Robert Schmitz: Ravel Jeux d'eau

[ibclappin]

this is such an amazing and powerful musical deliverance

[Chanataas]

Argerich do it purely flawless!!but this???this is truly water (: I think that this performance captures the real title of this piece!

[MrJoful]

sehrgeil :D

[MrStrav81]

I'm familiar with Argerich's recording, which is also amazing. But I do like this performance of it. It definitely stands apart.  The pedaling is very liberal. It's not dry at all.

[jtennisfan0901]

well this is certainly a very different interpretation... while i think some parts are played quite well, others are just too fast and too dramatic... its supposed to sound dreamy...

2:56 sounds like shards of glass falling and mirrors shattering, not raindrops falling, like martha argerich's does.

[jilmjones]

yes it is different though...cant decide if i like it or not

[SailorVVV]

not fountains, it's more like rapids

[meixingdongmeixing]

wait, how is this fake/hilarious? unless it's later in the vid... in either case, it sound nice :D

[Vook]

Well, he played it very well...but I feel it's a bit too fast and tumultuous. I always considered this to be a very beautiful, quaint, twinkling little piece...not like the way "Une Barque sur l'Ocean" and "Ondine" are so grand and powerful.

[cynic150]

I know what you mean. That was my first impression too at the start. However, I find that many composers play their own works in a different way from that of later interpreters, whether it fits the "norm" or not. This is, I feel, fantastically wet and fountain-like. I love it. What a terrific pianist/virtuoso Ravel was. There are so many moods, colours and effects and not over dreamy or sentimental. Mechanical pianos may not be perfect reproducers though.

[godelike]

@cynic150 Ravel was actually a quite bad pianist. He was unable to play most of the pieces he would write... Especially gaspard de la nuit of course. I think he could play jeux d'eau, but not very well. Anyway, he was probably one of the greatest composers of all times, so who cares...

[cynic150]

I don't know how you can say he was "bad". This is just heresay and relative, and the thing to say. But, relative to whom? certainly he was exceptionally musical and that is ,to my mind, the most important trait a pianist should possess. Would you agree with that?

[godelike]

@cynic150 of course a pianist has to be musical... But Ravell still wasn't a virtuoso ;) and due to that his expression at the piano was not good, he even admitted it himself. He was extremely good at composing, though, and probably had the best hearing skills ever... I'm just saying that his piano technique was crappy, and therefore it was (apparently) not really pleasant to listen to his playing.

[carminaburana13]

hmmm...a bit too passionate...but still good. I guess Ravel left plenty of room for interpretation.

[mpantel88]

non capisco questa fretta... ma neanche certi acenti che si danno su quel pezzo...

[luminoceanne]

oups ! I find sometimes the accents a little destabilizing compare to what we are use to hear !! hihi ! but very nice " envolées" ...the sound of the piano is a little funny ! I guess also because of the old recording ! but there is character here, I'm a little " étourdie" dizzy? !!!

[scottturner1994]

I didn't like it.

Listen to Argerich's recording. This is supposed to sound like water.

[maatthieu15]

i also listened this piece by others pianists. For Jeux d'eau, Robert Schmitz did the best interpretation.

[ibclappin]

maybe i'm an idiot; but after listening to this piece performed by 6 different great pianists, very many times each, and enjoying it every single time, to me this performance does not ruin any phrases and delivers them with masterful technique and a, should i say, 'expected' deliverance, as if from a dream about the perfect performance of this historical piece.

[bisbigliandosciolto]

I agree he's a bit of a w..ker. 'This performance owns...' is just psychobabble. However, there ARE dark & disturbing undercurrents in this piece that look directly forward to Ondine (1.39 onwards, marked in the score as 'chant')and it detracts from Ravel's genius to insist the whole piece is purely visual.

[Pavlvs34]

What on earth are you on about "macabre", "eerie", "spirit energies"??? Ravel wrote this piece because he was inspired by a painting that ont of the Apaches painted of a waterfall - he wasn't inspired by a graveyard!!! This piece is a miniature about water in a fountain, hence why he called it "Jeux d'eau" (literally, playing water) as opposed to "Once upon a time, there was a graveyard..."

