...
Show More
Some books are read for business purposes rather than for pleasure. As a result, it doesn't seem fair to assign a "rating" to this book. In a sense, it is indispensable as a pioneering survey of Babbitt's music up to that point. I was able to gain a decent understanding of Babbitt's compositional "habits", which were neatly periodized into early, middle, and late periods. I wouldn't have been able to get through this book without first reading Babbitt's own "Words About Music", which, although still dense, was written in a livelier and more casual style. I didn't mind as much when things went over my head in that book. Professor Mead knows what he's talking about and presents everything precisely, but I have to admit that I find it awfully dry. The examples are dense, and I often only glanced at them without thoroughly examining the tables and charts to confirm that a particular line pair split between the saxophone and the lower register of the piano was combinatorial. Perhaps my main criticism is that the analyses focus mostly on the (pitch-class) arrays. Although Mead notes that an analysis of the array of a piece is not the same as an analysis of the piece itself, a large portion of the text is dedicated to describing how those arrays are used, with the musical effect only sometimes being explained. At times, it is indeed illuminating (such as the final analysis of "Soli e Duettini" and the comparisons of superarray disposition in three late concerted works) - but this level of technical detail far outweighed any further interpretation. (I wonder if Babbitt et al. would have objected to that kind of "subjective" analysis.) (As much as I hate to be that person, some of the things are like... this final section of "Post-Partitions" indexes other sections by playing dyads from other parts of the piece! No one can hear that, but what do I know? Once upon a time, I couldn't follow a sonata.) Anyway, it would have been nice to have more discussion specifically about rhythm. The time-point technique is introduced and expanded upon, but I think that usually, the rhythmic aspects of a piece are described almost as an afterthought, supporting larger pitch-related structures rather than carrying the ear along the flow of the music (in my opinion). The focus is also spent largely on instrumental works; the electronic works are not given much discussion at all, nor is much attention given to the texted works as such. I'm glad I read it, but I will only be referring back to it for reference.