The fact this piece was performed 107 years ago show the timeless nature of these masterpieces. As great as it is to hear the author's original take on the music, I find that it interesting how other performers somehow find alternate interpretations that enhance the music even further.
11 ปีที่แล้ว +81
It is indeed amazing to realise that you're listening to Ravel himself playing this. It's somehow much more fascinating than if it were a gramophone recording.
This is by far the finest of Ravels piano performances. The performance is straightforward while at the same time innately musical and just downright lovely.
oh God..I just love and adore Valses Nobles et Sentimentales so much..I don't care if Ravel is playing it or not! ha ha..I rather like the reckless approach,at least he pushes all the right buttons for me where it counts..no one like Ravel..
This piano roll was recorded in 1913 - so we are told. He also recorded Oisaux Tristes in 1912, also in Welte Mignon (available in YT also). Ravel's intellectual capabilities were then immaculate. He knew he wasn't a super-virtuoso, but he certainly could play the piano and had very clear ideas about what he wanted!... So this recording is a wonderful and precious document, and a very beautiful rendering. He started having some mental troubles around 1929-1930. He still conducted the orchestra at the "première" of his piano concerto in G (January 1932) - because it was part of the contract that he had to turn up on the occasion. At first he thought he'd be able to play the soloist's part - but after a few months practice, he realized he wouldn't be able to to it. So he chose someone else - a French pianist - and decided to appear as conductor. And that's how it happened... However, he didn't conduct the whole concert. After the Concerto had been played, he handled the baton to his friend the great Portuguese conductor Pedro de Freitas Branco, who finished the session and reaped great and unanimous applause from the French critique . Ravel knew he was no good as conductor. And so, when the concerto was recorded - only a few months after the "premiere" - he engineered things so that the bits that actually were put on record were the ones conducted be Pedro FB! But when the record was released, what one could read on the label was Ravel's name... Poor man, he had to comply with the contract.... Of course PFB knew the secret - and his wife too. But PFB was such a chivalrous gentleman that he never gave the secret away. Not even after Ravel's early death! Only in the 80's or something did the sound engineer at the time, in his Memoirs, put the record straight... I suppose this is a fascinating bit of Music History. And this may help explain why at least some early recordings by Ravel on piano rolls are of such high quality. A few years later things began to deteriorate... Shared on Google+
I have to correct a point in the above note: the first performance of the Concerto in G took place in Paris (yes...), with soloist Marguerite Long (yes...), but on January 14, 1932 (and not February 1932...), with Ravel conducting the Orchestre Lamoureux. Shared on Google+
This is such an interesting bit of history.In my opinion Ravel’s phrasing is more reminiscent of a jazz pianist’s sensibility than that of a classical pianist’s.wonderful and whimsical interpretation of this incredible music he has composed
Astute observation. You'd be interested to know that Ravel's style of playing is also very reminiscent of romantic-era pianism in which tempo flexibility, rolled chords and numerous other expressive nuances were quite commonplace.
You misunderstand. It's a mechanically re-produced performance via something analogous to a player-piano roll. Hence, the explanation "Ravel's 1913 Welte Mignon reproducing piano recording." The device captured how he played it in 1913, and that data is read and converted to playing on a modern-day instrument.
Paul Gronemeier Mezzotenor was explaining to Steve Miller that the recording is a piano roll recording, not an audio recording which is why it is devoid of all the usual crackles and pops of early 20th century phonograph recordings. He assumes that Steve Miller didn't know that Welte Mignon meant piano roll.
I believe Gershwin sought instruction from Ravel to which Ravel declined to teach him and replied "Why should you be a second-rate Ravel when you can be a first-rate Gershwin?"
Ravel's waltzes were written when Gershwin was 12 or 13. So there couldn't be any Gershwin influence on Ravel. His late works were definitely influenced by Gershwin, especially both piano concertos and the violin Sonata.
Gershwin greatly admired Ravel and had hoped to study from him whilst in France. Ravel replied with the famous “I don’t want to turn you into a second-rate Ravel when you’re already a first-rate Gershwin. Ravel recommended Boulanger, but she said something along the lines of “what could I give you that you don’t already have?” I also believe at some point Ravel and Gershwin discussing $, and upon hearing how much Gershwin made, Ravel joking “maybe I should be taking lessons from YOU” (altho I’m not sure if that part is just legend). The piano concerto has more explicit “nods” to Gershwin/jazz. It would appear they influenced each other thru-out their friendship / association with one another!
