Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

[Karl Henning]

Well, first let's not lose all that has been said already :

Thanks for your efforts.

[Brian]

I personally feel that Boulez's legacy will not be one of fondness but rather one that is looked back upon as wishing he would have taken a less aggressive approach to criticizing music he didn't enjoy and for being a bit more humble about music in general. I certainly don't think his music has made much of an impact, but his work as a conductor is quite noteworthy and deserves, at least, some reverence.

I don't think Boulez's "legacy" will be negative criticism of others' music. We certainly remember the feud between Wagner and Brahms, or the bitter contempt Bartok had for Shostakovich, but we do not remember these things as essential parts of their legacy. Bartok is a great example - laughter at Shostakovich is written right into the score of the Concerto for Orchestra, where it has been made immortal and unforgettable. Bartok's contempt is thus much more permanent, long-lasting, and outspoken than any words Boulez may have said in his youth. But I hope that there is no listener who loses respect of Bartok for doing this.

This is especially true because of the changes which came to Boulez in maturity, well captured in the posts by ritter and Cosi bel do. Well captured also in his great recordings of Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, Mahler, etc. With a critic and thinker like Boulez, the act of recording that music says something very important about his artistic point of view.

[Mirror Image]

I don't think Boulez's "legacy" will be negative criticism of others' music. We certainly remember the feud between Wagner and Brahms, or the bitter contempt Bartok had for Shostakovich, but we do not remember these things as essential parts of their legacy. Bartok is a great example - laughter at Shostakovich is written right into the score of the Concerto for Orchestra, where it has been made immortal and unforgettable. Bartok's contempt is thus much more permanent, long-lasting, and outspoken than any words Boulez may have said in his youth. But I hope that there is no listener who loses respect of Bartok for doing this.

This is especially true because of the changes which came to Boulez in maturity, well captured in the posts by ritter and Cosi bel do. Well captured also in his great recordings of Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, Mahler, etc. With a critic and thinker like Boulez, the act of recording that music says something very important about his artistic point of view.

Certainly his actions have spoken louder than his words.

[ritter]

I don't think it is necessarily that.  Stravinsky expressed coy opinions about many composers, and while I do not share his dislike of Vivaldi (e.g.), one writes such remarks off.

But I think, in the first place, that a thoroughly intellectual approach to music is of itself fundamentally wrong-headed; and that Boulez has been disingenuous to some degree or another in many of his musical fatwas over the decades.

Why would we be more lenient on good old Igor than on good old Pierre? Stravinsky was extremely influential in his day, and had some very unpleasant things to say about Vivaldi, and Mahler, and Wagner, and...actually, I've had access to an interview from the thirties in which he dismisses all German music (with the exception of Bach). Wasn't he doing that to put across his aesthetic views? And I rank Stravinsky--including much of his neoclassical music-- and Wagner at the very top of my own personal pantheon (in case there's any doubt  ).

What I don't understand is why "a thoroughly intellectual approach to music is of itself fundamentally wrong-headed"? Aren't we being as intolerant with Boulez as we say he is with others?  I understand many not sharing that view, but one cannot deny that Boulez is a very, very eloquent proselytizer and that he argues his postions rather successfully... Excessive perhaps? Of course, but he is a man with a mission, and as such a necessary and irreplaceable figure of music of the past 65 years! 

It is clear that I cannot be impartial in this: Boulez has accompanied my love of music since I'm about 15, when my father gave me as a present his Parsifal from Bayreuth (at the time my lifelong admiration for Wagner was starting). Then I heard (of all places, in the inflight entertainment system of an Air France flight from Paris to Caracas  ) parts of Le Marteau, and was fascinated...And then he opened the doors of Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel and many more to me...For that, I can only thank him 'til the end of my life. I consider Pierre Boulez one of the strongest intellectual (yes, that is the word) influences on me (even if there's much of his theoretical oeuvre that is way beyond my level of comprehension). And his recordings and the numerous occasions I've seen him live I will always cherish...

