Please can somebody tell me what to think of the fourth Piano Concerto? I've heard it a million times and absolutely love listening to it - but when listened after Rach 3 ( or 2 or 1) it is somehow dwarfed. I want to love it and do when I'm in the mood - but not always and it is a dissapointment. It doesn't always make sense and I think that the orchestra plays maybe too much of a role over the piano parts... I don't know. Can someone tell me exactly what I should think and why?!?!?!? Thanks,
Tom Pilkington

I think you know what you think, I think...

You can divide Rachmaninov's work into two groups, works composed In Russia and those written in the USA. Concertos 1,2 and 3 are Russian and 4 and the Paganini Rhapsody are American. Rachmaninov felt dislocated after coming to post WWI USA, and devoted himself to concertizing as a pianist (he turned down lucrative offers to conduct the Boston and Cincinatti Symphony Orchestras, saying conducting would ruin his piano playing) Except for his cadenza to Liszt's 2nd Rhapsody(1919) he wrote nothing between 1917 and 1926 when he wrote the 4th Concerto to be premiered with Stowkowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It was a complete failure; Rachmaninov never performed the work again until he recorded it in 1941. In fact, his entire public concerto rep consisted of Concerto#2, Pag Rhapsody, Schumann Concerto And Beethoven Concerto#1!
It was hard for Rachmaninov to compose away from Russia, he admitted that to close friends; I think the 4th Concerto is his first attempt to be "modern", to fit in with the musical culture of his new world. It has echoes of Jazz, Ravel, Debussy and Respighi but is Rachmaninov through and through. I think it was panned because it was not another 2nd Concerto, which is what the audieneces wanted and the critics expected. Guess what folks; we evolve, if we stand still we atrophy. Obviously Rachmaninov's later attempts at modernity, the Pag Rhapsody and the Symphonic Dances are more successful, at least to the majority of listeners. I have always liked this Concerto the most of Rachmaninov's although the 2nd is clearly the best; but this is about favorites, not the best!!!
You're right about the orchestration, it's overdone but if you were commisioned to write for the 1920's Philadelphia Orchestra you might go overboard too! (what a band...)It's interesting to compare it to his Russian/Tchaikovsky style of orchestration and how he arrived at the perfect new style of the Pag Rhapsody and the Symphonic Dances, and there's a Symphony in there too in the USA period. I won't tell you what to think(although others will) but I hope my marathon essay helps YOU to decide what to think about Rachmanonov's op.40!!

I can't say which is definitively my favorite, but I voted for the 4th since nobody else ever likes it.
It took me a lot of listens before I even began to tolerate the piece, but there was one evening when I came to really understand it as I do now. I was driving my car in the middle of a thunderstorm with the windows open (I always have the windows open
), and I decided to give the concerto another try. With the storm literally raging around me, the piece suddenly took a new meaning. I'd had quite a number of interesting events occur that night, besides the storm, so I was in a rather evil, brooding mood. Generally, I appreciate music more when it comes to me at more emotional, unique times of my life, and I randomly chose to listen to Rach 4 at the perfect moment. So it's my favorite concerto now.
As far as approaching the piece, goes, my method surely doesn't work for everyone. Try listening to the piece as if it were Bach, by "catching on" to the different melodies and voices as they come, rather than trying to follow a single distinct melodic line for a while. The melodies in the piece are complex and fade in and out of importance. Also keep in mind that the piano is not used as the "primary instrument" in this piece - rather, equal attention is given to both piano and orchestra. I hope this helps - it'd be nice if more people appreciated the piece.
(Oh, I also dislike Argerich's 3rd concerto.
)
Very cool Motrax! I think this unsettled Concerto, which is never quite sure of itself(reflecting the "stranger in a strange land" that Rachmaninov felt himself to be...?) revealed itself to you when you were perhaps in an unsettled frame of mind yourself, and you found a catharsis in it. This is what art is for, emotional catharsis.
Your comment about Bach is interesting; I was at a masterclass given by Anthony DiBonaventura some years ago, at which someone played the first movement of the 3rd Concerto(I was at the second piano playing the orchestral part). He evantually brought his comments from the pianist(there was little to criticize, she was and still is extraordinary!) to the music itself; he advanced his opinion that Rachmaninov's music was the perfect fusion of Romantic and Classical/Baroque styles and pointed out his skillful use of counterpoint in the movement. And then he dropped the bomb; "Rachmaninov is the Bach of the 20th Century" There were snickers from some but I was almost convinced, having just been inside the piece. Most people only hear the pretty melodies and dramatic moments in Rachmaninov, but (like Medtner) he uses them contrapuntally, it's very subtle and not obvious at first hearing.
Thank you Motrax and Tom for giving me this excellent springboard to this topic (Rachmaninov's op.40) I love so much.
