Boulez Sonata No. 2

[minor9th]

Does anyone have a copy they'd care to share? Thank you.

[thalbergmad]

Well, if i did then the site owner, the copyright police and possibly even the composer himself would probably complain.

I can understand why people want free copies as some of the prices that are charged for printed copies are bordering on obscene. I could get a years subscription to cycling weekly for some of them.

However, looking at my copy, it would not be difficult to create your own version. Simply get a blank sheet of paper, fill your mouth up with musical symbols and throw up.

Love

Thal

[jre58591]

hahaha, thal. i would almost have to agree with you there. some of boulez's music is bordering on seeming random, even to me. however, after a little analysis, i do see some structure and thematic material in it. back on topic, id love to post it, but boulez is still very much alive, so its under copyright. sorry.

[thalbergmad]

I have to admit i have never actually listened to this, so perhaps i should before commenting.

it just looks wierd so i assumed (possibly wrongly) that is was.

Thal

[ahinton]

If you - or, for that matter, anyone - is planning to listen for the first time to the Second Piano Sonata of Boulez, then try to get to hear it played by Pollini (or Aimard, if you can't get Pollini). I have to confess that I find it to be a piece of enormous historical significance and, as such, an astonishing achievement for someone still in his early 20s, but nevertheless a work to which, although I have known it almost all my musical life, I have never yet come anywhere near. That is not at all intended as a criticism of the piece; it is merely a personal observation - no more, no less - and one which doubtless reflects ill on the person who has expressed it here. Pollini's grasp of it is nothing less than astounding and his projection of it pretty much on the same exalted level. Maybe I'll somehow find my way to this classic of 20th century literature on day, but in the meantime I still have major difficulties in appreciating its overall effect just in pianistic terms, let alone any other. I still wonder what the composer sounded like when he used to play it so many years ago! I cannot help but find some of Boulez's more recent work not only more approachable but containing of more tangible - and intangible - substance and it seems to me that his sheer musical "Frenchness" (if such a thing there can be) has come more and more to the fore in times closer to our own...

Best,

Alistair

[iumonito]

Thal,

You have been so very good to me, I hope you can take this as a little thank you:

Boulez second sonata is a major work, volcanic, and very much worth getting to know.

It is deeply serial.  I would say thematic analysis a la Schenker is quite alien to it, so I would recommend just listening and reading along for a sense of structure the is intrinsically logical and inescapable.

If you are going to look for a recording, I would skip Pollini, unless you like his early Chopin.  His Boulez is more like his Prokofiev than like his Stravinsky, IMO.  I would much rather recommned an American pianist by the name Chris Taylor.  https://www.amazon.com/Van-Cliburn-Piano-Competition-1993/dp/B000009K1X/sr=8-1/qid=1170121514/ref=sr_1_1/102-2300746-4661706?ie=UTF8&s=music

For extra effect, play your favorite recording of Debussy's 12 etudes and then play your CD of Boulez immediately after.  The former clarifies the later.

[thalbergmad]

Thank you old chap.

I have yet really to go beyond the 1870's, so that i have not listened to hardly any debussy or Prok.

I will make a point this year to expand my musical horizons.

The trouble is, everytime i try to do this, i discover another little romantic gem which takes my attention.

Thal

[iumonito]

That being the case, here is a little list of "Oh my, who would have thought this was actually music?"

Start with Argerich's recording of Ravel and Prokofiev 3d concerto.
Debussy Images 1 and 2 (Arrau is pretty good, Gieseking not to my liking), and the 12 Etudes (Uchida so far is my favorite, although I am yet to hear the version that changes me, it is a great work)
Stravinsky 3 movs of Petrouchka (Pollini is the dog, but Gilels the secret weapon)
Prokofiev Sonatas 6, 7 and 8 (Richter is the law, but Hatto plays them better)
Ravel Gaspard de la Nuit (some like Pogorelich, some Michelangeli, all Argerich)
Crumb Little Suite for Christmas (you have to adore someone banging inside the piano.  Orkis, Andy Russo if you can find it)
Ligeti Etudes (Aimard is the only worthwhile)
Sorabji Sonata IV (Powell, say no more)
Messiaen 20 regards (Loriod, but don't start here)

That would give you a nice spectrum, should you want it.

P.S., Oh, right, Siloti, Rachmaninov and Godowsky fit your bill too.    I know that's not what you mean, of course.

