In an essay: compare and contrast the following music periodical indexes: RILM Abstracts, RIPM, IIMP, The Music Index, and the Bibliographie des Musikschrifttums. Describe the relative strengths and weaknesses for each in the following categories:

years of coverage
number of journals indexed
number of citations
retrospective indexing
access to full text online
quality and/or presence of abstracts
coverage of foreign language sources
coverage of non-periodical publication types
coverage of scholarly vs. non-scholarly publications
quality of online search interface
coverage of reviews
distinctive or unique contributions or strengths

Be specific and cite current statistics when appropriate. Be sure to take into consideration both print and online versions of each index where applicable.

This semester one of my students wrote an essay I think is worth sharing. Here is her unedited essay, writing without access to her personal notes. Good work Jamie!

Jamie Teot
Music 500
Midterm Exam – Essay

It is easy for a novice researcher to become overwhelmed with the sheer vastness of available sources. This is particularly true today, when there are many different types of sources and technologies, each with different uses and each requiring knowledge of how to approach them. This essay will treat five major online music periodical indexes in an effort to clarify their respective uses, strengths, and weaknesses. These five periodical indexes are: RILM, RIPM, IIMP, The Music Index, and Die Bibliografie des Musikschrifttums (BMS).
In terms of year covered, some go back further than others. IIMP claims to have indexed back to 1874, though 70% of their citations really come from the more contemporary indexing (post-1995). RIPM, on the other hand, covers specifically the 19th century, with the entirety of their catalogue falling from 1800-1950, thus the indexing for that century is quite a bit more dense than from IIMP. RILM is a bit more modern; it actually picks up where RIPM leaves off, indexing from 1967-present. The music index lists from 1973 to the present online, but as a print index goes back to 1949. Though working to fill their gaps, BMS has splotchy print coverage from the 1930s to 1986, when their online index picks up.
From the years of coverage, it is easy to discern each journal’s level of retrospective indexing. RIPM, for example, is completely retrospective, while RILM does not focus much of retrospective indexing (with the possible exception of festschriften). IIMP and BMS both profess to be actively working towards more retrospective indexing. The Music Index does not cover retrospectively, but may begin to make their earlier print indexes available online.
In terms of the size of each index, the number of journals indexed does not necessarily correspond to the number of citations indexed (or the quality, for that matter). RILM and RIPM, for example, claim similar citation statistics (500,000 and 544,000, respectively), but RILM indexes some 10,000+ publications, while RIMP claims only 120. This is due to the manner of indexing. RILM indexes all scholarly articles pertaining to music, whether they appear in a music journal or not, moving from year to year. Meanwhile, RIPM indexes one journal at a time completely and comprehensively for the entire 150 year coverage of the index (or whatever portion of those years the journal actually existed). BMS indexes 600 journals, adding 10,000 citations a year, but is still the smallest index. By contrast, IIMP and The Music Index draw from 445 and 800 journals respectively, landing the largest numbers of citations, 760,000 and 1.5 million.
The reasons for these discrepancies lie in the manner of indexing as well as the material chosen to index. Some indexes focus on scholarly publications only – RILM, RIPM, and BMS. These indexes have fewer citations because they have fewer reviews and extraneous citations. Although RIPM does have the curious property that all of each journal is indexed, including reviews and advertisements, the focus is not so much towards reviews that they are found in mass bulk. IIMP and The Music Index, however, index huge quantities of reviews – as many as half of their respective collections are reviews! BMS does index reviews, but like RILM, they are neither the focus nor the bulk of the index.
Each index has a group of sources it chooses to include in its collection. This selection of sources either leads the index to be more scholarly or less scholarly, and either more focused or more diverse. RILM is perhaps the most scholarly index, steering clear of reviews (unless extremely substantial), and indexing an array of writings: journals, festschriften, dissertations, facsimiles, books, etc. BMS is also scholarly in focus, indexing some reviews but including more predominantly articles, festschriften, congress proceedings, facsimiles, etc. BMS, interestingly, does not index dissertations because of the security with which dissertations are kept in Germany. IIMP and The Music Index are less scholarly, generally. One will find interesting sources in each, but may, for example, have trouble sorting through all the reviews if they do not aid one’s scholarly research. Unlike more scholarly indexes, The Music Index and especially IIMP aren’t afraid to index more popular sources, and also (especially The Music Index) pedagogical sources.
For a scholarly researcher, abstracts can save crucial time. RILM, by far, has the best and most comprehensive abstracts. BMS does have some abstracts, but not for every citation and many are in German. RIPM does not, unfortunately, have abstracts, but does include the occasional editor’s annotations. IIMP has a few meager abstracts, while The Music Index has none – a serious weakness to the index.
Again, to save time, it is useful for the researcher to note which indexes offer full texts online. IIMP is the easiest for the researcher to access full-text, because it runs through its own interface – an advanced search engine with many useful tools for narrowing one’s searches quickly. RILM, RIPM, and The Music Index all come to BYU through a third party (host) interface, EBSCO. For RILM and The Music Index, this means that full texts are not available through the indexes themselves, but are available through EBSCO. The fact that three of the five indexes discussed here run through EBSCO is an advantage to the BYU student; the interface is fairly easy to use and a student can get a lot of information just from learning to navigate EBSCO well. RIPM regrets that their full texts are not yet available online, but their website claims that they are working towards having full texts online. BMS, as much as is yet available online (another work in progress) runs through a simple but effective interface (that remains unnamed on the BMS website).
Depending on the topic, the researcher may or may not want an index that covers many languages. RILM, by far, has the most comprehensive coverage of foreign language sources, claiming to include citations of 215 languages. RIPM covers major European languages, as does BMS. The Music Index has reasonable but not terribly large coverage of foreign sources (mostly English, but claims 22 languages from 40 countries), while IIMP has very little (the worst of the five).
Overall, the index a researcher spends the most time using depends largely on what he or she is looking for. One focused on very scholarly research would do best to start with RILM and also consider BMS. Of course, if the topic was treated heavily in the 19th century, it may be best to start with IIMP or RIPM, because of their years of coverage and retrospective indexing. One who uses dissertations and abstracts or needs many foreign language sources would also work most productively within RILM. One looking for trends through a specific journal might look first to RIPM (if the journal was printed in the years 1800-1950), as RIPM would have all of each journal indexed. RIPM would also be useful to an organologist or other researcher interested in viewing period advertisements. One looking for more popular articles or reviews would probably begin with IIMP and The Music Index, the latter also useful for its sheer size. The Music Index is also the best resource for one specifically interested in pedagogy. BMS is likely to host an eclectic mix of scholarly sources not available to other indexes.
In the end, a great researcher may use several or all of these online periodical indexes. However, knowing the background/focus of each can help the researcher know how best to navigate each index and where he or she will likely have the most success. This, of course, saves time, and anything that makes research more effective & efficient in a blessing!

