Besides Boulez being an extraordinary composer and one of the best 20 century conductors, championing music that entered the standard repertoire thanks to his hard work, I admire the sharpness of his mind and eloquence (and in not his primary language ) at the advanced age where this interview was conducted. More Boulez in NYC please!!!
I don't really know what the big deal is. I for one love this man's music to the bottom of my heart. It really is an extraordinary harmony of precision and spontaneity.
@@pocayonom how can you "love" tonal music? You also must realize atonal music is such a incredibly broad term that you cant possibly sum it up in this one composer. Britten was atonal, barber, walton, stravinsky, poulenc, prokofiev were all atonal as well and each of them have produced absolute master works. Boulez, while i dont incredibly care for his music, is still a master at his craft. But please, theres no way you can possibly just say all atonal music is bad. Its just actually wrong.
Pierre Boulez was perhaps a genius, an artist of great vision, expression, culture and connection to the whole of European music. As well, his ears and compositional mind were tuned to non-western musics creating deep, personal, cosmopolitan works. His compositions do require an ear; an ear that has digested the music of the past, as well Stravinsky, Webern, Berg, and mostly Debussy. To be troubled by terms such a ‘atonality’ and the technical measure of music of his period is to miss the point of the music entirely. His vocabulary was the result of the age in which he lived. His topical influences were as varied as all great artists of his time - from music, architecture, poetry, mathematics, acoustics and sound itself, as well elementary topics in physics. Mostly though it was the great music which preceded him, music he knew expertly, which provided his impetus. The artistry and message of Boulez is not only intellectual. It is only that to those perhaps who have not grasped the music that preceded him in the 20th century, and who live with a 19th century idea of music. Boulez was a modernist (not even closely-related to post-modern) with a mind and even heart (as denied by critics who misheard his artistic message as ‘intellectual’, ‘mathematical’, ecc.) which stems strongly from the Impressionists and the whole of French artistic, philosophical and poetic worlds.
I borrowed & listened with great interest to the music of Pierre Boulez when I was studying Music @ Otago University NZ 1963-5. I found his music fascinating & am surprised that his sounds have not become mainstream in the years since.
Deutsche Grammophon prepared an editoin : Boulez - Complete works. Does it mean that he is not going to compose anymore or not going to edit \ revise his previous works? Is that edition contains the works mentioned in this video that he has an intention to finish? Interesting to see a classical music brand to prepare a 'complete edition' for a living composer.
It is always interesting to hear from composers you do not like. It makes you reconsider things you had not thought of before in relation to their music. I would have never thought of Master Without a Hammer as being Indonesian flavoured.
For those of you who are still uneasy with Boulez musical world, please go to the Philharmonie de Paris website ( philharmoniedeparis.fr ) and listen to the magnificent interpretation of Boulez masterwork Pli selon Pli by Intercontemporain Orchestra, Mathias Pintscher director and the fantastic soprano Marisol Montalvo.. Available for free in streaming until 3th June 1015.
Pierre Boulez, de la jouissance de l'écoute www.academia.edu/12934152/Pierre_Boulez_de_la_jouissance_de_l%C3%A9coute La musique de Pierre Boulez est toujours au croisement d’une composition et d’une direction car Pierre Boulez a toujours pratiqué, y compris bien sûr pour sa musique, les deux dimensions. Il est vrai qu’il a aussi eu une vaste carrière de simple chef d’orchestre dans des œuvres de genres très différents de Richard Wagner à Frank Zappa. On comprendra alors que sa musique propre est fortement à la confluence de ces diverses sources qui deviennent des inspirations et des guides, bien que l’on puisse dire que Pierre Boulez demeure toujours extrêmement personnel. Présenter une telle œuvre est impossible du fait de l’immense variété des pièces et on ne pourrait vraiment ne dire que quelques mots sur chaque pièce et chaque pièce mérite plus que quelques mots. Il n’est de musique de Boulez que celle que l’on écoute sans cesse et pour toujours, et chaque référence nous rappelle ce devoir d’écoute, ce plaisir d’écoute, cette jouissance d’écoute. Tout le reste n’est que variation sur le don du silence et l’or du taire. Publication Date: Jun 11, 2015 Publisher: Editions La Dondaine Location: Olliergues Research Interests: Musical Composition, Musicology, Stéphane Mallarmé, Opera,Choral And Vocal Music, Piano Music, John Cage, Pierre Boulez, Darmstadt and René Char
Typically PB sees 'constructivity' and 'spontaneity' as two different things that have to be balanced. The one does not follow naturally from the other as with Debussy. His infatuation for the 'Viennese School' (ridiculous connotation) means that he saw 'constructivity' as something to be applied upon a work, as something projected from outside upon the material. This was Schönberg's problem, with him, rational structuring was a method born from the intellect that had to force order upon the wild ideas of the subconscious. With Debussy, the structuring naturally emerged from the very ideas, and of course that is the normal way of composing, as did all the great composers from the past, even with JS Bach.
"The material composes you..." Ordinarily, this is the admission of a bad author/composer- that they are led on by tropes and convention. Surely not in the case of Boulez. So what exactly does he mean? I'm asking for precision, not cliche's. This is not a rhetorical question- I have asked myself the same question many times before and never found an answer I deemed adequate. Please help me.
