# Pictures at an Exhibition: Mussorgsky vs. Ravel



## beast

I first heard Pictures at an Exhibition as a piano sonata (the Mussorgsky version). But this was a long time ago and I didn't pay much attention to it then. I only became an admirer of the work after I was introduced to Ravel's orchestration. Recently, I once again listened to the original - Mussorgsky's piano sonata - and felt like I was experiencing a rather different work than the one I had grew to admire.

I'm interested to know what are the differences between the two versions? For some reason, the Mussorgsky version sounded a little _rough_ on my ears, being accustomed to the _smooth _sound of Ravel's orchestration. Forgive me for sounding so vague, but I'm quite uneducated in these matters. Ravel's version comes across as a little more polished and softened compared to Mussorgsky's. I also noticed that the Mussorgsky version is faster paced than Ravel's.

I realize that this may have a lot to do with the particular recordings that I'm listening to. I'm not entirely sure which ones they are as I've downloaded them from the internet without that information. Could somebody please list the standard recordings of these two versions? Which are the most respected recordings of the Ravel version and of the Mussorgsky version?

I also realize that there are many other versions of "Pictures of an Exhibition." Like Ravel, many others (Stokowski, Leonardi, etc.) also orchestrated it, etc. But comparing all these versions would make the discussion far too diffuse. In this thread, I am hoping to compare only the Ravel and Mussorgsky versions.


----------



## Polednice

The differences between the two versions, of course, is just the orchestration. One uses a solo piano, the other the orchestra. I believe the Ravel version leaves out a few of the Promenade sections which Mussorgsky punctuates the various pictures with, but otherwise the sequence of notes and harmonies, the structure and direction, the pace and feel - it's all the same. Maybe you just prefer the sound of an orchestra. Maybe, as you pointed out, it's just an issue with your particular recordings.

I don't think it's really fair to call any recording "standard", though I would _recommend_ Leif Ove Andsnes for the piano version; Sylvain Cambreling for the orchestral version.

P.S. The Mussorgsky version is just a piano piece - the term 'sonata' is used to refer to a particular form of music which Pictures is not in.


----------



## GoneBaroque

By smoothing out the "rough edges" of Mussorgskys wonderful composition Ravel deprived it of its Russian atmosphere to a great extent and turned into a French composition. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong about Ravel's version but it is not Mussorgsky. Rather than utilizing the orchestra to emphasize the character of Victor Hartmann's pictures Ravel adds new layers of color over the originals which tends to obscure their distinct character.

I am going to disregard your suggestion of not comparing the others to reccommend the orchrestration by the Slovenian-Finnish Leo Funtek which more closely resembles Mussorgsky's world than Ravels colorful setting. I also like Stowkowski's version which shows his Organists touch. There is also one by Vladimar Ashkanasy which I have not heard..


----------



## Polednice

GoneBaroque said:


> I am going to disregard your suggestion of not comparing the others to reccommend the orchrestration by the Slovenian-Finnish Leo Funtek which more closely resembles Mussorgsky's world than Ravels colorful setting. I also like Stowkowski's version which shows his Organists touch. There is also one by Vladimar Ashkanasy which I have not heard..


I didn't know about the Funtek. I'm listening to it now...


----------



## beast

Ok, thanks for all the responses so far.

I would still really appreciate it if somebody could post a list of recommended recordings of 1. Mussorgsky's Pictures and 2. Ravel's Pictures


----------



## Ukko

The piano version and the orchestral versions are only distantly related - emotionally. There are _no_ recordings of an orchestral version that reach the height of tension and cathartic release created by Richter in Prague (1956) and in Sophia (1958). The orchestral versions don't even seem to have the same _intent_. Ravel's certainly doesn't. In comparison, it's a tour of an exhibition, with color added.


----------



## Couchie

Neither are as good as pictures I take of myself while in the shower: _Pictures of an Exhibitionist._


----------



## Vaneyes

Our old friend Wikipedia can help.

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

My favorite recordings...


