Blind Comparison: Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit

[Todd]

It SHOULD be merciless. Shouldn't it?

Yes.  And no.  For me #1's entire delivery was too cold.  The merciless part, well that's fine, but this reading almost veers into just playing the notes.  I know the score marks without expression, but this seems to me to be almost beyond that.  Going for that type of approach, I prefer #10.

Did the fact that the bell is not always audible bother you?

Not really.  The overall effect was as I described.  Part of the attraction of the playing was how the pianist would stretch some passages out to the maximum possible extent and still keep forward momentum, if you will. 

This test also reveals clearly for me the limitations of web-based blind testing.  Compressed sound compromises the recordings.  Listening through a laptop (in my case) compromises the recordings.  Listening to non-preferred headphones (in my case) compromises the recordings.  The recordings are not really getting their due. 

(I've opted to not listen to Gaspard normally - ie, through my main system - until the comparison is done.)   

[MishaK]

Yes.  And no.  For me #1's entire delivery was too cold.  The merciless part, well that's fine, but this reading almost veers into just playing the notes.  I know the score marks without expression, but this seems to me to be almost beyond that.  Going for that type of approach, I prefer #10.

That's really interesting. Because the interpretations 1 and 10 are virtually identical. I am willing to bet they are the same pianist. ;-)

[Madiel]

1 and 10 certainly have similarities, but they're not identical.  For starters, one is about 45 seconds quicker than the other. Which is a fair amount in a piece of this length.

[Beale]

After sitting on my scores for over a week, I am now ready to submit. I tackled all 10 in one go and it was almost too much. I am going to favor monotony above all else, and minimal use of dynamics. From this perspective I end up with three groupings.

Top group - ones I liked the most and I reckon hit the mark. Nice and slow, with different shades of softness.

no. 3 Clear and consistent bell. Good expressiveness of desolation. (8.5/10)
no. 17 The bell can be a bit louder otherwise everything else is prefect. Very careful and attentive playing. (8/10)
no. 19 Maintains a good monotone for the most part with a good consistent bell. (7.5/10)

Middle group - these are enjoyable too, but they start to introduce a certain amount of dynamics. Some might like this added character and narration.

no. 14 Good clear and mostly consistent bell. Overall not as subtle when compared with the top group. (7/10)
no. 7 Bell too faint. Good range of colour and expressions, but some notes were too heavy. (6.5/10)
no. 2 Bell a little faint, missing or masked in the background. Atmosphere is good though. (6.5/10)
no. 15 Bell clear but not consistent. Some notes are quite loud but not rushed. The atmosphere is good. (6/10)

Last group - these are too dynamic for me.

no. 13 The bell are consistent. Starts off nice and slow, but became quite dramatic in the latter half. Some parts had a decent sense of desolation. (5.5/10)
no. 10 Bells are ok, but the monotony is lacking here. The notes were played too hard. (5/10)
no. 1 The bells are actually prominent and haunting here, but everything else let it down. Too rushed, too forceful, too loud. (4/10)

If only I could get the bell of no. 1 and pair it with the melodies of no. 17, then I think we would have an outright winner.

[DavidRoss]

I am a bit confused how it can be sharp, ringing, and overdramatic but still sleep inducing. Would you be able to expand on what you mean? The comments are seemingly contradictory.

I don't care for the hard edged tonality -- it wears on me. Drama in the appropriate piece is engaging -- think Pohjola's Daughter -- but it's not appropriate in this piece, in which subtlety is engaging and drama -- melodrama, really -- so misses the point that it's boring. Yawn.

[Brian]

I don't care for the hard edged tonality -- it wears on me. Drama in the appropriate piece is engaging -- think Pohjola's Daughter -- but it's not appropriate in this piece, in which subtlety is engaging and drama -- melodrama, really -- so misses the point that it's boring. Yawn.

So with excessive drama causing boredom, you might consider it the soap opera version?

I'd like to wrap up voting tomorrow afternoon. 

