# Debussy-Ravel



## Quartetfore (May 19, 2010)

I have been reading a very interesting book titled "Modern French Music from Faure to Boulez". Debussy is give two chapters and Ravel is lumped together with Satie and `Les Six`--Milhaud, Honegger, Poulenc and others. In fact Satie gets the Lions Share of the chapter. Allowing for the authors bias and personal taste, this to me is not very fair and even correct.
So my question. Is this deserving, and which of these two is your favorite.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Debussy should get his own book.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. When you see that the author is a dumbass, that's the signal to ignore his book.

Ravel and Debussy didn't have much in common besides being on Earth and in France concurrently. I'm glad to have had the music of both of them to listen to, because it cut new grooves in my mind; not the same grooves though.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Quartetfore said:


> I have been reading a very interesting book titled "Modern French Music from Faure to Boulez". Debussy is give two chapters and Ravel is lumped together with Satie and `Les Six`--Milhaud, Honegger, Poulenc and others. In fact Satie gets the Lions Share of the chapter. Allowing for the authors bias and personal taste, this to me is not very fair and even correct.
> So my question. Is this deserving, and which of these two is your favorite.


This author puts himself out of court if what you say is correct.
They are very different and although I prefer Ravel if we get into a desert island situation, I think they should have equal sections.
But there are books that deal with them as individuals so I suggest you visit the library or look them up.
Lastly, listen to them both--b****r the books!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Quartetfore said:


> I have been reading a very interesting book titled "Modern French Music from Faure to Boulez". Debussy is give two chapters and Ravel is lumped together with Satie and `Les Six`--Milhaud, Honegger, Poulenc and others. In fact Satie gets the Lions Share of the chapter. Allowing for the authors bias and personal taste, this to me is not very fair and even correct.


i love both, i think that the difference is due to the fact that Debussy is far more historically important than Ravel (though Ravel is considered one of the greatest orchestrators), because he revolutioned harmony and he is one of the most influential composers in history.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Quartetfore said:


> So my question. Is this deserving, and which of these two is your favorite.


Yes,...Debussy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

kv466 said:


> Yes,...Debussy.


Hah. The dual purpose 'yes'. I'll give the _importance_ nod to Debussy, simply because his music influenced Bartók. On the 'ringing my chimes' front, their music does so equally enough.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't think its deserving but, its not really surprising. Because their music is on the exterior quite similar, and Debussy was the first to come along, I am not surprised at all scholars in the past wish to place so much more importance on Debussy's musical contributions. But I think times are slowly a changin'. People have sensed the power and uniqueness of Ravel's incredible compositions over time and I think Ravel's popularity is consistently gaining among scholars _and_ the general population. "_According to SACEM, Ravel's estate earns more royalties than that of any other French composer._"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Ravel

Clearly people enjoy listening to Ravel - a lot. I hear him brought up on this forum at least as much or more than Debussy, and I hear his pieces on the radio at least as much or more than Debussy. The fact is in my subjective opinion, Debussy influenced the course of music more, but Ravel generally wrote higher quality pieces. The fact they are different is obvious - why else would you have people like kv466 who likes one but not so much the other? They are different! Ravel offered his own unique musical statements worthy of a separate chapter, or perhaps his own complete book. I consider both in my top 5 composers, so have no need to tear either composer down, but over-all I prefer Ravel's music. In general it strikes me as just as fresh and intuitive yet more thoroughly worked out, composed and perfected with the utmost care and immaculate attention to detail. As I've said before much of Debussy strikes me as sounding improvised, without much after-thought given - Debussy often let others orchestrate his works for him. Ravel was the greatest orchestrator an incredibly deep musical thinker, he was exacting and precise. Two very different types of composers.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

tdc said:


> - why else would you have people like kv466 who likes one but not so much the other?


Really, Tim...you got that from two words?  Actually, you know me well...but, for me, it's not because of any other reason than what you stated: They are different. _Very_ different. I agree with everything you said and I also feel Ravel heard more on the radio and played more in concert. I had a huge exposure to Ravel when I was first starting to attend concerts and along with radio play and my own explorations I found out quickly that I do not like this dude's music. Add that to having extremely fond lifelong memories involving Debussy and well, it was a no-brainer.

I do disagree about the 'higher quality pieces' but I'm glad you used the word, generally. I can live with that. But I will never place a single Ravel work next to Reverie or Passepied or even the way too overused Claire de Lune. I don't speak of quality or difficulty but rather of simple elegance and beauty. This is, of course, what I consider elegance and beauty...ask the Coag and you're bound to get a much different response. And that's why we're all different.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Quartetfore said:


> I have been reading a very interesting book titled "Modern French Music from Faure to Boulez". Debussy is give two chapters and Ravel is lumped together with Satie and `Les Six`--Milhaud, Honegger, Poulenc and others. In fact Satie gets the Lions Share of the chapter. Allowing for the authors bias and personal taste, this to me is not very fair and even correct.
> So my question. Is this deserving, and which of these two is your favorite.


Surely Debussy is the greater composer, and the more influential one - and I yield to noone in my love of Ravel's music. So I would expect Debussy to get more prominence in a book which discussed both composers. But what you describe is extreme and unwarranted. And, surely, Satie's music does not deserve greater prominence than Ravel. That is as absurd as some one the titles of Satie's pieces.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm curious about the Satie chapter. Is he approaching it from the angle that Satie influenced all these others, so it's more about influence than individual mastery which merits all that attention? Personally, I've never seen Satie given prominence over Ravel in any books I've seen. 

As far as which I prefer, at the outset, I feel like the others; the two composers are different. But in my listening room, the scales tip toward Ravel. As has been said, he was an outstanding orchestrator and a skilled craftsman. I've been having a harder time getting into Debussy, but it's coming along.


----------



## afterpostjack (May 2, 2010)

I easily prefer Ravel to Debussy. More refined and interesting music in general, IMO. I love his piano pieces done for full orchestra, like Une barque sur l'océan.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I guess for the first few years after I started listening to classical music I would have put Debussy firmly ahead of Ravel. As time went on, that distinction has become more blurred, and for me they are equals now - and both giants. To rate Satie higher than Ravel.... pah.


----------



## Quartetfore (May 19, 2010)

I would say that the author gives so much space to Debussy because of historical importance. One thing comes out-he thinks less of Ravel as a man! I can`t see how that affects Ravel place in musical importance.
As to Satie, he just seems to like his music. In fact he examines a great deal of it in minute detail
After all is said it is an interesting book, and worthwhile if you agree or not


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Olias said:


> Debussy should get his own book.


What he said.:tiphat:


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Wow, these passive responses baffle me! Ravel is _way_ better than Debussy! I did not used to know much about Ravel, because when I was younger all of his repertoire was much too difficult for me, but when I finally began to study him, it was a revelation. His music is is _so_ structured and worked out, but it never feels that way. For me, Debussy's music kind of wanders around. Mind you, there are a few Debussy pieces I like, but Ravel never wrote anything that I didn't love.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Quartetfore said:


> As to Satie, he just seems to like his music. In fact he examines a great deal of it in minute detail
> After all is said it is an interesting book, and worthwhile if you agree or not


I see that Rollo Myers wrote the book. Now I understand the Satie bias. He wrote the first extended study of Satie back in 1948. That book, Erik Satie, is a good introduction to the composer if you want a brief introduction, only 130 pages.


----------



## Quartetfore (May 19, 2010)

Now I can understand all the pages devoted to Satie. Thanks for the information.
Best, QF.


----------

