Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-8, Jerry wrote:
> Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
> So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
> Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.

Repetition and variation are intertwined; each implies the possibility of the other. I think Ravel's Bolero offers both.

I can see how a slower tempo, if well played, might allow a better opportunity to appreciate the piece.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-5, Jerry wrote:
> Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in
> the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself,
> probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time.
> It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult
> -to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those
> early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting].
> The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite
> engaging.
> So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the
> slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most
> interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own
> recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be
> sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other
> recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½
> minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have
> it all wrong?
> Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21
> that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never
> again to listen to that piece.

Sergiu Celibidache completely owns the Bolero, lock, stock
and barrel. His last performance of the work is roughly 18+
minutes excluding pre and post applause:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m739p0sFwDs

I listen to the Bolero every morning so I can gradually
wake up without the intrusion of vulgar alarm clocks.
The Bolero is one of the greatest music masterpieces.
Ravel achieves in only 18 minutes what takes Brother
Anton an hour and a half! ;-)

dk

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-8, Jerry wrote:
> Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
> So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
> Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration

Why don't you just say
whatever it is that you
are trying to say ?!?

dk

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
>
> Why don't you just say
> whatever it is that you
> are trying to say ?!?
>
> dk

If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.

On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
>>
>> Why don't you just say
>> whatever it is that you
>> are trying to say ?!?
>>
>> dk
>
> If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
> His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.

It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
> >>
> >> Why don't you just say
> >> whatever it is that you
> >> are trying to say ?!?
> >>
> >> dk
> >
> > If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
> > His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.

In that case you just contradicted yourself.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 9:57:06 PM UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
> >>
> >> Why don't you just say
> >> whatever it is that you
> >> are trying to say ?!?
> >>
> >> dk
> >
> > If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
> > His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.

I sometimes wonder why YouTube isn't made more use of in here. Ravel's own alleged recording of the "Bolero" was uploaded there in 2019 and has already had over 6,000 views. I say "alleged" because there's an essay under the video which states that Albert Wolff had a hand in the recording, though this appears to be something that has already been discussed in the past. At any rate, the timing is just under 16 minutes and strikes me as somewhat lugubrious ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E__RMXWy4Jo

At the other end of the scale, Stokowski's 1940 All-American Youth Orchestra recording at 12 minutes suffers from a low-level transfer and much manipulation of the volume levels for each solo instrument at the start. This was recorded on two 10-inch 78s (four short sides) which doubtless accounts for the tempo adopted ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3o-wiS16jk

As to Celibidache, there are half-a-dozen performances by him on YouTube, with several different orchestras over the years, and with timings ranging from around 17 to 20 minutes, so take your pick! ...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Celibidache+Ravel+Bolero+

Evidently, Toscanini's 14-minute reading didn't please the composer but I think I prefer it to the oh-so-slow versions out there ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiYIiPWZ6cQ

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:05:26 AM UTC-10, Jerry wrote:
> Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
> So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
> Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.

Comparing composer's recording with Koussevitsky's:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Bolero_The_Life_of_Maurice_Ravel/Mbt8CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22he%20only%20element%20of%20variety%20is%20provided%22

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:05:26 AM UTC-10, Jerry wrote:
> Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
> So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
> Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.

https://www.francemusique.fr/en/10-little-things-you-might-not-know-about-ravel-s-bolero-15565

On 12/16/2021 6:01 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just say
>>>> whatever it is that you
>>>> are trying to say ?!?
>>>>
>>>> dk
>>>
>>> If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
>>> His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
>> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.
>
> In that case you just contradicted yourself.

LOL!

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:00:43 -0500, Steven Bornfeld
<dentaltwin@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 12/16/2021 6:01 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you just say
>>>>> whatever it is that you
>>>>> are trying to say ?!?
>>>>>
>>>>> dk
>>>>
>>>> If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
>>>> His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
>>> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.
>>
>> In that case you just contradicted yourself.
>
>
>LOL!

Since the interest in the piece is the varied orchestration, one would
think the more spectacular the recorded sound, the better. So which
performance has the best sonics?

On 12/17/2021 11:00 AM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> On 12/16/2021 6:01 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you just say
>>>>> whatever it is that you
>>>>> are trying to say ?!?
>>>>>
>>>>> dk
>>>>
>>>> If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
>>>> His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
>>> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.
>>
>> In that case you just contradicted yourself.
>
>
> LOL!

(eye-roll)

On 12/17/2021 1:34 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:00:43 -0500, Steven Bornfeld
> <dentaltwin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2021 6:01 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you just say
>>>>>> whatever it is that you
>>>>>> are trying to say ?!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dk
>>>>>
>>>>> If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
>>>>> His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
>>>> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.
>>>
>>> In that case you just contradicted yourself.
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Since the interest in the piece is the varied orchestration, one would
> think the more spectacular the recorded sound, the better. So which
> performance has the best sonics?