The Welte-Mignon technology is an recording process which is nowadays nearly no more recognized but one must see that one can hear only with Welte-Mignon the LIVE-playing of the great compososers or pianists. With old shellac records one can only hear it through a speaker, and even with a digitalized shellac recording a live hearing is not possible, only the sound is besser than from the original record. Therefore the Welte-Mignon technology will last also in the future as the only possibility for live-hearing the famous musicians. One can't see the musicians, but through the live-hearing it seems if they were in the same room.
Great heritage! I guess this recording is based on so-called piano roll. But it doesn't a matter to me, coz the performance sounds surprisingly contemporary. And I can imagine how Ravel played piano. It's a hidden joy.
Wow! This is a mind blowing experience! I need to find a Welte that plays like this piano. What make and size of piano is this installed in? Please do tell. Thanks so much.
"Ravel avait bien derrière lui au moment de la déclaration de guerre [1914] l'essentiel de son oeuvre. Il ne devait plus retrouver cette fécondité et cette verve. Si son cas était solitaire, on se contenterait de l'enregistrer. On ne l'imputerait certainement pas à ses états de service militaire, qui furent modestes, malgré lui : très patriote, sans la jactance antiteutonne de Debussy, et malgré son horreur du ruban rouge, le frêle petit Ravel qui fit des pieds et des mains pour être incorporé et rêvait même d'être aviateur, fut réformé après un an de campagne dans une formation automobile. Mais on a observé chez d'autres musiciens des cassures analogues, que les historiens de l'an 2000 distingueront mieux que nous. Les douze premières années de notre siècle, celles de Pelléas, des Ballets russes, du Sacre du printemps, du Swann de Proust, du meilleur de Valéry, de Gide, de Claudel, de l'atonalité, des principes de la psychanalyse freudienne, en peinture des Nabis, des Fauves, des expressionnistes, des cubistes, eurent une puissance créatrice que rien ne devait égaler plus tard. L'Europe y prodiguait à la hâte son génie, comme si elle eût pressenti que sa suprématie était condamnée. Toute notre époque n'a-t-elle pas vécu ensuite sur le mouvement de cet éblouissant prélude, brisé par le canon d'août 1914 ?" (Lucien Rebatet, Une Histoire de la Musique).
C'est à dire: le Concerto en Sol et le Concerto pour la main gauche sont encore des chefs-d'oeuvre novateurs!... IMO the Concerto in G and the Concerto for the left hand are still admirable and innovative masterpieces!... Shared on Google+
@@jeanphilippevasseur1763 Entièrement d'accord. C'est l'opinion de Lucien Rebatet, qui est très discutable. J'ajouterais Berg, Krenek, Sibelius, Honegger et même Poulenc.
De Wikipedia: "Rebatet ne parvient plus à se plier à la discipline d'écriture qui lui avait permis, durant son emprisonnement [pour collaboration pendant l'occupation], de terminer Les Deux Étendards. Il se lance dans la rédaction d'un nouveau roman intitulé La Lutte finale mais, après en avoir écrit environ 1 500 pages, échoue à le terminer. Il abandonne définitivement ce livre pour se consacrer à la rédaction d'Une histoire de la musique, publiée en 1969. Cet essai de Rebatet est régulièrement cité en référence, bien que les jugements portés tant sur les compositeurs que sur leurs œuvres soient souvent empreints de la subjectivité de leur auteur et très tributaires des préjugés esthétiques en cours à l'époque : dithyrambes réservés à quelques « grands » - souvent germaniques - (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Debussy), et relatif mépris pour Maurice Ravel et certains Scandinaves et Slaves comme Sibelius, Grieg, Dvořák, Tchaïkovski, ainsi que pour une certaine tradition lyrique française (Auber, Gounod, Thomas, Reyer, Massenet, Saint-Saëns, Bruneau, Charpentier). Sans surprise, Rebatet a des jugements tranchés sur Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, George Gershwin, Halévy, dont le chef-d'œuvre La Juive est qualifié « de terrible mélodrame médiéval et raciste ». Il fait toutefois preuve d'audace dans des choix modernes sur Boulez ou Xenakis"
@@brkahn Ah, Wikipedia... Berlioz et Debussy "germaniques"... Bravo ! Tout est à reprendre, tout est faux. Rebatet n'éprouve aucun mépris envers Charpentier, il en fait au contraire l'éloge : "C'est la marque du grand siècle"... Quant à faire croire que c'est "sans surprise" que Rebatet n'aime pas Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Halévy (dont "La Juive" est très loin d'être un chef-d'oeuvre, évidemment), c'est d'une mauvaise foi typique de Wikipedia puisque, par ailleurs, Rebatet dresse l'éloge de Mahler, Schoenberg, etc.
