Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

[Cosi bel do]

You're not, CRCulver. Most people here are reasonable and admire Boulez for his wonderful achievements, even if some do not like his music, and/or his conducting or at least some of his recordings. This is not the point. There are 2 or 3 crazy conspirationists who think their opinion has some value. What they're saying is, as I already said, unappropriate, insulting and quite ridiculous. But who is really going to argue endlessly with them ?

[Ken B]

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.

I did not compare Boulez to Wallace. I compared the excuse-making for Boulez to the excuse-making for Wallace.

[kishnevi]

Wallace himself did eventually say segregation was wrong and apologized for his acts.
Zhdanov helped destroy lives and families. The worst you can say about Boulez does not come close to that (well, except for taking parking spaces) and therefore the excuses, so called, are not comparable.

He may have stifled some careers, but that is speculative, and he helped impose an arid orthodoxy that led music into an intellectual dead end and killed off popular interest in "classical" music, but he was far from alone in that.

And like all other composers his personal flaws have nothing to do with the musical value of his compositions. 

[Mirror Image]

I have no quarrel or disdain for anyone who admires or enjoys Boulez's music. I think the ongoing conversation from the opposing side, which seems like nothing more than opportunist gut-busting, really need to pack it up and move it out. This thread shouldn't be a place where people trash a composer, but rather point out the good things he/she have done throughout their career. Make no mistake about it, Boulez is a master musician and the fact that he's still raising eyebrows, including blood pressure, speaks volumes of the kind of influence he as had on the current state of classical music.

[CRCulver]

He may have stifled some careers, but that is speculative, and he helped impose an arid orthodoxy that led music into an intellectual dead end and killed off popular interest in "classical" music, but he was far from alone in that.

Considering that even during Boulez's heyday, the vast majority of new music being written was tonal, and Boulez's avant-garde was a fairly small niche that most classical audiences never got a chance to hear, blaming him for the decline of popular interest in classical music is very off the mark. There were cultural and market forces at work much, much vaster than the impact of a Darmstadt ideologue.

[kishnevi]

Considering that even during Boulez's heyday, the vast majority of new music being written was tonal, and Boulez's avant-garde was a fairly small niche that most classical audiences never got a chance to hear, blaming him for the decline of popular interest in classical music is very off the mark. There were cultural and market forces at work much, much vaster than the impact of a Darmstadt ideologue.

Indeed?
Thinking back to my younger days (the 70s and 80s) I can not remember hearing about or hearing a single piece of new music which which was not avant garde, except for film scores.  Admittedly that was after Boulez's enfant terrible days...not sure what you consider his heydey....

[Ken B]

Wallace himself did eventually say segregation was wrong and apologized for his acts.
Zhdanov helped destroy lives and families. The worst you can say about Boulez does not come close to that (well, except for taking parking spaces) and therefore the excuses, so called, are not comparable.

He may have stifled some careers, but that is speculative, and he helped impose an arid orthodoxy that led music into an intellectual dead end and killed off popular interest in "classical" music, but he was far from alone in that.

And like all other composers his personal flaws have nothing to do with the musical value of his compositions.

It's a reductio Jeffrey. The argument was advanced that Boulez should not be blamed as a person for actions taken as part of a persona. That is a bad argument. An easy way to see this is to apply it in another case. It fails for Wallace, doesn't it? That is my point.  It fails.

[CRCulver]

Indeed?
Thinking back to my younger days (the 70s and 80s) I can not remember hearing about or hearing a single piece of new music which which was not avant garde, except for film scores.  Admittedly that was after Boulez's enfant terrible days...not sure what you consider his heydey....

Yes, indeed. High modernism had a very limited impact in northern Europe, with a handful of composers exploring e.g. 12-tone music, but everyone else was writing the post-Sibelius Romanticism or Neo-Classicism that is still strongly associated with the region. Nonetheless, the majority of listeners lost interest in new music and is content with the old standard repertoire.

When it comes to the United States, Naxos's American Classics series can acquaint you with a large number of tonal composers who rejected the avant-garde. These are the composers that provincial America gets to hear, since it would be rare for an avant-garde work to be played outside of metropolitan orchestras. But in spite of pursuing maximum accessibility and memorable "tunes", they failed to interest most classical listeners.

In the former Soviet Union, whose contribution to 20th-century classical music tends to be overlooked, the avant-garde was a small crowd facing harrassment from authorities, and most composers were writing in a populist vein. Nonetheless, most classical listeners lost interest in new music and are content with the old standard repertoire.

In England, you had prominent figures like Britten rejecting the avant-garde, and many of Britain's modernists ended up going to the continent, so British audiences got a very limited chance to hear them. And yet, audiences lost interest in new music. Even Britten is a tough sell for many listeners.

Even when composers were keenly interesting in pleasing subscriber audiences, they simply haven't managed to draw a large following. Classical music had started moving to a museum culture in the first half of the 20th century, and radio broadcasting offered a steady diet of new pop music that made it seem like the vital force for new music in our time. By the time Boulez came along with some firebrand comments, all of the cultural shift was already well in place.

[kishnevi]

As far as the US goes, I think it was more a case of provincial America never getting a chance to hear them.  Or in fact, to know that they existed.
And I think 1)the love of the intellectual class for the avantgarde had far more influence on what audiences did get to hear than you give it credit for
And
2)if this particular topic is to be continued, it needs its own thread so Pierre can have his own thread back.

[NorthNYMark]

Indeed?
Thinking back to my younger days (the 70s and 80s) I can not remember hearing about or hearing a single piece of new music which which was not avant garde, except for film scores.  Admittedly that was after Boulez's enfant terrible days...not sure what you consider his heydey....

I had a very different  experience.  As a teenager in the '80s, I remember feeling somewhat inundated with Philip Glass and the like, but never once heard of composers like Carter, Wuorinen, etc. (which I certainly would have preferred).  To this day, I feel like Americans are far more likely to have heard minimalism and other "accessible" forms of composition than anything remotely avant-garde (in fact, if you were to ask them, I suspect that a lot of people think that Glass is the height of avant-garde), and they have still pretty much walked away from contemporary classical music.  Outside of bigger metropolises, avant-garde works are all but impossible to encounter. From what I can tell, they have almost nothing to do with the public's lack of interest in modern classical music.  Most younger (and even middle-aged) people, in my experience, at least, find classical music "boring" rather than too difficult.

What is amusing about this discussion is that it is the same in jazz--people blame the avant-garde of the late '60s for killing off popular interest in jazz, while few of the people who reject jazz have ever even heard that stuff, because audiences were already walking away in droves (and toward rock and r&B) well before the avant-garde really took off, to the extent that it ever even did.  Similarly, the problem with the waning popularity of classical has more to do with competing forms of music and entertainment than it does with people being frightened of the avant-garde.  It's not as if there is any dearth of opportunities to hook people with pops performances--they just don't really get hooked that way.

[Jo498]

Classical music is by now a niche, modern classical (since about 1900) a smaller one and avantgarde smaller still. But all three have a committed audience. I do not think there is anything but a few anecdotes to "prove" the fatal influence of the Darmstadt/Donaueschingen crowd to non-avantgarde 20th century music. Someone like Britten did very well, although he may have been ignored or even despised by the avantgarde.

It may be true that the part of the audience who goes to  a concert to hear a Bruckner symphony might be more estranged by pli selon pli than by a symphony of Malcolm Arnold. But it does not really care for the Arnold either, it wants Bruckner and Beethoven and Brahms.

[Cosi bel do]

Classical music is by now a niche, modern classical (since about 1900) a smaller one and avantgarde smaller still. But all three have a committed audience. I do not think there is anything but a few anecdotes to "prove" the fatal influence of the Darmstadt/Donaueschingen crowd to non-avantgarde 20th century music. Someone like Britten did very well, although he may have been ignored or even despised by the avantgarde.

It may be true that the part of the audience who goes to  a concert to hear a Bruckner symphony might be more estranged by pli selon pli than by a symphony of Malcolm Arnold. But it does not really care for the Arnold either, it wants Bruckner and Beethoven and Brahms.

I'd like to know when Classical music has NOT been a niche. I mean, it's not like if in previous centuries the average european peasant went to the opera every once in a while check the latest Lully or Mozart production. And it's not as if there was an alternative to that, at that time there was not much classical music on TV, or radio, or CD or whatever recorded media that did not exist.
The public for classical music has NEVER been as huge as now. Of course, depending on the economic context and other factors, the audience decreases in some countries, but it still globally increases to levels never known previously. And of course there are records, now available at the lowest prices ever.
Classical music might be a niche now, but it has never been so big a niche...

About "modern classical (since 1900)" I'd even disagree more. 20th century music is probably the best served on programs. Of course you hear a lot of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, but still, if you combine composers by century, 20th century is surely ahead. I mean even in the recent stats topic, you see that among the 10 most played composer, 5 are 20th century composers and represent more performances than 18th or 19th century ones.

[amw]

the love of the intellectual class for the avantgarde had far more influence on what audiences did get to hear than you give it credit for

yes the intelleKKKtual classes push $to¢khau$en to fulfill their NAZI ZIONIST lizardman agenda george rochberg knew the truth which is why the CIA assassinated him with fluoride in the drinking water!!!

NorthNYMark is a communist sympathizer planted by the illuminati to discredit the REAL AMERICAN philip glass whose achievements in toppling the khmer rouge were SUPPRESSED FROM MSM by the boulezbians and their secret leader lyndon b. johnson, check out my profile for TRUE youtube videos proving this

[anyway... I revisited Structures Ia-c after a long time of not being impressed with it and found that, while I'm still not super impressed, I do prefer it to quite a lot of Boulez's post-1970 work. the severe, stripped-down aesthetic definitely seems to appeal more than the later neo-Ravel stuff, though it's not quite as much my 'thing' as Ustvolskaya or late Xenakis]

[Jo498]

With "now" I did not mean to contrast the last 100 years with the 18th century. But I do think that classical music was more central to mainstream western culture between the late 19th century and the 1960s or so.

In any case my main point is the last one. I do not think that avantgarde music is bad for "moderate modern music". Hardly anyone will avoid Arnold because of Boulez' diatribes about "useless" composers not keeping up with the historical necessity of avantgarde composing and those who prefer Bruckner often do not care for neither Arnold's nor Boulez' music.

[Ken B]

yes the intelleKKKtual classes push $to¢khau$en to fulfill their NAZI ZIONIST lizardman agenda george rochberg knew the truth which is why the CIA assassinated him with fluoride in the drinking water!!!

NorthNYMark is a communist sympathizer planted by the illuminati to discredit the REAL AMERICAN philip glass whose achievements in toppling the khmer rouge were SUPPRESSED FROM MSM by the boulezbians and their secret leader lyndon b. johnson, check out my profile for TRUE youtube videos proving this

[anyway... I revisited Structures Ia-c after a long time of not being impressed with it and found that, while I'm still not super impressed, I do prefer it to quite a lot of Boulez's post-1970 work. the severe, stripped-down aesthetic definitely seems to appeal more than the later neo-Ravel stuff, though it's not quite as much my 'thing' as Ustvolskaya or late Xenakis]

Ok, then here's a simple scenario. For reasons we have discussed orchestras have limited space for new music. If there are, for whatever reason, subsidies (or prestige amongst a certain set) to be had for programming composer X and those like X over Y and those like Y, then X will be programmed. If X turns off audiences, the space for modern music will shrink, or fail to grow. The need for subsidies will lead to more X or more like X. Eventually the well will be poisoned, audiences will learn to avoid modern music.
So the decision about subsidies and pushing X has had an effect on Y.
It need not be subsidies, it could be prestige. It could be a combination.
The net result is the loss of interest in modern music because X has been pushed at the expense of Y.
That is pretty much what had happened by the 70s.

It did not need to. Orchestras in the 50 s played a lot of modern music to paying audiences.

[Ken B]

All forms of the fine arts enjoyed great prestige 100 years ago. This includes classical music. The decline in that prestige and influence seems undeniable to me, but it is not attributable to any one effect.

[amw]

Ok, then here's a simple scenario.

Which isn't particularly accurate:

- the audience for 'modern' music was not smaller in the 70s than it was in the 50s; in fact Henry Pleasants' famous polemic The Agony of Modern Music dates from the 50s and claims classical music has been 'dead' since the 20s
- the music 'pushed' by orchestras was not more avant-garde in the 70s than it was in the 50s
- the bulk of contemporary music performed by orchestras since the 1930s or so has always been neoromantic, neoclassical or impressionist
- prizes, awards, other big publicity things etc have tended to go to conservative composers (with occasional nods to 'firebrands' once they've settled down and become establishment), see for instance the history of the Pulitzer Prize for Music

you can also go back to the previous page and read: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5453.msg844426.html#msg844426, http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5453.msg844530.html#msg844530

[petrarch]

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

I describe how it works for Boulez. Extrapolating from there and applying it to everyone, or assuming it is a description of how it should be was certainly not my intention--how could it be, if some of the other composers very dear to me compose with wildly different methods?

The "something always evolving" would be, at most, my theory about Boulez's method, but I fail to see how the word can be applied. Would you say dialectics is a theory?

[kishnevi]

I describe how it works for Boulez. Extrapolating from there and applying it to everyone, or assuming it is a description of how it should be was certainly not my intention--how could it be, if some of the other composers very dear to me compose with wildly different methods?

The "something always evolving" would be, at most, my theory about Boulez's method, but I fail to see how the word can be applied. Would you say dialectics is a theory?

Thanks for clarifying.  I misunderstood you, and thought you were describing Boulez's ideas of how composition occurs for all composers.

[ritter]

Thanks for posting that, James  ...it's quite a loving roundup of the (partial) recorded legacy of this great musician. It is a wonderful set....