Jennifer C. Post’s second edition of Ethnomusicology: A Research and Information Guide is designed, in the author’s own words, to help researchers “embrace the discipline in the twenty-first century,” and consequently provides a detailed guide to various sources profitable to ethnomusicological research. The book contains 1,933 items such as reference works, archival sources, audio and video recordings, online resources, research guides, and indexing and abstracting tools, all published predominantly between 1994 and 2010. Particularly useful to students is the introduction, which describes at length the field of ethnomusicology, its purposes, its methodologies, and a 52-item annotated bibliography of resources explaining the discipline. The bibliography itself has been divided into two sections: Reference and Information Sources and Sources for Research and Study. An annotation accompanies each citation as well as an ISBN, ISSN, or LC call number, when appropriate. The annotations for the “recent books” section are unusually descriptive, often including a list of contents. Up-to-date and crammed with information, Post’s work can benefit both fledgling student and advanced researcher.

Lindsay Weaver
Research Assistant 

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!

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/musref/2008/06/04/critique-of-susan-m-fillers-gustav-and-alma-mahler-a-research-and-information-guide-routledge-2008/feed/ 1 http://lib.byu.edu/sites/musref/about/contribute/ http://lib.byu.edu/sites/musref/about/contribute/#comments Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:01:11 +0000 David Day http://lib.byu.edu/sites/musdanceref/ We welcome your contributions to the development of the MusRef site and database. Please send your contributions and suggestions to david_day@byu.edu

Let Us Announce and Review Your Publications

We welcome review copies of bibliographies and other reference materials. We also welcome information on Internet resources that fit the profile of a music or dance reference resource.

Tell Us about Your Online Reference Sources

If you are involved in the creation or maintenance of a digital collection, music e-journal, composer website, music portal, or other online music reference tool, not currently covered in our database, please let us know. We are eager to help publicize your efforts.

Help Us Locate Scans of Print Sources Available Online

We hope to provide links to all public domain reference tools scanned as part of the Internet Archive and Google Books projects. If we have overlooked any titles you are aware of, please let us know.

Share Student and Other Unpublished Bibliographies

If you teach the graduate music research course at your institution and have your students prepare bibliographies, we are happy to post examples of your best results. We also welcome submissions from independent scholars and librarians interested in sharing their bibliographic research with others.

Help Us Write Critiques

The online bibliography of reference sources includes critiques for more than 1,880 entries. We are looking for partners to help write critiques to improve the usefulness of MusRef.

Please send information to David Day at david_day@byu.edu.

Turabian Citation and Call Number

The bibliographic style of these citations is based on the Turabian style manual and the Chicago Manual of Style. Some local preferences and variants will be apparent. We are working on guidelines to document these local preferences.

Use/Purpose

1. Ask yourself, how or for what reasons would I or someone else use this source.
2. Avoid vague statements such as “a guide to resources related to the piano” or “useful for the undergraduate or specialist.” Instead state the specific aspects of the resource and explain how an undergraduate or specialist would use it.

Coverage/Criteria

1. Coverage should explain the scope of the content of the publication in terms of publication types, language, time frame, geographic region, etc.
2. These aspects of coverage should be examined in terms of the criteria for inclusion. Most prefaces will explain the criteria the author(s) used in selecting the sources they included. Try to put yourself inside the mind of the author or editor. CRITERIA, CRITERIA, CRITERIA is the key for this category.
3. Do not confuse organization with coverage.

Organization

1. Think of organization on two levels: First, consider the broader picture or how the source is organized as a whole. Is the book (or site) grouped by chapters or sections? How is each chapter or section organized? Does it have special appendixes or indexes? Second, examine the nature and quality of the information provided at the level of each entry. For example, is the bibliographic information complete? How detailed is the description of each entry. How well is the information presented? In some cases the preface to the source will explain both these aspects of organization.
2. When you state how the entries are organized avoid confusing or contradicting statements such as “listed alphabetically by author and title” or “listed alphabetically by author in categories of genre and date.” These statements must be perfectly clear.
3. If the main method of organization integrates categories such as author and subject, then be sure to use the word “integrated.”
4. In the case of dictionaries and encyclopedias focus mostly on the content of individual entries. Also comment on bibliographies, works lists, illustrations and articles on special topics. Ascertain any obvious editorial bias.

Pros and Cons

1. Make judgements of coverage and organization. Comment on special features or lack thereof. Also comment on currency if appropriate.
2. If a source is out-of-date, state this in a way that refers to the date of publication rather than indicating it as a matter of coverage.
3. Avoid vague statements such as “clear typography.” Instead, indicate what specifically is good or bad about the typography, or how it is helpful, etc.
4. Just because a resource has an index that is not necessarily a Pro. Only indexes of an unusual value should be mentioned as a Pro. If a book has no indexes, that is not necessarily a Con. You need to be able to explain what type of index is needed and why.
5. Avoid describing a feature of the source’s organization.
6. If an editorial bias is evident this can be mentioned, but be sure to explain the specific nature of the bias and why it is bad (or possibly helpful).

