Berg: Lulu w/Bruno Maderna (rave review)
david...@aol.com
Lulu: Ilona Steingruber
Gräfin Geschwitz: Eugenia Zareska
Alwa: Kurt Rüsche
Der Maler: Ratko Delorko
Dr Schön: Heinz Rehfuss
Der Medizinalrat/Schigolch: Dmitri Lopatto
Orchestra Sinfonica di Roma della RAI
Bruno Maderna
Live stereo broadcast, 1959
Opera d’Oro
I bought this when a friend recommended it to me a year or three ago
but I’m just now getting around to listening to it. Frankly, I
couldn’t face having to settle for more third-rate orchestral playing
from an Italian radio orchestra and grossly inadequate sound in order
to experience Bruno Maderna’s way with this teeming score. I needn’t
have worried. First of all, Opera d’Oro’s transfer is in
spectacularly good stereo sound for a live broadcast of this vintage:
this is the sort of sound I would have expected if the same
performance had been released on Orfeo d’Or. More to the point,
Bruno Maderna works miracles: how he got an Italian radio orchestra to
play this music at that early date with such tight ensemble is
something to contemplate. There simply has never been a greater
conductor than this guy. No doubt thanks to Maderna, the orchestra is
well inside the music, playing with a vigor, boldness, confidence, and
sympathy that are scarcely credible under the circumstances. No pussy
footing around here (as in all too many performances of late Romantic
orchestral repertory these days): Maderna elicits a rich range of
articulations from his utterly responsive musicians, vigorously
shaping an absolutely thrilling and idiomatically Viennese-sounding
performance. The only other I know that even comes close is Leopold
Ludwig’s with Anneliese Rothenberger and the Hamburg Opera on EMI.
Mostly German imports, Maderna’s singers are experienced pros at this
sort of repertory. Ten years earlier, Ilona Steingruber had appeared
in the first studio recording of Lulu under Herbert Häfner. By 1959
she was not quite so fresh of voice as even two years earlier, when
she sang in the first performance of Boulez’s Visage nuptial, and she
no longer sounds like a teenaged girl, but she knows the notes and
sings with canny conviction. All of the singers are well inside their
roles, Rehfuss making a particularly effective Schön. Dmitri Lopatto
deserves special mention for his characterful Schigolch, and Ratko
Delorko is a terrific painter with a richer instrument than Kurt
Rüsche, the passionate Alwa.
I can’t recommend this performance highly enough. You should be able
to find copies for in the neighborhood of $10.00 including shipping.
-david gable
Eric Grunin
> Alban Berg: Lulu (incomplete version)
> Lulu: Ilona Steingruber
> Gräfin Geschwitz: Eugenia Zareska
> Alwa: Kurt Rüsche
> Der Maler: Ratko Delorko
> Dr Schön: Heinz Rehfuss
> Der Medizinalrat/Schigolch: Dmitri Lopatto
> Orchestra Sinfonica di Roma della RAI
> Bruno Maderna
> Live stereo broadcast, 1959
> Opera d’Oro
Thanks for the detailed report. I've always had a soft spot for this
score.
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
JAC
miracle worker indeed, as scores like this take time to work their way
into the collective consciousness and sound easy and right in
performance, and he apparently managed to get results ahead of the
curve on this. Rehfuss as Schön sounds especially valuable. I'll
definitely check into this.
JAC
rkhalona
wrote:
> There simply has never been a greater
> conductor than this guy.
You lost me after writing this. I do admire Maderna's work, but that
is surely an exaggeration, even coming
from you.
RK
Tassilo
> You lost me after writing this. I do admire Maderna's work, but that
> is surely an exaggeration, even coming
> from you.
I didn't say there weren't other conductors as good. Now I will: I
think Bruno Maderna was the greatest conductor of the 20th century,
and I don't see his equal among the living.