Cheers,,

[Ken B]

Boulez is, alas, one of the greatest conductors ever in his chosen repertoire. I think he had(has) an immense talent. Talent is no excuse for being a shit, and shouldn't ward off "the finger". Wagner had even greater talent and left an astonishing artistic legacy. Wagner is one of the greatest and most influential creative geniuses in history.  But I'd give him the finger, and I bet Ritter, Cosi and others would too. Conclusion: Boulez's art is irrelevant to the question.
Boulez worked to punish those composers (and audiences!), the "USELESS" and "STUPID STUPID STUPID" ones, whose music and taste did not fit his ideology of what music should or must be.

[ritter]

I certainly don't think his music has made much of an impact, but his work as a conductor is quite noteworthy and deserves, at least, some reverence.

I do hope you give Boulez's music another chance...it may be difficult (but you know, "no pain, no gain"  ), but once you've made the effort to appreciate it, the intense (almost hedonistic) and profound beauty of his soundworld just bowls you over... I think it is a bit daring to say his music has not made much of an impact, frankly...

[Cosi bel do]

Thanks to everyone for this very interesting discussion of Boulez. It's actually increased my respect for Boulez. (And also made me very happy, not for the first time, that Cosi bel do has chosen to return to the forum.)

Thanks 
I'm happy if it has given a little balance to Boulez's image

I didn't know anything about Boulez' behaviour and character before. In general though I dislike ideologies and their aggressive disciples. So many things were considered "the latest", "the only possible way, 'nowadays'", and history has passed over it ... It is so unwise and immature, and lacking respect for the other. I have no problem if someone passionately dislikes something, but I passionateley dislike it myself if someone proclaims his beliefs to be "the right way, and the only way".

Well, I think Boulez must not dislike entirely the reject or even hatred expressed towards him. I don't think you leave such a long-lasting impression without finding a little pleasure in it. I seems to me he likes controversy and is not afraid being disliked. And, frankly, in the times he lived in, a young adult during 2nd World War, a conductor and composer with radical left beliefs but working in the West and not an admirer of the soviet system, I guess this attitude is quite honourable.
That said, he is only a musician, and in such a profession as in any you can find all types of behaviours, and not always pleasant ones. But even in his expressions of distaste, at least Boulez never appeared petty as far as I know, and never seemed to act in order to preserve his own personal interests, as illustrate the fact that he never wanted anything to do with the Opéra de Paris anymore, or repeatedly criticized the French political milieu as a whole as very poorly cultured and deeply ignorant of the arts. His postures (strong, radical, extreme...), his will to express clear opinions without bowing before authorities make of him something of a musical Jean-Paul Sartre.

About his legacy, he will certainly be remembered as a conductor more than a composer, but let's face it, there are not many composers from the 2nd half of the last century who are better known than the most famous conductors. I'd say none of them, actually. But among composers, I'm not sure Boulez will be entirely forgotten. Or this means a lot of music of the same period will also be...

[Karl Henning]

It is clear that I cannot be impartial in this:

I don't require that you be impartial, that you be (nor pretend to be) purely intellectual here.

Perhaps I am lenient to Stravinsky because he composed a great body of work, and much of it is of surpassing excellence, and some few pieces from their midst were landmark works.

Boulez gave us ready and sharp opinions . . . and did a little composing.  Someone would have done that boy a service if early on they'd said, "Shut up and play yer guitar."

[Ken B]

I don't require that you be impartial, that you be (nor pretend to be) purely intellectual here.

Perhaps I am lenient to Stravinsky because he composed a great body of work, and much of it is of surpassing excellence, and some few pieces from their midst were landmark works.

Boulez gave us ready and sharp opinions . . . and did a little composing.  Someone would have done that boy a service if early on they'd said, "Shut up and play yer guitar."

Stravinsky's musical pronouncements are all over the map. Some seem frankly stupid. But one thing there never were was part of a an effort to suppress other people's music.

[Cosi bel do]

Boulez is, alas, one of the greatest conductors ever in his chosen repertoire. I think he had(has) an immense talent. Talent is no excuse for being a shit, and shouldn't ward off "the finger". Wagner had even greater talent and left an astonishing artistic legacy. Wagner is one of the greatest and most influential creative geniuses in history.  But I'd give him the finger, and I bet Ritter, Cosi and others would too. Conclusion: Boulez's art is irrelevant to the question.
Boulez worked to punish those composers (and audiences!), the "USELESS" and "STUPID STUPID STUPID" ones, whose music and taste did not fit his ideology of what music should or must be.

