Barenboim to leave CSO
Rick
CSO as music director at the end of the 2005-2006 season. More details when
and if available - I hope I got this info correct.
- Rick
Peter T. Daniels
It's about time. Maybe their subscriber base will rebound.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
David7Gable
Sad if true.
-david gable
Rick
Rick wrote in message ...
>This just in via WFMT...Barenboim will step down from his position with the
>CSO as music director at the end of the 2005-2006 season. More details when
>and if available - I hope I got this info correct.
Brief paraphrase of his statement read on WFMT: He realizes the role of
music director in America is changing, and doesn't have the time or energy
to attend to non-musical issues.
- Rick
Rick
>Rick wrote:
>>
>> This just in via WFMT...Barenboim will step down from his position with
the
>> CSO as music director at the end of the 2005-2006 season. More details
when
>> and if available - I hope I got this info correct.
>
>It's about time. Maybe their subscriber base will rebound.
Any further explanatory thoughts? Apologies if I've missed anything here; I
read these groups only occasionally and have only posted a few times.
- Rick
ansermetniac
Then why doesn't he become Chief Conductor and give up the
administrative duties
Abbedd
deac...@yahoo.com
A naive statement.
The conductor of any American orchestra is its chief fundraiser.
TD
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:c13cvo$1dq178$1...@ID-117547.news.uni-berlin.de:
The Los Angeles Philharmonic famously "tailored" the job for Carlo Maria
Giulini (read: Ernest Fleischmann did the work so CMG wouldn't have to).
Maybe Barenboim is upset about the recording situation.
--
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
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's Fault!
Van Eyes
news:c13903$1dfd9f$1...@ID-117547.news.uni-berlin.de
> This just in via WFMT...Barenboim will step down from his position with the
> CSO as music director at the end of the 2005-2006 season. More details when
> and if available - I hope I got this info correct.
Not surprised...due to the apparent rumbles, and the actual loss of
recording contract.
It's never too early to play the MD guessing game.
Regards
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Terrymelin
>It's about time. Maybe their subscriber base will rebound.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels
A nasty, stupid, and ill-informed comment.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
has only been in the last few years that he and the orchestra have really hit
their "groove."
He's leaving too soon. I also dread the search considering how few conductors
of his level are out there right now.
Terry Ellsworth
Rick
<20040219212635...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
Maybe it's my imagination or lack of knowledge, but haven't there been a lot
of major conductor changes in the last few years?
- Rick
Matthew B. Tepper
No, you're not seeing things.
--
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
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
William Quentin (bloom)
Well, that's depressing news. I'm having a hard time coming up with
anyone who will be able to fill his shoes.
Btw, here's an article from the Sun-Times about Barenboim's
resignation. It doesn't really say much of interest, but I guess it
makes it official:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/19bare.html
-Billy
---
You are the music while the music lasts.
Josep Vilanova
Berlin, playing the piano, touring around and being music director in
Chicago. I hope that a less busy shedule will help him to deepen his
performances. I wonder whether he'll be conducting the Vienna
Philarmonic more often now. I won't be surprised if he starts doing
the New Year concerts soon.
josep
Peter T. Daniels
I knew several people in Chicago, lifelong CSO subscribers, who tried
ordering their season tickets to as much as possible avoid Barenboim
concerts and only get guest conductors. In his first(?) season he wasted
a vast amount of money on staged productions of the Mozart-Da Ponte
operas (built a stage over half the Orchestra Hall stage, for instance),
and the performances were universally disliked (I went to Cosě, and it
was boring and unidiomatic, to say the least). Thus he did not get off
on the right foot.
He's a fine pianist. He should have stayed one.
Terrymelin
>of major conductor changes in the last few years?
>
>- Rick
Yep. And two conductors that would be high on my list: David Robertson and
Christoph Eschenbach have recently taken up major posts.
Some of the rumoured names: Gergiev and Tilson Thomas would be perfectly
dreadful.
Terry Ellsworth
Brian Park
news:403530...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> It's about time. Maybe their subscriber base will rebound.
>
I think Barenboim has definitely had mixed results during his time in
Chicago. The subscriber base has indeed decreased (although I'm not sure
*all* the blame falls squarely on Barenboim's shoulders for this). But he
has definitely done some good things here too. The sound of the orchestra,
while not having the vintage knife-edged precision of the Reiner and Solti
eras, has nevertheless improved to my ears from the different concerts I've
attended. The strings sound fuller and brass, while still strong, no longer
overpowers the rest of the orchestra. And it should be noted that some
outstanding new principals have been appointed during Barenboim's tenure
including Alex Klein, David McGill, Mathieu Dufour, and Robert Chen, among
others.
There have been some Barenboim concerts I've attended that I'd rather
forget. But there have also been a few that I really enjoyed, most notably
a Brucker 4 he did in January 2000 that completely blew me away--one of the
most memorable experiences in my life.
Brian Park
Arlington Heights, IL
Paul Goldstein
Don't worry about Tilson Thomas, a much more versatile conductor than Barenboim
by the way. He won't leave SF for Chicago.
Paul Goldstein
David7Gable
>a vast amount of money on staged productions of the Mozart-Da Ponte
>operas (built a stage over half the Orchestra Hall stage, for instance),
>and the performances were universally disliked (I went to Cosě, and it
>was boring and unidiomatic, to say the least).
Opera is expensive, but performing the Da Ponte is not a waste of money. I
heard only the Cosi and thought the performance was terrific. I regretted not
having taken the opportunity to hear Don Giovanni and Figaro. (And I'm talking
about Barenboim, not the actual production, which I could have lived without.)
Moreover, Barenboim is hardly the first conductor of the CSO to schedule
expensive operas, although fully staged productions is another thing entirely,
I admit. I've heard both Solti and Boulez do Moses und Aron and Abbado do
Boris and Wozzeck. Solti also did expensive Wagner operas including Rheingold
and Meistersinger. I also heard Solti do Falstaff. Of these, only Wozzeck was
staged.
When I was in Chicago, I also appreciated the diverse repertory that Barenboim
was responsible for and above all for his special relationship to the music of
Elliott Carter. The only other living conductor whom I'd like to hear conduct
Carter as much as I want to hear Barenboim conduct Carter is Michael Gielen.
-david gable
Van Eyes
news:c15la...@drn.newsguy.com
>....Tilson Thomas, a much more versatile conductor than Barenboim
> by the way.
I don't think so. I'll take B's Bruckner over MTT's heaping helpings of
Americana.
Discographies don't tell the whole story, but they tell a good portion
of it...
http://www.daniel-barenboim.com/
http://www.sfsymphony.org/templates/mttInfo.asp?nodeid=63&callid=59
What's more important in the grand scheme, is what works, and how often
it works. MTT's an underachiever, who falls considerably short of
Barenboim's accomplishments.
Paul Goldstein
Eyes says...
>
>"Paul Goldstein" <pgol...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:c15la...@drn.newsguy.com
>
>>....Tilson Thomas, a much more versatile conductor than Barenboim
>> by the way.
>
>I don't think so. I'll take B's Bruckner over MTT's heaping helpings of
>Americana.
Straw man. I'd take MTT's (recorded) Mahler over Barenboim's (recorded)
Bruckner. But that's not the point.
>Discographies don't tell the whole story, but they tell a good portion
>of it...
Discographies don't matter at all for the point I was making. MTT conducts
(e.g.) Russian, French, and mainstream American music far more successfully than
Barenboim. I'd say they are peers in the Austro-German repertoire. Barenboim
has obviously gotten to record more than MTT, but so what? He is an
accomplished self-promoter, sans doute.
Paul Goldstein
Van Eyes
> He is an
> accomplished self-promoter, sans doute.
Only in your mind...which is okay. <:-]
Rick
>In article <b29e3a2fd3f68738e80...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
Van
>Eyes says...
>>
>>"Paul Goldstein" <pgol...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:c15la...@drn.newsguy.com
>>
>>>....Tilson Thomas, a much more versatile conductor than Barenboim
>>> by the way.
>>
>>I don't think so. I'll take B's Bruckner over MTT's heaping helpings of
>>Americana.
>
>Straw man. I'd take MTT's (recorded) Mahler over Barenboim's (recorded)
>Bruckner. But that's not the point.
MTT's recent Mahler 6 just blows me away. I was also impressed by his Mahler
3, which I've only heard once on the radio. But I realize that it takes more
than some spectacular Mahler to fill Barenboim's shoes.
- Rick
Paul Goldstein
With all due respect, Chicago should be so lucky as to "fill Barenboim's shoes"
with a conductor of MTT's stature.
Paul Goldstein
A.J. Robb
Agreed. But are there other major orchestras to explore? I thought
maybe Salonen on an outside chance, but with the new hall and
everything I guess that's as unlikely as MTT. Perhaps James Conlon
will luck out with this one.
Or perhaps they could actually get Haitink this time around. Boulez?
Eschenbach would have been outstanding (one of my favorite conductors
live) but, well...
William Eddins has consistently impressed me too... He's already their
conductor in residence.
A.J.
David7Gable
He'll never accept a Music Directorship at this point in his career, as he made
clear when he abandoned the last of his many administrative posts. He's been
toying with retiring from conducting entirely in order to devote himself
exclusively to composition for five years or so. He's wasting his time
conducting, comparatively speaking.
-david gable
A.J. Robb
Mariss Jansons just occured to me. Also, Marin Alsop?
A.J.
Matthew Silverstein
> Mariss Jansons just occured to me. Also, Marin Alsop?
How about Gatti?
Matty
Emrla
>From: ar...@iwu.edu (A.J. Robb)
>Date: 2/20/2004 4:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1e8bcf2d.0402...@posting.google.com>
budget and fund raising, etc.
EMR
Paul Ilechko
As opposed to wasting our time when he's composing ?
Matthew Vaughan
> Update...
>
> Rick wrote in message ...
the
> >CSO as music director at the end of the 2005-2006 season. More details
when
> >and if available - I hope I got this info correct.
>
> music director in America is changing, and doesn't have the time or energy
> to attend to non-musical issues.
This sounds like Rattle's reasons for not wanting an American music
directorship.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20040220191217...@mb-m12.aol.com:
DANG! I want him to win just three more Grammy awards....
Matthew B. Tepper
> When I was in Chicago, I also appreciated the diverse repertory that
> Barenboim was responsible for and above all for his special relationship
> to the music of Elliott Carter. The only other living conductor whom
> I'd like to hear conduct Carter as much as I want to hear Barenboim
> conduct Carter is Michael Gielen.
Not Boulez??
Matthew Vaughan
>
> Discographies don't matter at all for the point I was making. MTT
conducts
> (e.g.) Russian, French, and mainstream American music far more
successfully than
> Barenboim. I'd say they are peers in the Austro-German repertoire.
Barenboim
> has obviously gotten to record more than MTT, but so what? He is an
> accomplished self-promoter, sans doute.
I would say that MTT surprises me. I heard his inaugural concert on the
radio (Beethoven 9) and was not at all impressed. But years later, I've
heard him conduct Schumann and Sibelius - two of my favorits composers, and
two composers I wouldn't have thought would be strengths of his - very
successfully. So while his programming choices are very different from my
tastest, and I don't necessarily count on loving his interpretations, in
reality I've been disappointed only very rarely when he was on the podium.
Matthew Vaughan
news:20040220191217...@mb-m12.aol.com...
I'd far rather hear his conducting (such as his Chicago Firebird) than his
compositions (which I don't care for at all).
Marko Velikonja
Barenboim is a supremely able musician and it's hard to imagine there
are many others out there who the magnificent and (justifiably)
demanding CSO musicians would accept as their leader. Now the NYPO's
decision to hire Lorin Maazel is easier for me to understand; you may
not like his interpretations but few if any conductors are more
competent at their craft.
The Tribune published a short list of oft-mentioned potential
successors:
Robertson
Chailly
Gergiev
MTT
Salonen
Maybe one or two others who I'm forgetting at the moment. As
Robertson just got hired in St. Louis, it would be highly unlikely
(not to mention unseemly) to bug out of that job to go to the CSO,
even if they were inclined to hire him. Chailly will be plenty busy
in Leipzig, leading not only the Gewandhaus orchestra but I believe
the opera as well. Maybe not impossible for him to take on the CSO,
but it's unlikely he could give it the time the CSO board may want.
MTT and Salonen seem happily ensconced with their orchestras, and if
they were to leave it would certainly put the lie to the notion that
there is no longer a "Big Five." Might not stop them, but I wouldn't
bet on it. So that leaves Gergiev, who I quite like and his penchant
for overwork might make him embrace the challenge. Or maybe they'll
do like Cleveland; Christoph von Dohnanyi was certainly a fine and
well-regarded conductor when they hired him, but not a major brand
name. Maybe the CSO will look for less than brand-name conductor who
just happens to be a great musician.
I had another idea: why not forget about having a music director?
Maybe this would be a good time to try something new. Surely the 100+
supremely accomplished musicians of the CSO could handle at least two
major music director tasks on their own: auditioning new players and
program planning. Then, since they're the CSO, they could probably
book the A-list of the world's conductors to come in for, say, stints
of 2-3 weeks each. It's not as though they need an orchestra builder
to make them a better ensemble, after all.
Marko Velikonja
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:2fd62b56.0402201926.513a89b8
@posting.google.com:
> MTT and Salonen seem happily ensconced with their orchestras, and if they
> were to leave it would certainly put the lie to the notion that there is
> no longer a "Big Five." Might not stop them, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Even Cleveland couldn't tempt Salonen away. He likes it here in L.A. And
San Francisco actually lets MTT (gasp!) make recordings. What other US
orchestra can say that these days?
sam6...@earthlink.net
Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> david...@aol.com (David7Gable) appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:20040220153340...@mb-m17.aol.com:
>
>
>>When I was in Chicago, I also appreciated the diverse repertory that
>>Barenboim was responsible for and above all for his special relationship
>>to the music of Elliott Carter. The only other living conductor whom
>>I'd like to hear conduct Carter as much as I want to hear Barenboim
>>conduct Carter is Michael Gielen.
>
>
> Not Boulez??
I have to denounce the implication of our dear Mr. Gable being
*completely*, *absolutely* and *utterly* predictable.
regards,
SG
(:
Ramon Khalona
> > Boulez?
>
> He's wasting his time
> conducting, comparatively speaking.
Klemperer told him that over 30 years ago.
RK
A.J. Robb
I was under the impression that he was the music director for Pittsburgh...
A.J.
REG
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040220084013...@mb-m21.aol.com...
William Quentin (bloom)
Additionally, how old will he be in the 2006-2007 season? Eighty
something? Granted, he still seems to be quite spry, but even if he
were to accept the CSO MD, I can't imagine he'd be able to devote very
many years, or much energy, to it. I'd rather see him devote his time
to finishing some of his unfinished compositions, anyway.
(Hopefully I don't sound like an "ageist" in this post.) ;-)
-Billy
---
You are the music while the music lasts.
William Quentin (bloom)
wrote:
>In article <b29e3a2fd3f68738e80...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Van
>Eyes says...
>>
>>"Paul Goldstein" <pgol...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:c15la...@drn.newsguy.com
>>
>>>....Tilson Thomas, a much more versatile conductor than Barenboim
>>> by the way.
>>
>>I don't think so. I'll take B's Bruckner over MTT's heaping helpings of
>>Americana.
>
>Straw man. I'd take MTT's (recorded) Mahler over Barenboim's (recorded)
>Bruckner. But that's not the point.
And I'd take Barenboim's recorded Wagner over either of those. But I
guess that's not the point, either. ;-)
HenryFogel
>Message-id: <1e8bcf2d.04022...@posting.google.com>
"Was" is the correct tense - he has stepped down from that role, and Pittsburgh
is currently looking for his successor.
Henry Fogel
Donald C. Patterson
henry...@aol.com wrote on 2/21/04 9:11 AM:
Go back to the Hungarians.
Arpad Joo
--
Don Patterson
Trombonist/Music Copyist/Arranger
"The President's Own"
United States Marine Band
"Celebrating 205 years of playing America's music"
Commspkmn
<< "Was" is the correct tense - he has stepped down from that role, and
Pittsburgh
is currently looking for his successor.
Henry Fogel >>
Yes, this is Mariss's final season as Music Director with the Pittsburgh
Symphony. We're thankful that we still have some exciting concerts to look
forward to between now and the end of the season, including the Mahler 7 (which
the Orchestra will also play at Carnegie Hall in March) and the season-ending
Beethoven Ninth.
Pittsburgh's loss is definitely Munich and Amsterdam's gain.
Best,
Ken
Bill Anderson
Could Slatkin be in the running this time 'round? Or has that ship sailed?
- Bill A.
David7Gable
I hope it's sunk.
-david gable
David7Gable
>> I'd like to hear conduct Carter as much as I want to hear Barenboim
>> conduct Carter is Michael Gielen.
>
>Not Boulez??
Not the Boulez of today, no, although he was capable of some rip roaring Carter
in the 70's. And not David Robertson and not Oliver Knussen. None of these
three conductors approaches Carter as an essentially old fashioned traditional
composer subject to a kind of traditional phrasing. Barenboim and Gielen do.
David Robertson approaches everything exactly as he approaches Steve Reich,
striving for a kind of mechanical perfection. In one sense, he's a
phenomenally gifted musician whom no musical complexity could ever defeat, but
I can't imagine him ever developing any traditional sense of phrasing of the
sorts that are fundamental for all music before the neoclassical Stravinsky and
especially minimalism including Carter. Knussen is gifted in the same way but
when it comes to phrasing he's a complete blank. In this company, Boulez is
the most traditional, the most apt to phrase in an old fashioned and
distinctive way.
-david gable
David7Gable
>As opposed to wasting our time when he's [Boulez is] composing ?
How would you know? What pieces do you know well enough to justify an opinion?
-david gable
David7Gable
>> conducting, comparatively speaking.
>
>Klemperer told him that over 30 years ago.
>
>
So did Stravinsky. And so have many other people.
-david gable
David7Gable
>compositions (which I don't care for at all).
>
Hardly the point. Any conductor can conduct the Firebird, but only Boulez can
write Boulez's music. And no matter how good Boulez's recordings of pieces
like Firebird are, there are countless other versions of the same pieces in the
catalogue: the world would not be a significantly different place without
Boulez's. (For the record, I prefer his NY Phil recording to his CSO
recording.)
-david gable
Matthew Silverstein
> Hardly the point. Any conductor can conduct the Firebird, but only Boulez
can
> write Boulez's music.
But only Boulez can conduct the Boulez's Firebird. That is, only Boulez can
conduct the Firebird like Boulez conducts it. If I'm wrong--if someone else
can do it like he does it--then why can't someone else can compose music
like Boulez composes? Either way, I don't buy the distinction you're
drawing.
Matty
David7Gable
>conduct the Firebird like Boulez conducts it.
This is absolutely true. But there is far less difference between Boulez's
performance and the performances of other conductors of any given piece and the
difference between the music written by two different composers. Furthermore,
the loss of ONE interpretation of a warhorse played and recorded countless
times is not remotely a loss comparable to the loss of the piece itself.
-david gable
Matthew Silverstein
> This is absolutely true. But there is far less difference between
Boulez's
> performance and the performances of other conductors of any given piece
and the
> difference between the music written by two different composers.
Furthermore,
> the loss of ONE interpretation of a warhorse played and recorded countless
> times is not remotely a loss comparable to the loss of the piece itself.
Don't you think that's somewhat relative? At this point in my musical life,
I'd be willing to throw out all of John Cage's music in exchange for *one*
interpretation of Mahler 2. I'm sure many people feel the same about Boulez.
Matty
sam6...@earthlink.net
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>>the loss of ONE interpretation of a warhorse played and recorded countless
>>times is not remotely a loss comparable to the loss of the piece itself.
>
>
> Don't you think that's somewhat relative? At this point in my musical life,
> I'd be willing to throw out all of John Cage's music in exchange for *one*
> interpretation of Mahler 2. I'm sure many people feel the same about Boulez.
About Boulez the composer? How can you say that? Did you ever listen to
the Second Piano Sonata?! Or to Structures I?!? If you did, did you
really want an interpretation of Mahler 2 *in exchange*? You could
rather say that many people would throw Boulez's music *and* a new $20
bill only to make sure they didn't get it back!
regards,
SG
"David-baiter-in-residence"
( :
Matthew Silverstein
> About Boulez the composer? How can you say that? Did you ever listen to
> the Second Piano Sonata?! Or to Structures I?!? If you did, did you
> really want an interpretation of Mahler 2 *in exchange*? You could
> rather say that many people would throw Boulez's music *and* a new $20
> bill only to make sure they didn't get it back!
:-)
Matty
Raymond Hall
I really cannot believe that you would dispense with Cage's output for an
89th recording of yet another Mahler 2nd. Or have I misinterpreted your
post?
| I'm sure many people feel the same about Boulez.
A lot of people talk about Boulez this way, but how many have really devoted
the time to this composer, to be able to dismiss him so flippantly?
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Matthew Vaughan
news:2fd62b56.04022...@posting.google.com...
>
> I had another idea: why not forget about having a music director?
> Maybe this would be a good time to try something new. Surely the 100+
> supremely accomplished musicians of the CSO could handle at least two
> major music director tasks on their own: auditioning new players and
> program planning. Then, since they're the CSO, they could probably
> book the A-list of the world's conductors to come in for, say, stints
> of 2-3 weeks each. It's not as though they need an orchestra builder
> to make them a better ensemble, after all.
Yes, an interesting idea. I've thought this might be a good idea for some
other orchestras as well, particularly in terms of hiring new players.
But I think having someone to work with for more than a few weeks a year can
make a big difference in building and maintaining a particular sound,
discipline, unaniminity of purpose, etc. Without someone who comes back week
after week to harp on the same issues, the 100+ musicians, each with their
own ideas, may well end up doing things 100+ different ways, all in the same
piece, and a guest conductor on only a 2-week stint can't do all that much
about it (plus each guest conductor may be emphasizing different things, so
the orchestra gets pulled in different directions).
The real problem is changing the American non-profit culture that demands
the music director be the primary fundraiser and cheerleader, constantly
explaining, over and over again, WHY it is important to support classical
music, and this orchestra in particular. This requirement appears to be
turning away quite a number of excellent European conductors.
David7Gable
No. Where there are 100 versions of the Firebird, the loss of one makes very
little difference and perhaps even zero difference. The loss of the Firebird
itself would make a big difference.
>At this point in my musical life,
>I'd be willing to throw out all of John Cage's music in exchange for *one*
>interpretation of Mahler 2.
>I'm sure many people feel the same about Boulez.
So what. Above all in the case of an oft-played warhorse, the loss of a mere
interpretation cannot remotely compare to the loss of a work. The loss to the
infinitesimal minority that listens to Boulez's music is far greater when he
fails to compose than the loss to the far larger number that would like to
listen to his Firebird but have no interest in his music if he never conducted
the Firebird again (or had never recorded it).
But only a philosopher could get into such an argument. Musicians like
Klemperer and Stravinsky recognized the danger to his composiional career of
Boulez's conducting career, and time has proven them right. The fact that the
average symphony orchestra subscriber doesn't "get" Boulez's music is simply
not relevant. Klemperer and Stravinsky recognized his gifts (as did Poulenc,
Virgil Thomson, Copland, Milhaud, etc.) and were right to be worried.
-david gable
David7Gable
>the Second Piano Sonata?! Or to Structures I?!? If you did, did you
>really want an interpretation of Mahler 2 *in exchange*? You could
>rather say that many people would throw Boulez's music *and* a new $20
>bill only to make sure they didn't get it back!
The question is not whether to save Boulez's music or Mahler's. It's whether
Boulez should devote his time to composing or conducting.
(What does your teacher William Heiles think about Boulez's 2nd Sonata, Samir?
And it won't do to throw up Structures 1 as an example of Boulez the composer
since he's never written anything remotely like it since, has no interest in
having it performed any longer, and vociferously distanced himself from the
approach embodied in it half a century ago. Indeed, he wrote Structures 2 as a
kind of rebuttal of Structures 1. But you're just trying to stir up trouble.)
-david gable
sam6...@earthlink.net
David7Gable wrote:
>>About Boulez the composer? How can you say that? Did you ever listen to
>>the Second Piano Sonata?! Or to Structures I?!? If you did, did you
>>really want an interpretation of Mahler 2 *in exchange*? You could
>>rather say that many people would throw Boulez's music *and* a new $20
>>bill only to make sure they didn't get it back!
>
>
> The question is not whether to save Boulez's music or Mahler's. It's whether
> Boulez should devote his time to composing or conducting.
If I had any word to say in it, Boulez should take up fishing and Carlos
Kleiber conducting, but are they asking me? And if they were asking,
would they be listening? And if they were listening, would they follow
my hearty advice?
> What does your teacher William Heiles think about Boulez's 2nd Sonata, Samir?
[Provoked Personal Parenthesis -- William Heiles has taught me for a
semester only, and we never talked about Boulez. He is a wonderful, most
broad-minded musician with many interests and capabilities and,
professionally speaking, I can only admire his ability to read correctly
and project responsibly not only Boulez's Second, but all three sonatas.
Bref, this is a most admirable accomplishment regardless of what one
thinks of the sonatas themselves.]
Quite frankly, what Boulez himself said about the Second Sonata -- his
penchant for "DDestroying", "DDisintegrating" and "DDemolishing" the
so-called conservative (from his point of view) formal remnants of the
so-called Second Viennese school --, combined with *how* *the* *sonata*
*actually* *sounds* --, is more damning than what anybody could say
about it.
