Bob Draper 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.

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?

>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.
Mozart doesn't rate the greater coverage due to arbitrary commercial or
political considerations, but rather because hundreds of thousands of
professional and amateur musicians and composers have been compelled,
persuaded, and inspired by his music over the last two centuries.

Though somewhat unusual, it's perfectly reasonable for someone not to
care for Mozart's music.  It's also reasonable to like Wagenseil's music
a great deal - I certainly do.  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.

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).

>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.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/