The Cambridge Companion to Richard Strauss

by Charles Youmans (Editor)

Richard Strauss is a composer much loved among audiences throughout the world, both in the opera house and the concert hall. Despite this popularity, Strauss was for many years ignored by scholars, who considered his commercial success and his continued reliance on the tonal system to be liabilities. However, the past two decades have seen a resurgence of scholarly interest in the composer. This Companion surveys the results, focusing on the principal genres, the social and historical context, and topics perennially controversial over the last century. Chapters cover Strauss's immense operatic output, the electrifying modernism of his tone poems, and his ever-popular Lieder. Controversial topics are explored, including Strauss's relationship to the Third Reich and the sexual dimension of his works. Reintroducing the composer and his music in light of recent research, the volume shows Strauss's artistic personality to be richer and much more complicated than has been previously acknowledged.

Genres: Music

368 pages, Paperback

First published November 18, 2010

Reviews

[Carol · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book of essays on Richard Strauss is extremely well-written and well put together. There is not a lot of biographical information, but that is easily obtained elsewhere. What this volume does have is a series of really insightful examinations of Strauss' career and music. I especially liked the perspectives on Strauss' early works and on thorny topics like the eroticism in his music and his relationships with the Third Reich and the business side of music.

[Knowerofbooks · Rating 1 out of 5]

It appears as though Mister Youmans fancies himself a scholar of Strauss, too. He's not. This is another childish venture into academic scholarship, where this amateur does not belong. I recommend avoiding this book and this joke of a "scholar" altogether. Laughable. Avoid.

[Knowerofbooks · Rating 1 out of 5]

Placing a second copy of the same book does not change the fact that it was terrible. See my first review for more information on this scholarly farce.