Or from someone else:

"During his own lifetime Debussy was connected with the older Impressionism of the painters. Since that time, the idea of him as a musical Impressionist has become inseparable from his name. He himself was just as allergic to this word as Schoenberg was to the word "atonal." Only in a few works at most was Debussy truly an Impressionist, and in none was he a mood-painter, as the popular cliché would have it. Nevertheless Debussy's works, particularly the piano music of his middle period, are full of rhythmic power and dynamic impulses. The freedom of form (not to he mistaken for its dissolution) does not indicate a rhapsodic gliding-over from one bar to another or a loose improvisation on a couple of sounds or scraps of melody. To the contrary, everything is most carefully composed; every detail is minutely indicated. The compositional structure also has a high degree of organization in which several "voices," lines, or layers are combined over broad passages which, taken alone, lack a deeper meaning. They are not always easily recognizable, but a detailed analysis of these layers must precede any correct interpretation. Indeed they are of varying weight and varying importance. Therefore, they must be played in as differentiated a manner as possible."

I wonder if 'Impressionism' is any more meaningful a term than 'New Complexity'?

However, there is no necessary contradiction between music that uses hazy or blurred sonorous combinations, in which themes, lines, progressions, etc. are hinted at rather than seeming fully explicit, and a composer knowing what they want the listener to hear. Any more than there is with a painter who chooses to avoid primary colours or immediately apparent figuration, who may still know what they want the viewer to see. Though intention isn't necessarily the point - the music or paintings in question can be equally powerful, just that they use different expressive means.

I'm not necessarily convinced by the last sentence from that citation. When Debussy marks a line un peu en dehors he surely means something different from the maximum en dehors, which would be one way of producing 'as differentiated a manner as possible' (which can of course be achieved by other means as well as dynamics). Sometimes the differentiations are small and subtle, sometimes the sonorities are intended to be blended rather than clearly stratified.

Sorry to use the word pedantic -- perhaps it just seems pedantic in hindsight... I hope I didn't come across as a something-or-other among ignoramuses.

Harmonic major is like harmonic minor, except with a raised third degree, e.g. A-B-C#-D-E-F-G#-A

The paper that helped me best to figure out some of Debussy's harmonic thinking was by the aforementioned Dmitri Tymoczko of Princeton University. It is as yet unpublished, and 110 pages long (with diagrams and appendices, at any rate) -- I think he won't be offended if you skim! Also, don't expect a lot of "why", just a great deal of "what" and "how"... this is not atypical of music theory, and shouldn't be seen as a blemish.

http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri/debussy.pdf

When I have my scores, I will offer a readers' digest version of a small amount of this, but just be clear as to where the credit should lie...

Sounds entirely untenable to me. Lots of claims that end in "of all time" have that drawback.

We are interested to know whether, his rejection of the music notwithstanding, Member Grew feels any affinity with the types of provocative writings produced by Debussy under the pseudonym of 'Monsieur Croché'? We imagine that in some ways Member Grew that find a kindred spirit therein?

I think CD said that Delius is regurgitated Debussy, not the other way round. Whether it's true or not, I think Delius is at best what Debussy called Wagner: 'a beautiful sunset mistaken for a dawn' (I don't agree with this for Wagner, by the way).

You can always turn the radio off, you know, loverday.

Sorry, Richard, we seem to have posted simultaneously.

Ian, it's Monsieur Croche, isn't it? No acute.