Hi Tony
I somehow doubt this tome would have slipped into your shopping-basket accidentally, since it's a loooong way from a best-seller
But it raises a whole issue about the "point" of such "historical" scholarship (turning musicology into a branch of history that's so far away from the music that it doesn't matter if there
isn't any music at all?) that I think is very valid. I don't think its intentions were purely to "catch" or "trap" the unwary... (and in truth some of the detail is so outlandish that it begs to be outed as bogus) ... there is also a much deeper question about what the
real study of music ought to be about?
For example, those studying Mathematics or Biology don't spend their time on the arcane detail of the personal lives of the Great Mathemeticians or Biologists (or, err, do they?). Of course it would be important to consider Newton's work against the social setting of his day, and many scientists have courted controversy by daring to suggest ideas to which the society, or the Church, or the Crown was inimicable... but you would THEN go on to discuss what those theories really
were!
I do take your point, though.. the book might initially appear a bit "ha-ha-clever-dicky" to some, but it has wider aims than the shaggy dog story