Ravel's Rotunda

Started by Dancing Divertimentian, October 20, 2008, 08:46:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Florestan

Quote from: Brian on November 07, 2023, 12:59:18 PMAlthough the new corrected edition Wilson prepared sounds very helpful for future orchestras/performers, I could not tell a single difference in this new version. Certainly the changes fall within the usual spectrum of conductor-imposed "ideas." And since Wilson deviates significantly from the "HIP" Monteux version, I don't know how to assess what is "him" and what is the new score.

The two bold statements seem to me rather mutually exclusive. If you could not tell one single difference, then how does Wilson's version deviate significantly from Monteux's? What am I missing here?
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

ritter

Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2023, 02:54:02 AMThe two bold statements seem to me rather mutually exclusive. If you could not tell one single difference, then how does Wilson's version deviate significantly from Monteux's? What am I missing here?

I presume he means "textual" vs. "interpretative" deviations...

Florestan

Quote from: ritter on November 08, 2023, 07:43:08 AMI presume he means "textual" vs. "interpretative" deviations...

Ah, now I see! As in, Wilson's score deviates significantly from Monteux's, yet there is no audible difference between the two performances, right?
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Roasted Swan

Just because I got a YouTube notification - Hurwitz absolutely slaughters this new disc.  He returns to his favourite/irrelevant trope that this orchestra is "just" a pick-up band while conveniently ignoring many similar scratch bands over the decades that have produced fine discs.  But his main ire is aimed at Wilson and his interpretation - he makes no mention of the "new" edition.  He hates the chorus.  I 've now listened to this myself.  I do not recognise what Hurwitz says is poor playing.  I do find the interpretation underwhelming.  Brian's description of "fragile" strings is apt - I think they spend a lot of time playing "flautando" - which is a quick bow stroke with minimum pressure producing a "feathery" tone.  Its a common/effective technique used judiciously - too much can sound anaemic which I think it does here.  Again as Brian says it takes a more discerning ear than mine to hear all the (allegedly) subtle adjustments made to the score.  I didn't find the engineering awful (which Hurwitz does) but I don't think its the best that Chandos has done for this ensemble.  As its probably the single "biggest" work Wilson et al have commited to disc its quite a challenge and by that measure it is a miss not a hit and something of an artistic miscalculation by both artist and record company.

Brian

Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2023, 07:46:31 AMAh, now I see! As in, Wilson's score deviates significantly from Monteux's, yet there is no audible difference between the two performances, right?
Hmmm, it is hard to say - Wilson's score may deviate significantly from Monteux's though it is possible, even likely, that Monteux preserved some of Ravel's corrections since he was there when the corrections were made. Wilson's performance sounds different but, since the different sound is not the result of different notes (i.e. added or removed parts, entrances a bar earlier or later, sharps corrected to flats, that kind of thing), it is very hard to tell what is Wilson and what is this new edition.

Would be interested to see, per Roasted Swan's comment, if Ravel really wants the strings playing flautando that much, for example?

Lisztianwagner

#405
I've listened to Wilson's recording of Daphnis et Chloé and I can agree with what has been said about this particular performance: it is beautiful overall, with a sense of spacious, transparent and floating atmospheres; the orchestral playing is always very clear and airy, but the limpidness and the gracefulness of the textures it depicts appear maybe excessively delicate and ethereal, fragile as they have been described; the climaxes seem a bit restrained, as though the orchestra mustn't exaggerate in intensity not to ruin the beauty of the sound. This impression is particularly strong if Monteux' interpretation is thought, as the latter sounds definitely more powerful; I've listened to Monteux' 1955 recording with RCO (since Monteux had been used as comparison in previous comments), and although it evokes great delicacy as much as Wilson's does, at the same time it is able to be warmer and tenser as well as far more energetic and sharper in the climaxes or in the changes of dynamics, with very thunderous percussion.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire." - Gustav Mahler

