Makers of the Piano, 1700-1820 by Martha Novak ClinkscaleReview by: John KosterNotes, Second Series, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Dec., 1994), pp. 569-573Published by: Music Library AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/898867 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Music Library Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews Book Reviews

or "passion plays" (p. 212), for which he wrote both play scripts and musical scores. These gospel dramas were a direct inspi- ration for the gospel musicals of Langston Hughes-beginning with "Black Nativity in 1961"-and other black-American play- wrights. While Brewster is specifically iden- tified as "Pioneer of the Sacred Pageant" (p. 247), it should be observed that Campbell also contributed literally to that genre.

Not surprisingly, the gospel music pub- lishing industry owes its genesis to some of our pioneers, beginning with Dorsey, the first one to exploit the idea of selling gospel sheet music. Two essays on Martin (by Boyer and Pearl Williams-Jones) and two on Morris (by Boyer and Reagon) docu- ment the history of gospel music publish- ing, which peaked with the establishing of the Martin and Morris Music Studio in Chicago in 1940. By the 1970s, it was "the oldest, continuously operating Black gospel music publishing firm in the nation" (p. 311), but with changing times and the deaths of many of his gospel clients, Morris had to relinquish the publishing. Until his retirement the company remained the sole black distributor for publishers of gospel music.

In the course of defining the "Roberta Martin Sound" (p. 257), the essayists com- ment on the extensive concertizing of the Roberta Martin Singers, and their lustrous recording career. Both Martin and Morris made unique contributions to the gospel sound via the keyboard: Morris, by intro- ducing the Hammond jazz organ into the gospel ensemble in 1939; and Martin, by changing the role of the piano in the gospel-chorus performance from that of merely accompanying the voices to that of providing the foundation for the singing. "Virtually every black church copied the choral style set by the Roberta Martin Sing- ers, utilizing their sheet music, recordings, and live performances" (p. 265). The "Mar- tin sound" became the classic gospel sound.

or "passion plays" (p. 212), for which he wrote both play scripts and musical scores. These gospel dramas were a direct inspi- ration for the gospel musicals of Langston Hughes-beginning with "Black Nativity in 1961"-and other black-American play- wrights. While Brewster is specifically iden- tified as "Pioneer of the Sacred Pageant" (p. 247), it should be observed that Campbell also contributed literally to that genre.

Not surprisingly, the gospel music pub- lishing industry owes its genesis to some of our pioneers, beginning with Dorsey, the first one to exploit the idea of selling gospel sheet music. Two essays on Martin (by Boyer and Pearl Williams-Jones) and two on Morris (by Boyer and Reagon) docu- ment the history of gospel music publish- ing, which peaked with the establishing of the Martin and Morris Music Studio in Chicago in 1940. By the 1970s, it was "the oldest, continuously operating Black gospel music publishing firm in the nation" (p. 311), but with changing times and the deaths of many of his gospel clients, Morris had to relinquish the publishing. Until his retirement the company remained the sole black distributor for publishers of gospel music.

In the course of defining the "Roberta Martin Sound" (p. 257), the essayists com- ment on the extensive concertizing of the Roberta Martin Singers, and their lustrous recording career. Both Martin and Morris made unique contributions to the gospel sound via the keyboard: Morris, by intro- ducing the Hammond jazz organ into the gospel ensemble in 1939; and Martin, by changing the role of the piano in the gospel-chorus performance from that of merely accompanying the voices to that of providing the foundation for the singing. "Virtually every black church copied the choral style set by the Roberta Martin Sing- ers, utilizing their sheet music, recordings, and live performances" (p. 265). The "Mar- tin sound" became the classic gospel sound.

Several of the essays explore, either for- mally or in passing, the issue of the com- mercialization of gospel, and one chapter (by Portia Maultsby) is given over entirely to consideration of the impact of gospel on the music industry. Readers who may wish to explore gospel issues further will find an extensive annotated bibliography (which includes record album notes and unpub- lished theses and dissertations), an excel- lent discography (both compiled by Lisa Pertillar Brevard), and sixty-seven photo- graphs, some of them previously unpub- lished.

In summary, there is much to be learned here about the history of gospel: the es- says provide new information on many topics and new ways of looking at old, often controversial, issues. -There are some major flaws, of which the most serious is the exclusion of John Wesley Work, III (1901-1967) from the discussion. His in- cisive, penetrating studies, particularly his "Changing Patterns in Negro Folk Songs" (Journal of American Folklore 62 [1949]: 136-44), document the origin and perfor- mance of gospel in the rural South, re- minding us that not all folk churches moved to storefronts in the inner cities.

