# The Rest Is Noise



## Lohena (Jul 20, 2012)

After reading this great forum for a little while I figured it was finally time for me to post something. I find the discussions on this forum very interesting because there seems to be a lot of interest in modern and 20th century music.

This last year I read Alex Ross’s "The Rest Is Noise" and was wondering if anybody else here has also. For me, reading this survey on 20th century music was a huge eye-opener and completely changed the way I listen to music. Although he provides a listening guide on his website, I also subscribe to the Naxos online music library and have access to an unimaginable amount of music, which allowed me to sample and hear all the composers and pieces in his book. Even though I didn't always agree with his opinions, for me reading this book was like a personal revolution simply because I did one thing: I listened without judging.

Right now I am listening to R. Murray Schafer and am really enjoying what I hear. Although I am quite overwhelmed with the number of composers I have recently been exposed to that seem to keep building every week, it is one of the most exciting experiences in my musical journey and am glad I found a place where it seems like some others feel the same.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

As a rule each music piece should have under 50% of electric noise ... when it gets higher than 50% and overcomes mechanical Instruments, the music is lost!

And even in totally instrumental (mechanical), you can sense the noises if the music isn't properly played.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Ross's book is annoying and tedious. The gushing prose he employs to capture the music he is attempting to describe is pretentious - he would have done better to analyse the music in musicological terms - had he been capable. Instead, journalist that he is, he confines his narrative to the sensational and gossipy. Best-seller, perhaps - penetrating insight into the music of the 20th C it is not.


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

Lohena said:


> This last year I read Alex Ross's "The Rest Is Noise" and was wondering if anybody else here has also. For me, reading this survey on 20th century music was a huge eye-opener and completely changed the way I listen to music.


I've also finished his book recently and it was a great read. I really like the way he treated Shostakovich and Richard Strauss.



KRoad said:


> Instead, journalist that he is, he confines his narrative to the sensational and gossipy. Best-seller, perhaps - penetrating insight into the music of the 20th C it is not.


Does anybody here claim it's the new musicological holy grail? Ross knows his audience and has chosen not to write a book full of musicological jargon and analysis. It's the same thing as accusing Richard Dawkins for writing a popular account of evolution without showing all the complex mathematics and biological formulae.
Ross's book offers a lot of insights for music-enthusiasts and the layman. To compare his book to the written equivalent of dreadful records like "Chillout with Bach" and "Tender Romance Moods by Chopin" (viz. popular classical music ClassicFM insists on calling "hits") is rather unjustified.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Oh, wow...I thought this was another Gould thread!


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

Overall I enjoyed it, particularly the chapters on Strauss/Mahler, Sibelius, and Prokofiev/Shostakovich. I also like how it gets into how much of the "developments" in 20th century music were as much about politics/fashion as they were about actual art (which is true of any era, but the atonal-or-die crew seldom seems to want to admit this). I def. don't always share his taste and I think at times he's a bit essentialist in his opinions, but that would be true about any book by any critic. I'm curious about his new one.

And he inspired me to start reading Thomas Mann, so I owe him thanks.


----------



## Lohena (Jul 20, 2012)

KRoad said:


> Ross's book is annoying and tedious. The gushing prose he employs to capture the music he is attempting to describe is pretentious - he would have done better to analyse the music in musicological terms - had he been capable. Instead, journalist that he is, he confines his narrative to the sensational and gossipy. Best-seller, perhaps - penetrating insight into the music of the 20th C it is not.


That might be true of his narrative, but I found it to be indespensible from an introductory survey perspective.


----------



## thesubtlebody (Oct 20, 2012)

It's a terrific book and well-written; it's the opposite of "pretentious", and I find his rhetorical-descriptive style to be evocative rather than purple-prosaic. It isn't musiciology nor need it be, nor does musicology, frequently, capture what is most valuable about music, cf. James Pritchett's renunciation (but not denigration) of musicology after a life-changing encounter with (and monograph on) John Cage. To the contrary, arid musicology can be stifling and scientistic---not much at all, in fact, scientific, even when methodical---and in that regard, pretentious. Ross' book is inadequate and piece-meal as a stand-alone 20c music education, but so is every other single book covering the same scope. As responsible and wonder-inducing popularization/explication, as a point of departure or springboard, it's terrific. Of course, don't stop there!

Academies perennially cultivate and reward _kitsch_ (kitsch art, kitsch scholarship, kitsch credentials, kitsch theory) in the name of "responsibility"; I'm happy to see a journalist like Ross dust his feet of all that. Even stodgy Kyle Gann approves.

Incidentally, I read R. Murray Schafer's THE SOUNDSCAPE not long ago, and I found it really stimulating. There's a lot music that in one respect or another owes its ethos to Schafer, often made with field recordings and electronics according to a certain _musique concrète_ tradition, and I wonder if you might enjoy those kinds of music. Eric La Casa, Seth Nehil, Olivia Block, Yannick Dauby, Hildegard Westerkamp (cf. her record TRANSFORMATIONS), Natasha Barrett....some names that randomly come to mind. If we don't have a _musique concrète_ and related thread, I might start one, though it's actually been a while since I've spent much time with those musics....changing interests and all. I still have vivid memories of the excitement that I enjoyed while discovering those, though.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2012)

KRoad, I just now read your post.

Thank you. 

If I had succumbed to the temptation of opening this thread when it first appeared, I would have been faced with a choice--say pretty much what you just said or bite my tongue.

Now, I'm totally off the hook!

For the curious, Ross' book is very much more well-received in the US than anywhere else that I know of. In the UK and in Europe, um, not so much. In fact, what I've heard Brits and Europeans say about that book makes KRoad's remark seem almost like praise!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I started Ross's book, but only got about half way through. I would generally agree with KRoad that the prose was a bit overdone. I personally would have preferred more attention to the music, but I understand that he was _not_ writing from a musicological viewpoint. I may ultimately finish the book, but I have other music works to read first.

Ross is an American and writes for the New Yorker so his works would be pushed more in the US, but aside from that, anyone have ideas why it would be received much better in the US than Europe (assuming that's true)?


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2012)

mmsbls, I didn't quiz any of the people down who I talked to. After all, I agree with them.

But if I were to guess, one guess would be because he's so gossipy, and a lot of what he's gossiping about are events in Europe and the UK, inhabitants of which might think they know better than a NY columnist would.

Another guess would be that people in Europe and UK are generally (very generally) more sophisticated and more mature than Americans. And that goes for music as well. Of course there are exceptions, but that's just the point, that they are exceptions. Anyone who already loves the musics Alex talks about is more likely to be put off by his relentlessly unmusical take on the twentieth century as well as by the inexplicable lacunae and the strange emphases than someone reading about them for the first time.

Gossip is fascinating, to be sure. No denying that.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> But if I were to guess, one guess would be because he's so gossipy, and a lot of what he's gossiping about are events in Europe and the UK, inhabitants of which might think they know better than a NY columnist would.
> 
> Gossip is fascinating, to be sure. No denying that.


I agree that there is a gossipy feel to the book. I felt I was reading more about people's lives than what went into the music. I do think Ross intended that as a way for some people to understand how the music came about, but that approach is not for everyone.



some guy said:


> Anyone who already loves the musics Alex talks about is more likely to be put off by his relentlessly unmusical take on the twentieth century as well as by the inexplicable lacunae and the strange emphases than someone reading about them for the first time.


I love only some of the music he talks about, but what ultimately left me feeling somewhat empty is the fact that he didn't engage me on a musical level so I could better understand the music I do not love but wanted to learn more about.

Overall it seems many people did enjoy his book (and he certainly got enough praise from various sources) so his work did resonate with many people. I can't argue with that.


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

some guy said:


> Another guess would be that people in Europe and UK are generally (very generally) more sophisticated and more mature than Americans. And that goes for music as well. Of course there are exceptions, but that's just the point, that they are exceptions. Anyone who already loves the musics Alex talks about is more likely to be put off by his relentlessly unmusical take on the twentieth century as well as by the inexplicable lacunae and the strange emphases than someone reading about them for the first time.


