Piano Forum
Piano Board => Student's Corner => Topic started by: G.W.K on December 30, 2008, 02:20:18 AM
-
This has been bugging me for a while now. WHAT is the obsession with Rachmaninoff? I find his pieces are very boring, depressing and sound either like someone being molested on the piano or old horror film music...he is absolutely terrible!
Fair enough: I am relatively new to Rachmaninoff, I only first heard his pieces a few months ago...but even though I continue to try and see why everyone loves him, I am still confused about why everyone seems to swear by him.
Enlighten me: WHY does anyone like Rachmaninoff? And are ANY of his pieces NOT like the reasons listed in the first paragraph above?
G.W.K
-
wow. i've never heard rachmaninoff so badly talked about in all my life.
and im on the verge of emoti-slapping you, quite frankly, but you are new to rachmaninoff, and there's need to get angry.
first off, why i like rachmaninoff. his music is verry, extremely, expressive. fillled with passion and emotion. granted his second and third piano concerti have some of the most beautiful melodies i've ever heard, more so the second. but, i find that in his solo piano pieces is where he truly speaks to his audience. and to address the depressing comment you made. he was very much a depressed person, and unhappy (because he couldnt return to his country, he was forbidden) his etude-tableause are a generally depressive music, for me anyway, and these were not just etudes as the name suggests but pictures of himself, tableaux, within the etudes. and being the sad person he was, so was his music, but his music is also one of the most passionate i've ever heard. comparing his music to saay beethoven's sonata's, from my experience the one work of beethovens that i feel as much emotion stirr is the appassionata, but then theres also his 4th piano concerto. but with rachmaninoff, just to name a few: piano concerto 2, rhapsody on a theme of paganini, elegie, prelude op 3 no 2/ op 23 no 2/no5, moment musical no 4, etude-tableaux op 39 no 1/ op 33 no 4(or 5, whichever way u like it), the list goes on. i also love his music for its sheer complexity....yet, simplicity, i dunno if im making sense when i say that, but for those who understand me, i think u know what i mean, but i cant explain, not at 3 am anyway.
i could go on, but im pretty tired rite now, but you should really listen to those pieces i listed. the etude tableaux's and the musical moment, granted, take a second or third listening to, to really feel and understand it. but give it a shot.
-
This has been bugging me for a while now. WHAT is the obsession with Rachmaninoff? I find his pieces are very boring, depressing and sound either like someone being molested on the piano or old horror film music...he is absolutely terrible!
Fair enough: I am relatively new to Rachmaninoff, I only first heard his pieces a few months ago...but even though I continue to try and see why everyone loves him, I am still confused about why everyone seems to swear by him.
Enlighten me: WHY does anyone like Rachmaninoff? And are ANY of his pieces NOT like the reasons listed in the first paragraph above?
G.W.K
because the music that he writes has something special. It makes you tremble, shiver, all sorts of reactions. What he writes is so musical& expressive but at the same time is very challenging. His 1st piece that I learnt was his Prelude in G major op.32 no.5 and I remember that was the 1st piece that I heard of his and i fell in love with it when my teacher played it for me.
I used to hate Rachmaninoff though because I found his music difficult to understand and it was technically very/ at one point a little too challenging for me. Whereas my teacher loves his music so much and only taught me Rachmaninoff for my List D (ARCT performer's exam) and told me that she only would allow me to move on to another composer when I had mastered how to play Rachmaninoff so we moved on to the G sharp minor prelude op.32 no.12. When she 1st gave me that, I rebelled and refused to practice it, eventually I got sick of doing that and decided to prove my teacher wrong and I did but she ended up saying that it suited me well and loved the way i played it so I went on to play it for competitions.....
Now, looking back, I do now regret it at all...you just need more time. I love Rachmaninoff now and I am working on his Prelude in D op.23 no.4
I remember when I 1st heard his piano concerto no.2 in c minor, I just started trembling and tears just flowed, I had no idea at that point why but his music moved me so much.
-
,
-
So basically, you are saying Rachmaninoff is great because not only did he incorporate other instruments into his playing that worked in harmony with each other...he also played and composed based on his emotions? Is this why everyone is so obsessed with him?
He is still terrible, perhaps that is the intended effect? Like you say communist: he played not to aim for a brilliant piece of work, but to show everyone how he felt, etc.
I must say, he does have an effect on me...but it isn't crying or happiness. I don't understand how such a racket can move people so much.
G.W.K
-
So basically, you are saying Rachmaninoff is great because not only did he incorporate other instruments into his playing that worked in harmony with each other...he also played and composed based on his emotions? Is this why everyone is so obsessed with him?
He is still terrible, perhaps that is the intended effect? Like you say communist: he played not to aim for a brilliant piece of work, but to show everyone how he felt, etc.
I must say, he does have an effect on me...but it isn't crying or happiness. I don't understand how such a racket can move people so much.
G.W.K
what did you listen by him anyway?
-
what did you listen by him anyway?
I don't know exactly. It was a youtube clip given to me in the Chat by either you or "imbetterthanyou". But it was awful!
G.W.K
-
I don't know exactly. It was a youtube clip given to me in the Chat by either you or "imbetterthanyou". But it was awful!
G.W.K
his first piano concerto? listen to the isle of the dead and or his other piano concerti
-
just WOW gary. Rachmaninoff's music is just exploding with emotions, rich melodies, and rich harmonies. just, wow.
-
just WOW gary. Rachmaninoff's music is just exploding with emotions, rich melodies, and rich harmonies. just, wow.
WHERE? I listened to that piece (that I can't remember now) three times with an open-mind and I could not find ANYTHING that was good! It was just a load of banging and crecendos and it was just awful!