Another shortcoming of the book is the large amount of repetitive material forced upon the reader. As the essayists discuss their topics, text is repeated from one essay to the next, reinforcing the text, to be sure, but at the same time confusing the mes- sage. There seems to be no plan of the- matic organization and little concern for how the essays relate to the overall schema.

Despite its shortcomings, this book makes a welcome contribution to the field of gos- pel research, and should be gratefully re- ceived by both laypersons and scholars.

EILEEN SOUTHERN Harvard University

Several of the essays explore, either for- mally or in passing, the issue of the com- mercialization of gospel, and one chapter (by Portia Maultsby) is given over entirely to consideration of the impact of gospel on the music industry. Readers who may wish to explore gospel issues further will find an extensive annotated bibliography (which includes record album notes and unpub- lished theses and dissertations), an excel- lent discography (both compiled by Lisa Pertillar Brevard), and sixty-seven photo- graphs, some of them previously unpub- lished.

In summary, there is much to be learned here about the history of gospel: the es- says provide new information on many topics and new ways of looking at old, often controversial, issues. -There are some major flaws, of which the most serious is the exclusion of John Wesley Work, III (1901-1967) from the discussion. His in- cisive, penetrating studies, particularly his "Changing Patterns in Negro Folk Songs" (Journal of American Folklore 62 [1949]: 136-44), document the origin and perfor- mance of gospel in the rural South, re- minding us that not all folk churches moved to storefronts in the inner cities.

Another shortcoming of the book is the large amount of repetitive material forced upon the reader. As the essayists discuss their topics, text is repeated from one essay to the next, reinforcing the text, to be sure, but at the same time confusing the mes- sage. There seems to be no plan of the- matic organization and little concern for how the essays relate to the overall schema.

Despite its shortcomings, this book makes a welcome contribution to the field of gos- pel research, and should be gratefully re- ceived by both laypersons and scholars.

EILEEN SOUTHERN Harvard University

Makers of the Piano, 1700-1820. By Martha Novak Clinkscale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. [xv, 403 p. ISBN 0-19-816323-1. $68.00.] Makers of the Piano, 1700-1820. By Martha Novak Clinkscale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. [xv, 403 p. ISBN 0-19-816323-1. $68.00.]

As the tercentenary of the piano's in- vention by Bartolomeo Cristofori draws near, historical pianos have as never before become objects of intensive attention from

As the tercentenary of the piano's in- vention by Bartolomeo Cristofori draws near, historical pianos have as never before become objects of intensive attention from

scholars, players, collectors, and makers. This resurgence parallels the revival of the historical harpsichord a generation ago, but a basic reference work analogous to

scholars, players, collectors, and makers. This resurgence parallels the revival of the historical harpsichord a generation ago, but a basic reference work analogous to

569 569

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES, December 1994

Donald H. Boalch's Makers of the Harpsi- chord and Clavichord, 1440-1480 (London: George Donald, 1956; 2d ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974) has been lacking.

Martha Novak Clinkscale's Makers of the Piano, explicitly modeled after Boalch's in- dispensable book, contains information about a large portion of the 900 makers and 4,000 pianos registered in her database Early Pianos 1720-1860. A capsule biog- raphy of each maker is followed by a list of extant pianos, including information about such details as inscriptions, case form and dimensions, keyboard compass, action, stringing, and provenance. The author's industry in compiling material from well over 300 collections through personal ob- servation and from more than 100 infor- mants and the more than 800 written sources listed in her extensive bibliography is an impressive accomplishment. Never- theless, Clinkscale's eagerly anticipated book is seriously flawed. Countless errors and inconsistencies of fact, misinterpreta- tion of sources, ill-informed speculation, significant omissions, and other lapses thoroughly compromise the serviceability of this book as a resource to be taken seriously.

