Alex Ross

[uffeviking]

"The Rest is Noise"

Has anybody taken time to watch this one hour talk by Alex Ross about his informative book about classical music in the 20th century?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSZ4BqQ4Og

Please do! It's not at all boring, Alex is a lively, entertaining speaker and the hour is filled with so many snippets of music, explained and commented upon by him. Personally I was happy to hear him talk about Hanns Eisler, plus a sample of his work, a composer getting no respect among classical music lovers at GMG.  

Same fate befalls Osvaldo Golijov, which Alex featured as his closing argument with an outstanding performance by Dawn Upshaw.

As my comment on it, I want to quote Pierre Boulez in a conversation with Daniel Barenboim: "You have to be aware of the past, but not be a prisoner of the past.

[Mark]

Hanns Eisler. Didn't he write Kleine Sinfonie? A short work, but tough-going for me. Didn't make me want to explore his work further, I'm afraid.

I'll try to watch the talk when I get some free time.

[uffeviking]

Reading something about Hanns Eisler, might peak your interest and understanding:

http://eislermusic.com/

[Mark]

Reading something about Hanns Eisler, might peak your interest and understanding:

http://eislermusic.com/

Thanks, Lis. Looks like a fascinating and rich resource.

[uffeviking]

My The New Yorker just arrived here with another good one by Alex Ross about Philip Glass

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2007/11/05/071105crmu_music_ross

[Mark]

My The New Yorker just arrived here with another good one by Alex Ross about Philip Glass

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2007/11/05/071105crmu_music_ross

Get the current edition of the Gramophone, Lis - Ross has written an article in it.

[uffeviking]

Thank you, Mark, for the tip, but it's not available at newsstands here, single issues. I used to be a subscriber until I discovered how much I was spending buying the discs recommended!

I check their website - they do have one? - and look for the article there. 

[Mark]

I check their website - they do have one?

www.gramophone.co.uk

[Opus106]

On writing about music, at FiveBooks.

[starrynight]

I watched the talk and glanced through the article.  I've had an ebook version of his book for a while, but haven't read it.

The talk seems a bit basic.  Saying if you give modern classical a chance you may like it, well isn't that obvious? 

He says everything is mixed together in the 20th century, that is a rather big exaggeration.  Some classical music is still very much in the classical tradition for instance.  Also he talks about the influence of Schoenberg on film music or popular music on minimalism, but what about the influence of all kinds of earlier classical music too?  For instance on progressive music.  To say that classical music has little appeal outside of it's own circle until minimalism came along and helped bridge the gap makes little sense.

Stravinsky is pop music?  No.  Uses folk elements in his music?  Ok so did romantics, even earlier composers like Haydn.  Folk music  - at least in it's dance element - does focus on rhythm I suppose.  Stravinsky did after all write ballet music, theatre music that will also shift from one mood to another.   

Sound is invasive, primal?  Yes, but what I say always is that music is the most democratic artform with the most universal appeal.

He seems a bit obsessed by looking at things as being American, and yet music is universal it's influence crosses boundaries.  Minimalism also has an effect on other composers like Nyman and Glass.  And saying Ives is purely American is ignoring other influences on his music as well.

In this and the article he makes a lot of the politics of music or it's impact or influence and innovations from some people, and how writing about music is used to express that to people.  I like enjoying music as music, it has to convince me of it's personal significance for myself rather than someone writing about it explaining how historically they argue its importance.  There is no better way to understand music than listening to lots of it, much better than just reading someone's opinion on its importance. 

[jowcol]

I watched the talk and glanced through the article.  I've had an ebook version of his book for a while, but haven't read it.

The talk seems a bit basic.  Saying if you give modern classical a chance you may like it, well isn't that obvious? 

He says everything is mixed together in the 20th century, that is a rather big exaggeration.  Some classical music is still very much in the classical tradition for instance.  Also he talks about the influence of Schoenberg on film music or popular music on minimalism, but what about the influence of all kinds of earlier classical music too?  For instance on progressive music.  To say that classical music has little appeal outside of it's own circle until minimalism came along and helped bridge the gap makes little sense.

Stravinsky is pop music?  No.  Uses folk elements in his music?  Ok so did romantics, even earlier composers like Haydn.  Folk music  - at least in it's dance element - does focus on rhythm I suppose.  Stravinsky did after all write ballet music, theatre music that will also shift from one mood to another.   

Sound is invasive, primal?  Yes, but what I say always is that music is the most democratic artform with the most universal appeal.

He seems a bit obsessed by looking at things as being American, and yet music is universal it's influence crosses boundaries.  Minimalism also has an effect on other composers like Nyman and Glass.  And saying Ives is purely American is ignoring other influences on his music as well.

In this and the article he makes a lot of the politics of music or it's impact or influence and innovations from some people, and how writing about music is used to express that to people.  I like enjoying music as music, it has to convince me of it's personal significance for myself rather than someone writing about it explaining how historically they argue its importance.  There is no better way to understand music than listening to lots of it, much better than just reading someone's opinion on its importance.

I've found the book a enjoyable read- it's more of a travelogue than a reference book, and does make some rather arbitrary associations and simplifications to fuel the narrative, and, by his own admission, omits several major figures to keep a common focus.  Some of the descriptions are worth while- his analysis of the different techniques in the Rite of Spring was quite effective at describing some fairly complex ideas clearly.  ALthough I don't buy a couple of his connections, I'd still recommend it for what it is.

[starrynight]

Yeh exactly some of his associations seem very stretched and some remarks seem a bit exagerrated for effect perhaps,  but maybe they seem better in the  context of the book than in that lecture.  I can't really see him persuading that many people who had no curiosity about modern classical to actually listen to it though.  Most who like his book were probably already into classical music and curious about looking at modern stuff anyway.

[Opus106]

Most who like his book were probably already into classical music and curious about looking at modern stuff anyway.

A bit like me. I wouldn't describe myself as someone with no curiosity or familiarity about modern classical (however vague the definition of that might be), but the reason I have taken a break from reading his book is precisely because I wanted to listen to everything he described but for which I didn't have the time. I did listen to some 20th century composers already before reading the book, but his descriptions at least made the other unfamiliar music interesting enough to warrant a listen or two.