# Do you think Boulez will Become More Popular or More Obscure?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

What do you think: will Pierre Boulez become more popular or more obscure over the next 100 years? Will he be celebrated as a great composer?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Klassic said:


> What do you think: will Pierre Boulez become more popular or more obscure over the next 100 years? Will he be celebrated as a great composer?


Impossible to say.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

The history of late 20th (and early 21st) century music cannot be written without referencing Pierre Boulez, whether in a positive or negative role. So, yes, he'll be around for a while. Especially in terms of reputation.

The popularity of his music is another matter, and that's a difficult thing to predict. It always has been and will continue to be so. Throughout our musical history, an often popular in his day composer becomes an obscure, unheard footnote in a later generation. Sometimes musical reputations fluctuate, going up and down, in and out of popularity. Think of Sibelius during the 20th century.

Fortunately, our modern technological world has given rise to the resurrection of much music that was previously (in past, non-technological/non-recording societies) fundamentally lost. When folks relied upon the concert hall to hear music, only a small segment of music was available, due to various factors. Today the recording industry (and I think immediately of NAXOS) allows for folks like me to access nearly everything ever written. I mean, look over the listing of Hyperion's series titled "The Romantic Piano Concerto", some 67 volumes or so to date, and tell me this music, at least the majority of it, was played much prior to the series being recorded by Hyperion. We live in glorious times, and fortunately Boulez's music is recorded and available.

So, even if live performance is shrinking, we need not fear that the hearing of music will lessen. (Had concert halls and orchestras closed down in the 19th century, the music was not to be heard.) Get yourself a music server and a pair of good headphones and plug in. Boulez is there, alive and well. Along with everybody else.

Times are changing, and perhaps reputations will change along with the times.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

There are spaces unheard of. 

Some people open doors.

There is only change.

The world stands still.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

*waits for someone to insult Boulez and the subsequent obligatory 50-page long fight*


----------



## Adair (Feb 9, 2016)

As a conductor, at least, he shall definitely be remembered. I saw him conduct in London and Berlin, and it was so impressive---the clean simplicity of his movements. His recordings of Schoenberg, Webern, Stravinsky, Berg, Bartok, and Debussy will surely be regarded forever as among the finest, most insightful interpretations ever made of these composers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I never warmed to his rather chilly, analytical conducting but he has many admirerers as a conductor. I would have said that his music is far too difficult to ever become popular. He was an iconoclast and his music reflects his general rebellion against any form of tonality. So I feel it will never appealed to any more than a few but then life is full of surprises.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I never warmed to his rather chilly, analytical conducting but he has many admirerers as a conductor. I would have said that his music is far too difficult to ever become popular. He was an iconoclast and his music reflects his general rebellion against any form of tonality. So I feel it will never appealed to any more than a few but then life is full of surprises.


This, nothing to add :tiphat:


----------



## Adair (Feb 9, 2016)

But his Debussy is pretty lush and lively, especially _La Mer_ and _Iberia_.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Adair said:


> But his Debussy is pretty lush and lively, especially _La Mer_ and _Iberia_.


I've never understood the idea that his conducting is chilly and analytical. Listening to his recordings I hear an incisive yet flexible pulse and a lively sensuality of texture that belie his putative reputation.

His (late) music, likewise, is not nearly as difficult as people imagine, and bursts with colors that one had never imagined could or did exist.

As for its future, who can say? All we can say now is that it's survived so far over the last several decades and hasn't shown signs of decline.


----------



## Adair (Feb 9, 2016)

When I saw him conduct a program of Berg and Webern, his movements struck me as very economical, essential, beautifully precise, but not cold. He was not theatrical in the least--all the intensity was in the music that he elicited from the orchestra (the B.B.C. at that concert). And I agree with Mahlerian that many of his recordings have a "lively sensuality." I hear this especially in his masterful recordings of Debussy. I have a recording of his of the Schoenberg Chamber Symphony No. 1 that attains sublime heights of feeling.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I did a poll asking members whether PB was a great composer. The statistical results indicate many members think he was a great composer. This may help suggest PB could be at least well remembered in years to come.

http://www.talkclassical.com/41532-pierre-boulez-great-composer.html?highlight=


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Given that many in the classical music world already regard him as a great composer, it's reasonable to assume that his reputation will remain for some time. Whether he becomes _more popular_ is another question entirely, and impossible to predict.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Every non-classical band and performer I have liked when they were obscure has wound up having staying power while more popular acts I actively disliked all but disappeared after a few years. I'm not saying I have great taste, but for whatever reason statistically I can spot 'um.

And I like Boulez's music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Weston said:


> Every non-classical band and performer I have liked when they were obscure has wound up having staying power while more popular acts I actively disliked all but disappeared after a few years. I'm not saying I have great taste,* but for whatever reason statistically I can spot 'um.*
> 
> And I like Boulez's music.


Yes, but don't you also dislike Mozart and Vivaldi? 

j/k

Boulez does a nice job conducting a lot of music, and seems to have a body of compositions that _could_ have staying power. As others have mentioned it is hard to predict.

Questions that arise for me are - will a lot of music stay somewhat serial based, or is Boulez at the tail end of a trend? If its the latter he may not be considered as important as the second Viennese school composers, depending on whether or not he ends up having significant impact on future composers.

What are Boulez main musical innovations? Is it fair to say he expanded serialism? Or something/anything else?


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

Klassic said:


> What do you think: will Pierre Boulez become more popular or more obscure over the next 100 years? Will he be celebrated as a great composer?


