So far, our 20th-century music course has me thinking a lot about the language we use to describe music, specifically in materials catered towards a broad audience. Today’s orchestras are constantly trying to make classical music more accessible to the public, and I think the language used in educational resources is an important component to consider. Since we are focusing on the 20th century, I decided to look up program notes from the New York Philharmonic online archives during this time period and investigate how the writing style and language changed over time.
I focused on Claude Debussy’s Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun because it can be especially difficult to describe in general terms. It was premiered in 1894 in Paris, meaning it does not follow the technical definition of 20th-century music, but if you read my last blog post you know what I think about strict boundaries in categorizing music. Here is a link to a recording of the piece by the Cleveland Orchestra, with Pierre Boulez conducting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqYFFk9Q4k
I chose two program notes that, when compared, show how descriptions of this piece have evolved over time. The first program note is from 1917, and the second is from 1971. I am including images of the notes so that you can read them for yourself:
What stuck out to me on the first program note from 1917 was that there really was not any mention of the piece’s musical features. The date of the premiere is given emphasis, as it is the first thing mentioned. Then the note goes on to describe the poem’s style and intention. Significantly, there is no mention of the word “symbolism” or “impressionism.”
Why does the program note make no mention of the musical features of this work? Is it because this concert was relatively close in time to the piece’s original premiere? Perhaps the piece was not yet well understood, and no one knew what to make of its characteristics?
The next program note, from 1971, is more descriptive of the music itself. It opens with an explanation of Debussy’s relationshipto Mallarmé, with a description of the poet’s writing as “strongly symbolist language.” There’s the mention of symbolism we were waiting for!
What stands out to me in this note is the following statement: “Debussy’s miniature tone poem, while catching the mood of Mallarmé’s elusive words, is considerably more understandable.” We held a discussion in class last week about this piece, and we found it difficult to explain its harmonic language and form. I think most people from our class would agree that Debussy’s piece is not easily understandable. Is the note implying that the music is easy to listen to and that Mallarmé’s poem is not? The program note goes on to describe the music, with a mention of “exotic harmonies.”
Overall, from my investigation of these program notes, I would say that the writing style improved over time. It is helpful for audiences to have a description of the music and a good amount of historical background. Some of the language in the 1971 note, however, is still oversimplified. What exactly is meant by the term “exotic harmonies”? How is Debussy’s piece more understandable than Mallarmé’s poem?
Following the trend of my last blog post, this investigation has brought up more questions than I have answers for. If you have access, check out the online archives for yourself and comment below with your thoughts on this topic!
