# Boulez: Spleen King or Drama Queen?



## Marschallin Blair

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...erre-Boulez-I-was-a-bully-Im-not-ashamed.html

Pierre Boulez admits that he bullies; and that he booed out loud at a Stravinsky concert; and that he said that opera houses should be burnt down; and mentioned with characteristic immodesty that Stravinsky started to write in a more atonal, serialist manner because of. . . 'him.' He affords John Adams respect by saying that, "I cannot say I will spit on his music, but I cannot admire it either."

Now, speaking for myself, I don't think that the author of such beautiful works as _Explosante-Fixe_ and _Derive 1 and 2 _ is particularly splenetic by nature. His _Daphnis et Chloe_ has moments of exquisite beauty to it and his _La Valse _with Berlin pales to none.

So, I for one wouldn't say that Boulez is splenetic by _nature_. But I _would say _that he's an emotionally-crippled drama queen because he never got the "Best In Show" laurels he felt was his due as a twentieth century composer. So all I can say, as I so often say to embittered, non-Pageant Queen contestants in the Game of Life, is: "Don't get bitter. Get better."

So what do_ you _think?: Is Pierre Boulez a Spleen King or a Drama Queen?


----------



## Fagotterdammerung

I think it's harder to judge the music world of sixty years ago. Remember, only forty years before Boulez and co. were booing Neoclassicism, people were _rioting_ at the Rite of Spring. Audiences have grown increasingly sedate in classical, but it's a fairly recent phenomena. Cheering the ones you loved, booing what you didn't, was a reasonably regular event.

That being said, of course Boulez is a drama queen. It doesn't make me like his music any less. I like any number of composers with less than admirable traits, many a lot worse than undiplomatic tastes.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Marschallin Blair said:


> Pierre Boulez admits (saying) that opera houses should be burnt down...


Whilst there generally isn't much point in assigning value to Boulez (or any musician's) opinions, it seems that he hit the jackpot with the above.


----------



## Dim7

As a person with poor imagination and difficulties with relating to the drama of operas I would love to attend an opera in which the opera house would be burned down, assuming it was a part of the plot.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Skilmarilion said:


> Whilst there generally isn't much point in assigning value to Boulez (or any musician's) opinions, it seems that he hit the jackpot with the above.


He didn't say that he'd be in it though.


----------



## ahammel

Dim7 said:


> As a person with poor imagination and difficulties with relating to the drama of operas I would love to attend an opera in which the opera house would be burned down, assuming it was a part of the plot.


This was Wagner's plan for_ Gotterdammerung_.


----------



## Morimur

Marschallin Blair said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...erre-Boulez-I-was-a-bully-Im-not-ashamed.html
> 
> Pierre Boulez admits that he bullies; and that he booed out loud at a Stravinsky concert; and that he said that opera houses should be burnt down; and mentioned with characteristic immodesty that Stravinsky started to write in a more atonal, serialist manner because of. . . 'him.' He affords John Adams respect by saying that, "I cannot say I will spit on his music, but I cannot admire it either."
> 
> Now, speaking for myself, I don't think that the author of such beautiful works as _Explosante-Fixe_ and _Derive 1 and 2 _ is particularly splenetic by nature. His _Daphnis et Chloe_ has moments of exquisite beauty to it and his _La Valse _with Berlin pales to none.
> 
> So, I for one wouldn't say that Boulez is splenetic by _nature_. But I _would say _that he's an emotionally-crippled drama queen because he never got the "Best In Show" laurels he felt was his due as a twentieth century composer. So all I can say, as I so often say to embittered, non-Pageant Queen contestants in the Game of Life, is: "Don't get bitter. Get better."
> 
> So what do_ you _think?: Is Pierre Boulez a Spleen King or a Drama Queen?


He's both. He's also a composer of genius-¡eso no es discutible!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Morimur said:


> He's both. He's also a composer of genius-¡eso no es discutible!


Well, we can agree to disagree on that. I think he's a very clever composer at times but certainly no genius.

_Tout est discutable. Il n'y a pas de mot fin dans la diplomatie. . . ou l'esthétique._


----------



## Bulldog

I think Boulez is an exceptional conductor; other things about him don't interest me.


----------



## isorhythm

When people point out that Boulez has been mistaken about many other composers' music (as he has been), there's no great controversy. It's a fact.

But when they point out that Saint-Saens was mistaken about Debussy, they're mocking him or being snobs or something.

Why is this?


----------



## Dim7

ahammel said:


> This was Wagner's plan for_ Gotterdammerung_.


It would be also a great way to separate the real fans from the phonies. What kind of a Wagnerian would not risk his life for an authentic Gotterdammerung experience?


----------



## violadude




----------



## violadude




----------



## PetrB

Dim7 said:


> As a person with poor imagination and difficulties with relating to the drama of operas I would love to attend an opera in which the opera house would be burned down, assuming it was a part of the plot.


In _La Giocanda,_ a full sized sailing ship goes up in flames, so there is always the possibility...

Ditto for that Horn-helmeted Teutonic babe on the rock surrounded by flames....


----------



## violadude




----------



## PetrB

isorhythm said:


> When people point out that Boulez has been mistaken about many other composers' music (as he has been), there's no great controversy. It's a fact.
> 
> If you know enough, there are composers all the way through history who have said more than catty 'dissing' things about some other composers' work. Saint-Saens was a recent relatively low-profile target, if you will, of late, and whether people like it or not, it turns out a number of TC members don't think much of his music, 'what he said' about anything all to the side and not part of that.
> 
> But when they point out that Saint-Saens was mistaken about Debussy, they're mocking him or being snobs or something.
> 
> Why is this?


There are plenty who get on Boulez's case about 'what he said,' also making him out as an arrogant snob, an unyielding and crazed modernist, the gamut of all the negatives you could possibly think of.

Many composers have said things one has to take with a grain of salt at most, and once in a while they also give very canny assessments of other composers' work, but I 'forgive' them all for _just about_ anything they said because other than for an interesting discussion... non importante.

If they were writers, and that was all they left us, that would be different, and in another category or on another forum entirely. But they did compose music. I'm only interested in the music they wrote.


----------



## ahammel

Dim7 said:


> It would be also a great way to separate the real fans from the phonies. What kind of a Wagnerian would not risk his life for an authentic Gotterdammerung experience?


I'm not sure he specified, but I imagine the plan was for the opera house to be evacuated before the conflagration


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Bulldog said:


> I think Boulez is an exceptional conductor; other things about him don't interest me.


I think Boulez is an exceptional technician and clinician-- but not a great interpreter of other people's music; at least not for the most part.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

PetrB said:


> There are plenty who get on Boulez's case about 'what he said,' also making him out as an arrogant snob, an unyielding and crazed modernist, the gamut of all the negatives you could possibly think of.
> 
> Many composers have said things one has to take with a grain of salt at most, and once in a while they also give very canny assessments of other composers' work, but I 'forgive' them all for _just about_ anything they said because other than for an interesting discussion... non importante.
> 
> If they were writers, and that was all they left us, that would be different, and in another category or on another forum entirely. But they did compose music. I'm only interested in the music they wrote.


Amen to _that_-- but then I threw this thread out there as a sort of scientific curiosity to see how many people would spin excuses for his (sometimes) execrable traits of character.

I never viewed Boulez as a snob, myself; more as a lower-order proletarian-poseur who wants to run with the thoroughbreds in mind, manners, and morals. . . in intelligence, taste, and judgment. . . and quite frankly, 'can't.' So he makes up his own rules. . . and his own horse-racing tracks.


----------



## KenOC

Amazing how some people get excited over what Boulez says, or said. He and I have an agreement: I don't fret too much over his tastes in music, and he generally ignores mine.


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> I'm not sure he specified, but I imagine the plan was for the opera house to be evacuated before the conflagration


Scriabin's symphony of a number of orchestras was supposed to have ended the world. Attending or not, everyone was gonna go -- prepare for The Rapture, Russian late-romantic modernist style.

Thank goodness Scriabin died before he could realize that project. We were all spared, and can instead now sit in front of our computers discussing what composers said.


----------



## Dim7

ahammel said:


> I'm not sure he specified, but I imagine the plan was for the opera house to be evacuated before the conflagration


So considerate of him. Wagner was a nice guy after all.


----------



## Mahlerian

Boulez is a great composer who's said some stupid things over the years; he will be remembered for his music far more than his comments on other composers.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> Boulez is a great composer who's said some stupid things over the years; he will be remembered for his music far more than his comments on other composers.


Like just about every other composer who also said some stupid things... Composers say stupid things. Those things said are not the music they wrote, doh. :tiphat:


----------



## Dim7

PetrB said:


> Composers say stupid things. Those things said are not the music they wrote, doh. :tiphat:


After John Cage, I'm not so sure about that.


----------



## millionrainbows

When Boulez says things such as "Schoenberg est morte!" he is not simply being mean-spirited; he is making a statement about music. Need I explain further?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

PetrB said:


> Scriabin's symphony of a number of orchestras was supposed to have ended the world. Attending or not, everyone was gonna go -- prepare for The Rapture, Russian late-romantic modernist style.
> 
> Thank goodness Scriabin died before he could realize that project. We were all spared, and can instead now sit in front of our computers discussing what composers said.


Yes. Yes.

But Scriabin was 'touched.'

Boulez is presumably a paradigm of cold rationality-- so why would he want to burn down opera houses?

(Hint: he's not wearing the tiara.)


----------



## GGluek

I have always thought of Boulez (and this goes back 45+ years) as someone who enjoys saying controversial things -- based on what his opinion of the moment is -- for the sake of their shock value. How much he really believes is up to any of us to decide for himself. That said, his music has value and his conducting, especially of 20th century works, can be revelatory. (I thought the NY Phil's hiring of him to replace Bernstein was one of the gutsiest things any American orchestra ever did.)


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> When Boulez says things such as "Schoenberg est morte!" he is not simply being mean-spirited; he is making a statement about music. Need I explain further?


No, Boulez likes being iconoclastic.

If he merely wanted to convey that Schoenberg's music was becoming unfashionable, Boulez could have tactfully and thoughtfully said that serialism has played its course.

But he didn't.

He's really very 'prole,' excuse me, 'droll' that way.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

GGluek said:


> I have always thought of Boulez (and this goes back 45+ years) as someone who enjoys saying controversial things -- based on what his opinion of the moment is -- for the sake of their shock value. How much he really believes is up to any of us to decide for himself. That said, his music has value and his conducting, especially of 20th century works, can be revelatory. (I thought the NY Phil's hiring of him to replace Bernstein was one of the gutsiest things any American orchestra ever did.)


Well, I have a qualified liking of his conducting and _oeuvre_, myself.

But I like his iconoclastic diatribes as about as much as I like Ann Coulter.


----------



## millionrainbows

"When Boulez says things such as "Schoenberg est morte!" he is not simply being mean-spirited; he is making a statement about music. Need I explain further?" -millions



Marschallin Blair said:


> No, Boulez likes being iconoclastic...If he merely wanted to convey that Schoenberg's music was becoming unfashionable, Boulez could have tactfully and thoughtfully said that serialism has played its course...But he didn't...He's really very 'prole,' excuse me, 'droll' that way.


I think what Boulez was saying is that Schoenberg was not radical enough. Remember, he venerated Webern. What he was saying is that, although Schoenberg had a good idea with his 12-tone method, he did not exploit the possibilities of that system to the extent that Webern did, or that he would liked to have seen.

Schoenberg was still thinking in terms of Brahmsian phrases, using the same musical syntax, only with 12-tone forms. Schoenberg himself said that "I am a conservative..."

The same goes for his other statements; "burn down the opera houses" means "jettison tradition."

Knowing how much you like opera, I can see how these statements would strike fear into your heart; but I think traditional music serves completely different functions than what Boulez is interested in. But since he is a conductor, he is involved with that tradition, so I suppose he feels he has the right to comment on forms which he sees as "taking up space" that a new syntax could fill. His is not a lamenting "his own career," but modern music as a whole. His concern transcends the temporal, and is concerned with the development of the syntax of music itself, not unlike a theoretical physicist.

But the opera fan is not concerned with "the syntax of music itself," but of superstars and entertainment.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Morimur said:


> Boulez is indeed a musical genius-the evidence is on record for all but the willfully deaf.


lol -- you mean that, that is your opinion and you just stated it for the record?


----------



## Morimur

Skilmarilion said:


> lol -- you mean that, that is your opinion and you just stated it for the record?


The 18th century beckons you, Skilmarilion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> "When Boulez says things such as "Schoenberg est morte!" he is not simply being mean-spirited; he is making a statement about music. Need I explain further?" -millions
> 
> I think what Boulez was saying is that Schoenberg was not radical enough. Remember, he venerated Webern. What he was saying is that, although Schoenberg had a good idea with his 12-tone method, he did not exploit the possibilities of that system to the extent that Webern did, or that he would liked to have seen.
> 
> Schoenberg was still thinking in terms of Brahmsian phrases, using the same musical syntax, only with 12-tone forms. Schoenberg himself said that "I am a conservative..."
> 
> The same goes for his other statements; "burn down the opera houses" means "jettison tradition."
> Knowing how much you like opera, I can see how these statements would strike fear into your heart; but I think traditional music serves completely different functions than what Boulez is interested in. But since he is a conductor, he is involved with that tradition, so I suppose he feels he has the right to comment on forms which he sees as "taking up space" that a new syntax could fill. His is not a lamenting "his own career," but modern music as a whole. His concern transcends the temporal, and is concerned with the development of the syntax of music itself, not unlike a theoretical physicist.
> 
> But the opera fan is not concerned with "the syntax of music itself," but of superstars and entertainment.


