Ravel's Rotunda

[Karl Henning]

I've been listening to this new set recently

Thanks for this. Ka-ching!

[Madiel]

But a palpable hit is Le Tombeau de Couperin.  In no small part because the 2 movements Ravel didn't orchestrate have been by someone called David Molard Soriano.  The orchestrations are fine in their own right but by having all 6 of the original movements in their original order the work as a whole seems much more balanced and effective than the usual 4 movment orchestral version.  Curious this hasn't been done before by other arrangers.

Because most people don't think it's their job to fix the composer's own decision that 2 movements weren't appropriate for orchestrating.

Especially not when we are talking about a composer who is considered one of the best arrangers.

[Karl Henning]

Because most people don't think it's their job to fix the composer's own decision that 2 movements weren't appropriate for orchestrating.

Especially not when we are talking about a composer who is considered one of the best arrangers.

I was thinking quietly (having great respect for Kocsis as a pianist) how this was pretty cheeky. 

[Roasted Swan]

Because most people don't think it's their job to fix the composer's own decision that 2 movements weren't appropriate for orchestrating.

Especially not when we are talking about a composer who is considered one of the best arrangers.

Perhaps listen to it before you judge? 

[Madiel]

Perhaps listen to it before you judge? 

That isn't the point, and you're welcome to like it. You wondered why only a couple of people have done it, and I'm telling you why.

[Brian]

There's also a completion of the other two movements by Kenneth Hesketh. I think I listened to the Hesketh and Kocsis versions back to back a year or two ago; now that there are three contenders, it would be fun to compare them all.

[Spotted Horses]

Because most people don't think it's their job to fix the composer's own decision that 2 movements weren't appropriate for orchestrating.

Especially not when we are talking about a composer who is considered one of the best arrangers.

As I see it, an orchestral transcription of a piano piece is a new composition based on a previous composition. I find nothing illegitimate about a composer decided to make an orchestral version of a piece that the composer of the original piece didn't feel inclined to orchestrate. I personally find myself not very interested in these orchestrations, just as I am not very interested in Ravel's own orchestrations. I find the original piano pieces infinitely more interesting than the orchestrations, by Ravel or anyone else.

The thing I would find "cheeky," to borrow Karl's word, is putting your own orchestrations of Le Tombeau de Couperin alongside Ravel's orchestrations as a "completion" of the orchestral suite. If you have the mettle to orchestrate the music, better start from scratch.

[Roasted Swan]

As I see it, an orchestral transcription of a piano piece is a new composition based on a previous composition. I find nothing illegitimate about a composer decided to make an orchestral version of a piece that the composer of the original piece didn't feel inclined to orchestrate. I personally find myself not very interested in these orchestrations, just as I am not very interested in Ravel's own orchestrations. I find the original piano pieces infinitely more interesting than the orchestrations, by Ravel or anyone else.

The thing I would find "cheeky," to borrow Karl's word, is putting your own orchestrations of Le Tombeau de Couperin alongside Ravel's orchestrations as a "completion" of the orchestral suite. If you have the mettle to orchestrate the music, better start from scratch.

I completely disagree.  The two 'new' orchestrations allow the original order of the suite to be restored which I find far more satisfactory as a musical arc than Ravel's reordered 4 movement set.  I don't think that the new arrangers are thinking they are "better" than Ravel - I suspect most of the negative comments above have been made without actually listening to the versions in question.  To my ear they are respectful, well-executed and generally rather impressive.

I do think there is a very valid argument for saying that the piano originals are superior even when Ravel was responsible for the orchestrations. 

[Brian]

Found my previous thoughts/comparison:

Good news: the Authenticity Police can stand down about this recording of "Le Tombeau," which includes the Fugue and Toccata as orchestrated in 2013 by Kenneth Hesketh. The Hesketh versions are absolutely bang-on accurate evocations of Ravel's soundworld, with glowing impressionist strings, bubbling winds, tiny instrumental details inspired by/quoting from other Ravel works, and the same modest orchestral forces as the other four movements. It's absolutely superb work, more satisfying than the four-movement Ravel version (though of course it still isn't as good as the original piano suite). The only complaint I have concerns a tiny detail of the performance - trumpet not prominent enough in the first bars of the Rigaudon.

Of course, there is a previous orchestration of these two movements by Zoltan Kocsis. And of course the Kocsis version is good too. Kocsis' vision of the toccata is more toccat-ish, in that the strings like the winds are treated like staccato repeated-note spinners. Kocsis, however, adds considerable percussion - snare drum, celesta, tambourine, maracas, chimes, and that wind machine type thing that goes weeeeeeeooooo - which makes his orchestra different from the Ravel original. I also don't remember the Ravel movements having so many trombones in them.

I will now be looking up Kenneth Hesketh's original compositions. He's clearly very, very good.

For the record, I have no time for the four-movement orchestral version left by Ravel. Not a satisfyingly complete work to my ears, and nothing on the piano original.

