Rach 3 = technical difficulty>musicality?

[emrysmerlin]

I know we have done similar threads before, but I just want to focus on Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto on this one.

We all know that Rach 3 is notorious for being one of the widely-acceptedly hardest piano pieces. The technique that is required of the performer is monstrous, especially if one has small hands, as there are often places where there are massive intervals between notes. There's also the omnipresent polyrhythms and extremely rapid double notes, etc. In the end, despite the recognition of it being technically difficult, we also recognize it as musically divine as well. That however does not mean that we shouldn't scrutinize whether or not the grand concerto contains excessive notes that cannot actually be justified - that is, the technique required to produce the effect of the piano part is excessive. Although I have (obviously) never tackled the piece before, whenever I look at the Rach 3 score while listening to a recording, I am always baffled by how little I could hear from the piano.

My personal opinion is that 50% of the notes in Rach 3 is useless. What do you guys think?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

especially if one has small hands, as there are often places where there are massive intervals between notes.

My personal opinion is that 50% of the notes in Rach 3 is useless. What do you guys think?

If you can reach an octave, you're fine.

I also disagree with the 50% thing.  If you took away 50% of those notes, not only would it be a lot easier, it would suck musically.

[iansinclair]

Technically it is hard -- but not that hard.  I have a hope of playing it (in fact, I'm working on it as one of my current projects) and, frankly, I'm not what I would regard as a technically accomplished pianist.  I do have big (and very flexible hands) which does help, but as rach_ says, if you can reach an octave you'd be OK.

As to your comment on superfluous notes and how little you can hear of the piano.  First, I think it would be fair to say that a composer does not compose superfluous notes (although an arranger might), any more than a writer writes superfluous words.  Even the mousiest flute in a terrific climax has a place and contributes to the sound the composer intended.

Which is not to say that one can hear all the notes on a recording.  That, however, speaks to the quality of the recording and the reproduction.  I am anything but a "golden eared audiophile" -- I can't afford to be -- but I have been associated with live music all my life, and only the best recordings played back on very good equipment come close to what is really there.  Translation: if you are listening to a recording in the form of a squashed .mp3 file on an iPod or even on your computer, even with top quality headphones (never mind the average small speaker) I'm not a bit surprised that you can only hear 50% of the notes. 

[ladychopin]

Technically it is hard -- but not that hard.  I have a hope of playing it (in fact, I'm working on it as one of my current projects) and, frankly, I'm not what I would regard as a technically accomplished pianist.  I do have big (and very flexible hands) which does help, but as rach_ says, if you can reach an octave you'd be OK.

how much can you reach?

[the89thkey]

I can reach an 11th with notes in between, but I think no more than a reasonable stretch (tenth) would be fine. There are 10th chords in there which can't be rolled.
As for half the notes being useless, I don't know where to start. Give me a version of Rach 3 with half the notes cut out and make it sound good. That's right. Impossible.

[ajspiano]

If you can reach an octave (and you know what you're doing!), you're fine.

^fixed your post.

Technically it is hard -- but not that hard.  I have a hope of playing it (in fact, I'm working on it as one of my current projects) and, frankly, I'm not what I would regard as a technically accomplished pianist.

Without meaning this to be directed at you personally since that is obviously your experience, I think these kind of statements are very misleading for forum readers, and are completely buried in the idea of "getting through the notes" - and while there are going to be people that can do this, for the majority its will be very challenging even if only from the perspective that the work goes for 40+ minutes - which for comparisons sake is about how long you have to play to earn an LRSM performance degree, something that is often compared to having done 3 years fulltime training at a university...

and of course there's the idea of producing a well cultivated musical performance that would sit indistinguishably along side a professional recording, which should arguably be extremely difficult, since for me I find most professional recordings to be inadequate.

..never mind that horowitz apparently felt the need to record it 6 times over a ~50 year  period (1930-1978) - and that there is an obvious interpretive difference (based on reviews, I havent personally listened to all of them yet) between them suggesting that work and development on the piece is counted in decades..  but then maybe thats just interpretive changes in general, not just rach 3 related.

...........

