I know fuck all about Theory or anything,I just like Modernism because it goes Pink Plonk Blink Bonk Bank mostly. It's extremely Based Music. A lot going on in every single motion.
Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which "the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd." Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."
I find it interesting that Boulez was more honest and less hypocrite than his fanatical listeners who are also zealous proponents of everything avant-gard and love to despise tonal music, it's clear that even Boulez himself would have called them "liars and crazy" for finding "deep meanings, emotions and narrative of the human condition" in this piece, a piece that didn't want to express any meaning or emotion and was just blank experimentation.
@@LDTube-pz9fq How can music express meaning or enotion when it is pure formal logic without any factual reference? Music is nonsensical by definition. We can enjoy this rationally, there's no need to pedantically abscribe arbitrary metaphysical concepts to it...
I heard the Kontarsky Brothers play this live in the 80’s and was blown away by it. Somehow with a recording of this kind of music something vital is lost.
What does that say about the rest of his impenetrable crud if this is the most pleasant? Then again I suppose it beats 34 minutes of listening to a jet engine or the snarling of angry dogs. Just.
@@dd-jp3wy It can be both. In any case, if it is a language this is one that nobody except the elect understand; Silbo Gomero or Archi to the tonal system's English/French
I worked on this piece as a kid, with a peer who wanted us to perform it. We were privileged that our mentors premiered it in the US. I couldn't manage it, given all my other course requirements. But I loved it, and wished I might have been equal to it. The section beginning 6:47 still sends me into raptures. I think being a performer unfairly enhances the thrill and discoveries of music, and this is certainly an example.
I just saw a nice comment by a certain Tim Hanson on this ''... but this piece is almost universally reviled upon a first listen by pretty much everyone. I’ve been to a concert where this piece was performed. It was in Australia’s National Art Gallery. It felt very cultured and I’m glad for the experience. But I’ve come to the conclusion that one live performance of “Structures” per lifetime is enough, and I don’t need to do that ever again''. To that I'd add that ANY performance, live or otherwise of this piece , per lifetime is enough.
This music exists on the other side of the fence that marks the boundaries of our consciousness !!! Boulez was like Picasso : a phenomenal technique at the service of the most unbridled and fairytale abstraction !!
in Memoriam Bruno Maderna is the pinnacle of Boulez. I have listened to it 100s of times and never tire of it. The piano works, not so much, but I love Boulez's orchestral stuff.
For the people complaining about this work: It's more than 50 years old. Plenty of other (and better) works have been composed since then, in a variety of styles ranging from Minimalism to Spectralism, from Neo Romanticism to New Complexity. Listen to those. Not even Boulez's recent works sound like this. Stop taking this as if it represented the current state of contemporary classical music.
+landlubber541 To be fair this is a decent example of modern composition. Sure it doesn't encompass the whole gamut but it shows what directions modern composers tend toward. A rejection of melody, exploration of texture but sadly a real reduction in emotional impact.
Ruined the entire prior 26 minutes building to that massive and well known f# crescendo and then dude drops a bomb by hitting an f instead. F-ed it all up yeah?
Ecco: Boulez un musicista contemporaneo, come si dice moderno. Un grande, un vero musicista che resterà giustamente, non come tanti altri piu o meno celebrati pasticciatori di rumori cacofonici.
Se pensassimo un attimo a tutto il lavoro che c'è sotto non credo proprio che la etichetteremmo come cattiva musica. Più che altro è la nostra mente a non essere predisposta a godere di questo capolavoro.
Listening and relistening to this after almost fifty years I am each time again stunned by Boulez’s incredible sense of balance of pitches, rhythmic formulae, softness and vigour, distribution of voices over the two pianos etc., directly in the wake of Webern’s op.27 as someone here wrote and at the same time very Schönbergian as in his Piano Suite or Wind quintet (although Boulez may have preferred the first filiation), 26 years old when he wrote the First Book, 35 when the Second - and as someone else wrote here am also very admirative of the clarity and finesse of the Kontarskys' playing.. Let no listener be misguided by Boulez's own comment about the ex absurdo demonstration, that was ultimately only meant for the ones who call this music "merde": before a computer could write this, it should be programmed to do so, and this programme may need more information bits than the score shows, besides in the music of previous ages “automatic” or predictable passages were common - Following the perfection of this composition’s twelve-tone rows spiralling out of each other and condensing back into chordal crystals is very soothing to the mind and the soul, and effectively wipes off our heart and brain the daily agression of mediocrity. Those for whom this is a bit challenging : do not cave in, but listen to it again during the night, in stillness, as a meditative exercise, a subtle contemplation of silence - it will reward your sincerity and stay -
Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which "the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd." Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."
It is beautiful and I have been looking for this composer for at least 25 years . I found him thanks to Frank Zappa mentioning him in his book . Frank Zappa had superb taste in music . I like the dissonance and space of it all .
Boulez has written far more attractive music since Structures. Although he will never be my most cherished, I can enjoy his works in very concentrated and undistracted times.
cela me fait penser au free jazz ! , je pense que cette musique a influencée le jazz ! et quelle forte unité , avec des silences et beaucoup de timbres , je ne connais rien en écriture musicale, mais je sens en Boulez une vrai sensibilité, que je découvre de plus en plus avec l'âge !
@@karlkinono Fermez-la par pitié. Je suis toujours poli, mais vous voir commenter 300 fois chaque vidéo de Pierre Boulez pour exposer, avec ""humour"" (faudrait-il encore que ce soit amusant) votre dégoût pour sa musique commence à m'emmerder. Vous n'aimez pas Boulez, on l'a compris, alors n'écoutez pas et arrêtez d'emmerder ceux qui aiment.
Ein ganz Großer der gesamten Musikgeschichte hat uns verlassen - eine kämpferische Ausnahmeerscheinung als revolutionärer, neue Bereiche erschließender Komponist, als unermüdlicher Musikmanager und als markanter analytischer Wagner- und Mahler-Dirigent; nicht immer bequem und unumstritten - in seinem Einsatz für die künstlerische Wahrheit und Klarheit. R.I.P. - Pierre Boulez.
ricardo moyano, no es como usted cree, no todos pensamos que esto es mierda, lo contrario, algunos lo entendemos... yo lo disfruto, lo aprecio y lo admiro, pero bueno algunos opinan sin fundamento y ofenden por ignorancia, no lo culpo.
