Status
Available
Publication
New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
Description
The scandal over modern music has not died--while paintings by Picasso and Pollock sell for millions of dollars, works from Stravinsky's Rite of Spring onward still send ripples of unease through audiences. Yet the influence of modern music can be felt everywhere. Avant-garde sounds populate the soundtracks of Hollywood thrillers. Minimalist music has had a huge effect on rock, pop, and dance music from the Velvet Underground onward. Music critic Alex Ross shines a bright light on this secret world, taking us from Vienna before the First World War to Paris in the twenties, from Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia to New York in the sixties and seventies. We follow the rise of mass culture and mass politics, of new technologies, of hot and cold wars, of experiments, revolutions, and riots. The end result is not so much a history of twentieth-century music as a history of the twentieth century through its music.--From publisher description.… (more)
Media reviews
In the process of laying out his history in sound, Ross fashions what amounts to a tacit revisionist picture, a small quiet revolution of his own. He gives the traditional trinity of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Bartók their due, both historically and technically, likewise other important figures
Show More
like Webern and Cage. But the longest and warmest chapters in Ross' book concern the late-Romantic Finn Jean Sibelius and the eclectic but mostly tonal Brit Benjamin Britten. Those two and Shostakovich form a sort of counter-trinity in Ross' book: three composers who bucked the Modernist narrative that revolution is the name of the game, who wrote much of the time in traditional genres however personalized, and who were some of the most crowd-pleasing of 20th-century composers.
I asked Ross if he had intended a strike at the old consensus. The answer was: not exactly as such. "My plan all along," he replied, "was to write a book that would encompass both the Modernist revolution and those composers who fell outside of Modernism's conventional lineage. I didn't plan on supplanting the hierarchy that already existed (if I were capable of such a thing), but, rather, to supplement it. So, I see the century in terms of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartók AND Sibelius, Shostakovich, Britten, AND—very central to me—Berg and Messiaen." Ross adds that the view of the Modern period, or any period, can't be summarized in only a few figures: "When we talk about 19th-century music, we don't try to boil it down to three composers. I don't know if anyone with a straight face would say that the major composers of the 19th century were, say, Beethoven, Verdi, and Wagner ...What about Schubert? Brahms? Berlioz? Etc. It should be the same with the 20th century." Show Less
The book achieves a remarkable interdisciplinary synthesis, in which music illuminates history as well as vice versa. Throughout, Ross fluently switches tempo and focus, between super-elegant New Yorker-style profiles of representative artists, and widescreen pans across whole movements and
Show More
cultural periods, zooming in unerringly on fascinating detail. But what really sets his writing apart is the language he has forged to evoke sound. On The Rite of Spring: "Having assembled his folk melodies, Stravinsky proceeded to pulverize them into motivic bits, pile them up in layers, and reassemble them in cubistic collages and montages." On Messiaen's From the Canyons to the Stars: "There is a supernova of A major, billowing into the lowest and highest reaches of the orchestra and whiting out in fortissimo strings." ("Whiting out" is perfect.) Show Less
“The Rest Is Noise” is a great achievement. Rilke once wrote of how he learned to stand “more seeingly” in front of certain paintings. Ross enables us to listen more hearingly.
User reviews
LibraryThing member bell7
This book is about 20th century classical music. You might think, as a result, that it has a potential reader base about as big as those who listen to such music, but you would be mistaken. The Rest is Noise: Listening to the 20th Century encompasses so much more. One of the blurbs on the back uses
If the book is hard to summarize on its own, summarizing my reading experience is even more so. I first started reading in February. Since I knew very little about classical music, and even less so about 20th century classical music, I determined to listen to many of the pieces mentioned in the text. Thankfully Ross includes an appendix of recommended recordings - a "top ten" and then 20 additional recommendations. I focused on the main ten, especially when I realized how much of a time commitment symphonies and operas truly were. And mind you, he sometimes lists more than one piece for one composer, so this was still more than 10 CDs I committed to.
What an experience! I didn't like everything I listened to, but it made the book come alive wonderfully. I listened to my first opera. I started to hear the atonality, the dissonance, that Ross so often refers to, especially in the music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (I noted next to this that this was "not music to wake up to"). I really enjoyed the connections I was able to make between the text and other, outside elements. For instance, in my notes on the pieces I listened to, I noted that one of Schoenberg's orchestral pieces reminded me of the orchestra playing at the end of "I am the Walrus." I was delighted to read a bit later on that a portion of Sibelius's 7th symphony is referenced in the Beatles song "Revolution 9" - a different song, yes, but I felt the comfort of having a similar idea and bringing together something familiar with the new information I was learning. And the learning will continue - I've made a note of music I want to look into, both referenced in the text and not (after all, now I need to learn about earlier classical music, too!), and of a few composers - Mahler and Stravinsky come immediately to mind - that I enjoyed enough to find more.
A truly memorable read.
Show More
the adjective "sprawling" to describe it, and I think it's truly the best word for it. From opera to minimalism, Strauss to Britten, a glimpse of Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin (particularly from the point of view of the musicians), Alan Ross includes much information that would interest a history buff, a music major, or anyone in between.If the book is hard to summarize on its own, summarizing my reading experience is even more so. I first started reading in February. Since I knew very little about classical music, and even less so about 20th century classical music, I determined to listen to many of the pieces mentioned in the text. Thankfully Ross includes an appendix of recommended recordings - a "top ten" and then 20 additional recommendations. I focused on the main ten, especially when I realized how much of a time commitment symphonies and operas truly were. And mind you, he sometimes lists more than one piece for one composer, so this was still more than 10 CDs I committed to.
