On about Ravels Tempo in Pavane: “After a performance by Charles Oulmont, Ravel mentioned to him that the piece was called "Pavane for a dead princess", not "dead pavane for a princess". ” You can see about that piece should be play slow but not too much considering by composer himself. Nowadays, performers playing extra slowly make the piece "dead", as shown in this context. For example Ravel's close friend and one of favourite pianist Robert Casadesus's wife Gaby played that Pavane faster, taking piece 5 minute nearly close to the Marcelle Meyer's interpretation take, compare all pavane interpretations. Except for exceptions such as Richter, the more slower playing of this piece shows does not care about the composer nor the musicality of the piece, as Ravel thinks.
Interesting that he uses many more arpeggios than are shown in the score. Plus he plays the very last chord quietly, not fortissimo as indicated. I like it.
@@lucasgust7720 If there was a real recording, I would agree with you. But as I said, this is a piano roll, a mechanical imitation you know. He doesnt play that bad hahaha
Very interesting but of course like all Duo Art piano rolls it leaves a lot - a big lot - to be desired, especialy as to the balancoe of chords. I have also noticed that Duo Art don't manage to capture the nano second delays or anticipations that are captrued on audio recordings, The result is a rather tedious metronomic performance. As I say, an ineresting recording. Thank you for posting but - like most Duo Art recordings - I never want to hear it ever again!
Yes! That recording boring as well. One of the purposes of uploading this, as you can see my writing in the comments, was Ravel's thoughts for this piece and a metronomic explanation like the one you mentioned. In general, the rolls are not good except for the welte mignon, even which isn't always enjoyable. This roll seems to have many problems in dynamics. It's no different than a midi, haha
@@fredericfrancoischopin6971What is does show, of ourse, is what Perlemuter called "French romanticism" - very little rubato and the rubato that is used is small. I remember buying a piano roll recording of Prokofiev playing his own works when I was 14 - GHASTLY! and not a bit like his acoustic recordings.
@@keybawd4023 Another example is Debussy's roles. His playing in accoustic, actually includes balanced rubato and very soft touché but his rolls, It doesn't even come close to accoustic recordings! Just sounds actual midi. Such recordings are no different than determining tempo and variable playing, but they also have historical validity. Haydn's pre-roll recording is a good example of this, It eliminates the tempo-related speculations of classical period musicians.
On about Ravels Tempo in Pavane:
“After a performance by Charles Oulmont, Ravel mentioned to him that the piece was called "Pavane for a dead princess", not "dead pavane for a princess". ”
You can see about that piece should be play slow but not too much considering by composer himself. Nowadays, performers playing extra slowly make the piece "dead", as shown in this context. For example Ravel's close friend and one of favourite pianist Robert Casadesus's wife Gaby played that Pavane faster, taking piece 5 minute nearly close to the Marcelle Meyer's interpretation take, compare all pavane interpretations. Except for exceptions such as Richter, the more slower playing of this piece shows does not care about the composer nor the musicality of the piece, as Ravel thinks.
Couldn't he wrote "andante" ou "assez allant" ? I hate Ravel.
@@Alix777. He already put tempo marking. What more detail could he add or change?
What a piece and what a recording! Thanks for sharing.
My pleasure!
😢😢😢❤❤❤
Interesting that he uses many more arpeggios than are shown in the score. Plus he plays the very last chord quietly, not fortissimo as indicated. I like it.
I didn't know it was Ravel who was playing and I thought "who can play this so badly?" hahaha.
Of course it can sounds bad when it's a piano roll. Also according to the Ravel, he thinks his piano skills limited compare pianists of his time
@@fredericfrancoischopin6971I knew Ravel was not a good pianist, but this was too much.
@@lucasgust7720 If there was a real recording, I would agree with you. But as I said, this is a piano roll, a mechanical imitation you know. He doesnt play that bad hahaha
Very interesting but of course like all Duo Art piano rolls it leaves a lot - a big lot - to be desired, especialy as to the balancoe of chords. I have also noticed that Duo Art don't manage to capture the nano second delays or anticipations that are captrued on audio recordings, The result is a rather tedious metronomic performance. As I say, an ineresting recording. Thank you for posting but - like most Duo Art recordings - I never want to hear it ever again!
Yes! That recording boring as well. One of the purposes of uploading this, as you can see my writing in the comments, was Ravel's thoughts for this piece and a metronomic explanation like the one you mentioned. In general, the rolls are not good except for the welte mignon, even which isn't always enjoyable. This roll seems to have many problems in dynamics. It's no different than a midi, haha
@@fredericfrancoischopin6971What is does show, of ourse, is what Perlemuter called "French romanticism" - very little rubato and the rubato that is used is small. I remember buying a piano roll recording of Prokofiev playing his own works when I was 14 - GHASTLY! and not a bit like his acoustic recordings.
@@keybawd4023 Another example is Debussy's roles. His playing in accoustic, actually includes balanced rubato and very soft touché but his rolls, It doesn't even come close to accoustic recordings! Just sounds actual midi. Such recordings are no different than determining tempo and variable playing, but they also have historical validity. Haydn's pre-roll recording is a good example of this, It eliminates the tempo-related speculations of classical period musicians.