Some of the music of those Utopianely UGLY times reminds me of Basil
Fawlty pretending the Siberian hamster didn't end in the biscuits box by
a horrible series of mishaps -- "would you care for rat, Sir?" -- but by
artistic destiny. I'll take your word for now that Boulez wrote better
music afterwards (iyo did Stockhausen too?). When I'll be able to get
over my revengeful feelings, I may even explore some more, provided I
get the Maderna recording of them, so I have an excuse. Speaking of the
early fifties though, did those composers ever apologize in public (I
dunno, donating something to the Mother Theresa Fund, whipping
themselves in public with whipped cream, listening for 24 hours in a
[pardon the pun] row to their own music, *something*) for their futile
and deafening misbehavior?
> But you're just trying to stir up trouble.
How did you figure that one out (-:? And yes, "trouble-stirring" is my
middle name since I dropped the Ghiocel baggage.
regards,
S "trouble-stirring" G
sam6...@earthlink.net
Fwiw, Furtwangler also thought of himself as a *Composer* sacrificed on
the ephemeral & trivial altar of (yuck) conducting. He couldn't have
been more wrong. *In principle* a great composer has more creativity to
impart than a great conductor, but a humbug of a composer wasting away a
genius for the baton would better leave composition to the real
composers. Who could say in earnestness Anton Rubinstein (who we know,
as a pianist, only by reputation, but *what* reputation!) should *not*
have composed less and performed more?
Now I never said I'd think Boulez an interpreter of Furtwangler's
caliber, but the *proportion* between their two respective vocations may
have well been the same for all we know. . . ( :.
regards,
SG
Ian Pace
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040222011100...@mb-m21.aol.com...
new versions of both the Second Piano Sonata and Structures 1, instead of
yet another Mahler 2. In the case of the latter, considering how often it's
cited by pro- and anti-modernists alike, it's amazing how few recordings
there are - I think I only know of one currently available, Kontarskys on
Wergo. However much this piece is seen as the devil incarnate, it should be
pointed out that it's only one-third of it (Structures 1a) which is written
in 'total serialism' mode (there was a thread about this on r.m.c.c.
recently, questionable whether even this piece or a couple of others from
Stockhausen, Goeyvaerts, etc., actually truly fulfill the definition).
Structures 1a is an experiment, and a remarkable one at that, an
otherworldly shortish section of a piece; one could compare it to the
section in Messiaen's Chronochromie with all the many birds singing
simultaneously.
Would also be nice to see a greater range of comparative recordings of the
six works of Barraque, or of early Stockhausen.
Ian
Ian Pace
> >I'd far rather hear his conducting (such as his Chicago Firebird) than
his
> >compositions (which I don't care for at all).
> >
>
> Hardly the point. Any conductor can conduct the Firebird, but only Boulez
can
> write Boulez's music.
I have heard it suggested that Boulez turned more and more to conducting
when he felt that as a composer he might be eclipsed by Stockhausen -
certainly from the 1950s until early 1970s the latter composer was able to
produce a much greater range of diversity and productivity (and for me, work
of greater interest; Boulez peaked at the beginning, and his work has been
losing its edge from the Third Piano Sonata onwards, decorative works such
as Repons and Sur Incises are a mere shadow of his former self).
Ian
Matthew Silverstein
> I really cannot believe that you would dispense with Cage's output for an
> 89th recording of yet another Mahler 2nd. Or have I misinterpreted your
> post?
Believe it. And I don't have 89 . . . yet.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> So what. Above all in the case of an oft-played warhorse, the loss of a
mere
> interpretation cannot remotely compare to the loss of a work.
It does for me. You're inferring that it cannot compare to anyone because it
does not compare to you. I'm sure Simon would trade in *all* of Debussy for
another recording of Beethoven 7 . . .
> But only a philosopher could get into such an argument.
Indeed.
Matty
Terrymelin
>Barenboim
>by the way. He won't leave SF for Chicago.
>
>Paul Goldstein
Give me a break. You can have him. If Tilson Thomas is more versatile than
Barenboim then I must be Mother Teresa.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>accomplished self-promoter, sans doute.
>
>Paul Goldstein
ROTFLOL. That's funny coming from an MTT supporter.
MTT is nothing -- and he is! -- if not an accomplished self-promoter.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
Egads. No. She's a disaster.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
>Matty
I can't envision any circumstances under which the CSO board would hire another
European conductor.
It will be an American. They don't want someone who will be flitting from here
and there. They want someone to make Chicago home and to become involved in
fundraising, etc.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
>- Bill A.
Let's hope not. That is a mediocrity whose time has come and gone.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>>a vast amount of money on staged productions of the Mozart-Da Ponte
>>operas (built a stage over half the Orchestra Hall stage, for instance),
>>and the performances were universally disliked (I went to Cosě, and it
>>was boring and unidiomatic, to say
These were among the highlights of his tenure. They were brilliantly performed,
sung, conducted, and played.
You are in the undistinct minority on this one.
Terry Ellsworth
deac...@yahoo.com
Such bullshit.
But then, there is not surprise in that statement once you check the
source.
However, Slatkin is unlikely to get Chicago, as they always want
foreigners for that ensemble. Stock, Reiner, Martinon, Solti,
Barenboim. Who will be next? Claus Peter Flor?
TD
David S.
leaving Chicago. Right after I heard the news I sat down and wrote a
list of ten to twelve names of who it could be, and found that I had
missed who would be the real natural for the job, even a little over
my first guess who Chicago might pick - Anthony Pappano. And that
name is Riccardo Chailly. Little reason why
he could not, Chailly I mean, devote something like sixteen weeks to
both Leipzig and Chicago. I'm no great Chailly fan, especially since
he has been
in Amsterdam, the orchestra in which city he has made to sound more
like the Chicago Symphony than to any European orchestra.
Given where I am from, Houston, another name that could certainly come
to mind here for Chicago would naturally be Christoph Eschenbach.
Phladelphia, I have heard through the grapevine, has somewhat learned
what a serious mistake they have made in picking this guy. And a
friend commented to me that if Eschenbach's agent smells trouble in
Philly, their sights might be turned toward Chicago. After the years
that Eschenbach has spent at Ravinia, and I've heard several
broadcasts from there as such, all I can say is that the Chicago
musicians are deserving what they will get if they ever hired him. I
do not think that is going to happen.
Most poignant of all is the dialogue here about the lack of appeal of
American music directorships to European conductors. This deserves
some commentary that is almost essay length here. I'd say briefly,
look toward the American Symphony Orchestra League for the blame for
this. The other night I turned
on NPR SymphonyCast which is run by the ASOL, at least in effect it
is.
It was a Houston Symphony broadcast with not Hans Graf, but with Claus
Peter Flor, a conductor maybe ten years ago I thought might be showing
some promise, and all based on Flor being popular with the musicians
here. It was some of the dullest, most stodgy playing that I have
heard on any orchestra on Smetana
and Mozart. I had to remind myself that this was not playing by the
HSO after the strike, the ten percent pay cut and a number of players
leaving here,
instead of before.
None of the results matter, however, near as much as the publicity
that any event for a symphony orchestra can generate. So, much was
made of Jon Kimura Parker inserting 'Star Trek' into the final phrase
of his own cadenza of the first movement of K 467, including a lot of
emcee suspenseful buildup to this fact. And then it was explained
with the example that Parker once came out, wearing a astronuat
uniform of sorts and helmet, with yellow braided wig, in a very brassy
tone of voice by either Lisa Simeone, Melinda Whiting, or whoever,
that Classical Music Can Be FUN! The rest of Parker's cadenza,
though not quite as inspired as Cascioli's on K 537 a season earlier,
showed a halfway intelligent mind at work. The same goes for music by
Libby Larsen, Joan Tower, Tobias Picker, etc., promoted at concerts in
the U.S., when much of this music,
whatever gimmick it carries with it (as with Tower's 9-11 piece with
Emerson Quartet at Rice here a few weeks ago, which I failed to
attend), is not composed any better than that of an average freshman
composition major. And to think of what Exxon and the Lynne Cheney
style led NEH grant money this kind of crap soaks up, when there is so
much better out there, even by a few women composers. The name
Shulamit Ran immediately comes to mind, as do the names E.T. Zwilich,
and A.R. Thomas. Hopefully, under the leadership of Henry Fogel, some
changes will be made with the ASOL, but Henry, it is going to take
more like a complete overhaul to get it right, I'm afraid. It is too
much to ask
for European conductors to have to tiptoe around this offal or
garbage, in trying to get their own work or goals met with an
orchestra, as any one of them might see it.
