Lexicon of Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven's Time

...is a "fresher" expression for Nicholas Slonimsky's introduction, "Non-Acceptance of the Unfamiliar," to this howler of a compendium of musical criticism. In a nutshell, this book is a collection of excerpts from reviews, commentary and correspondence regarding the music of forty-three composers over a 150-year span, beginning with Beethoven and ending (approximately) with Bartók, Schoenberg, Shostakovich and Stravinsky. While most of the composers are well-known, some (Henry Cowell, Roy Harris, Wallingford Riegger, Carl Ruggles, Edgar Varèse) are hardly household names. For the most part, the commentary closely follows, in time, the premieres of the works described. (In some cases, this may be years after their original premieres. It often took, in times past, years for the works to get from "the country of origin" to the venues that were the domains of the reviewers and critics. History - and this book - have shown that this extra time was not necessarily an asset in evaluating the works more accurately.) A quick page count by composer shows that Wagner (at 27 pages), Schoenberg (at 20 pages), Stravinsky (at 19 pages), Strauss (at 16 pages), and Debussy (at 15 pages) come under the greatest critical scrutiny, or, in retrospect, the greatest "fear of the unknown." Surprisingly, other "true revolutionaries" come off somewhat better: Berlioz (at 5 pages), Mahler (at 4 pages), to name two. Even "universally-loved" composers who wrote music which these days is commonly considered accessible don't escape the critics' wrath: Bizet, Brahms, Puccini, Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky are some who didn't exactly become accepted overnight. It's not as if these music critics "who blew it" didn't know their field appropriately. More than a few (César Cui, George Templeton Strong, Virgil Thomson, to name three) were themselves composers, writing about the new music of their contemporaries. Others (Olin Downes, long-time music critic of the New York Times, Henry E. Krehbiel, similarly of the New York Tribune, and Philip Hale, similarly of the Boston Herald) were highly-respected music critics of their time, not normally given to "blowing it" as far as making a bad call against a new piece of music was concerned. But that is what this book is about: "Blowing it, major-league big-time," usually with style and panache to spare, as well as all the buzzwords and "tricks of the trade" that suggest expertise. Then, along comes the unsuspecting reader of "the next morning's dailies." He (or she) reads the critique, and the die is cast: Wagner (or Strauss or Stravinsky or Debussy; enter a name of your choice) has just composed music that is: cacophonous; caterwauling; noise, non-music; not fit for human consumption (pick one). The reader has fallen victim to this "expert opinion." It is hard to shake this initial "expert" impression. It may take years. It may never happen. And it might have been the fault of the critic in the first instance. There is one significant

This book is an inspired piece of iconic significance, butnot in the way the author intended. What he DID intendwas to poke fun at music critics for their supposed"non-acceptance of the unfamiliar." Well the critic's advocate is a roletoo easy to adopt: how could anyone other than a clairvoyanthave known that such and such a composer would go onto be lauded as a genius? Nay, the all-too-obvious benefitof Slonimsky's hindsight, almost in itself discredits his viewpoint,genius though he most certainly is. For what becomes clear soon after starting the book is that the shock value andthe novelty wears off. What does NOT wear off thoughis something Slonimsky never intended to protray (becausehe was no clairvoyant himself and could not project the declineof the linguistic standards in journalism subsequent tohis generation): that is the wonderful and eloquent beauty ofof the prose these music critics had. Their ability to describemusic, and its effect on the listener, by using seemingly endlessamounts of imaginative and hilarious simile, and other figurative language is breathtaking; it's a bountiful joy to read, indicative ofa time when critics had the guts to say what they felt withoutthe stodgy attitude found in the cliche-ridden dross often foundin today's journalism.After a while -- once the reader is able tocast his mind back to a time when music wassupposed to embody truth, beauty, reason,and be presented by ordered use of harmony,melody and rhythm -- it is not difficult at all toagree wholeheartedly with most of what thesewriters complain about. For much of Wagner's music DOES INDEED sound like an "inflated display of extravagance."Webern's serialism DOES often "call to mind the activityof insects." Schoenberg DOES "torpedo the eardrumswith deadly dissonance." And on and on. Only a Philistine university professor (who equates fame with musical quality)would refuse to admit it."...vacillating and fluid harmonies........this music is indeterminate, vague, fleeting, indecisive, deliberately indefinite.............without muscle or backbone......grey music forming a sort of sonorous mist....."That (written in 1910) is the most clear-minded, honest description of Debussy'smusic you will ever read. But you won't read this kindof opinion now, because in the classical music world,once a composer is famous, he is then off limits tohonest assessment. Only the performance receives analysis.To be able to see what people thought AT THE TIME,is a priceless opportunity Slonimsky has bequeathedto us, regardless of that he did not intend it.These review excerpts are nothing less thana testament to the integrity and sincerity that was once (a long time ago!) represented by menof the critical pen. The Lexicon should be a required item on the shelf ofeveryone who calls himself a writer in the field of theperforming arts. Then maybe scribes would bemore respected.

