Pierre Boulez's reaction to Shostakovich's Suite on Verses of
Michelangelo Buonarroti, Op. 145a

RICCARDO MUTI: Yesterday I was very impressed and touched by the fact
that Maestro Pierre Boulez was at the concert and came to see me. I
consider Pierre Boulez the most important musician living today, and I
have for him the greatest and deepest respect. When he came in, because
he's not only a great man and a great musician, but a humble person, he
said, "I thank you for introducing me to this piece; I was not at all
familiar with this music. I didn't know it." He made some enthusiastic
comments about the score, and he found it one of the greatest works of
Shostakovich. The fact that it is not performed very often depends on
the fact that you need a cultivated audience, a patient audience —

ANDREW PATNER: The work is about forty-five minutes.

[...]

PATNER: You stole my story about Maestro Boulez because I was speaking
with Boulez at the interval and it is not a secret that overall Boulez
is not a fan of Shostakovich's music. When I did an interview with him
after he had been settled in for a few years in Chicago, I said,
"Maestro, you are at home here now, you're staying here, and you don't
need to give Americans only one side, you can say some of the things you
might say at home, so let's go through some of the people you don't
conduct." And I would mention Brahms and he would say "too perfect," or
Beethoven, "I love Beethoven." I said Shostakovich and he said,
"Nothing, nothing." I said, "Well, but what about the quartets?" "No."
"What about the piano music?" "Nothing — he's the Meyerbeer of the
twentieth century." So when I saw Maestro Boulez last night, I said to
him, "Is this now your favorite Shostakovich?" He laughed and paused and
he said, "Actually, this piece is a revelation, and this performance is
a revelation." So you have made an historic contribution here.

MUTI: He is not only a great musician, but he is open-minded. I'm sure
that tomorrow he will come back to hear again this piece.

PATNER: Well, that I think I can guarantee that this will be the first
time Pierre Boulez has voluntarily heard a Shostakovich work twice.

MUTI: Or maybe three. We will see.

WFMT broadcast, June 18, 2012

from "A Portrait in 4 Movements: The Chicago Symphony under Barenboim,
Boulez, Haitink, and Muti" by Andrew Patner

Many of darmstadtian composers despised (and often ignored) the works of
their contemporaries non-darmstadtian, and vice versa. That was right.
Today from both sides we have received many beautiful musical
compositions.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-7, c...@mail.org wrote:
> Many of darmstadtian composers despised (and often ignored) the works of
> their contemporaries non-darmstadtian, and vice versa. That was right.
> Today from both sides we have received many beautiful musical
> compositions.

Boulez was a brilliant musician but even so, not immune to provincialism.

Yes, today we can appreciate both Boulez and Shostakovich -- and both Wagner and Meyerbeer.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 5:09:53 PM UTC-7, number_six wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-7, c...@mail.org wrote:
> > Many of darmstadtian composers despised (and often ignored) the works of
> > their contemporaries non-darmstadtian, and vice versa. That was right.
> > Today from both sides we have received many beautiful musical
> > compositions.
> Boulez was a brilliant musician but even so, not immune to provincialism.
>
> Yes, today we can appreciate both Boulez and Shostakovich -- and both Wagner and Meyerbeer.

The provincialism went both ways. Shostakovich's public statements about the music of Boulez, Stockhausen, and other greats of the mid-20th century avant-garde weren't exactly conciliatory or generous. The argument can be made that he was forced to say these things, but the recollections of personal friends and colleagues confirm that his dislike of musical modernism was sincere. For example, there was an anecdote from Rostislav Dubinsky in Elizabeth Wilson's Shostakovich book about how the composer admonished the Borodin Quartet for programming some work by Nono, I think. Shostakovich offered much support to younger composers, but his enthusiasm for their work would turn cold if they took stylistic directions he did not approve of, sometimes even bitterly criticizing their music, as occurred to Edison Denisov and his The Sun of the Incas. No matter now: "good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now"

Anyway, here's a picture of the first and only time the two giants met, with Walter Mosely standing between them: https://we.tl/t-SSoxrmNLpa. This was backstage after one of Boulez's rug concerts. Shostakovich was visiting the US at that time. Officially he as here to receive an honorary doctorate from Northwestern University, but the real reason for his visit was to undergo cancer tests at the Mayo Clinic.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-7, Néstor Castiglione wrote:
>
> Shostakovich was visiting the US at that time. Officially he
> as here to receive an honorary doctorate from Northwestern
> University, but the real reason for his visit was to undergo
> cancer tests at the Mayo Clinic.

