We have a fair few FAs on French composers: Bizet, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Messager, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns. But the article on the French composer whom some would rank as the most important of all has not so far been brought up to GA, let alone FA level, and I think it's time to remedy that. I've given the article a thorough overhaul, removing POV, OR and uncited assertions, and adding life and works info from reliable sources. I'd now be grateful for comments on how to improve the article further and whether GA or FAC would be the more appropriate target as the article stands. Comments on style, balance, images and anything else will also be gratefully received. Tim riley talk21:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Cut and pasted from user talk page)
Dear Tim, in the lead of Debussy you have He regarded the symphony as played out. This might be deliberate and I too stupid to appreciate it properly, but I find it slightly awkward. There is, I am sure, a Greek term for "a metaphor which is too close to a literal to be satisfactory" and that is what is making it read oddly for me at least. To my way of thinking a metaphor which was further away from an idea of musical performance would read more easily ... some other way of saying that it was tired out or had had its day or lost its shine or was on its way to the knacker's yard. (Well OK, not all of those perhaps.) Do you see what I mean? It's like saying that the idea of an American supersonic transport aircraft never got off the runway ... it's somehow rendering the metaphor impotent by edging too close to a real, nonmetaphorical meaning. Of course I may be talking absolute cojones here; I often am. It will, therefore, cause no offence if you disregard this. Shutting up now. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing testicular about your remarks, dear DBak. Point taken about live and dead metaphors: I once, years ago, found myself writing, "...on the other hand, a broken leg...". I'm trying to convey briefly that Debussy thought the symphony had reached its peak with Beethoven (though he had mixed feelings about him) and was past its sell-by date. If you can think of a better way of expressing that in two or three words, please amend my prose. And do, please, look in at the newly-opened peer review and weigh in with any more suggestions – all will be gladly received. Tim riley talk22:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that he believed that it was out of fashion or such, but there is a more serious problem, I think: I don't see anything like this below in the body of the article, and we shouldn't discuss something in the LEAD that is not expanded upon in the body of the article. I suggest moving this sentence down into the body, together with a ref that verifies it. Or did I miss it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award to you this *invisible* WP:LEAD Barnstar! This is the most prestigious award allowed under Wikipedia rules, given with great dignity and after considerable thought, thereby making it a far greater and more precious honour than the usual gaudy *visible* ones that people like to throw about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why "Conservatoire de Paris" in the lead and Paris Conservatoire in the body?
Well that's poetic justice! I made exactly the same point when reviewing Pierre Boulez's article for GA the other day, and now I go and do the same thing here! I'll fix. Tim riley talk10:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to drop a comma into "At the Conservatoire Debussy", or it looks like it was named after him while he was still a student!
Indeed. Done.
"He joined her household, for that summer and those of 1881 and 1882": I think you could reframe this a little. "that summer" had me skimming back through the lines to see which year we were on.
Just say "a singing class" you mean? I could live with that. Mme M-S was borderline notable (thus), but not essential to the present narrative. Tim riley talk10:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gabrielle ("Gaby") Dupont: I think we only need Gabrielle "Gaby" Dupont, without the brackets.
Why not simply start a new sentence with "His success..."? There's no reason why two consecutive sentences can't rely on the same ref. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from the prose side of things; I was a bit speedy going the Music section as most of these sections are always something of a mystery to me, but if you could ping me if you decide to take this forward I'll have a more thorough read through. I've tinkered a bit with some of the formatting of dots and dashes, but nothing too disrupting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, and most importantly, it's a really good read: fluent and interesting, with very well-chosen quotations. Already a great improvement! I'll start with some minor comments (which will come in dribs and drabs) and perhaps as I get to know the article better I'll have more substantive comments.
I can't resist kicking off with a couple of half-time scores:『the Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune』5 : 3 "Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune"; "the Nocturnes" 3 : 4 "Nocturnes".
