I finally have a sense of 20th century music--not all avant garde. What a wonderfully written book. Alas, it is not all-inclusive--nothing about the St. Petersburg Folk Society--but it is one of those wonderful treasures that informs and delights simultaneously. Who knew 20th century music was so damn interesting? ( )

Insight: that modern composition has much less acceptance than modern painting, architecture, etc; and is perhaps most influential / evident in film music.

Insight: the parallels (and admittedly, contrasts) in how music was used as propaganda between the fascist, totalitarian, and democratic republican states during the interwar period is fascinating. Hitler / Goebbels and Stalin perhaps unsurprising, yet FDR / New Deal and Kennedy utilized it, too. For example, it appears the story of Beethoven's motif in the Fifth Symphony and the link to Morse Code "V" was applied after WWII?! Similarly, Penderecki's Threnody for the Victim's of Hiroshima started with title 8'37", and the new title suggested by someone else!

The basis of tonality touched upon, highlighting my need for a primer in basic compositional theory. Similarly, the basis of serialism and intro to minimalism, other modern composition.

[I found Jan Swafford's Sep 08 SLATE review (www.slate.com/id/2200716/) useful: an excerpt can be found in the published reviews section of LT.] ( )

This book surveys 'classical' composers from Mahler and R. Strauss up to the present. One of the things I really liked about it was the way he pretty much doesn't care about the distinction between who's 'progressive' and who's 'conservative' - Shostakovich and Copland get as much coverage as Messiaen and Boulez. (You can contrast it with Paul Griffiths' Modern Music, which very much takes the orthodox modernist line, devoting tons of space to Stockhausen, Maderna, Nono etc. and being utterly patronising about Shost and Britten.)
Also, he does a very good job of placing the music in its broader cultural and political contexts without that ever being overbearing. Another plus is that he has the extremely rare gift of being able to describe pieces of music in a way that gives an idea of what it sounds like, and without bewildering the reader with technicalities.

He also has many 'ah yes!' insights along the way. I'll just give a couple of my favourites.
He argues, based on features of the physical way people perceive music, that twelve-tone music will always be unsettling in a way that can't be wholly accounted for by the fact that it's an unfamiliar idiom. (He's not *anti*-twelve-tone music, far from it, but just thinks that we should acknowledge that it really is difficult to listen to, and that that's not just down to closed-minded listeners.)

Another bit I liked was the way he tells the history of post-WWII American music, where Cage comes out as a major liberating influence, not just from tradition, but from the European avant-garde as well. So he traces a lineage from Cage to Feldman to Lamonte Young to Riley and Reich. (Sadly, Alan Hovhanness gets left out of Ross's story here, whereas I think he should have been mentioned as a key figure. He and Cage were good friends, and admired each others’ music despite the obvious differences.)

Another point I liked was where he quoted Duke Ellington objecting to people saying that jazz is 'modern classical music' or 'black classical music.' Ellington thought that to call jazz any type of classical music was to deny jazz its own ‘original genius’. I've always thought something like this, but it's good to know that I have the authority of Ellington on my side!
Incidentally, some of the reviewers made a big point of the supposed fact that Ross tells the whole story of 20th century music from Mahler to the Velvet Underground. The truth is that it is a history of classical music compositon in the 20th century, with jazz and rock being discussed a bit, but only as part of that broader cultural context I mentioned earlier.

Of course I have some reservations. One minor one is the journalistic tone of some of the writing - e.g. on the first page Gershwin is introduced as 'George Gershwin, creator of Rhapsody in Blue''. I can't fully articulate why this phrase annoys me so. I think it's got something to do with the facts that (1) Gershwin didn't 'create' Rhapsody in Blue, he composed it; (2) one would think that anyone wanting to read a book on the history of 20th century music would know who George Gershwin was. Also, people who use "[sic]" when quoting people as often as he does really should look to the beam in their own eye. (You'll see what I mean if you read it.)

That might just be me, but a more serious complaint I have is that British composers are almost totally neglected. He talks about the influence of folk music traditions on composers, and he discusses the usual suspects - Bartok, Janacek, etc. - but *where is Vaughan Williams??* Likewise, Tippett barely gets a mention. The only British composer to get extended treatment is Britten. He gets a whole chapter to himself, including a ten-page summary of Peter Grimes. Now, I like Britten but this seems excessive, and only makes the neglect of other British composers all the more galling.
He does *almost* compensate for this at the very end with one nice remark, on how British music went through many of the same phases as music elsewhere, but 'without the constant background noise of ideological disputation.' A nice little insight I think, especially as he has told a plausible story about how it wasn't just in the Soviet Union, but in Western Europe and the U.S. as well, that composers were subjected to political pressures.

