# String Quartets Like Assez Vif by Ravel?



## arturo

I've been listening to a lot more of Ravel, particularly his string quartet, and I am just smitten with the 2nd movement, Assez Vif. It's so plucky and fresh and I find myself wanting more of that sound. I was wondering if anyone here knew other quartet or chamber (trios, quintets, etc) music that had that kind of sound and feel to it.

Much appreciated!


----------



## Head_case

Yes - there are a lot of Ravellian string quartet fanatics here. That voluptuous youthful summery polka blouse movement is very characteristic, despite Ravel's modelling of the string quartet on the more original and better written Debussy major quartet (the second of which was destroyed).

Answering your question in relation to string quartets only, here are some whom we think share that bill. I won't mention Debussy, which I guess your Ravel string quartet might be coupled with. Maybe you weren't as impressed first off by the more texturally abrasive Debussy quartet, although its second movement is very plucky.

Joseph Jongen:


















Bonnal's string quartet are magical and outstanding:










The Debussy Quatuor is the only recording available. Thank goodness it's recorded by such a great group playing. This is the only recording we need it is that well played.

The Ropartz cycle of six string quartets has finally made it into on CD release. It is not quite as summery with the lightness of youth as the previous two:






The Stanislas Ensemble (and Quartet) play with a refined and convincing sound. I really like them.

His works have a Debussian character as well as a very Francophile turn of the century feel for me.

David Diamond, is one of the American representatives of the post-Ravel influence. His string quartet cycle is expansive, however his idiom is more modern than Ravel, whom he deeply revered:






The Potomac String Quartet Cycle is immaculately played. It is the only cycle to get.

And of course, if you haven't already explored the other dimension of the French string quartets by Magnard; Gounod, Cras - none of whom really share that Ravellian lightness but are equally rewarding, it's time to do so.

Plenty more, but I'm more of a Debussy fan


----------



## Quartetfore

Don`t forget the 1st quartet of Durosoir,and the quick movement of the third Piano Trio of Lalo. I`m glad to have all the the recordings that Head Case listed, but to be honest they all lack one element and that is genius.


----------



## Head_case

> but to be honest they all lack one element and that is genius.


Me too. Which is why I couldn't come up with anything else


----------



## arturo

Thank you for all your suggestions! I particularly like the Diamond quartet, but I can't seem to find recordings of the Jongen or Bonnal pieces. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. And of course I like the Debussy 2nd movement! I just happen to be listening to Ravel more, lately.


----------



## arturo

What movement in particular of the Durosoir do you prefer? I'm listening to the Andante, and while it's really beautiful, it's not exactly Assez Vif-esque. I enjoyed the Lalo trio.


----------



## Quartetfore

I can`t pick out one special movement, its just a very enjoyable work. The Assez vif (2nd movement) the Ravel Piano Trio is outstanding.


----------



## Quartetfore

I think that you might find the Jongen and the Bonnal on Amazon. I know for sure that the Bonnal is there, since thats where I downloaded it from.


----------



## tdc

Head_case said:


> Yes - there are a lot of Ravellian string quartet fanatics here. That voluptuous youthful summery polka blouse movement is very characteristic, despite Ravel's modelling of the string quartet on the more *original* and *better written* Debussy major quartet...


Disagree on both counts. Debussy modeled his quartet on Grieg's Quartet, (though Debussy's turned out different), Ravel's Quartet is also very different than the Debussy. The two Quartets have very different forms and very different feels. Ravel's SQ is to my ears one of his better works and on a very high level of composition, I prefer it to pretty much anything Debussy wrote, and I very much enjoy Debussy, he is a top ten composer for me. Regardless of personal taste I find your comment as inaccurate and outdated as saying Ravel and Debussy sound the same.


----------



## jurianbai

You can try d'Indy string quartet no.1. Movement 3 and 4 are great in this spirit.


----------



## tdc

Oh and in response to the OP you won't find anything else anywhere like the Assez Vif in Ravel's SQ. It is a _one of a kind_.


----------



## Head_case

tdc said:


> Disagree on both counts. Debussy modeled his quartet on Grieg's Quartet, (though Debussy's turned out different), Ravel's Quartet is also very different than the Debussy. The two Quartets have very different forms and very different feels. Ravel's SQ is to my ears one of his better works and on a very high level of composition, I prefer it to pretty much anything Debussy wrote, and I very much enjoy Debussy, he is a top ten composer for me. Regardless of personal taste I find your comment as inaccurate and outdated as saying Ravel and Debussy sound the same.


Interesting opinion ..although it isn't historically founded.

Debussy's string quartet, like Ravel, who openly professed his admiration for Grieg's works, were both influenced by Grieg - not modelled.

A fascinating question, for anyone to refute that Debussy's string quartet was the most original string quartet in French literature to answer: where do you think impressionism came from in the French string quartet, if not from Debussy? Grieg's string quartet - no listener in any mind would call 'impressionism' btw. If you understood the structure of the Debussy quartet, you would see that he is more indebted to Cesar Franck for the cyclical principle - this much is evident in Debussy's work.

As for Ravel - as a student of Faure, whose conservatory students had all tried in vain to pen a string quartet like Debussy's string quartet - and failed - it took Ravel to eventually pen it almost 10 years after the original Debussy string quartet which transformed the French string quartet landscape. Although Ravel failed to win the Prix de Rome, Debussy certainly appreciated his work.

Mark de Voto's scholarly essay 'Debussy and the Veil of Tonality' makes it clear that your assumption does not stand: the Debussy quartett is the defining start of French impressionism before the end of the 19th century par excellence: de Voto goes on to demonstrate in his analysis, that Ravel lifted Debussy's string quartet form and its motifs. We do not see Debussy's string quartet's impressionism oweing anything to Grieg: he transforms it. However Ravel's impressionistic string quartet, shares many features in common with Debussy's: he had 10 years to study it, and it was the very talk of the society around him.

In any case, Debussy was more gracious about Ravel's string quartet than I am. He exhorted to Ravel: 'by the Gods - do not change a single note of what you have written!'

The Ravel Piano trio, however has a stronger structure and impression than the Debussy Piano trio.

Btw - maybe the OP will like some of the Milhaud string quartets: no.s I - IV, VII....althoug Milhaud is rather patchy....


----------



## Head_case

tdc said:


> Oh and in response to the OP you won't find anything else anywhere like the Assez Vif in Ravel's SQ. It is a _one of a kind_.


Hmm.

Pierre Lalo: "In its harmonies and successions of chords, in its sonority and form, in all the elements which it contains, and in all the sensations which it evokes, it offers an incredible resemblance with the music of M. Debussy'

Ravel's own teacher Fauré criticised his unbalanced and short final movement with its odd ending.

Historically, after Ravel's premier - he was accused of plagiarism - it was Debussy who supported him (imitation after all, is a form of flattery..).

The Cambridge Companion to Ravel: "Fauré could easily have composed the first eight bars of the first movement" [page 99 Cambridge University Press 2000)


----------



## Quartetfore

I`m glad to the Franck gets credit for the form of of both works in question. A close hearing of a good many French post Debussy/Ravel Quartets will attest to the fact that Francks influence lasted far longer then one would expect. I don`t mean the texture of his work, but the use of transformation of the main theme in the various movements.


----------



## Quartetfore

It seems I had a typo in the first sentence of my post. It should read "I`m glad to see that Franck'" and so on.


----------



## tdc

Head_case said:


> Interesting opinion ..although it isn't historically founded.
> 
> Debussy's string quartet, like Ravel, who openly professed his admiration for Grieg's works, were both influenced by Grieg - not modelled.
> 
> A fascinating question, for anyone to refute that Debussy's string quartet was the most original string quartet in French literature to answer: where do you think impressionism came from in the French string quartet, if not from Debussy? Grieg's string quartet - no listener in any mind would call 'impressionism' btw. If you understood the structure of the Debussy quartet, you would see that he is more indebted to Cesar Franck for the cyclical principle - this much is evident in Debussy's work.
> 
> As for Ravel - as a student of Faure, whose conservatory students had all tried in vain to pen a string quartet like Debussy's string quartet - and failed - it took Ravel to eventually pen it almost 10 years after the original Debussy string quartet which transformed the French string quartet landscape. Although Ravel failed to win the Prix de Rome, Debussy certainly appreciated his work.
> 
> Mark de Voto's scholarly essay 'Debussy and the Veil of Tonality' makes it clear that your assumption does not stand: the Debussy quartett is the defining start of French impressionism before the end of the 19th century par excellence: de Voto goes on to demonstrate in his analysis, that Ravel lifted Debussy's string quartet form and its motifs. We do not see Debussy's string quartet's impressionism oweing anything to Grieg: he transforms it. However Ravel's impressionistic string quartet, shares many features in common with Debussy's: he had 10 years to study it, and it was the very talk of the society around him.
> 
> In any case, Debussy was more gracious about Ravel's string quartet than I am. He exhorted to Ravel: 'by the Gods - do not change a single note of what you have written!'
> 
> The Ravel Piano trio, however has a stronger structure and impression than the Debussy Piano trio.
> 
> Btw - maybe the OP will like some of the Milhaud string quartets: no.s I - IV, VII....althoug Milhaud is rather patchy....


