breaking down Ravel's Bolero
timbo59
I'm trying to impart my love of classical music to my
young children, and have introduced them to a number of works that I
myself loved as a child. One that I thought would be ideal as an
introduction to the range of instruments in the orchestra was Ravel's
Bolero, and they did in fact love it's repetitive themes and gradual
climax. Only problem was that I found myself stumped on a few
occasions when asked to name some of the solo instruments that were
playing! Funny, I've listened to the piece for something like 40
years, and though I've often had a fairly solid idea of the identity
of each of the instruments I've never really taken the trouble to
ascertain the exact breakdown of the piece.
Could someone in the know offer up a dissection of the Bolero for me,
section by section, so that I can confidently tell my children exactly
what instrument or section of the orchestra they're listening to as we
work our way through the whole recording? It would be much
appreciated, I can assure you.
It's an odd work, isn't it, in that I've rarely heard a composition
that was so open to a vast range of interpretations, particularly
where the tempo and final crescendo are concerned. I've gone backwards
and forwards through the years listening to a variety of different
recordings, and somehow always come back to Bernstein's interpretation
of the work. I understand that the composer himself released a
recording of the composition that was perfectly in tune (pun intended)
with his stated preference for a slow tempo, but I've yet to come
across it.
Thanks in advance........Tim
Peter T. Daniels
Is there a reason you can't go to a library and get a score?
I've always meant to find out what the orchestration is in the
variation that sounds like an organ stop.
The work is famous for lasting 18 1/2 minutes -- there was a fad for
playing 18 1/2-minute-long pieces during the Watergate hearings, and
radio stations of course had catalogs of pieces by timings.
Pete Granzeau
Ravel himself claimed Bolero was "seventeen minutes of orchestration
without music", so I guess some conductors perform it somewhat slower
than Ravel intended.
Michael Haslam
> variation that sounds like an organ stop.
It involves doubling the melody at the 12th and the 17th, in the manner
of a sesquialtera or cornet stop. Only really works with component
sounds that aren't very rich in harmonics themselves, such as piccolos
or diapason or flute organ pipes. You can occasionally get away with it
on the piano; in fact I did it in the Carlyle to imitate a low clarinet
solo.
--
MJHaslam
Remove accidentals to obtain correct e-address
timbo59
> >The work is famous for lasting 18 1/2 minutes -- there was a fad for
> >playing 18 1/2-minute-long pieces during the Watergate hearings, and
> >radio stations of course had catalogs of pieces by timings.
>
> Ravel himself claimed Bolero was "seventeen minutes of orchestration
> without music", so I guess some conductors perform it somewhat slower
> than Ravel intended.
In actual fact the work is more famous - or infamous, as Ravel would
have it - for the fact that many a conductor has forced the tempo to
such an extent that the piece has been performed in as little as 12 -
13 minutes. Toscanini, in the most notorious example, pushed the pace
so markedly that he offended the composer, who was sitting in the
audience. When he defended his actions by claiming that the increased
tempo was the only way to make to piece work the composer bristled at
him and simply told him if he couldn't comply with the slower tempo to
leave the composition alone.
Doesn't look like anyone is familiar enough with the orchestration to
help me with the break down, so it does indeed seem as if I'll have to
make the sojourn to a library or music store to obtain the score.
Thanks anyway.
Tim
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've always meant to find out what the orchestration is in the
> > variation that sounds like an organ stop.
>
> It involves doubling the melody at the 12th and the 17th, in the manner
> of a sesquialtera or cornet stop. Only really works with component
> sounds that aren't very rich in harmonics themselves, such as piccolos
> or diapason or flute organ pipes. You can occasionally get away with it
> on the piano; in fact I did it in the Carlyle to imitate a low clarinet
> solo.
Well, Ravel gets away with it on the orchestra, and I want to know
how. It usually sounds to me like what on a French organ would be
called a chalumeau -- a reed stop intended to imitate a clarinet's low
register, but with consistent timbre all the way up.
So, could you do the Rhapsody clarinet squeal on the piano by doubling
at the 12th and 17th? How many hands does it take?
