Classification Schemes for Scores: Analysis of Structural Levels

Abstract

from CC, including much of CC's notation. OC represents something of a re-invention of the wheel, though CC's music schedule has never been completed. Thus OC can be viewed as an attempt to work out and apply the principles of CC to a music library. OC consists of six tables: Generalia Classes; Main Classes; Instrument Numbers; Common Subdivisions; Chronological Divisions and Author Numbers; and Geographic, Ethnic, and Philological Divisions. Since OC accommodates literature as well as scores, not all of the tables--or all sections of all tables--are employed in classifying scores. As with all faceted classification schemes, the enumerations presented in the In his essay Origins of Modern Music Classification,(1) Donald W. Krummel provides an overview of more than a dozen bibliographies and catalogs dating from 1548 to 1840 that are either exclusively devoted to scores, or include scores among their contents.(2) Working from the historical record provided by these items, Krummel points out the basic systems of organization they employ to impose order on the scores they list. Systematic organization of bibliographical materials is often taken for granted. The simple arrangement created by imposing alphabetical order is so commonplace that many people outside librarianship tend to think of it as the only ordering system in use. Alphabetical order can be imposed on scores through composers' names and/or titles. The concept of distinctive title, is crucial since many musical works bear generic titles such as suite, sonata, prelude, symphony, waltz, etc., making arrangement by title alone meaningless in such cases. Similarly, alphabetized subject arrangement is probably impossible with most instrumental works (What is the subject of Beethoven's first symphony?) and difficult at best with much vocal music (What is the exact subject of Debussy's enigmatic song La Flute de Pan, or perhaps more accurately Pierre Louys' poem of that title?). Upon reading Krummel's essay, one quickly realizes that though the items he discusses are diverse in chronology, nationality, language, and purpose, they come to grips with the problem of bibliographical ordering of scores in essentially two ways. Most systems used since the sixteenth century, to one degree or another, continue to fall in line with one or the other of these practices. One method employed is to organize scores by musical forms or genres, thus bringing all the madrigals, masses, sonatas, quartets, etc., together under their relevant headings. This primary division by form or genre is then usually subordinated by instrumentation. The second method organizes scores by instrumentation -- grouping together all the flute music, works for solo voice, music for violin and piano, and so forth. This primary division by instrumentation is then generally subordinated by musical forms or genres. Realizing the ubiquitousness of these two systems of ordering leads directly to two questions: Are there other elements present in scores besides forms and genres and/or instrumentation that permit bibliographical organization? and, Have modern library classification schemes discovered such elements and developed methods of applying them? A search through the literature on music classification reveals that efforts have been made to identify additional organizational elements present in scores. Starting from the findings reported in the literature, identification of elements capable of classificatory organization, standardization of terminology, and an analytical method by which modern classification schemes can be examined and compared are developed and described in the following section. ANALYTICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHOD At the 1974 meeting of the International Association of Music Libraries (IAML) in Jerusalem, the Classification Subcommission of IAML's Cataloguing Commission advanced a set of seven concepts called Facetten as universals in addressing the classification of music materials. …