Peter Varley replies to me:

>>Peter Varley:
>>
>>>I find Messiaen's music boring.
>>
>>That's your privilege.  I find some of it boring, some of it very exciting
>>indeed.
>
>Which are the pieces you find exciting? It is possible that I may not have
>heard them.

Et expecto resurrectionem, the hated Catalogue d'Oiseaux, much of the organ
music, L'Ascension, Quartet for the End of Time, Chronochromie, parts of
Turangalila (other parts sound to me like 40s film music), etc.

>And are they numerous enough, or exciting enough, to justify Messiaen's
>reputation?

Well, "numerous" is by me an invalid concept.  If the only thing that
survived to us by Bach was the Magnificat, I'd still call him one of the
finest ever.  Furthermore, the fellow isn't in the dock.  He doesn't have
to be justified.  And reputation is beside the point.  If enough people
like a work with enough intensity, that's pretty much sufficient, according
to me.

>According to the Collins Encyclopaedia of Music, "Messiaen is
>one of the most original and influential of modern composers".

Well, that's true and independent of how good the music is.  He's original
in that nobody sounds like him or, if they do, they're "doing Messiaen."
He has influenced a number of composers, including Boulez, Leighton, and
a host of composers for the organ.

>The Concise Grove gives him more space than Sibelius, and six times as
>much space as Rubbra, which says more about their opinion than mere words
>could.

It's a reflection of the times.  Sibelius has gone in and out of fashion
more often than Elvis.  Rubbra is barely known outside of Britain.  I
believe the only one of Rubbra's works played with any frequency whatsoever
beyond the British isles is the orchestration of Brahms's Variations on a
Theme of Handel.  Again, reputation has no necessary connection to quality,
as much as we would like to think good work is always recognized.

>It takes more than one or two pieces, however exciting, to back up that
>sort of assessment.

Why do numbers enter into this at all?  If it's a great piece, why
shouldn't the composer of that piece be influential?

>>>The music I find especially boring is the Catalogue des Oiseaux (sp?).
>>
>>Really? I friend of mine - a concert pianist - worked himself almost to the
>>point of injury in the process of learning that piece.  Obviously, the
>>music didn't bore him.
>
>Obviously not.  However, it is possible that pieces may be interesting to
>play but not interesting to listen to.  What did his audience think?

Speaking as one member of that audience, I thought it was freakin'
wonderful.

>>>Objectively, I would also question whether, given the availability of
>>>tape-recorders, transcriptions of birdsong can properly be called
>>>compositions and have any value as music.
>>
>>That's like saying, given the availability of cameras, representational
>>portrait painting has no value as art.
>
>This is a point of view I've heard expressed.  I'm not sure whether I agree
>with it or not.
>
>IMO, a better analogy would be with an illustration for an ornithology
>journal.

That's because we differ as to what Messiaen is really doing.  You think
he's merely transcribing.  I think he's doing more than that.  Consider
this one point: birds and pianos are two different instruments; you have
to do some sort of fiddling to go from one to the other.

>Still, rivals for "most overrated composer" keep appearing.  Another
>nomination?

Actually, I'm of the opinion that no composer is overrated.  If the
composer is universally reagarded as unspeakably bad, no one will overrate
him.  If the composer is incredibly good, how can he be overrated? If the
composer is mediocre and extravagent claims are made, those making the
claims are not overrating him, according to their lights, and I don't see
how they could be proven wrong.

Steve Schwartz