Check out Capucons' recording of this same piece. Their trés vifs is unbeateable.

It's only overlooked because it is too full of near unplayable passages and segments. This duo does as fine a job as can be done with it, but as the work becomes more than casually familiar, the myriads of ill-conceived technical issues increasingly stand out. Ravel was second to none as an instrumental visionary, of course-always trying to find new coloration and possibilities, and especially unique in his combinations of instrumental color. His weakness, however, was in pushing the envelope beyond what can be obtained reliably. Not that he was not a towering great as a composer, but unfortunately took the perilous course so many others have trod in the past century by not being more intimately familiar with the potential and limits of the instruments he was writing for. It is a problem that manifests itself throughout his writing (and more so in countless 'modern' composers of infinitely lesser standing). Does the music work, however? Resoundingly, it does, of course, but the many awkward spots always show-no matter who is playing-and one can only wonder just how happy was Ravel with the performances he heard of his music; it is still a compromise of sorts, not an ideal. Did he think the problems would be overcome with time? Probably. But he was still wrong. Humans and instruments do, in fact, have physical limitations.

@@antonycooke6402 , i couldn't agree more. The ravel piano trio falls in line with your assessment. As an orchestral cellist i can site numerous passages that are close, if not, impossible to play like the cello part in the piano concerto. I heard that ravel was not the world's greatest pianist but the piano part in the piano trio is next to impossible. The music is great and he was a superb orhestrator, an original voice. It is very frustrating from a performer's perspective when composers write stuff that is impossible to play. Ravel, i suppose gets a pass because the music is so beautiful and sensuous. This was a really great performance.

Not really. And what WOULD "typical" Ravel be? The 2nd movt. could be mistaken for Bartok.

@@AndrewRudin no