# Pierre Boulez by a friend and musician



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Offered without comment *...

_"Max Raimi, a viola player in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, played with Pierre Boulez for 25 years and greatly admired his human qualities. But some of his musical choices left Max vexed. Here, in an essay for Slipped Disc, is his thoughtful assessment of a musical giant and his myopia."_

http://slippedisc.com/2016/03/the-blind-spots-of-pierre-boulez/

* And please don't try to assume some unspoken comment.


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

Thanks for the post... Food for thought, whatever one's opinon might be


----------



## Poppy Popsicle (Jul 24, 2015)

That really is a most interesting article, even though its polemist position seems somewhat crude. I'm still trying to digest it but in the meantime one of the reader's comments that followed struck me as worthy of further discussion:

_Let's all be more brave like the author of this essay and say publicly what kind of music we want to perform and hear. When i talk privately with members of a fine orchestra - *they nearly all say they would love to avoid playing most of Ligeti, Stockhausen, Shnittke, Berio and Carter*. But they would never admit that on the record. And that is a problem. Boulez is part of the reason why those people scared to speak out loud_.

Is this a view that is really widely held by orchestral musicians?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> * And please don't try to assume some unspoken comment.


You've spoken it all in the past, so there's no need.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The shoddiness of some of Shostakovich's music is not somehow made better by the fact that he had to write it shoddily to impress people with poor taste.

Anyway, it's surprising that some _don't_ hear the Second Viennese School in Mahler. The inspiration went both ways, and Berg is Mahler's true successor, both conceptually (the waltzes and landler of his operas and the Violin Concerto!) and emotionally.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

You could write a computer program to generate these essays at this point.

Edit: I guess that was overly dismissive, but I don't see anything new here. Some of the criticisms I agree with, others not, but I've heard them all many, many times over the years in various essays about The Problem With Modern Music, so I'm not sure Boulez's death needed to be an occasion for another one.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

nathanb said:


> You've spoken it all in the past, so there's no need.


One of the biggest problems in this forum and which contributes to so much of the contentiousness, is the willingness of some to generalize from a few posts and to then use that generalization as the basis of an attack. Opinions are rarely as black and white as you might wish them to be.

P.S. And to ignore other posts which are inconvenient.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> One of the biggest problems in this forum and which contributes to so much of the contentiousness, is the willingness of some to generalize from a few posts and to then use that generalization as the basis of an attack. Opinions are rarely as black and white as you might wish them to be.
> 
> P.S. And to ignore other posts which are inconvenient.


You and I must have radically different definitions of the word "few"!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Becca said:


> Opinions are rarely as black and white as you might wish them to be.
> 
> P.S. And to ignore other posts which are inconvenient.


..............................


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

'Fraid I'm not generalizing, Becca. You've painted a very clear and detailed picture here in the last year. As for the P.S., 'fraid I'll need a reminder.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I wonder how much support there is on TC for "Whig history"? Certainly there are several people here who see the last several decades or centuries as a _re_gression, but does anyone think music has been progressing inexorably in a particular direction?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Poppy Popsicle said:


> That really is a most interesting article, even though its polemist position seems somewhat crude. I'm still trying to digest it but in the meantime one of the reader's comments that followed struck me as worthy of further discussion:
> 
> _Let's all be more brave like the author of this essay and say publicly what kind of music we want to perform and hear. When i talk privately with members of a fine orchestra - *they nearly all say they would love to avoid playing most of Ligeti, Stockhausen, Shnittke, Berio and Carter*. But they would never admit that on the record. And that is a problem. Boulez is part of the reason why those people scared to speak out loud_.
> 
> Is this a view that is really widely held by orchestral musicians?


I wouldn't be surprised. Orchestral musicians have long been conservative. Just listen to the story of the brass players who helped to sabotage the first performance of Bruckner's Third by purposefully playing the wrong notes, or the players who hated Mahler's music and had him kicked out for daring to conduct his own works.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ugh...even after he's dead they won't stop whining about him.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Shostakovitch's harmony is rhythmically static, dull, and unvaried. His polystylism, i.e. "melding of high art and low art" doesn't save his universally static and dull music. Compare the variation in harmonic rhythm in Shostakovitch with, well, most classical or romantic composers and he doesn't hold up. So much tonic-dominant back and forth, so much pedal tone stasis, so much stepwise chromatic basslines that don't creatively work in counterpoint with the upper voices (compare with, say, the harmonic richness of Chopin's E minor prelude with its stepwise chromatic bassline).

Schoenberg's and Boulez's harmonies are eventful, rhythmically varied, exciting, and emotionally beautiful. Notice the huge amounts of harmonic and rhythmic variety in, say, Five Pieces for Orchestra and Le Marteau sans Maitre.

For me and a lot of modern music fans, Schoenberg and Boulez reach much higher levels of spiritual intensity than Shostakovitch, or Schnittke, Barber, Bernstein... (i.e. the other names mentioned in the article).

Yes, Boulez said a sizeable amount of mean stuff. However: note this.

I'm offering a contrary opinion to the article. You may choose what you wish to do with it.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> Ugh...even after he's dead they won't stop whining about him.


I fear the whining will continue for a long time to come. Poor Schoenberg is still putting up with it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

@Septimal
Article duly noted.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> The shoddiness of some of Shostakovich's music is not somehow made better by the fact that he had to write it shoddily to impress people with poor taste.





SeptimalTritone said:


> Shostakovitch's harmony is rhythmically static, dull, and unvaried. His polystylism, i.e. "melding of high art and low art" doesn't save his universally static and dull music. Compare the variation in harmonic rhythm in Shostakovitch with, well, most classical or romantic composers and he doesn't hold up.





violadude said:


> Ugh...even after he's dead they won't stop whining about him.


.................


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I wasn't whining, I was pointing out the horrible implied logic of the article's argument that one should respect the quality of Shostakovich's music simply because he was under official pressure to compose a certain way.

Unless you can argue that there is some relevance between the quality of his music and the circumstances he was in?

I wouldn't argue that Schoenberg was a great composer on the basis of the fact that he and his family fled from the Nazis after he unfairly lost his position in Berlin. He would have certainly been not only under threat of death, but killed if he had stayed. Although it certainly had personal significance for him and he composed a number of works inspired by Jewish themes after this point and even one responding to the Holocaust, his circumstances did not make him a great composer, he was a great composer who wrote music in response to his circumstances.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

:The Chicago Symphony currently has two brilliant young composers-in-residence, Mason Bates and Anna Clyne, who write music that is a glorious mash-up of, among other things, club music dance beats, electronic wizardry, and classical techniques both contemporary and anachronistic."

