The fascination with Rachmaninoff?

[G.W.K]

This has been bugging me for a while now. WHAT is the obsession with Rachmaninoff? I find his pieces are very boring, depressing and sound either like someone being molested on the piano or old horror film music...he is absolutely terrible!

Fair enough: I am relatively new to Rachmaninoff, I only first heard his pieces a few months ago...but even though I continue to try and see why everyone loves him, I am still confused about why everyone seems to swear by him.

Enlighten me: WHY does anyone like Rachmaninoff? And are ANY of his pieces NOT like the reasons listed in the first paragraph above?

G.W.K

[aslanov]

wow. i've never heard rachmaninoff so badly talked about in all my life.
and im on the verge of emoti-slapping you, quite frankly, but you are new to rachmaninoff, and there's need to get angry.

first off, why i like rachmaninoff. his music is verry, extremely, expressive. fillled with passion and emotion. granted his second and third piano concerti have some of the most beautiful melodies i've ever heard, more so the second. but, i find that in his solo piano pieces is where he truly speaks to his audience. and to address the depressing comment you made. he was very much a depressed person, and unhappy (because he couldnt return to his country, he was forbidden) his etude-tableause are a generally depressive music, for me anyway, and these were not just etudes as the name suggests but pictures of himself, tableaux, within the etudes. and being the sad person he was, so was his music, but his music is also one of the most passionate i've ever heard. comparing his music to saay beethoven's sonata's, from my experience the one work of beethovens that i feel as much emotion stirr is the appassionata, but then theres also his 4th piano concerto. but with rachmaninoff, just to name a few: piano concerto 2, rhapsody on a theme of paganini, elegie, prelude op 3 no 2/ op 23 no 2/no5, moment musical no 4, etude-tableaux op 39 no 1/ op 33 no 4(or 5, whichever way u like it), the list goes on. i also love his music for its sheer complexity....yet, simplicity, i dunno if im making sense when i say that, but for those who understand me, i think u know what i mean, but i cant explain, not at 3 am anyway.

i could go on, but im pretty tired rite now, but you should really listen to those pieces i listed. the etude tableaux's and the musical moment, granted, take a second or third listening to, to really feel and understand it. but give it a shot.

[amelialw]

This has been bugging me for a while now. WHAT is the obsession with Rachmaninoff? I find his pieces are very boring, depressing and sound either like someone being molested on the piano or old horror film music...he is absolutely terrible!

Fair enough: I am relatively new to Rachmaninoff, I only first heard his pieces a few months ago...but even though I continue to try and see why everyone loves him, I am still confused about why everyone seems to swear by him.

Enlighten me: WHY does anyone like Rachmaninoff? And are ANY of his pieces NOT like the reasons listed in the first paragraph above?

G.W.K

because the music that he writes has something special. It makes you tremble, shiver, all sorts of reactions. What he writes is so musical& expressive but at the same time is very challenging. His 1st piece that I learnt was his Prelude in G major op.32 no.5 and I remember that was the 1st piece that I heard of his and i fell in love with it when my teacher played it for me.

I used to hate Rachmaninoff though because I found his music difficult to understand and it was technically very/ at one point a little too challenging for me. Whereas my teacher loves his music so much and only taught me Rachmaninoff for my List D (ARCT performer's exam) and told me that she only would allow me to move on to another composer when I had mastered how to play Rachmaninoff so we moved on to the G sharp minor prelude op.32 no.12. When she 1st gave me that, I rebelled and refused to practice it, eventually I got sick of doing that and decided to prove my teacher wrong and I did but she ended up saying that it suited me well and loved the way i played it so I went on to play it for competitions.....

Now, looking back, I do now regret it at all...you just need more time. I love Rachmaninoff now and I am working on his Prelude in D op.23 no.4

I remember when I 1st heard his piano concerto no.2 in c minor, I just started trembling and tears just flowed, I had no idea at that point why but his music moved me so much.

[communist]

,

[G.W.K]

So basically, you are saying Rachmaninoff is great because not only did he incorporate other instruments into his playing that worked in harmony with each other...he also played and composed based on his emotions? Is this why everyone is so obsessed with him?

