Ravel: Ondine

[Colette]

I'm currently playing Ondine from Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit, and I've been looking for some very good recordings. I've heard Perlamuter and Gieseking who's interpretations are excellent, but a bit cold. Has anyone heard other interesting/unusual recordings of Ondine?

[Pianorak]

Werner Haas, Michelangeli, Argerich, Pogorelich and P. Entremont all have different things to say about Ondine and are worth listening to. Huseyin Sermet was highly praised for her recording of Gaspard - but I haven't heard it yet.
I am rather fond of Gordon Fergus-Thompson's Gaspard.

[Diabolos]

Hi there.

You might just look out for a recording by Robert Cassadesus, who is still regarded as one of the most authentic interprets of Ravel, since he was a personal friend to him; his recordings don't quite hit the clearance of modern once, since they are from the 60s, but there are some good versions, released by Sony.

Regards

[MikeThePianist]

I have Argerich's recording of Gaspard and find it phenomenal.  It is truly an achievement.  I have several friends who actually dislike the majority of her playing, and even they think here Gaspard is one of the best around.  You can get it on her first Great Pianists of the 20th Century.  The frest of the pieces on it are equally amazing (although I find her Rach 3 a tad on the fast/sloppy side).

Mike

[rachfan]

Gieseking recorded Gaspard twice, and the first rendition was superior to the later one.  I don't know if the early one is still to be had--maybe not.  Also, try the Ashkenazy recording.  He does a very creditable job with that piece indeed.

[eddie92099]

It has to be Martha,
Ed

[thracozaag]

It has to be Martha,
Ed

 no comment.

[rachfan]

An older recording still in the discography is that by the late Monique Haas from the late 60s.  She plays at a more relaxed tempo and, admittedly, her playing is not as flashy as some of the others mentioned above, but she gives an exacting yet very poetic account of Gaspard.  Her pedaling and non-pedaling is meticulous in shaping each melodic phrase throughout.  In fact, it's a master lesson.  This is included in Haas' two CD set on Erato of the complete works of Ravel.  It's well worth a listen for an entirely different, more "old school", perspective on the piece.  

[trunks]

I am no fan of Vladimir Ashkenazy at all but even I have to recommend his recording of the Gaspard de la nuit on the DECCA label. I very much dislike Martha Argerich in general but again, surprisingly, her Ravel, including the Gaspard, is fine with me.

[ravel]

samson francois and pascal roge have done a really good job on that piece too.
particularly francois,  he pedals much lesser, and it gives it a much different sound to the piece. especially scarbo.

[eViLben]

try Michelangeli's version, this one is absolutly unhuman.

[cygnusdei]

Is it possible / just asking for trouble / actually quite common to play the opening with tre corde?

[mikey6]

Is it possible / just asking for trouble / actually quite common to play the opening with tre corde?

of course it's possible but why would you want to? Plus Ravel wouldn't look to kindly on you when he specifically asks for the soft and sustain pedal together.

[elevateme_returns]

in my opinion louis lortie's is the best.

Is it possible / just asking for trouble / actually quite common to play the opening with tre corde?

if you can do it, great! go for it. it would make a much cleaner sound . i wish i could do it.

[houseofblackleaves]

Argerich:

Lisitsa:

I also have Ashk's recording on my computer somwhere. 

[clavicembalisticum]

Gavrilov literally owns the three pieces. Perfect mastery of the instrument especially in this particular set of pieces. There is not one like him in this particular set. No one. Sound samples there though I have not heard their quality. This particular CD is a gem.

https://www.emiclassics.at/xml/6/551311/5698692.html

[elevateme_returns]

Gavrilov literally owns the three pieces.

hahahahahaha!!!!! that made me laugh out loud. it really did. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

i could name loads of people that are better than gavrilov, not just at gaspard but in general lol

[clavicembalisticum]

hahahahahaha!!!!! that made me laugh out loud. it really did. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

i could name loads of people that are better than gavrilov, not just at gaspard but in general lol

Thank you. You just demonstrated your ignorance and your bad manners.

[elevateme_returns]

what did you expect??? when you make such ridiculous comments as "gavrilov literally OWNS gaspard" what a load of sh*t

[thorn]

back on topic the best recording of Ondine i've ever heard is Lortie.

[elevateme_returns]

seconded. if anyone "owns" ondine, it is him

[franzliszt2]

hahahah Gavrilov owns Gaspard??? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahha hahahahhahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhhhahahahahahahaahahahahaahahhhhahaaahahhahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaaahahahahaahahahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahah

I love the Collard recording, it's fantastic. I also like Pascal Roge's.