What an experience! I didn't like everything I listened to, but it made the book come alive wonderfully. I listened to my first opera. I started to hear the atonality, the dissonance, that Ross so often refers to, especially in the music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (I noted next to this that this was "not music to wake up to"). I really enjoyed the connections I was able to make between the text and other, outside elements. For instance, in my notes on the pieces I listened to, I noted that one of Schoenberg's orchestral pieces reminded me of the orchestra playing at the end of "I am the Walrus." I was delighted to read a bit later on that a portion of Sibelius's 7th symphony is referenced in the Beatles song "Revolution 9" - a different song, yes, but I felt the comfort of having a similar idea and bringing together something familiar with the new information I was learning. And the learning will continue - I've made a note of music I want to look into, both referenced in the text and not (after all, now I need to learn about earlier classical music, too!), and of a few composers - Mahler and Stravinsky come immediately to mind - that I enjoyed enough to find more.
A truly memorable read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JoyceanMachine
This book surveys 'classical' composers from Mahler and R. Strauss up to the present. One of the things I really liked about it was the way he pretty much doesn't care about the distinction between who's 'progressive' and who's 'conservative' - Shostakovich and Copland get as much coverage as
Also, he does a very good job of placing the music in its broader cultural and political contexts without that ever being overbearing. Another plus is that he has the extremely rare gift of being able to describe pieces of music in a way that gives an idea of what it sounds like, and without bewildering the reader with technicalities.
He also has many 'ah yes!' insights along the way. I'll just give a couple of my favourites.
He argues, based on features of the physical way people perceive music, that twelve-tone music will always be unsettling in a way that can't be wholly accounted for by the fact that it's an unfamiliar idiom. (He's not *anti*-twelve-tone music, far from it, but just thinks that we should acknowledge that it really is difficult to listen to, and that that's not just down to closed-minded listeners.)
Another bit I liked was the way he tells the history of post-WWII American music, where Cage comes out as a major liberating influence, not just from tradition, but from the European avant-garde as well. So he traces a lineage from Cage to Feldman to Lamonte Young to Riley and Reich. (Sadly, Alan Hovhanness gets left out of Ross's story here, whereas I think he should have been mentioned as a key figure. He and Cage were good friends, and admired each others’ music despite the obvious differences.)
Another point I liked was where he quoted Duke Ellington objecting to people saying that jazz is 'modern classical music' or 'black classical music.' Ellington thought that to call jazz any type of classical music was to deny jazz its own ‘original genius’. I've always thought something like this, but it's good to know that I have the authority of Ellington on my side!
Incidentally, some of the reviewers made a big point of the supposed fact that Ross tells the whole story of 20th century music from Mahler to the Velvet Underground. The truth is that it is a history of classical music compositon in the 20th century, with jazz and rock being discussed a bit, but only as part of that broader cultural context I mentioned earlier.
Of course I have some reservations. One minor one is the journalistic tone of some of the writing - e.g. on the first page Gershwin is introduced as 'George Gershwin, creator of Rhapsody in Blue''. I can't fully articulate why this phrase annoys me so. I think it's got something to do with the facts that (1) Gershwin didn't 'create' Rhapsody in Blue, he composed it; (2) one would think that anyone wanting to read a book on the history of 20th century music would know who George Gershwin was. Also, people who use "[sic]" when quoting people as often as he does really should look to the beam in their own eye. (You'll see what I mean if you read it.)
That might just be me, but a more serious complaint I have is that British composers are almost totally neglected. He talks about the influence of folk music traditions on composers, and he discusses the usual suspects - Bartok, Janacek, etc. - but *where is Vaughan Williams??* Likewise, Tippett barely gets a mention. The only British composer to get extended treatment is Britten. He gets a whole chapter to himself, including a ten-page summary of Peter Grimes. Now, I like Britten but this seems excessive, and only makes the neglect of other British composers all the more galling.
He does *almost* compensate for this at the very end with one nice remark, on how British music went through many of the same phases as music elsewhere, but 'without the constant background noise of ideological disputation.' A nice little insight I think, especially as he has told a plausible story about how it wasn't just in the Soviet Union, but in Western Europe and the U.S. as well, that composers were subjected to political pressures.
On the whole the book has a bit of an Americo-centric bias - for example, you would get the impression that the most important thing Messaien ever did was to visit Utah.
But please don't be put off by my complaints! Any book that aims at this kind of comprehensiveness on *any* subject is bound to strike any reader as biased or lacking in some ways. On the whole it's a great read, from which you can get plenty of both new information and new insights. As you'd expect, the comments about the immediate present and the speculations about the future are a bit vague. But they are optimistic, and he makes optimism about music's future seem plausible.
A final word of warning: if you do read this book, you'd better either have a very large collection of 20th century music, or a lot of money to spend on building one! Time and time again you will find yourself reading Ross's description of a piece and saying to yourself "I want to hear that *now*."
Show More
Messiaen and Boulez. (You can contrast it with Paul Griffiths' Modern Music, which very much takes the orthodox modernist line, devoting tons of space to Stockhausen, Maderna, Nono etc. and being utterly patronising about Shost and Britten.) Also, he does a very good job of placing the music in its broader cultural and political contexts without that ever being overbearing. Another plus is that he has the extremely rare gift of being able to describe pieces of music in a way that gives an idea of what it sounds like, and without bewildering the reader with technicalities.
He also has many 'ah yes!' insights along the way. I'll just give a couple of my favourites.
He argues, based on features of the physical way people perceive music, that twelve-tone music will always be unsettling in a way that can't be wholly accounted for by the fact that it's an unfamiliar idiom. (He's not *anti*-twelve-tone music, far from it, but just thinks that we should acknowledge that it really is difficult to listen to, and that that's not just down to closed-minded listeners.)
