ITG Journal Review Article Turns Suppositions Into Fact

[John Mohan]

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

[Roy]

Some probably think the topic doesn't warrant a reply, and couldn't care less about what you think.

[John Mohan]

[crzytptman]

[robert_white]

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?

[Ron Burgundy]

Take Mr White's advice. Chill. Take it easy.

Stay Clasy

Ron Burgundy

[junkyt]

[John Mohan]

[John Mohan]

[EBjazz]

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

[hunsicker]

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.

[EBjazz]

Only if you, the reader actually believe it to be fact. If I point out that George Bush is an idiot, it doesn't make it a fact.
My own little world will remain in balance either way.

Eb
_________________
Eric Bolvin
http://bolvinmusic.com/product/the-modern-jazz-trumpet-method/
www.bolvinmusic.com

[hunsicker]

Eric, the reader's belief is irrelevant to the point I made.

You made a very specific claim:

[EBjazz]

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

[swthiel]

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

[hunsicker]

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.

[John Mohan]

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

[steve_fenick]

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)?

[plp]

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.

[John Kreese]

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.