Thinking about the Enescu, about Szymanowski's 3rd, etc. , about "UC's definition of "romantic"" (oh, not that again, Eric!) - got me to thinking. (Bear with me, ok? :) )
I think Debussy was onto something, when he distinguished his kind of new music (much as the public loved it) from the Romantic music that was still being written - but from which his was a definite departure - not by the amount of dissonance (Romantic music often has a huge amount of dissonance by design, not by accident or by passing necessity) but by the fact that in Debussy's music- as I recall (I'll have to look this up for the exact quote, sorry) - harmonic progressions, even if perfectly consonant and filled with C-E-G chords, become unmoored from purpose and direction - again, by design. Or rather, from any purpose other than sound. (I'm not criticizing him for this- what a sound it is! And when he wants to use progressions again and move the music by chordal direction, he knows very well how to - e.g. the opening of first movement and finale of his cello sonata.) Enescu's 3rd symphony can feel (to me) like it's getting lost in abstruse progressions-within-keys-within-progressions - but it does not do so, and the composer pulls himself out (in the first movement) for a blaze of a close (if I remember; it's been a few weeks since I listened :D ). Szymanowski, in his earlier works, too, and Reger often enough though it can take some serious concentration to follow (again, not always; the first movement of Reger's 2nd organ sonata is clear and thrilling as one likes...) - etc.
I seem to have gotten lost myself here, but of all people* I think the person who wrote the book on this is Arnold Schoenberg - "Structural Functions of Harmony", to be precise. (And a rather good and interesting book it is, too, on how harmony works in large-scale forms in classical and Romantic music.)
*Joking. Even if I were not something of a fan of Schoenberg's I would not be accusing the author of his Harmonielehre of lacking any notion of what harmony was.
(Not to speak in absolutes, but I think what I'm saying is that what started being lost or de-emphasized at a very important Romantic/early 20th-century boundary was horizontal - in time - "consonance"/coherence (and if Debussy's most characteristic music - and that of the "Debussystes", I guess - isn't the border of a very important Romantic/E2c boundary, it's - "hard to say what is"...) - not quite so much "vertical" - at the same time- which audiences also reacted to, but not always by throwing the offending piece hors concours (actually, I don't know... some of the pieces we grandfather as Romantic despite their heavy level of dissonance etc. just because they were written in the late 19th century... topic for- but I sense I should start paying attention to my cooking about now. *tiptoes*
Interestingly, the US theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer argued that the doorway into the line of despair in music is Debussy.
I think we've had this discussion before (or at least, one much like it).
There is a significant difference between dissonance and harmonic complexity, on the one hand, and atonality (uncertainty or shifting key) on the other.
It has always seemed to me that it is a very difficult task to pin down the exact demarcation distinguishing "romantic" from "modern" composition. How much dissonance constitutes too much dissonance for a piece to be considered modern rather than romantic? How much atonality is acceptable in a work if it is to remain a romantic piece? Where do humor and fun fit into romantic music, if at all? And exactly what is "late romantic" anyway?
To modern listeners, I think Mahler's 9th would be considered deeply romantic, and yet it is also definitely atonal and structurally not traditionally romantic. Chausson is considered firmly romantic, yet his music is amorphous compared to the traditional romantic composers. Is Myaskovsky romantic or modern? Well, both, often in the same work. I was once admonished on this board that Poulenc's piano concertos were not suitably serious, so not fitting the definition of romantic.
This is not a criticism, but a comment on the difficulty of drawing lines. Certainly, the birth and death dates of the composer are not a very precise way of deciding, as a great many composers (Debussy included) were influenced by Wagner, who pretty much provided license for atonality, complex harmonies, and non-traditional structures.
If Debussy is the doorway to despair, then the room beyond is the throne room of Wagner, with his thousand mutated spawn.
Quote from: Amphissa on Wednesday 13 November 2013, 23:27
If Debussy is the doorway to despair, then the room beyond is the throne room of Wagner, with his thousand mutated spawn.
Great quote. I have found Debussy's music particularly to be rather aimless and not that fulfilling intellectually (but I understand how others could find it so).
Even so, to me there is a huge gulf between Wagner's efforts (and they are at the least, interesting (sonically) and very effective) with Boulez, Stockhausen, etc. I'm more willing than the UC remit to hear works where dissonance is used for a purpose, but have no time for acerbic atonalists at all (life's too short, and I've heard too many of them).
An interesting article here.
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137170 (http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137170)
Let's stick with Debussy, please...