[phil39]

Askenazy, but then in my opinion virtually everything he played was the 'definative' version.
also Klara kormendi on naxos (the cheap label lol, i don't know if you see it in america). i'd never heard of her but was very impressed with the detail, it sounds more 'workmanlike' than some of the masters such as askenazy or perlemuter. but somehow that suits this piece i think.
Ravel's father was an engineer you know lol. i read his biography. the precision that goes into making Swiss clocks and watches influenced his piano writing apparently. i think any performance that brings out every note, even it's slightly laboured, sounds great in this piece and others by Ravel. that's why i don't like Argerich's.  too smudgy, the effects cloud the detail we need to hear IMO

[phil13]

Ravel's father was an engineer you know lol. i read his biography. the precision that goes into making Swiss clocks and watches influenced his piano writing apparently. i think any performance that brings out every note, even it's slightly laboured, sounds great in this piece and others by Ravel. that's why i don't like Argerich's.  too smudgy, the effects cloud the detail we need to hear IMO

Are you talking about the studio recording or the live one at the Concertgebouw? I love the live recording, but I've heard that the studio rec is not as good.

hahahah Gavrilov owns Gaspard??? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahha hahahahhahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhhhahahahahahahaahahahahaahahhhhahaaahahhahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaaahahahahaahahahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahah

Seriously, was that needed?

Phil

[franzliszt2]

Sorry, I could have put more, but suddenly had to leave.

[elevateme_returns]

Seriously, was that needed?

Phil

yes it was. gavrilov doesnt own anything. except apparently a small pair of boxers and a vest.

[gruffalo]

Roge, Lortie and Nojima are my favourites for Ondine.

EDIT: add the Gensuiking to those.

[pita bread]

yes it was. gavrilov doesnt own anything. except apparently a small pair of boxers and a vest.

Gavrilov's studio recording of Gaspard is fantastic. His live Scarbo may be messy as hell but no one captures the effect and essence of the piece better than he does. Gavrilov also plays a hell of a Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2.

[clavicembalisticum]

Gavrilov's studio recording of Gaspard is fantastic. His live Scarbo may be messy as hell but no one captures the effect and essence of the piece better than he does. Gavrilov also plays a hell of a Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2.

100% on the studio recording of the Gaspard.

[avetma]

In this case, nobody comes close to Pogorelich. And I have heard many other recordings including Perlemuter, Argerich, Gavrilov, Lisitsa etc.

[clavicembalisticum]

For many many reasons, I just find the Gavrilov's studio recording more capturing in some critical sections throughout the piece. Pogorelich never had the same effect, this is just my opinion. For the rest, they feel the same, more or less.

[elevateme_returns]

His live Scarbo may be messy as hell but no one captures the effect and essence of the piece better than he does

i think even i capture it better! i also think most others do too, particularly jean-phillipe collard & berezovsky.

in my opinion pogorelich's is slightly rushed, but still better than gavrilov's.

[pita bread]

i think even i capture it better! i also think most others do too, particularly jean-phillipe collard & berezovsky.

in my opinion pogorelich's is slightly rushed, but still better than gavrilov's.

Naw, your Scarbo may be good, but it's not spine-chilling or psychotic. Collard's I haven't heard, Berezovsky's is just horrible. Pogorelich's is actually my overall favorite set. It all sounds so freakish because he's so effing articulate.

[elevateme_returns]

why is berezovsky's scarbo horrible?

[clavicembalisticum]

i think even i capture it better! i also think most others do too, particularly jean-phillipe collard & berezovsky.

You are better than Collard, Collard is merely indifferent to me, so indifferent it is not even funny. As for Berezovsky, pita bread will respond; it is wild, but it does not cast any breath spell...

in my opinion pogorelich's is slightly rushed, but still better than gavrilov's.

Plainly and politely put, no. We are always discussing about the studio recording of Scarbo by Gavrilov (EMI). He simply does play it better because he does convey what he has to convey. I really do not see the issue here since all performers may have their ups and downs everywhere. If you do not like him it is fair enough for me. But you could learn a lot should you ever take your time analyzing his crescendos and his clock - like precision in timing them correctly with what comes before and after. There are just no beautiful passages lost, while in many others i only see boring romantic style bravura. Pogorelich is simply put, predictable. I can always feel ahead of him and there is no surprise. Gavrilov is surprising in sheer intensity.

It is one thing to be able to play the notes within 9+ mins. There are not that many in Scarbo' anyway.

Take note that I am a "fan" of not even one of the aforementioned. I am a fan of the music itself.

[elevateme_returns]

Plainly and politely put, no.  It is one thing to be able to play the notes within 9+ mins.  There are not that many in Scarbo' anyway.

