17 Classifying recorded music with Dewey

Actual music comes in various media – tapes, plates (LPs, for example), discs of various types (laserdiscs, audio CDs, DVDs), and so on. I don’t think anybody would think of mixing these objects with books on the shelves – they will collect dust, and be of different sizes and shapes from books, that will call for different handling. So the actual physical media tend to get stored in separate locations, probably under a shutter  or door of glass or other material.

My usual approach to such classification issues is to first visualize where I would put them normally. In this case, I’m pretty sure that I would like to stack the LPs separately, singles separately, the tapes separately (by size, but I have only micro-cassettes), then CDs (and DVDs and video discs with them, probably). Within each type, I’d probably arrange them in the standard Dewey Decimal order for 580 Music, just as if they were books (treatises, texts). All that remains is to give some mark or tag to show what type of recording media each item is. A simple way, obviously, is to prefix each number with a code symbolizing the type: LP (Long Play platter), EP (Extended Play), SP (Short Play), ACD (Audio CD), VCD (Video ditto), MC (Micro Cassette) or CC (Compact ditto), DVD, MP3, and whatever else you want. Of course, this will split a particular performer’s works among a number of locations or catalogues, so if we wish to keep them together, we could add the type of physical media (LP etc.) after the Dewey number and performer, so that a mechanical listing (by a computer, for instance) would list a particular performer’s ACDs, then LPs, and so on. 

For Western music, it is usually convenient to classify by genre and instrument (represented by the appropriate Dewey number) and composer, represented by the initial letters of the name, then the musical form (if desired), year, and serial number, if needed. Of course things can’t be always simple, and some “local” innovation may be called for to group symphonies together, or violin concertos together, and so on. For Hindustani classical, it’s usually the instrument that is the distinguishing facet, then the performer (not the composer), then year. Since each item may have pieces in a number of genres, it may not be so important to specify this in the classification number; the manufacturer’s name and the item’s serial number may be more useful to distinguish similar pieces. Enough letters would have to be carried for names to distinguish them clearly. For Western names, the surname is usually the entry point (Beethoven, rather than Ludwig, although the Bachs would need both the family name and the individual’s names). For Indian names, the surname is usually boring, because, like the old king who gave each of his three daughters half his kingdom, half the names are Kumar, half are Singh, and the remaining half are Khan (more or less!); I find it much better to enter with the first name, e,g, Ali Akbar, Allauddin, Rashid, and so on for the Khans. Thus an audio CD of a vocal recital by the Hindustani classical singer Rashid Khan would be ACD-789.9H’1’32 (for solo voice) followed by RAS 2011, and maybe the serial number. Or if I wanted a combined list for all media by the artist, 789.9H’1’32 RAS 2011 ACD, 789.9H’1’32 RAS 2010 DVD, and so on (this is a purely local innovation, not standard as per DDC!).  

Dewey declares under 580 that it “does not distinguish scores, texts, or recordings”, but goes on right thereafter (in the usual delightfully contradictory style we have come to love) to offer a choice of three methods of doing so.  One is to prefix a letter or other symbol, such as R for “Recording”, M for scores, etc. to the usual Dewey number for a treatise (which is the first method illustrated above). The understanding is that one goes to the appropriate storing place for each type, say the “Recordings Room” for R’s. In my institute’s library, they have put all the annual reports, project documents, and such like, in a separate room, and the catalogues show this location by the prefix D for Docs. Thus, Beethoven’s violin concerto could be classified as R- 787.2 (for Violin), followed by ’1’86 (for Concerto from 784.186), followed by composer, giving say R787.2’1’86 BEE 1964.  Of course, this would scatter Beethoven’s works all over the shelves, so to keep each person’s works in one place, we may have to alter the order in which these elements are entered: R-BEE-787.2’1’86 OIS (for Oistrakh, the violinist) 1964 (a rather non-standard way of achieving it!).

The second method provided by Dewey to segregate recordings is to add to the number for texts, the numbers following 78 in the range 780.26-780.269. As mentioned earlier, standard subdivisions of 780 Music are modified in places to cater to the special requirements of the subject. 780.26 is actually 78 with the standard subdivision -026, which in Table 1 is actually Law (but not recommended for developing numbers, preferring to use the main numbers 341-347). Under 780 Music, however, the standard subdivision -026 (actually, -26, as the zero is already provided by the base number 780) and its further subdivisions are used for a different purpose: “Texts, treatises on music scores and recordings”. Under this, then, 780.266 is “Sound recordings of music”. The number, when used normally, would refer to treatises about recordings (like the various guides to recorded music),  but Dewey is suggesting that we use the latter part of these numbers for the recordings themselves, or for the scores: 787.2’0266, recordings of violin music. This standard subdivision -026 can be used wherever an “add as instructed” from 780.1-780.9 is provided: thus, 787.2’1’86 (for Violin Concerto) followed by ’0266 (for Recordings), 787.2’1’86’0’266 BEE 1964 and so on, neat! Standard subdivision -0267 likewise referes to “Video recordings of music”.  (As far as can be made out, we have the option of adding suffixes through connectors -1- or -0- any number of times).

The third option suggested by Dewey is to class recordings under 789, and instructions at that number suggest using an alphabetic mark for composer, followed by the numbers after 78 in the range 780-788.

I must confess that I have not actually gotten round to classifying my recorded music under Dewey or other system. What I have is a list of these items (LPs, cassettes, CDs etc.) grouped by composer in the case of Western classical, and by performer in the case of Hindustani music. This is maintained physically in a loose-leaf ring binder of half the normal page size, so that pages can be added for new names or items as needed. The same information is also entered in a computer database (I use Lotus Agenda® about which I will talk later), which is based on DOS, and has never been ported to the Windows environment, alas! Since many of these albums (as they are technically called) combine say concertos and sonatas, or Hindustani khayal and thumri, and so on, there is not much scope for following strictly the Dewey order of musical forms; however, I broadly class vocal forms first, followed by the main instruments in the Dewey order. Mixed albums, of course, are located in front (or top). The lot are kept in various shoe boxes (ideal for CDs!) arranged alphabetically (by first name of artist for Hindustani, standard family name of composer for Western), and the LPs, of course, are stacked in a cupboard.