# Ravel on Bartok, now i know why he chuckled



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I came across something , many trs ago, can't recall exactly how it went, foggy memory,,,,but it went like this 
*Ravel would sit around the radio on late Saturday afternoon, for the weekly radio broadcast of CM,,and when Bartok came on, he could not resist making snides, chuckles and grimace , at what Bartok was making*…
Something of this order the articale went on to describe..anyone know the scenario of what Ravel felt about his great contemporary Bartok?

I bring this up, as I scanned through SQ 4 and 6,,,and at certain places, I could understand why the great Ravel made these tongueincheek jokes about his great contemporary.

I can only image how hilarious Ravel was , while listening, enduring the SQ's on the radio.
Ravel 'only left us 1 sq, but is that 1 SQ superior to any 1 of Bartok's 6?
From start to finish, Ravel does have these repetitious tinkerings going on,,,fluff, gimmickery. So often found throughout Bartok...Don't get me wrong, I like all Bartok's 6 sq,s …..having at least 4 full sets. 
But Ravel has greater ideas, movement, range of colors. 

So I guess I am asking, which of Bartok's 6, matches in craftmanship, the Ravel SQ?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Different animals. How do you compare a rhino with a hippo? Which is "better"?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

KenOC said:


> Different animals. How do you compare a rhino with a hippo? Which is "better"?


NAILED IT sir


So,,,,so,,,like yeah, 2 majors, composing in different styles, contemporaries.

A rhino on the land, he is king, a hippo in the river he too is now king.

But seriously, Bartok has no passages as ornamental , beauteous as ravel's, middle movements, , can you say *gorgeous* about any Bartok Passage in any of the 6?

I'd describe Bartok in greys , browns, steely, hard chisled, sharp edges,,whereas Ravel in pink, light blue hues, rainbows. Rounded, nothing square, every passage a surprised,,Bartok at times is likea stuck LP, the neddle caught in the grooves.

Ravel is less wordy, more concisive , . Bartok has more mystery, and errieness, something froma strange land, yet earhy, 
Ravel is more celestial, golden. Bartok darker.

Both interesting,,,,,Bartok gives us 6 sq;s, Ravel only just 1.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Sorry,,,maybe its just me,,,but I don't hear any of Bartok's 6, achieving the structure and charms, offered in Ravel's lone SQ.

Don't get me wrong,,i am not saying I don;'t like all of Bartok's 6 SQ's. I love them all.
But what I am saying if only 1 gets the prize, it is Ravel,,,so maybe Ravel lost the 1905 paris Prize at the conservatoire,,,here in his SQ, he takes 1st prize as awarded by me in 2019.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Feel free to counter with any of Bartok's SQ's.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

At least Bartok's quartets 4 and 5 are way more complex and revelatory than Ravel's quartet, and at least #4 is still structurally tight. I like Ravel's quartet, it is moody and brilliant, it doesn't try to be as edgy as Bartok's.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Ravel's came first in 1903, then Bartok's 1st came 5 years later. Bartok's 1st SQ is similar in many ways to the Ravel with its lyricism and long melodic lines... I prefer Bartok's 1st over the Ravel because of its starker more basic honesty, its tighter structure, and sense of emotional tension and dissonance. But the two SQs are quite similar in quality though in certain places I find the Ravel somewhat emotionally cloying, and there's none of that in the Bartok 1st.

Of course, the question is how far would have Ravel had gotten if there had been no Debussy? And yet some listeners like to ridicule Bartok because his SQs might have been influenced by Ravel... Bartok did far more with the SQ than Ravel ever did despite Ravel writing at least one fine one... It's easy to compare the Bartok 1st with the Ravel and the similarities are essentially immediate but Bartok kept evolving in his SQs and IMO far exceeded Ravel in his innovative developments and evolution that became far more complex, dissonant and modern. Just compare the Bartok 5th SQ with the Ravel. If anyone had the last laugh, it was probably Bartok.