I think Boulez will always be a part of musical history but his music will have no voice or platform in the years to come. Though it sounds ignorant to some, I have tried and tried to listen and drag an understanding out of much of the twentieth century's avant -garde, in music and much else, and have found an empty space. Boulez and his cronies thought they were giving the world a new slice of great art with their incomprehensible tinkering when in reality it was the emperor's new clothes. There are some on this site who will praise Boulez and rightly so; he was certainly an innovator, a great musical mind and celebrated conductor, but whether he will be more popular or obscure in a hundred years is hardly a relevant question as I believe he fell into obscurity as a composer even before he died.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2016)

> in reality it was the emperor's new clothes.


Seconds away, round ten.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Historically, Boulez will be rememmbered as a Composer. Like him or not, he played an important role in contemporary(Then) classical music. Wether his compositions will be played in the future no one can say, audiences are notoriously fickle in any genre particularly in modern times. The recognition is already his though, no doubts left.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Alydon said:


> I think Boulez will always be a part of musical history but his music will have no voice or platform in the years to come. Though it sounds ignorant to some, I have tried and tried to listen and drag an understanding out of much of the twentieth century's avant -garde, in music and much else, and have found an empty space. Boulez and his cronies thought they were giving the world a new slice of great art with their incomprehensible tinkering when in reality it was the emperor's new clothes. There are some on this site who will praise Boulez and rightly so; he was certainly an innovator, a great musical mind and celebrated conductor, but whether he will be more popular or obscure in a hundred years is hardly a relevant question as I believe he fell into obscurity as a composer even before he died.


Is it really necessary to refer to respected composers as "cronies"? Really?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Another thread possibly akin to dry timber waiting for the slightest spark to burst into flames.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Nah! were all mature adults here no one would...ah hell what am I saying :lol:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

We are mostly very well informed and eloquent adults, but maturity levels vary greatly even within individuals. Some of the non adult members seem more mature and it frightens me.(see talknonsense for discussions on how to prevent the growing superiority of precocious posters)


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It's hard to say. His body of work is small. He could be seen as a "niche" composer in some ways. I haven't known a lot people to get as immediately excited about his music as they do about many of his contemporaries. On the other hand, younger classical music listeners tend not to have the ultra-narrow, 19th-century-only taste of older ones, so he may benefit from that trend over time.

If I had to bet I'd say his relative popularity among classical music fans will increase slightly but not hugely.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I can only speak authoritatively of Boulez as a conductor.

Now that he is gone, he will become acknowledged as one of the true greats.

His Mahler symphony set is one of the best ever.

Nobody clarified a complex orchestral score better than Pierre Boulez.

Case in point: Listen to his Ravel "La Valse". Razor sharp and clear!


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Personally there are very few things I like about or by Boulez. I can't actually define what it is about his personality that makes me regard him with disdain. I have not been able to get completely through in one sitting any of his compositions either. Bottom line is I don't care for him. If he survives the test of time I will be surprised. I won't be here then but I still would be surprised.

Kevin


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

If you're asking me to be a prognosticator, my best guess is that his legacy will be somewhat akin to Leonard Bernstein's: one of the 20th century's truly outstanding conductors, a unique musical personality and communicator, and a respected composer, more or less in that order. Although I think its safe to say that none of his works will ever have the popularity or reach the audience of a _West Side Story_.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

This might cause a food fight but I'm just being honest here. I've tried listening to Boulez several times now. His music, though innovative, just sounds like so much technical and theoretical noise to me; it seems to be totally void of any romantic spirit. However, I will not conclude my investigation quite yet, I will do more listening.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Well coming from a big fan of his conducting but a relative non-fan of his works (though I have tried) I would agree he'll be more remembered for conducting. Perhaps student orchestras will feature his pieces and Brooklyn coffee shops will spin his.... whatever digitial music format exists in the future, but I have trouble seeing the premiere orchestras of the world making him a core part of their 20th century performances. I'd bet Glass would be more likely to be that, and I'm not a great fan of his either.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I think the OP phrases the question incorrectly. I don't believe the future will hold more or less popularity or obscurity for the music of Boulez. It's not about those issues. I don't believe Boulez composed his music for popular acceptance now or in the future. The music will be listened to and remembered in the future by a select audience of listeners and musicians that are interested in the compositions as pure music, without any baggage attached. Music for the sake of expressing music. Just the way Boulez likes it!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I did a poll asking members whether PB was a great composer. The statistical results indicate many members think he was a great composer. This may help suggest PB could be at least well remembered in years to come.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/41532-pierre-boulez-great-composer.html?highlight=


I think a compulsory poll of the entire TC board would yield a totally different result.

If Boulez was a great composer than there must be hundreds of such great composers - Webern Stockhausen Gorecki etc etc ad infinitum


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Klassic said:


> This might cause a food fight but I'm just being honest here. I've tried listening to Boulez several times now. His music, though innovative, *just sounds like so much technical and theoretical noise to me*; it seems to be totally void of any romantic spirit. However, I will not conclude my investigation quite yet, I will do more listening.


Well I was going to listen to some Boulez for the first time - but your comments kind of put me off.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

violadude said:


> Is it really necessary to refer to respected composers as "cronies"? Really?


Adds some colour - as long as we dont call each other cronies and acquire infractions.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Given that many in the classical music world already regard him as a great composer, it's reasonable to assume that his reputation will remain for some time. Whether he becomes _more popular_ is another question entirely, and impossible to predict.


That doesnt really follow - Salieri was regarded by the classical music world at the time as europe's premiere opera composer.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Boulez' spirit is more like Ravel's than Mahler's. That there is no 'feelings porn' in Ravel, doesn't mean there's no 'sex' in it and while there can be a lot of 'romantic expressivity' in Mahler, there is also a fundamental level of technical perfectionism in both.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Boulez's music I can't see him ever winning the hearts of any but a small minority. It is just to detached from what the majority of music lovers would consider music. I expect him to be in the same category as (say) Webern who appeals to the few more technically minded.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Whatever the merits or otherwise of Boulez's music I can't see him ever winning the hearts of any but a small minority. It is just to detached from what the majority of music lovers would consider music. I expect him to be in the same category as (say) Webern who appeals to the few more technically minded.


