Dave Lampson replied:

>I would contend that the New Grove does not exist for people like Bob, or
>even people like me.  We're pikers, amateurs, peripheral to the whole issue
>of scholarly research.  Ideally it exists as an authoritative source of
>information quite independent of fad or the personal preferences of
>individual readers.

But I completely disagree.  Grove doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is wholly
reflective of fashions and personal views - how can it be otherwise?  This
is exactly why Brahms started off with a paultry article and now has a vast
one.  It is exactly why we commisioned articles on gay and lesbian music,
and on the issue of gender in music, and why we argue over whether to say
BC and AD or Before Common Era and Common Era.  Our adviser for which
Bulgarian articles to include was a young pianist who rang up and offered
his services.  Many of our contributors aren't 'scholars', they are simply
people with day jobs and a particular fascination with one or other
composer.  Those who write major articles have all done extensive research,
but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't susceptible to other views or
trends.

You elaborate:

>Let's take a look at a more serious example.  Under your proposal, if
>enough people wrote in complaining that on the basis of his anti-Semitic
>writings Wagner should not be included, then the editors would be compelled
>to seriously consider honoring their wishes to expunge all mention of him
>from the dictionary.

I don't think this is a reasonable example because there are many reasons
why Wagner should be included - the quality of his music, the depth of his
influence, the novelty of his writing, the sheer force of his personality
and, of course, his immense popularity.

But, if it were clear that there was a large body of opinion who held that
Wagner's anti-semitic views were enough of a problem for them to believe he
shouldn't be included at all, then we should surely try and reflect that in
some way.

Nothing we do happens without the consent of our contributors, but if we
feel there is a particular aspect of a composer's life or music which is
either missing or too heavily emphasised, we would ask for clarification
and possible alterations.

I agree with you, in essence, that Grove tries to be a neutral source of
information and, in reality, we cannot please everyone.  But should there
be a strong body of opinion for a particular view, whether its held by
academics or laymen, we should respect it.  I don't see why representing
the view of a large majority renders Grove without integrity.

I'll ask Dr Sadie when he's next around what he thinks and tell you when
I do.  I don't think I'm mistaken or misinformed, though.  The process of
putting together Grove is extremely complicated and far less logical than
I had anticipated before beginning work here.  Perhaps the way you view
Grove is different to me, but its certainly no Bible and to assume that
it is consistently objective is simply wrong.

Robin Newton