Scriabin or Rachmaninov?

[arensky]

Please vote for the composer you personally prefer. Then tell us why, and we can all have the discussion...my inquiring mind wants to know! 

[lostinidlewonder]

Scriabin. I reckon he explored a lot more sounds on the piano than Rachmaninov. Also he wrote much more for the piano than Rachmaninov.

[presto agitato]

Lets face it.  Without "Shine" (The movie) Rachmaninov would be an "average" composer.

Don't misunderstand me, i really like Rachmaninov that movie increased his fame in a big way.

Scriabin gets my vote

[chopiabin]

I love Rachmaninov, but he did very little pioneering. Scriabin experimented with harmony, tonality, and form to create amazing visionary works.

[pseudopianist]

Scriabin - He was a true genius. Those harmonies, the melodies, the facial hair. Scriabin are amongst the finest composers ever.

[tompilk]

Sorry, but i'll stick with my truthful opinion - Rachmaninov was God...

[thalbergmad]

Rachmaninov for me.

[alessandro]

Scriabin has humor.  His waltzes are truly bitter, sarcastic.  Never heard this kind of wit in Rachmaninof's music.  Rachmaninof is in my opinion a virtuose though more boring kind of guy.  I'd rather have breakfast with Scriabin.

[thierry13]

Lets face it.  Without "Shine" (The movie) Rachmaninov would be an "average" composer.

Don't misunderstand me, i really like Rachmaninov that movie increased his fame in a big way.

Scriabin gets my vote

YOU..........ARE..............AN...............IDIOT! The movie shine is out for like what 4-5 years ? Rachmaninoff was average 10 years ago ? No! He was as popular as today he still is. The movie didn't change a thing ! please.

[tompilk]

I love the seriousness and pensive nature of Rachmaninov... I'd love to have him around as someone to tell me honest opinions on matters, and he was quite intelligent, i imagine... I would do anything to have a ten minute conversation with Rachmaninov!!! 

[hodi]

scriabin is a composer for smart people
rachmaninov is a composer for all people

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..
don't try to be "smart" and like scriabin more
u "try" to like his late works
early scriabin is good

but actually rach2 and rach3 appeals more to u,
i know that!

[arensky]

I love Rachmaninov, but he did very little pioneering. Scriabin experimented with harmony, tonality, and form to create amazing visionary works.

I love them both too. The Rachmaninov 2nd Concerto was the first piece of classical music that I became addicted to, I played the grooves off the first movement, maybe my parents were worried; then again I also latched onto the "Marriage of Figaro" Overture. I've always had manic mood swings though, this was just a manifestation perhaps?

Anyway I discovered Scriabin later as an ambitious teenage pianist; my teacher at the time had a box set of recordings of Welte-Mignon rolls, which contained Scriabin's roll of the Etude in d# minor op.8 #12. I immediately became obsessed, got the music and practiced it incessantly. My obsession soon included all of Scriabin's music I could get my hands on, recordings or sheet music it didn't matter. I'm still obsessed....

Rachmaninov is wonderful, I've played both of the Suites for two Pianos and the Symphonic Dances as well as several Preludes and Etudes Tableux and the Elegie op.2 #1. And the 4th Concerto and have studied the 2nd and 3rd Concerti and the Paganini Rhapsody. But Scriabin really got under my skin at an early age. My teacher (his fault he loaned me that record) at the time told me I would grow out of it, but I never did. I cannot fault Rachmaninov for being a musical conservative, innovation isn't everything, and Rachmaninov actually was innovative in his own quiet conservative way. It's interesting to contrast him with Scriabin, the wild eyed visionary who was going to save the world with his music. I think for many years Scriabin was dismissed as an eccentric madman by the stuffy classical music establishment, who BTW also had it in for Rachmaninov (read the Grove's Dictionary entry on Rachmaninov, it will make your blood boil   !). Fortunately Vladimir Horowitz and the 1960's made Scriabin "hip", a lot of his ideas anticipate the psychadelia (sp?) of that time. Rachmaninov was dismissed as schmaltz by the establishment but pianists played his works anyway (we know a good thing when we play it ! ) And this became true of Scriabin in the 1960's and 1970's...