Also, I would argue that there is not one note out of place...   Though perhaps lost on some ears, to me the complexity and enormity is both marvelous and very effective.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

^fixed your post.

If you're trying to learn the Rach 3, it's kind of a given that you know what you're doing.

[ajspiano]

If you're trying to learn the Rach 3, it's kind of a given that you know what you're doing.

I would assume that (thanks to shine) much like we see with the chopin etudes here on the forum, the rach 3 is absolutely not excused from being attempted by pianists no where near ready.

[j_menz]

Also, I would argue that there is not one note out of place...   

And the challenge is to keep it that way. 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

And the challenge is to keep it that way. 

Well you can get away with a flood of missed notes...

[ajspiano]

And the challenge is to keep it that way. 

Shouldnt be too hard..






..this is not a reduction/arrangement.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Shouldnt be too hard..






..this is not a reduction/arrangement.

In terms of the ENTIRE piano repertoire, that sounds about accurate.

I bet the intro on the first two pages would probably be graded as 8+.  Because everything is 8+...

[ajspiano]

In terms of the ENTIRE piano repertoire, that sounds about accurate.

I bet the intro on the first two pages would probably be graded as 8+.  Because everything is 8+...

I'm guessing whoever graded is looked at like 4 pages at the most, and they must have copy/pasted the description and missed the "full of virtuosic hurdles" bit..

Rach 2 was considered intermediate/advanced on the same site.

*confused.
**feels sorry for anyone who relied on those grades and thought they'd have a crack.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I'm guessing whoever graded is looked at like 4 pages at the most, and they must have copy/pasted the description and missed the "full of virtuosic hurdles" bit..

Rach 2 was considered intermediate/advanced on the same site.

*confused.
**feels sorry for anyone who relied on those grades and thought they'd have a crack.

How's the project going for you?

So I've decided that I'm gonna pass the Rach 1st sonata and do the Rach 3 with you.  However I'm doing the second movement.  It fits under my hands easier and it's easier for me to read.

[ajspiano]

How's the project going for you?

So I've decided that I'm gonna pass the Rach 1st sonata and do the Rach 3 with you.  However I'm doing the second movement.  It fits under my hands easier and it's easier for me to read.

I can play a few sections at speed, but of course its all sparse and disconnected.. I keep getting taken away from practicing..  I have had family dinners and things every day the last few days and its going today and tomorrow aswell.. then I'm flying out the state over christmas and probably wont get to touch a piano much..

The opening, bars 1-51..
 
I can read a bit past 51 fluently but pretty slow.. those few bars with the offbeat accents and multiple voices are a pain for me to play well, but they are steadily getting better.   

section beginning around 108 (and the easyish bit before that where the piano and orchestra kind of take it in turns) is at speed up to where the orchestra gets more involved and louder.

first page of the cadenza.. which means page 2 isnt far behind (very similar), plus some work on the "big fat chord part" (not very good at that yet)

light section in the middle of the cadenza before slow melodic part..

..

I've also been going through and picking 1-2 bar spots that are of a certain kind of technical problem and working on them.. so I have a bit of background in whats going to happen, but there's no musical continuity in those places..  its just getting the rhythmic/voicing/technique elements under my hands in tiny cycled phrases in places where there's a repeated idea with different notes...  bits and pieces of HS work in places where there are highly problematic figures that I need to sort out before attempting HT.

I'm hoping to put up another video in the project thread before I leave for christmas.. we'll see if I get time..

[the89thkey]

I can play a few sections at speed, but of course its all sparse and disconnected.. I keep getting taken away from practicing..  I have had family dinners and things every day the last few days and its going today and tomorrow aswell.. then I'm flying out the state over christmas and probably wont get to touch a piano much..

The opening, bars 1-51..
 
I can read a bit past 51 fluently but pretty slow.. those few bars with the offbeat accents and multiple voices are a pain for me to play well, but they are steadily getting better.   

section beginning around 108 (and the easyish bit before that where the piano and orchestra kind of take it in turns) is at speed up to where the orchestra gets more involved and louder.

first page of the cadenza.. which means page 2 isnt far behind (very similar), plus some work on the "big fat chord part" (not very good at that yet)

light section in the middle of the cadenza before slow melodic part..