Apparently Gramophone doesn't agree, as this review of Bolero recordings, doesn't mention sonics at all.

https://tinyurl.com/2p8ejzea

I don't disagree with what you said, but the quality of the recording is rarely going to be a major factor for me in any recording.

On 12/17/21 12:34 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:

> Since the interest in the piece is the varied orchestration, one would
> think the more spectacular the recorded sound, the better. So which
> performance has the best sonics?

You'd think there would be plenty, and there are so many a recent
Gramophone article overlooked the Dutoit/Montreal effort. The audiophile
faves include Skrowaczewski, Martinon and Munch. The Gramophone prefers
Boulez/NYPO.

On 12/17/2021 3:07 PM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 12/17/21 12:34 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Since the interest in the piece is the varied orchestration, one would
>> think the more spectacular the recorded sound, the better.  So which
>> performance has the best sonics?
>
> You'd think there would be plenty, and there are so many a recent Gramophone article overlooked the Dutoit/Montreal effort. The audiophile faves include Skrowaczewski, Martinon and Munch. The Gramophone prefers Boulez/NYPO.
>

I guess I would expect good sonics from Minnesota/Oue on Reference Recordings.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Frank Berger wrote:

> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
>>>
>>> Why don't you just say
>>> whatever it is that you
>>> are trying to say ?!?
>>>
>>> dk
>>
>> If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it
>> away.
>> His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
>
> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an
> opinion.

Your opinion is correct (in my opinion, of course).
--
Al Eisner

On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 04:05:26 UTC+11, Jerry wrote:
> Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
> So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
> Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.

One of the funniest short films is that by Patrice Leconte, Le batteur du boléro, the link as below.
Bolero is a great piece of music regardless.

https://youtu.be/NCex9IjPNCo

Ray Hall, Taree

> One of the funniest short films is that by Patrice Leconte, Le batteur du boléro, the link as below.
> Bolero is a great piece of music regardless.
>
> https://youtu.be/NCex9IjPNCo
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Also on YouTube are several performances of Bejart's ballet, in which the soloist - whether male or female - has to dance on a table-top, non-stop and bare-foot, while an all-male corps gradually joins in and girates around him or her ... Here is Octavio de la Roza working up a sweat ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkfXZSYzUxA

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-8, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:00:43 -0500, Steven Bornfeld
> <denta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/16/2021 6:01 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>> On 12/16/2021 4:34 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:53 PM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro#Tempo_and_duration
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why don't you just say
> >>>>> whatever it is that you
> >>>>> are trying to say ?!?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> dk
> >>>>
> >>>> If Ravel composed anything less than 1st rate, he tore it up and threw it away.
> >>>> His taste was impeccable. Just my opinion of course.
> >>> It is my opinion that it is not necessary to state that an opinion is an opinion.
> >>
> >> In that case you just contradicted yourself.
> >
> >
> >LOL!
> Since the interest in the piece is the varied orchestration, one would
> think the more spectacular the recorded sound, the better. So which
> performance has the best sonics?

In the early days of stereo, wasn't it Charles LIVING-STEREO Munch vs. Paul LIVING-PRESENCE Paray?

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-8, Jerry wrote:
> Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
> So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
> Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.

(Recent Y. upload):

How It's Done: Ravel Boléro

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 1:07:53 PM UTC-8, number_six wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-8, Jerry wrote:
> > Ravel’s Bolero may be the most maligned work in the orchestral repertoire. So many of you, like myself, probably haven’t given it a listen in quite a long time. It’s just too repetitive. Then I stumbled upon a difficult-to-find CD reissue of a recording that I had during those early pre-stereo LP days [Pedro Freitas Branco conducting]. The sound is surprisingly good and the performance quite engaging.
> > So where’s the paradox? At a timing of 18:36, it may be the slowest ever and, logically, might be expected to be the most interminably boring reading ever. But not so. Ravel’s own recording is said to be slow (I haven’t heard it and can’t be sure of its actual timing), but it appears as if most other recordings seem to fall somewhere between 14 ½ and 15 ½ minutes. Could it be that most conductors these days have it all wrong?
> > Another longish recording is Previn’s LSO on EMI at 17:21 that might be worth considering even if you’ve vowed never again to listen to that piece.
> Repetition and variation are intertwined; each implies the possibility of the other. I think Ravel's Bolero offers both.
>
> I can see how a slower tempo, if well played, might allow a better opportunity to appreciate the piece.

Barbirolli /Halle, on Everest, is a more brisk 15:45.