Scriabin is a little different, his works go through a logical but bizarre transformation and development and his late music is almost atonal, and when you put those works next to the early Chopinesque pieces, it's startling. I don't think people knew what to make of that for a long time. And if he hadn't died I think he would have been a significant force in 20th Century art and culture. It's easy to see him in 1920's France, continuing his harmonic innovations to the point where harmony could perhaps almost dissolve...I think as a thinker AND doer he was ahead of his time, and perhaps of ours as well. His early death was a tragedy for the 20th Century, who knows what he......oh well.

And Rachmaninov has been vindicated by the public , because we TOOK BACK OUR REPERTOIRE!!!!
     from the the evil intelletual establishment!!  

Anyway if I could only play one or the other, I would have to choose...Scriabin.

With no ill will or malice towards Rachmaninov....

[arensky]

scriabin is a composer for smart people
rachmaninov is a composer for all people

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..
don't try to be "smart" and like scriabin more
u "try" to like his late works
early scriabin is good

but actually rach2 and rach3 appeals more to u,
i know that!

I like it all, and Rachmaninov too.

[arensky]

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..

No, they always have a tonal center, but they resolve to F# n3 #4 b6 b9 instead of just F#

This is the final chord of Prelude op.74 #1. It is tonal, just different.

The least tonal of Scriabin's pieces is the Pelude op.74 #4, but even then it is in "A", but the C#/ C natural clash block the final answer from our view...

REAL atonal music is stuff like Schoenberg's op.23 and Milton Babitt's music. Got to run, have to play Cocktail Jazz...$$$ 

[phil13]

Scriabin, by far. No ill will toward Rachmaninoff, but Scriabin is simply amazing- no matter what period in his life he wrote it.

Phil

[pita bread]

scriabin is a composer for smart people
rachmaninov is a composer for all people

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..
don't try to be "smart" and like scriabin more
u "try" to like his late works
early scriabin is good

but actually rach2 and rach3 appeals more to u,
i know that!

So I take it that you aren't too "smart"?

[hodi]

So I take it that you aren't too "smart"?

probably not enough to appreiciate late scriabin

[tompilk]

It's funny that we're having this discussion because Rachmaninov was a coffin-bearer at Scriabin's funeral when he died of blood poisoning... 

[prometheus]

Haha...

Yes, all of Scriabin's works are tonal. Just not tonal like we are used to.

[sevencircles]

Scriabin's funeral when he died of blood poisoning

Alban Berg did also die from Blood poisoning.

That must have been a serious problem in those days.

[tompilk]

Alban Berg did also die from Blood poisoning.

That must have been a serious problem in those days.

True. Rachmaninov couldn't have treatment for his cancer either, because it wasn't invented then!!! He just had to know and wait to die...
"My poor hands" is what he said when he knew he was going to die.

[pseudopianist]

scriabin is a composer for smart people
rachmaninov is a composer for all people

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..
don't try to be "smart" and like scriabin more
u "try" to like his late works
early scriabin is good

but actually rach2 and rach3 appeals more to u,
i know that!

I love his late works but I wouldn't call his works atonal, more pantonal.
Why would we need to try to love them? They are amazing pieces of music, filled with such atmopshere

[cadenz]

scriabin is a composer for smart people
rachmaninov is a composer for all people

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..
don't try to be "smart" and like scriabin more
u "try" to like his late works
early scriabin is good

but actually rach2 and rach3 appeals more to u,
i know that!

i would imagine in time you will come appreciate music which you didn't previously find appealing. and achieve this without a sudden increase in intelligence. a catchy tune my initially be appealing for some, but very quickly becomes boring (check out how long the songs stay at the top of the pop charts). with a more complicated piece, you may not be able to digest it all at first but in time you become to understand it greater, you hear parts you didn't hear before etc, and it suddenly seems much superior than past loved catchy tunes which now seem rather bland in comparison.

[etudes]

i would be glad
if the poll is Prokofiev or Scriabin this would be more fun!

[hodi]

i would imagine in time you will come appreciate music which you didn't previously find appealing. and achieve this without a sudden increase in intelligence. a catchy tune my initially be appealing for some, but very quickly becomes boring (check out how long the songs stay at the top of the pop charts). with a more complicated piece, you may not be able to digest it all at first but in time you become to understand it greater, you hear parts you didn't hear before etc, and it suddenly seems much superior than past loved catchy tunes which now seem rather bland in comparison.

i'm not saying i like only "catchy" compositions
 i can appreciate much more complex compositions such as schumann's cello concerto & violin concerto,kreisleriana and other brahms compositions (for example his piano concertos, which aren't easy at first listen at all)
but... u know maybe i haven't digged scriabin enough. his music is so complex that it requires REALLY careful listening.i kinda liked his 9th sonata, which is a late work.
it has that scary motive of some "evil creature coming" ...
but still, when i dig schumann and brahms, i just find it more beautiful.
and i really digged his 9th sonata

[kelly_kelly]

I understand that Scriabin was more a of a genius as far as pioneering goes, but I just prefer to listen to Rachmaninov.

[thierry13]

scriabin is a composer for smart people
rachmaninov is a composer for all people

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..
don't try to be "smart" and like scriabin more
u "try" to like his late works
early scriabin is good

but actually rach2 and rach3 appeals more to u,
i know that!

I actually like late scriabin better. Tough, the first movement of sonata no.3 is my favorite ever.

[arensky]

I actually like late scriabin better. Tough, the first movement of sonata no.3 is my favorite ever.

Moi aussi, c'est terrible! Et les Sonates 4, 5, 7, 8. Mon favorites...

 

[arensky]

i would be glad
if the poll is Prokofiev or Scriabin this would be more fun!

But they are two different styles and schools of thought; like comparing apples and oranges, you prefer one or the other; Rachmaninov and Scriabin were from the same period, and went to Conervatory together and competed and compared and were friends..I think this is more interesting! But you can start your own poll!!

[da jake]

Both Rachmaninov and Scriabin were superb composers who wrote some beautiful music.

There's an obnoxious fad going around where people claim that Rachmaninov is somehow deficient as a composer because he wasn't as innovative as Scriabin.

That's the same as calling Schoenberg a better composer than Mendelssohn because Schoenberg was more innovative. Pointless, really.

[prometheus]

No, that is because Scriabin showed more compositional skill.

[Dazzer]

I think this topic is going abit off... i mean... can't we just stick to our own sides? No need to defend your side of the bridge while bombarding the other side with artillery.

They're both great composers, which is why they're remembered today still.

Anyway

Q: Scriabin or Rachmaninov
A: Rachmaninov for me thanks.

[darkthrone666]

Well since I owe my entire reason for playing piano to Rach's Prelude in C sharp minor, I went with him.  This was kind of an odd poll though cause they don't really sound anywhere near alike: at least not to me.  They are both great, and I love them both but I know I would find myself playing Rach more.

As for saying scraibin is for smart people.  That'd be like saying the Dead Kennedys is only for dumb poor people. 

[donjuan]

ooohh I dont think I can choose... but I did anyway and picked Rachmaninoff.  Scriabin wrote some great stuff I just love to death (ie piano concerto op22), but I find a wealth of stuff I just dont understand.  Scriabin is really good at big buildups and interesting harmonies and rhythms, but Rachmaninoff's works seem so much more immortal to me.
donjuan

[g_s_223]

I like Scriabin, but I find his use of Sonata form (in the Piano Sonatas) a bit unsatisfactory. I'm not an expert in form, but the development sections often seem a bit static perhaps? Exposition and coda are generally great and very impressive, but the bit in the middle seems to just hang  about a bit maybe? It's might be connected to his approach to (pan)tonality? Just impressions...

[phil13]

I like Scriabin, but I find his use of Sonata form (in the Piano Sonatas) a bit unsatisfactory. I'm not an expert in form, but the development sections often seem a bit static perhaps? Exposition and coda are generally great and very impressive, but the bit in the middle seems to just hang  about a bit maybe? It's might be connected to his approach to (pan)tonality? Just impressions...

Sonata No.10 has a great development section, one of my favorites.

Phil

[arensky]

_bump...

[pianistimo]

i have to admit to being really one of those dumb pianists when i moved from ca to pa (west cost vs east coast).  i hadn't even really heard that much scriabin...so when i went for my piano lessons - i kept asking at the door.  what is that you are playing?  he finally got so tired of my asking the same question (different pieces) that he just didn't answer.  then, i got frustrated because i thought - he can't keep playing so much scriabin.  but, there's something extremely beautiful about the harmonies in the earlier pieces - and if i was smarter i'd attempt to play it and make it sound good.  realistically, i think i will stick with rachmaninov (although i find his pieces more for large hands).

prokofiev i can handle.  i'm good with percussive pieces and between prokofiev and bartok - i'm in a rhythm jive more than harmonic.  maybe poulenc will be my signature in harmonies.  i really like poulenc's creativeness, too.  and, it's a bit easier to play, imo.  the nocturne is only four pages (that, i like!) 

[cherub_rocker1979]

They're both too good to pick only one.  It's like trying to choose between Chopin and Brahms.

[superstition2]

No, that is because Scriabin showed more compositional skill.

Not.

[superstition2]

I love them both. Rachmaninov wrote some pieces I don't like (Chopin Variations, Corelli Variations, The Rock, The Bells), and so did Scriabin (2nd symphony). Both wrote pieces I adore. It's difficult to give Scriabin the edge because of the Rachmaninov 2nd sonata (original version), and the 4th concerto (original or 1927).

[JCarey]

scriabin is a composer for smart people
rachmaninov is a composer for all people

i BET almost none of you can like his late works, which are atonal..
don't try to be "smart" and like scriabin more
u "try" to like his late works
early scriabin is good

but actually rach2 and rach3 appeals more to u,
i know that!

This is sheer stupidity. I love Scriabin's late sonatas (which are tonal, by the way). And why do you assume nobody likes atonality? Debussy's "atonal" ("atonal" in the same sense as Scriabin, that is) music is truly beautiful. Sorabji's "atonal" works, like Le Jardin Parfume, are delightful.

Anyway, I prefer Rachmaninoff for orchestral writing, and Scriabin for solo piano music. Truthfully, I don't like a lot of Rachmaninoff's solo works.

[gruffalo]

i think the ones who cant choose are the smartest. thats my opinion

[sevencircles]

Itīs hard to compare really.

They are pretty different.

Scriabin is by far the most important.

The late works are truly in a class all by themselves.

Scriabin is one of the most underrated composers in Piano history.

[helga]

Rachmaninoff music has overall darker quality. Scriabin's has a broader color pallet. It bursts with colors.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

what's so special about the "mystic chord" anyway? i think Scriabin was trying too hard to be innovative although i would have to admit he has some gems too. but i find rachmaninoff to be more consistent, not so innovative but only for us to realize that his music has much much more to say than being merely innovative. etude tableaux, 3rd concerto, 1st concerto, sonatas, and a lot more of his works have so much music in them. and his writing skills? hah! way, way better than scriabin's!!! just imagine what he did to the paganini theme with his piano and orchestra variations!

so ironic, i had just set up my listening playlist on my windows media player of all scriabin sonatas and concerto when i found this thread. so i voted for rachmaninoff, and so scriabin can  now call me a hypocrite, haha. i'd probably tell him "at least i'm studying your music even if i don't like you". i've read about him and i found out that he was not so humble, quite boastful to be exact.

[brewtality]

I like Rachmaninoff better. I haven't taken the time to really listen to Scriabin that much.

[stevie]

I like Rachmaninoff better. I haven't taken the time to really listen to Scriabin that much.

i thought the same till i listened to more scriabin....

[arensky]

i thought the same till i listened to more scriabin....

Datz rite! Listen to some Scriabin. If you like Racmaninov you'll probably like Scriabin, they are vey similair though oh so different....

[I Love Xenakis]

Lets face it.  Without "Shine" (The movie) Rachmaninov would be an "average" composer.

Don't misunderstand me, i really like Rachmaninov that movie increased his fame in a big way.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're so wrong it literally hurts.


I like Scriabin's Sonatas but not his shorter works, whereas I like just about all of Rachmaninov's stuff, so I voted for Rach.