CAML Review / Revue de l'ACBM (Canadian Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres / Association canadienne des bibliothèques, archives et centres de documentation musicaux)

Luyk, Sean

CAML 2016 Annual Report: RILM Canada

van der Bliek, Rob

Music in Range: The Culture of Canadian Campus Radio (Book Review)

Argentino, Joe

The Lesson of Da Ji (CD Review)

English

Digital Humanities at Oxford Summer School (DHOxSS) 2015:  Digital Musicology Workshop

-, -

 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 2 (AUGUST / AOÛT 2016) PAGE 27 
 
Minutes of the 2015 CAML/ACBM Annual General Meeting 
 
Canadian Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres (CAML) 
L’Association canadienne des bibliothèques,  
archives et centres de documentation musicaux (ACBM) 
 
Friday, June 5, 2015, 12:15-1:45 PM EST 
University of Ottawa 
 
Meeting called to order: 12:20PM 
 
Attendance: Houman Behzadi, Desmond Maley, Sean Luyk, Lisa Philpott, Joanne Paterson, Deborah 
Wills, Homer Seywerd, Becky Smith, Alastair Boyd, Suzanne Meyers Sawa, Tim Neufeldt, Sophie 
Rondeau, Jan Guise, Laura Snyder, Cathy Martin, Kyla Jemison, Lucinda Walls, Brian McMillan, Stacy 
Allison-Cassin, Monica Fazekas, Cheryl Martin, Rob Van der Bliek, Carolyn Doi, Kevin Madill, Ron Rooth, 
Joan McGorman, Jason Neal, Richard Green, Scott MacDonald. 
 
1. Additions to the agenda: 
 Richard Green would like to add a discussion about copyright. 
Motion to approve the agenda with this change made by Houman; seconded by Tim; motion 
carried. 
 
2. Minutes of AGM, Brock University, 30 May 2014 
Motion to approve the minutes of 30 May, 2014 made by Sean; seconded by Jan; motion 
carried. 
 
3. Business arising from the Minutes 
 The board formed a committee to manage awards, in alignment with the program 
committee. 
 The bylaw changes were approved by the membership. 
 
4. President’s Report presented by Cheryl Martin 
Report submitted in advanced. Report highlights: 
 The board met 3 times throughout the year. The focus for the year was to make sure 
changes to the constitution were implemented. 
 We have implemented online voting. Thank you to Sean, Cathy and JoAnne for leading 
that process. 
 Cheryl thanked Debbie for managing the local arrangements for the conference. 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 2 (AUGUST / AOÛT 2016) PAGE 28 
 
 Cathy is stepping down as Communications Office and James Mason has been appointed 
as the Communications Officer. Cathy will remain as the editor of CAML Review. Cheryl 
thanked Cathy for her contribution to CAML as Communications Officer. 
 
5. Treasurer’s Report presented by Rob van der Bliek 
Report submitted in advance. Report highlights: 
 2014 Budget: 
 Line 22: Spent about $2000 due to the awards that were given out. 
 Line 11: We spent more on translations than in previous years.  
 2015 Budget 
 Line 14: IAML Dues have been paid. They were a slightly more than projected 
due to exchange rate and increased number of members. The portion of dues 
that goes to IAML account for 56%.  
 The MusCan conference invoices come in slowly. Rob had writen a check for a 
fee from 2013, but it wasn't cashed at the time.  
 Line 18: there are cheques outstanding that total $939. 
 Proposed budget 2016 
 Line 11: translations have been increased to $1500 because of the anticipated 
changes to the constitution, which needed to be translated. It is increased to 
$1500.  
 Line 17: projected in the surplus $589 at this time. 
 Membership projections are based on last year's membership numbers, but we 
have no way of knowing for sure how many there will be. 
 
6. Audit Committee’s Report presented by Lucinda Walls & Jan Guise 
The two members of the Audit Committee, Lucinda Walls and Jan Guise, met on Wednesday 
June 3, 2015 to review the documents assembled and prepared by Rob van der Bliek, CAML 
Treasurer.  The Committee also met briefly with Rob on Thursday June 4 to clarify a few 
questions and discuss minor housekeeping details. 
 
