Alex Ross: The Rest Is Noise

[DavidRoss]

His dislike of modernism seems evident to me from the near start of his book, as in his chapter on Sibelius, which he ends on a quote of Morton Feldman, who, before humming Sibelius' Fifth, claimed "the people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives;" and "the people who you think are conservative might really be radical." 

Sibelius as true radical!  This reminds one of college republicans who during the days of the hippies and of triumphant radicalism, claimed:  "we are the true non-conformists."

And whaddaya know, those young Republicans were right all along--just like Feldman and Ross.  If you think he dislikes modernism you didn't read very carefully--he loves it.  The whole book is intended to promote interest in 20th Century music that lies outside the tastes of the mainstream.  And he's well aware that the reason so much 20th Century music is so unjustly neglected is that a tiny tributary of such music has been identified with "Modern Music" in the minds of all too many.

Sibelius radical?  You bet your sweet bippy!

[(poco) Sforzando]

19-27-8-40-26-25

OK, but that only goes part way. Now you need to see how many beats there are in the piece compared to the metronome markings. And so - allowing for pickup measures, tempo fluctuations, etc:

1) 19 bars, 2/4 meter, q=50, 37 beats or 48 seconds
2) 27 bars, 6/8 meter, eighth=160, 162 beats or 1 minute
3) 11 bars, mostly 3/4, q=50, 35 beats or 40 seconds
4) 40 bars, 4/4, q=46, 160 beats or 4 minutes
5) 26 bars, 3/4, q=40, 78 beats or 2 minutes
6) 25 bars, 2/4, q=50, 50 beats or 1 minutes

In all, just under 10 minutes, as Webern indicates in his score. And at 9:39, Robert Craft in the old Columbia set is the closest to Webern's tempos.

QED

[(poco) Sforzando]

Alex Ross (p xiii)addresses his book

especially - for those who feel passing curiosity about this obscure pandemonium on the outskirts of culture

Passing curiosity?  This is just as good as saying his book is intended as a coffee table item.

I have considerable reservations about Ross's book too. But I think you're misreading him in the sentence you quoted. "This obscure pandemonium on the outskirts of culture" is not Ross's own stance but rather the perception of "those who feel passing curiosity about [what they perceive] as this obscure pandemonium" etc. This reading is consistent with Ross's recognition that where a Jackson Pollock or Matthew Barney will fetch millions, the work of Stockhausen and Lutoslawski is virtually unknown and ignored. Had Ross been the anti-modernist you claim, he could have produced a screed along the lines of Henry Pleasants's "The Agony of Modern Music" or the revisionist anti-modernist canon Terry Teachout proposed in Commentary a few years ago.

[The new erato]

where a Jackson Pollock or Matthew Barney will fetch millions, the work of Stockhausen and Lutoslawski is virtually unknown and ignored.

Isn't this because a painting is a one-of-a-kind collectors object, whereas music is a fleeting, transcendental experience and not to be collected?

That is, painting (and other objets d'art) are of a radically different kind than music and books?

[Catison]

Isn't this because a painting is a one-of-a-kind collectors object, whereas music is a leeting, transcendental experience and not to be collected?

That is, painting (and other objets d'art) are of a radically different kind than music and books?

Ross explains the divergence in acceptance of modern art and modern music by how the audience experiences them.  As we walk through a museum, we can move from painting to painting at will.  If there is something we find repulsive, we can look away and move on immediately.  With music, though, because the 4th dimension is in some way a part of the composition, we must sit and listen to even repulsive music if we hope to appreciate it.  And if we are at a concert, usually getting up and leaving is rude.  So in a way, bad music strangles the audience, and they have no recourse.

[karlhenning]

As opposed to those who spend so much effort convincing everyone around them it's the only true way. That's perfectly legit.

Actually, apart from a few notable people half a century ago whose schtick this was (and the imbalance of whose viewpoint we have many of use already and repeatedly commented on), this is a disengenuous strawman of your'n.

Go ahead, prove me wrong:  name one participant on this forum who answers your caricatured description.

[karlhenning]

Not that fourth movement: the actual timing from my recording (Giuseppe Sinopoli/Staatskapelle Dresden) is 4'55"!  And whether Mr. Ross' scenario is or isn't accurate, it's certainly plausible; I've always felt that the fourth movement is the tragic heart of this set.

