# Trying to study Daphnis et Chloé



## jononotbono (Jul 9, 2020)

I’m trying to self study Daphnis et Chloé and I bought the Full score from Amazon. It’s this version...






I’m just wondering if there is a “best recording” for this so I know what I’m reading is matching the full score I have then that would be amazing.

Many thanks

Jono


----------



## tmhuud (Jul 9, 2020)

GREAT study piece. Oh, brings back memories. Can’t remember which performance/recordings I listened to most but there has to be several recorded since I studied it.


----------



## jononotbono (Jul 9, 2020)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Slightly off topic from your request, but approaching this music the way the pros approach audition excerpts from this piece is invaluable.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: same player in context with orchestra




Thank you! I shall check these out when I finish for the day!


----------



## jononotbono (Jul 9, 2020)

tmhuud said:


> GREAT study piece. Oh, brings back memories. Can’t remember which performance/recordings I listened to most but there has to be several recorded since I studied it.



I’ve found this one on iTunes so I will buy this in a bit. Will be nice having on my iPhone anyway. Yeah, I’m trying to knuckle down on theory, Piano practise and I want to study some great music. So this is going to be what I study for a while. 1 bar at a time! Forever and ever and ever Danny!


----------



## JohnG (Jul 9, 2020)

Great idea, @jononotbono 

I am lazy so I typically study just a few bars at a time anyway. Have fun!! Ravel may be the most interesting, imaginative (best?) orchestrator of all time.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 9, 2020)

This performance is my favorite:


----------



## jononotbono (Jul 9, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> This performance is my favorite:




Thanks man!


----------



## tmhuud (Jul 9, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> This performance is my favorite:




That’s funny. That performance is on my iPhone.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

Gramaphone's 2018 award for best Orchestral Album went to Harmonia Mundi's recent recording:


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

Re the question raised in the first post of this thread about the Dover score and recordings, see what conductor François-Xavier Roth says at 2:30 in the video in the post above.

Sounds like there may be some differences between the Dover score and what one hears in recordings, certainly in the Harmonia Mundi recording.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 9, 2020)

I have the Pierre Boulez Recording the with New York Phil and I’ve yet to hear a better interpretation.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

dcoscina said:


> I have the Pierre Boulez Recording the with New York Phil and I’ve yet to hear a better interpretation.




That kind of begs the question of what you've heard 

By the way, François-Xavier Roth, in the video three posts up, talks about assisting Boulez, when he was a young conductor, on a performance of Daphnis and Chloé. He seems to share Boulez's lack of regard for the story.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 9, 2020)

Rory said:


> That kind of begs the question of what you've heard
> 
> By the way, François-Xavier Roth, in the video three posts up, talks about working with Boulez on a performance of Daphnis and Chloë.


I’ve heard a Lot Rory. 50 different versions at least. It’s preference really. Boulez gets the brass to be very pronounced in that first section where most other recordings have much tamer renderings. As a brass player I like that the trumpets are more pronounced.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

dcoscina said:


> I’ve heard a Lot Rory. 50 different versions at least. It’s preference really. Boulez gets the brass to be very pronounced in that first section where most other recordings have much tamer renderings. As a brass player I like that the trumpets are more pronounced.





Thanks. Given that Roth worked with Boulez on Daphnis and Chloé, it would be interesting to listen to both recordings side by side.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

I have a few recordings of this ballet, one of them Pierre Monteux's 1959 recording with the London Symphony Orchestra. I would be inclined to have Monteux's recording at hand if I were reading the score. Monteux conducted the world premiere of Daphnis and Chloé, on which he worked closely with Ravel.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jul 9, 2020)

Rory said:


> Sounds like there may be some differences between the Dover score and what one hears in recordings, certainly in the Harmonia Mundi recording.



Do you know if there is a list of errata? I cannot find one.


----------



## CT (Jul 9, 2020)

I agree with the Boulez/Berlin recording. It's a fantastic interpretation and sounds absolutely gorgeous. That Harmonia Mundi one mentioned above is likely worth looking at as well. That's a great label for natural, beautiful sound.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> Do you know if there is a list of errata? I cannot find one.