-david gable
Tassilo
> I do understand David's statement. He is not a big wide net collector
> but a focused one. He has very specific interests and once he finds
> interpreters who serve that music well, he sticks with them
> (Juilliard, Maderna, Boulez, etc.). So his statement about "never a
> greater conductor" makes sense in his context.
Except that neither the Juilliard Quartet nor Pierre Boulez has or had
remotely Maderna’s breadth. Did any of the pre-Krosnick lineups of
the JSQ (the ones that interest me most) perform Haydn and Mozart half
so well as they performed Beethoven, Berg, Bartók, and Carter? I
don’t think so. Boulez seems to be a conductor of the Maderna type,
but he’s not nearly as effective as Maderna in quantities of repertory
as Maderna. Many of Ramon’s idols haven’t even begun to touch the
range of repertory from Josquin to Boulez in which Maderna excelled.
Giulini? You've got to be kidding.
-david gable
jrsnfld
Has there ever been a conductor for whom this would be less of an
exaggeration?
The problem is lack of evidence. I'd like to know what Maderna's
concerts with great orchestras sounded like. I would like to know more
about his Brahms. I'd like to know something of his Beethoven and
Tchaikovsky and Haydn, etc.
But what we know is indeed compelling. On any given day, I have no
trouble placing Maderna in my top 10 conductors without knowing
exactly who all the rest would be.
It all depends on how you choose to rate your conductors, but I think
you could construct reasonable criteria for greatness in which David's
statement is no exaggeration. And he doesn't say Maderna is without a
peers; he says Maderna is unsurpassed. Very reasonable.
--Jeff
Tassilo
> The problem is lack of evidence. I'd like to know what Maderna's
> concerts with great orchestras sounded like. I would like to know more
> about his Brahms. I'd like to know something of his Beethoven and
> Tchaikovsky and Haydn, etc.
There is the BBC SO recording of Mahler's 9th (which Simon Roberts for
one seems to rate about as highly as is possible), at least, and there
are the performances in the Concertgebouw box for 1960-1970. Other
than that, we mostly have to rely on such things as the Arkadia
Maderna Edition.
-david gable
jrsnfld
Now you're exaggerating! ;-)
Push comes to shove, I think we can find some equals. My list always
starts with Rosbaud, Furtwängler, and Mravinsky, each for somewhat
different reasons. There are many others, of course. I think Scherchen
is a good foil for Maderna as well, if temperamentally different.
But Maderna belongs in such august company of conductors who could
prepare fastidiously, or who could realize every ounce of expression
in the music, who could penetrate and clarify beyond normal
comprehension the totally new music as well as the hackneyed old
music.
The main rap against Maderna (as with Carlos Kleiber for those
predisposed to other virtues in conductors), is the limited evidence.
But like you I think the evidence is sufficient.
Anyone living? I don't know. I hear a lot of great music-making these
days, but it all comes so easily and with seemingly less rehearsal
time available to challenge the hyper-preparation that one used to get
with a Mengelberg or a Reiner or Szell or the emotive force of a
Mitropoulos. The results can be dazzling--totally satisfying, from
people as diverse as Ivan Fischer, Valery Gergiev, Susanna Malkki,
Gustavo Dudamel, Charles Dutoit, MTT, Herbert Blomstedt, Marek
Janowski, and so on. Nobody alive, however, hits that level with the
same dizzying level of giddy delight, deep questing, and total
identification that Maderna seems to have with his repertoire.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
True...I consider the BBC a normally very high level orchestra, and
the Concertgebouw performances are particularly telling. I'd like more
of that...much more.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
> I do understand David's statement. He is not a big wide net collector
> but a focused one. He has very specific interests and once he finds
> interpreters who serve that music well, he sticks with them
> (Juilliard, Maderna, Boulez, etc.). So his statement about "never a
> greater conductor" makes sense in his context.
>
David has his specialties, and clings to them vigorously, but I think
he clearly *is* a wide-net listener, from the very earliest music to
the very latest, encompassing opera, song, symphonic, chamber, solo.
