Talk:Piano Concerto in G major (Ravel)
 | Classical music: Compositions | ||||||
| |||||||
Untitled[edit]
Well, I did my best to rework it. The form section has been completely redone, and I think it's much more accurate now..
The form section REALLY needs a reworking. "Strong, classical form"? "Loosely tertiary"? For such a wonderfully complex and beautiful piece, this section does not enlighten at all. I think it should be removed. 24.68.50.92 (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is one of the greatest pieces of music ever written. As a budding composer, I would like to see how he got the inspiration for the magnificent second movement.
The title of this page is incorrect - the actual name of the piece is "Concerto Pour Piano et Orchestre", which translates as "Concerto for Piano and Orchestra" Ravel wasn't a classical composer; this piece does not stay in one key.
I redirected it to "Concerto pour Piano et Orchestre," although maybe it wasn't necessary--the French article, for example, refers to it as "Concerto in G." If somebody wants to change it back, feel free.
Slystoneisback 23:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As per article styles at WP:CM this article should be renamed Piano Concerto (Ravel). If no one has any objections, I'm moving the page. Centy 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This article verges on being a rave about how great this concerto is, as opposed to explaining the characteristics, elements, genre etc. If it's okay I'll work on adding that. And I agree that this is supposed to be called "Concerto Pour Piano et Orchestre". charmed. 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) I'll return to add more, including a more indepth discussion and analysis of the movements a bit later charmed. 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I will return and assist. As for the title, I think it is fine; I've found a Durand edition which says "concerto pour piano et orchestre en sol" and at any rate it's commonly referred to as "concerto in g" so perhaps its better to leave it. --Andreuso 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The bit about orchestral techniques including "divisi" and "con sordini" is silly. Especially in the romantic era, there are very few scores which don't divide string parts occasionally or use mutes. It would be something like saying that Beethoven used "notes" as one of his techinques in writing the 5th symphony. Harp Glissandi are also VERY common. Utopian (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Piano Concerto (Ravel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060211084809/http://newyorkphilharmonic.org:80/programNotes/Ravel_PianoConcertoinG.pdf to http://newyorkphilharmonic.org/programNotes/Ravel_PianoConcertoinG.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Article title[edit]
In the untitled talk section there is some discussion of the title for the concerto and article. I think all agree the title should be in English. In decades of music listening I have heard this concerto called "Concerto in G", far more than anything else. So, why is that not the article title? I'm asking because I'm surprised it isn't and I would like to know how the current title came to be. But as for changing the title, I don't suggest it because it would seem to be more trouble than it's worth. Zaslav (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Having just been adding some text to the article I too am not wild about the present title. Ravel undeniably wrote two piano concertos, one in G and one in D (for the left hand). I think our title here ought to be Piano Concerto in G (Ravel). I'd be happy to do all the fiddly rearrangements if this is agreed, but have any other editors got a view on the matter? Tim riley talk 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the article title ought to be "Piano Concerto in G (Ravel)". In the case of almost any other composer, it would be "Piano Concerto No. 2" (or "No. 1"), but the Ravel concertos are never referred to that way, largely because they were composed concurrently.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Some while ago Piano Sonata (Liszt) was moved to Piano Sonata in B minor (Liszt). Even though he only ever wrote one sonata, it's always for some reason referred to by its key. Just as Franck's sole symphony gets Symphony in D minor (Franck). We could spend time working out why these things are as they are, but that wouldn't change anything, and we have to be guided by how these things are actually referred to out there in RL. So, this move gets my tick. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)