Oooh! 'Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard, and I must admit I laughed at this. (See also SC's first comment above and kindly attempt to refrain from smirking.) I'm wholly biddable about this. What do you think? Definite article for one, both or neither? Tim riley talk19:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you enjoyed it! I would say definitely no definite article for Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune; but the convention seems (on a random check) to be to call them 'the Nocturnes' in English texts. Dmass (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
I wonder if it's necessary to describe the Conservatoire de Paris, given that you've also linked it (and it's quite well known). Dmass (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll defend this. One doesn't necessarily want to encourage readers to click out of one's magnificent article into another, and a swift phrase such as this seems about enough to make such clicking unnecessary. Tim riley talk19:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "and a number of works for orchestra and chorus or orchestra and solo voices or instruments" adds anything, since it's so unspecific (and a bit of a mouthful).
Not keen on "a substantial oeuvre of" - which reads slightly awkwardly - or "and a few ballets" - perhaps a bit throwaway? (I think "obsolete" is the perfect solution to the discussion above, by the way).
I've trimmed it - too much info for the Lead. My preference, by the way, would be not to refer to choral music here at all, I've only added this in as a fellow-editor reinstated the reference to choral music Dmass (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence brought me up short - I'd never really thought about how short his composing life was until you put a figure on it. Nice touch. All for now. Dmass (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dmass I am greatly in your debt for your re-write of the "influences" section. It is such an improvement on the previous attempt. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk13:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As I've said on the Talk page, I'm struggling to find anything specific re his influence on jazz musicians. Perhaps someone could help with that? Dmass (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done through "early works" so far. Most interesting. A few things:
"and was nearly forty before achieving international fame with his opera Pelléas et Mélisande in 1902, the only opera he completed." You could combine the two operas thus, "and was nearly forty before achieving international fame with the only opera he competed, Pelléas et Mélisande, in 1902.
"and oriental music" I am not certain what the present status of the adjective "oriental" is. I might avoid it, perhaps Far Eastern or some such.
Gosh! And after all the recent fuss about productions of The Mikado, too. I ought to have thought of that, and will follow your wise suggestion. Tim riley talk10:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"to escape the Siege of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War, " I might say "during" rather than "in".
Indeed.
"Manuel-Achille Debussy" You refer to him later without the -Achille. Is this usual?
"Although Debussy's works showed the influence of Jules Massenet, Massenet concluded," I might try to avoid the double "Massenet".
Unless I use "the latter", which is sometimes unavoidable but I think rather starchy, I can't see any straightforward way of avoiding the repetition. Suggestions gladly received.
"In 1888 and 1889 he went to the annual festivals of Wagner's operas at Bayreuth." a link to the Bayreuth Festival might be useful as a pipe.
"Société Nationale" You are not consistent as to whether Nationale is capitalised.
Much as I love French music, wine, cuisine, architecture and painting, I find French punctuation, particularly in the matter of capitalisation, a perpetual pain in the derrière. Thanks for spotting that inconsistency, which I shall remedy. Tim riley talk10:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"which is approximated by ratios of adjacent numbers in the standard Fibonacci sequence.[105]" I might cut "standard" and possibly sub "consecutive" for "adjacent".
Thank you for doing justice to this great person. Minor comments as I read:
Lead
I wonder if perhaps the "most influential" sentence should precede the "impressionist".
I don't think we need the years for La mer at this point.
"A small number of works, including the early La Damoiselle élue and the late Le Martyre de saint Sébastien have important parts for chorus." - how about "A small number of works have important parts for chorus, including the early La Damoiselle élue and the late Le Martyre de saint Sébastien."? - to not leave the key fact open for too long. (I expected "religious subjects", when reading the titles.)
By now I read the rest, and made some changes, namely to link his pieces in the music section. Admitted, they were linked before, some even twice, but I think it serves the readers who can link immediately to a piece about which they read a critic's comment, without having to assume that it must have been linked before, and search for it, - call it intentional redundancy, and revert if you don't like it.
Another general remark: I wonder about the usefulness of the many sound examples. I love them right next to the score excerpts, but think the others may just as well be reserved to the articles about the pieces. They make for some restless up and down of the page before it settles.
"body of choral tone" - what's that? (or is it just me?)
Mélodie - I think it deserves a translation to "[art] song", even while there's a link, because an innocent reader will translate to "melody". Consider same in the lead.
