The intransigence of Maxwell Davies, Boulez and Stockhausen is coming home to roost. Here were three composers, famous if not exactly popular, who called many shots by the time they died yet whose works were little loved in their lifetimes by the concert-going public and stand little chance of performance now they are dead. How was such imbalance possible?
The intransigence had a lot to do with it. People thrill to a bold stance, and they don’t come much bolder than Boulez and Stockhausen in the Sixties. To be fair, Max was a very British version of this attitude. When Boulez died, the French press focused on a national hero whose main achievement, it seemed, had been to impress generations of foreigners while building monuments in Paris, as a true Frenchman should. When Max died there wasn’t a single headline that didn’t mention the fact that he had been Master of the Queen’s Music. He wrote more music than Boulez and Stockhausen combined, but, unlike them, did not mop up untold sums of public money in the process. Indeed in money matters he was naive: in 2009 his manager was jailed for 18 months for embezzling half a million of his pounds. Max only discovered that something was wrong when an ATM refused his request for cash. But he was just as relentless as the others in the pursuit of his artistic goals. He was polite to everyone, a great signer of petitions for good causes. Behind the scenes, though, he just drove on. Max, like so many British composers, believed in musical line, and the wrapping of these lines into counterpoint. This doesn’t make his compositions easy to listen to, since he had no time for padding of any kind.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in