I fret about possible downvotes and closures, and so like this, please let me check seemliness here. If my question is on-topic, please migrate it to the main site. My question is:

Andrew Clements quotes p. 4 of the liner booklet:

Having already recorded the major orchestral milestones of Bartók’s development, Pierre Boulez says he has no interest in conducting the very earliest works, such as the nationalist symphonic poem Kossuth completed in 1903, which does not disguise its debts to Liszt and Richard Strauss and in which he finds little evidence of the radical composer who would emerge over the next two decades. But his attitude towards the First Violin Concerto, composed four years later, is much more positive. In the concerto, Boulez says, as in the First String Quartet, completed the following year, and Bartók’s first ballet The Wooden Prince, which was begin in 1913, there are “weaknesses, but also no contradictions” [emboldening mine] with the composer who later came under the modernist banner.

  1. What are the alleged 'weaknesses'?

  2. What did Boulez intend to convey by 'no contradictions'? What exactly would contradict Bartók's compositions 'under the modernist banner'?

  • 3
    You are still under a question asking ban so the migration is not going to happen. You also aren't really addressing the specific concern you have like the other question so this meta post will only pertain to this one question. Outside of that, this feels very much like a fan question and I would compare it to asking why Keith Moon though Led Zeppelin would "sink like a Led Zeppelin". Both are events one person in music said about another, but whether it meshes with our scope is another.
    – Dom Mod
    Apr 24 '18 at 21:24

Musicians and musicologists say and write all sorts of things about each other - about pieces of music, and about music in general.

In some cases, these utterances will have a clear general relevance to the subject of music practice and theory (the focus of this site).

In many cases, they won't have that relevance - they may be too personal and subjective, or too vague and difficult to interpret.

In this example - can we find any relevance of Boulez' comments to the subject of music practice and theory? I don't personally know... perhaps there is all sorts of documentary evidence out there about Boulez' thoughts on Bartók’s work - and perhaps some of those thoughts do tie in, in a generally-applicable way, to the subject.

If both those things are in fact the case, then maybe someone will pop up with a good answer.

Until and unless that happens, other site users will be left scratching their heads, and wondering if there is a good relevant answer to be given; in other words it seems, at best, rather borderline...


I really think (and Dom alludes to this) that in general you should be over at Music Fans with these kinds of questions.

A possible guideline is that if you are not asking about making your own music, and in talking about music others have made, you are not asking about a technical analysis (e.g., technique, chord progressions, etc.), then it's probably a Music Fans question, not a Music Practice & Theory question.

I've just reviewed all of your questions, and even the highest voted ones could also fit well at Music Fans. I think a better general strategy for you going forward would be to always go to Music Fans first and only if they say something like, "we don't know about Neapolitan sixths chords, try Music Practice & Theory", would you then come here.

In short, I strongly suggest taking your questions to Music Fans instead of here.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .