Previous scholarship on Pierre Boulez's Le marteau sans maître celebrates the analytical basis of the piece, with particular emphasis on Boulez's concept of the bloc sonore and its role in Le marteau's design. This article synthesizes aspects of this scholarship with Boulez's personal reflections from the years 1953–55, many of which remain unpublished to this day. Utilizing Boulez's correspondence with Karlheinz Stockhausen and John Cage, as well as his own published writings and the sketches for Le marteau, I present the story of an artist on the path to self-discovery. I also shift the discussion of blocs sonores away from viewing them as musical objects necessary for the analysis of Le marteau to recognizing their significance as a cultural and aesthetic concept at the heart of Boulez's artistic development at this time. Finally, I use the literary trope of “anxiety of influence” to relate Boulez's own maturation to his struggle to escape the shadow and influence of Schoenberg. By humanizing a work that is often cited for its analytical virtuosity and poetic audacity rather than the network of biographical circumstances behind its creation, I attempt to reorient our ears from the rigidness of integral serialism to the broader significance of Boulez's score.

Several decades after Lev Koblyakov published his groundbreaking investigation of Le marteau sans maître in 1977, music theorists such as Catherine Losada and Ciro Scotto have in recent years provided crucial additional insights into Boulez's compositional process and the significance of blocs sonores, or proprietary pitch-class collections, for his development as a composer.1 Yet conventional wisdom still treats the premiere of another work, Structures 1a (1952), as perhaps the most noteworthy historical event in Boulez's compositional development, even though the experimental relevance of that work appears quite limited when considered alongside the sprawling role played by blocs sonores in his subsequent compositions and aesthetics.2 Such assessments suggest a tacit marginalization of Boulez's blocs sonores to the realm of specialized musical knowledge, despite their central importance for his legacy, their relation to his broader goals in postwar aesthetics, and their myriad appearances in his later music.

In this article I sketch a Künstlerroman that connects Boulez's concept of the bloc sonore with his struggle to redefine serialism during the long gestation of Le marteau sans maître (1952–55, rev. 1957). After explaining blocs sonores as musical objects in Le marteau, I provide a biographical backdrop for these developments using letters written by Boulez during his trip to South America as music director of the Compagnie Renaud-Barrault. I also consider how the concept of the bloc sonore served Boulez's broader aesthetic goals in his published writings on music from this same period. My hope is that, as a result, the bloc sonore will be appreciated as Boulez's single most original and substantial contribution to harmony in music.

My narrative begins with an implicit acknowledgment of Boulez's relationship to some of his dodecaphonic predecessors. While I avoid reviewing the influence of Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg, or explicating the literary theories of Harold Bloom, I do invite reflections on “anxiety of influence” as a colloquial concept that can elucidate themes interwoven throughout Boulez's writings as he sought to modernize the style of his successes of the late 1940s (his Sonatine for flute, his first two piano sonatas, his early cantatas) by means of the new techniques of integral serialism in the early 1950s.3 My engagement with Bloom is based on Boulez's actual compositional practices and private letters rather than reductive quotations from polemics such as “Schoenberg Is Dead,” which tend to hypostatize possible patriarchal connections rather than sustaining dynamic or thought-provoking tensions. Nonetheless, I do entertain the suggestion that Boulez's musical and theoretical acts resonate with the first four of Bloom's six revisionary ratios, mostly because Bloom's theory has narrative implications that dramatize my Joycean allusion to the portrait of a maturing artist in provocative, if nonliteral, ways.4 Above all, my desire is to guide the reader toward a more intimate understanding of Boulez's stylistic development as a struggle toward self-identification, rather than offering a psychological gloss on his motives or polemics.5 

A secondary goal is to highlight the way in which the dialogic relationship between Boulez's writings and the development of his blocs sonores fed his ongoing struggle as a composer throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s. His monograph Penser la musique aujourd'hui (1963) is widely considered to be a retrospective summary of his work from the previous decade, including his endeavors to appropriate Schoenberg's and Webern's various forms of dodecaphonicism for his own brand of serialism.6 The cynical tone of this work is quite different from that of some of his earlier essays, however, especially those written during his angst-filled race to complete Le marteau. Thus, while I refrain from discussing Penser, I briefly review three essays that Boulez wrote in 1953–54, in order to highlight the relationship between his development of a new serial method and his shifting agendas as a writer. Perhaps more than Le marteau itself, these writings shape the cast of my Boulezian Künstlerroman, revealing a fallible artist who struggled to maintain his moral principles while sublimating his anxieties and influences into creative energy.

The Forge, the Hammer, and the Emerging Master

Ever since its lauded premiere in 1955 Le marteau has maintained its status as one of Boulez's most coherent and convincing works, yet the context for its composition provides an unlikely background for success. In fact, the first scheduled premiere of Le marteau, for October 16, 1954, at Donaueschingen, was canceled for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was Boulez's inability to meet the deadline.7 This was followed by a premiere of a first version of the work eight months later, on June 18, 1955, in Baden-Baden, under the direction of Hans Rosbaud.8 Supposedly inspired by the first performance, Boulez then added 149 measures to the final movement before conducting the Paris premiere of the work on March 21, 1956, as part of his own Domaine Musical series. (If Boulez's own letters are to be believed, he actually composed this last portion in less than ten days immediately following the Baden-Baden premiere, which would pose a remarkable contrast to the otherwise very slow gestation of the work over the previous four years.)9 

In fact, the preceding years of 1952–55 were some of Boulez's least productive as a composer: despite his lively correspondences with John Cage, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and Henri Pousseur,10 his development of a new harmonic method, and his completion of several new works in 1951–52, Boulez appeared to lack energy—and perhaps inspiration—during this period.11 And yet he also supposedly said that he intended to complete his first masterpiece by the age of thirty (1955)—a self-imposed deadline that frames this advanced composition as the mature culmination of a lengthy apprenticeship.12 Letters to colleagues attest to his developing ideas as a composer (not least through his criticism and critique of their works), but Boulez's travels as music director of the Compagnie Renaud-Barrault left little time for composition.13 Beyond the normal demands of the theater, Boulez accompanied the troupe on two tours to South America during these years, the second of which was long, busy with rehearsals for and performances of Milhaud's Christopher Columbus, and on the heels of his first Domaine Musical concerts.14 In effect, Le marteau is less the result of a focused dedication to a single work than a souvenir from a period of distraction, travel, and intense personal growth.15 

This context places Le marteau in stark contrast to Boulez's later works of the 1950s, especially when compared to the burst of creative opportunism sparked by L'Orestie (1955) and its progeny.16 Unlike these later compositions, in which Boulez experimented with all forms of borrowing, transcription, and new, freer serial derivations in order to meet the growing demand for his compositions, Le marteau is an extremely focused work, dense in its dodecaphonic derivations, and almost meditative in its affect. And while it borrows organizational material from an earlier piece (Oubli signal lapidé, discussed below), the creative impetus for the work is overtly reflective of Boulez's travels with Barrault, including his experience of foreign cultures and instruments, his deepening appreciation of contemporary musicians, and his desire to introduce new sources of creative freedom into his rigorous serial methods. Le marteau thus acts as a transition between Boulez's earliest works, which reflect the eagerness of a young apprentice, and his later ones, which multiply and mature as funding and support for the Domaine Musical stabilizes and his theater duties slowly fade.17 

The Impetus for a New Harmonic Language

The importance of Le marteau for Boulez's musical development cannot be overstated. As Pascal Decroupet writes,

[Le marteau] occupies a pivotal place in the career of the early Boulez: the first work—in the true sense of the word—after the adoption of “total serialism,” it is also the last—for a number of years—not to be haunted by the mobility of structures and scores. … [Le marteau] remains as a last example of a kind of composition in which Boulez would still want a conclusion, “forcing” an ending that is not simply a cessation of the discourse but rather a finale, unravelling the intrigues [that], up to that point, might seem to be just so many parallel plots.18 

The musical worth of Le marteau as a synthesis of Boulez's ongoing musical and aesthetic development is supported by its long and rich reception history. Analysts have also routinely acknowledged the work's musical density, from the angularity of its vocal setting to the experiences that lay behind Boulez's choice of instrumental ensemble, both of which represent a level of refinement beyond that of his first settings of René Char's texts in Le visage nuptial and Le soleil des eaux (in 1946 and 1947 respectively).19 Yet even when stripped of all its grandeur and complexity, Le marteau still functions as an introduction to Boulez's major compositional innovation of this period—his use of blocs sonores to lay the foundation for new harmonic and melodic serial processes.

Boulez himself emphasized Le marteau as a whole—and “L'artisanat furieux” in particular—as an opportunity to reinsert more agency into his serial processes, a moment when he loosened Schoenberg's “rigid” dodecaphonic system to allow for a localized indeterminacy in an otherwise predetermined framework, such that “at the overall level there is discipline and control, at the local level there is an element of indiscipline—a freedom to choose, to decide and to reject.”20 It is for this reason that Boulez's harmonic clusters are not mere vertical simultaneities, but pitch collections that provide for harmonic, melodic, and/or contrapuntal writing. In the words of the composer,

The first piece in Le marteau sans maître was written in September 1952, just before I left for Canada with the company of Jean-Louis Barrault. It was simultaneously a preoccupation with harmony and a way of constructing melodic lines that were not constrained by the obligation to continually follow the twelve-tone series, because what aggravated me in the twelve-tone series was having to unfurl the different chromatic tones in a rigid manner. I thus had harmonic objects that I could portray horizontally in no specific order. The piece in Le marteau sans maître for flute and voice [“L'artisanat furieux”]—which is moreover a homage to Schoenberg—is founded on something fundamentally opposed to the twelve-tone method. It was a way of rediscovering the freedom that Schoenberg had at the time of Pierrot lunaire, but that he had then lost because of the rigidity of the system.21 

It is fitting that one of Boulez's most confident (and complex) compositional forays into the world of serial harmony should borrow a poetic title that doubles as a reference to a liberated acoustics, a hammer without a Pythagoras to derive the natural origins of consonance from a cacophony of ringing anvils. One might also think of this as an undermining of Schoenberg as “master,” at once acknowledging Boulez's debt to the dodecaphonic universe while misreading his predecessor in order to reconstruct his own project as a historical one, separate from Schoenberg's guiding influence. And as if to challenge tonality, Boulez describes his method as sequences of “multiplication,” subverting, as it were, the cyclic generation of the natural and harmonic series, or even the mathematic ratios of Rameau's corps sonore.22 

Of course, Boulez's harmonies have little to do with anything natural.23 Rather, his method of harmonic derivation is typical of the advanced serial processes he was developing at this time. A combination of row parsing, rotation, and transcription, the generation of his harmonic matrixes is itself a multistep process. Furthermore, the use of these materials in the drafting of a score requires further manipulation and spontaneous invention. Throughout, the twelve-note row is respected as the source and generator of serial processes, but, differently from the way it is used in Structures 1a, its fundamental characteristic as an equally weighted, chromatic representation of the octave is soon compromised for the sake of expressive and thematic variety.24 

It is worth noting that Boulez conceived his method as entirely new and different from Schoenberg's, but only according to Boulez's own misreading of his predecessor. This provides an obvious contact point with Bloom. The themes discussed by Boulez here and elsewhere bring to mind Bloom's clinamen, or “misreading/misprision,” while the related music leans toward a kind of tessera, or revised completion, of Schoenberg's Pierrot project.25 In these instances Boulez offers strong interpretations of Schoenberg's method by putting undue stress on the most rigid aspects of Schoenberg's ordered rows while simultaneously exaggerating his reliance on classical forms or outdated formal techniques; these assessments are always made with the goal of making room for Boulez's own adaptation and expansion of the method, effectively “completing” Schoenberg's project while also altering it far beyond his precursor's intentions.

The fact that these processes were a natural extension of a method first used in another, less conspicuous opus is not without relevance. An a cappella choral work originally set to a text by Armand Gatti, Oubli signal lapidé was withdrawn by Boulez after a single performance on October 3, 1952.26 Although only seventy-five to one hundred sketches exist for this work (depending on whether or not drafts and duplications are included in the count), these contain a number of important templates that are reused in several later pieces, including Le marteau, “Tombeau,” and the second version of cummings ist der Dichter.27 Like earlier attempts at broadening his serial language, Oubli represents a serious but “false” start: Boulez successfully integrated the new bloc sonore serial process into Oubli, only to realize by the time of the work's premiere that the potential of his new method far exceeded the confines of its sui generis context (a pattern seen in several pairs or families of Boulez's later works).28 It was at precisely such a moment that Le marteau was first conceived as a better promotion of his new harmonic language.