The Committee reviewed all bank statements, the PayPal transaction log, the Treasurer’s 
registers, and other documentation such as cheque images, invoices, receipts, and 
correspondence associated with the various financial transactions for the period of January 1 
through December 31, 2014.  We are pleased to report that we found everything in good order. 
 
 The committee will be looking for another person to sit on the committee next year. Tim 
has volunteered to sit on the committee. 
 Motion to approve the report made by Monica; seconded by Joan; motion carried. 
 
  
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 2 (AUGUST / AOÛT 2016) PAGE 29 
 
7. Membership Secretary’s Report presented by Kyla Jemison 
Report submitted in advance. Report highlights: 
 There are 104 CAML members. 65 are individual members. There are 12 new personal 
members. There are 4 new institutional members. Last year we decided to add 
paraprofessional members, and have added 2 under this category. 
 Some people are accidentally clicking on institutional instead of individual membership 
in PayPal, so we will be switching the order. 
 April 1 is the deadline to get an IAML membership. 
 We do not know the number of members in the CAML Quebec chapter. 
 
8. Communication Officer’s Report presented by Cathy Martin 
CAML Review 
 Cathy would like to acknowledge the work of the Deborah, Desmond, and Megan, 
who are also on the editorial team. 
 A Creative Commons license has been added on the right hand side of the page and 
under each article. 
 Abstracts are now being included with each article. 
 We are continuing to track usage stats and they are comparable to last year. In the 
context of views of the journals at York, CAML Review is the 4th highest. 
 Will be including more of the annual reports in the CAML Review and James will add 
them to the website. 
 Last year there was a discussion about having a peer-review section of the journal. 
We didn't have any feedback from the members about this, but the board is still in 
favour of adding it. If it is established as a separate section in addition to non peer-
reviewed this may increase submissions. A review committee will need to be 
established in order for this to be implemented successfully. Members may direct any 
questions or comments about this initiative to Cathy. 
CAML website 
 James has taken over the management of the website. He would like the design and 
content of the website to be a collaborative process and will consider putting 
together a working group to assess the content, language and design of the page.  
 Right now the website is on the U of T server, but it might be better to have it on an 
external server. This would allow us to have a more specific URL. 
 This is a Drupal site. It's open source, robust, and makes it possible to have user 
accounts.  It is completely bilingual in the structure and interface of the site. For 
accessibility it is readable by screen readers.  
 
9. Nominations Officer’s Report presented by Joanne Paterson 
 One election this year for Member at Large. One nomination was received. Houman is 
acclaimed to the position of Member at Large. 
 Cheryl thanked Sean for his service in this position. 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 2 (AUGUST / AOÛT 2016) PAGE 30 
 
10. Cataloguing Committee Report submitted by Daniel Paradis 
 Report submitted in advance. 
 Daniel is also the CAML representative to the RDA Music joint working group. 
 
11. RILM Report presented by Sean Luyk 
The report was submitted in advance. Report highlights: 
 Deborah and Desmond did a lot of work and have completed 300 submissions.  
 The RILM Centre was also abstracting some things we were responsible for 
 Projects: Looking into selective coverage from the popular music literature and smaller 
Canadian publications. 
 
12. RISM Report presented by Cheryl Martin 
The report was submitted in advance. Report highlights: 
 RISM recently sent out an email to the IAML listserv with a notification that they have 
added some items from A/I and a portion of B/I to the online catalogue.  
 They have recently switched to the Muscat system, an XML based system for cataloging 
records. 
 It is possible to add records from individual music library catalogues.  They have taken 
off the date restrictions so they can be any date range. 
 If members have music manuscripts that would like to be added to RISM, contact 
Cheryl. If they have been digitized, that link can be added.  
 Members who are interested in helping with the RISM work may contact Cheryl. 
 
