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 . . .

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

Pierre Boulez

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 affirms the modern-day relevance of the techniques used in
the 1950s and 60s.
Keywords: Earle Brown; Conducting; Darmstadt; Form; Notation; Open; Technique

I first 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
to New York with Jean-Louis Barraults Theatre Marigny company and also to hear
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
wrote an article, Alea, in which I made clear the aesthetics that I had come to believe,
certainly inspired by my exchanges with Earle and others, but also by my reading of
James Joyce and Stephane Mallarme. Earle and I both evolved in mostly the same
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, flagged 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
at the Theatre Marigny. He did so, and the result was a nonet in standard notation
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

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

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
envisioned Eclat/Multiples, a work which is now, decades later, theoretically finished.
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 specific time span for it, or no metres, for
instance. At times the work is free-flying. I have remained realistic, however, and I
think that I have fully realised the possibilities that we first imagined in the 50s
without demanding additional rehearsal time.
One of my future projects is Anthe`mes III, the third incarnation of a solo violin
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
example is Derive II, which I recently expanded, after not being satisfied with my
first attempt. Now open form could well symbolise my view of composition itself,
with the formthat is, each workbeing open to revisions, reevaluations,
reconsiderations . . .