GMG Classical Music Forum

Welcome to GMG's newest blind comparison game! Since April is Impressionism month, and since almost all of our blind comparisons so far have focused on the symphony orchestra, we turn to the piano masterwork Gaspard de la Nuit by Maurice Ravel.

The comparison will feature twenty recordings - a fraction of those available, but I've attempted to choose carefully. There are studio and live, stereo and mono recordings by pianists old and young, male and female, famous and not-so-much. Note that although there are twenty competitors, there may not necessarily be twenty pianists!

THE RULES
1. Let me know here, by PM, in the Impressionism Month thread, or wherever I'll see it, that you wish to participate.
2. I will shortly be sending out the links to the first round. In the first round, we'll be listening to "Ondine." You'll get five recordings to try, although you are welcome to ask for more!
3. You'll come back here after listening to post your comments, comparisons, any thoughts, and also to rate each recording on a scale from 1-10. 10 is best. (PLEASE NOTE: This is different from previous games. Recordings will advance based on their average scores, not their rankings in group.)
4. The top ten will advance to the second round, where we'll listen to "Le gibet." Again, you'll audition five recordings, or more if you like, and post your opinions of each with a rating from 1-10.
5. The final round will pit our top choices against each other in "Scarbo."

NOTES
- Although quality of sound is of course a consideration, please don't weigh it too heavily; I'd be sad if all the oldest recordings lost solely because of their age.
- For audiophiles: compression rates differ; some of these are CD rips but at least one very rare recording came off YouTube.
- These are some folks who've expressed interest previously: AnthonyAthletic, karlhenning, madaboutmahler

Sign me up, Brian.  :)

Just put be on auto with these Blind Listenings. Sucker for em...

I'll definitely want to participate.

Definitely! Looking forward to it! :D

That's wonderful, you can certainly count me in! ;D

I'm in.  ;D

In

Thanks all who've volunteered so far! I have 19 of my 20 files, but 5 or 6 of these still have identifying info on them... hoping to send out our "Ondine" recordings this weekend.

I hope some more of our resident pianophiles will join in; the more the merrier! :)

Me too - not exactly a piano expert, but -phile, yes!

I am worthless for commentary, but I'm really looking forward to listening in on the conversation; I've brushed up on a couple of these (blind-listening sessions) and they are great.  The recent Berlioz FANTASTIQUE was quite interesting and will be motivating a couple purchases when I finally digest what I've got.

I've drum up enough courage to give this one a go. I will going to a Marc-André Hamelin recital later this year where this piece is on the programme, so I am pretty motivated to learn about it.

THE GAME IS AFOOT!

If you want to participate in the blind comparison for "Ondine" but you have not received a PM from me with links to the recordings, please reply or PM me! The more the merrier... and the listening/reckoning has begun.  :)

Most groovy!

Quote from: Beale on April 06, 2013, 04:26:32 AMI will going to a Marc-André Hamelin recital later this year where this piece is on the programme, so I am pretty motivated to learn about it.

I heard him play it last month.  His Scarbo is magnificent and malevolent.  I'm guessing you'll hear the same program I did, and if so, get ready for some extremely fine Berg and some almost inhumanly good Faure.  Hamelin's variations on Paganini's famous theme is a tour de force of virtuosity and quotations - too many to count, really.

Listened to the first five.  Listening conditions are not ideal - I used some Grados plugged directly into my laptop.  Grados are not my first choice, but they are the only cans I have on me that can be driven by my laptop; my 600 Ohm cans don't work.  And my laptop's output is not the best sounding.  That written, my results are:


16 – Very quick, sounding rushed, draining mystery and/or allure.  Too aggressive.  Technically solid with satisfying climax, but not nuanced enough.  Score: 6-7

17 – Wonderfully flexible, beautiful, great clarity and independence of hands.  Huge dynamic range.  Colorful.  Very alluring where it needs to be.  Luxurious.  Superb across the board.  Score: 10.

18 – Old sound hampers things a bit, with the hardened loud passages bothersome.  Playing is swift and colorful, almost insouciant, not to say careless, in how some of it is dashed off.  A bit pressed with the climaxes a bit strained sounding (certainly no match for #17).  Entertaining, but something is missing.  Score: 7.

19 – Sound is a bit compromised again.  Nuanced and delicate, alluring to open.  Attractive clarity, with some subtle personal touches thrown in throughout.  Recorded sound compromises dynamics, but control sounds exemplary.  Score: 9.

20 – A bit mannered and on the slow side, but the playing drew me in.  Attention to fine detail, though it seems to miss some of the big picture, and is not so much alluring as a display of pianism.  Dynamic range and climax is not hefty enough.  Score: 7-8. 

And here I thought I might be first! As I am not sure of my schedule, I wanted to get this one done asap. I'll do more if I can.

Overall, the impression of cascading water, visiting the water kingdom, etc., is best carried off by #1 and 5. #1 is remarkable, and this becomes even more evident after the others are heard. I could listen to it over and over. I hope this one and #5 get to the next round. Both are really fine. 

Pianist 1 – The repeating patterns in the early going are close to the side of shrill and harsh at times – but it is so well performed and the mood so well captured, I can live with it. Because when the rest of the music is played, it is pretty glorious and these repeating patterns simply fade into the whole to create some beautiful music. The phrasing here is also very good, and really much better than the others.  Structurally, I find this one good too. Technique is excellent and one just floats along the waves of this one. Rating: 9.5.

Pianist 2 – Structurally, though there is more of an attempt to be quite detailed, this one loses me sometimes. There is too much rubato, which breaks the pace, where I feel it benefits from a sort of inevitability or continuity. And a result, when this should be building up to soaring highs as it progresses, it somehow misses them. Well controlled in terms of playing though, I must admit. Still, I wanted more. Rating: 2.5.

Pianist 3 – Here, we have a much more nuanced rubato, much better. The repeated patterns are a bit dull in execution, but then the melodies interweave and you can feel the atmosphere. This one never really soars, feeling a bit episodic/choppy. Better than #2, but not really by much. Rating: 3.5

Pianist 4 – This pianist makes the beginning sound like a trill rather than a repeating pattern. It sounds like a different piece almost. It is well controlled, though I wish there was more organic build up, instead of dramatic shifts at times. Still, some wonderful performing here. Rating: 7.

Pianist 5 – Technically, some unevenness in the early going, though similar in approach to #1. This one has a softer, more fairy-tale impact, which just seduces the listener. Oh a joy! Perhaps too strong a break before the ending. Rating: 8.5.

Sampled five more, 11-15. 

11 – Hits the notes, but seems cool.  Nothing alluring or colorful.  Climaxes are a bit muddy.  Dim sound doesn't help.  Score: 5.

12 – Stiff.  Less fluid and graceful than I prefer, and not alluring.  Almost sounds like a cold, modernist take on the piece.  Loudest passages unattractive.  Score: 4.

13 – Marked improvement over previous two.  Fluid, lithe, alluring, and technically secure.  Loudest passages dispatched with ease.  Vocalizing noticeable through cans.  Score: 9.

14 – Beautiful to open.  Very elegant.  Warm and rich tone and sound.  Wonderful clarity and detail, with lovely right hand playing.  Loudest passages superb, with fine sound aiding things.  Score: 9

15 – Very steady left hand underpins opening.  Right hand spins out some lovely melodies.  Tone is appealing, but can become metallic at times.  Playing is forceful without being aggressive.  Well controlled.  Still, something sounds a bit perfunctory about it.  Score: 6.

Here are my scores for the first 5 (#11-15).

1.  14  beautiful key strokes
2.  12  beautiful key strokes, but not as convincing as #14
3.  15  solid, but not overwhelmed
4.  13  tempo is much too fast
5.  11  just did not like the sound nor performance

Just in case you didn't see my PM - I got a mail from you with a list of tracks but no links at all. BUT - when I sent you the PM replying to yours, the links appeared on your quoted text, not clickable unfortunately. I am utterly bemused by all this - nothing of the kind has ever happened before. >:(
Quoi faire?

Quote from: Brian on April 07, 2013, 01:15:20 PM
THE GAME IS AFOOT!

If you want to participate in the blind comparison for "Ondine" but you have not received a PM from me with links to the recordings, please reply or PM me! The more the merrier... and the listening/reckoning has begun.  :)

Ooh. I've just seen this.  As a Ravel fan who's stumbled through learning Ondine (and shrieked in horror at the score of Scarbo), I hope I'm not too late to join in!

My comments on these interpretations are rather handicapped by the deficient way in which they transfer to my laptop, with gaps in the sound and crackles etc; funny, because I have no trouble playing pieces on YouTube, despite having a rather less consistently even reception here in France than in Berlin.
My aesthetic stance towards these pieces is a general preference for characterful structuring rather than for impressionistic haze, narrative insight rather than virtuoso scintillation, a tissue of emergent contrast of light and shade, liquid and sharp contours, mixed by the hands of a magician. In Ondine there must be a sense of the shocks of the uncanny combined with those of the flagrantly erotic, together with malicious wit, as the text or prose poem by Aloysius Bertrand (from his first and only collection, Gaspard de la nuit) that inspired Ravel would suggest. It is striking how sound and song are suggested by this poem, which Ravel takes for the first part of his spooky triad. I here append my translation of this, as there is none apparently available on the net:
Ondine
- "Listen! - Listen! - It's me, it's Ondine, who with these drops of water is brushing against the sonorous diamonds of your window illuminated by the wan gleams of the moon; and here in her robe of mohair is the lady of the manor contemplating from her balcony the beauteous starry night and the lovely slumbering lake.
"Every wave is a nixie swimming in the current, each current is a path undulating towards my palace, and my palace is a watery edifice at the bottom of the lake, in the triangle of fire and earth and air.
"Listen! - Listen! - My father beats the croaking water  with a green alder branch  and my sisters' foamy arms caress the fresh islets of grasses, water lilies and gladioli, or they mock the bowed and bearded willow fishing with its line!"
*
Having murmured her song, she begged me to accept her ring on my finger, thus to become the spouse of an undine, and to visit her palace with her to be the king of the lakes.
And when I replied that I loved a mortal woman, shrewish and contrary, she shed a tear or two, burst out laughing and then vanished in showers of white spume that splashed along my blue-stained windowpanes.

16. Tinkly and droopy at the same time - "wet" in the wrong way - the structure is vague and the climax badly approached and executed. I lost interest almost from the start. Texture badly defined.
17 this is very atmospheric, reminding me of Liszt's Au bord d'une source in its romantic evocation of water - though far more ethereal, of course; but it did not suggest the uncanny aspects enough, being more contented with beautiful playing and less concerned with character; more impressionistic than expressionistic. Finally it was brilliant piano playing that lacked a sense of the narrative shape and complexity of the piece.
18 Here there is a sense of eery sadness present from the start, then the climax is well prepared and the aftermath more suggestive of the nixie's reactions as told by the text, and her disappearance at the end had something ironically petulant about it. The sound, however, is too little differentiated, the bass in particular, thus rendering Ravel's alchemy of sound and story less piercingly affecting.
19 This has better definition. I liked the return of the theme after the eruptive climax and the sadly solitary phrasing of Ondine's lament in unharmonised single notes was well done, with the final mocking scintillation of her disappearance very much in character.
20 Well-defined sense of meaning in the various complex interrelated patterns that are effectively accentuated by colouring. While I find the build-up to the climax and its calm postlude beautifully managed, the ending seemed a little too abrupt and inexpressive.

It was a pity that none of these recordings really approached my ideal - possibly also because of the faulty transmission. The recording I played beforehand to refamiliarise myself with the piece sounded much better and clearer, although itself no longer younger than springtime.
Evaluation:
8/10 19.
7/10 20.
7/10 18.
6/10 17.
5/10 16.

Thanks all for the comments so far! I hope you found it rewarding and will consider listening to a few more. :)

mjwal and banpuku, if you wouldn't mind scoring the recordings on a scale of 1-10. This is different from past games, but recordings will advance to the next round ("Le gibet") based on average score, rather than whether they ranked first place in their group.

mjwal, I'm sorry to hear about the transmission problems, but you should also be informed that several of the recordings you heard, in fact a majority, are very old or live. I think 3 of them are 50+ years old. If you had problems with 17, please tell me, because 17 is supposed to be in very high quality sound!

I tried to listen to 17 again - but the file that comes up says it is 16 - and so does the file for 18, though I have put 18 into the link as instructed! Either I am missing the point or something is dodgy about this new way of accessing the music. I give up.

Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2013, 07:46:56 PM
Thanks all for the comments so far! I hope you found it rewarding and will consider listening to a few more. :)

mjwal and banpuku, if you wouldn't mind scoring the recordings on a scale of 1-10. This is different from past games, but recordings will advance to the next round ("Le gibet") based on average score, rather than whether they ranked first place in their group.

mjwal, I'm sorry to hear about the transmission problems, but you should also be informed that several of the recordings you heard, in fact a majority, are very old or live. I think 3 of them are 50+ years old. If you had problems with 17, please tell me, because 17 is supposed to be in very high quality sound!

Hrrrmm... is anybody else having these problems?  :-\

Quote from: Brian on April 10, 2013, 04:39:26 AM
Hrrrmm... is anybody else having these problems?  :-\

I can't say I encountered that problem. I managed to download these MP3 files by right-click and save-as: pianist16ondine, pianist17ondine, pianist18ondine, pianist19ondine and pianist20ondine.

I didn't realise I could download them. But the files are still all labelled pianist 16. I'm afraid I find this all very confusing, which may have also to do with the present state of my health and patches of memory loss, so I'm dropping it and leaving this forum.

Well, don't leave the forum, dude!

A general observation, having listened to 2.5 recordings and checked the timings of a couple more downloads:

Too many pianists take Ondine too freaking fast!

EDIT: I'm almost finding a direct correlation between longer running time and greater enjoyment.  Almost.

Ok. Herewith the first five. Listened on Senns steaming while under the influence of a glass of Sancerre.

11 ostinato a bit labored and sloppy. Chiseled sound that I generally don't like but surprisingly not without atmosphere. Phrasing too careful. Sounds like the pianist is phrasing more to avoid mistakes than because the music demands it that way. Runs rather muddled. But still surprisingly good dynamic control. Good understanding of the idiom, but too unwilling to let loose and go to the edge of the precipice to really convince me. 6

12 This is so slow and chiseled the opening ostinato sounds like a horse in a trot. I half expected some perverse rendition of Erlkönig to follow. Not a good balancing of voices. Rhapsodizing like it's Chopin. Doesn't get the seductive scary atmosphere of the piece at all. Not entirely comfortable with the technical demands either. Again tellingly over-careful in some of the tough spots rather than daring to let loose. Rather heavy and "Germanic" in a way. Unidiomatic. Ending rather abrupt and not organic. 3

13. Very nice atmosphere and phrasing even though the ostinato pattern is rather approximate. Nicely long line leading up to the climaxes. Very nice balancing. Dares to go high risk in the fast runs. Very idiomatic. Good overall concept and structure. Not nearly as episodic as the first two. Holds together much, much better. Completely compelling interpretation. Would get higher marks if the ostinato were more intelligible and the touch a bit lighter and more nuanced. I can forgive the vocalizing. 8

14. Stunning control! Amazing phrasing, dynamic control and pedaling. Beautifully precise ostinato. Completely idiomatic. Gorgeous atmosphere and not just because of the newer sound. A tad bit too reticent here and there. Second half doesn't quote fulfill the promise of the first. This guy/gal also doesn't really dare to let it rip in the climaxes.  That costs points in an otherwise near perfect interpretation. 8

15 very very beautifully "sung" opening with another very finely articulated and balanced ostinato. Odd choice of staccato mars an otherwise excellent performance. Very good buildup to the climax. But overall not quite there. Doesn't quite hold together structurally.  7


As a performance 13 is my favorite as much as I am in awe with the pianism of 14. None of the others gets the piece conceptually down nearly as well as 13. Too bad for the sloppy ostinato. 11 doesn't belong in a comparison of top performances of this piece and 12 has no business even playing this repertoire.

Right. Let me expand on my previous remark before reviewing the group of 5 recordings I've listened to.

I know Gaspard quite well, and Ondine most of all as I've learnt the piece.  I think Gaspard is an out-of-out masterpiece.  And any pianist who doesn't make me feel like it's a masterpiece while I'm listening is going to be in serious trouble. Only 2 out of these 5 pianists made me feel like I was listening to great music.

First thing: the tempo of this piece is Lent.  I know, that's the basic pulse, and the fact that Ravel can pack an enormous number of notes into that basic pulse means that it's never going to feel all that slow.  But by golly, it shouldn't feel like it's a massive rush either.  Read the text that goes with the piece. The English translation I have has words like enchanting, slumber, sad, tender, murmuring.

Secondly, this piece has a truly fantastic climax. I'm going to refer to it a lot so let me spell it out. There are 4 bars of ascent, with a crescendo from p to ff, and slowing down as it goes.  There are then 2 massive descending bars, heading down to mf (and then the descent continues from there, but the climax is over by then), which are marked 'un peu plus lent'.  I want those 6 bars to be absolutely thrilling - because I know they can be.

And then there's the coda.  Ravel's depiction of Ondine laughing and vanishing is one of the most brilliant bits of picture-painting in piano music. Don't muck it up.

Right, having said all that, my thoughts on the 5 pianists, from worst to best... I've put the timings in because they show how, for me, bad pianists rush Ondine off her feet.

Pianist 9 (5:18):  This is a live performance. I've come to the conclusion that the pianist was worried about being late to catch a bus after the concert. Or plane, it doesn't matter.  But the pace of this is insane.  The opening notes don't register as individual notes at all.  This Ondine isn't murmuring by a lake, she's skipping and she appears to live in a waterfall. Apparently Ravel wrote a scherzo.

The funny thing is that I don't hate it. I get lots of lovely washes of Ravel's wonderful harmonic colours. But that's pretty much all I get. No room for nuance.  The climax is a complete mess, with the descent actually being faster than the basic pulse, not slower. 5/10

Pianist 10 (6:03): Initially I liked this slightly better than 9. I can hear individual notes at the start. But then later on I sometimes liked it less, because it's so relentlessly mechanical. The ascent of the climax is a bit better, but then the descent is a rush again and robbed of its grandeur. Read the blooming score.  And then in part of the coda the tenor melody is completely lost. 5/10

Pianist 6 (6:21): We've slowed down just a fraction, now, or more to the point the music is given moments where it can breathe. However, the main sense I get from this performance is that it lacks poetry.  This pianist is at least aware that there should be poetry, but in general he/she doesn't quite know how to deliver it. The necessary smoothness isn't there. 6.5/10

Pianist 8 (6:38): And now, we have poetry. This is still quite fast in a sense, but now Ondine really does sound like she's singing.  It's quite a bright and clear song - this Ondine is arguably calling out "Listen! Listen!", not murmuring it.  But it works.

The ascent to the climax seems to have a fractional moment of clumsiness, but the pacing works pretty well. The coda is very well judged. On the whole this performance was quite satisfying. 8/10

Pianist 7 (7:25): If no.8 found the poetry, no.7 found the magic. The opening is whispered seduction - which when you read the poem is exactly what should be happening. The clarity of the treble in this performance is a total delight.

And the climax... The climax is superb. The lead-up to the climax is superb, the reason being that because the piece has been slow enough, there is somewhere to go.  There is a slight increase in pace, and a definite increase in intensity, in the 2 bars before the ascent with their tinkling descending notes.

My only criticisms here are (1): the energy perhaps drops a little too much between the climax and the coda, and (2) some of the important bass notes don't register as much as they should.  But otherwise this is a great performance from a pianist who is at the service of the music instead of trying to prove that he/she can get a lot of notes under the fingers. 9/10.

Quote from: orfeo on April 10, 2013, 07:01:35 PM
Too many pianists take Ondine too freaking fast!

I have to completely and categorically disagree with you. The opening ostinato is 1/32nds. Even with the tempo marking "lent" this should be far from glacial. And the runs near the end are indicated as "rapide et brilliant". The reason there is almost a tradition of actually playing it too slow is that the opening ostinato has a murderously difficult pattern yet has to be played ppp and Ravel later asks for even "toujours ppp"! There are very few who can actually do it the way it's written. I once introduced a pianist friend to my favorite recording of this and he just asked me to play the opening over again because he was in disbelief at how well that particular pianist got that impossible combination of dynamic control and rhythmic accuracy down without sounding chiseled. People play it slowly because it's too damn hard a tempo.

Quote from: MishaK on April 12, 2013, 06:38:17 PM
I have to completely and categorically disagree with you. The opening ostinato is 1/32nds. Even with the tempo marking "lent" this should be far from glacial. And the runs near the end are indicated as "rapide et brilliant". The reason there is almost a tradition of actually playing it too slow is that the opening ostinato has a murderously difficult pattern yet has to be played pp and Ravel later dials that further down to ppp, even "toujours ppp"! There are very few who can actually do it the way it's written. I once introduced a pianist friend to my favorite recording of this and he just asked me to play the opening over again because he was in disbelief at how well that particular pianist got that impossible combination of dynamic control and rhythmic accuracy down without sounding chiseled. People play it slowly because it's too damn hard a tempo.

I'm not asking for glacial, and I'm not talking about the runs at the end. The runs at the end are a completely different issue.

EDIT: The runs at the end are also quite a bit easier than the ostinato pattern.

I'm listening to pianists 1 to 5 now, and the correlation between timing and enjoyment has been pretty well broken.

It turns out that pianist 7, whom I adored, is the slowest of the entire 20.  And pianist 9, who I didn't like much, is the fastest of the 20. So that certainly influenced my thoughts on timing.  But now I have pianist 2, who is second-slowest of the bunch but actually sounds much, much slower than pianist 7 did.

There's all the difference in the world between sense of pulse, sense of rubato, and actual stopwatch time.