Oh ya...club music. That's a step in the right direction 

Boulez - No

DJ McJiggles - Yes


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

violadude said:


> :The Chicago Symphony currently has two brilliant young composers-in-residence, Mason Bates and Anna Clyne, who write music that is a glorious mash-up of, among other things, club music dance beats, electronic wizardry, and classical techniques both contemporary and anachronistic."
> 
> Oh ya...club music. That's a step in the right direction
> 
> ...


Perhaps the elements of "low-brow" music in Mahler seemed equally of bad taste as club music + classical seems to us today.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> :The Chicago Symphony currently has two brilliant young composers-in-residence, Mason Bates and Anna Clyne, who write music that is a glorious mash-up of, among other things, club music dance beats, electronic wizardry, and classical techniques both contemporary and anachronistic."
> 
> Oh ya...club music. That's a step in the right direction
> 
> ...


To be fair incorporating recent popular genres can be done tastefully, take for example Fausto Romitelli.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Perhaps the elements of "low-brow" music in Mahler seemed equally of bad taste as club music + classical seems to us today.


Ya probably, but that what back when low brow had some class. 

I mean, klezmer music and everyman marches are one thing, but club music is just about the most musically insipid thing I've ever heard.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> To be fair incorporating recent popular genres can be done tastefully, take for example Fausto Romitelli.


Alright, I'll take your word for it for now. Maybe I jumped the gun a little bit.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Perhaps the elements of "low-brow" music in Mahler seemed equally of bad taste as club music + classical seems to us today.


The elements of popular music in Mahler are not that different in intent or application from the gypsy music in Brahms or the marches and popular music in Beethoven and Haydn. The main difference is the vividness of Mahler's orchestration. The third movement of the First Symphony could be cited as a possible exception.

Now, Stravinsky took popular music and used it nearly verbatim, collage-like in Petrushka and other works. The same is true of Ives.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Bach used all types of popular songs. (He really was a humble man.) The TC endless use of low-brow, unwashed masses, moron, idiots, etc., etc., is so obnoxious. IMO


----------



## Poppy Popsicle (Jul 24, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> I wouldn't be surprised. Orchestral musicians have long been conservative. Just listen to the story of the brass players who helped to sabotage the first performance of Bruckner's Third by purposefully playing the wrong notes, or the players who hated Mahler's music and had him kicked out for daring to conduct his own works.


OK, but that was some time ago! What about orchestral musicians today, who would presumably have had a lot more exposure to this sort of repertoire since their studies at the conservatoire?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I wasn't whining, I was pointing out the horrible implied logic of the article's argument that one should respect the quality of Shostakovich's music simply because he was under official pressure to compose a certain way.


the logic of the article to me seems that Boulez wasn't able to understand different aesthetics. And both the examples of Mahler played in the wrong way and the fact that he dismissed the quotes of other composers in Shostakhovic have to be seen that way.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> the logic of the article to me seems that Boulez wasn't able to understand different aesthetics. And both the examples of Mahler played in the wrong way and the fact that he dismissed the quotes of other composers in Shostakhovic have to be seen that way.


I don't think he did play Mahler the wrong way. In the example cited, Boulez brings out the ferocity of the wind lines and the thumping vulgarity of the melody played on tuba and trombone. It doesn't sound dainty at all, but ungainly and strident, as it should. He does the passage better than Bernstein on DG, for example, who loses momentum as the ensemble falls apart.

As for Shostakovich, maybe it should be taken seriously that it was not merely a difference in style, but a perceived lack of quality in the music. Disagree as you will, but can't you imagine that he didn't like the music because he didn't think it was very good?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I wasn't whining, I was pointing out the horrible implied logic of the article's argument that one should respect the quality of Shostakovich's music simply because he was under official pressure to compose a certain way.
> 
> Unless you can argue that there is some relevance between the quality of his music and the circumstances he was in?
> 
> I wouldn't argue that Schoenberg was a great composer on the basis of the fact that he and his family fled from the Nazis after he unfairly lost his position in Berlin. He would have certainly been not only under threat of death, but killed if he had stayed. Although it certainly had personal significance for him and he composed a number of works inspired by Jewish themes after this point and even one responding to the Holocaust, his circumstances did not make him a great composer, he was a great composer who wrote music in response to his circumstances.


Godwin'd. Time to end the thread! :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Poppy Popsicle said:


> OK, but that was some time ago! What about orchestral musicians today, who would presumably have had a lot more exposure to this sort of repertoire since their studies at the conservatoire?


I don't think players often make the music of the late 20th century and that of today into their own language unless they have a specific interest in it. We don't hear the (classical) musical languages of our own time with any real frequency (unless one goes out of one's way to do so), and a language takes a good deal of exposure for its logic to be absorbed.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Godwin'd. Time to end the thread! :lol:


Oh geez, now people see bringing up the life circumstances of someone who lived under the Nazis as a comparison to the Nazis. You really can't tell the difference between comparing someone or something to Hitler irrelevantly and invoking the actual life of someone who happened to have a personal connection to 1930s Germany????

In effect, I was doing the exact opposite of what "Godwin's Law" criticizes. I was saying that the fact that the Nazi association is irrelevant, not that because Nazis were involved, I win the argument by default. That would be stupid.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Mason Bates is alright. A friend of mine called Mothership a "Rhapsody in Blue for the 21st Century." I don't know about that, but it's a fun piece. If you're looking for Boulezian depth, you won't find it, but it's worth a listen or two--if you're not too hung up about the club music influence.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> Oh geez, now people see bringing up the life circumstances of someone who lived under the Nazis as a comparison to the Nazis. You really can't tell the difference between comparing someone or something to Hitler irrelevantly and invoking the actual life of someone who happened to have a personal connection to 1930s Germany????


You're absolutely right, but the thread should still end


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Adam Weber said:


> Mason Bates is alright. A friend of mine called Mothership a "Rhapsody in Blue for the 21st Century." I don't know about that, but it's a fun piece. If you're looking for Boulezian depth, you won't find it, but it's worth a listen or two--if you're not too hung up about the club music influence.


Alright, not bad. I was thinking something a little different when I first read the thing about club music.


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

tonal/ atonal, I feel this duality doesn't make sense anymore. the idea of music as an evolving path is an arbitrary concept in my opinion. In our age music has been splitting into many genres and sub-genres so I feel that nobody could no longer have the authority to say what is "right" or "wrong". Nevertheless a composer must go on with his/her own vision. The result could be a dead end or a source of inspiration for others. Serialism, with its iconoclastic approach, has played an important role in putting into question the identity of classical music, it has put some new blood into the genre. But after many years I feel it has somehow lost its drive. Hope this makes sense


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Becca said:



Offered without comment *...

