College and Research Libraries


TROY V. BRAZELL, JR. 

Comparative Analysis: A Minimum 

Music Materials Budget for 

the University Library 

An analysis of the 1969/70 music materials budgets of forty-six uni-
versity libraries, forty-four in the United States and two in Canada, 
which illustrates both the value of and the need for library statistical 
information at the subject level in order to validate more specifically 
increased budget requests. The study presents statistical information 
of special interest to music librarians attempting to establish a mini-
mum annual budget where a maximum one is not possible. 

ONE COMMON QUESTION, ''Is our book-
fund budget large enough to support the 
total faculty and student needs of the 
various academic departments within the 
university?" is frequently raised by the 
administrators of university libraries. Of-
ten the answer seems to be a negative 
one. The library administrator's answer 
to this question is usually based on the 
increased budget requ~sts . of his divi-
sion heads for the coming year. The 
division head gathers this information 
either from the library subject special-
ists who work in that division or directly 
from the department head, e.g., a music 
library in which the department head is 
also the subject specialist. 

The primary source of the budget in-
formation which builds the overall book-
fund request for a university library sys-
tem is therefore the judgment of library 
subject specialists and faculty members 
as to the needs of their subject area. This 
assessment of needs is based on special 

Mr. Brazell is Assistant Humanities Li-
brarian in charge of Music and Performing 
Arts at Eastern Michigan University, Ypsi-
lanti, Michigan. 

110 I 

subject knowledge which illuminates 
gaps in the subject collection and serves 
to define curriculum goals which would 
necessitate collection building. Without 
the vital assessments of subject special-
ists, the book-fund budget requests of 
library administrators would be even 
more of a guess than they are with those 
assessments. 

The validity of the budget recommen-
dations of library subject specialists rests 
on two very subjective criteria. These 
are ( 1) the quality of the subject spe-
cialist's judgment in the subject area and 
( 2) his communications with the subject 
academic department which he serves 
in the library~ The quality of the subject 
specialist's judgment varies, however, 
and there is no tangible gauge of validity 
of judgment implicit in credentials or 
publications lists which can finally assure 
the library administrator that the budget 
recommendation of the subject specialist 
is indeed objective and relevant. 

Also, the problems of communications 
with subject department faculty on cur-
riculum goals are many and varied. The 
rigid administrative structures of many 
libraries often do not allow subject li-



A Minimum Music Materials Budget I 111 

brarians in the lower administrative po-
sitions the freedom to communicate as 
equals with academic faculty. 

Another communications problem is 
that faculty members of academic de-
partments often do not understand the 
role of the subject librarian in the de-
velopment of reasonable curriculum 
goals for their subject departments. Fur-
ther, curriculum goals are sometimes not 
very clearly defined in the academic de-
partments. Thus the problems of com-
munication with academic departments 
for the development of valid book-fund 
budget recommendations are great in-
deed. 

There is a desperate need to establish 
objective criteria at the subject level for 
validating budget recommendations by 
librarians and faculty. This study is an 
attempt to delineate a budget profile, 
based on size, in order to develop a more 
valid music materials budget recom-
mendation for a university library. Its 
main purpose is to determine the ade-
quacy of current budgetary expenditures 
by the university library for music ma-
terials by comparing current annual ex-
penditures for music media with those 
of other universities. 

The data for the study were collected 
by means of a questionnaire which was 
mailed in January 1970 to ninety-eight 
university libraries in the United States 
and Canada.1 These libraries were iden-
tified as having significant music collec-
tions and/ or phonorecord libraries. The 
only criteria for inclusion of a library in 
the study were that the library must be 
in a four-year college or university in 
the United States or Canada and that it 
must have a music collection and/ or 
phonorecord collection. The question-
naires were sent specifically to music li-
brarians in those institutions where one 
existed; in other cases, they were sent to 
humanities or fine arts librarians or au-
diovisual specialists in the library. 

Forty-six of ninety-eight libraries re-

sponded, for an overall return of 47 per-
cent. Table 1 lists the responding li-
braries. Twenty-eight percent of them 
represented libraries in universities with 
enrollments under 15,000 full-time en-
rolled ( FTE) students, 41 percent were 
from universities with 15,000 to 25,000 
FTE students, and 30 percent were from 
universities with over 25,000 FTE stu-
dents. In this report these groups will 
be referred to as Groups I, II, and III, 
respectively. All enrollment statistics in 
this report are FTE figures. 

