# Debussy's piano works: is he 'difficult' and if so, why?



## Guest

Listening to Debussy's piano works (Jean-Efflam Bavouzet - I have four out of five of the CD set) I was wondering what piano players, as well as listeners make of them. For example, I am now very familiar with _Suite Bergamasque_ (not just _Clair de Lune_) and was wondering what its merits are, given that Debussy's orchestral works were regarded as initiating the move towards 'modernism'. Is it difficult to play? Does it use unusual forms? If there are other piano pieces that are regarded as ground-breaking for the period, which would they be, and why?

In other words, what should I be listening out for?

Thanks.


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> Listening to Debussy's piano works (Jean-Efflam Bavouzet - I have four out of five of the CD set) I was wondering what piano players, as well as listeners make of them. For example, I am now very familiar with _Suite Bergamasque_ (not just _Clair de Lune_) and was wondering what its merits are, given that Debussy's orchestral works were regarded as initiating the move towards 'modernism'. Is it difficult to play? Does it use unusual forms? If there are other piano pieces that are regarded as ground-breaking for the period, which would they be, and why?
> 
> In other words, what should I be listening out for?
> 
> Thanks.


I'm not a piano player, but I think Debussy's piano works are among the best in the literature. They tended to be ahead of his orchestral works in their radical tendencies.

The problem may be that your ears are overly accustomed to the unresolved dissonances that are littered throughout the Suite Bergamesque, the cascades of gently dissonant chords that are one of Debussy's trademarks. The music is relatively free of the chord function that anchored tonality for centuries. It shifts key on a dime, with little or no preparation. The phrase structure tends to be freer than that of Romantic music, with more asymmetrical groupings. Listen to the Preludes, Books I and II, and the Etudes. Those are more clearly radical, even to our modern ears. But keep in mind that the Suite is itself a significant advance past the earlier 2 Arabesques, for example.

The music is full of rhythmic life and harmonic color, and it needs nothing more.


----------



## mensch

I would say that most if his music is rather hard to play for amateurs. Debussy often replaces the traditional major an minor scales in favour for whole tone, pentatonic and medieval modes, for example. The pentatonic scale is often utilised in his Orientally influenced pieces. 
Apart from the technical hurdles the different rhythmic feel of modern piano music compared to older material (middle to late 19th century and onwards) is also a factor.

Also, there's the extensive use of pedaling to create all the colour and layered textures often heard in his music. Generally Children's Corner is paired with some other pieces; "Clair de lune", which've mentioned already and the Sarabande and Arabesques. Those pieces are relatively less difficult than say the Préludes, but to use the American classification (not sure how accurate this is as I don't live in the US) all his piano music is generally deemed Early Advanced or Advanced.


----------



## violadude

I can play this piece!






If I can play it, it can't be very hard at all, cause I suck


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Listening to Debussy's piano works (Jean-Efflam Bavouzet - I have four out of five of the CD set) I was wondering what piano players, as well as listeners make of them. For example, I am now very familiar with _Suite Bergamasque_ (not just _Clair de Lune_) and was wondering what its merits are, given that Debussy's orchestral works were regarded as initiating the move towards 'modernism'. Is it difficult to play? Does it use unusual forms? If there are other piano pieces that are regarded as ground-breaking for the period, which would they be, and why?
> 
> In other words, what should I be listening out for?
> 
> Thanks.


In other words, "If Debussy is such a modernist, then why does he sound so 'normal' and easy to listen to? Why is he "difficult?" What should I be listening for in order to hear this modernism? I want proof! Come on, prove it..."

You're not going to hear his most radical musings in the "Suite Bergamesque," which contains *"Claire de lune,"* for God's sake! That's music that "little old ladies" like! My mother played it!

Much of his music is still "harmonic" and uses the same "toolkit" as CP tonality: chords, triads based on thirds, fifths for stability, resolutions, melodic phrasing, rhythmic phrasing which is very intelligible, "A-B" sections of contrasting tonality, harmonic materials derived from scales, etc., and most of it is "pretty."

Where he is "modern" is in his discarding traditional CP chord function, replacing it with use of parallel chord movement, use of exotic scales, whole-tone scale and diminished-scale "suspensions" of tonal centers, folk elements (pentatonic scales), and other stuff.

Listen to "Images: Cloches à travers les feuilles;" it uses the whole-tone scale in places; yet it still "resolves" and goes to 2 different "V" or dominant sounding areas.

"Images: Et la lune descend" is very "suspended" sounding, and uses parallel chord movement, dissonant chords containing both 5 and b5, stacked fifths, pent scales, but it never settles down into one key. It wanders through B, D, A, Bb....

There's some radical-sounding stuff in the Préludes, book II: in "Brouillards." It starts with Bb-Gb-Eb-Db descending figure over a C-E-G major triad; the top can be considered as a Gb pentatonic scale (_sans_ the Ab), or as contrasting the chords C Maj and Gb Maj in a "tritone" relation, _à la_ Stravinsky's _Rite_ chord. There are very few barlines to speak of; just take a look at the sheet music.