Michael Haslam
>
> Doesn't look like anyone is familiar enough with the orchestration to
> help me with the break down, so it does indeed seem as if I'll have to
> make the sojourn to a library or music store to obtain the score.
>
> Thanks anyway.
Well, to be honest, it would be quite unusual to remember the exact
order of the instrumental solos. And that order isn't the limit of the
"musical story"; the orchestration of the accompaniment is equally
important and possibly uses more skill. I know that horn players
[hornists] find the ostinato quite challenging; I mention it because you
might not notice, as a listener, the moment when the horn starts but it
is a pivot point in the piece. In other words you won't do yourself any
harm by getting a good look at the score; you'll find much to wonder at.
Catulle Mendès
The first few solos are:
Flute
Clarinet
bassoon
E flat (piccolo) clarinet
Oboe d'amore
Flute an octave higher than the 1st time plus muted trumpet
tenor sax
sopranino sax (last few notes taken by soprano sax)
Then (Ravel the orchestrator rolls up his sleeves):
Horn plays the melody in C, piccolo plays in G above and another
piccolo in E above that. Plus celesta playing in C in octaves, which
is barely audible in most recordings and the concert hall, but
definitely part of the organ-like effect.
After that, a succession of ensembles in which the individual timbres
are irrelevant but sectionally the instruments are exquisitely
calulated. There's a trombone solo in there as well, somewhere. And
the strings entry on the melody is an effective moment.
Here's a link to a pdf of the score if you're interested:
timbo59
I wholeheartedly agree about the strings. Their grand entrance on the
piece, especially after the succession of solo voices and small
ensembles have done their bit to build the work up, really makes an
impressive statement. Even after all these years, it's still the part
of the Bolero I always anticipate the most.
It's an odd work in that it elicits such divided opinions on its
merits. You either love it or loath it, or so it seems. Personally I
think too many people get lost and bored by the repetitive theme and
rhythm of the dance and forget to simply relax and listen to the
various instruments and sections of the orchestra lend their own
distinctive voices to the work.
Peter T. Daniels
> Thanks Catulle, very much appreciated.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree about the strings. Their grand entrance on the
> piece, especially after the succession of solo voices and small
> ensembles have done their bit to build the work up, really makes an
> impressive statement. Even after all these years, it's still the part
> of the Bolero I always anticipate the most.
Not the jarring key change near the end?
> It's an odd work in that it elicits such divided opinions on its
> merits. You either love it or loath it, or so it seems. Personally I
> think too many people get lost and bored by the repetitive theme and
> rhythm of the dance and forget to simply relax and listen to the
> various instruments and sections of the orchestra lend their own
> distinctive voices to the work.
The first time I saw it, the four snare drummers were stationed around
the orchestra in baseball-diamond layout. The principal percussionist
was at home plate, directly in front of the cunductor.
It was very effective.
The second time, they were just in the kitchen in the back.
Both were at Grant Park, so the first one was probably either Leonard
Slatkin or Zdenek Macal, the second probably Hugh Wolff.
Peter T. Daniels
You've solved years of wondering! The celesta would be imitating the
chiff.
> After that, a succession of ensembles in which the individual timbres
> are irrelevant but sectionally the instruments are exquisitely
> calulated. There's a trombone solo in there as well, somewhere. And
> the strings entry on the melody is an effective moment.
>
> Here's a link to a pdf of the score if you're interested:
>
> http://download.yousendit.com/F5E902160096294B-
Thanks! I wonder whether Finale's OCR module will be able to interpret
it.
Michael Haslam
> On Nov 8, 7:02 am, timbo59 <wildepuzz...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Catulle, very much appreciated.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree about the strings. Their grand entrance on the
> > piece, especially after the succession of solo voices and small
> > ensembles have done their bit to build the work up, really makes an
> > impressive statement. Even after all these years, it's still the part
> > of the Bolero I always anticipate the most.
I think the strings are playing in parallel, not exact transpositions of
the melody as in the horn-2piccs-celeste version but diatonic harmony,
if you see what I mean.
>
> Not the jarring key change near the end?