Respectfully, millionrainbows, when Boulez makes such patently gauche comments about _destroying_ traditions I love, then its open season.

I don't see him as a libertarian-minded pluralist, with a live-and-let live ethos-- but more of an embittered ideologue who will tolerate no god but himself. His words speak for themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...t-ashamed.html


----------



## Woodduck

Honestly, I don't know what that old flame-thrower Pierre meant by half of the things he said. I only know that Mona Lisa wouldn't still be there smirking at us, with or without mustache, if he'd had his way. Well, good riddance to her! Opera houses, da Vincis, dominant sevenths - nuke 'em all!

The twentieth century could've been a lot more fun with him in charge.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> [...] So, I for one wouldn't say that Boulez is splenetic by nature. But I would say that he's an emotionally-crippled drama queen because he never got the "Best In Show" laurels he felt was his due as a twentieth century composer. So all I can say, as I so often say to embittered, non-Pageant Queen contestants in the Game of Life, is: "Don't get bitter. Get better."
> So what do you think?: Is Pierre Boulez a Spleen King or a Drama Queen?


I think he is neither SK or DQ, and I do believe he has (and will continue to have) the laurels he clearly merits.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Honestly, I don't know what that old flame-thrower Pierre meant by half of the things he said. I only know that Mona Lisa wouldn't still be there smirking at us, with or without mustache, if he'd had his way. Well, good riddance to her! Opera houses, da Vincis, dominant sevenths - nuke 'em all!
> 
> The twentieth century could've been a lot more fun with him in charge.


"Fascism which is not afraid to call itself reactionary. . . does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."

- Benito Mussolini, _Gerarchia_, March, 1923


----------



## Marschallin Blair

TalkingHead said:


> I think he is neither SK or DQ, and I do believe he has (and will continue to have) the laurels he clearly merits.


He did some undeniably brilliant stuff. _;D_


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> When Boulez says things such as "Schoenberg est *morte*!" he is not simply being mean-spirited; he is making a statement about music. Need I explain further?


If we take your quote _tel que_, Million, we might erroneously imagine that Pierre was in fact calling Arnie's gender into question. What a bitch!


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> [...] Boulez is presumably a paradigm of cold rationality-- so why would he want to burn down opera houses?


Because they're so gaudy? He doesn't like velvet upholstery? Dunno. You know?


----------



## Morimur

Marschallin Blair said:


> Respectfully, millionrainbows, when Boulez makes such patently gauche comments about _destroying_ traditions I love, then its open season.
> 
> I don't see him as a libertarian-minded pluralist, with a live-and-let live ethos-- but more of an embittered ideologue who will tolerate no god but himself. His words speak for themselves.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...t-ashamed.html


"Live and let live" huh? Highly ironic that you criticize the man for something you're obviously guilty of. How about 'tolerating' Boulez' perspective? No, of course not-that would be 'libertarian'!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Morimur said:


> "Live and let live" huh? Highly ironic that you criticize the man for something you're obviously guilty of. How about 'tolerating' Boulez' perspective? No, of course not-that would be 'libertarian'!


Unlike some of the 'kindly inquisitors' around here, I'm a free speech absolutist.

Boulez can say what he wants. I can say what I want.

Even though he wants to trash the _Mona Lisa_ and burn down opera houses, I still buy Boulez' cd's.

What's more latitudinarian than that?

What's the problem?


----------



## isorhythm

Marschallin Blair said:


> Unlike some of the 'kindly inquisitors' around here, I'm a free speech absolutist.
> 
> Boulez can say what he wants. I can say what I want.
> 
> Even though he wants to trash the _Mona Lisa_ and burn down opera houses, I still buy Boulez' cd's.
> 
> What's more latitudinarian than that?
> 
> What's the problem?


Can you quote an example of someone else on this board opposing anyone's free speech? Just one example would be sufficient. I'm genuinely curious as I haven't been here long.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Did I mention that the Naïve incarnation of Boulez' _Derive 1 and 2_ have stellar engineering? They're really fun to listen to when I'm ironing.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Was Boulez's comment really any more seismic to what Lennon said about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus? Sat as we are in the comfy chair of hindsight it's a great soundbite, but that's all.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

elgars ghost said:


> Was Boulez's comment really any more seismic to what Lennon said about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus? Sat as we are in the comfy chair of hindsight it's a great soundbite, but that's all.


No, not really. But I gather Lennon made the remark more in the spirit of impish arrogance and not with some of the type of deep-seated spleen that Boulez tends to have.


----------



## Triplets

Marschallin Blair said:


> Did I mention that the Naïve incarnation of Boulez' _Derive 1 and 2_ have stellar engineering? They're really fun to listen to when I'm ironing.


The only time I ever saw an iron is when my ex wife threw one at my head.
I have heard Boulez and Barenboim both conduct Boulez works here in Chicago. Both times my expectations were exceeded, but they were quite low to begin with. His music strikes me interesting but not compelling. I appreciate the innovations but do not feel compelled to revisit them. Music for the intellect, but not for the soul.


----------



## hpowders

Pierre Boulez will go down in history as one of the greatest conductors ever. I know it and many others on TC know it too.

I was privileged to attend the NY Philharmonic subscription concerts when he was music director of the NY Philharmonic. One of the high points of my musical encounters.

But that is neither here nor there.

Last I looked, freedom of speech was still in force in civilized communities, so no matter how distasteful one may find his remarks, Pierre Boulez still has every right to express them.

You want to censor free speech, move to Saudi Arabia.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Marschallin Blair- Pierre Boulez admits that he bullies; and that he booed out loud at a Stravinsky concert; and that he said that opera houses should be burnt down; and mentioned with characteristic immodesty that Stravinsky started to write in a more atonal, serialist manner because of. . . 'him.' He affords John Adams respect by saying that, "I cannot say I will spit on his music, but I cannot admire it either."

Now, speaking for myself, I don't think that the author of such beautiful works as _Explosante-Fixe_ and _Derive 1 and 2 _ is particularly splenetic by nature. His _Daphnis et Chloe_ has moments of exquisite beauty to it and his _La Valse _with Berlin pales to none.

So, I for one wouldn't say that Boulez is splenetic by _nature_. But I _would say _that he's an emotionally-crippled drama queen because he never got the "Best In Show" laurels he felt was his due as a twentieth century composer. So all I can say, as I so often say to embittered, non-Pageant Queen contestants in the Game of Life, is: "Don't get bitter. Get better."

So what do_ you _think?: Is Pierre Boulez a Spleen King or a Drama Queen?

Marschallin... I would say you hit the nail squarely on the head. Personally I am of the opinion that Boulez is grossly overrated as both a composer (here at TC at least) and a conductor... to say nothing of Boulez as a music critic/theorist.

Perhaps its the nature of being an "also ran" in the pony show? One is reminded of Plato's criticisms of Homer, Tolstoy's of Shakespeare, and Duchamp's of Picasso.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

All I will say is Pierre Boulez will go down in history as one of the greatest conductors ever.

That is quite possible. I don't like a lot of his conducting efforts... but there are others that I quite like. But I don't see criticism of Boulez the conductor as something without precedent. We have any number of posts dismissing... even damning Von Karajan, Klemperer, Boehm, Gardiner, etc...


----------



## Triplets

StlukesguildOhio said:


> All I will say is Pierre Boulez will go down in history as one of the greatest conductors ever.
> 
> That is quite possible. I don't like a lot of his conducting efforts... but there are others that I quite like. But I don't see criticism of Boulez the conductor as something without precedent. We have any number of posts dismissing... even damning Von Karajan, Klemperer, Boehm, Gardiner, etc...


Mahler drained emotion and Irony, Debussy without rapture...many are his misfires


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

May I ask what you know of conducting technique? More specifically, what do you find lacking in Boulez's technique? Imprecise beat? Poor rehearsal technique? Poor ear for balancing the strings, brass and woodwind? Poor grasp of structure? Nose too big? Wears too cheap a cologne? Do tell.

Unfortunately, what I know of conducting "technique" is limited to my experience as a listener. Is this where I should cite my qualifications... ie. number of recordings, favorite conductors?

Off the top of my head these are among the Boulez recordings I have:





His are my "go to" recordings for Bartok and I would count him among the finest recordings for Berlioz' _Symphonie Fantastique_, Mahler's Lieder (although that may owe more to Quasthoff and von Otter), _Lulu_ (although again I suspect I am more impressed with Stratas than anything else). I also admire... as much as I can admire Schoenberg... his recording with Uchida.

For Mahler's symphonies, Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky there are other conductors I find far better.

He may be THE man for Schoenberg and Webern... but then neither are composers I turn to often... and when I do, again there are usually other conductors at the helm.

That meager body of recordings that IMO rank as "essential" listening does not add up to a conductor I would rate as one of the finest of all time. Your mileage may differ.


----------



## Mahlerian

Triplets said:


> Mahler drained emotion and Irony, Debussy without rapture...many are his misfires


I always hear that his Mahler is unemotional, but I don't hear Boulez's recordings that way at all. They strike me as very emotionally charged and exciting. He allows every layer of the music to be heard and brought out (as Mahler himself always said should be done), shapes phrases magnificently, and applies a rhythmically sharp yet flexible beat with a healthy rubato as required by the music.

StLukes, I have heard most of those same recordings, and many others besides, of Boulez, and I consistently find his recordings valuable. Who cares if others do it "better"? They can't bring the exact same perspective to the music that Boulez can.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Marschallin... I would say you hit the nail squarely on the head. Personally I am of the opinion that Boulez is grossly overrated as both a composer (here at TC at least) and a conductor... to say nothing of Boulez as a music critic/theorist.


I want to offer an a different perspective on this controversy - ignorance! As far as I know, I have never heard anything composed by or conducted by Boulez. I speak as someone who has been listening to classical music quite seriously for about six years - so I am neither the most knowledgable listener nor the most ignorant, but somewhere in-between.

For those who would argue that Boulez is a minor composer and/or conductor who will soon be forgotten, let me be your poster child! The future is now!!!

For those who view Boulez as one of the greats, let me be your nightmare of a dystopian future spinning hopelessly out of control!

(As I wrote this I realized I do have a couple of Boulez-as-conductor discs on DG - certainly competent but hardly shimmering with a halo around them. As for his compositions, I simply haven't run across any.)


----------



## Woodduck

Boulez is at his best as a constructor and deconstructor of surfaces. As a conductor, his brilliance at laying bare the anatomy of the soundscape is indisputable, and in certain music unsurpassed (I really like his Debussy, while recognizing that other approaches are equally valid). As a composer he is brilliant at creating soundscapes of his own. Sometimes that's enough and I'm satisfied. At other times both his compositions and conducting can fascinate my ear while doing little for my spirit. That is to me quite a limitation on his creative and recreative art, and a limitation on "greatness." But I won't try to argue the inarguable!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Boulez is at his best as a constructor and deconstructor of surfaces.


If you were a conductor, and those were your first words to the orchestra (or ensemble) about to play something by Boulez, you would risk minor physical injury or, at best, recalcitrance in following you. The brass players among the band (these being ususally the most hardened and down to earth _executants_) would exchange expletives concerning such pompous pronouncements. So, Woodduck let us assume you have a Boulez score on your _pupitre_ (you can choose the work), explain to me, your first 'cellist on your right, what you mean as we begin our rehearsal, say for the sake of argument, bars 1 - 35.



Woodduck said:


> As a conductor, his brilliance at laying bare the anatomy of the soundscape is indisputable, and in certain music unsurpassed (I really like his Debussy, while recognizing that other approaches are equally valid).


Yes. I believe the same applies to his compositions.



Woodduck said:


> As a composer he is brilliant at creating soundscapes of his own. Sometimes that's enough and I'm satisfied. At other times both his compositions and conducting can fascinate my ear while doing little for my spirit. That is to me quite a limitation on his creative and recreative art, and a limitation on "greatness." But I won't try to argue the inarguable!


Hm. That _was_ insightful. I believe it applies to every composer that ever put quill to papyrus.


----------



## superhorn

For someone who wanted to see all the opera houses burned down, he's still a pretty good opera conductor ! Or was . Pelleas & Melisande, Bluebeard's Castle, Wozzeck, Lulu , Moses & Aron, for example .