----------



## joen_cph

I agree about the advantages of the early *Richter* versions (there´s a melodiya studio recording from 1958 with slightly less varying sound quality than Sofia and Prague). *Maria Yudina*´s (you-tube 



 etc.) and *Nikolai Demidenko*´s (hyperion) are among the interesting piano alternatives, Yudina´s being of poor sound quality as well.

The orchestral versions include Celibidache/DG and many others.


----------



## beast

Ok. Can someone clarify whether or not the Ravel orchestration is indeed slower than Mussorgsky's Pictures? I've noticed this while listening to the two and I don't think that this is a peculiarity of the particular recordings that I've been listening to. Across the board, it seems that Mussorgsky's Pictures is faster paced than Ravel's orchestration.

Is this a correct observation? Or am I just imagining this?


----------



## joen_cph

I think it´s a general rule that orchestral transcriptions of piano works are practically always of longer duration than the originals, (and vice versa, that piano transcriptions tend to be faster). There are more things going on, larger textures and more notes and details as regards the orchestra that must be rendered... I doubt that it is based on tempo markings in the score. 
However, the first orchestral recording of Ravel´s version, dating from 1930 by Koussevitzky (which I haven´t heard) lasts only 30 mins, and there are probably quite a few below 35 mins (Chailly/CtGebouw is 33 mins, for instance). Much also depends on the performance.


----------



## Taneyev

IMHO, nobody plays the piano version as Horowitz. The studio one (49) as the live one (1950) are two of the gratest piano recordings of the 20Th.century.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Couchie said:


> Neither are as good as pictures I take of myself while in the shower: _Pictures of an Exhibitionist._


Obviously, your first name isn't _Modest_.


----------



## tahnak

beast said:


> Ok, thanks for all the responses so far.
> 
> I would still really appreciate it if somebody could post a list of recommended recordings of 1. Mussorgsky's Pictures and 2. Ravel's Pictures


For the piano version of Mussorgsky, my recommendation is Vladimir Ashkenazy on Decca. 1966.
For the orchestral version by Ravel, my favorite is Eugene Ormandy with the Philadelphians followed by Zubin Mehta and Los Angeles Philharmonic and Georg Solti with the Chicago Symphony.


----------



## PetrB

beast said:


> Ok. Can someone clarify whether or not the Ravel orchestration is indeed slower than Mussorgsky's Pictures? I've noticed this while listening to the two and I don't think that this is a peculiarity of the particular recordings that I've been listening to. Across the board, it seems that Mussorgsky's Pictures is faster paced than Ravel's orchestration.
> 
> Is this a correct observation? Or am I just imagining this?


Piano cannot sustain beyond the length of decay of the initial strike, extended somewhat by use of the sustain pedal. Orchestral versions can not only sustain, but the players can keep the original intensity sustained as well. That is a natural property of orchestration vs. what a piano can do, Add to that the overall addition of sonority and decibels, and it is only "Natural" that an orchestral version can fully support a slower tempo without destroying the feeling of the work, or its momentum.

For an actual orchestration by Mussorgsky, not of _Pictures_ but of _Night on Bald Mountain_, there is a newer recording released within the last few years of Mussorgsky's original orchestration. It is not only 'rawer' sounding (not less, but a very different quality) but some passages are literally different notes!

His subsequent orchestrators, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc. being more conservative musicians who thought, no doubt, that the genius but severely alcoholic composer did not quite get something right, went about "correcting" those passages, no doubt with all good intent thinking they were doing the deceased composer's work a good service.

The original, both orchestration and those later "ironed out" passages, is terrific.

P.s. _If it has not been made known, Moussorgsky never orchestrated Pictures, the only version from the composer being the suite for piano._


----------



## aleazk

Ravel, of course.


----------



## QuietGuy

I much prefer the Ravel to the original. I don't like listening to one timbre (just piano) for so long. Whereas with Ravel's full orchestra, you get a much better variety of timbres to listen to. It's a much more realized work.


----------



## EdwardBast

QuietGuy said:


> I much prefer the Ravel to the original. I don't like listening to one timbre (just piano) for so long. Whereas with Ravel's full orchestra, you get a much better variety of timbres to listen to. It's a much more realized work.


