312 Notes, December 2014 into English, captures the essence of the more than one piano (1983), and a further volume: “There is no getting around the volume that lists piano transcriptions and fact that while every symphony might be arrangements (1990). All of these, as well symphonic, not everything symphonic is a as several other Hinson undertakings, ap- symphony” (pp. 14–15; Es ist nun einmal pear under the imprint of Indiana Uni- nicht zu umgehen, dass jede Symphonie versity Press. symphonisch sein mag, aber nicht alles The latest edition is nearly 250 pages Symphonische eine Symphonie ist). larger than its predecessor. In a generally Similarly, everything in Beethovens Orchester - uninformative preface, Hinson and Roberts musik is valuable information about provide few specifics about whatever addi- Beethoven’s orchestral music, but not all tions, revisions, and changes have been the most valuable information about made. They do not describe the modus Beethoven’s orchestral music is in operandi governing their discovery, acquisi- Beethovens Orchestermusik. tion, and examination of the publications John Moran included, nor anything about the division Peabody Conservatory of Music of labor between the coauthors. Also un- helpful, especially for less-experienced users of the volume, is the absence of any suggestions concerning how to obtain out- Guide to the ’s Repertoire. By of-print scores, whether via the Internet or Maurice Hinson and Wesley Roberts. otherwise. Furthermore, the preface never 4th ed. (Indiana Repertoire Guides.) defines the actual focus and scope of the Bloomington: Indiana University new book (original solo works only, with Press, 2014. [xliv, 1,169 p. ISBN minimal attention to purely pedagogical 9780253010223 (hardcover), $80; material), nor does it mention any of 9780253010230 (e-book), $64.99.] Hinson’s other contributions to the field Appendices, bibliography, indexes. except his survey of transcriptions! (The latter, incidentally, has been in urgent The sheer vastness and immensity of the need of corrections, revisions, expansion, solo piano repertoire has long been daunt- and reorganization ever since it appeared.) ing to performers and scholars alike. As before, the format is alphabetical by Considering the tremendous quantity of composer, some given brief overviews of keyboard music covering more than three their outputs and style characteristics. Next centuries, not to mention all the diverse comes a listing of works, with publishers editions of standard works and the accumu- (plus editors and dates where applicable), lation of historical and analytical literature descriptions of those works, and a rating dealing with the field, any sort of reliable of technical difficulty (easy, intermediate, guidance is welcome. For serious , moderately difficult, difficult). In many in- teachers, and researchers, Maurice stances the authors add pertinent biblio- Hinson’s Guide in its various guises has graphic references (monographs, theses, been a staple reference for many years. dissertations, D.M.A. documents, and arti- The new, fourth edition of Hinson’s cles), but this element of the Guide, as we Guide is a successor to his original 1973 shall see, has its own share of problems. publication (done with the collaboration of Following the main alphabetical section Irwin Freundlich), which was followed in (occupying 1,038 pages) comes an extensive turn by a 1987 expansion and a still further listing of anthologies and collections revision from 2000. The focus in all these (85 pages), and a 14-page general bibliogra- volumes is entirely on solo piano literature. phy. Also supplied is information on the ad- To cover ancillary areas of his topic, the in- dresses and agents of music publishers and dustrious Hinson also prepared one supple- a list of composers arranged by nationality. ment (dated 1979), plus a compilation By most standards, the coverage offered dealing with works for piano and orchestra by the latest Guide is comprehensive, result- (1981, revised 1993), another devoted to ing from an impressive amount of cumula- the piano in chamber ensembles (1978, re- tive labor going back four decades. The vised 2006, both aided by current coauthor book’s cover claims that about 2,000 com- Roberts), yet another covering works for posers are represented, nearly 400 of whom Book Reviews 313 are native or naturalized Americans. Scott Joplin included, but by the same stan- Bearing in mind, however, that any refer- dards why is there is