Sergei Rachmaninov (1873-1943)

[Cato]

Listening to Rach Symphony 1 as part of RSMM ... with more subtle emotion, more deeply hidden. It's obviously a very personal work, so no wonder Rach was so depressed after the premiere failure. It's a great work, and I do think it deserves even more attention.

Think it's becoming a favourite

One wonders - if things had gone well at the premiere - how Rachmaninov might have developed as a result of a success with the First Symphony. Glazunov either did not understand the score, understood it and did not like it, or was never completely sober during the rehearsals and premiere.  Supposedly he cut out large sections of the score.

But yes, I have always considered it to be a great work (not that people have been waiting for my opinion  0:)   )

It is perhaps repetitious at times when there should be development, but... a small quibble.  Otherwise, a real psychomachia is heard throughout the music.

[Karl Henning]

Well, and largely by reason of the muddle instead of music he made of the Rakhmaninov First, and the consequent grinder he put the composer's soul through, I have thought rather ill of Glazunov all these years . . . .

[Lisztianwagner]

I agree, it's an absolutely amazing, brilliant work; one of my favourites too.
Yes, although Rachmaninov was very influenced by Tchaikovsky's music, his first Symphony sounds the most personal of the three; it's a very intense, powerful and dramatic composition, whose timbres, melodies and brutal gestures create a gloomy, deep atmosphere which at the same time is also very evocative and hauntingly beautiful; it shows elegance, solemnity and all that poetical tragedy typical of the Russian spirit that still pervaded the works of composers like Tchaikovsky, Borodin, etc., but the overwhelming energy and the aggressiveness expressed are unprecedented in Russian music and make the symphony very original.
Instead with the 2nd Symphony, he seems to take a step backward and to come to a more tchaikovskian style: more rythmic flexibility and lyricism, sumptuous harmonies and a more colorful and varied orchestration.

[madaboutmahler]

Wonderful description, Ilaria!

[Brahmsian]

Well, and largely by reason of the muddle instead of music he made of the Rakhmaninov First, and the consequent grinder he put the composer's soul through, I have thought rather ill of Glazunov all these years . . . .

Glazunov's musical signature:

AG _DDAC

Alexander Glazunov *rest* Don't Drink And Conduct!

[Lisztianwagner]

Wonderful description, Ilaria!

Thank you, Daniel.

[thulium]

Well, I believe Rach's 1-st symphony was too innovative for its time. Let's take the 2-nd movement (which is my favorite) it is absolutely genius! Now this symphony is much more understandable than 100 years ago.

[Mirror Image]

Well, I believe Rach's 1-st symphony was too innovative for its time. Let's take the 2-nd movement (which is my favorite) it is absolutely genius! Now this symphony is much more understandable than 100 years ago.

Whether it's understandable or not, doesn't change the fact that Glazunov single-handedly destroyed Rachmaninov's confidence with his drunken debauchery on the podium. Thankfully, Rachmaninov got up the courage to compose again. Symphony No. 1 could have become well-known if Glazunov didn't ruin everything.

[Lisztianwagner]

Whether it's understandable or not, doesn't change the fact that Glazunov single-handedly destroyed Rachmaninov's confidence with his drunken debauchery on the podium. Thankfully, Rachmaninov got up the courage to compose again. Symphony No. 1 could have become well-known if Glazunov didn't ruin everything.

Rachmaninov's grandson, Alexander, told that, some years later he had the chance to take revenge on Glazunov, but he wasn't in the habit of doing that: the conductor who had to perform one of Glazunov's symphonies became ill and Rachmaninov was asked to replace him; Rach's friends urged him to take revenge and made the performance awful, but Rachmaninov answered that he would do his best instead; and he did a beautiful performance of Glazunov's work. Certainly a great human being.

[Mirror Image]

Rachmaninov's grandson, Alexander, told that, some years later he had the chance to take revenge on Glazunov, but he wasn't in the habit of doing that: the conductor who had to perform one of Glazunov's symphonies became ill and Rachmaninov was asked to replace him; Rach's friends urged him to take revenge and made the performance awful, but Rachmaninov answered that he would do his best instead; and he did a beautiful performance of Glazunov's work. Certainly a great human being.

Absolutely, Ilaria. Only a truly terrible person would only sabotage something to seek revenge.

[Brian]

Coming soon

[Cato]

One wonders - if things had gone well at the premiere - how Rachmaninov might have developed as a result of a success with the First Symphony. Glazunov either did not understand the score, understood it and did not like it, or was never completely sober during the rehearsals and premiere.  Supposedly he cut out large sections of the score.

But yes, I have always considered it to be a great work (not that people have been waiting for my opinion  0:)   )

It is perhaps repetitious at times when there should be development, but... a small quibble.  Otherwise, a real psychomachia is heard throughout the music.

Has it really been almost a year since anyone has written here about The Rach?

Glad to see that a new recording of the Vespers is due soon!

Let me recommend something for new people here and the older ones:

Two of the most neglected works in his catalogue: the two Piano Sonatas by The Rach.

Amazingly, there are not many choices (which is why I wrote "neglected" above): I had a marvelous LP with John Ogdon playing both sonatas, but it seems unavailable on CD.

This one has 6 5-star reviews!

[asin]B008MZGKAE[/asin]

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Let me recommend something for new people here and the older ones:

Two of the most neglected works in his catalogue: the two Piano Sonatas by The Rach.

Amazingly, there are not many choices (which is why I wrote "neglected" above): I had a marvelous LP with John Ogdon playing both sonatas, but it seems unavailable on CD.