I don't want to intrude too much on this fascinating discussion, but I'll say that pianist 2 is dividing opinion in a way which I (and the average Ravel "expert") could not have predicted.

As a reminder, I'd like to get round 1 "Ondine" out of the way within the next few days. Obviously if you need longer it's not a problem - but if you need something to do tonight, give a few of our Gaspard pianists a spin!

Hi Brian, sorry for taking so long with mine! Will hopefully have my vote here by this time tomorrow. :)

I will definitely get my votes in by tonight. Thanks, Brian!

Quote from: Brian on April 14, 2013, 03:45:45 PM
As a reminder, I'd like to get round 1 "Ondine" out of the way within the next few days. Obviously if you need longer it's not a problem - but if you need something to do tonight, give a few of our Gaspard pianists a spin!

Will aim for Thursday evening.

Quote from: Todd on April 07, 2013, 05:20:25 PM

I heard him play it last month.  His Scarbo is magnificent and malevolent.  I'm guessing you'll hear the same program I did, and if so, get ready for some extremely fine Berg and some almost inhumanly good Faure.  Hamelin's variations on Paganini's famous theme is a tour de force of virtuosity and quotations - too many to count, really.

Hey, you have escalated my expectations for this concert. Certainly will have some Faure and that Hamelin's variations, but no Berg. Plenty of Rachmaninoff and Debussy though.

Now back on topic of the Ravel.

I had the pleasure of sampling artists 16 to 20. Not knowing this piece really well I found the differences quite subtle, like splitting hair, and have resorted to using half points. Brian, I hope you don't mind.

Artist 16. The playing was a bit rushed and heavy handed, lacking that lightness of touch. Good build up to the climax though, and the ending was reasonably dramatic. 5/10

Artist 17. Very good sound helps with the impression and imaginary. Great techniques and the sound is dreamy from the start. The solitary part was ethereal, but would like ending to be even more surprising and dramatic. 8/10

Artist 18. Poorer sound quality robs it of the splashy water effects. Seems a little rushed but the structure was good. 6/10

Artist 19. The note playing is not as clean as artist 17, but somehow this is more communicative and engaging. The start has a good amount of mystery, while the rejection part is played with emotion. The letdown is that the watery atmosphere is not well sustained throughout. 7.5/10

Artist 20. Very good light touch right from the start. However I just don't get that sensation of sparkling water, dance of the mermaid, her seduction and coercion in the first half. The second half was better, great drama and dynamics. 6.5/10

6 - Wonderful balance, and very fluent playing. However, perhaps just a bit dry sometimes, some more pedal would be nice to allow the flourishes to really shine. Very impressive control though, just lacking a bit of magic. 7/10

7 - Very sensistive shaping both dynamically and rubato-wise. Greater range of articulation and touch. Full of power and poetry. 9/10

8 - Different to the first two, faster but still full of poetry. As it goes on, maybe just a bit too fast for my personal liking, and I find it just a bit too straight in places. But some very powerful and impressive climaxes. 7.5/10

9 - FAST FAST FAST!! Impressive technically (must have the most flexible fingers ever...), but I feel that the tempo doesn't allow the music to speak as much. Don't like the pianist's touch in some places either, can be quite harsh... 5/10

10 - Older recording, and I like the sound. Balance not as perfect as it was in the others, the right hand is perhaps not light-sounding enough. But as it goes on, very poetic with great, flourishing climaxes. Very nice effects too, love the glissandi with the crescendi. 8/10

Thanks, Brian. Very enjoyable, looking forward to the next round. Want to learn this piece now....  8)

I'm sorry I still need some time, but I will certainly post my comments tomorrow. :)

Five more down:

1 – Swift and effortless.  Scintillating, even.  Intense but attractive, if not quite as alluring as some.  Score: 8.

2 – Lovely open, almost shimmering.  Very clear, detailed, precise, yet flowing throughout.  Superbly well controlled climaxes.  Sound is slightly irksome in this MP3, yet still pianist manages to be aurally intoxicating.  Awesome piano playing.  Score: 10.

3 – A bit foursquare coming immediately after #2, but very clean, with the musical water cascading nicely.  Less seductive, more "modern", yet still effective.  Score: 8.

4 – Very swift to open and through the piece.  A bit steely, and not especially alluring, but virtuosic, with thundering climaxes.  A bit hard edged for the music.  Score: 6.

5 – Very fast again.  Similar to #4 in many ways, but a bit more alluring and flexible, a little less intense, at least until the climaxes hit with gale force.  Score: 6.5.

1: 8/10
2: 9/10
Pianist Nos. 1 and 2 were the most enjoyable. There was more of a consistent flow throughout that I found very fitting, especially from No. 2. Plus, the slower tempo (again from No. 2) allowed for more detail.

The final three were quite disappointing after the first two gems, although No. 3 started beautifully. Whereas No. 4 felt like a race from the start.
3: 6/10
4: 4/10
5: 5/10

11 – Definitely a remarkable performance, with a very suggestive and elegant playing; the touch is sensitive and atmospheric while the choices of rythm and dynamics are very charming; they give a beautifully poetical impression of water falling and flowing; very nice trills in the opening part. 8.5/10

12 – A bit too slow opening with the trills; the dynamics is not very well handled too (especially  for the left hand), but it gets much better during the performance. Intense, powerfull climaxes and great glissandi. Enchanting, evocative floating melodies expressed with the playing. Overall the rythm is maybe a little too slow, but valuable. 7/10

13 -  Impressive technique, with a splendid touch; I really liked the trills and the glissandi. The dynamics is absolutely fine as well as the choice of tempo. Great intensity and modulations of the sound that give an evocative atmosphere to the performance. The voice of the pianist could be heard  on the backgroud, a bit annoying.....8/10

14 – Such intensity and energy expressed in this recording in the loudest sections; overall very fluent, colourful and refined playing; fine controll of the timbres and excellent rythm. The touch for the opening trills sounded a bit less poetical than the those ones in the other performances, though it is very good anyway. 8/10

15 – Brilliant performance, rich of poetry, elegance and expressive strenght. Rythm and dymanics are very well handled; great use of rubato and of the ornaments. Beautiful, sensitive touch. 9/10

Sorry I have been taking my time with the recordings. I'll dedicate some time to listening to them tonight.

Last batch:

6 – Too fast, too jittery.  Doesn't evoke cascading water, is not alluring enough, though after about 4' there's a nice, extended section of attractive playing.  A bit sharp sounding.  Score: 5. 

7 – Slower, lush.  The cascading effect is a bit weaker than in some others, and the music takes on a dreamier, more, well, impressionistic, sound.  Strong playing in the climaxes.  Score: 8.

8 – Quick, with some of the playing having a Scarbo-esque scampering about it.  Superb control, nice clarity –and is that a snort before the first climax?  For some reason the word "fun" popped into my head while listening.  Score: 7.

9 – Sound quality is an issue as the opening is a blur.  Too rushed.  Control is not exemplary.  Not alluring.  Score: 4

10 – Quick, well executed, very clean, prim, and proper.  Not especially alluring, but attractive.  Nice climaxes, superb control, though sound seems a bit dated and doesn't expand enough.  Exceedingly "professional", but in the best sense.  Almost like a serious, older pianist coming along after all the showoffs to show them how it's done.  Not the best of the 20, but one I could listen to again.  Score: 9.

Quote from: Todd on April 17, 2013, 05:33:42 AM
and is that a snort before the first climax? 

Pretty much.  Well, not so much a 'snort', but it's certainly an interesting sound... the pianist is working hard!

Had a good week of listening to 6 to 10.  Ripped to CD and 'as they were' through the IPod/Cans...very enjoyable.  Apologies for the delay, had a hectic week and its only Wednesday.

06. This came across to my ears as a very tense and taught recording, I couldn't hear or feel the music flowing as per, well at least two of the other recordings.  Very powerful climaxes, and very 'in your face', not totally against this one but the harsh, sharp playing didn't give me; the listener any joy in the 'enjoyability factor'. (6.0)

07. Out of the five, this was beauty personified.  Totally involved, seductive playing and such passion in the tinkling trilling notes.  If I didn't know this was the beauty of Ravel I could be taken on a DebussyChopinTchaikovsky~esqe roll of seductiveness.  Climaxes superb, never overpowering and the balance between climax and moments of calm, post climax are nicely achieved.  (9.5)

08. This one I found daring and fast, loved how the pianist moves into and drives forward the 'listen, listen'.  Dark texture in the left hand is very deep and bass.  This is one to hear in its entirity, whomever it may be!  Excellent sound, riveting, rewarding and chillingly good when heard through the headphones. (8.0)

09. Listening to the opening bars several times was akin to hearing Solti do the opening bars of the Verdi Requiem....with itching powder under his armpits.  Blazingly fast, one I listened to 8 or 9 times and it did nothing for me in the long run.  When listening to the gloriousness of impressionism then one has to be wrapped up, cuddled and cajoled...before you float in the cloud.  Sadly dismissed, not for me...apologies in advance  :o  (4.5)

10. The opening of 10 is very very clear, each note is crystal.  I did quite enjoy this when it got flowing but the opening couple of minutes on the whole seemed a tad robotic and clipped.  Does the UK remember the COUNTDOWN clock?.  Not one to dismiss, but again this would be great to hear complete as the peaks and troughs are powerful, then sombrely done.  Not bad, but not as engaging as seven & eight...A deserving (7.0)

07 - 9.5
08 - 8.0
10 - 7.0
06 - 6.0
09 - 4.5

1 finely controlled if slightly mechanical opening. Gets more atmospheric as it moves along. Superb control of dynamics and touch. I think I know who this is and this isn't quite his best performance of this work. Still, magical touch and flawless technique, if one of his less inspired outings. The buildup to the climax is immense. Structurally of a single breath. 8.5

2 not sure I am convinced by the rubato so early on in the ostinato. That somewhat goes against the idea of it being an ostinato. Super dreamy atmosphere. Very idiomatic and generally very nicely done. The dreaminess threatens to let the piece fall apart somewhat. A bit tighter would have been better. The buildup to the climax comes somewhat disconnected out of the preceding near stasis. Bit more power in the climax would have been nice too. Otherwise fine performance. 7

3 fine opening. Very good attention to dynamics, nicely delicate ostinato. Really beautiful atmosphere. Matches beauty with uncertainty and darkness. Nicely prominent bass line in the climax. Interpretively as close to my imagined ideal as I could hope for. Really outstanding performance. 9.5

4 this person's opening ostinato sounds more like trills. Not exactly the prescribed rhythm. Nice otherwise. Atmospheric and good dynamics. Somehow despite good tempo doesn't quite cohere as well as the better ones in this comparison. Everything is somehow where it should be, yet the interpretation is neither here nor there. 6

5 nicely hushed ostinato. Very fine dynamics in opening section. Big uncalled for slowdown in the middle before climax breaks structure and then the big crescendo is rushed into. 5

6 rushes into ostinato only to change his mind about tempo shortly thereafter. Quite a bit on the chiseled and dry side despite the pedaling. Not quite with the idiom. Not nearly enough dynamic gradation. No difference at all between indicated mf and f for example. Doesn't really observe well the relative tempo indications within the piece either. 4

7 wonderfully soft and exact ostinato but that's also much easier at this slowish tempo. Gorgeous atmosphere. Random staccato. Generally very good. Somewhat lumpy climax buildup. But then huge at the peak. Somehow not quite convincing taken as a whole. 6

8 the galloping horse ostinato again. Not enough control and virtuosity to play at the required softness to achieve the desired murmuring effect. The random staccato seems to be an epidemic. It's not in my score. The rubato sounds more like it's set up to make transitions easy for the pianist rather than elucidate the structure. Don't like. 4

9 speed demon! Who knows what the ostinato is at this tempo? Not without atmosphere but in the direct comparison sounds awfully rushed. The climax is just showoff at this speed. Ridiculous. This piece requires immense virtuosity but should never be about the display of it. 3.5

10. Very precise ostinato. Dynamics probably were better in reality than as mediated by this recording. Still superb performance. Wonderful phrasing. Excellent control. 8.5

3 is really the finest performance I've heard in this comparison so far. I'm dying to know who this is. But 10 is not shabby despite the crap sound and 1 is a classic - though there's another harder to find performance by that pianist (if it is who I think it is) which is a few notches more compelling. ;-)

A couple of days ago you were disagreeing with me when I said pianists were taking it too fast. Your actual reviews, though, appear to be agreeing with exactly that proposition.

Well no 9 is the only one who is too fast in absolute terms because the music he's playing is unintelligible at that tempo. I'm not a believer in one right tempo for a given piece. If it's convincing it's convincing. The ones I have liked so far are on quicker side generally as the slower ones have tended toward structural disintegration.

I won't attempt to comment on the recordings in detail, I do not feel qualified to do that. Just an intuitive assessment of the first 5 pianists after a couple of listens.

1) 7/10
2) 9/10
3) 9.5/10   I really like the shimmering, atmospheric quality of this one.
4) 6/10
5) 9/10

Last batch:

16. Gorgeous atmosphere and phrasing. Technique a little imprecise and unleashes a bit too much dynamic power too early when things are still in the p-ppp range. But this person also completely gets the piece. Humongous climax! 8

17 another stellar performance though a very controlled studio performance. Wonderful control of voicing. A tad straight perhaps. But still wonderful. Superb dynamic management of the climax buildup. I think I know who this might be. 8.5

18 achieves again a too chiseled ostinato that sounds more like horses than the desired murmuring though here the recording may be partly to blame. Generally too straight and too loud too early. Voicing could be clearer. Entirely too brawny of an Ondine for me. 5

19 generally good despite the dated sound. Nice touch and voicing. But the constant ritards at the end of each phrase in the same fashion are a bit tedious and mannered. The immense ritardando after the climax sounds very artificial.  5

20 entirely too "pretty" and dreamy for me. This is more melancholic than seductive/scary. Misses the point I think. The speed up into the climax is not organic at all. As if the pianist woke up suddenly from the previous slumber. Too much effort went into articulating every note instead of producing a compelling whole.  4

ALL POINTS BULLETIN: If you want to exercise supreme power, here's your chance!

The new 1-10 ratings system, and flexibility to sample as many clips as you want, has a surprise bonus. There are four recordings within 0.3 points of the Round 2 threshold: #3, #5, #8, #15. If you have not yet listened to one (or any) of those four, you may do so now and cast your votes - knowing that you may be the difference in who moves on and who does not! Voting will close sometime this weekend, but for tonight and tomorrow at least, these four recordings are on the bubble and those who haven't scored them yet can help decide their fates!

Karl, if you wish to vote soon, we will be glad to wait for you. (If you do, would you like to sample 16-20 instead? Or maybe you'd like to listen to the four "on the bubble" recordings highlighted above?)

If you don't think you can vote by the weekend, I should say that through a stroke of luck, exactly 10 recordings averaged higher than a 7.0 and exactly 10 averaged lower than a 7.0, which will make the choice of our ten "Le gibet" clips very easy on me.  :)

Oh, and there are a good dozen things I want to say in reply to various posts here... in that way, running the game stinks!

Quote from: Brian on April 18, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
There are four recordings within 0.3 points of the Round 2 threshold: #3, #5, #8, #15. If you have not yet listened to one (or any) of those four, you may do so now and cast your votes - knowing that you may be the difference in who moves on and who does not!

In that case, can I change my score for no.3 from 9.5 to 10? :D

Quote from: MishaK on April 19, 2013, 05:20:09 AM
In that case, can I change my score for no.3 from 9.5 to 10? :D

Only if I can change it from a 3.5 to a 3 (or perhaps lower)!  >:D  :o

Quote from: Brian on April 18, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
ALL POINTS BULLETIN: If you want to exercise supreme power, here's your chance!

The new 1-10 ratings system, and flexibility to sample as many clips as you want, has a surprise bonus. There are four recordings within 0.3 points of the Round 2 threshold: #3, #5, #8, #15. If you have not yet listened to one (or any) of those four, you may do so now and cast your votes - knowing that you may be the difference in who moves on and who does not! Voting will close sometime this weekend, but for tonight and tomorrow at least, these four recordings are on the bubble and those who haven't scored them yet can help decide their fates!

Karl, if you wish to vote soon, we will be glad to wait for you. (If you do, would you like to sample 16-20 instead? Or maybe you'd like to listen to the four "on the bubble" recordings highlighted above?)

If you don't think you can vote by the weekend, I should say that through a stroke of luck, exactly 10 recordings averaged higher than a 7.0 and exactly 10 averaged lower than a 7.0, which will make the choice of our ten "Le gibet" clips very easy on me.  :)

Oh, and there are a good dozen things I want to say in reply to various posts here... in that way, running the game stinks!

Ok. I'll listen to a couple more:

#8: Don't like the relative balance. Sometimes the top line seems covered over a bit and does not balance with the other (mostly early on). I am also not a huge fan of some of the speed changes. That all said, it certainly has some dreaminess to it and feel of water to it, but this one doesn't quite get there for me (ends a bit better than it starts). I wish it did more to elucidate the structure. Rating: 3.5 (same as #3).

#15: More controlled, but nicely dreamy. I really enjoyed this one, especially as it gathered steam. There are moments when I though the effect of cascading water was clearly evident (and so incredibly effortless), but then there were also moments when I wanted more (especially knowing what this pianist could do after hearing it). So pretty good overall. Rating: 7.5

I've already commented on #8, which I gave out of 8/10, so I can't influence that one further...

Pianist 3: I find this performance quite musical, and it has a particularly good cantabile sense to the melody.  However, what bothered me about it was a sense of technical insecurity.  I'm not really sure why that is, and to be honest it may not be any less technically secure than some other performances, but it kept giving me the sense that the control wasn't total. 7/10.

Pianist 5: In a lot of ways this felt quite similar to #8, but then at critical moments it let me down. For example, there's a great ascent to the climax, but this is another pianist who sees the opportunity for a great big crash of notes and ignores Ravel's instruction that the descent should be a little slower than the movement's main pulse. Not awful by any means, but not top notch either. 7/10.

Pianist 15: While I don't thinks performance is ideal, I found it to be a very involving one. And that counts for a lot. Ondine was calling out insistently, saying 'Listen! Listen!'.  And this time the climax was the right tempo. 8/10

Results will be posted within an hour!

RESULTS: "Ondine"

A word about the scores offered: these are averages on a scale of 1-10 across all voters! Each pianist received between 4 and 6 votes, with most of those listed here receiving at least 5.

A word on tiebreakers: where two pianists received an identical average score, tie goes to the pianist who received a higher single score on one ballot. For instance, if two pianists averaged a 7, but one person gave performer A a 10, I'll give A the higher ranking.

Without further ado...

Twentieth and last place: Pianist #9 (4.4)

"the pianist was worried about being late to catch a bus after the concert" "Apparently Ravel wrote a scherzo" "The funny thing is that I don't hate it." "The climax is a complete mess" "FAST FAST FAST!!" "can be quite harsh" "with itching powder under his armpits" "ridiculous" "control is not exemplary"

The pianist nobody liked is...

(http://pixhost.me/avaxhome/12/13/000c1312_medium.jpeg)

MARTHA ARGERICH

Live in the Concertgebouw, May 7, 1978

Nineteenth place: Pianist #12 (5.5)

"A bit too slow opening with the trills" "Intense, powerfull climaxes and great glissandi" "Rhapsodizing like it's Chopin" "Rather heavy and "Germanic" in a way." "Almost sounds like a cold, modernist take on the piece." "beautiful key strokes"

Pianist #12 is...

[asin]B0072A4HHS[/asin]

ALICE ADER

I'm a little sad about this result. Alice Ader's Ravel set is self-consciously peculiar, with a sort of cold modernist approach to much of it, but I at least found it interesting!

Eighteenth place: Pianist #6 (5.7)

"This pianist is at least aware that there should be poetry, but in general he/she doesn't quite know how to deliver it." "very fluent playing" "Very impressive control though, just lacking a bit of magic" "Doesn't evoke cascading water, is not alluring enough, though after about 4' there's a nice, extended section of attractive playing." "a very tense and taught recording, I couldn't hear or feel the music flowing" "harsh, sharp playing"

Pianist #6 is...

[asin]B000PMFTCM[/asin]

VLADIMIR ASHKENAZY

The 1965 recording. If this had somehow survived, it would surely have been torpedoed by my all-time least favorite Le Gibet.

Seventeenth place: Pianist #4 (5.80)

"Somehow despite good tempo doesn't quite cohere as well as the better ones in this comparison." "felt like a race from the start" "A bit steely, and not especially alluring, but virtuosic, with thundering climaxes." "makes the beginning sound like a trill rather than a repeating pattern" "It is well controlled, though I wish there was more organic build up"

Pianist #4 is...

[asin]B0000C8WZU[/asin]

ALEXANDRE THARAUD

Next up is one of the recordings I deployed which has never before been discussed on GMG...

Sixteenth place: Pianist #16 (6.125)

"sounding rushed, draining mystery and/or allure" "satisfying climax, but not nuanced enough" "the structure is vague and the climax badly approached and executed. I lost interest almost from the start." "lacking that lightness of touch. Good build up to the climax though, and the ending was reasonably dramatic." "Gorgeous atmosphere and phrasing." "this person also completely gets the piece. Humongous climax!"

Pianist #16 is...

[asin]B002FWFQK0[/asin]

FRIEDRICH GULDA

Yes! Legendary for his Beethoven and to some extent his jazz, Gulda earns mixed marks for his early Gaspard. I am happy to report that the other ultra-rare recording I snagged for this competition has advanced with very high scores.

