Customer Reviews

The Concerto: A Listener's Guide (Listener's Guide Series)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Michael Steinberg's "The Concerto" is a worthy companion to his book on the Symphony. The book is a complication of program notes that were written for various orchestras.

Steinberg gives a quotation from Prokofiev about music that states "the melody must be simple and comprehensible without being repetitive or trivial...We must seek a new simplicity." If you substitute music criticism for melody, this quotation can be used for the basis of this book. Steinberg tries to make music and especially the concertos of major composers comprehensible. He combines history of the period with the place of the concerto in the composer's works as well as why the work was written. He gives a detailed discussion of the music in a manner that is comprehensible to a listener rather then a musicologist. There a few musical examples and I believe that there should be more. The majority of the concertos discussed are ones that are frequently performed but there are a number of modern works that are described. About forty different composers are discussed, from Adams to Zimmermann, with the most important works of each composer detailed.

In a comparison of this book with "The Concerto" edited by Ralph Hill, the two books compliment each other. Steinberg has more information about the composer and the times that the works were written, while Hill has many, many more musical examples and is written at a level for more sophisticated musical listeners. If you have the Hill volume, you will still enjoy Steinberg's work and learn more about the works discussed. While the book is a good value, I still have one caveat, it will cause you to purchase a number of new CD's to listen the works that have intrigued you

A wonderful book. Michael Steinberg is probably the premier writer of program notes for symphony orchestra concerts in the English-speaking world, and his two books, The Symphony: A Listener's Guide (Oxford University Press, 1995, 678 pages), and its companion volume The Concerto: A Listener's Guide (Oxford UP, 1998, 506 pages), are probably the two best collections of program notes on the symphony and the concerto that have ever been published in English. Steinberg formerly wrote the program notes for the Boston Symphony Orchestra and currently writes them for the New York Philharmonic and the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. He was music critic of the Boston Globe for twelve years. These two books come with glowing recommendations from such distinguished musical figures as Seiji Ozawa, Michael Tilson Thomas, Andre Previn, Herbert Blomstedt, Roger Norrington, and John Adams. Speaking as one who has attended countless symphony orchestra concerts on the East Coast, West Coast, and in Dallas for more than forty years, and has always read the program notes, I can say that I've never read any as good as these. They are readable, learned, witty, accessible, and delightful, full of important biographical and historical information, and of course musical description, evaluation, and analysis that is genuinely illuminating and enlightening, without being so technical you need to be a musicologist or seated at a piano to understand it. (Inevitably, there are some musical examples, but these are relatively few, usually fairly simple, and you don't have to understand them to grasp the meaning of the text.) I would recommend these two books strongly to any lover of classical music, anyone who attends symphony orchestra concerts.

Having said this, I can't help noting a few unfortunate omissions. No Haydn trumpet concerto, no Rodrigo Concierto de Aranjuez (indeed, no trumpet or guitar concerti at all). No Handel Concerti Grossi, Opus 6, and, a truly surprising omission, no Vivaldi Four Seasons. Vivaldi and Telemann, the two most prolific composers of concerti, are not to be found in Steinberg's book; indeed, the entire Baroque period, during which the concerto form flowered and proliferated, is ignored with the sole exception of J. S. Bach. Otherwise, I'd say that all the concertos you would reasonably expect to find in such a book are included here.

Despite these omissions, I recommend this book and its companion volume warmly and wouldn't be without them. Now I wish Mr. Steinberg and Oxford University Press would give us a third volume, covering the large body of orchestral music that is neither symphony nor concerto (such as tone poems and symphonic suites and dances, ballets and ballet suites, incidental music to plays and pageants, major overtures and preludes, et al.).