Cover of Paroles de Musique

Goulet, Anne-Madeleine. Paroles de Musique (1658-1694): Catalogue des «Livres d’airs de différents autuers» publiès chez Ballard. Wavre: Mardaga, 2007.

This 1,088-page volume is a French thematic catalogue of airs published by the music publisher Ballard between 1658 and 1694. The work is prefaced by a thorough, 60-page introduction to the Ballard publishing house, its collection of airs, its editorial choices, as well as an intriguing table of collaboration between various poets and composers. Extensive research has ensured accurate information for each air regarding poets and composers (who were often anonymous), as well as creative context, history, interpretation, textual variations between printings, and source materials. Entries are listed in sequential order according to the air’s LADDA (Livres d’airs de différent autuers) siglum, but they are also indexed at the end according to title, author, poet, etc. Entries also include musical incipits from the original woodblock prints.

Cover of Diccionario enciclopédico

Giro, Radamés. Diccionario enciclopédico de la música en Cuba. La Habana: Letras Cubanas, 2007.

This is an attractive, four volume Spanish dictionary/encyclopedia on the subject of Cuban music, primarily with respect to composers, performers, musicologists, teachers, and ensemble groups from the nineteenth-century to the present. Entries are biographical in nature, including career synopses, lists of important compositions, and bibliographical information. Entries regarding ensemble groups often list the names of members by section. Pages are frequently punctuated by black-and-white photographs and title page reproductions.

The Guide is composed of 1,356 citations, which consist predominantly of scholarly articles, books, and encyclopedia entries as well as a clutch of highly selected doctoral dissertations, festschriften, and published program notes. Over 18 languages are represented including Yiddish, Slovene, Russian, and Romanian. Included works emphasize eyewitness accounts regarding the lives and performances of Gustav and Alma Mahler, biographies by post-war scholars, medico-psychological studies, musicological studies placing the Mahlers in historical context, individual analyses of works, and literary sources set to music by the Mahlers. Excluded are performance reviews from periodicals, biographies of other composers without substantial eyewitness accounts relating to the Mahlers; obituaries and social notices, unpublished sources, program notes from individual performances, and general histories of music save for those providing valuable insight into Mahler’s music and reception.

The work is organized into 25 sections, the contents of which are as follows: Introduction, Gustav and Alma Mahler: A Brief Chronology, Classified Listing of Mahler’s Works, Surviving Works of Alma Mahler-Werfel, List of Abbreviations, Compendia, Encyclopedia References, Catalogs and Lists, History, Visuals, Biographies, Mahler’s Letters, Conducing Activities, Alma Mahler-Werfel, Literary Influences, Publishers, Mahler’s Place in Musical History, Reception/Historiography, Media and Criticism, Philosophical Views, Mahler’s Works, Facsimiles, Individual Analyses, Other Works, and Miscellaneous. It concludes with an Author Index and a Subject Index. Entries in the works lists provide information on title, movements, date of composition, publication data, premieres, and remarks by the author. Within the bibliographic sections, each entry is annotated in addition to a complete bibliographic citation which often includes the ISBN.

