March 6, 2004
Debussy
During the Bach versus Debussy war that was going on in the artsblog world I was taking the Bach side pretty firmly. After all, I am a harspichordist, Bach was a German, what more do you really need for an alliance? OK, I can overlook the Lutheran bit because he wrote some glorious Latin music. But overall I find Bach to be just short of pure joy. Rich counterpoint, inventive use of melodic ideas, meaty harmonies. He made a few errors in counterpoint, but so has almost everybody.
However, even with a deep love of Bach, Debussy continues to move me. I write this as I listen to La Mer (we had cod for dinner, and I could not find my sea songs records fast enough, so I settled for this and a CD of Joseph Spence). I completely disagree with the charges of "pretty yet shallow" that are frequently used against Debussy. The problem with this cliche is two-fold:
1. It links depth and complexity with standard practice functional harmony. This is the error Schoenberg made in his essay "Brahms the Revolutionary," which actually paints a good picture of why Schoenberg was the least of the Second Viennese School.
2. I know I sound like a broken record, but the cliche has a lot to do with our lack of vocabulary for timbre. What Debussy was doing with timbre is fantastic, but evades description and verbal analysis, because we simply lack the vocabulary.
Now, as for the topic of Bolero that has come up on Reflections in d minor and About Last Night: that piece is an essay on orchestration. I never could figure out why it is staged for paid public performance. As an essay it is beautiful. If an orchestration student thoroughly memorizes the sounds of that piece, he will be light years ahead of those who haven't. However, it is not really a finished piece of music, and I completely sympathize with Terry Teachout who actually had to play the bass on that piece. I think I would rather take the Chinese Water Torture.
Posted by erik at March 6, 2004 9:57 PM | TrackBackMelanie,
Now that I have read the comment that you were responding to, I think even more that you are a bit superficial in your reading. There is nothing broad and sweeping in suggesting that some of what Debussy did in terms of harmony was trite and obvious.
Now, I disagree, but I understand where Schoenberg was coming from, with his avoidance of repetition. That is precisely why he liked Brahms, of all people. He (correctly) saw that Debussy was continuing the Wagnerian practice of structuring through repetition at the interval. Schoenberg thought that this was a lazy and predictable thing to do, far inferior to working through variation.
Like I say, I think that Schoenberg's view of structure is wrong, although I see where he was coming from. John, in citing Schoenberg, was not being overly sweeping, nor embarrassing himself as a person.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at April 23, 2005 3:03 PMTrite and obvious?! There's a ridiculously sweeping statement. Exactly - exactly where in Debussy's music have you heard the trite and obvious? You are simply embarrassing yourself as a person who has never listened properly or looked at a score.
But then if you think Bolero's exciting... Perhaps the complex harmony there has passed me by.
Personally I go for subtlety,
(though not when I'm writing, clearly).
I ALSO LIKE THEM TOO ... THEY ARE GREAT!
Posted by: Funds at July 29, 2004 7:20 PMWell, yes the ending of Bolero is exciting, and that is precisely what makes it extremeley valuable as an essay on orchestration. It is much like the Homage to the Square pieces by Josef Albers. I don't think they will be remembered as paintings, but no one else has done as good a job of a systematic exploration of the affect of color, using a controlled composition and careful painting (doing it with printing doesn't count, because the transparent ink on paper is an inherently different animal than opaque, thick oil paints on canvas). Musicians will always be indebted to Bolero as artists will always be indebted to Homage to the Square.
As for my pro-por harpsichording, well, I suppose I prefere a por harpsichord to a rich piano!
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at March 10, 2004 8:52 AM..."pro-harpsichord...Lynn's"
Posted by: John Salmon at March 9, 2004 10:26 PMI like both of them too, but I think Shoenberg has a point on harmony in some of Debussy-sometimes he's a little trite and obvious. Personally I like the Bolero-the ending is exciting, at least to me. The piece builds, in perfect logic, to that thrilling conclusion. BTW, I have assaulted your por-harpsichord views, on Lynn/s site. I hope you don't mind! J
Posted by: John Salmon at March 9, 2004 10:18 PM