Why do people get so emotional? I hate Rachmaninoff...live with it. I cannot see the fascination in him yet everyone here seems to love him!
G.W.K
-
there is a reason why everyone loves him
-
there is a reason why everyone loves him
Apart from "emotions", etc. that have already been mentioned here? There is another reason? Do enlighten me.
G.W.K
-
Apart from "emotions", etc. that have already been mentioned here? There is another reason? Do enlighten me.
G.W.K
with the emotion and haunting melodies his music is also great in structure and thought.
-
with the emotion and haunting melodies his music is also great in structure and thought.
I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.
G.W.K
-
I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.
G.W.K
listen to this, https://au.youtube.com/watch?v=qUI2DS7vHas
whats so bad about that?
-
1. Why don’t you explain to us why a comparable composer, who you like, IS great and why exactly.
2. Usually if enough people like something for long enough (i.e. for several generations) then that could be a definition of something being good. That doesn’t mean you will like it though.
3. You seem to have created an impression of his music by listening to mostly one piece (and one particular interpretation) played several times. If you are baffled by people’s opinion of Rachmaninoff then maybe you should listen to many other recordings and other pieces (also with an “open mind”)
4. You also have to realise that if you don’t like something that it’s OK. However, if you call something popular “just awful!” then people who like it will not simply “…live with it” but will give you their apposing opinion. If that bugs you, then don’t criticise it in a forum.
4. Sorry for being so patronising.
-
Well, if it doesn't press your buttons then too bad, we've all got blind spots. I can't abide Andrew Lloyd Webber's music but millions of people find it very moving. Benjamin Britten could find nothing to like or admire in Brahms's entire output. And so on...
-
1. Why don’t you explain to us why a comparable composer, who you like, IS great and why exactly.
2. Usually if enough people like something for long enough (i.e. for several generations) then that could be a definition of something being good. That doesn’t mean you will like it though.
3. You seem to have created an impression of his music by listening to mostly one piece (and one particular interpretation) played several times. If you are baffled by people’s opinion of Rachmaninoff then maybe you should listen to many other recordings and other pieces (also with an “open mind”)
4. You also have to realise that if you don’t like something that it’s OK. However, if you call something popular “just awful!” then people who like it will not simply “…live with it” but will give you their apposing opinion. If that bugs you, then don’t criticise it in a forum.
4. Sorry for being so patronising.
Yes, you are quite patronising. I voice my opinion. I will listen to other pieces and if I do not like them: I will say that.
G.W.K
P.S. The number "5" comes after the number "4"...not "4" again. :P
-
Very nice. Well done. Of Course, I am still right though!
-
Very nice. Well done. Of Course, I am still right though!
About what? Fair enough: it is all personal preference, but you can't stop me from voicing that personal preference. I honestly cannot see the fascination...I've just listened to one that communist mentioned earlier, and I still remain the same.
G.W.K
-
Take a step back and let the sarcasm wash over you fella. I was only joking.
-
I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.
G.W.K
you've gotta be joking. you make a thread asking others to explain to you why they love rachamaninoff, we do, some of us recommend to you some pieces to listen to. not only do you not listen to them (it may seem) but continue to bash rachmaninoff based on ONE thing you've heard a while ago. to me it seems like ur being childish and stubborn, unwilling to really hear what others are trying to say.
-
What you fail to appreciate is that G.W.K is Scottish.
This is his idea of musical heaven....
https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXQuaYUwJU
I am sure you all agree that Rachmaninoff comes a very poor second.
Thal
-
good point thal
-
you've gotta be joking. you make a thread asking others to explain to you why they love rachamaninoff, we do, some of us recommend to you some pieces to listen to. not only do you not listen to them (it may seem) but continue to bash rachmaninoff based on ONE thing you've heard a while ago. to me it seems like ur being childish and stubborn, unwilling to really hear what others are trying to say.
Clearly you haven't read it properly. Re-read those posts from me again: and you will see that not only have I listen to one piece three times, I also listened to one suggested by communist and...I have just listened another.
Can't you accept the fact that someone doesn't like Rachmaninoff? Is that so absurd?
What you fail to appreciate is that G.W.K is Scottish.
This is his idea of musical heaven....
https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXQuaYUwJU
I am sure you all agree that Rachmaninoff comes a very poor second.
Thal
You guessed "his idea of musical heaven" wrongly. Please don't assume anything about me...and where I come from has nothing to do with this matter.
G.W.K
-
What you fail to appreciate is that G.W.K is Scottish.
This is his idea of musical heaven....
https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXQuaYUwJU
I am sure you all agree that Rachmaninoff comes a very poor second.
Thal
what about
-
I listen to one piece three times
Would it not be better to listen to 3 pieces one time?
-
Would it not be better to listen to 3 pieces one time?
In total: I have now heard three Rachmaninoff pieces.
G.W.K
-
I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.
G.W.K
I think you are quite young. I would suggest you to not jump to conclusions yet. It takes a lot of time to understand Rachmaninoff and it takes much more time to learn to play his music.
-
In total: I have now heard three Rachmaninoff pieces.
G.W.K
You made a judgement after listening to just 3 pieces.
Even i am not that idiotic.
Thal
-
Listen to preludes op. 23 no. 4 and op. 32 no. 5. I find it difficult to see how anyone could dislike them.
-
Wow, that's the first time I heard that Prelude Op. 32, No. 5. That's beautiful. I want to learn it now. :)
-
I am with G.W.K on this one i too am not a Rachmaninov fan
but I am not going to call it a racket or anything I can see how it moves people it just doesn't move me
-
Maybe the facination would also be that Rach had very large hands and long thumbs. He could get a true orchestral effect. Perhaps it was him playing his own music that was most impressive. Today, we have pianists - but, back then they were legends or something. And, the fact that he understood to have the truest and lightest happiness - one has to also experience the depths of despair. His utilization of folk themes is nice, too - and he seems to have this unspoken understanding of utilizing music for much more than music. He and Weber? and a few other musicians could easy put messages to anyone in there. I don't think he had ulterior motives - but he could turn a piece into morse code and back. Seems that he was very disciplined.