I'm not sure why you would say that "The Rest is Noise" is reviewed more negatively in Europe. I must say I haven't read a lot of reviews regarding Ross' book. But the UK responsive seems to have been rather positive, take The Guardian for example, the rest is generally behind a paywall. Here in the Netherlands the reviews I can find (this one)of the book are also positive.

There's also an entire festival devoted to the topics of The Rest of Noise at the London Southbank Centre in 2013. So I wouldn't say that the notion of Ross being a persona non grata in the European music world is very widespread.

Maybe the book isn't very relevant in academic circles, but that's to be expected as it isn't a musicological treatise or something similar. The book is anecdotal and maybe even gossipy at times, but that's what I like about it. It might be the same reason I currently enjoy Charles Rosen's "Piano Notes".


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> For the curious, Ross' book is very much more well-received in the US than anywhere else that I know of. In the UK and in Europe, um, not so much. In fact, what I've heard Brits and Europeans say about that book makes KRoad's remark seem almost like praise!


in italy i think it's the most successful book on classical music at least in the last decade (the last decade just because i don't really know about the past, but i think i have never seen a book on classical music so well received)


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2012)

mensch said:


> I'm not sure why you would say that "The Rest is Noise" is reviewed more negatively in Europe.


Well, since I never said this, you can rest easy.

What I did say, but soft.... You can read that for yourself. Do it!



mensch said:


> So I wouldn't say that the notion of Ross being a persona non grata in the European music world is very widespread.


I wouldn't know, having never floated such a notion. If we're to have a conversation, you will really have to stick to what I've actually said.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

The Rest is Noise is a very interesting and enjoyable book to read. It is able to explain technical musical things in a very layman-friendly manner, which is something I'm trying to learn to do so I can explain my music and others' to my many non-musician friends.

I personally think that the lives of artists are an important element in understanding their work, and I thought it was cool having a book that focused on that element.


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

some guy said:


> mensch said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why you would say that "The Rest is Noise" is reviewed more negatively in Europe.
> ...


How am I to interpret: _"For the curious, Ross' book is very much more well-received in the US than anywhere else that I know of. In the UK and in Europe, um, not so much."_?



> I wouldn't know, having never floated such a notion. If we're to have a conversation, you will really have to stick to what I've actually said.


I agree, the "persona non grata" part is a bit of hyperbole, but I'm simply curious why you would say Ross' book is less well-received in Europe. The articles I can find seem to match the praise he received in the US for "The Rest is Noise".


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2012)

mensch, if you read my entire post, you will answer your own question. I feel if I say anything more, I'm just encouraging you to be lazy. Can I live with that?

I guess I can.

I was specifically referring to people I talked to. I have not read any articles. I've talked to people. As I said. And the people I talked to were unanimous in finding Ross's book inadequate and distasteful. Even the Americans. Not surprisingly. Almost all these conversations took place in Europe. The ones that took place in the US were with musicians who have been living and breathing new music their entire lives. They too found Ross's book lacking.

The main complaint is that it reinforces prejudices about new music and reinforces fallacies about the connections between world events and what the music sounds like. (Note, this last is only colorable if you take "sounds like" in its very narrow sense of "sounds like to someone who doesn't particularly like it." To the rest of us, music written in the teens or the forties doesn't sound any more agonized or purposely ugly than music written during the Napoleonic wars or in the revolutions of 1848 or during the brutal Prussian suppression of Austria.)


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

some guy said:


> mensch, if you read my entire post, you will answer your own question. I feel if I say anything more, I'm just encouraging you to be lazy. Can I live with that?


I misinterpreted your initial post and didn't realise you were referring to actual conversations you've had with people, instead of opinions expressed in a publication. Since you seem to continue to insinuate laziness on my part, allow me to explain that English is not my native language, I sometimes have to read the same sentence twice to parse the full meaning.



> I was specifically referring to people I talked to. I have not read any articles. I've talked to people. As I said. And the people I talked to were unanimous in finding Ross's book inadequate and distasteful. Even the Americans. Not surprisingly. Almost all these conversations took place in Europe. The ones that took place in the US were with musicians who have been living and breathing new music their entire lives. They too found Ross's book lacking.