On the other hand, take a figure like Ingo Metzmacher, who makes his
occasional guest appearances here, but is mostly busy in Europe. A
guy who frequently posts here, David Gable, would or should be wildly
enthusiastic about such
an appointment with the Chicago Symphony, and Metzmacher would be
excellent for the job, but for some mysterious reason or another, I do
not think that Metzmacher would be as good in Chicago as in
Philadelphia or Boston, where he cold lead either orchestra and also a
renaissance of sorts for the opera company in either town as well.
But how long would Metzmacher put up with some of the crap that would
be demanded of him. Take Hans Vonk in St Louis for example too,
before he became seriously ill. Yes, a certain charisma was lacking,
but here was someone cut off from almost all support from the ASOL and
its emcee minions, after their dream maestro, brilliant administrator
that he is, Leonard Slatkin left. Metzmacher keeps himself at the
very cutting edge of what are the best trends in contemporary music
and has consistently done so for the past twelve years or so. Not
only that, as good as a Barenboim Bruckner 4 probably was, as Brian
Park mentions, I heard an unforgettable Bruckner 4 with
Metzmacher and Minnesota a couple of years ago that I still have not
forgotten,
just from the broadcast of it. Philadelphia would have in Metzmacher
what they thought they were getting with Christoph Eschenbach, good
poseur that he is.
In closing, the Barenboim years, after quite a rocky start with the
press in Chicago, have been good for the orchestra. The playing or
incisive attacks
may be a little less perseveratively targeted than under Solti right
before,
but there has been on a number of occasions evident a warmer and more
flexible
sound out of the orchestra, and a Barenboim Mahler 7 I remember that
if Otto
Klemperer would have lived to hear it, would have regretted not having
recorded himself, as opposed to the recording he made himself too late
into the day.
Even with Barenboim gone, there will be still quite a bit heard back
from him.
The name of Kent Nagano also had come to my mind for an equally fine
penchant for contemporary music and especially music of this past
century as with Barenboim - if not quite challenging Metzmacher, very
fine nevertheless.
As for the conducting, composing priorities of Pierre Boulez,
Klemperer and Stravinsky were right about Boulez too sharply
reordering his priorities some thirty years ago. Whether the fire is
still there to put out as fine work
as Boulez composed that long ago remains to be seen, or perhaps I have
not been keeping up. Seems late to be addressing this issue, but of
course better late than never.
Raymond Hall
news:c13903$1dfd9f$1...@ID-117547.news.uni-berlin.de...
| This just in via WFMT...Barenboim will step down from his position with
the
| CSO as music director at the end of the 2005-2006 season. More details
when
| and if available - I hope I got this info correct.
I would suggest discussing the future with the *CSO after Barenboim*, when
all the candidates (assuming there are some) have admitted some form of
interest.
One thing is for sure. European conductors are by their upbringing and
culture, very loathe to have attached to the job all the crap about
fund-raising added to their duties. Attending an odd function might be
considered courteous on their part, but should be at their discretion. Other
than that, the CSO should pick from American interests only.
I suggest bringing Giulini back from retirement, wrap him in cotton wool,
protect him from anything onerous, and who knows. Miracles can happen. At
least Solti cannot rise from the dead, and in any case is already in a job
suiting his capabilities. Super Maestro von Herbie Fluffikins Hoochie
Koochie has him in charge of the inter-galactic ticket collecting office.
David7Gable
>the ephemeral & trivial altar of (yuck) conducting. He couldn't have
>been more wrong.
Then again, it's musicians of the stature of Klemperer and Stravinsky who
thought that Boulez was "sacrificing himself on the altar of conducting."
Furtwängler the composer never developed the kind of following among
professional musicians, both performers and composers, that Boulez very quickly
did. Already at the Conservatoire Messiaen, Désormière, and Andrée Vaurabourg,
Boulez's counterpoint teacher and Honneger's wife, were convinced of Boulez's
gifts. Messiaen believed in Boulez until the day he died, while Désormière
conducted the first premiere of an orchestral piece that Boulez ever received
(Le soleil des eaux). As for Vaurabourg, she kept Boulez's counterpoint
exercises to use as a model in her counterpoint classes for the rest of her
life. Through his wife, Honneger became interested in Boulez's music, and by
the early 50's Poulenc, Milhaud, Copland, Virgil Thomson, and finally even
Stravinsky were singing his praises. During the same period Scherchen,
Rosbaud, and Maderna were all eager to perform his music and by the early 60's
Klemperer was won over by Pli selon pli. By the ends of their lives even the
once much more skeptical Michael Tippett and Nadia Boulanger were convinced,
and even Ned Rorem, who can't stand Boulez personally, admires much of his
music, which, as Rorem put it, "flows in the continuing stream of
impressionism." Boulez's most enthusiastic advocates among today's crop of
maestros include Abbado, Barenboim, Chailly, Eschenbach, Chung, and Robertson.
Among the pianists, Claude Helffer and Paul Jacobs were early champions, and
the pianists who have performed one or more of his sonatas is now legion and
includes, of course, Rosen, Pollini, and Aimard as well as your teacher of one
semester, William Heiles. These musicians and composers all quite simply
consider Boulez to be a great composer. I'm not sure even Barenboim places
Furtwängler the composer on quite the same level.
>Quite frankly, what Boulez himself said about the Second Sonata -- his
>penchant for "DDestroying", "DDisintegrating" and "DDemolishing" the
>so-called conservative (from his point of view) formal remnants of the
>so-called Second Viennese school is more damning than what anybody could say
>about it.
As for the remarks you've quoted out of context about the 2nd Sonata, a few
things need to be said. The incendiary remarks Boulez made in his early 20's
have often been held against him, but they rarely seem as shocking in context
as out. (The standard ploy is to quote the single negative remark out of an
article Boulez has written about a composer he greatly admires, e.g. Bartók.)
Moreover, you seem to deny the possibility that one's attitude may evolve over
time. Boulez today is not the same man he was in 1950 (not that I object to
either one: I'm not making the argument that the villain is now reformed and
should be forgiven for past sins). As for Boulez's remarks about the Second
Sonata, they reveal a far greater respect for sonata form than you may imagine.
Let me quote from an article by Rosen on the piano music:
"The explicit model of much of the Second Sonata is Beethoven, explicit in the
music itself. The quotation of the Hammerklavier Fugue on the first page is
direct. The use of Op. 106 signifies an aspiration to the sublime in the
academic sense (as in Brahms Op. 1), and Boulez's Second Piano Sonata aims both
to conquer and transcend the academy. The structure accordingly incorporates
the most problematic elements of academic form."
Boulez wrote the 2nd Sonata in the very late 1940's in the context of
Schoenberg's and Stravinsky's neoclassicism. Boulez greatly admired the
Russian period Stravinsky (e.g. Le sacre and Les noces) and the expressionist
Schoenberg (e.g., the Five Orchestral Pieces and Erwartung), the Stravinsky and
Schoenberg of the period just before World War I. In comparison, the works
Stravinsky and Schoenberg wrote between the wars seemed disappointing, the
result of a kind of retrenchment. In Boulez's view, sonata form had grown up
organically in the context of a specific language, the Viennese Classical style
of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, and he was convinced that form should be an
organic outgrowth of language, a responsive living thing, that form was not an
empty shell valid for all time and all styles into which any old content could
be poured. Hence his disappointment with the recourse to traditional forms
characteristic of Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's neoclassicism.
Rather than the neoclassical Stravinsky or the neoclassical Schoenberg, the
composer Boulez held up as an unassailable model for his approach to form in
the late 40's was Debussy. For Boulez, certain of Debussy's forms were
notable-not to mention exhilarating-for the manner in which they renewed
themselves on an ongoing basis in response to mercurial developments (and he
had La mer and above all Jeux in mind). And just what did Debussy think about
Beethoven's sonata forms? "Here's the recap. Time to go out and smoke a
cigarette." (That is, I've heard that already.) Debussy was in favor of "the
sounding alchemy" as opposed to "the academy of the beaver" (where beavers go
about chopping logs to build their dams unthinkingly according to a
predetermined plan). In short, Boulez was following that evil devil and his
idol of the period, Debussy, when he made his remarks about sonata form. I
expect you'll now be banishing Debussy to outer darkness as you have Boulez for
his intolerable remarks, Samir.
-david gable
David7Gable
>new versions of both the Second Piano Sonata and Structures 1
Ian, there have been a rather large number of recordings of the 2nd Sonata; I
can think of half a dozen off the top of my head. As for Structures 1, nobody
is much interested in it any more including even its composer, which accounts
for the fact that nobody ever plays it. There's not an Ensemble
InterContemporain pianist who can't play the second book of Structures but how
many of them have ever bothered with the first book?
But if you like it, you should find another pianist and work it up.
-david gable
David7Gable
>mere
>> interpretation cannot remotely compare to the loss of a work.
