Talk:Impressionism in music

Uhhh...

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)

Impressionism

Should this page be part of Impressionism? How closely are the two movements connected? -- Tarquin

They actually aren't linked at all, but the concept of creating an impression. Musical impressionism took place a bit later. The french origins of both is probably the link between the common title. --Sketchee 03:03, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

POV?

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

I was pretty taken aback by this article too... I'll see if I can fix this some time if no-one else does. In the meantime, don't lose faith; be bold in updating pages :-) Ornette 17:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What author? When was this infromation in the article? Hyacinth 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently 205.158.76.102, who added the following paragraph (since removed by Depleater):

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)

Impressionism is just a convenient cop-out to describe the music, and the term became so popular that it became the de facto name for the musical genre. Debussy himself rejected the label. I can't speak as strongly for Ravel, but Debussy and Fauré draw their inspiration mostly from the Symbolist movement in literature and art. Many of their works were based on symbolist sources: Afternoon of a Faun (poem), Pelléas et Mélisande (play), and other poems by Paul Verlaine and Charles Baudelaire. If there is direct evidence of their works being based on impressionist painting, it should be added to the article. (I'm considering adding a "Impressionism is a misnomer" subsection)Cnadolski 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiny...

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)

Scriabin

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)

Too many assumptions

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)

sentence structure

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)

Stravinsky

Wouldn't Stravinsky be impressionist, like the Firebird and Rite of Spring use music to vividly portray a musical picture?

Yes. This is a very poorly written piece. Early Impressionism in music is dominated by the Russians and there isn't a single mention of any of them. Borodin? Rimsky-Korsakov? Prokofiev? Mussorgsky? Are we seriously omitting "Pictures from an Exhibition" from the description of Impressionism in music? As in the piece that started the movement?

Some may argue these are "post-Romantic," but in school, we were taught that Russian composers after Tschaikovsky were considered early Impressionism. All references to Impressionism in music on the Internet are highly abbreviated, with very little more than a brief mention of Debussy. What about Saint-Saens? It's not just Debussy and Ravel. That's like saying Eric Clapton invented the Blues. And just because almost all of these composers refuted the term "Impressionism," in retrospect, it cannot be denied. Pookerella (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you were taught in school, but it certainly isn't what I learned there. Very likely, we did not grow up in the same community, and such things often vary from country to country. Still, I encourage you to find reliable sources to support this view and I, for one, look forward to learning I have been wrong all these years. Stravinsky's early period (the way I have been taught) is referred to as his "Russian Period", and some works (like The Rite) also fall under the rubric of "primitivism", or "neo-primitivism". This last category also covers Ala and Loli by Prokofiev, for example (from which he drew the Scythian Suite). Stravinsky certainly had close ties to Paris in general and Debussy in particular, but I cannot imagine how his homage to Debussy, the Symphonies of Wind Instruments could be thought of as "impressionistic". Mussorgsky is often classed as a "realist", though this applies mainly to his operas. I don't think I've ever heard Pictures from an Exhibition" described as an "impressionist" work, though certainly there are some connections to the French school ordinarily saddled with that name, and Debussy in particular was strongly influenced by Russian composers, including Mussorgsky. Mussorgsky also is not a composer who came after Tchaikovsky. Rather, he was an almost exact contemporary, and predeceased Tchaikovsky by more than thirteen years. Rimsky-Korsakoff, too, was only four years younger than Tchaikovsky, though he survived him by fifteen years. I also have never thought of Saint-Saëns as an impressionist, chiefly because his harmonic idiom and adherence to traditional formal principles is so far removed from the literature usually described as "impressionism". However, like all such style descriptions, what matters most is how persuasive the writers on the subject argue their cases.

I will certainly not defend this article as a paragon. As a contributor to it, I must accept some of the blame for its shortcomings, and am ready to spend further effort on its improvement. The current lack of any mention of the Russian composers who had such a strong influence on Debussy, at least, is one of these shortcomings. Whether those composers ought to be described as impressionists themselves depends on the authorities consulted. So far, I do not see any that confirm this view.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Time frame

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)

It would help if there was agreement on when the Romantic period ended and when the "contemporary period" (if there is such a thing) began (or will begin). It is probably overly simplistic to insist on such rigid boundaries in any case but, even if it isn't, historians haven't yet agreed on the criteria by which such boundaries might be drawn. As a result, some contend the Romantic era ended about 1850, while others hold it extends to nearly a century later. As for the word "contemporary" in this context, you might care to read the discussion at Talk:Contemporary classical music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's ridiculous to give 50 years (1875–1925) to impressionism when it was a minor rather than a major trend. --Kleinzach 02:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is fifty years "ridiculous" for a minor trend (or, putting it the other way around, if fifty years is too long, why should this trend be regarded as minor)? Although I am inclined to agree that 1875 sounds like a very early starting date, if the reliable sources agree on that time frame, then that is what it should say. On the other hand, if we can find a source that says 1905–1915, that is a different matter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. Do you think that impressionism was the dominant movement of its period, just as romanticism was? If so when did it begin and end? What's your view? --Kleinzach 04:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In this day and age we are not supposed to believe in such "totalizing discourse" ;-) Of course it would be ridiculous to claim that impressionism was a dominant style in, say, German music at any point in time; France is an entirely different matter; Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, Scandinavia, and America, also arguable, though possibly with different time frames. By comparison, Romanticism was of overwhelming importance in Germany, but not so very important in France—at least, not after Berlioz, who was in any case regarded as a neoromantic by Wagner. Italy is also a dubious proposition (one French source claims that Verdi was the only true Romantic in Italian music). Romanticism is a much bigger can of worms than impressionism, especially where it is supposed to start and stop (if at all). I might even go so far as to question your assumption that it was "dominant in its period", at least until you tell me just when its period was and what its defining characteristics are (the leading figures in musicology disagree hugely on these two points), but this is just my own idle speculation, and therefore constitutes Original Research. Of course, we can always take the textbook approach and simply assign an arbitrary calendar date ("On 31 December 1599, all the Renaissance composers died"), but this, too, requires a reliable source on Wikipedia. As for my Original Research on impressionism in music, I would say that it is so strongly focussed on Debussy that its beginning has got to be decided by the watershed in his compositional course, when he abandoned the Wagnerisms and academicisms of his early career and began exhibiting those traits we identify stylistically with impressionism. This would place the beginning at some point after 1888. A convenient ending might be with Debussy's death in 1918, or even earlier with his abandonment of impressionism for the proto-neoclassicism of his last years. Alternatively, we may regard other composers (Ravel, Griffes, Delius, Respighi, Vaughan Williams, etc.), as carrying the style onward, well into the 1930s. However, as I said, this is my own Original Research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I wouldn't disagree with you on any of this. Sorry to put you to the trouble of writing such a long explanation! Kleinzach 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's quite all right, since having this set forth here may be of some service as we try to move forward on this woefully inadequate article. I might just add that, even accepting "Romanticism" as a well-defined chronological era ending on 23 August 1878 at 6:42 in the afternoon, Brussels Time, "Impressionism" has got the added disadvantage of running more or less concurrently with a number of other -isms: Expressionism, Neoclassicism, Modernism, Futurism, Historicism, few of which are any better delimited chronologically than Impressionism. This may be the best reason not to strain ourselves trying to define chronological limits for Impressionism (or all the others). However, this is advice to musicologists in general; on Wikipedia we are secure in our cocoon of reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, then I hope you approve of this edit]. Kleinzach 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oxford citation

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)

On the front cover of the 2006 edition, Kennedy's name appears as author, and he is so listed in the Library of Congress WorldCat. Entries in the Oxford Dictionary of Music are not individually signed, as far as I am aware.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad to worse

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)

I am finding this explanation almost as difficult to understand as the nearly incomprehensible material added in the article itself. Debussy is of course the central figure in musical impressionism, and of course he did write music for the piano, but given the immense importance of his orchestral writing ("I finished orchestrating my new piece yesterday, all I have to do is put in the notes") I cannot follow the logic of maintaining the supremacy of the piano in this repertoire (if in fact that is what is being maintained here). The material is cited to three sources in Chinese, a language I cannot either read or speak. From the mangled syntax, I would guess it had been machine-translated by someone with only a slightly better grasp of English. The sources appear to be piano instruction manuals from some official government agency, but I am unable to judge their reliability. In the absence of better translations, I am obliged to agree with Michael Bednarek: the section is best deleted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Jason's WP:Wall of text reinforces my argument to remove the section in question. The response is even less comprehensible than Jason's edits to the article and didn't address the question of what that image and the sound file illustrate. A further edit by Jason, 12 hours after Jerome's series of edits, introduced an excessive section header without any content. The article now violates so many Wikipedia style and content guidelines that I'm going to revert to a clean previous version. Any further changes to the article by Jason should be presented here, or on a subpage, for discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 4 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)

This article is about the "movement". If you think Wikipedia needs an article on special performance techniques for impressionist music, you are welcome to start it in the usual way; see WP:Drafts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Too vague, no mention of some Impressionism composers

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)

No mention of Satie?

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)

No mention of Faure!?

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)

Misuse of “timbre”

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)