Segmenting the Series, blocs sonores, and “Multiplication”

Indeed, the starting point for Boulez's harmonic appropriation of Oubli is the preliminary version of “L'artisanat furieux,”29 a piece for alto flute and voice that was first composed in 1952 (in all likelihood alongside Oubli and Structures 1b).30 Even in its earliest stages “L'artisanat” utilized Boulez's most basic form of harmonic multiplication to create blocs sonores of serial content. While it is difficult to provide a self-contained definition, independent of their particular generative process and uses, blocs sonores can be described as collections of pitch and interval content that are often organized as vertical clusters in Boulez's matrixes; these objects are then used in his music as reservoirs of pitch and interval content for harmonies, linear counterpoint, ornamental flourishes, smaller subgroups (dyads, triads), or larger conglomerate textures that include multiple blocs sonores across several instruments.31 Although Boulez may follow a pregenerated program for these types of manipulation, the examples from Le marteau help to demonstrate that his early use of the term “bloc sonore” is connected not so much to a specific serial process as to a reconception of what might constitute “a series” more generally (vis-à-vis Schoenberg's ordered, dodecaphonic rows). In fact, the multiple means of generating these objects highlight the possible (and diverse) kinds of inspiration for their conception: Cage's work on the prepared piano, Stockhausen's work in the studio, and Varèse's renewed interest in electronic music.32 In what follows I limit myself to a single way in which multiplication leads to the creation of blocs sonores sequences and matrixes.33 

First, it is valuable to visually compare a bloc sonore with a Schoenbergian row. In most cases the first step in creating a sequence of blocs sonores is to divide a linear row of ordered pitch material into five or six segments, following a pattern such as 3–2–4–2–1 (= 12 pitches in total). One then stacks the pitches of each subgroup, such that the first three notes of the row are stacked, then the following two notes, and so on, as illustrated in Example 1. Significantly, such objects are already something nebulous, described by Boulez as “sound complexes,” “complex sounds,” “sonorities,” and “sound-blocks” in the span of just five sentences; one thing they are not (at least at their inception) is “chords,” because, in Boulez's words, “quite apart from the historical cargo which goes with the word chord, I attach no harmonic function in the strict sense to my vertical aggregates.”34 

Example 1

Yet, as simple as the process shown in Example 1 appears, Boulez's technical definitions are rather obtuse, not least because his explanations are wrought with jargon that borders on the tautological. In the essay “Possibly … ,” for example, he writes, “[t]ake the example of a twelve-note series divided as follows: three notes, one note, two notes, four notes, two notes—hence five sonorities,”35 but he omits the original row, leaving the reader to stumble over what makes these mere “sonorities” unique blocs sonores, and how precisely they have been derived as vertical clusters from a linear row. In Penser la musique aujourd'hui another description conflates segmentation and the process of pitch multiplication, using the (French) word “complexe” to describe objects at every stage of the (transformational) process:

Take another example: the case of a homogeneous complex of pitches. Suppose that groupings of absolute values are made (still in the domain of the semitone, with the octave as model) and that the result is a succession of complexes of variable density—still fulfilling the essential condition of non-repetition—: 3/2/4/2/1, that is, all the twelve semitones of the octave.

If the ensemble of all the complexes is multiplied by a given complex, this will result in a series of complexes of mobile density, of which, in addition, certain constituents will be irregularly reducible; although multiple and variable, these complexes are deduced from one another in the most functional way possible, in that they obey a logical, coherent structure.36 

What Boulez implies is that, once the row is rearranged from a linear series into five discrete pitch stacks, these blocs sonores can then be “multiplied” by one another, where “multiplied” means that each bloc sonore is transposed relative to the pitch and interval content of another bloc sonore. This results in a number of blocs sonores that vary in pitch content and density, “density” referring to the number of pitches in each bloc sonore.37 

Examples 2ac provide a visualization of this process, as the multiplication of a bloc sonore first relative to a single pitch and then relative to another bloc sonore, and finally as the complex multiplication of an entire sequence of blocs sonores relative to one of its terms. Thus, in Example 2a every note of the first term shown in Example 1 is transposed by the same interval above B♭. In Example 2b the same operation is executed twice, first according to B♭ and then according to C♯; the resulting pitches are then combined into the product (which has only five pitches since the D♭/C♯ is duplicated). This example also shows how, when the first term is multiplied by the second, its root, or “anchor,” is shifted down by a major third, from D♮ to B♭, which constitutes the difference between the bottom note of each sonority. In Example 2c the entire bloc sonore sequence of Example 1 is multiplied by its second term. In this final example it is best to conceive of the multiplier (term 2) in the first position, such that every subsequent transposition leaves the multiplicand on its original anchor. Then, each of these products is also transposed down by a major third. This additional step is the “complex” part of the operation, and it constitutes applying the difference between the anchor of the first bloc sonore and that of the multiplier to the entire sequence as a standardized, secondary transposition. (The row shown in Example 2c corresponds to row 2 in Example 4 below.)

Example 2a

Example 2b

Example 2c

The versatility of the term “bloc sonore” also captures the multifarious uses of these objects in Boulez's compositional process. His blocs sonores sometimes appear as single harmonic entities without function (differentiating them from tonal chords), sometimes as reservoirs of pitches for linear, thematic content (differentiating them from clusters), and sometimes as individual or contrapuntal elements in textures that combine multiple blocs sonores simultaneously (differentiating them from Klangfarbenmelodien). Boulez also trumpeted the malleability of these objects:

In reality there is considerable ambiguity in the use of such chords [sic], which are “sound-blocks” tending to become distinct objects in their own right, with timbre and dynamics as an integral part of the whole complex; hence the demand for a kind of super-instrument, whose sounds would be an actual function of the work. This ties in with the current preoccupations of electronic music, which seeks the same end with pure sinusoidal sounds. … Since the density of these blocks can vary constantly from one note to ten or eleven, an actual concept of variability has been introduced into the series, which acts on the elements that make it up, so that they cannot themselves be reduced to a unity. It is on this basis, with the addition of rhythm, that we can develop such sound-blocks horizontally, while, since their transposition is crucially independent of the linear sequence, the process of development is absolutely free.38 

Again, the term “bloc sonore” captures this functional modularity: since Boulez treats these complexes with greater flexibility (of register, length, and selection) over time, they serve more as reservoirs of pitch material that can be further manipulated than as discrete musical objects with entrainable sonic signatures.

A short extract from “L'artisanat furieux” illustrates the most transparent use of blocs sonores as, simultaneously, a deep structural schema and the immediate, audible source for lyrical writing in Le marteau. Example 3 shows measures 20–30 of the score together with a bloc sonore underlay.39 The source of these objects (“domain Eπ”) is discussed below, but the reader may already see how the vertical pitch conglomerates are rearranged as linear, melodic material. This passage, which is unusually clear in this regard, is but one example of the way in which blocs sonores provided Boulez with a much freer basis for melodic and harmonic manipulation than would an ordered, twelve-tone row. It also highlights a local formal symmetry in the piece as a whole: as the flute enters on a high E♮ (m. 27), Boulez switches from one stack sequence to another (as indicated by the Greek letter name below each stack). He thus unites the deep structural patterns of the movement with a climactic peak on the musical surface—a feature of which the listener would be unaware, but one of vital significance for the rigorous serial processes underlying the movement's form.

Example 3
Example 3

Example 3

Of course, Schoenberg's music often uses rows as fodder for simultaneities and pitch duplications. That is why this passage (and Boulez's overt mention of Schoenberg above) highlights the act of tessera, or a Bloomian sort of completion through misreading and appropriation.40 Whatever one's interpretation of Schoenberg, the second stage of Boulez's serial process, whereby segmentation is subject to multiplication, increases the “density” of each stack beyond the limits of dodecaphony by combining them through transposition. Hence, Boulez goes not only beyond Schoenberg's original concept of the ordered twelve-tone row but beyond the limiting concept of twelve tones itself, using multiplication to literally multiply the number of pitches in his sequences while disregarding the chromatic gamut. It can be difficult to describe these transpositional processes concisely, as there are several different ways of executing a transposition, and each introduces different ramifications for the resulting pitch structure of the bloc sonore sequences. In what follows, I provide a quick gloss on some of these ramifications by completing the journey from Boulez's segmented twelve-tone row to his (much larger) bloc sonore matrix.

In his discussion of the pitch-class sets at work in the multiplication processes of Boulez's music, Steven Heinemann provides a clear description of basic multiplication.41 In short, he suggests three categories of multiplication—simple, compound, and complex. For our purposes it is easier to reduce these categories to two, simple and complex. These are defined not by the basic rule of thumb that a given bloc sonore is transposed according to every interval of another bloc sonore, but rather by whether or not the fundamental bass note of the transposition operation (the anchor) is transposed according to a secondary operation.42 In simple multiplication there is a single process for multiplying the blocs sonores; here, “simple” means “one-step.” In both compound and complex multiplication there are two operations—a simple one, and then a secondary transposition to alter the bass note (and the rest of the corresponding bloc sonore) by another interval. The derivation of this interval is the fundamental difference between compound and complex multiplication and is not relevant to my discussion here. (It is also one aspect of Heinemann's method that has been critically updated by later scholars.) When a complex multiplication is repeated across an entire bloc sonore sequence, a basic, twelve-note segmentation such as that shown in Example 1 becomes a multiplied bloc sonore sequence, exemplified in Example 2c. What can be a little confusing is that even the untransposed segmentations of Example 1 would still be defined as blocs sonores by Boulez: the precise form of transposition is less a factor in their “objectivity” than their varied treatment as “sound complexes” in his works.

Example 4 illustrates a “domain,” or a kind of single matrix generated by multiplying every term of a bloc sonore sequence by every other term. Here, the top sequence is the one shown in Example 1, and the second the one shown in Example 2c. Each of the subsequent rows follows suit, the third row featuring all the terms of row 1 multiplied by the third term, the fourth row those terms multiplied by the fourth term, and the fifth row those terms multiplied by the fifth term. It may be seen that in each row Boulez generates the second transpositional operation according to the difference between the bass note of the first bloc sonore and that of the multiplier as stated in the top, unadulterated bloc sonore sequence. In the case of row 2 of the matrix (Nυ, or Example 2c), this is the difference between D♮ and B♭, or a major third; in row 3 the difference between the bass note of the multiplier (term 3 in row 1) and the multiplicand (term 1 in row 1) is a tritone (A♭ and D♮), so the secondary transposition of that row shifts every bloc sonore by a tritone, and so on.43 

Example 4

Ultimately, complex multiplication turns out to be an elegant solution to some inherent limitations of simple multiplication. First, complex multiplication allows a controlled manipulation of the anchor, or bass note, of each bloc sonore, which turns out to have been an important structural consideration in Boulez's compositional process.44 Second, because complex multiplication transposes entire sequences by a fixed interval, it also allowed Boulez to shift a whole sequence in such a way as to alter its register or color palette, usually in relation to a specific, potentially isographic pitch or interval relationship between sequences. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the multiplications differ in their commutativity. Just as regular multiplication is commutative, so complex multiplication ensures that different products contain similar pitch content. In short, complex multiplication allowed Boulez to create matrixes involving certain patterns and duplications, such as those highlighted in Example 4. These patterns and duplications became very relevant to Boulez's work, as can be seen in the harmonic overlaps and “pivots” between the two different bloc sonore sequences shown in Example 5, where B♭ acts as a point of symmetry between two readings of the same bloc sonore sequence. (For the source of the sequence, see Example 6.)45 

Example 5
Example 5

Example 5

Despite the density of my explanations, Le marteau (and Oubli signal lapidé) use Boulez's clearest, cleanest, and most transparent bloc sonore matrix. I have transcribed it fully as Example 6.46 It presents a total of one hundred and twenty-five blocs sonores derived from a single twelve-tone row. I reproduce the matrix here in order to make a very simple point: creating it required a great deal of work. (Boulez's subsequent matrixes were even more demanding, as they contain more convoluted isographic relationships.) It seems likely that one reason why Boulez made only a few such matrixes (all of them in the 1950s, as far as I can tell) and then reused them in various ways for the next several decades is that, while resulting in a massive amount of musical potential, they were actually very tedious to produce.47 This is not to say that he does not create other adaptations of these core products, or that he does not have side-sketches of other matrix alternatives—he does.48 Nonetheless, these alternatives are usually mere adaptations, such as parts of the original matrixes transposed, or featured in retrograde, or recycled in some way, rather than being entirely new multiplications of bloc sonore sequences.

Example 6

Last but not least, others have noted the “modal” (à la Messiaen) intervallic characteristics of Boulez's blocs sonores. As an important component of a work for multiple voices that uses a broad spectrum of registers, the blocs sonores of Oubli can be compared to the layered densities of Structures 1a; similarly, the blocs sonores of Le marteau preserve a number of key tritone relationships within the work's multivoice polyphony.49 As Peter O'Hagan has observed,

the appropriation of one of Messiaen's modes as the series for Structures 1a is hardly an isolated gesture of homage to the composer of Modes de valeurs et d'intensités (1949). When the chordal structures of Oubli signal lapidé and related works are examined, the extent to which the morphology (to use a Boulezian term) relates to that of Messiaen becomes clear. Thus many of the chords can be categorized in terms of Messiaen's modes 2 and 3, with their division of the octave into cells of minor and major thirds respectively. This is not to imply a diminution in the strikingly original features of Boulez's style, but an acknowledgement of the extent to which his innovations sit within the framework of a musical tradition.50 

It is in fact Boulez's ability to imbue so many layers of serial manipulation with precise intervallic control that links the otherwise disparate soundworlds of Structures, Oubli, and Le marteau, revealing their disguised Messiaenic halos. Beyond the harmonic signature of these blocs sonores, the additional diversity of the master matrix provides Boulez with a gamut of possible pitch reservoirs that far exceeds any dodecaphonic row or magic square. In effect, it was only through the tremendous “discipline” required to create these mass multiplication tables that Boulez liberated himself to apply these blocs sonores as harmonic, melodic, or polyphonic music. Regardless of the degree of serial planning and the potential for deep, isomorphic organizational structures, Boulez contrasts his objects with the “ordered” rows of Schoenberg and flaunts the possibilities of “local indiscipline” in his blocs sonores to open up the realm of compositional gesture through the use of such amorphous, adaptive pitch sets.

