Talk:Nuages gris

Technical details are wrong.
There are a couple of factual problems with this article.

First, the statement that the melody makes extensive reference to the G Lydian mode is just plain wrong. It does not at any point use the Lydian mode, in G or any other key. I would guess that the C# in the opening motif is what led an earlier editor to believe this uses the Lydian mode in G. It is true that C# does appear in the Lydian mode on G, but not in either the major or minor scales based on G - and it does appear in this melody. But for it to be in the Lydian mode, all (or nearly all) the notes would have to correspond - not just one note, even if it is a prominent and unusual one. For reference, the Lydian mode on G would go thus: G A B C# D E F# G, and not use Bb at all, whereas all the Bs in this melody are Bb.

Secondly, I dispute the statement about this piece using quartal harmony. I presume this statement is based on the fact that the first three notes of the motif contain two 4th intervals in them (the perfect 4th D-G, followed by the augmented 4th G-C#). However, I believe more than this is required for a passage or piece to be described as using quartal harmony: a preponderance of the harmonies overall should be based on 4ths. It would be quite easy for these two 4ths to arise quite naturally in the course of ordinary tonal (tertial) harmony, and I believe this is the case here - most of this piece can be analyzed either as G minor with an occasional chromatic C#, or as consecutive augmented triads based on a two-note ostinato in the bass - neither of which is quartal, even if some of the major 3rds augmented triads are made up of are notated as diminished 4ths. This is little more than an enharmonic anomaly resulting from the unsuitability for augmented triad or whole-tone-based harmony of our music notation system, which historically was based on diatonic scales: in such a system, some major 3rds have to be notated as diminished 4ths if you are not to get tangled up in thickets of double-sharps or -flats, but they in no way function as real 4ths of any kind.

I am considering whether to change the article. I don't quite know, though, whether to change the statements to what I think they should be (and I do have the theoretical knowledge of harmony to analyze the piece up to a reasonable point), or whether to simply remove the statements. But I think this article is quite misleading - plain wrong, in fact - as it currently stands.

Anyone else care to give an opinion?

Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The title should be changed too. Authoritative sources, like the Neue Liszt-Ausgabe and Grove (not to mention the First edition), refer to it using the German title: Trübe Wolken. --Funper (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The piece seems (as far as I've ever seen) to be universally known as "Nuages Gris", whereas I'd never heard of the German version until recently, when I tried finding it on imslp.org, and had great difficulty owing to it being listed under this obscure German name I'd never heard of before.

Does the fact of "Nuages Gris" being the best-known title for the piece count for anything in Wikipedia? I think quite often when a non-English-speaking composer gave a piece a title in his own language (or in some non-English language), Wikipedia often lists it under the English title when it is best known that way amongst English-speaking people. Might the same apply when the best-known title in English-speaking countries is, due to some historical accident, the translated version in a third language, such as French in this case?

Just wondering.... M.J.E. (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)