Poll
Question:
Whom do you like better?
Option 1: Ravel
votes: 17
Option 2: Sibelius
votes: 20
:)
I hate you. ;D
I'm going to spend three days thinking about this, trying to convince myself that it's a real dead heat race between equals, before voting for Sibelius like I always planned to.
You naughty, naughty Dave!
Not even close - Sibelius by a mile. Hell, by 10 miles!
So vote. :)
No, I canna vote! (Even though it is Election Day . . . .)
Sibelius by a light-year.
Ravel, and it's not even close.
Dave, you need to next do brackets for the 1600s/earlier, 1700s, and 1800s, and then have an ultimate final showdown. Actually, since we all know who the two finalists will be, you can just skip starting all those threads and go right to the big climactic throwdown between Sibelius and Beethoven.
Quote from: Brian on November 02, 2010, 06:19:29 AM
Dave, you need to next do brackets for the 1600s/earlier, 1700s, and 1800s, and then have an ultimate final showdown. Actually, since we all know who the two finalists will be, you can just skip starting all those threads and go right to the big climactic throwdown between Sibelius and Beethoven.
I'll save time: Beethoven wins!!! :P
(* chortle *)
Ravel for writing great orchestral, chamber, piano. Sibelius is great but doesn't really excel outside of orchestral. :)
Exactly, David. Ravel by a long way, for many reasons, which doesn't mean I don't love Sibelius too....
....must get to work.....
Psst, YHM, Luke.
There is often a difference between what people say they like and what they actually like. In the composer section, the Sibelius Thread has 39 pages, the Ravel thread, 4 pages, mostly speculating why there is no Ravel thread. I guess there isn't much to say about Ravel. 0:)
Page count is high for composers that attract ocd multiple recorditis collectors. Ravel is good enough one doesn't need 20 recordings of each of his works to "get" him. 8)
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 06:38:56 AM
Page count is high for composers that attract ocd multiple recorditis collectors. Ravel is good enough one doesn't need 20 recordings of each of his works to "get" him. 8)
Yes, the music is so good, there is just nothing to say about it. ::)
In a fight: Sibelius
In a race: Ravel
In a fire-making competition: Sibelius ( :'( )
In a dance-off: Ravel
It's just too hard to call.
In a soufflé bake-off: Ravel
In a cigar smoke-off: Sibelius
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2010, 06:52:35 AM
Yes, the music is so good, there is just nothing to say about it. ::)
Not much has been said about Sibelius on this forum either. All they do is compare recordings. Pretty boring really. The Bruckner thread is worse though.
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 07:10:12 AM
Not much has been said about Sibelius on this forum either. All they do is compare recordings. Pretty boring really. The Bruckner thread is worse though.
It's the tyranny of choice! If we only had one recording of each work we'd be forced to speak more about the music itself. Ideally of course we could all read music and we would just discuss the very score itself.
Hmmmm... I wonder if we all learnt to read music properly (I can, but very slowly) we could convince Karl and Luke to teach us some advanced music appreciation and composition. University of GMG!
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2010, 06:52:35 AM
Yes, the music is so good, there is just nothing to say about it. ::)
Well, hey, personally I could talk about Ravel all day and all night, and about Sibelius for....rather less, so I guess it's not quite that simple. I reckon David's reasoning is quite close to the mark - the whole symphony-cycle-collecting-thing which is the same reason we get big VW threads, big Bruckner threads, big Mahler threads and smaller (for instance) Debussy threads....
I find all these comparisons rather silly;pure apples and oranges
and nothing but false dichotomies.
Even though I think the music of Sibelius far much greater profundity,I still enjoy the music of Ravel. Sibelius used to say that while other composers of his day created musical cocktails,
his music was pure,cold,fresh water. I suppose you could make this comparison between him and Ravel.
Ravel's music isn't profound,but it was not intended to be that.
His music is elegant,sparkling and colorful . It's valid on its own terms. Music doesn't have to be profound,but on the other hand,there's nothing wrong with profundity,either.
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 07:10:12 AM
Not much has been said about Sibelius on this forum either. All they do is compare recordings. Pretty boring really. The Bruckner thread is worse though.
Gotta keep quiet in an abbey . . . .
Quote from: Superhorn on November 02, 2010, 07:20:14 AM
Ravel's music isn't profound,but it was not intended to be that.