"Max Raimi, a viola player in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, played with Pierre Boulez for 25 years and greatly admired his human qualities. But some of his musical choices left Max vexed. Here, in an essay for Slipped Disc, is his thoughtful assessment of a musical giant and his myopia."

http://slippedisc.com/2016/03/the-blind-spots-of-pierre-boulez/

* And please don't try to assume some unspoken comment.

Click to expand...

*

Fun little article on Boulez, Becca. Thanks for sharing that.

I think I'll talk about it a bit since the comments that its elicited so far are intent on ' ' eliding ' ' it.

I like Raimi's expose of Boulez's doctrinaire historicist mindset, although I think his use of Butterfield to prove his point misses the mark.

The fanatical and histrionic intolerance of ideas that Boulez disapproves of has more in common with the naive teleological historicism of Marx and with the Italian Futurist partisans of Mussolini than with a latitudinarian Old Whig Liberal like Butterfield- but that's another discussion entirely.

I liked where Raimi candidly addressed Boulez's pinched provincialism against 'meaning' and 'beauty' in music:

_"Composers, Boulez implies, are to be judged by whether or not they change 'the face of music', and it is clear what manner of changes were required to earn his approval. Whether or not music is beautiful or enables the audience to experience something that it finds meaningful and valuable is apparently beside the point. "_

_"Indeed, I find that his angular melodic shapes and the thoroughgoing dissonance of his harmonies never entirely left the sound world of the Second Viennese School, notwithstanding thesuperior sophistication and flexibility of his serial techniques, the often daunting rhythmic complexity, and the greater variety in timbre achieved through electronic technology and the subtlety and complexity of his instrumentation." _

I also liked where Raimi pointed out Boulez's aesthetic deafness to Mahler's expressive intentions:

_"One work I performed with him countless times was Mahler's Seventh Symphony. In the third movement, which to me is thebes t music in the symphony, the climax is a crushingly vulgar fortissimo waltz theme grotesquely orchestrated with an appallingly banal accompaniment. Mahler marks the music 'Wild', and it should be horrifying. I always imagine Mahler as a neurotic child encountering drunken, brawling soldiers at his father's tavern near their barracks in rural Bavaria. It would be hard to conjure a more harrowing depiction of Hannah Arendt's 'banality of evil'. But in the hands of Boulez it always came across as bizarrely elegant-not too fast, not too loud, very accurate. It would have been hard to miss more completely the point of the music. "_

_"Indeed, critics almost universally praised Boulez's Mahler interpretations, even of this berserk symphony, for their Apollonian vision. The logic escapes me. Would we praise a diva for a similarly cerebral depiction of the Mad Scene in Lucia? 'By not letting herself get overwrought, and calmly singing as if she were at a Presbyterian Church service, the soprano let us really see the melodic lines and harmonies as Donizetti wrote them. . . '"_

_ "Would we praise an actor doing Lear for his emotional detachment, and marvel at how he seems so unaffected by his daughters' betrayal of him that for once we really see Shakespeare's words as they appear on the page? In passages such as this excerpt from the Seventh, vulgarity is at the very heart of the music; it wallows in the popular culture of Mahler's time. It never seemed to occur to Boulez that this music must be tied to the world that inspired it outside of the notes on the page."_

Raimi's experience with Boulez's Mahler definitely mirrors my own. For instance, Boulez's opening to Mahler's _Fifth Symphony_ is positively anti-heroic and defeated sounding- when in fact, it should be ennobling yet tragic sounding.

Boulez's doctrinaire catechism on acceptable musical forms reminds me of the psycho-babble charlatanry one would come across in a trendy post-modernist academic journal like _Social Text_:

_"Motion, the instant, irrupt into his music, not merely an impression of the instant, of the fugitive to which it has been reduced, but really a relative and irreversible conception of musical time, and more generally, of the musical universe."_

_"What was overthrown was…the very concept of form itself, here freed from the impersonal constraints of the schema…demanding a technique of perfect instantaneous adequacy."_

His _faux_ popularity with sophisticated people is of course an open secret, though of course Boulez's devotees would deny it:

_"Here is a composer that started as an enfant terrible urging us to blow up opera houses and ended up a stalwart Establishment institution-and yet never had to write any music that mainstream classical music audiences actually wanted to hear to achieve his climb to eminence." _

_"Indeed, it became somehow bad form to point out that his music is not very successful with the public. In January 2010, the Chicago Symphony sponsored a chamber concert featuring many of his works in honor of his 85th birthday. I was told that the Chicago Architecture Foundation, which has the good luck to be located next to Symphony Center, was overrun with literally hundreds of patrons fleeing the concert at intermission, still clutching their programs. I was told this by one of the refugees. Naturally, this mass exodus was not deemed worthy of mention in any of the press accounts of the event, just as there is a polite silence in the local press about the banks of empty seats at the Chicago Symphony that still result from any program in which the music of Boulez is prominent."_

Sometimes Boulez reminds me of a medium-talent figure skater who falls over and demands to be given a high score.

"_Eventuellement_," indeed.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Mahlerian said:



The shoddiness of some of Shostakovich's music is not somehow made better by the fact that he had to write it shoddily to impress people with poor taste.

Click to expand...

*_Mutatis mutandis_, I submit: Is the emotional sterility of most of Boulez's music somehow made better by the fact that he had to write it avant-gardly to impress cultural Marxists with 'no taste'?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Mutatis mutandis_, I submit: Is the emotional sterility of most of Boulez's music somehow made better by the fact that he had to write it avant-gardly to impress cultural Marxists with 'no taste'?


Wouldn't a "cultural Marxist" say that Shostakovich and Boulez's music are equal in quality?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Mutatis mutandis_, I submit: Is the emotional sterility of most of Boulez's music somehow made better by the fact that he had to write it avant-gardly to impress cultural Marxists with 'no taste'?


Are you defending a fallacious appeal to emotion with an argument by assertion? That's some logical pretzel.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Shostakovitch's harmony is rhythmically static, dull, and unvaried. His polystylism, i.e. "melding of high art and low art" doesn't save his universally static and dull music. Compare the variation in harmonic rhythm in Shostakovitch with, well, most classical or romantic composers and he doesn't hold up. So much tonic-dominant back and forth, so much pedal tone stasis, so much stepwise chromatic basslines that don't creatively work in counterpoint with the upper voices (compare with, say, the harmonic richness of Chopin's E minor prelude with its stepwise chromatic bassline).
> 
> Schoenberg's and Boulez's harmonies are eventful, rhythmically varied, exciting, and emotionally beautiful. Notice the huge amounts of harmonic and rhythmic variety in, say, Five Pieces for Orchestra and Le Marteau sans Maitre.
> 
> ...


