Rating: 
Summary: deficient
Review: A reference book such as this--in contradistinction to an original music-theory exposition such as "The Lydian-Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization" by George Russell (or, for that matter, "Pentatonic Scales for the Jazz-Rock Keyboardist" by Jeff Burns)--, is made up of received matter--by its very nature. Especially where that matter is widely available elsewhere, as in this case, it is appropriate to judge such a book by its manner of presentation. I find "Music Notation"'s manner of presentation deficient. It is difficult to use and difficult to trust, and its style is obtrusive and annoying. Again, although music-notation reference books tend to come and go, there are many alternatives to this book still available. I agree that one of the best is "The Norton Manual of Music Notation" by George Heussenstamm.
Rating: 
Summary: Resourceful for the serious composer
Review: As a free-standing piece of work to someone unfamiliar with the technical mastery it takes just to notate creative music, this text may seem ineffective. However, to the serious, grounded composer looking to martial the skills of not just any given solo instrument but also the extended techniques of all the major instrument families, it is an absolute gem.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book with one huge flaw!
Review: As others have said, this book is extremely extensive. It covers just about every notational circumstance (available up to the mid sixties that is) in great detail. This is my number one reccommendation for a notation book.
However, the section on Jazz is absolutely horrible, and offensive. Not only does it contain numerous flaws, it is missing a ton of stuff that the Jazz composer needs to notate. Also, it is offensive in that he refers to most Jazz music as "not serious." The book would be almost perfect if they would just leave the Jazz section out altogether. He apparently did not take very much time researching Jazz compositions (I don't think he every looked at one!) and did not put an importance on that chapter.
Rating: 
Summary: Look elsewhere first
Review: Certainly one is entitled to praise this book if one feels it warrants praise. It is rather much, however, to call everyone who feels otherwise unserious and ungrounded. Well, this book is more extensive than most music notation books, and that is worth something. On the other hand, 1) it misunderstands rhythm--as the grounded and serious and often performed composer Paul Creston points out (much more often performed, by the way, than the author of this book) and 2) for most "extended techniques" there generally is no standard notation, as a glance at "New Music Vocabulary" by Howard Risatti will demonstrate.The supercilious composition student (or soi-disant "serious, grounded composer") can learn much about rhythmic notation from Paul Creston's "Principles of Rhythm", yet I recommend Paul Creston's "Principles of Rhythm" for all musicians of all temperaments. (I don't recommend his "Rational Metric Notation", by the way--another story.)
Rating:
Summary: A Fount of Misinformation
Review: I bought this because it was recommended in an interview by a great composer-arranger, the late Oliver Nelson. I'm sorry to say I disagree with Mr. Nelson, and am greatly disappointed. And I'm VERY sorry to have to report this, due to the tremendous research and work Read obviously put in. Plus,I was very impressed with another of his books: "Style and Orchestration". I couldn't recommend that one more highly. So go figure. Jazz being my own indocrination as composer and performer, I turned to Read's chapter on jazz notation. I wasn't halfway through one page before shaking my head at the mischaracterizations and general misinformation contained within. To wit: He starts out a discussion of staves by stating that "the five line staff is used by all the jazz instrumentalists except guitar and ukelele". Well, gee, Mr. Read, that comes as an awful shock, since I'm playing guitar 35 years, since age 12, and am fully capable of reading treble and bass clef--thank you very much---as are my many colleagues. The fingerboard notation he takes for standard practice went out with high button shoes. You will never see it but for ancient lead sheets. As for "tablature", it's strictly for rockers, beginning players or those too lazy too read. Ask around. Jazz, it seems, grew up when Mr. Read wasn't looking, and its practitioners on all instruments ought not be insulted like this. He later goes on to demonstrate rest notation in jazz scoring and states that after indicating the desired number (i.e.: 6)telling the player how many bars to "lay out", in his words, "the remaining measures of silence are then left blank". Wrong again. I've NEVER seen that, and wouldn't write that way myself for fear of confusing players who just finished counting bars to rest. Finally, a body blow to the corpus of work of great jazz arrangers and composers is landed at the chapter's close, when discussing dynamics he states "dynamics are usually at a minimum in jazz scores. Frequently an instrument will have no indication of the desired dynamic level". All he had to do was look at ANY score by a top jazz writer---Oliver Nelson, Gil Evans, Thad jones, Bob Brookmeyer, Manny Albam, take your pick---to know not to write such utter twaddle. I cannot comment on Read's grasp of classical notation, as I have not written enough in the idiom, and lack the expertise. But, frankly, after encountering the misinformation on jazz notation, I'm afraid to read and take it at its word---don't want more of the same. I feel terrible saying this, as his other aforementioned book is of top quality. Other parts of this book I've scanned seem very comprehensive in their research and scholarship, and I will read on, hoping that the jazz chapter was an ill-conceived wrong turn into territory he's unknowledgeable about. He's obviously quite a fine musician, and I'd love to hear his compositions. But I can't recommend a book so full of 24-karat misinformation in just one chapter.
