Ravel: Ondine

[nortti]

Two versions

[crazy for ivan moravec]

congratulations. what you have achieved is already a great achievement. you did a wonderful job on this difficult work!
 
but i think you can do some more.

try to explore the possibilities of colors. images, imaginations, blah blah. and you can breathe some more too.

i also uploaded a file which i got over the internet. it might be handy.

https://s36.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=326516AJ6E3KZ2G3IPLCD6M6RM



good luck.

[chromatickler]

HAHAHAHAHAHAH THIS IS PURE GENIUS!!!

ondine in 3min8secs

#$^@$^& LEGENDARY PERFORMANCE

[zheer]

Sounds very difficult, well the trills do any way. You playd this piece reall well.

[kelly_kelly]

I personally prefer the first version. The second sounds a bit rushed, although technically astounding.

[Nightscape]

I will be commenting on the first version you put up - I'm not sure what you're trying to do with the second version, since you can't play it accurately at all that quickly plus it really turns "music" into "noise" at that tempo.

The duration of this piece should be between 6:00 and 6:30, if one follows what Ravel writes in the score.  Ravel and Debussy tend to be very precise and demanded precision from performers in the performance of thier music.  So, your tempo on the first version is also too fast (but not by much.  Just slow it down a little bit.)  This would help with your accuracy a lot too.

Try to make the opening chords sound a bit more hushed and blended together, they are marked 'ppp' (that's on top of the soft pedal as well).  This could be in part do blame on the piano you are using though.

Ms 3 - Don't accent the first two notes of the melody more than the rest of the melody.  You do want to phrase it of course, but remember is is marked 'very sweet' there.

Ms 5 - The new phrase begins on the high G#, not the B# - you phrased it as though the the G# and E# are included with the D# and C#.

Don't rush ms 11-14, also the excitement is building in the music, use phrasing and not tempo to achieve this.  It is also marked 'always pp' here, don't accent any of the melody notes more than the others.

Ms 15-16 - work your note accuracy here.  Again, a slower tempo might help.  Also, you should be using a comfortable fingering for the right hand - if you're not sure about one I have one that works smoothly, because this is an awkward spot with the wrong fingering.

Ms 17 - good job with the accompaniment here, it flows rather smoothly like it should.

Ms 18 - Work on evenness and smoothness on these arpeggios - also, don't accent the D# so much, it should be more like a push than a shove.

Ms 19 - Work the arpeggio on beat 3 of this measure, if possible take the top B natural of the arpeggio with the RH, this should make it less awkward.

Ms 21 - The arpeggio on beat 3 wasn't there - don't rush this measure and it will be easier to play.

Ms 22 - The high point of the phrase is on beat 2, not beat 1.  The accuracy of the left hand needs work here.

Ms 23 - Nice idea, however I couldn't hear all of the notes in the left hand.

Ms 24-26 - Look over these again and try and work them from scratch - make sure you are playing the chord patterns correctly, and also try and make the arpeggiated chord on beat one of each measure more "graceful", so to speak.

Ms 27 - to get the E# under the F# in that RH chord, play both notes with your thumb.  Also, work on the LH arpeggio notes here.

Ms 28-29 - Don't rush these measures.  Work for accuracy in the Lh in measure 29.

Ms 30 - It is imperative you don't rush here, the music says to "Hold back a little".  There should be a slight ritard.

Ms 31 - Make beat one of the RH sound more connected with beat two of the RH.
Ms 32 - It's hard to hear what kind of pattern you're playing in the RH.  You want it blurred, yes, but also you need to hear the 1+2+2 feel of the thing.

Ms 33-36 - Good job here.  You have the right idea with this little phrase.

Ms 38-41 - Work accuracy and smoothless in these measures.  You have a good sense of direction with the melody though - it just needs a proper foundation.

Ms 43-44 - the last beat in both measures in the RH need work, esp the first three notes of those beats.

Ms 45 - the arpeggios in this measure are marked "very sweet" - you might check your fingerings here.

Ms 46-47 - Good job here.  These measures are for the most part solid.

Ms 48-49 - You sound as though you are struggling with the last beat in the RH in both of these measures - it should sound graceful and easy.  I know that's hard and asking a lot, but it will come with hard work on these arpeggios.

Ms 50 - Again, its marked 'very sweet' - no offense, but it sounded more like a shriek.

