# Pierre Boulez



## emiellucifuge

I couldnt find a thread and as Ive been getting into some of his music a lot lately, I thought Id make one.

Boulez was a student of Messiaen. A very ideological man with great passion and from what Ive seen and read, great intellect. In his younger days he was known for attacking certain schools of music which didnt fit in with his view of art, but he is a little more moderate nowadays. He's written in quite a few different styles, total serialism to gestural music, and convinced Stravinsky to start writing in a serial style. Hes written a few great masterpieces imo; the 2nd piano sonata which caused the pianist to burst into tears upon first sight of the score; Le Marteau Sans Maitre, a beautiful serialist song cycle exploring subtle differences in timbre.

He works slowly and often revises his works many times throughout his career.

Of course he is also a fabulous conductor who brings great clarity to the score. I value his recordings, and also enjoyed seeing him conduct and rehearse in the Concertgebouw.

The work im currently grappling are his Derives, particularly the 1st. Magnificent pieces.

If you are a fan, I can recommend the book; 'conversations with Boulez', which was really illuminating.


----------



## violadude

I've only explored his piano sonatas in depth. The 2nd is certainly my favorite of the three. The 1st is really great too. I don't quite "get" the third yet. What do you think?


----------



## elgar's ghost

Nice post. I've got a 4-disc set on Erato which contains both 'core' output and also some of his lesser-know material but omits signature works such as the aforementioned Le marteau sans maitre and the 2nd piano sonata, so those would probably be the two principal works I'd turn to next whenever I get around to it. That said, 4 discs has been enough for me anyway over the years as they contain sufficient variety (and difficulty) to continue sustaining me for a long time to come!

Of the recordings that feature Boulez as a conductor, I must give credit to his Bruckner 8. I bought it on spec more out of morbid curiosity than anything to see how his cold-fish Darmstadt logic (my preconception) would interact with Bruckner's epic religious-based soundworld but I needn't have worried - Boulez produced a performance that was both warm and clear and although it's one of the shortest 8ths I've heard it never sounds rushed or forced.


----------



## Ukko

He has made some fine recordings as a conductor. None of his compositions are useful to me.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll72 said:


> . None of his compositions are useful to me.


Me neither! You utilitarian!


----------



## Sequentia

Boulez is probably my favourite living composer. My favourite works by him are the three piano sonatas, _Pli selon pli_, _Éclat_, _Messagesquisse_, _…explosante-fixe…_, _Dérive 1_ and _Sur incises_.

It's a shame he has devoted so much time to conducting, for although a great conductor, he is an even greater composer. Unfortunately, the merits of his conducting vis-à-vis those of his music according to most are reminiscent of the position in which Mahler found himself over 100 years ago.


----------



## Ukko

Sequentia said:


> Boulez is probably my favourite living composer. My favourite works by him are the three piano sonatas, _Pli selon pli_, _Éclat_, _Messagesquisse_, _…explosante-fixe…_, _Dérive 1_ and _Sur incises_.
> 
> It's a shame he has devoted so much time to conducting, for although a great conductor, he is an even greater composer. Unfortunately, the merits of his conducting vis-à-vis those of his music according to most are reminiscent of the position in which Mahler found himself over 100 years ago.


Bah! Humbug!

On a more serious note:

One of my Internet friends has been championing Boulez's music for decades. He persuaded me to 'make the effort'. I can find no way in; the hillbilly mentality maybe.


----------



## Sequentia

Hilltroll72 said:


> Bah! Humbug!
> 
> On a more serious note:
> 
> One of my Internet friends has been championing Boulez's music for decades. He persuaded me to 'make the effort'. I can find no way in; the hillbilly mentality maybe.


Have you tried his harmonically "mellower" music?


----------



## Vaneyes

My favorite *Boulez the composer *recs.

View attachment 5478
View attachment 5479
View attachment 5480


----------



## emiellucifuge

violadude said:


> I've only explored his piano sonatas in depth. The 2nd is certainly my favorite of the three. The 1st is really great too. I don't quite "get" the third yet. What do you think?


The third is a little mysterious in terms of performances and editions etc...

Did you know it was a result of many articles and essays dealing with aleatorism in music? He criticised aleatoric practises and proposed a new method, this sonata being the product. It may help you to take a look at some of these writings.


----------



## Sid James

I have his *three piano sonatas *played by Idil Biret on Naxos, and also the second one played by Maurizio Pollini on his DGG collection of modern piano works. I think both are useful to appreciate this work, but I prefer Biret's more fiery and no-holds-barred style. I remember the first sonata for kind of having a sound-world not unlike Debussy, or kind of streching that aesthetic as far as it goes into atonal. The second sonata I remember for it's complex counterpoint, esp. the final movement, that kind of broken toccata, and the peaks and troughs I also hear in Webern's music. Then the third sonata I like for the way the keys are hit and allowed to decay and the strings just naturally resonate, kind of treating the piano as a percussion instrument rather than a mini orchestra. Gamelan?

Gamelan, the feel of Asian music, is certainly present in _*Le Marteau Sans Maître*_, one of the most complex scores since Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring _(who admired the work greatly, he said it was one of the finest to come out of the younger generation). Boulez's changing time signatures and the onomatopoeia of the vocal part really bring the Surrealist poetry of Rene Char to life. This work is also part of a long line streching back to Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_, a seminal work of song-cycle genre in the 20th century.

I have the album which Vaneyes put an image of above (the third image), I don't mind the two shorter works - a piece for 8 cellos which is my favourite on the disc, and also an electroacoustic piece with solo violin, which is interesting if not much else - but I simply don't 'get' _*Sur Incises*_. Maybe it's too complex for me. But even Copland said that while Boulez produced fine scores, even he as a fellow composer found them overly complex, and could understand if even a seasoned classical listener would think similarly. _Sur Incises _is said to be like a musical labyrinth, so it's probably successful in that way, I can't make head nor tail of it.

Of other works I've heard, the _*Derive*_ pieces where interesting and had this visceral 'gut' impact on me.

I have no time for his ideology, or his former ideology. But I can separate the man from his compositions. He may have mellowed in old age, but so too has the world changed around him. If he said the things he said when he was young - eg. that Shostakovich was like a third pressing of Mahler - not many people would agree with him today. Then there's IRCAM - the institute for electronic music research in Paris - which many see as a kind of white elephant.

As for his conducting, I am okay with that, but I like my Second Viennese School composers to be done with a little more _bite_ and a tad less detachment, but that may well be a matter of detail and very subjective.


----------



## Rapide

The following recording was released recently. It encludes Boulez's _Dérive 1 & 2_, #2 is world premiere recording on this CD. They call for modest chamber forces without electronic extensions and are conceived as continuations of works in progress. All three also work with compositional techniques derived from canon and heterophony and each of them is dedicated to people close to Boulez himself.


----------



## aleazk

I have been listening to Boulez's 'Rituel', I think it's one of my favorites pieces of him. It has a very 'primitive' sound, like a modern and blurred version of some ancient funeral march. I see surreal images of a primitive funeral in the middle of a modern city, with glass buildings and angular details, but always in a dream like context, where you see nonsensical images but you, in the dream, don't perceive that they are nonsensical. I love that kind of images.


----------



## emiellucifuge

aleazk said:


> I have been listening to Boulez's 'Rituel', I think it's one of my favorites pieces of him. It has a very 'primitive' sound, like a modern and blurred version of some ancient funeral march. I see surreal images of a primitive funeral in the middle of a modern city, with glass buildings and angular details, but always in a dream like context, where you see nonsensical images but you, in the dream, don't perceive that they are nonsensical. I love that kind of images.


I agree!

I was lucky enough to see the Concertgebouworkest perform it a few months ago, and the spatial arrangement of the sound really added to my appreciation


----------



## Praeludium

I'm listening to Eclat and I think I like it - at the very least I'm intrigued and fascinated. Very nice colors and textures.


----------



## Crudblud

Polyphonie X is pretty good, I'm not really familiar with much of his work though. Pli selon pli was okay.


----------



## millionrainbows

One of the best piano recordings is on HATART, and has Boulez' *Structures* coupled with a John Cage piece. Very illuminating to hear the similarities in these works, it makes a very satisfying (and relaxing) listening experience, with lots of space. The liner notes are very illuminating.

An obscure Boulez as conductor item is the remastered "Handel Water Music" on Sony. Who woulda thunk?


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> He has made some fine recordings as a conductor. None of his compositions are useful to me.


He has made some outstanding recordings as a conductor. Most of his compositions have been revelatory to me.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> One of the best piano recordings is on HATART, and has Boulez' *Structures* coupled with a John Cage piece. Very illuminating to hear the similarities in these works, it makes a very satisfying (and relaxing) listening experience, with lots of space. The liner notes are very illuminating. [...]


Is that *Structures Livre* 1 or 2? And are the pianists you mention the Kontarskys or Aimard and Boffard?


----------



## hpowders

In his accompaniment of Gil Shaham in Bartok's 2nd Violin Concerto, I hear orchestral detail only hinted at by Ozawa and even Solti.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Is that *Structures Livre* 1 or 2? And are the pianists you mention the Kontarskys or Aimard and Boffard?


I don't have it handy, but I think it's both books. The pianists are a British guy and an oriental. The liner notes are very illuminating, worth getting just for that.

*Structures *is often criticized (even by Boulez) as being a "failure," because all of its aspects are totally determined by its internal structure, without much input from the artist.

But it's exactly this "depersonalized" aspect which is fascinating, and makes it similar to the John Cage work it is coupled with. There is a curious "static" quality to the whole thing.

Read in the liner notes, how this "ego-less" approach is almost misanthropic in nature; a deep distrust of Man's grasping, conquering ego, the bombastic psychological mix which gave rise to both world wars, as well as the atomic age and hydrogen bombs. The post-war serialists were fed-up with "Western Man" and his inhuman desire to conquer and dominate. A new paradigm was needed. For Cage, this was Eastern in nature; for Boulez, it was French Surrealism and the "unconscious" automatic creation, including Mallarme.


----------



## hpowders

After I get through my studies of Vincent Persichetti's piano sonatas, in a couple of weeks, the music of Pierre Boulez is next.


----------



## norman bates

There's one thing I'd like to know about him. I'm always finding quotes of him saying something negative about this or that composer (and he said something negative about A LOT of composers). Even the ones who influenced him, Webern is too simple, Messiaen wrote brothel music... I'm ok with a person with strong opinions, but is there anything that he really likes? Something that he consider a masterpiece? I mean, I think I he likes Mahler because he dismissed both Shostakhovic and Rochberg saying that he compares negatively to him.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Boulez likes French and German composers best. Ravel, Debussy, Messiaen, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern.


----------



## aleazk

Here he talks in very good terms about Debussy's "Jeux" (also the etudes, and late style in general) and Ligeti's Violin Concerto (and late style in general). Also Kurtag and Carter.

I really like that interview, he makes some really, really interesting and purely musical commentaries, a "masterclass".

Boulez is really a very clever man. He's capable of appreciating music at various different levels, and also of noticing different facets. In that interview, he gives really detailed critiques, he points out the different presences and absences in the styles of the composers he's talking about. His comments there are always multi-faceted and therefore very interesting and balanced.


----------



## Morimur

Sequentia said:


> Boulez is probably my favourite living composer. My favourite works by him are the three piano sonatas, _Pli selon pli_, _Éclat_, _Messagesquisse_, _…explosante-fixe…_, _Dérive 1_ and _Sur incises_.
> 
> It's a shame he has devoted so much time to conducting, for although a great conductor, he is an even greater composer. Unfortunately, the merits of his conducting vis-à-vis those of his music according to most are reminiscent of the position in which Mahler found himself over 100 years ago.


Totally agree. I wish he was more prolific and perhaps he would be without his conducting. Alas, his time with us relentlessly ticking away.


----------



## arpeggio

*The Opinions of Boulez*

I do not think Boulez is anymore opinionated than some of the members of TC.

At times I disagree with Boulez but at least when he dislikes a composer he has performed the music and is very familiar with it.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> Boulez is really a very clever man. He's capable of appreciating music at various different levels, and also of noticing different facets.


He often says also things that I consider very stupid from my point of view... anyway thanks for the video, I'll see it


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> I think Boulez likes French and German composers best. Ravel, Debussy, Messiaen, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern.


like Schoenberg is dead, Webern is too simple and the brothel music of Messiaen? I don't know about Ravel and Debussy but I hope he has a better opinion about them.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> like Schoenberg is dead, Webern is too simple and the brothel music of Messiaen? I don't know about Ravel and Debussy but I hope he has a better opinion about them.


Regardless of what he has said, Boulez is responsible for conducting & promoting of all those composers. However, there is a photograph of Boulez sitting up on a raised stage in a chair, with Messiaen down below, at his feet, and it looks like Boulez is expecting Messiaen to give him a shoe-shine.

However, Boulez' mouth has gotten him in trouble. His comments about "burning down all the opera houses" caused the police to question him after one actually _did _get burned-down by an arsonist.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> Regardless of what he has said, Boulez is responsible for conducting & promoting of all those composers. However, there is a photograph of Boulez sitting up on a raised stage in a chair, with Messiaen down below, at his feet, and it looks like Boulez is expecting Messiaen to give him a shoe-shine.
> 
> However, Boulez' mouth has gotten him in trouble. His comments about "burning down all the opera houses" caused the police to question him after one actually _did _get burned-down by an arsonist.


I didn't know that. Boulez like Burzum :lol:
Anyway I've liked the video posted by aleazk, it's the first time I see him expressing passion for certain works and not just distaste for everything. Never heard before of Manoury and Dalbavie.


----------



## Blake

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Totally agree. I wish he was more prolific and perhaps he would be without his conducting. Alas, his time with us relentlessly ticking away.


He's written quite a bit, actually. There's an album out containing virtually all of his complete works that consist of 13 hours of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

I usually attribute character flaws in a person with the way their parents raised them. I read about how strict Boulez' father was, and how he and his sister 'defeated them.' A French Catholic background, I assume. Then you read about how OCD he is, like having ten identical suits hanging in his closet, and that's all. He has said that he 'lived like a monk,' with total dedication to music, at the exclusion of all else. So, give the guy a break; he's a totally dedicated genius, in my opinion, and I don't expect him to be a 'nice guy' or a good politician. I do hope he is nice to me if I should ever meet him. He was nice to Frank Zappa.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Great conductor, bubbly music.


----------



## matsoljare

http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/music/boulez.html

_But still his relationship with his home country remained problematic. Although he conducted several important works in Paris throughout the Sixties, he was consistently slighted by the French Establishment, which had numerous ties to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs. In 1964, the government overlooked Boulez's suggestions to invigorate the French musical scene, and appointed a second-rate neo-Romantic composer to the Ministry office of Musical Director. Boulez was furious, cancelling all his appearances, severing his connection to the Domaine, and even forbidding the Orchestre de Paris to play his works._

I've been trying out, through all sorts of searches, who this "second rate neo-romantic composer" would be, anyone here have an idea?


----------



## Mahlerian

matsoljare said:


> http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/music/boulez.html
> 
> _But still his relationship with his home country remained problematic. Although he conducted several important works in Paris throughout the Sixties, he was consistently slighted by the French Establishment, which had numerous ties to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs. In 1964, the government overlooked Boulez's suggestions to invigorate the French musical scene, and appointed a second-rate neo-Romantic composer to the Ministry office of Musical Director. Boulez was furious, cancelling all his appearances, severing his connection to the Domaine, and even forbidding the Orchestre de Paris to play his works._
> 
> I've been trying out, through all sorts of searches, who this "second rate neo-romantic composer" would be, anyone here have an idea?


Oh, I actually looked this up pretty recently. He only had about 2 recordings of any of his music ever made...

It's Marcel Landowski.

Edit: There does exist a "Marcel Landowski Edition" of 9 discs published by Erato:


----------



## millionrainbows

Boulez is the George Jones of modern music. Who's gonna fill his shoes?


----------



## Morimur

Vesuvius said:


> He's written quite a bit, actually. There's an album out containing virtually all of his complete works that consist of 13 hours of music.
> 
> View attachment 37150


Already in my collection. Great set.


----------



## Vaneyes

millionrainbows said:


> Boulez is the George Jones of modern music. Who's gonna fill his shoes?


Yes (thinking mostly on the conducting side and not wishing anyone a quick departure), Boulez (89), Rozhdestvensky (83), Skrowaczewski (90), Jansons (71), Blomstedt (86), Previn (85), Muti (72), N. Jarvi (76) will all be sorely missed. Fortunately, their recorded legacies are solid.


----------



## Mandryka

What a great Mozartian he was. I say that because of this wonderful recording of ealry Mozart concertos, made with Yvonne Loriod. God alone knows why they made such a bizarrre recording, they must have felt some sort of special affinity for this little known music. And it shows.


----------



## Mandryka

Boulez recorded his third piano sonata in 1958. Is it available anywhere?


----------



## Sudonim

Even more seemingly-out-of-his-element is this one:









This is when he was with the NYPO - maybe he was pressured into doing it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Mandryka said:


> What a great Mozartian he was. I say that because of this wonderful recording of ealry Mozart concertos, made with Yvonne Loriod. God alone knows why they made such a bizarrre recording, they must have felt some sort of special affinity for this little known music. And it shows.
> 
> View attachment 42408


There's also a recording of him conducting Pires in the Mozart Concerto No. 20.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yeah, that Mozart with Pires is beautiful! Get this CD for more...it sounds great in DTS surround.

http://amzn.com/B005LL4TZ0

The program consists of Ravel's 'Le Tombeau de Couperin,' Mozart's D Minor Piano Concerto, K. 466, and Bartók's 'Concerto for Orchestra'--three favorites well-loved by general audiences and cognoscenti alike.


----------



## Guest

I have the complete DG set, which is astounding as ever, but I'm wondering: are there any recordings out there of the alternate versions of explosante fixe? I see there's a version for vibraphone and electronics, and considering the vibraphone scratches all the right places for me, I'm kinda hoping I'll be able to hear it some day...


----------



## Guest

Link to a recent article (March 2015) on Boulez by composer George Benjamin, "In praise of Boulez at 90":
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/20/george-benjamin-in-praise-of-pierre-boulez-at-90


----------



## TradeMark

I've been getting into Boulez a lot lately. I really like Derive 2. Its so dense and complex.


----------



## millionrainbows

One of the best piano recordings is on HATART, and has Boulez' *Structures* coupled with a John Cage piece. Very illuminating to hear the similarities in these works, it makes a very satisfying (and relaxing) listening experience, with lots of space. The liner notes are very illuminating. Here's an image of that:


----------



## Andreas

Happy Birthday, Maestro!