>
>It does for me.
I believe that you believe that, but it's still not true.
-david gable
David7Gable
Structures 1].
Come to think of it, Ian, I'd much rather have you record Gilbert Amy's Sonata,
of which no recording exists. I'm sure it's a better piece.
-david gable
Ian Pace
times first (it's VERY difficult - Boulez 3 is a piece of cake in
comparison!). Are we absolutely sure there's never been a recording?
Best,
Ian
David7Gable
Sonata]?
I'm not absolutely sure of anything! But I have spent years tracking down Amy
recordings without ever stumbling across a recording of the Sonata.
-david gable
sam6...@earthlink.net
David7Gable wrote:
>>Fwiw, Furtwangler also thought of himself as a *Composer* sacrificed on
>>the ephemeral & trivial altar of (yuck) conducting. He couldn't have
>>been more wrong.
>
>
> Then again, it's musicians of the stature of Klemperer and Stravinsky who
> thought that Boulez was "sacrificing himself on the altar of conducting."
> Furtwängler the composer never developed the kind of following among
> professional musicians, both performers and composers, that Boulez very quickly
> did.
Well, not to tease you, it is true that Furtwangler was believed by
almost nobody to turn a New Page in the history of music (while Boulez
was believed to do, by some). In many a history of music composition,
Boulez will have an extensive place, while Furtwangler will end as a
footnote. (So will Pfitzner, who was a better "conservative" composer
than Furtwangler was, proof that this is not about "justice" or
consistent axiology, but about the penchant of most music historians for
*easily quantifiable novelty principles*). At least in some ways
Furtwangler and Boulez share a certain peripheral status in what regards
their significant presence in the concert repertoire. To your examples
of people who believed in Boulez until the day they died (I thought
Messiaen was a Catholic, not a Boulezian? (-:), one may bring examples
of people who believed in and encouraged Furtwangler the composer,
especially influential figures in the German music of his time (such as
Riezler), but I won't argue about that. The initial point of our little
friendly debate (aside the pleasure of provoking you to once more defend
Boulez with -- what else? -- quotes from Rosen (-:, you know, I respect
passion regardless of the adequacy of its subject (-:) . . . was that
when tens (hundreds) of thousands of people derive unqualified spiritual
benefit and sheer pleasure from one's interpretations, while one's
compositions remained the fief of the few, it *may* be that privileging
the compositional activities over the interpretative ones isn't by
necessity the "right" choice to make.
>>Quite frankly, what Boulez himself said about the Second Sonata -- his
>>penchant for "DDestroying", "DDisintegrating" and "DDemolishing" the
>>so-called conservative (from his point of view) formal remnants of the
>>so-called Second Viennese school is more damning than what anybody could say
>>about it.
>
>
> As for the remarks you've quoted out of context about the 2nd Sonata, a few
> things need to be said. The incendiary remarks Boulez made in his early 20's
> have often been held against him, but they rarely seem as shocking in context
> as out.
What was the context which changes the meaning of that?
> Moreover, you seem to deny the possibility that one's attitude may evolve over
> time.
No, I don't. But one tends to doubt the guy one was burned by. . . (-:.
> Boulez today is not the same man he was in 1950 (not that I object to
> either one: I'm not making the argument that the villain is now reformed and
> should be forgiven for past sins). As for Boulez's remarks about the Second
> Sonata, they reveal a far greater respect for sonata form than you may imagine.
> Let me quote from an article by Rosen on the piano music:
>
> "The explicit model of much of the Second Sonata is Beethoven, explicit in the
> music itself. The quotation of the Hammerklavier Fugue on the first page is
> direct. The use of Op. 106 signifies an aspiration to the sublime in the
> academic sense (as in Brahms Op. 1), and Boulez's Second Piano Sonata aims both
> to conquer and transcend the academy. The structure accordingly incorporates
> the most problematic elements of academic form."
Come on now, what the fig does Boulez's Second Sonata *really* have to
do with Hammerklavier. . .
When it comes to emotionally justified -- rather than gratuitous and
vapid -- quotes, in avant-garde music, I suggest you listen to the way
William Albright brings a quote from Chopin's most famous modal A Minor
Mazurka in the end of one of his Chromatic Dances, the third one if
memory serves. . . an atonal longing for a lost center of reference or
for a perished beauty perhaps. . . the embodying of that little Chopin
quote sounding just right and overwhelmingly organic. . .
. . . or even Crumb's use of a quote from the shortest, transitory
Hammerklavier movement in Litany of Galactic Bells in Makorkosmos II.
Not my everyday cup of music, but at least I am left with something out
of it.
> Rather than the neoclassical Stravinsky or the neoclassical Schoenberg, the
> composer Boulez held up as an unassailable model for his approach to form in
> the late 40's was Debussy. For Boulez, certain of Debussy's forms were
> notable-not to mention exhilarating-for the manner in which they renewed
> themselves on an ongoing basis in response to mercurial developments (and he
> had La mer and above all Jeux in mind). And just what did Debussy think about
> Beethoven's sonata forms? "Here's the recap. Time to go out and smoke a
> cigarette." (That is, I've heard that already.) Debussy was in favor of "the
> sounding alchemy" as opposed to "the academy of the beaver" (where beavers go
> about chopping logs to build their dams unthinkingly according to a
> predetermined plan). In short, Boulez was following that evil devil and his
> idol of the period, Debussy, when he made his remarks about sonata form. I
> expect you'll now be banishing Debussy to outer darkness as you have Boulez for
> his intolerable remarks, Samir.
If I had the power, we could negotiate about who's in and who's out (-:.
Boulez should serve a long time in purgatory before having his situation
reconsidered, that much is certain. <-:
However -- while acknowledging your expertise in Boulez (and, lest we
forget, in Charles Rosen as well, of course (-:) -- it strongly seems to
me that when one talks about X being the "unassailable model" for Y one
should think:
not only of to what extent one isolated compositional parameter in Y
(say, some vague common attitude as respects the rapport between
repetition and continuous development in the compositional process) can
be abstracted as being somewhat similar to (or influenced by) the same
isolated compositional parameter as found in X
but also to what extent the musical work Y *as a whole* can be in
earnestness compared to the model X. From this point of view, show me
the Debussy work which can *really* be considered a model for PB's
Second Sonata and I'll eat the sheet of the bloody thing.
Otherwise, if too loose comparative standards are to be applied, you'll
have to admit that in the end *everything* can be made "similar" to
*everything* and, with that bit of (not even exceedingly cunning)
speculation, the roots of Glass could be found in the Gregorian chant.
regards,
SG
Ian Pace
<sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cHb_b.4169$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I doubt that Furtwangler's reputation or influence as a composer would ever
have been likely to be comparable with that of Boulez. In the latter's
case, the admiration is perhaps restricted to a certain (not insubstantial)
group of people with the aptitude for it (but that's true to some degree of
all 'classical' music), but nonetheless a very large number.
>
<snip>
A great deal, and it's one of the few 20th century piano sonatas that can
stand up to such a comparison. But that's if one sees the Beethoven not as
a work frozen in time, but rather in a fundamentally dialectical and
revolutionary relationship to the conventions it inherited. In this sense,
the Liszt B minor Sonata is similarly a more suitable heir to Beethoven's
late works than the sonatas of Schumann, Chopin or even Schubert. The
Boulez works in a parallel way, and in the first and third movements uses
the basic conventions of sonata form, though pushing the relationship of
form and material to breaking point, just as Beethoven did.
>
> When it comes to emotionally justified -- rather than gratuitous and
> vapid -- quotes, in avant-garde music, I suggest you listen to the way
> William Albright brings a quote from Chopin's most famous modal A Minor
> Mazurka in the end of one of his Chromatic Dances, the third one if
> memory serves. . . an atonal longing for a lost center of reference or
> for a perished beauty perhaps. . . the embodying of that little Chopin
> quote sounding just right and overwhelmingly organic. . .
>
> . . . or even Crumb's use of a quote from the shortest, transitory
> Hammerklavier movement in Litany of Galactic Bells in Makorkosmos II.
>
> Not my everyday cup of music, but at least I am left with something out
> of it.
How does the totality of either of these works have anything to do with the
monumentality of the Beethoven, beyond a stylistic or literal allusion?
Ian
David7Gable
>What was the context which changes the meaning of that?
I amplifed the context at some length, discussing Boulez's attitude toward
sonata form, Rosen's view of what Boulez attempted in the sonata, the
historical context in which Boulez wrote the sonata (that is, in reaction to
the neoclassicism of Schoenberg and Stravinsky), and Debussy's very similar
view of the matter.
