# Pierre Boulez : How do you estimate him?



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I ask because of this article:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/11/05/pierre-boulez-sound-and-fury/

The extracts from some of Boulez's writings sound like the word salad one reads in poetry criticism. As to his music, I'm inclined to agree with the reviewer. Doesn't impress me all that much.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Not familiar enough with his music to say, but I like what I've heard, especially _Le Visage Nupital_ and _Cummings ist der Dichter._ Beautiful, sensual.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

https://www.talkclassical.com/19749-pierre-boulez.html?highlight=Pierre+Boulez

https://www.talkclassical.com/41532-pierre-boulez-great-composer.html?highlight=Pierre+Boulez

Related topics .


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Good conductor of some of the classics - maybe - but it does not outweight all the hideous damage he has done with his mental criticisms, and with writing and promoting bad music.


----------



## julide (Jul 24, 2020)

I rate him at the top for new music. I don't necessarily understand his compositional theory. It gives me immense cognitive pleasure to concentrate when listening to his music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

As the article says, "he builds himself an exquisitely empty glass box and insists on living there... in the Boulezian hall of mirrors, everything sounds like everything else".

But such a wonderful box, and such a serene "hall of mirrors" inside!

I've never looked into his writing beyond what was in that article (I really should sometime). My impressions: maybe a bit vapid and opinionated at times, but so is most writing on music (even from many of the all time greats), and it seems like an interesting perspective nonetheless.

I've been a fan of Boulez's music for a few months now. I've actually been learning _Notations_ on the piano, and it's greatly enhanced my appreciation for his music on both an intellectual and an emotional level. OP, if you play an instrument, try playing some of his work; it might change your mind on him.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> OP, if you play an instrument, try playing some of his work; it might change your mind on him.


That's great advice. I'll try that, although my pianistic skills fall apart in direct relation to the year, starting from 1800 onward.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

My favorite composer. Except for _Livre pour quatuor_, I like every single work of his to varying degrees. That's a pretty good hit-to-miss ratio (of course, just my personal opinion).

For me, his music is like getting sucked into a vortex of ideas, like getting thrown around in the Platonic realm from one side to another as you hear one and the same idea from multiple angles, even though I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what these ideas are. "Hall of mirrors" is, indeed, a very apt description for Boulez, and it's unlike anything I've ever heard.

His work _Répons_, for example, is a masterpiece of electronic music. It's unbelievably beautiful. The OP should check this one out.

A quick search on the internet gives this article on the work. Pretty fascinating stuff:
http://articles.ircam.fr/textes/Boulez88c/


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

I think he was a good composer, but not great. All of his influence just game from politics and institutional power. For someone working in a kind of neo-serialist style, Carter did way better. The beginning of Répons for instance is really good, everything can be heard clearly, interesting rhythms and textures, but then Boulez's fanaticism about always being a composer "of the future" ruins him when dreadful electroacoustic beeps and boops start coming out of nowhere. I think Explosante-fixe is good, but his piano sonatas to me are just unlistenable. And, OP might like to know, I actually have read his collected Collège de France lectures, and they were awful. He doesn't even view music in a human way, he just talks about "time-objects" and why improvisation is bad. I did actually learn some interesting things about form in the Second Viennese School, but besides that one can see he just thinks of music as this austere intellectual game where beauty or emotion just don't play a role. He was actually a great conductor, but sadly he was a monster in rehearsals to the musicians. However, I might change my mind and like his music more in the future, I don't know, but this is where my opinion stands now.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

IMO Boulez was one of the more interesting composers from the 20th century. I liked that he kept revisiting his works and trying to improve them or revise them, seeming to view composition as never ending process. I like that. I'm not in the evaluation game, i.e. rating and ranking composers, I just listen to the music I like. Sometimes that is music written by Pierre Boulez.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Some of his music I like; some not. Overall, he's a minor figure as a composer in my musical world. As a conductor, he's a major figure.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> I think he was a good composer, but not great. All of his influence just game from politics and institutional power. For someone working in a kind of neo-serialist style, Carter did way better. The beginning of Répons for instance is really good, everything can be heard clearly, interesting rhythms and textures, but then Boulez's fanaticism about always being a composer "of the future" ruins him when dreadful electroacoustic beeps and boops start coming out of nowhere. I think Explosante-fixe is good, but his piano sonatas to me are just unlistenable. And, OP might like to know, I actually have read his collected Collège de France lectures, and they were awful. He doesn't even view music in a human way, he just talks about "time-objects" and why improvisation is bad. I did actually learn some interesting things about form in the Second Viennese School, but besides that one can see he just thinks of music as this austere intellectual game where beauty or emotion just don't play a role. He was actually a great conductor, but sadly he was a monster in rehearsals to the musicians. However, I might change my mind and like his music more in the future, I don't know, but this is where my opinion stands now.


What about _La musique et l'expression: formel et instantané_ in the lecture _Le geste du compositeur_?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Boulez?
First-rate conductor, second-rate composer, third-rate music critic


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

His music will survive, thanks only to recordings. It never has and never will be appealing to audiences or more classical listeners. To paraphrase Mahler, his music is interesting, but is it beautiful? He confused me, too: when he took the New York Phil, one critic wrote "The Iceman Cometh" to symphony hall. At the same time he could conduct some of the 19th c masterworks and really do them well. His early Mahler Das Klagende Lied was terrific. At the same time, for someone who was supposed to be such a stunningly great musician, his total dismissal of Tchaikovsky was petty, misguided and just wrong. When it comes the Wagner's Ring on DVD I rather enjoy Boulez' work.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

To me he's a great contemporary composer and orchestrator. I don't bother listening to what he says about other composers, or outside of his own music. How does he stack up against the Masters? Just too different, the word 'rarified' comes to mind.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

calvinpv said:


> My favorite composer. Except for _Livre pour quatuor_, I like every single work of his to varying degrees.


The revised one?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The highest voted comments in this video: 
"No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure."
"If you make a mistake on this sonata, it's called "improvisation""

Does anyone disagree? If so, can you explain?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> "No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure."


Performers make mistakes in every performance they give. 99% of the audience would not notice or care.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Although I criticized Boulez earlier, I would like to address the "no one will know if there's a mistake" criticism of modern music which has become a kind of cliché. To be sure, sometimes it's valid because it refers to just a kind of nonsensical chaos as in Feryneyhough or something; the criticism that the music is no longer intelligible. But more often times the problem with this criticism is that it's something of a truism: the fact that one can instantly hear if there's a mistake in common-practice music is precisely because it's common-practice. It's just a function of the strength of tonal harmonic associations. We can instantly recognize a G# if we've been hearing everything in C Major. That doesn't mean the music is great, that just means it uses strict tonality. Of course there's no chromaticism to be recognized in completely atonal, i.e. fully chromatic, music—that says nothing about whether it's good or bad.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> The highest voted comments in this video:
> "No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure."
> "If you make a mistake on this sonata, it's called "improvisation""
> 
> Does anyone disagree? If so, can you explain?


I rather like this sonata actually, and normally I'm not so keen on piano music.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Pierre Boulez was a great composer, one of the greatest ever, a fabulous musician in general, and a superb conductor. Among other things, he was one of the greatest-ever intepreters of the symphonies of Mahler.

But his music is incredible, so emotionally intense and beautiful. Hearing the _Notations I-IV_ for orchestra changed my life forever, a transcendent experience for me up there for me with any of the most impactful compositions of my life: Mahler Symphony No. 6, Stravinsky _Le Sacre du printemps_, Beethoven Symphony No. 5, Bach Passacaglia & Fugue in C minor.

My favorite Boulez compositions? _Notations I-IV_ for Orchestra, obviously. In no specific order, also _Rituel in Memoriam Bruno Maderna_, _Pli selon pli_, _Explosante-fixe_, _Sur incises_, Sonata No. 1, _cummings ist der Dichter_, _Figures, Doubles, Prismes_, _Les Soleil des eaux_...

His music will survive. New recordings of his music are coming out all the time, despite their formidable difficulty, and the _Notations I-IV_ pre-pandemic was starting to become one of the most played large-orchestra compositions of the past 40 years.

With such an old and huge standard repertoire, it's harder and harder for new compositions, no matter how inspired and impactful, to be added to it. But the music of Pierre Boulez will survive. Of that I have no doubt.

By the way, somone up thread referred to Elliott Carter as a "neo-serialist." That is false. At no time ever in his career did Carter employ serial procedures. And Boulez's devotion to serialism is massively overstated. There are a couple pieces only from his early career thay are fairly described as strictly serial. None of his mature music, and of the music I posted above, only Sonata No. 1 is serial in any meaningful sense.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

> By the way, somone up thread referred to Elliott Carter as a "neo-serialist." That is false. At no time ever in his career did Carter employ serial procedures.


Carter is not a serialist, but he is referred to as a "neo-serialist." He used interval sets and so on, but they weren't complete 12-tone sets. He was very into the all-interval tetrachord and so on. He's a neo-serialist because his music is based on certain interval relationships within sets rather than the overtone series, as common-practice music is based on. David Schiff describes him as using mathematical procedures on interval sets to determine his music. Carter definitely didn't write like Schoenberg, but he did rely on his basic ideas, albeit in a more vertical rather than horizontal way. Thus it's fair to call him a neo-serialist if we qualify what is meant by that.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Performers make mistakes in every performance they give. 99% of the audience would not notice or care.


That depends on the mistake. For a Boulez composition, a sudden marriage of harmonious notes or an actual melody might be the only error one could detect.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Carter is not a serialist, but he is referred to as a "neo-serialist." He used interval sets and so on, but they weren't complete 12-tone sets. He was very into the all-interval tetrachord and so on. He's a neo-serialist because his music is based on certain interval relationships within sets rather than the overtone series, as common-practice music is based on. David Schiff describes him as using mathematical procedures on interval sets to determine his music. Carter definitely didn't write like Schoenberg, but he did rely on his basic ideas, albeit in a more vertical rather than horizontal way. Thus it's fair to call him a neo-serialist if we qualify what is meant by that.


I'm sorry, this is incorrect for one simple reason: serialism means ordered rows or sets, which Carter never used. Calling Carter a "neo-serialist" is flatly _wrong_, and conveys a highly misleading impression concerning Carter's methodology. Carter derived zero ideas from Schoenberg's serial procedures. That's just fact.

"David Schiff describes him as using mathematical procedures on interval sets to determine his music." This is misleading. But in any case using "interval sets" is not in itself "neo-serial." (Note that David Schiff is _not_ a music theorist but rather a musicologist, and some of what he wrote about Carter's composing method was inaccurate.)

Regardless, Carter did not employ serial procedures, period.

Another error: "..the overtone series, as common-practice music is based on." There's nothing in the overtone series that gives you most of the components of common-practice music. Trying to make it so is kludgy beyond belief and no serious music theorist makes any attempt to justify common-practice using the overtone series, although many did and failed until about 1950s.

My credentials: a doctorate in composition earned from a major, highly-recognized program, and 25 years of teaching music theory at the undergraduate and graduate levels, earning tenure and being promoted through "full" Professor" at an accredited School of Music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Another grotesque error: "..the overtone series, as common-practice music is based on." There's nothing in the overtone series that gives you most the components of common-practice music. Trying to make it so is kludgy beyond belief and no serious music theorist makes any attempt to justify common-practice using the overtone series, although many did and failed until about 1950s.


The overtone series produces the entire chromatic scale, which would include atonal as well as tonal composition.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> The overtone series produces the entire chromatic scale, which would include atonal as well as tonal composition.


It actually produces neither, because the intervals have to be considerably altered in tuning (up to 1/4 tone) from the overtone series. You have to get _very_ far up the overtone series to get the correct pitches that fit either the diatonic scale or the chromatic scale. Far enough that you can make a scale out of anything you want.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> The highest voted comments in this video:
> "No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure."
> "If you make a mistake on this sonata, it's called "improvisation""
> 
> Does anyone disagree? If so, can you explain?


That used to be my argument. Depends on what sort of mistake and where. In both tonal and atonal music there are certain notes that still work in place of ones written, and others that don't work. It's what is there that goes together that matters, and a measure of greatness.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Well then I won't say he's a neo-serialist ever again! I didn't come up with that label, I've just seen it used about him in the past and that's why I used it, but I guess it's wrong. Passages like these make me think that from Schiff's Carter biography: "He published charts for the harmonic and rhythmic systems of the Second Quartet, Double Concerto, and Piano Concerto in 1970. In all these works he organized harmonies and rhythms on a global scale and with strict rules. ... [The Concerto for Orchestra] divided all the possible harmonic combinations of two, three, four and five pitches systematically" (111). I didn't invent the label, but I won't use again. And my knowledge about the origins of common-practice stop at Schoenberg's Harmonlehre, and he does claim it's based on the overtone series, but I am not up-to-date with the most current research into that. I definitely don't have any special knwledge about this stuff more than as an interest and don't want to claim so, and thus I might make some errors.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Like others, I disagree with his philosophy - insofar as he had a coherent philosophy - but I can't help but like most of his music I've heard after _Le marteau_ (and have gradually coming around to _Le marteau_).

I don't like his earlier pieces at all.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

Knorf said:


> My favorite Boulez compositions? _Notations I-IV_ for Orchestra, obviously. In no specific order, also _Rituel in Memoriam Bruno Maderna_, _Pli selon pli_, _Explosante-fixe_, _Sur incises_, Sonata No. 1, _cummings ist der Dichter_, _Figures, Doubles, Prismes_, _Les Soleil des eaux_...


This list could've been written by me, though I would add _Messagesquisse_ and _Éclat/Multiples_ as pieces I also love dearly. Actually I could say that of Boulez's output, only _Répons_ still somehow escapes my grasp - I guess I ought to hear it played live!

Needless to say, I love Boulez's music to bits. _Notations_ is in my opinion one of the greatest orchestral works to emerge relatively recently, and a lot of his works would grace any concert programme.