It sounds to me like the possibilities of a piece reveal themselves as he works with the themes/melodies/ideas. Very rarely does a whole piece of music occur to someone in one moment of inspiration. Usually you start with inspiration, and then you use the conscious mind in manipulating that first idea into a more complete form, and during that mental process more little momentss of inspiration will occur that follow from that first idea. I can't really speak for Boulez (who certainly knows more about composing than me) but that's the sense I got from it.
I think he is saying that its not like a composer imposes order and harmony over a inert metter, but more like he actually listens very carefully and contemplates the possibilieties of sound. The composer is receptive to the material. Italian philosipher Giovanni Piana said something very similar
It means that the boundaries between the artist and art become blurred at a point. To follow your art to the very bottom is to find you are in fact the source of both. how else could it have been so compelling all your life?
Atonal music is necessary. Yes, it is harder to judge the value of a piece on a common sense level because you can't tell if it is right or wrong. The inability to accept this uncertainty and ambiguity is problematic. It is true that intellectuals like it and they can be annoying, even dangerous. However, the alternative is worse..
No. Reichsmusikkammer only promoted "good German music" but I think that there is great French, Italian, Polish, British, Persian, Turkish, Chinese, etc, music. To call what Boulez writes "music" is to attribute something it lacks altogether.
All I ever hear from Boulez, is: "what I wanted", what I "needed", "what I was attracted to", "I tried to join 2 parts of the musical world", "constructivism was a bit of a burden"...but never do you hear from him any explication as to WHY the above might represent an advance or synthesis, which he fancies himself as being responsible for achieving. I was never convinced of Boulez's importance in the evolution of 20th century music.
100% agree. He one of the many academics anxious to plant a tiny flag somewhere on the lower slopes of "great composers". Great composers make music that affects people on an emotional and spiritual level. Puny composers try to justify their barren art by pretending it's clever.
Well, that's silly. So I guess we ought to reject unpitched percussion as non-musical. Horrible, ugly, pseudo-intellectual, and deranged might be more widely and more specifically applicable than might be comfortable for Wagner's theater house.
I love atheist composers. I find that I am craving Boulez's musical point of view more and more while I am getting frustrated with the tyranny of tonality. I don't think I am terribly sophisticated nor pseudo-intellectual, just ready for something different, ready for what comes next.
The comments of those who insinuate that if you don't understand or like that unpleasant random noise then you are an ignorant in matter of music, are really amusing. Why should we call it music in the first place ? Since it just turn the back to the essence of musical material. Music is beat, harmonies, consonances, also dissonances, music is alive it breathes and beats, it generates resonances in our hears and mind. A random noise can do nothing of this therefore it is not music, just an intellectual imposture.
Calling a serial/atonal composition "random noise" is like saying that the letters, symbols, numbers and shapes that a mathematician writes on a board are random just because you don't understand what they mean. And just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it is impossible to enjoy it or that nobody should. Please try to be more tolerant.
Don giovano, it is already proven, his music is already dead, it is a dead matter that nobody or almost nobody listen, it carries no emotion, no life no viral pulsation, it is just I animated mineral matter incapable of expressing nothing but desolated and lifeless landscape. He will dies with his music and nobody will cry
+dou40006 Now Boulez has actually passed away, and at least in my country (which has a certain amount of musical culture) all major newspapers, TV and broadcasting stations brought obituaries, many RUclips users are writing down their condolences. So your forecast concerning his death has already been proven wrong.
+VerlorneFeldwacht to be honest with you, I opened a bottle of champagne when I read that he had passed away, because it gave me hope that classic composition will start again, liberated from his oppressive dictat
I spoke too soon. I just bought the 14-CD complete Boulez box, and I am enjoying it immensely. He is, for me, the most listenable of the avant-garde composers. His music is almost always beautiful, and always interesting.
I think he is a good composer, and not only cos mathematics or serialism. He has a very fine good ear. Although I still prefer Messiaen, and I even prefer the way Messiaen composed (juxtaposes in Boulez's words)
I just listened to a recent performance (from May 2016) of the first septenary of Messiaen's La Transfiguration on RUclips, and was again almost reduced to tears by the unspeakable beauty of the chorales in the 2nd and 7th movements. The penultimate choral chord in the 7th movement which leads into the final major chord (and which seems to somehow contain almost every note in the chromatic scale) is quite literally the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. Messiaen is, in my opinion, possibly the greatest composer after JS Bach (and I'm not kidding -- I really believe that). He is certainly the greatest harmonic innovator, possibly of all time.
music without a past ("tabula rasa") has no future : all this has so far only be appreciated by a microscopic minority of people , who "live in their head" , i.e. are impressed by the mathematical complexity of the stuff , and don't care to much about what it produces when played : actually it produces what produce most kinds of noises ; compare with f.ex. Bartok's piano concertos , where you can feel several moves of ecstasy in your body & mind , while in boulezian bullshit , it just puts you in a (too long ; a short one could be OK as film-music f;ex.) exercise of waiting for the end ....boring , boring , boring....But those who like that are free to listen at it ; and the others (99% probably) still have (happily !) an amount of real music (from the Middle-Ages up to the XXI-th century) , written by inspired people who don't confuse "abstract structure" and "music" : la carte nest pas le territoire , my dear Boulez & disciples....
