The Rest Is Noise: The Soundtrack of the 20th Century
http://ticketing.southbankcentre.co.uk/classical/2012-13/the-rest-is-noise
The Rest Is Noise festival is one of Southbank Centre's most ambitious classical music undertakings to date – a year-long series of concerts and events bringing to life Alex Ross's widely respected survey of 20th century music, The Rest Is Noise.
If you love classical concerts but feel you need some help with contemporary music, this festival is for you. It's also a guided way in for those just beginning to discover classical music.
The festival features nearly 100 events, including talks, films, performances, participation events and concerts, all exploring 20th-century classical music in the context of historical, political and cultural upheavals. Our partners on the project include the London Philharmonic Orchestra and BBC Four.
Jude Kelly, Southbank Centre's Artistic Director and curator of The Rest Is Noise festival, explains the inspiration.
'The background is something I've been thinking a lot about: how do you get people to fall in love with classical music, and how do you get people who are in love with classical music to be in love with contemporary classical music,' she says.
'In about 2007 I was sent a proof copy of Alex Ross's book and I read it from cover to cover almost instantly. I knew immediately that this was a translation space for people to find a way of understanding music differently. Because what it does is take the history of the 20th century and reveal how this history – the turbulence, intrigue, revolution and warring political philosophies – deeply affected composition.'
Throughout the year, there is a series of weekends looking at different themes. Historians and playwrights have been commissioned to write about important events and major figures of the century, helping put the music into context.
'Each of the weekends gives you a world snapshot that makes you realise the world has always been very joined up, artists have always travelled and borrowed,' says Kelly.
While audiences are asked to challenge themselves with some of the programming, there is also plenty of lyrical and uplifting music to look forward to.
Timothy Walker, Chief Executive and Artistic Director of the London Philharmonic Orchestra, says: 'Working on The Rest Is Noise has been a fascinating project because there are all sorts of discussions about what you're not going to include as much as what you are going to include.
'From January to May we cover pretty well the first half of the century up to World War I, with Tippett's A Child Of Our Time, Shostakovich's Symphony No.6, then after the war we start with Benjamin Britten. You might think that the second half of the century is much more challenging but believe me we have come up with a way to make it very appealing.'
KEY MOMENTS IN THE FESTIVAL:
January:
THE BIG BANG
A new century, a new world
February:
Nationalism
Folk, roots and nostalgia
PARIS
Experiments, melting pots
and iconoclasm
March:
BERLIN IN THE '20s
Satire, cabaret and
emerging fascism
AMERICA
A new world discovers
its voice
May:
THE ART OF FEAR
The music of oppression
June:
END OF THE WAR
Elegy and heroism
September – October:
POST-WAR WORLD
Britten, Darmstadt and
new beliefs
'60s WEEKEND
The West does revolution
November:
POLITICS & SPIRITUALITY
Music behind the iron curtain
HOLLYWOOD & NEW YORK
Sound, film and minimalism
December:
NEW WORLD ORDER
No more rules
Major Partner:
London Philharmonic Orchestra
Festival partners to include:
Philharmonia Orchestra
London Sinfonietta
Shell Classic International - Shell supports Southbank Centre in bringing the finest international orchestras to London
International Chamber Music Season - In partnership with Intermusica
International Piano Series - In partnership with HarrisonParrott
BBC Concert Orchestra
Royal College of Music
Barbara Hannigan
A wide range of events and packages will be announced throughout 2012.
The Rest Is Noise: The Soundtrack of the 20th Century
In 2007 Alex Ross wrote the seminal book The Rest Is Noise – listening to the Twentieth Century. Throughout 2013 we bring the book alive, with nearly 100 concerts, performances, films, talks and debates. We take you on a chronological journey through the most important music of the 20th century and dramatise the century's massive political and social upheavals. The London Philharmonic Orchestra, with over 30 concerts, is the backbone of this festival, which reveals the stories behind the rich, exhilarating and sometimes controversial compositions that have changed the way we listen forever.
'The Rest Is Noise views 20th-century music through the prism of history with its revolutions and counter-revolutions, its major moral and philosophical upheavals around race, gender, faith, political credo and pacifism – and its new relationship to technology and artistic democracy.'
