Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie
View Post
Prom 15 - 28.07.14: BBC SO, Fliter / Pons
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostAs far as I know Ravel never did actually re-orchestrate "La Mer"; I agree with you about "Pictures", having in my possession an LP with one side consisting of the original Boston SO under Koussevitzky recorded on 28 October 1930 with Ravel present, which to my ears, despite being Victrola Electronically Created Stereo, has never been bettered.
Ravel wrote that Debussy’s “genius was obviously one of great individuality, creating its own laws, constantly in evolution, expressing itself freely, yet always faithful to French tradition. For Debussy, the musician and the man, I have had profound admiration, but by nature I am different from Debussy.” Ravel further stated, “I think I have always personally followed a direction opposed to that of the symbolism of Debussy.”
They admired each other’s music and Ravel even played Debussy’s work in public on occasion. However, Ravel did criticize Debussy sometimes, particularly regarding his orchestration, and he once said, "If I had the time, I would reorchestrate La mer."
By 1905, factions formed for each composer and the two groups began feuding in public. Disputes arose as to questions of chronology about their respective works and who influenced whom. The public tension caused personal estrangement. As Ravel said, “It is probably better after all for us to be on frigid terms for illogical reasons.”Ravel stoically absorbed superficial comparisons with Debussy promulgated by biased critics, including Pierre Lalo, an anti-Ravel critic who stated, “Where M. Debussy is all sensitivity, M. Ravel is all insensitivity, borrowing without hesitation not only technique but the sensitivity of other people.”During 1913, in a remarkable coincidence, both Ravel and Debussy independently produced and published musical settings for poems by Stéphane Mallarmé, again provoking comparisons of their work and their perceived influence on each other, which continued even after Debussy’s death five years later.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by kernelbogey View PostHer memory lapse towards the end of the slow movement was a disturbing distraction from a haunting performance, and it threw the wind section off for a bar or so as they came in.
BTW, anyone else think for two moments that Marianne Faithful had been dug up to give the prom?
Comment
-
-
I always find the disdain fhg and others feel for the "Mussorgsky/Ravel" thing a bit disconcerting, because...
1)Some of us (probably way too many ) got to know and love it that way, in my case long before I was aware of it as a piano piece, (except as a brief mention in an intro). So that -
2) The piano version (sorry, original) sounded 2ndhand and dull after that, even while I (tried) to admire Richter's playing of it... but -
3) I don't think I'll ever want to hear Pictures again, such was its overexposure as that "Mussorgsky/Ravel" thing back in the day (probably still, now...)
I bought the Naxos/Kuchar version last, only realising too late that the desire had gone... I'll always think of it with affection though... it was a great piece to airconduct at the end..
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jayne lee wilson View PostI always find the disdain fhg and others feel for the "Mussorgsky/Ravel" thing a bit disconcerting, because...
1)Some of us (probably way too many ) got to know and love it that way, in my case long before I was aware of it as a piano piece, (except as a brief mention in an intro).
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostI wouldn't worry about what other people think. I think Ravel's (and other orchestrators' versions) 1000% better than the piano version that the composer never got round to orchestrate. Had Ravel not rescued the music from potential oblivion, Pictures might well have been a recently discovered cult piece with a limited audience.
Comment
-
Comment