Roland Hinnion I have no idea what mathematical complexity is in Boulez' music, yet I enjoy it very much. What percentile do I fall into, I wonder? Aside from that, most if not all music is abstract structure pretty much by definition.
MrBeethovenfan always the same logical confusion : indeed : all music is (abstract) structure (in its representation on the paper) , but not all abstract structures will produce music when executed physically .... Formal aspect : M implies A ; but A does not imply M.....
+Roland Hinnion I don't agree with you, since i think Boulez music is deeply rooted in tradition ( especially Debussy, Ravel, Strawinsky, Bartók, Wagner and the Second Vienese School ). Also, i would like to ask you to be more careful when reffering to your own subjective experience as an example or an argument, or when you're presuming about others subjective experience. If you feel "ecstasy in your body and mind" with Bartok's concertos, that's great ! It's also my case, especially the second one. But i do feel the same waves of joy and enlightment when listening to "Repons", "Messagesquisses", "Pli selon pli", "Sur Incises", etc... ( i'm not so fond of Boulez's earlier works wich doesn't seem to work so well to me), and i find it quite irritating that you describe people who appreciate Boulez's music as " people [...] who don't care to much about what it produces when played". Because i do love how this music sound, and i don't like your unrespectful hints about "real music" and "inspired people. it's perfectly fine that don't like this music and that you criticise it accordingly. And i agree with you that mathematical complexity doesn't imply automatically a good music work, but i think you're a bit condescending in your comment toward those who love this music. regards. Joâo SCHNIER ( aka clarinetjo). (P.S : since i'm french, i hope my english is good enough to be clear.).
+Roland Hinnion 1. When Debussy's music (by which Boulez was profoundly inspired) was new, it was criticised for being dissonant and detached from "tradition". 2. Among musicians, Boulez was highly respected for his outstanding ear. It was said that when a pin fell down, Boulez immediately knew the pitch. Do you really believe that a composer with such a sensitive and incorruptible ear only lives "in his head" and simply writes "abstract structures"? And do you really think that the Vienna Philharmonics, a rather conservative orchestra, would ever have accepted a conductor who had no idea what "real music" is about? (And, by the way, what is so bad about the "head"?)
"Small" difference : after some years (at most) the classical-music lovers appreciated Debussy ; while for Boulez & alia time goes by and nothing changes (except for a tiny "happy few" public ). People still don't "understand" Boulez & alia , not because they are stupid , lazy or uncultivated , but because there is nothing to "understand" in noise....
The intention might not be random but the result is ...as for the sophists who are trying to explain me that i just don't understand the whole thing therefore my opinion is worthless, i just say that i don't like to be taken for an idiot, I won't applause this musical failure just because mrs Boulez composed if I think it just a failure, my opinion worth as much a mrs Boulez composition impostures. Be tolerant doesn't oblige me to say what I think, if this music is a failure someone has to say it...
Pierre Boulez is unquestionably a brilliant musician but he is an awful composer. There is no such thing as atonal music. Music has to have a tonal context, otherwise its just an intellectual exercise without meaning. J S Bach could compose extremely complex music without it having to devolve into formal structures and systems! Horrible, ugly music that appeals only to people who have been corrupted by pseudo-intellectual music critics and deranged pseudo-composers.
I understand and respect your opinion ! I'm glad you actually acknowledge Boulez's musical talent and I understand why you don't like atonal music. But it makes me sad that you're unable to accept there are people who genuinely enjoy 20th century atonal music. Why do you need to belittle them? Why do you feel the need to paint them as corrupt and vain. I could care less about musical criticism and composers such as Kurt, Ligeti, Schoenberg, Adés, Boulez are among my favorites.
Though I doubt it's your intention, saying music "has to have a tonal context" is fundamentally racist. Most non-European cultures use non-tonal scales/tuning systems. Also, do you not consider a drum circle music? Nothing tonal about that.
@@l.c.turner-thedailycanon What a ridiculous comment and so typical of contemporary idiocy. Prove that most non-European music use non-tonal scales! For example, Japanese music is a tonal system based on the tetra chord. Chinese music is a tonal system with a seven tone scale. Turkish music is tonal. And so on and on. The fact that non-European music has different tonal systems to the West does not mean they are non-tonal! There is no atonal music until it was invented by Schoenberg- unless one counts the opening of Liszt’s Faust Symphony and Wagner’s Tristan (although the Tristan chord is not really atonal). So, you are talking compete nonsense; and the fact that you attempt to manipulate people by describing a comment about music as “fundamentally racist” does not speak well for your character. I know it’s fashionable to describe almost everything as “racist” but only (ironically) among certain white upper middle class people who have only known privilege.
