Robin Newton responds to me:

>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.
>
>But I think it is reasonable that Bob should expect Grove to reflect his
>preferences.

Given the horror stories I've heard concerning the current academic
environment, perhaps this is how scholarly undertakings are conducted in
this post-PC age, but it certainly makes no sense in the context of a
serious investigation and documentation of music and music history.

>He is, after all, on of those millions, and Grove exists
>precisely for people like him.

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.

>If we were to be inundated with letters saying we should devote less space
>to Mozart, then we would seriously consider such a view.

Please take this up with Sadie and his senior staff and report back.  If
this is true, then the New Grove no longer has even a veneer of integrity
as far as I am concerned.  I don't think that for a moment, and I strongly
believe you are seriously mistaken in addition to being misinformed
concerning what processes are involved in putting together something like
the New Grove.  This is Grove's Dictionary, after all, and not People
magazine.  We're not voting for the sexiest composer alive or any other
fad-driven silliness.

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.

We can all see this is utter nonsense.  In fact, no editor of a scholarly
undertaking of the scope of Grove's could possibly operate effectively
under such circumstances.  This sort of input simply cannot, and should
not, even be considered.

>As it is, most people don't comment for one reason or another.

So now the minority (if most people are silent this implies that only a
vocal minority is making their preferences known) should have input because
they are potential readers (not even potential buyers in most cases)?

>Bob's view deserves respect - as it is, Grove cannot reflect his
>particular view, but that doesn't make it invalid.

Bob's views, when voiced publicly, deserve critical attention.  If found
wanting, we do no one any good, and actually show considerable disrespect,
by not seriously questioning the validity of his views in a larger context.

>Bob's alternative is that Wagenseil has more space in Grove, and Mozart
>has less.  He doesn't deserve to be derided for holding a particular view.

See above.  Bottom line: if you put it out there for all the world to see,
expect to be called on it.

>Logic wasn't even an issue...

In neither this nor the previous message, as I have come to realize.

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