![]() | Piano music of Gabriel Fauré is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2012. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I am not really that well informed about Fauré's piano music, but I would recommend a recent book by Roy Howat, The Art of French Piano Music - Debussy, Ravel, Fauré, Chabrier published by Yale University Press in 2009. He covers many works in great detail, perhaps with an emphasis on advice for advanced students, but with much other very useful information. He mentions Fauré's surviving Érard piano, the influence of Hasselmanns and problems with different editions of the works. I will read through your article properly, too. Cg2p0B0u8m ( talk) 21:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The article strikes me as being elegantly composed, in a way which honours Fauré and which I feel sure would have pleased him. It's a resource which I look forward to consulting in more detail as I listen back to some of Fauré's piano music. Thank you Tim!-- MistyMorn ( talk) 16:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all, wonderful-looking article which I have only just discovered. I was wondering if Barcarolle No. 12 should be labelled as "Opus 106bis" rather than Opus 106? As I understand it, this is one of those cases where two different works got the same number (whether Faure's attention was slipping or the publishers, or perhaps different publishers went for the same number). And my understanding is that it's the Barcarolle that 'lost out' and is now usually labelled as 106bis. I have the recordings by Kathryn Stott for Hyperion and it's presented as 106bis there. Not sure about other sources. Orfeocookie ( talk) 07:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
While some of the very recent edits in the last few hours obviously regard details of MOS, others seem to me (though I may be wrong) to be oceanic, and to my ears at least aren't always a clear improvement. A small query: In what variety of English is this page composed? MistyMorn ( talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that this is a first but well done the authors of this! Please add your contributions thanking the authors if you wish in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.127.209 ( talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I was disappointed to find out that this article has received featured status. The great portion of the article describes the most superficial features of each piece, features that can be easily felt by an unexperienced listener and tell nothing about the importance or uniqueness of the works discussed. The higher, analytical level is hardly dealt with. Looking at the list of references, out of 21 entries, 10 are merely liner notes of recordings etc.; 7 are mostly biographical references; and only 3 seem to deal mainly with analysis, although none of them is dedicated to Faure's piano music. However, a simple query of scholarly articles dealing with these works yields dozens of references, none of which are cited in this article. Although I will be probably accused of jealousy etc., I am forced to make a comparison with another article to which I was the main contributor, which has only achieved QA level. Read the two articles and judge for yourselves. How many references dealing with musical analysis, notated examples, and musicological terms are mentioned in each of the two articles?
The article cites Aaron Copland multiple times, yet the editors failed to read his very own essay on Faure (see ref. below).
To my judgement, the article needs a thorough revision in order to be worthy of FA status. The superficial descriptions of each short piece are totally futile to me, and I believe they should be shortened, maybe general comments about each specific genre (impormptu, barcarolle, etc.) can suffice. These descriptions feature all too frequent citations of extramusical connotations or scenic descriptions of all kinds of authors, instead of describing the music itself with purely musicological terms.
On the other hand, a thorough consideration of the unique style of these specific pieces (in what are they different from Chopin's piano music, for instance? What chords, scales and progressions characterize Faure's piano works?) and its influence on other composers, supported by analytical references and mentioning musical analytical terminology, is needed. The introduction is the only section dealing to some extent with musical terms, although also at a very superficial level. I think the article editors should aspire to read as much as possible, preferably all of the available scholarly articles and theses dealing with these pieces, if the article is to be worthy of FA status. I personally do not have time to make major contributions to this article in the coming months, unfortunately.
Here is an incomplete list of scholarly articles dealing with in-depth analysis of Faure's piano music, none of which are cited in the WP article:
Gidip ( talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin in showing up the misguided statements made by Gidip.
