BaL 07.06.25 - Mussorgsky: Pictures at an exhibition

[seabright]

If you care to click the Wiki link below and scroll down to Arrangements and Orchestrations you get an enormous list which takes up several screens. It has to be the most-arranged piano work ever written, though as the BAL is of the original I guess there'll be little or no mention of any of them ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictures_at_an_Exhibition

[oliver sudden]

the BAL is of the original

We don’t quite know that yet do we? The page still doesn’t say anything about versions and while it’s true that a literal interpretation of the information available ought to indicate that it will be the actual Mussorgsky under discussion I am somehow wary of complacency on this front.

[oliver sudden]

Now I wouldn’t want to be thought of as some kind of purist killjoy (I’m happy to _be_ one, but, er, anyway…) so in the interest of fairness I should point out that we have the absolutely superb Ančerl recording of the Ravel arrangement spinning here now and a range of ages from 3 to 54 are enjoying it immensely.

[CallMePaul]

Claire Chevalier has recorded Pictures on a Becker piano of the type Musorgsky would have known and played. It has made me see the piece in a new light and would be my recommendation.

For me, Ravel's orchestration takes much of the Russian quality away from the original - I have seen it described (don't know where) as "French polishing". If an orchestral version is wanted, why do we rarely if ever hear one by a Russian (Tushmalev, Funtek or Ashkenazy perhaps)?

On a semantic note, the composer's name should be rendered as "Musorgsky" ot "Mussorgskiy" - there is only on "s" (Cyrillic looks like Roman "c") in the name and I assume that the double s was originally a German transliteration. Also, Pictures from an Exhibition" is a more accurate translation of the Russian title.

When I wrote the above, I was under the impression that Funtek was a Russian based in Finland. He was in fact a Slovene and I apologise for my error. Lev Leonardi was another Russian who produced an orchestration that was once popular but has now fallen by the wayside. I should also point out that orchestrations made before 1932 used, out of necessity, a corrupt version of the piano original. In 1931, Pavel Lam published an edition based on Musorgsky's autograph. The autograph was made available in 1975 and is in the St Petersburg library.

[oliver sudden]

Indeed nowadays the autograph can be consulted from the convenience of any internet-capable device…

https://imslp.org/wiki/Pictures_at_a...gsky%2C_Modest)

[gurnemanz]

I also mostly prefer to listen to the piano original. Came across very impressively at a recent local lunchtime concert. I have a few versions:

Lazar Berman DG 1979
Shura Cherkassky x 2 Live Wigmore 1982 BBC Legends, and Nimbus 1981 - studio
Sviatoslav Richter - Sofia 1958 and Naples 1969
Vladimir Horowitz - x 2 in the Original Jackets Box, 1947 and 1951
Jenö Jandó 1988 - thanks to a recent freebie monthly download from Naxos. Very good but oddly no track markers for individual movements.

I do have several recordings of Ravel's orchestration, including Toscanini, but clear favourite is an only recently acquired Naxos from the Ukraine National Symphony Orchestra under Theodore Kuchar, recorded in Kyiv in 2001, of which Ivan March wrote in Gramophone:

"This is a quite remarkable CD on all counts - outstandingly fine orchestral playing, vividly exciting and very Russian music-making, and a very tangible sound picture, consistently in the demonstration bracket."

[Goon525]

Emerson Lake and Palmer’s version acted as my bridge from rock into classical music, circa 1972. It caused me to seek out what I thought was the original, ironically of course the Ravel. 53 years later I’ve listened to a helluva lot more classical than rock, so I owe ELP (worth a listen, by the way) a debt of gratitude.

[oliver sudden]

Emerson Lake and Palmer’s version acted as my bridge from rock into classical music, circa 1972. It caused me to seek out what I thought was the original, ironically of course the Ravel. 53 years later I’ve listened to a helluva lot more classical than rock, so I owe ELP (worth a listen, by the way) a debt of gratitude.

My corresponding debt of gratitude is to the Tomita, which my father had and which was one of my first classical experiences. Then came the Ravel live in concert, which was spellbinding to a lad of 11 or 12 or so. Pictures was one of the first pieces of which I had multiple recordings, and it all sort of went from there.

[richardfinegold]

Emerson Lake and Palmer’s version acted as my bridge from rock into classical music, circa 1972. It caused me to seek out what I thought was the original, ironically of course the Ravel. 53 years later I’ve listened to a helluva lot more classical than rock, so I owe ELP (worth a listen, by the way) a debt of gratitude.

