Talk:The Oxford Companion to Music

Percy Scholes
There seems to be a lot of overlap between these two articles developing... Linuxlad 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly tried to summarise the Scholes-related stuff from his own article (rather than just copying) and add more detail about how he compiled the OCM....maybe I failed! Inevitably the Scholes article must say something about his most important work and the work must say something about its author. I certainly think the balance does not look right, yet, because we do not have enough info about the later editions. Any suggestions gratefully received!! Bluewave 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I have (or rather my wife has) the New Companion so I could dig something out of the intro /dust-jacket I guess. Linuxlad
 * I've only got the tenth edition (1970) which is still mostly vintage Scholes!

Fair use rationale for Image:Ocm1983.png
Image:Ocm1983.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ocm scholes.jpg
Image:Ocm scholes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ocm latham.png
Image:Ocm latham.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ocm latham.png
Image:Ocm latham.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ocm scholes.jpg
Image:Ocm scholes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ocm1983.png
Image:Ocm1983.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The work (more or less) by Scholes
This article suggests that the work more or less by Scholes was supplanted in 1983 by the two-volume "New" one, which in turn was supplanted by the 2002 book. This isn't how I remember it at all. Rather, OUP attempted to supplant the earlier work by, or supplement it with (I forget), the two-volume work. This was not as successful in the marketplace as the one-volume work, which continued to be available (and, I'm pretty sure, to be revised as well) long after the two-volume work had disappeared from the bookstores. Anyway, I don't think that there was any longish period during which the one-volume work was unavailable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The unpopularity of the two-volume work
We read that, in certain, unspecified circles, the "New" book was unpopular on account of its bulk and price. I bought a copy and vaguely remember that it was priced rather reasonably, considering. I also vaguely remember having earlier read at least one mixed review (probably in the TLS), which was the reason why I wasn't willing to pay all that much for it. To me, it seemed (and seems) very much a first, unrevised edition of a reference book. It's not a matter of lack of polish, rather of multiple imbalances, for example with some articles on "major" composers saying a fair amount about the music itself, others saying next to nothing and instead just presenting biographies sprinkled with the titles of works.

Here and in the section immediately above, my personal impressions and memories are of course in themselves worthless (or "OR" as WP policy euphemistically phrases it), but I offer them in the hope that they'll prompt research here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I bought my wife a copy in the early 80s - she already had the one-volume work. The flysheet says c1983 reprinted 1984, which suggests a reasonable level of initial popularity. The dust jacket shows a price of 50GBP, and I got it reduced to 35GBP 'on offer'; but it never stopped being on offer as I recollect. So that rather suggets the initial price was seen as being too high. I think the rubric to the third edition can be read as suggesting that a return to a one volume format was seen as a popular move. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)