Debussy's Quartet was influenced by Franck and Grieg, as you admit, Ravel's was influenced by Debussy. Though Debussy's work may have been more innovative for its time, I feel both works are quite original in their own right.

_"In recent times the Debussy and Ravel Quartets have often been bracketed together, but they have little in common except their genre and the fact they continue the emancipation of the viola begun by Mozart a century earlier...in truth, during the decade between the two premieres, the art of playing string instruments underwent a revolution."_

Tully Potter, EMI Classics

While there are similarities between the Debussy and Ravel SQ's, the over-all feel in the works are as different as night and day. Take Ravel's famous second movement in his Quartet as an example nearly twice as long as the second movement in Debussy's. Scarcely have I heard such focused and refined genius as in that second movement of Ravel's SQ.

The theme development in the two works also differs significantly as pointed out by Kai Christiansen:

_"Debussy uses a single theme that constantly transforms across all four movements. In this sense, he is primarily fascinated with continuous variation, an evolution of ever-changing sensations. Ravel employs multiple themes, the two main themes of the first movement and one from the second. The themes recur with less variation, their essential natures intact, functioning much like themes in a single sonata to give his quartet a strong sense of order as a large-scale process of integration and balance... Ravel's tendency for neo-classical craftsmanship contrasts with Debussy's more impressionistic freedom."_

http://www.earsense.org/blog/?p=19

Steve Schwartz of _Classical Review_ seems to think the Ravel also offers something quite new:
_
"... Ravel does something new -* something not even Debussy achieved in his quartet*. In a sense, Ravel takes a step backward - combining his thematic bits and pieces into mainly song-like forms. Debussy's quartet moves like a snake through the forest, tracing an unpredictable, yet in hindsight inevitable, path. The components tend to fall into place. The listener very seldom doubts his way. Ravel's quartet sings and dances. The modal implications of the melodies influence the harmonies. *Ravel doesn't try to force them into a post-Wagnerian harmonic corset, as Debussy sometimes does. I can't come up with a more beautiful quartet than this one. I think of it as even profound*, but in a very French sense...Furthermore, there's brains as well as beauty in the work. As in the Debussy, just about every major idea relates to the opening measure, but *Ravel goes about his business far more subtly*. He conceals his art. It took me decades to realize, for example, that both the plucked pizzicato opening to the second-movement scherzo and the main idea of the third-movement adagio work changes on the very first theme of the entire work._"

http://www.classical.net/music/recs/reviews/p/phi64699a.php

Furthermore I don't think Faure's response to the final movement of the Quartet means too much. I believe the Debussy Quartet was initially heavily criticized by Franck supporters as well. Subsequent years have shown the worth of these works. Over time Ravel's worth as a composer continues to reveal itself more and more I believe due to this 'subtle genius' Steve Schwartz alluded to.


----------



## Head_case

Quartetfore said:


> I`m glad to the Franck gets credit for the form of of both works in question. A close hearing of a good many French post Debussy/Ravel Quartets will attest to the fact that Francks influence lasted far longer then one would expect. I don`t mean the texture of his work, but the use of transformation of the main theme in the various movements.


Yes ...although Debussy was a naughty boy and either dropped out of Franck's lessons or did his usual dilettante move after a few lessons.

The one thing about the Franck string quartet work is it really takes some interpretation. I've had it for ages and never appreciated it. This recording has changed my mind:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/aug/01/classicalmusicandopera1










I've always found the austere and emotive Fauré quartet evaporating with spiritual power in its most accessible form, although plenty of times, I share the same affinity as those who find it utterly boring over its length. A magnificent disc of contrasting styles by two very different composers.