Another bit I liked was the way he tells the history of post-WWII American music, where Cage comes out as a major liberating influence, not just from tradition, but from the European avant-garde as well. So he traces a lineage from Cage to Feldman to Lamonte Young to Riley and Reich. (Sadly, Alan Hovhanness gets left out of Ross's story here, whereas I think he should have been mentioned as a key figure. He and Cage were good friends, and admired each others’ music despite the obvious differences.)
Another point I liked was where he quoted Duke Ellington objecting to people saying that jazz is 'modern classical music' or 'black classical music.' Ellington thought that to call jazz any type of classical music was to deny jazz its own ‘original genius’. I've always thought something like this, but it's good to know that I have the authority of Ellington on my side!
Incidentally, some of the reviewers made a big point of the supposed fact that Ross tells the whole story of 20th century music from Mahler to the Velvet Underground. The truth is that it is a history of classical music compositon in the 20th century, with jazz and rock being discussed a bit, but only as part of that broader cultural context I mentioned earlier.
Of course I have some reservations. One minor one is the journalistic tone of some of the writing - e.g. on the first page Gershwin is introduced as 'George Gershwin, creator of Rhapsody in Blue''. I can't fully articulate why this phrase annoys me so. I think it's got something to do with the facts that (1) Gershwin didn't 'create' Rhapsody in Blue, he composed it; (2) one would think that anyone wanting to read a book on the history of 20th century music would know who George Gershwin was. Also, people who use "[sic]" when quoting people as often as he does really should look to the beam in their own eye. (You'll see what I mean if you read it.)
That might just be me, but a more serious complaint I have is that British composers are almost totally neglected. He talks about the influence of folk music traditions on composers, and he discusses the usual suspects - Bartok, Janacek, etc. - but *where is Vaughan Williams??* Likewise, Tippett barely gets a mention. The only British composer to get extended treatment is Britten. He gets a whole chapter to himself, including a ten-page summary of Peter Grimes. Now, I like Britten but this seems excessive, and only makes the neglect of other British composers all the more galling.
He does *almost* compensate for this at the very end with one nice remark, on how British music went through many of the same phases as music elsewhere, but 'without the constant background noise of ideological disputation.' A nice little insight I think, especially as he has told a plausible story about how it wasn't just in the Soviet Union, but in Western Europe and the U.S. as well, that composers were subjected to political pressures.
On the whole the book has a bit of an Americo-centric bias - for example, you would get the impression that the most important thing Messaien ever did was to visit Utah.
But please don't be put off by my complaints! Any book that aims at this kind of comprehensiveness on *any* subject is bound to strike any reader as biased or lacking in some ways. On the whole it's a great read, from which you can get plenty of both new information and new insights. As you'd expect, the comments about the immediate present and the speculations about the future are a bit vague. But they are optimistic, and he makes optimism about music's future seem plausible.
A final word of warning: if you do read this book, you'd better either have a very large collection of 20th century music, or a lot of money to spend on building one! Time and time again you will find yourself reading Ross's description of a piece and saying to yourself "I want to hear that *now*."
Show Less
LibraryThing member DavidWineberg
There are two aspects to this book - the literal and the revelation. The literal has been described elsewhere in these reviews variously as exhilarating and astonishing. I totally agree. The massive research, the easy familiarity with the most obscure observations, and the impact of the historical
The revelation came in the form of explaining why we hate modern classical music so very much. The reason is poetry. Modern classical music is like modern poetry; if you can't read it, you can't appreciate it. Imagine hearing a poem by e e cummings. Unless you see the text, you've missed the lack of punctuation, the spacing, the geometric splashing of the words on paper. You've missed 90% of it by only hearing it.
So with modern classical music. Unless you can read music, and have the music in front of you, you cannot possibly appreciate the progressions, the geometry, the calculus of the piece. That is why composers cited by Ross have taken their bows facing the orchestra, sticking their butts out towards the audience. The audience be damned; they can't possibly appreciate it. Only musicians can enter the temple. At numerous points towards the end, melody is identified as a horror to be avoided at all costs. Astonishing peer pressure among composers ensures that no one steps out of line and writes something pleasant to hear. The objective is to break new ground in sound, but call it music.
You can look at modern classical as movie soundtrack, and of course many composers earned their living that way. They fill in moods, complement scenes, create atmospheres. But even that has gone away. Today, it's all about mathematics, it seems. Twelve tones, interminable repetition, and instrument abuse are the cornerstones as composers seek to stand out from the pack.
Too bad. The public just wanted a diverting night out on the town. A tune they could hum on the way home. Composers have joined the establishment in their own anti-establishment way. Like banks and health insurance companies - the customer be damned. We're doing what we want, for us. Period. Alex Ross explains it all in fascinating detail. My only criticism is his website. How wonderful it would be if every musical description in the book had a sound file counterpart, referenced to that same chapter and page, on the website. Then we could hear what he described in such incredible detail and evaluate and appreciate his analysis and description of it. Maybe even fit it into context. As it stands, there are some clips, but that's about it. Too bad, but hardly a reason not to buy this important work of love.
Show More
context makes this book well worth owning.The revelation came in the form of explaining why we hate modern classical music so very much. The reason is poetry. Modern classical music is like modern poetry; if you can't read it, you can't appreciate it. Imagine hearing a poem by e e cummings. Unless you see the text, you've missed the lack of punctuation, the spacing, the geometric splashing of the words on paper. You've missed 90% of it by only hearing it.