What?

I don't know a technical thing about Boulez, and I know very little about Webern other than he liked showers of small three/four note motives.

I like them (as do others) for their sound and their music, not their "technical merits".

Please, please, please stop saying that fans of Schoenberg/Webern/Boulez/Stockhausen et. al. only like them due to some technical mindedness. It isn't true. It's wrong. It's utterly wrong. It's putting words in our mouths and deliberately misrepresenting us.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SeptimalTritone said:


> What?
> 
> I don't know a technical thing about Boulez, and I know very little about Webern other than he liked showers of small three/four note motives.
> 
> ...


OK I'll correct my post for your benefit:

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Boulez's music I can't see him ever winning the hearts of any but a small minority. It is just to detached from what the majority of music lovers would consider music. I expect him to be in the same category as (say) Webern who appeals to the few.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Well that was a gracious effort. A learning opportunity taken! 

My idle prediction is that Boulez' reputation will grow as a composer but sink as a conductor. This is based on my other idle predictions that the cult of conductors is subsiding somewhat and that big music institutions like symphony hall and the opera house will wind down and the void will be replaced by more musician driven efforts. And musicians like Boulez more than arts executives 

The Boulez complainers (Oh, he was so impolite! He said bad things!) will also die off so future listeners will also be better placed to take his music on its merits


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Boulez' spirit is more like Ravel's than Mahler's. That there is no 'feelings porn' in Ravel, doesn't mean there's no 'sex' in it and while there can be a lot of 'romantic expressivity' in Mahler, there is also a fundamental level of technical perfectionism in both.


Ravel once stated that composing a piece of music is 75% intellectual, Boulez music seems more like 99-100% intellectual to me. It just comes across a little _too_ intellectual somehow.

But there are some things I like in some of his pieces. I'm listening to _Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna _right now, it seems a little more approachable than most of his music. It has a little more of that mysterious beauty I sense in some of the music of the second Viennese composers. On that note Boulez music comes across much more like a serialist to me than an impressionist. In ways he shares similarities with Stravinsky as neither composer exactly wore their hearts on their sleeves. With Ravel and Debussy it is not too hard to find 'heart'.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

tdc said:


> Ravel once stated that composing a piece of music is 75% intellectual, Boulez music seems more like 99-100% intellectual to me. It just comes across a little _too_ intellectual somehow.
> 
> But there are some things I like in some of his pieces. I'm listening to _Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna _right now, it seems a little more approachable than most of his music. It has a little more of that mysterious beauty I sense in some of the second Viennese composers. On that note Boulez music comes across much more like a serialist to me than an impressionist. In ways he shares similarities with Stravinsky as neither composer exactly wore their hearts on their sleeves. With Ravel and Debussy it is not too hard to find 'heart'.


I actually find Boulez and Ravel share a similar sensuous pleasure in exploring great technique for the sake of it. Stravinsky has it too. As a Straussophile, I'd say he's there as well. Bach? Yeah. 
Ridiculous I know, but humour me

And you're right, Rituel is very beautiful and elegant. But check out any combination of Notations or Repons for a king-hit of oomph.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

tdc said:


> I'm listening to _Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna _right now, it seems a little more approachable than most of his music. It has a little more of that mysterious beauty I sense in some of the music of the second Viennese composers.


I think quite a few of his major later pieces have the same "feeling" as Rituel...Pli selon pli and Repons especially.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I think a compulsory poll of the entire TC board would yield a totally different result.
> 
> If Boulez was a great composer than there must be hundreds of such great composers - Webern Stockhausen Gorecki etc etc ad infinitum


Webern, at least, was a great composer. I don't know why this is shocking to people.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

stomanek said:


> That doesnt really follow - Salieri was regarded by the classical music world at the time as europe's premiere opera composer.


Not even close. That was Gluck, Piccini, and Paisiello. Salieri was the respectable second rate composer who got to be the biggest thing in Vienna because Vienna was the sticks.

But Boulez isn't really like any of those guys either. He's widely regarded not merely as a great composer, but more specifically as a great innovator (there go Piccini and Paisiello) and as a great technician (there goes Gluck). The obvious late 18th century analogies are Haydn's career trajectory - angry young man becomes grand old man - and Mozart's reception, minus the popular operas - beloved as a performer, respected as a composer, but considered maybe too difficult to be enjoyed by anyone except specialists.



Klassic said:


> This might cause a food fight but I'm just being honest here. I've tried listening to Boulez several times now. His music, though innovative, just sounds like so much technical and theoretical noise to me; it seems to be totally void of any romantic spirit.


Serious question here: Has any difficult, radical composer ever _not_ been initially received this way by a noticeable quantity of people? I guess I may never have seen any examples of contemporaries calling Beethoven technical, theoretical, and unromantic (or equivalent). But Machaut? Check. Monteverdi? Check. Bach? Check. Mozart? Check. Schubert? Check. Wagner? Check. Heck, Broadway critics said it about Gershwin and rock critics said it about the Beatles.

Anyway, your mileage may of course vary, but I literally can't - well, let's say I literally have extreme difficulty imagining how anyone can hear the tombeau from _Pli selon pli_ as anything other than feverishly expressive. 




