Ravel's Rotunda

[Spotted Horses]

Don't forget re-releasing broadcast archive material is a minefield of rights and permissions.  I can't think of a single Boulez-conducted work on any of the labels who have in the past handled ex-BBC material.  I might well be wrong but perhaps Boulez put a blanket ban on any of his live broadcasts....?

I would expect BBC broadcasts to appear on the BBC legends label. I don't recall seeing any Boulez on BBC legends. Maybe Boulez indeed didn't sign off on release of live broadcasts, or maybe they didn't think the performances were sufficiently interesting to release.

[Mirror Image]

I would expect BBC broadcasts to appear on the BBC legends label. I don't recall seeing any Boulez on BBC legends. Maybe Boulez indeed didn't sign off on release of live broadcasts, or maybe they didn't think the performances were sufficiently interesting to release.

To the bolded text, I highly doubt that --- Boulez's performances were almost always interesting. Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't believe he ever recorded these works.

[ritter]

Well, Boulez was chief conductor of the BBC Symphony Orchestra for many years, and also appeared often with that band (and others) at the Proms. Yet, very little live material from those years (the early 70s) has surfaced. A couple of bootleg releases on pirate (and AFAIK now defunct) Italian labels, and some issues officially on BBC Legends (a label that, it too, is no longer active). These were the following:


It's clear that whatever exists (and I'm sure it's a whole lot) is being withheld for some reason (rights, etc.). But we can hope...

[Mirror Image]

Well, Boulez was chief conductor of the BBC Symphony Orchestra for many years, and also appeared often with that band (and others) at the Proms. Yet, very little live material from those years (the early 70s) has surfaced. A couple of bootleg releases on pirate (and AFAIK now defunct) Italian labels, and some issues officially on BBC Legends (a label that, it too, is no longer active). These were the following:


It's clear that whatever exists (and I'm sure it's a whole lot) is being withheld for some reason (rights, etc.). But we can hope...

What rights are you talking about? You would think since he passed in 2016 that more recordings would've surfaced. Is his estate being handled by morons? Would another record label be holding something up? Sony perhaps? Deutsche Grammophon? His publisher Universal Edition? I mean what the hell could be going on?

[Roasted Swan]

What rights are you talking about? You would think since he passed in 2016 that more recordings would've surfaced. Is his estate being handled by morons? Would another record label be holding something up? Sony perhaps? Deutsche Grammophon? His publisher Universal Edition? I mean what the hell could be going on?

Its not just Boulez...... You have to remember that when these performances were made (and paid for!) there was little if no expectation of this kind of recording ever seeing the light of day again once the original broadcast had been made.  Perhaps one "repeat" broadcast would be included.  Therefore ALL the performers involved not only have to receive a repeat fee (at a level to be negotiated) but also all possible variants of streaming/online publication etc have to be agreed too.  And that's before you actually start debating whether or not the actual performance is that good! 

As I understand it current BBC contracts cover a whole host of broadcast/resale options under an umbrella "buy-out" agreement.  Which is why of course the BBC orchestras turn up on so many smaller label recordings as those labels don't have to cover the full session fees of the orchestras.  Remember - it wasn't so long ago that the BBC Orchestras were literally forbidden to record output for anyone except the BBC itself.  From memory the BBC SO/Rozhdestvensky Sleeping Beauty was one of the very first commercial sets made under the new agreements.  Obviously there ARE earlier BBC orchestra recordings but they were the rare exception not the rule.

[Mirror Image]

Its not just Boulez...... You have to remember that when these performances were made (and paid for!) there was little if no expectation of this kind of recording ever seeing the light of day again once the original broadcast had been made.  Perhaps one "repeat" broadcast would be included.  Therefore ALL the performers involved not only have to receive a repeat fee (at a level to be negotiated) but also all possible variants of streaming/online publication etc have to be agreed too.  And that's before you actually start debating whether or not the actual performance is that good! 

