Bob Draper wrote:

>>>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.

Given the dogged determination with which you have pummeled that poor
deceased horse here in the recent past, it seemed a perfectly reasonable
assumption that you were referring to Mozart, not Nielsen as has been
proposed, when you wrote "Shush, you know who".  I know I wasn't the only
one who read this as yet another unsubstantiated claim that Mozart is
overrated.  If you have reconsidered, I withdraw my comments.

>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.

And just how do you propose we were to know this?  You certainly didn't
discuss any criteria, nor the relative perceptions of importance that
might be pertinent to such a discussion.

>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.

I believe reasonable, workable criteria exist for determining what fraction
of the limited print space in a dictionary such as Grove's should be
devoted to each composer (and each topic, for that matter).  So far I don't
see a lot of evidence you know what they are, so it's difficult to tell if
I agree or disagree with you.  I can say, based purely on what you have
written in this regard (in this thread and others) that the pot shots that
have been taken don't appear to make much progress in illuminating the
issue, at least for me.

>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.

The concept of greatness is new in this discussion.  I've addressed
importance, a criterion in which a modicum of objectivity might be brought
to bear.  As greatness tends to be completely subjective, I surely hope
that it is not a criterion for Stanley Sadie and his senior editors.

>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.

My background is also scientific, and I learned long ago the necessity of
both precision and accuracy when discussing complex issues such as this.

>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.

I believe in challenging the blind acceptance of authority so many
classical music lovers seem willing to embrace.  But what's the point
without a well thought out, thoroughly reasoned argument?

>Nowadays, though I feel some people wish to preserve the status quo at
>all costs.

It has always been so.  This certainly isn't a recent phenomenon.  Nor is
it limited to music.

>I believe it is sheer folly and dishonest to pretend that one likes
>everything and that one is entirely happy with how things are.

Who is doing this? More importantly, who has proposed this is the right
thing to do?

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

That's fine, but if you are going to really challenge - something I've seen
absolutely no evidence of - it would seem a more cogent, tightly-reasoned
argument would be more effective.

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