I don't, but there's a reasonable chance that the score that Roth used is available.


----------



## tonaliszt (Jul 9, 2020)

Almost certainly a preference to my hometown orchestra - Cleveland, which I saw do the full ballet w/choir a few years ago. 

This recording of the second suite with Szell.  

Or a rather difficult to find recording of the full ballet with Lorin Maazel, which I only have a very large CD set. 

You must hear it live once concerts are back up Jono.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

Here's Gramophone's 2018 list of the top 10 Ravel recordings: https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/top-10-ravel-recordings

For Daphnis and Chloé, it recommends the recent Roth/Harmonia Mundi album (post #10). Note the reference to the 1959 Monteux recording (post #16). It seems to me that the Monteux recording is mandatory for anyone who wants to study the score.

I have a number of the Ravel recordings that Gramophone talks about and my sense is that their recommendations aren't far off. On the piano concertos, I wouldn't want to choose between Abbado/Argerich and Boulez/Zimerman, so have both


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 9, 2020)

Rory said:


> Note the reference to the 1959 Monteux recording (post #16). It seems to me that the Monteux recording is mandatory for anyone who wants to study the score.



That's the version I first listened to to study that score.


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Jul 9, 2020)

The Dover edition is a facsimile of the 1913 Durand et Cie. edition and I can't find any alternative revised versions of the full ballet score. The Dover also includes the appendix which contains alternate portions of score to be used when not using a chorus to perform the work.

I suspect just about any recording with chorus should match the Dover edition, unless a conductor has dabbled in some personal editing.

Oh, and another vote for the Boulez/Berliner recording: very transparent sound for following the parts.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

rhizomusicosmos said:


> The Dover edition is a facsimile of the 1913 Durand et Cie. edition and I can't find any alternative revised versions of the full ballet score. The Dover also includes the appendix which contains alternate portions of score to be used when not using a chorus to perform the work.
> 
> I suspect just about any recording with chorus should match the Dover edition, unless a conductor has dabbled in some personal editing.
> 
> Oh, and another vote for the Boulez/Berliner recording: very transparent sound for following the parts.



See posts #10 and #11 and in particular the video in post #10. At 2:19, the video title is "A Brand New Set of Parts".


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 9, 2020)

rhizomusicosmos said:


> The Dover edition is a facsimile of the 1913 Durand et Cie. edition and I can't find any alternative revised versions of the full ballet score. The Dover also includes the appendix which contains alternate portions of score to be used when not using a chorus to perform the work.


Dover scores for all there inexpensive usefulness do need to be examined against revisions by composers. It’s because they’re PD that they’re such a bargain. Trouble is, with revised scores such as by Mahler and Stravinsky you find yourself hearing things not in the Dover (original or PD) score which can be bothersome.


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

Well thanks to this thread, I have a new recording to listen to tomorrow. There are interesting comments in the booklet about the instruments they used and issues with the score.


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Jul 9, 2020)

Rory said:


> See posts #10 and #11 and in particular the video in post #10. At 2:19, the video title is "A Brand New Set of Parts".


Thanks for pointing that out, Rory, I missed that. So there is no "definitive" urtext published, only ad-hoc revisions by various conductors/orchestras?


----------



## Rory (Jul 9, 2020)

rhizomusicosmos said:


> Thanks for pointing that out, Rory, I missed that. So there is no "definitive" urtext published, only ad-hoc revisions by various conductors/orchestras?



It appears that there are problems with the score as originally published that would require conductors to "fix" some things. It would be interesting to know to what degree, and where, Monteux varied from the published score, given that he conducted the premiere in collaboration with Ravel. Roth, for his 2017 recording, has probably got as close to a definitive score as exists. I don't know how readily available his score is. I know that Henle is working on Ravel (I have some of the piano music), but it hasn't gotten to this ballet yet.

It's also worth reading the Wikipedia article on Roth and Les Siècles, especially in relation to music of this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Siècles


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Jul 9, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> Do you know if there is a list of errata? I cannot find one.


