My reading seems to be following my concert-going fairly closely at the moment. After hearing Barenboim, the following day I heard Pierre Boulez conduct a concert consisting entirely of works by Janá?ek. The concert prompted me to pick up his book Boulez on Conducting.
Boulez has always fascinated me. He conforms neatly to the French intellectual template: he’s always been controversial, composes very complex and cerebral music, eschews any kind of flamboyance at all, and communicates in a gnomic subset of the language. Yet he’s full of contradictions too; despite these impeccable intellectual credentials, he also conducts some of the world’s great orchestras and records for one of the biggest classical music labels.
Boulez on Conducting comprises an extended dialogue, divided into a series of short sections. He ranges from topics such as the acoustics in Bayreuth Festspielhaus, to specific issues regarding the diffiuclties of conduting his own music and the influence of computing on contemporary music.
Boulez is primarily famous for being an unstinting champion of new music, both as a composer and a performer. During his tenure both as Chief Conductor at the BBC Symphony Orchestra and Music Director of the New York Philharmonic, he was ruthless in making sure that modern music was the centre-piece of his programmes. Audiences, particularly in New York, didn’t really care for this approach, but many of the works that he championed are now much better known and, in several cases, have become part of the repertoire.
On the podium, Boulez reminds me of an efficient and undemonstrative waiter. He doesn’t use a baton and always acknowledges applause with a curt nod rather than a bow, taken from within the orchestra rather than on the podium itself. His gestures are precise and economical. Perhaps for these reasons he’s perceived by critics, and possibly audiences too, as lacking the spark that distinguishes the truly great conductors. This is less problematic in contemporary music, but can be an issue in, for example, Mahler. He is the antipode of another great Mahler interpreter, Leonard Bernstein.
Never mind the critics: I find his Mahler recordings on Deutsche Grammophon utterly fascinating. He recently completed the cycle with the 8th symphony, normally a sprawling mess even in the hands of a good conductor, in a reading that was clear and cogent, as if he’d cleaned layers of grime from the score with infinite patience. That approach is evident from his book: he constantly uses the words ‘precision’ and ‘clarity’, and is at pains to show how preparation and analysis is vital to good performances. Here he agrees with his friend and colleague Daniel Barenboim.
A few years ago, I heard Boulez conduct Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra with the Vienna Philharmonic in London, and then only months later, Mahler’s 3rd Symphony with the same orchestra in Vienna. The London concert felt almost pathologically detached and cool, and lacking in any kind of inspiration, while the Mahler performance had immense power, feeling and commitment (he made his DG recording in the days following that concert). It’s difficult to know if this has something to do with him or the orchestra.
Boulez on Conducting is not a book for the general reader; it makes no concessions to readers who do not know classical music in general, and 20th century music in particular. But to those who are interested in this kind of music, there is a wealth of insight here. There are sections that are particularly interesting – especially those that cover his admiration for Wieland Wagner (he says he would have done almost anything to work with him). Regrettably, Wieland died before their project had got off the ground, but how fascinating would Boulez/Wagner productions of Don Giovanni and Boris Godunov have been!
No related posts.