Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

[Franco]

I'll take his own words, over your own interpretation of them ... no offence

Of course no offense taken, I did not attempt to contribute a replacement for his words, just my reaction to, what I consider, his limited appraisal of the vast amount of music written (much of which displays no influence from Stravinsky or Schoenberg) and the number of composers of the 20th century. 

[karlhenning]

Boulez isn't particularly charitable when asked why he thinks they are not more original. "Perhaps they are tired, or lazy," he said. "It isn't easy to search and innovate and invent. You have to ask a lot of yourself, apply pressure, make demands all the time."

There is a lot of superfluity in this statement.  The only real value to it is:

Boulez isn't particularly charitable.

[Franco]

It seems again to me that we have differing notions of what "second-rate" means.  Some appear to see it as synonymous with "dreck."  Others see it as "not quite the best, but still pretty darned good"--like a second-growth Bordeaux.

If we classify every composer we like as "first-rate," does that mean we're unable to distinguish qualitative differences between Beethoven, say, and Dittersdorf?

It is my own preference against attempting to create a hierarchal ranking of art and artists.  For me it adds nothing to my understanding or appreciation for it and only clutters the landscape with unnecessary opinions about a unique human being's worth.

[petrarch]

Boulez is an intelligent chap; he ought to be able to distinguish between a fact and speculation.[/font]

As if he doesn't... He's only giving his opinion and being incisive about it. Sure, Hindemith influenced a lot of musicians, but does his music brave new worlds of sound and musical narrative? Compare Hindemith as a teacher and Messiaen as a teacher. There is a difference.

[karlhenning]

It isn't easy to search and innovate and invent.

That of itself is certainly an innocent statement.  Many intelligent, sensitive and talented musicians recognizing the innovative qualities of Hindemith's work, and his invention.

I wonder what blinds Boulez to them? I do wonder.

[Franco]

That of itself is certainly an innocent statement.  Many intelligent, sensitive and talented musicians recognizing the innovative qualities of Hindemith's work, and his invention.

I wonder what blinds Boulez to them? I do wonder.

As Stephen Sondheim wrote, "art isn't easy" and Hindemith's accomplishments are not easily arrived at, but, apparently, easily taken for granted by some. 

[karlhenning]

As if he doesn't... He's only giving his opinion and being incisive about it.

A high-profile composer with a bullhorn; to characterize this as only giving his opinion is disingenuous.

Sure, Hindemith influenced a lot of musicians, but does his music brave new worlds of sound and musical narrative? Compare Hindemith as a teacher and Messiaen as a teacher. There is a difference.

Sure.  But:

(a) Is this difference the qualitative knife-edge which is here implied?
(b) Personally, as a composer, I don't take much interest in either Messiaen or Hindemith as teachers.  What matters to me is the music.
(b₁) This is more or less in line with my interest in Boulez's work, both as composer and conductor, not in his opinionating.
(c) As we've discussed many times in various threads, "braving new worlds of sound and musical narrative" isn't necessarily the most important thing, and certainly is not the only thing.

[karlhenning]

As Stephen Sondheim wrote, "art isn't easy" and Hindemith's accomplishments are not easily arrived at, but, apparently, easily taken for granted by some.

Word.

[DavidRoss]

It is my own preference against attempting to create a hierarchal ranking of art and artists.  For me it adds nothing to my understanding or appreciation for it and only clutters the landscape with unnecessary opinions about a unique human being's worth.

Ah...we differ, then. When I express such judgments, I'm addressing only my opinion about the relative worth of their contributions to music, not their worth as human beings.  And the reason being something along the lines that if life is short, I suspect most of us would gain more from investigating Beethoven's music than Dittersdorf's--just as I would recommend Cervantes before Dan Brown.  For all I know, Dan Brown is a wonderful, kind, generous soul.  He makes a nice living writing fantasies with broad popular appeal--and I suspect that he would be among the first to acknowledge a qualitative difference between The Da Vinci Code and Don Quixote.

