Sounds great... what's up with the cough in the beginning? 

 Welcome to Piano Street, Ilia!

Hi iliaul,

I very much enjoyed your rendition of Jeux d'eau.  You display a full technical command of the instrument and play very expressively as well, etching the melodic elements above the filligree accompaniment at all times.  You play with great fluidity and fluency, indicating a deep understanding of Ravel's idiom and intentions.  You also perform in recital without mannerisms, which is a good thing too.   This is a wonderful accomplishment.  Bravo!

Overall, some nice finger dexterity and generally clear playing.  I'd just question your use of rubato at end of bar 2 and similar places - Ravel said "do not interpret my music, just play it".  Although obviously you can use rubato for expression, I wouldn't go overboard especially where he hasn't marked anything and it is only the 2nd bar into the piece when we have a rather marked tapering off.
Make sure you hear all the demi-semi's in the second beat of the 'theme', they seem to get 'gobbled up', i'd keep the start rather metric.  Yours gives me a bit of a heart propulsion when there's so much more to come.
I have a decresc in the LH at bar 6 in my score and a pp at bar 7 - I see you dim till the end of bar 8, but tis not what he wrote.
bar 9 demi-semis again and in fact most other places whether that figure comes up.
bar 13 and 14 you're going into a weaker register, start softer so you can cresc on to the ff, at the moment tis a bit flat.
Bar 21, observe hairpins (especially decres) and note cresc doesn't start till bar 23.
bar 24, can you somehow incorporate the LH more, perhaps here you can give it more propulsion. Try playing it melodically, maybe with hairpins in each figure.
Bar 27 onwards, can we hear each RH individual note - the water is splashing around - was it a slip up on the day?
Tiny thing bar 29, the d# in the LH doesn't speak as clearly as the rest of the line.
bar 34, could we have better voicing, there's some great harmony in there.
great finger work through this section, it's a b!tch.
can you work bar 37 into 38 better.  Or perhaps not take off so much in bar 38, it's only p and there's a bit build up to come.  ah - I see you pull back where he writes the f - I think his way would work to
I use to cresc through the tremolo bar 48, just an idea.
bar 51 and 52, can we have some RH bottom voice for the harmony.
bar 56, did you have una corda down?
Would like to hear a bit more G# just to pin the harmony over the pedal, in fact through msot of this section, harmony is swamping the pedal point.
bar 66 no G# sounded?
the cadenza, keep the RH in the picture - tritone harmonies on top of each other, it's a lot more F# LH atm.
bar 73, watch semis in LH, ted to skip over them (like start)
Lent - follow the LH harmony for voicing and support.
It's hard, but can you no accent the last RH chord.

Just some thoughts.

Mikey, those are great comments.  I think to sum it up, a closer attention to the score is needed, and less rubato.  Ravel composed the piece in strict poetic meters, and when you turn it into a pseudo-Chopin nocturne, all the poetry is sucked away.  It sounds much better with a longer phrase, and for this Richter is absolutely king.  His recording can sound a bit cold at first, because he just seems to keep going and going, but his phrases are so long and so poetic, there is much to be learned from that recording.

Walter Ramsey

Mikey, those are great comments.  I think to sum it up, a closer attention to the score is needed, and less rubato. 

Hey, here it is again     less rubato - oh my god...

Ravel composed the piece in strict poetic meters,

Could you please explain, what "strict poetic meters" are?
Never heard of something like that.

and when you turn it into a pseudo-Chopin nocturne, all the poetry is sucked away.  It sounds much better with a longer phrase, and for this Richter is absolutely king.

Really? Richter is absolutely king in playing Ravel? I saw a video on youtube - it was the ugliest Jeux d'eau I ever heard - played by Richter. If you are serious in saying that you expect Ravel to be played that way - then... NO THANKS, no further comment needed   

Alright, who do you think plays it better/best?

As I said, Richter's is the ugliest of all.
So almost everyone plays it better.

And iliaul plays it very, very good!

Hey, here it is again     less rubato - oh my god...

Sorry, but I agree, it does need less rubato as I explained-  eg. the end of bar 2 feels like a rit.  I'm not against rubato, I just don't think it's convincing the way it's utilized in this performance.

Hey, here it is again     less rubato - oh my god...

