Listen to This
By Alex Ross
Reviewed by Norman Lebrecht Published 15 December 2010
No writer in my time has so dominated American music criticism as the deceptively receptive Alex Ross, whose bestselling book The Rest Is Noise, first published in 2007, fostered the delirious delusion that contemporary classical music is still part of civilised conversation. Starting with a richly illustrated blog and working up to an eponymous book, Ross drew creative links between serious and popular music. Music is music, he argues. If you like Björk, you might also like Boulez. With the sounds shuffled on your iPod while jogging in the park, you can hardly tell the difference. That means your taste is not so far apart from the next generation's - a warming reassurance.
A persuasive enthusiast, Ross writes for the New Yorker, a magazine that defines civilisation for much of the population on the eastern seaboard of the United States. A bold appointment aged 28 by the then editor, Tina Brown, in 1996, he has lost none of his freshness in the years since. This may be ascribed, in part, to writing fortnightly rather than, as he would have to do in the daily press, weekly or thrice-weekly - a hamster's wheel that can grind down even the most gifted of reviewers into somnolent fashioners of clichés.
Ross makes the most of his leisurely schedule, setting a broader, less Manhattan-centred, less event-driven agenda than did his British predecessors Andrew Porter and Paul Griffiths. The success of his first book has set him apart from the pack, making him almost above criticism. Ross is also credited with achieving the improbable: making new music an acceptable topic of dinner-table conversation.
This, his second book, consists of an abandoned preface to the first and a clutch of essays for the New Yorker. The qualities that make him a top-notch critic become clearer in concentrated reading. So, too, do his shortcomings.
Ross is an avowed buff. He loves music with a nerdish obsession and he wants you to love it as much he does. In one impressive essay, he takes us on a Baedeker's tour of the dance-song form the chaconne, from the revelries of Inquisition-era Spain, through the melancholic Renaissance Englishman John Dowland, down to the fratricidal Balkans, on to Bach and Ligeti and, finally, Led Zeppelin. The adjectives are mine - Ross makes no value judgements. For him, music is music, like it or not. He wants the reader to focus on the "classic" four-note bass - "the one that is heard variously in Monteverdi's 'Lamento della ninfa' and Ray Charles's 'Hit the Road Jack'".
Context, social and political, is sternly excluded, even in a panoramic essay on music in China in which the high-rise lives of the aspiring middle classes, consumers and star-makers of the musical future remain altogether invisible. His encounters with Chinese musicians yield the bizarre conclusion that "the creative climate, with its system of punishments and rewards, still resembles that of the late-period Soviet Union". Ross is too young to have witnessed the strictures of the Soviet era and so has no frame of reference in which to make that statement. On three visits to China, I have been overwhelmed by the subtle and subversive freedoms wrested by musicians from the system - something that was unthinkable in Soviet Russia.
Ross is most persuasive in his passions, which include the Finnish conductor Esa-Pekka Salonen, the mezzo-soprano Lorraine Hunt Lieberson, late wife of the composer Peter Lieberson, his college professor John Luther Adams (not to be confused with the better-known John Adams, of Nixon in China fame), Bob Dylan, Radiohead and late Brahms. Eclectic by design, he avoids taking sides, though the thoughtful reader will detect a mild preference for Strauss over Mahler, a distaste for histrionics and a peacemaker's urge to bring to an end the conflict between the classics and pop.
In his articles and on his blog, Ross purports to discuss all the music you could ever want to hear, but that is an illusion. Like every writer on music, he has likes and dislikes - though, unlike others, he does not kick against the pricks. No one knows what Alex Ross hates. That is a deficiency - a modest dishonesty, indeed - in a professional critic. He deceives by withholding his dislikes, apparently open to all forms of music and yet suppressing his distastes, thereby keeping his readers from knowing the true identity of a significant arbiter of taste.
Ross seems to want to be liked, yet great critics are measured more by their courage to be disliked, by their capacity for dishing it out and taking the inevitable backlash, by their willingness to face the music. Eduard Hanslick is better remembered for caustically hating Wagner in 19th-century Vienna than for tamely admiring Brahms. Harold Schonberg of the New York Times was at his best when laying in to Leonard Bernstein - often wrongly. Neville Cardus was not afraid to lambast Artur Schnabel.
The greatest critics do not mind being proved wrong. Alex Ross tries very hard to be right. Too hard, perhaps.
