(1874–1951), associated with
atonalism Reviews of the book in British newspapers were generally broadly positive.
Ivan Hewett, music critic for
The Telegraph, gives the book four out of five stars, describing it as "a racily written, learned and often shrewdly insightful".
Nicholas Lezard, music book reviewer for
The Guardian, praises Goodall's attempt to convey the qualities of music in the written medium, singling out his "masterly" treatment of the period from
Haydn to
Schubert. He notes that the final work mentioned is the author's own.
Christopher Hart, writing in
The Sunday Times, calls the book "a lively zip through some 45 millennia", and singles out the "excellent" treatment of
Liszt. He terms the book's treatment of religion, particularly
Catholicism, a "glaring oddity", and also points out occasional minor errors in facts, dates and spelling. Liz Thomson, writing in
The Independent, gives a more critical review, characterising the book as "too facile for the audience most likely to engage with it but which will leave the casual listener... floundering". The book's unearthing of numerous unusual facts is foregrounded in several reviews: Lezard mentions "surprising and fascinating factoids" and Hart calls them "entertaining
ClassicFM-style snippets". Several reviewers comment on the "thought-provoking and sobering" notion on the book's opening page that, until the invention of recording in the latter part of the 19th century, a music lover would only ever hear their favourite works a handful of times. Multiple reviews highlight Goodall's habit of unexpectedly referencing modern pop culture; East states that the "populism... grate[s] at times". Hewett calls attention to the fact that the last two chapters covering the 20th century focus on pop music; Kelly considers these chapters to raise "provocative" issues. Goodall's treatment of the
atonal movement and especially its exponent
Schoenberg also draws criticism from several reviewers. Lezard calls attention to Goodall's dismissive treatment of both atonality and
serialism, criticising the work as falling within what he terms the "grand British tradition of near-philistinism"; Hewett describes the material on Schoenberg as "wrong-headed" and a "serious blot" on the work as a whole. Kelly describes the coverage of Schoenberg as "intemperate", and also criticises Goodall's dismissal of
Wagner. Hart, however, agrees with Goodall's assessment of the atonal movement. ==See also==