So with modern classical music. Unless you can read music, and have the music in front of you, you cannot possibly appreciate the progressions, the geometry, the calculus of the piece. That is why composers cited by Ross have taken their bows facing the orchestra, sticking their butts out towards the audience. The audience be damned; they can't possibly appreciate it. Only musicians can enter the temple. At numerous points towards the end, melody is identified as a horror to be avoided at all costs. Astonishing peer pressure among composers ensures that no one steps out of line and writes something pleasant to hear. The objective is to break new ground in sound, but call it music.
You can look at modern classical as movie soundtrack, and of course many composers earned their living that way. They fill in moods, complement scenes, create atmospheres. But even that has gone away. Today, it's all about mathematics, it seems. Twelve tones, interminable repetition, and instrument abuse are the cornerstones as composers seek to stand out from the pack.
Too bad. The public just wanted a diverting night out on the town. A tune they could hum on the way home. Composers have joined the establishment in their own anti-establishment way. Like banks and health insurance companies - the customer be damned. We're doing what we want, for us. Period. Alex Ross explains it all in fascinating detail. My only criticism is his website. How wonderful it would be if every musical description in the book had a sound file counterpart, referenced to that same chapter and page, on the website. Then we could hear what he described in such incredible detail and evaluate and appreciate his analysis and description of it. Maybe even fit it into context. As it stands, there are some clips, but that's about it. Too bad, but hardly a reason not to buy this important work of love.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jasonlf
Excellent. I listened to most of the book on audible, it's a shame you just get the text and not interspersed music.
The middle section on the period surrounding World War II worked te best because of the integration of history, mini-biography and music. The chapter on Benjamin Britten, focusing on
The middle section on the period surrounding World War II worked te best because of the integration of history, mini-biography and music. The chapter on Benjamin Britten, focusing on
Show More
Peter Grimes, was also very strong, but essentailly functioned as a standalone chapter rather than an integrated part of a larger narrative. Which is true of much of the book. But also true of much of 20th Century classical music -- which isn't exactly Alex Ross's fault. Show Less
LibraryThing member clogbottom
This ranks with some of the best non-fiction for laymen out there (much of which is written by John McPhee.)
A glut of information, generously larded through with singular anecdotes and quotes, surrounded by the obvious and intense love for the subject felt by Alex Ross.
In some ways it is the
If you have any passing love for any composer who lived in this century, this book is a trove of eye-widening information.
If there were to be one critique, from me, about this book, it would be the author's tendency to focus on, in what is an otherwise even-handed historical overview, the topics he has a personal affinity for. Namely, Benjamin Britten. This isn't a problem for me because I knew nothing about any of these people, so any information was equally welcome. But he got a whole chapter to himself where no one else did. Just sayin'.
Lovely anecdotes re: Gustav Mahler, Dmitri Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Boulez and Stravinsky, Reich and Glass...
Lovely book.
A glut of information, generously larded through with singular anecdotes and quotes, surrounded by the obvious and intense love for the subject felt by Alex Ross.
In some ways it is the
Show More
chronicle of necessity of the implosion of an art form. In other ways it suggests a crippling hubris in those who imploded it. It is also the story of how technology changed society. It is also the story of how war changed art.If you have any passing love for any composer who lived in this century, this book is a trove of eye-widening information.
If there were to be one critique, from me, about this book, it would be the author's tendency to focus on, in what is an otherwise even-handed historical overview, the topics he has a personal affinity for. Namely, Benjamin Britten. This isn't a problem for me because I knew nothing about any of these people, so any information was equally welcome. But he got a whole chapter to himself where no one else did. Just sayin'.
Lovely anecdotes re: Gustav Mahler, Dmitri Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Boulez and Stravinsky, Reich and Glass...
Lovely book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member willyt
The unifying structure of this book is a description of the main composers and music of Western Classical music in the 20th century. Off this main theme the author describes how these composers responded to the politics and culture of their times. The book is quite comprehensive (over 500 pages),
Despite the level of detail, I found the book to be quite readable; I was able to read the book at hundreds of pages at a time instead of tens of pages, the pace that I would have to use for some detailed texts, such as a scientific text. If the reader wants more information, Ross provides approximately 60 pages of detailed notes at the end of the text, a portion of his blog that contains links to some of the music that he describes in detail in the book, and a list of suggested recordings. Ross's opinions on the music and composers are apparent, but I like this in a non-fiction work.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand classical music, especially classical music from the 20th century.
Show More
although as in any book of this type, readers who are somewhat conversant in this subject may find a composer or two that they wish were covered (or covered in more detail). Ross's main method is to provide the reader a picture of the composer's personality, connections to those pieces or composers to whom the composer may have been influenced, and a detailed description of portions of the composer's important pieces. This method allows the reader to make connections to related musical pieces and provides instructions on what to closely listen for when one next listens to those pieces. Despite the level of detail, I found the book to be quite readable; I was able to read the book at hundreds of pages at a time instead of tens of pages, the pace that I would have to use for some detailed texts, such as a scientific text. If the reader wants more information, Ross provides approximately 60 pages of detailed notes at the end of the text, a portion of his blog that contains links to some of the music that he describes in detail in the book, and a list of suggested recordings. Ross's opinions on the music and composers are apparent, but I like this in a non-fiction work.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand classical music, especially classical music from the 20th century.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nosajeel
Excellent. I listened to most of the book on audible, it's a shame you just get the text and not interspersed music.
