Répons; Dialogue de l'ombre double
By Ensemble InterContemporain / Pierre Boulez / Alain Damiens
| . | . | . | . | . |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Track listing
Show track credits
- 1 Introduction 6:26
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 2 Section 1 2:58
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 3 Section 2 2:05
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 4 Section 3 2:23
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 5 Section 4 5:39
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 6 Section 5 3:59
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 7 Section 6 5:23
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 8 Section 7 5:53
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 9 Section 8 3:12
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 10 Coda 4:34
-
ensemble
-
conductor
-
piano
-
piano
-
harp
-
vibraphone
-
xylophone, glockenspiel
-
cimbalom
-
- 11 Signe initial 1:05
-
clarinet
-
- 12 Strophe I 2:03
-
clarinet
-
- 13 Transition I à II 1:02
-
clarinet
-
- 14 Strophe II 1:26
-
clarinet
-
- 15 Transition II à III 1:44
-
clarinet
-
- 16 Strophe III 1:23
-
clarinet
-
- 17 Transition III à IV 0:50
-
clarinet
-
- 18 Strophe IV 1:53
-
clarinet
-
- 19 Transition IV à V 0:26
-
clarinet
-
- 20 Strophe V 1:07
-
clarinet
-
- 21 Transition V à VI 0:44
-
clarinet
-
- 22 Strophe VI 1:36
-
clarinet
-
- 23 Signe final 2:54
-
clarinet
-
- Total length: 60:45
Rate/Catalog
Catalog
Set listening
Review
To rate, slide your finger across the stars from left to right.
2 Issues
- Release view [combined information for all issues]
-
Répons; Dialogue de l'ombre double [p] Digipak
-
Répons; Dialogue de l'ombre double Special Headphones Version
6 Reviews
Where do Boulez and I go from here?
When I started listening to him it was, at least in part, a pose. I was 16, and music was simple: if other people hated it, I called it excellent. Maybe I did this to get on people's nerves, to look clever, to convince myself that I was clever... I don't know. The more violent other peoples' reactions, the more I would insist on the music's greatness. So Bartok was pretty great, and Webern was superb, but Boulez trounced everybody. In fact, I liked Bartok most of all, I liked Webern somewhat, and I considered Boulez something of a trial, but not a pointless one. After all, I reasoned, I couldn't make sense of Mahler the first time I heard him, but after a break his music had become great. So I kept listening to Boulez, not exactly with displeasure, but with a feeling of duty, with the thought that if I stuck at it, I would come to like it. Praying for Stockholm syndrome.
When I went to university, I maintained this pretence of liking Boulez - if it was a pretence - with an increasing sense that it wasn't worth the trouble. The people around me now were unconcerned by my professed love of him, and I was more interested in music by other composers - Kagel, Nancarrow, Cage - which I could love without making an effort or adopting a stance. Gradually, Boulez went away. I didn't reject him, I just stopped thinking about him.
I doubt all this. There are really two possible truths:
1. When I was younger, I adopted the pose that I loved Boulez in order to piss people off and appear clever, without really being convinced by his music. Later I dropped the pose, leaving only the reservations.
2. When I was younger, I loved and was greatly influenced by Boulez. Later I felt the need to break away from him, and so I adopted the pose that I never really loved him, and only pretended to in order to piss people off and appear clever.
Something in all this bothers me for unclear reasons. Is it Boulez' position as figurehead of the avant-garde, that bothers me; does it make me want to knock the pedestal from beneath his feet? Is it that I was never sure what I thought about Boulez to begin with, so struggle to measure where I am now? Or this: it's been 14 years or so since I first listened to him; am I condcuting a teenage rebellion against this musical father figure? That seems too melodramatic. But then I thought the same when I first heard Mahler.
I think of Boulez' collection of writings, Orientations, and in particular a piece in there about taste. I read it when I was 18. I can't remember exactly what it said, but I remember my impression of what it said: to have good taste you must like everything that Pierre Boulez says you are allowed to like, and nothing else. Maybe my pose first began to slump when I read that.
I wonder if Boulez has always been too concerned with taste, in fact. His music can seem too wary, carefully arranged, but lacking the bold simplicity that makes Webern beautiful. As time goes on, I find I'm more interested in the structure of Boulez' pieces - the way they are built from blocks, very like Messiaen - than I am by the stuff that fills them. Take the filling that makes up much of Répons, these sparkling arpeggios. They have a clarity to them, yet appear complex - it's very nice. Yet once you realise that the piece largely is just sparkling arpeggios... Here is Morton Feldman, writing in 1965: "With Boulez you have all the aura of a right or righteous gesture. It looks like art, smells and feels like nothing but art, yet there is about it no creative pressure that makes a demand on me. It lulls me to sleep with its own easily acquired virtues." These pieces strike me as pleasant, and they shouldn't. Wasn't this the man that I sided with in order to piss people off?
I'm not sure how much of all this I believe, and I'm clearly still confused. I'm tired of thinking about the whole thing, so I shall stop and I shall sleep. If I wake up in the middle of the night, it will not be with Boulez in my head.
