Review: The Ravel Complete Works from Warner
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2020
- Talk about complete! You not only get all of the standard stuff, but piano versions of all of the orchestral works, Ravel's transcriptions of music by other composers, and a whole slew of historical recordings--including Ravel conducting and playing his own works. That makes this box the one to own if you're looking for the most complete Ravel collection possible.
- เพลง
This comparison Decca vs Warner is exactly what I was looking for! Thanks
Great review again David, thank you. I once heard that Bolero recording with Ravel conducting and it was a shock to hear how bad the orchestra was with all the solo instruments coming in and playing off tune and/or shaky. But amazing to hear how things apparently sounded when Ravel himself conducted.
I remember picking up a complete Ravel orchestral works on Vox in the 70's. A 2 LP collection with Skrowaczeski and Minnesota -- I have no idea what I would think of it now! But here, They really do mean complete! Sounds like a lot of goodies to check out. Must do my homework...
You mentioned all the reasons for my decision never to bought af Composers All In One Box. Because, I have to supply with all the good ones that’s not in the box.
I have problem enough with conductor boxes, because I forget whats in the Ozawa, Munch, Martinon etc.
A good learning, thanks ;-)
Very timely. I was just looking at this on Amazon the other day and trying to decide whether to get it. I already have the Decca box. I could probably live without the historical recordings. I do prefer the sturdy box of the Warner.
Great Review, I have this in my Amazon Cart. I believe it's a bargain for the price.
Keep up the great work, and I will join your website soon.
It's such a pleasure to have someone with your knowledge and humor, break down the complications of buying Classical Music.
R.J.Smith
Thank you for watching!
They should really do next a Satie box: the Warner catalogue (which includes EMI and Erato) has tons of Satie recordings
And they did it. Video to come, perhaps.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Please!
Thank you, I was waiting for a comprehensive commentary on Ravel recordings, I absolutely love his music. That "Celibidache 21-disc Bolero" comment made me laugh out loud, since slowness is the thing that always comes to my mind when listening to him and it's really annoying. In a Ravel set of my dreams, companies would be able to borrow from one another so that this would include for example MDG's gorgeous Bavouzet recordings of Ravel's solo piano music, with everything clear, sensual, phrases unfolding naturally, and with alluring timbres from that beautiful piano palette. But dreams seldom make into real-world recordings. I regret they didn't choose Michelangeli's concerto in G, which I adore. That slow movement alone, with the singing line always delicately hued and the magical contribution of Mr. Gareth Morris in one of the most beautiful orchestral entrances ever, is worth the asking price. I'm sorry, I diverged a bit, but I really love so much of the music this video is about!
As always, a joy to listen to you speaking with such enthusiasm (and lack of enthusiasm where necessary!). I would love to hear you speak about available recordings of music by Chabrier, a composer who is often looked down upon as an 'amateur', but who was loved so greatly by his compatriots Debussy, Ravel and expecially Poulenc, who wrote a lovely short biography of him.
Whilst I was at university, our student orchestra was given the music to play Espana, and some of the players were very snooty about it: 'why are we playing this trash when we could be playing Pierre Boulez' (I made that up but I think you'll get the picture!!). Our professor of music, who was conducting, had the splendid response 'We are playing this because you will learn more from Chabrier about orchestration than I could ever teach you' - that shut them up!
His operas are lumbered with incomprehensible libretti, and he was no symphonist, but the music! A little-performed work but well worth investigation is his 'Ode a la Musique' for female chorus, soprano soloist and orchestra. At the rehearsal for the premiere, Debussy was present. After the run-through, he asked the conductor to play it through again. Afterwards, the conductor asked him why he wanted the repeat performance: what was wrong the first time? Debussy answered 'There was nothing wrong at all; I simply loved it so much I wanted to hear it again!'
I like the 17+ minutes of the Skrowaczewski Bolero. I guess Munch had to add the slow version to his discography since he already had the super fast and the medium tempo versions in Boston.
Dear Esteemed Mr. Hurwitz, I was not criticizing you when I shared my understanding of the way a Belgian told me how Cluytens was to be pronounced; if this shadow has offended, think but this and all is mended: that I just tarried here for a brief moment and then went my way. P.S. I STILL don't know how to pronounce the man's name, but in the light of his superb musicianship and legacy of recordings, it doesn't matter. I agree with you 100% about the Martinon 'Ma mere l'Oye,' one of my 'desert island' discs! I LOVE your reviews! You are in rare form indeed for this one.
You may criticize all you like--it's all in good fun and I don't mind at all. I appreciate learning how to do things correctly, whether or not I actually will!
Odd that Warner elected to go with the same "all-star hodgepodge" approach we see in the Universal Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven complete megasets when, in their own Beethoven box, they made a point of sticking to one performer or ensemble for each major cycle of works to maintain "interpretive integrity."
And don’t you think arrangements for "two-piano, five hands" sounds like something Peter Schiekele would dream up?
What would be your recommendation for the best OVERALL collection of the orchestral works David? And not necessarily a kitchen sink collection I mean. I have the Martinon boxset that includes Debussy's orchestral works, but perhaps a better sonically recorded one than this?
Check the Ravel Playlist. It's discussed.
You know, I have been breaking my tongue on Cluytens for years. It's a Dutch (or in this case Flemish) surname, in which 'uy' is pronounced like 'ou' in 'house (Scottish English)' according to Wikipedia -- i.e. a vowel that doesn't exist in English. However, in France, where the man lived and worked, 'uy' becomes something 'between wet and yet' (again Wikipedia). So the most common corruption doesn't exist in English either. The bottom line is that no one outside of the Netherlands and Belgium can pronounce Cluytens correctly, so you can bend it into Clewtens or whatever you like and still do at least as good a job as the French.
Thank you. That's good to know.
That makes sense - the surname of Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens is correctly pronounced something like "Houchens", with a throat-clearing "ch" as in Scottish, Welsh or German.
Dear gentleman, perhaps a little experiment would be of some use to hit the Dutch vowel 'ui' spot on, if you would care to try. So there we go!
Please take a good breath and pronounce 'I'(as in eye), and then transfer the sound to 'U' (as in you). So Àhhyeuuu'. Now somehere in the middle of this trajectory, between 'Ahhye-' and '-uuu', , you hit the 'ui'-vowel, used in Dutch and its Femish dialect, spot on.
Cluytens and Huygens are pronounced flawlessly with this 'ui', as are mundane Dutch words as 'ui' (onion) and 'bui'(shower). Not suggesting, of course, that the forementioned great men could be compared to a shower and an onion, although i wouldn't deny anyone the freedom to hold and express such an opinion..
Available for live practicing on Skype or Teams (not that i have any authority on the subject :-) )
And thanks So much mr. Hurwitz for your great great music tours and essays on this channel
I bought this on Amazon mainly because the price was so good-less than two dollars a disc. The only disappointment was that it did not have the suites from Daphne et Chloe. Now I know that would be repetitious but there is so much repetition anyway in the goal of completeness. I had the same problems you did in trying to figure out who performed what. That could've been handled better.
Problem with Decca/Universal set: it does not include Pictures at an Exhibition! How can Decca have "complete" Ravel without Pictures at an Exhibition ..??
Piano five hands...I feel like a many-headed hydra is about to tear me limb from limb. It does seem like the orchestral works in this box are curated in a suboptimal way, by someone trying to cover way too many bases at the same time. With that number of works selected, I suppose it is inevitable each of us will have a few favored recordings omitted. I’m intrigued by the glacially slow Munch Bolero, I may have to check that out. Mostly, this review wants me to listen to a lot more Cluytens (I’ll leave the worthy points on pronunciation to others in the comments).
Dave, you sang the praises of Dutoit's recording of Daphnis et Chloe. Yet you don't like his rendition of the other Ravel orchestral works. What did he do in Daphnis that he did not do in the other Ravel works?
Listen and judge for yourself!
I'm just waiting for the "big" Chausson box.
With the best recording of the symphony...
...
...
Ansermet! Seriously!
Or maybe a box of all of them.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sure - it still wouldn't be a very big box.
I was enjoying this video and looking forward to the comparison, until two and a half minutes in, when you described Dutoit as boring... 😱 I hereby officially disagree in the strongest possible way! That particular Dutoit/Montreal recording of Ma Mère L'Oye is high up on the list of most beautiful recordings I have ever heard. It is perfection.
Glad you think so. I find it colorless and dull, as with most of his Ravel (except that Daphnis). I suggest that you listen to the recommended recordings and compare them directly.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I tried listening to Boulez' recording with Berliner Philharmoniker from 1994. I guess we are just looking for different things. I like some parts of Boulez' version, like Petit poucet and Laideronnette. In other parts I feel his tempo is too fast, and I find Ravel's beautiful melodies suffer as a result. The most important part of Ma Mère L'Oye to me are the last five minutes, and in Dutoit's version, those big swelling crescendos hit me with such an impact that I fail to hold back tears. Boulez does that part way too fast and too "schematic" for me. Dutoit takes his time, and pulls out every last drop of emotion from every chord. So much of the emotional impact comes from the small tempo variations, I find the way Dutoit holds back and makes those transitions in these last five minutes simply magical. In addition, I prefer the warm, lush sound of the Montreal recording over the more "bombastic" sounding Berlin recording in this case. Maybe I just want a softer and warmer sounding Ravel. I personally feel his music asks for that kind of performance, and that Dutoit "gets" it. But that's what it is - personal. Lucky for us that we can both listen to the version that gives us the most :) I will of course listen to the other recommended recordings also. Cheers!
@@eirik_myhr You hear what you hear. I dislike Dutoit's distended tempos, the unnecessary pauses between phrases, and the grey texture of the orchestra strings. The best version on that music is Giulini's on Sony. Try to hear it. It sings. This is not a dirge, nor is it sad. Wistful, yes, but not dismal. Dutoit is dismal, relatively speaking. But as I said, it speaks to you differently, evidently, and that's just fine.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I will check out Giulini, thanks for the tip. I appreciate the fact that we can disagree about stuff on the internet without calling names! You seem to have some very valid perspectives, I will be sure to check out more of your videos.
@@eirik_myhr Thank you. Let me know if you hear the Giulini, and what you think, It is very different than Dutoit.
Tzigane...terrible indeed!
Bolero is FAR FAR FAR worse than Tzigane, which is nifty awesome. Hurwitz is wrong on that account; Ravel himself spoke completely contemptuously of the Bolero, so that certainly has to be taken into consideration...
No, actually it doesn't. Tchaikovsky hated almost everything he wrote, and Ravel actually made a recording of Bolero, so that has to be taken into consideration too. I prefer to focus on what composers do rather than what they say. Actions speak louder than words. Ravel never discussed Tzigane because it was so awful it was not even worthy of a mention. But of course if you love Tzigane, that's your prerogative.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think Ravel hated Bolero being his big 'hit', the same reason as Rachmaninoff hated the C# minor Prelude. It's no reflection on the music, as you say.
As Cluytens was Flemish by birth, his name should be pronounced approximately KLAH-tuhns. Of course, he spent most of his time in France, so your Kly-TAHNSE is probably okay too.
I'll stick to my way. That's OK too.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Since you speak French, the 'ui' or 'uy' in Dutch sounds like the 'eui' in feuille (leaf).
@@gillesderais3848 Tell that to the other experts!