On a par with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Brahms.

To be fair, the Member should have supplied context and quoted the previous sentence too: The composers' intentions are vague - that is why they seem soulless. We can catch no idea of why they wrote their pieces; what were they after? What were they ultimately trying to achieve in the artistic sense? What worthwhile noble or elevated aim guided their labour? As distinct from mere decorative flourishes and outlandish new sounds we mean (both self-evidently soulless).

"The Member" was not being unfair - and everything The Doctor wrote was signalled. All he has to do is click on the heading that reads "Quote from: Sydney Grew on Today at 03:08:34" and the full text of his missive will be revealed.

Baz

Let's look at this sentence by sentence...

a) "The composers' intentions are vague - that is why they seem soulless." With regard to Debussy, Herr Doctor, it's called "Impressionism".

b)"We can catch no idea of why they wrote their pieces; what were they after?". Debussy wrote his pieces because he wanted to do so - that is what he was after.

c) "What were they ultimately trying to achieve in the artistic sense?" In the artistic sense, Debussy was trying to achieve the presentation of coherent, innovative and expressive ideas through the medium of music.

d) "What worthwhile noble or elevated aim guided their labour?" The wish to speak eloquently and clearly using notes instead of words.

e) "As distinct from mere decorative flourishes and outlandish new sounds we mean (both self-evidently soulless)." This is not a proper sentence.

Baz

Whether or not the very rude M. Debussy would have liked it, "Impressionism" is what it's called, by many commentators, anyway, Ian.

I am no big fan of the word "Impressionism" for Debussy, but it might be good for someone like Delius (regurgitated Debussy). It's also good for Debussy's reception history.

But I can't help but consider Debussy an extremely concrete, intra-musical thinker, rather than a painter of pictures (his postscripts to the Preludes notwithstanding). Although he is a master of ambiguity, I don't believe that's the same thing as being 'vague', as the Pythagorean Member suggests -- for ambiguity to work, one has to be extremely clear (non-vague) in the positing of musical structures that can be read in more than one way. Debussy was a master of extended harmony, extending it to the point where all the notes of a specific scale could be used to express a certain harmony. (I am indebted to the in-depth study of this material by Prof Dmitri Tymoczko at Princeton U) -- and if a scale is a harmony, then it isn't a big step to considering each chord change as a kind of modulation. Scales used by Debussy for this purpose included the (his!) famous whole-tone scale, the so-called harmonic major scale, the ascending melodic minor, and other more familiar diatonic modes. The easiest piece to read this way is L'Isle Joyeuse mentioned above... though this example is so clear as to be almost pedantic. The Preludes are, case-by-case, much more enticingly evasive in this regard, and clearly much more mature pieces.

I don't understand at all Mr. Grew's aversion to the great Frenchman, though I feel I've heard enough of his own vagaries. I could post more concrete observations about the Preludes when I get to my scores again -- but only if we haven't moved on by then.

That's an interesting assertion Ian. Perhaps you could give me tangible evidence to support it (since this field is certainly not one of my specialisms). Thanks.

Baz