Talk:Claude Debussy/Archive 2

Tchaikovsky's influence or lack thereof
Here's the context:
 * From 1880 to 1882, he lived in Russia as music teacher to the children of Nadezhda von Meck, the patroness of Tchaikovsky. Despite von Meck's closeness with Tchaikovsky, the Russian master appears to have had little or no effect on Debussy. In September 1880 she sent Debussy's Danse bohémienne'' for Tchaikovsky's perusal. A month later he wrote back to her, "It is a very pretty piece, but it is much too short. Not a single idea is expressed fully, the form is terribly shriveled, and it lacks unity". Debussy did not publish the piece; the manuscript remained in the von Meck family, and it was sold to B. Schott's Sohne in Mainz, and published by them in 1932. More influential was Debussy's close friendship with Madame Vasnier ...

Firstly, I'd say that what little evidence there is, suggests that Tchaikovsky personally had a decidedly negative impact on Debussy. But, we do not know whether Debussy had intended to publish the Danse bohémienne but had a rethink after receiving Tchaikovsky's comments; or whether he never intended it for publication in the first place. He was always a huge critic of himself (he considered Suite bergamasque to be execrable music, the worst thing he ever wrote) and the Danse bohémienne was his first instrumental composition. Given the peculiar relationship between Nadezhda von Meck and Tchaikovsky (they were to communicate by letter but never to meet face to face), and given Debussy's duties in her household teaching her children, he would have hardly been in a position to come into contact with Tchaikovsky personally. They certainly never met.

He loved Tchaikovsky's music. Nadezhda reported to Tchaikovsky that "he is in raptures over your music". Debussy and Nadezhda played 4-hand arrangements of the Symphony No. 4 and the Suite No. 2 Suite No. 1, about which she wrote "He was in utter ecstasy over the fugue, expressing himself thus: Among modern fugues I've never seen anything so beautiful. Massenet himself could never do anything like it".

So, with one possible exception, the influence that Tchaikovsky had on Debussy was through his works, and would have had regardless of Debussy's sojourn in Russia. My suggestion is to either remove the bold sentence entirely, because it's misleading; or to say more about Tchaikovsky's osmotic influence on Debussy stemming from Debussy's enormous regard for the Russian. (Quotes are from Poznansky, p. 374). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Amendment. Poznansky identified the suite in question as No. 2, but it must have been No. 1 - see Talk:Orchestral Suite No. 1 (Tchaikovsky). --  JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

i think it is completely pointless to surmise the internal emotional state or attitude of a composer based on circumstantial evidence and secondhand report. we don't know nadezhda's motives for what she wrote, or whether she fabricated or not, or what either nadezhda or debussy did or did not expect would come from any comment positive or negative to tchaikovsky about tchaikovsky's music. we also have fairly consistent biographical evidence to show that debussy did not withhold or revise pieces, or shape his musical style, or plan new compositions, or navigate his personal or domestic relationships in reaction to negative comment from any quarter. the composition in question is one among the three shortest and least substantial that he wrote. what can be said is that tchaikovsky's compositional style had no influence whatsoever on debussy's musical style, that tchaikovsky's personal influence had no influence whatsoever on the progress of debussy's career. in short: "Despite von Meck's closeness with Tchaikovsky, Tchaikovsky had no discernible influence on Debussy's musical style or career." Macevoy (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal links
This talk page has links to the France Portal, Dance Portal and Biography Portal. That's normal. Wikipedia-related information goes on Talk pages. On the other hand, it's generally agreed that the article page is for the reader, and should have a minimum of WP self-referential material (in the form of tags, boxes etc.).

Recently a number of ballet portal icon boxes (and navigation boxes) have appeared on article pages. This has been controversial (many of the articles have not been about ballet per se) and most of these icons and boxes have been removed.

I also removed a Ballet Portal icon box from this article page. However User:Melodia reverted my deletion of the icon box with the summary:  "Undo bad faith removal by continued Wikipedia abuser Kleinzach" . Hmm. Why does opposing the use of Portal icons on article pages make you into a (quote) 'continued Wikipedia abuser' (unquote). Why is it 'bad faith' to remove such an icon? Are all deletions and removals of material to be regarded as 'bad faith edits'? Can I have an explanation please, Melodia? -- Klein zach  13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see Portal: '' "While the top-level portals are linked to directly from the Main Page, individual portals are linked by placing portal on a page. However, in the main namespace, these templates should not be placed in articles, but instead should be located at the top of an article's talk page . . ."  -- Klein zach '' 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the bad faith was in your description of the portal link as 'spam'? You might like to read WP:AGF before making such baseless accusations again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead
"Repeats the same words again and again" - which words? Throws up hands, rolls eyes, removes article from watchlist. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a fine article, arguably A-class from a factual perspective. A number of things would be needed to ready this article for a formal review (FA or GA); I detail this in my review on the comments page. Questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 17:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbolist versus impressionist
Thank you whomever brought up that Debussy was heavily influenced by the symbolist movement, and that he himself rejected the "impressionist" label. It's a misleading term. Much of his music is based on symbolist poetry and plays, rather than impressionist painting. Though since the great consensus of art critics and historians use it, the term sticks. Cnadolski (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

However, Debussy did love the Impressionist painters, who were his contempories. Rand503 (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mussorgsky
It is well-known that the major influence on Debussy as a composer came from Mussorgsky. It is written in several books I posses. It is written in most of my books. In one of them it even says that during Debussy's years in Russia he has meet Mussorgsky and was impressed by his music. I think that some note about Mussorgsky's influence should be mentioned and if someone has any further information about Debussy's acquaintance with Mussorgsky I will be very happy if he shares this information. AdamChapman (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two quotes concerning Debussy and Mussorgsky from a book about Stravinsky which I don't know where to put: One is by Debussy "The whole of my Pelleas is in Boris". The second is by Stravinsky "The first time I visited him [Debussy] in his house, after Firebird, we talked about Mussorgsky's songs and agreed that they contained the best music of the whole Russian school". AdamChapman (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New Image


Hello

I uploaded this image of Debussy and wandered weather it could be included in the article.

Thanks

Etincelles  ♬♬   (talk)  22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Profanity in Biography Early life and studies
Someone has written in the Early life and studies "Debussy is a retard." SmudgeStick999 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed...Modernist (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)