A View of Music Librarianship as Seen Through its Journals: A Comparison of
Notes and Fontes Artis Musicae, 1977-2007
Introduction
Music librarianship combines training in music and librarianship to serve a unique
and diverse clientele. The multiple formats in which music materials exist (print,
electronic, various analog and digital audio-visual) and the subject-specific questions our
patrons ask differentiate our branch of the profession from others. The literature of music
librarianship also differs from that of general library and information science literature.
Straddling two disciplines, our journals seek to find a balance that will serve librarians as
well as others interested in music libraries. There are many journals both in music and in
librarianship, but only a few that focus on the intersection of music and librarianship. The
goal of this article is to compare the two primary music librarianship journals to
determine what they have published over the last 31 years and to categorize their contents
and editorial histories.
The Music Library Association (MLA), based in the US, and the International
Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres (IAML) are the
two major associations serving music librarians. According to the immediate past IAMLUS Branch treasurer, 89 percent of IAML-US members are also current MLA members.1
The Music Library Association’s peer-reviewed journal Notes and the International
Association of Music Libraries’ non-peer-reviewed journal Fontes Artis Musicae (FAM)
are the principal, longest-established journals in the field of music librarianship. Both are
currently published quarterly by A-R Editions in Middleton, WI. Notes is published
solely in English, while FAM publishes articles in English, French, and German, the three
official languages of IAML. In addition to scholarly and professional articles, Notes
Page 1 of 27
2/9/2016
contains extensive sections for the review of books, scores, and recordings, databases,
websites, and other library tools. FAM contains a book review section only. Both journals
also carry reports of their respective association’s business, such as financial statements,
as well as brief news items about libraries and librarians.
The stated goals of each journal are quite similar. From Notes, “The Music
Library Association invites contributions to its quarterly journal, Notes…the journal
offers its readers interesting, informative, and well-written articles in the areas of music
librarianship, music bibliography and discography, the music trade, and on certain
aspects of music history.”2 And from FAM, “The editor [of FAM] is happy to consider for
publication articles on any aspect of music librarianship, music bibliography or related
musicological research.”3 There are however differences in the number and types of
articles that each journal publishes, as will be seen in this study.
This article will analyze and compare the publication histories of Notes and FAM
in the period 1977 to 2007 to answer the following questions:
1. How best can the research articles published in these two journals be
categorized?
2. How do the two journals compare in their coverage of these topics?
3. Are there differences in the coverage of certain topics over time, and does
the balance change with changes in editorship?
4. Can significant differences between the journals be observed?
Background
Given the general importance of Notes to the profession and the fact that MLA
publishes it, these two entitites are frequently discussed together. Begun in 1934 it
Page 2 of 27
2/9/2016
“provided the first formal means of written communication among music librarians.”4 In
her 2005 book American Music Librarianship: a Research and Information Guide, Carol
June Bradley states, “Notes is essentially the heart of the literature of American music
librarianship.”5
There is less written about FAM and IAML, in part because they are younger than
Notes and MLA, and perhaps in part because IAML is more closely focused around its
national branches, with fewer members being involved in the international organization.
Begun in 1954, FAM serves primarily as the “principal medium of communication for the
business of the Association and features articles relevant to the purposes of IAML,
particularly in the areas of music librarianship and documentation, bibliography and
musicology.”6 At least one issue yearly focuses on business conducted and papers
presented at the most recent IAML conference. Often, since the 1980s, one issue yearly
has been a special “themed” issue, wherein all or the majority of articles focus around the
libraries and music of one country.
To place the two journals in the environment of music librarianship’s scholarly
communications, it is essential to know what additional publications MLA and IAML
produce, as well as what other publications from the fields of librarianship and music are
of relevance to music librarians. The Music Library Association publishes the following
materials in addition to Notes: the Basic Manual Series, Index and Bibliography Series,
Music Cataloging Bulletin, MLA Newsletter (in which IAML and IAML-US news is also
disseminated), and Technical Reports.7 IAML also electronically publishes the IAML
Newsletter. Additionally, IAML national branches have their own journals and/or
newsletters. IAML Australia, for instance, publishes a quarterly newsletter, Intermezzo;
Page 3 of 27
2/9/2016
an annual journal, Continuo; and occasional other publications relating to music
librarianship. The Canadian Association of Music Libraries, Archives, and
Documentation Centres publishes CAML Review. IAML Germany publishes the quarterly
Forum Musikbibliothek. IAML New Zealand publishes the journal Crescendo. IAML UK
and Ireland publishes the journal Brio and a Newsletter. In addition, both associations
have active email lists and websites used by their members and others.
Many music librarians, based on their personal and research interests, belong to
one or more professional societies in addition to MLA or IAML, including, but not
limited to, the American Library Association, the Association for Recorded Sound
Collections, the American Musicological Society, and the Society for American Music;
and receive the journals of these societies. Depending upon their job duties and research
interests, music librarians in the U.S. and elsewhere may also turn for information to such
journals as Music Reference Services Quarterly (the only other peer-reviewed American
music library journal), the Music OCLC Users Group Newsletter, Online Audiovisual
Catalogers Newsletter, Library Journal, College and Research Libraries, Journal of
Academic Librarianship, and area-specific titles such as Collection Management and
Reference User Services Quarterly.
