I will concede that this book is probably well-meaning, although its primary beneficiaries are the assistant professors (I'm guessing here at rank) who wrote the various essays, which will be more small feathers in their tenure caps.
But, as both a former assistant professor and a musician who was a part of the sixties avantegarde referenced here, this seems largely a waste of time. Stripped of academic jargon (god--things have only gotten worse since I skipped out of academe) there are few actual insights in these indigestible essays; in fact, stripped of jargon what is left is largely either self-evident, a cliche or both. A note to our authors: come on, guys, you got into this because you loved music. Show us that you still do. Try reading Alex Ross's intelligent, beautifully informed and modest but effective guide to 20th C music, The Rest is Noise. That's what good writing looks like: personal, efficient, generous and extremely well-informed, but unpretentious. Not trendy, self-referential and jargon-ridden (I guess it's too late to kill Adorno, Derrida and Foucalt; instead let's try just ignoring them). And, yes, I know Alex Ross's book is written for the general reader (not that this is a bad thing); it's also possible to address other academics and still make sense. Every few years I go back and reread sections of Pieter van den Toorn's Stravinsky and the Rite of Spring. Although addressed first, I suppose, to Stravinsky specialists, it's still generously informative, readable and, best of all, it gets me listening, score-reading and thinking about Stravinsky: what he intended, what he achieved and, rather precisely, how he achieved it. That's what it's supposed to be about. Not academic gun-notching.