Blind Comparison: Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit

[madaboutmahler]

6 - Wonderful balance, and very fluent playing. However, perhaps just a bit dry sometimes, some more pedal would be nice to allow the flourishes to really shine. Very impressive control though, just lacking a bit of magic. 7/10

7 - Very sensistive shaping both dynamically and rubato-wise. Greater range of articulation and touch. Full of power and poetry. 9/10

8 - Different to the first two, faster but still full of poetry. As it goes on, maybe just a bit too fast for my personal liking, and I find it just a bit too straight in places. But some very powerful and impressive climaxes. 7.5/10

9 - FAST FAST FAST!! Impressive technically (must have the most flexible fingers ever...), but I feel that the tempo doesn't allow the music to speak as much. Don't like the pianist's touch in some places either, can be quite harsh... 5/10

10 - Older recording, and I like the sound. Balance not as perfect as it was in the others, the right hand is perhaps not light-sounding enough. But as it goes on, very poetic with great, flourishing climaxes. Very nice effects too, love the glissandi with the crescendi. 8/10

Thanks, Brian. Very enjoyable, looking forward to the next round. Want to learn this piece now.... 

[Lisztianwagner]

I'm sorry I still need some time, but I will certainly post my comments tomorrow.

[Todd]

Five more down:

1 – Swift and effortless.  Scintillating, even.  Intense but attractive, if not quite as alluring as some.  Score: 8.

2 – Lovely open, almost shimmering.  Very clear, detailed, precise, yet flowing throughout.  Superbly well controlled climaxes.  Sound is slightly irksome in this MP3, yet still pianist manages to be aurally intoxicating.  Awesome piano playing.  Score: 10.

3 – A bit foursquare coming immediately after #2, but very clean, with the musical water cascading nicely.  Less seductive, more "modern", yet still effective.  Score: 8.

4 – Very swift to open and through the piece.  A bit steely, and not especially alluring, but virtuosic, with thundering climaxes.  A bit hard edged for the music.  Score: 6.

5 – Very fast again.  Similar to #4 in many ways, but a bit more alluring and flexible, a little less intense, at least until the climaxes hit with gale force.  Score: 6.5.

[TheGSMoeller]

1: 8/10
2: 9/10
Pianist Nos. 1 and 2 were the most enjoyable. There was more of a consistent flow throughout that I found very fitting, especially from No. 2. Plus, the slower tempo (again from No. 2) allowed for more detail.

The final three were quite disappointing after the first two gems, although No. 3 started beautifully. Whereas No. 4 felt like a race from the start.
3: 6/10
4: 4/10
5: 5/10

[Lisztianwagner]

11 – Definitely a remarkable performance, with a very suggestive and elegant playing; the touch is sensitive and atmospheric while the choices of rythm and dynamics are very charming; they give a beautifully poetical impression of water falling and flowing; very nice trills in the opening part. 8.5/10

12 – A bit too slow opening with the trills; the dynamics is not very well handled too (especially  for the left hand), but it gets much better during the performance. Intense, powerfull climaxes and great glissandi. Enchanting, evocative floating melodies expressed with the playing. Overall the rythm is maybe a little too slow, but valuable. 7/10

13 -  Impressive technique, with a splendid touch; I really liked the trills and the glissandi. The dynamics is absolutely fine as well as the choice of tempo. Great intensity and modulations of the sound that give an evocative atmosphere to the performance. The voice of the pianist could be heard  on the backgroud, a bit annoying.....8/10

14 – Such intensity and energy expressed in this recording in the loudest sections; overall very fluent, colourful and refined playing; fine controll of the timbres and excellent rythm. The touch for the opening trills sounded a bit less poetical than the those ones in the other performances, though it is very good anyway. 8/10

15 – Brilliant performance, rich of poetry, elegance and expressive strenght. Rythm and dymanics are very well handled; great use of rubato and of the ornaments. Beautiful, sensitive touch. 9/10

[Fafner]

Sorry I have been taking my time with the recordings. I'll dedicate some time to listening to them tonight.