It's becoming rather common to lift up Schoenberg and Boulez by dumping on Shostakovich.

Figuratively speaking, I've found the perfect place for your contrary opinion.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Becca said:


> One of the biggest problems in this forum and which contributes to so much of the contentiousness, is the willingness of some to generalize from a few posts and to then use that generalization as the basis of an attack. Opinions are rarely as black and white as you might wish them to be.
> 
> P.S. And to ignore other posts which are inconvenient.


Well "said". Bravo/Brava! :tiphat:

I went to motor vehicles to apply for a vanity license plate: "inconvenient"
but alas, I was told it would simply be too many letters.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Mahlerian said:



Are you defending a fallacious appeal to emotion with an argument by assertion? That's some logical pretzel.

Click to expand...

*No, merely pointing out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander (or even poisonous, hunchbacked-toad).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Inconvenient post.

Deleted.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


violadude said:



Wouldn't a "cultural Marxist" say that Shostakovich and Boulez's music are equal in quality?

Click to expand...

*No, a Cultural Marxist would say that Shostakovich's non-Marxist propaganda works were_ petit bourgeois_ and that an oppressed minority like Yoko Ono was on par with class-conscious Pierre Boulez.

Just talk to some of the delusionoids at the Museum of Modern Art:

_Voice Piece for Soprano and Wish Tree_ at MOMA by Yoko Ono


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, a Cultural Marxist would say that Shostakovich's non-Marxist propaganda works were_ petit bourgeois_ and that an oppressed minority like Yoko Ono was on par with class-conscious Pierre Boulez.
> 
> Just talk to some of the delusionoids at the Museum of Modern Art:
> 
> _Voice Piece for Soprano and Wish Tree_ at MOMA by Yoko Ono


I don't know of any serious musicians (around here at least) that suggests Yoko Ono is on par with Boulez. I would think any Boulez supporter on this forum would say that Shostakovich far outranks Yoko Ono as a composer/musician.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


violadude said:



I don't know of any serious musicians (around here at least) that suggest Yoko Ono is on par with Boulez. I would think any Boulez supporter on this forum would say that Shostakovich far outranks Yoko Ono as a composer/musician.

Click to expand...

*Then you're clearly not a reader of the cutting-edge post-modernism of _Social Text_.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Becca said:


> *One of the biggest problems in this forum and which contributes to so much of the contentiousness, is the willingness of some to generalize from a few posts and to then use that generalization as the basis of an attack.* Opinions are rarely as black and white as you might wish them to be.
> 
> P.S. And to ignore other posts which are inconvenient.


Are you sure it's that and not the numerous threads that are obviously meant to start flame wars?

Oh look, another article shamlessly sh***ing on a highly respected yet "unpopular" composer, who's dead now and whose style isn't even in the majority of composers anymore (if it ever was). The article says itself that Boulez's music isn't the future, so what's the point?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Then you're clearly not a reader of the cutting-edge post-modernism of _Social Text_.


No, I'm not....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Shostakovitch's harmony is rhythmically static, dull, and unvaried. His polystylism, i.e. "melding of high art and low art" doesn't save his universally static and dull music. Compare the variation in harmonic rhythm in Shostakovitch with, well, most classical or romantic composers and he doesn't hold up. So much tonic-dominant back and forth, so much pedal tone stasis, so much stepwise chromatic basslines that don't creatively work in counterpoint with the upper voices (compare with, say, the harmonic richness of Chopin's E minor prelude with its stepwise chromatic bassline).


"Tonic-dominant back and forth?" Back it up. Can you actually talk about any specific passage of Shostakovich with respect to harmony? Show me one of these "stepwise chromatic bass lines" that "doesn't work with the upper voices." I invite you to cite examples for any of these generalizations. There are people with scores and theoretical chops out here waiting for something substantive …


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> The shoddiness of some of Shostakovich's music is not somehow made better by the fact that he had to write it shoddily to impress people with poor taste...





SeptimalTritone said:


> Shostakovitch's harmony is rhythmically static, dull, and unvaried. His polystylism, i.e. "melding of high art and low art" doesn't save his universally static and dull music...


Defending a favored composer by attacking another seems a strange strategy. And, I expect, not a particularly effective one.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> Bach used all types of popular songs. (He really was a humble man.) The TC endless use of low-brow, unwashed masses, moron, idiots, etc., etc., is so obnoxious. IMO


Not as obnoxious as feeling surrounded by morons and idiots (and no, I'm not referring to people on TC). Do you live in the USA? Look, we're about to elect either a obnoxious racist bully or a corporate shill for president. Among the most popular music is Justin Bieber and Kanye West. Some people can't even find Australia on a map. Oh, but I'm the one being obnoxious.

Well, I'm sorry you're offended, I truly am. But in my experience, people are morons. That's just the reality I see. So, for example, when MB cites a story about a bunch of people walking out on a Boulez concert, it means nothing to me. Just more people who can't stand anything they're not already familiar with and who don't have the perseverance it takes to truly get to know it.

And I DO take back my comment about the club music. I had a gut reaction based on the kind of imagery "club music" brings to mind. I was proven wrong. Good thing I'm the type that admits when I'm wrong :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Some people can't even find Australia on a map.


Hey, I'm an American and I can find it easy! It's right there next to Germany.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Speaking of musical choices, who can take seriously anything said by a man who hated Shostakovich's music, yet whose own compositions, at least for me, are so incoherent in comparison, it ain't even funny.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Hey, I'm an American and I can find it easy! It's right there next to Germany.


That's very impressive, for an American. :devil:


----------



## Poppy Popsicle (Jul 24, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> *I don't think he did play Mahler the wrong way*. In the example cited, Boulez brings out the ferocity of the wind lines and the thumping vulgarity of the melody played on tuba and trombone. It doesn't sound dainty at all, but ungainly and strident, as it should. He does the passage better than Bernstein on DG, for example, who loses momentum as the ensemble falls apart.
> 
> As for Shostakovich, maybe it should be taken seriously that it was not merely a difference in style, but *a perceived lack of quality in the music*. Disagree as you will, but can't you imagine that he didn't like the music because he didn't think it was very good?


I have bolded two points here that I would like to agree with. First, the score is the score (even though there are thousands of inflections beteween the ink on the page and what is finally played/intended) and secondly, the real if unpalatable fact that just maybe Shostakovitch produced music of an outstanding second quality - a VDQS as opposed to an AOC: both are eminently drinkable, though the prices are disparate.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I subscribed to the NY Philharmonic during the Boulez years, and the newspapers at that time were reporting that the consensus among the musicians was: "can't stand him"; with the qualification that the NY Philharmonic was and most likely will always be, a notoriously difficult group to conduct. However, they did love Lenny.