The Flights and Frustrations of a Traveling Composer

The serial intricacies described above in relation to the bloc sonore matrix of Le marteau (not to mention its underlying structural role in several of the work's movements) already reveal the time and effort spent on deep structural (or organizational) aspects of the composition. But it is the effects of Boulez's schedule on the design and completion of the work that become increasingly clear when one considers that he actually finished the first harmonic tables in time for use in the earlier Oubli, and that most of the movements of Le marteau are actually rather limited in length and scope.51 Everything about this work, from its often languid presentation of short, surreal texts to its extended instrumental commentaries and massive coda, suggests a composer whose thoughts were left to roam while his ability to compose was suspended for considerable amounts of time. The trajectory of the work confirms this impression: the brevity and focus of the first composed movement, “L'artisanat furieux” (1952), which extends to no more than three pages, stands in stark contrast to the elaborately scored final movement, composed three years later and extending to nineteen pages, or about eight minutes in performance.52 It is as if the long gestation of the work built up slowly over time, ultimately spilling over into the realm of self-borrowing and replication as Boulez raced to prepare the work for its intended premiere.53 

Early in 1954 Boulez wrote to Stockhausen about his frustration with the demands of his theater responsibilities in Paris and of the Domaine Musical in particular:

I can but praise your promptitude [in writing], and you can but blame my tardiness. My only excuse is the crazy work I have here. The concerts went very well. But what work! I won't get into that again. It destroyed my work period. Between the organization of the concerts and the journal issues,54 I could do practically nothing for myself; which makes me, in this moment, more than nervous.55 

Later in the same letter he reiterated, “As for the concerts, they continue to go well. But what work! And at what cost! It's monstrous. It can't be done again—and I for one won't do it again—under these conditions.”56 Hence, even before his departure for South America the tone of Boulez's letters was affected by the stress of the final Domaine concerts of the 1953–54 season. While he and Stockhausen remained intimate friends, Boulez became increasingly angst-ridden as he realized that time was running out. In particular, negotiations over finding a quartet for the final concert of the year forced a rapid back-and-forth of perfunctory letters that ironically reveal the depth of the composers’ friendship, each proving a reliable friend in a pinch despite a number of problems and terse replies. In spite of these tensions, the warm, playful tone of their correspondence returned as soon as time allowed.

A letter from Boulez to Cage of July 1954, written at the height of the tour, reveals similar frustrations with the Domaine Musical and his increasingly demanding schedule:

My poor John, I haven't had time to write to you much this year and you must think I am the last word in ingratitude. To think that you welcomed me so well when I was in New York and that I haven't written to you since.57 But if you knew the work [for the Domaine Musical] I have had this year! … For I did absolutely everything from arranging the programs to hiring the instruments (not to mention such things as contacting artists or taking care of lodgings). … We still don't know whether we can carry on next season. P[ierre] Souvtchinsky and Madame Tézenas are organizing themselves to try and form a committee.58 We need about 1½ million francs (if not 2 million) before we can hope to begin. It is not an easy sum to find. Moreover, we have to find a secretary.59 For I don't mind telling you that I am not keen to lose all my time as I have done this year. Practically speaking, I have been able to do absolutely nothing from December to April. … You can easily imagine this season's disastrous history as far as my work goes.60 

Boulez's tone is perhaps less intimate than in his earlier correspondence with Cage, but the psychological toll of his frustrations is still obvious.61 Furthermore, despite his efforts to maintain “as much of my time as possible for writing,” Boulez admitted in his next letter to Cage, of July–August that same year, that “I have alas very little—by which I mean none at all—time to work for myself.”62 

According to his correspondence with Stockhausen, Boulez was indeed left with little time to notate Le marteau, and may have been suffering from a bout of depression as new responsibilities and travel obligations drained his creative energies.63 In a moment of passionate confession Boulez shared his reflections on the previous year during a stop in Salvador, Brazil:

It's frightening to see how age creeps up on one, and how few discoveries and few works one has produced. Right now, I'm absolutely sick of the times. Having been bled white since last November has rendered me nervously hypersensitive to everything, to every day spent without having been able to do anything. This journal, these concerts, what a burden! I'm not prepared to view them with the same attitude of complete devotion next year; in any case, I'm going to safeguard my composition time.64 

This confession comes at the end of a letter in which Boulez also complained about his Darmstadt obligations, finally deciding to skip the festival because they were no longer going to perform his Le visage nuptial as promised.65 He also conveyed genuine anxiety over completing Le marteau in time for its originally scheduled premiere. (The premiere was ultimately delayed on account of problems in securing a guitarist, not to mention Boulez's inability to finish the work.)66 His disgruntled preoccupation with European concerns is obvious, even after being in South America for a number of weeks.

Boulez's mood can also be inferred from specific references to Le marteau in his correspondence with Stockhausen in this period. Although most of the work had been written by the time he left on tour, several movements remained unfinished.67 Before departing he alluded in February to the need to take the work abroad with him:

My curiosity about these countries having been satisfied,68 I would now prefer to go somewhere tranquil and work, work—I hope to steal as much time as possible from the performances in order to finish the piece for Donaueschingen, which has not advanced at all since February. … During the tour, I'm going to work very seriously on Le marteau sans maître, which Rosbaud is to give on October 16 at Donaueschingen.69 

His tone changed when in July he gave an account of his progress during the tour:

I hope you had a nice holiday. Here, the work has sometimes been mind-numbing. Teaching the choir parts of Christopher Columbus to amateurs who haven't the slightest notion of solfège, one soon becomes nauseated by the ineptitude. As for the loss of time, I can no longer even think about it without turning pale. I'm terribly behind with my piece for Donaueschingen. And I really can't do any better. We have finally come to the end of the tour; I can't say I'm sorry about it.70 

At the end of the trip he finally reported in August that he was returning to composition: “Last letter of the journey home. The tourism is over—Another bullfight in Barcelona. And the journey will be at an end … thankfully! I'm already back at work on Le marteau sans maître.”71 

It thus seems safe to say that Boulez composed little between February and late August of 1954. The ramifications were significant: even though the premiere of Le marteau was delayed, Boulez still failed to finish the work in time for its rescheduled performance the following summer. Meanwhile, he canceled his trip to Darmstadt and (finally) spoke of the need to take a break.72 Given the competing pressures and the sheer volume of private complaints, it is just as telling that Boulez said so little about the composition of Le marteau and its musical features, limiting himself to concerns about time and energy and to issues related to its performance, signaling a lack of engagement with the work's compositional processes. This was not generally his practice in his correspondence with Stockhausen and Cage, in which discussions of musical works were often accompanied by detailed descriptions of innovative features.

Despite Boulez's resentful comments regarding distractions and obligations, these letters also reveal the sincere pleasure he took in traveling, not least on account of his interest in other cultures and in foreign music and instruments. Hence, his letters to Stockhausen often resemble entries in a journal, with long asides and occasional digressions that show him at his most perceptive. Even the more mundane aspects of travel are shared as fodder for further conversation:

I have seen the Pacific and Valparaiso. Went down to the port at night, rather amusing. Now five of us have left the others in Buenos Aires to take the boat, and have come as guests to Bahia and Recife (air trip) for a well-deserved rest (Ah! Christopher Columbus in rehearsal, nothing more formidable). We are thus “in the tropics.” It's very nice. I'll tell you about it on my return.73 

He also commented on people, both in recording meetings with old friends (“Imagine, in Rio I saw Gabrielle Dumaine, who has been in Brazil for six months, as professor at the Escola Livre de São Paulo directed by Koellreutter”),74 and in reflecting on the level of culture and the artistic tastes of major cities: “In S. Paulo people are very interested in all the current trends. I've met painters, poets, and even musicians! Interesting, very interesting—especially the painters and the poets. Well versed in E[zra] Pound, Joyce, and Cummings, Mallarmé. It's certainly in São Paulo that one finds the most fascinating milieu in Brazil.”75 He even describes the beauty of plane rides through the Andes: “The trip to Bahia and Recife was terrific. A great deal of flying. We flew over a virgin forest!! We have filled our eyes with exotic landscapes.”76 Finally, Boulez bragged about collecting rare instruments, this being one of several indications that his eyes and ears remained open while abroad. He writes to André Schaeffner, “I have brought back a whole collection of ‘exotic’ instruments: wooden bells, double bells in iron, an Indian flute, a small Indian guitar, a frame drum, bells, and a birimbao,” confirming both the ethnomusicological influence of his mentor and the source of new percussive combinations in both Le marteau and L'Orestie.77 Given Boulez's other struggles in this period, these playful asides are testament to his genuine desire to explore foreign cultures.

My discussion of Boulez's letters began not with his trip but with his frustrations “since last November,” or the fall of 1953. Nearly a year later, he was already preparing the next run of Domaine Musical concerts while initiating his most involved Compagnie commitment, L'Orestie. His attitude, however, had changed. Arranging and organizing the concerts had become easier, the delays to Le marteau were taken in stride, and Boulez appeared to be reveling in taking charge of the promotion and performance of his friends’ most recent compositions. In many ways he had crossed an invisible but tangible boundary between old and new responsibilities and, more significantly, old and new agendas as a composer. As described below, this turning point is reflected in Boulez's public writings, too, although these require a little more deciphering than his private correspondence.

Untangling the Aesthetics of blocs sonores

If Le marteau is in part a musical reflection of Boulez's attitude and activities as a touring professional, then his writings from the same period attest to the additional influence of various European figures on his aesthetic and historical outlook. Essays from 1954, including “The Composer as Critic” (“Probabilités critiques du compositeur”), “‘… Near and Far’” (“‘… auprès et au loin’”), and “Current Investigations” (“Recherches maintenant”), map a trajectory from Boulez's meditations on his changing role at Darmstadt to his renewed confidence as the lead polemicist of the serial avant-garde. These writings document Boulez's reaction to his own expanding repertory of serial techniques, his growing reliance on literary influences, and even his transition from an emerging enfant terrible to the precocious mentor of Stockhausen, Pousseur, Cage, and others. These essays also reflect the broadening professional experiences that prompted him to reevaluate the tone of his leadership.78 Together with his correspondence, they elucidate Boulez's inward reflections as a composer, a critic, and a figurehead for serial innovation during the early 1950s.

The essays in question also introduce three key binaries in Boulez's aesthetics that show how his ideas slowly evolved from polemic “statements of fact” to more nuanced arguments that tie the directives of serialists to the speculative concerns of composers. Oppositional pairs are used to describe the way in which composers of the past and present balance “strict” and “free” composition, “theory” and “practice,” and the acts of “organization” and “composition”—all concepts presented as binary oppositions, but ultimately treated by Boulez as continuums of mixed behaviors. Furthermore, these terms obliquely relate to Boulez's long-standing mantra that freedom arises from discipline, especially when he tacitly suggests that composers throughout history have developed their expressive abilities by shifting their position on each continuum according to the musical system of their time. One senses the presence of blocs sonores as a key ingredient in Boulez's own proprietary mixture of serial methods and creative drive.

These essays were written at a time when Boulez's hubris was tempered by the trials and tribulations experienced during the long gestation of Le marteau, and before the growing, even threatening influence of Stockhausen and Cage at Darmstadt in the later 1950s had reignited his polemics. For example, they feature less aggressive assessments of other composers than Penser la musique aujourd'hui, particularly in relation to Boulez's invitation to those composers to discover their individual musical identities. This is why it is so important to contextualize polarizations such as “strict” versus “free”: in the early 1950s Boulez provides these metrics as a means by which composers might self-critique their own projects across a myriad of continuums, not as “either/or” binaries but as varied mixtures of “both.”79 It is only later, through conflations of Boulez's use of binaries with those used by parallel movements in mid-century French structuralism, that his categories appear cold, limiting, and polarizing—a conflation that is encouraged by his increased use of mathematical logic and linguistic terms and by the caustic criticism of Penser.80 

Finally, when compared with Boulez's earlier and later writings, those contemporary with Le marteau are admittedly seen to be less obsessed with diagramming the syntax and “morphology” of music and more concerned with overwriting (or writing over) dead influences. In these years, oppositional pairs such as “strict” versus “free” provide a means for articulating the flexibility of Boulez's approach to serialism, in which blocs sonores constitute a theoretical alternative to Schoenberg's supposedly “rigid” rows. In addition, his continuums serve to historicize his brand of serialism by demonstrating how these same fundamental dichotomies were relevant to composers and styles of previous centuries. The combination of such binaries with Boulez's deep belief in an evolutionary development of compositional practice leads to some of his most revealing and reasoned prose, while offering more insightful points de repère along his path to a mature, individual style.

“‘… Near and Far’” provides an excellent starting point for discussing these themes and their relation to the blocs sonores of Le marteau with greater specificity. The essay begins with a simple, straightforward statement:

It seems that the present generation can take leave of its predecessors: it has succeeded in defining itself precisely and explicitly enough not to have to accept patronage or be haunted by the past any more. The main driving forces behind the recent evolution of music are well known; there is no need to remind ourselves again of the specific differences of attitude they represented. It was up to us to unmask these apparent contradictions, and resolve them into a possible synthesis.81 

This is a mature assessment, even for the precocious Boulez, who only a year or two earlier was calling others “useless” on the grounds of their compositional affiliations.82 Having broken with the past he confidently writes of synthesis, likely in the Hegelian sense of resolving opposing camps of dodecaphonic practice by sublating them into a communal, contemporary style while shedding their outdated baggage.83 “Us” is still an exclusive camp—Boulez refers only to composers who share his ultraprogressive orientation—but the tone is reflective rather than combative, and implies the need for coordinated action.

This is a good point at which to caution against any kind of direct correspondence between isolated statements by Boulez and Bloom's revisionary ratios. Passages such as these, in which Boulez explicitly acknowledges the past, are actually the least wrought with “anxiety of influence”; if anything, this represents Bloom's kenosis, or a humbling in relation to one's influences by distancing oneself from them rather than seeking a comparative (or combative) opposition.84 Here, Boulez has a clear vision of the way in which his project is actually separate and different from that of his predecessors, even if his confidence in his persuasive powers remains tempered.

The multifarious connotations of the title phrase “near and far” also provide a richer exegesis of Boulez's self-reflections.85 A reference to an article by Pierre Souvtchinsky, the phrase refers to “a creator—who, through his arrival, his presence, the affirmation of his gifts, his judgement, makes everything near and far suddenly visible with renewed clarity.”86 Souvtchinsky—whose influence on Boulez's musicological development cannot be overstated—clarified the necessity for a self-conscious, critical, and historical artistic psychology.87 The artist is called on not just to create a new style but to evaluate it against “the near and the far”: its contemporary reception and its historical relevance.