I shan't add more, as it would be unkind. I invite Gidip to reflect on the word "consensus", which we have here, with one conspicuous exception. Tim riley ( talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Tim, the initial points of your justifications were considerable, but then you (somewhat disappointingly) derailed your sincerely. Firstly (in regard to the second response) Wikipedia is a user-generated source of cited information; it obviously won’t cater to all readers (and not all information on this article would be helpful to all WP readers either, as the knowledge-based desires of readers are individualistic.) As for the last section, it was rather pointless. Stick to justifications for your sentiments please, not asking users to “reflect” on words in seemingly blatant relation to their actions. *Raises eyes* LLLookAtYouHacker ( talk) 18:56, 08 October 2012 (UTC)
Gidip, it appears from your post that you have a lot of interesting and important information to add to this article. Well, get to it! We aren't running a contest here, we are trying to work together to make the best encyclopedia we can. So if you have something important to add, do it. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 19:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This important comment backed up by the composer's son's words should definitely be moved from the Barcarolles section to either the lead or the introduction, as it is relevant to most if not all the pieces. Gidip ( talk) 11:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Faure's works were and still are neglected. Just count how many pianists perform them. The most famous pianists very rarely do (Horowitz 1 piece, Rubinstein 1 piece, more examples?). These works are almost unknown when compared to Debussy or Ravel, for instance. The famous G. Henle Verlag edition published only one work up to date. I think this is one of the most important points about this repertoire, and it has to be mentioned in the article, close to the beginning. Copland's essay is a good starting point. However we also need a more up-to-date review describing the current status of the works. And of course any explanations for the pieces' unpopularity will be great (maybe Copland gives any?). (Personally I think these works are among the best in the piano repertoire, I am playing and studying them continuously)
I hope I will find time to contribute to some scholarly analytical information for this article. Maybe a few more months ahead, after I finish my PhD. Gidip ( talk) 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little sceptical about the inclusion of the Pavane in this article. I see that there's a citation of a source saying the Pavane was composed for piano, but how reliable is this?
Partly I say this because the Pavane doesn't appear in recorded collections of the complete piano music, but also because Grove explicitly disagrees (or did a couple of years ago). Grove says it was a work for orchestra with optional chorus (wordless?) composed in 1887, with (in order) a piano arrangement in 1889, a choral + piano version in 1891, and the choral + orchestra version in 1901.
Nectoux also states that the Pavane was written in 1887 and lists it under choral music.
Have we got any other sources to check? Orfeocookie ( talk) 12:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still unsure about this. I checked the Howat book at the BL this morning. The text reads, "…Pavane op. 50, first published for solo piano in the 1880s, then with an added SATB text by Robert de Montesquiou…" It certainly existed in piano form in 1887: in September of that year Fauré wrote to Countess Élizabeth Greffuhle, "I should so much have liked to play you a Pavane that I have composed especially for your salon (Nectoux (ed) – Gabriel Fauré: His Life Through Letters, p. 130). But in another letter that month he told Marguerite Baugnies that he had composed "a Pavane … for the Danbé Concerts orchestra" (ib. p. 129; my italics). Nectoux in the 1991 book (p. 395) mentions the work in piano and orchestral forms, with and without chorus, but doesn't say which came first. I don't, by the bye, put much store by the accuracy of the Peters website, which thinks Jules Danbé was, ahem!, Jules Danube.
I think it might be safest to say that Fauré produced the piece in piano and orchestral versions in 1887, without attempting to say which came first. From Fauré's letters it looks rather as though he worked on both versions simultaneously, but it would be speculative to say so without clear corroboration from a reliable source. – Tim riley ( talk) 14:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am now convinced that Mr Howat does not think the piano version is the original. The preface of the Howat-Hiscocks transcription is dated 1994. The very first sentence of their preface is "Fauré composed the Pavane in the summer of 1887, originally as a purely orchestral piece for the concert series of the Parisian conduct Jules Danbé."
It then goes on to say that Danbé did not perform it, that Fauré dedicated it to Greffulhe in hope it would be performed at her salon, and then immediately links this with Faure's desire to have it performed with an invisible choir and orchestra. I note that the letter mentioning the salon is the exact same letter that mentions the invisible choir and orchestra and says that he has asked Montesquiou to provide words. The next couple of letters show that Montesquiou did provide the words very soon after. I can accept that Faure would have, if he was playing the piece for Greffulhe in September 1887, played it on the piano, but I do not agree this means he intended for it to be performed at her salon on the piano. He is already talking about the choral part added to the orchestral score, in the same letter.
The Howat-Hiscocks preface goes on to say that Fauré's own transcription is of the Pavane in its earliest form, before he made minor changes to the full score for its publication in 1901. They explain that their own transcription is instead based on the 1901 published version, but taking into account Fauré's piano version. A note to the preface says the piano version was published in 1889 or 1890.
Howat's later book, as you've noted, says that it was first published as the piano version "in the late 1880s" and then as the piano + chorus version. Nectoux's volume of letters includes a note saying that the piano + chorus version was in a compendium volume from a newspaper in 1888. However, Grove Online seems to agree with Howat's statement, listing the piano version as published in 1889 and the piano + chorus not until 1891.
Howat didn't change his views, because the later book in fact does not consider the piano version to be the original composition. In discussing Fauré's piano rolls (p.322) he says that Fauré recorded several solo piano pieces and the piano reductions of 2 pieces, 1 of which is the Pavane. There is a clear separation between the 'piano pieces' on the one hand and the 'piano reductions' on the other.