Why not compare Ravel's SQ with Debussy's which was written 10 years earlier? Bartok was known for being far more influenced by Debussy than Ravel, and here is Debussy preceding Ravel by years and it could be argued that Bartok's 1st was more influenced by the Debussy SQ that has much stronger and more forceful lines than the Ravel:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I can imagine the composer of _Bluebeard's Castle_ having a good laugh over _Daphnis and Chloe_ or _La Valse._


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

I find Fauré's string quartet much more beautiful and profound than Ravel's. Bartok's six aren't even on the same planet...



paulbest said:


> But seriously, Bartok has no passages as ornamental , beauteous as ravel's, middle movements, , can you say *gorgeous* about any Bartok Passage in any of the 6?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I've never heard that story and I have my doubts as to its authenticity. Ravel didn't often criticize the music of other contemporary composers and he was just as likely to criticize his own.

I do like Ravel's String Quartet more than any of Bartok's, but Bartok's are all excellent and he composed more of them, so I'll call it a draw.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

paulbest said:


> at certain places


Which places?



paulbest said:


> I could understand why the great Ravel made these tongueincheek jokes about his great contemporary.


Why?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Why must people start threads for the specific purpose of denigrating composers?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Why must people start threads for the specific purpose of denigrating composers?


Fragt nicht weiter! Ich bin müde


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRHgYBWf21E
> 
> So I guess I am asking, which of Bartok's 6, matches in craftmanship, the Ravel SQ?


This one:






And the others.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is just not fair on poor Ravel to compare his quartet with those of one of the absolute greatest masters of the form. Ravel's quartet is a fine work and the comparison might make it seem less than it is.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> At least Bartok's quartets 4 and 5 are way more complex and revelatory than Ravel's quartet, and at least #4 is still structurally tight. I like Ravel's quartet, it is moody and brilliant, it doesn't try to be as edgy as Bartok's.


Excellent post/ SPOT ON


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> Ravel's came first in 1903, then Bartok's 1st came 5 years later. Bartok's 1st SQ is similar in many ways to the Ravel with its lyricism and long melodic lines... I prefer Bartok's 1st over the Ravel because of its starker more basic honesty, its tighter structure, and sense of emotional tension and dissonance. But the two SQs are quite similar in quality though in certain places I find the Ravel somewhat emotionally cloying, and there's none of that in the Bartok 1st.
> 
> Of course, the question is how far would have Ravel had gotten if there had been no Debussy? And yet some listeners like to ridicule Bartok because his SQs might have been influenced by Ravel... Bartok did far more with the SQ than Ravel ever did despite Ravel writing at least one fine one... It's easy to compare the Bartok 1st with the Ravel and the similarities are essentially immediate but Bartok kept evolving in his SQs and IMO far exceeded Ravel in his innovative developments and evolution that became far more complex, dissonant and modern. Just compare the Bartok 5th SQ with the Ravel. If anyone had the last laugh, it was probably Bartok.
> 
> Why not compare Ravel's SQ with Debussy's which was written 10 years earlier? Bartok was known for being far more influenced by Debussy than Ravel, and here is Debussy preceding Ravel by years and it could be argued that Bartok's 1st was more influenced by the Debussy SQ that has much stronger and more forceful lines than the Ravel:


Excellent, excellent post,


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Why must people start threads for the specific purpose of denigrating composers?


No , not true at all, I am gathering many great insights into the historical context of the Ravel, Debussy, Bartok SQ's. 
A lot of great posts which opens understanding of the 2 masters, along with Debussy's SQ,,which I am not so sure its as brilliant as Ravel;s.

Bartok's 6 are more complex overall, vs the Ravel, but the latter can boast more memorable passages and perhaps more beauty. Bartok's are edgy and sharp. 
As tdc above mentioned, through Ravel only wrote 1 and Bartok his 6, Ravel offers more beauty and charms. 
Bartok's are bleak, Ravel is valleys, streams, passing clouds. 
Even draw.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> This one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You see, just because Bartok wrote iin sucha difficult manner, does not equate to hreatness. 
To play this 6th, with success, the artists must be old school virtuoso...m Its too difficult for success with just your average group. 
Which is why I bought all available Bartok recordings, and still am not sure which I prefer most.

There is something about Bartok's SQ which make way too many demands on the quarter,,,too acrobatic and tricky.

