# Pictures at an Exhibition: Best Format?



## ErFurtwanglert (Nov 24, 2008)

Right now, I have three different arrangements of "Pictures at an Exhibition" by the inimitable Modest Mussorgsky:


The original piano version, performed by Richter

The orchestration (by Ravel, I think) conducted by Salonen and performed by the Philharmonia.

Some kind of weird wind ensemble arrangement that I downloaded (legally, of course) from the internet. No mention of who made the arrangement or even who is conducting, but it is interesting.



Right now I'd have to say I prefer the orchestration, though I like the Richter a lot also, they are so different that it's hard to compare.


So my question is, what are you guys's (yous guys? Maybe if this were Brooklyn...) thoughts on the best arrangement and recording of Pictures.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

An interesting topic... the obvious "general knowledge" answer is that the Ravel orchestration is clearly the most broadly popular version of _Pictures_. That said, the original piano version had its fans (such as my fellow Delaware valley denizen *BuddhaBandit*). I think that rendition must come down to the skills of the performing pianist.

An interesting live-concert version of _Pictures_ I once witnessed featured Leonard Slatkin conducting a "composite version" of varied orchestrations for each section. The most readily memorable was the _Samuel Goldenberg & Schmuyle_ part, where the normal Ravel-orchestration trumpet was replaced by soprano sax. This was framed as a performance-practicality issue, as it's supposed to be a monstrously tough trumpet passage. [I once heard the lead trumpet for a "Big-5" orchestra flub this passage live in performance.]


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

I love Ravel, but I really dislike his arrangement of 'Pictures'. It seems to me that the French and Russian sensibilities are completely at odds. I prefer the piano version any time, although I have to say, Leopold Stokowsky did very effective orchestral arrangements of some of the pieces.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I am a big fan of the piece; the piano version and the many orchestral versions offer great things.

It is often said the piano verison is "earthy" and "wild" and very Russian...these are not the cool strains of a Chopin Nocturne. Hearing the piece played on piano is thrilling for me, especially knowing how hard it is to play.

People also say that Ravel's orchestration is too French and that he makes the music sound to glossy or sugar coated. I disagree with this. His orchestration of Pictures is masterful. He infuses the score with color and excitement, yet, to my ears, the piece still sounds powerful.

Stoky's orchestration is good, but I really like Vladimir Ashkenazy's orchestration. He makes the work really sound VERY Russian, and I think his orchestration is the "purest".


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

What about Emerson Lake And Palmer's rock version? I know it's probably not everybody's favorite but hey, it rocks! (as it should do.)


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

ErFurtwanglert said:


> Some kind of weird wind ensemble arrangement that I downloaded (legally, of course) from the internet. No mention of who made the arrangement or even who is conducting, but it is interesting.


This one?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2758739,00.html?maca=en-podcast_beethovenfest-1531-xml-mrss


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

Lang said:


> I love Ravel, but I really dislike his arrangement of 'Pictures'. .






Lang said:


> It seems to me that the French and Russian sensibilities are completely at odds.


Why? Could you please elaborate?

IMO, the most interesting thing about Ravel's orchestration is that it doesn't sound like Ravel at all, but instead, it looks very much like something Mussorgsky could have written. His piano skills must have been short from spectacular; the piano pieces have nice tunes but that's all, the rest is just octaves and regular chords


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

Well, I am talking about sensibility, so it is difficult to be specific. But a good example occurs at the opening of the final piece. In the piano version there is a pedal Eb against an F major chord, which sounds in the context really dissonant. Ravel leaves out the dissonance altogether.

It seems to me that the Ravel orchestration loses the earthy quality of the original - even when he was trying to be crude, Ravel was by nature refined.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

post-minimalist said:


> What about Emerson Lake And Palmer's rock version? I know it's probably not everybody's favorite but hey, it rocks! (as it should do.)


I love ELP. Yes, their Pictures is a great musical work. Not every original Mussorgsky piece is included, and they add a lot of their own stuff, but it is a great album!!


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

I much prefer the Piano versions to the orchestrations, in particular the recording by Yefim Bronfman a 1990 recording.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> What about Emerson Lake And Palmer's rock version? I know it's probably not everybody's favorite but hey, it rocks! (as it should do.)


Another thumbs up on the ELP version. There's a synth heavy section somewhere around "The Hut of Baba Yaga / the Curse of Baba Yaga" thats summons up images to me of a vast machine metropolis stretching from horizon to horizon with no human remaining. Hey, it's supposed to be pictures, right?


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> That said, the original piano version had its fans (such as my fellow Delaware valley denizen *BuddhaBandit*).


Who, if I may say, has exquisite taste 

I might as well lay out my reasons for my preference. First, Pictures has a very percussive quality that is well-suited to the keystrikes of a piano. Second, the piece was meant to evoke a stroll through a small art gallery. The piano version captures this perfectly- it has grand melodies for grand paintings (The Great Gate of Kiev), but, ultimately, it is a chamber work. The orchestral version, in my opinion, is too "big" to conjure images of an intimate gallery space. Third, the piano version is an important litmus test for aspiring pianists. If a pianist can play Pictures well, he's got serious chops. The Ravel version is not as important for aspiring orchestras (except for that darned trumpet line  ).

Finally, I have a couple of personal reasons. The piano version of Pictures was the first piece I really loved, and is one of my favorite piano works in the repertoire. In addition, I spent almost a year learning to play it (admittedly, not well), and the difficulty of the piece made me decide to start doing piano improv instead of "traditional" study.

Whew. OK, I'm off my soap box.


----------



## Elaryad (Jul 29, 2008)

ErFurtwanglert said:


> So my question is, what are you guys's (yous guys? Maybe if this were Brooklyn...) thoughts on the best arrangement and recording of Pictures.


