# I want to like Debussy.



## Oscardude (Jun 7, 2019)

Please recommend your favorite Debussy pieces and tell me why he is so amazing. I want to love his music like a lot of people do, but I simply don't like his style I think. 

Thanks in advance smile


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Oscardude said:


> Please recommend your favorite Debussy pieces and tell me why he is so amazing. I want to love his music like a lot of people do, but I simply don't like his style I think.
> 
> Thanks in advance smile


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

(String quartet)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Oscardude said:


> Please recommend your favorite Debussy pieces and tell me why he is so amazing. I want to love his music like a lot of people do, but I simply don't like his style I think.
> 
> Thanks in advance smile


What do you like?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

https://www.talkclassical.com/50576-debussy-cd-recommendations.html?highlight=Debussy
This might help .


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

You do not know what you are missing. ,,,or do you know, but have barriers,,,

Giesekings Debussy is IMHO the best place to start, The 4 cd set can be bought cheap ,,and after a few listens , you do not come around,,,then give up,,,wait a few more years. try again. 2nd chance is all you get. 
His orch works is not the place to start. 
Except for Prelude. 
Yes listen to Prelude, Martinon or Cluytens.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I didn't like Debussy until I acquired the Jean Martinon box set through Brilliant Classics. For some reason, he made this music make sense.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Manxfeeder said:


> I didn't like Debussy until I acquired the Jean Martinon box set through Brilliant Classics. For some reason, he made this music make sense.


What Furtwangler was to Germanic composers, Martinon was to French genre.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I didn't like Debussy until I acquired the Jean Martinon box set through Brilliant Classics. For some reason, he made this music make sense.


A fine set! I don't find Debussy difficult to enjoy, but I suppose to some ears the music may sound rather abstract without a perceivable rhythmic grounding. As I always say, repeated listening does wonders.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Despite some of the comments above about missing and barriers, there is absolutely no reason that you should like him. Taste is a totally individual matter and no amount of opinions and comments from others has any bearing on the matter. In this regard you might also consider those composers who are to your taste but that others don't like. Taste is also something that evolves over time, you might not like his style now but that could well change.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Becca said:


> Taste is also something that evolves over time, you might not like his style now but that could well change.


Very true. It can't be forced. Our brains are receptive to different things at different times in our lives due to our own unique experiences.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I agree with Becca. Debussy is not for everyone. OP, you may want to like his music, but if you don’t like him, you don’t like him. I would perhaps give his music another shot in the future, because his music is incredibly rewarding and beautiful, but don’t stress yourself out about it.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

flamencosketches said:


> I would perhaps give his music another shot in the future, because his music is incredibly rewarding and beautiful, but don't stress yourself out about it.


I agree; in classical music, you can feel a certain degree of pressure to equally love all the "greats." It was liberating to me when I left formal music study in school to discover that I didn't have to listen any more to composers who didn't click with me.

As to someone like Debussy, as you dip into his works, try different interpreters of the same piece. In my case, that has opened up a lot of closed doors. Like the Debussy piano works, which I'm just now beginning to appreciate, I have several recordings (Uchida, Zimerman, Gieseking, Kocsis, Entremont), but Michelangeli is the one who finally cracked the door open. If I had the money, Pascal Roge's new cycle would probably win me over completely, but as they say, life always happens before discretionary spending can kick in.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I've settled with a lot of interpreters who aren't on the usual rec lists - bye-bye Karajan, yes even von Stade, in favor of Inghelbrecht with Danco, or Samson Francois in favor of most anybody except Arrau... for the orchestral stuff there are more options but either Cluytens or Munch still hold up well... the last thing I look for is Brit or German bands


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Oscardude said:


> Please recommend your favorite Debussy pieces and tell me why he is so amazing. I want to love his music like a lot of people do, but I simply don't like his style I think.
> 
> Thanks in advance smile


Where to start also depends in part of what you like already. He wrote in different styles and also pastiche-like stuff, but with a twist.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I find it difficult to be sympathetic with one who "doesn't like" Debussy's music. But, I don't much care for a lot of Richard Strauss, so those out there who love the man's oeuvre may well find it difficult to be sympathetic with me. But that's okay. (There are pieces by R. Strauss that I _do_ love -- including the tone poem _Also Sprach Zarathustra_ and the opera _Elektra_!) There are enough composers out there to satisfy us all; we needn't feel diminished for dropping interest in one or two here and there.