Here is a list compiled in 2018:


https://cog.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/Ravel%20Daphnis%20Leighton.Nieweg%202018%20ERRATA%20LIST.pdf



And a flautist's perspective:
http://araleedorough.com/daphnis-chloe-whats-note/


----------



## ryanstrong (Jul 9, 2020)

One of my favorite pieces. So many moments and colors! I learned a lot about different orchestration ideas.


----------



## T.j. (Jul 9, 2020)

You can use the opening as a test; it's pass/fail... most can't get it right and it's over before it started.
(there's supposed to be a really long build and then an explosion.. you can't explode if you're already at 90-95% volume).

Boulez is good, but my favorite is the Nezet-Sequin version with the Rotterdam philharmonic.
Dynamics galore... don't put your speakers up too high!


----------



## Horvath (Jul 10, 2020)

In France, the oldest radio programme is called "La Tribune des critiques de disques" (The Record Reviewer's Tribune). Three specialists *blindly judge* several interpretations of the same work. 

For "Daphnis et Chloé", they had the choice between (obviously, they are not supposed to know which versions have been chosen for selection): 

- Montreal Symphony Orchestra, dir. Charles Dutoit (Decca, 1980)
- Les Siècles, ed. François-Xavier Roth (HM, 2016)
- Boston Symphony Orchestra, dir. Charles Munch (RCA, 1955)
- Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Pierre Boulez (DG, 1994)
- London Symphony Orchestra, dir. Claudio Abbado (DG, 1988)
- Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra, dir. Riccardo Chailly (Decca, 1994)

It was the latter who got their votes.

A summary of the comments:
"From the outset the strings take up too much space, overloading the teeming polyphony of the winds. And then where's the heat and flame? Charles Dutoit and his Orchestre symphonique de Montréal deliver a monolithic Daphnis et Chloé.

Brass instruments that are a bit extinct, a ballet made of assemblages rather than moved by a grand line; we would like, in François-Xavier Roth's intimate and tightened Ravel, more coherence and organic link.

Are we in a kitschy postcard? Or plunged into the heart of Ravel's spells? Charles Munch and his Boston phalanx have character, but the sound recording makes the whole thing a bit messy. This Daphnis and Chloe seems to fly over, without any internal necessity, and Daybreak leaves him hungry.

Throughout the listening, we are divided on Pierre Boulez's Ravel. Certainly the timbres of the Berliners compete in opulence and sensuality, but there is a kind of restraint in this Daphnis, a disembodied aspect and too little invested dramatically for hearts to capsize. A superb work of goldsmith nevertheless.

The Ravel by Claudio Abbado and the LSO takes a while to blossom, with an Introduction and a Religious Dance as if painted in gouache. And then it comes to life - the Daybreak flows with murmurs and heady tones, while the Final Dance, like a black sun, unleashes lightning and danger, in a frenzy that sets the Ravel palette ablaze. 

From the very first bars, drama and mystery lurk in the shadows: Riccardo Chailly sets a masterful crescendo, exalting the bewitching timbres of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw. The cleverly conducted narration offers a three-dimensional Daphnis: Daybreak, supernatural and melancholic at the same time, unfolds flamboyant images, until a final exultation that is truly jubilant."

Well, it's worth what it's worth, but it's still interesting.
Hope it helps.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jul 10, 2020)

Horvath said:


> Three specialists *blindly judge* several interpretations of the same work.




Egads! "Blindly judge" must be a Freudian slip. And I don't know what they mean by "specialists," but these reviews sound distinctly like music critic-speak. The odd exception notwithstanding, hardly any music critic can weigh in on the tangibles when it comes to music. I think they avoid even trying to do so because on the rare occasion that they _do_ venture into to more concrete territory, they run the risk of screwing the pooch. The only good music critics, such as Tovey, were/are accomplished musicians themselves.

You'll see a review where, for example, the critic praises the conductor for bringing out a certain element or instrument from the texture, and yet the score clearly shows that the composer _didn't want that at all_. And even if you take a huge leap of faith and assume that the critic heard right in the first place, it might very well not have been the conductor's doing at all.