I am not quite in that league, either as a specialist or as an
omnivore, but I consider myself a wide-ranging listener, with a strong
bent toward some of the repertoire that Ramon holds dear (like
Bruckner), and I see no difficulty in putting Maderna on a very high
pedestal.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> On Apr 22, 2:20 pm, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > True...I consider the BBC a normally very high level orchestra, and
> > the Concertgebouw performances are particularly telling. I'd like more
> > of that...much more.
>
> does their night programming plays all kinds of stuff, she does what
> she wants. I think you can email with requests. Ask for more by
> maestro Maderna!
>
> wk
Thanks, I'll do that. I've been focusing on RAI 3 when I get
there...the sound is unfortunately crappy.
--Jeff
rkhalona
> I don't see his equal among the living.
>
> -david gable
Now you follow exaggeration with an obvious RMCR precept: All great
conductors are dead conductors.
RK
rkhalona
> but a focused one. He has very specific interests and once he finds
> interpreters who serve that music well, he sticks with them
> (Juilliard, Maderna, Boulez, etc.). So his statement about "never a
> greater conductor" makes sense in his context.
>
> wk
Even allowing for this, as Jeff says, the limit of Maderna's
repertoire means that his 'greatness' is limited.
Compared with other conductors whose repertoire is so broad (e.g.,
Rosbaud), Maderna is surely a small potato,
as great as some of this limited evidence is (and don't count me as a
detractor as I consider Maderna's Mahler 9th one of the best there
is).
RK
rkhalona
> On Apr 22, 10:43 am, rkhalona <rkhal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 12:47 am, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > There simply has never been a greater
> > > conductor than this guy.
>
> > You lost me after writing this. I do admire Maderna's work, but that
> > is surely an exaggeration, even coming
> > from you.
>
> > RK
>
> Has there ever been a conductor for whom this would be less of an
> exaggeration?
>
I'll reply with a quote that Boulez cites in his preface to Joan
Evans' book on Rosbaud (attributed to Henri Sauguet, IIRC):
"The taste of music buffs differs from the taste of music
professionals. Music buffs believe Toscanini to be the greatest
conductor. Professionals KNOW it is Hans Rosbaud."
RK (quoting from memory, so a word or two may be different, but the
meaning is clear)
jrsnfld
I was speaking about the available evidence of his repertoire. I
should also clarify that I consider Maderna's repertoire broad, even
with the little that we have heard so far. But nonetheless it's just a
sprinkling here and there...ie, thin--too limited for a full
assessment. Rosbaud's discography is similarly small, unfortunately,
with broad range and thin in areas where he undoubtedly knew more than
we've heard so far.
The same problem holds back my assessment of Carlos Kleiber, only in
his case the repertoire is not only thin but also narrow (Telemann and
Butterworth being extreme exceptions in the canon so far).
Nonetheless, many people hesitate not at all to proclaim Carlos
Kleiber one of the great conductors. I feel no more reason to hesitate
in proclaiming Maderna a great conductor. I feel no qualms whatsoever
proclaiming Rosbaud one of the greatest on the limited evidence I
have.
The question is whether Maderna's one of the four or five greatest or
one of the 20 or 30 greatest I've heard. And that depends on how
versatility factors in the equation, as well as what his "ceiling"
was. In other words, how much more polish could he get out of the best
orchestras--something we know very well about the Giulini's, Szell's,
Solti's, Karajan's, and Bernstein's. I can't answer without hearing
more.
--Jeff
Simon Roberts
rkhalona says...
>
>On Apr 22, 10:58=A0am, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 10:43 am, rkhalona <rkhal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 12:47 am, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > conductor than this guy.
>>
>> > You lost me after writing this. =A0I do admire Maderna's work, but that
>> > is surely an exaggeration, even coming
>> > from you.
>>
>> > RK
>>
>> Has there ever been a conductor for whom this would be less of an
>> exaggeration?
