# A list from Pierre Boulez



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

I've listened to nearly all of this today (I'm up to Erwartung now) and enjoyed it quite a bit:

http://soundcheck.wnyc.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/

Happy 90th, Pete!!

(and before anyone tries to stir up controversy, please note that the title of the list is "10 Great Works of the 20th Century" NOT "THE 10 GreatEST Works of the 20th Century"!!)


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

My favorite thing about the list is that he puts himself into that list as well LOL .


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> My favorite thing about the list is that he puts himself into that list as well LOL .


Ole' Pierre always was blunt and frank.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Albert7 said:


> My favorite thing about the list is that he puts himself into that list as well LOL .


This might have been suggested to him by the producer of the series.

The strangest omissions (from pieces in his repertoire) seem to be Debussy and his teacher Messiaen.

I love this quote, though:


Pierre Boulez said:


> I never separated intellect and feeling; the greatest composers have always married these two things. The composers who are just feeling or just abstract, are for me not composers, they are half-composers.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

*Post has been deleted*


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Surprised there's no Xenakis or Nono in his list. Either way, it's great and Boulez is awesome. I hope he's around for another decade at least—he should compose more.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm rather surprised to see him pick the Berio...which I hate on many parameters


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

There is no Ravel, no Janacek, no Lutoslawski, no Szymanowski, but there is... Boulez!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Boulez talking or writing about music is simply a delight - thank you. unfortunately, I understand from people who are much better connected to the music world than I that he is no longer as razor-sharp as one would hope as well as being nearly blind


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

dgee said:


> Boulez talking or writing about music is simply a delight - thank you. unfortunately, I understand from people who are much better connected to the music world than I that he is no longer as razor-sharp as one would hope as well as being nearly blind


I didn't get exactly what you were meaning. I presume that you meant Boulez is getting senile? Or just not as acerbic as he used to be? :\


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

rrudolph said:


> I've listened to nearly all of this today (I'm up to Erwartung now) and enjoyed it quite a bit:
> 
> http://soundcheck.wnyc.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/
> 
> Happy 90th, Pete!!


I've got the site bookmarked. I didn't know about this podcast. Engaging ones are hard to find. I'd love to find more about classical music -- ones that discuss it I mean. Thanks for the link.



Albert7 said:


> My favorite thing about the list is that he puts himself into that list as well LOL .


Me too. Oddly enough I probably agree with him.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

dgee said:


> Boulez talking or writing about music is simply a delight - thank you. unfortunately, I understand from people who are much better connected to the music world than I that he is no longer as razor-sharp as one would hope as well as being nearly blind


Well, I think we all like to believe that our heroes are invincible, but Boulez is advanced in age and senility is to be expected. That being said, how many other 90 year olds are as active and mentally sound? Not many.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Morimur said:


> Well, I think we all like to believe that our heroes are invincible, but Boulez is advanced in age and senility is to be expected. That being said, how many other 90 year olds are as active and mentally sound? Not many.


Stokowski was lucid and vibrant at_ ninety-five_!- and his Sibelius' _First Symphony_ of the mid-seventies could have been something he did with Philadelphia in 1925!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> I didn't get exactly what you were meaning. I presume that you meant Boulez is getting senile? Or just not as acerbic as he used to be? :\


I've heard he's losing it a bit


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

dgee said:


> I've heard he's losing it a bit


I will have to check up and see what he says in his latest interviews. I have been informed that today is his birthday so happy birthday, Pierre!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"I never separated intellect and feeling; the greatest composers have always married these two things. The composers who are just feeling or just abstract, are for me not composers, they are half-composers." _- Pierre Boulez_

Oh Pierre, it isn't like you to be coy! Tell us which of our favorite composers you're thinking of!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

rrudolph said:


> I've listened to nearly all of this today (I'm up to Erwartung now) and enjoyed it quite a bit:
> 
> http://soundcheck.wnyc.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/
> 
> ...


Thanks for providing this list!:tiphat:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> "I never separated intellect and feeling; the greatest composers have always married these two things. The composers who are just feeling or just abstract, are for me not composers, they are half-composers." _- Pierre Boulez_
> 
> Oh Pierre, it isn't like you to be coy! Tell us which of our favorite composers you're thinking of!


