# Stravinsky vs. Berlioz vs. Debussy



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Vote and discuss. I chose the 3 because they are probably the most innovative non-serialist, non-Wagnerian composers since Beethoven and thought it might make an interesting topic. They also all happened to live in France at one point or another (okay it's a stretch).

Also give some favorite recordings of any of their works you particularly like.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Well, I can eliminate Berlioz because he has plenty of long sections that I find are "snoozers". Stravinsky's weakness is with some works just not inspired enough. Debussy's weakness was his early works. I can't think of much after 1890 that I don't enjoy fully...so it's Debussy by "a nose"


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

These composer have little in common, making a vote impossible. Each one could get my vote.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I completely agree with SanAntone .


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Vasks said:


> Well, I can eliminate Berlioz because he has plenty of long sections that I find are "snoozers". Stravinsky's weakness is with some works just not inspired enough. Debussy's weakness was his early works. I can't think of much after 1890 that I don't enjoy fully...so it's Debussy by "a nose"


I agree with you on Berlioz and Stravinsky, with Debussy, even in his later works I either love them or I find them to be not quite strong enough structurally somehow. He is creating an atmosphere and breaking new ground but sometimes the final result is neither here nor there for me.

Debussy's best works are hard to beat, but for me Stravinsky is more consistent in his craftsmanship (but as you say sometimes the feel is perfunctory). Debussy and Stravinsky are a tie for me. (Both are in my personal top 5 or so).


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Debussy is my favorite composer of all-time, so he wins hands down, but this isn't to take anything away from Stravinsky or Berlioz. In all honesty, this poll makes zero sense as does any poll pitting composers against each other like it's some kind of competition.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Stravinsky and Debussy are more important but Berlioz is my favorite. And his historical importance might not be up there with the other two, but I think he's the most important orchestrator between Beethoven and Mahler.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Kind of odd to call Berlioz "Non-Wagnerian". He was definitely one of the progenitors of the "progressive Romantic" school that included Liszt and Wagner.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

violadude said:


> Kind of odd to call Berlioz "Non-Wagnerian". He was definitely one of the progenitors of the "progressive Romantic" school that included Liszt and Wagner.


This entire thread is odd.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

bz3 said:


> I chose the 3 because they are probably the most innovative non-serialist, non-Wagnerian composers since Beethoven...


This doesn't even make any sense. You don't like Serialism (which is such a broad term any way you want to look at it), but like non-Wagnerian and innovative composers? Ummm...you're really making my head hurt here.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Three of the greatest innovators: one a Romantic, one an Impressionist, and one a Modern. Each contributed "new sounds" to their contemporary music. Each has left us seminal works that rank with the greatest of the masterworks. Each has influenced so much in music after him.

But analytics are not necessarily justified here. The poll is asking simply for one's "favorite". That means the other two aren't going anywhere, and won't, especially, disappear. We'll still have their music to listen to, which is good.

So, how does one select a "favorite" from among giants?

For my part, I can confess a great appreciation for the _Symphony Fantastique_ which I recognize as one of the most original and creatively orchestrated symphonies ever written. A stunning demo disc it is, too, whether you want to test for resolution, instrumental timbre, or explosive climaxes. I know it nearly by heart and have a copy of the score, but I haven't listened to it in a long while, and I don't care for much of Berlioz's other music.

I appreciate Stravinsky, too, as a master orchestrator and creative musical mind, and though I greatly favor _The Rite of Spring_, having several dozen versions in my disc collection as well as a score, and readily able to confess the piece spins on my system with regularity, I don't listen to other pieces by the Russian composer very often. And there are several pieces, mostly from the post-_Rite_ period, the "insect music", that I don't take to at all.

If I must select a "favorite" composer by the amount of music by the person that I access on a yearly basis, I would have to select Debussy from the masters listed in this poll. I love so many of Debussy's pieces: orchestral, chamber music, solo piano works, and never seem to tire of it. Among the pieces that I listen to on a nearly monthly basis (and keep in mind I have access to several thousand discs in my at-home collection) are the _Nocturnes_, _La Mer_, _Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune_, _Images pour orchestre_, and _Printemps_, all of which I have in multiple recordings as well as in scores; the String Quartet (one of my favorite chamber works) and Cello Sonata; and various piano works. Too, Debussy's music translates well to the jazz genre, and I have several discs which feature intriguing and tasteful jazz arrangements of the _Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faine_, _Prélude From "Suite Bergamasque"_ and _Clair De Lune_, to list just three. When I search for Debussy on my Discogs database, I get over 100 discs, including box sets and compilations, on file (compared to 69 for Stravinsky and 29 for Berlioz).

