Talk:Piano Concerto (Ravel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Piano Concerto (Ravel) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.


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)