Boulez got his revenge, though. He was replaced by Zubin Mehta.


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

@violadude
Every human being starts as a moron. Then you need to have the right stimuli in order to get more complex "languages" (like music, for instance, or art) if you don't your life experience would be superficial. Simply put, politics should go hand in hand with aestetics in a perfect world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> Not as obnoxious as feeling surrounded by morons and idiots (and no, I'm not referring to people on TC). Do you live in the USA? Look, we're about to elect either a obnoxious racist bully or a corporate shill for president. Among the most popular music is Justin Bieber and Kanye West. Some people can't even find Australia on a map. Oh, but I'm the one being obnoxious.
> 
> Well, I'm sorry you're offended, I truly am. But *in my experience,* *people are morons.*


I wish I could reassure you that subsequent experience will prove you wrong.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

Aren't members of orchestras paid to play their instruments? I'm as interested in their opinions of the music they are paid to play as I am in the opinions of the actors in films that I go and see.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I hate to say it, but I wouldn't be saying it if I hadn't experienced it myself, but not all musicians are truly passionate about great music. For many musicians, especially random orchestral musicians (as opposed to well known soloists) the industry has jaded them and it's just their way of making money. They don't want to do anything that's too hard or inconvenient for them, they just want to play their standards, get their money and go home. It's sad but it's true  Of course not all orchestral musicians are like that, but many are. I've even heard players whining about too many tremelos. I was naive about this before I went to college, but there were many times I asked one of the students to play one of my pieces and their first response was "as long as there's not any weird stuff in there" (which for string players is musician code for nothing but straight bowing and some pizzicato). 

This is actually a very prominent conflict between composers and musicians in the classical music world, composers want to explore the possibilities of sound, while musicians would rather just keep doing what they've been doing. It's quite frustrating, and honestly disheartening as a composer (and my music is relatively free of anything too "weird").

Another story: I recently hired a String Quartet to play my piece. The cellist of the group and I were going over the score together and she found a spot where the cello and the 1st violin were off by a 16th note (not that uncommon really since Bartok), I told her "I was in a funny mood and I wanted to see how that would sound". She stared at me blankly and said "More Funny means more money". 

Oh ya, sorry about that. Next time I'll make sure my imagination doesn't get in the way of your willingness to play.

Well, obviously I didn't say that. I don't have the cojones to say something like that. Especially to someone who was willing to play one of my pieces :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

@violadude
I did wonder if that was the case, when I read the earlier post about musicians not liking Ligeti etc. Your post, rather depressingly, seems to confirm my suspicion. Maybe younger musicians are more open in their attitude. I hope so, for the future health of this supposedly creative endeavour.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Another story: I recently hired a String Quartet to play my piece. The cellist of the group and I were going over the score together and she found a spot where the cello and the 1st violin were off by a 16th note (not that uncommon really since Bartok), I told her "I was in a funny mood and I wanted to see how that would sound". She stared at me blankly and said "More Funny means more money".


Perhaps you should have cried out, "Do you think I give a damn about your cursed fiddling when the spirit moves me?" Worked for that other guy!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Poppy Popsicle said:


> That really is a most interesting article, even though its polemist position seems somewhat crude. I'm still trying to digest it but in the meantime one of the reader's comments that followed struck me as worthy of further discussion:
> 
> _Let's all be more brave like the author of this essay and say publicly what kind of music we want to perform and hear. When i talk privately with members of a fine orchestra - *they nearly all say they would love to avoid playing most of Ligeti, Stockhausen, Shnittke, Berio and Carter*. But they would never admit that on the record. And that is a problem. Boulez is part of the reason why those people scared to speak out loud_.
> 
> Is this a view that is really widely held by orchestral musicians?


As a former orchestral musician (admittedly of no great standing) this doesn't strike as even remotely true of the current breed. Maybe the ones retiring now - they grew up and trained in different times with different ideals: more flexibility and range is expected now. Friends and former colleagues are more likely to express dismay that they'll trudge through another pile of standard rep in the following season.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

dgee said:


> As a former orchestral musician (admittedly of no great standing) this doesn't strike as even remotely true of the current breed. Maybe the ones retiring now - they grew up and trained in different times with different ideals: more flexibility and range is expected now. Friends and former colleagues are more likely to express dismay that they'll trudge through another pile of standard rep in the following season.


Good to hear.................

I should mention too that there were lots of musicians at my school that were willing to try anything, and I'm grateful for that.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

violadude said:


> This is actually a very prominent conflict between composers and musicians in the classical music world, composers want to explore the possibilities of sound, while musicians would rather just keep doing what they've been doing. It's quite frustrating, and honestly disheartening as a composer (and my music is relatively free of anything too "weird").


I've heard this many times from those performers I know and from contemporary composers. Basically many performers do not like modern/contemporary music. I have no idea how prominent this attitude is. It may simply be that performers brought up playing and listening to Romantic and earlier works are similar to many who listen to classical music - they become familiar with music they play (or hear) and find variations from that standard unpleasant.

To be fair to performers, they spend an enormous amount of time practicing and hearing Romantic and earlier music. Modern and contemporary music is almost never what they play early in their career when they get jobs. Composers are immediately interested in the newest music and focus on that. I wonder if a similar phenomenon existed in 1800, 1850, or 1900.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dgee said:


> As a former orchestral musician (admittedly of no great standing) this doesn't strike as even remotely true of the current breed. Maybe the ones retiring now - they grew up and trained in different times with different ideals: more flexibility and range is expected now. Friends and former colleagues are more likely to express dismay that they'll trudge through another pile of standard rep in the following season.


Interesting. My experience speaking to composers and young performers is more along the lines violadude suggested. Obviously there is significant variation. My daughter (cellist) loves playing and hearing new (and older) music and wishes her performer friends felt the same way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> Interesting. My experience speaking to composers and young performers is more along the lines violadude suggested. Obviously there is significant variation. My daughter (cellist) loves playing and hearing new (and older) music and wishes her performer friends felt the same way.


Your daughter is awesome.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> "Tonic-dominant back and forth?" Back it up. Can you actually talk about any specific passage of Shostakovich with respect to harmony? Show me one of these "stepwise chromatic bass lines" that "doesn't work with the upper voices." I invite you to cite examples for any of these generalizations. There are people with scores and theoretical chops out here waiting for something substantive …


Sure thing.

The harmony (and its uninspiring stepwise progression) makes for woefully, woefully static music.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Becca said:


> *Offered without comment* *...
> 
> _"Max Raimi, a viola player in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, played with Pierre Boulez for 25 years and greatly admired his human qualities. But some of his musical choices left Max vexed. Here, in an essay for Slipped Disc, is his thoughtful assessment of a musical giant and his myopia."_
> 
> ...


