Thread: Pictures at an Exhibition: Ravel vs. Stokowski [vs. others]

Whenever I listen to an orchestration of Pictures it's usually Ravel's arrangement. While casually listening to the radio one night I heard an arrangement of a different variety, Stokowski's (along with his arrangement of Boris Godunov--). A very different approach. I'm in the process of looking into a recording of this arrangement, so, for now, I will hold my opinion as to which is better.

So, what are your thoughts or opinions of these two arrangements?

I prefer Stokowski's arrangement. Ravel's orchestration is too... Ravelish and I don't really understand Ravel, to be honest.

I much prefer the Stokowski.

Can anyone articulate what about either arrangement one prefers?

Well, in my case it is that I feel Ravel is too refined for 'Pictures'. His arrangement 'civilizes' the music, and to my mind takes away some of its character. A case in point, which I have mentioned before, is the final reprise of 'The Great Gate of Kiev', where, in the piano part, there is a conflict between the F of the second chord and the pedal Eb underneath it. Ravel removes that dissonance, and to my mind weakens the music. I do love Ravel, but in this case there seems to be a clash of sensibilities. Stokowski's arrangement has a genuine Russian 'feel' to it, and seems to be preferable to me.

The ultimate arrangement of this work is by Ralph Burns! It's on an old recording called 'The Masters Revisited'. He not only orchestrates the work but rethinks the whole piece. OK it's got cuban dance rythms, jazz chords and masses of bizarre percussion but the over all effect is that he has the guts to change things and restructure stuff. It's not just a transcription like the others who slavishly respect Mosoursky's piano score down to the last note.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Ravel and use it as reference in my own work but it is a mere 'moving the notes from white paper to cream paper' exercise however masterfully done. Stokovsky (Stokes) has always been fun and his transcriptions of Paderewski, Liszt and Bach are always great to play and marvelous thundering examples of mid 20th century orchestral technique but the leave me a bit empty because the orchestration is the no. 1 feature and you're so 'blown away' by the sheer magnitude of the sound that the music gets a bit lost.

Orchestration, transcription and arranging have slightly different meanings so I could say:

for transcription: Ravel
for orchestration: Stokes
for arrangement: Burns
for odd transcription: Phillip Jones (Brass ensemble)

FC

Have you ever heard this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFMt_G4ku0 ?

I'm only familiar with the Ravel version but I'm keen to hear the Stokowski. I'll seek it out.

I know I've mentioned in the past that Leonard Slatkin conducted a "composite" rendition of orchestrations for Pictures at an Exhibition." I was in attendance at one of those events. This thread made me scramble for my old performance program. In it, they listed orchestrators of 'Pictures,' and that information, highly abridged, is re-iterated here:

Mikhail Tushmalov- pupil of Rimsky-Korsakov- the first
Henry Wood- the legendary British conductor (also, like Stokowski, "orchestrated" Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D-Minor BWV 565)
Maurice Ravel- needs no introduction
Leonidas Leonardi- Ravel's orchestration was originally a Koussevitzky commission, and for a time Serge had exclusivity of use. In the pre-depression years, Leonardi's was the version available to those not named Koussevitzky.
Lucien Caillet- otherwise best known for his work scoring Hollywood films
Leopold Stokowski- also needs no introduction
Sergei Gorchakov- proved durable as a radio-conductor in the Soviet Union
Lawrence Leonard- took tutelage with Nadia Boulanger (and Ravel!)- best known as a pit-conductor for Broadway musicals, and studio-conductor of film music.
Vladimir Ashkenazy- the world-famous pianist/conductor

Of course, I recognize that this is NOT a totally comprehensive list...

Originally Posted by jezbo

I'm only familiar with the Ravel version but I'm keen to hear the Stokowski. I'll seek it out.

Bear in mind that Stokowski didn't orchestrate all the pieces, so there are gaps.

Originally Posted by alvarohenrique

Have you ever heard this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFMt_G4ku0 ?

Yeah, he's a brilliant guy! I also have his Dvorak's Ninth symphony transcription, which is brilliant too. But... I think those kinds of transcriptions fall under the "fascinating" category - you listen to them two or three times and go back to the regular ones.

Originally Posted by alvarohenrique

Have you ever heard this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFMt_G4ku0 ?

I had a feeling that the inclusion of "[vs. others]" in the title would yield some pretty interesting results. Thanks for sharing that one!