----------



## hpowders

Yes. We share March 26th. :clap:


----------



## Guest

And here's a nice little article to enjoy in celebration of Boulez's recent birthday:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2015/mar/26/boulez-in-his-own-words


----------



## Guest

And another!
http://www.theguardian.com/music/from-the-archive-blog/2015/mar/20/pierre-boulez-reviews-archive


----------



## BermondseySE1

In response to an earlier post about whether there are any recordings of the different versions of explosante-fixe, I wish there were! I think the piece we now know from the 1990s replaced a quite different piece which was premiered in the 1970s and which Boulez abandoned because he found the electronic aspect too primitive. He played it several times with the BBC Symphony Orchestra in 1973-74 so presumably there's a recording lurking somewhere in the BBC archive. If you're interested in rare Boulez have a look on the France Musique website for the week of 16/3. Renaud Machard curated a fascinating week of programmes of very early works from the French radio archives. Things like Signal oubli lapide, an early version of the First Poano Sonata, the music Boulez wrote for Barrault's production of The Oresteia - and even PB playing the ones martenot for a production of Hamlet...


----------



## Mahlerian

I'm sure there's a lot of Boulez material that he doesn't want released, and since he's still alive, that command holds weight. As interested as I'd be to hear all of it, we should respect the wishes of living artists. That said, here's his Fanfare for the 80th Birthday of Georg Solti.


----------



## hpowders

I got chopped off at the 4 minute mark, but what I got to hear, I liked. Not intimidating at all!


----------



## BermondseySE1

One of my great memories of hearing Boulez conduct his own work was the UK premiere of Repons at the Proms in the early 80s. The moment several minutes in when the electronics first kick in was thrilling. Was looking forward to hearing it at Aldeburgh this Summer but it's been pulled from the programme. 
Here's a curious film of that opening section, which must have been made around the same time. Part filmed performance, part video realisation - looks very dated but some of it works well...


----------



## Guest

*How to get your hands on Total Serialism's ne plus ultra *
Link to the article on *Boulez's* _Structure 1A_:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/to...erre-boulez-structure-1a-serialism-manuscript


----------



## Guest

Here's a YouTube link to a public lecture-concert given by Boulez on his work _Sur incises_.
If ever one could wish to have a work illuminated by the composer him/herself, this is it!


----------



## Dim7

Derive 1 is pretty easy on the ears. Anything else?


----------



## PeterFromLA

Dérive I is one of his most "accessible" works. I would add Mémoriale to that list (it reworks material from the original "…explosante-fixe…"), along with the Douze notations pour piano.

I also attended a performance of Boulez conducting Repons with the EIC back in the mid 1980s (in San Francisco), 1986 maybe? That plus the solo clarinet work doubled by the soloist on tape beforehand (and written as a 60th birthday tribute to Berio, "Dialogue de l'ombre double") were thrilling, a high point of the music season without question. There were other concerts organized around Boulez's music that week, if memory serves, and Charles Amirkhanian did a public interview with the composer at the Exploratorium, where Boulez talked about how to listen to his music without having to understand it (to allude to another thread currently active on this board). A middle-aged blonde lady, dressed kind of like a flower power hippie, looked up from what she had been knitting in her lap and blurted out something like: I'm a painter and I love listening to his music while I work. The composer cracked a large grin in response.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Le Marteau sans maître is good... rated highly in our post-1950 list! It's a nice intimate chamber work, and relatively pared down so that might make it more accessible.


----------



## PeterFromLA

Marteau was one of Frank Zappa's favorite pieces of music.


----------



## Heliogabo

Le marteau sans maître was inspired by Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire. I really love these two compositions.


----------



## PeterFromLA

The first time I saw him conduct was in 1984. It marked Boulez's initial return to America to conduct following his departure from the New York Philharmonic. He led the LAPO in Carter's Symphony of Three Orchestras, La Mer, and Pli Selon Pli. He received a returning hero's welcome. After that I would see him whenever I could. I remember a concert at the Japan America Theater in downtown LA, where he did Pierrot Lunaire and Le Marteau sans Maitre. In Cleveland (which is where I first spoke with the composer), I saw him conduct fantastic performances of five of his orchestrated Notations and Sur Incises (the latter in the new music series, I believe). Another Cleveland concert featured him doing Le Rossignol in its entirety. The performance of Repons in San Francisco was amazing, a huge event (1986 or so). Performances of Ligeti's Piano Concerto in Westwood, CA, as well as Boulez's explosante/fixe, Le Chant du Rossignol, Le Sacre, and Oiseaux Exotiques with the LA Phil, too, were great, and in Chicago I loved seeing him conduct the complete Pulcinella, Ameriques, and Symphony in Three Movements. Of course, I also can't forget his Mahler 6 in Los Angeles, or his leading of Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin, Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta, or Bartok Piano Concerto #2 or Bartok Violin Concerto #2. Somewhere along the way I heard him conduct also L'Histoire du Soldat, Les Noces, Le Valse, Ligeti Violin Concerto and Chamber Concerto, ionisation, and Mahler 5. And, yeah, Boulez gave a revelatory reading of Jeux (LA Philharmonic). The two times I saw him conduct Agon he made a strong claim for it as Stravinsky's late period masterpiece. I regret never having heard Boulez conduct his own Eclat, which as I've heard it told (by Stravinsky, perhaps?) is a kind of Concerto for Conductor, and which I have no doubt he would have been wonderful in. All in all, I guess I've seen Boulez conduct about twenty times. I will miss his periodic visits to the US if those days are over. He was always the best show in town.


----------



## Guest

Every time I check in to the Talk Classical forum and see that the Pierre Boulez thread is active, my heart misses a beat expecting the bad news that no doubt will come sooner than later. I'm hoping Elliott Carter gave him a few tips ...


----------



## Sina

TalkingHead said:


> Every time I check in to the Talk Classical forum and see that the Pierre Boulez thread is active, my heart misses a beat expecting the bad news that no doubt will come sooner than later. I'm hoping Elliott Carter gave him a few tips ...


This is exactly what happened with me just now!


----------



## BermondseySE1

Does anyone have an update on his health? It was striking that PB wasn't able to attend even the celebrations in his home town of Baden Baden earlier this year.


----------



## PeterFromLA

Apparently he's taken a series of bad falls, probably connected to his failing eyesight. He's confined to home rest, as I understand it. No travel.


----------



## GioCar

Au revoir, Pierre

Thank you.


----------



## Sina

"For all those who knew him and who could appreciate his creative energy, artistic standards, availability and generosity, his presence will remain vivid and intense."


----------



## PeterFromLA

Not unexpected, but nonetheless very sad. Mr. Boulez's ambitions were awesomely grand. He was a member of a generation of composers who were audacious, intent on remaking the world of music following Europe's collapse in the wake of World War II. He was the spokesperson and theorist for that generation and because of it, took the most heat in the public spotlight, but for many of us, he was also music's lighthouse, offering a way of understanding where music had been and where it could now go.


----------



## aleazk

His profound insight was simply amazing. I can't tell how many times I saw this interview... lecture!:


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Long live pitch multiplication.


----------



## aleazk

Now that I have recovered a little from the shock, I can write what Boulez means to me.

To a young composer (or at least that tries to compose!) like me, I feel the same kind of sadness like from the death of a grandfather. That figure who founded the great family in which you live now. To be honest, I can't believe he's dead now; his sole personality, driving force, knowledge and insight (when you listened to him in interviews, etc.) made me feel like he was an immortal monolith. And, in a certain way, of course he is that immortal monolith.

His constant preoccupation for aesthetic consistency but at the same time innovation and transgression were very influential to me.

The three aspects that were more important and influential to me are the following:

i) _Timbre, color, and inter-cultural exploration_: following (in my opinion) the very french line of Debussy and Ravel (in, for example, pieces like the ballet version of Ma mère l'oye; one could cite many other precursors, though), he expanded these ideas about the incorporation of new timbres and colors (often by the introduction of instruments and influences from eastern cultures) to a point not even dreamed by the mentioned composers. In this aspect, indispensable (to me) pieces are: _Le Marteau sans maître (1955)_; _Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna (1975)_

ii) New technologies/Electronics: the very subtle and original ways in which he incorporated the possibilities offered by the new technologies into his music. Important pieces, to me, are: _...explosante-fixe... (1993)_; _Dialogue de l'ombre double (1995)_

iii) Systemic, Systematic and Constructivist approach to Composition and Aesthetics: John Cage once criticized Boulez by saying that "_with Pierre, music has to do with ideas. His is a literary point of view. He even speaks of parentheses._". And yes, that's very true. Of course, I don't see it as something bad, but on the contrary. Like in point i), Boulez took the ideas of the systemic, systematic and constructivist approach to composition and aesthetics of the Teutons Schoenberg and Webern (particularly the last one) to a point not even dreamed by the mentioned composers. He adopted the 12-tone method and the symmetries of the row would be reflected in the music in its aesthetic innovation, intricacy, but always in an elegant and consistent way, like scientists often describe beautiful theories like General Relativity. Also, in this facet (I say facet, not period; to me, Boulez is a multifaceted man) of Boulez, music has to be composed always following a coherent and clear system of ideas (both aesthetic and music theoretical); also, it has to be constructive, i.e., one has to develop the big form starting from small seeds and by systematically applying the ideas of the aesthetic-music theoretical system. Everything, the harmony, the development of the musical gestures, the timbre, etc., is interrelated and develops in interaction with each other (Boulez admired these kind of iterrelations in Webern's music). But, contrary to the cliché, this doesn't mean that liberty is killed. Important pieces are, to me: _Piano Sonata No.2 (1948)_ (this piece was very influenced by Beethoven's Sonatas in its scope, ambition and form; note the intricate motivic development and the dialogue of musical gestures, something typical of Boulez); the mentioned Le Marteau sans maître; _Structures, livre I (1952)_


----------



## Chronochromie

aleazk said:


> John Cage once criticized Boulez by saying that "_with Pierre, music has to do with ideas_".


That's rich coming from Cage...


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> That's rich coming from Cage...


OTOH Boulez said this about Cage: "He was refreshing but not very bright. His freshness came from an absence of knowledge."


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> OTOH Boulez said this about Cage: "He was refreshing but not very bright. His freshness came from an absence of knowledge."


Nothing like a good composer battle, eh?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

The nature of their relationship is still matter of speculation.


----------



## PeterFromLA

I mentioned above that I witnessed Mr. Boulez conduct many, many times, but what I didn't say much about were the auspices of his visits. Boulez forged close relations with the orchestras of three US cities: Los Angeles, Chicago, and Cleveland (see for example's the Clevelanders' wonderful tribute to the composer: 



). I happened to live in all three cities following the composer's post-NY Philharmonic departure (I still reside in two of them). Mr. Boulez was given a returning hero's welcome whenever he ventured into these cities: meaning, he didn't just fly in to conduct three subscription concerts. No: he was apt to return for two week residencies, conducting two weeks of subscription concerts, but also, curating and then conducting "boutique concerts," featuring chamber ensembles and new music groups, wherein he would conduct repertoire that was fresh and off the beaten path, often by composers five or six decades younger than the maestro, or that might pair works that were bookends of sorts (Pierrot Lunaire and Marteau sans maitre). He also would lead open forums where he spoke with the public, via an interviewer (such as Charles Amirkhanian, in San Francisco, during the Repons tour of 1986 or so). He also would lead master classes at the local conservatories that were open to the public. He would often time his visits to Los Angeles so that he could extend his trip for another week by venturing north, to the Ojai Music Festival, which he directed more often than any other musician in its history.

In short, Mr. Boulez's visits were occasions to dive in, head first, into the Boulez experience. I will cherish always these two or three week festivals, for they really made one feel close to the composer, his music, and his vision.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Why do all the good people have to die?


----------



## starthrower

http://boulezian.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## Woodduck

starthrower said:


> http://boulezian.blogspot.co.uk/


Near the beginning of this starry-eyed, swooning eulogy to a dead hero, the author (who apparently calls himself "Boulezian") makes a couple of provocative statements which he fails to develop:

_"He was, quite simply, the conscience of what some of us are stubbornly old-fashioned enough still to call New Music."

"He incessantly urged a fearsomely moral, fearsomely humane doctrine - in the very best, Catholic sense - that nothing could be further from the truth than the 'anything goes' post-modern morass."_

When I read those sentences, my interest was piqued. My own impressions of Boulez are a mix of mild pleasure in some of his music, which I appreciate for its intricate and imaginative play of sonority but hardly for anything profound or even touching it might say about the human condition; an enjoyment of his conducting in certain repertoire, mainly 20th-century music, but not in everything he attempted; and a sense that he was prone to dogmatic justifications of whatever artistic ideas suited his own cerebral and iconoclastic persona, accompanied by dogmatic denunciations of those that didn't. Considering the trend and tone of his many very quotable (and thus, _pardonnez moi,_ very French) pronouncements over his lifetime, I wonder whether his status as the "conscience" of anything, as Boulezian calls him, really amounts to anything unique or notable - or, frankly, anything at all.

Boulezian, trying to clarify his claim, attributes to Boulez a "fearsomely moral, fearsomely humane doctrine" which, in the best "Catholic" tradition (are we about to receive a sermon by the Pope?), says that it "matters what one does," and that, contrary to our "post-modern morass," not just "anything goes." Well, that seems to me an admirable sentiment, but it's hardly original. And it begs the question: if not just anything goes, what _does_ go? What did Boulez advocate? What was he for, and what was he against? Or, to bore in a bit farther, what was he for and against - _when? _Boulez, as everyone knows, made a great many pronouncements over the course of his life about what should and should not exist or should or should not be done, and some of these pronouncements he seems not to have stood by later on. Does that matter? Or is the only thing that matters - that need matter to us - the fact that he was for and against something, that he had a "conscience"? We must assume that Boulezian, in calling Boulez the "conscience of New Music," and in speaking of "what some of us are stubbornly old-fashioned enough still to call New Music," has in mind some idea of what he thinks New Music ought to be, or some idea of what he thinks Boulez thought New Music ought to be. But what kind of music is that - and what kind is it not? Are some kinds of music good and some kinds bad? Are we, perhaps, still to hold that any composer who fails to appreciate the necessity of some specific way, or ways, of composing is "useless," the category to which Boulez once condemned all composers of non-twelve-tone music? What ways of composing are now approved by "fearsomely moral and humane" people like Boulez and Boulezian?

I find these suggested implications - and I can't be sure whether they are more than suggested - curious, because in my time here on TC I've gotten the impression that one of the ways that fans of "modern music" like to distinguish themselves from those they consider "traditionalists" is their liking for, or tolerance of, the whole panoply of recent music, from "neo-tonal" music to "noise" music to random environmental sounds. Such a broad perspective on what music can be, and such a welcoming attitude toward it, looks to me like the sort of post-modern "anything goes" mentality that Boulezian's "fearsomely moral" Boulez would be decisively against. So my question is: is Boulezian's Boulez the real Boulez? And if he is, doesn't that make Boulez, the supposed "conscience of New Music," basically a conservative, stuck in an outmoded world view which says that some kinds of art have validity while other kinds do not? And if that is correct, can Boulez really hold his place as a hero of Modernism without making Modernism itself look like just another set of doctrines which history must leave behind?

The answers to these questions seem even harder to get at in the light of a statement such as this one Boulez made in 1975:

_"I believe a civilisation that conserves is one that will decay because it is afraid of going forward and attributes more importance to memory than the future. The strongest civilisations are those without memory - those capable of complete forgetfulness. They are strong enough to destroy because they know they can replace what is destroyed. Today our musical civilisation is not strong; it shows clear signs of withering… […] Conducting has forced me to absorb a great deal of history, so much so, in fact, that history seems more than ever to me a great burden. In my opinion we must get rid of it once and for all."_

This is really rather startling. Is this the "conscience of New Music" speaking? What sort of "New Music" might he be advocating for here? And what sort of music belongs to "history," which we must "get rid of once and for all"? In asking for a radical wiping clean of the slate, wasn't Boulez, intentionally or not, inviting precisely the sort of post-modern "anything goes" which Boulezian says his hero was "fearsomely," "morally," and "humanely" against? Was he advocating newness for its own sake - could "conscience" mean nothing more than that - or was he, perhaps, only teasing us, holding back until the slate was blank before announcing to us what the next properly modern style of music should be? Or was he just waiting for Godot?

Well, Godot never came, and he won't be coming now. History, meanwhile, persists in burdening the present, especially when we are least aware of it, and we'll just have to wonder what those civilizations were that were strong because they were able to destroy the past and replace it with...something.

I don't think Boulezian's tribute to his hero was intended to raise questions of this sort. Maybe a few days should go by before anyone tries to address them (or, _mea culpa,_ ask them). And maybe no one is interested in addressing them. But I'm moved to ask them by what seems a rather embarrassingly pretentious essay, and by the amazing polyphony of worshipful voices I see raised by the not unexpected passing of a man I find to be of decidedly less than heroic stature, both in the dimensions of his creative work and in his contributions to the thought and culture of the modern world. Boulez was certainly a distinctive composer and an influential musician who deserves to have his achievements recognized. Even those who don't care for his work will acknowledge that. But isn't it a bit early to suggest adding another "B" to the pantheon of Bach, Beethoven and company?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Woodduck said:


> But isn't it a bit early to suggest adding another "B" to the pantheon of Bach, Beethoven and company?


Nope. It's a bit late.


