Talk:The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Archive 1

Article title
It´s usually referred to as "the New Grove" and the full name is "The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians"(although I don´t know what the Old Grove may have been). IMO the article should be moved to "New Grove". Kosebamse 21:55 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I expect that both old and new can be discussed in the same article. Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians already has a link to it. That seems a good enough title to me... -- Oliver P. 22:03 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think "New Grove" or "Grove's dictionary" are ideal titles because they're both rather informal - like putting Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart under "Wolfie" (alright, not that bad, but you see what I mean). I don't think it much matters whether we call the article New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians or just Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians so long as one redirects to the other. I'll flip a coin and do the deed now. By the way, I've never heard the 2001 edition called the "2nd" before - it's always been the 7th. However, I see the Grove website calls it the 2nd, so I've just sort of surmised that this must be because they added the "New" when they brought out the "6th" edition (which was actually the 1st, even if nobody calls it that) and decided to start counting from scratch. Awkward buggers. --Camembert


 * PS - there's also the Grove Dictionary of Art, so a precise title is good. --Camembert

Dictionary vs. encyclopedia
Even though it calls itself a dictionary, it is really an encyclopedia (look up those two words in, um, a dictionary, or perhaps on Wikipedia.) Anyone mind if I change the first line? Antandrus (talk)  19:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind myself... silly reference works with misleading names. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents
I reorganized the 15-item list of contents of the 2001 edition, making it more readable by adding sub-categories.. but this is not the optimal solution, because e.g. "1,465 articles on styles, terms, and genres" does not include the "283 articles on concepts". However, a 15-item list just seems cumbersome. Maybe this could be put into a &lt;table&gt;. --Sesquialtera II 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV or insiders' battlefield?
I read from the article:


 * Since its publication, the online edition of the New Grove has been under the editorship of Dr Laura W. Macy. It is not clear how the enormously distinguished Sadie was replaced by an American academic who was only on the Grove staff because she had failed to get tenure at Penn State - insiders describe how he was humiliated by having to apply to come into the office after his dismissal, and they characterise his displacement as a 'coup' 

Not really the kind of thing we are used to reading on Wikipedia! What exactly is going on here? May we ask Armchair Bard and St334 whether they were employed by one or other of the Grove publishers? - Kleinzach 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled on this; the entire addition is unacceptable under our WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V policies. Prior to removing it again I'd like other opinions.  If the original author would rewrite it without the opinions, and providing verifiable references, of course that would be the ideal solution. Antandrus  (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks very much as though has been copied and pasted from Private Eye magazine, a publication devoted more to scurrilous insinuation than factual accuracy; so in addition to the above points, it's plagiarism too. Part of it is also quoted here: http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/New-Grove.wikipedia --Stephen Burnett 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that looks like one of the numerous Wikipedia mirror sites/knockoffs (look at the bottom of the page) -- they copy their content from us. Still, I agree with you about the "scurrilous insinuation" part of this.  I'm going to revert it.  Comments such as "...fraudently date-stamped..." verge on the libelous; we can't have this stuff in here.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain Old Grove
One might expect that several of the older editions cited would be public domain now as they predate the 1911 Britannica from which WP borrows generously. Were they so inconsequential that no one has bothered to transcribe them digitally? One might expect these early editions to have useful information on deceased renaissance instruments such as the buccin. Did they enter the public domain or is the copyright held in a different jurisdiction, and do copies of these works survive? I had no inkling Grove went back that far until I stumbled across a reference to the human Grove in the Schubert article. MaxEnt 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Same question. I have need to find out more about 19th century singers and composers for an article I am working on, and the first edition should have them if they are notable enough... any hints on where to find an online PD version? Google Books? This query came up empty, looks like to me... ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is one PD version: http://books.google.com/books?id=kQo6AAAAIAAJ --Iamunknown 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

HUH ???
Considering the fact that many (if not most) recordings are not recorded in the 44O A standard. How can one seriously assert that there is a difference between passive and aggressive absolute pitch ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randy Bugger (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Citing Grove
Citing Grove (a reference for editors):
 * Template:GroveOnline - Grove Music Online
 * Template:NewGrove2001 - New Grove, 2nd ed., 2001
 * Template:NewGrove1980 - New Grove, 1st ed., 1980
 * Template:NewGroveJazz2002 - New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, 2nd ed., 2002

"Army of graduate students"
That "an army of graduate students" was hired to do the final editing was never denied by the editors. As amatter of fact John Tyrrell in an interview published by The Independent on 30 November 2000 openly admitted this procedure. (See ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suessmayr (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 December 2007

Wikisource Proofread of the Month (July 2009)
Wikisource has four volume's of George Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians. For July it is our proofread of the month. If there is anyone who would like to help us on this task, please feel welcome to come on over and wikify. Assistance and advice available. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)