Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

[petrarch]

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

Nothing like self-imposed blinders to make an argument. Grab a dictionary.

[Ken B]

Nothing like self-imposed blinders to make an argument. Grab a dictionary.

I have noticed that while Jeffrey and I talk about Boulez, you talk about ... me.

[Ken B]

Jeffrey knows shit about Boulez & his music (obviously). You fall into that camp also.

And another who can summon nothing better than name-calling.

Here's a tip. If we are debating topic X and your "points" are about me, you've lost.

[petrarch]

And another who can summon nothing better than name-calling.

Here's a tip. If we are debating topic X and your "points" are about me, you've lost.

(* chortle *) (sorry Karl! )

My, we are self-centered aren't we?

[Ken B]

(* chortle *) (sorry Karl! )

My, we are self-centered aren't we?

I guess so. When someone addresses me directly, as both you and James did, I assume they are talking to me. I've struggled with that all my life.

[petrarch]

I guess so. When someone addresses me directly, as both you and James did, I assume they are talking to me. I've struggled with that all my life.

Must be a new practice in rhetoric and debate: If you address your interlocutor, you are talking about him; if you talk about him you lost the debate; ergo, you must not ever address your interlocutor otherwise the debate is "lost". I'll keep that in mind, thanks for the insight.

[EigenUser]

From a distance far from bullet range, I will make a completely benign comment (while listening to Le Marteau..., I might add): Like him or not, the idea that Boulez (or anyone) can create such controversy even here on GMG surely must say much about his legacy.

[ritter]

From a distance far from bullet range, I will make a completely benign comment (while listening to Le Marteau..., I might add): Like him or not, the idea that Boulez (or anyone) can create such controversy even here on GMG surely must say much about his legacy.

Indeed, EigenUser! A gigantic figure in the history of music...

Boulez Le Marteau sans Maitre.

I enjoy it so far, but not as much as some of his other work I've heard. I still need to hear Pli Selon Pli.
[asin]B0006OS5YI[/asin]

This work grows on you...it offers IMHO a unique sound world, one that in its complexity is full of poetry and sensuousness...no one who has listened to the final movement, "Bel édifice et les pressentiments", double ,  can say there's no lyricism in Boulez...the way the music disintegrates, with the humming lines of the mezzo, the flute and the percussion...simply spellbinding! And in live concert, the effect is even stronger...

[North Star]

Nothing like self-imposed blinders to make an argument. Grab a dictionary.

Catch one!

Method, noun
a. More generally: a way of doing anything, esp. according to a defined and regular plan; a mode of procedure in any activity, business, etc.

That reads pretty close to applying a theory methodically, as a process.

[petrarch]

Catch one!

That reads pretty close to applying a theory methodically, as a process.

Indeed, hence my question, which theory? The point was that there is no one particular theory, but something always evolving, as it suits the aesthetic needs and vision. The idea that Boulez follows the "one true theory to rule them all" is a misconception.

[Karl Henning]

Le marteau is great;  no one can take that away from him 

[Ken B]

From a distance far from bullet range, I will make a completely benign comment (while listening to Le Marteau..., I might add): Like him or not, the idea that Boulez (or anyone) can create such controversy even here on GMG surely must say much about his legacy.

Indeed. Nor you can you write the history of Soviet music and ignore Zhdanov. A titan for sure.

[kishnevi]

No, what I describe is a method.

Perhaps I am led astray by the impersonal tone you used:  you kept referring to "the composer" and not to "Boulez".  But as written you describe both Boulez's personal process but also a general theory of how musical composition works.
[I am referring to the last paragraph of reply 884.   Cut and paste is near impossible on this tablet, which is why I am not directly quoting you.]
But:

Indeed, hence my question, which theory? The point was that there is no one particular theory, but something always evolving, as it suits the aesthetic needs and vision. The idea that Boulez follows the "one true theory to rule them all" is a misconception.

The idea that "something is always evolving, etc." is itself a theory.

[ritter]

This thread is proving very enlightening...

We have learned that, apart from being a horrible person, Boulez is dogmatic and narrow-minded because he applies a method of composing to his own work that involves extreme laboriousness and self-criticism. But no, that is upholding theory at all costs...

Furthermore, his stature is similar to that of Zhdanov, who I didn't know had made achievements akin to composing Le Marteau sans maître or conducting the Ring in Bayreuth.

And the last word on Boulez are the comments of an embittered second-rate and half-forgotten composer (who is being quoted without apparently having heard much--if any--of his music)...

Wow, I've really reassessed my opinion on Boulez after reading all this irrefutable evidence...

Regards,

[amw]

Hey, Zhdanov wasn't that bad. He just wanted to get Soviet composers to write nice, tuneful music that people could enjoy, instead of all that gloomy overdone stuff like the Shostakovich 4th. Whereas Boulez tried to force everyone to listen to awful music that no one could ever like (except a tiny group of pseudo-intellectual poseurs who don't actually enjoy the music but think it makes them appear more sophisticated) and to destroy all the composers who wrote music that people actually wanted to listen to. All in pursuit of his own personal fame, because of his own inability to write proper music, he decided no one else should be able to either! My toddler could write better 'compositions' than Le marteau sans maître, but thanks to Boulez keeping the real composers down for a century and more, all the new music audiences go "Wow! Such innovative! Much complex! Very technique!"; either because they're brainwashed fools, or because they know that if they admit it's all rubbish and they'd rather hear some Ludovico Einaudi, Boulez will ensure they are fired from their jobs, become a laughingstock in their social circles, are abandoned by their lovers usw. Meanwhile take the case of my old professor at Slippery Rock University, Bob Williams, none of whose 174 symphonies have received more than a single performance in spite of any one of them containing more musical substance than all the combined œuvre of Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, and the guy who wrote the 'Exorcist' soundtrack. And let's not even talk about Boulez's connections with the CIA. They're hardly comparable, Zhdanov just destroyed a few careers, Boulez is trying to destroy musical taste itself. The very concept of music is under attack, even worse than the war on Christmas, and with the tacit approval of world governments. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

[ritter]

I keep reassessing (after this additional irrefutable evidence)  ...

[amw]

Boulez also took my parking spot. It was clearly marked with my name on it. I don't know if it was really Boulez but the car had IRCAM licence plates and a handicapped sign even though Boulez is clearly not handicapped. What a prick.

[ritter]

Boulez also took my parking spot. It was clearly marked with my name on it. I don't know if it was really Boulez but the car had IRCAM licence plates and a handicapped sign even though Boulez is clearly not handicapped. What a prick.

Your forgetting the role he played in the collapse of Lehman Brothers..I read somewhere that was all his doing...

Any good recordings of Bob Williams' symphonies you can recommend, amw?   

[Abuelo Igor]

Boulez is an incredible musician with a secure place in history, but you must admit that he cuts a terrific villain figure, even if, much as it happens with Spielberg among film aficionados, he is frequently made into a scapegoat for everything some people don't like about the current state of the art and that is, with some reason or without it, attributed to his supposedly all-powerful influence. I am clearly fascinated by the complexity of his character: he has done a lot of good for music as conductor and composer, but I cannot summon much sympathy for him in his public, political persona. I guess I'm with Karl there: music in general wouldn't be the same without him, more for better than for worse, but I find him less than unimpeachable in some respects.

I cannot help but see him as an embodiment of the intolerant and sectarian mindset that has been plaguing the new music scene for the last 50 years of so, and as a ruthless careerist that, much as Truffaut did in the cinema, has reaped the benefits of his image as an intellectually fierce enfant terrible to get rid of the competition and become a respected figure of the establishment. But, reviewing his accomplishments, you get the frequent impression that it was worth it and that he probably had more talent and better ideas than much of the competition. And, anyway, for a "Composer discussion" thread, all the hate shown here has precious little to do with his composing. He clearly has that "man I love to hate" appeal.

[CRCulver]

Am I the only one appalled by Ken B's comparison of Boulez to George Wallace (an openly racist figure and supporter of racial segregation) and Zhdanov (who represented a state that persecuted musicians). Boulez might have been rude, and he may have had some influence on which composers could get state support in Paris, but he never did anything to stop other kinds of music from being written. There was no state crackdown on composers exploring Neo-classical or Neo-Romantic music, and both of those styles continued to be performed across France.