As a conductor, Boulez has had more of an influence on me than any other, living or dead. Hearing his recordings of Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Bartók, Mahler and Debussy (among many others) influenced me more than anything else in my listening history. I kinda wish I could experience that adventure again, since now I'm very knowledgeable of his recorded output. That doesn't mean I still don't enjoy them immensly, but the era of first exposure was just so magical...

Unfortunately I haven't read any of Boulez's writings or lectures. My _to read_ -pile is quite massive indeed.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I find his music consistently uninteresting.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Second-rate composers do not have their compositions performed by *The Vienna Philharmonic* and *The Berlin Philharmonic* with extreme regularity like he did. The top major orchestras from all continents performed his music and still do. While he is, of course, not on the same level of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, etc., he is certainly one of the most important composers of his generation and one of the historically-significant composers of the second-half of the twentieth century. You would be hard-pressed to find someone composing during his lifetime with better capabilities. He is certainly on the same standing as other late-20th century giants including Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Henze, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Xenakis, etc. and the American contemporaries.

The videos I’ve seen of Boulez in rehearsal don’t show him being rude or mean. And I’ve seen him correct wrong notes in complex serial textures in the orchestra rehearsal as well.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Well then I won't say he's a neo-serialist ever again! I didn't come up with that label, I've just seen it used about him in the past and that's why I used it, but I guess it's wrong. Passages like these make me think that from Schiff's Carter biography: "He published charts for the harmonic and rhythmic systems of the Second Quartet, Double Concerto, and Piano Concerto in 1970. In all these works he organized harmonies and rhythms on a global scale and with strict rules. ... [The Concerto for Orchestra] divided all the possible harmonic combinations of two, three, four and five pitches systematically" (111). I didn't invent the label, but I won't use again. And my knowledge about the origins of common-practice stop at Schoenberg's Harmonlehre, and he does claim it's based on the overtone series, but I am not up-to-date with the most current research into that. I definitely don't have any special knwledge about this stuff more than as an interest and don't want to claim so, and thus I might make some errors.


You know what? I see that once again, I was far too grouchy. I apologize. I did not need to be so heavy handed.

Heck, the good thing to me is that you have such a strong interest in Carter's music, which I share!

I'll try to be better.

Probably any discussion about the futility of justifying the tonal common-practice system via the overtone series belongs in another thread. Schoenberg was a great composer, and a great music theorist, but he wasn't right about everything. If you're curious, though, here's my favorite book by Schoenberg about tonal music. Recommended! If you can read _Harmonielehre_ this would also give no trouble.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Fundamentals_of_Musical_Composition.html?id=N-lCPgAACAAJ


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I find his music consistently uninteresting.


That's perfectly fine. Is the fact that much of it is serial the problem? If I recall, I don't think you find much twelve-tone music interesting (which is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion-it's not for everyone)-such as post-1923 Schoenberg, Webern, late Stravinsky, Berio, Dallapicola, Krenek, Nono, Babbitt, etc. but correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Torkelburger said:


> The videos I've seen of Boulez in rehearsal don't show him being rude or mean. And I've seen him correct wrong notes in complex serial textures in the orchestra rehearsal as well.


Indeed, and while I sadly never played for him myself, numerous of my colleagues have, and every single one I've spoken to about it liked Boulez quite a lot and regarded him as one of the finest musicians they'd ever worked with. They admired his clarity, consistency, and while demanding his always professional and respectful tone. The only criticism that occasional pops up is that Boulez wasn't the most conventionally expressive on the podium. On the other hand, the better musicians knew that this meant that Boulez was giving _them_ the authority over their own musical expression in a way that few other conductors allow, for all of their histrionics on the platform.

As noted, the criticism in "atonal" music that no one can hear wrong notes is a total canard.

First of all, a well-trained ear absolutely can. If the musical language is self-consistent, anything outside of that consistency can be detected.

Second of all, there are no live performances of conventionally tonal pieces without errors, most of which go unnoticed by the audience. Few are going to notice if one of the second violins hits F-sharp instead of F-natural, for example, depending on the texture. But also, many errors that go unnoticed include playing the wrote chord of note (e.g. the fifth instead of the third, or root), or a wrong note that is still in the diatonic collection or harmonic-context scale operating in the moment.

Third of all, we are all far, Far, FAR more familiar with the conventions of common-practice tonal music (which by the way really is not a measure of its universality but rather its ubiquity is the legacy of imperialism), than with any other kind of music. I suspect that very few who think they are good at noticing wrong notes in Western classical music-whether justified or not-would be comparably good at detecting off-mode notes in Hindustani classical music, for one example.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> That used to be my argument. Depends on what sort of mistake and where. In both tonal and atonal music there are certain notes that still work in place of ones written, and others that don't work. It's what is there that goes together that matters, and a measure of greatness.


That wrong note, sir, is not the wrong note that I intended.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Janspe said:


> This list could've been written by me, though I would add _Messagesquisse_ and _Éclat/Multiples_ as pieces I also love dearly. Actually I could say that of Boulez's output, only _Répons_ still somehow escapes my grasp - I guess I ought to hear it played live!


I think you're right that _Répons_ needs to be heard live to be properly appreciated. But I certainly share your enthusiasm for _Messagesquisse_ and _Éclat/Multiples_. Pity the latter was never "finished" (although I find it satisfying as-is.)



> Needless to say, I love Boulez's music to bits. _Notations_ is in my opinion one of the greatest orchestral works to emerge relatively recently, and a lot of his works would grace any concert programme.


Me, too. And, hear, hear!



> Unfortunately I haven't read any of Boulez's writings or lectures. My _to read_ -pile is quite massive indeed.


I'd suggest _Orientations_ is a good place to start; they're easy reading and quite enjoyable. But my nightstand is overburdered by books, too!

I've enjoyed the _Music Lessons_ as well, but they're pretty mind-blowing, and I have to do only a chapter at a time, re-read each multiple times, and give the ideas plenty of time to sink in properly.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> I find his music consistently uninteresting.


+1

Boulez music sounds joyless and methodical to me, boring.

Some of his conducting is good.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Several of us have expressed enthusiasm for Boulez's _Notations I-IV & VII_ for orchestra. Such a great pity that he never finished the set! But here's about as definitive a performance of these wonderfully intense, emotional, colorful, and deeply inspired pieces as one could ask for:


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

This is IMO the best recording/performance. EXTREMELY VISCERAL and loud. NOT boring! Great tempo and you hear everything perfectly. I had this when it first came out. Out of print. Listen to that crowd reaction!






And this too is not boring in the least, IMO. Builds up to major excitement at 2:51. Awesome music.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

The Abbado/Wiener Philharmoniker recording of the Boulez _Notations I-IV_ was my first as well; I purchased it on CD when it first came out, without really knowing anything about any of the music! It's a great disc. But indeed that is the recording of music by Boulez that I referred to as changing my life, up thread. Absolutely _staggering_.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Me too. I was studying composition in Boston at the time in the 90s. In one of my classes one day, the teacher let students bring in scores with CDs of their favorite music to present to the class. A student from Germany brought in Notations and played the piano music with the score and then Wien Modern CD but without the score.

Immediately after the class, I went to Tower Records on Newbury Street, bought the Wien Modern CD, took the Red Line to Cambridge to the music score store where I purchased all my scores and ordered the Universal Edition of the Full Score. I still have it and study it. Amazing. Every stand in the orchestra has their own part.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Torkelburger said:


> Me too. I was studying composition in Boston at the time in the 90s. In one of my classes one day, the teacher let students bring in scores with CDs of their favorite music to present to the class. A student from Germany brought in Notations and played the piano music with the score and then Wien Modern CD but without the score.
> 
> Immediately after the class, I went to Tower Records on Newbury Street, bought the Wien Modern CD, took the Red Line to Cambridge to the music score store where I purchased all my scores and ordered the Universal Edition of the Full Score. I still have it and study it. Amazing. Every stand in the orchestra has their own part.


Awesome! I did a major theoretical analysis of I-IV in graduate school, and purchased my copy of the full score, then. Which of course I still own, covered with my annotations and analysis markings! It's one of my favorite guest lectures to this day, to present and play the piano pieces, then play the orchestral pieces, then present my analysis, then play the orchestral pieces again. It always makes a huge impression.

Incidentally, note that the audience goes bonkers at the end of the Lucerne Academy performance video I linked above as well! That performance is great, but I admit it has recording quality issues. But I love the look of rapt concentration on all the young players' faces! And they play their hearts out! Working with young musicians is truly incredible.

ETA: I bought my copy of the "Wien Modern" CD at the Tower Records in San Francisco, the one that used to be close to Fisherman's Wharf. It was on a marching band tour! (I used to play tuba/Sousaphone in the marching band.)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

JAS said:


> That wrong note, sir, is not the wrong note that I intended.


I had to look that one up. I thought it might have been a quote I've missed before. Here are some funny quotes from Jazz musicians on wrong notes. This one is probably the most intriguing

"It's not the note you play that's the wrong note - it's the note you play afterwards that makes it right or wrong" - Miles Davis

https://www.musespeak.com/blog/2008/12/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-wrong-note.html


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Torkelburger said:


> Second-rate composers do not have their compositions performed by *The Vienna Philharmonic* and *The Berlin Philharmonic* with extreme regularity like he did. The top major orchestras from all continents performed his music and still do.


Meh. Third and second-rate composers with good connections do. In any of the arts, and in ones own lifetime, the quality of ones work has little to no relationship to exposure. It's all about name recognition and connections. If one judged the poet Merwin and John Ashbery by the fact that they were both published in the Library of America, you'd think they were both great American poets, but neither are being read these days. Ashbery is collecting dust alongside innumerable and much-revered Victorian poets. Or the great Salieri.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Boulez is one of the composers that got me into contemporary music and is still one of my favorites from the past 50-60 years. My tolerance for "experimentalism" is somewhat low and there is a lot of contemporary music that I don't care for. But I find it curious when people say that his music is cold, technical, lacks emotion, is meant for snobbish academics, etc. Sur Incises is a remarkably colorful ravishing piece. Le Marteau sans Maitre and Pli Selon Pli are dazzling in their extraction of various sonic combinations from small instrumental ensembles and stand as two of the finest song cycles of the century. The piano music is a bit tougher to crack to my ears. I do hear purpose and direction in his music, I just had to learn not to listen to it like it was in a linear classical sonata form. I listen for colors and shapes rather than melodies and harmonies. It works well.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Boulez is one of the composers that got me into contemporary music and is still one of my favorites from the past 50-60 years. My tolerance for "experimentalism" is somewhat low and there is a lot of contemporary music that I don't care for. But I find it curious when people say that his music is cold, technical, lacks emotion, is meant for snobbish academics, etc. Sur Incises is a remarkably colorful ravishing piece. Le Marteau sans Maitre and Pli Selon Pli are dazzling in their extraction of various sonic combinations from small instrumental ensembles and stand as two of the finest song cycles of the century. The piano music is a bit tougher to crack to my ears. I do hear purpose and direction in his music, I just had to learn not to listen to it like it was in a linear classical sonata form. I listen for colors and shapes rather than melodies and harmonies. It works well.


Great post!

For me, it was the impressionistic and gesturally focused Sonata No. 1 that was my "gateway" to Boulez's piano music. It's overshadowed by the later two sonatas, and probably that's fair; they're far more ambitious and have greater depth. But they're harder for the listener as well. The scintillating First Sonata is easier and more fun.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Boulez is at the top of the top for me. He reminds me a bit of Ravel in the sense that he didn't write all that many works, but each one of them is an exquisitely crafted gem with endless reward for the listener. As a conductor, there are few whose technique and general approach to the music they made I value higher. The only (minor) hesitation I have is that Boulez, like Leonard Bernstein, wrote music that is so entwined with who he was as a man and artist that I think other musicians have been either scared to take on his work, or unable to present it in a way that shines new light on the music. I hope that, in light of his recent passing, the next few decades see the creation of more and more recordings and performances of Boulez _sans_ Boulez.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Torkelburger said:


> That's perfectly fine. Is the fact that much of it is serial the problem? If I recall, I don't think you find much twelve-tone music interesting (which is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion-it's not for everyone)-such as post-1923 Schoenberg, Webern, late Stravinsky, Berio, Dallapicola, Krenek, Nono, Babbitt, etc. but correct me if I'm wrong.


It's true I don't seem to take to serial music. I don't really have anything to say about Boulez, and ratings in general don't interest me. I'm just reporting that when I listen to Boulez I always feel like getting up and doing something else instead.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I have not concentrated enough on his music to make a statement yet, other than, I like some 0f what I've heard.

Obviously, he's a 1st rate conductor.

But what I do love about him the most, is his championing new music.

I also found this video recently by Daniel Barenboim on Boulez.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

vtpoet said:


> Meh. Third and second-rate composers with good connections do. In any of the arts, and in ones own lifetime, the quality of ones work has little to no relationship to exposure. It's all about name recognition and connections. If one judged the poet Merwin and John Ashbery by the fact that they were both published in the Library of America, you'd think they were both great American poets, but neither are being read these days. Ashbery is collecting dust alongside innumerable and much-revered Victorian poets. Or the great Salieri.


Boulez's performances by these major orchestras began much later in his career by the time he was already an established first rate composer. He didn't need help. And his music is still being performed, recorded, studied, published, spoken about, written about, etc etc even well after his death and in some cases 80 years after they were composed. So I would hardly call that a second or third rate reputation. And judging by the audience reactions from the two live posts in this thread, it seems at least some of his music will stay around for awhile and be well received. Looks first rate to me.

Oh, and do you mean WS Merwin? Because I actually read him regularly and from my post #39 at this poetry forum from July of this year, I recommended him to someone and they replied a few posts later #41 that they already liked him.

http://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-22836-page-2.html

I have a few books of his ordered from amazon, some recently published so apparently he is being read.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Torkelburger said:


> Boulez's performances by these major orchestras began much later in his career by the time he was already an established first rate composer.