Boulez clearly accepted Souvtchinsky's challenge. Taking an omniscient position over modern music despite his relative youth, he describes three new horizons. First, he argues for a poetics of modern music based on structural possibilities over and above any natural principles or “moribund tradition.”88 Next, he muses on the role of the composer in the evolution of musical styles, shifting between a commentary on the way musical systems develop and propagate and a long discussion of the merits and dangers of analysis for the modern composer, wherein the role of analysis becomes “to define [ourselves] ever more precisely in relation to [our] antecedents.”89 Finally, the last portion of the essay looks ahead, listing a number of analytical discoveries that could guide the future of modern music. Significantly for our purposes, these discoveries include an elaborate description of blocs sonores with many hidden references to Le marteau.90 Together these perspectives reveal a musician fresh from retreat, converting his own journal of self-reflection and discovery into a map for other aspiring composers.91 

The most striking lines in “‘… Near and Far’” occur not at the end of Boulez's analytical descriptions but at the beginning of them. Citing a number of composers, who include Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Ravel, Boulez attempts to describe the dynamic, varied balance between “strict” and “free” composition that may be observed throughout music history. The language here reflects the necessary exchange between formal models and individuated works: in an earlier passage Boulez writes, “there can no longer be any traffic with pre-existing schemas,” whereas here he acknowledges that “it is no accident that with the Viennese School we find strict canonic forms reappearing, together with the passacaglia and variation: they provide the sort of common ground where ambiguity can flourish and allow the divergence between strict and free invention to reappear.”92 Next, he practically reinvents the role of the series, in a passage in which the compositional advances of Le marteau may be seen to lie buried:

A pitch series can be imagined in a number of different ways. And it is crucial to recognize that it is not the succession of the elements it combines that constitutes the serial phenomenon. The series is not an order of events, but a hierarchy—which can be independent of that order. It is in this sense that harmonic regions—using the same interval relationships—can, for example, within a certain set of transpositions, group series into families. Equally it is in this sense that the horizontal and vertical dimensions become combined under a single principle of distribution. … One thus sees emerging a notion of “free” and “strict” style, specifically defined in relation to those forms acknowledged as most representative of these two styles in the history of music.93 

In relating this veiled description of unordered, vertically stacked blocs sonores back to his description of “strict” and “free” composition (“the series is not an order of events, but a hierarchy—which can be independent of that order”), Boulez integrates his recent experiments in Le marteau with the “near and far” of postwar music. With the benefit of hindsight one can also connect these statements to his later use of “indiscipline” in Le marteau as a negotiation of strict and free applications in his own organizational procedures. Boulez's blocs sonores thus appear at the center of a complex nexus, an elegant synthesis combining a maturing historical perspective, changing aesthetic positions, and, above all, his own appropriation of dodecaphonic and serial methods during the early 1950s.

What is perhaps less obvious is the way these ideas resonate with Boulez's private conversations with contemporary composers. In particular, his correspondence with Stockhausen reveals the extent to which their preoccupations were shared. It is easy to attribute a desire to incorporate new freedoms into serial music to Stockhausen: he is the one who writes about improvising at the piano, whose Studien I and II spark Boulez's imagination, and who muses with inarticulate language on statistics, improvisation, spaces, fields, and rotations.94 At the same time, we know that Boulez's first bloc sonore matrix predated at least some of these discussions, and that his own interest in new formal possibilities and improvisatory techniques was fueled by his reading of Mallarmé, Joyce, and others, not to mention his early fascination with Cage's prepared pianos and his ongoing enthusiasm for world music. Seen in this light, Boulez's essay becomes a risky, even vulnerable expression of new ideas that he had discussed privately with others, but that were as yet untested in public.

“The Composer as Critic” represents a second phase of aesthetic development, providing a penetrating commentary on the way the modern composer uses analysis as a catalyst for self-criticism. Drafted for the inaugural (and only) issue of Domaine musical: International Bulletin of Contemporary Music just prior to Boulez's theatrical tour, this essay is surprising in its lack of references to composers. Instead, Baudelaire is cited continuously, as Boulez describes the symbiotic relationship between the “critical” and “creative” drives of the modern artist—terms that map onto his own binary of “theoretical” versus “practical” concerns for modern composers.95 For this reason, the essays of any artist “may turn out to be a critical commentary, or a kind of incantation murmured over a new work as it comes to birth”—a phrase that immediately pairs this essay with Le marteau.96 There is little reason to attribute any consistent causal relationship to this music-text dialogue, although it is clear that the success or failure of individual musical works often led Boulez to either drop or further develop certain aesthetic positions in his writings.97 

Other themes of “The Composer as Critic” correspond even more directly to the historical ambitions of “‘… Near and Far.’” Boulez again discusses analysis and its role in showing a “lack of respect” for his own work and that of others. These critiques are not “sallies” or “squibs,” Boulez reminds us. Instead, they reflect a Cartesian doubt, a radical questioning of the methods, intentions, and resulting musical rhetoric of a given composer or work, including Boulez's own.98 That these comments appear as Boulez intensely reviews the compositions of his friends is no coincidence. In corresponding with Cage, Pousseur, and Stockhausen about such works as Music of Changes and Sonatas and Interludes, Prospection for three pianos, and Kontra-Punkte, Studie I, and Studie II, Boulez developed as a critic and analyst. The experience also shifted his tone more generally: whereas his critiques of Schoenberg were often too caustic for others to swallow, his criticisms here are as reflective of his own failures (such as the troubled premiere of Polyphonie X in 1951) as they are of the shortcomings of others.99 

Boulez also continued to pair constructive criticism with his broader historical agenda. He calls for “a valid, positive contribution to the development of a language and a system of poetics [that] would remain, having once accomplished its aim, as a simple historical document—and one absolutely essential in order to obtain a definitive picture of the present age.”100 This reference to criticism as “a simple historical document” indicates a subtle change in Boulez's own aesthetic project, from a theory of composition that is self-evident, evolutionary, and even obligatory for all composers to an evaluation of postwar aesthetics as a contrived, historical phenomenon defined by its musical works and reflective of its context rather than its authors.101 There is little doubt that he saw his own blocs sonores as precisely this kind of contribution.

Another striking passage evokes further biographical resonances: “The most irrefutable proof of [the vitality of the twelve-note system] lies in the frequency of [attacks against it]: cut off one of its heads and ten grow in its place, while critics thunder and composers fulminate and composer-critics go on explaining with intellectual ardour or exhausted nervous systems.”102 Here, Boulez's description reveals his own nervous state, a preoccupation seen in a letter to Stockhausen quoted above.103 As the years pass, it seems as if the source of Boulez's exhaustion is no longer just his schedule but the need to continually defend his aesthetic principles, to the point where meditations on Le marteau and dodecaphonic technique may reveal the concrete effects of postwar politics on his creative drive.

Finally, a third essay from 1954, “Current Investigations,” completes the progression from personal meditations to the reenergized polemics of a resolute leader. The essay begins with coy witticisms regarding “enlightened manifestos” and “articles of faith” before settling on a clear objective: to define the word “dodecaphony” and its relation to the word “series” and to settle, once and for all, the bickering of confused critics.104 But Boulez quickly switches from passive to aggressive when he condemns composers for treating the organizational power of serialism as a musical language in itself. Indeed, the essay is not so much about resolving what serialism is, as a call for serialists to distance themselves from the “monstrous all-purpose mill” that results from conflating “organization” with “composition.”105 While condoning the abandonment of thematic material, he admits that this has led to a new monotony, a bland schematization of music, because “perpetual variation—on the surface—produced a total absence of variation on a more general level.”106 Serialism remains a viable style, but it must be guided by musical instincts, not autonomous processes.107 

In turning from reflection to critique, Boulez performs an about-face with regard to integral serialism. He now specifically attacks the kind of “perpetual variation” found in his own experimental Structures 1a, in which, for “each new pitch, a new duration received a new dynamic.”108 The list of negatives continues: do not use themes or thematic rows, do not confuse organization and composition, and avoid absolutely “formal concepts and ‘architecture’ of the past.”109 New directives take the place of these outdated techniques: “The real task in this field is to develop a dialectic operating at each moment of the composition between a strict global organization and a temporary structure controlled by free will”; “These reflections on musical composition lead one to hope for a new poetics, a new way of listening”; and finally, “Let us claim for music the right to parentheses and italics … a concept of discontinuous time made up of structures which interlock instead of remaining in airtight compartments.”110 These and other statements are united in one respect: they direct composers toward compositional creativity and away from too literal a use of rule-based dodecaphonism. They also provide another illustration of the dynamic relationship between word and deed. One need only compare Boulez's desire for interlocking movements with Figure 1 to see how the design of Le marteau—itself the product of years of development—is a prime example of his new approach to musical form.111 

Figure 1

Indeed, the structure of Le marteau is clear from the titles of its movements despite their convoluted order: three different vocal cycles, each with separate instrumental and vocal components, are interlaced as a series of nine movements. What is less obvious is that Boulez used a unique form of serial derivation to produce the blocs sonores for each cycle. For example, whereas “L'artisanat furieux” focuses on blocs sonores generated from the matrix described above (Example 6), “Bourreaux de solitude” uses a different method of bloc sonore generation. The two “rotations” of the row for “Bourreaux de solitude” shown in Figure 2 demonstrate one such alternative method.112 Within each matrix Boulez “clumps” the pitches into blocs sonores, using a process that can be described in two different ways: by grouping the pitches according to the intervals between them, or by rotating the row outside each axis according to a single pitch (here “4” and “5”) and then inserting that pitch at every intersection point. Each results in a “dodecaphonic” matrix. The clumps are then stacked and used similarly to those in Example 6 to form the basis for polyphonic music. Examples 7ab show how two rows from rotation 4 provide the pitch and rhythm content for the beginning of “Bourreaux.”

Figure 2

Example 7a

Example 7b

Here again we are reminded of Bloom. If earlier examples highlight Boulez's ability to somewhat “complete” Schoenberg by embracing but also reorienting his goals (an emphasis on Bloom's tessera), then Figure 2 and Examples 7ab might emphasize Bloom's daemonization, or a movement toward an alternative model based less on a total reinvention by the young musician than on an open meditation upon the power of the original model, which exists separately from Schoenberg's influence.113 In Boulez's reimagining of the twelve-tone matrix, for example, he morphs the matrix into something resembling his harmonic blocks, even while the design of the matrix itself—and its application in the music—actually follows Schoenberg's ordered, sequential presentation of twelve-tone rows in various transpositions. Schoenberg is less completed or denied than “removed,” the matrix appearing as an unavoidable result of historical progress and Boulez's own unique inspirations. Incidentally, Schoenberg is never mentioned in “Current Investigations,” in which Webern is rather the “chief predecessor elect.”114 

Boulez privately announced the publication of “Current Investigations” to Stockhausen:

I'm sending you moreover—despite the definite promise I made myself about it—an article I've written for La nouvelle revue française, November issue, to appear in a fortnight. It will certainly remind you of some of the conversations we had in Cologne—including what you taught me, a little piece of recent erudition. It's a self-critique! It's why I've adopted offhandedness as its principal tone …115 

Boulez's reference to tone (and his rather rare use of an ellipsis) may signal the type of decompression that accompanied the end of his struggles. Having returned from his tour abroad, announced his next major compositional project, and spent a focused, productive sojourn in Cologne with one of his trusted allies,116 Boulez was reveling in his recovery from a year of work, stress, and perhaps even self-doubt. Within a month he would have mostly planned and paid for the next year of Domaine Musical concerts, though further delays to the Renaud-Barrault production of L'Orestie would present new obstacles. While he still had to wait nine months for the successful premiere of Le marteau, he remained poised for new challenges. However facile their former relation to Bloom, Boulez's anxieties were now focused as much on his present colleagues as on his own maturation, shifting his horizons from a myopic past and a hypothetical future to the pluralities of postwar experimentalism.

“A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man”

It remains tempting to coalesce the overlapping themes of Boulez's letters, music, and writings into a late-stage Künstlerroman. In each of these areas one sees the artist coming of age a second time, replacing not only his teachers and their methods, but even the domineering busts of the Second Viennese School—and all with the furor of an adolescent. Corresponding developments in Boulez's compositional method and aesthetics make the years between the premiere of Structures 1a and Le marteau as much a representation of the maturing artist as they are a personal confrontation with the challenges of evolving a compelling, marketable musical voice, as well as an acceptable, if still dogmatic, aesthetics.

Of course, the almost literal parallels between Joyce's coming-of-age story and Boulez's life should not be taken too seriously.117 There may be some benefit, however, in using these parallels to explore the possible links between the aesthetics of Boulez's earlier years and his rapid musical development in Le marteau. From his Catholic upbringing to his mutable faith in dodecaphonicism, Boulez never struggled with the idea that freedom is an extension of discipline, even as his adherence to the dogmas of various influences and institutions wavered continually in his twenties and early thirties.118 His focus on self-discipline as a way of avoiding an absolute faith in the series, numerological approaches, and past musical forms is telling, not least because it shows his inherent tendency to become skeptical about any rigidly defined system over time. Thus, it is not that Boulez suddenly breaks free from his earlier aesthetic positions or influences in these years; rather, he expands them, making space for personal expression, liberating himself by using blocs sonores to locate freedom within discipline instead of in opposition to it (like Cage) or as a reprieve from it (like Stockhausen). In finding his own solution to the dialogue between strict and free composition, theory and practice, and so on, Boulez resolves a primary sociological tension of the postwar years on his own terms, protecting the role of the series with his blocs sonores, but leaving behind his earlier experiments with dodecaphonic technique as souvenirs from an apprenticeship.