Jude Kelly OBE,
Southbank Centre Artistic Director.
Southbank Centre's The Rest Is Noise, inspired by Alex Ross' book The Rest Is Noise.
WHERE AND WHEN
The Rest Is Noise covers everything from orchestral concerts and opera, to intimate chamber recitals and discussions.
Listing of events ..
http://ticketing.southbankcentre.co.uk/find/festivals-series/the-rest-is-noise
Sounds wonderful.
But I still can not forgive him for almost totally ignoring Elliott Carter.
Be sure you listen to plenty of Cage, James. ::) Since, you know, he's one of your 'favorites' and you've been totally wrong about him...and still are.
It's really important that someone details 'the major movers and shakers' amongst the 20th Century for James. I mean it's so urgent that his online existence depends on it. ::)
The endless labyrinth that is James.
Next year, there should be a festival focusing on composers Ross decided to neglect. The festival may be called... uh... how about... "This is Noise Festival"?
Alex Ross may have his group of detractors or whatever but I have to seriously commend a guy who's willing to take the time to write exclusively about the 20th Century. I mean this century's music has raised more eyebrows than any other in history. At least he's trying to get to the essence of the music and give people who are new to the music some kind of guide. He has his biases like anyone else and, yes, his book I'm sure is far from perfect and he missed a good bit, but my hat is off to him for wanting to write something like this to begin with.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 09, 2013, 07:51:41 PM
Alex Ross may have his group of detractors or whatever but I have to seriously commend a guy who's willing to take the time to write exclusively about the 20th Century.
I don't care for Alex Ross because he
is a detractor. Have you seen the BBC documentary? It's one thing to write a history of 20th-century music that looks beyond the modernist repertoire that often grabs the spotlight. I'd commend him if he did only that. But besides pointing to other figures like Britten and Shostakovich, he has to go ahead and disparage modernism, claiming that it was a wrong musical path with no lasting value, which is news to its passionate following.
Those Darmstadt firebrands are regularly lambasted for dismissing 20th century trends different from their own, but Ross is doing the same thing from the other side.
Quote from: CRCulver on September 10, 2013, 09:12:08 AM
I don't care for Alex Ross because he is a detractor. Have you seen the BBC documentary? It's one thing to write a history of 20th-century music that looks beyond the modernist repertoire that often grabs the spotlight. I'd commend him if he did only that. But besides pointing to other figures like Britten and Shostakovich, he has to go ahead and disparage modernism, claiming that it was a wrong musical path with no lasting value, which is news to its passionate following.
Those Darmstadt firebrands are regularly lambasted for dismissing 20th century trends different from their own, but Ross is doing the same thing from the other side.
As I wrote, he has his biases like anyone else. I remember reading several of your reviews about Rautavaara, Chris, where you clearly are beating a dead horse but you continue to review the music anyway when it's clear that you disliked the music from the beginning and continue to with each successive review you write. I mean it's at this juncture where I have to say "We get it already. Time to move along."
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 10, 2013, 12:37:03 PM
As I wrote, he has his biases like anyone else. I remember reading several of your reviews about Rautavaara, Chris, where you clearly are beating a dead horse but you continue to review the music anyway when it's clear that you disliked the music from the beginning and continue to with each successive review you write.
For the umpteenth time, I don't dislike everything Rautavaara has ever written, and the reason I continue to explore his output is that occasionally I find pleasant surprises. Yes, I have expressed dissatisfaction with some Rautavaara (mainly works where, as musical scholarship confirms, he is simply rearranging older commissions to fill new ones), but I have also given positive ratings to a number of Rautavaara discs.
There is a major difference between Ross and Amazon reviewers like me, though. I am writing mainly for my own pleasure, and the only real audience for my reviews would be someone with the exact same tastes and experiences as me, except he has not yet heard the disc in question. Ross, on the other hand, is working as a historian, moulding the opinions of the general public, and his authority is now affecting what repertoire gets put on in concerts, what becomes seen as a 20-century mainstream.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 10, 2013, 09:23:57 AM
Any music writer who prefers to lavish attention on Philip Glass or Steve Reich rather than Charles Wuorinen, or Brian Ferneyhough is not a serious commentator on 20th century, or 21st century music, IMO.
This.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 10, 2013, 09:23:57 AM
Any music writer who prefers to lavish attention on Philip Glass or Steve Reich rather than Charles Wuorinen, or Brian Ferneyhough is not a serious commentator on 20th century, or 21st century music, IMO.
Alex Ross is a product of the downtown vs. uptown feud of the 70s and 80s, along with virtually every other American critic of his generation (Kyle Gann, etc). He cannot be expected to write neutrally or objectively on modern music, but then nor can anyone else over the age of (say) 40.
Quote from: James on September 10, 2013, 02:59:16 PM
Agreed. I say he's essentially neutral and he did a lot of good, spawning discussion and bringing more attention to things and into perspective .. now we have year long festivals like this.
Exactly, instead of spewing negative comments about Ross and his biases, we should be grateful for what he is continuing to do: bring 20th Century music into the 21st Century by encouraging younger listeners to look beyond the wall of Romanticism and into the myriad of styles and genres that make up this last century.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 10, 2013, 03:04:02 PM
we should be grateful for what he is continuing to do: bring 20th Century music into the 21st Century by encouraging younger listeners to look beyond the wall of Romanticism and into the myriad of styles and genres that make up this last century.
But he's not doing that. He is encouraging younger listeners to look beyond the wall of Romanticism and into a
select few styles and genres that make up the last century, while other repertoire is just left behind as if it never was.
Quote from: CRCulver on September 10, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
But he's not doing that. He is encouraging younger listeners to look beyond the wall of Romanticism and into a select few styles and genres that make up the last century, while other repertoire is just left behind as if it never was.
But my whole point is I said Ross has his biases just as you have your own. Apparently, a lot of people have read his book and, while it may be short-sighted which I never argued that it wasn't by the way, still acts as a reference for new listeners.
All of this said, I never really bothered with reference books because all of them have biases. I have always followed my own intuition and have done a lot of reading on Wikipedia, which may not be the best source but at least I got the exposure I needed, which is what I can say of Ross' The Rest Is Noise. If someone who is at least curious about 20th Century and enjoys reading, will probably pick the book up at some juncture. I don't really see how any kind of exposure to 20th Century music can be a harmful thing? It is, after all, the reader who will make up their own minds in the end.
Chris, also look at this way, would you rather a concert goer hear Schnittke's (K)ein Sommernachtstraum or something by Brahms? Which composer needs more exposure? This is what Ross is pretty much doing even within a narrow framework: trying to bring awareness to people who may be initially put-off by 20th Century music.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 10, 2013, 03:42:12 PM
Alex Ross appears to me pretty light-weight when compared to the music historians of a previous generation, like Donald Jay Grout or Paul Henry Lang, who attempted to survey a period of music history as comprehensively as possible. What Alex Ross does is very selective, and ends up presenting a distorted view of the period he is writing about. His book may be the only one many people read, and they will come away with a truncated appreciation of what was happening between 1950-1999.
Yes, he is a good writer, and yes, he is a good proselytizer for new-ish music, but no, he is not an especially perceptive or discriminating writer dealing with the music of the 20th century.
This is what you get when you give a blogger a book contract.
It doesn't matter we all have our biases and those biases will permeate the surface no matter how objective we try to be. As I have written before, I do not look, nor need, Alex Ross to act as my guide to the 20th Century. I've done a pretty good job of exploring on my own. The newcomer to this music, however, will have to make their own way.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 10, 2013, 03:42:12 PM
Alex Ross appears to me pretty light-weight when compared to the music historians of a previous generation, like Donald Jay Grout or Paul Henry Lang, who attempted to survey a period of music history as comprehensively as possible. What Alex Ross does is very selective, and ends up presenting a distorted view of the period he is writing about. His book may be the only one many people read, and they will come away with a truncated appreciation of what was happening between 1950-1999.
Yes, he is a good writer, and yes, he is a good proselytizer for new-ish music, but no, he is not an especially perceptive or discriminating writer dealing with the music of the 20th century.
This is what you get when you give a blogger a book contract.
Another keenly perceptive post.
