Re: References to publications in the docs

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 07/13/2013 07:52 PM, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Personally, I'd prefer to remove all mention of Gardner
> Read's book.  Many of his recommendations are not good at
> all, and I've found a fair number of them that are just
> wrong.

Better to say that it's out of date.  But its datedness is one reason it's
valuable, because some of its notational suggestions will be found in actual
works of the time, but not in more modern notation manuals.

> Kurt Stone's book addresses everything that Gardner
> Read's book covers, and is much more carefully written, and 
> far better for reference, though one or two things might be
> a little outdated (like percussion pictograms, which are 
> discouraged nowadays).

Yes, Kurt Stone's advice is generally better and more in touch with standard
practice.  It was after all the result of the Ghent conference which
standardized a lot of contemporary notations.

> Regarding your actual question about listing these in the 
> LM, I wouldn't be opposed, though you might consider putting
> the list at the end of the "Common notation" chapter
> instead.

The reason for putting them there was to ensure that the reader had some clear
recommendation: "These are books to look at if you are interested in particular
in the notation of avant-garde contemporary music."  But do as you think best.