I think Boulez will continue to groan in significance.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Glad to see Mr. Boulez chose the Mahler 6 to be one of the significant works chosen on his list of 10 representative works of the Twentieth Century.

I have his performance of it and Boulez strikes just the right balance for me-not overdone on intensity but not cold either.

This is/was one of the greatest conductors who ever lived!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Am I the only one who thinks the list could be called "conservative"?

I don't mean conservative compared with my own tastes, or the tastes of listeners generally; and I don't dispute the significance or worth of any of the pieces on the list (I don't know Répons).
It's just, 6 of the 10 pieces come from the first 3 decades of the 20th century, then there's one from the 30s, one from the 50s, one from the 60s, and one from the 80s. Sure, it's hard to pick just 10 works, but looking at the list the impression I get is that the compiler sees the story of the 20th century as one particular narrative grounded in a number of foundational works, and little of similar importance has happened since the 1930s.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Not enough perspective yet on more recent pieces, maybe?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> ... the impression I get is that the compiler sees the story of the 20th century as one particular narrative grounded in a number of foundational works, and little of similar importance has happened since the 1930s.


Well, I think there could have been some Ligeti. And late Nono. And of course more Boulez. But other than that? From a Boulez point of view, that is.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I think a Debussy piece could (should) have been in there. I, and I'm sure many others, consider him the greatest modern era composer.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I think a Debussy piece could (should) have been in there. I, and I'm sure many others, consider him the greatest modern era composer.


Boulez also sees him as a central figure, but unfortunately, Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun is from the 19th century, and thus ineligible.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> My favorite thing about the list is that he puts himself into that list as well LOL .


He chose well. Repons is a major 20th century masterpiece.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Andreas said:


> Well, I think there could have been some Ligeti. And late Nono. And of course more Boulez. But other than that? From a Boulez point of view, that is.


Xenakis. Carter. Lachenmann. Holliger. Birtwistle.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Weston said:


> Not enough perspective yet on more recent pieces, maybe?


Well we know he doesn't like Grisey. I don't know what he thinks about Ferrari. Or British composers like Ferneyhough.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

rrudolph said:


> I've listened to nearly all of this today (I'm up to Erwartung now) and enjoyed it quite a bit:
> 
> http://soundcheck.wnyc.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/
> 
> ...


Hmm, It says they are the 10 most important in his view.

I'm not really a huge fan of his music.....his idea that if audiences took to _Tristan und Isolde_ given enough time, so should they take to Schoenberg is a misconception in my view.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Hmm, It says they are the 10 most important in his view.
> 
> I'm not really a huge fan of his music.....his idea that if audiences took to _Tristan und Isolde_ given enough time, so should they take to Schoenberg is a misconception in my view.


Well, the fact that audiences haven't taken to Schoenberg is mostly a matter of unfamiliarity and prejudice at this point. There's nothing inherently incomprehensible about the music itself.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, the fact that audiences haven't taken to Schoenberg is mostly a matter of unfamiliarity and prejudice at this point. There's nothing inherently incomprehensible about the music itself.


Do you have any ideas about the origin of that prejudice?


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Hmm, It says they are the 10 most important in his view.
> 
> I'm not really a huge fan of his music.....his idea that if audiences took to _Tristan und Isolde_ given enough time, so should they take to Schoenberg is a misconception in my view.


The music of Schoenberg, including his 12-tone works, is a natural expansion of the chromatic language that Wagner helped to develop along with others such as Berlioz and Liszt. Audiences can and should be expected to grow accustomed to Schoenberg as they did with Wagner. I find Boulez's chagrin at the reluctance of 21st-century audiences to accept Schoenberg to be perfectly valid and understandable.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Do you have any ideas about the origin of that prejudice?


Part of it is in the word and concept of "atonality," which gives rise to the idea of something separated from tradition, part of it is the focus on his method at the expense of his music, which gives rise to the idea of something intellectual rather than musical.

Both ideas are wrong, and if they disappeared, I think audiences would have no more difficult a time with Schoenberg than with most other major 20th century composers.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, the fact that audiences haven't taken to Schoenberg is mostly a matter of unfamiliarity and prejudice at this point. There's nothing inherently incomprehensible about the music itself.