Critics seem not to consider that there are dozens of musicians on that stage, and that the tens of thousands of details one hears in a performance do not flow directly from the conductor. It also escapes them that what one hears in a performance is influenced by where you're sitting in the hall (or how the performance was recorded), plus which the fact that conductors adjust tempos to suit the venue.

It's irksome that a lot of these critics think they know the score better than the conductor and the musicians, but that's why their reviews are essentially an exercise in paging through Roget's Thesaurus and picking out whatever they think makes them sound musically perceptive.


----------



## Horvath (Jul 10, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> Egads! "Blindly judge" must be a Freudian slip. And I don't know what they mean by "specialists," but these reviews sound distinctly like music critic-speak. The odd exception notwithstanding, hardly any music critic can weigh in on the tangibles when it comes to music. I think they avoid even trying to do so because on the rare occasion that they _do_ venture into to more concrete territory, they run the risk of screwing the pooch. The only good music critics, such as Tovey, were/are accomplished musicians themselves.
> 
> You'll see a review where, for example, the critic praises the conductor for bringing out a certain element or instrument from the texture, and yet the score clearly shows that the composer _didn't want that at all_. And even if you take a huge leap of faith and assume that the critic heard right in the first place, it might very well not have been the conductor's doing at all.
> 
> ...


The


----------



## Horvath (Jul 10, 2020)

Criticism of criticism is like a form of acme of criticism. The very interesting point of this program is that the listener listens to the excerpts in question at the same time as everyone else. Time to make up one's own opinion and to weigh it against the opinions of "professional" critics. And therefore to make their own inner discussion. It is even possible to vote for one's favourite version. You know how we like to discuss things over here. Anyway, I appreciate that the oldest radio show is about this subject which is like a bottomless pit, but also always an opportunity to discover things. The "best version" obviously doesn't exist.


----------



## nolotrippen (Jul 10, 2020)

I always liked the Charles Dutoit/Montreal Symphony Orchestra. Also the Charles Munch/Boston Symphony if you can find it.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 10, 2020)

Another vote for Charles Dutoit/Montreal Symphony Orchestra!


----------



## Rory (Jul 10, 2020)

Re post #32,


Gene Pool said:


> Egads! "Blindly judge" must be a Freudian slip. And I don't know what they mean by "specialists," but these reviews sound distinctly like music critic-speak.



It may be helpful to know that France Musique is a public broadcaster and that the radio programme in question, _La Tribune des critiques de disques, _is made for a general rather than academic audience. The presenter of the show, including the Daphnis et Chloé segment, has a significant music background, but his three guests and "judges" for that segment don't. They are not music critics. They are journalists with an interest in music. One of them writes on cultural subjects generally for La Croix, a Catholic newspaper. It appears that another now works for the Paris record store Gilbert Joseph. A third is a music journalist and blogger who has worked with a variety of publications.

When I lived in France, I occasionally listened to the show for pleasure, not for academic instruction. The show shouldn't be taken overly seriously. It is, and is intended to be, entertainment.

For those who understand French, and want to hear it, the Daphnis et Chloé segment is on the France Musique site at https://www.francemusique.fr/emissi...es-de-disques/daphnis-et-chloe-de-ravel-64566

If the summary in post #32 reads like it was generated by Google Translate, it's because it apparently was. The original summary, in French, is at https://www.francemusique.fr/musiqu...re-version-de-daphnis-et-chloe-de-ravel-64886

Cheers


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 10, 2020)

Audiophiles (often non musicians) generally have numerous recordings of any given work. I probably have 10 Mozart 41’s. For any number of reasons, numerous elements can be highlighted in the recording due to conductor preference, hall acoustics, or even the tuning of individual players. Rubato and Ritardando can be taken with much variance and on and on. It is these variations that are precisely what the attraction is since they can be revelatory as to hidden gems by the composer or just a different take. Even so, few avid listeners would not be able to name their few or even single favorite recording(s) of a work.

