Taneyev vs Rachmaninoff ~ or Taneyev's mastery of counterpoint

[Cato]

Having studied both composers, I do not see where Rachmaninov can be considered inferior to Taneyev either in counterpoint or in melodic construction. 

Taneyev certainly has his moments melodically, especially in the Second and Fourth Symphonies, less so in the recently released Third and First. 

But Rachmaninov's 3 Symphonies, the tone poems (especially Isle of the Dead), The Bells, his opera The Covetous Knight all show a talent going beyond Taneyev's.

Mastery of counterpoint will never counterbalance a lack of interesting material.

There!  I said it!  And I'm glad, I tell you!!!  Glad!!!   

But why the constant either/or?  Why not both?   0:)

[karlhenning]

Hoy! A Cato sighting!

. . . But Rachmaninov's 3 Symphonies, the tone poems (especially Isle of the Dead), The Bells, his opera The Covetous Knight all show a talent going beyond Taneyev's.

Mastery of counterpoint will never counterbalance a lack of interesting material.

Testify!

But why the constant either/or?  Why not both?   0:)

Another excellent point.

[greg]

Mastery of counterpoint will never counterbalance a lack of interesting material.

There!  I said it!  And I'm glad, I tell you!!!  Glad!!!   

But why the constant either/or?  Why not both?   0:)

If you want both, plus intense expression, just listen to the 3rd movement of Mahler's 9th.  0:)

[karlhenning]

Mastery of counterpoint will never counterbalance a lack of interesting material.

The book I want is never to hand when I want it . . . but if I am not completely mistaken, in Evening in the Palace of Reason: Bach Meets Frederick the Great in the Age of Enlightenment, the author mentions C.P.E. Bach (I think) having generated a kind of "slide rule" for counterpoint . . . not literally, but a kind of chart which emphasizes the mere push-buttonness of contrapuntal technique.

[M forever]

But why the constant either/or?  Why not both?   0:)

Yes, why not? For some people, it always has to be either this or that or this is better than that, because otherwise, their limited minds can not grasp it, apparently.

Just for the record, I did not start nor name this thread. The posts were moved over here from other threads.

[Que]

Just for the record, I did not start nor name this thread. The posts were moved over here from other threads.

Confirmed.

Q

[greg]

Just for the record, I did not start nor name this thread. The posts were moved over here from other threads.

ahhhhhhhhh  0:)

[71 dB]

Yes indeed, it's on two CDS, I forget the label and performers but it made a very strong impression on me, particularly first hearing; melodically it doesn't really materialize but it's blood on the wall stuff indeed.

Interesting!

Having studied both composers, I do not see where Rachmaninov can be considered inferior to Taneyev either in counterpoint or in melodic construction. 

For my money Rachmaninov is better in melody but worse in counterpoint.

Mastery of counterpoint will never counterbalance a lack of interesting material.

Mastery of counterpoint makes almost any material interesting.

[Cato]

Mastery of counterpoint makes almost any material interesting.

"Almost" is the key word here!  Otherwise we would have CD's of textbook exercises and examples.   

And allow me to send you to the Piano Sonata's I and II by Rachmaninov for examples of how he subordinates counterpoint to expression, which is another "key" idea!   

[71 dB]

Fine, you can think Taneyev's material is uninteresting if you want. 

Rachmaninov has been more popular, more played and much better known for the last 100 years because his music is more appealing to the masses. Taneyev is more difficult to get.

[M forever]

BTW, the correct spelling is "Rachmaninoff". I think I mentioned that before.

[Cato]

Fine, you can think Taneyev's material is uninteresting if you want. 

Rachmaninov has been more popular, more played and much better known for the last 100 years because his music is more appealing to the masses. Taneyev is more difficult to get.

(My emphasis)

Over-reacting! Where did I write that?  I pointed out that Taneyev's themes/motifs/melodies are not always on the same level of quality as The Rach's.  Which is another fine, if early tone-poem by him!   

[karlhenning]

Rachmaninov has been more popular, more played and much better known for the last 100 years because his music is more appealing to the masses.

No, not for that reason, but because it is better  0:)

[Bulldog]

Fine, you can think Taneyev's material is uninteresting if you want. 

Rachmaninov has been more popular, more played and much better known for the last 100 years because his music is more appealing to the masses. Taneyev is more difficult to get.

I feel that Rachmaninoff's melodies are more instantly memorable than Taneyev's; I don't think they hold up any better on repeated listening.  I do take exception to your view that "Taneyev is more difficult to get"; there's nothing difficult about his music, just rather obscure.

[M forever]

Rachmaninov has been more popular, more played and much better known for the last 100 years because his music is more appealing to the masses. Taneyev is more difficult to get.