But as long as there are the orchestral _Nocturnes_, _Images_ and _La Mer_, the _Prélude À L'après-midi D'un Faune_, the _Danses Sacrée Et Profane_, the String Quartet, the piano music, and so much more … I will remain a devout acolyte at the worshipful shrine of Achille-Claude Debussy.





















Just some of my favorites.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I would suggest listening to the _Images pour orchestre_ for a slightly different take on Debussy--a bit of sprightliness, a touch of Spain, springtime cheer.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> I've settled with a lot of interpreters who aren't on the usual rec lists - bye-bye Karajan, yes even von Stade, in favor of Inghelbrecht with Danco, or Samson Francois in favor of most anybody except Arrau... for the orchestral stuff there are more options but either Cluytens or Munch still hold up well... the last thing I look for is Brit or German bands


Brits and german orchestras have no success with Debussy, The only 2 that work are the 2 French masters,,I've tried Ingelbrecht,,his orch was not up to either Matinon and Cluytens. Great HISTORIC conductor, but his orch was post WW2, and rather thin on virtuoso. 
His Pelleas is great and a must hear. 
Francois will not work for me, he takes too many liberties,,,his talents are exception, but as we know talent is more than tech skills. 
I will revisit Michaelangeli, but last time I cked, was nota good experience. 
Uchida in Debussy is nothing great, Zimerman I'll pass. 
Gieseking's suffers sound issues.

I think of all, Bavouzet,,and maybe Thibaudet,,I keep going back and forth on Thibaudet,,I like him, then I don't,,then like, then don't so on and so forth. 
I've yet to make a final call.
The older Roge is superior to his newer Denon release/


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

The Naxos release with a French orch,,I found intriguing,,,but alas, after several listens,,,afraid it did not add up to Martinon. But overall its a good set.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Martinon is absolutely The king when it comes to Debussy. Couldn't agree more.

That said, there's a relatively old Philips Duo release of Bernard Haitink's Debussy recordings with the Concertgebouw. It's superb!! And neither conductor nor orchestra is French......

....and yes, the older Decca recordings by Pascal Roge are excellent. I like his newer recordings on Onyx, but not enough to duplicate......From the same time as the older recordings, there's a fabulous set by the English pianist Gordon Fergus Thompson, originally on ASV, I believe, now available on Aussie Decca!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

CnC Bartok said:


> Martinon is absolutely The king when it comes to Debussy. Couldn't agree more.
> 
> That said, there's a relatively old Philips Duo release of Bernard Haitink's Debussy recordings with the Concertgebouw. It's superb!! And neither conductor nor orchestra is French......
> 
> ....and yes, the older Decca recordings by Pascal Roge are excellent. I like his newer recordings on Onyx, but not enough to duplicate......From the same time as the older recordings, there's a fabulous set by the English pianist Gordon Fergus Thompson, originally on ASV, I believe, now available on Aussie Decca!


I like that Haitink/RCO set too. But otherwise I'm in agreement about French orchestras and conductors and their superiority in Debussy (and Ravel for that matter).

Any love for Boulez's Debussy? His Images and Nocturnes are pretty good.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^ so is Previn's with the London Symphony


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

paulbest said:


> The older Roge is superior to his newer Denon release/


Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Claude Debussy comes from an entirely other dimension and it helps if one has imagination rather than being a literalist. He's like a painter on a canvas. He draws pictures. He has color, texture, and sometimes his music seems to arise from out of the mist. He's unlike anyone else though he was crazy about Chopin. He often writes instinctively and has a great feel for sound, the most subtle imaginable, and he brought this into the world as one of the true moderns. If I were new to him, I'd start with his piano music, one of the greatest of composers, imo. Put it on in the background and let it wash over you while you're doing other things. It's magic. For the connoisseurs of exquisite music.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^couldn't have said it better myself, Lark. 