Quote from: dyn on September 10, 2013, 02:38:18 PM
Alex Ross is a product of the downtown vs. uptown feud of the 70s and 80s, along with virtually every other American critic of his generation (Kyle Gann, etc). He cannot be expected to write neutrally or objectively on modern music, but then nor can anyone else over the age of (say) 40.
Fair disclosure: I am over 40, and I am a former student of
Wuorinen's.
I make no claim to
absolute objectivity (I don't think any honest composer would). But I certainly know
Wuorinen's musical worth (nor do I flatly dismiss
Reich).
I should even say, I know Wuorinen's musical worth, while I have always (even when working in the studio with him) written as I feel I should write, and have never (as he once half-jokingly said he would prefer that his students do) sought to write pretty much as Charles writes. (There would be nothing wrong with writing pretty much as Charles writes, if that is being true to thine own musickal self.)
Quote from: James on September 11, 2013, 04:16:45 AM
Hardly.
A single disembodied adverb, does not an argument make.
(Oh, wait: I'm replying to the guy who thinks
Pffffttt! is an argument . . . .)
Boo-hoo hoo, people are criticizing one of James's idols. I mean, if
James confers his respect upon someone, that pretty much means that even that person's poop is rainbow-hued.
Quote from: James on September 11, 2013, 03:08:29 AM
. . . Stop complaining, he did only good . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2013, 04:22:01 AM
Boo-hoo hoo, people are criticizing one of James's idols. I mean, if James confers his respect upon someone, that pretty much means that even that person's poop is rainbow-hued.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 10, 2013, 03:04:02 PM
Exactly, instead of spewing negative comments about Ross and his biases, we should be grateful for what he is continuing to do: bring 20th Century music into the 21st Century by encouraging younger listeners to look beyond the wall of Romanticism and into the myriad of styles and genres that make up this last century.
+2
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 10, 2013, 03:25:47 PM
But my whole point is I said Ross has his biases just as you have your own. Apparently, a lot of people have read his book and, while it may be short-sighted which I never argued that it wasn't by the way, still acts as a reference for new listeners.
+1
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 10, 2013, 03:29:26 PM
All of this said, I never really bothered with reference books because all of them have biases.
The general approach used in higher learning is being mindful of the presence of bias, read multiple books and synthesize the information by comparing and contrasting between them one can separate fact from opinion, and then form your own opinion based on the evidence.
That might be asking too much for a casual music listener, but there it is.
What good would neutral writing about music do? If Ross doesn't like something, I'm not sure we should expect to him write about it in a neutral tone, instead of not writing about it. Him
not writing about, say,
Wuorinen, doesn't mean that others
should not listen to his music, or indeed write about his music.
While enthusiasm should encourage you to listen, anyone's dismissal of a piece of music ought not stop you from listening
Quote from: DavidW on September 11, 2013, 04:47:40 AM
The general approach used in higher learning is being mindful of the presence of bias, read multiple books and synthesize the information by comparing and contrasting between them one can separate fact from opinion, and then form your own opinion based on the evidence.
That might be asking too much for a casual music listener, but there it is.
+1, but how many books like this are there? Internet is full of writings, but even searching form them is probably asking too much for a casual listener.
Quote from: North Star on September 11, 2013, 04:55:49 AM
Him not writing about, say, Wuorinen, doesn't mean that others should not listen to his music, or indeed write about his music.
To be sure. But it seems to me that the point of the Respectful Opposition turns in part on the matter of a Festival.
It has been well pointed out that Ross's book is not encyclopedic, nor meant to be.
The complaint, as I see it, is related to The
Amadeus Effect. The movie was a screen adaptation of a brilliant play, a fiction of stagecraft; but some portion of the public took the film as essentially a documentary. We all know, and Ross in fairness disclaims, that his book is neither encyclopedic nor complete. But the thread is about a Festival, and the very design of the Festival takes that non-encyclopedic book as a canonic text, yes?
So, your point is fine, that his
not writing about Wuorinen doesn't mean that we shouldn't listen to his music. But it does mean that
Wuorinen isn't invited to the festival -- we have already entered the phase of institutionalizing a book which was, actually, non-encyclopedic.
Quote from: North Star on September 11, 2013, 04:55:49 AM
What good would neutral writing about music do?
Well, it would have prevented a lot of unnecessary fog in
Shostakovich studies, e.g.
