Robin Newton explained:
>Hey, I was just providing some information I thought would be useful,
>nothing more. I don't know if going online is a good idea or not, I don't
>make the decisions - I edit, I don't manage.
>
>I mean, for heaven's sake, Grove is staggeringly expensive as it is, why
>knock what could be a cheaper and more efficient way to view the work?
>
>As for Nielsen, I'm afraid the article is not as big you or I would like.
>
>Give us positive solutions and ideas, not dismissals.
Robin, you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to criticize you or denigrate
Grooves' contents. I am anxious to get a bite at it when it goes on line.
I have become accustomed to finding things at the press of a button, rather
than the slow, more disciplined approach. However, I can't always afford
the on-line prices valuable databases start out with. I am always glad
when competition or alternative sources of revenue cause the price to fall.
Gramophone is probably the example I should have used. They apparently can
use a lot of personal information about me in exchange for the right to
rummage through their whole database free of charge. Hey, that's better
than receiving the magazine monthly. I want to know about a recording that
I'm considering, not necessarily about the new releases, many re-releases.
I was actually kind of awed commenting directly to a contributor to
Grooves. I knew whatever I said would probably get back to the publisher.
I didn't think my ideas totally negative. I thought them realistic as I do
that classical music is decline. I don't like it, but that's how it is.
The Internet has created a new environment; some of it I like, some I hate,
especially the loss of personal contact.
I think Macmillan might actually make more by opening Grooves' up to
advertisers and letting thousands more pore over its valuable pages than
making the entrance price so high that only serious researchers could
afford or justify the expense. It might also contribute to a classical
music revival, which will come sooner or later.
The Nielsen jibe was just that, a "dig" at the end, meant to elicit an "oh!
not again," "right on," a smile or a sneer.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my response.
Andrew E. Carlan <[log in to unmask]>
Standing Up For Nielsen
|