@OP, now that I think about it, it really took discovering the right performance for me to appreciate Debussy myself. I started with the piano music. The orchestral and chamber music made no sense at first. When I discovered Walter Gieseking's Debussy, it all clicked. I don't know if he's for everyone, as his recordings are in very poor sound by modern standards. Estampes, Images, the Preludes, the Suite Bergamasque. So much beauty. 

As I mentioned before, don't sweat it if you don't like it. But his music is worth another shot.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Very original composer. Doesn't stick to conventional form. Great manipulator of tone colour and rhythm. His music speaks to me in the most primal sort of way, and the biggest influence on my own writing.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Oscardude said:


> Please recommend your favorite Debussy pieces and tell me why he is so amazing.


*My favorite music by Debussy is his orchestral music.* Especially* the Prelude written for the French symbolist poet Stephane Mallarme's poem "The Afternoon of a Faun"* which I believe was the first piece by Debussy that can be said to be "impressionist" - many historians says that this Prelude is indeed the very prelude to modern music - the first piece of music to be considered modern - inspiring later composers to go their own way.

Another favorite for me personally is the *"Sirenes" movement from "3 Nocturnes for Orchestra"* - It features ethereal other-worldly singing of a song without words by a women's choir.

*Maurice Ravel* was also an impressionist and he was inspired by Debussy - Maybe Ravel's impressionism is easier to get into than Debussy? I think you should try to hear the orchestral versions of "*Une Barque Sur L'ocean" and "Pavane pur une infante defunte". *

*All my favorite Debussy recordings are by Dutoit in this box*:


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I have orchestral recordings by Martinon (complete), Munch, Reiner, Haitink, Previn, Boulez - and Paray. I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> I have orchestral recordings by Martinon (complete), Munch, Reiner, Haitink, Previn, Boulez - and Paray. I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned.


Who is Paray?

I have Martinon's Brilliant Classics recording too, but I don't like the sound on it.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Paul Paray, a French conductor who was the MD of the Detroit Symphony in the 50's (and 60's?) and who made a lot of recordings for Mercury.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Some of them are stereo. Some also appeared on Philips etc.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Ras said:


> Who is Paray?
> 
> I have Martinon's Brilliant Classics recording too, but I don't like the sound on it.


My Martinon recordings are hi-res downloads on the EMI (now Warner) label. They sound fine to me.

As for Paray, here's one recording I have (although it sounds to me like the upload comes from vinyl - I have it on CD).






By the way, I couldn't find my way into "Symphonie Fantastique" until I heard Paray's recording.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Debussy is for everyone but it takes a lot more time, patience and mental & emotional bandwidth to come to grips with what he is saying than straightforward composers like Beethoven, Bach and Brahms. His level of subtlety is over the top and he rarely bellows. 

If you have been listening to mostly German music you will have to reset your mind to enjoy Debussy. It is worth the trouble, however. I'd recommend trying to listen to this:

La Mer, his three part idea of the ocean, that is about as big and broad as anything he wrote

The Sonata for Flute, Viola and Harp, an extremely delicate and subtle piece of chamber music

Petite Suite in Busser's orchestration, a piece more straightforward and easy to digest mentally

The Children's Corner Suite either in piano or an orchestral transcription

The Nocturnes, especially No. 1, Nuages, Debussy's vision of night clouds

Jeux, a brief ballet

If you can enjoy any of this you can probably become a Debussy acolyte.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This quote by Debussy sums his music up very well, even though he was talking about Indian music:

_Composers alone have the privilege of capturing all the poetry of night and day, of earth and sky, of recreating their atmosphere and of setting their mighty pulsations within a rhythmic framework._

To me he comes across as cold compared to Ravel's hot. If Debussy was an animal, I think he would be a cat - independent, somewhat aloof, observing. As a man, he was a dreamer, content to take everything in - especially nature - and act as a conduit between the external world and his own inner one. There are rare occasions where he takes on sweeping, more or less romantic gestures (the final movement of La Mer speaks to this the most).