where can i buy this / can anyone share me a reasonably high quality audio file? this recording's been the only thing getting me thru work this month and i need it desperately ty ty ty
Absolument merveilleux, même si Ravel n'est pas le meilleur interprète de Ravel, et que ce piano n'est pas le top des pianos !!! En fait c'est juste le rythme qui est intéressant, parce que hélas le Piano Roll par définition n'est pas en mesure de créer une nuance piano/forte de grand qualité !!! l'air passe ou non dans le trou !!!
it only makes ravel greater composer, because if someone other than the composer can perform the compositions better, it means that the piece has far more space and possibility for variety of interpretation, which opens a wide door to freedom of musical imagination of the musicians....
Ravel made no bones about being a better composer than pianist. However, this early 1913 recording of the Valses is much a much better and successful testament to his pianistic skills than his idiosyncratic recording of Sonatina, that is absolutely dreadful! Very interesting.
It seems very likely this is not Ravel playing, but rather Robert Casadesus. "He never made records of his solo piano works. He did make some piano rolls, a medium in which mistakes were easy to correct. But the pianist Gaby Casadesus admitted years after the fact that when the more difficult Ravel pieces were recorded on piano rolls her husband Robert had done the playing, and the Duo-Art company issued them under Ravel’s name."
I ask because I’ve dedicated my graduate research to reproducing piano roll recording technologies, specifically the Welte Mignon and Duo Art recordings of Ravel, and while it is true that Casadesus’s performances of the Toccata and the Anime from Sonatine were attributed to the composer, there is no evidence that the valses nobles et sentimentales were. Casadesus’s pianistic style was markedly different from Ravel’s, and this recording exhibits all of the hallmarks of Ravel’s playing. The Welte Company had a philosophy of minimal intervention in the recording and editing processes of the artist’s recordings, which is evident in the Ravel rolls. The VNES are not particularly difficult, either, and well within Ravel’s technical capabilities.
@@davidofpiano423 I remember in the 1970s being perplexed by the casual approach to the text in some of the Ravel rolls as reproduced on a vinyl LP (in Oiseaux Tristes, no attempt is made at reproducing the tempo relationship between bars 1-3 and bar 4). As you'll know (I mention it here only for the benefit of other readers) the issue of Casadesus having recorded some of the rolls is covered in "The Cambridge Companion to Ravel" (Cambridge University Press), but the roll of Valses Nobles et Sentimentales is acknowledged as authentic in the Critical Commentary of the best available urtext edition of this work, edited by Roger Nichols. Although many years ago I played the Valses several times in concert, I have only recently become aware of this roll, and as I am scheduled to perform the work again next year I need to reconsider my approach to the score in view of this important sound document, although whether Ravel himself ever viewed his free (and inaccurate!) playing in this roll as a model to be studied by pianists a century later is questionable - maybe in trying to do so we're attaching too much significance to a roll that Ravel never expected to have much circulation or influence (the balancing of inner voices is erratic here, and I don't know enough about piano rolls to know whether that's due to the technology or the playing). Whether we seek to emulate aspects of Ravel's playing or not, it's fascinating to hear this incomparable genius at the piano. Thanks for uploading it.
I know this recording is attributed to Ravel, but it's probably not him actually playing. He was a great, great composer, but not so good on the piano. Once, he was asked to perform Jeux d'eau in recital and he declined with the words "but I have never played it in my life!" There are harder things in these waltzes than are found in the earlier work.
It is definitely Ravel's playing. Of course not actually him on this recording since it is a reproducing piano roll, but Welte Mignon rolls are very accurate, and this represents his playing faithfully as Ravel himself approved the recording prior to its release.
You may be right, but many people disagree, including (as I recall) the foremost scholar on the work of Ravel, Arbie Orenstein. I'm inclined to believe this Ravel's good friend, Robert Casadesus, playing.
It is accepted as fact among all credentialed Ravel scholars that Casadesus played on the third movement of the Sonatine recording attributed to Ravel, which is why all current releases of the Ravel piano rolls exclude this movement. There was also a piano roll recording of Jeux D'eau that was attributed to Ravel up until about the 1960's, but it was later revealed to be Casadesus. Orenstein, Woodley, Nichols, Leikin, Hinson as well as the Pianola Institute and every scholar of the Welte Company's recordings all agree that every other piano roll recording attributed to Ravel aside from the aforementioned two are in fact his playing. Think about it logically, why would there be two recordings of vastly higher quality of playing while the rest possess all of the telltale eccentricities and technical flaws of Ravel's playing? Trust me, I've read everything that has ever been written about Ravel in French and English and am writing my master's thesis on this exact subject. It's Ravel.
It might not be Ravel playing it, but when he says "I have never played it" it means that he had not, not that he could not. It should raise no eyebrows for a composer not to be prepared to perform or to have to practice (a lot) to perform his or her own composition. It has happened to me more than once.
@@davidofpiano423 Unlike the acoustic recordings made up until the availability of tape recording, it was (is) possible to edit the piano roll recordings. I have read that many rolls were touched up to repair wrong notes. So even if Welte Mignon could capture notes, rhythms, and even finger pressure on the keys, it would still be possible for a pianist with not so reliable fingers to produce a perfect performance after retouching.
I don't know. Ravel wasn't that good, and the chords of this piece are hard to reach and Ravel couldn't reach an octave. I hope it is him, but I don't think so.
Thank you for your comment. I have done extensive research on this topic, and while there are a few instances in which other pianists substituted in Ravel's stead for the more virtuosic movements of his repertoire (Robert Casadesus for the 3rd movement of the Sonatine), I can assure you, this piano role is definitely Ravel. Ravel was diminutive in stature, however he was able to stretch a 9th, albeit not with ease, and certainly had an octave. Despite this, you are correct that some elements of this recording do not remain consistent with Ravel's original performance. These instances are a result of the transfer process of the original piano rolls to modern reproducing equipment, in which nuances of pedaling and dynamics are only crudely preserved and have been corrected by the piano roll engineers. Additionally, the original tempo is not preserved which may account for the speedy playback (my only complaint about this recording). There are only a few people in the world whose expertise is this transfer process, and the record company that published this recording uses only the best people in the field. -David
So, it is Ravel himself? That's great, but I wonder why he didn't play the Valses in his american tour, because it sounds like he managed them pretty well. Well, if this is him that's wonderful.
davidofpiano423 How does the tempo change in the transfer process of the piano rolls to modern reproducing equipment? I thought it would be possible to reproduce the original tempo...
MIP Musically Informed Performance Takes a long time to explain but I highly recommend you read Professor Anatole Leikin's book, "The Performance Style of Alexander Scriabin". In it, professor Leikin goes into wonderful detail as to the mechanics of several piano roll mediums and how one can navigate the shortcomings of modern reproductions to arrive at a clearer picture of a composer's performance style. It's a great book and professor Leikin does a much better job answering the question than I can =)
+Xavier Flament Not a "bad" pianist - a competent pianist, really quite surprising keyboardist considering his main activity was as a composer. Not "schooled" playing but playing with the insights of the creator, which makes this recording invaluable. This recording much superior to his messy recording of his Sonatine.
If this is indeed Ravel without retouching of wrong notes, etc., and not anyone else playing, then this is no bad playing. These pieces are immensely difficult. They demand considerable technique and a very sharp mind.
The fact this piece was performed 107 years ago show the timeless nature of these masterpieces. As great as it is to hear the author's original take on the music, I find that it interesting how other performers somehow find alternate interpretations that enhance the music even further.
It is indeed amazing to realise that you're listening to Ravel himself playing this. It's somehow much more fascinating than if it were a gramophone recording.
+Lúthien Merilin Very clear playing, you hear every note. Historically very important recording.
This is by far the finest of Ravels piano performances. The performance is straightforward while at the same time innately musical and just downright lovely.
+Jack Gedzelman I completely agree, a beautiful performance.
oh God..I just love and adore Valses Nobles et Sentimentales so much..I don't care if Ravel is playing it or not! ha ha..I rather like the reckless approach,at least he pushes all the right buttons for me where it counts..no one like Ravel..
