I second Daniel Beland's opinion on Jolivet being one of the great French
composers of the 20th century.

I find it difficult to compare Jolivet in style and quality to Messiaen.
Messiaen has a style very much of his own.  By that, I mean that his musical
elements are conceived and used in a very personal and heteroclytic style,
which can probably be called eclectic.  This framework during to years not
so much changed as more it was enriched during the years to add up to the
"summa" type works of the end of his life: Transfiguration, From the Canyons
to the Stars, St Francis, Livre du Saint Sacrement and Eclairs sur l'au-dela.

With Jolivet the picture is very much different.  Although highly individual,
it is certainly not eclectic.  His style and Messiaen's looked quite alike
in the thirties (use of modal harmonies, emphasis on long melody lines,
an open ear for exotic rythms).  But from the war on their paths rather
diverged.  Where Messiaen took new stuff "on board", Jolivet developed his
then in essence already complete language.  What I like a lot about him
is his unique blending of interest in traditional musical forms and
traditional ways of making music (just look at the amount of concerts he
wrote!) whereas he enriches this with a lot of musical elements of freedom
from a lot of diverse sources.  In that way, he reminds me less of Messiaen,
and more of Takemitsu (or should I say Takemitsu reminds me of Jolivet?)
and Duttilleux.

I have to disagree with Daniel if he is (consciously or not) trying to
convince us that Messiaen's music is more often performed and better known
then Jolivet's because Messiaen had students to talk about and perform his
works, "an army of admirers".  Firstly, I have to remind you that Jolivet
has been professor at the Paris conservatory for composition as Messiaen
was for harmony.  So Jolivet had ample occassion to set up and army of
followers himself.  Secondly, if you will read through Jolivet's biiography,
he was certainly not standing outside French musical life and was more
performed during his lifetime then the likes of Tournemire, Langlais,
Vermeulen, Lesur and so on.  Thirdly, as a conductor, Jolivet was probably
more able to do much for performances of his music than Messiaen was as
an organ player (with a little bit of piano on the side)

I would say that almost all Messiaen's music still stands 10 years after
his death, whereas Jolivet's vast amount of written music (just look at
the list at the website Daniel quotes!), 28 years after his death has been
filtered for those true masterpieces that ARE present.  History will tell
the situation on Messiaen's music in 18 years from now.  For me he stands
as the bigger: better average quality and his peaks are higher than
Jolivet's.  Can it be that Messiaen has a bigger army of admirers (like
me) just because he's just damn good?

I would, however, be very interested if Daniel has more arguments in
standing Jolivet next to Messiaen.  Also, I would like your opinion on
the 5 Incantations for flute solo, which for me show Jolivet at his best.
Also, maybe you have an opinion on Jolivet's concerto for ondes martenot
and orchestra...

Jolivet's music certainly stands up to a lot of hotshots of today (Ades,
Turnage, Lindberg) and I wholehartedly agree on your remarks about reissues
of the Erato recordings.  My LP's are very worn now....  Maybe 2005
(Jolivet's 100th birthday) will make some at Erato see the light.  Let's
hope it's not a "Faux Rayon" by then.

regards, Jos