Yes. Exactly. That's my point. Also, I don't have an opinion as regards Boulez's "importance", though asserting that he's a first rate composer begs the question. Nonetheless, it's certainly within your rights to think that. I give it about as much weight as listeners who insist that Salieri is superior to Mozart.



Torkelburger said:


> Oh, and do you mean WS Merwin? Because I actually read him regularly and from my post #39 at this poetry forum from July of this year, I recommended him to someone and they replied a few posts later #41 that they already liked him.
> 
> http://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-22836-page-2.html
> 
> I have a few books of his ordered from amazon, some recently published so apparently he is being read.


Merwin's collected poems on Amazon got 11 comments/reviews. Eleven. Nuff said.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Yes. Exactly. That's my point. Also, I don't have an opinion as regards Boulez's "importance", though asserting that he's a first rate composer begs the question. Nonetheless, it's certainly within your rights to think that. I give it about as much weight as listeners who insist that Salieri is superior to Mozart.
> 
> Merwin's collected poems on Amazon got 11 comments/reviews. Eleven. Nuff said.


Why does it beg the question, because you don't like his music...?

Edit: Did you create this thread to bash his music?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> Why does it beg the question, because you don't like his music...?


No. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter (which is why I asked originally). My objection to Torkelburger's comment had _less_ to do with his estimation of Boulez than with his criteria. Popularity within a composer's lifetime doesn't mean a whole lot. My comparisons to Salieri aren't meant to equate Boulez with Salieri, but to equate the criteria used. Salieri was immensely popular in his own day and if the same criteria were used to rate him in his own day (major orchestras performed him and look at all his students!) then it would be Salieri, and not Mozart, celebrated to this day.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> No. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter (which is why I asked originally). My objection to Torkelburger's comment had _less_ to do with his estimation of Boulez than with his criteria. Popularity within a composer's lifetime doesn't mean a whole lot. My comparisons to Salieri aren't meant to equate Boulez with Salieri, but to equate the criteria used. Salieri was immensely popular in his own day and if the same criteria were used to rate him in his own day (major orchestras performed him and look at all his students!) then it would be Salieri, and not Mozart, celebrated to this day.


I think we came further than the audience from Salieri's day. I'm not a big fan of Boulez, but I can hear his music as first rate in contemporary music. Do you feel there are contemporary composers better than him?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

vtpoet said:


> Yes. Exactly. That's my point. Also, I don't have an opinion as regards Boulez's "importance", though asserting that he's a first rate composer begs the question. Nonetheless, it's certainly within your rights to think that. I give it about as much weight as listeners who insist that Salieri is superior to Mozart.
> 
> Merwin's collected poems on Amazon got 11 comments/reviews. Eleven. Nuff said.


No. I am saying his skills as a composer and his reputation over many years of composition is more likely the reason. Besides, I seriously doubt they would keep programming him if people were not buying tickets and reacting the way they did, which seems to be enthusiastically. And it seems like an unreasonable amount of trouble for all these orchestras, record companies, and award organizations to promote third rate music for decades in one great conspiracy. That's a lot to risk just for a favor to a connection.

Oh, and I noticed the merwin book you referenced as a "gotcha" moment costs $60! His other books that are at affordable prices have 39, 47, and 58 reviews. Nice try though.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Nothing to see here.


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

I'm very grateful to Boulez, if only for the fact that in the past few months after acquiring his large set on Sony I've been introduced to the music of Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg, Berg, Mahler, Berio, reintroduced to Messiaen and Stravinsky, and also to a few of his own compositions that I have very much enjoyed my first exposure to. 

I find some of his well publicised comments unnecessary and questionable, but the same is true of many composers whose output I admire greatly regardless.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Second-rate composers do not have their compositions performed by *The Vienna Philharmonic* and *The Berlin Philharmonic* with extreme regularity like he did.


Except he's not programmed as much as you say he is. The digital concert hall (which isn't comprehensive) shows that his music have been played 8 times by the Berliner Philharmoniker in the period it covers, including 2 times by Boulez himself. That is only 6 times, compared to Berio (14 times), Ligeti (12 times), Lutoslawski (12 times), Zimmermann (8 times) or Adams (7 times).
Since 2000, he hasn't been programmed by the Wiener Philharmoniker except by Boulez himself and Barenboim (in 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2017 - the Wiener Philharmoniker archives are comprehensive).
Outside of Boulez himself, Boulez music is programmed by a limited number of conductors, some of them like Eötvös who own their career to Boulez. 
Boulez music is played by major orchestras mostly because of his successful conductor career.
Anyway, the Berliner Philharmoniker and the Wiener Philharmoniker don't mean anything, as they're not known to be orchestras that promote contemporary music, and their choices says little about anything other than reputation and politics.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Except he's not programmed as much as you say he is. The digital concert hall (which isn't comprehensive) shows that his music have been played 8 times by the Berliner Philharmoniker in the period it covers, including 2 times by Boulez himself. That is only 6 times, compared to Berio (14 times), Ligeti (12 times), Lutoslawski (12 times), Zimmermann (8 times) or Adams (7 times).
> Since 2000, he hasn't been programmed by the Wiener Philharmoniker except by Boulez himself and Barenboim (in 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2017 - the Wiener Philharmoniker archives are comprehensive).
> Outside of Boulez himself, Boulez music is programmed by a limited number of conductors, some of them like Eötvös who own their career to Boulez.
> Boulez music is played by major orchestras mostly because of his successful conductor career.
> *Anyway, the Berliner Philharmoniker and the Wiener Philharmoniker don't mean anything, as they're not known to be orchestras that promote contemporary music*, and their choices says little about anything other than reputation and politics.


Agreed, which is why it's weird that you're trying to cite them as evidence that Boulez is not programmed much.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> Agreed, which is why it's weird that you're trying to cite them as evidence that Boulez is not programmed much.


I was answering to Torkelburger, who was taking these two orchestras as proof that Boulez's works were programmed "with extreme regularity". I was showing that they're not, at least by these two orchestras.
But Boulez is probably programmed even less, in comparaison of others composers, by orchestras whch actually promote contemporary music (radio orchestras especialy - but I can't find comprehensive archives of their concerts).


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Torkelburger said:


> And it seems like an unreasonable amount of trouble for all these orchestras, record companies, and award organizations to promote third rate music for decades in one great conspiracy. That's a lot to risk just for a favor to a connection.


The history of music is replete with examples like this. To be clear, I'm not commenting on Boulez's stature, but your criteria are bogus.



Torkelburger said:


> Oh, and I noticed the merwin book you referenced as a "gotcha" moment costs $60! His other books that are at affordable prices have 39, 47, and 58 reviews. Nice try though.


Mary Oliver. Almost exact contemporary: 1219 Comments/Reviews. That's one thousand two hundred and nineteen verses 58. I think we're done here.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think we came further than the audience from Salieri's day. I'm not a big fan of Boulez, but I can hear his music as first rate in contemporary music. Do you feel there are contemporary composers better than him?


That's worthy of a new thread: Have audiences come further than those in Salieri's day? I'd argue that that's highly debatable, but certainly self-congratulatory. 

Edit: To answer your second question: I don't trust my own judgement, not having a settled criteria, as far as contemporary through-composed music goes (to say which contemporary composers are better than others). Am still deciding which appeal to me, but that might not equal which are "better".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think we came further than the audience from Salieri's day. I'm not a big fan of Boulez, but I can hear his music as first rate in contemporary music. Do you feel there are contemporary composers better than him?


Trick question.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> That's worthy of a new thread: Have audiences come further than those in Salieri's day? I'd argue that that's highly debatable, but certainly self-congratulatory.
> 
> Edit: To answer your second question: *I don't trust my own judgement,* not having a settled criteria, as far as contemporary through-composed music goes (to say which contemporary composers are better than others). Am still deciding which appeal to me, but that might not equal which are "better".


I don't understand your statement of not trusting your own judgment. Do you mean you don't trust your own judgment to determine if Boulez or other contemporary composers (or any composer) is "good," "great," "wrote music that will last?"

My question is why does the issue of which composers "are better" matter at all?

Maybe I'm unique (I doubt it) but whether a composer is considered great, good or better or not does not matter to me. I am not interested in a "canon" of classical music or composers, i.e. those works and the composers that wrote them considered to be great by some authority or consensus.

I listen to the music that interests me from day to day. Sometimes it is Bach, or Brahms, other days it's Boulez. Some days it is not classical music at all.

I really don't understand the attitude of trying to nail down which works/composers are great in order to build a library of "worthy" music that you listen to.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I don't understand your statement of not trusting your own judgment. Do you mean you don't trust your own judgment to determine if Boulez or other contemporary composers (or any composer) is "good," "great," "wrote music that will last?"


Yes.



SanAntone said:


> My question is why does the issue of which composers "are better" matter at all? [Snip] I really don't understand the attitude of trying to nail down which works/composers are great in order to build a library of "worthy" music that you listen to.


I don't know if you're directing that question at me but I'd answer it two ways. At a personal level, it doesn't. Listen to who you like. You're hardly unique in not caring how composers are ranked. But there's another side to the question which is this: _What, after all, decides why some composers have a greater and more durable appeal in the long term?_ To simply dismiss this question is anti-intellectual and means dismissing one of the most interesting questions in any given field of art-the question that any composer or writer or artist has to wrestle with if they want to be more than mediocre. If there weren't an objective craft to any given art form, then there wouldn't be teachers and students. <--- Unpopular Opinion Alert.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I don't understand your statement of not trusting your own judgment. Do you mean you don't trust your own judgment to determine if Boulez or other contemporary composers (or any composer) is "good," "great," "wrote music that will last?"
> 
> My question is why does the issue of which composers "are better" matter at all?
> 
> ...


Here's some thoughts about greatness, stolen from Italo Calvino!

1) The greats are the pieces of music of which we usually hear people say: "I am relistening …" and never "I am listening…."

2) We use the word "greats" for those pieces of music that are treasured by those who have heard and loved them; but they are treasured no less by those who have the luck to hear them for the first time in the best conditions to enjoy them.

3) The greats are pieces of music that exert a peculiar influence, both when they refuse to be eradicated from the mind and when they conceal themselves in the folds of memory, camouflaging themselves as the collective or individual unconscious.

4) Every relistening of a great piece of music is as much a voyage of discovery as the first listening

5) Every listening of a great is in fact a relistening.

6) A great is a piece of music that has never finished saying what it has to say.

7) The greats are the pieces of music that come down to us bearing upon them the traces of listenings previous to ours, and bringing in their wake the traces they themselves have left on the culture or cultures they have passed through (or, more simply, on language and customs).

8) A great does not necessarily teach us anything we did not know before. In a great we sometimes discover something we have always known (or thought we knew), but without knowing that this composer said it first, or at least is associated with it in a special way. And this, too, is a surprise that gives a lot of pleasure, such as we always gain from the discovery of an origin, a relationship, an affinity. From all this we may derive a definition of this type:

9) The greats are pieces of music that we find all the more new, fresh, and unexpected upon listening, the more we thought we knew them from hearing them talked about.

10) We use the word "great" of a piece of music that takes the form of an equivalent to the universe, on a level with the ancient talismans. With this definition we are approaching the idea of the "total work of art" as Mallarmé conceived of it.

11) Your great composer is the one you cannot feel indifferent to, who helps you to define yourself in relation to him, even in dispute with him.

12) A great is a piece of music that comes before other greats; but anyone who has read the others first, and then reads this one, instantly recognizes its place in the family tree.

13) A great is something that tends to relegate the concerns of the moment to the status of background noise, but at the same time this background noise is something we cannot do without.

14) A great is something that persists as a background noise even when the most incompatible momentary concerns are in control of the situation.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Here's some thoughts about greatness, stolen from Italo Calvino!
> 
> 1) The greats are the pieces of music of which we usually hear people say: "I am relistening …" and never "I am listening…."
> 
> ...


I think each person is capable of creating their own personal list of "the greats." I am not questioning that we have pieces of music for which we listen to over and over and continue to receive new enrichment or enjoyment from them. Those statements from Italo Calvino define an "appeal to authority" unless he or you will acknowledge that we all satisfy those requirements on our own without any need of any authority.

What I am questioning is a need to rely on some outside determination of which composers are great and which works are great in order to feel secure in the knowledge that we are listening to "great" music.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> The history of music is replete with examples like this.


That's a lie. A third-rate composer being performed over a dozen times by the top two orchestras in the world and by major orchestras on all continents and recorded by top record labels like DG dozens of times and recorded by top artists in the world and awarded multiple Grammys over several decades and winning the most prestigious award in composition the Grawemeyer?

It hasn't even happened ONCE.



> Mary Oliver. Almost exact contemporary: 1219 Comments/Reviews. That's one thousand two hundred and nineteen verses 58. I think we're done here.


Moving the goalposts. You initially said he is not "being read these days" which I proved is a lie. Your initial assertion was NOT that he is not as popular as exact contemporaries. Which, by the way, some of his books have the similar number of reviews as the current Poet Laureate, Joy Harjo (who doesn't either have the near 1219 but is considered very popular (has appeared on Oprah)). So no, we're not done. Feel free to waste everyone's time arguing over the next 5 pages of this thread trying to backtrack on your initial false assertion, though.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Oh, and MY point is bogus? Your point has to be completely obvious. Artists popular in their own lifetimes aren't necessarily popular well after their deaths. No kidding? Really? None of us here ever knew that.

News flash. We all know that. And sometimes people who are nobodies during their lifetimes are popular after their deaths. Like Lovecraft (also appears in Library of America). And sometimes people who are popular during their lifetimes are also popular after their deaths as well.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Let's check back here in 100 years or so. I'm game . . . .


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I think each person is capable of creating their own personal list of "the greats." I am not questioning that we have pieces of music for which we listen to over and over and continue to receive new enrichment or enjoyment from them. Those statements from Italo Calvino define an "appeal to authority" unless he or you will acknowledge that we all satisfy those requirements on our own without any need of any authority.
> 
> What I am questioning is a need to rely on some outside determination of which composers are great and which works are great in order to feel secure in the knowledge that we are listening to "great" music.


Each person is technically capable, but that list dies with us. I think the reason people are looking for outside determination is chiefly as a sense of how widespread is the opinion beyond ourselves. (It may be amazing, but some people are actually interested in what others think, even if it may not change their own opinions.)

It is, of course, not always easy to get a sense of a "consensus" position on anything, especially something that is controversial. And some general positions shift over time, sometimes quite radically.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Except he's not programmed as much as you say he is. The digital concert hall (which isn't comprehensive) shows that his music have been played 8 times by the Berliner Philharmoniker in the period it covers, including 2 times by Boulez himself. That is only 6 times, compared to Berio (14 times), Ligeti (12 times), Lutoslawski (12 times), Zimmermann (8 times) or Adams (7 times).
> Since 2000, he hasn't been programmed by the Wiener Philharmoniker except by Boulez himself and Barenboim (in 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2017 - the Wiener Philharmoniker archives are comprehensive).
> Outside of Boulez himself, Boulez music is programmed by a limited number of conductors, some of them like Eötvös who own their career to Boulez.
> Boulez music is played by major orchestras mostly because of his successful conductor career.
> Anyway, the Berliner Philharmoniker and the Wiener Philharmoniker don't mean anything, as they're not known to be orchestras that promote contemporary music, and their choices says little about anything other than reputation and politics.


Those lists are not complete. I just posted upthread the Vienna Phil with Abbado playing Notations in the 90s. And they also played Livre pour cordes in the 90s as well (it's on youtube). Who knows if any others are missing.



> Outside of Boulez himself, Boulez music is programmed by a limited number of conductors, some of them like Eötvös who own their career to Boulez.


A quick search of just youtube and amazon alone prove this is utter nonsense. And those just scratch the surface.



> Boulez music is played by major orchestras mostly because of his successful conductor career.


This is an unproved assertion. Assert it all you want. But no matter how many times you assert it, it doesn't make it true.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Those lists are not complete. I just posted upthread the Vienna Phil with Abbado playing Notations in the 90s. And they also played Livre pour cordes in the 90s as well (it's on youtube). Who knows if any others are missing.


I've pointed it myself: the digital concert hall is not comprehensive, but the Wiener Philharmoniker concert archives ARE complete, even if that fact doesn't please you. And I've pointed, for the latter, that I've started to count in 2000.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'm wondering whether _Sur incises_ might not be an excellent gateway for a newcomer into Boulez's compositional world. It's so colorful and exciting, scintillating and dramatic, with a real emotional punch, to all appearances despite the "brittleness" of the instrumentation. Highly recommended!

This performance by the Ensemble InterContemporain, conducted by Matthias Pintscher, is absolutely fantastic, rivaling Boulez's own.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> I've pointed it myself: the digital concert hall is not comprehensive, but the Wiener Philharmoniker concert archives ARE complete, even if it doesn't please you.


Pleases me just fine. A performance once every 3 to 5 years on average over the last 20 years. Seems pretty regular to me.



> And I've pointed, for the latter, that I've started to count in 2000.


Oh, I did. Which is why it needed to be pointed out that there is also evidence showing performances prior to the date specified.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Knorf said:


> I'm wondering whether _Sur incises_ might not be an excellent gateway for a newcomer into Boulez's compositional world. It's so colorful and exciting, scintillating and dramatic, with a real emotional punch, to all appearances despite the "brittleness" of the instrumentation. Highly recommended!
> 
> This performance by the Ensemble InterContemporain, conducted by Matthias Pintscher, is absolutely fantastic, rivaling Boulez's own.


Yes, I think that's the one. For the reasons you gave. The other candidate would be the Notations For PIANO. Because they are so short in length and there are just 12 total so the whole piece just lasts a few minutes and can be taken in small doses.

In addition to that, they do not all sound the same, so that also helps keep the listener from getting bored. Each is unique in texture and musical character. They are also unorthodox serial pieces, meaning they are very different from Schoenberg, Berg, and even Webern (although I believe one or two have the Webern-esque "mirror" form). Since he wrote them so young, they have almost a sort of dare I say, Romantic gesture to some of them. And unorthodox serial techniques like Cowellian clusters and glisses.

It would be great, then, to progress to the orchestral version and see how Boulez developed and expanded each of the ideas but sticking to the general outline of the original piano version. It's interesting to see how he begins and ends each phrase and idea and lets the music breathe and then start the next texture. It's also interesting to see his orchestration of taking a line and coloring it in different ways simultaneously and all the effects with similar or dissimilar instruments; as well as displacing the lines at various points in the bar(s) to get very effective results.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

As for whether Boulez is popular or not now (obviously no), or will be like Mahler and find his place in the repertoire in 50-100 years (I think he will and indeed very nearly already has with the _Notations_, but who knows): all that to me is very unimportant.

All that matters to me is whether I get pleasure, via significant intellectual and musical stimulation, as well as build an emotional connection, by listening to his music. My response is simple:

*Heck yes, I do!*


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

It's fine to argue points. Even to argue intensely. Such arguments can be interesting and informative. But please refrain from personal comments. Some posts were edited to remove negative personal comments.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Knorf said:


> I'm wondering whether _Sur incises_ might not be an excellent gateway for a newcomer into Boulez's compositional world. It's so colorful and exciting, scintillating and dramatic, with a real emotional punch, to all appearances despite the "brittleness" of the instrumentation. Highly recommended!
> 
> This performance by the Ensemble InterContemporain, conducted by Matthias Pintscher, is absolutely fantastic, rivaling Boulez's own.


Sur Incises was exactly the work that allowed me to enjoy Boulez. I had struggled with his music and found an audio file with Boulez discussing the work while musicians performed parts of it. He focused on the motifs that flittered about the ensemble, and I found it both fascinating and beautiful. Since then, I've enjoyed quite a few of Boulez's works.



Torkelburger said:


> Yes, I think that's the one. For the reasons you gave. The other candidate would be the Notations For PIANO. Because they are so short in length and there are just 12 total so the whole piece just lasts a few minutes and can be taken in small doses.
> 
> ...
> 
> It would be great, then, to progress to the orchestral version and see how Boulez developed and expanded each of the ideas but sticking to the general outline of the original piano version. It's interesting to see how he begins and ends each phrase and idea and lets the music breathe and then start the next texture. It's also interesting to see his orchestration of taking a line and coloring it in different ways simultaneously and all the effects with similar or dissimilar instruments; as well as displacing the lines at various points in the bar(s) to get very effective results.


I love both Notations and Notations for Orchestra. Boulez's music is clearly a different listening experience to CPT, and I'm not surprised that some do not find his music compelling. But I am certainly thrilled that I continued to listen and found my way to enjoying what I consider truly wonderful music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> I don't know if you're directing that question at me but I'd answer it two ways. At a personal level, it doesn't. Listen to who you like. You're hardly unique in not caring how composers are ranked. But there's another side to the question which is this: _What, after all, decides why some composers have a greater and more durable appeal in the long term?_ *To simply dismiss this question is anti-intellectual *and means dismissing one of the most interesting questions in any given field of art-the question that any composer or writer or artist has to wrestle with if they want to be more than mediocre. If there weren't an objective craft to any given art form, then there wouldn't be teachers and students. <--- Unpopular Opinion Alert.


Studying a score and analyzing a work is intellectual. Studying a composer's life and coming to some understanding of what motivated his composing during different periods, etc., discussing theses aspects of music are intellectual occupations. Reading music history and learning about which works are considered important by scholars and how one composer was influenced by others and how his career brought about innovations and set music history in a new direction. This too is an intellectual activity.

Listening to music is not an intellectual experience. Listening to and appreciating music is not the same thing as thinking about it and intellectualizing the experience of music. Listening to music is the direct experience of music while intellectualizing the experience of music is a form of distancing yourself from the act of listening to music and abstracting it into a discussion of it.

It is my opinion that some people are interested in intellectual discussions about music and others are mainly interested in listening to music and not so much with an intellectual interaction with it.

I certainly don't think intellectual discussions of music are more important than experiencing music by listening to it. In fact, I believe that the act of appreciating music by listening to it is the primary reason music exists and where its value lies.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Knorf said:


> I'm wondering whether _Sur incises_ might not be an excellent gateway for a newcomer into Boulez's compositional world. It's so colorful and exciting, scintillating and dramatic, with a real emotional punch, to all appearances despite the "brittleness" of the instrumentation. Highly recommended!
> 
> This performance by the Ensemble InterContemporain, conducted by Matthias Pintscher, is absolutely fantastic, rivaling Boulez's own.


I wish Pintscher would record some Boulez, on CD, with the Ensemble. I wonder why he hasn't so far.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Torkelburger said:


> That's a lie. A third-rate composer being performed over a dozen times by the top two orchestras in the world and by major orchestras on all continents and recorded by top record labels like DG dozens of times and recorded by top artists in the world and awarded multiple Grammys over several decades and winning the most prestigious award in composition the Grawemeyer?


Well gee, I guess you're right. Salieri was never performed on all continents and was never recorded, in his lifetime, by DG or by top artists around the world. Neither was he awarded Grammys over the several decades of his life and he also didn't win the most prestigious award in composition the Grawemeyer. Your argument is unnassailable.



Torkelburger said:


> It hasn't even happened ONCE.


Nope. You are so right. Salieri wasn't even recorded by Naxos. They just ignored him.



Torkelburger said:


> Moving the goalposts. You initially said he is not "being read these days" which I proved is a lie.


Seriously? You thought I was _literally_ saying that nobody was reading him? My God, you've demolished my whole argument! I guess you're right again!


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Sur Incises was exactly the work that allowed me to enjoy Boulez. I had struggled with his music and found an audio file with Boulez discussing the work while musicians performed parts of it. He focused on the motifs that flittered about the ensemble, and I found it both fascinating and beautiful. Since then, I've enjoyed quite a few of Boulez's works.
> 
> I love both Notations and Notations for Orchestra. Boulez's music is clearly a different listening experience to CPT, and I'm not surprised that some do not find his music compelling. But I am certainly thrilled that I continued to listen and found my way to enjoying what I consider truly wonderful music.


Agreed! I often like to hear each individual piano Notation as a prelude before each orchestral Notation, Incises before Sur Incises, or Derive 1 as a prelude to Derive 2. His music gives the sense of having the capacity to continually and endlessly develop especially with the expanded color palette, while having a long term sense of purpose and climax - and this narrative sense clearly influenced by the generation or so of great composers in the early 20th century before him.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

vtpoet said:


> Well gee, I guess you're right. Salieri was never performed on all continents and was never recorded, in his lifetime, by DG or by top artists around the world. Neither was he awarded Grammys over the several decades of his life and he also didn't win the most prestigious award in composition the Grawemeyer. Your argument is unnassailable.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> asserting that he's a first rate composer begs the question.


No it doesn't. It is perfectly reasonable to say that winners of the Grawemeyer, especially, are composers of very high quality or "first rate" (and "first rate" isn't even any sort of official title or any kind of honor or award of its own, it's just a description so I don't understand why everyone seems so offended by it). More importantly, it is just talking about TODAY'S reputation. Their place in history can be discussed and speculated about separately. Describing them as of the highest caliber does not assume any premise and is completely demonstrable by objective means such as winning awards of the highest honor among their peers, or being performed by the top orchestras of the day. Worrying about what their reputation might or might not be 200 years from now does not mean we have no cause to judge their music as of the highest caliber RIGHT NOW.



> Popularity within a composer's lifetime doesn't mean a whole lot.


You have no logical basis whatsoever to only regard the likes and dislikes of audiences of the future while disregarding the likes and dislikes of the audiences of the present. Present-day popularity could be one of several factors used to rate the success and/or quality of music of a composer RIGHT NOW. It boggles the mind why you want to assess the quality of a composer's music TODAY on what an IMAGINARY AUDIENCE 200 YEARS FROM NOW will think of it.

It is *incredibly* stupid and nonsensical to withhold judgment TODAY of a composer even to the point of avoiding calling them "first rate" just because there is a chance (which you have no idea whatsoever about) that *maybe* they won't be popular in the future after their death, because Salieri's estimation dwindled in the future. That's utterly ridiculous. When someone asks if Boulez is a composer of very high quality, you don't reply, "Well, since it's possible he won't be liked in 200 years from now, and since Salieri isn't liked anymore, then no, he is not a high-quality composer." That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You wouldn't be able to call any composer good then. Any composer we like today, including the long-dead ones, might not be liked tomorrow.

In this day and age, when someone asks my opinion on a composer, let's say an up-and-coming composer not many people have heard of, I ask the following, which are the generally standard questions asked among professionals:
Where did they study and who did they study with? What performances have they had and with what organizations? What awards have they won? What recordings are available? Are they published and who are they published with?

And then of course you want to hear the music and listen for originality, competence, etc., etc. Also, those are all the things many composition contests want to know via a CV or resume when you apply to them to judge you along with your score and recording. So there is objective criteria to use to judge composers besides just their music.



> My comparisons to Salieri aren't meant to equate Boulez with Salieri, but to equate the criteria used. Salieri was immensely popular in his own day and if the same criteria were used to rate him in his own day (major orchestras performed him and look at all his students!) then it would be Salieri, and not Mozart, celebrated to this day.


This argument only applies in the sense that all you care about is a composer's reputation 200 years from now. It would have been perfectly fine for someone alive in Salieri's day to say that Salieri was a first-rate composer. At that time, he was. And by similar criteria, a person alive during Boulez's time can say Boulez is first-rate as well, regardless of what future generations may think. I've made my comments on my speculation of Boulez's place in history, but it doesn't matter, while it is an educated guess, I am not omniscient. But in the end, as Knorf pointed out it doesn't matter. And future generation's opinions of him have no bearing whatsoever on how highly we regard his music today.