[thalbergmad]

I don't think i have listened to any of those, but i intend to do so.

Thal

[ramseytheii]

Well, if i did then the site owner, the copyright police and possibly even the composer himself would probably complain.

I can understand why people want free copies as some of the prices that are charged for printed copies are bordering on obscene. I could get a years subscription to cycling weekly for some of them.

However, looking at my copy, it would not be difficult to create your own version. Simply get a blank sheet of paper, fill your mouth up with musical symbols and throw up.

Love

Thal

Classical music publishing has yet to discover the internet, by that I mean, the reason these scores are so expensive is that they have to print so many, and sell so few.  Eventually they will wise up, stop printing music altogether, and only have it as downloadable files that we can print ourselves.  It will be much, much cheaper, and a thousand times more logical than perpetuating this antiquated business!

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

Classical music publishing has yet to discover the internet, by that I mean, the reason these scores are so expensive is that they have to print so many, and sell so few.  Eventually they will wise up, stop printing music altogether, and only have it as downloadable files that we can print ourselves.  It will be much, much cheaper, and a thousand times more logical than perpetuating this antiquated business!

Walter Ramsey

I rather suspect that you will find that when Boulez's Second Sonata was first published (well over fifty years ago), the internet wasn't actually around.

I have no idea how many copies of that work have been printed or how many may have sold over that period of time (any more than I suspect you have), but I must admit that some of those French publications - not only of music of this nature but also of Debussy, Fauré, etc. - has often been priced at prohibitively expensive rates and presented rather poorly, both before the age of the internet and since it got going; not for nothing did the old gag used to go about that Durand et Cie. were famous for the most expensive French papier de toilette ever sold. In all seriousness, though, not every publisher charges these large amounts for their products. As to their "wising up", I fear that you'll be onto a loser there for quite some time to come; the problem is that people who actually want to use - rather than merely peruse - scores will want to print them out and usually bind them and, for those that need printing on paper sizes larger than A4, the cost of the printers themselves is far from small (especially not in Europe). I rather think also that publishers who do decide go down the route you suggest will simply find that, unless they can get around the encryption problem, they'd simply end up effectively providing material for free - not exactly the way to run a business - so they'd all soon be gone, so where'd we get music from then? We'd presumably be left only with second-hand music and copies of unpublished material. Is that a scenario that you'd advocate?

Best,

Alistair

[desordre]

Dear fellows:
 (Just some thoughts, especially about the last post by Mr. Hinton.)

 Let's assume an ideal situation: nobody else do any copy of anything. 100% respect to the copyrights. What do you think would happen in that situation? I'm quite sure about two directions: 1) lots of people would never start playing an instrument or learning music; 2) several composers would almost never have their music played. Is it interesting to anyone? I think not.

 I live in Brazil, and the music publishers are pratically non-existant. Almost anything that you need you have to order from USA or Europe. Imagine a young player, that have a standard repertory such as a Beethoven Sonata, some Chopin, some Bach, a Debussy and some Bartok. With no more than 50 copies, he solves the problem in the same day he needs the scores for a couple of bucks. If he want to get "copyright correct", he must make an order. Assuming that the pieces are in volumes with another ones, he must buy 5 books. At US$ 15,00 by book, we're talking about US$ 75,00 plus charges. In a country where the basic salary is less than US$ 200,00 it's almost obscene, considering that it's just a student, not a professional. Multiply this by two or more repertories done in a year, times four or five years and we have a considerable amount of money involved.
 To be very honest, I think that US$16,95 for a volume of Beethoven Sonatas edited by Dover (an example) it's not too much. The problem is the number of similar books that you must own to have a "basic library" of standard repertory.

 The second question that arise concerns me directly. I'm very interested in new music and new composers, and in non-standard pieces and repertory. It's directly related to my performance practice, to my researches and to my professional activities. However, it's impossible sometimes to afford a number of editions by a composer you barely know, considering the fact that maybe you will invest your money for nothing. Let's take Boulez as an example.
 How many pieces by him someone should know to have a thorough view of his work? 20, 30, 40? Of course I'm not talking only about piano music, but rather about examples of all his significant contributions. I don't have a total sum, but it will be probably very very high. Add to this some recordings (that in my country have a prohibitive price: US$ 35-40 each) and we have a winner...
 Excuse me one more time with my multipliers, but beyond Boulez how many other fundamental composers are there? If we continue in this path, soon we'll reach the price of a car, of a house.

