Alex Ross - The Rest Is Noise

Bartok was a huge miss (great to see a thread on the str quartets, nice coincidence) in the first programme.

Talking heads were terrible. John Adams was cast as the old fogey but clueless when criticising Webern for attempting to unify science and art, but (as above) he loved the Renaissance, a time when both disciplines seemed to co-exist a lot more then. A remark on how composers were often looking down on the public is something you could surely say about many composers or artists most of the time in most eras. In fact, so much of this was a set of attitudes that have always been present in a time of continuous violence (numbers aside was the 20th century more violent than the 16th?) Not that history repeats itself: the music of the 20th could not been made in the 16th but how does it build on the prev era? Why is it always always seen in relation to the 19th century?

What are other ways of reading this history?

Boulez was rocking those shades tho'.

So I'm nearly all the way throughthis series on improvisation and it is the way a music doc should be conducted on TV.

- See how there is NO heavy lifting on concepts (they are there but really underneath): of course Ross can't do it, but the need is for less baggage is greater than ever. Improvisation is as old if not older and I like how the various participants - whether they come from Hindutani classical, Flamenco etc - are so relaxed when talking about what they do and don't bother with their place in it which lets face it is as boutique as classical.

- I would have had practioners talking about their music, whether Ferneyhough about complex music, Boulez on himself and maybe the 2nd Viennese school, Reich about minimalism, Pisaro about Cage etc etc and not about anything else, or where the composer is dead have a knowledgeable performer doing that.

- Lots of space for performnaces.

Note that Max Roach on the 3rd programme talks about blacks denied access to classical and inventing jazz as a result, which is what Ross talked about in his lecture in that link.

Of course my approach would be perhaps less fractious and bitchy and while I like fighting my battles it would allow for people who don't know much to see everything: new minimalism, Nancarrow, Elliott Carter, electronic music, Oboes from Mars.

I had no idea that The Sound and the Fury was going to be so closely modelled around The Rest Is Noise - the first episode at least.

Have to say, as well as the convenient overlooking of every epic period of plague and slaughter in previous ages, I'm not comfortable with the characterisation of all music pre-1895 as exquisite, melodic, etc. No violence in Beethoven?

Also the latent premise that dissonance is the only musical property that has ever had the potential to disorient or shock listeners.

the "theory" is noise.

i guess people will argue you need a narrative. i don't think a narrative helps much.

On the plus side, so nice to see Meredith Monk in there.

yeah i don't wanna moan about some of this footage getting airtime i just think the level of analytical sophistication - on a lot of Beeb 4 shows tbf - is pretty retrograde compared to Beeb arts programming of 30 plus years back

Ross is "senior consultant", so it would run quite closely alongside the book and festival.

Meredith Monk was gd, so was Schonberg's daughter Nuria. Possibly the best talking head.

yeah the interview with Nuria Schoenberg was the main bit that stuck for me on first viewing - so charming and honest and demystifying in a good way, not talking to the audience like they were shiftless sixth formers

If we get a good ten, fifteen minutes on Sibelius out of this in some future episode, I will stop whining for sure.

Also the latent premise that dissonance is the only musical property that has ever had the potential to disorient or shock listeners.

― OG requiem head (Call the Cops), Saturday, 16 February 2013 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Added issue is that audience reaction isn't v well documented from middle ages up to the 19th century so you can't make a comparison as to what people thought of certain movements, if people other than church and courts were involved much then other than bowing to god every Sunday and going back to slave work in the first place.

The 2nd prog was an incoherent mess:

- Called "Free for All" yet goes on to describe total serialism where every parameter is defined.
- Dumbness in comments re: american funding. Even if it was true its hardly a triumph, I doubt some CIA pen pusher was ever pleased w/funding Nono's work.
- Boulez talks about "tensions" and yet the programme insists the early years were harmonious (no pun intended) before Ligeti breaks away.
- If the music was so tough why did it find a way onto film in the first place? Suggests it couldn't have been that challenging.
- They were hopeless on Stockahusen: the focus is on Boulez's music from the early 50s in Darmstadt. If you're going to talk about these two as a double act then you can't zig zag to the late 60s as they did w/Stock. In the 50s he wasn't yet the 'hippie' like figure, he wrote Gruppen and Kontakte (the classic example of how electronic music co-exists with acoustic music and provides a radically different experience in the recital hall).

Real miss was John Cage, who had as crucial a role as Boulez and Stouckhausen in those 'peak' years at Darmstadt. That he wasn't European isn't an excuse but it suits to talk about this stuff as an European phenomenon that will be saved by US commercial minimalism in the 3rd programme.

They could've talked about Elliott Carter instead of Copland as someone who made v challenging music that could be argued as a product of BOTH Schonberg and Stravinsky, and had a relationship w/Ives too.

Galina Ustvolskaya would've been a better example of a Soviet-era composer that wasn't Shostakovich...and an example of how a more challenging style was being written in those years...

Highlight was Birtwistle's "its their problem" comment, has that working class twang in it and actually points to the fact that Birtwistle, Maxwell Davis and Ferneyhough came from more humble backgrounds and had no problems moving in those circles.

There were lots of things scattered across: Boulez and Stockhausen teaching techniques at such a young age. These were YOUNG people who were excited and ran wild with ideas and who wrote their best music at that time, despite all the claims to lol maturity, although they never talked about how Nono the arch-serialist whose music changed the most out of anybody later on.

If the music was so tough why did it find a way onto film in the first place? Suggests it couldn't have been that challenging.

i was gonna make a similar point to this with regards to working class aversion to Classical music in another thread this week

Maybe audiences were more challenging back then, or more willing to be challenged.

the "CIA promoting radical art vs the stodgy old Soviets" is such a tired story now too, esp. since i've never seen any evidence of artists themselves having any direct involvement response to this. pretty sure Jackson Pollock never thought "fuck you socialist realism" while he was working.

Its hard to say how audiences change. I'd guess they are the same now as 50 years ago, i.e. far more dynamic and open to things.

When is this on, I keep missing it? And why don't they repeat it? Julio's keeping me up to speed with it and I'm sure his criticisms are all valid.

They do repeat it, can't remember when.

First broadcast is 9pm Tuesdays, last part next week.

oh god this broad with the assymetric haircut talking about metastasis is so dreadful

Ah, football's been on!

this is shit shit shit

Gillian Moore sadly doesn't get it. For all the formalised hard core maths bollocks in Xenakis there is a simplicity and directness to what he does a lot of the time and Metastasis is v much like that. Doesn't apply to the electronic music, which they didn't even bother with (so much for electronic music cast as "the avant-garde's greatest achievement", as in this could be understood and be utilised to make money in commercial pop!)

Even with a lot of complex music they bypassed the physicality of performance as a way of getting hold of the watching punter.

oh that fantastic John Cage clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSulycqZH-U

can't find the right narrative to address this eh?

BBC Arts programming: 3 hours a year of getting modernist composition wrong, 20 hours a week of 70s rock

I can get on board with some of these critisisms, but tbh, I'm just enjoying seeing/hearing some music that's v dear to me on the TV mixed in with some stuff I feel like I should know more about. Also, most of this is new to my gf so it's been fun watching it together- bits have blown her mind "fuuuuuuuckkk that's some dark shit" re: a Shoenberg piece, ha :)

I guess I'm also enjoying this for the same reasons I enjoyed the book, it's covering stuff I'm less familar with and have always wanted to get in to. People on this thread have complained about a lack of Cage, Bartok, Conlon etc but I dunno, that's pretty much why I'm enjoying it, it's filling in some gaps for me.

Incidently, this is pretty much exactly how the 20th C was covered when I was at uni studying classical music a few years ago, and of course I would constantly be complaining "more Cage, more Nancarrow, omg you don't get Stockhausen at all, there was way more interesting stuff than this uptight concert hall bollocks, have you even HEARD of Tod Dokstader" haha, man, I was particularly annoying back then.

xposts

[I've always viewed Xenakis as hard core maths bollocks AND simplicity and directness. Like Wolfram's rules or summat.]

otm. The pieces played live have made me think "I really need to listen to more Messiaen" etc., which is a good thing for me at least.

i've said i'm happy to see/hear the clips. but y'know what? maybe back this shit up and devote some programmes to showing whole performances, or single composer documentaries, or just more more deeper deeper.

sure they could fit it in somewhere around Boney M: The Wilderness Years

btw, two EPs of more complete performances from the series on the iPlayer.

