Debussy and Ravel are NOT the same! (ft. Gwendolyn Mok) 

She's so good she can play these pieces with her mind.

You have a talented poltergeist

I have never thought of Ravel as "cold" or clinical. I would say Ravel is more actually more introspective and thoughtful than Debussy. Debussy is very expressive in an extravagant or extroverted way, with generally more harmonic movement and longer melodic lines.

God i love ravel so much

I've never really gotten why people described Ravel's music as "cold" or "detached", if anything I'd say he's just as expressive as Debussy, maybe just a little more melancholy at times.

Every time I pick up one of Ravel's scores, I want to give up composing.

Ravels mother grew up in Madrid, and both of them were born very close to the spanish border. The spanish influence in Ravel was likely a part of him since childhood. Debussy, from what I understand is from a french family.

I used to approach Debussy with romanticism until some really smart people suggested that I play it with more restraint. My point is that Debussy isn't a romantic composer and he gives very clear and specific instructions to achieve the effect. I don't think Clair de lune should be played romantically, but it certainly is a popular approach and I used it to attract many girls in my day 😉

More of a Ravel man myself.

I like to think of Debussy as more emotional whereas Ravel is more literal / pictorial. Both of evocative of the subject (water, online) and ‘impressionistic’ but in different ways

An excellent presentation. I think many very valid points in comparison and contrast. This video is a real treasure.

I could really feel the difference in the Toccatas. Since the form is so similar, it came down to harmony and I felt that Debussy's Toccata was more harmonious, which I generally think of a lot of his music being. It was also nice to compare them to the more fugue like Toccata from Bach and my favorite from Prokofiev; (gives me chills). This video has also shown me the beauty of Ravel's Jeux d'eau. Thank you for that! Gwendolyn you are a treasure!

Wonderful presentation!!!Love the comparison….as a pianist this is outstanding!!!

Sooo glad I found you. Thank You for this excellent comparison of these two masters.

What a terrific professor.

Very nice vídeo !! Thanks for that❤❤❤

Fantastic video, tonebase. Brava Gwen!

I feel that Ravel could compose like Debussy but not the other way around. My feeling with Ravel (my favorite composer) is that, after completing a piece he spent some time erasing everything that wasn’t absolutely necessary. Ravels Melodie’s pierce through your heart and Debussy feels to me to use more artífices. And I LOVE Debussy but Ravel is a different kind of human.

Excellent video!

As someone who loves both somewhat naively, I really appreciate getting this comparison. I like to imagine myself more alike to Debussy but in reality have more of Ravels coldness and I think thats why I prefer the expansiveness i feel when listening to Debussy. Always interesting to think that they abhorred the "impressionistic" term. A complex reality that is hard to convey often leaves but a fleeting impression on the listener 🌈

I would indeed be impressed if somebody was able to explain to me these differences on a date.

This is without doubt one of the most valuable videos comparing Debussy and Ravel available. It’s also profound and deeply moving to see Ravel’s musical lineage handed down through his students. History itself resides just barely below the keys, before our very eyes even.

such a good video!!!

Comparing is part of the enjoyment of music, I believe, excellent example D vs R. That reminds me of Scarlatti vs Handel in the baroque Italy competition, you know what happened. On another takeaway, my harpsichord teacher in the early 70s was a pupil of Landowska. So my peers and I considered ourselves her “musical grandchildren”. Beyond the music, the chance to get first hand anecdotes was fascinating, I guess you might also enjoyed that part of your exposure with Maestro Perlmutter (this is the spelling of a friend of mine whose name sounds the same, sorry if not correct) Thank you!

If I understand the comparison, are we saying Debussy is more Dionysian (heart, earthy passion), and Ravel more Apollonian (intellect, airy cool)? That's fair, but I can think of plenty of counterexamples, wherein each displays the other's primary character. (And to wink at the cliche, how many couples have "done it" to Ravel's Bolero, after its famous use in the movie "10"?!) We should bring the "belle eccentrique" Satie into the mix: we then have to add a dash of minimalism, Rosicrucian occult, surreality and absurdity, high and low humor, and let's throw in his huge collection of velvet suits and umbrellas while we're at it!

Gwendolyn, I can watch you all day. Tonebase, please give Gwendolyn her own channel.

The chord voicing in Debussy and Ravel remind me so much of a jazz pianist like Bill Evans, but the harmonic logic between the chords is so different from jazz vocabulary. As a jazz enthusiast approaching French classical of that era, all my chord shapes apply, but only if I forget everything I know about progressions.

I absolutely agree they don't equal each other. I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation, one being cooler than the other. But that's the beautiful thing about music is that two people can hear the same piece and draw two different conclusions. Ultimately, they had to compose true to their own being and that's why they sound different to me: Debussy sounds and feels more expansive, Ravel more closed and contained. And if someone feels differently about the two than I do, that is the beautiful thing about music.

I laughed at the Intro ...'' if you want to impress a girl ;))))))''. That is a hypoteticaly existing person ;))).

I think I saw Gwendolyn perform at UC Santa Cruz once when I was attending 2000-2005. Ravel has always been my favorite of the Dead Europeans! I love Debussy too, but Ravel is something else.

Both Claude Debussy and Maurice Ravel are symbolists like Erik Satie, they're very atmospherical with their music. They like to dwell on the subconscious mind, but what makes Ravel different from Debussy is that he uses more subtlety in his music, it is much more complex harmonically. Like in his Noctuelles, and the Jeux D'Eau, the arpeggios and the melodies are based on whole tone scales, but they're so very well hidden inside the music. It's like you really have to dig deep in there.. more like. submerge yourself into the musical world of Ravel in order to understand it. One of the factors could be because he is a Pisces-Aquarius cusp? One of the water signs who are highly perceptible to everything, but also combining some of the visionary features of an Aquarius. Debussy on the other hand is more bold, his music can easily reach you as if you were more involved with it, more intimate and welcoming to the listener. It could be because he is a Leo-Virgo cusp, one of the fire signs who are known to be generous and compassionate, similarly introspective like Ravel, but because of the Virgo cusp, it almost makes them rather secretive because they tend to keep to themselves, although they strive for perfection in their daily lives.

Great analysis for such a pair of fascinating artists. For as much as I enjoy Ravel´s clinical chromatism. Debussy´s Voluptuousness is pure seduction.

Love Debussy but Ravel is really special in my heart.

"contemporaries of each other"

Please extend it with pieces like La vallee des cloches or Cathedral engloutie

Tone base new method, Telekinesis, when is the class for this technique

ravel somehow always sounds more dainty.

What was that piece she played last in the outro?

What about Debussy's etudes?

My hot take) I personally favor Ravel over Debussy, because of a single chord and orchestration. I'm not joking. The minor 9th chord can be found abundantly in almost every Ravel's piece, and it adds a sense of bittersweetness, self reflection, although the emotion can differ by the context. Ravel contains this chord in almost every piece, yet it never feels boring, he incorporates emotions very well in my opinion. The video states that Ravel tends to be less emotional, but I think Ravel was rather a master at conveying emotions (ex his magnum opus Daphnis et Chloe). I also love Ravel's orchestration. It's always nice to compare his piano pieces to the orchestrated versions.

Ah! Narcissisosisis, very true! (Very good lesson, btw)

I feel like I know less about the difference between ravel and Debussy than before I watched it. It's like listening to a wine taster. This red is smokey hints of sunset and the rain and while this one tastes like yesterday.

Does anyone know the model of Yamaha piano used in this video?

Are these from the piano rolls Debussy recorded?

does anyone know the name of the last piece? 10:01

*DEBUSSY and Tchaikovsky* were the most beloved composers of the late Michael Jackson, who himself was both neoromantic (Earth Song, Speechless) and impressionist (Stranger In Moscow) composer.

