Boulez is Dead
In the news this week was the death of French composer/conductor Pierre Boulez.
I come to bury Boulez, not to praise him. The good that men do lives after them; the bad is oft interred with their bones; oft interred, often buried – so let it be with Boulez. The noble Musicologists hath told you Boulez was a compositional genius: if it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Boulez answer’d it. Here, under leave of the Musicologists and the rest — for they are honorable; so are they all, all honorable — come I to speak in Boulez’s funeral. (with apologies to Shakespeare)
Like any good music student, I listened to serialism while I was in college. If you want to know about serialism, go ahead and read about it. It’s very interesting.
That was the 1960s and 1970s. Now, in 2016, orchestras are closing left and right, and audiences continue to become more and more disconnected with Art Music. There are, no doubt, many factors that have contributed to this, but today I’m calling out the elitists of the postwar era who created a musical hierarchy akin to the Emperor’s New Clothes. If you don’t like or understand serialism, then you are clearly sub-human. If you do, welcome to the special club of perfect people.
In case you’re wondering if I’m exaggerating – first look up “Schoenberg is Dead” – an essay Boulez wrote immediately the death of Arnold Schoenberg. He trash-talks the revolutionary composer as a has-been pseudo-progressive because he wasn’t a pure serialist. Then there’s the incident where he and two serialist buddies staged a dramatic walk-out of their friend’s symphony, because he dared to write in a non-serial style. (they sat in center of the front row, to make sure everyone saw them walk out after the first few measures. Nice.)
This attitude continues to this day, under different banners – the names change, but the game remains the same. So when I write “Boulez is Dead”, what I really hope is that the snobbery he promoted dies with him. Art Music can no longer afford not to move beyond musical elitism.
Whether or not you like this piece has no reflection on your value as a human being. If you dislike it, fine; if you enjoy it, great. You can read about its supremely organized construction here.
I enjoyed this entry, Erik. I chuckled almost immediately because you refer to Boulez as a composer/conductor and I would probably think of him as a conductor/composer . . . if I’m not just thinking of him as a conductor.
Pingback: Music for your Existential Crisis – The Fine Art of Listening
I just came across this article and it really resonated with me. I too attended university in the 1970s and experienced what I have ever since called the “Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome” afflicting art music of the era. Anybody who spoke against the prevailing serialist orthodoxy was declared a fool; clearly too unintelligent to comprehend the utterly incomprehensible “works of genius” being foisted on audiences by the elite. Little wonder that audiences retreated into the safe cocoon of old music. The serialist elite have a great deal to answer for in having alienated two generations of musicians and their audiences.
It occurred to me, reading recently about Boulez, that surely someone must have exploited against him his famous condemnation of Schoenberg, perhaps some article titled BOULEZ IS DEAD in all capitals. This was close enough.
I was surprised by how much the New York Times obituary of him soft peddled the meanness and nastiness of the man. He was the Wagner of the 20th century, minus the antisemitism, but every bit as loathsome.
This is not meant as attack on his conducting, which I found neither here nor there, or his music, which I merely disliked, but on the man himself, who was as monstrous as his Bayreuth counterpart.