[BobsterLobster]

My thoughts on Le Gibet (shame I didn't get to take part for Ondine- definitely my favourite movement!):

1: Messy pedalling- too fast, bit chaotic- not steady enough. Terrible wrong note at 2:46. Not very refined or French.
3/10

2: Uninspired and unimaginative. Tempo drags. Unable to keep interest in large-scale phrasing. Bothered by seeming inability to play 2 notes together at the same time without splitting them. Tries too hard to interpret the music without letting it speak for itself.
4/10

3: Beautifully recorded. Love the rhythm of the bells- perfect rubato, very hypnotic. Liked the chord weighting and choices of which voices to bring out. Starts to plod a little from around 3rd minute onwards.
6/10

7: Bell dynamics not as clear as other versions. Tune way too loud in comparison to bell which becomes far too quiet. Really bashes some of the louder chords. Chord weighting seems to shy away from any kind of dissonance which misses the point for me- pianist is overly concerned with harmonic structure at the expense of the textures that Ravel had in mind.
5/10

10: This piano is really out of tune, what a shame. A little fast for me, but done with excellent taste. Pedalling a little messy. This is the most emotive out of the 5 I've listened to. Beautiful rubato.
7/10

[Lisztianwagner]

13 – Beautifully atmospheric performance, very gloomy, tragic and desolate; it expresses the pictures the composition wants to paint very well; very good touch and choice of tempo as well as the tolling bells in the ostinato. Nice dynamics, although they tend to be constant in tone a bit too much. 7.5/10

14 -  Very rich and colourful harmonies expressed by the playing, and the touch is soft and delicate; fine dynamics and tempo. The atmosphere is rather melancholic and dramatic, but it doesn't exactly sound grave and gloomy. 7/10

15 – Powerful, haunting performance with atmospheric melodies and great intensity; very good tolling bells in the ostinato, dynamics are very well handled, although they sound a little too energetic when they rise up in volume, making the piece slightly lack dark, tragic mood. 8/10

17 – Wonderful playing, it keeps a rather slow, cold rythm that helps to create a perfect sombre atmosphere; splendid technique and touch, great harmony. Dynamics are excellent, maybe just the sound of tolling bells is slightly too soft. 9/10

19 – Like in the previous performance, there is a rather slow tempo painting the right gloomy, desolate atmosphere; overall the playing is marvelous, especially in the ostinato, but less poetical and harmonic; fine dynamics. 8/10

[Brian]

If I insert my directorial head into the frame for a moment...

Wow, you guys. "Le gibet" was a bloodbath. There is literally one performance, out of ten, that everybody liked. It seems every performer, every interpretation, became a hotbed of controversy.

Pianist # - Low Score - High Score
1 ------------ 3 ------------- 10
2 ------------ 1.5 ---------- 10
3 ------------ 2.5 ---------- 10
7 ------------ 3 ------------- 9
10 ---------- 5 ------------- 9
13 ---------- 4 ------------- 9
14 ---------- 4.5 ---------- 8.5
15 ---------- 3 ------------- 8
17 ---------- 7.5 ---------- 10
19 ---------- 3 ------------- 8

With the glaring exception of #17 and the possible exception of #10, somebody loved and hated every single performance. This unfortunately makes advancement to the next round somewhat more random than I'd like.

Not only did all but one performance ignite opposing views, but the average score across all pianists plummeted. In "Ondine", ten of twenty (50%) clips earned an average rating of 7.00 or higher. This time, that's true of just three out of ten: pianists 10, 14, and 17.

So at this point I have to ask you: how many Scarbo readings do we want to hear? Only those three finalists? Every pianist who averaged above a 6 (seven clips)? Or above 6.50 (six clips)?

I also have to mourn something, personally. GMG's collective taste in Gaspard is hard to read in some ways, but in other ways, it's pretty clear. We are collectively wary, it seems, of pianists who extend Scarbo's mania and fury to the rest of the music. In this round we have eliminated two exceptional Scarbo performances: probably my personal favorite, and probably the most famous reading ever made.

[Madiel]

I also have to mourn something, personally. GMG's collective taste in Gaspard is hard to read in some ways, but in other ways, it's pretty clear. We are collectively wary, it seems, of pianists who extend Scarbo's mania and fury to the rest of the music. In this round we have eliminated two exceptional Scarbo performances: probably my personal favorite, and probably the most famous reading ever made.

If we're trying to find the best Gaspard, rather than the best Scarbo, then that is entirely appropriate.

EDIT: For all I know we've already eliminated a version of Le Gibet that I would have adored. There's 10 I didn't listen to. And I haven't listened to all of the Ondines either.  And the pianist that did entrance me with Ondine, out of the ones I heard, was not as good in Le Gibet.  This process may in fact demonstrate that there isn't any one pianist that I think nails all 3 pieces.  After all, not only is this music extraordinary - I think it's among the greatest piano music ever written - it's extraordinarily difficult.