..

I've also been going through and picking 1-2 bar spots that are of a certain kind of technical problem and working on them.. so I have a bit of background in whats going to happen, but there's no musical continuity in those places..  its just getting the rhythmic/voicing/technique elements under my hands in tiny cycled phrases in places where there's a repeated idea with different notes...  bits and pieces of HS work in places where there are highly problematic figures that I need to sort out before attempting HT.

I'm hoping to put up another video in the project thread before I leave for christmas.. we'll see if I get time..

Keep practicing. I'm sure you will be able to play it better in time

[ajspiano]

Keep practicing. I'm sure you will be able to play it better in time

Lets hope so, - I'd hate to keep practicing and not get any better.

I am pretty happy with progress so far considering time spent.

[the89thkey]

Lets hope so, - I'd hate to keep practicing and not get any better.

I am pretty happy with progress so far considering time spent.

And how much is that per day?

[ajspiano]

And how much is that per day?

Maybe an average 30 mins for nearly 2 weeks..

I've had a pretty disturbed week, had a few bigger days of practice and few nothing days :/

[the89thkey]

Maybe an average 30 mins for nearly 2 weeks..

I've had a pretty disturbed week, had a few bigger days of practice and few nothing days :/

I learned Rach 3 in a week, maybe a bit more, practicing 8 hours a day.

[akthe47]

Thank you for posting this question.  It is something I have thought about for some time, so I am glad someone also feels the same way and has posted his/her thoughts in words.

I think there is a bit of truth to the statement that there are superfluous notes.  I don't think it's a matter of live vs. recorded. I listened to Yuja's performance of Rach3 live, in good seating, and still noticed there are notes you can't possibly hear with the orchestra, the main melody of the piano part, and the incredible speed required for some of the runs.

A more concrete example:

Rach 3, 3rd movement, Meno mosso (marker 45 from the IMC version):  I challenge you to say you can hear every note of every triplet along with the left hand accompaniment in this section.  As beautiful as this melody is, the key points are the quarter notes in the RH.  You often hear Lang Lang, Kern, and Agerich in their recordings blaze through these sections, almost with seemingly missing notes.  More supporting evidence this section contains superfluous notes?  Rach revisits this theme again a little later in the 3rd movement.  And yes, the next time is with a lot less notes.  Do you lose the musicality the 2nd time around?  I wouldn't say so since if you ask most musicians to listen to Rach 3, unless they studied Rach 3, they would be unlikely to even discern the 2 versions of this melodic line.  Musicality is not lost in the 2nd version, despite the reduction of notes.

There are many parts of Rach 3 that are literally blazed through, and although 50% might be an exaggeration, there are quite a number of notes that don't really add to the musicality of the piece.  Many notes get squashed by the orchestra and the main melody, even in a live performance.  The performance doesn't lose quality because of this.

[p2u_]

I think there is a bit of truth to the statement that there are superfluous notes.

Rachmaninov dreaded the very idea of anything superfluous in any music, the more so in his own. It is all perfectly balanced and you cannot leave a single note out, because it will be felt, not necessarily heard by those who have ever worked on this Concerto. If you have that impression (superfluous notes), then this can mean only one thing: the performers (pianist + orchestra) did not succeed in the artistic task at hand.

Paul

[akthe47]

examples?  I hardly think Yuja Wang, Kern, and Lang Lang-- even Lisitsa and Kissin (Rach 2, 2nd movement) are all failing at the concerto at hand when they blaze through these sections.  The musicality is not lost.

Also, musicality is largely enjoyed by the non-performers.  At a concert, the music is largely for the audience, not the people playing the instrument.  If we're talking about musicality and its enjoyment, talking about the musicality from what is felt does not make much sense.  There is only 1 performer per instrument.

[p2u_]

examples?

Are you sure you want to hear them? Practically speaking: almost anyone that does not belong to the "Old school". That's why they all sound so boring at times. Please read what I write: I'm not talking about the pianists only; also about the conductors who are supposed to "manage" what happens.

