Talk:Gaspard de la nuit

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not 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.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Translation[edit]

What does 'Gaspard de la nuit' mean in English? Perhaps this would be something useful to add to the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Shadowshark (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 April 2006.

Good idea; I've added the English translation, though if someone else has better French perhaps they can correct me. —Adso de Fimnu 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

made a few edits. my french isn't better than yours, Adso, but i just googled for the meaning of gaspard. however, the title is not commonly translated into english - should it just be left out? because if people were to see the english translation here, they may try to search for the sheet music or something using the english, and they'd be unable to find it. Theconroy 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't translate, as, e.g., one doesn't translate Gaspard Coriolis, Caspar Weinberger, or the Caspar of the Wise Men. The meaning is now explained in the article. Jclerman 11:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree totally! Don't be silly, definitely translate! The title is not a man's given name. Rather, it is used as an idiomatic expression in a poetic context in contemporary foreign language. No non-francophone will know what it means without the literary/cultural context. By the same token, the titles of all Debussy pieces are translated into all languages. So should this one be. Translation and derivation are correct as my piano teachers in Paris, one of whom met Ravel before he died, told me Gaspard = Devil and not a man's given name, so your comparison is inapt. And Theconroy, we can't be responsible if people reading this article don't read the whole article. Let them buy sheet music at their own risk. Laguna greg (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I added the complete poems by Bertrand plus English translations, but they were deleted because of "unknown provenance." That's simple to fix. The poems can be found at gutenberg.org, and the translation I used is by Nancy Bricard posted at http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~echew/projects/ChineseMusic/concert/gaspard.html. Another translation is by pianist Greg Anderson at http://www.andersonpiano.com/wingsofsong/ravel.php. There are probably more. I'd like to see the poems and their translation restored, as they help immensely in understanding what Ravel wanted to portray. Please restore! Deschreiber (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the French texts at the French Wikisource and to English texts on the web would have been sufficient, I suppose. I you wanted to include the texts in this article, considerably more detailed formatting and careful proof reading was required than your contribution provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style of writing[edit]

Does it really make sense to describe each movement at the beginning of the article, and then again later on? i haven't checked any of the writing guidelines, but i'm fairly certain that this sort of redundancy is not at all condoned within the rules. it would not be dificult to put all of these things into one section.

I agree; also, the list of the pieces talks about technical problems in the pieces that contribute to their difficulty, so maybe the article would flow better if the fact that the pieces are some of the hardest in piano repertoire before this list, as opposed to after. 170.54.58.5 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

The "Poem Translations, Musical Background" link at the bottom of the page is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.255.23 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty[edit]

It makes no sense for the article to contain a miniature polemic over which works are more difficult than GdlN. The entry already makes clear that it is "popularly" considered to be one of the most difficult works in the "standard repertoire." None of the other composers' works are in the _standard repertoire_ and therefore listing them is completely unnecessary. The actual difficulty of the piece is subjective and one could list anything at all as "possibly" more difficult. I am deleting the offending sentences: "being surpassed by only very few works, such works by Charles-Valentin Alkan and Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. However, there exist many surpassingly technically challenging modern works, such as those by Iannis Xenakis, Michael Finnissy, and Frederic Rzewski." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.217.196 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of movements[edit]

I hate to be picky but I find the descriptions of each movement confusing. It poetically describes each movement and the poem it relates to yet doesn't explain how the unique technical devices produce this effect, which is surely what makes it as brilliant as it is. I thought perhaps they should be the other way round with the unique technical effect first then a description of what the effect describes. The poetic nature of the descriptions sort of confuses things. It reads like "Poemy poemy poemy poemy..... oh yeah, quite difficult technical bit..." There is a quote that may be difficult to come by where Ravel stated that he often began a piece with an effect and composed around it. From an encyclopedic point of view, surely it's more interesting how he constructed the piece to represent each poem rather than the poem itself. Also, how does one arrive at the number 20 for the different styles in Le Gibet? Blurgezig (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

"The name Gaspard is derived from its original Persian form, denoting the man in charge of the royal treasures: "Gaspard of the Night" or the treasurer of the night thus creates allusions to someone in charge of all that is jewel-like, dark, mysterious, perhaps even morose."