Celloman said:


> The music of Schoenberg, including his 12-tone works, is a natural expansion of the chromatic language that Wagner helped to develop along with others such as Berlioz and Liszt. Audiences can and should be expected to grow accustomed to Schoenberg as they did with Wagner. I find Boulez's chagrin at the reluctance of 21st-century audiences to accept Schoenberg to be perfectly valid and understandable.


even though I think you're wrong about 12-tone technique being the logical outgrowth of wagner's chromaticism, which in my view is thoroughly tonal because it exploits the pull or tendency of tones and harmonies, I will put that aside to say this:

Composers don't invent beauty, drama, or power, they just take advantage of it - and those are the things that people are drawn to. Perhaps schoenberg's music has good qualities to it, but the aforementioned attributes are apprehended viscerally and immediately - unless the individual lacks enough sensitivity or is intellectually/ mentally opposed to what they are hearing, they will respond to it in spite of unfamiliarity......as MANY people did to Wagner's music before it was universally accepted. I'm not saying popularity is a litmus test but I am saying is that, If you listen for genuine beauty and drama you will find Boulez and many other ideologues don't have enough of it. They're not in a position to elevate or educate the masses because they are not on a higher level of aesthetic appreciation or conceptualization, they just have an intellectual idea that they apply to music and, much to their disappointment, it has proven ineffective.

I'm by no means a conservative and for someone on this site my love for many of western classical music's staple composers is borderline minimal. And I'm not saying 12-tone technique and the musical descendants it spawned have no value, because they do. But I know powerful beauty when I hear it, as I believe everyone does on some level, and the school of composition being discussed does not have enough to satisfy listeners' desire for it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> even though I think you're wrong about 12-tone technique being the logical outgrowth of wagner's chromaticism, which in my view is thoroughly tonal because *it exploits the pull or tendency of tones and harmonies*, I will put that aside to say this:


So does Schoenberg's music. Atonality is a nonsensical concept that has nothing to do with any composer's technique.



Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Composers don't invent beauty, drama, or power, they just take advantage of it - and those are the things that people are drawn to. Perhaps schoenberg's music has good qualities to it, but the aforementioned attributes are apprehended viscerally and immediately - unless the individual lacks enough sensitivity or is intellectually/ mentally opposed to what they are hearing, they will respond to it in spite of unfamiliarity......as MANY people did to Wagner's music before it was universally accepted. I'm not saying popularity is a litmus test but I am saying is that, If you listen for genuine beauty and drama you will find Boulez and many other ideologues don't have enough of it. They're not in a position to elevate or educate the masses because they are not on a higher level of aesthetic appreciation or conceptualization, *they just have an intellectual idea* that they apply to music and, much to their disappointment, it has proven ineffective.


The intellectual idea is not important. The music is. In that much we agree (and agree with Boulez and Schoenberg, both of whom felt the same way).

But Schoenberg's music is beautiful and dramatic (so is Boulez's). I heard these qualities in it the first time I listened, and my appreciation of his work has only deepened with time.

And audiences _do_ react positively and viscerally to this music, so long as they are not told about its supposed intellectual basis.

_______________________

"The hall was packed with people eager to hear the new work and they gave Schoenberg a warm reception, as the _Manchester Guardian_ reported two days later:



> The second and fourth sections of the 'Five Orchestral Pieces' elicited a good deal of applause, without the least mark of disapproval being noticed...at the conclusion of the work a few hisses were heard at first, though they were soon submerged by substantial applause.


"

- Lambourn, Henry Wood and Schoenberg

________________________



Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I'm by no means a conservative and for someone on this site my love for many of western classical music's staple composers is borderline minimal. But I know powerful beauty when I hear it, as I believe everyone does on some level, and *the school of composition being discussed* does not have enough to satisfy listeners' desire for it.


We are not discussing a single school. There is as much difference between Schoenberg's music and Boulez's as there is between Beethoven and Debussy.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> even though I think you're wrong about 12-tone technique being the logical outgrowth of wagner's chromaticism, which in my view is thoroughly tonal because it exploits the pull or tendency of tones and harmonies, I will put that aside to say this:
> 
> Composers don't invent beauty, drama, or power, they just take advantage of it - and those are the things that people are drawn to. Perhaps schoenberg's music has good qualities to it, but the aforementioned attributes are apprehended viscerally and immediately - unless the individual lacks enough sensitivity or is intellectually/ mentally opposed to what they are hearing, they will respond to it in spite of unfamiliarity......as MANY people did to Wagner's music before it was universally accepted. I'm not saying popularity is a litmus test but I am saying is that, If you listen for genuine beauty and drama you will find Boulez and many other ideologues don't have enough of it. They're not in a position to elevate or educate the masses because they are not on a higher level of aesthetic appreciation or conceptualization, they just have an intellectual idea that they apply to music and, much to their disappointment, it has proven ineffective.
> 
> I'm by no means a conservative and for someone on this site my love for many of western classical music's staple composers is borderline minimal. But I know powerful beauty when I hear it, as I believe everyone does on some level, and the school of composition being discussed does not have enough to satisfy listeners' desire for it.


None of the music we like on this forum has enough of whatever is needed to satisfy the VAST majority of listeners' desires. I continue to be surprised by _classical music fans_ of all people making arguments from popularity.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

Before this turns into yet another "Schoenberg killed music" thread, I would like to ask for some input. Although I was already familiar with every work on Boulez's list, and am quite capable of making my own listening decisions, I found it quite a nice change of pace to surrender programming responsibilities to him (especially since he came up with a couple pieces I hadn't listened to for quite a while). I would love to have a couple more 10-title lists to listen to. So, what's YOUR (meaning anyone reading this) list of 10 great 20th century pieces (again, not necessarily the GREATEST pieces of the time, just 10 great ones)??


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

rrudolph said:


> Before this turns into yet another "Schoenberg killed music" thread...


It's interesting-among CM enthusiasts Stravinsky continues to be mostly loved, while Schoenberg is consistently despised. The hatred for the latter's music is primarily a product of ignorance and propaganda. Whatever one's allegiance, Schoenberg definitely cannot be ignored and that is a victory in itself.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I'm by no means a conservative and for someone on this site my love for many of western classical music's staple composers is borderline minimal. And I'm not saying 12-tone technique and the musical descendants it spawned have no value, because they do. But I know powerful beauty when I hear it, as I believe everyone does on some level, and the school of composition being discussed does not have enough to satisfy listeners' desire for it.


What is beauty? How do you measure it musically? No two people hear a piece of music the same way. What one person might call ugly, the other might call it beautiful.

I for one consider Schoenberg's music to be beautiful. It is highly organized, yet aesthetically pleasing and expressive. Someone else might hear it as ugly, but that is a personal preference, not a universal fact.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

While I do not dispute that Wagner and Liszt and others were heading for a more chromatic territory, enabled by the inherent features of a Pythagoran 12-note octave division, their vision was still *tonal,* in a broad, flexible sense. Bartok I can see as being an outgrowth of this, but Schoenberg and company were actually* in opposition *to a sense of tonality.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I think it has little to do with 'atonality'. Wagner was rather populist and the most of his disonances are sensuous, while mature Schoenberg can often be very bleak which is an acknowledged stylistic preference. There's also his forceful cramming of contrapuntal melodies and rhythms which takes more than a few listening to properly untangle. Sibelius thought the difficulty in Schoenberg was mainly due to the high amount of polyphony in it.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

rrudolph said:


> I would love to have a couple more 10-title lists to listen to. So, what's YOUR (meaning anyone reading this) list of 10 great 20th century pieces (again, not necessarily the GREATEST pieces of the time, just 10 great ones)??


1910 Scriabin, Prométhée
1924 Sibelius, Symphony no. 7
1928 Schoenberg, Variations for Orchestra
1936 Shostakovich, Symphony no. 4
1945 Strauss, Metamorphosen
1961 Ligeti, Atmosphères
1962 Britten, War Requiem
1966 Penderecki, St. Luke Passion
1976 Reich, Music for 18 Musicans
1987 Nono, No hay caminos, hay que caminar ... Andrei Tarkovsky


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> But Schoenberg's music is beautiful and dramatic (so is Boulez's). I heard these qualities in it the first time I listened, and my appreciation of his work has only deepened with time.
> 
> And audiences _do_ react positively and viscerally to this music, so long as they are not told about its supposed intellectual basis.


