Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

Started by bhodges, January 17, 2008, 09:54:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Karl Henning

I think that is overstating the case.  I don't think that is overstating what he wishes he might do, but we are not (unlike Boulez in his wilder days) the Thought Police  ;)

American composers in New York and environs may have thought that his appointment as M.D. of the NY Phil would have proven something of an opportunity for local talent;  the point was raised that a musician should not be obliged to perform music he does not like, which I think something of an impractically idealist notion.  But certainly Boulez only advanced the music of contemporaries whose work he favored.  Heck, we might say the same of Alex Ross in his best-selling book.

To repeat, there are aspects of his career where I wish I could think better of him than it seems to me that the facts justify.  But I think of him more as petty and tawdry than as guilty.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

ritter

Well, I hope we at least agree that Alex Ross is no Pierre Boulez  :D... we can like or dislike Boulez as an artist and as a thinker, but he undoubtedly is one of the crucial figures in music since WW II. I really can't see Alex Ross's claim to fame (if there is one) being remotely in the league of Boulez's... This is like comparing Eduard Hanslick to Richard Wagner... ;)

On the other issue, I really don't understand how someone with views  as strong as Boulez's could be expected to advance the music of the contemporaries whose work he didn't favour  ::)... those contemporaries could seek their own advocates (and there were plenty of advocates--some as famous as Boulez, if not more so). I don't know, this is as if someone had asked Stravinsky to conduct the prelude from Die Meistersinger in his appearances with the NYPO, or something like that,,, :D

Brian

Quote from: ritter on October 27, 2014, 10:19:30 AMI really can't see Alex Ross's claim to fame (if there is one)
If I may briefly interject, Alex Ross's claim to fame is that he writes about music with admirable clarity and explanatory power. Most people who write about music do so in a messy or confused way, or simply have no idea how to take the sounds and describe them in words. Ross is exceptionally good at this, one of the best describers of sound ever. He also speaks with passion about music he likes.

He would be a good GMGer.  8)

Cato

Quote from: karlhenning on October 27, 2014, 09:06:11 AM
There is no offense in this, to be sure;  but the idea of there being one right direction is so . . . quaint.

I am reminded of Rachmaninov, only 2 years older than Schoenberg, being ignored and even mocked in his later years as a fossil for not having gone the right way, i.e. away from tonality!

I have not read everything here today, but WOW!  8)  Some great stuff!

Boulez seemingly became more open-minded in his later years, e.g. his Mahler cycle on DGG, and the Szymanowski recordings.  Would he have ever considered conducting these composers back in the 1950's?  :o :o :o  To be sure, he conducted early Schoenberg (e.g. Gurrelieder) in the 1970's, 20 years after criticizing Schoenberg for not following "total serialism."

Perhaps that marked the beginning of his maturity?  0:)

"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

ritter

#644
Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2014, 10:24:51 AM
If I may briefly interject, Alex Ross's claim to fame is that he writes about music with admirable clarity and explanatory power. Most people who write about music do so in a messy or confused way, or simply have no idea how to take the sounds and describe them in words. Ross is exceptionally good at this, one of the best describers of sound ever. He also speaks with passion about music he likes.

He would be a good GMGer.  8)
Fair enough!  ;)  I've taken exception to many of the views expressed by Ross (surprise, surprise  :D ), but agree that he's done a formidable job in "explaining" modern music to a wider audience...

Cheers,

Cosi bel do

Quote from: ritter on October 27, 2014, 10:19:30 AMOn the other issue, I really don't understand how someone with views  as strong as Boulez's could be expected to advance the music of the contemporaries whose work he didn't favour  ::)... those contemporaries could seek their own advocates (and there were plenty of advocates--some as famous as Boulez, if not more so). I don't know, this is as if someone had asked Stravinsky to conduct the prelude from Die Meistersinger in his appearances with the NYPO, or something like that,,, :D

One could even say the same thing about Bernstein. After all, he never conducted Messiaen's Turangalila symphony (or any other Messiaen score) after creating it (on Stokowski's insistence)... Should we say Bernstein tried to destroy Messiaen's music ?