I don't think I would give the finger to Wagner, no, I don't see why I should judge a man of the 19th century with my 21th century spirit and values. I'm sure I wouldn't agree on everything with Beethoven, Bach or Josquin Desprez either...

But I sure respect more Boulez as a person as I would have respected Cortot, or Karajan, or Mengelberg, or many other musicians I can still admire as musicians but who have, in my opinion, not been entirely innocent when considering their personal contribution to history.
And stop describing Boulez as something he is not. He never punished anyone, and never banned any composer from concerts as a musical director. There are just many works he wouldn't conduct himself. I don't think a musician should have an obligation to perform any piece of music.

[Cosi bel do]

Stravinsky's musical pronouncements are all over the map. Some seem frankly stupid. But one thing there never were was part of a an effort to suppress other people's music.

Well, again, Boulez did not do anything like that either.

[Karl Henning]

Stravinsky's musical pronouncements are all over the map. Some seem frankly stupid. But one thing there never were was part of a an effort to suppress other people's music.

That is fair.

[Ken B]

Well, again, Boulez did not do anything like that either.

Of course he did. Cosi bel do, let me quote Cosi bel do:

he led a riot against the neoclassical programs

[CRCulver]

I think that Boulez's music will last for at least as long as there's an Ensemble Intercontemporain. In recent years, as his own conducting has declined, his ensemble works have been taken up by Mälkki, Mantovani and Pintscher. His piano works have got several new recordings in recent years. Quatuor Diotima is touring his Livre pour cordes. I think his legacy will do fine, at least for a while.

[Karl Henning]

I think that Boulez’s music will last for at least as long as there’s an Ensemble Intercontemporain. In recent years, as his own conducting has declined, his ensemble works have been taken up by Mälkki, Mantovani and Pintscher. His piano works have got several new recordings in recent years. Quatuor Diotima is touring his Livre pour cordes. I think his legacy will do fine, at least for a while.

Few though his works be, he is at the head of his class.

[ritter]

 

Well, again, Boulez did not do anything like that either.

Exactly...it would appear that Boulez had intended (and, moreover, achieved  ) to wipe all music he didn't like off the map...that is nonsense  . When he was most vociferous in transmitting his views and "message" (the mid-sixties, when his conducting career really started to take off), Shostakovitch was being performed all over the world, Britten's War Requiem was the best selling classical record in the UK for years,  the repertoire of opera houses (those that had to be "blown up"  ) was still mainly Puccini, Verdi, Ponchielli, Gounod, etc., and the daily bread-and-butter of most symphony orchestras around the world was Brahms and Tchaikovsky...But there was one man who said: "music is much more than this, music must be much more than this" and didn't take the easy route of furthering his conducting career by performing the war horses (which he disliked), but rather worked to open the eyes (or rather, the ears) of many to another, very rich world... And I, at least, am grateful to Boulez for this...

Funnily, when asked the cliché question in an interview: "Whom from the past would you have wanted to have dinner with?", his answer was "Richard Wagner"  Birds of a feather, I guess... 

Of course he did. Cosi bel do, let me quote Cosi bel do: "he led a riot against the neoclassical programs"

He was 20 years old at the time, and virtually unknown...You make it sound as if, as the grand seigneur of contemporary music, he had sent a parcel bomb form his office at IRCAM (which would not be founded for another 30 years or so) or something like that 

[Brian]

If we were all assessed, at the ends of our careers, based on the stupid things we said and did at the age of 20, we would all be doomed to shame and disgrace everlasting.

[Karl Henning]

If we were all assessed, at the ends of our careers, based on the stupid things we said and did at the age of 20, we would all be doomed to shame and disgrace everlasting.

That's true.

Have I missed something?  Because my impression is that Boulez has remained gadflyish well beyond any question of youthful indiscretion.

[Karl Henning]

History is much like the guillotine. If a composer is not moving in the right direction he will be killed, metaphorically speaking.

There is no offense in this, to be sure;  but the idea of there being one right direction is so . . . quaint.

[Brian]

That's true.

Have I missed something?  Because my impression is that Boulez has remained gadflyish well beyond any question of youthful indiscretion.

Ken is making the charge that Boulez actively suppressed music he disliked and tried to restrict artistic freedoms, which is very different from being gadflyish.