So, I'll choose Debussy, my "favorite" of the three. A selection which makes no judgment of quality, artfulness, influence, impact, or longevity with regards to the three.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Debussy, then Stravinsky, then Berlioz for me, looking at their oeuvre.

If we just look at their single work I like best, it flips around completely:

Symphonie Fantastique, then Sacre, then PalamduF.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Judging by pix Stravinsky likely Berlioz any of Debussy.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

From among the three, I reach for a Berlioz disc first. I'm assuming Berlioz will come in a distant third.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I adore both Berlioz and Debussy, so a choice is impossible. As for Stravinsky, for me it depends on the period. I love his early ballet scores, but I find some of his neo-classical stuff a bit arid and not really my cup of tea.

If absolutely pushed, I'd probably pick Berlioz but I wouldn't give up Debussy without a struggle.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Berlioz supposedly conducted once with a sword instead of a baton and as hot-headed romantic I'd bet on him in any physical altercation. 

None of them is among my personal ~10-15 top favorites, partly because I connect emotionally only to some of their works while I don't care for others. 
E.g. I love Debussy's quartet (a rather early and not so typically work), am more lukewarm about the other chamber music, like most of his piano music but don't much care for the orchestral music (I don't dislike it but it's not something I frequently listen to). I couldn't be bothered with Pelleas & Melisande until now. With Stravinsky I mostly like some select "neoclassical" pieces, could not really get into the late stuff and don't care for central works like Firebird or Les noces. 
Berlioz might be my overall favorite of these three (or not), in any case, despite some flaws I like SF, R&F, and especially "La Damnation de Faust" a lot. OTOH I don't get the Requiem and know Les Troyens only very superficially and none of the other operas.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> Berlioz supposedly conducted once with a sword instead of a baton and as hot-headed romantic I'd bet on him in any physical altercation.


I've never heard about that before. Where did you read this?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I've never heard about that before. Where did you read this?


It is probably apokryphal but at the premiere of the symphonie funebre et triomphale with a marching band of 200 men.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Whether or not the poll makes sense, it was an easy choice for me. Debussy is in my top 10 composers; the others are not. Indeed, it took me quite a while to find a _Symphonie Fantastique_ that I could enjoy.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Debussy, but I agree with many on this thread that it is hard to compare them tbh... My favourite among them is Debussy , I like his works the best...still I quite like the other two as well ....


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> It is probably apokryphal but at the premiere of the symphonie funebre et triomphale with a marching band of 200 men.


That would make sense; I have a hunch that back then conductors of military bands did use some dress swords to conduct.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

A quick googling suggests that the story is not true though.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

bz3 said:


> non-Wagnerian


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I see a comparison between Stravinsky and Debussy but not Berlioz whose musicology is almost exclusively enormously large compositions. Among other things his opera takes on the Trojan war.

Also take away Le Sacre du Printemps and what were Stravinsky's great innovations?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Berlioz supposedly conducted once with a sword instead of a baton and as hot-headed romantic I'd bet on him in any physical altercation.


Maybe he wanted to follow the footsteps of Lully.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Too weird a selection to make a choice. But I will put in a plug for Munch/BSO/RCA Living Stereo disc of Berlioz overtures, which, absurdly, makes them sound like the greatest music in the world.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Debussy and Berlioz were great composers but Stravinsky was one of The Greats. His voice was nearly all very distinctive but he also never stopped innovating - his output can be divided into a number of notable periods, all distinct and yet all in his voice. The same could be said of Beethoven!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

larold said:


> Also take away Le Sacre du Printemps and what were Stravinsky's great innovations?


_Les Noces_, _L'histoire du soldat_ and _Petrushka_ among others. He was innovative in a lot of works. His _Concerto for Piano and Winds_ influenced Bartok.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm not a favorites type of listener. I have a good amount of music by all three. There is an awful lot to explore in Stravinsky due to his long career and varied works. Debussy is very interesting due to his unique approach to form and orchestration, and his great piano repertoire. I do listen to Berlioz once in a while but some of his big, sprawling works don't hold my interest throughout.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I used to list *Debussy* among my ten favorite composers, but haven't for some time, I still like his music a lot, just not high rotation anymore. My favorite works are his late career sonatas and Pelleas.