-----

re the original question: I doubt he'll become less popular, which means he'll become more popular by default, as other composers are forgotten. If there's a danger, it's that the number of pieces available for performance is relatively small, and we might get sick of all of them from overfamiliarity. But maybe that problem will go away if and when his papers are made available to the public. (Or maybe not. He said he'd written twice as much of _Éclat/Multiples_, but didn't specify whether that was in his head or on paper.)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Whatever the merits or otherwise of Boulez's music I can't see him ever winning the hearts of any but a small minority. It is just to detached from what the majority of music lovers would consider music. I expect him to be in the same category as (say) Webern who appeals to the few more technically minded.


I don't believe one must be "technically minded" to enjoy Webern, or even Boulez. But it helps to come to the music without certain expectations. Such as the composer trying to be your Valentine.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Serious question here: Has any difficult, radical composer ever _not_ been initially received this way by a noticeable quantity of people? I guess I may never have seen any examples of contemporaries calling Beethoven technical, theoretical, and unromantic (or equivalent).


I'm with you all the way; this is why I haven't written Boulez off; this is why I will continue to listen for a bit longer.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

starthrower said:


> I don't believe one must be "technically minded" to enjoy Webern, or even Boulez. But it helps to come to the music without certain expectations. Such as the composer trying to be your Valentine.


I think Webern wants very much to be your Valentine. Boulez, too, but he's playing hard to get. (We're accustomed to Webern _sounding_ like he's playing hard to get, but that's just because Boulez and Glenn Gould got everybody into the habit of conducting and playing Webern as though he were Boulez or Glenn Gould.)

-----

continuing from my last post: I'm now trying to imagine what a composer really "void of any romantic spirit" would even sound like. Mid-to-late Haydn at his most cheerful, maybe.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I don't believe one must be "technically minded" to enjoy Webern, or even Boulez. But it helps to come to the music without certain expectations. Such as the composer trying to be your Valentine.


Yes, but let me say this somewhat more definitively. One _absolutely_ does not have to be technically minded to enjoy Webern or Boulez (or really any composer of whom I'm aware). To me Mozart is technically over my head. I don't understand the musical details of his music. I certainly do not understand the details of Boulez's or Webern's music.

When I first listened to their music _expecting it to be similar to what I'd heard before_, I did not enjoy it. When I listened being open to different types of sounds and musical ideas, I started to enjoy them. There's no reason anyone must try to enjoy any composer, but those who do realize that technical details have little to do with that enjoyment.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

How do I greatly enjoy both Webern and Boulez's music if I'm not "technical-minded"? One of the most important things I look for in music is expression and yes, emotional expression, and I'm _not_ left wanting after listening to their music.

I think I have a good "ear" for a non-musical person (I didn't go to school for music, I can't play an instrument, etc) but I'm not technical-minded at all. Most of the technical musical theory talk about pitch hierarchy, fifths and triads, consonances, post-tonal and atonal, central pitch, seventh chords, modality, and suspended 2nds goes over my head. Wagner does not evoke the same emotions that Mozart evokes, they are different. The same, Boulez does not evoke the same emotions that Wagner or Mahler evokes, they are different.

Related idea: Recently, I've been listening to a lot of Medieval and Renaissance era music, I must say that listening to Bach's _Mass in B minor_, Mozart's _Requiem_, and Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis_ after listening to Machaut and Josquin, it sounds as if one could say the same about Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart, that their music is too "technical" and more "constructed".


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> There's no reason anyone must try to enjoy any composer, but those who do realize that technical details have little to do with that enjoyment.


I don't necessarily agree with this. As you just stated, music is technique whether it's Mozart or Boulez. And the romantic and emotional responses that well up in us are not purely the result of metaphysics. Composers know how to use harmonies, tension and release, and other techniques to elicit an emotional response.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

starthrower said:


> I don't necessarily agree with this. As you just stated, music is technique whether it's Mozart or Boulez. And the romantic and emotional responses that well up in us are not purely the result of metaphysics. Composers know how to use harmonies, tension and release, and other techniques to elicit an emotional response.


Au-contraire, music is the defiance of technique!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Klassic said:


> Au-contraire, music is the defiance of technique!


Let us bask in the romance of mystique!


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Au-contraire, music is the defiance of technique!


Now that sounds like Boulez.



starthrower said:


> Let us bask in the romance of mystique!


As does this, though he would have said it without irony.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

DiesIraeCX said:


> Related idea: Recently, I've been listening to a lot of Medieval and Renaissance era music, I must say that listening to Bach's _Mass in B minor_, Mozart's _Requiem_, and Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis_ after listening to Machaut and Josquin, it sounds as if one could say the same about Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart, that their music is too "technical" and more "constructed".


Bernstein demonstrates the evolution in this brilliant 6 minute segment.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Webern, at least, was a great composer. I don't know why this is shocking to people.


it doesn't shock me as I don't believe that someone who composed less than 10 hours of music can be considered 'great'.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dgee said:


> I actually find Boulez and Ravel share a similar sensuous pleasure in exploring great technique for the sake of it. Stravinsky has it too. As a Straussophile, I'd say he's there as well. Bach? Yeah.
> Ridiculous I know, but humour me
> 
> And you're right, Rituel is very beautiful and elegant. But check out any combination of Notations or Repons for a king-hit of oomph.


Sorry but it sounds horrible to me.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DavidA said:


> it doesn't shock me as I don't believe that someone who composed less than 10 hours of music can be considered 'great'.


Some day, historians will be able to pinpoint the moment at which the quantity of surviving poetry by Sappho dipped below 10,000 words, and she ceased to be a great poet.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> it doesn't shock me as I don't believe that someone who composed less than 10 hours of music can be considered 'great'.


A 10-minute piece by Webern is equivalent in depth and content to many works three or four times as long.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2016)

DavidA said:


> it doesn't shock me as I don't believe that someone who composed less than 10 hours of music can be considered 'great'.


I see. You are of the "never mind the quality, feel the width" tribe.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> I see. You are of the "never mind the quality, feel the width" tribe.