Strongly disagree - there are different types of profundity, and not all have to be Germanic-Teutonic-Symphonic-Serioso-Cataclismo in type (not speaking of Sibelius here, necessarily, and I have tongue in cheek, but even so...). Ravel's music reaches deeper parts of me than almost any other composer, and it does so, for the most part, gently, humourously, tenderly. The picture of Ravel as a surface composer of glitter and glamour with little humanity in him is very far off the mark, and it's why I so strongly advocate his songs, and his chamber music.
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 07:19:25 AM
Well, hey, personally I could talk about Ravel all day.
And yet, you haven't. ;D
QuoteI reckon David's reasoning is quite close to the mark - the whole symphony-cycle-collecting-thing which is the same reason we get big VW threads, big Bruckner threads, big Mahler threads and smaller (for instance) Debussy threads....
Symphony cycle listening implies symphony cycle
listening and passion to hear the music with a fresh interpretation. If you can twist that into a negative you really should be a politician.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2010, 07:29:15 AM
And yet, you haven't.
Some people (though not me) have lives outside of the forum...
Quote from: Brian on November 02, 2010, 07:30:22 AM
Some people (though not me) have lives outside of the forum...
What!? That's crazy talk man! ;D
Sibelius, which was for me a no-brainer. :D
I patiently await the opening of the Dittersdorf vs Albreictburger thread. :-X
As I said in the Grieg vs. Rachmaninov vs. Ravel, etc. thread, Ravel will always win for me against Sibelius, but if you pit Ravel against composers that I share almost an equal ethusiasm for (i.e. Bartok, Bruckner, Villa-Lobos, Vaughan Williams), then it becomes extremely diffcult and I simply won't choose.
Over the years, Sibelius has interested me less and less whereas for many people he has made a lifelong fan. He composed some great works, but I seldom listen to him much anymore. I'm beginning to like his contemporary, Nielsen, much more.
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 06:38:56 AM
Page count is high for composers that attract ocd multiple recorditis collectors. Ravel is good enough one doesn't need 20 recordings of each of his works to "get" him. 8)
And at least for me, I really don't care to talk about music all that much.
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 02, 2010, 09:05:42 AM
And at least for me, I really don't care to talk about music all that much.
No kidding. ;)
Easily Ravel for me, although I like both.
I won't indulge the threadmaker in this one, sorry.
So, both.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2010, 07:29:15 AM
And yet, you haven't. ;D
No, I haven't, but that is because I am and always have been a reactive rather than a proactive poster, except in the case of my own composer's thread. If talk is on Ravel, I will gabble on about him for ages, as I have, to the extent that work will allow, for the last few days!
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2010, 07:29:15 AM
Symphony cycle listening implies symphony cycle listening and passion to hear the music with a fresh interpretation. If you can twist that into a negative you really should be a politician.
LOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the
recordings which is driving it on to great length.
As I say, I think that's a great thing to talk about, I find it incredibly interesting and rewarding and it's one of the things I love most about GMG. But as far as talking about the composers themselves and their music go, it's less fascinating, except at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others). Personally I'm not great at talking about recordings, I'm much better talking about actual notes. But then I also, maybe perversely, think that the notes themselves tell us SO much, reveal so much, even when divorced from recordings and examined in the abstract as they first appeared from the composer's pen. So to me, Ravel is not just a composer of beautiful music which enriches my life - if he were, there wouldn't be much to say about him beyond the recording comparison. He, and his music, are also,
intellectually fascinating in and of him/itself, and personally I find that things like the following score details tell me as much about him/it as any biography - they stimulate me intellectually, as I say, and they fire me up to talk about him more than comparing two recordings of these pieces would. I talk only personally (and I could substitue many other composers including Sibelius for Ravel's name here, though Ravel, I find, is richer in these things than most other composers)
I find it disingenuous to dismiss the exhaustive discussion of Sibelius performances (and that is what is discussed, the recorded
performances, not the recordings
per se) as merely a manifestation of "obsessive collecting." It is a manifestation of people who are intently interested in the music and want to hear every aspect of it, and every possible interpretation. That is passionate interest in the music. The fact that the almost complete lack of discussion of Ravel is supposed to indicate the nobility of feeling for the music is absurd. By that argument, Dittersdorf must be even more exquisit than Ravel, since he is discussed
even less. ;D
I can only assume that Ravel lovers consider his music as something that should be tinkling in the background as they clean lint out of their belly-buttons, so one recording suffices. 0:)
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 12:39:03 PM
No, I haven't, but that is because I am and always have been a reactive rather than a proactive poster, except in the case of my own composer's thread. If talk is on Ravel, I will gabble on about him for ages, as I have, to the extent that work will allow, for the last few days!
LOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the recordings which is driving it on to great length.
As I say, I think that's a great thing to talk about, I find it incredibly interesting and rewarding and it's one of the things I love most about GMG. But as far as talking about the composers themselves and their music go, it's less fascinating, except at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others). Personally I'm not great at talking about recordings, I'm much better talking about actual notes. But then I also, maybe perversely, think that the notes themselves tell us SO much, reveal so much, even when divorced from recordings and examined in the abstract as they first appeared from the composer's pen. So to me, Ravel is not just a composer of beautiful music which enriches my life - if he were, there wouldn't be much to say about him beyond the recording comparison. He, and his music, are also, intellectually fascinating in and of him/itself, and personally I find that things like the following score details tell me as much about him/it as any biography - they stimulate me intellectually, as I say, and they fire me up to talk about him more than comparing two recordings of these pieces would. I talk only personally (and I could substitue many other composers including Sibelius for Ravel's name here, though Ravel, I find, is richer in these things than most other composers)
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2010, 01:07:32 PM
I find it disingenuous to dismiss the exhaustive discussion of Sibelius performances (and that is what is discussed, the recorded performances, not the recordings per se) as merely a manifestation of "obsessive collecting." It is a manifestation of people who are intently interested in the music and want to hear every aspect of it, and every possible interpretation. That is passionate interest in the music.
I don't recall using the phrase "obsessive collecting." I recall saying that discussions which compare many recordings of pieces tend to make for long threads. I fail to see the problem with this. The disingenuity is in pretending that I said anything otherwise.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2010, 01:07:32 PM
The fact that the almost complete lack of discussion of Ravel is supposed to indicate the nobility of feeling for the music is absurd. By that argument, Dittersdorf must be even more exquisit than Ravel, since he is discussed even less. ;D
Again - did anyone actually say this, make this argument you are syaing they did? No, they just said that length of thread doesn't necessarily correlate to the musical quality of the subject. Otherwise we must all concede that Elgar is a good deal greater than most of us would tend to rate him.
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 01:19:40 PM
Again - did anyone actually say this, make this argument you are syaing they did? No, they just said that length of thread doesn't necessarily correlate to the musical quality of the subject. Otherwise we must all concede that Elgar is a good deal greater than most of us would tend to rate him.
Doesn't Saul have like a 50 page thread dedicated to his classical compositions?
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 12:39:03 PMexcept at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others).
Oh thank goodness you think so! When somebody complained that all the Sibelius talk was comparing recordings, I immediately was consumed by the belief that I am a primary, in fact the primary, guilty party.
Phew! Got away with it that time... 0:)
Hardly - whole comparative thing is very valuable indeed, but your more score-focussed contributions were particularly so for me personally. In general that's how I tend to respond to things, though.
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 12:39:03 PMLOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the recordings which is driving it on to great length.
That that is a silly statement. Sibelius' music is not simply a "common factor" holding together a thread that is primarily about recordings. It is primarily about the music of Sibelius, and recordings are a common experience that allow people to relate to that music. The thread is long because when people have listened to a recording of music by Sibelius they feel compelled to communicate what they have experienced. If people felt similarly compelled to write about their impressions upon listening to Ravel, they would find or create a Ravel thread, and write something. By and large, they don't. At least they leave no trace of it here. 0:)
I don't think that has to do with Ravel vs. Sibelius in terms of who's better. I think that something which feeds into it is, Sibelius' music is "enigmatic" - it's like a series of problems, which can't be solved, but if we try for a lifetime they can be understood. There's a sort of mystery, and even a tantalizing frustration, to Sibelius. Why is he doing this or that? ~ What does this tell us about him? ~ How should this be played? ~ Is this (even) a sad symphony or a happy symphony?
At least for me, no other composer raises this type of question so consistently. Which makes Sibelius hugely addictive to me when I'm in a Sibelius "phase," which makes him an irritating turn-off when I'm not, and which makes him great fodder for writing pages and pages about.
Quote from: Brian on November 02, 2010, 02:13:32 PM
I don't think that has to do with Ravel vs. Sibelius in terms of who's better. I think that something which feeds into it is, Sibelius' music is "enigmatic" - it's like a series of problems, which can't be solved, but if we try for a lifetime they can be understood. There's a sort of mystery, and even a tantalizing frustration, to Sibelius. Why is he doing this or that? ~ What does this tell us about him? ~ How should this be played? ~ Is this (even) a sad symphony or a happy symphony?
At least for me, no other composer raises this type of question so consistently. Which makes Sibelius hugely addictive to me when I'm in a Sibelius "phase," which makes him an irritating turn-off when I'm not, and which makes him great fodder for writing pages and pages about.
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Another feature of Sibelius that I find compelling (related to the point you have made) is a feeling that there is a deep message beneath the surface, and that Sibelius wrote out of an inner compulsion to express that truth which he could not express any other way.
Ravel's music strikes me as a string of sparkling gems, perfect, detailed, but all on the surface for all to see.
I find that enigmatic depth in Bach Brian, but not Sibelius. I think that the mystery that you're trying to resolve is of your own reaction to the music. I know my reaction to Sibelius' works quite well. I don't find something new each time I listen to Sibelius' music, but nevertheless I enjoy it. :)
Quote from: ScrapiaThe thread is long because when people have listened to a recording of music by Sibelius they feel compelled to communicate what they have experienced.
Bingo - so you agree, the length of threads like the Sibelius one is due in no small part to the fact that there is extensive recording discussion there. And my argument is that this is the case not because these composers are intrinsically greater composers than those with shorter threads, but because, very often, they are composers whose oeuvre invites such discussion - composers with multiple symphonies like Sibelius, Mahler, Bruckner and Vaughan Williams. Hell, IIRC a comparatively minor figure like Bax has a longer thread than Schumann or that troublesome symphonist Schubert. Meanwhile, never mind Ravel, composers of the stature of Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg and Debussy (to say nothing of opera specialists like Verdi, or Puccini, or Rossini) have shorter threads than the symphonists IIRC. Surely we can't say that this has anything to do with a lack of quality, nor that it has anything to do with lack of interest in these composers. I repeat, I don't take this observation as important, I'm not bemoaning it either, I'm just trying to guard against the longer thread = better composer line of thought.
Brian - and in fact, Scarpia too - I agree, to the extent that I know what you are saying about the mystery in Sibelius and the up-front-ness of Ravel. This observation - that the mystery in Sibelius invites one to compare and contrast performances - is indeed, I think, part of the reason why the recording issue is less conducive to long discussion with Ravel than with Sibelius. It's also because of the things I've said - Ravel's structures are shorter, his orchestration more precisely pointed... I think this amounts to much the same thing.
What I disagree with - and I disagreed with it earlier too, probably on another of these Ravel threads - is the inference that Ravel's music lacks profundity for this reason. I don't think that 'mystery' (or length, or seriousness...) necessarily = profundity, and nor do I think that surface polish or wit or brevity means that there can't be an awful lot beneath the surface. Certainly my experience of Ravel is that he troubles me and engages me on an emotional level far more than many, many other composers, and I find an emotional complexity and ambiguity in his music of a very high order. It intruigues me above all, perhaps, because it is such mercurial emotion that throbs under the surface in Ravel, it flits and flickers and moves through various shades so quickly, unlike any other composer I know, I think, excepting perhaps Janacek. The shadings of feeling even in something supposedly purely descriptive like, say, Une barque sur l'ocean (I'm thinking of the piano original, but I suppose the orchestration will do too), which are due to Ravel's hypersensitive use of figuration, subtly shifting harmony, perfect awareness of gesture and register, and a magical sense of structure that allows the end to become overshadowed by something genuinely deep and 'other' before disolving in the most wonderfully controlled way, the melody present in the figuration till the very last second...this is superb emotional control which only a true musical poet could create, I think, and even in a comparatively simple, illustrtive piece like this, the music touches profoundity, a glimpse of greater, deeper things. That sort of thing is why
I love Ravel. Not the surface sheen.
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 02:32:34 PM
I think that the mystery that you're trying to resolve is of your own reaction to the music.
Duh, of course.
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 02:44:16 PM
What I disagree with - and I disagreed with it earlier too, probably on another of these Ravel threads - is the inference that Ravel's music lacks profundity for this reason.
I am extremely happy to agree entirely with this paragraph. I don't think (or, do hope) that I never said anything in my post about Sibelius which was at all disparaging about Ravel. In fact, it is informative that I have not yet voted in the poll!
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 02:32:34 PMI think that the mystery that you're trying to resolve is of your own reaction to the music. I know my reaction to Sibelius' works quite well.
