Debussy and Palestrina • Sometimes musicians say dumb things . . . .

Ragueneau

Friends, sometimes musicians say dumb things. Even great musicians. I have tremendous respect for Debussy, but he said:

"Javanese gamelan music employed a counterpoint in comparison to which that of Palestrina is a child's game."

Debussy was a fantastic musician, whether or not one cares for his music. He was phenomenal. I have no idea why he would say such a dumb thing.

Sure, Palestrina's counterpoint looks easy when it's on the page. But go ahead and try to actually compose some! Furthermore, go ahead and try to compose good music while following species counterpoint. Furthermore, toss strict canonic imitation into the mix . . . . Whether or not one cares for the music of Palestrina, what he was able to do was magnificent and incredibly complex. I know this for a fact, because in college, we had to try to compose such music (following all the rules of 16th century counterpoint).

Great music critics also say dumb things on occasion. I've always enjoyed reading Harold C. Shonberg's books, but he says:

"In the B-Minor Sonata Chopin dutifully goes through the motions of exposition, development, and recapitulation, achieving a copybook form that just passes. What saves the sonata, and has made it so popular, is the wealth of its ideas and the freedom with which it moves once the first movement is past."

This statement is . . . truly unbelievable. The first movement of the B-Minor Sonata is the pinnacle & height of romanticism . . . perhaps the greatest single piece ever written for piano . . . it is without parallel (except, perhaps, for the 4th Ballade) . . . is just unbelievably powerful, amazing, fantastic and wonderful. (To name but a few fantastic performances, from among thousands, would be those by Josef Hofmann, Ignaz Tiegerman, Dinu Lipatti, and Glenn Gould). The other movements are . . . eh. Decent. Fourth movement is wonderful (Kapell is a must-hear on this one). Middle movements are OK. Slow movement is not too hot.

Vladimir Horowitz, in a very candid moment (2:49), even admitted as much: "First movement is a genius completely ... is one of the best [pieces ever written for piano] ... the second movement is a different piece ... the third movement is too long ... is prolonged much too long and not so inspired ... and the last movement, believe me, is not pianistic ..." A friend of mine in college (recipient of the Presidential Medal for her piano playing as a teenager), who frequently came to my house to "try out" concert programs, actually won 4th place in the International Chopin Competition (at age 17) with this piece. Harold Schonberg was on the jury, and spoke to her afterwards. HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER! His statement is ... inexplicable.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

THAT BEING SAID . . . I hope I am not about to utter a "dumb comment" that I will regret. I've done this . . . many times in the past.

I would like to say that a young high school girl recently made some recordings of the Chabanel Psalms, and in my humble opinion, these are the best recordings I've ever heard of ANYONE ever singing the Chabanel Psalms.

I hope you will "give them a listen" (below).

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

R. Blessed are they who follow the law of the Lord!
Blessed are they whose way is blameless . . . (Ps. 119:1-2, 4-5, 17-18, 33-34)
VIDEO (recommended): VIMEO VIDEO (High Quality) • YouTube • GloriaTV
not recommended: DailyMotion • MetaCafé • BlipTV • YouTube (alternate)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want . . . (Ps. 23:1-3a, 3b-4, 5, 6)
VIDEO (recommended): VIMEO VIDEO (High Quality) • GloriaTV • YouTube
not recommended: BlipTV • MetaCafé • DailyMotion • YouTube (alternate)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

R. Lord, let your mercy be on us, as we place our trust in you.
Upright is the word of the LORD . . . (Ps. 33:4-5, 18-19, 20, 22)
VIDEO (recommended): VIMEO VIDEO (High Quality) • GloriaTV • YouTube
not recommended: DailyMotion • MetaCafé • BlipTV • YouTube (alternate)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Randolph Nichols

Have you heard or studied Javanese gamelan music? Debussy first encountered it at the Paris Exposition Universelle in 1889 and with its emphasis on timbral qualities of sound it greatly influenced his compositional style. It became an essential source of modern music. As to Harold Schonberg's comment on Chopin's mastery of the Sonata-Allegro form, he certainly was not the first to criticize it. To say "The first movement of the B-Minor Sonata is the pinnacle & height of romanticism . . . perhaps the greatest single piece ever written for piano" is certainly a debating point. (In my student days, along with Beethoven's Appasionata Sonata the b minor sonata was probably the most overplayed; it was also the centerpiece of my teacher Adele Marcus' repertoire.) I'm going to search through my copies of Charles Rosen's writings to see what he might say about that first movement. I suspect I will find his comments to be "outrageous."