P.S.:
1) You underestimate the average non-professional listener.
2) Although non-professionals also listen to his music, Rachmaninov's quality norms had to take into account first of all the ear of a professional. The conclusion by any of his listeners "Too many notes" would have made him very depressed.

Paul

[j_menz]

A more concrete example:

Rach 3, 3rd movement, Meno mosso (marker 45 from the IMC version):  I challenge you to say you can hear every note of every triplet along with the left hand accompaniment in this section.  As beautiful as this melody is, the key points are the quarter notes in the RH.  You often hear Lang Lang, Kern, and Agerich in their recordings blaze through these sections, almost with seemingly missing notes.  More supporting evidence this section contains superfluous notes?  Rach revisits this theme again a little later in the 3rd movement.  And yes, the next time is with a lot less notes.  Do you lose the musicality the 2nd time around?  I wouldn't say so since if you ask most musicians to listen to Rach 3, unless they studied Rach 3, they would be unlikely to even discern the 2 versions of this melodic line.  Musicality is not lost in the 2nd version, despite the reduction of notes.

Even if it were true that you could not hear every individual note (and I by no means concede this is the case), the harmonic function they play, and the way the triplets work against the main theme to give the music a drive and added forward tension cannot be ignored.  These factors are part of the "musicality" of the piece; your idea of "musicality" appears to be strangely stunted if it can ignore them.

[outin]

I don't see how hearing every note would be relevant. I can probably hear just a fraction of the notes when I listen to music as individual notes, but I am certain the music would sound very different if all the other notes were left out

[p2u_]

Even if it were true that you could not hear every individual note (and I by no means concede this is the case), the harmonic function they play, and the way the triplets work against the main theme to give the music a drive and added forward tension cannot be ignored.  These factors are part of the "musicality" of the piece

Exactly right. And you don't have to be a professional chef to be able to distinguish a good steak (vegetarians, please picture another dish) from a not so good one. It the chef leaves out certain  ingredients, you will feel there's "something wrong" with that steak, even if you are not a professional taster.

Paul

[the89thkey]

There have been a lot of accusations going on in this thread about superfluous notes in the Rach 3. I assure you that every note of the meno mosso section is perfect, and I can hear every single missing note if any are left out. Even the key in which the passage is written is perfect and beautiful.

[stoudemirestat]

There have been a lot of accusations going on in this thread about superfluous notes in the Rach 3. I assure you that every note of the meno mosso section is perfect, and I can hear every single missing note if any are left out. Even the key in which the passage is written is perfect and beautiful.

I tend to agree that there aren't any superfluous notes in Rach 3. In fact when people say there are I generally have no clue what they're talking about, and that goes for much of his other music too.

[the89thkey]

I tend to agree that there aren't any superfluous notes in Rach 3. In fact when people say there are I generally have no clue what they're talking about, and that goes for much of his other music too.

Yes...it makes about the same amount of sense as claiming there are superfluous notes in a Bach fugue.

[akthe47]

Tell you what, I can find you a recording with a few missing notes that cannot be heard.  You will be surprised to know who played it.

Then you are either stuck with:  a) the world-reknowned performer is either unmusical in their performance or b) there are superfluous notes.

And conductors can't feel the notes.  I have no idea where you are going with that logic.

Quite frankly, it's surprising how some of you will stand by technical logic of practice (which is a science), yet you can say that if you don't hear a note, it sounds differently when a performer does it intentionally vs. unintentionally.  You might as well call on the spirit of Rachmaninoff before your performances for extra guidance.

[j_menz]

Tell you what, I can find you a recording with a few missing notes that cannot be heard. 

Then how do you know they're missing? 

[akthe47]

Then how do you know they're missing? 

You can't hear it lol.  I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

[vsrinivasa]

Then how do you know they're missing? 

I suppose akthe47 means that you can't hear the notes that should be there, therefore illustrating that all the notes are essential.

[j_menz]

You can't hear it lol.  I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

I repeat. If you cannot hear that they are missing, what makes you so sure that they are?

