A quick book review

A Concise History of Western Music -- Paul Griffiths (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

I have to admit that I picked this book up on an impulse.  I was fascinated to discover that the author was using time as a way to frame a discussion of music history, a conceit that struck me as innovative and interesting.

While Paul Griffiths has had a distinguished career as a music critic, I have to admit that my impression of this book was that he breezes over a lot of issues very swiftly.  Many names of core significance to the story of music across the ages flit past, often with little account of why they matter, and almost no information for a curious reader to pursue later on.  I think this is a very serious weakness, and it makes understanding the text difficult, even for a reader with knowledge of the subject.

A further limitation of this history is the exclusion of any material other than music of the western canon and its periphery.  I think Richard Taruskin has made a stronger argument for how and why to limit the subject matter, but Griffiths seems to assume that the reader is aware of the limitations he has adopted.

My biggest disappointment was the total lack of engagement with time as a means to unfold the story of music in western Europe and beyond.  I was disappointed to discover that the only substantive mentions of time were in relation to telling the hours -- music history is periodized according to whether we used a sundial, a clock, or a personal timepiece to know where we are in the day.  And -- even more problematically -- why no discussion of the choices behind looking at time as a device for talking about music: why not discuss the relationship between music and space(s), music and architecture, music and fashion, music and particle physics?  Having slogged through to the end, I was none the wiser as to how telling time has influenced the development of music.  Instead, Griffiths has given us a history of music that follows the time-hallowed periodization adopted in almost any other history book, minus the rigorous (if outdated) theorizing of Parry, attention to context of Grout and Palisca, the analytical ear of Taruskin or the sheer readibility of Tovey.

So, who might get the most out of this book?  I think it would be useful to someone wanting a good overview without too much detail.  It might suit an undergraduate who wants to have some signposts to navigate the grand sweep of history lectures without having to deal with a larger textbook.  A general reader would probably find it a bit too brief on detail, although the complete absence of notated examples and recommendation of recordings would help to flesh out the very thin discussions of the various 'big name' composers.

Perhaps the best use for this history is as a companion to a more detailed text, or to be read in conjunction with internet research.