Those of us of a certain age might remember Seymour DeKoven (d. 1984) who hosted a poplular classical radio program called "DeKoven presents" - which I believe originated from Fordham University. DeKoven was a colorful character known for voicing strong opinions. Among them was the notion that Palestrina was the most overrated and boring of all the major countrapuntalists. Couldn't hold a candle to Josquin et al. Chew on that!

Ragueneau

Have you heard or studied Javanese gamelan music?

Yes, I have. We were required to do this, because two of my professors were big into world (international) music. We even gave concerts with the gamelan.

Again, I admit that "Palestrina polyphony" looks simple on the page. But what's actually going on is of Einstinian complexity. This holds true for Morales, Marenzio (Sacred music), Lassus, and all the rest.

Needless to say, I will withdraw my comments if anyone is willing to post an original composition in four parts that follows all the rules, makes good music, and uses canonic imitation (all according to 16th-century rules). I've not seen it done.

As to Harold Schonberg's comment on Chopin's mastery of the Sonata-Allegro form, he certainly was not the first to criticize it.

For myself, I'm not interested in whether or not Chopin mastered the Sonata-Allegro form. (As we know, Liszt and the romantics don't really follow the form at all in their sonatas). All I'm interested is whether it is good music, and that notion that "what saves the sonata" is the other movements is (IMHO) an inexplicable comment. The first movement of the B-Minor Sonata . . . I would die for it.

In my student days . . . the b minor sonata was probably the most overplayed.

I'm the first to admit this is the case, and it is WRONG. Only the greatest masters should ever touch the B-Minor Sonata. No one else should be allowed to play it. Ever. Out of respect (for the first movement).

Among them was the notion that Palestrina was the most overrated and boring of all the major countrapuntalists.

To speak truth, I'd rather not address whether this is the case or not. Whether that is true does not affect the incredible complexity of what he does. And, again I say, if anyone here is willing to post a 4-part example that follows all the 16th-century counterpoint rules, makes good music, and uses canonic imitation, I shall "eat my words." The simple fact is, at every moment, the "vertical" has to make sense, as well as the "horizontal." If all one had to worry about was the horizontal...oh, man! Now THAT would be a cinch!

Here's a fantastic Palestrina piece, by the way: Palestrina's HAEC DIES

I noted (and marked) a "half-diminished" seventh chord, as well . . . that actually "functions" . . . and towards the end, Lassus started to use "functional" Dominant Seventh chords . . . ah, soon after this Giovanni Gabrieli will come . . .

Adam Wood

My university also had a Gamelan.
There is a bit of a Euro-centrism at work in Jeff O's comments, but everyone is allowed their preferences.
The initial comparison made by Debussey is likely more due to it's exoticism and foreign nature.
For example: I find Latin to be MUCH harder to read than English. That doesn't make Latin more complicated.
At any rate, comparing the two for the sake of determining which is better or more complex is like comparing apples and something else that isn't anything like apples.

None of which was the point. As usual, our good Mr. O was indulging in his historical (hysterical) scandal-mongering so that we'd listen to some recordings. Considering the quality of his usual output, I would have listened to them if he just posted them plainly with a humble, "Please listen to these."
But then, that wouldn't have been nearly as fun.

Excellent work, as always- and that girl is really wonderful. You know I like the unaccompanied recordings better, but I still enjoyed these- especially the first one "Blessed are they who follow the law of the Lord." That one was particularly exciting.

DougS

a 4-part example that follows all the 16th-century counterpoint rules, makes good music, and uses canonic imitation

...because music's "goodness" can be measured objectively...

BruceL

@ DougS: As a practical joke, my grad school mentor transcribed one of the more obscure Bach 51 chorales for an assignment when he was a student at UT-Austin many, many years ago. Bach got.........wait....a C!

Jeff: perhaps Debussy was trying to stir the pot...he wasn't an "establishment man". Now Jeff, really: I'm the first to admit this is the case, and it is WRONG. Only the greatest masters should ever touch the B-Minor Sonata. No one else should be allowed to play it. Ever. Out of respect (for the first movement). Surely you mean to qualify touch as in "perform in public"...sad it would be if that was our attitude in general toward great music! We all remember looking at a tough or otherwise compelling score and thinking of it as a mini-Everest to be climbed; then we (attempt to) conquer it...it would be a shame to put it on too much of a pedestal.

DougS

Bruce, funny. It reminds me that the pianist Louis Moreau Gottschalk intentionally switched pieces on one of his programs--one of his own with a piece by Beethoven--to confuse the Boston critic John Sullivan Dwight, who notoriously placed Beethoven atop a musical Olympus. Of course Dwight praised Gottschalk's music to the skies (thinking it was Beethoven) and gave the real Beethoven piece a ho-hum review.

Jeffrey Quick

"Furthermore, go ahead and try to compose good music while following species counterpoint."
Can't be done. Palestrina didn't do it, because Palestrina didn't write in the species. Species, as a pedagogical approach, comes mostly from Fux, which is a whole century after the Renaissance. It's a very good approach to learn control of harmonic rhythm and dissonance treatment, but that's it. Look at the A. Tilman Merritt book for a better approach to Renaissance counterpoint. Or as a primer, check out Morley's "Plain and easy introduction"

I'm unconvinced of your premise anyway. Palestrina had so internalized his language that there were no longer "rules". He spoke it as a contemporary language. When we write Renaissance counterpoint following "the rules" (and which rules? those of Dufay? Josquin? Byrd? Or are only Palestrina's rules valid?), it's like copying an old master painting: you may do so with greater or lesser technical skill, but the spark will never be there. We can never forget all the subsequent music that we have heard, and if we block it from consideration, we block our creativity at the root. Kevin Allen writes fine "Renaissance" polyphony because he doesn't follow the Renaissance rules; he follows Kevin Allen rules, which appear to have been consciously worked out and work. My motets mostly look back at Josquin, forward to the Mannerists and past that to Rheinberger (with a touch of Ives where needed). I like to think they have an internally consistent language, but they certainly don't "follow the rules". To make this a post in the style of Jeff Ostrowski, I'll refer you to http://www.clevelandcomposers.org/members/member_profile.php?id=34 to hear my things.

As for the ranking of Palestrina: I "got" all kinds of Renaissance composers from early on, but I never really "got" Palestrina until I became a Catholic. Palestrina is not "all about you". He's about "somewhere else", God or Heaven. He's a bit like Brahms in his progressive conservatism. The rhetoric and the harmonic surface is very conservative and placid, but if you look at voice-leading issues, particularly the treble-tenor structure, his voice leading is more modern than Gesualdo's.

M. Jackson Osborn

Someone above had to toss in the epithet, 'Euro-centric'. Whence this ever-more-frequent and irrational denigration of certain cultural manifestations as 'Euro-centric'? I dare say that a goodly number of us here are of that very respectable European heritage and feel no need to apologise for it. We never hear it protested that this or that person or thing is so Afro-centric, or Hispano-centric, or Asain-centric (which they might well be said to be); yet it has become common to mindlessly bandy a bout this 'Euro-centric' adjective as if it were a disqualifier of due respect. We each have a heritage, whether it is gamelin or Palestrina, and we each may be justly appreciative of the accomplishments of our cultural forebears. Debussy and Palestrina and the other luminaries under discussion here are not 'Euro-centric'! They are our cultural heritage!

Adam Wood

Love for Palestrina is not Eurocentric.
Comparing Palestrina to Gamelan and proclaiming one to be superior to the other is Eurocentric (Debussey's comment no less so than Ostrowski's).
Also- Eurocentrism is not necessarily a sin. It's just important to recognize what your reference point is, and understand that said reference point is not universal or inherent.

All of which misses the point.
Did anyone listen to those recordings?
Thrilling.

M. Jackson Osborn

According to your definition, then, there are no 'Euro-centric' comments in this discussion. Debussy's comment, however, may, by your definition, be considered 'Indonesian-centric' - but no account was made of this. It would be sane for us merely to appreciate the panoply of cultural manifestations which belong to all of us of the human race, whilst recovering from the very-fashionable-in-certain-circles Euro-phobia.
Too, to deny that there is an universal reference point would be to skate on very thin ice - at least in the Church's eyes. Further, one could, if one wished, point out that some cultures are more representative of this particular reference point than others.
Also too, it is not impossible that Debussy was right. But Palestrina remains Palestrina.

Ragueneau

@JeffreyQuick:

I would argue that Palestrina, Marenzio, Victoria, Lassus, Manchicourt, Verdelot, etc. all followed certain conventions.

Here is an example where Lassus resorted to difficult voice leading, rather than have forbidden parallels: INSTANT VIEW

@Adam:

Thank you so much for commenting on the young girl's singing. That was meant to be the emphasis of the post, but (as always) these forum posts tend to have a life of their own ...

Michael O'Connor

Jeff, look at more of Willaert's work when you get the chance. His, after all, was the technique so highly praised by Zarlino, who literally wrote the book on late Renaissance counterpoint. My friend, you really do have it out for musicology and musical criticism, don't you? I remember some discussions we have had. Why not let people express when they think and let readers buy it or not? Yeah, Schonberg was known for saying stupid things, but he said them in very entertaining ways in his NY Herald Tribune reviews. I would be more interested in what Rosen or Taruskin has to say about the work, to be honest. BTW your own comment about the Chopin B-minor sonata leaves you quite open to criticism as well. The "pinnacle" of Romanticism? Maybe, but I might suggest that a piano work cannot be as it is more limited in timbral color, a prized aspect of Romanticism, than orchestral works or even opera. Many might suggest that Bellini's Norma is the "pinnacle" or Brahms 3rd Symphony, for example. BTW just to cheese you off, I'm going to try the first few bars of the Chopin today. I'm really lousy at piano, too.

Now, that said, I love your passion, but I wish you would give musicology a break. You are a true Romantic in the lineage of Schumann by believing that music says everything it needs in performance. Well, maybe to someone steeped in the style and expectations, but there is value in objectifying some of these things to better understand the music.

BTW Debussy's comment needs to be understood in context. He was a modernist who never understood the fascination with music that was more than a few months old.

Gavin

Jeffrey Quick

@Jeff O:
Sure they did...conventions, not rules. And the conventions varied slightly between composers.
As for your example....interesting and impressive. A succession of root position triads moving by step always takes finessing to avoid parallels. One doesn't see it often, except in genres like villanellas and other po'-folk imitations (in which cases they don't bother to finesse, as the rule violation is part of the point). I've got to wonder if there's some text-painting reason for that harmonic motion.

IanW

... it's good to let them have their say, though ...

Ragueneau

@Michael O'Connor: My friend, do you believe that the comments of Schonberg and Debussy are responsible comments? Do you think they are worthy of discussion? Do you find them open to criticism? I suppose it is fairly obvious that I do.

Also, I believe Debussy was interested in medieval music...but my source on this is...Schonberg....

Michael O'Connor

Jeff! Responsibility is not an issue for me. Musicians say dumb things all the time, but I think your calling out of Debussy was a little unwarranted. Rather than diminishing Palestrina, he seems to be elevating the complexities of the Indonesian formal system through the comparison to an accepted model of excellence. BTW I don't think Debussy was interested in medieval MUSIC, just its materials.

M. Jackson Osborn

There is no need for defensiveness. Palestrina remains on his parnassus regardless of the accomplishments of others of or not of our culture. It is quite possible that Debussy was, objectively, correct in his really-not-dumb statement. This in no way diminishes the quite different achievements of our polyphonists, some of whose work (such as the late mediaeval and/or early renaissance masters) was unquestionably more complex than that of Palestrina (or, for that matter, of gamelin music) - but not more uniquely beautiful or 'perfect' than his distilled essence.

Michael O'Connor

Well Debussy was the one who left during the second movement of Mahler's 2nd Symphony, later saying it was too tame.

Ragueneau

Here is a blog about the young lady in question. Cheers!

BachLover2

that gal has fantastic vocal placement...congrats.

mahrt

Jeff,

Your example from Lassus, as you imply, is not realy parallel fifths, because the notes occur in different voices. Only if you play the example on the piano do they sound like parallel fifths. The ear has incredible abilities to sort out various sounds and perceive them separately.

Perhaps the classic "hidden parallel fifths" situation is the so-called "octave-leap cadence" in the fifteenth century, in which the tenor descends a step and the bass leaps an octave (capital letters are the octave A-G below middle c; small letters are the octave a-g which surrounds middle c, so that C-c is a leap of an octave.

discant: f- e- f
tenor: a- G- F
bass: F- C- c

If you play this on the piano, you hear parallel fifths, C-G F-c, but if separate voices sing it, the ear distinguishes the voices, and you hear a tenor cadence, G-f accompanied by an octave leap in the bass, no parallel fifths, I would say, not even hidden fifths.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories