On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 05:13:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/16/2018 8:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/16/18 6:39 PM, Tim wrote:

4:05 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I know words aren't an area of expertise for you. You claimed Ravel
wrote Bolero for the piano. He did not. He wrote it on a piano. There's
a big difference there.

I never said I liked the "original" version of Bolero. I don't like any
versions of Ravel's Bolero. The work I like and referenced is
Moussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, which was written on and for
the piano. Ravel later orchestrated the piano work and, in my opinion,
turned it into something it was never meant to be.

Here is the most famous performance of Pictures, by the incredible
Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq3VMzqXqM

....


Harry, I see google isn’t your friend today...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boléro

“
The piece was first published by the Parisian firm Durand in 1929.
Arrangements of the piece were made for piano solo and piano duet (two
people playing at one piano), and Ravel himself arranged a version for
two pianos, published in 1930.

The first recording was made by Piero Coppolain Paris[citation needed]
for the Gramophone Company on 8 January 1930. The recording session
was attended by Ravel.[7] The following day, Ravel conducted the
Lamoureux Orchestra in his own recording for Polydor.[8]...”

According to this, Piano it was



Your wiki post doesn't mean the piece was written *for* piano. It was
written on a piano, but Ravel's intention was to produce an orchestrated
dance piece.

If a composer *publishes* a piece written for piano, it was written for
piano. Your cognizant thinking is going to hell in a handbasket.

You seem to forget that Krause is omniscient. Therefore he knows what the composer was thinking
while composing.