That is to say, there is a service (a valuable service) in neutrality of writing. And we can observe that that is no way to shop a book (or a blog) around, but will come a time when we should wish for that cool neutrality.
The irony informing this discussion is: the Respectful Opposition are criticized for weighing Ross's book as if it were encyclopedic (which it isn't); but the organizers of this Festival take Ross's book as encyclopedic (which it isn't).
Are we in agreement here?
Quote from: sanantonio on September 11, 2013, 05:04:15 AM
The thing is, if all one does is read Ross's book, then they would have no reason to listen to Wuorinen, a composer he pretty much dimisses with very faint praise in one or two sentences. And there are worthy composers (I don't have the book in front of me, but I would love to check the index for Babbitt, Ferneyhough, Dallapiccola, Wolpe, and others) he does not mention at all, and his readers will most likely not even know they exist.
If the case being made on his behalf is that he is bringing 20th century music to the attention of those who know little or nothing of it or classical music in general, then he is offering a very selective view based on his own very biased preferences.
My view is that any true scholar will present a more comprehensive account of a period as varied as the 20th century, and present factual information about which composers and "schools" were ascendant and important - and not cherry pick a couple of dozen of his favorites.
8)
Well, you should hire a true scholar to write it then, not a blogger for the New York Times who is writing about music that he enjoys and thinks you might enjoy too. As though
any book of that nature could be truly encyclopedic! ::)
8)
Quote from: dyn on September 10, 2013, 02:38:18 PM
Alex Ross is a product of the downtown vs. uptown feud of the 70s and 80s, along with virtually every other American critic of his generation (Kyle Gann, etc). He cannot be expected to write neutrally or objectively on modern music, but then nor can anyone else over the age of (say) 40.
What is this? East side or west?
. . . and we're the ones to stop 'em once and for all . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2013, 05:01:34 AM
To be sure. But it seems to me that the point of the Respectful Opposition turns in part on the matter of a Festival.
It has been well pointed out that Ross's book is not encyclopedic, nor meant to be.
The complaint, as I see it, is related to The Amadeus Effect. The movie was a screen adaptation of a brilliant play, a fiction of stagecraft; but some portion of the public took the film as essentially a documentary. We all know, and Ross in fairness disclaims, that his book is neither encyclopedic nor complete. But the thread is about a Festival, and the very design of the Festival takes that non-encyclopedic book as a canonic text, yes?
So, your point is fine, that his not writing about Wuorinen doesn't mean that we shouldn't listen to his music. But it does mean that Wuorinen isn't invited to the festival -- we have already entered the phase of institutionalizing a book which was, actually, non-encyclopedic.
Fair point about the festival -
with which Ross has nothing to do with. (apparently I was thinking of the unofficial events..)
Hey, perhaps you should persuade Kuhmo Chamber Music Festival here in Finland to program some Wuorinen, what with his family being from Finland. I'm positive they would be happy to do so.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 11, 2013, 05:04:15 AM
The thing is, if all one does is read Ross's book, then they would have no reason to listen to Wuorinen, a composer he pretty much dimisses with very faint praise in one or two sentences. And there are worthy composers (I don't have the book in front of me, but I would love to check the index for Babbitt, Ferneyhough, Dallapiccola, Wolpe, and others) he does not mention at all, and his readers will most likely not even know they exist.
2½ pages on Babbitt's music, ½ a page on Dallapiccola, Ferneyhough & Wolpe each.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 11, 2013, 05:14:30 AM
Well, you should hire a true scholar to write it then, not a blogger for the New York Times who is writing about music that he enjoys and thinks you might enjoy too. As though any book of that nature could be truly encyclopedic! ::)
8)
+1
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2013, 05:04:01 AM
That is to say, there is a service (a valuable service) in neutrality of writing. And we can observe that that is no way to shop a book (or a blog) around, but will come a time when we should wish for that cool neutrality.
Yes, absolutely.
Quote from: North Star on September 11, 2013, 05:36:38 AM
Fair point about the festival - with which Ross has nothing to do with.
That's not true, Ross has been involved in the proceedings.
