Alex Ross & Pierre Boulez Interviews (video)

[James]

Advocating 20th century classical music. Here are 2 video interviews from the Charlie Rose Show for those interested.

A conversation with author Alex Ross (28'01)
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/01/15/1/a-conversation-with-author-alex-ross

A conversation with author & music critic Alex Ross about his book The Rest is Noise : Listening to the Twentieth Century, a cultural history of music since 1900.

Pierre Boulez (15'20)
http://www.charlierose.com/guests/pierre-boulez

Composer and conductor Pierre Boulez shares the evolution of his career and orchestra, the Ensemble InterContemporain, looks back at his work with the New York philharmonic, and responds to the public's criticism of his personality.

[Grazioso]

Thanks for the link. Ross was quite interesting, though Rose could have asked more challenging, insightful questions.

[Franco]

Fascinating interview with Boulez - he makes an interesting point that had not struck me, even though it is quite obvious: that musical institutions resist programming the music of our time whereas other art institutions, e.g. museums, regularly display paintings of our time without controversy.

Thanks for posting these links.

[jlaurson]

Fascinating interview with Boulez - he makes an interesting point that had not struck me, even though it is quite obvious: that musical institutions resist programming the music of our time whereas other art institutions, e.g. museums, regularly display paintings of our time without controversy.

Thanks for posting these links.

The more poignant part of that observation would be: Why does a granny take her two 7 year old grandchildren--in other words: a broad swath of mainstream type art-viewers--to a Rothko et al. exhibit (never mind Kandinsky!!), even waiting in line to get in, but you can clear a symphonic hall made up of the same audience with Feldman and even Webern, in five minutes, tops.

Why does Rothko or a preserved shark or a cow, cut in two, cost millions and millions on the art market, while new compositions can only painstakingly be commissioned?

Why is modernity easier to accept and appreciate--and thus vastly more popular!--in the other arts, but not music?
I suggest it's because music is totally different as an art: it is transient and needs to be actively consumed, demanding more knowledge and far more commitment and effort on the part of the audience to be understood or appreciated.
And because modern music has been confined more to the academic realm than other arts... has been more separated from its audiences in the 20th ct. than the other arts.

[CRCulver]

I think the most convincing explanation is that with the visual arts, a person can decide immediately whether he wishes to continue examining the piece or not, while with music one is obliged to listen to the entire piece, which can go one for 20 minutes, an hour, or more.

[Franco]

I think what both of you have said is certainly true, but I also think that the technology of the audio recording industry contributes to what has become a celebration of performers/interpretation over new composition.

Because of the easy availability of records, we have the luxury of comparing dozens of different conductors/orchestras doing the Beethoven 5th Symphony and a mindset has developed where we prefer to listen to a work we are comfortable with done in some kind of new way or by a new musician, than an absolutely new work we know nothing about.

If our only way to experience music was through live performance, as was the case in previous generations, I am convicned that new works would be more accepted and what we think of as the standard repertory would be far less less dominating - if at all.

[jlaurson]

I think what both of you have said is certainly true, but I also think that the technology of the audio recording industry contributes to what has become a celebration of performers/interpretation over new composition.

Because of the easy availability of records, we have the luxury of comparing dozens of different conductors/orchestras doing the Beethoven 5th Symphony and a mindset has developed where we prefer to listen to a work we are comfortable with done in some kind of new way or by a new musician, than an absolutely new work we know nothing about.

If our only way to experience music was through live performance, as was the case in previous generations, I am convicned that new works would be more accepted and what we think of as the standard repertory would be far less less dominating - if at all.

But we can look at reproductions of the great artists in any variety of quality--from printed on coffee mugs to 3D museum quality repros--too. (Those the museums put out, while the originals are in the vault. :-) )

[Josquin des Prez]

The more poignant part of that observation would be: Why does a granny take her two 7 year old grandchildren--in other words: a broad swath of mainstream type art-viewers--to a Rothko et al. exhibit (never mind Kandinsky!!), even waiting in line to get in, but you can clear a symphonic hall made up of the same audience with Feldman and even Webern, in five minutes, tops.

Grannies don't take their grandchildren to see Rothko or Kandinsky.

At any rate, Both Alex Ross and Boulez are still relying on the same old vs new dichotomy which is nothing more then a baseless fallacy. Disappointing.

[Josquin des Prez]

Why is modernity easier to accept and appreciate--and thus vastly more popular!--in the other arts, but not music?

Because its easier to bluff your way into becoming a connoisseur of modern arts and trends. You can't "pretend" to understand modern music because the latter requires a genuine personal effort to keep up.

[Franco]

But we can look at reproductions of the great artists in any variety of quality--from printed on coffee mugs to 3D museum quality repros--too. (Those the museums put out, while the originals are in the vault. :-) )

For sure, I have framed posters of art that otherwise would cost tens of millions of dollars - the real thing is very much out of my reach, other than viewing it periodically, or owning a reproduction (that is a far cry from the original).  However, this is hardly comparable to the easy availability and rather inexpensive access to live music - the real thing.  For the same cost of few CDs you can go to the concert. 

The real issue is that the audio quality of the CD, a reproduction, is so good that people feel they can dispense with the real thing.  They then can repeat the experience, over and over, itself a detrimental phenomenon for encouraging a normal appreciation for new music.

People (this is ironic writing this on this forum) "collect" recorded music, e.g. complete boxes of all the compositions of most major composers, etc. - this is a very different mindset than what is found for the other arts, and is only possible in which to indulge because of the cheap packaging of music in high quality recorded formats. 

On a different thread there were several people who admitted to preferring listening to music on CDs, instead of at a live venue.   Do you really think as many people would prefer to experience Picasso from a coffee mug as opposed to at a museum?