It seems remarkable that such a book could fail to mention the earliest-known German, English, and French makers of hammer-action keyboard instruments. That Friedrich Ficker of Zeitz advertised such an instrument in Leipzig in 1731 is discussed by Christian Ahrens in "Zur Ge- schichte von Clavichord, Cembalo und Hammerklavier," in Cembalo und Hammer- fliugel ([Herne: Der Oberstadtdirektor, 1985], 59-60); this catalogue, but not the article nor the maker, are cited by Clink- scale (p. 347). Also absent from Makers of the Piano is Roger Plenius, active in London in the 1740s and 1750s, who, according to Charles Burney ("Harpsichord" in The Cy- clopaedia, Abraham Rees, [London: Long- man et al., 1819]) copied a piano that had been made in Rome by an English monk, Father Wood. The latter is likewise unmen- tioned by Clinkscale, as are Weltman and Dumontier, who made a combined harp- sichord-piano in Paris in the late 1750s (see Albert Cohen, Music in the French Royal Academy of Sciences: A Study in the Evolution of Musical Thought [Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1981], 56; and John Kos- ter, "Foreign Influences in Eighteenth- Century French Piano Making," Early Key- board Journal 11 [1993]: 9-10). Clinkscale mentions (pp. 24-25) the harpsichord maker Francois-Etienne Blanchet the younger only as an ancestor of Blanchets who made pianos in the nineteenth cen- tury. It has long been known, however, that Blanchet was among the earliest Parisian piano makers: a "harpsichord with ham- mers" was inventoried in his workshop in 1766 (see Frank Hubbard, Three Centuries of Harpsichord Making [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965], 293). Some of these sources might be regarded as obscure, but the Encyclopedia Britannica cannot. It, like other standard reference works, includes an article about the cele- brated cabinetmaker David Roentgen, whom Clinkscale (p. 227) mentions only as if he were an otherwise unknown collab- orator in the making of a square piano in 1785.

A few such lapses of coverage are per- haps both inevitable and excusable, even in a book claiming to include "as many details about [the makers'] lives and work as are obtainable" (p. x). Inexplicable, however, is the author's failure to include certain bio- graphical details contained in works known to her. For example, although John A. Rice's publication of the documents sur- rounding Anton Walter's appointment ("Anton Walter, Instrument Maker to Leopold II," Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 15 [1989]: 32-51) is cited in Clinkscale's bibliography, this article and important information that it contains are not mentioned in her entry about the maker (p. 311). Even more distressing is the author's apparent inability to evaluate sensibly the relative merits of sources with conflicting information. For example, after relating (p. 165) that the London maker Jacob Kirckman was born in Bischweiler, Alsace, as reported by Boalch from archival sources (2d ed., p. 84), Clinkscale neither approvingly nor disapprovingly cites an ar- ticle which contains "a suggestion that Kirckman came from Saxony." Scrutiny of this source (Eva Badura-Skoda, "Prolego- mena to a History of the Viennese Forte- piano," Israel Studies in Musicology 2 [1980]: 92), however, shows its author to offer no basis for the suggestion and, in fact, to have

570

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews

so little specialized knowledge of English instrument making that the well-known maker Burkat Shudi is called "Burkat & Shudi." Clinkscale simply should not have referred at all to this source's spurious in- formation about Kirckman's origins. In a contrasting instance, the author, following an amateurish picture book (Franz Joseph Hirt, Meisterwerke des Klavierbaus: Geschichte der Saitenklaviere von 1440 bis 1880 [Olten, Switzerland: Urs Graf, 1955], 51) of the type deplored in her introduction (p. x), reports (p. 100) that an Erard piano of 1808 has a "repetition" action, but she suppresses information from a more re- cent and presumably more reliable source (Clemens von Gleich, A Checklist of Pia- nos, Musical Instrument Collection, Haags Ge- meentemuseum [The Hague: Haags Ge- meentemuseum, 1986], 15) that the instru- ment has the standard English grand piano action.

Certain of the author's failures to resolve conflicting information are almost comical. Christopher Ganer, for example, is said (p. 113) to have been born "c. 1760" and to have come to London "about 1774" at which date he "maintained a shop." This teenage Wunderkind might have been out- done by Johann Matthaus Schmahl, who is said (p. 249) to have been born in 1734 but who made an instrument dated "1733- 1766." Americus Backers is said (p. 15) to have invented the standard English grand piano action in 1776: this is directly fol- lowed by a description of a Backers piano of 1772 with that very same action. Such lapses, at the very least, show the proof- reading and copyediting to have been re- markably careless.

