What do you think?
Rate this book
Music in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries
The music of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in its cultural, social, and intellectual contexts.
Joseph Auner's Music in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries explores the sense of possibility unleashed by the era's destabilizing military conflicts, social upheavals, and technological advances. Auner shows how the multiplicity of musical styles has called into question traditional assumptions about compositional practice, the boundaries of music and noise, and the relationship among composer, performer, and listener. He also shows how composers and their works have played important roles in defining ideas of nation, race, and gender, and thus in shaping the modern world for better and worse.Western Music in A Norton History comprises six volumes of moderate length, each written in an engaging style by a recognized expert. Authoritative and current, the series examines music in the broadest sense—as sounds notated, performed, and heard—focusing not only on composers and works, but also on broader social and intellectual currents.
Joseph Auner's Music in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries explores the sense of possibility unleashed by the era's destabilizing military conflicts, social upheavals, and technological advances. Auner shows how the multiplicity of musical styles has called into question traditional assumptions about compositional practice, the boundaries of music and noise, and the relationship among composer, performer, and listener. He also shows how composers and their works have played important roles in defining ideas of nation, race, and gender, and thus in shaping the modern world for better and worse.Western Music in A Norton History comprises six volumes of moderate length, each written in an engaging style by a recognized expert. Authoritative and current, the series examines music in the broadest sense—as sounds notated, performed, and heard—focusing not only on composers and works, but also on broader social and intellectual currents.
- GenresMusicNonfiction
384 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 29, 2013
9 people are currently reading
59 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 15, 2014
This is the last volume in the Norton Western Music in Context series, and it was just as good as the others. Auner does a excellent job of covering recent music history in all its dizzying diversity. I especially appreciated that he didn't over-emphasize serialism and atonality. I appreciated that he was more than willing to pay attention to the lesser known and more out there composers even more: Pauline Oliveros, John Zorn, John Oswald, the Futurists, neo-romantics, etc. The treatment of the most recent developments was also terrific - Auner adopted a much wider scope and gave mention to many people working outside of academia and other typical structures.
The later parts of the book can get a little too kaleidoscopic as Auner attempts to cover the enormous range of what is going on in the concert music world of the last couple of decades. It can be a little disorienting, but on the other hand, it's great to see everything laid out, rather than have one or two specific aesthetics championed. No matter how diffuse it gets, Auner is always able to bring out what is valuable and interesting about even the most abstract, thorny, listener-unfriendly music.
The later parts of the book can get a little too kaleidoscopic as Auner attempts to cover the enormous range of what is going on in the concert music world of the last couple of decades. It can be a little disorienting, but on the other hand, it's great to see everything laid out, rather than have one or two specific aesthetics championed. No matter how diffuse it gets, Auner is always able to bring out what is valuable and interesting about even the most abstract, thorny, listener-unfriendly music.
May 8, 2020
The problems in writing a history such as this are many, but three are foremost in my mind.
The first is how you handle living composers who are famous and popular, but in terms of originality and quality may not deserve such fame in the classical world. Auner does an excellent job of showing warts and all. Though he himself is rarely critical, he does offer dissenting opinions.
The second is one that composers themselves face. How much should one cater to the tastes of the community of composers or to public tastes? Are works that are popular and which the public can easily digest (tonal works) those we should approve? Classical music, modern music, and modern art have been divisive among artists as well as the public for a long time. A writer of this kind of book must remain neutral and use the standards of quality, originality and innovation. Especially of late, much so-called classical music has catered to popular music ears, to such an extent that the musical elements are not so different from nineteenth century music with perhaps more dissonance. Hence the movement of neo-romanticism. Again Auner comes through and clearly shows the problem. Courage is rare in art, especially without a patron or means to survive.
The third problem involves who will receive the most treatment and who will be ignored or slighted. In my opinion, selections should depend upon, in the end, how his or her music SOUNDS. Overall, Auner does his best, but, in my opinion, falters several times. He gives a lot of pages to Mahler in the beginning. No one denies Mahler's contribution to symphonic music, but if you listen to Mahler, you definitely do not HEAR him in the "tradition" of 20th century music. Mahler sounds like an extension of the 19th and should be in a history of the late 19th century, after Liszt's tone poems. Same with R. Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, and Vaughan Williams. They all sound like the next step of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony or Wagner or Liszt's tone poems or Berlioz. So, I would take away paragraphs devoted to them and give it to the experiments of R. Murray Shafer, more to Ruth Seeger, more to Gubaidulina, much more to Partch, and much more to Takemitsu and other Asian composers. Heck, the late piano works of Liszt sound more like the 20th century than the works of Mahler or Strauss. Auner admits that Rachmaninoff is in the 19th century tradition. Why not Mahler? Who would I use in place of Mahler? Busoni (1866-1924) has a foot in both centuries, his theoretical work is amazingly prophetic, he built an microtonal instrument, his late works are often atonal, and he used themes from other cultures. Yet his earlier works are very 19th century. So he would fit well as a transitional figure.
Debussy also starts the book, and he should. Many of his works SOUND like the next century, not like the 19th century, even though he died (1918) at the beginning of the 20th century. Boulez is given a lot of pages and Messiaen is given far less, even though Auner notes several times how many composers (including Boulez) Messiaen had influenced. I would not ignore Boulez by any means, but I would give some of his pages to Messiaen, the real brains behind so many musical ideas and innovations.