Fifteenth place: Pianist #11 (6.125)

"a remarkable performance, with a very suggestive and elegant playing" "beautifully poetical impression of water falling and flowing" "Chiseled sound that I generally don't like but surprisingly not without atmosphere." "Sounds like the pianist is phrasing more to avoid mistakes" "seems cool.  Nothing alluring or colorful." "just did not like the sound nor performance"

Pianist #11 is...

[asin]B0000037J0[/asin]

VLADO PERLEMUTER

This is his later recording for Nimbus, made when he was in his seventies.

Fourteenth place: Pianist #18 (6.25)

"Playing is swift and colorful, almost insouciant, not to say careless, in how some of it is dashed off." "Entertaining, but something is missing." "sense of eery sadness present from the start" "Seems a little rushed but the structure was good." "poorer sound quality" "Generally too straight and too loud too early." "Entirely too brawny"

Pianist #18 is...

[asin]B000007QCI[/asin]

ROBERT CASADESUS

This result makes me sad. I wonder how much he was punished for sound quality?

Thirteenth place: Pianist #20 (6.25)

"entirely too "pretty" and dreamy for me" "The speed up into the climax is not organic at all. As if the pianist woke up suddenly from the previous slumber." "While I find the build-up to the climax and its calm postlude beautifully managed, the ending seemed a little too abrupt and inexpressive." "The second half was better, great drama and dynamics." "A bit mannered and on the slow side, but the playing drew me in."

Pianist #20 is...

[asin]B00000GCA9[/asin]

SAMSON FRANCOIS

We're at the point, with Francois, where the eliminated pianists were well-liked by several voters, but just not enough. That's also true of the last two eliminated recordings...

Twelfth place: Pianist #8 (6.333)

"Ondine really does sound like she's singing.  It's quite a bright and clear song" "The coda is very well judged." "faster but still full of poetry" "I find it just a bit too straight in places. But some very powerful and impressive climaxes" "For some reason the word "fun" popped into my head while listening" "Dark texture in the left hand is very deep" "riveting, rewarding and chillingly good" "The random staccato seems to be an epidemic." "rubato sounds more like it's set up to make transitions easy for the pianist" "not a huge fan of some of the speed changes. That all said, it certainly has some dreaminess to it"

Pianist #8 is...

(http://www.yevgenysudbin.com/photos-record/record-1963.jpg)

YEVGENY SUDBIN

Man. I'm really sad about this one. mc urkneal and MishaK, my eye's on you... one of my favorite recordings, a very distinctive reading all the way through. If Sudbin's interpretation and personality appealed to you here, they're just as strong in the other two movements. Certainly a unique Gaspard all the way.

And our last elimination:

Eleventh place: Pianist #5 (6.833)

"there's a great ascent to the climax, but this is another pianist who sees the opportunity for a great big crash of notes" "Not awful by any means, but not top notch either" "Big uncalled for slowdown in the middle before climax breaks structure" "the climaxes hit with gale force" "just seduces the listener. Oh a joy!"

Pianist #5 is...

[asin]B000001GQQ[/asin]

MARTHA ARGERICH

Oh dear! With her DG studio recording, poor Martha is eliminated twice in a single round! On average this performance was graded 2.4 points higher than her live reading, but it wasn't enough.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ANALYSIS
The top complaint: playing too fast. Argerich (EMI), Ashkenazy, Tharaud, and Gulda were all heavily criticized for playing too quickly, while voters - interestingly - thought that Casadesus and Sudbin played overly quickly but got away with it for various reasons. I might personally add that Ashkenazy's "Le gibet" is my least favorite precisely because it is so absurdly rushed. Nobody ever criticized some of our highest scorers for speeding.

And speaking of highest scorers:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ON TO LE GIBET...
10. Pianist #3 (7.25)
9. Pianist #19 (7.375)
8. Pianist #15 (7.42)
7. Pianist #10 (7.50)
6. Pianist #2 (7.50)
5. Pianist #13 (7.75)
4. Pianist #17 (8.125)
3. Pianist #1 (8.20)
2. Pianist #7 (8.30)
1. Pianist #14 (8.50)

Boy, if you guys knew who pianist #14 was, you'd be very, very surprised.

Sound clips coming to an inbox near you within a few days! If you didn't partake in round 1 but want to sample our "Le gibet" recordings, just say so! :)

P.S. The eliminated pianists' "Ondine" recordings will be deleted within 24 hours. I don't have much space in my Dropbox folder so I can't afford to keep them there. If you want to rehear a file from one of this round's losers for whatever reason, access it now.

Quote from: Brian on April 20, 2013, 07:57:36 AMFourteenth place: Pianist #18 (6.25)

Pianist #18 is...

[asin]B000007QCI[/asin]

ROBERT CASADESUS

This result makes me sad. I wonder how much he was punished for sound quality?

Possibly.  Take a dated recording, compress it, and listen through a computer, and who knows?  I rated it a 7 in this round, and normally I rate it more highly - not that I usually assign numeric values to recordings.  This is really the only surprise amongst the culled for me, at least among those recordings I know.  I may have to spin it later today.

What interesting results. So Pianist No.11 was Vlado Perlemuter....I'm sorry his recording has been left out, I liked his Ondine very very much; I'm also suprised that both Ashkenazy and Argerich haven't passed the turn, they're usually amazing in Ravel!
I'm looking forward to Le gibet now. ;D

Thank you Brain for the interesting results from Ondine.

• #18 Casadesus. I fess up to have been influenced by the poor sound quality. I tired to look pass it but it was really hard.
• #8 Sudbin. I listened to #3, #5, #8 and #15 as suggested, and I found Sudbin to have very good techniques and clear sound. You are right that it is distinctive and unique compared to others. So I think it would be hard to judge it fairly.
• #5 Argerich. Oh dear! I have this record, but I only paid attention to the concertos  :-[ I would have given it a 7.5/10.
• #15. Glad it make it through. I would have given it a 8/10.
• #3. Didn't like it. How it did made top 10?

Very interesting that two Argerich have been voted out, thought I would have enjoyed her performance more. Glad my two favourites are still in though! Looking forward to the rest! :)

Perlemuter is a name I recognise from one person's overview of a large number of Gaspard recordings, I think favourably. I think Ashkenazy was highly regarded there as well, but you've indicated more than one Ashkenazy recording exists so perhaps it wasn't this one.

I've downloaded all 20 but not listened to them all so far. I did like Sudbin, so disappointed to see him go.

I don't feel especially sorry for 'poor Martha'.  She has something of a reputation as a fiery speed demon, and while I expect that would make more for a great Scarbo, Ravel didn't write Scarbo twice.

Not at all surprised by some of these results, actually. I love Martha dearly and had the privilege of hearing her live on several occasions over the past two decades. But she is a very nervous and inconsistent interpreter. I have witnessed performances that would have disintegrated from pure stage fright if it hadn't been for her sheer inexhaustible technical reserves and her natural musical instincts (I have of course also witnessed performance of pure incandescent perfection from her). So it's not surprising that her live performance was less well received than her studio performance. I absolutely adore her take on Jeux d'eau, both the DG studio version and the live performance that can be found on youtube. But her Gaspard never convinced me. I share the disappointment over Gulda's early elimination. He is an exceptional and underrated pianist who is always interesting, as he was here, which is why I gave him high marks. Casadesus I've always liked more in classical and baroque repertoire than in the romantics and the impressionists. So this again doesn't surprise me entirely. Francois is likewise very inconsistent. I'm unfamiliar with his Ravel, but love his Debussy, There are performances of pure genius, gutsy unique takes that are played with a lot of sexy swagger. But they are contrasted with other performances that are just a little odd and incoherent, like this Ondine here. Ashkenazy, likewise to me is a rather bland performer in most repertoire outside e.g. Rachmaninov and Chopin. As to the more individual interpretations that were eliminated, like Sudbin, yes, they are interesting and if listened to on their own would probably yield more to the listener. But when juxtaposed in direct comparison with some really outstanding performances that really observe every nuance of the score and tie it all together in a nicely passionate package, it's hard to give the more individualistic take the same high scoring.

Quote from: Beale on April 20, 2013, 09:02:16 AM

• #3. Didn't like it. How it did made top 10?

Because it's a democracy, and I for instance thought it was the best of the lot. ;-)

Quote from: Brian on April 20, 2013, 07:57:36 AM
Boy, if you guys knew who pianist #14 was, you'd be very, very surprised.

Liberace.

Try to sneak me in, Brian.

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on April 20, 2013, 05:48:20 PM
Liberace.

Worse. Richard Clayderman.

Our Le gibet files are uploading now. I'm off to the art museum to see a Bernini exhibit this afternoon, but the Round 2 links may be going out as soon as tonight or tomorrow night.