13. RIPM Report submitted by Kathleen McMorrow 
The report was submitted in advance. Report highlights: 
 All of the historical journal titles are now available in electronic format. The RIPM work 
has been suspended until further volumes are located. 
 The membership wishes to thank Kathleen for her work on this project. 
 
14. Québec Chapter Report submitted by Marc-André Goulet 
The report was submitted in advance. Report highlights: 
 The chapter meeting was held on October 31, 2014.  Houman submitted a report to 
CAML Review summarizing the meeting. At this time, we do not know when the next 
meeting will be held. 
 The chapter is currently working on updating their website.  
15. CAML Awards presented by Timothy Neufeldt 
Tim thanked everyone for their submissions to the program this year.  
 The first-time presenter award is awarded to Jason Neil from Western University. 
 The first-time attendee award is awarded to Scott MacDonald and Leland Reid.  
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 2 (AUGUST / AOÛT 2016) PAGE 31 
 
16. Conference planning 
Congress is meeting at the University of Calgary. We do not have dates yet. MusCan are 
planning to meet there and would like to meet with CAML. The National Music Centre will be 
opening in Calgary. Annie Murray (University of Calgary) proposed putting together an 
exhibition to coincide with the CAML meeting. 
MusCan is not planning to go to Ryerson for Congress in 2017. We are not sure where they will 
be meeting yet. 
The board will discuss the options for whether to meet with Congress or MusCan. At Congress 
there will be other library and music associations including CAPAL, CAIS, IASPM (Canadian 
Chapter). There is an administrative benefit to meeting with Congress because they look after 
organizing most of the food and accommodations. We could also meet off site at U of T and still 
be organized by Congress. 
17. Other Business 
IAML Award discussion led by Brian McMillan.  
 There were no expressions of interest for this award so the grant was withdrawn for this 
year. The board discussed having a more permanent structure to support all awards 
administered by CAML, including ways that the membership can support a fund for 
awards. CAML does not have charitable status, so we cannot give a tax receipt for 
donations. We are exploring the option of having a donation option on the membership 
form. The awards are open to paraprofessionals, but we don’t have anything targeted 
specifically for paraprofessionals.  
Copyright discussion led by Richard Green. 
 The copyright term for sound recordings has been changed by the Harper Government. 
They did not consult anyone in the heritage or music community. ARSC has contacted 
Richard about pushing back. CLA has issued a statement in response to the change. 
 Richard would CAML like to write a letter to the Minister about this issue.  
 The change will be forced through by June.   
 Action: the board will discuss the letter at the upcoming board meeting and work with 
Richard on wording. 
Motion to accept all reports made by Deborah; seconded by Jan; motion carried. 
Brian thanked Cheryl for her work as president. 
Motion to adjourn made by Alastair. 
Meeting adjourned at 1:45PM 
Respectfully submitted,  
Carolyn Doi, Recording Secretary 


Minutes of the 2015 CAML/ACBM Annual General Meeting

CAML Conference 2016: Abstracts / Congrès de l'ACBM 2016 : Résumés de communications

The Rare Books and Special Collections department at McGill University Library holds an original manuscript of a song by Gabriel Fauré. This article discusses the cataloguing of the manuscript, including the principles of cataloguing rare material, tracing provenance, and the decision-making process commonly known as “cataloguer’s judgement.

Chellew, Megan

 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 17 
 
A Foray into Fauré 
 
by Megan Chellew 
1 
Two summers ago, I received a request to rush catalogue a manuscript score that was needed 
for an exhibition. I’m not entirely sure what I was expecting, but I was not expecting the 
manuscript in question to be a song by Gabriel Fauré. What followed was the most interesting, 
and exciting, day of cataloguing I have ever experienced. 
I had catalogued many scores before, and facsimiles of manuscript scores, but never an actual 
manuscript, and certainly not using RDA. So I began my cataloguing journey with some 
trepidation. I quickly discovered, however, that cataloguing a manuscript (or perhaps it would 
be more accurate to say cataloguing this particular manuscript) was more straightforward than 
I had expected.  
I’ve developed my own technique for cataloguing any rare item—whether a book, a score, or a 
graphic. I call it “red carpet” level cataloguing. I assume that the item in hand is unique, and 
therefore deserving of the most special treatment. I took this approach with the Fauré score, 
and asked it my three standard red carpet interview questions: 
1. Who are you? 
2. How did you get here? 
3. What are you wearing? 
 