Or, one could say, an overdetermined work. In any case, there are other orchestrations that, IMO, better catch the spirit of Mussorgsky. Try Gortchakov's version.


----------



## bigshot

Horowitz's live performance during WW2 totally puts across the piano version. (even if he deviates a bit) Jaw dropping performance.


----------



## BurningDesire

I love both versions of the piece. The one I have more attachment to is Ravel's orchestration, because its the one I fell in love with first. Its really an incredible orchestration, extremely gorgeous and colorful, typical of Ravel, and its so damned dramatic. Basically you get to hear 2 great artists' work combining together into one thing. And one thing I really love about Ravel's orchestration is that much of it really SOUNDS Russian, like the quiet moments in The Great Gate of Kiev. It feels like a masterful Russian Romantic orchestration.

God I love this piece <333


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Try Boris Godunov with Mussorgsky's own orchestration.


----------



## apricissimus

I greatly prefer the piano version. In my opinion, the Ravel orchestration removes much of the character of the piece and adds nothing new in its place.


----------



## hpowders

I greatly prefer the Ravel orchestration; makes the piano version sound "emaciated" in comparison.


----------



## spradlig

Yes, Mussorgsky's original version of _Night on Bald Mountain_ is a completely different piece from the Rimsky-Korsakov version (which I'm pretty sure is the most popular adaptation), and deserves to be played and heard more often.



PetrB said:


> Piano cannot sustain beyond the length of decay of the initial strike, extended somewhat by use of the sustain pedal. Orchestral versions can not only sustain, but the players can keep the original intensity sustained as well. That is a natural property of orchestration vs. what a piano can do, Add to that the overall addition of sonority and decibels, and it is only "Natural" that an orchestral version can fully support a slower tempo without destroying the feeling of the work, or its momentum.
> 
> For an actual orchestration by Mussorgsky, not of _Pictures_ but of _Night on Bald Mountain_, there is a newer recording released within the last few years of Mussorgsky's original orchestration. It is not only 'rawer' sounding (not less, but a very different quality) but some passages are literally different notes!
> 
> His subsequent orchestrators, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc. being more conservative musicians who thought, no doubt, that the genius but severely alcoholic composer did not quite get something right, went about "correcting" those passages, no doubt with all good intent thinking they were doing the deceased composer's work a good service.
> 
> The original, both orchestration and those later "ironed out" passages, is terrific.
> 
> P.s. _If it has not been made known, Moussorgsky never orchestrated Pictures, the only version from the composer being the suite for piano._


----------



## bigshot

I like Stoki's arrangement of Bald Mountain.


----------



## ptr

Every time I've heard an Mussorgsky in his original pen it so much better then when Rimsky has smoothed it or when some one has orchestrated him! Modest knew exactly what he wanted, the romantic posterity just did not understand him! (Mussorgsky was a true revolutionary!)

/ptr


----------



## Ukko

ptr said:


> Every time I've heard an Mussorgsky in his original pen it so much better then when Rimsky has smoothed it or when some one has orchestrated him! Modest knew exactly what he wanted, the romantic posterity just did not understand him! (Mussorgsky was a true revolutionary!)
> 
> /ptr


Do you apply this dictum to _Boris_ as well? (It seems to me that MM left too much undone.)


----------



## Orfeo

I'm kind of surprised that Rimsky-Korsakov or even Glazunov did not find the appetite to orchestrate the work. I think either version would have been excellent, with a more Slavic feel and character. That said, Leonard Slatkin's compilations of various orchestrations are very interesting and worth looking into.

http://www.amazon.com/Mussorgsky-Pi...1394807932&sr=1-1&keywords=mussorgsky+slatkin


----------



## ptr

Ukko said:


> Do you apply this dictum to _Boris_ as well? (It seems to me that MM left too much undone.)


Sure, can't say that I've compared recorded versions, but I've heard staging of both the Rimsky-Korsakow versions and something that I believe was an elaboration on Lamm's and Lloyd-Jones' "definitive" versions and Mussorgsky's own Piano vocal score and much preferred the latter!

