Many of you may find it useful to know that a discussion has arisen on the
IAML UK network concerning serious shortcomings in articles recently
published in New Grove II. A growing number of contributors are making
known their dissatisfaction with the editing process, and their dismay at
the degree of errors which has occurred in the published version - both
electronic and hard copy.

Because of its particular relevance here, I am forwarding a copy of a
recent message from Pam Thompson. You may wish to contact her directly for
a corrected version of her contribution on Czech and Slovak music libraries.

My own experience of writing a long piece on Celtic Chant was also
disappointing, as several errors (some not even in the 1st proofs) have
appeared in the publication. Although this topic may be rather marginal to
the interests of this network, I should be pleased to correspond privately
with anyone who may wish to have the details.

Furthermore, any other contributors of New Grove articles in the regions of
concern to us who may have similar misgivings are invited to discuss their
experiences here. The more such information is consolidated the easier it
will be, not only for helping colleagues and students to avoid pitfalls,
but also for making representations to Bärenreiter (who now own NG) if we
feel that more radical steps need to be taken.

Best wishes to all,

Ann Buckley

>Envelope-to: [log in to unmask]
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>Date:         Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:16:39 -0000
>Reply-To:     Pam Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender:       "A discussion group for the provision and management of
music              libraries." <[log in to unmask]>
>From:         Pam Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Re: New Grove II
>Comments: To: Ann Buckley <[log in to unmask]>
>To:           [log in to unmask]
>
>I had intended to maintain a fairly dignified silence on this subject until
>I heard from Grove about the articles in which I was involved. As they have
>not even acknowledged my letter of weeks ago, I feel justified in emerging
>as another aggrieved contributor. Despite being checked by more than one
>person right up to the final edit, the articles on Czech and Slovak music
>libraries in the appendix volume are full of spelling errors, so many that
>many place names are simply not guessable. Very often the vowels with
>diacritics have mutated into other vowels. It seems that something in the
>computer programme simply corrupted the text. If I hear no more from Grove,
>with an offer of errata slips or reprint, I shall prepare a corrected
>version and make it available. Otherwise, it is simply unfair to all those
>in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (and me) who put in so much unpaid
>effort.
>
>That apart, it appears that the contents of Volume 28 (at least) are not yet
>in the online version. Are we paying for the whole thing online or not? And
>the diacritics in some of the search programmes are simply hopelessly
>displayed. Again, I've had no answers to questions on these topics.
>
>I agree on Stravinsky. More vandalism occurs on Stravinsky than any other
>composer! Sad but true.
>Pam
>
>Pamela Thompson, Chief Librarian
>Royal College of Music
>Prince Consort Road
>London SW7 2BS, UK
>
>Tel. +44 207 591 4323; Fax. +44 207 589 7740
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ann Buckley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 26 February 2001 12:26
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: New Grove II
>
>
>Dear Claire Marsh, Adrian Yardley and others,
>
>I am sorry to hear about the Stravinsky article, but I have indeed I
>wondered how long it might take for this topic to hit the headlines.
>
>NG II has gone to press with many unsatisfied contributors, owing to a
>last-minute rush to publish in spite of lack of consultation, poor editing,
>etc. Added to that was the constant changeover of staff and one never knew
>who was going to respond to queries from concerned authors asking for
>proofs and reassurance about their corrections.
>
>I know of several authors who were not sent second proofs even where these
>had been promised; and as a result, both errors which had been corrected
>first time round, as well as completely new errors, have  appeared in the
>final publication. It just isn't good enough.
>
>In one case, having seen the electronic version, an author appealed for
>correction to the hard copy before it reached the bookshops. But this was
>refused on the grounds that the volume had already been bound. It might be
>worthwhile if people on the IAML website could report from time to time on
>their own findings, and on comments from others. It is likely that more
>than a few volumes should be taken apart, corrected, and rebound before too
>many people feel aggrieved.
>
>Ann Buckley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 09:16 AM 2/26/01 -0000, Marsh, Claire wrote:
>>How do people feel about the Stravinsky insert into New Grove II?
>>Personally, I feel that the whole volume should be replaced. The Stravinsky
>>article is probably the one most used by our students, and the errata page
>>is unlikely to last very long unless we pay for the volume to be rebound.
>>
>>I would welcome other people's views on this matter
>>
>>Claire Marsh
>>Leeds College of Music
>>
>Dr Ann Buckley
>Darwin College
>Cambridge CB3 9EU
>England
>
>Tel./Fax 40299 (University Network)
>
>Tel.+44-1223-360938 (direct line)
>Fax +44-1223-740299 (direct line)
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>