>>
>
>I'll reply with a quote that Boulez cites in his preface to Joan
>Evans' book on Rosbaud (attributed to Henri Sauguet, IIRC):
>
>"The taste of music buffs differs from the taste of music
>professionals. Music buffs believe Toscanini to be the greatest
>conductor. Professionals KNOW it is Hans Rosbaud."
>
>RK (quoting from memory, so a word or two may be different, but the
>meaning is clear)
Maybe; but it's a pretty silly remark - surely meant, at least in part,
tongue-in-cheek?
Simon
rkhalona
> In article <829802db-08cb-471e-af28-9fd0bcd0b...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
I don't think the remark is silly at all and, whether you agree with
it or not, I think it was meant seriously.
I think it is generally true that what generally impresses aficionados
is perceived differently by professionals,
and this is not just confined to music.
RK
jrsnfld
It's only silly if you don't agree :-).
The part that is telling: professionals think they know; amateurs know
they merely think.
--Jeff
rkhalona
>
> > Even allowing for this, as Jeff says, the limit of Maderna's
> > repertoire means that his 'greatness' is limited.
> > Compared with other conductors whose repertoire is so broad (e.g.,
> > Rosbaud), Maderna is surely a small potato,
> > as great as some of this limited evidence is (and don't count me as a
> > detractor as I consider Maderna's Mahler 9th one of the best there
> > is).
>
Notice that I said in comparison to someone like Rosbaud. Clearly
Maderna had wonderfully good stuff going for him, both interpretively
and creatively. The point is, judging by the evidence we have, he is
not yet up there with the greatest. Now, were the archives to open
with a flood of Maderna recordings in broader repertoire to let us
judge, we can have a larger sample to make a better and more informed
decision.
RK
rkhalona
> world. Russian pianists knew and know that Rudolf Kerer is very great,
> but does the public? I doubt it. The same happened with Sergio
> Fiorentino and with countless others. This applies to conductors as
> well. Popularity scale and artistic scale are entirely different.
>
> wk
Yes, I agree with this. I think this is partly what Sauguet was
referring to (artistic value as judged by the public and as judged by
artistic peers).
RK
jrsnfld
> While Casadesus was touring the world and becoming a household figure,
> Leroux was living an obscure life in the former Czechoslovakia...
> these recordings show that she was at least as good as Casadesus, they
> are outstanding. Yet when the recordings were offered here, most of us
> had no idea who she was and were surprised at the high quality of her
> artistry. The rediscovery of Sofronitsky during the CD era was an
> obvious shock to a lot of us, too. Now you can still think "Richter
> and Gilels" or... "Sofronitsky and the rest of the pack". Things can
> shift, even if the popularity meter has crowned some and left others
> out. Rubinstein buried Koczalski... but did he really?
In most of those cases, not even professionals knew better than the
rest of us.
Conversely, with Rosbaud, many professionals knew of his greatness
because he could prepare musicians to tackle new and complicated works
with understanding and confidence. This, to a professional, is a sign
of greatness. The other sign is to take an ad hoc group at a festival
and turn in performances of great style, ensemble, polish, and
vitality in the deceptively simple stage works of Mozart. He earned a
widely held reputation in the professional ranks. Professionals cannot
imagine Toscanini navigating Boulez or Xenakis.
In other words, Rosbaud did things that only a professional would
appreciate. Except when you listen to Rosbaud's Carter you weep with
joy at how much *sense* the music makes, and when you hear his Mozart
and you despair that it's never sounded so *right* before. This you
can perceive without being a professional.
--Jeff
Simon Roberts
rkhalona says...
>>
>> >I'll reply with a quote that Boulez cites in his preface to Joan
>> >Evans' book on Rosbaud (attributed to Henri Sauguet, IIRC):
>>
>> >"The taste of music buffs differs from the taste of music
>> >professionals. =A0Music buffs believe Toscanini to be the greatest
>> >conductor. =A0Professionals KNOW it is Hans Rosbaud."