As Le marteau demonstrates, Boulez's first instinct is to dig ever deeper into obscure serial operations in an attempt to bypass Schoenberg's natural order of the row. While this trend continues in 1955 with Boulez's very next dodecaphonic works, such as his Troisième sonate and Book 2 of Structures, the following year also introduces a number of more basic serial processes that have a lasting effect on his compositional methods, here expressed by the rapid, mostly through-composed textures of L'Orestie and the transcription and borrowing that are essential to the “Improvisations” in Pli selon pli. In later years his method makes room for a greater variety of simplified processes over and above more convoluted derivational techniques.119 Given this narrative, it might be argued that Boulez's true break from the influence of Schoenberg, Webern, and Messiaen was not in the audacious premiere of Structures 1a, but in the trials and tribulations that brought forth Le marteau and a return to lyric writing using a voice all his own, resonating outward from his newly derived blocs sonores.

 

Notes

Notes
I would like to thank Christopher Brody, Julia Doe, and my anonymous reviewers for the helpful suggestions made during the drafting of this article. References to Boulez's essays are to English translations, followed by the new standard French collections, most often using the abbreviations “PdR” for Boulez, Points de repère, and “PdR1” for Boulez, Points de repère, vol. 1, Imaginer. References to Boulez's correspondence with René Char and Karlheinz Stockhausen are to the letters held in the Pierre Boulez Collection at the Paul Sacher Foundation, Basel, Switzerland, translations of which are mine unless otherwise indicated. All other unattributed translations are similarly my own.
1.
Kobylakov, Pierre Boulez; Losada, “Isography and Structure” and “Complex Multiplication”; Scotto, “Reexamining PC-Set Multiplication.” For earlier discussions of the transitional operations behind Boulez's blocs sonores, see Koblyakov, “P. Boulez, ‘Le marteau sans maître’”; Heinemann, “Pitch-Class Set Multiplication”; and Cohn, “Transpositional Combination.”
2.
While many textbooks give space to both works, Richard Taruskin's Oxford History of Western Music and Robert P. Morgan's Twentieth-Century Music clearly emphasize the analytical traits of Book 1 of Structures over those of Le marteau, and although Joseph Auner provides more extensive discussion of Le marteau in his Music in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries, his analytical examples come primarily from Structures 1a (and, as usual, from Messiaen's Mode de valeurs et d'intensités). A major (and welcome) exception within textbook coverage is found in Paul Griffiths's Modern Music and After (3rd ed.). Within more subject-specific coverage, Martin Iddon, in his New Music at Darmstadt, provides more citations of Structures 1a than of any other work by Boulez, but notes that this piece was “aberrant in terms of the ways in which Boulez generally operated” (83). Meanwhile, Mark Carroll (Music and Ideology in Cold War Europe) and M. J. Grant (Serial Music, Serial Aesthetics) both focus more on the analytics of Structures 1a than those behind Le marteau or blocs sonores, although Grant is clear in her criticism of Structures 1a as a paradigmatic example of (and introduction to) serialism (131). Some shorter, nonspecialized textbooks, such as Mark Evan Bonds's History of Music in Western Culture (4th ed.), barely touch on Boulez.
3.
Bloom's elaboration of this concept is usually discussed through reference to his texts The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry and A Map of Misreading. A number of music theorists have been attracted by Bloom's ideas over the years, prompting a reaction by Richard Taruskin that is especially thorough in its exploration of the possible application of Bloom's work to music: Taruskin, “Revising Revision.” More recently Michael L. Klein has provided a very adept rethinking of Bloomian concepts in relation to music in his two books Intertextuality in Western Art Music and Music and the Crises of the Modern Subject.
4.
Bloom lists the six revisionary ratios as clinamen, tessera, kenosis, daemonization, askesis, and apophrades (Anxiety of Influence, 14–16); his concise descriptions of some of these terms are provided at relevant points below. Together these ratios form a loose narrative trajectory that follows the poet from his or her first misreading of an influence to an appropriation of it via a transcendent form of imitation. Addressing all six ratios lies outside the scope of this article, and indeed not all of them are relevant to the gestation of Le marteau.
5.
In many ways I heed the warnings and implications of Taruskin's “Revising Revision” here, especially where he writes, “Boulez's stentorian proclamation of Schoenberg's demise is a perfect Bloomian paradigm: the killing of the father and the opportunistic misreading of his legacy, enabling the composers of Boulez's and Babbitt's generation to inherit and rationalize the later Schoenberg's neoclassical technique while at the same time claiming the earlier Schoenberg's patrimony. This misreading has been well ratified in post-World-War-II academic historiography … in which the serial ‘discovery’ is staunchly represented as the outcome of a straight evolutionary line—perfectly sequent and eminently trackable—rather than as a clinamen, a swerve” (136).
6.
For more on the textual history of Penser, see Nicolas, “L'intellectualité musicale,” and Salem, “Boulez Revised,” esp. 252–54.
7.
Some of these reasons are discussed below. For a complete description of the schedule of drafts, fair copies, and revisions to Le marteau, see Decroupet's introduction to Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, esp. sections 2 and 5, and O'Hagan, “From Sketch to Score,” esp. 632–34.
8.
Some confusion exists over the “first version” of Le marteau. While Universal Edition mistakenly prepared a facsimile of the first six movements in the fall of 1954, this was not sanctioned by Boulez, and should not be considered a “first version” of the work since Boulez had every intention of adding more movements at that time; see Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, esp. 45, 62–63.
9.
Decroupet leaves open the possibility that Boulez may have completed the work as early as February 1955 on the basis of a reference to the work in a letter to Stockhausen, although this reference is to the “second ink manuscript,” which itself includes only the first forty-one measures of the final movement: Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, 45–46. The greatly expanded version of the final movement is documented in Boulez's letters to Stockhausen; here, Boulez claims that the idea for expanding the final movement came to him only after hearing the premiere, although O'Hagan rightly treats this evidence with skepticism: O'Hagan, “From Sketch to Score,” 633–34.
10.
Unfortunately, parts of these “correspondences” are unilateral. Despite continued efforts, Robert Piencikowski, the former head of the Boulez Collection at the Paul Sacher Foundation, has been unable to locate the letters received by Boulez between 1954 and 1959. It is assumed, following the composer's own recollections, that the letters were lost during his move from Paris to Baden-Baden in January 1959. See Piencikowski, “… iacta est,” 42.
11.
It is possible that Boulez devoted energy to his Symphonie concertante and, to a lesser extent, to revisions to Livre pour quatuor and Structures 1a and 1b during this period, although little evidence exists of substantial changes having been made to any of these works beyond performance modifications. In contrast, between 1950 and 1952 Boulez completed Oubli signal lapidé, Polyphonie X, and Book 1 of Structures, and revised Le visage nuptial and Le soleil des eaux.
12.
See Peyser, Boulez, 131.
13.
Boulez spent nearly a decade (roughly 1946–55, returning a number of times in later years) with the theater company of Madeleine Renaud and Jean-Louis Barrault after a surprise start as a substitute ondes Martenot player for the newly founded troupe. For a detailed discussion of Boulez's relationship with the company, see Steinegger, Pierre Boulez et le théâtre, and Campbell, “Pierre Boulez: Composer, Traveller, Correspondent.” While Campbell's work and my own feature a number of the same excerpts from Boulez's letters, our research was completed separately, many of these excerpts playing a key role in my “Boulez Revised.”
14.
In fact Boulez had accompanied the troupe on a tour to South America in 1950, before the period under discussion, and then on one to North America (primarily Canada) in 1952–53, before heading to South America for a second time in 1954; see Steinegger, Pierre Boulez et le théâtre, 42–47, and Campbell, “Pierre Boulez: Composer, Traveller, Correspondent.”
15.
The exception proves the rule, such as when Decroupet writes of the supposed expansion of the final movement in just ten days that it gives “some idea of Boulez's capacity for work once he was free of his other obligations (to the Compagnie … and to the Domaine Musical) and able to concentrate on his activity as a composer”: Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, 45.
16.
For more on the various works that followed in the wake of L'Orestie, see Salem, “Boulez Revised,” as well as Salem, “Serial Processes.”
17.
Between 1955 and 1962 Boulez composed a long list of ambitious works, including L'Orestie (1955), the Symphonie mécanique (1955), the Troisième sonate (1955–62 and revisions), Book 2 of Structures (1956–62), Strophes (1957), Le crépuscule de Yang Koueï-Fei (1957), all movements of Pli selon pli (1957–62 and revisions), Doubles (1957), Poésie pour pouvoir (1958), and “Don” for piano and soprano (1960), as well as undertaking revisions to older works.
18.
Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, 41.
19.
The literature on Boulez has exploded since his sketches became generally available via the Paul Sacher Foundation, showing the extent to which Boulez scholarship is aided by analytical understanding of his compositional methods. In the case of Le marteau, early essays by Koblyakov and Piencikowski provided detailed analyses before the sketches became publicly available, jump-starting interest in it and helping to make it one of Boulez's most studied works. Noteworthy contributions include Piencikowski, “René Char et Pierre Boulez”; Stacey, Boulez and the Modern Concept; Koblyakov, Pierre Boulez; Mosch, Musikalisches Hören serieller Musik; Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau; and O'Hagan, “From Sketch to Score.”
20.
Boulez, Conversations with Célestin Deliège, 66. See also Mosch, “Disziplin und Indisziplin.”
21.
Quoted in Decroupet and Leleu, “‘Penser sensiblement’ la musique,” 180: “La première pièce du Marteau sans maître fut écrite en septembre 1952, juste avant que je parte pour le Canada avec la compagnie de Jean-Louis Barrault. C’était à la fois une préoccupation harmonique et une manière de construire des lignes mélodiques non contraintes par l'obligation de suivre continuellement une série de douze sons, car ce qui m'agaçait dans la série de douze sons, c’était de devoir dérouler les différents sons chromatiques de manière rigide. J'avais ainsi des objets harmoniques que je pouvais décrire horizontalement dans n'importe quel ordre. La pièce du Marteau sans maître pour flûte et voix, qui est d'ailleurs un hommage à Schoenberg, est fondée sur quelque chose de fondamentalement antinomique à la série de douze sons. C’était une manière de retrouver la liberté que Schoenberg avait au moment du Pierrot lunaire, mais qu'il avait perdue ensuite à cause de la rigidité du système.” Accordingly, “L'artisanat furieux” is “directly and deliberately related to ‘Der kranke Mond,’ the seventh number of Pierrot lunaire, not only in its handling of the words and the layout of its vocal part, but also in being accompanied by a single counter-melody in the flute”: Mosch, “Pierre Boulez: Le marteau,” 94.
22.
I refer here not to Rameau's various philosophical bases for the corps sonore but rather to his later ratios and related tables of thirds and fifths, resembling early versions of nineteenth-century Tonnetze. See especially the diagrams of the triple and quintuple progressions in his Démonstration du principe de l'harmonie: for example, Briscoe, “Rameau's Démonstration,” 129.
23.
Boulez discusses his distaste for a dependence in modern music on “natural” origins in one of his essays from 1954, “‘… Near and Far,’” when he writes, “it is certain that no musical system—either in our western civilization, or in those of Asia or Africa, for example—has ever found its complete justification in the laws of nature. Arab or Chinese theory is as logical as Pythagorean, and responsible for sound worlds that are just as valid”: Boulez, Stocktakings, 142–43; PdR1, 299.
24.
In fact, Boulez was already experimenting with distorting this aspect of the series in Structures 1b; see Salem, “Boulez Revised,” ch. 3, and Decroupet, “Développements et ramifications.”
25.
In Bloom's words, “1. Clinamen … is poetic misreading or misprision proper. … A poet swerves away from his precursor, by so reading his precursor's poem as to execute a clinamen in relation to it. This appears as a corrective movement in his own poem, which implies that the precursor poem went accurately up to a certain point, but then should have swerved, precisely in the direction that the new poem moves. 2. Tessera … is completion and antithesis. … A poet antithetically ‘completes’ his precursor, by so reading the parent-poem as to retain its terms but to mean them in another sense, as though the precursor had failed to go far enough”: Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 14.
26.
After being introduced to the poetry of e. e. cummings by John Cage during a visit to New York in 1952, Boulez substituted the Gatti texts with a poem by cummings, a point that should not be lost given Boulez's later use of the bloc sonore matrix employed in Oubli as the organizational material for cummings ist der Dichter (1970, rev. 1986); see Piencikowski, “… iacta est,” 56.
27.
Key among the sketch folders is Mappe F, Dossier 3a, 2, in the Pierre Boulez Collection at the Paul Sacher Foundation. The sketches it contains include the row tables and matrixes used in Oubli. For a broad overview of the way these sketches relate to works composed after Le marteau, see O'Hagan, “Pierre Boulez and the Foundation of IRCAM,” and Bradshaw, “Comparing Notes.” For a more detailed discussion, see Salem, “Boulez Revised”; Tissier, “Mutations esthétiques”; and Piencikowski, Pierre Boulez: Tombeau.
28.
Boulez's ample use of self-borrowing from unfinished works also supports this thesis: Oubli is the first example, but he also uses the early Notations (1945) and large sections of L'Orestie (1955) in Pli selon pli, not to mention the literal transcription of material between L'Orestie, Strophes for flute, and “Don” for piano (each withdrawn in turn), all of which feed “Don” for orchestra (1962, rev. 1989) and, much later, Éclat (1965). Similarly, the Troisième sonate, while never withdrawn, remains unfinished; materials from its movements provide the organizational material for Figures-Doubles-Prismes and Domaines 1 and 2, as well as for other works later derived from these. For more detailed discussions of these borrowings, see Piencikowski, “‘Assez lent, suspendu’”; Edwards, “Éclat/Multiples”; Salem, “Boulez Revised”; and Tissier, “Mutations esthétiques.”