On the whole the book has a bit of an Americo-centric bias - for example, you would get the impression that the most important thing Messaien ever did was to visit Utah.

But please don't be put off by my complaints! Any book that aims at this kind of comprehensiveness on *any* subject is bound to strike any reader as biased or lacking in some ways. On the whole it's a great read, from which you can get plenty of both new information and new insights. As you'd expect, the comments about the immediate present and the speculations about the future are a bit vague. But they are optimistic, and he makes optimism about music's future seem plausible.

A final word of warning: if you do read this book, you'd better either have a very large collection of 20th century music, or a lot of money to spend on building one! Time and time again you will find yourself reading Ross's description of a piece and saying to yourself "I want to hear that *now*." ( )

I was skeptical going in...not because I haven't enjoyed Alex Ross' writing in the New Yorker, but because good music criticism does not a music historian make. My doubts were unfounded. I took a risk and used this book as the text for my Music in the Twentieth Century course (for non-majors) and I'm never looking back.

Ross keeps a general chronological outline, but centers a century's worth of music around a political and artistic narrative. One of the more intriguing aspects is his use of Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus as a recurring presence, drawing an inextricable link between compositional history and Faustian endeavors. However, in most cases, we see composers who battle with the Mephistopheles of totalitarianism not as raving lunatics, but as artists torn between their commitment to art and general survival.

The author is unafraid to talk about the actual music, painting vivid descriptions, and unfettering important musical concepts for a general audience. His free online audio guide is a beautiful supplement to his discussions in the book (and serves to fill in some of the necessary "gaps" ). Ross makes intriguing choices that run counter to traditional histories of twentieth century music (entire chapters devoted to Sibelius and Britten, for example), but makes a strong case for a socio-political approach rather than a canonical, or "great master" approach. Composers like Richard Strauss and Arnold Schoenberg are not confined to time frames, but reappear out of the tapestry when their music echoes in the ears of compositional trends.The twentieth century appears as a pre-existent soundscape, whose tones, rhythms, and harmonies are manipulated by the various composers traversing the various hills and streams of modernity. ( )

An excellent overview, and worth having in your library if you have an interest in music history. The companion website is also very useful. ( )

A readable and accessible introduction to 20th century classical music. Some chapters read like adaptations of New Yorker articles (they are), but it still holds together and creates a great picture of things that I (a non-expert, non-classical-music fan) really didn't know much about. ( )

Romantic, Impressionistic, neo-Classical, Avant-garde, Minimalism, Populist: musical styles were in a constant state of flux throughout the century. Technology allowed composers to experiment in ways never before possible. Powerful influences attracted the intellectual composers on direction (such as atonality) while popular demand shifted it back. During the first half of the century, Classical Music was in lock-step with the rapidly changing political scene...indeed, it would be the death of some composers to be politically incorrect. Composers were larger-than-life figures, and often considered national heroes even if their personal conduct was every bit as reprehensible as modern, drug-and-alcohol-ridden rock stars. Herein lies the most remarkable transformation -- classical music by and large escaped political repression in the latter half of the century, composers lost a good measure of glory, and classical music became another genre in a diverse musical landscape; entertainment for society's elite (or would-be elite). Yet despite the decline of power and prestige, by the end of the century, more people were consuming classical music by 1999 than any time in history.

Ross does a terrific job telling the story of the history of music, the composers, national agendas and influences, and trends. The personalities, friendships and rivalries all come alive. Most important is how Ross describes the music. As the title indicates, he tells the reader what to listen for in the music, what exemplified a particular style, what signature passages made the composer worthy of note.

I was pleasantly surprised on how complete the book is considering the vast scope. Major composers, influential as they were, command a large part of the text but minor composers also got their due, whether they were perfecting the style set forth by a mentor or helped change the course of music, even slightly. While today an uninformed listener might consider pop and classical to be opposite ends of the spectrum, in reality, the distinction has always been somewhat blurry. One of Sibelius' greatest hits was a waltz that became wildly popular in Vienna. Prokofiev and Korngold, among others, wrote notable scores for Hollywood or the movie industry. Jazz developed as almost a spin-off; many jazz greats either had classical roots or greatly influenced classical composition, like Duke Ellington and John Coltrane. In modern times, the likes of Brian Eno, David Byrne, Bjork, and even the pop-hit producer Timbaland are entwined with classical influences. The emergence of China as a political power is mirrored by it's rise on the cultural scene as well...and a wealth of eastern music and musicians are part of the new repertoire gracing concert halls throughout the US and Europe.

