Types of Compositions for Use in Music Uniform Titles

A Manual for Use with AACR2 Chapter 25

2nd, Updated Edition, June 1997
Revised 2002

Final Report of the MLA Working Group on Types of Compositions

Ann Caldwell, Chair, Jeffrey Earnest, Lynn Gullickson, Michelle Koth

Introduction to the 2nd, updated edition   ||   Preface to the 1st edition
Additions and changes to this document: 2000 || 2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008
Principles of the list   ||   Diacritics   ||   Use of "double," "triple," etc. in titles of musical works
Submitting terms for consideration   ||   Ordering a print copy of the list
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | Z |

Introduction to the 2nd, updated edition

The Bibliographic Control Committee of the Music Library Association decided, following its annual meeting in 1995, to revitalize the Working Group on Types of Compositions. During this meeting a number of music catalogers expressed interest in having a number of terms added to the list as well as having it available electronically via the World Wide Web. The former members of the working group agreed to pick up where they left off in 1992 and to update the list.

The list's popularity was evidenced by the number of copies distributed through the MLA Clearinghouse and by its publication in MLAJ, the Music Library Association of Japan's newsletter (v.16, no.3). The present updated list replaces the 1992 edition in its entirety.

The Working Group hopes the music cataloging community continues to find this a useful addition to its collection of working tools.

Return to Table of Contents

Preface to the 1st edition

The question of what constitutes the name of a "type of musical composition" (referred to in this preface as a "generic title") became especially important to music catalogers with the advent of AACR2 and its provision that (except when necessary to resolve conflicts) distinctive titles would not be qualified by medium, numeral, or key, and that generic titles (with one exception) would be indicated in the plural. It was consequently very necessary to be able to distinguish between generic and distinctive titles. Uniform titles could no longer be constructed without first knowing with which kind of title one was dealing.

Many titles are obviously types of composition, e.g., names of musical forms or genres (sonata, symphony, concerto), tempo designations (adagio, allegro), and standard combinations of instruments (trio, quartet). And conversely, many truly distinctive titles are obviously so, e.g., "Nozze di Figaro," "Appalachian Spring." But, it is just as obvious that many titles are ambiguous and difficult to categorize. Included in this third category are titles that look like generic titles, but that are not defined in reference sources as types of musical compositions, e.g., piece or divertissement. Some of these terms may be treated as types of composition if they are so used by enough composers; others may not. Deciding what language to use further complicates the decision. If a type of composition has cognates in English, French, German, and Italian, the accepted English form (even if adopted from another of these languages) is used, regardless of how the composer spelled it. For instance "symphony" is used, not symphonie, Sinfonie, or sinfonia; thus, the cataloger must know if the term is generic in order to know what language to use. For those types of compositions without cognates in the four languages, one must ascertain what language the composer originally used and the plural in that language. For instance, the cataloger would use "piece" for works of an American composer and "Fantasien" for works of a German composer (assuming those were the terms originally used by the composers)

Music catalogers have been dealing with these incongruities for quite some time. Some specific problems have been addressed by the Library of Congress through rule interpretations and music cataloging decisions, but LC has not made a thorough-going attack on the problem. For instance, "composition" and "piece" were deemed types of compositions because they were definitely not distinctive and were used by many composers. "Composition," having cognates in the four languages, is used in the English form and plural, but "piece," not having cognates in all four languages, is not.

The Bibliographic Control Committee of the Music Library Association decided to provide some guidance to music catalogers, thus attempting to eliminate the necessity of each cataloger making his or her own decision on each kind of title, a practice that has resulted in a multitude of solutions, much inaction, and a great deal of inconsistency. The Committee charged its Subcommittee on Descriptive Cataloging (Jennifer Bowen, Chair) to develop a list of terms that might be considered types of composition and to develop a research methodology of determining the status of these terms. A working group of four people (the editors of this publication) was formed to coordinate a group of volunteers from the membership of MLA who researched the use of these titles in music reference sources, Library of Congress documentation (AACR2, Library of Congress Rule Interpretations, and Music Cataloging Decisions), the Library of Congress Name Authority File, and LC MARC cataloging. The working group then checked and refined this research, using the above tools (in particular the Terminorum Musicae Index Septem Linguis Redactus), the result of which was the list of generic and distinctive titles that was published in the November 1989 issue of the Music Cataloging Bulletin. The decision was then made to expand the list with new terms and to created an extensive alphabetical list that would include explanations of the use of certain terms, scope notes, all distinctive terms that might be considered generic, and cognates of the generic titles in six major European languages (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Russian), as well as selected terms in other languages. What you have before you is the result of this process.

Return to Table of Contents

Principles of the list

The following list of terms that are either "types of compositions" or "distinctive titles" (AACR2 Rev. 25.27A1, footnote 10) includes equivalent terms in English, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish, and in some cases, Czech, Dutch, Hungarian, Latin, and Polish. The list is not exhaustive.

Terms identified as "types" and their plurals are listed in boldface type, followed by the designation "Type" and language. These terms should be used in the plural if a composer has written more than one composition of that type. If a term is followed by a note beginning "use..." and has no plural listed, it is a cognate of another term, and the cataloger should refer to that term to determine its usage.