"Every great philosophy up to the present has been the personal confession of its author and a form of involuntary and unperceived memoir." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Every half-decent forum post up to the present has been the personal confession of its author and a form of involuntary and unperceived memoir." - Lolcat Nietzsche
And in case you don't believe in Lolcat Nietzsche,
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/201570bd-d443-4bf6-85c7-44ca8c4550fb.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on November 02, 2010, 03:35:08 PM
I am extremely happy to agree entirely with this paragraph. I don't think (or, do hope) that I never said anything in my post about Sibelius which was at all disparaging about Ravel. In fact, it is informative that I have not yet voted in the poll!
No, you didn't, in that respect I was responding to Scarp's description of Ravel 'as a string of sparkling gems, perfect, detailed, but all on the surface for all to see', which, needless to say, I don't go along with.
I want to emphasize too that, like you, I am not looking in any way to disparage Sibelius, a finer composer than whom it is hard to find. I think, to look at musical differences, there is a difference in harmony, tone colour, texture and melodic shape between the two which (partly) makes for the air of mystery you accurately describe in Sibelius and which is often not there in Ravel. There is also, maybe most importantly, a different use of motive and motive transformation - it's the carrier of the argument and therefore the bearer of much of the profundity in Sibelius and Germanic symphonism in general - the motive comes to 'stand for' something. In Ravel, Debussy and so on this isn't the case (or very, very rarely - Daphnis is in some ways the Ravelian exception to all that I've just said). Here the weight of the profundity is born by harmony, register, rhythm, gesture, structure etc., and it's Ravel's fabulously virtuoso use of all these and more which gives his music the sense of profundity which I for one feel in it; that's what I was trying to say before.
I think Luke said something very interesting in his above post about the way Ravel weaves in and out of the shadows. This, for me, is one thing that I find so interesting about Ravel. The way he can go from something humorous, but then almost in the blink of an eye, he'll state something that's quite sinister. It almost reminds of Mahler in this sense: light to darkness, darkness to light so quickly. Ravel's music, on the surface, sounds like a completely different man than what is beneath that very surface. I find him much more profound than Sibelius. I think Sibelius is much more straight-forward than Ravel is believe it or not. Even though Ravel is seen as a composer of preciseness, I don't see it this way at all. I find more mystery in Ravel than I do Sibelius. The mystery is why did he compose the way he did? Why did he chose to be so precise, but yet so quick to change moods almost constantly?
In summary, Ravel was a very troubled man. Much more troubled than Sibelius. I think Sibelius was an incredibly honest composer, whereas, Ravel, I feel, wasn't quite being honest all the time, and this is apart of that mystery for me. It's as if Ravel is hiding something and being very careful not to tell anybody even though deep down inside of him it was killing him to not be able to speak about it.
Sibelius: long cold draughts of mountain spring water. Too many draughts of cold Finnish vodka and non-Finnish vodka. Big black mountains dotted with myriads of fir trees against the frozen gray sky. Fast cross-country skiiers killing hundreds of Stalin's troops. Low rumbles of thunder and kettledrums, long low crescendos of mountain horns building slowly to rapturous climaxes. Thick heavy chords beating like Thor's hammer against the sky...
Give me more...give me more...give me more...
Brian, I think that you and Scarpia misread me (well I needed to elaborate). I wasn't trying to say "make sure to add IMO", I'm saying that you've said NOTHING about Sibelius, and everything about YOU. Seriously think about it... you could describe any composer that way. Anyone that you haven't figured out how you feel about the music and has an inherent complexity in anything post-renaissance era on could be described that way. I used Bach as an example, because he is my mystery.
But here is the thing, if you do come to terms with Sibelius you might end up ranking him lower. >:D >:D >:D >:D
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 04:08:17 PMI'm saying that you've said NOTHING about Sibelius, and everything about YOU.
Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted Nietzsche. All of my "philosophy" about the nature of Sibelius, is just revealing stuff about me. There wasn't really a misunderstanding. :)
Quote from: DavidW on November 02, 2010, 04:08:17 PMBut here is the thing, if you do come to terms with Sibelius you might end up ranking him lower. >:D >:D >:D >:D
Actually, I do firmly believe this to be true. I thought of it while washing the dishes, between posting that and reading your reply. If I ever "figured out" exactly "why" Sibelius wrote it "that way," why he ended a piece "that way," "what" he "meant" by certain things, "why" themes "evolve" in "certain ways," "what" the "message" "behind it all" is, then a lot of the allure would be gone. But I've put all those quotes in there to point out that if I ever did figure out those things, I'd be arrogant, because I would
still merely be revealing things about myself!
Oh okay I thought you were mocking me! :D
Quote from: Superhorn on November 02, 2010, 07:20:14 AM
Ravel's music isn't profound,but it was not intended to be that.