As the author hints in her introduction (p. x), not all of her sources of information should be regarded as reliable. Putting aside the question of whether a database can be of any use if much of the infor- mation comes from amateur collectors, auctioneers, and nonspecialist museum workers, let us consider what Clinkscale has done with some of the best sources at her disposal. A square piano attributed to Jo- hann Joseph Jeckel is described by the highly respected scholar, Herbert Heyde (Historische Musikinstrumente des Hdndel- Hauses [Halle an der Saale: Handel-Haus, 1983], 39-40), and in a pioneering work by Konrad Sasse (Katalog zu den Sammlungen

des Hdndel-Hauses in Halle, 5. Teil, Musikin- strumentensammlung, besaitete Tasteninstru- mente [Halle an der Saale: Handel-Haus, 1965], 140-41). These are Clinkscale's only acknowledged sources of information. Sasse gives the case material as "Fichte, mit Maseranstrich (Kiefer)," i.e., spruce and pine with imitation wood-grain painting: Clinkscale says "Bird's eye pine." Heyde de- scribes the action as "Prellmechanik ohne Auslosung und Einzeldampfer," i.e., Prell- mechanik without escapement and without individual dampers: Clinkscale says "Ger- man (Prellmechanik) with single damping and no escapement." Heyde and Sasse de- scribe two effects: a batten with a textile fringe that can touch the strings for a par- tial general damping, similar to a harpsi- chord buff stop; and tongues of felt that can be interposed between the hammers and strings, that is a moderator. Both of these effects are divided into bass and tre- ble halves and are therefore controlled by a total of four handstops. Heyde further describes the four different kinds of tone that can be produced by the various com- binations of the two effects. Clinkscale fails to mention the basic two effects and their division at b/c' but lists the combinations enumerated by Heyde as if each were an effect controlled by one of the handstops. Both Sasse and Heyde are careful to ex- plain that the instrument is dated only as part of the artist's inscription on the land- scape painted on the lid. Clinkscale reports the date as if it were necessarily the date of the instrument itself. Thus, much of the information reported by Clinkscale about this instrument is incorrect or misleading. This is by no means an isolated instance of misunderstanding a foreign-language text: one could cite numerous further examples from German, Dutch, French, and Italian sources.

Not even writings in plain English are immune from misinterpretation. Howard Schott, for example, transcribes Johannes Zumpe's address on the nameboard of a square piano of 1767 as "Princess Street" and, after mentioning two earlier non- standard Zumpe pianos, states quite care- fully that it "is apparently the earliest sur- viving in the typical form that Zumpe's pianos assumed" (Victoria and Albert Mu- seum, Catalogue of Keyboard Instruments, vol. 1, Keyboard Instruments [London: Her

571

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES, December 1994

Majesty's Stationary Office, 1985], 84-85). Clinkscale comments (p. 330) that it "can- not be the earliest Zumpe, as stated" by Schott, and she gives the address in the maker's inscription as "Princes Street." Al- though Zumpe is known to have written both "Princes" and "Princess" (see Richard Maunder, "The Earliest English Square Pi- ano?," Galpin Society Journal 42 [1989]: 84), among the 35 Zumpe pianos described in Makers of the Piano it is invariably given as "Princes." In her introduction (p. x) the author admits that in "many cases ... er- rors were obvious to me, and I, perhaps audaciously, have corrected these." Many other inscriptions have been "corrected" or mistranscribed, for example, those on two square pianos made by Alpheus Babcock "for Ruth Mackey" (nos. 9 and 10 on pp. 14-15). Although I have frequently seen "for R. Mackey" on instruments made by Babcock for his financial backer Ruth Mackey, I have never seen her forename spelled out in full on Babcock's name- boards. In both instances, Clinkscale's cited sources give the name as "R. Mackey"- correctly, according to trustworthy ob- servers whom I have asked to check the instruments themselves. The numerous mistranscriptions in Makers of the Piano, whether they result from audacity or merely from carelessness, are unacceptable in a work purporting to be scholarly.

It is painfully evident, especially in the glossary, that the author has little under- standing of technical matters. Thus, for ex- ample, "check rail" (usually understood to be the Viennese equivalent of back checks, which catch the hammers after they re- bound from the strings) is equated (p. 396) with the Prelleiste, a rail that serves, in cer- tain German actions, to flip the hammers toward the strings. Clinkscale seems to re- gard anything early as necessarily rudimen- tary. Thus, for example, Johann Andreas Stein's beautifully designed actions are de- scribed (p. 401) as having an "embryonic escapement"; Cristofori is called a "tinker," (p. 80) and the action that he so brilliantly conceived is repeatedly called "primitive" (pp. 104 and 265).