Why offered without comment? After the previous Boulez threads, and knowing how they ended up, it would be more useful to say what you hoped to get out of this and what you hoped to avoid.

Also, and I don't mean this to sound nasty, but if you're going to "like" only anti-Boulez post along the way - rather than liking just well articulated contributions to your discussion whatever the view - then that is a form of comment.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Defending a favored composer by attacking another seems a strange strategy. And, I expect, not a particularly effective one.


Schoenberg can be defended on his own merits: his wonderfully rich harmonic choices, harmonic rhythm, counterpoint, and dialogue.

Shostakovitch lacks in all of these.

I did not defend Schoenberg _through_ attacking Shostakovitch. I made a contrast: one composer possesses these positive qualities, the other doesn't.

Attacking my position by misrepresenting what I wrote seems a strange strategy. And, I expect, not a particularly effective one.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Boulez's main interest in Stravisnky and Bartók is in fact in their rhythms, he studied them with Messiaen and later studied other folk music's by himself. There is the opposite of a blind spot there.

Here is an orchestra that seems quite proud of their work.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Becca said:


> Offered without comment *...
> 
> _"Max Raimi, a viola player in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, played with Pierre Boulez for 25 years and greatly admired his human qualities. But some of his musical choices left Max vexed. Here, in an essay for Slipped Disc, is his thoughtful assessment of a musical giant and his myopia."_
> 
> ...


That was most interesting. While I am not a big fan of Boulez's music, I do admire his art of conducting and it is there perhaps that his "human qualities" were most apparent. To be a great conductor, one must have high interpersonal skills.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2016)

violadude said:


> I should mention too that there were lots of musicians at my school that were willing to try anything, and I'm grateful for that.


Yes, but what about the music?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

The article seems to be bashing (albeit more gently than this thread at times) the man for pursuing his passions. It's not like he was holding listeners hostage and dragging them kicking and screaming along with him on his journey. If there was confirmation bias in his aesthetic choices and in the way he perceived history, we humans are all guilty of that. I'm glad I get to enjoy both his conducting, his music, and that of Shostakovich at times and anyone else I care to hear -- or not if I choose not.

(And I'm afraid I choose not to hear more of the club influenced stuff above, however generous violadude is toward it. Not my thing, though I love other forms of electronica, IDM, etc.)


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Read the article. It doesn't read like it was written by someone who worked with Boulez for 25 years, and it certainly doesn't read like it was written by a "friend". I can't help noticing that it was posted by Norman Lebrecht - and that it sounds very much like his work.

I'm struck again that in these articles they go most of the way towards saying that Boulez subverted the course of classical music, but then can't show who or what was subverted. Looking back over the history of music in the second half of the twentieth century I see only a wild variety, certainly no lock-step of one philosophy or one line of "progress" - unless what you're looking for is more just like Beethoven or more just like Wagner.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Schoenberg can be defended on his own merits: his wonderfully rich harmonic choices, harmonic rhythm, counterpoint, and dialogue.
> 
> Shostakovitch lacks in all of these.
> 
> I did not defend Schoenberg _through_ attacking Shostakovitch. I made a contrast: one composer possesses these positive qualities, the other doesn't.


There you go again, dumping on Shostakovich. I don't dump on your favored composers and would like the same consideration from you.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The article is just BB, Boulez Bashing by someone who clearly prefers pre 1860's works. 
I say so what- this person or those of similar view point are never going to be Boulez fans. 
No big deal, it is to their loss not Boulez's. 
Be thankful Boulez stuck to his own values and not the dark age ideas of some of these musician's.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

sloth said:


> @violadude
> Every human being starts as a moron. Then you need to have the right stimuli in order to get more complex "languages" (like music, for instance, or art) if you don't your life experience would be superficial. Simply put, politics should go hand in hand with aestetics in a perfect world.


A child is hardly a 'moron'. One could convincingly argue that it is _society_ who inevitably corrupts and stupefies. Knowledge isn't wisdom.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> There you go again, dumping on Shostakovich. I don't dump on your favored composers and would like the same consideration from you.


If you define THAT post as dumping, I can't imagine how you might classify some of the anti-Boulez rhetoric.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> The harmony (and its uninspiring stepwise progression) makes for woefully, woefully static music.


It's been ages since I heard that - thanks for reminding me how much I like it! :tiphat:


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> The harmony (and its uninspiring stepwise progression) makes for woefully, woefully static music.


I'm sorry Sep, but you know I like his 8th string quartet. Shostakovich is far from my favorite composer, but I do like a handful of his pieces, and I think this piece is, well, just really freaking cool. It's entertaining, it has nice sounds... I don't know, I just like it. I am not familiar with the second piece you linked, however.

Anyway, upon listening to it again, it does start out kind of mundanely, but it goes on to be wildly exciting! At least in my opinion. It's just fun music! Almost makes me laugh in parts. It has a constant tongue in cheekness to it. An almost ironic sound. Of course I don't mind that you dislike it. But I find it totally fun and enjoyable.


----------



## brucknerian (Dec 27, 2013)

Poppy Popsicle said:


> _... When i talk privately with members of a fine orchestra - *they nearly all say they would love to avoid playing most of Ligeti, Stockhausen, Shnittke, Berio and Carter*. ..._.
> 
> Is this a view that is really widely held by orchestral musicians?


You'd want to do some kind of proper study of orchestral musicians, surely, before buying such a generalisation.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> The harmony (and its uninspiring stepwise progression) makes for woefully, woefully static music.


You did not demonstrate any of the specific claims you made about this music. Alternation of tonic and dominant? "Stepwise chromatic bass lines" that "doesn't work with the upper voices." In fact, you didn't even support the vague generality of stepwise progression. So are you going to demonstrate these things or not? Or were these claims made off the top of your head?



SeptimalTritone said:


> Schoenberg can be defended on his own merits: his wonderfully rich harmonic choices, harmonic rhythm, counterpoint, and dialogue.
> 
> Shostakovitch lacks in all of these.


You are claiming Shostakovich's music lacks counterpoint? Does that include the preludes and fugues in all keys? The first movements of the 3rd and 14th quartets (more fugues). The second movement of Piano Quintet (yep, another complex fugue) Practically the whole of the Fifth Quartet, which is packed with counterpoint? The second movement of the first quartet? His numerous passacaglia movements which tend to be consistently contrapuntal as well? How about the mirror writing in the scherzo of the 6th symphony? How about the numerous development sections in which strongly contrasting themes are woven together? In fact, Shostakovich was a master of counterpoint. Examples abound if the above are not enough.

The other things you believe are lacking are also there in abundance - for people who actually know his music.