Salvador Dali once said that before you want to make surrealistic pictures you have to learn how to paint a horse. And that's it. Seemingly chaotic, but when you litsen in, you feel the mastery in it.
Although not fitting many conventional standards of musical beauty, this piece is EXTREMELY useful for filmmaking, especially for moments of discord, profound despair, and twisted absurdly awful fate.
It's not "extremely useful", it's just music. I get the impression people have to come up with a function for atonal compositions because they can't just let a piece be what it is.
I don't entirely understand this music, and I've somehow reached a point of being cool with that. I feel for sure that there is depth and genius in this music.
+Jonathan Conway Why do you think that if you don't understand it? Is that just what you think you are expected to say? This music is not anything beyond vacuous.
+Lane Powell Understanding something is part of the enjoyment of it. Understanding applies to sensory, mental and emotional faculties. Sensory enjoyment could be said to be the body or mind "understanding" sensory impulses. But there are other forms of enjoyment which require an emotional resonance or "understanding". It's hard to enjoy something that doesn't resonate, for which one can't find a handle to grab on to and try to begin to "understand", not in the math-problem sense, but in a "this resonates with me" sense.
Annie Eby Not sure I agree with this usage of "understanding." I'm pretty sure I "understand" punk music or big room house, as they're quite straightforward musically and emotionally, but I don't enjoy them. On the other hand, I certainly couldn't read the musical score of pieces like this, or explain the compositional process behind them, but I enjoy many of them. Certainly no one else has to, it's fine with me honestly. I still find the terminology of "understanding" weird. But ok.
Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which "the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd." Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."
I was just listening to some baroque music, and although I like Bach I suddenly hankered for something newer, and also somewhat more challenging. I like this kind of jagged stuff if in the right mood. It is fascinating. The trouble is mostly on the radio where I am (NZ) the concert program has all the old composers over and over and rarely play anyone even remotely contemporary or innovative: except one night they have some great stuff, but that is only one night. So it is great to here this more contemporary stuff for sure! An antidote to too much Bach or Brahms or whatever. (I mean Brahm's [ and etc's] symphony's are great the first 1 thousand or so times on hears them but then they begin to get tired....)
It's sad to admit it, but music like this just doesn't sell tickets. I love contemporary music and get annoyed when I struggle to find any performances but as someone who sings with a chamber choir and has to sell x amount of tickets for each concert, I understand that the general public will find this stuff difficult to listen to - they'd much rather hear something with tonal harmony and a nice melody. Perhaps in the future people will become more accustomed to hearing music that sits outside of tonality.
Agreed. The fact that many of the radical modernists made a living from conducting and teaching the "classics" allows me to have faith that their compositions - the modernists that is - are not merely abject exercises in abstraction but rather worthwhile pieces of music. It took many many repeated listenings to recognize brahms as a genius and that even with tens of millions of people having already recognized him as such and more than 100 years of history on its side.
A good introduction to the complexity of this music would be to listen to the last metatonal composers of the XX° Century, eg Debussy, Scriabine, Szymanowski, then to the works of Schoenberg, and then to the Variations op. 27 of Webern. In parallel, listen to the first Klavierstücke of Stockhausen.
Je respect tellement ce compositeur car ça musique es spécial et il assume sa différence !!!! C’est pour ça que j’aime le style contemporaine !!! En tout cas c’est mieux que tout ces musique qui n’on aucun sens comme par exemple jul.!! J’appelle ça du vrai art et de la différence assumer !!! Et j’adore ❤️😍 Ce n’est pas obligé que une musique soit appréciée par tout le monde !! Et ce n’est pas le bute!!! Car chaque musique sont des œuvre Que l’on crée et que l’on découvre !!!!
I have heard that shopping malls sometimes play light classical music to get rid of loitering youngsters, who apparently dislike classical music. If they played this, they could conveniently get rid of people of all ages.
The integral serialism of these pieces seems random. What disturbs our poor ears yet accustomed! The title "Structures" is paradoxical because I have an impression of destructuration :-)) In short, the following period with "Eclat/Multiples" seems to me more interesting ...
Could anybody explain to me the aesthetics of this piece? are those notes harmonious to each other? is there a method in combining those notes that needs craftsmanship? if yes then in what sense? thank you.
Well was listening and found it rather hard to get any handle on it 20 or so minutes in when I read about the mathematical nature and it suddenly made sense. Like I read elsewhere, let the music do its thing without fighting it (fit it into a preconceived ideal), then you'll start noticing those patterns. In fact, I'd say the picture is a good way of "looking" at it. You'll see structure emerge, and at least I conceive it as a series of sequences that are similar to statements, with often enough interchanges between two voices. To me the structure is a strange mix between a landscape and dialog with ideas mixing from past and present as well as foundations for what will come. I would say this music is somewhat self defining, and hence sacrifices the usual "journey together with the listener" as the listener is unable to easily walk along side it with instead unwrapping and perhaps assembling itself while you listen giving you options otherwise unreachable. One last thing, I could be dead wrong in my appreciation; but even if I am, this is one way of allowing this music to reveal itself. This made it a very interesting proposition. As for liking it or not, that is a question I am not able to answer, I'm too busy experiencing something completely unlike what I'm used to and hence unable to pass judgement Hope it helps, all the best
I didn't study the details of this piece, but Boulez is known for the use of serialism. In classical tonal music, there is a hierarchy between the different notes; some are more important and appear more often in a piece than others. The serialism approach is to treat all 12 notes of the chromatic scale as equaly important, so that there is no "tonal center". Therefore, the music has no obvious "direction", so to speak, in both harmonic and melodic senses. The same idea can be applied to other aspects of the sound, like rhythmic patterns and timbre. So, in the surface, the music seems to be quite random, but it is, of course, constructed around the exploration of certain patterns. Identifying them, though, requires more effort than usual classical music and benefits from some exposure to this sort of composition. So, in short - yes, there is an aesthetics behind this piece and a well known method of composition that requires craftmanship was surely used. Having said that, I confess that this is not, by any means, my preferred kind of music. Understanding something and liking it are not exactly the same thing. Even if I agree that that the work of Boulez has great artistic value, it's not my personal cup of tea.
