# First Review: How Ravel Orchestrated: Mother Goose Suite



## Peter Alexander (Oct 18, 2006)

Peter:

All I can say is fantastic! My students, and I were completely
enthralled by the analysis you provided, as well as the score with
the included piano part. Two of the students are jazz majors and were
very excited about how Ravel was approaching harmonization from a
chord/scale jazz harmony perspective. They really started to make a
connection with Ravel's approach and what they have been learning in
arranging class for big band; especially the jazz harmonization and
line writing aspect of the score.

The piano part at the bottom of the score is a great teaching tool
for orchestration students. All of my students stated that they would
like to see more scores presented in this format. They all felt that
they were gaining a better understanding on how Ravel approached
orchestrating this movement because of the piano part that was
included in the score.

The next time I teach my orchestration class, this will be required
reading for all of my students, it is that good. I love the new
approach.


Rik Pfenninger
Plymouth State University

For More Information:
http://www.truespec.com/ravel-orchestrated-mother-goose-suite-p-410.html (http://www.truespec.com/ravel-orchestra ... p-410.html)


----------



## PolarBear (Oct 18, 2006)

So what's about sampling here, Peter Alexander? It's about orchestration, and maybe some who are intereseted won't find it here as they are looking in the other forum section...

Regards,
PolarBear


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 18, 2006)

I moved it to Composition, Orchestation and Technique section (shadow left in original location, will direct to here).

Nice work Peter! Ravel is one of my favorites from the French Impressionism phase of music - some approaches which are still being used today in film scoring, including veterans John Williams, Alan Silvestri and Don Davis - giving credence to review some of the older masterpieces and apply them to today's music. 

My opinion is that Ravel, Saint-Saëns, Debussy and Griffes were of the caliber of geniuses - a golden age of orchestral masterpieces spawned by extending outside of the basic triad also include seventh, ninths, elevenths and thirteenths with all their variations and alternations. Its cool that the jazz people could see the merit of Ravel but orchestral composers would also benefit.


----------



## sbkp (Oct 18, 2006)

I just ordered it.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Oct 19, 2006)

A couple of years ago I read a Ravel biography - incredible that he was not perceived as the genius he is/was in his own time... Mother Goose is one my favourite suites, there is no need for any images with this "score" - it is a musical and visual film in itself.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 20, 2006)

sbkp @ Wed Oct 18 said:


> I just ordered it.



Thank you!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 20, 2006)

PolarBear @ Wed Oct 18 said:


> So what's about sampling here, Peter Alexander? It's about orchestration, and maybe some who are intereseted won't find it here as they are looking in the other forum section...
> 
> Regards,
> PolarBear



Are you referring to the word "sample" as used on the web page? If so, in this context, a "sample" is an excerpt or a review page from the printed score.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 20, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Wed Oct 18 said:


> I moved it to Composition, Orchestation and Technique section (shadow left in original location, will direct to here).
> 
> Nice work Peter! Ravel is one of my favorites from the French Impressionism phase of music - some approaches which are still being used today in film scoring, including veterans John Williams, Alan Silvestri and Don Davis - giving credence to review some of the older masterpieces and apply them to today's music.
> 
> My opinion is that Ravel, Saint-Saëns, Debussy and Griffes were of the caliber of geniuses - a golden age of orchestral masterpieces spawned by extending outside of the basic triad also include seventh, ninths, elevenths and thirteenths with all their variations and alternations. Its cool that the jazz people could see the merit of Ravel but orchestral composers would also benefit.



Thanks, Frederick.

There are many dramatic scoring lessons in this work that once you get into it, you see how much Williams, Goldsmith and others "borrowed" from Ravel and applied these concepts to their own compositions and orchestrations.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Oct 22, 2006)

Peter, I sent message to Truespec but didn´t receive any reply so far...I need to nkow, is it all downloadable???Also, where´s the Percy Goetschius downloadable books???I see only the shipping opition there!!!


----------



## PolarBear (Oct 22, 2006)

Peter Alexander @ Fri Oct 20 said:


> PolarBear @ Wed Oct 18 said:
> 
> 
> > So what's about sampling here, Peter Alexander? It's about orchestration, and maybe some who are intereseted won't find it here as they are looking in the other forum section...
> ...


I think we understand each other.

All the best and thanks for the heads up!
PolarBear


----------



## re-peat (Oct 22, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Thu Oct 19 said:


> My opinion is that Ravel, Saint-Saëns, Debussy were of the caliber of geniuses


Frederick,

I don't wanna come off too pedantic - and if I do, I apologize -, but Saint-Saëns doesn't belong to what is called 'the impressionist period' in (French) music. He's from a generation earlier and he in fact hated most of the 'impressionist' music. Saint-Saëns was first and foremost a 'classicist'.
And you're the first person I know of, who ranks him among the geniuses in music: all that Saint-Saëns is remembered for these days, is one symphonic poem ('Dance Macabre'), one symphony (the 'If I Had Words' 3rd Symphony), one opera (Samson & Delilah), one lightweight ditty ('Carnaval Des Animaux'), a few concertos (among them, the nice 2nd piano concerto) and some lovely music for violin. Most of his other output however is considered pretty forgettable today. Incredibly educated man though.

_


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 22, 2006)

Point taken. Its ironic that he didn't like the impressionistic period but ends up being grouped with the impressionists - its a common mistake and I should have reworded my sentence to distinguish the point. Still, I really like some of his music - not all, but there are some great highlights I really admire about his writing and use of orchestration.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 22, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Sun Oct 22 said:


> Its ironic that he didn't like the impressionistic period but ends up being grouped with the impressionists - its a common mistake.


True. A miscategorisation probably caused in part by the fact that the French struggled a bit with their musical identy towards the end of the 19th century, the post-Berlioz period, just before Debussy and Ravel would shine their magical light on Western music: during those pre-impressionist years, Richard Wagner had split - all on his own - the whole of musical Europe into two firmly opposed camps: pro and contra. The French, by nature, were usually contra (Saint-Saëns being a controversial exception), but couldn't really escape Wagner's overpowering presence either, which resulted in some uncharacteristic confusion among the French composers. It would take the massive genius of Debussy to successfully blend Wagner's many innovations with a thoroughly French idiom and with his own revolutionary instincts about harmony & melody to bring music into the new century.
Which brings me to the reason why Ravel is - in some circles at least - often ranked second to Debussy: compared to Debussy, Ravel is, in much of his music, considered to be a more superficial stylist. 
_


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 22, 2006)

leogardini @ Sun Oct 22 said:


> Peter, I sent message to Truespec but didn´t receive any reply so far...I need to nkow, is it all downloadable???Also, where´s the Percy Goetschius downloadable books???I see only the shipping opition there!!!



We're deciding about Mother Goose. The downloadables on PG haven't been posted yet because of issues with the alexander site's shopping cart. If you want something specific, just e-mail Caroline and she'll set it up for you.

I apologize for the delay.

Peter


----------



## charles (Oct 22, 2006)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 22 said:


> Frederick Russ @ Sun Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Its ironic that he didn't like the impressionistic period but ends up being grouped with the impressionists - its a common mistake.
> ...



But what importance is categorization? Your categorization is based on what you perceive as reality.

In order for statements like the above to have any real significance a prior question needs to be asked.

It’s hard not being an American in this Post-Modernistic wash of futility called Capitalism, life was so simple here in Australia in the past, we had skippy the bush kangaroo, wombats, koala’s, gee, I am getting all nostalgic.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 23, 2006)

Charles,

Excuse me, but I don't understand _anything_ of what you're saying. 



charles @ Mon Oct 23 said:


> But what importance is categorization? Your categorization is based on what you perceive as reality.


I merely wanted to point out that Saint-Saëns doesn't belong to the group of composers we conveniently call 'the impressionists'. That's all. It's got nothing to do with 'what I perceive as reality.' 
I agree that there's little intrinsic value in categorisation, but it can prove very useful nonetheless, for instance when one needs some structure in an historic overview or when one wants to communicate some general information about a certain composer. Example: placing Anton Webern in the 2nd Viennese School is a very sensible categorisation, cause then you immediately know where and when to situate the composer, no?



charles @ Mon Oct 23 said:


> (...) In order for statements like the above to have any real significance a prior question needs to be asked.


What question is that then?

_


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 23, 2006)

Peter Alexander @ Fri Oct 20 said:


> Frederick Russ @ Wed Oct 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I moved it to Composition, Orchestation and Technique section (shadow left in original location, will direct to here).
> ...



I've been pouring over your Professional Orchestration book - its a great deal and a wealth of information. You must have spent a very long time compiling this. I'm still waiting to get the email so I can check out the examples online? Let me know, thanks.


----------



## charles (Oct 23, 2006)

re-peat @ Mon Oct 23 said:


> Charles,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Categories and identity in Art are Political constructs. This is what I meant about a prior question.
What Political construct does the category give power to?
Identity and Power are closely correlated.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 23, 2006)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 22 said:


> And you're the first person I know of, who ranks him among the geniuses in music: all that Saint-Saëns is remembered for these days, is one symphonic poem ('Dance Macabre'), one symphony (the 'If I Had Words' 3rd Symphony), one opera (Samson & Delilah), one lightweight ditty ('Carnaval Des Animaux'), a few concertos (among them, the nice 2nd piano concerto) and some lovely music for violin. Most of his other output however is considered pretty forgettable today. Incredibly educated man though.
> 
> _



Actually, Robert Jourdain in his book _Music, The Brain and Ecstacy_ wrote that "history's greatest prodigy'' was not Mozart but Camille Saint-Saens, who ''was a perfect 10 in every observable talent,'' but who in his 86-year life failed to fulfill his unique promise. (he failed to write the "mother of all compositions")

Saint-Saens was a gifted painter, poet, mathematician... and he was also a gifted composer. He had perfect pitch and his first piano recital was given at age five, when he accompanied a Beethoven violin sonata. He had stunned even Wagner himself when he sight-read the entire orchestral scores of Lohengrin, Tristan und Isolde, and Siegfried, prompting Hans von Bülow to call him "the greatest musical mind" of the era.

So, I think it's not a stretch to "rank him among the geniuses in music".

My opinion.

T


----------



## re-peat (Oct 23, 2006)

T,

I know of Saint-Saêns' most impressive arrival on the world's musical stage as a 'wunderkind', but that doesn't make him automatically a genius, does it? 
We would of course first have to agree on what constitutes a 'musical genius' before carrying on with this discussion in a sensible manner, but whatever our definition(s) may be, a wunderkind does not always blossom into a genius. Take Mendelssohn or Korngold for instance, both child prodigy's of amazing capabilities yet both somehow never able to completely fullfill that spectacular promise. Highly distinguished and incredibly talented composers, certainly, but geniuses? I don't think so. And to me, Saint-Saëns, as a composer, is not even in the same league as either Mendelssohn or Korngold. But yeah, he was definitely a most exceptionnal human being, no doubt about that. And I do love some of his music.

Charles,

Still don't have a clue about what you're getting at, I'm affraid. Or how it relates to me saying that Saint-Saëns doesn't belong to the 'impressionists'. _A simple correction based on convenient classification_, that was my only intention. In any case: nothing to do with perception, identity, reality or 'prefabricated icons for consumption'.
I'm well aware that Debussy absolutely hated it to be labelled an 'impressionist' (just like most of his composing or painting contemporaries did, as a matter of fact). But as inadequate as that label may be, it somehow stuck - as labels tend to do - and that being the case, it is today a helpful tool when looking back on, or talking about, the history of music.
When I tell someone, who learns about music, that Ravel is considered 'an impressionist', that is - I think - a lot more informative to him/her, than when I say that Ravel is a French composer who lived between 1875 and 1937. Wouldn't you agree?
Likewise, when someone (who's insights I respect), tells me that a certain piece of music, which I haven't heard yet, is 'serial' in style & concept, I will immediately have some idea of what to expect. Again: this has got nothing to do with identity or reality (perceived, manufactured or otherwise) or with something of 'a political nature', but is merely an example of 'abstract and informative classification'. An often painful simplification, no doubt, but helpfull nonetheless.

