Ugo
Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000 |
 |
Posted: Feb. 03 2007, 19:19 |
 |
Yes, of course Mike did conceive Finale as a huge build-up of instruments on a very simple tune, which culminates on the tubular bells. But I doubt whether there was any influence from Ravel's Bolero. The two main differences between the pieces are: 1) Bolero is in 3/4 time, Finale is in 4/4 [obviously! ]; 2) Ravel does not repeat the same melody by changing the instruments playing it, as Finale does. Ravel adds a new instrument to each repetition, and that instrument plays the melody until the end of the piece; Mike O., on the other hand, changes the lead instrument at each repetition, but the new instrument isn't added to the whole. OK, the glockenspiel is still heard under the bass guitar, but the bass guitar itself doesn't play a lead part anymore after it has played the melody, so it's not 'added' to the instrumentation as a lead instrument.
Another feature of Bolero is that Ravel, as far as I know, wanted to create a chaotic/cacophonic effect at the end of it: if you listen to it carefully, you hear that in the conclusion the melody degenerates into something almost atonal. Mike O.'s melody never degenerates, it stays firm up to the conclusion of the huge build-up. So, to sum it up, I think that Mike O. had a very clear picture in his mind of what he wanted to obtain, but I have serious doubts that Ravel's Bolero was part of that picture. 
--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
|