There's many aspects to him, and years ago I opened a discussion about this:

Debussy's contribution to music

As discussed there, its easy to overlook the symbolic element in his music. His piano pieces like the preludes and Chidren's Corner are peppered with quotes and references to other music. Sometimes the title suggests something which isn't exactly what it seems. A good example is Gardens in the Rain. The title is less about a garden in the midst of a downpour and more about young Debussy being forced to practise his scales on piano rather than be allowed to play outside when it was raining. I think this opens another more human side to his music. Even if he was just an observer, "nothing but an eye" as someone said about Monet, he didn't always respond in a cool and detached way.

I think that there's enough variety in his output so that you'll be able to enjoy at least some of his music. I'm not a fanatic by any means but I really like his piano music, especially the popular ones, e.g. Clair de lune, Arabesque No. 1, Reflections in the water, Gardens in the Rain, the preludes and Children's Corner.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

I'm on the same page as you OP, Debussy's music just sounds like formless dreck that belongs in the background of a particularly dull movie. I really don't understand why people like him


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

joen_cph said:


> Where to start also depends in part of what you like already. He wrote in different styles and also *pastiche-like stuff, but with a twist.*


True, he did a good amount of bread and butter work throughout his career. Chief among these are arrangements of music by others, the most famous being his orchestration of Satie's Gymnopedies. There's also the early Piano Trio No. 1 (there wasn't a number two) written while he was in Russia and unearthed in the 1980's. Its a surprise, very nice but nothing more than glorified salon music (which suits the purpose for which it was written). Debussy was always short of money - until he married his cashed up second wife - so there's quite a bit of this sort of stuff there for those who want to dig around.



level82rat said:


> I'm on the same page as you OP, Debussy's music just sounds like formless dreck that belongs in the background of a particularly dull movie. I really don't understand why people like him


It's meant to sound formless, like nature.

As for movies, composers have indeed taken from Debussy, an example being Walton in his Henry V score in the sequence where they cross the English Channel. Ersatz La Mer maybe, but it's not dreck, far from it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The new Debussy bio by Stephen Walsh: _Debussy: A Painter in Sound_, notes (again) the degree to which Debussy and Ravel bounced ideas back and forth, starting with Ravel's _Jeaux d'eau_. Each wrote a string quartet, each homages to Spain, each very nice pieces for harp and small(ish) ensembles. The two composers form an interesting yin/yang, or Vermont/New Hampshire pairing such that thinking of the one without the other is difficult, and the courses and products of their composing careers might have been a bit different had each been totally ignorant of the other's work. Just as curious is Prokofiev's intense dislike of Debussy's music and his statement that Ravel was the only French composer "who knew what he was doing". Love all three!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The yin-yang analogy makes sense. It makes me think of them in terms of garden design. Debussy is like Wabi-sabi while Ravel more like a formal European garden.

I know they did fall out for a while over who did what first in terms of the piano music. Perhaps they shouldn’t have bothered since Liszt was there way before either of them.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Weird discussions above about how 'Brits/Germans' can't handle Debussy. Really? I have Martinon and Orchestre National De L'O.R.T.F. on EMI and the interpretation of L'apres-midi is has perhaps the most mechanical-sounding flute opening of any version I've ever heard. It's really not all that great.
Compare it to Gergiev with the LSO and the former pales into insignificance. Martinon's Trois Nocturnes on that recording is very atmospheric.

