Rachmaninoff, Prelude, Op. 23, No. 6 in E flat

[rachfan]

This is one of the best preludes in Op. 23, although some would say it's a bit sugary. 

Update: I deleted the CD cut (26 downloads) and replaced it with the original source tape which has better fidelity.

Comments welcome.

[rachfan]

This now has better sonics.  I hope you like it.

[prongated]

...I um, like Moiseiwitsch's interpretation quite a bit - the melody flows so smoothly and naturally without rough corrugation.

But then I think the way you play is, as I probably have mentioned before, already developed. You always outline the melody very 'boldly', so to speak. But um, were you sight-reading this? I felt some of those 'boldness' (i.e. delay, corrugation, whatever) were due to you finding what notes to play...

[rachfan]

Hi prongated,

First, that I could play as well as Moisiwitsch!!!   

Here's the honest answer to your question:  As you know, I play many of these preludes.  I formally studied this particular one for about 9 weeks, so no, I was not sightreading and can't use that as an excuse.  However, in a way Rachmaninoff's preludes are not at all unlike his etudes, in that each one presents an entirely different pianistic challenge through markedly different figuration.  Frankly, while Op. 23, No. 6 might be "duck soup" to another pianist who could perhaps play it flawlessly wearing a blindfold, it was more of a conscious struggle for me.  The reason is that constantly running passagework has never been my forte.  As a kid, I noticed that I was very good in lyrical works, while speed demons could run circles around me--although often playing without any discernable expression.  Pianists who could play both sides of the literature equally well seemed fewer in number. 

So in mid-life, every time I stepped up to play this prelude, I was worried that I would be playing wrong notes, so could never be really relaxed about it.  In the other preludes, I felt  much more in control.  Had I been less tense, there are several places in this piece where I could have made some additional interesting turns of phrase with some very nice nuances. 

Overall, I don't think my rendition (as an amateur "duffer" with very limited practice
time) is a bad one, and there are things I like about it, while some other elements could certainly stand some polishing.  Accomplished conservatory students or professionals could undoubted present superior performances, where piano is their vocation, not their avocation.  For that matter, I guess even other amateurs with more ability and/or time available could surpass my effort here.

I do appreciate your kindness in being inquiring rather than critical.  Thanks!   

[rachfan]

A quick note for everyone who has been glancing at the sample of the sheet music above:  That goes to Op. 32, No. 6, not Op. 23, No. 6, if you're wondering why the notes don't match.  Ignore it.

[prongated]

Correction again: that is actually Rach's Etude-Tableaux op. 33 no. 6

First, that I could play as well as Moisiwitsch!!!

Hahaha sorry...I wasn't comparing you to Moiseiwitsch...I'm just saying I liked his

[rachfan]

Hi prongated,

No misunderstanding taken, so no sweat.  I knew you were not drawing a direct comparison, but your question was a good one, and I wanted to explain what barrier had held me back in that performance.  Still... I do wish I could play like Moisewitsch though, ha-ha!  I don't think you could have picked a better ideal than him.   He was definitely the pianists' pianist.