Re: [Harp-L] Musicology

[Pat Missin <pat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robb wrote:
 
>Missin:
>
><I'm not discouraging anyone from reading this book.
><I merely noted that some pinches of salt are
><required from time to time.
>
>Merely? I don't wanna bulldog you but saying a book is
>~full of bias, serious omissions and historical
>inaccuracies~ IS a discouragement.

It is a caution. The book is a very entertaining read, but I'd hate to
think that it might be taken as the last word on the subject. I
wouldn't dream of telling one that they shouldn't read this book.

>Synopsis: Someone wanted to know why music is set up
>the way it is. I suggested a book I love as a starting
>place [~Temperament~, Isacoff]. Pat Missin said the
>book is ~~ full of bias, serious omissions and
>>historical inaccuracy~~ . I asked for ANY example of
>bias or errors. He, thus far, has declined to supply
>any.

Yes - for several reasons.

1 - you seem to be taking this very personally.
2 - this isn't really the forum for it. (However, I'm sure the folks
at http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/ would be happy to
debate with you.)
3 - and most importantly, I don't have a copy of the book in front of
me at the moment. I borrowed a copy from the library when I lived in
Baltimore. I now live in the middle of nowhere and my local library
has about three dozen books. "Temperament" probably isn't one of them.

If you really want a detailed list of grievances with the book, you
could search the tuning list archives. Here is a good starting point:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/35560

>A great book, btw. [As Van Cliburn, Andre Watts and
>Charles Rosen, New York Times, Charlie Rose affirm].

You dismiss the opinion of the Village Voice, but praise that of the
NY Times? Interesting. And much as I enjoy Charlie Rose's TV show, I
wasn't aware that he was an expert on the subject of tuning and
temperament.

>PS: Don't try to pull any booogie wooogie on the king
>of pen and ink.

Erm, OK.

 -- Pat.