Debussy spews sh*t from every orifice of his body. Period.

[contrapunctus]

Yeah, I just got a his preludes the other day. Which prove the point I made in the title of this thread.






But no, seriously, how can people like that music. I want an explanation or something. Half the preludes don't even have a melody. Especially the last one in book 2.  They made me gag when I listened to some MIDIs of them, seriously.

[xvimbi]

They made me gag when I listened to some MIDIs of them, seriously.

Looks like you are spewing too

[lisztisforkids]

What the **** is your problem man!  you obviously have absolutley no clue what music  is, or what it means to people. Personally i am not to fond of Debussy either, but you cant make a comment like that! That is absurd! Grow up! And of course you dont like them, you cant play any of them or have even heard any of them on a acual recording! My advice to you: Get a good recording (Walter Giesking is the best in the land with Debussy), and think before you type.

[arensky]

You are trying to start the fight. Some will take your bait, but I refer you to Marik's  signature  

[lisztisforkids]

So true..

[arensky]

you cant make a comment like that! (Walter Giesking is the best in the land with Debussy), and think before you type.

He can and will say what he thinks. And be judged accordingly.

Walter Gieseking was wonderful before WWII, after WWII his playing was disinterested and even harsh at times imo, his 1920's and 1930's recordings are a different story, wonderful playing. For Debussy I would reccomend Michelangeli and Richter...

[contrapunctus]

I am glad you all noticed my joking tone.

I guess I do not like impressionistic works. I like solid melodies and some fugal type counterpoint.

[mikey6]

you're somewhat ignorant.
nothing more to say.

[contrapunctus]

you're somewhat ignorant.
nothing more to say.

Will you please tell me what I am ignorant of, since you obviously are brilliant.

[pianistimo]

contrapunctus, i'm surprised that you would be quite so harsh on debussy.  even bach had some very chromatic moments.  debussy just took it farther.  he looked farther ahead.  he gives you an impression instead of a concrete idea.  you can put more of your own meaning, or take impressions of things you see (such as the water lilly floating on the water).  if you don't garden, you don't like landscapes, and you're not into watching water move in it's multitude of ways (waterfall, gentle river, stream, meandering and wandering) you can't experience the freedom on top of the keyboard (unless you connect with electricity or something).  it's random, yet planned.  totally unique.  totally dependent on visualizing things in your mind and quickly attaching the exact shading at the moment of the sparkle of sun on the water.

if debussy is awful, than van gogh is awful.  he may have been crazy, but he was a master.

[fred smalls]

Ur completely retarted...
If you dont like debussy, what can you like?

[JCarey]

Impressionism isn't everybody's cup of tea. Much of it is gestural, like much of Sorabji's music, for instance. A lot of people don't like that.

But no, seriously, how can people like that music. I want an explanation or something.

Why? What difference does it make? We like it because we like how it sounds. What other explanation is there? If there is another explanation, chances are, it won't be of any use to you.

Half the preludes don't even have a melody.

So, in order for music to be enjoyable, it has to have a melody? I don't see the logic.

Especially the last one in book 2.  They made me gag when I listened to some MIDIs of them, seriously.

First of all, don't listen to MIDIs. And, if you have a decent recording and you still don't like the music, then why should you bother trying to like it? You either like it or you don't. And who knows, in a while, the pieces may grow on you. I didn't like the Rach 3 or Busoni concerto when I first heard them. Now they are among my favorite pieces. But you shouldn't try to like a piece. That's a pointless waste of time.

[JCarey]

Ur completely retarted...
If you dont like debussy, what can you like?

"Retarded" is spelled with a D. 

Debussy isn't for everyone, just like Sorabji, Rachmaninoff, Bach, Liszt, MOZART, etc. aren't for everyone. We all have different tastes.

Do you honestly think that Lisle Joyeuse can be appreciated by everybody?

Trust me, I know the answer is no from experience.

[contrapunctus]

So, in order for music to be enjoyable, it has to have a melody? I don't see the logic.

Alright, I see Debussy as trying to paint a picture with musical notes; however, I do not consider that music even though he uses musical notes. He is making a picture out of sound; he is not making music. Ever since before the Impressionistic period music always had a melody, Debussy does not always have a melody. But, I do consider his works that have a melody to be music. I know this may be a hard concept but try to understand.

First of all, don't listen to MIDIs. And, if you have a decent recording and you still don't like the music, then why should you bother trying to like it? You either like it or you don't. And who knows, in a while, the pieces may grow on you. I didn't like the Rach 3 or Busoni concerto when I first heard them. Now they are among my favorite pieces. But you shouldn't try to like a piece. That's a pointless waste of time.

I also believe that if I have to listen to it over and over again before I can stand it, it is not worth it.

[jas]

Ur completely retarted...
If you dont like debussy, what can you like?

While I think Contrapunctus's original post is full of crap, yours is no better, given what your signature says.

