One of the great things about this piece, and all masterworks for that matter, is that they can be rendered in so many different ways, and great musicians can reveal new details of the work you hadn’t previously heard. For a long time, my favorite interpretation of this piece was by Werner Haas, then Pascal Rogé, then Louis Lortie… now it’s Ben. His melodic projection over the dense textures in this piece is just incredible. It’s hard enough to get the notes right, but to be able to play this in a way that the melody takes precedence and the phrases are allowed to breathe, is indescribably difficult. Ben set a new bar, here.
The fact that they CAN be rendered 'in so many different ways' does not mean that they SHOULD be. Don't you think that the master composers had a specific idea as to how THEIR masterpieces should sound?
@@organman52 Some did, yes. But not all. Even if composers did have specific visions for their works, making exact reproductions of such intentions is achievable only within a certain margin of error. Everything from the instrument, the performance space, the listener’s proximity to the instrument, etc. are all variables in this equation. I think you might have interpreted “in so many different ways“ to mean taking excessive liberties, which wasn’t what I meant. I was taking about subtlety differences in dynamics, layering, rubato. By the way, this was common practice in the late 19th and early 20th century. Performers improvised in and out of different pieces often and completely reimagined dynamics and tempo markings, and very often avoided metronomic playing altogether to assert their individuality as an interpreter. The advent of recording in the 20th century along with the standardization of interpretive pedagogy in academic institutions stilted this approach to music making for decades, but the “romantic” ethos of interpretation has been having a resurgence over the last 20 years, much to my delight. Perhaps not to yours.
@@davidofpiano423 What exactly is there to 'interpret?' When listening to Mr. Grosvenor, I hear the music - not his ideas about it. Interpretation is simply a replacement for knowledge of the architecture of the music. Nadia Boulanger, with whom I studied over fifty years ago, said this: "As performers, you have to play with honesty, not to express yourselves but to give expression to the work; not to try to say my Beethoven Sonata, my Chopin Scherzo, but a Scherzo, not even by Chopin, a Scherzo that was given Chopin to write and that no longer needs Chopin to be a masterpiece. It no longer needs a performer, or a listener. It needs nothing. It is just floating in the air, ablaze with light. Then, you look at it or you don't." While every word of that statement is powerful as well as revelatory, the most important part of it, for me, is 'not to express yourselves.' I am confident in thinking that the master composers knew exactly how they wanted THEIR creations to sound. All that traditional which followed is of no importance. Did you ever ask yourself 'how did Ondine sound in Ravel's head and in the minutes immediately after he finished copying it to paper, before anyone else started putting their own two cents into it?' I didn't think so.
This was a transcendent experience, like the music was breathing profound awakenings into me. I felt a stir of emotions I didn’t know I had and was utterly captivated listening. Sublime feels almost insufficient. This held a magical enchantment that was like nothing I have ever heard. What is crazy is I am watching this for the first time on RUclips. I cant imagine what this was like live. This is the first time I have heard this piece.
I've searched through countless recordings of this piece to find the perfect one and I finally found it. Absolutely brilliant pianist and amazingly played
@@Dodecatone Pogorelich’s intensity is hard to dismiss, for me both performances are equal and depending on my mood I might prefer one or the other, they both have their strengths for sure
pour l'aspect émotionnel, écoutez aussi la version de Kate Liu, adolescente à l'époque, qui m'a fait découvrir RAVEL (auteur que je trouvais, à tort, dysharmonieux et brouillon)
for the emotional aspect, also listen to the version by Kate Liu, a teenager at the time, who introduced me to RAVEL (author that I found, wrongly, disharmonious and messy)
I spent years listening to tens of recordings of Ondine, appreciating the infinite possibilities of interpretation of the piece and the myriad of different takes on it from different pianists. But I kept listening to so many recordings also because I was looking for one that would match my sensitivity and fully convince me in all of the sections of this masterpiece. I believe my search is over. This is the most astonishing one I've heard to date. God bless these 2 musicians.
Having practiced that part myself I wonder to what degree the lack of clarity in the first half might be intentional. There's this chaotic mess of rhythm and notes built upon that descending melody. In the next half it becomes much cleaner harmonically and even the polyrhythms get a bit simpler. I look to Pogorelichs version which is less clean than this one in that regard, but it feels intentional nonetheless.