/ptr


----------



## moody

Ukko said:


> Do you apply this dictum to _Boris_ as well? (It seems to me that MM left too much undone.)


"Boris Godunov" as usually performed is the revised rather lush version by Rimsky-Korsakov and it has been highly successful.
However there have been performances of Mussorgsky's original which makes an impression because of its comparative harshness.
Rimsky transposed the last two scenes and it is thought that could have a mistake.
Although Boris' death scene is very powerful, imeasureably more shattering and disturbing is the prophetic finale with the Simpleton's song trailing away into nothingness.
Boris Godunov is the only opera Mussorgsky completed himself---apart from the early "Salambo".


----------



## SimonNZ

There's a modern work by a moder composer which is sort of a reboot of Pictures which depicts moving from one gallery to another around New York and the "promenades" are done as subway sounds.

But now I can't remember the composer or title, and its driving me mad. Does this sound familiar to anyone?


----------



## AndyS

I have a huge fondness for the Ravel orchestration and its a bit of a weird story

Years ago when I was young, my folks had bought a CD lens cleaner kit, with one of those discs with the little brushes on it. Anyway, one of the 'demo' songs on it was the Promenade which I fell in love with... although at that time I never thought to find out who it was, I just assumed it was a bit of fluff that was included on the disc (I hasten to add that I knew chaff all about classical music at this time). Anyways, I heard it in a film once and I thought 'Oh there's that song, it must be reasonably famous after all' and resolved to check it out but had forgotten by the end of the movie. A few years later the notion took me to try and find what it was, but no one I asked could identify it from my humming. We eventually found the CD at my folks but they didn't know what it was and neither did my nan. I Shazamed it on my phone but no joy there either

Anyways, once I started listening to classical music I figured I would come across it eventually. But ironically, about a year and a half ago, I was having a listen of Tical by Method Man of all people. He sampled it on there and when I heard it, I stopped everything and went to check what the sample was. Of course, I'd heard of Pictures at an Exhibition by this point but never actually heard it. Spent the rest of the morning listening to the whole thing over and over on youtube


----------



## Ukko

Hah. I just remembered my introduction to "Pictures", many years ago. I bought an LP containing the piano version on one side and Ravel's orchestration on the other. After one play, the piano side was left fallow for a long time - mostly because of mediocre recorded sound and a lot of coughing. Eventually I returned to it, got drawn in, and my preference for the piano version was locked in.

[You may have guessed; the piano version was Richter in Sofia. Who performed the orchestral version I dunno.]


----------



## SimonNZ

SimonNZ said:


> There's a modern work by a moder composer which is sort of a reboot of Pictures which depicts moving from one gallery to another around New York and the "promenades" are done as subway sounds.
> 
> But now I can't remember the composer or title, and its driving me mad. Does this sound familiar to anyone?


Its possible nobody is interested - but I trawled through some old Current Listening posts and found the answer to this:



> Tristan Murail's Legendes Urbaines - Ensemble interContemporain
> 
> world premiere concert - no commercial recording yet, alas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In this work, Murail links together 12 vignettes, meant to evoke the form of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which are all linked together by their thematic material. The promenades, as heard first in this work, are meant to represent the sounds of the subway, by which one "travels" to the other "exhibitions" in the works."


----------



## SixFootScowl

Vaneyes said:


> My favorite recordings...


I have quite a few recordings of Pictures, but not this one. I think it would be hard to beat Ivo for the piano original.


----------



## DavidA

Not a case of either / or. Enjoy both. The best Pictures on the piano are by Richter and Horowitz btw.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

If the original piano version didn't exist, I would be more than happy with Ravel's orchestral version. But put the two together and Mussorgsky's original gains from being less polished, less dapper. It's a bit rough round the edges and somehow more Russian. And the few bits of it that I can manage to play are hugely enjoyable to get the fingers around. As for performances, Pogorelich is good, Martin Jones is good, Cherkassky isn't, Ashkenazy certainly is (and his comments on the edited score that I have are a delight).