>>
>> >RK (quoting from memory, so a word or two may be different, but the
>> >meaning is clear)
>>
>> Maybe; but it's a pretty silly remark - surely meant, at least in part,
>> tongue-in-cheek?
>>
>> Simon
>
>I don't think the remark is silly at all and, whether you agree with
>it or not, I think it was meant seriously.
Really? It reads like a joke to me (especially that "believe" vs "know" - but
then perhaps he's as deluded as Landowska was in her quip about playing Bach if
*that* was meant seriously). Assuming it's not, the flaws include: there's no
uniform taste among music buffs, no uniform taste among music professionals, and
their respective tastes are not necessarily exclusive (indeed, given the variety
they're bound to overlap); there's no need to have "A greatest"; whether
someone's a good/great conductor depends on your criteria for "good/great" in
the context of conducting, and there's hardly uniform agreement about what those
criteria are, either among buffs or professional musicians.
To the extent he's merely saying that the taste of amateurs is inferior to the
taste of professionals, that's hardly self-evidently true.... (Why can't he
just say he prefers Rosbaud to Toscanini?)
(To the extent you're looking for support for your extreme fondness for Rosbaud,
well, such support isn't necessary.)
Simon
rkhalona
> In article <1f2c7598-1dca-4699-b728-2ec8d400c...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
I think you are being way too literal Simon (but I know you are an
attorney, so you are forgiven :-)
While I agree that there is no uniform taste among any group of
people, I think the meaning of the remark is clear, and it was not
meant as a joke. Boulez is still around to corroborate it and he
makes that clear in the preface to Evans' book.
RK
boombox
Simon Roberts wrote:
(Why can't he
> just say he prefers Rosbaud to Toscanini?)
Because for the young PB it was all about the polemics and the
situation. He said the opera houses should be blown up, but then he
got a gig at Bayreuth.
rkhalona
Evans' book on Rosbaud was published in 1992 when Boulez was hardly a
young man.
RK
Steve Emerson
<389295a3-234c-4018...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
jrsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
> The problem is lack of evidence. I'd like to know what Maderna's
> concerts with great orchestras sounded like. I would like to know more
> about his Brahms. I'd like to know something of his Beethoven and
> Tchaikovsky and Haydn, etc.
Whether or not Mozart falls under "etc" dunno, but the K. 491 with
Kempff is stunning.
SE.
rkhalona
> In article <1f2c7598-1dca-4699-b728-2ec8d400c...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> rkhalona says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >I'll reply with a quote that Boulez cites in his preface to Joan
> >> >Evans' book on Rosbaud (attributed to Henri Sauguet, IIRC):
>
> >> >"The taste of music buffs differs from the taste of music
> >> >professionals. =A0Music buffs believe Toscanini to be the greatest
> >> >conductor. =A0Professionals KNOW it is Hans Rosbaud."
>
> >> >RK (quoting from memory, so a word or two may be different, but the
> >> >meaning is clear)
>
> >> Maybe; but it's a pretty silly remark - surely meant, at least in part,
> >> tongue-in-cheek?
>
> >> Simon
>
> >I don't think the remark is silly at all and, whether you agree with
> >it or not, I think it was meant seriously.
>
> Really? It reads like a joke to me
BTW, you can read Boulez's foreword here.
The quote in question is by Francis Poulenc, not Henri Sauguet; my
mistake.
RK
boombox
rkhalona wrote:
>
> Evans' book on Rosbaud was published in 1992 when Boulez was hardly a
> young man.
>
Good for him! I would have thought he said it in his Darmstadt days,
when he was the enfant terrible. Now he’s an elder-terrible.
jrsnfld
wrote:
> In article
> <389295a3-234c-4018-a576-ab320b9c7...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The problem is lack of evidence. I'd like to know what Maderna's
> > concerts with great orchestras sounded like. I would like to know more
> > about his Brahms. I'd like to know something of his Beethoven and
> > Tchaikovsky and Haydn, etc.
>
> Whether or not Mozart falls under "etc" dunno, but the K. 491 with
> Kempff is stunning.
>
> SE.
Yes, as is the rest of that Arkadia disc, the concerto being the
highlight.
--Jeff
boombox
rkhalona wrote:
>
> Evans' book on Rosbaud was published in 1992 when Boulez was hardly a
> young man.
>
But Poulenc said it in 1954!
Tassilo
Tassilo
> Even allowing for this, as Jeff says, the limit of Maderna's
> repertoire means that his 'greatness' is limited.
> Compared with other conductors whose repertoire is so broad (e.g.,
> Rosbaud), Maderna is surely a small potato,
> as great as some of this limited evidence is (and don't count me as a
> detractor as I consider Maderna's Mahler 9th one of the best there
> is).
If I’m reading you correctly, I don’t think you know how big Maderna’s
repertory actually was, and—beyond what he got around to conducting—
there was the vast repertory of music he knew like the back of his
hand from Gabrieli to Mozart’s operas to the standard repertory to the
second Viennese school to anything any European composer slightly
younger than he was ever wrote: there’s a reason why he was viewed as
a kind of genial uncle figure by just about every European composer of
Boulez’s generation: they knew how much music he knew. Rosbaud, I’ll
admit—Rosbaud, whom you already know I admire—is in a very similar
league. Certainly by this time Boulez—who was already familiar with
Machaut and Gesualdo and Monteverdi in the early 50’s, Boulez who has
conducted operas by Rameau and Haydn—can compete with them in
knowledge, but not in the ability to put across the music of remotely
as many periods and styles as well as they could.
-david gable
Tassilo
> The point is, judging by the evidence we have, he is
> not yet up there with the greatest.
Accidents don't just happen. All I have to hear to know what Maderna
was capable of is the BBC SO Mahler 9th or the RAI Lulu. (The Lulu
performance provides evidence of more than one kind of Maderna’s true
stature: with Lulu Maderna actually gets an Italian radio orchestra
to pull off a sweeping and nuanced performance of a difficult piece
from a difficult repertory his musicians can't possibly have known
well in 1959. This is a stupefying achievement, but you have to
appreciate what a conductor is up against in Lulu to appreciate that.)
As for waiting for the archives to open, I’ve been listening to
Maderna performances for thirty years—not necessarily of the three
B’s, of course, unless you mean Berg, Berio, and Boulez—and my opinion
isn’t going to change when more becomes available. I’ve been
fortunate enough to hear a few things that aren’t widely available,
too, like the stupefying performance of Jakobsleiter Maderna gave in
Vienna shortly after the score finally became available circa 1970.
I’ve got all of the studio recordings of Jakobsleiter and the live
performance with Dóhnanyi and Cleveland from a Cleveland Orchestra
box, and Maderna quite simply trumps them all. Maybe Rosbaud could
have done as well. (Nagano’s is actually pretty impressive. Boulez’s
is good, and the concert performances before hand were surely better,
but Maderna’s is best.)
One living conductor I have some hope for is Chung, but any studio
recording he makes for DG is suspect because of their ghastly
engineers: you can count on them to wipe clean of nuances any surface
they doctor. But then, recently I’ve even come around to David
Robertson and Pierre-Laurent Aimard—yes, I know, he’s a pianist—on the
basis of live performances after being secretly appalled by the
mechanical perfection minus everything else characteristic of some of
their studio recordings.
-david gable
rkhalona
All I said is that I would like a bigger sample of Maderna's work as a
conductor before I could agree with you
that 'there was never a greater conductor'. What I have heard from
him (esp. that Mahler 9th) is certainly
impressive, but it has been a limited sample.
RK
rkhalona
>
> But then, recently I’ve even come around to David
> Robertson
>
> -david gable
After seeing Robertson live already three times, I completely sold.
The guy is a genuine talent and his latest singing debut in NYC, under
accidental circumstances, only adds to his talent and his
determination to put on a good show.
