OK I confess I tend to become something like bored and cutty when it comes to compositions, which tend to be more an clichée of themself like the moonshine sonata or Bachs Aria and I confess Ravels Pavane is in my opinion definitly one of those pieces. Thats why I tend to become more sceptical about all established iterpretation stereotypes.
And yes even Ravel himself obviously thougt (like Beethoven about his Moonshinesonata) not very good about his the Pavane. being more or less one of the early the result of his Studies with Faure.
But just a short look on the very first Page of the Score provides enough occasion to dispute nearly fundamentally the major current conception of this music. Ravel has give a pretty clear and concrete tempoadvice (1/4 = 54 bpm for tthe Orchestral version which is realised in Average 20% to slow in 35 inspected traditional Interpretations). And it should be played with natural horns, which is also not that often respected.
So even if Jay Bacal provides something like the conventional conception of this piece, here comes my Version here with natural horns and a serious respect for the original demanded tempo.
Pavane pour une infante défunte - Orchester 1910 in original tempo + with natural horns in G
I hope you like it:
(BTW: I was even more cruel with the pianoversion realising it likewise in the demanded original Tempo which is even 30% faster than played in average of 30 inspected conventional pianointerpretations. Here I choose the Erard-Grandpiano from 1873, which is very warm and avoids every danger of aseptic perfection see here: Pavane pour une infante défunte - Piano 1899 )