Ms 53-55 - It sounds very choppy here - work this slowly and try and connect one beat to the next, it sounds like you're putting a tiny pause in between each beat.  Good job sustaining the melody.

Ms 56- Work the notes in the LH.

Ms 58-62 - It sounds very messy here - work from scratch, carefully, on the RH and then once you've mastered it, put it with the LH (which is an nearly impossible task, I know, but worth it in the end).  These are some of the hardest measures of music in all of the piano literature, so I feel for you.

Ms 66- Good job building up to this point, but remember to 'Hold back'  here.  It needs to open up and flower like brilliant rose before it crashes into despair again.

Ms 67-68 - Some of the hardest measures of music ever written.  You have the right idea, but the notes just aren't there yet.  Remember, in Ravel, every single note is important and must be treated accordingly.  If you leave out or skip over notes, it damages the texture of the music - it's like having a brand new Firebird, but having it covered in dents and scratches.

Ms 69-70-  Don't double the tempo in these measures!  You have, and it ruins one of the sweetest and most vulnerable of moments in music.  This is a common error however - just remember there are four beats in each measure, not two here.

Ms 71-72 - It sounds quite muddy here.  Work on accuracy and smoothness.

Ms 73 - Don't speed up the end of the glissando in this measure.

Ms 77 - F natural, not F# in the melody.

Ms 80 - Good here, it is quite smooth.

Ms 81-83 - Play all of the notes in the RH, you're skipping over a few here and there.

Ms 84 - You really shouldn't clear the pedal at the end of this measure.  Indeed, the orginal Durand edition does have this marking, however later research into the area shows that Ravel told his friend Perlemuter that he regarded this as an error - it makes more musical sense to hold the pedal and let the haze blend into the next measure, otherwise it sounds quite stark and is not consistent with the rest of the piece.  Modern editions have corrected this error.

Ms 85-88- I could not discern a beat here - also it is marked Very Slow, there is no marking for rubato or any tempo deviations, pick a slow tempo, but stay to it on the dot.  This will make it seem more like a melody, rather than a wandering fragment.
The accent on the G# in ms 88 was far too obvious - it should be a subtle effect.

Ms 89 - Start softer, at pp, then crescendo to FF at the top of the first arpeggio.  You were about 85% accurate with the notes here, you're almost there just work it some more.

Ms 92 - Good job not ritard-ing here, but try and make the release of the pedal (and thus the haze of overtones) more subtle.  You could try gradually releasing the pedal from the previous measure.

------------
Overall, you've shown that you have obviously put a lot of work into this.  You also are very talented.  However, I question whether or not you are really ready for this.  This is one of the most difficult pieces of music in all of the piano literature, and every moment of it is difficult and time consuming to practice.  It also happens to be one of the most beautiful pieces of music.  Those two factors combined are no doubt the reason you were to tempted to learn it in the first place.  I too attempted this a few years ago, when I was in high school.  My performance of it was quite similar to yours - covering the main points, but in serious lack of detail.  I have only recently begun to relearn it, from scratch, paying my undivided attention to every detail and nuance of the music.  It will take me a long time to truly play it well, but it will be worth it.

I don't think this was ready for a recording and certainly not ready to share with other pianists - I only hope some of the other meaner members here won't tear it to shreds.  I have tried to provide you with some starting ground, but you have a whole lot of work ahead of you before this will be palatable to a trained ear.  And unlike kelly_kelly, as sweet as she may be, I don't think the second version was technically astounding - any pianist can play something so fast it becomes unrecognizable.  Surely someone of your obvious talent and intelligence knows  that Ondine is not meant to be played at such a tempo, I can only imagine your reason for posting it was to satisfy your pianistic vanity.  Regardless, it shows immaturity.  Stick to making music, and try and avoid shallow displays of virtuosity.

[nortti]

Heh. These recordings were a joke, just like the Bach. I like to play around with music, play slow pieces fast, fast pieces even faster, loud pieces soft, use whacky phrasing etc. Recording them and then listening to them as if someone were playing them seriously gives some good laughs sometimes. I don't consider any piece 'holy' or anything similar. If I want to play with a piece, I'll just do it. And I might even post recordings of them on a serious forum, just for fun

I was actually not going to tell it this soon, but since Nightscape took time to write such a detailed analysis I felt compelled to answer..

So, my intention is not to perform it this fast (though it might happen; I have a tendency to play faster when nervous). The first version was meant to be about as fast as the fastest ones I've heard. The second version was meant to be as fast as possible My 'serious' version is around 6'30.