"noticeably Debussian features" - any other way to say that? ("noticeably features" sounds wrong, and yes, it's correct, but ...)
Late
I suggest to first talk about Images, then Jeux. By the time the latter comes, the first sentence may be forgotten.
I'd split the run-on sentence on the former.
"The Études (1915) for piano have divided opinion." I'd be interested in the opinion of the etudes ;) - Again, it's correct, but I had to read it twice.
I suggest to show one image of an impressionist painting, such as a Monet seascape
If you can find a relevant image that will survive Image Review at FAC please add it. I could not find one I was confident of. Tim riley talk13:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, could something be added to the section header of just years, 1903 - 1918? - Debussy is one of the themes of the RMF this year, - more insight may come in listening. - Thank you, again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciated. All I noted are just questions and suggestions from my (limited) point of view, such as never clicking on mélodie, and the surprise when I finally did ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will give this a proper look, honest, but I strayed immediately to the comments about Alkan (also, incidentally, a French FA composer)in 'Influences'. I think they are wrong and might be better excised, certainly rewritten. Firstly I am sceptical that Debussy ever made any reliably recorded comment about Alkan. As far as I know this comment is recorded only in Dumesnil's 1940 book and is not sourced. No other recent writer seems to have noticed it or given it credibility. Secondly, the phrase "some analysts have seen the latter's influence in Debussy's harmonic methods" is not justified by the citations in Eddie. P. 109 claims that Alkan's op. 41/1 anticipates Debussy in a variety of ways - that is a long way from saying that Alkan influenced Debussy. P. 217 says "Alkan in this study and elsewhere has been credited with anticipating various composers" and lists Debussy, Stravinsky, Ives and others. Same objection - and Eddie doesn't give any references for the "elsewhere." Actually although it is inconceivable that Debussy did not know at least some of Alkan's works, I am not aware of any useful citable comment about influence. For what it is worth, I would suggest that Alkan was really a 'German' composer as far as most later-19th century French composers were concerned - occupied with sonata form, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, etc. which didn't really interest them. For this reason Debussy simply steered a wide berth of him. It may also be relevant that Debussy was a pupil of Alkan's enemy, Marmontel. Anyway I'll get back to the article as a whole presently.--Smerus (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to delete Alkan refs, in which I was attempting to accommodate an earlier editor's additions. I wasn't entirely happy about them, but didn't feel I could blitz willy nilly. But your expert input makes me confident about doing so. Tim riley talk22:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More nitpicks as actually the article seems extremely good.
Life 1903-18
I don't like "the Grand Hôtel de Jersey" becuse that doesn't in fact make it clear that the hotel was in Jersey. (cf e.g. "Hotel Bristol") Why not "the Grand Hôtel in Jersey"?
Para 2 "the proofs of his symphonic sketches La mer. Para 3 "In October 1905 Debussy's most substantial orchestral work, La mer... " then sounds somehow clumsy. I suggest "In October 1905 La mer, Debussy's most substantial orchestral work,... "
I am not an expert on Debussy, so have just been browsing through some stuff I have on him, including Taruskin's comments in his Oxford History of Music, which I recommend looking at, not because I agree with everything he says by a long chalk, but because his approach is good at prompting thinking/rethinking. Here are some comments which arise from my brief researches.
Works (early). The Newman quote is nice but perhaps misleading to a passing reader, as modern criticism seems to have re-rated the last works such as Jeux and the sonatas - that perhaps needs pointing out (it's admittedly touched on later in the article)
Influences (musical). You bury a mention of Chopin in para 3 but don't anywhere mention Debussy's edition of Chopin works for the publisher Durand or that he dedicated his own Etudes in memory of Chopin. I believe you should 'upgrade' Chopin in this section.
Influence on composers. This list won't do imo. It would be better if you gave fewer composers and at least something of how the influence can be discerned in each case. E.g. Janacek (who you don't mention) studied Pelleas and the way in which Debussy set prose (Taruskin p. 443).
I agree, and will see if I can write something ad rem and then get it through, but this section is a hangover from earlier versions of the page, and I suspect entrenched interests may prevent my pruning the list of names. I think perhaps I'll leave a note on the article talk page and see what that provokes. Tim riley talk13:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism. Debussy's anti-Germanism became more acrid with WW1 in his writings (and may have veered towards anti-Semitism, see Taruskin pp. 105-6). This should be mentioned somewhere.
apologies that I seem to be consistently in whingeing mode in my comments. This section also won't do, imo.
Para 1. It is pointless to transcribe the chords from the discussion with Guiraud without mentioning what they signify. All the article provides is a source which says that the musical quote and the conversation were genuine - to which the response of the uninformed reader is, 'so what?'. See e.g. Taruskin for why this is important and what it tells us about Debussy's technique.
The rest is essentially a set of citations from Reti. Reti's stature was imo overblown when he was around and has faded substantially since. By all means cite his opinions in the text, but to accompany each of them with large notated and aural extracts ias going over the top, particularly when you don't cite any other opinions. It makes it look as if the article completely endorses Reti to the exclusion of any other perspectives, which , again imo, it shouldn't.
I really don't know what to do for the best here. I take the points you make, but I'd feel v. uncomfortable about blitzing the music examples that earlier editors have painstakingly added. Is your feeling that if I leave the section largely as it is I should not attempt to take the article to FAC? I have no driving ambition to do so: I've been overhauling the article more from a feeling that it needed doing rather than from any strong love (or, as you can doubtless detect, knowledge) of Debussy. – Tim riley talk19:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, whether or not we are looking to GA or FA, are we here to indulge the romps or partialities of former editors, or are we here to inform readers? I'm a bit of a Puritan on this; I really believe that to leave misleading information alone is to risk misleading innocent readers. As regards the Guiraud conversation - if we don't explain what it signifies, it's just so much blah. As it stands it tells us nothing about D's compositional technique. If we added the explanation the example would imo be worth retaining.
As regards Reti, it is at the very least non-neutral to spend acres of the space in the article on him whilst not mentioning other views. Reti has six points, which take up a few lines of the article. The musical examples take up in comparison gargantuan space which implicitly lends a sort of unquestioning endorsement of Reti, and only Reti - because no-one else is cited. Reti died 60 years ago.........--Smerus (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue against anything you say, above. Would it be excessively importunate to ask you to wield the pruning knife? Not that I'm squeamish, but I simply haven't got the confidence here. Of course say no if you prefer. Tim riley talk21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus Thank you so much for your elegant re-write. Quite apart from the excellence of the content, the whole article is now more sensibly proportioned. I am most grateful, as I am to Dmass for his marvellous input in the "influences" section. Tim riley talk13:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Influences (musical)
Putting up 12 of the preludes is a nice bit of placement for the pianist Mr. Latsabidze, but adds nothing to the article - none of the individual pieces (except for Pickwick) are mentioned anywhere in the article afa I can see. In the same way that WP is not an art gallery, nor is it a musical box. This is just cruft.
"accompanist to Nadezhda von Meck" – in what sense "accompanist"? I didn't know she performed.
I've had a go at clarifying this, avoiding 'accompanist'. Although Walsh (2018) say says that CD played piano four-hands with von Meck, his duties seem to have been more general than that. Dmass (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
– and you might seek to avoid "...Massenet. Massenet..."
I'd like to, but can't think how without "lattering", which is OK but a bit starchy. 13:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you "renounce" a person? (as in "several of Debussy's friends and supporters renounced him") You can renounce a claim to the throne, you can renounce evil, as I frequently do,[citation needed] but can you renounce a friend?
Lovely article, well done all. At the moment I have only one minor worry, which is the correspondence or otherwise between Debussy's influence on other composers as mentioned in the lead and what we say about it later at the "Influence on later composers" section.
It seems natural to me that if I were interested by that claim I would go off and read Claude Debussy#Influence on later composers to see what's said about those four splendid chaps. But if I try to match up what the lead says with what the Influence section says, I get this:
Ravel – not mentioned in the section, though evidence of Debussy's influence is to be seen elsewhere (Middle works, 1893–1905)
Stravinsky – fair enough, clear mention in the Influence section, no beef there
Gershwin is not mentioned anywhere else in the article
Reich is not mentioned anywhere else in the article
Please feel free to shout at me if I am being stupid, or this is already discussed elsewhere, but to me this doesn't feel right – I feel as if a mention as an "influenced composer" in the lead should be met with at least a word or two in the Influence section. Yesno?