[Madiel]

I completely disagree.  The two 'new' orchestrations allow the original order of the suite to be restored which I find far more satisfactory as a musical arc than Ravel's reordered 4 movement set.  I don't think that the new arrangers are thinking they are "better" than Ravel - I suspect most of the negative comments above have been made without actually listening to the versions in question.  To my ear they are respectful, well-executed and generally rather impressive.

I do think there is a very valid argument for saying that the piano originals are superior even when Ravel was responsible for the orchestrations. 

You criticise other people not listening to the arrangement, and yet you say that to your EAR they are respectful.

I'm sorry, but "respectful" is not a musical quality. It's a philosophical one. You're just asserting a view that you had before you pressed play because this fitted your preference for the 6-movement form.

I actually prefer the 6-movement form a little as well. A preference I fulfil by listening to the piece on piano. What's also at play here is a preference for orchestra.

But my strongest values here actually have to do with the relationship between author and audience. I take the firm view that if I don't like something, I should be very reluctant to seek to "fix" it or seek to have it fixed. I just don't keep listening to or watching or reading it. Or I embrace and accept what I think of it. My response is mine. The work I am responding to is not.

I would support the view that a better response to wanting a 6-movement Tombeau would be to make a 6-movement one, not tack a 2-movement extension onto to Ravel's 4-movement building.

I note that Ravel added music to the orchestral version of Ma Mere l'Oye. I've yet to hear anyone advocate for deleting these sections to restore the structure to match the piano original.

[Brian]

You criticise other people not listening to the arrangement, and yet you say that to your EAR they are respectful.

While I liked the rest of your post, I take exception to two lines. First, this: I don't see any actual criticism or personal animus in the original line:

I suspect most of the negative comments above have been made without actually listening to the versions in question.

Second,

You're just asserting a view that you had before you pressed play because this fitted your preference for the 6-movement form.

I give Roasted Swan enough credit that he could have said "I like the 6-movement form and listened to the orchestration, but the additions sounded terrible and didn't fit." Or, "Maybe if a better orchestrator had done it..." etc. It is a little bit unkind to assume that his preconceived notion was the only reason he did not say this.

[Madiel]

I give Roasted Swan enough credit that he could have said "I like the 6-movement form and listened to the orchestration, but the additions sounded terrible and didn't fit." Or, "Maybe if a better orchestrator had done it..." etc. It is a little bit unkind to assume that his preconceived notion was the only reason he did not say this.

Well to me whether they sound like they fit or not is not what the word "respectful" conveys. That word conveys to me notions like respecting someone's wishes. If it means a good fit, then arguably a really good art forger is respectful whereas a clumsy one is not.

[Madiel]

First, this: I don't see any actual criticism or personal animus in the original line:

That isn't the only original line. Another was "perhaps listen to it before you judge". I took from that that my opinion was not valid until I press play. I'd actually take that same meaning from the line that you quoted.

Which, to go back to my immediately preceding point, would make sense if what I was talking about was the sound of the additional movements. I'm not.

[Brian]

Ah. In that case it's a question of interpreting the meanings of others. I read "respectful" as meaning "sounding plausibly like Ravel, not like a whole different work", and I read him as saying the skillful execution of the orchestrations validates the decision to add them.

[Roasted Swan]

Sigh - this is tedious.  I wrote a comment about enjoying something and wishing to share that enjoyment.  I make no criticism - and never have - of the preferences of others here. 

[Roasted Swan]

Ah. In that case it's a question of interpreting the meanings of others. I read "respectful" as meaning "sounding plausibly like Ravel, not like a whole different work", and I read him as saying the skillful execution of the orchestrations validates the decision to add them.

Well that wasn't hard to work out was it!

[kyjo]

Sigh - this is tedious.  I wrote a comment about enjoying something and wishing to share that enjoyment.  I make no criticism - and never have - of the preferences of others here. 

You said nothing remotely questionable/controversial. Madiel seems to have a constant need to make mountains out of molehills on this forum...

[pjme]

Kocsis, however, adds considerable percussion - snare drum, celesta, tambourine, maracas, chimes, and that wind machine type thing that goes weeeeeeeooooo - which makes his orchestra different from the Ravel original. I also don't remember the Ravel movements having so many trombones in them

I cannot find the Ravel/Kocsis scores anywhere. Is this decription of the instrument stated in de CD booklet? Is it fantasy. ?

Peter

[Brian]

I cannot find the Ravel/Kocsis scores anywhere. Is this decription of the instrument stated in de CD booklet? Is it fantasy. ?

Peter

I listened to the recording on a streaming service.

[Madiel]

You said nothing remotely questionable/controversial. Madiel seems to have a constant need to make mountains out of molehills on this forum...

There was speculation about why something might be the case. I provided an answer. I'm sorry if we were apparently not meant to say anything, but this is a forum, not a blog or a diary.

If I record bits of my interior monologue on here, it's with full awareness that other people might respond to it. And shock horror might actually think differently!!

Edit: If you want to talk about mountains and molehills here, I'd say the mountain creation comes from being put out by me having a view. It turned out other people had views too of course.

I don't see why whether something was "controversial" even comes into it. This is like saying whether you prefer coffee or tea is "controversial" if your preference is different to the first person's preference.