# Composers Who 'Degenerate Into Mannerists'



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

As some of you may know Frederick Delius totally adored Debussy, especially _The Afternoon of a Faun, Pelleas et Melisande_ and _La Mer_, although he remained unimpressed by the piano music and the later orchestral works in which he claimed that the Frenchman had.... _"degenerated into a mannerist"_

I was so glad to read these words in a Delius biography the other day.

"Degenerated into a mannerist" may sound harsh but it's EXACTLY how I feel too!

The early string quartet in G, _Faun_, _Nocturnes_, Suite bergamasque, the various songs, _Pelleas et Melisande_ and _La Mer_ represent *the definitive showcase* of Debussy's style and genius, in my opinion.

Yes I know this makes me 'deadmeat' in the eyes of Debussy scholars and professional musicians but there it is.

Does anyone here share Delius's sentiment?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've kind of addressed this view before, on the other thread you made about Debussy's 'Jeux.'

Frankly, 'degeneration' is to me not a very nice word, I associate it with "degenerate art," the phrase that the Nazis coined to describe music or any art they did not like. In other words, just fancy words to describe bullsh*t ideology. & toxic ideology at that.

& there lies the rub. I see this as subjective. My favourite works so far by Debussy are his 24 preludes for solo piano. I don't know what's "Mannerist" about them, honestly. I associate Mannerism with post or late Renaissance artists, in Italy. Eg. Tintoretto. They are very gestural and kind of 'pushing' the Renaissance style to more emotional expression, towards the Baroque. If you mean Debussy's later works where kind of doing that, or something like that, I don't get what you're saying. I need some explanation of what you mean by 'Mannerist.' I've not heard it applied to music, at least not to that of Debussy's period.

But I mainly see the preludes as 'Symbolist' and also 'Impressionist' if we want to use labels.

What you may see as definitive may well differ from other listeners. Some may agree, some may disagree, some may be in between.

If you could give the paragraph or even a few paragraphs as context for that sentence I think it would be useful.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Debussy has the greatest post-Beethoven piano output. 

Couchie


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

And what's the problem with being a mannerist? (at least as I understand the term). Maybe you could be more specific about those aspects you don't like.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

aleazk said:


> And what's the problem with being a mannerist? (at least as I understand the term). Maybe you could be more specific about those aspects you don't like.


Yeah, I think the OP has to define exactly what this term implies, at least musically.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I don't get what you're saying. I need some explanation of what you mean by 'Mannerist.'


It simply means 'artificial' or 'given more to pretense and display'


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Xavier said:


> It simply means 'artificial' or 'given more to pretense and display'


Okay, well honestly, I see Debussy as a pretty 'objective' type composer. On the whole I mean, not focussing on any period of his, early to late. He brings to my mind images, atmospheres, also in the preludes for piano specifically symbols - eg. quotes of music by other composers, or the English or French anthems, stuff like that.

So 'artifice' or 'art for art's sake' does come across as applicable to Debussy. He can be quite detached, as can Ravel. Probably some earlier French guys like Saint-Saens as well. Its a hurdle I had to face with their music, but now I'm getting over it, have been for a number of years. I had to appreciate them for different qualities than composers who I really do feel are first and foremost emotional, eg. Beethoven or Brahms, and now I'm even hearing that in some of J.S. BAch.

But to get to the point, I think that they are not as full of 'pretense and display' as some other composers that I can name but won't. & actually these are not French, even. But the thing is, Debussy and also Saint-Saens & Ravel are kind of restrained by their focus on the craft of music itself. Debussy and RAvel in particular did not want to have these big emotions of the late romantics, esp. the Germanic ones. They wanted to move in other directions. So what I'm saying is that what you're saying about 'artifice' being a factor may well be a factor, but its a conscious decision they made to get away from expressing their own emotions in their music. Ravel had not much time for Beethoven's music, I know that for a fact. He called Beethoven's cello sonatas "abonimable music." This is actually in the cellist Piatigorsky's autobiography.

I'm lumping Debussy and Ravel together as I see them as being part of one aesthetic, early c20th French, but of course I'm not saying they're the completely the same.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Sid,

Thanks.

Here is another Delius quote:

_"Debussy's doctrines and prepossessions are contained in esse -- have come, as it were, to a focus -- in Pelleas et Melisande. He has revealed in this, as in no other work, his distinguishing traits. Nowhere else is he so completely and disarmingly himself, so happy in his medium"_

I couldn't agree more. The music is so deep and emotionally 'true'.