relm1

#406
I listened to John Wilson's new recording of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloé and didn't really care for it.  For me, this sums up John Wilson's output in that it is technically very refined but nowhere near as musically brilliant as the best versions of the repertoire he records.  With this fantastic score, there is very stiff competition, and this recording doesn't come close to those enjoyable as it is.  For one thing, it's very clear the orchestra isn't as good as on the best recordings.  The notes might be right, but it's missing that exotic sense of wonder that the best exude.  Think right notes versus flowing, inspired playing.  A very simple example, the opening flute solo is so logical here...lacking a sense of mystery and awe.  My favorites are Chailly/RCO, Dutoit/Montreal, and Munch/Boston.   These are all gorgeous presentations, immaculate interpretations but most importantly capture a sense of wonder lacking in John Wilson's recording.  Some of it is technical (poor miking and balance of the various instruments), some of it is interpretive (taking the buildup of a climax too quickly), and some of it is creative (not quite capturing the spirit of the piece).  John Wilson might be more "correct" but lacks the magic and mysticism this beauty deserves. 

atardecer

According to Hurwitz the John Wilson recording of Daphnis et Chloé is very bad. In fact the worst ever recording of the work, and not just in his opinion. He claims it is objectively bad, and one should avoid it like death!


I sampled several of the movements on youtube and found there are some aspects of it I like. I wasn't sufficiently wowed to listen to all of it just now or make a purchase because I already have recordings of this work by Monteux, Dutoit, Boulez and Tortelier and I'm happy with that at the moment. But I don't really get why someone would slam this performance to the extent Hurwitz did this. Just from the movements I listened to I feel his comments about the poor sound quality are exaggerated, and I noticed some interesting things about Wilson's approach I haven't heard in other recordings.
"In this metallic age of barbarians, only a relentless cultivation of our ability to dream, to analyze and to captivate can prevent our personality from degenerating into nothing or else into a personality like all the rest." - Fernando Pessoa

Roasted Swan

Quote from: atardecer on November 10, 2023, 08:50:38 PMAccording to Hurwitz the John Wilson recording of Daphnis et Chloé is very bad. In fact the worst ever recording of the work, and not just in his opinion. He claims it is objectively bad, and one should avoid it like death!


I sampled several of the movements on youtube and found there are some aspects of it I like. I wasn't sufficiently wowed to listen to all of it just now or make a purchase because I already have recordings of this work by Monteux, Dutoit, Boulez and Tortelier and I'm happy with that at the moment. But I don't really get why someone would slam this performance to the extent Hurwitz did this. Just from the movements I listened to I feel his comments about the poor sound quality are exaggerated, and I noticed some interesting things about Wilson's approach I haven't heard in other recordings.

Curious to know how you measure "badness" in a performance objectively.  Discussions on this forum on just about any recording ever made proves that listener's responses to music are about as subjective as they come.  If the recording literally missed bars, features rafts of wrong notes and was aflicted by a mains hum throughout perhaps it could be objectively bad.  In this scenario - no.

Scion7

 :laugh:  who CARES what Davey thinks? too much attention being paid to this dullard
When, a few months before his death, Rachmaninov lamented that he no longer had the "strength and fire" to compose, friends reminded him of the Symphonic Dances, so charged with fire and strength. "Yes," he admitted. "I don't know how that happened. That was probably my last flicker."

Madiel

Quote from: Scion7 on November 11, 2023, 04:34:24 AM:laugh:  who CARES what Davey thinks? too much attention being paid to this dullard

Right. Let's just pay attention to the members here who've said similar negative things about the recording.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Dry Brett Kavanaugh

Enjoying listening to these piano albums nowadays. The Crossley album sounds like Crossley- delicate and slightly icy.









Maestro267

Picked up a disc today with the Piano Trio, Sonata for violin and cello, Violin Sonata and Berceuse sur le nom de Gabriel Faure.

I believe between this and my purchase a few years ago of a disc of String Quartet and Introduction and Allegro, I have all the major spots of Ravel's chamber music covered.

Jo498

Yes. If that's the disc with the 70s recordings of Kantorow/Rouvier/Muller, that's excellent.

There is another early? (posthumeously published) violin sonata, "Tzigane" and a bunch of songs with chamber ensemble one could count with the chamber music.
Tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre.
- Blaise Pascal

Luke

Those two sets of songs (the Mallarme and the Madegascan) are among the most essential of 'essential Ravel' pieces. Sheer perfection, both of them, and doing exquisitely new things.