While Boulez stated on a number of occasions that he had no great interest in teaching or indeed any particular gift for it, he worked nevertheless in the course of his career in a variety of pedagogical contexts. In this chapter, I consider his work as an occasional teacher of composition, with the small number of individual students he accepted in the late 1950s in Paris for private sessions. Second, there is the teaching he transmitted in the body of lectures he delivered primarily at Darmstadt, Harvard and more extensively at the Collège de France. Finally, I explore his arguably more engaged pedagogical work, exemplified by the courses in analysis, composition and conducting he delivered in Basel in the 1960s, as well as his committed interaction with young composers, conductors and performers at the Lucerne Festival Academy from 2003 to 2015.

The new music festivals at Donaueschingen and Darmstadt and Boulez’s Domaine Musical concert series were formative for Boulez’s development as a composer, conductor, writer and institution-builder in the 1950s and 1960s. The Donaueschingen festival was significant for premieres of Boulez’s music, including ‘Tombeau’, the final section of Pli selon pli, which was performed in part there in 1959. Boulez’s attendance was intermittent at the Darmstadt new music courses, but he nevertheless interacted there with key figures from the serial generation, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen and Luigi Nono, and Darmstadt was the venue where Boulez first delivered the lectures that were published later as Boulez on Music Today. Boulez created his own concert series in Paris, the Domaine Musical, which he oversaw from its inception in 1953 until 1967, with the aim of performing key works from the first phase of musical modernism, along with music composed by his own generation.

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.

Although Boulez never met or corresponded with the Second Viennese composers (Schoenberg, Berg and Webern), their influence on him was palpable. He first encountered their music through René Leibowitz in 1945 and began writing about their compositions from 1948. This chapter examines Boulez’s extensive writings on the music of the Second Viennese composers as well as his programming and conducting of their works, demonstrating that he was a central figure in their post-war reception. He frequently criticises the Second Viennese composers for reliance on conventional formal structures and explains that he is most interested in compositions that display ‘ambiguities’. He extols Webern’s compositions for using ‘elements of classical language’, which through their distorted use become ‘the elements of a new language’. Treating the Second Viennese composers’ innovations as building blocks, Boulez’s compositions expand upon what he identifies as their most important attributes: serialism and the crafting of novel timbres and sonorities.

The concept of serialism appears conspicuously in the academic literature on twentieth-century music in technical, theoretical, and philosophical contexts. These various contexts, expressed over the course of much of the twentieth century, expose differing connotations of the serial concept. Part I of this chapter explores the serial concept before 1945, reflecting on the multi-dimensional origins of the concept in Arnold Schoenberg’s earliest serial compositions and the significance of Olivier Messiaen’s distinctive serial conceptions prior to the Second World War. Part II explores the serial movement in Europe after 1945, the prominent roles of the journal Die Reihe and the Darmstadt New Music Courses, and the contrasting approaches and attitudes to serialism in the United States after 1945. Tensions between rupture and continuity on both sides of the Atlantic and divergent priorities in discourse about new music demonstrate that theorising serialism entails an understanding of its dynamic disposition, instability, and impermanence.