Jas

[ravel]

well,
As Aaron Copland, explains in his book :" what to listen for in music"  , melody is not the only thing, AND not every composer is equally gifted as a melodist. The example he gives is: how stravinsky's melodies are comparitively unimportant, but prokofiev on the other hand, works a seemingly inexhaustible well of melodies. yet few people would say that prokofiev is the greater composer ( in my opinion , they are both out of this world, and i dont prefer one to the other , even though ,i love prokofievs piano works more).
Melody in debussy's pieces are extremely fragmentary, especially in his later pieces ( i think Pierre Boulez even used the word Musical Pointillism , to describe his music), and therefore , the preludes have really short melodies, its not that it doenst have a melody, its just that its short enough that you dont realise it , before another melody pops up.
whatever it is,  Debussy is one of the greatest musical geniuses  that ever existed.  He rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   i love ALL of his music.
but thats my opinion .
and oh ya , i love all his preludes.  but the first time i heard them ,  i didnt like all of them, infact out of the 24 preludes, i only liked 3 or 4 to begin with, and i was quite dissapointed with the rest , to begin with,  but when i heard those pieces again, it started making sense,  and now i am obsessed with not only all of his preludes but all of his music. so , atleast try listening a couple of times more. you dont have to keep listening 20 times , cuz if you dont like it , you dont. but atleast give it a fair chance, listen to it  a couple of times more. things might start making more sense.

[JCarey]

Alright, I see Debussy as trying to paint a picture with musical notes; however, I do not consider that music even though he uses musical notes. He is making a picture out of sound; he is not making music. Ever since before the Impressionistic period music always had a melody, Debussy does not always have a melody. But, I do consider his works that have a melody to be music. I know this may be a hard concept but try to understand.

Oh no, it's not difficult to understand. It's just wrong.

So, by your logic, the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 22nd Sonata isn't music? Sorabji's toccata from his set of 2 pieces isn't music? Bach's 2nd Prelude from the WTC in C Minor isn't music? I wouldn't say any of these have "melodies", at least by what seems to be your definition. But saying they aren't music is, for lack of a better work, stupid.

[Nightscape]

When I was younger (a few years ago), I didn't particularly care for the preludes.  I thought they were very odd sounding, the harmonies were bizarre to my ears.  But since that time, something has changed because now I love them.  I plan to learn all of them within the next year (I have already completed Book I).  In general, I like the second book better because they are even more refined in his late style and the book seemed more unified (like Rachmaninoff's second set of preludes).

But the point is, you can't expect to like Debussy at first if all you're used to is Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms.  It's like expecting someone to enjoy red wine the first time when all they've ever drank is water and juice.  Yet even though red wine is disgusting for most the first time, how does that explain the fact that there are things in existence like wine clubs?  Debussy is an acquired taste that demands a lot of attention at first but is well worth it.  There are things he expresses in music that composers before him never came close to doing.  For example, listen to the second prelude of Book II ("Dead Leaves").  What other piece expresses so well the delicate beauty, yet serene despair of such a sad scene?  It almost brings tears to my eyes (I'm sure a live performace would too)  I love how Debussy isn't afraid to hold back either - too often in Baroque, Classical, and Romantic works there is a flurry of neverending notes and a plethora of cliches which tends to overlook the small side of life, the microcosmos if you will.

Just trust me on this, listen to a real recording of them now, and even if you don't like them, there's a good chance that they'll plant a fertile seed inside of you.  Come back and relisten to them a few years from now and you just might see what we're all talking about (that is, if we aren't crazy of course).

[alzado]

I have not read all the replies to your original posting.

However, I have read your posting with care.

From what I gather, you are not overly taken with Debussy's Preludes.

To put it differently, your enthusiasm for them is less than total.

Or, one could say, your excitement about playing them has cooled somewhat.


Well, there are so many other composers, just find one you like and purchase some of that composer's music.

Forget Debussy and move on.

[gorbee natcase]

This is all a bit touchy touchy, and some of the language used is obsene. I think that was a little unnecessary to be so harsh to someone who is obviously looking for some insight into Debussy, perhaps theres an idea.

[thorn]

Debussy spews *** from every orifice of his body. Period.

I could say the exact same thing about Bach. The difference is, I appreciate that I have different tastes to anyone who could possibly like Bach, and that those tastes arent necessarily better or worse than those people's.

Debussy is the greatest musician that has or ever will existed. Bach isnt a musician, he's a mathematician. But that's just my opinion- it doesnt count for anything, or mean anything to anyone but me. Music is subjective- you cant possibly say that any particular style of music is crap, even if thats what you think.

[apion]

I agree that Debussy spews.

But I don't agree that he spews from EACH AND EVERY ORIFICE (I can think of some exceptions)

[mikey6]

I also believe that if I have to listen to it over and over again before I can stand it, it is not worth it.