While this isn't mentioned at all even as a refuted rumor (well, there are too many) in Walker's biography, I had read that a number of people had committed suicide after Liszt concerts- or something. ... that would be doorway to despair - if so. Erm- taken literally. (Leaving Scriabin's world-ending Mysterium out of it, of course.)
Really, Alan - what is wrong with my post? It is on topic - as 1/2 of it deals with Debussy, and I would assume, reflective of most of the comments at UC.
My task, amongst others, is to keep threads as on topic as possible. I simply didn't want this thread to be diverted into another discussion of Boulez, Stockhausen and other 'acerbic atonalists'.
So, returning to Debussy who is much more relevant to the remit of UC.....
Some of this discussion is beyond my musical acumen - vertical, horizontal, etc. - but here's an observation shared by a well known pianist.
I chatted with Jeffrey Siegel last winter after one of his Debussy Keyboard Conversations. We talked about how most of his audience really only knows the Debussy of Clair de lune and Afternoon of a Fawn. Then they hear a live performance of L'Isle Joyeaux and they're blown away by the dissonance. And I said, Makes you feel like the real father of modern music was Debussy, doesn't it? And Jeffrey said, Absolutely.
Now of course, there wasn't time to get into a lengthy discussion of what "modern" music is, but I think WE knew what we meant. It was an interesting conversation.
That's spot on, I believe. My reaction to Debussy is precisely the same - some of his works are among my absolute favourites (e.g. La Mer), but the piano music ranges from typical ClassicFM choices to pieces that I find really hard going. Francis Schaeffer may have had a point...
Austin (William Austin, I think it was) in a book on 20th-century music made a similar point; surprised me when I first read it, but I was more and more convinced as I kept reading- and again not just because of treatment of dissonance. (A quote "William Austin's description of Debussy as one of the most original and adventurous musicians who ever lived" unsurprisingly then got used in some promotional material for a collection of essays "Debussy and his World" ("This book illustrates just how right Austin was" etc.) (I sound mocking, but in point of fact what I am is tentatively intrigued; will see if a local library has this...)
Mr. Austin's keen -- I would say Gallic -- appreciation of Debussy was counterbalanced by a disdain for Sibelius, whose Tapiola, for example, he heard as warmed over Debussy. If any work essays despair, it is Sibelius's Symphony 4, yet that piece left Bill (who knew a thing or two about despair) cold. All of which illustrates what has come to be a truism for me: we understand best the works that move us. Austin's insights into Debussy taught me much. An area that may have been explored since (I don't keep up) but which, if not, might reward further exploration, is the Satie - Debussy - Cyril Scott axis of his activity. Debussy was reputedly head of the Parisian Rosicrucians for quite a few years.
I see 1895-1905 the intersection of Debussy's talent with intellectual interests, perhaps Rosicrucian, that fostered "original and adventurous" micro- and macro- ways of putting together musical phrases and paragraphs and that were exciting and life-affirming for Debussy. Then between 1906-1916 his talent intersected with increasingly powerful competing aesthetic currents (not necessarily life affirming) such as were represented by Gaspard, Petrouchka, Pierrot Lunaire -- and his efforts to stay current made music from this period more one-sidedly intellectual. If there's any merit to such a "working hypothesis," then the "doorway into the line of despair" would have been a collective cultural one and on Debussy's side something of a response to the aesthetic tenor of times that confounded his earlier, possibly Rosicrucian, synthesis. That would explain in part Debussy's comment to Scott around 1912 to the effect that Scott had found a path beyond where he himself had been able to go.
His comments about Scott to others seem to have been often less positive, I think (if I remember "Debussy Remembered" -- will go check...)
Quote from: eschiss1 on Friday 15 November 2013, 05:42
Austin (William Austin, I think it was) in a book on 20th-century music made a similar point; surprised me when I first read it, but I was more and more convinced as I kept reading- and again not just because of treatment of dissonance. (A quote "William Austin's description of Debussy as one of the most original and adventurous musicians who ever lived" unsurprisingly then got used in some promotional material for a collection of essays "Debussy and his World" ("This book illustrates just how right Austin was" etc.) (I sound mocking, but in point of fact what I am is tentatively intrigued; will see if a local library has this...)
La Mer never really clicked with me until (at age 17, I believe) I read that it was - partially, anyway - inspired by the Japanese prints that were quite in vogue at the time. As an evocation of an evocation it works wonderfully.
It works well as an evocation too.
