Scott Peterson responded to me:

>>I'll have to be frank and say that I don't think any vocabulary would
>>suffice to make clear a difference.  It's all too subjective.  You aren't
>>deficient, the language is.
>
>Really? It doesn't seem subjective to me at all--actually, what I was
>looking for was a completely objective answer.

And I did misunderstand the context of your question, and so responded
to the other responses in the thread in the light of that misunderstanding.
See what happens when one assumes too much? Of course, Scott is correct.
And objective description is possible.  It's drawing conclusions about the
quality of the music from such descriptions that gets rather more tricky.
But that wasn't what Scott was after.

>...  I'm not asking, in any of those cases, which is the better genre
>or composer or whatever, enjoyable though unresolvable and somewhat
>pointless some of those debates are.  I just wanted to know what some
>of the differences between Debussy's music and New Age.

And that's what I didn't quite understand.  Since the topic came up, I've
been looking into this a bit.  There don't seem to be many references
specifically to comparisons between classical and new age music.  At least
not much that would be of use.  Most of the discussions seem to want to
deal with the really big pop stars such as Madonna.  New Age may be just
too "small potatoes" to attract such analysis.  As I tried to point in out
my previous babble on the topic, I think this may be a shame as there are
perhaps some areas where serious comparison might prove interesting.

>Perhaps Debussy's use of the sustain pedal had a tremendous influence on
>some of the New Age artists, ...

I suspect if you were to ask most of the new age pianists about this
you'd get responses that indicated a range of influences from classical
to jazz.  Consider, for example, Keith Jarrett.  I have been listening
to his Koln concert quite a bit this month
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000262WI/classicalnetA/).
Many classical music lovers will recognize Jarrett from his generally
well-received recordings of Bach, Handel, and lately Shostakovich.  He's
also a composer of classical music, and a disc of his chamber music
(which I have not heard) is available from ECM, as are the other discs.

But his early musical background was in jazz, including a brief stint
with the Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers in the '60s, recording with Herbie
Hancock and Chick Corea, and a more extended period as a member of Miles
Davis' group from 69-71, though it was immediately following this last
that Jarrett forswore eclectic keyboards altogether.  By Jarrett's own
admission, Bill Evans was a strong influence on his playing, and Evans
was strongly influenced by the classics, especially Bach.

As I listen to the Koln concert, I can see how these extended solo
improvisations could be said to have had a major influence on new age
pianists.  In any case, it's pretty clear to me that none of these
developments in music are as easily differentiable between high art and
pop art as they might first appear.  But this doesn't really pertain to
the question Scott was asking.

>I think, ultimately, maybe it's a bit like pornography--tough to explain
>or describe, but you know it when you hear (or see) it.

Couldn't agree more.  Sorry for trampling over your excellent question.
I suspect, as you do, that there are listmembers who are capable of far
more detailed analysis of the differences between Claude's and George's
music than I can provide.

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