[Franco]

There's that name again, who is Dan Brown?



I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it is not my interest to decide where a work or its creator ranks compared to all others (talk about life being short).  It is plenty enough for me to decide if it brought me any benefit from having experienced it and if I choose to revisit the experience.

[DavidRoss]

There is a lot of superfluity in this statement.  The only real value to it is:

Boulez isn't particularly charitable.

Well, and taken at face value the statements suggest he's also a bit of an ass.  I suspect he regards himself among the superior composers who have altered the face of music...?  In which case I suspect history will prove him mistaken.  Perhaps there's a bit of sour grapes in that Hindemith's music is more frequently performed and attracts a larger audience than his own?

All I know is that when I listen to Répons its usually out of intellectual curiosity with no expectation of experiencing the sort of spiritual satisfaction I get from, say, Mathis der Maler.  (But I still love Boulez as a conductor, and respect him as a composer.  )

[karlhenning]

Well, and taken at face value the statements suggest he's also a bit of an ass.

Aye.

The curious thing is that some here seem to admire him for that ; )

[DavidRoss]

There's that name again, who is Dan Brown?



I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it is not my interest to decide where a work or its creator ranks compared to all others (talk about life being short).  It is plenty enough for me to decide if it brought me any benefit from having experienced it and if I choose to revisit the experience.

And if you choose to revisit the experience is it because there is some qualitative difference between the piece and others you don't choose to revisit?  And are there some composers who have pretty good track records at writing pieces you choose to revisit, and some who don't?  If so, then you are making judgments that rank both works and their creators.

[DavidRoss]

Aye.

The curious thing is that some here seem to admire him for that ; )

"Birds of a feather" and all that...?

[Franco]

And if you choose to revisit the experience is it because there is some qualitative difference between the piece and others you don't choose to revisit?  And are there some composers who have pretty good track records at writing pieces you choose to revisit, and some who don't?  If so, then you are making judgments that rank both works and their creators.

I'd not make those assumptions; and rather view each day as a unique world offering me new opportunities for experience: I am a different person, the world is a different place and the experience of a work of art is different each time I choose to revisit it. 

Some works please me more than others but I would never attribute that to a qualitative aspect of the work, but of some nexus between the work and myself at the moment of experience.  But then the next day, everything is different and I prefer Dittersdorf to Beethoven.

It is not something that I find worrisome.

[CRCulver]

I suspect he regards himself among the superior composers who have altered the face of music...?  In which case I suspect history will prove him mistaken.

No, if Boulez attributed such a role to himself, history would have already proved him correct. The second half of the 20th century saw many composers credit Boulez for influencing their music. Even if some didn't like Boulez's strictness about twelve-tone serialism, composers like Nørgård, Schnittke, Manoury, Salonen etc. found interesting paths opened by his music which they pursued.

[karlhenning]

Either that, or it means that even less-than-superior composers can alter small features of the face of music.

[DavidRoss]

No, if Boulez attributed such a role to himself, history would have already proved him correct. The second half of the 20th century saw many composers credit Boulez for influencing their music. Even if some didn't like Boulez's strictness about twelve-tone serialism, composers like Nørgård, Schnittke, Manoury, Salonen etc. found interesting paths opened by his music which they pursued.

We're a bit too close for history to have rendered its verdict yet. 

[CRCulver]

We're a bit too close for history to have rendered its verdict yet.

History has already rendered its verdict when it comes to Boulez's influence. There are plenty of articles from the 1960s and 1970s where composers say "I got certain ideas for this piece from Boulez's piece X".

[Scarpia]

History has already rendered its verdict when it comes to Boulez's influence. There are plenty of articles from the 1960s and 1970s where composers say "I got certain ideas for this piece from Boulez's piece X".

We don't know if those composers will be well regarded by history either.  No one is really interested in whether Reinecke was more influenced by Hummel or Dittersdorf.