Alex Ross: "The Rest is Noise"

It is absolutely worth it.

Promoted at 50%.

Ross is quite a partisan when speaking about Boulez (it seems as if he's talking about the devil), very superficial (he only dedicates 10 lines to spectralism... how can that be? Okay, it's not his field, then why trim the book's ambitions), Berio as if he didn't exist, etc.

... then she takes issue with the "elders," calling one a Wagnerian when musically she is something else entirely.... oh well.

Aside from the first half of the book ... the rest can be thrown away

I disagree. There are flaws, it's true, but currently in Italian there is no book that speaks so much and so well about contemporary music. Ross's point of view is, for once, American-centric, and I consider it a breath of fresh air in the Euro-centric landscape

thallo wrote:

there is no book that speaks so much and so well about contemporary music

Ok, but if Tap's post is realistic... how can the adjective "well" be used if some GREAT protagonists are missing... see Berio.

Does it speak of electroacoustic/electronic music and its protagonists? Given that it overlooks spectralism? I mean, the second half of the 1900s is characterized above all by this (I mean electronic) great innovation

What does it do, does it only talk about Cage? Given that he is the opposite pole of Boulez? And is the text American-centric?

Ross's book is not a history of 20th-century music, so one should not expect a chapter for every author. Instead, it is a text that approaches the discourse of 20th-century music through two very important keys of interpretation: the sociological and the political—some even say it is a text that explains the 20th century through music, not bad. So far, it is the only one I have read that does so, and I must say it clarifies many points that remain obscure in normal music history manuals. Alex Ross is not a music historian, but rather a music critic, and he writes a book unlike the usual ones: fluid and extremely interesting.

Furthermore, since I enjoy counting, the most cited names are John Adams, T.W. Adorno, J.S. Bach, Bartók, Beethoven, Berg, Bernstein, Boulez, Britten, Cage, Copland, Robert Craft (if you don't know him, get to know him!), Debussy, Diaghilev, Dvorák, Hanns Eisler, Duke Ellington, Morton Feldman, Gershwin, P. Glass, Paul Hindemith, Adolf Hitler, Charles Ives, Leos Janacek, Ligeti, Mahler, Thomas Mann, Olivier Messiaen, Darius Milhaud, Mozart, Prokofiev, Ravel, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, Rimsky-Korsakov, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Schönberg (the most cited, along with R. Strauss and Stravinsky), Sibelius, Shostakovich, Stalin (cited as much as Hitler, Copland, Boulez, and Wagner—that is, a lot—to name just a few), Stockhausen, R. Strauss, Stravinsky, Virgil Thomson, Varèse, Wagner, Webern, Kurt Weill.

These names I have listed range from about 20 citations (Ligeti, Mozart...) to 98 for Mahler, to 177 for Schönberg, so to speak... The Beatles are cited 11 times, Berio 8 times, Bussotti only once along with two or three hundred other names. What is all this to say? What is another text of 20th-century music history that cites Stalin as much as Hitler and Boulez? None, because this is not a music history book. If you are looking for that, bookstores are full of them. But you won't find another book like this one.

Starting from the assumption that it is always worth reading a book, I am very happy that it was given to me as a gift and that I have almost finished it. It is extremely interesting. But then, excuse me: it's a Bompiani paperback of almost 900 pages on this subject and it costs more or less like a pizza from "Er Caccola" (drinks excluded)...! Of course, it's worth it.

But of course it's worth it CromaDiBrera, your arguments are interesting. Let's try to apply the criteria so much praised in the last 24 hours a bit across all fields... you'll see that much will be clearer to you. I'm speaking in general, mind... when then the connections to what Carlos says... and Thallo in the other topic also work...

I knew that sooner or later the waters would clear up ... and it will always get better... well done!

Carlos wrote:

namely the sociological one and the political one

In this field, if it is of interest, there are significant reference texts ... see:

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1607-sociologia-della-musica

Fantasy wrote:

But of course it is worth it CromaDiBrera, your arguments are interesting. Let's try to apply the criteria so much extolled in the last 24 hours a bit to all fields... you will see that much will be clearer to you. I am speaking in general, eh... when then the connections to what Carlos says also work... and Thallo in the other topic ...

I knew that sooner or later the waters would clear up ... and it will always get better... well done!

enigmatic as few others...

Besides Thallo, the containers are those that you describe very excellently... whoever passes by reads and puts signifiers inside them