*Stravinsky* has remained on that list, and aside from the big three ballets I listen to works from throughout his long and varied oeuvre frequently. It's not that I dislike the three ballets, it's just that I've heard them enough and for me, don't represent the Stravinsky I think of as most interesting.

I've never been a fan of Berlioz.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Recently, the Symphonie Fantastique has become a personal favorite among classical / romantic symphonies. The Dies Irae theme is also something I enjoy in other pieces by Respighi and Schnittke. 

Nuits has to be my favorite among vocal pieces by all composers. Although Damoiselle d'Elue is pretty good too. Nothing by Stravinsky comes to mind. Romeo & Juliet beats out anything similar by the others.

Berlioz can be such an extrovert though that I run to Debussy for comfort. Same for Stravinsky. Igor made a famous comment about Vivaldi that I thought was a bit of projection about his own music ha.

Debussy wrote Images which would seem to be enough for the win.... and beats all in the piano department...

So for me, I guess it's a toss-up between Debussy and Berlioz, I need them both, impressionism of one and and expressionism of the other. Stravinsky not so much, as an occasional hearing of Petroushka seems to keep me happy. The Rite has always excited me at first, then bores me in the 2nd part.

PS - Stravinsky's "jazz" has always been a draw for me, in much the same way as Beethoven's Folksongs... 

PS2 - my vote goes to Berlioz as the *underdog*


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Very difficult to choose, but I went with Berlioz. It came down to this: of all the works of these three what single work is the most meaningful, one I've loved for over 50 years, one that thoroughly enjoy performing and listening to both on record and live. Symphonie Fantastique was it. A stupendous, monumental achievement. As much as I love Firebird, Petrushka, La Mer, Images and the operas The Rake's Progress and Pelleas and Melisande, Berlioz also gave us Romeo & Juliet, the Requiem Mass, Roman Carnival overture...and a superb autobiography as well as an indispensable treatise on orchestration. Yes, Berlioz.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The only thing by Berlioz that engages me is his first symphony but that is one of my favourite symphonies. I think I like Stravinsky's musical personality the most overall, but am moved by Debussy the most overall.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Although I voted for Berlioz, I'm a bit baffled by the OP. Berlioz was very probably the living composer Wagner respected the most, and Wagner was highly influenced by many of the things Berlioz did (e.g. writing the Liberto and the score for an opera). Les Troyens certainly helped pave the way for Wagner's monster operas and it seems rather unlikely we would have the same _Tristan und Isolde_ without Berlioz's _Romeo and Juliet_.

In other words, maybe we should be calling Wagner Berliozian!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BachIsBest said:


> Berlioz was very probably the living composer Wagner respected the most


"When Richard was nine, Weber came to Dresden to rehearse and conduct his opera Der Freischütz. In his autobiography, Wagner gives a rather detailed description. "Weber's features were really refined, delicate, and his intellectual appearance excited my ecstatic admiration. His narrow face and finely-cut features, his vivacious though often half-closed eyes, captivated and thrilled me; whilst even the bad limp with which he walked, and which I often noticed from our windows when the master was making his way home past our house from the fatiguing rehearsals, stamped the great musician in my imagination as an exceptional and almost superhuman being." The impression the actual performances of Der Freischütz made on young Richard cannot be overstated. He obsessively longed to hear the music over and over again, forcing his sister and other pianists to endlessly repeat playing the "Overture" for him. When they finally refused, Richard began to take piano lessons himself. Not only that, when Weber died in 1826, he quickly decided to become a musician and composer."


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think Berlioz also listed Freischutz as an operatic masterpiece (hence the weird version of it he did where he attempted to adapt it to the accepted conventions of French opera) - that may be a case of mutual respect.

Of all composers I believe Berlioz listed Weber, Beethoven and Gluck above all.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> When they finally refused, Richard began to take piano lessons himself. Not only that, when Weber died in 1826, he quickly decided to become a musician and composer.


Which book is that from?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

That weird Freischütz version yielded the great orchestration of "invitation to dance/waltz" because Berlioz needed more ballet music!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Which book is that from?


https://interlude.hk/curtains-up-wagner-and-weber/


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> "When Richard was nine, Weber came to Dresden to rehearse and conduct his opera Der Freischütz. In his autobiography, Wagner gives a rather detailed description. "Weber's features were really refined, delicate, and his intellectual appearance excited my ecstatic admiration. His narrow face and finely-cut features, his vivacious though often half-closed eyes, captivated and thrilled me; whilst even the bad limp with which he walked, and which I often noticed from our windows when the master was making his way home past our house from the fatiguing rehearsals, stamped the great musician in my imagination as an exceptional and almost superhuman being." The impression the actual performances of Der Freischütz made on young Richard cannot be overstated. He obsessively longed to hear the music over and over again, forcing his sister and other pianists to endlessly repeat playing the "Overture" for him. When they finally refused, Richard began to take piano lessons himself. Not only that, when Weber died in 1826, he quickly decided to become a musician and composer."


