This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Impressionism in music article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Some of the stuff on this page seems screwy. Like wtf is this, for instance: "While this era was characterized by a dramatic use of the major and minor scale systems, impressionist music was tending to make more use of dissonance."
Whoever wrote this sounds like they're describing Stravinsky more than Ravel. Impressionistic composers would tend to use a greater variety of harmonic techniques, such as modal harmonies and extended chords. They'd do experiments with pentatonic scales and other interesting scales, one of which happens to be the oft-quoted whole tone scale, which the author of this page goes onto mention after the quote cited above. It's true that the whole tone scale as one specific technique might be more dissonant, and that Impressionists sometimes went into some pretty far out territory as dissonance is concerned, but I'd hardly describe the larger picture of Impressionism as "dissonance in reaction to major/minor" without mentioning the other things above.
And in general, this whole page seems to have a lot of POV-based stuff, making value judgments about which composers are "great" with very little citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.120.206 (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Should this page be part of Impressionism? How closely are the two movements connected? -- Tarquin
While the author's dismissal of Impressionism as a valid tag for music is in keeping with most contemporary scholarship, he's a little cavalier about the idea that Impressionism doesn't exist. More than this, though, that section is written like an off the cuff opinion instead of the product of musical scholarship. Keep the idea, but cite some sources and make the tone WAY more NPOV.
Impressionism means nothing?
Too whom I wonder. mean, you just can't say that Impressionism means nothing, and DEFINITELY not say it without giving any proof for it.. After all, if impressionism does not mean anything, what then does Romaniticism or Classisism mean? They are all terms meant to describe the music. I can say with total confidence that I can recognize the impressionistic "sound", just like I can recognize a Romantic work, or a Baroque work. Articles like this make me loose faith in wikipedia. What if articles on subject that I don't know anything about are written with the same subjectivity? Horrendous. - Rich
In music the impressionist title means nothing. Composers like Debussy and Ravel were essentially romantic composers (Ravel maybe neo-classical). People give them the title impressionist because of the art movement that occured. Basically the impressionist title was given to romantic composers who stretched harmony and expanded harmony to make more vivid details in the music.
I'll try and root out something that might clarify this issue. JGF Wilks 07:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
shana dangelo sais hi=]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.98.234 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering the impact of (so-called) Impressionism in music, this article is unaccountably tiny. Is the subject discussed more fully elsewhere?
Good point! And it would be nice to have some musical examples. Also, it would be good to have, in reasonable musical terms, what is the difference, say, between Debussy and Beethoven (or somebody else who isn't an impressionist composer). Gingermint (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this composer from the list of those allegedly composing in the impressionist style. Any harmonic similarities between Scriabin's music and Debussy's, for instance, were almost certainly due to both composers taking inspiration from Russian music; indeed Scriabin himself objected to what he described as Debussy's 'stealing' from Russian music. His ideas, in any case, were taken not from impressionism (and his music was never intended to be pictorial, which is surely is the inescapable implication of the label "impressionism"), but from a heady mix of Symbolism, Theosophy and good old Schopenhauer, and his aesthetic aspired to be something far more transcendental than Debussy's declared aim of "pleasure". Alfietucker (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your decision. Scriabins earlier works were quite romanticized, as were Debussy's less popular early works, and although Debussy's atonal pieces are the better known ones, Scriabin also delved into atonality later in his musical career. Further, defining impressionism as inescapable pictorial is to forgo many of the compositional views of generally accepted impressionist composers (especially Debussy), ofc that debate is one that will likely never conclude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.28.160 (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Was Impressionism really a reaction to the excesses of Romanticism? Isn't it possible to view it as a continued natural progression away from earlier experiments with harmony? Different elements are foregrounded but the change in the use of musical devices is really not that radical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.172.139 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many badly written sentences in the first few paragraphs.
"On the scope of the form of pieces of music impressionist composers enriched the way of creating musical works. In the majority of cases the form was a one-time idea for putting in the kind of order 'the fantasy of sound."
Huh?
"Precedence of timbre creates the melody from the mixture of accords' timbre and figurations rather than from the clear outline of the theme."
Huh?
"Instrumentation. Dynamics."
Huh?
Etc, etc. Not to mention questionable facts and other problems. Sorry, don't have time to fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.163.234 (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't Stravinsky be impressionist, like the Firebird and Rite of Spring use music to vividly portray a musical picture?
Why isn't there a better definition of the time-frame, or at least putting it between the romantic and contemporary periods? Pink Floyd impressionist?? Redhanker (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I just slightly modified the citation format provided by Oxford Music Online. Is Michael Kennedy named as the author of that entry in the print edition? Nothing in the online edition indicates that. Srnec (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The article was never one of Wikipedia's gems, but the recent edits by User:Jason M. C., Han made it much worse. Attempts by User:Jerome Kohl to apply some rigour to rescue the text were IMO unsuccessful. The section § Special instrumental techniques is unintelligible waffle accompanied by sound & image that doesn't illustrate anything, and I suggest to remove that whole section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be better than before. Impressionism in music is a developing school from piano to other instruments. Yes, it should begin from piano, causing Claude Debussy was the expert in this field. You should as him why not he didn't study other instruments rather than my changes. Therefore, it should be right to give the clarifications from his original field. He hasn't bee of the expertise of instrument. If you aren't good at impressionism in other instruments, you can wait other experts to add the clarifications, rather than self-put on the categories without the willing of constructions and searching documentary supports, or practical operations. You are talking about music, but you didn't understand music well, how could you critique others? Music is from life - both the daily practises and the theoretical constructions. Without talking about the instrumental performances and training, how could you give the clarification only by to say some words. I am learning, teaching and researching this field for many years with my teachers, family members and students. From many years' accumulations and training of Debussy' impressionism, I have the experiences to know what documents are of the good quality and how to make this field better in developing up-to-date - popularizing it to other instrumental fingers-touching approaches. Your thinking is to say impressionism is a closed case with a static ontology, which was really against the fact.
