Ravel vs. Sibelius

[Benji]

Not much has been said about Sibelius on this forum either.  All they do is compare recordings. Pretty boring really.  The Bruckner thread is worse though.

It's the tyranny of choice! If we only had one recording of each work we'd be forced to speak more about the music itself. Ideally of course we could all read music and we would just discuss the very score itself.

Hmmmm... I wonder if we all learnt to read music properly (I can, but very slowly) we could convince Karl and Luke to teach us some advanced music appreciation and composition. University of GMG! 

[Luke]

Yes, the music is so good, there is just nothing to say about it.   

Well, hey, personally I could talk about Ravel all day and all night, and about Sibelius for....rather less, so I guess it's not quite that simple. I reckon David's reasoning is quite close to the mark - the whole symphony-cycle-collecting-thing which is the same reason we get big VW threads, big Bruckner threads, big Mahler threads and smaller (for instance) Debussy threads....

[Superhorn]

   I find all these comparisons rather silly;pure apples and oranges
   and nothing but false dichotomies. 
    Even though I think the music of Sibelius far much greater profundity,I still enjoy the music of Ravel. Sibelius used to say that while other composers of his day created musical cocktails,
his music was pure,cold,fresh water.  I suppose you could make this comparison between him and Ravel.
   Ravel's music isn't profound,but it was not intended to be that.
  His music is elegant,sparkling and colorful . It's valid on its own terms. Music doesn't have to be profound,but on the other hand,there's nothing wrong with profundity,either. 

[karlhenning]

Not much has been said about Sibelius on this forum either.  All they do is compare recordings. Pretty boring really.  The Bruckner thread is worse though.

Gotta keep quiet in an abbey . . . .

[Luke]

   Ravel's music isn't profound,but it was not intended to be that.

Strongly disagree - there are different types of profundity, and not all have to be Germanic-Teutonic-Symphonic-Serioso-Cataclismo in type (not speaking of Sibelius here, necessarily, and I have tongue in cheek, but even so...). Ravel's music reaches deeper parts of me than almost any other composer, and it does so, for the most part, gently, humourously, tenderly. The picture of Ravel as a surface composer of glitter and glamour with little humanity in him is very far off the mark, and it's why I so strongly advocate his songs, and his chamber music.

[Scarpia]

Well, hey, personally I could talk about Ravel all day.

And yet, you haven't.   

I reckon David's reasoning is quite close to the mark - the whole symphony-cycle-collecting-thing which is the same reason we get big VW threads, big Bruckner threads, big Mahler threads and smaller (for instance) Debussy threads....

Symphony cycle listening implies symphony cycle listening and passion to hear the music with a fresh interpretation.  If you can twist that into a negative you really should be a politician.     

[Brian]

And yet, you haven't.

Some people (though not me) have lives outside of the forum...

[DavidW]

Some people (though not me) have lives outside of the forum...

What!?  That's crazy talk man!

[Keemun]

Sibelius, which was for me a no-brainer. 

[Brahmsian]

I patiently await the opening of the Dittersdorf vs Albreictburger thread.   

[Mirror Image]

As I said in the Grieg vs. Rachmaninov vs. Ravel, etc. thread, Ravel will always win for me against Sibelius, but if you pit Ravel against composers that I share almost an equal ethusiasm for (i.e. Bartok, Bruckner, Villa-Lobos, Vaughan Williams), then it becomes extremely diffcult and I simply won't choose.

Over the years, Sibelius has interested me less and less whereas for many people he has made a lifelong fan. He composed some great works, but I seldom listen to him much anymore. I'm beginning to like his contemporary, Nielsen, much more.

[Philoctetes]

Page count is high for composers that attract ocd multiple recorditis collectors.  Ravel is good enough one doesn't need 20 recordings of each of his works to "get" him.

And at least for me, I really don't care to talk about music all that much.

[Mirror Image]

And at least for me, I really don't care to talk about music all that much.

No kidding.

[greg]

Easily Ravel for me, although I like both.

[Wanderer]

I won't indulge the threadmaker in this one, sorry.

So, both.

[Luke]

And yet, you haven't.   

No, I haven't, but that is because I am and always have been a reactive rather than a proactive poster, except in the case of my own composer's thread. If talk is on Ravel, I will gabble on about him for ages, as I have, to the extent that work will allow, for the last few days!

Symphony cycle listening implies symphony cycle listening and passion to hear the music with a fresh interpretation.  If you can twist that into a negative you really should be a politician.   

LOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the recordings which is driving it on to great length.

As I say, I think that's a great thing to talk about, I find it incredibly interesting and rewarding and it's one of the things I love most about GMG. But as far as talking about the composers themselves and their music go, it's less fascinating, except at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others). Personally I'm not great at talking about recordings, I'm much better talking about actual notes. But then I also, maybe perversely, think that the notes themselves tell us SO much, reveal so much, even when divorced from recordings and examined in the abstract as they first appeared from the composer's pen. So to me, Ravel is not just a composer of beautiful music which enriches my life - if he were, there wouldn't be much to say about him beyond the recording comparison. He, and his music, are also, intellectually fascinating in and of him/itself, and personally I find that things like the following score details tell me as much about him/it as any biography - they stimulate me intellectually, as I say, and they fire me up to talk about him more than comparing two recordings of these pieces would. I talk only personally (and I could substitue many other composers including Sibelius for Ravel's name here, though Ravel, I find, is richer in these things than most other composers)

[Scarpia]

I find it disingenuous to dismiss the exhaustive discussion of Sibelius performances (and that is what is discussed, the recorded performances, not the recordings per se) as merely a manifestation of "obsessive collecting."   It is a manifestation of people who are intently interested in the music and want to hear every aspect of it, and every possible interpretation.  That is passionate interest in the music.  The fact that the almost complete lack of discussion of Ravel is supposed to indicate the nobility of feeling for the music is absurd.  By that argument, Dittersdorf must be even more exquisit than Ravel, since he is discussed even less.   

I can only assume that Ravel lovers consider his music as something that should be tinkling in the background as they clean lint out of their belly-buttons, so one recording suffices.   0:)

No, I haven't, but that is because I am and always have been a reactive rather than a proactive poster, except in the case of my own composer's thread. If talk is on Ravel, I will gabble on about him for ages, as I have, to the extent that work will allow, for the last few days!

LOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the recordings which is driving it on to great length.

As I say, I think that's a great thing to talk about, I find it incredibly interesting and rewarding and it's one of the things I love most about GMG. But as far as talking about the composers themselves and their music go, it's less fascinating, except at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others). Personally I'm not great at talking about recordings, I'm much better talking about actual notes. But then I also, maybe perversely, think that the notes themselves tell us SO much, reveal so much, even when divorced from recordings and examined in the abstract as they first appeared from the composer's pen. So to me, Ravel is not just a composer of beautiful music which enriches my life - if he were, there wouldn't be much to say about him beyond the recording comparison. He, and his music, are also, intellectually fascinating in and of him/itself, and personally I find that things like the following score details tell me as much about him/it as any biography - they stimulate me intellectually, as I say, and they fire me up to talk about him more than comparing two recordings of these pieces would. I talk only personally (and I could substitue many other composers including Sibelius for Ravel's name here, though Ravel, I find, is richer in these things than most other composers)

[Luke]

I find it disingenuous to dismiss the exhaustive discussion of Sibelius performances (and that is what is discussed, the recorded performances, not the recordings per se) as merely a manifestation of "obsessive collecting."   It is a manifestation of people who are intently interested in the music and want to hear every aspect of it, and every possible interpretation.  That is passionate interest in the music. 

I don't recall using the phrase "obsessive collecting." I recall saying that discussions which compare many recordings of pieces tend to make for long threads. I fail to see the problem with this. The disingenuity is in pretending that I said anything otherwise.

The fact that the almost complete lack of discussion of Ravel is supposed to indicate the nobility of feeling for the music is absurd.  By that argument, Dittersdorf must be even more exquisit than Ravel, since he is discussed even less.   

Again - did anyone actually say this, make this argument you are syaing they did? No, they just said that length of thread doesn't necessarily correlate to the musical quality of the subject. Otherwise we must all concede that Elgar is a good deal greater than most of us would tend to rate him.

[Philoctetes]

Again - did anyone actually say this, make this argument you are syaing they did? No, they just said that length of thread doesn't necessarily correlate to the musical quality of the subject. Otherwise we must all concede that Elgar is a good deal greater than most of us would tend to rate him.

Doesn't Saul have like a 50 page thread dedicated to his classical compositions?

[Brian]

except at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others).

Oh thank goodness you think so! When somebody complained that all the Sibelius talk was comparing recordings, I immediately was consumed by the belief that I am a primary, in fact the primary, guilty party.

Phew! Got away with it that time...  0:)