Review of Literature
Notes Literature
Carol June Bradley’s 1981 Notes article “The Music Library Association: The
Founding Generation and its Work” describes the context for the founding of MLA and
the beginnings of Notes. The original role of Notes was envisaged rather modestly, with
Eva Judd O’Meara of Yale University suggesting it might serve as a “Notesheet, with
Page 4 of 27
2/9/2016
questions and projects—things that had come up. I was particularly interested in a ‘Notes
and Queries’ sort of thing—that if one has a reference question one can’t answer
somebody else may have the answer laying [sic] around.”8 Bradley’s article contains an
extensive discussion of Notes and its editorial direction, as well as those of other MLA
publications.
When Richard S. Hill assumed the editorship of Notes in 1943, he wrote,
The prime consideration is that [articles] be of interest or importance to the
reader. The technical aspects of music librarianship will not be neglected, but they
should not be promoted in this paper at the expense of instructive and enjoyable
text. . . . Our members want to know more about the holdings of various
institutions, about the problems (and their solution) of other librarians, of notable
acquisitions, of the special programs being put into action, of new ideas and
innovations, and of the multitude of things a music librarian experiences in the
course of his daily occupation.9
This vision for the journal seems to have shifted slightly, as there are fewer practical
“problem and solution” articles included.
In his 1982 Notes article, “When Notes was Young, 1945-1960,” William
Lichtenwanger examines the editorial practices and day-to-day, behind-the-scenes
workings of Notes from his personal perspective as an assistant to Editor Richard Hill.10
A primary problem in the early days of the publication was finding the balance between
producing a journal that discussed technical issues and MLA business, and one that also
served reference librarians as a source for material that might help at the reference desk.11
Lichtenwanger also discusses the Notes / IAML overlap, when, in 1950, Hill began using
Page 5 of 27
2/9/2016
Notes to report on IAML activities (in part because he had just become IAML’s first
president and because FAM did not exist until 1954).12
In her 1991 Notes article “Information Flow: Written Communication among
Music Librarians,” Deborah Campana reviews and evaluates modes of written
communication for music librarians, including Notes, newsletters, supplements, technical
reports, and electronic mail (via the then-recently-established MLA-L). She examines the
content of these publications from 1934 (the earliest issue of Notes) forward and divides
their contents into five subject categories.
1. Musicology: articles having specific musicological content—historical,
biographical, or theoretical subject matter—but not directly related to music
librarianship.
2. Library: articles about library facilities, collections, cataloguing, technical
advancements, librarianship, periodicals, editions, exhibits, collection
development, administration and management, reference methods, and
reference tools.
3. Bibliographies and indexes: subject bibliographies, indexes to periodicals, and
other tools.
4. Music industry: articles about music publishing, sound recordings, copyright,
and radio.
5. MLA activities: articles, announcements, and reports about chapter and
national meetings and other activities of the Music Library Association.
Campana’s analysis tracks trends in the numbers of articles published in each
category. She observes that while music librarianship as a topic dominated the early years
Page 6 of 27
2/9/2016
of Notes, there was a shift in the early 1940s to articles relating to musicology and the
other topics, with music librarianship taking a lesser role.13 Her findings indicate that this
trend changed again in the latter part of the 1970s, when “musicology as a topic began to
take a secondary role to libraries and MLA activities, and the pattern has continued to the
present [1991].”14 Campana also observes that articles on specific music collections,
librarianship, and music periodicals have figured prominently among the library-related
items, but that the mid-1960s saw a shift away from articles on music library facilities,
music cataloguing, and music editions to articles about technology, collection
development, and reference and reference tools.15
Without a doubt, the most thorough assessment of Notes over the years has been
achieved by Don Krummel’s three retrospective articles, published in 1963,16 1984,17 and
2004.18 In each of his articles, Krummel divides a twenty-year span of articles into
categories, but varies the categories slightly in each analysis, indicating that the coverage
of Notes did indeed change over the years. None of his articles attempts to precisely
quantify the content in each category, although he does speak in general terms about the
balance in Notes.
In his first Notes retrospective, Krummel characterizes Notes not only based on
content, but on its “style and personality.”19 He boldly states that
Notes, is about the materials of a music library far more than it is for music
librarians. Essentially, it is neither a bibliographical publication, concerned with
the materials as physical items, nor a library publication, concerned with the
control and servicing of those materials. Nor is it primarily a music journal,
concerned with performances, compositions, and research—except insofar as such
Page 7 of 27
2/9/2016
matters may be embodied in the physical objects which belong in a music
library.20
He felt that the balance of Notes allowed it to become “a respected part of the larger
musical world…”21 and that it compared favorably to purely academic journals.
