Medtner vs. Rachmaninov

[elevateme_returns]

In your opinion, which one is better? and why?

[phil13]

What? You can't just ask such a vague question like that! 

To be put bluntly and VERY basically...

Medtner = better grasp on harmony.

Rach = better grasp on melody.

Phil

[jre58591]

i go with medtner. and oddly enough, rachmaninoff agrees with me.

[tompilk]

i go with medtner too. but maybe that's biased because he's more unheard of. And as Brits, we always support the underdog...
Tom

[ramseytheii]

I think they make good mates on programming.  You could alternate Fairy Tales of Medtner with Rachmaninoff Etudes, since apparently many of the etudes were based on Russian Fairy Tales, and are often in the lyrical, rhapsodic vein.  Medtner is an interesting link with the Russian virtuoso music of Rachmaninoff and Scriabin, and the German "academic," and I mean that in the best sense, tradition expounded by Brahms.  I think Medtner and Brahms would also work terrifically on a program together.  How about this:  Medtner Fairy Tales, Brahms op.119, Intermission, Schubert op.142.  I love it!

Walter Ramsey

[mephisto]

Medtner = better grasp on harmony.

Rach = better grasp on melody.

Phil

Dissagree

[jre58591]

id be willing to bet that some of those voting for rachmaninoff havent heard medtner. medtner's music is just godly in comparison. enough said.

[rach n bach]

I have heard plenty of Medtner.  He is nice.

Rach is sweet. 

Besides, I would never live it down if I voted for Medtner. 

RnB

[mikey6]

Dissagree

moi aussi.

[phil13]

id be willing to bet that some of those voting for rachmaninoff havent heard medtner.
 

Completely agree- as will be inevitable if you pit a well-known composer against a less-known composer. The polls will be skewed in favor of the former, almost always.

medtner's music is just godly in comparison. enough said.

Medtner's music is fantastic, and from a compositional point of view I would have to agree with you. But, I choose not to vote, because Rachmaninoff had a real gift for melody-writing, something which was one of the factors that drove his music into the common household. Medtner's music is often more interesting harmonically and texturally, and he also wrote great, possibly memorable melodies- just not as often as Rach managed to. Go figure.

Side note: I'm amazed at how this was automatically regarded as a comparison of their compositional strength. Both were, after all, superb pianists of the highest degree.

Phil

[Mozartian]

Why don't you invent a time machine, put the two in a boxing ring, have them fight it out and declare a winner?

Seriously, these "who is greater" threads are mind-numbingly stupid....

And for the record, I love them both.

[ramseytheii]

Side note: I'm amazed at how this was automatically regarded as a comparison of their compositional strength. Both were, after all, superb pianists of the highest degree.

Phil

Prokofiev mentioned that Medtner's technique was flawless, but that he played without diversity of sound.  This I read in the book "Hamelin and the 8" or whatever it was called.


Walter Ramsey

[jre58591]

i could second prokofiev. medtner's recordings are fantastic. rachmaninoff, on the other hand...

[phil13]

Though from most accounts, Rachmaninoff's playing was fantastic too. He is, after all, regarded as one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century.

Why don't you invent a time machine, put the two in a boxing ring, have them fight it out and declare a winner?

Seriously, these "who is greater" threads are mind-numbingly stupid....

And for the record, I love them both.

Well, isn't it obvious? Rachmaninoff would have made the bigger fist...

 

These threads may be mind-numbingly stupid, but they seem to get a helluva lot more hits and replies than any threads that simply say 'Let's appreciate their music and speak our opinion about it.' And anything that can reveal the wealth of beauty in a neglected composer's works, no matter how trite, is fine by me. 

And just for the record, although both rank high amongst my personal favorites, I would take Scriabin over either one. 

Phil

[hodi]

watch this video of hamelin plays medtner's scherzo from Sonata Romantica Op.53:

Hamelin says:

"unfortuneately, medtner music's is the kind that rarely makes a good impression at first hear... it is not typically melodically generous, such as, for example, rachmaninov"

[phil13]

I LOVE that vid and I LOVE that scherzo.

But it is generated by a rhythmic agent much more than any true melody. Hamelin's remark is on par with everything I have said so far.

Of course, he is also correct in that Medtner's music becomes a part of you- if you listen to it enough, you finally begin to realize just how good it really is.

Phil

[arensky]

And just for the record, although both rank high amongst my personal favorites, I would take Scriabin over either one. 

Moi aussi 

[elevateme_returns]

Why don't you invent a time machine, put the two in a boxing ring, have them fight it out and declare a winner?

Seriously, these "who is greater" threads are mind-numbingly stupid....

