Re: [Harp-L] Musicology

[Pat Missin <pat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robb wrote:
> 
>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. 

No. Someone just offered an alternative opinion to yours. An opinion
that is not entirely unqualified, I might add.

>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].

Huh?

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

No it probably isn't...

>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].

I have no doubt at all about Isacoff's qualifications as a pianist and
composer. That does not automatically make him an expert on tuning (
although it does offer some reason for some of his biases). If I
recall correctly, he has said that he knew very little about
temperament until he started work on this book.

>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 is it with you and atonality? 

Of course there isn't a chapter on that topic in a book about tuning
(its title suggests that it is not simply a history of 12 tone equal
temperament, but of temperament in general). Having said that, as both
atonality and serialism are a direct result of 12TET, they are not
entirely irrelevant either.

>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.

Kyle Gann is not just a staff writer at the Village Voice. He is an
extremely knowledgeable person on the subject of tuning and musicology
(admittedly with his own personal biases); a quick Google search will
confirm this. 

The tuning list at yahoogroups likewise includes some seriously
knowledgeable people and their reaction to this book was almost
entirely negative. In what way is it irresponsible to point that out?

>[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].

Actually, in tuning circles Isacoff's book IS controversial. Saying
"Isacoff" on the tuning list has a similar effect to saying "Popper"
on harp-l.

>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?

I'm not discouraging anyone from reading this book. I merely noted
that some pinches of salt are required from time to time.

>Bias, omission and inaccuracies indeed,

Indeed.

 -- Pat.