A little Music History

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Fred, I think you overstate your case about Wagner's overwhelming influence on Debussy.

If you could show that was so in the Preludes, La Mer and Images, that would be sufficent, but I don't think you can. Debussy's opera is a fluke. A few pieces in youth, then moving in a completely different direction, that's a far cry from overwhelming.
You could make a much better case for Wagner's influence on Schoenberg, Mahler and Bruckner.

A primary component of Wagner's sound is his orchestration. The Wagner orchestra is nowhere to be found in Debussy, who has a distinctive voicing unlike anyone else, even Ravel. To my ear, Wagner had no influence on Debussy's major works.

Part of my reluctance is based on a dislike of Wagner's music and a suspicion that his advocates are ready to attribute the invention of the telephone and the automobile to Wagner :-)

Well if you think Pelleas et Melisande is a fluke and not a "major work" then you are truly out of your tree, Mike.One of the greatest operas of the 20th century, or any other for that matter,would not have been composed had it not been for Parsifal. Indeed Debussy quotes Parsifal on numerous occasions in correspondence in relation to the composition and the orchestration of Pelleas. Oh and by the way , Debussy had this to say about the composition of "Jeux" In a letter to Andre Caplet dated 25th August 1912 he writes

"For this music I need an orchestra "without support" But do not imagine I want an orchestra composed entirely of legless men"No! I want an orchestral colour which is illuminated from behind,like the one which creates such marvellous effects in Parsifal"

Satisfied?


Sister xx

Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande is not a staple of the operatic literature. His works for piano and orchestra are much better known.

What other operas did Debussy write where Wagner's influence is so prominent?

Anyway, it's just my opinion. I listen to opera infrequently, perferring musicals.

So I have edited Wagner out of my musical awareness, and am happy with the result.

"In taste, there can be no dispute."

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande is not a staple of the operatic literature.

One word:Bollocks!

I don't know what dimension you are living in, but Pelleas is a major work in Debussy's canon and in 20th century music. It is performed all over the world on a regular basis,and is regarded as an out and out masterpiece sans pareil- er, except by you. And no response re "Jeux" I see.

I rest my case

Sister xx

This from a contemporary review of Debussy's opera, available at The Gutenberg Project :

"Pelléas et Mélisande exhibited not simply a new manner of writing opera, but a new kind of music—a new way of evolving and combining tones, a new order of harmonic, melodic and rhythmic structure. The style of it was absolutely new and absolutely distinctive: the thing had never been done before, save, in a lesser degree, by Debussy himself in his then little known earlier work."

I have no case to rest. Still don't hear the Wagner in Debussy. I think Debussy very much has his own voice. The first new voice of the 20th century.

I think you're deaf -and as you admitted, prejudiced.

Do you ever actually LISTEN to music? Have you heard Pelleas and Parsifal?

Sister xx

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I think Debussy very much has his own voice. The first new voice of the 20th century.

You're far from alone here. The popular view on this period is that Wagner marks the end of the romantic period, while Debussy is the first 'modern' composer.

But that view is not inconsistent with an acknowledgment of Wagner's influence upon Debussy. Are you open to persuasion on this, or is your mind made up?

Spot on Nathaniel

Sister xx

quote:

Originally posted by Sister E.:
I think you're deaf -and as you admitted, prejudiced.

Do you ever actually LISTEN to music? Have you heard Pelleas and Parsifal?

Sister xx

I'll bet if we sat in a room with a pianist and took dictation, my transcription would sound a good deal more like what was played than anything you could hope to achieve. So I'm probably not deaf.

I listen to music all the time. Thank you for asking.

Pelleas and Parsifal? Parsifal yes, but not in over a decade, and never again. Palleas never, and it's going to stay that way.

Sister E, everyone on this forum has music they don't care for. So it goes. Now go find me some Wagner in Stravinsky's ballets, and don't forget to scribble down the bar numbers :-)

Basically, I have an allergy to Wagner that is incurable. I know every trumpet part from memory, and loathe the music.

So I don't think I will write anymore about Wagner, as I am the last person who could give him a fair hearing.

This is for two reasons, (1) Wagner was the vilest sort of person, and (2) his music is pompous, loud and too long, and the moments of beauty are to me like flies on cow dung.

Admit it Mike.It's a waste of time for anyone to have a debate with you as you cannot see music objectively. Your likes and dislikes are all to do with a fixed agenda and you admit that you are so prejudiced against Wagner that you cannot see his influence on western classical music that even the most vociferous anti-Wagnerites admit to.

