Messiaen vs. Dutilleux

[kyjo]

The choice for me was relatively easy: Dutilleux. Messiaen may awe me momentarily with his coloristic techniques, but when I'm done listening to a work of his I usually walk away unmoved, like nothing had ever happened. Most of his music just glosses over me and doesn't penetrate my brain or my heart. In short, his music just doesn't engage me. There's one work of his I really like, though: Ascension, an earlier work which I can connect to quite well. The Turangalila-Symphonie has some cool parts, but overall it doesn't have too great an effect on me. The same could be said for the Quartet for the End of Time.

Dutilleux, on the other hand, is a composer whose use of harmony, rhythm, and color I find more engaging that Messiaen's. He is the most natural successor to Debussy and Ravel, rather than Messiaen, who I would associate more with the avant-garde. Dutilleux is a very individualistic composer, yet his music still has strong ties to the past. Also, I find there to be much more variety of mood in Dutilleux's music.

[mahler10th]

Duttileux, simple reason is that even though I haven't a clue what he's on about half the time, his music is eminently more understandable than Messiaens, even when it isn't, and I do not feel guilty or have any need to, whilst or after listening to it.   0:)

[Mirror Image]

Hah, something we agree on. This was an easy vote for me too, Kyle. I never have cared much for Messiaen. His music really is a 'mess' to use some wordplay. Dutilleux I find much more engaging and much more logical. Yes, I agree with you that Messiaen's L'ascension is a fine work. This is the only work I like of his. Tortelier's and Graf's orchestral sets of Dutilluex are just outstanding and any fan of 20th Century French music wouldn't want to be without either one of them.

[Trout]

For me, it's actually the opposite: Messiaen is, for the most part completely engaging and intelligible while Dutilleux is still quite abstruse for me. My favorite Messiaen works include Les Offrandes oubliées, Apparition de l'église éternelle, Quatuor pour la fin du temps, Turangalîla-Symphonie, Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine, and Chronochromie. (He is also one of my all-time favorite composers, by the way.)

[DavidW]

Are we done with these pointless versus threads yet?

[North Star]

Are we done with these pointless versus threads yet?

Let's make a poll and find out!  (j/k)

[DavidW]

Good idea!

[kyjo]

Are we done with these pointless versus threads yet?

You've hurt me, David.

[Mirror Image]

I think a thread pitting Lutoslawski against Dutilleux would have been more sensible since both composers share a similar aesthetic, but, if we were to continue in a French vein, than Dutilleux vs. Boulez might have been a more plausible polling idea, IMHO.

[Biffo]

Are we done with these pointless versus threads yet?

+1

[vandermolen]

Are we done with these pointless versus threads yet?

I enjoy these threads. I've started enough 'pointless' ones myself. Now, back to the Royal Baby thread!

[springrite]

I enjoy these threads. I've started enough 'pointless' ones myself. Now, back to the Royal Baby thread!

I see your point.



Dutilleux, by a country mile.

[vandermolen]

Dutilleux

[Symphonic Addict]

I see your point.



Dutilleux, by a country mile.

Dutilleux

+1

His music sounds more organised and accesible, and darker too. All that appeal to me the most. Messiaen seems how if he wanted that his music was difficult and too solemn (exaggerated, perhaps) to be honest.

[vers la flamme]

Dutilleux by a hair, though I love both.

[Mirror Image]

His music sounds more organised and accesible, and darker too. All that appeal to me the most. Messiaen seems how if he wanted that his music was difficult and too solemn (exaggerated, perhaps) to be honest.

There's no question that Dutilleux's music is more organized and, yes, accessible, too. I always wanted to try to connect with Messiaen and I've tried on numerous occasions and, at the end of each listening session, I came away frustrated because the music just doesn't go anywhere or develop in any way --- it's like it is in idle the entire time. But, also, Messiaen's harmonic language didn't really appeal to me and, for me, this is something that's incredibly important. I do value melody, rhythm, and structure, but if there's not some kind of interesting harmonies happening, then usually I'm not completely drawn into the music. I thought Messiaen was too caught up in concepts, but doesn't follow-through with the execution. He's like John Cage in a way. Fascinating philosophy about music, but when it comes to the actual compositions, I'm left unmoved.

[San Antone]

I think more of Messiaen, who is the more important composer, IMO.  I've never felt that Dutilleux's music is anything special, for sure it is good and he is a talented composer, but ultimately just another good late 20th century composer.  However, if he had never existed, music history would be unaffected, whereas Messiaen left an indelible mark on the 20th century.

[Mirror Image]

I think more of Messiaen, who is the more important composer, IMO.  I've never felt that Dutilleux's music is anything special, for sure it is good and he is a talented composer, but ultimately just another good late 20th century composer.  However, if he had never existed, music history would be unaffected, whereas Messiaen left an indelible mark on the 20th century.

There's no question of the importance of Messiaen, but 'importance' will never equate to quality, IMHO. There are many great composers who don't necessarily affect classical music history's timeline, but this doesn't mean that their music isn't significant or worth looking into.

[JBS]

There's no question of the importance of Messiaen, but 'importance' will never equate to quality, IMHO. There are many great composers who don't necessarily affect classical music history's timeline, but this doesn't mean that their music isn't significant or worth looking into.

Agreed with all that (including your preference for Dutilleux over Messiaen). 
And the opposite holds true too.  Stockhausen did have a tremendous impact, but the actual quality of the music he composed is debatable.  Same, IMO, with Cage.

[San Antone]

There's no question of the importance of Messiaen, but 'importance' will never equate to quality, IMHO. There are many great composers who don't necessarily affect classical music history's timeline, but this doesn't mean that their music isn't significant or worth looking into.

I didn't say his music wasn't worthwhile, in fact I said the opposite.  I enjoy Dutilleux's music and have listened to him frequently, but I get more out of Messiaen's music because there is more there to get.  It is like the difference between Beethoven and Hummel.

Agreed with all that (including your preference for Dutilleux over Messiaen). 
And the opposite holds true too.  Stockhausen did have a tremendous impact, but the actual quality of the music he composed is debatable.  Same, IMO, with Cage.

I agree with your characterization of Cage and Stockhausen being important, but disagree with your assessment of the worth of their music.  I don't think there is any debate on the quality of Stockhausen's music, there is probably more of a debate concerning Cage.  But in both cases I think they are two of the most important (and best) composers of the 20th century.