You mean Shosty wasn't happy to receive the Korolev
treatment at home? Color me surprised. ;-)

dk

Can someone tell me what it is that Boulez may have heard in the Michelangelo Suite which he thought was so special? I mean, I'm not denying that people who like Shostakovich will no doubt enjoy it, but why would a Shostakovich-phobe be so enthusiastic?

On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 2:25:08 PM UTC-7, Mandryka wrote:
> Can someone tell me what it is that Boulez may have heard in the Michelangelo Suite which he thought was so special? I mean, I'm not denying that people who like Shostakovich will no doubt enjoy it, but why would a Shostakovich-phobe be so enthusiastic?

The only one who could have possibly explained that has been dead for nearly seven years. Perhaps like a lot of people, Boulez simply became more open-minded and conciliatory as he got older. (Or maybe his sudden like of Shostakovich was symptomatic of cognitive decline. Who knows?)

Maybe Muti knows why, but if so he seemed not to elaborate to Patner. Muti's wording—that "he found it one of the greatest works of Shostakovich"—is interesting as it seems to imply that Boulez was familiar with and perhaps appreciative of other works by the Russian composer.

On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC-7, Néstor Castiglione wrote:
>
> Perhaps like a lot of people, Boulez simply
> became more open-minded and conciliatory
> as he got older. (Or maybe his sudden like of
> Shostakovich was symptomatic of cognitive
> decline. Who knows?)
>

Or Putin put him on an FSB payroll ?!?

dk

On 8/27/22 8:03 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC-7, Néstor Castiglione wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps like a lot of people, Boulez simply
>> became more open-minded and conciliatory
>> as he got older. (Or maybe his sudden like of
>> Shostakovich was symptomatic of cognitive
>> decline. Who knows?)
>>
>
> Or Putin put him on an FSB payroll ?!?
>
> dk

That's ugly and not at all funny.

Bob Harper

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:53 AM UTC+10, number_six wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-7, c...@mail.org wrote:

> Yes, today we can appreciate both Boulez and Shostakovich -- and both Wagner and Meyerbeer.

There is Schatz, there is Darmstadtz and there is Shostakovitz.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 9:27:49 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:53 AM UTC+10, number_six wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-7, c...@mail.org wrote:
>
> > Yes, today we can appreciate both Boulez and Shostakovich -- and both Wagner and Meyerbeer.
> There is Schatz, there is Darmstadtz and there is Shostakovitz.
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra
Are you saying there are no gems in the Darmstadt school nor in Shostakovich's output??
Or was your intended meaning too arcane for me here?

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 6:41:57 AM UTC+10, number_six wrote:
> On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 9:27:49 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:53 AM UTC+10, number_six wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-7, c...@mail.org wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, today we can appreciate both Boulez and Shostakovich -- and both Wagner and Meyerbeer.
> > There is Schatz, there is Darmstadtz and there is Shostakovitz.
> >
> > Andrew Clarke
> > Canberra
> Are you saying there are no gems in the Darmstadt school nor in Shostakovich's output??
> Or was your intended meaning too arcane for me here?

It sounds a bit like "There are lies, damn lies and statistics" but, I have to agree, not much ...

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 3:27:43 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 6:41:57 AM UTC+10, number_six wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 9:27:49 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:53 AM UTC+10, number_six wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-7, c...@mail.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, today we can appreciate both Boulez and Shostakovich -- and both Wagner and Meyerbeer.
> > > There is Schatz, there is Darmstadtz and there is Shostakovitz.
> > >
> > > Andrew Clarke
> > > Canberra
> > Are you saying there are no gems in the Darmstadt school nor in Shostakovich's output??
> > Or was your intended meaning too arcane for me here?
> It sounds a bit like "There are lies, damn lies and statistics" but, I have to agree, not much ...
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra
Thanks -- admittedly, that possible reading sailed right past me...