happier note, John Redford (BiolaUniversity) described in detail his fullsemester research course for under-graduates with an eye toward latergraduate study. This is a semester-long offering, featuring a 100 itemannotated bibliography as the mainproject. As John’s students only haveimmediate access to a small under-graduate library, he arranges fieldtrips to larger research institutions inhis region. Linda Fairtile (Universityof Richmond) builds her researchgoals into a required senior project, asubstantial undertaking in which stu-dents develop a proposal, write anabstract, and conduct research underthe guidance of a faculty advisor.“What happens when studentsclaim they know research wellenough, having learned it else-where?” An unidentified voice inthe crowd answered this questionbluntly: “If research is not on theirtranscript as a graduate course, theyhave not taken it.” Over the course of this spiritedexchange on instruction, a few spon-taneous hot topics erupted. The“Busy-ness Problem,” for example,seems to pervade colleges and uni-versities. It is not uncommon thesedays to hear that “the kids are toobusy.” This prompts librarians to askthe question, “How do we avoidcreating just one more thing forstudents to do?” One answer is torequire a freshman coursein information literacy,with the librarian “builtinto the course.” Anotherapproach is to forge newcurricular connectionsthrough comprehensivecourse offerings. JaneGott lieb ( Julliard) offers a DMA classin bibliography that includes under-graduates working in partnershipwith faculty members. Using a vari-ety of new and standard research re-sources, Brian McMillan (McGillUniversity) combines the instructionof undergraduate and graduate stu-dents, both performers and musicol-ogists, in a class devoted to “cuttingedge” topics in the scholarly commu-nity. Finally, Julie Strauss (Universityof Cape Town) teaches a compre-hensive research course that empha-sizes instruction in writing skills. Inresponse to this, there seemed a gen-eral consensus that librarians are in-creasingly in demand as compositionteachers.Further consideration of the li-brarian’s role as a teacher raised an-other topic that is clearly heating upin many music libraries: the curricu-lar impact of Music IndustryStudies. Alicia Hansen (Loyola Uni -versity, New Orleans) described herinteraction with a music industryprofessor keenly interested in biblio-graphic instruction who asked her tohelp him inspire “really great paperswith excellent, well-documented pictures.” While such faculty involve-ment is welcome, it can also beproblematic, as Alicia explained byway of another professor’s observa-tion that “Music Industry Studies aretaking over the world and stompingon traditional music school curric-ula.” Economic considerations alsoapply, as Jon Haupt (Iowa State Uni -versity) acknowledged in his com-ment that “arts programs tend to beunderfunded, especially in placesthat emphasize science and technol-ogy.” However, for better or worse,Jon added, when arts courses “movetoward Music Industry Studies, moremoney comes their way.” Also within the context of in-struction, Marc Rice (Truman StateUniversity) asked the question, “Arethere any good systematic assess-ment tools?” Several participantssuggested using follow-up surveysthat work well as tools for trackingHot Topics in Music Librarianship continued . . .Library instruction wasperhaps the mostpervasive of thehot topicsAnnual Meeting6 M L A Newsletter • No. 149students through their undergraduatecareers. Also noted was the role ofthe “embedded librarian” at workwith human subjects who might betested to provide evidence of the ed-ucational work librarians do. AliciaHansen teaches a non-credit, onehour, freshman-level research classinclusive of requisite basic compe-tencies in technology for all students.Beth Macleod (Central MichiganUniversity) approaches assessmentthrough the analysis of bibliographiesdrawn from student research papers.This process depends on the cooper-ation of professors who require suchpapers, as well as the knowledge ofwhich students have taken the bibli-ography course. The great value ofthis assessment tool is that it pro-duces good, concrete results. Copyright may well be a hottopic, but it is also a frustrating one,and it made for tepid discussion atthis session. The first issue raisedwas the problem of gaining permis-sion before placing photocopies ofscores on reserve. The challengehere, most agreed, is that there is notan easy way of getting permission—and so much depends on the priori-ties of individual universities andcouncils. When the discussion turnedto the larger issue of fair use, GordonTheil (University of California LosAngeles) spoke with convictionabout the role librarians should beplaying: “We should be doing more.There are guidelines describing theappropriate use of digital materials,and we should argue strenuously forstudent access to digital audio re-serves. We are here to providemodes of access. We are mediators.We are not the problem.” To pro-mote the discussion of these andother copyright issues, the AlexanderStreet Press has set up an advisorygroup inclusive of librarians who will“help shape the debate.” Music Library 2.0 promptedcomments on many hot topics, nonemore burning than the future ofCDs. The discussion gathered upsome familiar questions: “Are peoplestill buying CDs? Why spend moneyon them when they are on the wayout?” Tom Caw (University of Hart -ford) noted that for libraries withsmall, non-circulating teaching col-lections: “Naxos and other streamingoptions are available, but not allrooms have wireless, and not all pro-fessors would go wireless if theycould. There are still those who liketo pop in and pick up the physicalitem.” Another argument in favor ofCDs is the increasing di-versity of the curriculum.In this regard, RebeccaLittman (University ofWisconsin, Milwaukee)observed that streamingresources have little to dowith courses in global popmusic, for example. Further issuesassociated with streaming ser -vices were discussed at length.McTyre noted the paucity of cata-loging records for these items, towhich Tim Savage (OCLC) re-sponded with information on a unithe uses for cataloging. Tim is cur-rently in the planning stages regard-ing the creation and sharing of theMARC records. Several participantsstressed the importance of access tothe highest level of streaming, notingthat the service is hardly an advan-tage if it allows only 3–5 simultane-ous users. It is important, theyadded, to determine the value ofelectronic streaming resources by ex-amining the statistics. And whenthere are huge jumps in usage, theadministrators should hear about it.Gordon Theil concluded this part ofthe discussion by describing “theproblem of perpetual ownership”: “Iflibraries stop buying certain labels,they go under and we lose access.There is no JSTOR for sound record-ings. Patrons don’t really carewhether we own—but we have tohave continuity in order to guaranteeaccess.” As might be expected, SocialSoftware inspired a lively exchange.Jenny Colvin (Furman University) explained her use of MySpace(http://www.myspace.com) andFaceBook (http://www.facebook.com) in exploratory assignmentsthat “meet students where they are.”Colvin argued for the use of socialcomputing—the virtual aspect ofwhat we are doing in a physicalspace—as the way of thefuture. Inevitably, thisbrought up the possibilityof having too much infor-mation. The potential dan-gers of librarians “invadingstudent spaces” were onmany minds, and a fewgraphic anecdotes were offered.However, Colvin and others empha-sized the teaching opportunities inherent in social computing andstressed the importance of contactingstudents only after they have con-tacted you. In short, they counseled,“be casual but professional.” Re -garding other kinds of social soft-ware, several participants describedtheir experiences using library blogsin conjunction the course manage-ment software of willing professors.They explained that blogging pro-vides librarians a way of posting an-nouncements, asking questions, andgetting feedback without the physi-cal presence of students in the li-brary. Also recommended was theuse of meebo (http://wwwl.meebo.com), and of instant messaging as a favorable alternative to virtual ref-erence. Un familiar to many, MediaSite (http://www.mediasite.com)continued on page 8Hot Topics in Music Librarianship continued . . .An argument in favor of CDs is the increasingdiversity of thecurriculumAnnual MeetingM L A Newsletter • No. 149 7

Hot Topics in Music Librarianship

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/W_Nelson_Hot_2007.pdf

Hot Topics in Music Librarianship

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro