The truth has been revealed thanks to the new Bärenreiter Urtext score, and it reveals conclusively what Ravel intended and what performers of the work should do.
Пікірлер
This is KZhead internet history. Dave Hurwitz is the first KZhead video essayist in the platform's history to use an original source instead of Wikipedia.
@OuterGalaxyLounge12 күн бұрын
"Wittgenstein got his paws on it.." that should be paw, (singular) no? 😄
@stevemcclue575912 күн бұрын
That includes his feet. He had three paws.
@DavesClassicalGuide12 күн бұрын
@@DavesClassicalGuide Actually, he had one paw and two dogs!
@dennischiapello724312 күн бұрын
@@DavesClassicalGuide Did Wittgenstein actually play the piece with the use of his feet? No wonder Ravel hated him! That's cheating!
@Mooseman32712 күн бұрын
Thank-you, SherlockHurwitz.
@jacquesracine957112 күн бұрын
This is my KZhead favourite channel. As a classical music collector for almost 20 years, I need this daily rant to either be content or annoyed, otherwise I would be dead! Cheers, Dave!
@MartinL.A.12 күн бұрын
Thank you!
@DavesClassicalGuide12 күн бұрын
The last time I thought this much about a single bar, I was in law school! Thanks for sussing this out. A very fine example of how the search for ultimate authenticity can lead to an ultimately absurd outcome.
@AlexMadorsky12 күн бұрын
Funnily enough, Paul Wittgestein recorded the Left Hand Concerto with Max Rudolf and the Met Orchestra - in Ravel's final "version". Or at least I think it is, regarding the number of "Chun-kuk's" at the end.. (It can be found on KZhead)
@dvdjrv797612 күн бұрын
How anyone would think that cutting out that measure is OK (thus rendering the phrase completely asymmetrical), is beyond me.
@violamateo-on8pc12 күн бұрын
This dilemma reminds me of the closing to Gershwin's Cuban Overture: the penultimate bar is meant to be played three times, but some recordings don't do this, which messes up the proportions and sounds abrupt just like in these new Ravel recordings! Gershwin wrote out said bar once in the autograph manuscript, but wrote to repeat it three times on top, which was subsequently overlooked and misprinted by publishers of the orchestral score, and remains the case, alas... PS Dave, I completely agree with you about your reference recording of the Ravel Left Hand Concerto. François and Cluytens are absolutely brilliant in bringing out the beauty and drama of this masterpiece!
@nathanmathurin731810 күн бұрын
Good job, Dave!
@judsonmusick317712 күн бұрын
Excellent! The only recording I have of the piece is a Boulez take, and I immediately checked it for missing bars. None!
@gomro12 күн бұрын
Speaking of odd endings : did you ever notice there is a "big difference" between the last bars of the orchestral and the piano score of Poulenc's Stabat Mater ? Everybody plays the piano version: "A-a-a-a-a-a-meeeeen. Paaa-paaaaaaaaaaaaa-Pa" meanwhile the orchestral score is shorter : "A-a-a-a-a-a-meeeeen. Paaaaaa-Pa". I heard once someone (De Billy in concert with the French National Orchestra) conducting what is really in the score, and it's rather, well, surprising...
@nicolascouton540812 күн бұрын
Very informative.
@HassoBenSoba12 күн бұрын
You can hear the tam tam in the final bar on Roth's recording.
@EgoSumAbbas82012 күн бұрын
Fascinating Dave. Perhaps there is a series to be had here....... Klassical kuts go Kerchunk.
@IanKnight409 күн бұрын
Would you consider making a review of Wittgenstein's recording of the concerto?😅😊
@arnausubiracanaleta31628 күн бұрын
Thanks for the explication David. Too bad what the interpreters do permît themselves with Ravel's original intentions. I must confess there's another mystery to solve for me, for years... In the Jean-Efflam Bavouzet remarkable complete Debussy set, when listening, to the Préludes, in "La Cathédrale engloutie", I noticed a note clearly missing at 0'41 or 0'42. I have only noticed this missing in Debussy's own piano rolls of the piece. Otherwise, every other pianists do include this note. Could David or someone else help me to solve this enigma that keeps me from sleeping ? Thanks...
@lonchaneyfanch956812 күн бұрын
It goes to show "Only trust the golden oldies, and beware new young whipper-snappers!"
@artistinbeziers791611 күн бұрын
Can we digitally manipulate the recordings with the missing bar and sneak it back in? (Does either recording warrant this, or are we okay just not buying them?) In the Claudio Abbado Complete Schubert Symphonies on DGG there is one first violinist in the orchestra who sticks out slightly from the rest during one note of the exposition. During the repeat of the exposition the same tiny glitch happens. They clearly used a single take for both the exposition and the repeat.
@kellyrichardson366512 күн бұрын
I love your chunk badadada chunk badadada's, crash. I'm curious to hear Wittgenstein's horrible version but perhaps I won't bother as it is a masterpiece as Ravel wrote it. Jorge Bolet cut out two bars at the end of the Rach PC3 cadenza in his recording but at least he had the decency to explain why in the programme notes.
@ukdavepianoman9 күн бұрын
IMO the best Chun-kuk, Chun-kuk, Chun-kuk, CRASH! is, Andrei Gavrilov/Simon Rattle LSO. I recently listened to the Cedric Tiberghien/Francois-Xavier Roth which the did quite well UNTIL THE FINAL CODA. What a botched joke! I was on the floor laughing my ass-off. Interested in knowing what you think.
@thomcook857012 күн бұрын
Re Wittgenstein getting 'his paws on it' surely you mean 'got his paw on it" 🙂
@johnpowell497612 күн бұрын
See the comments. Asked and answered
@DavesClassicalGuide12 күн бұрын
I was really hoping you'd be wearing a deerstalker hat with a pipe after sleuthing out the answer
@chadweirick6712 күн бұрын
At least this Barenreiter edition seems to have it right, and has the right answers for the issue. If you make this mistake of buying their edition of the Ravel Piano Trio you pay an exorbitant price for a version which ONLY contains the original version of the Pantoum (2nd movement)! Ravel was advised by Alfredo Casella (the pianist in the premiere) that the violin part wasn’t playable. Ravel was off doing his army thing, and sanctioned revisions which put some of the violin stuff into the piano part. THAT is the version Durand published, and every performance since has utilized. There is at least one edition containing the original and revised versions, which is fine, but why Barenreiter ONLY includes the discarded original is beyond comprehension, and a mess if you want to perform from it. Are there any recordings of the original?
@nealkurz650312 күн бұрын
I agree. If Ravel sanctioned the changes then the matter is closed. This nonsense about "original versions" is a curse.
@DavesClassicalGuide12 күн бұрын
I know that those Barenreiter editions are expensive, but I cannot even find a way to get a hold of them. Do you get them directly from the company?
@horacenyc49212 күн бұрын
No, I ordered it from Presto music in the UK.
@DavesClassicalGuide12 күн бұрын
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thank you SO much for that tip!
@horacenyc49212 күн бұрын
@@horacenyc492 Presto are very reliable.
@artistinbeziers791611 күн бұрын
Tamtam's clear enough if not loud enough with Francois/Cluytens. Not sure what producers are afraid of.
@Ingrampix11 күн бұрын
Oh, Lord, people...just play the damn thing as Ravel intended it. Why the constant striving on some musicians' parts to be different for the sake of being different?
This is KZhead internet history. Dave Hurwitz is the first KZhead video essayist in the platform's history to use an original source instead of Wikipedia.
"Wittgenstein got his paws on it.." that should be paw, (singular) no? 😄
That includes his feet. He had three paws.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Actually, he had one paw and two dogs!
@@DavesClassicalGuide Did Wittgenstein actually play the piece with the use of his feet? No wonder Ravel hated him! That's cheating!
Thank-you, SherlockHurwitz.
This is my KZhead favourite channel. As a classical music collector for almost 20 years, I need this daily rant to either be content or annoyed, otherwise I would be dead! Cheers, Dave!
Thank you!
The last time I thought this much about a single bar, I was in law school! Thanks for sussing this out. A very fine example of how the search for ultimate authenticity can lead to an ultimately absurd outcome.
Funnily enough, Paul Wittgestein recorded the Left Hand Concerto with Max Rudolf and the Met Orchestra - in Ravel's final "version". Or at least I think it is, regarding the number of "Chun-kuk's" at the end.. (It can be found on KZhead)
How anyone would think that cutting out that measure is OK (thus rendering the phrase completely asymmetrical), is beyond me.