----------



## ArtMusic

Marschallin Blair said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...erre-Boulez-I-was-a-bully-Im-not-ashamed.html
> 
> Pierre Boulez admits that he bullies; and that he booed out loud at a Stravinsky concert; and that he said that opera houses should be burnt down; and mentioned with characteristic immodesty that Stravinsky started to write in a more atonal, serialist manner because of. . . 'him.' He affords John Adams respect by saying that, "I cannot say I will spit on his music, but I cannot admire it either."
> 
> Now, speaking for myself, I don't think that the author of such beautiful works as _Explosante-Fixe_ and _Derive 1 and 2 _ is particularly splenetic by nature. His _Daphnis et Chloe_ has moments of exquisite beauty to it and his _La Valse _with Berlin pales to none.
> 
> So, I for one wouldn't say that Boulez is splenetic by _nature_. But I _would say _that he's an emotionally-crippled drama queen because he never got the "Best In Show" laurels he felt was his due as a twentieth century composer. So all I can say, as I so often say to embittered, non-Pageant Queen contestants in the Game of Life, is: "Don't get bitter. Get better."
> 
> So what do_ you _think?: Is Pierre Boulez a Spleen King or a Drama Queen?


I like this: Boulez the Bully. It has a natural ring to it. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Marschallin... I would say you hit the nail squarely on the head. Personally *I am of the opinion that Boulez is grossly overrated as both a composer (here at TC at least)* and a conductor... to say nothing of Boulez as a music critic/theorist.


Based on what? Most of us consider him to be a composer who has written some great works, not a second coming of Bach or Beethoven.

Daniel Barenboim, on the other hand, considers him the greatest living composer.


----------



## ahammel

superhorn said:


> For someone who wanted to see all the opera houses burned down, he's still a pretty good opera conductor ! Or was . Pelleas & Melisande, Bluebeard's Castle, Wozzeck, Lulu , Moses & Aron, for example .


The _Jahrhundertring_!


----------



## Woodduck

Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck: 
_"Boulez is at his best as a constructor and deconstructor of surfaces."_



TalkingHead said:


> If you were a conductor, and those were your first words to the orchestra (or ensemble) about to play something by Boulez, you would risk minor physical injury or, at best, recalcitrance in following you. The brass players among the band (these being ususally the most hardened and down to earth _executants_) would exchange expletives concerning such pompous pronouncements. So, Woodduck, let us assume you have a Boulez score on your _pupitre_ (you can choose the work), explain to me, your first 'cellist on your right, what you mean as we begin our rehearsal, say for the sake of argument, bars 1 - 35.


TalkingHead, what conductor begins a rehearsal by giving a personal opinion about the relative strengths of the composer?
Presumably, since you're inquiring about it, you would. Better dig out that football helmet. Flying trombones can hurt.


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Marschallin... I would say you hit the nail squarely on the head. Personally I am of the opinion that Boulez is grossly overrated as both a composer (here at TC at least) and a conductor... to say nothing of Boulez as a music critic/theorist.


I think it would be a much briefer exercise to name the handful of composers who are not grossly overrated and gushed over on TC, from top to third tier ranks. After all, TC is filled with very ardent fans of this and that, and no holds barred as to saying just how wonderful and great this one or that one are.

Not everyone on TC is the erudite professional critic with a lifetime dedicated solely to music such as yourself.

I'm not going to give any opinion of Boulez in this thread. I just can not bring myself to answer a question when the OP is so fundamentally crassly put; to answer the OP would be legitimizing a barnyard folly.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> I always hear that his Mahler is unemotional, but I don't hear Boulez's recordings that way at all. They strike me as very emotionally charged and exciting. He allows every layer of the music to be heard and brought out (as Mahler himself always said should be done), shapes phrases magnificently, and applies a rhythmically sharp yet flexible beat with a healthy rubato as required by the music.
> 
> StLukes, I have heard most of those same recordings, and many others besides, of Boulez, and I consistently find his recordings valuable. Who cares if others do it "better"? They can't bring the exact same perspective to the music that Boulez can.


True enough. . . and something incidentally that can be said of any conductor.

Most of the time, I'm fascinated with Boulez the clinician when it comes to clarifying, balancing, and blending _textures-_- but when it comes to interpretation, most of the time he flat lines with me.

Not in this gorgeously-played Mahler's _Tenth_ example in the You Tube clip above, but rather in, for example, the way he handles the first movement of Mahler's_ Fifth_ _Symphony_ on his DG recording-- which is the most anemic and anti-heroic interpretation I've ever heard.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> True enough. . . and something incidentally that can be said of any conductor.
> 
> Most of the time, I'm fascinated with Boulez the clinician when it comes to clarifying, balancing, and blending _textures-_- but when it comes to interpretation, most of the time he flat lines with me.
> 
> Not in this gorgeously-played Mahler's _Tenth_ example in the You Tube clip above, but rather in, for example, the way he handles the first movement of Mahler's_ Fifth_ _Symphony_ on his DG recording-- which is the most anemic and anti-heroic interpretation I've ever heard.


I don't hear it that way. His Mahler V first movement is slower, sure, and it's not a breathless rush forward, but he draws out the lyricism and lilting beauty of the contrasting sections as well. Overall, I feel it's very well-paced, and despite the fact it doesn't have the immediate punch of other versions, it has an impact because it holds back at times, maintaining tension. That's why I don't hear it as anemic at all.

Isn't it valid also to portray the lurking menace of death? I'm not even sure that the first movement is supposed to sound heroic (that's for the scherzo).

Is it my favorite rendition of either movement or symphony? No. Do I enjoy listening to it? Absolutely.


----------



## science

I'm finding it hard to care about the criticisms of Boulez that I've seen. I haven't seen anything that felt deeper than a matter of personal taste, which I feel free to disregard. I don't care what intemperate or arrogant things he said, any more than I care what intemperate things Tchaikovsky or Saint-Saëns or Debussy or whoever said. It makes a nice little soap opera I guess, but the main thing is - his music is really good. How many compositions of the 1950s are more highly regarded than _Le Marteau sans maître_? How many post-WWII compositions for piano are regarded as highly as his second piano sonata? If he's not the single most highly regarded composers of our time, he's among the top handful.

As a conductor, he may not be everyone's favorite, but he's made a lot of great recordings and proven his worth beyond what I think any of us could doubt.

As a writer, I have no personal idea, but some people I respect tell me he's insightful and eloquent.

Even if I personally didn't enjoy his music, I would probably be loathe to take all that on without some serious circumspection. I would be willing to admit that my personal preference (even perhaps my soul or whatever) went in other directions, but that would be the limits of my own bravery.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> I don't hear it that way. His Mahler V first movement is slower, sure, and it's not a breathless rush forward, but he draws out the lyricism and lilting beauty of the contrasting sections as well. Overall, I feel it's very well-paced, and despite the fact it doesn't have the immediate punch of other versions, it has an impact because it holds back at times, maintaining tension. That's why I don't hear it as anemic at all.
> 
> Isn't it valid also to portray the lurking menace of death? I'm not even sure that the first movement is supposed to sound heroic (that's for the scherzo).
> 
> Is it my favorite rendition of either movement or symphony? No. Do I enjoy listening to it? Absolutely.


I hear the opening of the first movement of the Mahler's _Fifth_ as epic striving heroism suffused with inextricable tragedy. The opening should have a heroic 'rear-guard-last-stand-no-matter-what-the-odds,' 'always-charge-never bend' feeling to it.

At least as I hear it; or Karajan; or Bernstein (VPO performance); or Tennstedt; or Sinopoli; or a lot of people for that matter.

I've never faulted Boulez on his technical wizardry, only on his interpretations-- which, admittedly, are an individuated thing.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> I hear the opening of the first movement of the Mahler's _Fifth_ as epic striving heroism suffused with inextricable tragedy. The opening should have a heroic 'rear-guard-last-stand-no-matter-what-the-odds,' 'always-charge-never bend' feeling to it.
> 
> At least as I hear it; or Karajan; or Bernstein (VPO performance); or Tennstedt; or Sinopoli; or a lot of people for that matter.
> 
> I've never faulted Boulez on his technical wizardry, only on his interpretations-- which, admittedly, are an individuated thing.




That's quite a disparate group. I love the Tennstedt and Bernstein DG ones as well, and I'd add Solti's searing live performance from the early 90s.

But I hear the movement as a piece of music. It can be like you stated, but it can be other things as well! Why can't it be heavier, more subdued and mournful?

And I didn't mention anything about Boulez's technique, only his interpretation, which I think has merit. As you say, though, it depends very much on individual taste.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> I'm finding it hard to care about the criticisms of Boulez that I've seen. I haven't seen anything that felt deeper than a matter of personal taste, which I feel free to disregard. I don't care what intemperate or arrogant things he said, any more than I care what intemperate things Tchaikovsky or Saint-Saëns or Debussy or whoever said. It makes a nice little soap opera I guess, but the main thing is - his music is really good. How many compositions of the 1950s are more highly regarded than _Le Marteau sans maître_? How many post-WWII compositions for piano are regarded as highly as his second piano sonata? If he's not the single most highly regarded composers of our time, he's among the top handful.
> 
> As a conductor, he may not be everyone's favorite, but he's made a lot of great recordings and proven his worth beyond what I think any of us could doubt.
> 
> As a writer, I have no personal idea, but some people I respect tell me he's insightful and eloquent.
> 
> Even if I personally didn't enjoy his music, I would probably be loathe to take all that on without some serious circumspection. I would be willing to admit that my personal preference (even perhaps my soul or whatever) went in other directions, but that would be the limits of my own bravery.


That's a small statistical fish pond to sample from.

How about comparing Boulez with the heavyweights of all time?: Wagner, Beethoven, Debussy, Strauss, Bach, the lot.

He talks tough with the pose and posture that he's the Alpha and Omega of music.

Well, stand outside of your weight class, tough guy--- that defines true greatness.


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's a small statistical fish pond to sample from.
> 
> How about comparing Boulez with the heavyweights of all time?: Wagner, Beethoven, Debussy, Strauss, Bach, the lot.
> 
> He talks tough with the pose and posture that he's the Alpha and Omega of music.
> 
> Well, stand outside of your weight class, tough guy--- that defines true greatness.


Let's wait fifty years and see. Whatever the betting line is, I suspect I'd be taking the "over."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> That's quite a disparate group. I love the Tennstedt and Bernstein DG ones as well, and I'd add Solti's searing live performance from the early 90s.
> 
> But I hear the movement as a piece of music. It can be like you stated, but it can be other things as well! Why can't it be heavier, more subdued and mournful?
> 
> And I didn't mention anything about Boulez's technique, only his interpretation, which I think has merit. As you say, though, it depends very much on individual taste.


Well, you said it best: It's '_non-disputandum_.' His _Fifth_ doesn't galvanize me, or even pierce me in a sublime way for the more lugubrious sections. I just conceptualize the music in a completely different way.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's a small statistical fish pond to sample from.
> 
> How about comparing Boulez with the heavyweights of all time?: Wagner, Beethoven, Debussy, Strauss, Bach, the lot.
> 
> He talks tough with the pose and posture that he's the Alpha and Omega of music.
> 
> Well, stand outside of your weight class, tough guy--- that defines true greatness.


I think he easily stands up with those other great composers. But, why would you compare across eras anyway? Machaut was almost undeniably the greatest composer of his own time that we yet know of, but if you tried to compare his music to Wagner's music you might come away with the impression that Machaut's music is anemic as well. However, hyper-charged emotionalism wasn't the goal of medieval composers and isn't the stick by which they should be measured. Imo, a one size fits all approach to judging the worth of music isn't accurate.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> I think he easily stands up with those other great composers. But, why would you compare across eras anyway? Machaut was almost undeniably the greatest composer of his own time that we yet know of, but if you tried to compare his music to Wagner's music you might come away with the impression that Machaut's music is anemic as well. However, hyper-charged emotionalism wasn't the goal of medieval composers and isn't the stick by which they should be measured. Imo, a one size fits all approach to judging the worth of music isn't accurate.


There's a lot of truth to what you're saying about the incommensurability of different composers from completely disparate eras of history.

But then, to my knowledge, those composers from more distant times didn't have the temerity to pretend that they're some kind of Boulezian-Fukuyamian, _fons-et-origo_, 'End of Music,' either.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> There's a lot of truth to what you're saying about the incommensurability of different composers from completely disparate eras of history.
> 
> But then, to my knowledge, those composers from more distant times didn't have the temerity to pretend that they're some kind of Boulezian-Fukuyamian, _fons-et-origo_, 'End of Music,' either.


I think what Boulez thought of himself and other composers like him at some point in time isn't very relevant to my point.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> I think what Boulez thought of himself and other composers like him at some point in time isn't very relevant to my point.


Okay: I'll clarify on the Blair-ify.

I think Boulez's iconoclastic, fascistically-'futurist' views aren't going to go down at too terribly _de rigueur_ when it comes time to sum up his 'legacy'; nor do I believe that his music will be feted outside the cloisters of his devotees.

I can of course be completely wrong, but that's how I see it.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> Okay: I'll clarify on the Blair-ify.
> 
> I think Boulez's iconoclastic, fascistically-'futurist' views aren't going to go down at too terribly _de rigeur_ when it comes time to sum up his 'legacy'; nor do I believe that his music will be feted outside the cloisters of his devotees.
> 
> I can of course be completely wrong, but that's how I see it.


I think his silly comments are as irrelevant to his legacy as Stravinsky's support of Mussolini is to his.

And I disagree on the second point.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> I think his silly comments are as irrelevant to his legacy as Stravinsky's support of Mussolini is to his.
> 
> And I disagree on the second point.