[ownage1810]

i think he's one of those psuedo-intellectuals that roam youtube. you know, like smithsherman or shineshocker. really annoying though mildly amusing at how they attempt to inflate weak ideas with verbosity. sometimes, what they say sounds so much like they're grasping at an air intelligence, i laugh my ass off.

[Pavlvs34]

THANKYOU!

Well said.

[shineshocker]

You must be another one of those Irish idiots I've offended, greetings !

[ownage1810]

No. I just don't really enjoy bombast.

[KaranEtemadzadeh]

Ok. 1 point for the Irish idiot.

[anaklasis]

Oh God...why don't listen music instead of give those freakin' awards?

[acadusle]

wow... you really know how to use the dictionary. Sad thing though is that you are not saying anything. "beautifully evocative and insane blend of disparate " is incoherent. What an internet n00b.

[ownage1810]

i never heard it this fast, usually that would turn me off in most pieces, but here the piece glimmers and sparkles like drops of water against sunlight or something. beautiful.

[bernardocarmopiano]

IT´S ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PERFORMANCE AND INTERPRETATION OF THIS GREAT POEM,HE REALLY UNDERSTOOD THIS SO LIRYCAL MUSIC. I love Monique Haas, Cortot, Perlemuter, Giesiking and many others too.

[Pavlvs34]

It's ok but too fast - metronome marking says quaver = 144 (the first 4 notes played in R.H are semiquavers - just so you know the time scale). This guy must be taking it at crotchet = 144!

You should read a book called "Ravel according to Ravel", it's full of interviews with Vlado Perlemuter (he was one of the Apaches - group of musicians/ artists Ravel was part of - i think). He studied with Ravel, and said "He wanted the opening not too fast, but not dragging."

[STYLusPHANTasticus]

Dear Pav,,,You're lost in conservatory school thinking.Music has nothing to do with a score.

That's just technical idolatry.

[thepacers]

i think perlemuters 1955 recordings are the greatest. still, this one is mabe very fast but for me also very coniencing.different but still very enjoyable. thats why i give it 5 stars too.

[mdeonx12]

420 is pure hapiness; however, this video is 4:20 long, it also is pure hapiness to me!

[yuting1990]

awsome!!

[francorussie]

Very beautiful performance, however, I find it really very energetic for "Water games" (Jeux d'eau)

[phoxee]

E. Rogert Schmitz was (1899-1945) a distinguished pianist, writer and teacher, and a good friend to Claude Debussy and is condidered to be the foremost expert on Debussy's music. His production company brought tha music of the modern composers to the U.S. including Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich, to name just a few. He spent his life writing, performing, teaching and promoting the love of his life, modern music. Hardly a debutante.

[ownage1810]

the same schmitz that wrote piano music of claude debussy? love that book.

[pierolivier111]

it's too fast... playing a piece too fast is a debutant mistake

[darnaclien]

look at the metronome marking...

[martinkoklingacik]

You are saying it like you understand everything ! I can just smile upon you. If he decided to play it faster who cares?!?! It was his decision and it seems that he liked it so he played it like it. It is never a mistake to play a piece faster or slower. The original version still remains!!!!! And sometimes it is very interesting to listen to it or to listen other modifications or styles of play of the same composition. That was all I wanted and next time express yourself better. Have a nice day

[Heliosporites]

I must say that I find Paul Crossley's interpretation of Ravel's music more sensitive and emotionally satisfying.

[smithsherman]

СПАСИБО ЗА БЛАГОДАРИЛ МНЕ...если бы придпочитал говорить толке по англиский...

Ето не будеть со мной.Есть очень многа

люди здес с чьим можеш делать ето...

о или предъпочитаеш толке болшую сцену?

БОНЬ ВОЯЖ!

[truecrypt]

smithsherman;

I do understand Russian and will reply to you privately. I use English because it's mostly English speaking forum. I do not prefer "big scene" and I hate to waste my time confronting trolls and spammers. Bat again, I knew Richter personally and feel obliged to defend his name, even though it's not needed.

[truecrypt]

smithsheramn;

I have a very detailed reply for you in Russian, but both your comment area and private messaging are blocked. Please let me know how and if you wish to receive it.