When I started listening to him it was, at least in part, a pose. I was 16, and music was simple: if other people hated it, I called it excellent. Maybe I did this to get on people's nerves, to look clever, to convince myself that I was clever... I don't know. The more violent other peoples' reactions, the more I would insist on the music's greatness. So Bartok was pretty great, and Webern was superb, but Boulez trounced everybody. In fact, I liked Bartok most of all, I liked Webern somewhat, and I considered Boulez something of a trial, but not a pointless one. After all, I reasoned, I couldn't make sense of Mahler the first time I heard him, but after a break his music had become great. So I kept listening to Boulez, not exactly with displeasure, but with a feeling of duty, with the thought that if I stuck at it, I would come to like it. Praying for Stockholm syndrome.
When I went to university, I maintained this pretence of liking Boulez - if it was a pretence - with an increasing sense that it wasn't worth the trouble. The people around me now were unconcerned by my professed love of him, and I was more interested in music by other composers - Kagel, Nancarrow, Cage - which I could love without making an effort or adopting a stance. Gradually, Boulez went away. I didn't reject him, I just stopped thinking about him.
I doubt all this. There are really two possible truths:
1. When I was younger, I adopted the pose that I loved Boulez in order to piss people off and appear clever, without really being convinced by his music. Later I dropped the pose, leaving only the reservations.
2. When I was younger, I loved and was greatly influenced by Boulez. Later I felt the need to break away from him, and so I adopted the pose that I never really loved him, and only pretended to in order to piss people off and appear clever.
Something in all this bothers me for unclear reasons. Is it Boulez' position as figurehead of the avant-garde, that bothers me; does it make me want to knock the pedestal from beneath his feet? Is it that I was never sure what I thought about Boulez to begin with, so struggle to measure where I am now? Or this: it's been 14 years or so since I first listened to him; am I condcuting a teenage rebellion against this musical father figure? That seems too melodramatic. But then I thought the same when I first heard Mahler.
I think of Boulez' collection of writings, Orientations, and in particular a piece in there about taste. I read it when I was 18. I can't remember exactly what it said, but I remember my impression of what it said: to have good taste you must like everything that Pierre Boulez says you are allowed to like, and nothing else. Maybe my pose first began to slump when I read that.
I wonder if Boulez has always been too concerned with taste, in fact. His music can seem too wary, carefully arranged, but lacking the bold simplicity that makes Webern beautiful. As time goes on, I find I'm more interested in the structure of Boulez' pieces - the way they are built from blocks, very like Messiaen - than I am by the stuff that fills them. Take the filling that makes up much of Répons, these sparkling arpeggios. They have a clarity to them, yet appear complex - it's very nice. Yet once you realise that the piece largely is just sparkling arpeggios... Here is Morton Feldman, writing in 1965: "With Boulez you have all the aura of a right or righteous gesture. It looks like art, smells and feels like nothing but art, yet there is about it no creative pressure that makes a demand on me. It lulls me to sleep with its own easily acquired virtues." These pieces strike me as pleasant, and they shouldn't. Wasn't this the man that I sided with in order to piss people off?
I'm not sure how much of all this I believe, and I'm clearly still confused. I'm tired of thinking about the whole thing, so I shall stop and I shall sleep. If I wake up in the middle of the night, it will not be with Boulez in my head.
Published
ADVERTISEMENT
Stravinsky is supposed to have considered this the most important composition of the 2nd half of the 20th century: What of the first half, we wonder.....
Anyway, not really understanding what is going on here beyond the juxtaposition of orchestral arrangements and an electronically manipulated small ensemble, this was quite a surprise. Some of it I really liked and I’ve listened to it quite a few times now. It’s one continuous piece that goes through a series of changes that are all variations on the same restless, angst-driven theme. A theme not in the melodic sense but more an idea, an idea based on the potential of the ‘arpeggio’. After a rather confused opening these arpeggios burst forth with some force only to reverberate off into the distance on what sounds like an electric harp. We are led to understand that the composition is derived from these arpeggios. That sort of advanced musical theory passes me by but the arpeggios are richly expressive, blatant and unashamed, so I can see where it’s coming from. If you’ve heard Boulez before you might know a little of what to expect. His compositions are complex affairs that seem cluttered with notes whilst at the same time can be spacious and abstract. The combination of unusual instrumentation and the electronics is hallucogenic, insomuch as it brings images to mind. The whole thing rides atop of an underlying rhythm like some uptempo jazz. In fact many of Boulez’s angular, staccato lines are very jazzy, often played in unison and, frankly, sometimes too fast to follow. But then this isn’t the sort of music you follow; it hardly ever stands still and never repeats, unless to make a point. There’s a sort of left-right thing happening too and for a while pianos come to the fore taking turns. There’s a lot going on here for the curious mind.
As a recording, I think this is very successful; very much a performance and probably unreproducable under conventional settings. It’s dry, it’s cerebral and wholly unsentimental, at little scary at times but never grotesque.
There’s a companion piece on the CD which I’ve never got to grips with and leads me to wonder whether this is as far as it goes for me. Freed from the trappings of melody and chords, Boulez is certainly liberated but one is still left with a feeling that Boulez’s style is one that, unless you really want to delve deeply, might be an occasional one.