Everyone is in agreement that the piano version was published well before the orchestral version, so I would be fine with a text saying that. I think I would also be fine, one apparent contradiction from Nectoux's letters notwithstanding, with saying that the piano version was the first to be published (ie before the piano + chorus version), as Grove (which is also Nectoux) agrees with Howat on that. But I just don't see any evidence of an original piano composition or an original intention for it to be a piano piece. Orfeocookie ( talk) 04:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just fixed the key of Barcarolle No.9, which was wrong (it is most definitely in A minor, not D flat major). I don't currently have access to the relevant sources to check whether the quotes are all correctly aligned around barcarolles 8 to 10. Numbers 9 and 10 are in the same key and quite similar in some ways.
Also, the description of Barcarolle No.7 as 'recalling' Crepuscule may well be a quote, but I've just realised it's a fairly unfortunate one, because several sources seem to agree that the barcarolle was written in 1905 and Crepuscule wasn't written until 1906. However, Crepuscule uses some of the same music as Melisande's Song, written in 1898. Nevertheless, if Koechlin is trying to suggest that the barcarolle is copying Crepuscule in some way than Koechlin is simply contradicted by numerous other sources. Orfeocookie ( talk) 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Why quoted appears in italics suchs as Quoted in Nectoux (1991), p. 48. What dos it mean? As I am currently translating this interesting topic into Spanish, I would like to know. Cheers! Doblecaña ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Fauré first complete piano solo music was done by French pianist Evelyne Crochet, and released in 1964, according to its official website. The New York Times calls the recording «a labor of love». I don't think I can prove it being the first completed recording, but can she be mentioned in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré? Vox recording codes are VBX 423 and 424; stereo SVBX 5423 and 5424 Triplecaña ( talk) 11:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC) (formerly Doblecaña)
The link of December 1945 issue is broken. Found this though it is unreadable. If it requires subscription please note so. Cheers! Triplecaña ( talk) 15:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The quote "In piano music there's no room for padding – one has to pay cash and make it constantly interesting. It's perhaps the most difficult medium of all" can also be found on page 380 of Nectoux's Gabriel Fauré A Musical Life, which has the advantage of a preview on Google Books. Can somebody explain me that idiom? Is it really necessary to understand the idea? Triplecaña ( talk) 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Piano music of Gabriel Fauré is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2012. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I am not really that well informed about Fauré's piano music, but I would recommend a recent book by Roy Howat, The Art of French Piano Music - Debussy, Ravel, Fauré, Chabrier published by Yale University Press in 2009. He covers many works in great detail, perhaps with an emphasis on advice for advanced students, but with much other very useful information. He mentions Fauré's surviving Érard piano, the influence of Hasselmanns and problems with different editions of the works. I will read through your article properly, too. Cg2p0B0u8m ( talk) 21:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The article strikes me as being elegantly composed, in a way which honours Fauré and which I feel sure would have pleased him. It's a resource which I look forward to consulting in more detail as I listen back to some of Fauré's piano music. Thank you Tim!-- MistyMorn ( talk) 16:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all, wonderful-looking article which I have only just discovered. I was wondering if Barcarolle No. 12 should be labelled as "Opus 106bis" rather than Opus 106? As I understand it, this is one of those cases where two different works got the same number (whether Faure's attention was slipping or the publishers, or perhaps different publishers went for the same number). And my understanding is that it's the Barcarolle that 'lost out' and is now usually labelled as 106bis. I have the recordings by Kathryn Stott for Hyperion and it's presented as 106bis there. Not sure about other sources. Orfeocookie ( talk) 07:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
While some of the very recent edits in the last few hours obviously regard details of MOS, others seem to me (though I may be wrong) to be oceanic, and to my ears at least aren't always a clear improvement. A small query: In what variety of English is this page composed? MistyMorn ( talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that this is a first but well done the authors of this! Please add your contributions thanking the authors if you wish in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.127.209 ( talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I was disappointed to find out that this article has received featured status. The great portion of the article describes the most superficial features of each piece, features that can be easily felt by an unexperienced listener and tell nothing about the importance or uniqueness of the works discussed. The higher, analytical level is hardly dealt with. Looking at the list of references, out of 21 entries, 10 are merely liner notes of recordings etc.; 7 are mostly biographical references; and only 3 seem to deal mainly with analysis, although none of them is dedicated to Faure's piano music. However, a simple query of scholarly articles dealing with these works yields dozens of references, none of which are cited in this article. Although I will be probably accused of jealousy etc., I am forced to make a comparison with another article to which I was the main contributor, which has only achieved QA level. Read the two articles and judge for yourselves. How many references dealing with musical analysis, notated examples, and musicological terms are mentioned in each of the two articles?