[MishaK]

You can always advance the five with the highest scores and add maybe two or three you think we should hear but were unduly eliminated impervious rounds. It's your game.

I too am quite surprised by some of the responses here. Quite schizophrenic in some ways. Makes me wonder who actually looked at the score.

[Octave]

I too am quite surprised by some of the responses here. Quite schizophrenic in some ways. Makes me wonder who actually looked at the score.

Would that settle things much, Misha...everyone looking at the score, and even having roughly equal competence and experience with the score?  It's a real question, just slightly rhetorical: the nature of the disagreements and various (dis)affections seem like they might stay diverse even with dynamic markings carefully noted. 
(I decided to not to play "all the way", but I did listen to a handful of GASPARDs of my own choosing, just to follow the comments with the barest understanding of what was being discussed.  It's still been interesting to read these various accounts of what's happening.)

[mc ukrneal]

If I insert my directorial head into the frame for a moment...

Wow, you guys. "Le gibet" was a bloodbath. There is literally one performance, out of ten, that everybody liked. It seems every performer, every interpretation, became a hotbed of controversy.

Pianist # - Low Score - High Score
1 ------------ 3 ------------- 10
2 ------------ 1.5 ---------- 10
3 ------------ 2.5 ---------- 10
7 ------------ 3 ------------- 9
10 ---------- 5 ------------- 9
13 ---------- 4 ------------- 9
14 ---------- 4.5 ---------- 8.5
15 ---------- 3 ------------- 8
17 ---------- 7.5 ---------- 10
19 ---------- 3 ------------- 8

With the glaring exception of #17 and the possible exception of #10, somebody loved and hated every single performance. This unfortunately makes advancement to the next round somewhat more random than I'd like.

Not only did all but one performance ignite opposing views, but the average score across all pianists plummeted. In "Ondine", ten of twenty (50%) clips earned an average rating of 7.00 or higher. This time, that's true of just three out of ten: pianists 10, 14, and 17.

So at this point I have to ask you: how many Scarbo readings do we want to hear? Only those three finalists? Every pianist who averaged above a 6 (seven clips)? Or above 6.50 (six clips)?

I also have to mourn something, personally. GMG's collective taste in Gaspard is hard to read in some ways, but in other ways, it's pretty clear. We are collectively wary, it seems, of pianists who extend Scarbo's mania and fury to the rest of the music. In this round we have eliminated two exceptional Scarbo performances: probably my personal favorite, and probably the most famous reading ever made.

Top five is good for me (but whatever you decide).

I think what is even more interesting is that the reasons given for liking the ones I disliked and vice versa are the same reasons I would have given for the opposite. So when #1 is labeled metronomic, hard edged, merciless, etc., well that is EXACTLY what I want (and how it should be), though I must admit I do not understand the comment about it being unsteady. And when #3 is labeled nuanced and slow, well that is not what I think of when I think of this movement (though it could work if done right, just that I not what I think of first in this movement).

Another interesting comment was about #1 has too much forward movement, but I don't agree with this comment. Without some forward movement, all music is dead. In the case of this piece, perhaps it is a question of whether one is in the tableau and thus experiencing the events vs sitting outside the picture and looking in.

[Madiel]

I too am quite surprised by some of the responses here. Quite schizophrenic in some ways. Makes me wonder who actually looked at the score.

At one point you specifically disavowed the sanctity of authorial intent.  I find it difficult to understand how that is in keeping with an emphasis on looking at the score.

I did look at the score, by the way. The fact that I get different things out of the totality of the score than you do merely demonstrates that a score is an interpretative document. We all know this. Otherwise having multiple different recordings of any given piece would be a fairly pointless exercise.  We would program a computer to do it correctly, once.

[Madiel]

Another interesting comment was about #1 has too much forward movement, but I don't agree with this comment. Without some forward movement, all music is dead. In the case of this piece, perhaps it is a question of whether one is in the tableau and thus experiencing the events vs sitting outside the picture and looking in.