There are other conductors/orchestras who interpret Debussy just as well. Ashkenazy has a good feel for Debussy's music, as does Francois Xavier-Roth. Previn is good too.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

My favorite setlist:

-Fantaisie pour piano et orchestre
-Marche écossaise sur un thème populaire
-Deux Dances pour Harpe et Orchestre
-La Damoiselle élue
-Chansons de Bilitis
-Le Martyre de Saint Sébastien

And maybe then you're ready for Pelléas et Mélisande ;-)


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

For getting to grips with Debussy, if a person has never heard much of his music, it's probably always best to listen to his well-known pieces. _Suite Bergamasque_, _Children's Corner Suite_. Then the preludes. If you can read music then following the scores for the preludes is rewarding.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

samm said:


> For getting to grips with Debussy, if a person has never heard much of his music, it's probably always best to listen to his well-known pieces. _Suite Bergamasque_, _Children's Corner Suite_. Then the preludes. If you can read music then following the scores for the preludes is rewarding.


Yes! I have a blast doing this, because the scores are so absolutely ridiculous looking. To the uninitiated the music must look absolutely impossible to play. Debussy's decision to include the name of the prelude only at the end of the music was genius too.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

If it's any comfort at all, and it may not be, my "Just can't like..." composer is Chopin. I've tried and I've tried and I've tried. I feel like a monster for saying so, because it's like saying one doesn't like kittens, but I can only manage a minute or two of Chopin before I want to turn him off---with prejudice. Too cloying, to much fiddling, too much faddling, too much flash and too little substance in my deplorable and monstrous opinion. May God forgive me.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> If it's any comfort at all, and it may not be, my "Just can't like..." composer is Chopin. I've tried and I've tried and I've tried. I feel like a monster for saying so, because it's like saying one doesn't like kittens, but I can only manage a minute or two of Chopin before I want to turn him off---with prejudice. Too cloying, to much fiddling, too much faddling, too much flash and too little substance in my deplorable and monstrous opinion. May God forgive me.


It's your own loss that your ears betray you into hearing him that way. 

Sometimes when people share their opinions about music I can't help but wonder if we're talking about the same thing.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> It's your own loss that your ears betray you into hearing him that way.
> 
> Sometimes when people share their opinions about music I can't help but wonder if we're talking about the same thing.


I feel that way about anyone who doesn't like Bach. It's unfathomable. But my deplorable opinion of Chopin prevents me from sitting in judgment. A travesty, if you ask me.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> I feel that way about anyone who doesn't like Bach. It's unfathomable. But my deplorable opinion of Chopin prevents me from sitting in judgment. A travesty, if you ask me.


Fair enough! Thankfully for my own quality of life, I love Chopin, Bach, and Debussy damn near equally.

As far as beloved composers who don't do much for me, I unfortunately must admit that my love for Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and (most heinously of all) Brahms is not up to par with the feelings of most classical fans...


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> As far as beloved composers who don't do much for me, I unfortunately must admit that my love for Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and (most heinously of all) Brahms is not up to par with the feelings of most classical fans...


You don't like Brahms? Dear God. But for my dislike of Chopin, I would flag you.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I like a bit of Brahms, and actually really love his late piano works (who doesn't) and I quite like the German Requiem, but I have to be in the right mood. Beyond that, the symphonies don't really do anything for me. I think what I need to do is check out more of his Lieder, and then work from there. That is how I finally got into Schumann after a period of similar disregard. As for the symphonies, I'm thinking of getting the Klemperer box since I like his recording of the German Requiem a lot. Solti and Karajan, the two CDs I have of Brahms' symphonies, don't really do it for me.

As it stands, I don't see him as one of the greats. Sorry. But take it however you will that I am continuously trying with his music rather than giving up entirely (which I may be better off doing!) With Brahms, I guess, I'm like the OP is with Debussy.


----------



## Brazealnut (Jun 22, 2019)

As a pianist, Debussy is quite appreciable. He's fun to play, and enjoyable to listen to. So... maybe try his piano works first?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> You don't like Brahms? Dear God. But for my dislike of Chopin, I would flag you.


Just for you, my friend, I'm giving a Brahms symphony another shot.









Symphony No.3 in F major. Karajan/Berlin, 1964.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> I feel that way about anyone who doesn't like Bach. It's unfathomable. But my deplorable opinion of Chopin prevents me from sitting in judgment. A travesty, if you ask me.


There's people that don't like bach?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

level82rat said:


> There's people that don't like bach?


There once was a woman named Hatch
Who loved Johann Sebastian Bach.
"His music ain't fussy,
Like Brahms or Debussy.
Sit down and I'll play you a snatch!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> I like a bit of Brahms, and actually really love his late piano works (who doesn't) and I quite like the German Requiem, but I have to be in the right mood. Beyond that, the symphonies don't really do anything for me. I think what I need to do is check out more of his Lieder, and then work from there. That is how I finally got into Schumann after a period of similar disregard. As for the symphonies, I'm thinking of getting the Klemperer box since I like his recording of the German Requiem a lot. Solti and Karajan, the two CDs I have of Brahms' symphonies, don't really do it for me.


Listen to the Brahms first symphony under Furtwangler, and if that bowls you over (as it should!) try his performances of the other three. He brings to Brahms the same searching insight and intensity that make his Bruckner and Wagner extraordinary.

It seems that there are quite a few different live Furtwangler performances of the first, but this one is highly regarded:

https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symph...y+1+furtwangler&qid=1561345363&s=music&sr=1-1


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

...............


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Listen to the Brahms first symphony under Furtwangler, and if that bowls you over (as it should!) try his performances of the other three. He brings to Brahms the same searching insight and intensity that make his Bruckner and Wagner extraordinary.
> 
> It seems that there are quite a few different live Furtwangler performances of the first, but this one is highly regarded:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symph...y+1+furtwangler&qid=1561345363&s=music&sr=1-1


Glad to find out about this amazingly monumental, thrilling, tender, dramatic and intense live recording. It's hard to imagine any other conductor getting more depth out of it. Sometimes (the 2nd movement) just seems to scream and ache with emotion.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> There once was a woman named Hatch
> Who loved Johann Sebastian Bach.
> "His music ain't fussy,
> Like Brahms or Debussy.
> Sit down and I'll play you a snatch!"


Demerit for rhyming Bach with Hatch and snatch!


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

I can't hear any appreciable difference between that Furtwangler recording and e.g. Eugen Jochum from around the same period. What is meant to be different and arresting about the Furtwangler aside from the periodic audience coughing?

It's a good symphony Brahms's first, but I still have the feeling of something taken from Beethoven's waste paper basket and the sharp edges knocked off.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Emotional responses to music vary from one person to the next, that’s obvious, but I find the Furtwangler Brahms conception to be full of uncomfortable disillusionment and a sort of fiery anger which makes what he does very distinctive.

The one I feel this most strongly about isn’t the 1951 Lucerne Brahms 1, it’s the 1945 VPO Brahms 2, I remember being stunned by what he made of this symphony the first time I heard it - gone is the sweet and anodine pastoral, it’s turned into something dark.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

We can call it emotional response variation, maybe we have to. The second movement of that (I just listened to it) sounds to me very much pastoral and somewhat anodyne. I suspect people hear things that aren't there or hear things that are there because Brahms actually wrote them to be there and most conductors bring that out.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

samm said:


> We can call it emotional response variation, maybe we have to. The second movement of that (I just listened to it) sounds to me very much pastoral and somewhat anodyne. I suspect people hear things that aren't there or hear things that are there because Brahms actually wrote them to be there and most conductors bring that out.


I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, it's hard to say.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

samm said:


> Demerit for rhyming Bach with Hatch and snatch!


What about the perfectly-rhyming _fussy_ and _Debussy_?? I think I may have heard the bit of doggerel in an interview with Peter Ustinov many years ago, and it has haunted me ever since--as it will haunt you .


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> Just for you, my friend, I'm giving a Brahms symphony another shot.
> 
> View attachment 120596
> 
> ...


How did it go? I'm going to listen to Chopin today, despite my appalling opinion of his music, and Debussy.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> How did it go? I'm going to listen to Chopin today, despite my appalling opinion of his music, and Debussy.


I liked it more than I expected! Two or three melodies stuck around in my head for hours afterward and onto today, which is two or three more melodies than usual  I will persist with Brahms. May have to check out Furtwängler as Woodduck has suggested (that description sounded awesome), as his post has got me intrigued. And more Klemperer as well. Though I have to say, Karajan is not bad in this music.

@Strange Magic, damn you and your cursed limerick. I read it in the morning and it has haunted me since. :lol:

Edit: I went ahead and bought the Furtwängler/Hamburg NDR recording of the Brahms 1st that you mentioned, @Woodduck. $5 mp3 download on Amazon, let's hope it's worthwhile. I trust your judgment and expect it should be.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> I liked it more than I expected! Two or three melodies stuck around in my head for hours afterward and onto today, which is two or three more melodies than usual  I will persist with Brahms. May have to check out Furtwängler as Woodduck has suggested (that description sounded awesome), as his post has got me intrigued. And more Klemperer as well. Though I have to say, Karajan is not bad in this music.
> 
> @Strange Magic, damn you and your cursed limerick. I read it in the morning and it has haunted me since. :lol:
> 
> Edit: I went ahead and bought the Furtwängler/Hamburg NDR recording of the Brahms 1st that you mentioned, @Woodduck. $5 mp3 download on Amazon, let's hope it's worthwhile. I trust your judgment and expect it should be.


I thought this was a Debussy thread. 

I like a lot of Karajan's recordings, but his Brahms is not at the top of my list. I think Brahms benefits from a lighter touch with less string dominance. Ansermet's recordings, the Kertesz/Wiener Philharmoniker, the Janowski/Pittsburgh are my current favorites. I've been listening to Maazel/Cleveland and those are good too.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Who should I listen to for a proper performance of Chopin? The only CDs I have are of Ashkenazy, a 6 CD set I found at a budget price, but that was before Spotify.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Who should I listen to for a proper performance of Chopin? The only CDs I have are of Ashkenazy, a 6 CD set I found at a budget price, but that was before Spotify.


Some of my favorites are Samson François, Martha Argerich, Claudio Arrau, and Arthur Rubinstein.






This might be a good place to start. Great performance.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Who should I listen to for a proper performance of Chopin? The only CDs I have are of Ashkenazy, a 6 CD set I found at a budget price, but that was before Spotify.


Ashkenazy is _very _good, IMO. Arrau, Argerich, Francois, also superb. Hearing different performers is rewarding. No predicting which you will connect with best.

Oh, Debussy, I'd start with the Preludes, Arrau, or Suite Bergamasque, basically anybody. I remember liking Hewitt.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Ashkenazy is _very _good, IMO.


Glad to hear you say that. I usually like Ashkenazy, esp. his Beethoven, but remain disappointed in his recording of Bach's WTC-like he tried to temper his usual aggressive phrasing and only ended up sounding bland.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Ashkenazy’s Chopin can great too, if a little blunt at times. I think his glassy tone really suits some of the more aerodynamic of his music (the Fantaisie-Impromptu for example). But I generally prefer those performers that i named.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Glad to hear you say that. I usually like Ashkenazy, esp. his Beethoven, but remain disappointed in his recording of Bach's WTC-like he tried to temper his usual aggressive phrasing and only ended up sounding bland.


I've not heard his Beethoven (maybe I should). I agree that his Bach wasn't particularly good. I found his touch too monotonous.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

If one checks out the history of any classical music forum one will find that there are many great composers some of us do not care for. In my case it is Verdi. I consider Beethoven's _Ninth_ the greatest piece of music I ever performed, yet the old Amazon forum a few years ago we had thread criticizing it as bombastic tripe.

With all the great classical music do not worry about it if you do not get a few of them.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Listen to the Brahms first symphony under Furtwangler, and if that bowls you over (as it should!) try his performances of the other three. He brings to Brahms the same searching insight and intensity that make his Bruckner and Wagner extraordinary.
> 
> It seems that there are quite a few different live Furtwangler performances of the first, but this one is highly regarded:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symph...y+1+furtwangler&qid=1561345363&s=music&sr=1-1


Thanks again for that. I've been listening to and enjoying this recording very much. Definitely the best Brahms 1st I've ever heard despite the rough sound.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

flamencosketches said:


> Thanks again for that. I've been listening to and enjoying this recording very much. Definitely the best Brahms 1st I've ever heard despite the rough sound.


Have you tried Klemperer?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> I agree with Becca. Debussy is not for everyone. OP, you may want to like his music, but if you don't like him, you don't like him. I would perhaps give his music another shot in the future, because his music is incredibly rewarding and beautiful, but don't stress yourself out about it.


*There's too much irony in classical listeners trying to adapt their taste to popular consensus.*


----------



## brucknerian (Dec 27, 2013)

La Mer is an exquisite work of musical art. A big bold theme. Superlative craftsmanship and detail. Innovative, fresh ideas. Mesmerising harmonies and melodies and rhythms. References to prior works.






Celibidache/Munich performance of La Mer - an exceptionally rich, clear and expansive realisation. I can hear instruments and patterns in this performance that I never picked up from any other recording I've heard to date.

This material inspired a lot of subsequent music. When you listen to it, it's like an archeological dig, or reading the source code of a computer program and marvelling at how all the parts come together. You can sense how subsequent composers might have been influenced.






This is Biosphere turning the same piece into a minimalist electronic album, which I find surprisingly different from the original and highly immersive. Really transforms 6 hours of dreary coding into 6 hours of peaceful bliss!

Already you can see how rich in ideas the original work is that an almost totally derivative work (in a very literal sense) could be made, and become a whole album and have a whole unique feel to it. This is the power of great works musical works - they take on a life of their own, that extends beyond the generation in which they were produced.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

jegreenwood said:


> Have you tried Klemperer?


Love Klemperer's German Requiem. Haven't heard much else. I'm new to Brahms. But I am seriously considering getting his Brahms cycle with the Philharmonia.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Claude Debussy - Suite Bergamasque - Passepied played by Luciano Piano.

This is a bit of unique song by him. Has Debussy harmony with accompaniment that is more like a Baroque or Classical style.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

regenmusic said:


> Claude Debussy - Suite Bergamasque - Passepied played by Luciano Piano.
> 
> This is a bit of unique song by him. Has Debussy harmony with accompaniment that is more like a Baroque or Classical style.


Delightful!

At the risk of stirring up _un nid de frelons_, I think that Suite Bergamasque has some of Debussy's finest writing for piano, and that Clair de Lune is probably the weakest of the four pieces.

So there.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Delightful!
> 
> At the risk of stirring up _un nid de frelons_, I think that Suite Bergamasque has some of Debussy's finest writing for piano, and that Clair de Lune is probably the weakest of the four pieces.
> 
> So there.


Ooooh, that's a big claim! Suite Bergamasque is good, but I couldn't put it above the preludes. There's so much going on in those preludes, they're jam-packed with ideas.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

The Suite Bergamasque is really good, but my favorite as of now is the Estampes. All three pieces are just awesome.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

flamencosketches said:


> The Suite Bergamasque is really good, but my favorite as of now is the Estampes. All three pieces are just awesome.


Yes, Estampes and, as Samm says, the Preludes are great music. What really impresses me about Bergamasque is the way that Debussy managed to write a beautifully balanced suite full of characteristically novel harmonies and 'colour' despite having constrained the format and style. When I say Bergamasque is my favourite Debussy, that's in no way dismissing his other works.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I agree that it's awesome that he uses (for the most part) classical forms and structures in the Suite Bergamasque and I do think it's a great work. It's never been my favorite, but I've been listening to it a lot lately.


----------