Twenty years later Krummel examines Notes’ publication history and the
evolution of its editorial practice from 1964 to 1984. He discusses the role of reviews in
Notes, the overall profile of the articles, and the balance both between reviews and
articles and between music and library content. He asks, “On what basis should articles
be included?” and answers, “what will be of interest to music librarians and the users of
music libraries.”22 He states that Notes must continue to strike a balance between music
and libraries in order to maintain the “classic and conscious policy of Notes: it is intended
to be a journal for the larger rather than the narrow community of music librarians; it
addresses music readers, scholars, performers, composers, publishers, dealers, and
administrators as well.”23
In 2004, forty years after his first retrospective, Krummel adopted a quantitative
approach, measuring the changing content of Notes by number of pages of items in
general terms (articles, reviews, lists, indexes, etc.), in addition to a narrative subject
categorization of the articles. He revisits the issue of balance between music and library
content, citing that in 1962 he felt Notes was grounded more in the former than the latter,
and that in 1982 he felt the reverse was true.24
FAM Literature
Much less written analysis exists on the history and editorial practice of FAM. In
1955, soon after it began publication, it was reviewed by Notes contributor Paul Henry
Page 8 of 27
2/9/2016
Lang in the journal Musical Quarterly. It was hailed as an “impressive journal which
succeeds the modest Information Bulletin, heretofore circulated only among members.
The organization now has a mouthpiece that ought to interest a far wider circle of readers
than the professional librarians.”25
In 2000, recently-appointed FAM editor John Wagstaff wrote about IAML and
FAM in Advances in Librarianship.26 Even from its beginning, it seems FAM faced some
of the same questions as Notes concerning its intended focus and scope. Outlining the
early days of FAM he noted the opinion of an important figure in IAML’s first decade,
Alfons Ott (President of IAML’s Public Library Commission):
Interestingly, Ott felt that a journal such as FAM was bound to contain more for
the academic than for the public librarian, its title being suggestive (in his
opinion) more of “Musikwissenschaft” (musicology) and the examination of
musical sources and resources than of a public library agenda. This opinion was
only reinforced when FAM’s editor, Vladimir Féderov, claimed legitimacy for the
title by declaring that music librarians stood ‘at the fountain-head of the art of
music’.27
Wagstaff also asserted that a cursory examination of FAM “suggests a surprising lack of
engagement with matters of reader service, reflecting Ott’s worries of the 1950s.”28 He
posits that perhaps “some of these issues are better served at the national, rather than the
transnational level,”29 and that perhaps the multi-lingual nature of the articles (published
in English, French, or German) may have some relevance. He stated, “FAM also features
material on matters of historical bibliography that may be offputting [sic] to some,
certainly such material is featured far less in national newsletters.”30
Page 9 of 27
2/9/2016
Methodology
The main articles printed in Notes and FAM from 1977-2007 were the focus of
this content analysis and comparison. The year 1977 was chosen for the beginning of this
study in part for manageability and in part because online indexing coverage of Notes and
FAM varies from database to database. While Notes is covered in JSTOR from the first
issue until 2001 and in Project Muse from 2000 to present, neither JSTOR nor Project
Muse contains subject headings, which were felt to be a necessary component of the data
analysis. FAM is available online in full-text only from 1998 to present, and online
indexing in other sources is complete only from the early 1970s.
The following types of Notes items were omitted from the comparison: reviews,
conference and committee reports, “Notes for Notes,” “Recently Received” or publishers
catalog lists, new periodicals, the necrology index, association financial statements,
statements of association administrative structure, indexes to reviews of AV equipment,
short notices, and obituaries. Similar items found in FAM were likewise omitted from the
comparison. Regular RISM, RILM, RiDiM, and RIPM updates were not included, with
the exception of four article-length reports about the R-Projects found in the last issue
examined. Another category of items excluded were papers presented at IAML
conferences. FAM’s IAML conference issues routinely contain papers presented at the
conference. Because Notes does not have the same approach to publishing conference
papers, IAML papers were omitted when it was possible to identify them as such. FAM’s
table of contents layout changed over the years, but in many cases conference papers
were labeled under the heading “Commission Reports and Papers.” At times, what
appeared to be articles were in fact papers that fell under the rubric of a subject
commission or working group report. Occasionally it was difficult to determine if an item
Page 10 of 27
2/9/2016
was a subject commission report, a conference paper, or a free-standing article. While
some MLA conference papers appear in Notes, it is not such a regular occurrence as it is
with IAML papers in FAM. In addition, IAML conference papers were often much
shorter than main articles, with some as short as two pages.31
Citations for Notes and FAM articles were compiled by searching the RILM
Abstracts of Music Literature journal citation database and exporting one full record
(including subject headings and abstracts if present) per main article into RefWorks, a
bibliographic citation software tool. The data were then exported into separate Excel
worksheets (one for FAM and one for Notes). Next, the citations were compared against
print versions of the tables of contents for each issue to eliminate anything that was not a
main article and to make sure an article hadn’t been missed because it wasn’t indexed in
RILM. In a handful of instances, when a citation was not available in RILM, citations
were obtained from JSTOR or manually entered into RefWorks. A list of Notes’ 324
article titles and their indexer-assigned subject headings and another list for FAM’s 614
article titles and their subject headings were printed.
