Boulez & composer-performers

[heliocentric]

Scardanelli-Zyklus

It was given a complete performance at the QEH some time in the 1980s, with Terry Edwards conducting the London Sinfonietta & LS Voices, as the culmination of a Holliger day on the South Bank. It was spectacularly badly attended. But somehow being in a large almost empty room wasn't as unsuitable as might be the case with some other things.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . I wish he'd spent that time composing, and . . . expanding the horizons of his music rather than contracting them.

Mr. Lebrecht's view is relevant there: "Boulez was an activist before he was an artist and, nearing the end of his creative road, must be judged on his activism more than on his small, self-admittedly uncertain musical output. . . . He was more determined to control a culture than to increase its resources." Thus Mr. Lebrecht, writing a decade or so ago now.

[heliocentric]

Boulez was an activist before he was an artist and, nearing the end of his creative road, must be judged on his activism more than on his small, self-admittedly uncertain musical output.

Typical Lebrecht nonsense.

Edit: maybe that needs a little expansion. It's often unclear what Lebrecht actually means in his pronouncements (by "activist" for example, or "artist" for that matter), but picking them apart is a tedious and thankless business for both picker and reader. The main reason for my response is: who is Norman Lebrecht (a self-aggrandising hack who announces the end of "classical music" with the regularity of an unhinged televangelist predicting the Rapture) to decide what Boulez "must" be judged on? And Sydney Grew, in what way is your post supposed to be a contribution to this discussion?

[JohnSkelton]

Speaking of picking apart - the Wikipedia page for Pli selon pli links to this conversation with Boulez about the work http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/sp...onpli&DETAIL=2. It reinforces the point about Boulez's preoccupation with shutting off, isolating, resisting context or 'extra'-aesthetic reference. The only possible correspondences being artistic and at the level of form:

You see, in dealing with the problem of form that greatly occupied me at the time of my Third Piano Sonata, I found a convincing literary correspondence only in Mallarmé. If I'd found that in poems written in 500 BC or in Aeschylus, I'd have made reference to them and chosen texts from that time. The 19th-century aspect of Mallarmé is of no importance to me and is completely relegated to the background. He quite transcends this period.

This is perhaps interesting:

You said it yourself: after Mallarmé there was as good as no further formal development, at least not in the direction that Mallarmé himself followed. That represents an extreme position, one which is unsurpassable. My aim has been nothing other than that of transposing this formal strictness into music.

Does Boulez view Pli selon pli as an extreme position within his own music and further developments in his music following a different direction? Or does he view it as emblematic or representative of his music and the place his music occupies in terms of contemporary classical music? ("as good as no further formal development, at least not in the direction ....").

[heliocentric]

Thanks for drawing attention to that link, John.

It's maybe relevant to point out that although Boulez admits the possibility of relating/referring to "poems written in 500 BC or Aeschylus", the texts he has actually used in his music are almost all French (apart from e e cummings) and all 19th/20th century. The idea that Mallarmé "quite transcends" his own time (which is of course questionable) is obviously important to him, to an extent which indeed supports your formulation of his

preoccupation with shutting off, isolating, resisting context or 'extra'-aesthetic reference.

(...)

Does Boulez view Pli selon pli as an extreme position within his own music and further developments in his music following a different direction? Or does he view it as emblematic or representative of his music and the place his music occupies in terms of contemporary classical music? ("as good as no further formal development, at least not in the direction ....").

On the other hand, as Boulez makes clear, the process leading from the first Improvisation sur Mallarmé to the current version of Pli selon pli has involved some quite fundamental changes in structural balance and emphasis, which seem to have been "improvisational" in the sense of involving a dialectic process between generating new material and reshuffling the rest to accommodate it (then generating new material again, etc.), rather than heading towards an idealised strictness of form.

I don't know it well enough to be authoritative but it seems to me like a turning-point in Boulez's work rather than an extreme point, a work which sets out his priorities as a composer, which no doubt is one reason why he has kept returning to it (ie. when his priorities change).

When Boulez criticises his contemporaries he usually does so without mentioning their names. When he talks in the interview about "imaginary languages" and "Dadaist experiments" I imagine he is referring principally to Stockhausen's Momente, another large work for solo voice and accompaniment which took some years to reach its final form and which embodies its composer's thoughts about musical structure in a particularly foregrounded way. Some of the solo part of Momente indeed circle around a limited selection of pitches/intervals like Boulez's "improvisations" do. I'm sure that each of these works influenced the other, in Boulez's case probably in the direction of his wanting to define the work in opposition to or as an alternative to Stockhausen's.

[JohnSkelton]

When he talks in the interview about "imaginary languages" and "Dadaist experiments"

Which, it could be argued, was the direction, after Mallarmé, Mallarmé's 'hermetic' poetry took - via Apollinaire, perhaps.

I imagine he is referring principally to Stockhausen's Momente, another large work for solo voice and accompaniment which took some years to reach its final form and which embodies its composer's thoughts about musical structure in a particularly foregrounded way. Some of the solo part of Momente indeed circle around a limited selection of pitches/intervals like Boulez's "improvisations" do. I'm sure that each of these works influenced the other, in Boulez's case probably in the direction of his wanting to define the work in opposition to or as an alternative to Stockhausen's.

Thanks, that's very interesting.

[Roehre]

What a brilliant thread

(off topic: the Berg-Wozzeck film with Maderna conducting)

[heliocentric]

Not offtopic at all, Roehre, thanks for that link - I had no idea such a thing existed and look forward to watching it later on.

[JohnSkelton]

Not offtopic at all, Roehre, thanks for that link - I had no idea such a thing existed and look forward to watching it later on.

Ahem. #6

I suppose it's a discography of Maderna's studio recordings? There's a live recording of the two act version of Berg's Lulu http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lulu-Berg/dp...3823098&sr=1-1 and a soundtrack recording to a film of Wozzeck http://www.amazon.co.uk/Berg-Wozzeck...3823183&sr=1-4

(thanks for the link Roehre!)

[Sydney Grew]

. . . It's often unclear what Lebrecht actually means in his pronouncements (by "activist" for example, or "artist" for that matter) . . .

Let's be fair to Mr. Lebrecht: he prefaced his observation that "Boulez was an activist before he was an artist" by pointing out the contrast there with Wagner, Schönberg and Strawinsky. His explanation of what "activism" meant in the case of those three (as well as in the case of Boulez) is lucid but rather too long to quote here. They "composed fluently while engaged in revolution," he concludes. "Pierre Boulez did not." That is the significant difference to which Mr. Lebrecht draws attention. As far as the word "artist" is concerned, he begins his essay with the observation that "every artist wants to change the world" - true enough I think.

. . . Sydney Grew, in what way is your post supposed to be a contribution to this discussion?

Well! An earlier poster - already quoted - expresses the wish that Boulez had spent more time "expanding the horizons of his music rather than contracting them," and my intention is to point out how very similar that is to Mr. Lebrecht's claim - based upon the contrast with Wagner, Schönberg and Strawinsky - and based also upon statements such as "Any one who has not felt the necessity of the twelve-tone language is superfluous" - that Boulez "was more determined to control a culture than to increase its resources."

My personal view, though, in contrast to those of both Mr. Lebrecht and the earlier poster quoted, is that Boulez's musical style is quite sufficiently novel, when considered in the context of the works of his contemporaries.

And while I am writing, may I recommend the two best books I know about Boulez's productions? The first is a little book entitled "Penser la Musique Aujourd'hui" written by the composer himself. There is nothing like the horse's mouth is there? It came out in 1963, and consists of "études écrites à Darmstadt, pour Darmstadt," dedicated to "Docteur Wolfgang Steinecke en témoignage de sympathie et d'amitié." "It begins with a strange prefatory meditation, entitled "De moi à moi," followed by a short section of "Considérations générales," and then three chapters that go into the techniques of his music at that time in considerable detail: "Technique musicale," "Quant à l'espace," and "Inventaire et Répertoire."

The second book is Dominique Jameux's biography entitled "Pierre Boulez," a translation of which by the eminent pianist Susan Bradshaw came out in 1991. I especially recommend it to people - such as one or two earlier in the thread - who have experienced difficulties in coming to terms with Boulez's pianoforte music.

Interesting reference (relating to Miss Bradshaw): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Zak

[Serial_Apologist]

The first is a little book entitled "Penser la Musique Aujourd'hui" written by the composer himself. There is nothing like the horse's mouth is there?

And very little in it that is other than extremely intractable for the likes of me, the general reader, it must be said - even in the Bradshaw/Rodney Bennett translation titled "Boulez on Music Today".

[Roehre]

And very little in it that is other than extremely intractable for the likes of me, the general reader, it must be said - even in the Bradshaw/Rodney Bennett translation titled "Boulez on Music Today".

I am afraid I share that feeling

[Serial_Apologist]

I am afraid I share that feeling

My copy was given me by a friend, who had given up on it, with the words, "You'll find Hegel a doddle after trying to read this!"

[heliocentric]

Ahem.

oops

[heliocentric]

And very little in it that is other than extremely intractable for the likes of me, the general reader, it must be said - even in the Bradshaw/Rodney Bennett translation titled "Boulez on Music Today".

Indeed. The main problem with it is Boulez's perennial difficulty with being specific about things. For example he spends quite some space "explaining" that glissandi aren't really fit to be used as musical material when all he really meant to say was "I don't like Xenakis". And IIRC there are few if any direct references even to his own music. I find it a tiresome and unengaging read. On the other hand, some of the material in his compilation under the title Orientations is quite the opposite.

As for Norman Lebrecht, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But I'm even less clear on what he means by "activism" now that it seems to have to encompass Stravinsky, an extreme conservative in many ways.