I had the honor to speak with Maitre Boulez last Labor Day. Our conversation was going smoothly enough, so I mustered the courage to ask him something that had been bothering me. "If you are such a fervent proponent of new music, why do you keep re-recording the same material, even your own?" Without missing a beat, he responded in his clipped, incredibly precise and heavily accented English, "Because I am a better conductor now." Evasion of the first order: "What did you expect?" I chided myself, and moved on to my next question.
Further reflection changed my opinion. It now seems to me that Boulez's most recent -- and greatest -- accomplishments as a conductor has less to do with detail, precision and orchestral virtuosity, even though these are, and have always been, obviously important components of his distinctive style. He has become a master of temporal manipulation. Here, I'm not referring to what Jonathan Kramer labels "absolute" time, but to all the substrata of linear and non-linear motion on which the continuum of each piece of music evolves in Boulez's hands. This newly gained relativity has been hard-won and long in coming, but it now informs everything he records, Twentieth Century or not, from Berlioz to Webern.
Listen, for example, to his 1999 recording of Scriabin's Prometheus. The opening "Mystic" chord -- marked Pianissimo I believe -- is so rich in sonorities of all sorts that the emergent brass melody often necessitates unsanctioned disruption of the chord or artificial foregrounding of the melody line. Boulez manages to maintain the chord's dynamic integrity while rendering the brass motive perfectly audible. He effectively produces one long sweeping motion to the first crescendo, faithfully and accurately rendering a compound of two simultaneously linear goals.
The Scriabin is just a small scale example of Boulez's more recent conducting style. As I thought over our conversation later, I recalled his mentioning that he preferred recording in large segments rather than patching or splicing. Certainly, his Wagner recordings of the late 1970's, whatever their shortcomings, demonstrate a deeper understanding of longer forms and dramatic structures than is afforded by much of his back catalogue for Sony. Despite being a landmark interpretation and eclipsing most preceding attempts, his early 1970s traversal of the published Webern scores often treads the uncomfortable line between forced Modernity and a latent Romanticism that has now been properly assimilated. I do not accuse Boulez of any over-luxuriance or of relinquishing his iron grip on detail. Quite the contrary. The major difference between those performances and his recordings for Deutsche Grammophon since 1989 lies in the symbiotic relationship between large-scale structure and moment-to-moment execution of detail; if Schonberg's assertion that the Art of Fugue was a work to be heard best as a unity in the mind is applicable to other works of equal merit (and I believe it is) Boulez should be recognized for exposing the multinarrative structures in each work he conducts.
His recent Mahler Symphony 3, especially the slowly building, then morphing last movement, exemplifies this all-encompassing approach on a grand scale. His take on the chorale-like opening, hushed and reverent if less ponderous than most, guides each return of that section's ethos, imbuing the movement with a kind of moment-form or spontaneous aesthetic alien to most conductors. I can understand that those used to the raw emotional impact engendered by Bernstein, Solti and Barbirolli might be put off by Boulez's seeming detachment, but his Mahler cycle, nearing completion, bestows many rewards of its own where the dialectic of continually shifting narrative is concerned. Conversely, while many conductors stretch Mahler's elastic tempi to the breaking point, Boulez's restrained flexibility often reveals long-range connections lost in other performances.
As I began to write this, I acquired his brand-new recording of Le Marteau Sans Maitre. Compared to Boulez's own live 1985 production for Sony, this new reading eschews the more "atomistic" post-Webernian aspects of the score in favor of what sounds to me like a transgenerational reading. The Messiaenesque instrumentation is offset by long lines of post-Debussy counterpoint, layers that are submerged in most performances. I do not mean to imply that this interpretation is overly precious; when, for example, flute and guitar smack the same pitch with astounding precision in this new reading, no pointillistic holds are barred, and Hilary Summer's vocal delivery sports better intonation than I've heard in any other performance; simply sample the flute-and-voice interplay of "L'artisanat Furieux" or Summer's first B-flat in "Bourreaux de Solitude" to appreciate the nature of her accomplishment.
Marteau has always been hailed as one of the most important pieces of the last century for its realization of serial principles of organization as well as its exploration of an innovative soundworld, but Boulez's most recent traversal places it in two simultaneous traditions, adding a layer of historical intrigue to Marteau's already formidable musical and temporal intricacies. It is a fitting reminder, for his eightieth birthday, just how vital and important Boulez's interpretations continue to be.
~ Marc Medwin
Posted by marc on April 7, 2005 8:30 AMNice piece.
I'm glad to read for the 80th birthday of Boulez, at last, a piece who speaks about MUSIC, about the art of the conductor and the art of the composer rather than all the pathetic writings who flourish in the french press (specialized or not)talking only about "the man of power", "the man who wanted to control every aspect of the French musical life", "the man who never finish a composition" (that one comming from his most mediocre ennemies) and on and on, ad nauseam... Seems than the "règlement de compte" against the great man will never finish in his native country.