According to Roeder's 'A History of the Concerto' 'Serge Rachmaninov (1873-1943) was the giant among the last generation of Russian composers fully to develop their style before the turn of the century. Rach was also the last important representative of late Russian Romanticism....he was a masterful pianist with formidable technique and unusually large hands and long fingers that enabled him to reach an eleventh with ease. His playing was characterized by precision and clarity, rhythmic drive, and a smooth legato touch. His approach to performance was to identify the major climax of the work being performed and then to gear his interpretation entirely to and from that point. His own compositions were all written with similarly carefully defined climax points.'
-
Oh. And he had Alexander Siloti for a teacher. He can't be that bad! Just too much of the Dies Irae theme. What I like to hear in Russian music that you can't get anywhere else is the bass line.
-
Your loss GWK
-
In total: I have now heard three Rachmaninoff pieces.
G.W.K
Not enough. Listen to the piano concertos.
-
ok...and I was thinking why did this get moved to students corner....
-
nah we wanna assume things. you cant stop us. we have the right, u cant take my rights away....see, we can all be like u.
why are u turning this into a personal thing?
first u assume we're offended by someone who doesnt like rachmaninoff, which isnt true, im sure most of us couldnt care less about someone who refuses to get beyond a piece or two. we're only trying to help you, so u dont miss out on music thats truly amazing. its your loss if u dont come into it open minded. i can only assume u started this thread to trying and convince others why u're rite in not liking rachmaninov, in whcih case, stop wasting our time, u can waste urs all u want. beethoven has written a couple of things i just dont wanna listen to, doesnt mean ill dismiss all his other work based on it. u asked for help, we tried, u refused to listen. u cant start off and listen to his more complicated works and assume to understand it or even like it on a first, second, or even third listen. dont be so obtuse.
read my first post, and listen to those pieces, if u still dont like it, so be it. but dont bring ur negativity to those who truly love and enjoy rachmaninov's works.
-
nah we wanna assume things. you cant stop us. we have the right, u cant take my rights away....see, we can all be like u.
why are u turning this into a personal thing?
first u assume we're offended by someone who doesnt like rachmaninoff, which isnt true, im sure most of us couldnt care less about someone who refuses to get beyond a piece or two. we're only trying to help you, so u dont miss out on music thats truly amazing. its your loss if u dont come into it open minded. i can only assume u started this thread to trying and convince others why u're rite in not liking rachmaninov, in whcih case, stop wasting our time, u can waste urs all u want. beethoven has written a couple of things i just dont wanna listen to, doesnt mean ill dismiss all his other work based on it. u asked for help, we tried, u refused to listen. u cant start off and listen to his more complicated works and assume to understand it or even like it on a first, second, or even third listen. dont be so obtuse.
read my first post, and listen to those pieces, if u still dont like it, so be it. but dont bring ur negativity to those who truly love and enjoy rachmaninov's works.
Read my further posts: I listened to them. Also read my other posts where I say I approached Rachmaninoff "open-minded". I'm not trying to turn this into a personal thing, I just find your style of writing very hostile.
I would suggest reading this entire thread again and pick up on the moments where I say I did listen, I did approach open-minded, I did listen to those pieces that others suggested.
G.W.K
-
Honestly - I love Rach 3 ... And one of the Etude Tableaux's (I know there is more than one, but forget which one), but, I don't love ALL Rach. However, I am the first to admit, I VERY often change my opinion over time - and things grow on me, and I'll suddenly love them - and also grow tired or bored of others. I have yet to classify a composer as ALL anything yet. Interestingly (or not) - I also am rather neutral - on Chopin lately. Yes - it is beautiful music - maybe I'm just bored with what I've heard SO much for SO long, I don't know. Then, as soon as I say that, I'll hear one of his nocturnes, and hear it differently, and love it. I do love lots of the etudes though... ;)
GWK - I just encourage you to have your opinion, but keep an open mind. Few humans remain the same with the same opinion from year to year, let alone from day to day (or less).
Cheers. :)
-
Read my further posts: I listened to them. Also read my other posts where I say I approached Rachmaninoff "open-minded". I'm not trying to turn this into a personal thing, I just find your style of writing very hostile.
I would suggest reading this entire thread again and pick up on the moments where I say I did listen, I did approach open-minded, I did listen to those pieces that others suggested.
G.W.K
i have read them. u've listend to a etude or two, but like i said in my previous posts, those are harder to understand than the others that i originally recommended. the etudes u can feel and understand on like a 4th or 5th listening (with the exception of a few)
honestly,if i didnt know any better, i'd say u were 12.
-
i have read them. u've listend to a etude or two, but like i said in my previous posts, those are harder to understand than the others that i originally recommended. the etudes u can feel and understand on like a 4th or 5th listening (with the exception of a few)
honestly,if i didnt know any better, i'd say u were 12.
LOL...you definately don't know any better! :)
G.W.K
-
i thought you liked prelude op.32 no.10?
-
How about Rach's Vespers? Pretty like it... ^_^
-
How about Rach's Vespers? Pretty like it... ^_^
yes Vespers (All-Night Vigil) and the Bells are great choral works
-
To convert anyone to Rachmaninov, only one composition is necessary. The Second Concerto. If this doesn't prove the worth of Rach to you, then, you simply are having a negative transference to his music. That can't be helped and you're not to be blamed. Only pitied . . . :'(
-
Not necessarily. The late stuff turn away from the obvious melodious romanticism - the Symphonic Dances or The Bells don't really have any memorable themes such as the 2nd PC yet are still entirely Rachmaninoff. Even the Paganini variations are without the strong melodramatic lyricism except for the 18th but it's still an amazing work!