Small world, Cato! Just yesterday I gave Rach's second piano sonata a listen and posted about it in the WAYLT thread. And as far as the subject of why the sonatas (or at least the second sonata) aren't better known, I think the answer was provided for me during the listening session:

Rachmaninoff's second piano sonata....[snip]....the piece itself is very imaginative but it's not hard to see why it's an "under the radar" type of work: it lacks the overall cohesive feel of a "standard" sonata, such as Liszt's, Beethoven's, etc. It's more a vignette-type of piece that could almost be broken up and rearranged as, well, preludes, which actually round out this disc.

But purely as a listening experience it's definitely grade-A(-) stuff.



[asin]B000GYHZ80[/asin]

Looking back, what my theory amounts to above is up for debate. But I agree with you that the sonatas are undeservedly neglected works.

BTW, I also have this (OOP ) disc:

[George]

Looking back, what my theory amounts to above is up for debate. But I agree with you that the sonatas are undeservedly neglected works.

BTW, I also have this (OOP ) disc:

I have a copy of that one. I like it more than his recording of the preludes (too much brawn and not enough beauty.)

I also love the two sonatas, but I think they need the right performance to come off well. Horowitz's live 1981 performance pf PS 2 is powerfully impressive, as is Fiorentino's PS 1.

[kishnevi]

What do folks here think of Ashkenazy's recordings of the Sonatas.


I have the duo with the second sonata: I confess it's been a very long time since I've played anything from it.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I have a copy of that one. I like it more than his recording of the preludes (too much brawn and not enough beauty.)

I actually get along with Weissenberg's preludes disc pretty well. His Rach 2 with Karajan is another entertaining disc (especially the finale).

I also love the two sonatas, but I think they need the right performance to come off well. Horowitz's live 1981 performance pf PS 2 is powerfully impressive, as is Fiorentino's PS 1.

Wasn't aware of Fiorentino's recording. That's gotta be good (not really a Horowitz fan, though).

BTW, I forgot to mention this in my previous post but I love Todd's reaction to the Kocsis Rach disc above:

Kocsis' playing is so freakin' awesome on that disc.

Worth a try if you haven't heard it, George.

[George]

Worth a try if you haven't heard it, George.

Will keep an eye out.

What do folks here think of Ashkenazy's recordings of the Sonatas.


I have the duo with the second sonata: I confess it's been a very long time since I've played anything from it.

It weird, but although his Preludes are the best complete set I have heard, the rest of his Rach solo work does little for me.

[Cato]

Small world, Cato! Just yesterday I gave Rach's second piano sonata a listen and posted about it in the WAYLT thread. And as far as the subject of why the sonatas (or at least the second sonata) aren't better known, I think the answer was provided for me during the listening session:

Weissenberg resembled Rachmaninov somewhat, I always thought!  And yes, his performances were always worthwhile.

An obituary excerpt from 2012:

In a career that began in the late 1940s, Mr. Weissenberg appeared as a soloist with the world's leading orchestras, played recitals on celebrated stages and made many recordings. A naturalized French citizen, he was a Romantic specialist, most closely associated with Schumann, Chopin and perhaps especially Rachmaninoff, whose percussive pyrotechnics suited him.

Mr. Weissenberg's cool yet blazing approach divided reviewers. Where some heard impeccable technique, others heard soulless efficiency. Where some embraced the drama of his interpretations, others condemned them for aggressiveness.

On these points, however, nearly everyone agreed:

Mr. Weissenberg possessed a technical prowess rivaled by few other pianists. The ice of his demeanor at the keyboard (he sat, leaned forward and got down to business, playing with scarcely a smile or grimace) was matched by the fire that came off the keys. He could play very fast, and very loud. (Over time, verbs used to characterize his pianism included "barrel," "tear," "thunder" and "let loose.")

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/music/alexis-weissenberg-pianist-of-fire-and-ice-dies-at-82.html?_r=0

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Weissenberg resembled Rachmaninov somewhat, I always thought!  And yes, his performances were always worthwhile.

I hadn't noticed the resemblance but I see it now.

An obituary excerpt from 2012:

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/music/alexis-weissenberg-pianist-of-fire-and-ice-dies-at-82.html?_r=0

Thanks for that. I like this from the end:

"I still don't know why my playing is considered so disturbing," he told The Times in 1983. "I remember in school, as a child, I learned that the flame of a candle is composed of a yellow light, which actually burns, and a blue light within it, which is ice cold. That is true of human beings as well. Perhaps it is the sight of that blue light in me that frightens certain people.

[vandermolen]

I wanted to say how much I enjoyed a very interesting disc on a Chandos of Valeri Polyansky conducting Rachmaninov tone poems. It is unusual to see them all gathered together on one disc and I found it to be very atmospheric and evocative listening and enjoyed it all. I never realised that the fine tone poem 'The Rock' or 'The Crag' was based on a Checkov short story ('On the Road') which the evocative cover image also alludes to. Apart from the well-known 'Isle of the Dead' the CD features 'The Rock', 'Prince Rostilav' which I thoroughly enjoyed, having never heard before, Caprice Bohemien and the 'Scherzo'; most of these work demonstrate characteristic gloom and melancholy which I find greatly appealing. All in all a very atmospheric and beautifully performed and recorded CD which I would thoroughly recommend. There is a lot of snobbish condescension in relation to Rachmaninov but he was a fine composer:
[asin]B0000AW0XL[/asin]
I started an extraneous thread on Rachmaninov without realising that this one existed so I have locked it. Apologies for this.