Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

[ritter]

OK, off-topic over. Back to Pierre. 

OK, slightly more on-topic, and to come back full circle, so to speak, what oddly enough has been reissued on CD (albeit in an obscure, difficult to find label), is Craft's recording of Le Marteau sans maître  :

[Karl Henning]

I hope I may give that a listen at some point.

[petrarch]

Those remarks, though sharp as they are have a good dose of mythology. The "USELESS" sound bite is a typical example. Deeper reading into the mindset and motivation of the composer would show that his approach is one that concerns itself with the historicism and the philosophy of history he adopted from Souvtchinsky and Adorno--mostly reflecting that there is a dialectical relationship between history and the individual, in which history challenges the individual and the individual is charged with facing that challenge and overcoming it. Boulez's articles from the late 40s onwards often express the duality between evolution and revolution in the way music progresses, and his views are much more towards the idea of evolution rather than revolution, even if that evolution is punctuated with periods of instability and discontinuity.

It is in this context that he saw serialism as a historic necessity, since it responded to the conflicts within both twelve-tone and neo-classical composition. It is worth noting that "serialism" here is understood much more broadly than the more narrow categories of "integral serialism" or "strict twelve-tone row serialism", which in reality had a very brief lifespan--the composers toyed with the idea and soon rejected it once they realized it was far too restrictive and inexpressive. The "USELESS" epithet is effectively about those who refused to acknowledge that serialism was a natural historical outcome in this concept of continuous evolution, whom he accused of holding an anti-historical position since they preferred to think of serialism as random dabbling with formulas and processes. The contributions of those composers to the dialectical and historically-conscious advancement of music were, in that sense, useless.

The notion that Boulez held theory up at all costs is misguided. His "process" is more of a rigorous method whereby every result, every note, rhythm and dynamic value, every figure is questioned by the composer at the moment of writing (hence the concept of écriture, which he and others expanded upon) and the artistic, expressive and intentional value of every sign is thoroughly considered as it is laid down. The act of writing becomes an integral part of the act of composing--the composer is certainly not copying or following what a mechanistic, formulaic or automatic process is telling him to do. This painstaking artisanal activity explains the low output of the composer; the unwavering dialectical approach explains why his works are revised numerous times, and casts away any doubts about his confidence--all his works, at all stages of "completion" are valid representations of the vision of the work of art he intended to create. They are simply different iterations, different perspectives over the same object, which might have the characteristic of being inherently in flux. Boulez's take on the concept of the open work and the aspects he experimented with in e.g. Pli selon pli, Rituel and the Third Sonata provides additional insight into this facet of his ideas and philosophy.

[kishnevi]

Perhaps that "painstaking artisanal activity" is in fact holding theory up at all costs?

[NorthNYMark]

Many thanks, Petrarch, for this remarkably insightful post. Whatever one thinks of Boulez or his music, this helps better to understand his outlook and motivations.

[Ken B]

Many thanks, Petrarch, for this remarkably insightful post. Whatever one thinks of Boulez or his music, this helps better to understand his outlook and motivations.

Precis: dogmatic narrow-minded asshole.

[ritter]

Many thanks, Petrarch, for this remarkably insightful post. Whatever one thinks of Boulez or his music, this helps better to understand his outlook and motivations.

+1 ... great post indeed, that sheds much light on the thought of an undisputably gigantic figure of music 

[Karl Henning]

Those remarks, though sharp as they are have a good dose of mythology. The "USELESS" sound bite is a typical example. Deeper reading into the mindset and motivation of the composer would show that his approach is one that concerns itself with the historicism and the philosophy of history he adopted from Souvtchinsky and Adorno--mostly reflecting that there is a dialectical relationship between history and the individual, in which history challenges the individual and the individual is charged with facing that challenge and overcoming it. Boulez's articles from the late 40s onwards often express the duality between evolution and revolution in the way music progresses, and his views are much more towards the idea of evolution rather than revolution, even if that evolution is punctuated with periods of instability and discontinuity.

It is in this context that he saw serialism as a historic necessity, since it responded to the conflicts within both twelve-tone and neo-classical composition. It is worth noting that "serialism" here is understood much more broadly than the more narrow categories of "integral serialism" or "strict twelve-tone row serialism", which in reality had a very brief lifespan--the composers toyed with the idea and soon rejected it once they realized it was far too restrictive and inexpressive. The "USELESS" epithet is effectively about those who refused to acknowledge that serialism was a natural historical outcome in this concept of continuous evolution, whom he accused of holding an anti-historical position since they preferred to think of serialism as random dabbling with formulas and processes. The contributions of those composers to the dialectical and historically-conscious advancement of music were, in that sense, useless.

