![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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 <table>. -- Sesquialtera II 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I read from the article:
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)
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)
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 (a reference for editors):
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 [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suessmayr ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 December 2007
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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 <table>. -- Sesquialtera II 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I read from the article:
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)
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)
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 (a reference for editors):
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 [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suessmayr ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 December 2007
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)