This dilemma reminds me of the closing to Gershwin's Cuban Overture: the penultimate bar is meant to be played three times, but some recordings don't do this, which messes up the proportions and sounds abrupt just like in these new Ravel recordings! Gershwin wrote out said bar once in the autograph manuscript, but wrote to repeat it three times on top, which was subsequently overlooked and misprinted by publishers of the orchestral score, and remains the case, alas... PS Dave, I completely agree with you about your reference recording of the Ravel Left Hand Concerto. François and Cluytens are absolutely brilliant in bringing out the beauty and drama of this masterpiece!
Good job, Dave!
Excellent! The only recording I have of the piece is a Boulez take, and I immediately checked it for missing bars. None!
Speaking of odd endings : did you ever notice there is a "big difference" between the last bars of the orchestral and the piano score of Poulenc's Stabat Mater ? Everybody plays the piano version: "A-a-a-a-a-a-meeeeen. Paaa-paaaaaaaaaaaaa-Pa" meanwhile the orchestral score is shorter : "A-a-a-a-a-a-meeeeen. Paaaaaa-Pa". I heard once someone (De Billy in concert with the French National Orchestra) conducting what is really in the score, and it's rather, well, surprising...
Very informative.
You can hear the tam tam in the final bar on Roth's recording.
Fascinating Dave. Perhaps there is a series to be had here....... Klassical kuts go Kerchunk.
Would you consider making a review of Wittgenstein's recording of the concerto?😅😊
Thanks for the explication David. Too bad what the interpreters do permît themselves with Ravel's original intentions. I must confess there's another mystery to solve for me, for years... In the Jean-Efflam Bavouzet remarkable complete Debussy set, when listening, to the Préludes, in "La Cathédrale engloutie", I noticed a note clearly missing at 0'41 or 0'42. I have only noticed this missing in Debussy's own piano rolls of the piece. Otherwise, every other pianists do include this note. Could David or someone else help me to solve this enigma that keeps me from sleeping ? Thanks...
It goes to show "Only trust the golden oldies, and beware new young whipper-snappers!"
Can we digitally manipulate the recordings with the missing bar and sneak it back in? (Does either recording warrant this, or are we okay just not buying them?) In the Claudio Abbado Complete Schubert Symphonies on DGG there is one first violinist in the orchestra who sticks out slightly from the rest during one note of the exposition. During the repeat of the exposition the same tiny glitch happens. They clearly used a single take for both the exposition and the repeat.
I love your chunk badadada chunk badadada's, crash. I'm curious to hear Wittgenstein's horrible version but perhaps I won't bother as it is a masterpiece as Ravel wrote it. Jorge Bolet cut out two bars at the end of the Rach PC3 cadenza in his recording but at least he had the decency to explain why in the programme notes.
IMO the best Chun-kuk, Chun-kuk, Chun-kuk, CRASH! is, Andrei Gavrilov/Simon Rattle LSO. I recently listened to the Cedric Tiberghien/Francois-Xavier Roth which the did quite well UNTIL THE FINAL CODA. What a botched joke! I was on the floor laughing my ass-off. Interested in knowing what you think.
Re Wittgenstein getting 'his paws on it' surely you mean 'got his paw on it" 🙂
See the comments. Asked and answered
I was really hoping you'd be wearing a deerstalker hat with a pipe after sleuthing out the answer
At least this Barenreiter edition seems to have it right, and has the right answers for the issue. If you make this mistake of buying their edition of the Ravel Piano Trio you pay an exorbitant price for a version which ONLY contains the original version of the Pantoum (2nd movement)! Ravel was advised by Alfredo Casella (the pianist in the premiere) that the violin part wasn’t playable. Ravel was off doing his army thing, and sanctioned revisions which put some of the violin stuff into the piano part. THAT is the version Durand published, and every performance since has utilized. There is at least one edition containing the original and revised versions, which is fine, but why Barenreiter ONLY includes the discarded original is beyond comprehension, and a mess if you want to perform from it. Are there any recordings of the original?
I agree. If Ravel sanctioned the changes then the matter is closed. This nonsense about "original versions" is a curse.
I know that those Barenreiter editions are expensive, but I cannot even find a way to get a hold of them. Do you get them directly from the company?
No, I ordered it from Presto music in the UK.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thank you SO much for that tip!
@@horacenyc492 Presto are very reliable.
Tamtam's clear enough if not loud enough with Francois/Cluytens. Not sure what producers are afraid of.
Oh, Lord, people...just play the damn thing as Ravel intended it. Why the constant striving on some musicians' parts to be different for the sake of being different?