Neither really shares much in common with the Ravel movement btw


----------



## Head_case

> Debussy's Quartet was influenced by Franck and Grieg, as you admit, Ravel's was influenced by Debussy. Though Debussy's work may have been more innovative for its time, I feel both works are quite original in their own right.


That's not correct either: re-read what was written about the accusations levied against Ravel about his plagiarism of Debussy's very works.

Debussy was not only influenced by Grieg; he was influenced by Franck (as we have seen); the Spanish composers; 'chinoiserie'; Javan and Gamelan music. His is an art which sublimates influences, transforming them uniquely into his own work. This is what makes him original.

Ravel on the other hand: has no such claim: Sutarjo's analysis even goes into excruciating detail about how much of Ravel's works has been copied: movement by movement in its analysis:










As much as I like the Ravel string quartet, the cult of his personality is rather tiresome. Potter and Schwartz speak for the commercial masses - maybe if they focussed their critique purely on the string quartet genre, they might actually grasp the more complex form of the Debussy string quartet, instead of purveying the most accessible music for the classical masses.

Debussy's quartet was indeed criticised by Franck's supporters: not lest, because Debussy never bothered going to school with them lol! And Ravel cared for Fauré' opinion: this was his esteemed teacher who guided him through the challenge of writing the string quartet. Potter and Schwartz' opinions he couldn't care less for. It's striking how both Potter and Schwartz fail to grasp the detail of Ravel's string quartet structure, as the student Sutarjo did. You can download it from the googlelink here (I'm almost out of dongle bandwidth):

https://www.google.com/search?q=sut...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I like this ludicrous statement best:



> Ravel's tendency for neo-classical craftsmanship contrasts with Debussy's more impressionistic freedom."


Impressionism (in the string quartet, or in French music) didn't exist until Debussy came along: this is what makes his string quartet original. Potter writes of 'impressionistic freedom', as if to suggest that Debussy's compositional tact is wayward and free: it is not - you will find more of this in Sutarjo's analysis of the Ravel quartet.

The very 'neoclassicism' which Potter espouses, equally, is not a defining trait of Ravel's music. When we think of French neoclassicism, we think of Boulanger and her pupils, or Poulenc, Satie - maybe Ravel....whose later penning of his string quartet absorbed the neoclassical trends around him, just as he had...absorbed Debussy's works before him. We do not remember Ravel's string quartet for its neoclassicism; we still think of it as 'impressionistic' string quartet literature. It doesn't break the mould, any more than the ridiculous statement by the half-informed critic, that Debussy tries to dress his string quartet in a Wagnerian corset.

Lol. I suppose that is why they are semi-informed critics for populist classical magazines, rather than snooty academic readers 

Anyway - no need for us to torture poor Arturo who only wanted a simple answer lol.

Back to Milhaud:

Early Milhaud: 



more accessible and thematically strong - not as sunny and light, but certainly not cloudy and stormy.

Middle - some interesting gems on the Parrenin Quatuor set - but it's a lot to wade through..

Later Milhaud: 



(very unlike Ravel)


----------



## Quartetfore

Try as i might, I can`t seem to "get into" the Faure String Quartet. Each time I have a go at it I do find some beautiful moments(first movement), but as a whole I find it sort of dull.
The Op.120 Piano Trio is a much finer work.


----------



## tdc

Head_case said:


> Ravel on the other hand: has no such claim: Sutarjo's analysis even goes into excruciating detail about how much of Ravel's works has been copied: movement by movement in its analysis:


Actually, I wonder if you've read this article in quite some time as it only analyzes the first movement of each Quartet!



Head_case said:


> As much as I like the Ravel string quartet, the cult of his personality is rather tiresome. Potter and Schwartz speak for the commercial masses - maybe if they focussed their critique purely on the string quartet genre, they might actually grasp the more complex form of the Debussy string quartet, instead of purveying the most accessible music for the classical masses.


Sorry, but I think you are just grasping at straws here. For starters Ravel's SQ wasn't initially well received, most who praise it speak about their growing respect for the work over a long period of time. Its not the kind of work that is simply watered down Debussy for the masses. Just another random search on the two quartets lead me to another such comment by a different reviewer:

"_Debussy's quartet remained my favorite for many years, *but gradually the Ravel began to intrigue me more* - especially through its contrasts between relaxation and surprise_."