>
> > It's an odd work in that it elicits such divided opinions on its
> > merits. You either love it or loath it, or so it seems. Personally I
> > think too many people get lost and bored by the repetitive theme and
> > rhythm of the dance and forget to simply relax and listen to the
> > various instruments and sections of the orchestra lend their own
> > distinctive voices to the work.
>
> The first time I saw it, the four snare drummers were stationed around
> the orchestra in baseball-diamond layout. The principal percussionist
> was at home plate, directly in front of the cunductor.
Ravel wrote only for two.
Michael Haslam
> > piccolo in E above that. Plus celesta playing in C in octaves, which
> > is barely audible in most recordings and the concert hall, but
> > definitely part of the organ-like effect.
>
> You've solved years of wondering! The celesta would be imitating the
> chiff.
I've played the celeste in concert and *I* couldn't hear the celeste!
Adam Matlock
Not to be obnoxious, but insofar as pieces designed to familiarize a
listener with the components of the orchestra, Britten's "A Young
Person's Guide to the Orchestra" and Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf
are better options. Both, I would also say, are somewhat more tonally
interesting than Bolero (although I love the Ravel).
no
Prai Jei
<1i79j3m.1u3zp6n15w5f8hN%innat...@macflat.com>:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Horn plays the melody in C, piccolo plays in G above and another
>> > piccolo in E above that. Plus celesta playing in C in octaves, which
>> > is barely audible in most recordings and the concert hall, but
>> > definitely part of the organ-like effect.
>>
>> You've solved years of wondering! The celesta would be imitating the
>> chiff.
>
> I've played the celeste in concert and *I* couldn't hear the celeste!
I've only ever heard it in the D of the SPF. Never knew it was used anywhere
else!
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Prai Jei
<1194411673.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
> The work is famous for lasting 18 1/2 minutes -- there was a fad for
> playing 18 1/2-minute-long pieces during the Watergate hearings, and
> radio stations of course had catalogs of pieces by timings.
Why that particular timing? What's the Watergate connection? (I'm a Brit so
I'm not instinctively familiar with the nuances of US culture.)
Allen
> Peter T. Daniels (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message
> <1194411673.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> The work is famous for lasting 18 1/2 minutes -- there was a fad for
>> playing 18 1/2-minute-long pieces during the Watergate hearings, and
>> radio stations of course had catalogs of pieces by timings.
>
> Why that particular timing? What's the Watergate connection? (I'm a Brit so
> I'm not instinctively familiar with the nuances of US culture.)
Oval Office (the president's office in the White House).
Allen
Peter T. Daniels
> Prai Jei wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message
>
> >> The work is famous for lasting 18 1/2 minutes -- there was a fad for
> >> playing 18 1/2-minute-long pieces during the Watergate hearings, and
> >> radio stations of course had catalogs of pieces by timings.
>
> > Why that particular timing? What's the Watergate connection? (I'm a Brit so
> > I'm not instinctively familiar with the nuances of US culture.)
>
> There was a gap of that length in some tapes of conversations in the
> Oval Office (the president's office in the White House).
One tape. Precisely where the most incriminating conversation
presumably occurred.
Peter T. Daniels
> Michael Haslam (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message
>
> > Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Horn plays the melody in C, piccolo plays in G above and another
> >> > piccolo in E above that. Plus celesta playing in C in octaves, which
> >> > is barely audible in most recordings and the concert hall, but
> >> > definitely part of the organ-like effect.
>
> >> You've solved years of wondering! The celesta would be imitating the
> >> chiff.
>
> > I've played the celeste in concert and *I* couldn't hear the celeste!
>
> I've only ever heard it in the D of the SPF. Never knew it was used anywhere
> else!
The pianist in the Grant Park Symphony frequently had a celesta at
right angles to the piano. Exactly once, I noticed her playing piano
right hand and celesta left hand simultaneously. (Sorry, I don't
remember the work!)
Don Salad
>
> > The first time I saw it, the four snare drummers were stationed around
> > the orchestra in baseball-diamond layout. The principal percussionist
> > was at home plate, directly in front of the cunductor.
>
> Ravel wrote only for two.
