Dave Lampson to Pablo Massa, on Edson's commentaries:

Debussy researched new sonorities and he is a pioneer at
end-19th/begin-20th centuries.  His music is significative in the
History of Western Music.
>>>
>>>Easy to write, easy to believe, harder to prove.
>>
>>Why is it harder to prove?
>
>I was being generous.  It's not harder to prove, it's totally
>impossible.  Though as humans we tend to value our opinions, sometimes over
>facts, these opinions are still just that: our subjective truth.  There is
>no objective truth about the quality of music because it's all based on
>subjective perception.

"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.  For example, Messiaen's "Modes de Valeurs et d'Intensites" is a
work that I personally consider ugly and waste, but I can deny that this
work helped many composers (Boulez among them) to develop their own music.
The same can be said of Beethoven's 9th (with the difference that I love
it).  Debussy's work is significative in the History of Western Music
simply because it influenced the way in which many composers created (and
creates) music, not simply because it's "good" or "bad".  Geminiani's
Concerti op. 6, for example, is quite a beautiful work, but its historical
significance tends to zero.

>>One may read this on books, but one can also prove it easily just listening.
>
>I'd be interest to hear about the mechanism that proves anything just by
>listening to it.

Well, get your ears ready:-).  If you simply listen the orchestral music
of Debussy's elders (D'Indy, for example), or the orchestral music of
his contemporaries (Mahler, for example), you will notice some aspects:
a) Debussy's treatment of the harmony was something new by those times,
and b) his treatment of the orchestral resources was quite unheard (though
not entirely new).  You may easily prove by your ears that Debussy's music
doesn't sound like almost any music written in his times.  Of course, this
will show you that Debussy was actually "researching new sonorities", but
this will not tell you much about the "significance" of his music.

>>...  The fact that his work was significative in the History of Western
>>Music hardly needs an evidence:
>
>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.

>>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.

>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...

>>>But does such political slogan-slinging really raise the level of
>>discourse?
>>
>>Of course it will, ...
>
>On that we'll have to disagree.  Politics is concerned with the
>acquisition and exercise of power.  It has little to do with the quest
>for either subjective or objective truth, and therefore does nothing
>to illuminate the issue.  ...

I wrote "Of course it will, if you provide arguments".  A slogan may sound
attractive, but it's a hell of work to find twenty supporting reasons for
it.  If you do, then perhaps it's not a slogan anymore.

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]