[Todd]

Last batch:

6 – Too fast, too jittery.  Doesn't evoke cascading water, is not alluring enough, though after about 4' there's a nice, extended section of attractive playing.  A bit sharp sounding.  Score: 5. 

7 – Slower, lush.  The cascading effect is a bit weaker than in some others, and the music takes on a dreamier, more, well, impressionistic, sound.  Strong playing in the climaxes.  Score: 8.

8 – Quick, with some of the playing having a Scarbo-esque scampering about it.  Superb control, nice clarity –and is that a snort before the first climax?  For some reason the word "fun" popped into my head while listening.  Score: 7.

9 – Sound quality is an issue as the opening is a blur.  Too rushed.  Control is not exemplary.  Not alluring.  Score: 4

10 – Quick, well executed, very clean, prim, and proper.  Not especially alluring, but attractive.  Nice climaxes, superb control, though sound seems a bit dated and doesn't expand enough.  Exceedingly "professional", but in the best sense.  Almost like a serious, older pianist coming along after all the showoffs to show them how it's done.  Not the best of the 20, but one I could listen to again.  Score: 9.

[Madiel]

and is that a snort before the first climax? 

Pretty much.  Well, not so much a 'snort', but it's certainly an interesting sound... the pianist is working hard!

[AnthonyAthletic]

Had a good week of listening to 6 to 10.  Ripped to CD and 'as they were' through the IPod/Cans...very enjoyable.  Apologies for the delay, had a hectic week and its only Wednesday.

06. This came across to my ears as a very tense and taught recording, I couldn't hear or feel the music flowing as per, well at least two of the other recordings.  Very powerful climaxes, and very 'in your face', not totally against this one but the harsh, sharp playing didn't give me; the listener any joy in the 'enjoyability factor'. (6.0)

07. Out of the five, this was beauty personified.  Totally involved, seductive playing and such passion in the tinkling trilling notes.  If I didn't know this was the beauty of Ravel I could be taken on a DebussyChopinTchaikovsky~esqe roll of seductiveness.  Climaxes superb, never overpowering and the balance between climax and moments of calm, post climax are nicely achieved.  (9.5)

08. This one I found daring and fast, loved how the pianist moves into and drives forward the 'listen, listen'.  Dark texture in the left hand is very deep and bass.  This is one to hear in its entirity, whomever it may be!  Excellent sound, riveting, rewarding and chillingly good when heard through the headphones. (8.0)

09. Listening to the opening bars several times was akin to hearing Solti do the opening bars of the Verdi Requiem....with itching powder under his armpits.  Blazingly fast, one I listened to 8 or 9 times and it did nothing for me in the long run.  When listening to the gloriousness of impressionism then one has to be wrapped up, cuddled and cajoled...before you float in the cloud.  Sadly dismissed, not for me...apologies in advance    (4.5)

10. The opening of 10 is very very clear, each note is crystal.  I did quite enjoy this when it got flowing but the opening couple of minutes on the whole seemed a tad robotic and clipped.  Does the UK remember the COUNTDOWN clock?.  Not one to dismiss, but again this would be great to hear complete as the peaks and troughs are powerful, then sombrely done.  Not bad, but not as engaging as seven & eight...A deserving (7.0)

07 - 9.5
08 - 8.0
10 - 7.0
06 - 6.0
09 - 4.5

[MishaK]

1 finely controlled if slightly mechanical opening. Gets more atmospheric as it moves along. Superb control of dynamics and touch. I think I know who this is and this isn't quite his best performance of this work. Still, magical touch and flawless technique, if one of his less inspired outings. The buildup to the climax is immense. Structurally of a single breath. 8.5

2 not sure I am convinced by the rubato so early on in the ostinato. That somewhat goes against the idea of it being an ostinato. Super dreamy atmosphere. Very idiomatic and generally very nicely done. The dreaminess threatens to let the piece fall apart somewhat. A bit tighter would have been better. The buildup to the climax comes somewhat disconnected out of the preceding near stasis. Bit more power in the climax would have been nice too. Otherwise fine performance. 7

3 fine opening. Very good attention to dynamics, nicely delicate ostinato. Really beautiful atmosphere. Matches beauty with uncertainty and darkness. Nicely prominent bass line in the climax. Interpretively as close to my imagined ideal as I could hope for. Really outstanding performance. 9.5

