Question regarding Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #3???

[deckard1]

Hi,

Sort of a newbie question here. I recently have taken up learning to play the piano...a life-long dream of mine. One of my favorite classical piano pieces is Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #3. I keep hearing from multiple sources that this is supposed to be one of the 'hardest' piano pieces to learn. Can someone please explain why this is so? My only guess is that Rachmaninoff was so tall that he must have had unbelievable reach with his fingers when playing the piano.

Many thanks. 

[Cato]

Hi,

Sort of a newbie question here. I recently have taken up learning to play the piano...a life-long dream of mine. One of my favorite classical piano pieces is Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #3. I keep hearing from multiple sources that this is supposed to be one of the 'hardest' piano pieces to learn. Can someone please explain why this is so? My only guess is that Rachmaninoff was so tall that he must have had unbelievable reach with his fingers when playing the piano.

Many thanks. 

Greetings!

Take a look at the score: and yes, Rachmaninov had large hands, and so at times the spread of some chords may be wide.

https://www.youtube.com/v/aSXtXLAVgkE

[jochanaan]

Big stretches, passages where the notes go by so fast you really can't hear them consciously, extreme dynamic range--and then at the end the thunderous "big theme" keeps going and going... This concerto has everything; probably even a kitchen sink somewhere back in the percussion section. Incidentally, that's why it gets played so often in competitions; young pianists choose it to show they have everything it takes to be the next Horowitz or Van Cliburn.

[Luke]

All the above is true, and the concerto is certainly very hard, and at the harder end of the standard repertoire concertos. There are others which rival it, though - for example, I don't think I'd be alone in saying that Bartok's 2nd is more of a nightmare for the pianist, and there are those in the know who consider it the greatest concertante challenge to a pianist.  In my case I know that I, a fair-to-middling pianist, can have a decent stab at most of the Rach 3; but the Bartok 2 scares me! A lot of what counts for difficulty in these things is how the music comes across - the Rach 3 has oodles of notes, all over the keyboard, whereas the Bartok 2 requires a relentless percussive, exhausting, mechanistic precision which is more technically taxing but which doesn't necessarily sound it.

Rachmaninov knew what he was doing in this. Like Liszt, to whom he is really the successor in this sense, he understood the art of the showman - how to make something sound increasingly impressive whilst carefully managing it so that it actually fits the hand neatly (albeit a very big hand in Rachmaninov's case, as the OP suggests!) Liszt was a master at altering figurations as a piece progresses, inventing new and ever-more stunning ways of playing whilst carefully changing keys etc so as to ensure that is is always comfortable for the hand; more rigorous and less superficially flamboyant* composers like Chopin or, especially, Alkan, will keep the figurations the same whilst the keys change, which means that the difficulty doesn't seem to increase but in fact becomes a torture for the pianist.

In the contemporary repertoire there are plenty of pieces, including concertos, which are much harder than the Rach 3. Pieces like the Ligeti Piano Concerto and Xenakis' Synaphai (which has a separate stave for each finger!) spring to mind instantly because they are so spectacular, but extreme difficulty is common in much contemporary piano music.

*I don't mean either of these words - 'superficial' and 'flamboyant' - in any kind of derogatory sense. Liszt was a genius, and this is part of his genius.

[Wakefield]

Three excellent replies in a row; it's not usual here or anywhere. 

[deckard1]

Three excellent replies in a row; it's not usual here or anywhere. 

Excellent replies across the board, for sure.

I just started piano lessons and my piano teacher asked me what I wanted to accomplish playing the piano. I told her I wanted to learn the 'Rach 3'. She looked at me in a very strange way. Like I was crazy or something. 

[Luke]

Well, you can learn the first few bars fairly quickly    It's the rest which will take time! But it's good to have a target...

[Cato]

The question of difficulty in a piece could open up a whole new topic!

Rachmaninov (as far as I know) did not consciously try to compose something difficult.  The music itself was of the prime importance, and if it happened to involve difficulty because of its nature and evolution in the work itself, then it would involve difficulty.  I recall reading about a conversation he had with a theorist named Joseph Yasser who was trying to prove to the composer that a "natural evolution" to 19-tones per octave was the next step for Western music.  Rachmaninov disagreed, and said that any "conscious" path toward such an evolution was simply capricious and therefore not a "natural evolution" at all. 

That is, as a composer he trusted his unconscious more, and so would not have consciously tried to compose difficult music for the sake of wowing people with difficulty.

[Luke]

I don't know, I think 'wowing people with difficulty' is part and parcel of the intended effect of the Romantic concerto. It's not a grubby or dishonest thing, it is necessary to the form to lend it the drama and danger that make it what it is. You're right, of course, that there's nothing in the Rachmaninov concerti that is difficult simply for the sake of it, nothing that is gratuitous or unnecessary. Everything is subservient to the musical sense. But OTOH, those pieces without that sense of striving-for-the-impossible would be fairly unthinkable.

