Taneyev vs Rachmaninoff ~ or Taneyev's mastery of counterpoint

[Sean]

...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!

Indeed this is the impression of a work like The Oresteia, and the sophisticated Piano quintet, making him seem like an unknown great genius. However the Fourth symphony is all Bruckner and water and doesn't do him justice...

[M forever]

...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!

However the Fourth symphony is all Bruckner and water and doesn't do him justice...

Rachmaninoff only wrote three symphonies. At this point, it would be apt to say, what a total idiot you are, but we are supposed to be nice to each other, so I can't say that but I am pretty sure everyone who reads that thinks that anyway.

[Wanderer]

So where does Medtner come into this argument?

He doesn't really. He excelled in counterpoint himself (being one of Taneyev's most accomplished students), was praised by him as being "born with sonata form" and was deeply admired by Rachmaninov who was a staunch friend throughout his life.

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. 

Wait and listen; it gets better still!  0:)

[Sean]

Ohhhhhhhh, you were talking about Rachmaninov (sic); I was wondering about Taneyev's Symphonic Dances...

[The new erato]

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!

Whatever the merits of the rest of his orchestral works, I consider the Symphonic Dances one of the glories of 20th century orchestral literature.

'nuff said.

[Ten thumbs]

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

Mastery of counterpoint makes almost any material interesting.

Mastery of melody makes almost any material interesting.

[71 dB]

I don't know Medtner's music yet enough to say anything but he's musically somewhere between Rachmaninoff and Taneyev so he probably belongs in this thread...

M Forever keeps saying I don't know anything about music. If you don't believe me believe all those musically trained people (included Tchaikovsky!) who said/say Taneyev is the best Russian composer ever in counterpoint. Are they really wrong? Somehow I get the feeling M Forever isn't even familiar with Taneyev's music. He just keeps praising Rachmaninoff.

[karlhenning]

M Forever keeps saying I don't know anything about music. If you don't believe me believe all those musically trained people (included Tchaikovsky!) who said/say Taneyev is the best Russian composer ever in counterpoint. Are they really wrong? Somehow I get the feeling M Forever isn't even familiar with Taneyev's music. He just keeps praising Rachmaninoff.

Well, here again, Poju, you've demonstrated the limitations of your musical knowledge.  Tchaikovsky predates Rakhmaninov, so no remark of his can be taken as ruling out Rakhmaninov.

And M is certainly right in finding a great deal to praise in Rakhmaninov's music.

[Cato]

Well, here again, Poju, you've demonstrated the limitations of your musical knowledge.  Tchaikovsky predates Rakhmaninov, so no remark of his can be taken as ruling out Rakhmaninov.

And M is certainly right in finding a great deal to praise in Rakhmaninov's music.

I must say that years ago I went through a phase where I believed I had "outgrown" Schubert, Schumann, Rachmaninov, and several others. 

But no!  Rediscovering them at a more advanced age has been almost as wonderful as discovering them c. 45-50 years ago!  I have spent a good deal of time with Rachmaninov's tone-poems in the past months, along with The Bells and his little known cantata Spring, which  I highly recommend!

71db wrote:

Tchaikovsky... said... Taneyev is the best Russian composer ever in counterpoint.

My emphasis: I have read the same quote, but I interpret that to mean that he admired his contrapuntal technique.  Whether or not Tchaikovsky admired the musical material of Taneyev to the same degree, or his orchestrations, etc.  I do not know.

[karlhenning]

My emphasis: I have read the same quote, but I interpret that to mean that he admired his contrapuntal technique.  Whether or not Tchaikovsky admired the musical material of Taneyev to the same degree, or his orchestrations, etc.  I do not know.

Right: Poju's preoccupation with counterpoint could be skewing his read on the quotation.

[greg]

What does everyone think about Rachmaninoff's orchestration?
I haven't studied any of his scores deeply, but I sure have spent some time following along and analyzing. The criticism I've heard about him is that his orchestration is too muddy- often, you can't hear the violins, for example, even if they're playing a million notes, because they're covered up by the rest of the orchestra. I've found that out to be true, except that was so long ago when I noticed that that I couldn't say specifically where. I think it must've been in the 2nd Piano Concerto, though. The only thing is, I'm not sure if that was the recording, a bad performance, or whatever. Maybe clear performance and recordings make everything much clearer?
Anyways, I have to say, the Symphonic Dances are brilliant and brilliantly-orchestrated.

[BachQ]

Anyways, I have to say, the Symphonic Dances are brilliant and brilliantly-orchestrated.

As is Rach's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (Рапсодия на тему Паганини) in A minor, opus 43.  Utterly brilliant orchestration. 

[greg]

As is Rach's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (Рапсодия на тему Паганини) in A minor, opus 43.  Utterly brilliant orchestration. 

Of course.  I should've mentioned that one, too.0:)

[Bulldog]

My emphasis: I have read the same quote, but I interpret that to mean that he admired his contrapuntal technique.  Whether or not Tchaikovsky admired the musical material of Taneyev to the same degree, or his orchestrations, etc.  I do not know.

I don't know if Tchaikovsky thought highly of Taneyev's music.  He did consider Taneyev a wonderful pianist and often used him as a sounding board for his own compositions.  I remember reading that Tchaikovsky was a little afraid to take in Taneyev's criticisms because they were very blunt.

[Cato]

What does everyone think about Rachmaninoff's orchestration?
I haven't studied any of his scores deeply, but I sure have spent some time following along and analyzing. The criticism I've heard about him is that his orchestration is too muddy- often, you can't hear the violins, for example, even if they're playing a million notes, because they're covered up by the rest of the orchestra. I've found that out to be true, except that was so long ago when I noticed that that I couldn't say specifically where. I think it must've been in the 2nd Piano Concerto, though. The only thing is, I'm not sure if that was the recording, a bad performance, or whatever. Maybe clear performance and recordings make everything much clearer?
Anyways, I have to say, the Symphonic Dances are brilliant and brilliantly-orchestrated.

As I recall, Rachmaninov had a technique of composing on 4 staves, and then orchestrating the composition.   I have not read the criticism you mention: usually you would wonder about the conductor if things are not clear in a performance of a master.  George Szell's opinion of the Schumann symphonies was that a conductor needed to do some preparation to handle things correctly, but that an overhaul a la Mahler's was never necessary.

[greg]

As I recall, Rachmaninov had a technique of composing on 4 staves, and then orchestrating the composition.   I have not read the criticism you mention: usually you would wonder about the conductor if things are not clear in a performance of a master.  George Szell's opinion of the Schumann symphonies was that a conductor needed to do some preparation to handle things correctly, but that an overhaul a la Mahler's was never necessary.

I think I heard it on this forum a few years ago. But........ i'm not sure how widely that is believed.

[jochanaan]

What does everyone think about Rachmaninoff's orchestration?
I haven't studied any of his scores deeply, but I sure have spent some time following along and analyzing. The criticism I've heard about him is that his orchestration is too muddy- often, you can't hear the violins, for example, even if they're playing a million notes, because they're covered up by the rest of the orchestra. I've found that out to be true, except that was so long ago when I noticed that that I couldn't say specifically where. I think it must've been in the 2nd Piano Concerto, though. The only thing is, I'm not sure if that was the recording, a bad performance, or whatever. Maybe clear performance and recordings make everything much clearer?

I'd blame either the recording or the performance.  Rachmaninoff was really a very fine orchestrator.  My only caveat is that he does tend to write the dynamic levels a little too "heavy," but that's typical of most composers in those days of the early 20th century: you see lots of fff and ppp!!!

[lukeottevanger]

I think I heard it on this forum a few years ago.

Heck! I can't believe that.... 

[karlhenning]

Well, on this very forum I heard that GGGGRRREEG had heard that on this forum a few years ago . . . .

[lukeottevanger]

Note my ironic use of the term 'Heck', though