On 14 Nov 2008 at 6:04, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2008 at 8:28, dc wrote: > > > > [quoting http://www.minkoff-editions.com/musique_musicologie/pages/i- > > j.htm] > > > >> this collection assembles > >> in handy volumes, unencumbered by superfluous notes or de luxe > >> presentation, > > > > I'm always suspicious of people who are suspicous of "notes". Notes > > tell us things that we need to know and are usually not superfluous, > > except to those who want to remain unencumbered by facts. > > > > Cf. "Urtext." > > > > That's a huge assumption you're making, David.
Well, I'm making it in response to a sentence that is written in a way that betrays a clear agenda *against* something (though it's at least arguably ambiguous whether it's against bad notes or against any notes at all). > Not all > notes tell us things we need to know. I've seen notes > accompanying images say things like "The flute player is > leering a the lovely young maiden dancing nearby." Which is > obvious to anybody who is over the age of 5 and is certainly > a superfluous note, added only to show that some original > content was included in an otherwise uncopyrightable collection. I don't know that what you say is true, even with the example you're given. "Leering" could be something that is not obvious to a modern viewer, if, for instance, an image partakes of certain conventional tropes in depicting the expression. The writer of the notes might in that case be pinning down the expression based on information about what tradition the image is a part of. Of course there can be "useless" notes that just recapitulate what's obvious to the viewer. But I read the Minkoff notice as being an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- they've got this publication they are trying to sell and it lacks any notes, so they make that into a virtue rather than a drawback. > Scholarly notes which don't simply describe the content are > certainly worthwhile and welcome by most people, but don't > assume that all notes are scholarly notes. > > Your assumption that all notes are scholarly notes is as bad > as the assumption you are jumping on, which seems to imply > that all notes are superfluous. I'm reading what seems to me to be a very clear subtext. I also know something of the kind of facsimiles this particular publisher produces and they tend to be less scholarly than many others. This is not to say that Minkoff is not an essential publisher, just that they don't apply the same standards of scholarship that other music facsimile publishers do. If I had to trade their non-scholarly publications for none at all, I'd definitely take the publications. But I also wish they didn't veer so close to the edge of dilettantism. > However, the statement didn't say there were no notes at > all, just that there are no superfluous notes. If there were actual notes, I think they would have been described positively, with words like "concise" and "on point" and some such. But you could be right, I guess. > And notes often contain opinion, not facts, so your final > statement about people "who want to remain unencumbered by > facts" is uncalled for. There's nothing wrong with informed opinion. Everyone is against bad notes. But the text from the Minkoff website doesn't really tell you much about what's in the publication on the subject of notes, does it? That's a problem, seems to me, as you don't really *know* from the description whether or not there are any notes or not, because of the weaselly fashion in which the subject is addressed. Because of that, my guess is that it's very likely a silk purse/sow's ear situation. If it's not, then it's a case of not very competent promotional copy, since the implications in the negative direction are stronger than any positive reading. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
