Pablo Massa:

>"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".

It's also had a track record unavailable at this point to the New Age
stuff, simply because it's new.  On the other hand, a lot of people seem
to be writing what they call New Age.  How long do we have to wait for
results?

>>>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,

Actually, Debussy's harmonic innovations are prefigured by such composers
as Liszt, Wagner, and Massenet.

>No. To prove that the work X has been useful, inspiring, etc.  to the
>composers Z, Y and W.  That's all.

I find it very odd that we're judging music on the basis of history,
rather than on how much we like it.  The problem is that many of the
composers we like most tended to be influenced by composers no longer
heard much or inferior to whom they influenced.  As George Bernard Shaw
once wrote, in art it doesn't matter who came before you.  It matters who
comes after.

>>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...

Read Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective.  Some of my favorite
excerpts:

   [Of Pelleas] ... interminable flow of commonplace sound.  The effect
   is quite bewildering, almost amusing, in its absurdity.

   Debussy's Afternoon of a Faun was a strong example of modern ugliness.
   The faun must have had a terrible afternoon, for the poor beast brayed
   on muted horns and whinnied on flutes, and avoided all trace of
   soothing melody, until the audience began to share his sorrows.

   A vacuum has been described as nothing shut up in a box, and the
   prelude entitled L'Apres-midi d'un faune may aptly be described as
   nothing, expressed in musical terms.

   I believe there is an enormous amount of snobbism and bluff in the
   reputation of this musician.

And so on.

Steve Schwartz