Now listen to Debussy's late Etudes for piano and it's like entering an emotionally *sterile* world. It's so radically different - in aesthetic and technique.

Ugh!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Okay, well honestly, I see Debussy as a pretty 'objective' type composer. On the whole I mean, not focussing on any period of his, early to late. He brings to my mind images, atmospheres, also in the preludes for piano specifically symbols - eg. quotes of music by other composers, or the English or French anthems, stuff like that.
> 
> So 'artifice' or 'art for art's sake' does come across as applicable to Debussy. He can be quite detached, as can Ravel. Probably some earlier French guys like Saint-Saens as well. Its a hurdle I had to face with their music, but now I'm getting over it, have been for a number of years. I had to appreciate them for different qualities than composers who I really do feel are first and foremost emotional, eg. Beethoven or Brahms, and now I'm even hearing that in some of J.S. BAch.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I'm just young and ignorant, but I really never believed the idea of "objective" composition, or the idea that music is ever separate from the composers emotions. (The only kind I might consider close to reaching such a state would be John Cage's purely chance compositions). To me, to say that the preludes of Debussy, or things like Stravinsky's Octet and Satie's Gymnopedies are objective and emotionally detached, just doesn't make any sense. To me, these works have emotion. It feels like people think if a piece isn't screaming or crying or laughing loudly or cheering at the top of its lungs then its completely devoid of emotion, and I don't really think that is true, maybe you can explain this concept better to me, but even my hero Leonard Bernstein didn't convince me of this concept.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Also, I don't see how "mannerism" can be used as an insult X3 I love mannerist art, its so cool! Its like using "impressionism" or "expressionism" or "romanticism" as an insult.

Also, I love pretty much everything I've heard by Debussy, especially the Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, Suite Bergamasque and the piano preludes.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Xavier said:


> Sid,
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ...


Well I think Delius was onto something, in terms of Debussy's only opera being a kind of peak in his output. It is a landmark work in opera and for Debussy. He was a Wagnerite earlier but when coming to write that opera, consciously avoided writing an opera like Wagner, or too much like him at least. So it may well be the work in which Debussy finally 'let go' of Wagner or any throwback to Germanic influences. Or even Romantic ones, but I never saw Debussy as a Romantic, not at least in any of his famous or better known works.

'Pelleas' has a natural element to it though, at least in terms of language, it comes across as kind of like natural conversation. Some of it interesting, some of it not or just 'as is,' as life is, kind of low key and not aiming at big statements. & conveying intimate rather than big emotions.

I can't comment on your comparison between it and the etudes. Its a long time since I've heard those. But I never had an issue with connecting with his post-Melisande works like the preludes for piano which I mentioned, also 'Jeux' or the '3 Nocturnes for orchestra' or 'Images for piano.' The late sonatas are to me quite different than the rest, going towards a kind of neo-classicism.

But generally the thing with Debussy is that I had to realise its a bit like what the painter Cezanne said about Monet. Cezanne said something like 'Monet is nothing else but an eye, but what an eye!' So Debussy is like that, he kind of gives me images, atmospheres, colours, moods, symbols, and so on, but he as a composer does not 'commit' emotionally. He's not conveying his emotions, he's actually just giving the listener sounds and the listener has to deal with them as he wishes, in his own way.

That's the best I can explain it. It took me ages to figure this out though.



BurningDesire said:


> Perhaps I'm just young and ignorant, but I really never believed the idea of "objective" composition, or the idea that music is ever separate from the composers emotions. (The only kind I might consider close to reaching such a state would be John Cage's purely chance compositions). To me, to say that the preludes of Debussy, or things like Stravinsky's Octet and Satie's Gymnopedies are objective and emotionally detached, just doesn't make any sense. To me, these works have emotion. It feels like people think if a piece isn't screaming or crying or laughing loudly or cheering at the top of its lungs then its completely devoid of emotion, and I don't really think that is true, maybe you can explain this concept better to me, but even my hero Leonard Bernstein didn't convince me of this concept.


Well I was saying both what I think and what is the basis of Debussy's aesthetic. Like Ravel did not like Beethoven much, neither did Debussy have much time for the likes of Mahler and Schoenberg. Part of the reason was that Debussy and Ravel wanted to get away from the high octane emotions and more subjective aesthetic of the Austro-Germanic tradition. I mean Debussy even avoided naming 'La Mer' or the '3 Nocturnes for orchestra' or 'Iberia for orchestra' as symphonies. He could have easily called them symphonies if he wanted to, but I think he didn't because even the word 'symphony' had connections/connotations with the past, esp. German romantic music, esp. Beethoven.