A favorite book by all of our music school staff members, this collection of witty and razor-tongued "reviews" by critics is sure to please the classical music lover!The introduction by Peter Shickele (a.k.a. P.D.Q. Bach) is equally brilliant and the wonderful "index of invectives" only adds to the great humor of this work, as well as providing a great way for younger music students to "enter" into the this work for some "instant" insight!It should be stated, however, that some familiarity with the works of the many composers included in this book is a must... otherwise the humor is lost. The book could have been improved, perhaps, by arranging the composers in a chronological order, or by time period, rather than alphabetically as much of the invectives seem to be the product of one major factor: the inability for the minds of critics to understand musical progress! Well written, engaging, and always a delight to read and re-read!

I first heard about Nicolas Slonimsky's collection of scathing reviews of brilliant music on a 1992 episode of the radio show Schickele Mix, the first time that a radio show prompted me to rush out and buy a reference book. It was difficult to find a copy of the book then, and even more difficult later when it went out of print, so how nice it is to have it back in print in this new edition, and how even nicer that the new edition contains a new forward by the same Peter Schickele whose radio show introduced me to the book all those years ago. The radio show turned out to be but a small sampling of the many hundreds of classical music reviews that were collected by Slonimsky into this volume. In its entirety it is really amazing how many different negative reviews have been written about music now often considered masterpieces, and what amount of wit and creativity went into these insults. However, the radio show had the advantage of being able to play recordings of the music along with the reviews to highlight the disparity between how we hear these pieces today and what they sounded like to selected critics when they were new. So although many readers may gain amusement merely from reading these reviews, much as my friend who watched Siskel and Ebert just for the enjoyment of hearing them argue, they are much more amusing and insightful if you are somewhat familiar with the composers and music reviewed or if you pick up some recordings of the pieces described. It would be even better if it was possible to get an audio version of this book with music samples, perhaps based on that radio program.This is not a book for reading straight through in one sitting, but for checking out a few reviews at a time. One of the best features of the book is an "Invecticon", a type of index where you can look up key phrases like "incomprehensible", "pretentious rubbish", or "savage modernistic mockery" and find a list of composers described as such with the page numbers of their reviews. Mr. Schickele's new forward puts this all in good perspective.I was, of course, exaggerating before when I said that all of the works described here are clearly masterpieces and implied that the reviewers were therefore incorrect in their opinions, but I'd like to point out a significant importance of this book, the fact that it provides ample evidence for a sobering thought, that in this age where a Broadway show can close after 6 days due to one negative review, there is always the remote possibility that the reviewer might be wrong.

Slonimsky has gathered a collection of bad reviews written about works by now-revered composers (Beethoven, Debussy, et al.)It's a revelation to see how poorly these folks were regarded--at least by some--in their own times.Well worth a browse.