> Seriously? You thought I was literally saying that nobody was reading him? My God, you've demolished my whole argument! I guess you're right again!


Reasonably, I can only be expected to take your words at their face value. If they mean something other than face value, then you should clarify it as then it is anyone's guess as to what the heck you mean.

I guess this will go on for pages and pages. So explain then what you mean by "neither are being read these days"? You mentioned the number of comments his books get in their reviews on amazon. What criteria are you using to determine "not being read"? What is the threshold and how was this threshold determined? Is the threshold 1219? Why was this number chosen? Shel Silverstein has over 5,000 reviews on a poetry book and is a contemporary of Mary Oliver. Can I say Mary Oliver is "not being read" then?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Torkelburger said:


> I guess this will go on for pages and pages.


No it won't. In fairness, I asked how listeners rated Boulez and you told me. I don't give your criteria any credence (I confess to being annoyed when the criteria amounts to cranking the volume and proclaiming "AWARDS!"), but that's my problem and for a separate thread I suppose.

If you visit Shell Silverstein's entry in Wikipedia, you currently find this:

"Sheldon Allan Silverstein /ˈsɪlvərstiːn/[1] (September 25, 1930 - May 10, 1999)[2][3] was an American writer known for his cartoons, songs, and children's books.[2] He styled himself as Uncle Shelby in some works. His books have been translated into more than 30 languages and have sold more than 20 million copies.[3] He was the recipient of two Grammy Awards, as well as Golden Globe Award and Academy Award nominations. "

No mention of him being a poet, and that's because his appeal isn't primarily as a poet but as a children's author who happened to write verse. The same can't be said for either Merwin or Oliver. If you google Oliver's Wikipedia entry, the first words are: "Mary Jane Oliver (September 10, 1935 - January 17, 2019) was an American poet..."

So, you're comparing apples and oranges; but be that as it may, if you compare the comments/reviews of Silverstein and Oliver's verse offerings (as returned by a search on Amazon's first page), you'll find that they are very close in their appeal. Oliver's comments and reviews come to just short of 6000.

And what about Merwin? I only brought up Merwin, not to dismiss Boulez, but to dismiss your criteria. Here is an exceptionally mediocre poet who won the following awards:

1952: Yale Younger Poets Prize for A Mask for Janus[25]
1954: Kenyon Review Fellowship in Poetry[26]
1956: Rockefeller Fellowship[26]
1957: National Institute of Arts and Letters grant[26]
1957: Playwrighting Bursary, Arts Council of Great Britain[26]
1961: Rabinowitz Foundation Grant[26]
1962: Bess Hokin Prize, Poetry magazine[26]
1964/1965: Ford Foundation Grant[26]
1966: Chapelbrook Foundation Fellowship[26]
1967: Harriet Monroe Memorial Prize, Poetry magazine[26]
1969: PEN Translation Prize for Selected Translations 1948-1968[27]
1969: Rockefeller Foundation Grant[26]
1971: Pulitzer Prize for Poetry for The Carrier of Ladders (published in 1971)[27]
1973: Academy of American Poets Fellowship[26]
1974: Shelley Memorial Award[26]
1979: Bollingen Prize for Poetry, Yale University Library[26]
1987: Governor's Award for Literature of the state of Hawaii[27]
1990: Maurice English Poetry Award[28]
1993: The Tanning Prize for mastery in the art of poetry[27]
1993: Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize for Travels[27]
1994: Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Writers' Award[27]
1999: Poetry Consultant to the Library of Congress, a jointly-held position with Rita Dove and Louise Glück[29]
2005: National Book Award for Poetry for Migration: New and Selected Poems[14][25]
2004: Golden Wreath Award of the Struga Poetry Evenings Festival in Macedonia[29]
2004: Lannan Lifetime Achievement Award[29]
2008: Golden Plate Award, American Academy of Achievement [30]
2009: Pulitzer Prize for Poetry for The Shadow of Sirius (published in 2008)[31]
2010: Kenyon Review Award for Literary Achievement[32]
2010: United States Poet Laureate[4]
2013: Zbigniew Herbert International Literary Award[33]

But whose magnum opus, the American Library of his collected words, netted-am I repeating myself?-eleven (11) comments. I can't fathom why such an awarded poet-so revered by his professional peers no less!-nets only 11 comments. Most of his books, on the first page returned by Amazon, net less than that. Go figure. As Robert Frost said, maybe the recognition of your peers and all those awards butter no parsnips?

But, you like Boulez and that's enough for me to listen to more of his music and I thank you for that and apologize if I've offended you.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> But, you like Boulez and that's enough for me to listen to more of his music and I thank you for that and apologize if I've offended you.


Honestly, I hope we can leave it there and call it good.

One really can't win, if you appeal to popularity or popular acclaim. I'm sure we all have lists of stuff we think is dreck that is wildly popular, and stuff we think is genius that goes almost completely ignored.

Classical music in general is obviously in the genius that gets ignored category to begin with. Music by living or recently living composers is a tinier subcategory, music by avant garde composers tinier yet.

John Adams is marginally more popular then Pierre Boulez, but Taylor Swift will come and crush all y'all.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Knorf said:


> One really can't win, if you appeal to popularity or popular acclaim. I'm sure we all have lists of stuff we think is dreck that is wildly popular, and stuff we think is genius that goes almost completely ignored.


That's true, but mainly my problem with citing the opinions of "professional peers" and Awards (capital A) is that it's a logical fallacy-an "Appeal to Authority"

As thoughco. puts it:

"*1.* Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact. "

I suppose it could be argued that popularity is also an "Appeal to Authority". I would answer that it is, up to a point. If the popular appeal and recognition is durable enough, then the question is no longer _whether_ a work of art has merit, but why. And one could also argue that facts don't apply to taste and/or musical preference. That's true, but saying that I like "X" because/"appeal to authority" is not the same as saying "X" is a Great Composer because/"appeal to authority". The latter implies that the merit of the music must be accepted on the basis of a given authority. In my view, if that authority is popular and durable, then that's not an unreasonable assertion. But if that authority is a self-appointed prize committee or a select group of peers, then I don't give it much credence.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Sure, there's plenty of dreck that won big awards and plenty of great work that never did. However, certain awards are more consistently given to what is widely considered great work than others. For example, in general, the Grawemeyer Award in Music Composition is one of these. Peruse their winners list and see whether you agree. It sustains consistently higher quality and relevance in my opinion than say the Pulitzer, which has become massively politicized.

Boulez by the way was awarded the Grawemeyer Award in 2001 for one of his pieces widely praised worldwide, but also in this thread by myself and others, _Sur incises_.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Knorf said:


> Boulez by the way was awarded the Grawemeyer Award in 2001 for one of his pieces widely praised worldwide, but also in this thread by myself and others, _Sur incises_.


I'm listening to Sur Inceses right now.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Good conductor of some of the classics - maybe - but it does not outweight all the hideous damage he has done with his mental criticisms, and with writing and promoting bad music.


Writing and promoting _bad music_? It's only _bad_ because you think it is and never mind what others think, right? WRONG!


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I give Pierre Boulez high marks for being a force of good when it comes to programming the works of Ultra-Modern composers such as Schoenberg, Varese, and Berio; providing the music an even chance in a market that doesn't favor challenging neither the audience or the status quo. And I came to know all those composers through Boulez'recordings. Boulez is also very good in Debussy and Mahler; and the Debussy, IMO, is hard to get right as even some of the finest conductors tend to over-play Debussy. I came around to Boulez' own compositions very late, but I do like "Hammer Without a Master" (too lazy right now to look up the correct spelling in French). For an atonal/serial work, "Hammer" is actually quite listenable.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Coach G said:


> I came around to Boulez' own compositions very late, but I do like "Hammer Without a Master" (too lazy right now to look up the correct spelling in French). For an atonal/serial work, "Hammer" is actually quite listenable.


_Le Marteau sans maître_

It's a great piece, and represents a massive turning point for Boulez in finding his mature style. And it's very rich, very pretty music. Igor Stravinsky spoke quite highly of it, and so do I. But there are many Boulez works I enjoy more.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, I think that's the one. For the reasons you gave. The other candidate would be the Notations For PIANO. Because they are so short in length and there are just 12 total so the whole piece just lasts a few minutes and can be taken in small doses.


The orchestral _Notations_ seem to me like they'd be more accessible to Boulez newcomers than their piano counterparts. The textures are softened and smoothened out, and the additional accompanying harmonic and thematic material (1) makes it easier to descry the composer's "intent" and (2) covers up the "rawness" of the piano version, a quality which I feel might detract listeners not well acquainted with Boulez or atonal music in general.

The same can be said (to some extent) about _Incises_ vs _Sur Incises_.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> Writing and promoting _bad music_? It's only _bad_ because you think it is and never mind what others think, right? WRONG!


This is a fairly normal response by the anti-modernists around here.

If they don't like it, it must be objectively bad.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

*Final reply regarding this side topic*



> But, you like Boulez and that's enough for me to listen to more of his music and I thank you for that and apologize if I've offended you.


That's quite all right. I'm not offended so no need for you to apologize. Thank you for the civil tone and candor. I will try and do the same. It seems we both have a love for music and poetry (surely there must be some composers and poets we both admire), and you have had an honest openness regarding getting to know Boulez's music so we can have a friendly conversation starting there going forward.

To spare everyone here, I will just make one final, although long-winded post on this topic before getting back to the main subject. Feel free to have the last word.



> (I confess to being annoyed when the criteria amounts to cranking the volume and proclaiming "AWARDS!")


In order to keep the post from being extremely long, I focused that reply on just one criterion, and I had re-mentioned the top orchestra performances in the same paragraph in passing. So throughout the thread I mentioned the following criteria: who performed his music and when, his music's longevity, recording history, instructional usage, the fact it's been regularly written about (modern textbooks, articles), awards, audience reactions, and later I talked about teachers/schools. So it's not just that one criterion.

One can look at all of these facts and create one big picture in order to help form one's estimation/opinion of a composer's skill and experience level, in addition to listening to the music with the scores. That's just what professionals do in the industry. As I mentioned previously, much of that is asked for in the application process to professional composition contests. There is another anecdote proving this: In the fall of 1996, I took the Amtrak from Boston to New York in order to meet John Corigliano at Julliard to show him some compositions (it took a few days to set this up). So I met him there and right when we sat down he asked me some of those questions I posted earlier about assessing a composer. That's just the norm. That's how you get to quickly assess someone's knowledge, experience, and general skill level. The same for assessing Boulez.

When I look at all the facts listed on Boulez's "resume", it easily reveals a bigger picture that shows a composer of very high quality and stature, even right down to his schooling (studying with Messiaen, etc.) and appearing in collegiate textbooks (both composition and history). But yes, most of the evidence is in the music itself.



> No mention of him being a poet,


If someone writes poems, they are a poet, not if Wikipedia says they are. And he has several books of poetry. Anyway, Biography.com begins "Shel Silverstein was a poet…" and is a much more reliable source.



> but to dismiss your criteria. Here is an exceptionally mediocre poet who won the following awards:


As I said, this will be my last post about all this. But you never answered what you meant by saying he is not being read these days. You didn't answer any of my questions. You arbitrarily chose to compare him to someone who had a book with 1200 more reviews on amazon. This just means someone else is being read MORE, not that he is "not being read". I can just as arbitrarily make my own criteria to show he is being read just as much as popular poets today. Joy Harjo, who has appeared on Oprah's TV show, has the following number of reviews for her 8 books of poetry on amazon: 70, 251, 393, 172, 82, 80, 52, and 22. The first two in the list are labelled as best sellers. Those are much closer to Merwin's numbers and a thousand less than Oliver's like Merwin. Billy Collins is popular and also has similar numbers. Also, I know Merwin is read just from recommending him to a random person on the internet (at pigpenpoetry) and that person had already read him and liked him. And when someone says no one's poetry is read anymore, I would assume that their books are not published anymore (there is no money to be made), out of print, and small in number. But that is not the case. Merwin is still having new books published including this year, so obviously people are making money, buying, and reading them.

I could arbitrarily use the criteria of youtube views to determine his popularity as well. Three of his videos of him reading his poetry have 11,982 and 17,687 and 31,758 views. So it seems quite a few people are interested in his poems. If I arbitrarily set the threshold at 1k views and above equals widely popular (for no reason at all), he well exceeds it. And the TED Talks video of his says he is "one of the most widely read of our time". Anyway, I'll shut up about it as I am tired arguing the point.



> But whose magnum opus, the American Library of his collected words, netted-am I repeating myself?-eleven (11) comments. I can't fathom why such an awarded poet-so revered by his professional peers no less!-nets only 11 comments.


That's probably because it retails at $60, plus shipping. I wouldn't pay that much for the collected works of Ray Bradbury, my favorite author (and avatar). So I doubt even die-hard fans of Merwin bought the book in question. His affordable books on amazon have almost 4, 5, and 6 times the number of reviews.



> In my view, if that authority is popular and durable, then that's not an unreasonable assertion. But if that authority is a self-appointed prize committee or a select group of peers, then I don't give it much credence.


So they should just win a large number of awards then? In any case, I have to respectfully disagree here. Olympic gymnastics acknowledges a winner when experts in the field judge athletic performances by various contestants. It would be a total farce if those experts were replaced by a bunch of average joes on the street who knew absolutely nothing about gymnastics and took a popular vote. The competition would lose all credibility and I doubt would have any good contestants in the future.

