Album: Debussy: Piano Works (Pascal Rogé)Avg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 1705
Length: 3:16
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share
tweet
Les lauriers sont coupés
leave it to the french
sacre bleau
La belle que voilà ira les ramasser
Actually "Too many notes" was the judgment of Emperor Joseph II.
That was in reference to Mozart's works, not Salieri's.
You go, Salieri!
Actually "Too many notes" was the judgment of Emperor Joseph II.
Or some ABBA?
Or some more Milli Vanilli! (there is not enough Milli Vanilli on RP)
A great follow up to this would be something from The Art of Noise's Seduction of Claude Debuessy!!
Or some ABBA?
Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.
The above text was stated by a narrator on a very interesting CD that was released in 1999 by The Art of Noise called "The Seduction of Debussy". The interpretations by the band crossed at least four different genres of music.
Actually, that Art of Noise CD, which came out in 1999, is a very interesting multi-genre tribute to Debussy
I don't believe in beliefs and I'm a dog person.
There is no Dog.
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.
I don't believe in beliefs and I'm a dog person.
https://www.newyorker.com/maga...
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.
Oh, Art of Noise...
You go, Salieri!
Could you share your thesis?
Debussy‘s work is simply beautiful. I also love the way how Isao Tomita adds an extra dimension to it, through the detailed creation of the sound of each note.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
(...)
"Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was always regarded by some people as a personal attack."
Huh, there is ample evidence of that on these comments boards!
"... He preferred cats to people."
I get that. I totally get that. And I'm no musical genius, believe me.
so very Joseph II of younow THAT"S funny
Nice quote from Art of Noise's "The Holy Egoism of Genius". RP used to play that back in the day.
Yes, with the narration by John Hurt.
Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.
Nice quote from Art of Noise's "The Holy Egoism of Genius". RP used to play that back in the day.
Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.
Wow. That is ...profoundly beautiful, and somewhat difficult. Like Debussy.
Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.
I think if you could put this to a rap, like that Vietnam, S-S-Saigon, song, or the song falsely attributed to Kurt Vonnegut, it would be kind-of cool in a campy sort-of way.
Debussy didn't believe in god. He didn't believe in the Establishment. He
Didn't believe in bourgeois convention. He didn't believe in Beethoven or
Wagner. He believed in... Debussy.
Debussy understood that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was
Always regarded by some people as a personal attack.
He hated to appear in public. Hated to conduct. Hated to play the piano at
Concerts. He preferred cats to people.
No one was ever sure whether the spites with which Debussy armed his
Volatile sensibilities were activated by a savage insensitivity, or by the
Holy egoism of genius.
The latter. Keep listening, coz if you do get, it's bloomin marvellous. But if you don't get it, forget it.
True dat. Lizards rule.
so very Joseph II of youThe latter. Keep listening, coz if you do get, it's bloomin marvellous. But if you don't get it, forget it.
Bloomin marvellous :) Exactly
Maybe I just don´t get it...
The latter. Keep listening, coz if you do get, it's bloomin marvellous. But if you don't get it, forget it.
Maybe I just don´t get it...
But it's all good! Asi es la vida, that's the way of the world. Peace, love and harmony, that's my goal.
As a former music major, I'll give my opinion about what DaveDog writes. Rock - popular compositions are performed and covered by so many artists who generally perform the same song to their own liking, style and often major changes to tempo, verse, keys, and length. Though classical composers, even Mozart and Bach wrote their songs down on manuscripts, they themselves often modified them when they themselves performed for audiences. Over the centuries though, we as performers buy a manuscript and attempt to perform the composition exactly as Mozart or whoever composed it originally, note for note, not changing anything intentionally. So when performers cover classical compositions, they are giving an enormous amount of credit to the composer, following his intentions. That said, classical music fans do have their favorite modern day musicians, Cliburn, Rubenstein, Horowitz, etc. that each tweaked the same compositions to their own liking, but with minimal change to the music. The saddest thing for me with some of the world's greatest modern popular songs ever written is that the composers often get little or no recognition for their hard work. Instead the 'rock star' gets all of the credit, both financially and publicly. But it's all good! Asi es la vida, that's the way of the world. Peace, love and harmony, that's my goal.
davedog wrote:
Right, talk about noodling.
I also listen to another station where the player is given equal credits when the performance warrants it and at least a solid mention when it's merely pedestrian. OTOH, convention calls for the composer to get max cred in classical, although this is changing when composers merely rearranged old, or folk songs/dances/melodies, which are now being listed as 'arrangements of', rather than "composed by".
IMHO, as RDO would say.
Could it perhaps be more akin to technological advancement than a lifting of conventions? In the beginning there were forms and styles that developed through the generations that composers knew made good sounding music, so they wrote within those forms. Then, as that grew dull an imaginative person -- say a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, etc. -- would come along and introduce something new that pushed the boundaries of the form but also sounded good. The next generation could operate within a wider range of conventions and push the boundaries again. The trick here is that I like to imagine that Bach would enjoy Shostakovich -- at least Beethoven, Shostakovich might be too unfamiliar to sound good at all -- but he simply couldn't imagine it from his position in time.
This is just like technological advancement. Would Watt have preferred to invent a V8 Hemi instead of a steam engine? Sure, but from his spot in time he simply couldn't imagine it. The physical principals are exactly the same between the two, but that doesn't mean that Watt could a V8. The people who's names we remember are those who opened the conventions and took steps forward. In science this would be Newton, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein and many others. In music it might be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz. But these are just the big steps, everybody involved is trying to make what progress they can. In this way, I contend, music and science take the same evolutionary trajectory, and that is why we prefer more modern composers for the most part. And when we reach back in time, we make sure that we select the people who made major advancements, not just practitioners.