Terms that are "distinctive" are given only in the singular, followed by the designation "Distinctive" in boldface type and language.

Many terms include a brief explanation of their usage. It is essential to read this information before constructing a uniform title.

When available, LCCN's and LCNAF numbers are included as illustrations of the use of the terms. Users of this list are cautioned against making decisions based solely on these examples.

The list must be used in conjunction with accepted cataloging tools: Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., Rev. (AACR2) and Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs). Throughout this list there are many references to elements contained in these tools. To facilitate use of the list, excerpts from the most frequently cited are included below.

Neither this list, nor the excerpts below, are substitutes for cataloging tools.

1. LCRI 25.27A

All modifiers other than medium or numeral make the phrase a distinctive title--no matter how common sounding it is.

2. LCRI 25.27A1, footnote 10

When a composer uses a word which is normally the name of a type of composition as the title of a work which is definitely not a work of the type designated by the word, do not consider the title to be the name of a type of composition.

3. LCRI 25.29A (Liturgical titles)

Give Latin liturgical titles (e.g., "Gloria," "Salve," "Te Deum") in the singular. Exception: Use "Magnificats" and "Requiems" when appropriate. Apply 25.30B1, and do not normally include a statement of medium of performance.

4. 25.30A1 (Combination terms)

Combination terms ("Theme and variations," "Prelude and fugue") do not appear on this list and are addressed in 25.30A1: if the initial title element consists solely of the name of a type, or of two or more types, make additions to it as instructed in 25.30B-25.30E (use the original language). From the Music Cataloging Bulletin v. 13, no. 9, 4th question under LC correspondence: All titles consisting of the names of two or more types of compositions do not qualify as cognate forms to be converted to the accepted English forms of name in accordance with 25.29A1 which limits such conversions to titles consisting solely of the name of one type of composition. Such titles will, however, require a statement of medium of performance in accordance with 25.30B1.

5. 25.29A1 (Cognates)

If the initial title element resulting from the application of 25.27 and 25.28 consists solely of the name of one type of composition, use the accepted English form of name if there are cognate forms in English, French, German, and Italian, or if the same name is used in all these languages. Give the name in the plural (this may be a non-English plural form, e.g., divertimenti) unless the composer wrote only one work of the type.

Return to Table of Contents

Diacritics

Several diacritics are not available as text, only as images, in Web format. When a term includes a diacritic that is not available, the affected letters in the term will be linked to its image in this section of the document.

These two letters should have a ligature over them.
These two letters should have a ligature over them.
These two letters should have a ligature over them.
These two letters should have a ligature over them.
This letter should have a breve over it.
These letters should have a ligature over them.
This letter should have a superior dot over it.
There should be a double acute (not available as an image) over the letter from which this is linked. A double acute can appear over these letters in the following languages appearing in this document:
° Hungarian: o, u
There should a hacek (not available as an image) over the letter from which this is linked. A hacek can appear over these letters in the following languages appearing in this document:
° Czech: s, t, z
There should be a miagkii znak (not available as an image) at the apostrophe (representing the miagkii znak) from which this is linked. The miagkii znak occupies a space rather than appearing over a letter. A miagkii znak can appear in the following languages appearing in this document:
° Russian
This should be a slash lower case L (not available as an image) at the lower case L from which this is linked. A slash L can appear in the following languages appearing in this document:
° Polish

Return to Table of Contents

Use of "double," "triple," etc. in titles of musical works

" ... it would be a mistake to try to draw any hard and fast conclusions about the treatment of words like "double," "triple," etc. in titles of musical works, since they may have various meanings. In the case of "double concertos," etc., we felt the need for a Music Cataloging Decision because in the past honest differences of opinion had led to inconsistent results. Those who feel that "Double concerto" should not be treated as distinctive argue that "double" implies medium of performance and hence should be omitted from the initial title element under 25.28A, while the majority feel that this is stretching the meaning of "statement of medium of performance" too far. These differences of opinion still exist, but now that we have agreed on a policy and stated it in an MCD we may expect to have more consistency... Titles like "Double quartet" present a rather different situation. Ordinarily a double concerto is indeed a type of concerto, but a double quartet is not a quartet but an octet. Therefore we have never hesitated to treat such titles as distinctive. On the other hand, we seem to have been consistent in treating "Double fugue" as the name of a type of composition... Obviously "double" has an entirely different meaning in this case, one which has no medium-of-performance implications at all. Hence none of us seem to have given serious consideration to treating "double fugue" as distinctive. These different uses of the words "double," "triple," etc., really have little relation to one another, and it would be a mistake, I believe, to try to make any general statement about the use of such words in uniform titles..."

Communication from Richard Hunter, Mar. 7, 1991; used with permission. This represents Richard Hunter's personal opinion and is not an official Library of Congress statement.

Return to Table of Contents

Submitting terms for consideration

Do you have a term or title that is being treated inconsistently or about which you are uncertain? Feel free to submit new terms or titles for consideration to Mickey Koth by email (mickey.koth@yale.edu) or US mail (Yale Music Library, PO Box 208240, New Haven, CT 06520-8240). Any supporting citations or documentation you can provide will be appreciated.

A