Lilacs Op 21 no. 5---Rachmaninoff

[matterintospirit]

the lilacs
 words by E. Bekelova

At the red of the dawn,
O'er the dew spangled lawn,
Where I meet the new day with a kiss,
In the sweet, fragrant shade
By the lilac trees made,
There I wander in search of my bliss...
For one joy, one alone,
Fate has giv'n me my own,
And it dwells in your fair lilac bow'r
In its bright branches green,
In the thick perfumed screen
There my one poor lost joy breaks in flow'r.

[rachfan]

Hi matter,

Yours is a very nice rendition indeed--very beautiful playing with thoughtful analysis and great attention to nuances.  You capture the essence and sentiment of this piece very well with a high degree of musicality.  It's a pleasure to listen to you play.  Congratulations!

The Bekelova poem is also the English version of the lyrics for the actual song (same opus and number as the piano transcription) as translated by Rosa Newmarch, (although I cannot imagine this song being sung in any language but Russian!!).  Here is another more modern translation by Ruben Stam and Anton Bespalov, more in blank verse, and probably not at all intended as substitute song lyrics, but simply as a straight translation of the poem itself:

In the morning, at daybreak,
over the dewy grass,
I will go to breathe the crisp dawn,
and in the fragrant shade,
where the lilac crowds,
I will go to seek my happiness...

In life, only one happiness
it was fated for me to discover,
and that happiness lives in the lilacs:
in the green boughs,
in the fragrant bunches,
my poor happiness blossoms....

It's interesting too that Rachmaninoff marked the song score allegretto, but the piano score non allegro.  I believe that he left more discretion or leeway to the pianist with the "non allegro" designation.  That is, saying a tempo is not a particular pace is far less specific than saying it is to be taken at a certain pace.  He actually starts it off at a quarter = 58 or so, as do you.  I play it more leisurely.   Also, the song was in 9/4, while the piano version is 3/4 using triplets in the figuration for the revised meter. 

I did have one question though: At measure 47 at the change from 4/4 to 3/4 (marked mf), you make a dramatic accelerando--which has an effective, sweeping sound to it to be sure.  I even admit that I like it.  But there is nothing written by the composer in the score to that affect.  Nor is there an "ad libitum" or "a piecere" there.  Yet further along at measure 55, Rachmaninoff clearly wrote accel. and veloce in the flight of fancy leading into the coda.  So one would think if he had wanted a similar effect earlier at 47, he would have expressly indicated it.  I thought perhaps it might have stemmed instead from Rachmaninoff's own performance practice (sometimes composers do interpret their works differently than written), so I got his recording out--but I didn't hear him playing that accelerando either, that is, he continues at the established pace, which would seem to confirm that he didn't intend anything different there.  So, what would be the musicological justification for your interpretation which is definitely a departure from the norm for that section?  Again, I do like the effect, but it seems like the taking of a huge liberty.  Thanks for posting!

[matterintospirit]

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's RACHFAN!!(HeHe.)

Thanx for all the good feedback rachfan. This translation of the poem is SO much more effective. Thanx for it.
    Oh, the accelerando---I just feel it that way, that's all,  and it fits in with how I envision the music. I certainly don't see a problem with NOT following all indications in the score to the letter, as long as it works within the whole. For instance, I always try to see what my students come up with on their own before I start "enforcing" the "rules."
   There are still some "rough around the edges" parts that need work, but I'm relatively happy with how it has come along so far.

[rachfan]

Hi matter,

Yeah, I hear you on "what works within the whole".  In a way it's like the Bortkiewicz Impromptu I posted on this page.  If you listen to my recording, Koji Attwood's and Cyprien Katsaris', the three interpretations could not be more different from one another.  In the case of that piece, the performance practices were likely lost back in the 1940s or so.  Thus, any interpretation now is a fresh perspective, which is actually a good thing.  I was very mindful of that, incidentally, and it weighed on me.  But I believe that what I posted (although not a "perfect" rendition due to some technical fluffs in it), is defendable on the whole. 

I believe too that often the pianist comes to know a piece far better than the composer, who, once it was sent to the publisher, went on to other projects.  The pianist might well "live" with a piece for years, much longer that the time it took the composer to conceive of the music, thereby enabling the pianist to gain far deeper insights and understanding.  I once heard a recording of Dohnanyi, a fabulous pianist in his time, playing one of his own works.  I was amazed that the potential of his piece was seemingly lost on him. 

I must admit your accelerando is more Rachmaninoff than Rachmaninoff, so you should stick with it.  I change a chord in one of his preludes, as it sounds far more like Rachmaninoff, ha-ha!  I have to believe that if he were here to listen to these possibilities, he would likely go along with them, as I've read that he was very reasonable and open minded. 

P.S.  Now that you've done Lilacs, you have to do Daisies as well--they go together. By the way, either one can serve admirably as a first quiet encore in a recital prior to a more challenging encore. 

[matterintospirit]

Yeah, I agree with all you have to say. I do believe that above all, one needs to be happy/satisfied with what one does musically, and with, well,  everything one does in life, and whoever wants to come along for the ride, so be it. There is no other way, not really. the need for defense is a reponse to attack. The bottom line is, one likes something or doesn't, and beyond that, who REALLY cares?

[rachfan]

I agree.  The fact is, if you live to be 95, life is still way too short.   So in performing a piece, one certainly needs to develop a thoughtful concept of the composition, but still have the autonomy and latitude to allow individuality to show through as well.  In short, one needs to be able to place their own stamp on a piece.  If more people would subscribe to that, we wouldn't be confronted with the endless and mindless stream of uniform and plain vanilla renditions we hear all too often, where you cannot possibly distinguish one pianist from the next. 

[matterintospirit]

Yes, and I think that it would revitalize the field of classical music and peak the public's interest a bit more perhaps. To me,  the reason that these pieces are "classics' is that they are vital and meaningful enough to humanity,  to "live on." To me they are as fresh as today, but one has to breath "life" into them, which for me, is what the challenge IS and also what makes studying these works so exciting.

[rachfan]

Amen!  So many CD releases we hear were heavily edited by the recording engineers to "air brush" out the flaws in performance, making the playing sound like perfection.  So when pianists are in recital, they become super cautious and try to produce spic-and-span, but otherwise uninspiring, renditions.  These pianists, who should be co-creating, end up merely re-creating.  The same sad phenomenon occurs at competitions where judges want safe, conventional sameness, and become instantly put off by signs of individuality in a performance--which reinforces the problem.

I can remember going to see/hear Artur Rubinstein at Symphony Hall in Boston.  The house would be sold out.  Stage seats were set up for the conservatory students.  There was electricity in the air.  Just his appearance coming on stage caused a sensation.  During performance, yes, he would drop some notes under the piano or depart a bit from the precise figuration in a score to better facilitate a technical demand there--but nobody cared.  The audience was instead caught up and mesmerized by his risk taking, the fresh sound of his interpretations, his magisterial playing, and the beauty of the long line that he always created so well.   It enthralled audiences.  Moreover, the playing of Rubinstein, Horowitz, Serkin and Richter were all different, yet great in their own ways, and could be readily identified by their individuality.  Hopefully the pendulum can swing again in that direction, the sooner the better for the fate of "classical" piano.

[matterintospirit]

I know exactly what you are saying.
   And it's a dilemna I always have. To save the recording that has the most music in it, or the one with the least mistakes. In this case, I posted the one with mistakes and imperfections, including a few phrases that didn't work as well musically as they had, but I like this recording as a whole, and especially for certain moments that just struck me. It's a few spontaneous moments when I "touched" my "ideal," quite by accident as usual.
ugh!! always such a struggle.