There are many positive aspects to be found in this publication. The subject index is detailed and specific, so one can quickly and exactly find what one needs. Also the author has consciously included works of lesser quality in order to properly document the full progression of Mahler studies. On the whole, annotations are thoughtful and helpful throughout and this is particularly useful with regard to Third Reich literature, which is fairly evaluated for its historical merit.

Conversely, careless readers misunderstanding the author’s approach will inevitably be directed to sources of poor quality; but the more substantial drawback is that many cited resources may not be readily accessible to those looking for a quick research fix.

At present, no reviews for the second edition were found; however, the first edition has been reviewed by:

1. Birchler, David C. Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 47 (March 1991): 759.

2. Franklin, Peter. Music and Letters 72 (February 1991): 134.

3. Schreffler, Anne C. Journal of Musicological Research 12 (March 1992): 11.

4. Kravitt, Edward F. The Music Review 52 (November 1991): 312.

]]> http://lib.byu.edu/sites/musdanceref/2008/06/04/critique-of-susan-m-fillers-gustav-and-alma-mahler-a-research-and-information-guide-routledge-2008/feed/ 2 http://lib.byu.edu/sites/musdanceref/2008/06/02/comparison-between-duckles-5-and-the-online-bibliography-database/ http://lib.byu.edu/sites/musdanceref/2008/06/02/comparison-between-duckles-5-and-the-online-bibliography-database/#comments Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:16:55 +0000 langedf http://lib.byu.edu/sites/musdanceref/?p=26 Since the Music & Dance Reference Project: Online Bibliography Database, in many respects, supersedes the work of Vincent H. Duckles’ Music Reference and Research Materials: An Annotated Bibliography, it is useful to compare the varying strengths of each.

• Duckles includes a bibliographic citation for each reference work and also frequently includes additional information on the series and physical description. The Database, too–for approximately 1,900 records–includes a bibliographic citation based on the Chicago Manual of Style as well as extensive bibliographic data taken from WorldCat MARC records. Not only are physical descriptions included, but also Library of Congress subject headings and call numbers.

• Like Duckles, the Database includes an annotation, or critique, that describes the reference work. They are objectively written in a way that expounds upon characteristics found in the original Duckles annotations (See “Guidelines to Critiques”). Not every item in Duckles is annotated and at present this is also the case with the Database (only about 1,500 items are critiqued), but we aim for complete annotative coverage in the future.

• Similarly to Duckles, the Database attempts to list all known reviews for that particular reference work. Coverage is taken one step further through the inclusion of stable URLs to full-text copies of individual reviews.

There is one feature in the Database that departs from Duckles. For each record there is a monitored comments feature that allows users to submit observations regarding the reference work, which compensates for any disadvantages resulting from the Database’s strictly objective approach to examination.

Below is a brief numerical comparison of coverage and currency. (All statistics reported in this post regarding the Database are guaranteed to change. These are a reflection of the Database in May 2008.)

1. Dictionaries and Encyclopedia

• Duckles 5: 665
• Database: 890

2. Histories and Chronologies

• Duckles 5: 128
• Database: 142

3. Guides to Musicology

• Duckles 5: 87
• Database: 3 (1)

4. Bibliographies of Music Literature

• Duckles 5: 393
• Database: 868

5. Bibliographies of Music

• Duckles 5: 658
• Database: 864

6. Reference Works on Individual Composers and Their Music

• Duckles 5: 389
• Database: 696

7. Catalogs of Music Libraries and Collections

• Duckles 5: 648
• Database: 453

8. Catalogs of Musical Instrument Collections

• Duckles 5: 113
• Database: N/A (2)

9. Histories and Bibliographies of Music Printing and Publishing

• Duckles 5: 151
• Database: 31

10. Discographies and Related Sources

• Duckles 5: 310
• Database: 756

11. Yearbooks, Directories, and Guides

• Duckles 5: 90
• Database: 71

12. Electronic Information Resources

• Duckles 5: 50
• Database: 208

13. Bibliographies, and the Music Business and Library Science

• Duckles 5: 80
• Database: 76

Total number of Citations

• Duckles 5: 3,762
• Database: 4,700 (3)

Cut-off year for content

• Duckles 5: 1995
• Database: Open

Number of items in Database, published after 1995: 1,122

1. In this category, we excluded most items Duckles included, as we did not consider them strictly bibliographic reference works.

2. At present, the system of categorization used by the Database does not distinguish between instrument collection catalogs and music library and collections catalogues, so any numbers that ought to appear here are combined in the line above with the library/collection catalogues.

3. Many records qualified for more than one category, and so the numbers reported for each category do not collectively amount to exactly 4,700.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/directory/music