Dear Pictures Lovers & Bloggers, I am not a blogger myself (no time), and consequently will not see any further responses to this thread, but I came across this site with its discussion of the various arrangements of Mussorgsky's "Pictures" and could not resist joining this blog site for the express purpose of introducing those of you who love this work as I do (it is my favorite piece of music) to the organization I founded a couple of years ago devoted to the promotion of Pictures in all of its manifold arrangements (more than 300 to date). The organization is called IKVA (=International Kartinki s Vystavki Association) and has members all around the world. There is no membership fee--all you have to do to join is to write me at davecanfield@sbcglobal.net and let me know that you'd like to receive our occasional newsletters (via email only) and updates to our "Pictures" recordings listings. One of the lists comprises all of the piano recordings known to me (currently more than 330 different recorded performances). Another list compiles all of the more than 300 arrangements, with all known recordings (about 600) thereof. IKVA also maintains smaller lists of works inspired by (or quoting) Pictures, and films using portions of or the entire work.

IKVA will eventually also publish (electronically) an encyclopedia devoted to the work, which will contain biographies of the various arrangers, articles about the work, as well as a concert roster of all known performances (yes, a large undertaking!) and reviews.

I am happy to answer any questions you might have about the work, its various arrangements, recordings, etc., but only off-line (privately) to the above email address.

So this first blog posting will also be the last post you will see from me, but I hope that some of you will want to join IKVA, and I will look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
David DeBoor Canfield

One listing

For many years I grew up with the Ravel transcription - didn't we all? - and thought it was the perfect representation of Mussorgsky until I heard Stoki's powerhouse transcription under his baton on Decca/London Phase-4. Years later, I heard the arrangement in concert with Mehli Mehta conducting the National Orchestral Association at Carnegie Hall, and was still thrilled by it!

I echo Stoki's sentiments regarding Ravel - too French, and not extolling the Slavic power and blood that he saw in the score. And yet there are faults with his score, some of which need major correcting.

Like Ravel, Stokowski did not use Mussorgsky's urtext piano score; in Stoki's case, he not only looked at the Rimsky-Korsakov edition (which smoothed out the voicings and harmonizations), but also that of Harold Bauer, who made numerous cuts in some of the movements, removed the big Promenade reprise, and I believe also omitted the same two movements (Tuilleries and Market Place at Limoges) Stokowski did in his orchestration. Perhaps both men were "convinced" that these movements were not written by Mussorgsky, but by Rimsky-Korsakov.

Moreover, the opening Promenade's 5/4 and 6/4 meters are simplified, so that they are broken up into 3/4 and 2/4. While this may simplify things for some players, it does rob the work of its unique rhythmic character, especially since it is played by the first violins. And while Stoki does crib Ravel in one or two sections (most notably Samuel Goldenberg & Schmuyle), his view of Bydlo and The Hut on the Fowl's Legs anticipate some of Bernard Herrmann's most bizarre orchestrations for his Harryhausen scores. (Herrmann was a great friend and admirer of Stokowski.)

In spite of some of its flaws and cuts, I prefer Stokowski to Ravel anyday. And that said, the best recordings out there are those by Oliver Knussen, Jose Serebrier and Matthias Bamert. Stoki's own recording was on CD back in the late 80s, but is now out of print.

In terms of other orchestrations, there is one by the conductor Walter Goehr that has not been played, and no one has mentioned the equally vivid one by Leo Funtek, which many people also consider superior to Ravel's.

For band aficionados, there is a sterling transcription by Mark Hindsley, but this one mirrors the Ravel orchestration rather closely in spots, so it really should be titled Mussorgsky-Ravel-Hindsley.

This page here has nice info concerning the instrumentations
http://www.mola-inc.org/Mussorgsky.htm

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4649/pictures1q.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6201/pictures2o.jpg







My favourite orchestrations so far are by Leopold Stokowski and Sir Henry Wood. Both orchestrations brought tears tp my eyes when I was listening to them.
Actually, I am very curious to hear the Ravel pupil, Leonidas Leonardi. But it seems that "nobody" is recording his orchestration. From that orchestration, Leonard Slatkin included the "Tuileries" movement in his first compilation. He remarked at the time that the orchestration "seemed like a rushed job" and it is notable he has not returned to it.


As for Walter Goehr, the Promenade between "Gnomus" and "The Old Castle" was recorded by conductor Leonard Slatkin in his second compilation.
http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item...._code=8.570716