Jazz criticism tends to run in two groups: one, the biographical/anecdotal (often marvelous to read), and two, word pictures of how the music made the writer feel (often awful to read). Gunther Schuller's "Early Jazz" does what any undergraduate musicology major would do: examine the music note by note, and explain what's going on. While this is not an easy book to read for people like me who have no musical training (or talent, for that matter), it is an absolutely essential book nonetheless. Schuller goes through each major musician and movement of the twenties, and shows exactly what is occurring. What worked best for me was to have the recording he was discussing playing while I read, so I could hear what he was talking about. Anybody in love with the early music of Armstrong or Ellington needs to tackle this book sooner or later.

I can't believe that no-one has reviewed this wonderful book until now. It is one of the cornerstones of jazz criticism, and the first one not written by one of these annoying pipe-smoking, foot-tapping listeners you always notice sitting at tables beside the bandstand at jazzclubs, but by a very fine musician who has actually been 'one of the cats'. O.K., he is a French horn-player, but jazz buffs who are 'in the know' with the work of Julius Watkins and John Graas won't mind. But seriously: His chapters on Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton (some thirty years before the Dirty Dozen Brass Band decided to dedicate a whole CD to the music of this first truly 'jazz composer'), but especially Fletcher Henderson and Duke Ellington will enlighten everyone who is looking for a critical assesment of the music and is tired of the endless re-telling of the phoney 'romantic' stories surrounding this music. And for the people who think they know about everything: One chapter is enirely dedicated to what is known as 'territory' bands, the bands that only played their home town and the region around it. Many a gem of inspired music can be unearthed in this chapter. P.S. O.K., I'm biased. Mr. Schuller autographed my hardcover copy of the book when he was conducting the Dutch Radio Symphony Orchestra, and I gatecrashed at a rehearsal.

This is a very bizarre book indeed. Schuller's ideals are laudable in themselves: don't tamper with scores and don't let your ego get in the way of what the composer is saying. But his attempts to prove his point are flawed in almost every way, mainly because he constantly breaks the rules that he set out himself to start with. He obsessively analyses recordings of a number of famous great works with the score in hand, and points out the innumerable sins, blunders and stupidities that in his view virtually every conductor allows himself in virtually every bar. For some reason the author presumes he is just about the only one who knows how it should be done, or cares about doing it well, or even more amazingly: knows what the composer actually meant. E.g.: Changing anything in a score is a mortal sin, because the composer knows best - only Schuller knows better, pointing out where the composer 'forgot' something or is 'obviously' wrong, and changing instrumentation, tempo or dynamics accordingly. For some unspecified reason (a personal hotline to the hereafter maybe?) the author is the only conductor allowed to make such decisions; be sure he will hurl accusations of incompetence or arrogance at others who do the same thing! These inconsistencies are an inevitable result from the assumption that scores are fairly unambiguous and composers well nigh infallible. Of course, they aren't and they aren't.
Schuller claims objectivity, but his methods wouldn't hold their own against even the mildest scientific criteria. How can one realistically compare recordings from the '30s to state of the art CD-sound from the '90s? Can one really, objectively and consistently, judge the difference between pp and ppp? And if Schuller can't hear a particular detail, is that proof of an inadequate performance - or does it say something about differences in recording techniques, about the (unspecified) playback equipment Schuller used, or even about his hearing? Worse, Schuller's reasoning is rarely other than subjective: 'Any intelligent reading of the score will make it obvious...', and arguments like that. Also he will point out how 'natural', 'thrilling' or 'perfect'something will sound if done the right (i.e., Schuller's) way, forgetting that these are all matters of taste. Where he really gives himself away is in his vitriolic attack on the authenticists, which is so poorly argued and random that I find it hard to understand without wondering about personal motives (Schuller pulls all the stops here, and enjoys adding a footnote in which he points out that in a supposedly 'expert' booklet note on an authentic Beethoven recording the term 'mezza voce' is misspelled as 'mesa voce'. This turns out unexpectedly funny seeing that Schuller himself also misspells the term, as 'messa voce'!).
Maybe for some this book invites a new look at some scores, but it also turns music-making into a scholastic exercise at the risk of draining all feeling out of it. The useful points that are made could have been made in under 50 pages; the rest is just obsessive repetition. It might have warranted 2 stars, maybe, but I felt the overenthusiastic average rating needed some reduction towards a more realistic level.

This book was recommended to me during a conducting workshop. The teacher, an extremely knowledgeable musician and gifted and hardworking conductor, hated this book upon FIRST reading, and as he explored the concepts and analyses further found more enlightenment and wisdom. You can tell the folks who didn't like this book are writing off the cuff.

In The Compleat Conductor, Gunther Schuller gives us his philosophy and a short history of conducting, and then goes into some real detail analyzing eight great classical works and how even the greatest maestros can fail the composer's wishes and ideals. Schuller is VERY straightforward and covers all of his bases well, and defends his points and decisions and pickiness. A quote: "The secret of great artistry and true integrity of interpretation lies in the ability to bring to life the score for the listener (and the orchestra) through the fullest knowledge of the score, so that the conductor's personality expresses itself WITHIN the parameters of the score." Schuller maintains that composers like Beethoven and Brahms were very explicit in their desires, and that their music doesn't need all of the extra bells and whistles conductors use to manipulate an audience, and in fact a good number of conductors in the process ignore the finer points of the music.
Quote again: "...all those deviations from the score do not necessarily make the performance 'more natural,''more human.' They may create that illusion--or delusion; they may fool the unknowing, unwary listener into thinking that it was 'exciting,''moving,''authentic,' when in reality the excitement was superficial and the work was grossly misrepresented."

There are points in the book where Schuller recommends changing this and that in various scores, which would seem to directly contradict everything he built up in the first two sections of the book. But in these sections he more than backs up his reasons--there may be a conflict between the manuscript and printed scores, maybe there is truly a problem in balance due to the power of different instruments, or else there may be problems in the publishing. His point being that you have to make informed, intelligent decisions when you bring music to life with an ensemble. Every single nitpick Schuller has with the world's greatest conductors is backed up by examples in the score and historical musical analysis. I have to admit it is a little bit fun to read some of the barbs he throws at the "great maestroes", and to know that they are fallible and not necessarily automatically superior interpreters of every work. A conductor can get a sound thrashing for certain points of his interpretation of a piece, but then on the next page be commended as being the ultimate purveyor of good taste in another passage over all others. So each conductor is only judged on their actions within the music and get equal consideration (with the exception of Bernstein who gets a poke or two for his ego and podium gyrations).

As a violinist in a couple of local symphonies and someone who has studied to a small degree the art of conducting, I have to agree with Schuller that most musicians have no idea what actually goes on within a score and that that is a real disservice to the music. Most musicians, I have discovered, also have no idea what makes the difference between a great conductor and teacher and someone who can go through the motions and look really good--without actually transferring much meaning into the music for the musicians to work with. This is why The Compleat Conductor is important for musicians to read. And if you are simply a classical music lover this could get a little bit pedantic at times, but if you also like to follow scores can be an eye-opener when you go back to listen again with your favorite recording.

By the way, Schuller does make exceptions for the different sound qualities of recordings of different time periods and does note those places where he couldn't be sure of problems because of those difficulties. There are also a couple of unfortunate editing errors, but they are small considerations within the large scope of this work.

Gunther Schuller is, in my view, the most knowledgeable living
musician. What this book provides is a factual awareness of hoaxes perpetrated by so-called 'name' conductors over the years.
Every symphony orchestra player will benefit from the information provided in this masterpiece.

This book was used for a history of music class that I took at an Ivy League school. The reason it was chosen is that it is the most comprehensive work on the swing era in jazz. However, the book has a huge flaw: although there are tons of scores and technical details as well as personal accounts and anecdotes (to suit all types of readers), the author leaves his pronounced bias on everything. He is very passionate about swing music, it is obvious, but many of his descriptions and comparisons are practically worthless to the student of music. It sounds as if he was getting intoxicated by his own play with words.

I can't figure out who would be the ideal reader -- besides Schuller himself. Musicians would probably be annoyed by the author's strong and poorly supported opinions that fill the pages. People with no musical backgrounds would dislike it because it is too technical in many places (you lose a lot if you can't read notes and don't understand the lingo). The only redeeming quality is the sheer scope of the book, so it may be useful to a student taking a survey course on jazz/swing. Even in the last case, you will be frustrated by the lack of organization. You won't be able to figure out where a certain band played/originated (or it will take you an hour to find out) but he'll tell you how the glissando at the end of the third chorus of their most obscure song was more loaded with energy than Paganini's works combined.

In a nutshell: very comprehensive and yet very biased presentation of swing.

As far as I know it, this is the most comprehensive book on swing music available. Gunther Schuller is interested in music, not life histories, so biographical information on musicians is scarce. The music, on the other hand, is described and analyzed thoroughly, with great originality and enthousiasm, including information on cross-links, influences, analyses of arrangements, song structures and solos.
I don't believe anyone will read this book from the beginning to the end: each chapter is about a separate artist, and an overall history is lacking. Moreover, one really needs to be able to listen to the described music to enjoy the book, but this is also its strong point: one becomes really eager to listen to the jazz described, often with 'new ears' provided by the author. As a reference book and as a tool to explore jazz between 1930 and 1945 with, "the swing era" is unsurpassed.

This work gives a thorough look at the bands, and their members, who played during the swing era. It explains how they formed, what influences earlier and contemporary bands had on their playing and how the changing of individual members altered their style.

It gives many specific musical examples (some in written form for the first time). It traces the evolution of jazz into the be-bop form. It gives some biographies of outstanding individuals.

All in all, this work is an important reference tool for anyone who wishes to understand how music changes with the times. Thoroughly recommended (but not if you just want a light read).

This is an excellent handbook and supplementary guide to the Farkas book. I recommend this book to horn players of any level. Like the Farkas book, this reviews technique and tips to make good horn players even better. This along with the Farkas Book, are absolute musts in the horn players library.