The purpose of dividing the respon-
dents into these three groups is to develop 
a mean and a median library budget for 
music materials for each of the three 
groups. These statistics would enable a 
music librarian and other library admin-
istrators to compare their own expendi-
tures for music materials with a mean 
and a median figure derived from a 
sample of libraries in universities of 
comparable enrollment. It is hoped that 
the perspective gained from this ap-
proach might contribute to a more ob-
jective validation of book-fund expendi-
tures. 

THE ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY 
LmRARY Music MATERIAL BUDGETS 

Mean and Median Budgets 

Thirty-eight of the forty-six libraries 
returning questionnaires responded to 
the appropriate question asking for the 
total budget for purchase of music ma-
terials including scores, books about 
music, and phonorecords. (See Table 2 
for a detailed breakdown.) In comput-
ing the mean budget for music materials 
for each enrollment group, both the high 
and low responses were omitted to 
achieve a more representative mean for 
each group. 

The mean music materials budget for 
libraries responding from Group I uni-
versities was found to be $6,094, Group 
II was $13,361, and Group III was $17,-



112 I College & Research Libraries • March 1971 

TABLE 1 

Universities with enrollments under 15,000 FTE students 
Arkansas, University of AudioVisual Area 
Butler University Music Library 
Case Western Reserve University Music House Library 
Catholic University of America Music Library 
Hartford, University of Music Library 
Laval Universite (Quebec) Music Library-School of Music 
New Mexico, University of Fine Arts Library 
Princeton University Phonograph Record Library 
Rochester, University of Music Library 
Texas Christian University Music Library-School of Fine Arts 
Tulane University Maxwell Music Library 
Washington University ( St. Louis) Gaylord Music Library 
Wichita State University Music Library-School of Music 

Universities with enrollments of 15,000 to 25,000 FTE students 
Boston University University Library 
Eastern Michigan University University Library 
Florida State University Warren D. Allen Music Library 
Fresno State College Music Library-Fresno State College Library 
Georgia, University of University Library 
Harvard University Music Library 
Houston, U Diversity of U Diversity Library 
Louisiana State University University Library 
Miami, University of Music Library 
Nebraska, University of University Library 
North Carolina, University of Music Library 
North Texas State University Music Library 
Northern Illinois University Swen Franklin Parson Library 
Northwestern University Music Library 
Pittsburgh, University of Music Library 
Queens College (CUNY) Music Library 
Tennessee, University of Music Library-Dept. of Music 
Utah, University of University Library 
Western Michigan University Music Library 

Universities with enrollments of more than 25,000 FTE students 

California State College (Long Beach) University Library 
California, University at Los Angeles Music Library 
Colorado, University of Norlin Library 
Illinois, University of (Urbana) Music Library-School of Music 
Indiana, University of (Bloomington) School of Music Library 
Michigan, University of Music Library-School of Music 
Michigan State University Audio Library-Main Library 
Northeastern University Dodge Library 
San Francisco State College College Library 
Temple University University Library 
Texas, University of Music Library 
Toronto, University of Edward Johnson Music Library 
Washington, University of Music Library 
Wisconsin. University of Mills Music Library 

124; J:he overall mean expenditure for 
music materials of all thirty-eight librar-
ies responding was found to be $14,178. 

The median (i.e., one-4~1£ of . the re-
spondents are above the figure, and 
pf!e-half . are below it) music materials 
budget for . libraries responding from 
Gropp . I was $6,000 (mean: $.6,094); 
Group II was $13,000 (mean: $13,361); 

Group III was $14,250 (mean·: $17,123). 
The overall median budget for music 
materials of all thirty-eight libraries was 
$10,750 ~ ( overall mean: $14,178). 

Mean and . Median FTE ,. Music Major 
Enrollments · · · · 

The mean number of music majors 
enrolled full-time was :Group I, 263; 



A Minimum Music Materials Budget I 113 

TABLE 2 
1969-70 UNIVERSITY LmRARY EXPENDITURES FOR Music MATERIALS 

School 
Average Budget for 

Music Materials 

Enrollments under 15,000 

Library Book-
Fund Budget 

A $ 2,500 $ 233,994 
D 5,000 266,818 
c 2,300 600,000 
E 7,000 no response 
F 7,000 no response 
G 3,581 458,000 
I 53,000 no response 
J 9,175 noresponse 
L 11,000 no response 
M 3,500 no response 

Percent of Book-
Fund Budget Used 
for Music Materials 

1.0 percent 
1.8 " 

.38 " 

.78 

Analysis: Omitting high and low responses, the mean budget for music materials equals $6,094.50. 

