What’s the best complete set of Ravel’s piano music?

[Ken B]

Long time viewer, first time poster.  I have all of the Ravel recordings under discussion - and a few others.  Folks have been mentioning preferred recordings so I won't bother discussing less honorable mentions - but one contender I would nominate is Sermet's recording on the Auvidis Valois label.   Sadly, this is a challenging recording to procure.  The other thing is that Sermet has been slow to record (release?) V2.



A recent recording I enjoyed -  very nice Miroirs - both performance and recorded sound...Vinnitskaya

Welcome! Extra Kens, extra blessings!

[KenL]

Thanks for the welcome!   And has anyone mentioned Nojima's recording of Ravel?   While I must admit a strong affection for Sermet's Ravel - which I now note is on You Tube, Nojima did a pretty nice recording of Gaspard as well - not to everyone's taste - but worth mentioning in the company of some of the other recordings that have been discussed.

[asin]B00000158C[/asin]

[Drasko]

And has anyone mentioned Nojima's recording of Ravel? 

I have the Nojima. Can't really fault in any way either playing or recording, but I very rarely reach for it. Not the easiest thing  to describe but I find interpretation somewhat prosaic.

Vinnitskaya looks interesting though I had some hit and miss experiences with her previously, both on her debut and on Ravel/Prokofiev concertos disc. That Prokofiev 2nd is simply phenomenal, my favorite recording of the piece, but the coupled Ravel's G major I liked much less, over emphatic and lacking grace in outer movements.

btw, welcome to the forum   

[Dancing Divertimentian]

New addition. I've only made it through Miroirs so far but the interpretation is definitely nothing to sneeze at. World class, actually, I'd say. Bianconi's vision of the music might be described as looking at it from the "outside in", as if he had the entire expanse of the piece in his mind's eye before even striking a single key at the piano. But that's not to say he's missing the trees for the forest. Rather it seems to allow him a certain ease and freedom to spell out his own unique voice in the music.

The sound helps greatly, close and clean, allowing Bianconi's big gestures to register without fear of distortion while capturing the tiniest ephemera with perfect precision. 

It's a live performance but the audience does't make a single peep.

[Peter Power Pop]

Is it



or



?

That's one tough call.

At the beginning of the year I picked up Abbey Simon's 1970s Vox recordings of Ravel's solo piano music and was simply amazed.  I'd tried Simon's Chopin before, and while it's good, it simply didn't prepare me for his Ravel.  I was used to a certain, almost straight-laced approach and sound to Ravel, even from the great Walter Gieseking.  Simon is pretty much as un-straight-laced as can be.  Everywhere and always he manipulates tempi and plays with such subtle dynamic shading that one cannot possibly hear everything in the first twenty hearings.  His flexibility and re-creative freedom is simply a marvel.  Every work is rendered fresh and new.  His Gaspard de la nuit is dashed off with a virtuosic arrogance that hides the virtuosity.  He plays brief passages of Scarbo in a blocky fashion, not because he's challenged, but because he's not challenged enough.  He tears into the piano version of La Valse with control and panache and a color palette most pianists can't touch.  Every other work, from the dazzling, appropriately sparkling Jeux d'eau to the serenely elegiac Pavane pour une infante défunte are mezmerizingly played.  Surely, though, the crown jewel in Simon's set is his titanic reading of Miroirs.  Never have I heard such fluidity and grace and swelling magnificence in Une barque sur L'océan, or rhythmic flexibility and solidity in Alborado del gracioso.  Combine Simon's playing with superb analog sound that allows his amazing color palate through in a way his Chopin recordings do not, and one has a treat of immense proportions.  An amazing, miraculous set!

I was sated.  Such a great recording of Ravel's piano music should suffice not just for a year, but for many years.  But then I picked up Jean-Efflam Bavouzet's recording on MDG.  His achievement is on the same level, yet is quite different.  The set opens with a Gaspard nearly the equal of Simon's, which is to say it's an extraordinary one.  Le Gibet, in particular, is haunting, and Scarbo mischievous and delivered in astonishing fashion.  From Miroirs, Oiseaux tristes deserves special mention, opening as it does in a most wondrous subdued manner and unfolding in a most natural and graceful way.  The small works all fare extraordinarily well, but Bavouzet delivers perhaps the best versions I've heard of both Valses nobles et sentimales and Le Tombeau de Couperin.  The Valses all sound absolutely magnificent: they have a gracefulness and effortless and flow that eludes other versions, which may even sound crude in comparison.  Le Tombeau is perhaps more impressive.  The three dance movements have the same effortlessness and gracefulness, and they posses a lightness and beauty and deep frivolity that simply amazes.  (Yes, deep frivolity.)  The more "serious" movements are so meticulously played that one can do nothing other than sit and listen in utter amazement.  Mr Bavouzet's technique is superb, his touch varied, colorful, and insightful.  (I simply must hear his Debussy!)  As to sound, well, I've read that Michelangeli once said something to the effect that no piano is good enough for Gaspard de la nuit.  If he had lived to hear this recording, he may very well change his mind.  The 1901 Steinway D sounds stunning, and the recording is beyond Audiophile perfect in every way.  Another amazing, miraculous set! 