Some time ago I re-read the review I wrote for the companion book "The symphony" and I think I somewhat overstated the faults and underlined the virtues. Now that I have more experience with music books I can say that quite nobody in the business writes with Steinberg's appealing mix of musical authority, wit and passion, all wrapped in highly-readable but nonetheless refined literary style. His are books that you can really read or consult over and over. Maybe sometimes he's too opinionated, and his books are ultimately limited by the concert-notes he wrote (thankfully American Orchestras' programming is FAR more adventurous than what get in Europe), but all of this is a price I pay gladly for such a wealth of instructive and entertaining info. I mean, when Steinberg likes a piece ( I'm thinking about the Schuman Violin Con., for example), you really would run out of the house to buy the cd ! Also, I believe this second book is slightly different in technique: while "The Symphony" was essentially centred on the discussion/description of the pieces, in "The Concerto" the various articles are sort of mini-essays on the composer, with more extensive biographical notes and brief descriptions of other significant works beyond those discussed. Of course a symphony is generally longer (and more elaborate in form) than a concerto, so maybe this was also an adjustment to a different subject. This approach works especially well in some cases. For example, the article about the Adams Violin concerto is, in addition, an essay that also speaks about this composer's career and key-works. Probably Adams could not be included in the first book because he hasn't written a symphony (yet) but, knowing that Steinberg was the SFS program annotator during Adams composer-in -residence years, it was really a loss, as the wealth of first-hand insights that I found in "The concerto" confirms. Also, I greatly appreciated the inclusion of Saint-Saens Piano Concertos n.2&4 . I harshly criticized the French composer's exclusion from the first book, and here Steinberg even talks briefly about the Organ Symphony. Thank you very much. In some mini-essays Steinberg does an outstanding job inre-assessing some unjustly underrated composers: in this respect the Walton and Barber sections are excellent. Then there are those "special" composers for whose music the author shows great affection besides his deepest musical understanding: good examples are the Brahms and Stravinsky sections, which are a joy to read(and re-read, and not only while you're listening to the music). Even a piece I personally dislike, the Lutoslawski cello con., makes for compelling reading! About the (unavoidable, I'm afraid) "omission game", this time I don't have a lot to point out: the Nielsen Violin Concerto is deliberately left out (agreeing or not with the reasons, I think it should be included anyway), and it's too bad that Steinberg doesn't include the Glass Violin Con. , which I think is the "other" major contemporary concerto with the Adams, but there's not much else to complain about (why nothing about Penderecki, though, in neither of the 2 books?) Now, what about a book about the great pieces written in other forms, like Ballets ( the Rite of Spring or Romeo and Juliet), Serenades (Mozart, Brahms, Dvorak) and Symphonic Poems (Strauss, Respighi) ? I want more!

As with Steinberg's "The Symphony," this work on "The Concerto" is a fine piece of writing passionately about the subject matter: in this case, the blessed concerto.

As a child of the Baroque, their slighting (no Telemann, Vivaldi and limited Bach --- what about his woodwind Concertos?)doesn't detract from this fine rendering of String and Keyboard Concertos. His notes on the play between soloist and orchestra through each piece is aptly traced through their development. Steinberg is a gifted "wordsmith" of painting the emotions and expression thereof through pace and rythm and instrumental layering.

Whether using for one's concert attendance or listening to broadcast or own library performance accompaniment, this is a thorough and historical accurate guide and companion.

Bizarre omissions -- too may masters of the concerto ignored. Overblown writing -- does not hit the "sweet spot" between the technical and the dramatic. In all, I found it useless. Easier to just "Google" something I am interested in. In sum, I deleted it.

As enjoyable and indispensable as I find Michael Steinberg's companion book The Symphony: A Listener's Guide, I find my attention wandering a lot when I pick up the present collection of program notes. Of course much of the problem is my own: I'm not all that interested in listening to a lot of concertos. There seems to be something about the form that encourages program note writers to dwell on the anecdotal rather than the analytical, with the result, in the present case, that I learn more about Eduard Lalo's or Max Reger's biography than about what makes Lalo's Symphonie Espagnole or Reger's Piano Concerto in F minor worth listening to. More than once.

Speaking of Reger, his Piano Concerto is among the "electives" in this book -- works that Steinberg wasn't paid to write about for performances in Boston, San Francisco, or New York, but works that Steinberg chose to write about for his own pleasure. Well, Bridge, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Reger, and Zimmermann are interesting choices, all right, but not more interesting than the exclusion of the Chopin piano concertos, which aren't even mentioned. Haydn's various concertos for piano, cello, violin, etc., are also omitted without comment. What gives?