-Tom Manoff nprmusic

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123566960

Secondly, I again wonder how closely you've read the review you are extolling, as it mirrors these comments, it does not contradict the 'mainstream critcs'. Sutarjo explains that he initially thought of the Ravel work as plagiarism, but on closer inspection found many differences, and that both composers are quite distinctive and unique!* (*p.25- Conclusion)



Head_case said:


> _It's striking how both Potter and Schwartz fail to grasp the detail of Ravel's string quartet structure, as the student Sutarjo did._ You can download it from the googlelink here (I'm almost out of dongle bandwidth):
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sut...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


Again, Sutarjo's analysis was only of the first movement, and did not shed any light on the many differences in the rest of the Quartets as Chistiansen did.



Head_case said:


> * Potter writes of 'impressionistic freedom', as if to suggest that Debussy's compositional tact is wayward and free: it is not - you will find more of this in Sutarjo's analysis of the Ravel quartet*.
> 
> The very 'neoclassicism' which Potter espouses, equally, is not a defining trait of Ravel's music. When we think of French neoclassicism, we think of Boulanger and her pupils, or Poulenc, Satie - maybe Ravel....whose later penning of his string quartet absorbed the neoclassical trends around him, just as he had...absorbed Debussy's works before him. We do not remember Ravel's string quartet for its neoclassicism; we still think of it as 'impressionistic' string quartet literature. It doesn't break the mould, any more than the ridiculous statement by the half-informed critic, that Debussy tries to dress his string quartet in a Wagnerian corset.
> 
> Lol. I suppose that is why they are semi-informed critics for populist classical magazines, rather than snooty academic readers


Hmmm...here that "academic" article you've linked to actually seems to disagree with your claims:
_
"I strongly think that his (Debussy) first and foremost concern was the atmosphere or nuance that some harmony and tonality give *rather than mapping everything out beforehand. Moreover, it seems that he was very free and open to everything when he composed.* That is why his music is relatively complicated to analyze: both form and harmonic progression_."

(p21. Sutarjo)

and here:

"_This (first) movement reflects Ravel's signature style in many ways, how he makes effortless harmonic progression, the harmonic features...*the form which is very traditional and clear*. He also gives clear impressions of what key it is in at the moment (*clearer than Debussy* did), and he *uses the atmosphere differently than Debussy*...it seemed that he learned a lot from Debussy's work but *composed independently without any intention to copy Debussy's work*._"

(p.24 Sutarjo)

I really don't know what else to say. The academic article you've linked to summed it up fairly well. I do concede the Debussy work is more innovative, but to disregard or think less of the Ravel based solely on this doesn't make any sense to me. The two works are very different, and the Ravel has become one of the most played works in the repertoire for good reason. As all the above writers have pointed out this work is _not_ simply Debussy rehash!


----------



## tdc

Head_case said:


> And Ravel cared for Fauré' opinion: this was his esteemed teacher who guided him through the challenge of writing the string quartet.


This may be, but the fact remains 5 years after Faure's criticisms Ravel released his String Quartet, _unrevised_.


----------



## Head_case

Yes - saw that and ran out of mobile dongle broadband. The joys of limited internet :/

'movement by movement' was intended to refer to each bar of the musical sonata form - but rather more precisely - each transformation of each phrase. It's great to see that you can pay such pedantic attention to what's written, but perhaps, more pleasing to see your shift from your initiative assertion:



> Disagree on both counts. Debussy modeled his quartet on Grieg's Quartet, (though Debussy's turned out different), Ravel's Quartet is also very different than the Debussy.


It was clear Debussy never modelled his string quartet on Grieg as you asserted; even more perplexing, that Ravel's influence by Grieg (and others were not mentioned by you too).

That the two string quartets are different is self-evident for anyone who listens to them: whether that is a someone who prefers the Debussy quartet over the Ravel, or vice versa.



> Ravel's SQ is to my ears one of his better works and on a very high level of composition, I prefer it to pretty much anything Debussy wrote, and I very much enjoy Debussy, he is a top ten composer for me.


The references from DeVoto, and Sutarjo, do not support your view, that the Ravel is the better written quartet either:



> Regardless of personal taste I find your comment as inaccurate and outdated as saying Ravel and Debussy sound the same.