Probably a little off topic, but it's a burr under my saddle: I have to admit, my schooling put a bias against Schoenberg in me. He was presented as Brahms with all the wrong notes. Webern was the one to follow. Add to that over-intellectualized expositors who explained his music more in math terms, I guess to make themselves sound smart, and early enthusiasts like Rondschein (is that how you spell it?), who would tell his class, "This music is very difficult. Very difficult," and I consciously avoided his music.

It took a Berkeley-School-trained lawyer to suggest that I start with Guerre-Lieder to make me forget all the hoopla and just take his music as it is.

I think the stigma on his music is lifting, fortunately.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

Andreas said:


> 1910 Scriabin, Prométhée
> 1924 Sibelius, Symphony no. 7
> 1928 Schoenberg, Variations for Orchestra
> 1936 Shostakovich, Symphony no. 4
> ...


Thank you very much!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> While I do not dispute that Wagner and Liszt and others were heading for a more chromatic territory, enabled by the inherent features of a Pythagoran 12-note octave division, their vision was still *tonal,* in a broad, flexible sense. Bartok I can see as being an outgrowth of this, but Schoenberg and company were actually* in opposition *to a sense of tonality.


I agree with you on this, and in the case of Wagner I contend that the implicit presence of common practice tonality remained to the end a fundamental premise and source of expressive power in his music. I can understand how increasing freedom of modulation and avoidance of local tonal resolutions, such as we hear in late Wagner, could be seen by subsequent composers as pointing toward the total abandonment of key centers. But I do not believe that Wagner would have approved of this view of the implications of his practice. Wagner's tonal centers may shift rapidly and he may evade resolutions almost before setting them up - just try the prelude to act 3 of _Parsifal_ - but still tonal centers are strongly implied and we are not permitted to forget them even while they tantalize us with their elusiveness. _That is the entire point of his style_, and it is the source of the intense expressive power which was felt immediately by audiences, of his time and since. Not everyone was initially comfortable with that expressiveness - some people still are not - but initial repugnance is not the same as incomprehension. People were drawn into the music, often almost in spite of themselves.

Boulez says _"Our century is supposed to be the fastest, the quickest, the one which reacts instantly and likes progress -and sometimes in music, you find it's the slowest of all centuries. If you compare with Wagner, take Tristan und Isolde for instance, around 1860-90 years later, that's 1950, Wagner is no longer a problem. I don't want to criticize my century, but the process of absorbing what is composed during this century is a very slow process, much too slow for me." _ My reaction to this is to say that I think he overlooks not only differences in the degree of discontinuity between old and new music in its respective eras, but differences in the way music was disseminated. I don't know just how quickly _Tristan und Isolde_ became music that classical music lovers took in stride and found deeply rewarding, but given the absence of recording technology in the 19th century and the very limited opportunity to hear new music, it appears to have occurred much faster than Boulez's comparison would indicate. Schoenberg's (and other non-tonal composers') music has for decades been far more readily available to anyone who wants to explore it than Wagner's operas were in their day. Yet _Tristan und Isolde_ stopped being "a problem" long, long before 1950. By the early years of the 20th century Wagner's operas were standard repertoire in opera houses capable of mounting them, and by the interwar period, with the appearance of a great number of artists capable of performing them well, they rivaled almost any other operas in popularity. Excerpts from the operas were also extremely frequent on concert programs.

So it appears to me that Boulez has even more cause for disappointment than he thinks. The inescapable fact is, we are still waiting for good evidence that, given enough time and exposure, audiences will come to embrace en masse the post-tonal music of Schoenberg or Stockhausen or Boulez or (insert name) with the enthusiasm that they came, in a far shorter time, to embrace Wagner's. Pleasure in music is based on many factors; acclimation and intellectual comprehension are no guarantee of it, and presumptuous parallels with the past must be viewed skeptically.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> None of the music we like on this forum has enough of whatever is needed to satisfy the VAST majority of listeners' desires. I continue to be surprised by _classical music fans_ of all people making arguments from popularity.


Even Mozart isn't that popular as we would like to think amongst the general populace. 

Schoenberg and Mozart can both satisfy ears very well and equally so.


----------