[smithsherman]

МНЕ НУЖНА ОСТОРОЖНОСТЬ?...Видил как дерево

давал почки когда (RealRussians-TrueCrypt)

стал (Nemchino) а ВДРУГ...были слови как

"гнид" или "мудак"...Нё тепер мне следовало

бы иметь "ОСТОРОЖНЫЙ ВЫРАЖЕНИЕ"... у меня есть дуновение тактов совецсков.

[truecrypt]

smithsherman;

I consider yourRussian as a very special treat. I think it would be better for people to know exactly what you are saying though. Whatever you insinuate is simply not true. Your obscenities in Russian about Richter's performance are well documented here on YT. I have nothing to hide or worry about. If you wish to start an official investigation on YT (or anywhere else) re our identities and actions, I'm ready at any time.

[smithsherman]

This sounds distorted to the (TrueCrypt-RealRussians) personality because it doesn't achieve what Richter achieves with it.Namely

2 things.#1.You can't set your watch to it. #2.That everything they taught TrueCrypt-RealRussians about truth & culture at the KGB asylum...isn't valid...Oh Well.

[truecrypt]

smithsherman:

1. I'm not a RealRussians

2. Clip didn't sound "distorted" to my ears - I indicated that roll's speed *might* be distorted.

3. Your assumption about what I was "taught by KGB" is quite insulting. You should be more careful with such PUBLIC statements.

4. You are the one who constantly trolling Richter's forums - not me.

[truecrypt]

Duo-Art rolls quite often distorted the tempo. It sounds like the version reproduced here was "speeded up" a little. Probably 5%-8% decrease of the roll's speed would sound more *naturally*.

[marcelmombeek]

could be, with lhevine is the same problem... but even when it is speeded up, I think the original tempo would be still to fast for me... I think if played slower, the "jeux" would sound better...

[smithsherman]

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS PLAYING THIS! Let's leave the cult of personality.This is

no purer than any other "Ravel"...but it

sure is the most interesting and evocative.

How can anyone listen to Richter after this?

[truecrypt]

Absolutely superb performance! One can dispute several "exaggerationс" but overall very much in sync with the spirit of this piece and author's intentions...

It doesn't prevent anybody to enjoy Richter's vision of the same though....

smithsherman's obsession and delusion against Richter is well known ;) As well as multiple personality (accounts/usernames) disorder! ;)

[marcelmombeek]

well, I think this one is much to fast. I do not like fast performances in this piece... sorry mr smithsherman, I prefer richter above this one, but I prefer argerich above richter. Argerich has much more imagination as richter, but her technique is ofcourse not at the same level...

[truecrypt]

It's a rare case when I partially agree with Marcel (not as Richter's performance better or worse...) Argerich's interpretation is outstanding. One can prefer either Richter or Argerich - matter of taste. Seems like as soon as your opinion differs from smithsherman's one - your identity is under suspicion! No wonder smithsherman insist now that marcelmombeek is not the one we know! Great!

[mgiljum]

eccellente! piuttosto duro giocare, ma esso era lle buone prestazioni che sono una canzone difficile da giocare.

[mmac777]

If anyone has studied works by Ravel they would realise that they are very technically demanding. Ravel didn't consider himself a pianist, but he did study piano amongst other things at the Paris Conservatoire. So he DID have technique. Even Gershwin asked Ravel for piano technique lessons. Vlado Perlemuter's interpretation is much slower.

[pupusman]

Yes, it is true. Though Ravel was by all accounts a well-trained pianist, he was certainly no Richter. I've heard a roll of his Prelude from Le Tombeau de Couperin and can verify this.

[ibclappin]

i think this music is in a more pure form than what Richter played.

[angela1894]

Imagine how difficult this is to play. Now imagine how difficult it'd be to compose something like this. We can rant and rave at the skill of people who play these songs, but their ability pales in comparison to the composers, who are at another level entirely. Playing music well is mostly a mechanical skill, composing music is a completely different skill which merits far more respect.

[ibclappin]

don't forget that the pianist needs musical understanding to play the piece correctly.

[luidbros]

playing really well is, for good or for bad, not just a mechanical skill. if it were, just put the score to some midi programs and it is alright : )

[JMMosq]

This is not Ravel playing! I´m completely sure, because is well known he wasn´t able to play his own music. He had no technike. And above all this recording sounds very new, Ravel died in 1937 so this clearity of sound was impossible in that time. This can be the recording by Richter.