Thanks, jo!  And I must have that recording to hand somewhere . . . .

[karlhenning]

Sibelius radical?  You bet your sweet bippy!

Sock it to me!

[karlhenning]

Who does this?

(Chapter and verse would be nice, too. You know, some nice facts to support your assertions.)

Ah, I am delighted that someone else got there first.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Who does this?

(Chapter and verse would be nice, too. You know, some nice facts to support your assertions.)

I assume this is an allusion to the Boulezian "whoever has not felt the necessity of the 12-tone system is superfluous" kind of pronouncement.

[karlhenning]

I assume this is an allusion to the Boulezian "whoever has not felt the necessity of the 12-tone system is superfluous" kind of pronouncement.

In which case, "Josquin" is crying fire! over ashes which have been cold half a century.

[Mark G. Simon]

There seems to be some expectation that Ross should have delivered a music theory text, instead of a history. Why no detailed analysis? Because the book is aimed at a non-specialist readership, at people who aren't musicians but might be intrigued by 20th century music if only someone would explain it to them, or offer an enticing description of some its prime examples, and explain why the composers of twentieth century music came to write the music they did. Ross is particularly strong in this latter aspect. The influence of the major historical and political events of the century -- i.e. the 2 world wars and the twin tyrannies of fascism and communism -- on music is the central theme, and each chapter introduces fascinating nuggets of information to support his narrative, many of which I've never read before (and I thought I'd read them all). So, for instance, Copland writes his "populist" works not to sell out and reap a capitalist profit, but to show a communist-leaning sympathy for the proletariat, the "common man" (the term coming from an essay by a widely-read communist). The post-war avant-garde develops in Germany as a way of purging the country of its recent cultural past, with a boost from the occupying allied powers, who founded and funded the Darmstadt Summer Course and other institutions which came to support the avant-garde. The allies were worried that the Germans, if allowed to go on listening to Strauss and Pfitzner, would soon revert to goose-stepping and swastikas. In the US, the New Deal populism of the 30s and 40s proved unsustainable with the onset of the cold war, and so serialism stepped in to fill the void here as well.

Naturally the actual events would be more complex than this, but Ross is looking to pull the events of the 20th century into a coherent narrative, and he makes quite a convincing case for his view, which is what a historian is supposed to do. Ross' narrative is no more simplistic than the  triumphant parade of innovators and innovations which is traditionally presented as the history of 20th century music. Ross' narrative has room for highly important 20th century composers such as Sibelius and Britten, which other histories pass over quickly. Some may feel that he passes over other figures too quickly for their taste, but he gives them all a sympathetic treatment. The only composer who comes off in this book as a total shit is Boulez, probably because he really is a total shit. But Ross gives an enthusiastic description of Marteau which made me want to go out and listen to it right then and there.

Like I said, it's an excellent book and an absorbing read.

[(poco) Sforzando]

There seems to be some expectation that Ross should have delivered a music theory text, instead of a history. Why no detailed analysis? Because the book is aimed at a non-specialist readership . . .

I'm fine with the idea of a history rather than a theory text, and fine that it's addressed to non-specialists. But yet there are any number of paragraphs that discuss key structures and that sort of thing, which non-specialists cannot be expected to grasp either. I'm sure you have seen some of these. There is a lot of good information in the book; I'm learning a lot from it and it's certainly a good read. It just seems to want to cover so much - biography, politics, musical styles - that it feels like it's skimming the surface at times, and wasting unnecessary space providing biographical anecdotes. Hard for me to understand why, too, Ross will devote pages to some individual works like Peter Grimes and Wozzeck, or barely known (though certainly very interesting) figures like Will Marion Cook, but yet he skims over such recognized achievements as the Bartok quartets and even Carmina Burana. There's lots of talk about Sibelius's booze and his cranes, a few pages on Bernstein's career as a composer/conductor, but hardly a word about figures as notable as Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, or Nielsen. I'm by no means as down on the book as SG or Sarkosian, but it just feels to me as if it could have used another round of editing to give it more focus and to ask more questions about how the material is proportioned.

[some guy]

...the  triumphant parade of innovators and innovations which is traditionally presented as the history of 20th century music.

Mark, is this any more than an empty assertion? I.e., can you name some names? Who does this? (How many histories of 20th century music do you know? How many of those present the history of twentieth century music as a triumphant parade of innovators and innovations? Enough to justify "traditionally"?)