"Préludes, book II: Feuilles mortes" uses parallel chords, and "7#9" chords; in "La puerta del vino" there's more 7#9 sounds, and an exotic Spanish feel;

"Les fées sont d'exqises dansueses" once again "freaks out" into unidentifiable harmonic territory. Everything sounds like it's "floating" or under water.


----------



## PetrB

Debussy won first prize in piano performance while at the Conservatoire, before winning the Prix de Rome. First prize from such an institution is the equivalent to 'the gold medal' as given out in other conservatories, like the Moscow, the school in Den Hague, etc. He was, simply, a very high-end virtuoso pianist. _(This was the composer / pianist to whom Stravinsky brought the four-hand piano reduction of Le Sacre -- to show Debussy, whom Stravinsky admired greatly.The two then sat down, with Debussy cold sight-reading one of the two parts.)_ (Claude had very serious chops

The Études, without their being directly modeled, are certainly inspired by the Chopin Etudes. The Debussy etudes stand side by side such literature, highly esteemed by musicians everywhere and both warily approached and highly esteemed by those most advanced pianists. Without any exaggeration, they are as brilliant, profoundly musical, and just as 'outre' musically adventurous and technically difficult as Chopin's were, and are, to the present day.

Like the Chopin Études, they are not 'student pieces' by any means, perhaps save but for a very few of the 'most advanced conservatory students.' - at least if one is going to give them a near creditable performance. In conservatory, they are more likely to be assigned to a master's degree performance major than an undergrad.

Musically, they are in the realm of the most 'abstract' of Debussy's overall ouevre, to me at any rate, 'up there' at a level of abstraction -- or beyond -- the orchestral ballet score, "Jeux." Also as in Chopin's Études, their 'themes' are specific pianistic problems set, to be mastered, while remaining fantastic music in their own right.

[I really wonder, especially from what I've seen on TC, why so many people, as listener, are apparently so concerned with 'form.' But since you asked...] The Études tend to be each 'monothematic,' and have a number with playful 'interjections' of music of another type, while strictly adhering to the technical problem each one poses and holds. "For the five fingers," "For the thirds," "Composite Arpeggios," are about as 'descriptive' as it gets. (Étude 6 -- for the eight fingers, isolates and omits the use of the thumb in both hands, throughout -- something which leaves us poor mortal pianists without an 'anchor' and totally throws off all playing habits thought of as 'intuitive' in relation to negotiating the instrument  For each titles, intent, inspiration base, or content, that is all the composer gives us.

(Debussy's preludes were written and titled, often, after the fact. In the index and score -- original Durand edition -- they are titled by Number only, the sub-title only appearing at the double bar -- as if to tell the reader, 'you are on your own to make of this music what you will, but while or after I was writing it, this analog notion I had seemed to be appropriate to the music. -- a much greater percent of Debussy's output has far less to do with musical pictorialism, representation, or narrative of a story than is often thought. Blame whomever called it 'impressionism,' because it was not Debussy who ever thought to call it that 

The Études are highly abstract, heavy duty and daunting, like Chopin's Études, intended for and requiring a professional's technical arsenal prior approach. The listener's task is completely different, and only demands you listen with attention to 'what you hear.' Just like a listener does not need to know much of the problems inherent in the Chopin Études -- leave those to the performer. Don't let any of what you know of their technicality detract from the beauty or brilliance of their abstract sound.

[An odd bit of trivia -- Debussy never played with the lid of the piano up, neither full or partial; he always left the lid down.]

Two asides: Very often in Debussy when he is using whole tone scales, you will hear also some diatonic material along with it, or in 'opposition' to the whole tone material. A type of polytonlity, it is the juxtaposition, or alternating between the two, which sets up a simultaneous tension, polarity and 'ambiguity.'

On pedaling: The pianos of Debussy's time did not have the now-standard sostenuto (middle) pedal. It is a mistake to use it. If there is a bass note written which cannot possibly be held, the damper pedal is intended. Many a performer overdoes the pedal while performing Debussy (very little is marked) as or more often as is the same case when they perform Chopin, both require a ton of flutter-pedaling, and a lot of demi-pedal applied, here, there. They were not either too keen on flat-out 'pedal effects' - what effects there are are very subtle, though at times they do seem still, 'dramatic.'

ADD:
Monique Haas, Piano (First in a generation who knew 'how the music goes)




The 'Masques,' also on the link, is 'narrative,' though we are never told 'exactly what' and a nicely freakish spooky and dark Debussy it is; one gets a notion that there is more than an illicit tryst going on at this masque, perhaps 'even a murder.'

Debussy on their difficulty of execution, "a warning to pianists not to take up the musical profession unless they have remarkable hands".
http://pianosociety.com/cms/index.php?section=156
Lol, now that I've looked, I could have just copied and pasted their copy instead of....

ADD TWO (and last 
Mitsuko Uchida


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> In other words, "If Debussy is such a modernist, then why does he sound so 'normal' and easy to listen to? Why is he "difficult?" What should I be listening for in order to hear this modernism? I want proof! Come on, prove it..."