[akthe47]

I suppose akthe47 means that you can't hear the notes that should be there, therefore illustrating that all the notes are essential.

I suppose vsrinivasa that means for you that this conversation's logic is too complex for you to follow.  Here's a succinct fallacy with your statement:

musicality is not equal to essentiality is not equal to being heard

[vsrinivasa]

I suppose vsrinivasa that means for you that this conversation's logic is too complex for you to follow.  Here's a succinct fallacy with your statement:

musicality is not equal to essentiality is not equal to being heard

Or that I skipped to the end of the conversation and therefore misunderstood what you meant. And did you intend for your post to sound like an insult? It did somewhat, and sounded quite condescending. Please don't be offended if this is not what you meant. I was just trying to rephrase what you said, while misunderstanding what it is you meant. Sorry.

[akthe47]

I repeat. If you cannot hear that they are missing, what makes you so sure that they are?

Uh, you totally lost me there.  I never said you can't hear they are missing.  In fact, I said the opposite.  Not sure where you got 'you cannot hear they are missing' from when I stated, 'you can hear they are missing'

[vsrinivasa]

Uh, you totally lost me there.  I never said you can't hear they are missing.  In fact, I said the opposite.  Not sure where you got 'you cannot hear they are missing' from when I stated, 'you can hear they are missing'

You kind of said "You can't hear it" and j_menz probably misinterpreted this to mean you cannot hear that the notes are missing. This conversation is confusing...

[j_menz]

Uh, you totally lost me there.  I never said you can't hear they are missing.  In fact, I said the opposite.  Not sure where you got 'you cannot hear they are missing' from when I stated, 'you can hear they are missing'

I can find you a recording with a few missing notes that cannot be heard. 

So you meant that to mean that you could hear they are missing? OK.

So, then the question becomes: if you can hear that they are missing, then how can you say they are not essential. Rachmaninoff clearly meant it to sound as it does with the notes in, which is different to with the notes omitted.

You may not care, but Rachmaninoff clearly did.  Frankly, I prefer his judgment to yours any day.

[vsrinivasa]

So you meant that to mean that you could hear they are missing? OK.

So, then the question becomes: if you can hear that they are missing, then how can you say they are not essential. Rachmaninoff clearly meant it to sound as it does with the notes in, which is different to with the notes omitted.

You may not care, but Rachmaninoff clearly did.  Frankly, I prefer his judgment to yours any day.

Well said! I now understand this conversation.

[p2u_]

Tell you what, I can find you a recording with a few missing notes that cannot be heard.  You will be surprised to know who played it.

Please, do not assume that your own level of perceiving music is the norm for everyone. Also, please, do not refer to a certain competence that you seem to have and others seem to lack. Find me a hundred recordings played by whoever; this is all beside the point.

Then you are either stuck with:  a) the world-reknowned performer is either unmusical in their performance or b) there are superfluous notes.

If a musician does not succeed in bringing out a certain passage as intended, that does not necessarily mean that overall, 1) the person is unmusical in that passage or that 2) there are too many notes. Check your logic please and don't put words into other people's mouth.

And conductors can't feel the notes.  I have no idea where you are going with that logic.

Contrary to what you might think, the musical experience is NOT limited to the ears only; you also experience at least part of the movements the performer makes, especially if you are a good musician yourself. Conductors are usually very good pianists themselves, so they really have no problems hearing EVERY detail in the score. The real problem is that the orchestra and the soloist often don't have enough time to work together on the concerto really seriously, so the conductor has to find compromises and some places may come out more successfully than others. Very often, specifically in this concerto, we are left with just some general noise in certain places.

Quite frankly, it's surprising how some of you will stand by technical logic of practice (which is a science), yet you can say that if you don't hear a note, it sounds differently when a performer does it intentionally vs. unintentionally.  You might as well call on the spirit of Rachmaninoff before your performances for extra guidance.

See above. Your logic is circular, that's the problem. Now I see from how this topic is developing that you are even questioning your opponents' general competence and their ability for logical reasoning. I'm afraid this is not going to do much good for your argument.

Paul

[akthe47]

Like I already said above, missing notes != essential notes != musicality.