The question of how to divide the field of music librarianship was not an easy
one. In addition to gaining inspiration from the articles themselves, the categories created
by Campana and Krummel in their articles were consulted, as well as the categories in the
2000 Notes special issue about music librarianship at the turn of the century: Collection
Development and Management; Preservation; Cataloging; Technology; Copyright;
Reference; Reference Sources; User Education; Music Publishing; Sound Recordings; the
Antiquarian Music Market; Archives; and Education for Music Librarianship.
Page 11 of 27
2/9/2016
After initially scanning the lists of compiled articles and taking into account the
various subject categories above, the following categories were created for use in this
study, not presented here in any hierarchical order.
1. Musicology: Music of particular composer, country, or genre, including
bibliography, discography, iconography, history, checklists
2. Collections of Music: Specific collections in individual libraries
3. Printing and Publishing: including Editing, Engraving, Copyright, and Periodicals
4. Reference and Services: Reference books, databases, reference practice,
circulation and ILL services
5. Collection Development and Acquisitions
6. Music Librarians and Librarianship: Training of librarians, associations, archival
management
7. Information Literacy
8. Cataloging: including Classification, and Archival Arrangement
9. Libraries: Library Facilities and Equipment; Histories of Individual Libraries
10. Preservation and Formats
11. Technology: including Automation and ILSes
Each article was assigned to only one category based on its title, subject headings,
and/or abstract. When necessary, the article itself was consulted for clarification. Single
category assignments were utilized to make the data tabulation simpler and the
distinctions easier to see, but several articles could have fit into two (or more) categories.
The Notes issue concerning the Kurt Weill edition32 provides examples of articles that
were initially hard to categorize: they could have been categorized with “music of a
Page 12 of 27
2/9/2016
specific composer,” or, as was eventually decided, more appropriately with “printing and
publishing.” In this case, the indexer-assigned subject headings helped make the decision,
as they included the term “editing.” Another difficult article to limit to one category was
FAM’S “Teaching Collection Development in Context”—should it be in “Collection
Development” or “Music Librarians and Librarianship”? In the end, it was decided the
emphasis was on the education aspect and so it was placed in “Music Librarians and
Librarianship.” Articles about reference tools were also challenging. In many cases the
articles themselves could be used as reference tools, as there were numerous
bibliographies, lists, and catalogs, but they were placed in category one, as they focused
on the music of a particular composer or type of music.
Findings
Even discounting conference papers, FAM publishes almost twice as many
articles as Notes, with the average number of articles published per year in FAM 19.8,
with a minimum of five (2003)33 and a maximum of 40 (1987). The average number of
articles published per year in Notes is 10.5, with a minimum of seven (1983) and a
maximum of 22 (2000). Each journal had three categories that together accounted for
more than 60 percent of the content; interestingly it was not the same three categories for
each journal. For FAM they are: Libraries (n=170, 27.7%), Musicology (n=132, 21.5%),
and Printing and Publishing (n=87, 14.2%) (see Graph 1), while the top three categories
in Notes are Musicology (n=97, 29.9%), Printing and Publishing (n=61, 18.8%), and
Collections of Music (n=57, 17.6%) (see Graph 2).
[Insert Graph 1]
[Insert Graph 2]
Page 13 of 27
2/9/2016
Not only are the articles themselves distributed unequally among the categories in each
journal, the categories are also unevenly represented over the years (see Table 1).
[Insert Table 1]
While anecdotal evidence suggests that subject distribution in a journal might
shift dramatically when editorship changes, this has generally not been the case with
Notes and FAM. Typically an editor’s top three categories are the same as the journal’s
top three categories overall, but there have been subtle (and not-so-subtle) shifts in
category inclusion and article distribution. It was also not atypical for an editor to shun
one or more categories. The exceptions to this in Notes include the following
observations in chronological order. Pruett had more articles in Reference and Services
than in Publishing and Printing. McClellan had two categories tying for third place:
Publishing and Printing, and Libraries. Sommer had the same top three categories as the
journal as a whole, but the numbers of articles in them were more evenly balanced. Ochs
had the same top three categories as the journal as a whole, but had a higher percentage
than average in Publishing and Printing. He also had articles in every category but one.
Zager had a significantly larger number of musicology articles (45%) than average and
had two categories sharing third place: Collections of Music and Music Librarians and
Librarianship. Griscom was the only editor to have articles in every category, and he had
the most balance between categories, with five categories having ten percent or greater.
He also had a much lower percentage of musicology articles (10%) than average. Blotner
had articles in every category but one. She had more than double the average percentages
in Technology and Information Literacy. Cassaro also had categories tie for third place:
Publishing and Printing, and Music Librarians and Librarianship. (See Table 2).