Why not take what I wrote at face value, instead of inferring 'other words'? I'm not asking for 'proof'. I genuinely don't recognise the components of modernism that are in his music. This is to do with my ignorance of musical form and terminology, not to do with disbelief, scepticism, self-aggrandisement or anything else you might like to read into it.



millionrainbows said:


> You're not going to hear his most radical musings in the "Suite Bergamesque," which contains *"Claire de lune,"* for God's sake! That's music that "little old ladies" like! My mother played it!


Well, I guess that makes me a little old lady and your mother a very discerning player!


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Why not take what I wrote at face value, instead of inferring 'other words'? I'm not asking for 'proof'. I genuinely don't recognise the components of medernism that are in his music. This is to do with my ignorance of musical form and terminology, not to do with disbelief, scepticism, self-aggrandisement or anything else you might like to read into it.
> 
> Well, I guess that makes me a little old lady and your mother a very discerning player!


Get the Preludes Book II and listen.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Get the Preludes Book II and listen.


I second this remark, but furthermore, if you can don't look at the titles until after the individual pieces finish. That's the way they're written in the score. (If you don't understand French or your French is as lousy as mine, don't look at a translation until after each piece is finished.) Let the pieces work as abstract music first and foremost.


----------



## Guest

L'isle joyeuse is very difficult:


----------



## stanchinsky

The only thing I can add that is especially evident in his piano music is his unrestrictive use of parallel fifths and octaves.


----------



## Guest

stanchinsky said:


> The only thing I can add that is especially evident in his piano music is his unrestrictive use of parallel fifths and octaves.


I very much appreciate the efforts made so far to point me towards the things that I should be listening to, but I feel like the school boy who's just learned to say, "Je parle le francais" and been given the first chapter of Hugo's _Les Miserables_ to read! My French teacher used to say that you couldn't be a fluent speaker until you stopped turning every French word you hear into an English word before you can understand it. So, you say 'parallel fifths', and you hear what he's playing. I read 'parallel fifths', and I see two words that need translating.

By parallel fifths, do you mean playing fifths in both hands? Can you explain why his 'unrestricted use' of these combinations is so distinctive or unusual? I mean, surely Beethoven/Liszt must have sat at the piano and messed around and played with these things? Don't get me wrong. I know whether I'm listening to Debussy or Beethoven - my ear can tell the difference, but I just don't know, technically, what I'm listening to.



Mahlerian said:


> I second this remark, but furthermore, if you can don't look at the titles until after the individual pieces finish. That's the way they're written in the score. (If you don't understand French or your French is as lousy as mine, don't look at a translation until after each piece is finished.) Let the pieces work as abstract music first and foremost.





Mahlerian said:


> The problem may be that your ears are overly accustomed to the unresolved dissonances that are littered throughout the Suite Bergamesque, the cascades of gently dissonant chords that are one of Debussy's trademarks. The music is relatively free of the chord function that anchored tonality for centuries. It shifts key on a dime, with little or no preparation. The phrase structure tends to be freer than that of Romantic music, with more asymmetrical groupings. Listen to the Preludes, Books I and II, and the Etudes. Those are more clearly radical, even to our modern ears. But keep in mind that the Suite is itself a significant advance past the earlier 2 Arabesques, for example.
> 
> The music is full of rhythmic life and harmonic color, and it needs nothing more.


Too late. I've been listening to the Preludes for some time and read all the liner notes! Sunken Cathedral and Girl with the Flaxen Hair are very accessible, and, as you say, very familiar, but the rest have not yet resolved themselves as distinct pieces.

Your opinion of the Suite is clearly not quite the same as millionrainbows. Where he hears old ladies' music, you hear 'significant advance past the Arabesques' (both of which I love, so I assume I'm a sucker for his more conventional works, with an obvious 'melody'!?)



PetrB said:


> [I really wonder, especially from what I've seen on TC, why so many people, as listener, are apparently so concerned with 'form.' But since you asked...] The Études tend to be each 'monothematic,' and have a number with playful 'interjections' of music of another type, while strictly adhering to the technical problem each one poses and holds. "For the five fingers," "For the thirds," "Composite Arpeggios," are about as 'descriptive' as it gets. (Étude 6 -- for the eight fingers, isolates and omits the use of the thumb in both hands, throughout -- something which leaves us poor mortal pianists without an 'anchor' and totally throws off all playing habits thought of as 'intuitive' in relation to negotiating the instrument  For each titles, intent, inspiration base, or content, that is all the composer gives us.
> 
> (Debussy's preludes were written and titled, often, after the fact. In the index and score -- original Durand edition -- they are titled by Number only, the sub-title only appearing at the double bar -- as if to tell the reader, 'you are on your own to make of this music what you will, but while or after I was writing it, this analog notion I had seemed to be appropriate to the music. -- a much greater percent of Debussy's output has far less to do with musical pictorialism, representation, or narrative of a story than is often thought. Blame whomever called it 'impressionism,' because it was not Debussy who ever thought to call it that
> 
> The Études are highly abstract, heavy duty and daunting, like Chopin's Études, intended for and requiring a professional's technical arsenal prior approach. The listener's task is completely different, and only demands you listen with attention to 'what you hear.' Just like a listener does not need to know much of the problems inherent in the Chopin Études -- leave those to the performer. Don't let any of what you know of their technicality detract from the beauty or brilliance of their abstract sound.
> 
> [An odd bit of trivia -- Debussy never played with the lid of the piano up, neither full or partial; he always left the lid down.]
> 
> Two asides: Very often in Debussy when he is using whole tone scales, you will hear also some diatonic material along with it, or in 'opposition' to the whole tone material. A type of polytonlity, it is the juxtaposition, or alternating between the two, which sets up a simultaneous tension, polarity and 'ambiguity.'