And for the record, I love them both.

its not a who is greater thread. id like to hear people's opinions on the matter, thats all

[tompilk]

In your opinion, which one is better? and why?

its not a who is greater thread. id like to hear people's opinions on the matter, thats all

these seem somehow contradictory...
Tom

[elevateme_returns]

what i mean is there is no way of just saying which one is better. only opinions

[mephisto]

i could second prokofiev. medtner's recordings are fantastic. rachmaninoff, on the other hand...

Both Prokofiev and Medtner were good pianists, but Rachmaninov was on a different(higher) level. If I understood correct, you do actually not like Rachmaninov's playing, or am I wrong?

[opus10no2]

Tis equal for me.

Rachmaninov is one of the greatest pianists ever recorded, I haven't heard Medtner's playing yet.

I love the futuristic unique rhythm employed in alot of Medtner's work, with his unique romantic tonality.

[tompilk]

what i mean is there is no way of just saying which one is better. only opinions

now i agree... thanks
Tom

[jre58591]

i honestly am not impressed by rachmaninoff's recordings. i love medtner's, on the other hand. rachmaninoff's, to me, seem dryer and almost lifeless at some points. but this thread isnt about their pianistic abilities, but rather their compositional abilities. medtner still reigns supreme.

[pita bread]

I prefer Rachmaninoff, but I'll take Scriabin over either.

[opus10no2]

i honestly am not impressed by rachmaninoff's recordings.

what

And true, about Scriabin, his music just sounds more sensual and luxurious , like you could bathe in it.

[pita bread]

Hahaha, I could bathe for hours in the orgasmic sea of sound that is the Scriabin 5th...

[jakev2.0]

Both are wonderful composers. 

This thread is retarded.

[elevateme_returns]

then why post in it...

[ramseytheii]

i honestly am not impressed by rachmaninoff's recordings. i love medtner's, on the other hand. rachmaninoff's, to me, seem dryer and almost lifeless at some points. but this thread isnt about their pianistic abilities, but rather their compositional abilities. medtner still reigns supreme.

That's interesting, though I've heard Rachmaninoff's recordings are not ideal for his concertos.  I have also a disc of him playing Chopin, which I've hardly listened to, and his "Window in Time," both playing his own works and those of others.  "Window in Time" with his own works i love, esp. Spinning Song of Mendelssohn, which has a lot of character, the etudes op.39 no.s4 and 6, which are different then the way we hear them today, and "Lilacs," which I don't think anybody could play better.

Leslie Howard told me Rachmaninoff was his favorite pianist from the pantheon of the dead; and Hamelin mentioned in "Hamelin and the 8" that he found medtner's recordings old-sounding, and tired out, since most were made towards the end of his life.  Prokofiev also mentioned he thought Medtner played without a lot of contrast.  But, Prokofiev is much more extreme than Medtner, and also had a grudge against him; and when was the last time Hamelin complimented any pianist?

Walter Ramsey

[jre58591]

perhaps should just disregard my tastes, which tend to be outlandish in the eys of many.

[elevateme_returns]

Hahaha, I could bathe for hours in the orgasmic sea of sound that is the Scriabin 5th...

then join the orgasmic chord society on facebook! and invite your friends! lol

             https://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229350476

[steinway43]

There is no comparison. Medtner's notes hardly constitute music in comparison to what Rachmaninoff wrote.

[phil13]

I find that statement mildly offensive. 

Phil

[retrouvailles]

There is no comparison. Medtner's notes hardly constitute music in comparison to what Rachmaninoff wrote.

I found that above statement to be pretty offensive also. Only one that is almost completely ignorant of Medtner's music would say that. Even Rachmaninoff himself thought Medtner was better than he was. I hate to say it, but Rachmaninoff's opinion is much better than yours by default.

[rach n bach]

I am not one to down play Rachmaninoff *cough* but I must say that Mendtner is still an excellent composer.  He has many things that Rach doesn't have... and visa versa, they are just different.  Both are very good.

[JP]

I'm a huge fan of both. But if I must chose, then my choice is Rachmaninov.

Overall, I prefer Medtner's works. But when considering the best of each, Rachmaninov has the edge. Also, IMO, Medtner is pale in comparison to Rachmaninov were simplicity is concerned. 

Finally, I will be grilled for this, but..
Bronfman's Rach3 is my #1 piece of music. So.. 

[quantum]

I find both composers have something different to offer so I can't really say I prefer one over the other. 

I have to say I very much admire Medtner's compositional style.  It is so intriguing to study a Medtner composition at the piano and see how he uses a core group of ideas so extensively throughout a single piece.