A stray comment: our top ten list is STACKED. There are legitimately seven pianists I want to see in the top five. In fact, we may yet find ourselves auditioning more than five "Scarbo" recordings.

~~~~~~~~~~

If I may be permitted to make a few comments on the foregoing, now that results are in...

Quote from: MishaK on April 12, 2013, 06:28:49 PM
Ok. Herewith the first five. Listened on Senns steaming while under the influence of a glass of Sancerre.

Good choice, sir. I remember participating in the Berlioz game and ensuring that wine was nearby for several of the finalists.

Quote from: MishaK on April 12, 2013, 06:28:49 PM
11 Sounds like the pianist is phrasing more to avoid mistakes than because the music demands it that way.

11 is of course Vlado Perlemuter, a recording he made when he was around 75 years old. I faced a choice between this and the younger Perlemuter on Vox. If we had twice as many players in the game, we could have expanded the bracket to 32 pianists and enjoyed both, as well as a number of other recordings I was sad to leave out.

Pianist 14 is an extraordinary artist who is, as you say, not very well-known for letting it rip. In fact, pianist 14 is not very well-known for Ravel either. In fact, outside of [composer name] enthusiasts, pianist 14 is not very well-known at all. [like I'd give too big a hint there!]

Quote from: Beale on April 16, 2013, 09:31:11 AM
Not knowing this piece really well I found the differences quite subtle, like splitting hair, and have resorted to using half points. Brian, I hope you don't mind.

Half points are great! In fact we had one vote last round for "6-7" which I converted to 6.5 for averaging purposes.

Quote from: Todd on April 17, 2013, 05:33:42 AM
8 – Quick, with some of the playing having a Scarbo-esque scampering about it.  Superb control, nice clarity –and is that a snort before the first climax?  For some reason the word "fun" popped into my head while listening.  Score: 7.

Not surprisingly, Sudbin's "Scarbo" is also a lot of fun - it also in some ways resembles pianists #7 and #15 there, for future reference. Maybe not quite as scintillating or dazzling as those two.

Quote from: Todd on April 20, 2013, 08:10:02 AM
Possibly.  Take a dated recording, compress it, and listen through a computer, and who knows?  I rated it a 7 in this round, and normally I rate it more highly - not that I usually assign numeric values to recordings.  This is really the only surprise amongst the culled for me, at least among those recordings I know.  I may have to spin it later today.

Yup. I was in a bind with Casadesus, as it's very hard to find these days. There really needs to be a Casadesus solo box in that cheap Sony reissue series.

Quote from: Beale on April 20, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
#8 Sudbin. I listened to #3, #5, #8 and #15 as suggested, and I found Sudbin to have very good techniques and clear sound. You are right that it is distinctive and unique compared to others. So I think it would be hard to judge it fairly.

In past games it has been quite a challenge to figure out how to rate recordings that are very different from all the other ones. We're not done facing that challenge in this game!

Quote from: MishaK on April 20, 2013, 05:39:50 PMI love Martha dearly and had the privilege of hearing her live on several occasions over the past two decades. But she is a very nervous and inconsistent interpreter. I have witnessed performances that would have disintegrated from pure stage fright if it hadn't been for her sheer inexhaustible technical reserves and her natural musical instincts (I have of course also witnessed performance of pure incandescent perfection from her).

I saw Martha live with Prokofiev's Third Concerto a few years ago; somehow had never heard about her stage fright and nervousness (it wasn't apparent then). Incidentally the concert was led by her ex-husband, Charles Dutoit.

Quote from: MishaK on April 20, 2013, 05:39:50 PMAshkenazy, likewise to me is a rather bland performer in most repertoire outside e.g. Rachmaninov and Chopin.

Agreed - even his Chopin I'm not crazy about. I've much preferred Ashkenazy the conductor to Ashkenazy the pianist.

Quote from: Bogey on April 20, 2013, 05:57:15 PM
Try to sneak me in, Brian.

With pleasure!

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on April 20, 2013, 05:48:20 PM
Liberace.

Okay, maybe not THAT surprising.  ;D

Quote from: Brian on April 21, 2013, 07:58:43 AMOkay, maybe not THAT surprising.

Angela Hewitt, then.

Quote from: Todd on April 21, 2013, 08:01:18 AM
Angela Hewitt, then.

Of course I'll neither confirm nor deny, but why Hewitt?

Quote from: Brian on April 21, 2013, 08:30:16 AMOf course I'll neither confirm nor deny, but why Hewitt?

Because you said we'd be surprised, and I doubt most people think of Hewitt when considering Ravel. 

THE GAME IS AFOOT!

If you want to participate in the blind comparison for "Le gibet" but you have not received a PM from me with links to the recordings, please reply or PM me! The more the merrier... and the listening/reckoning has begun.  :)

Round 2:

#1 - Immediate connection here. The tension is palpable. The idea of a corpse, setting sun, and deathly feel permeate quite strongly. The constant toll of the bell creates real tension all the way to the end. Rating: 9.75.

#2 - A completely different version. It's slower and the bell is a bit more to the background. This one is more sad and less dischordant (and thus not as dark in sound image). This makes it easier to listen to, but that bell SHOULD go on unwearingly. There is minimal tension. Here it is something else and not entirely what the composer intended I think (too pretty). Rating: 1.5.

#3 - At first, it sounded like a repeat of #2 as the tolling sound seems again subsumed a bit (and is played slower). And I think it could be a bit better highlighted, but it is not quite as bad as #2. Still, the tension is allowed to escape, which doesn't give the piece the edge I think helps it along and really keeps the interest.  Rating: 2.5

#7 - Another slow one. Again, the bell does not create the tension it can in this piece. Again, the bell seems too soft to me and occasionally seems missed/lost in the texture. Rating: 3.

#10 - Not quite as slow as the others, but not as fast as #1, but the bell has good presence. And this one is darker. The bell is well defined in its constancy. I can picture the buzzards in this one. So another winner for me. Rating: 7

I think #1 and #10 are the only two that successfully keep the bell audible regardless of the texture of the other bits. This is part of why I think they work better in the end.

Neal, you've given pianist #2 grades of 2.5 and 1.5 so far, and pianist #3 grades of 3.5 and 2.5. Pretty sure these pianists are your kryptonite!

I was surprised, putting together these files, how many of them last 7+ minutes. Will be interesting if anybody sees this as a factor; for me the "bells" being suitably creepy and consistently done is one of the most important ways I judge a performance.

Quote from: Brian on April 21, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
Neal, you've given pianist #2 grades of 2.5 and 1.5 so far, and pianist #3 grades of 3.5 and 2.5. Pretty sure these pianists are your kryptonite!

I was surprised, putting together these files, how many of them last 7+ minutes. Will be interesting if anybody sees this as a factor; for me the "bells" being suitably creepy and consistently done is one of the most important ways I judge a performance.

For me it has to be consistency first. Then it is a bit more of a question of interpretation. When the bell is too hidden, I find the entire structure disintegrates and then it just turns to mush. I don't know about kryptonite, but I feel #2 and #3 are approaching this from an entirely different direction (not one I admire). I hope MishaK will listen to them to see if he still likes them as he did in round 1.

Quote from: Brian on April 21, 2013, 07:58:43 AM
Okay, maybe not THAT surprising.  ;D

Liberace, Clayderman...could it be....

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQdvLvmwFfQOzunwd_iO2ujhUO27vtPkF_eQRxDLURFVoxpw9s)

:laugh:

Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on April 22, 2013, 07:12:47 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQdvLvmwFfQOzunwd_iO2ujhUO27vtPkF_eQRxDLURFVoxpw9s)

He really brought the Grieg concerto to life for me . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2013, 07:18:42 AM
He really brought the Grieg concerto to life for me . . . .

LOL

"Were doing Ravel now, Mr Preview...can't you see?"

(http://blondesearch.ru/img/a0/a00/Morecambe_and_Wise_Andre_Previn_The_full_sketch_.jpg)

First batch for Le Gibet:


13 – Slow and cold to open.  The tolling bells are good, but surrounding music feels too slow and lacks sufficient dynamic gradation.  (May be the MP3 sound/computer hurting here.)  Not ideally desolate, but close.  Score: 8.

14 – Richer sound.  Bells constant, with more pronounced playing otherwise.  Not desolate enough, seeming to create a warmer, more atmospheric soundworld.  Still, quite nice.  Score: 7.

15 – Slow, almost hypnotic, with strong chords and lovely melodies.  Generally very attractive playing with only minor hints of metal.  The ostinato seems to rise in volume a bit much at times, but otherwise very good.  Score: 7. 

17 – Haunting bells are these, and they serve as a perfect, steady, hypnotic underpinning for the fantastic melodies and chords.  Dynamics are superb.  Nicely varied tone.  Cold, desolate, and beautiful, all at once.  The slow tempo holds up fantastically well.  Score: 11.

19 – Less than ideal live sound hampers things, causing notes to blur, but steadiness of ostinato is impressive and precision of surrounding music pretty nice for the setting.  Nicely atmospheric.  Score: 8.

The mystery pianist is actually Sviatoslav Richter trying to escape from a sack.

http://www.youtube.com/v/DB_lKSNwZZM

Todd - hmm, when I sampled 19 it became one of my new favorites; now I'm going to have to listen to 17 (one of the handful of recordings that I haven't actually heard all the way through). The 11 made me laugh; I think I may actually score it provided this doesn't inspire a tidal wave of 11s.

Quote from: Brian on April 22, 2013, 07:54:41 AMI think I may actually score it provided this doesn't inspire a tidal wave of 11s.

Score it as a 10.  I had a Nigel Tufnel moment.

Todd St-Hubbins . . . .

Ok. Herewith my Gibet verdicts.

13. Very nicely dreary atmosphere at opening. The phrasing is somewhat mannered and suggests romantic pathos more than the inescapable doom of Ravel's landscape. Dynamic nuances and sonority control could be a bit better. Overall ends up being too pretty despite starting out well and ending well. 4

14. Wonderful sonority and atmosphere. Bell is very nicely constant, not too prominent but always audible even in the thick of things without the need to manipulate its volume. Marvelous control of texture and dynamics. Overall could project doom and desolation a bit more acutely, but this is still an excellent performance on every level. Ending is superb. 8.5

15. This performance is a bit schizophrenic. At first I thought this performer was taking an approach of accommodation and resignation to the inevitable, rather than despair and angst, but the more heavily accented chords towards the end of the first section suggest an attempt to make up for the deficit by overexaggerating accents. What then follows is entirely too laid back. Not bad otherwise. Just not coherent enough. 5

17. Nicely desolate opening. Very interesting voicing/texturing. Manages to make different registers sound like different instruments. Not sure some of the dynamic choices are entirely textually supported. But at any rate, this is a very organic whole despite the slower tempo and it avoids sounding pretty. Nicely long line. Wonderful ending.  9

19. This le gibet by Brahms! Dark and brooding. Not at all unappealing but unusual in its coloring. The bell is not always clearly and consistently voiced. Still an interesting, somewhat romanticized take. Nicely hopeless ending.  6

1. Well, unfairly, it's apparent that I know this recording and it's always been my benchmark for gibet and it maintains that status in this comparison. Absolutely supreme sonority control, phrasing and dynamics. The bell is so consistent and independent it could be a second pianist. Inevitable doom from the beginning that doesn't let up til the end. The chordal outbursts are just intense enough to suggest a lost soul rebelling against his fate, but not so loud as to suggest that he may actually prevail. Perfect, even if arguably a bit on the quick side. You just want to curl up and die at the end. 10

2. Generally decent but a bit too monochromatic. Despite a rather constant bell and not too slow tempo it just doesn't quite hang together. Maybe I'm too harsh because I listened to this right on the heels of 1 so the contrast is a bit unflattering to 2. Just not doom-laden enough. 4

3. Very slow. Opening evokes to me some deserted place baking in the midday sun. But not entirely unconvincing at this pace. Persistent enough not to disintegrate totally despite being slower than some who do disintegrate. A little monotonous in character throughout, which I suppose is not entirely wrong. Gives a quite appropriate mood but fails to really tell a story of anything that happens within that scenery. Still a nice and well controlled, somewhat understated performance.  6

7. Extreme dynamic range. Not sure that is necessary particularly when the bell still isn't perfectly even and audible. Bit too chiseled. Not a good legato or phrasing (and Ravel writes trés lié in a couple of places). Still a generally decent performance if not particularly interesting. 4

10. Atmosphere and voicing are excellent. Awfully similar interpretation to no.1 hmmm... ;-) much of the same comments apply. Sound quality not quite as good. Not quite as immediate and intense as 1 but still: 9

Hmm...

Pianist 13: Is this a live recording? Not sure. There's some nice atmosphere here, however it doesn't really have the required sense of constant pace. There are quite a lot of little tempo changes. It's not nearly as bad as pianist 19 but it still doesn't really fit.  I think you can get away with very subtle moments of emphasis, but not with making entire phrases feeling faster than their neighbours. 5.5/10

Pianist 14: It's fast-paced. And at first I thought that was going to work. It felt like a funeral march, which is not the normal sense but it was initially working. Then we hit the triplets. The first of which wasn't very triplet-like. And at that moment, I was suddenly listening to a habanera (Debussy's La soirée dans Grenade came to mind). Once I got that sense I couldn't shake it. On a later listen, I heard it from the beginning. Oh dear.  So much else about this version is quite good, but the dance-like feeling kills it for me. 4.5/10

Pianist 15: A couple of other pianists lack tempo control. This one lacks a bit of dynamic control. A couple of melody entries on the first page are far too loud. It's a good performance, but the over-excitability stops it from being a great one. 6.5/10

Pianist 17: This one is slow. And to be honest it's a bit too slow for my liking. But the benefit is the excellent control. It's bleak, it's steady and the mood doesn't get broken anywhere, not even when the bell dynamics are pushed up.  The best of this group. 7.5/10

Pianist 19: Okay, yes, it seems to be a live recording... Todd referred to the impressive steadiness of the ostinati.  In dynamics perhaps, but not in tempo.  I found the constant push and pull of this version utterly distracting. At least in the first section. I didn't develop any sense of pulse whatsoever. 3/10

Listening to the other half now, and it looks like I'm going to largely reverse the previous scores...  >:D

Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult. But I'd say I'm looking for completely different things in this piece to some people.

Pianist 1: Yes, the control of the bell is excellent. Yes, the control of the dynamics in general is quite good (although perhaps a little too loud and forceful in some spots, a common enough issue).  But this performance also has something it shouldn't: momentum. I'm sure someone could argue with me that the crotchet pulse of this fits within the definition of 'lent' on a metronome. Perhaps even 'tres lent'.  But this isn't mathematics, this is music.  And I don't want the hanged carcass of a man to sound like it's going somewhere. This is fairly well played music but it isn't evocative of the thing that it's supposed to evoke. 5/10

Pianist 2: This one grew on me a little bit over several listens. I still think that there is a bit too much colour and emphasis at certain moments, but having re-compared it to a couple of other pianists it came out favourably. I think it's generally a solid performance, and the flaws that exist are not ones that pull me out of the music. One of the big things in its favour is the pacing, which is convincing. 7/10

Pianist 3: It's funny how your experience of a piece can change. When this one started, I felt that it had some very nice colouring but that the 'bell' was a bit choppy and unsteady.  But here's the thing: this was the only one of the performances that drew me in and made me listen more as it went on.  For me this is a genuinely 'magnetic' performance. I think the dynamic control is exemplary, and while the bell isn't perfect to begin with I wanted to keep hearing its slight variations.  One thing I particularly love is a couple of spots in the last part of the piece, where I can clearly hear the bell ring out in the lower octave without the upper - and sure enough, those are exactly the spots where the score shows me the usually dominant upper octave is silent.  This may well be present in other performances, but this was the performance which made my ears attend to and enjoy every detail. And the extraordinary thing is, each time I tried relistening immediately, the unsteady bell on the first page scarcely bothered me. 8.5/10

Pianist 7: Some very nice playing, but I feel it's all just a little too bit colourful for this piece at times. There is too much dynamic emphasis and the bell gets rather hidden.  It's rather ironic that my only criticism of this pianist's Ondine was a lack of bass notes, because here some of the bass notes come crashing in unnecessarily. 6.5/10

Pianist 10: I have quite mixed feelings about this one, and may keep listening to it... My problem with it is that it has a slightly hard edge.  I honestly don't know how much of that impression is due to sound recording quality, how much to pacing (it's perhaps fractionally on the fast side, but not so fast as to be disruptive), how much to dynamics (which again could be affected by the recording, but there's a big crashing 'mp' on the last page that is all the pianist).  At the moment, I like it but I don't love it. 6.5/10

Quote from: MishaK on April 22, 2013, 07:19:13 PM
A little monotonous in character throughout, which I suppose is not entirely wrong. Gives a quite appropriate mood but fails to really tell a story of anything that happens within that scenery.

This is an example of what I mean by looking for different things. Anything that happens in the scenery? According to the poem inscribed at the start, nothing happens but the tolling of the bell. I recently read a claim that Ravel required monotony and was very unhappy with Ricardo Viñes for not supplying it: http://www.musicalifeiten.nl/vergelijkende-discografieen/r/ravel-gaspard-de-la-nuit-engels.html (http://www.musicalifeiten.nl/vergelijkende-discografieen/r/ravel-gaspard-de-la-nuit-engels.html) (which has an extensive review of various recordings by name - trying to ignore the details here!)

Similarly, you applaud Pianist 1 for providing 'inevitable doom'.  The man on the gallows is already dead.  His doom arrived before the first note was struck.

Quote from: orfeo on April 25, 2013, 05:05:35 AM
This is an example of what I mean by looking for different things. Anything that happens in the scenery? According to the poem inscribed at the start, nothing happens but the tolling of the bell. I recently read a claim that Ravel required monotony and was very unhappy with Ricardo Viñes for not supplying it: http://www.musicalifeiten.nl/vergelijkende-discografieen/r/ravel-gaspard-de-la-nuit-engels.html (http://www.musicalifeiten.nl/vergelijkende-discografieen/r/ravel-gaspard-de-la-nuit-engels.html) (which has an extensive review of various recordings by name - trying to ignore the details here!)

Similarly, you applaud Pianist 1 for providing 'inevitable doom'.  The man on the gallows is already dead.  His doom arrived before the first note was struck.

Your last sentence is the story I speak of. You can't describe that musically, if you lack content from beginning to end. Montony is not the absence of anything. Secondly, I am not a believer in the sanctity of authorial intent, as it cannot ever be reliably ascretained beyond the mere open-ended notes on the sheet, and because the work and its myriad interpretive possibilities are always greater than the author himself or his momentarily expressed ephemeral intent. Even so, if Ravel had wanted absolute monotony, there would have been no difference in dynamic notations throughout. And that clearly isn't the case. Unlike you, I don't necessarily have a pre-formed expectation of what I want to hear from the piece (which is in any case prejudice based on the first formative interpretation you encountered). I am open to any pianist providing an alternative interpretation I had not previously contemplated, as long as it is compelling, logically sustainable from what is in the score, and coherently executed. As you can see from my comments, there were several that surprised me positively in that regard.

#01. This does exactly what it says on the tin, a desolate lone corpse draped from the gibet, bell tolling ominously throughout setting up a scene of intense tension.  The atmosphere created by this pianist (no idea who it is) is breathtaking.  The bell never wavers from your thoughts and the dispair for me as a listener is full on.  For that extra 0.5, all it needed was Henry Fonda walking slowly toward, in silhouette.  (9.5)

#02. The pace of this pianist rather spoiled the listening for me, I found it too fast and withdrawn.  Nothing to write home about with the tolling of the bell and fundimentally it did not set up the scene as pianist 01 did.  Maybe its just me, but I honestly thought I could hear the bell stopping when the notes crossed over into the volumous parts? Certainly the bell became less prominent, which sort of lost it for me. (5.5)

#03. Submerged tolling of the bell, whereas I like to hear it promenent. Not a bad job at creating the scene, was a touch drab in places which was a good thing as the pace of the movement enhanced the detail.  I wouldn't write this one off but in comparison to #1 it falls short.  Much more enjoyable than #2 (7.0)

#07. I really enjoyed the flow of this pianist, but it was like listening to something akin to La Cathédrale Engloutie; tolling bell distant, too quiet but with joyful right hand tinklings, and not enough umpf coming from the left hand.  Not stressful enough, and dare I say not setting a scene of a rotting corpse on the gallows with a far off town, in the background where surely, nothing good may come from....(4.0)

#10. All a matter of taste but this is second best of this group, IMHO. Once again I enjoyed a prominent bell (the melody repeating is quite distinctive and pretty much constant by comparison), never ending always tolling away and never overlapped audibly from the crossing over notes.  This is one which grew on me after several listens, perhaps an older recording as the sound is not as good as the other entrants, but the performance is of a high standard. A very rewarding...(8.5)

01 - (9.5)
02 - (5.5)
03 - (7.0)
07 - (4.0)
10 - (8.5)

Quote from: orfeo on April 25, 2013, 05:05:35 AM
This is an example of what I mean by looking for different things. Anything that happens in the scenery? According to the poem inscribed at the start, nothing happens but the tolling of the bell. I recently read a claim that Ravel required monotony and was very unhappy with Ricardo Viñes for not supplying it: http://www.musicalifeiten.nl/vergelijkende-discografieen/r/ravel-gaspard-de-la-nuit-engels.html (http://www.musicalifeiten.nl/vergelijkende-discografieen/r/ravel-gaspard-de-la-nuit-engels.html) (which has an extensive review of various recordings by name - trying to ignore the details here!)

Similarly, you applaud Pianist 1 for providing 'inevitable doom'.  The man on the gallows is already dead.  His doom arrived before the first note was struck.

I am approaching the pieces now in a manner similar to you. While I think of the person as being alive at the very beginning, he has resigned to death and has pretty much given up the fight. So this piece is like a transition from almost no-life to definite death. From this perspective monotony makes sense. On the other hand how much dynamics should one expect? If there are no struggles, only a gradual slippage to death, then I found it hard to reconcile a lot of dynamics, drama or tensions. Maybe someone could enlightenment me on this.

Here's the original poem. :)

By the way, I'm fascinated by this discussion. I'd for a long time valued some variety and "narrative" in this movement, but now am starting to feel persuaded by the opposite argument - that this is a solitary image which lasts, haunts, by its monotony. Anyway, it's clear that our pianists often feel very differently about how to approach this work.

Planning to wrap this round this weekend.  :)

1 - Quick, taut, "hard" sounding.  Cold and merciless.  Score: 7

2 - The opposite of #1.  Very slow.  Perhaps too luxurious.  (Nah.)  The view is one of the desert and the dead dude in the failing light after a day slogging through the heat.  It takes some skill to play something so slow and still keep the musical line.  It's easy to hear why this one can divide opinion strongly.  MP3 seems to flatten dynamics a bit.  Score: 10

3 - Slow, and simultaneously sumptuous and aloof to the point of being cold.  Quite precise playing it seems to me.  Score: 7

7 - Another slow one.  Similar to #3, but strikes me as smoother, more beautiful.  Score: 9

10 - Cool, nicely paced, straight forward approach.  No fussiness.  Were only the sound better. Score: 9

Thanks, Brian, for letting me join in for this second round. I had time to listen once through all 10 samples of the gibbet.  My notes and points awarded on scale 1-10:

1 Sharp, ringing tones, metronomic, overdramatic dynamics but overall effect soporific -- 4

2 Very slow, poorly miked (sound distant and muffled), self-conscious and even snoozier than 1 -- 3

3 Slow, very nicely nuanced tone and articulation, I hear the wind and the sun and the passage of time -- 10

7 Liquid tones, sounds like Debussy's Cathedral, emptiness, space, nice sense of distance for tolling bell, just a tad much dynamic drama -- 8

10 Very full tones, more dramatic than 3 or 7 but it works, not too excessive in context -- 7

13 Lovely full bodied ringing tones, this about the piano as much as the music, I like the hesitations, sensitive rubato, understated drama , even though I prefer the "dry" desert of 3 to this "wet" one -- 9

14 Gosh, what clean and beautiful recorded piano sound! More dramatic than 13, somewhat less thoughtful and sensitive, perhaps a bit fast -- 8

15 Too heavy-handed for my taste -- 3

17 Beautiful opening with distant tolling bell, like a cinema long shot through an open window looking over an endless horizon with a faint breeze gently stirring the curtains at the borders of the frame, similar enough to 13 to also merit a "9"

19 Muddy, occasionally a touch clumsy, but what dynamic & rhythmic sensitivity! Bugs! -- 8

I'm interested- sign me up please!

Quote from: Todd on May 02, 2013, 07:12:43 AM
1 - merciless.  Score: 7

Strange - I read that and I think this is a version to listen to. It SHOULD be merciless. Shouldn't it?

Quote from: Todd on May 02, 2013, 07:12:43 AM
2 - The opposite of #1.  Very slow.  Perhaps too luxurious.  (Nah.)  The view is one of the desert and the dead dude in the failing light after a day slogging through the heat.  It takes some skill to play something so slow and still keep the musical line.  It's easy to hear why this one can divide opinion strongly.  MP3 seems to flatten dynamics a bit.  Score: 10

You are right that it can be more skillful to play something slower, but I think the problem for me was precisely that he or she did not keep the musical line. Did the fact that the bell is not always audible bother you?

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 02, 2013, 11:42:15 AM
1 Sharp, ringing tones, metronomic, overdramatic dynamics but overall effect soporific -- 4

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

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 03, 2013, 02:48:32 AMIt SHOULD be merciless. Shouldn't it?

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

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 03, 2013, 02:48:32 AMDid the fact that the bell is not always audible bother you?

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

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

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

Quote from: Todd on May 03, 2013, 05:40:50 AM
Yes.  And no.  For me #1's entire delivery was too cold.  The merciless part, well that's fine, but this reading almost veers into just playing the notes.  I know the score marks without expression, but this seems to me to be almost beyond that.  Going for that type of approach, I prefer #10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last group - these are too dynamic for me.

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

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

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 03, 2013, 02:48:32 AM
I am a bit confused how it can be sharp, ringing, and overdramatic but still sleep inducing. Would you be able to expand on what you mean? The comments are seemingly contradictory.

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

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 03, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
I don't care for the hard edged tonality -- it wears on me. Drama in the appropriate piece is engaging -- think Pohjola's Daughter -- but it's not appropriate in this piece, in which subtlety is engaging and drama -- melodrama, really -- so misses the point that it's boring. Yawn.

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

I'd like to wrap up voting tomorrow afternoon.  :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Brian on May 05, 2013, 10:17:37 AM
I also have to mourn something, personally. GMG's collective taste in Gaspard is hard to read in some ways, but in other ways, it's pretty clear. We are collectively wary, it seems, of pianists who extend Scarbo's mania and fury to the rest of the music. In this round we have eliminated two exceptional Scarbo performances: probably my personal favorite, and probably the most famous reading ever made.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: MishaK on May 05, 2013, 06:29:38 PM
I too am quite surprised by some of the responses here. Quite schizophrenic in some ways. Makes me wonder who actually looked at the score.

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

Quote from: Brian on May 05, 2013, 10:17:37 AM
If I insert my directorial head into the frame for a moment...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: MishaK on May 05, 2013, 06:29:38 PM
I too am quite surprised by some of the responses here. Quite schizophrenic in some ways. Makes me wonder who actually looked at the score.

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

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

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 05, 2013, 09:53:10 PM
Another interesting comment was about #1 has too much forward movement, but I don't agree with this comment. Without some forward movement, all music is dead. In the case of this piece, perhaps it is a question of whether one is in the tableau and thus experiencing the events vs sitting outside the picture and looking in.

