[VIDEO] Rachmaninoff Etude-tableau Op. 33, No. 8

[jlh]

Another etude... what do you think?

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5590004542384693292

[rachfan]

Hi Josh,

The numbering of the Etudes Tableaux differs by edition, due to the later inclusion, as you know, of Nos. 3 and 5.  Number 3 is that lush interlude that appears in the Concerto No. 4.  Rachmaninoff hated to repeat himself, so didn't publish that as an etude in his lifetime.  To make matters even more confusing, sometimes Op. 33, No. 4 appears as Op. 39, No. 6.  So not surprisingly, your Op. 33, No. 8 appears in my edition (MCA) as No. 9, but formerly No. 6, haha!  The short of all this is by ignoring numbering and instead reading notes, I found your No. "8".   

Before commenting, I should play through this piece to better appreciate the difficulties. That aside, I believe you play it very, very well.  Your pedaling works nicely, as you play with clarity throughout.  Unfortunately, Rachmaninoff rarely indicated any of his pedaling secrets in his scores.  The simple reason is that as a performing virtuoso, he actually composed his piano pieces for himself--not for you or me.  I'm convinced of that.  He realized that later in life when he went on his "simplification" campaign--the opposite extreme--altering the Sonata No. 2 and the Melodie, Op. 3, No. 3, for example, doing violence to them and making both mere shadows of their former selves.

Anyway, the only thing I would comment on is your playing of the passages in measures 6 and 7 and again in 17 and 18.  In both instances I think you could make more of the accelerandos.  They need to sound more wild.  The technical problem there is the polyrhythms of 4 against 6.  To make matters more complicated, there is also the crescendo that needs to be well "spent".  So the brain has to bifurcate on two simultaneous challenges.  In the earlier of the two figures (page 1) the crescendo goes from mf to sforzando ff.  OK.  But the second crescendo on page 2 builds from ff, harkening back from measure 15, and reaches all the way to... sff!  Hmmm, it is a bit curious.  My sense is that the accelerando is the more prominent effect in both instances.
   
There is somewhat of a reprise of this figuration in the coda, although the LH there plays chords rather than arpeggios for more variation.  Significantly, there is no accelerando in the coda.  So this is a case of intended contrast in composition, meaning that the pianist has to bring out the earlier accelerandos to achieve a perceived contrast in the coda.  That's why I think you need to bring it out more. 

One solution would be to worry less about the precision of the polyrhythms.  The only notes that coincide anyway in the RH and LH are the ones occurring on the beat.  The others are  all "in between the cracks" as they say.  A solution: One could deemphasize the LH, being pure accompaniment, and play it two levels below indicated dynamics to subdue it.  The RH is then free to play its diminished second intervals without distraction, while focusing prinicpally on the accelerando and crescendo to give the passage more finesse.  Avoiding the fussiness of doing exact polyrhythms with the LH, the RH will then be in full command, and the LH will simply follow and keep up, but unobtrusively.  If done successfully, the contrast with the coda will then be assured.  Is it a trick?  Yes, but it works.   What do you think?

David