Rating:
Summary: It appears I was wrong
Review: I have had occasion to re-evaluate this book. My copying and "graphical communication skills" as one famous friend pointed out---trying to help---need a lot of work. And I love composing too much to continue to have players offer to force-feed me my parts (and those are my FRIENDS). I want to make it EASY, not hard, to read my stuff, and especially do not want to waste precious rehearsal time with questions about things that ought to have been clear on the page. So I sought help, from an extremely organized, meticulous guitarist-writer colleague (James Chirillo). The first book he recommended?.........(drumroll, etc.): Mr. Read's Musical Notation. "But all the dumb stuff he said about dynamics, guitar notation, etc. on his section on jazz...." (See my earlier review for those salty comments). Who cares? I KNOW about that stuff, and what I DON'T know is the point. I now have Mr. Read's book NOT on my bookshelf, but a place I can get at it quickly, a shelf on my composing desk. Mr. Read, like Frankie (or was in Johnny?) I have done you wrong. I will consult this book as problems/questions arise. Had I taken the advive of a man far better than I, Oliver Nelson (again, as per my earlier review) I wouldn't be writing this apology and probably would have been writing clearer charts all this time.
Rating:
Summary: It appears I was wrong
Review: I have had occasion to re-evaluate this book. My copying and "graphical communication skills" as one famous friend pointed out---trying to help---need a lot of work. And I love composing too much to continue to have players offer to force-feed me my parts (and those are my FRIENDS). I want to make it EASY, not hard, to read my stuff, and especially do not want to waste precious rehearsal time with questions about things that ought to have been clear on the page. So I sought help, from an extremely organized, meticulous guitarist-writer colleague (James Chirillo). The first book he recommended?.........(drumroll, etc.): Mr. Read's Musical Notation. "But all the dumb stuff he said about dynamics, guitar notation, etc. on his section on jazz...." (See my earlier review for those salty comments). Who cares? I KNOW about that stuff, and addressing what I DON'T know is the point. I now have Mr. Read's book NOT on my bookshelf, but a place I can get at it quickly, a shelf on my composing desk. Mr. Read, like Frankie (or was in Johnny?) I have done you wrong. I will consult this book as problems/questions arise. Had I taken the advice of a man far better than I, Oliver Nelson (again, as per my earlier review) I wouldn't be writing this apology and probably would have been writing clearer charts all this time.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic
Review: I have had this book on my reference shelf for over twenty years. While it hasn't answered every question I've ever had about music notation, it has always at least pointed me in the right direction. Anyone interested in putting music on paper should own this book--and read it. (I also think that this book will most certainly outlast--"Pentatonic Scales for the Jazz-Rock Keyboardist" by Jeff Burns. At least Mr. Read has something to be pretentious about.)
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely The Best on Notation
Review: I have used this book since I first read it in music school 20 years ago. Descriptions are clear and concise without subjective judgement about the instruments and musical trends (unlike Walter Piston). Good examples and coverage for all instrument groups and most ensembles. The instrument range examples for different grade levels is indespensible for anyone writing for younger players.
Rating:
Summary: A classic for the Classical standard
Review: My main composition professor at university was (and still is) a stickler for good, precise, consistent, and clear notation. He should know; besides his own scores (beautifully done, even though filled with many difficult and novel notations), he's also worked on the side for the last thirty years making clean beautiful copies of scores and parts for others. This book was what he insisted we all learn from, and is still considered as his own primary reference today. There aren't many questions of standard usage it doesn't cover (both current and historical), and it distills many of the more unusual indications that began to be used in contemporary music. Each composer will find their own usage and innovation, but thorough study of this book will ensure that a real, solid foundation of the fundamentals of notational clarity will be at their command for whatever they want to do.
|
