Pierre Boulez was a great letter writer and a frequent correspondent. Since the extent of his correspondence is vast and very little of it has been published in English, this chapter looks solely at Boulez’s epistolary exchanges with the composers Karlheinz Stockhausen, Olivier Messiaen, György Ligeti and Elliott Carter. While the correspondence with Stockhausen is one of the richest of all, only a brief sense of this can be given here. The correspondences have been selected on the basis that all four composers were pivotally important for Boulez in different ways. He had important friendships with them. He valued and performed their music and they in turn were fulsome in their appreciation of his championing their music as well as of his achievements as a composer. This brief consideration shows how Boulez not only pursued his own musical path but also promoted the music of his composer friends.

This chapter surveys Pierre Boulez’s recording career. It began in the 1950s, as a pianist in Mussorgsky and Stravinsky songs and directing incidental music by Milhaud. In the early 1960s, he conducted Mozart (with Yvonne Loriod) and C. P. E. Bach (with Jean-Pierre Rampal). His earliest recording of Le Marteau sans maître was made in 1956 and he first recorded The Rite of Spring in 1963. From the mid 1960s onwards, he recorded for Columbia (now Sony), including much of what is considered his key repertoire: Stravinsky, Varèse and Bartók; Debussy, Ravel and Messiaen; Berg, Schoenberg and Webern; and Boulez himself. In the 1980s, he made the first recording of the three-act Lulu and several new recordings of his own works. In the 1990s, for Deutsche Grammophon he made new versions of many pieces previously recorded for Columbia, as well as a Mahler cycle and, more surprisingly, works by Szymanowski, Richard Strauss and Bruckner.

A legacy is something inherited by a successor, and in Boulez’s case what he handed down to posterity (his writings, activities and compositions) evolved in complex ways from his own early mentors and influences, particularly Messiaen, along with what the young Boulez determined to be the essential innovations in works that had the greatest unfulfilled potential in the 1940s and early 1950s. Boulez’s own works were naturally part of his legacy but in his later years changes in musical fashion meant that his accomplishments as conductor, writer, teacher of performers and institutional figurehead provided an even more potent example to potential emulators than his actual compositions. His unambiguously modernist sensibility and concern to place serious music at the heart of the prevailing culture brought a remarkable coherence to bear on the rich diversity of his life and work.

This chapter discusses Boulez’s formal and informal music education, beginning with his early musical training and his formal studies in Lyon and Paris. In Paris, the importance of his informal education emerges, including his relationships with important mentors. His development as a conductor and lecturer on music is also considered. Although many would consider these professional activities, Boulez’s emergence as a writer, lecturer and conductor was accomplished during a period of extensive experimentation in composition. He reflected, in retrospect, on his mentors and related ‘apprenticeships’ and how they shaped his thinking as a musician. While Boulez was a lifelong autodidact, the discussion closes at the end of his formative period around 1960.

George Benjamin recalls his friendship with Pierre Boulez which lasted over thirty-five years. He pays homage to Boulez’s quite extraordinary musical abilities and remembers the exceptional lucidity and brilliance of his mind.

Bernstein, perhaps more than any other conductor in the last century, seemed to dance on the podium. This chapter explores the reception of Bernstein’s dancelike conducting by both critics and musicians. When describing Bernstein’s conducting, whether praising or panning it, critics have regularly described it as ‘choreography’, with the word almost always used pejoratively. For some, Bernstein’s shameless bodily movements enhanced their appreciation of the music; for others, it was a distraction approaching desecration. What has been overlooked is that Bernstein’s conducting was surprisingly consistent – not only in the general movement vocabulary he employs (his infamous leaps, for an obvious example) but also in set patterns of specific movements that he employs from performance to performance of the same work across years. The chapter suggests that we understand Bernstein’s conducting not as spontaneous and random, but as planned, iterative, and locked in his muscle memory: that is, as choreography.

Between October 1955 and March 1958, Bernstein presented seven television broadcasts on the Omnibus culture series. He addressed topics from Beethoven, Bach, modern music, and opera to musical theatre and jazz and appealed widely to audiences, educating and offering knowledge while avoiding excessively elevated language. Writing the scripts himself, Bernstein effortlessly moved from various roles as a conductor, narrator, pianist, and educator within the context of the show, dazzling audiences with his charismatic personality and stylish attire. The programmes were well received, with an estimated sixteen million viewers tuning in to watch the December 1955 ‘The Art of Conducting’ broadcast. His carefully selected words, analogies, and references were extremely relatable to the middle-class family demographics of the programmes, and the broadcasts fostered Bernstein’s growing pop-star status as he gained international popularity as a conductor and both a Broadway and classical composer.