Take note that I am a "fan" of not even one of the aforementioned. I am a fan of the music itself.

Plainly and politely put, YES. i am entitled to my own opinion.

i WISH people wouldnt just say "no"

playing it in under 9 minutes is not a good thing. it either means that the slow sections are rushed, the silences are not long enough to create the full effect, or the fast bits are rushed. or all of the above.

so you dont think berezovsky captures the mood? what about in the slow section just after the main theme comes back for the 2nd time ? i think his placing of the notes is the best there is at the moment. SO so good, the timing is spot on. he waits and waits and waits and holds you in suspense  until he shows the change of harmony and a change of dynamic. its incredible, ive tried so many times to create the same effect but you have to be absolutely in the right mood or it doesnt work. however i dont like the way berezovsky ignores the pedalling marks.

the reason(s) i cant stand gavrilov's recording is mainly because he doesnt do anything with the silences. and they can always be the most effective part of the piece. also he changes tempo like every 2 bars, rushing and slowing down like hes drunk, and it just completely takes away the tension and excitement for me. he doesnt do anything with the small crescendos and diminuendos, and his use of the pedal  is really not that great when you compare it with whats written in the score, what ravel wanted. also his dynamic range after the main tune comes in is pants, and he just ploughs through the first few pages and for me its just awful.

but hey, i guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. OBVIOUSLY i am a fan of the music as well!! and i know the score completely inside out.

It is one thing to be able to play the notes within 9+ mins.  There are not that many in Scarbo' anyway.

its not the notes that really really count in scarbo, its the silences. thats why the piece takes so long. missing out the silences i could play it in like 5 minutes. lol

[clavicembalisticum]

i WISH people wouldnt just say "no"

It reads: plainly and politely put no, following a brief explanation of the why. The use of plainly and politely serves the purpose more than the "no". Also, when quoting, it would be fair game for you not to grab the phrase out of context and also supply what comes after than tailoring out the transitional part:

Plainly and politely put, no. We are always discussing about the studio recording of Scarbo by Gavrilov (EMI). He simply does play it better because he does convey what he has to convey. I really do not see the issue here since all performers may have their ups and downs everywhere. If you do not like him it is fair enough for me. But you could learn a lot should you ever take your time analyzing his crescendos and his clock - like precision in timing them correctly with what comes before and after. There are just no beautiful passages lost, while in many others i only see boring romantic style bravura. Pogorelich is simply put, predictable. I can always feel ahead of him and there is no surprise. Gavrilov is surprising in sheer intensity.

As you see, i did not just say "no".

playing it in under 9 minutes is not a good thing. it either means that the slow sections are rushed, the silences are not long enough to create the full effect, or the fast bits are rushed. or all of the above.

I agree, I did not imply that playing it 9- was "awesome". I only implied that 9+ (10-) is the standard time for it. And people who go after the piece would know that since this is the time, anything unrelated is out of consideration. Also note that I say: "It is one thing to be able to play the notes within 9+ mins.". The phrasing is crafted in such a way that it underlines that technical bravura is a mandatory requirement, but not the single most important one.

so you dont think berezovsky captures the mood? what about in the slow section just after the main theme comes back for the 2nd time ? i think his placing of the notes is the best there is at the moment. SO so good, the timing is spot on.

I do not like the dynamics in berezovsky and their succession, for reasons that would require a huge discussion and i am not kidding. In general, i am pretty sensitive when it comes to dynamics. I did not say anything about his timing, yet. But i never said that it was not one recording to listen to. Neither did I ever say that it was the one recording one should listen to.

but hey, i guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. OBVIOUSLY i am a fan of the music as well!! and i know the score inside out

Agreed, but you are at times offensive for no particular purpose other than defense against non existant attacks. Nobody has underestimated neither your effort, talent or <put favourite asset here>, but yourself and when you are being so absolute in things. And I would never post anything regarding pieces I don't know the score inside out as well.

[elevateme_returns]

As you see, i did not just say "no".

come on man thats got to be a joke. all you did was put "plainly and politely put" in front of it.
and its not even politely put.

[pita bread]

why is berezovsky's scarbo horrible?

I like certain sections of the piece to be played in very specific ways. Two main parts that make or break a Scarbo for me are the sections leading up to the climaxes. The first one, I like exactly what Gavrilov does in the live video recording--long agogic accent on the D octave, then chord run played lightning fast straight to the C octave downbeat, absolutely NO SLOWING DOWN. I cannot stand it when people slow down at the top of that run. The build to the second climax must get as horrendously massive, as if the apparition grows to obliterate the sky. The second climax must sound like the apocalypse.

[clavicembalisticum]

come on man thats got to be a joke. all you did was put "plainly and politely put" in front of it.
and its not even politely put.