----------



## Morimur

Woodduck said:


> Near the beginning of this starry-eyed, swooning eulogy to a dead hero, the author (who apparently calls himself "Boulezian") makes a couple of provocative statements which he fails to develop:
> 
> _"He was, quite simply, the conscience of what some of us are stubbornly old-fashioned enough still to call New Music."
> 
> "He incessantly urged a fearsomely moral, fearsomely humane doctrine - in the very best, Catholic sense - that nothing could be further from the truth than the 'anything goes' post-modern morass."_
> 
> When I read those sentences, my interest was piqued. My own impressions of Boulez are a mix of mild pleasure in some of his music, which I appreciate for its intricate and imaginative play of sonority but hardly for anything profound or even touching it might say about the human condition; an enjoyment of his conducting in certain repertoire, mainly 20th-century music, but not in everything he attempted; and a sense that he was prone to dogmatic justifications of whatever artistic ideas suited his own cerebral and iconoclastic persona, accompanied by dogmatic denunciations of those that didn't. Considering the trend and tone of his many very quotable (and thus, _pardonnez moi,_ very French) pronouncements over his lifetime, I wonder whether his status as the "conscience" of anything, as Boulezian calls him, really amounts to anything unique or notable - or, frankly, anything at all.
> 
> Boulezian, trying to clarify his claim, attributes to Boulez a "fearsomely moral, fearsomely humane doctrine" which, in the best "Catholic" tradition (are we about to receive a sermon by the Pope?), says that it "matters what one does," and that, contrary to our "post-modern morass," not just "anything goes." Well, that seems to me an admirable sentiment, but it's hardly original. And it begs the question: if not just anything goes, what _does_ go? What did Boulez advocate? What was he for, and what was he against? Or, to bore in a bit farther, what was he for and against - _when?_ Is he for and against the same things, today, that he was for and against, yesterday? Boulez, as everyone knows, made a great many pronouncements over the course of his life about what should and should not be. Does that matter? Or is the only thing that matters - that need matter to us - the fact that he was for and against something? We must apparently assume that Boulezian, in calling Boulez the "conscience of New Music," and in speaking of "what some of us are stubbornly old-fashioned enough still to call New Music," has in mind some idea of what he thinks New Music should be, or some idea of what he thinks Boulez thought New Music should be. But what kind of music is that - and what kind is it not? Are some kinds of music good and some kinds bad? Which kinds? Are we, perhaps, still to hold that any composer who fails to appreciate the necessity of some specific way, or ways, of composing is "useless," the category to which Boulez once condemned all composers of non-twelve-tone music? What ways of composing are now approved by "fearsomely moral and humane" people like Boulez and his fan Boulezian?
> 
> I find these suggested implications - and I can't be sure whether they are more than suggested - curious, because in my time here on TC I've gotten the impression that one of the ways that fans of "modern music" like to distinguish themselves from those they consider "traditionalists" is their liking for, or tolerance of, the whole panoply of recent music, from "neo-tonal" music to "noise" music to random environmental sounds. Such a broad perspective on what music can be, and such a welcoming attitude toward it, looks to me like the sort of post-modern "anything goes" mentality that Boulezian's "fearsomely moral" Boulez would be decisively against. So my question is: is Boulezian's Boulez the real Boulez? And if he is, doesn't that make Boulez, the supposed "conscience of New Music," basically a conservative, stuck in an outmoded world view which says that some kinds of art have validity while other kinds do not? And if that is correct, can Boulez really hold his place as a hero of Modernism without making Modernism itself look like just another set of doctrines which history must leave behind?
> 
> The answers to these questions seem even harder to get at in the light of a statement such as this one Boulez made in 1975:
> 
> _"I believe a civilisation that conserves is one that will decay because it is afraid of going forward and attributes more importance to memory than the future. The strongest civilisations are those without memory - those capable of complete forgetfulness. They are strong enough to destroy because they know they can replace what is destroyed. Today our musical civilisation is not strong; it shows clear signs of withering… […] Conducting has forced me to absorb a great deal of history, so much so, in fact, that history seems more than ever to me a great burden. In my opinion we must get rid of it once and for all."_
> 
> In the light of Boulezian's characterization of Boulez, and of many of Boulez's own statements during his lifetime advocating or condemning one sort of music or another, this is rather startling. Is this the "conscience of New Music" speaking? What sort of "New Music" might he be advocating here? And what sort of music belongs to "history," which we must "get rid of once and for all"? And in asking for a radical wiping clean of the slate, isn't Boulez, intentionally or not, inviting precisely the sort of post-modern "anything goes" which Boulezian says his hero is "fearsomely," "morally," and "humanely" against?
> 
> I don't think Boulezian's tribute to his hero was intended to raise questions of this sort. Maybe a few days should go by before anyone tries to address them (or, _mea culpa,_ ask them). And maybe no one is interested in addressing them. But I'm moved to ask them by what seems a rather embarrassingly pretentious essay, and by the amazing polyphony of worshipful voices I see raised here by the not unexpected passing of a man I find to be of decidedly less than heroic stature, both in the dimensions of his creative work and in his contributions to the thought and culture of the modern world. Boulez was certainly a distinctive composer and an influential musician who deserves to have his achievements recognized. Even those who don't care for his work will acknowledge that. But isn't it a bit early to suggest adding another "B" to the pantheon of Bach, Beethoven and company?


Boulez was a great composer and conductor-he left us plenty of evidence. Who cares about the rest?


----------



## Woodduck

Morimur said:


> Boulez was a great composer and conductor-he left us plenty of evidence. Who cares about the rest?


I believe what you mean is that _you_ consider Boulez a great composer and conductor and that that's all _you_ care about.

Considering that Boulez has always been much discussed and often controversial, it's clear that many other people, including the author of the above article posted by someone not me, do care about more than his musical skills.


----------



## Strange Magic

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Nope. It's a bit late.


That added "B" should better be Bartok (whose works Boulez did conduct well).


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> That added "B" should better be Bartok (whose works Boulez did conduct well).


Bartok by a country mile (or two).


----------



## Guest

Bach, Beethoven, Berlioz, Brahms, Bartok, Berg, Berio, Boulez... who cares, these guys all wrote profound and instructive music of the highest caliber.


----------



## tdc

What I find sad is how I knew practically the instant Scott Weiland And Lemmy recently died (because of social media) but not until I logged on here today did I find out that Boulez passed away!

Well he certainly did accomplish a lot in his relatively long life. Though I personally have not really connected with a lot of his music, I have enjoyed some of it and find many of his conducting performances exceptional. I acknowledge the recent passing of a very great musician and intellectual. RIP.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

tdc said:


> What I find sad is how I knew practically the instant Scott Weiland And Lemmy recently died (because of social media) but not until I logged on here today did I find out that Boulez passed away!


Boulez' death at least appeared in the "Most Read" Top 10 on the BBC News website, albeit briefly. The same has happened, as I recall, for other "classical" legends like Fischer-Dieskau - they're briefly recognised, but quickly sink without trace. This is in contrast to "popular" musicians, who can stay in the "Most Read/Shared" listings for hours if not days! And it's not just the "giants", either; all too often, a story about a largely-anonymous session guitarist who played some banal riff on a one-hit wonder in the 1970s will attain top billing, and stay there. As a species/society, our sense of values is totally screwed up.

Anyway, back to the thread. RIP Pierre Boulez, and thanks for the wonderful music.


----------



## isorhythm

Woodduck said:


> I believe what you mean is that _you_ consider Boulez a great composer and conductor and that that's all _you_ care about.
> 
> Considering that Boulez has always been much discussed and often controversial, it's clear that many other people, including the author of the above article posted by someone not me, do care about more than his musical skills.


There are lots of personal reminiscences on the internet right now about Boulez the man. By all accounts he wasn't a bad guy at all.


----------



## aleazk

isorhythm said:


> There are lots of personal reminiscences on the internet right now about Boulez the man. By all accounts he wasn't a bad guy at all.


Here's a very nice one: Barenboim on Boulez.


----------



## Mahlerian

Here's another:


----------



## Blancrocher

Tribute pages from the NY Phil and CSO:

http://nyphil.org/whats-new/2016/ja...ez-soundcloud-playlist?clicklocation=hp_grid1

http://csosoundsandstories.org/category/boulez-in-memoriam/


----------



## Blancrocher

aleazk said:


> Here's a very nice one: Barenboim on Boulez.


Thanks for the video--I'm enjoying it.

By the way, Barenboim posted one of the most elegant tributes I've seen so far on his Facebook page:



> "Today, the music world has lost one of its most significant composers and conductors. Personally, I have a lost a great colleague, a deeply admired creative mind and a close friend. Pierre Boulez and I first met in Berlin in 1964 and there have been few fellow musicians with whom I have developed such a close and important relationship in the 52 years that followed - even though we always stuck to the formal "vous" when speaking to each other, a rarity in our rather informal world, but from my side, certainly, an expression of my deepest respect and admiration.
> 
> "Creation exists only in the unforeseen made necessary", Pierre Boulez once wrote. With this belief as his paradigm, Pierre Boulez has radically changed music itself as well as its reception in society. He always knew exactly when he had to be radical because it was a necessary requirement for music and society to develop. He was never dogmatic, however, but always retained his ability to develop himself further. His development was based on a deep knowledge of and respect for the past. A true man of the future must know the past, and for me, Pierre Boulez will always remain an exemplary man of the future.
> 
> Pierre Boulez has achieved an ideal paradox: he felt with his head and thought with his heart. We are privileged to experience this through his music. For this, and so much more, I will always be grateful."


----------



## DavidA

Boulez certainly saod some extraordinary things. Like blowing up opera houses and importing red guards from Mao!'s reign of terror.

http://opera.archive.netcopy.co.uk/article/june-1968/10/opera-houses-blow-them-up-

He reminds me of some of the left wing students of the 60s when I was at unversity. Great fans of Mao and Lenin. I don't think they quite understood what life was like under such people. Or indeed during the reign of terror of the French Revolution which Boulez also quotes, seeming approvingly!


----------



## isorhythm

^I'm curious...do you and all the other people who quote that interview sincerely believe that he meant that stuff literally? Like he actually wanted someone to blow up the opera houses with explosives and have Maoist Red Guards rounding people up?


----------



## starthrower

Just ignore him, he's on a troll's rant today.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> ^I'm curious...do you and all the other people who quote that interview sincerely believe that he meant that stuff literally? Like he actually wanted someone to blow up the opera houses with explosives and have Maoist Red Guards rounding people up?


Probably not, but it makes for a good strawman. This entire forum could stuff a barn full.


----------



## starthrower

Mahlerian said:


> Here's another:


Beautiful tribute from the Cleveland Orchestra. Thanks!


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

DavidA said:


> Boulez certainly saod some extraordinary things. Like blowing up opera houses and importing red guards from Mao!'s reign of terror.
> 
> http://opera.archive.netcopy.co.uk/article/june-1968/10/opera-houses-blow-them-up-
> 
> He reminds me of some of the left wing students of the 60s when I was at unversity. Great fans of Mao and Lenin. I don't think they quite understood what life was like under such people. Or indeed during the reign of terror of the French Revolution which Boulez also quotes, seeming approvingly!


He reminds me of Beethoven who greatly admired Napoleon and all he stood for, which also included the reign of terror. Go figure.


----------



## DavidA

isorhythm said:


> ^I'm curious...do you and all the other people who quote that interview sincerely believe that he meant that stuff literally? Like he actually wanted someone to blow up the opera houses with explosives and have Maoist Red Guards rounding people up?


If he didn't mean it why did he say it?


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> If he didn't mean it why did he say it?


----------



## isorhythm

DavidA said:


> If he didn't mean it why did he say it?


You must be fun at parties.


----------



## DavidA

isorhythm said:


> You must be fun at parties.


An absolute riot!


----------



## isorhythm

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm sorry for that comment, which was uncalled for.

What I should have said was that people use hyperbole, irony and absurdism all the time in conversation. Actually reading the full interview makes it pretty clear what was going on.

And I actually disagree with what Boulez was saying - that it was necessary to wipe out all musical tradition for music to move forward. He clearly came to disagree with it as well, later in life.


----------



## DavidA

isorhythm said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm sorry for that comment, which was uncalled for.
> 
> What I should have said was that people use hyperbole, irony and absurdism all the time in conversation. Actually reading the full interview makes it pretty clear what was going on.
> 
> And I actually disagree with what Boulez was saying - that it was necessary to wipe out all musical tradition for music to move forward. He clearly came to disagree with it as well, later in life.


No need to apologise friend. I only meant it as a fun post. No offence taken! 

Boulez began as the young radical who wanted to pull down the establishment. As many young radicals do, he ended up (in many ways) as part of it! I do find the reference to the Red Guards distasteful as we now know many, many innocent people (intellectuals and musicians included) perished in the mayhem. Possibly at the time, though, Boulez was as unenlightened as to what was really going on in China as some of my fellow university students who thought such so-called revolutionary activity was a good thing.


----------



## Blancrocher

isorhythm said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm sorry for that comment, which was uncalled for.
> 
> What I should have said was that people use hyperbole, irony and absurdism all the time in conversation. Actually reading the full interview makes it pretty clear what was going on.
> 
> And I actually disagree with what Boulez was saying - that it was necessary to wipe out all musical tradition for music to move forward. He clearly came to disagree with it as well, later in life.


Boulez was capable of irony, satire, and misleading polemic, but I don't think he ever thought that the musical tradition should be wiped out. In interview after interview and essay after essay he praises important predecessors. There are numerous examples in his _Orientations_--see, for example, his appreciation of Berlioz:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t...IHTAA#v=onepage&q=boulez orientations&f=false

As one would expect of a great conductor--though one with a deliberately restricted repertoire--he was always thinking about the history of music.


----------



## DavidA

Here's something different!

http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/boulez-conducts-bach/


----------



## isorhythm

DavidA said:


> I do find the reference to the Red Guards distasteful as we now know many, many innocent people (intellectuals and musicians included) perished in the mayhem. Possibly at the time, though, Boulez was as unenlightened as to what was really going on in China as some of my fellow university students who thought such so-called revolutionary activity was a good thing.


I agree it was distasteful. I don't think that one interview should carry the weight it does, especially since the things he said are belied by almost the whole rest of his career.

I'm part German, and I know some of my German relatives living in the west admired the eastern Communist government, even into the 80s. They weren't leftist radicals at all. They just didn't know what was going on. It's strange.


----------



## DavidA

isorhythm said:


> I agree it was distasteful. I don't think that one interview should carry the weight it does, especially since the things he said are belied by almost the whole rest of his career.
> 
> I'm part German, and I know some of my German relatives living in the west admired the eastern Communist government, even into the 80s. They weren't leftist radicals at all. They just didn't know what was going on. It's strange.


Of course the propaganda from these countries painted them as a paradise compared with the poor oppressed peoples of the West. I am perfectly amazed that so-called intelligent people could believe it. But our student newspaper was littered with images of Lenin and Mao. Why I'm somewhat allergic to that sort of thing these days!
Having contacts behind the Iron Curtain we knew something of what was going on.


----------



## Blancrocher

isorhythm said:


> I agree it was distasteful. I don't think that one interview should carry the weight it does, especially since the things he said are belied by almost the whole rest of his career.


By the way, I liked Barenboim's observation (in the video Aleazk posted above) that "he used to be excessively radical: as one has to be in order to be radical at all. You can't be radical in a mild way." The whole interview is interesting.


----------



## PeterFromLA

Boulez, for the most part, conducted music he believed in. We are better off for it.


----------



## Mandryka

Blancrocher said:


> As one would expect of a great conductor--though one with a deliberately restricted repertoire--he was always thinking about the history of music.


This is something that came out very clearly in the exhibition in Paris last year. He said somewhere that Répons was inspired by early music, and that he was interested in the way Renaissance composers set words.


----------



## Mandryka

The essay where he wrote that Schoenberg est mort, where is it? Is it online anywhere? Either English or French will do me. 

There's another essay on Schoenberg in Orientations where it's clear that his opinion of the composer is nuanced and informed. He certainly acknowledges his debt to Schoenberg.


----------



## Mandryka

Two questions for the people who know about Boulez the man. What did he think of Stockhausen? And what did he think of Nono? Did Boulez like Prométeo? Did he enjoy Klang?

By the way, I know he was mates with Stockhausen in the days of Pli selon Pli, I've read their letters. But is it true they didn't get on later, and if so why.


----------



## Guest

Reinbert de Leeuw said once that he was sitting next to Boulez and waiting for the opening (premiere ?) - bars of the third symphonie of Gorecky.It was not something to ponder about,the statement was clear,"MERDE" .Boulez murmered this sitting next to Reinbert de leeuw.

It is not my personal view but just meant as an anecdote.


----------



## Mandryka

traverso said:


> Reinbert de Leeuw said once that he was sitting next to Boulez and waiting for the opening (premiere ?) - bars of the third symphonie of Gorecky.It was not something to ponder about,the statement was clear,"MERDE" .Boulez murmered this sitting next to Reinbert de leeuw.
> 
> It is not my personal view but just meant as an anecdote.


I agree with Boulez about that actually.


----------



## Nereffid

traverso said:


> Reinbert de Leeuw said once that he was sitting next to Boulez and waiting for the opening (premiere ?) - bars of the third symphonie of Gorecky.It was not something to ponder about,the statement was clear,"MERDE" .Boulez murmered this sitting next to Reinbert de leeuw.
> 
> It is not my personal view but just meant as an anecdote.


I imagine the music of the last 40 years would have been quite different if Boulez had liked that work.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I imagine the music of the last 40 years would have been quite different if Boulez had liked that work.


I'm afraid that you mean something like this? :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

Mandryka said:


> Two questions for the people who know about Boulez the man. What did he think of Stockhausen? And what did he think of Nono? Did Boulez like Prométeo? Did he enjoy Klang?
> 
> By the way, I know he was mates with Stockhausen in the days of Pli selon Pli, I've read their letters. But is it true they didn't get on later, and if so why.


I don't know much about his relationship with Nono, but my impression is that he retained a respect for Stockhausen's earlier works (Gruppen made his list of 10 important pieces of the 20th century), while distancing himself from the later Stockhausen of New Age astrological mysticism.



Mandryka said:


> The essay where he wrote that Schoenberg est mort, where is it? Is it online anywhere? Either English or French will do me.
> 
> There's another essay on Schoenberg in Orientations where it's clear that his opinion of the composer is nuanced and informed. He certainly acknowledges his debt to Schoenberg.


Here's a version in English:
https://courses.unt.edu/josephklein/files/Boulez_0.pdf

For balance, here is a somewhat later essay he wrote around the time that he was recording many of the serial and even the American works for Columbia:
http://www.schoenberg.at/index.php/en/1974-pierre-boulez-schoenberg-der-weniggeliebte-2


----------



## isorhythm

Nereffid said:


> I imagine the music of the last 40 years would have been quite different if Boulez had liked that work.


Was Boulez really this powerful?

I mean, lots of composers went on writing music in other styles and were lauded for it.

(I just put on that Gorecki symphony. zzzzzzzzz)


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> *Was Boulez really this powerful?*
> 
> I mean, lots of composers went on writing music in other styles and were lauded for it.
> 
> (I just put on that Gorecki symphony. zzzzzzzzz)


No, he wasn't.

Be patient. The hyperbole will die down as the present crop of "experts" and sycophants (who are sometimes the same people) retire and die.


----------



## Nereffid

isorhythm said:


> Was Boulez really this powerful?
> 
> I mean, lots of composers went on writing music in other styles and were lauded for it.
> 
> (I just put on that Gorecki symphony. zzzzzzzzz)


We're pretty much in agreement that Boulez was a significant and influential figure. If he had suddenly chosen to bridge the modernist/"anti-modernist" divide, and given what would presumably have been a cogent argument for doing so, don't you think his supporters would have paid attention? Or would they have disowned him too?


----------



## Guest

traverso said:


> I'm afraid that you mean something like this? :lol:


Quite dreadful.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Three live performances of Notations pour Orchestra

hr-Sinfonieorchester ∙ Manfred Honeck 
Gürzenich-Orchester Köln und François-Xavier Roth
BBCSO/Susanna Malkki

Manfred Honeck's almost perfect. François-Xavier Roth is slightly more 'lyrical'. I've got the impression that the Malkki one lacked enough rehearsals or something, which is sad cus she's a very nice conductor.


----------



## PeterFromLA

Ms. Malkki was one of Boulez's handpicked conductors to lead performances in his absence. I saw her do a turn at the Chicago Symphony after the maestro begged off because of illness. She was exceptional.


----------



## fluteman

I once heard a memorable performance of Le marteau sans maitre, one of my favorites by Boulez. Alas, the Flute Sonata is a bit beyond my grasp.


