Talk:La mer (Debussy)

La Mer is widely regarded ...

"Today, La Mer is widely regarded as one of the greatest orchestral works of the twentieth century"

That's it? a piece written 5 years into the 20th century seals the deal? (and more to the point: give a citation or delete this overwhelming passage plz!)

While I agree that this is an unsourced claim, your logic seems to be flawed. There's nothing that says the greatest music of any time period needs to be at the end. The 20th century is over; there's nothing wrong with looking at all of 20th century music and deciding that La Mer is the greatest orchestral work.128.194.39.250 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The expression "greatest work" (actually it just says "one of the greatest orchestral works") is not to be understood in an athletics sense I think. What is implied is power, evocative force and the ability to break new ground that has enriched many later works - and La Mer scores high on all three. It is a turning-point, one of the decisive works that fused the traditional symphony format with elements that weren't seen as symphoni-cally kosher at the time (writing a symphony, or listening to one, was almost an ethical endeavour back then, and some kinds of fleeting impressions and feelings were firmly kept outside). It has been hugely influential on film soundtrack composing, but on other kinds of compositions too. The melting together of brass and strings in long rise-and-fall like movements without clear rhythmic punctuation, and with a sheet-like tonal colouring has appeared again and again in thousands of pieces of music through the modern age, both in "serious" and popular music.

Btw, few people familiar with classical music would contest the claim that "Beethoven's Eroica is one of the very greatest and most important works in 19th century music". The Eroica was written in 1802-04. /83.254.147.95 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the point that greatest works can be at the beginning of a period, it still is an unreferenced personal opinion and I'm going to delete it. The fact that it says "one of" doesn't make it any better, but rather renders the statement even less useful - seeWP:WEASEL. — Sebastian 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

Shouldn't there be some mention of the Nine Inch Nail song of the same name, which is probably heavily influenced by this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.18.193 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The NIN song was named after this one, but the extent to which it was influenced by this piece is arguable 137.22.4.48 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that source says:

It can be argued that the song is heavily infuenced by the Debussy piece of the same name. Both songs build up to create a sonic atmosphere, and both are (obviously) titled the same.

When asked about any classical composers who have inspired him, Trent said in a Yahoo! Chat in December 1999:

"Debussey. I was sitting in Big Sur, losing my mind. His contribution was that you need to be regimented, with whatever you decide to do. When I was sitting there, Debussey and I had a mind meld for a second. I felt the need to plagiarize the title, 'La Mer'. He revolutionized the Mozart bullshit world of everything was rigid and stabilized."

Seems to all hang on Trent Reznor's "mind meld"! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This could belong in an article about the group, the album, or the song, but it doesn't belong here. TheScotch (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Interpretation Clarification

Bold text Under the section headed,"Interpretation" the second paragraph reads,"As a young boy, Debussy's parents had plans for him to become a navy." I'm sure his parents didn't want him to become a one man navy. lol I'm very new to editing Wikipedia so I don't know how to fix this. One could assume that the author intended to write, "As a young boy, Debussy's parents had plans for him to become a sailor." Or, "As a young boy, Debussy's parents had plans for him to join the navy." Since there is a difference in the meanings, I'm not comfortable assuming what the author intended. Kinduvblue (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hokusai? not quite

At the right, there is a facsimile of the 1905 cover; its caption reads [as of 2/3/15] as follows: "Reproduction of Hokusai's Wave." Granted, the focus of the article is the musical composition, not the score's cover, but given Debussy's wide appreciation of all things Japanese, I think it would be worth writing a better caption for the graphic because the current wording is quite misleading. In fact, on youtube there is a 30-minute lecture devoted to this very subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl-1QcCbDyQ

The speaker, Dr. Mary Breatnach of Gresham College, takes a long time getting to her punchline (circa minutes 26-27), so I will try to provide the gist of it here: It's not just that the cover uses the "left half" only of the original (see comment below), but it has been further doctored (very likely at Debussy's own request, Dr. Breatnach argues persuasively) to make it "only about the sea" and not about the terror of the fishermen in their boat which might capsize at any moment. (Reminder: The Great Wave is one of the "Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji." In using its left half only, the cover design also removes Mt. Fuji from the picture. Presumably this would have been part of the same impetus, to keep focused on the ocean itself.) Long and rambling though it is, Dr. Breatnach's lecture is valuable for giving us a better understanding of both Debussy AND Hokusai at once. In view of the points she makes, I think a better caption for the 1905 cover would be something like this:

"The 1905 cover design which pays homage to Hokusai's 'In the Great Wave off Kanagawa' " OR "The 1905 cover which reproduces the wave (only) from Hokusai's 'In the Great Wave off Kanagawa' " ETC. Whatever it is, it is emphatically not a "Reproduction of Hokusai's Wave"! --Jia Bokang (Conal Boyce) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaBokang (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the caption to this: "Cover of the 1905 edition of La Mer. The illustration is based on Hokusai's Wave." Inelegant, but simple and factual.TheBawbb (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