Thanks for the links - which I shall explore later when my guests have gone home and I can switch the sound back on the PC at this hour in the morning!

Again, your pointers are helpful. Does 'diatonic' mean playing pairs of adjacent notes? As for the Etudes, that is one of the two new CDs I got for Xmas, so have started to listen to them (no liner notes to hand for the moment then!)

I'm interested in the connection with Stravinsky. I'm very familiar with Le Sacre, but not much else. Is that because, once again, that is a more accessible work and easier to become familiar with? And if it is, is it just because of the melodic patterns? And what was it that made it such an outrageous piece for its time?


----------



## tdc

^ I could take a stab at answering some of these questions, I'm sure the others can elaborate further, or correct me if I'm wrong on any of this:

- Parallel 5ths/ 8ths refers to chord progressions, the traditional rule being that if you use a 5th or 8th (interval) between any two voices of a chord, they should not be the same interval in those two voices in the next chord in the progression. Your ear would be very used to parallel 5ths and 8ths as they are commonly used in most modern popular music. A fifth is another term for a 'power chord', think about how many rock songs are written with just power chords in the rhythm guitar - that's a lot of parallel 5ths!

- 'Diatonic' refers to the notes of the major or minor scale,(whereas 'chromatic' refers to playing adjacent notes or using all 12 notes of the 'chromatic scale'). So in other words in the example quoted Debussy would juxtapose a normal 'Diatonic scale' with the more exotic 'whole-tone scale' creating a type of polytonality.

- Stravinsky's Rite was mostly outrageous for its unprecedentedly advanced use of rhythms (_polyrhythms_ the rhythmic equivalent of _polytonality_ = more than one simultaneous rhythm written in the score, as well as constantly changing time signatures), why you find it accessible I could not answer.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> I can play this piece!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I can play it, it can't be very hard at all, cause I suck


And what about these, from the same suite? 
Serenade of the doll




The snow is Dancing





Ah, now that is another story!


----------



## PetrB

A fifth is the '1 and 5 of a triad, without the third. It is a very instantly recognizable 'hollow' sounding interval, and 'old school' theory has it that if they run 'parallel' - appear in a score one after the next (which is very clear if you literally trace a straight line from the '1 and 5' of the first interval to the next interval) that the effect produced 'sounds wrong' / stands out like a red barn on a green prairie, and all the rest.

I appreciate your wanting / having a go at getting a handle about 'what is modern' about it -- one of the best ways is to listen to other late romantic 'conventional' music written around the same time, lots, in a sort of 'immersion' then listen to some Debussy - the context, contrast, won't need words, the effect will then be visceral and apparent to the ears.

In a way, it is nearly impossible for any of us to 'hear' how radical, dissonant, and wild any of Beethoven is: we know, again by context, that some of that literally knocked the sox off the listeners of the day -- I think it was Carl Maria von Weber who wrote after the premiere of Beethoven's Seventh that Luigi was now certifiable, and clearly ready for being carted off to the insane asylum -- who of us could possibly hear it from that perspective? Even as a neophyte to conscious listening, in that regard we are all cursed with 'modern' ears.

One 'trouble' is 'what Debussy did' which was so radical very quickly permeated, or occurred near simultaneously, in both classical and pop music... the business of 'chords not used as per common practice function' is a fundament of 'what is Jazz,' for example. We will never have 'conservative ears from 1890,' ever, by which to hear this music as it might have sounded to some of his contemporaries.

Re: 'Abstract.' Preludes, Book 1 no.6 "Des pas sur la Neige.' - 'music made of nothing' some might say, a theme of intervals, seconds, and pivotal harmonic play -- one of the most 'beautiful' and 'all about music' of the first book, imho.

When I said whole tone + 'Diatonic' -- 'diatonic' is the technical term for the 'normal' seven note scale, the common practice use of chords from that. Debussy juxtaposed the two, just as someone writes in two simultaneous keys = polytonality. This 'pulls' the ear in several directions, making the listener very unsure of where 'home base' is, and the effect of the whole tone and the normal scale interacting makes for a lot of varied combinations, just like a harmonic minor scale in Bach or Mozart made for more combinations of chords, color and texture.

While recalling that Brahms was not long dead, Wagner still a huge influence on musical style, at the same time, do listen through Camille Saint-Saens' "La muse et le poète" composed in 1910.... Pop THIS into a playlist with 'Le Sacre' to play immediately thereafter....








and I think you will get the context of why Le Sacre was such a shock to the general public, accustomed and gravitating to the likes of the Saint-Saens! (The dress rehearsal of Le Sacre, audience comprised of the arts community, had the work well received... the opening night, with the general public, there was that 'Parisienne' riot... another factor of 'context' is the audience  Le Sacre, within its score, is loaded with Russian folk melodies, or Stravinsky-penned 'tunes' very much like Russian Folk Melodies. Harmonically, and even more so, rhythmically, it is 'way out there' in comparison to the music in general play for audiences of that time.