And where did Schoenberg come into this anyway? What on earth does any of what you have written have to do with this thread?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

violadude said:


> Not as obnoxious as feeling surrounded by morons and idiots (and no, I'm not referring to people on TC). Do you live in the USA? Look, we're about to elect either a obnoxious racist bully or a corporate shill for president. Among the most popular music is Justin Bieber and Kanye West. Some people can't even find Australia on a map. Oh, but I'm the one being obnoxious.
> 
> Well, I'm sorry you're offended, I truly am. But in my experience, people are morons. That's just the reality I see. So, for example, when MB cites a story about a bunch of people walking out on a Boulez concert, it means nothing to me. Just more people who can't stand anything they're not already familiar with and who don't have the perseverance it takes to truly get to know it.
> 
> And I DO take back my comment about the club music. I had a gut reaction based on the kind of imagery "club music" brings to mind. I was proven wrong. Good thing I'm the type that admits when I'm wrong :tiphat:


Just a "like" wouldn't do it justice, had to repost this excellent collection of thoughts...


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps you should have cried out, "Do you think I give a damn about your cursed fiddling when the spirit moves me?" Worked for that other guy!


That was Kanye who said that wasn't it?.. :devil:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> You did not demonstrate any of the specific claims you made about this music. Alternation of tonic and dominant? "Stepwise chromatic bass lines" that "doesn't work with the upper voices." In fact, you didn't even support the vague generality of stepwise progression. So are you going to demonstrate these things or not? Or were these claims made off the top of your head?
> 
> You are claiming Shostakovich's music lacks counterpoint? Does that include the preludes and fugues in all keys? The first movements of the 3rd and 14th quartets (more fugues). The second movement of Piano Quintet (yep, another complex fugue) Practically the whole of the Fifth Quartet, which is packed with counterpoint? The second movement of the first quartet? His numerous passacaglia movements which tend to be consistently contrapuntal as well? How about the mirror writing in the scherzo of the 6th symphony? How about the numerous development sections in which strongly contrasting themes are woven together? In fact, Shostakovich was a master of counterpoint. Examples abound if the above are not enough.
> 
> ...


I'm glad someone pounced before I did... (and someone who know far more than I do about the subject).

I don't blame SeptimalTri for this I chalk it up to being super young and not yet hearing the savory sounds that DSCH has to offer...


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

violadude said:


> Not as obnoxious as feeling surrounded by morons and idiots ....
> 
> Well, I'm sorry you're offended, I truly am. But in my experience, people are morons.


On topic: I do not think that a fan of a piece of music has to defend it because it contains a piece of popular music in it; Bach did it frequently. I do apologize for interrupting this thread by voicing my criticism of devaluing people because of their intelligence, level of knowledge, class status, etc.. I will just say in defense that I believe all people deserve our respect and have something positive to offer us and we have something to offer back if we open our minds to this. I should not have voiced that here.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

^^ I'd shrink the above, to:



JosefinaHW said:


> I do not think that a fan of a piece of music has to defend it


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> I do not think that a fan of a piece of music has to defend it





Nereffid said:


> ^^ I'd shrink the above, to:


Yawn...What a boring place this site would be if people only spouted opinions without backing them up or talking about why they think certain pieces are bad or good.

Do you really want to read page after page of just "I like X" "Well I like Y" "Well I like X and Y" "Well I like Z"

What does that tell us about anything?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> Yawn...What a boring place this site would be if people only spouted opinions without backing them up or talking about why they think certain pieces are bad or good.
> 
> Do you really want to read page after page of just "I like X" "Well I like Y" "Well I like X and Y" "Well I like Z"
> 
> What does that tell us about anything?


The key word was "defend".
Talk about, disagree about: fine. 
Liking music isn't a war.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I subscribed to the NY Philharmonic during the Boulez years, and the newspapers at that time were reporting that the consensus among the musicians was: "can't stand him"; with the qualification that the NY Philharmonic was and most likely will always be, a notoriously difficult group to conduct. However, they did love Lenny.
> 
> Boulez got his revenge, though. He was replaced by Zubin Mehta.


Dat's a beautiful reply!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> The key word was "defend".
> Talk about, disagree about: fine.
> Liking music isn't a war.


I don't really see the difference between explaining why you think a piece is great or good and "defending" it.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

> Ligeti, Stockhausen, Shnittke, Berio and Carter


Wanted to share a thought or two about this from a player's perspective. I love listening to all these composers, but the prospect of playing them, particularly in an ensemble, fills me with a mixture of fear and desire for near-infinite preparation time. Add to that the idea of playing them in an ensemble where I had zero say in the repertoire selection, the artistic interpretation, or the rehearsal process, and I think I might respond the same way as your orchestral friends.

The issue with playing the music of composers like these four isn't that they are modern per se. Not about whether we like the way they sound. The issue is that they tend to be very difficult. Notes are difficult. Rhythms are difficult. Ensemble issues are difficult. And then once you master all that stuff, a lot of audience members won't even know the difference, particularly if you aren't also able to have input in the artistic interpretation or just if you have a lot of different opinions from the conductor.

It can be hard to put modern music over to an audience in a meaningful and genuine way if you're also having to do it someone else's way and it's music that is hard to play and a challenge to an audience to begin with. (Now to be fair, I feel the same about certain potentially boring music from previous eras, but there at least it's not usually as hard to play. It could still be a failure in performance if the conductor isn't working in a way that helps the players play in an exciting and genuine way, but you don't have the extra frustration of all the tough practice time and rehearsal you put in.)

I think the most exciting, vibrant, artistically genuine performances of 20th and 21st century music today are often by soloists and chamber ensembles. Having artistic input into repertoire choice and interpretation makes all the difference.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

violadude said:


> I don't really see the difference between explaining why you think a piece is great or good and "defending" it.


Hear, hear:tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> I don't really see the difference between explaining why you think a piece is great or good and "defending" it.


And that's the problem right there. I presume, though, you do see the difference between, say, explaining to someone why you like living in a castle, and defending it?


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> And that's the problem right there. I presume, though, you do see the difference between, say, explaining to someone why you like living in a castle, and defending it?


Defending the notion of living in a castle in some sort of debate? Uh, sure?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> And that's the problem right there. I presume, though, you do see the difference between, say, explaining to someone why you like living in a castle, and defending it?


Uh what? You mean like, physically defending a castle from invaders?

Just so you know, I'm not going out and beating up people who don't like Schoenberg.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> Uh what? You mean like, physically defending a castle from invaders?
> 
> Just so you know, I'm not going out and beating up people who don't like Schoenberg.


