Arvo Part has become one of the most widely recognized contemporary composers, mainly due to his accessible "tintinnabuli" style of minimalism, and this entry in the Oxford Studies of Composers series is the first major English-language treatment of his career. The author, Paul Hillier, a recognized specialist in early music, performer in the Hilliard Ensemble, and artistic director of the Theatre of Voices, has often performed Part's music.
This study contains no real biography, but is organized as a chronological exploration of Part's work. The works of the 1960s, first with a dedication to serialism and then making heavy use of collage, are rather hastily covered in a single chapter; clearly Hillier is most concerned with tintinnabuli. The technique in general has a chapter to itself, and then each of the works is analysed. Quotations from the score abound, and knowledge of music theory is necessary. The most extensive coverage is that of "Passio", essential reading for anyone who wants to better understand the work. As a sort of appendix, Hillier includes some advice for musicians who would perform Part's music.
I've generally been unhappy with Part's "holy minimalism", as much of his oeuvre contains no clear theology and lets the listener find whatever he wants in it. He has been most successful when he put his services to the work of the Orthodox Church as in "Litany" and "Kanon Pokajanen" where there is no room for differing opinion. Hillier's study, however did help me better appreciate certain tintinnabuli works. The "Passio", for instance, is now revealed as a work of ingenious design and subtlety, but I still think "Fur Alina" is some kind of practical joke, and I still can't find much good to say about the "Berliner Messe"
My biggest complaint about the work, however, is that Hillier is extremely uncritical towards Part's music, taking turns towards the hagiographical and assuming that if it came from Part it must be good. He often dismisses more substantial methods of composition, such as serialism, insinuating that no one could enjoy them. As one who enjoys the serialism of Boulez, the zahlenmystik of Gubaidulina, the massive harmonies of Lindberg, and the mathematical precision of Xenakis much more than the entertaining-but-usually-wispy music of Part, I find it offensive that Hillier tries to say what his readers should or shouldn't like. Also, I regret that the book came too early to cover the massive "Kanon Pokajanen", which I think will go down as the composer's masterwork and a lasting contribution to Orthodox hymnography, but Hillier does briefly mention the prototypical sketches that Part had already begun to write for that work.
If you enjoy the music of Part, especially the "Passio", Hillier's study is worth picking up for, in spite of its clear bias, it is a useful musicological analysis.