Posted by: LeMo at April 7, 2005 3:01 PMVery nice way to honor the man, Marc. Happy Birthday, maestro.
Posted by: al at April 7, 2005 6:39 PMa great conductor...a mediocre composer...may he live on...to change...
Posted by: eulenspiegel at April 7, 2005 7:14 PMMediocre composer? Let's see what you can do, sonny Jim. You haven't even got the balls to tell us your real fucking name. The day you write something of the stature of le Marteau, Pli Selon Pli or Eclat, we'll sit down and talk.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at April 7, 2005 9:37 PMThanks for this piece. I've long been a big Boulez fan.
"As I began to write this, I acquired his brand-new recording of Le Marteau Sans Maitre. Compared to Boulez's own live 1985 production for Sony, this new reading eschews the more "atomistic" post-Webernian aspects of the score in favor of what sounds to me like a transgenerational reading. The Messiaenesque instrumentation is offset by long lines of post-Debussy counterpoint, layers that are submerged in most performances. I do not mean to imply that this interpretation is overly precious; when, for example, flute and guitar smack the same pitch with astounding precision in this new reading, no pointillistic holds are barred..."
I don't really get what's being said here. Are you saying that layers were submerged in his 1985 recording that aren't in the new one, or that they aren't submerged in either of those, but are in performances by others. I haven't heard the new recording, but I spent a good deal of time studying his old one with score in hand, and I deny that a single layer was submerged anywhere. It's amazing. Fantastic. If the new one is remotely close, it's remarkable for that alone.
Posted by: walto at April 8, 2005 6:21 AMoh it's al!!
hey al you're back on the surface?!
smirtsol...are these really random generated? they're to beautiful.
Posted by: tomas at April 8, 2005 8:24 AMWay I read it Walt is that it was the "post-Debussy" lines that didn't come out in other performances.. well, my well-worn old vinyl of Marteau (the 1964 Harmonia Mundi with Jeanne Deroubaix) still sounds remarkably fresh and Debussy-like. Harry Halbreich once said "all unplayable music becomes playable after a time." By extension all "unlistenable" music (and let's not forget Marteau had people running screaming for the exits in its time) becomes perfectly listenable. Your piece, Marc, has concentrated on Boulez the conductor (understandably so, as he has too) - it's about time some hip rag like The Wire ran a piece on Boulez the composer (though of course I doubt he'd accept an invitation, given some of the frankly stupid things he's said about people who don't see the world the way he does - Verdi, Bill Evans, Steve Reich, to name a few), if only to persuade some of the younger cats, people who are now hip to Stockhausen, Lachenmann and Ligeti, to check out Boulez's own output. ALL of it, not just the pre-65 stuff. That way perhaps clowns like the anonymous gent above might learn to use their ears a bit more.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at April 8, 2005 8:31 AM"(though of course I doubt he'd accept an invitation, given some of the frankly stupid things he's said about people who don't see the world the way he does - Verdi, Bill Evans, Steve Reich, to name a few)"
"stupid", perhaps, but right on the mark. Compare Boulez' conducting with that of Mahler-mauler Lenny or amateur-hour-Barbirolli or listen to his piano works right next to that beery lore called the American Songbook at the candied hands of Mr. Evans, and Mr. Anonymous might not be the only poster here who's a bit off key.
Posted by: mcgr at April 8, 2005 10:29 AMA polemicking we will go, hey ho!
"Mahler-mauler Lenny"
Hmm. Depends what you mean by mauling, there. Is there any "definitive" Mahler interpretation? Bernstein pulls it around too much for my tastes, but I always found Bouzel (sic) a bit rigid. Mahler's a totally fucked up over the top Freudian headcase; in theory, Bernstein should be ideally suited then, but it's probably better for an analyst to cure the patient rather than someone else from the same asylum. Boulez isn't a pyschoanalyst though; more a brain surgeon. I always liked Carlo Maria Giulini on Mahler. Or (old school) Bruno Walter.
"amateur-hour-Barbirolli"
Aww, dya think so? Which symphony? That said, I don't have any Barbirolli Mahler here, only Brahms. And one Brahms he's fucking ace. Barb's Brahms is about as healthy as a donut, and just as delicious.
"that beery lore called the American Songbook at the candied hands of Mr. Evans"
Haha, can't tell if you've got it in for Tin Pan Alley or Ol' Bill here, but they both deserve a bit of a slap. I love the Vanguard trio sessions but never quite understand why they became as "mythic" as they did. Blame LaFaro, perhaps. Or Gavin Bryars. Or King Heroin. But Bouzel's dissing of Evans was directed out at the whole wide world of jazz, which he dismisses summarily as "cocktail music". Anyway, happy birthday Pierre.
bon anniversaire, Monsieur Boulez
Which Evans Vanguard trio session, Dan? I go back to the 1980 group recordings quite a bit, and candied they're certainly not.