Nope. Just happen to be a fan of people like Mozart who did unmatchable quality and incredible width. You're not going to put dear old Anton in that class are you?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but it sounds horrible to me.


And what do you make of the instant and wild applause from the packed audience? "Niche"?


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Nope. Just happen to be a fan of people like Mozart who did unmatchable quality and incredible width. You're not going to put dear old Anton in that class are you?


If we're confining our affections to composers in Mozart's class, that leaves us with... one composer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> A 10-minute piece by Webern is equivalent in depth and content to many works three or four times as long.


Come on, that's a highly subjective statement. You're not telling me that a ten minute piece by Webern is equivalent in musical value and appeal as a Mozart piano concerto or a Beethoven symphony are you?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> If we're confining our affections to composers in Mozart's class, that leaves us with... one composer.


Then we have to be careful how we use the word 'great'.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DavidA said:


> You're not telling me that a ten minute piece by Webern is equivalent in musical value and appeal as a Mozart piano concerto or a Beethoven symphony are you?


Why not? Plenty of people would agree that a two minute Schubert lied is worth that much.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Come on, that's a highly subjective statement. You're not telling me that a ten minute piece by Webern is equivalent in musical value and appeal as a Mozart piano concerto or a Beethoven symphony are you?


neither - but a 10 minute webern piece would perhaps equal one mozart piece for depth and content

K522 Eine musikal spass


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> And what do you make of the instant and wild applause from the packed audience? "Niche"?


Well they obviously had an affection for the old boy conducting, probably. And what do you make of the wild applause the audience gives performers on Pop Idol and The X Factor? Is wild applause necessarily a sign of quality.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Why not? Plenty of people would agree that a two minute Schubert lied is worth that much.


Can you list them?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Why not? Plenty of people would agree that a two minute Schubert lied is worth that much.


That sounds slightly less absurd than the original statement.

I thought this thread would degenerate

let's get the custard pies out.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> And what do you make of the instant and wild applause from the packed audience? "Niche"?


making a statement!

I have done it myself at a stockhausen concert - and when people are standing around you in ovation going mad it's hard not to do the same. One goes up - and the rest of the sheep follow.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The thread's not over until Godwin's law is, once again, proved.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Then we have to be careful how we use the word 'great'.


If you're reserving the word "great" for literally one composer - or even for just 10 or 20, which would come to 2 or 3 per century since Dufay - then "careful" is the wrong word for that.



stomanek said:


> neither - but a 10 minute webern piece would perhaps equal one mozart piece for depth and content
> 
> K522 Eine musikal spass


If this were serious, it might be a slight overrating of Webern, great as he is. In this context, it seems to be an underrating of _The Musical Joke_.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Well they obviously had an affection for the old boy conducting, probably. And what do you make of the wild applause the audience gives performers on Pop Idol and The X Factor? Is wild applause necessarily a sign of quality.


I was alluding to your first post in this thread (and the sentiment of most of your others):

"I would have said that his music is *far too difficult to ever become popular.* He was an iconoclast and his music reflects his general rebellion against any form of tonality. So I feel it *will never appealed to any more than a few* but then life is full of surprises."

And wondering at what point would you ask yourself: "Is it possible that these other people are right that there's value to be found there, even if I don't hear it and even if its never going to be my thing?"


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Come on, that's a highly subjective statement. You're not telling me that a ten minute piece by Webern is equivalent in musical value and appeal as a Mozart piano concerto or a Beethoven symphony are you?


You've changed the subject, but certainly, I would place the best of Webern alongside fine works by Mozart and Beethoven. It sets out to accomplish and succeeds in accomplishing separate things from their music.

At any rate, what I mean here by content is not really subjective. It's how much happens within that span of time, what contrasts are made, what range of harmonic variety, etc. A Webern piece, because of its language, as well as the propensities of its creator towards maximum expression with maximum brevity, says a good deal in a very short span of time.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> The thread's not over until Godwin's law is, once again, proved.


I nominate DavidA as head Gestapo agent against modern music. 'Cause he doesn't like it!


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

And so it was that the United Conservatives joined the Union of Postminimalists to overthrow the Modern Reich. Their common foe destroyed, they then proceeded to have a cold war with each other for the next half century, at the end of which it looked like one of them had won, but after another twenty years it became clear that actually everybody lost.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You've changed the subject, but certainly, I would place the best of Webern alongside fine works by Mozart and Beethoven. It sets out to accomplish and succeeds in accomplishing separate things from their music.
> 
> At any rate, what I mean here by content is not really subjective. It's how much happens within that span of time, what contrasts are made, what range of harmonic variety, etc. A Webern piece, because of its language, as well as the propensities of its creator towards maximum expression with maximum brevity, says a good deal in a very short span of time.


Sorry but I didn't change the subject. But what does Webern's music set out to achieve?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I nominate DavidA as head Gestapo agent against modern music. 'Cause he doesn't like it!


Please remember that tasteless abuse of a fellow TC member is not an argument.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I didn't change the subject. But what does Webern's music set out to achieve?


If you're going to ask that question, then in fairness you should articulate what Mozart's or Beethoven's music sets out to achieve.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I nominate DavidA as head Gestapo agent against modern music. 'Cause he doesn't like it!


People keep saying there needs to be a Modern Music subforum. I disagree. I think there needs to be a "Degenerate Noise!" subforum, where haters can hate to their heart's content, and leave the rest of the site to more open minded conversation.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I didn't change the subject. But what does Webern's music set out to achieve?


You did change the subject. Initially the topic was the size of Webern's oeuvre, at which point I stated that his works, because of their compression, should not be judged against other works simply on the basis of length, and you changed it to be about _specific_ composers, which comparison is difficult to make for the reasons above.