Well, yes, that's what it's derived from - but what it actually means is the Devil. PiCo (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really. You know this how? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jack, my piano teachers in Paris explained it to me that way, that "Gaspard" was an old idiomatic expression for the devil. Ravel did not intend it to be thought of as a man's given name. Laguna greg (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well folks, ...The title is not a man's given name, you say, and you invoke some high authority. I don't disagree with the translation or the derivation. Still, Bertrand the original author always refers to the character, who is the fictitious author of the literary work, and makes himself known to the poet in the form of a man, as 'Gaspard de la Nuit' with a capital N, throughout his text, even when admitting that he is the devil. I see no harm in offering a translation, but I think it is silly to separate the 'de la Nuit' from the 'Gaspard' as part of the (infernal) character's name, which the poet always used in its full form. Indeed the Preface to the entire book of Fantaisies is actually signed 'Gaspard de la Nuit' as a personal name. ('(L'auteur) se contente de signer son oeuvre - Gaspard de la Nuit'). The whole phrase is both an idiomatic expression and a name, as Bertrand's introduction makes quite clear. In my humble opinion, therefore, the capital 'N' should be restored in the title of the article. Eebahgum (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic Texts[edit]

Should we provide translations of the poems? Laguna greg (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded versions[edit]

Bizarrely, the only listed version is an orchestral one. Are any solo piano versions notewothy? If so, how many, and which? Ivo Pogorelić springs to mind for one, although not noted in his article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to list piano recordings unless they have become notable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are all agreed that none have? What is the criterion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what exactly you are objecting to. I see no list of recordings in the article. There are some recodings mentioned under "External links" (and I haven't checked the out), but that section is governed by WP:EL, not by WP:N. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an objection, just an observation. If there are any notable recordings, I think they could be listed. I am also surprised to see an orchestral version, as the piece was written for solo piano. But I am also unclear as to what are the agreed criteria that make any recording "notable". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of my questions may be answered here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are several celebrated and even prize-winning recordings of this work, if there's going to be a list (and there should be). The first and most obvious is Marthe Argerich's standard-setting recording made for DG in the 1960s, which won a grand prix du disque that year. This is widely recognized as the standard reference recording of all 3 movements of this work. Another is Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, also made in the 1960s. Another, and a personal favorite, is that made by Walter Gieseking during the 1930s I believe. Ivo Pogorelich's recording has received great critical praise as the best of his generation.

Also Martin, that link offers guidelines for recordings that merit a separate article all by themselves. It doesn't seem to really apply to listing recordings within an article about a major composition, although I think those are good guidelines for selecting recordings for articles in the first place. Laguna greg 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

Oneiric?[edit]

The link to "oneiric" near the top does not lead to a definition of the term, for which there exists an excellent wikipage. But rather it leads to a page about Undine that does not explain what the term means at all, or even mentions it; Undine ≠ oneiric, BTW. So I've redirected that link to the correct page. Laguna greg 19:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

Thanks. But the Undine link was quite useful, as the only remaining link is simply to the original Aloysius Bertrand 1920 poem. I wonder could the sentence be re-written to allow links to both? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Publication of Bertrand's Work[edit]

The first paragraph of this article says: "...from the collection Gaspard de la Nuit, fantaisies à la manière de Rembrandt et de Callot completed in 1836 by Aloysius Bertrand."

However, the fhird paragraph of "Etymology" says: "Aloysius Bertrand, author of Gaspard de la Nuit (1842),..."

So which is correct? If I might suggest, the correct year of publication should go in the introduction and the second reference should leave it off, as it is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpolhemus (talk • contribs) 19:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gaspard de la nuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]