@@bayreuth79 Sounds like we are operating from two different definitions of tonality; Chinese music uses modes, Turkish uses microtones, and both require quite a bit of aural rewiring if you've only been brought up on functional harmony. If you're saying that tonality is anything that revolves around a tone, then sure, let's call it tonal. Which I guess means we're also calling Scelsi tonal, since he uses drones (in addition clusters and microtones), and Feldman too since he uses the same pitches over and over. Still unclear where you've landed on percussion music. Historically, the first piece of atonality is generally attributed to Liszt's Bagatelle sans tonalite, by the way. And there have been many non-tonal passages written prior, usually for shock or comical effect, by Biber, Mozart, Haydn, and Strauss, to name just a few.
@@l.c.turner-thedailycanon I love Turkish music (used to live in Istanbul), Chinese music and Japanese music. I was criticising atonal music: non-western music is not atonal, it operates with a different tonal system. I am a pianist (I was playing Beethoven’s Sonata a Thérèse when you messaged me) and I learned the Ud while in Istanbul, so I understand Ottoman music quite well. It’s tonal; just not western tonality.
Boulez said somewhere else you have to understand his music when you love classical music. This is complete nonsense. You can love Gluck and Italian opera and at the same time deteste Schoenberg and Boulez. Little babies cry when they hear atonal or dissonant music. This was proved by a study. And even the people who listen to Boulez don't enjoy the music. They are often intellectual and want to hear "interesting" music. Arturo Toscanini and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf didn't understand atonal music. So why should a lover of classical music (composers like Gluck and Catalani or singers like Caruso, Lauri-Volpi and Marian Anderson) listen to your music, Mr. Boulez?
Nonsenses. My little baby enjoys electroacoustic music. Or he is very strange (I don't think so) or this "study" is radically false. More else: I listen to Boulez and I enjoy with most of his works. I don't understand why some people can't stand that other people enjoy with avant-garde music. Be a bit tolerant, please.
Jorge Carrillo Fernández Well, it was said in the study. A supporter of atonal music commented: Obviously, we humans have certain natural predispositions but nothing prevents us from fighting against these predispositions. All children's songs are tonal. You can compare it to architecture. Some people like brutalist architecture, but when they build a house in their garden they don't want to build a brutalist house. xD
All children's songs are tonal because of our culture is tonal (a lot of classical music and almost all popular music). But in other cultures there are not tonality and there are children and songs :P (and my song doesn't cry with non tonal music). And in our culture, before 1600 there was not tonality as we know it now. All these things are only cultural factors, and everybody is able to enjoy avant-garde music listening to it with an open mind.
Jorge Carrillo Fernández I do not only appreciate classical music but also blues, country and ballads. B.B. King is a great performer and I like how he uses the pentatonic scale. But atonal music is unknown in all cultures. Do you know of any culture which played atonal music? Many people who hear atonal music for the first time wonder about "wrong notes".
he is not dead yet? so that we can forget his annoying talks and worse his awful music, or rather this random noise. All that intellectual masturbation of serial music and other related experiments are a total musical failure. Its failure lies in the naive belief that you can just throw away centuries of musical evolution and decide that the music can be whatever the intellect decide it should be.
You make no credible points against the type of music Boulez writes. They are at best as questionable as the videos you post. If you want to understand his music better and see how music has evolved I recommend you losing your own ego and expectations of what music is suppose to be. His music can invite great pleasure to your ears and influence the moving images inside your own mind. Try listening to early Arvo Part, Stravinsky, Berio, Ligeti, Kurtag to looosen that ego of yours because it is hurting your senses.
May you rest in peace. On behalf of your fans in the U.S.A.
Besides Boulez being an extraordinary composer and one of the best 20 century conductors, championing music that entered the standard repertoire thanks to his hard work, I admire the sharpness of his mind and eloquence (and in not his primary language ) at the advanced age where this interview was conducted. More Boulez in NYC please!!!
R.I.P Pierre Boulez! 1-6-2016 He will be sorely missed. :-(
It’s a good job he was an atheist then.
@@MrMHughes68 Well that's another reason not to like him
@@nandocordeiro5853 No it’s not.
I don't really know what the big deal is. I for one love this man's music to the bottom of my heart. It really is an extraordinary harmony of precision and spontaneity.
+Ethan How can you love atonal music?
+Simon Kravos Mozart was 'atonal' last time I checked, so I'll stay as far away from him as I can. You can't enjoy "atonal" music.
Well said.
@@pocayonom how can you "love" tonal music? You also must realize atonal music is such a incredibly broad term that you cant possibly sum it up in this one composer. Britten was atonal, barber, walton, stravinsky, poulenc, prokofiev were all atonal as well and each of them have produced absolute master works. Boulez, while i dont incredibly care for his music, is still a master at his craft. But please, theres no way you can possibly just say all atonal music is bad. Its just actually wrong.
@@johnappleseed8369 how was mozart atonal?
The clarity and precision of his language in a tongue that is not his mother tongue is remarkable, especially for a 87 year old man.
Beautiful document !
