Originally posted by titian
... I am sure RdS knows much about it and can maybe put some few thoughts about it.
thanks
Thank you for your kind words, but your confidence is badly misplaced in this case! I know virtually nothing about impressionism in music. I can't understand Debussy's harmony at all. It seems he just creates an effect with it and I find the result very difficult to understand.
Ravel is another story. His harmony is more understandable (I think) and I can detect some harmonic structure even if I can pinpoint the difference between them. Ravel also seems to like well defined melodies; but that is really not the reason I prefer him to Debussy. It is the harmonical part that I don't understand.
And
Graham , I couldn't agree more: this minimalistic trend is the direct result of Schoenberg's aversion to understandable music.
Now if the music had developed from Bartok instead of serialism things would be quite different.
There are good signs, however: there are a lot of modern composers who are not minimalists and not serialists and they just compose, ahem.., music, understandable and about our time. This is very clear in French organ music (thierry Escaich - spelling?) is a good example.
Some of Arvo Pärt's works are very interesting, too. I listened to a piece written for a lot of cellos (he later added percussion and perhaps some violins) and it was quite impressive (but a bit boring, the growning and lamenting went on and on!).