Good gravy. What??
Quote from: Luke on November 02, 2010, 12:39:03 PM
No, I haven't, but that is because I am and always have been a reactive rather than a proactive poster, except in the case of my own composer's thread. If talk is on Ravel, I will gabble on about him for ages, as I have, to the extent that work will allow, for the last few days!
LOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the recordings which is driving it on to great length.
As I say, I think that's a great thing to talk about, I find it incredibly interesting and rewarding and it's one of the things I love most about GMG. But as far as talking about the composers themselves and their music go, it's less fascinating, except at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others). Personally I'm not great at talking about recordings, I'm much better talking about actual notes. But then I also, maybe perversely, think that the notes themselves tell us SO much, reveal so much, even when divorced from recordings and examined in the abstract as they first appeared from the composer's pen. So to me, Ravel is not just a composer of beautiful music which enriches my life - if he were, there wouldn't be much to say about him beyond the recording comparison. He, and his music, are also, intellectually fascinating in and of him/itself, and personally I find that things like the following score details tell me as much about him/it as any biography - they stimulate me intellectually, as I say, and they fire me up to talk about him more than comparing two recordings of these pieces would. I talk only personally (and I could substitue many other composers including Sibelius for Ravel's name here, though Ravel, I find, is richer in these things than most other composers)
Hey, Luke, I think Ravel was wrong when he wrote those diamond-shaped harmonics without any other notes on the same stem. That is incorrect writing, and such a notation doesn't really exist.
;)
Being down here in the sunny south (Australia), I feel more connections to Ravel's music. Indeed, the finale of his piano trio makes me think of being at the beach with the ocean breeze, the sun, the seagulls, the beautiful people - you get the drift. In contrast, Sibelius is (perhaps?) at his best when he presents these bleak windswept Nordic landscapes, and Symphony No. 4 is a masterpiece for presenting a psychological portrait in sound of someone suffering from severe depression (if you want to approach music from a psychological point of view, Sibelius probably wins over Ravel). But Ravel can have plenty of psychological turmoil and darkness as well - just listen to Gaspard de la nuit. But that said, a less typical work by Sibelius - his Lemminkainen Suite - grabs me as much as Ravel's chamber or piano music. I like how Sibelius presents fragments of a theme and then builds them up slowly, only revealing it in its entirety in the coda of each movement. It's such a modern way of doing things. But I'm not a huge fan of Sibelius' symphonies (I absolutely can't stand the finale of the 2nd symphony for it's repetitiveness).
So I like aspects of both composers, but the Frenchman definitely relates more to me in terms of the climate and atmosphere of where I am (Australia) rather than the the Finn, although they were both undoubtedly great and did many interesting things...
Quote from: Sid on November 02, 2010, 07:57:06 PM
Being down here in the sunny south (Australia), I feel more connections to Ravel's music. Indeed, the finale of his piano trio makes me think of being at the beach with the ocean breeze, the sun, the seagulls, the beautiful people - you get the drift. In contrast, Sibelius is (perhaps?) at his best when he presents these bleak windswept Nordic landscapes,
Try moving to Tasmania 8)
Quote from: Greg on November 02, 2010, 06:46:03 PM
Hey, Luke, I think Ravel was wrong when he wrote those diamond-shaped harmonics without any other notes on the same stem. That is incorrect writing, and such a notation doesn't really exist.
;)
Well played!
I still have a commemorative shark's tooth.
Bah, I still bear the scars!
More seriously, actually that question of notation and the way in which it tells us something about the composer is exactly what I meant when I placed those little score examples in an earlier post in this thread....I think it was this thread, anyway, so much Ravel around right now! Look at those harmonics in the second or third example - they could never have come from the pen of Sibelius (or Strauss) and nor would those composers ever had used that notation. No right or wrong, good or bad here, just a hint a deeper truths concerning these composers. Notation is such a revealing thing... but hey, that's my own personal obsession...
You'll be relieved to hear that I'm putting together a new contribution to the MS thread.
Any day now... ;D
Quote from: Luke on November 03, 2010, 05:42:13 AM
Bah, I still bear the scars!
More seriously, actually that question of notation and the way in which it tells us something about the composer is exactly what I meant when I placed those little score examples in an earlier post in this thread....I think it was this thread, anyway, so much Ravel around right now! Look at those harmonics in the second or third example - they could never have come from the pen of Sibelius (or Strauss) and nor would those composers ever had used that notation. No right or wrong, good or bad here, just a hint a deeper truths concerning these composers. Notation is such a revealing thing... but hey, that's my own personal obsession...