Yabbut since his time, they've also developed knobs that go up to 11!
Thanks,
Don
Biscuits and Books
news:1194648365.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
An underaged girl reportedly spilled out her love of Dick on that tape and
Nixon erased it for the good of the counrty.
But seriously, when the jury heard that tape, they reported hearing hiss and
several pops where the Record had been re-engaged. It would be like
listening to a tape of Cage's 4'33" made by Dick.
But why make Bolero last 18½ minutes? I've heard it that way and it's way
slow. (Maurice's brain lesion at work?)
Biscuits and Books
news:1i788xk.1kb6ch6rng7l5N%innat...@macflat.com...
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've always meant to find out what the orchestration is in the
>> variation that sounds like an organ stop.
>
> It involves doubling the melody at the 12th and the 17th, in the manner
> of a sesquialtera or cornet stop. Only really works with component
> sounds that aren't very rich in harmonics themselves, such as piccolos
> or diapason or flute organ pipes. You can occasionally get away with it
> on the piano; in fact I did it in the Carlyle to imitate a low clarinet
> solo.
The opening and closing measures of the 1st movement of Ives's 4th Violin
Sonata has the piano mimicking organ pipe chords. I scored it for an
academic ensemble and gave the chord to: Low Bb, one bassoon and one Bass, F
above that to bass clarinet, and the D above that to <!> bass (really tenor)
flute. The sound is quite remarkable.
The Ravel is a marvelous piece of orchestrational work. Ravel's
orchestration of ""Pictures at an Exhibition" is another good piece for
showing off an orchestra to the young.
Biscuits and Books
news:0b54j3t11i0b22u3i...@4ax.com...
>
> Ravel himself claimed Bolero was "seventeen minutes of orchestration
> without music", so I guess some conductors perform it somewhat slower
> than Ravel intended.
Even then it can drag. Fourteen minutes seems better to many.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Allen wrote:
>>> Prai Jei wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels (or somebody else of the same name) wrote:
>>>>> The work is famous for lasting 18 1/2 minutes -- there was a fad for
>>>>> playing 18 1/2-minute-long pieces during the Watergate hearings, and
>>>>> radio stations of course had catalogs of pieces by timings.
>>>> Why that particular timing? What's the Watergate connection? (I'm a
>>>> Brit so
>>>> I'm not instinctively familiar with the nuances of US culture.)
>>> There was a gap of that length in some tapes of conversations in the
>>> Oval Office (the president's office in the White House).
>> One tape. Precisely where the most incriminating conversation
>> presumably occurred.
> An underaged girl reportedly spilled out her love of Dick on that tape and
> Nixon erased it for the good of the counrty.
>
> But seriously, when the jury heard that tape, they reported hearing hiss and
> several pops where the Record had been re-engaged.
What does that have to do with classical music, Biscuit and Books? How
ironic, considering that you just finished writing:
"There is no discussion of any music here because tholen has
destroyed the group with his obsession to ANSWER EVERY POST ."
--Biscuit and Books
It's your obsession with politics that motivated you to respond with
the above, Biscuit and Books, and nothing to do with me, as evidenced
by the absence of any involvement from me prior to this point.
> It would be like
> listening to a tape of Cage's 4'33" made by Dick.
>
> But why make Bolero last 18½ minutes? I've heard it that way and it's way
> slow. (Maurice's brain lesion at work?)
Classic contradiction. You just finished writing:
"There is no discussion of any music here because tholen has
destroyed the group with his obsession to ANSWER EVERY POST ."
--Biscuit and Books
when in fact there has been discussion of some music, Biscuit and Books.
Biscuits and Books
news:1194530313....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 3:35 am, Catulle Mendčs <tonyandst...@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
> Here's a link to a pdf of the score if you're interested:
>
> http://download.yousendit.com/F5E902160096294B-
Thanks! I wonder whether Finale's OCR module will be able to interpret
it.
Just be warned, it's 50 megs.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Michael Haslam wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> I've always meant to find out what the orchestration is in the
>>> variation that sounds like an organ stop.
