Debussy's Corner

[Ratliff]

I've noticed that this "hammerless" remark of Debussy's gets a lot of attention. I think, if he really said it, performers should be aware of it, and should be free to ignore it entirely. The music is there, and pianists should perform the music however they feel it should be performed. We can decide for ourselves what works best for us. I've always valued clarity in performers of Debussy, whether it be solo piano music, chamber music, or orchestral music. As far as I'm concerned, let the hammers swing!

[Jo498]

I don't think Debussy expectet the "sunken Cathedral" so sound like "Puck" or other of the more quirky pieces from Préludes. The broad spectrum of sounds and moods seems one of the points of these pieces.

[Madiel]

The music is there, and pianists should perform the music however they feel it should be performed. We can decide for ourselves what works best for us.

Either pianists are trying to execute composers' intentions or they're not. If we expect them to pay attention to things like playing the correct notes, then I think we ought to expect them to pay attention to other aspects of the composer's musical intentions as well to the extent they are knowable.

[Ratliff]

Either pianists are trying to execute composers' intentions or they're not. If we expect them to pay attention to things like playing the correct notes, then I think we ought to expect them to pay attention to other aspects of the composer's musical intentions as well to the extent they are knowable.

I think "composer's intentions" is basically impossible to define, beyond the notes on the page. I've enjoyed Debussy's Preludes by Ciccolini and by Arrau, two pianists who both profess serving the composers intention as their primary goal, and who nevertheless produce performances that are very different. Great to have the entire spectrum of interpretations.

[Madiel]

Composers also at the very least write tempo and dynamics and phrasing.

And as we are talking about Debussy, he's known for being quite detailed on his indications. Maybe more in orchestral music than piano, but either way I think it's a mistake when saying "the music is there" to think that "the music" is nothing more than notes.

Quite frankly some performers decide to stray outside the parameters set for them. Which they shouldn't do if they're claiming to perform a work under a composer's name.

And the original point was that if a composer's writings or statements are available, than those too should be at least paid regard to as relevant material.

[Karl Henning]

I think "composer's intentions" is basically impossible to define, beyond the notes on the page. I've enjoyed Debussy's Preludes by Ciccolini and by Arrau, two pianists who both profess serving the composers intention as their primary goal, and who nevertheless produce performances that are very different. Great to have the entire spectrum of interpretations.

And, indeed, it is a characteristic of great music, to convince us through a variety of interpretation.

[Karl Henning]

There are two relevant quotes about how Debussy played piano both from contemporaries -- Emile Vuillermoz  and Marguerite Long

and

If you can't read it and google translate doesn't sort it, let me know and I'll translate it. Or learn French and we'll take up the conversation in 10 years.

Here's a good example of Debussy playing without hammers

https://www.youtube.com/v/eNYiChGPbMM

Thanks for these.

[Mirror Image]

Composers also at the very least write tempo and dynamics and phrasing.

And as we are talking about Debussy, he's known for being quite detailed on his indications. Maybe more in orchestral music than piano, but either way I think it's a mistake when saying "the music is there" to think that "the music" is nothing more than notes.

Quite frankly some performers decide to stray outside the parameters set for them. Which they shouldn't do if they're claiming to perform a work under a composer's name.

And the original point was that if a composer's writings or statements are available, than those too should be at least paid regard to as relevant material.

Debussy was meticulous just as much in his piano music notation as he was in all of the other genres he composed for. I recall reading somewhere that he would spend days on just four measures of music trying to get it absolutely right. I feel that it's up to the performers how they want to perform the music ultimately. It would be rather nice if musicians paid attention to every detail written, but, sometimes, it just doesn't work out that way and what we get is what we get. I've heard all kinds of interpretations in this music and some have stuck and some have not.

[Mandryka]

Debussy himself used tons of rubato and such like in his own performances of his own music, as did his favourite interpreters like Margueritte Long. I don't know if either of them do things which are not compatible with ideas in the published score. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

There's a related thing to think about. Famously, Debussy included titles for each piano prelude at the end of the written music. Why? Why at the end? And why titles at all?

[vers la flamme]

Debussy himself used tons of rubato and such like in his own performances of his own music, as did his favourite interpreters like Margueritte Long. I don't know if either of them do things which are not compatible with ideas in the published score. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

There's a related thing to think about. Famously, Debussy included titles for each piano prelude at the end of the written music. Why? Why at the end? And why titles at all?

I don't know but I loved that when I was reading through the scores. Reminds me of Cowboy Bebop with its little title cards at the end of the episodes.

[Ratliff]

There's a related thing to think about. Famously, Debussy included titles for each piano prelude at the end of the written music. Why? Why at the end? And why titles at all?