Jazz is much more harmonic that it seems. When you are improvising, elements of previous acquired musical forms comes to you. This, plus the innate human tendency (well demonstrated) to prefer harmonic sounds, creates a very spontaneous music but much more harmonious (that is, properly musical) of what one might expect. Free jazz is the exception. Because free jazz is INTENTIONALLY caothic. When jazz isn't conceived to be intentionally caothic, it tends to the harmonic (in its very special, expressive and playful way). That's because HARMONY IS NATURAL, even in jazz.
I think this is the recording about which there is a famous, if aprocryphal, story: The Kontarsky brothers sight-read for the recording. They listened to the recording and found one wrong note. They spliced in the correct note, and then issued the recording.
Antonio Rincón And unfortunately, people don’t care They dont understand what they are hearing, so what could it be else than shit? Those comments on all Boulez videos are really annoying, moreover they posted it at his death Because they probably wanted all people know about their (constructive and intelligent) point of view
Music is sense (partially... it's also emotion), but not mathematics. Listener who don't care about "wonderful" mathematics in this work is right. He is listening music, not solving an equation. Art has logical aspects, but if you think of it in only pure logical terms, you don't really understand it. Noise is noise, not music. If you think that it's not noise because it's mathematically made (instead of randomly made) you are deceiving yourself.
@@PrAndonuts If they can't understand then how can it be music? The point of music for 5 000 years was to be understood, to be appreciated. It took the arcane mandarin logic of the serialists to make a music that wasn't intended to be understood, to satisfy abstruse criteria that only exist in their minds. These sounds are a ''f*** you'' to not only the listening public, but to the entire history of music.
I can appreciate the concept of a completely abstract soundscape without any tonal focus or rhythm or emotion or sense of progression. It's anti-music which is interesting in it's own right. Like white noise but slowed down. What I don't get is that there are seemingly a hundred composers with a thousand a-tonal, a-rhythmic, non-emotional pieces that sound more or less the same. You'd think the concept gets stale rather quickly. Unless there is something I'm missing?
Schindlabua It depends on the composer. Serialism is a technique first and foremost, and how a given composer uses it may vary wildly; there are certainly serial compositions by the likes of Stravinsky, Barraqué, Cage and the like which are quite expressive-and this includes a fair bit of Boulez' work, which can be astonishingly confrontational. But that said, a lot of it simply isn't to my taste, and does come off rather dry and technical for its own sake even when there are interesting ideas involved.
Boulez himself acknowledged that he, as well as other composers, ignored the listener's perception when writing stuff like these. They were concerned with the processes and organisation of the pieces and didn't worry about how it would sound to ears that aren't aware of those processes. I mean, you're not the first one to make this assessment of integral serialism. Even Xenakis was critical of it. My favourite pieces of contemporary music are those that reveal some form of intuition, even naivety, in its sound. Guys like Boulez tried to wear their genius like some unbreakable armour, while I prefer those that aren't afraid to be vulnerable. I like music that I'm supposed to touch with my fingers and feel the texture. This isn't the case here.
Once you'd heard Boulez you get the point. Yet he was followed by Birtwhistle, Babbit, Carter and Davies, and later Ferneyhough and a bunch more writing symphonies, concertos and sonatas , all full of this kind of stuff. Stuff that nobody can understand or make head or tail of. You're spot on when you call it ;anti-music;.
"discutir" a Boulez no solo es absurdo sino inútil. es igual que discutir el teatro de Beckett o el Ulises de Joyce. Es irrelevante que te guste su música. Boulez - al igual que los dos irlandeses , en literatura - ha cambiado el curso de la música. La historia del arte no se construye con el "gusto del público". Fin de la "discusión".
I completely agree. It is not a mater of taste. It is understanding that should discipline taste. People should like what is worth appreciating. It is a mater of education
It's more ore less Kant's aesthetics. It's not rockn'roll. But even among classic music listeners there are those who don't allow that level of abstraction. That's absurd.
Pensaría que si ni siquiera se puede discutir, es aún mas inutil que haya existido. Con lo espantosa que es su música, la falta de proporción, belleza, fantasía....etc. que la caracteriza, el hecho de que ni siquiera se puede hablar de lo que hizo y el de tener que asumirlo todos como un genio que cambió la música y punto, pues hace de su existencia algo totalmente inutil. Hay muchos que aunque lo reconocen como figura artistica, no lo siguen en lo mas minimo y creo yo que cada uno tiene el derecho a reconocerlo o no. Boulez de entrada fue un personaje bastante hegemonico que se quiso imponer casi como un emperador de la música, yo no tengo que reconocerle nada basicamente si no me da la gana....Sin embargo, su estilo influenció a muchos compositores posteriores, y aún en la actualidad muchos los siguen; de hecho en la actualidad subsisten algunos Neonazis, y en mi pais, que es Colombia, algunos defensores de Alvaro Uribe.
Bastasse il cuore. Nell'arte ci deve essere l'uomo intero. Questo brano non è di ascolto facile, non aspetta facili consensi, né li vuole. Essa mostra tantissime cose. Il non saperle ascoltare non è colpa sua. C'è una tale ricchezza sonora che rende necessaria questa musica. Del resto molte delle pagine più sconvolgenti della storia della musica hanno una complessità tale da renderle incomprensibili ai più. Ciò non toglie che siano capolavori assoluti.
quelle melodie! etre sous une pluie legere de printemps ou une tornade d'ete lourd et rafrechissant.... Boulez aiguise votre imagination......BRAVO a lui
I find this music beautiful because of its surface glitter and luminosity; in a word, it is French. Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen: all were deeply (highly would be a better word, since their chords were built from the top down) concerned with a shimmering sonority. That is why French music, even when it is not good, is never ugly. if only one could say the the same of bad 20th century German composers . . .
