poulenc on music theory

I was listening to a radio program on poulencs organ concerto (its here BBC - Radio3 - listening library) and the narrator said that poulenc once said that he considered music theory to be contrived and a waste of time (or something similar). Does anyone know where I can find this quote or read more about his views? I searched and couldn't find anything.

Possibly because Poulenc had very very little formal training?

I'm not sure it's such a great idea to hold that sort of opinion in particularly high esteem.

Possibly because Poulenc had very very little formal training?

I'm not sure it's such a great idea to hold that sort of opinion in particularly high esteem.

Oh yeah I know that, I'm just curious about his views.

Possibly because Poulenc had very very little formal training?

I'm not sure it's such a great idea to hold that sort of opinion in particularly high esteem.

Consider the time he lived in. What was "music theory" back then? A convoluted mess of people fighting. Now things are a LOT smoother and we can at least agree on a lot of things, but back then lots of things were going on that later changed everything.

So, I think from that point of view, what he says is pretty justified. Notably also that that he had no formal education may have been a GOOD thing considering, again, the era.

Well... I think his point still stands today. Take the "Mighty Handful" as an example.

In some respect, they werent studying music theory because "music theory" existed inside of the conservatories which they shunned. However that doesnt mean that they werent in one sense or another studying the theory of music.

I think the issue he was taking with music theory was that it can often get reduced to ones ability to write 4 part voice leading exercise with a simple harmonic progression using baroque voice leading principles, and music is much bigger than that.

I suppose another point is that anything important in music theory can be derived by studying the music itself. It even serves as a better method of learning I think. There's no point, other than convenience, in specifically ignoring music that overtly "breaks the rules" which gets done quite a bit in beginning theory.

Anyway, I think the point is that he was pointing out a distinction that existed between "studying music" and "studying music theory" and he was saying that the latter served no purpose that the former didnt serve better.

Consider the time he lived in. What was "music theory" back then? A convoluted mess of people fighting. Now things are a LOT smoother and we can at least agree on a lot of things, but back then lots of things were going on that later changed everything.

So, I think from that point of view, what he says is pretty justified. Notably also that that he had no formal education may have been a GOOD thing considering, again, the era.

back then?

Poulenc lived in the 20th century. I'd be hard-pressed to say that music theory has changed that drastically in the last 100 years.

back then?

Poulenc lived in the 20th century. I'd be hard-pressed to say that music theory has changed that drastically in the last 100 years.

In between Schenker, Schoeberg, Hindemith, etc etc all fighting over the names and analysis methods, I think it's quite turbulent as it is. Come on. Plus, Poulenc lived during the start of the 20th century, remember? Stuff that was going on back then was not only overthrowing everything but almost every composer had ideas of what theory meant and was for!

Hell theory these days is STILL not standardized and I doubt it will be, but back than it was much worse. Music theory HAS changed a lot in the last 100 years since music theory is a branch of musicology and THAT has changed also a huge lot (it practically didn't exist previous to the 20th century, pretty much.)

In fact, in the library I work at we were this week making a huge sale on old scores and books, we practically gave away basically everything history/musicology related from before the 80s-90s except for historical exceptions (Nazi-authored music aesthetic books, etc.)

But nevermind timescale, just look at the Germans' function theory stuff which as far as I know isn't used anywhere else. It used to be much worse (each composer had his/her own theories, blah.)

ok, I guess i misunderstood what you meant by that comment.

I wouldn't exactly call 1899 to 1964 the "beginning" of the 20th century, however. But I guess that's just a question of interpretation. I always thought of composers whose important period of musical output was within the first 30-40 years of the century as "beginning".

ok, I guess i misunderstood what you meant by that comment.

I wouldn't exactly call 1899 to 1964 the "beginning" of the 20th century, however. But I guess that's just a question of interpretation. I always thought of composers whose important period of musical output was within the first 30-40 years of the century as "beginning".

Well, the french six were pretty much at the start of the 20th century right before the neoclassic (in which Poulenc and Honegger also played a role in, etc) so yeah, they spearheaded the french "avant garde" for a time before the new generation rolled in (Messiaen, Boulez, etc.) Plus I think those who lived that early 20th century turmoil had quite drastic opinions about things, look for example at Schoenberg and his stuff later in the US.

Then again, I think being in France during the first 20 years of the 20th century must've been amazing. What with all the new stuff debuting and people getting into fistfights at concerts! Poulenc certainly was influenced by that time, even if he emerged in the 20s (in his 20s too, I guess!)

So yeah that's what I meant.

GO POULY!!

I like that opinion. :P

And I like his music too. So fresh and with this particular unique spark.

Without knowing what context he made the comment in, it's pretty pointless.

Without knowing what context he made the comment in, it's pretty pointless.

Sounds like something he would say early on though. But I have no idea, so yeah. I do sort of agree with his opinion, but not quite. Specially since "music theory" is so much stuff, it's hard to pass judgment on it all like that (another reason I think he said it early on.)

Poulenc is in my opinion a very good composer, and I would imagine the quote is in reference to the way in which a person goes about composing. I expect he was advocating that writing by ear produces what he would find to be better results.

Manifesto of Futurist Musicians

"I, who repudiate the title of Maestro as a stigma of mediocrity and ignorance, hereby confirm my enthusiastic adhesion to Futurism, offering to the young, the bold and the reckless these my irrevocable conclusions:

1. To convince young composers to desert schools, conservatories and musical academies, and to consider free study as the only means of regeneration." (Balilla Pratella - Manifesto of Futurist Musicians)

Well, that's quite a different thing, since Poulenc certainly wasn't a Futurist. (Even if the futurists have in common with "Les Six" their often very simple structures and the speed at which they wrote music.)

(As a side note, I always found it funny how extremely conventional many of the futurists like Pratella and Russolo sound, whenever they wrote notes with clear pitches. It's often like a constant mixture of noise + C-major scales.)

Without knowing what context he made the comment in, it's pretty pointless.

Yeah, the reason I posted the thread is because i was wondering what the context of it was.

I expect he was advocating that writing by ear produces what he would find to be better results.

If that is the case, I agree wholeheartedly.