It's often the mistake to believe that all opinions, because they are opinions and not facts, are the same no matter who they come from. They are not. If this were the case, then we would have any slob off the street judging our composition contests, poetry contests, wine of the year contests, Olympics, etc. etc. Every opinion doesn't equate to whether you like or dislike the taste of chocolate ice cream. There are informed opinions made from knowledge about a subject, and uniformed opinions made out of ignorance. Certain opinions are about subjects which are intellectual disciplines requiring years of study or even college degrees, requiring experience (to judge poetry you must have experience reading poetry…the more the better, to judge music you must be familiar and have experience with that specific idiom) knowledge of craft, technique, and even it's history and traditions, etc.

Imagine there are two people you are going to show a poem to that you wrote. You wrote it as follows: it shows and not tells, it utilizes the concrete and not the abstract, it has inventive use of imagery, it has original use of figurative language, no cliches, no extraneous words, good repetition, good meter, and has a unique voice, subject matter, and persona, etc. etc. etc. you even included irony and allusion.

There are two people you show it to. The first is a 12-year old tween suburban female whose idea of a good time is spending weekends at the mall shopping for the hippest clothing and texting to her 50 friends. She reads no poetry at all outside of about a couple weeks in school where very little is read and studied. She thinks it is boring and stupid. After reading your poem, she concludes the same. Everything about it, including the irony and allusion, was over her head.

The second person is a creative writing professor at a university who loves poetry, reads it regularly, and teaches it. She says you are gifted, and she gives a couple pointers and recommendations.

Do both opinions carry the same weight? Are both estimations of you equally valid? What if there were 500 12-year olds like the one above and 5 professors?

Like I said, you can have the last word.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

vtpoet said:


> I ask because of this article:
> 
> https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/11/05/pierre-boulez-sound-and-fury/
> 
> The extracts from some of Boulez's writings sound like the word salad one reads in poetry criticism. As to his music, I'm inclined to agree with the reviewer. Doesn't impress me all that much.


So I read that article that the OP posted above, and I gotta say I've never seen a MacArthur award-winning composer/conductor (the author Matthew Aucoin) write so inaccurately and uncritically on contemporary music. He's out to trash Boulez by any means possible, even literally comparing Boulez to a demagogue! More problematically, beyond the author's level of popcorn entertainment writing style, is his faulty analysis of Boulez's compositions.



> Compared to the concentrated fury of Le Marteau, much of Boulez's later music seems to have softened without sweetening. His forms grew ever more diffuse and his sonic palette more sophisticated, but his harmonic language did not evolve accordingly: though he would not admit it, the "hammer" of the twelve-tone system remained his master to the end. Though there is much to admire in his later pieces, especially their scintillating textural juxtapositions, the music's apparent complexity often amounts to a supersaturated sameness. Every explosion, every would-be violent gesture, confirms only the inherent lack of dynamism in Boulez's harmonic materials, their inability to organically grow or change.


Sentence two after the colon is completely false. The last two sentences are just a shallow hearing of the music - Boulez's music is neither supersaturated nor unable to organically grow. Consider the huge range and propulsive journey in Repons and Sur Incises. There's a constant sense that the music needs to "go somewhere", even when the music is for a time dedicated to exploring a particular space. Boulez achieves a balance between exploring a musical object from different angles as Stravinsky would do, and establishing contrasts to develop a narrative as Schoenberg would do. And there's a large-scale textural/harmonic rhythm to this journey of contrasts. Sentence one underestimates the similar broad aesthetic sensibilities of Le Marteau and his later works, despite their differing harmonic language and color palette.

To the OP, I would give Boulez's main works some listens, trying to feel both the immediate sound and the larger scale journey, and if it doesn't stick, come back to it later. I got much, much less out of his works when I first heard them. While Boulez was heavily influenced by the composers a generation or two before him, the synthesis he achieves in his music is a radically different kind of thing that takes time to digest.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

What really made me appreciate _Le Marteau sans maitre_ to a whole new level was the following video when I came upon it just a few years ago. I had known the piece had extremely difficult serial procedures to understand that I believe Boulez had newly-created, but I didn't realize that that was just half of it. It seems that there is also a freer, sort of "right-brained" system to the composition as well where he breaks his own rules here and there for aesthetic reasons, to create that richness and beauty. It's not just Boulez's answers to the questions here that are insightful, but the questions themselves in this video are really good and well-researched.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Torkelburger said:


> That's quite all right. I'm not offended so no need for you to apologize. Thank you for the civil tone and candor. I will try and do the same. It seems we both have a love for music and poetry (surely there must be some composers and poets we both admire), and you have had an honest openness regarding getting to know Boulez's music so we can have a friendly conversation starting there going forward.
> 
> To spare everyone here, I will just make one final, although long-winded post on this topic before getting back to the main subject. Feel free to have the last word.
> 
> ...


I am unclear why *W.S. Merwin* is questioned as an accomplished poet. From Wikipedia: Merwin received "the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1971 and 2009; the National Book Award for Poetry in 2005, and the Tanning Prize-one of the highest honors bestowed by the Academy of American Poets-as well as the Golden Wreath of the Struga Poetry Evenings. In 2010, the Library of Congress named him the 17th United States Poet Laureate."

But I am also unclear why this is relevant to this thread, granted I haven't followed all of the posts and digressions among posters.

These debates about the greatness or importance of composers usually turn out like this, i.e. two or more people arguing about their relative place among the pantheon of composers, instead of describing why you like their music or don't. For me, these kinds of debates are the bane of Internet forums.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Some of his music I like; some not. Overall, he's a minor figure as a composer in my musical world. As a conductor, he's a major figure.


Fair enough! :tiphat:


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> These debates about the greatness or importance of composers usually turn out like this, i.e. two or more people arguing about *their relative place among the pantheon of composers,*


This was only mentioned by me briefly in passing and not dwelled upon nor argued about. It was also stated twice, once by myself and by another poster, that it is not important.



> instead of describing why you like their music or don't.


I agree that nobody was doing this. All we were getting was people saying his music is literally unimpressive, he is a "second-rate" composer, and a "minor figure as a composer". So my first post in this thread was to challenge those labels by saying that those kind of labels could not logically apply to someone with a lifetime of credentials that Boulez has in the field of composition. Almost no one has as impressive credentials. Someone challenged that so we debated, but it died (vtpoet may make one last reply however, as I will let him have the last word).

The closest we got to an explanation was saying they agree with an article that basically criticized his later period works for being harmonically bland and therefore the music not doing anything. Something along those lines from what I remember.



> For me, these kinds of debates are the bane of Internet forums.


If they upset you, then don't read them.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> I ask because of this article:
> 
> https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/11/05/pierre-boulez-sound-and-fury/
> 
> The extracts from some of Boulez's writings sound like the word salad one reads in poetry criticism. As to his music, I'm inclined to agree with the reviewer. Doesn't impress me all that much.


Pierre Boulez represents a very 20th-century rationalist amaciation of music, supported by modern institutions/acedemia and the human products of the latter.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Sentence two after the colon is completely false. The last two sentences are just a shallow hearing of the music - Boulez's music is neither supersaturated nor unable to organically grow. Consider the huge range and propulsive journey in Repons and Sur Incises. There's a constant sense that the music needs to "go somewhere", even when the music is for a time dedicated to exploring a particular space. Boulez achieves a balance between exploring a musical object from different angles as Stravinsky would do, and establishing contrasts to develop a narrative as Schoenberg would do. And there's a large-scale textural/harmonic rhythm to this journey of contrasts. Sentence one underestimates the similar broad aesthetic sensibilities of Le Marteau and his later works, despite their differing harmonic language and color palette.


Isn't that ironic that your anwser to a paragraph that you consider shows "a shallow hearing of the music" is as vague and imprecise as the paragraph in question? There is nothing more "true" in what you wrote than in what Matthew Aucoin wrote. In both case, it's all personal impressions, without anything concrete to back them up.
That the main problem with Boulez fanboys. They pretend his music to be of a superior intellectual nature, but everytime they talk about it, it's just journalistic gibberish littered with shallow superlatives, about "propulsive journey of contrasts", "huge range", "a vortex of ideas", "colorful and exciting, scintillating and dramatic, with a real emotional punch", etc., with a total absence of critical distance.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I am unclear why *W.S. Merwin* is questioned as an accomplished poet. From Wikipedia: Merwin received "the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1971 and 2009; the National Book Award for Poetry in 2005, and the Tanning Prize-one of the highest honors bestowed by the Academy of American Poets-as well as the Golden Wreath of the Struga Poetry Evenings. In 2010, the Library of Congress named him the 17th United States Poet Laureate."


 I brought Merwin up, as regards Boulez, precisely because I find "Awards" to be a meaningless indicator of merit. Prizes and awards reveal nothing more than the prevailing tastes and agendas of a given time (and the judges concerned). Merwin is a demonstrably mediocre poet and I can give ample reasons why, and based on his poetry, but I won't do that because this is a classical music forum and I only mentioned him by way of comparison. I suppose that if one is a fan of Merwin, this assertion is hard to swallow, but one can also go back to the 19th century and dredge up countless composers and poets who won any number of awards and recognition, and who are now forgotten. For poetry, look up "The Joy of Bad Verse", and there you will find best-selling and lavishly awarded poets you've never heard of, including that great luminary and Poet Laureate of England, Alfred Austin, who wrote of a maid's refusal to wear a padded bra:

And do they wear that lubricating lie,
That fleshless falsehood! Palpitating maids
Puff themselves out with hollow buxomness,
To lead some breathless gaby at her heels
A scentless paper-chase!

But he was Poet Laureate so it must be great poetry, right?

But getting back to classical music. What if we were to write a book called the "Joy of Bad Music? ". I'm going to start a new discussion thread on that.  Of course, it's much easier to spot absurdity in poetry than in music, but for the fun of it, I googled worst classical composer of all time, and one respondent at Quora offered Frantisek Kotzwara and his piece, The Battle of Prague:






And I also found this by the inestimable Kotzwara:






Which, I have to say, bears a striking resemblance, in parts, to Mozart's "A Musical Joke". And, by the way, Wikipedia states: "He travelled around Europe and performed with various orchestras. His mature career was based in England, where his compositions were published from 1775 onwards. These include string quartets, serenades and string trios. In London he played in the Concerts of Antient Music, in the Handel Commemoration of 1791 and in the orchestra of the King's Theatre."

Oh, and Ignatz Pleyel! I'd consider him an awful composer, but highly esteemed and recognized in his own day, including a favorable mention from Mozart!!! A composer capable of Mozartean grace unfailingly dashed to a fine and itchy powder by insipid repetition and interludes of unrivaled triviality.

And then there's Franz Danzi. I just can't even.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Torkelburger said:


> I could arbitrarily use the criteria of youtube views to determine his popularity as well. Three of his videos of him reading his poetry have 11,982 and 17,687 and 31,758 views. So it seems quite a few people are interested in his poems.


You could. But then you'd also want to point out that Mary Oliver, reading from "A Thousand Mornings", gets over 98,000 views on youtube, exceeding all of Merwin's-combined. And what's especially interesting is that Oliver received far fewer awards than Merwin. If you don't include honorary doctorates, then she only received seven (7) awards as opposed to Merwin's 30. The other thing to know is that unlike Merwin, Oliver actually made a livable income from the sale of her poetry. The only poet do so consistently. My point? Awards and degrees, in and of themselves, are indicative of nothing.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Isn't that ironic that your anwser to a paragraph that you consider shows "a shallow hearing of the music" is as vague and imprecise as the paragraph in question? There is nothing more "true" in what you wrote than in what Matthew Aucoin wrote. In both case, it's all personal impressions, without anything concrete to back them up.
> That the main problem with Boulez fanboys. They pretend his music to be of a superior intellectual nature, but everytime they talk about it, it's just journalistic gibberish littered with shallow superlatives, about "propulsive journey of contrasts", "huge range", "a vortex of ideas", "colorful and exciting, scintillating and dramatic, with a real emotional punch", etc., with a total absence of critical distance.


There is no pretending that it is of an intellectual nature, at least a part of it. But that is not really the appeal. If you want to analyze the intellectual nature, there are several websites dedicated to the analysis of _Le Marteau sans maître_ including Wikipedia where you can read about his development of pitch multiplication in set theory and pitch duration association as well as his orchestration ideas of the piece including the influence of gamelan music, etc. You can google "Le Marteau sans maître analysis" if interested. There are also sites with very brief analysis of _Structures, Notations for Piano, and Pli selon Pli_.

One aspect of his music I can comment on that I like, which I don't think you'll find discussed anywhere, is the originality and complexity of his orchestration. You can read about Le Marteau's orchestration on a lot of websites, and I love it very much, but what I'm referring to here is his larger orchestral, ensemble, or string pieces like _Notations, Livre pour cordes_, and others.

In orchestration of the past and even in Schoenberg's serialist pieces, there are what we call "planes of tone". A foreground and background. It could be melody with chords, or melody with countermelody, or melody and bass, melody and ostinato, or mix and match, etc. With Schoenberg, twelve tone music was orchestrated so that the different planes of tone were orchestrated with the complete avoidance of octave doublings, and therefore he just used solo instruments (used rarely however), sectional unisons, and unison doublings. Some composers felt that orchestrating this way can make certain lines sound weak and under-supported, or too gray and bland, tiresome after a long time, odd colorings, instruments not in their best ranges, balance issues…what have you. So, some twelve-tone composers chose to go back to using octave doublings as in tonal music (like Rochberg for example). Composers like Webern decided to use small chamber ensembles and had one instrument to a part with very sparse textures.

Boulez's music is connected to the past in that it still has planes of tone, but unlike Schoenberg who just orchestrated single lines with doublings as in previous tradition, Boulez's music is more complex in that the foreground and background are further divided into subsets. This is why his scores are on giant pieces of paper with a large number of staves per system. _Notations_ has about 60 staves per page and each stand has their own part. And _Livre_ is also a huge score even though it's just strings. But the goal is not a simple one as in Webern, it is to create new colors and effects and breakaway from the Schoenberg problem without resorting to octave doublings.