Context is really almost everything, every time.... With an open and 'modern' ear, we now hear the Stravinsky (it is one hundred! years old this year) from our own context of accumulated musical experiences, ditto Debussy. Conscious of it or not, classical music fans and those who have never followed classical music have nearly all heard the most extreme avant-garde 'Ligeti-like' or beyond music in one or more film scores, Jazz, you name it: what we are accustomed to has much to do with the perspective on what was once 'alarmingly dissonant,' or 'radical.' [In Mozart's time, he was criticized as being pretty damned dissonant... 'all those minor thirds, you know.' Well, if you have a 'ding-dong' chime doorbell, you live with a minor third.]

Stravinsky and Debussy were familiars and much admired each others work, They were for a period, considered friends, friendly colleagues. Stravinsky wrote two works specifically dedicated to Debussy, the earlier (from 1912, one year prior 'Le Sacre') is a tribute, ""Zvezdolikiy" -- _king of the stars_ -- a brief, rather remarkable piece in a most interesting vein the composer did not later develop: it has some 'referential' use of Debussy like harmony and orchestration.





The second, a highly austere 'in memoriam' upon Debussy's death - Symphonies d'instruments à vent:


----------



## PetrB

A fifth is the '1 and 5 of a triad, without the third. It is a very instantly recognizable 'hollow' sounding interval, and 'old school' theory has it that if they run 'parallel' - appear in a score one after the next (which is very clear if you literally trace a straight line from the '1 and 5' of the first interval to the next interval) that the effect produced 'sounds wrong' / stands out like a red barn on a green prairie, and all the rest.

I appreciate your wanting / having a go at getting a handle about 'what is modern' about it -- one of the best ways is to listen to other late romantic 'conventional' music written around the same time, lots, in a sort of 'immersion' then listen to some Debussy - the context, contrast, won't need words, the effect will then be visceral and apparent to the ears.

In a way, it is nearly impossible for any of us to 'hear' how radical, dissonant, and wild any of Beethoven is: we know, again by context, that some of that literally knocked the sox off the listeners of the day -- I think it was Carl Maria von Weber who wrote after the premiere of Beethoven's Seventh that Luigi was now certifiable, and clearly ready for being carted off to the insane asylum -- who of us could possibly hear it from that perspective? Even as a neophyte to conscious listening, in that regard we are all cursed with 'modern' ears.

One 'trouble' is 'what Debussy did' which was so radical very quickly permeated, or occurred near simultaneously, in both classical and pop music... the business of 'chords not used as per common practice function' is a fundament of 'what is Jazz,' for example. We will never have 'conservative ears from 1890,' ever, by which to hear this music as it might have sounded to some of his contemporaries.

Re: 'Abstract.' Preludes, Book 1 no.6 "Des pas sur la Neige.' - 'music made of nothing' some might say, a theme of intervals, seconds, and pivotal harmonic play -- one of the most 'beautiful' and 'all about music' of the first book, imho.





Re: Whole tone + 'Diatonic' -- 'diatonic' is the technical term for the 'normal' seven note scale, the common practice use of chords from that. Debussy juxtaposed the two, just as someone writes in two simultaneous keys = polytonality. This 'pulls' the ear in several directions, making the listener very unsure of where 'home base' is, and the effect of the whole tone and the normal scale interacting makes for a lot of varied combinations, just like a harmonic minor scale in Bach or Mozart made for more combinations of chords, color and texture.

While recalling that Brahms was not long dead, Wagner still a huge influence on musical style, at the same time, do listen through Camille Saint-Saens' "La muse et le poète" composed in 1910.... Pop THIS into a playlist with 'Le Sacre,' premiered in 1913, to play immediately thereafter....








and I think you will get the context of why Le Sacre was such a shock to the general public, accustomed and gravitating to the likes of the Saint-Saens! (The dress rehearsal of Le Sacre, audience comprised of the arts community, had the work well received... the opening night, with the general public, there was that 'Parisienne' riot... another factor of 'context' is the audience  Le Sacre, within its score, is loaded with Russian folk melodies, or Stravinsky-penned 'tunes' very much like Russian Folk Melodies. Harmonically, and even more so, rhythmically, it is 'way out there' in comparison to the music in general play for audiences of that time.

Context is really almost everything, every time.... With an open and 'modern' ear, we now hear the Stravinsky (it is one hundred! years old this year) from our own context of accumulated musical experiences, ditto Debussy. Conscious of it or not, classical music fans and those who have never followed classical music have nearly all heard the most extreme avant-garde 'Ligeti-like' or beyond music in one or more film scores, Jazz, you name it: what we are accustomed to has much to do with the perspective on what was once 'alarmingly dissonant,' or 'radical.' [In Mozart's time, he was criticized as being pretty damned dissonant... 'all those minor thirds, you know.' Well, if you have a 'ding-dong' chime doorbell, you live with a minor third.]
Stravinsky and Debussy admired each other's work, and they were 'in touch' for a period, considered, too, friends, or very friendly colleaugues. Stravinsky wrote two works specifically dedicated to Debussy, the earlier (from 1912 one year prior 'Le Sacre') is a tribute, ""Zvezdolikiy" -- _king of the stars_ -- a brief, rather remarkable piece in a most interesting vein the composer did not later develop: it has some 'referential' use of Debussy like harmony and orchestration.