Bernstein’s relationship with Aaron Copland was one of the most significant of his life. Starting with their first meeting in 1937, this chapter considers Copland’s musical influence on Bernstein as an emerging composer and the support and opportunities Copland provided during Bernstein’s formative years. It then goes on to explore the importance of Bernstein’s Copland advocacy on the conducting podium, with reference to major commissions, concerts, and recordings. Drawing on both their public and private comments and correspondence, the changing nature of their relationship and views on each other’s activities are traced, resulting in a shared portrait of more than five decades of friendship and musical connections.

This chapter explores Leonard Bernstein’s work as pianist-conductor, including early influences that shaped Bernstein’s choice to conduct while playing, preferred repertoire (Mozart, Beethoven, Ravel and Gershwin), and reception by audience, and critics. Bernstein’s technique as conductor-pianist is analysed through audio and video recordings, as well as through the study of Bernstein’s annotated scores from the New York Philharmonic Archives. A brief history of conducting from the piano serves to contextualize this notable aspect of Bernstein’s career. Particular attention is given to Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, which was among Bernstein’s most frequently performed pieces while leading the orchestra from the piano. An analysis of three different recorded performances of Bernstein’s performance of the Rhapsody – two audio recordings and one televised broadcast – provide insight into significant moments (and challenges) for Bernstein as pianist-conductor, as well as key interpretive changes in his performance over time.

This is an examination of Leonard Bernstein’s impact as conductor and musical advocate. He was a champion of the works of Jean Sibelius and Gustav Mahler at a time when their work was unfashionable, bringing them to a much larger audience. The American composer he admired most was Aaron Copland, whose ’Connotations’ he led to open Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. He was not in sympathy with most ‘12 tone’ music but did lead avant-garde works by the composers Lukas Foss, Elliott Carter, John Cage, and others. He conducted the world premiere of Olivier Messiaen’s ‘Turangalila Symphony’ in Boston in 1949 but never presented it again. He was an adept Straussian but only led the works composed before World War I. This was also his favourite period of Stravinsky’s work, although he added the three symphonies to his repertory in later years. On television, he led studies of rock and jazz. He conducted and recorded much of the standard repertory from the nineteenth century onwards, with only a few forays into Baroque and Classical-era music, with a particular emphasis on Haydn. There is some discussion of Bernstein’s podium manner and the conductors he influenced.

For most British composers active in the twentieth century, the actual writing of music was only one of many skills they were obliged to develop. Many composers were also actively engaged in the fields of teaching, performance, and administration, and could supplement their income with a variety of other jobs, ranging from adjudication and private tutoring to broadcasting and music criticism. Additionally, the growth in popularity of radio, television, and film opened up new opportunities for composers in lighter genres that had hitherto not been available, either to supplement their contributions to more traditional concert hall repertory, or as dedicated positions in their own right. This chapter will examine these various career paths and responsibilities, looking at how British composers’ training, abilities, interests, and sociocultural status shaped and directed their vocational trajectories.

Within a few short years of professional life (1880–85), Mahler gained sufficient experience to become one of the leading young conductors in the German-speaking world. This chapter surveys his first four appointments (Bad Hall, Laibach, Olmütz, and Kassel), asking how the unique conditions of each setting might have contributed to his development. The central features of Mahler’s character as a performer appeared early: meticulous rehearsals, fidelity to the score, attention to detail in all aspects of preparation, and relentless influence on the production and staging. Even in the amateurish circumstances of the first two positions, Mahler’s distinctive charisma and remarkable music results made themselves felt, as is revealed in newspaper reviews. By the time he left Kassel he had become the mature conductor who would make his mark in major opera houses of Germany, Hungary, Austria, and the United States.

Mahler liked to present himself, especially in letters, as an unrecognized genius whom future audiences would honor even if contemporaneous critics remained dismissive. If he had cause for disappointment with the German-language press, the foreign press often recognized his accomplishments. This essay focuses on Mahler coverage in the press in England, New York, and California, where positive reports and unflagging curiosity defy any presumptions of provincialism. Far-flung publications admired the conductor, awed if perplexed by his compositions, at a time when their Austro-German counterparts disparaged his music. Their attention did not result from a more profound understanding than in Central Europe; rather, staying abreast of foreign affairs, including musical ones, was a mark of cultivation. The stakes were simply not as high as in Vienna and in Germany, where protecting the integrity of classical music against the claws of modernism underlay so much reporting on Mahler.