Plainly and politely put, no. We are always discussing about the studio recording of Scarbo by Gavrilov (EMI). He simply does play it better because he does convey what he has to convey. I really do not see the issue here since all performers may have their ups and downs everywhere. If you do not like him it is fair enough for me. But you could learn a lot should you ever take your time analyzing his crescendos and his clock - like precision in timing them correctly with what comes before and after. There are just no beautiful passages lost, while in many others i only see boring romantic style bravura. Pogorelich is simply put, predictable. I can always feel ahead of him and there is no surprise. Gavrilov is surprising in sheer intensity.

It is, and it is not a joke, just remember, next time you quote somebody to quote what has been written. There is an entire paragraph. Too bad you see what you wish to see.

[clavicembalisticum]

I like certain sections of the piece to be played in very specific ways. Two main parts that make or break a Scarbo for me are the sections leading up to the climaxes.

Exactly

[elevateme_returns]

It is, and it is not a joke, just remember, next time you quote somebody to quote what has been written. There is an entire paragraph. Too bad you see what you wish to see.

you said "no", about my opinion. if theres one thing i hate its when people say "no" . its so rude.
there wasnt even a yes or no question

[elevateme_returns]

I like certain sections of the piece to be played in very specific ways. Two main parts that make or break a Scarbo for me are the sections leading up to the climaxes. The first one, I like exactly what Gavrilov does in the live video recording--long agogic accent on the D octave, then chord run played lightning fast straight to the C octave downbeat, absolutely NO SLOWING DOWN. I cannot stand it when people slow down at the top of that run. The build to the second climax must get as horrendously massive, as if the apparition grows to obliterate the sky. The second climax must sound like the apocalypse.

but surely as things get horrendously massive they would have to get slower?

at first i agreed with you, i thought they should be quicker like pogorelich does it, it sounds really cool. but my teacher recommended slowing down, so who am i to argue, he really knows his stuff

[tradge]

It is, and it is not a joke, just remember, next time you quote somebody to quote what has been written. There is an entire paragraph. Too bad you see what you wish to see.

Dude, you are being a prick for the sake of being a prick! Sure, you put a whole paragraph of contradictory material, but it was still saying that elevates opinion was 'wrong' as you so implied! So I am completely on elevatemes side here, he expressed his opinion, and just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to imply that he's completely wrong!

[pita bread]

but surely as things get horrendously massive they would have to get slower?

at first i agreed with you, i thought they should be quicker like pogorelich does it, it sounds really cool. but my teacher recommended slowing down, so who am i to argue, he really knows his stuff

Key words- the second buildup. I like for a contrast between the climax in the middle of the piece and the climax near the ending. With the run leading up to it played lightning fast, the first climax won't be as massive but will still be justly diabolical. I agree completely about slowing down before the climax at the end. Ravel even says so. That way, the sound can broaden and create an overwhelming nightmare.

[clavicembalisticum]

Dude, you are being a prick for the sake of being a prick! Sure, you put a whole paragraph of contradictory material, but it was still saying that elevates opinion was 'wrong' as you so implied! So I am completely on elevatemes side here, he expressed his opinion, and just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to imply that he's completely wrong!

I did not say or imply he was right or wrong, I only said that I did not agree with him. You will see how impartial I am if you notice my audition room review. And thank you again for your kind words.

[clavicembalisticum]

you said "no", about my opinion. if theres one thing i hate its when people say "no" . its so rude.
there wasnt even a yes or no question

Read it again, and in anycase I will not be standing over this more. This is getting out of line here and I have already discussed it elsewhere as well. It is not a "no", you can take out that word and still have the same content.

Art is also about disagreements, it is not about popularity contests.

[elevateme_returns]

Key words- the second buildup. I like for a contrast between the climax in the middle of the piece and the climax near the ending. With the run leading up to it played lightning fast, the first climax won't be as massive but will still be justly diabolical. I agree completely about slowing down before the climax at the end. Ravel even says so. That way, the sound can broaden and create an overwhelming nightmare.

ok i like that idea

[elevateme_returns]

It is not a "no", you can take out that word and still have the same content.

actually its that word i was referring to lol. but i dont mind. subject dropped

[txbobs]

I just received a new recording of this work by Garrick Ohlsson. Its a new release of a live performance in Prague, in the 1970s. The record title is "Great Pianists in Prague", available through Amazon. The man plays it like he is an orchestra - with so many instrumental colors! Its a very sensuous, flowing preformance. Its very cleanly articulated, yet lushly impressionistic. It contains huge climaxes, gorgeous melodic phrasing - and the softest pianissimi - fabulous!!