Your "reasoning" is "how can notes not be required for musicality (or essentiality? not sure why you use these interchangeably)?"  That's not an argument, that's a statement of your position with nothing to back it up.

[akthe47]

The best part is, I show any of you naysayers a performance and ask you if there are missing notes.  You will likely say no, but then you will put your own foot in your mouth when you realize there are missing notes, yet the performance is musical.  They are superfluous.

[p2u_]

Like I already said above, missing notes != essential notes != musicality.

Your "reasoning" is "how can notes not be required for musicality (or essentiality? not sure why you use these interchangeably)?"  That's not an argument, that's a statement of your position with nothing to back it up.

The best part is, I show any of you naysayers a performance and ask you if there are missing notes.  You will likely say no, but then you will put your own foot in your mouth when you realize there are missing notes, yet the performance is musical.  They are superfluous.

Could you please quote who and what part of their argument you are replying to ? Otherwise this is too difficult to follow for the readers. Thank you.

Paul

[j_menz]

The best part is, I show any of you naysayers a performance and ask you if there are missing notes.  You will likely say no, but then you will put your own foot in your mouth when you realize there are missing notes, yet the performance is musical.  They are superfluous.

I could give you a "musical" (in your sense) performance of the Rach 3 that left out the orchestra and the vast majority of the notes.  That would not, however, make it the Rach 3 written by Rachmaninoff and a rather different listening experience.

If you say that there are any superflous notes in it as written, identify one.

[p2u_]

I could give you a "musical" (in your sense) performance of the Rach 3 that left out the orchestra and the vast majority of the notes.  That would not, however, make it the Rach 3 written by Rachmaninoff and a rather different listening experience.

If you say that there are any superflous notes in it as written, identify one.

Leaving out ANY elements changes the RHYTHM, the most essential component in music, more even than the sound pitch of each seperate note. Rhythm = movement, movement itself creates rhythm. Absence of movements (you are leaving out notes) changes the general impression in terms of rhythm for the piece. That is the real problem.

To a certain extent, it also changes the harmonic balance. Leaving out certain elements leads to different "voicing", lots of high frequencies missing, etc. The sound will generally be perceived as "poor" or "inadequate", although it is not always easy to determine the cause.

Besides, there is the other problem of interaction between performer(s) and the audience. Assuming that all the notes are there, one can play very musically but still not understand how the perception of the audience works. For example, in big halls, you have to slow down a bit, play certain passages with "air" between the notes, etc.

Need I say that what the sound editor does or doesn't do while recording also adds to the complexity of it all?

Paul

[akthe47]

I'll take this conversation offline.

There are waaay too many red herrings on unrelated topics (the conductor feels the music on the keyboard? the different listening experiences equate to musicality?) that have no bearing on what was originally discussed.  There might be 1 of you in here who I can talk to about this, but the rest are just adding noise by conflating topics we weren't even talking about.

I don't care that the music is different if you leave out notes (wow, you just added nothing to the conversation).  I don't care if only the performer can enjoy the music (what's the point in that?).  I don't care if you prefer Rachmaninoff's judgement to mine(?lol ok?).  These points have nothing to do with anything we were talking about-- the vast majority of you are circumventing a real discussion by bringing up totally unrelated topics.  You might as well attack me for wearing a white shirt today, and so that's why I'm wrong.

[akthe47]

I could give you a "musical" (in your sense) performance of the Rach 3 that left out the orchestra and the vast majority of the notes.  That would not, however, make it the Rach 3 written by Rachmaninoff and a rather different listening experience.

If you say that there are any superflous notes in it as written, identify one.

Listen to Argerich's famous Rach 3 performance and then come back to me.

[akthe47]

See above. Your logic is circular, that's the problem. Now I see from how this topic is developing that you are even questioning your opponents' general competence and their ability for logical reasoning. I'm afraid this is not going to do much good for your argument.

Where is my logic circular?  The only circular logic is everyone else's:

In Rach 3, there are no notes that would affect the musicality in their absense (i.e., superfluous notes) because there just aren't any.



WOW, thanks for the enlightenment everyone.