The titles are at the end because Debussy was a pretentious ass.

As if a pianist would sight read a prelude at a concert, get to the end, and say "I see in the score that this piece is entitled "La terrasse des audiences du clair de lune. Can anyone explain to me what the hell that is supposed to mean? In any case, I wish I had known that when I started playing. I thought it was a jig! Better start over."

[Mirror Image]

Famously, Debussy included titles for each piano prelude at the end of the written music. Why? Why at the end? And why titles at all?

Maybe they're just suggestions or hints at what was going through his own mind or what this or that reminded him of. In any event, I'd say it doesn't really matter because titles are just titles and what the performer and listener hears will be completely different to what the composer hears. I recall something quite amusing when Schoenberg's publisher asked for subtitles for each movement of his Five Pieces for Orchestra. An interesting quote from him: "Altogether, I don't favor the idea – the wonderful thing about music is that one can say everything so that knowing people understand it, and yet one has one's secrets that one confesses to oneself – one does not spread them around – but titles do."

[Mandryka]

I always thought the titles were performance directions.

(Note, by the way, that one of them, voiles, is very ambiguous - according to whether it's masculine or feminine it can mean veils or sails.)

[aukhawk]

Maybe they're just suggestions or hints at what was going through his own mind or what this or that reminded him of. In any event, I'd say it doesn't really matter because titles are just titles and what the performer and listener hears will be completely different to what the composer hears. ...

The listener (assuming he is aware of the titles and can understand French) is inevitably conditioned by them.  Or, he can listen to 'Book 1 Nos. 1-12' and avoid any reference to the titles at all, and thus hear the music in a different way.

Likewise, we are conditioned in our listening by CD or LP sleeve images.  The following three 'La Mer' images would condition the listener in different ways:

[Ras]

I think he put the titles after the music because the pianist shouldn't put too much emphasis on them: they are suggestions rather than answers or definitions. I don't think Debussy thought of his music as program music in any traditionel meaning: there is no program - it's more like an atmosphere, or a feeling or a sentiment of a sentiency.

Many years ago I heard an analysis of Debussy's "La mer" on the radio where the all too clever smart-arse who presented it said something like: "...and here you can hear the waves softly lapping..." as if he made a "translation" of the music into words. I don't think that's how Debussy imagined it - it's much more vague like getting into the mood you are in on the beach or in a boat at sea - the music is atmospheric - it's about mood, air, ambience.

[Alek Hidell]

So (if you don't mind my diverting the thread for a moment), quick question.

Debussy's string quartet is always listed as Op.10. I've never seen an opus number assigned to any other Debussy work - it's always the Lesure system. So why is the SQ opus 10? Which works are opuses 1-9 (and 11+)?

(Yes, I'm sure I could google this, but I wanted to hear from people here.)

[JBS]

So (if you don't mind my diverting the thread for a moment), quick question.

Debussy's string quartet is always listed as Op.10. I've never seen an opus number assigned to any other Debussy work - it's always the Lesure system. So why is the SQ opus 10? Which works are opuses 1-9 (and 11+)?

(Yes, I'm sure I could google this, but I wanted to hear from people here.)

According to Wikipedia, it's the only one of his works to which he gave an opus number.  Perhaps he did for publication purposes.

[Alek Hidell]

According to Wikipedia, it's the only one of his works to which he gave an opus number.  Perhaps he did for publication purposes.

Much obliged, Jeffrey.

[Mirror Image]

So (if you don't mind my diverting the thread for a moment), quick question.

Debussy's string quartet is always listed as Op.10. I've never seen an opus number assigned to any other Debussy work - it's always the Lesure system. So why is the SQ opus 10? Which works are opuses 1-9 (and 11+)?

(Yes, I'm sure I could google this, but I wanted to hear from people here.)

A curious question, indeed. I never really thought about it since the rest of Debussy's oeuvre isn't numbered by him and, as Jeffrey pointed out, it's probably got something to do with a publisher or he felt at that given time that he was going to start giving his works opus numbers, but ended up abandoning the idea. Also, and maybe this of interest or not, but his String Quartet was one of his only works to receive a key signature in the title of a work. It's in the key of G minor.

[Ratliff]

So (if you don't mind my diverting the thread for a moment), quick question.

Debussy's string quartet is always listed as Op.10. I've never seen an opus number assigned to any other Debussy work - it's always the Lesure system. So why is the SQ opus 10? Which works are opuses 1-9 (and 11+)?

(Yes, I'm sure I could google this, but I wanted to hear from people here.)

A similar circumstance for Mozart, whose "Haydn Quartets" are designated Opus 10. I've never noticed another work by Mozart with an opus number. In those days opus numbers were only assigned at publication, and haphazardly.