That's what makes it great - if you keep on listening to pieces, you begin to discover things you didn't pick up on the first hearing or second or even third.  Perhaps if you listen to them again (and PLEASE!!!!!! not a freakin midi file!- hopefully you're not basing your opinion of these pieces solely on a midi file!) you might like them.
On the other hand,if you just don't appreciate the impressionist 'sound' - (do you like ravel's impressionistic pieces?) the try Debussy's earlier works, more romantic in spirit.
But seriously a comment like your subject heading bashing what I would think most people agree to be milestones in the history of piano literature is somewhat un-called for!

[fred smalls]

While I think Contrapunctus's original post is full of crap, yours is no better, given what your signature says.

Jas

tell me how mine is worthless...

no one can dislike debussy

your a prick just like phillip glass.... go write some monotonous piece that plays the same notes for 25 minutes


btw

i dont care if ive spelt anything wrong




peac
fred smalls

[jas]

... You don't see the irony in your comments about Debussy and Philip Glass?

your a prick just like phillip glass....

Well done. You've just proved me right.

[steve jones]

Lol. I love it when someone starts a really controversial thread, then bails after the first couple of posts. Let the festivities commence 

As for Debussy...

I think this guy probably is more offended by chromatic and atonal styles than he is particular by this composer. I can see where he is coming from - I mean, you dont tend to hum this stuff while in the shower do you?

And that really is the nuts and bolts of this argument. Some people like music they whistle on the way to work, others like something a little more challenging. I love both, and evidently so did the late, great Debussy.

I think if you want to appreciate this type of music, you really need to banish all expectation of safety and be prepared for something jarring and unpredicatable. I would assume this is why these styles are so popular in movie score - they are so effective in creating suspense and tension.

Contrapunctus,

If you're still around, I recommend you consider all music of this style in a completely different light. This about how it makes you feel - what it communicates to you. If it makes you want to be sick, then that is a great testiment to its effectiveness! Infact, if I could write or produce music that powerful, I would be an extremely good composer 

[contrapunctus]

Lol. I love it when someone starts a really controversial thread, then bails after the first couple of posts. Let the festivities commence 

As for Debussy...

I think this guy probably is more offended by chromatic and atonal styles than he is particular by this composer. I can see where he is coming from - I mean, you dont tend to hum this stuff while in the shower do you?

And that really is the nuts and bolts of this argument. Some people like music they whistle on the way to work, others like something a little more challenging. I love both, and evidently so did the late, great Debussy.

I think if you want to appreciate this type of music, you really need to banish all expectation of safety and be prepared for something jarring and unpredicatable. I would assume this is why these styles are so popular in movie score - they are so effective in creating suspense and tension.

Contrapunctus,

If you're still around, I recommend you consider all music of this style in a completely different light. This about how it makes you feel - what it communicates to you. If it makes you want to be sick, then that is a great testiment to its effectiveness! Infact, if I could write or produce music that powerful, I would be an extremely good composer 

Alright, this is how I see it:    1st  theory) Music consists of melody and a harmony, just like a sentence consistes of a noun and a verb. If you do not have either one you do not have music (melodies without harmonies are called plainsongs--these were written in the middle ages and were mainly religious chants)

2nd theory) There are two types of art forms that use musical notes. The 1st school is what I consider "music" (melody and harmony).  The second is what I like to call musical pictures, where you paint a picture with musial notes which I do not consider "music"  You can suscribe to either school or both, I just do not subscribe the the "Musical picture" school.

[steve jones]

Music imo is organised sound, designed to express emotion. You might say, 'well what about aleatoric music?', but even this has a degree of organisation and rule. I think your two descriptions are way to narrow. I mean, some music is made up entirely of rhythmic elements, with no pitched sound at all. But this is still music.

Again, consider the movie sound - dialog, ambience, fx, foley etc are not music. The score, no matter how unfamiliar, is music. It is an organisation of sound intended to supply and manipulate the emotion within the pictures.

[mrchops10]

Interesting idea. But couldn't I say exactly the same about language--"organized sound, designed to express emotion" and thoughts and perceptions, all also within the realm of music. Yet language is not generally considered music, with the possible exceptions of spoken word poetry and Schoenberg-esque melodramas. I think music generally resists such definitions.

[steve jones]

mrchops10,

True, true...

I guess I should probably reword that a little better - not the easiest of things to articulate!  I think my description, however flawed, is along the right lines. It could probably making even more vague by say something like 'music is the art of sound' or the like 

Perhaps it could be said that music is "organized sound, designed to express emotion and thoughts and perceptions" through artistic means? While language is a direct communication?

I dont know, its late and my brain went bed hours ago, lol.

[mrchops10]

To paraphrase Judge Potter Stewart: "I can't define it, but I know it when I hear it." As good a "definition" as any. And I refuse to add anymore comments to this thread, because I hate seeing that title on the top of the reportoire list.

[invictus]

Impressionistic works are beautiful, and my fav is Debussy. His works are so, fluidy.
I understand not all of the people like it, like Reflets Dan L'eau, the chords might actually get some frowns from the audience, but i see green blue (i am synaesthaesic) when i close my eyes. Its a very beacutiful piece. But for those of you who don't like 'em, well, go back to play your good ol' reliable Chopin or Liszt.