Well, they are spelled differently, and have different numbers of syllables... Are you impressed now?

Yes. I teach that it is the difference between observance and participation, or the event itself, and how the event makes you feel. Its about degrees of separation. The complication comes when you must decide as a performer whether to underscore the composer's orientation or impose affect through effect. It is more important with some composers than others that you shouldn't! Here's the difference, as it is manifest in vocal performances of Vivalidi's, Sposa, Son Disprezzata, where Sumi Jo is clearly detached, musically, and Cecelia Bartoli is 'living it'. One performance is...additive, to theatrical effect, while the other transparent and unvarnished. Both are well wrought musically. Which do you prefer. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aSQqycalzAs.html Sumi evocatively tells a story (not one lived, not her own) of a woman scarred, who is reflecting back on her experience. There is therefore a...double detachment to it. It is possessed by the objective hind-sight of a woman consigned to her misery. As such, and possibly appropriately, as a recitalist, I feel and hear her reaching for the technique and voice necessary to communicate her story and desperation to 'someone else' who could not possibly otherwise understand. She lacks, or rather...'avoids' theatre in order to maintain her dignity and cognitive composure as she tells the story of another to another ; the better to manage her technique as a spectator reflecting on her own performance. On the other hand, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-a_2VS4NFAXU.html Cecelia is living 'it', and attempting to explain her situation to herself, in the moment! No one is her intended audience; she is not talking to anyone. There is extreme, almost inappropriate breach of privacy for having eavesdropped. We feel we have no right to bare witness to this moment. In fact, its more intimate than that: you are in her mind, not in her presence, because she is not present to witness. No scar has formed yet, there is just a open wound, and the accompanying existential resignation that it will fester unto death. As much as I like Sumi's voice (and I do), I always here the technique in both her voice and the music she makes, which impresses, because that is the intent: to participate 'in' the music. Know also that it is a fact that musicians of all kinds who unconsciously encourage cognizance of their technical skill (hearing their fight with, and defeat of technical difficulty) are preferred by fans (who tend to be amateurs who don't participate sufficiently in technique to know it is a soft victory) who are attracted to champions who audibly defeat difficulty, over those who do not draw attention to any aspect of vocal technique or pedagogy. With Cecelia you only 'see' the effort on occasion (the acting not withstanding), you never hear it. She does not attempt to participate in it, but rather disappears in service of music. As such she fails to impress, because nothing 'sounds' hard, for lacking the intended artifact of performance that attracts the amateurs ear and want of a hero. It is the difference between a consummate technician (a thing so rare as to have value for what they 'bring' to the music), and a consummate 'musician' (a thing even more rare and but far less easy to appreciate for not being value additive). Apples and oranges! Try seeking out my comment regarding the same distinction between a great 'guitarist', John Williams, the great technician, and the great 'musician' (who also plays the guitar), Julian Bream, whose performances transcend reduction to discussion of technical facility. In this case too it is the case that fans prefer the hero who audibly defeats the difficulty, over the musician who submits to the music: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bI3K-Ir_MWU.html They are both of the same calibre, but like Cecilia and Sumi, they are not of the same species because they do not endeavour to the same end; though the one could be made to by adoption of musical humility that she doesn't yet possess; though she would lose her fans Then try closing 'your eyes and listen to them both again, and see if I'm not right.

So in summation, Ravel ≤ √log(Debussy).

The ravel pavane is better imo than clair de lune exactly because of that restraint. I find it tears at my heartstrings more.

I love her comments, but her characterization of "pudeur" as restraint is not quite accurate. "La pudeur" evokes a kind of erotic tension between private desires and public requirements for modesty. Voltaire famously commented "La pudeur passe, et l'amour seul demeure." He was observing that this tension always yields to love, and that is what imbues "pudeur" with such potency. The drama of its inevitable yielding.