4 this person's opening ostinato sounds more like trills. Not exactly the prescribed rhythm. Nice otherwise. Atmospheric and good dynamics. Somehow despite good tempo doesn't quite cohere as well as the better ones in this comparison. Everything is somehow where it should be, yet the interpretation is neither here nor there. 6

5 nicely hushed ostinato. Very fine dynamics in opening section. Big uncalled for slowdown in the middle before climax breaks structure and then the big crescendo is rushed into. 5

6 rushes into ostinato only to change his mind about tempo shortly thereafter. Quite a bit on the chiseled and dry side despite the pedaling. Not quite with the idiom. Not nearly enough dynamic gradation. No difference at all between indicated mf and f for example. Doesn't really observe well the relative tempo indications within the piece either. 4

7 wonderfully soft and exact ostinato but that's also much easier at this slowish tempo. Gorgeous atmosphere. Random staccato. Generally very good. Somewhat lumpy climax buildup. But then huge at the peak. Somehow not quite convincing taken as a whole. 6

8 the galloping horse ostinato again. Not enough control and virtuosity to play at the required softness to achieve the desired murmuring effect. The random staccato seems to be an epidemic. It's not in my score. The rubato sounds more like it's set up to make transitions easy for the pianist rather than elucidate the structure. Don't like. 4

9 speed demon! Who knows what the ostinato is at this tempo? Not without atmosphere but in the direct comparison sounds awfully rushed. The climax is just showoff at this speed. Ridiculous. This piece requires immense virtuosity but should never be about the display of it. 3.5

10. Very precise ostinato. Dynamics probably were better in reality than as mediated by this recording. Still superb performance. Wonderful phrasing. Excellent control. 8.5

3 is really the finest performance I've heard in this comparison so far. I'm dying to know who this is. But 10 is not shabby despite the crap sound and 1 is a classic - though there's another harder to find performance by that pianist (if it is who I think it is) which is a few notches more compelling. ;-)

[Madiel]

A couple of days ago you were disagreeing with me when I said pianists were taking it too fast. Your actual reviews, though, appear to be agreeing with exactly that proposition.

[MishaK]

Well no 9 is the only one who is too fast in absolute terms because the music he's playing is unintelligible at that tempo. I'm not a believer in one right tempo for a given piece. If it's convincing it's convincing. The ones I have liked so far are on quicker side generally as the slower ones have tended toward structural disintegration.

[Fafner]

I won't attempt to comment on the recordings in detail, I do not feel qualified to do that. Just an intuitive assessment of the first 5 pianists after a couple of listens.

1) 7/10
2) 9/10
3) 9.5/10   I really like the shimmering, atmospheric quality of this one.
4) 6/10
5) 9/10

[MishaK]

Last batch:

16. Gorgeous atmosphere and phrasing. Technique a little imprecise and unleashes a bit too much dynamic power too early when things are still in the p-ppp range. But this person also completely gets the piece. Humongous climax! 8

17 another stellar performance though a very controlled studio performance. Wonderful control of voicing. A tad straight perhaps. But still wonderful. Superb dynamic management of the climax buildup. I think I know who this might be. 8.5

18 achieves again a too chiseled ostinato that sounds more like horses than the desired murmuring though here the recording may be partly to blame. Generally too straight and too loud too early. Voicing could be clearer. Entirely too brawny of an Ondine for me. 5

19 generally good despite the dated sound. Nice touch and voicing. But the constant ritards at the end of each phrase in the same fashion are a bit tedious and mannered. The immense ritardando after the climax sounds very artificial.  5

20 entirely too "pretty" and dreamy for me. This is more melancholic than seductive/scary. Misses the point I think. The speed up into the climax is not organic at all. As if the pianist woke up suddenly from the previous slumber. Too much effort went into articulating every note instead of producing a compelling whole.  4

[Brian]

ALL POINTS BULLETIN: If you want to exercise supreme power, here's your chance!