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

Quote from: Brian on May 05, 2013, 10:17:37 AM
So at this point I have to ask you: how many Scarbo readings do we want to hear? Only those three finalists? Every pianist who averaged above a 6 (seven clips)? Or above 6.50 (six clips)?

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

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

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

Quote from: BobsterLobster on May 06, 2013, 02:44:10 AM
I only joined this exercise in time to listen to the 2nd movement, would it be possible to have the links for Ondine, I'm curious to compare them in a blind test even if I'm too late to have my opinion taken into account?

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

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

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

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 06, 2013, 03:24:59 AM
Here's the link. Just change the number after "pianist" to move on to the next clip:

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

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

Sarge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing with some words of wisdom from orfeo:

Quote from: orfeo on May 05, 2013, 04:16:38 PMThis process may in fact demonstrate that there isn't any one pianist that I think nails all 3 pieces.  After all, not only is this music extraordinary - I think it's among the greatest piano music ever written - it's extraordinarily difficult.

Quote from: orfeo on May 05, 2013, 11:16:45 PM
At one point you specifically disavowed the sanctity of authorial intent.  I find it difficult to understand how that is in keeping with an emphasis on looking at the score.

I said: "Secondly, I am not a believer in the sanctity of authorial intent, as it cannot ever be reliably ascretained beyond the mere open-ended notes on the sheet, and because the work and its myriad interpretive possibilities are always greater than the author himself or his momentarily expressed ephemeral intent."

When people talk about authorial intent in music, and especially program music, you get into several layers of interpretation way beyond the music on the sheet. Because what happens is that people sort of try to reverse engineer the creative process of the composer without actually having his mind at their disposal. So they take a few words from a poem or some comments or biographical notes of a composer, assume this to be the verbally expressed intent and then impute that intent to the music instead of first looking at the music itself. (For laypeople who can't read a score this is of course also the easier way of making sense of music.) My comment on the divergent opinions here in relation to following the score had more to do with presumed inaccuracies and observation of structure and dynamics etc. that are comments on what is or supposedly isn't in the score, not what scenery the music is allegedly supposed to evoke or what the composer presumably "wanted" it to "mean".

Quote from: BobsterLobster on May 06, 2013, 04:31:48 AM
I've only had time to listen to Ondine #1, and I think I see a few flaws with this process, which could explain the controversy over Le Gibet.

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

This is an excellent post!

I think we should maybe keep more than five Scarbos, given the vast controversy over Gibet, and then have a runoff among the five who totalled the highest number of points across all three movements, and see how their interpretations hold up when reviewed as a complete three part work.

Quote from: Brian on May 06, 2013, 04:58:59 AM
As for distribution, there are 5 pianists between 6.5 and 7.5, one higher (8.75), and four lower (one of them 6.47, the others in the 5-6 range).

Is the one with a 6.47 average #1? I actually had him as 6.53, noting that Neal scored it 9.75. If I am correct you have SIX guys within the 6.5-7.5 range!

Perhaps one could remove the influence of the out-liners, i.e. delete the worst and best scores for each pianist, then see what does the rest of the statistics tell you. Ok, a quick analysis shows that if you do take away the extreme scores, then you are left with

• One at 8.75
• Four between 7-8
• Three between 6-7
• Two between 5-6

This gives you justification to proceed ahead with only the top five pianist, if you so chooses. The two that got pushed out by this exercise had original averages around the 6.5 mark. These did not change much when you remove the out-liners, i.e. the scoring for them were pretty consistent, they belong to where they are. In contrast the four below the leader all got substantive boosts in their averages when the out-liners were removed. 

I say be merciless and cut it down to the top five.  If there's a tie, flip a coin.

No ties, though we have two players 0.05 apart.

Quote from: Beale on May 06, 2013, 06:40:56 AM
Perhaps one could remove the influence of the out-liners, i.e. delete the worst and best scores for each pianist, then see what does the rest of the statistics tell you. I am having a play with it right now, not sure if anything interesting could come of it.

Is the one with a 6.47 average #1? I actually had him as 6.53, noting that Neal scored it 9.75. If I am correct you have SIX guys within the 6.5-7.5 range!

Oh, goodness, you're right about pianist #1 being 6.53. Whoops!

Looking at the elimination of outliers, this is most helpful to pianist #19, because someone gave him/her a 3 and all the other scores are 6-8. But #19's in the top five anyway. It's also kind to pianist #14, who was our collective first-place performer for "Ondine," but (s)he is also advancing. And #2 and #7 are doomed however you slice it.

Quote from: Brian on May 06, 2013, 07:08:51 AMAnd #2 [is] doomed however you slice it.

This is an outrage!

Quote from: BobsterLobster on May 06, 2013, 04:31:48 AM
I've only had time to listen to Ondine #1, and I think I see a few flaws with this process, which could explain the controversy over Le Gibet.

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

I definitely think you're onto something here. To me, it's a fundamental axiom of music listening that what you heard before affects your experience of what you're hearing now.

This is basically because of how the human brain works. Our brains are generally far, far better at judging relative values - faster, slower, higher, lower, softer, louder - than they are at judging absolutes - 72 beats per minute, the frequency or decibels of a given note (although obviously people with perfect pitch are a bit of an exception here).

So yes, context is extremely important, and there is something different about listening to a pianist's Le Gibet not after that pianist's Ondine.  Put back into context the sense of pacing and proportion and volume might be quite different.

In terms of the order of pianists, I quite deliberately ask my iPhone to shuffle up the order for me in these blind listening sessions, because I know that if #2 is always after #1, and #2 is slower than #1, my brain will register #2 as 'slow' even if it is in fact faster than average.

Quote from: Todd on May 06, 2013, 07:11:33 AM
This is an outrage!

I'm shocked by what's happened to pianist #2, even more so than I'm surprised by the receptions for 14, 15, and 17.

Quote from: Brian on May 06, 2013, 07:08:51 AM
Looking at the elimination of outliers, this is most helpful to pianist #19, because someone gave him/her a 3 and all the other scores are 6-8.

Yay! I am an independent thinker!  ;)

Quote from: MishaK on May 06, 2013, 06:14:41 AM
So they take a few words from a poem or some comments or biographical notes of a composer, assume this to be the verbally expressed intent and then impute that intent to the music instead of first looking at the music itself. (For laypeople who can't read a score this is of course also the easier way of making sense of music.)

It is worth noting in response to this that actually printing entire poems at the front of the score, as Ravel did here, is rather rare. I find that significant. I don't normally go searching for the texts related to music, but in this case I didn't have to. It's sitting right there in the book that I learnt Ondine from as a piano student.

Quote from: orfeo on May 06, 2013, 07:20:22 AM
It is worth noting in response to this that actually printing entire poems at the front of the score, as Ravel did here, is rather rare. I find that significant. I don't normally go searching for the texts related to music, but in this case I didn't have to. It's sitting right there in the book that I learnt Ondine from as a piano student.

Yes, but what did that poem mean to Ravel?  ;) Surely not the same as to us 100 years later.

Quote from: MishaK on May 06, 2013, 07:24:48 AM
Yes, but what did that poem mean to Ravel?  ;) Surely not the same as to us 100 years later.

We've already established in this thread that the poem for 'Le Gibet' doesn't mean the same thing to all of 'us' to begin with, never mind Ravel.  Other people have got mental images of a dying man when my mental image is of a man that is already dead.

EDIT: We could just as happily argue about what 'tres lent' meant to Ravel when he wrote it on the score, as opposed to what it means to each of us.  As already indicated, there's at least one performance, probably two, that my mind simply won't accept as being within the bounds of 'tres lent' and yet the performances in question are ones that a lot of people seem to quite like.

To return to the question of how many Scarbos to have, I have to confess I'm not especially fussed about it.  The overall results will be interesting, but in the end I am probably going to pay more attention to my own individual scores when making any more Gaspard purchases (I really must listen again sometime to the one I already have, which I'm not sure is even in the list).

One observation I'd make is that the 'average' you're using, the mean, is really only one out of 3 different kinds of 'average' that are often used.  If the median (the middle score) or the mode (the most frequent score) gives you a clearer means of deciding which pianists should progress than I see no harm of using them.  Or possibly even looking at all 3 kinds of average and assessing which pianists most consistently 'win' across all 3.

For example, the median tends to reduce the effect of outliers...

I'll listen to however many are included. It is easier for me to find time to listen to piano blind listening, because I can listen in the evening (I don't like to listen to something too bombastic too late at night - get's me too excited! :).

Context is important, which is why I would not mind an extra 1-2 in the final, expecially if there was significant disagreement. Those make for interesting reading and understanding.

Personally, I would vote for the piece as a whole in the third round. Or alternatively, we have 6-7 in the third round that narrow to 3-4 in a final round where we listen to the whole piece. But as I said, I'll listen to whatever is posted. :)

I just combined up the averages from Ondine and Le Gibet, it didn't help to clarify the ranking. The only clear result was that the bottom two are definitely out. The leader still leads, and there is now a clear second, followed by six pianists all within 0.5 of each other. That makes a total of eight for the Scarbos round.

Quote from: Beale on May 06, 2013, 08:41:34 AM
That makes a total of eight for the Scarbos round.

That's a good number.  :D

Eight Scarbos could make an excitingly exhausting listen.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The manuscript currently resides in the Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas at Austin.

Ours!

I've made the somewhat arbitrary decision that the gap between 6 and 6.5 shall be our cutoff. This means we'll have The Seven Scarbos. My reasoning was as follows:
- #6 and #7 are each very famous performances (or very famous performers).
- voters' rejection of 8-10 was much more decisive than their rejection of the next group; #7 was within 0.50 points of being ranked #3.
- the suggestion of having a broader final round for Scarbo and narrowing matters down even further for a superfinal across the whole piece appeals to me.
- you're still welcome to listen to as many or as few as you like.

So! Tonight I shall be uploading our seven Scarbo-ists and announcing the (in two cases very prominent) names of the eliminated pianists, #s 2, 7, and 15.

The Scarbo round will probably again last around 14 days. We will judge each Scarbo's success purely as a Scarbo. Afterwards, we will absolutely, no ifs ands or buts, narrow down to just the top three by average score and have a run-off to determine the grand champion over the whole piece. The only allowable exception would be if there's somehow a runaway winner. (This would require either 14 or 17 running the table in the final.)

@Octave: hey, I'm going to be in Austin two weekends from now! Maybe I should have a look. The HRC also holds the David Foster Wallace papers.

Quote from: Brian on May 06, 2013, 12:56:01 PM
@Octave: hey, I'm going to be in Austin two weekends from now! Maybe I should have a look. The HRC also holds the David Foster Wallace papers.

Plz scan GASPARD for me.  PDF is fine. 
It will be fun to see the handwritten "What would Aloysius do?" notes in margins.

For those interested in autograph manuscripts at UT Austin. (http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/guide/music/) They have Debussy's Printemps and Khamma (and a sketch for Estampes), six works by Dukas including the piano sonata and the Sorcerer's Apprentice, Faure's Masques et bergamasques, songs by Brahms in the hand of Clara Schumann, over half of the complete works of Albert Roussel, and from Ravel, "autograph manuscripts for eighteen works, including Daphnis et Chloë, Gaspard de la nuit, Introduction et allegro, Ma Mère l'oye, Rapsodie espagnole, Shéhérazade, and the piano trio."

There is, also, the library of Michael Tippett, numerous letters by Stravinsky, and hymnals which used to belong to Alfred Cortot.

And this fascinating entry:
"Saint-Saëns, Camille. Septuor, op. 65, transcribed for piano, 4 hands by Gabriel Fauré, manuscript score with revisions, 40pp, nd. Cartoons and caricatures of Saint-Saëns by Fauré in score."

Doesn't surprise me in the least. That cad Faure.  He and Saint-Saens were friends for decades. There's a book of their correspondence with each other.

As for the Seven Scarbos, that will probably be as far as I can go. I'm unlikely to be in a position to participate in the super-finale round.

RESULTS: "Le gibet"

A word about the scores offered: these are averages on a scale of 1-10 across all voters! Each pianist received between 6 and 8 votes.

Without further ado...

Tenth place: Pianist #2 (5.19)

No pianist in the entire group of 20 generated as much controversy as pianist #2. Here are some scores he received in the two rounds: 1.5, 2.5, 3, 9, 9, 10, 10.

"minimal tension" "too pretty" "monochromatic...doesn't hang together" "generally a solid performance" "too fast and withdrawn" "It's easy to hear why this one can divide opinion strongly." "even snoozier than 1" "atmosphere is good" "Uninspired and unimaginative"

The pianist who set Todd and MC Ukrneal at daggers is...

[asin]B0000C4EXA[/asin]
JEAN-EFFLAM BAVOUZET

DavidRoss, you wrote "Very slow, poorly miked (sound distant and muffled), self-conscious and even snoozier than 1" JUST after buying this recording. I sincerely hope that hearing the CD in context improves your opinion of the performance!

Ninth place: Pianist #7 (5.75)

"the bell seems too soft to me and occasionally seems missed/lost in the texture" "more dramatic...not too excessive in context" "smoother, more beautiful" "joyful...Not stressful enough." "a little too bit colourful for this piece" "the bell gets hidden" "Not a good legato or phrasing"

Pianist #7 is...

[asin]B00006L76R[/asin]

IVO POGORELICH

It doesn't matter if you've made one of the most famous "Scarbo" recordings of all time, if your "Gibet" doesn't measure up to it. Pogorelich's "Ondine" was the second-highest ranked among the entire 20 (average score 8.3), but his "Gibet" cost him the game. Even if you add the scores for the two pieces together in a mega-ranking, Pogo's still not going to the finals.

Eighth place: Pianist #15 (5.92)

"This one lacks a bit of dynamic control." "over-excitability" "too heavy-handed" "Not bad. Just not coherent enough" "Slow, almost hypnotic, with strong chords and lovely melodies." "dynamics are very well handled, although they sound a little too energetic when they rise up in volume"

Pianist #15 is...

[asin]B001U1LA2A[/asin]

HERBERT SCHUCH

Well, phooey. One of my favorite recordings - which I thought for sure would make the top five - bites the dust.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ON TO SCARBO...
Sound clips coming to an inbox near you within a few days! If you didn't partake in round 1 but want to sample our "Scarbo" recordings, just say so! :)

OVERALL LEADERBOARD
#....Ondine....Le Gibet....Total....Overall Rank
1....8.20........6.53........14.73...fourth
3....7.25........6.94........14.19...sixth
10..7.50........7.38........14.88...third
13..7.75........6.58........14.33...fifth
14..8.50........7.00........15.50...second
17..8.13........8.75........16.88...FIRST
19..7.38........6.75........14.13...seventh

Sound clips coming to an inbox near you within a few days! If you didn't partake in round 1 but want to sample our "Scarbo" recordings, just say so! :)

P.S. The eliminated pianists' "Gibet" recordings will be deleted within 24 hours. I don't have much space in my Dropbox folder so I can't afford to keep them there. If you want to rehear a file from one of this round's losers for whatever reason, access it now.

By the way, a special word on pianist #19: hanging around at the back of the crowd being just good enough for two rounds may not impress you, but after quite a lot of research and some fiddling with the performer's discography, based on the evidence available to us through the internet, this is one of just two times the pianist is known to have ever played the complete Gaspard, live or in the studio. (Those occurrences were a year apart, so this person may have performed the work on one tour and then abandoned it.) I included #19 both for the rareness and for a "Le gibet" that simply blew me away. Happy a couple other people liked it, too. :)

Ah well, I shall file a mental note for Ivo. Because the Le Gibet wasn't bad to me, the Ondine was wonderful and the Scarbo is famous...

Quote from: Brian on May 06, 2013, 07:41:13 PM
By the way, a special word on pianist #19: hanging around at the back of the crowd being just good enough for two rounds may not impress you, but after quite a lot of research and some fiddling with the performer's discography, based on the evidence available to us through the internet, this is one of just two times the pianist is known to have ever played the complete Gaspard, live or in the studio. (Those occurrences were a year apart, so this person may have performed the work on one tour and then abandoned it.) I included #19 both for the rareness and for a "Le gibet" that simply blew me away. Happy a couple other people liked it, too. :)

Don't forget that some listeners have not heard those performances, and there could be a change once they do. Waiting for the next round already!! :)

Quote from: Brian on May 06, 2013, 07:33:16 PMHERBERT SCHUCH
Well, phooey. One of my favorite recordings - which I thought for sure would make the top five - bites the dust.

Losing Bavouzet is terrible.  Losing Pogo is terrible.  And losing Schuch means eliminating two of the very best Scarbos - Pogo being the other.  Oh well.

Bavouzet's fate also makes me consider again the impact of sound quality.  His Ravel is recorded on an old piano and relatively distantly miked, which, when compressed sounds less than ideal.  Schuch's recording is also not helped by this process.  Perhaps I'll have to A/B Schuch and the eventual winner, whoever he or she is.

Quote from: Brian on May 06, 2013, 07:33:16 PM
DavidRoss, you wrote "Very slow, poorly miked (sound distant and muffled), self-conscious and even snoozier than 1" JUST after buying this recording. I sincerely hope that hearing the CD in context improves your opinion of the performance!

Ack! I hope so, too! And I also hope I was just impatient and not in the most receptive frame of mind on first hearing.  And ... though it pains me deeply to say this ... I hope Todd proves right about this one. ;)

Quote from: Todd on May 07, 2013, 05:48:14 AMLosing Pogo is terrible.  And losing Schuch means eliminating two of the very best Scarbos - Pogo being the other.  Oh well.

I('ve) whole-heartedly agree(d):

Quote from: Brian on May 05, 2013, 10:17:37 AM
I also have to mourn something, personally. In this round we have eliminated two exceptional Scarbo performances: probably my personal favorite, and probably the most famous reading ever made.

Although in most cases I'm endeavoring to deliver 320 kbps MP3 files (one of our finalists was ripped off YouTube), even that does represent a compromise from CD-quality sound. There are performances I think do benefit from the outstanding engineering they received, especially recently (Schuch, Sudbin, and #17, who's sailing through the competition), but we unfortunately have to account for (a) those who haven't taken the time to get software for playing lossless audio, (b) those whose internet connections are poor (including me - uploading even these files takes about 4 hours per round), and (c) my Dropbox account size limit.

Quote from: Brian on May 07, 2013, 05:55:04 AM
I('ve) whole-heartedly agree(d):
Although in most cases I'm endeavoring to deliver 320 kbps MP3 files (one of our finalists was ripped off YouTube), even that does represent a compromise from CD-quality sound. There are performances I think do benefit from the outstanding engineering they received, especially recently (Schuch, Sudbin, and #17, who's sailing through the competition), but we unfortunately have to account for (a) those who haven't taken the time to get software for playing lossless audio, (b) those whose internet connections are poor (including me - uploading even these files takes about 4 hours per round), and (c) my Dropbox account size limit.

If most of what we are listening to is 320, then there is no issue with sound. Maybe it could be better, but 320 is not bad at all. So if Bavouzet was at that level, he was eliminated for his playing decisions (perhaps including the piano he chose to use), and not for any sound issues. I've not heard either Pogo or Bouzavet in their entirety. But if one or both of the first two movements are lousy (as I felt they were) then it just doesn't matter if they are the bees knees in the third.

In all honesty, I don't think it matters who wins or is eliminated. For each of us personally, I think it's more important to be able to explore the different approaches. If we find one we like (win or lose), we can seek it out. That is what I did with Bernstein in La Mer, which didn't make it out of the second round in that exercise. But I enjoyed it much more than 4 out of the 5 finalists. I am also getting a lot out of the comments and discussion, even if you think me a bit stone-headed on a few points. I happily voted out 2 and 7, so perhaps it's me you envision hanging in Le Gibet. :)

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 07, 2013, 06:19:40 AMbut 320 is not bad at all.

Yes it is.  320 sounds very poor when compared to uncompressed recordings.  Ultimately, great sound can't make a poor performance a great one, and it won't have much of an impact on results, but MP3 is a sub-optimal way to listen to anything.

Quote from: Todd on May 07, 2013, 06:47:51 AM
Yes it is.  320 sounds very poor when compared to uncompressed recordings.  Ultimately, great sound can't make a poor performance a great one, and it won't have much of an impact on results, but MP3 is a sub-optimal way to listen to anything.

For orchestral music that is true. For piano solo it is not really critical. Your playback equipment may have more impact than the compression.

Quote from: MishaK on May 07, 2013, 07:23:06 AMFor piano solo it is not really critical.

Not in my experience.  I performed a basic test once, converting some Ikuyo Nakamichi LvB solo piano recordings, selected specifically for its superior sound, to 320 using EAC, and then compared CD to MP3, and the difference between them was not minor.

It does vary from person to person, how well their ear is trained and what differences they can glean. In college I thought ripping files at 128 kbps was acceptable and now those MP3s make me want to heave.

Quote from: Brian on May 07, 2013, 07:56:35 AM
It does vary from person to person, how well their ear is trained and what differences they can glean. In college I thought ripping files at 128 kbps was acceptable and now those MP3s make me want to heave.

I'm not saying there are no audible differences, just that they don't bother me in appreciating a performance. Whereas with some older mono bootlegs of live performances the sound quality does inhibit the nuances of the performance coming through. I've noted in my reviews where I thought the sound quality was getting in the way. But I have met many people who seem to listen to the sound quality alone and don't hear the performance. I know one person who won't listen to anything if it isn't on top line speakers. He is basically auditioning the speakers everytime he listens to something. It's a question not simply of hearing ability and training, but also focus and ability to discern what is due to the performer and what is due to the recording. There are differences in the qualities of different pianos as well that may be more or less flattering to a given pianist. These are all things we have to take into account. But you can still hear what the pianist is doing and what he/she isn't doing.

Quote from: Todd on May 07, 2013, 07:36:58 AM
Not in my experience.  I performed a basic test once, converting some Ikuyo Nakamichi LvB solo piano recordings, selected specifically for its superior sound, to 320 using EAC, and then compared CD to MP3, and the difference between them was not minor.

My experience is the same. It wouldn't surprise me if the problems with the Bavouzet stem from the compression. On my home stereo the sound of Bavouzet's period Steinway is honey-sweet and delectable. And the recorded perspective doesn't bother me in the least. 

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on May 07, 2013, 10:14:39 AM
My experience is the same. It wouldn't surprise me if the problems with the Bavouzet stem from the compression. On my home stereo the sound of Bavouzet's period Steinway is honey-sweet and delectable. And the recorded perspective doesn't bother me in the least.

I had no issues with the sound of Bavouzet's recording. I gave him relatively high marks on his Ondine and what issues I had with him were structural in nature. Again, I hear what you guys are saying. There is of course a difference resulting from compression. But unlike in, say, orchestral music where you literally cannot hear certain details properly due to the compression, you can still appreciate the touch, phrasing, dynamics and the interpretation of a solo piano performance under compression. I've actually played Debussy once on a period Steinway. I'm aware of the difference in original sound, unmediated by recording and playback equipment. But having near-perfect sound quality in a recording that transmits that particular coloration a little more accurately isn't going to rescue an otherwise not perfectly cogent and coherent interpretation, especially when compared head-to-head with some truly great performances. (In fact, that raises the question of whether Bavouzet perhaps used a period instrument precisely in a vain attempt to stand out in a crowded field, when his interpretation wasn't all that special).

After all, all the other recordings we are comparing were compressed the same way (apart from the youtube contribution), so it's a relatively even playing field, apart from the handicap caused by the imperfect recording and mastering used for the actual underlying recording. I'd note that there are some recordings with far less than stellar sound quality that have been getting very high marks, such as mystery pianist No.10. Yes, there is some loss from the compression, but just looking at the results here, it's not the fatal issue that is causing some recordings to get booted. We've seen everything from recent state of the art recordings like Sudbin, to classic remasters like Argerich DG, to old mono recordings from radio tapes like Gulda get booted. So there is no consistent data here to suggest that the sound quality is really affecting the vote very much.

The far bigger issue, I would surmise, is one of the big treacheries of blind comparisons: a given new recording might sound totally "fresh" and immensely interesting and "novel" when heard completely on its own, especially if it's a piece you haven't revisited in a while. But when put head-to-head with a field of exemplary and exceptional performances collected across the decades, that "freshness" and "novelty" fades in the direct comparison. Our memories of performances are often very imperfect. More likely than any sound issues, it is simply the recognition, under blind comparison conditions, that someone like Bavouzet really isn't all that interesting as you may have initially thought, when compared to some of the greats who will be revealed at the end of this contest. Direct comparisons have a way of recalibrating your parameters of reference, such that something that may have sounded exceptional ends up being recoginzed as rather bland actually.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on May 07, 2013, 10:14:39 AM
My experience is the same. It wouldn't surprise me if the problems with the Bavouzet stem from the compression. On my home stereo the sound of Bavouzet's period Steinway is honey-sweet and delectable. And the recorded perspective doesn't bother me in the least. 

I've done a lot of these blind listenings at variable qualities. Good recordings and sound can help, but good playing is the more important. Bavouzet's problem (for me anyway) wasn't the sound, but the approach and decisions he made in playing the piece. But if you liked it and it works for you, I say keep listening (not that you need my permission of course :)).

Quote from: MishaK on May 07, 2013, 10:49:14 AMMore likely than any sound issues, it is simply the recognition, under blind comparison conditions, that someone like Bavouzet really isn't all that interesting as you may have initially thought, when compared to some of the greats who will be revealed at the end of this contest. Direct comparisons have a way of recalibrating your parameters of reference, such that something that may have sounded exceptional ends up being recoginzed as rather bland actually.

Just to comment on this part (the rest of your post, not being an audiophile and not wanting to betray the ages of the surviving recordings lest they be identified, I won't speak to), there are some - particularly Todd - who did indeed love the Bavouzet readings. With the exception of the live Argerich on EMI, at least one person really enjoyed every performance we heard. THAT, I think is another joy of blind listening: like Neal, in previous games of this nature I've discovered new favorite performances among the ranks of the eliminated, and like Neal, I've discovered new favorites in places I'd have never thought to look.

As for "greats to be revealed." The top seven is comprised, more or less equally, of great performers giving celebrated performances and un-fanfared recordings I did not expect to advance this far.

Quote from: Brian on May 07, 2013, 11:05:00 AM
With the exception of the live Argerich on EMI, at least one person really enjoyed every performance we heard. THAT, I think is another joy of blind listening: like Neal, in previous games of this nature I've discovered new favorite performances among the ranks of the eliminated, and like Neal, I've discovered new favorites in places I'd have never thought to look.