Page 14 of 27
2/9/2016
[insert table 2]
The variations in FAM’s article inclusion/distribution include the following
observations, also listed chronologically by editor. Every editor had the same three top
categories as the journal as a whole, except Benton and Buja. Benton had Music
Librarians and Librarianship instead of Publishing and Printing, and had more articles in
Musicology than average. Jurres had fewer articles in Libraries than average and twice as
many in Reference and Services than average. Redfern had articles in every category but
one. Sommer had articles in every category. Wagstaff had more articles in Publishing and
Printing than average. Buja had Collections of Music instead of Publishing and Printing
as a top category, and fewer articles in Libraries than average. (See Table 3).
[insert table 3]
Perhaps the most interesting observations can be drawn from comparing
Sommer’s tenure at each journal. If, as might be assumed, what appears in a journal is
primarily dependent on the editor’s interests, then the breakdown of articles for each
journal under her editorship should be roughly equivalent. However, it is not. When
Sommer was the editor, the distribution of articles mirrored that of the averages for the
journals as a whole. However, as mentioned earlier, while editor of Notes, she had more
balance between the top three categories. This meant that she had a lower than average
number of Musicology articles and more articles in the other two categories. However, in
both Sommer’s case and in the overall journal average, these three categories accounted
for a total of 66 percent of articles. In the remaining categories Sommer shows some
variation from the journal averages. While editor of FAM, she again matched the top
three categories, with percentages closely in line with the journal’s averages (with about a
Page 15 of 27
2/9/2016
third fewer articles in the Publishing and Printing category). If journal content was
influenced most closely by the editor’s preferences, then the article distribution in Notes
and FAM during Sommer’s editorships should have looked much more similar. This
suggests that the differences in the composition of each journal have more to do with the
articles submitted than the editors themselves.
Two categories had years of extreme popularity in Notes. Musicology comprised
half or more of the articles during four years (1978=53.8%; 1992=77.8%; 1993=75%;
1995=50%). Publishing and Printing represented 50 percent or more of all articles during
1988 (55.6 percent) and 1999 (70 percent). FAM had three years in which 50 percent of
its articles were in Musicology (1979, 1983, and 1995). Libraries represented 50 percent
or more of all FAM articles in 1987 (50 percent) and 1990 (65.2 percent). Publishing and
Printing represented 50 percent of all articles published in FAM in 2002. This meant that
in those years, not many of the other categories could be represented. In looking at the
distribution of articles among the categories over time, a few years are particularly
noteworthy. In 1992 only three of the eleven categories (Collections of Music and Music
Librarians and Librarianship 11.1 percent each, and Musicology 77.8 percent) were
represented in Notes. The next year, 1993, only two categories were represented, Music
Librarians and Librarianship at 25 percent and Musicology at 75 percent. In 1999
Collections of Music (10 percent), Libraries (20 percent), and Publishing and Printing (70
percent), were the only three categories present. At the other end of the spectrum, 2000
saw ten of the eleven categories represented in Notes, with only Libraries failing to make
an appearance. An average year of Notes contained articles from five of the eleven
categories. In 1985, only three categories were represented in FAM (Musicology 41.7
Page 16 of 27
2/9/2016
percent, Publishing and Printing 33.3 percent, and Collections of Music 25 percent).
Three years of FAM had only four categories (1979, 1984, and 2003) and one year (1993)
had nine of the categories present. The average year of FAM contained articles from six
of the eleven categories, which suggests that FAM is only slightly more balanced than
Notes.
While most categories had articles distributed over the entire time span, the first
Information Literacy article in either journal wasn’t published until 1984. There was
another in FAM in 1985, and then nothing in either journal until 1996, followed by
another gap until 2000. This timing coincides to some degree with the increase in
networked information and the release of the Netscape web browser in the mid 1990s.
The rise of the Internet spurred librarians to create and use information literacy
programs.34
Discussion
It is possible to categorize the contents of both Notes and FAM, and doing so
produces some interesting finings about the landscape of each journal. Both journals are
dominated by three (different) topics. Given the frequency of articles about musicology,
publishing and printing, and collections, it is not difficult to see why Krummel claimed
that Notes was more about the materials of the library than for the librarians. FAM on the
other hand, has Libraries as a primary category. Libraries articles appear in FAM almost
four times as frequently as in Notes (27.7 percent and 7.1 percent of articles,
respectively). This is logical, given that FAM’s country-specific issues often feature
multiple articles about individual libraries in that country.
Page 17 of 27
2/9/2016
While the journals do cover the same overall topics, there are differences that tell
a story of one journal that is peer reviewed, and one that is not; one that originates in a
single country and one that represents many countries; one that is the primary music
librarianship publication in its country of origin and one that is joined by other
publications. What appears in these journals has less to do with the individual editor
(although exceptions, as described above, certainly exist) than with what authors are
researching and writing about.