Of course you haven't listened to Pelleas;your remarks quite patently display your ignorance of this score. A pity. You are missing out,

Warmest regards,
Sister E.

quote:

Originally posted by Sister E.:
Of course you haven't listened to Pelleas;your remarks quite patently display your ignorance of this score. A pity. You are missing out,

Warmest regards,
Sister E.

First off, the warmest regards were insincere, so keep them to yourself. You always take a combative tone with me. Who wants that sort of correspondence? Not me.

Why don't you lend me your score?

Like everyone else on the forum, I have personal preferences. Wagner is someone who repulses me as a person and as a composer.
So what? That's not going to impede anyone else from trying or enjoying him. I flatly stated this would end my commentary on Wagner, and so it shall.

Glad to hear it!

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Basically, I have an allergy to Wagner that is incurable. I know every trumpet part from memory, and loathe the music.

So I don't think I will write anymore about Wagner, as I am the last person who could give him a fair hearing.

This is for two reasons, (1) Wagner was the vilest sort of person, and (2) his music is pompous, loud and too long, and the moments of beauty are to me like flies on cow dung.

Hi Mike,

that is ok, music is a matter of taste, and I don`t like Wagner very much as well ( same for Debussy, sorry ), I was never able to listen to a complete Wagner opera.

But why did you just start the thread "What about Wagner?"? A few forum members like Nathaniel wrote long comments to answer your question, but you cannot be interested to hear their advice having an "incurable allergy to Wagner".

Think first, before you start a thread.

Manfred

quote:

Originally posted by Manni:
But why did you just start the thread "What about Wagner?"? A few forum members like Nathaniel wrote long comments to answer your question, but you cannot be interested to hear their advice having an "incurable allergy to Wagner".

Think first, before you start a thread.

Manfred

I didn't think first before I started the Wagner thread. In the original post, I did say that Wagner had become impossible for me. Basically, I just wanted to know who the Wagner lovers are.

That was rude, and done without thought to boot.

I'll try to watch that, in future.

Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

Fred, I think you overstate your case about Wagner's overwhelming influence on Debussy.
...
Part of my reluctance is based on a dislike of Wagner's music and a suspicion that his advocates are ready to attribute the invention of the telephone and the automobile to Wagner :-)

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of Wagner, although I am a fan of some of his musical ideas, such as the move toward tonal ambiguity, the sensuousness of the orchestration, and the mastery of form ... all of which are also hallmarks of Debussy's music. I'm not an opera buff because I don't care for the traditional operatic style of singing, but Wagner has absolutely written some transcendentally beautiful music. Much of his music is not my cup of tea, but I can certainly hear the brilliance and mastery, and I can hear the connection to Debussy.

The mistake, I believe, is in thinking that influence inherently results in imitation, or at least in producing music that sounds like its source. There are other, deeper ways for one composer to have an influence on another, beyond the fact that Debussy's version of tonal ambiguity, sensual orchestration, and mastery of form would be his own, and would not necessarily sound like Wagner's version. Wagner's influence on nearly all culture in Paris and Europe was enormous and pervasive, and this influence took its ultimate form in moving Debussy to subsequently reject Wagner's shadow.

Best,
Fred

Although I understand the rationale behind your request, I think this thread should remain mikeeschman.

It shows the bigotry and lack of tolerance that we should challenge whenever we see it. It is quite clear that some of the members who have contributed to this post do not understand music. That is self evident. Knowledge of music is not a product to be owned. It is a process that can heighten our appreciation of a range of styles and genres.

So for those who you who interact with music only through a hi-fi system ... Get out there and learn to play an instrument. I spent my working life as a musician and music educator. I taught young musicians at both elementary and advanced level and while developing listening skills was an important part of their learning, there was nothing like the experience of sitting down with other musicians and playing. The experience of playing music with other musicians will enhance your appreciation of it much more than listening to a small silver disc, a larger black disc or come to that, an online forum of a hi-fi equipment manufacturer.

Duke Ellington said “There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.” Musical preferences will always be subjective. I know that there is a lot of 'good music' that I don't understand and I am therefore unable to interact with it. There is a lot of 'the other kind' to which I listen. It might not stand up to close scrutiny or analysis ... I just like listening to it. When I read about the music that people are listening to on this board, I often find preferences that I do not understand. I would not see fit to suggest that other people's preferences are inferior to my own. I am simply not able to engage with some of this music. If there is a failing, it is mine and not that of the listener who is engaging and responding to a particular style or genre.