I am not saving that to a girl on the date. Besides that, great content!

a lo largo de la historia nadie pudo comprender realmente la grandeza de los trabajos de ravel y se cansaron de tirarle flores a debussy que si bien es un gran compositor siempre vendió mucho más humo! es una lástima porque me parece que los separan varios escalones de intelectualidad tanto a nivel personal como artístico

Can't relate to this. Both composers' works are equally filled with emotion. Both can be cold or warm depending on the piece. For example, I find many of Debussy's preludes and and etudes to be extremely 'cold' when they aim to evoke physical movement (le vent dans la plaine) or abstract musical ideas (any etude). And how could you play Ravel's Mere l'Oye or the Adagio from his G Major Concerto without warmth and emotion?

In that case, the next topic should be the difference between Rachmaninoff and Scriabin!

I've never heard of the idea debussy and ravel were similar to be honest lol. La valse, scarbo, grotesque sonata? How can you hear Debussy in that lol

With all respect to Debusy, I've always thought that Ravel is the better composer.

Ravel is more "sophisticated" in composition musicology, Debussy is more accessible to us "weekend piano" players

the big difference is that Claude was into women and Maurice was a misogynist. the warmth of Debussy is the opposite of Ravel's modernist precision

... Well that would not have impress me... Although the subject is true and there are plenty of things to be said about the differences between the two. But here it is seems to be content for the sake of it, and I found my myself quite irked by this video... I acknowledge that some of it has to be with the format and the length of the video. But some of the point lack substance... For instance the first point is just highly subjective, and should not in my opinion be an element of aesthetic characterization. Yet, there is something be said here. because whether you feel as the character or an observer of the action depicting is really up to anyone feeling. but the motif she describes as droplets in Reflets dans l'eau, doesn't seems to have a purpose other than evocating something (in trhis case little droplets perhaps), and that is a feauture that is less presents in ravel music I believe. The same thing goes for "context", I mean I don't things is really relevant also... two different piece, that want to tell two different stories, might have two different "context", that is not specific to Ravel and debussy...That fact the two piece display music tools from spanish culture is interesting however... for, now, we might ask how Ravel and Debussy integrate those elements in regard to their language. What would have perhaps been more interesting, in regard to context, would have been to take two piece with a simillar "context" ... Like I don't know, general lavigne eccentric form Debussy and Aborada del Gracioso from Ravel, because it seems that the two want to portrait a ridicule character. The point on texture was the shortest when it informs the most in my opinion (in regard two the other points). And I think it very regrettable because I am sure that Ms Wok has to say could be interesting, and some of it was... And I should not like to appear too "judgy" but since YTR allow us to lash out... Although I stand by the fact, it is irrating to see someone that believe way more capable than me, speak a bit poorly of the subject. PS: I might also that skipped completely the point andthus, I shall greatly appreciate any precisions about how one might have understand the point about perspective and context differently ^^

Debussy: less is more Ravel: if I can’t outplay rachmaninoff then why bother

Just on the strength of one piece, Debussy is more famous than Ravel.

Debussy descended from romantic music, and his sound was more about showing a bigger picture with louder emotions. Ravel on the other hand descended from the classical era, and his compositional style was more intimate and detail oriented. In feline terms, Debussy was a lion, and Ravel was a kitten.

0:49 She's cheating! She's not playing Reflets dan l'eau or Jeux d'eau!

Believe me, the average American woman could care less about these composers. Probably would like Sting maybe or some Rap star but classical? Nope. And a lot will say dumb things about how they hate Jazz, or say Bob Dylan sings out of tune. And mention Elizabethan Lute music and you have to call Medics cause you just induced a Coma. I like all styles myself but older women (my age group) are pretty stuck on what they danced to at the Prom in High School.

So in summarion, Ravel > Debussy.

So Debussy was lazier than Ravel

It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Debussy was a virtuoso, whereas Ravel was a perfectionist.

Ravel is a great composer.....But he cant be compared to Debussy, Debussy is for me what we call a "genius", he is apart.