Absolutely! I will, btw, be buying the Gulda, which I absolutely loved and was really disappointed that he didn't advance any further. A massively interesting and inspiring pianist. That recording has been my one big discovery of this comparison so far. Those recent audite releases from RIAS tapes have been pure gold. I have the Furtwängler box, which is simply some of the best material by that conductor to be found anywhere.

Quote from: Brian on May 07, 2013, 11:05:00 AM
As for "greats to be revealed." The top seven is comprised, more or less equally, of great performers giving celebrated performances and un-fanfared recordings I did not expect to advance this far.

As I would expect as well.  ;)  But "greats" can include the "unfanfared" as well. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone I've never really heard, like Naida Cole, turns out to be one of our finalists.

Quote from: MishaK on May 07, 2013, 11:13:05 AM
But "greats" can include the "unfanfared" as well.

Very literally true in one finalist's case. Gulda's Gaspard is on Naxos Music Library - I think I'll listen to the whole thing and report back.  :)

EDIT: Oh, by the way, I'm off to the movies tonight and tomorrow will gather all the files and wipe identifying info. It'll take another day to upload them, so look for Scarbo links Thursday.

Quote from: Brian on May 07, 2013, 11:16:51 AM
Very literally true in one finalist's case. Gulda's Gaspard is on Naxos Music Library - I think I'll listen to the whole thing and report back.  :)

EDIT: Oh, by the way, I'm off to the movies tonight and tomorrow will gather all the files and wipe identifying info. It'll take another day to upload them, so look for Scarbo links Thursday.

You slacker! :) Enjoy the film!

Bavouzet's Ravel discs arrived today and I just listened to Gaspard. One of the things that put me off to the comparison sample right off the bat was the poor sound. I called it "distant and muffled."

I'm happy to report that's not the case with the sound of the CD via the high end rig. It's distantly miked compared to most solo piano recordings, but the result is room-filling sound in a broad and deep soundstage, each note voiced with crystalline clarity in a dry acoustic environment suited to the tonal purity of Bavouzet's playing. With the good sound and in context following a sparkling Ondine, his Le gibet is entrancing, not "soporifically slow" -- a beautiful example of absolute music rather than a tone painting. Too bad it got knocked out of contention (yes, I helped KO it), because his Scarbo is splendid, too.

I'm very pleased with the recording, Brian. As expected based on the samples I had heard, Bavouzet's approach is distinctively different, virtuosic only in complete service to his understanding of the music -- light, deft, easy on the pedal, delighting in tonal clarity and subtle dynamic shading, Bavouzet shimmers and sparkles like sunlight reflecting off windblown water.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 07, 2013, 08:20:07 PM
Bavouzet's Ravel discs arrived today and I just listened to Gaspard. One of the things that put me off to the comparison sample right off the bat was the poor sound. I called it "distant and muffled."

I'm happy to report that's not the case with the sound of the CD via the high end rig. It's distantly miked compared to most solo piano recordings, but the result is room-filling sound in a broad and deep soundstage, each note voiced with crystalline clarity in a dry acoustic environment suited to the tonal purity of Bavouzet's playing. With the good sound and in context following a sparkling Ondine, his Le gibet is entrancing, not "soporifically slow" -- a beautiful example of absolute music rather than a tone painting. Too bad it got knocked out of contention (yes, I helped KO it), because his Scarbo is splendid, too.

I'm very pleased with the recording, Brian. As expected based on the samples I had heard, Bavouzet's approach is distinctively different, virtuosic only in complete service to his understanding of the music -- light, deft, easy on the pedal, delighting in tonal clarity and subtle dynamic shading, Bavouzet shimmers and sparkles like sunlight reflecting off windblown water.

My copy of this disc arrived yesterday and I went for Tombeau de Couperin first, and Gaspard today.  I wasn't swept away by Bavouzet's Tombeau, but the performance of Gaspard is utterly captivating, and the audio is gorgeous.

I don't recall having any problem with Bavouzet's sound whatsoever.  I certainly do find some recordings problematic and likely to get in the way of my enjoyment of the performance (there was one in the Haydn string quartet listening a while back... acoustics completely ruined it for me), but for me this one was fine.

For those who want to get a head start and know how to tweak the URLs I've sent out previously, Scarbos are ready from pianists #3, #14 and #19. Again, though, my internet connection is very poor, and based on current upload speeds it won't be until this time tomorrow that I'll be able to send out a formal PM with all the links.

EDIT: Added #14 to the list

Brian, sorry I couldn't find the time to participate in the previous round! So much revision I have to do.... exams will be over in just over a month! But I have study leave now which does include more time for music, so I'd love to take part still in the last round! :)

All's forgiven, Daniel! In fact,

The game once more is afoot! If you want to play (or listen in) but have not received links, please let me know.

All files have been uploaded. I'm suggesting we wrap this one up in two weekends' time. :)

N.B. I've been alerted that some of the links I sent out contain the wrong pianist numbers, but these are easy to fix. Hope nobody gets too confused. Sorry!

Quote from: Brian on May 10, 2013, 04:36:42 AM
N.B. I've been alerted that some of the links I sent out contain the wrong pianist numbers, but these are easy to fix. Hope nobody gets too confused. Sorry!

Hello Brian. Great job. Could you please confirm that pianist14scarbo(1) = artist #17, and pianist14scarbo(2) = artist #19.

Argh, didn't notice pianist #19 was wrong, no wonder I said all the same things I said about #14. This could seriously throw out the results if people don't notice the wrong numbers

Quote from: Beale on May 10, 2013, 06:08:04 AM
Hello Brian. Great job. Could you please confirm that pianist14scarbo(1) = artist #17, and pianist14scarbo(2) = artist #19.

Beale,
I suggest re-downloading 14, 17, and 19 using the links that orfeo sent you via PM. I'm PMing everyone orfeo didn't message, now.

Thanks much to orfeo for finding this error and sending corrected links to everyone in his PM-grouping.  :)

1: Left hand detail often lost. A little slow compared to many modern performances. Could be more virtuosic. Notes often too blurred. Tune often lost. Feels like it runs out of steam.
4/10

3: Great dynamics at beginning, love the repeated notes. Fantastic articulation. Rhythms not always 100% steady- a little rushed and uneven at times. Feel like pianist is a little too obsessed with technique at expense of communicating structure.
7/10

10: Great feel. Lots of notes lost in a blur of pedal. Much slower than modern virtuosic performance.
5/10

13: Very slow repeated notes at start, tempos generally quite slow. Shame piano is horribly out of tune. Really bashes many of the notes. Dynamics don't have much range. Not much sensitivity. Not a fan of this at all. All of his humming doesn't help him here. Urgh, what a horrible ending- bash bash bash.
2/10

14: Solid enough, but a bit lacking in charisma, colour and character.
6/10

17: Great silences at the beginning. Very musical. Not as virtuosic & fast as some performances, but by far the best so far. Great phrasing.
8/10

19: A little too 'controlled' for my taste. Repeated notes are effctive. Some bizarre juxtapositions of speeds. Not very virtuosic. Far too much pedal near the end.
5/10

Oh goody. I'm not ready to give scores yet, but from my first listen, the 2 I like the best are the ones that Bobster gave his 2 lowest scores to, and one of the ones I like the least he's given his highest score to...

Quote from: orfeo on May 10, 2013, 06:46:12 AM
Oh goody. I'm not ready to give scores yet, but from my first listen, the 2 I like the best are the ones that Bobster gave his 2 lowest scores to, and one of the ones I like the least he's given his highest score to...

;D ;D ;D I'm a very big fan of #13 here. But I'll try not to comment on my likes and dislikes, except that we're gonna sorely miss Pogo and Schuch.

Quote from: Brian on May 10, 2013, 06:56:29 AM
;D ;D ;D I'm a very big fan of #13 here. But I'll try not to comment on my likes and dislikes, except that we're gonna sorely miss Pogo and Schuch.

Pogo is my favorite Gibet...for all the wrong reasons. I like it because it sounds least like what it's supposed to sound like (a macabre scene). I can pretend the music means something else ;)  The disappearing bell doesn't bother me; in fact, I love that aspect of his performance even though I know it's "wrong." The constant, unrelenting tolling gets on my nerves in most performances.

So, if I'd actively played the game, I would have given Pogo a 10. Just out of curiosity, Brian, would that have made the result different? I mean, would a 10 have given him a place in the last round?

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 10, 2013, 07:15:50 AM
Pogo is my favorite Gibet...for all the wrong reasons. I like it because it sounds least like what it's supposed to sound like (a macabre scene). I can pretend the music means something else ;)  The disappearing bell doesn't bother me; in fact, I love that aspect of his performance even though I know it's "wrong." The constant, unrelenting tolling gets on my nerves in most performances.

So, if I'd actively played the game, I would have given Pogo a 10. Just out of curiosity, Brian, would that have made the result different? I mean, would a 10 have given him a place in the last round?

Sarge

Your conscience can rest easy: if you had given Pogo a 10 but voted for nobody else, he would have moved from ninth place to eighth with an average score of 6.22. Now, if you had given every other performer a 1...  ;D

Quote from: Brian on May 10, 2013, 07:21:48 AM
Your conscience can rest easy: if you had given Pogo a 10 but voted for nobody else, he would have moved from ninth place to eighth with an average score of 6.22. Now, if you had given every other performer a 1...  ;D

I could do that! I'll jump into my Wayback Machine. See you all in a different timeline  :D

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 10, 2013, 07:15:50 AM
Pogo is my favorite Gibet...for all the wrong reasons. I like it because it sounds least like what it's supposed to sound like (a macabre scene). I can pretend the music means something else ;)  The disappearing bell doesn't bother me; in fact, I love that aspect of his performance even though I know it's "wrong." The constant, unrelenting tolling gets on my nerves in most performances.

So, if I'd actively played the game, I would have given Pogo a 10. Just out of curiosity, Brian, would that have made the result different? I mean, would a 10 have given him a place in the last round?

Sarge

Just letting you know I disliked #2 and #3 (one was Pogo, the other is still in the competition). I mention this, because we've had this on some pieces in the past (where you liked what I did not), and you may want to keep an eye on #3. I haven't heard anything after #10 yet, but I'll let you know if I think there is a real clunker there!! :)

By the way, what I love about your description is that I at least know we are hearing the same things. SO the problem is not with my ears!  :P

Thanks, Brian, for putting this together and for sending out the Scarbo links. I found an hour after lunch and thanks to a giant cappuccino managed to enjoy all seven tracks without my attention flagging. That all of the performances are pretty darned good didn't hurt any, either!  ;)

Again I listened to each of them in turn, once, jotting notes along the way. One struck me as pretty near perfect, but some others were close behind. Odds are I'll buy at least one new recording after their identities are revealed.

Here are my cleaned up notes, in small font so as not inadvertently to color anyone else's experience, for or against ... as if any of us really gives a damn what I think, myself included!  ;D 8)

1.   Big and self-consciously dramatic, powerful – nothing subtle about it. Great playing, wonderful precision and tone control. At first I didn't think I was going to like it, but as I kept listening I bought into this vision of the work and liked it more and more, at least as a well-realized and distinctive alternate reading. 7

3.   Better recording quality, fuller tones, better illustrative sense of scurrying, rhythm & dynamics seem prompted from within rather than imposed from without, spontaneous, effortless, inhabiting the music, inherently dramatic rather than self-consciously over-dramatic. Adding a half-point for virtuous uniqueness makes 9!

10.   More distance between player and music, thoughtful and restrained but committed, great virtuosity in service to an active intelligence, judicious timing, starts stops and turns on a dime but without sacrificing tonal beauty, feels more solid—goblin-at-night-ish rather than sprightly as in the previous two. 9

13.   Good lord, another gorgeous one! Love the rhythmic sensitivity, the slight syncopation, the clarity, the full tones, the sustained low tones, the dreaminess, the building tensions, the finish like the last perfect bite of strawberry and cream saved for the last. 9

14.   More gorgeous tones but a little soft and even slushy in places rather than crisp, but—goodness!—what's really to fault? A little big at times, perhaps...but nicely dreamy at times, too, yet pushes too hard leading to the end ... call it an 8.

17.   Wow! I doubted there was much room for improvement, but this is damned near faultless: articulation, tone, timing, incredible virtuosity coupled with extraordinary musical judgment, bell-like clarity against effortless dreaminess....  It's amazing that this one could command my attention so completely while hearing this music for the sixth time in an hour. 10!

19.   A let down after the last one, right off the bat too upright, straightforward, and a bit muddy ... is the left hand persistently just a bit behind?  Overall quite good but nothing special, at least not in such extraordinary company. 7

Dammit. The first time I didn't like one of them much. And this time I'm enjoying it quite a lot.

And it's not to do with playing order, because I played it first both times. It's clearly the mood I'm in.

I now have no clue.

I don't have time for comments on each pianist. The general comment I'll make is that I look for both mystery and excitement in this piece. Some pianists delivered these a lot more than others.  Some pianists kill the mystery in the first 3 notes...

Pianist 1: 7.5/10

Pianist 3: 5.5/10

Pianist 10: 4/10

Pianist 13: 9/10

Pianist 14: 7/10

Pianist 17: 8.5/10

Pianist 19: 4.5/10

1 - Weighty, vibrant, but not malevolent or mischievous enough.  Could have been more intense and virtuosic.  Score: 6

3 - Far better.  Overtly virtuosic.  Mischievous, almost menacing, and energetic, with nice climaxes.  Superb independence of hands, with some great left hand playing.  Score: 9 (Almost a 10)

10 - Opening has strong playing, but some blurred left hand playing, and then much of the playing borders on stiff.  Not enough tension; very deliberate.  Score: 6

13 - Well played overall.  Seems too straight-forward much of the time, though.  Strong climaxes and bass.  Score: 7

14 - Sharp, bright piano sound in the upper registers in places.  Very clean, precise playing.  Tending toward prim and proper playfulness rather than mischievousness.  Energetic.  Score: 7.

17 - Mischievous from the get go, with teasing three notes followed by perfectly judged pauses.  Superb dynamic control, plenty of attention to detail, excellent independence of hands, great forward momentum.  The best of this lot.  Score: 10

19 - Jumps right in.  Pianist is keen on control, which is impressive, though some playing sounds mannered.  A case where better sound would have helped.  I get the feeling something is missing: the compression of what sounds like an older recording mars tone and dynamics.  Still, dynamics are excellent.  Overall, more formal than mischievous.  Score: 9

I received the mailer for next season for the local piano recital series, and who should be slated to appear but Jean Efflam Bavouzet, and yes, he will be playing Gaspard.  Methinks it might be worth attending. 

Is it this?

Beethoven Sonata Op.28
Bartok Sonata
Debussy Préludes Book 1
Ravel Gaspard de la Nuit

I wonder if my family would be irritated if I skipped Thanksgiving with them...

I missed Bavouzet in Dallas (Liszt Concerto No. 2) because friends with poor taste were in town for the weekend.

Quote from: Brian on May 13, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Is it this?

Beethoven Sonata Op.28
Bartok Sonata
Debussy Préludes Book 1
Ravel Gaspard de la Nuit

Yep, though it's only seven of the Preludes.  A potentially very fine recital. 

Up until tonight, 3 and 17 were the only pianists I had not heard in full in Gaspard. I hadn't heard the full 14 until last week. Tonight I'm listening to the complete performance 17 to hear why it's one of our top scorers. Let's just say I hear why.

Won't give anything away, but wow - I did not expect this from pianist 17, which is surprising, since I've been a moderate fan of him/her in the past.

The grades are in! (so to speak)
#1: This one is well performed. It is more dramatic than mischievous at the start, but the terror really grows to the end, and boy is he (or she) in total control - very well disciplined. I was riveted. Perfect ending.  Rating: 8

#3: Great technique. Perhaps a bit too pingy. You can really hear all the notes, but is this Ravel? It seems somehow missing that atmospheric coloring that we associate with Ravel, rather it is more modern sounding in its approach. It seems to emphasize the dischordent sound and abruptness rather than focusing on painting the story (harsh sounding). Never connected with it.  Great clarity though. Rating: 1.5.

#10: Wonderful! This one gets the mischief down, and the idea of the goblin flitting about - I can just picture it. This one gets the atmosphere right - full of shadows. Now that I hear this, I realize that #3 has totally obscured the structure of the piece. A great guide. Rating: 9.

Entering uncharted territory - all of these are new to me...

#13: Another pingy one.  The pianist performs some of the intense moments really well, but the transitional and slower moments seem dull to me. Overly dramatic at times, though the lows really come through on this recording - creates real malevolence in sound. A hummer too. Rating: 3.

#14: A much more characterized opening, which I think suits the story. Perhaps a hair too staccato in moments, but what a joy to listen to this one, especially the opening sections. Where it focuses on the bass/lower register at around 5:30/5:45, it lost a bit of momentum. Rating: 7.5.

#17: Abrupt. Pauses too long at the start (and I like the use of silence usually). More strongly stop and go than others. Great control from the player. Climaxes are magnificant, though top can be slightly pingy here and there. Pauses in the middle are too long again - loses momentum and does not add to the tension, just misjudged by a bit. And from there on, it was not as interesing (lost all the magic in the climaxes). I can see why this may have been a popular choice, as the pianist is a marvelous player, but I think he/she makes too many problematic decisions compared to some of the others, which reduces the impact of the piece.  Rating: 3.5.

#19: Harsher approach. Sometimes the synch of the hands seems slightly off. At other times, there is slight slowdown as if the pianist needs that to play the piece. Seems out of control sometimes in the climaxes (or particularly intense moments) - overdoes it. Rating: 2.5.

Pogorolich: Wow. This is fantastic. The start is neither staccato nor legato. Rather he lets the note ring, but then it subdues (allowed to fade). What a great decision. And then he plays it more staccato, but the accents and quickness give it an amazing color and style. The utter control and precision he has is unbelievable!  So it doesn't sound pingy (though it could), but maintains a beautiful line throughout. As a result, everything seems very organic.  That middle bass section is handled adeptly - no sense of stopping here and the 'shadows' he creates with the pedal are outstanding. The detail is unbelievable!! Such shadings in the playing. I really disliked the first two movements he did, but this is great.  Had this remained in the competition, I would have given it a 10! It's worth buying this recording just for this movement. Bravo! Maybe we need a write-in vote! :)

Well, if you're rating Pogorelich and that cat's out of the bag, I guess I'll leave Herbert Schuch's "Scarbo" (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Scarbo/Piano%20Recital%20-%20Schuch%2C%20Herbert%20-%20Schumann%2C%20R.%20%20H...%20-%2011%20-%20Gaspard%20de%20la%20Nuit%20-%20III.%20Scarbo.mp3) here in case anybody were to click on it...  ;)

Friends,

I'll be gone and without a computer until Sunday night. I'd love to tabulate the votes Monday, but if you want to listen to our Scarbos and don't get a chance while I'm away, you can leave a message to that effect here, also.

Happy listening!!

:)

Quote from: Brian on May 15, 2013, 07:50:02 PM
Well, if you're rating Pogorelich and that cat's out of the bag, I guess I'll leave Herbert Schuch's "Scarbo" (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Scarbo/Piano%20Recital%20-%20Schuch%2C%20Herbert%20-%20Schumann%2C%20R.%20%20H...%20-%2011%20-%20Gaspard%20de%20la%20Nuit%20-%20III.%20Scarbo.mp3) here in case anybody were to click on it...  ;)

I didn't like it as much as Pogo. It's very virtuosic, but it sounds like an approach more entrenched on the modern side, which doesn't quite create the Ravelian sound as well as Pogo did it. Still, very intense.

I agree that it's too bad Pogo's out. His Scarbo is deservedly famed, rhythmically reminiscent of a drunken spinning top. And I like his Le gibet, too, describing it in the comparison as "Liquid tones, sounds like Debussy's Cathedral, emptiness, space, nice sense of distance for tolling bell, just a tad much dynamic drama -- 8." I don't like his Ondine as much, however -- the right hand tinkling at times seems rhythmically wayward, not quite synched with the left, and he pushes it too big and melodramatic for my taste ... but when his reading does work, it's lovely.

Thanks to this darned comparison I've already bought two two-disc sets of Ravel's piano music (Bavouzet and Hewitt), and the "winners" haven't even been revealed yet! This is as bad as Daniel's Mahler-go-rounds, each of which cost me forty or fifty bucks, even though I thought I already had far more Mahler than I needed!

Quote from: Brian on May 16, 2013, 08:22:50 PM
Friends,

I'll be gone and without a computer until Sunday night. I'd love to tabulate the votes Monday, but if you want to listen to our Scarbos and don't get a chance while I'm away, you can leave a message to that effect here, also.

Happy listening!!

:)

I will still need a few hours to complete this. Sorry for the delay.

Quote from: Brian on May 16, 2013, 08:22:50 PM
Friends,

I'll be gone and without a computer until Sunday night. I'd love to tabulate the votes Monday, but if you want to listen to our Scarbos and don't get a chance while I'm away, you can leave a message to that effect here, also.

Happy listening!!

:)

I haven't had a chance to listen yet, as I was moving to a new house. Hopefully tonight.

My scores for Scarbos with minimal notes.

#1 The best of the lot in terms of creating a terrifying and suspenseful sound from the piano. 8/10

#3 Depicting a great manic and frenzy dance, but less successful in creating the mood. 8/10

#10 I couldn't find anything here that stood out from the crowd, but the quiet part was filled with a sense of awe and menace. 6.5/10

#13 Well played with clean notes, but the sound was too bright and splashy to my ears. 6/10

#14 This pianist created a nice sense of character. If it had more contrast and mood, I would have score it higher. 7/10

#17 Wow, a very nicely crafted piece of playing. Very colourful and good phrasing. The pauses create anticipation. The sound is a bit too pretty though, and not scary enough. 9/10

#19 This had some scary sounds, but felt a bit rushed, and couldn't sustain suspense. 6/10

Enjoyed this very much! What a great piece! Thanks, Brian!

Definitely keen to get hold of 3,13 and 14.

1 - much drama and a sinister atmosphere to this performance. There are some impressive climaxes and a subtlety threatening menace, but perhaps this is just lacking a bit in impressionistic flair. A bit more dynamic/articulation contrast needed. 7

3 - very impressive virtuosity with outstanding balance and dynamic handling. I love the great surges of colour built by the very fast crescendos! Exciting tempo and very flexible playing. 9

10 - very haunting, mysterious opening, but lack of precision in the left hand repeated d#s. Not as structurally compelling, nor with the urgent excitement I expect, but the climaxes are great and the end is very nice. Wish the applause could have held off a bit though. 7

13 - what a despairing opening! Overall, this takes a very dark, aggressive take which I like very much. Very different and full of character. 10

14 - nice surges of colour, precise articulation and a great overall tempo which is pretty consistent throughout, making the slight slower tempo for the later climaxes very effective. Great energy, full of thrill and menace. 9

17 - quite exciting with good fluency and great ravelian grandeur at climaxes. 8

19 - very fast and therefore lacking in atmosphere in many places. Some very impressive technique, but doesn't sound as if at home in ravelian spirit, lack of refinement and colourful passion. The climaxes are almost rushed. 6

Managed to find time and energy for this round, really enjoyed it. Big thanks, Brian!

1 - Energetic beginning, lacking menace, though                                                                            5
3 - Superbly ominous beginning, virtuosic, dramatic, great buildup. All in all, superb!                     9
10 - Good beginning, dull after that                                                                                                 6
13 - Great opening, plenty of menace in this one, even violence.                                                    9
14 - Great tone, touch, dynamics and virtuosity, but not over-the-top.                                          10
17 - Excellent contrasts, virtuosity, and playfulness                                                                        10
19 - Fast, lacks some nuances. Recording quality does some damage to this one                          8

Thanks all for the votes! MishaK, Lisztianwagner, AnthonyAthletic, if you're interested in voting, I will keep the floor open. :)

Misha, I don't mean to influence your theory that pianists #1 and #10 are the same person, but I just did a running tally and they both stand at exactly 52.5 points. Just downright freaky coincidence...or is it  ;D

Finally, we may not need a runoff. One pianist built him/herself a clear advantage after Round II and is expanding on it in Scarbo, to the point where, currently, if you add up the averages from each round to look at an overall score out of 30, this pianist is more than 2 points ahead of the second-place candidate - or a 0.7 advantage per movement.

I should be done tonight.  ;)

Quote from: Brian on May 21, 2013, 07:29:46 AM
Thanks all for the votes! MishaK, Lisztianwagner, AnthonyAthletic, if you're interested in voting, I will keep the floor open. :)

Misha, I don't mean to influence your theory that pianists #1 and #10 are the same person, but I just did a running tally and they both stand at exactly 52.5 points. Just downright freaky coincidence...or is it  ;D

Finally, we may not need a runoff. One pianist built him/herself a clear advantage after Round II and is expanding on it in Scarbo, to the point where, currently, if you add up the averages from each round to look at an overall score out of 30, this pianist is more than 2 points ahead of the second-place candidate - or a 0.7 advantage per movement.

Am I the only one who didn't like that performance (at least the third movement)?

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 21, 2013, 08:22:59 AM
Am I the only one who didn't like that performance (at least the third movement)?

Its scores for the third movement:

8
10
8.5
10
3.5 - that's you!
9
8
10

;D ;D

Personally, I like the performance a lot but feels it lacks a little bit of wildness and darkness which you can find more prominently in, say, 1 or 13 or Pogo. I'd probably give it an 8 myself.

Quote from: Brian on May 21, 2013, 08:40:55 AM
Its scores for the third movement:

8
10
8.5
10
3.5 - that's you!
9
8
10

;D ;D

Personally, I like the performance a lot but feels it lacks a little bit of wildness and darkness which you can find more prominently in, say, 1 or 13 or Pogo. I'd probably give it an 8 myself.

I'm an outlier! :)

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 21, 2013, 08:48:33 AM
I'm an outlier! :)

And not only in this comparison!  ;)

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 21, 2013, 09:48:14 AM
And not only in this comparison!  ;)

Sarge

Nice one! :)

OK. I'm afraid I didn't have the optimum surroundings for listening and was interrupted quite a bit, so FWIW here are my Scarbo verdicts.

1. No complaints apart from sound quality which makes the playing sound more muddled than it is. What was still fine for Ondine unfortunately renders bits of Scarbo unintelligible though it's still clear from the recording that it's not the pianist's pedaling that's causing this. Rhythmically superb. Wonderful drama, spontaneity and atmosphere.  9

3. Nicely economical use of pedal, great virtuosity. This is quite a different way of doing this, but I think it works very well nonetheless. Fine dynamic control. Very well articulated and rhythmically differentiated. Perhaps a tad too careful and pretty. Could hang together a bit better. Nice buildup to the final climax. But altogether excellent interpretation and great pianism. 7.5

10. Again similar to 1. More restrained, however, not as spontaneous and willing to let loose. Remarkable precision for a live occasion. 7.5

13. Remarkable dynamic control. Very free phrasing. A few slightly imprecise spots though. Very good and atmospheric but doesn't quite bowl me over. The part that starts around 7:20 starts unnaturally slow. But the intensity after that is very good. 7

14. Wow dares to play at a faster tempo and with what kind of precision and perfect dynamics! Remarkable performance. 8.5

17. Very well played but doesn't quite hang together as well as the others. A bit episodic at first, though the last two minutes are handled magnificently. 6.5

19. Very spontaneous and impulsive, but with a completely coherent narrative. Not as "clean" and virtuosic. Great risk taking. A number of sloppy spots and quite a few wrong notes. But what energy! Intense performance. Really makes you sweat. Would love to have witnessed this live even though as a recording it is not ideal. Still: 8.5

PS: I can now see why you kept "hyping" 19. That Scarbo is amazing, even if the first two movements didn't really convince me.

Heh, guess I'll listen to 19 again... I included it for the Gibet!  0:)

LAST CHANCE TO VOTE
RESULTS IN 24 HOURS

And if you don't mind, we'll eschew the run-off finale considering the entire work all at once. Pianist #17 has won a decisive victory over the competition; only pianist #14 comes close.

OVERALL LEADERBOARD
#....Ondine....Le Gibet....Scarbo...Total....Overall Rank
1....8.20........6.53........6.83......21.56...third
3....7.25........6.94........7.28......21.47...fifth