----------



## Dim7

A delicious quote for the Boulez haters: "All these years, I've been trying to convince people that music is not there to please them; it's there to disturb them."


----------



## kanishknishar

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Boulez' death at least appeared in the "Most Read" Top 10 on the BBC News website, albeit briefly. The same has happened, as I recall, for other "classical" legends like Fischer-Dieskau - they're briefly recognised, but quickly sink without trace. This is in contrast to "popular" musicians, who can stay in the "Most Read/Shared" listings for hours if not days! And it's not just the "giants", either; all too often, a story about a largely-anonymous session guitarist who played some banal riff on a one-hit wonder in the 1970s will attain top billing, and stay there. As a species/society, our sense of values is totally screwed up.
> 
> Anyway, back to the thread. RIP Pierre Boulez, and thanks for the wonderful music.


Yes, that is why they are "popular" musicians and Boulez wasn't. If girls'd be swooning and boys be imitating the man, he'd be getting press coverage too. Unfortunately, he stood for something extreme. Attested by the fact that many forum members here have a tendency to bloviate endlessly against him in some manner or the other - as they can't connect to his music and hence see it as a justification to lambaste his music instead of introspecting upon their own shortcomings.

But, hey, that's humans for you.


----------



## Woodduck

Dim7 said:


> A delicious quote for the Boulez haters: "All these years, I've been trying to convince people that music is not there to please them; it's there to disturb them."


Did he practice what he preached? I'll bet that a majority of listeners, at least of those whose tastes are fairly wide, would not cite Boulez's music as being especially "disturbing." There are many more obvious candidates for that adjective among 20th-century composers, but frankly I find Beethoven far more disturbing than Boulez.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> Did he practice what he preached? I'll bet that a majority of listeners, at least of those whose tastes are fairly wide, would not cite Boulez's music as being especially "disturbing." There are many more obvious candidates for that adjective among 20th-century composers, but frankly I find Beethoven far more disturbing than Boulez.


I think you're wrong, especially about the way he sets texts. The relation of voice to orchestra in Pli selon Pli for example.

Beethoven's music seems all about consolation and reassurance, and so not at all disturbing, apart from some of the music he wrote towards the end. There is something quite disorienting about the suite like chain of banal tunes in the central parts of op 131 I suppose. Like tunes running round a mad person's brain. Or the ecstatic unhinged religious fervour of the Credo of the Missa Solemnis.

The quote, by the way, is the sort of thing Harnoncourt would have said.


----------



## fluteman

fluteman said:


> I once heard a memorable performance of Le marteau sans maitre, one of my favorites by Boulez. Alas, the Flute Sonata is a bit beyond my grasp.


As a player, the Flute Sonata (or "Sonatine") might be a bit beyond my grasp too, alas. I have the music, but it's so rhythmically complex it would just take too much time and effort to work out. I can't feel bad, though: It's dedicatee, Jean-Pierre Rampal, felt the same way, and he never performed it AFAIK. Of course, Rampal was giving over 100 concerts and making as many as ten records every year, routinely mastering obscure baroque flute concertos and not-so-simple contemporary pieces, many of which were also dedicated to him, in a matter of days. So it's understandable he wouldn't take the time that would be needed for this one piece. Try the recording by Philippe Bernold and Alexandre Tharaud. They certainly mastered it.


----------



## isorhythm

Woodduck said:


> Did he practice what he preached? I'll bet that a majority of listeners, at least of those whose tastes are fairly wide, would not cite Boulez's music as being especially "disturbing." There are many more obvious candidates for that adjective among 20th-century composers, but frankly I find Beethoven far more disturbing than Boulez.


This was my first thought too. I wouldn't describe Boulez's music as disturbing at all. Maybe his early music. This isn't a criticism of Boulez, whose (later) music I like.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> This was my first thought too. I wouldn't describe Boulez's music as disturbing at all. Maybe his early music. This isn't a criticism of Boulez, whose (later) music I like.


This makes me wonder whether you've had the chance to hear the 2006 revision of Dérive 2. I think the counterpoint is rather discomposing.


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> A delicious quote for the Boulez haters: "All these years, I've been trying to convince people that music is not there to please them; it's there to disturb them."


That interview I found interesting. " Disturbing" as in disturbing the status quo, I think, rather than any "quality" of the music.


----------



## kanishknishar

dogen said:


> That interview I found interesting. " Disturbing" as in disturbing the status quo, I think, rather than any "quality" of the music.


I love your profile picture, dogen.


----------



## Guest

Herrenvolk said:


> I love your profile picture, dogen.


I'd just had a good brushing.


----------



## Mahlerian

dogen said:


> That interview I found interesting. " Disturbing" as in disturbing the status quo, I think, rather than any "quality" of the music.


I think the idea is that music isn't there to be accepted passively, but rather approached actively. If that's what he meant, I certainly agree with him.


----------



## isorhythm

dogen said:


> That interview I found interesting. " Disturbing" as in disturbing the status quo, I think, rather than any "quality" of the music.


I think if he had meant disturb the status quo, he would have said so. What he said was disturb people, a great difference in meaning.

The idea that great art should disturb is old and familiar. I don't think Boulez's statement warrants special parsing.

Mahler's 6th, _Erwartung_, _Lulu_ and Bach's St. Matthew Passion could all be called disturbing.

_L'apres-midi d'un faune_ or Mozart's piano concertos are not disturbing. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't think most of Boulez's mature music is disturbing in any way. Maybe I'm missing something, and someone can tell me what.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

^ I may be getting sidetracked into definitions and connotations, but _L'apres-midi d'un faune_ absolutely did disturb my idea of what classical music was supposed to be and do. Debussy, in general, disrupted and disturbed (in the best sense possible) the neat and tidy categorization of what I thought classical was. In a way, I feel his music opened the door to a lot of modern/contemporary music that I previously had difficulties with, I learned to change my expectations or remove them entirely.

I realize this is disturbing in the sense of disturbing the "status quo", but nevertheless.

Addendum: Reading the quote, I don't think it's too far-fetched that Boulez meant "disturbing" in that sense. We can't go into his head, so we'll never know.


----------



## Woodduck

Dim7 said:


> A delicious quote for the Boulez haters: "All these years, I've been trying to convince people that music is not there to please them; it's there to disturb them."


I don't find this statement puzzling. It's just another Boulezian pontifical aphorism, a _bon mot_, an _objet d'art_, intended to make us pause, stroke our goatees, raise an eyebrow, lift the corners of our mouths knowingly, and feel that words of occult wisdom have been uttered and that we are ever so slightly the better for having turned them over in our minds. "All these years..."! What a Sisyphean task, what a sense of mission, what a heroic effort on our behalf!

Now if we can just remember those words the next time we find ourselves listening to music for the pure pleasure of it.


----------



## Morimur

Woodduck said:


> I don't find this statement puzzling. It's just another Boulezian pontifical aphorism, a _bon mot_, an _objet d'art_, intended to make us pause, stroke our goatees, raise an eyebrow, lift the corners of our mouths knowingly, and feel that words of occult wisdom have been uttered and that we are ever so slightly the better for having turned them over in our minds. "All these years..."! What a Sisyphean task, what a sense of mission, what a heroic effort on our behalf!
> 
> Now if we can just remember those words the next time we find ourselves listening to music for the pure pleasure of it.


But Woodduck, I can't grow any facial hair!


----------



## Guest

When you can't come up with a substantial criticism for a composer's music, best to dig into some juicy quotes, I guess.


----------



## Woodduck

Some people are gold mines of juicy quotes. From all reports, Boulez could be quite entertaining at dinner. Besides, why criticize music, when you can criticize the listener?


----------



## SimonNZ

You're a Wagner fan, right? Do you feel the need to stand by every quote of his to enjoy his music or admire his artistry? And how do you think the most extreme quote by Boulez measures against the most extreme quote by Wagner?


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> You're a Wagner fan, right? Do you feel the need to stand by every quote of his to enjoy his music or admire his artistry? And how do you think the most extreme quote by Boulez measures against the most extreme quote by Wagner?


Basically, if I subscribe to everything that Boulez says based on my enjoyment of his music, then we've got some antisemites on this forum.


----------



## Woodduck

Morimur said:


> But Woodduck, I can't grow any facial hair!


Who needs it, when you have such awesome wigs?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> *Some people are gold mines of juicy quotes. From all reports, Boulez could be quite entertaining at dinner. Besides, why criticize music, when you can criticize the listener?*


Too much caffeinated _Gemutlichkeit_ may prove fatal (in my case), or too much spleen (in Boulez's).


----------



## Woodduck

SimonNZ said:


> You're a Wagner fan, right? Do you feel the need to stand by every quote of his to enjoy his music or admire his artistry? And how do you think the most extreme quote by Boulez measures against the most extreme quote by Wagner?


I never think about anybody's quotes when listening to their music. But when someone offers a statement, by Boulez, Wagner, or anyone else, and people are discussing what it means, it's fair enough to call it as you see it.

EDIT: I'd just add that the statements of composers dead for a century and a half are of historical interest but are no longer debated. Boulez is still taken seriously as a contemporary figure. Contemporaries are quite commonly discussed and debated by contemporaries. Wagnerian nonsense is now inconsequential.


----------



## Woodduck

nathanb said:


> Basically, if I subscribe to everything that Boulez says based on my enjoyment of his music, then we've got some antisemites on this forum.


Who are these mysterious antisemites, and what do they have to do with this conversation?


----------



## SimonNZ

Quite a poor interview, I thought. The interviewer is clearly fishing for provocative quotes and little more, and even congratulates himself at the start on having got his ideal pull-quote to open with - though I think there were actually a couple more further down that would prove better fuel for the Boulez haters.


----------



## isorhythm

Why would we expect composers to be particularly interesting or original thinkers in any area but composition? They usually aren't. There are exceptions, but I've never seen anything to suggest Boulez is one of them.

I'm surprised that journalist made so much out of that line, which is just a well-worn cliche.


----------



## Guest

I'll just say, based on that one and only interview, Boulez seems to have been a person of definite opinions and not afraid to air them. Provocative, but civil. He sounds like a stimulating guest (this is the guestbook!) to spend time with; I don't have to agree with every utterance; perhaps a modicum of salt needs to be on hand.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

The score of Livre pour Cordes can be viewed here: https://issuu.com/scoresondemand/docs/livre_pour_cordes_56085


----------



## Xenakiboy

Pli selon pli is marvelous, to those discovering his work. Check it out!


----------



## aleazk




----------



## Guest

I've lost my taste for this type of music over the years, but I still love his Piano Sonata No.2.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

My initial encounter with Boulez, in the first tutorial of a first year course entitled "Music since 1950", was with the dreaded _Structures 1_a, which put me off the composer for several years, until I happened to hear a recording of _Improvisations sur Mallarmé_ and was astounded by their gorgeousness. I've been a fan ever since. I actually think that Boulez, once he allowed himself the requisite level of freedom, became perhaps one of the modernists with the most convincing sense of musical line.

As for the early total serial works, I'm simply inclined to see them as a necessary stage through which the composer had to pass before he could reach his mature style.


----------



## Vaneyes

His Bruno Maderna association helped immensely.

Related:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2013/nov/13/bruno-maderna-composer-conductor

https://www.theguardian.com/music/t...z-composer-conductor-10-key-works-tom-service

http://www.classical.net/music/books/reviews/0521514908a.php


----------



## Mandryka

Retrograde Inversion said:


> As for the early total serial works, I'm simply inclined to see them as a necessary stage through which the composer had to pass before he could reach his mature style.


And Pli selon Pli is mature but Marteau sans Maitre is not?


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

Mandryka said:


> And Pli selon Pli is mature but Marteau sans Maitre is not?


Certainly: I would say _Le Marteau_ is his first truly mature work, and one of the seminal pieces of the post-war era. But _Pli selon pli_ will always be my favourite.


----------



## hpowders

Except for his performance of the 4th symphony, which I believe he botches, I recommend the entire rest of the entire Pierre Boulez cycle.


----------



## hpowders

If someone put a gun to my head, I would say the absolute best Boulez Mahler are his 5,6 and 8 with the 1st almost in that category.


----------



## charles curran

thank you
can wait to hear this
have long loved his music


----------



## charles curran

Watching him conduct I learned or became more attentive to something
During Messiaen Expectum..... 
he cued the gongs and lifted
his arms wide like a bird 
and held them there as the sound
built up
then reverberated 
and then fell away 
he was making the audience aware of the acoustics of the room 
and musics expression in the room...
(this effect is not nearly as pronounced on disc)


----------



## charles curran

fascinating interview
also on Ives....
interesting on Ives and Mahler
It never occurred to me that the US and Russia both had an active avante garde until the 20s
when both succumbed to neo classicism and populism


----------



## millionrainbows

These are the two Boulez recordings I first "imprinted" on, originally on Columbia Masterworks LPs:

First, the original LP covers:

 

and the CD releases:


----------



## hpowders

I was fortunate to attend all of the Boulez years at the NY Philharmonic-I was a season subscriber for many years. I heard a wonderful Mahler 3rd, Ravel La Valse and Liszt Legend of St. Elizabeth during his tenure. The NY press was so busy criticizing him, they missed his greatness. Idiots!


----------



## Pugg

Overhyped and overrated.


----------



## Chronochromie

Pugg said:


> Overhyped and overrated.


Something something hypocrisy something something...


----------



## Janspe

Pugg said:


> Overhyped and overrated.


Overrated? I'm still dreaming of the day when Boulez' works are regularly performed by my local orchestra - I managed to catch a performance of _Livre pour cordes_ recently - but I'm not getting my hopes up.

The only complaint I have about Boulez the Composer is that he composed so very little. I would've loved to hear the third expansion of _Anthèmes_, it was supposed to become a full-fledged violin concerto for Anne-Sophie Mutter... Sigh!


----------



## Blancrocher

Recent tributes to the late Pierre Boulez by Wolfgang Rihm and György Kurtág.

Some comments from Tom Service: https://www.theguardian.com/music/t...ierre-boulez-day-lucerne-festival-rihm-kurtag


----------



## Sloe

One positive outcome of his death was I got to hear his music getting played on radio.


----------



## Janspe

Sloe said:


> One positive outcome of his death was I got to hear his music getting played on radio.


Ouch, that's sad but still quite endearing at the same time. I'm sure Boulez would've been happy to hear that. =)

I'm currently reading _The Musical Language of Pierre Boulez_ by Jonathan Goldman. It's a bit difficult for me to read - because the topic is quite challenging + English isn't my native language - but so far it has given me a tremendous insight into Boulez' world, especially concerning his views on musical form and Webern. Recommended!


----------



## Blancrocher

A brief but sympathetic obituary for Pierre Boulez by Esa-Pekka Salonen, which includes a (mildly) amusing anecdote:

https://www.esapekkasalonen.com/writing/2016/11/10/pierre-boulez


----------



## fluteman

Pierre Boulez was a great conductor and I'm glad I was able to hear him in person. His Debussy and Stravinsky records with the Cleveland Orchestra stand out for me, but there are many other highlights, such as the records with his Ensemble InterContemporain. Like all great conductors, he was able to get his characteristic sound from any top orchestra. You might think it's too cool and detached at times, but it is his unique sound, and he nearly always makes a very good case for it.
Le marteau sans maitre is a favorite of mine, as his Sonatine for flute and piano, though that is very difficult to play due to its complicated rhythmic structure. Both are important landmarks in the history of western music IMO, even if, like many innovators, he may have had a slightly exaggerated opinion of his own historical importance. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's that fanatical belief in one's own ideas that gives these innovators strength to swim against the tide and reach new shores.


----------



## Janspe

Has anyone listened to this yet?









I found it very interesting to hear both versions of the _Anthèmes_ on a single disc. One of my favourite Boulez pieces! Didn't listen to the Bach and Bartók pieces yet...


----------



## Janspe

Here's a little treat from YouTube for all the Boulez-fans here at TC:






The *Messagesquisse* for solo cello and six cellos is, in my opinion, one of Boulez's most accessible works. It's a dramatic _tour de force_ for any cellist, and is very rewarding for the listener. The attached performance has the brilliant Eric-Maria Couturier playing the solo part, with equally strong support from the six cellists: Sophia Bacelar, Jordan Costard, Simon Dechambre, Bum Jun Kim, Justine Metral and Clément Peigné. Matthias Pintscher conducting.


----------



## PeterFromLA

Boulez's 11 bedroom villa in Baden-Baden has been put on the market. https://www.wsj.com/articles/villa-...pierre-boulezs-home-in-baden-baden-1525876200


----------



## flamencosketches

Bump for a great composer. 

I’m new to Boulez’s music. I love Répons, the 2nd piano sonata, and what I’ve heard of Pli selon pli and Le marteau sans maître. Where to from here? Is there any great chamber music I’m missing out on? What are some great recordings of the two big song cycles? Perhaps a box set is the way to go, as with Berg, Webern, and other similarly un-prolific composers....

Any fans of his lately?


----------



## starthrower

The Boulez Complete Works box on DG is sold out and getting pretty expensive. The Boulez Complete Erato Recordings is still available. It includes conducted works by many modern composers, and several Boulez compositions. And there's the Sony single disc of Rituel/Eclat/Mutiples. Rituels is his memorial to Bruno Maderna.

Here's a link for the Erato box if you want to look at the track listing. You can probably find it cheaper at other retailers. I bought a copy a few years ago and I really enjoy it.
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8057003--pierre-boulez-the-complete-erato-recordings


----------



## millionrainbows

I first heard Boulez on two Columbia Masterworks LPs (which had grey instead of red labels, and were pressed on better vinyl). The original cover of this one is available in the 5-CD "Original Album Classics." It's also available as a single CD, with different art, and the addition of Livre pour cordes (Book of Strings):














Le Marteau sans maître is the other Columbia release, available with the original cover from Arkiv (probably a CD-R) or in the "Masterworks of the 20th Century" box.


----------



## millionrainbows

These are unusual Boulez recordings. Polyphony X (1951) was pulled from publication by Boulez. It's all mono, the only existing recording:









This recording on Harmoni Mundi from 1971 is interesting, as it has a plucked stand-up bass and an electric (jazz-type) guitar:


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Bump for a great composer.
> 
> I'm new to Boulez's music. I love Répons, the 2nd piano sonata, and what I've heard of Pli selon pli and Le marteau sans maître. Where to from here? Is there any great chamber music I'm missing out on? What are some great recordings of the two big song cycles? Perhaps a box set is the way to go, as with Berg, Webern, and other similarly un-prolific composers....
> 
> Any fans of his lately?


If you read French there's a very good book on pli selon pli published by contrechamps.

I think this is worth trying


----------



## millionrainbows

This Robert Craft version of Le Marteau was originally released on Odyssey vinyl, and re-released on this él CD (Cherry Red Records).


