# Debussy, Clair de Lune: romanticism or impressionism?



## Castelat

Hello all, I've been trying to find out what genre this piece is, and sometimes I think its a mix, so I ended up with the conclusion that this piece is a mixed of romanticism and impressionism, if that is not the case, what do you think?


----------



## Ukko

I don't understand why you need to label the work; writing a treatise?


----------



## Ravndal

Hilltroll72 said:


> I don't understand why you need to label the work; writing a treatise?


Academic reasons, perhaps?


----------



## Vaneyes

What does Wikipedia say? I'll go with that.


----------



## PetrB

Sometimes it is just nice to know to satisfy your own curiosity.

The Groves music reference CHANGED the starting date for the era of modernism, from 1900 to 1890, _exactly in consideration of Debussy_, who is, from the get go, in a snap having dispensed with common practice theoretical chord function, _who is the first distinctly and consistently modern composer._

HOWEVER ~ No one is born in a vacuum. I would not for one moment say anything by Debussy was romantic, by style or harmonic device, or mind-set. There are, though some typically left-over Romantic Gestures, a broad line here or there, a dynamic curve, a titch of sentimentality AKIN to some of the later romantics, but not actually Like enough to call him in anyway a romantic.


----------



## Castelat

I study classical music, and sometimes I find it difficult to know the genre of some pieces. This is another example which I believe is Impressionism, but who knows:


----------



## Ravndal

Castelat said:


> I study classical music, and sometimes I find it difficult to know the genre of some pieces. This is another example which I believe is Impressionism, but who knows:


Not impressionism. I would call that _minimalism_. Or something else, just not impressionism..


----------



## DrKilroy

True, I believe that Satie was the first modern composer, Debussy was second.  

Best regards, Dr


----------



## PetrB

Castelat said:


> I study classical music, and sometimes I find it difficult to know the genre of some pieces. This is another example which I believe is Impressionism, but who knows:


There are debates, certainly. Satie is a "oner" having self-published his Trois Gymnopedies in 1888, (Wagner died in 1883, in 1888 and for decades to come, the Germanic Romantic style dominated much of composition throughout Europe -- and elsewhere 'western' style music was being written.) This makes the Gymnopedies, published when they were, almost frighteningly forward looking. And Debussy knew of them; their harmonic ambiguity, if not totally disassociated from former chord function principles, were nearly a clean break. Satie was a strong formative influence on Debussy's musical thinking.

[[ADD: I agree with Dr.Kilroy, above. If music history and musicology were just, the title of first truly modern composer would go to Satie. The more dominant figure usually gets assigned the crown, and Debussy is not only a larger 'figure' on the musical scene, but took those developments much, much further. END ADD]]

Impressionism is best determined, piano music or instrumental, as having a preoccupation with what is thought of as a shimmering sound texture, and Debussy was the first and foremost in that regard. Ravel, great orchestrator and truly more a neoclassicist, is usually second as Impressionist right after Debussy.

After that, it is quickly "downhill" *(IMHO) *with other composers who used parallel fifths, whole-tone scales, parallel ninth chords, etc. all the outward harmonic devices pretty much first used by Debussy. Books will toss in a number of more names, but to me the music of those others is a far cry from the finesse, the "glimmer' of Debussy's pianistic writing as per "coloration" as well as his orchestral works.

Satie is often associated with the Dadaist movement, rather punkish, surreal, in your face anti-establishment.

If you are listening, all of the piano music was at one time recorded, beautifully performed, by Aldo Ciccolini, and most of the orchestral works are still available on a re-issue CD with Maurice Abravanel and the Utah symphony; that is an excellent recording. Satie, not an impressionist.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrKilroy said:


> True, I believe that Satie was the first modern composer, Debussy was second.
> 
> Best regards, Dr


Janacek holds that distinction for me. :tiphat:


----------



## Ukko

Ravndal said:


> Not impressionism. I would call that _minimalism_. Or something else, just not impressionism..


Something else. It does share something with Debussy though: it creates a doorway to meditation.


----------



## Castelat

Thank you for your comments, I'm just a student starting with all this about genres, and I have to admit that sometimes it is complex like math, but I love to go deep into details.


----------



## Ravndal

I don't think Janacek composed some of those modern works before Satie did. He was born before Satie though.