What was it that Ellington said, "if the music looks good, it is good." That sounds a bit off. ;D
Nah, I wouldn't agree with that, even if he had said it! But I would agree that the way the music looks reveals a great deal. Not about quality, about the composer's way of thinking.
Comparing Ravel & Sibelius is like comparing window dressing and hiking trails.
Silk and birch-bark.
Tivoli Gardens and Glacier National Park.
An éclair and a Finncrisp™
I think a better analogy would be some spices used for Indian cooking: Cilantro and Garam Masala.
Cardomom and sea salt ; )
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix//2008/02_04/SpiceFarewellGOFF_468x375.jpg) vs (http://www.scificool.com/images/2008/06/dune-movie-lynch.jpg)
Five brides for four brothers?
Shocking results. I thought Sibelius would blow Ravel out of the water (around these parts).
I still cannot vote.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2010, 11:57:47 AM
Five brides for four brothers?
Spice girls vs spice guys (somewhat obscure, I admit)
I didn't say that Ravel's music "lacks humanity". Just profundity in the Germanic sense. Nothing wrong with that. Apples and oranges.
Quote from: Superhorn on November 03, 2010, 03:29:22 PM
I didn't say that Ravel's music "lacks humanity". Just profundity in the Germanic sense. Nothing wrong with that. Apples and oranges.
We disagreed with that too.
No wait, we disagreed that Germanic is the only kind of profundity. That's the ticket!
Quote from: MN Dave on November 03, 2010, 12:00:11 PM
Shocking results. I thought Sibelius would blow Ravel out of the water (around these parts).
Sibelius fans just like to bluster more than us Ravel fans.
Quote from: Philoctetes on November 03, 2010, 06:32:36 PM
Sibelius fans just like to bluster more than us Ravel fans.
That they do. In fact, I knew one die-hard Sibelius fan on another forum that just would ramble on and on about how great he was. After awhile, I really thought I was going to vomit. This member also had a fascination with another composer that was quite unhealthy.
Actually, speaking of Tapkaara (if that's who you mean?), I wonder what happened to him? He's not appeared over the other side either recently...
Quote from: Sid on November 03, 2010, 08:50:24 PM
Actually, speaking of Tapkaara (if that's who you mean?), I wonder what happened to him? He's not appeared over the other side either recently...
Yes, that's who I'm talking about. :) I haven't talked or seen him in quite some time. I know he ripped me new one behind my back after my unfortunate demise on the other forum. I never liked the guy since that day. I could care less where he's at, he's no friend of mine.
Well, I give credit for him for knowing a number of composers in-depth (Sibelius, Khatchaturian and the Japanese repertoire). He had listened to, probably owned & saw live, many of their works in all genres. The last I heard from him, he was going to see some of his favourite music live in Japan. It would've been interesting to get his impressions on how that went.
I think we were all pretty affected by what went on before you left the other forum, Tapkaara was not the only one. It wasn't an easy time for any of us, to tell you the truth...
Quote from: Sid on November 03, 2010, 09:09:47 PM
Well, I give credit for him for knowing a number of composers in-depth (Sibelius, Khatchaturian and the Japanese repertoire). He had listened to, probably owned & saw live, many of their works in all genres. The last I heard from him, he was going to see some of his favourite music live in Japan. It would've been interesting to get his impressions on how that went.
I think we were all pretty affected by what went on before you left the other forum, Tapkaara was not the only one. It wasn't an easy time for any of us, to tell you the truth...
And yet we continue to still talk. :) I guess I got one friend out of that forum even though you and I have both had our differences.
Yeah, well it's sometimes good to have someone on the forum who has a "focus" on a particular repertoire or composer, because they know their stuff in-depth. Even after listening to classical for more than 20 years, I've only begun to scratch the surface. Like a year ago, I probably would have chosen Sibelius (on the strength of Lemminkainen, which I really like), but this year having re-visited or gotten to know for the first time quite a number of Ravel's piano & chamber works - & also seeing some of this stuff in concert - I can happily choose Ravel. I saw the piano trio, Pavane for a Dead Princess (this seems to be quite often played around here, it's a good concert opener as any) and Valses Nobles et Sentimentales live recently, and I can tell you that his harmonies are so rich, it's a completely different experience to hear them live. But by the same token, if some group around here plays Lemminkainen, you know who'll be the first one to buy tickets!!! 8) It's just that they always choose to play the symphonies, which I don't like that much, and especially the 2nd, which is probably my least favourite of the lot!