As for what he sets out to achieve, the bulk of the answer is the same as any other composer, to make music. More specifically, though, Webern sought to contain the expressive contrasts of Late Romanticism within a tighter frame. His music is characterized by transparency of texture, delicacy of timbre, and subtlety of emotional expression, which qualities may be heard from his earliest opus-numbered works.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> As for what he sets out to achieve, the bulk of the answer is the same as any other composer, to make music. More specifically, though, Webern sought to contain the expressive contrasts of Late Romanticism within a tighter frame. His music is characterized by transparency of texture, delicacy of timbre, and subtlety of emotional expression, which qualities may be heard from his earliest opus-numbered works.


I would love to take a lesson from you on Webern. Utterly fascinating.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

And, by taking Late Romanticism to a much tighter frame, he in a (somewhat) sense went back to Bach and Beethoven!

The small showers of three/four notes motives that are inverted and retrograded and tossed between the instruments... that's an idea the old greats loved to do. And when you allow your harmony to be totally chromatic, you get a much greater variety and intensity of emotion!

See Variations for Orchestra 



 or Concerto for Nine Instruments


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

What do people think Boulez's music set out to achieve? (Early or later music.)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Please remember that tasteless abuse of a fellow TC member is not an argument.


Your only argument amounts to "sorry, I don't like it." Or, "I can't understand why anybody could like this stuff."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I don't necessarily agree with this. As you just stated, music is technique whether it's Mozart or Boulez. And the romantic and emotional responses that well up in us are not purely the result of metaphysics. Composers know how to use harmonies, tension and release, and other techniques to elicit an emotional response.


You're absolutely correct. I meant to say that "those who do realize that _understanding_ technical details have little to do with that enjoyment." Of course understanding those details can add something to that enjoyment.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> What do people think Boulez's music set out to achieve? (Early or later music.)


Necessarily simplifying: In the 1920s through 1940s, composers used various Neoclassical devices - Stravinsky's parody of tonality; Schönberg's 12 tone system - to create music free from the habits of late, late Romanticism and the attendant aura of morbidity, which doesn't bother us today only because we don't remember what it was like when it permeated the whole world.* (Copland on Debussy: "There is something cushioned and protected, something velvety-soft and over comfortable about his music.")

Early Boulez then set out to create music free from Neoclassical devices - which don't seem stultifying to us today only because etc, etc, etc. I might say: to keep the clear air of Neoclassicism, but bring back the formal freedom of _Erwartung_ and _Jeux_ - but that would be misleading. For better and for worse, the clear air was a given by 1946.

Later Boulez set out to develop the music invented by early Boulez into something more sensually pleasing.

* This of course applies to more recent music too. I was born in 1985. If I'd been born 40 years earlier, I'd probably find Boulez's ascetic machismo more oppressive than I do. And if I'd been born 20 years later, I might find Meredith Monk's puellile mugging less insufferable than I do.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> And if I'd been born 20 years later, I might find Meredith Monk's puellile mugging less insufferable than I do.


!! < raising eyebrows >


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Harold: which Meredith Monk recordings are you thinking of there?


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Essentially all of them, but here's a fairly paradigmatic example:


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Heh. I'm actually listening to side two of the Dolmen Music record right now, which is the title piece, and loving it all over again. Side one is a mixed bag, but that "Gotham Lullaby" is lovely.

I'm a big fan, but if you don't like it then you don't like it. It might be a little ironical, though, if you use the same kind of inflammatory language we're trying to discourage the Boulez haters from using.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Well, my point is, it's probably easier for me to focus on the good aspects of Boulez, in retrospect, than it is for somebody who still vividly remembers when there _was_ no retrospect. Likewise, I'm probably in the worst position to focus on the good aspects of Monk. I'm not old enough to remember when she was refreshing, and I'm not young enough to view her in retrospect.

And maybe we _shouldn't_ focus on the good aspects of our contemporaries, if they seem to us, as best we can judge, to come with an unacceptable amount of bad. If you want to bring down the king, then you hit him with everything you've got. Later on, you can be fair.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Can't agree with that last part at all, I'm afraid. That hasn't proved helpful in the last half-century. And it must make young modern composers want to give up, knowing their audience might like this expect either an immediately recognisable masterpiece or their seppuku.

(playing Monk's Book Of Days now and loving it )


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Hasn't it proved helpful? Boulez's campaign against Stravinsky and eventually Schönberg helped him write his early works. Likewise the next generation's campaign against the serialists.

And I don't think this has anything to do with pressuring people to produce masterpieces right away - or ever. If Monk's works weren't, in some sense, masterpieces, they wouldn't be important enough to hate.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's interesting to read exchanges like this and to think that, a hundred or so years ago, the great composers almost universally revered their forbearers.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

How do you figure? Debussy hated/loved Wagner; Schönberg hated/loved Strauss and Debussy; Stravinsky hated/loved Wagner, Rimsky-Koraskov, and Scriabin.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> How do you figure? Debussy hated/loved Wagner; Schönberg hated/loved Strauss and Debussy; Stravinsky hated/loved Wagner, Rimsky-Koraskov, and Scriabin.


Well, Mozart and Haydn studied the heck out of German counterpoint, and Mozart, particularly, was taken with Bach. Beethoven had nothing but the most effusive praise for Bach, Handel, Mozart, and (later in life) Haydn. Mendelssohn was obviously a big Bach fan and early on tried (somewhat slavishly) to copy late Beethoven. Chopin had a love-hate thing with Beethoven but, from his music, revered Bach. Schumann loved' em all, although he thought Haydn a bit old-fashioned. Brahms... Well, I won't go on and on.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It's interesting to read exchanges like this and to think that, a hundred or so years ago, the great composers almost universally revered their forbearers.