The article cites Aaron Copland multiple times, yet the editors failed to read his very own essay on Faure (see ref. below).
To my judgement, the article needs a thorough revision in order to be worthy of FA status. The superficial descriptions of each short piece are totally futile to me, and I believe they should be shortened, maybe general comments about each specific genre (impormptu, barcarolle, etc.) can suffice. These descriptions feature all too frequent citations of extramusical connotations or scenic descriptions of all kinds of authors, instead of describing the music itself with purely musicological terms.
On the other hand, a thorough consideration of the unique style of these specific pieces (in what are they different from Chopin's piano music, for instance? What chords, scales and progressions characterize Faure's piano works?) and its influence on other composers, supported by analytical references and mentioning musical analytical terminology, is needed. The introduction is the only section dealing to some extent with musical terms, although also at a very superficial level. I think the article editors should aspire to read as much as possible, preferably all of the available scholarly articles and theses dealing with these pieces, if the article is to be worthy of FA status. I personally do not have time to make major contributions to this article in the coming months, unfortunately.
Here is an incomplete list of scholarly articles dealing with in-depth analysis of Faure's piano music, none of which are cited in the WP article:
Gidip ( talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin in showing up the misguided statements made by Gidip.
I shan't add more, as it would be unkind. I invite Gidip to reflect on the word "consensus", which we have here, with one conspicuous exception. Tim riley ( talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Tim, the initial points of your justifications were considerable, but then you (somewhat disappointingly) derailed your sincerely. Firstly (in regard to the second response) Wikipedia is a user-generated source of cited information; it obviously won’t cater to all readers (and not all information on this article would be helpful to all WP readers either, as the knowledge-based desires of readers are individualistic.) As for the last section, it was rather pointless. Stick to justifications for your sentiments please, not asking users to “reflect” on words in seemingly blatant relation to their actions. *Raises eyes* LLLookAtYouHacker ( talk) 18:56, 08 October 2012 (UTC)
Gidip, it appears from your post that you have a lot of interesting and important information to add to this article. Well, get to it! We aren't running a contest here, we are trying to work together to make the best encyclopedia we can. So if you have something important to add, do it. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 19:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This important comment backed up by the composer's son's words should definitely be moved from the Barcarolles section to either the lead or the introduction, as it is relevant to most if not all the pieces. Gidip ( talk) 11:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Faure's works were and still are neglected. Just count how many pianists perform them. The most famous pianists very rarely do (Horowitz 1 piece, Rubinstein 1 piece, more examples?). These works are almost unknown when compared to Debussy or Ravel, for instance. The famous G. Henle Verlag edition published only one work up to date. I think this is one of the most important points about this repertoire, and it has to be mentioned in the article, close to the beginning. Copland's essay is a good starting point. However we also need a more up-to-date review describing the current status of the works. And of course any explanations for the pieces' unpopularity will be great (maybe Copland gives any?). (Personally I think these works are among the best in the piano repertoire, I am playing and studying them continuously)
I hope I will find time to contribute to some scholarly analytical information for this article. Maybe a few more months ahead, after I finish my PhD. Gidip ( talk) 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little sceptical about the inclusion of the Pavane in this article. I see that there's a citation of a source saying the Pavane was composed for piano, but how reliable is this?
Partly I say this because the Pavane doesn't appear in recorded collections of the complete piano music, but also because Grove explicitly disagrees (or did a couple of years ago). Grove says it was a work for orchestra with optional chorus (wordless?) composed in 1887, with (in order) a piano arrangement in 1889, a choral + piano version in 1891, and the choral + orchestra version in 1901.
Nectoux also states that the Pavane was written in 1887 and lists it under choral music.
Have we got any other sources to check? Orfeocookie ( talk) 12:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still unsure about this. I checked the Howat book at the BL this morning. The text reads, "…Pavane op. 50, first published for solo piano in the 1880s, then with an added SATB text by Robert de Montesquiou…" It certainly existed in piano form in 1887: in September of that year Fauré wrote to Countess Élizabeth Greffuhle, "I should so much have liked to play you a Pavane that I have composed especially for your salon (Nectoux (ed) – Gabriel Fauré: His Life Through Letters, p. 130). But in another letter that month he told Marguerite Baugnies that he had composed "a Pavane … for the Danbé Concerts orchestra" (ib. p. 129; my italics). Nectoux in the 1991 book (p. 395) mentions the work in piano and orchestral forms, with and without chorus, but doesn't say which came first. I don't, by the bye, put much store by the accuracy of the Peters website, which thinks Jules Danbé was, ahem!, Jules Danube.