In any event, if the century was indeed a century of innovation, then that's what one would expect a history to notice, no?

[toledobass]

A friend's dad is reading it and has no musical training at all and basically only casually listens to music (he attends concerts but his day would never, ever, ever involve GMG ).  He's enjoying the book thus far and his complaint was that he found it totally informative but gets lost by what musical analysis there is.  I pointed out the listening clips on Ross blog and that gave him exactly the connection he needed in order to understand what was being written about the music.

Allan

[Mark G. Simon]

Mark, is this any more than an empty assertion? I.e., can you name some names? Who does this? (How many histories of 20th century music do you know? How many of those present the history of twentieth century music as a triumphant parade of innovators and innovations? Enough to justify "traditionally"?)

In any event, if the century was indeed a century of innovation, then that's what one would expect a history to notice, no?

I see you've answered your own question. You must have encountered the "parade of innovation" scenario quite a bit in order to have absorbed it so thoroughly that you can't see past it.

What if it was a century of great music, some of which fell outside the bounds of what the tastemakers deem to be innovation? Wouldn't you want all of it to be noticed??

[karlhenning]

Mark, is this any more than an empty assertion?

It is more.  There have been histories and surveys of the 20th century which (for instance) completely neglect Sibelius and Britten (among others), as Mark noted, because they do not fit that 'progressivist' mindset.

[some guy]

I see you've answered your own question. You must have encountered the "parade of innovation" scenario quite a bit in order to have absorbed it so thoroughly that you can't see past it.

What if it was a century of great music, some of which fell outside the bounds of what the tastemakers deem to be innovation? Wouldn't you want all of it to be noticed??

No, what I did was use the word "if" to suggest another possible difficulty with your assertion. My original question still stands, would you please name some names?

(As for what I've encountered, well that would be the "it's all so shocking and distressing and ugly" scenario. That seems to be the commonest scenario, the one that's truly difficult for a lot of people to see past. And as for your "tastemakers," who are these people? There doesn't seem to be any widespread taste for innovative music. Just the contrary. Anything that's truly new, anything that's truly unprecedented, is going ruffle feathers, at first. It does seem odd to me to see people like Sibelius and Britten championed so fiercely, as if they've been neglected somehow. Just a brief glance at a page or two of the Arkiv or Amazon sites, or a casual stroll through your local record store, would suggest that their reputations are fairly secure.)

[jochanaan]

...Surely there are better ways of doing so than starting some pissing contest over who, Sibelius or Boulez, is the true innovator...

But Mr. Ross cannot claim, and is not claiming (I haven't read the book, but the descriptions here give me some assurance of this), to have started this particular pissing contest.  It probably began as soon as Boulez' first compositions were premiered.  Or even before, with other composers as pissees.

And I'm sure you caught that the quote about Sibelius came from Morton Feldman, another of the 20th century's great musical radicals.

[DavidRoss]

Of course it was a century of great music and of course one wants it all to get fair publicity.  Even Rachmaninov wrote good music.  Surely there are better ways of doing so than starting some pissing contest over who, Sibelius or Boulez, is the true innovator.  The really interesting quastion is not:  is it new, is it old?  The interesting question is:  is it good, is it bad.  Haydn and Mozart did not invent musical classicism;  Carl Phillip Emmanuel Bach did that. But Mozart and Haydn were far more gifted than that son of a John Sebastian. Nor did Lutoslawski  invent aleatorism, he borrowed it from John Cage but produced much better music with it, than Cage.  We do not need to make undue claims on Sibelius' behalf to enjoy his music and Boulez has the talent to survive any effort at turning his bad temper against him.

As I recall, it is you who keeps trying to start a pissing contest over Sibelius vs. Boulez--certainly not Mr. Ross, who gives each his due.  And you're at it again here, illustrating a perverse attachment to uninformed opinion when you suggest that Mr. Ross--and Mr. Feldman, and Mr. Nørgård, Ms Saariaho Mr. Salonen Mr Lindberg Mr Adams Mr Vaughan Williams Mr Dufourt Mr Murail and so on--don't know what they're talking about when it comes to Sibelius.  Or maybe you simply do not know what the word "radical" means...?  Or perhaps you're one of those who simply doesn't get Rothko?