The second, a highly austere 'in memoriam' upon Debussy's death - Symphonies d'instruments à vent:


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> Too late. I've been listening to the Preludes for some time and read all the liner notes! Sunken Cathedral and Girl with the Flaxen Hair are very accessible, and, as you say, very familiar, but the rest have not yet resolved themselves as distinct pieces.
> 
> Your opinion of the Suite is clearly not quite the same as millionrainbows. Where he hears old ladies' music, you hear 'significant advance past the Arabesques' (both of which I love, so I assume I'm a sucker for his more conventional works, with an obvious 'melody'!?)


I hear melody throughout all of Debussy's music, so I really can't take on your perspective here. I enjoy the Arabesques myself, but I recognize that they're not his best or most progressive music, not by a long shot. The fact that the majority of the Preludes "have not resolved themselves as distinct pieces" in your mind is indicative of some difficulty.

If you want to know a bit about how the modernism in Debussy's music works, take a listen to the first movement of the Suite Bergamesque. This is going to be pretty technical, but there's really no easier way to explain it, given that the differences between Romanticism and Modernism/Impressionism are ones of technique. It opens with an F-C diad (two notes, rather than a triad, which is a chord) in the bass, which implies the key of F major. Instead of an F major chord, though, we hear a G minor chord in both hands. This is actually heard as an extension of the F major, so we have a (relatively dissonant) F13 chord without a 3rd or 7th. This would be acceptable in other music, but only if it is resolved immediately to a consonant chord or in some way that pointed towards a resolution to come. Debussy doesn't do this. Instead the dissonance is left hanging, and the next full chord we hear is an F major with a 9th added (in the melody). This would also be acceptable if it resolved, but he plays around it, and before it is allowed to resolve, the harmony moves to G minor with a 7th and 9th. This playing around with harmony goes on several more bars, and by the time the opening gesture returns, that G still refuses to resolve into a "proper" F major triad.

The problem, as PetrB said, is that this sort of thing has become stock-in-trade of Jazz and Film Score, so it doesn't sound radical to our ears at all. It is actually a cliche to end a pop song on a major chord with an added 6th (the 13th) or 9th, so it may bring up memories of hokey or sentimental music, despite the fact that Debussy is neither.


----------



## BurningDesire

I don't see how being "old lady's music" is inherently bad. Anywho, I find Debussy to be challenging to play. His music is some of my favorite music of all time, whether it be stuff like the Preludes, or Suite Bergamasque (which is incredible, and is pushing boundaries whether millionrainbows wants to acknowledge it or not), or many of the standalone piano pieces he wrote. His writing on the piano is some of the best out there. I find much of it to rival his orchestral works in terms of color, even when limited to the palette of the piano only.


----------



## aleazk

violadude said:


> I can play this piece!
> 
> If I can play it, it can't be very hard at all, cause I suck


The question is if you can play the piece or you "can play" the piece...


----------



## Mahlerian

If you want to hear extremely conventional early Debussy, listen to the Danse Bohemienne.






Traditional use of tonality throughout, with conventional resolutions.

Compare to the far more idiosyncratic unresolved dissonances and sudden shifts of key of the Suite Bergamesque's Passepied.


----------



## Novelette

In terms of "difficulty" of most of Debussy's works: one might not find them conventionally difficult, as there really isn't so much bravura.

His music isn't extraordinarily difficult for technically proficient pianists, with perhaps a few exceptions, however, what I find difficult about his music is proper interpretation. The pieces that I play are of conventional tonality--Brahms, Beethoven, Bach, Haydn, etc. Debussy's music is entirely different than those composers' music, he puts the classical dissonances to work as primary harmonic material, frequently without tonal resolution. That can make it very difficult for the pianist to gain an understanding of how the music is meant to sound. One could turn to acclaimed recordings to find some kind of understanding of the intentions of the composer, if the recording sounds fluid and commodious. 

Personally, I avoid playing Debussy. Not that I dislike his music by any means, but because I don't believe that I can do his music justice. "Clair de Lune" is easy enough to play, as long as you are practiced enough in simple multi-octave arpeggios, but I have such interpretive difficulties with the less conventional works, that I avoid them. If I felt that I had a better interpretive grasp of Debussy's music, and classical harmonic and contrapuntal training is little to no help, then I would play his works more often. 

Debussy was a great genius, and there is little greater joy in this world than settling into a cozy evening with a glass of red wine, a good book, and Debussy.


----------



## stanchinsky

MacLeod said:


> So, you say 'parallel fifths', and you hear what he's playing. I read 'parallel fifths', and I see two words that need translating.
> 
> By parallel fifths, do you mean playing fifths in both hands? Can you explain why his 'unrestricted use' of these combinations is so distinctive or unusual? I mean, surely Beethoven/Liszt must have sat at the piano and messed around and played with these things? Don't get me wrong. I know whether I'm listening to Debussy or Beethoven - my ear can tell the difference, but I just don't know, technically, what I'm listening to.