>Come on now, what the fig does Boulez's Second Sonata *really* have to
>do with Hammerklavier. . .
You really don't know????????? Then you really don't know the piece. It's
extremely close in aspects of its form, aspects of its temper, and aspects of
its texture. No other Boulez piece is like it in these respects. (The
dependence of Boulez's 2nd Sonata on the Hammerklavier is one of the oldest
commonplaces in the literature on Boulez, remarked by every pianist who's ever
learned the piece.)
>From this point of view, show me
>the Debussy work which can *really* be considered a model for PB's
>Second Sonata
None. Boulez's real "Debussy period" begins in the later fifties, the
principal fruit of which is Pli selon pli. Just because you can see what you'd
like to do at 20 doesn't mean you can do it yet.
-david gable
Ian Pace
> > I for one wish the big record companies might think about releasing
> >new versions of both the Second Piano Sonata and Structures 1
>
> Ian, there have been a rather large number of recordings of the 2nd
Sonata; I
> can think of half a dozen off the top of my head.
Sure, but I think only Pollini's recording has been released by one of the
'majors'. At present, I think the available choices are Pollini, Helffer,
Henck and Biret. That's not a huge number. A new recording by Pi-Hsien
Chen should be out reasonably soon on Hat Art - that'll be very worth
looking out for. Incidentally, did Rosen ever play it? If so, how come he
never recorded it?
As for Structures 1, nobody
> is much interested in it any more including even its composer, which
accounts
> for the fact that nobody ever plays it. There's not an Ensemble
> InterContemporain pianist who can't play the second book of Structures but
how
> many of them have ever bothered with the first book?
>
> But if you like it, you should find another pianist and work it up.
>
Well, it's still frequently discussed by both proponents and detractors,
which is definitely some type of 'interest' and should suggest it might
actually be heard a few more times. Composers frequently turn their backs
on some earlier works; on a related issue, I'm not always convinced that
Boulez's revisions are necessarily for the better. I don't hold out
Structures 1 as some sort of model for all music to aspire to (nor did
anyone, though fervent anti-modernists would have you believe that composers
only ever wrote similar pieces for some 30 years!), but do think it has a
certain unique austere beauty of its own. Have several other pianists I
work with, maybe I will see about making it happen!
Best,
Ian
sam6...@earthlink.net
David7Gable wrote:
>>Come on now, what the fig does Boulez's Second Sonata *really* have to
>>do with Hammerklavier. . .
>
>
> You really don't know????????? Then you really don't know the piece.
I most surely didn't spend a fraction of the time you've spent with it.
I listened to it with a score, though, a number of times. (I am sorry.
Life is short. Manifestations of beauty are many.)
> It's
> extremely close in aspects of its form, aspects of its temper, and aspects of
> its texture.
What's the audible (as opposed to abstracted) commonality value of those
aspects, when harmonic system, thematic affiliation, metrical concepts
and rhythmic thinking are situated in different galaxies? Please note I
am not claiming from Boulez -- or for that matter from any other
composer -- to sound "just like" Beethoven. . . however, when a claim of
commonality is made, the burden of proof is on the positive side of the
claim. That "extreme closeness" you speak of is, when it comes to the
aesthetics of the two works and to how audiences perceive them, highly
doubtful, I'd say. That was my point. An analyst may be delighted with
finding some kind of speculative, abstracted, reference to (and
divergence from) a common ensemble of conventions. Why do you think that
matters so much?
To offer another analogy, a specialist can claim that a certain common
angle fugitively employed in the camerawork of two directors denotes
"extreme closeness". To the average educated audience, in the context of
the said angle being applied to a tree in the first instance and to a
block of copper in the second instance, the difference is perceived as
enormous and the commonality as (almost) non-existent.
regards,
SG
Terrymelin
>
>But then, there is not surprise in that statement once you check the
>source.
I'd like you to name just three knowledgeable music lovers who think that
Leonard Slatkin is a great conductor capable of memorable interpretations.
Terry Ellsworth
Ian Pace
> >The only other living conductor whom
> >> I'd like to hear conduct Carter as much as I want to hear Barenboim
> >> conduct Carter is Michael Gielen.
> >
> >Not Boulez??
>
> Not the Boulez of today, no, although he was capable of some rip roaring
Carter
> in the 70's. And not David Robertson and not Oliver Knussen. None of
these
> three conductors approaches Carter as an essentially old fashioned
traditional
> composer subject to a kind of traditional phrasing. Barenboim and Gielen
do.
> David Robertson approaches everything exactly as he approaches Steve
Reich,
> striving for a kind of mechanical perfection. In one sense, he's a
> phenomenally gifted musician whom no musical complexity could ever defeat,
but
> I can't imagine him ever developing any traditional sense of phrasing of
the
> sorts that are fundamental for all music before the neoclassical
Stravinsky and
> especially minimalism including Carter. Knussen is gifted in the same way
but
> when it comes to phrasing he's a complete blank. In this company, Boulez
is
> the most traditional, the most apt to phrase in an old fashioned and
> distinctive way.
>
I agree with you in a sense, but draw a different sort of value judgement
from that. Though I like a lot of Carter's work (especially the works from
the 1960s and early 1970s), sometimes I find some of the music over-reliant
on an inherited gesturality which can easily slip into mannerism. Gestures
alluding to past models have a different meaning when the fundamental
harmonic and rhythmic language is very different, and can easily produce a
certain emptiness (this is the problem I have with some Kurtag as well - can
be a rarefied surface lacking in deep content). Late Boulez also suffers
from this to me, making a fetish of ornamental patterns, orchestral
sonority, etc., which becomes similarly manneristic and hollow. Sciarrino
does this as well, of course, but he hyperbolizes it to such a degree that
it takes on a more alienated quality, which generates a new set of
parameters.
Just listening to the different recordings of Charles Rosen and Ursula
Oppens playing '90+', a work I know very well, demonstrates the very
different possibilities. Rosen stresses the continuity within, making the
different articulative categories closer to each other so even dissimilar
attacks coalesce more into a line, whereas Oppens makes the most the
differentiation between the different types of material. The endings of
Oppens' single pitches are more abrupt sometimes, whereas those of Rosen's
tend to be more rounded. For me, the latter approach produces a more
intense drama, though of course both recordings have their merits. When I
listen (say) to the Arditti Quartet and the Juilliard Quartet playing the
4th String Quartet (to take an example which doesn't really lie on any sort
of extreme of Carter's output), I could almost be hearing two different
pieces. In the Juilliard Quartet's rendition, I hear something of the
neo-classical composer, Boulanger student, born of comfortable wealth and
leading a relatively uneventful life, firmly rooted in and alluding to a
'tradition' (though of course with his own distinct individuality); with the
Ardittis I hear the wilder, visionary, modernistic side of Carter,
passionate, vehement and sensuous. Carter's music is interesting in that it
invites BOTH of these types of approaches. Some have suggested that it
reflects the degree to which he draws equally upon both Schoenberg and
Stravinsky.
But to return to the original point, I suspect we have a different view of
what 'traditional phrasing' entails (if it is such a monolithic category).
I don't care much for Knussen's conducting of Carter, but for other reasons:
I find it void of any of the deeper emotional content I perceive in the
music, more simply playful but shallow (but that's my feeling about
Knussen's music as well). Just as his 'Christmas decoration' performances
of Takemitsu turn this composer into the type of view of Japanese music of a
Western tourist, with little of the penetrating intensity (as well as
affinity with European modernism which I am assured by those who knew
Takemitsu he maintained right throughout his life) that I believe is there
as well. One of my current neighbours is a Japanese composer, she tells me
about how much just terms like 'rain' or even 'riverrun' (I know Takemitsu
got that from Joyce, but probably read it more as the words would mean to
one from Japan) have a much more primal and archetypal nature to Japanese
people than the slightly cutesy quality they are assigned when viewed by
many in the West.
Enough digressing.
Best,
Ian
Ian Pace
<sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cjc_b.4214$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
many aspects of their work?
To me the total experience of the Hammerklavier and the Boulez 2nd is not
dissimilar in many ways (and have programmed the two together for that very
reason). Just as I would say that one of the large scale orchestral works
of Lachenmann in some ways resembles a symphonic work of Brahms or even
Bruckner, much more so than any number of so-called 'neo-romantic' works.
Ian
Ian Pace
<sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cjc_b.4214$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> >>Come on now, what the fig does Boulez's Second Sonata *really* have to
> >>do with Hammerklavier. . .
> >
> >
> > You really don't know????????? Then you really don't know the piece.
>
> I most surely didn't spend a fraction of the time you've spent with it.
> I listened to it with a score, though, a number of times. (I am sorry.
> Life is short. Manifestations of beauty are many.)
>
> > It's
> > extremely close in aspects of its form, aspects of its temper, and
aspects of
> > its texture.
>
> What's the audible (as opposed to abstracted) commonality value of those
> aspects, when harmonic system, thematic affiliation, metrical concepts
> and rhythmic thinking are situated in different galaxies? Please note I
> am not claiming from Boulez -- or for that matter from any other
> composer -- to sound "just like" Beethoven. . . however, when a claim of
> commonality is made, the burden of proof is on the positive side of the
> claim. That "extreme closeness" you speak of is, when it comes to the
> aesthetics of the two works and to how audiences perceive them, highly
> doubtful, I'd say. That was my point. An analyst may be delighted with
> finding some kind of speculative, abstracted, reference to (and
> divergence from) a common ensemble of conventions. Why do you think that
> matters so much?
>
develops and modifies extensively; parallel transformational techniques can
be found throughout Beethoven's output. Boulez is building upon the
compositional possibilities taken to such a degree of sophistication by
Beethoven (and of course by many other composers in the interim period) in
terms of the musical world that he inherits, just as Beethoven did.
Ian
Bob Lombard
<i...@ianpace.com> wrote:
>>
>To add another point, Boulez works with small cells of material which he
>develops and modifies extensively; parallel transformational techniques can
>be found throughout Beethoven's output. Boulez is building upon the
>compositional possibilities taken to such a degree of sophistication by
>Beethoven (and of course by many other composers in the interim period) in
>terms of the musical world that he inherits, just as Beethoven did.
>
>Ian
>
T'would perhaps be a fine thing if those "small cells of
material which he develops and modifies extensively" were
connected in some way with sound patterns and progressions
that are 'music as we understand the term'. That the sounds
are non-random doesn't make them music.
bl
Matthew Silverstein
>Above all in the case of an oft-played warhorse, the loss of a
>mere interpretation cannot remotely compare to the loss
> of a work.
Matty replied:
>It does for me.
DG replied:
> I believe that you believe that, but it's still not true.
How on earth are you able to determine what compares to what *for me*? Isn't
this a purely subjective matter?
Matty
David7Gable
>aesthetics of the two works and to how audiences perceive them, highly
>doubtful, I'd say. That was my point. An analyst may be delighted with
>finding some kind of speculative, abstracted, reference to (and
>divergence from) a common ensemble of conventions. Why do you think that
>matters so much?
The audience that had no yet grasped Tristan couldn't hear anything in it.
Same for the audience that has not yet grasped Boulez's 2nd Sonata. To the
audience that has truly heard the 2nd Sonata, starting with the pianists who
have played it, its "extreme closeness" to the Hammerklavier is readily and
overtly apparent to the ear. As Brahms might have said, "any ass can see it."
For starters, at the level of gross texture, there is a contrapuntal conception
very close to the last movement of the Hammerklavier's with the contrapuntal
lines often made up of exuberant wide leaps up to manic trills.
-david gable
Ian Pace
"Bob Lombard" <thor...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:alpi30d61u8uv3o98...@4ax.com...
understand the term, but also music with a history. It isn't even difficult
to hear the gestures grouping into various types of antecedent-consequent
formations. The pitch content is more austere and Webernian, but that adds
to the rawness of the music. In the second movement in particular and in
some places in the fourth, the pitch content has a certain post-Debussian
quality in places.
Would you call, say, the last of Schoenberg's Op. 11 Klavierstucke (a major
influence upon Boulez) 'music as we understand the term'? Those who can
appreciate that, or the intricate development of small elements in Berg, or
some elements of Stravinskyian rhythm, shouldn't have much difficulty in
appreciating the extension of these and other procedures onto a Beethovenian
scale in the Boulez Second.
Ian
David7Gable
Is that the royal we, Bob? In any case, nobody is obliged to calculate what
will be immediately accessible to you when sitting down to write a piece of
music. I should think Boulez would be gratified that his piano music has
engaged the passion and interest of Paul Jacobs, Claude Helffer, Maurizio
Pollini, Charles Rosen, Pierre-Laurent Aimard, Idil Biret, Hermann Henck,
Pi-hsien Chen, Claudio Arrau (who spent time learning the 3rd sonata late in
life but never got around to playing it publicly) et al. It is up to you to
decide whether Boulez's piano music is worth the trouble of pursuing further,
and there are plenty of other rewarding ways to spend your time, but these
pianists have found it sufficiently engrossing to spend hours upon hours
practicing Boulez's music. Hardly the easy route to fame and riches. Not one
of them would have bothered if it weren't singularly rewarding music.
>That the sounds
>are non-random doesn't make them music.
That you have not reached the stage of grasping Boulez's shapes as music does
not mean they aren't. And in fact they are.
-david gable
David7Gable
>never recorded it?
Rosen played Boulez's Second Piano Sonata in public exactly once on a recital
at Stony Brook in the early 70's. He was supposed to record the 2nd Sonata and
the Sonatine for Flute and Piano (with the NY Philharmonic's Julius Baker) for
Columbia Records, but Rosen and CBS parted ways after the release of Rosen's
recording of the 1st and 3rd Sonatas. (Rosen asked Columbia not to release his
recording on the exact same day that they released a new Boulez recording of
Marteau, but they did so anyway, hurting the sales of Rosen's record, as Rosen
had predicted.)
By the way, there is an earlier DGG recording of the 2nd Sonata by Claude
Helffer from the 60's. Well worth tracking down if you haven't heard it.
-david gable
David7Gable
>on an inherited gesturality which can easily slip into mannerism.
I'm afraid that I don't agree with this at all. Part of Carter's strength is
his very rootedness in tradition, his refusal to start with making tabula rasa
with tradition à la Structures 1a of Boulez, and his general avoidance of the
doctrinaire shenanigans that plagued so much "advanced" European music of the
early 50's. In any case, why should all modern composers exhibit the same
ethos or gestural vocabulary?
-david gable
sam6...@earthlink.net
David7Gable wrote:
<<<What's the audible (as opposed to abstracted) commonality value of
those aspects, when harmonic system, thematic affiliation, metrical
concepts and rhythmic thinking are situated in different galaxies?
Please note I am not claiming from Boulez -- or for that matter from any
other composer -- to sound "just like" Beethoven. . . however, when a
claim of commonality is made, the burden of proof is on the positive
side of the claim. That "extreme closeness" you speak of is, when it
comes to the aesthetics of the two works and to how audiences perceive
them, highly doubtful, I'd say. That was my point. An analyst may be
delighted with finding some kind of speculative, abstracted, reference
to (and divergence from) a common ensemble of conventions. Why do you
think that matters so much?
That "extreme closeness" you speak of is, when it comes to the
aesthetics of the two works and to how audiences perceive them, highly
doubtful, I'd say. That was my point. An analyst may be delighted with
finding some kind of speculative, abstracted, reference to (and
divergence from) a common ensemble of conventions. Why do you think that
matters so much? >>>
> The audience that had no yet grasped Tristan couldn't hear anything in it.
Bad example. Regardless of the incomprehension Tristan had been met with
-- not only by "conservative asses", but even by "progressive asses"
such as Berlioz -- one could *easily* point out how Tristan wasn't the
radical break it appeared to be (pace Ernst Kurth & Co.), but rather the
full conceptualisation in a large-scale work of (still highly tonal in
their complexity) the principles of a chromaticism which has been hinted
at by Bach and realized almost more daringly already, if at a smaller
and more discreet scale, by Chopin.
> Same for the audience that has not yet grasped Boulez's 2nd Sonata. To the
> audience that has truly heard the 2nd Sonata, starting with the pianists who
> have played it, its "extreme closeness" to the Hammerklavier is readily and
> overtly apparent to the ear. As Brahms might have said, "any ass can see it."
> For starters, at the level of gross texture, there is a contrapuntal conception
> very close to the last movement of the Hammerklavier's with the contrapuntal
> lines often made up of exuberant wide leaps up to manic trills.
I do note my first sentences in the first paragraph above weren't
addressed. "Wide leaps"? *To where*? According to this exceedingly loose
concept of "extreme closeness", next thing I'm going to be told is that
Xenakis' Herma exposes an "extreme closeness" to Liszt's Mephisto-Waltz
because the pianist needs to jump all over the keyboard in both pieces!
As I said already, what's the commonality value of such isolated
aspects, when harmonic system, thematic affiliations, metrical concepts
and rhythmic thinking are situated in different galaxies? I somehow
trust you'd agree that one needn't be an "ass" -- a Brahmsian or a
Boulezian ass alike -- in order to be skeptical when it comes to
claiming that the prison's restroom curtain and the real sky display an
"extreme closeness" because they are both starry and "any ass can see that".
regards,
SG