Enrollments of 15,000 to 25,000 

0 $ 6,292 
p 13,000 
R 21,620 
s 29,800 
T 4,250 
u 6,452 
v 12,000 
w 5,600 
X 25,000 
y 21,500 
z 20,300 
AA 23,400 
BB 2,500 
cc 15,000 
DD 6,500 
EE 5,500 
FF 14,000 

$ 285,261 
no response 

1,226,021 
no response 
521,426 
266,942 
no response 
691,000 
no response 
no response 
621,660 
850,000 
450,000 
no response 
no response 
355,000 
400,000 

2.2 

1.8 

.81 
2.4 

.81 

3.3 
2.75 

.56 

1.5 
1.5 

percent , 

Analysis: Omitting high and low responses, the mean budget for music materials equals 
$13,360.93. 

Enrollments over 25,000 

GG $37,000 
HH 26,000 
II 11,000 
JJ 32,000 
KK 24,000 
MM 5,900 
LL 17,213 
NN no response 
00 10,500 
QQ 9,600 
ss 14,250 
TT 9,550 

$ 750,000 
1,534,932 

no response 
no response 
no response 

1,150,576 
no response 
400,000 
338,782 
no response 
801,000 

1,083,747 

4.9 percent 
1.7 " 

.51 

" 
3.0 

, 

1.8 " 
.88 

Analysis: Omitting high and low responses, the mean budget for music 
$17,123.67. 

materials equals 

Group II, 327; Group III, 510. The over-
all mean enrollment of music majors for 
the thirty-five universities represented 
by responses was 403 FTE music majors. 

The median number of music majors 

enrolled full-time was Group I, 247 
(mean: 263); Group II, 310 (mean: 
327); and Group III, 495 (mean: 150). 
The overall median enrollment for the 
thirty-five universities represented by re-



114 I College & Research Libraries • March 1971 

sponses to the appropriate question was 
330 music majors (overall mean: 403). 

University Library Music Material Ex-
penditures per Music M a for 

One way to give more meaning to li-
brary budget figures is to relate them to 
the number of clientele served in order 
to derive per-capita expenditure statis-
tics. Table 3 gives the detailed break-
down of mean music material expendi-
tures per music major. 

The median library expenditure for 
music materials was (approximately), 
$28 per FTE music major (mean: 
$41), Group I; $31 (mean: $48), Group 
II; and $24 (mean: $31), Group III. The 
overall median library expenditure of 
the thirty-five libraries responding was 
about $26 per FTE music major (over-
all mean: $36 per FTE music major). 

Rankings of Universities 

The 1969-70 rankings of the univer-
sities responding as to numbers of music 
majors enrolled in the university, the li-
brary's music materials budget, and the 
library's expenditure per FTE music ma-
jor are given in Table 4. 

AN "IDEAL" MUSIC MATERIALS 

BUDGET FOR A UNIVERSITY LmRARY 

It is a difficult task to arrive at an 
"ideal" music materials budget for a uni-
versity library. Such a budget would 
have to · have a~ its cornerstones a stan-
dard list of scores, books about music, 
and phonorecords. Although many such 
lists have been published, they are 
rarely comprehensive, always out of date, 
and rarely ever selective enough for uni-
versity music library collections. There-
fore · a music materials budget based 
only on a standard list would build a 
music materials collection which would 
have all the aforementioned failings of 
the standard list itself. Furthermore, ev-
ery university music department is 
unique in terms of curriculum directions 

and faculty qualifications and interest in 
various subject areas within the field of 
music. These unique features create 
variations in the needs and content of 
each music collection which defy stan-
dardization. 

If, however, a standard list is taken 
as a comparative minimum guide to 
building a music collection, it can be of 
son1e use in building that collection. 
Thus, an "ideal" minimum music n1a-
terials budget, derived from comparison 
with the clientele served and music ma-
terials budgets of other university librar-
ies which serve universities of similar 
FTE enrollments, could be used as a 
guide to the validity of music materials 
budget recommendations. 

This study has provided three such 
tentative models for use in evaluating 
the adequacy of music materials budg-
ets. These models are based on a sample 
of the university libraries which contain 
music collections. Further studies are 
necessary to build more dependable 
models. 

These three models can be defined in 
two ways: ( 1) by using the mean and 
median music materials budgets of each 
enrollment group as comparative guides 
to the minimum effective materials budg-
et needed for libraries in universities in 
that group; and ( 2) by using the mean 
and median university library expendi-
tures per music major as comparative 
guides to the minimum effective library 
expenditure per music major necessary 
to support the primary users of those 
materials. 