Listen to This
Alex Ross
Fourth Estate, 400pp, £25
Norman Lebrecht's most recent book is “Why Mahler?" (Faber & Faber, £17.99)
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


10 comments
Michael Kenward: dead right - envy indeed. Lebrecht already as good as admitted on his blog that he resents Ross being higher up the Amazon bestsellers list than he is.
How dare Lebrecht try to undermine Ross, an infintely more interesting writer than he is, and one who does not deal primarily in unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.
I'm not so sure it's about envy. Each man has their own sense of music and where it has come from and where it is going. They should be respected equally--freedom of the press applies. I respect anyone who writes in support of a cause--and music is a cause, a form of entertainment, and something which is merely an aesthetic to most. Envy is an evil--hey, I didn't get a Grammy nomination for my 'Bach On A Steinway' cd which has received gracious and generous acclaim. It doesn't matter who sells more, who gets awards, who wins, who loses. What does matter is what we say and do to help maintain and expand our cause--in this case, music--for now and for future generations. Glory in the present is meaningless. Making the cause of music accessible, affordable and interesting to an ever-changing public and audience is our biggest challenge. I remember Barbra Streisand once said that, it didn't matter whether a film won the Academy Award--in essence, she said that many of those films which did not win an award, could stand the test of time, perhaps more than the ones which did win the awards.
I dislike Lebrecht’s dislike at not finding dislike in Ross. But I still like Lebrecht. More detail: http://soniclabyrinth.blogspot.com/
Your last sentence is absolutely correct.
Alex Ross is just one sensibility among the millions out there.... I personally find him to be far too provincial for my taste. His word is not gospel. It isn't even close. He's just someone who talks a big game and is able to put sentences and paragraphs together for an audience of people who want to have a musical "guru" to follow.
Ahh, typically silly and supercilious Lebrecht. Having been long derided for his sneers, and his howling factual errors, he now takes on a critic of vastly greater reach than he will ever enjoy.
As ever with Lebrecht, it's always about himself. When he writes "great critics are measured more by their courage to be disliked, by their capacity for dishing it out and taking the inevitable backlash..." he is -- of course -- talking about himself, and a stature which is found in his own mind and nowhere else.
Alex Ross is a writer who adores music, respects his public, and knows his stuff. That he conceals his dislikes is ample proof of the honour he pays his public. Lebrecht could learn from him.
But won't.
Lebrecht has his head so deep up his own ass that he has lost all capability to see the light of day. A sad old codger with oh so many issues!
What is unusual, IMHO, is that in the history of music journalism, there were always writers who would love or hate a performance--'live' or in recording. But I don't recall the writers going after each other. Perhaps I am wrong. Look it. Every career is different--in every aspect of life. Every writer has his/her own tastes and style of writing, and reason for doing so. In the end, who is best remembered: Harold Schonberg (who, btw the way loved my 'Rhapsody in Blue'--and my point is?? Nothing.) or Leonard Bernstein? You know the answer. People remember little of what is written unless it can be re-created. The music can be re-created in performance, in recording and in conversation. The duty of the writers is to bring living people close to the art form--and, in these times of artistic uncertainty due to changes in people's wants and needs, we must band together to make the most positive case for re-creating and premiering new music. Otherwise, it is headed for a downward spiral.
I enjoyed the review.
A sort of meta-meta-critique, of some of the comments that were directed at the reviewer of the book: At least the reviewer doesn't use rude diction in a public forum. I would ban at least one of these commenters if I could.
Yet more of Lebrecht's elitist cobblers. (Just heard more on Radio 4 today.) The man seriously wants "good" music to disappear up its own fundament so that no one but him and his six mates listen to it.
I sense envy here. How dare Ross write two best sellers that appeal to loads of people? (That, of course, makes the books suspect by Lebrecht's standards.) Why doesn't Norm get those sales?
Ross may have a "nerdish obsession" with music. Lebrecht's obsession is with being obscure. Then again, no one would accuse him of being among the "greatest critics". Just a frustrated whiner.
I look forward to reading my copy of Listen to This, despite Lebrecht's attempts to undermine the venture.
No, I have never met Alex Ross.
Alex Ross totally 'gets it'. There should be less separation in musical genres, and audiences might try to treat it like a buffet--enjoy alittle of everything. It makes us well rounded audiences and musicians. I have no qualms playing Beethoven 5th Concerto one week, Rachmaninov's 3rd the next, and Keith Emerson's energetic and classically-inspired Concerto #1 in the same program with Chopin or Liszt with orchestra. It's all 'music'.
Post new comment