The new 1-10 ratings system, and flexibility to sample as many clips as you want, has a surprise bonus. There are four recordings within 0.3 points of the Round 2 threshold: #3, #5, #8, #15. If you have not yet listened to one (or any) of those four, you may do so now and cast your votes - knowing that you may be the difference in who moves on and who does not! Voting will close sometime this weekend, but for tonight and tomorrow at least, these four recordings are on the bubble and those who haven't scored them yet can help decide their fates!

Karl, if you wish to vote soon, we will be glad to wait for you. (If you do, would you like to sample 16-20 instead? Or maybe you'd like to listen to the four "on the bubble" recordings highlighted above?)

If you don't think you can vote by the weekend, I should say that through a stroke of luck, exactly 10 recordings averaged higher than a 7.0 and exactly 10 averaged lower than a 7.0, which will make the choice of our ten "Le gibet" clips very easy on me. 

Oh, and there are a good dozen things I want to say in reply to various posts here... in that way, running the game stinks!

[MishaK]

There are four recordings within 0.3 points of the Round 2 threshold: #3, #5, #8, #15. If you have not yet listened to one (or any) of those four, you may do so now and cast your votes - knowing that you may be the difference in who moves on and who does not!

In that case, can I change my score for no.3 from 9.5 to 10?

[mc ukrneal]

In that case, can I change my score for no.3 from 9.5 to 10?

Only if I can change it from a 3.5 to a 3 (or perhaps lower)!   

[mc ukrneal]

ALL POINTS BULLETIN: If you want to exercise supreme power, here's your chance!

The new 1-10 ratings system, and flexibility to sample as many clips as you want, has a surprise bonus. There are four recordings within 0.3 points of the Round 2 threshold: #3, #5, #8, #15. If you have not yet listened to one (or any) of those four, you may do so now and cast your votes - knowing that you may be the difference in who moves on and who does not! Voting will close sometime this weekend, but for tonight and tomorrow at least, these four recordings are on the bubble and those who haven't scored them yet can help decide their fates!

Karl, if you wish to vote soon, we will be glad to wait for you. (If you do, would you like to sample 16-20 instead? Or maybe you'd like to listen to the four "on the bubble" recordings highlighted above?)

If you don't think you can vote by the weekend, I should say that through a stroke of luck, exactly 10 recordings averaged higher than a 7.0 and exactly 10 averaged lower than a 7.0, which will make the choice of our ten "Le gibet" clips very easy on me. 

Oh, and there are a good dozen things I want to say in reply to various posts here... in that way, running the game stinks!

Ok. I'll listen to a couple more:

#8: Don't like the relative balance. Sometimes the top line seems covered over a bit and does not balance with the other (mostly early on). I am also not a huge fan of some of the speed changes. That all said, it certainly has some dreaminess to it and feel of water to it, but this one doesn't quite get there for me (ends a bit better than it starts). I wish it did more to elucidate the structure. Rating: 3.5 (same as #3).

#15: More controlled, but nicely dreamy. I really enjoyed this one, especially as it gathered steam. There are moments when I though the effect of cascading water was clearly evident (and so incredibly effortless), but then there were also moments when I wanted more (especially knowing what this pianist could do after hearing it). So pretty good overall. Rating: 7.5

[Madiel]

I've already commented on #8, which I gave out of 8/10, so I can't influence that one further...

Pianist 3: I find this performance quite musical, and it has a particularly good cantabile sense to the melody.  However, what bothered me about it was a sense of technical insecurity.  I'm not really sure why that is, and to be honest it may not be any less technically secure than some other performances, but it kept giving me the sense that the control wasn't total. 7/10.

Pianist 5: In a lot of ways this felt quite similar to #8, but then at critical moments it let me down. For example, there's a great ascent to the climax, but this is another pianist who sees the opportunity for a great big crash of notes and ignores Ravel's instruction that the descent should be a little slower than the movement's main pulse. Not awful by any means, but not top notch either. 7/10.

Pianist 15: While I don't thinks performance is ideal, I found it to be a very involving one. And that counts for a lot. Ondine was calling out insistently, saying 'Listen! Listen!'.  And this time the climax was the right tempo. 8/10

[Brian]

Results will be posted within an hour!