To me, it makes sense to say that Mozart composed the Jupiter Symphony, but it does not make sense to say that Clint Eastwood composed Million Dollar Baby.
It would make sense to say that he composed the music for the film. If you want to treat that music as an independent work, that is fine; you can even treat the music as a related work to the film work. However, the example that started this conversation was identifying the relationships(s) of Clint Eastwood to the film as an integral work -- which is something quite different. I hope you aren't sorry you stopped lurking, although I may be beginning to wish I hadn't. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Jerri Swinehart" <swine...@oakland.edu> | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:53:32 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | I may be sorry that I stopped lurking ... | I catalog music. The idea of composer (expression) is not something | that makes sense. The pieces of music that make up the sound track of | a movie or a musical are considered to be (usually) separate pieces | of | music that can also stand on their own. So please clarify why the | composer of those pieces of music would be considered any differently | than Mozart or Richard Rodgers etc.? | Thank you. | Jerri Swinehart | MLIS | Metadata Technician | Oakland University | Kresge Library | Technical Services | Rochester, MI 48309-4484 | swine...@oakland.edu