[bigsarunia]

friggin sh*t! this abillity is beyond my imagination!

[noricekid28]

This is Schmitz playing, not Ravel. I have this recording also.

[PathetiqueWouter]

really!?

[p1ano]

Well no wonder I feel as if some unfortunate animal must have drowned.

[dogchow13]

After hearing both the slower versions and this, one have to say that I like this metronomic version. In my opinion, it flows better and sounds like its twinkling.

[nosniborceda]

i think that most performances are too slow... i am studying this piece right now and i didnt realize that the metronome speed that ravel placed for this piece is actually this speed

[BluncheonMeat]

Never heard this piece played like this before. Sounds good none the less. I'm guessing that this is what Ravel wanted this song to sound like. Does sound more like water in this recording than in any other I've heard.

[tigerian84]

Tempi and dynamic indications are simply rough "sketches" even for the composer himself. Who the hell knows what actually happened to be in Ravel's mind when he wrote this down.

[mmac777]

Is this really Ravel playing? I don't think it is meant to be played as fast as this. The greatest Ravel player, Vlado Perlemuter does not play it as fast as this at all and he studied Ravel's works with Ravel! Ravel was not a bad pianist, he has written some of the most challening works in the piano repertoire. Such a wonderful piece though. Prokofiev was an excellent pianist (correcting earlier comment).

[FlorestanEusebius]

Do you mean Robert Casadesus? So actually, we listen to a roll of his playing, not that of Ravel? Talking about being mislead!

[dersiano]

This doesn't sound like Ravel to me. I used to have a recording of a piano roll of Ravel playing The Valses Nobles et Sentimentales and the Sonatine, and the playing was much more 'lumpy', for want of a better word. His playing was not as good as this.

[FlorestanEusebius]

The metronome marking 144 refers to the eight note. In this (probably fake) roll recording from a reproducing piano the tempo is much faster than Ravel's original indication.

[martinkoklingacik]

I agree with virkur;D Ravel is not playing this, how could he? It is not possible to hear such a quality recording of his time.

[aldebussy]

I still can't trust cyber space this easily to give me a valid recording. sorry.

[aldebussy]

This is NOT expressive. AND it's NOT Ravel. Who could record sound with such quality at that time. This is a ruse, I guess. The performer is a quite good musician, but without sense of expression.

[matt7722]

I don't think this is ravel's interpretation, ravel wasn"t a brilliatn enough pianist??? he oculdn't have play it this way..., this is my opinion

[awatkins69]

Keep in mind though, he did write this piece himself, so he knows it up and down.

[ben5450]

That's quite interesting to hear the composer playing its work. That's so different!

[OTHONIII]

très interressant! mais est-ce vraiment ravel qui joue? c'est vrai qu'il paraît bien meilleur pianiste que le laisse croire sa réputation, mais j'aimerai être sur que c'est bien lui qui joue.

[babyeinstein12]

Oh my goodness. This is so bold it's disconcerting. He almost plays it with reckless abandon, but it does its job all the same. He plays it in a way I have never heard before.

[smithsherman]

It's not that he plays it faster than Richter,but rather that he plays it in a far more sophisticated and expressive way...There is so much surprise here that goes way beyond the stunning tonal beauty of the Richter.

[aldebussy]

It's amazing and very very different. People play it differently.

[piratepete99]

MY god! How well he does the ending! I love how he modulates the volume as his hands run up and down and doesn't slow down for the final run. He plays it faster than Richter, that's a feat in itself.

[StrivetobeDust]

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.

[MercenariesWorld]

Ravel was only 5 feet 4 inches - he barely made the army as an ambulance driver because he was underweight !

[iutiubfede]

according to the image of the video, it's false

[highlandsh]

Regarding large hands, perhaps you are thinking of Rubenstein. That description echoes one he made in his autobiography.

[michieldpiano]

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)

[jaedeal]

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

[awatkins69]

Wow, 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.

[YellowBelied]

Wow! Far less prissy than some more modern interpretations - Lisztian inflence more apparent?

[kloudcuckoo]

he plays it somehow shirty,

although the ending is undescribable beautiful.

[jannokas85]

gosh how fast that is, but it does sound effective...but impossible to play, unless you've practiced it for at least 30 years :P