I really should have clarified that I meant living whilst Wagner was a composer. I didn't know the above story about Wagner as a boy, so thanks for that.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

violadude said:


> Kind of odd to call Berlioz "Non-Wagnerian". He was definitely one of the progenitors of the "progressive Romantic" school that included Liszt and Wagner.


Calling Berlioz 'Wagnerian' is like calling Haydn 'Beethovenian,' or calling Wagner 'Stravinskyian' simply because the latter was influenced by the former.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bz3 said:


> Calling Berlioz 'Wagnerian' is like calling Haydn 'Beethovenian,' or calling Wagner 'Stravinskyian' simply because the latter was influenced by the former.


Right, I would not describe Berlioz as Wagnerian, which is odd to call him "non-wagnerian" cause if you're going by that logic that's every composer before Wagner.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

philoctetes said:


> Nuits has to be my favorite among vocal pieces by all composers.












A great disc! Also available in the Janet Baker Great EMI Recordings box.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Stravinsky (top 15)
Favorite work: the Rite of Spring
Berlioz (top 25/30)
Favorite work: Requiem
Debussy (top 25/30)
Favorite work: Images Book 2


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bz3 said:


> Vote and discuss. I chose the 3 because they are probably the most innovative non-serialist, non-Wagnerian composers since Beethoven and thought it might make an interesting topic. They also all happened to live in France at one point or another (okay it's a stretch).
> 
> Also give some favorite recordings of any of their works you particularly like.


Berlioz was associated with the New German School of composers (which included Liszt and Wagner). There are other connections here, but I guess you could find these anywhere if you look hard enough. One is that Stravinsky's teacher, Rimsky-Korsakov saw Berlioz conduct during his Russian tour. Debussy briefly visited Russia to work as a teacher for the daughters of Tchaikovsky's sponsor, Nadezhda von Meck.

The connections between Debussy and Stravinsky are of course stronger, they where present in Paris during the early 20th century which was a centre of modernism. I quite like this photo of them together, Debussy towards the end of his career and Stravinsky at the beginning: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Debussy_and_Stravinsky_-_photo_by_Satie.jpg

Berlioz is out of the competition as far as my musical taste is concerned (although I like _Harold in Italy_), and its a tight race between the other two. Debussy only just edges Stravinsky out, mainly due to his piano music (the 24 preludes in particular).


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Berlioz was associated with the New German School of composers (which included Liszt and Wagner). There are other connections here, but I guess you could find these anywhere if you look hard enough. One is that Stravinsky's teacher, Rimsky-Korsakov saw Berlioz conduct during his Russian tour. Debussy briefly visited Russia to work as a teacher for the daughters of Tchaikovsky's sponsor, Nadezhda von Meck.
> 
> The connections between Debussy and Stravinsky are of course stronger, they where present in Paris during the early 20th century which was a centre of modernism. I quite like this photo of them together, Debussy towards the end of his career and Stravinsky at the beginning: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Debussy_and_Stravinsky_-_photo_by_Satie.jpg
> 
> Berlioz is out of the competition as far as my musical taste is concerned (although I like _Harold in Italy_), and its a tight race between the other two. Debussy only just edges Stravinsky out, mainly due to his piano music (the 24 preludes in particular).


I'm aware, but Berlioz disavowed the connection to the New German School. When I said Wagnerian I meant Wagner and Liszt, but clearly not Berlioz since I included him in the poll. All the people under discussion were highly influential and innovative and were influenced by the influential and innovative composers that came before them.

My proviso was simply to exclude Wagner so that the thread didn't turn into a discussion of whether Wagnerianism (or serialism, as stated) was more innovative than the three composers listed.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Thread makes me wonder who are the most orthogonal composers.