@@bernabefernandeztouceda7315 Well, a piano piece that starts with over 270 repetitions of the same chord, to be followed in some places with similarly large numbers of repetitions, is not written by a good composer, in my opinion, even though the intervening passages are beautiful. If he had indicated "Play this chord over and over until you feel hypnotized" I would respect him more. But to make the pianist keep count for more than 270 repetitions is just silly. Why that number? Why not 269? And if you are going to cite the first few minutes of Rheingold, Wagner keeps the interest going with progressively complex and interesting orchestration. True, the Stockhausen would make a great pairing with John Cage's 4'33''. It falls into what is called conceptual music, and I don't have much respect for conceptual art of any kind. But to each his own.
@@philzmusic8098 These repetitions just sounds good. This is only conceptual problem. You are rejecting piece because of conceptual problem. Describing this piece as only conceptual would be a nonsense. You seem to reject a non-conceptual part of the piece because of the conceptual problem - it seems to be irrational (you gave bad rationalization of your rejection). Why I'm saying that you reject? Because you said: "That is why French music, even when it is not good, is never ugly. if only one could say the the same of bad 20th century German composers . . ." Whether a piece of music is good is a matter of the music itself and the concept behind the piece. Being considered "ugly" is more related to the sound rather than the concept. So, even assuming that you are right that the concept is bad, the piece is still not ugly, so you didn't prove your thesis. I can't think of him as a bad composer since he composed more traditional works like Formel or Tierkreis, which sound like they were composed by a good composer.
i like the part that goes plink plonk doo doo pee pee ting
Amazing you caught that, it's an inversion of tricyclical theme that modulates on the twelve tone retrograde.
sounds like comupter
Me too Buddy.
I know fuck all about Theory or anything,I just like Modernism because it goes Pink Plonk Blink Bonk Bank mostly. It's extremely Based Music. A lot going on in every single motion.
@Savannah Zigomalas yall are fucking creeps
"The Piano Cleaning piece"
no
Really, cleaning the piano sounds like heaven in reference to this thing
sounds like comupter 3
that's actually funny
@@emilfantastic6717 lol
Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which "the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd." Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."
I find it interesting that Boulez was more honest and less hypocrite than his fanatical listeners who are also zealous proponents of everything avant-gard and love to despise tonal music, it's clear that even Boulez himself would have called them "liars and crazy" for finding "deep meanings, emotions and narrative of the human condition" in this piece, a piece that didn't want to express any meaning or emotion and was just blank experimentation.
exactly :)
It's so listenable. Works like this should be programmed along with tonal works for the contrast.
@@LDTube-pz9fq How can music express meaning or enotion when it is pure formal logic without any factual reference? Music is nonsensical by definition. We can enjoy this rationally, there's no need to pedantically abscribe arbitrary metaphysical concepts to it...
@@Συναισθησις philosophers are still trying to find out what music really is hahaha.
Tengo 60 años siempre he tocado música tonal
por eso veo tus vídeos para aprender de música contemporánea algo que nunca pude
On s'en fout de ta vie.
Makes me want to have a bowl of cereal.
What kind?
@@stueystuey1962 All-bran in orange juice
You cereal killer!
sounds like comupter 1
I heard the Kontarsky Brothers play this live in the 80’s and was blown away by it. Somehow with a recording of this kind of music something vital is lost.
Yeah sure..
Gonna play this at the club and watch some ass clap hell yea boi
Cant be worst the the tone generators they use but still calm it edm and not harsh noise
sounds like comupter 2
In spite of everything, Structures I remains one of the most pleasant, immediate and enjoyable masterpieces by Boulez
What does that say about the rest of his impenetrable crud if this is the most pleasant? Then again I suppose it beats 34 minutes of listening to a jet engine or the snarling of angry dogs. Just.
@@Empyreanabove music is a language, not a cup of wine
@@dd-jp3wy It can be both. In any case, if it is a language this is one that nobody except the elect understand; Silbo Gomero or Archi to the tonal system's English/French
It is words that everyone understands when listening repeatedly.
@@machida5114 .Most people could listen to this a hundred times without understanding what is going on
I worked on this piece as a kid, with a peer who wanted us to perform it. We were privileged that our mentors premiered it in the US. I couldn't manage it, given all my other course requirements. But I loved it, and wished I might have been equal to it. The section beginning 6:47 still sends me into raptures. I think being a performer unfairly enhances the thrill and discoveries of music, and this is certainly an example.
I just saw a nice comment by a certain Tim Hanson on this ''... but this piece is almost universally reviled upon a first listen by pretty much everyone. I’ve been to a concert where this piece was performed. It was in Australia’s National Art Gallery. It felt very cultured and I’m glad for the experience. But I’ve come to the conclusion that one live performance of “Structures” per lifetime is enough, and I don’t need to do that ever again''. To that I'd add that ANY performance, live or otherwise of this piece , per lifetime is enough.
This music exists on the other side of the fence that marks the boundaries of our consciousness !!! Boulez was like Picasso : a phenomenal technique at the service of the most unbridled and fairytale abstraction !!
Yeah just shut up.
Pierre passed away to day he was very great , I will miss this great person .
background pic couldn't be more fitting
It fits the atructuralism of the music.
Esta pieza hace que mi cerebro sienta paz, organice mis ideas, gracias por compartir.
in Memoriam Bruno Maderna is the pinnacle of Boulez. I have listened to it 100s of times and never tire of it. The piano works, not so much, but I love Boulez's orchestral stuff.
For the people complaining about this work: It's more than 50 years old. Plenty of other (and better) works have been composed since then, in a variety of styles ranging from Minimalism to Spectralism, from Neo Romanticism to New Complexity. Listen to those. Not even Boulez's recent works sound like this. Stop taking this as if it represented the current state of contemporary classical music.
