Rachmaninoff, Prelude, Op. 32, No. 7 in F

[rachfan]

With Rachmaninoff, you have to make up your own programs, but this prelude strikes me as a carriage ride in the park.

Update: I located the original tape which has better sound quality and less noise than the transfer to CD first posted (38 downloads).  So I've switched the two recordings.   

[rachfan]

Rachmaninoff composed this prelude in August of 1910, and it's unlike any of the others in Op. 32.   At first, for those who might not be familiar with this prelude, it may not even seem characteristic of Rachmaninoff''s idiom.  But in the middle of the piece there is a rhapsodic and sensuous interlude that can only be Rachmaninoff.   Comments welcome.

[mattgreenecomposer]

Im glad you posted this.  I am unfamiliar with this prelude and I agree with you it is very uncharacteristic of Rachmaninoff.  I think it has a bit of American influence to it, especially at the end.  Did he visit America yet by that time I wonder?

[pianowolfi]

I think you are on a good way. Though, I prefer to hear this played more lightly, a bit more flowing and scherzando, not too "romantic", more ethereal. It's such a touch of humour in it. It's like "cute" and childlike, almost a Rach "Kinderszenen" piece.

[rachfan]

Hi Matt,

As a matter of fact, Rachmaninoff toured the U.S. in 1909, the year before he composed this prelude.   So yes, he might have encountered something during his visit which inspired the Prelude.  I suppose it can't be ruled out.

[rachfan]

Hi wolfi,

Your program image and mine for this prelude are so different!  Rather than seeing something childlike in the music, I sense a young couple in a horse-drawn hansom cab in Central Park in NYC in the very early 1900s.  I can hear the "clip-clop" of the horses hooves.  The melody is very cloying, and a few times even suggests a duet with the carriage noise always in the background.  Then there is a rush leading to the rhapsodic part which strikes me as a dilerious and passionate private moment.  At the very end of the piece, there is that flash or flicker that suggests to me the afternoon sunlight glinting off the driver's mirror on the cab as it rounds a corner of the path and disappears from sight.  Where Rachmaninoff as a Neo-Romantic wrote so much ultra-romantic music, this scenario is easy for me to visualize, and that's what I worked toward when practicing the piece.

The intriguing thing is that it doesn't diminish your programmatic interpretation at all, which could be valid.  Pianists have wondered about Rachmaninoff's hidden programs for decades.  He was even asked directly about them in his lifetime, but would never divulge  any hints.  I think Jorge Bolet used to wonder about this very matter too.  I believe there could be as many programs pertaining to a single prelude as there are pianists playing it.  The important thing is to have an image by which to interpret the piece in order to bring individuality to the sound.  Yet not all of the preludes suggest the presence of programs, as some are seemingly more abstract, while others have programs that seem to jump right off the sheet music.  It's definitely a fascinating topic.

     

[pianistimo]

thanks for sharing this rachfan!

[rachfan]

Thanks for thanking me, pianistimo!  It's difficult to reveal your innermost thoughts of a piece in a forum.  But program imagery is important to every pianist and has a bearing on interpretation, so I felt ok in sharing it. 

[pianowolfi]

I like your program. I like programs anyway though they come not in the first place, to me. I even didn't thought that my sparse thoughts above already would count as a program lol Anyway, I might be very much influenced by the recordings I have heard of this piece. Keep it up!

[rachfan]

Hi wolfi,

I guess in the ideal world, we'd all know the composer's "program" for a piece without a descriptive title, which, unfortunately, is more often not the case.  As a fallback we might gleen it from some obvious hints in the music itself, realizing that there is some subjectivity involved, as obvious clues might have very different meanings to different pianists, as we've noticed.  And, finally, for a work that is more abstract and resolutely gives up no secrets, our remaining hope might be to look to performance practices.  Even there, however, there can and will be opportunities for the pianist's interpretation to be heard.  I'm a strong advocate of that, given the safe, plain vanilla performances we hear in competitions and the perfection portrayed in CDs (thanks not to the artists necessarily, but to their recording engineers).  I would much rather hear risk taking and even wrong notes.  Those performances are far more exillerating and communicate the intentions of the performer.  What would the world be like if we could not have Richter's live recording of Pictures at an Exhibition, wrong notes and all?

By the way, this might interest you.  When I'm learning a piece (even one familiar to me), I go out of my way not to listen to recordings, as I first want to form my own impressions and put my own stamp on my rendition.  However, to be truthful, I do listen to one or two recordings as the very last step.  Once in awhile I've encountered a different note, for example, which sometimes has been a differences between editions--or, that the artist made the error, not me (including some big names out there, ha-ha!).  The other thing of interest to me is tempo, as I want to make sure that mine is within reason.  Other than that, I pretty much go with it. 

Thanks for listening to my recording and adding to the thread on "inner programs".