The middle section on the period surrounding World War II worked te best because of the integration of history, mini-biography and music. The chapter on Benjamin Britten, focusing on
The middle section on the period surrounding World War II worked te best because of the integration of history, mini-biography and music. The chapter on Benjamin Britten, focusing on
Show More
Peter Grimes, was also very strong, but essentailly functioned as a standalone chapter rather than an integrated part of a larger narrative. Which is true of much of the book. But also true of much of 20th Century classical music -- which isn't exactly Alex Ross's fault. Show Less
LibraryThing member JeffV
Romantic, Impressionistic, neo-Classical, Avant-garde, Minimalism, Populist: musical styles were in a constant state of flux throughout the century. Technology allowed composers to experiment in ways never before possible. Powerful influences attracted the intellectual composers on direction (such
Ross does a terrific job telling the story of the history of music, the composers, national agendas and influences, and trends. The personalities, friendships and rivalries all come alive. Most important is how Ross describes the music. As the title indicates, he tells the reader what to listen for in the music, what exemplified a particular style, what signature passages made the composer worthy of note.
I was pleasantly surprised on how complete the book is considering the vast scope. Major composers, influential as they were, command a large part of the text but minor composers also got their due, whether they were perfecting the style set forth by a mentor or helped change the course of music, even slightly. While today an uninformed listener might consider pop and classical to be opposite ends of the spectrum, in reality, the distinction has always been somewhat blurry. One of Sibelius' greatest hits was a waltz that became wildly popular in Vienna. Prokofiev and Korngold, among others, wrote notable scores for Hollywood or the movie industry. Jazz developed as almost a spin-off; many jazz greats either had classical roots or greatly influenced classical composition, like Duke Ellington and John Coltrane. In modern times, the likes of Brian Eno, David Byrne, Bjork, and even the pop-hit producer Timbaland are entwined with classical influences. The emergence of China as a political power is mirrored by it's rise on the cultural scene as well...and a wealth of eastern music and musicians are part of the new repertoire gracing concert halls throughout the US and Europe.
For me personally, prior ages of classical music have always been easy to understand. The baroque era is marked by ecclesiastical influences as composers experimented with polyphonic tones. Music of the classical age is is orderly and generally predictable -- not surprising as it was born during the Age of Reason. Romantic and Impressionistic music captures imagery and emotion. The 20th Century styles have all seemed less easy to grasp, mostly because I've always tried to listen to it as I had earlier music. I'm not sure if I'm going to suddenly like Schoenberg or Cage or Reich any more than before, but now I understand better where they are coming from, and what they were trying to accomplish. A greater understanding of the trendsetters will also help me better follow stylistic themes among their disciples. It'll take a few months to know for sure, but this book could represent an "eureka" moment that removes a barrier erected by ignorance.
Show More
as atonality) while popular demand shifted it back. During the first half of the century, Classical Music was in lock-step with the rapidly changing political scene...indeed, it would be the death of some composers to be politically incorrect. Composers were larger-than-life figures, and often considered national heroes even if their personal conduct was every bit as reprehensible as modern, drug-and-alcohol-ridden rock stars. Herein lies the most remarkable transformation -- classical music by and large escaped political repression in the latter half of the century, composers lost a good measure of glory, and classical music became another genre in a diverse musical landscape; entertainment for society's elite (or would-be elite). Yet despite the decline of power and prestige, by the end of the century, more people were consuming classical music by 1999 than any time in history.Ross does a terrific job telling the story of the history of music, the composers, national agendas and influences, and trends. The personalities, friendships and rivalries all come alive. Most important is how Ross describes the music. As the title indicates, he tells the reader what to listen for in the music, what exemplified a particular style, what signature passages made the composer worthy of note.
I was pleasantly surprised on how complete the book is considering the vast scope. Major composers, influential as they were, command a large part of the text but minor composers also got their due, whether they were perfecting the style set forth by a mentor or helped change the course of music, even slightly. While today an uninformed listener might consider pop and classical to be opposite ends of the spectrum, in reality, the distinction has always been somewhat blurry. One of Sibelius' greatest hits was a waltz that became wildly popular in Vienna. Prokofiev and Korngold, among others, wrote notable scores for Hollywood or the movie industry. Jazz developed as almost a spin-off; many jazz greats either had classical roots or greatly influenced classical composition, like Duke Ellington and John Coltrane. In modern times, the likes of Brian Eno, David Byrne, Bjork, and even the pop-hit producer Timbaland are entwined with classical influences. The emergence of China as a political power is mirrored by it's rise on the cultural scene as well...and a wealth of eastern music and musicians are part of the new repertoire gracing concert halls throughout the US and Europe.
For me personally, prior ages of classical music have always been easy to understand. The baroque era is marked by ecclesiastical influences as composers experimented with polyphonic tones. Music of the classical age is is orderly and generally predictable -- not surprising as it was born during the Age of Reason. Romantic and Impressionistic music captures imagery and emotion. The 20th Century styles have all seemed less easy to grasp, mostly because I've always tried to listen to it as I had earlier music. I'm not sure if I'm going to suddenly like Schoenberg or Cage or Reich any more than before, but now I understand better where they are coming from, and what they were trying to accomplish. A greater understanding of the trendsetters will also help me better follow stylistic themes among their disciples. It'll take a few months to know for sure, but this book could represent an "eureka" moment that removes a barrier erected by ignorance.
Show Less
LibraryThing member gregtmills
The subtitle of this book is "Listening to the Twentieth Century", and that what Alex Ross does. The result is a slightly idiosyncratic reading of twentieth century composition -- all the highlights and big names are here, more or less, but Ross is here to tell the story his way. (His longish foray
Ross loves this music, and it's clear that he lives with the pieces he writes about. He write with affectionate detachment throughout, and doesn't gloss over the moral failings of great artists (Strauss in particular is shown to be tragically bullheaded) He dips lightly into musicology and often meanders into funny, sometimes dishy, anecdotes about these sometimes comically grave characters that made music in the twentieth century. Ross also is willing to let the music speak for itself -- odd to say about a book, I know -- but in this book Ross is very careful about decoupling the music from the pretensions of its creators.
