SPF: Ravel vs. Grieg vs. R. Strauss vs. Elgar vs. Rachmaninoff

[karlhenning]

Great post, Luke.

[71 dB]

Elgar
:
:
:
Ravel / Rachmaninov / Strauss
:
:
:
Grieg

I'm surprised Elgar has so few advocates on this thread.

Are you?  I am here... 

[mc ukrneal]

FWIW I'd be in agreement with MI here - I absolutely adore Sibelius, but for every hard-won moment of granitic splendour or every surgingly overwhelming point of formal balance (oh, the 1st-2nd movement transition in the 5th symphony is running throuhg my head now!!!) that I derive from him and his large canvasses Ravel with his intricately detailed scores gives me countless moments of delight, bar after bar after bar of them. The hidden depths of his music move me deeply, he makes me gasp in astonishment, and makes me think. Technically speaking Ravel had one of the most complete equipments of any composer - as an orchestrator, as everyone says, but as a deeply individual harmonist and as a moulder of large forms too, for instance - and as a result he was able to compose like a wizard, repeatedly making sounds that no one else could make. One could say the same of Strauss...but, for me, Strauss's magic too often fails to work, he lacks Ravel's lightness and deftness and his humility too, I think - the humility that makes an airily-scored delicate work like Ma mere l'oye possible. All just IMO, just the way I hear things, and really to underscore that Ravel ranks so very, very high for me, not to denigrate the other two, who I love deeply also.

In general, sounds just fine to me. But I have to disagree about one part in particular. Strauss abounds in lightness and deftness when he wanted and this can be found in the songs, opera, and probably other pieces as well if I try to think about it. Of course, he didn't create a sound world like Ravel, but neither did Ravel create a sound world like Strauss.

I also think you are transferring 'humility' of person into the work. I'm not sure what a humble work even is in this sense. In any case, they all have enough marvels to keep us happy for years to come.

[Philoctetes]

For me it was relatively easy.

Narrowed it down to Strauss and Ravel.
Then looked at their piano output.
And it was decided.

[Wanderer]

Strauss abounds in lightness and deftness when he wanted and this can be found in the songs, opera, and probably other pieces as well if I try to think about it.

i.e. Burleske, Josephslegende or the early violin sonata.



And just to indulge the threadmaker, my choice regarding the original question would be Ravel and R. Strauss.  0:)

[Wanderer]

For those who like late Romantics, I recommend Hubert Parry (whom Elgar studied under and greatly admired), Franz Schmidt and Franz Srecher, if you've not already heard them.

Parry, Schmidt and Schreker. Looks like another poll ready to happen.



PS: All three recommendations are of course seconded.

[Mirror Image]

Parry, Schmidt and Schreker. Looks like another poll ready to happen.



PS: All three recommendations are of course seconded.

Schmidt would win this poll for me just for one composition: his Symphony No. 4. This symphony is a masterpiece of the genre.

[Sergeant Rock]

Strauss abounds in lightness and deftness when he wanted and this can be found in the songs, opera, and probably other pieces as well if I try to think about it.

Oboe Concerto
the Horn Concertos
Suite in B flat for 13 Wind Instruments op.4
Serenade for Wind Instruments op.7
Sonatine #1 "From an Invalid's Workshop"
Symphony for Winds "The Happy Workshop"
Duett Concertino


Sarge

[Sid]

I haven't got anything by Elgar other than two of the Pomp & Circumstance marches, but I have heard many of his works on radio. I particularly enjoyed The Dream of Gerontius, which was hailed by R. Strauss as one of the masterpieces of that time. I remember seeing a live performance of the Cello Concerto in the '90's and it actually made me tear up, which is rare. There is a very good disc on the ABC budget label Discovery which has that work and some others performed by Aussies, so I'll probably get that at some stage. He definitely had a flair for good string writing, & the concertos & his Serenade for Strings and his only String Quartet strongly attest to this...

[karlhenning]

The Dream of Gerontius and the Cello Concerto are top-drawer Elgar.

[Cato]

For those who would like to be acquainted with the operas of The Rach:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001Y4JI4/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1512G77J5CX247EV3Q55&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=507063831&pf_rd_i=5174

Not a bad price at all!

[DavidW]

The Dream of Gerontius and the Cello Concerto are top-drawer Elgar.

I like the cello concerto, the violin concerto and the string quartet.

[karlhenning]

And Falstaff!

[Octo_Russ]

Not a single vote for Grieg yet  his Piano Concerto is incredible, better than the Ravel in my opinion.

[Bulldog]

Not a single vote for Grieg yet  his Piano Concerto is incredible, better than the Ravel in my opinion.

That is a little surprising.  More surprising to me is Rachmaninoff's low vote total.

[Octo_Russ]

That is a little surprising.  More surprising to me is Rachmaninoff's low vote total.

I'm surprised too, why is Ravel so good?, i voted for Rachmaninov, i love his solo piano output, the 24 Preludes and Etudes tableaux are wonderful, Strauss's piano output is non existent, Elgar's isn't much better, Grieg in my opinion composed trifles, only Ravel gives him a run for his money, i really do feel that Rachmaninov's solo piano output is better than the other four Composers combined.

[Philoctetes]

I'm surprised too, why is Ravel so good?, i voted for Rachmaninov, i love his solo piano output, the 24 Preludes and Etudes tableaux are wonderful, Strauss's piano output is non existent, Elgar's isn't much better, Grieg in my opinion composed trifles, only Ravel gives him a run for his money, i really do feel that Rachmaninov's solo piano output is better than the other four Composers combined.

While I love the Rach, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think that Ravel's piano compositions are superior, or at least that I prefer them to his. Although, I love both of them.

[DavidW]

While I love the Rach, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think that Ravel's piano compositions are superior, or at least that I prefer them to his. Although, I love both of them.

Rach is just too heavy for me.  There is not enough color in his performances. I love those Ravel concertos, the only ones on par for 20th century are Prokofiev and Bartok.

[Luke]

I'm surprised too, why is Ravel so good?, i voted for Rachmaninov, i love his solo piano output, the 24 Preludes and Etudes tableaux are wonderful, Strauss's piano output is non existent, Elgar's isn't much better, Grieg in my opinion composed trifles, only Ravel gives him a run for his money, i really do feel that Rachmaninov's solo piano output is better than the other four Composers combined.

Better how? than Ravel's specifically, I mean? Just interested...

[Philoctetes]

Rach is just too heavy for me.  There is not enough color in his performances. I love those Ravel concertos, the only ones on par for 20th century are Prokofiev and Bartok.

And I'd rank his above both of theirs, but that's mostly because they simply haven't resonated with me yet (I'm not a huge fan of that percussive style). My favorite concertos for the piano though, in the 20th century, are the two composed by Shostakovich.