Thanks a lot
nope
@@nandocordeiro5853 your mum
Pierre Boulez was perhaps a genius, an artist of great vision, expression, culture and connection to the whole of European music. As well, his ears and compositional mind were tuned to non-western musics creating deep, personal, cosmopolitan works. His compositions do require an ear; an ear that has digested the music of the past, as well Stravinsky, Webern, Berg, and mostly Debussy. To be troubled by terms such a ‘atonality’ and the technical measure of music of his period is to miss the point of the music entirely. His vocabulary was the result of the age in which he lived. His topical influences were as varied as all great artists of his time - from music, architecture, poetry, mathematics, acoustics and sound itself, as well elementary topics in physics. Mostly though it was the great music which preceded him, music he knew expertly, which provided his impetus.
The artistry and message of Boulez is not only intellectual. It is only that to those perhaps who have not grasped the music that preceded him in the 20th century, and who live with a 19th century idea of music. Boulez was a modernist (not even closely-related to post-modern) with a mind and even heart (as denied by critics who misheard his artistic message as ‘intellectual’, ‘mathematical’, ecc.) which stems strongly from the Impressionists and the whole of French artistic, philosophical and poetic worlds.
I borrowed & listened with great interest to the music of Pierre Boulez when I was studying Music @ Otago University NZ 1963-5. I found his music fascinating & am surprised that his sounds have not become mainstream in the years since.
Le marteau a perdu son maître.
Merci, maître Boulez.
Merci pour tout ce que vous avez donné au monde.
Ça sonnera toujours ...
Deutsche Grammophon prepared an editoin : Boulez - Complete works. Does it mean that he is not going to compose anymore or not going to edit \ revise his previous works? Is that edition contains the works mentioned in this video that he has an intention to finish?
Interesting to see a classical music brand to prepare a 'complete edition' for a living composer.
It is always interesting to hear from composers you do not like. It makes you reconsider things you had not thought of before in relation to their music. I would have never thought of Master Without a Hammer as being Indonesian flavoured.
When I studied with Pierre in 1963 his lectures at Harvard were 80% English, 15% French, and 5% German. Late in life his English was excellent.
For those of you who are still uneasy with Boulez musical world, please go to the Philharmonie de Paris website ( philharmoniedeparis.fr ) and listen to the magnificent interpretation of Boulez masterwork Pli selon Pli by Intercontemporain Orchestra, Mathias Pintscher director and the fantastic soprano Marisol Montalvo.. Available for free in streaming until 3th June 1015.
agree with al comments a very influential figure in music and my life
You are welcome!
Very interesting.Its a shame Boulez been largely forgotten now.In his heyday he was great.
We mourn the loss of our honorary member Pierre Boulez - R.I.P.
Photo: Terry Linke
Not me ...
+dou40006 stop advertising yourself on every fucking Boulez video
@@johnappleseed8369 stop simping on pierre boulez
@@nandocordeiro5853 stop not simping for pierre boulez
Yes, 1919viola, you are right of course!
When was this interview recorded?
Pierre Boulez, de la jouissance de l'écoute
www.academia.edu/12934152/Pierre_Boulez_de_la_jouissance_de_l%C3%A9coute
La musique de Pierre Boulez est toujours au croisement d’une composition et d’une direction car Pierre Boulez a toujours pratiqué, y compris bien sûr pour sa musique, les deux dimensions. Il est vrai qu’il a aussi eu une vaste carrière de simple chef d’orchestre dans des œuvres de genres très différents de Richard Wagner à Frank Zappa. On comprendra alors que sa musique propre est fortement à la confluence de ces diverses sources qui deviennent des inspirations et des guides, bien que l’on puisse dire que Pierre Boulez demeure toujours extrêmement personnel.
Présenter une telle œuvre est impossible du fait de l’immense variété des pièces et on ne pourrait vraiment ne dire que quelques mots sur chaque pièce et chaque pièce mérite plus que quelques mots.
Il n’est de musique de Boulez que celle que l’on écoute sans cesse et pour toujours, et chaque référence nous rappelle ce devoir d’écoute, ce plaisir d’écoute, cette jouissance d’écoute. Tout le reste n’est que variation sur le don du silence et l’or du taire.
Publication Date: Jun 11, 2015
Publisher: Editions La Dondaine
Location: Olliergues
Research Interests:
Musical Composition, Musicology, Stéphane Mallarmé, Opera,Choral And Vocal Music, Piano Music, John Cage, Pierre Boulez, Darmstadt and René Char
R. I. P
Forever Maestro Pierre Boulez!!
Would have loved to have been there to hear him speaking with Frank Zappa back in the day.
RIP Maestro 6 janvier 2016
Would Boulez be considered a "Futurist"? Or is that term only for 1920's composers?
I might defend atonal music on the grounds that it stimulates such creative flights of baroque vituperation from its critics!
indeed, music that has been created by "atonal" composers is not atonal as it has clear, very clear tonal relations.
what's the saying in Jazz? "you're never more than a half step away from the right note."
A really great musician, very deeply concerned by carrying on musical expression !
Agreed. Incidentally, it's "Hammer without a Master." :)
bayreuth79 re: "...appeals only to people who have been corrupted by pseudo-intellectual music critics and deranged pseudo-composers."
Or not.