I can't speak for true music people, but if your curious dilletante like me, this book is invaluable.
Show More
into the tragic life of Sibelius is fascinating, though he's composer who wasn't well served by modernity, and could be characterized as the last 19th century composer, despite dying in 1957.) Ross loves this music, and it's clear that he lives with the pieces he writes about. He write with affectionate detachment throughout, and doesn't gloss over the moral failings of great artists (Strauss in particular is shown to be tragically bullheaded) He dips lightly into musicology and often meanders into funny, sometimes dishy, anecdotes about these sometimes comically grave characters that made music in the twentieth century. Ross also is willing to let the music speak for itself -- odd to say about a book, I know -- but in this book Ross is very careful about decoupling the music from the pretensions of its creators.
I can't speak for true music people, but if your curious dilletante like me, this book is invaluable.
Show Less
LibraryThing member theageofsilt
This history of 20th century music reads more like a novel with an exploration of the lives and moments in history of great, albeit often unpopular, composers. The agony of Shostakovich in Communist Russia, the Europeans artists who find themselves in Hollywood and the attitude of the Third Reich
Show More
toward music are explored in great and interesting detail. I would have preferred more time given to composers working after the 1950's and especially Ross's thoughts on the direction of "classical" music in the future. Show Less
LibraryThing member teaperson
A readable and accessible introduction to 20th century classical music. Some chapters read like adaptations of New Yorker articles (they are), but it still holds together and creates a great picture of things that I (a non-expert, non-classical-music fan) really didn't know much about.
LibraryThing member adavidow
I finally have a sense of 20th century music--not all avant garde. What a wonderfully written book. Alas, it is not all-inclusive--nothing about the St. Petersburg Folk Society--but it is one of those wonderful treasures that informs and delights simultaneously. Who knew 20th century music was so
Show More
damn interesting? Show Less
LibraryThing member ninjafinity
Reading this book was amazing.
I love classical music. I play and write it, and I wanted to learn more about it. Twentieth century music has always amazed me, but I never knew much about it. A teacher recommended [The Rest is Noise], and I'm glad he did. The book talks about a huge range of styles
The only reason that I didn't give this 5 stars is because people who haven't studied music might not have fully understood it. Besides that, [The Rest is Noise] is a masterpiece. I would highly recommend it.
I love classical music. I play and write it, and I wanted to learn more about it. Twentieth century music has always amazed me, but I never knew much about it. A teacher recommended [The Rest is Noise], and I'm glad he did. The book talks about a huge range of styles
Show More
and composers, from nineteenth century Romanticism to minimalism, from Mahler to Adams. In the process of talking about techniques and styles of music of the twentieth century, Ross also told of the era's history. It's amazing how intertwined music and the rest of history are.The only reason that I didn't give this 5 stars is because people who haven't studied music might not have fully understood it. Besides that, [The Rest is Noise] is a masterpiece. I would highly recommend it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sopekmir
The reading of "The Rest is Noise" by Alex Rose was one of the best experiences I could have.
Among others, it describes the period of 1933 to 1945 - the most tragic period of XX century. What is shocking is how close was music to politics of all sorts. The figures of Richard Strauss or Anton
But it also shows that in the later part of XX century, music became less "political" and more engaged in itself - in creation of "The imaginary country that cannot be found on a map" (Debussy).
Alex Rose, shows us what makes the great music, free from politics, when he writes:"The debates over merits of engagement and withdraw [of music] has gone for centuries (...)Composition only gains power from failing to decide the eternal dispute. In a decentered culture, it has a chance to play a kind of good-father role - able to assimilate anything new because it has assimilated everything in the past".
I do not see, and I believe, the author also does not think that way - that the music CAN in fact be motivated by what happens in the world - it cannot be isolated. But, what is the great hope, that the music is not, and will never be played to fulfill some crazy dictator's agenda ....
I strongly recommend this book for everyone who is interested in modern music.
Among others, it describes the period of 1933 to 1945 - the most tragic period of XX century. What is shocking is how close was music to politics of all sorts. The figures of Richard Strauss or Anton
Show More
Webern on the one side and Shostakovich or Prokofiev, and their close relations to Nazis and communist regimes - is just horrifying. Honestly, before reading this incredible book I was unaware how abused was (maybe still is ....) music by politicians....But it also shows that in the later part of XX century, music became less "political" and more engaged in itself - in creation of "The imaginary country that cannot be found on a map" (Debussy).
Alex Rose, shows us what makes the great music, free from politics, when he writes:"The debates over merits of engagement and withdraw [of music] has gone for centuries (...)Composition only gains power from failing to decide the eternal dispute. In a decentered culture, it has a chance to play a kind of good-father role - able to assimilate anything new because it has assimilated everything in the past".
I do not see, and I believe, the author also does not think that way - that the music CAN in fact be motivated by what happens in the world - it cannot be isolated. But, what is the great hope, that the music is not, and will never be played to fulfill some crazy dictator's agenda ....
I strongly recommend this book for everyone who is interested in modern music.
Show Less
LibraryThing member BrianDewey
A great reference on 20th century music. It's most valuable if you already know the composers. For me, this worked for parts (Mahler, Strauss, Stravinsky, Britten, Glass, Shostakovich). I don't have a lot of atonal music, and those sections were a little lost on me.