People on this thread have complained about a lack of Cage, Bartok, Conlon etc but I dunno, that's pretty much why I'm enjoying it, it's filling in some gaps for me.

What are your gaps: you've heard of Cage and Bartok but not Xenakis and Messiaen before?

Even with a lot of complex music they bypassed the physicality of performance as a way of getting hold of the watching punter.

For me, this made ALL the difference with Xenakis. Seeing a half dozen of his things performed completely transformed the music for me.

Can you paraphrase Birtwistle's 'their problem' comment? Just curious.

Birtwistle was asked about people who don't or won't get mdoern classical. He said that's 'their problem'.

ah. soundbites very much in character.

At that moment (and the bits where he talked about Marteau Sans Maitre) I had visions of Birtwistle presenting performances just calling it 'great' and 'frightening' with a smile and leaving it at that.

Would watch.

I've spent a lot of time with Xenakis, less so Messiaen, still hasn't really clicked for me. I love his ideas and his concepts but I haven't really 'felt' it yet.

I know pieces by and have heard of everybody in these programmes obv, but often I don't know a lot about them whereas with Cage, for example, I could tell you his life story, quote bits from 'Silence' and 'A Year From Monday', used to take mushrooms and listen to him for a weekend, I know his stuff pretty well.

My gaps are more like:

Non-canonical Shoenberg/Webern/Stravinksy, altho I've spent a LOT of time with Shoenberg's books (where he's actually rather funny, also, the best place to go for musical analysis of Beethoven imo).

Gah I dunno, the more I think about it, the more I realise it wasn't really filling any gaps in for me, it was just fun to watch and yes, Noodle Vague otm, MORE of this kind of thing.

Birtwistle was asked about people who don't or won't get mdoern classical. He said that's 'their problem'.

Nice one HB :)

yeah, otm

Somehow I can't imagine a writer being asked a similar question... unless it was by Kirsty Wark

I know pieces by and have heard of everybody in these programmes obv, but often I don't know a lot about them whereas with Cage, for example, I could tell you his life story, quote bits from 'Silence' and 'A Year From Monday', used to take mushrooms and listen to him for a weekend, I know his stuff pretty well.

Its not so much about life stories, more about how the chance procedures he was employing clashed with what Boulez was doing, and Cage was one of the first that stoood his ground, and with the help of David Tudor made quite a mark in those years in the early 50s. You can't overlook that and then talk about America's contribution to European music as money via the CIA.

Apparently Boulez and Cage were in v frequent and friendly postal correspondence during the early darmstadt time.

It has been published

Scurrilous rumours abound about the closeness of their friendship

He Hammers the Master

iirc, Boulez biography claims that there's no evidence of Pierre ever having been on a date let alone in a relationship with anybody

I want to read that correspondence, though, even though Boulez-in-print makes me uncomfortable

This won't make me popular on this thread but I prefer his conducting to both his composing and his commentifying. I like some of his music a lot (mainly Marteau, Pli Selon Pli and Rituel) but could live without it; whereas as a conductor he's fucking irreplaceable to me.

I've read some of the Boulez-Cage correspondence, Boulez is generally amiable unlike the usual persona (a nice quote I came across recently had André Souris describe the youthful Boulez as a 'little savage', 'full of a sort of anonymous rage') but I don't recall finding much of huge interest. Lots of "hey your new piece is quite good, I hope you like my new piece" and the like. But also v precise technical discussions that I don't have the knowledge to understand.

Also Cage was probably too nice to make for a good interlocutor in the gossipy shit stirring dickhead hilarity that I get the impression was rife in those scenes. Souvtchinsky one day writing a letter to Stravinsky saying how much of an arrogant jerk Boulez is then the next day writing to Boulez saying how important he is to him, Boulez saying that he barely spoke to Souvtchinksy for years when they were still writing weekly letters, &c &c.

xp i don't know about prefer but he is a major major conductor true, he's done my favourite version of Mahler's 8th for a start

that's my favorite mahler 8 too.

no Jon you're pretty otm. Several compositions of his rule my school tho