What’s the best complete set of Ravel’s piano music?

[Todd]

Is it




or





?

That's one tough call.

At the beginning of the year I picked up Abbey Simon's 1970s Vox recordings of Ravel's solo piano music and was simply amazed.  I'd tried Simon's Chopin before, and while it's good, it simply didn't prepare me for his Ravel.  I was used to a certain, almost straight-laced approach and sound to Ravel, even from the great Walter Gieseking.  Simon is pretty much as un-straight-laced as can be.  Everywhere and always he manipulates tempi and plays with such subtle dynamic shading that one cannot possibly hear everything in the first twenty hearings.  His flexibility and re-creative freedom is simply a marvel.  Every work is rendered fresh and new.  His Gaspard de la nuit is dashed off with a virtuosic arrogance that hides the virtuosity.  He plays brief passages of Scarbo in a blocky fashion, not because he's challenged, but because he's not challenged enough.  He tears into the piano version of La Valse with control and panache and a color palette most pianists can't touch.  Every other work, from the dazzling, appropriately sparkling Jeux d'eau to the serenely elegiac Pavane pour une infante défunte are mezmerizingly played.  Surely, though, the crown jewel in Simon's set is his titanic reading of Miroirs.  Never have I heard such fluidity and grace and swelling magnificence in Une barque sur L'océan, or rhythmic flexibility and solidity in Alborado del gracioso.  Combine Simon's playing with superb analog sound that allows his amazing color palate through in a way his Chopin recordings do not, and one has a treat of immense proportions.  An amazing, miraculous set!

I was sated.  Such a great recording of Ravel's piano music should suffice not just for a year, but for many years.  But then I picked up Jean-Efflam Bavouzet's recording on MDG.  His achievement is on the same level, yet is quite different.  The set opens with a Gaspard nearly the equal of Simon's, which is to say it's an extraordinary one.  Le Gibet, in particular, is haunting, and Scarbo mischievous and delivered in astonishing fashion.  From Miroirs, Oiseaux tristes deserves special mention, opening as it does in a most wondrous subdued manner and unfolding in a most natural and graceful way.  The small works all fare extraordinarily well, but Bavouzet delivers perhaps the best versions I've heard of both Valses nobles et sentimales and Le Tombeau de Couperin.  The Valses all sound absolutely magnificent: they have a gracefulness and effortless and flow that eludes other versions, which may even sound crude in comparison.  Le Tombeau is perhaps more impressive.  The three dance movements have the same effortlessness and gracefulness, and they posses a lightness and beauty and deep frivolity that simply amazes.  (Yes, deep frivolity.)  The more "serious" movements are so meticulously played that one can do nothing other than sit and listen in utter amazement.  Mr Bavouzet's technique is superb, his touch varied, colorful, and insightful.  (I simply must hear his Debussy!)  As to sound, well, I've read that Michelangeli once said something to the effect that no piano is good enough for Gaspard de la nuit.  If he had lived to hear this recording, he may very well change his mind.  The 1901 Steinway D sounds stunning, and the recording is beyond Audiophile perfect in every way.  Another amazing, miraculous set! 

Of course my opening question is rhetorical.  I love both these sets, but I cannot live without either Walter Gieseking or, especially, Robert Casadesus in this repertoire.  And of course there are other superb recordings of individual works, but these two sets are both special.  The Bavouzet, in particular, offers something special.  Here is proof that great pianism is not only not dead, it's thriving, if only one looks around a bit. 

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Thanks Todd. The only complete set I own is Gieseking and I enjoy his Ravel much more than his Debussy. I listened to some of Michelangeli's (far from a complete set) recently and was generally disappointed, given that I think he was the greatest interpreter of Debussy's piano music I've ever heard. Michelangeli's approach is so hyper-detailed and transparent, it is too much of a good thing; I think Gieseking had a superb sense of  how so subordinate some of that detail to the overall feeling and flow of the works--especially important in the extremely complex ones like Ondine and Scarbo.

I need to get Casadesus soon, but your two recommendations will certainly also end up in my collection before too long.

[SonicMan46]

Todd - thanks for your excellent reviews of these two sets - I own the Louis Lortie set which I've enjoyed, but now I must hear one or both of those you suggest!   