----------



## flamencosketches

Starthrower, Mandryka, and Millionrainbows; how did I know I could count on you all? :lol: TC's true Modernists. I hope to someday count myself among your ranks. 

Let me ask something if anyone cares to answer; what is it in Boulez's music that draws you in? For me, it is the sense of atmosphere. His music, like Debussy's before him, is a sensual wash of color and light in sound that completely pulls you under. His tendency to write such long unrelenting pieces only contributes to this trance-like feeling I seem to get from his best works. This is all completely unlike any of his predecessors and it's what makes him a great composer IMO. That being said, I'm still barely beginning to scratch the surface. There is so much complexity to all of his works (or is there...?)

Many of these recommendations look interesting. This "Masterworks of the 20th Century" box set on Sony looks really appetizing. 10 CDs for under $30, and this is all stuff I don't have in my library. Damn. 

Has anyone heard the Pli selon pli on Erato with the BBC SO? I might go for this one or the one on Sony that MR linked. I think Pli selon pli would be the best place to start as I really like what I've heard of it.


----------



## Janspe

What attracts me to Boulez is his amazing versatility. His output - albeit quite small (damn these bloody perfectionist composers ) - is always showing evidence of constant development. I did find his music quite challenging at first, but upon closer inspection I discovered a composer of sensual sounds and fascinating formal rigour.

If I had to choose three works from Boulez, they would be _Pli selon pli_, the orchestral _Notations_ and _Sur incises_. But that's only scratching the surface.

I've heard all three recordings of _Pli selon pli_, and they all have something insightful to offer. I do prefer the last one with Schäfer but there are some who are more drawn to the earlier takes. So I'd recommend getting to know them all!


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Starthrower, Mandryka, and Millionrainbows; how did I know I could count on you all? :lol: TC's true Modernists. I hope to someday count myself among your ranks.


Don't forget Paul Best. :lol:



> Let me ask something if anyone cares to answer; what is it in Boulez's music that draws you in? For me, it is the sense of atmosphere. His music, like Debussy's before him, is a sensual wash of color and light in sound that completely pulls you under. His tendency to write such long unrelenting pieces only contributes to this trance-like feeling I seem to get from his best works. This is all completely unlike any of his predecessors and it's what makes him a great composer IMO. That being said, I'm still barely beginning to scratch the surface. There is so much complexity to all of his works (or is there...?)


Yes, that French aesthetic. Plus, his use of percussion, and plucked instruments. His work in IRCAM. His interest in Varese, Mallarme, Ravel, Messiaen, Zappa...I like that the sensual "flashes" of sound remind me of some transformation of the spirit. Isolated events appearing on the horizon. His transformations of serial charts by simply numbering them, so simple any child could do it...Joan Peyser's book "The New Music."



> Many of these recommendations look interesting. This "Masterworks of the 20th Century" box set on Sony looks really appetizing. 10 CDs for under $30, and this is all stuff I don't have in my library. Damn.


Yes, this box appears to be a way of "wrapping up" many of the Columbia Masterworks vinyl releases which never made it to CD, for the 300 or so of us who are in to that sort of thing.



> Has anyone heard the Pli selon pli on Erato with the BBC SO? I might go for this one or the one on Sony that MR linked. I think Pli selon pli would be the best place to start as I really like what I've heard of it.


The Erato are not my favorite Boulez releases, but I have them, and they are good.


----------



## Mandryka

Are there recordings of complete Pli selon Pli which are not directed by Boulez.

Just listening to the Marteau sans maître here


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Let me ask something if anyone cares to answer; what is it in Boulez's music that draws you in?
> 
> his one or the one on Sony that MR linked. I think Pli selon pli would be the best place to start as I really like what I've heard of it.


In most classical music, orchestration is often there to clothe the polyphony. In Boulez, the orchestration is the polyphony.

Unlike most classical music, the form in Boulez isn't a sequence of ideas interrelated by a scheme. The form is like a proliferation of important instants related to each other by a sort of poetic inevitability.

Although he may owe these ideas to Debussy -- it was reading Barraque on Debussy which made me think of Boulez in fact -- I would say that he's a more successful composer than Debussy.

For me Boulez much more than Debussy represents a hope for true music. I know that, by his culture, his training, his origins, his interests, Boulez admired and maybe enjoyed the music of the past. But I think in his best music he transcended this aspect of character. He felt the uneasiness of the times he lived in, our times. The chiaroscuro of his music is like a light glimpsed at the end of the tunnel, a hope that the fear may end.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> In most classical music, orchestration is often there to clothe the polyphony. In Boulez, the orchestration is the polyphony.
> 
> Unlike most classical music, the form in Boulez isn't a sequence of ideas interrelated by a scheme. The form is like a proliferation of important instants related to each other by a sort of poetic inevitability.
> 
> Although he may owe these ideas to Debussy -- it was reading Barraque on Debussy which made me think of Boulez in fact -- I would say that he's a more successful composer than Debussy.
> 
> For me Boulez much more than Debussy represents a hope for true music. I know that, by his culture, his training, his origins, his interests, Boulez admired and maybe enjoyed the music of the past. But I think in his best music he transcended this aspect of character. He felt the uneasiness of the times he lived in, our times. The chiaroscuro of his music is like a light glimpsed at the end of the tunnel, a hope that the fear may end.


Poetically said. Definitely makes me excited to explore his music further.

Selon toi, quelles sont ses plus grandes œuvres? J'aime Pli selon pli, le deuxième sonate pour piano, et Répons.


----------



## calvinpv

flamencosketches said:


> I'm new to Boulez's music. I love Répons, the 2nd piano sonata, and what I've heard of Pli selon pli and Le marteau sans maître. Where to from here?


The four you listed are his four biggest works. Among his other works, my favorites are probably these (though you can't go wrong with anything by Boulez: I can't think of a single bad work by him):

12 Notations





Sonata for Flute and Piano





Structures I for Two Pianos


----------



## calvinpv

Structures II for Two Pianos





... explosante-fixe ...





Dérive 1 and Dérive 2


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Poetically said. Definitely makes me excited to explore his music further.
> 
> Selon toi, quelles sont ses plus grandes œuvres? J'aime Pli selon pli, le deuxième sonate pour piano, et Répons.


The things I remember enjoying most recently were Messagesquisse, and Mémoriale and Dérive 1 on this CD









Anyone know why it's called _mémoriale_ and not _mémorial_?


----------



## Mandryka

Richard Barrett said this about Boulez, and I must say the more experience I have listening to music the more I think that he was on to something true



> He created around himself a mythology of radical avant-gardism without ever really putting it into practice in his own work, at least after his early years.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Richard Barrett said this about Boulez, and I must say the more experience I have listening to music the more I think that he was on to something true


Very interesting. If his later music would have embraced the "radical avant-gardism" that we all associate with his personality (at least of his youth), what might it have sounded like? Some of his music, like Répons, despite its experimental origins, is kind of easy going. It lacks the hardcore harmonic abrasiveness that we see in works like the piano sonatas, etc. I think this works in his favor IMO. His music is really a lot more accessible than people realize. I played some of Répons for my girlfriend yesterday and she enjoyed it, and her favorite composers are Chopin and Debussy. His music is really not terribly far removed from the latter.

Pli selon Pli is a towering masterpiece. Definitely a big achievement of the century! Why is it not more widely performed, I wonder? Too difficult?






This is another interesting work.


----------



## Mandryka

I've just bought a book on Mallarmé, it's always been at the back of my mind to try to make sense of what he was doing in the later poems, and now's as good a time as any.

As far as I know the complete Pli selon Pli has only ever been recorded by Boulez. I think the work was very controversial at first - the avant garde thought it was a sellout because it was so sensual, the reactionaries thought it was a radical threat to values because it was so spiky. Maybe there's still a widespread distrust of the music.

The connection to literature as impenetrable as _Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hasard_ doesn't help it gain acceptability, my impression is that the musical establishment is very wary of musicians with ideas.

If you want I can let you have the first performance of Pli selon Pli, in 1964.



Mandryka said:


> The things I remember enjoying most recently were Messagesquisse, and Mémoriale and Dérive 1 on this CD
> 
> View attachment 121214
> 
> 
> Anyone know why it's called _mémoriale_ and not _mémorial_?


I don't know why I said this, Dérive II is very good too!


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> The things I remember enjoying most recently were Messagesquisse, and Mémoriale and Dérive 1 on this CD
> 
> View attachment 121214
> 
> 
> Anyone know why it's called _mémoriale_ and not _mémorial_?


That disc is fantastic!


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> In most classical music, orchestration is often there to clothe the polyphony. In Boulez, the orchestration is the polyphony.
> 
> *Unlike most classical music, the form in Boulez isn't a sequence of ideas interrelated by a scheme. The form is like a proliferation of important instants related to each other by a sort of poetic inevitability. *
> 
> Although he may owe these ideas to Debussy -- it was reading Barraque on Debussy which made me think of Boulez in fact -- I would say that he's a more successful composer than Debussy.
> 
> For me Boulez much more than Debussy represents a hope for true music. I know that, by his culture, his training, his origins, his interests, Boulez admired and maybe enjoyed the music of the past. But I think in his best music he transcended this aspect of character. He felt the uneasiness of the times he lived in, our times. The chiaroscuro of his music is like a light glimpsed at the end of the tunnel, a hope that the fear may end.


That is an interesting way to describe it. After listening to Derive I and Derive II for the first time I started thinking of Boulez' music as a series of gestures.


----------



## millionrainbows

Baron Scarpia said:


> That is an interesting way to describe it. After listening to Derive I and Derive II for the first time I started thinking of Boulez' music as a series of gestures.


By Jove, I think you've got it! I think of Messiaen that way, too.


----------



## flamencosketches

Well, you've lost me, but I'm a neophyte to this music. Gestures?


----------



## Mandryka

Here's a configuration of gestures


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Here's a configuration of gestures
> 
> View attachment 121238


That definitely looks like Boulez's music sounds. And some of Messiaen's for that matter (Catalogue d'oiseaux).


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> Well, you've lost me, but I'm a neophyte to this music. Gestures?


Brief unfolding of music, a pause, another brief unfolding of music, related but distinct, another brief unfolding of music, etc. My description won't make sense unless you listen to it, and then it still may not make sense to you.


----------



## flamencosketches

Baron Scarpia said:


> Brief unfolding of music, a pause, another brief unfolding of music, related but distinct, another brief unfolding of music, etc. My description won't make sense unless you listen to it, and then it still may not make sense to you.


Nope, makes perfect sense. That is indeed what his music sounds like to my ears. I was just unfamiliar with the term "gestures" in a musical sense.

I listened to Le Marteau sans Maître on my drive to and from work. Really good work. Clearly, it's Boulez's take on Pierrot Lunaire? It almost strikes me as a full on tribute work, but of course he brings a lot of individuality to the table. I need to get it on CD.


----------



## millionrainbows

Music gradually divorced itself from drama over several centuries. Look at the rise of instrumental forms: the symphony, the concerto, tone poems, etc.

In instrumental Romanticism, although it was music divorced from drama, still had residual traces of drama, expressed as "dramatic gestures." 

This "splitting" of drama from music opened-up a new can of worms, giving us the whole range of the non-specific "feelings" evoked by music, which are by their very "non-narrative nature" fleeting, transitory, and ephemeral, unclear, evocative, vague, and indefinable (meaning non-narrative).

Still, this is not a requirement for music to be expressive of emotion or states of being. To take matters even further into the fog, when we get into more modern music, I think "emotion" as a descriptive term begins to fail us. For example, in Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, the "emotional gestures" expressed are so complex that we begin to experience them as "states of being," like anxiety, foreboding, fear, tension, awe, etc., creating in our minds, empathetically, a reflection of our own, and the artist's, "inner state of being."

Concerning modernism, it's true that in many instances the "evoking" of dramatic emotion, and dramatic gesture is absent (but certainly not always). Stockhausen evokes, for me, a sort of "Platonic classicism" in his Klavierstücke; with modernism, we must put aside our need for drama and overt emotion, and listen on the level of "pure abstraction," an enjoyment of color, sound, and timbre itself. In this sense, modern music is not "modern" at all; music has always been "abstract expressionism" when divorced from drama and opera. 

So, in a sense, this is an "internal narrative" we share with the composer, but indefinable in literal narrative terms, because these are transitory, fleeting states by nature; simply "gestures of meanings."
https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1069-instrumental-music-dramatic-gesture.html


----------



## flamencosketches

^Well said, my friend. I think you're on to something.

I don't know what the Mallarmé poems that are set in Pli Selon Pli are about, but somehow I suspect that the piece not entirely divorced from drama. It is just so massive, such an epic journey...

Such a genius composer... the greatest composer/conductor since Mahler. (Sorry, Lenny).










Was this^ the first recording of Le Marteau without Boulez at the helm, as the album title appears to indicate? I like what I heard.


----------



## Bourdon

millionrainbows said:


> Music gradually divorced itself from drama over several centuries. Look at the rise of instrumental forms: the symphony, the concerto, tone poems, etc.
> 
> In instrumental Romanticism, although it was music divorced from drama, still had residual traces of drama, expressed as "dramatic gestures."
> 
> This "splitting" of drama from music opened-up a new can of worms, giving us the whole range of the non-specific "feelings" evoked by music, which are by their very "non-narrative nature" fleeting, transitory, and ephemeral, unclear, evocative, vague, and indefinable (meaning non-narrative).
> 
> Still, this is not a requirement for music to be expressive of emotion or states of being. To take matters even further into the fog, when we get into more modern music, I think "emotion" as a descriptive term begins to fail us. For example, in Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, the "emotional gestures" expressed are so complex that we begin to experience them as "states of being," like anxiety, foreboding, fear, tension, awe, etc., creating in our minds, empathetically, a reflection of our own, and the artist's, "inner state of being."
> 
> Concerning modernism, it's true that in many instances the "evoking" of dramatic emotion, and dramatic gesture is absent (but certainly not always). Stockhausen evokes, for me, a sort of "Platonic classicism" in his Klavierstücke; with modernism, we must put aside our need for drama and overt emotion, and listen on the level of "pure abstraction," an enjoyment of color, sound, and timbre itself. In this sense, modern music is not "modern" at all; music has always been "abstract expressionism" when divorced from drama and opera.
> 
> So, in a sense, this is an "*internal narrative*" we share with the composer, but indefinable in literal narrative terms, because these are transitory, fleeting states by nature; simply "gestures of meanings."
> https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1069-instrumental-music-dramatic-gesture.html


Internal narrative,I like that,but that is what music is all about.


----------



## Janspe

Listening to some of Boulez's core works tonight - namely, _Le marteau sans maître_ and _Pli selon pli_. These works are so important to me, I could not imagine my life without them. Getting to know them some years ago opened the doors leading to the world of contemporary music in ways that few other pieces have done.

I also listened to the fabulous _Livre pour cordes_, which is the only* piece by Boulez that I've had the chance to hear live so far. What a precious memory!

The five orchestrated _Notations_ is one of the most stunning orchestral scores I know, and I _really_ wish orchestras would play it more regularly. And one of the biggest tragedies is of course that Boulez didn't finish orchestrating the whole set of twelve.

*Actually, there was a concert of the complete piano works of Boulez - by Aimard and Stefanovich - here in Helsinki a few years ago but sadly I couldn't attend. One of my biggest music-related regrets...


----------



## Lilijana

Janspe said:


> Listening to some of Boulez's core works tonight - namely, _Le marteau sans maître_ and _Pli selon pli_. These works are so important to me, I could not imagine my life without them. Getting to know them some years ago opened the doors leading to the world of contemporary music in ways that few other pieces have done.
> 
> I also listened to the fabulous _Livre pour cordes_, which is the only* piece by Boulez that I've had the chance to hear live so far. What a precious memory!
> 
> The five orchestrated _Notations_ is one of the most stunning orchestral scores I know, and I _really_ wish orchestras would play it more regularly. And one of the biggest tragedies is of course that Boulez didn't finish orchestrating the whole set of twelve.
> 
> *Actually, there was a concert of the complete piano works of Boulez - by Aimard and Stefanovich - here in Helsinki a few years ago but sadly I couldn't attend. One of my biggest music-related regrets...


I can't imagine being who I am today without discovering the works of Boulez, and for people who actually knew and worked with him, there's been an even more profoundly positive effect.

I have it in mind to actually orchestrate some more of his Notations myself with the same orchestration and conduct them at some point in the future.


----------



## Janspe

composer jess said:


> I can't imagine being who I am today without discovering the works of Boulez --


Based on various discussions that I've had with Boulez fans over the years it feels like this experience is pretty much universal amongst us - when his work _hits_ you it's an almost life-altering experience. Very interesting!


----------



## flamencosketches

Boulez is awesome, but I don't know if my life has been (yet) changed significantly by his music, other than that I now find myself more open to his and other music that I'd previously thought might be too arcane for me. His music seems actually quite accessible to me now, though maybe I am just accustomed to the language by now. 

The first work that convinced me of Boulez's greatness is Répons. Such a phenomenal piece of music.


----------



## starthrower

I hope DG re-issues the complete works box because I never did pick it up. I'm never gonna be in love with Boulez music but I still would like to own the box. I think Frank Zappa was one of his major disciples. I can really hear it in his synclavier compositions. I'm assuming Boulez was flattered by this since they worked together a few times and Boulez conducted some Zappa pieces on the Perfect Stranger album. Even Zubin Mehta said the FZ was the only figure from the rock music world that really understood his musical language.

There is a new book just released by Boulez called Music Lessons. I would like to pick up a copy. I saw it in B & N a few weeks ago. But it was 40 dollars so I held off.


----------



## Bourdon

starthrower said:


> I hope DG re-issues the complete works box because I never did pick it up. I'm never gonna be in love with Boulez music but I still would like to own the box. I think Frank Zappa was one of his major disciples. I can really hear it in his synclavier compositions. I'm assuming Boulez was flattered by this since they worked together a few times and Boulez conducted some Zappa pieces on the Perfect Stranger album. Even Zubin Mehta said the FZ was the only figure from the rock music world that really understood his musical language.
> 
> There is a new book just released by Boulez called Music Lessons. I would like to pick up a copy. I saw it in B & N a few weeks ago. But it was 40 dollars so I held off.


This might be interesting for you,it is as new !

https://www.marktplaats.nl/a/cd-s-e...da871b0d84f75c3056cc6db858f31&previousPage=lr


----------



## PeterFromLA

I saw Boulez conduct and perform most of his major works, as I happened to reside in US cities whose orchestral management he had preferred relations with -- Los Angeles, Cleveland, and Chicago. I also saw him conduct works by his favoritte composers - Sravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, Webern, etc, usually leading the local orchestra, sometimes traveling with the Ensemble Intercontemporain. I consider myself incredibly blessed. Between the mid-1980s and the late 2000s, I was seeing him almost annually or every other year. What was especially great was that each visit was usually a mini music festival, curated by Boulez himself.

