debussy and ravel had the great power of playing on water; notes were like waves or squirts and while monet was dissolving art into colored stains which were like a fluid flowing of tones, ravel and debussy dissolved music into an ocean of notes
This seems vastly under appreciated, makes me think of a drop of water's journey from the bass to the peak of the fountain, and back again. Sounds like it should've been on fantasia 2000
Ravel did for music what more or less any social pioneer in the history of Earth has done for the social stratosphere - he revolutioned it through his masterful implementation of Impressionism. With his artistic rebels (Debussy etc.) he engendered a musical revolution. So good!! This song is the metaphorical cup of tea which accompanies a heated sun-room on a windy, rainy day... ❤💛💚💙☮☮☮☮
La musique de Ravel est féérique! Le piano est merveilleux! On croit rêver. Le bonheur est dans cette musique de Ravel. Qui a dit que le bonheur ne s'achète pas?
95tillinfinity c'est vrai que c'est magnifique et tellement plein de couleurs, d'images ... comme la plupart des morceaux de Ravel si t'y prête attention ! mais bon, c'est une forme d'art qui ne convient pas à tout le monde, d'où les vilains pouces rouges ... ou alors c'est des haters haha, on s'en fout, nous on connait les bails ^^
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi son œuvre la plus célèbre est le boléro.(lui-même trouvais que c'était une de ses compositions les plus banales) Je trouve que ses pièces au pianos sont beaucoup plus impressionnantes !
Je pense que cest parce que le boléro a beaucoup marqué les esprits par son ton répétitif et très nouveau pour l'époque. Les œuvres pour piano, j'avoue plus intéressante, de Ravel, s'inscrivent plus dans la norme de la composition moderne.
Le boléro de Ravel est ultra intéressant, qu'est ce que vous raconter les gars?! C'est pas parce que c'est pas virtuose, alambiqué ou progressif que c'est banal. Peut être que vous en êtes à la saturation, mais c'est une oeuvre géniale si on prends le temps de la redécouvrir et c'est sa plus célèbre pour une raison.
When you say most of Ravel's pieces can't be classified as "impressionism", or, in this case, impressionistic music, and it's actually modern music, what do you mean by that? Is it 1) a chronological distinction, that Ravel was alive later than the era of Impressionism (which Google is telling me is distinctly 19th c., so 1800's, and Ravel finished this piece 1901, so that might be what you're driving at), or 2) a compositional distinction, saying that you mean this piece shouldn't be included in the body of works labeled as "French impressionistic music" and should be associated with what people understand as the forefathers of 'modern' music, such as the Second Viennese school, so this piece has more in similarity, in your opinion, to Berg and Schoenberg, then to Debussy, or 3) You meant something else entirely? You seemed on the verge of either saying something misinformed, or about to blow my mind on French music, so I wanted to investigate and see what the verdict was. I am of the opinion that this is impressionistic music, not modern music, because, structurally, it just seems to be riffs on a static image of a water fountain, rather than a heavily Germanic idea of a structural piece of music that's derived from a tone-row or melodic motive. But I could be wrong, and I want to know if there's more to it than that!
your conclusion is right in my opinion, Ravel is using pentatonic and whole tone scale throughout this piece, like Debussy. So I guess it's between impressionist and modern music.
Ravel and Debussy both disapproved of being labelled impressionists. Ravel, however, considered Debussy to be more of an impressionist than he himself, since Debussy was more free and spontaneous. Ravel worked very slowly and carefully, and paid great attention to form and structure, although Jeux d'Eau is certainly a relatively "impressionistic" piece by Ravel's standards.
Brian McCarthy, that's the composer himself performing the piece. He lived until 1937 and was able to record his music himself. I only wish we had the same ability to listen to Chopin playing his own works.
I agree, if you're suggesting it's not Maurice himself, as alleged. Not just the sound quality, but also because of his imperfect chops. I stand to be corrected, but my impression is that what little he put down on Welte-Mignon rolls is not quite up to this standard.
Really cool music. Btw; i'm looking for something in the style of a website (a book would work to) with; not traditional theoretical musical information, but rather something along the line of a "composers handbook". Information as for example; what makes tango or salsamusic just that, what are the theoretical explanations. What kind of chordprogressions do you use to capture a specific mood, octavecharts comparing different instruments. It would be really great if someone could help me out.
I dont understand your presentation : it looks like it is Ravel himself playing and obviously it is not and the 2 names are what ? Who is the pianist playing?
@coldplayasian It was possible to make recordings back in the early 20th century, they just weren't high fidelity in comparison to our standards. I'm assuming this isn't Ravel actually playing and being remastered.
Cziffra's version is still better in my opinion, but this is very nice. This version uses a large variety of tempos, while Cziffra wasn't as radical on that subject in his performances.
He didn't, the introduction to the video has this wrong. Once, Ravel was indeed asked to play this at a concert, and his response was: "But I have never played it in my life!"
+Simone Cavaliere Questo NON è Ravel. Lui non ha mai inciso questo suo brano. Si sente che questo non è un rullo, e lui non era in grado di eseguire questo suo brano in modo così preciso e corretto. Ma possibile che crediate proprio a tutto??
Non sentite che la registrazione è troppo moderna per essere di Ravel? Questo in teoria dovrebbe essere un rullo, ma non ha nulla delle caratteristiche del rullo, questa è un'incisione fatta in studio in tempi assai più moderni. E' un falso, come anche del resto altre esecuzioni attribuite a Ravel anche nei cd dedicati a questa cosa, per esempio la Toccata è attribuita a lui ma in realtà è Casadesus. E' un falso! E poi Ravel non era abbastanza bravo al pianoforte per eseguire questo brano così bene.
It's a good tempo, close to the suggested metronome marking. Faster than this and it just becomes a very difficult mess. I would say that this, like Liszt's Jeux d'Eaux a la Villa d'Este, is not at all a piece to show off how fast you can play, but how much you can make your playing sound like sparkling water.
She doesn't look Asian. and he wasn't Asian. You might have said:"Asians can copy this as well"; The same way as they can copy Adidas: "Four stripes means more Adidas". I can imagine the music - more hits on keyboard per minute means more music!!! That's pathetic, do you realize it?
They were both "involved with impressionism," but any resemblance ends there. After Ravel published this great piece in 1901, Debussy wrote is masterful "Reflects dans L'eau," which also depicts the flowing of water.