La mer -> La Mer

The title of the article probably should have a capital M. "Mer" is obviously the key word of the title, and it's normally capitalized in music literature, cd booklets, concert programmes and so on. In most other WP editions, including French and German (both of whom are strong on classical music), it's styled La Mer in the title, and actually there's already a redirect for this article from La Mer (Debussy) to La mer (Debussy). I suggest that one should simply be reversed. Strausszek (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

But imspl shows it as La mer, so I think we should to. How was it first published? Or does WP:MOSCAPS trump everything? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, IMSLP is plainly a free-to-use music directory, even if it's a big one, so it's hardly a major authority in itself. When it comes to titles in French it often seems to just assume that no words other than proper names are to be capitalized, as in [Pavane pour une Infante défunte] (Pavane for a Dead Princess) where "Infante" is not given a capital I for Infanta by the site, though it's near universal in music print, concert leaflets and books and so on.

Also, classical music scores fairly often have all capitals on the front page and at some of the main tabs in the table of contents, at least for larger works, so the styling in an individual score edition, even the original one, wouldn't really settle things. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find a major-label CD or LP record that had "La mer". At http://www.discogs.com, one of the most reliable sites for cataloguing discography details across both classical and popular muisc, it seems to be "La Mer" everywhere - search for "Debussy Mer" on the site - and they´make a point of transcribing just the way titles are shown in the tables of contents of albums. Strausszek (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I habitually use discogs as a source for popular music. But I think held in some disdain, if not contempt, by many editors. I'd suggest that capital M for Mer there is just it's own house-style and should not necessarily be taken at face value. Should this question be raised at WP:MOSCAPS? I see it's Mer at [1] - is that a more authoritative source? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

~sigh~ Yeah, there's a lot of favouritism and pushing of "this site is great because they tend to agree with me, that site is non-reliable because I personally don't like it" on WP. On the whole, Discogs is much more accurate and better at fixing erroneous information than WP itself, the same goes for IMDB which is also frowned upon by some wiki editors I understand. Of course both of those sites have a more limited scope than WP but they're also much better at keeping out misinformation and trolling. Strausszek (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

~sigh~ I agree with you. But I'll add another ~sigh~ for good measure. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The piece is French, and its title is properly capitalized according to protocol. It's "La mer". TheScotch (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that according to contemporary French capitalization rules, it would be "La Mer", because "Mer" is the main substantive. This is confirmed by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/France-_and_French-related_articles#Capitalization as well as on the French Wikipedia (fr:Wikipédia:Conventions_typographiques#Principes_de_capitalisation_des_titres, Cas no 2). That being said, I'm not arguing that this is what we should use here, given historical sources that may use other conventions.–Jérôme (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La mer (Debussy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204141803/http://www.junkmedia.org/index.php?i=193 to http://www.junkmedia.org/index.php?i=193

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

catalog numbers

L. 109 CD 111. I assume the L stands for a catalog by Lesure - have no idea what CD refers to. Nowhere in the article does it explain what these numbers represent. - kosboot (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Audio

I'm sure the Concert Band of the United States Air Force Band are very competent. But is there no professional orchestra recording of the original arrangement available? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: This is in response to this edit adding several high quality recordings by the United States Air Force Band, which was subsequently reverted by Gerda Arendt. To answer your question directly: no, as far as I can tell, there is no freely usable professional orchestral recording of the original arrangement available. The recordings by the USAF band are the highest quality, most original, and only freely usable ones I could find.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure adding all three movements is justified. If you are unable to find any "freely usable professional orchestral recordings of the original arrangement" I wonder are there any of a professional orchestra playing any arrangement. Perhaps others could help in the search. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'd like to address your reasons for removing the recordings. You seem to have two main reasons for reverting this edit: 1) sound files should never begin an article and 2) an arrangement of the original is especially not preferable to include because it gives readers the wrong impression of what the piece truly is.

First, why do I think that sound recordings should be at the top of articles of musical compositions (in the absence of an infobox)? To answer this question, it's helpful to ask another one: why do we include media in articles at all? The purpose of every video, audio, or image file added to an article is to help illustrate an idea that text alone would be insufficient to communicate. The purpose of the first media file in the lead section of an article is even more important: it is supposed to represent the topic of the article as a whole. It is for this reason, for example, that articles about paintings are headed with images of those paintings. When considering this purpose, I think it's pretty clear why articles about music should be headed by audio files: what better representation of a piece of music is there other than a sound recording of that music? There is none. The cover of a score (rarely seen by the general public) cannot fully represent a piece of music. A photograph of the composer cannot fully represent a piece of music. An image of a venue, a subject of the music, or a painting that is based on the music cannot fully represent a piece of music. Not even an image of sheet music, which very few general readers can fully appreciate, can fully represent a piece of music. As the adage goes, a picture's worth a thousand words; for articles about works of music, a sound recording is worth a thousand images. The most complete and accurate representation of a piece of music will always be a recording of that music. To me, to suggest that an article on La mer should begin with a picture instead of a recording is akin to suggesting that the Mona Lisa article shouldn't begin with an image of the Mona Lisa but rather with an audio description of what it looks like.

While I don't know exactly why you do not like audio files at the beginning of articles. I would like to address a few concerns that people seem to tend to have about the use of audio files:

* Audio files are ugly: While true that audio files do not enhance the visual experience like an image can, they add auditory beauty to the article, which should not be ignored. Placing audio files at the top of articles, I find, allows users to read about the music as they listen to it, which is a pleasant experience. Also, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to look good, it is to provide people with a better understanding of the world. Audio files, appropriately used, are conducive to this goal.

* It is non-standard to use audio files in this way: Bare audio files, without an infobox, are rarely at the top of articles. However, I do not think this is because there is a policy or consensus against their use, but rather becasuse there are not that many high quality, freely usable recordings suitable for placement at the top of Wikipedia articles about works of music. We are obviously used to seeing images at the top of Wikipedia articles, but I see that as a trend more than a rule. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is not a paper encyclopedia, so we have the power to insert recordings of music where old media had to settle for pictures. We should feel empowered to challenge the traditions of the past if they can make the encyclopedia better.

* Audio files more appropriately belong in the section discussing the specific aspects of the composition: Again, this is as absurd to me as saying that a picture of a person or painting only belongs in the section of their article discussing their physical appearance. The article is about the piece of music as a whole, and it behooves us to put the most accurate representation of that piece of music at the top of the article.

Your second point contends that the arrangement of La mer misleads viewers by presenting them with an inaccurate representation of the piece. While I might agree with you that this is an issue for some arrangements, I do not think that that is the case here. Some arrangements of compositions are totally transformative; for example, a 3.5 minute Jazz band version of La mer would obviously be out of place in the article. The United States Air Force Band version, however, appears to be relatively faithful to the original composition, more of a transcription than an arrangement. It is unabridged and contains essentially the same music; the big difference is that the string parts were distributed around the band, but not in a manner that destroyed their character. Obviously, if a freely usable orchestral recording of the original can be found instead, it should be used. But in such a recording's absence, I think a high quality, unabridged, wind band transcription of the piece would add value to this article.  Mysterymanblue  18:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed argument. As I never edited this article substantially, I'll be quiet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Cover of 1905 edition of score, based on Hokusai's c. 1831 woodblock print The Great Wave off Kanagawa

Would something like this combined image/listen media template (right) be more acceptable?  Mysterymanblue  06:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a step, but my take would be - in case we agree on having those sound files - to give it an infobox with more detail (... or it looks like an article about a painting), and place each sound file next to the specific movement. That's where I - in the reader's shoes - would like to make a connection of what is written about the music to how the music sounds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree. But does our collective search really stop with the USAF Band? I mean, Stars and Stripes, sure. Battle Hymn of the Republic, why not. But something expressing Impressionism, Symbolism and Japonism? Sorry If I'm being elitist. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. for example, what's wrong with something like this which seems to be fully in the public domain?

@Martinevans123: Well, a recording of a piece of music is a derivative work of the composition, and its copyright rests in the person who recorded it (the performer must also consent to the recording too). So both the composition being played and the recording of the performance must be freely usable for us to upload these files. I don't really see why the recording you linked to would be in the public domain (even if the composition is), so we probably can't upload it. It is these overlapping copyrights that makes finding freely usable music very difficult; in fact, due to a quirk in U.S. copyright law, every sound recording ever produced at any time anywhere is generally copyrighted in the United States, unless the creator of the sound recording put it in the public domain. So even if we found a recording of the 1905 premier, which would be of terrible quality, it would be ineligible for hosting on Commons until January 1, 2022.

Truthfully, I think it is a bit faulty to assume that a concert band is incapable of expressing impressionism, symbolism, and japonism. While I appreciate that you care about these things (some people I've encountered would rather have MIDI files in articles), the military bands of the U.S. employ professional musicians and are considered some of the best in the world. I have always been a bit partial to concert band music, but I really do think the level of performance here is of a quality that merits encyclopedic inclusion.  Mysterymanblue  17:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It may "merit encyclopedic inclusion" in terms of an illustrative example and not as an exemplar. I mean "in the public domain" insofar as anyone is free to watch and listen to it, without any breach of copyright, as long as it remains posted on YouTube, as it has been posted with the permission of both the people who recorded it and the performers. If you can also see it in over there in the USA, then it suggests to me that those nice people at YouTube know that it is not in breach of copyright there. Personally, I think military bands ought to stick to playing military music. I realise that is a subjective judgement. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. There's no way in Hades a military band can possibly reasonably represent "La mer". The notion is palpably absurd. In any case, Debussy wrote the piece for orchestra. An arrangement or transcription of the piece by anyone who is not Debussy for an ensemble which is not an orchestra is not the piece and doesn't belong here. You can put it in an article about the arrangement or transcription. As far as arrangements and transcriptions go, however, a mulitary band is probabably as far afield as you can get. As for the "nice people at Youtube": They're not nice, and copright violation is the bedrock on which their company was built. The customers supply the content, most of it stolen, and Youtube takes the money and disclaims responsibility for the content.TheScotch (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)