Ok sure. To elaborate, take this for example. Suppose for simplicity we are not dealing with chords, but are only concerned with one note in the left hand and one note in the right hand. Now for an example of parallel fifths. In the left hand play the note C and in the right hand play a G at the same time (this makes an interval of a 5th) Now from this position in the left hand play D and with your right hand play A. You have just moved in parallel motion, specifically you have moved in parallel fifths because your first two notes C and G moved and created the exact same interval again when they played D and A. Parallel octaves take the same idea.

You have to consider that every note when it really comes down to it is supposed to be it's own 'voice' so to speak (which is why the art of proper chordal movement is known as 'voice leading'). In classical theory chords are written in such a way as to give each one of the notes it's own independence as opposed to other styles where this is not a consideration (this is what Gould meant when he accused the Beatles of bad voice leading). Because the relationships of perfect fifths and octaves are _too_ consonant, the independence of both lines is destroyed, which is not what we want. These ideas are also important in the study of counterpoint, and writing parallel fifths and octaves is considered a cardinal sin (and rightly so).

I may not be right about this but Debussy was one of the first to go ahead and basically say 'if I damn well please I'll write fifths and octaves!' I can't really speak for Liszt because I'm not that familiar with his music, but Beethoven was trained in the areas of voice leading and counterpoint (these practices were established even many years before him) and because of this, he seldom is guilty of 5ths and octaves in his part writing.

I think Debussy helped break the 5ths and octaves taboo, showing that it wasn't always necessary to adhere to these 'rules'. It also helps that the sorts of textures found in Debussy's music sort of allow for these kinds of 'violations'. In other words if Bach was doing this his music wouldn't be nearly as great as it is. I hope this answers your question somewhat, if you are interested in this subject I would refer you to Johann Fux's _The Study of Counterpoint_. Everybody and I mean everybody has studied this (Beethoven, Mozart, etc). You can get it for like 8 dollars on Amazon.


----------



## Guest

stanchinsky said:


> Ok sure. To elaborate, take this for example. Suppose for simplicity we are not dealing with chords, but are only concerned with one note in the left hand and one note in the right hand. Now for an example of parallel fifths. In the left hand play the note C and in the right hand play a G at the same time (this makes an interval of a 5th) Now from this position in the left hand play D and with your right hand play A. You have just moved in parallel motion, specifically you have moved in parallel fifths because your first two notes C and G moved and created the exact same interval again when they played D and A. Parallel octaves take the same idea.
> 
> You have to consider that every note when it really comes down to it is supposed to be it's own 'voice' so to speak (which is why the art of proper chordal movement is known as 'voice leading'). In classical theory chords are written in such a way as to give each one of the notes it's own independence as opposed to other styles where this is not a consideration (this is what Gould meant when he accused the Beatles of bad voice leading). Because the relationships of perfect fifths and octaves are _too_ consonant, the independence of both lines is destroyed, which is not what we want. These ideas are also important in the study of counterpoint, and writing parallel fifths and octaves is considered a cardinal sin (and rightly so).
> 
> I may not be right about this but Debussy was one of the first to go ahead and basically say 'if I damn well please I'll write fifths and octaves!' I can't really speak for Liszt because I'm not that familiar with his music, but Beethoven was trained in the areas of voice leading and counterpoint (these practices were established even many years before him) and because of this, he seldom is guilty of 5ths and octaves in his part writing.
> 
> I think Debussy helped break the 5ths and octaves taboo, showing that it wasn't always necessary to adhere to these 'rules'. It also helps that the sorts of textures found in Debussy's music sort of allow for these kinds of 'violations'. In other words if Bach was doing this his music wouldn't be nearly as great as it is. I hope this answers your question somewhat, if you are interested in this subject I would refer you to Johann Fux's _The Study of Counterpoint_. Everybody and I mean everybody has studied this (Beethoven, Mozart, etc). You can get it for like 8 dollars on Amazon.


Searching for something else, I rediscovered this thread and noticed how rude I had been in not acknowledging or thanking some contributors - especially stanchinsky. Please accept my apologies!


----------



## brianvds

A very accessible and non-technical explanation of some of Debussy's innovations can be enjoyed in one of Leonard Bernstein "Young people's concerts." Not sure this link will work:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...young+people's+concerts+what+is+impressionism

I searched YouTube for "Leonard Bernstein young people's concerts what is impressionism." Though as some have pointed out, Debussy himself never thought of his music that way. The moniker nevertheless strikes me apt.


----------



## Guest

It does work...and thanks very much.


----------



## Varick

I think Novelette nails it when it comes to the biggest difficulty in playing Debussy. Yes of course there are difficult pieces and passages to play in his compositions, but it's the interpretation of his pieces that make it difficult for many pianists. Which is also why you will find a great many opinions and attitudes on "how" to play Debussy all from well established and competent pianists and critics.

I believe Mahlerian or PetrB noted above his lack of phrasing notation in his music. That has left a wide range of interpretation into his music, more so than many other composers.

Not a big fan myself of Debussy, however I completely appreciate what he has added to the musical world.

V


----------



## SONNET CLV

Difficulty is in the hands of the performer. Even Book One of "Elementary Piano Lessons" is difficult for the beginner. So, is Debussy difficult for an established pro who specializes in the composer? Maybe the question is wrong?

I like the music, difficult or not.


----------



## Kazaman

SONNET CLV said:


> Difficulty is in the hands of the performer. Even Book One of "Elementary Piano Lessons" is difficult for the beginner. So, is Debussy difficult for an established pro who specializes in the composer? Maybe the question is wrong?
> 
> I like the music, difficult or not.


You can measure difficulty in a perfectly acceptable way by estimating how many players would be able to pick it up and sight read it, or learn it in a month, or learn in it three months, or learn it in a year. Some works of Debussy (the Arabesques) can be learned by intermediate players in a few months and sightread by professionals or advanced students, whereas something like his Estampes would be a project for advanced students for a three to six months and very inaccessible to anyone below their level. This includes interpretative difficulties, of course; some of Debussy's works are more transparent than others.


----------



## Alypius

One of the books I've been reading is David J. Code's _Claude Debussy_, Critical Lives (Reaktion Books, 2010).

It does a fine job of setting Debussy in his social context and lets one savor how revolutionary Debussy's approach was in the 1890s (I've not gotten to the later portions which deal with his relationship with Stravinsky). One feature of the book that some will find attractive is the lack of technical musicological analysis. While I appreciate his attention to biographical detail (and fluid writing style), I do wish he had included musicological analysis.

One feature of his interpretation--it comes through clearly only at the end--is his disagreement with Boulez' reading of Debussy -- namely, interpreting Debussy quite strictly as a modernist. He notes, for instance, "the fact that Boulez could affirm that 'modern music awakens in the afternoon of a faun' in a few paragraphs whose paeans to the formal freedom and orchestral imagination of the _Prelude_ include minimal reference to poetry or agonistic post-_wagnerisme_" (p. 187). Code is not denying the significance of Debussy's innovations. His Debussy is more fin-de-siecle, a transition figure. Because his focus is biographical / cultural rather than musicological, that reading is understandable -- and perhaps flawed, if one's interest is Debussy's role in the history of music (and that's more where mine is). What Code does especially well is root the critical genesis of Debussy's music in the _symboliste_ poetry of the era (Verlaine, Mallarme). That _symboliste_ imagination is one important reason that the label "impressionist" is off-base. He was, to an extraordinary degree, a _symboliste_ -- thus all those great titles to his works.


----------



## brianvds

Kazaman said:


> You can measure difficulty in a perfectly acceptable way by estimating how many players would be able to pick it up and sight read it, or learn it in a month, or learn in it three months, or learn it in a year. Some works of Debussy (the Arabesques) can be learned by intermediate players in a few months and sightread by professionals or advanced students, whereas something like his Estampes would be a project for advanced students for a three to six months and very inaccessible to anyone below their level. This includes interpretative difficulties, of course; some of Debussy's works are more transparent than others.


Years ago, when I was at the height of my pianistic powers, I attempted the Arabesques. I made no progress whatever; if memory serves, they require the two hands to basically play in two different rhythms, a trick I simply couldn't master with any amount of study and practice.

Thus my experience of Debussy is: beautiful to listen to, impossible to play.


----------



## PetrB

Technical difficulties aside, two composers and their piano music get a healthy dose of respect, high regard, and are in some way always daunting to pianists: Mozart and Debussy. This is because apart from 'negotiating the notes,' what is needed to make either sound at all right involves a constant and infinite gradation of touch, tone color; to play a work by either composer, whether the piece is bravura and intensely busy or quiet and slow, is a non-stop balancing act of nuance and finesse, nuance and finesse, nuance and finesse. 

All those elements should be at any pianist's command, regardless, but in the playing of those two composer's works, if there is any less than required, what is rendered can sound as off as if the player is making fistfuls of actual mistakes. 

(After the fact, I've thought that playing Scarlatti on a modern keyboard is loaded with the same perils.)


----------



## hpowders

I find Debussy difficult to listen to; dull if you must know.

I can listen to 2 Debussy piano preludes and I am already getting restless.

Too much "perfume"; not enough dynamic range.


----------



## starthrower

hpowders said:


> I find Debussy difficult to listen to; dull if you must know.
> 
> I can listen to 2 Debussy piano preludes and I am already getting restless.
> 
> Too much "perfume"; not enough dynamic range.


I know this person is no longer here but this is bunk. These works are very dynamic. Plenty of depth and beauty too. But to my ears Debussy can do no wrong. The only stuff I don't like are the pieces orchestrated by others that sound rather pedestrian.


----------



## gregorx

starthrower said:


> I know this person is no longer here but this is bunk. These works are very dynamic. Plenty of depth and beauty too. But to my ears Debussy can do no wrong. The only stuff I don't like are the pieces orchestrated by others that sound rather pedestrian.


He can do no wrong for me either. Claude might be second only to Mozart in provoking bizarre negative commentary on these threads. 2 piano preludes?


----------