Far fewer music librarians than musicologists must compete in the tenure and
publication process, so it’s not surprising that Notes, as a peer-reviewed journal, attracts
material that would be equally at home in musicology journals. Library-related articles do
appear in musicology journals, although they tend to focus more on library histories or
specific library collections. For example, Gillian B. Anderson’s 1989 article “Putting the
Experience of the World at the Nation’s Command: Music at the Library of Congress,
1800-1917” was published in the Journal of the American Musicological Society.35 Ms.
Anderson holds degrees in musicology and librarianship and has published in Notes.
Were Notes not peer-reviewed, the balance of articles might shift (as seen in FAM) to
include more practical articles written by practicing librarians. While the scope of this
article did not include an examination of the authors of Notes and FAM articles, further
research could show whether more non-librarians publish in Notes than in FAM.
The overall availability of publishing opportunities in a subject area also plays a
part in determining what is published in a given journal. For example, there are roughly
twice as many reference-related articles in FAM as in Notes (although as a percentage of
total articles in each journal they are roughly equivalent, at eight percent and 6.8 percent
Page 18 of 27
2/9/2016
respectively), perhaps because in the U.S. Music Reference Services Quarterly (MRSQ)
exists, and draws articles that could otherwise have been candidates for Notes.
For those topics that are not heavily represented in Notes or FAM, it may be that
the topics themselves dictate whether they are the focus of a journal article or are better
addressed via another professional communication mode. For example, there are
relatively few articles on cataloging in either Notes or FAM. Many questions relating to
cataloging theory and practice are discussed informally via listservs, such as MLA-L and
MOUG. Additionally, cataloging practice varies from institution to institution and is not a
topic of wide interest beyond librarians. Collection-development-related articles account
for a very small percentage of both journals, likely because practices vary greatly from
country to country and an international journal cannot adequately represent the topic in a
way that would be of interest to a majority of readers.
Another important factor for both journals is timeliness—are they publishing
articles that address emerging topics in the landscape of music libraries? Three of the
more “current” articles in Notes in recent years have been: Szymanski and Field’s 2005
article on virtual reference,36 Fineman’s 2004 article on electronic theses and
dissertations,37 and Griscom’s 2003 contribution on streaming audio.38 FAM has
addressed the following recent “hot topics”: Tam and Lo’s 2007 article concerning the
creation of OPAC records for streamed Naxos content,39 Gossett’s 2005 musicologists
and copyright contribution,40 and Vellucci’s metadata and music article from 1999.41
While these are all useful articles, they stand alone in Notes and FAM on these topics.
The body of articles on emerging topics is spread over other publications, such as
Page 19 of 27
2/9/2016
Troutman’s database comparison article in MRSQ.42 These topics are more frequently
discussed in presentations at conferences, via listservs, email, or other media.
Perhaps the most apparent observation is the fact that, even discounting IAML
conference papers, there are still almost twice as many articles published in FAM as in
Notes. While this study did not examine the average length of articles published in either
journal, many articles in FAM’s country-specific issues are short, while Notes articles can
approach book chapter length at times. A typical issue (if such a thing can be defined)
contains articles across a variety of topics (with the exception of a few “theme” issues
such as the Notes December 2007 (64/2) “canons” issue).
Conclusion
Journals can be seen as histories of the professions they represent. Notes and FAM
each have their own stories and both have made significant contributions to the literatures
of music librarianship, bibliography, and musicology. While the typical music librarian,
who spends the majority of his or her time on the reference desk, cataloging materials,
teaching classes, and/or selecting materials for the library, may not read either of the
journals from cover to cover, Notes and FAM do endeavor to serve multiple interests.
Notes and FAM do have discernible subject content areas and there are clear
distinctions between the journals based on the distribution of articles in those categories.
Taken as a whole, library-related articles form the majority of both FAM and Notes, but
musicology still accounts for a considerable portion of articles. The balance among
library-related articles is such that a few topics dominate both journals. Change over time
in the distribution of articles is subtle, but there are no broad categories that once were
popular and are no longer addressed. Topics such as library automation merely change
Page 20 of 27
2/9/2016
focus: at first the discussion centered on moving from cards to computers, and now the
discussion centers around integrated library systems. Topics such as Information Literacy
did not appear until the 1980s, when it developed into a discrete discipline.
Neither journal is particularly good at reflecting recent developments in the music
librarianship profession. One reason for this is the length of time it takes to produce a
journal. Music librarians may find that they need to look for current topics and
technology information from other sources that are timelier, if not as scholarly, such as
blogs and email listservs. Conference presentations are also good sources for “hot
topics,” as they usually have the ability to incorporate multimedia and real-time
demonstrations of technology—something that can be next to impossible to reproduce in
a print or even online journal. Historical topics, or those dealing with more staid content,
are easier to disseminate in a traditional journal.