Using the data from this study, the 
three models are: 

For libraries in Group I universities-
Minimum annual music materials budg-
et: $6,000 (median) to $6,094 (mean); 
music major enrollment: 274 students 
(median) to 263 students (mean); min-
imum annual library expenditures per 
music major: $28 (median) to $41 
(mean). 



A Minimum Music Materials Budget I 115 

For libraries in Group II universities-
Minimum annual music materials budg-
et: $13,000 (median) to $13,361 (mean); 
music major enrollment: 310 students 
(median) to 327 students (mean); mini-
mum annual library expenditures per 
music major: $31 (median) to $48 
(mean). 

For libraries in Group III universities 
-Minimum annual music materials 
budget: $14,250 (median) to $17,123 
(mean); music major enrollment: 495 
students (median) to 510 students 
(mean); minimum annual library ex-
penditures per music major: $24 (me-
dian) to $31 (mean). 

CoNcLusroNs 

A Minimum Annual Library Expendi-
ture for Music Materials 

The closely corresponding mean and 
median data from this study suggest that 
libraries in universities with enrollments 
under 15,000 students (Group I) 
should spend no less than $6,000 an-
nually for music materials to support an 
ongoing music curriculum. A new mu-
sic program would of course require a 
larger initial expenditure. Multiplying 
the median number of music majors en-
rolled in Group I ( 27 4) by the median 
expenditure per music major ( $28), a 
higher annual music materials budget 
for this group of $7,765 is achieved. If 
one multiplies the mean number of mu-
sic majors enrolled in Group I univer-
sities ( 263 ) by the mean expenditure 
per music major ( $41), a still higher 
annual music materials budget of $10,-
728 is derived for the group. 

The closely corresponding mean and 
median data from this study for libraries 
in universities with enrollments of 15,000 
to 25,000 students (Group II) suggest a 
minimum annual music materials budg-
et of $13,000. However, multiplying the 
median number of music majors en-

rolled in Group II ( 310) by the median 
expenditure per music major for this 
group ( $31 ) yields a lower figure of 
$9,687 for the minimum. annual music 
materials budget for this group. Multi-
plying the mean number of music ma-
jors enrolled in Group II universities 
( 327) by the mean expenditure per mu-
sic major for this group ( $48) yields a 
higher figure of $15,684 for the minimum 
annual music materials budget. In this 
group the $13,000 figure derived from 
the data is a middle figure rather than 
the lowest of the three possible as in 
Group I. 

The mean and median figures on music 
materials budgets of libraries in univer-
sities with enrollments over, 25,000 do 
not closely correspond as in the Group 
I and Group II models. The median 
budget ( $14,250) is almost $3,000 less 
than the mean ( $17,123). Multiplying 
the median number of music majors en-
rolled in Group III ( 495) by the median 
library expenditure per music major 
( $24) yields an even smaller figure of 
$12,088. Applying the same procedure 
using mean data ( 510 music majors 
times $31 per music major) yields 
$15,713. It appears that a larger, more 
representative sample is needed in or-
der to obtain a more stable model for 
Group III universities. 

The Relationship of Subiect M aior En-
rollment to Library Expenditures for 
Subject Materials 

Accrediting agencies for the various 
academic subject areas take into con-
sideration the holdings of the library and 
the funds to be spent by the library in 
continued support of that subject area. 
However, comparison of the 1969-70 li-
brary music material expenditures and 
university music major enrollments with 
the models derived from our study sug-
gests that some music departments in 
universities are overenrolled in relation 
to the amount of supportive funds which 



116 I College & Research Libraries • March 1971 

TABLE 3 

1969-70 UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ExPENDITURES PER Music MAJOR 

School 
Average Budget for 

Music Materials 

Enrollments under 15,000 

D $ 5,000 

c 2,300 

E 7,000 

F 7.000 

G 3,581 

I 53.000 

J 9,175 

L 11,000 

M 3,500 

Enrollments of 15,000 to 25,000 
0 $ 6,292 

p 13,000 

FTE Music 
Majors 

undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 

undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 
undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 

Library Expenditure 
per Music Major 

129 
122 
73 

324 $ 15.43 
25 
11 
7 

43 $ 53.49 
485 

20 
0 

505 $ 13.86 
199 
40 

8 

247 $ 28.34 
140 
35 

0 

175 $ 20.46 
400 
150 
50 

600 $ 88.33 
128 

27 
0 

155 $ 65.65 
48 
40 
36 

124 $ 88.71 
300 

10 
0 

310 $ 11.29 

246 
64 
0 

310 $ 20.30 
450 
300 (master's + doctoral ) 