----------



## DavidA

Pat Fairlea said:


> If the original piano version didn't exist, I would be more than happy with Ravel's orchestral version. But put the two together and Mussorgsky's original gains from being less polished, less dapper. It's a bit rough round the edges and somehow more Russian. And the few bits of it that I can manage to play are hugely enjoyable to get the fingers around. As for performances, Pogorelich is good, Martin Jones is good, *Cherkassky isn't,* Ashkenazy certainly is (and his comments on the edited score that I have are a delight).


I have Cherkassky's version and must confess he appears to have had an off day! But do try Richter (terrible sound but what playing) and Horowitz (his own version but the electricity is incredible). Graffman and Brendel also interesting.


----------



## Judith

I think if Mussorgsky wanted it composed for orchestra, he would have done that himself!! Although I do love it orchestrated, I Ravels as well.


----------



## hpowders

I do feel that Ravel beat Mussorgsky at his own game.

Possibly the greatest demonstration of virtuoso orchestration in the history of music.


----------



## Pugg

Mussorgsky Pictures (piano original + Ashkenazy orchestration)

​
Lonely at the top.


----------



## Bettina

Pugg said:


> Mussorgsky Pictures (piano original + Ashkenazy orchestration)
> 
> ​
> Lonely at the top.


Thanks for posting this information. I did not know that Ashkenazy had done an orchestral arrangement of Pictures! Ravel's orchestration is the only one I've ever heard. Is Ashkenazy's orchestration very different from Ravel's? Which one do you prefer?


----------



## Antiquarian

Ukko said:


> Hah. I just remembered my introduction to "Pictures", many years ago. I bought an LP containing the piano version on one side and Ravel's orchestration on the other. After one play, the piano side was left fallow for a long time - mostly because of mediocre recorded sound and a lot of coughing. Eventually I returned to it, got drawn in, and my preference for the piano version was locked in.
> 
> [You may have guessed; the piano version was Richter in Sofia. Who performed the orchestral version I dunno.]


It was Szell conducting the Cleveland Orchestra. I still have the LP ( Columbia Odyssey Y32223). Richter won the _Grand Prix du Disque_ for this in 1960.

I still prefer the Byron Janis version on CD (Mercury Living Presence), from 1961.


----------



## Pugg

Bettina said:


> Thanks for posting this information. I did not know that Ashkenazy had done an orchestral arrangement of Pictures! Ravel's orchestration is the only one I've ever heard. Is Ashkenazy's orchestration very different from Ravel's? Which one do you prefer?


I prefer the Ravel version, but this recording is very good due, to the piano version.


----------



## Kivimees

There's also the Isao Tomita version. :tiphat:


----------



## Becca

Kivimees said:


> There's also the Isao Tomita version. :tiphat:


And Emerson, Lake and Palmer


----------



## Tchaikov6

I feel that Ravel has turned the pictures into an orchestral showpiece, and I like the original, rugged and unpianistic as it may be.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I prefer the Ravel orchestral version... and having sat almost front row at a stellar live performance of Christoph von Dohnányi and the Cleveland Orchestra, I can't imagine the Pictures at an Exhibition otherwise (although I do have the original piano version and have listened to it from time to time).


----------



## Ralphus

I think they're different enough to warrant knowing and enjoying each for different reasons. The piano version because it's Mussorgsky and it's the music as he intended it to be. The Ravel orchestration because it's Ravel and he's a master. (And because he gives "The Old Castle" solo to an alto saxophone, a particularly French touch.)

For the piano version I have:

Bronfman (Sony), coupled with Stravinsky's "Three Pieces from Petrushka" (also a great piece), and a lonely Dumka by Tchaikovsky I probably listened to once.
Osborne (Hyperion), coupled with Prokofiev "Sarcasms" and "Visions Fugitives".

Interesting couplings on both discs. Both excellent performances, but I don't doubt that others suggested on this thread are also fine. Osborne's disc is titled "Pictures FROM an Exhibition" and exhorts that that is the correct translation.


----------

