The textbook historical account of post-war New Music describes a logical and radical succession from Schoenberg to Webern to the Darmstadt School. Against this narrative of inevitability, I provide a more contingent account of the institutionalization of a particular discourse of New Music in the aftermath of the Second World War in Europe. What is contingent here is not so much why or how certain figures – chiefly Pierre Boulez and René Leibowitz – were important, but the shape and the logic by which this importance was established and maintained. Accordingly, this article first of all provides a summary of just what it meant for Leibowitz's understanding of New Music to be reproduced in an institutional capacity. From here, I undertake close critical reading of Boulez's break with Leibowitz in order to discover what, exactly, Boulez began to do differently to establish a new practice.

中文翻译：

---

学徒制及其评估：莱博维茨、布列兹、梅西安和新音乐的话语与实践

战后新音乐的教科书历史记载描述了从勋伯格到韦伯恩到达姆施塔特学派的合乎逻辑的激进继承。与这种不可避免的叙述相反，我提供了一个更偶然的说明，即在欧洲第二次世界大战之后，一种特定的新音乐话语的制度化。这里的偶然性与其说是某些人物——主要是皮埃尔·布列兹和勒内·莱博维茨——为何或如何重要，不如说是建立和维持这种重要性的形式和逻辑。因此，本文首先总结了莱博维茨对新音乐的理解以机构身份被复制的意义。从这里开始，我对布列兹与莱博维茨的决裂进行了仔细的批判性阅读，以发现究竟是什么，