For me personally, prior ages of classical music have always been easy to understand. The baroque era is marked by ecclesiastical influences as composers experimented with polyphonic tones. Music of the classical age is is orderly and generally predictable -- not surprising as it was born during the Age of Reason. Romantic and Impressionistic music captures imagery and emotion. The 20th Century styles have all seemed less easy to grasp, mostly because I've always tried to listen to it as I had earlier music. I'm not sure if I'm going to suddenly like Schoenberg or Cage or Reich any more than before, but now I understand better where they are coming from, and what they were trying to accomplish. A greater understanding of the trendsetters will also help me better follow stylistic themes among their disciples. It'll take a few months to know for sure, but this book could represent an "eureka" moment that removes a barrier erected by ignorance. ( )

This is a fabulous book, a combination history and appreciation of classical music of the twentieth century. After reading it I had to go out and find the music he wrote about and listen to it. Some of it is among my favorite pieces now! ( )

This ranks with some of the best non-fiction for laymen out there (much of which is written by John McPhee.)

A glut of information, generously larded through with singular anecdotes and quotes, surrounded by the obvious and intense love for the subject felt by Alex Ross.

In some ways it is the chronicle of necessity of the implosion of an art form. In other ways it suggests a crippling hubris in those who imploded it. It is also the story of how technology changed society. It is also the story of how war changed art.

If you have any passing love for any composer who lived in this century, this book is a trove of eye-widening information.

If there were to be one critique, from me, about this book, it would be the author's tendency to focus on, in what is an otherwise even-handed historical overview, the topics he has a personal affinity for. Namely, Benjamin Britten. This isn't a problem for me because I knew nothing about any of these people, so any information was equally welcome. But he got a whole chapter to himself where no one else did. Just sayin'.

Lovely anecdotes re: Gustav Mahler, Dmitri Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Boulez and Stravinsky, Reich and Glass...

Lovely book. ( )

The reading of "The Rest is Noise" by Alex Rose was one of the best experiences I could have.
Among others, it describes the period of 1933 to 1945 - the most tragic period of XX century. What is shocking is how close was music to politics of all sorts. The figures of Richard Strauss or Anton Webern on the one side and Shostakovich or Prokofiev, and their close relations to Nazis and communist regimes - is just horrifying. Honestly, before reading this incredible book I was unaware how abused was (maybe still is ....) music by politicians....

But it also shows that in the later part of XX century, music became less "political" and more engaged in itself - in creation of "The imaginary country that cannot be found on a map" (Debussy).

Alex Rose, shows us what makes the great music, free from politics, when he writes:"The debates over merits of engagement and withdraw [of music] has gone for centuries (...)Composition only gains power from failing to decide the eternal dispute. In a decentered culture, it has a chance to play a kind of good-father role - able to assimilate anything new because it has assimilated everything in the past".

I do not see, and I believe, the author also does not think that way - that the music CAN in fact be motivated by what happens in the world - it cannot be isolated. But, what is the great hope, that the music is not, and will never be played to fulfill some crazy dictator's agenda ....

I strongly recommend this book for everyone who is interested in modern music. ( )

I don't care for this sort of rattling off of facts and biography. Not a compelling read, but I say that about most histories. Unfinished.

A great reference on 20th century music. It's most valuable if you already know the composers. For me, this worked for parts (Mahler, Strauss, Stravinsky, Britten, Glass, Shostakovich). I don't have a lot of atonal music, and those sections were a little lost on me.

Learning about the role of music (& culture in general) during the cold war was the most fascinating bit of the book. It reminded me how politics will pervade everything. ( )

The unifying structure of this book is a description of the main composers and music of Western Classical music in the 20th century. Off this main theme the author describes how these composers responded to the politics and culture of their times. The book is quite comprehensive (over 500 pages), although as in any book of this type, readers who are somewhat conversant in this subject may find a composer or two that they wish were covered (or covered in more detail). Ross's main method is to provide the reader a picture of the composer's personality, connections to those pieces or composers to whom the composer may have been influenced, and a detailed description of portions of the composer's important pieces. This method allows the reader to make connections to related musical pieces and provides instructions on what to closely listen for when one next listens to those pieces.

Despite the level of detail, I found the book to be quite readable; I was able to read the book at hundreds of pages at a time instead of tens of pages, the pace that I would have to use for some detailed texts, such as a scientific text. If the reader wants more information, Ross provides approximately 60 pages of detailed notes at the end of the text, a portion of his blog that contains links to some of the music that he describes in detail in the book, and a list of suggested recordings. Ross's opinions on the music and composers are apparent, but I like this in a non-fiction work.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand classical music, especially classical music from the 20th century. ( )

There are two aspects to this book - the literal and the revelation. The literal has been described elsewhere in these reviews variously as exhilarating and astonishing. I totally agree. The massive research, the easy familiarity with the most obscure observations, and the impact of the historical context makes this book well worth owning.

The revelation came in the form of explaining why we hate modern classical music so very much. The reason is poetry. Modern classical music is like modern poetry; if you can't read it, you can't appreciate it. Imagine hearing a poem by e e cummings. Unless you see the text, you've missed the lack of punctuation, the spacing, the geometric splashing of the words on paper. You've missed 90% of it by only hearing it.

So with modern classical music. Unless you can read music, and have the music in front of you, you cannot possibly appreciate the progressions, the geometry, the calculus of the piece. That is why composers cited by Ross have taken their bows facing the orchestra, sticking their butts out towards the audience. The audience be damned; they can't possibly appreciate it. Only musicians can enter the temple. At numerous points towards the end, melody is identified as a horror to be avoided at all costs. Astonishing peer pressure among composers ensures that no one steps out of line and writes something pleasant to hear. The objective is to break new ground in sound, but call it music.

You can look at modern classical as movie soundtrack, and of course many composers earned their living that way. They fill in moods, complement scenes, create atmospheres. But even that has gone away. Today, it's all about mathematics, it seems. Twelve tones, interminable repetition, and instrument abuse are the cornerstones as composers seek to stand out from the pack.

Too bad. The public just wanted a diverting night out on the town. A tune they could hum on the way home. Composers have joined the establishment in their own anti-establishment way. Like banks and health insurance companies - the customer be damned. We're doing what we want, for us. Period. Alex Ross explains it all in fascinating detail. My only criticism is his website. How wonderful it would be if every musical description in the book had a sound file counterpart, referenced to that same chapter and page, on the website. Then we could hear what he described in such incredible detail and evaluate and appreciate his analysis and description of it. Maybe even fit it into context. As it stands, there are some clips, but that's about it. Too bad, but hardly a reason not to buy this important work of love.

This history of 20th century music reads more like a novel with an exploration of the lives and moments in history of great, albeit often unpopular, composers. The agony of Shostakovich in Communist Russia, the Europeans artists who find themselves in Hollywood and the attitude of the Third Reich toward music are explored in great and interesting detail. I would have preferred more time given to composers working after the 1950's and especially Ross's thoughts on the direction of "classical" music in the future. ( )

Comprehensive (and remarkable) research support this very readable and well-written tour of twentieth century music. From my personal standpoint, I wish Ross had given a little more time to Scriabin, and even a mention of Walter/Wendy Carlos, but those are really quibbles regarding this tremendous achievement. ( )

The subtitle of this book is "Listening to the Twentieth Century", and that what Alex Ross does. The result is a slightly idiosyncratic reading of twentieth century composition -- all the highlights and big names are here, more or less, but Ross is here to tell the story his way. (His longish foray into the tragic life of Sibelius is fascinating, though he's composer who wasn't well served by modernity, and could be characterized as the last 19th century composer, despite dying in 1957.)

Ross loves this music, and it's clear that he lives with the pieces he writes about. He write with affectionate detachment throughout, and doesn't gloss over the moral failings of great artists (Strauss in particular is shown to be tragically bullheaded) He dips lightly into musicology and often meanders into funny, sometimes dishy, anecdotes about these sometimes comically grave characters that made music in the twentieth century. Ross also is willing to let the music speak for itself -- odd to say about a book, I know -- but in this book Ross is very careful about decoupling the music from the pretensions of its creators.

I can't speak for true music people, but if your curious dilletante like me, this book is invaluable. ( )