I don't really spend much time defending Schoenberg, just correcting people who are making false assertions about him and his music. For some reason, people confuse that with defending his works.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

hpowders , "Boulez got his revenge when Mehta succeeded him ?" During his tenure with the NY Phil, Mehta regularly performed music by the likes of Schoenberg, Webern , BOULEZ , Stockhausen ,
Penderecki, Messiaen Carter and other important 20th century composers many audience members can't stand ! Oh, the irony !


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

superhorn said:


> hpowders , "Boulez got his revenge when Mehta succeeded him ?" During his tenure with the NY Phil, Mehta regularly performed music by the likes of Schoenberg, Webern , BOULEZ , Stockhausen ,
> Penderecki, Messiaen Carter and other important 20th century composers many audience members can't stand ! Oh, the irony !


The musicians hated him. I remember how relieved they were when they finally got Kurt Masur, replacing Mehta.

As for myself, the Boulez NY Philharmonic years were the glory years for me.

Tremendous performances of Mahler 3 and Ravel's La Valse. Best thing? I was there!!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

That's not what I heard . The musicians respected Mehta greatly and acknowledged how professional and skillful he was as a conductor . Maybe some of the musicians didn't like him , but every orchestra has musicians who don't like the music director . 
Mehta got album rap with the New York Philharmonic and the critics were absolutely vicious o him .
Their reviews weren't music criticism - they were character assassination !


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't really spend much time defending Schoenberg, just correcting people who are making false assertions about him and his music. For some reason, people confuse that with defending his works.


Come on your kidding right?... First of all just to write something in favor of Schoenberg constitutes one of the several definitions of the word "defend". Sometimes people post that they just don't hear anything they like and you counter with suggestions of things to listen for or why there are things they just can't hear.

Not that I'm making anything about that itself... many people are severely close minded about such music and it's good that there is such a knowledgeable champion of his music (and other music of the ilk) to offer counterpoints to their posts.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Fugue Meister said:


> Come on your kidding right?... First of all just to write something in favor of Schoenberg constitutes one of the several definitions of the word "defend". Sometimes people post that they just don't hear anything they like and you counter with suggestions of things to listen for or why there are things they just can't hear.
> 
> Not that I'm making anything about that itself... many people are severely close minded about such music and it's good that there is such a knowledgeable champion of his music (and other music of the ilk) to offer counterpoints to their posts..


A purely _Wertfrei_ technical analysis of musical compositon- however fascinating its intrinsic analytical merit may 'be'- can never make something sound better than it actually sounds.

So much Schoenberg apologia I see focuses on the compositional technique and not the aesthetic of the music.

For me, this is the equivalent of only appreciating a Vermeer or a Botticelli- or more apropos to the subject matter at hand: a Jasper Johns or a Jackson Pollock- with regards to brush-stroke technique and schema of colors- and to the utter disregard of the finished product of the picture itself and what its trying to express.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Members are asked to stay on topic and not comment on other posters' posting styles.

They are reminded that



> The owners/administrators/moderators of Talk Classical reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread or post for any reason.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Taggart said:


> Members are asked to stay on topic and not comment on other posters' posting styles.
> 
> They are reminded that
> 
> ...


Thank you for your candid response, Taggart.

I knew that Fugue Meister's reply and my own were entirely on topic. Both of our posts addressed the logical content of an idea and 'not' a posting style. . .

So now everyone knows that TC openly practices censorship- and with no pretense of impartiality- pure and simple.

- I wouldn't call it a way to win arguments, though perhaps I would call it a way to lose them by default.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

We edited certain parts of posts because they commented negatively on another member or member's posting style. Originally we unapproved them (members can't see unapproved posts) for further discussion. Ultimately we decided to edit out the offending portions and keep the rest. We deleted some other posts that referenced the formerly unapproved but now edited posts.

I think most members know that we censor on TC. Certain words (considered obscene) are censored. We often delete posts that violate out Terms of Service; for example, insults are generally removed. Spam is removed. We have never suggested that we do not censor, and we have often described what types of posts are deleted and why.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


mmsbls said:



We edited certain parts of posts because they commented negatively on another member or member's posting style. Originally we unapproved them (members can't see unapproved posts) for further discussion. Ultimately we decided to edit out the offending portions and keep the rest. We deleted some other posts that referenced the formerly unapproved but now edited posts.

I think most members know that we censor on TC. Certain words (considered obscene) are censored. We often delete posts that violate out Terms of Service; for example, insults are generally removed. Spam is removed. We have never suggested that we do not censor, and we have often described what types of posts are deleted and why.

Click to expand...

*Respectfully, mmbls, and all TC public-relations glosses aside: Fugue Meister and myself were straight-up 'censored.'

All he mentioned in his expurgated post was that a certain TC member constantly "corrected" people fifty-percent of the time for making statements about Schoenberg that 'he' didn't like.

All I mentioned in 'my' post was that: _"A purely Wertfrei technical analysis of musical compositon- however fascinating its intrinsic analytical merit may 'be'- can never make something sound better than it actually sounds." _

Neither post had anything to do with negatively commenting on another TC member's posting style.

Both posts, did, however, have 'everything to do' with not reflexively genuflecting to the altar of Schoenberg.

I have the original copies of what Fugue Meister and myself actually wrote for anyone who wants to judge for themselves:

[email protected]


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Respectfully, mmbls, and all TC public-relations glosses aside: Fugue Meister and myself were straight-up 'censored.'
> 
> All he mentioned in his expurgated post was that a certain TC member constantly "corrected" people fifty-percent of the time for making statements about Schoenberg that 'he' didn't like.
> 
> ...


All perfectly innocent, then...::eyeroll::

The only people I see correcting (no scare quotes) others about Schoenberg are trying to fight misinformation and myth, not to convert them to their own taste or opinion.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Thanks, that was interesting. Other critics of Boulez have made similar arguments, but in a more strident or even hysterical, and less thoughtful, way. I always thought Boulez a great musician but guilty of the basic error of trying to establish his own (central) place in music history. This rarely works, as history has a way of reaching its own conclusions with the passage of years and gain of perspective, even regarding the most passionate, aggressive and articulate advocates of their own art and careers. Indeed, this sort often suffers the greatest fall in reputation after death, since in most cases no one is nearly as effective an advocate for the artist as the artist was for himself.
Actually, Mr. Raimi makes precisely this point, as he discusses historians who view all history as an inevitable progression towards their own ideas. Well said.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I would say I probably heard Boulez conduct live more than anyone else on TC since I subscribed to the NY Philharmonic during his entire tenure as music director. The orchestra played absolutely fine under his direction. Yet according to press reports at the time, the musicians couldn't stand him.

With friends like the NY Philharmonic musicians, Pierre Boulez didn't need enemies.


----------