Take the orchestration of a melody in the violins. He may start with a single line but then, with so many divided strings, he can add pitches together simultaneously to that melody line so that it changes in density and tension, and then subtract the notes back out as the melody progresses to "rest" at a cadence. There are other sorts of things you can do with this setup. Say you want a loud, brittle passage in the low strings. Instead of just resorting to pizzicato, Boulez can now experiment with new combinations and sounds all he wants. With the strings divided, he can now orchestrate the line as pizzicato, col legno battuto, and col legno tratto simultaneously, or mix and match, etc. You can also create effects by having instruments play the same line, but with very slightly varied rhythm, or displaced rhythm.

This type of orchestration is very advantageous when orchestrating transitions, as now the colors can be even more smoothened out as the details are more specific and fine-tuned. Dividing the instruments this way has also given him the advantage of solving the problem of orchestral resonance (it has always been a problem that an orchestra does not have a sustain pedal like a piano), because there are so many subsets to the planes of tone. It also provides assurance of movement and "the long line" (something he inherited from French composers).

Further, this orchestration has increased his options for orchestral contrasts, improving the compositions formal sense. All of this gives the music great depth, richness, and character. Lastly, this is just one factor that has contributed to the development of a personal style and originality. It is a complete breakaway from Schoenberg, Berg, and even Webern (who he is compared to the most), and it is not much like his contemporaries either. And it's not always melody with something else, sometimes it's texture 1 against texture 2, etc. And the neat thing to me is how with all these moving parts, Boulez never seems to lose control of the music. And the interest is always well distributed. And the writing is always idiomatic for the instruments, of course.

I hear a clear objective and purpose in his music. Nothing seems random. It's not like a lot of pieces by beginners today where you can simply reorder the notes or sections and the sound of the music doesn't change. I like it because it's not clinical, but emotional. What's impressive is that he achieved that emotion through a means that is not so simple, easy, mundane, and commonplace-for example anybody can write a minor triad to emote sadness, or write a major chord for happiness, triumph, etc. But Boulez shows that there are other ways to create beauty and emotion.

Most importantly, and interestingly, the sounds are very appealing and pleasant, but in very imaginative and non-traditional ways. The music sticks with you well after you've heard it. And I'll say again, what's impressive is the control he has over so many musical ingredients going on at once. Background doesn't overshadow foreground and there is never (IMO) any grayness from too many pitches, etc. The harmonic language is always coherent and punctuated for comprehensibility. It is always consistent. There is a full range of tensions. The textures breathe.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

RogerWaters said:


> Pierre Boulez represents a very 20th-century rationalist amaciation of music, supported by modern institutions/acedemia and the human products of the latter.


The video I posted contradicts this statement. He worked in a new way in which freedom was possible. He called _Le Marteau_ a "conquest of freedom" (from strictness in 12-twelve writing). The video says that _Le Marteau_ was a link between the strictly constructivist musical thinking of the Viennese school and the ornamental elements of French music. Boulez in the video actually calls that 20th century rationalist amaciation (sp) of music you are referring to a "burden", so he turned to Debussy for the "spontaneity" that he felt was "necessary".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Torkelburger said:


> . . . I could arbitrarily use the criteria of youtube views to determine his popularity as well. Three of his videos of him reading his poetry have 11,982 and 17,687 and 31,758 views. So it seems quite a few people are interested in his poems. If I arbitrarily set the threshold at 1k views and above equals widely popular (for no reason at all), he well exceeds it. And the TED Talks video of his says he is "one of the most widely read of our time". Anyway, I'll shut up about it as I am tired arguing the point. . . .


Or a couple of people _really_ like them, and have a lot of time on their hands. (I don't think the counts distinguish unique views.)


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Doesn’t matter. Just because someone else is read or viewed MORE then Merwin, doesn’t mean that Merwin is “not read”.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Isn't that ironic that your anwser to a paragraph that you consider shows "a shallow hearing of the music" is as vague and imprecise as the paragraph in question? There is nothing more "true" in what you wrote than in what Matthew Aucoin wrote. In both case, it's all personal impressions, without anything concrete to back them up.
> That the main problem with Boulez fanboys. They pretend his music to be of a superior intellectual nature, but everytime they talk about it, it's just journalistic gibberish littered with shallow superlatives, about "propulsive journey of contrasts", "huge range", "a vortex of ideas", "colorful and exciting, scintillating and dramatic, with a real emotional punch", etc., with a total absence of critical distance.


The "propulsive journey of contrasts" is, in fact, a real thing in Boulez's works that can be traced to the music. The contrasts within and between the three types of movements (movements 1, 3, and 7; movements 2, 4, 6, and 8; movements 5 and 9) within the nine-movement Le Marteau are well known and appeal at an immediate sensual level. Have you heard Le Marteau? Do you hear the similarities and differences between the movements and the gradual journey undertaken as the piece goes on? Do you hear the flute "swallow" the singer, gaining the ultimate last word, in the dramatic final movement?

Or in the continuous single-movement Repons, take the 10 sections and the harmonic unity and contrasts between them. Some sections of the work give a sense of harmonic stasis and rest, others have a harmonic momentum and an ostinato energy (repeated rhythms). There's the dialogue between the percussion soloists with electronics vs the main orchestra. There's a large-scale formal rhythm of contrast - narrative parentheses. It's there in the music! These are not subjective impressions.

Matthew Aucoin, in his article, falsely claimed Boulez's late works to be 12-tone (this is also not even true in Le Marteau), and also falsely claimed Boulez's later works to lack harmonic dynamism (again, take the large-scale harmonic rhythm in Repons or other works). This is all stuff that's in the music, the score.

If I said, for example, that the first movement of Beethoven's fifth straddled the line between a continuous melodicism (at two beats per bar) and a dramatic fragmentation that hides the melodicism (the fermatas, the orchestral textural shifts, the Klangfarbenmelodie in the strings, the constant fate motif that "hides" the two beats per bar) that reached its apex in the climax in the coda with the C minor melody at two beats per bar with the fate rhythm in the timpani, I would not be making subjective impressions, and nor would I be spewing journalistic gibberish to claim superior musical taste to prove that Beethoven's fifth is great and anyone who disagrees has lesser taste. I'd merely be making summarizing descriptions about the music. There's no "authority" making a threat to the uncultured proletariat who don't love Beethoven's fifth (the people who don't listen to Beethoven are not on this forum obviously, but out there in the broad world of course) so that their lack of love is due to some intellectual failing.

Have you gotten to know Repons? I'd suggest, as before, to carefully listen to the music and get to know it well at a gut level, which is always the most valuable thing. Boulez fans are not pretending anything about the musical content, nor even claiming intellectual superiority in musical taste. There's no imperative to listen to Repons either. It's merely something that may reveal rewards to a careful listener, or not, just as the Beethoven symphony.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> What's impressive is that he achieved that emotion through a means that is not so simple, easy, mundane, and commonplace-for example anybody can write a minor triad to emote sadness, or write a major chord for happiness, triumph, etc. But Boulez shows that there are other ways to create beauty and emotion.


... like every composer who strayed away from common practice since Debussy broke away from fonctionnal harmony at the end of the 19th century. 
The type of orchestration you described haven't been invented by Boulez, and is not specific to his music (while I agree he was a fine orchestrator). 
Your messages shows an strong idealisation of Boulez's music, but I'm not sure who you are trying to convince. If that is me, you shouldn't try.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Have you heard Le Marteau?


Sadly, I've heard it live. The worst concert experience of my life.



SeptimalTritone said:


> Matthew Aucoin, in his article, falsely claimed Boulez's late works to be 12-tone (this is also not even true in Le Marteau)


If you refering to the phrase "though he would not admit it, the "hammer" of the twelve-tone system remained his master to the end", it doesn't mean Boulez late works were serial. I'm not sure what you mean by "12-tone" here.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> like every composer who strayed away from common practice since Debussy broke away from fonctionnal harmony at the end of the 19th century.


Few try to create beauty with atonality, however


> The type of orchestration you described haven't been invented by Boulez, and is not specific to his music (while I agree he was a fine orchestrator).


Just as there are a wide number of varying degrees of originality and styles within the standard tradition of orchestration that my example broke away from, there are varying degrees of styles, techniques, and originality within the new, non traditional type of orchestration. Boulez's orchestration is like no one but we really need a classroom setting at this point with scores to show how.
Y


> Your messages shows an strong idealisation of Boulez's music, but I'm not sure who you are trying to convince. If that is me, you shouldn't try.


Just trying to show how we can discuss his music with precision and critical distance, and answer the previous poster's question of why we like his music. I admire his music, and I don't mind if I let some of that sentiment through. You are not the only person reading this thread. I am not trying to convince you of anything so no need for you to flatter yourself by thinking we only care about your opinion of Boulez.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Sadly, I've heard it live. The worst concert experience of my life.
> 
> If you refering to the phrase "though he would not admit it, the "hammer" of the twelve-tone system remained his master to the end", it doesn't mean Boulez late works were serial. I'm not sure what you mean by "12-tone" here.


What does he mean then, and how do you know you're right?


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Few try to create beauty with atonality, however


... no?



Torkelburger said:


> Just trying to show how we can discuss his music with precision and critical distance


This is what you call precision and critical distance? Lol.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> What does he mean then, and how do you know you're right?


Because I know how to read.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Torkelburger said:


> Few try to create beauty with atonality, however


I beg to differ. Not only try, but succeed. I could start a list of examples now and not be done typing them all out before Black Friday!

A better way to say it might be to say composers have worked (and some have succeeded) to find beauty in new and unexpected musical places. Everyone with an once of ability can make a series of diatonic triads beautiful; little skill is needed to do that. But can you make something beautiful with a series of 014, 015, & 016 pitch-class sets? Good. You've caught up Schoenberg...

ETA: of course, "atonality" is a muddy, imprecise term of dubious utility at best. For too many musical-knobheads, it basically just means "music of the past 120 years that I dislike."


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Very over rated.... but he is part of the system and the system hangs on to its comercial assetts..... He like Karajan but with open eyes.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> I ask because of this article:
> 
> https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/11/05/pierre-boulez-sound-and-fury/
> 
> The extracts from some of Boulez's writings sound like the word salad one reads in poetry criticism. As to his music, I'm inclined to agree with the reviewer. Doesn't impress me all that much.


Boulez is a very capable conductor. His music is much, much less influential today than it was when he was younger.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

One of the most important composers of the 20th century.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Too sterile for my tastes but I can appreciate his music from a non-arbitrary point of view.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> Good conductor of some of the classics - maybe - but it does not outweight all the hideous damage he has done with his mental criticisms, and with writing and promoting bad music.


That sums it up for me.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

chu42 said:


> Too sterile for my tastes but I can appreciate his music from a non-arbitrary point of view.


You think Pli selon Pli is sterile, or Notations, or Dialogue de l'ombre et son double, or memorial are sterile?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> You think Pli selon Pli is sterile, or Notations, or Dialogue de l'ombre et son double, or memorial are sterile?


I thought his Structures I and II were terribly sterile.

Le Marteau Sans Maître on the other hand, is very interesting to me. Perhaps I should listen to more Boulez before making any more broad generalizations, including some the works you listed.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

'Sterile' is an accurate description of my impression of _Pli selon Pli_...I like the idea of the structure of it, the beginning and end, its everything in the middle I find difficult. I remember thinking about how it seemed like a tremendous amount of work must have gone into the piece, and for what? To create something so dreary, bland and boring. Can't stand the work. That one sticks out to me because of that impression.

To my ears Boulez music ranges from 'ok' to 'not good'.

I can hear the meticulous effort in many of the pieces, but I don't hear a lot of successful results. I agree that _Le Marteau Sans Maître_ is interesting, what it is not, is moving.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> 'Sterile' is an accurate description of my impression of _Pli selon Pli_...I like the idea of the structure of it, the beginning and end, its everything in the middle I find difficult. I remember thinking about how it seemed like a tremendous amount of work must have gone into the piece, and for what? To create something so dreary, bland and boring. Can't stand the work. That one sticks out to me because of that impression.
> 
> To my ears Boulez music ranges from 'ok' to 'not good'.
> 
> I can hear the meticulous effort in many of the pieces, but I don't hear a lot of successful results. I agree that _Le Marteau Sans Maître_ is interesting, what it is not, is moving.


The Mallarmé improvisations, the middle, are difficult, I agree. If you PM me I can let you have a wonderful concert performance which makes them sound far from sterile. I think, as always with vocal music, a lot depends on the singer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

chu42 said:


> I thought his Structures I and II were terribly sterile.
> 
> .


Well even Boulez thought Structures was sterile, I mean, they were a sort of experiment which led nowhere and he, like almost everyone else, rapidly abandoned that style of music.

In fact, like with the Mallarmé improvisations in Pli selon Pli, for me everything depends on performance. I have heard structures played with such poetry that it sounds like a diamond, a poised and elegant diamond.

Same, by the way for Music of Changes. I know structures is far from "random" but much of it may as well be to a listener. Music of Changes is genuinely random, and in a performance it can be the aural equivalent of a night sky in the desert with shooting stars. But you need an excellent inspirational pianist!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> The highest voted comments in this video:
> "No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure."
> "If you make a mistake on this sonata, it's called "improvisation""
> Does anyone disagree? If so, can you explain?


Yes. It's like abstract art. 
In a portrait painting, we immediately know if the facial features are "off," but we don't memorize every drip of a Jackson Pollock painting; but we still recognize it as great art, DON'T WE? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Knorf said:


> By the way, someone up thread referred to Elliott Carter as a "neo-serialist." That is false. At no time ever in his career did Carter employ serial procedures. And Boulez's devotion to serialism is massively overstated. There are a couple pieces only from his early career that are fairly described as strictly serial. None of his mature music, and of the music I posted above, only Sonata No. 1 is serial in any meaningful sense.