I fully respect your right to disagree. . .

Stravinsky supported _Il Duce_?


----------



## KenOC

An interesting question: Is Boulez a composer whose time will come? Certainly not yet. I can't remember ever hearing his music, even once, on our local CM station. I can't remember a concert, orchestral, chamber, or recital, in my area where his music was played -- although of course there probably were some -- SoCal is a big place with a lot of concerts. Ligeti? Certainly. Takemitsu? Absolutely (even on TV!) Boulez? Well, not that I know of, or at least he's keeping a very low profile.

It would seem his audience is quite narrow. Now I await the usual people pointing out that whether people actually want to hear a composer's music is relevant to nothing at all.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> An interesting question: Is Boulez a composer whose time will come? Certainly not yet. I can't remember ever hearing his music, even once, on our local CM station. I can't remember a concert, orchestral, chamber, or recital, in my area where his music was played -- although of course there probably were some -- SoCal is a big place with a lot of concerts. Ligeti? Certainly. Takemitsu? Absolutely (even on TV!) Boulez? Well, not that I know of, or at least he's keeping a very low profile.
> 
> It would seem his audience is quite narrow. Now I await the usual people pointing out that whether people actually want to hear a composer's music is relevant to nothing at all.


I want to hear his music, and that's relevant to me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> I want to hear his music, and that's relevant to me.


_Absolutely!_

The most important thing!

But this 'vanguard of the future' rhetoric and PR roll-out of music 'that's coming like a ton of bricks' is just puerile posturing.


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> And what of all the people who give a lot of 'atonal' music (forgive me, Mahlerian; I think it does exist _;D _) the 'good faith listen'-- they understand it-- and then still reject it as aesthetically and emotionally stale?


Well, let them reject and accept as they choose, or find themselves led to, or whatever - but then, after all, yeah, what of them? Are they the people most likely to educate the performers and listeners of future generations?

Because if not, the deck is stacked against them.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> I want to hear his music, and that's relevant to me.


And so be it! If I enjoyed his music, I'd feel the same. But I'm not sure that's relevant to what I posted.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Absolutely!_
> 
> The most important thing!
> 
> But this 'vanguard of the future' rhetoric and PR roll-out of music 'that's coming like a ton of bricks' is just puerile posturing.


Maybe it's PR, but I think it's more likely the case that people tend to say less than insightful things when they become so enraptured by the movement they have involved themselves in.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> Well, let them reject and accept as they choose, or find themselves led to, or whatever - but then, after all, yeah, what of them? Are they the people most likely to educate the performers and listeners of future generations?
> 
> Because if not, the deck is stacked against them.


Not really, because universities are becoming increasingly irrelevant as it is. Everyone has access to information now. Not just the Guardians of the Temple.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> Maybe it's PR, but I think it's more likely the case that people tend to say less than insightful things when they become so enraptured by the movement they have involved themselves in.


Sure.

I'm guilty of it myself.

Have I preached the _Gospel of Divina_ to you lately?

_;D_


----------



## Woodduck

We can all give our opinions of the music of Pierre Boulez and say whether or not we think he's a great or important composer. But really, nothing we say is going to matter in the long run. We don't know to what extent Boulez represents "the future" or just how highly he will be rated by "the future." But I think we can be pretty confident that in books on the history of music our descendents will read that he was one of the important composers of our time. We might ask why that should be, or what it would prove. Well, I'd like to suggest that it will prove very little, except that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Boulez was, after all, a very squeaky wheel. 

I intend only a limited parallel here, and not a precise comparison, in pointing out that in books on 20th-century painting we are told that Jackson Pollock was one of the important painters of the modern era. In light of that, it is probably ungracious to ask how many of us, at this point in time, have Pollocks hanging over our mantlepieces. Now we know, of course, that that is irrelevant, since actually being enjoyed by human beings is no test of the worth of a work of art or the greatness of the artist. But indulge me for a moment. Honestly now, just between you and me, do you think Pollock was a great artist? All right, I'll go first. I think he was a minor talent hyped out of all proportion to his merit. If it hadn't been for Peggy Guggenheim's "discovering" and supporting him and Clement Greenberg annointing him as the vanguard of the future of art, his "all-over" scribblings exhibiting the ideal of "flatness" and exemplifying painting as "action" would be confined mainly to bathroom wallpaper, and even that would be out of fashion. Come to think of it, that may be just where they've ended up - except, of course, on the excessively expensive walls of museums, where little brass plaques dutifully inform us of how critically important they are to "history." Peggy Guggenheim and Clement Greenberg were the squeaky wheel for the hapless Pollock, who found to his distress that supreme greatness was more than he could handle, and in horribly few years would have found that fashions in art had moved on and that other wheels - pop art, op art, earth art, conceptual art, neo-realism - were getting the grease. Would have, but he died, drunk, behind the wheel of his car at age 44.

Why am I telling you this? Simple. Whether or not the music of Boulez, or any other composer of our time whose music is feted by a coterie of enthusiasts and experts, will ever be significant to a larger public, that sort of significance, which is after all a matter of "mere" popularity, will not matter to the official judgment of history. That history is written by experts like Clement Greenberg, not by concertgoers. And if the experts write in their books that Pierre Boulez was one of the crucial figures in the history of music, it will matter little whether his future audience consists of five million people or five hundred - or if no one ever listens to his music again.

If the wheel squeaks loud and long enough, and gets enough grease to keep it turning for a while, and enough of the right people jump on the squeaky wagon, greatness is assured. So we can just quit arguing about it right now.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> We can all give our opinions of the music of Pierre Boulez and say whether or not we think he's a great or important composer. But really, nothing we say is going to matter in the long run. We don't know to what extent Boulez represents "the future" or just how highly he will be rated by "the future." But I think we can be pretty confident that in books on the history of music our descendents will read that he was one of the important composers of our time. We might ask why that should be, or what it would prove. Well, I'd like to suggest that it will prove very little, except that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Boulez was, after all, a very squeaky wheel.
> 
> I intend only a limited parallel here, and not a precise comparison, in pointing out that in books on 20th-century painting we are told that Jackson Pollock was one of the important painters of the modern era. In light of that, it is probably ungracious to ask how many of us, at this point in time, have Pollocks hanging over our mantlepieces. Now we know, of course, that that is irrelevant, since actually being enjoyed by human beings is no test of the worth of a work of art or the greatness of the artist. But indulge me for a moment. Honestly now, just between you and me, do you think Pollock was a great artist? All right, I'll go first. I think he was a minor talent hyped out of all proportion to his merit. If it hadn't been for Peggy Guggenheim's "discovering" and supporting him and Clement Greenberg annointing him as the vanguard of the future of art, his "all-over" scribblings exhibiting the ideal of "flatness" and exemplifying painting as "action" would be confined mainly to bathroom wallpaper, and even that would be out of fashion. Come to think of it, that may be just where they've ended up - except, of course, on the excessively expensive walls of museums, where little brass plaques dutifully inform us of how critically important they are to "history." Peggy Guggenheim and Clement Greenberg were the squeaky wheel for the hapless Pollock, who found to his distress that supreme greatness was more than he could handle, and in horribly few years would have found that fashions in art had moved on and that other wheels - pop art, op art, earth art, conceptual art, neo-realism - were getting the grease. Would have, but he died, drunk, behind the wheel of his car at age 44.
> 
> Why am I telling you this? Simple. Whether or not the music of Boulez, or any other composer of our time whose music is feted by a coterie of enthusiasts and experts, will ever be significant to a larger public, that sort of significance, which is after all a matter of "mere" popularity, will not matter to the official judgment of history. That history is written by experts like Clement Greenberg, not by concertgoers. And if the experts write in their books that Pierre Boulez was one of the crucial figures in the history of music, it will matter little whether his future audience consists of five million people or five hundred - or if no one ever listens to his music again.
> 
> If the wheel squeaks loud and long enough, and gets enough grease to keep it turning for a while, and enough of the right people jump on the squeaky wagon, greatness is assured. So we can just quit arguing about it right now.


Well, they sell for very high prices (I suspect neither of us hobnobs with the likes of the people who could afford to have one on the mantlepiece) and I _like_ them. I would very happily hang a framed reproduction in my study! With art as with music, I don't pretend to be the one who decides what is great, but I cannot object to Pollock.

If you picture me listening to Boulez, reading Le Clézio, sipping my grappa, glancing up at my reproduction of Pollack, and then, while struggling not to have any cigar ashes spill on my keyboard, firing off a post defending a person's right to dislike all of them without suffering any loss of social status, you are only a golden retriever and a yacht filled with Russian women away from my ideal life!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> We can all give our opinions of the music of Pierre Boulez and say whether or not we think he's a great or important composer. But really, nothing we say is going to matter in the long run. We don't know to what extent Boulez represents "the future" or just how highly he will be rated by "the future."


It's true that we don't know about the future. But is that what validates either the music or the opinions? I'd say not. The music is validated by giving pleasure to a listener. The opinions are validated by experience with the music. As for arguing right now, can't that be useful right now for the moment? Does it have to be demonstrably useful in the unknowable future for it to be valid right now? All I got out of this was that you don't like the argument. OK. Ignore it then. The rest of us will quit or not quit regardless of how effectively you have demonstrated its futility.



Woodduck said:


> I think we can be pretty confident that in books on the history of music our descendents will read that he was one of the important composers of our time. We might ask why that should be, or what it would prove. Well, I'd like to suggest that it will prove very little, except that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Boulez was, after all, a very squeaky wheel.


Well, it certainly could have very little to do with the range and quality of experience that many people have had with the music itself, could it? It certainly could have very little to do with the range and scope of his influence both musically or critically on successive generations of composers and listeners alike, could it? No, it's just the squeaky wheel.

That's just a trifle too reductionist for my tastes....



Woodduck said:


> _n books on 20th-century painting we are told that Jackson Pollock was one of the important painters of the modern era. In light of that, it is probably ungracious to ask how many of us, at this point in time, have Pollocks hanging over our mantlepieces._


_Certainly ungracious. No argument there. But something else as well. How many of us have any Vermeers hanging over our mantlepieces? How many of us have Picassos hanging over our mantlepieces? How many of us have Velasquezes hanging over our mantlepieces? We each of us have perhaps one mantlepiece, eh? Room for probably (traditionally) only one painting. Our choice of that one, whether Landseer or Rauschenberg, says nothing one way or another about any other painters of any era.



Woodduck said:



Now we know, of course, that that is irrelevant, since actually being enjoyed by human beings is no test of the worth of a work of art or the greatness of the artist.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it is, as you of course know.



Woodduck said:



Honestly now, just between you and me, do you think Pollock was a great artist?

Click to expand...

Yes.



Woodduck said:



I think he was a minor talent hyped out of all proportion to his merit.

Click to expand...

And so, once again, it's come down to "which opinion is right." Nothing to do with Boulez or Pollock or any other artist. Just who gets to "win" the argument. As if conversations about art were simply and merely contests. Which will be the winning entry?

"I would very happily hang a framed reproduction in my study!" or "I think he was a minor talent hyped out of all proportion to his merit"? Well, I know which one is curmudeonly, so if there's a trophy for that.... And I know the other indicates pleasure and engagement and understanding. All inarguably positive things....



Woodduck said:



If it hadn't been for Peggy Guggenheim's "discovering" and supporting him and Clement Greenberg annointing him as the vanguard of the future of art, his "all-over" scribblings exhibiting the ideal of "flatness" and exemplifying painting as "action" would be confined mainly to bathroom wallpaper, and even that would be out of fashion. Come to think of it, that may be just where they've ended up - except, of course, on the excessively expensive walls of museums, where little brass plaques dutifully inform us of how critically important they are to "history."

Click to expand...

The art museum as glorified bathroom. Now there's a catechresis for ya!

And museum curators as just a bunch of pumped up sychophants who like nothing more than jumping on squeaky wagons.



Woodduck said:



Peggy Guggenheim and Clement Greenberg were the squeaky wheel for the hapless Pollock, who found to his distress that supreme greatness was more than he could handle, and in horribly few years would have found that fashions in art had moved on and that other wheels - pop art, op art, earth art, conceptual art, neo-realism - were getting the grease. Would have, but he died, drunk, behind the wheel of his car at age 44.

Click to expand...

Ouch. This is, unfortunately, protected speech at TC. Any appropriate response to it is equally unfortunately not protected speech. An appropriate response to this would gather infractions like nobody's business.



Woodduck said:



Why am I telling you this?

Click to expand...

It is a good thing that you answered this yourself. I am not permitted, pace the ToS, to answer this question myself. Again, just another example of the way the ToS are skewed.



Woodduck said:



Whether or not the music of Boulez, or any other composer of our time whose music is feted by a coterie of enthusiasts and experts, will ever be significant to a larger public, that sort of significance, which is after all a matter of "mere" popularity, will not matter to the official judgment of history. That history is written by experts like Clement Greenberg, not by concertgoers. And if the experts write in their books that Pierre Boulez was one of the crucial figures in the history of music, it will matter little whether his future audience consists of five million people or five hundred - or if no one ever listens to his music again.

Click to expand...

