certainly is Ravel . . . & tempo was never as paramount as color and fell to him . . . He never played or conducted the same piece the same way twice - He wasn’t a perfect pianist in the trade of musician, but as a composer he delivers his own masterpieces incomparably on the piano.
He may have also played it faster on piano than conducting because of the transients of the piano versus an orchestra/ensemble and/or he had small hands . . . .
I would love to hear Ravel play a Fender Rhodes !!
For me this is all crap.
The fact he can write such masterfull pieces who are pianistic extremely interesting prooves he’s a real pianist.
Also the way he could express himself with the piano (is for me the most important thing in playing piano, robots never may be called pianists for me)
Ravel was reputed to have just about hte biggest hands of any known composer for piano. According to legend, his pinky and ring finger were the same length.
Well I think he’s a great pianist personally - for whatever reason he isn’t listed in the history books as a great pianist - I agree, it’s about the expression
10 Responses
goobleglob
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
1omg omg omg!! OMG! THANK YOU!! OMFG! i got chills before i even played it. OMG!
goobleglob
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
2oh…. and he plays it AMAZINGLY. i’d read he wasn’t so good a pianist, but wow. i’d love to hear him playing scarbo or something!
luganskymichelangeli
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
3i feel this piece come more to life through this interpretation. maybe this is what he really intended how it should be played.
mltube
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
4Excellent performance, but if it’s really Ravel playing, then it must be a piano roll.
awatkins69
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
5Wow, this is beautiful. Where did you happen to find this album? It’s really nice. I’d like to hear the rest. Sounds like water.
jaedeal
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
6certainly is Ravel . . . & tempo was never as paramount as color and fell to him . . . He never played or conducted the same piece the same way twice - He wasn’t a perfect pianist in the trade of musician, but as a composer he delivers his own masterpieces incomparably on the piano.
He may have also played it faster on piano than conducting because of the transients of the piano versus an orchestra/ensemble and/or he had small hands . . . .
I would love to hear Ravel play a Fender Rhodes !!
michieldpiano
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
7For me this is all crap.
The fact he can write such masterfull pieces who are pianistic extremely interesting prooves he’s a real pianist.
Also the way he could express himself with the piano (is for me the most important thing in playing piano, robots never may be called pianists for me)
StrivetobeDust
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
8Ravel was reputed to have just about hte biggest hands of any known composer for piano. According to legend, his pinky and ring finger were the same length.
MercenariesWorld
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
9Ravel was only 5 feet 4 inches - he barely made the army as an ambulance driver because he was underweight !
jaedeal
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
10Well I think he’s a great pianist personally - for whatever reason he isn’t listed in the history books as a great pianist - I agree, it’s about the expression
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Pages
Old Posts
Friends
Meta
Information
Jeu Poker Argent Gratuit V7ndotcom Elursrebmem is proudly powered by WordPress - kai media center