10..7.50........7.38........6.67......21.55...fourth
13..7.75........6.58........6.89......21.22...sixth
14..8.50........7.00........7.77......23.27...second
17..8.13........8.75........8.17......25.05...FIRST
19..7.38........6.75........6.28......20.41...seventh

Two notes before we start with the results show.
1. First you'll see the results for "Scarbo." At the very bottom, I've tabulated overall results based on all three movements, so the bottom of the post has the "final standings". The top two pianists are the same as the top two for "Scarbo" by itself.
2. As I mentioned previously, the #1 pianist is a runaway winner, of sorts, placing first in two of three movements and beating out #2 by a wide margin. So, we'll crown a winner right here and declare the game finished!

RESULTS: "Scarbo"

A word about the scores offered: these are averages on a scale of 1-10 across all voters! Each pianist received 9 votes.

Without further ado...

Seventh place: Pianist #19 (6.277)

"That Scarbo is amazing" "Not as "clean" and virtuosic. Great risk taking....Really makes you sweat." "Pianist is keen on control, which is impressive, though some playing sounds mannered." "more formal than mischievous" "Seems out of control sometimes" "some scary sounds, but felt a bit rushed." "Some very impressive technique, but doesn't sound as if at home in Ravelian spirit, lack of refinement" "Fast, lacks some nuances" "Not very virtuosic." "too upright, straightforward"

The pianist who provided the fastest of our seven Scarbos is...

(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/3eRSzdXewcA/mqdefault.jpg)
CLAUDIO ARRAU
live, May 20, 1963

According to Claudio Arrau's discography (http://arrauhouse.org/content/disc_ravel.htm), the pianist recorded "Ondine" and "Le gibet" for Columbia in 1949, and broadcast tapes survive of the complete Gaspard from this concert in Italy and exactly one other concert, in Norway (http://arrauhouse.org/content/unre_livesolo.htm) on August 22, 1962. According to this site (http://arrausite.free.fr/site/repertoire.htm#Ravel%20M), concert programs attest to six years in which Arrau performed Gaspard.

Although the Ermitage label once released this performance on CD, it is now almost impossible to find, and I found the recording (by mistake) on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eRSzdXewcA).

Sixth place: Pianist #10 (6.666)

"not as spontaneous and willing to let loose" "dull" "very haunting, mysterious opening.... Not as structurally compelling, nor with the urgent excitement I expect" "I couldn't find anything here that stood out from the crowd." "Wonderful! This one gets the mischief down" "much of the playing borders on stiff" "thoughtful and restrained but committed, great virtuosity in service to an active intelligence, judicious timing"

Pianist #10 is...

[asin]B00005A8FG[/asin]

ARTURO BENEDETTI MICHELANGELI
live, June 30, 1959, London

What can I say? A great recording. But we found five we liked better, starting with...

Fifth place: Pianist #1 (6.833)

"Rhythmically superb. Wonderful drama, spontaneity and atmosphere." "not malevolent or mischievous enough.  Could have been more intense" "boy is he (or she) in total control - very well disciplined. I was riveted." "terrifying and suspenseful sound" "much drama and a sinister atmosphere" "lacking menace" "Tune often lost. Feels like it runs out of steam." "nothing subtle about it"

Pianist #1 is...

[asin]B009AE7186[/asin]

ARTURO BENEDETTI MICHELANGELI
live, May 22, 1960, Prague (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21672.msg718628.html#msg718628)

Double 'Detti! And recorded live in the same city just 11 months apart. MishaK noticed that the two Michelangeli recordings were the same pianist very early on in the competition, and Michelangeli's readings got similar scores on nearly every ballot. Ironically, it was MishaK who broke the tie between these two Michelangelis - before his, the last vote, they had identical scores.

NOTE: If you can find a different CD version of this performance, consider buying that one instead. The Praga disc couples Gaspard to a shamelessly, obviously pirated copy of the EMI piano concerto recording. I mean, unless that EMI concerto is somehow out of copyright, but I doubt that.

Fourth place: Pianist #13 (6.888)

"Remarkable dynamic control. Very free phrasing." "plenty of menace in this one, even violence" "Overall, this takes a very dark, aggressive take which I like very much." "the sound was too bright and splashy" "Overly dramatic at times" "Seems too straight-forward much of the time" "Love the rhythmic sensitivity, the slight syncopation, the clarity, the full tones, the sustained low tones, the dreaminess, the building tensions" "tempos generally quite slow. Shame piano is horribly out of tune. Really bashes many of the notes. Dynamics don't have much range. Not much sensitivity. Not a fan of this at all."

Pianist #13 is...

[asin]B000001K24[/asin]
ABBEY SIMON

Another all-time great performance and one of my personal favorite Scarbos.

Third place: Pianist #3 (7.277)

"Overtly virtuosic.  Mischievous, almost menacing, and energetic" "is this Ravel? It seems somehow missing that atmospheric coloring that we associate with Ravel, rather it is more modern sounding in its approach" "a great manic and frenzy dance" "I love the great surges of colour built by the very fast crescendos!" "virtuosic, dramatic, great buildup. All in all, superb!" "Feel like pianist is a little too obsessed with technique at expense of communicating structure." "spontaneous, effortless, inhabiting the music, inherently dramatic"

Pianist #3 is...

[asin]B0000041ZK[/asin]

JEAN-YVES THIBAUDET

In the battle of the Jean-Hyphens, Thibaudet beats Bavouzet with another unique, remarkable Gaspard (but unique and remarkable in different, and evidently more popular, ways).

Second place: Pianist #14 (7.777)

"dares to play at a faster tempo and with what kind of precision and perfect dynamics!" "Great tone, touch, dynamics and virtuosity, but not over-the-top" "Great energy, full of thrill and menace" "nice sense of character. If it had more contrast and mood, I would have score it higher" "what a joy to listen to this one" "lost a bit of momentum" "Tending toward prim and proper playfulness" "More gorgeous tones but a little soft and even slushy" "a bit lacking in charisma, colour and character."

Pianist #14 is...

[asin]B0000942JN[/asin]

MICHAEL ENDRES

Wow! I'm surprised, and I presume you are too. Endres, admired for his Schubert and Mozart, is our unexpected silver medalist. But is he as unexpected as the pianist who's won it all?

FIRST PLACE: Pianist #17

"perfectly judged pauses.  Superb dynamic control, plenty of attention to detail, excellent independence of hands, great forward momentum." "Pauses in the middle are too long again - loses momentum and does not add to the tension, just misjudged by a bit. And from there on, it was not as interesing (lost all the magic in the climaxes). I can see why this may have been a popular choice, as the pianist is a marvelous player, but I think he/she makes too many problematic decisions "  "Very colourful and good phrasing. The sound is a bit too pretty though, and not scary enough." "quite exciting with good fluency and great Ravelian grandeur" "contrasts, virtuosity, and playfulness" "damned near faultless: articulation, tone, timing, incredible virtuosity coupled with extraordinary musical judgment, bell-like clarity against effortless dreaminess" "Not as virtuosic & fast as some performances, but by far the best so far. Great phrasing." "doesn't quite hang together as well as the others. A bit episodic at first"

Over the course of this competition, eleven ratings of "10" were awarded to a performance. Five of those eleven were awarded to Pianist #17. Of course, three of those five were awarded by Todd, who thus gave this pianist a remarkable perfect score, 30 out of 30.

Pianist #17 and Michelangeli 1960 were the only competitors to receive multiple 10s in a round, and Pianist #17 and Michelangeli 1960 were the only competitors to receive 10s from more than one judge.

And finally, there's the issue of almost nobody disliking pianist #17. Neal gave its Scarbo a 3.5, but its next-lowest score, in the entire competition, was a 6; just three ballots all game long rated pianist #17 below a score of 7. The number of sub-7 scores this pianist got from the group is the same as the number of 10s (s)he got... from Todd.

Pianist #17 is...

[asin]B004K4T6DO[/asin]
STEVEN OSBORNE

Whoa. Raise your hand if you predicted the pianist to outlast Argerich, Pogorelich, Bavouzet, Casadesus and Francois and then best Michelangeli, Michelangeli again, and Abbey Simon in head-to-head combat, all while earning only one failing vote out of 20... would be Steven Osborne, born in 1963 and recorded in 2010.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OVERALL LEADERBOARD
Name...................Ondine....Le Gibet....Scarbo.....Total....Overall Rank
Arrau..................7.38........6.75........6.28......20.41.....seventh
Simon.................7.75........6.58........6.89......21.22.....sixth
Michelangeli 59....8.20........6.53........6.67......21.40.....fifth
Thibaudet............7.25........6.94........7.28......21.47.....fourth
Michelangeli 60....7.50........7.38........6.83......21.71.....third
Endres................8.50........7.00........7.77......23.27.....second
Osborne..............8.13........8.75........8.17......25.05.....FIRST

RANKINGS IN EACH MOVEMENT
Name...................Ondine......Le Gibet....Scarbo....overall
Arrau...................ninth..........fifth........seventh....seventh
Simon..................fifth...........sixth........fourth......sixth
Michelangeli 59....seventh...seventh.....fifth.......fifth
Thibaudet.............tenth........fourth........third....fourth
Michelangeli 60....third........second........fifth......third
Endres.................first.........third........second....second
Osborne..............fourth........first........first.......first

(In Ondine, Pogorelich ranked second, Bavouzet sixth, and Schuch eighth.)

Well, it looks like I'll be buying Osborne's Ravel.  Sure shows more promise than his Debussy.  Good to see Endres make such a strong showing.

Cool, the results are in.

I'm happy to see my fave - Thibaudet - earn the bronze. I've raved about his Gaspard in the past. Too bad his set is so expensive now (outside of an Arkiv burn).

Unlike Todd, I like Osborne's Debussy Preludes very much. I also like his Rachmaninoff Preludes. I sampled his Ravel on the hyperion site not long ago, but chose his stablemate, Hewitt, instead. (And Bavouzet.) Nice to see my old standby, Abbey Simon, do well. (No wonder it sounded so right to my ears!) Only 0.01 point separates him from Thibaudet. It's not surprising that Michelangeli fared well. The BBC disc is a benchmark performance.

On the other hand, Endres is a surprise, though I wasn't wowed enough to want it.

Too bad Hewitt and Rogé weren't included.  Guess I'll have to do my own comparison at home!  ;)

Thanks, Brian, for setting this up. It rekindled my love for Ravel and increased my appreciation of this piece very much.  Given my short attention span, something has to be pretty darned good to hold my interest through so many repeated hearings!

Nice work everyone. Never heard Osborne, Simon or Endres before in any repertoire. Will have to check these guys out. That's the wonderful thing about music: there can always be a performer out there who you've never heard of who has poured his or her heart and soul into one work and is more than ready to take on and beat the greats up in the pantheon, and these sorts of blind comparisons help us hear what we otherwise might not because we are biased to dismiss unknown "lesser" performers. Wish we could have included Naida Cole as well. I recall hearing excerpts of her recording once, but then the release was deleted from the catalog before I got around to buying it.

Good to see Thibaudet. He's a very fine pianist and has a unique (and telltale) economic use of pedaling that I've found very interesting and illuminating. He's made me revisit and reconsider my interpretive and technical decisions in French repertoire many times. Arrau is somewhat unexpected but now makes some sense in light of the very individual take.

Michelangeli to me has always been a master in this repertoire and it was hard not noticing in every bar that it's him. He's got that inimitable control of timbres and completely coherent line from beginning to end. I wasn't aware of this 1960 London recording and will have to see if I can get a hold of it in some incarnation. I have the 1959 in both the BBC and a Music & Arts release. But in any case the best of his Gaspards that I have heard is a live 1960 Prague Spring performance, which also benefits from better sound that does his incredible timbral control more justice. There was once a wonderful Music & Arts 2CD set that had this performance among stupendous accounts of the Bach/Busoni Chaconne and the Brahms Paganini variations. One of my desert island discs.

[ASIN]B000001OG7[/ASIN]

There is also a fine live Warsaw version I think from around the same time that someone once sent me in MP3 format but which I now can't find for the life of me, as well as a later live Vatican version, which I have, however, never heard.

PS: I'm still miffed that Gulda got kicked out so early. He's truly brilliant. I'll eventually break down and buy that big RIAS recordings set from which this performance came.

Quote from: Brian on May 22, 2013, 03:34:31 PM
Two notes before we start with the results show.

Sixth place: Pianist #10 (6.666)

"not as spontaneous and willing to let loose" "dull" "very haunting, mysterious opening.... Not as structurally compelling, nor with the urgent excitement I expect" "I couldn't find anything here that stood out from the crowd." "Wonderful! This one gets the mischief down" "much of the playing borders on stiff" "thoughtful and restrained but committed, great virtuosity in service to an active intelligence, judicious timing"

Pianist #10 is...

[asin]B00005A8FG[/asin]

ARTURO BENEDETTI MICHELANGELI
live, June 30, 1959, London

What can I say? A great recording. But we found five we liked better, starting with...

Fifth place: Pianist #1 (6.833)

"Rhythmically superb. Wonderful drama, spontaneity and atmosphere." "not malevolent or mischievous enough.  Could have been more intense" "boy is he (or she) in total control - very well disciplined. I was riveted." "terrifying and suspenseful sound" "much drama and a sinister atmosphere" "lacking menace" "Tune often lost. Feels like it runs out of steam." "nothing subtle about it"

Pianist #1 is...

[asin]B009AE7186[/asin]

ARTURO BENEDETTI MICHELANGELI
live, May 22, 1960, London

Double 'Detti! And recorded live in the same city just 11 months apart. MishaK noticed that the two Michelangeli recordings were the same pianist very early on in the competition, and Michelangeli's readings got similar scores on nearly every ballot. Ironically, it was MishaK who broke the tie between these two Michelangelis - before his, the last vote, they had identical scores.

NOTE: If you can find a different CD version of this performance, consider buying that one instead. The Praga disc couples Gaspard to a shamelessly, obviously pirated copy of the EMI piano concerto recording. I mean, unless that EMI concerto is somehow out of copyright, but I doubt that.

Fourth place: Pianist #13 (6.888)

"Remarkable dynamic control. Very free phrasing." "plenty of menace in this one, even violence" "Overall, this takes a very dark, aggressive take which I like very much." "the sound was too bright and splashy" "Overly dramatic at times" "Seems too straight-forward much of the time" "Love the rhythmic sensitivity, the slight syncopation, the clarity, the full tones, the sustained low tones, the dreaminess, the building tensions" "tempos generally quite slow. Shame piano is horribly out of tune. Really bashes many of the notes. Dynamics don't have much range. Not much sensitivity. Not a fan of this at all."

Interesting that I liked both not knowing it was the same pianist (or that both were him). I guess I like his approach!

Quote from: MishaK on May 22, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Michelangeli's got that inimitable control of timbres and completely coherent line from beginning to end.

This is one of the things I found so helpful. I found learning this piece hard and Michaelangeli's approach makes it much easier to understand for me. You've said it so succinctly - well worth highlighting!

Funny, I was listening to Osborne's very disappointing Rachmaninov Preludes last night.
I'm seriously disappointed though to see all my favourite recordings of Gaspard missing from the selection- I'm not sure I've really learnt anything as a result.

Quote from: BobsterLobster on May 23, 2013, 12:26:56 AM
I'm seriously disappointed though to see all my favourite recordings of Gaspard missing from the selection- I'm not sure I've really learnt anything as a result.

Which are your favorites, BL?

And thanks Brian for all the work tabulating and laying everything out so nice; I've enjoyed reading the comments even without having specific points of reference.  Sounds pointless, but it's been instructive nonetheless.

Quote from: MishaK on May 22, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Never heard Osborne, Simon or Endres before in any repertoire. Will have to check these guys out. That's the wonderful thing about music: there can always be a performer out there who you've never heard of who has poured his or her heart and soul into one work and is more than ready to take on and beat the greats up in the pantheon, and these sorts of blind comparisons help us hear what we otherwise might not because we are biased to dismiss unknown "lesser" performers.

I think Steven Osborne is far from unknown. He has won Gramophone awards. When he toured here last year he was touted as a British superstar soloist. This is an extract from a concert review (http://www.thebarefootreview.com.au/music/reviews/620-rbs-morgans-international-piano-series.html)

"Steven Osborne is a remarkable musician.  When he plays it is almost as if the piano is a medium that allows him to establish direct contact with the composer, because he always manages to extract some new meaning from what ever piece he is playing.  Put simply, it just doesn't sound 'mainstream';  when he plays, the result is somehow different, and this is somewhat disarming, but in a most enjoyable way."

I think that would be a fair description of what we heard from #17.

BTW Thank you Brian for a most fun and educational experience with Ravel.

Quote from: BobsterLobster on May 23, 2013, 12:26:56 AM
Funny, I was listening to Osborne's very disappointing Rachmaninov Preludes last night.
I'm seriously disappointed though to see all my favourite recordings of Gaspard missing from the selection- I'm not sure I've really learnt anything as a result.

I am grateful to have you with us, Bob. (Hmmm, "Swedish Bob" ... wasn't that a character in a recent movie?) So far you're proving a reliable reverse barometer for me, since our tastes seem so far apart. That's not to say you're wrong and I'm right. Some like sports cars and some like luxury sedans. One person's "forceful explosion of passionate music-making" is another's "uncontrolled ham-fisted keyboard pounding."

Edit: Whoops ... that's "English Bob" I'm thinking of, Richard Harris's character in a movie recently mentioned elsewhere around these parts. ;) 8)

Very very interesting, Brian! I'll definitely be getting the Simon, really enjoyed his scarbo! Thank you for a wonderful comparison, very well organised!

I'll be starting my next comparison after exams in around a month, so, would people like to do another Mahler symphony, or another surprise? :D

Quote from: madaboutmahler on May 23, 2013, 05:32:38 AM
I'll be starting my next comparison after exams in around a month, so, would people like to do another Mahler symphony, or another surprise? :D

Yes to Mahler symphony, but I hope not number 7.  :P

Quote from: Beale on May 23, 2013, 04:33:19 AM
I think Steven Osborne is far from unknown. He has won Gramophone awards. When he toured here last year he was touted as a British superstar soloist. This is an extract from a concert review (http://www.thebarefootreview.com.au/music/reviews/620-rbs-morgans-international-piano-series.html)

"Steven Osborne is a remarkable musician.  When he plays it is almost as if the piano is a medium that allows him to establish direct contact with the composer, because he always manages to extract some new meaning from what ever piece he is playing.  Put simply, it just doesn't sound 'mainstream';  when he plays, the result is somehow different, and this is somewhat disarming, but in a most enjoyable way."

With all due respect, that is typical meaningless PR BS. It can apply to almost anything and anyone at any time. You also have to distinguish between national and regional "markets" and international markets. Osborne might be well known in the UK and the related Commonwealth (I have an Aussie musician friend who categorizes celebrity performers into two groups: too expensive for Australia and the rest  ;) ). But Osborne certainly isn't a pianist of international stature. And you can see that also by the record labels that give these guys contracts (or don't and just do one-offs). There is a difference in relative fame in being on Universal vs. a small label like Oehms or Hyperion. Again, this has nothing to do with interpretive quality in a given piece. And that is precisely what these sorts of blind comparisons help elucidate.

So now as a result of this exercise I'll have to buy Gulda, Endres and Osborne and maybe find that 1960 London Michelangeli. Oy!

Not sure where the net links are here but the DG Pogorelich remains one of the most transcendental piano recordings of all time, sounding like something from an ideal impressionistic nightmare, finding the essence of the work entirely beyond the limits of the keyboard; dark blood-red in the zone painting as I've never heard.

Also heard him live but time changes things...

Quote from: Sean on May 23, 2013, 07:09:20 AM
Not sure where the net links are here but the DG Pogorelich remains one of the most transcendental piano recordings of all time, sounding like something from an ideal impressionistic nightmare, finding the essence of the work entirely beyond the limits of the keyboard; dark blood-red in the zone painting as I've never heard.

Also heard him live but time changes things...

Also your comments are now pointless. The whole point of blind comparison is to listen without the prejudice of the PR bombast and other aspects of a performer's "aura", not knowing who it is and just letting yourself be pulled in by a Michael Endres (who?) and kicking Pogo out in round two for failing to produce two movements that live up to the hype ascribed to the third.  ;)

Remind me again how I can listen...?

Quote from: MishaK on May 23, 2013, 07:11:28 AM
Also your comments are now pointless. The whole point of blind comparison is to listen without the prejudice of the PR bombast and other aspects of a performer's "aura", not knowing who it is and just letting yourself be pulled in by a Michael Endres (who?) and kicking Pogo out in round two for failing to produce two movements that live up to the hype ascribed to the third.  ;)

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on May 22, 2013, 05:28:24 PM
I'm happy to see my fave - Thibaudet - earn the bronze. I've raved about his Gaspard in the past. Too bad his set is so expensive now (outside of an Arkiv burn).

The Thibaudet is available on Arkiv at a discount for $19.99 as a regular Decca issue, not an Arkiv burn:

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=4326

Quote from: Sean on May 23, 2013, 07:15:11 AM
Remind me again how I can listen...?

Brian PM-ed us links. I don't want to repost them here without his authorization, so I'll wait for him to chime in or PM you directly. Not sure if the Ondine and Gibet files are still up. I know he has limited space.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2013, 06:07:08 PM
Too bad Hewitt and Rogé weren't included.  Guess I'll have to do my own comparison at home!  ;)

I had a "cutting room floor" list of pianists I wish I could have included, but we would have needed many more judges! For instance, with a bigger pool of listeners, we might have heard from Walter Gieseking, Pascal Rogé, Angela Hewitt, Benjamin Grosvenor, Inon Barnatan, the singularly perverse Tzimon Barto, Paul Crossley, Roger Muraro, Joaquin Achucarro, Naida Cole... the other limit, besides the size of the judging panel, was the availability of these recordings to me. I purchased a number of recordings for this game (inc. Thibaudet, Endres, and Osborne!) but acquiring many more would have been financially challenging.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2013, 06:07:08 PM
Given my short attention span

Says the Mahler enthusiast!

Quote from: MishaK on May 22, 2013, 06:46:54 PMNever heard Osborne, Simon or Endres before in any repertoire.

Osborne has, if you like that kind of thing, the best single CD of Kapustin on the market (better than Hamelin's for sure). Abbey Simon is a wonderful performer (and a Texas resident) whose Ravel Vox Box is truly great. Michael Endres is a Schubert/Mozart/Weber guy, so his triumph here kind of surprised me. I listened to his Le tombeau de Couperin and his fugue, very speedy at 2:17, is a total revelation.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 22, 2013, 09:36:31 PM
Interesting that I liked both not knowing it was the same pianist (or that both were him). I guess I like his approach!

Back at the very start, I was testing links and didn't remember which pianist was which #. Clicking one link, to pianist #1, I knew it was Michelangeli within 15 seconds. He really is inimitable.

Quote from: MishaK on May 23, 2013, 07:02:28 AMThere is a difference in relative fame in being on Universal vs. a small label like Oehms or Hyperion.

I wouldn't consider Osborne "famous" - more like a darling of the British press - but it might be a mark of my cloistered listening that I consider, e.g., Yundi Li or Rafal Blechacz to be less "famous" than Angela Hewitt. This might just be because Universal has fallen so far so recently.

Quote from: MishaK on May 23, 2013, 07:11:28 AM
Also your comments are now pointless. The whole point of blind comparison is to listen without the prejudice of the PR bombast and other aspects of a performer's "aura", not knowing who it is and just letting yourself be pulled in by a Michael Endres (who?) and kicking Pogo out in round two for failing to produce two movements that live up to the hype ascribed to the third.  ;)

Indeed. Pogo was ranked 2nd out of 20 in "Ondine," and probably could have won in "Scarbo," but the group collectively deemed his "Le gibet" to be, basically, a failure. A shocking banishment, but totally fair.

I'll PM links soon to Sean and Octave so they can compare notes with our judges. I'll also be posting my own thoughts on some of the recordings.

Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2013, 08:05:35 AM
I had a "cutting room floor" list of pianists I wish I could have included, but we would have needed many more judges! For instance, with a bigger pool of listeners, we might have heard from Walter Gieseking, Pascal Rogé, Angela Hewitt, Benjamin Grosvenor, Inon Barnatan, the singularly perverse Tzimon Barto, Paul Crossley, Roger Muraro, Joaquin Achucarro, Naida Cole... the other limit, besides the size of the judging panel, was the availability of these recordings to me. I purchased a number of recordings for this game (inc. Thibaudet, Endres, and Osborne!) but acquiring many more would have been financially challenging.

Wow! That's dedication! Now, if only one could create lists on Spotify without identifying the performer and share those like any other Spotify list, this could be done much more economically while encompassing virtually every recording available.

BTW, I did a slightly different ranking based on my own scores. Instead of simply adding the scores for each movement, I divided the result by the number of movements. That way I can include performers who were kicked out by the others.  ;) My ranking ends up being:

1. Michelangeli 1960 (9.16)
2. Michelangeli 1959 (8.42)
3. Endres (8.33)
4. Osborne (8.0)
4. Gulda (8.0)
5. Thibaudet (7.65)

The rest didn't come close in points.

Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2013, 08:05:35 AM
I had a "cutting room floor" list of pianists I wish I could have included, but we would have needed many more judges! For instance, with a bigger pool of listeners, we might have heard from Walter Gieseking, Pascal Rogé, Angela Hewitt, Benjamin Grosvenor, Inon Barnatan, the singularly perverse Tzimon Barto, Paul Crossley, Roger Muraro, Joaquin Achucarro, Naida Cole... the other limit, besides the size of the judging panel, was the availability of these recordings to me. I purchased a number of recordings for this game (inc. Thibaudet, Endres, and Osborne!) but acquiring many more would have been financially challenging.

Well, you bought some good ones, at least :)
How is Barto perverse, though?

Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2013, 08:05:35 AMAbbey Simon is a wonderful performer (and a Texas resident) whose Ravel Vox Box is truly great.

You are underselling the virtues of the set. 

Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2013, 08:05:35 AMMichael Endres is a Schubert/Mozart/Weber guy, so his triumph here kind of surprised me. I listened to his Le tombeau de Couperin and his fugue, very speedy at 2:17, is a total revelation.

Don't forget his Bax.  Or Schumann.  Or Gershwin.  I'd like to hear him in Beethoven, of course, but also in concerto repertoire.

Quote from: Todd on May 23, 2013, 08:36:37 AM
Don't forget his Bax.  Or Schumann.  Or Gershwin.  I'd like to hear him in Beethoven, of course, but also in concerto repertoire.

During the "Scarbo" round, I spent literally an entire day listening to Michael Endres. The Schumann was very good, but the Bax was wonderful and the Gershwin was at least as amazing a surprise as the Ravel. In fact for solo piano Gershwin he might rank alongside guys like Earl Wild.

Quote from: North Star on May 23, 2013, 08:31:01 AM
How is Barto perverse, though?

I was going to post Jed Distler's "2 out of 10" review, but ClassicsToday put it behind a paywall as a "CD from Hell," so here's the pretty reliable J. Scott Morrison:

"Throughout his career Tzimon Barto has behaved like the boy in middle school who burps and farts to get attention.... he runs true to form in this all-Ravel disc that contains some of the most peculiar performances I've ever heard. It's not that Barto doesn't have technique. For instance he plays the extremely difficult 'Scarbo' in 'Gaspard de la nuit' as fast as I've ever heard it, although I must admit it goes so fast that the music's effects are blurred. In other passages he simply ignores Ravel's instructions. For instance, 'Le gibet' is marked 'sans expression' yet Barto swoons and swans his way through it. 'Ondine' is w-a-a-y too slow and has rhythmic instability as well."

Naturally, I'm listening to Barto's performance now. I didn't have a problem with the speed of 'Ondine', but the bungled lead-up to the climax, and the brutally ugly, slowed-down climax itself? Yuck.

Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2013, 08:43:50 AMThe Schumann was very good

The thing about his Schumann is that he's at his relative best in Album für die Jugend, something a lot of pianists don't record.  I do wish he'd record Bunte Blatter.

The Gershwin disc is sweet, I do agree.

Oehms punches above its weight, pianistically speaking.

Quote from: Todd on May 23, 2013, 08:56:00 AM
Oehms punches above its weight, pianistically speaking.

Endres' "Traumerei" removed all my adult jadedness about the piece. I just had the chance to review two new Oehms pianist debuts, both doing Ravel (and others); Benjamin Moser was a bit of a mixed bag, with a Gaspard that really missed to me, but Alexander Schimpf's Ravel-Scriabin-Schubert album was a very pleasant little debut. Look forward to more from him.