  So, is there a possible solution? I think that, maybe, yes: a major, complete "strike". Nobody else buy a single page of sheet. Let's play public domain music and scores that are distributed legally for free over the internet (the British Music Information Centre is an example https://www.bmic.co.uk/). Let's agree also that nobody will copy music irregularly.
 The results? Some composers would not be played anymore until they are copyright free. Boulez, for instance. Yes, the publishers would go bankrupt. To the composers who want to be known and played, a very simple alternative: make a site, and give for free the music. I think that with the "orderings" (sorry, I don't know if it is the proper term), classes, performances, writings, and so on, the composers would worth their living in the very same way as today.
 The question is: are you ready for this (or another active situation, such as that)? To be really honest, I think I'm not. It's very difficult to me conceive my world without Shostakovich, or Britten, or Reich, and I keep on paying US$ 40,00 a book or US$ 80,00 a double-CD. So, I think I should not complain about this, and wonder why did I write the above. Oh, well... 

 Best!

[soliloquy]

I agree with pretty much everything Desordre said.


Also, have you checked the prices on Boulez sheets?  Ever tried getting your hands on the Troisieme Sonate, much less the 4th movement?  Ferneyhough and Xenakis sheets are cheaper, AND you don't have to order them from France



Anyway, why do you want the Deuxieme sheets?

[ahinton]

Dear fellows:
 (Just some thoughts, especially about the last post by Mr. Hinton.)

 Let's assume an ideal situation: nobody else do any copy of anything. 100% respect to the copyrights. What do you think would happen in that situation? I'm quite sure about two directions: 1) lots of people would never start playing an instrument or learning music; 2) several composers would almost never have their music played. Is it interesting to anyone? I think not.

No one is advocating any such thing. I've heard this kind of argument before about copyright sounding the death-knell for contemporary music. It is simply untrue, as the sheer amount of performances of new music testifies. The main reason why is that copyright costs are usually only a very small proportion of the overall costs of performing, broadcasting and recording contemporary music, yet they are claimed as the kind of "straw that breaks the camel's back" in this field. As I've said, it just isn't true; if it were true, contemporary music performances would already be dwindling fast. Copyright proptection is not new, after all - it's been around for a long time; it has not stopped the onward march of new music, however.

I live in Brazil, and the music publishers are pratically non-existant. Almost anything that you need you have to order from USA or Europe. Imagine a young player, that have a standard repertory such as a Beethoven Sonata, some Chopin, some Bach, a Debussy and some Bartok. With no more than 50 copies, he solves the problem in the same day he needs the scores for a couple of bucks. If he want to get "copyright correct", he must make an order. Assuming that the pieces are in volumes with another ones, he must buy 5 books. At US$ 15,00 by book, we're talking about US$ 75,00 plus charges. In a country where the basic salary is less than US$ 200,00 it's almost obscene, considering that it's just a student, not a professional. Multiply this by two or more repertories done in a year, times four or five years and we have a considerable amount of money involved.

I agree that there is a major problem here, both in Brazil and in other countries, but this is down to the lack of easy availability rather than copyright considerations alone. If a publisher or music score seller thinks that he can make a profit by distributing and selling scores, he'll do it; if he think that the demand will be too low for any reason, including affordability, he won't. Consequently, in many countries with poor economies, people won't do this, as they'll prefer to go elsewhere to do it; this is a sasd fact of life, but it is a fact nevertheless.

The second question that arise concerns me directly. I'm very interested in new music and new composers, and in non-standard pieces and repertory. It's directly related to my performance practice, to my researches and to my professional activities. However, it's impossible sometimes to afford a number of editions by a composer you barely know, considering the fact that maybe you will invest your money for nothing. Let's take Boulez as an example.
How many pieces by him someone should know to have a thorough view of his work? 20, 30, 40? Of course I'm not talking only about piano music, but rather about examples of all his significant contributions. I don't have a total sum, but it will be probably very very high. Add to this some recordings (that in my country have a prohibitive price: US$ 35-40 each) and we have a winner...
Excuse me one more time with my multipliers, but beyond Boulez how many other fundamental composers are there? If we continue in this path, soon we'll reach the price of a car, of a house.