This is a sublime performance, what a truly gifted pianist and musician. Amazing camera work and sound too...really helps us to be fully immersed in his exquisite sound world.
One of the great things about this piece, and all masterworks for that matter, is that they can be rendered in so many different ways, and great musicians can reveal new details of the work you hadn’t previously heard. For a long time, my favorite interpretation of this piece was by Werner Haas, then Pascal Rogé, then Louis Lortie… now it’s Ben. His melodic projection over the dense textures in this piece is just incredible. It’s hard enough to get the notes right, but to be able to play this in a way that the melody takes precedence and the phrases are allowed to breathe, is indescribably difficult. Ben set a new bar, here.
Agreed. I was glad to read that someone else admired Werner Haas. His double albums have been among my favorites for decades.
I think he did. The new bar.
The fact that they CAN be rendered 'in so many different ways' does not mean that they SHOULD be. Don't you think that the master composers had a specific idea as to how THEIR masterpieces should sound?
@@organman52 Some did, yes. But not all. Even if composers did have specific visions for their works, making exact reproductions of such intentions is achievable only within a certain margin of error. Everything from the instrument, the performance space, the listener’s proximity to the instrument, etc. are all variables in this equation. I think you might have interpreted “in so many different ways“ to mean taking excessive liberties, which wasn’t what I meant. I was taking about subtlety differences in dynamics, layering, rubato. By the way, this was common practice in the late 19th and early 20th century. Performers improvised in and out of different pieces often and completely reimagined dynamics and tempo markings, and very often avoided metronomic playing altogether to assert their individuality as an interpreter. The advent of recording in the 20th century along with the standardization of interpretive pedagogy in academic institutions stilted this approach to music making for decades, but the “romantic” ethos of interpretation has been having a resurgence over the last 20 years, much to my delight. Perhaps not to yours.
@@davidofpiano423 What exactly is there to 'interpret?' When listening to Mr. Grosvenor, I hear the music - not his ideas about it. Interpretation is simply a replacement for knowledge of the architecture of the music. Nadia Boulanger, with whom I studied over fifty years ago, said this: "As performers, you have to play with honesty, not to express yourselves but to give expression to the work; not to try to say my Beethoven Sonata, my Chopin Scherzo, but a Scherzo, not even by Chopin, a Scherzo that was given Chopin to write and that no longer needs Chopin to be a masterpiece. It no longer needs a performer, or a listener. It needs nothing. It is just floating in the air, ablaze with light. Then, you look at it or you don't." While every word of that statement is powerful as well as revelatory, the most important part of it, for me, is 'not to express yourselves.' I am confident in thinking that the master composers knew exactly how they wanted THEIR creations to sound. All that traditional which followed is of no importance. Did you ever ask yourself 'how did Ondine sound in Ravel's head and in the minutes immediately after he finished copying it to paper, before anyone else started putting their own two cents into it?' I didn't think so.
This was a transcendent experience, like the music was breathing profound awakenings into me. I felt a stir of emotions I didn’t know I had and was utterly captivated listening. Sublime feels almost insufficient. This held a magical enchantment that was like nothing I have ever heard.
What is crazy is I am watching this for the first time on RUclips. I cant imagine what this was like live. This is the first time I have heard this piece.
I've searched through countless recordings of this piece to find the perfect one and I finally found it. Absolutely brilliant pianist and amazingly played
Couldn't agree more. His version in the studio is even better - just as nuanced as it is titanic.
@@Dodecatone great studio recording, by far my favorite gaspard
@@Ace-dv5ce my second favorite. no one can match Pogorelich's sheer intensity, especially in Scarbo. Grosvenor's Ondine tops them all though.
@@Dodecatone Pogorelich’s intensity is hard to dismiss, for me both performances are equal and depending on my mood I might prefer one or the other, they both have their strengths for sure
To me, monsieur Collard has a perfect version of this piece 🤍
Ondine by Maurice Ravel so wonderfully ,so deeply ,so sweetly soothes my mind and soul...
Absolutely sublime. Nobody plays this better than Grosvenor. Technically superb and emotionally captivating.