This piano roll was recorded in 1913 - so we are told. He also recorded Oisaux Tristes in 1912, also in Welte Mignon (available in YT also). Ravel's intellectual capabilities were then immaculate. He knew he wasn't a super-virtuoso, but he certainly could play the piano and had very clear ideas about what he wanted!... So this recording is a wonderful and precious document, and a very beautiful rendering. He started having some mental troubles around 1929-1930. He still conducted the orchestra at the "première" of his piano concerto in G (January 1932) - because it was part of the contract that he had to turn up on the occasion. At first he thought he'd be able to play the soloist's part - but after a few months practice, he realized he wouldn't be able to to it. So he chose someone else - a French pianist - and decided to appear as conductor. And that's how it happened... However, he didn't conduct the whole concert. After the Concerto had been played, he handled the baton to his friend the great Portuguese conductor Pedro de Freitas Branco, who finished the session and reaped great and unanimous applause from the French critique . Ravel knew he was no good as conductor. And so, when the concerto was recorded - only a few months after the "premiere" - he engineered things so that the bits that actually were put on record were the ones conducted be Pedro FB! But when the record was released, what one could read on the label was Ravel's name... Poor man, he had to comply with the contract.... Of course PFB knew the secret - and his wife too. But PFB was such a chivalrous gentleman that he never gave the secret away. Not even after Ravel's early death! Only in the 80's or something did the sound engineer at the time, in his Memoirs, put the record straight... I suppose this is a fascinating bit of Music History. And this may help explain why at least some early recordings by Ravel on piano rolls are of such high quality. A few years later things began to deteriorate... Shared on Google+
I have to correct a point in the above note: the first performance of the Concerto in G took place in Paris (yes...), with soloist Marguerite Long (yes...), but on January 14, 1932 (and not February 1932...), with Ravel conducting the Orchestre Lamoureux. Shared on Google+
maseratic boychik Difficult to judge a conductor based off a performance of his own music.
TomCL 2000 why?
What an honor to hear Ravel play himself, even though it's not really a recording of him playing rather an exact impersonation!
the ending of the whole set of pieces is incredible, my jaw dropped
1. Modéré, très franc
2. 1:10 Assez lent, avec une expression intense
3. 3:07 Modéré
4. 4:26 Assez animé
5. 5:25 Presque lent, dans un sentiment intime
6. 6:33 Vif
7. 7:09 Moins vif
8. 9:50 Lent
Thanks
braviiiissssimo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! merci Mo Ravel R.I.P.
Great historic musical moment! Great video!
This is such an interesting bit of history.In my opinion Ravel’s phrasing is more reminiscent of a jazz pianist’s sensibility than that of a classical pianist’s.wonderful and whimsical interpretation of this incredible music he has composed
Indeed, at least you could say the stance toward the text approaches Jazz. And he wrote the text. This is the kind of rubato you can’t buy:)
Astute observation. You'd be interested to know that Ravel's style of playing is also very reminiscent of romantic-era pianism in which tempo flexibility, rolled chords and numerous other expressive nuances were quite commonplace.
Wow, if that is really a 100 year old recording, it is the most amazing one I have ever heard!
You misunderstand. It's a mechanically re-produced performance via something analogous to a player-piano roll. Hence, the explanation "Ravel's 1913 Welte Mignon reproducing piano recording." The device captured how he played it in 1913, and that data is read and converted to playing on a modern-day instrument.
Mezzotenor And your point? It's a Welte Mignon recording.
Paul Gronemeier Mezzotenor was explaining to Steve Miller that the recording is a piano roll recording, not an audio recording which is why it is devoid of all the usual crackles and pops of early 20th century phonograph recordings. He assumes that Steve Miller didn't know that Welte Mignon meant piano roll.
Yes. And thank you. The information was welcome.
My favorite composer.❤
2:57 Such a beautiful dissolution
Am I imagnig it or do I hear a lot of Gershwin?? Or does Gershwin sound a lot like Ravel? I know they were friends!
I believe Gershwin sought instruction from Ravel to which Ravel declined to teach him and replied "Why should you be a second-rate Ravel when you can be a first-rate Gershwin?"
Ravel's waltzes were written when Gershwin was 12 or 13. So there couldn't be any Gershwin influence on Ravel. His late works were definitely influenced by Gershwin, especially both piano concertos and the violin Sonata.
@@LukeJonesPiano I think that was not Ravel but Nadia Boulanger.
@@andrewpetersen5272 He asked Ravel first. Ravel declined and asked him to go to Nadia Boulanger.
Gershwin greatly admired Ravel and had hoped to study from him whilst in France. Ravel replied with the famous “I don’t want to turn you into a second-rate Ravel when you’re already a first-rate Gershwin. Ravel recommended Boulanger, but she said something along the lines of “what could I give you that you don’t already have?” I also believe at some point Ravel and Gershwin discussing $, and upon hearing how much Gershwin made, Ravel joking “maybe I should be taking lessons from YOU” (altho I’m not sure if that part is just legend). The piano concerto has more explicit “nods” to Gershwin/jazz. It would appear they influenced each other thru-out their friendship / association with one another!