Mistakes show up so blantaly, the 4 must mesh absolutely perfectly in order that no KINKS and wrinkles show up.

Which is why there is no definitive set available, 
All the 4 major recordings offer something the others do not...I like the Bartok SQ,s but honestly can not say I love it as Ravel's can be loved. 
Again as tdc correctly points out, if one adds up all 6 Bartok's SQ, s to the lone Ravel, 
it is a 
even 
draw.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> At least Bartok's quartets 4 and 5 are way more complex and revelatory than Ravel's quartet, and at least #4 is still structurally tight. I like Ravel's quartet, it is moody and brilliant, it doesn't try to be as edgy as Bartok's.


The final movement of the Ravel seems "edgy" to me.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I believe the Bartok's SQs are considered edgy and sharp, which I cannot take, because they're too often played that way by those who think they're supposed to be played that way, except perhaps by the Hungarian Ramor SQ... and that's why they're always my first choice... I believe these SQs were not intended to be played harshly… but with an honest sense of dissonance where written - not strident, edgy and sharp in a way that ruins them and is unnecessarily off-putting to too many listeners ... And what a difference as authentic performances by a Hungarian SQ who understood Bartok as a Hungarian composer: https://www.amazon.com/Bartok-Ramor-Quartet-Béla-Bartók/dp/B004ZPGTJW


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I agree I think. Bartok is as much about "strange beauty" as edgy banging and thumping. There is a story (I hope I remember it correctly) of Bartok giving a masterclass in one of his pieces. One of the students launched into the work with lots of percussiveness only to be stopped by Bartok who asked him to be a little more lyrical and a little less Bartokian.


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

Are you sure about this Ravel listening to the radio anecdote. How much Bartok was broadcast on the radio before say 1932 ?
Sound apocryphal
Ravel was suffering from serious brain disease from 1932 till his death.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

God I miss you Paul...


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

Sounds very dubious . Radio broadcasting only started in mid 1920s . At the time Bartok was not that famous. By 1932 Ravel was suffering brain problems and had given up composition . It seems highly unlikely that Ravel ever heard Bartok on the radio.


----------



## Doctor Fuse (Feb 3, 2021)

Ravel is a frustrated Hollywood composer (style stye style - where's my paycheck?), Bartok is a scientist of music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

If someone favors Ravel's String Quartet over one or more by Bartok, that's okay. If one favors one or more of Bartok's string quartets over the one by Ravel, that's okay, too.

Me? I'm glad we have string quartets by both Ravel and Bartok.

(I'm also glad we have tragedies by both Shakespeare and Racine, lyric poetry by both Catullus and Heinrich Heine, sculpture by both Rodin and Alexander Calder, photographs by both Ansel Adams and Steve McCurry, sonnets by both Petrarch and Gwendolyn Brooks, novels by both Charles Dickens and Cormac McCarthy, landscape paintings by both John Constable and John Turner, opera by both Wagner and Puccini ....)


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Apples and oranges, my friends. The comparison of Ravel's only SQ and Bartók's six doesn't make any sense. As for what Ravel thought about Bartók, does it make any difference to anyone here if he liked/disliked his music?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Dubious thread.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> Apples and oranges, my friends. The comparison of Ravel's only SQ and Bartók's six doesn't make any sense. As for what Ravel thought about Bartók, does it make any difference to anyone here if he liked/disliked his music?


But you can compare apples and oranges. Apples are green or red, oranges are . . .



Neo Romanza said:


> As for what Ravel thought about Bartók, does it make any difference to anyone here if he liked/disliked his music?


Not interested to just know that Ravel didn't like it. But I would be interesting to know why. Then maybe I would understand more clearly why the Bartok was special in the context of its creation. Understand the effects of the Bartok on the community of music lovers it was aimed at.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It is always revealing to have the authentic views of one composer on another--I have diligently tried to find any mention at all of Bartok by Prokofiev or vice versa and have been assured by one of Prokofiev's biographers that he also is not aware of any. But Prokofiev was a fan of Ravel and once commented that Ravel was "the only composer in France who knows what he is doing." The views of amateurs? Not so interesting.......


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> It is always revealing to have the authentic views of one composer on another--I have diligently tried to find any mention at all of Bartok by Prokofiev or vice versa and have been assured by one of Prokofiev's biographers that he also is not aware of any. But Prokofiev was a fan of Ravel and once commented that Ravel was "the only composer in France who knew what he was doing." The views of amateurs? Not so interesting.......


Yes, it _can_ be amusing to read what other composers thought about about other composers, but my point is does knowing a composer's thoughts about another composer change your own opinion of the music? Most likely it doesn't. If it does, then you are easily lead by what you read instead of what you actually hear and what's in your heart/mind.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Neo Romanza said:


> Yes, it _can_ be amusing to read what other composers thought about about other composers, but my point is does knowing a composer's thoughts about another composer change your own opinion of the music? Most likely it doesn't. If it does, then you are easily lead by what you read instead of what you actually hear and what's in your heart/mind.


I agree. In my case, at any rate, my interest is entirely prurient--my opinion of the commenter or of his subject remains unchanged. I think most people have the same view--our own opinions trump those of others regarding the merits of a composer or of whis/her works.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> Yes, it _can_ be amusing to read what other composers thought about about other composers, but my point is *does knowing a composer's thoughts about another composer change your own opinion of the music?* Most likely it doesn't. If it does, then you are easily lead by what you read instead of what you actually hear and what's in your heart/mind.


A reasonable question but kind of beside the point here since no one has cited a credible source for the story in the OP. Until someone does I'll assume it's a fabrication. Why would someone make something like that up? Because making a sock-puppet out of Ravel is easier than earning credibility for ones own opinions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

As I remember him, the originator of this thread was notorious for grading composers according to his own eccentric and incomprehensible criteria, placing them in competition with one another, and issuing tough - though disconcertingly affable, if not positively slap-happy - condemnations of history for issuing verdicts opposed to his. It finally drove insane enough sincere people, sucked into his private universe despite themselves, to seal his fate.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> As I remember him, the originator of this thread was notorious for grading composers according to his own eccentric and incomprehensible criteria, placing them in competition with one another, and issuing tough - though disconcertingly affable, if not positively slap-happy - condemnations of history for issuing verdicts opposed to his. It finally drove insane enough sincere people, sucked into his private universe despite themselves, to seal his fate.


Have to say that you knew paul best.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

premont said:


> Have to say that you knew paul best.


I see you're on good form!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> Yes, it _can_ be amusing to read what other composers thought about about other composers, but my point is does knowing a composer's thoughts about another composer change your own opinion of the music? Most likely it doesn't. If it does, then you are easily lead by what you read instead of what you actually hear and what's in your heart/mind.


Well knowing what Ravel thought may prompt someone to change their hearts/minds. This recently happened to me. I read something by Michael Finnissy about Edvard Grieg, it prompted me to revisit the music and, for the first time, I saw his reworking of folk materials as really very exciting.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Ravel on Bartok, now i know why he chuckled*
__________________________________________



paulbest said:


> ...
> So I guess I am asking, which of Bartok's 6, matches in craftmanship, the Ravel SQ?





KenOC said:


> Different animals. How do you compare a rhino with a hippo? Which is "better"?





Doctor Fuse said:


> Ravel is a frustrated Hollywood composer (style stye style - where's my paycheck?), Bartok is a scientist of music.





KenOC said:


> Different animals. How do you compare a rhino with a hippo? Which is "better"?





SONNET CLV said:


> If someone favors Ravel's String Quartet over one or more by Bartok, that's okay. If one favors one or more of Bartok's string quartets over the one by Ravel, that's okay, too.
> 
> Me? I'm glad we have string quartets by both Ravel and Bartok ...





KenOC said:


> Different animals. How do you compare a rhino with a hippo? Which is "better"?





Strange Magic said:


> It is always revealing to have the authentic views of one composer on another ...





KenOC said:


> Different animals. How do you compare a rhino with a hippo? Which is "better"?


Perhaps we should all just stand back -- _way_ back -- and let _them_ decide this one for themselves:


----------

