Customer Reviews

Lectionary of Music, The

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

 

 

Like Slonimsky himself, Lectionary of Music is witty, idiosyncratic, and sometimes brilliant. It is designed to be read for fun, not as a serious reference. Still, it is informative and a reminder of one of the twentieth century's least-known major musical influences.

There is no question that Slonimsky's Lectionary is an educated, entertaining and astonishingly encyclopedic resource worthy of repeated samplings. It is full of fascinating trivia, juicy invective, idiosyncratic perspectives and potent conversation starters. But as one of the editorial reviews cautions: keep your Harvard or Oxford dictionary around. It is not necessarily a reference.

Slonimsky appears to have a profound grasp of "classical music", though he is uneven. See the write-up on "fugue" and, if you are knowledge in the subject, you will likely find it wanting and even, in places, misinformed. Surprising, given the importance of the subject. But Slonimsky really shows his biases in any of his several entries on American musical genres. Read any of the following and you will find misconception, error, a dismissive attitude and a lack of sophistication, exposure and understanding: blues, jazz, bluegrass, pop, ragtime, and even, despite the editorial review, banjo. This is not a case of humorous invective: it is a case of erroneous glibness. The entries should quite simply be removed from the book.

Perhaps no one would expect to find detailed and revealing entries for these topics in Slonimsky's books. But why are they even included? Worse, it casts suspicions on other entries that stray from the classics (e.g. world musics). In the end, it suggests that his apparently encyclopedic output is in fact too good to be true. But I would be the first to admit that his book got me thinking enough to respond. Fun and informative, but at times, mis-informative. In the end, I would not consider it a reference.

I was curious to see if my own slightly negative but objective, fair and even balanced review would be displayed by Amazon. Happily, it is (see above). However, the caveat about my review applying to a previous or no longer available version of the book is NOT true. In fact, there is no way for the editors to know what version I have. Indeed, it is the very same version currently available from Amazon (521 pages, 1989). This seems like a mistake that ought to be corrected, or it is a dishonest way to disclaim my criticism. I would challenge others to refute my claims. I will also think less of Amazon if this is followup is not posted or my original review corrected by removing the erroneous note from the editors.