~~~

Opinions on the performances? I have a few...

#1. Michelangeli 1960. Here's what I wrote on MusicWeb:

QuoteArturo Benedetti Michelangeli at his best can be unmistakable: the opening bars of "Ondine," in this 1960 recording of Gaspard de la Nuit, are a great example. Such speed but such accuracy! More or less any pianist who plays this movement in less than six minutes today will fudge or smear or simplify the insanely tricky accompaniment in these first bars. They're a pianist's hell; one can hear virtuosos like Freddy Kempf (BIS) utterly humiliated by them. And yet Michelangeli speeds through them with a precision and casualness that, taken together, explain his legend.
 
It's a great Gaspard all the way. Le Gibet's tolling bells are suitably gloomy and terrifying, and Scarbo, with a teasing pause here, an extra emphasis there, and laser precision throughout, is outstanding too. This is great playing. It's also his fastest Gaspard that I've heard or heard about.

An aside: the first ~10 seconds are why I decided not to use Freddy Kempf's recording.

#3. Thibaudet. Listened to this again last night. I think I was prejudiced against it because the engineering is exactly the opposite of what I like, the sound's just unpleasant to me. But, like the scores here, Thibaudet keeps getting better and better in every movement. Might have found a new favorite Scarbo - or at least a new top-3 Scarbo. Blazingly intense.

#6. Ashkenazy. God I hate his "Le gibet." See my comments on Gulda below.

#8. Sudbin. One more plug for this remarkable, very different approach. "Very different" in a way that made me happy, anyway.

#13. Simon. The more I listen, the more I appreciate and am in awe. It's funny that the slowest Scarbo doesn't feel like it, so intense and dramatic is Simon's playing.

#15. Schuch. Listening again after he was eliminated, I found myself poking little holes in Schuch's approach. For instance, the tiny, affected pauses in the first few minutes of "Ondine," and the truly distracting loudness of parts of "Le gibet." Now I understand why his "Gibet" was voted off the island.

#16. Gulda. Like with Schuch, I listened after elimination, and was most interested in the contrast between Gulda's "Le gibet" and Ashkenazy's. They're both waay too fast (less than 5:00), they both have no attempt to capture stasis or unbearable heat, in poetic terms. But Ashkenazy is a failure here while Gulda's reading is weirdly persuasive. I don't know how to explain it, but it worked better than it should have.

#17. Osborne. After it became clear Osborne was going to win, I listened in full and was really very impressed. The Scarbo lacks a bit of edge, to me, not quite "scary" enough, but I still found myself admiring the sheer pianism. There's a kind of technical perfection which lacks character or personality, which just seems "right" but not interestingly so; this infected some of Osborne's Rachmaninov, but it is definitely not present in this Gaspard. That said, my personal ranking might have had Michelangeli and Simon higher. Maybe. With this around the Thibaudet/Endres level.

#19. Arrau. My thought process while on YouTube: "Arrau Gaspard? There is such a thing? Hey I should include this because it's rare and Arrau is famous. Oh hey, this sounds pretty good. Oh this is really good. Okay downloading."

I just looked up Endres on the web. http://michaelendres.com/ Dude's a piano professor in .... Christchurch?! After *leaving* a position in Berlin?! WTF?! Does he even perform live these days? I was all hopeful about finding some info on concerts etc. But nothing.  :(

Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2013, 09:09:07 AM
#1. Michelangeli 1960. Here's what I wrote on MusicWeb: "this 1960 recording of Gaspard de la Nuit, are a great example. Such speed but such accuracy! More or less any pianist who plays this movement in less than six minutes today will fudge or smear or simplify the insanely tricky accompaniment in these first bars."

I think I've just solved a small mystery. Your "London" 1960 recording is in fact the Prague 1960 recording I've been raving about. Look here: http://www.andrewfwilson.co.uk/abm2.htm (search for Gaspard)
As you will see, the Prague recording is also dated 5/22/60 on various labels, including the M&A incarnation I posted above, and there is no mention of a 1960 London performance of any date in that year. And ABM, superhuman though he was, couldn't have been in two places at the same time. Funnily, I initially mistook Clip No.1 it for the 1959 London recording, which I remembered being inferior.  :P Silly me! But your comment on it being the fastest ABM Gaspard had me relisten to my discs and I realized that your No.1 is in fact the Prague recording. No wonder it came out on top in my personal listening. It's been my favorite ever since I acquired it.  ;D  Since that label shamelssly pirated the EMI Ravel concerto with Gracis, it's no surprise they screwed up (perhaps intentionally) the location of that performance. In any case, the sound on the M&A version is considerably better.

Quote from: Todd on May 23, 2013, 08:56:00 AM
Oehms punches above its weight, pianistically speaking.

Orchestrally too, for the stupendous Skrowaczewski Bruckner cycle alone.

Quote from: MishaK on May 23, 2013, 10:10:28 AMSince that label shamelssly pirated the EMI Ravel concerto with Gracis, it's no surprise they screwed up (perhaps intentionally) the location of that performance.

Wow. Thank you very much for solving this mystery. Praga's in the middle of a series of pirated old recordings - shameful for a label of such repute! - and I've been bamboozled by several of the discs because their documentation is godawful.

The worst was a Richter CD for which I had to submit this review (excerpted):

Quoterec. live 10 June 1956 (unknown tracks), 10-11 June 1962 (unknown tracks), 24 September 1972 (D899, D960), unknown locations

The documentation lists no recording locations and specifies a date for only the B flat sonata, giving two other dates but not saying what they're for. Richter's online discography says the Impromptu was recorded on the same day, which is confusing, because if true this means Praga lists two dates six years apart for the sonata in A.

Thanks again for unearthing this (knowing? mistaken?) deceit. I'll edit the results post and let the MusicWeb editors know to change my review, too.

Quote from: MishaK on May 23, 2013, 07:28:13 AM
The Thibaudet is available on Arkiv at a discount for $19.99 as a regular Decca issue, not an Arkiv burn:

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=4326

How interesting. Thibaudet's Ravel set has been OOP for ages but here it suddenly reappears in print - in the States - on Arkiv? And in original packaging? And for a reasonable price? Meanwhile the Amazon MP (USA) is littered with sets at inflated prices.

And still further the international Amazons don't seem to be on board with this "in print" status.   

Strangeness but good news nonetheless. Thanks.

Quote from: Octave on May 23, 2013, 01:50:38 AM
Which are your favorites, BL?

My favourite by a long shot is Benjamin Grosvenor, his CD with Gaspard has some very interesting Chopin on it as well. I'm surprised Argerich wasn't included, and I'm also a huge fan of Lortie's rendition which is the recording I fell in love with that prompted me to learn the piece.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 23, 2013, 04:51:08 AM
I am grateful to have you with us, Bob. (Hmmm, "Swedish Bob" ... wasn't that a character in a recent movie?) So far you're proving a reliable reverse barometer for me, since our tastes seem so far apart. That's not to say you're wrong and I'm right. Some like sports cars and some like luxury sedans. One person's "forceful explosion of passionate music-making" is another's "uncontrolled ham-fisted keyboard pounding."

Edit: Whoops ... that's "English Bob" I'm thinking of, Richard Harris's character in a movie recently mentioned elsewhere around these parts. ;) 8)

So which are you? I'm lucky enough to be driving around Europe in a convertible at the moment ;-)
I have no idea what film you're referring to, but I am actually an 'English Bob' who is living in Sweden for another week before deciding on another country to settle in for a while. I've also been living in Indonesia and Mexico for the last few years.

Quote from: BobsterLobster on May 23, 2013, 04:44:49 PM
My favourite by a long shot is Benjamin Grosvenor, his CD with Gaspard has some very interesting Chopin on it as well. I'm surprised Argerich wasn't included, and I'm also a huge fan of Lortie's rendition which is the recording I fell in love with that prompted me to learn the piece.

Pianist #5 was Argerich on DG, and pianist #9 was Argerich live on EMI. I own Grosvenor, but didn't like the recording as much as you do. Some of the Chopin scherzos on that CD are terrific.

Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2013, 04:50:16 PM
Pianist #5 was Argerich on DG, and pianist #9 was Argerich live on EMI. I own Grosvenor, but didn't like the recording as much as you do. Some of the Chopin scherzos on that CD are terrific.

Ah, okay! But yes, the Chopin Scherzos are 'unique', to say the least.

Edit: ah, Argerich was voted out in the first round, that's why I missed it!

Quote from: BobsterLobster on May 23, 2013, 04:47:47 PM
I have no idea what film you're referring to, but I am actually an 'English Bob' who is living in Sweden ...

Unforgiven. Richard Harris character.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51b0U%2B3YepL._SY300_.jpg)   (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VGrrrHkoL._SX300_.jpg)


I received Osborne's Ravel and immediately A/Bd his performance with Hebert Schuch's.  Osborne's recording, freed from the confines of compression and headphones and played at (slightly below) realistic playback levels really is all that, and then some.  He definitely uses the pedal generously to create effects, and the sound is perhaps slightly more reverberant than ideal, but everything I wrote while blind listening holds true.  This is a blockbuster reading start to finish, and Le Gibet is, if anything, even better.  Schuch's recording is more blatantly virtuosic, and perhaps a bit willful.  He wants you to hear how technically adept he is - and he is.  That's not a bad thing; indeed, it's a freakin' sweet thing, but it does end up making Scarbo the focus of the recording.  In that movement, Schuch more closely matches, and perhaps even bests Osborne, but overall, I will say that Osborne's is probably my favorite modern recording of this work, probably beating out even Bavouzet.  Perhaps another A/B is in order.

I'll do another A/B with Schuch with Miroirs.  Will Osborne be able to match Schuch's crazy good playing in Une barque sur l'océan?  I, for one, want to find out.

I listened to Osborne's Gaspard all the way through this morning via Brian's files. It held up, meeting my expectations (even though I still think he pushes the drama at times). And I agree that his Le gibet is marvelous. Since you and I agree on this, I look forward to hearing your take on the rest of his Ravel.  8)

I like performers who use their virtuosity to serve the music and not the other way around. To me, if they're really great, their technical proficiency never calls attention to itself. And if they're really really great, their musicality makes technical imperfection trivial.  ;D

Quote from: Todd on May 25, 2013, 05:50:43 AMWill Osborne be able to match Schuch's crazy good playing in Une barque sur l'océan?  I, for one, want to find out.

What's your definition of a "modern" recording? During the course of this game I listened to a lot of Unes barques and think my favorite is probably Abbey Simon's... of course, I also think that it would make a great quick game in a few months.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 25, 2013, 06:41:45 AMTo me, if they're really great, their technical proficiency never calls attention to itself.

Seems to me there's often truth to this.

Thanks for playing, everyone! Hope this has just fueled your affection for the greatness of Gaspard. :)

Quote from: Brian on May 27, 2013, 06:18:16 PMWhat's your definition of a "modern" recording?

Increasingly, I mean this century.