+landlubber541 To be fair this is a decent example of modern composition. Sure it doesn't encompass the whole gamut but it shows what directions modern composers tend toward. A rejection of melody, exploration of texture but sadly a real reduction in emotional impact.
Gowge Bloob Plenty of emotional impact in Messiaen, Pärt, Xenakis, Ligeti, Rihm, Kurtag, Sciarrino, etc. Some of those have great melodies too.
I agree for Pärt at least.
+landlubber541 Doesn't quite a bit of Part sound like older classical?
***** I understand the reasoning. I often dislike music featuring lyrics for the same reason.
26:36 there is a mistake, he plays f instead of f sharp
Ruined the entire prior 26 minutes building to that massive and well known f# crescendo and then dude drops a bomb by hitting an f instead. F-ed it all up yeah?
Ecco: Boulez un musicista contemporaneo, come si dice moderno. Un grande, un vero musicista che resterà giustamente, non come tanti altri piu o meno celebrati pasticciatori di rumori cacofonici.
musica scritta 70 anni fa da un compositore ormai morto sarebbe musica contemporanea?
Lyrics:
Oi, Mittens! Get off!
Meow?
Improvisation de génie 🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊👌🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊🎧😎Excellent !
Michel !
Stop drugs
Se pensassimo un attimo a tutto il lavoro che c'è sotto non credo proprio che la etichetteremmo come cattiva musica. Più che altro è la nostra mente a non essere predisposta a godere di questo capolavoro.
parla per te
The second part of the second book is mesmerizing, like a cascade of light in some interstellar scenery, seen from afar !
The Clarinet-Hoe ?
It is a masterpiece.
No, it's a mastershit.
@@karlkinono Rules:
Open UA-cam 🤓
Dont like the piece 😳
throw shit at it even tho you dont understand it 😎
Listening and relistening to this after almost fifty years I am each time again stunned by Boulez’s incredible sense of balance of pitches, rhythmic formulae, softness and vigour, distribution of voices over the two pianos etc., directly in the wake of Webern’s op.27 as someone here wrote and at the same time very Schönbergian as in his Piano Suite or Wind quintet (although Boulez may have preferred the first filiation), 26 years old when he wrote the First Book, 35 when the Second - and as someone else wrote here am also very admirative of the clarity and finesse of the Kontarskys' playing.. Let no listener be misguided by Boulez's own comment about the ex absurdo demonstration, that was ultimately only meant for the ones who call this music "merde": before a computer could write this, it should be programmed to do so, and this programme may need more information bits than the score shows, besides in the music of previous ages “automatic” or predictable passages were common - Following the perfection of this composition’s twelve-tone rows spiralling out of each other and condensing back into chordal crystals is very soothing to the mind and the soul, and effectively wipes off our heart and brain the daily agression of mediocrity. Those for whom this is a bit challenging : do not cave in, but listen to it again during the night, in stillness, as a meditative exercise, a subtle contemplation of silence - it will reward your sincerity and stay -
Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which "the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd." Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."
No, It didn't .
It is beautiful and I have been looking for this composer for at least 25 years . I found him thanks to Frank Zappa mentioning him in his book . Frank Zappa had superb taste in music . I like the dissonance and space of it all .
Yeah sure
Boulez has written far more attractive music since Structures. Although he will never be my most cherished, I can enjoy his works in very concentrated and undistracted times.
cela me fait penser au free jazz ! , je pense que cette musique a influencée le jazz ! et quelle forte unité , avec des silences et beaucoup de timbres , je ne connais rien en écriture musicale, mais je sens en Boulez une vrai sensibilité, que je découvre de plus en plus avec l'âge !
Quel tissu de conneries ...
@@karlkinono Fermez-la par pitié. Je suis toujours poli, mais vous voir commenter 300 fois chaque vidéo de Pierre Boulez pour exposer, avec ""humour"" (faudrait-il encore que ce soit amusant) votre dégoût pour sa musique commence à m'emmerder.
Vous n'aimez pas Boulez, on l'a compris, alors n'écoutez pas et arrêtez d'emmerder ceux qui aiment.
I can tell this comment is insanely French just from the fact the first sentence has the words "Free Jazz" in it.
Ein ganz Großer der gesamten Musikgeschichte hat uns verlassen - eine kämpferische Ausnahmeerscheinung als revolutionärer, neue Bereiche erschließender Komponist, als unermüdlicher Musikmanager und als markanter analytischer Wagner- und Mahler-Dirigent; nicht immer bequem und unumstritten - in seinem Einsatz für die künstlerische Wahrheit und Klarheit. R.I.P. - Pierre Boulez.
Beautiful,the kind of classic music not everybody can appreciate.
This is one of my most favorite pieces.
Yes it's realy delicious.
I love those sing along kinda chorus
there is a cat on the piano?
No, no hay un gato, son dos maestros tocando una obra maestra de un maestro, que tampoco es gato.
+Emanoel Ferreira
yes, with diarrhea
ricardo moyano, no es como usted cree, no todos pensamos que esto es mierda, lo contrario, algunos lo entendemos... yo lo disfruto, lo aprecio y lo admiro, pero bueno algunos opinan sin fundamento y ofenden por ignorancia, no lo culpo.
+ComponCar12
me parece muy bien que a usted le guste, amigo.
no soy precisamente un ignorante en materia de musica, y hay gustos para todos.
+ricardo moyano esta musica la entiendo muy bien y conozco su gran valor.
Salvador Dali once said that before you want to make surrealistic pictures you have to learn how to paint a horse. And that's it. Seemingly chaotic, but when you litsen in, you feel the mastery in it.
Quand je vois tout ces commentaires qui critiquent ou qui acclament Boulez sans fin, je me dis qu'au final il a bien fait son travail.
Ouaip, avec deux chats bourrés sur un piano. Il est fort ce Pierre !
Le plus drôle est de voir toujours la même personne sur toutes les vidéos de Boulez, commenter avec un humour KOLOSSAL :)
Ouais ferme ta gueule.
Although not fitting many conventional standards of musical beauty, this piece is EXTREMELY useful for filmmaking, especially for moments of discord, profound despair, and twisted absurdly awful fate.
Kafkesque...
It's not "extremely useful", it's just music. I get the impression people have to come up with a function for atonal compositions because they can't just let a piece be what it is.
R.I.P. Boulez
RIP Satan
The Kontarsky brothers have also recorded the majestic Mantra of Stockhausen.
So ?
@@karlkinono lol, that "so?" is so hilarious.
I don't entirely understand this music, and I've somehow reached a point of being cool with that. I feel for sure that there is depth and genius in this music.
+Jonathan Conway Why do you think that if you don't understand it? Is that just what you think you are expected to say? This music is not anything beyond vacuous.
+Oliver Do people really think about music in terms of "understanding"? Like it's a fucking math problem? Either you ENJOY it or you DON'T!
+Lane Powell Understanding something is part of the enjoyment of it. Understanding applies to sensory, mental and emotional faculties. Sensory enjoyment could be said to be the body or mind "understanding" sensory impulses. But there are other forms of enjoyment which require an emotional resonance or "understanding". It's hard to enjoy something that doesn't resonate, for which one can't find a handle to grab on to and try to begin to "understand", not in the math-problem sense, but in a "this resonates with me" sense.
Annie Eby Not sure I agree with this usage of "understanding." I'm pretty sure I "understand" punk music or big room house, as they're quite straightforward musically and emotionally, but I don't enjoy them. On the other hand, I certainly couldn't read the musical score of pieces like this, or explain the compositional process behind them, but I enjoy many of them.
Certainly no one else has to, it's fine with me honestly. I still find the terminology of "understanding" weird. But ok.
I'm not sure we are referring to intellectual understanding.
It's a work that sometimes makes me want to listen back. Especially the performer of this WERGO vinyl version is best.
wow
Magnificent.
Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which "the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd." Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."
Excellent!
Quel talent ! Merci Pierre !
++
De rien.
I was just listening to some baroque music, and although I like Bach I suddenly hankered for something newer, and also somewhat more challenging. I like this kind of jagged stuff if in the right mood. It is fascinating. The trouble is mostly on the radio where I am (NZ) the concert program has all the old composers over and over and rarely play anyone even remotely contemporary or innovative: except one night they have some great stuff, but that is only one night. So it is great to here this more contemporary stuff for sure! An antidote to too much Bach or Brahms or whatever. (I mean Brahm's [ and etc's] symphony's are great the first 1 thousand or so times on hears them but then they begin to get tired....)
I just came here from listening to Rameau. LOL.
It's sad to admit it, but music like this just doesn't sell tickets. I love contemporary music and get annoyed when I struggle to find any performances but as someone who sings with a chamber choir and has to sell x amount of tickets for each concert, I understand that the general public will find this stuff difficult to listen to - they'd much rather hear something with tonal harmony and a nice melody. Perhaps in the future people will become more accustomed to hearing music that sits outside of tonality.
Unlikely. Tonality is hard-wired into people.
When i heard this contemporary music like this i started to appreciate bach
Agreed. The fact that many of the radical modernists made a living from conducting and teaching the "classics" allows me to have faith that their compositions - the modernists that is - are not merely abject exercises in abstraction but rather worthwhile pieces of music. It took many many repeated listenings to recognize brahms as a genius and that even with tens of millions of people having already recognized him as such and more than 100 years of history on its side.
My cat got a panic attack when she heard this, no joke
it's like when a set of 3 year old twins find grandpa's old out-of-tune upright.
this music cannot elicit an emotional response except from fraud or poor taste. It's like a joke by a mathematician.
A good introduction to the complexity of this music would be to listen to the last metatonal composers of the XX° Century, eg Debussy, Scriabine, Szymanowski, then to the works of Schoenberg, and then to the Variations op. 27 of Webern. In parallel, listen to the first Klavierstücke of Stockhausen.
I've listened to them all, and it still doesn't make the garbage one whit more bearable
So, anybody managed to spot some motives or references?
Quite catchy
this is so sick oh my gosh
My college teacher brought me here
Je respect tellement ce compositeur car ça musique es spécial et il assume sa différence !!!! C’est pour ça que j’aime le style contemporaine !!!
En tout cas c’est mieux que tout ces musique qui n’on aucun sens comme par exemple jul.!!
J’appelle ça du vrai art et de la différence assumer !!! Et j’adore ❤️😍
Ce n’est pas obligé que une musique soit appréciée par tout le monde !! Et ce n’est pas le bute!!!
Car chaque musique sont des œuvre Que l’on crée et que l’on découvre !!!!
Ferme ta gueule.
ななあて
Wonderfull
R.I.P. Pierre Boulez
Be remembered as a God among Men,really.
If that's not too pretentious that's how I envision him.
nothing like some good ol' modern art.
Continuará entre nós!!!
now, take LSD and listen to that
No way
Sounds based.
Enregistrement fait dans l'Ecole Maternelle Sadi-Carnot avec les enfants de madame Boulay. Bravo à eux.
Quasi emozionante
Senza il quasi
Lo vuelvo a escuchar una y otra vez y es una maravilla :)
I have heard that shopping malls sometimes play light classical music to get rid of loitering youngsters, who apparently dislike classical music. If they played this, they could conveniently get rid of people of all ages.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Shadousk
I smoke ejadpusl and shasousk and shadousk and mdth
I'll fyadaducyacuHeadtk
N
Wow. Very impressive. Sounds like surrealistic music!!!
Prout my ass
RIP Maestro Boulez
Rip music too
For the sake of our ears, I hope they put a huge boulder on top of his grave site to ensure that he does not come back.
It sounds like when I play the piano.
Looks like to Schoenberg... Just great music. Thanks for this upload.
Which key is it in? Yes
(I know it's serialism)
Yo Pierre
You wanna come out here?
The integral serialism of these pieces seems random. What disturbs our poor ears yet accustomed! The title "Structures" is paradoxical because I have an impression of destructuration :-)) In short, the following period with "Eclat/Multiples" seems to me more interesting ...
Could anybody explain to me the aesthetics of this piece? are those notes harmonious to each other? is there a method in combining those notes that needs craftsmanship? if yes then in what sense? thank you.
Well was listening and found it rather hard to get any handle on it 20 or so minutes in when I read about the mathematical nature and it suddenly made sense. Like I read elsewhere, let the music do its thing without fighting it (fit it into a preconceived ideal), then you'll start noticing those patterns. In fact, I'd say the picture is a good way of "looking" at it. You'll see structure emerge, and at least I conceive it as a series of sequences that are similar to statements, with often enough interchanges between two voices. To me the structure is a strange mix between a landscape and dialog with ideas mixing from past and present as well as foundations for what will come. I would say this music is somewhat self defining, and hence sacrifices the usual "journey together with the listener" as the listener is unable to easily walk along side it with instead unwrapping and perhaps assembling itself while you listen giving you options otherwise unreachable.
One last thing, I could be dead wrong in my appreciation; but even if I am, this is one way of allowing this music to reveal itself. This made it a very interesting proposition. As for liking it or not, that is a question I am not able to answer, I'm too busy experiencing something completely unlike what I'm used to and hence unable to pass judgement
Hope it helps, all the best
I didn't study the details of this piece, but Boulez is known for the use of serialism. In classical tonal music, there is a hierarchy between the different notes; some are more important and appear more often in a piece than others. The serialism approach is to treat all 12 notes of the chromatic scale as equaly important, so that there is no "tonal center". Therefore, the music has no obvious "direction", so to speak, in both harmonic and melodic senses. The same idea can be applied to other aspects of the sound, like rhythmic patterns and timbre. So, in the surface, the music seems to be quite random, but it is, of course, constructed around the exploration of certain patterns. Identifying them, though, requires more effort than usual classical music and benefits from some exposure to this sort of composition.
So, in short - yes, there is an aesthetics behind this piece and a well known method of composition that requires craftmanship was surely used.
Having said that, I confess that this is not, by any means, my preferred kind of music. Understanding something and liking it are not exactly the same thing. Even if I agree that that the work of Boulez has great artistic value, it's not my personal cup of tea.
Doutsoldome
RIP boulez, RIP his music as well
I hope he ends up in an afterlife where they play nothing but Slipknot, Godflesh and Napalm Death. Turned up to 11.
his music is not dead though
Tabs?
No tabs needed, you just have to punch your piano randomly.
Quite jazz in most parts :D
Jazz is much more harmonic that it seems. When you are improvising, elements of previous acquired musical forms comes to you. This, plus the innate human tendency (well demonstrated) to prefer harmonic sounds, creates a very spontaneous music but much more harmonious (that is, properly musical) of what one might expect.
Free jazz is the exception. Because free jazz is INTENTIONALLY caothic. When jazz isn't conceived to be intentionally caothic, it tends to the harmonic (in its very special, expressive and playful way). That's because HARMONY IS NATURAL, even in jazz.
T'es rasoir
I think this is the recording about which there is a famous, if aprocryphal, story: The Kontarsky brothers sight-read for the recording. They listened to the recording and found one wrong note. They spliced in the correct note, and then issued the recording.
Behind this music there is a lot of mathematic logic sense, but it is almost imposible detect in a real time earing.
Antonio Rincón And unfortunately, people don’t care
They dont understand what they are hearing, so what could it be else than shit?
Those comments on all Boulez videos are really annoying, moreover they posted it at his death
Because they probably wanted all people know about their (constructive and intelligent) point of view
Music is sense (partially... it's also emotion), but not mathematics.
Listener who don't care about "wonderful" mathematics in this work is right. He is listening music, not solving an equation.
Art has logical aspects, but if you think of it in only pure logical terms, you don't really understand it.
Noise is noise, not music. If you think that it's not noise because it's mathematically made (instead of randomly made) you are deceiving yourself.
@@PrAndonuts If they can't understand then how can it be music? The point of music for 5 000 years was to be understood, to be appreciated. It took the arcane mandarin logic of the serialists to make a music that wasn't intended to be understood, to satisfy abstruse criteria that only exist in their minds. These sounds are a ''f*** you'' to not only the listening public, but to the entire history of music.
I can appreciate the concept of a completely abstract soundscape without any tonal focus or rhythm or emotion or sense of progression. It's anti-music which is interesting in it's own right. Like white noise but slowed down.
What I don't get is that there are seemingly a hundred composers with a thousand a-tonal, a-rhythmic, non-emotional pieces that sound more or less the same. You'd think the concept gets stale rather quickly.
Unless there is something I'm missing?
Schindlabua It depends on the composer. Serialism is a technique first and foremost, and how a given composer uses it may vary wildly; there are certainly serial compositions by the likes of Stravinsky, Barraqué, Cage and the like which are quite expressive-and this includes a fair bit of Boulez' work, which can be astonishingly confrontational. But that said, a lot of it simply isn't to my taste, and does come off rather dry and technical for its own sake even when there are interesting ideas involved.
Boulez himself acknowledged that he, as well as other composers, ignored the listener's perception when writing stuff like these. They were concerned with the processes and organisation of the pieces and didn't worry about how it would sound to ears that aren't aware of those processes. I mean, you're not the first one to make this assessment of integral serialism. Even Xenakis was critical of it.
My favourite pieces of contemporary music are those that reveal some form of intuition, even naivety, in its sound. Guys like Boulez tried to wear their genius like some unbreakable armour, while I prefer those that aren't afraid to be vulnerable. I like music that I'm supposed to touch with my fingers and feel the texture. This isn't the case here.
That is why contemporary classical has moved past this style and into post-modernism
Once you'd heard Boulez you get the point. Yet he was followed by Birtwhistle, Babbit, Carter and Davies, and later Ferneyhough and a bunch more writing symphonies, concertos and sonatas , all full of this kind of stuff. Stuff that nobody can understand or make head or tail of. You're spot on when you call it ;anti-music;.
