h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Namely, the 20th. It's going to take us a long time to get over you.

Three examples of why the 20th century was bad for us:

1. Architecture.
Mostly during the second half of the century if we're going to be honest - much of the modernist architecture and building design (art nouveau, art deco, eg) from the first half of the century was actually pretty decent (and some wasn't). I'm talking about brutalism. Concrete jungles. Concrete everything. Buildings that alienated (and, let's be honest, brutalised) the people who had to live in them, work in them, look at them. Buildings that made eyesores of entire city centres and council estates, and in some places, so many estates that entire areas became an eyesore.

Not that all concrete is bad, by the way. Some of it, when poured into a good design, is very pleasant to look at. I personally like the Isokon building in north London http://www.modernism-in-metroland.co.uk/uploads/1/0/2/5/10257505/3595430_orig.jpg a lot, but it's not brutalist, it's modernist. It still has a human element to it somehow. It feels far more friendly than, for instance the almost identical Trellic and Balfron Towers in west and east London respectively. I once moved someone into Balfron Tower.

*Shudder*

And yet, Trellick Tower http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Trellicktower.jpg and Willow Road http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/1_2_3_Willow_Road_Hampstead_London_20050924.JPG , both designed by the same architect - Erno Goldfinger. What a difference. Which of the two would you rather live in? I'll take the second one every time.

Which isn't to say that's exactly the kind of home I desire. Nor is all 20 century grand architecture awful. I rather like many of the oft-derided glass towers that went up in the 60s, mostly. There's a photograph I've seen recently of several of them, newly-built, in London. If I come across it again (didn't bookmark or download it) I'll post a link.

Alison and Peter Smithson... you have much to atone for

2. Music
Specifically, classical music. By the end of the 19th century classical music was starting to fragment from its romantic period (Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Brahms - essentially, just about any composer you can think of from the 1800s) into, for instance, the impressionism of Ravel, Debussy, Delius and (slightly off to left of centre) Erik Satie, who was also a bit Dada; the neo-classicism of Prokofiev and Stravinsky; the nationalists and folk music-influenced composers such as Holst and Vaughan Williams, Grieg, de Falla, Elgar, Chopin, Copeland and Sibelius. But those were all still writers of music we'd call melodic, rhythmic and tonal.

And then the modernists happened. Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Webern, Berg, Ives, Boulez, Birtwistle, Cage et al. It wasn't music that could easily be listened to, was it. It was music for people who wanted to be thought of as aficionados, in the know, the cognoscenti, above all that simple tonal stuff, perish the thought. It wasn't enough to simply listen to music any more - you had to interpret it. Iannis Xenakis's composition Metastasis is a fine example, although far from extreme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI

I suppose that's the score for it. Doesn't look like any orchestral score I've ever seen.

If that didn't set your teeth on edge, have a little Radulescu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKeo79Ldz50

You're welcome

And as for freeform jazz... no, no, no as fast as you can.

Thankfully it seems there's been a resurgence of music with listenability in the past few decades, I'm actually quite fond of some of the minimalists, such as Terry Riley and Philip Glass who, although stuck in 20th century modernism, signalled the beginning of a return to tonality and rhythm in music, and the likes of John Adams, Arvo Part, Henryk Gorecki and John Tavener.

And if you're reading this you've heard some Terry Riley, quite often probably. Oh yes you have http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy3W-3HPMWg

If you don't recognise that, shame on you

3. Art
What can we say about 20th century art, from Picasso to Tracy Emin, that hasn't been said a thousand times before, often by me? It's bollocks, isn't it. The fact that there are multiple stories (some of them actually true ) about museum and art gallery cleaners who thought a piece of art (art ) was just some rubbish that had been left behind and tossed it in the dustbin, speaks volumes.

So, in a nutshell, art, like music and architecture, and other artistic and creative forms such as literature, film, theatre etc, became over-intellectualised; they pushed away anyone who wasn't 'in the know', part of the in-crowd, elitist. You and me and almost everyone else.

Which is why, even though I was born in, grew up in, was shaped and influenced by, indulged myself in, immersed myself in and generally had a high old time in the 20th century, I'm glad to see the back of it and much that went on then. Humanity lost much of its sense of reason during those 100 years.

Well, shame on me I suppose. I don't recognize the Terry Riley piece. I didn't listen to the whole 40 minutes, but I did click through a few sections so maybe I just skipped the notable part.


That Radulescu piece has to be a joke, right? If Stravinksy's Rite of Spring caused a riot with it's "shocking" discordance, this should have started a month long siege!

It's really just the opening minute or so, even just the opening few bars... if it actually has bars, and it's connected to the reason for this website's existence.

I also didn't mention 20th century opera.

Oh dear Bob

Do a Google walk about around the Scottish Parliament bldg. I walked past it several times (on the Royal Mile side mostly) and I still don't know if I like it or loath it.

This link might take you right to it. (I'm never quite sure if just copy/paste works well with Google Maps.

http://www.google.com/maps/place/Scottish+Parliament+Building/@55.9498119,-3.1718752,145a,25.7y,139.67h,72.49t,355.93r/data=!3m5!1e4!3m3!1s6802230127999667935!2e3!3e9!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x3adbfff410f43a9d!6m1!1e1

Nope... that link didn't work. I think that's a mislabeled photo tour of a nearby building.

I'm about to head off out but I'll take a look when I get back.

In a similar like-it-or-loathe-it vein, although I love much of Charles Rennie Mackintosh's interior design, I'm not so sure about his architecture. I was sad to see the Glasgow School of Art go up in flames earlier this year, but less for the exterior than for the interior, which was certainly the part that was worst affected by the blaze

I just thought you might enjoy this "architecture".

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/impossible-buildings-make-m-c-escher-look-quaint/

You can expand the images for better viewing.

Nice

I actually rather like one or two of those. I won't say which ones though; can't be spoiling my reactionary reputation when it comes to architecture