You are one of the masses since you do not have any specific musical education, skills, or knowledge. And there is nothing wrong with that. Just like I like eating even though I don't know much at all about cooking, you like everyone else are free to listen to music and enjoy it (or not) no matter what your background and your understanding of it is. But just like I don't make any dramatic statesments about cooking (since I don't know much about it), you should also restrict your statements to what they really are, the completely unfounded subjective impressions of a (apparently not highly perceptive) amateur.

Over-reacting! Where did I write that?

You didn't. But it is essential for 71dB to assume that you did, because that puts you in contradiction to him and satisfies his desire to appear to be able to appreciate things that you don't or can't appreciate. Which makes you the uncritical acceptant of conventional wisdom and him the critical "free-thinker".

I feel that Rachmaninoff's melodies are more instantly memorable than Taneyev's; I don't think they hold up any better on repeated listening.

For me it's exactly the other way around: I find Rachmaninoff's melodic material more and more fascinating the more I listen to it. That's because he had the knack of developing very long and nuanced melodic lines from very small cells or gestures which he often spins around and plays with. I find it pretty astonishing how much music he gets from these sometimes very brief ideas; the mark of a "real" musician who can play music and with music on a very high level, rather than some composers who are only writers, but not performers and whose music is more "theoretical" than being born out of the process of playing music. This is a quality I sense is very strong in Rachmaninoff's music and which I think is directly related to his astonishing abilities as pianist.

[Ten thumbs]

It may be that Taneyev deserves a reassessment. However, mastery of counterpoint is no guarantee of great music, so for the moment I reserve judgement. So where does Medtner come into this argument?

[jochanaan]

I can't speak about Taneyev, since I'm completely unfamiliar with his music.  But I would nominate Rachmaninoff as one of the great "unsung masters" of counterpoint.  Every line in his music means something; very few of them are simple "harmonic filler."  The Second Symphony and Third Piano Concerto especially (or so it seems to my memory) are filled with subtle countermelodies under the lovely, justly-praised main themes. (As an orchestral player, I really appreciate this.  A lot of even the greatest music can be simply "fillers" for us, and we learn to live with it, but it's wonderful when every part is well-shaped and interesting.)

[Bulldog]

It may be that Taneyev deserves a reassessment. However, mastery of counterpoint is no guarantee of great music, so for the moment I reserve judgement. So where does Medtner come into this argument?

Does Medtner have to be in the argument at all?  I've been listening lately to his works for violin and piano on two Naxos discs.  I think it's wonderful music; you can't find a more fertile musical mind than Medtner's. 

Maybe it would just be best to say that an evening of Taneyev, Rachmaninoff and Medtner would be most rewarding.

[greg]

(As an orchestral player, I really appreciate this.  A lot of even the greatest music can be simply "fillers" for us, and we learn to live with it, but it's wonderful when every part is well-shaped and interesting.)

That's why I could never do just rhythm guitar in a band- i couldn't learn to live with it 

[M forever]

I can't speak about Taneyev, since I'm completely unfamiliar with his music.  But I would nominate Rachmaninoff as one of the great "unsung masters" of counterpoint.  Every line in his music means something; very few of them are simple "harmonic filler."  The Second Symphony and Third Piano Concerto especially (or so it seems to my memory) are filled with subtle countermelodies under the lovely, justly-praised main themes. (As an orchestral player, I really appreciate this.  A lot of even the greatest music can be simply "fillers" for us, and we learn to live with it, but it's wonderful when every part is well-shaped and interesting.)

Indeed. It is pretty amazing how much is sometimes going on in his music yet all of it is relevant and not just "filler material"' but playable, expressive music. Again, I think this reflects the artistry of someone whose piano playing was so immensely complex and accomplished. I wonder if he composed at the piano a lot - it sounds as if all the material he uses and the way he uses it come from someone who played the music and found its final shape through playing it, not just from having a few ideas and playing around with them "on paper".

But then on the other hand, like I said, he often develops his sweeping and very expressive material from tiny cells and while he sometimes elaborates at length on some of the material, he also often comes up with stunningly to-the-point gestures, e.g. the amazing way he bridges from the conflicted first subject of the first movement of the second symphony to the lyrical second subject with just a few notes yet the musical scenery is suddenly completely transformed.

I actually only really gained access to his music quite recently. I have known and kind of liked some of his works, but never realy got into the music. That changed when I got to know he Symphonic Dances better which I had also known for a while (and played a number of times in the orchestra) but never really "got". Especially the finale with its odd mix of Spanish motifs and rhythms and completely different material. This is an incredibly complex and densely composed piece, an extraordinary explosion of creative energy, a fantastic (in the sense of "phantastique") Danse Macabre. It was composed when the composer was already very sick and he himself seems to have been surprised that he had all that music still in himself and managed to bring out and put on paper. And what a mindblowing final statement this music is!