----------



## Ravndal

Hilltroll72 said:


> Something else. It does share something with Debussy though: it creates a doorway to meditation.


Very true! 15digits


----------



## apricissimus

Neither. It's impranticism.


----------



## Vaneyes

apricissimus said:


> Neither. It's *impranticism*.


Who? You just put that word in there, so you wouldn't come up short.


----------



## moody

Vaneyes said:


> What does Wikipedia say? I'll go with that.


Don't trust them sir,all sorts of riff-raff write in there. Listen to the Troll he knows his onions!


----------



## Ravndal

apricissimus said:


> Neither. It's impranticism.


Nor me or google as ever heard of that!

_No documents matched the query on "impranticism."
_


----------



## Ukko

Ravndal said:


> I don't think Janacek composed some of those modern works before Satie did. He was born before Satie though.


The chronology works for Satie, it's the Modern that's problematical. His music sounds to me like late-Romantic with most of the juice removed.


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> Neither. It's impranticism.


I think you misspelled that, and were intending "*infantilism.*"


----------



## DrKilroy

I think his Rosicrucian works are strikingly modern.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## apricissimus

Ravndal said:


> Nor me or google as ever heard of that!
> 
> _No documents matched the query on "impranticism."
> _


It was just a joke -- a portmanteau of the words "impressionism" and "romanticism".


----------



## Perotin

How about this formulation: music in impresionistic style with a romantic feeling.


----------



## Mahlerian

Perotin said:


> How about this formulation: music in impresionistic style with a romantic feeling.


But the feelings are not "Romantic". The arch-Romantic feeling is longing, the German _sehnsucht_ that so permeates Wagner. The wistful sentiment (PetrB might substitute sentimentality here) of the Suite Bergamesque is a conscious attempt to break free of it.


----------



## hreichgott

Mahlerian said:


> But the feelings are not "Romantic". The arch-Romantic feeling is longing, the German _sehnsucht_ that so permeates Wagner. The wistful sentiment (PetrB might substitute sentimentality here) of the Suite Bergamesque is a conscious attempt to break free of it.


Is that a Romantic vs. Impressionist thing, or a German vs. French thing?


----------



## Mahlerian

hreichgott said:


> Is that a Romantic vs. Impressionist thing, or a German vs. French thing?


The French of Debussy's time (Franck leading the way) were leaning in that direction, but I'd argue that despite the more reserved surfaces of a Faure or Saint-Saens as compared to a Brahms or Bruckner, the chord function that Romantic tonality depended on was the very thing that produced that feeling of longing (a fulfillment deferred still implies a fulfillment), and that Debussy's breaking away was not only in opposition to the Germans, but also the increasingly Germanic French of his time.


----------



## Perotin

> The wistful sentiment (PetrB might substitute sentimentality here) of the Suite Bergamesque is a conscious attempt to break free of it.


In what sense?


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> There are debates, certainly. Satie is a "oner" having self-published his Trois Gymnopedies in 1888, (Wagner died in 1883, in 1888 and for decades to come, the Germanic Romantic style dominated much of composition throughout Europe -- and elsewhere 'western' style music was being written.) This makes the Gymnopedies, published when they were, almost frighteningly forward looking. And Debussy knew of them; their harmonic ambiguity, if not totally disassociated from former chord function principles, were nearly a clean break. Satie was a strong formative influence on Debussy's musical thinking.
> 
> [[ADD: I agree with Dr.Kilroy, above. If music history and musicology were just, the title of first truly modern composer would go to Satie. The more dominant figure usually gets assigned the crown, and Debussy is not only a larger 'figure' on the musical scene, but took those developments much, much further. END ADD]]
> 
> Impressionism is best determined, piano music or instrumental, as having a preoccupation with what is thought of as a shimmering sound texture, and Debussy was the first and foremost in that regard. Ravel, great orchestrator and truly more a neoclassicist, is usually second as Impressionist right after Debussy.
> 
> After that, it is quickly "downhill" *(IMHO) *with other composers who used parallel fifths, whole-tone scales, parallel ninth chords, etc. all the outward harmonic devices pretty much first used by Debussy. Books will toss in a number of more names, but to me the music of those others is a far cry from the finesse, the "glimmer' of Debussy's pianistic writing as per "coloration" as well as his orchestral works.
> 
> Satie is often associated with the Dadaist movement, rather punkish, surreal, in your face anti-establishment.
> 
> If you are listening, all of the piano music was at one time recorded, beautifully performed, by Aldo Ciccolini, and most of the orchestral works are still available on a re-issue CD with Maurice Abravanel and the Utah symphony; that is an excellent recording. Satie, not an impressionist.