Walter, please listen to the new recording of Marteau before making any decisions--I thought the 1985 Sony disc was crackerjack and I was shocked by what I heard in this new version.
As for Mahler conductors, give me Oscar Fried. Gotta love that Ressurection!
Because not everybody can be Horenstein, who's probably my favorite Mahlerian around save Kubelik's live versions on Audite, I appreciate what Bernstein, Barbirolli, Boulez and Sinopoli have offered the world, even if their insights are tempered by mannerism. If you want "pulled around" Mahler, try Segerstam, and I love that as well!
Walter, please listen to the new recording of Marteau before making any decisions
I'd love to hear it, and I haven't made any decisions. I'm just denying that there were any submerged layers on earlier Boulez versions--if by 'submerged' you mean inaudible.
Posted by: walto at April 10, 2005 6:30 AMI certainly don't mean that layers were "inaudible", as Marteau lends itself quite well to multiple exposure. Were I actually reviewing the new recording, (and I wouldn't--I haven't looked at the score as I've never found it in Braille) I'd have posited exactly which elements lead to what I still hear as more continuous than pointalistic. A comparison might be made with Boulez's 1970's recording of Webern's Pasacaglia--whether because of orchestral execution, a different conducting aesthetic, recording techniques or some combination of these, abrupt shifts in line and orchestration are even more abrupt than in his 1990's traversal, leading to what I hear as forced discontinuities. Really, the two Marteaus couldn't be more different and I wouldn't be without either.
Posted by: marc at April 10, 2005 10:18 AM"Which Evans Vanguard trio session, Dan?" THE Village Vanguard Sessions, June 25 1961. I would like Mr MCGR to tell me what possible complaint he could have with "My Foolish Heart" :))
Posted by: Dan Warburton at April 10, 2005 11:12 AMCheck out the June 1980 Turn out the Stars box set--I'd say those last recordings are his best, although I do like "I Loves You Porgy" from 1961.
Posted by: marc at April 10, 2005 11:23 AM"I would like Mr MCGR to tell me what possible complaint he could have with "My Foolish Heart" :))"
Naturally, there's always that remote chance that my hearts might change their foolish tunes and - as you put it - "learn to use their ears a bit more." :)
Sir Barbirolli (he of the not "overly precious"[?] kind I guess) (con)fronting the Hapsburgs -, brings to mind the bbc's A Viennese Evening at the Proms with an Emperor Waltz fit for the Royals, but for the Kaiser, it ain't. Ahh, Walter! And Krapfen.
Just as delicious.
Oh, the Turn Out the Stars set is a bit glittery & harsh & repetitive--I'll take the 1961 recordings any day. The 1980 Keystone Korner sessions are rather better (though more roughly recorded) than the 1980 Vanguard sessions if anyone feels like splurging on one of the sets....
Posted by: N.D. at April 10, 2005 8:17 PMThanks for that clarification, Marc. I can well believe that each performance is wonderful in its own way.
Seems like when Boulez first emerged as a conductor, he was treated by the mainstream media in much the same way as he was earlier when he first appeared on the scene as a composer--with contempt. Now, it's become difficult to deny (except maybe anonymously) his many merits at both arts. This was, I think, partly because the big shots came around, and partly because Boulez's output seemed to become more subtle and less polemical.
Sometimes it seems to actually pay off to live long, work hard at one's crafts, and just tell every nonsayer to fuck off.
Many happy returns of the day, Maestro.
Posted by: walto at April 11, 2005 4:20 AM-- Oh, the Turn Out the Stars set is a bit glittery & harsh & repetitive --
such enthusiastic dismissal. form
follows function, eh?
Hark hark the profound one has spoken. (Eulenspiegel's kid brother?) Shame s/he can't grace us with a real name to accompany his/her puritanical pearls of wisdom.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at April 14, 2005 11:36 AMBoulez is hardly a mediocre composer. Not liking his composing is fine but he's generally extremely rigid to the point of utter severity. of course, that's why i love him. le marteau is a fascinating puzzle of a composition that keeps revealing more to me over time. Notations for orchestra fucking rages, particularly the second part. Rituel for Bruno Maderna is a scintillating mobile of sound. Boulez rules. He's the fucking man.
ww
Posted by: Weasel Walter at April 23, 2005 10:27 PMHey, WW. Speaking of rages, I recently picked up your "Systems Emerge...." Excellent!
Posted by: walto at April 25, 2005 4:24 AM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................