comparing recordings

[Brian]

I don't see any evidence that people's claims that the bells are done right, not done right, has any correlation to whether the bell is done right in my view.

Well, but although some people may have been vague, many were more specific:

17 – Haunting bells are these, and they serve as a perfect, steady, hypnotic underpinning

[#14] Bell is very nicely constant, not too prominent but always audible even in the thick of things without the need to manipulate its volume.

[#1] The bell is so consistent and independent it could be a second pianist.

One thing I particularly love is a couple of spots in the last part of the piece, where I can clearly hear the bell ring out in the lower octave without the upper - and sure enough, those are exactly the spots where the score shows me the usually dominant upper octave is silent.

Finally, although DavidRoss was critical of Bavouzet's "muffled" sound, others who voted against Bavouzet (e.g. BobsterLobster, Neal, MishaK, Anthony) said nothing of the acoustics. If recordings were being voted out purely because of sound quality, the dreadful-sounding #19 would have been gone a long time ago.

[Bogey]

This thread makes me wonder how much shelf room I would have if I pared it down to one recording of each.

[Pat B]

A 30 second sample on Amazon tells me a lot more about whether I will like a recording than all those words.

I think it's great that I can use both, even though neither is perfectly accurate.

Not being very familiar with Ravel, I find the Gaspard de la Nuit thread very interesting. Of course I'll take the ratings with a grain of salt. Based on the discussion, I'm going to check out Bavouzet despite his early exit.