Strange notation in Ravel

[Knut]

Here's the last to systems of the 4th song in Ravel's Cinq mélodies populaires grecques:

Cinq mélodies populaires grecques IV.jpg (977.97 KiB) Viewed 13876 times

Apart from the unclear notation in the piano, 4th measure, my real question is with the 6th measure, piano, left hand. This seems to me like an overly complex, if not unclear way to notate this kind of figure. In fact, in another edition available on IMSLP by the Russian publisher Muzyka, the is simply converted to an and the quintuplet is omitted. This seems sensible to me, considering the slow tempo of the piece (Lento) and the break from the rhythmic left-hand pattern in the same measure. What do you think?

[OCTO]

I can answer the question being a composer here.
Sometimes we composers write more philosophical than rational. We think too long and after the intense logical thinking we drove in nonsense. Than we write something like that in M6.
Yes, a composer can correct it, when the head is calm in a fresh nice morning. But sometimes it stays neglected as this example, despite of its theoretical correctness.
Being clear here: I just say it is to much unmusical to be notated like that. Ferneyhough would like it.

[Knut]

I can answer the question being a composer here.
Sometimes we composers write more philosophical than rational. We think too long and after the intense logical thinking we drove in nonsense. Than we write something like that in M6.
Yes, a composer can correct it, when the head is calm in a fresh nice morning. But sometimes it stays neglected as this example, despite of its theoretical correctness.
Being clear here: I just say it is to much unmusical to be notated like that. Ferneyhough would like it.

Thanks, OCTO, I can certainly identify with that.

I thought maybe there was a more rational explanation for why it was written that way, though.

[Knut]

Another oddity from the same score is this:

Cinq mélodies populaires grecques IV 2.png (62.9 KiB) Viewed 13842 times

This isn't the only instance of such double stemming in the vocal part of this piece, and I've seen the same thing in other contexts, like the harp part of Introduction & Allegro for instance, but there doesn't seem to be any rational reason for why or when it's done. Rhythmic complexity does not seem to factor in.

[John Ruggero]

In reverse order:

1. Strange stemming: the extra stems are for the English translation. Durand did the two-language version first and then just omitted the English text for the all-French version, leaving these vestigial remains behind. Very sloppy, Durand. Ravel had nothing to do with it.
http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usi ... 5score.pdf

2. Measure 4: this is probably "experimental" impressionistic piano notation. They were trying a lot of "cool" things with notation, some good and some bad, just like composers today. Quarter rests are omitted for the upper parts as "obvious" given the meter and voice part that makes the rhythm absolutely clear. Simplifications like this are the bread and butter of keyboard notation in general, which tends to be creative given the desire of the best composers to keep the notation as simple as possible. Two more examples by Ravel:

Ravel Sonatine1.jpg (125.24 KiB) Viewed 13832 times

Ravel Sonatine2.jpg (70.43 KiB) Viewed 13832 times

3. measure 6: A 5:6 tuplet seems pretty tame to me, especially in this day and age! This certainly cannot be an error, since it took a lot of trouble to notate it this way. The quintuplet encourages a more free playing of the measure with a kind of folk-like hold on the D#.

The Russian version actually changes the meter from 3/4 to 2/4 to make the change from a 1/4 to an 1/8 note work! Unless the measure was revised this way by Ravel, it should be left as it stands.

I disagree with the idea that the greatest composers do "weird" things notationally. If something looks unusual in the work of such a composer, my first thought is: why this? Is there something deeper here that I am missing? Only when no rational reason can be found do I consider error and only reluctantly.

At some point, I hope to post examples of notational "oddities" that conflict with standard engraving practices but turn out to be little "works of genius" in themselves.

[OCTO]

What I think is oddity with M6 is Ravel's normal previous behavior, and than suddenly he gets 'crazy' at one point where you can audibly not hear the 5-plet. It is clearly forced notation in my opinion, but nothing is illegal....

If I compare it with Scriabin's late sonatas, where everything is full of this odd tuplets, nothing is strange there, even if this Ravel's measure was implemented in his sonata.

I just notice that oddity.

[OCTO]

Ravel sonatine1 example by Johan R. is really strange. But after the inspection I believe that the key lies in the formal organization.
The measure finishes at the fermata and at this point the time signature is fulfilled. The upbeat is actually added 1/8, Ravel simply didn't want to bother with changed TS, since the music is clear about it.
5/8 would be a "new contemporary approach", sometimes disastrous for phrasing (and some of the common mistakes by young compoaers wishing to express every single aspect of phrasing), and Ravel is pretty aware of it.

[John Ruggero]

Actually, the 2nd measure in the first Sonatine example is in straight 2/4. There are no extra beats present.

The first 1/8th note of the cross-beamed group comes in on the second eighth division of beat 1, "under" the first chord so to speak, and the fermata chord comes directly on beat 2. Ravel simply omitted an understood 1/8 rest under the first chord in the measure, just as he omitted an understood 1/8 rest over the first chord in the last measure of the second example.

The following example shows the rhythm more clearly. This is an interesting example because Ravel is using one note, the high E to unify two sections of the piece. A D is added to the melody note E in measure 2 and this is transformed into the accompaniment notes DE in the third measure. The notation is designed to show this relationship, as explained in the example,

Ravel Sonatine3.jpg (78.21 KiB) Viewed 13821 times

Believe it or not, I never had a student make an error in counting here even at the first lesson on the piece. Pianists are just very accustomed to this kind of abbreviated notation where rests are omitted where the voice leading clarifies.

[OCTO]

Very smart John, I haven't noticed that! That is the correct explanation.
(Next time I will use computer, not my small 4' Samsung mobile for replies and opening pictures!)

[John Ruggero]

Thanks, OCTO. It is much easier to see this if you have the whole piece before you.

A case could also be made for the high E in measure 2 as being part of the main melody going G#- E - C#, repeating what happened in the previous measure; A- G#- E- C#- E. This would be an even stronger explanation for why Ravel did not want to disrupt this melodic line with a rest under beat 1.