I could actually record this and a few other pieces again and post them here, hoping to get some good advice

A few comments on Nightscape's reply.
First, playing this piece on a loose upright is.. you know. Too bad it'd require extra work to record it on a grand. I couldn't just put a program to record and then go playing. I'd have to do it at school with a borrowed recorder and whatever.

Many of the things you noted are things I already know (or should know, at least..). Of course it's good to get reminded. The piano, the speed and my lazyness are the main causes they're there. Some things were new, though. I'll check those.

Ms 15-16 - work your note accuracy here.  Again, a slower tempo might help.  Also, you should be using a comfortable fingering for the right hand - if you're not sure about one I have one that works smoothly, because this is an awkward spot with the wrong fingering.

Tell me! My current hack is to play some of the RH notes with LH..

Ms 84 - You really shouldn't clear the pedal at the end of this measure.  Indeed, the orginal Durand edition does have this marking, however later research into the area shows that Ravel told his friend Perlemuter that he regarded this as an error - it makes more musical sense to hold the pedal and let the haze blend into the next measure, otherwise it sounds quite stark and is not consistent with the rest of the piece.  Modern editions have corrected this error.

Yes, my edition (Peters urtext by Nichols) has the pedal-up -mark in parentheses. However, I still don't really know how long to hold it. I've tried with a 1/2 or 1/4 pedale for the whole 5 measures, but I don't know.. It's easier to just cut it Works with every piano and acoustics..

[erak]

Just a random question for Nightscape, what fingering do you use for ms. 15-16?

I do 24 - 5 - 24 - 1 - 5 - 24 - 1 - 5 - 24 - 5 - 24 - 1 - 5 - 24 - 1 - 5



I just figured that out while reading through the piece, I'm not studying it or anything, just wondering .



ps: respect for da nerd

[brewtality]

da definitive interp 

[arensky]

You are a natural. I think I heard you at da SDC, playing Rachmaninov Etude Tableau in c minor op.39 #1. Extraordinary facility and speed, I would not have thought that could be played that fast, and you have musical understanding and temperment. If these are jokes (the Bach of course) , can you post something that is "serious" ?  I'm sure I'm not the only one who is intrigued by what your "serious" playing is like...do share norttl...

[pianistimo]

there is a certain tenseness from the speed that you don't get at slightly slower speeds, but wow!  this is a hard piece.  i've never played it, but listened to it.  nightscape really put some time into his reply and it's really great to get this kind of feedback! 

before this year, if something was difficult, i too made it into a sort of joke.  but, am realizing what arensky is saying.  never take yourself too seriously when defending your playing - but when playing - take yourself very seriously!!  i mean - i understand about experimentation - but recordings - only what you consider the best of your playing.  you don't want others taking a bad recording and saying 'this is so-and-so's playing.'

[Nightscape]

Well, nortti, if this is not your best playing, perhaps you would care to show us what is?  I always enjoy a good interpretation of Ondine. (Do you play the other movements, as well?)

Erak, I do the same thing, except I use 23 instead of 24.  Probably just a matter of finger size, because I think 24 would work too.

[I Love Xenakis]

Hahahaha.... the 3:06 one is hilarious.


It's so bad XD  I don't even recognize some parts of this.

[erak]

Thanks nightscape. I like using 24, I use it in the opening "tremolothing" too, feels more natural to me.

[nortti]

Well, nortti, if this is not your best playing, perhaps you would care to show us what is?  I always enjoy a good interpretation of Ondine. (Do you play the other movements, as well?)

I'll try, but there are still some passages which are pretty bad, even at a lower tempo. And my piano isn't helping me at all.

I don't play the other movements yet, but am planning to do it in the following few years.

[nortti]

By the way, Nightscape..

Ms 45 - the arpeggios in this measure are marked "very sweet" - you might check your fingerings here.

What are your fingerings here? I never managed to come up with anything comfortable.

[Nightscape]

On Ms 45, starting on the beat 2 arpeggio of the RH, this is what I play with my RH:

1 2 3 4 1 5 4 3 2 1

Then on beat 3:

23412354321

Then on beat 4 (keep in mind the LH always plays the melody note, and the RH the arpeggio):

5421  43212

Hope that helps.

[nortti]

Well, thanks, but that's about the same as mine. I guess I'll just have to live with it, or start dividing the arps for both hands..