I think it might be safest to say that Fauré produced the piece in piano and orchestral versions in 1887, without attempting to say which came first. From Fauré's letters it looks rather as though he worked on both versions simultaneously, but it would be speculative to say so without clear corroboration from a reliable source. – Tim riley ( talk) 14:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am now convinced that Mr Howat does not think the piano version is the original. The preface of the Howat-Hiscocks transcription is dated 1994. The very first sentence of their preface is "Fauré composed the Pavane in the summer of 1887, originally as a purely orchestral piece for the concert series of the Parisian conduct Jules Danbé."
It then goes on to say that Danbé did not perform it, that Fauré dedicated it to Greffulhe in hope it would be performed at her salon, and then immediately links this with Faure's desire to have it performed with an invisible choir and orchestra. I note that the letter mentioning the salon is the exact same letter that mentions the invisible choir and orchestra and says that he has asked Montesquiou to provide words. The next couple of letters show that Montesquiou did provide the words very soon after. I can accept that Faure would have, if he was playing the piece for Greffulhe in September 1887, played it on the piano, but I do not agree this means he intended for it to be performed at her salon on the piano. He is already talking about the choral part added to the orchestral score, in the same letter.
The Howat-Hiscocks preface goes on to say that Fauré's own transcription is of the Pavane in its earliest form, before he made minor changes to the full score for its publication in 1901. They explain that their own transcription is instead based on the 1901 published version, but taking into account Fauré's piano version. A note to the preface says the piano version was published in 1889 or 1890.
Howat's later book, as you've noted, says that it was first published as the piano version "in the late 1880s" and then as the piano + chorus version. Nectoux's volume of letters includes a note saying that the piano + chorus version was in a compendium volume from a newspaper in 1888. However, Grove Online seems to agree with Howat's statement, listing the piano version as published in 1889 and the piano + chorus not until 1891.
Howat didn't change his views, because the later book in fact does not consider the piano version to be the original composition. In discussing Fauré's piano rolls (p.322) he says that Fauré recorded several solo piano pieces and the piano reductions of 2 pieces, 1 of which is the Pavane. There is a clear separation between the 'piano pieces' on the one hand and the 'piano reductions' on the other.
Everyone is in agreement that the piano version was published well before the orchestral version, so I would be fine with a text saying that. I think I would also be fine, one apparent contradiction from Nectoux's letters notwithstanding, with saying that the piano version was the first to be published (ie before the piano + chorus version), as Grove (which is also Nectoux) agrees with Howat on that. But I just don't see any evidence of an original piano composition or an original intention for it to be a piano piece. Orfeocookie ( talk) 04:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just fixed the key of Barcarolle No.9, which was wrong (it is most definitely in A minor, not D flat major). I don't currently have access to the relevant sources to check whether the quotes are all correctly aligned around barcarolles 8 to 10. Numbers 9 and 10 are in the same key and quite similar in some ways.
Also, the description of Barcarolle No.7 as 'recalling' Crepuscule may well be a quote, but I've just realised it's a fairly unfortunate one, because several sources seem to agree that the barcarolle was written in 1905 and Crepuscule wasn't written until 1906. However, Crepuscule uses some of the same music as Melisande's Song, written in 1898. Nevertheless, if Koechlin is trying to suggest that the barcarolle is copying Crepuscule in some way than Koechlin is simply contradicted by numerous other sources. Orfeocookie ( talk) 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Why quoted appears in italics suchs as Quoted in Nectoux (1991), p. 48. What dos it mean? As I am currently translating this interesting topic into Spanish, I would like to know. Cheers! Doblecaña ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Fauré first complete piano solo music was done by French pianist Evelyne Crochet, and released in 1964, according to its official website. The New York Times calls the recording «a labor of love». I don't think I can prove it being the first completed recording, but can she be mentioned in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré? Vox recording codes are VBX 423 and 424; stereo SVBX 5423 and 5424 Triplecaña ( talk) 11:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC) (formerly Doblecaña)
The link of December 1945 issue is broken. Found this though it is unreadable. If it requires subscription please note so. Cheers! Triplecaña ( talk) 15:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The quote "In piano music there's no room for padding – one has to pay cash and make it constantly interesting. It's perhaps the most difficult medium of all" can also be found on page 380 of Nectoux's Gabriel Fauré A Musical Life, which has the advantage of a preview on Google Books. Can somebody explain me that idiom? Is it really necessary to understand the idea? Triplecaña ( talk) 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)