Other

1. Include a full citation for each source in the Turabian format. Include the call number beneath the citation.
2. When describing the organization do NOT use quotation marks to designate chapter of section headings. Capitalize chapter titles and section headings.
3. Compare your critique with the information found in Duckles.
4. Search RILM Abstracts and IIMP to see if there are any reviews of your source. If there are reviews cite them below the critique in the following format: [Reviewer's Last Name], [Reviewer's first name]. [Title of the Journal the Review is Published In ] [volume number] ([Month or Season] [Year]): [pages].
5. Always spell out states in full in the bibliographic citations.
6. Unless a source gives library locations, use the term “identify” rather than “locate.”
7. Do not use superscript for ordinal numbers.
8. Do not use any bold or tabs.
9. ABOVE ALL AVOID VAGUENESS. INCLUDE THE WHYS, WHATS AND HOWS!

1. An online bibliography of music and dance bibliographies and reference sources (both print and online).
2. A blog devoted to music and dance bibliography and reference.
3. Basic introductions to reference tools intended to help students understand how reference sources can guide them to appropriate research materials.
4. Links to unpublished bibliographies.
5. A corresponding Facebook page designed as a forum for interested librarians, scholars, and students.

We welcome your comments and suggestions. We also invited interested music and dance bibliographers, librarians, and researchers to contribute to the development of the site. Unfortunately, our blog cannot accept direct comments. Please email communications to the site manager, David Day at david_day@byu.edu. We invite everyone to “Like” our Facebook page where you can post your suggestions directly.

The Online Bibliography

At present the bibliography includes more than 7,300 bibliographies and reference sources (both print and online), approximately 1,880 of which are annotated with critiques on use, coverage, organization, and pros and cons (click here for guidelines on writing critiques). Many entries also list published reviews for the corresponding sources. The bibliography is growing actively with new sources and critiques added on a regular basis. The coverage of the bibliography was initially based on the music and dance reference collection at Brigham Young University, but many additional citations gathered from WorldCat and earlier bibliographies are entered on a regular basis. We have not copied or borrowed annotations or descriptions from any other sources.

The types of sources found in the bibliography include the following:

• Directories
• Dictionaries and Encyclopedias
• Periodical Indexes and Other Specialized Indexes
• Bibliographies of Music Research
• Repertory Guides and Bibliographies of Music
• Composer Thematic Catalogues and Bibliographies
• Performer Bibliographies
• Catalogues of Music Collections and Exhibits
• Discographies
• Chronologies
• Select Histories and Guides to Music Librarianship

The content of entries includes basic data from the MARC records (information found in library catalogues). The data from the original MARC records has been modified somewhat to provide uniformity throughout the bibliography. For example, state’s abbreviations, author’s and publisher’s names, and statements of editions have been adapted from the original records for a more uniform presentation.

We are attempting to provide direct links to items in the bibliography that are available online. At this point in time we have provided links to online scans of print reference books in the public domain. These include books that were scanned as part of the Internet Archive and Google Books. We also provide links to articles and reviews found in JSTOR. Access to JSTOR resources requires authentication through an institutional license.

The data of the bibliography is currently made available on the Internet through Brigham Young University’s CONTENTdm server. CONTENTdm has some known limitations that users should be aware of.

1. CONTENTdm functions as ONE database of multiple digital collections. As a result our database will display links to other digital collections at BYU. Most notably in the far upper left corner of the display you will see the following text:

Digital Collections Home : browse : advanced search : preferences : my favorites

To avoid a confusing detour to unrelated collections, please ignore these links.

2. CONTENTdm does not support italics.

3. CONTENTdm does not function well with Boolean operators. To search multiple keywords just enter the terms alone without Boolean operators. The default function joins the terms with AND.

The Music Reference BLOG

The blog will be used as tool to inform interested colleagues in all aspects of music and dance bibliography and reference. We will post reports of progress on the Bibliography, Unpublished Bibliographies, and Facebook Network. Other threads of commentary will relate to online resources, new publications, and solutions to reference questions.

Unpublished Bibliographies

This component of the site will be devoted to highlighting unpublished research and works in progress. Initially it will feature outstanding bibliographies produced by students in the graduate research methodologies class at Brigham Young University. It is certainly not meant to be an exclusive club! We welcome submissions from other institutions and independent scholars. Send submissions to David Day at david_day@byu.edu.

Facebook Network

Our Facebook network is intended as an open forum that will enable interested librarian, scholars, and students to stay informed about the activities and projects of their colleagues. Admittedly there is a lot of annoying advertising, but the potential is significant. This type of social networking is common among students and may prove to be a useful tool for engaging a new generation of researchers.