Of course I don't know the people you've talked to, so I couldn't say if it's a widespread opinion. Personally, I don't know any classical musicians, so I have to refer to the written press.



> The main complaint is that it reinforces prejudices about new music and reinforces fallacies about the connections between world events and what the music sounds like. (Note, this last is only colorable if you take "sounds like" in its very narrow sense of "sounds like to someone who doesn't particularly like it." To the rest of us, music written in the teens or the forties doesn't sound any more agonized or purposely ugly than music written during the Napoleonic wars or in the revolutions of 1848 or during the brutal Prussian suppression of Austria.)


I'm not sure I understand correctly. Do you mean the fallacy of claiming that 20th century music is in some way "sounds ugly" because of the many atrocities that happened in for example WWI, WWII and various oppressive regimes?

As for reinforcing prejudices about new music, in what way does the book do this? Ross goes to some length to explain the concepts of serialism or the way Messiaen crafted his compositions. I feel it makes those works more approachable, instead of reinforcing prejudices like "it all sounds random" or "it's grating and ugly" (I assume these are two of the common prejudices you refer to).

Ross does dabble in some psychological profiling of some composers which might come across as too general or indeed gossipy. For example, I'm not sure what Shostakovich experts would say of his chapter, but I think it's a good introduction to the Russian master.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2012)

mensch said:


> Since you seem to continue to insinuate laziness on my part, allow me to explain that English is not my native language, I sometimes have to read the same sentence twice to parse the full meaning.


I retract all such insinuations and apologize for making them.

Your fluency had me fooled, how's that?



mensch said:


> Do you mean the fallacy of claiming that 20th century music is in some way "sounds ugly" because of the many atrocities that happened in for example WWI, WWII and various oppressive regimes?


Yes.



mensch said:


> As for reinforcing prejudices about new music, in what way does the book do this? Ross goes to some length to explain the concepts of serialism or the way Messiaen crafted his compositions.


One of the ways is the fallacy mentioned above. Another is to explicitly tell his readers that it's no wonder people reacted negatively to ugly music, because it really is ugly. Another is to talk about how gritty and seamy the society and the personal lives of avant garde composers were. Another is to weight the events of the century so as to present the conflict between tonality and atonality as the defining conflict of the century.

Sind Sie Deutsch? Ich nur wunsch das meine Sprache war so gut als Ihre. (Hah! See what I mean? Even Google Translate does a better job: Ich wünschte nur, dass meine Redezeit so gut wie Ihre waren.)


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

some guy said:


> I retract all such insinuations and apologize for making them.
> 
> Your fluency had me fooled, how's that?


No problem! As for the fluency, it just takes a lot more time to make a post.  As for reading, when I'm tired or else wise preoccupied, the true meaning of a post is sometimes lost on me.



> One of the ways is the fallacy mentioned above. Another is to explicitly tell his readers that it's no wonder people reacted negatively to ugly music, because it really is ugly. Another is to talk about how gritty and seamy the society and the personal lives of avant garde composers were. Another is to weight the events of the century so as to present the conflict between tonality and atonality as the defining conflict of the century.


It's been a while since I've read the novel, but I'm not certain one can accuse him of the first (negativity to ugliness, because it really is ugly). As I've said, Ross goes to some length to explain why certain modern music is the way it is and that explanation often excludes the common esthetical denominators. Also, his representation of tonality and atonality didn't come across as being a battle between opposites or a defining conflict. He does touch upon the animosity of the serialists against other music, or how Schoenberg and his pupils positioned themselves in the musical life of that day.

You might indeed take issue with the way he treats the impact of the personal events (and world events) on the music of various composers. I believe he only did it where he deemed it appropriate, in his account of Mahler and Strauss, for example. As they're generally categorised as Late Romantics a bit of psychologization is merited, I believe, due to the nature of Romanticism. The chapter on Shostakovich also paints a picture of a man terrified by the Soviet-regime. Ross tries to get across what composing meant in the Soviet Union and what it meant for Shostakovich personally. Ross also holds the opinion that the fact that his loved ones were constantly under the threat of deportation and the harsh criticism his work often received from official sources, impacted his music. An example - according to Ross - is the 8th string quartet, and he partly attributes the desperate nature of the piece to the way Shostakovich reacted to his failing health and depression.