Same experience here

[CallMePaul]

I was very disappointed (to put it mildly and politely) to hear Andrew McGregor, at the end of today's BAL, say that this BAL was discussing the Ravel orchestration, not the piano original nor any of the other orchestrations. I assume that this is because it is the Ravel sesquicentenary this year. However, as I said earlier in this thread, I feel that the work loses much of its Russianness in this version, also Ravel used a corrupt version of the piano score, mutilated (as with so much of Musorgsky's work) by Rimsky-Korsakov. I am far more interested in the piano original and would like to hear a discussion of this at some point. Am I alone in my thoughts on this work?

[Pulcinella]

I was very disappointed (to put it mildly and politely) to hear Andrew McGregor, at the end of today's BAL, say that this BAL was discussing the Ravel orchestration, not the piano original nor any of the other orchestrations. I assume that this is because it is the Ravel sesquicentenary this year. However, as I said earlier in this thread, I feel that the work loses much of its Russianness in this version, also Ravel used a corrupt version of the piano score, mutilated (as with so much of Musorgsky's work) by Rimsky-Korsakov. I am far more interested in the piano original and would like to hear a discussion of this at some point. Am I alone in my thoughts on this work?

As a contributor to some of the better episodes, Nigel Simone (makropulos) might disagree, but this to me is more evidence of how BaL has outlived its worth: shortened, broadcast when no one is around to listen (are you the only forumite to have heard today's programme?), and in general not providing enough expertise/quality assessment or selection (short shortlists!) to be given much credit or be of great appeal.

[edashtav]

I was very disappointed (to put it mildly and politely) to hear Andrew McGregor, at the end of today's BAL, say that this BAL was discussing the Ravel orchestration, not the piano original nor any of the other orchestrations. I assume that this is because it is the Ravel sesquicentenary this year. However, as I said earlier in this thread, I feel that the work loses much of its Russianness in this version, also Ravel used a corrupt version of the piano score, mutilated (as with so much of Musorgsky's work) by Rimsky-Korsakov. I am far more interested in the piano original and would like to hear a discussion of this at some point. Am I alone in my thoughts on this work?

I’m with you. I have tired of Ravel’s toothless orchestration.

[Wolfram]

As a contributor to some of the better episodes, Nigel Simone (makropulos) might disagree, but this to me is more evidence of how BaL has outlived its worth: shortened, broadcast when no one is around to listen (are you the only forumite to have heard today's programme?), and in general not providing enough expertise/quality assessment or selection (short shortlists!) to be given much credit or be of great appeal.

In general I agree with all of what Pulcinella has said. But, can I just say what a pleasure it was to listen to RW this afternoon; erudite, informative, deeply knowledgeable, respectful towards his audience by not feeling the need to treat them as if they are not capable of understanding serious musical criticism, recalling the halcyon days of BaL, and R3 broadcasting, at its best.

[Pulcinella]

In general I agree with all of what Pulcinella has said. But, can I just say what a pleasure it was to listen to RW this afternoon; erudite, informative, deeply knowledgeable, respectful towards his audience by not feeling the need to treat them as if they are not capable of understanding serious musical criticism, recalling the halcyon days of BaL, and R3 broadcasting, at its best.

Maybe you could comment on the thread for that episode and hope to kickstart it?
(It's not a work that appeals to me, I'm afraid, so I didn't listen.)
Thanks for your enthusiasm. It's encouraging to know that it was a good BaL.

[oliver sudden]

I was very disappointed (to put it mildly and politely) to hear Andrew McGregor, at the end of today's BAL, say that this BAL was discussing the Ravel orchestration, not the piano original nor any of the other orchestrations. I assume that this is because it is the Ravel sesquicentenary this year. However, as I said earlier in this thread, I feel that the work loses much of its Russianness in this version, also Ravel used a corrupt version of the piano score, mutilated (as with so much of Musorgsky's work) by Rimsky-Korsakov. I am far more interested in the piano original and would like to hear a discussion of this at some point. Am I alone in my thoughts on this work?

I certainly prefer the best performances of the original to the best performances of the Ravel, by a very considerable margin. The Ravel is still of great interest to me, though, and the Ančerl and Cluytens recordings in particular demonstrate that it doesn’t have to be all soft edges—and to be cruel (but hopefully still fair) I’ll certainly take an average performance of the orchestration over an average performance of the original.

But I really am wondering why the Radio 3 website refers to the coming episode simply as ‘Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition’ without even mentioning Ravel. Besides simply being wrong, it seems a bizarre way to pay tribute to the 150th birthday boy not to mention his hand in the proceedings.

(Apt in a roundabout way, perhaps, but somehow I doubt that that was the intention…)