29.
It is worth noting that the roots for Le marteau may extend backward to an earlier project, namely Boulez's desire to set to music Char's “À la santé du serpent.” He provides an elaborate breakdown of the text across three movements in a letter to the poet of August 31, 1948 (letter no. 12). Char's response was enthusiastic: “I've looked carefully at ‘À la santé du serpent’ in the sense that, musically, you propose. … You therefore have my complete support for your work in advance. I'm sure that you'll succeed and I look forward to it. As far as I'm concerned you're going to give this poem a new dimension”: letter of September 3, 1948 (letter no. 13: “J'ai examiné longuement ‘À la santé du serpent’ dans le sense que, musicalement, vous me proposez. … Vous avez donc mon complet accord d'avance sur votre travail. Je suis certain que vous le réussirez et m'en réjouis. Pour moi vous allez donner à ce poème une nouvelle dimension”). Boulez nevertheless seems to have abandoned the project. See also Piencikowski, “… iacta est,” 52.
30.
Decroupet outlines the entire chronology of the drafting of Le marteau with his characteristic penchant for detail. He provides an extended introduction: “Written on the bottom of an off-cut of the ink copy of the beginning of Structure 1b, the first sketch relating to [Le marteau] lays out, contrary to what Boulez wrote to Pousseur in the autumn of 1952, an ambitious project setting different poems selected from Char's collection”: Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, 45–65, here 53.
31.
See Salem, “Boulez Revised,” esp. chs. 6–7, for a myriad of examples. Perhaps the most notorious use of combined blocs sonores occurs in “Don,” as described in Adamowicz, “Study of Form,” especially in relation to Figures 5.9 through 5.12. For a concise introduction to the way Boulez generates blocs sonores without using multiplication, see Piencikowski, “‘Assez lent, suspendu.’”
32.
Piencikowski provides an alternative, and very useful, conception of these objects: “Furthermore, it was for Oubli signal lapidé that Boulez lit on the technique of employing blocks of sound with varying densities. This technique, a serialist transposition of the ‘gamuts’ imagined by Cage, formed a middle ground between the craftsmanlike solution of the prepared piano and the sounds created by the newly emerging technology from the electronic music studio of West German Radio in Cologne”: Piencikowski, “… iacta est,” 56. See note 38 for more on this point.
33.
It is worth noting that Boulez uses alternative methods to generate bloc sonore sequences in L'Orestie, Book 2 of Structures (ch. 2), and “Don,” although I do not discuss these methods here; see Salem, “Boulez Revised,” chs. 5–7; Piencikowski, “‘Assez lent, suspendu’”; and Adamowicz, “Study of Form.”
34.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 128; PdR1, 282. Note that Boulez specifically employs the word “chord” (“accord”) in order to relieve the term “bloc sonore” of its related historical baggage and corresponding functional limitations.
35.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 128; PdR1, 282 (Boulez's emphasis).
36.
Boulez, Boulez on Music Today, 39–40, Example 3 (Boulez's emphasis). Boulez discusses the process more clearly later in the treatise, although he still fails to trace the process from an ordered twelve-tone row through its segmentation and subsequent multiplication: ibid., 79–80, Examples 32–34.
37.
My rephrasing of Boulez is an attempt at clarification, not criticism. While often couched as a pedagogical method (suggesting that the reader should intuit the missing steps as a way of internalizing the process at hand), such examples have significantly slowed the understanding of Boulez's most interesting serial processes. One such example (relating both to blocs sonores and to the interval-duration process used in “Antiphonie” and Le marteau) is relayed by O'Hagan, “Pierre Boulez: ‘Sonate, que me veux-tu?,’” 57–58, 194–95.
38.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 152–53; PdR1, 309–10. Steven Walsh reports that the reference to electronic music stems from Boulez's discussion with Stockhausen about his Studien I and II (1953): Boulez, Stocktakings, 152n9. Piencikowski has also shown that the electronic-acoustic resonances in Boulez's later descriptions of blocs sonores can be attributed to Varèse: Piencikowski, “Between the Text and the Margin,” 384–85; see also note 32 above. The “demand for a kind of super-instrument” highlights the relevance of these connections.
39.
Examples from Le marteau (Examples 3, 5, and 7b) are derived from Pierre Boulez, Le marteau sans maître, für Alt und 6 Instrumente (London: Universal Edition, 1954, rev. 1957).
40.
For Bloom's definition of tessera, see note 25 above.
41.
Heinemann, “Pitch-Class Set Multiplication,” 75–76. Specialists may prefer the more advanced models recently presented by Losada (“Complex Multiplication”) and Scotto (“Reexamining PC-Set Multiplication”); I cite Heinemann because his introduction to the basic concept of multiplication seems the most approachable, although Losada and Scotto have both identified flaws in his method in relation to deeper music-theoretical questions as to whether or not Boulez's process was based in pitch-class multiplication or transpositional combinatoriality, questions that do not concern me here.
42.
Losada has done much to evolve the current understanding of the way in which isomorphic relationships between the various secondary transpositions in Boulez's bloc sonore matrixes relate directly to the structural organization of some of his works, including the first movement of Structures 2 and, more recently, parts of Domaines. She also coined the term “anchor note” to describe the lowest note of the blocs sonores in such organizational schema, these notes being of considerable importance to her penetrating models. See Losada, “Isography and Structure,” here 136ff.; Losada, “Complex Multiplication”; and Losada, “Between Freedom and Control.”
43.
While multiplying every term of the top sequence should create five new rows below, Boulez opts to delete the first of these (which would consist of term 1 × 1, 1 × 2, etc.), since each of its terms beyond the first is represented in the subsequent rows on account of the commutative property of multiplication (term 1 × 2 begins row 2, term 1 × 3 begins row 3, etc.). Boulez's use of complex multiplication nonetheless creates other pitch duplications between rows (indicated by the numbered boxes), which allows for the kind of “common chord” switch between rows seen in Example 5 below.
44.
It should be remembered that, while many of these operations may seem distanced from the musical surface, scholars such as Losada, Decroupet, Scotto, and others stress the significance of such connections between Boulez's different multiplication procedures and the resulting structures of his compositions. Boulez seems to have had no desire that the serial processes behind his works should ever be analyzed by his listeners, to the extent that he described Le marteau as unanalyzable prior to the release of Koblyakov's study. A composer's statements should not, however, stand in the way of scholarly inquiry.
45.
Of course, Example 5 does not feature bloc sonore isography; it merely shows a pitch class shared between two different blocs sonores. Nonetheless, it still highlights Boulez's consistent concern with common-tone connections and various pitch-register relationships.
46.
This matrix and its counterpart (which is based on the inversion of the original series) play a part in a number of later works, including “Don,” “Tombeau” and cummings ist der Dichter. The relationship between intervallic redundancy and unique pitch content and/or registral distribution is important for the structural implications of the process, and is celebrated by Boulez in his later writings (for example, “‘… Near and Far’” and Boulez on Music Today). A facsimile of Boulez's sketch for the matrix is reproduced in Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, sketch 1.2.a.
47.
My current belief is that Boulez made only three matrixes from scratch according to these methods (the other two usually being associated with the Troisième sonate and Book 2 of Structures), and then reused or altered them in different ways in later works. This assessment is based on a survey I made of all available Boulez manuscripts at the Paul Sacher Foundation in 2011–12.
48.
Two specific examples come to mind: a complicated secondary matrix created for “Don” and various side-sketches used in Dérive 2. The former is discussed (and a diplomatic transcription provided) in Salem, “Boulez Revised,” ch. 7.
49.
Consider, for example, Griffiths's description of registral “knots” (a term borrowed from Ligeti) in Structures 1a (Griffiths, Boulez, 23), or Piencikowski's observation (paralleled by O'Hagan: see below) that Boulez's harmonies are reflected in the modal signature of Messiaen's Modes de valeurs et d'intensités (Piencikowski, “Nature morte avec guitar,” 72, and “Inscriptions”). For more on the intervallic content and character of the blocs sonores used in Le marteau specifically, see Decroupet and Leleu, “‘Penser sensiblement’ la musique.”
50.
O'Hagan, “Pierre Boulez and the Foundation of IRCAM,” 312.
51.
The fact that descriptions of his bloc sonore sequences and references to Oubli signal lapidé are present in the essay “Possibly …” (largely drafted in 1951) indicates how early Boulez conceived of these processes and their potential for future works.
52.
The final movement was in fact not ready for the premiere of (an incomplete) Le marteau on June 18, 1955, which suggests that from start to finish the work took over four years.
53.
The final movement of Le marteau is an early example in Boulez's oeuvre of the deliberate reuse of compositional ideas, complete with overt references to the instrumentation, affect, melody, and harmony of prior movements of the cycle, and may reflect the pressures of this “rush” on his compositional method.
54.
The initial intention was that Boulez would organize and publish an issue of a journal to coincide with every Domaine Musical concert. The difficulties that attended the first issue, however—including the poor quality of the translation of Stockhausen's contribution—caused Boulez to abandon plans for subsequent issues. His profuse apology to Stockhausen, which alludes to his having been much too busy to oversee the translation himself, is recorded in a letter of July 20, 1954 (letter no. 62).
55.
Letter of April 22, 1954 (letter no. 59): “Je ne puis que louer votre super-exactitude, et vous ne pouvez que blâmer mon retard. Ma seule excuse est le travail fou que j'ai ici. Les concerts se sont terminés très bien. Mais quel travail! Jamais plus je ne recommencerai. Cela m'a démoli ma saison de travail. Pris entre l'organisation des concerts, des numéros de revue, je n'ai pratiquement rien pu fair pour moi; ce qui me rend, en ce moment, plus que nerveux.”
56.
Ibid.: “À propos des concerts, ils ont très bien marché. Mais quel travail! et quel déficit! C'est monstrueux. On ne peut pas recommencer—moi même d'ailleurs je ne recommencerai pas—dans ces conditions-là.”
57.
Nattiez points out that Boulez was “so busy that he [had] forgotten the preceding letter,” which was Boulez's letter to Cage of June 18, 1953: Boulez and Cage, Boulez-Cage Correspondence, 147n4.
58.
Suzanne Tézenas was a patron of the arts and a constant supporter of Boulez. She organized the patronage of the Domaine Musical from 1955 to 1973. See Boulez and Cage, Correspondance et documents, 350.
59.
Boulez later employs Michel Fano as secretary, with problematic results; see the letter from Boulez to Stockhausen of October 23, 1954 (letter no. 68).
60.
Boulez and Cage, Boulez-Cage Correspondence, 147–48 (letter no. 45); Boulez and Cage, Correspondance et documents, 239 (letter no. 46). In fact Madame Tézanas had raised 1 million francs by as early as October 23, 1954; see the letter from Boulez to Stockhausen of that date (letter no. 68).
61.
Boulez's friendship with Cage likely continued for years after their supposed falling out around 1954. Boulez nonetheless began to show growing impatience with Cage's ideas and goals in letters to other friends (and in his published writings) at this time, a shift that is well documented in Piencikowski, “… iacta est.”
62.
Boulez and Cage, Boulez-Cage Correspondence, 149, 151 (letters nos. 45 and 46); Boulez and Cage, Correspondance et documents, 241, 244 (letters nos. 46 and 47).
63.
Peyser notes a corresponding “withdrawal” from social interaction during these years, although the observation is somewhat undermined by Boulez's candid correspondence with Stockhausen: Peyser, Boulez, 131.
64.
Letter of August 4, 1954 (letter no. 63): “Je suis effrayé de voir comme l’âge vient, et combien encore peu de découvertes, et peu d’œuvres on a produit. En ce moment, je suis absolument malade du temps. Cette saignée à blanc que j'ai éprouvé depuis le mois de Novembre jusqu’à maintenant, m'a rendu nerveusement hypersensible à tout à tout jour dépensé sans avoir pu rien faire. Cette revue, ces concerts, quelle charge! Je ne suis pas prêt à les envisager sous le même angle de l'entier dévouement l'année prochaîne; je vais sauvegarder tout de même ma part de composition.” The reference to “cette revue” is to the journal Domaine musical.
65.
Boulez claims that this was the fault of the publisher, Heugel, who had failed to provide materials in time to prepare the performance; see his letter to Stockhausen of August 4, 1954 (letter no. 63). Le visage nuptial was revised by Boulez in 1951, but was not performed until December 4, 1957, under Boulez's own direction. It was later revised again from 1985 and was premiered by Boulez and the BBC Symphony Orchestra in London on November 16, 1989.
66.
Boulez refers to these problems over the course of several letters. They are also noted by several commentators, including Mosch, “Pierre Boulez: Le marteau,” 96, and Campbell, “Pierre Boulez: Composer, Traveller, Correspondent,” 14.
67.
Decroupet provides a detailed description of the progress made on individual movements of Le marteau during these years: Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, 60–65.
68.
Boulez is undoubtedly referring to his earlier tour to South America with the troupe, in 1950.
69.
Letter of April 22, 1954 (letter no. 59): “Ma curiosité étant satisfaite à propos de ces pays, je préférerais maintenant aller au calme et travailler, travailler—J'espère grignoter le plus de temps possible sur les spectacles pour finir l’œuvre pour Donaueschingen qui n'a pas avancé du tout depuis Février. … Pendant le voyage, je vais travailler très sérieusement au Marteau sans Maître, que Rosbaud doit donner le 16 Octobre à Donaueschingen.” This was obviously the first scheduled premiere, which was later canceled.
70.
