Imbeciles and Impressionism

[zolaxi]

My provocative title was prompted by the description on pianostreet of Ravel's music as belonging to the Impressionist Period. The word 'imbecile' was of course used by Debussy to describe those who insisted on associating his music with impressionism. 

Writers and music scholars are not all of one mind regarding this topic. To cite some examples taken from books I happen to have on hand:

1. William W. Austin writing in "Music in the Twentieth Century" describes impressionism as "the first and foremost of many catchwords of modern music, introduced by hurried journalists to pique the curiosity of hurried readers, and then preserved by compilers of reference books ...... where their uncertain connotations are apt to mislead."

2. Otto Deri in "exploring twentieth-century music" (sic) claims that a "questionable label" such as impressionism applied to music "should be regarded with suspicion".

3. Harman and Mellers, writing in "Man and his Music" manage to discuss the music of Debussy and Ravel with only one passing mention of the word impressionism.

4. And yet, when Joseph Machlis in his "Introduction to Contemporary Music" devotes a Chapter 18 to "Impressionist Methods", he proceeds to describe the characteristics of Debussy's music, with every musical example referring to Debussy.

5. An article in Wikipedia, "Impressionist music" describes the impressionist movement. Nonsense from beginning to end.

OK, this is not a comprehensive list or survey, but it does perhaps demonstrate that opinions are divided in this area. I don't want to start a textbook shootout, where this book says this, this one that. But rather, perhaps some of us here might care to reconsider (or consider) the use of this term when applied to music.  Just think about it!!

For me, the term impressionism as applied to music is at best unhelpful, and at worst, misleading. Using such a term does nothing to illuminate in any way the place of a composer like Debussy in the history of music. Debussy is far more than just someone who liked to use strange harmonies which broke all the rules, gave his pieces descriptive titles and used exotic scales.

And Ravel, composer of the impressionist period! Where did that come from?

Furthermore, talk of an impressionist movement in music, an impressionist period or an impressionist school of composition .... well, come on, we can do better than that. Perhaps we should pay more attention to Debussy's words and not join the imbeciles!!

[alessandro]

If there is a certain goal besides "discussing" I haven't understood it, but if it's for some conversation, I'm in.

Why, referring to point 1 and 2 in your topic, feel "mislead" or "suspicion" towards the label 'impressionistic' ? Was it a "movement", I don't know, but it's definitely a nice chosen word to link to the music of Debussy.   I'm not shocked.   It's indeed very journalistic to label things, but journalists are often the people that 'invent' new words and connotations.   They are not always "deep" in thought, but they make integral part of contemporary writing, actively, and than of course words and thought are (or not) picked up by society and live their own life.   (Has there ever been a 'naturalistic' stream in music ? Messiaen could be part of it with the 'catalogue d'oiseaux'.)  The "pointillistic" branch in impressionism, matches very well with pianoplaying.   The little strokes of the brush, the little dots of paint, are often very small spots the size of a fingertip, as if it could have been painted with fingertips.   Then there is the piano that is really a wonderful instrument to recreate effects out of life, a good example is 'watery' feelings, were it a small streaming river, and ocean, or wrinkles on a lake, these are very much 'piano'.  And also because of the "size" of the sound, in some way monumental, why not hear a vast landscape, a mountain, thunder, etcetera.   So that is a start.   Of course, one can exaggerate also; is there music that can sound like a impressionistically painted can of tomato-soup ? Perhaps, why not ? I have no problem with 'impressionism' in music.   And I indeed think that Debussy wrote very impressionistic music.   Maybe he was even aware of the limitations of the piano, his music evokes weather (storm, sun...), elements (water, fire...) and landscapes, wideness, highness, cathedrals...   

There is an actual worldwide "vibe" over food these days, food is in, cooking becomes a passion for some people, a sauce is not only tasty but can be "sexy" these days, I wouldn't be surprised that one can cook in a cubist way, (there was 'fusion' in cuisine, no ?)

There is cross-pollination within the different disciplins in art.   I think this "labelling-thing" can reveal more on the properties of language and some human tendency to find words, language to express things, than it can express about music.   Words that match music are really, really rare.

Kind, expressionistic greetings to you all.