So, is there a possible solution? I think that, maybe, yes: a major, complete "strike". Nobody else buy a single page of sheet. Let's play public domain music and scores that are distributed legally for free over the internet (the British Music Information Centre is an example https://www.bmic.co.uk/). Let's agree also that nobody will copy music irregularly.
The results? Some composers would not be played anymore until they are copyright free. Boulez, for instance. Yes, the publishers would go bankrupt. To the composers who want to be known and played, a very simple alternative: make a site, and give for free the music. I think that with the "orderings" (sorry, I don't know if it is the proper term), classes, performances, writings, and so on, the composers would worth their living in the very same way as today.
The question is: are you ready for this (or another active situation, such as that)? To be really honest, I think I'm not. It's very difficult to me conceive my world without Shostakovich, or Britten, or Reich, and I keep on paying US$ 40,00 a book or US$ 80,00 a double-CD. So, I think I should not complain about this, and wonder why did I write the above. Oh, well... 

Here are few facts. BMIC don't make any copyrighted score available. The prices charged for some French music scores are too high (though not because of copyright considerations) and, as your Dover instance demonstrates, fortunately atypical. Setting up a site and giving away music for free will earn the composer nothing, for any activity it may generate will not at the same time generate payment to the composer.

Thanks for your input, though - it's genuinely appreciated.

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

It's sad that not every country has the same access to the wealth of world music, but it's just a fact of life.  Advocating that a composer must give away his music for free in my opinion is criminal, and saying that he can just make a living anyways from doing other work is just negligent. 

Here is part of composer Richard Halley's monologue from Atlas Shrugged:

"And then I understood the nature of the looter-in-spirit, a thing I had never been able to conceive.  I saw them reaching into my soul, ...reaching to expropriate the value of my person...- I saw the impertinent malice of mediocrity boastfully holding up its own emptiness as an abyss to be filled by the bodies of its betters - I saw them seeking... to feed on those hours when I wrote my music and on that which made me write it, seeking to gnaw their way to self-esteem by extorting from me th admission that they were the goal of my music, so that precisely by reason of my achievement, it would not be they who'd acknowledge my value, but I would bow to theirs... It was that night that I took the oath never to let them hear another note of my music."

Walter Ramsey

[desordre]

 Dear Alistair:
 Thanks for your counterpoint. As usual, it's very interesting to know you point of view.
 Best!

 ************************
 Dear Walter:
 

(...)
Advocating that a composer must give away his music for free in my opinion is criminal, and saying that he can just make a living anyways from doing other work is just negligent.
(...)

My opinion relies upon certain premises, or rather interests that we might respect:
 - the composer needs to earn his/her living, and wants (at least I suppose) to have his music known and played;
 - the publisher needs to earn his/her living (...). Period.
 - the student/scholar/performer needs the scores.

 Do you agree with me so far? Then, there are the complains:
 - the composers claim that the incoming from copyright is low;
 - the publishers claim that their work is stolen;
 - the consumers claim that the prices are extortionate high.

 So, it's a matter of trade: the consumer pays to the publisher for the score, who pays to the composer for the music. Clear as water, but - as we can notice everyday - it does not work properly. Why not, then, try to make some changes? The case is that both composers and publishers (with some exceptions) think that the consumer must pay the sum they want, and the latter do it. Or steal. That is what bothers me the most. What I propose tries to equalize the situation as most as possible. First, what composer lives from his copyright? I said that the music must be given for free based on this. And they already do lots of other works. By the way, it has been this way since the days of Beethoven. Think of 19th century composers. How do they earned their living? Incomings from patrons (of course, not as Bach for instance), pupils, concerts, writings, and so on. As far as I know, it's the same today. I don't think my proposition would lead any composer to change it's financial status.
 Furthermore, what is this all about? Art or money? Yes, art always was and is commerce, but this leads to consumer frauds in the same measure that the establishment doesn't change its mind. As I said before, I think that US$ 15,00 is a fair price to a volume of music, although in my country it is still high (yes, I agree that this situation is not a relevant matter to someone who lives in USA or Europe). But there is a problem. Let me use Boulez as an example. His "Le Marteau sans Maitre" is one of the most fundamental works of the century, and I think that everyone should have its score and a recording. However, is US$ 30,00 a fair price for a single work?
 Finally, let me disagree with you: I really don't think that is "criminal" this proposition. Criminal is to copy scores, and -unfortunately- it happens all time. What I think is just that if a new market will arise, it'll not start from the consumer, but rather the composer, unless the consumers assume a hard position such as the commented above.
 Best!