As I understand it current BBC contracts cover a whole host of broadcast/resale options under an umbrella "buy-out" agreement.  Which is why of course the BBC orchestras turn up on so many smaller label recordings as those labels don't have to cover the full session fees of the orchestras.  Remember - it wasn't so long ago that the BBC Orchestras were literally forbidden to record output for anyone except the BBC itself.  From memory the BBC SO/Rozhdestvensky Sleeping Beauty was one of the very first commercial sets made under the new agreements.  Obviously there ARE earlier BBC orchestra recordings but they were the rare exception not the rule.

Interesting. Thanks for the feedback. I guess one can always hope.

[Madiel]

Its not just Boulez...... You have to remember that when these performances were made (and paid for!) there was little if no expectation of this kind of recording ever seeing the light of day again once the original broadcast had been made.  Perhaps one "repeat" broadcast would be included.  Therefore ALL the performers involved not only have to receive a repeat fee (at a level to be negotiated) but also all possible variants of streaming/online publication etc have to be agreed too.  And that's before you actually start debating whether or not the actual performance is that good! 

Yes to all this. Especially with the BBC, which would have been very much focused on broadcast rather than releasing albums. The same sorts of issues arose with television - before the creation of the VCR, the notion that shows would be broadcast repeatedly over the years didn't exist, and this is why huge amounts of earlier television shows were thrown out after a couple of broadcasts (Doctor Who is the most famous example, but in fact it has survived better than many other contemporaneous shows). The rights were exhausted so the recording had no ongoing value.

[Spotted Horses]

Yes to all this. Especially with the BBC, which would have been very much focused on broadcast rather than releasing albums. The same sorts of issues arose with television - before the creation of the VCR, the notion that shows would be broadcast repeatedly over the years didn't exist, and this is why huge amounts of earlier television shows were thrown out after a couple of broadcasts (Doctor Who is the most famous example, but in fact it has survived better than many other contemporaneous shows). The rights were exhausted so the recording had no ongoing value.

Even recordings weren't treated very well. I remember reading an article about an attempt to re-issue the original masters of Bob Dylan's early albums in mono sound. They couldn't find the masters. Copies had been sent to various LP manufacturing plants and subsequently lost or discarded. The producer noted "they weren't considered archival material, they were considered manufacturing parts."

Which reminds me, I should listen to L'enfant et les sortilèges. I've never heard it and I certainly have multiple recordings in the various Ravel Editions and "complete recordings of so-and-so" sets.

[Todd]

Clement Lefebvre's prior Evidence Classics release pairing Rameau and Couperin is very fine indeed, but it could not prepare me for this Ravel release.  Lefebvre starts off with what just may be the greatest ever recording of the Sonatine.  That claim factors in the likes of Casadesus and Chamayou, Perlemuter and Simon, anyone.  Lefebvre's playing sounds so refined, his touch so nuanced, that everyone else sounds a bit rough.  His incredibly fine dynamic gradations, his crazy good and nuanced arpeggios, his everything bewitches.  The playing casts a spell.  The rest of the disc does not quite rise to that level – but only just barely.  One hears the same insanely nuanced playing in various pieces in Le Tombeau de Couperin (the Forlane, say), though some may prefer more drive.  Typically, I would, but not here.  The Menuet Sur Le Nom de Haydn and Menuet Antique both come off as more substantive than normal, and the Valses Nobles Et Sentimentales displays his gorgeous touch and simplified complex rhythmic playing.  This is a blockbuster recording, one I was not expecting.  If he records the remaining Ravel works, I shall forthwith perform an A/B comp with reigning Ravel champ Chamayou to see who now rules the roost.

To say that this was a steal for Qobuz's $1.60 asking price is an understatement.  This is the type of recording for which one would be happy to pay full price. 

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Ambitious and aesthetic rendition. 

[brewski]

For Ravel's 148th birthday, Rapsodie espagnole with Riccardo Muti and the Philadelphia Orchestra, recorded May 24, 1989 at Suntory Hall in Tokyo. There's a slight hiss in the sound, and the low-resolution video looks "of its time," but these are small minuses, given the glimpse of Muti and Philadelphia at their peak.