[Bogey]

I have:



but would like to hear the Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, as it has been mentioned positively on GMG before.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Man, I've been beating a drum for that Bavouzet set for eons, now!

Get it, folks!

And not just for Bavouzet's spectacular playing. The 1901 Steinway D is a honey-sweet instrument and is sheer aural bliss!

[rubio]

My only set so far is from Samson Francois (6-CD Debussy and Ravel set on EMI). How does Abbey Simon and Bavouzet compare to him?

[Florestan]

What do you think of this one?

[Todd]

How does Abbey Simon and Bavouzet compare to [Francois]?

I prefer both pianists to Francois, though I still enjoy Francois. 

Haven't heard Tharaud yet.

[BorisG]

What do you think of this one?

This approaches none of the leaders. Surface playing, headache timbre.

It does have items you will not see elsewhere, so in my view that would be the only reason to purchase.

[Sean]

I bought the Paul Crossley (on CRD?), but can't recommend it too much- he can be too charmless and brittle. Some of his Faure though is extremely good, both the beautiful early nocturnes and the ear-bending late barcarolles etc, letting the music speak for itself without being too self-effacing as in the Ravel.

[E d o]

My vote goes to Vlado Perlemuter. I haven't found any readings I like more. I believe he knew Ravel quite well too.

[Todd]

My vote goes to Vlado Perlemuter. I haven't found any readings I like more.

Which recording?  He recorded the set twice.

[BorisG]

I bought the Paul Crossley (on CRD?), but can't recommend it too much- he can be too charmless and brittle. Some of his Faure though is extremely good, both the beautiful early nocturnes and the ear-bending late barcarolles etc, letting the music speak for itself without being too self-effacing as in the Ravel.

In recent years I have had a change of heart for some of his recordings. For the Crossley Ravel rebirth, it may be a change of heart for style plus an appreciation of Regis label's cherry-picking for a single CD. Everything seems to click on the single. I could not say that for the two CRD, heard years previous. The Regis is also a remastering, but I cannot say whether this had any significant persuasion. It certainly hasn't hurt.

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

My vote goes to Vlado Perlemuter. I haven't found any readings I like more. I believe he knew Ravel quite well too.

Interesting. I stumbled upon his recording of the G minor concerto when I first started collecting LPs back in the early 90s. I loved the warmth and lyricism of his interpretation, especially the second movement. I still have not heard another performance that quite matches his.

Did he record most or all of Ravel's piano works?

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Can anyone comment on the differences between these two sets? I need to get at least one if not both!

[m_gigena]

My only set so far is from Samson Francois (6-CD Debussy and Ravel set on EMI).

His détaché is unique and superb.


What about Jacques Fevrier?

[Sean]

In recent years I have had a change of heart for some of his recordings. For the Crossley Ravel rebirth, it may be a change of heart for style plus an appreciation of Regis label's cherry-picking for a single CD. Everything seems to click on the single. I could not say that for the two CRD, heard years previous. The Regis is also a remastering, but I cannot say whether this had any significant persuasion. It certainly hasn't hurt.

I also bought Crossley's complete Poulence on three CDs: again much idiomatic playing and sensitivity, it's just that he's not French and doesn't find the light colours and richness of Pacal Roge for instance...

[E d o]

If I had to choose between Perlemuter's Vox or Nimbus discs I'd take the Nimbus. It's a bit more insightful and sensitive reading from a more mature artist. The Concerto in G on the Vox box is great but the Left Hand Concerto is downright strange and dark and I don't mean that in a good way. It almost sounds like the tape speed is off too. I think the problem here is Horenstein and not Perlemuter. Perlemuter also has two recital discs with some Ravel. One at the BBC and the other on Denon, both are well worth owning.

[BorisG]

I also bought Crossley's complete Poulence on three CDs: again much idiomatic playing and sensitivity, it's just that he's not French and doesn't find the light colours and richness of Pacal Roge for instance...

Oh, oh. I have no problem with the Roge preference, but I will not buy into a French blood theory, or any other country's blood for classical music.

FYI, Crossley studied extensively in Paris, and in 1968 won the Messiaen Competition in Royan.

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Thanks EDO. They're cheap enough, I'll probably get them both.