the profession of m. croche, according to debussy, was 'antidilettante.' he was anti tradition for the sake of learning only from tradition. he wanted to break away. and the only way to do this for himself was to be supercritical of what he was listening to. if he liked it, he liked it (not for the sake of someone being a supposed 'master'). of course, for people who like all of bach, mozart andbeethoven's works, or all of whomever...some of debussy's thoughts sound terrible. flaying composer's after they are dead? but, for debussy, this was a way for him to start thinking of how he would branch off onto 'his own island' of reculsivity and create something totally unique.
"i recall the parallel he drew (m. croche) between beethoven's orchestra, which he spoke of as in black and white (and therefore giving a marvelous scale of grays) and wagner's, which he said was like a kind of muticolored putty, perfectly evenly spread, where he could no longer differentiate between the sound of the violin and that of a trombone."
"haven't you noticed the hostility of the concert-hall audiences? haven't you seen those faces, gray with boredom, with indifference, even with stupidity? they are never the slightest bit involved in the pure drama that is the very essence of symphonic conflict! never do they even consider the pieces as edifices in sound, and they certainly never breathe so much as an ounce of their beauty! these people, monsieur, give one the impression of being more or less well-brought-up guests. they patiently suppress their boredom, and would leave were it not for the fact that they love to be seen on the way out. you must admit that this is just the way to end up with a lifetime's horror of music."
to understand why debussy was so critical, through his alter ego m. croche, is probably best done by understanding his need to critique music after it was played. not for the sake of critique, but to see what the listener understood. from his vantage point, not many people were able to hold a dialogue or conversation to his liking after a performance. (interesting advice - when listening - think about what you are listening to) you'd think debussy was into daydreaming when listening to his music. was this a sort of pun?
ok. debussy goes on to ask himself (m croche) if he was a musician. "i dared not tell him that i was almost convinced by his arguments (nothing kills a conversation so easily as agreement), so instead i asked him if he was a musician." "monsieur," he replied, "i do not like specialists. for me, to specialize is to limit the boundaries of one's universe. one becomes like the wooden horses on a merry-go-round: they die to the well-known strains of the 'marche lorraine.' no, i've heard all the music there is to hear, and all i've gained is a peculiar feeling of being immune to any kind of surprise. two bars, and i can tell you what a symphony or any other kind of piece is all about."
sounds kind of flippant, but in reality, probably partially true. we are used to the 'masters,' though debussy is counted among them now - and is part of his own criticism. was he worried he wouldn't be counted among them, or would be? who knows? i just think he's really a thinking person. he thought for himself.
my favorite part of the first 'story' is the following last part of the conversation debussy has with himself - promoting nature as the truest music and setting. "music contains so many impulses you could write a song about them. my favorite music is those few notes an egyptian shepherd plays on his flute: he is a part of the landscape around him, and he knows harmonies that aren't in our books." (debussy didn't realize how much like beethoven he was in this matter)
"the musicians hear only music written by practiced hands, never the music of nature herself. to see the sun rise does one far more good than hearing the pastoral symphony. what's the use of such incomprehensible art? shouldn't all those complications be forbidden? we learn them only because they are as ingenious as a strong-box lock. but you don't agree. because you know nothing but music and are subject to her obscure and barbarous laws! a lot of clever words are written about you, but you're merely a cross between a monkey and a domestique."
what i take from debussy is that musicians also have two sides. one side is what you learn in college, and the other, what you listen to outside of that. you can listen for the music in conversation (which mozart definately did), in nature, in birds, in a pastorale setting (which we don't see anymore, sadly), in the changes of seasons, in the wind, in the water. these are things that a painter or writer would notice. we have to become more than musicians. we have to become artists. that is all debussy was trying to say, imo. just as chopin was kind to schumann, i think we can be kind to debussy, for after all, he was expressing the other half of himself (the one that fought his own self) to extend his hearing range to things that he often 'tuned out.'
Topic: understanding debussy