Who are you? 
When I ask this question, I’m really asking the manuscript to provide me with as many elements 
of the bibliographic description as it can. For me, that begins with “what is your name?” and 
“who created you?” In this case, the manuscript has a title page: 
                                                          
Megan Chellew (megan.chellew@mcgill.ca) is Coordinator of the Cataloguing & Metadata unit at the McGill 
University Library. She and her team catalogue music, rare books, and "all things cool." 
 
 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. 
 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 18 
 
 
The beginning of the answer, therefore, is that this is a manuscript titled “La fleur qui va sur 
l’eau” and that it is op. 85 no. 2. The title page also provides the name “Catulle Mendès”—the 
song is a musical setting of one of his poems.  
No credit is given to Fauré on the title page, but I know (from RDA 2.4.2.2) that when there is 
no statement of responsibility on the same source as the title proper (i.e. when the composer’s 
name doesn’t appear on the title page), I can take that information from elsewhere in the 
resource. In this case, the manuscript is helpfully signed (and dated) at the end: 
 
Working from just those two sources, I can build several MARC fields for my record: 
 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 19 
 
The 100 and 240 fields are the authorized forms of name and title from the Authority File. The 
245 field is a faithful transcription of the title page (RDA 2.3.1.4), and I added Fauré’s name, as 
well as the square bracketed [poésie de] to clarify Mendès’s role (RDA 2.4.1.7). I could have 
reversed Fauré and Mendès in the 245, but I decided that it made more sense to record the 
composer first (RDA 2.4.1.6). 
The next part of my “who are you” question is asking for more personal information: “when 
and where were you created?” We saw above that the manuscript is signed and dated, so I 
know the manuscript was produced in 1902 (September 13th, to be precise), and it was 
produced by Fauré himself. There’s no indication of where the manuscript was produced, but 
an educated guess would be France (I could even guess it was produced in Paris, but France is a 
safer choice). With this information, I can expand my MARC record: 
 
 
The 264 field has a second indicator 0, showing that the information in the field relates to the 
production of the score (as opposed to the publishing, printing, or copyright). The square 
bracketed [France] shows that the information is inferred. It could also be recorded as 
“[France?]” with a question mark, but I felt secure enough in my educated guess to go without 
the question mark. The square bracketed [Gabriel Fauré] is something I would probably do 
differently if I were cataloguing this today. The manuscript is signed; I’m not inferring that 
Fauré is the producer, so the square brackets aren’t technically necessary.  
Now I ask the manuscript for information of an even more personal nature. In cataloguing 
language, I would ask “what are your physical dimensions?” This seems somewhat akin to 
asking someone how much they weigh…luckily most things I catalogue aren’t offended by that 
kind of question. In the bibliographic universe, the information I’m looking for is the extent 
(pagination) and the dimensions (height, etc.) of the manuscript. The pages aren’t numbered, 
but they are easily countable – there are 10. And the height of the manuscript is 35 cm, so with 
these pieces of information I can add another field to my record: 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 20 
 
 
I’ve specified that the pages are unnumbered (the old practice under AACR2 would have been 
to record the number of pages in square brackets). And there is no period at the end of the 
field, because cm is now considered a symbol and not an abbreviation. 
That generally takes me to the end of the “who are you” question, although along the way I’ve 
made several mental notes about other information that I’ll put in the record later. 
How did you get here? 
In cataloguing language, this question could translate to “what is your provenance?” In other 
words, how did this score get from Fauré to McGill? Approaching the question of provenance 
can be very tricky, and sometimes incredibly frustrating. I’ve almost always found it easiest to 
work backwards. Inside the front cover of the score, is this: 
 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 21 
 