Letter of July 20, 1954 (letter no. 62): “J'espère que vous avez passé de bonnes vacances. Ici, quelquefois le travail a été abrutissant. Apprendre les chœurs de Christophe Colomb à des amateurs qui n'ont aucune notion de solfège, cela arrive à être écœurant d'ineptie. Quant à la perte de temps, je n'ose même plus y songer sans pâlir. Je suis épouvantablement en retard pour l’œuvre de Donaueschingen. Et vraiment, je ne peux pas faire mieux. Enfin, nous arrivons à la fin de la tournée; j'avoue ne pas en être fâché.” Boulez's complaints about the choir are a recurring theme; see also the letter to Stockhausen of June 9, 1954 (letter no. 61).
71.
Letter of August 10, 1954 (letter no. 64): “Dernière lettre du retour. Le tourisme est fini—Encore une corrida à Barcelone. Et le voyage sera enterré … heureusement! Je me suis déjà remis au travail sur le ‘Marteau sans Maître.’”
72.
Boulez continually ridicules Darmstadt throughout this period, especially since Wolfgang Steinicke was requesting that he lecture on composition together with Hans Werner Henze and Bruno Maderna, a trio he thought nonsensical. See especially his letters to Stockhausen of April 22, June 9, August 4, and August 10, 1954 (letters nos. 59, 61, 63, and 64).
73.
Letter of August 4, 1954 (letter no. 63): “J'ai vu le Pacifique et Valparaiso. Descente dans le port la nuit, assez marrante. Maintenant, à cinq, nous avons laissé les autres à Buenos-Aires prendre le bateau, et nous sommes venus invités à Bahia et à Recife (voyage avion) pour un repos bien mérité (Ah! le Christophe-Colomb à répétition, rien de plus redoutable). Nous sommes donc ‘sous les tropiques.’ C'est bien beau. Je vous raconterai cela à mon retour.”
74.
Letter of June 9, 1954 (letter no. 61): “Figurez-vous qu’à Rio, j'ai rencontré Gabrielle Dumaine qui est au Brésil pour six mois, professeur à l'Escola libre de Sâo Paulo dirigées [sic] par Koelreutter [sic].” Gabrielle Dumaine was a soprano who performed many of Messiaen's works. Hans-Joachim Koellreutter was a German composer and teacher who spent most of his life in Brazil, becoming one of its most prominent musicians.
75.
Ibid.: “On s'intéresse beaucoup à S. Paulo à tout le mouvement actuel. J'ai fait la connaissance de peintres, de poètes et même de musiciens! intéressants, très intéressants—surtout les peintres et les poètes. Connaissant très bien E. Pound, Joyce, et Cummings, Mallarmé. C'est certainement à Sâo Paulo qu'est le milieu le plus passionnant du Brésil.”
76.
Letter of August 10, 1954 (letter no. 64): “Le voyage à Bahia et Recife était formidable. Beaucoup d'avion. Nous avons survolé la forêt vierge!! Nous avons rempli nos yeux de paysages exotiques.”
77.
Quoted in Piencikowski, “Between the Text and the Margin,” 384n16. Boulez also mentions collecting instruments in his letter to Stockhausen of August 10, 1954 (letter no. 64). Decroupet writes that the increased battery of percussion in the third “Commentaire” of Le marteau (the last to be composed) is “doubtless owing to” Boulez's acquisition of these instruments at the end of the tour (Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, 62), and Edward Campbell provides fresh insights on this topic from an interview with Boulez conducted in 2013 (Campbell, “Pierre Boulez: Composer, Traveller, Correspondent,” 23). For more on Boulez's interest in non-Western music in general, see Pereira de Tugny, “‘L'autre moitié de l'art.’”
78.
Although Boulez later expressed distaste at being seen as a leader of a school or at the forefront of the avant-garde, earlier correspondence suggests that he rallied his colleagues and promoted a set of guiding principles at the beginning of the 1950s. For additional commentary on the way Boulez's perception of this role changed throughout the decade, see Piencikowski, “Le franc-tireur et les moutons.”
79.
Boulez's use of such continuums in his writings would be in direct contrast to the “either/or” binaries at the heart of Saussure's brand of structuralism; this is not to suggest, however, that oppositional structures in his music do not help to generate meaning through contrast and repetition. For summary considerations of skeptics and promoters of the degree of overlap between Boulez's thinking and the actual intricacies of the French structuralists, see Goldman, “Structuralists contra Serialists?”; Salem, review of The Musical Language of Pierre Boulez; Salem, review of Boulez, Music and Philosophy; and select chapters of Goldman, Musical Language of Pierre Boulez, Nattiez, Battle of Chronos and Orpheus, and Campbell, Boulez, Music and Philosophy.
80.
The influence of the logician Louis Rougier on Boulez's thinking just prior to his writing of the Penser lectures is recognized by many scholars, and is concisely articulated in Decroupet, “Comment Boulez pense sa musique.”
81.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 141; PdR1, 297.
82.
The phrase appears in Boulez's essays “Possibly …” and “Schoenberg Is Dead,” although with a different nuance in each: Boulez, Stocktakings, 113, 214; PdR1, 265, 150.
83.
For more on the Hegelian overtones in Boulez's use of such binaries, see Campbell, Boulez, Music and Philosophy, esp. ch. 3. For more on Boulez's use of binaries (which is not always related to Hegelian dialectics), see Nattiez, Battle of Chronos and Orpheus, 81–83, and Goldman, Musical Language of Pierre Boulez, ch. 2.
84.
In Bloom's words, “3. Kenosis … is a breaking-device similar to the defense mechanisms our psyches employ against repetition compulsions; kenosis then is a movement towards discontinuity with the precursor. … The later poet, apparently emptying himself of his own afflatus, his imaginative godhood, seems to humble himself as though he were ceasing to be a poet, but this ebbing is so performed in relation to a precursor's poem-of-ebbing that the precursor is emptied out also, and so the later poem of deflation is not as absolute as it seems”: Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 14–15.
85.
For a “deciphering” of the many layers of meaning embedded in this title, see Piencikowski, “De-ciphering Boulez?,” 68–72.
86.
Pierre Souvtchinsky, “À propos d'un retard” (1954), quoted in Goldman, Musical Language of Pierre Boulez, 9.
87.
For more on Souvtchinsky's relationship with Boulez, see Campbell, Boulez, Music and Philosophy, ch. 2.
88.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 142; PdR1, 298.
89.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 145; PdR1, 301. While the English translation of this essay uses the first-person singular (“to define myselfmy antecedents”), the original French uses the first-person plural throughout, which is relevant to points made above and below.
90.
In a footnote to the essay in Stocktakings translator Stephen Walsh notes the rather explicit connections drawn by Robert Piencikowski between Boulez's descriptions, Le marteau, and later discussions of these features in Boulez on Music Today: Boulez, Stocktakings, 152n8. I regard this section of the essay as the most revealing and multifaceted discussion of bloc sonore architecture in all of Boulez's early writings.
91.
This is the important difference between “‘… Near and Far’” and Boulez's talk of the previous year, “Tendencies in Recent Music” (“Tendances de la musique récente,” 1953, but not published until 1957). In many respects “Tendencies” follows a similar trajectory to “‘… Near and Far,’” but in a much more mundane, less reflective way that combines a literal assessment of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Webern with Boulez's increasing interest in electroacoustic music and the possibilities of sound complexes, timbre, and other types of sonic object.
92.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 142, 151; PdR1, 298, 308. Boulez's many criticisms of Schoenberg's use of “classical” forms add layers of influential anxiety to this kind of rhetorical flip.
93.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 149–50; PdR1, 306.
94.
See especially their letters of November–December 1953 (nos. 35–40), in which Boulez and Stockhausen continually discuss the latter's electronic works (Studien I and II) and the use of terms such as “statistique,” “improvisation,” “espaces sérielles,” “espaces statistiques,” “Feld,” and “rotation en valves.” While Boulez often takes Stockhausen to task for the vagueness of these terms in relation to music, the same terms appear throughout Boulez's writings of this decade (sometimes in connection with the concept of the bloc sonore), and with increasing frequency toward the 1960s.
95.
In truth, Boulez distinguishes his terms from theory and practice when he writes that “the common concept of the theory and the practice of an art as existing in watertight compartments is part of the old academic tradition that tries jealously to preserve similar distinctions between form and content, ‘studies’ and finished ‘works’”: Boulez, Orientations, 106; PdR, 104. Nonetheless, the “critical” and “creative” in Boulez's parlance merely reflect a more fluid exchange between the theoretical, aesthetic, and practical/creative concerns of the artist; for him, “the insistence on distinguishing creative artists from theorist-artists turns out to be no more than hypocritical nonsense”: Boulez, Orientations, 110; PdR, 108.
96.
Boulez, Orientations, 106; PdR, 103–4. Boulez himself is notorious for such writings. His correspondence with Cage produced descriptions of Polyphonie X and Structures 1 long before the compositions were actually drafted, and later writings on Le marteau, the Troisième sonate, and Pli selon pli (among other works) speak to the value of this kind of verbal exploration of his musical ideas with others.
97.
I discuss relationships of this type in Salem, “Boulez Revised,” especially with regard to the failure of Polyphonie X and the misfire premiere of Poésie pour pouvoir, among other works.
98.
For astute recent commentaries on the role of Cartesian doubt in Boulez's aesthetics, see Campbell, Boulez, Music and Philosophy, ch. 3, and Goldman, Musical Language of Pierre Boulez, ch. 2.
99.
I discuss the reception of Polyphonie X in Salem, “Integrity of Boulez's Integral Serialism.”
100.
Boulez, Orientations, 107; PdR, 105. The essay stresses that such a volume would replace journalistic infighting with “clear statements based on actual experience of the works themselves.” Penser is Boulez's first manifestation of this desire. He later takes up issues of musical poetics in his Leçons de musique.
101.
Bystanders and exceptions being the “useless” composers of two earlier essays of 1952, “Possibly …” and “Schoenberg Is Dead.”
102.
Boulez, Orientations, 107; PdR, 104. Note Boulez's focus on dodecaphonic rather than serial systems here. This matches his predilection for dodecaphonic rows in Le marteau.
103.
Letter of August 4, 1954 (letter no. 63); see note 64 above. Boulez mentions the upcoming publication of “Current Investigations” around the same time, in a letter of October 16, 1954 (letter no. 67). In fact, the phrase of the essay that is translated here as “with intellectual ardour or exhausted nervous systems” reads “l'esprit en feu ou les nerfs détendus,” which perhaps implies numb nerves more than an exhausted nervous system. This is less a criticism of the translation than an admission of the merely figurative correspondence between Boulez's letter to Stockhausen and the content of the essay.
104.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 15; PdR1, 331.
105.
Boulez states this rather vividly: “Webern only organized pitch; we organize rhythm, timbre, dynamics; everything is grist to this monstrous all-purpose mill, and we had better abandon it quickly if we are not to be condemned to deafness. One soon realizes that composition and organization cannot be confused without falling into a maniacal inanity, undreamt of by Webern himself”: Boulez, Stocktakings, 16; PdR1, 332.
106.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 17; PdR1, 333.
107.
Campbell's discussion of this essay, placed in the midst of Adorno's writings and commentaries on contemporary music at Darmstadt, is a stimulating reflection on its broader context: Campbell, Boulez, Music and Philosophy, ch. 4, esp. 75–80. Campbell notes that Adorno's name does not appear in a single essay written by Boulez during the 1950s, despite Adorno's continual recognition of Boulez: ibid., 80.
108.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 17; PdR1, 333.
109.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 18; PdR1, 334.
110.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 17, 18, 19; PdR1, 333–34, 334, 335.
111.
For more on how and when Boulez determined the final order of the movements, see Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, 63. The schema shown in Figure 1 is adapted from Jameux, Pierre Boulez, 286.
112.
A facsimile of these tables is reproduced in Decroupet, Pierre Boulez: Le marteau, sketches 1.1.c and 1.1.d.
113.
In Bloom's words, “4. Daemonization, or a movement towards a personalized Counter-Sublime, in reaction to the precursor's Sublime. … The later poet opens himself to what he believes to be a power in the parent-poem that does not belong to the parent proper, but to a range of being just beyond that precursor. He does this, in his poem, by so stationing its relation to the parent-poem as to generalize away the uniqueness of the earlier work”: Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 15.
114.
Boulez, Stocktakings, 16; PdR1, 332.
115.
Letter of October 16, 1954 (letter no. 67): “Je vous envoie par ailleurs—malgré la promesse formelle que je m'en étais faite—un article que j'ai écrit pour la N.R.F., no. de Novembre qui va paraître dans quinze jours. Il vous rappellera certainement quelques-unes de nos conversations à Cologne—y compris ce que vous m'avez appris, petite érudition de fraîche date. C'est une ‘auto-critique’!; c'est pourquoi j'ai adopté la désinvolture comme ton principal.”
116.
Boulez spent nearly a month with Stockhausen at the Cologne studios. In a letter of August 10, 1954 (letter no. 64), he provides Stockhausen with the dates August 28 to September 28, but these are changed at the last minute (letter of August 30, no. 65) to September 1 through 21–22.
117.
For an example of just how far one can stretch such parallels, see Peyser, Boulez, 81. The fact that Boulez was heavily influenced by Joyce, particularly in relation to his Troisième sonate (first conceived around 1955), certainly adds other resonances to the comparison, not least because Boulez often thought deeply about his aesthetic and intellectual relationship to the artists he studied, such as René Char, Stéphane Mallarmé, and Paul Klee.
118.
I argue elsewhere that Boulez's aesthetic position also wavered, suggesting that Penser was a form of overcompensation for his own doubts about his first attempt at a serial aesthetics: Salem, “Boulez Revised,” esp. 230–46, 252–61.
119.
Others may disagree. I find it difficult, however, not to view the serial processes of Boulez's later works as far more focused on proliferation of simple permutations of given sets and series over and above the intense, nearly organicist mappings found in his Structures books and the Troisième sonate in particular (a point perhaps reinforced by his abandonment of a third Structures book and his shift to new organizational methods in the second chapter of Structures 2). Forthcoming work by Catherine Losada presents an alternative to my interpretative bias by exploring Boulez's continued use of intricate, concrete serial relationships at “background” and “foreground” levels in Domaines: Losada, “Between Freedom and Control.”

