Yearlong 'The Rest is Noise' Festival

[Karl Henning]

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.)

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Karl Henning]

. . . Stop complaining, he did only good . . . .

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.

[DavidW]

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

[DavidW]

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

[DavidW]

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.

[North Star]

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

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Karl Henning]

What good would neutral writing about music do?

Well, it would have prevented a lot of unnecessary fog in Shostakovich studies, e.g.

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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?

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

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!   

[mc ukrneal]

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?

[Karl Henning]

. . . and we're the ones to stop 'em once and for all . . . .

[North Star]

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.

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.

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!   

+1

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.

[CRCulver]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.

They do not.

One of these responses is intelligent, thought out, and nuanced.

The other is not.

(Let's see . . . can I guess correctly . . . .)

[CRCulver]

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.

[Mirror Image]

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.

[CRCulver]

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.