The Welte-Mignon technology is an recording process which is nowadays nearly no more recognized but one must see that one can hear only with Welte-Mignon the LIVE-playing of the great compososers or pianists. With old shellac records one can only hear it through a speaker, and even with a digitalized shellac recording a live hearing is not possible, only the sound is besser than from the original record. Therefore the Welte-Mignon technology will last also in the future as the only possibility for live-hearing the famous musicians. One can't see the musicians, but through the live-hearing it seems if they were in the same room.
Great heritage! I guess this recording is based on so-called piano roll. But it doesn't a matter to me, coz the performance sounds surprisingly contemporary. And I can imagine how Ravel played piano. It's a hidden joy.
4:26 ここから先の部分、YMO極初期のライブで坂本龍一さんが演奏してましたね♪
Wow! This is a mind blowing experience! I need to find a Welte that plays like this piano. What make and size of piano is this installed in? Please do tell. Thanks so much.
"Ravel avait bien derrière lui au moment de la déclaration de guerre [1914] l'essentiel de son oeuvre. Il ne devait plus retrouver cette fécondité et cette verve. Si son cas était solitaire, on se contenterait de l'enregistrer. On ne l'imputerait certainement pas à ses états de service militaire, qui furent modestes, malgré lui : très patriote, sans la jactance antiteutonne de Debussy, et malgré son horreur du ruban rouge, le frêle petit Ravel qui fit des pieds et des mains pour être incorporé et rêvait même d'être aviateur, fut réformé après un an de campagne dans une formation automobile. Mais on a observé chez d'autres musiciens des cassures analogues, que les historiens de l'an 2000 distingueront mieux que nous. Les douze premières années de notre siècle, celles de Pelléas, des Ballets russes, du Sacre du printemps, du Swann de Proust, du meilleur de Valéry, de Gide, de Claudel, de l'atonalité, des principes de la psychanalyse freudienne, en peinture des Nabis, des Fauves, des expressionnistes, des cubistes, eurent une puissance créatrice que rien ne devait égaler plus tard. L'Europe y prodiguait à la hâte son génie, comme si elle eût pressenti que sa suprématie était condamnée. Toute notre époque n'a-t-elle pas vécu ensuite sur le mouvement de cet éblouissant prélude, brisé par le canon d'août 1914 ?" (Lucien Rebatet, Une Histoire de la Musique).
C'est à dire: le Concerto en Sol et le Concerto pour la main gauche sont encore des chefs-d'oeuvre novateurs!... IMO the Concerto in G and the Concerto for the left hand are still admirable and innovative masterpieces!... Shared on Google+
Hum Bartok Prokofiev Britten Dutilleux Ligeti ....et tous les autres c'est pas la peine.
@@jeanphilippevasseur1763 Entièrement d'accord. C'est l'opinion de Lucien Rebatet, qui est très discutable. J'ajouterais Berg, Krenek, Sibelius, Honegger et même Poulenc.
De Wikipedia: "Rebatet ne parvient plus à se plier à la discipline d'écriture qui lui avait permis, durant son emprisonnement [pour collaboration pendant l'occupation], de terminer Les Deux Étendards. Il se lance dans la rédaction d'un nouveau roman intitulé La Lutte finale mais, après en avoir écrit environ 1 500 pages, échoue à le terminer. Il abandonne définitivement ce livre pour se consacrer à la rédaction d'Une histoire de la musique, publiée en 1969. Cet essai de Rebatet est régulièrement cité en référence, bien que les jugements portés tant sur les compositeurs que sur leurs œuvres soient souvent empreints de la subjectivité de leur auteur et très tributaires des préjugés esthétiques en cours à l'époque : dithyrambes réservés à quelques « grands » - souvent germaniques - (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Debussy), et relatif mépris pour Maurice Ravel et certains Scandinaves et Slaves comme Sibelius, Grieg, Dvořák, Tchaïkovski, ainsi que pour une certaine tradition lyrique française (Auber, Gounod, Thomas, Reyer, Massenet, Saint-Saëns, Bruneau, Charpentier). Sans surprise, Rebatet a des jugements tranchés sur Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, George Gershwin, Halévy, dont le chef-d'œuvre La Juive est qualifié « de terrible mélodrame médiéval et raciste ». Il fait toutefois preuve d'audace dans des choix modernes sur Boulez ou Xenakis"
@@brkahn Ah, Wikipedia... Berlioz et Debussy "germaniques"... Bravo ! Tout est à reprendre, tout est faux. Rebatet n'éprouve aucun mépris envers Charpentier, il en fait au contraire l'éloge : "C'est la marque du grand siècle"... Quant à faire croire que c'est "sans surprise" que Rebatet n'aime pas Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Halévy (dont "La Juive" est très loin d'être un chef-d'oeuvre, évidemment), c'est d'une mauvaise foi typique de Wikipedia puisque, par ailleurs, Rebatet dresse l'éloge de Mahler, Schoenberg, etc.
I wish we could hear him play Scarbo.
Para historicistas Ravel dibuja al piano sus Valses Nobles y Sentimentales!!!
where can i buy this / can anyone share me a reasonably high quality audio file? this recording's been the only thing getting me thru work this month and i need it desperately ty ty ty
It's only available on CD. You can get it on amazon. Just search "Ravel as Pianist and Conductor".
ty ty ty
Google “TH-cam to high quality mp3” straight from this vid to your computer. no cd needed. You’re welcome.
Absolument merveilleux, même si Ravel n'est pas le meilleur interprète de Ravel, et que ce piano n'est pas le top des pianos !!!
En fait c'est juste le rythme qui est intéressant, parce que hélas le Piano Roll par définition n'est pas en mesure de créer une nuance piano/forte de grand qualité !!! l'air passe ou non dans le trou !!!
if Ravel is not the best interpreter of Ravel, one has to ask, "who is?"
it only makes ravel greater composer, because if someone other than the composer can perform the compositions better, it means that the piece has far more space and possibility for variety of interpretation, which opens a wide door to freedom of musical imagination of the musicians....
Classy ...
No one like Ravel..before or after...
Bro wtf 💀
?
RAVEL is MAD
Ravel made no bones about being a better composer than pianist. However, this early 1913 recording of the Valses is much a much better and successful testament to his pianistic skills than his idiosyncratic recording of Sonatina, that is absolutely dreadful! Very interesting.
+Michael Cowan I tend to agree.
his "Sonatina " is best I heard I commented just now his playing ...
喜びと閃きに満ちた素晴らしい演奏ですね。勿論、この音源がラヴェルの遺したピアノロールを現代のテクノロジーで解釈した、ある種の虚構であることは察しています。ただ、ラヴェルは往時の最新のテクノロジーに関心を示しつつ、失われた時に過剰なまでの愛着を抱いた人物だと伝えられています。この演奏がこんなに自由で明るく響く理由は、そんな所にもあるのかもしれません。
It seems very likely this is not Ravel playing, but rather Robert Casadesus. "He never made records of his solo piano works. He did make some piano rolls, a medium in which mistakes were easy to correct. But the pianist Gaby Casadesus admitted years after the fact that when the more difficult Ravel pieces were recorded on piano rolls her husband Robert had done the playing, and the Duo-Art company issued them under Ravel’s name."
Thanks for your comment. Curious what the source of your quote is.
I ask because I’ve dedicated my graduate research to reproducing piano roll recording technologies, specifically the Welte Mignon and Duo Art recordings of Ravel, and while it is true that Casadesus’s performances of the Toccata and the Anime from Sonatine were attributed to the composer, there is no evidence that the valses nobles et sentimentales were. Casadesus’s pianistic style was markedly different from Ravel’s, and this recording exhibits all of the hallmarks of Ravel’s playing. The Welte Company had a philosophy of minimal intervention in the recording and editing processes of the artist’s recordings, which is evident in the Ravel rolls. The VNES are not particularly difficult, either, and well within Ravel’s technical capabilities.
@@davidofpiano423 I remember in the 1970s being perplexed by the casual approach to the text in some of the Ravel rolls as reproduced on a vinyl LP (in Oiseaux Tristes, no attempt is made at reproducing the tempo relationship between bars 1-3 and bar 4). As you'll know (I mention it here only for the benefit of other readers) the issue of Casadesus having recorded some of the rolls is covered in "The Cambridge Companion to Ravel" (Cambridge University Press), but the roll of Valses Nobles et Sentimentales is acknowledged as authentic in the Critical Commentary of the best available urtext edition of this work, edited by Roger Nichols. Although many years ago I played the Valses several times in concert, I have only recently become aware of this roll, and as I am scheduled to perform the work again next year I need to reconsider my approach to the score in view of this important sound document, although whether Ravel himself ever viewed his free (and inaccurate!) playing in this roll as a model to be studied by pianists a century later is questionable - maybe in trying to do so we're attaching too much significance to a roll that Ravel never expected to have much circulation or influence (the balancing of inner voices is erratic here, and I don't know enough about piano rolls to know whether that's due to the technology or the playing). Whether we seek to emulate aspects of Ravel's playing or not, it's fascinating to hear this incomparable genius at the piano. Thanks for uploading it.
I know this recording is attributed to Ravel, but it's probably not him actually playing. He was a great, great composer, but not so good on the piano. Once, he was asked to perform Jeux d'eau in recital and he declined with the words "but I have never played it in my life!" There are harder things in these waltzes than are found in the earlier work.
It is definitely Ravel's playing. Of course not actually him on this recording since it is a reproducing piano roll, but Welte Mignon rolls are very accurate, and this represents his playing faithfully as Ravel himself approved the recording prior to its release.
You may be right, but many people disagree, including (as I recall) the foremost scholar on the work of Ravel, Arbie Orenstein. I'm inclined to believe this Ravel's good friend, Robert Casadesus, playing.
It is accepted as fact among all credentialed Ravel scholars that Casadesus played on the third movement of the Sonatine recording attributed to Ravel, which is why all current releases of the Ravel piano rolls exclude this movement. There was also a piano roll recording of Jeux D'eau that was attributed to Ravel up until about the 1960's, but it was later revealed to be Casadesus. Orenstein, Woodley, Nichols, Leikin, Hinson as well as the Pianola Institute and every scholar of the Welte Company's recordings all agree that every other piano roll recording attributed to Ravel aside from the aforementioned two are in fact his playing.
Think about it logically, why would there be two recordings of vastly higher quality of playing while the rest possess all of the telltale eccentricities and technical flaws of Ravel's playing? Trust me, I've read everything that has ever been written about Ravel in French and English and am writing my master's thesis on this exact subject. It's Ravel.
It might not be Ravel playing it, but when he says "I have never played it" it means that he had not, not that he could not. It should raise no eyebrows for a composer not to be prepared to perform or to have to practice (a lot) to perform his or her own composition. It has happened to me more than once.
@@davidofpiano423 Unlike the acoustic recordings made up until the availability of tape recording, it was (is) possible to edit the piano roll recordings. I have read that many rolls were touched up to repair wrong notes. So even if Welte Mignon could capture notes, rhythms, and even finger pressure on the keys, it would still be possible for a pianist with not so reliable fingers to produce a perfect performance after retouching.
I don't know. Ravel wasn't that good, and the chords of this piece are hard to reach and Ravel couldn't reach an octave. I hope it is him, but I don't think so.
Thank you for your comment. I have done extensive research on this topic, and while there are a few instances in which other pianists substituted in Ravel's stead for the more virtuosic movements of his repertoire (Robert Casadesus for the 3rd movement of the Sonatine), I can assure you, this piano role is definitely Ravel. Ravel was diminutive in stature, however he was able to stretch a 9th, albeit not with ease, and certainly had an octave. Despite this, you are correct that some elements of this recording do not remain consistent with Ravel's original performance. These instances are a result of the transfer process of the original piano rolls to modern reproducing equipment, in which nuances of pedaling and dynamics are only crudely preserved and have been corrected by the piano roll engineers. Additionally, the original tempo is not preserved which may account for the speedy playback (my only complaint about this recording). There are only a few people in the world whose expertise is this transfer process, and the record company that published this recording uses only the best people in the field.
-David
So, it is Ravel himself? That's great, but I wonder why he didn't play the Valses in his american tour, because it sounds like he managed them pretty well. Well, if this is him that's wonderful.
davidofpiano423 How does the tempo change in the transfer process of the piano rolls to modern reproducing equipment? I thought it would be possible to reproduce the original tempo...
MIP Musically Informed Performance Takes a long time to explain but I highly recommend you read Professor Anatole Leikin's book, "The Performance Style of Alexander Scriabin". In it, professor Leikin goes into wonderful detail as to the mechanics of several piano roll mediums and how one can navigate the shortcomings of modern reproductions to arrive at a clearer picture of a composer's performance style. It's a great book and professor Leikin does a much better job answering the question than I can =)
+davidofpiano423 Thanks for the recommendation! I will definitely have a look!
Great composer, bad pianist ;)
+Xavier Flament Not a "bad" pianist - a competent pianist, really quite surprising keyboardist considering his main activity was as a composer. Not "schooled" playing but playing with the insights of the creator, which makes this recording invaluable. This recording much superior to his messy recording of his Sonatine.
You're right!
Bad Pianist?? Get real..
If this is indeed Ravel without retouching of wrong notes, etc., and not anyone else playing, then this is no bad playing. These pieces are immensely difficult. They demand considerable technique and a very sharp mind.