It's like saying the only side to Beethoven was the uptight/grouchy/angry 5th symphony composer when there was the humorous/light hearted bagatelles composer too.
-
I think Gary here just is too new to classical music listening to even go near Rachmaninoff. He considers it noise! That is quite a weird assessment. Perhaps it is better to start off with Mozart and Bach rather than jumping into our friend Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff is still great though, even if a Scotsman isn't satisfied.
-
I think Gary here just is too new to classical music listening to even go near Rachmaninoff.
Wrong.
G.W.K
-
im on the verge of emoti-slapping you, quite frankly, but you are new to rachmaninoff, and there's need to get angry.
Yeah, give it time you might even end up liking Rach one day! Personally I didn't like Rachmaninov or Chopin at one time :o :o. I think because I listened to a rubbish cheap cd of it. But since I got back into learning the piano I have approached music with a more open mind.
I haven't even listened to enough of Rachs music either ( I have only just got into Chopin! so Im bussy discovering his stuff ), I would say have another listen to some other pieces he did, you might even find just one you like?!
-
I would say have another listen to some other pieces he did, you might even find just one you like?!
I intend to do so soon. Thank you for your input. :)
G.W.K
-
Wrong.
G.W.K
How incredibly eloquent of you. I can see the famous Scottish wit in this response.
But seriously, Rachmaninoff is just one composer that a pianist has to appreciate. Do try again.
-
How incredibly eloquent of you. I can see the famous Scottish wit in this response.
But seriously, Rachmaninoff is just one composer that a pianist has to appreciate. Do try again.
or dont man. your the one missing out.
i cant even imagine not liking rachmaninoff now. my entire appreciation of classical music started with rachmaninoff. it was because of his music i started listening to classical music and its why i started teaching myself to play piano last year.
-
Rachmaninoff made some of the most fantastic music one can hear. If you listen carefully (paying attention to the music, I mean), you'll surely discover emotions you didn't even know existed.
As far as I'm concerned, when I listen to his music, I feel privileged.
-
Look: I will listen to every, single piece Rachmaninoff ever composed (that I can get hold of). I will listen to it with an open mind, I will even listen to the ones I have said I don't like. And then I will make a final judgement on him, in my opinion.
That is the best I can do.
G.W.K
-
Wrong.
G.W.K
Gary,
Don't you start realizing that you do have unusual views compare to main stream people's? What most normal people like, you usually do not like.
Do you have problem socializing outside of your house? Do normal people like you?
-
Do you have problem socializing outside of your house? Do normal people like you?
Took the words right out of my mouth. This isn't a personal attack or anything, so don't take it as such.
-
G.W.K:
you're entitled to your opinion, of course. And we all respect that. If you don't like Rachmaninoff, fine. There's loads of other music out there. Taste's something mysterious and it's a good thing we don't all like the same things. Diversity makes us (humans) special.
-
G.W.K:
you're entitled to your opinion, of course. And we all respect that. If you don't like Rachmaninoff, fine. There's loads of other music out there. Taste's something mysterious and it's a good thing we don't all like the same things. Diversity makes us (humans) special.
Thank you, end.
Gary,
Don't you start realizing that you do have unusual views compare to main stream people's? What most normal people like, you usually do not like.
Do you have problem socializing outside of your house? Do normal people like you?
Nyonyo & retrovailles: You're attitudes are so alike. I have no problems whatsoever, and if you can't accept the fact that I don't like something that "normal" people do, tough luck. :) As "end" said, diversity makes humans special...unique.
I'm not taking it as a personal attack, it's probably the first time you've seen someone with different views to you. However, I have no problems emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. I just don't like Rachmaninoff. Neither does it give you the right to label that person as "not normal".
And if people are going to continue posting how unusual it is: there's no point continuing this thread. I've made my point, I've stated why I don't like Rachmaninoff. This thread was actually created to find out why YOU like Rachmaninoff, not to analyse me. So, unless you have anything useful to contribute, Happy New Year.
Regards,
G.W.K
-
you should also listen to him play other works not by him as he is a fantastic pianist especially listen to him play the carnavel by Schumann
-
Thats better Rachmaninov playing Schumann ;D
so listen to Schumann instead ;)
but i Don't agree that a pianist has to appreciate Rachmaninov I am a pianist (granted not a good one) but i struggle with listening to rachmaninov
-
Nyonyo & retrovailles: You're attitudes are so alike. I have no problems whatsoever, and if you can't accept the fact that I don't like something that "normal" people do, tough luck. :) As "end" said, diversity makes humans special...unique.
I'm not taking it as a personal attack, it's probably the first time you've seen someone with different views to you. However, I have no problems emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. I just don't like Rachmaninoff. Neither does it give you the right to label that person as "not normal".
And if people are going to continue posting how unusual it is: there's no point continuing this thread. I've made my point, I've stated why I don't like Rachmaninoff. This thread was actually created to find out why YOU like Rachmaninoff, not to analyse me. So, unless you have anything useful to contribute, Happy New Year.
Ah, I missed you, Gary the traffic cop. But in all seriousness, I would like to know specifically what pieces you have heard, in how much depth you listened to them, and what exactly you do not like about them. I've played a lot of Rachmaninoff, and I know many people have here and are very familiar with him, so if you provide us with this information, we can tell you what pieces of his to listen to specifically. Perhaps you are just going about this all wrong. People may have different tastes and such, but Rachmaninoff is just one of those composers that everyone (almost literally) likes, so it makes a lot of waves when there is one who really really doesn't like him.
And, for the record, I HAVE met people with different views than me. It actually happens all the time, given my controversial musical tastes. I don't go through this whole charade for everyone though, because some of my tastes are controversial as I said. And, again for the record, my attitude is nothing like nyonyo's. We just agreed on one thing.
-
but Rachmaninoff is just one of those composers that everyone (almost literally) likes, so it makes a lot of waves when there is one who really really doesn't like him.
Maybe thats exactly why he doesn't like him ;)
-
Of course, G.W.K., we might be better able to communicate our esteem for Rachmaninov both as a pianist and a composer if you would tell us what you DO like, and whether and how well you can play the piano. For me much of the appeal is the feel of the music under my fingers and the tremendous sounds written there-and the severe challenge of getting it right. Perhaps you would do better to get to know some pieces by Busoni and Max Reger first-then try the piano sonata by Jean Barraque. That will surely solve your problem with Rachmaninov! I would suggest Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica, then Reger's Introduction, Passacaglia and Fugue Op.96, and lastly the Barraque. Should work a treat!
-
do not forget he was also a great conductor
-
Yes, I'll agree with that communist: he was a great conductor. I have heard a lot about that.
I will post an entire list of everything I have heard and my entire thoughts/feelings on Rachmaninoff as-soon-as-possible.
Of course, G.W.K., we might be better able to communicate our esteem for Rachmaninov both as a pianist and a composer if you would tell us what you DO like, and whether and how well you can play the piano.
edwardweiss: I can play the piano, even though I am self-taught. I regard myself as quite a good piano player though the most advanced thing I can play so far is Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (as communist likes to mention sometimes ;)). I like Debussy, Chopin, Pachelbel (well he only made a few), SOME of Liszt and many more.
G.W.K
-
Mr. i had not heard a single piece by Medtner Communist had me listen to some wonderful pieces by him ;)
-
Mr. i had not heard a single piece by Medtner Communist had me listen to some wonderful pieces by him ;)
Have a confession to make communist...I never listened to them, I was busy with something else. However, SO FAR this Rach. piece that you introduced me to is good.
There is hope yet...
G.W.K
-
CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)
G.W.K
-
CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)
G.W.K
do i get a gift basket for my success :D
-
do i get a gift basket for my success :D
You get a Rep. point. That's good enough since I don't really give them out much. :)
G.W.K
-
CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)
G.W.K
Bravo! Now you can stop with this nonsense that Rachmaninoff isn't a great composer.
Which recording, btw?
-
CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)
G.W.K
did u listen to anything i suggested in my first post?
get on it, quick.
-
Bravo! Now you can stop with this nonsense that Rachmaninoff isn't a great composer.
Which recording, btw?
Alexis Weissenberg's with Herbert von Karajan
-
baaah humbug.
i prefer richter's/berezovsky's/ashkenazy's
-
The second piano concerto is the first Rachmaninov piece I liked as well. I would have suggested this as your best bet.
Glad to know you enjoy something he wrote. Of course he wrote a lot of other stuff which is great too. Try his other piano concertos if you want.
I'm quite keen on his prelude op.23 no. 3. You might like this. Don't listen to his 2nd piano sonata, I put it on to sleep to and had dreams of demons and chaos, hell and fire...
I guess I got what I deserved for trying to sleep to his music.
-
Now explain to me how you can like the most characteristic/popular of Rachmaninoff works and not like Rachmaninoff? Coz if you like the second, the first and third should follow, the second symphony, some of the preludes and etude-tableux - some are really quite strange though and are really not characteristic of the 'popular' Rachmaninoff.
What had you heard that you didn't like? Who was the pianist - this especially matters if it's the first time you hear the piece.
I'm not being aggressive in anyway - just interested.
-
try to listen this piece : Prelude in G minor op no 5 :)
-
try to listen this piece : Prelude in G minor op 23 no 5 :)
thats better
-
Alexis Weissenberg's with Herbert von Karajan
I was actually asking him which recording he listened to. I actually don't like that recording. Something about Weissenberg's playing bothers me, and I won't speak of Karajan's flat conducting.
Which recording did you listen to, Gary?
-
Just too much of the Dies Irae theme.
Can that ever be "too much"? ;D
-
I don't want to sound stupid but what's the "Dies Irae" theme
-
dear gwk:
first and foremost, if you are new to a composer, remind your opinion but give him/her a time. i do firmly believe that only after knowing for real a composer's output you can actually make a valid statement.
there is a great reason to that: we are, in various degrees, influenced by our emotions. from happiness to prejudice, it's very difficult to ignore those elements when listening to music. furthermore, the discussion of how subjective you can be is important: as a naive listener, you are absolutely free to listen once and say "i don't like, period". in the other hand, this is an impossible attitude to anyone who wants a serious approach to both music and music making. my point is: only after listening to the same work several times you are really able to tell if you like it or not. furthermore, it's very important to listen to several players playing the same music, because it's very easy to get annoyed due to the performance, not the music (and rach suffers very much from that);
considering you are in the "serious" path, there is a second reason: you must know a representative portion of the composer's output. this is also related to knowing how many approaches there is to his music, which is a complicated multiplier. taking rachmaninoff as an example, i would make the following basic list:
- the second symphony;
- the third piano concerto;
(notice that listening to all symphonies and concertos is a small step further. to a pianist, i'd consider fundamental knowing all his piano-orchestral works);
- the paganini rhapsody;
- the symphonic poem the isle of the dead
- the opera francesca da rimini;
- the choral work all-night vigil and/or the liturgy of st. john chrysostom;
- the second suite (opus 17) for two pianos (if you want to know his "mixed" chamber works, try the trio élégiaque, but this is not a field of particular interest);
- a handful of songs (nothing in particular);
then, you come to the piano list:
- morceaux de fantasie opus 3 (not only the prelude);
- moments musicaux opus 16;
- preludes opus 23;
- preludes opus 32;
- etudes-tableaux opus 33;
- sonata opus 36;
- etudes-tableaux opus 39;
- variations opus 42 (corelli).
notice that for a non-pianist, i'd recommend only a small selection of his preludes and etudes, but for a piano player, it is fundamental to know them all. this can easily take a couple of years to know. add to this task some background reading, about both the composer and his environment, and you're done.