Why do you believe that isn't currently the case? Based on what? I haven't noticed disrespect by contemporary composers for the generations before them - possibly not always agreement, though.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SimonNZ said:


> Why do you believe that isn't currently the case?


Did I say that?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Did I say that?


No, I inferred it from the context. Were you not implying it?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SimonNZ said:


> No, I inferred it from the context. Were you not implying it?


No, I was responding to a couple of posts that seemed to find much backbiting among 20th-century composers.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I wonder if anything happened in Europe in the 20th century that made artists radically question inherited traditions.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Response to OP.

I do not know and I do not care.

I am not a Boulez fan. If I could look into a crystal ball and saw that one hundred years from now he is considered the greatest composer of the latter half of the 20th century, I would not suddenly love his music in order to impress people.

By the same token Elliot Carter is one of my favorite composers. If the audiences of a hundred years from now considered him a talentless hack I would not stop listening to him.

I really do not give a damn what people a hundred years from now approve of.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Well, Mozart and Haydn studied the heck out of German counterpoint, and Mozart, particularly, was taken with Bach.


Sure, partly because it was useful for covering up their _other_ debts - the ones they were ambivalent about - to Italian comic opera.



KenOC said:


> Beethoven had nothing but the most effusive praise for Bach, Handel, Mozart, and (later in life) Haydn.


Beethoven had things besides praise for Mozart as well as Haydn.

https://books.google.com/books?id=mHZ6AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3
https://books.google.com/books?id=dW3JR7HNVe4C&pg=PA170

And more importantly, his ambivalence about them is essential to his music. _Fidelio_ is of course a supremely stubborn attempt to prove by example that Mozart used his talent on the wrong kinds of stories, but more generally I think the morally sententious quality in Beethoven's music is at least partly an attempt to do Haydn and Mozart _right_, without the - as Beethoven might have seen it or persuaded himself to see it - excessive frivolity of the first time around.

Anyway, the point is, composers nitpicking or frankly despising some of their predecessors (while maybe still being fascinated by them) is nothing new.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> I wonder if anything happened in Europe in the 20th century that made artists radically question inherited traditions.


Red herring. It was already happening before the wars.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Red herring. It was already happening before the wars.


Sort of. But it's not a red herring. Too big a discussion for this thread.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A bit of cherry-picking Beethoven quotes here. More generally:

"See, my dear Hummel, the birthplace of Haydn. I received it as a gift today, and it gives me great pleasure. A mean peasant hut, in which so great a man was born!"

"I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death."

The Born asked Beethoven (in writing, of course) which of Mozart's operas he thought most of. 'Die Zauberflote' said Beethoven, and, suddenly clasping his hands and throwing up his eyes, exclaimed: 'Oh, Mozart!'

"That you are going to publish Sebastian Bach's works is something which does good to my heart, which beats in love of the great and lofty art of this ancestral father of harmony."

BTW Beethoven certainly objected to Mozart's choice of subjects for his operas in some instances -- he could be quite priggish. But object to Mozart's music? Never.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Well, should I cherry pick favorable quotes on predecessors by Boulez and... I don't know, let's say, Steve Reich? I mean, they're easily found, and there are probably better ways for me to spend five minutes, but if people are in doubt that they exist, I'll do it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

^Boulez and some others in his cohort really did reject their predecessors violently in a way that composers in other times did not, at least when they were young.

And yes, all this was because of the war and attendant horrors. There's no other way to understand postwar European music.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

They didn't, though. Boulez was always positive about _Pierrot lunaire_ and effusive about _The Rite of Spring_, nitpicked but also praised and never condemned without qualification his teacher Messiaen (Messiaen, who was afraid he'd be laughed out of Darmstadt for lecturing on bird song and was instead respectfully received), the worst he ever said about Debussy was that some of his minor works were kind of light (but the major ones were "as profound as can possibly be," or something like that), and of course Webern was an infallible prophet until Pierre started to mellow out after _Structures_, 1a (and then, as Webern's stock with him went somewhat down, Berg's went up).


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Something to keep in mind here is that a substantial proportion of a large geographic region's population dying in horrible, violent ways seems unique to us, but historically it isn't. If man's inhumanity to man made composers invent total serialism, Froberger would have done it (born in Germany in the middle of the 30 Years' War).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Something to keep in mind here is that a substantial proportion of a large geographic region's population dying in horrible, violent ways seems unique to us, but historically it isn't. If man's inhumanity to man made composers invent total serialism, Froberger would have done it (born in Germany in the middle of the 30 Years' War).


Quite true I think. Violence in the 20th century is, overall, much reduced from older times (on a per capita basis at least). But a big difference now is that when bad things happen, everybody knows about them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> People keep saying there needs to be a Modern Music subforum. I disagree. I think there needs to be a "Degenerate Noise!" subforum, where haters can hate to their heart's content, and leave the rest of the site to more open minded conversation.


It is possibly a sign of a lack of cogent argument that when people legitimately express their dislike all sorts of accusations flow from certain people. Can I say that it is the suppression of dissent which is the sign of totalitarianism not the other way round. Oh and the word "hater" comes n too. Quite predictable! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Your only argument amounts to "sorry, I don't like it." Or, "I can't understand why anybody could like this stuff."


Maybe but at least it was not abusive!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Maybe but at least it was not abusive!


David, my comment was a joke. That's why I added the emoticon. I just decided to play along after Ken's post about Godwin's law. It's all his fault!  Our taste is our taste, we don't need to apologize or justify it.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

DavidA said:


> It is possibly a sign of a lack of cogent argument that when people legitimately express their dislike all sorts of accusations flow from certain people. Can I say that it is the suppression of dissent which is the sign of totalitarianism not the other way round. Oh and the word "hater" comes n too. Quite predictable! :lol:


Challenging the manner in which you express your dislike, and the faulty logic and the seemingly near total unfamiliarity with the subject you display doesn't make me "totalitarian". You should expect your argument to generate counter argument.