So that's how Bach and Beethoven achieved their place in official history books. They got there not on any musical merit, not on the number of their listeners--five million or five hundred--but simply because the Clement Greenbergs of the nineteenth century put them there. So. Someone's finally outed the historians. 'Bout time._


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> And what of all the people who give a lot of 'atonal' music (*forgive me, Mahlerian; I think it does exist* _;D _) the 'good faith listen'-- they understand it-- and then still reject it as aesthetically and emotionally stale?


To me, this reads like you're advocating the flat Earth model. Why call Boulez's music atonal and not (some) Debussy or Strauss?

Most people don't seem to understand it, either, given that they fail to be able to follow the melodic development and form of pieces they call atonal (or at least seem not to). One of the things I always enjoy most about Boulez's later works (Le marteau on) is how clearly and beautifully everything works together to move the music forward. Its gorgeous textures are wonderful, to be sure, but I agree with you that that in itself is not enough for great music. The point is that under the surface, everything is working together towards a goal.


----------



## Guest

For my part, I don't think "the good faith listen" is anything other than a transparent camouflage for covering a prejudice against new music.

It all seems to come down to "I dislike it." And anything else is so much special pleading.

("I like it" doesn't need any pleading, special or not. It's already validated simply by being positive.)

Since I have already mentioned this (in similar contexts and for the sole purpose of illustrating a point) and the damage has already been done, I will say, again, that I dislike the music of Arnold Bax. Now, I could try to justify my dislike with all sorts of commentary about the music sounding like a film score without a film or as being full of borrowings from other, much earlier, composers, or being just generally retro, but none of that would be anything but special pleading.

One positive comment by arpeggio, who enjoys Bax quite a lot, would be enough to utterly destroy any flimsy edifice I may have constructed (with roughly 6 by 9 cm bits of layered pasteboard) to validate my opinion. Truth is, I don't spend any time at all listening to Bax, so have nothing to contribute to any conversation about the man's music aside from a very feeble prejudice. In other words, less than nothing.

I could, however, claim to have listened to several pieces, in good faith, but that would be a lie. I have heard several pieces and have disliked them for whatever reason. My theory is that there is some sort of glitch in my listening apparatus that prevents me from enjoying music that other people have no difficulty enjoying at all. Nothing, for certain, to do with Bax. I certainly could never see myself concluding, from my genuinely bad faith listening, that Bax's music is aesthetically and emotionally stale, even though that is indeed how it appears to my ears.

I would much rather, and with more confidence, conclude that something is wrong with me in this regard.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> An interesting question: Is Boulez a composer whose time will come? Certainly not yet. I can't remember ever hearing his music, even once, on our local CM station. I can't remember a concert, orchestral, chamber, or recital, in my area where his music was played -- although of course there probably were some -- SoCal is a big place with a lot of concerts. Ligeti? Certainly. Takemitsu? Absolutely (even on TV!) Boulez? Well, not that I know of, or at least he's keeping a very low profile.
> 
> It would seem his audience is quite narrow. Now I await the usual people pointing out that whether people actually want to hear a composer's music is relevant to nothing at all.


Takemitsu wrote a number of pieces which are clearly influenced by Boulez; probably not the ones played on the radio, but important parts of his output nonetheless.






Boulez's music is being played a good deal this year in London and the Netherlands, including a number of all-Boulez concerts. I suspect that when Messiaen's popularity has arrived (and it's coming soon), Boulez's will begin to rise noticeably.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> To me, this reads like you're advocating the flat Earth model. Why call Boulez's music atonal and not (some) Debussy or Strauss?
> Most people don't seem to understand it, either, given that they fail to be able to follow the melodic development and form of pieces they call atonal (or at least seem not to). One of the things I always enjoy most about Boulez's later works (Le marteau on) is how clearly and beautifully everything works together to move the music forward. Its gorgeous textures are wonderful, to be sure, but I agree with you that that in itself is not enough for great music. The point is that under the surface, everything is working together towards a goal.


Oh M., because, as you're fully _au fait_, Strauss and Debussy don't _sound_ cacophonous-- though, yes they do break the rules; but they do it with taste, tact, intelligence, and an intuitive ear for what works.

If this_ isn't_ the case, the _ANY_ random combination of tones could _never be _cacophonous.

- And what could be more naïve and unassuming than that?


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh M., because, as you're fully _au fait_, Strauss and Debussy don't sound cacophonous-- though, yes they do break the rules; but they do it with taste, tact, intelligence, and an intuitive ear for what works.
> 
> If this_ isn't_ the case, the _ANY_ random combination of tones could _never be _cacophonous.
> 
> - And what could be more naïve and unassuming than that?


Boulez and Schoenberg don't sound cacophonous either. Neither are "cacophonous" or "dissonant" either necessary or sufficient conditions for something to be "atonal" in any sense.

Any combination of tones is allowed, but it has to be justified by the music. There's as much difference between a student composition that tries to sound "edgy" by throwing in random dissonances and the use of similar dissonances by Ligeti, Babbitt, or Stockhausen as there is between those bland new age piano improvisations that people enjoy as pretty sonority and the work of a Debussy, Chopin, or Grieg.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> For my part, I don't think "the good faith listen" is anything other than a transparent camouflage for covering a prejudice against new music.
> 
> It all seems to come down to "I dislike it." And anything else is so much special pleading.
> 
> ("I like it" doesn't need any pleading, special or not. It's already validated simply by being positive.)
> 
> Since I have already mentioned this (in similar contexts and for the sole purpose of illustrating a point) and the damage has already been done, I will say, again, that I dislike the music of Arnold Bax. Now, I could try to justify my dislike with all sorts of commentary about the music sounding like a film score without a film or as being full of borrowings from other, much earlier, composers, or being just generally retro, but none of that would be anything but special pleading.
> 
> One positive comment by arpeggio, who enjoys Bax quite a lot, would be enough to utterly destroy any flimsy edifice I may have constructed (with roughly 6 by 9 cm bits of layered pasteboard) to validate my opinion. Truth is, I don't spend any time at all listening to Bax, so have nothing to contribute to any conversation about the man's music aside from a very feeble prejudice. In other words, less than nothing.
> 
> I could, however, claim to have listened to several pieces, in good faith, but that would be a lie. I have heard several pieces and have disliked them for whatever reason. My theory is that there is some sort of glitch in my listening apparatus that prevents me from enjoying music that other people have no difficulty enjoying at all. Nothing, for certain, to do with Bax. I certainly could never see myself concluding, from my genuinely bad faith listening, that Bax's music is aesthetically and emotionally stale, even though that is indeed how it appears to my ears.
> 
> I would much rather, and with more confidence, conclude that something is wrong with me in this regard.


_Tu quoque_.

And I, for my MB-fashonista part, don't find the belief that "everyone _must like _atonalism" is anything other than a transparent camouflage for covering-up a prejudice against more beautiful sounding and emotionally expressive music.

It all seems to come down to: "I like it-- so you have to as well" -- and anything else is just so much special pleading.

-- Wasn't that cute?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Boulez and Schoenberg don't sound cacophonous either. Neither are "cacophonous" or "dissonant" either necessary or sufficient conditions for something to be "atonal" in any sense.
> 
> Any combination of tones is allowed, but it has to be justified by the music. There's as much difference between a student composition that tries to sound "edgy" by throwing in random dissonances and the use of similar dissonances by Ligeti, Babbitt, or Stockhausen as there is between those bland new age piano improvisations that people enjoy as pretty sonority and the work of a Debussy, Chopin, or Grieg.


I agree.

Its not stochastic and random then.

There are limits to what works.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> I agree.
> 
> Its not stochastic and random then.
> 
> There are limits to what works.


Wait, can I back up for a minute?



> And I, for my MB-fashonista part, don't find the belief that "everyone must like atonalism" is anything other than a transparent camouflage for covering-up a prejudice against more beautiful sounding and emotionally expressive music.
> 
> It all seems to come down to: "I like it-- so you have to as well" -- and anything else is just so much special pleading.


Do you actually believe that people enjoy Schoenberg and Boulez's music _because_ it sounds like random nonsense?

I just think that Schoenberg's music is more expressive, has better melodies, more effective harmony, and more incisive orchestration than many other composers. I am not biased against the beautiful, I just find Schoenberg and Boulez beautiful in the same way I find Debussy, Mahler, Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Monteverdi, and so on beautiful.

I am perfectly willing to let others have their own tastes, but the question of whether or not the music is random nonsense is not one of opinion. Furthermore, if you think my opinion is that the music of Boulez/Schoenberg/Ligeti/Webern/Berg/Takemitsu/Messiaen/Carter etc. sounds random and cacophonous, you're wrong.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Wait, can I back up for a minute?
> 
> Do you actually believe that people enjoy Schoenberg and Boulez's music _because_ it sounds like random nonsense?
> 
> .


I remember years ago my young son came in when I had on Glenn Gould playing Webern. His response? "That's funny music Dad!"


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Wait, can I back up for a minute?
> 
> Do you actually believe that people enjoy Schoenberg and Boulez's music _because_ it sounds like random nonsense?
> 
> I just think that Schoenberg's music is more expressive, has better melodies, more effective harmony, and more incisive orchestration than many other composers. I am not biased against the beautiful, I just find Schoenberg and Boulez beautiful in the same way I find Debussy, Mahler, Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Monteverdi, and so on beautiful.
> 
> I am perfectly willing to let others have their own tastes, but the question of whether or not the music is random nonsense is not one of opinion.


I'm backing up, Mahlerian!

I've got a lot on my plate right now at work and in the Forum. Ha. Ha. Ha.

I'm not going after what I already like in Schoenberg and Boulez. . . well, mostly. But so much of Schoenberg's _Five Pieces for Orchestra_ and _Moses und Aaron_ do sound absolutely ugly to me. Structurally nuanced and sophisticated as they certainly are-- the ingenuity cannot save the harmony from itself; at least not to my ears.

The technique and the talent is never in question-- just the sound of the final product.

I don't believe in the labor theory of value in economics _or_ in music. Just because something is labor-intensive doesn't necessarily give it aesthetic value.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'm backing up, Mahlerian!
> 
> I've got a lot on my plate right now at work and in the Forum. Ha. Ha. Ha.
> 
> I'm not going after what I already like in Schoenberg and Boulez. . . well, mostly. But so much of Schoenberg's _Five Pieces for Orchestra_ and _Moses und Aaron_ do sound absolutely ugly to me. Structurally nuanced and sophisticated as they certainly are-- the ingenuity cannot save the harmony from itself; at least not to my ears.
> 
> The technique and the talent is never in question-- just the sound of the final product.




Do you think they sound ugly to everyone? I find that both works have moments of ravishing beauty; I find them dramatically effective and exciting just as music (not getting into technique, which you keep bringing up, and I never mention).

I personally find the ending of Salome far uglier than anything Schoenberg ever conceived, to say nothing of Shostakovich's music.

Once again, I don't mind people responding differently, but you're making statements about what the music itself is, not just about your own reaction to it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Do you think they sound ugly to everyone? I find that both works have moments of ravishing beauty; I find them dramatically effective and exciting just as music (not getting into technique, which you keep bringing up, and I never mention).
> 
> I personally find the ending of Salome far uglier than anything Schoenberg ever conceived, to say nothing of Shostakovich's music.


Are we in alternate_ universes _or what?

I don't question your sincerity. Perhaps the phenotypic expressions of our grey matter and our ears are different.

I don't even know how to address how different our aural perspectives can be.


----------



## ahammel

DavidA said:


> I remember years ago my young son came in when I had on Glenn Gould playing Webern. His response? "That's funny music Dad!"


That's an amusing anecdote, but I don't see what connection it has with the question you were asked.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Tu quoque_.
> 
> And I, for my MB-fashonista part, don't find the belief that "everyone _must like _atonalism" is anything other than a transparent camouflage for covering-up a prejudice against more beautiful sounding and emotionally expressive music.
> 
> It all seems to come down to: "I like it-- so you have to as well" -- and anything else is just so much special pleading.
> 
> -- Wasn't that cute?


But my dear Blair, where do you find the belief that everyone must like atonalism? Only in the posts of people using that particular straw man to to well, rereading this, I don't know what the purpose is. To change the subject, maybe. A chance to seem to undercut my point by using my words against me. But no one believes that anyone must like atonalism. And I, for one, have no prejudice against beautiful sounding and emotionally expressive music at all. I love the stuff.

Here's two examples of things I find beautiful sounding and emotionally expressive:






http://danielmenche.bandcamp.com/album/unleash

So no, not acute at all. Clever, yes. I'll give you clever. But it's clever at the expense of accuracy and reality.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Are we in alternate_ universes _or what?
> 
> I don't question your sincerity. Perhaps the phenotypic expressions of our grey matter and our ears are different.
> 
> I don't even know how to address how different our aural perspectives can be.




They are the same ears that love Mahler, Debussy, Mozart, Sibelius, Bach, Bartok, Janacek, Wagner, and so forth. I love them in the same way, and for the same reason: they sound good.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> They are the same ears that love Mahler, Debussy, Mozart, Sibelius, Bach, Bartok, Janacek, Wagner, and so forth. I love them in the same way, and for the same reason: they sound good.