*******
if you want now my opinion about him, i think that any pianist see rachmaninoff as a greater composer than he really is. any instrument have composers who have a great importance in its boundaries, but outside there means much less. of course, due to the fact that the piano is the principal concert instrument (together with violin and voice, i believe), his music is played often in the most prestigious venues around the world. anyhow, he's a second class composer and could never ever be compared to his great compatriots and contemporaries prokofiev and stravinsky. [btw, with stravinsky happens exactly the contrary: he's one of the three most important composers of the first half of the 20th century (the other two being debussy and schoenberg), but his piano output is absolutely secondary considering his complete production.]
anyway, i like some of his works, although i don't have any inspiration about playing it.
*******
best!
-
The thread maker is crazy! His concertos are to die for, and his preludes/etudes are incredible. There's so much drama and depth in his music, I can't get enough of it.
-
a
-
And what's this with idea of listening to most of the works before making a judgment? This is such an odd concept... replace Rachmaninoff with Sorabji, Xenakis, or some other modern giant. Then everyone would be quick to judge!
dear pies:
this is only my approach. it's very academic, i know, but it works fine to me. 8)
i just don't understand your point about replacing rach with xenakis: why people would be quick to judge? could you please develop that?
best!
-
a
-
Well, if you've read any of the long arguments in the modern music threads here, lots of people will listen to only a piece or two by Xenakis et al and decry it as crap and then extend this opinion to virtually all modern music.
;D
thanks. for one moment, i thought you'd gone mad...
best!
-
Rachmaninoff..
Hmm.. I have just heard his name for the first time when I watched a Japanese drama, Nodame Cantabile. This guy, Chiaki were asked by his teacher to play Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No.2 for the teacher's orchestra. It is the first time for me to see that a piano could join an orchestra and I always thought piano couldnt join an orchestra.
I only have heard this piece only so I do not judge many of him. The piece seems so sad, depressed somehow.
I hate to bash the historians because we cant change the history and we cant blame them for making a miserable piece. Please dont bash Rachmaninoff here.
Try to read at Wikipedia about him or more of his compositions. In that way, you could understand more about him and his feelings towards his pieces.
-
We'll i think everyone has there own opinions and everyone has different tastes, however i think instead of calling a world renound very successful, loved by millions composer Rubbish basically you could have at least said "I didnt enjoy his music, what about it do you like"
Afterall your no judge to what is good compositions, you can only say what you like and dont.
-
I'm going to eat my words & say - I just saw a fab. performance of Rach 3 (the first time I'd seen it live), and I *loved* it!! IMO - there is beauty in that simple ascending melodic line in the 2nd mvmt. That is just my opinion of course - but it was so great!!
-
I have to admit that I don't really care for Rachmaninoff much either. I am new to piano and am discovering lots of music that I like, some of which I hadn't heard or at least payed attention to before. I have Heard Rachmaninoff pieces for many years on the radio, don't ask me which ones but I am sure I have heard alot of different ones.
I can see how piano players would be drawn to playing technicaly demanding works. Musicians have always had a penchant for virtuosity, especially on their own instruments. Rachmaninoff is certainly not "bad" music. It is well structured, creative, and really makes full use of the pianos sonorities and techniques. But as a listener, I just don't enjoy it. To say it is just noise might be oversimplification, but there just aren't any melodies or motifs (what in pop music you would call a hook), that make any of the pieces memorable to ME. It sounds like random arpeggios and modulating chord changes without anything resembling a tune. Another way of putting it is that everything I hear seems to sound like a bridge, where as it is supposed to be connecting two parts of a composition, but In Rachmaninoff where are the parts being connected. I am not saying this is wrong, I just don't like it.
It is really interesting to hear serious musicians discuss what they like and why. Everyone has a different background, and what musicians like is often a product of a long stream of being exposed to certain types of music at a specific time in their development. I am certain that Rachmaninoff fans hear some "hooks" in the music based on their experiences. I guess it would be a boring world if everyone liked the same things.
-
I have been listening to classical music all my life (not that old though) and have listened to piano pieces mostly in the past few months since picking up the piano again (not that good). Ever since I began reading this forum (and others), I decided to gain as much as knowledge and appreciate as I could, as I really value the opinions of the members here. However, I too cannot stand Rachmaninoff. At first, I thought it was just bad. Then I realized it was complex, but not my taste. Finally, I think I've come to the realization that I am just not musically sophisticated enough to appreciate it. Perhaps it is like caviar...one needs refined taste buds...can appreciate the subtleties and nuances...I guess my musical palate just isn't fine enough to "get" Rachmaninoff.
However, I'm very stubborn. When I find myself at odds with the mainstream, especially with those whose views I value and respect (as members here), I make it a point to arduously obsess and endure (whether it be a novel, film, piece of music, etc.) until I can reach an epiphany and understand what it is that makes a work brilliant. In some areas, I have had some success. Works, art, literature, etc. that I begun hating I learned to appreciate.
There are two exceptions to this: James Joyce's Ulysses (considered the greatest novel of the 20th century - hate it / don't get it) and Rachmaninoff (don't enjoy listening to him...doesn't not make me feel good...)
My ill-feeling towards his music has been further frustrated by the fact that I so earnest tried to figure it out. I listened to the pieces that has been recommended in this thread again...one of the reasons I finally signed up here was to post this reply in defense of the original OP.
I think...while acknowledging the objective greatness of an artist, I think it's fair for individuals to subjectively feel averse to his or music.
-
I was actually asking him which recording he listened to. I actually don't like that recording. Something about Weissenberg's playing bothers me, and I won't speak of Karajan's flat conducting.
Which recording did you listen to, Gary?
ya. thats the one he listened to
-
ya. thats the one he listened to
did i mention how much i hate that recording?
-
did i mention how much i hate that recording?
no you did not
-
I hate Rachmaninoff...live with it. G.W.K
I'm doing just fine, I promise. You're the one who started this thread, you big troll.
-
Rachmaninoff made some of the most fantastic music one can hear. If you listen carefully (paying attention to the music, I mean), you'll surely discover emotions you didn't even know existed.
As far as I'm concerned, when I listen to his music, I feel privileged.
Sorry if this annoyingly bumps up an old topic, but I find myself at a lost for liking Rachmaninoff as well. I think part of it is the reasons I always hear from Rach fans is the 'emotional' one. Emotions by definition of the word are extremely subjective so it's unfair to extrapolate as an objective criterion for defining 'good music'.
But I'm a big hater of the empty virtuoso wishy-washiness of the high romantic period in general. Liszt is my favorite composer because of that piano sonata, but I even hate that same aspect of him too. It's just that Liszts thematic transformation style is the closest thing an attitude of mine can get to liking that style which is a very hard thing to do from my perspective. If I were to continue as a composer, thematic transformation would be what I do minus the empty virtuosity that gets stale.
My favorite concertos of all time were Mendelssohn 2 piano and one violin. Those were pieces I felt were extremely organized, I knew exactly where I am in the pieces (beginning middle or end) by just the sheer form aurally, it's a catchy constant melodic writing that burns in my mind where I can hum all 20 min of a given concerto, similar to Mozart melody but for me, better. And has the heightened virtuosity for neat climaxes which Mozart was of course limited with, but I felt he'd do if born 75 years later.....
I guess that's the kind of music I like. I don't get emotional feelings unless it shows a certain logic my brain can follow which I don't see in Rach pieces. Like at all.
-
maestroanth: I know this topic is old, but I just want to address your comments. The only Rachmaninoff piece I'm familiar with that's guilty of what you're saying is his 3rd piano concerto. I'm not familiar with the 1st and 4th concertos, but the 2nd has very little empty virtuosity and is actually pretty neatly structured. I could also hum you that entire concerto, the melodies are pretty easy to follow imo. But pieces like Vespers, the Bells, Isle of the Dead, the Etudes Tableaux, etc don't seem, at least to me, at all like you're describing. Yes, his piano pieces are very virtuosic, but in most cases the virtuosity is either to create a texture or is actually counterpoint or derived from earlier motives.
To me, though, I can feel emotions from music without having it logically make sense, even though I could dissect his pieces and explain them away. According to what you wrote, you can't do this, but I still don't see how that stops you from appreciating Rachmaninoff's music, because it still makes sense. Not everything in a piece of music has to be connected to the primary motivic material for it to make sense.
-
This thread is hilarious
Funny thing that OP decided he liked the Second Concerto. That seems to me to be very classic Rachmaninoff. Great melodies that lend themselves to interesting and dramatic chord progressions.
I do not perceive any “empty” virtuosity in Rachmaninoff, unlike Liszt. That comment is a bit odd to me. Consider his Vocalise or an easier Etude Tableau like Op 33, No 2 (C minor - the numberings are all over the place, so I hope no. 2 is right)
-
I love Rachmaninov. I think if anything he's under-rated rather than over-rated.......even if Ashkenazy did say he was his favourite composer. He was writing unashamedly romantic pieces when the musical world around him had supposedly moved on......where are all those atonal 'modern' pieces now?
Anyone has a right to say they like or don't like a composer or a piece......I can't stand the 'Hammerklavier' even though it's meant to be the greatest of Beethoven's sonatas. But there you are.
-
I am personally not a great fan of Rachmaninoff myself. I find it likable, but compared to the music of say, Bach or Schubert, it seems a little empty and missing something honest and deep to me.
Interestingly, some of my most favorite pianists (Moravec, Barenboim, Arrau, Brendel, Schnabel) have never played Rachmaninoff in public, although each of them had an enormous repertoire. Rubinstein only recorded the second concerto and Paganini rhapsody, but played it very seldom, to my knowledge at least.
On the Liszt and empty virtuosity thing : Liszt is perhaps very uneven when it comes to quality of his music. I am pretty sure that you didnt mean pieces like his b minor sonata, 3 petrarch sonnets, or the finest of his etudes. Also, Liszt, like him or not, is a much greater innovator in music than Rachmaninoff, being the father of the symphonic poem, impressionism, or even atonal music.
Lastly, I would like to say that Rachmaninoff was a great composer and even greater pianist. I feel his pieces are "unfinished" and are to be finished by a top pianist, of his own quality, because his recordings of his own music suddenly elevate the music to a whole another quality level.
I also love some Lhevinne´s recordings of Rachmaninoff, Richter´s recordings of Etudes-Tableux, Horowitz´ second sonata, and Vondráček´s third concerto. When played by your typical everyday pianist like Lugansky, not so much.
Just my 2 cents though
-
Your no. 1 Rachmaninoff fan here
Whoever said rach is flashy and trashy is an idiot.
LISZT and CHOPIN ETUDES are flashy and trashy.
-
Your no. 1 Rachmaninoff fan here
Whoever said rach is flashy and trashy is an idiot.
LISZT and CHOPIN ETUDES are flashy and trashy.
eve alexas texas is classier than rachmaninoff
-
some of my most favorite pianists (Moravec, Barenboim, Arrau, Brendel, Schnabel)
Bad opinions compounded upon bad opinions. Do you not like Seinfeld or bacon, either?
BRENDULL 8)
-
LISZT and CHOPIN ETUDES are flashy and trashy.
How's it going assembling your own orchestra to play the Rach 3??? ahaha
Skeptopotamus-approved BS
-
Bad opinions compounded upon bad opinions. Do you not like Seinfeld or bacon, either?
BRENDULL 8)
Elaborate or go away
-
Elaborate or go away
why would you want her to elaborate a burn
are you a masochist?
-
I also love Liszt. I dream of playing Chasse-Neige. I think in addition to the innovation of the symphonic poem, his Transcendental Etudes are startlingly original and some of his late work hinted at Impressionism.
Rachmaninoff is an absolute joy to listen to. I would go as far as to say no other composer gives me the goosebumps the way that he does. Second Piano Concerto, Second Sonata, Prelude Op 32. No 10, etude Tableau Op. 39 No. 5. Oof! That said, I don’t think he was generally as innovative as some of the other greats. I think you can hear a lot of his music prefigured in Chopin and others. The Etudes-Tableaux are an exception - I think he really did expand the musical range a piano can express with some of those. But even then, I’d probably give the edge to Liszt’s Transcendental Etudes.
-
why would you want her to elaborate a burn
are you a masochist?
I don´t see how was I burned though. By being an admirer of Brendel ? His recordings of the Schubert sonatas (D959, D850!!!) are out of this world...
-
How's it going assembling your own orchestra to play the Rach 3??? ahaha
Skeptopotamus-approved BS
I ALREADY GOT ONE
I think idk
-
This thread is just so ...
HUH??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
meanwhile at one of last weekend's many Rachmaninoff concerts
(https://media.giphy.com/media/r6jrEccATOZ6U/giphy.gif)
-
meanwhile at one of last weekend's many Rachmaninoff concerts
(https://media.giphy.com/media/r6jrEccATOZ6U/giphy.gif)
Thats exactly how I would describe his music. Rachmaninoff doesn't have admirers, but fanboys, just like in popmusic. Rachmaninoff's music benefits heavily from the hectic age of youtube's snippets, being so approachable, melodic and dramatic. Nowadays people are losing focus or the will to concentrate on deep, naked music, such as Brahms' intermezzi or Schubert's Moments musicaux. That being said, I think he is still a very distinctive composer of great invention, just maybe a little bit overrated. Not as much here in Europe, but for some reason, in the US people seem to value him even more than Bach.
-
visitor: LOL
This weird thread from 2008 keeps popping up, so that I would rather ask "What is the fascination with this thread?"
anyway
Wondering why there is fascination with Rachmaninoff, is similar to doubting that he is a great composer. Because if you agreed he is one of the greats, you wouldn't wonder why people are fascinated. Maybe you just don't like him, after all, Rachmaninoff is not for everybody. But that he was one of the truly greats, I think that is beyond doubt.
-
I had no idea Rachmaninoff was such a polarising figure. Judging by this thread alone you'd think he was the Justin Bieber of the classical world.
-
I think Rachmaninov was writing slightly out of his time. He wasn't an experimenter, he just wrote in, and mastered, the Romantic musical style. Is he as great as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin? Probably not, in that his music wasn't saying anything new, and didn't advance the form in the way those great composers did. But in terms of communicating beauty, sadness, joy, longing, passion, he's undoubtedly a great. His use of big, powerful chords is probably his trademark, there's a depth and richness to his sound that marks him out immediately.
-
Interesting that you mention Bach, who was a composer out of his time as well. Bach wrote in a style and in forms that had gone out of fashion, but reached the highest mastery within their limitations. And that is also the case imo with Rachmaninoff and music of the romantic era. Therefore the emotional depth of his music is really unsurpassed.
-
Interesting that you mention Bach, who was a composer out of his time as well. Bach wrote in a style and in forms that had gone out of fashion, but reached the highest mastery within their limitations. And that is also the case imo with Rachmaninoff and music of the romantic era. Therefore the emotional depth of his music is really unsurpassed.
That is a very good point! ;D
You're right, Bach was out of his time as well. Handel and other contemporaries shunned him, he was quite isolated as a composer towards the end of his life. Mozart discovered his music relatively late in in his development, as it was hardly played by then, but recognised his greatness.
I hadn't seen the link before but you are quite right.
-
Thats exactly how I would describe his music. Rachmaninoff doesn't have admirers, but fanboys, just like in popmusic. Rachmaninoff's music benefits heavily from the hectic age of youtube's snippets, being so approachable, melodic and dramatic. Nowadays people are losing focus or the will to concentrate on deep, naked music, such as Brahms' intermezzi or Schubert's Moments musicaux. That being said, I think he is still a very distinctive composer of great invention, just maybe a little bit overrated. Not as much here in Europe, but for some reason, in the US people seem to value him even more than Bach.
If he's not your cup of tea, that's fine, but trying to read some deficiency in people who do appreciate him is absurd (speaking as someone who enjoys the Brahms intermezzi). One could just as easily and wrongly opine that the only people who like Schubert are those who are incapable of following any music that expresses tonality anything other than the simplest way.
I think Rachmaninoff has a fairly unique sound that manages to balance significant flexibility with tonality and harmony without ever really becoming atonal. In addition, he's a master of counterpoint, but unlike Baroque-style counterpoint, it's seldom the entire purpose of a piece, just strategically deployed for emotional effect.