This is exactly how your comment comes across...! Sutarjo as you've quoted, demonstrates the opposite of what you've claimed in quoting Potter's spurious 'neoclassicism' in a half-hearted reference to Ravel as being 'more original' than Debussy, when in fact, as a man of his time, he was absorbing the neoclassical influence in France at the time. Sutarjo writes:



> "This (first) movement reflects Ravel's signature style in many ways, how he makes effortless harmonic progression, the harmonic features...the form which is very traditional and clear. He also gives clear impressions of what key it is in at the moment (clearer than Debussy did), and he uses the atmosphere differently than Debussy...it seemed that he learned a lot from Debussy's work but composed independently without any intention to copy Debussy's work."


It's your double standards in trying to present your opinion which I am taking issue at:

why levy an issue, of claiming Debussy 'modelled' his quartet on Grieg, which you've now seemed to let lapse into amnesia after some referencing, and why claim that Debussy's quartet was derivative, whereas Ravel's was not? Ravel derived more influences from Debussy and specifically Debussy's gamelan influences, to the point that he remained indebted to Debussy for his own Ravellian string quartet with its inadequate finale (which was Ravel's own making - this shares nothing in common with the Debussy finale).

Not to try to get one up over you, however you haven't demonstrated a clear reading of either DeVoto or Sutarjo, other than grasping at a potential references which might fit as arguments for your opinion:



> Hmmm...here that "academic" article you've linked to actually seems to disagree with your claims:
> _
> "I strongly think that his (Debussy) first and foremost concern was the atmosphere or nuance that some harmony and tonality give rather than mapping everything out beforehand. Moreover, it seems that he was very free and open to everything when he composed. That is why his music is relatively complicated to analyze: both form and harmonic progression."_
> 
> (p21. Sutarjo)


Was the article not academic enough for you 

Sutarjo's claim about Debussy's free-form of 'impressionism' summarised:
*
"Debussy is an expert in expanding the theme and enveloping it into the succedding motives and themes...everything is done smoothly and all seems natural, such a masterpiece by a genius"*

Perhaps this conclusion, did not fit with your opinion about the Debussy piece, being the original and first masterpiece, of the modern French string quartet?

Perhaps a little more then:
_
*'After looking at the complicated form of Debussy's String Quartet, going through Ravel's String Quartet is very simple and clear.."*_

A little more perhaps?

Just straight after your quote from Sutarjo in the summary:

_* - Ravel borrowed a lot from Debussy, particularly for this composition. As can be seen, Ravel took the model of Debussy's String quartet and composed his own String Quartet based on it.*_

It's not that either are bad quartets; far from it. They are the two finest string quartets from that era. However revising history based on contemporary ignorance, and mass critic pandering, is insincere.



tdc said:


> Sorry, but I think you are just grasping at straws here. For starters Ravel's SQ wasn't initially well received, most who praise it speak about their growing respect for the work over a long period of time. Its not the kind of work that is simply watered down Debussy for the masses. Just another random search on the two quartets lead me to another such comment by a different reviewer: ...


Do you not rely on your own marbles?

It's interesting to see your reliance on mainstream critics, although revisionism is welcome, particularly when it helps you refocus the false premises which you've presented us with - there should be no confusion for other revisionists who think that Debussy's string quartet was modeled on Grieg's String quartet.

It was not.

Ravel's string quartet was and indeed modelled on Debussy's string quartet. None of your reviewing critics can or have refuted this originality, attributed to Debussy - however you have already stated, that you disagree....we've yet to hear how.

Which is why, I return to my initial assertion, that Debussy's string quartet was more original. The accusations of plagiarism against Ravel, stand, on account of his modelling: it is not that he actually did plagiarise (otherwise, it would never have attained and retained its stature as an elegant string quartet, a hundred years later). It does not take a sophisticated reader to fathom this.

Again - it doesn't help to limit oneself to black and white thinking: modelling on a form (in this case, Ravel's modelling on Debussy's string quartet) is not a bad thing.

Maybe it really is just that Ravel really is not as original as Debussy: Ravel could never have written his string quartet without Debussy. Debussy, wrote his string quartet without Ravel.

I'm listening to the Ravel Quartet by the Italian Quartet at the moment. Beautiful


----------



## tdc

^ Yes, Head_case, I agree the Debussy was more original, my first post in reference to yours was poorly worded. My main point is innovation doesn't equal superior craftsmanship, and I don't agree the Debussy Quartet was better written. Bach wouldn't have written the concertos he wrote without Vivaldi. Your point about Ravel copying Debussy really doesn't mean much as artists copying artists is how music evolves. My point about Grieg and as you pointed out Franck was simply that Debussy had his influences as well, as all artists do. I haven't changed my thoughts on this at all.