This tells me how the manuscript came to McGill (or the “immediate source of acquisition”). 
Pauline Donalda (1882-1970) was a highly regarded operatic soprano from Montreal. She had a 
performing career in Europe, and a teaching studio in Paris, and returned to Montreal in 1937 
where she later founded the Opera Guild of Montreal.1 The McGill University bookplate is 
stamped with an accession date of 1941. That might be the date she presented the manuscript 
to the Library, but it isn’t necessarily safe to assume it was accessioned the same year it was 
received. When I catalogued the manuscript, I didn’t include the date as part of the acquisition 
information; if I were cataloguing the manuscript today, I likely would include it, possibly with a 
question mark. This information adds a new field to my record: 
 
The 541 field is a “local” field, which wouldn’t normally be included in a master record. 
However in this case, because the manuscript is unique, it does belong there. The 541 is a free-
text field, so the information in it can be either transcribed from the source, or paraphrased. In 
this case, I decided to do a bit of both. I transcribed the label, but also used a slight paraphrase, 
to include the fuller form of Madame Donalda’s name. It would have been perfectly acceptable 
to just transcribe the label. It would also have been perfectly acceptable to describe the 
information on the label (which is probably what I would do today). The important thing is to 
convey the information in a clear and useful way. 
To further trace the provenance of the manuscript, the next question to ask is how it came to 
be in Pauline Donalda’s possession. Happily, that information is available on the title page: 
 
 
                                                          
1. The Canadian Encyclopedia, s.v. “Pauline Donalda," accessed April 26, 2016, 
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/pauline-donalda/.  
 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 22 
 
M. Hasselmans is Louis Hasselmans (1878-1957), a French opera conductor who directed the 
French operas for the Montreal Opera Company in 1911-1912.2 Further research would be 
needed to determine the exact relationship between Donalda and Hasselmans. It seems likely 
that he conducted her, but the depth of research I undertook in the cataloguing of the 
manuscript didn’t prove this. However, M. Hasselmans has provided me with enough 
information for the next link in the chain of provenance: 
 
In this case, I also provided information about where in the manuscript the inscription is 
located, as well as the fact that it’s written in blue ink. Strictly speaking, neither was necessary 
(doing so is more in line with descriptive bibliography practices than with cataloguing rules), but 
since it required very little extra work to include it, I thought it was worthwhile. 
And (as so often happens), that’s as far as I was able to trace the provenance. There’s a gap 
between 1902, when the song was composed, and 1927, when Hasselmans gave the 
manuscript to Donalda. In my experience of cataloguing rare books, gaps in provenance are far 
from uncommon, and a gap of only 25 years is actually pretty good. In this case, it seems 
possible that the manuscript passed directly from Fauré to Hasselmans, but it is possible that 
there was an intermediary step. One of the greatest challenges of cataloguing rare materials is 
learning where to draw the line in terms of ferreting out information. I drew the line here (as I 
did with trying to establish the direct link between Hasselmans and Donalda), and moved on to 
my next question. 
What are you wearing? 
The gist of this question might be less obvious than my first two red carpet questions, but what 
I’m asking here is for information about the binding. Sometimes the answer is very complex, 
including information about endpapers, side-edges, spine decorations, etc., etc. In this case, 
however, the binding is not especially interesting. It is standard blue cloth binding over boards. 
From the date on the bookplate inside the cover, we can infer that it was bound sometime 
before 1941, but there’s no more specific information about when or who the binder was. The 
one interesting fact—which briefly had me thinking I had stumbled upon a previously unknown 
manuscript—is that the binder misspelled the title on the cover label: 
                                                          
2. The Canadian Encyclopedia, s.v. "Montreal Opera Company/Compagnie d'opéra de Montréal," accessed 
April 26, 2016, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/montreal-opera-companycompagnie-dopera-
de-montreal-emc/.  
 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 23 
 
