Rating:  -
An outstanding discussion of music around the turn of the century to the present covering much detail and seldom discussed observations of music and the composers. Truly a music guide for the musician, with a great deal of detail in a humanities approach.
Rating: -
There are already plenty of excellent reviews (and some that weren't), so I will just say that this is a really good introduction to 20th C. music; I've given gift copies to my friend Jim, a professional composer, and my friend Alec, on the occasion of his graduation from the sixth grade. A book that can plausibly reach an audience this broad is doing something very, very good and not easily achieved. You will no doubt enjoy it immensely.
Now, Mr. Ross, you need to give us a list of your preferred in-print recordings of all the music discussed!
Rating: -
Alex Ross has produced a remarkable history of music in the Twentieth Century from from the last days of Mahler and Strauss up to John Adams in the 21st Century. The book is packed with a wealth of very well researched biographical, historical, and musical information surrounding the the many musical geniuses the Twentieth Century produced. While some composers are given more words than others, Ross takes great care not to overlook any important movements and leaders, even though they are as vastly different as Jean Sibelius and Pierre Boulez. My favorite sections of the book are those dedicated to Benjamin Britten, Olivier Messiaen, and Jean Sibelius as they give the richest accounts of the composers' lives and the circumstances surrounding their compositions; but even then, every chapter in the book is thoroughly enjoyable and fascinating--I wanted to listen to every piece of music that Ross talked about (and most of them I did!). For lovers of classical music, this is a read not to be missed!
Rating:  -
I am conducting a series of lectures on the historical approach to music by composers and thought this might be just the book to recommend to my class. However, I found the book too far advanced - musically - for the novice and not that insightful for the educated musical listener. It was interesting reading and I will use some of his information to enlighten my lectures. In general, however ... it should be recommended for a reader with some limited knowledge of music who would like to have one person's idea of how music progressed after Wagner into the 20th Century.
Rating:  -
I plowed through this book on my Kindle when I first got it. I found it compelling, but ultimately, disappointing. Here are the main reasons why: 1. for the amount of pages and time, I did not really learn a lot new about 20th Century music, and 2. like many long books that take on topics of absurdly ambitious scope, this book rolls out in a very uneven way. The usual failure is to go at it at a normal pace, then break into a gallop as time wears on. This book is really a ton of books. For instance, the whole section on soviet composers deserves a book of its own, but since it doesn't get one, it gets a kind of sorry, desultory treatment that we learn almost nothing new from.
Everyone is going to come to a book like this wanting to see their heroes achieve greater glory than they have hitherto been granted. I plead guilty to this on so many counts. Ironically, though, even the ones who do achieve greater reverence, were disappointing. For instance, Sibelius. Like so many great artists, Sibelius is known through but a few works. His masterpieces are his dark, more probing works, like Symphonies 3, 4 and 6. His first symphony is one of the great debut symphonies of all time. None of these works are considered. In fact, the author is satisfied to engage Sibelius only as a kind of conceptual puppet: representing a kind of strange symbol of the counterrevolution.
Another case, for me are the Russians. Stravinsky is a giant. We all know that. We have all heard the story of the premiere of Rite. But what about all the other fascinating stuff? Like Rimsky-Korsakov's wife saying 'you still have Glazunov' to him at her husband's funeral (S said it was the most painful thing anyone ever said to him). Stravinsky's quixotic relationship with Tchaikovsky, and things like the fascinating Le Baiser de la Fee, where he completed an unfinished Tchaikovsky work. But then, there is nothing really about the many rebirths Stravinsky experienced: my favorite being his popping out and feeling the influence of other greats. For instance, the symphonies from the 40s, where he openly quotes Bartok, represents a fascinating cycle of influence and evolution. But it also would have given this book more soul: as it is, it reads like a student showing off his collection of pinned insects. THE most important thing about music is the degree to which it evolves as a language together.
Also, there is Prokofiev. I was sorely disappointed that there was no real coverage of his work. What about The Fiery Angel? His 7 symphonies are actually great. 2, 3, and 6 are raging masterpieces. (Recently, Valery Gergiev has been touring the US playing the whole cycle [great man!] trying to convince people of this, finally!) And as another reviewer notes: where is ballet, for god's sake? Prokofiev produced so many great ballets, many of them completely unknown.
Even obvious things, like Bartok trekking Eastern Europe and Varese being part of the NYC scene of the 40s, are not here. (Nevermind more fascinating things like Bartok's having to sum up his career, while simultaneously doing a mise en scene of the just ended war, deconstructing Shostakovich's 7th, all on his deathbed..)
Was hoping even Pehr Nordgren would make it into this book, but no. I end with this because it shows that perhaps my delusions are the problem here, but this is, whatever others may be seeing here, not a convincing treatment of the insanely ambitious mission. Calling it definitive just smacks me as bizarre: it's a swath, a cross-section, and some of it is interesting, but it's mostly a long string of missed opportunities.
|