Of course my opening question is rhetorical.  I love both these sets, but I cannot live without either Walter Gieseking or, especially, Robert Casadesus in this repertoire.  And of course there are other superb recordings of individual works, but these two sets are both special.  The Bavouzet, in particular, offers something special.  Here is proof that great pianism is not only not dead, it's thriving, if only one looks around a bit.

I don't know if this thread is still alive (it's been a couple of years since the last post), but I want to mention something I discovered in listening to Abbey Simon's recording.

First of all, I agree with you about Simon's playing. It's amazing.

However, what's not amazing is his disconcerting habit of occasionally groaning while he's playing.

The loudest examples I've heard so far are:

CD 1 Track 5 (Miroirs - I. Noctuelles): 0:32-0:33
CD 2 Track 1 (Le Tombeau de Couperin): 6:47-6:50 and 21:16-21:25
CD 2 Track 3 (Menuet antique): Throughout, but especially 0:19-0:22
CD 2 Track 6 (Sonatine): 7:14-7:18 and 7:28-7:32
CD 2 Track 8 (Jeux d'eau): Throughout, but especially 0:38-0:44 (you can hear it in the YouTube video below)

https://www.youtube.com/v/Sr7Gugbm93I

Unfortunately, now that I can hear his vocals, I can't not hear them.

But despite that, Abbey Simon's Ravel is fabulous. (And Bavouzet's Ravel is not too shabby either.)

https://www.youtube.com/v/2bC5raTbsFk

[Todd]

I don't know if this thread is still alive (it's been a couple of years since the last post)

Since it has now been resurrected, the best available has changed.  It is now:




Simon's vocalizing is evident in his set, but it doesn't really bother me, but then I hear so much vocalizing on so many discs, that I just take it as it comes.

[Spineur]

And if you dont mind older recordings



Samson François captures Ravel angst, strangeness and darkness like no other.  He was an uncompromising artist.

[ritter]

I must say I have never encountered a set of Ravel's piano music that can hold a candle to Vlado Perlemuter's traversal on Nimbus:

[asin]B0000037J0[/asin]

Not be be confused with the earlier set on Vox, which is less accomplished IMHO and has sub-par sound (even for it's vintage). Then again, the Vox set has both piano concertos (conducted by no less than Jascha Horenstein), but these are in really bad sound...

[Peter Power Pop]

I must say I have never encountered a set of Ravel's piano music that can hold a candle to Vlado Perlemuter's traversal on Nimbus:

[asin]B0000037J0[/asin]

I'm listening to Perlemuter's Nimbus recording now, and I must say I'm a little underwhelmed.

For a start, the microphones sound too far away from the piano, leaving the overall sound in a haze of reverberation. Surely, Ravel's music was meant to be a little crystalline than this?

And there's a whopper of a mistake in Alborada del gracioso: there's an unmistakeably wrong note at 5:23. I'm surprised Vlado or the producer didn't ask for a retake.

https://www.youtube.com/v/L9TbqGWdG3w

Anyway, I'm enjoying Perlemuter's interpretation of the music, but I'm really not enjoying the sound and the mistakes.

Update: The more I'm listening to this set, the more mistakes I'm hearing. It's painful.

[San Antone]

Since it has now been resurrected, the best available has changed.  It is now:

I have to agree with you.

[Peter Power Pop]

Since it has now been resurrected, the best available has changed.  It is now:

I have to agree with you.

Me too.

Update: I'm now doing a side-by-side comparisons of Chamayou and Bavouzet. I think I'm going back to Bavouzet as my favourite Ravel interpreter. Oh, and I'll put Abbey Simon and Werner Haas in the mix too, where they can sit alongside Chamayou and Bavouzet at the top of the heap of Ravel solo piano recordings. (Maybe I can add Louis Lortie and make it an "Equal Top Five Ravel Interpreters" list.)

They're all fabulous.

[ritter]

Anyway, I'm enjoying Perlemuter's interpretation of the music, but I'm really not enjoying the sound and the mistakes.

Update: The more I'm listening to this set, the more mistakes I'm hearing. It's painful.

Well, then Perlemuter is obviously no for you...