It's telling that Ross doesn't apply the same technique to other composers, like Boulez and Messiaen. Personal issues generally don't come into play when discussing those composers in their respective chapters. Of course Messiaen's religion is brought up (but this is evidently a part of his music) and "Quatuor pour la fin du temps" is discussed in relation to the war as well.

But I can understand why one would take issue with the book, partly because of the sweeping statements Ross sometimes makes, carefully researched or otherwise.



> Sind Sie Deutsch? Ich nur wunsch das meine Sprache war so gut als Ihre. (Hah! See what I mean? Even Google Translate does a better job: Ich wünschte nur, dass meine Redezeit so gut wie Ihre waren.)


No, I'm Dutch. Google Translate makes a terrible mess of our grammar system, possibly because it's rather kookie and riddled with exceptions. Oh, and: _Bedankt voor de vriendelijke woorden over mijn Engels taalgebruik._


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2012)

I apologize again, then. I was just going by "mensch," which is a common German term. Or a common German term _as well._

Doubly embarrassing for me, because my ancestory is Dutch. My grandfather was from Amsterdam. I'm only second-generation American.

And, lest this get passed over, _graag gedaan!_


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2012)

One the first page of this thread, someguy, you talk about Ross's book being 'very much' better received in the USA and then you are forced to admit that this opinion comes from your own conversations. Also, you make the claim Americans aren't as "sophisticated" or "mature" as their European counterparts, generally. Upon what do you make such a definitive and broad-based assessment? This sounds like sweeping generalization to me. Aren't you one and the same person who has historically criticized people (like orchestra program directors) for making statements based on anecdotal evidence and/or their opinion and that, because of that belief, the person's opinion is wrong? (Or is it that it inconveniently conflicts with your own opinion?)

Keep it consistent. You can't walk both sides of the street. And what I find about many of your comments is that you duck and weave A LOT.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> The main complaint is that it reinforces prejudices about new music and reinforces fallacies about the connections between world events and what the music sounds like. (Note, this last is only colorable if you take "sounds like" in its very narrow sense of "sounds like to someone who doesn't particularly like it." To the rest of us, music written in the teens or the forties doesn't sound any more agonized or purposely ugly than music written during the Napoleonic wars or in the revolutions of 1848 or during the brutal Prussian suppression of Austria.)


I disagree with parts of this to an extent. I don't hear atonal or dissonant music as "purposefully ugly" or even "ugly". At least not because of the dissonances themselves, there's perfectly consonant music as well as some dissonant music that I think has an element of ugliness behind it, but that is often in the purpose of the piece or the subject or the artist themselves, so its sort of a removed ugliness. However to not hear agony or rage or depression and other intense, unhappy emotions emanating from some music of the 20th Century, or rather to assert that its not there, I think it a little silly. Of course not all atonal music is unhappy in subject or sound (though I would argue that the aesthetic of much of it leans towards either various unhappy feelings or very deep contemplations of ideas or complexities of certain relationships) and not all 20th Century music is atonal even. I just think that it is a pretty reasonable idea to entertain that a composer's own personality (such as Boulez's fiery, youthful anger) or their perceptions and experiences of events around them (such as Feldman's grief regarding the Holocaust, or Ligeti's resentment of the totalitarian state oppressing his expression coupled with the loss of much of his family in the Holocaust) will have a significant impact on their writing. I think perhaps that the extreme expansion of the various materials composers had to use allowed for clearer articulations of certain more complex emotional and intellectual ideas, but that still may be over-simplifying things.

There is alot of atonal music (or music that crosses between atonal and tonal, such as Ives and Schnittke) that isn't unhappy sounding at all, but I don't think hearing something like "Rothko Chapel" and feeling a deep sorrow emanating from it, or Boulez's first Piano Sonata and hearing much of it as intense, furious rage, is that outlandish, even without knowing certain things about the pieces or the composers.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> and then you are forced to admit


Say what?

There was no forcing. And no admissions.

This conclusion came from my observations. Period.



CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Upon what do you make such a definitive and broad-based assessment [that Americans aren't as "sophisticated" or "mature" as their European counterparts]?


Well, it's hardly definitive. It's such a common notion that it's probably a cliche. I'm more embarrassed now for being caught out in a cliche than for making an unfounded assertion.

Plus, I have to admit that it's not even my own assessment. But the first time (and not the only time either) I heard a European mention that Americans were "immature," I realized that that accounted for a number of things I had observed over the years. So I use it now, too, as a kind of shorthand. Kinda lazy of me, I know.



CountenanceAnglaise said:


> This sounds like sweeping generalization to me.


It is that.



CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Aren't you one and the same person who has historically criticized people (like orchestra program directors) for making statements based on anecdotal evidence and/or their opinion and that, because of that belief, the person's opinion is wrong? (Or is it that it inconveniently conflicts with your own opinion?)


Actually, in the situation you're citing, there was no anecdotal evidence on the director's part (though you have characterized it as such twice now). He was simply mouthing a cliche. And the cliche that he was retailing is simply wrong. There is no historical evidence to back it up, and plenty of historical evidence that it is wrong.



CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Keep it consistent. You can't walk both sides of the street. And what I find about many of your comments is that you duck and weave A LOT.


Well, when ya got criticisms comin' from all directions, and when your interlocutors are shifting ground on you all the time, ya might find yerself duckin' and weavin' a bit, doncha know?

I think you'll find that I'm pretty consistent, though. I mean, unless you disagree with what I say and inconsistency is your criticism of choice. If you want some real inconsistency, some inconsistency with teeth, you're going to have to look elsewhere, I think.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Say what?
> 
> There was no forcing. And no admissions.
> 
> If you want some real inconsistency, some inconsistency with teeth, you're going to have to look elsewhere, I think.


Again, this is your tack - semantics. Arguing about HOW to argue. Picking on select words like 'forcing' and 'admissions' when both of those words conveyed the spirit intended. Now I'll try it...."inconsistency with teeth" -surely that's a paradox. And I don't "have to" look "elsewhere". There now, it's you doing the 'forcing' with the modal verb. See how this works? Two can play.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Count, "have to" was in a construction that began with "If." The "if" governs the whole sentence.

And if you argue badly, you "force" me into making a choice: either I ignore you or I argue about how to argue.

By the way, before I choose option one from now on out, "inconsistency with teeth" is not a paradox, it's a metaphor. I really think you should pay more attention to words rather than less. But I ain't gonna force you. Nah.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

some guy said:


> Count, "have to" was in a construction that began with "If." The "if" governs the whole sentence.
> 
> And if you argue badly, you "force" me into making a choice: either I ignore you or I argue about how to argue.
> 
> By the way, before I choose option one from now on out, "inconsistency with teeth" is not a paradox, it's a metaphor. I really think you should pay more attention to words rather than less. But I ain't gonna force you. Nah.


some guy, I miss your brilliant insights already... from the good old days.

And sadly enough, most of my posts don't even have half the insights that you exhibit.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I love that book! It helped me get into more 20th century music I didn't know about. It introduced me to:
- Schmidt
- Reich
- Strauss' Salome
And it helped give me a new approach to the Second Viennese school, Boulez, and Varese
Also, it was fascinating to read about how politics affected the musical cultural climate, and vice versa.
So yeah I definitely recommend it


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

_The Rest is Noise_. A history of the 20th century via music. It's never a bad thing to learn a little more history.

By the way, I greatly enjoy the book. I'm fortunate to have a large enough music collection that I could access much of the music Ross chose to write about. I would often listen to a referenced piece while I read Ross's commentary.

Essentially, though, I see the book as presenting an historical, musicological survey rather than, say, a theoretical (as in "music theory") appraisal.

I especially enjoyed reading the pages about "Der Mahler", which begins on page 18 of the text. (Yes, I have the book within arm's reach of my keyboard. It's a good read. Well worth a music lover's time.)


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

He's a great music-writer, I enjoyed this book and I'm really looking forward to his book about Wagner.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I rather enjoyed it, and his other book _Listen to This_.


----------