RK
rkhalona
Yes, but the point is that Boulez cited this to make a bigger point
about a conductor he considers truly great, not in the impulse of
youth, but in writing the foreword to a scholarly publication c. 1992.
I don't think it can be dismissed as a joke.
RK
boombox
rkhalona wrote:
> > But Poulenc said it in 1954!
>
> Yes, but the point is that Boulez cited this to make a bigger point
> about a conductor he considers truly great, not in the impulse of
> youth, but in writing the foreword to a scholarly publication c. 1992.
> I don't think it can be dismissed as a joke.
>
I said Boulez was fond of polemics, not jokes. A lot of these polemic
statements (which PB himself was much more prone to make in the 50s)
are more gestural than literal, but I’m sure he was and is in complete
accord with Poulenc’s feelings about both Toscanini and Rosbaud.
boombox
Whosis Kid wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Polemics that show that Boulez, despite his enormous talent, is a
> fucking idiot. He reminds me of Le Corbusier, who had this plan to
> demolish a bunch of old Paris and build square cement boxes.
> Fortunately, sensible people said no, buddy, go build that stuff
> somewhere else. I believe Boulez made these declarations because he is
> narcissistic. An artist should do, not proclaim what should be done or
> the coming of the new Messiah. An artist should do and keep his mouth
> shut. It's hard enough to be an artist, let alone play Messiah with a
> megaphone.
>
I agree at least to the extent that many of those earlier polemics
were unnecessarily cruel. The Poulenc quip he cited is comparatively
gentle.
Tassilo
> Polemics that show that Boulez, despite his enormous talent, is a
> fucking idiot.
No they don’t. They show that he’s exactly like every other French
painter, poet, and composer of the past 250 years (and Boulez has read
his Diderot and Baudelaire; he knows what Mallarmé wrote about
Manet).
Maybe you’re unaware of what Berlioz and Debussy wrote and said about
music or what was said about them by their contemporaries. Berlioz
recommended burning down the Opéra, Monet the Louvre. Maybe you're
unaware of the damning but extremely interesting comments Debussy made
about Beethoven and Wagner. In an article in Le temps published in
1908, Lalo claimed that Dukas’ Ariane et Barbe-bleue was music for
decent people, Pélléas music for degenerates. In the same article he
attacked the “invertebrate descendants of ‘debussyme,’” a very
interesting remark: Lalo thinks “impressionist” music is formless,
lacking the structural backbone of earlier music. The only difference
between Debussy and Lalo is that Debussy aspires to this very sort of
“formlessness.” There will be a reaction against Debussyan
formlessness in the 1920's with the crisp Franco-Russian neoclassicism
of Stravinsky et al: Cocteau will contribute to the polemics.
(Earlier Cézanne had similarly reacted to the "formlessness" he
objected to in Monet's paintings.)
Polemics are inextricably interwoven into the history of any art form
because people are quite naturally inclined to talk about their work,
and artists quite naturally take art very seriously.
> An artist should do and keep his mouth
> shut.
Everybody but the artist is permitted to discuss art? Please. As
Baudelaire once said, “I have the right to be wrong.”
-david gable
Tassilo
> preferably in their original orchestrations. If he can bring those off
> with an original take and brilliant execution, he can consider himself
> done. He'll have to throw everything he has at those.
He's certainly done his bit for Schumann, performing the Scenes from
Faust in both New York and London, Der Rose Pilgerfahrt in London.
That being said, given the extent that he's cut back on conducting I
seriously doubt that there are any Schumann symphony performances in
his future. If the right person happened to ask (as the VPO asked him
to perform a Bruckner symphony) . . .
-david gable
Tassilo
> Because for the young PB it was all about the polemics and the
> situation. He said the opera houses should be blown up, but then he
> got a gig at Bayreuth.
No. The interview in Der Spiegel took place after he had conducted
Wozzeck at the Opéra, after he first conducted Parsifal at Bayreuth,
after he had already agreed to conduct a series of performances at
various opera houses in productions directed by Wieland Wagner.