The only problem with my hypothesis is that I have no idea where Justin Bieber fits in... oh well.
Nicely, elegantly put.
RP is correct, the composer gets top billing...as per custom and as it should be IMHO.
Uh, because maybe this is a mediocre interpretation? Of a composition that's not first rate?
Hmm. I'm no expert, but I thought this was pretty good on both counts. What makes you think it's a poor performance?
Uh, because maybe this is a mediocre interpretation? Of a composition that's not first rate?
Я ÑПглаÑеМ. ÐаОбПлее ПÑлОÑÐœÐ°Ñ ÐŒÑзÑка!
That's a natural progression, perhaps with The Hindenburg Disaster coming after Impressionism.
Ohwellgee of course...(wottdeefock?...).
or vice versa. I believe Debussy preceded Rachmaninoff.
You are partially right, sir! Debussy was indeed older than Rachmaninoff. However, Rachmaninoff wrote his second in 1900-01. Debussy wrote this piece in 1903.
Thank you for sparking my curiosity. I appreciate it.
Best wishes.
or vice versa. I believe Debussy preceded Rachmaninoff.
miss you so much, Cynaera...
love this music...
Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalisation. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovich, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.
19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say.
Could it perhaps be more akin to technological advancement than a lifting of conventions? In the beginning there were forms and styles that developed through the generations that composers knew made good sounding music, so they wrote within those forms. Then, as that grew dull an imaginative person -- say a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, etc. -- would come along and introduce something new that pushed the boundaries of the form but also sounded good. The next generation could operate within a wider range of conventions and push the boundaries again. The trick here is that I like to imagine that Bach would enjoy Shostakovich -- at least Beethoven, Shostakovich might be too unfamiliar to sound good at all -- but he simply couldn't imagine it from his position in time.
This is just like technological advancement. Would Watt have preferred to invent a V8 Hemi instead of a steam engine? Sure, but from his spot in time he simply couldn't imagine it. The physical principals are exactly the same between the two, but that doesn't mean that Watt could a V8. The people who's names we remember are those who opened the conventions and took steps forward. In science this would be Newton, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein and many others. In music it might be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz. But these are just the big steps, everybody involved is trying to make what progress they can. In this way, I contend, music and science take the same evolutionary trajectory, and that is why we prefer more modern composers for the most part. And when we reach back in time, we make sure that we select the people who made major advancements, not just practitioners.
The only problem with my hypothesis is that I have no idea where Justin Bieber fits in... oh well.
Give me some serious Russian/Austrian power with a full orchestra, though, and I be dancin'.
How did we get from Debussy and Impressionism to "Deliverance"?
That's a natural progression, perhaps with The Hindenburg Disaster coming after Impressionism.
Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalization. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovitch, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.
19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say.
Once again, fredriley pretty much nails it. You forgot Dadaism, though.
fyt
Hear hear!
https://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_04_img0223.jpg?dur=441
GENIUS!
Just a WAG, but maybe for the same reason you prefer Monet paintings over Botticelli, Caravaggio, van Eyck, Bruegel, and so on. Monet's are more alive and interesting to modern tastes.
Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalisation. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovich, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.
19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say
It sure is easy to tell (well, usually) when music by a Russian composer is being played!
And for the record, Mozart did play too many notes! His music reminds me of certain electric guitarists who think it's all about how many notes they can play as quickly as possible, without paying any attention to tone and melody.
You speak purdy, I bet youen gota purdy mouth, boy!
How did we get from Debussy and Impressionism to "Deliverance"?
Because the more modern the classical music, the less constrained by musical conventions it is, though that's a very broad brush generalisation. So Mozart had to compose within very strict conventions, as did Beethoven but less so. Move on to Shostakovich, say, and conventions went out of the window. Arguably, the less need to conform to conventions, the greater the room for expressionism, though many take the view that composing within conventions (12-bar blues, say) allows you to be more expressive. For sure, Beethoven was pretty damn expressive. I hold no view on that being pretty much an ignoramus in such matters.
19th and 20th century classical music is highly expressive, though how much that's down to lack of convention, and how much down to artistic fashions (IIRC Debussy was contemporary with Impressionists in painting, though please correct me if I'm wrong), is difficult to say.
Probably because it is more recent - this is c. 100yrs old and Bach and Beethoven both >200 yrs old and therefore it sounds perhaps slightly less conventional and music had come a long way in that short space of time.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. Not all classical music needs to be largo to be beautiful. The piece is "Gardens in the Rain". I think this piece it quite evocative of that image. One could argue that, programmatically, it's a bit literal, but to dismiss as "pointless" points to the lack of a critical ear.
This is pointless self gloryifying piano diddling.
Learn to discern.
You speak purdy, I bet youen gota purdy mouth, boy!
This is pointless self gloryifying piano diddling.
Learn to discern.
All-time Favorite Painter: Claude Monet
All-time Favorite DJ: Bill Goldsmith (and his faithful sidekick, Rebecca)
I believe the wax cylinders were remastered a few years back
What?
The painting is by Claude Monet. He and Debussy were both French impressionists... Monet an artist and Debussy a musician. Both lived in France from the late 1800's to the early 1900's.
great answer!
The painting is by Claude Monet. He and Debussy were both French impressionists... Monet an artist and Debussy a musician. Both lived in France from the late 1800's to the early 1900's.
Couldn't agree more. Arvo Pärt's Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten (played yesterday... thanks Bill
) is another great example.
Very nice. And Debussy is one of my favorite composers.My father was a dentist. I got to listen to this stuff all the time. Still like it.
My father was a dentist. I got to listen to this stuff all the time. Still like it.
image if Bill had played a mediaevial madrigal ...
Now thats music !
image if Bill had played a mediaevial madrigal ...