no mention of Joseph ence work is only as useful as what it con- Lamb, James Scott, Dana Suesse, Zez tains about the topic the user is looking up Confrey, or Billy Mayerl? A number of at the moment, there remain many areas of twentieth–century composers whose major concern. Perhaps paramount are the nu- works have been performed and recorded merous omissions of significant composers in recent years are missing entirely. A few and works. Of course the standard works of such examples would include Ernest almost all major piano composers are usu- Schelling, Salvatore Martirano, Ernst Levy, ally given proper attention. But it is puz- Ronn Yedidia, Roxanna Panufnik, Osvaldo zling, for example, to discover that a signifi- Golijov, Oldrˇich Korte, Nikolai Roslavets, cant number of ’s Radamés Gnattali, Alexei Stanchinsky, variation sets and Bagatelles are not Pancho Vladigerov, Albéric Magnard, Earl described or included. Under Wolfgang Wild, and Alexis Weissenberg. On the other Amadeus Mozart’s miscellaneous pieces hand, some who are included do not get (“of great importance”, p. 704) the Fantasy up-to-date coverage: where are Carl Vine’s (Praeludium) and Fugue, K. 394, remains Second and Third Sonatas and his missing, as it was in earlier editions. There Bagatelles and Anna Landa Preludes? Where are brief descriptions of Isaac Albéniz’s are Charles Wuorinen’s Third Sonata, Iberia suite and Dimitri Shostakovich’s Leon Kirchner’s Second and Third Sonatas, Preludes and Fugues op. 87, but no discus- Ernst Krenek’s Sonata no. 7, Easley Black - sion of the individual components of those wood’s Concert Etudes and Sonata, and works. In a similar vein, none of Percy Reynaldo Hahn’s Le rossignol éperdu? Grainger’s numerous piano pieces are ap- Important recent works by John Corigliano, parently regarded as worthy of specific con- Richard Danielpour, David Tel Tredici, sideration. Nor do Joseph Haydn’s sonatas Stephen Hartke, Hilary Tann, and Judith get the treatment they deserve; only nine- Zaimont are missing, not to mention the teen of nearly sixty are singled out for majority of York Bowen’s large piano out- special mention. , with put (recently republished by Weinberger). about 555 sonatas to his credit, fares even Considering the size and scope of the worse; only 15 get specific commentary. For Guide, serious typographical errors are rela- Frederic Chopin’s Mazurkas, the authors tively few. However, Sergei Bortkiewicz’s provide an arbitrary selection of fewer than name, misspelled as “Bortikievich” in 1973, half (only those “with outstanding fea- continues to appear in its erroneous form, tures”; p. 245). (Also, his Waltz, op. 34, and anyone searching for Sergei Taneyev no. 3 has somehow gone missing.) For the may or may not find him under the translit- earlier keyboard literature, coverage is hit- eration of “Taneive.” A major work by or-miss—generally the latter. For example, Donald Martino, Pianississimo, has been Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck is nowhere to be demoted to “Pianissimo.” found. Jean-Philippe Rameau, François In many cases the authors’ brief descrip- Couperin, Louis Couperin, Jacques Duphly, tions of the works cited are concise and to- Jacques Chambonnières, and Girolamo the-point, with proper attention usually Frescobaldi are included, but only with list- given to structure, style, and/or technical ings of published editions; there is no de- features. On the other hand, too many en- scription of any of their individual keyboard tries contain embarrassing factual errors. pieces. The same applies to even earlier Perhaps the most egregious is the state- masters like William Byrd and Orlando ment that ’s Goldberg Gibbons. This is profoundly unhelpful to Variations contains thirty-two variations. users wishing to select specific works by ’s etude Ab Irato is said to con- these composers. At an opposite extreme, clude with “two pages of quiet loveliness” Olivier Messiaen’s early, unrepresentative (p. 625)—but the piece actually hurtles to a Preludes are given full-page treatment. violent end. Max Reger is said to have writ- In a completely different corner of the ten “50-page fugues” (p. 808). The Sonata repertoire, it is heartening to find Jelly Roll no. 3 of Kaikhosru Sorabji actually requires Morton, Eubie Blake (both added in 1987), about ninety minutes to perform, not James P. Johnson (a new addition), and “12 hours” (p. 938). The stated timing of 314 Notes, December 2014 sixty-five minutes for the Sonata of Paul to