I disagree that the festival takes the book as encyclopedic. The organizers are well aware that the stuff in the book is only a subset of 20th century repertoire. However, the programming choices and the public outreach offered around the activities of the festival does present a distorted narrative of classical music "losing its way" in the 20th century (aside from a few tolerable modernist works) and then "rediscovering tonality", hinting very strongly the music left out is of no interest to anyone.
Quote from: CRCulver on September 11, 2013, 05:49:21 AM
That’s not true, Ross has been involved in the proceedings.
I disagree that the festival takes the book as encyclopedic. The organizers is well aware that the stuff in the book is only a subset of 20th century repertoire. However, the programming choices and the public outreach offered around the activities of the festival does present a distorted narrative of classical music "losing its way" in the 20th century (aside from a few tolerable modernist works) and then "rediscovering tonality", hinting very strongly the music left out is of no interest to anyone.
Quote from: James on September 11, 2013, 05:33:00 AM
They do not.
One of these responses is intelligent, thought out, and nuanced.
The other is not.
(Let's see . . . can I guess correctly . . . .)
Quote from: James on September 11, 2013, 06:26:39 AM
False. Clearly it is you that has the distorted view. Ross, nor the festival do this at all, nor is it the aim/goal.
James, have you actually seen the three-part television documentary heralding this festival? It is repeated time and time again that composers did horrible things in the mid-20th century, but thankfully in the 1970s audience-friendly music was being written again. The chosen commentators completely ignore the fact that the majority of the composers at the mid-century were writing tonal music (Britten and Shostakovich were
not special, "uncompromising rebels" in this regard), as well as the fact that even in recent decades high modernist ideals continue to interest some composers and have their passionate following. Fans of all manner of classical music should be upset with this narrative.
I really don't understand why there is even arguing over this? Is it not a good thing that a festival devoted to 20th Century music is happening? Would it not be a good thing for a festival of this kind to be programmed and scheduled again? With all the standard repertoire that gets performed from one orchestra to another one, it's refreshing to see 20th Century music get some attention.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 11, 2013, 06:33:50 AM
I really don't understand why there is even arguing over this? Is it not a good thing that a festival devoted to 20th Century music is happening? Would it not be a good thing for a festival of this kind to be programmed and scheduled again? With all the standard repertoire that gets performed from one orchestra to another one, it's refreshing to see 20th Century music get some attention.
False dilemma. Orchestras can program 20th-century music without trying to establish a narrative of "this music is the right stuff, that music lost its way". My local orchestras in Helsinki and elsewhere in the country manage to do that.
You asked above if I'd prefer seeing Schnittke's
(K)ein Sommernachtstraum on a programme or Brahms, and at this point I would prefer the latter. There's a good case to be made that programming one or two works by a composer does not increase support for his output in general. Rather, it entrenches an orchestra's tendency to not take risks, and it can misrepresent a composer's aesthetic, which rests on his entire career, not just one or two pieces.
Anyway, I call it discussing, not arguing.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 11, 2013, 06:45:22 AM
Some people just want to post CD covers and be done with it. :P
;)
I'm here for you, buddy:
[asin]0312427719[/asin]
Quote from: CRCulver on September 11, 2013, 06:29:07 AM
James, have you actually seen the three-part television documentary heralding this festival? It is repeated time and time again that composers did horrible things in the mid-20th century, but thankfully in the 1970s audience-friendly music was being written again. The chosen commentators completely ignore the fact that the majority of the composers at the mid-century were writing tonal music (Britten and Shostakovich were not special, "uncompromising rebels" in this regard), as well as the fact that even in recent decades high modernist ideals continue to interest some composers and have their passionate following. Fans of all manner of classical music should be upset with this narrative.
Quote from: CRCulver on September 11, 2013, 06:40:35 AM
False dilemma. Orchestras can program 20th-century music without trying to establish a narrative of "this music is the right stuff, that music lost its way". My local orchestras in Helsinki and elsewhere in the country manage to do that.
You asked above if I'd prefer seeing Schnittke's (K)ein Sommernachtstraum on a programme or Brahms, and at this point I would prefer the latter. There's a good case to be made that programming one or two works by a composer does not increase support for his output in general. Rather, it entrenches an orchestra's tendency to not take risks, and it can misrepresent a composer's aesthetic, which rests on his entire career, not just one or two pieces.
