[Harp-L] Musicology

[Robb Bingham <robbingham@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robb wrote
>
>Someone asked a bunch of questions about the ~Whys~
of
>music. One of the best books I ever read on ~the
>principals behind the machine~ is ~Temperament~ by
>Stuart Isacoff. 

Pat Missin writes:

... and is full of bias, serious omissions and
historical 
inaccuracy.>>>

Pat Missin

Wow. I think I was just dismissed. Oh well. Did I
forget to kiss someone's ring again? Feels like old
times. Obviously there ain't enough room in this here
harp saloon fur another smart guy [spit over shoulder
and hit spittoon] [belly up to the bar anyway].

This isn't the place to debate whatever it is Pat
wants to debate but:

What's an example of the ~bias~? That Isacoff doesn't
automatically disregard all dead white men [~Isacoff
is only interested in the traditional wisdom from Bach
through Debussy~ bla bla bla. Village Voice]? Sorry
not all writers come up to the Village Voice standard
[but Isacoff is about as respected and qualified as
they come: ASCAP Deems Taylor Award, contributor to
Grove Musical Dictionary, editor of largest Piano
publication, accomplished composer and writer for NY
Times].

What are the serious omissions? That Atonal music
wasn't given a chapter??? It's a freaking book about
the advent of equal tuning!!!!

What are the historical inaccuracies? Every story has
to have it's borders. ~Temperament~ is not the story
of the Fijian Root Flute. The book was reviewed by
better minds than those at Village Voice and NO ONE
accused him of historical inaccuracies. It's
irresponsible to say so.

[For those just tuning in, who might think it's some
controversial book, it ain't. It is a kind of a
novelization of the historical events that occurred in
the 1700's which ~allowed~ ~Classical Music~ to come
into existence. Not everyone's cup of tea to be sure,
but a fascinating account of the somewhat arbitrary
decisions that went into giving the keyboard perfect
musical symmetry. It was a great and ponderous
happening; involving, on some level, kings, Descartes,
Popes, Issac Newton and klavier makers].

Pat adds:

<<< [some other book he liked] had fewer errors and
omissions.

Name one actual [verifiable] error. That Bach
preferred equal temperament? That's as likely as not,
and Isacoff at least BELIEVES it to be the case. That
Harry Partch and La Monte Young aren't mentioned
enough??? What possible reason could you have to
discourage young curious minds from reading this fine,
highly intelligent, historical book? 

Bias, omission and inaccuracies indeed, 
Robb


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail