Boulez

[AZContrabassoon]

Pierre Boulez is now gone. As a composer he will be forgotten soon. But as a dedicated Mahler conductor, he'll remain important. Those of us old enough remember well and were quite grateful for his recording of the first complete Das Klagende Lied. His DG symphony cycle may not be to everyone's taste, but I for one enjoyed them quite a bit.

[barry guerrero]

I'm not sure that he'll be forgotten as a composer either.  I think his best known works - "Pli Selon Pli", etc. - will still be played once in a while. I would like to see some of his earlier BBC Mahler get cleaned up and be reissued. His early Mahler had really unique and interesting tempo relationships. The DG cycle was more 'stream lined' in that regard. In-spite of that being the case, I have every intention of keeping my Boulez Mahler box. I'm keeping his Bartok box as well.

When it rains, it pours.

[barry guerrero]

"As a composer he will be forgotten soon"

Again, I'm not so convinced. I recently watched a Verdi vs. Wagner 'debate' that took place at Covent Garden (Norman Lebrecht made the argument for Verdi). It was interesting, but the same old arguments were hashed around. But I've also been listening a bit to Boulez's work - some with Boulez himself conducting. I was struck as to the degree of vitality and color there is in Boulez's work, even if it's played out on a purely atonal canvas. For me, it rendered the whole Verdi vs. Wagner routine as absolutely pointless. Then again, we could argue that Mahler combines the best of Verdi and Wagner.

Mahler employs Wagner's epic and more thoroughly 'narrative' driven approach (as pointed out by Boulez), yet his music actually 'sounds' more like Verdi (with Berlioz, Smetana and late Dvorak thrown in there as well). However, Mahler's own musical story is more complicated than just that. And yet, at the 'far end' of all these very tonal composers - Verdi, Wagner and Mahler - there's still something very human about Boulez's music that registers through the atonal landscape. It may sound very 'alien' of to me say, but there's still something of Boulez's vibrant personality that registers in his music. Whether that personality is good or not is in the ear of the beholder (I say yes).

[AZContrabassoon]

Here's why: after all the note-scribbling of the atonalists and even serialists from the 20th century there isn't one (well, not quite) single work of theirs that has a secure place in the repertoire. Nothing. Sure, Berg and Webern occasionally show up on programs - but rarely. In smaller, regional orchestras hardly ever. In community orchestras - I've never seen it. There's really little Schoenberg that is played - Verklarte Nacht sometimes. But his violin or piano concertos are hardly in demand by audiences. The vast majority of the music of the ugly school will vanish into its well-deserved oblivion. There are some exceptions. Wozzeck is an opera house standard. And some of the shorter works by Berg will likely be around for a while. But the garbage that people like Babbitt, Berio, Leibowitz, and a host of others doesn't matter. It fails to connect with the human mind on an emotional level. Howard Hanson nailed it 90 years ago when he said that too much modern music was more mechanical and mathematical than musical.

And given the poor status of the American orchestra it's only going to get worse. Managers and conductors will continue to mine the 18th and 19th century to keep audiences in the seats. Not to say that there is no contemporary music worth a listen. I think there are quite a few: Rautavaara, Rubbra, Salonen, Tubin, and some others have written music that is emotionally satisfying in a way that Sessions or Boulez will never be.

What really irritates me though, is the bombardment in the past couple of days about the death of David Bowie. In my local paper no less than THREE long articles. One on the front page. About the death of Boulez - not one word.

[barry guerrero]

"emotionally satisfying in a way that Sessions or Boulez will never be"

Interesting you say that, because Boulez - as a composer - strikes me as a cross between Sessions and Messiaen. To me, there is something there beyond the mechanical, mathematical series of notes. But you're certainly right about the state of orchestras and their ever more conservative programming habits - in short, there's less risk taking these days.

[Paul]

Here's why: after all the note-scribbling of the atonalists and even serialists from the 20th century there isn't one (well, not quite) single work of theirs that has a secure place in the repertoire. Nothing. Sure, Berg and Webern occasionally show up on programs - but rarely. In smaller, regional orchestras hardly ever. In community orchestras - I've never seen it. There's really little Schoenberg that is played - Verklarte Nacht sometimes. But his violin or piano concertos are hardly in demand by audiences. The vast majority of the music of the ugly school will vanish into its well-deserved oblivion. There are some exceptions. Wozzeck is an opera house standard. And some of the shorter works by Berg will likely be around for a while. But the garbage that people like Babbitt, Berio, Leibowitz, and a host of others doesn't matter. It fails to connect with the human mind on an emotional level. Howard Hanson nailed it 90 years ago when he said that too much modern music was more mechanical and mathematical than musical.

And given the poor status of the American orchestra it's only going to get worse. Managers and conductors will continue to mine the 18th and 19th century to keep audiences in the seats. Not to say that there is no contemporary music worth a listen. I think there are quite a few: Rautavaara, Rubbra, Salonen, Tubin, and some others have written music that is emotionally satisfying in a way that Sessions or Boulez will never be.

What really irritates me though, is the bombardment in the past couple of days about the death of David Bowie. In my local paper no less than THREE long articles. One on the front page. About the death of Boulez - not one word.

Not much here about Boulez either but I'm not sure why the relative attention that David Bowie got surprises you. Take any Bowie album and it's probably sold more than the entire catalogue of Boulez as a composer. Actually, any Bowie album might have sold more than the entire catalogue of Boulez as a conductor. Sales figures are not a representation of artistic quality, of course, but they are a representation of cultural interest. The reality is that David Bowie was an influential figure in the most popular form of music today, while Boulez is unknown outside of our own fairly small classical music community. Hence, Bowie beating Boulez 3-0 in the papers doesn't surprise me.

P.S. I'm not a David Bowie fan, although I may be the only Mahler fan with a taste for Hawkwind and Motorhead too (and hence I appreciated the articles about Lemmy...).

[Prospero]

I must disagree on Berg's presence and importance in modern music in particular. Wozzeck is an enormously powerful work. The Lyric Suite is engaging. The Three Pieces for Orchestra is powerful. And depending on performance Lulu has legs. And the Violin Concerto is surely one of the great works of the 20th century. And Berg is anything but mechanical.

Don't forget Berg's great admiration for Mahler. He said the first movement of the 9th was one of the greatest works of music ever.

So I can't agree with Hanson as far as Berg is concerned. And by the way, how much Hanson is played these days?

[barry guerrero]

"a taste for Hawkwind and Motorhead too"

My former Rasputin Music manager went to Lemy's service in L.A. and apparently made a huge spectacle of himself, as he looks a lot like Lemy!

By the way, I really agree about Alban Berg. He's a very major figure.

[Manish]

I have been listening to a lot of Boulez lately and actually feel some of his music is quite beautiful.  I especially like Le Marteau sans Maitre, Sur Incises, Messagiques, Notations for Orchestra, and Pli Selon Pli.  Some of his later work sounds like atonal Debussy; rather than relying on traditional melody and harmony, I think he creates sound worlds using pitches that clash with each other and unorthodox instrumentation.  Boulez, in his early days, was heavily influenced by non-European music, especially from African and Javanese music.  Some of his pieces, like Le Marteau sans Maitre (which is scored for flutes, vibraphones, guitar, bongos, maracas, violas, etc) relies on a musical vocabulary that is different from traditional western music.  I think many of the composers from the Boulez generation, including John Cage, Luciano Berio, Stockhausen, and others were turning away from the traditional way of writing classical music, and turning to other ways of writing music.  Not all of it is good, but there was some good music written by those guys.  If you have a chance to listen to Sur Incises or Le Marteau, I would be interested in reading people's thoughts.

Do you think one of the reasons Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, etc are not frequently played is because of the level of difficulty of the music or perhaps the unusual scoring for many of the compositions?  As mentioned, Le Marteau has pretty unusual scoring.  Others were incorporating electronic media and so on.  Most traditional orchestras would not have a guitar and bongo player at hand to play a piece like Le Marteau. I would think most community orchestras would not have the resources to gather the various instrumentation required.  I believe this was one of the reasons Boulez created the Ensemble Intercontemporain--a dedicated group of players who had training and background in playing serial-type music

Other "modern" composers I like are Elliot Carter, George Crumb, Ligeti, Messiaen, Schoenberg, Varese and some John Cage.  Carter wrote in the atonal mold, but I still find his music engaging, a bit like Bartok.  Have you heard Berio's Sinfonia?  I think this piece is fairly accessible; while not using traditional melody, it does incorporate musical motives that are not too grating on the ear.  And the third movement is based on the third movement of Mahler's 2nd along with a mash up of Debussy's La Mer, Beethoven, and other composers. 

[AZContrabassoon]

Sinfonia troubles me. The only reason it's even halfway popular is because Berio blatantly rips off other, better composers. Talk about riding coat tails.

I have no doubt that many people enjoy the "music" of Berio, Boulez, Stockhausen, etc. And when they say why, something about the unique sound-world is always brought up. Yes, they create some interesting sounds. It takes a thinking mind, an open mind, to listen. In today's world there just aren't many of those listeners. To most people (99%) it's just noise.

Here's my take: the only, real, natural, human(?) music is folk song. The further a composer gets away from it - from a good tune - the harder it is for a human brain to understand or appreciate it. That's why Dvorak, Grieg, Tchaikovsky and others are so loved and popular. Bartok's most popular works are those that use those folk song elements, otherwise his music is largely ignored. I think one of the reasons that Mahler is so popular is that he uses folk elements. But the serialists, not so much, if at all. The music is so far removed from a folk song base that it becomes incomprehensible for most people. I guess IQ also must have something to do with it.

And yes, some of this modern music is horribly difficult to play. I've seen rhythms written that I doubt even the composer could accurately play - it's just scribbles on a page. A lot of new music is also very, very ungrateful to play. It's dull, repetitive and uninteresting. I played something by Theofanidis (sp?) a while back that had the single most boring bassoon part I've ever encountered. Playing the Tchaikovsky symphony after was so refreshing - challenging, interesting, moving, and worth every minute spent practicing. So you play this uninteresting music for what? An audience that doesn't get it or like it? No winners on either side of the proscenium.

[barry guerrero]

I can't argue with any points made by either contributor. While I too am attracted to music that still draws on melodies (folk or otherwise); functional harmonies, IV - V7 - I cadences (and all its numerous variances), and somewhat recognizable forms, I also think it would be an even sadder world if everybody thought the same way and liked the same things. While many modern music aficionados may be 'pie in the sky' idealists, I find them no less delusional than many hardcore opera buffs.

We all have 'blind sides' in our likes and dislikes. I would much rather go to a heavy metal music festival than sit through a whole bunch of 'early music', or some long winded, incredibly dull oratorio or opera by Handel. I would much, MUCH rather endure Stockhausen than Kenny G. No that's too mild: I would rather go for dental surgery than be forced to listen to Kenny G.

As for Boulez, he may have been a tad 'full of himself', but his music was by no means the worst. My 'worst' list would include Milton Babbitt, Charles Wourinen, Philip Glass (the emperor's new clothes) and Gordon Getty (for raising the bar on 'dullness').

Hey, everybody is supposed to like Verdi, but he does NOTHING for me until you get to Othello, Falstaff and Aida. I'd rather listen to atonal, free-form jazz than early Verdi. That's just me. 

[AZContrabassoon]

I would much rather go to a heavy metal music festival than sit through a whole bunch of 'early music', or some long winded, incredibly dull oratorio or opera by Handel. I would much, MUCH rather endure Stockhausen than Kenny G. No that's too mild: I would rather go for dental surgery than be forced to listen to Kenny G.

And here, I agree totally. I cannot stand to listen to baroque era music. Trumpet concertos in particular are irritating. Sit through 3 hours of Messiah? Never going to happen. I was offered tickets to performances this week of Mozart's Don Giovanni. Nope, not interested at all.

I also have a blind spot an closed ear for Verdi. Dull, predictable, not interesting yes, then comes Falstaff which is tremendous fun. (I despise Aida and will never sit through that again.)  Puccini, Wagner, Korngold, Zemlinsky, Rimsky-Korsakov...I'm in! Great, heady stuff.

Kenny G is not allowed in this household. No rap, hip-hop allowed either. But as odd as it seems, country/western is. Mostly the early stuff (1950-1980). There were some amazing talents and genuine, real music made by the likes of Chet Atkins, Glen Campbell, Willie Nelson, Porter Waggoner and company. Some of the country singers, like Clay Walker, have voices with clarity, accuracy, intonation, and expression that would do any opera singer proud. Of course, without a microphone I don't think they'd be as effective.

[barry guerrero]

I like the even earlier country-swing people from the '40s or so. The names are slipping my mind now. There must be a "Tex" somebody.

I know it's absurd, but I get a kick out of Jack Benny and Liberace. 

[Manish]

I'm not so sure that serial music is so far removed from what we would call folk music as other genres of classical music.  They just didn't rely on the folk music idiom of European tradition.  Messiaen often used the scales and rhythms of Indian classical music and birdsong;  Boulez, for his early pieces, looked to African music and Javenese Gamelan music.  Berio wrote some very great arrangements of folk music.  They are just written in an idiom that we are not familiar with.  Also, I would mention that Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and other great composers wrote masterpieces that do not rely on folk music.  When Bartok was researching folk music in Hungary and Romania, what interested him was that the fact that the music did not fit under the standard western tonality. 

Ultimately, I agree, any composer that can carry a good tune will always be more popular.  I don't think that serial composers will ever reach the popularity of a Mahler, Mozart, etc, but that does not make their music worthless.

That said, I am not a big Haydn fan either.  I like parts of Saul and Solomon, but could not listen to the whole thing in one sitting.  I kind of like The Ways of Zion Do Mourn, but only because the beginning of Mozart's Requiem was apparently lifted from it. Can't do early Verdi either, but the later stuff is excellent.  As for non-classical, I like rock, heavy metal, hip-hop and jazz (Miles Davis, Coltrane).  I dislike most of the stuff on the top-40, save for a few artists.  Most of sounds the same to me. 

[barry guerrero]

"That said, I am not a big Haydn fan either"

I'm hoping that you meant Handel and not Haydn. I feel that Haydn is very deeply rooted in Mahler (nobody ever talks of that).