Learning about the role of music
Learning about the role of music
Show More
(& culture in general) during the cold war was the most fascinating bit of the book. It reminded me how politics will pervade everything. Show Less
LibraryThing member nmele
Ross's acclaimed history of twentieth century music deserves every bit of the kudos he has been getting. Reading it, I not only could place favorite works in a fuller context but also got a sense of the connections among the various "names" from Berg to Stravinsky. Ross also inspired me to go back
Show More
and listen to some of the pieces after many years of neglect and convinced me to listen to work by composers I have been aware of but not previously interested in hearing. Although his focus is on "classical" music, his history is broad enough to include Duke Ellington, Scott Joplin, Bob Dylan and the Beatles, and more. A great read, and an interesting perspective from which to view the Depression, the two World Wars and the Cold War and other events. Show Less
LibraryThing member dazzyj
A masterly synthesis of a huge subject. Ross manages to describe the often undescribable , and at the same time links it all adroitly to the enormous political currents of that crazy century we only just made it through. If you have ever been daunted by the edifice of twentieth century classical
Show More
music, this book is the perfect place to find your way in. Show Less
LibraryThing member Jeannine504
I stumbled across this amazing 2008 book in my search for understanding the relationship between a contemporary culture and its corresponding art, never suspecting the role government and politics have played in directing the course of change. How innocent could I be? I know “he who pays the
Quoting: “The period from the mid-thirties onward marked the onset of the most warped and tragic phase in twentieth-century music: the total politicizing of the art by totalitarian means. On the eve of the Second World War, dictators had manipulated popular resentment and media spectacle to take control of half of Europe. Hitler in Germany and Austria, Mussolini in Italy, Horthy in Hungary, and Franco in Spain. In American, FDR was granted extraordinary executive powers to counter the ravages of the depression....particularly when federal arts programs were harnessed to political purposes. In Germany, Hitler forged the most unholy alliance of art and politics that the world had ever seen.”
Equally important to change in the arts were technological advances: “Three major technological advances altered the musical landscape from the twenties onward. First, electrical recording allowed for sound quality of unprecedented richness and dynamic range. Second, radio transmission allowed for the live broadcast of music coast to coast. Third, sound was added to motion pictures.”
The many excellent reviews on these pages leave else to be said but here are a few quotes from this wordsmith extraordinaire :
“The Soviet dictator (Stalin) often attended opera and ballet at the Bolshoi, where he made a show of being inconspicuous.”
Re: La Monte Young and west coast minimalism – Young’s Trio for Strings “has all the momentum of continental drift”.
Re: Shostakovich: His body constantly twitched, as if something were struggling to escape from it.”
Show More
piper calls the tune” – but who would have suspected the piper was the government and politics hiding behind benevolent foundations?Quoting: “The period from the mid-thirties onward marked the onset of the most warped and tragic phase in twentieth-century music: the total politicizing of the art by totalitarian means. On the eve of the Second World War, dictators had manipulated popular resentment and media spectacle to take control of half of Europe. Hitler in Germany and Austria, Mussolini in Italy, Horthy in Hungary, and Franco in Spain. In American, FDR was granted extraordinary executive powers to counter the ravages of the depression....particularly when federal arts programs were harnessed to political purposes. In Germany, Hitler forged the most unholy alliance of art and politics that the world had ever seen.”
Equally important to change in the arts were technological advances: “Three major technological advances altered the musical landscape from the twenties onward. First, electrical recording allowed for sound quality of unprecedented richness and dynamic range. Second, radio transmission allowed for the live broadcast of music coast to coast. Third, sound was added to motion pictures.”
The many excellent reviews on these pages leave else to be said but here are a few quotes from this wordsmith extraordinaire :
“The Soviet dictator (Stalin) often attended opera and ballet at the Bolshoi, where he made a show of being inconspicuous.”
Re: La Monte Young and west coast minimalism – Young’s Trio for Strings “has all the momentum of continental drift”.
Re: Shostakovich: His body constantly twitched, as if something were struggling to escape from it.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member Alex1952
This is a very well written and interesting book. It puts music in the 20th century into a historical context and discuss its development along other socio-political developments of the period. It is fully of little anecdotes that make it doubly interesting. Given that I am not trained in music, I
Show More
had a problem relating to the description of the songs. Saying that something starts at C major and moves on to B flat means nothing to me as I cannot imagine how these notes sound. So it would have been nice if the words that Ross used to describe the song were easily mapped into daily experiences that most people could relate. But as a result I learned a lot about 20th century music since I had to constantly stop reading and listen to the song on YouTube. I would have finished the book in a week if I did not have to constantly sample the music. So what I heard was a lot of noise and unbearably bad music, but there were also some pieces that were quite good. Which leads to conclude that most of the 20th century composers were more about the new technique and the need to break away from the European music of the previous century and less about the songs they were writing. Show Less
LibraryThing member KirkLowery
Although I'm a music lover, and listen to a lot of classical and jazz, the 20th century is pretty dark to me. Frankly I don't understand a lot of it, don't care for more of it, and some of it I hate. It's noise.
This book relates the heart of the composer's world during the 20th century. The author
The 20th century saw great tragedies, the destruction of 19th century aesthetic values, and the rise of nihilism and the march of despair. Composers reflected that in their music. At the same time composers pushed the limits of what the ear can hear and the mind perceive, especially making use of new technologies such as recordings and digital manipulation of sound.
I was astonished to learn that producers of rock and pop like Bob Dylan were deeply immersed in both classical and modern musical theory, using what they learned in their songs. And that was also true of the jazz artists like Duke Ellington and Gershwin.