Anyway, not really understanding what is going on here beyond the juxtaposition of orchestral arrangements and an electronically manipulated small ensemble, this was quite a surprise. Some of it I really liked and I’ve listened to it quite a few times now. It’s one continuous piece that goes through a series of changes that are all variations on the same restless, angst-driven theme. A theme not in the melodic sense but more an idea, an idea based on the potential of the ‘arpeggio’. After a rather confused opening these arpeggios burst forth with some force only to reverberate off into the distance on what sounds like an electric harp. We are led to understand that the composition is derived from these arpeggios. That sort of advanced musical theory passes me by but the arpeggios are richly expressive, blatant and unashamed, so I can see where it’s coming from. If you’ve heard Boulez before you might know a little of what to expect. His compositions are complex affairs that seem cluttered with notes whilst at the same time can be spacious and abstract. The combination of unusual instrumentation and the electronics is hallucogenic, insomuch as it brings images to mind. The whole thing rides atop of an underlying rhythm like some uptempo jazz. In fact many of Boulez’s angular, staccato lines are very jazzy, often played in unison and, frankly, sometimes too fast to follow. But then this isn’t the sort of music you follow; it hardly ever stands still and never repeats, unless to make a point. There’s a sort of left-right thing happening too and for a while pianos come to the fore taking turns. There’s a lot going on here for the curious mind.
As a recording, I think this is very successful; very much a performance and probably unreproducable under conventional settings. It’s dry, it’s cerebral and wholly unsentimental, at little scary at times but never grotesque.
There’s a companion piece on the CD which I’ve never got to grips with and leads me to wonder whether this is as far as it goes for me. Freed from the trappings of melody and chords, Boulez is certainly liberated but one is still left with a feeling that Boulez’s style is one that, unless you really want to delve deeply, might be an occasional one.
Published
About Répons only: Never heard avant-garde/contemporary music so listenable. Still don't know if that is a good thing.
Published
The kind of disc that instantly improve the intellectual and social value of my collection: modern classical compositions by a notoriously maniacal composer / director (who, a few years ago, publicly complained because the public authorities did not want to built the circular concert hall he needs to perform his music ...), lavish digipack with a trilingual booklet on bible paper, DDD recording, a special headphone version available on request (in 1998, but maybe there are some left ?) Nothing to do with vulgar pop music.
That said, I found it at 3,50 € and it was worth trying, because it is good music. I have recently realized that if I cannot hear classical music from the past with a real interest, I can appreciate some more modern compositions. Specially when they are devoid of romantic sentimentalism and sound very angular and sharp. Curiously, it works for me as background and relaxation music (I should not say that, my credibility as serious music aficionado is down again ...)
That said, I found it at 3,50 € and it was worth trying, because it is good music. I have recently realized that if I cannot hear classical music from the past with a real interest, I can appreciate some more modern compositions. Specially when they are devoid of romantic sentimentalism and sound very angular and sharp. Curiously, it works for me as background and relaxation music (I should not say that, my credibility as serious music aficionado is down again ...)
Published
ADVERTISEMENT
Répons is a good work, but at the end of the day, I find that too many moments in it are just a little too reminiscent of too many other moments in other Boulez works.-- the long, flowing lines punctuated by sudden outbursts that then slowly fade out themselves, and especially the writing for percussion immediately call to mind Boulez's works of the 70s like Multiples and Rituel. It would be more accurate to call it another realization of "The Boulez Piece," rather than a step in a new direction. The work's main distinguishing feature is the use of electronics to manipulate the sound of the six soloists (cimbalom, piano, xylophone/glockenspiel, harp, vibraphone, piano/synthesizer), but as the critic Paul Griffiths aptly put it, the electronics are not necessary to produce the effect Boulez seeks, but rather "to stake a claim for the unprecendented in a world which -- inside his music as outside -- was filling up with things revived."
Published
Repons = a number of crazed clusters through many ears, if you've got 'em. This piece accommodates multi-eared individuals 'n' stuffs noises down.
Dialogue = a lunatic clarinet bombarding its way into separate channels for maximal headpiece expansion. This is elevated so make sure thee lights are out 'n' thee stereo is low.
Dialogue = a lunatic clarinet bombarding its way into separate channels for maximal headpiece expansion. This is elevated so make sure thee lights are out 'n' thee stereo is low.
Published
Votes are used to help determine the most interesting content on RYM.
Vote up content that is on-topic, within the rules/guidelines, and will likely stay relevant long-term.
Vote down content which breaks the rules.
Vote up content that is on-topic, within the rules/guidelines, and will likely stay relevant long-term.
Vote down content which breaks the rules.
Catalog
21 May 2024
15 May 2024
15 May 2024
10 May 2024
8 May 2024
7 May 2024
29 Apr 2024
23 Apr 2024
2 Apr 2024
22 Mar 2024
20 Mar 2024
4 Mar 2024
28 Feb 2024
13 Feb 2024
29 Jan 2024
Contributions
Log in to submit a correction or upload art for this release