View previous topic :: View next topic |
Do you think it’s acceptable in a Journal Book Review article for a reviewer to restate the authors’ personal theories, suppositions and opinions as being a matter of factual history? |
Yes, I think this is an acceptable practice. |
|
32% |
[ 26 ] |
No, I do not think this is an acceptable thing to do. |
|
67% |
[ 55 ] |
|
Total Votes : 81 |
|
Author |
Message |
John Mohan Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001 Posts: 9831 Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strange how nearly a third of the people who have participated in the poll feel that it’s acceptable in a Journal Book Review article for a reviewer to restate the authors’ personal theories, suppositions and opinions as being a matter of factual history, yet noneof those folks have actually written a replysaying why they think it's okay.
Perhaps those that think it's okay for reviewers to mislead people, also find that actually writing somethingtakes a little too much effort for them.
Cheers,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Roy Veteran Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 334
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some probably think the topic doesn't warrant a reply, and couldn't care less about what you think. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001 Posts: 9831 Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Roy wrote: | Some probably think the topic doesn't warrant a reply, and couldn't care less about what you think. |
I'm fine with the later part of your sentence, but if the former part is true, that's too bad. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
crzytptman Heavyweight Member
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 Posts: 10124 Location: Escondido California
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | The late Claude Gordon, who I deeply respect, said in Brass Playing is no Harder.....that, "The great [trumpet] virtuosos can be counted on your hands". This was published as fact, though it is only one man's opinion. WHY did Mr. Gordon feel the urge to publish his opinion on this matter in a way that presented it as fact? |
What is this . . . that monty Python sketch again? Gordon lists who he considers the virtuoso players to be - and they can indeed be counted on your hands.
This is a far cry from the review (sales pitch?) which confirms the book's statement as fact that certain players use TCE. Without checking to see if they actually do. Not only is the poll question legitimate, it is accurately worded.
edited due to my inability to read and comprehend a simple sentence, as pointed out by Matt. Sorry, I thought it was LeeC again! _________________ Crazy Nate - Fine Yet Mellow Fellow
"so full of it I don't know where to start"
Horn: "just mismatched Kanstul spare parts"
- TH member and advertiser (name withheld)
Last edited by crzytptman on Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
robert_white Heavyweight Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2003 Posts: 1583
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John, I don't know why you ignored my post - I thought I made a good point. I'll restate it here: write an email to ITG and then LET IT GO.
Plus, you keep mixing "scientific" and "historical" in your assertions about exactly what crime the reviewer in question has commited. I would contend that his mistake was neither scientific nor historical. It was a simple gaffe, which you've certainly taken a GREAT deal of time to point out.
Quit making yourself look foolish and drop it. Aren't you in medical school? Shouldn't you be studying? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ron Burgundy Heavyweight Member
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 688
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Take Mr White's advice. Chill. Take it easy.
Stay Clasy
Ron Burgundy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
junkyt Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Nov 2001 Posts: 696 Location: Seattle
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
robert_white wrote: | John, there's no conspiracy here. |
This is the salient point here. Reviewers are notorious for not knowing a whole lot about their subjects. Let's not lose sight of that.
Further, anyone with half a brain will take anything they read with a grain of salt. It's not "fact" unless it's "fact". Just because someone says it's fact doesn't make it so.
Call me optimistic or naive (I've certainly be called worse), but I think that most people will read that, just as they do the statements by Callet and some statements by Claude Gordon, and certainly some statements by John Mohan, and then form their own opinions about the "facts".
I didn't take part in your poll, John, because you left out one option:
C) It happens all the time and I'm smart enough to form my own opinions.
I would guess that some of the people who chose your #2 did so because they felt there was not an option that expresses their feelings on the subject.
Remember the words of your mentor, John, and take a deeeeeeep breath. _________________ Check out my new blog about the life of a working musician: OneWorkingMusician.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001 Posts: 9831 Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
robert_white wrote: | John, I don't know why you ignored my post - I thought I made a good point. I'll restate it here: write an email to ITG and then LET IT GO.
Plus, you keep mixing "scientific" and "historical" in your assertions about exactly what crime the reviewer in question has commited. I would contend that his mistake was neither scientific nor historical. It was a simple gaffe, which you've certainly taken a GREAT deal of time to point out.