Typically PB sees 'constructivity' and 'spontaneity' as two different things that have to be balanced. The one does not follow naturally from the other as with Debussy. His infatuation for the 'Viennese School' (ridiculous connotation) means that he saw 'constructivity' as something to be applied upon a work, as something projected from outside upon the material. This was Schönberg's problem, with him, rational structuring was a method born from the intellect that had to force order upon the wild ideas of the subconscious. With Debussy, the structuring naturally emerged from the very ideas, and of course that is the normal way of composing, as did all the great composers from the past, even with JS Bach.
What an utterly horrendous comment section, good grief.
"The material composes you..." Ordinarily, this is the admission of a bad author/composer- that they are led on by tropes and convention. Surely not in the case of Boulez. So what exactly does he mean? I'm asking for precision, not cliche's. This is not a rhetorical question- I have asked myself the same question many times before and never found an answer I deemed adequate. Please help me.
It sounds to me like the possibilities of a piece reveal themselves as he works with the themes/melodies/ideas. Very rarely does a whole piece of music occur to someone in one moment of inspiration. Usually you start with inspiration, and then you use the conscious mind in manipulating that first idea into a more complete form, and during that mental process more little momentss of inspiration will occur that follow from that first idea. I can't really speak for Boulez (who certainly knows more about composing than me) but that's the sense I got from it.
I think he is saying that its not like a composer imposes order and harmony over a inert metter, but more like he actually listens very carefully and contemplates the possibilieties of sound. The composer is receptive to the material.
Italian philosipher Giovanni Piana said something very similar
It means that the boundaries between the artist and art become blurred at a point. To follow your art to the very bottom is to find you are in fact the source of both. how else could it have been so compelling all your life?
I think he was saying that Schoenberg thought Debussy was too free.
I BE BOULEZ
Atonal music is necessary. Yes, it is harder to judge the value of a piece on a common sense level because you can't tell if it is right or wrong. The inability to accept this uncertainty and ambiguity is problematic. It is true that intellectuals like it and they can be annoying, even dangerous. However, the alternative is worse..
Alguien tiene pan integral? perdón pan serial?😂😂😂😂
No. Reichsmusikkammer only promoted "good German music" but I think that there is great French, Italian, Polish, British, Persian, Turkish, Chinese, etc, music. To call what Boulez writes "music" is to attribute something it lacks altogether.
All I ever hear from Boulez, is: "what I wanted", what I "needed", "what I was attracted to", "I tried to join 2 parts of the musical world", "constructivism was a bit of a burden"...but never do you hear from him any explication as to WHY the above might represent an advance or synthesis, which he fancies himself as being responsible for achieving. I was never convinced of Boulez's importance in the evolution of 20th century music.
100% agree. He one of the many academics anxious to plant a tiny flag somewhere on the lower slopes of "great composers". Great composers make music that affects people on an emotional and spiritual level. Puny composers try to justify their barren art by pretending it's clever.
Me disculpo ante Boulez. Por si le he ofendido....😈
#chistaco
Well, that's silly. So I guess we ought to reject unpitched percussion as non-musical. Horrible, ugly, pseudo-intellectual, and deranged might be more widely and more specifically applicable than might be comfortable for Wagner's theater house.
His music is drivel and he is a classic French post-modern windbag but the guy started IRCAM . Got to respect him for that .
I love atheist composers. I find that I am craving Boulez's musical point of view more and more while I am getting frustrated with the tyranny of tonality. I don't think I am terribly sophisticated nor pseudo-intellectual, just ready for something different, ready for what comes next.
What has tonality done to frustrate you? You're just another elitist
The comments of those who insinuate that if you don't understand or like that unpleasant random noise then you are an ignorant in matter of music, are really amusing. Why should we call it music in the first place ? Since it just turn the back to the essence of musical material. Music is beat, harmonies, consonances, also dissonances, music is alive it breathes and beats, it generates resonances in our hears and mind. A random noise can do nothing of this therefore it is not music, just an intellectual imposture.
Calling a serial/atonal composition "random noise" is like saying that the letters, symbols, numbers and shapes that a mathematician writes on a board are random just because you don't understand what they mean.
And just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it is impossible to enjoy it or that nobody should. Please try to be more tolerant.
STOP FUCKING ADVERTISING
@@johnappleseed8369 Jones barbeque and foot massage
Don giovano, it is already proven, his music is already dead, it is a dead matter that nobody or almost nobody listen, it carries no emotion, no life no viral pulsation, it is just I animated mineral matter incapable of expressing nothing but desolated and lifeless landscape. He will dies with his music and nobody will cry
+dou40006 Now Boulez has actually passed away, and at least in my country (which has a certain amount of musical culture) all major newspapers, TV and broadcasting stations brought obituaries, many RUclips users are writing down their condolences. So your forecast concerning his death has already been proven wrong.
+VerlorneFeldwacht to be honest with you, I opened a bottle of champagne when I read that he had passed away, because it gave me hope that classic composition will start again, liberated from his oppressive dictat
Rest in pepperoni
I don't much like Boulez's music either. Messiaen is my favourite composer. Go figure!