Bavouzet or Lortie
Not true
Lucas Debargue has best version imo, this one is also perfect 😅
pour l'aspect émotionnel, écoutez aussi la version de Kate Liu, adolescente à l'époque, qui m'a fait découvrir RAVEL (auteur que je trouvais, à tort, dysharmonieux et brouillon)
for the emotional aspect, also listen to the version by Kate Liu, a teenager at the time, who introduced me to RAVEL (author that I found, wrongly, disharmonious and messy)
I spent years listening to tens of recordings of Ondine, appreciating the infinite possibilities of interpretation of the piece and the myriad of different takes on it from different pianists. But I kept listening to so many recordings also because I was looking for one that would match my sensitivity and fully convince me in all of the sections of this masterpiece. I believe my search is over. This is the most astonishing one I've heard to date. God bless these 2 musicians.
Stunning audio quality. It perfectly captures the magnitude of his playing at 4:00. It’s like each note is sustained without decay.
The only pianist I found who plays at 4:03 the fives descending notes of the theme perfectly hearables.
Having practiced that part myself I wonder to what degree the lack of clarity in the first half might be intentional. There's this chaotic mess of rhythm and notes built upon that descending melody. In the next half it becomes much cleaner harmonically and even the polyrhythms get a bit simpler. I look to Pogorelichs version which is less clean than this one in that regard, but it feels intentional nonetheless.
@@jcollins519pogorelichs way better tbh
@@larrydoze7430 I'm quite partial to it as well. That being said, it's nice to hear some variety
that low b in the climax is deadly
One of the best versions of this piece I have ever heard!
Just finished learning this one! Hope to polish it up to Grosvenor’s standard some day. Probably the most magical interpretation of Ondine I’ve seen.
Your version of this work is one of most precious and beautiful heard : thanks, dear Master 😊
This is a sublime performance, what a truly gifted pianist and musician. Amazing camera work and sound too...really helps us to be fully immersed in his exquisite sound world.
This piece is so difficult... Very good quality
3:53 absolutely beautiful
That was amazing, one of my favs executed to perfection!
Possibly the most perfect piano performance video recording ever!
La mejor versión que encontré, la única que me sumergió en el viaje real que la obra propone. Felicitaciones!
Masterly and utterly magical - surely an ideal Ondine!
I’d like to see someone say they learned this by ear.
i did :D
@@lowpex3514wait seriously? You don’t look at the score at all during the learning phase? Show me a video.
@@ericaeli3807 do u have discord? i could join in a vc with u :D
Nobuyuki Tsujii did
@@debruceyno way. Show me!
Although khatia has my heart and played this piece very well, I have to say that this performance is even more perfect. Beautifully done
Khatia unfortunately is somewhat possessed by her own self. Benjamin is humble and entirely focused on the music. K hasn't conquered the ego yet.
@@organboi I may need some proof of that claim
Simply sublime....
Seems like he plays in more than 60 fps :D
No words…simply, sublime and transcendental!!!
@@eddiebeato5546Umm, I'm priiiiiitty sure "sublime" and "transcendental" are words.😆🤙
진짜 잘친다..
Pogorelic has my favorite interpretation of this piece, but Grosvenor's building to the climax at 4:03 is absolutely subpar, total perfection.
what do you mean by "absolutely subpar, total perfection"? those words seem to contradict each other...
@@Dodecatone I believe that would be a typo of superb!
@@edenfraser
Well it's oblivious 😂 // see what I did? ... instead of obvious........I am so stupid😂....
bro fix your typo. lol - no way you meant subpar.
I can't believe it is "lent"
WOW!!
Holy wrist!
I think Ondine and Gibet are wonderful . I think Argerich wins on Scarbo. Hers is darker…. IMO the way it should be played
0:04
6:29
Taylor Karen Perez Jennifer Rodriguez Sandra
Why so fast? Ravel's indication is an unequivocal 'lent'.
This is standard speed
Superb. Not Michelangeli, doesn't have ABM's celestial sound, but great nonetheless.
ABM is fabulous - he has the most pacific opening bars, I remember double-taking when I first heard it - and the rest is just sublime as well.
Those are my two favorite interpretations but I have to say I like this one better!
Horowitz could NEVER do this. Sorry.
Doesn’t capture the long form, sounds quite routine to me
Do not utter meaninglessnesses.
Prise de son médiocre, dommage... interprétation trop raide et peu ressentie.