# Advice on Messiaen please



## jamzky

Hi, 

on itunes I have discovered Latry playing all of Messiaen's organ music for 45 euro but for the same price the Messiaen Edition (18 CDs). Now this seems like a no-brainer. But are the performances on the Messiaen Edition compilation worth their salt? Does anyone have this edition? Here are the artists involved:

Yvonne Loriod
Marie-Claire Alain
Marcel Couraud - featured on the quartet 
Nagano for Turangalila
Boulez for Et Expecto
Marius Constant for L'Ascension
Messiaen himself playing some organ music and an interview with Messiaen lasting almost an hour!

Should I go for the Edition or Latry's famous take on the organ music. Anybody help?


----------



## Lang

Well, I can't comment on all the artists on the Messiaen edition, but certainly you can't get better Messiaen interpretations than those from Messiaen himself, or his wife, Yvonne Loriod. Couraud is very good too. The only name I would have reservations about is Boulez, although he is more likely to be at home in French music. But perhaps someone else will be more familiar with all these names, and will be able to offer better advice.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lang said:


> The only name I would have reservations about is Boulez, although he is more likely to be at home in French music.


Nah, he's great with Et Expecto, Chronochromie, and any other Messiaen he conducts.

The artists in involved seem to be a very good bunch.


----------



## xJuanx

Nagano for Turangalîla is great!


----------



## JTech82

jamzky said:


> Hi,
> 
> on itunes I have discovered Latry playing all of Messiaen's organ music for 45 euro but for the same price the Messiaen Edition (18 CDs). Now this seems like a no-brainer. But are the performances on the Messiaen Edition compilation worth their salt? Does anyone have this edition? Here are the artists involved:
> 
> Yvonne Loriod
> Marie-Claire Alain
> Marcel Couraud - featured on the quartet
> Nagano for Turangalila
> Boulez for Et Expecto
> Marius Constant for L'Ascension
> Messiaen himself playing some organ music and an interview with Messiaen lasting almost an hour!
> 
> Should I go for the Edition or Latry's famous take on the organ music. Anybody help?


My advice is stay away from Messiaen. He's just terrible.


----------



## Lang

JTech82 said:


> My advice is stay away from Messiaen. He's just terrible.


An utterly pointless comment.


----------



## JTech82

Lang said:


> An utterly pointless comment.


No, I made a point: STAY AWAY FROM MESSIAEN. HE'S AWFUL!


----------



## JTech82

As I said, stay away from Messiaen. He's terrible. Nothing great about his music. Not unless you like listening to pointless drivel.


----------



## Lang

JTech82 said:


> As I said, stay away from Messiaen. He's terrible. Nothing great about his music. Not unless you like listening to pointless drivel.


... and why should he do that when he can hear plenty here?


----------



## JTech82

Lang said:


> ... and why should he do that when he can hear plenty here?


Lang, do you like Messiaen?


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> As I said, stay away from Messiaen. He's terrible. Nothing great about his music. Not unless you like listening to pointless drivel.


He does go on and on, it is true. I have not heard of any of his works other than the _Quartet for the end of time_, but judging from their length (some fill up two CDs) I can understand this sentiment. However, I think that the _Quartet_ is one of the most profound chamber works of the C20th, even though its somewhat idiosyncratic. I'm not interested in his other works, but I do like the _Quarte_t. So I don't think one should dismiss him entirely.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

You realize that if you write this



Andre said:


> I have not heard of any of his works other than the _Quartet for the end of time_,


you can't really expect us to consider you a valid reference on the subject



Andre said:


> He does go on and on,


Don't you?


----------



## Lang

JTech82 said:


> Lang, do you like Messiaen?


I love the music of Messiaen, and have done so since I first heard it in the 1960s. In those days he was not as popular as he is now, and the first work I heard was 'Chronochromie', which was on an LP containing works by other composers that I wanted. I was completely stunned by the work, which was far superior to the other works on the disc. Everything about the work seemed to have an inevitable perfection - the form, the orchestration, the textures, the sounds of nature, the throbbing mysticism that ran through it. In those days there was not much available on record, but I got what there was, and went to as many concerts as I could that featured his music. His stature was obvious from hearing that one work, but as I heard more, so it confirmed to me that he was one of the greatest composers of the century. Some years later I had the immense good fortune to actually meet Messiaen and talk to him, and that is a memory I treasure.