I cannot fathom why others would seek to challenge or be critical of the music to which others choose to listen. Duke Ellington also said “If it sounds good and feels good, then it IS good!”

I would urge everyone to go out and get involved with practical music making. Get yourself some lessons, teach yourself, join your local community choir ... Do something that will enable you to engage with other performing musicians.

As a jazz performer I had the privilege of sitting in on sessions with Red Rodney and Phil Woods. I also played a gig with Chris Potter, shortly after he had graduated from the Manhattan School of Music. The buzz from playing those gigs was something that has never been matched by my hi-fi system.

Let's please try to be a little more tolerant of each other and have respect for individual preference in music.

Thank you

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

Fred, I think you overstate your case about Wagner's overwhelming influence on Debussy.
...
Part of my reluctance is based on a dislike of Wagner's music and a suspicion that his advocates are ready to attribute the invention of the telephone and the automobile to Wagner :-)

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of Wagner, although I am a fan of some of his musical ideas, such as the move toward tonal ambiguity, the sensuousness of the orchestration, and the mastery of form ... all of which are also hallmarks of Debussy's music. I'm not an opera buff because I don't care for the traditional operatic style of singing, but Wagner has absolutely written some transcendentally beautiful music. Much of his music is not my cup of tea, but I can certainly hear the brilliance and mastery, and I can hear the connection to Debussy.

The mistake, I believe, is in thinking that influence inherently results in imitation, or at least in producing music that sounds like its source. There are other, deeper ways for one composer to have an influence on another, beyond the fact that Debussy's version of tonal ambiguity, sensual orchestration, and mastery of form would be his own, and would not necessarily sound like Wagner's version. Wagner's influence on nearly all culture in Paris and Europe was enormous and pervasive, and this influence took its ultimate form in moving Debussy to subsequently reject Wagner's shadow.

Best,
Fred

I understand and can live with that, Fred. You hit the nail on the head. I am still amazed with the dynamics of the forum. You bring up Debussy and Chopin, then have "battles" over Wagner. Never would have predicted that.

On the subject of musical preferences, you can try to appreciate all music as the performer intended, but in my experience you end up finding some music is just impossible for you to enjoy.

It's not the music, but the listener. As far as I can tell, there is little the listener can do to change this. I am trying, but I just can't swallow some music.

I thought it made more sense to admit these failings, than to smile on about everything.
Admitting your limits as a listener makes your commentary more authentic, or so I speculated.

But now I have started three threads in a row that have a negative tone. That has got to stop. The positive is infinitely more interesting. I will try to correct this in future, starting right now.

Best blog in the world, most interesting.

KR,

Patrick

Music is a tricky subject. You can come at it so many different ways, each of them valid and satisfying.

But no one person can take every way. A few? Maybe. But the whole banana? No way.

I have trained my ear to hear rhythm, pitch and harmony. That information is used to construct a shape for a phrase. That's basically the way I learned to hear. So that is the most fundamental way I hear everything.

Listening that way, I find that it is the same as if I had chosen to learn Spanish, and gone on to read novels.

Music is a language constructed using a few simple tools. What can be done with those tools is astounding.

What I am striving for is to hear it the way the author intended. I am 60. I need something to do all day pretty soon.

I have chosen to hear music as intended by the author. Can't do that for everyone.

My picks are :

Bach - never wears itself out. New every time.

Beethoven - blows your mind! A bit scary now and then. The music I have become addicted to.

Chopin, the first to step outside Beethoven's shadow, more or less in parallel to Berlioz, but working with completely different media.
This one's new, I'm learning as I go.

Debussy, who built a new stage to perform upon. Sure, others built new stages, even redefined what a stage is. But I choose this one, cause I can only do so much. Wagner may end up with a year to himself. I am playing 2 Wagner LPs this weekend if it kills me!!!

Stravinsky. Yummy. So much in so little time. One measure of Stravinsky could have you listening to eight or nine different things at the same time. Built out of melodies that are so perfect, you catch your breath.

After a year of this, adjustments may be made.

I can't enjoy string quartets right now. That must be fixed.

And Schubert and Mozart are virtually unknown to me.

But those are issues for another year.