PS. A super interesting radio program re Boulez and his formative visits to South America. An eye opener! https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b08c2n8v


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Boulez is awesome, but I don't know if my life has been (yet) changed significantly by his music...


Tell us when it happens.


----------



## PeterFromLA

Simon Rattle on Pierre Boulez. Nice interview.


----------



## Mandryka

I got this last week, it's exceptionally good.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> Tell us when it happens.


OK, fine, it's happening  I have to give it to Boulez, no other composer has been able to throw a wrench into the gears of my entire conception of music, historical, contemporary, or otherwise. His music is massive. Towering, really. He was the guiding light of his generation of composers and conductors alike. And I'm happy to admit that his music has changed my life. 



Mandryka said:


> View attachment 129190
> 
> 
> I got this last week, it's exceptionally good.


Count me interested. I've not heard the _Livre_ outside of the string orchestra rendition _Livre pour cordes_.

What I have been listening to lately is mostly the piano music: _Douze notations_, the _Deuxième sonate_, _Structures pour deux pianos_, and I recently got a new CD with Daniel Kawka conducting the _Dérives_ that is exceptional. Currently listening to _...explosante-fixe..._ which is probably one of his craziest works. There is a unity to all his music. It is quite easy to follow the "big line" through it all, but in a way completely different from any other composer.


----------



## starthrower

Peter, thank you for that link! I knew nothing of Boulez's trips and work in South America in the 50s. I know one thing. There is a new book by Boulez entitled Music Lessons, and I want a copy. I spotted one at Barnes & Noble but didn't have the 40 dollars to pick it up. But I'll get one soon enough.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Peter, thank you for that link! I knew nothing of Boulez's trips and work in South America in the 50s. I know one thing. There is a new book by Boulez entitled Music Lessons, and I want a copy. I spotted one at Barnes & Noble but didn't have the 40 dollars to pick it up. But I'll get one soon enough.


Yes, thanks Peter & starthrower. Be sure to read scarecrow's review at Amazon. He's an old compadre from the Amazon forum days.


----------



## Janspe

Everyone, this is *very intersting!*









This album contains a lot of great repertoire, but by far the most fascinating content is the world-premiere recording (and probably the first occasion ever to hear it, for most of us anyway) of Boulez's early piano work _Prélude, toccata et scherzo_.

Now I knew this CD was coming, but I had _no idea_ that the piece is almost 30 minutes long! I'm so excited. An amazing opportunity to hear some really early Boulez, written just before the _Notations pour piano_ if I'm not mistaken. Listening to it right now from Spotify, will report back later...


----------



## Knorf

Mandryka said:


> View attachment 129190
> 
> 
> I got this last week, it's exceptionally good.


If anyone has leads for this on a used or new CD, please let me know. I'm extremely irritated with myself for having just barely missed it.


----------



## Janspe

Knorf said:


> If anyone has leads for this on a used or new CD, please let me know. I'm extremely irritated with myself for having just barely missed it.


Couldn't agree more. I adore Quatuor Diotima (and Boulez, obviously) so not having that recording in my shelf is painful.


----------



## Mandryka

Knorf said:


> If anyone has leads for this on a used or new CD, please let me know. I'm extremely irritated with myself for having just barely missed it.


 PM me if you want the files. I also have some live performances, with Diotima and Arditti. It is difficult music, music with few audible landmarks and patterns.


----------



## Knorf

Mandryka said:


> PM me if you want the files. I also have some live performances, with Diotima and Arditti. It is difficult music, music with few audible landmarks and patterns.


There is no repertoire on the planet that intimidates me. The worst thing that happens is if I get bored.

PM sent.


----------



## DavidA

Knorf said:


> T*here is no repertoire on the planet that intimidates me. *The worst thing that happens is if I get bored.
> 
> PM sent.


Nor me. I just turn it off if I don't like it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lilijana said:


> I can't imagine being who I am today without discovering the works of Boulez, and for people who actually knew and worked with him, there's been an even more profoundly positive effect.
> 
> I have it in mind to actually orchestrate some more of his Notations myself with the same orchestration and conduct them at some point in the future.


Oh, you do? Well, I'm going to join the air force!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Nor me. I just turn it off if I don't like it.


Me too, except for that live G.G.Allin concert.


----------



## Gargamel

What kind of composer is Boulez? Com'on, while I've listened to quite alot of Boulez, it's not quite clear to me what his music is supposed to be doing to me. I would class as being super-exciting composers like Babbitt and Carter, colorist music as being Dutilleux and kinda Lutoslawski, and introvertive composers such as Varèse. But Boulez? Interesting noises, such as those in Le Marteau sans maître, but not more. Like there must be purely psychological writers (Stendahl, Henry James, Troyat), figure writers (Dickens, Elliot), or writers who above all are storytellers (Defoe, Hugo, Zola), how are we to distinguish Boulez as a composer exactly?


----------



## julide

Gargamel said:


> What kind of composer is Boulez? Com'on, while I've listened to quite alot of Boulez, it's not quite clear to me what his music is supposed to be doing to me. I would class as being super-exciting composers like Babbitt and Carter, colorist music as being Dutilleux and kinda Lutoslawski, and introvertive composers such as Varèse. But Boulez? Interesting noises, such as those in Le Marteau sans maître, but not more. Like there must be purely psychological writers (Stendahl, Henry James, Troyat), figure writers (Dickens, Elliot), or writers who above all are storytellers (Defoe, Hugo, Zola), how are we to distinguish Boulez as a composer exactly?


It seems like you need to simplify things for you to feel like you grasp them.So you think Babitt and Carter are super exciting yet dutilleux and lutoslawski are just coloristic music. It is ridiculous to accuse of george eliot of writing figures. If there ever was a commitment to truth that was in her writing. Nothing at all like figures and stereotypes in them.


----------



## Gargamel

julide said:


> It seems like you need to simplify things for you to feel like you grasp them.So you think Babitt and Carter are super exciting yet dutilleux and lutoslawski are just coloristic music. It is ridiculous to accuse of george eliot of writing figures. If there ever was a commitment to truth that was in her writing. Nothing at all like figures and stereotypes in them.


There are no accusations. Personal opinion here, when I say I think that nobody comes close to Babbitt and Carter being super exciting. And on the other hand, nobody, not Babbitt or Carter, come close to the poetic imagination of Schumann or Debussy! Hell, Schoenberg wrote _nomimally_ coloristic music in his early atonal days.

Is it ridiculous to accuse Dickens writing figures? I mean, he was very successful at it, and his story devices tend away from complexity. Maybe Eliot was a psychological writer, afterall, but (as of Silas Marner) not _nearly _as psychological as the others mentioned.


----------



## Gargamel

And, no, I don't think Boulez is poetic like Schumann, or dramatic like Berg, or exciting like Strauss, but I guess there's something interesting in his music I can't quite put my finger on.


----------



## flamencosketches

One thing about Boulez is that his music is extremely sensuous. Everything he wrote is an absolute explosion of color and texture. There is great beauty and a very organic feeling to his music. In this sense he reminds me most of Debussy and Ravel. Other than that, I would agree with Julide that it is not wise to simplify composers—nor writers—into a single trait of their work.


----------



## SanAntone

Subjective opinions, all. What is there to get so worked up about?

Like Boulez; don't like Boulez. The music remains. The restless, sparkling, complicated, simply beautiful, music remains.


----------



## Gargamel

flamencosketches said:


> Other than that, I would agree with Julide that it is not wise to simplify composers-nor writers-into a single trait of their work.


And after all, why not, since my aim is to put composers/writers into perspective, and who would bother to read my post should I write a lengthy treatise on each? At the very least I might share some notion of what a composer/writer is _not_, e. g. putting Babbitt in perspective with someone like Berg, it's crystal clear to me which one of them is _not_ overly dramatic. And IMHO there is almost nothing psychological in Dickens, whereas Henry James _explicitly stated_ himself psychology is his program as a writer.



flamencosketches said:


> One thing about Boulez is that his music is extremely sensuous. Everything he wrote is an absolute explosion of color and texture. There is great beauty and a very organic feeling to his music. In this sense he reminds me most of Debussy and Ravel.


Hmmm sounds what Nadia Boulanger once said about Boulez' music. (Although for most of her life she had an antipathy towards atonal music, calling it a "fad" according to her student, who ironically was Carter.)


----------



## Mandryka

Gargamel said:


> Interesting noises, such as those in Le Marteau sans maître, but not more.


The earlier pieces like Marteau can be challenging, like all Darmstadt modernism of the time. Later Boulez is a not the same animal -- try contrasting the piano Notations and the orchestrated Notations.



Gargamel said:


> What kind of composer is Boulez?


If this conversation develops I'll look around later for what Boulez said he was trying to achieve with music.


----------



## Gargamel

Mandryka said:


> The earlier pieces like Marteau can be challenging, like all Darmstadt modernism of the time. Later Boulez is a not the same animal -- try contrasting the piano Notations and the orchestrated Notations.


Anyways, these earlier pieces are usually modeled on some earlier masters, like Marteau follows suit from Pierrot Lunaire and Le soleil des eaux reminds me of the Webern Cantatas, and thus strike a familiar ground.


----------



## Mandryka

Gargamel said:


> Anyways, these earlier pieces are usually modeled on some earlier masters, like Marteau follows suit from Pierrot Lunaire


Possibly. What do you think of Pli selon Pli?

(There's a letter he wrote to Stockhausen when he was writing Pli selon Pli where he talks about how impressed he is with Debussy's Jeux, I don't know if in any real sense it's modelled on aspects of Jeux.)


----------



## Gargamel

Mandryka said:


> Possibly. What do you think of Pli selon Pli?


It's rather tense. But that can be said about most Boulez. Amidst the turbulence, there's nothing soothing about it. I'm able to enjoy the americans very much due to the fact that beneath the agitated surface, there's a sort of coolness, sort of relaxation. This is true even for Ferneyhough; I find there to be an undercurrent in his music which has a very pacifying and relaxing effect.


----------



## Mandryka

Gargamel said:


> It's rather tense. But that can be said about most Boulez. Amidst the turbulence, there's nothing soothing about it..


I don't have the same response at all. In fact I don't hear it as either tense or turbulent. Go figure!


----------



## Knorf

Mandryka said:


> I don't have the same response at all.


And neither do I.


----------



## Gargamel

Or maybe it's a matter of "swing", my ears being extremely attuned to Babbitt. (Ie. from the beginning of the second piano concerto.)


----------



## SanAntone

Of the two composers, Babbitt or Boulez, Boulez's music sounds alive whereas Babbitt's sounds dead.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Gargamel

SanAntone said:


> Of the two composers, Babbitt or Boulez, Boulez's music sounds alive whereas Babbitt's sounds dead.
> 
> Just my opinion.


I can live without Boulez.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> I don't have the same response at all. In fact I don't hear it as either tense or turbulent. Go figure!


Nor do I. _Pli selon pli_ is a work of great tranquility, or stasis. The whole thing is a slowly unraveling series of gestures-there's no tension or turbulence to it. I think it's his most beautiful work, and it's the piece (along with _Répons_) that first convinced me of Boulez's genius.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Even though Boulez infamously called out Schoenberg in his essay for being too traditional, Boulez was the kind of composer who deeply cared about carrying on the western classical tradition before him, as opposed to a composer like Cage who wanted to erase it. For Boulez, tradition meant the composers a generation or two before him - Schoenberg, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, and Webern. Although Boulez once joked that one should burn down all the opera houses to remove ourselves from the shackles of the past, I don’t think he meant that even metaphorically, for he was so concerned about the classical tradition and its lessons for his own music.

To me, Boulez combines the linear narrative of Schoenberg with the object exploratory space of Stravinsky. Boulez’s music both moves forward and establishes contrasts, and stays put to explore textural possibilities. He can do this because he deeply cares about musical color, harmony, and counterpoint - all the good qualities of the pantheon of composers I mentioned above. Boulez was the kind of guy who wanted to be a historical great, and he was critical of anyone who he felt wasn’t interested in achieving the same kind of thing, like Cage or Feldman.

Boulez’s music never rests, it always has a goal and direction. And even when a piece of his seemingly is concerned with exploring a given space for a while, he does so with the previous music in mind, and with the goal of eventually producing further variants. Consider Le Marteau, and the similarities and differences (textural, coloristic, contrapuntal, harmonic), between the three groupings of movements: movements 1, 3, and 7; movements 2, 4, 6, and 8; and movements 5 and 9. The even-numbered movements initially seem somewhat static and exploratory, and yet move (on the minute scale) and mutually comment on each other (on the 10 minute scale). Repons also has lots of stretches of relative ceasing of motion - exploratory stretches if you will, and yet there’s always a feeling that the music needs to eventually go somewhere contrasting next. And it does. And there’s a melodic/harmonic/coloristic unity behind it all, gluing it together, even though the surface of the music may superficially seem chaotic.


----------



## Knorf

^ heck yes! Well said.


----------



## Mandryka

Gargamel said:


> Or maybe it's a matter of "swing", my ears being extremely attuned to Babbitt. (Ie. from the beginning of the second piano concerto.)


What would be very good is if you would take something by Babbitt and talk us through what you hear in it that makes it so special. I'd like to get to know the music better - at the moment the only pieces which have caught my imagination is some of the quartets.

I would much prefer to explore a small scale piece than orchestral music.


----------



## Gargamel

Mandryka said:


> What would be very good is if you would take something by Babbitt and talk us through what you hear in it that makes it so special. I'd like to get to know the music better - at the moment the only pieces which have caught my imagination is some of the quartets.
> 
> I would much prefer to explore a small scale piece than orchestral music.


I never had to make that distinction before. Piano Concerto 1 was what initially made it click. Piano Concerto 2 is alot harder for the ears, at least until you get hooked on the overt jazzyness which you also find in "Tableaux". (At the same time it's a piece that contains "everything"; it has a "Chopin" part (Babbitt's own words), becomes a tear-jerker, every bit as emotional as Schumann's Trio No. 2.). String Quartet 6 is very special, very melodic to me. (I initially hated the others, hated String Quartet 5) And Septet but Equal - so melodic, so full of solitude! Canonical Forms is by far the most accessible piano work. Pick one and I'll give it my spin in the Babbitt thread. Are you by any chance into Elliott Carter or Brian Ferneyhough?


----------



## Mandryka

What did you make of Ars Combinatoria’s Babbitt quartets? I’m listening to the 6th now and enjoying the performance more than when I first bought it. 

The piano music is a closed book to me, I’ve tried many times to get something out of Canonical Forms and it always seems to outstay it’s welcome.

Over the years I’ve heard some Carter and some Ferneyhough - I think they both wrote interesting music. Right now I’ve been exploring Ferneyhough’s Umbrations cycle - the whole thing is on YouTube.

I know it’s silly but being a Brit I try to keep up with British music, not least because pre-COVID the music was more accessible live. At the moment I seem to be more interested in Finnissy and Barrett than Ferneyhough, but that could change, I’m not implying any value judgement.

I’m a bit prejudice against concertos and symphonies! Concertos especially - I’m a bit anti-virtuoso bravura music.


----------



## Iota

Mandryka said:


> I don't have the same response at all. In fact I don't hear it as either tense or turbulent. Go figure!


Neither do I really, but it does start with a bit of an adrenalised twang. And the various eruptions of colour could perhaps be interpreted as uneasy subconscious rumblings. 
The music teems with pinpoints of colour, energy and light and the effect is entrancing (and highly beautiful), but when so much is happening, the effect could either be seen as gentle ripples on a colourful rock pool say, or perhaps as one of restlessness depending on the mindset of the listener I guess, so I can see that someone might hear it that way.



SeptimalTritone said:


> ..Boulez combines the linear narrative of Schoenberg with the object exploratory space of Stravinsky. Boulez's music both moves forward and establishes contrasts, and stays put to explore textural possibilities. He can do this because he deeply cares about musical color, harmony, and counterpoint ..


Well put!

As far as Babbit goes I used to find it rather dry but, fwiw, one day 2 or 3 years ago I put on the second string quartet and suddenly out of nowhere it seemed a kaleidoscope of shifting colours and intriguing events. Bit of an epiphany. Am currently feeling a bit ambivalent about certain postcodes in the avant garde area (hopefully temporarily), so not sure how I'd hear it now, but nonetheless the experience was a very pleasant one.


----------



## Gargamel

Mandryka said:


> What did you make of Ars Combinatoria's Babbitt quartets? I'm listening to the 6th now and enjoying the performance more than when I first bought it.
> 
> The piano music is a closed book to me, I've tried many times to get something out of Canonical Forms and it always seems to outstay it's welcome.
> 
> Over the years I've heard some Carter and some Ferneyhough - I think they both wrote interesting music. Right now I've been exploring Ferneyhough's Umbrations cycle - the whole thing is on YouTube.[]
> 
> I know it's silly but being a Brit I try to keep up with British music, not least because pre-COVID the music was more accessible live. At the moment I seem to be more interested in Finnissy and Barrett than Ferneyhough, but that could change, I'm not implying any value judgement.
> 
> I'm a bit prejudice against concertos and symphonies! Concertos especially - I'm a bit anti-virtuoso bravura music.


Okay well, there is no need to play Babbitt's no. 6 this fast. The older recording (the one which is on youtube) was perfect; the sections so powerful and lyrical just feel rushed-through here in the Ars quartet version (E.G. around 4:00 and 6:00.) Moreover, there are some very wrong notes, or at least they're not the same pitches as in the other recordings! Simarly no. 3 sounds messy to me. On the other hand No. 5 is strikingly lucid; during the first minute of the recording you get a very clear idea (mainly by the cello) what the piece is about. Motivic ideas are initially presented in their inflected forms (usually meaning faster), and later appear as their own statements. (There's an older recording, also on youtube, which is very muddy in this respect, although it does more nicely bring out the tonal qualities of this piece.) The reason I asked about Carter and Ferneyhough is because I find Boulez very much on the opposite spectrum of these composers. (I don't think Boulez ever wrote anything with the same kind of charm as "Sum fluxae pretium spei".)


----------



## Mandryka

I have that older recording of Babbitt 6 and I’ve always loved it, and when I first listened to Ars Combinatoria doing it I reacted very negatively, it seemed so fast that there was no time to be expressive, the Composers Quartet (I think it’s them) one is very poetic by comparison. It’s just that yesterday when I played it I really enjoyed it! I only download the one quartet, by the way, so I haven’t heard their 3.


Sum fluxae pretium spei is a symphony - they’re not allowed in the house normally. But just this once I’ll make an exception.


----------



## Gargamel

Mandryka said:


> Sum fluxae pretium spei is a symphony - they're not allowed in the house normally. But just this once I'll make an exception.


Pli selon Pli, being an orchestral work, is normally allowed?


----------



## Mandryka

I hope you’re not expecting me to be consistent.