Quit making yourself look foolish and drop it. Aren't you in medical school? Shouldn't you be studying? |
I wasn't ignoring your post... I was letting it go.
If you think I was mixing up "scientific" and historical" well, I think you're mixed up. Maybe I didn't make it clear before (it happens). So I'll try again for you: I was trying to communicate that two authors made claims in a book and that those claims did not have any scientifically-derived evidence to back them up. Then, a reviewer wrote a review about that book, and instead of saying words to the effect of "it is the authors' opinion that so and so is true" the reviewer wrote words to the effect of "as the authors pointed out, so and so is true." And in doing that, the reviewer turned scientifically unsupported claims into historicalfact.
Is it clearer now?
And no, I'm not in medical school - I am fulfilling the math and science prerequisites for Med School at this time. When I'm in Med school, rest assured I won't be on the TH. Yea, yea, I already anticipate being able to hear the collective sigh of relief from all the TCE folks...
Cheers,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001 Posts: 9831 Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
junkyt wrote: | I didn't take part in your poll, John, because you left out one option:
C) It happens all the time and I'm smart enough to form my own opinions.
|
My poll concerned simply whether it was right or wrong to do such things. It's either okay, or it's not okay to do such things. Besides, to me, to include a poll option saying "[i]t happens all the time and I'm smart enough to form my own opinions", tacetly suggests that unethical behaviour is okay since smart-enough people won't be victimized.
I don't feel that way.
Lastly, as Mr. White pointed out, I really should be studying more, so I think I’m done with this thread, and perhaps the TH for a while.
Sincerely,
John Mohan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
EBjazz Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2001 Posts: 2368 Location: SF Bay Area
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
By stating "the authors point out" at the beginning of the sentence, the reviewer is telling you that he is quoting from the book. Therefore, he is not endorsing Callets comments as fact, simply quoting him.
The world is once again in balance.
Eb _________________ Eric Bolvin
http://bolvinmusic.com/product/the-modern-jazz-trumpet-method/
www.bolvinmusic.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hunsicker Veteran Member
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 109 Location: Reno, NV
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not exactly. If the reviewer had said "the authors claim" instead of "the authors point out", then your (Eric's) point would be correct and the world would again be in balance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
EBjazz Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2001 Posts: 2368 Location: SF Bay Area
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
hunsicker Veteran Member
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 109 Location: Reno, NV
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric, the reader's belief is irrelevant to the point I made.
You made a very specific claim:
Quote: |
he is not endorsing Callets comments as fact, simply quoting him.
|
I refuted that specific claim by pointing out that "the authors point out..." implies more than simply quoting the author. It implies acceptance (by the reviewer) of the author's comments as fact. Your claim that the reviewer is "not endorsing Callet's comments as fact" is invalid.
Along the lines of your example, suppose you were reviewing the book The Bush Dyslexicon. You could say
1. The author claims that W. is a sociopath.
or
2. The author states that W. is a sociopath.
or
3. The author points out that W. is a sociopath.
It seems very clear to me that formulations 1 and 2 "simply quote" the author's thesis without endorsing it. But formulation 3 does endorse the author's thesis in a way that treats it as fact. And the difference in meaning stands independently of whether the reader believes it or not.
And it's independent of whether this little controversy rocks your "little world". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
EBjazz Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2001 Posts: 2368 Location: SF Bay Area
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK. You win. After reading the review in the journal again, I did not in any way think that Harry James used TCE. I only thought that Callet thought that, not me or anyone else.
Good luck with this. I hope John takes it all the way to the Supreme Court
Eb _________________ Eric Bolvin
http://bolvinmusic.com/product/the-modern-jazz-trumpet-method/
www.bolvinmusic.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swthiel Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Apr 2005 Posts: 3967 Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please allow me to borrow the form of an argument stated above to make a point.
Along the lines of your example, suppose you were reviewing the book The Complete Biography of John Smith. You could say
1. The author claims that John Smith is a great guy.
2. The author states that John Smith is a great guy.
3. The author points out that John Smith is a great guy.
4. John Smith is a great guy.
It seems very clear to me that formulations 1, 2, and 3 all clearly link the assertion that "John Smith is a great guy" to the authors of the book. Formulation 3 additionally endorses the author's thesis in a way that suggests that the author agrees with it. Formulation 4 treats treats author's thesis as fact.
