Ditto ! Thanks David for making things clear. Nevertheless, I still maintain, even though I encourage all forms of studies on 17th century lute music, that 112 p. for 52,49 euros is not a fair price, especially when you consider Rave's thesis (Some Manuscripts of French Lute Music 1630-1700: An Introductory Study) is available from ProQuest at 42 dollars ( = less than 32 euros) for 459 pages of rather solid university work... Photocopies would have been a lot cheaper, or a downloadable pdf file for that matter. I would not complain if the content was satisfactory, which it is not. Maybe "publishers should be rewarded for publishing these books", but they should also be better advised before making such choices.
Jean-Marie ================================= == En réponse au message du 18-12-2010, 22:03:43 == >On 18 December 2010 20:42, Jean-Marie Poirier <jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> I must confess I am very disappointed. This little book is much too >> expensive for what it is... > >I think price should not be considered in judgement; if it's good, any >price is fine. The fact that a book, any book, on 1650-1700 Baroque >lute music is written is laudable. That a publisher is willing to >publish it is even more laudable. I am willing to pay just in the hope >that more writers and publishers might consider writing and publishing >more. So I paid the price and bought the book (Amazon in Germany had >it cheaper than advertised on this list). Jean-Marie writes he is >'very disappointed'. I think he is being extremely polite. Original >sources are quoted from secondary sources (modern writer X writes that >17th century writer Y wrote that ...), incomplete listings of things >anybody who would be interested in buying the book in the first place >knows already, pop-guitar terminology for French Baroque ornamentation >(that was a lark, actually), no original insights or theories, guide >lines on how to play Baroque lute music on an 11-string guitar ... >need I go on? I didn't complain about the less than perfect English >which indeed at times is obfuscating the point (is there a point) the >writer is making. I am not a native speaker and I know my English is >far from perfect, this e-mail being a good example, but still, in a >publication like this pretens to be ... > >Having said all this, I still think any writers should be encouraged >to write on 1650-1700 Baroque lute music, and publishers should be >rewarded for publishing these books. But, only if these books have >some real content. It's a pity this one misses the mark. Widely. > >David > > >-- >******************************* >David van Ooijen >davidvanooi...@gmail.com >www.davidvanooijen.nl >******************************* > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html ========================================