There is a considerable gap between 'too much' forward movement and 'none at all'.  It is not a dichotomy. I stand by the comment. I do not personally find it appropriate for Le Gibet to have a marked sense of propulsion behind it.  That doesn't mean that I think it's impossible for the piece to be done too slowly despite the tempo marking being 'tres lent', but I personally think that a strong sense of momentum is inconsistent both with the tempo marking 'tres lent' and the text of the poem.

[Beale]

So at this point I have to ask you: how many Scarbo readings do we want to hear? Only those three finalists? Every pianist who averaged above a 6 (seven clips)? Or above 6.50 (six clips)?

Given the circumstances I think seven clips going through makes sense. To be more precise one need to look at the actual distributions.

[BobsterLobster]

I only joined this exercise in time to listen to the 2nd movement, would it be possible to have the links for Ondine, I'm curious to compare them in a blind test even if I'm too late to have my opinion taken into account?

BTW, I hear what everyone is saying about taking faithfulness to the score into consideration when we listen to Gaspard- Ravel was certainly very fussy and demanding about the way performers played his music- but I'm of the opinion that once a composer has let their creation into the public domain, if it sounds better with a deviation away from what the composer wanted, then that's fine. I think it's normal for a composition to take on a life of its own away from its creator.

[Sergeant Rock]

I only joined this exercise in time to listen to the 2nd movement, would it be possible to have the links for Ondine, I'm curious to compare them in a blind test even if I'm too late to have my opinion taken into account?

Here's the link. Just change the number after "pianist" to move on to the next clip:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12672585/Ondine/pianist1ondine.mp3

Only the ten who made it to the Gibet round are still online.

Sarge

[BobsterLobster]

Here's the link. Just change the number after "pianist" to move on to the next clip:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12672585/Ondine/pianist1ondine.mp3

Only the ten who made it to the Gibet round are still online.

Sarge

I've only had time to listen to Ondine #1, and I think I see a few flaws with this process, which could explain the controversy over Le Gibet.

I wasn't a fan at all of pianist #1's Gibet, but after listening to their incredible Ondine and then listening to the same pianist's Gibet, I got a totally different impression of it, and liked it a lot in the context with the first movement. Perhaps it's not possible to have an accurate impression of any performance of an isolated movement without the context of the piece as a whole. Isn't this why Classic FM in the UK is so terrible (they only play single popular movements)?! Also, I loved #1's Ondine so much, that I don't think it's now possible to hear their Gibet truly objectively any more. If this was really going to be a blind comparison, the order of pianists would need to be shaken up for each new movement.

[Brian]

BobsterLobster, you raise a point I've been considering for the final round: should we be purely judging the Scarbo, or the performance as a whole? It seems unfair to shortchange Scarbo by giving it less weight than the first two movements, but on the other hand, it would be odd of us to never listen all the way through the piece.

Of course, for those who know/knew the link names, which I'm deliberately making easy to guess (guess how to find the Scarbo links, when they're uploaded!), it certainly IS possible to listen straight through and go back to Ondine etc. Nothing stopping that. And if you want to grade a Scarbo performance higher because it works as part of the artist's overall conception, that's totally OK (indeed, encouraged). On the other hand, if you're Neal and a Scarbo has somehow advanced to the finales despite your giving Ondine and Gibet scores of 2 or 3, and you still hate it, maybe that would factor in too.

I am glad you were so taken with #1's Ondine. That is my favorite performance of that portion (not sure of my favorite for Gibet, but I did include #19 because of it).

For the reasons mentioned above, I'm inclined to adopt more of a "big-tent" approach to Scarbo. That is, including 5-7 recordings for greater variety. I might encourage you to grade the Scarbo by itself, but consider adding or dropping points depending on how you evaluate the artist's ability to hold all three movements together, if you want to listen to Gaspard as a whole. Maybe, hearing a performance in its entirety will earn it a higher score in the final round - or maybe you'll realize that, however good one movement was, the others aren't on the same level. As for distribution, there are 5 pianists between 6.5 and 7.5, one higher (8.75), and four lower (one of them 6.47, the others in the 5-6 range).

I durst not intrude on the arguments over the score, but do find them fascinating and am impressed with how listeners who disagree profoundly on what this music should be are able to articulate why they feel those ways.

Closing with some words of wisdom from orfeo:

This process may in fact demonstrate that there isn't any one pianist that I think nails all 3 pieces.  After all, not only is this music extraordinary - I think it's among the greatest piano music ever written - it's extraordinarily difficult.