Quote from: Cato on October 27, 2014, 10:27:20 AM
Boulez seemingly became more open-minded in his later years, e.g. his Mahler cycle on DGG, and the Szymanowski recordings.  Would he have ever considered conducting these composers back in the 1950's?  :o :o :o  To be sure, he conducted early Schoenberg (e.g. Gurrelieder) in the 1970's, 20 years after criticizing Schoenberg for not following "total serialism."

Perhaps that marked the beginning of his maturity?  0:)

And still, he conducted and recorded some Haendel and Beethoven in the 1960s...
No man is all black or all white, even in his most radical postures. Even Furtwängler conducted some Mahler and Böhm some Schoenberg...

EigenUser

Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2014, 08:00:26 AM
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.
Bitter contempt? For the 7th symphony, yes, but not for Shostakovich as a whole. I don't take that as a malicious thing at all and it certainly wasn't Bartok's character to do so in such a way. Aside from the 7th, Bartok thought highly of Shostakovich.
Beethoven's Op. 133 -- A fugue so bad that even Beethoven himself called it "Grosse".

Karl Henning

Quote from: ritter on October 27, 2014, 10:19:30 AM
On the other issue, I really don't understand how someone with views  as strong as Boulez's could be expected to advance the music of the contemporaries whose work he didn't favour  ::)... those contemporaries could seek their own advocates (and there were plenty of advocates--some as famous as Boulez, if not more so). I don't know, this is as if someone had asked Stravinsky to conduct the prelude from Die Meistersinger in his appearances with the NYPO, or something like that,,, :D

The difference there is that Stravinsky was an occasional guest, and the understanding is that he conducts his own work.  Where Boulez was appointed the music director of a major US orchestra;  that's not really the place where it is suitable for a European composer to make the band his private fiefdom.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Karl Henning

Quote from: Cosi bel do on October 27, 2014, 11:09:36 AM
One could even say the same thing about Bernstein. After all, he never conducted Messiaen's Turangalila symphony (or any other Messiaen score) after creating it (on Stokowski's insistence)... Should we say Bernstein tried to destroy Messiaen's music ?

Was Messiaen a New Yorker, and Bernstein refused to direct the NY Phil in the work?
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

CRCulver

Quote from: Cato on October 27, 2014, 10:27:20 AM
Boulez seemingly became more open-minded in his later years, e.g. his Mahler cycle on DGG, and the Szymanowski recordings.  Would he have ever considered conducting these composers back in the 1950's?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Boulez was conducting Mahler as early as the 1960s. It was his adoption of Bruckner and, a decade later, Janacek that really showed that the man had mellowed.

Cosi bel do

Quote from: karlhenning on October 27, 2014, 11:25:40 AM
Was Messiaen a New Yorker, and Bernstein refused to direct the NY Phil in the work?

I'm not sure that's really relevant. Is the NYP supposed to perform mainly music composed by New Yorkers ? In this case it would have been a good idea not to hire a non-NY (and even non-American !) conductor in the first place...
And anyway, what compositions are we talking about ? I mean, surely, all these numerous composers who were "banned" from NY by Boulez must have composed masterpieces that have since been recognized as such ?

Karl Henning

Quote from: Cosi bel do on October 27, 2014, 11:40:31 AM
I'm not sure that's really relevant. Is the NYP supposed to perform mainly music composed by New Yorkers?

I'm not sure your counter-question is relevant.

Quote from: Cosi bel do on October 27, 2014, 11:40:31 AM
I mean, surely, all these numerous composers who were "banned" from NY by Boulez must have composed masterpieces that have since been recognized as such ?

First, I am not using the term "banned."  Just saying that I have read your question, and that although I answer I disagree with part of your premise  ;)

Yes, a number of composers in the New York area, for whose work Boulez had no time, are highly regarded in the music world.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

ritter

Quote from: CRCulver on October 27, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Boulez was conducting Mahler as early as the 1960s. It was his adoption of Bruckner and, a decade later, Janacek that really showed that the man had mellowed.
In an interview he once stated that his first contact with Mahler was a visit of Bruno Walter to Paris in the early or mid-50s. He heard Das Lied von der Erde and recalled thinking (about the beginning of Der Abschied): "do-re-do-si-do, he's done it twice, he won't do it a third time, will he?" and then added "my reaction was so stupid"  :D. Later Hans Rosbaud introduced him to the Ninth symphony in Baden-Baden, and his perception of Mahler started to change. I don't know when he started conducting Mahler, but by the early 70s he was doing so regularly with the BBC SO (and at the Proms). The Bruckner thing was more a one-off, I think (has he ever conducted anything beside the Eighth and the Ninth and, if so, how often?). Janacek clearly was a late  discovery (and a selective one at that, I might add)...

Cosi bel do

And conducting Bruckner was, for him, a kind of tribute to Klemperer, as I recall from what I've read him say about it.

ritter

#654
Quote from: karlhenning on October 27, 2014, 11:20:37 AM
The difference there is that Stravinsky was an occasional guest, and the understanding is that he conducts his own work.  Where Boulez was appointed the music director of a major US orchestra;  that's not really the place where it is suitable for a European composer to make the band his private fiefdom.
Well, then let's say its like expecting Toscanini to have programmed Mahler regularly at the NBC  ;) .

I really don't see why Boulez is considered to have turned the NYPO into his private fiefdom....he surely didn't conduct what he didn't like (well, I know there was Brahms once at least--some people will be able to say: " I saw Boulez do Brahms, and I lived to tell it"  ;D ), but that is natural in any M.D., and it may be interesting to see the orchestra's programming during those years. I'm sure Tchaikovsky, and Copland, and...you name it, were presented by guest conductors...

Ken B

Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2014, 08:55:29 AM
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.
Indeed. But with Boulez the stance persisted, while the tactics changed. Whenever he could he tried to suppress other people's music if it did not fit his ideology.

Ken B

Quote from: ritter on October 27, 2014, 08:46:13 AM
Exactly...it would appear that Boulez had intended (and, moreover, achieved  :o ) 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"  :D ) 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... 8)

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"  :D Birds of a feather, I guess...  ;)
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  ::)

The claims keep shifting.
He never did that.
He was young when he did that.
After he was young he was being intellectual when he did that.
When he wasn't being an intellectual but a music director he was entitled to do that when he did that.
Hey, his music is great so it doesn't matter he did that.

Bottom line: he did that. A lot. For a long time. I don't ask anyone else give him the finger, but this is why I do.

Brian

Quote from: Ken B on October 27, 2014, 01:34:07 PM
Indeed. But with Boulez the stance persisted, while the tactics changed. Whenever he could he tried to suppress other people's music if it did not fit his ideology.
Okay so give some examples of trying to suppress other people's music. I'm not a hardcore Boulezian; I've learned a lot in this conversation. So, I really want to know the examples, just out of curiosity.

Ken B

Quote from: Cato on October 27, 2014, 10:27:20 AM
I am reminded of Rachmaninov, only 2 years older than Schoenberg, being ignored and even mocked in his later years as a fossil for not having gone the right way, i.e. away from tonality!

I have not read everything here today, but WOW!  8)  Some great stuff!

Boulez seemingly became more open-minded in his later years, e.g. his Mahler cycle on DGG, and the Szymanowski recordings.  Would he have ever considered conducting these composers back in the 1950's?  :o :o :o  To be sure, he conducted early Schoenberg (e.g. Gurrelieder) in the 1970's, 20 years after criticizing Schoenberg for not following "total serialism."

Perhaps that marked the beginning of his maturity?  0:)
Perhaps it marked the beginning of his market savvy. He has become very rich.
But there's a logic here. If he became more open minded when he was older, then he was less open-minded
When he was younger, no?

ritter

#659
Quote from: Ken B on October 27, 2014, 01:34:07 PM
Indeed. But with Boulez the stance persisted, while the tactics changed. Whenever he could he tried to suppress other people's music if it did not fit his ideology.
Repeating this notion that he tried to "surpress" any music, does not make it true, Ken...Of course, Boulez expressed his (often negative) opinions on many composers in no uncertain terms, and refused to conduct what he thought was  not worthwhile...but I'm sure he didn't give a hoot if the Orchestre National de France, for instance, was playing Dutilleux or Tchaikovsky in the Salle Pleyel on any given night...

And the awe he inspired in most of his colleagues (e.g. John Adam's referring to him as "a master with a very small hammer"  ;D --the things one has to read sometimes  ::) ) is certainly a sign that they could not be indiffrent to his thought... I repeat: that he said many things that one or the other of us didn't want to hear or didn't like hearing, doesn't mean he did not have the right (and, I'd say, the duty, as an artist and theorist of his caliber) to say them...