750 $ 17.33 



A Minimum Music Materials Budget I 117 

TABLE 3 (Continued) 

Average Budget for FTE Music Library Expenditure 
School Music Materials Majors per Music Major 

R 21,620 undergraduate 185 
master's 37 
doctoral 6 

Total 228 $ 94.82 
s 29,800 undergraduate 48 

master's 43 (master's + doctoral) 
doctoral 

Total 91 $327.47 
T 4,250 undergraduate 300 

master's 30 
doctoral 0 

Total 330 $ 12.88 
u 6,452 undergraduate 249 

master's 40 
doctoral 21 

Total 310 $ 20.81 
w 5,600 undergraduate 291 

master's 54 
doctoral 0 

Total 345 $ 13.33 
X 25,000 undergraduate 90 

master's 60 
doctoral 20 

Total 170 $147.06 
y 21,500 undergraduate 950 (Includes master's + 

master's doctoral students ) 
doctoral 

Total 950 $ 22.63 
z 20,300 undergraduate 195 

master's 20 
doctoral 0 

Total 215 $ 94.42 
AA 23,400 undergraduate 345 

master's 202 (master's + doctoral) 
doctoral 

Total 547 $ 42.78 
BB 2,500 undergraduate 30 

master's 25 
doctoral 25 

Total 80 $ 31.25 
cc 15,000 undergraduate 200 

master's 25 
doctoral 12 

Total 237 $ 63.29 
EE 5,500 undergraduate 287 

master's 75 
doctoral 12 

Total 374 $ 14.71 



118 I College & Research Libraries • March 1971 

TABLE 3 ( Continued) 

Average Budget for FTE Music Library Expenditure 
School Music Materials Majors per Music Major 

FF 14,000 undergraduate 332 
master's 12 
doctoral 0 

Total 344 $ 40.70 
Enrollments over 25,000 

GG $37,000 undergraduate 241 
master's 49 
doctoral 0 

Total 290 $127.59 

HH 26,000 undergraduate 345 
master's 83 
doctoral 39 

Total 467 $ 55.67 

II 11,000 undergraduate 318 
master's 67 ' 
doctoral 43 

Total 428 $ 25.70 

JJ 32,000 undergraduate 400 
master's 250 (master's + doctoral) 
doctoral 

Total 650 $ 49.23 

KK 24,000 undergraduate 1,002 
master's 230 
doctoral 240 

Total 1,472 $ 16.30 

MM 5,900 undergraduate 410 
master's 61 
doctoral 38 

Total 509 $ 11.59 

LL 17,213 undergraduate 600 
master's llO 
doctoral 90 

Total 800 $ 21.52 

00 10,500 undergraduate 350 
master's 80 
doctoral 0 

Total 430 $ 24.42 

QQ 9,600 undergraduate 320 
master's ll1 
doctoral 64 

Total 495 $ 19.39 



A Minimum Music Materials Budget I 119 

TABLE 3 ( Continued) 

School 

ss 

TT 

Average Budget for 
Music Materials 

14,250 

9,550 

FTE Music 
Majors 

undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 

undergraduate 
master's 
doctoral 

Total 

Library Expenditure 
per Music Major 

189 
70 
51 

310 $ 45.97 

500 ( Includes master's + 
doctoral students ) 

500 $ 19.10 

Analysis: Enrollments under 15,000-Nine libraries responding to the appropriate questions. 
Omitting high and low exp enditure per music major, mean library expenditure per music major 
equals $40.79. 

Enrollments of 15,000 to 25,000-Fifteen libraries responding to the appropriate questions. Omit-
ting high and low expenditures per music major, mean library expenditure per music major equals 
$47.96. 

Enrollments over 25,000: Eleven libraries responding to the appropriate questions. Omitting high 
and low expenditure per music major, mean library expenditure per music major equals $30.81. 
Overall Analysis-35 academic libraries out of 98 receiving questionnaires responded to the ap-
propriate questions. Overall average library expenditure per music major equals $36.33. 

their library is receiving for music ma-
terials. Fifteen of the thirty-five academ-
ic libraries responding to the appropriate 
questions can be cited as examples. Four 
Group I libraries, six Group II libraries, 
and five Group III libraries fall into this 
category. Fourteen of the fifteen libraries 
are in universities whose music depart-
ments are accredited by the National As-
sociation of Schools of Music. (For spe-
cific examples, see Table 3: libraries D, 
E, G, M, P, T, U, W, X, EE, KK, LL, 
MM, QQ, and TT.) Evidently in these 
cases accreditation by an accrediting 
agency also does not provide enough 
proof of the adequacy of library fund-
ing to a given subject area. 