understand, for instance, how Hinson Dukas is at least twenty-five minutes beyond and Roberts could have overlooked such its normal playing time. Anyone studying relatively recent, seminal books as Ronald Gabriel Fauré’s Sixth Nocturne is very un- Smith’s extensive study of Charles-Valentin likely to find any “Scriabinesque passages” Alkan (Alkan [London: Kahn and Averill, (p. 371). Calling Michael Tippett’s Sonata 1976–1987]), Larry Sitsky’s thorough exam- no. 2 “mainly lyrical” (p. 983) misses the ination of Ferruccio Busoni’s entire piano point of the work entirely. And the claim output (Busoni and the Piano, 2d ed., that ’s 24 Preludes are [Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2008]), patterned after the key relationships of and his similar study of Anton Rubinstein. Chopin’s Preludes is grossly misleading. Also important are Paul Rapaport’s mono- As for the admittedly subjective levels of graph on Sorabji (Sorabji: A Critical Cele - difficulty, few pianists tackling the first two bration [Aldershot, Hants, Eng.: Scolar sonatas of are likely to de- Press, 1992]), Barrie Martyn’s study of scribe them as only “moderately difficult.” Medtner (Nicolas Medtner [Brookfield, VT: Numerous entries are encumbered by Ashgate, 1995]), John Gillespie’s A Bibli- rather sophomoric (and unnecessary) per- ography of Nineteenth-Century American Piano formance advice or descriptions: “Diabelli’s Music (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, fun theme” (p. 121); on Brahms’s 1984), an important survey by Helmut Rhapsody, op. 119, no. 4: “Find correct Brauss (Max Reger’s Music for Solo Piano tempo and hold it” (p. 178); on Chopin’s [Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, Nocturne, op. 9, no. 2: “Do not drag 1994]), a 1989 work by Jeremy Nicholas tempo” (p. 247); on Mozart’s Sonata, (Godowsky, The Pianists’ Pianist [Hexham, K. 309: “Watch the fp markings in the mid- Northumberland, Eng.: Appian Publica - dle movement” (p. 700). The adjective tions & Recordings, 1989]), and Sofia “effective” tends to be overused; under Moshevich’s examination of all of Shosta - Chopin’s Waltz, op. 18, for instance, the kovich’s piano music (, entire description reads: “Effective, Pianist [Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univer - brilliant, pianistic. Makes a fine effect” sity Press, 2004]). An awareness of these (p. 254). We are also duly informed that would have helped significantly to avoid the Chopin Barcarolle is a “remarkably suc- the inaccuracies that permeate many en- cessful” (p. 255) work and that Maurice tries for these (and other) composers. To Ravel’s Sonatine is “one of the best Sona- name but two: the section on Alkan perpet- tines ever written” (p. 803). In one particu- uates serious errors from earlier editions, lar Bach fugue, “tonal balance in voice especially regarding his magnum opus, the leading [is] important” (p. 65). Would this Twelve Studies in the Minor Keys, op. 39. The not apply to all of Bach’s fugues? entry for Busoni’s Ten Variations on a Pre - The compilers devote a great deal of at- lude by Chopin makes no distinction between tention to collections and anthologies, the early and vastly revised later versions. both for individual composers and more With all its deficiencies, including the omnivorous publications. Detailed contents number of problems uncorrected from ear- of these are provided in almost all in- lier editions, the latest Hinson/Roberts stances. This feature is likely to be valuable Guide still remains a necessary resource for for teachers seeking this kind of material pianists, pedagogues, and libraries. Con- for their pupils and their personal libraries. sidering the thirteen-year interval since the For standard repertoire, diverse editions last edition, it is regrettable that the book are frequently mentioned, and this aspect was not given closer, more critical scrutiny. is similarly useful. Nonetheless, quite a few Perhaps the best option for the future recent volumes from Dover Publications, would be to transfer the book’s contents to including those devoted to Nikolay Medt - an online version that could be updated ner, Albéniz, Enrique Granados, Jean Sibe- and corrected via Wiki technology or a sim- lius, Camille Saint-Saëns, and Amy Marcy ilar approach. Beach, are conspicuous by their absence. Despite an apparent abundance of biblio- graphic references, there are too many Donald Manildi major oversights and omissions. It is hard University of Maryland, College Park