People will repeat it still it starts to sink in.  Every person that has ever studied with Ravel complains when people play his music with too much rubato, sorry, that's just a fact.  I have never studied with Ravel, and never studied with anyone that studied wtih Ravel, but even I can tell when too much is too much.  In this particular performance (and I don't say this to bash the performance, but to enforce my point), there was a phrase stopping rubato after two bars.  It's totally off from the proportion of the rest of the piece, which is a very Classical proportion.  A two-bar phrase?  The next two bars repeat the first two in sequence.  If you are going to make a big point about two bars, at least make sure the next two are going to contain different music.  So kindly don't chalk up these complaints to a cliche about not using rubato in Ravel - the cliche is from the other side.

Walter Ramsey

A pseudo-Chopin nocturne 


If you play Ravel, people say: Ravel is not Chopin, so don't use so much rubato and pedal.

Finally - if you play Chopin, people say: Chopin composed in a very classical style, so don't use so much rubato and pedal 

People should listen to midi-files, if they are so happy with non-rubato, non-pedal and anti-emotional music.

I could also say, Ravel is not Scriabin, so don't use so much rubato.  I know you love piling on the pedal, but I happen to agree that Jeux d'eau benefits from liberal pedalling.
It seems though that you are opposed to not using rubato just on principle; you haven't even considered there might be a case, which there is.  And furthermore, you seem to equate rubato and rubato alone with emotional sentiment, and that is frankly inadequate.  So much more goes into emotional affect than local timing; sound quality, voicing, large-scale form (you are thinking of rubato only in terms of local timing), volume.  Since great affect can be produced entirely without rubato, I would actually say rubato is at the bottom of the list.

I didn't answer another question in your previous post.  Ravel composed Jeux d'eau in a strict trochaic meter, in fact a lot of his music is composed that way.  Not only the demands of the meter, but also the way you time something can also produce a form of accent.  Since Ravel's meter is strictly strong-weak, by expanding any weak beat into a lame two-bar-phrase rubato you are accenting the wrong place.  The expression is focussed in the strong beats; notice how the first beat is replicated two bars later at a higher pitch and higher intensity, and that the two eighths at the end of the second bar obviously lead into that.  I opposed a rubato here because it puts an accent on the weak beats, and actually takes away the expressive affect of the poetry.  Also because I think a two-bar phrase is inadequate for such highly structured music.  Furthermore, the diminution of the length of a bar, from 4-4 to 2-4, is obviously a speeding up that adds to the intensity of the sequence.  Rubato in that 2-4 bar just takes away all that effect and expression, and replaces it with a flimsy, anti-climactic, sickroom style.  Now you can go on arguing that I'm opposed to rubato in Ravel and that's a cliche, but the reasons are here for everyone to read.

Walter Ramsey

Right. So what's your favorite performance of this piece?

My own 

Why don't you post it then?

Perhaps I will someday - and I already know, what ramseytheii will say 

At the moment, I have to practise other pieces.

Perhaps I will someday - and I already know, what ramseytheii will say 

I guess you're learning something!

Walter Ramsey

As I said, Richter's is the ugliest of all.
So almost everyone plays it better.

I'd like to hear you play it better than Richter and Gieseking.

Seems that you didn't understand a word from what I wrote - sorry 

No, I understand what you've written. I just despise your pathetic attempts at wit.

During the early-20th century, I think a couple of things happened regarding interpretation.  The two things were Sergei Rachmaninoff and Josef Hofmann.  In the generation of pianists prior to them during the Romantic era, there were many excesses--extreme rubato, maudlin sentimentality, actual alterations of scores in performance to facilitate articulation, slowing of tempos in difficult spots, playing the left hand harmony before the right, and more quirks.  Both Rachmaninoff (who was an immediate success in touring the U.S. once he came here) and Hofmann dispensed with all those excesses and brought new respect to the written score, yet still produced amazing performances, some of which have never been equaled since.  That's the good news.

The bad news is that gradually faithfulness to the score became not just a lofty ideal, but also a fetish.  That accounts for the homogenized, safe, and insipid performances that pour forth in competitions--and later into concert halls by those who can establish careers in performance.  Risk taking also was sent to the sidelines in favor of cautious accuracy (and sometimes boredom) in playing the piano.  After all, the misapprehension has been that the public attending a recital expects a flawless performance matching a CD recording (massaged, of course, by the recording engineer).  Paderewski in his time, despite his faults, was a strong believer that a score marking could and should be altered, if the composer obviously could not realize the optimal potential of a different phrasing or dynamic or whatever.  Later, Horowitz thought nothing of making such changes. 

The late Jorge Bolet believed too that oftentimes a performing artist comes to know a composition far better than the composer who produced it and then moved on to other projects.  The composer might have spent a week on the piece, while the performer might spend years or even a lifetime gaining deeper insights into that music.  That has to influence the interpretation.  I must say I agree with Bolet's thinking.

The pianist does not re-create a composer's music; rather, he/she co-creates it.  Yes, I do believe in the urtext and its editorial commentaries, although I do not worship it.  The score is always the starting point though.  As Hofmann used to say in so many words, before a pianist starts adding effects, usually the blatant fact is that he has not yet even exhausted the score as written!  So again, the score comes first.  In my view a new interpretation that does not comport with "performance practices" might indeed be defensible, as long as from a musicological and theory standpoint, that presentation can be well and convincingly  justified.  After all, with all of the serious limitations and shortcomings of our musical notation system, any composer in laying down the blueprint cannot possibly indicate every detail expected in a performance of a given work. 

My personal test is this: The pianist is the unobtrusive medium between score and audience, thus the pianist must do his/her very best to serve the composer and his music.  So, for example, if I want to change a chord of Rachmaninoff's, and if he could be here with me now to discuss it, do I really believe that, given the evidence for my justification, I could persuade him to accept that reasoning?

So I believe that there is some flexibility accruing to the performer to be sure.  As it is, when any two pianists play the same work while pledging strict adherence to the score, invariably the two renditions are quite different anyway!  Beyond that, as long as a piece is played within the parameters of its stylistic period and the general intentions of the composer, and if creative thinking on the part of the pianist is very thoughtful and can be articulated and justified, I may not necessarily agree with the way it sounds--but I for one am willing to consider it as a valid possibility.   





   

During the early-20th century, I think a couple of things happened regarding interpretation.  The two things were Sergei Rachmaninoff and Josef Hofmann.  In the generation of pianists prior to them during the Romantic era, there were many excesses--extreme rubato, maudlin sentimentality, actual alterations of scores in performance to facilitate articulation, slowing of tempos in difficult spots, playing the left hand harmony before the right, and more quirks.  Both Rachmaninoff (who was an immediate success in touring the U.S. once he came here) and Hofmann dispensed with all those excesses [...]

Listening Rachmaninov's interpretation of Chopin's op.9/2 (, actually one of my favourite interpretations of the piece), I'm not sure if your comments on Rachmaninov dispensing with rubato really apply, since there can be hardly more use of rubato than here (but I haven't listened to any other of his preserved recordings to be honest). Compare this to most contemporary interpretations of op.9/2, and there is a huge difference in the use of rubato, I'd say...

Sorry, iliaul, the above is actually off-topic here. You gave a wonderful performance!!

Rachmaninoff went Ravel's response one better.  When Gershwin went to Rachmaninoff's home to discuss lessons, the two sat down and chatted a bit.  Then Rachmaninoff asked Gershwin if he would mind divulging how much money he made in the prior year.  Gershwin told him outright.  Rachmaninoff looked down at the floor as if in deep thought for a moment.  Then he slapped his knees, stood up, told Gershwin he really did not believe he could help him to be any more successful, shook his hand and showed him out the door!

Yup, and he definitely got it 

Hi prongated,

Well, Rachmaninoff was about 25 years older than Gershwin.  Rach was a smoker, and I believe Gershwin was too.  So if they did play tennis, it was probably a baseline rallying style of play rather than volleying from the net.  And Rach, being the older of the two, probably specialized in drop shots.  Given Gershwin's financial success, if there was any court rental, he probably got stuck with the tab, ha-ha! 

Thanks, ramsey,

Yeah, I had difficulty imagining Rachmaninoff as a tennis player, as I had never heard of it before.  But it was fun conjuring up the possibilities.   

Ilia when you come back I expect to hear Pictures -- the whole thing and not just the first half.  Or not, but don't stay over there too long, the valley is waiting over here.

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to congratulate our own iliaul for winning First Prize as well as the Yehuda Meir memorial award for the most outstanding artistic performance of an etude by Chopin at the 3rd Schimmel USASU International Young Artists Senior Piano Competition this month.


http://herbergercollege.asu.edu/pianocompetition/2008/home.html

Brilliant. Could have been a little quieter in places for me, but very good shaping and control.