I feel sorry that you remain such a negative person about all of this, Chris. I mean one work by Schnittke or Kurtag getting performed is better than no works wouldn't you agree? I think what you're failing to address is that people need some kind of exposure to 20th Century music. If they hear a piece they like then there's a possibility it will cause the listener the explore more of a composer's oeuvre and read about them.
Quote from: DavidW on September 11, 2013, 04:47:40 AM
The general approach used in higher learning is being mindful of the presence of bias, read multiple books and synthesize the information by comparing and contrasting between them one can separate fact from opinion, and then form your own opinion based on the evidence.
The voice of common sense. There seems to be an assumption here that Alex Ross has somehow been commissioned to write THE book on 20th-century music, and that it's the only book on that subject currently existing in the universe, when in fact there are plenty of books on this subject, and Ross has merely written his own personal take on it.
If Ross' book manages to hook some people on modern music and get them exploring, then it will have done its job.
Quote from: Velimir on September 11, 2013, 07:02:50 AM
If Ross' book manages to hook some people on modern music and get them exploring, then it will have done its job.
And if Rowling's books manage to cultivate a reading habit in more youngsters, then her work is immune from intelligent criticism, too. I don't see how the opposition's viewpoint here is other than common sense, so if someone can draw me a diagram, I shall be grateful.
And for the record, yes, I understand that this is the Internet, and there is the temptation to equate the post I agree with as the voice of common sense. Call me uncommonly sensitive, perhaps, but it's a discussion in which more than one point of view can be to some degree correct.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2013, 07:07:25 AM
And for the record, yes, I understand that this is the Internet, and there is the temptation to equate the post I agree with as the voice of common sense. Call me uncommonly sensitive, perhaps, but it's a discussion in which more than one point of view can be to some degree correct.
Oh! Perhaps I've argued after all for the benefits of neutrality . . . .
Given the choice I'd like to hear more 20th C & Avante music performed but being in the North of England its pretty limited unless you do have such festivals. We do have many fine Orchestra's following the "same old but great" programming pattern and you seldom see 20th C music performed, most of the time I hear the Modern music scene as suppliments to Classical/Romantic/Early 20th Century music etc.
Ok its a personal gripe but yeah it only seems to be London who performs these huge festivals which are in this instance dedicated. London is 200+ miles away from my home and can I afford to go to a festival as such?, down in the good old South Bank? Shame these festivals don't flip around this pork chop island of ours...its all London, London, London...
Location as ever prevents me from going, it would be too much of a chore to trot off to the capital to see this new music festival when it doesn't happen and is unlikely to happen on your own turf...and good old London will rape your wallet and credit card for the pleasure.
London, from which the English Football Team never sets foot, from where the Olympics can only be held, and why do Oxford and Cambridge always plough the same river...we have rivers up T'North you know.
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on September 11, 2013, 07:26:51 AM
Given the choice I'd like to hear more 20th C & Avante music performed but being in the North of England its pretty limited unless you do have such festivals. We do have many fine Orchestra's following the "same old but great" programming pattern and you seldom see 20th C music performed, most of the time I hear the Modern music scene as suppliments to Classical/Romantic/Early 20th Century music etc.
Ok its a personal gripe but yeah it only seems to be London who performs these huge festivals which are in this instance dedicated. London is 200+ miles away from my home and can I afford to go to a festival as such?, down in the good old South Bank? Shame these festivals don't flip around this pork chop island of ours...its all London, London, London...
Location as ever prevents me from going, it would be too much of a chore to trot off to the capital to see this new music festival when it doesn't happen and is unlikely to happen on your own turf...and good old London will rape your wallet and credit card for the pleasure.
London, from which the English Football Team never sets foot, from where the Olympics can only be held, and why do Oxford and Cambridge always plough the same river...we have rivers up T'North you know.
Please await you turn, Tony, we aren't quite done with bashing Alex... for writing a book. Not until we fight off the totalitarian organisers for injecting falsities and half-truths into the minds of the gullible public. (Oh, the atrocities!) I'm sorry, but you must satisfy yourself by listening to Brahms and Rachmaninoff until then.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2013, 07:04:39 AM
And if Rowling's books manage to cultivate a reading habit in more youngsters, then her work is immune from intelligent criticism, too. I don't see how the opposition's viewpoint here is other than common sense, so if someone can draw me a diagram, I shall be grateful.