 
I immediately leapt to the conclusion that this had been mis-catalogued for decades, and 
therefore scholars would have been completely unable to locate it. But, sadly for me, albeit 
happily for scholars, that was not the case. It did, however, make my note describing the 
binding slightly more interesting: 
 
And I also added a Varying Form of Title field, in case anyone looked for it by binder’s title: 
 
Admittedly, the chances of anyone browsing for this by the binder’s title are very slim, so 
including a 246 field (which means the variant title will be included in the same index as proper 
titles) likely doesn’t increase the findability of the manuscript. What it does accomplish, 
however, is a clear display in the public interface of the catalogue, so the variant title isn’t 
buried in the note describing the binding.  
Other parts of the record 
To enhance my record, I tucked in other details that didn’t really belong in any of the fields I’ve 
used so far. For any manuscript, the first general note is exactly that: 
 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 24 
 
The next note, which is specific to music cataloguing, provides information about who, or what, 
the piece is written for: 
 
After that, I added a note describing the title page: 
 
Once again, this is not really necessary, it’s just me going the extra mile. And so is the next note, 
describing how the manuscript is signed: 
 
 
The next note, however, is pretty special, and not an example of just going the extra mile. 
When Fauré was dashing off this manuscript, he left out a bar of music, and had to tip in an 
extra bar that folds out from page 8: 
 
This was definitely worth mentioning, both because it is interesting in and of itself, but also 
because it’s important to record things that are inserted or added. There is now a permanent 
record of the fact that this bar was added; if something ever happens to the manuscript…if 
somehow that addendum walks off…mentioning it in the cataloguing record is one form of 
proof that it existed in the first place: 
 
  
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 25 
 
In addition to adding these general notes about the manuscript, I also added a suite of subject-
related fields: 
 
These access points ensure that: the record will index with other Fauré manuscripts; it will 
index with any other musical settings of Mendès’s poems; it will index with all the songs for 
high voice and piano; and it will index with all the music manuscripts.  
I also traced all three of the “other” people associated with this manuscript: 
 
I might also have given Donalda a relationship designator of “donor” instead of (or in addition 
to) “former owner”.  
Fields “just” for cataloguers 
There are also a handful of fields that likely don’t have much interest for non-cataloguers, so I 
will include them very briefly. They are the trio of 336-337-338 fields (content, media, carrier): 
 
And also the language note: 
 
  
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 26 
 
And for cataloguers who would like to see the fixed fields: 
 
New MARC fields have been introduced since I catalogued the manuscript, so if I were 
cataloguing it today the record would also include a 382 field for the medium of performance. 
Other business 
The whole time I was cataloguing this, I had one question nagging at the back of my brain: just 
how special is this manuscript? Was it possible that there are many versions of this song 
floating around out there? What if Fauré went around dashing off manuscripts of this song for 
all his favourite singers, so having one isn’t all that special at all? Here’s what I discovered: 
 The listing for op. 85 no. 2 in the Grove gives the date of composition as 13 Sept 1902, 
which is an exact match to the manuscript.3 So unless Fauré was in the habit of hand-
writing multiple copies of his manuscripts all with the same date, the Grove is talking 
about this manuscript.  
 In his Gabriel Fauré:  A Guide to Research, Edward R. Phillips lists this manuscript under 
Primary Sources.4 It also appears to be the only Fauré manuscript located in North 
America. The copy in the Bibliothèque nationale de France is exactly that—a photocopy 
of the McGill manuscript. 
So, to summarize, this is pretty special! 
The manuscript has subsequently been digitized, and is available here: 
http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/DeliveryManager?&pid=122873 
                                                          
3. Jean-Michel Nectoux, "Fauré, Gabriel," in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, accessed April 26, 2016, 
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article_works/grove/music/09366#S09366.4.2.   
4. Edward R. Phillips, Gabriel Fauré: A Guide to Research (New York: Garland, 2000), 58-59. 
 