The notion that Boulez held theory up at all costs is misguided. His "process" is more of a rigorous method whereby every result, every note, rhythm and dynamic value, every figure is questioned by the composer at the moment of writing (hence the concept of écriture, which he and others expanded upon) and the artistic, expressive and intentional value of every sign is thoroughly considered as it is laid down. The act of writing becomes an integral part of the act of composing--the composer is certainly not copying or following what a mechanistic, formulaic or automatic process is telling him to do. This painstaking artisanal activity explains the low output of the composer; the unwavering dialectical approach explains why his works are revised numerous times, and casts away any doubts about his confidence--all his works, at all stages of "completion" are valid representations of the vision of the work of art he intended to create. They are simply different iterations, different perspectives over the same object, which might have the characteristic of being inherently in flux. Boulez's take on the concept of the open work and the aspects he experimented with in e.g. Pli selon pli, Rituel and the Third Sonata provides additional insight into this facet of his ideas and philosophy.

Your entire post well taken.  The Respectful Opposition points out that, where there may be error, it is a matter of exaggeration, not of being outright mistaken 

[petrarch]

Perhaps that "painstaking artisanal activity" is in fact holding theory up at all costs?

Which theory would that be?

[petrarch]

There, let me fix that for you:

Precis: dogmatic narrow-minded asshole. ^{[Citation needed]}

Gladly, we can all take your point and see that what you have to say on the subject of music is much broader than your pithy dislikes of Boulez--and not confuse your entire view of music with a bunch of narrow-minded allegations and attempts to suppress Boulez's music (Boulez delenda est, as you proclaimed for a while in your avatar).

[petrarch]

where there may be error, it is a matter of exaggeration, not of being outright mistaken 

Absolutely.

To really appreciate the mellowing out of the maître one only has to see him in action in his masterclasses in conducting, in the Boulez XXe siècle documentaries, or go through the reports of positive, warm interactions a variety of people in the milieu had with him. This of course doesn't mean he wasn't acidic and controversial, which is undeniable, but it differentiates between person and persona.

And I wonder if the "certain gentleman in Paris" would indeed be Boulez, since he moved to Baden Baden in the late 50s.

[petrarch]

I just noticed: Where I mention Rituel in my post I really meant to mention Éclat. The latter is a much better example of tackling the aesthetics of the open form.

[Ken B]

There, let me fix that for you:

Gladly, we can all take your point and see that what you have to say on the subject of music is much broader than your pithy dislikes of Boulez--and not confuse your entire view of music with a bunch of narrow-minded allegations and attempts to suppress Boulez's music (Boulez delenda est, as you proclaimed for a while in your avatar).

Citations? When I said Boulez and crew expressed contempt for audiences you asked for one. I supplied one, and you said you already had it. So I am assuming you know the relevant facts.

Ideology does not justify bad behavior.

[Ken B]

Absolutely.

To really appreciate the mellowing out of the maître one only has to see him in action in his masterclasses in conducting, in the Boulez XXe siècle documentaries, or go through the reports of positive, warm interactions a variety of people in the milieu had with him. This of course doesn't mean he wasn't acidic and controversial, which is undeniable, but it differentiates between person and persona.

And I wonder if the "certain gentleman in Paris" would indeed be Boulez, since he moved to Baden Baden in the late 50s.

If he mellowed out then logically there was a period when he wasn't mellow.
Person and persona? I should overlook George Wallace's 'persona' as governor because it was insincere politicking, he really wasn't that bigoted?

I am talking about actions.

[ritter]

... He is a great musician.

Well, perhaps not as great as Henri Sauguet, don't you think? 

[kishnevi]

Which theory would that be?

The theory you describe in some detail in the rest of that last paragraph.

[kishnevi]

He isn't describing "a theory" .. more Boulez's ongoing creative process, and his extremely self-critical nature.

It is both process and theory, which is why it is fair to say he upholds theory at all costs.

[petrarch]

The theory you describe in some detail in the rest of that last paragraph.

No, what I describe is a method.

[petrarch]

Citations? When I said Boulez and crew expressed contempt for audiences you asked for one. I supplied one, and you said you already had it. So I am assuming you know the relevant facts.

Ideology does not justify bad behavior.

Ah contempt, that ultimate sin. Pillory him!

If there truly was generalized contempt for audiences he wouldn't have been so keen to bring contemporary music to the public through the Petit Marigny and the Domaine Musical.

But I suspect you are basing your criticism on some sarcastic comment about intolerant audiences... Webern did it, Varèse did it, Stravinsky did it. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be riotous premieres.

[Ken B]

No, what I describe is a method.

Method. So in other words when Jeffrey calls it a process and a theory, he's right.