Therefore, I think I should cancel you categories and waiting other professional persons, after carefully searching documentary information, forming the references or making more sound records, then put on. In order to get a balance, Thanks to your suggestions that I had put an developing zone.
Jason M. C., Han (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, your behaviours are really very unappreciated. You said you understand Impressionism, however, if it comes to one musical style, we didn't talk about its special techniques in different instruments' expressions, do you think we are really talk about music? Therefore, We should add one category named 'Special Instrumental Techniques'. Secondly, musical techniques have some special features. When giving the trainings from daily teaching and researching, we not only need to give the language, but also need to put some direct impressions on such as the sound files and the explanations following. Thirdly, It's you didn't give any constructive suggestions and cancel others' writing including the energy and time for several days, how could you critique others' cancelling of your arguments? Fourthly, about Debussy's piano music - Moonlight, it's tens more years' teaching and learning experiences I, my teacher, some experts in China and the students, as the commons, have dedicated our minds, energies and labours in researching his impressionism style according to the notation-reading in piano. It's from practises after so many grade tests and families' contributions in their daily lives. Afterwards, I have summarized them and made the writing by searching the references according to my learnings in UK Harvard style online and also the Wikipedia's self-trainings. How did you say they weren't of the reliability. Fifthly, Debussy's beginning professional field is in piano. From piano, then he has seen more. In order to respect your ideas, I have already put the developing zone upon for other experts who really researched this field in their instruments and then put their ideas on. However, it's you didn't hear others voices. Today, I opened this page and found 'Special Instrumental Techniques' - this part was totally disappeared. How did you make the explanations of this case? You just see others have remove your arguments, did you have totally self-reflexive what you have done? Jason M. C., Han (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I, personally, would take this particular article and throw it in the toilet.
This is not what I was taught in school. Maybe, someone should consult a music history textbook?
There's a lot of debate on this. I'm not trying to add to a debate, so please don't write paragraphs of minutiae correcting me with what you believe. I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion, this is what I was taught in college.
"Impressionism" era music does, indeed, exist and overlaps the Romantic era, from which it derived, starting around 1850 (after the death of Chopin). I was taught that it began in earnest with Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition in 1874. It's really reflective and in combination with the art era, where they painted a portrait with a symphony or a piano in a freer style, and alongside and in combination with the growing melodic evolution. Impressionism in music did evolve slowly and, especially early on, there really is no specific composer "devoted" to the impressionist era, though some evoked the feeling of the era better than others. I think that may be what Debussy and Ravel objected to. It saddens me greatly that Mussorgsky is almost a footnote in this article.
You cannot pinpoint it like you can in art with Manet, Pissarro and Degas. It's not that simple. The art revolution was due, in part, to the invention and use of the camera. The musical era reflects the feeling behind the art era, moving and evolving naturally toward modernity due to the revolutionary changes and fast-growing modern advances, including the replacement of the fortepiano with the grand piano and its great influence and importance in the music of the day.
True Impressionist era music, though, does not really become become a significant and leading style (whereas others are copying it and it is in the forefront) till around 1890-1900, just when post-Impressionism in art is evolving.
Pookerella (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Satie used to be mentioned in this article. I find a discussion of musical impressionism without Satie to be pretty strange. I also want to find a way to document Bix Beiderbecke as an impressionist composer. I think all I'll need to do to document both is go to my shelf and look at a couple of the Western classical and jazz survey textbooks I used to use to teach college courses. All in due time if no-one beats me to it, but I don't understand why Satie's name was excised from this article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Gabriel Faure is the godfather of impressionism, as indicated on his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Faur%C3%A9 96.127.198.43 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC) 96.127.198.43 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The author of this article misunderstands what the word “timbre” means and misuses it several times.
Timbre is the distinct sound of any given note as separate from its pitch and volume, given (mostly) by the specific volume of each harmonic in the harmonic series (although the volume envelope, phase of the harmonics, non harmonic noise, etc. also play a role).
The author writes “The most prominent feature in musical Impressionism is the use of ‘color’, or in musical terms, timbre, which can be achieved through orchestration, harmonic usage, texture, etc.” It doesn’t make sense to say that interesting timbre can be achieved through “harmonic usage.” Individual played notes have their own timbre, timbre doesn’t result from multiple notes being played together. It also doesn’t make sense to say that timbre can be achieved through texture. Texture is a word used to describe the overall sound of a piece of music, you would describe timbre as contributing to the texture, not the other way around.
Timbre is also misused in the following; “One of the most important tools of musical Impressionism was the tensionless harmony. The dissonance of chords was not resolved, but was used as timbre.” Since timbre is a quality of any individual played note or instrument, it doesn’t make sense to say that the harmony of multiple played notes is used as timbre. I think the author meant to use the word “texture,” as the sound of unresolved dissonant chords contributes to the overall sound of a piece. 50.45.250.28 (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)