That's clearly my favorite interpretation
"discutir" a Boulez no solo es absurdo sino inútil. es igual que discutir el teatro de Beckett o el Ulises de Joyce. Es irrelevante que te guste su música. Boulez - al igual que los dos irlandeses , en literatura - ha cambiado el curso de la música. La historia del arte no se construye con el "gusto del público". Fin de la "discusión".
I completely agree. It is not a mater of taste. It is understanding that should discipline taste. People should like what is worth appreciating. It is a mater of education
That's absurd prescriptivism.
It's more ore less Kant's aesthetics. It's not rockn'roll. But even among classic music listeners there are those who don't allow that level of abstraction. That's absurd.
Aplausos :)
Pensaría que si ni siquiera se puede discutir, es aún mas inutil que haya existido. Con lo espantosa que es su música, la falta de proporción, belleza, fantasía....etc. que la caracteriza, el hecho de que ni siquiera se puede hablar de lo que hizo y el de tener que asumirlo todos como un genio que cambió la música y punto, pues hace de su existencia algo totalmente inutil. Hay muchos que aunque lo reconocen como figura artistica, no lo siguen en lo mas minimo y creo yo que cada uno tiene el derecho a reconocerlo o no.
Boulez de entrada fue un personaje bastante hegemonico que se quiso imponer casi como un emperador de la música, yo no tengo que reconocerle nada basicamente si no me da la gana....Sin embargo, su estilo influenció a muchos compositores posteriores, y aún en la actualidad muchos los siguen; de hecho en la actualidad subsisten algunos Neonazis, y en mi pais, que es Colombia, algunos defensores de Alvaro Uribe.
great
Llegué aquí por Elías Palti y su libro "Una arqueología de lo político". La pasión de lo real se manifiestan en el arte y la política...
Masterpiece of serialism music.
la musica rivela aicuori quel che nessuna scienza puo' rivelare alle menti ...
qusta musica cosa rivela al cuore...? ( frisina salvatore )
Bastasse il cuore. Nell'arte ci deve essere l'uomo intero. Questo brano non è di ascolto facile, non aspetta facili consensi, né li vuole. Essa mostra tantissime cose. Il non saperle ascoltare non è colpa sua. C'è una tale ricchezza sonora che rende necessaria questa musica. Del resto molte delle pagine più sconvolgenti della storia della musica hanno una complessità tale da renderle incomprensibili ai più. Ciò non toglie che siano capolavori assoluti.
quelle melodie!
etre sous une pluie legere de printemps ou une tornade d'ete lourd et rafrechissant....
Boulez aiguise votre imagination......BRAVO a lui
26:03
The cat has been drugged with heroin and is running like crazy on the piano
TA? DI DA DI DI BOOOOOU
Gnéééhh !!! Piano!!!!
I prefer the part thay goes...plink pum pum tacapum chin pum pee plonk and so on.
great for reading
tolles Stück
BOULEZ is a master !
+william plazibat why?
1guy1wisdom he is the greatest composer that ever was. Period.
william plazibat Yes. Truly!
E L pretentious.
hahahahahashaha
Thanks to Boulez for composing this piece, without knoking It would end here in YT and blessing us with this comments.
Such a obnoxious piece!
un chat, une mouche, un piano!
c'est la musique qui rend fou!
De la musique ?
I find this music beautiful because of its surface glitter and luminosity; in a word, it is French. Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen: all were deeply (highly would be a better word, since their chords were built from the top down) concerned with a shimmering sonority. That is why French music, even when it is not good, is never ugly. if only one could say the the same of bad 20th century German composers . . .
Those bad XX century german composers, who they are?? Names!!
@@bernabefernandeztouceda7315 Start with Karl Heinz Stockhausen.
@@philzmusic8098 and what's wrong with him??
@@bernabefernandeztouceda7315 Well, a piano piece that starts with over 270 repetitions of the same chord, to be followed in some places with similarly large numbers of repetitions, is not written by a good composer, in my opinion, even though the intervening passages are beautiful. If he had indicated "Play this chord over and over until you feel hypnotized" I would respect him more. But to make the pianist keep count for more than 270 repetitions is just silly. Why that number? Why not 269? And if you are going to cite the first few minutes of Rheingold, Wagner keeps the interest going with progressively complex and interesting orchestration. True, the Stockhausen would make a great pairing with John Cage's 4'33''. It falls into what is called conceptual music, and I don't have much respect for conceptual art of any kind. But to each his own.
@@philzmusic8098 These repetitions just sounds good. This is only conceptual problem. You are rejecting piece because of conceptual problem. Describing this piece as only conceptual would be a nonsense. You seem to reject a non-conceptual part of the piece because of the conceptual problem - it seems to be irrational (you gave bad rationalization of your rejection).
Why I'm saying that you reject? Because you said: "That is why French music, even when it is not good, is never ugly. if only one could say the the same of bad 20th century German composers . . ."
Whether a piece of music is good is a matter of the music itself and the concept behind the piece. Being considered "ugly" is more related to the sound rather than the concept. So, even assuming that you are right that the concept is bad, the piece is still not ugly, so you didn't prove your thesis.
I can't think of him as a bad composer since he composed more traditional works like Formel or Tierkreis, which sound like they were composed by a good composer.
Total Random Notes For Two Pianos (A cat / A dog)
Structures of your ass
rip Mr boulez
Irgendwann werde ich diesen Kommentar wiederfinden und Nostalgische Gefühle bekommen
Musikunterricht bei Herr Preiß 30.4.21
R.I.P
i fully agree..
Oh man 13:28 always gets me :)
cats getting crazy
@@karlkinono dang you really like to shit on this piece...
Topito !
I can't help think of Lucie doing her crazy antics in high notes and Dezi
scolding her in the low registered notes. Silly me.
L 'émotion explosive et comprimée à la demie seconde!!! Combien sont capables de la saisir ?
A bon entendeur.......
merci jacques
Boulezdanstoncul
It sounds like shapes of color to me .
On s'en fout