& in connection to that, Debussy has inscribed on his grave his name and also the simple sentence 'A French musician.' In French of course. There was that element too, he wanted to be seen as French, nothing else. The values of French music going back to guys like Couperin of refinement, craftsmanship, a sort of detachment, they are all in his music.

But if any Romantic era composer influenced Debussy, apart from Wagner, it was Liszt. Debussy saw Liszt give a recital in Rome, when Liszt was old and Debussy was a young student. If you know things like Liszt's 'Years of Pilgrimage' piano pieces, you can easily link some of those to Debussy and Ravel's piano works. Not only the harmonies but the images they bring up.

Then there was the aspect of pentatonic scale, of Asian gamelan (percussion orchestra) music that also informed Debussy's vision, and that was a decisive step away from Romantic - read 'emotional' - aesthetic. So there's all these things. Its really quite interesting.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well I was saying both what I think and what is the basis of Debussy's aesthetic. Like Ravel did not like Beethoven much, neither did Debussy have much time for the likes of Mahler and Schoenberg. Part of the reason was that Debussy and Ravel wanted to get away from the high octane emotions and more subjective aesthetic of the Austro-Germanic tradition. I mean Debussy even avoided naming 'La Mer' or the '3 Nocturnes for orchestra' or 'Iberia for orchestra' as symphonies. He could have easily called them symphonies if he wanted to, but I think he didn't because even the word 'symphony' had connections/connotations with the past, esp. German romantic music, esp. Beethoven.
> 
> & in connection to that, Debussy has inscribed on his grave his name and also the simple sentence 'A French musician.' In French of course. There was that element too, he wanted to be seen as French, nothing else. The values of French music going back to guys like Couperin of refinement, craftsmanship, a sort of detachment, they are all in his music.
> 
> ...


I understand those differences, just, I don't see how Romantic is the only "emotional" aesthetic, or why Germany is the only country associated with emotional writing. To me, plenty of Debussy's work is very emotional, even his late works. I mean, I use pentatonic scales, and whole-tone scales and things like that too, but I don't see my music as being objective or unemotional.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> I understand those differences, just, I don't see how Romantic is the only "emotional" aesthetic, or why Germany is the only country associated with emotional writing. To me, plenty of Debussy's work is very emotional, even his late works. I mean, I use pentatonic scales, and whole-tone scales and things like that too, but I don't see my music as being objective or unemotional.


I'm not saying he's not emotional. Maybe less emotional, or less 'in your face' than others. I mean look at Berlioz, for instance. He had no 'heir' in French music. He had very little impact as far as I can tell. Part of that I see is the big emotions in some of his music, that bombastic element.

But I suppose that Debussy's emotions, well for me they're connected with images and symbols. I mean look at the 'Golliwog's Cake-Walk' in 'Children's Corner Suite.' In the middle of that piece, you can hear the 'Tristan chord.' At the start there is a ragtime, and its interrupted by the 'Tristan chord,' then you have the ragtime return quickly. I mean this is a sly dig at the big emotions and kind of epic length of 'Tristan und Isolde.' He's saying something quite whimsical and comical with this. Like 'I used to care about Wagner's music, but now I care more about ragtime.' The ragtime being dancy and lowbrow, not profound. So his emotions are very basic there. It's a comment, nothing more. Nothing 'deep and meaningful.' I can tell you many examples. There are books that mention this, but I've also come across this kind of info in cd's liner notes. It boils down to making references and then kind of subverting things. No wonder he was influenced by Satie, another guy who was not averse to humour and taking a dig at pretension. So I wonder, for these guys big emotions, did they equal pretension.

But I would say, the emotions in Debussy are bound up with symbols and meanings. It about things external to him, eg. what's going on in the music world, or the natural world, stuff like that. But its internalised by you, by us, the listeners, we bring our emotions to it.

& actually, he's similar in some ways to Stravinsky, with whom Debussy played the two piano reduction of 'The Rite of Spring.' In rehearsal, I mean. He even slyly quotes it in one of his preludes. They both share that 'objective' outlook I was talking about.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Xavier said:


> It simply means 'artificial' or 'given more to pretense and display'


But what does that actually mean? It seems to me that people who use that word are suggesting they have insight enough in to the inner workings of a composer's thought processes that they can determine what is genuine and what is dishonest, which is simply not true. At best, the listener can determine in their own mind whether or not they like a piece, and someone equipped with the knowledge to follow a score can determine whether or not they find the alignment of the dots and squiggles pleasing. If anything, someone who would use the word "mannerist" in describing a work is more given to "pretence and display" than the work they are attacking.

If I have misread the definition of "mannerist", then by all means correct me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Isn't mannerism a 16th century Italian movement in the visual arts?


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Xavier said:


> As some of you may know Frederick Delius totally adored Debussy, especially _The Afternoon of a Faun, Pelleas et Melisande_ and _La Mer_, although he remained unimpressed by the piano music and the later orchestral works in which he claimed that the Frenchman had.... _"degenerated into a mannerist"_
> 
> I was so glad to read these words in a Delius biography the other day.
> 
> ...


I'm not clear whether you have read the biography or whether you are referriing to a summary of it you may have spotted on the Net. I have seen a summary which is identical to the above. If you have read the book what else Delius said on the topic of Debussy which might clarify the meaning of this quotation.

"Mannerist" music is causing comfusion. What is it? If you think that Debussy degenerated into a "mannerist" can you provide a few examples of what you consider to be good examples of "mannerist" music by other composers. And then could you clarify which pieces by Debussy sound like that.

In the absence of anything further, I would guess that Delius used a sloppy term to describe what he perceived as Debussy's reversion in later life from the Impressionism to some kind of earlier style of music. I wasn't aware that Debussy actually did so revert, but this would seem to be the implication of Delius' remark.


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

I don't have much to contribute to this thread, as I'm not very familiar with Debussy, *but* I think it's quite possible to compose music without indulging or putting a lot of emotion in it at all, like an architect, simply crafting a piece in the way which it's most logical for it to develop.

This is something I often feel is the case with Ravel's music, he doesn't have much personal to say, but he constructs these undeniably interesting pieces that, when I listen to them, makes me feel as I'm exploring the hallways of an ancient overgrown temple instead of listening to sound. It's like it's time and nature itself, and not him, that has invaded his pieces and filled them with inexplicable wonder.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Now listen to Debussy's late Etudes for piano and it's like entering an emotionally *sterile* world.


Debussy wouldn't necessarily disagree: the emotional sterility you experience is sort of the point. The Etudes were among the first pieces Debussy wrote after nearly a year of depression because he couldn't contribute meaningfully to the war, and when he did find his composerly voice again he deliberately wrote music stripped of emotion or expression, since emotion and expression were now associated with the music of the country that was currently raining bullets and artillery over his own countrymen. (Debussy wrote to a friend in 1915, the same year he wrote the Etudes: "I think of the youth of France, wantonly mown down by those _Kultur_ merchants [derogatory term for Germans], and of its contribution to our heritage, now for ever lost to us. The music I'm writing will be a secret homage to them.") That's why Debussy's late works abandon the "impressionist" titles he had been accustomed to ("The Sea," "Reflections in the Water," etc.) for more abstract and objective titles like "Sonata for Violin," "Etudes," etc. Ironically, when the Etudes are put in historical perspective I personally find them much more moving than his early works, many of which I do in fact find "mannerist," however anachronistic that term may seem.*

*The term is not actually as anachronistic as it is being made out to be here. Delius's comment was merely a repetition of something that lots of French critics were saying about Debussy in the 1910s: that his music was starting to rely too much on predictable techniques (all of those parallel extended triads and whatnot) to the point that his pieces were "mere" demonstrations of technique rather than genuinely expressive music in their own right. The matter got debated all over the French press in newspaper articles, editorials, etc. At its peak, two French journalists, C.-Francis Caillard and José Bérys, sent a questionnaire about Debussy to about a hundred prominent musicians and music critics, and published the results in a book called "The Case of Debussy."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't have much to contribute to this thread, as I'm not very familiar with Debussy, but I think it's quite possible to compose music without indulging or putting a lot of emotion in it at all, like an architect, simply crafting a piece in the way which it's most logical for it to develop.

I quite agree. I think the whole notion of putting emotion into a work of art is a throwback to Romanticism. Certainly an artist can be in an emotional state while working on a piece of art... but unless we are speaking of a rapidly-executed work of art most art works evolve over a period of time. If I wish to convey "sadness" (just choosing an emotion at random) I do not need to be sad or to maintain a state of sadness over the course of the creative process. Much of it is simply conscious thought. I recognize that if conveying sadness is the goal, then certain colors, certain subjects, certain ways of treating light, etc... are likely to elicit such a response more than others. I've always found the notion that the Romantics are more "emotional" than Mozart or Haydn an absolutely absurd notion. The emotional impact has more to do with what the audience brings to the work and the intentions of the artist. Beethoven and Wagner employed formal elements (minor keys, dramatic dynamic contrasts, etc...) than Mozart or Haydn. This has nothing to do with one group of artists being more emotional and the other detached and everything to do with the fact that some artists intentionally employed artistic elements that they recognized would likely elicit an emotional response for the simple reason that they were of an era that valued emotion and sentiment over reason, logic, and wit. The idea that this artist is emotionally expressive and another is cool and detached, as well as the notion that we can read a work of art as some personal diary in which we can interpret in a Freudian manner strikes me as a naive idea as to just how an artist works and says more about the audience than the artist.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I really liked Krisena's post and found Eschbeg very informative re the etudes of Debussy and all that was going on in his life then.



Krisena said:


> I don't have much to contribute to this thread, as I'm not very familiar with Debussy, *but* I think it's quite possible to compose music without indulging or putting a lot of emotion in it at all, like an architect, simply crafting a piece in the way which it's most logical for it to develop...


The architect aspect, well that does make sense, esp. with Xenakis, who was trained as an architect. I really feel a sense of structure in his music, and with some works its explicitly there (eg. his 'Legende d'eer,' written for the opening of the Georges Pompidou arts centre in Paris, whose structure he based it on, and its not hard to kind of connect with & hear that in this work). But there is also a sense I get out of his music as connected with the sea, the elements, and maybe a sense of rituals (Ancient Greece? or the West African drumming which inspired him too?). And this is logical, since he came from Greece, a nation surrounded by water.

But I do get emotion out of him, but similar to Debussy in some ways, its quite connected with images. & also differently, with 'gut' and animalistic kind of emotions.



> ...
> This is something I often feel is the case with Ravel's music, he doesn't have much personal to say, but he constructs these undeniably interesting pieces that, when I listen to them, makes me feel as I'm exploring the hallways of an ancient overgrown temple instead of listening to sound. It's like it's time and nature itself, and not him, that has invaded his pieces and filled them with inexplicable wonder.


I can see what you're driving at, esp. with reference to 'Daphnis et chloe.' Actually in relation to that, I'll tell this anecdote of sorts. I was listening to a jazz program on radio ages ago, presented by a jazz musician here. & he was saying he doesn't find classical music emotional, or as emotional as jazz (surprise surprise). But then he said, he found one classical piece very emotional. & that was 'Daphnis et chloe,' from which he played the daybreak bit, 'lever du jour.' He said 'My God, I find this so emotional!'

I kind of thought that to be odd as I never thought Ravel to be emotional. But guess what? Subsequently I got that work on cd, the whole ballet, and I got addicted to it, listened to it heaps of times. Did overkill, which is rare for me, or rare in that extreme way. So its kind of strange how one of the most 'objective' composers on the planet can be so emotional. & the way you describe it there is in line with what I think of that piece, and what that jazz musician thought too.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Debussy has the greatest post-Beethoven piano output.
> 
> Couchie


I love the irony (1:13 )


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Yeah :lol:

Funny how Debussy's greatest piano moment, or one of them at least, is like a sly homage to his former idol. & putting the 'Tristan chord' in between black man's ragtime music. I doubt Herr Wagner would have been impressed, whether that 'symbol' was deliberate on Debussy's part or not. Of course, as has been noted in this thread, Claude was a rampant anti-Germanic xenophobe, esp. in later life. So it goes both ways, I guess.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I kind of thought that to be odd as I never thought Ravel to be emotional. But guess what? Subsequently I got that work on cd, the whole ballet, and I got addicted to it, listened to it heaps of times. Did overkill, which is rare for me, or rare in that extreme way. So its kind of strange how one of the most 'objective' composers on the planet can be so emotional.


It's interesting to think about what it is that strikes a listener as emotional. Emotional, in this case, meaning serious and intimate, I'd guess. No hiding behind schematisisms, no phony exuberance.

As for Ravel, I'm sure that when he wrote the slow movement of his g major piano concerto, or the pavane pour une infante défunte, he knew he was writing, or trying to write, intensely emotional music.

I was listening to the Debussy études last night, and I can see the mannerist and sterile element to them. Though I find them captivating very much because of that. I wouldn't expect a great deal of emotion from a set of études anyway, given the nature of études, or studies, in general.

I'd interpret mannerism as concentrating primarily on (a certain, fixed) style and form, putting content second. I'd probably be struggling to extract any kind of (pre-existing) emotional content from Debussy's études, but that is not to say that they can't evoke an emotional reaction in me.

Tonality-based music seems, in some way, intrinsically emotional because of the diatonic scale and its sequence of whole-tone and semitone relationships, the expressive nature of the third, and the leading tone. Bruckner creates incredibly emotional passages in his late symphonies by using, I think, a simple descending scale. As does Pärt in his Britten cantus.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Now some 24 posts into this thread, are we any clearer what "mannerist music" is exactly, into which Debussy is reputed to have reverted in his later period according to a second-hand comment by Delius. I asked earlier but no answer appears to have been forthcoming.


----------



## Jem (Aug 1, 2012)

Some composers consciously incorporate mannerism (sic?) into their works, often for ironic effect. Mahler was the king of this, composing scherzi that aped Viennese waltzes for comic, sardonic effect. The finale of his Ninth, is fully of conscious cliche – just listen to its opening – yet it's one of the most sincere, deep, musical gestures of his. Shostakovich's mad, tub-thumping bits are much the same: Mannerism used conscious for artistic effect and emotional/intellectual impact.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> Now some 24 posts into this thread, are we any clearer what "mannerist music" is exactly, into which Debussy is reputed to have reverted in his later period according to a second-hand comment by Delius. I asked earlier but no answer appears to have been forthcoming.


In my previous post I explained what the term would have meant to Delius, who was parroting what French music critics were saying about Debussy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andreas said:


> ...
> As for Ravel, I'm sure that when he wrote the slow movement of his g major piano concerto, or the pavane pour une infante défunte, he knew he was writing, or trying to write, intensely emotional music.....


I agree with what you say generally in your post but specifically this. These two works and the Daphnis et Chloe (esp. the full ballet version, not just the suites) do strike me as the most emotional things he wrote.

Of course as you suggest its hard to put a finger on what is and what is not emotional, and I'd add probably not entirely necessary to just enjoy music on its own terms. A lot of Ravel's other works give me images rather than emotions per se. Eg. his piano trio, the final movement makes me think I'm on the beach (well, one performance I have on cd, its the way those musicians did it, other performances did not give me this 'beach' image, funnily enough). & 'Gaspard de la nuit' also has images, some of quite a disturbing nature. So a type of emotion is bound up in those too.



Jem said:


> Some composers consciously incorporate mannerism (sic?) into their works, often for ironic effect. Mahler was the king of this, composing scherzi that aped Viennese waltzes for comic, sardonic effect. The finale of his Ninth, is fully of conscious cliche - just listen to its opening - yet it's one of the most sincere, deep, musical gestures of his. Shostakovich's mad, tub-thumping bits are much the same: Mannerism used conscious for artistic effect and emotional/intellectual impact.


Yeah they can be seen as doing symbolic things as well, not that far a strech from Debussy (although Debussy didn't have much time for Mahler's music, but that may well have been partly due to his quite nationalist stance against anything 'Germanic,' but also for other - eg. aesthetic and philosophical - reasons).

When Shostakovich quotes two songs loved by Stalin in the final movement of his first cello concerto, some who think it's a homage to the dictator may think this is just a quote, no more. But the way Shostakovich subverts and distorts these quotes suggest to me not a homage but a critique of Stalin and his oppressive regime. Its a kind of symbol or even just a comment by Shostakovich on what Stalin did. I see it as basically p*ssing on Stalin's grave. It does have emotional impact on me, but it is not a refined kind, I get anger from it, and a release of tension from the tragic nature of the piece overall. Like Breaker Morant's final line before being shot by a firing squad 'Shoot straight you ********.'


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I think that "mannerism" means simply art that concentrates into repeating certain manners, as opposed to originality or expression. Superficial art, in other words. That's what the post-Renaissance painters were accused of, and yes, it was a derogatory term. The accusation was perhaps not without base, as some of those painters did concentrate more into producing the "right" _contraposto_ positions, "delicate" gestures of fingers, etc. Tintoretto fits into the period, and thus can be lumped into the "mannerist" category, but his paintings are so original and expressive that the term can be misleading.

So, if an artist follows a certain rigid and formal method, he can be called a mannerist. However, if he is still able to produce art that is "more" than just his "manners", the term becomes misleading, as it loses its original derogatory intent. For example, who would call Schoenberg a mannerist? He follows a rigid manner, but is able to create art that is much more than the sum of its manners.


----------