We all have particular betes noir in music. There are several composers I heartily dislike, and I really cannot understand why other people listen to them. But they do, and I have to accept that there must be something in the music that I don't appreciate. I think most people do this. I don't go onto a thread about a composer's music to contribute nothing other than the fact that I don't like it.

Too many people today feel that their own objective experience must be part of the real world. IMO that is a dangerous path to follow, because it inevitably alienates us from others.


----------



## msegers

Sometime last year, I don't remember exactly when or how, I discovered Messiaen. Until that time, I recognized his name as a modern composer, knew nothing else. From my first hearing, his music so grabbed me - no intellectualizing here, just simply grabbed me, almost physically - that it returned me to my interest in and love for classical music in general... and eventually, landed me at TalkClassical.com.

*For me*, I've never had any other artistic experience (music, literature, film, theater, whatever) as absolutely overwhelming as my experience of Messiaen's work. I don't share his Roman Catholic faith, but his spirituality touches me deeply.

His works are so incredibly varied that I don't think it is fair to dismiss them outright as a unit. From _Quartet for the End of Time_ to _Three small liturgies of the Divine Presence_ to _Éclairs sur l'au-delà…_, not to mention _Harawi_ (my favorite), Messiaen creates worlds and worlds of sound (and I haven't even mentioned his organ and piano works), full of an almost raunchy sexuality, a lofty spirituality, a joyous (sometime humorous) celebration of nature. All of this draws on an incredible knowledge of rhythm, tonal color, and expressiveness that some of his students found overwhelming - and so does at least one listener.

If you don't like Messiaen's music, fine, but at least, don't advise others not to bother with it. If you think his music is terrible, again, that's your right, but say _his music_ is terrible; don't say that he himself is terrible.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> As I said, stay away from Messiaen. He's terrible. Nothing great about his music. Not unless you like listening to pointless drivel.


Such posts as this one are abject **** gravy.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> No, I made a point: STAY AWAY FROM MESSIAEN. HE'S AWFUL!


Who to believe, who to believe... JTech82 or my ears...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> As I said, stay away from Messiaen. He's terrible. Nothing great about his music. Not unless you like listening to pointless drivel.


Can't you say something useful? Useful would be saying why (_in your opinion_) you think his music is terrible.



> Such posts as this one are abject **** gravy.


The irony of you saying that after saying "Heard his first symphony. Excruciating rubbish." about another piece. Both are as bad as each other. At least I try to give reasons or reasoning for my opinions.



> Who to believe, who to believe... JTech82 or my ears...


I don't believe your ears at all, they are just as opinionated as everyone's.


----------



## JTech82

Yagan Kiely said:


> Can't you say something useful? Useful would be saying why (_in your opinion_) you think his music is terrible.
> 
> The irony of you saying that after saying "Heard his first symphony. Excruciating rubbish." about another piece. Both are as bad as each other. At least I try to give reasons or reasoning for my opinions.
> 
> I don't believe your ears at all, they are just as opinionated as everyone's.


Okay, let me rephrase my statement: it is, in my opinion, that Messiaen is terrible.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Okay, let me rephrase my statement: it is, in my opinion, that Messiaen is terrible.


This wasn't a 'Messiaen: opinions please' thread.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> This wasn't a 'Messiaen: opinions please' thread.


I don't care what it was, Herzeleide. I can post my opinion anywhere I want. This is, after all, a forum where opinions are posted on a daily basis.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> I don't care what it was, Herzeleide. I can post my opinion anywhere I want. This is, after all, a forum where opinions are posted on a daily basis.


Strange that you should not apply this rule to a poster who calls himself Bach.


----------



## jamzky

Well look what I started ;-) I know Messiaen and I like him because he found another route besides post-romantic, neo-classical or serial. He used modes some of his own devising. I like this originality. I also like the fact he is so interested in birdsong. Music without a human mind behind it. He also wrote music from a spiritual perspective which is brave for a mid-Twentieth century artist. He also paved the way for integral-serialism and his use of Indian rhythms makes his music a lot more exciting than a lot of contemporaneous stuff. 
Thanks for the ideas too. I am thinking about Nagano for Turangalila.


----------



## Herzeleide

Messiaen certainly was one of the greatest of twentieth-century composers.


----------



## Bach

Messiaen has fantastic moments, the Cinq Rechants are particularly noteworthy - perhaps my favourite a cappella work of the C20.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Messiaen certainly was one of the greatest of twentieth-century composers.