There are opportunities for further research into the area of music librarianship
publications. As mentioned earlier, one opportunity for further research lies in
examination of the authors of Notes and FAM articles. Are they librarians, tenure-track
librarians, music faculty, or other scholars? As Krummel notes, “Respected scholars
(many of them proud to be MLA members) opt to publish in Notes because of its
emphasis on the artifacts of music libraries, and also as a setting for essays that could be
both thoughtful and unpretentious.”43 Another area of interest to librarians and scholars,
especially in the sciences, is journal impact factors.44 Neither Notes nor FAM has been
measured in this way here, but further studies could be done to determine who is citing
articles from these publications and if, in fact, as Krummel asserts, “Notes is a respected
part of the larger music world.”45 It would be interesting to determine if these articles are
Page 21 of 27
2/9/2016
being cited in library journals, music journals, dissertations, or other publications.
Additionally, it could be useful to examine in what other publication venues music
librarianship articles appear on a regular basis—are they published with any frequency in
general LIS journals, topic-specific LIS journals, music journals, or elsewhere?
A final area for examination, and one that could not be addressed by this study,
lies in the attitudes of the memberships of MLA and IAML. What do they want out of
their organization’s journal? Do Notes readers’ areas of interest still align with Hill’s
1943 vision? 46 Are they satisfied with the balance of topics? Do FAM readers agree with
Ott and Wagstaff’s concerns about a lack of articles concerning public services?47 Do the
associations’ members read the journals? Do these journals meet music librarians’ needs
in a professional journal? To what extent do MLA and IAML members read the other
organization’s journal? And if not from Notes and FAM, where do they go to get their
information about librarianship? Answering these questions correctly should ensure that
the journal literature of music librarianship will remain relevant to profession and its
practitioners.
Page 22 of 27
2/9/2016
GRAPH 1
Research Categories in Notes 1977-2007
GRAPH 2
Research Categories in FAM 1977-2007
Page 23 of 27
2/9/2016
TABLE 1
Category Frequency
Number of years between 1977-2007 in which category appears in journal
Category
Notes
FAM
Musicology
28
29
Collections of Music
26
27
Printing & Publishing
26
28
Reference & Services
13
23
Collection Development
9
5
Music Librarians & Librarianship
16
19
Information Literacy
6
2
Cataloging
8
21
Libraries
13
28
Preservation & Formats
4
6
Technology
5
6
TABLE 2
Notes Article Distribution by Editor
Overall
average
Pruett
McClellan
Sommer
Ochs
Zager
Griscom
Blotner
Cassaro
33/364/2
33/334/1
34/2- 39/1
39/243/4
44/148/4
49/154/1
54/257/1
57/261/1
61/264/2
30%
30%
37%
21%
30%
45%
10%
29%
32%
17%
20%
19%
21%
15%
11%
19%
15%
24%
19%
10%
13%
24%
32%
13%
26%
17%
11%
7%
20%
4%
8%
4%
9%
10%
7%
3%
3%
0%
5%
0%
6%
0%
5%
2%
8%
7%
10%
7%
5%
4%
11%
7%
2%
11%
3%
0%
0%
5%
0%
4%
2%
7%
3%
Cataloging
3%
0%
2%
3%
2%
4%
5%
5%
0%
Libraries
Preservation &
Formats
7%
10%
13%
11%
2%
2%
10%
7%
5%
2%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
5%
0%
3%
Technology
2%
0%
0%
3%
2%
0%
2%
7%
0%
volume/issue
Musicology
Collections of
Music
Publishing &
Printing
Reference &
Services
Collection
Development
Music Librarians &
Librarianship
Information
Literacy
Totals for each editor may not total 100% due to rounding
Page 24 of 27
2/9/2016
TABLE 3
volume/issue
Musicology
Collections of Music
Publishing & Printing
Reference & Services
Collection
Development
Music Librarians &
Librarianship
FAM Article Distribution by Editor
Overall
average Benton Jurres Redfern Sommer
24/124/127/3-434/140/154/4
27/2
28/1-2
39/4
47/4
Wagstaff
48/151/3-4
Buja
52/154/4
27%
22%
11%
30%
6%
24%
13%
14%
8%
24%
7%
17%
9%
14%
8%
13%
7%
17%
16%
17%
7%
10%
7%
25%
3%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
7%
3%
7%
6%
7%
6%
28%
5%
8%
Information Literacy
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Cataloging
7%
4%
6%
6%
11%
3%
9%
28%
23%
19%
36%
27%
32%
15%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
Libraries
Preservation &
Formats
Technology
Totals for each editor may not total 100% due to rounding
Page 25 of 27
2/9/2016
Notes
Kirstin Dougan is a Music and Performing Arts Librarian and Assistant Professor of
Library Administration at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Music and
Performing Arts Library. She wishes to thank John Wagstaff for his encouragement,
feedback, and invaluable knowledge and perspective as a member of MLA and IAML, as
well as a former editor of Fontes Artis Musicae, and current music review editor of
Notes.
1
Carolyn Dow [treasurer of IAML-US] email message to Kirstin Dougan 30 June 2008.
Notes Call for Proposals, http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/publications/notescallforproposals.shtml
3
Instructions to Fontes Contributors, http://www.iaml.info/publications/fontes/contributions
4
Deborah Campana, “Information Flow: Written Communication among Music Librarians,” Notes 47, no.
