Ravel - Forlane, from Le Tombeau de Couperin

[pianohopper]

Here finally is a recording on a 9-foot Steinway!  November 11, 2005; school recital.   Apologies for the noise in the first couple seconds -- I think that is me flipping through the music and getting settled. 

Thoughts, comments welcome.

[arensky]

You do some good things in this, it has an overall good feeling, I can tell you like this piece  and probably all of Ravel's music. BUT it's clearly a work in progress, there are a lot of wrong notes, and and the rythmic phrasing is always the same, it gets monotonous after awhile. You are overpedaling, or perhaps pedaling this as if it were Debussy, "wall to wall carpet" pedaling. Listen to Casadesus' recording. His is perhaps TOO dry, but it's rythmically very active, and an examination of his interpretation could point you in the right direction. Ditto for the recording of Pascal Roge. Sometimes your phrases end rather abruptly, they could still be short but be shaped better; both 1st endings point this out. I hope you don't think this is overcritical, these are just my general observations of your recording. You've got the feling down, and it's "musical" (I hate that adjective but you know what I mean). Now, you need to do the detail work. Keep up the good work! 

[gaer]

Pianohopper,

Please read this paragraph before continuing. My overall impression is very positive, and I think you have captured a very fine "feel" for the piece. It has a good atmosphere. I would not take the time to make comments if I did not feel that it is mostly very good!

There were some wrong notes, but it's hard to tell which were misreadings and which were "things that go bump in the night."

(This is my term for the weird things that go wrong in live performances…)

Here is just one example of a note that I think is a misreading. In measure 19 I can't figure out which note is wrong, but you are definitely not playing a G#m chord, which is all that it is. I think the error is in the LH. Check your sharps there. Perhaps you are retaining a B# in you LH, from the previous measure (although it is in the RH).

Now, the wrong notes did not much affect my enjoyment of the performance, which I like. You are playing much slower than the tempo apparently suggested by Ravel, slow enough so that you are going to attract controversy, but it works fine for me. I don't like Ravel's suggested tempo (a personal thing), which I believe makes the whole movement sound too flippant.

There are two major things I would suggest you work on. First pedaling, then counting, and I'll give you specific measures.

Pedaling: in the middle of measure 2, you might consider not changing the pedal on the second beat. Why? Because the moment you do, you cut off the A-E half notes in the LH, stemmed down. This is a judgement call. But you may find that the resonance of those notes is worth a bit of "blur". I doubt Ravel had the sostenuto pedal in mind. There are other measures like this, where it is strictly a matter of judgement or taste as to whether or not you change the pedal. This is a suggestion for something to think about, not a "correction" or criticism.

However, in measure 12, you do not change the pedal, which feels like nerves. Then at the end of measure 12, you suddenly lift the pedal, which causes a burp that directly follows a blur. These are the kinds of "lapses" that will cause people to say that you are pedaling too much. But occasionally you simply forget to change, and in other places you abruptly release. Then in places like m 13-16, sometimes you are only changing on beat one, but the harmony and slurs seem to clearly show that you want to change the pedal twice per measure. I would listen to your performance for other similar places. I don't think this is a "Debussy vs. Ravel" thing at all but rather a matter of examining the chord changes. When two different chords appear in the same measure, LH, in the middle or lower registers, it is rather unusual not to make a clear pedal change between them.

Now, counting:

Ravel did at least one very strange thing in his Forlane. He kept strictly to a time signature of 6/8, but I find it impossible to believe that anyone hears it that way. Why? Because beginning at measure 29, the second beat sounds like it is the first, and this ambiguity continues through m 54. Now, if you play 29 through 54 and ask someone to count, who has never seen the score, he/she will soon be counting beats 2 as 1. The "feel" at 29 is either a single beat (one bar of 3/8) or 9/8 at measure 28, followed by a very long section that is reverse of what Ravel has notated. This causes no problem in performing or for a listener, but I found it highly confusing on first reading. And this makes it sound as though there is either an extra beat or a missing beat in measure 54. The same thing happens at m 63, and at 95 it reverses again. If you add extra time in these "change-over" points, you "erase" Ravel's deliberate rhythmic ambiguity.

Here is why I am mentioning this. At measure 29, you are hesitating, and it sounds as if an extra beat has been added. I can't quite count "three" there, but almost. I would suggest that you stay very stricktly in rhythm there—no extra pause—same at 37 and 38 (1st and 2nd endings). At 63, again you add an extra beat. And at 80. And at 84. And at 124. You get the idea.

Now, one final thought. If any student of mine even thought about tackling this piece, I would be amazed, and if he or she got it to the point you have it, I would be very pleased. I think if you return to this, for review and rethinking, every year—or every six months—by the time you have re-examined it twice, you should have a really fine performance.