-Bruce

[milk]

I'm enjoying this though I don't know anything about how period instruments compare to modern in impressionistic music. I don't think there's been anything like this since the Kuijkens' Debussy Chanber music recording, which was splendid.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I like this album.

[vers la flamme]

Anyone listening to the 3 Mallarmé Poèmes? My first impression is that this is just about the most avant-garde music I've ever heard from Ravel.

[Mandryka]

Anyone listening to the 3 Mallarmé Poèmes? My first impression is that this is just about the most avant-garde music I've ever heard from Ravel.

Harmonically, to me it doesn't feel like there's a home key in most of the music in Surgi de la croupe et du bond - but I'm very bad at hearing this sort of stuff. The other cycle which is interesting is Madecassés, il est doux. Strange elusive music.

[Brian]

Presto Classical's PR/praise blog post urging people to buy this has some interesting details:

"John Wilson spent much of the 2020/21 lockdowns preparing a new edition of Ravel's 1912 ballet Daphnis et Chloé, incorporating hundreds of changes which the composer made to the parts in rehearsal but were never transferred to the published full score.

"So how dramatically do the results diverge from what we hear on previous recordings? In all honesty you'll need the aural equivalent of a fine-tooth comb to catch the many tiny alterations, but if you're minded to follow along with the Durand score then a rather arcane game of Spot The Difference indeed awaits...

"Wilson's forensic attention to detail and the superb clarity of the recorded sound ensure that every subtle amendment to phrasing, articulation, dynamics, tempo and technical instructions registers if you're listening out for it: indications for the violins to use open strings for certain notes, additions of slurs, specifications as to precisely what dynamic should be reached at the top of the score's many 'hairpin' marks."

Here is the full explanation provided in the CD's booklet (which I accessed by PDF):

"The standard performing materials for Daphnis et Chloé have long been the subject of much discussion among orchestral players, conductors, and musicologists. Aside from a mass of errors in the 1913 published full score, the orchestral parts contain many hundreds of inconsistencies, omissions, and wrong notes. Various lists of errata have circulated for years and old sets of parts have been adapted and patched up as best as could be done – but it was apparent to anyone who has ever played or conducted the work that the need for a newly engraved and rigorously proof-read modern edition was well overdue.

"During the initial lockdown (and subsequent ones!) of the 2020 pandemic, I used the time at home to embark on a completely revised edition of Ravel's masterpiece. In addition to the original published full score and parts, piano reduction, and choral score, I had access to a PDF scan of the composer's manuscript. Using the 1913 full score as my primary text, I checked this against every other source and tried to settle on a text which I felt best reflected the composer's final decisions. It became apparent that numerous changes made by Ravel in rehearsals were transferred directly into the parts but not carried over into the full score. I have tried to rationalise such (and other) inconsistencies as best I could to arrive at what is, I hope, a useful practical performing edition in which the parts match the full score in every detail and – crucially, for a work of such complexity – everything is carefully laid out and easy to read. For more information on the edition, please e-mail info@sinfoniaoflondon.com"

And that's all. The proof will be in the listening, I guess. Here was my own note on Wilson's similar "new edition" of Bolero. As @Roasted Swan said in reply, it seems rather insulting to the many great past conductors - including Monteux, who conducted the premiere of Daphnis and then recorded it in stereo!! - to say that they were all doing it wrong.

[Roasted Swan]

Presto Classical's PR/praise blog post urging people to buy this has some interesting details:

"John Wilson spent much of the 2020/21 lockdowns preparing a new edition of Ravel's 1912 ballet Daphnis et Chloé, incorporating hundreds of changes which the composer made to the parts in rehearsal but were never transferred to the published full score.

"So how dramatically do the results diverge from what we hear on previous recordings? In all honesty you'll need the aural equivalent of a fine-tooth comb to catch the many tiny alterations, but if you're minded to follow along with the Durand score then a rather arcane game of Spot The Difference indeed awaits...