"Neo serialist" is a generalized term anyway. Though not a _strict_ serialist, Carter's music used almost the entire chromatic most of the time, and kept it circulating all the time. Early on, he went through a 'neo-classic' period. 
His mature work is not tonal, and very chromatic. He used the essentially the same "sets" that are listed in the indexes of John Rahn's book and Allan Forte's books on atonal theory, only Carter made his own index. It's essentially 'set theory,' only Carter used the sets as unordered sources for what he called 'chords.'

Carter did not use these sets as 'ordered sets' or series; he drew his harmonic material from them as unordered sets, so he is not a strict serialist in the literal sense, but an advanced harmonist. Still, his music is very chromatic, uses sets, so in that sense he can correctly be referred to in an internet discussion as a "neo-serialist."



EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Carter is not a serialist, but he is referred to as a "neo-serialist." He used interval sets and so on, but they weren't complete 12-tone sets. He was very into the all-interval tetrachord and so on. *He's a neo-serialist because his music is based on certain interval relationships within sets rather than the overtone series, as common-practice music is based on.* David Schiff describes him as using mathematical procedures on interval sets to determine his music. Carter definitely didn't write like Schoenberg, but he did rely on his basic ideas, albeit in a more vertical rather than horizontal way. Thus it's fair to call him a neo-serialist if we qualify what is meant by that.


Re: the bolded statement, this is why Carter's music is _harmonic,_ but not tonal.

Other serial composers were interested in this same thing, David Froom using M3rds, Babbitt with all-interval sets and George Perle with his "twelve-tone tonality." These serialists are all after a more harmonic, sonorous form of serialism that is easier on the ear so to speak.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Knorf said:


> I'm sorry, this is incorrect for one simple reason: serialism means ordered rows or sets, which Carter never used. Calling Carter a "neo-serialist" is flatly _wrong_, and conveys a highly misleading impression concerning Carter's methodology. Carter derived zero ideas from Schoenberg's serial procedures. That's just fact.


A section on Carter and his ties to serial thinking is included in the Cambridge University Press book "Serialism" by Arnold Whitall, Professor Emeritus of Music Theory and Analysis at King's College, London.










_"...it is enormously significant in respect of Carter's own determination to develop post-tonal techniques that owed something to serial thinking without confining themselves to twelve-tone principles of the sort that Babbitt and Boulez were deriving from Schoenberg and Webern." -_ _Serialism_ by Arnold Whitall, p. 145



> "David Schiff describes him as using mathematical procedures on interval sets to determine his music." This is misleading. But in any case *using "interval sets" is not in itself "neo-serial."* (Note that David Schiff is _not_ a music theorist but rather a musicologist, and some of what he wrote about Carter's composing method was inaccurate.) Regardless, Carter did not employ serial procedures, period.


I disagree, because I have a more flexible view of serialism, as espoused in the Cambridge book. Set theory evolved from serial thought. Just because Carter used sets as "tropes" like Hauer doesn't mean he owes nothing to serial thought.

_"That Carter prefers to talk about 'chords' rather than 'sets' does not mean that his music cannot be fruitfully considered in relation to the kind of extensions and elaborations of serial principles that are under examination here." _- _Serialism_ by Arnold Whitall, p. 146

I don't think anyone here is calling Carter a strict "serialist" with all that implies. He does share some features of serialism, like the use of indexes of sets, thus the use of the term "neo-seriaist."



> Another error: "..the overtone series, as common-practice music is based on." There's nothing in the overtone series that gives you most of the components of common-practice music. *Trying to make it so is kludgy beyond belief* and no serious music theorist makes any attempt to justify common-practice using the overtone series, although many did and failed until about 1950s.


The term "harmonic" can be a noun or a descriptor. As a noun, it refers to an overtone in the harmonic series. As a descriptor, I use it to distinguish tonal music from serial music. I have gone into detail about this in my blogs.



> My credentials: a doctorate in composition earned from a major, highly-recognized program, and 25 years of teaching music theory at the undergraduate and graduate levels, earning tenure and being promoted through "full" Professor" at an accredited School of Music.


The problem is the objection to the term "neo serialist" being applied to Carter, and an adherance to a very specific definition of serialism. 
I am generalizing from a more bird's-eye overview, using Whitall's much more general use of the term "serial."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> The overtone series produces the entire chromatic scale, which would include atonal as well as tonal composition.





Knorf said:


> It actually produces neither, because the intervals have to be considerably altered in tuning (up to 1/4 tone) from the overtone series. You have to get _very_ far up the overtone series to get the correct pitches that fit either the diatonic scale or the chromatic scale. Far enough that you can make a scale out of anything you want.


Some clarification is in order here. When *I *speak of tonality being based on a "harmonic model," as I explain in my blogs, it's just that: a harmonic _model _based on cross-relations (interval vectors) and _degrees of dissonance to the tonic within the scale_ in question. These create what I consider to be "tonalities."

These harmonic models have little to do with specific or absolute values of "just" intervals, or perfect ratios. It's all about _*relative *_degrees of dissonance to a tonic, as I explain in detail in the blogs.

*Art* is about relations and ratios, not like science, which is more concerned with absolute values.

Read this carefully: "harmonic" can be a noun or a descriptor. As a noun, it refers to an overtone in the harmonic series. As a descriptor, I use it to distinguish tonal music from serial music.

Schoenberg in his Harmonielehre was very sympathetic to the overtone model.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Boulez is a very capable conductor. His music is much, much less influential today than it was when he was younger.


Some composers who wrote music which was influenced by Boulez were Harrison Birtwistle, Gyorgy Kurtag, York Holler, Toshio Hosokawa, Unsuk Chin, Wolfgang Rihm, Magnus Lindberg, Simon Holt, Elliott Carter, Luciano Berio, George Benjamin and Jonathan Harvey.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Some composers who wrote music which was influenced by Boulez were Harrison Birtwistle, Gyorgy Kurtag, York Holler, Toshio Hosokawa, Unsuk Chin, Wolfgang Rihm, Magnus Lindberg, Simon Holt, Elliott Carter, Luciano Berio, George Benjamin and Jonathan Harvey.


Do you have sources for that or is this solely your personnal impressions?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Do you have sources for that or is this solely your personnal impressions?


I was hoping someone would ask. They are all the composers featured on this recording

https://www.discogs.com/Rolf-Hind-Notes-For-Pierre/release/12261792

which I can let you have if you want


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I was hoping someone would ask. They are all the composers featured on this recording
> 
> https://www.discogs.com/Rolf-Hind-Notes-For-Pierre/release/12261792
> 
> which I can let you have if you want


The fact that these composers accepted a commission linked to Boulez's 75th birthday doesn't mean their music is influenced by his.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> The fact that these composers accepted a commission linked to Boulez's 75th birthday doesn't mean their music is influenced by his.


Well now you have to listen to the music. Even the Kurtag and the Rihm is interesting from this point of view.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Jonathan Cross in his excellent book on Birtwistle, 'Man.Mind,Music', talks of Boulez's influence on Birtwistle. This influence was sometimes a technical one although Birtwistle was also determined to keep a distance from Darmstadt in his early years, which he saw as too rigorous.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Harrison-Birtwistle-Man-Mind-Music-ebook/dp/B00OUXGF5C/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=birtwistle+man+mind+and+music&qid=1612524843&quartzVehicle=69-2047&replacementKeywords=birtwistle+mind+and+music&sr=8-1


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Thread temporarily closed to allow time for calm reflection.

Some unfortunate posts have been removed.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Thread re-opened.

Please be polite.

Do not quote or comment on posts which you can see are inappropriate. Report them instead.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

chu42 said:


> Too sterile for my tastes but I can appreciate his music from a non-arbitrary point of view.


Actually this afternoon I listened to a piece which NOONE could find sterile. Anthemes II. Violin and live electronics, as if he'd had a chat with Stockhausen or something and got some new ideas for a new direction.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> 'Sterile' is an accurate description of my impression of _Pli selon Pli_...I like the idea of the structure of it, the beginning and end, its everything in the middle I find difficult. I remember thinking about how it seemed like a tremendous amount of work must have gone into the piece, and for what? To create something so dreary, bland and boring. Can't stand the work. That one sticks out to me because of that impression.
> 
> To my ears Boulez music ranges from 'ok' to 'not good'.
> 
> I can hear the meticulous effort in many of the pieces, but I don't hear a lot of successful results. I agree that _*Le Marteau Sans Maître*_* is interesting*, what it is not, is moving.


tdc's use of the word 'interesting' brought back memories of student composer concerts when I was a college composition major. 'Interesting' was the go-to "compliment" when someone didn't like your piece. I remember one composition prof I studied with, in reacting to a piece of mine that had just been performed, nodding his head and saying "Interesting piece". I did the same thing with other student's pieces I didn't like...we all did!

By the way, I am not in any way criticizing tdc's use of the word. It can be used in a literal way that makes sense and is accurate. _Marteau_ *IS *an interesting piece, in the best sense of the word...but not one that I like and it is definitely not moving.

Went off topic a bit...sorry.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Actually this afternoon I listened to a piece which NOONE could find sterile. Anthemes II. Violin and live electronics, as if he'd had a chat with Stockhausen or something and got some new ideas for a new direction.


I don't understand how the electronic music is created from the acoustic violin sound, but I find the effect mesmerizing, fascinating, and beautiful at times. I can understand many people might find Anthemes II to be ugly, irritating, and unpleasant, but I find it the opposite. It's one of my favorite Boulez works.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Actually this afternoon I listened to a piece which NOONE could find sterile. Anthemes II. Violin and live electronics, as if he'd had a chat with Stockhausen or something and got some new ideas for a new direction.


Just listened to Anthemes II. I enjoyed it quite a lot.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Kilgore Trout said:


> The fact that these composers accepted a commission linked to Boulez's 75th birthday doesn't mean their music is influenced by his.


I suspect that many of them would at least try to form some connection to Boulez, or at the very least admire the man and his music.

For a Beethoven tribute album it wouldn't make sense to include music completely dissociated with Beethoven would it? Certainly you would choose composers whom Beethoven meant a lot to, like Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, etc.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Listened to Repons. Repons is maybe my favorite Boulez work so far. I think my outlook on Boulez is getting better all the time.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Elliott Carter's *Gra* uses the all-interval tetrachord [0146] and the all-trichord hexachord [012478], according to Whitall in _Serialism_. He liked it unordered, though. But this is what is meant by "neo-serialist." He's using an index of sets.

Re: posts 21 &22 : Oblique Strategies


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Do not *quote* or *comment* on posts which you can see are inappropriate. Report them instead.


Do the moderators have a record of posts when they first appear, before possible editing, as a safety measure? Some explanation on this would explain the "no quoting" order, and render the quoting unnecessary.

Quoting of ban-worthy posts is a common response, done as a safety measure in case the author tries to edit it.

I've seen this done to other quotes which turned out to be ban-worthy, and in those cases nobody was warned not to do this; in fact, it seems a very prudent thing to do.

Is it the "quoting" or "comment" that is the offending action?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Do the moderators have a record of posts when they first appear, before possible editing, as a safety measure? Some explanation on this would explain the "no quoting" order, and render the quoting unnecessary.
> 
> Quoting of ban-worthy posts is a common response, done as a safety measure in case the author tries to edit it.
> 
> ...


The vBulletin software maintains a record of all edits so the moderators can see all versions of a given post. The reason we suggest not replying to an inappropriate post is that if we delete the inappropriate post, we would likely delete the response since it would then not make sense. Members can simply report posts that they feel are inappropriate. Moderators will look at other versions if the reported version doesn't seem problematic.

Basically quoting or commenting on inappropriate posts tends to extend the discussion of that problem post rather than moving on to "proper" thread content.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I have been listening to some of Boulez's works today - _Éclat_, _Multiples_, _Rituel_, _Pli Selon Pli_ and _Sur Incises_ - these have always been my favorites, and I enjoyed all of them quite a bit.

I'll spend more time with some of the other works that I don't know as well tomorrow or the next day.

Here's something I found in a Guardian article by Tom Service, from 2011:



> For sure, the story that a piece such as Sur Incises tells isn't one you could tell as a fairytale or a love story. The piece is a narration about sound, about the interplay and transformation of the timbres of the pianos, the harps, and the percussion instruments, into one gigantic super-instrument of infinite resonance and reflection. The drama of the music is how Boulez manipulates his musical textures to create moments of stasis and irresistible energy, and everything in between.
> 
> That's the central achievement of Boulez's music. Like no one else has managed to do in music before, he has turned timbre - the texture and grain of the way instruments sound, and the special, surreal possibilities of electronic music - into a carrier of feeling and emotion. Previously, western music was all about pitch, rhythm, and harmony: the traditional routes to creating musical expression. Boulez adds another dimension to what music can do, and his works open up a new way of hearing. If you surrender yourself to his music, you can't help but be intoxicated by its sonic fantasy (above all in pieces such as …explosante-fixe… for large ensemble and electronics, or Pli Selon Pli, the work that the Southbank's Gillian Moore rates as the most important of the postwar period, both of which are the centrepieces of Exquisite Labyrinth, the Southbank Centre's Boulez weekend).


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I have been listening to some of Boulez's works today - _Éclat_, _Multiples_, _Rituel_, _Pli Selon Pli_ and _Sur Incises_ - these have always been my favorites, and I enjoyed all of them quite a bit.
> 
> I'll spend more time with some of the other works that I don't know as well tomorrow or the next day.
> 
> Here's something I found in a Guardian article by Tom Service, from 2011:


Interesting. I have no trouble hearing _Sur Incises_ as a fairytale. Not one with a conventional plot - that's for sure - but the same magic is there.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

I responded positively to _Répons_. Wow, what astonishing music there is here. A thoroughly musical and rich-on-timbres composition.

Perhaps other of his more advanced works won't appeal to me, or who knows, but this was seriously interesting stuff. Recommended to everybody with enthusiasm.


----------