Let me know if these suggestions are a help!

Gary

[zheer]

Hi pianohopper unlike gary i know nothing about this piece, but had great joy listining to it. something about the piano which i found a little disturbing, maybe its a little old.

[pianohopper]

Here is just one example of a note that I think is a misreading. In measure 19 I can't figure out which note is wrong, but you are definitely not playing a G#m chord, which is all that it is. I think the error is in the LH. Check your sharps there. Perhaps you are retaining a B# in you LH, from the previous measure (although it is in the RH).

I think you're right.  I seem to naturally or mechanically want to play the B#

The pedaling comments are very helpful  --- something I didn't pay that much attention to was the slurs.  I'm going to go back through and look at all of those.  Do you suggest, then, that I change pedal in accordance to the slurs?

Now, counting:

Ravel did at least one very strange thing in his Forlane. He kept strictly to a time signature of 6/8, but I find it impossible to believe that anyone hears it that way. Why? Because beginning at measure 29, the second beat sounds like it is the first, and this ambiguity continues through m 54. Now, if you play 29 through 54 and ask someone to count, who has never seen the score, he/she will soon be counting beats 2 as 1. The "feel" at 29 is either a single beat (one bar of 3/8) or 9/8 at measure 28, followed by a very long section that is reverse of what Ravel has notated. This causes no problem in performing or for a listener, but I found it highly confusing on first reading. And this makes it sound as though there is either an extra beat or a missing beat in measure 54. The same thing happens at m 63, and at 95 it reverses again. If you add extra time in these "change-over" points, you "erase" Ravel's deliberate rhythmic ambiguity.

Here is why I am mentioning this. At measure 29, you are hesitating, and it sounds as if an extra beat has been added. I can't quite count "three" there, but almost. I would suggest that you stay very stricktly in rhythm there—no extra pause—same at 37 and 38 (1st and 2nd endings). At 63, again you add an extra beat. And at 80. And at 84. And at 124. You get the idea.

I have a problem with counting -- I think it's almost like dyslexia...especially with composers like Mozart and Beethoven who use rests so much. 

Let me know if these suggestions are a help!

Of course it was a help!

[ako]

pianohopper,

You are well on your way! Good job! I learned this set earlier this year and this is not the easiest piece of music!

I also have some suggestions in addition to those mentioned by the others. In general, I think you need more tone on the long tied over notes to keep the phrase going. My teacher had an interesting analogy of the phrasing of the repeating motif. SHe said something to the effect of think of it as a drunk man going on and on mumbling some non-sense and suddenly he decided to start telling the story again because he forgot where he was.

Also try using the soft pedal more liberally to get the contrast. For example M19, use the soft pedal to make it really different. THe section starting on M29, again, a different character, twinkling perhaps, like an elf coming out from the forest. THen M31 -33 crash but not a loud crash just a feeling of crashing. THen twinkling again, crash, etc. when it comes back. In M74 (I hope I'm counting correctly), you cresc. then a subito mp...that will sound good. The end, just fade away like the smoke.

In general, I would not take all the repeats because it is so repetitive and it makes it so much harder to bring interest to an already very repetitive piece. If you were to play this piece again, I would suggest lots of slow practice jumping from chord to chord and be very secured about the notes. You do know the notes but not secure enough to jump from one place to another without hesitation. Have fun with it. I think you'll do great!

[gaer]

I think you're right.  I seem to naturally or mechanically want to play the B#

This is where chord analysis really helps.

The pedaling comments are very helpful  --- something I didn't pay that much attention to was the slurs.  I'm going to go back through and look at all of those.  Do you suggest, then, that I change pedal in accordance to the slurs?

I would suggest that you examine the slurs and consider them a clue about how you might pedal, but it would certainly not be the only thing to consider, which I'm sure you know. The problem with slurs and phrases is that each composer uses such markings differently. (This is really a complicated subject.)

I have a problem with counting -- I think it's almost like dyslexia...especially with composers like Mozart and Beethoven who use rests so much.

I think this is why it is so valuable to play with other people. When you are part of any ensemble, even a small one, small errors in counting become obvious immediately.

Gary

[pianohopper]

Also try using the soft pedal more liberally to get the contrast.

Beleive it or not, I was on the soft pedal through the whole song...

To shine a little light on how my interpretation went:   where you suggest characters, such as an elf, I hear instruments -- a saxaphone versus a clarinet, for example. Although I haven't heard the complete version RAvel orchestrated, I caught the end on the radio one day. 

Your teacher's story to the song is an interesting one...a forlane, though is a baroque italian dance; the way my teacher sees it is as ghosts of young men dancing, a song of those who died too young...it's dedicated to his friends who died in WWI. 

Thanks for the sugestions.