You could probably run user lists through a simple sexdeci-calculation to find the likely pair, then three, then four, like natural atomic ground states. Would make for an amusing forum war game.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bz3 said:


> I'm aware, but Berlioz disavowed the connection to the New German School. When I said Wagnerian I meant Wagner and Liszt, but clearly not Berlioz since I included him in the poll. All the people under discussion were highly influential and innovative and were influenced by the influential and innovative composers that came before them.
> 
> My proviso was simply to exclude Wagner so that the thread didn't turn into a discussion of whether Wagnerianism (or serialism, as stated) was more innovative than the three composers listed.


I think that Liszt was more or less a go-between connecting Berlioz and Wagner. Similar to the position of Schumann between Mendelssohn and Brahms in the more traditional strand of music at the time (I've come across it being referred to as the Central German School). Of course, the grouping of composers into schools - however like-minded they might have been - doesn't mean that they where an entirely homogeneous group.

The aim of my post wasn't to query your choice of candidates. I was merely wanting to add to the discussion about Berlioz's position in relation to Wagner and so on.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Has to be Stravinsky for me. 

Debussy's music has sadly never done much for me, even with some of the pieces that I enjoyed upon first listen (e.g. Nuages, Petite Suite), over time they have largely come to bore me. His music can be nice to listen to, but it's not something I would actively seek out to listen to. I know it's not a popular opinion, so don't take offense - I think it's just a matter of my personal music preferences.

Berlioz is an interesting composer - trying to be objective, I probably do consider Symphonie fantastique to be a masterpiece, even if it's not my favorite piece. From what I've heard of his other works, it tends to seem pretty solid, and is maybe even criminally underplayed. But even still, I wouldn't put Berlioz in my top tier of composers, maybe not second tier either.

Given that Rimsky-Korsakov is pretty much my favorite composer, I'm particularly fond of Stravinsky's earlier works, where you can hear the influence. But besides my personal musical tastes, I think Stravinsky was one of the most innovative composers in history, mastering a number of different styles while staying genuine to his own self. His music is almost always gripping, spontaneous but meticulously crafted.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Interesting, I have Debussy is miles above the others. In fact the more you dig in, the more masterpieces you find. He's so melodious, beautiful, catchy, uplifting. Even a short piece like Reverie for example, is honestly as good to me as the Rite of Spring, maybe better.


----------



## Terrapin (Apr 15, 2011)

Although none of the three would make my top 20, I voted for Berlioz. Symphonie Fantastique is indeed fantastic, an astounding piece. I also like Harold in Italy and his overtures. Not a big fan of Debussy but I do like La Mer, Faun, and especially the string quartet. Stravinsky does nothing for me.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Love it too. Berlioz kind of reminds me of the anti-Brahms of neoclassicism. That is, the classical-style music kind of evolved two opposite ways after Beethoven.

This explains why Stravinsky sounds somewhat strange. Early Russian music stemmed somewhat from the Berlioz camp, and this influenced the French impressionists, the last two in turn influencing Stravinsky who then tried his return to classicism in a roundabout way. But he all indeed sounds very round-about, like he's trying to merge the two ultimate directions back together again, like completing an ideological circle.

Something in the result got misplaced, like the game of telephone. Of course you venture that classicism on the wrong notes is a good thing, maybe wrong notes are what happen when you compel a relativity trip around a full 360 return. Hence he knew he wasn't (couldn't be) Bach, for Bach on this Russian space mission was left behind and then refound in a different age than remembered. Alas, telephone games...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

How is Stravinsky merging anything from the high-late Austrogerman romanticism? 
Basically all of his music is (often strongly) against this tradition, just in different ways, first impressionist, than "ethno-barbarian", then neoclassicist, finally an unromantic austere version of dodecaphony (very different from the expressionist Schönberg variant). There are a few rare points where he is touching them, like the symphony in C and in three movements but they are closer to Haydn or Beethoven than to Brahms.

Same goes for Debussy, but Berlioz had an interesting dialectic relationship with the German tradition. Of course he is mostly before German high/late romanticism, but his strongest influences are Germanic (Gluck, Weber and above all, Beethoven) and he shares literary interests (Shakespeare, Byron, Goethe's Faust etc.) with German (and other) Romantics. But despite his constant battles with the academically conservative French musicians (like Fétis) he also does have a classicist "gallic/latin" strain (and Gluck and Cherubini were in a sense French opera composers)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Kreisler jr said:


> How is Stravinsky merging anything from the high-late Austrogerman romanticism?


I assumed it was obvious I was saying he was forced to do the opposite, circling around by aesthetic necessity, because of how Russian/French music was concluding.


----------