[ahinton]

Dear Alistair:
 Thanks for your counterpoint. As usual, it's very interesting to know you point of view.
 Best!

My pleasure; I do try to be helpful.

 ************************

Dear Walter:
  My opinion relies upon certain premises, or rather interests that we might respect:
 - the composer needs to earn his/her living, and wants (at least I suppose) to have his music known and played;
 - the publisher needs to earn his/her living (...). Period.
 - the student/scholar/performer needs the scores.

 Do you agree with me so far? Then, there are the complains:
 - the composers claim that the incoming from copyright is low;
 - the publishers claim that their work is stolen;
 - the consumers claim that the prices are extortionate high.

You could add to these that the composer might also complain that his/her work is being stolen (especially if it is unpublished).

So, it's a matter of trade: the consumer pays to the publisher for the score, who pays to the composer for the music.

Not quite so simple. The retailer gets the scores from the publisher who usually shares the copyright benefit with the composer - but do bear in mind that this applies only to published works and the composer has to consider the fate of all his/her works, both published and unpublished.

Clear as water, but - as we can notice everyday - it does not work properly. Why not, then, try to make some changes? The case is that both composers and publishers (with some exceptions) think that the consumer must pay the sum they want, and the latter do it. Or steal.

Again, not so simple. Firstly, a clear division between the composer's published works and his/her unpublished ones must be drawn. Your remark here applies only to the published works and, in this case, the publisher sets the publisher price and sells to the retailer who in turn sets the retailer price that the customer pays; the composer doesn't set any price. This is similar to the record industry, where the record company sells at its price to the distributor who in turn sells at its higher price to the retailer who in turn sells at an even higher price to the customer.

That is what bothers me the most. What I propose tries to equalize the situation as most as possible. First, what composer lives from his copyright?

Composers live from a number of sources, inculding copyright and commissions. Self-publishing self-distrubuting composers depend not only on those sources but also on the profits from distributing their scores. Of course composers also live from sources outside their compositions, but that fact is no excuse to suggest that they therefore give away their work for free unless they so choose.

I don't think my proposition would lead any composer to change it's financial status.

Then please don't try it and find yourself disappointed, because I am afraid that you are not correct in your assumption here.

Furthermore, what is this all about? Art or money? Yes, art always was and is commerce, but this leads to consumer frauds in the same measure that the establishment doesn't change its mind.

The "art or money" part of this is an old and worn-out argument. Of course most people don't compose for the money. However, where is the fraud involved? you do not make this clear.

As I said before, I think that US$ 15,00 is a fair price to a volume of music, although in my country it is still high (yes, I agree that this situation is not a relevant matter to someone who lives in USA or Europe). But there is a problem. Let me use Boulez as an example. His "Le Marteau sans Maitre" is one of the most fundamental works of the century, and I think that everyone should have its score and a recording. However, is US$ 30,00 a fair price for a single work?

To the customer, that would depend on the size of the score as well the importance of the music itself. However, to the producer of the score the costs of creating such a publication are the same as a less important work of the same size, just as the production of public domain scores is the same as copyright ones of the same size (OK, the publisher has to pay copyright fees on top, but the actual physical production costs remain the same). Publishers do not usually charge more for copyright works than for public domain ones as a matter of principle. Some might say that to charge £240 for a largely typeset edition of one work - Sorabji's 100 Transcendental Studies for piano, might be an unfairly high pricem but it comprises 864 landscape pages of music and the work itself is of at least seven hours' duration in total and it actually costs nearly £50 just to send it to Japan - and yes, I mean just sending it, not even charging for the score itself!

Finally, let me disagree with you: I really don't think that is "criminal" this proposition. Criminal is to copy scores, and -unfortunately- it happens all time. What I think is just that if a new market will arise, it'll not start from the consumer, but rather the composer, unless the consumers assume a hard position such as the commented above.

I would not perhaps have used as strong a word as "criminal" myself in this context, although I think that we are all nevertheless agreed that illicit copying and unauthorised distribution of scores is indeed just that. However, the solution to such "crime" is surely not to say that all such material should be made available at the composer's personal expense! It's illegal to steal my car; OK, so let's change the law to say that I must therefore give it away at my expense! Logic, anyone?...

Best,

Alistair