[Cato]

I don't know, I think 'wowing people with difficulty' is part and parcel of the intended effect of the Romantic concerto. It's not a grubby or dishonest thing, it is necessary to the form to lend it the drama and danger that make it what it is. You're right, of course, that there's nothing in the Rachmaninov concerti that is difficult simply for the sake of it, nothing that is gratuitous or unnecessary. Everything is subservient to the musical sense. But OTOH, those pieces without that sense of striving-for-the-impossible would be fairly unthinkable.

Oh yes!  That is part of the musician-as-hero idea of course.  Excise the cadenza from the Third Concerto and it is damaged greatly.  So if the musical problem(s) created by the material produce(s) a technical Everest to be climbed, so be it.  I am not so sure  that a technical Everest should be the basis for a work.  I suppose it could act as a catalyst, but then would need to retreat to the background.

An analogy: Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce is for most people unreadable.  Early drafts show it to be much less unreadable, but as the years went by, Joyce began revising the book, and was using  tri-, quadri-, and even quintilingual puns in his coinages and creating phrases of multiple meanings as well, all of which meant that microcosmic, Webernesque stories or incidents or references could be compressed into just a few syllables.  (The book is Wagnerian in length, however, c. 700 pages.)

Joseph Campbell, a scholar of Religion and Mythology who knew many languages, published a book which he called A Skeleton Key to Finnegan's Wake about 5 years after the book's appearance.  Campbell believed he understood the book, and possibly he did (others claim his book has many errors), but his background allowed him to do so. 

Certainly one can say that the book's difficulty wows people, but apparently the difficulty prevents basic communication, which is usually what writing is about.  To be sure, for those who do in fact find meaning in the book (e.g. Thornton Wilder, whose play The Skin of Our Teeth may contain DNA purloined from Finnegan's Wake) their experience cannot be denied. 

On the other hand, the sword can cut the other way: e.g. the seeming simplicity of Webern's Symphony often leaves people wondering what just happened, as can a poem, whose concision and simplicity of language can actually make it more obscure, and more meaningful.

Difficulty for the sake of difficulty, we can undoubtedly agree, is a dangerous path.  Difficulty in art can be the handmaiden of expression, or the blindfold and gag.

[deckard1]

Not sure if someone already stated this above...but, I recently read that Rachmaninoff stated himself that among his piano concertos the 3rd was his favorite. Apparently, the main reason being that his 2nd piano concerto was so uncomfortable to play. Interesting.

[Luke]

Oh yes!  That is part of the musician-as-hero idea of course.  Excise the cadenza from the Third Concerto and it is damaged greatly.  So if the musical problem(s) created by the material produce(s) a technical Everest to be climbed, so be it.  I am not so sure  that a technical Everest should be the basis for a work.  I suppose it could act as a catalyst, but then would need to retreat to the background.

An analogy: Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce is for most people unreadable.  Early drafts show it to be much less unreadable, but as the years went by, Joyce began revising the book, and was using  tri-, quadri-, and even quintilingual puns in his coinages and creating phrases of multiple meanings as well, all of which meant that microcosmic, Webernesque stories or incidents or references could be compressed into just a few syllables.  (The book is Wagnerian in length, however, c. 700 pages.)

Joseph Campbell, a scholar of Religion and Mythology who knew many languages, published a book which he called A Skeleton Key to Finnegan's Wake about 5 years after the book's appearance.  Campbell believed he understood the book, and possibly he did (others claim his book has many errors), but his background allowed him to do so. 

Certainly one can say that the book's difficulty wows people, but apparently the difficulty prevents basic communication, which is usually what writing is about.  To be sure, for those who do in fact find meaning in the book (e.g. Thornton Wilder, whose play The Skin of Our Teeth may contain DNA purloined from Finnegan's Wake) their experience cannot be denied. 

On the other hand, the sword can cut the other way: e.g. the seeming simplicity of Webern's Symphony often leaves people wondering what just happened, as can a poem, whose concision and simplicity of language can actually make it more obscure, and more meaningful.

Difficulty for the sake of difficulty, we can undoubtedly agree, is a dangerous path.  Difficulty in art can be the handmaiden of expression, or the blindfold and gag.

That is all fascinating, Cato, really interesting stuff, and beautifully put, as usual. Though these are different types of difficulty we are talking about - the difficulty with Joyce is for the audience; the difficulty with Rachmaninov is for the performer, whilst the audience finds the whole thing easily comprehensible and delightful.

Not sure if someone already stated this above...but, I recently read that Rachmaninoff stated himself that among his piano concertos the 3rd was his favorite. Apparently, the main reason being that his 2nd piano concerto was so uncomfortable to play. Interesting.

Yes, it is interesting, and it bears out what I was saying above, I think. It's hard t be precise about why this is, but I tend to agree that the 2nd, which looks a little easier on paper and sounds slightly easier in performance, is somewhat less grateful to play for the performer. That is what I was meaning about the difference between the real difficulty and the perceived difficulty. BTW after posting my first reply above yesterday I listened (w score, of course) to Bartok 2 to refresh my mind as to its difficulties. Staggering, mind-blowing, I am not quite sure how anyone can master this piece with the requisite combination of accuracy and panache. It is exhausting simply to imagine the work the pianist has to get through, let alone to play the thing. There are points where each and every bar requires a hair-raising and unique pyrotechnic miracle of its own.