Well, I wish my Doors of Perception were cleansed as thoroughly as your own--_ truly._

-- And I, in the spirit of infectious bonhomie and aesthetic reciprocity, wish you could experience the gorgeosity of Maria Calllas as my ears hear her-- at her absolute, late-forties-to-late-fifties _best_.

_;D_


----------



## Albert7

I don't care whether Boulez is this or that.

I simply enjoy his compositions and conducting, that is all.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> Respectfully, millionrainbows, when Boulez makes such patently gauche comments about _destroying_ traditions I love, then its open season.
> 
> I don't see him as a libertarian-minded pluralist, with a live-and-let live ethos-- but more of an embittered ideologue who will tolerate no god but himself. His words speak for themselves.


Well, what do _you_ know about art? Are you French? :lol:

But, seriously, Boulez' worst offense, by far, are those horrible comb-overs of the 1970s.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> millionrainbows: Well, what do you know about art? Are you French?


'Anglo-French,' both 'empiricist' and 'rationalist'- so I have both aesthetic bases covered.


----------



## mmsbls

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh, just the fact that the 'usual suspects' (yes, "we Few, we 'happy' Few" know who you are) circle the wagons every time someone ventures to exercise an independent and critical assessment of atonal music-- and try to bully and force feed us music that can't stand on its own merits.


Don't you think the "modernist" responses are more to stop people from disparaging modern music rather than to make everyone like modern music? Do you honestly believe that some poeple here believe _everyone must (or even ought to) like modern music_.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh, just the fact that the 'usual suspects' (yes, "we Few, we 'happy' Few" know who you are) circle the wagons every time someone ventures to exercise an independent and critical assessment of atonal music-- and try to bully and force feed us music that can't stand on its own merits.


The problem with "critical assessments" of "atonal" music is that they make as much sense as judging books on whether or not they use the word "spoon" a minimum of 580 times. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the writing.

Also, how is arguing that something is legitimate, that it is great music, "trying to bully and force feed"?


----------



## ahammel

Mahlerian said:


> Also, how is arguing that something is legitimate, that it is great music, "trying to bully and force feed"?


There is a certain tendency to interpret a sentence like "_X_ is great music" to mean something like "if you don't like _X_, you are a bad person".


----------



## mmsbls

ahammel said:


> There is a certain tendency to interpret a sentence like "_X_ is great music" to mean something like "if you don't like _X_, you are a bad person".


Yes, humans are human. There is also the tendencey to interpret a sentence like "_X_ is terrible music" to mean something like "If you like _X_, you are a bad person".

Unfortunately people feel judged and find insults where there may very well be none.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

mmsbls said:


> Don't you think the "modernist" responses are more to stop people from disparaging modern music rather than to make everyone like modern music? Do you honestly believe that some poeple here believe _everyone must (or even ought to) like modern music_.


Yes, I honestly believe that.

Did you witness the mugging of Alma Deutscher?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> The problem with "critical assessments" of "atonal" music is that they make as much sense as judging books on whether or not they use the word "spoon" a minimum of 580 times. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the writing.


So _you _will define what is in fact legitimate criticism?



> Also, how is arguing that something is legitimate, that it is great music, "trying to bully and force feed"?


It 'straw man,' its 'red herring,' and 'its not'


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yes, I honestly believe that.
> 
> Did you witness the mugging of Alma Deutscher?


I think most people were just pointing out that Alma Deutscher isn't going to make it very far if she kept composing in a literal dot-to-dot old style. The media and others tend to praise people for doing that when they're kids, but once they're adults the value on their ability to do that goes down. This is because most composers learn how to write pristine pastiches when they are in study anyway. But a composer who continues in that manner probably wont be shaking the musical world up enough to get them in a music history book.

That's not "mugging" her, that's just a simple fact of life. Just like no one receives gratuitous accolades today for saying "Slavery is wrong". Abraham Lincoln did get those accolades because of the context and time period he lived in.

And yes, I know there's debate about whether or not Abraham Lincoln was actually against slavery on a moral basis...let's not get into that right now. My point still stands.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> I think most people were just pointing out that Alma Deutscher isn't going to make it very far if she kept composing in a literal dot-to-dot old style.


Let's hypothesize. Let's say that little Alma writes a concerto that gets a lot of traction -- lots of people like it, it gets picked up by the major orchestras, and so forth. Isn't that making it pretty far? How much farther can she make it? And in fact, how will we know when and if she does?


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> Let's hypothesize. Let's say that little Alma writes a concerto that gets a lot of traction -- lots of people like it, it gets picked up by the major orchestras, and so forth. Isn't that making it pretty far? How much farther can she make it? And in fact, how will we know when and if she does?


Mozart was a sensation at that age, but the music he wrote wasn't especially good. It was remarkable only because a child wrote it. The fact that he "made it" as a child is not very significant. The same can be said of a prodigy like Deutscher.


----------



## KenOC

isorhythm said:


> Mozart was a sensation at that age, but the music he wrote wasn't especially good. It was remarkable only because a child wrote it. The fact that he "made it" as a child is not very significant. The same can be said of a prodigy like Deutscher.


Doesn't answer my question, but thanks.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

isorhythm said:


> Mozart was a sensation at that age, but the music he wrote wasn't especially good. It was remarkable only because a child wrote it. The fact that he "made it" as a child is not very significant. The same can be said of a prodigy like Deutscher.


And what were you accomplishing when you were Mozart's age? Or Alma's for that matter?

Faulting Mozart the child because he didn't write _Don Giovanni_ when he was seven is like faulting a great teenage boxer for not knocking out Mike Tyson when he was twelve.

Everything in context.


----------



## dgee

KenOC said:


> Let's hypothesize. Let's say that little Alma writes a concerto that gets a lot of traction -- lots of people like it, it gets picked up by the major orchestras, and so forth. Isn't that making it pretty far? How much farther can she make it? And in fact, how will we know when and if she does?


She can do stuff which keeps people's interest when she is no longer a sweet innocent child. Same deal as all the young kids that thrill the world on x factor or Burkina Faso's got talent etc. She can also get some honest to goodness critical acclaim


----------



## isorhythm

Marschallin Blair said:


> And what were you accomplishing when you were Mozart's age? Or Alma's for that matter?
> 
> Faulting Mozart the child because he didn't write _Don Giovanni_ when he was seven is like faulting a great teenage boxer for not knocking out Mike Tyson when he was twelve.
> 
> Everything in context.


Do you actually think I was "faulting" Mozart? good lord.


----------



## KenOC

When I asked the Alma question, I was assuming that the popularity of her concerto had nothing to do with any knowledge of her age. And BTW the "child Mozart" wrote plenty of music that is quite fine and was in fact written on commission for garden parties and so forth -- his early Cassations, etc. Take a listen!


----------



## ahammel

KenOC said:


> When I asked the Alma question, I was assuming that the popularity of her concerto had nothing to do with any knowledge of her age.


That strikes me as a very strange assumption.


----------



## PetrB

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, I wish my Doors of Perception were cleansed as thoroughly as your own--_ truly._
> 
> -- And I, in the spirit of infectious bonhomie and aesthetic reciprocity, wish you could experience the gorgeosity of Maria Calllas as my ears hear her-- at her absolute, late-forties-to-late-fifties _best_.
> 
> _;D_


Is it really that shocking or inconceivable that someone who loves later contemporary music gets the same full sensory experience and musical thrill from Callas singing in her prime?

It is possible for some to love that which you don't and that which you do -- and without any claim that needs must include a disperse quality or watering down of the experience because one set of tastes has a greater latitude?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

PetrB said:


> Is it really that shocking or inconceivable that someone who loves later contemporary music gets the same full sensory experience and musical thrill from Callas singing in her prime?
> 
> It is possible to love that which you don't and that which you do -- and without any claim that needs must include a disperse quality or watering down of the experience because one set of tastes has a greater latitude.


Have you been hanging out with Lacan or with Derrida?-- _What?_


----------



## PetrB

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yes, I honestly believe that.
> 
> Did you witness the mugging of Alma Deutscher?


Who would mug a genuinely sweet and disarmingly charming kid?


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> When I asked the Alma question, I was assuming that the popularity of her concerto had nothing to do with any knowledge of her age. And BTW the "child Mozart" wrote plenty of music that is quite fine and was in fact written on commission for garden parties and so forth -- his early Cassations, etc. Take a listen!


This Cassations is not bad, but 1) it's not good enough that anyone would still care about it if it weren't by the young Mozart, and 2) he was already a teenager when he wrote it.

I have skimmed over the disastrous Alma Deutscher thread, which happened before I joined. A number of people seemed to be saying that a first-rate composer might choose to compose in an old style. They failed to confront the question of why this has never happened in the entire 800+ year history of Western classical music, not even once. Dealing with that question, I think, could shed some light on the nature of art, talent, and inspiration.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Let's hypothesize. Let's say that little Alma writes a concerto that gets a lot of traction -- lots of people like it, it gets picked up by the major orchestras, and so forth. Isn't that making it pretty far? How much farther can she make it? And in fact, how will we know when and if she does?


Wait then, to see if that concerto gets picked up by major orchestras _without the child being the soloist._ That would then be very telling towards the hypothesis you envision, i.e. _people like, want, and demand that sort of music._



KenOC said:


> When I asked the Alma question, I was assuming that the popularity of her concerto had nothing to do with any knowledge of her age.


Now, let me bring up the EuroVision Song Contest, if ever their was a populist contest with a huge population participating in the voting there is at least one. In the early to mid-nineties, several years in a row, the songs that won that voting were performed by very young attractive adolescent girls, who wore tight tops proving they were budding into early womanhood and they sang their song into the mike, head lowered a bit so when they looked at the camera they had that pose of looking up where the (implied 'innocent') under the pupil whites of their eyes showed, Bambi-style, and they each sang in these barely supported soft breathy voices. After that, the EuroVision Song Contest rules were changed: No song performers under the age of 21.

When a child: Mozart was composing in some style of his time; ditto Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, and Erich Wolfgang Korngold.
The relative sensation of a young prodigy today doing excellent pieces in early to mid-classical style which sound like what is now in the semiotic collective memory of what was once original music is just about in everyone's consciousness, and that is something apart from a wunderkind writing 'adult level works' in the immediate style of their time.

They're all "little Mozarts," except Mozart was actually the only little Mozart, those other prodigies I mentioned earlier were little Mendelssohns, etc.

Some of us are waiting, having seen this type of thing before, to see who Ms. Deutscher and others like her really are in their own right as composers, and not the insanely clever juvenile pastiche artists.

But hey, if someone likes the pastiche product of some brilliant prodigy, and the work gets widely popular, maybe it is popular because it is so broadly accessible.... But likely a part of that has many of that works' fans listening while still being very conscious of, "that really endearing and cute kid wrote this."

Let's hypothesize another: on the very similar styled compositions of a few of those who have shown them in Today's Composers. Yeah, those aren't, granted, by someone age four to eight, but they exist, in varying degrees of polish and finesse. Certainly, anyone more adept and better trained and practiced than those who is closer to their early twenties and who also continues to write in a similar fashion has believed in that kind of composing, written 'fine pieces,' and there has been no exceptional interest... they post on youtube, all the usual places, maybe submit scores via personal connections, yet those works are not picked up, do not get popular. So what then is the similarity in this two hypotheses, other than the talented and truly cute and endearing child factor... everything else.

The fact is unless these types of back to classical pieces have some hugely desirable, seriously fresh and engaging 'take' on them (let's please rule out any thoughts as to requiring 'excessive' modernism, and ban the word novelty from the formula -- just something a tad more _fresh_) which is absent from the usual fare as produced by Ms. Deutscher and many more who are older, there is just too much aplently of the real deal, written by masters, and in the public domain.


----------



## PetrB

arcaneholocaust said:


> I was playing catch-up on this thread and stopped here. I would like to specifically request that the Marschallin give us applicable definitions for all terms used in this post. I'm trying to think about words like "taste", "tact", "intelligence", etc...


 don't forget "Beauty, all that is noble, deeply expressive of human emotion" etc. I fear the vapid and meaningless blandishments will forever continue in a lame attempt to rationalize swatting away at all those pesky pieces in the later repertoire which do not fit that particular set of criteria as per that listener, and those must, at all costs, be disparaged and stomped in to the ground. The Ottomon Turks are outside the walls of Vienna, and all that is dear, holy, noble and fine of western civilization is perilously threatened by the seige.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

mmsbls said:


> Don't you think the "modernist" responses are more to stop people from disparaging modern music rather than to make everyone like modern music? Do you honestly believe that some poeple here believe _everyone must (or even ought to) like modern music_.


All people, no.

Some people, yes.

-- Have you seen their histrionic responses?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

PetrB said:


> Is it really that shocking or inconceivable that someone who loves later contemporary music gets the same full sensory experience and musical thrill from Callas singing in her prime?
> 
> It is possible for some to love that which you don't and that which you do -- and without any claim that needs must include a disperse quality or watering down of the experience because one set of tastes has a greater latitude?


No, rather its converse-- as I originally put it.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread concerns Boulez, his comments, and other issues associated with him. Too many posts deal with other members or their posting style. Please focus on the OP or related issues and refrain from inappropriate comments.


