Boulez

[Guest]

Other people on this forum are better equipped to talk abut P.B. than I am, but I thought I'd say a few things about him.

Boulez is - or was once - a polarising figure in music: his interpretations were noted/notorious for their supposed 'objectivity' and he was shrewd enough to cultivate an audience of avant gardeists/hippies and play up to his target audience with trendy talk about burning down opera houses.

His forays into Wagner in particular tend to incense 'traditional Wagnerians' (I once opened an old vinyl copy of his Parsifal recording in Harold Moores to see that the previous owner had crossed out Boulez' name on the libretto and replaced it with 'Frog ****'. Maybe the previous owner was none other than Dr. Michael Tanner, who has berated Boulez, in more elegant language, for his insistence on 'extreme transparency of texture.')

For all this, I can't find much in Boulez' work to enrage me, or to excite me much, either. I've been listening to his recording of Mahler 6 this week - all very fine, but i doubt if I'd fare too well in a blindfold test.

So - maybe others can tell me just what's so special about this French controversialist?

[Mark Sealey]

He's often misunderstood - and, as you say, berated - by those who don't or won't understand contemporary music; still less Boulez position in it.

To read his Orientations (ISBN-13: 978-0674643765) is to understand how many of his performing/conducting principles follow those of his compositions… probably amongst the greatest of our times.

[Serial_Apologist]

He's often misunderstood - and, as you say, berated - by those who don't or won't understand contemporary music; still less Boulez position in it.

To read his Orientations (ISBN-13: 978-0674643765) is to understand how many of his performing/conducting principles follow those of his compositions… probably amongst the greatest of our times.

Which is I hope easier to read than his slim 1970 volume "Boulez on Music Today". Unlike his verbal expostulations I find most of Boulez's music since his "Figures-Doubles-Prismes" of 1968 pretty easy to follow and orchestrationally pleasing on the ear, clearly in the lineage of Debussy.

S-A

[Suffolkcoastal]

I've always found Boulez's music much easier to follow and 'take' than I would have at one time expected. It is above all the extreme clarity of his orchestration that I admire. I remember in a composition class we listened to two contrasting works the Colin Matthews Cello Concerto and a work by Boulez, to the surprise of my teacher I was completely taken by the Boulez but thought the Matthews a dreadful work & horribly orchestrated, this was apart from hearing the 2nd Piano Sonata, only my 2nd hearing of a Boulez work. As for his conducting, it is a bit hit and miss for me at times, though I've recently been listening to some of his DG Bartok recordings and think them very good indeed.

[umslopogaas]

This thread reminded me I have a copy of 'Orientations', so I blew the dust off to remind myself what's in it. A lot, judging by the index at the front, must dip in for a sample. I was disappointed though in his two pages on Adorno. I have several books by Adorno and have found all of them unreadable. I was hoping Boulez might help shed a little light. Far from it, Boulez's two pages make Adorno's own writing look like kindergarten clarity. They are as close to gibberish as I want to go.