Thank you, Auner, for including Henry Cowell, another figure who deserves far more treatment in 20th century musical history than he receives, as well as Zappa, Crumb, Still, and Davis. The pages devoted to Stockhausen, Cage, Ives, Satie, Varese, Britten, Shostakovich, Ligeti, and Berio are well deserved and well done. I especially enjoyed the discussion of the revolutionary pre-12 tone Schoenberg, but there was too much given to the 12 tone Schoenberg at the expense of Webern (far more influential in post-WWII climate, in my view) and others, though thank you for mentioning Schoenberg's work with the artists of the day. Microtonal composers, such as Haba, are ignored. The use of microtones by other composers is mentioned in passing. There is a lot of good discussion of 20th century social, political and cultural events that provide many insights. Jazz, Rock and other popular and world music are mostly discussed when they were influenced or influenced classical composers. Texture composers and the minimalists get the full treatment, which may bother some, but not me. Like all modern music works, there are inferior minimalist and texture works and there are those those of high quality. It is not the technique; it is the execution.
Nevertheless. the condescension, arrogance, and the aura of superiority of some of the composers was irritating. It bothered me how unkind they were to each other and to the music of others and to their wives. Clearly composers are combative and insecure. There were too few who are open-minded to ALL modern music like Cowell and Ives and Messiaen, and in the 19th century Liszt. Too many men like Brahms, putting down the music that is unlike theirs. If they cannot be civil within their own community, how do they expect the public to react to their music.
The first is how you handle living composers who are famous and popular, but in terms of originality and quality may not deserve such fame in the classical world. Auner does an excellent job of showing warts and all. Though he himself is rarely critical, he does offer dissenting opinions.
The second is one that composers themselves face. How much should one cater to the tastes of the community of composers or to public tastes? Are works that are popular and which the public can easily digest (tonal works) those we should approve? Classical music, modern music, and modern art have been divisive among artists as well as the public for a long time. A writer of this kind of book must remain neutral and use the standards of quality, originality and innovation. Especially of late, much so-called classical music has catered to popular music ears, to such an extent that the musical elements are not so different from nineteenth century music with perhaps more dissonance. Hence the movement of neo-romanticism. Again Auner comes through and clearly shows the problem. Courage is rare in art, especially without a patron or means to survive.
The third problem involves who will receive the most treatment and who will be ignored or slighted. In my opinion, selections should depend upon, in the end, how his or her music SOUNDS. Overall, Auner does his best, but, in my opinion, falters several times. He gives a lot of pages to Mahler in the beginning. No one denies Mahler's contribution to symphonic music, but if you listen to Mahler, you definitely do not HEAR him in the "tradition" of 20th century music. Mahler sounds like an extension of the 19th and should be in a history of the late 19th century, after Liszt's tone poems. Same with R. Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, and Vaughan Williams. They all sound like the next step of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony or Wagner or Liszt's tone poems or Berlioz. So, I would take away paragraphs devoted to them and give it to the experiments of R. Murray Shafer, more to Ruth Seeger, more to Gubaidulina, much more to Partch, and much more to Takemitsu and other Asian composers. Heck, the late piano works of Liszt sound more like the 20th century than the works of Mahler or Strauss. Auner admits that Rachmaninoff is in the 19th century tradition. Why not Mahler? Who would I use in place of Mahler? Busoni (1866-1924) has a foot in both centuries, his theoretical work is amazingly prophetic, he built an microtonal instrument, his late works are often atonal, and he used themes from other cultures. Yet his earlier works are very 19th century. So he would fit well as a transitional figure.
Debussy also starts the book, and he should. Many of his works SOUND like the next century, not like the 19th century, even though he died (1918) at the beginning of the 20th century. Boulez is given a lot of pages and Messiaen is given far less, even though Auner notes several times how many composers (including Boulez) Messiaen had influenced. I would not ignore Boulez by any means, but I would give some of his pages to Messiaen, the real brains behind so many musical ideas and innovations.
Thank you, Auner, for including Henry Cowell, another figure who deserves far more treatment in 20th century musical history than he receives, as well as Zappa, Crumb, Still, and Davis. The pages devoted to Stockhausen, Cage, Ives, Satie, Varese, Britten, Shostakovich, Ligeti, and Berio are well deserved and well done. I especially enjoyed the discussion of the revolutionary pre-12 tone Schoenberg, but there was too much given to the 12 tone Schoenberg at the expense of Webern (far more influential in post-WWII climate, in my view) and others, though thank you for mentioning Schoenberg's work with the artists of the day. Microtonal composers, such as Haba, are ignored. The use of microtones by other composers is mentioned in passing. There is a lot of good discussion of 20th century social, political and cultural events that provide many insights. Jazz, Rock and other popular and world music are mostly discussed when they were influenced or influenced classical composers. Texture composers and the minimalists get the full treatment, which may bother some, but not me. Like all modern music works, there are inferior minimalist and texture works and there are those those of high quality. It is not the technique; it is the execution.
Nevertheless. the condescension, arrogance, and the aura of superiority of some of the composers was irritating. It bothered me how unkind they were to each other and to the music of others and to their wives. Clearly composers are combative and insecure. There were too few who are open-minded to ALL modern music like Cowell and Ives and Messiaen, and in the 19th century Liszt. Too many men like Brahms, putting down the music that is unlike theirs. If they cannot be civil within their own community, how do they expect the public to react to their music.
February 21, 2021
Aunque un poco desordenado, yn magnífico libro para curiosos y autodidactas de la historia de la música.
August 12, 2015
The book gives a few sentences about the lives each of the important composers of this era, but that's not enough to be very satisfying.
Some space goes to how the composers influenced and regarded each other's work and to how their work relates to the major movements of this era. More about these interconnections would have made for better reading in this short book. As it is, the individual composer histories come off as superficial.
Some space goes to how the composers influenced and regarded each other's work and to how their work relates to the major movements of this era. More about these interconnections would have made for better reading in this short book. As it is, the individual composer histories come off as superficial.
December 3, 2014
One of the better, less dry music history texts I've seen. Great for a graduate survey course, covers a broad range of topics in an unbiased context.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews