Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

[Ken B]

Sibelius stopped composing after Tapiola and was silent for the last 30 years of his life and this doesn't seem to be an issue whenever we're listening to his music. I think the whole idea of Boulez not composing enough doesn't really make much sense as an argument, otherwise, we'd be arguing this fact about a lot of composers with smaller oeuvres. Has anyone ever seen Durufle's or Duparc's oeuvres?

I hope that if a genie ever grants Karl three wishes he won't waste one on "More Boulez."

[Mirror Image]

I hope that if a genie ever grants Karl three wishes he won't waste one on "More Boulez."

Yeah, I wouldn't bank on Boulez composing anything else not that I really care one way or the other as I've already expressed my dislike for his music.

[Karl Henning]

Yeah, I wouldn't bank on Boulez composing anything else not that I really care one way or the other as I've already expressed my dislike for his music.

Oh, Bunny's got something for nearly everyone, I think 

[Christo]

It's rather as Henri Dutilleux said about Boulez in 2005 to Stuart Jeffries (the Guardian): 'At the moment I have no problems with him. I even like the fact that he is no longer certain, but is a man riven by doubt, as we all should be.' http://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/apr/28/classicalmusicandopera1

[Karl Henning]

Aye. He was rather the poster child for The Terrible Certainty of Youth.

Which is one reason why A Certain Participant's posts are consistently amusing.

[San Antone]

Pierre Boulez and John Cage met around 1949, I think, and remained correspondents for a decade or more.  Their letters contain many gems concerning their thoughts about composing.  For example, in a letter I am thinking around 1955 or so, Boulez writes to Cage that he has been re-reading Descartes and thinks a similar approach is needed vis a vis music, i.e. assuming nothing, taking nothing from the past and building up a system of composition from scratch.

[Mirror Image]

When Boulez says something like this:

"It is not enough to deface the Mona Lisa because that does not kill the Mona Lisa. All art of the past must be destroyed." — Pierre Boulez, 1971, quoted in the Sunday New York Times

I'm only reminded why I don't care about his thoughts on music.

[San Antone]

When Boulez says something like this:

"It is not enough to deface the Mona Lisa because that does not kill the Mona Lisa. All art of the past must be destroyed." — Pierre Boulez, 1971, quoted in the Sunday New York Times

I'm only reminded why I don't care about his thoughts on music.

I can understand that attitude; I generally think that any information about the composer is unnecessary when appreciating the music - which should stand on its own and speak for itself.  However, Boulez was a very prolific writer and thinker about music composition, and much of what he wrote is very interesting and instructive.  After WWII there was a real sense among artists in general but specifically with the Darmstadt group of wishing to make a complete break with the cultural history of Europe which had culminated in the Holocaust. 

Boulez was merely expressing that need in many of his statements.

[Mirror Image]

After the war this was the attitude, "to re-build", etc. But anyone who knows Boulez & his music .. knows that he definitely was a result of what came before ("the traditional literature") .. his music is certainly informed & a synthesis/expansion of aspects of the revolutionary vocabulary he often analyzed and conducted in great detail .. plus the watershed offered by technology and his investment in that; and the world music/culture influences that increasingly pervaded the psyche's of many composers of his generation  .. as cross-pollination/globalization increased.

From the book Musings Of An Obsessed Fanboy by James.

[ritter]

I believe Boulez's thoughts and writings on music are extremely interesting, even if we may not agree with many of the things he has to say. More than that, I am convinced that a polemiciist of Boulez's calibre and intellectual stature was necessary when his figure erupted on the musical scene immediately after WW2. The danger of music returning to facile pre-war customs (embodied primarily in the neo-classical Stravinsky, but not only there) was real, and this could have led to this art form degenerating into something purely decorative and, in the end, culturally irrelevant. Boulez was obviously not alone in promoting this, but he has been the most eloquent (and the fiercest) advocate of this way of thinking.

And let us not fool ourselves: thanks to a large extent to Boulez's  promotion (even if this is not exclusively his making), much music that had very little circulation in the 40s and 50s is now considered essential to most music-lovers (like it or not, that's another issue) and is almost part of the mainstream. For instance, I cannot think of anyone who has made more for the cause of Anton Webern than Pierre Boulez.

Another criticism aimed at Boulez is even harder to understand. He seems to be held accountable for pointing out that there is music that matters and music that does not. Again, we might agree or not with what Boulez has to say, but he does have a point. I think I've mentioned this before, but I for instance much enjoy the music of Reynaldo Hahn (about whom Boulez has talked in dismissive terms), but I don't need much convincing as to the fact that Hahn's Piano concerto is nowhere near as important for the history of music as (or a product of comparable quality to) Webern's roughly contemporary  Concerto op. 24, or that Orff's De Temporum fine comoedia is irrelevant when set aside Berio's Sinfonía (both pieces also being roughly contemporary). But if we believe that "anything goes", or think along the lines that "I like this, therefore it is good", or consider that, for instance, Gounod is as relevant (or as good a composer) as Wagner, then of course we'll have little time to spare for Boulez's writings.

While on his proselytizing mission, Boulez the composer has managed to produce a small but extraordinarily rich  output. Criticizing Boulez for not having composed more verges on the bizarre. As Mirror Image rightly points out (and John has clearly said he dislikes Boulez's music), we can say the same about many other major figures in music. John mentions several names, and I would add one more: none other than Richard Wagner. I'd rather have  one Wagner (with his 10 mature operas) than many composers who wrote innumerable stage works (and who come a dime a dozen). I'd rather have the self-critical Boulez with Le Marteau, Pli selon Pli, the Second piano sonata and Répons, than many a composer out there whose opus 200 is as irrelevant as his opus 2.

And even more: while composing and writing, Pierre Boulez had a conducting career that was in perfect consonance with his musical thought. Thanks to him, we have had impressive performances (in the concert hall and on record) of perhaps not the widest of repertoires, but usually with the highest musical standards and with remarkable insights--I'm thinking of his Debussy, his Wagner, his Mahler. But Boulez the conductor didn't limit himself to this ilustrious international conducting career. He created  (from scratch, and for years with no state funding) the Domaine Musical, which presented so much great music in Paris when it was being ignored there (and elsewhere), and then secured state funding for IRCAM and the EIC, arguably the best showcases for modern music in the past 40 years. But he's criticized for focusing on what he thought was worthwhile. What do we expect, for him to focus on what he thinks is not wortwhile? Then let's accuse Furtwängler of not having conducted enough Shostakovich (if any), or ask ourselves why Abbado never did Puccini at La Scala or elsewhere.

The above, I'm glad to say, is not hero-worship, it's simply an acknowledgement of the immense contribution this man has made to the art of music over the past 70 years, which makes him a figure that stands out like few others in the history of the art form.

Note: this was posted while on holidays in the Scottish Highlands, on an IPad with Spanish auto-correct, so it'll be plagued with typos. I apologize for this, and will try to edit the text as soon as possible!

[Karl Henning]

Overall, a thoughtful and measured response, and a pleasure to read.

And let us not fool ourselves: thanks to a large extent to Boulez's  promotion (even if this is not exclusively his making), much music that had very little circulation in the 40s and 50s is now considered essential to most music lovers (like it or not, that's another issue) and is almost part of the mainstream. For instance, I cannot think of anyone who has made more for the cause of Anton Webern than Pierre Boulez.

I'm not sure it's a horse race, but your statement here seems to make absolutely light of Robert Craft.  Maybe Boulez has done more, maybe not.

[EigenUser]

John Cage and Morton Feldman, composers who Boulez tars with that same brush. 'I met them when I went to New York in 1952, and I found they were not eager to acquire knowledge. They were already gods, they thought, and God is never wrong. If you are "right", you never acquire anything. Acquire and destroy, acquire and destroy, then go further. That's what composers should do. I don't see this type of evolution in Feldman or Cage.'

Of course, it is entirely possible to be enthusiastic about both Feldman and Boulez...

[Karl Henning]

Of course, it is entirely possible to be enthusiastic about both Feldman and Boulez...

Yes, and regardless of any of the latter's "pronouncements"    "They were not eager to acquire knowledge";  what a pompous twit!

[Karl Henning]

James, do Boulez a big favor on this thread:  don't cite anything he's said 

[North Star]

James, do Boulez a big favor on this thread:  don't cite anything he's said 

Well, apart from that one thing he said about the things he had said. 

[NJ Joe]

This arrived in the mail today, woo hoo!  Ripping to iTunes now.

[Karl Henning]

Well, apart from that one thing he said about the things he had said. 

Ya, I sounded real dumb in those days . . . .

[Mirror Image]

but I do agree with what Boulez is saying.

Of course you do. You'd agree with Boulez if he said you were capable of flying.

[Karl Henning]

Of course you do. You'd agree with Boulez if he said you were capable of flying.

Some things we can always count on

[Mirror Image]

Some things we can always count on

You are correct, sir!