Wow....this is an OPINION. The very thing you were trying to nail me about. 

Music is subjective and there's going to be people from every stripe that's going to talk bad about someone you like. Get used to it.

Messiaen is pointless drivel. His music has no motivic development, no kind of melodic embellishment....NOTHNG, of course, this is my OPINION just like your OPINION was yours.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Strange that you should not apply this rule to a poster who calls himself Bach.


There's a difference from the way you present your opinion and the Bach presents his. Bach doesn't beat around the bush and tells it the way he sees fit. Yagan is the same way and it looks like I'm in the boat as they are around here.

You seem like you're scared to voice your opinion, because you're too busy worrying about if you're going to offend someone or not.

Your opinion is just like everyone else's. It's worthless. Good day to you.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I believe it to be a fact that music _can_ be discussed objectively, without (many) opinions. This discussion, however, is very dry and would involve two top physicists with a psychiatric degree to actually discuss properly. How dry and boring.

(Almost) everything here is opinion, I try to back up my opinions with MY reasoning for me forming an opinion. If I don't have reasoning behind my opinion, I would never argue - much like disliking a composer after hearing only one piece, I still wouldn't argue against that composer.

Case in point, Vaughen-Williams; I can't stand his pieces (yet). I have no reasoning behind why I don't like it (same with R/C. Schumann also), but I just don't like it. I haven't heard that many (that said, I have heard is more 'popular' works), but I don't know why I dislike them. I'd certainly never argue why I think they are good or bad.


----------



## JTech82

Yagan Kiely said:


> I believe it to be a fact that music _can_ be discussed objectively, without (many) opinions. This discussion, however, is very dry and would involve two top physicists with a psychiatric degree to actually discuss properly. How dry and boring.
> 
> (Almost) everything here is opinion, I try to back up my opinions with MY reasoning for me forming an opinion. If I don't have reasoning behind my opinion, I would never argue - much like disliking a composer after hearing only one piece, I still wouldn't argue against that composer.
> 
> Case in point, Vaughen-Williams; I can't stand his pieces (yet). I have no reasoning behind why I don't like it (same with R/C. Schumann also), but I just don't like it. I haven't heard that many (that said, I have heard is more 'popular' works), but I don't know why I dislike them. I'd certainly never argue why I think they are good or bad.


Well there you go. Honesty is the best policy. As you probably could tell, I don't sugarcoat anything. I tell someone exactly what's on my mind as long as I present that thought in a civilized manner, then there's really nothing wrong with what I say, because it's merely my opinion.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> His music has no motivic development,


This is not a prerequisite to successful music. What Messiaen loses from eschewing motivic development he more than makes up for in a myriad of other techniques. That's his compositional personality. It has been said that his music is almost detatched from the Western tradition, because his mosaic-like forms and lack of development are closer in spirit to Medieval or Eastern music. To understand Messiaen or any other composer involves judging them on their own terms, not foolishly applying criteria derived from other composers that are neither applicable nor warranted in the case of Messiaen. It demonstrates your pathetically inadequate inability to understand music.



JTech82 said:


> no kind of melodic embellishment...


Flagrantly untrue. Messiaen's wonderful melodic language is constantly embellished, often in his interesting rhythmic method of inserting an additional semiquaver to an otherwise regular rhythm, thus producing time signatures (though he often does not write the time signature) like 17/16. Again this is akin to Medieval and non-Occidental musics.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide, save all the over-analytical mumbo jumbo, because first of all I've been playing music for almost 20 years and I understand the terminology used to describe and write music, so just spare me of your nonsense.

I had an opinion about Messiaen and that opinion is I think he's a terrible composer. He's a terrible composer in my opinion, because he lacks the qualities in music that attract me to a composer. I find his music to lack motivic development and the forms he uses in his music are unappealing to me. He also uses serialism in some of his pieces, which doesn't do anything for me.

You have your opinion just like I have mine. It doesn't make you right and it doesn't make me right. It's okay to have an opinion right?

If you like Messiaen and his pointless drivel, then by all means enjoy it, but don't sit there and tell me I know nothing about music, because you know that couldn't be further from the truth since I'm on this forum, and plenty of other forums for that matter, talking about music.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Herzeleide, save all the over-analytical mumbo jumbo, because first of all I've been playing music for almost 20 years and I understand the terminology used to describe and write music, so just spare me of your nonsense.


My post was not overanalytical. I was merely addressing your criticisms of Messiaen, one of which was severely misplaced and the other a gigantic falsehood.