"_It was typical of *Debussy to base his Quartet on that by Grieg*, even though he could be quite dismissive of the Norwegian composer_."

*Tully Potter EMI Classics*

There you go, seems I am not the only one to assert this. As its quite obvious Debussy didn't simply pull his String Quartet out of thin air.

Thanks for the link to the Sutarjo article by the way, the quotes from it I already posted clarify what I've stated for a long time. Debussy's music comes across as more random, less structured, and less pre-mapped out - contradicting what you previously stated. I need not post again the excerpts that describe these elements of his music, but as you just added from the article:

_*'After looking at the complicated form of Debussy's String Quartet, going through Ravel's String Quartet is very simple and clear.." *_

Why do you think this is? Obviously its much harder to analyze something that is more random and less structured. Whether you think this equates to better compositional skills is personal preference I suppose - I don't. I feel Ravel's better sense of structure in his works actually are what cause their greater longevity and why they are better composed. To each their own. But to be clear I have not gone back on my initial thoughts about Grieg's influence on Debussy, or on Ravel's better craftsmanship. If nothing else all this shows how different the two works are. Your comment about Debussy's work being better written is highly debatable. Yes, he was more original, that only goes so far. Vivaldi was more original than Bach - Bach's concertos wouldn't have sounded the same without them. Does that mean listening to Vivaldi is more important than listening to Bach? No, of course not. It also doesn't mean he composed better concertos.


----------



## Head_case

Can't say I know much about concertos - don't listen to either Vivaldi or Bach ones sorry. As for string quartets - it's not a competition (except when it's the Prix de Rome lol).

There is a huge artistic difference between transformation (that is; understanding the language; the model, and reworking it to within one's own language) versus mimesis: the direct imitation of another's model, and then embellishing it with bells and whistles. What I find striking about Debussy's string quartet - is that very sensation - the texture of sound, which he transforms movement by movement, with some prefiguration (some Franck-like conceptual workings, but not as dense or as taut as Franck's). Like a polyglot - Debussy's work appeals in the Proustian vein - foremost by the primitive sensation. From the 'pointe d'aiguilles' which was the first dominant criticism levied at his works, by the very bourgeoise critics, trapped within their own bourgeoisie, and unable to think or appreciate beyond it: the barbaric needle like pricking textures of the first Debussy movement, transforming into the sun dappled pizzicati just soaks through the textural shifts in his music, which densely written music like his does.

Charming and lyrically attractive as Ravel's music is, the textural shifts are all rather Sunday afternoon idyllic and gentle storlling along the Seine in the vein of Seurat's Sunday afternoon pontillism. The canvas spread by Debussy's efforts is wider, thus richer or heterogenous. Ravel's distillation of Debussy's model, is indeed a refinement (rather than simplification). It is pleasing, particularly for those who like tame music (which I do - in my moments).

You're right about the problem of originality: take for example, the numerous threads on Schoenberg, and his contribution musically. Personally I can't stand his music (string quartets that is), although his disciples range from listenable (Berg; Webern etc) to exhilarating (Rauthaus, Salmanov, Roslavets).

The distinction I'll make, is that Debussy never lost sight of that aural landscape: its textures, and its painterly function, sublimated in the aural domain. He privileged the sonorous landscape in its impressions on the senses. Schoenberg, abandoned the primary world of the senses, so that a theoretical tool, could shape and transform the musical senses into an abstraction.

Ravel's 4th movement is very inadequate to my ears. Most people I know who love it, tend to play the 2nd movement over and over again and press fast forward on their CD players lol. It's not that it's badly written; just not very balanced (like Debussy's). Try listening to the Ravel finale: does it peter out and disintegrate, or is the ending memorable?

Btw - here's another gem like Assez Vif - by the neglected British composer York Bowen in his two recorded string quartets. The liberal Guardian critics have nothing nice to say about him, however they would be better off reviewing Madonna's latest underwear.










The String Quartet No. 2: Allegro is very French to my ears. You can listen here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/York-Bowen-Quartets-Phantasy-Quintet/dp/B003YR5S7G

Very elegantly written and played.


----------



## Krisena

TO ANSWER THE THREAD, AHEM

Ravel's Sonata for Violin and Cello is quite sexy and contains some of the same atmosphere you find in the Assez Vif movement.


----------