----------



## Guest

And I find it fascinating (and peculiar) that anyone can be so married to an idea that hard evidence, such as the Ravel recording, cannot lead to questioning one's conclusions, just to another conclusion that the gorgeous performances are anomalous.

They're not.

If you've watched any videos of Boulez talking, either about his music or others' music, you would have seen only a lovely, charming person with a great sense of humor and incredible sensitivity.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> And I find it fascinating (and peculiar) that anyone can be so married to an idea that hard evidence, such as the Ravel recording, cannot lead to questioning one's conclusions, just to another conclusion that the gorgeous performances are anomalous.
> 
> They're not.
> 
> If you've watched any videos of Boulez talking, either about his music or others' music, you would have seen only a lovely, charming person with a great sense of humor and incredible sensitivity.


Oh, but I have.

I was referring to his entire personality and not just one facet of it.

Goering could be charming too, I hear.


----------



## papsrus

Marschallin Blair said:


> (...)
> 
> I am of course giving the man the benefit of the doubt. He did also say that he was a bully, and that he was not ashamed-- which, of course, would make him 'Spleen King' material.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...erre-Boulez-I-was-a-bully-Im-not-ashamed.html


I have no comment of any merit on Boulez as drama queen or spleen king, nor any statement to make about his music, but I found the following comment in the article you linked above to be somewhat illuminating:

"... Boulez agrees that his generation hated the stirring, transcendent music encouraged by the totalitarian societies in Germany and Russia during the war and were reacting strongly against it. Boulez says he also hates most pop music for similar reasons. 'Some of it is lively, but the 1-2-3-4 of the rhythms reminds me of marching music.' "

I'm sure this is all well understood, but Boulez is a product of his time, and so we may forgive him for that. (Easy for me to say; he's not calling me a worthless piece of _____.

And yes, others have managed to navigate post-war Europe with more ... sweetness? He does, however, as the article notes, "wield the knife with a smile these days."

But I'm also relieved to read in the same article that he no longer wishes to burn down the opera houses.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

papsrus said:


> I have no comment of any merit on Boulez as drama queen or spleen king, nor any statement to make about his music, but I found the following comment in the article you linked above to be somewhat illuminating:
> 
> "... Boulez agrees that his generation hated the stirring, transcendent music encouraged by the totalitarian societies in Germany and Russia during the war and were reacting strongly against it. Boulez says he also hates most pop music for similar reasons. 'Some of it is lively, but the 1-2-3-4 of the rhythms reminds me of marching music.' "
> 
> I'm sure this is all well understood, but Boulez is a product of his time, and so we may forgive him for that. (Easy for me to say; he's not calling me a worthless piece of _____.
> 
> And yes, others have managed to navigate post-war Europe with more ... sweetness? He does, however, as the article notes, "wield the knife with a smile these days."
> 
> But I'm also relieved to read in the same article that he no longer wishes to burn down the opera houses.


Thank you for that post, papsrus.

You got me thinking: I wonder what that "stirring and transcendent" music is that Boulez is referring to that he and his friends hated in Germany and Russia during World War II.

Wagner? Beethoven? Strauss? Tchaikovsky? Rimsky-Korsakov? Rachmaninov?

I wonder who he's referring to because none of these composers wrote propaganda for the National Socialists or the Bolsheviks.

I know that Boulez appeared to shill for the radical, Foucauldian, Parisian Left in trying to make Wagner's _Ring _into a Marxian melodrama-- but I don't recall any of the composers that he's ostensibly referring to writing any propaganda works themselves.


----------



## PetrB

Marschallin Blair said:


> Thank you for that post, papsrus.
> 
> You got me thinking: I wonder what that "stirring and transcendent" music is that Boulez is referring to that he and his friends hated in Germany and Russia during World War II.
> 
> Wagner? Beethoven? Strauss? Tchaikovsky? Rimsky-Korsakov? Rachmaninov?
> 
> I wonder who he's referring to because none of these composers wrote propaganda for the National Socialists or the Bolsheviks.
> 
> I know that Boulez appeared to shill for the radical, Foucauldian, Parisian Left in trying to make Wagner's _Ring _into a Marxian melodrama-- but I don't recall any of the composers that he's ostensibly referring to writing any propaganda works themselves.


Ahem... 
1.) That production of the Ring (_Jahrhundertring_, the centenary Ring Cycle at the Bayreuth Festival, 1976) _was staged and directed by Patrice Chéreau._ 
2.) Boulez was the guy in the pit conducting the orchestra and singers.

Just a few slightly inconvenient facts.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

PetrB said:


> Ahem...
> 1.) That production of the Ring (_Jahrhundertring_, the centenary Ring Cycle at the Bayreuth Festival, 1976) _was staged and directed by Patrice Chéreau._
> 2.) Boulez was the guy in the pit conducting the orchestra and singers.
> 
> Just a few slightly inconvenient facts.


Is Boulez's Marxism even _more_ inconvenient?- no matter how true?


----------



## MagneticGhost

Being an advocate of Marxism doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. Just a little misguided and idealistic. It's how you translate the ideas into action which indicates what sort of person you are.


Re. the whole Boulez thing - He comes across as a bit of a fundamentalist - But I've only heard his thoughts through the prism of Alex Ross. I'll come back to this thread if it's still extant after I've read the Boulez biography that is on my shelf.

ps: Schoenberg died in 1951 - perhaps Pierre was being literal


----------



## Mahlerian

MagneticGhost said:


> Re. the whole Boulez thing - He comes across as a bit of a fundamentalist - But I've only heard his thoughts through the prism of Alex Ross. I'll come back to this thread if it's still extant after I've read the Boulez biography that is on my shelf.


Ross has a distinct dislike of Boulez and the Darmstadt group as a whole, both in terms of music and aesthetic positions. It seems that to him, their music is incompatible with the more "open" aesthetics of a Cage or Ligeti (both of whom were invited, I think, on different occasions). As for whether there was a fundamentalist atmosphere at the Darmstadt Institute, anecdotes go both ways. Some say that there was, some that there wasn't. Henze didn't feel welcome, I believe.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mahlerian said:


> Henze didn't feel welcome, I believe.


I wonder why Boulez's comments on Henze are never quoted? They're much nastier and more amusing than anything I've seen here.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> Ahem...
> 1.) That production of the Ring (_Jahrhundertring_, the centenary Ring Cycle at the Bayreuth Festival, 1976) _was staged and directed by Patrice Chéreau._
> 2.) Boulez was the guy in the pit conducting the orchestra and singers.
> 
> Just a few slightly inconvenient facts.


Right as usual. And might I add that Boulez did a terrific job conducting that Ring!!

You want to see a credible Ring? Stay the heck away from Bayreuth, the greatest proponent of Eurotrash on this planet!!

If Wagner was resurrected, he'd probably burn the place down after seeing what they've done.


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> I wonder why Boulez's comments on Henze are never quoted? They're much nastier and more amusing than anything I've seen here.


Because Henze's not very well known here. Where he is well known, those comments probably _are_ quoted.


----------



## PetrB

Marschallin Blair said:


> Is Boulez's Marxism even _more_ inconvenient?- no matter how true?




Is anyone who has clung to Ayn Rand's over-reaction to things socialist or communist in general and picked up that ideology as their personal guide to 'individualism' any less inconvenient or embarrassing -- especially in retrospect in their later mellower years? I have no idea, never having been one to even partially sign up for any dogma, ideology, etc.

I do think concentrating on these things has next to nothing to do with the music any composer of any political stripe produced, at least not if the music speaks for itself.

"Burn down the opera houses" was not just a 'Marxist' hothead kind of thing to say, btw. Large numbers of the younger generation Europeans were reacting similarly to the very large public supplied funding via taxes which kept such costly institutions and the productions they mounted afloat, and the resistance of those Opera houses to slate anything even vaguely conservatively modern much past Debussy's _Pelleas._ Legions of other of the younger European generation were similarly protesting other such established anachronistic administrations, how the university system was run, etc. It was global, and not 'just about opera,' any more than Boulez' "Burn down the opera houses" was at all meant for any opera lover nearly seventy years later to interpret as 'all about them.' LOL.

In the Netherlands, in 1960, very much the same era and dynamic, you had the group of younger Dutch composers; Jan van Vlijmen, Misha Mengelberg, Reinbert de Leeuw, Louis Andriessen and Peter Schat, who formed the Notenkrakers, ("Notes busters" a pun of course on _The Nutcracker_,) who brought toy noisemakers to concert programs which were those glut fests of the most popular chestnuts of yesteryear, and disrupted them with the toy noisemakers in protest that not only their newer works were crowded out by the funding and programming of endlessly repeated performances of the same ole same ole, but also to protest that older modern music as well as the more recently written works were not anywhere in sight either.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notenkrakers
(--the dirty socialists 

This thread is all about a composer who said and did things way back when, from such an extremely different context in both location and temporal reality than the good ole postwar U.S.A. that to have at it -- or have at the people who were part of that time and place -- while looking at it through the sensibilities of a later American social or political context is a type of self-indulgent and fatuous 'luxury,' which brings anyone doing that to come up with the most wildly distorted statements and arrive at enormously false conclusions which are patently unfounded as well as distorted and 'just not right.'


----------



## Blancrocher

some guy said:


> Because Henze's not very well known here. Where he is well known, those comments probably _are_ quoted.


Probably. I'll also add--more pertinently to this thread--that Boulez isn't always the critic and polemicist. His essay collection, Orientations, is filled with interesting appreciations of artists and composers (including some that he elsewhere said nasty things about), and very interesting and complex speculations about the history of music. I'd also recommend the extensive footage available of him in interview on Youtube, which was an important discovery for me.

This is all still part of Boulez's public persona, of course (being published books and recorded conversations)--but I still feel like you can get a better sense of the man this way than from soundbites or what others have said about him.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

hpowders said:


> Right as usual. And might I add that Boulez did a terrific job conducting that Ring!!
> 
> You want to see a credible Ring? Stay the heck away from Bayreuth, the greatest proponent of Eurotrash on this planet!!
> 
> If Wagner was resurrected, he'd probably burn the place down after seeing what they've done.


Yeah. . . . . . um. . . . . . well, the Boulez _Ring__ was _a _Bayreuth_ production.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> This is all about a composer who said and did things way back when, from such an extremely different context in both location and temporal reality than the good ole postwar U.S.A. that to have at it or have at the people who were part of that time and place looking at it with the sensibilities of a later American social or political context is a type of self-indulgent and fatuous 'luxury,' which brings anyone doing that to come with distorted statements and arrive at massively false conclusions which are patently unfounded as well as distorted and 'just not right.'


I'm filled with jealousy. I so want to have said this. Fortunately, I'm also filled with delight that this has finally been said.

It needed to have been said the first time someone quoted Boulez in an online forum.

Historical context. What a concept!


----------



## Bulldog

PetrB said:


> In the Netherlands, in 1960, very much the same era and dynamic, you had the group of younger Dutch composers; Jan van Vlijmen, Misha Mengelberg, Reinbert de Leeuw, Louis Andriessen and Peter Schat, who formed the Notenkrakers, ("Notes busters" a pun of course on "the Nutcracker," who brought toy noisemakers to these concerts of the most popular chestnuts of yesteryear and disrupted them with the toy noisemakers in protest that not only their newer works were crowded out by the endlessly repeated performances of the same ole same ole, but too to protest that older modern music as well as the more recently written works were not anywhere it sight either.


They really did that? It's so obnoxious, childlike and selfish. Screw the audience that paid good money for the performance; it's all about me.


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> Because Henze's not very well known here. Where he is well known, those comments probably _are_ quoted.


Whatever those comments are, I would bet one dollar Boulez's comments were because Henze was an 'old-fashioned' serialist composer not without at least a few tinges of 'the romantic' about him. Fine composer, though it has been _years_ since I've listened to any.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

science- I'll never understand Ulysses fully unless my train of thought is constantly interrupted.

What will it take to fully understand _Finnegan's Wake_?


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> I'm filled with jealousy. I so want to have said this. Fortunately, I'm also filled with delight that this has finally been said.
> 
> It needed to have been said the first time someone quoted Boulez in an online forum.
> 
> Historical context. What a concept!


I know, and silly me, my perception has it that I've been 'accused' of wishing to ignore historic context(s) and detach them from any consideration of the music -- well, that's half true, but when it comes to 'what they said and why' in matters verbal and not directly a piece of music, I think it merely prudent as well as practical and necessary.

A little historic context doesn't hurt, for performer or the listener critiquing music performance, either.

Boulez' _Ring_ is so much faster and also done with an overall lighter touch -- long before it became more commonly known that music performance practice over time has led to some rather extremes of slowed down tempi of older repertoire from what it originally was -- and that to hear Wagner in, very likely, a far closer manner of performance to 'what it actually was,' is not a bad thing, Chereau's production is apart, being something else and 'what that was.'