3 (March 1991), 690.
5
Carol June Bradley, American Music Librarianship: A Research and Information Guide (New York :
Routledge, 2005), xi.
6
http://www.iaml.info/publications/FAM (accessed 6/25/2008).
7
For full descriptions of these publications, see the Music Library Association’s website,
http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/publications/index.shtml (accessed 6/1/2008).
8
Carol June Bradley, “The Music Library Association: The Founding Generation and Its Work,” Notes 37,
no. 4 (June 1981): 784-5.
9
Richard S. Hill, “Notes for Notes,” Notes 1, no. 1 (December 1943), 27.
10
Carol June Bradley’s profile of Lichtenwanger describes the strain Lichtenwanger encountered as coeditor under Hill. Carol June Bradley, "William Lichtenwanger, Reference Librarian," Notes 62, no. 2
(December 2005): 299-321.
11
William Lichtenwanger, “When Notes Was Young, 1945-1960,” Notes 39, no. 1 (September 1982), 9.
12
Ibid., 13.
13
Campana, 699.
14
Campana, 702.
15
Campana, 703-4.
16
D.W. Krummel, “Twenty Years of Notes—A Retrospect,” Notes 21, no.1-2 (Winter-Spring 1963-1964):
56-82.
17
Ibid., “The Second Twenty Volumes of Notes: A Retrospective Re-Cast,” Notes 41, no. 1 (September
1984): 7-25.
18
Ibid., “Notes: A Sixtieth Birthday Retrospective,” Notes 61, no. 1 (September 2004): 9-23.
19
Ibid., 1963-1964, 56.
20
Ibid., 1963-1964, 59.
21
Ibid., 1963-1964, 81.
22
Ibid., 1984, 15.
23
Ibid., 1984, 22.
24
Ibid., 2004, 10-11.
25
Paul Henry Lang, Review of Fontes Artis Musicae, Musical Quarterly 41, no. 3 (July 1955), 397.
26
John Wagstaff, “The International Association of Music Libraries (IAML): Past, Present, and Future,” in
Advances in Librarianship 24 (New York : Academic Press) 2000: 189-207.
27
Ibid, 196.
28
Ibid, 199.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Of course there are exceptions. There are also IAML papers that have appeared in Notes. See Christina
Bashford’s “Writing (British) Concert History: the Blessing and Curse of Ephemera,” Notes 64 no. 3
(March 2008): 458-476, which was presented in an earlier version at IAML’s meeting in Göteberg, Sweden
in 2006.
32
Notes, 56, no. 2 (December 1999).
2
Page 26 of 27
2/9/2016
33
2003 was a bit of an unusual year for FAM, as there were only two issues (50/1 and 50/2-4). There were
five articles in 50/1, while 50/2-4 was entirely devoted to articles from IAML’s 2002 Berkeley meeting.
Since IAML conference papers were not included in this study, the six articles in that issue were not used
for data analysis.
34
Stanley Wilder, “Information Literacy Makes All the Wrong Assumptions,” Chronicle Review 7 January
2005. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i18/18b01301.htm (accessed August 2, 2008).
35
In 1991, this article was awarded MLA’s annual Richard S. Hill Award (awarded 1978-present), which is
for the best article on music librarianship or article of a music-bibliographic nature. The award has gone to
articles published in the following journals: Notes (13 times), Fontes Artis Musicae (3), American Music
(2), once each in Music Reference Services Quarterly, Journal of the American Musicological Society,
Early Music, Music & Letters, The Beethoven Journal, Research Chronicle, Yearbook of the Alamire
Foundation, and three times to monographic chapters (MLA 2008 Membership Handbook, p3-5.)
36
Gerald Szymanski and Mary Alice Fields, “Virtual Reference in the Music Library,” Notes 61 no. 3
(March 2005): 634-658.
37
Yale Fineman, “Electronic Theses and Dissertations in Music,” Notes 60, no.4 (June 2004): 893-907.
38
Richard Griscom, “Distant Music: Delivering Audio over the Internet,” Notes 59, no. 3 (March 2003):
521-541.
39
Owen Tam and Patrick Lo. "Making the Library OPAC Sing: How to Introduce Naxos Music Library
Titles to Online Public Access Catalogues," Fontes Artis Musicae 54, no. 4 (October 2007): 570-595.
40
Philip Gossett, “Musicologists and copyright,” Fontes Artis Musicae 52, no. 3 (July 2005): 139-144.
41
Sherry Vellucci, “Metadata for music: Issues and directions,” Fontes Artis Musicae, 46, no. 3-4 (JulyDec 1999): 205-217.
42
See Leslie Troutman’s indexing article above; no further articles have since appeared on this topic in
either MRSQ, Notes, or FAM.
43
D.W. Krummel, 2004, 22.
44
See Thompson ISI’s Journal Citation Report (subscription based) for journal impact factor data.
45
D.W. Krummel, 1963-1964, 81.
46
Hill, 27.
47
Wagstaff, 199.
Page 27 of 27
2/9/2016