[keyboardclass]

The music certainly sounds impressionistic (as opposed to expressionistic - Schonberg, Webern, Berg et al.) but then maybe I'm an imbecile?

[nyiregyhazi]

The music certainly sounds impressionistic (as opposed to expressionistic - Schonberg, Webern, Berg et al.) but then maybe I'm an imbecile?

In what respect though- if any other than in relation to stylistic qualities that have come to be associated with the terms? If we just look at it with regard to how an "impression" or an "expression" is defined, is there really anything about the musical styles that would be more likely inherently like to evoke one word over the other? Or it simple our knowledge of existing classifications? In painting it makes far more sense. Impressionists created vague impressions of the scenes that they recreated, whereas expressionists distorted things to express deeper feeling than they could through mere recreation- often making contrasts starker, rather than merely blending things into a vague impression. Seeing as music doesn't recreate anything, it's basically meaningless. Even if we refer to program music, can anyone make an meaningful and objective differentiation between a musical "impression" of an ocean, say, and a musical "expression" of an ocean? Without a theoretical literal musical depiction being something that could exist for comparison (in the sense that a painting could be compared to a literal photo of what is depicted) it means nothing worthwhile.  

That said, reference to impressionism doesn't tremendously trouble me. There are bigger worries in music than which silly terms get bandied about.

[keyboardclass]

So, The Girl with the Flaxen Hair recreates nothing?  And since when did you know anything about expressionism?

[nyiregyhazi]

So, The Girl with the Flaxen Hair recreates nothing?  And since when did you know anything about expressionism?

In response to your first point, it does not recreate in the same sense that a painting recreates- as I illustrated in my post. Perhaps you feel you would divine an image of a girl with a specific quality of hair merely by listening to the music- had you never heard the title? If so, I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Given a large selection of photos, one could easily identify which scene a typical impressionist painting recreates. This is not so with attempts at musical recreations. Perhaps you could distinguish a storm from a number of placcid scenes. However, nothing specific can reasonably be translated. Only the most superficial and vague characteristics can be transferred. Were there a photo of the specific girl, nobody would have a hope in hell of distinguishing her from photos of other women, by listening to the music. Although the classifications from painting have been carried into music, the relevant context is lost in translation to music. Music inherently makes impressionist painting look like the height of precision- unless viewed in a more abstract light.

In response to your second point, I have been a fan of works such as Berg's Sonata, Pierrot Lunaire and Verklarte Nacht since I was in my early teens. Precisely what leads you to believe I'm unfamiliar with either the music or the movement in general? I don't believe that members are required to declare their personal knowledge in full upon signing up, lest anybody be surprised.

[ramseytheii]

As always, it depends on what people mean when they bandy about these words.  Impressionism might have a specific range of definitions or qualifications in painting, that is not translatable to music.

However, as a general approach, it is undeniable to my mind that Debussy's music is "impressionistic:" he did not develop motives in an academic way, rejected Beethoven's approach of logical musical thought, and titles his pieces in order to suggest a visual effect.  If that is not "impressionistic," what is?

There is no denying that he was after a different aesthetic in his music that was widely accepted at the time.  For me, the major takeaway is the titles, because so often, the visual impression is embodied in the very shape of the music.  Preludes like "Feuilles mortes," "Brouillards," "Feux d'artifice," the list goes on and on, are musical expressions of visual phenomena. 

The subject matter is often closely related to subject matter of contemporary, or earlier, painters who we consider impressionistic.  The water depictions, the bourgeois scenes (the Girl with the Flaxen Hair being very bourgeois), are all straight out of the aesthetic.

Call it simplistic, but you can't claim there is not truth to it.

Walter Ramsey

[werq34ac]

With this INCREDIBLY gross generalization...
French music paints a picture, German music tells a story.
Like all generalizations, it is not entirely true, Countless works do not fit this.
However, if you look at Debussy's Ravel's music, it certainly is more "sensual" rather than speaking  "words" as I feel in Schumann. One can sing in Debussy and Ravel (and I will stick with these two composers since I know almost nothing about the other "Impressionists."), but when one does sing, there is a restrained sense to the singing (there probably are exceptions). It's almost as if you are playing the music from behind a glass so that the music is beautiful, but far away.

Again these are very gross generalizations, but one must admit that one cannot play Jeux D'eau as if it were a Romantic piece.