This article was downloaded by: [Institutional Subscription Access] On: 01 September 2011, At: 04:45 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary Music Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmr20

ouvert, encore
Pierre Boulez Available online: 17 Jul 2007

To cite this article: Pierre Boulez (2007): ouvert, encore , Contemporary Music Review, 26:3-4, 339-340 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07494460701414181

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Contemporary Music Review Vol. 26, Nos. 3/4, June/August 2007, pp. 339 340

. . . ouvert, encore . . .
Pierre Boulez

Downloaded by [Institutional Subscription Access] at 04:45 01 September 2011

In this article, rearranged from an interview with Dan Albertson on 3 December 2006, the author explores various themes relating to Earle Brown and open-form notation, as well as to his own work, and afrms the modern-day relevance of the techniques used in the 1950s and 60s. Keywords: Earle Brown; Conducting; Darmstadt; Form; Notation; Open; Technique

I rst became acquainted with Earle Brown through John Cage and David Tudor. My connection to Cage dates back to 1949, when I met him in Paris. In 1952, I had come a tre Marigny company and also to hear to New York with Jean-Louis Barraults The David perform my second piano sonata. Naturally, I also met everyone who was associated with John and his circle at that time. I was rather reserved about Johns music, because I do not believe much in chance. Earle was then working on his Folio, works which did not leave an impression on me. These sketches seemed to be art of a post-Mondrian style, closer to paintings than music, and I was not convinced. We remained in contact and often exchanged ideas, as everyone did in the 50s. In 1957, I a, in which I made clear the aesthetics that I had come to believe, wrote an article, Ale certainly inspired by my exchanges with Earle and others, but also by my reading of phane Mallarme . Earle and I both evolved in mostly the same James Joyce and Ste direction: the composer must always be present in his music and his guidelines must be precise. Our differences are mainly in how open a work could be without giving up control as a composer. Many works from the 50s share this basic philosophy, but as with any burgeoning artistic age, only the best works will survive and the worst were a preparation for the best. Time will be the judge. My group, Ensemble Intercontemporain, recently organised a sort of retrospective of American music in the 1950s, agged by Cage, but also featuring Brown and others. All of these years later, this music, despite or because of its different philosophies, remains relevant. In 1957, I asked Earle to write a piece for the Domaine Musical concerts that I held a tre Marigny. He did so, and the result was a nonet in standard notation at the The called Pentathis. I am sure that I conducted it later, but I do not remember it
ISSN 0749-4467 (print)/ISSN 1477-2256 (online) 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/07494460701414181

340

P. Boulez

well; Bruno Maderna conducted the premiere, probably because I was conducting somewhere else. I view Earles two Available Forms, written soon after, as his chefs-doeuvre, although I remain fond of his later music as a whole. It is unfortunate that we saw each other so little in later years. Earle spent much time in Paris in the 60s, but as far as I remember, we spent relatively little time together then, much less than in the late 50s. Even in New York in the 70s, when I conducted the Philharmonic, we were both busy with our own activities. I learned much from the spirit of the time and from Earle too. Maderna, Karlheinz Stockhausen andmuch, much lessLuciano Berio, among others, were also exploring open form, trying to integrate openness and structure. As I continued to conduct more often in the 60s, and frequently with orchestras instead of the ensemble that I had for my Domaine Musical concerts, I learned to become more practical with my notation. I suppose that my earliest open-form works are a bit utopian. My third piano sonata, for instance, remains incomplete in two movements, with three that need further consideration. I came to be pragmatic by the time I clat/Multiples, a work which is now, decades later, theoretically nished. envisioned E The way in which I cue musicians to perform certain aleatory passages was probably the result of my experiences with Earles music, Brunos music, etc. Orchestras are expensive, and each moment of rehearsal costs more money, so one must be practical when one deals with any work for such a large group of musicians. This is a lesson that could only come from experience. Nonetheless, I have maintained the belief that open form, if properly integrated into a musical piece and if not used as a replacement for musical creativity, is still valid today. Younger composers, I fear, have mostly avoided this technique because they have already been trained to be practical, perhaps too practical. In a much more recent work of mine, sur Incises, for three harpists, three pianists and three percussionists, an elaboration of my early piano miniatures Incises, I have again used some elements of open form. In certain parts of the score, I have provided the music but I have not provided a specic time span for it, or no metres, for instance. At times the work is free-ying. I have remained realistic, however, and I think that I have fully realised the possibilities that we rst imagined in the 50s without demanding additional rehearsal time. `mes III, the third incarnation of a solo violin One of my future projects is Anthe work from 15 years ago. After the solo version, I created with Andrew Gerzso a form for violin and live electronics. Such a project, or series of projects, I suppose, could be traced back to a broader interpretation of open form. Now each work itself is open for other works to develop from the originals basic premise. Another rive II, which I recently expanded, after not being satised with my example is De rst attempt. Now open form could well symbolise my view of composition itself, with the formthat is, each workbeing open to revisions, reevaluations, reconsiderations . . .

Downloaded by [Institutional Subscription Access] at 04:45 01 September 2011