_


----------



## lux (Oct 23, 2006)

Cant get the point of this "genius" assigment problem. There are so many things to consider in judging a composer that, usually, everything goes to personal. Trying to demonstrate someone is not a genius implies same failure when trying to determinate what makes a genius.

Fortunately music concerns emotional sides, fun, violence, love and whatever. Match races between composers are usually left to criticians. Nothing wrong but soccer talking gives me more satistaction.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 23, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Mon Oct 23 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Fri Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Frederick Russ @ Wed Oct 18 said:
> ...



It was sent to you on October 13th from our Alexander Publishing address. As a courtesy, she resent you another login tonight from our TrueSpec account and extended your subscription. Please contact Caroline directly if you can't find it.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 23, 2006)

Thanks Peter. I found the email from Caroline and am trying the Naxos resource for the first time. What an incredible resource it is! How is it possible to have so many of these examples online? This make the course complete imo.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 24, 2006)

lux @ Mon Oct 23 said:


> (...) Fortunately music concerns emotional sides. (...)


Lux,

Not all music. In fact, in the very best music, there's little room for anything _but_ music. Great music can only be great (and appreciated fully) on strictly musical grounds. We may indulge in a certain amount of emotional dressing if we like (nothing wrong of course with simply enjoying a nice piece of music and allowing it to stir up all kinds of emotions), but from that moment on, we no longer are listening to the music purely for what it is. Put differently, truly great music is always _absolute_ music, completely detached from any emotional connotations. 
All this might seem to wander very off-topic, but in fact it ties rather nicely in with the subject of this thread: Maurice Ravel, who was extremely suspicious of any emotion imposed on his music. "I don't like my music to be interpreted, it's enough for it to be played", he once said.

_


----------



## lux (Oct 24, 2006)

re-peat @ Tue Oct 24 said:


> lux @ Mon Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Fortunately music concerns emotional sides. (...)
> ...



Piet, I see what you mean. And partly agree with you. Risk is, usually, agreeing parameters and there begins the real difference between individuals. Too many times in the past, and today, music has been judged using personal parameters elevated to rules. This applies to every genre of music.

My conception is that you can parametrize music on a "constructive" side, but it doesnt work as inverse. So you can use parameters to show why a certain opera should be appreciated, and mostly why you appreciate it. I cant understand though when something, unless its a complete failure both emotionally, as form and structure, is deconstructed on the same basis. Personally i feel this leads to dangerous labels, as many composers in the past had to deal with. Music is full of examples as poor Copland, considered too simple and popular for a whole life. Not to talk about the jazz scenario where the discussion is endless. And too much times rules do concern the harmonic/tonal realm.

So I agree that we use parameters other than just emotions, probably best should be never consider too much those parameters as rules to deconstruct music and consider it poor.

Luca


----------



## synergy543 (Oct 27, 2006)

And now back to your regularly scheduled topic title....

Actually, Ravel originally wrote this piece for piano four hands*. So technically the single piano version is a reduction to which the orchestration is being compared. I've never seen the four hands version published but it might be interesting to compare. Although, I wonder if the four hand version would tell anything about his orchestral intentions or just how he split it between two pianos?

*According to Dover "Le Tombeau de Coupern" and other works for solo piano by Marice Ravel


----------



## synergy543 (Oct 28, 2006)

Hi Peter,

Thank you for the interesting and enlightening information. And I'm glad to hear there will be a four-hand pdf version too. I've ordered the book and can't wait to have it arrive.

Cheers,

Gregory D. Moore


----------