The Need for Library Statistical In-
formation at the Subject Level 

The three model music materials 
budgets derived from this study repre-
sent a very small part of the necessary 
continuing statistical analysis of subject 
areas represented in total budget re-

quests of academic libraries. In the intra-
university battle for the academic dol-
lar, neither the reputation of the indi-
vidual subject specialist nor accreditation 
by accrediting agencies are any longer 
evidence enough of the need for or ade-
quacy of library materials in a given 
subject area. The comparative deriva-
tion of models is only one way in which 
to furnish another sort of supportive evi-
dence to library administrators. Another 
useful parameter of any given subject 
area's profile would be a continuing 
statistical view of use as a factor in-
fluencing the need for duplicate copies 
within a subject area. There are many 
other sources of statistical evidence 
which could help to illuminate a budg-
etary profile for subject areas in univer• 
sity libraries. More statistical knowledge 
on the part of subject specialists of their 
subject collection and increased coop-
eration between these specialists for the 
development of a large data base are 
badly needed. 



120 I College & Research Libraries • March 1971 

TABLE 4 
1969-70 RANKINGS OF UNIVERSITIES RESPONDING 

1969-70FTE 
Rank University Music Majors Rank University 

1 KK 1,472 1 I 
2 y 950 2 GG 
3 LL 800 3 JJ 
4 p 750 4 s 
5 JJ 650 5 HH 
6 I 600 6 X 
7 AA 547 7 KK 
8 MM 509 8 AA 
9 E 505 9 R 

10 TT 500 10 y 
11 QQ 495 11 z 
12 HH 467 12 LL 
13 00 430 13 cc 
14 II 428 14 ss 
15 EE 374 15 FF 
16 w 345 16 p 
17 FF 344 17 v 
18 T 330 18 L 
19 D 324 19 II 
20 0 310 20 00 
21 u 310 21 QQ 
22 ss 310 22 TT 
23 M 310 23 J 
24 GG 290 24 F 
25 F 247 25 E 
26 cc 237 26 DD 
27 R 228 27 u 
28 z 215 28 0 
29 G 175 29 MM 
30 X 170 30 w 
31 J 155 31 EE 
32 L 124 32 D 
33 s 91 33 T 
34 BB 80 34 G 
35 c 43 35 M 

36 BB 
37 A 
38 c 

REFERENCES 

1. Using the American Library Directory 
1968/69, Directory of Special Libraries 
and Information Centers ( 1968 ed.), 
Directory of Music Research Libraries, 
A Preliminary Directory of Sound Re-

1969-70 
1969-70 Library 
Music Expenditure 

Materials per 
Budget Rank University Music Major 

$53,000 1 s $327.47 
37,000 2 X 147.06 
32,000 3 GG 127.59 
29,800 4 R 94.82 
26,000 5 z 94.42 
25,000 6 L 88.71 
24,000 7 I 88.33 
23,400 8 J 65.65 
21,620 9 cc 63.29 
21,500 10 HH 55.67 
20,300 11 c 53.49 
17,213 12 JJ 49.23 
15,000 13 ss 45.97 
14,250 14 AA 42.78 

·14,000 15 FF 40.70 
13,000 16 BB 31.25 
12,000 17 F 28.34 
11,000 18 II 25.70 
11,000 19 00 24.42 
10,500 20 y 22.63 

9,600 21 LL 21.52 
9,550 22 u 20.81 
9,175 23 G 20.46 
7,000 24 0 20.30 
7,000 25 QQ 19.39 
6,500 26 TT 19.10 
6,452 27 p 17.33 
6,292 28 KK 16.30 
5,900 29 D 15.43 
5,600 30 EE 14.71 
5,500 31 E 13.86 
5,000 32 w 13.33 
4,250 33 T 12.88 
3,581 34 MM 11.59 
3,500 35 M 11.29 
2,500 
2,500 
2,300 

cording Collections in the U.S. and Can-
ada (ARSC), American Universities and 
Colleges (lOth ed.), and Opening Fall 
Enrollment in Higher Education: Part 
B-Institutional Data 1968 (U.S. Office 
of Education) as sources for addresses, 
university enrollment statistics, and li-
brary music and phonorecord holdings.