"Wilson's forensic attention to detail and the superb clarity of the recorded sound ensure that every subtle amendment to phrasing, articulation, dynamics, tempo and technical instructions registers if you're listening out for it: indications for the violins to use open strings for certain notes, additions of slurs, specifications as to precisely what dynamic should be reached at the top of the score's many 'hairpin' marks."

Here is the full explanation provided in the CD's booklet (which I accessed by PDF):

"The standard performing materials for Daphnis et Chloé have long been the subject of much discussion among orchestral players, conductors, and musicologists. Aside from a mass of errors in the 1913 published full score, the orchestral parts contain many hundreds of inconsistencies, omissions, and wrong notes. Various lists of errata have circulated for years and old sets of parts have been adapted and patched up as best as could be done – but it was apparent to anyone who has ever played or conducted the work that the need for a newly engraved and rigorously proof-read modern edition was well overdue.

"During the initial lockdown (and subsequent ones!) of the 2020 pandemic, I used the time at home to embark on a completely revised edition of Ravel's masterpiece. In addition to the original published full score and parts, piano reduction, and choral score, I had access to a PDF scan of the composer's manuscript. Using the 1913 full score as my primary text, I checked this against every other source and tried to settle on a text which I felt best reflected the composer's final decisions. It became apparent that numerous changes made by Ravel in rehearsals were transferred directly into the parts but not carried over into the full score. I have tried to rationalise such (and other) inconsistencies as best I could to arrive at what is, I hope, a useful practical performing edition in which the parts match the full score in every detail and – crucially, for a work of such complexity – everything is carefully laid out and easy to read. For more information on the edition, please e-mail info@sinfoniaoflondon.com"

And that's all. The proof will be in the listening, I guess. Here was my own note on Wilson's similar "new edition" of Bolero. As @Roasted Swan said in reply, it seems rather insulting to the many great past conductors - including Monteux, who conducted the premiere of Daphnis and then recorded it in stereo!! - to say that they were all doing it wrong.

I have not heard this Daphnis - but certainly the PR machine is rolling out all the big guns claiming it to be definitive.  I don't doubt that the orchestra play wonderfully.  I've heard them live and they are genuinely superb.  But just because all the right notes are in all the right places does not necessarily make for a great performance.

On a much smaller scale I have recently been transcribing editing composer scores onto Sibelius in the hope of creating useful performing editions of pieces.  It is a pain-staking/infuriating/fascinating/rewarding job and for a work the scale and duration of Daphnis a daunting one.  All I would observe is that just because Ravel made performing amendments at some point that does not make them his final word.  Experience shows that composers will pragmatically tweak performing details for any given performance to suit that performance.  Perhaps the flautist in Orchestra X needed to mark up dynamics because their usual playing level was too quiet for Ravel/the rest of the orchestra/ the venue.

Of course if there are literal wrong notes/inconsistent markings across parts or general ambiguities its great to get them ironed out and also crucially as Wilson says; "everything is carefully laid out and easy to read".  If you are an orchestral player you will certainly have encountered parts where the printing is not clear/too small/poorly laid out.  Things like Daphnis are hard enough to play before you have difficulty working out what the notes actually are!

BUT (and this is the BIG BUT!!) I would still rather have a performance that is compelling, idiomatic,exciting insightful etc etc but with a wrong note or dynamic or two instead of a textually "perfect" but underengaging version.  Now Wilson might be wonderful but the other Ravel of his I've heard is technically brilliant but short on real nuance or insight.  But clearly a lot of reviewers disagree with me.......

[Madiel]

One of course must be very careful about deciding that a note is wrong. I seem to remember Beethoven being most upset about engravers "correcting" him. But if we are talking about an inconsistency between a score and a part, a choice is obviously necessary.

[Brian]

OK, I've streamed it!

This comment:
"I would still rather have a performance that is compelling, idiomatic,exciting insightful etc etc but with a wrong note or dynamic or two instead of a textually "perfect" but underengaging version."

sums it up. The overall impression is actually one of, predominantly, space and silence. The dynamic range is so big, and the orchestral sound-picture so wide, that the overall impression is of a fairly quiet piece of music. You have to turn the volume up.

