Pierre Boulez (1925-2016)

[James]

Gee, wonder why there are so few female participants at GMG?

Most women just don't waste their time doing this dorky shit. Guys do. Sorry karl, you looking?

[ritter]

Footage from Pierre Boulez's memorial service and burial in Baden-Baden last month:

https://www.youtube.com/v/kMFSdTaZXdU
https://www.youtube.com/v/S8G6QrewClQ

The music is the andante amoroso from Alban Berg's Lyric suite, performed by the strings of the Orchestra of the SWF Baden-Baden and Freiburg.

[Rons_talking]

Thanks for sharing.

I'd say he includes only the franco-german-austrian swath. It's only the Parisian Stravinsky...a good list nonetheless.

[Rons_talking]

As a conductor, he made some great recordings. But a good argument could be made that he led a group of musical bullies who were possibly (and this is my hypothesis only!)responsible for a lot of great pieces NOT being written by other composers who rode his postwar wave. To be honest, I haven't listened to him much since grad school when it was required.

[Uhor]

Responsible for heightening musical standards.

[CRCulver]

Footage from Pierre Boulez's memorial service and burial in Baden-Baden last month:

Funny to see Wolfgang Rihm there, because he and Boulez rarely crossed paths musically.

[Karl Henning]

Maybe not crossing paths with Boulez was the key to good relations 

[ritter]

Funny to see Wolfgang Rihm there, because he and Boulez rarely crossed paths musically.

Indeed, AFAIK Boulez seldom coducted any Rihm, and certainly did not record any of his music.

And yet, I recall reading a very laudatory essay on Boulez by Rihm in this book:


It was published in 2010 in honor of Boulez's 85th birthday, and includes contributions (apart from Rihm) by  Claudio Abbado, Daniel Barenboim, Patrice Chereau,  Philip Gossett, Clemens Hellsberg, Christina Muti, Olga Neuwirth and Maurizio Pollini, among others. More details on amazon.de

And of course, Rihm succeeded Boulez as artistic director of the Lucerne Festival Academy. He also composed a piece, Gruss-Moment, in homage to the Frenchman. More information in this article from The Guardian.

As an aside, both composers adimre(d) the work of Antonin Artaud (well, in the case of Rihm, that admiration appears almost obsessive--and has resulted in some very interesting pieces  ).

[not edward]

Funny to see Wolfgang Rihm there, because he and Boulez rarely crossed paths musically.

I'd disagree: I think a piece like Jagden und Formen, in the way it spirals toccata-like and slower material around in continuous variations on an initial idea, is very obviously indebted to later Boulez (eg: Repons).

On the other hand, you could argue that Rihm has crossed paths musically with almost everyone, given the variety of the musical tropes he's adopted over time.

[ritter]

I'd disagree: I think a piece like Jagden und Formen, in the way it spirals toccata-like and slower material around in continuous variations on an initial idea, is very obviously indebted to later Boulez (eg: Repons).
...

Jagden und Formen is a work I definitely msut explore!

Cheers,

[ritter]

A new book of interviews with Pierre Boulez by Michel Archimbaud has just been published by Gallimard in France:

[asin]2070418286[/asin]

Here's an article on the book form Le Nouvel Observateur:

[James]

The Revenge of Pierre Boulez, Destroyer of Music
by Roger Scruton (published May 3, 2016)



DE MORTUIS NIL NISI BONUM: Of the dead, nothing unless good. But you can take it too far, reinventing someone who was a power-hungry manipulator, by allowing no one to speak for him save his partisans, many of whom owe their careers to promoting him. As the French say, on a ras le bol with Pierre Boulez, whose death in January has called forth such a spate of idolatrous prose that the sceptics among us have begun to wonder whether French culture is not after all as dead as its critics say it is, if this minor composer and intellectual impresario can be lauded as its greatest recent product. Yet no one in the official channels of cultural appraisal has sown a seed of doubt.

Boulez has three achievements to his name. First, his compositions, presented to the world as next in line to the serialism of Webern, and the "place we have got to" in our musical evolution; secondly, his presence in French culture, diverting government subsidies away from anything that might seem to endorse ordinary musical taste towards the acoustic laboratory of the avant-garde; thirdly, his work as a conductor, for whom clarity and precision took precedence over sentiment. His dominating presence in French musical life is proof that, once the critics have been silenced, the self-appointed leader will be accepted at his own valuation. Condemning all competitors as "useless," and hinting at a revelation, a "system," that authorised his doings as the musical Zeitgeist, Boulez was able to subdue whatever timid protests might greet his relentless self-promotion. His disciples and acolytes have spoken abundantly of his charm, and it is clear that, once the period of initial belligerence was over, and his opponents had been despatched to the dust-heap of history, Boulez was a smiling and benevolent occupant of his self-made throne. But did he rule from that throne over fertile territory, or was this sovereignty an expensive illusion?

Read rest here: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/05/who-was-pierre-boulez.html

[nathanb]

Wow. That was disrespectful, ignorant, AND offensive. If they find that someone's defecated on Boulez's grave, I recommend Roger Scruton as a prime suspect.

[GioCar]

Nathan, Scruton will be poorer than us for ever, he will never undestand Boulez's greatness...
Tant pis pour lui.

[ritter]

Roger Scruton (and a number of other writers, like John Borstlap), in their quest to completely dismiss a trend in music that started well before Pierre Boulez appeared on the international scene, have turned the frechman into their bête noire, personalizing in him all that they think is  wrong with music as they see it. Of course Boulez was outspoken and brash at times, and probably the most brilliant polemicist for his cause, but he certainly was not alone at Darmstadt, Donaueschingen, the Domaine Musical (critics always fail to mention the fact that there were no state subsidies for the Domaine) or even at IRCAM. And as nathanb rightly points out, Mr. Scruton's article is ignorant: just look at what was being programmed by (for instance) the Orchestre de Paris, any other French orchestra, and the Opéra when Boulez allegedly held absolute power, to see that the music he disliked was in no way being surpressed.

And I must add that Mr. Scruton's thesis that Boulez produced "acoustical art" rather than "musical art" is plain stupid  , displaying IMHO a one-sided view of the art of music that is very poor. It's as if someone said that, for instance, Jackson Pollock's output was not painting, but "visual art"...

[jochanaan]

The Revenge of Pierre Boulez, Destroyer of Music
by Roger Scruton (published May 3, 2016)



DE MORTUIS NIL NISI BONUM: Of the dead, nothing unless good. But you can take it too far, reinventing someone who was a power-hungry manipulator, by allowing no one to speak for him save his partisans, many of whom owe their careers to promoting him. As the French say, on a ras le bol with Pierre Boulez, whose death in January has called forth such a spate of idolatrous prose that the sceptics among us have begun to wonder whether French culture is not after all as dead as its critics say it is, if this minor composer and intellectual impresario can be lauded as its greatest recent product. Yet no one in the official channels of cultural appraisal has sown a seed of doubt.

Boulez has three achievements to his name. First, his compositions, presented to the world as next in line to the serialism of Webern, and the "place we have got to" in our musical evolution; secondly, his presence in French culture, diverting government subsidies away from anything that might seem to endorse ordinary musical taste towards the acoustic laboratory of the avant-garde; thirdly, his work as a conductor, for whom clarity and precision took precedence over sentiment. His dominating presence in French musical life is proof that, once the critics have been silenced, the self-appointed leader will be accepted at his own valuation. Condemning all competitors as "useless," and hinting at a revelation, a "system," that authorised his doings as the musical Zeitgeist, Boulez was able to subdue whatever timid protests might greet his relentless self-promotion. His disciples and acolytes have spoken abundantly of his charm, and it is clear that, once the period of initial belligerence was over, and his opponents had been despatched to the dust-heap of history, Boulez was a smiling and benevolent occupant of his self-made throne. But did he rule from that throne over fertile territory, or was this sovereignty an expensive illusion?

Read rest here: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/05/who-was-pierre-boulez.html

Eesh!  Can't one admire M. Boulez without being his "partisan"?

[James]

I learn from the detractors too. It balances perspective and plants it closer to reality.

[André]

Boulez was a great musician. I did not see eye to eye with all his work as a conductor, but he was supremely competent. We always know his view is to be taken at face value. As a composer it will take years to reassess everything. Personally I don't like much of it, but that is pretty much the case with most modern music. My ears' development is somewhat fossilized but that is my problem, not that of modern music or any composer in particular. Dogmatism from either side kills openness and overture to culture in general.

[SimonNZ]

The Revenge of Pierre Boulez, Destroyer of Music
by Roger Scruton (published May 3, 2016)

Read rest here: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/05/who-was-pierre-boulez.html[/size]

The usual anti-Boulez rant. I wouldn't mind reading a critical evaluation, but why are these things always just floating quotes, anecdotes without sources, recieved wisdom treated as fact, willful misrepresentations and sweeping generalisations? They keep saying Boulez and his "disciples" suppressed or subverted the careers of other composers, but somehow are never are able to give cases and say who or how.

James: I see The Imaginative Conservative offer a link on the side to another of their articles called "Barack Obama's Defense Of Slavery".

[SimonNZ]

Roger Scruton is an established writer Simon, there is more to him than what you wrongfully (again) suggest .. and Boulez was an authority on music-making at the highest level .. a public figure who's comments did and could taint composers reputations.

As I said in my previous post I want specific examples and details, not these vague accepted rumors. Not just to show that he had strong loud opinions and squabbled with people - there's plenty of that to go around in the music world - but to show that he actually ruined people through the blackballing performed by himself and his clique. Got any examples?