Collection Policies in Music Information Centres more

Collection Development Policies in Music Information Centres Niamh Tumelty, University of Cambridge What selection criteria are used when adding works to Music Information Centre collections? 20 of the 40 member organisations of the International Association of Music Information Centres (IAMIC) were contacted. 13 Music Information Centres (MICs) responded to the above question (65% response rate). Responses received fell into four main categories. This research was conducted in 2010 as part of the Music Librarianship module of the MSc Econ Information and Library Studies at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. The research focussed on just one aspect of collection development policy in MICs: how they decide which works to archive. Category 1: Collection of all works from a country This is the approach taken in seven of the MICs from whom responses were received. In Israel and Scotland, there are some required standards of presentation for scores accepted, and in Israel’s case, full, legible performance parts must accompany the score. Category 2: Membership by subscription In the American Music Information Centre, composers pay an annual membership fee and can then upload all works to an online library. Literature Review The purpose of the music library is to serve the needs of its users (Casey & Taylor, 1995). Collection development policies should be developed in consultation with the music library users, to ensure that these needs are met (Chadwell, 2009; Casey & Taylor, 1995). The Contemporary Music Centre (2007) identified the following user groups: composers, performers, promoters, educators, students, and members of the public. Category 3: Additional selection criteria applied Ireland: composers submit a portfolio containing a CV proving commitment to composition, a list of works to date and samples of works including tape parts where applicable. Iceland: Once a composer has had a minimum of five large-scale or ten shorter works performed publicly, the centre will accept all works by that composer. Brazil: application process for representation, but even then only the most significant works by each composer are collected. “by having only significant works, the non-expert user can be certain that what he is accessing is select and significant.” Prof. Dr. J.A. Mannis, Director from 1989 to 2006, Centro de Integração, Documentação e Difusão Cultural, Brazil. Identification of user needs Composers: MIC library as music repository, source of inspiration, information and advice. Performers: MIC library as source of innovative music to add to their repertoire. Promoters: MIC library as resource for promotion of works. Lecturers & Academic Researchers: MIC library as documentary centre and primary source of information about contemporary composers. Educators & Students: MIC library as source of new music of varying levels of difficulty for a range of instrumental/vocal combinations. Members of the Public: Wide range of queries, from information about a particular composer to seeking scores/recordings of a particular work. Category 4: Tiered membership systems This approach is taken in both Australia and New Zealand. The level of support and variety of services provided depends on the type of membership held by the composer. Eligibility for the different tiers is decided on the basis of numbers of performances/broadcasts and other evidence of professional activity. Conclusions The various user groups have different – even conflicting – needs. Music teachers and their students need access to works of varying levels of difficulty, which might not be available if the collection is restricted to the most musically significant, while the most inclusive approaches can lead to resource issues and to questions of the quality of works promoted. Each MIC will need to decide which approach is most appropriate in their individual circumstances. A Solution? A new tiered system could be developed, taking elements from all of the above approaches. Tier 1: an electronic repository for use by all composers from a country Tier 2: represented composers, selected using an application process Tier 3: the ‘most significant’ works of a core group of composers Future research There has been very little academic research into the work of Music Information Centres to date. Further areas for research include: • A detailed study of collection development policies in MICs • A study of information behaviour of various user groups Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of John Wagstaff, Music Librarianship module coordinator at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. I would also like to thank • The staff of the Music Information Centres for assisting with my research, • Oxford University Press and the Music Libraries Trust for funding my attendance at the IAML International Conference, Dublin 2011, • Jonathan Grimes of the Contemporary Music Centre, Dublin, for permission to use score images for this poster. References Casey, J., & Taylor, K. (1995). Music library users: who are these people and what do they want from us? Music Reference Services Quarterly, 3(3), 3-14. Chadwell, F. A. (2009). What’s next for collection management and managers? User-centred collection management. Collection Management, 34, 69-78. Contemporary Music Centre. (2007). Statement of Strategic Intent 2007-2009. Available from http://www.cmc.ie/news/2007/cmc_statement.pdf