Further, if you look at it from the other end, there's a whole raft of composers who are mentioned in Influence but don't make it into the lead – if you didn't want to rewrite the section to meet the lead then maybe a couple of them could make it up there to keep Stravinsky company. Listed below, admittedly not all of them with necessarily major significance to their work, are:
Bartók
Janáček
Les Six/Cocteau
Boulez
Benjamin
Adams
Holloway
Matthews
E&OE ...
... so if you wanted to do it that way, you wouldn't be short of potential material!
Sorry, my fault entirely. I put in a new 'Influences' section without checking back to see if it still tallied with the Lead. I've picked four of the main influencees, aiming for variety... Dmass (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, thanks - it's very roughly 1,000,000% better now! Good, interesting group of composers too. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent and wonderful colleagues, I am more grateful than I can say for the input you have given me for this PR so far – quite exceptional and above and beyond any normal demands on a peer reviewer. But I must neglect the PR for a few days as I shall be away until Wednesday, without computer access. Me absente, I beg you to keep improving the article, and I'll rejoin you on Wednesday. Best wishes to all. Tim riley talk19:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Back, and thrilled to see how much more the article has been improved over the past few days. More tomorrow, but just checking in to thank everyone for such marvellous input. Tim riley talk19:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Impressionism : I don't think this should mentioned in the lead, given the controversy over the word (as is well described in the later section/paragraph). This part of the opening bit could be replaced with a sentence describing the nature of Debussy's revolution in musical language. With the lower section, the problem is that two of his most important works and a significant numbers of songs are really derived from symbolist sources and thought, but there is currently only one mention of symbolism in the article (David Cox has a good explanation on p9 of his BBC Guide). For the lead you may have already got a nice summary of Debussy's achievement, but if not this is something from William Meller's Man and his Music - "Because of, rather than in spite of, his preoccupation with chords in themselves, he deprived music of the sense of harmonic progression, broke down three centuries' dominance of harmonic tonality, and showed how the melodic conceptions of tonality typical of primitive folk-music and of medieval music might be relevant to the twentieth century" I am sure there are better passages to hand. Or David Cox in his BBC Guide to Orchestral Music: "He created a new, instinctive, dreamlike world of music, lyrical and pantheistic, contemplative and objective - a kind of art, in fact, which seemed to reach out into all aspects of experience."Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve had a long think about this and I don’t know that it would be wise to omit all mention of Impressionism from the lead. If we leave it out we can be quite sure that some well-meaning soul will put it in again, and unfortunately many reputable works of reference attach the label to Debussy. From the online Oxford Reference library:
Claude Debussy (1862–1918) French composer and pianist, regarded as the originator of impressionism in music. (Topic overview)
Debussy, Claude Achille (1862–1918) French composer , exponent of impressionism (Oxford World Encyclopedia)
Debussy (Achille) Claude (1862–1918) French composer and pianist, regarded as the originator of impressionism in music. (Who's Who in the Twentieth Century)
Debussy carried the ideas of impressionist art and symbolist poetry into music, using melodies based on the whole-tone scale and delicate harmonies exploiting overtones. (Oxford Dictionary of English and almost identical wording in the New Oxford American Dictionary, and the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary)
And so on. I think it is better to tackle the matter head-on in the lead, though I take your point about strengthening the reference to Symbolism, and I'll add something accordingly. If any other reviewers have views on this I’d be grateful to know them. Tim riley talk12:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Mellers and Cox quotations are both very much to the point, and nicely concise too. I'll add them at the appropriate place in the main text, I think. Tim riley talk12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think it's sort of self-perpetuation thing (and of course Wikipedia loves pigeon-holing); but as long as it is clear that Debussy never used it and rejected it, and perhaps a couple of arguments against it.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings : I wondered why the Garden songs are in reverse order from the set... I suspect Maggie should be detached from Alfred and given her own entry, as she recorded also with Moore inlcuding a couple of extracts from Pelléas. And I think the conductors should be re-jigged in order of importance / closeness to important premieres; Pierre Monteux, Désiré-Émile Inghelbrecht, Ernest Ansermet, and Arturo Toscanini.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much attracted to that arrangement, but I wonder if the non-expert reader (I speak as a nervously non-expert editor) will understand why we have chosen that order, rather than the obvious alphabetical one. Tim riley talk13:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the songs should go in the correct order. I am actually not really sure about Ansermet to see his connection.... but Hector Dufranne the first Golaud did take part in a recording of excerpts from P&M; so maybe still some loose ends here.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chabrier is missing from the influences sections. Howat (p93 of The Art of French Piano Music, 2009) quotes his statement « Chabrier, Moussorgsky, Palestrina, voilà ce que j'aime » and also gives other examples on p91 (and possibly elsewhere in this book, I have not been exhaustive); Frank Dawes notes a couple of direct examples of the older composer's style in early-ish Debussy piano music in his BBC Music Guide to the piano music. If these are not enough I can look for others.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that: Chabrier now added. I was surprised to read this from Ravel’s biographer Roland-Manuel:『Let’s stop rediscovering Chabrier every twenty years. Let’s put him once and for all in his true place, right at the top.』I feel we may have to put Chabrier on the list for overhauling: you have been warned! Tim riley talk08:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Constant Lambert : If you feel the article is still lacking some pithy comments, Constant Lambert has swathes in the first part of his Music Ho! p24-60. (He also uses 'impressionism' but only because it “is so widespread that one may conveniently use it as a generic label for that period of disruption in music of which Debussy was the dominating figure. The word impressionism is used illogically.....”).
“I merely wish to point out that Debussy's real revolution in harmony consists far more in the way he uses chords, than in the chords he uses.”
“By his overthrow of the old principles of contrasted discord and concord, of suspension and resolution, by his destruction of the key-system, Debussy puts an end to the somewhat mechanical eloquence into which German Romantics had degenerated... we are forced to listen less with our minds and more with our nerves.”
“There are two ways of destroying the significance of the House of Lords — you can either abolish it or you can make everyone a member. We have no sense of modulation in Debussy’s music for the simple reason that he doesn’t modulate, and we have no sense of modulation in Schönberg’s music because the work itself has become one vast modulation. Debussy destroys the old diatonic scale, with its class distinctions between tones and semi-tones, by restricting it to whole tones and pentatonic intervals; Schönberg by extending equal importance to all twelve semitones. Debussy destroys one’s sense of harmonic progression by eliminating all contrapuntal feeling; Schönberg by the sheer multiplicity and mechanical application of his contrapuntal devices.”
[later in the book] “...I think it in the highest degree unlikely that atonalism will ever become an instinctive and natural idiom, part of our mental background, in the way that Debussy's idiom has become so — his mannerisms now being the property of every jazz hack. ‘So much the better’, may think the followers of Schönberg, Berg and Von Webern, but, after all, the vulgarization of Debussy, like the vulgarization of Wagner, is a proof of the essentially solid basis on which these onetime revolutionaries built.” Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some tinkering, hopefully not controversial. But I wanted to ask about "Further reading". If these items aren't mentioned or referred to in the article, they shouldn't be listed here unless they have something specific to say, which should in that case be indicated. Otherwise they are just a random set of publications related to Debussy. You could have if you wanted, (and if anyone thought it was useful) an article List of books about Debussy - but to set out here a WP:OR set of texts without any indication of criteria of selection is not appropriate. I would delete the lot. --Smerus (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this rigorous and immensely fruitful peer review has pretty well run its course, and unless anyone wishes to add anything further I propose to close the review tomorrow, and head off for FAC. Tim riley talk13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With warmest thanks to all who have contributed, I’m now closing the PR and heading off to FAC. Smerus and Dmass have agreed to be co-nominators. (I suggest at the FAC review any of the three of us should field any query he is inclined to – no worrying about poaching partners’ shots.) Onwards and upwards! – Tim riley talk16:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