Too, if you know that the Polonaise had its place at the beginning of a grand and formal ball, where the doors to the Ballroom were opened and the couples entered the room and began to dance, that it is a stately dance and mayhaps even have a look at the clothing of the period (in a book, better in the flesh in a museum) and then it is easy to see the ladies' ball gowns were stiff and heavy. That means even the faster dances not a Polonaise were not likely to be a lively Gigue, and armed with that historic context, you're more likely not to take a ludicrous tempo when performing a Polonaise. The informed listener will also then be a better judge of a performance, its tempo, and be listening for that stately sweeping quality in the performance

A little historical context goes quite a long way, and it is infinitely more desirable than a Hysterical context. (I mean, who these days jumps up in a reaction of abhorrence just because someone has been called 'a Marxist,' for goodness' sake. Well, maybe five residents of Orange County....)


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> science- I'll never understand Ulysses fully unless my train of thought is constantly interrupted.
> 
> What will it take to fully understand _Finnegan's Wake_?


Buy an audio edition, (ideally as read by Siobhán McKenna) get it or turn it into a format where it is one complete continual play, listen to it via earphones put on just prior going to sleep -- and Bob's your uncle ;-)


----------



## PetrB

Bulldog said:


> They really did that? It's so obnoxious, childlike and selfish. Screw the audience that paid good money for the performance; it's all about me.


Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do, know what I mean?


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> Now, let me bring up the EuroVision Song Contest, if ever their was a populist contest with a huge population participating in the voting there is at least one. In the early to mid-nineties, several years in a row, the songs that won that voting were performed by very young attractive adolescent girls, who wore tight tops proving they were budding into early womanhood and they sang their song into the mike, head lowered a bit so when they looked at the camera they had that pose of looking up where the (implied 'innocent') under the pupil whites of their eyes showed, Bambi-style, and they each sang in these barely supported soft breathy voices. After that, the EuroVision Song Contest rules were changed: No song performers under the age of 21.


I can assure you, PetrB, that the Eurovision winners of the early- to mid-nineties were not "very young attractive adolescent girls". Most of them were Irish women and men in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. I don't recall any tight tops, Bambi eyes, or soft breathy voices but maybe I was drunk at the time.
A quick trip to Wikipedia to confirm my dates also, interestingly, revealed that the minimum age for contestants is not 21 but 16, a rule brought in in 1990, which I guess might be considered to be before the mid-nineties.
Oh, and "a huge population participating in the voting" didn't appear in any country until 1997; before that, it was "small demographically-balanced juries".

But these are, uh, minor factual errors in the historical context, and I suppose it's unfair of me to pick on you.


----------



## millionrainbows

ahammel said:


> _*There is a certain tendency to interpret*_ a sentence like "_X_ is great music" to mean something like "if you don't like _X_, you are a bad person".


Then that tendency is flawed.

This is a classic example of "not owning your own opinion" (the passive version), in which the "victim" is played.

Having full responsibility for your own opinion, regardless of the "camp" you're in, means defining your views from the inside out, not blaming or being a victim.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I intend only a limited parallel here, and not a precise comparison, in pointing out that in books on 20th-century painting we are told that Jackson Pollock was one of the important painters of the modern era. In light of that, it is probably ungracious to ask how many of us, at this point in time, have Pollocks hanging over our mantlepieces. Now we know, of course, that that is irrelevant, since actually being enjoyed by human beings is no test of the worth of a work of art or the greatness of the artist. But indulge me for a moment. Honestly now, just between you and me, do you think Pollock was a great artist? All right, I'll go first. I think he was a minor talent hyped out of all proportion to his merit.

I think Pollock produced some very good... even "great" paintings... but no, he is not anywhere near being on par with Picasso, Matisse, Monet, and many other "great" painters. Abstract Expressionism remains hyped... especially in the US... as THE great American contribution to the visual arts... but even now we find that the entire movement is being reassessed. This is not to say that Pollock, DeKooning, Motherwell, etc... did not produce some splendid paintings... but there were other artists of the period largely ignored at the time (Lucian Freud, Francis Bacon, Giacometti, Morandi, Dubuffet) that were no less interesting. It is also to suggest that mere novelty is not enough to place you along side Rembrandt and Titian.

If it hadn't been for Peggy Guggenheim's "discovering" and supporting him and Clement Greenberg annointing him as the vanguard of the future of art, his "all-over" scribblings exhibiting the ideal of "flatness" and exemplifying painting as "action" would be confined mainly to bathroom wallpaper, and even that would be out of fashion. Come to think of it, that may be just where they've ended up -

Don't forget the impact of his teachers, Thomas Hart Benton and Hans Hoffmann, his wife, Lee Krasner, and the CIA and the US State Department which promoted Abstract Expressionism internationally as proof of American freedom and modernity (as opposed to the Soviets) during the height of the Cold War.

Speaking of Pollock in the bathroom, an interesting anecdote: My studio mate, quite a bit older than me, lived in New York for a couple of decades. The first painting he sold was to a guy of some slight wealth who lived in a brownstone not far from Central Park and "Museum Mile". Being the usual "starving artist" he didn't have the money for a taxi fare from his apartment to deliver the painting, and so he walked an hour or so to make the delivery. The guy's apartment was filled with smaller works... often watercolors, prints, and drawings... many by well-known artists... mostly late 19th and 20th century. After completing the transaction, the new owner hung his latest acquisition in the small living-room. My studio mate... after his long hike... felt the need to relieve himself, and asked if he might use the bathroom. He was directed to it, and while standing at the toilet, answering to the call of nature he noticed hanging directly in front of him a small gestural abstraction that looked an awful lot like a Pollock. Returning to the living room, he asked the collector, "Is that what I think it was hanging over the toilet?" Nonchalantly, the man replied, "Oh! That's where all New Yorkers hang their Pollocks.":lol:

...except, of course, on the excessively expensive walls of museums, where little brass plaques dutifully inform us of how critically important they are to "history." Peggy Guggenheim and Clement Greenberg were the squeaky wheel for the hapless Pollock, who found to his distress that supreme greatness was more than he could handle, and in horribly few years would have found that fashions in art had moved on and that other wheels - pop art, op art, earth art, conceptual art, neo-realism - were getting the grease. Would have, but he died, drunk, behind the wheel of his car at age 44.

Thus was the fate of Rothko... who imagined such profundity within his bands of hazy colors... only to be confronted with the irony, humor, and brash commercialism of Pop Art that he ended it all in the manner of Seneca.

Why am I telling you this? Simple. Whether or not the music of Boulez, or any other composer of our time whose music is feted by a coterie of enthusiasts and experts, will ever be significant to a larger public, that sort of significance, which is after all a matter of "mere" popularity, will not matter to the official judgment of history. That history is written by experts like Clement Greenberg, not by concertgoers.

That's only partially true. It seems to me that the forces that decide the survival of art are three-fold. They include the so-called "experts", subsequent generations of artists, and the audience. Look to the realm of literature. Few literary critics take Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes), Bram Stoker (Dracula), J.R.R. Tolkein, or Alexandre Dumas seriously... although their work continues to resonate with an audience far greater than that for James Joyce. Within the realm of the visual arts, Clement Greenberg famously dismissed Edward Hopper as not even an artist... but rather some sort of debased branch of literature. Today Hopper's paintings are far more iconic than anything by the Abstract Expressionists. Greenberg also despised Pop Art... which continues to be a major influence on art today. How much can one build upon Pollock's drips? Alphonse Mucha, Arthur Rackham, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth... even Renoir to an extent... all owe their sustained popularity more to the wider art audience than to the "experts". With mass production and the increased accessibility of the arts, the influence of so-called "experts" has become increasingly irrelevant. Is this something to be abhorred? I don't know. The high-end of the traditional fine arts is still dominated by the "experts"... by the super-wealthy elite... the 1% and their minions. Do Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Tracey Emin, Kara Walker, etc... suggest a greater taste in art than the work loved by the masses?

And if the experts write in their books that Pierre Boulez was one of the crucial figures in the history of music, it will matter little whether his future audience consists of five million people or five hundred - or if no one ever listens to his music again.

But are we speaking of the History of Art vs Art as something that continues to resonate with a living audience?


----------



## DavidA

Boulez is a typical product of his time - a pseudo-leftie of the type that inhabited and made loud noises about capitalism while being blind to the totalitarian terror happening in lands ruled by Marxists. Many of these Leninists were quite prepared to drive around in cars provided by their fathers' capitalistic enterprises. It has been said that if all such people were put end to end across the Sahara Desert it would be a very good thing!


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> I can assure you, PetrB, that the Eurovision winners of the early- to mid-nineties were not "very young attractive adolescent girls". Most of them were Irish women and men in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. I don't recall any tight tops, Bambi eyes, or soft breathy voices but maybe I was drunk at the time.
> A quick trip to Wikipedia to confirm my dates also, interestingly, revealed that the minimum age for contestants is not 21 but 16, a rule brought in in 1990, which I guess might be considered to be before the mid-nineties.
> Oh, and "a huge population participating in the voting" didn't appear in any country until 1997; before that, it was "small demographically-balanced juries".
> 
> But these are, uh, minor factual errors in the historical context, and I suppose it's unfair of me to pick on you.


You're right, but I was living abroad in the nineties, commented upon one of those teens (you can find 16 year-olds who do like like kids of 11, 12.) I was told the age had been changed to avoid what was still being shown, even though I guess they were then the 'qualifying age'.

This is also now an over twenty year old memory, and truth be told, I can not take the EuroVision song contest in any angle of earnestness as being other than what it is and of an absolute as off no relative importance to any measure whatsoever, including its rules, winners, etc.

What I had was all told me by a local, and close to thirty years ago now.

Too, talking about a child prodigy and performances and how the present public reacts to them does not require quite the backup of citing some instance of major historic importance pertinent to music history, so as completely sloppy as my EuroVision data was *(near non-existant, I stand corrected)* it is not going to radically change the point that...

nearly everywhere, child performers (or those who still appear to be children while they are actually a good number of years older), regardless of the viewer's critical ability, are a blind soft-spot shoo-in for many an audience member, and that what the prodigies come up with in the way of performance or creative work is widely treated with deferential soft gloves... because they are children.


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> You're right, but I was living abroad in the nineties, commented upon one of those teens (you can find 16 year-olds who do like like kids of 11, 12.) I was told the age had been changed to avoid what was still being shown, even though I guess they were then the 'qualifying age'.
> 
> This is also now an over twenty year old memory, and truth be told, I can not take the EuroVision song contest in any angle of earnestness as being what it is and of no relative importance whatsoever,including its rules, winners, etc.
> 
> What I had was all told me by a local, and close to thirty years ago now.
> 
> Too, talking about a child prodigy and performances and how the present public reacts to them does not require quite the backup of citing some instance of major historic importance pertinent to music history, so as completely sloppy as my EuroVision data was *(near non-existant, I stand corrected)* it is not going to radically change the point that...
> 
> nearly everywhere, child performers (or those who still appear to be children while they are actually a good number of years older), regardless of the viewer's critical ability, are a blind soft-spot shoo-in for many an audience member, and that what the prodigies come up with in the way of performance or creative work is widely treated with deferential soft gloves... because they are children.


Oh, sure, your point still stands and I agree with you. 
I guess the lesson we've learned here is that misremembered 20-year-old second-hand information can have the appearance of fact if presented with sufficient confidence.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> ...I wonder what that "stirring and transcendent" music is that Boulez is referring to that he and his friends hated in Germany and Russia during World War II.
> 
> Wagner? Beethoven? Strauss? Tchaikovsky? Rimsky-Korsakov? Rachmaninov?
> 
> I wonder who he's referring to because none of these composers wrote propaganda for the National Socialists or the Bolsheviks.
> 
> I know that Boulez appeared to shill for the radical, Foucauldian, Parisian Left in trying to make Wagner's _Ring _into a Marxian melodrama-- but I don't recall any of the composers that he's ostensibly referring to writing any propaganda works themselves.


I think Boulez' attitude is more general in nature, along with the other major figures of his post-war generation. They saw Europe decimated, nearly destroyed, and then saw a post-war nuclear era ushered-in, with its fear of total annihilation.

Thus, they retreated into a hermetic world of music which contained no nationalism, but was a "pure" art devoid of bombast and blaring Wagnerisms.

In fact, I would take it even further: Boulez' desire to create "systems which are self-generating," by being totally determined structurally (which he attempted, and by his own admission, failed to achieve, in *Structures Books I & II*), taken with John Cage's diametrically opposite approach of total chance, are evidence that he wished to "transcend his own ego," by "leaving himself out of it."

It was an attempt to create a pure art, which was devoid of Nationalism and the darker aspects of Humanity's desires, bombast, and posturings. Their view was that the universe no longer revolved around "geniuses" and their grandiose, posturing, over-dramatized art.

I can relate.


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> Oh, sure, your point still stands and I agree with you.
> I guess the lesson we've learned here is that misremembered 20-year-old second-hand information can have the appearance of fact if presented with sufficient confidence.


Right, and it was not in any way a conscious bluff, where the same can happen but with deliberate purpose.


----------



## millionrainbows

MagneticGhost said:


> Being an advocate of Marxism doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. Just a little misguided and idealistic. It's how you translate the ideas into action which indicates what sort of person you are.


Actually, the idea that The Ring has Marxist ideas in it is a viable position, and is in a book (which I could not afford to get). Their are other 19th century strains of ideas throughout Wagner, like Schopenhauer.


----------



## Mahlerian

This thread has completely devolved past the point of any possibility of productive discussion. It has been closed.


----------

