Notes

Notes 58.3 (2002) 544-547

Book Review

Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Centennial edition

Almost as interesting as new editions of Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians are the reviews that accompany each new offering. As reviewers articulate their comments, praise, and criticism, they make clear the respect given to this long-standing [End Page 544] icon of music reference. In reviewing the ninth edition--the first edition comprising multiple volumes, and with substantially expanded contents and significant attention to jazz and popular music performers--I turn first to several reviews of past editions. In 1979, Stanley Sadie reviewed the sixth edition of Baker's (Notes 36, no. 1 [September 1979]: 81-83). Sadie acknowledged the expanded size of the work and welcomed the new edition, noting "an aggregate increase of nearly 30 percent in wordage" (p. 81). In addition to comments about the format of entries and the usual selected errata, Sadie raised the question of Baker's continuing as a cumulative dictionary and suggested that selected biographies of those whose influence had waned could be removed to include those of more current musicians: to use Sadie's words, "revision" versus "full reassessment." Editorial policy did not appear to concern Michael Tilmouth in writing his review of the seventh edition of Baker's(Music& Letters67 [1986]: 408-9).Tilmouth commented on Nicolas Slonimsky's writing style and also on "his talent for following the sometimes indistinct trails left by musicians in their earthly existence" (p. 408).

The review that should be read by all interested in the past and future of Baker's is that of the eighth edition, written by Susan T. (Suki) Sommer (Notes 49, no. 1 [September 1992]: 67-70). Sommer devoted a good portion of her review to a historiography of Baker's, beginning with the first edition, prepared by Theodore Baker and published in 1900. In addressing the eighth edition, Sommer raised questions both cosmetic and intellectual. The sheer physical size of the dictionary, combined with a change in font size and spacing conventions, made the volume slightly unwieldy. The more important questions articulated were those of audience and the editorial policy of the publisher. Should Baker's be allowed to grow, unchecked? Had the publisher allowed the dictionary to take on a life of its own, relying "on Baker's reputation and Slonimsky's as well, failing to recognize the growing divergence between product and audience?" (p. 70).

Given reviewers' comments on past editions, I turn to the one at hand: the ninth and so-called "Centennial" edition. Both the classical editor, Laura Kuhn, and the associate classical editor, Dennis McIntire, have a long-standing association with Baker's, having worked with Slonimsky on both the seventh and eighth editions of the dictionary. Lewis Porter, jazz editor, and William Ruhlmann, pop editor, have made significant contributions to the literature in their areas of expertise. But how has Baker's fared without the continued leadership of Nicolas Slonimsky?

In her Preface (pp. vii-viii)--far shorter than Slonimsky's unique and witty essays that preceded the sixth, seventh, and eighth editions--Kuhn reflects on the changes in editorial process and practice in producing the ninth edition. Ruhlmann adds his own essay describing the decisions resulting in the additions of jazz and popular music figures to Baker's (pp. viii-x). In his introduction, Ruhlmann states: "It remains to be noted that, no doubt, this first attempt at describing the lives of popular and jazz musicians is not perfect" (p. ix). Since this represents neither the first attempt at documenting popular and jazz musicians in music reference works nor the first such attempt in Baker's, this is a curious statement. The changes in leadership have not removed Slonimsky from Baker's. Those who have enjoyed Slonimsky's style will be pleased, while those who have found his style elitist and overly acerbic will wish...