Alex Ross's New Book?

[Grazioso]

I know quite a few of us here have read and enjoyed Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise. Has anyone read his new book, Listen to This? Any good? Apparently it's a collection of essays on the contemporary music scene, covering classical and pop forms and artists and their interrelations.

[karlhenning]

I've only started it. Will reserve comment until I've finished it.

[Brian]

I saw that Alex Ross had written an article in the Guardian today, and started reading it. At the end of the article was a tagline: "Alex Ross will be giving a talk at the British Library tomorrow." Cool! I'm in the British Library! I looked at the date. The article was published yesterday! I am in the same building where Alex Ross will be giving a talk, on the same day, and I had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA.

How awesome is that???

Now if you'll excuse me... the talk begins in 10 minutes 

[springrite]

I did enjoy The Rest is Noise for the most part, although I can not accept his almost totally ignoring Carter (although I understand that had he talked about Carter more he'd be dishing out some uncomplimentary things).

I will not rush into getting the new book until I hear a little more about it.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I wasn't all that impressed by The Rest Is Noise. It does succeed admirably at what I think is its goal: giving people who don't know much about 20th-century music a useful overview and some tips. Beyond that, it has the usual flaws of a book by a single author which tries to cover a huge amount of territory.

[springrite]

I wasn't all that impressed by The Rest Is Noise. It does succeed admirably at what I think is its goal: giving people who don't know much about 20th-century music a useful overview and some tips. Beyond that, it has the usual flaws of a book by a single author which tries to cover a huge amount of territory.

The thing I am disappointed with it is the fact that so little space was actually about later 20th century music. I mean, Sibelius and Shostakovich too up so much more space that two third of the book seems to be about a transition from late 19th to early 20th century. I read the first part mainly for the few interesting stories and the second half is missing some most important people that Ross simply did not like or find important.

[karlhenning]

I think you both have good cavils with The Rest Is Noise.

[Opus106]

I wasn't all that impressed by The Rest Is Noise. It does succeed admirably at what I think is its goal: giving people who don't know much about 20th-century music a useful overview and some tips. Beyond that, it has the usual flaws of a book by a single author which tries to cover a huge amount of territory.

Would you please list a few of the flaws that you found? I have the book on my to-read list, but I'm not going to read it until I have delved a little deeper into 20th Century music, although having gained a liking for Shostakovich of late and bit of Bartók, I think I'm halfway there.

[Grazioso]

It's easy to quibble over who is discussed in the book and to what extent they're covered. Some of my favorite composers receive no mention at all. But Ross, it seems, is primarily concerned with covering the major "isms" of 20th-century Classical music, as well as composers whose careers make for good stories (e.g., DSCH and Britten). It's clearly not intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedia on the subject.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Would you please list a few of the flaws that you found?

Sure:

1. Highly arbitrary choice of composers to discuss. Thus, there's a whole chapter on Sibelius but hardly anything about Nielsen, a chapter on Britten but practically zilch about Vaughan Williams, etc. I realize an author has to make choices, but surely he could have balanced things better.

2. Ross has a tendency to indulge in heavy speculation. I don't have the book with me right now to quote, but I recall a passage along the lines of "Mahler used this gesture when conducting, could this possibly have meant that...?" etc etc... the book is full of these fancies, which sound juicy but don't add to our knowledge.

3. A minor annoyance: Ross has a tendency to highlight quotes from his subjects which make them look bad. Of course nobody's perfect, but this often comes across as mean-spirited.

That said, I don't want to dump on the book too much. It provides a useful service for those who want to find out about 20th-century music but don't know where to start. I've even recommended it to a couple of people. But caveats apply.

[karlhenning]

. . . as well as composers whose careers make for good stories (e.g., DSCH and Britten) . . . .

Yes, that's a nuanced quarrel I have with his chapter on Shostakovich; a bit more dishy than a musical admirer of the composer may wish.

[Opus106]

Thanks. No RVW, huh?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The thing I am disappointed with it is the fact that so little space was actually about later 20th century music. I mean, Sibelius and Shostakovich too up so much more space that two third of the book seems to be about a transition from late 19th to early 20th century. I read the first part mainly for the few interesting stories and the second half is missing some most important people that Ross simply did not like or find important.

I've read somewhere or other that Ross thinks the greatest 20th century composer was Richard Strauss. Nothing wrong with that, it's his view, but it does tell you something about his taste, and why he might be more interested in Romantic-to-Modern transitional figures like Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius and Schoenberg than in what happened later.

[karlhenning]

Thanks. No RVW, huh?

Not absolutely none, but hardly any (more mentions than of Wuorinen, for instance).

It's a bit funny, in the index there are four listings under RVW. The first indicates pp.101-102.  That's because "Ralph Vaughan" are the last two words on page 101, and "Williams" is the first word on p. 102.

Edit :: typo

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Yes, that's a nuanced quarrel I have with his chapter on Shostakovich; a bit more dishy than a musical admirer of the composer may wish.

On the other hand, I'm glad he didn't use Testimony as a source.

[karlhenning]

I've read somewhere or other that Ross thinks the greatest 20th century composer was Richard Strauss. Nothing wrong with that, it's his view, but it does tell you something about his taste, and why he might be more interested in Romantic-to-Modern transitional figures like Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius and Schoenberg than in what happened later.

That's not exactly my impression;  but in the period after, he's fixated on Steve Reich and John Adams as geniuses, and all other living composers are also-rans.

Apart from pop figures like Bjork, I mean. Ross is perfectly happy to bliss out on Planet Cross-Over.

[karlhenning]

On the other hand, I'm glad he didn't use Testimony as a source.

Aye, that's a mercy.

[Grazioso]

3. A minor annoyance: Ross has a tendency to highlight quotes from his subjects which make them look bad. Of course nobody's perfect, but this often comes across as mean-spirited.

I never perceived Ross as being mean-spirited or out to do a hatchet job on someone. Yes, some folks like Boulez get painted in an unattractive light (in this case, arrogant, petulant, doctrinaire), but any quotes in the book seem to be backing theses, rather than being ripped out of context or altered for muckraking polemical ends.

[karlhenning]

I never perceived Ross as being mean-spirited or out to do a hatchet job on someone. Yes, some folks like Boulez get painted in an unattractive light (in this case, arrogant, petulant, doctrinaire), but any quotes in the book seem to be backing theses, rather than being ripped out of context or altered for muckraking polemical ends.

Actually, I thought that Ross's selection of a few certain Stravinsky quotations fit Velimir's quarrel: few enough, but chosen to cast the speaker in a bad light.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I never perceived Ross as being mean-spirited or out to do a hatchet job on someone.

You may be right. It's been a while since I read the thing, but I recall that some of these bits struck me as unnecessary, as if Ross was going out of his way to paint certain persons in a bad light. I may look for some examples later, when I have the book handy.