As I write, I'm listening to Valses nobles et sentimentales, and must agree that the sound is a tad distant, but I find that this is more than compensated for by Perlemuter's approach to the music, which strikes IMHO a perfect balance between "clarity" and "warmth", and displays some very natural phrasing, letting the music flow so easily. I am not distracted by any odd mistakes that may be there...

Cheers,

[Peter Power Pop]

I want to like Perlemuter's performance more than I actually do.

I'm aware that, because of his association with Ravel himself, Perlemuter's approach has unassailable authority, but in the Nimbus release it's the combination of distant sound quality and surprising wrong notes that rules it out of contention for me.

As a historic document, Perlemuter's recording is invaluable. But it's simply not something I want to listen to repeatedly.

With Ravel's piano music, there seem to be two distinct schools of playing: there's the dreamy/poetic way, and then there's the diamond-hard/deadly-accurate way. I prefer the latter. I like a close-miked piano, with playing that could be termed straight, or non-interpretive. (Or putting it another way, it's music that's played with clarity.)

However, there is an interpretation I've heard that sits somewhere between those two extremes. It's by Werner Haas, and I like it a lot. The recording is a little bass-heavy, but Haas' playing is wonderfully clear-eyed. He has a definite view of how Ravel's music should be played, and I'm with him all the way.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Cwr2XgYFT0I

[aukhawk]

I'm listening to Perlemuter's Nimbus recording now, and I must say I'm a little underwhelmed.
For a start, the microphones sound too far away from the piano, leaving the overall sound in a haze of reverberation.

It's a Nimbus recording, what do you expect?    Seriously, it is their house style.  I have several examples of Indian music on the Nimbus label and the diffuse nature of their recording style is always disappointing.

[amw]

I tried to remember if Werner Haas was the one I liked and no, it turns out the one I liked was Jean Doyen, and he was not my overall favourite, but an interpreter I thought was interesting.

I don't think I have an overall favourite though (currently own Bavouzet, Uhlig and Rouvier)..... I remember my only complaint about Chamayou was that he was too perfect, which isn't really a complaint in Ravel. If I were to start looking at a new set, I would go with the outside bets on Alice Ader or Michael Endres.

[ritter]

I tried to remember if Werner Haas was the one I liked and no, it turns out the one I liked was Jean Doyen, and he was not my overall favourite, but an interpreter I thought was interesting.

I don't think I have an overall favourite though (currently own Bavouzet, Uhlig and Rouvier)..... I remember my only complaint about Chamayou was that he was too perfect, which isn't really a complaint in Ravel. If I were to start looking at a new set, I would go with the outside bets on Alice Ader or Michael Endres.

Yes, the Rouvier set on Calliope (not easy to find these days, I think) did impress me favourably when I purchased it a couple of years ago.

As for Chamayou, I more or less had the same impression as you did, amw. "Too perfect", and as a result perhaps lacking in warmth and natural phrasing. But there is much to admire in it, no doubt.

Thanks to Peter Power Pop for the Werner Haas suggestion, which I'll explore (it's cheaply available--used--on a Philips "Duo" set). Talking about Haas, there's also Monique Haas's (no relation to Werner AFAIK) traversal on Erato. It's been much lauded, but I found it strangely unconvincing when I bought it (perhaps less so than her Debussy, which I did not like at all I must admit).

Cheers,

[Peter Power Pop]

Thanks to Peter Power Pop for the Werner Haas suggestion, which I'll explore (it's cheaply available--used--on a Philips "Duo" set). Talking about Haas, there's also Monique Haas's (no relation to Werner AFAIK) traversal on Erato. It's been much lauded, but I found it strangely unconvincing when I bought it (perhaps less so than her Debussy, which I did not like at all I must admit).

Cheers,

The Werner Haas recording can be heard in its entirety on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Cwr2XgYFT0I

[ritter]

The Werner Haas recording can be heard in its entirety on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Cwr2XgYFT0I

Thanks! 

[Peter Power Pop]

The main reason I went back to preferring Bavouzet to Chamayou was Chamayou's phrasing here and there.

A good example is the first movement of Le Tombeau de Couperin. (See videos below.) Chamayou adds little hesitations in his phrasing, whereas Bavouzet plays it straight. I prefer the full-steam-ahead approach of Bavouzet.

Chamayou (2:39-2:49):
https://www.youtube.com/v/gHesUYW6aCg

Bavouzet (2:30-2:40):
https://www.youtube.com/v/L3-8Boz7iSM

[Peter Power Pop]

I'm currently listening to the (new to me) 2014 recording by Florian Uhlig, and I'm enjoying it enormously.

I might have a new favourite.

https://www.youtube.com/v/GaJECIEgGSU