[deckard1]

That is all fascinating, Cato, really interesting stuff, and beautifully put, as usual. Though these are different types of difficulty we are talking about - the difficulty with Joyce is for the audience; the difficulty with Rachmaninov is for the performer, whilst the audience finds the whole thing easily comprehensible and delightful.

Yes, it is interesting, and it bears out what I was saying above, I think. It's hard t be precise about why this is, but I tend to agree that the 2nd, which looks a little easier on paper and sounds slightly easier in performance, is somewhat less grateful to play for the performer. That is what I was meaning about the difference between the real difficulty and the perceived difficulty. BTW after posting my first reply above yesterday I listened (w score, of course) to Bartok 2 to refresh my mind as to its difficulties. Staggering, mind-blowing, I am not quite sure how anyone can master this piece with the requisite combination of accuracy and panache. It is exhausting simply to imagine the work the pianist has to get through, let alone to play the thing. There are points where each and every bar requires a hair-raising and unique pyrotechnic miracle of its own.

Is not Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto more 'popular with the non-piano-playing masses' than his 3rd? I think I am correct in stating this based on other fellow classical music fans I have spoken with. This I find to be very interesting as it shows how the actual level of complexity of a piece of classical music is not necessarily related to its popularity. The best example of this that I can think of is Samuel Barber's 'Adagio for Strings'. So simple, yet so beautiful...and popular!

Btw, I live in Los Angeles not far from Beverly Hills. As you and everyone here probably already knows, Rachmaninoff resided in Beverly Hills, CA towards the end of his life. I drove by where he used to live on Elm Drive. The house he actually lived in has since been remodeled, but, I was still left in a state of awe thinking that the great Rach once lived at this exact location. Mind-blowing!

[Luke]

Is not Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto more 'popular with the non-piano-playing masses' than his 3rd?

I think it used to be, certainly. I'm not so sure about now - one seems to hear more about 3 than 2 these days. The 2nd is a very direct and appealing work; the 3rd is more complex and troubled, and it contains many more ambiguities and shades. Perhaps its a more fitting work for today's world, I don't know. The 1996 film Shine also played a big part in putting it into the public eye - it is in large part down to this film that this idea of Rach 3 being the terrifying technical pinnacle of piano concertos became popularised.

[Luke]

Btw, I live in Los Angeles not far from Beverly Hills. As you and everyone here probably already knows, Rachmaninoff resided in Beverly Hills, CA towards the end of his life. I drove by where he used to live on Elm Drive. The house he actually lived in has since been remodeled, but, I was still left in a state of awe thinking that the great Rach once lived at this exact location. Mind-blowing!

Schoenberg and Stravinsky lived nearby too...

[deckard1]

I think it used to be, certainly. I'm not so sure about now - one seems to hear more about 3 than 2 these days. The 2nd is a very direct and appealing work; the 3rd is more complex and troubled, and it contains many more ambiguities and shades. Perhaps its a more fitting work for today's world, I don't know. The 1996 film Shine also played a big part in putting it into the public eye - it is in large part down to this film that this idea of Rach 3 being the terrifying technical pinnacle of piano concertos became popularised.

Most definitely. That, and, the Van Cliburn competition.

Great movie, btw. One of my all-time favorites.

[deckard1]

Schoenberg and Stravinsky lived nearby too...

Really? I did not know that!

[Luke]

Well, something like that. I'm not an expert on the geography of LA. Googling leads me to this fact:

'Igor Stravinsky's Los Angeles address (1260 North Wetherly Drive, in West Hollywood) [was] a mere 7.9 miles from Arnold Schoenberg (116 Rockingham Ave., in Brentwood)' 

and this cool map of Schoenberg's LA:

http://www.thekentstudios.com/Resources/SchoMap.pdf

[Sergeant Rock]

Is not Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto more 'popular with the non-piano-playing masses' than his 3rd?

I think it was in the last century, and served as the perfect exemplar of the Romantic and romantic concerto. It figured in a half dozen films (most memorably to me is the part it plays in The Seven Year Itch with Marilyn Monroe).

Sarge

[amw]

For difficulty a lot depends on psychological factors as well as actual technical difficulty. Of Romantic Era piano concertos the most pianistically terrifying (for me) is, rather predictably, Alkan's Concerto for Solo Piano (where the pianist is expected to play the roles of both soloist and orchestra, as the title suggests). The Hammerklavier is also probably more difficult than Rach; Beethoven was pretty unforgiving when he was trying to make a statement. (Though many pianists cheat by playing it really slowly.) Agree with Bartók 2 (and to a lesser extent 1)—and among recent composers, the Salonen piano concerto*—being the most likely to cause carpal tunnel/literal hand injuries.

* Salonen, who is a non-pianist and obvs started out as a conductor, wrote the piece for Yefim Bronfman, who has Rachmaninov-sized hands and a highly percussive technique, and Bronfman said something to the effect that it was the most physically painful piece he'd ever had to learn