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  44, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2016)          PAGE 27 
 
As I said earlier, these 10 unnumbered pages (plus unprepossessing binding) provided me with 
one very exciting day of cataloguing at the time, and many exciting conversations since. Writing 
this article has given me the opportunity to relive that day. It has also given me the rare 
opportunity to revisit, and reevaluate, my own cataloguing—in general, doubling back and “re-
cataloguing” is not feasible, except to correct errors. I did find two errors in my record which I 
corrected but didn’t mention in the article (one was silly, one was somewhat horrifying). Other 
than that, the record stands as I created it. I’ve noted throughout the article things that I could 
or would do differently if I had a second chance to catalogue this (especially as RDA evolves and 
affords more or different possibilities for cataloguing). In the end, I’ve learned a couple of 
things from the experience. My red carpet cataloguing technique held up well; and, even 
though I might make different decisions about various things today, the decisions I made at the 
time are decisions I can stand behind. 
At the end of the day, we catalogue to share. The purpose of the MARC record is to reflect the 
manuscript, and share it with those who are interested. And the purpose of this article is to 
reflect on the day of cataloguing and the process of cataloguing, and share it with those who 
are interested. And of course, by extension, to share this wonderful manuscript with the world. 
  
 
 


A Foray into Fauré

Hoefnagels, Anna

Going Home Star: Truth and Reconciliation (CD Review)

Behzadi, Houman

 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  43, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2015) PAGE 8 
Rapport de la rencontre annuelle 2014 de la Section québécoise de l’ACBM  
 
de Houman Behzadi1  
 
Note de la rédaction : Vous trouverez ci-dessous la traduction du rapport original publié dans la 
Revue de l'ACBM, vol. 42, no 3 : Section québécoise de l'ACBM / Quebec Chapter of CAML: 2014 
Annual Meeting Report. / Editor’s note: The following is a French version of the original report as 
published in CAML Review vol. 42, no. 3: Section québécoise de l'ACBM / Quebec Chapter of CAML: 
2014 Annual Meeting Report.  
 
La rencontre annuelle 2014 de la Section québécoise de l’ACBM (SQACBM) s’est tenue le vendredi 
31 octobre 2014 à la bibliothèque de l’Université Laval. Il s’agissait de la première rencontre des 
membres de la SQACBM depuis 2012; ceux-ci s’étaient alors réunis à la Grande Bibliothèque, à 
Montréal. Or, des difficultés de logistique ont motivé le comité organisateur soit à remettre la 
réunion de l’automne 2013 au printemps suivant, soit à faire une seule rencontre pour les 
années 2013 et 2014. Après avoir considéré attentivement les résultats du sondage demandant aux 
membres de lui faire part de leurs préférences quant à la date et au lieu de la réunion suivante, le 
comité organisateur a décidé de ne prévoir qu’une seule rencontre. Puisqu’elle se tenait à Québec 
cette fois-ci, beaucoup de nouveaux membres ayant été incapables de participer aux réunions à 
Montréal ont pu y assister.  
La rencontre de 2014 s’est distinguée des précédentes en ce qu’elle comprenait un volet formation. 
Daniel Paradis, de Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ), a présenté un atelier de 
trois heures portant sur le catalogage des enregistrements audio d’après RDA. La séance s’adressait 
aux catalogueurs qui connaissaient déjà le catalogage des enregistrements audio en format 
MARC 21, d’après les RCAA2. M. Paradis a fourni une explication détaillée des changements 
majeurs et des nouveaux règlements de RDA, et a distribué un document sur lequel figuraient 
douze exemples de fiches bibliographiques d’enregistrements sonores, selon RDA. Durant l’atelier, 
il a répondu aux questions des participants. 
Tous se sont ensuite réunis pour le dîner et l’Assemblée générale. Au cours de cette dernière, 
Daniel Paradis a parlé de son travail relatif au nouveau site Web de la section québécoise, qui doit 
bientôt être lancé. On y a aussi procédé à des élections afin de pourvoir les quatre postes du conseil 
d’administration de la SQACBM. Puisque nous avions terminé notre mandat de deux ans, 
Benoit Migneault (BAnQ) et moi nous sommes retirés du conseil. Daniel Paradis et Mélissa Gravel 
(Université Laval) ont été réélus. Marc-André Goulet (BAnQ) et Rémi Castonguay (UQÀM) ont été 
élus, devenant ainsi les nouveaux membres du CA. Veuillez consulter le site Web de la section pour 
en apprendre davantage sur le poste que détient chacun des membres.  
                                                          