When you do turn the volume up, the clarity is kind of amazing, all sorts of things are delicately rendered, and the choir especially sounds great. (The percussion gets worst off, especially what sounds like a mini snare drum and a cymbal player who was born without arm muscles and/or thinks cymbals should swish rather than crash. Somehow the triangle is much louder.) The orchestral textures are amazing, the string tone is sweet and smooth and perfectly gliding. The slow bits have loads of fragile beauty.

But this all adds up to a museum exhibit of Impressionism rather than the passion of the original thing. I hate to bring up Monteux again, but he did premiere Daphnis with the composer's help, and he did then record it in stereo! And he is, overall, about two minutes faster than Wilson, in addition to being more passionate, more colorful, etc. He could do beauty without the fragility and grace without the stillness. There was a thing in the press materials about how admirable it is that Wilson only lets his orchestra rip at the Big climaxes, not just any old climaxes. Is playing loudly out of fashion? Seems to me that back in the old days, orchestras were capable of making huge climaxes sound huge without spending the previous 15 minutes being all delicate and fussy.

Although 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.

Overall this is competent and OK and not in any way bad necessarily, but not something I'd urge everyone to buy either.

[Roasted Swan]

OK, I've streamed it!

This comment:
"I would still rather have a performance that is compelling, idiomatic,exciting insightful etc etc but with a wrong note or dynamic or two instead of a textually "perfect" but underengaging version."

sums it up. The overall impression is actually one of, predominantly, space and silence. The dynamic range is so big, and the orchestral sound-picture so wide, that the overall impression is of a fairly quiet piece of music. You have to turn the volume up.

When you do turn the volume up, the clarity is kind of amazing, all sorts of things are delicately rendered, and the choir especially sounds great. (The percussion gets worst off, especially what sounds like a mini snare drum and a cymbal player who was born without arm muscles and/or thinks cymbals should swish rather than crash. Somehow the triangle is much louder.) The orchestral textures are amazing, the string tone is sweet and smooth and perfectly gliding. The slow bits have loads of fragile beauty.

But this all adds up to a museum exhibit of Impressionism rather than the passion of the original thing. I hate to bring up Monteux again, but he did premiere Daphnis with the composer's help, and he did then record it in stereo! And he is, overall, about two minutes faster than Wilson, in addition to being more passionate, more colorful, etc. He could do beauty without the fragility and grace without the stillness. There was a thing in the press materials about how admirable it is that Wilson only lets his orchestra rip at the Big climaxes, not just any old climaxes. Is playing loudly out of fashion? Seems to me that back in the old days, orchestras were capable of making huge climaxes sound huge without spending the previous 15 minutes being all delicate and fussy.

Although 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.

Overall this is competent and OK and not in any way bad necessarily, but not something I'd urge everyone to buy either.

That's a really insightful commentary Brian and full of excellent observations not just about this performance/work but interpretation and performance in general.  Analysis and extended study of any work will by definition help the interpreter gain insights into the piece in question.  But then crucially there comes a point when you have to jettison (or at least put to one side) all of those meticulously observed details and get on and just "PLAY THE PIECE".  I once worked with a very major choreographer and director on a piece of Musical Theatre.  During one slightly fraught rehearsal when the director was extolling his theories on character motivation/impulse/language/the work's structure and wider meaning the choreographer famously said; "F**k motivation - let's dance".  And there is a part of me that has kept that as a mantra ever since - you can become so fixated on whether its an accent or a crescendo or what type of reed was used in 1903 that the overall arc of the music is lost.  Another truth is with this level of myriad detail changed/added - as you say - it will either never be distinctively audible to the audience or perfectly executed by the players - even if they are as good as the Sinfona of London are.

There's an old story that Kertesz "learnt" the Dvorak symphonies on the plane over to record them with the LSO.  No idea if that's true but it does point to the opposite extreme - where fine musicians in a supportive environment can produce superbly fresh, spontaneous performance by drawing on their wider experience rather than slavishly worrying about micro-managing something.  Perhaps Wilson is just more comfortable micro-managing than being an inspirational/on the fly' conductor?