I also prefer Messiaen's music and also he is my favourite composer. I prefer Boulez works from 1974 onwards than previous ones
I spoke too soon. I just bought the 14-CD complete Boulez box, and I am enjoying it immensely. He is, for me, the most listenable of the avant-garde composers. His music is almost always beautiful, and always interesting.
I think he is a good composer, and not only cos mathematics or serialism. He has a very fine good ear. Although I still prefer Messiaen, and I even prefer the way Messiaen composed (juxtaposes in Boulez's words)
I just listened to a recent performance (from May 2016) of the first septenary of Messiaen's La Transfiguration on RUclips, and was again almost reduced to tears by the unspeakable beauty of the chorales in the 2nd and 7th movements. The penultimate choral chord in the 7th movement which leads into the final major chord (and which seems to somehow contain almost every note in the chromatic scale) is quite literally the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. Messiaen is, in my opinion, possibly the greatest composer after JS Bach (and I'm not kidding -- I really believe that). He is certainly the greatest harmonic innovator, possibly of all time.
music without a past ("tabula rasa") has no future : all this has so far only be appreciated by a microscopic minority of people , who "live in their head" , i.e.
are impressed by the mathematical complexity of the stuff , and don't care to much about what it produces when played : actually it produces what produce most kinds of noises ; compare with f.ex. Bartok's piano concertos , where you can feel several moves of ecstasy in your body & mind , while in boulezian bullshit , it just puts you in a (too long ; a short one could be OK as film-music f;ex.) exercise of waiting for the end ....boring , boring , boring....But those who like that are free to listen at it ; and the others (99% probably) still have (happily !) an amount of real music (from the Middle-Ages up to the XXI-th century) , written by inspired people who don't confuse "abstract structure" and "music" : la carte nest pas le territoire , my dear Boulez & disciples....
Roland Hinnion I have no idea what mathematical complexity is in Boulez' music, yet I enjoy it very much. What percentile do I fall into, I wonder? Aside from that, most if not all music is abstract structure pretty much by definition.
MrBeethovenfan always the same logical confusion : indeed : all music is (abstract) structure (in its representation on the paper) , but not all abstract structures will produce music when executed physically .... Formal aspect :
M implies A ; but A does not imply M.....
+Roland Hinnion I don't agree with you, since i think Boulez music is deeply rooted in tradition ( especially Debussy, Ravel, Strawinsky, Bartók, Wagner and the Second Vienese School ).
Also, i would like to ask you to be more careful when reffering to your own subjective experience as an example or an argument, or when you're presuming about others subjective experience.
If you feel "ecstasy in your body and mind" with Bartok's concertos, that's great ! It's also my case, especially the second one.
But i do feel the same waves of joy and enlightment when listening to "Repons", "Messagesquisses", "Pli selon pli", "Sur Incises", etc... ( i'm not so fond of Boulez's earlier works wich doesn't seem to work so well to me), and i find it quite irritating that you describe people who appreciate Boulez's music as " people [...] who don't care to much about what it produces when played". Because i do love how this music sound, and i don't like your unrespectful hints about "real music" and "inspired people.
it's perfectly fine that don't like this music and that you criticise it accordingly. And i agree with you that mathematical complexity doesn't imply automatically a good music work, but i think you're a bit condescending in your comment toward those who love this music.
regards. Joâo SCHNIER ( aka clarinetjo).
(P.S : since i'm french, i hope my english is good enough to be clear.).
+Roland Hinnion 1. When Debussy's music (by which Boulez was profoundly inspired) was new, it was criticised for being dissonant and detached from "tradition".
2. Among musicians, Boulez was highly respected for his outstanding ear. It was said that when a pin fell down, Boulez immediately knew the pitch. Do you really believe that a composer with such a sensitive and incorruptible ear only lives "in his head" and simply writes "abstract structures"? And do you really think that the Vienna Philharmonics, a rather conservative orchestra, would ever have accepted a conductor who had no idea what "real music" is about?
(And, by the way, what is so bad about the "head"?)
"Small" difference : after some years (at most) the classical-music lovers appreciated Debussy ; while for Boulez & alia time goes by and nothing changes (except for a tiny "happy few" public ). People still don't "understand" Boulez & alia , not because they are stupid , lazy or uncultivated , but because there is nothing to "understand" in noise....
The intention might not be random but the result is ...as for the sophists who are trying to explain me that i just don't understand the whole thing therefore my opinion is worthless, i just say that i don't like to be taken for an idiot, I won't applause this musical failure just because mrs Boulez composed if I think it just a failure, my opinion worth as much a mrs Boulez composition impostures. Be tolerant doesn't oblige me to say what I think, if this music is a failure someone has to say it...
Boulez is dead.
„...and we killed him.“
- Nietzsche.
Pierre Boulez is unquestionably a brilliant musician but he is an awful composer. There is no such thing as atonal music. Music has to have a tonal context, otherwise its just an intellectual exercise without meaning. J S Bach could compose extremely complex music without it having to devolve into formal structures and systems! Horrible, ugly music that appeals only to people who have been corrupted by pseudo-intellectual music critics and deranged pseudo-composers.
I understand and respect your opinion ! I'm glad you actually acknowledge Boulez's musical talent and I understand why you don't like atonal music. But it makes me sad that you're unable to accept there are people who genuinely enjoy 20th century atonal music. Why do you need to belittle them? Why do you feel the need to paint them as corrupt and vain. I could care less about musical criticism and composers such as Kurt, Ligeti, Schoenberg, Adés, Boulez are among my favorites.
Though I doubt it's your intention, saying music "has to have a tonal context" is fundamentally racist. Most non-European cultures use non-tonal scales/tuning systems. Also, do you not consider a drum circle music? Nothing tonal about that.
@@l.c.turner-thedailycanon What a ridiculous comment and so typical of contemporary idiocy. Prove that most non-European music use non-tonal scales! For example, Japanese music is a tonal system based on the tetra chord. Chinese music is a tonal system with a seven tone scale. Turkish music is tonal. And so on and on. The fact that non-European music has different tonal systems to the West does not mean they are non-tonal! There is no atonal music until it was invented by Schoenberg- unless one counts the opening of Liszt’s Faust Symphony and Wagner’s Tristan (although the Tristan chord is not really atonal). So, you are talking compete nonsense; and the fact that you attempt to manipulate people by describing a comment about music as “fundamentally racist” does not speak well for your character. I know it’s fashionable to describe almost everything as “racist” but only (ironically) among certain white upper middle class people who have only known privilege.
@@bayreuth79 Sounds like we are operating from two different definitions of tonality; Chinese music uses modes, Turkish uses microtones, and both require quite a bit of aural rewiring if you've only been brought up on functional harmony. If you're saying that tonality is anything that revolves around a tone, then sure, let's call it tonal. Which I guess means we're also calling Scelsi tonal, since he uses drones (in addition clusters and microtones), and Feldman too since he uses the same pitches over and over. Still unclear where you've landed on percussion music.
Historically, the first piece of atonality is generally attributed to Liszt's Bagatelle sans tonalite, by the way. And there have been many non-tonal passages written prior, usually for shock or comical effect, by Biber, Mozart, Haydn, and Strauss, to name just a few.
@@l.c.turner-thedailycanon I love Turkish music (used to live in Istanbul), Chinese music and Japanese music. I was criticising atonal music: non-western music is not atonal, it operates with a different tonal system. I am a pianist (I was playing Beethoven’s Sonata a Thérèse when you messaged me) and I learned the Ud while in Istanbul, so I understand Ottoman music quite well. It’s tonal; just not western tonality.
Boulez said somewhere else you have to understand his music when you love classical music. This is complete nonsense. You can love Gluck and Italian opera and at the same time deteste Schoenberg and Boulez. Little babies cry when they hear atonal or dissonant music. This was proved by a study. And even the people who listen to Boulez don't enjoy the music. They are often intellectual and want to hear "interesting" music.
Arturo Toscanini and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf didn't understand atonal music. So why should a lover of classical music (composers like Gluck and Catalani or singers like Caruso, Lauri-Volpi and Marian Anderson) listen to your music, Mr. Boulez?
i dig boulez, but am not really into italian opera! :o
Nonsenses. My little baby enjoys electroacoustic music. Or he is very strange (I don't think so) or this "study" is radically false. More else: I listen to Boulez and I enjoy with most of his works. I don't understand why some people can't stand that other people enjoy with avant-garde music. Be a bit tolerant, please.
Jorge Carrillo Fernández Well, it was said in the study. A supporter of atonal music commented: Obviously, we humans have certain natural predispositions but nothing prevents us from fighting against these predispositions.
All children's songs are tonal. You can compare it to architecture. Some people like brutalist architecture, but when they build a house in their garden they don't want to build a brutalist house. xD
All children's songs are tonal because of our culture is tonal (a lot of classical music and almost all popular music). But in other cultures there are not tonality and there are children and songs :P (and my song doesn't cry with non tonal music). And in our culture, before 1600 there was not tonality as we know it now. All these things are only cultural factors, and everybody is able to enjoy avant-garde music listening to it with an open mind.
Jorge Carrillo Fernández I do not only appreciate classical music but also blues, country and ballads. B.B. King is a great performer and I like how he uses the pentatonic scale.
But atonal music is unknown in all cultures. Do you know of any culture which played atonal music? Many people who hear atonal music for the first time wonder about "wrong notes".
he is not dead yet? so that we can forget his annoying talks and worse his awful music, or rather this random noise. All that intellectual masturbation of serial music and other related experiments are a total musical failure. Its failure lies in the naive belief that you can just throw away centuries of musical evolution and decide that the music can be whatever the intellect decide it should be.
You make no credible points against the type of music Boulez writes. They are at best as questionable as the videos you post. If you want to understand his music better and see how music has evolved I recommend you losing your own ego and expectations of what music is suppose to be. His music can invite great pleasure to your ears and influence the moving images inside your own mind. Try listening to early Arvo Part, Stravinsky, Berio, Ligeti, Kurtag to looosen that ego of yours because it is hurting your senses.
Jim Jones Idiots are those who lash out at others
Don Giovanni
His music is a complete shit, will die and be forgotten or be remembered as an example of what not to do, deal with it
leoleo12321 Prove it
time will prove it