Posted by Rick Denney on March 05, 2001 at 22:46:46:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Bevan's posted by Dale (a wag from CA) on March 05, 2001 at 21:11:34:
I don't treat anything except original texts as being completely accurate. The fun of Bevan's book is that everything in has his view of the world infused on it. This is similar to Stauffer's book, which I also enjoy, though Bevan's scholarship is a lot deeper and he takes it a lot farther. It's the same with Song and Wind, which is often quoted as a source of information on York, but even Brian depends on sources that may or may not be completely accurate.
When I quote something from a book that has no corroborating source, such as a photograph of the horn being discussed or a patent drawing or other contemporary evidence, then I always say, "Bevan says..." or some such. That way, everyone can decide for themselves about the quality of the source.
Much of what was in Bevan's first edition was a listing of available works for tuba. This was its weakest element. Jay Rozen researched many of those titles and could not find them anywhere. Bevan left that out of the current edition, supposedly in deference to the Tuba Sourcebook, but really because it was far more work than it was worth, given today's online sources for music.
Much of the history hasn't changed, except the addition of a bunch of new stuff, such as on the ophicleide. He has researched old rosters and pay records to fill in knowledge here, plus press accounts at the time of the major players. He's good about quoting his sources when he has them.
Rick "who carries grains of salt everywhere" Denney