Like Boulez?

[Florestan]

For chopin a good place to start is the (political) op 48/1 ans the (psychological) op 27/1.

Not so fast, please. Explain me what is political in op. 48/1 and what is psychological in op. 27/1.

Mozart's easier because of the operas.

I fail to see anything politically revolutionary in any of his operas, maybe you can be more specific.

I think that what is essential to a major strand of classical music is expressing and exploring ideas.

What is/are the idea(s) expressed in Goldberg Variations?

[ritter]

.... It's more against the superficial rhetoric used by Boulez to say that all modern music should conform to certain standards (like atonality or that stupid idea that music and art have necessarily to disturb) or it's useless or without value. I mean he probably don't care even for composers like Scelsi or Ohana just because they have choose a different musical path.
Like I have said, it's the same old mentality of those art critics that said that figurative art had no place in modern art. Does anybody here think that Edward Hopper was not an original artist?
Is he less important or deep than Rohtko or Pollock? I don't think so.

There is one distinction to be made, Escher, and a major one: Pierre Boulez is not one "of those (art) critics", Pierre Boulez is a major composer (nobody can deny that, I'd say) who has felt the necessity, the obligation, to promote his artistic credo, and he has all the right to do so (with his music, his writing, his conducting...). He also has the intellectual capacity to do so in what many perceive as very convincing  terms, even  if in writing he can appear as too outspoken or brash (but--as Niko240 has pointed out--in person he is extremely polite and well mannered, and I personally can vouch for that).

Artists of Pierre Boulez's stature often tend to adopt a single-minded "sense of mission" because they are profioundly convinced of the need to convey their message (and applying the terms "shallow", "superficial" or "stupid" in this context is unfair and insidious). Richard Wagner did it (I'm talking of his views on art, not on other issues--let's please avoid going down that road), Igor Stravinsky did it (just read what he wrote about German music as a whole--with the exception of J.S. Bach--in the 1930s, or his early views on Mahler). We must make a distinction between a Boulez, a Wagner or a Stravinsky, on one hand, and a  Eduard Hanslick or Julius Korngold, on the other (who today are mainly  remembered only for  of the stance these critics took against certain composers).

Really, what  do people expect, for Pierre Boulez to proclaim, for instance, that  Henri Sauguet is a genius, and to program Britten regularly at IRCAM? Really ? ? ?...

And I've said it elsehwere on GMG: one may agree or not with what Boulez has had to say, but I for one am glad that he's had the balls to say it. Much of his writing is of immense value, and his music is a corpus of the highest artistic relevance. And let's get one thing right, once and for all: some posters seem to think that when Boulez was spreading his artistic credo, he single-handedly managed to crowd out all the music he dismissed form concert halls. Quite the contrary: I am certain Boulez was a outspoken and uncompromising as he was precisely because in the 50s, 60s and even the 70s, concert programs and opera seasons were not open at all to the music that he was deeply convinced was worth getting audieces exposed to. One reads some posts here on GMG, and one could jump to the conclusion that Donaueschingen was dictating what was on offer in Canegie Hall! 

One final thought: I find it striking that a new member of this wonderful forum (Niko242 in this case) starts a thread talking about what seems to be a genuine admiration for Pierre Boulez's music and, inevitably, after several posts, the corrosive remarks about Boulez's writings start to appear. Curious, and perhaps a reflection that it's not that easy to escape from Boulez's shadow. 

[Karl Henning]

There is one distinction to be made, Escher, and a major one: Pierre Boulez is not one "of those (art) critics", Pierre Boulez] is a major composer (nobody can deny that, I'd say) who has felt the necessity, the obligation, to promote his artistic credo, and he has all the right to do so [....]

This is marvelously apt of you to point out, because I came to the thread specifically to offer this to you, as a somewhat balancing consideration to my Loyal Opposition to so much of what Boulez sez (or, haz sed):  He is a major composer, as Wagner was a yet greater major composer;  and in both cases, their music (not that it is all unalloyedly great) rings to much greater credit to the composer, than the verbiage they both felt obliged to strew out into the world.  When Wagner wrote nonsense, we are not under any obligation to mistake it for Wisdom, just because someone who wrote some sublimely great music said it.


