To what extent is a composer an authority of their place in history?

When it comes to words and the non-verbal arts, I distrust ALL the words, regardless of the source. // Artists often make dramatic and blanket statements about their craft, aesthetic generalizations, pronouncements, and either label themselves or vehemently reject labels assigned by others who may observe and study art but aren't 'inside' of it. It has been forever so. You could well argue - 1.) Observers are that much more detached and can better, clinically, name the artist's work.

2.) Artists are the more reliable source.

Writer-critic-historians justify their existence by writing, a proclivity and career that means 'publish or perish.' Some are more acute and less intrusive than others. I'm certain both artist and writer are sincere in the moment -- thereafter…

After reading through or playing Ravel's ‘Oiseaux Tristes’, Debussy declared, "All Music Should Take This Form," then immediately went about composing as he did. That was a genuine "enthusiasm de jour." …so much for artist’s pronouncements.

To discuss any period or composer needs agreed-upon terms. I hate 'impressionist,' a blatant and unmistakable pejorative from an art critic writing of Monet in an early Salon exhibition, clearly used as a slam that the(se) artist(s) could not even basically draw but only render weak 'impressions' of. Debussy’s work is some of the most intelligent, calculated, planned, strategically manipulated, deliberately engineered and incisively clear music I can think of.

It also implies Debussy meant to evoke images via music, which I believe untrue. He saw the Mediterranean once when a child: as a mature adult composed La Mer one summer while residing atop a mountain, land-locked somewhere in central France. The piece (imho) sounds more analogous to the principles of hydraulic dynamics applied to music materials and their behavioral movement than any attempt at 'a picture.' The further fact it is by analysis a symphony as per textbook definition and he titled it “La Mer, a symphonic poem” is a deliberate Red Herring worthy of the greatest of tricksters. Do we believe it is a representative ‘picture of the sea,' or that it is, 'a symphonic poem?'

Artists are artificers... ergo, so much for the reliability of descriptive titles as holding much ‘real’ meaning. Debussy is on record as saying he was 'a musical chemist' mixing sound to find new substances or new volatile combinations and interactions. With all that known and on record, I'd go, in this instance, with the Artist and his 'place' and definition of intent vs. academia and 'impressionist.'

I accept the general academic labels because 'you have to call it something.' Time out to determine a more appropriate or yet another semi-arbitrarily chosen term just delays possible discussion, and I find that somewhat cloyingly academic nit-picky. Agreed upon terms are handy, and like many a linguistic convention make not a lot of sense yet are understood and agreed upon by almost all.

'Romantic,' assigned to that era after the sun had set on the period seems to me a wildly crazy misnomer for one of the stranger new-wave emo - and lugubrious emo at that - periods of classical music we have, but it sticks. Why not call it 'Expressionist' rather than that brief envelope of style to which that label is assigned? Lines are also needed but arbitrarily drawn. Debussy's rejection of late romantic (germanic) musical procedures forever separates him from 'romantic era' yet some insist he was 'late romantic.' By date they are pettily and prettily neat, by substance wildly incorrect. Some agreement on historic era and what defined it is also arbitrary, but must in general be agreed upon by the music community, or why, indeed, bother at all?

I think almost everyone who goes about slapping labels on other peoples works and naming styles is or was nuts, but accept the terms as a handy convention. The labelers and definers seem to me most interested in capturing the butterfly, killing it, putting a pin through its body, labeling it and setting it in classified order in a display case - the opposite of those who go out of their way to observe it in its natural habitat and enjoy its beauty in flight.

Fernyhough might be correct and justified: I hear nothing alarmingly new or more complex there - in harmony or rhythm. - than I do in some music from decades before. Perhaps the method of arriving at it and the notation have so distracted people that he's irritated they are hung up on the street map more than wandering around in the actual construct of sound he's made.

The ‘Abstract Expressionist’ painter Barnett Newman believed, “Whatever a painting's meaning, it will come out in the seeing of the work, not through discussion.” He also said (I love it!) "Aesthetics is for the artist as ornithology is for the birds.”

Best regards.

P.s. 'place in history?' Unimportant in a working artist's life.

I agree with both Petr and Del, each to some extent. My basic philosophy is to trust no one when it comes to labels. Why do I say this? Most composers aren't REALLY well known until after they die. Also, the artist, critic, and historian all have a bias...so how you label it in your own mind is what matters.

Take, for (crude) example, Justin Bieber (/vomit). He (she) thinks he's (she's) amazing. Critics think his (her) music is amazing and he's (she's) the new Michael Jackson. People are already writing books about Justin Bieber and do nothing but give him accolades...yet the actual music (like much of current popular music) is total crap. In my mind, I say that without Justina and her music, the world would keep turning, probably better for the absence...

Then again, I have what some people like to call "high musical standards" and I don't plan on lowering them just for the benefit of saying that I love something that everyone else loves. I think I'll stick to real music...that has real notes...and real harmonies...and real context...and a real place in the greater span of musical development.

Interesting question!

LC-B

Contemporary critics and writers like to label people and note how people influence one another. Sometimes critics and writers get it wrong and it takes some distancing from the present to analyze the composers and find exactly how their compositions should be labeled particularly since their composing styles may change throughout their lifetime. Look at the various styles of musical composition that Stravinsky went through which makes him difficult to give an over all label.

In addition to the great responses above, I must stress that as readers of music history we should not be tempted to swallow such "labels" down in tablet form. Labels are mere reflections, often by historians who look back upon history, and sometimes simply for ease of classification. When reflecting on art, I am more than inclined to say that we should consider first the artist's conception of himself, as it will convey to us (at least most directly) his truest intentions. Still, do accept "labels" as they are useful and expedient in the study of any historical subject, but also keep in mind the good analogy that you can't possibly hope for square pegs to fit -- without slight modifications -- into round holes!

In my opinion, for the most part, the critic is right in their generalization.

The composers themselves would naturally feel that they were more unique than the "label" they were given. They might claim some type of independence based on a trivial nuance.

This can apply to many other fields as well; Camus rejected his label of an "existentialist" but he definitely was one.

Debussy's style radiates with Impressionistic brilliance, displaying a masterful use of whole tone scales and major seventh chords.

In the most part, only POSTERITY will decide a composer's place in history. However, there are plenty who don't get the recognition they deserve, as well as a few who get more than their music merits, so there's no infallible way.

Authority is Faith and Faith is Authority. Think about it, what do you think the odds of an Atheist president getting elected? 0%. What are the odds of a Christian president getting elected? Very good. That says it all