I don't like most of these labels regarding composers and their styles (I'm pretty anti-genre in music in general). Part of my problem is these labels are sometimes more artistic outlook or the perspective of the artist rather than a stylistic thing, things like Dada and Romanticism and Classicism can mean somewhat specific stylistic things but can also refer to the mindset of the artist. For instance even though much of Beethoven's musical language is based in the Classical period style he was brought up in, as an artist, he was a Romantic.

I never get why people think Ravel is neo-classical. What about his music sounds neo-classical? I also don't get why the idea of Debussy being Romantic is so ridiculous. Romantic doesn't have one singular meaning. Romantic and Impressionist and Modernist and even Dada aren't mutually exclusive artistic identifiers, whether we're talking outlook of the artist, their style, or even the era they come from. I think too often artist's outlooks are overly-simplified by this labeling system.

Also I must point out Debussy was not the first to utilize parrallel 5ths, planing, unusual modes like the whole-tone scale, not even in his time. Many of the Russian nationalist school, such as Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky and Borodin, and even Tchaikovsky, utilized these things in their music. Also they would represent a kind of Romanticism that is almost nothing like Wagner or Brahms.


----------



## Mahlerian

Perotin said:


> In what sense?


You are probably familiar with both of these pieces, or at least the first one.

Wagner's prelude to Tristan und Isolde, which is a long series of dissonances that are either left hanging or deferred into non-resolutions. The effect is of constant longing for a fulfillment that does not arrive.





Debussy's parody of same, in the middle (at 1:01 and forward) of a little ragtime from the Children's Corner suite, marked "with great emotion":





Now, most Romanticism is not suffused with this kind of feeling to the degree of Tristan, but it underlies music especially of the post-Wagner period when Debussy was first writing pieces like the Suite Bergamesque in the 1880s and 1890s.


----------



## BurningDesire

Mahlerian said:


> But the feelings are not "Romantic". The arch-Romantic feeling is longing, the German _sehnsucht_ that so permeates Wagner. The wistful sentiment (PetrB might substitute sentimentality here) of the Suite Bergamesque is a conscious attempt to break free of it.


I don't think it was so much to break free from emotion or emotional writing, from Romanticism. I really think it was more of a break for independence, a break from homogenization. The Germanic aesthetic wasn't the only game in town, and it wasn't something that suited Debussy's imagination or need to express himself, even though he did take some of the more novel elements of Wagner's writing into his toolbox.

Also, I think reducing Romanticism to a feeling of longing would be a huge oversimplification.


----------



## PetrB

Perotin said:


> How about this formulation: music in impresionistic style with a romantic feeling.


Feelings don't cut it in a school quiz, text or paper... the OP is a music student.


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> I don't think it was so much to break free from emotion or emotional writing, from Romanticism. I really think it was more of a break for independence, a break from homogenization. The Germanic aesthetic wasn't the only game in town, and it wasn't something that suited Debussy's imagination or need to express himself, even though he did take some of the more novel elements of Wagner's writing into his toolbox.
> 
> Also, I think reducing Romanticism to a feeling of longing would be a huge oversimplification.


It was to a good degree nationalist, i.e. there was a German hegemony on music, the Germanic theoretic and style predominant, and Debussy, and many other French composers of that generation and following utterly distanced themselves from the rambling shapes, deliberately obscured bar-lines the thickness of textures of Romanticism, the whole lot.

Debussy was also very much a classicist,;clarity, refinement, _restraint (in both gesture and 'emotional content')_ all being part and parcel of that. Debussy and others looked back in the French musical tradition to their early and later Baroque composers, Rameau, the "Clavecinistes" and proceeded, quite deliberately, in that direction, about as antithetical to late German Romantic as could be.