As for Boulez having the right, undoubtedly he does.  An individual exercising a right, does not guarantee that he uses that right wisely, nor does exercising the right to express oneself guarantee that what one is expressing is worthwhile.  A bit like Wagner again, perhaps, he blabs the same sort of thing so often, he mistakes his opinions for established artistic truths.  It's an error in judgment one grieves to see in an artist for whom, judging by the music, one would wish to entertain nothing but respect.

[Karl Henning]

And if you said artists of Pierre Boulez's generation rather than stature, your comment would be rather nearer the mark, I think.

[Karl Henning]

And I've said it elsehwere on GMG: one may agree or not with what Boulez has had to say, but I for one am glad that he's had the balls to say it. Much of his writing is of immense value, and his music is a corpus of the highest artistic relevance.

I respect that opinion, and I for one am glad for your strong emphases of the modifiers which, in their degree, are a matter of opinion;  I say opinion merely even if, in soberer degree, they would be statements anyone might endorse:  that, say, some of what he has said (almost in spite of himself  ) is of value, and that he has written music of artistic relevance.

[escher]

There is one distinction to be made, Escher, and a major one: Pierre Boulez is not one "of those (art) critics", Pierre Boulez] is a major composer (nobody can deny that, I'd say)

personally I don't consider him an important composer (and I can mention composers and critics who find his music horrible so please spare me that "nobody can deny that"). I think of him as someone who in a period when modernism was considered the law in every field (being it Mondrian, Malevic, Loos or Le Corbusier)  has had the possibilty to be in a very important position.

who has felt the necessity, the i]obligation[/i], to promote his artistic credo, and he has all the right to do so (with his music, his writing, his conducting...). He also has the intellectual capacity to do so in what many perceive as very convincing  terms, even  if in writing he can appear as too outspoken or brash (but--as Niko240 has pointed out--in person he is extremely polite and well mannered, an I personally can vouch for that).

I don't find his arguments convincing at all (as I've said, I found those arguments quite stupid actually). I can recognize he's an intelligent person and with a great knowledge and that seems to intimidate a lot of persons, but that does not certainly mean to me that he can not say stupid things. And even many musicians I really like say things that I don't share at all. I mean, I'm a great fan of Harry Partch, but that does not mean certainly that I think like him that everything composed after Bach is garbage.
But the problem with Boulez is not his strong ideas (I've read also many interesting things said by him), I know that many other composers have strong ideas as well. But his position has determined the marginalization of those composers he didn't like, even when it's clear that those composers were absolutely original artists. And that in my view is his capital sin.

[Karl Henning]

personally I don't consider him an important composer (and I can mention composers and critics who find his music horrible so please spare me that "nobody can deny that"). I think of him as someone who in a period when modernism was considered the law in every field (being it Mondrian, Malevic, Loos or Le Corbusier)  has had the possibility to be in a very important position.

He is an iconic opportunist, and has a world-class talent for agit prop.

[Karl Henning]

FTFY oh Mennin 8 fan.

Thanks for the chuckle!

[escher]

He is an iconic opportunist, and has a world-class talent for agit prop.

Stravinsky would probably agree

[Karl Henning]

Stravinsky would probably agree

Very nice!

There are differences, too, of course.  Igor Fyodorovich was provoking, without being the turd in the punchbowl.  And face it, Boulez has a knack for being tediously earnest.

[San Antone]

My rule of thumb is unless composers are discussing/writing musical analysis I generally ignore what they say and just listen to what they compose.

[Karl Henning]

My rule of thumb is unless composers are discussing/writing musical analysis I generally ignore what they say and just listen to what they compose.

Not at all a bad rule.

[ritter]

personally I don't consider him an important composer (and I can mention composers and critics who find his music horrible so please spare me that "nobody can deny that").

Fair enough: change "nobody can deny that" to "only a few would deny that"...

But the problem with Boulez is not his strong ideas (I've read also many interesting things said by him), I know that many other composers have strong ideas as well. But his position has determined the marginalization of those composers he didn't like, even when it's clear that those composers were absolutely original artists. And that in my view is his capital sin.

That, I'm afarid, is not substantiated by any sort of hard data...As I pointed out above, just look at the prgrams of any relevant musical institution (orchestra, opera company, record label) in the period during and after Boulez was at his most vociferous, and Shostakovich, Britten, Poulenc, Dutilleux and Sauguet were all doing very well, thank you very much.

I insist: Donaueschingen was not dictating the prgrams of Carnegie Hall, the Salle Pleyel was not following the lead of Darmstadt, and even when Pierre Boulez had a very prominent position in London (the BBC post), the variety of music perfomed in that city there was great, and I'd say even biased towards the music Boulez  dismissed...

