Have you been enjoying holiday music from the comfort of your home? How about assigning Dewey numbers for musical topics? You wouldn’t want to hear me sing, but I can help with the latter!
The 780s, for music, feature many opportunities for complex number building. Since classification in the DDC is generally form-agnostic, the music schedules can accommodate everything from biographies of composers to printed music to sound recordings themselves. Built numbers can help distinguish such varied material.
Much of the number building in the 780s takes place in the broad span of 784-788 Instruments and their music. For example, 786.2 Pianos, which has a footnote telling you to add as instructed under 784-788. In WebDewey, you can see the following number under 786.2 built according to those instructions:
Huh? But pianos are instruments! So what’s the difference between 786.2 and 786.219? The latter is built from 784.19 Instruments (again, following instructions at 784-788). For any of the instruments found under 784-788, there’s an implied “and their music” at the main number (e.g., 786.2 Pianos [and their music]). If you’re deciding between these types of numbers, ask whether your work is really about the instrument itself, as an object, or if it’s more broad.
A related issue you might run into is works on instrument makers. Until recently, you could find two types of built numbers in WebDewey for people who make instruments: one where T1—092 Biography was added to the instrument number (e.g., 787.219092 for violin makers), and one where --092 was added to a number built with 784.1923 Construction (e.g., 786.88481923092 for bell makers).
Both of these types of built numbers are ultimately valid, but the ones of the second type have been replaced in WebDewey with those of the first, so bell makers are now 786.884819092 (just a little bit more spine label friendly!). The newly updated Manual note 784-788:092 explains the distinction. Use –19092 for the type of instrument makers who are involved with many aspects of making the instrument, such as design, testing, and maintenance. Antonio Stradivari is our canonical example of this; Les Paul would qualify too, assuming a work that focuses on his making of guitars more than his playing of them. You’re probably less likely to see works that should use –1923092, which are more suitable for people who only build instruments, perhaps just following another’s plan. It’s analogous to the relationship between an architect and a builder.
Recent Comments