Pablo Massa replies to me:

>"Quality" is not the point here.  You are confusing the immanent quality
>of a music work with its historical importance.  This is quite a different
>matter and If I don't remember bad, this is what Edson was talking about.
>By "historical importance" I mean how influential, inspiring, symbolic etc.
>has been this work for the subsequent composers and audiences through
>times, or how decissive was it for the ulterior technical development of
>music.

Well, by your own criteria then, Debussy is an extremely minor composer.
He may have had significant influence on the composers you admire, but
as to the bulk of music written since Debussy, little of it has been
influenced directly.  Music by Gershwin, Copland, Ellington, Basie,
Coltrane, the Beatles, Madonna and thousands of others have had far
more impact on the whole of the musical scene than Debussy.

This is the primary danger of the delusion that our opinions in these
matters are objective.  We lose perspective as we become more and more
self-referential.  This tends to turn into snobbism quite quickly.

>>All proof needs objective evidence to back it up.
>
>The evidence lies at our own agreement (at least Edson's and mine and many
>other people's) on "how important the music of Debussy is"...or in the fact
>that here we are talking about this.

That's not evidence of anything except that you have similar tastes
and philosophies.  The only thing it says about the music is that it was
able to invoke similar reactions between you.  This is important, it is
significant, but it is not objective in any sense.

>>>However, the written testimony of the subsequent composers
>>>is there to proof it.
>>
>>Prove what, exactly?  The quality of the music?...
>
>No. To prove that the work X has been useful, inspiring, etc.  to the
>composers Z, Y and W.  That's all.

But what does that tell you?  How does it help?

>>All that's proved is that some writers have agreed.  You could easily
>>assemble a group of writers that dissent.
>
>Not in the case of Debussy, I would bet.  In the case of other composers,
>it's probable...

You'd be wrong I'm afraid.  In the years I've been doing this I've seen
well-reasoned arguments against the quality of the music of composers such
as Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, etc.  There are people on this list
- educated people with good taste and knowledgeable about music - who can't
stand some of the composers I've just listed.  Now what? Unless it's
claimed that these people either are ignorant, or they have bad taste, or
they have ulterior motives, all we've proved is that these judgements are
subjective.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/