But, if we want to make Pierre Boulez guilty of the fact that, for instance, Henri Sauguet has fallen into almost absolute oblivion today, let's go ahead and do so (and not ask ourselves whether this might have happened even if Boulez had never been born)...

[Cato]

... the verbiage they both felt obliged to strew out into the world.  When Wagner wrote nonsense, we are not under any obligation to mistake it for Wisdom, just because someone who wrote some sublimely great music said it.
.  A bit like Wagner again, perhaps, he blabs the same sort of thing so often, he mistakes his opinions for established artistic truths.  It's an error in judgment one grieves to see in an artist for whom, judging by the music, one would wish to entertain nothing but respect.

Yes, and your comments make me think immediately of actors who should stick to memorizing their lines, rather than trying to balloon their fame with opinions about the crisis-du-jour.

He is an iconic opportunist, and has a world-class talent for agit prop.

Perhaps only Scriabin had a bigger ego?   0:)

personally I don't consider him an important composer ...

That Boulez is not important at the moment would be hard to square with e.g. the existence of this topic!   0:)   But whether he will remain important will be determined by the future.  Of course, one can start arguments about whether e.g. Beethoven has remained "important" vs. "popular."   

Stravinsky would probably agree

For another topic: I recall reading somewhere that the Robert Craft books written "with Stravinsky" (with the latter's opinions) contain more Robert Craft than Stravinsky!

e.g. Stravinsky supposedly made a bi-lingual pun on Mahler's music, and said that he hears malheur when he hears a work by Mahler, which word, however, could be accurate, depending on the work!   

[San Antone]

This topic has brought back a memory.

I recall a debate many moons ago with a high-school friend (he was much against anything composed after Schumann)who was adamant that contemporary composers were frauds, and Boulez was high on his list as the most fraudulent.

My friend disputed that Boulez ("and others of his ilk") could mentally imagine any of his music, i.e. that few if any of the sounds in his works arose spontaneously from psycho-spiritual inspiration.  And because of this defect, the music of Boulez was ipso facto invalid and not worth a penny. 

I recall countering that  A. One cannot possibly prove what is inside the head of any composer B. That composers have been known to sit at a piano and idly tap things out, until they come across something that catches their inner ear  C. That only the final result is important anyway: how the music was composed - whether with a system or a computer or by throwing dice or by divine inspiration - does not much matter because the composer is composing it, i.e. putting it together. 

My friend countered that such an opinion explained the "dissonant messes" created by contemporary composers like Boulez.  Such composers were parallel with the "squirt-gun artists" who filled huge canvases with squiggles: "true inspiration and talent" were completely lacking in the artist and in the artwork.  People who claimed that they heard anything comprehensible or interesting or entertaining in Boulez were snobs parallel with the museum goers who would stand in front of a Pollock and claim to see anything other than the work of a fraud imitating the scribbles of a 3-year old.

So, you went to high school with Daniel Asia?

[Cato]

So, you went to high school with Daniel Asia?

Heh-heh!   0:)  In fact, he ended up becoming a U.S. Ambassador to one of the Caribbean island states, Bermuda or the Bahamas or something like that.  We lost contact in the 90's.  I suppose I should find contact him, but as my mother used to say, "phones ring both ways." 

[kishnevi]

.

You get a similar state of affairs in novels. Jane Austen (=entertainment music); Herman Broch (=serious music)

Mon ami! Miss Jane Austen is a profoundly serious writer, and would not be matched again in British Literature until "George Eliot" began writing.

[San Antone]

Mon ami! Miss Jane Austen is a profoundly serious writer

+1  I have been revisiting Austin's novels and strongly dissent from any opinion that diminishes her writing.

[kishnevi]

Yep, and my 5-year old son can compose Kontra-Punkte 

Chuckle.
I would in fact  point to Stockhausen as a composer who was important but wrote horrible music.  Musical value and musical influence on others are two different things.

I must admit I at one point would have said the same thing about Maitre Pierre, when I only knew some of his earlier works (Marteau, Notations,  piano sonatas)...but I have discovered my ears to be much more sympathetic to the works composed after that.

[Mandryka]

Mon ami! Miss Jane Austen is a profoundly serious writer, and would not be matched again in British Literature until "George Eliot" began writing.

Too much swearing in Jane Austen for me.