Quote from: Sid on November 03, 2010, 10:11:14 PM
Yeah, well it's sometimes good to have someone on the forum who has a "focus" on a particular repertoire or composer, because they know their stuff in-depth. Even after listening to classical for more than 20 years, I've only begun to scratch the surface. Like a year ago, I probably would have chosen Sibelius (on the strength of Lemminkainen, which I really like), but this year having re-visited or gotten to know for the first time quite a number of Ravel's piano & chamber works - & also seeing some of this stuff in concert - I can happily choose Ravel. I saw the piano trio, Pavane for a Dead Princess (this seems to be quite often played around here, it's a good concert opener as any) and Valses Nobles et Sentimentales live recently, and I can tell you that his harmonies are so rich, it's a completely different experience to hear them live. But by the same token, if some group around here plays Lemminkainen, you know who'll be the first one to buy tickets!!! 8) It's just that they always choose to play the symphonies, which I don't like that much, and especially the 2nd, which is probably my least favourite of the lot!
I guess in some instances it pays to know somebody who knows a lot about one or two composers. Unfortunately, for me, nobody cares much about Delius' music, and I know a lot about him and his music, so I'm pretty useless around here. ;)
Tapkaara is a poster here... just wait he'll be back. I remember him for slamming Mozart, I kind of went way over the top reacting to that. :-[
Quote from: DavidW on November 04, 2010, 03:29:26 AM
Tapkaara is a poster here... just wait he'll be back. I remember him for slamming Mozart, I kind of went way over the top reacting to that. :-[
:D I remember that thread!
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 03, 2010, 08:02:56 PM
This member also had a fascination with another composer that was quite unhealthy.
Yeah, I remember... Ifukube. His avatar was actually both Sibelius and Ifukube. Very interesting combination.
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 03, 2010, 01:17:05 PM
Spice girls vs spice guys (somewhat obscure, I admit)
Oh! were they in that Dune movie? It's an age since I saw it.
I just got back from seeing the Pavel Haas Quartet play Ravel's quartet at St Luke's Church, Old Street. If you'd asked me to vote in this poll right after walking out of the concert hall, I would have confidently voted for Ravel!
For Sarge's benefit:
(http://www.ivyartists.com/uploaded_files/1PHQ%20Marco%20Borggreve%201.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2010, 07:07:42 AM
For Sarge's benefit:
(http://www.ivyartists.com/uploaded_files/1PHQ%20Marco%20Borggreve%201.jpg)
Thank you, Brian but that pic needs a good cropping ;D
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/1PHQ%20Marco%20Borggreve%202.jpg)
Sarge
Quote from: DavidW on November 04, 2010, 03:29:26 AM
Tapkaara is a poster here... just wait he'll be back. I remember him for slamming Mozart, I kind of went way over the top reacting to that. :-[
As long as I'm on this forum he won't be back, trust me.
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 04, 2010, 03:14:01 PM
As long as I'm on this forum he won't be back, trust me.
Draaaaaaaaaammmmmaaaaaaaaaaa
Quote from: MN Dave on November 03, 2010, 12:00:11 PM
Shocking results. I thought Sibelius would blow Ravel out of the water (around these parts).
Apparently more fans of chamber music than of orchestral music. And, of course, Sibelius is still ahead of the times.
Quote from: Greg on November 04, 2010, 05:49:26 PM
Draaaaaaaaaammmmmaaaaaaaaaaa
No, not drama. This member has told other members that as long as I'm posting on the forum he's a member of, he will not be posting.
His loss, not mine.
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 04, 2010, 06:55:54 PM
Apparently more fans of chamber music than of orchestral music. And, of course, Sibelius is still ahead of the times.
Sibelius pulls ahead! Apparently Sibelius aficionados were too busy listening to Sibelius to realize there was a poll going on. ;D
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2010, 07:24:34 AM
Sibelius pulls ahead! Apparently Sibelius aficionados were too busy listening to Sibelius to realize there was a poll going on. ;D
Or sufficient time has passed so they can vote with their other accounts.
Nay, I still canna vote.
Well, to be honest, with only ~30 people voting, there is a statistical uncertainty of around 15%. To be statistical significant, one would have to win with at least 65% of the votes.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2010, 08:12:39 AM
Well, to be honest, with only ~30 people voting, there is a statistical uncertainty of around 15%. To be statistical significant, one would have to win with at least 65% of the votes.
I refuse to be bamboozled!