I hadn't actually meant this to be a thread -about- Debussy - was bringing him in for a contrast and a... well, I can't say I mind, either. As to La mer, the suggestion that I temporarily ignore the headings and hints of programmatic subtext (which I've never really liked with anyone's music, it's a sort of thing that kept me away from Liszt until Walker...well, that's another subject) and listened to it in a more "absolute" frame, as an orchestral work with some titles and history attached. Worked for me, for whatever that does or doesn't say (says most about me, not about La mer, I realize. Not that the internal motivic argument and between-movement (Franckian) recalls (... and harmonies, if one's going to evoke Franck) are exactly the heart of the work, but in La mer they're somewhat more present, I think, than in some other well-known works of his (before his last works).)
I for one knew where you were coming from, well sort of.
Tom
QuoteI hadn't actually meant this to be a thread -about- Debussy
Regarding dissonance in Romantic music generally and Debussy, two thoughts:
(1) It's instructive to read what Rimsky-Korsakov wrote about his deliberate attempt to use dissonance in Kashchei the Deathless during the early 20th-century;
(2) It's useful to distinguish between music that attempts to use upper overtones as an extension of Romantic harmony (i.e., as potentially harmonious elements; think Scriabin) and music that uses dissonance locally for its shock or dramatic value (like a sword striking sparks from a stone, as Nielsen described it).
Debussy, like most composers of his era, wrote passages in both manners. But he strongly favored the former.
Extending the topic a little (but keeping within its spirit, I believe- hrm...) one reason it's hard to define the limits of Romanticism is because the Romantic spirit, or part of it (yes, indeed, think of Liszt) -includes- experimentation of various kinds (don't perseverate on "vertical dissonance", but think of other kinds- formal, harmonic progression in time, all sorts of other kinds...) - so I for one find a description of a neo-Romantic composer who rejects any experimentation in their music to be - at best an alignment with one particular school of the Romantic era, but since even the Mendelssohn-etc.-etc.-etc. school of Romanticism couldn't in fact be accused of such lack of curiosity and that (also consider Alfred Einstein's distinction between "conservative revolutionary" and "revolutionary conservative" - gah, this topic really can extend for chapters and books and I compress it too much, sorry...) - it makes one (ok, _me_!) doubt whether "Romantic" really fits those (just-described) "neo-Romantic" composers after all. (After all, there's something - several somethings - in Walker's The Weimar Years about Liszt and his pupils and associates' delight in testing new contrapuntal, harmonic, orchestral, &c possibilities. Was this part of their Romanticism or orthogonal to it?... this may well belong in a new topic and I may well be taking the subject too seriously, and as Alan said we may have discussed this in some detail before- apologies since it's 11 pm the night before a bank holiday here (in regards which cheers and happy wishes).)
Back in 1852, Spohr, in a letter to Moritz Hauptmann, wrote,"What would Haydn and Mozart have said if they had been forced to listen to the hellish noise which is now considered to be music?" Of course, Spohr himself poked fun at the avant garde composers of his day in the finale of his Historical Symphony and in his penultimate violin concerto (No 14 in A minor, Sonst und Jetzt).
Of course, around 30 years earlier, Beethoven had complained about the excessive chromaticism in the harmony of Spohr's own music!
Interesting, John. I never took the Spohr finale to be "poking fun." Since it was written before Schumann's canonic 4, I presumed it showed Spohr paving the way for RS. I suppose I wouldn't hear Draeseke symphony 4 as musical satire per se either, were I not forewarned.
Just a comment that most historians of music that I have read/heard regard Debussy rather than Wagner as the beginning of modernism in music.
Quotethe beginning of modernism in music
Not so sure any more what "modernism" is, but to my ears Schoenberg owes more to Tristan than to Pelleas. And Tristan, in turn, owes a very distinct debt to Liszt. And Liszt was influenced by...
That may be so, but I still think that to put Debussy in perspective vis a vis "modern" music, you have to listen to pieces like L'Isle Joyeaux. It's hard to swallow that this guy is also the composer of Afternoon of a Faun......
Jerry
... or la Cathedrale engloutie?... (well, that connects well enough to Afternoon of a Faun, come to think of it, but ... hrm.
(actually you're probably right, "modernist" in the usual technical sense (which is fairly well-defined, and doesn't just mean "modern", else "post-modernist" would raise hackles about as much as "music of the Future" should to people lacking, to make a poor joke for the 2nd time today, a time travel device) - as opposed to "modern", characteristic more of something of the 20th/21st-centuries (or one of their many artistic threads), etc. ... - characterizes certain Debussy works, while Cathédrale while static, whole-tone, bldy weird and maybe even "prophetic" is modern but not "modernist".)
I take your point, Jerry. I'll never forget how riveting it was to discover Debussy's prelude "Ce qu'a vu le vent d'Ouest" at the keyboard. An astonishing work that is not merely tone picture but primal utterance.