Furthermore, this statement is ALWAYS quoted out of context as
evidence that Boulez wanted to burn down civilization. In fact, the
statement was a function of a more hot headed younger Boulez’s
irritated professionalism. In context he is specifically complaining
about the Opéra of the mid-1960’s, about the lack of professionalism
(as he perceived it) of the performances there; about the maintenance
of sets, costumes, and productions that were 30 or 40 years old and
literally moth eaten; and about the inadequacy of the ancient stage
machinery used at the Opéra relative to what could be found in any new
theatre performing plays. If he wants to burn down the Opéra, it’s
because he wants an expensive new theatre built in its place and
Bayreuth levels of professionalism imposed. In the same interview he
complains about repertory houses that throw on half a dozen under-
rehearsed performances a week with changing casts, etc. I think he
fails to take into account the financial realities of running an opera
house, but that’s hardly the point.
As for buildings, Boulez has played an active role in the building of
IRCAM, an opera house, a music school, and a concert hall in Paris,
none of which would have come into existence without his advocacy.
-david gable
Tassilo
> All I said is that I would like a bigger sample of Maderna's work as a
> conductor before I could agree with you
> that 'there was never a greater conductor'. What I have heard from
> him (esp. that Mahler 9th) is certainly
> impressive, but it has been a limited sample.
Fair enough.
-david gable
boombox
Or yes, all about “the polemics and the situation.” He wanted these
opera houses blown up then for that reason, but not those opera houses
at another time. Which is to say, certain Swiss critics
notwithstanding, he didn’t really want to blow up anything, but was
making a political point. And I daresay he wasn’t really thrilled
that Schoenberg was dead, but was making another point. I am well
aware that the French like to talk like this.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:0e4222ab-7443-4b73-a631-7e09da3d2b60@
37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
> Boulez has one peak to climb: the symphonies of Robert Schumann,
> preferably in their original orchestrations. If he can bring those off
> with an original take and brilliant execution, he can consider himself
> done. He'll have to throw everything he has at those.
I still think he'll find his way to Shostakovich eventually -- at least a few
of the symphonies, such as the 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 14th, and 15th.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Gerard
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> young guy and have done little of merit, that things should be done
> this or that way, or the "death of" this or that, is stupid. For two
> reasons, at least: a) it shows disrespect for your elders, which is a
> well-known form of arrogant stupidity; b) it purports to tell other
> people what is valid, which makes you sound like an arrogant tyrant.
> Several years ago, one of the film-makers who signed the Oberhausen
> manifesto was interviews on German TV. They asked him what he thought
> about it and he said: "We were young... [pause] and stupid."
>
> Summary: Arrogant assholes, even if their culture has a tradition of
> arrogant assholiness, are always stupid. More often than not, they end
> up with egg in their face. Go write something like Op. 131 and then...
> then you will have to say nothing, because your work says what you had
> to say.
>
> wk
That's why you have so much to say?
Tassilo
> I am well
> aware that the French like to talk like this.
I'm not surprised that you are. Nevertheless, you did claim that
Boulez advocated blowing up the opera houses BEFORE he was invited to
Bayreuth, after which the statement might have been inconvenient.
This is simply untrue: Bayreuth came first.
Finally, regardless of how the French talk, Boulez was never even
rhetorically advocating burning down the opera houses for the reasons
conveyed by the statement when it is quoted out of context.
-david gable
Tassilo
> Summary: Arrogant assholes, even if their culture has a tradition of
> arrogant assholiness, are always stupid. More often than not, they end
> up with egg in their face. Go write something like Op. 131 and then...
> then you will have to say nothing, because your work says what you had
> to say.
So you do like arrogant assholes like Beethoven who mouth off in their
youth before they've written their Opus 131's after all!
-david gable
boombox
In a previous post you said “the 'Opéra.” Was he was specifically
referring to the Théâtre de l'Opéra? One would certainly not gather
that from the standard issue quotation.