in defense of isacoff

since the *unanimous* opinion here seems to be that this book is deeply flawed and has few redeeming qualities, i'll take the devil's advocate position and say it's a great book.

let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band together and prove me wrong!

In a message dated 2/28/02 5:15:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band together and prove me
> wrong!
>

Paul, I hope you are kidding. Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/28/02 5:15:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band together and
prove me
> > wrong!
> >
>
> Paul, I hope you are kidding. Johnny Reinhard

why? it would be best to have all the factual errors compiled in one
place, wouldn't it?

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:21 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: in defense of isacoff
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 2/28/02 5:15:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > paul@s... writes:
> >
> >
> > > let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band
> > > together and prove me wrong!
> > >
> >
> > Paul, I hope you are kidding. Johnny Reinhard
>
> why? it would be best to have all the factual errors compiled in one
> place, wouldn't it?

i totally agree with you on this, paul.

ever since Gene mentioned loads of errors by page 3,
i've wanted to see the complete list. i think, since
this book seems to be becoming rather popular (considering
the niche-market subject), it would be good to have all
the mistakes gathered in one place.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35032.html#35032

> since the *unanimous* opinion here seems to be that this book is
deeply flawed and has few redeeming qualities, i'll take the devil's
advocate position and say it's a great book.
>
> let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band together and
prove me wrong!

***Well, this is pretty funny, Paul! This is as fun a game as any...

Well, I just started the book today. I read page one. It reads so
far like an essay by somebody's high school piano teacher. I think
it's going to be an *incredibly* stupid book, but let me get to page
*two* which I will do tomorrow...

jp

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

> let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band together and prove me wrong!

You end up with a lot of trivia about off-topic things in that way.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
>
> > let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band together and
prove me wrong!
>
> You end up with a lot of trivia about off-topic things in that way.

there wasn't even one factual error in this post, gene. come on,
won't you please help out here?

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> ever since Gene mentioned loads of errors by page 3,
> i've wanted to see the complete list.

Actually, I said it started on page 3. I have problems with a lot of stuff that is really incidental to music. For instance on page 4 he implies that Chu Yai-Tsu attributed 12-et to Huai Nan Tzu as a response to the controversy between Zarlino and Vincenzo Galilei, though of course he knows that isn't so. He probably also knows that Mersenne was not, in fact, Descartes most trusted advisor on math and physics, though he says so on page 5. This kind of sloppiness annoys me; to other people it is nit-picking. On page 5 also he exaggerates the significance of Torricelli's experiments on air pressure, but how do you make that sort of complaint anything but a nit?

He characterizes the situation with keyboard instruments on page 5 in a tendentious and exaggerated way, by calling composers "prisoners" of the "tortuous practicalities" of temperaments which ranged from "magical, uncorrupted sweetness" to "earsplitting clashes". A tuning theorist is portrayed as a hidebound traditionalist because he didn't adopt equal temperament in 1643, even though Torricelli was proving that air pressure is caused by the weight of air *at the very same time*.

All of this had me annoyed by page 5, and to my mind it is like a popular science book of the less desirable kind, which can't quite get the details right and is always on the lookout for sensationalism and exaggeration. However, most people will not be as put off as me by items such as his confusion of the Pythagorean comma question with irrational numbers, or his suggestion that Pythagoras was surprised to discover that 2^19 did not, in fact, equal 3^12, as expected. If you leave off all the errors of an extra-musical kind, you certainly cut down on the list.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35032.html#35045

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > ever since Gene mentioned loads of errors by page 3,
> > i've wanted to see the complete list.
>
> Actually, I said it started on page 3. I have problems with a lot
of stuff that is really incidental to music. For instance on page 4
he implies that Chu Yai-Tsu attributed 12-et to Huai Nan Tzu as a
response to the controversy between Zarlino and Vincenzo Galilei,
though of course he knows that isn't so. He probably also knows that
Mersenne was not, in fact, Descartes most trusted advisor on math and
physics, though he says so on page 5. This kind of sloppiness annoys
me; to other people it is nit-picking. On page 5 also he exaggerates
the significance of Torricelli's experiments on air pressure, but how
do you make that sort of complaint anything but a nit?
>
> He characterizes the situation with keyboard instruments on page 5
in a tendentious and exaggerated way, by calling
composers "prisoners" of the "tortuous practicalities" of
temperaments which ranged from "magical, uncorrupted sweetness"
to "earsplitting clashes". A tuning theorist is portrayed as a
hidebound traditionalist because he didn't adopt equal temperament in
1643, even though Torricelli was proving that air pressure is caused
by the weight of air *at the very same time*.
>
> All of this had me annoyed by page 5, and to my mind it is like a
popular science book of the less desirable kind, which can't quite
get the details right and is always on the lookout for sensationalism
and exaggeration. However, most people will not be as put off as me
by items such as his confusion of the Pythagorean comma question with
irrational numbers, or his suggestion that Pythagoras was surprised
to discover that 2^19 did not, in fact, equal 3^12, as expected. If
you leave off all the errors of an extra-musical kind, you certainly
cut down on the list.

***Hi Gene!

Well, maybe the *tuning* errors can go on *this* list and the non-
tuning errors could be explained on *MetaTuning* ??

That is, if they're really interesting enough for commentary.
Actually, I found the ones you mention above to be quite
interesting...

jp

>since the *unanimous* opinion here seems to be that this book is deeply
>flawed and has few redeeming qualities, i'll take the devil's advocate
>position and say it's a great book.

I haven't seen anybody besides Gene say they've got the book.

Do you have the book?

>let's have the specific factual errors, folks. band together and prove
>me wrong!

Well, as you (I think) pointed out, for one we don't want to go buying
all those copies.

For two, my degree of trust in Gene is high, and my degree of trust
in Isacoff is low, since I read a column about temperament in his
magazine (while standing in the book store) some years back, which was
_nothing but_ factual errors.

For three, I don't particularly care about his errors. If I had to
keep a list of all the errors in books on musical tuing, I wouldn't
get anything done. Actually, just collecting all the correct statements
about tuning is quite a chore!

-Carl

Isacoff is not worth the effort of this list. Marvel comic books are more
accurate. My suggestion is to choose a different area to focus upon. Any
further focus on this book may give more credence to it than desired. Let it
just go away. T

Johnny Reinhard (really thinking it is beneath the List to sift through
Isacoff's machinations)

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35032.html#35065

> >since the *unanimous* opinion here seems to be that this book is
deeply flawed and has few redeeming qualities, i'll take the devil's
advocate position and say it's a great book.
>
> I haven't seen anybody besides Gene say they've got the book.
>
> Do you have the book?
>

***Whoops. I bought one.

Shamefully,

jp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>

> >since the *unanimous* opinion here seems to be that this book is deeply
> >flawed and has few redeeming qualities, i'll take the devil's advocate
> >position and say it's a great book.
>
> I haven't seen anybody besides Gene say they've got the book.

I have a copy. Not very impressed with it.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Whoops. I bought one.

Good one, Joe: money you could have put towards upgrading your audio
recording software!?!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35032.html#35099

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > ***Whoops. I bought one.
>
> Good one, Joe: money you could have put towards upgrading your
audio
> recording software!?!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***You're right, Jon... I could have purchased another MIDI cable...

jp