 Houman Behzadi est le bibliothécaire responsable du développement de la collection de musique aux 
bibliothèques de l’Université de Toronto.  
 CAML REVIEW / REVUE DE L’ACBM  43, NO. 1 (APRIL / AVRIL 2015) PAGE 9 
Marc-André Goulet a ouvert la séance de l’après-midi en nous faisant connaître ce que la BAnQ et 
diverses bibliothèques de musique en Amérique du Nord et en Europe peuvent diffuser en continu 
sur les plans audio et vidéo. M. Goulet nous a révélé les résultats de ses récentes recherches 
portant sur le modèle en évolution de collecte de données audio et vidéo. Il nous a également parlé 
de la baisse des ventes de CD, ainsi que de la tendance graduelle des consommateurs à s’inscrire à 
des services de diffusion plutôt qu’à acquérir des enregistrements audio traditionnels. 
Ma présentation a traité de la création d’une collection de musique persane aux bibliothèques de 
l’Université de Toronto. Il s’agit d’un projet auquel je travaille à l’heure actuelle. Au cours des 
dernières années, on a remarqué une plus grande implication de la collectivité persane torontoise 
sur les scènes musicale et culturelle de la ville. Le programme d’ethnomusicologie important de la 
faculté de musique de l’Université de Toronto a attiré de nombreux diplômés qui s’intéressent à 
l’étude de la musique persane, et dont la recherche profiterait d’une riche collection de musique 
persane, créée avec soin. De plus, ce projet cadre avec les objectifs et les mandats que s’est fixés le 
Music Library Association’s Collection Development and Resource Sharing Committee (Comité sur le 
développement des collections et le partage des ressources de la Music Library Association), qui 
soulignent l’importance de créer des collections de musique provenant de régions géographiques 
dont le climat politique est tendu. Après avoir présenté un aperçu historique de la musique en Iran, 
j’ai parlé des points saillants de mon voyage à Téhéran, au début de 2014. J’y ai rencontré plusieurs 
éditeurs de musique et disquaires, qui m’ont appris qu’une bonne partie du travail des érudits de la 
musique et des musiciens persans est absente des grandes collections de recherche en Amérique 
du Nord.  
Pendant la table ronde, les participants ont discuté des meilleures pratiques relatives à la gestion de 
divers formats plus exigeants, présents dans les bibliothèques de musique. Benoit Migneault nous a 
fait voir un nouveau coffret à CD et à DVD dont on pourrait se servir dans la section de la musique 
et des films de la Grande Bibliothèque afin d’économiser de l’espace. J’ai soulevé le sujet des 
partitions numériques dès l’origine et des difficultés qu’elles engendrent pour les bibliothèques, de 
l’achat à la manutention du fichier électronique, en passant par les questions de copyright, etc. Si 
certains bibliothécaires ont découvert des approches novatrices, aucune pratique durable n’a 
encore été définie.  
La troisième présentation de l’après-midi, qui devait traiter d’un projet d’indexation à la 
bibliothèque de musique de l’Université Laval, a été annulée parce que l’un des conférenciers était 
absent. La dernière activité au programme consistait à visiter le 4e étage de la bibliothèque de 
l’Université Laval, récemment rénové.  
Mélissa Gravel et le personnel de la bibliothèque de musique avaient organisé une réception 
chaleureuse pour clôturer l’événement. 
Traduction : Marie-Marthe Jalbert | Révision : Marie-Andrée Gagnon 
 


Rapport de la rencontre annuelle 2014 de la Section québécoise de l’ACBM

Paradis, Daniel

CAML 2015 Annual Report: Cataloguing Committee

Not a member yet