The book will challenge the reader's knowledge of music theory as he describes musical works and what they do. For myself, I will only really understand the book after going back and listening to the works he describes. The greatest value of the book for me was expanding my list of works I need to listen to.
This book relates the heart of the composer's world during the 20th century. The author
Show More
connects what the composers are writing to the movement of history, politics and changing values of culture and society. The book sets aside as less relevant music written for entertainment, hence, film composers, except avant garde films are largely ignored. For example, John Williams is not mentioned at all. Another Williams, Vaughn is mentioned just once in passing.The 20th century saw great tragedies, the destruction of 19th century aesthetic values, and the rise of nihilism and the march of despair. Composers reflected that in their music. At the same time composers pushed the limits of what the ear can hear and the mind perceive, especially making use of new technologies such as recordings and digital manipulation of sound.
I was astonished to learn that producers of rock and pop like Bob Dylan were deeply immersed in both classical and modern musical theory, using what they learned in their songs. And that was also true of the jazz artists like Duke Ellington and Gershwin.
The book will challenge the reader's knowledge of music theory as he describes musical works and what they do. For myself, I will only really understand the book after going back and listening to the works he describes. The greatest value of the book for me was expanding my list of works I need to listen to.
Show Less
LibraryThing member omphalos02
Comprehensive (and remarkable) research support this very readable and well-written tour of twentieth century music. From my personal standpoint, I wish Ross had given a little more time to Scriabin, and even a mention of Walter/Wendy Carlos, but those are really quibbles regarding this tremendous
Show More
achievement. Show Less
LibraryThing member tungsten_peerts
This is a really splendid book: evocative, far-ranging, and ... almost revelatory. Almost.
The thing is, a big splashy survey like this is going to grip you or not grip you based at least partly on what it emphasizes, and what it doesn't emphasize. To put it more bluntly: does the author's judgments
And to be fair, the overlap will NEVER be 100%, and you're probably lucky if it tops 50% ... and yes, perhaps it's unjust to rate a book based on something like this. But I kept thinking things like "I wish Ross had given more pages to X than Y." To make this concrete, I wish Ross had spent more time with Charles Ives than with Aaron Copland. I realize Copland is important, I guess, but he is a composer who has never truly grabbed me -- and to be honest I think Ives was more important.
And of course I thought things like "huh? one sentence on Carl Nielsen? one mention of Per Norgard? really? why do you hate Denmark, Mr. Ross" (I'm exaggerating a little, there)? No ... you can't cover everyone in a just-under-600 page survey. But still.
Ross's ability to describe music in prose has been praised. For me this works a lot of the time, but sometimes it just doesn't.
Still, a really wonderful book.
The thing is, a big splashy survey like this is going to grip you or not grip you based at least partly on what it emphasizes, and what it doesn't emphasize. To put it more bluntly: does the author's judgments
Show More
regarding who deserves the most coverage match the reader's or do they not? and if they do not, does the author do a good job of swaying the reader in his or her direction?And to be fair, the overlap will NEVER be 100%, and you're probably lucky if it tops 50% ... and yes, perhaps it's unjust to rate a book based on something like this. But I kept thinking things like "I wish Ross had given more pages to X than Y." To make this concrete, I wish Ross had spent more time with Charles Ives than with Aaron Copland. I realize Copland is important, I guess, but he is a composer who has never truly grabbed me -- and to be honest I think Ives was more important.
And of course I thought things like "huh? one sentence on Carl Nielsen? one mention of Per Norgard? really? why do you hate Denmark, Mr. Ross" (I'm exaggerating a little, there)? No ... you can't cover everyone in a just-under-600 page survey. But still.
Ross's ability to describe music in prose has been praised. For me this works a lot of the time, but sometimes it just doesn't.
Still, a really wonderful book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Steve38
What a brilliant book. What a piece of work. A readable, enjoyable, comprehensive review of classical music and its development in the twentieth century. Mr Ross deserves much praise for his scholarship, his research and his style and imagination. Only one slight criticism and it's probably of me
Show More
as a reader rather than Mr Ross as a writer, in that a fairly detailed knowledge of musical notation is needed to fully appreciate what he has to say. Which points me onto my further reading. Show Less
LibraryThing member lxydis
I've always been a fan of Alex Ross's NYer reviews for their intelligence and accessibility. I'm loving this book, which is fascinating and informative (for a musical amateur with next to no knowledge of "modern" music--i regret i never took a college course in this) as well as engagingly written.
Audiobooks are a relatively new departure for me, and i've had a couple of experiences where the reader has definitely NOT done the book any service (Richard Preston's Wild Trees comes to mind).
Show More
I'm actually listening to the book on tape, and, despite the names of various foreign composers and iconic 20th works that are sited (luckily I'm familiar with most of them by name already), my experience with listening to it is absolutely enhanced by the fantastic reader (not sure who it is, but must look it up, because I'm thinking he must be a musical connoiseur or critic himself). The reader has a good rhythm and reading style--you can always tell the quotes of secondary sources--and does a fantastic job with french and german and other languages (he gets the names right: Poulenc, for instance, is sometimes mispronounced, but not by him!) a not inconsiderable feat, given the range of people this history must inevitably cover. Audiobooks are a relatively new departure for me, and i've had a couple of experiences where the reader has definitely NOT done the book any service (Richard Preston's Wild Trees comes to mind).
Show Less
LibraryThing member ammodramus88
This is a history of twentieth-century music, mainly focused on classical (though there is plenty about the overall context of classical music's relation to other genres). The composers' personalities are deftly drawn and the book does an excellent job of showing how classical music was affected by
Show More
historical events (and vice versa). It's extremely well-written and I found it very difficult to put down. Show Less