Works Cited

Works Cited
Archival Sources
Pierre Boulez Collection, Paul Sacher Foundation, Basel, Switzerland
Mappe F, Dossiers 3a–3d
Pierre Boulez–Karlheinz Stockhausen Correspondence
Pierre Boulez–René Char Correspondence
Published Sources
Adamowicz, Emily J.
“A Study of Form and Structure in Pierre Boulez's Pli selon pli.”
PhD diss.,
University of Western Ontario
,
2015
.
Auner, Joseph.
Music in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries
.
New York and London
:
W. W. Norton
,
2013
.
Bloom, Harold.
The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry
. 2nd ed.
New York and Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
,
1997
. First published 1973.
Bloom, Harold.
A Map of Misreading
.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
1975
.
Bonds, Mark Evan.
A History of Music in Western Culture
. 4th ed.
New York
:
Pearson
,
2013
.
Boulez, Pierre.
Boulez on Music Today
. Translated by Susan Bradshaw and Richard Rodney Bennett.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
,
1971
.
Boulez, Pierre.
Conversations with Célestin Deliège
. With a foreword by Robert Wangermée.
London
:
Eulenburg Books
,
1976
.
Boulez, Pierre.
Orientations: Collected Writings
. Edited by Jean-Jacques Nattiez. Translated by Martin Cooper.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
,
1986
.
Boulez, Pierre.
Penser la musique aujourd'hui
.
Paris
:
Gonthier
,
1963
.
Boulez, Pierre.
Points de repère
(PdR). 2nd ed. Edited by Jean-Jacques Nattiez. [
Paris
]:
Christian Bourgois
,
1985
.
Boulez, Pierre.
Points de repère
. Vol.
1
,
Imaginer
(PdR1). Edited by Jean-Jacques Nattiez and Sophie Galaise. [
Paris
]:
Christian Bourgois
,
1995
.
Boulez, Pierre.
Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship
. Collected and presented by Paule Thévenin. Translated by Stephen Walsh. With an introduction by Robert Piencikowski.
Oxford
:
Clarendon Press
,
1991
.
Boulez, Pierre, and John Cage.
The Boulez-Cage Correspondence
. Edited by Jean-Jacques Nattiez with Françoise Davoine, Hans Oesch, and Robert Piencikowski. Translated and edited by Robert Samuels.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
,
1993
.
Boulez, Pierre, and John Cage.
Correspondance et documents
. Edited by Jean-Jacques Nattiez. New edition reviewed by Robert Piencikowski.
Mainz and New York
:
Schott Musik International
,
2002
.
Bradshaw, Susan.
“Comparing Notes.”
Musical Times
137
, no.
1844
(
1996
):
5
12
.
Briscoe, Roger Lee.
“Rameau's Démonstration du principe de l'harmonie and Nouvelles réflexions de M. Rameau sur sa Démonstration du principe de l'harmonie: An Annotated Translation of Two Treatises by Jean-Philippe Rameau.”
PhD diss.,
Indiana University
,
1975
.
Campbell, Edward.
Boulez, Music and Philosophy
.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2010
.
Campbell, Edward. “Pierre Boulez: Composer, Traveller, Correspondent.” In
Pierre Boulez Studies
, edited by Edward Campbell and Peter O'Hagan,
3
24
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2016
.
Carroll, Mark.
Music and Ideology in Cold War Europe
.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2003
.
Cohn, Richard.
“Transpositional Combination in Twentieth-Century Music.”
PhD diss.,
Eastman School of Music
,
1987
.
Decroupet, Pascal. “Comment Boulez pense sa musique au début des années soixante.” In
“Pli selon pli” de Pierre Boulez: Entretien et études
, edited by Philippe Albèra,
49
57
.
Geneva
:
Contrechamps
,
2003
.
Decroupet, Pascal.
“Développements et ramifications de la pensée sérielle: recherches et œuvres musicales de Pierre Boulez, Henri Pousseur et Karlheinz Stockhausen de 1951 à 1958.”
PhD diss.,
Université de Tours
,
1994
.
Decroupet, Pascal, ed.
Pierre Boulez: Le marteau sans maître: Fac-similé de l’épure et de la première mise au net de la partition / Facsimile of the Draft Score and the First Fair Copy of the Full Score
. A Publication of the Paul Sacher Foundation.
Mainz
:
Schott Musik International
,
2005
.
Decroupet, Pascal, and Jean-Louis Leleu.
“‘Penser sensiblement’ la musique: production et description du matériau harmonique dans le troisième mouvement du Marteau sans maître.”
In Leleu and Decroupet,
Pierre Boulez: Techniques d’écriture
,
177
215
.
Edwards, Allen.
“Éclat/Multiples et le problème de la forme musicale dans les œuvres sérielles de Pierre Boulez.”
In Leleu and Decroupet,
Pierre Boulez: Techniques d’écriture
,
159
75
.
Goldman, Jonathan.
The Musical Language of Pierre Boulez: Writings and Compositions
.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2011
.
Goldman, Jonathan.
“Structuralists contra Serialists? Claude Lévi-Strauss and Pierre Boulez on Avant-Garde Music.”
Intersections: Canadian Journal of Music / Revue canadienne de musique
30
, no.
1
(
2010
):
77
94
.
Grant, M. J.
Serial Music, Serial Aesthetics: Compositional Theory in Post-War Europe
.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2001
.
Griffiths, Paul.
Boulez
.
London and New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
1978
.
Griffiths, Paul.
Modern Music and After
. 3rd ed.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
2010
.
Heinemann, Stephen.
“Pitch-Class Set Multiplication in Theory and Practice.”
Music Theory Spectrum
20
(
1998
):
72
96
.
Iddon, Martin.
New Music at Darmstadt: Nono, Stockhausen, Cage, and Boulez
.
Cambridge and New York
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2013
.
Jameux, Dominique.
Pierre Boulez
. Translated by Susan Bradshaw.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
,
1991
.
Klein, Michael L.
Intertextuality in Western Art Music
.
Bloomington and Indianapolis
:
Indiana University Press
,
2005
.
Klein, Michael L.
Music and the Crises of the Modern Subject
.
Bloomington and Indianapolis
:
Indiana University Press
,
2015
.
Koblyakov, Lev.
“P. Boulez, ‘Le Marteau sans maître’: Analysis of Pitch Structure.”
Zeitschrift für Musiktheorie
8
, no.
1
(
1977
):
24
39
.
Koblyakov, Lev.
Pierre Boulez: A World of Harmony
.
New York
:
Harwood
,
1990
.
Leleu, Jean-Louis, and Pascal Decroupet, eds.
Pierre Boulez: Techniques d’écriture et enjeux esthétiques
.
Geneva
:
Contrechamps
,
2006
.
Losada, Catherine.
“Between Freedom and Control: Composing Out, Compositional Process, and Structure in the Music of Boulez.”
Journal of Music Theory
61
(forthcoming).
Losada, Catherine.
“Complex Multiplication, Structure, and Process: Harmony and Form in Boulez's Structures II.”
Music Theory Spectrum
36
(
2014
):
86
120
.
Losada, Catherine.
“Isography and Structure in the Music of Boulez.”
Journal of Mathematics and Music: Mathematical and Computational Approaches to Music Theory, Analysis, Composition and Performance
2
(
2008
):
135
55
.
Morgan, Robert P.
Twentieth-Century Music: A History of Musical Style in Modern Europe and America
.
New York and London
:
W. W. Norton
,
1991
.
Mosch, Ulrich.
“Disziplin und Indisziplin: zum seriellen Komponieren im 2. Satz des Marteau sans maître von Pierre Boulez.”
Musiktheorie
5
(
1990
):
39
66
.
Mosch, Ulrich.
Musikalisches Hören serieller Musik: Untersuchungen am Beispiel von Pierre Boulez’ “Le marteau sans maître.”
Saarbrücken
:
PFAU-Verlag
,
2004
.
Mosch, Ulrich.
“Pierre Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1952–55).”
In
Settling New Scores: Music Manuscripts from the Paul Sacher Foundation
, edited by Felix Meyer,
94
96
. A Publication of the Paul Sacher Foundation.
Mainz
:
Schott Musik International
,
1998
.
Nattiez, Jean-Jacques.
The Battle of Chronos and Orpheus: Essays in Applied Musical Semiology
. Translated by Jonathan Dunsby.
Oxford and New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
2004
.
Nicolas, François.
“L'intellectualité musicale de Pierre Boulez et ses enjeux théoriques.”
In
La pensée de Pierre Boulez à travers ses écrits: Actes du colloque tenu à l’École Normale Supérieure les 4 et 5 mars 2005 à l'occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de Pierre Boulez
, edited by Jonathan Goldman, Jean-Jacques Nattiez, and François Nicolas,
17
62
.
Sampzon
:
Delatour France
,
2010
.
O'Hagan, Peter.
“From Sketch to Score: A Facsimile Edition of Boulez's ‘Le marteau sans maître.’”
Music and Letters
88
(
2007
):
632
44
.
O'Hagan, Peter. “Pierre Boulez and the Foundation of IRCAM.” In
French Music since Berlioz
, edited by Richard Langham Smith and Caroline Potter,
303
30
.
Aldershot, UK
:
Ashgate
,
2006
.
O'Hagan, Peter.
“Pierre Boulez: ‘Sonate, que me veux-tu?’: An Investigation of the Manuscript Sources in Relation to the Third Sonata.”
PhD diss.,
University of Surrey
,
1997
.
Pereira de Tugny, Rosângela.
“‘L'autre moitié de l'art.’”
In Leleu and Decroupet,
Pierre Boulez: Techniques d’écriture
,
299
317
.
Peyser, Joan.
Boulez
.
New York
:
Schirmer Books
,
1976
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“‘Assez lent, suspendu, comme imprévisible’: quelques aperçus sur les travaux d'approche d’Éclat.”
Genesis: Revue international de critique génétique
4
(
1993
):
51
67
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“Between the Text and the Margin: Varèse and Pierre Boulez, 1952–1965.”
In
Edgard Varèse: Composer, Sound Sculptor, Visionary
, edited by Felix Meyer and Heidy Zimmermann,
382
89
. A Publication of the Paul Sacher Foundation.
Woodbridge, UK
:
Boydell Press
,
2006
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“De-ciphering Boulez?”
Ex tempore: A Journal of Compositional and Theoretical Research in Music
15
, no.
1
(Spring/Summer
2010
):
64
80
. Originally published as “Dé-chiffrer Boulez?,” in La pensée de Pierre Boulez à travers ses écrits: Actes du colloque tenu à l’École Normale Supérieure les 4 et 5 mars 2005 à l'occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de Pierre Boulez, edited by Jonathan Goldman, Jean-Jacques Nattiez, and François Nicolas,
73
88
.
Sampzon
:
Delatour France
,
2010
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“Le franc-tireur et les moutons ou l'avant-garde selon Boulez.”
In
Avant-gardes: Frontières, mouvements
, vol.
1
,
Délimitations, historiographie
, edited by Jean-Paul Aubert, Serge Milan, and Jean-François Trubert,
259
84
.
Sampzon
:
Delatour
,
2013
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“… iacta est.”
In Boulez and Cage,
Correspondance et documents
,
41
60
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“Inscriptions: Ligeti—Xenakis—Boulez.”
In Leleu and Decroupet,
Pierre Boulez: Techniques d’écriture
,
95
108
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“Nature morte avec guitare.”
In
Pierre Boulez: Eine Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag am 26. März 1985
, edited by Josef Häusler,
66
81
.
Vienna
:
Universal Edition
,
1985
.
Piencikowski, Robert T., ed.
Pierre Boulez: Tombeau: Fac-similés de l’épure et de la première mise au net de la partition / Facsimiles of the Draft Score and the First Fair Copy of the Full Score
. A Publication of the Paul Sacher Foundation.
Vienna and London
:
Universal Edition
,
2010
.
Piencikowski, Robert T.
“René Char et Pierre Boulez: esquisse analytique du Marteau sans maître.”
Schweizer Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft
4
(
1980
):
193
264
.
Salem, Joseph.
“Boulez Revised: Compositional Process as Aesthetic Critique in the Composer's Formative Works.”
PhD diss.,
Yale University
,
2014
.
Salem, Joseph.
“The Integrity of Boulez's Integral Serialism: Polyphonie X and Musical Failure as Compositional Success.”
Contemporary Music Review
36
, no.
5
(
2017
):
337
61
. https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2017.1401366.
Salem, Joseph.
Review of Boulez, Music and Philosophy by Edward Campbell
.
VoiceXchange: A Graduate Music Student Journal of the University of Chicago
5
(
2011
):
53
59
.
Salem, Joseph.
Review of The Musical Language of Pierre Boulez by Jonathan Goldman
.
Journal of Music Theory
57
(
2013
):
433
49
.
Salem, Joseph.
“Serial Processes, Agency and Improvisation.”
In
Pierre Boulez Studies
, edited by Edward Campbell and Peter O'Hagan,
221
45
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2016
.
Scotto, Ciro.
“Reexamining PC-Set Multiplication, Complex Multiplication, and Transpositional Combination to Determine Their Formal and Functional Equivalence.”
Perspectives of New Music
52
, no.
1
(
2014
):
134
216
.
Stacey, Peter F.
Boulez and the Modern Concept
.
Lincoln, NE
:
University of Nebraska Press
,
1987
.
Steinegger, Catherine.
Pierre Boulez et le théâtre: De la Compagnie Renaud-Barrault à Patrice Chéreau
.
Wavre, Belgium
:
Mardaga
,
2012
.
Taruskin, Richard.
The Oxford History of Western Music
. Vol.
5
.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
2010
.
Taruskin, Richard.
“Revising Revision.” Review of “Towards a New Poetics of Musical Influence” by Kevin Korsyn and Remaking the Past: Musical Modernism and the Influence of the Tonal Tradition by Joseph N. Straus
. This Journal
46
(
1993
):
114
38
.
Tissier, Brice.
“Mutations esthétiques, mais continuité technique dans l’œuvre de Pierre Boulez.” PhD thesis, Université de Montréal and Université de Paris-Sorbonne
,
2012
.