When I read the review, it was clear to me that the authors of the book believe that Harry James (and others) used TCE, that the reviewer agreed with that judgment, and that there is controversy around TCE ("a method some would consider radical" <-- quote approximate, I don't have the journal at my side here...). I don't see anything unethical in the review. _________________ Steve Thiel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hunsicker Veteran Member
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 109 Location: Reno, NV
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to continue to flog this (comatose, at best) horse, especially since this will seem like a nit and will probably be difficult to pin down accurately but... I'll try.
Let's call the person uttering your statements the "reviewer".
Firstly, in your example the statement being made is a subjective evaluation, rather than a statement of fact. Therefore, there is already an implicit understanding in any of the formulations that what is at stake is merely agreement or disagreement with an opinion. This clouds the issue. My example suffers from the same problem, to the degree that the diagnosis of "sociopath" may be a subjective rather than an objective matter. My bad for riffing off Eric's example rather than giving more thought to precise analogy.
So let's jump to an example that clearly deals with a question of historical fact (since "Harry James used TCE" is a question of historical fact).
1. The author claims that Oswald did not act alone.
2. The author states that Oswald did not act alone.
3. The auther points out that Oswald did not act alone.
4. Oswald did not act alone.
Formulation 4 is a statement by the reviewer of something he treats as historical fact.
Formulation 3 is a statement by the reviewer indicating that the author "brought to light" this historical fact (which the reviewer does not question or label as anything other than that).
The reviewer treats "Oswald did not act alone" to be historically factual equally in either formulation 3 or 4.
Ok. Now as to John's original question, I do take it to be a flaw in the review that the reviewer put it the way he did. It would have been a more intellectually honest formulation to have used something like 1 or 2. However [speculation] I doubt that the reviewer did this intentionally. He probably just took Callet at his word, and didn't think to question it. Or he just wrote too quickly and didn't quite word it the way he wanted to or should have. Or just didn't think about it much at all. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001 Posts: 9831 Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hunsicker,
I am so glad you wrote your reply - I had thought about writing a reply saying something similar, but then I decided I have had more than my share in the participation of the whipping of this horse of a thread!
Thanks,
John Mohan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steve_fenick Veteran Member
Joined: 07 Aug 2004 Posts: 376
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
The part of this that I find most ironic is that John Mohan would criticize Callet and Civiletti for their suppositions regarding famous trumpet players using TCE, yet he has no problems coming on here and proclaiming that every virtuoso trumpet player uses the KTM articulation.
This isn't an attack on Gordon or his method. I own all of Claude's books, have studied them very thoroughly, and use some elements of his approach in my teaching. It's more an observation of trends on this board.
John, you would do very well to heed Robert White's advice...I very seriously doubt the reviewer was trying to alter history with his observation. My guess is that the reviewer simply didn't think too much about the wording, which is unfortunate. One question, though...would you have been so outraged had the reviewer made a similar claim about Gordon (i.e. that every virtuoso player uses KTM)? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
plp Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2003 Posts: 7023 Location: South Alabama
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I personally think John actually owns stock in the publishing company that puts out the TCE books and created this temptest in a teapot to drum up interest.
We could go into the whole 'what constitutes a virtuoso' argument and nitpick CG's assertions, but to what point? I heard a mariachi trumpet player last night I would consider a virtuoso in his chosen style, and the classical guys would probably discount that claim based on the fact there can BE no virtuoso mariachi players, or maybe not. Satchmo dismissed Dizzy and the entire bebop movement as a bunch of squealers, because he didn't consider that jazz. Just because someone has credentials (and who could argue Louis Armstong didn't have serious cred) does not separate their opinions as just that.
A reviewer of ANYTHING is just that. Until it moves to the higher level of research based findings, such as peer review, it fails any significant litmus test. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John Kreese Veteran Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 252 Location: Reseda
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
A good solution is never to read the ITG journal. _________________ If you don't get your boy on the mat, you and I are gonna have a serious problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|