>> It involves doubling the melody at the 12th and the 17th, in the manner
>> of a sesquialtera or cornet stop. Only really works with component
>> sounds that aren't very rich in harmonics themselves, such as piccolos
>> or diapason or flute organ pipes. You can occasionally get away with it
>> on the piano; in fact I did it in the Carlyle to imitate a low clarinet
>> solo.
> The opening and closing measures of the 1st movement of Ives's 4th Violin
> Sonata has the piano mimicking organ pipe chords. I scored it for an
> academic ensemble and gave the chord to: Low Bb, one bassoon and one Bass, F
> above that to bass clarinet, and the D above that to <!> bass (really tenor)
> flute. The sound is quite remarkable.
>
> The Ravel is a marvelous piece of orchestrational work. Ravel's
> orchestration of ""Pictures at an Exhibition" is another good piece for
> showing off an orchestra to the young.
"There is no discussion of any music here"
--Biscuit and Books.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Pete Granzeau wrote:
>> Ravel himself claimed Bolero was "seventeen minutes of orchestration
>> without music", so I guess some conductors perform it somewhat slower
>> than Ravel intended.
> Even then it can drag. Fourteen minutes seems better to many.
Pluto
If you don't have anything relevant to say, why bother replying to him?
Especially why bother jumping in on a thread that had nothing to do with him?
You should just plonk him.
Biscuits and Books
news:fhfo4f$5la$1...@news.datemas.de...
If Aspergered Dave plonked anyone, he'd never be able to digest them and
respond to every line like a trained monkey. He can't say anything about
music when a refutation is to be made! MUST RESPOND!!!
Sit up and post a reply, Dave! I'll give you a nice treat! Yummy!!! A
nice book biscuit for you!
Biscuits and Books
collapse!
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:473b6317$0$16529$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Biscuits and Books <Cheney_d...@eatlinks.net> wrote:
>>> Pete Granzeau wrote:
>>>> Ravel himself claimed Bolero was "seventeen minutes of orchestration
>>>> without music", so I guess some conductors perform it somewhat slower
>>>> than Ravel intended.
>>> Even then it can drag. Fourteen minutes seems better to many.
>> "There is no discussion of any music here"
>> --Biscuit and Books.
>>
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> If you don't have anything relevant to say, why bother replying to him?
The key word here is "if".
> Especially why bother jumping in on a thread that had nothing to do with him?
Classic erroneous presupposition.
> You should just plonk him.
That wouldn't stop him from making unsubstantiated and erroneous claims,
Pluto.
tho...@antispam.ham
> You missed a post, Dave.
Who is "Dave", Biscuits and Books? Having attribution problems?
> Better find it and respond lest your world collapse!
Classic erroneous presupposition.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Catulle Mendčs wrote:
>> Here's a link to a pdf of the score if you're interested:
> Thanks! I wonder whether Finale's OCR module will be able to interpret
> it.
>
> Just be warned, it's 50 megs.
"There is no discussion of any music here"
--Biscuit and Books
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Pluto wrote:
>>> Biscuits and Books <Cheney_d...@eatlinks.net> wrote:
>>>> Pete Granzeau wrote:
>>>>> Ravel himself claimed Bolero was "seventeen minutes of orchestration
>>>>> without music", so I guess some conductors perform it somewhat slower
>>>>> than Ravel intended.
>>>> Even then it can drag. Fourteen minutes seems better to many.
>>> "There is no discussion of any music here"
>>> --Biscuit and Books.
>>>
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> If you don't have anything relevant to say, why bother replying to him?
>> Especially why bother jumping in on a thread that had nothing to do with
>> him? You should just plonk him.
> If Aspergered Dave plonked anyone, he'd never be able to digest them and
> respond to every line like a trained monkey. He can't say anything about
> music when a refutation is to be made! MUST RESPOND!!!
Who is "Aspergered Dave", Biscuits and Books? There is nobody in this
newsgroup using that alias.
> Sit up and post a reply, Dave! I'll give you a nice treat! Yummy!!! A
> nice book biscuit for you!
Who is "Dave", Biscuits and Books? Still suffering from attribution
problems, Biscuit and Books?