I wrote:

>>I haven't seen this edition but I wonder how much space Wagenseil gets with
>>his massive output.
>>
>>I think we can all guess who gets most space without even looking.  Shush,
>>you know who.

Dave Lampson replies:

>Are you seriously proposing that Wagenseil, as talented and prolific as he
>was, rates the same scope of coverage in a general reference work as Mozart?

Not at all.

>>And, of course to the average reader there's an implicit message in the
>>amount of space allocated ie the greatest get most.
>
>Indeed there is.  By any measure, Mozart had and continues to have a
>far wider and more powerful influence than dozens of Wagenseils.  To
>give them equal coverage in Grove's would be tantamount to malpractice. ...
>
>...  But it's ludicrous to advance that ones personal preferences should
>take precedence in the Newest Grove (or any other serious reference of
>its type) over the collected musical experience of millions.

Let me answer this altogether.....

Robin Newton's original statement was:

>>>"As for Nielsen, I'm afraid the article is not as big you or I would
>>>like.  I'm not entirely sure why, but he's got around 3000 words plus full
>>>work-list and bibliography.  Personally I feel that he and Sibelius should
>>>get around the same, but its not the case.  Its actually a truly bizarre
>>>activity trying to work out how many words a particular figure 'deserves'.
>>>Our criteria are far from concrete, but I don't see how they can be any
>>>other way."

The aim of my posting was to demonstrate that there are in fact criteria
that are applied and the main one of them is the perceived importance of
a particular composer.  I believe that your statement above shows that you
agree that such a criterion exists and further that it is right and proper
that it should do.

That is fair enough but let's be open about it.

Of course I am not suggesting that Wagenseil should get as much space as
music's greats including Mozart.  Once again he is just an example used to
illustrate the point above.

>Have you checked the article in the New Grove concerning Wagenseil? It's
>actually fairly respectable with a reasonably detailed works list and
>extensive bibliography.  It probably could and should be expanded, but
>it's not as if he's ignored (which would be ridiculous if it were true -
>Wagenseil was a major player in the early development of the symphony).

I intend to make a trip to my library later today to do this. It
won't be the latest New Grove though.

>>Challenging Music's Paradigms
>
>In my experience those who would challenge paradigms without proposing
>workable alternatives are invariably tilting at windmills.  I seriously
>doubt that a successfully or effective challenge to any paradigm will arise
>with this quality of logic.

I think that the excellence of the logic is illustrated by the fact that
you appear to agree with me that a criterion of greatness is applied in
deciding article size in the New Grove.

However, there does appear to be a problem when I make these statements
that I am not explicit enough for some people.  My background is scientific
and perhaps there is a definate difference in the way my mind works from
that of the average musician on the list.

Also, I find it tedious to write/read long drawnout explanations of a
theory/idea.  I will, however, endevour to be far more explicit and
thorough in future.

I am trying to avoid getting involved in further fruitless discussion on
Mozart (But somehow I keep getting sucked into it).  But, it is definately
useful and healthy to challenge some of the accepted ideas of music.  In
fact some members have written to me saying that they find it interesting.
Indeed, there is an excellent, challenging discussion going on right now
about market forces in music under the "Norman Lebrecht" thread.

It seems to me that until recently a continuous evaluation of our music
heritage was taking place as witnessed by the rehabilitation of Mozart,
himself and Haydn in the last 60 years.

Nowadays, though I feel some people wish to preserve the status quo at
all costs.  This is not what I'm about.  My mind doesn't work that way.
I believe it is sheer folly and dishonest to pretend that one likes
everything and that one is entirely happy with how things are.

The status quo is there to be challanged and the greats are there to be
questioned if they are truly great they will survive.

Bob Draper
Still in challenging mode
[log in to unmask]