The entry for a piano by Ferdinand Hof- mann is followed by the author's note that "measurements [from two different sources] differ slightly. Such minor dis- crepancies happen on occasion, even, so I

am told, when made by the same person on different days under varying weather conditions or when using different mea- suring tools" (p. 149). The naivete evident in this statement is especially shocking in a book that contains thousands of measure- ments. It is far more likely that the two sources measured different things, that, for example, one might have taken the overall length of the instrument including the pro- jecting moldings or lid (210.8 cm.) while the alternative measurement (209.2 cm.) omits those elements. The precise stan- dards of measurement used by these and other sources are never specified in Makers of the Piano. Therefore, all the measure- ments reported in this book are inherently unreliable.

A nineteenth-century Viennese maker, Joseph Angst, is said (p. 6) to have made his soundboards "not of wood, but of ox- hide, a practice followed [sic] in England from the late 18th century." There is, to be sure, one obscure English patent (no. 2160) of 1797 for soundboards of vellum or other materials, but, to my knowledge no such instruments exist. It is ludicrous for Clink- scale to have left open the implication that oxhide soundboards were extensively used in England. Of an early nineteenth-century English maker it is stated (p. 94) that "[t]he 'mouse holes' that [William Henry] Ed- wards included on his stands suggest that he also made clavichords." The author would seem to be unaware that "mouse hole" openings are almost invariably present on square pianos and that most stringed instruments have sound holes of some sort. The very suggestion that an En- glish maker, especially one so late, made clavichords, is essentially preposterous.

One standard and very useful feature of most directories like Makers of the Piano is a list of makers arranged chronologically under the cities where they worked. Thus, for example, if one wants to find out whether any known harpsichord or clavi- chord makers were active in Nuremberg in the 1760s, one can easily consult an ap- pendix in Boalch's book. Boalch managed to produce his appendix in the days of index cards, and Clinkscale could easily have generated such a supplementary list from her computerized database. The use- fulness of her book is severely limited by its absence.

572

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews Book Reviews

These have been only a small sampling of literally hundreds of shortcomings that have been found in Makers of the Piano by this and other reviewers and readers. (For further examples, see reviews by Michael Cole in the FoMRHI Quarterly 73 [October 1993]: 16-20, and Michael Latcham in Newsletter of the American Musical Instrument Society 23 [February 1994]: 5-6.) Indeed, it is astonishing that a respected academic publisher could have issued the book, which would seem to have been sent to the printer without any effective oversight from knowledgeable referees or editors.

These have been only a small sampling of literally hundreds of shortcomings that have been found in Makers of the Piano by this and other reviewers and readers. (For further examples, see reviews by Michael Cole in the FoMRHI Quarterly 73 [October 1993]: 16-20, and Michael Latcham in Newsletter of the American Musical Instrument Society 23 [February 1994]: 5-6.) Indeed, it is astonishing that a respected academic publisher could have issued the book, which would seem to have been sent to the printer without any effective oversight from knowledgeable referees or editors.

Because fundamental standards of accu- racy, objectivity, and good judgment have not been met, the entire contents must be treated with utmost suspicion. Although Makers of the Piano should not be used as a direct source of information, it is only fair to say that the book will nevertheless retain a certain limited value as an index to hun- dreds of other sources and to the location of hundreds of historical instruments.

JOHN KOSTER The Shrine to Music Museum

Because fundamental standards of accu- racy, objectivity, and good judgment have not been met, the entire contents must be treated with utmost suspicion. Although Makers of the Piano should not be used as a direct source of information, it is only fair to say that the book will nevertheless retain a certain limited value as an index to hun- dreds of other sources and to the location of hundreds of historical instruments.

JOHN KOSTER The Shrine to Music Museum

REFERENCE REFERENCE

Anthologies of Music: An Annotated Index. By Sterling E. Murray. 2nd ed. Warren, Mich.: Harmonie Park Press, 1992. [xxiii, 215 p. ISBN 0-89990- 061-5. $35.00.]

We know that when studying, writing, or lecturing about music, supporting score and audio examples illuminate what words express and express what words cannot. And those examples must be perfect in their roles, whether as entire compositions or simple excerpts: memorable, succinct to the extent that they fully deliver the illus- tration, and above all, technically and con- textually correct. But sometimes ease in selection of examples can seem inversely proportional to the volume of library re- sources at hand or to the deadline by which examples are needed, especially if one has no specific work in mind or if one's planned example is unavailable and a comparable substitute is quickly needed.