He even went so far, when writing his one well-known formal symphony, La Mer, to not title it "Symphony" -- also to distance himself and his work from that German tradition, and gave it a somewhat Red-Herring title, _La mer, trois esquisses symphoniques pour orchestre_ (The Sea, three symphonic sketches for orchestra) -- "_sketches," my foot_... it is, if you wish to bother analyzing it, a formal three movement symphony in all but name.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> It was to a good degree nationalist, il.e. there was a German hegemony on music, the Germanic theoretic and style predominant, and Debussy, and many other French composers of that generation and following utterly distanced themselves from the rambling shapes, deliberately obscured bar-lines the thickness of textures, the whole lot.
> 
> Debussy was also very much a classicist,;clarity, refinement, _restraint (in both gesture and 'emotional content')_ all being part and parcel of that. Debussy and others looked back in the French musical tradition to their early and later Baroque composers, Rameau, the "Clavecinistes" and proceeded, quite deliberately, in that direction, about as antithetical to late German Romantic as could be.
> 
> He even went so far, when writing his one well-known formal symphony, La Mer, to not title it "Symphony" -- also to distance himself and his work from that German tradition, and gave it a somewhat Red-Herring title, _La mer, trois esquisses symphoniques pour orchestre_ (The Sea, three symphonic sketches for orchestra) -- "_sketches," my foot_... it is, if you wish to bother analyzing it, a formal three movement symphony in all but name.


How is it a formal symphony? Its a tone poem. Traditional symphonies were in 4 movements and usually had minimal if any clear extramusical content. The symphony is a pretty vague form anyway, isn't it? You could call tons of pieces "Symphonies" if you wanted because it basically means "a large-scale orchestral work". Really, when you get down to it, a Symphony is MOSTLY in the name. Debussy called it La Mer because thats what the music is about. Its about the sea, its not some childish attempt to distance himself from the Germans.


----------



## Vaneyes

Ravndal said:


> I don't think Janacek composed some of those modern works before Satie did. He was born before Satie though.


Same era's good enough. No race, though a race might be beneficial if they were of a similar style. Far from it.

In Janacek comparison, Satie is salon...not a hard hitter. No meat on those bones. Though I appreciate, there's too much that is one-dimensional.

Debussy is a better challenge. Two dimensions for him, 'cepting Etudes and Preludes. His best work IMO. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Pffft. It's obviously ropressionism. 

I wonder if anyone knows any more that Romanticism was considered by the Romantics to be over mid-century. The French fondness for precision dates it at 1848. Berlioz went from being ultra-modern before mid-century to being old-guard for the last decade and a half of his life, though that was maybe only in the mind of Mr. Wagner, who rather confusingly referred to Berlioz as Neo-romantic--well, confusing to those who have also forgotten that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were referred to as Romantics in the early years of the nineteenth century. (1810. Which was, just by the way, the year that the term "classical music" was coined. History is so interesting, eh? Especially the kind that leaves the real messiness and complexity of the real world more or less intact.)


----------



## Couchie

Perhaps it is a romantic impression of moonlight. Or an impression of a romantic rendering of moonlight?


----------



## moody

Ravndal said:


> Nor me or google as ever heard of that!
> 
> _No documents matched the query on "impranticism."
> _


There is a lot of that about in TC.


----------



## Petwhac

In reality there are no genres.
Labelling is for retailers and marketeers.
Breaking things down in to categories can be convenient for a broad overview (not sure why) but always involves over simplification.

Debussy's music shows all sorts of leanings, influences and approaches, sometimes within a single piece. 
To say that romanticism is about 'longing' perhaps contains a seed of truth but is hopelessly imprecise and subjective and puts Bach (Quia Respexit from the Magnificat?) as an erstwhile dweller in the romantic camp along side Gesualdo, Stravinsky and umteen other disparates. Same goes for other terms. Does no one else see the Pastoral Symphony as a proto-minimalist piece?


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> But the feelings are not "Romantic". The arch-Romantic feeling is longing, the German _sehnsucht_ that so permeates Wagner. The wistful sentiment (PetrB might substitute sentimentality here) of the Suite Bergamesque is a conscious attempt to break free of it.


Sentiment: a distilled emotion. (no I do not recall which dictionary, but a good "mainstream" dictionary it was.)

I'm good with it  _as if anyone needed my approval for anything._


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> In reality there are no genres.
> Labelling is for retailers and marketeers.


It's also a kinda convenient way when you wish to discuss something between people, and of course the label "impressionism" isn't quite apt, first, the painters and then the composers did not like the tag, either.