Still, when Steinberg gets down to business, his analytic enthusiasm is second to none. Here he is on what happens as the first movement of Mozart's C major Piano Concerto, K. 503, approaches its conclusion:

"The recapitulation is no less inventive. Its most remarkable stroke is what Mozart now does with the tiny hint of minor in what was the second of the solo piano themes in the exposition: upon its return, this shadow grows beyond all expectation, like the genie released from the bottle. And, as the movement nears its end, even what happens in the brief five pages after the cadenza is full of surprise."

Is a good concerto easier to listen to than a good symphony? Or is that just an unfortunate illusion that we -- the concert-going, CD-buying, music-downloading public -- seem to share?

The biggest flaw of this book, aside from the inclusion of works that don't sound musical at all to this regressive classical music lover, is most of the essays are heavy on background information and very light on musical analysis. The problem with this approach is, first, if you cross-reference what Steinberg writes in the mini-biographies with something like Wikipedia, you'll find lots of disagreements over "facts" about composers' lives and musical developments and also about each piece's specific development, and second, all that background info doesn't help one understand the music better. I wish Steinberg had included more musical analysis, even if that's less than accessible to the non-specialist, and less "chatty" talk.

This is the only one of Steinberg's releases where I have very little to suggest in terms of improvement. Though I will agree with other reviewers that the exclusion of Vivaldi, Telemann and, I think, Bach's Double Concerto for Violin and Bassoon -was unwise.

I'm not here to claim that all of Dvorak's concertos should have been included, seeing as how his Piano Concerto could have used revision. But Dvorak's Violin Concerto is definitely worthy enough to include.

The inclusion of Zimmermann was strange...

Writing about music today and from now on is an art all to itself, and I would think since it's an art, it should approach the realm of the multi-dimensional,utilizing all the disciplines we have garnered for ourselves, politics, social, aesthetic,how can ones views have any strength if you run under the petty coats of academia,which we often get with the Schenkerian universe. It(talking about music) should inform you on the work's profound dimension,why it's unique, why it breaks the rules or doesn't, why its interesting above all,or more honest I love critics who are honest, admitting a certain part of the work is not fully understood, Only Stalin was infallible I beleive.If the earth doesn't yield to the work of Soviet construction then the earth is counter revolutionary.Talking about music describing such profundities it contains should be framed in interesting language,that;s not asking much,not Joyce,Kafka,Frost,Kingslover,Camus,Grass, Walcott,but at least something beyond what I find in Steinberg's overly labored tedious, and provincial descriptions. Like the Ligeti Cello Concerto where we get an inch by inch,step by step, foot by foot description this in place of what makes the work tick, its musical functions, does it have counterpoint, and if not, Why Not ?, orchestrations are always given in the beginning of each entry here, but comment on how a unique orchestration may work, its balance, what sticks out, and why,or if not, tell us why not?,Steinberg proceeds something like this: the concerto begins barely audible then when you think you hear a sound the Concerto begins, the work slowly ascends until we reach an E note, but that's not the highest note of the work, On and On, how interesting would you find a similar description, someone driving a car if you had described it to someone, in this way, "I got into the car, I opened the door first, then I found my keys, then I placed my hands on the steering wheel, then I fumbled for my keys, then I put the keys into the ignition,but it didn't torun over right away then I saw someone pass on the street that looked like my old girlfriend, Isn't this pure torture???!!, well Music I feel is a much more interesting subject than a Lexus, there are more aesthetic features to describe as texture, or shape,rhythmic architecture, or melodic design, or timbre, especially in Ligeti where timbre is a controlling component, and where all these traditional categories get redefined. His book on the Symphonies I found Steinberg seemed to have more to talk about,and that was a necessary book, in that the important question "Is the Symphony Dead"? and if it is alive How is it doing? but still his writing style loads the back porch with two truck loads of bricks, not one. Steinberg gives you everything, all the details, and we should (sometimes) be thankful for that. He is a bit away out of his mileau when speaking on modernity, the vigours of modern music doesn't seem natural for Steinberg, well we all need to self-educate ourselves. When he speaks on Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, he has few equals, And I loved the fact that Phil Glass wasn't included here. No great loss.