And in case your irony detector isn't turned on: you yourself there just hit the Godwins Law in earnest after it being mentioned in fun.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> I wonder if anything happened in Europe in the 20th century that made artists radically question inherited traditions.


I love sarcasm too.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nonsense. Godwin's law is not proved until somebody mentions "Hitler" or "Nazis." Oh. Oops.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Nonsense. Godwin's law is not proved until somebody mentions "Hitler" or "Nazis." Oh. Oops.


What? Being called a "totalitarian" and being accused of trying to censor free speech isn't enough?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SimonNZ said:


> What? Being called a "totalitarian" and being accused of trying to censor free speech isn't enough?


We all gotta follow the rules. No Hitler, no Godwin's law. It's in the Book.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I wonder if anything happened in Europe in the 20th century that made artists radically question inherited traditions.


No, no, no. Do not introduce context here! It's because they were bad people. Incidentally, this is also why they made the bad music


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

As long as some equate Boulez's music with a piano flying down a staircase, it'll be a tough slog for ol' Boulez


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

In the distant, asymptotic future, Boulez will become so popular that the whole universe is going to collapse into a big black hole and the process will emit the most cacophonous 12-music the universe ever witnessed...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

-Too out of context with the deleted messages-


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> Response to OP.
> 
> I do not know and I do not care.
> 
> ...


Just so long as this is not your logic when it comes to civil rights. Governor Wallace had this same reasoning when it came to segregation.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

We have removed several posts that commented on other posters. We also removed a post with inflammatory language that tends to result in unpleasant arguments. Let's get back to Boulez and his _future_ popularity.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

None of us can answer the original question with any certainty.

What one "thinks" is irrelevant. I don't guess. I thought the Titanic would float.

Those of you who have 50-60 years to go, will get their definitive answer at that time. Don't look at me.

However, if at that time Boulez is more often played than Vivaldi on US Public Radio, please unfreeze me. THAT would be worth reviving for!


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Comparably strange things have happened before. Imagine the reaction if you'd told people 100 years ago that some totally-unperformed-for-centuries Venetian violin composer of the early 1700s was going to be more popular than Handel.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Comparably strange things have happened before. Imagine the reaction if you'd told people 100 years ago that some totally-unperformed-for-centuries Venetian violin composer of the early 18th century was going to be more popular than Handel.


The world is changing rapidly, man's comprehension is increasing, but my money for future-celebrated-composers is on Schnittke.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Schnittke is Shostakovich on drugs. Still empty but now you can laugh at it.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Schnittke is Shostakovich on drugs. Still empty but now you can laugh at it.


I LOL'd. Thank you


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Schnittke is Shostakovich on drugs. Still empty but now you can laugh at it.


are you saying this cause he called serialism "puberty rites of serial self-denial"?


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Well, Richannes Wrahms may or may not be, but I'm not. Philip Glass said some dumb things about serialism too - he's still a better composer than Schnittke.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Schnittke - after hearing his viola concerto I though he was a composer whose music I would never want to hear again

then I noticed his name on some russian films - what amazing film scores!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Schnittke has at least one piece that uses serialism - _Pianissimo_, its a powerful, evocative work that was inspired by a Kafka story. Doesn't sound anything like Shostakovich or the other serialists - it just sounds like Schnittke. The people criticizing him in this thread and the other certainly come across as though they haven't listened to much of his music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

tdc said:


> Schnittke has at least one piece that uses serialism - _Pianissimo_, its a powerful, evocative work that was inspired by a Kafka story. Doesn't sound anything like Shostakovich or the other serialists - it just sounds like Schnittke. The people criticizing him in this thread and the other certainly come across as though they haven't listened to much of his music.


His first string quartet is another example of Schnittke's use of serialism










I think I generally enjoy Schnittke a little more than Shostakovich though both are fine composers for different reasons.

But RW's comment still got a chuckle out of me. Couldn't help it. >.<


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Capriccio label has a 4 disc set of his film music.
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Capriccio/C7196


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Let me say something about Boulez and Schnittke: it doesn't matter what school of style they come from, all that matters is whether or not people like their music enough to keep it around; all that matters is whether or not there is enough substance, in their music, to yield serious results to serious listeners.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

What on earth made you pull Schnittke's name out of the hat? He's never been "problematic" the way some other names supposedly are. And much of his music is likable, even lovable, on the first listen - no "academic" blah-blah required.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Let me say something about Boulez and Schnittke: it doesn't matter what school of style they come from, all that matters is whether or not people like their music enough to keep it around; all that matters is whether or not there is enough substance, in their music, to yield serious results to serious listeners.


Anything will yield serious results to serious listeners if they want it to. (Name a minor composer, and there's a critic who's made a case for them as a major figure.) But some music has enough substance that it tends to make an impression on serious listeners whether they want it to or not ("Und doch, 's will halt nicht geh'n").


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

violadude said:


> But RW's comment still got a chuckle out of me. Couldn't help it. >.<


Well, its a fine line then because I've seen you take issue with a lot of similar comments. Perhaps the fact you know that RW likes plenty of modern music makes this one somehow different...I dunno. I still like reading the comments by RW and aleazk etc. all though I may not agree with them on all matters. I still value their contribution to the forum.

I don't think Schnittke sounds anything like Shostakovich though, I took immediately to Schnittke and still struggle with the latter. I was honestly surprised when I found out Shosty was a big influence on him. Schnittke's compositional voice sounds much closer to a Bartok or Prokofiev in my opinion, though it is quite original.


----------