But for sake of a kind of vague ID so you know you're discussing green vs. blue, for example, and also if you're not carrying around a chip on your shoulder reflexive against any and all conventions.


----------



## Mahlerian

some guy said:


> Pffft. It's obviously ropressionism.
> 
> I wonder if anyone knows any more that Romanticism was considered by the Romantics to be over mid-century. The French fondness for precision dates it at 1848. Berlioz went from being ultra-modern before mid-century to being old-guard for the last decade and a half of his life, though that was maybe only in the mind of Mr. Wagner, who rather confusingly referred to Berlioz as Neo-romantic--well, confusing to those who have also forgotten that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were referred to as Romantics in the early years of the nineteenth century. (1810. Which was, just by the way, the year that the term "classical music" was coined. History is so interesting, eh? Especially the kind that leaves the real messiness and complexity of the real world more or less intact.)


The post-Wagner German Romantics who leaned towards tone poems and other such music were known at the time as the Neudeutsch School. Today, they're subsumed together with people who were conservative/reactionary like Brahms and Pfitzner as well as composers of other nationalities. From the vantage point of the 21st century, the differences don't seem insurmountable anymore. I keep waiting for the day people stop drawing artificial lines between "tonality" and "atonality" so that a more coherent discussion of 20th century music can begin...


----------



## Ukko

Mahlerian said:


> [...]
> I keep waiting for the day people stop drawing artificial lines between "tonality" and "atonality" so that a more coherent discussion of 20th century music can begin...


The two terms are so indecisively defined that any 'lines' between them have to be artificial. Seems to me you have to start somewhere that _can_ be defined, and that that somewhere is _contained_ (but not nailed down) in the basic music theory summarized by _COAG_ in a post somewhere around here. Until you folks can manage that, I'll just sit back here in my chimney corner and snigger.


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> How is it a formal symphony? Its a tone poem. Traditional symphonies were in 4 movements and usually had minimal if any clear extramusical content. The symphony is a pretty vague form anyway, isn't it? You could call tons of pieces "Symphonies" if you wanted because it basically means "a large-scale orchestral work". Really, when you get down to it, a Symphony is MOSTLY in the name. Debussy called it La Mer because thats what the music is about. Its about the sea, its not some childish attempt to distance himself from the Germans.


The word Symphonic does not have the same specificity as it does in the more precise language which is French. In English, we take it as a work 'for symphony orchestra.'

The French, more specifically, denotes something to do with symphonic _form_.

Note that Debussy did not title the three nocturnes "Symphonique" for example, and that there are other French works from the 20th century bearing in their title "_____ _____ Symphonique" vs. "______ _____ ____ pour orchestre"

Debussy was again duply misdirecting, and typically deliberately ambiguous...
_La mer, trois esquisses symphoniques pour orchestre_
_Symphoniques_ sits next to _pour orchestre_.

It is not a work with a typical opening sonata allegro movement, but it is a work which was also modern, and establishing another convention for a symphony, which others would later do.

Jean Barraque wrote an excellent analysis in the late sixties -- I'm sure with a bit of hunting it can be found online -- and the prior invitation, if you are interested have a look and analyse it, stands.

It's also just downright silly to mention the standard earlier four movement symphonic format when the early twentieth century is littered with three-movement symphonies, no one objecting or calling those "not a symphony" May as well go back to the original _Sinfonia ~ sounding together._ At any rate, the four movement argument is about as invalid as going in the other chronological direction to invalidate Domenico Scarlatti sonatas as "not sonatas."


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Mahlerian said:


> The arch-Romantic feeling is longing, the German _sehnsucht_ that so permeates Wagner.


This may be a bit off-topic, but you have just expressed in a few words that which I have always been looking for in music, that which attracts me so powerfully in the great masterworks and which I was never able to quite put a finger on. Thank you!


----------



## Eschbeg

BurningDesire said:


> its not some childish attempt to distance himself from the Germans.


True, it was not a childish attempt. Debussy was a fully grown adult when he attempted it.


----------



## PetrB

SiegendesLicht said:


> This may be a bit off-topic, but you have just expressed in a few words that which I have always been looking for in music, that which attracts me so powerfully in the great masterworks and which I was never able to quite put a finger on. Thank you!


There is a mighty fine journalist / bio, well-researched but in near novel format, of Robert Schumann.
The book, by author J. D. Landis, is titled, _"Longing."_


----------