Various historical anthologies of music have been assembled over the years to meet these instructional needs. Libraries sup- porting active academic curriculums have gradually acquired them through purchase or gifts, as have faculty. The combined con- tents of these anthologies has been a sig- nificant resource, but one whose potential was realized only to the extent that indi- viduals were familiar with the array of se- lections within any anthology. Sterling G. Murray's Anthologies of Music: An Annotated Index, provides systematic access so that as a group, as well as singly, the utility of these anthologies is greatly increased.

Anthologies of Music: An Annotated Index. By Sterling E. Murray. 2nd ed. Warren, Mich.: Harmonie Park Press, 1992. [xxiii, 215 p. ISBN 0-89990- 061-5. $35.00.]

We know that when studying, writing, or lecturing about music, supporting score and audio examples illuminate what words express and express what words cannot. And those examples must be perfect in their roles, whether as entire compositions or simple excerpts: memorable, succinct to the extent that they fully deliver the illus- tration, and above all, technically and con- textually correct. But sometimes ease in selection of examples can seem inversely proportional to the volume of library re- sources at hand or to the deadline by which examples are needed, especially if one has no specific work in mind or if one's planned example is unavailable and a comparable substitute is quickly needed.

Various historical anthologies of music have been assembled over the years to meet these instructional needs. Libraries sup- porting active academic curriculums have gradually acquired them through purchase or gifts, as have faculty. The combined con- tents of these anthologies has been a sig- nificant resource, but one whose potential was realized only to the extent that indi- viduals were familiar with the array of se- lections within any anthology. Sterling G. Murray's Anthologies of Music: An Annotated Index, provides systematic access so that as a group, as well as singly, the utility of these anthologies is greatly increased.

This index is not the first published ef- fort of its kind, and readers may already be familiar with Ruth B. Hilton's An Index to Early Music in Selected Anthologies, Mu- sic Indexes and Bibliographies, 13 (Clifton, N.J.: European American Music Corp., 1978; reviewed by Susan T. Sommer in Notes 35 [1979]: 641-42). Hilton's work in- cludes two textbooks of music examples as well as seventeen volumes of anthologies dating from 1887 to 1976. Murray's index covers forty publications of score anthol- ogies and he hasn't shied away from in- cluding those in multiple editions, such as The Norton Scores. He calculates the fol- lowing totals of coverage through his in- dex: sixty-six volumes of score anthologies, six-hundred composers represented, and 4,670 music examples. These totals well ex- ceed those of the first edition of his index (Detroit: Information Coordinators, 1987), and the span of anthology publication dates that started with 1942 now runs through 1991. In terms of sheer coverage, Murray's index complements Hilton's quite well, with fewer than ten anthologies being com- mon to both. One can search for a work by composer in the first section or search for examples of types of music in the sub- sequent genre index which references numbered titles, or items, back in the com- poser section.

Other than the precise location within an anthology and identification of per- forming forces, much unexpected but welcome information for each composition is included in the main entries. The pres- ence of text translation, format of score, explanatory notes, musica ficta, incipits in

This index is not the first published ef- fort of its kind, and readers may already be familiar with Ruth B. Hilton's An Index to Early Music in Selected Anthologies, Mu- sic Indexes and Bibliographies, 13 (Clifton, N.J.: European American Music Corp., 1978; reviewed by Susan T. Sommer in Notes 35 [1979]: 641-42). Hilton's work in- cludes two textbooks of music examples as well as seventeen volumes of anthologies dating from 1887 to 1976. Murray's index covers forty publications of score anthol- ogies and he hasn't shied away from in- cluding those in multiple editions, such as The Norton Scores. He calculates the fol- lowing totals of coverage through his in- dex: sixty-six volumes of score anthologies, six-hundred composers represented, and 4,670 music examples. These totals well ex- ceed those of the first edition of his index (Detroit: Information Coordinators, 1987), and the span of anthology publication dates that started with 1942 now runs through 1991. In terms of sheer coverage, Murray's index complements Hilton's quite well, with fewer than ten anthologies being com- mon to both. One can search for a work by composer in the first section or search for examples of types of music in the sub- sequent genre index which references numbered titles, or items, back in the com- poser section.

Other than the precise location within an anthology and identification of per- forming forces, much unexpected but welcome information for each composition is included in the main entries. The pres- ence of text translation, format of score, explanatory notes, musica ficta, incipits in

573 573

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions