Skip to main content

The Lives and Times of the Great Composers

A little while ago I wrote about the book The Rest is Noise, after a recommendation to lay my hands on a copy to find out more about twentieth century music.

In response to this, Icon Books kindly provided me with a copy of The Lives and Times of the Great Composers by Michael Steen. They describe it as magisterial - and this is certainly true if it means bulky - there are almost 1,000 pages in this chunky concoction. The book has chapters on most of the big names from Handel to Puccini, so roughly 1700 to the early 1900s. There are also some rather summary compound chapters taking in, for instance, the big twentieth century Russians (I think it's bizarre that as trivial a composer as Puccini has his own chapter where Stravinsky doesn't, but the author does seem to have a particular favouritism towards operatic composers).

The main chapters are full of rich historical detail - fascinating if you like this kind of context. It hadn't really occured to me until reading this book, but history of music is very like history of science, in that to get it just right the author has to achieve a balance between historical context and details of the discipline (music and science respectively). Get too little of either and it's a fail.

Here you certainly can't criticize the historical context. There's masses of it. Rather too much for my liking sometimes. You can get three or four pages where the composer himself (I think they are all men) isn't mentioned, it's just about what the local royalty or political faction or doing. This got a little wearing occasionally. We also get plenty of the domestic details of the composers' lives, which is excellent. By contrast, the music is given rather skimpy treatment. There is very little on what made these composers great, which seems odd - like writing a book about Newton but not saying much about his theories on gravity or light.

A good example of this is in the chapter on Mahler. We hear a little bit about the Second Symphony, then the next one we hear about is the Eighth. Nothing about the remarkable structure of the Third Symphony, or the effectiveness of the Fifth, arguably his most approachable... or for that matter the famous 'hammer blows' in the Sixth. Although very occasionally we get a mention that, for instance Beethoven changed the rules, we really don't get a feeling what where the significant differences between his music and Mozart's. All in all, the musical side is a disappointment.

Overall, then, a good read if you like plenty of history, and an effective introduction to the private lives of these composers, but not something to give any appreciation of why their music is great.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope