Talk:Claude Debussy

With respect to the recent revert

I believe that the article placed rather undue weight to Taruskin's 2010 interpretation that Debussy was anti-Semitic. It doesn't make it clear that other authors disagree with his view. As I added with a source, Rosen clearly thought otherwise in 2012, proposing an interpretation of the Dukas comment as anti-Wagnerism, and cites one of the editors of Debussy's collected letters for a statement that he was not anti-Semitic.

Marie Rolf's recent 2024 article in The Musical Quarterly, which I searched after this revert (so, I suppose, thanks for prompting me to look up what's most recently been written) puts things in greater context. She notes that There is little hint of any religious conviction or genuine political opinion held by Debussy, and that he was silent during the Dreyfus affair. On the other side, she also notes that no doubt, he occasionally let slip traces of the anti-Semitism that was more or less deep-rooted and rather widespread at the time, quoting a joke he made to Henry Lerolle. So it's not at all clear that his anti-Semitism extended beyond jokes or was beyond the usual standards of the time, as was for example true of Balakirev; and it's not at all clear that the comment he made about Dukas was anti-Semitic (Taruskin's interpretation) so much as anti-Wagnerian / anti-German (Rosen's interpretation).

There's also a scholarly dispute about Chopin's views about Jews, which the Chopin FA is incidentally completely silent about. But better that than only presenting one side, I feel. Double sharp (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Since this might've been lost in your watchlist after the bot did its archiving. Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You have convinced me, at any rate. I have briefly checked biographies of Debussy by Abravanel, Barraqué, Koechlin, Laloy, Lederer, Lockspeiser, Nichols, Suarès and Vallas and found nothing about any antisemitism on Debussy's part. I hope others will express a view here. Meanwhile I suggest you leave the text as it is pending comments here from others. If there are none I'd vote for restoring your addition – though without the WP:CITEVAR violation please. Tim riley talk 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Double sharp, I'd say ample time has elapsed for other editors to add their comments, and in the absence of any I suggest you restore your addition (with the citation style of the rest of the article, please.) Tim riley talk 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox ????

Ok, there is a lengthy, but apparently pointless debate above, which is too long to read for my convenience (TLDR). So, as for any person of any historical interest, there should be an infobox detailing the basic information points such as birth date + place, death date + place, profession + best known works. Why is this even a subject for debate? I came here for a quick look-up and not to read through an overlong lede and article from which to extract the info at great effort. Is this no longer an encyclopedia? Also, I do not see why it should be relevant what the WikiProject Composers has to say about this, as if they rule over the consensus what readers want to learn coming to this article. If there is no consensus, i.e. no decision either way, then of course we add an infobox, as it is the conveyance of compact information which is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you aren't up to reading the discussion, but to summarise the arguments: pro-box, all articles must have one (though not WP's policy), and anti-box, there's nothing encyclopaedic other than dates and nationality we could usefully put in a composer's i-box. As for "best-known works", which are they and says who? Debussy's article, like another dozen or more featured articles on composers, omits an i-box for that reason, supported by consensus. Tim riley talk 13:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)