This is a good reference book, although it falls short of the intentions of its compilers. Roughly the same size as the Concise Baker's, it certainly could have benefited with the inclusion of more thorough work lists. Many entries should have been updated.

I had bought this book mostly on account of what Laura Kuhn says openly in the Preface: "Entries contained in these pages are restricted to contemporary, classical musicians only, with complete work lists and carefully selected bibliographies" "Pop and jazz artists, idiosyncratically covered at best in previous editions of the Baker's, have been excised". In view of such statement of principles, I felt somewhat short-changed. In comparison with the Concise, there are many new articles - e.g. I had never found elsewhere entries for Kriukov or Pizzini, but conversely, there is no mention of composers perhaps better known than them, such as Glenn Branca or Peggy Coolidge. In addition, I was surprised and outraged when I found that some contemporary composers appearing in the Concise had been deleted! Examples: Frederick Cowen, Alberic Magnard, Mikolajus Ciurlionis. I could not found one valid reason for their exclusion.

The coverage of film music composers is quite irregular. While there are plenty of entries for film-only composers such as Elmer Bernstein or Alfred Newman, there is no mention of some of the most well known names such as Goldsmith, Barry, or Delerue.

In relation to the amount of information, too many of the entries are identical to the Concise Baker's, not having been revised, corrected or expanded. And about the pretence of "complete work lists", check for instance Roslavetz or Ivanovs, whose lists of works are far from exhaustive. Ivanovs is said to have written 20 symphonies rather than 21 and only two of his five symphonic poems are mentioned. The "selected bibliography" consists, in this case, of two books, the most recent being over 30 years old.

As to the excision of pop and jazz artists, a cursory check shows the presence of entries for Charles Aznavour, Jacques Brel, George Brassens, Miles Davis, Frederick Loewe, Alan Jay Lerner, Michel Legrand, Bobby McFerrin, none of whom is credited with any "classical music" accomplishment.

The articles are sometimes idiosyncratic. For example, reading about Penderecki, there is no mention whatsoever of his Post-modernist about face in 1977, although perhaps this suggests that the article has not been revised after that fact.

Kuhn explains in the Preface how a biographical dictionary is a means to invent history: "Giving some room to some, more room to others, ignoring the rest - displaying in both what is included and what is not both the ignorance and the prescience of its compilers". She mentions length of the entries as the first in the list of compiler's resources. Using this as a measure of importance in Kuhn's view, we can see what are the most important composers of the 20th century. What is your guess for No.1? Debussy? Schoenberg? Stravinsky? Bartók? Webern? Wrong. By a wide margin, her choice is Cage, to whose description by Slonismky she added "much beloved". Here is the ranking by the number of lines that she devoted to the most outstanding composers (excluding their list of works): 1. - Cage (426 lines) 2. - Stravinsky (293) 3. - Schoenberg (286) 4. - R. Strauss (187) 5. - Shostakovich (186). 6. - Debussy (184) 7. - Bernstein (167) Other composers that deserve more than 100 lines are Scriabin, Varèse, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, Ives, Sibelius and Barber. Bartók, at 99, does not quite make it. The length of Stockhausen's article equals David Raksin's.

In short, a good reference but a bit of a disappointment in the details.

I have been in the field of music education for over 35 years, earning two Ph.D.s and an Ed.D. This wonderful dictionary, originally published as Dr. Theodore Baker's, "Pocket Manual of Musical Terms", (©1933 by Schirmer) was in use by most of my own piano instructors as a valuable tool for both students and teachers alike. And, the subsequent editions up to this one, were able to maintain that same high level of authorship without sacrificing what the book was used for, namely-- a quick "look-up" dictionary. However, Ms. Laura Kuhn, the "new" editor, has managed to destroy through her ignorance of classical music and political correctness, so many of the classical terms and has deleted a great many others using a method I am unable to fathom.
After teaching thousands of piano and music theory students in the private sector and in universities, I can no longer recommend what was a fine work. Please---do yourself a favour--at least purchase the Alfred Pocket Dictionary, small---but at least accurate---or find an older Baker edition (like the 4th edition) but don't waste your money on this !

If you're looking for the perfect little music reference book, look no further. Not only does it define musical terms, it tells you how to pronounce them properly, too. Handy "Rules for Pronouncing German, French, and Italian" are found the Introduction, and each non-English musical term listed in the manual is followed by a phonetic pronunciation guide. A useful Comparative Table of Tempo Marks and basic music theory information (clefs, the circle of keys, etc.) are also found in the Introduction. As an added bonus, a surprisingly comprehensive Biographical List of Noteworthy Musicians (including dates) appears in the back. Whether you're looking for a small music dictionary to stash in your instrument case or a handy reference to keep on your desk, you can't go wrong with the Schirmer Pronouncing Pocket Manual of Musical Terms.

There is no question that Slonimsky's Lectionary is an educated, entertaining and astonishingly encyclopedic resource worthy of repeated samplings. It is full of fascinating trivia, juicy invective, idiosyncratic perspectives and potent conversation starters. But as one of the editorial reviews cautions: keep your Harvard or Oxford dictionary around. It is not necessarily a reference.

Slonimsky appears to have a profound grasp of "classical music", though he is uneven. See the write-up on "fugue" and, if you are knowledge in the subject, you will likely find it wanting and even, in places, misinformed. Surprising, given the importance of the subject. But Slonimsky really shows his biases in any of his several entries on American musical genres. Read any of the following and you will find misconception, error, a dismissive attitude and a lack of sophistication, exposure and understanding: blues, jazz, bluegrass, pop, ragtime, and even, despite the editorial review, banjo. This is not a case of humorous invective: it is a case of erroneous glibness. The entries should quite simply be removed from the book.

Perhaps no one would expect to find detailed and revealing entries for these topics in Slonimsky's books. But why are they even included? Worse, it casts suspicions on other entries that stray from the classics (e.g. world musics). In the end, it suggests that his apparently encyclopedic output is in fact too good to be true. But I would be the first to admit that his book got me thinking enough to respond. Fun and informative, but at times, mis-informative. In the end, I would not consider it a reference.