You're right,
Nav. All I am doing here is
bashing Alex. Thanks for taking the time to draw me that diagram I requested.
Quote from: Opus106 on September 11, 2013, 07:36:30 AM
Please await you turn, Tony, we aren't quite done with bashing Alex... for writing a book. Not until we fight off the totalitarian organisers for injecting falsities and half-truths into the minds of the gullible public. (Oh, the atrocities!) I'm sorry, but you must satisfy yourself by listening to Brahms and Rachmaninoff until then.
Aye Nav, I will have to stick with a bit of Rachmaninov until I can afford to save up and pop down to this festival for all...one day, one day ;)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2013, 07:04:39 AM
And if Rowling's books manage to cultivate a reading habit in more youngsters, then her work is immune from intelligent criticism, too.
Hmm, where did I imply that Ross' book is above criticism? Those who are criticizing it strongly are actually according it greater value than it has (IMHO of course) - unless I've missed something, it's not the semi-official Bible of modern music history, yet.
For the record, I've read it and think it's a mixed bag. Like all books where a single author tries to cover a large topic, it has its inadequacies.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 11, 2013, 08:04:47 AM
Right, we mustn't interrupt James's copying and pasting the festival proceedings.
::)
He is interested enough to inform the rest of board, just as your copying and pasting of YouTube links brings new works to our attention. (Not as much snark as your post intended; I listen to a some of the videos occasionally. :))
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2013, 07:04:39 AM
And if Rowling's books manage to cultivate a reading habit in more youngsters, then her work is immune from intelligent criticism, too. I don't see how the opposition's viewpoint here is other than common sense, so if someone can draw me a diagram, I shall be grateful.
We're getting OT here... (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,68.msg739853.html#msg739853)
Quote from: Velimir on September 11, 2013, 08:09:23 AM
Hmm, where did I imply that Ross' book is above criticism?
I doubt you have, as you are reasonable chap.
Quote from: Velimir on September 11, 2013, 08:09:23 AM
For the record, I've read it and think it's a mixed bag. Like all books where a single author tries to cover a large topic, it has its inadequacies.
There's a statement I can agree with heartily.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 11, 2013, 08:18:49 AM
[snark]The difference being that I welcome a discussion whereas it seems as though you and others are trying to stifle one.[/snark]
I don't view beating of the dead "Ross'-book-and-hence-the-festival-is-limited-in-its-scope" horse as a discussion -- it's a given!
There's always the scroll bar, Nav.
Quote from: Opus106 on September 11, 2013, 08:22:00 AM
I don't view beating of the dead "Ross'-book-and-hence-the-festival-is-limited-in-its-scope' horse as a discussion -- it's a given!
Well, different perspectives, and all that. I find it of interest, given the accepted proof that the book is limited in its scope, to explore the nature of (and pitfalls attending) its limitations.
Not everything which I find of interest, will interest everyone else. If anyone has a problem with that,
honi soit qui mal y pense.
Quote from: Opus106 on September 11, 2013, 08:25:08 AM
It seemed endless!
I guess you need a bigger scroll button.
It is kind of you to consider my feelings, but I am pleased to report that this thread has not touched them :)
For anyone interested: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7167.0.html
I guess we can use this for the festival. Have you listened to any of the performances? How were they?
Quote from: James on October 07, 2013, 02:56:24 AMLast night we reached the 1940s and 1950s. It's here that things traditionally get sticky.
These are the decades that challenge the First Law of the Avant-Garde, which states that any piece of music considered difficult today will be guaranteed a performance on Classic FM within 50 years
This made me grin.
This is not any sort of law of anyone inside the avant garde. It is a made up thing, made up by people outside the avant garde trying to present it in such a way that everyone gets that it was absurd and illogical.
It's an old ploy. "Look at the stupid thing these people said." Then supply something stupid, but not that anyone ever said. "Weren't those people stupid."
'Course, it's a bit threadbare now, but still worth a grin.
Sounds like an advert for his book. And putting the word noise in the title for a music festival probably isn't a good idea.