----------



## Gargamel

Well since Babbitt's string quartet no. 6 (the Ars quartet) caught your interest, I shall briefly vent about it. What catches my attention is the instrumental handling; you have violins screaming at you like an orchestra. But the cello is the instrument that really sings the most. What I enjoy about Babbitt is the muchness in a way that doesn't overwhelm me, and if at one time I feel lost, the next moment something might come up where one knows the joy of discovery and reconnects with the music. The musical sentence which launches at 3:48 is so exhilirating and crammed with stuff, it's like you almost don't need the rest of the quartet to enjoy just this one part! The theme of this sentence is the motif which you first hear, note-by-note, in the developmental section of the very first sentence of the piece (0:23). This fact that it is first found inside _a developmental section of an earlier theme_ indicates that we haven't still moved on from section I of the piece. A new section in the piece would be introduced by some motif, which has been left hitherto unused since the very first bar of the piece where it was first heard, and now (in the new section) must appear as a theme, note-by-note unchanged. Each section contains a 'head' and a 'tail'. The head is one single sentence ie. the first sentence of a section, and the tail is the remainder of _all _the sentences within that section. Each of the themes of the 'tail' come out the developmental phrases of the 'head', while the theme of a an entirely new section comes straight out of the introduction of the 'head'. There probably is a lot more to his architectural schemes, although I'm imposing this linear fashion unto you.

The takeaway from this intellectual pursuit, I hope, is that you don't need to be able to snap up retrogrades/inversions or retrograde inversions anymore than you should need to keep up with a Beethoven piece.

I like how one finds a vastly different character in various pieces of Babbitt. Many pieces are jazzy, others not at all, and there's a great freedom to play around with tonality, e. g. so that themes which appear as non-tonal in antecent phrases, are somehow repeated tonally in a consequent phrase. And everything seem to spring from the "Brahmsian" idea of atomisation, which I'm more into than Boulezian or perhaps Mahlerian thought.


----------



## Mandryka

Thanks, I'm short of time at the moment but I'll read it properly later. Have you ever heard this? - It may be hard to get now, but I can always let you have it. (I think it's quite challenging actually.)


----------



## Gargamel

Mandryka said:


> Thanks, I'm short of time at the moment but I'll read it properly later. Have you ever heard this? - It may be hard to get now, but I can always let you have it. (I think it's quite challenging actually.)


Maybe I'll check out the one on youtube. I don't know if yours is significantly better in quality than that one. (I listen at a low volume, because neighbours, so sound quality is not everything to me.)


----------



## Gargamel

Been listening to Le Marteau sans maître (a work I heard for the first time 15 years ago.), and I'm actually enjoying it more than I thought I would. Particularly the parts with voice which is having quite an intriguing conversation with the flute. What they're "saying" to each others, I can't tell. (All I'm catching up therein is counterpoint, and almost nothing else.) It appears to me that the music of Boulez is highly conversational, as opposed to someone like Babbitt's, a trained orator delivering monologues.

I didn't enjoy Samuel Andreyev's video on Boulez' Piano Sonata 2, it didn't explain anything!


----------



## flamencosketches

Gargamel said:


> Been listening to Le Marteau sans maître (a work I heard for the first time 15 years ago.), and I'm actually enjoying it more than I thought I would. Particularly the parts with voice which is having quite an intriguing conversation with the flute. What they're "saying" to each others, I can't tell. (All I'm catching up therein is counterpoint, and almost nothing else.) It appears to me that the music of Boulez is highly conversational, as opposed to someone like Babbitt's, a trained orator delivering monologues.
> 
> I didn't enjoy Samuel Andreyev's video on Boulez' Piano Sonata 2, it didn't explain anything!


I think you should avoid the Piano Sonata No.2 for now since you find Boulez's music to be opaque. But I'm glad you're enjoying Le Marteau and would not surprised to hear if it is the work that makes it all click for you (to whatever extent that may be).

Maybe try Répons next.


----------



## Gargamel

flamencosketches said:


> I think you should avoid the Piano Sonata No.2 for now since you find Boulez's music to be opaque. But I'm glad you're enjoying Le Marteau and would not surprised to hear if it is the work that makes it all click for you (to whatever extent that may be).
> 
> Maybe try Répons next.


Maybe try studying more counterpoint so I'd know what I'm listening to? (I frankly don't know anything about counterpoint except in a tonal context. I normally just listen to superficial similarities and earlier it has worked.)

Répons-era Boulez seems very different from his earlier, serial works. Is there any work similar to Répons but for a smaller ensemble?


----------



## Mandryka

Gargamel said:


> Is there any work similar to Répons but for a smaller ensemble?


Dialogue de l'ombre double


----------



## calvinpv

Gargamel said:


> Répons-era Boulez seems very different from his earlier, serial works. Is there any work similar to Répons but for a smaller ensemble?


*Dérive 1*, for flute, clarinet, violin, cello, vibraphone and piano (1984, see here)
*Dérive 2*, for 11 instruments (there are many versions between the original 1990 to the final 2010, ranging from 7 to 50 minutes; here's one of the more recent ones)
*sur Incises*, for 3 pianos, 3 harps & 3 percussionists (1996-1998, see here)

All three of these works are excellent.


----------



## flamencosketches

Gargamel said:


> Maybe try studying more counterpoint so I'd know what I'm listening to? (I frankly don't know anything about counterpoint except in a tonal context. I normally just listen to superficial similarities and earlier it has worked.)


I don't think that's necessary or necessarily wise; I don't know much about the theory behind Boulez's music, I just listen. I think that's the key. Are you only interested in Boulez's early music? He, like so many other composers, matured over time and his music improved.


----------



## SanAntone

calvinpv said:


> *Dérive 1*, for flute, clarinet, violin, cello, vibraphone and piano (1984, see here)
> *Dérive 2*, for 11 instruments (there are many versions between the original 1990 to the final 2010, ranging from 7 to 50 minutes; here's one of the more recent ones)
> *sur Incises*, for 3 pianos, 3 harps & 3 percussionists (1996-1998, see here)
> 
> All three of these works are excellent.


_Sur Incises_ is probably my favorite of Boulez's works, I was initially attracted to it because of the instrumental combination.

But, agree Derive I & II are a good place to start with his music. I have to say I enjoy most of his works.


----------



## Gargamel

flamencosketches said:


> I don't think that's necessary or necessarily wise; I don't know much about the theory behind Boulez's music, I just listen. I think that's the key. Are you only interested in Boulez's early music? He, like so many other composers, matured over time and his music improved.


The early works are more familiar ground to me. Although Derive II sounds a bit like some early Carter.


----------



## calvinpv

Gargamel said:


> The early works are more familiar ground to me. Although Derive II sounds a bit like some early Carter.


I don't know enough about Carter to make a comparison, but FWIW, Derive 2 was dedicated to Carter on his 80th birthday.

However, I do hear in his late music some very faint influences from the live electronic composers (Murail, Saariaho, Manoury, Harvey) hanging around IRCAM in the 80s-90s, in the way he pairs instruments, in the way he uses echo-like effects and suspensions, or in the way he "interpolates" new material in between old material (interpolation is a common technique in live electronic music, where a synthesizer will store two sounds and later reproduce them with an algorithmically generated transition connecting them; I hear an analog to this in Boulez's instrumental writing).

Also, this may sound weird to say, but I hear some Mahler in the late works as well. It could be that I heard Boulez's fantastic Mahler set for the first time this year and so those recordings are fresh on my mind, but I remember listening to sur Incises and Mahler 7 back-to-back and thinking "These could've been written by the same composer had that composer lived well over 100 years." It's in the way instruments transfer their energy from one to another and finish each other's thoughts that Boulez sounds a little Mahlerian. It's hard to explain. It should also be said that Boulez recorded Mahler in the late 90s/early 00s, precisely when he was composing Derive 2 and sur Incises, the two works I hear the most influence in.


----------



## flamencosketches

calvinpv said:


> I don't know enough about Carter to make a comparison, but FWIW, Derive 2 was dedicated to Carter on his 80th birthday.
> 
> However, I do hear in his late music some very faint influences from the live electronic composers (Murail, Saariaho, Manoury, Harvey) hanging around IRCAM in the 80s-90s, in the way he pairs instruments, in the way he uses echo-like effects and suspensions, or in the way he "interpolates" new material in between old material (interpolation is a common technique in live electronic music, where a synthesizer will store two sounds and later reproduce them with an algorithmically generated transition connecting them; I hear an analog to this in Boulez's instrumental writing).
> 
> Also, this may sound weird to say, but I hear some Mahler in the late works as well. It could be that I heard Boulez's fantastic Mahler set for the first time this year and so those recordings are fresh on my mind, but I remember listening to sur Incises and Mahler 7 back-to-back and thinking "These could've been written by the same composer had that composer lived well over 100 years." It's in the way instruments transfer their energy from one to another and finish each other's thoughts that Boulez sounds a little Mahlerian. It's hard to explain. It should also be said that Boulez recorded Mahler in the late 90s/early 00s, precisely when he was composing Derive 2 and sur Incises, the two works I hear the most influence in.


Completely agreed


----------



## Knorf

calvinpv said:


> However, I do hear in his late music some very faint influences from the live electronic composers (Murail, Saariaho, Manoury, Harvey) hanging around IRCAM in the 80s-90s, in the way he pairs instruments, in the way he uses echo-like effects and suspensions, or in the way he "interpolates" new material in between old material (interpolation is a common technique in live electronic music, where a synthesizer will store two sounds and later reproduce them with an algorithmically generated transition connecting them; I hear an analog to this in Boulez's instrumental writing).


I think you're inverting who influenced whom, here. The earliest versions of the IRCAM spacialization, interpolation, and resonating software that they all used were commissioned first by Boulez. In some cases, recordings of his pieces appeared later, but that's because of his endless fussing and tinkering with scores. You can hear the the effects Boulez was looking for in his scores from the 1970s, like the Notations for orchestra, wherein he orchestrated some of these kinds of effects, but he expressed interest in electronic solutions as far back as the 1950s. It took the development of computer music for him to find the tools he was looking for.


----------



## Torkelburger

Gargamel said:


> Been listening to Le Marteau sans maître (a work I heard for the first time 15 years ago.), and I'm actually enjoying it more than I thought I would. Particularly the parts with voice which is having quite an intriguing conversation with the flute. What they're "saying" to each others, I can't tell. (All I'm catching up therein is counterpoint, and almost nothing else.) It appears to me that the music of Boulez is highly conversational, as opposed to someone like Babbitt's, a trained orator delivering monologues.
> 
> *I didn't enjoy Samuel Andreyev's video on Boulez' Piano Sonata 2, it didn't explain anything*!


Huh? Are you sure you watched it? It clearly explained the following:

It explained the piece is an organized, methodical destruction of an old order (referring to sonata form and he explains in detail how this was done)
It explained who the musical and literary influences of the piece were.
It explained that the work's goal was to give an impression of disorder and irrationality (it was avant-garde at the time).
It explained that the first movement is sonata allegro and how "classical elements become agents of their own destruction".
It explained that the second movement is a theme and variations.
It explained that the third movement is a scherzo with trios.
It explained that the fourth movement is episodic form with fugue.
It explained that the series heard at the beginning does not govern the whole piece.
It explained that the series is used as a reservoir from which cells are extracted.
It explained that the order of pitches within cells were permutated.
It explained that pitch cells and rhythmic figures develop independently in the piece.
It explained that texture and rhythm are the most important elements.

It went into further detail that in the first movement, the different forms of textures replaced the traditional theme groups on the sonata form. The first theme is contrapuntal and consists of short cells and figures. While the second theme group is harmonic (3-part chorales), homorythmic, with extremely wide chord spacing. Each texture type has an associated tempo with it. First theme is quarter note=132. Second theme is half note=84.

It went into even further detail and analyzed the first theme with widely-spaced intervals, short, constantly changing rhythmic cells, no foreground/background distinction, anabasis - catabasis phrase construction (and he explained what this means), and how the dynamics reflect phrase shapes.

This was complete with audio and visual examples of the score.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Gargamel

Torkelburger said:


> It explained that the second movement is a theme and variations.
> It explained that the third movement is a scherzo with trios.
> It explained that the fourth movement is episodic form with fugue.
> It explained that the series heard at the beginning does not govern the whole piece.
> It explained that the series is used as a reservoir from which cells are extracted.
> It explained that the order of pitches within cells were permutated.
> It explained that pitch cells and rhythmic figures develop independently in the piece.
> It explained that texture and rhythm are the most important elements.
> 
> It went into further detail that in the first movement, the different forms of textures replaced the traditional theme groups on the sonata form. The first theme is contrapuntal and consists of short cells and figures. While the second theme group is harmonic (3-part chorales), homorythmic, with extremely wide chord spacing. Each texture type has an associated tempo with it. First theme is quarter note=132. Second theme is half note=84.
> 
> It went into even further detail and analyzed the first theme with widely-spaced intervals, short, constantly changing rhythmic cells, no foreground/background distinction, anabasis - catabasis phrase construction (and he explained what this means), and how the dynamics reflect phrase shapes.
> 
> This was complete with audio and visual examples of the score.
> 
> So I have no idea what you are talking about.


It's probably a very useful video, from a poietic point of view. However, over the years I got very familiar with some composers from a poietic aspect (for example, serial arrays, trichordal partitioning etc.) and oftentimes this, although interesting, is not very helpful to someone trying to grasp a particular piece. I've rarely ever had to think about what shape (or permutation) of which segment I'm hearing, or which morcel is sohow related to which (especially since composers themselves like to underscore the possibility of such relations, e. g. by preserving rhythmical similarity or instrumentation where the melody is permuted), just like it's not necessary to know that the painter's theme is so-and-so related to Dr. Schön's theme to have a decent grasp of the beauty in Berg's Lulu.

Although "_there are no themes_" as Andreyev points out, I would mostly have liked to know what are the relationships between one sentence and another, so I'd know what to look for. It was mentioned that _"the different forms of textures replaced the traditional theme groups on the sonata form"_ and this is something I think should have been elaborated much more, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Torkelburger

You seem to be "moving the goalposts" in your criticism. You first said it "didn't explain anything", and then once it was shown that it explained quite a bit, now you are saying it didn't explain enough to your satisfaction. He doesn't need to write a graduate dissertation for a youtube video.

There are no relationships between one sentence and another in a piece that aims to give an impression of disorder and irrationality. He clearly said it's made up of small cells of pitches and rhythms that develop independently.



> It was mentioned that "the different forms of textures replaced the traditional theme groups on the sonata form" and this is something I think should have been elaborated much more, wouldn't you agree?


Um, no. The video's comments were so detailed, in fact, that I feel 100% confident that as a composer myself, I could write a piece in exact imitation of the Boulez, whereas without watching the video I might not have been able to. I would know to not write a standard sonata form first theme, but rather compose contrapuntal two part writing of short, constantly-changing rhythmic cells and figures utilizing wide-spaced intervals, with no foreground/background distinction and anabasis/catabasis phrase construction. I would know to replace the standard "second theme" with a harmonic, 3-part chorale, make it homorythmic, with extremely wide chord spacing. I would know to make each "theme" have an associated tempo with it and would know how to make the dynamics reflect phrase shapes. No elaboration is needed. That is quite enough detail for me.


----------



## Gargamel

Torkelburger said:


> You seem to be "moving the goalposts" in your criticism. You first said it "didn't explain anything", and then once it was shown that it explained quite a bit, now you are saying it didn't explain enough to your satisfaction. He doesn't need to write a graduate dissertation for a youtube video.


I meant akin to an explanation which would useful to a layman. In talking about Berg or Babbitt, that would be the relationships of the intervals, the melodic content, and in that, not just being told that "doremi" becomes "miredo", "redomi" or "domire".



Torkelburger said:


> There are no relationships between one sentence and another in a piece that aims to give an impression of disorder and irrationality. He clearly said it's made up of small cells of pitches and rhythms that develop independently.


Is not everything is related to everything? At least, this seems to be the dictum of much "serial" music.


----------



## Gargamel

And I'm neither inquiring whether there is a relationship between one sentence and the next - just curious whether there is a relationship between one sentence and an some arbitrary other.


----------



## Torkelburger

> I meant akin to an explanation which would useful to a layman.


You're still moving the goalposts. You initially said it didn't explain anything. Now you're admitting it explained things but the explanations were too complicated for the layman. Those statements are not even close to saying the same thing. You are just making this up as you go, _ad hoc_. All you want to do is just say bad things about the video. That's all you care about.



> In talking about Berg or Babbitt, that would be the relationships of the intervals, the melodic content,


Wrong. Not every piece, including serial pieces, are written the same way and therefore do not have the same properties. Babbitt's String Quartet No. 6 you analyzed was composed with a completely different method than his piece, _Three Compositions for Piano, No. 1_ (1948) for example, even though they are both 12-tone. In the latter, the interval relationships are completely arbitrary and inconsequential, and there is no melodic content at all. Further, in _Three Compositions_ there are no relationships between one sentence and another other than the trivial fact that the pitches and durations are transpositions of the same series. Most importantly, the dynamics of each phrase have *nothing to do whatsoever* with the dynamics of the previous phrase(s) or subsequent phrase--there is no relationship whatsoever (read below to understand why).

_Three Compositions_ is a piece written using Total Organization serial procedures. The pitches, the durations of the notes (rhythm), and the dynamics are serialized.

For the rhythms, he used four rhythmic patterns to choose from consisting of 12 notes divided into 2 groups of 6. This means he gets an original series (5 1 4 2), a retrograde (2 4 1 5), an inversion (1 5 2 4), and retrograde inversion (1 5 2 4) of *rhythms*-all numbers represent a group of notes of equal duration where the last note of the group of 6 may be prolonged (there may also be rests, accents, and phrase markings to articulate the different groups of 6) to create a phrase.

The pitches are assigned to the four transpositions of the duration series where the original pitch series appears in conjunction with the original version of the duration series, the retrograde pitch series appears with the retrograde of the duration series, and so forth. The tone row utilizes "combinatoriality", meaning the pitch content of corresponding hexachords are mutually exclusive. So series O-1 (left hand) and O-7 (right hand) are used together with the first duration series in bars 1-2. Series R-1 and R-7 are used together with the second duration series in bars 3-4, etc.

The intervals are therefore completely arbitrary and inconsequential as the notes are automatically "plugged in" in accordance with their strict order of the series, cannot be repeated (as each duration series is exactly 12 notes), and follow a pre-determined rhythm that dictates when they will occur. It would therefore be completely useless to analyze them in any meaningful way, as the intervals were not selected purposefully by the composer. The only thing to understand is that no octaves occur due to the series' combinatorial quality, but that is trivial.

For dynamics, each transformation of the series is consistently assigned to a dynamic level. The original series always appears with _mp_, the retrograde appears with _mf_, the inversion with _f_, and the retrograde inversion with _p_. The transformation of the pitch series, therefore, dictates the dynamic level at each moment. This means the dynamics of one phrase has *no bearing or contextual relationship* with the dynamics that have come before or after it.

And not all serial compositions written utilizing Total Organization procedures are written the same way. Boulez's _Structures: Ia_ is a Total Organization composition but was composed with completely different methods than the Babbitt piece above and sounds completely different, yet it would still be pointless to analyze interval relationships or melodic content or sentence relationships for the similar reasons explained above.



> and in that, not just being told that "doremi" becomes "miredo", "redomi" or "domire".


Strange, that. As that is ALL of what Babbitt's _Three Compositions_ is. All aspects of the piece *cannot* be analyzed any other way, quite frankly. Sorry to disappoint you.



> Is not everything is related to everything? At least, this seems to be the dictum of much "serial" music.


As has been said to you several times, the relationships that are in the music (especially the first movement) were explained. The fact that it's not the relationships you want, doesn't mean it "didn't explain anything".



> And I'm neither inquiring whether there is a relationship between one sentence and the next - just curious whether there is a relationship between one sentence and an some arbitrary other.


No, and this was explained in the video and in my posts to you several times already.


----------



## Gargamel

I think in my case, there's some prejudice at work,which may be telling of my frustrations, not solely about my own limitations, but also having read way too many fumbling CD-cover explanations. Perhaps then was I acting in an emotional way, where I was saying why I didn't enjoy the video?

And it's not that I think that all 'serial' music, if such music exists (Wuorinen made a whetting remark that he has come to regard the term as meaningless), is composed in the same way. I know almost nothing about the music Babbitt composed prior to his Duet for viola and piano (1950), but judging by what theory I'm aware of, he eventually peeled off from his contemporaries in countless ways, such as working out an abstraction of serialism (e. g. registral fields and "10-tone" time point series), rather than doing everything litterally in attributes outside of pitch, in acknowledgment that the quantity "12" was fecund only to pitch configuration.

Yet, in whatever ways the interval relationships are arbirary and inconsequential, mustn't forget that one property which is not arbitrary - the row itself, whether it's made as Schoenberg did (see Babbitt's essay "Twelve-tone invariants..."), or if it's one of the three or four useful all-combinatorial rows. This may be smacking of moving the goalposts once more, and even overturning my own argument where I argued against thinking like a 12-tone composer thinks, seeing how I earlier talked about _relationships between sentences_, and now I'm well-nigh talking of relationships pertaining to the makings of a row, in Boulez' case, his reservoir.


----------



## Torkelburger

Thank you for the honesty and candor.

Back to Boulez, I feel he is a historically significant composer and one of the best in the 20th century. My favorites of his pieces, in exact order are:

Livre pour cordes (1989 revised version)
Notations for Orchestra
Sur Incises
Derive 2
Notations for Piano
"…explosante-fixe…"
Le Marteau sans maître
Eclat
Messagesquisse
Piano Sonata No. 2


----------



## thejewk

I've not delved into his compositions enough to comment on Boulez as a composer (although I intend to do so shortly), but I have been thoroughly enjoying exploring his work as a conductor in the big Sony/RCA box. Today I listened to his first recording of The Rite of Spring and thought it was superb, and I've been really enjoying his Webern, Berg and Schoenberg.


----------



## Torkelburger

^^^Be sure to check out his Bartok and Mahler too


----------



## thejewk

I've already spent time with the Miraculous Mandarin and the Concerto for Orchestra and greatly enjoyed them, and I'm considering picking up the DG set of his Bartok for a much wider selection of pieces. Mahler is next on my wishlist after really enjoying Gurre Lieder and being told of the similarities between that work and some of Mahler's. Thanks for the recommendations.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Gargamel, here's the thing. There is no explanation that will serve a layman in the way that you require. Let me offer an analogy.

Take the first 8 bars of the Beethoven Hunt piano sonata in E flat, op 31 no 3. You know the one. What could you say to a layman that demands an explanation of those first 8 bars? Because the main musical interest in those 8 bars is harmonic, you would need to teach him all of classical common practice harmony. There's no other way.

What if the layman wanted an explanation of how the opening of the development section relates to the opening of the movement? That would require a comparison of the harmonies used, and especially an explanation of why the opening of the development modulates to C minor (as opposed to another key, and why that's a natural place to modulate to given the initial A flat added sixth chord), which is again not possible without teaching classical harmony.

There's no way to break the Beethoven down without teaching classical harmony. Similarly, to explain why measures so-and-so relates to measures so-and-so in the Boulez requires some kind of serial analysis. Which, naturally, is the kind of analysis not helpful to the layman. And ultimately not necessary for comprehension.

How can the layman possibly comprehend the first 8 bars of the exposition or development in the Beethoven Hunt sonata, and understand their relationship? The primary mechanics here are not motivic, but harmonic, and yet the layman does not know tonal harmony! The answer, of course, is that the layman just listens to it! And that the listening and feeling is enough, and just getting the music at a gut level is enough.

The same answer applies to the Boulez sonata. The Boulez might be more difficult to follow because more is going on and there are no traditional motives or harmonies to latch onto, but the answer is still the same. An explanation is simply going to be of no use. _The musical patterns in the Boulez are, to the general intended audience, just as prime and irreducible as the Beethoven sonata and don't need an explanation of their relations for the music to satisfy._

I'm reminded of a member on TC saying a while back that they thought the opening bars of the gigue finale of the Schoenberg op 25 piano suite sounded random. How could you get such a listener not hear the notes as random and comprehend the piece? To learn that bars 1 and 4 use the prime form of the row, but bars 2 and 3 use the inversion? Obviously not. The goal here is to simply perceive each bar as a musical gestalt and not try to reduce it to anything, and to let any feelings of pattern recognition and gut level comprehension wash over, perhaps unconsciously. A technical analysis (which will naturally be row/set based) may be able to demonstrate why e.g. the closing theme before the repeat sign relates to the opening 8 bars, but you don't need to be explained that to perceive it - you can perceive it on your own, at a gut level! And even if you only perceive it unconsciously the musical relationship still has its impact, even though you can't put it into words. There are many musical relationships in Mahler symphonies that I was not consciously aware of and I'm still discovering them, and yet the music still has the same impact to me.

If you really, really must deconstruct absolutely everything from head to toe and you are genuinely serious about learning something substantial (in the same way that someone could desire to know why the Beethoven sounds the way it does for its own sake), then you gotta read the Jack Boss book on 12-tone Schoenberg that I mentioned to you in another thread. The op 25 analysis should be enough. Did you read it like I told you to?  It's tough, dense, and hard-going and may take a few days worth of hard work, but I can assure you, it's not austere/pedantic/dry/note-counting but extremely communicative about how the outward musical feeling relates to the harmonies/tone rows. The best analysis explains why music makes us feel the way it does! And the Jack Boss analysis delivers. You will then realize that analysis is not needed for general appreciation, after going through the analysis, and this will be the ultimate Buddhistic insight. Watching youtube videos or limiting yourself to CD liner notes, though, will not cut it if you truly desire a deep understanding.


----------



## Gargamel

thejewk said:


> I've not delved into his compositions enough to comment on Boulez as a composer (although I intend to do so shortly), but I have been thoroughly enjoying exploring his work as a conductor in the big Sony/RCA box. Today I listened to his first recording of The Rite of Spring and thought it was superb, and I've been really enjoying his Webern, Berg and Schoenberg.


Agreed, for me he's the best Schoenberg, Berg and Webern conductor. Piano Concerto, Moses and Aaron, Suite for Septet... Webern cantatas etc.

@Septimal Tritone: No I didn't read anything yet, but it's on my to-do list.


----------



## Gargamel

SeptimalTritone said:


> Gargamel, here's the thing. There is no explanation that will serve a layman in the way that you require. Let me offer an analogy.
> 
> Take the first 8 bars of the Beethoven Hunt piano sonata in E flat, op 31 no 3. You know the one. What could you say to a layman that demands an explanation of those first 8 bars? Because the main musical interest in those 8 bars is harmonic, you would need to teach him all of classical common practice harmony. There's no other way.
> ..........


I should have added that the layman doesn't expect to understand something very thoroughly. The occasional listener who goes to a Beethoven concerts might not necessarily expect to understand a piece harmonically. He just wants to have _a superficial idea_ of the narrative of the piece which he can follow at some very basic level. He can easily identify themes just by listening, and the open/close configurations aid in his understanding, but a 20th century piece would take _a lot_ more listening. In some of the serial music I discussed, there are arguments which are repeated note-by-note, there are numerous ways in which the composer can present tonal arguments, without tonal consequences (e. g. resolution). And even when the arguments aren't repeated exactly, note-by-note, composers might _help_ the listener to easily recognize patterns by underscoring the correspondence with fixed rhythm, instrumentation, length, etc. And fixed interval spans. And while two adjacent sentences or arguments may have no meaningful relation with each others, there isn't necessarily a total break in continuity between them; there might be some continuous figuration which bleeds into the anterior sentence, or if one phrase is very quiet and the next one is very loud, there might be a similar relation in the following pair of phrases? That's about my five cents.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

^ Regarding the second half of your post above, that's exactly the kind of thing the Jack Boss book excels at explaining - narrative parentheses, and achievement of musical goals through contrast between sentences. You'll learn exactly how Schoenberg creates a narrative and makes you feel how you feel.

Regarding the first half of your post, I don't think the layman's listening is _that_ superficial. The layman who doesn't know harmony can "get" 95%-100% of any Beethoven work after so many listens. Here, I'm not talking about the snoozing audience-coughing rich person who thinks classical music is "relaxing" but the interested fan who regularly carefully listens. This interested layman get also "get" 95%-100% of any Schoenberg or Boulez work, but it may take more listens and there are far less people who desire to do so.

All serious music is written for the canonical interested respectful layman who doesn't know theory. There are many Schoenberg and Boulez works that I have no or near minimal idea how they are created, and yet I more or less fully grasp them after many listens. I think that also applies to everyone who has posted on this thread. We're all picking up on a whole lot, even if we can't articulate what we're picking up on.

Also, there's a lot of 20th century music that isn't based on narrative parentheses (contrasts between sentences) but rather a gradual narrative arc, especially acousmatic music. Some are even non-narrative and explore a musical space for its own sake, including but not limited to various kinds of indeterminate music. The methods involved here may be loose or highly controlled, and either way are beyond direct perception. Here all the listener can do is listen to it attentively and let it "wash over", and that's enough for a complete understanding.


----------



## thejewk

Further to my posts regarding Boulez as a conductor during the Sony period, I've been listening to his Debussy for the last few days and must say that I love it dearly (with the exception of Pelleas et Melisande, although the fault is mine as I find 99% of opera dull as dishwater, and irritating at the same time). I can't compare it to other interpretations, as it is also my introduction to Debussy, but the transparency is excellent, and everything feels in just the correct balance.


----------



## Gargamel

thejewk said:


> Further to my posts regarding Boulez as a conductor during the Sony period, I've been listening to his Debussy for the last few days and must say that I love it dearly (*with the exception of Pelleas et Melisande*, although the fault is mine as I find 99% of opera dull as dishwater, and irritating at the same time). I can't compare it to other interpretations, as it is also my introduction to Debussy, but the transparency is excellent, and everything feels in just the correct balance.


Try the second half of Act 3.


----------



## thejewk

I will, thanks. I made it through about two hours before giving up, so not heard any of that.


----------



## Gargamel

Torkelburger said:


> The intervals are therefore completely arbitrary and inconsequential as the notes are automatically "plugged in" in accordance with their strict order of the series, cannot be repeated (as each duration series is exactly 12 notes), and follow a pre-determined rhythm that dictates when they will occur. It would therefore be completely useless to analyze them in any meaningful way, as the intervals were not selected purposefully by the composer. The only thing to understand is that no octaves occur due to the series' combinatorial quality, but that is trivial.
> 
> For dynamics, each transformation of the series is consistently assigned to a dynamic level. The original series always appears with _mp_, the retrograde appears with _mf_, the inversion with _f_, and the retrograde inversion with _p_. The transformation of the pitch series, therefore, dictates the dynamic level at each moment. This means the dynamics of one phrase has *no bearing or contextual relationship* with the dynamics that have come before or after it.
> 
> And not all serial compositions written utilizing Total Organization procedures are written the same way. Boulez's _Structures: Ia_ is a Total Organization composition but was composed with completely different methods than the Babbitt piece above and sounds completely different, yet it would still be pointless to analyze interval relationships or melodic content or sentence relationships for the similar reasons explained above.
> 
> Strange, that. As that is ALL of what Babbitt's _Three Compositions_ is. All aspects of the piece *cannot* be analyzed any other way, quite frankly. Sorry to disappoint you.


By analyzing invariances which exist between twelve-tone rows in these pieces (See Babbitt's essay "Twelve-tone invariants..."), I think there's a high possibility we'd come to grasp pieces such as Boulez' Piano sonata, and even Boulez' earlier pieces. Maybe there could be a realization that that not *all* intervals are completely "arbitrary" (a misnomer, by the way) and/or inconsequential.


----------



## Vasks

I have been purging tons of papers today, and came across some notes I took when I attended a Boulez workshop about 20 years ago. So before I toss out these notes, here's what I jotted down:

1) After correcting errata on "critical edition" parts, Boulez said _"I don't believe in critical editions"_

2) After the pianist rushed a passage, Boulez quipped "_I could follow you, but I won't_"

3) After the pianist got ahead, he stated "_You are just a 32nd of a beat ahead of us, but that's one 32nd too much_"

4) He mentioned that he prefers to have his ensemble read through the entire piece, before rehearsing passages.

5)_"There was no Darmstadt School! Just individuals"_

6) He hates "fashion" composers and finds nothing good about writing in an old-fashioned style.

7) _"Music practice is related to such things as learning how to swim or a cyclist learning the Tour de France route"_

8) _"My early recordings are historical in the worst sense"_


----------



## Mandryka

Vasks said:


> 7) _"Music practice is related to such things as learning how to swim or a cyclist learning the Tour de France route"_


That's the intersting one IMO. He lived at a time when composers were really trying to tap into performer creativity, they still are - all those modular scores with choices built in, and graphic notations. And he rejected all of that stuff, apart (I think) for the third piano sonata. I wonder what his thinking was about all of that.


----------



## Janspe

Let's wake up the Boulez thread, shall we? There has been some interesting stuff happening lately.

I listened to this new recording today:









The Widmann brother-sister duo is a deliciously fabulous team to give us new interpretations of these solo(ish) works. I haven't got a word of complaint regarding their playing here.

The _Dialogue de l'ombre double_, for me, is one of the most challenging works of Boulez to enjoy - I really feel like it's a work that simply has to be experienced live. I admit that not even this recording managed to convince me - but it came pretty close, for I did find it intriguing and fun to listen to. Jörg obviously plays like a god. Anyway, if anyone has any insightful musings regarding this piece that might make me appreciate it more, please share!

The _Anthèmes_ works speak to me much, _much_ more directly. I've always been enormously fond of them, especially the revised second piece. The first, non-electroacoustic solo piece I've always seen as a preparatory work, a fun little modernistic virtuoso showpiece. The main course comes in the form the revised piece - this is really one of my favourite works of Boulez. It's so colourful and sensual, it drags the listener to another dimension. There are slow, searching moments that fill me with wonder, and energetic bursts of rhythm that makes me want to dance. Carolin's performance is my new reference recording for sure. I hasten to add that I have never seen the score of the work and have no idea if this performance stays true to the composers intentions, but I've never heard it so vividly realized, with every moment simply exploding with the classic Boulezian colourful pizzazz!

It great to have new recordings of Boulez's works coming to the catalogue fairly regularly. Can't wait to hear some of the bigger pieces interpreted and re-interpreted again and again... I'm not optimistic of getting another _Répons_ anytime soon - who could afford financing the recording of that beast? - but there really are a lot of works in his output just waiting to be brought back to life.


----------



## Mandryka

Yes, thanks for the post, I enjoyed listening to Anthèmes again.


----------



## Knorf

Janspe said:


> I'm not optimistic of getting another _Répons_ anytime soon - who could afford financing the recording of that beast?


There are thousands of people who could, but who among them might wish to is the question. Too many of them are fixated on paying the transfer fee for some footballer, or riding on a rocket ship for the sub-orbital glory of flaunting wealth, or other similar, Earth-shatteringly critical causes.


----------



## starthrower

Knorf said:


> There are thousands of people who could, but who among them might wish to is the question. Too many of them are fixated on paying the transfer fee for some footballer, or riding on a rocket ship for the sub-orbital glory of flaunting wealth, or other similar, Earth-shatteringly critical causes.


I suppose most of these wealthy folks didn't make their money being focused on the arts and humanities. We no longer have our four decade old two day jazz festival due to lack of corporate sponsorship. And the Syracuse Symphony is gone as well for the same reason.


----------



## composingmusic

Janspe said:


> Let's wake up the Boulez thread, shall we? There has been some interesting stuff happening lately.
> 
> I listened to this new recording today:
> 
> The Widmann brother-sister duo is a deliciously fabulous team to give us new interpretations of these solo(ish) works. I haven't got a word of complaint regarding their playing here.
> 
> The _Dialogue de l'ombre double_, for me, is one of the most challenging works of Boulez to enjoy - I really feel like it's a work that simply has to be experienced live. I admit that not even this recording managed to convince me - but it came pretty close, for I did find it intriguing and fun to listen to. Jörg obviously plays like a god. Anyway, if anyone has any insightful musings regarding this piece that might make me appreciate it more, please share!
> 
> The _Anthèmes_ works speak to me much, _much_ more directly. I've always been enormously fond of them, especially the revised second piece. The first, non-electroacoustic solo piece I've always seen as a preparatory work, a fun little modernistic virtuoso showpiece. The main course comes in the form the revised piece - this is really one of my favourite works of Boulez. It's so colourful and sensual, it drags the listener to another dimension. There are slow, searching moments that fill me with wonder, and energetic bursts of rhythm that makes me want to dance. Carolin's performance is my new reference recording for sure. I hasten to add that I have never seen the score of the work and have no idea if this performance stays true to the composers intentions, but I've never heard it so vividly realized, with every moment simply exploding with the classic Boulezian colourful pizzazz!
> 
> It great to have new recordings of Boulez's works coming to the catalogue fairly regularly. Can't wait to hear some of the bigger pieces interpreted and re-interpreted again and again... I'm not optimistic of getting another _Répons_ anytime soon - who could afford financing the recording of that beast? - but there really are a lot of works in his output just waiting to be brought back to life.


Yes, agreed re. waking this thread up! And having new recordings is exciting. Having these two pieces on this recording is very interesting - two quite late works. I'm fond of both of these pieces. Overall, I'm more of a fan of his mid and late period work than his earlier works. Some of my favorites include Éclat, the orchestrated Notations, and explosante-fixe.

The piece that first got me into Boulez is Le Marteau. It's such a great moment when the low percussion enters, after having mostly stayed in the mid and upper registers for the entirety of the piece up to that time!

Sad I never had a chance to see him live, but I know people who knew him, and I've heard great things from them.


----------

