Michael Tippett’s Fifth String Quartet: A Study in Vision and Revision

I'm sure the author of this book finds great satisfaction in Tippett's music. But, sadly, this volume is yet another example of what musical analysis is NOT. There are descriptions of WHAT happens in the music (mere description is >not< analysis) never a WHY other than journalistic banalites such as this real dinger on p.41 "The tri-tonal axis of symmetry upon which they interlock demonstrates their affinity toward infinity...". What?
Real analysis will try to tell us why, for example, the composer transposes something up a minor third (p.38) - is he aiming at a linear coherence, and if so, what does he gain by this minor third and not another interval, or does it prepare for something, and if so, what and WHY that something and not something else. Or unhelpful phrases like "Tippett adjusts the counterpoint to maintain a descending line, which reaches a cadence..." We should then be told what is achieved by a descending line at that point, where is it descending from and why from that point, and what does he achieve by this device with respect to the overall motion of the piece... an upbeat sense or a downbeat sense, a closure or suspension and why these are happening at this moment. But we get none of that. We are peppered with futile details such as "Tippett had each instrument unfold a tri-chord of pitches that combine to create a twelve tone row..." Double WHAT? The author of this volume demonstrates he can count up to twelve but the occurrence of all 12 pitches in a short linear space in no way constitutes the use of a 12-tone row. Else we could say Mozart was a proto-serial composer in the first measures of the development in the 4th movement of the Gminor (he uses 11 out of 12 in a short time, interestingly leaving out G itself).
The volume is long on biographical details which I suppose interest literary types and romantic non-musical folks who must have verbal "explanations" of music. None of this information helps us to come to grips with the music itself. Real analysis is also, and primarily, interpretation which requires the practitioner to use his ears, make decisions and defend them. None of that is found here. Truly a disservice to a highly professional composer who made some valuable contributions to the musical repertory.