Solo piano for me.
I have the orchestral version conducted by Abbado but I don't prefer it comparing with the piano version I own.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

I do tend to agree with BB, IMO they are two separate works and perhaps should be treated as such but of course the Piano version is the preferred version for me and therefore ultimately the best


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

Both the orchestral and piano version has their plusses and minuses. 

I love the original piano version for its raw power and energy. It's also much less polished harmonically than the orchestral version. Currently, my favorite recording is the Horowitz version from a Carnegie Hall recital that he gave in the 1950s. It's very controversial because he polished the writing here and there, but it's a tremendously virtuosic performance. It keeps me on the edge of my seat every single time I hear it. 

For the orchestral version, I have a recording with Bernstein and NYPO. It's an excellent recording, but it's just not the same as listening to Horowitz. I haven't heard it in a while and I may have to revisit it soon.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

agoukass said:


> It's very controversial because he polished the writing here and there, but it's a tremendously virtuosic performance.
> .


If you have minimum listening skills you will understand he didn't just _polish the work here and there_.


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

I apologize if I didn't express myself correctly. Yes, there are major differences between the Mussorgsky and the Horowitz version that he performed. 

In "The Great Gate of Kiev," he added an extra base line to sound like tolling bells. This is probably the most prominent place. That and harmonies were probably also changed as well. However, Horowitz did not re-compose "The Pictures at an Exhibition" in the same way as Rimsky-Korsakov re-wrote substantial sections of "Boris Godunov" and "Khovanshchina."


----------



## Mark Emanuele (Nov 18, 2018)

I have just finished my orchestration of "Pictures" for Large Orchestra, Pipe Organ, and Fanfare Trumpets. I have posted the Premier recording on my YouTube Channel. I believe it is the only orchestration to include the ENTIRE work including all of the Promenades. I had been wanting to write my own orchestration of this great piano work ever since my days in college. I got the opportuniry to finally write it while recovering from a very serious illness early this year (2018). I was admitted to a long term rehabilitation hospital for almost 5 months while recuperating, so I started working on it once I got settled at the rehabilitation hospital, and completed it at home in August, 2018. I conducted the premier recording in September, 2018. I was inspired to use a Pipe Organ after hearing a very tallanted young musician named Rachel Flowers performm the opening Promenade on pipe organ. Here is the link to my recording:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I gave a recording of Ashkenazy playing the piano and Previn conducting orchestral version. Also Stoki's arrangement. But the puano works best and I have a number of good recordings including Richter and Horowitz


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

I enjoy both. Orchestra - CSO with either Reiner or Kubelik


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Mark Emanuele said:


> I believe it is the only orchestration to include the ENTIRE work including all of the Promenades.


I'm pretty sure the Gortchakov and Funtek versions include all the Promenades. Probably Ashkenazy's too, I'd have to check. The real question is, which piano edition did you base your orchestration on? Ravel used the Rimsky-Korsakov editing and that means that some of RK's "corrections" are there, also. Looking forward to listening to your work.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

The Ravel orchestration is a masterclass in that particular art. To make a convincing orchestration of a piano work is a very difficult thing to do. That said, I like the Funtek orchestration as well and it's an interesting comparison to the Ravel with an earthier feel in places.

For the piano version, I highly recommend Maria Yudina's 1967 recording (Classound). It has great emotional depth and Yudina's playing is technically astonishing, especially when one considers that she was almost 70 years old when it was recorded.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

ErFurtwanglert said:


> Right now, I have three different arrangements of "Pictures at an Exhibition" by the inimitable Modest Mussorgsky:
> 
> The original piano version, performed by Richter
> 
> ...


Ravel's orchestration is supposed to be the standard, but there are orchestrations by Stowkowski and by Ashkenazy. I also have a set comprised of 15 different orchestrations compiled by Leo Slatkin. I have a set done in piano concerto fashion, one on organ, one with some vocals, one with the Shostakovich Trio (violin, cello, and piano), the Fine Arts Brass Ensemble (trumpets, horn, trombone, and tuba), MA.GR.IG.AL. (bayan accordian and strings: balalika, domra viola, and contrabass). I may have others that I forgot about. Would have to dig them all up. It is a couple fist fulls in my collection.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

If pushed, I'd say I prefer the orchestral format over the original, and Ravel will do for me. That said, Ilike the Leo Funtek version, it's quite dark and far less glamorous than Ravel's, which is quite appropriate, I reckon. Ditto Ashkenazy's.

I recently got hold of a new orchestration by the Slovak conductor etc Peter Breiner. Wow! Really interesting sounds, weirdly modern! Not first choice, but worth hearing.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

While I wouldn't claim that it is better than the Ravel, the Stokowski orchestration has much to commend itself.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Becca said:


> While I wouldn't claim that it is better than the Ravel, the Stokowski orchestration has much to commend itself.


Yeah, I think Stokowski would be my first choice.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I think Ravel did a great job on the orchestration. I love both the original piano and orchestral versions.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

To do justice to a piece as powerful, jarring and suspenseful as this, you need a Bartok orchestration, not Ravel's...

The only version I need:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Merl said:


> I think Ravel did a great job on the orchestration. I love both the original piano and orchestral versions.


The best version I've ever heard was done by Lucien Caillet for Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. But Ormandy apparently liked the Ravel and even though he made a recording of the Caillet, every recording he made later, and every performance, was Ravel. I've talked to the Philly librarian about this, and the Caillet is in really bad shape. The parts are falling to pieces, the score in bad shape. I hope someone rescues it - and then promote it! The Ravel is brilliant, but enough already!


----------