JTech82 said:


> He's a terrible composer in my opinion, because he lacks the qualities in music that I find unappealing and one of them is lack of motivic development and the forms he uses in his music. He also uses serialism in some of his pieces that doesn't do anything for me.


This is a rather strange utterance. I would have thought lacking qualities in his music that you find unappealing would have endeared him to you?
Motivic composition is not the be-all and end-all. To think so is demonstrative of a hopelessly myopic musical personality, whose judgement is ossified by prejudices derived from his own parochial listening habits. If you want hardcore motivic development, Schoenberg is superior to someone like Ravel.



JTech82 said:


> If you like Messiaen and his pointless drivel, then by all means enjoy it, but don't sit there and tell me I know nothing about music, because that couldn't be further from the truth since music been in my family for well over 100 years and probably a lot longer than that.


I'm sure you know lots about music. 
I wasn't accusing you of a paucity of musical knowledge. I was merely pointing out your defective judgement of Messiaen's music, which clearly has been influenced by a lack of patience to sit down and listen to it with any concentration. This is how I rationalise your mistake in thinking that Messiaen's music does not feature melodic embellishment.

It always amuses me when people on here take recourse to claiming their musical credentials. I couldn't give two hoots whether music has been in someone's family for 5000 years, or whether someone has a DMus from Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard. If they're talking fatuous tripe, I won't hesitate to point it out to them.


----------



## Sid James

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> You realize that if you write this
> 
> you can't really expect us to consider you a valid reference on the subject
> 
> Don't you?


Feel good now?

Why don't you pick on someone your own size, you bully?

JTech made much more polarising comments than me, but you don't dare attack him, as you know he'll bite your head off!

At least I know of Messiaen and know that one work. Many people out there would think he is a type of French food or something. So I'm entitled to my opinion just like you. Go back and listen to your 30 cd boxed sets so you can feel superior.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Andre said:


> At least I know of Messiaen and *know that one work*.


My point exactly. Knowing just one work, should we not regard your strong comments on Messiaen as premature? You may point out that for you the Quartet for the end of time "goes on and on". But extend that to Messiaen's production? In general? Commenting works you are not really familiar with? That's a mistake.


----------



## Sid James

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> My point exactly. Knowing just one work, should we not regard your strong comments on Messiaen as premature? You may point out that for you the Quartet for the end of time "goes on and on". But extend that to Messiaen's production? In general? Commenting works you are not really familiar with? That's a mistake.


I admit that you have a point. I should have been clearer in my original post about Messiaen's other works, which I don't know. I'm generally not interested in symphonies that are two CDs long. That's my bias. I did say that, despite its length, the Quartet is quite a rewarding work - to add to that, it is richly dark and very moving. However, I did read that originally it was in much shorter form, a number of the movements were added after he left the prisoner of war camp. So it was longer than originally envisaged, and in a way, one can detect that. In any case, it is definitely one of the C20th's most significant chamber works. I'm definitely not dismissing him entirely though, as JTech seemed to.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

I realise that my own opinion is a) late and b) not required but I passed this topic in passing and so if I may say something to defend one of my favourite composers..

For me Messiaen's music is very accessible. When I first heard his music it just sounded like random chords, just someone hitting notes.. but the more I listened the more I could understand his modality and the sound he was trying to create - and often you find it is an extension of Debussy. After you have heard a few pieces you become accustomed to the tonality - because at the end of the day he worked with modes all the time in a very tonal way. 

The other thing about Messiaen's music is the profound religious quality. Personally I am not a theist but I can appreciate the spiritual quality of his music. A close friend of mine, a lifelong atheist upon hearing 'Quatour pour le fin de temps' for the first time said it was the only thing that could ever convert him.

Also my suggestion is to avoid a lot of the orchestral music at first. Messiaen spoke a lot later in his life about how he was jealous of the impact that his pupils were having... Boulez, Dutilleux etc. and in my opinion... he got a little carried away. And even now a lot of the later works - Turangulia in particular but anything to do with birds aswell - I struggle with, and if these had been the first things I had heard I probably wouldn't like him as much as I do now.

In answer to the original post:
Loriod was Messiaen's second wife and an extremely good player of his music. Boulez's conducting is absolutely superb. I have seen him once and it was an incredible experience. Anything he conducts will be pretty perfect. Interestingly he remains a sceptic about Messiaen's music.


----------