In the case of us students, a recording in which {for example} the winds are out in front far more than intended (as indicated by the orchestration and dynamic markings) gives us the opportunity to hear exactly what’s on the page - wrong as it may be. I’ve found that beneficial as a learning tool but a misty, hazy texture by Debussy where the winds are deliberately made indistinguishable is not generally the kind of thing you want punched up by close miking and digital recording.

More recordings are better than few generally speaking. It’s also hard to miss with a good record guide such as Jim Svejda’s.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jul 10, 2020)

Dave Connor said:


> For any number of reasons, numerous elements can be highlighted in the recording due to conductor preference, hall acoustics, or even the tuning of individual players.



Indeed. Comparing versions is fun. Dutoit's version of _Le Sacre_ vs. Rattle's, etc. I used to have a recording of Elgar's _Nimrod_ that was a real outlier—and odd—in terms of its very slow tempo, but it was still interesting in and of itself.

Comparing period performances with those played by modern instruments and proportions is instructive. I tend to like the period recordings better if the piece is pre-Romantic, but Gardiner's _Symphonie Fantastique_—what with the ophicleide and gut strings and all—is actually my favorite.

I prefer correctly adjusted timpani parts for Romantic period pieces, but sometimes it's still interesting to hear the original part in comparison.

The worst recordings for score study are the ones swimming in reverb, which is too bad, because sometimes it's a really terrific performance. I don't know what people are thinking with those really swimmy recordings.

Live recordings are good (except for the coughing) since they capture the mistakes. Edited recordings can give a false sense of perfection sometimes.


----------



## Rory (Jul 10, 2020)

I’d like to see this, Esa-Pekka Salonen’s final concert, at Royal Festival Hall, as Principal Conductor of the Philharmonia Orchestra. Note the last piece on the programme:

June 10, 2021

RAMEAU Castor and Pollux Suite

SALONEN Gemini (European premiere)

— Interval —

*RAVEL Daphnis and Chloé* (complete ballet)


----------



## KEM (Jul 11, 2020)

I’d love to be able to study these scores but I can’t read sheet music...


----------



## Gene Pool (Jul 11, 2020)

KEM said:


> I’d love to be able to study these scores but I can’t read sheet music...



There's a cure for that now.


----------



## KEM (Jul 11, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> There's a cure for that now.



Elaborate...


----------



## jononotbono (Jul 11, 2020)

KEM said:


> I’d love to be able to study these scores but I can’t read sheet music...



Don't feel disheartened because you can’t read sheet music. I’m hardly a poster boy of musical knowledge and theory but I learned how to read basic sheet music and I’m still learning. Just start and practise and then you’ll be reading scores in no time. Even just reading 1 bar at a time. Little kids that have Piano lessons learn how to read (it’s actually how I learned many years ago) so it won’t take long man! You need to learn intervals, keys (learn the circle of 5ths) scales, chords (just learn maj, min, Aug and dim to start with. Then 7ths) and musical symbols/terminology that you find in sheet music. I mean, there’s tons of stuff you can learn but just getting a handle on the stave (of staff as Americans say) different clefs, musical Symbols, terminology used on a score, note names. You’ll be opening the flood gates of knowledge in no time.

Go for it man. No one else is gonna do it for you! And yes, it’s painful at first, in fact it’s constantly painful but everytime I learn something and suddenly something “clicks”, it feels like such a freeing experience. Understanding how something works. Something you probably already know how to do but without explanation. Anyway, I’m really not an authority on this stuff but I am trying to get better.


----------



## ed buller (Dec 19, 2021)

You are brave!. Daphnis is an Orchestral Smorgasbord !

Good book:






also really wonderful youtube's :



best

ed


----------



## Nando Florestan (Dec 19, 2021)

A recording I really like is with the Orchestre National de France with Eliahu Inbal. It is almost without reverb, which somehow works great for this work, you can hear everything.

I also like the 2nd suite (which is really the final third of the work) with Bernstein / NYPO. Wonder if he recorded the whole thing...

I have only one Daphnis that I dislike -- it's one recorded without choir.

I would urge you to buy a CD or something -- streaming, generally speaking, has too low a sound quality for this kind of music. I wouldn't want to hear Daphnis with lots of dynamic range compression, just to start with.


----------