He is still terrible, perhaps that is the intended effect? Like you say communist: he played not to aim for a brilliant piece of work, but to show everyone how he felt, etc.

I must say, he does have an effect on me...but it isn't crying or happiness. I don't understand how such a racket can move people so much.

G.W.K

[communist]

So basically, you are saying Rachmaninoff is great because not only did he incorporate other instruments into his playing that worked in harmony with each other...he also played and composed based on his emotions? Is this why everyone is so obsessed with him?

He is still terrible, perhaps that is the intended effect? Like you say communist: he played not to aim for a brilliant piece of work, but to show everyone how he felt, etc.

I must say, he does have an effect on me...but it isn't crying or happiness. I don't understand how such a racket can move people so much.

G.W.K

what did you listen by him anyway?

[G.W.K]

what did you listen by him anyway?

I don't know exactly. It was a youtube clip given to me in the Chat by either you or "imbetterthanyou". But it was awful!

G.W.K

[communist]

I don't know exactly. It was a youtube clip given to me in the Chat by either you or "imbetterthanyou". But it was awful!

G.W.K

his first piano concerto? listen to the isle of the dead and or his other piano concerti

[imbetter]

just WOW gary. Rachmaninoff's music is just exploding with emotions, rich melodies, and rich harmonies. just, wow.

[G.W.K]

just WOW gary. Rachmaninoff's music is just exploding with emotions, rich melodies, and rich harmonies. just, wow.

WHERE? I listened to that piece (that I can't remember now) three times with an open-mind and I could not find ANYTHING that was good! It was just a load of banging and crecendos and it was just awful!

Why do people get so emotional? I hate Rachmaninoff...live with it. I cannot see the fascination in him yet everyone here seems to love him!

G.W.K

[communist]

there is a reason why everyone loves him

[G.W.K]

there is a reason why everyone loves him

Apart from "emotions", etc. that have already been mentioned here? There is another reason? Do enlighten me.

G.W.K

[communist]

Apart from "emotions", etc. that have already been mentioned here? There is another reason? Do enlighten me.

G.W.K

with the emotion and haunting melodies his music is also great in structure and thought.

[G.W.K]

with the emotion and haunting melodies his music is also great in structure and thought.

I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.

G.W.K

[frank_48]

I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.

G.W.K

listen to this, https://au.youtube.com/watch?v=qUI2DS7vHas

whats so bad about that?

[mikebechstein]

1. Why don’t you explain to us why a comparable composer, who you like, IS great and why exactly.

2. Usually if enough people like something for long enough (i.e. for several generations) then that could be a definition of something being good. That doesn’t mean you will like it though.

3. You seem to have created an impression of his music by listening to mostly one piece (and one particular interpretation) played several times. If you are baffled by people’s opinion of Rachmaninoff then maybe you should listen to many other recordings and other pieces (also with an “open mind”)

4. You also have to realise that if you don’t like something that it’s OK. However, if you call something popular “just awful!” then people who like it will not simply “…live with it” but will give you their apposing opinion. If that bugs you, then don’t criticise it in a forum.

4. Sorry for being so patronising.

[richard black]

Well, if it doesn't press your buttons then too bad, we've all got blind spots. I can't abide Andrew Lloyd Webber's music but millions of people find it very moving. Benjamin Britten could find nothing to like or admire in Brahms's entire output. And so on...

[G.W.K]

1. Why don’t you explain to us why a comparable composer, who you like, IS great and why exactly.

2. Usually if enough people like something for long enough (i.e. for several generations) then that could be a definition of something being good. That doesn’t mean you will like it though.

3. You seem to have created an impression of his music by listening to mostly one piece (and one particular interpretation) played several times. If you are baffled by people’s opinion of Rachmaninoff then maybe you should listen to many other recordings and other pieces (also with an “open mind”)

4. You also have to realise that if you don’t like something that it’s OK. However, if you call something popular “just awful!” then people who like it will not simply “…live with it” but will give you their apposing opinion. If that bugs you, then don’t criticise it in a forum.

4. Sorry for being so patronising.

Yes, you are quite patronising. I voice my opinion. I will listen to other pieces and if I do not like them: I will say that.

G.W.K

P.S. The number "5" comes after the number "4"...not "4" again.

[mikebechstein]

Very nice. Well done. Of Course, I am still right though!

[G.W.K]

Very nice. Well done. Of Course, I am still right though!

About what? Fair enough: it is all personal preference, but you can't stop me from voicing that personal preference. I honestly cannot see the fascination...I've just listened to one that communist mentioned earlier, and I still remain the same.

G.W.K

[mikebechstein]

Take a step back and let the sarcasm wash over you fella. I was only joking.

[aslanov]

I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.

G.W.K

you've gotta be joking. you make a thread asking others to explain to you why they love rachamaninoff, we do, some of us recommend to you some pieces to listen to. not only do you not listen to them (it may seem) but continue to bash rachmaninoff based on ONE thing you've heard a while ago. to me it seems like ur being childish and stubborn, unwilling to really hear what others are trying to say.

[thalbergmad]

What you fail to appreciate is that G.W.K is Scottish.

This is his idea of musical heaven....

https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXQuaYUwJU

I am sure you all agree that Rachmaninoff comes a very poor second.

Thal

[aslanov]

good point thal

[G.W.K]

you've gotta be joking. you make a thread asking others to explain to you why they love rachamaninoff, we do, some of us recommend to you some pieces to listen to. not only do you not listen to them (it may seem) but continue to bash rachmaninoff based on ONE thing you've heard a while ago. to me it seems like ur being childish and stubborn, unwilling to really hear what others are trying to say.

Clearly you haven't read it properly. Re-read those posts from me again: and you will see that not only have I listen to one piece three times, I also listened to one suggested by communist and...I have just listened another.

Can't you accept the fact that someone doesn't like Rachmaninoff? Is that so absurd?

What you fail to appreciate is that G.W.K is Scottish.

This is his idea of musical heaven....

https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXQuaYUwJU

I am sure you all agree that Rachmaninoff comes a very poor second.

Thal

You guessed "his idea of musical heaven" wrongly. Please don't assume anything about me...and where I come from has nothing to do with this matter.

G.W.K

[Petter]

What you fail to appreciate is that G.W.K is Scottish.

This is his idea of musical heaven....

https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXQuaYUwJU

I am sure you all agree that Rachmaninoff comes a very poor second.

Thal

what about

[thalbergmad]

I listen to one piece three times

Would it not be better to listen to 3 pieces one time?

[G.W.K]

Would it not be better to listen to 3 pieces one time?

In total: I have now heard three Rachmaninoff pieces.

G.W.K

[pianowolfi]

I could spend 10 minutes banging a piano and going up and down it...and I would have played a Rachmaninoff piece without even thinking about it. That is how terrible they are.

G.W.K

I think you are quite young. I would suggest you to not jump to conclusions yet. It takes a lot of time to understand Rachmaninoff and it takes much more time to learn to play his music.

[thalbergmad]

In total: I have now heard three Rachmaninoff pieces.

G.W.K

You made a judgement after listening to just 3 pieces.

Even i am not that idiotic.

Thal

[kelly_kelly]

Listen to preludes op. 23 no. 4 and op. 32 no. 5. I find it difficult to see how anyone could dislike them.

[pianoperformer]

Wow, that's the first time I heard that Prelude Op. 32, No. 5. That's beautiful. I want to learn it now.

[healdie]

I am with G.W.K on this one i too am not a Rachmaninov fan

but I am not going to call it a racket or anything I can see how it moves people it just doesn't move me

[pianistimo]

Maybe the facination would also be that Rach had very large hands and long thumbs.  He could get a true orchestral effect.  Perhaps it was him playing his own music that was most impressive.  Today, we have pianists - but, back then they were legends or something.  And, the fact that he understood to have the truest and lightest happiness - one has to also experience the depths of despair.  His utilization of folk themes is nice, too - and he seems to have this unspoken understanding of utilizing music for much more than music.  He and Weber? and a few other musicians could easy put messages to anyone in there.  I don't think he had ulterior motives - but he could turn a piece into  morse code and back.  Seems that he was very disciplined.

According to Roeder's 'A History of the Concerto' 'Serge Rachmaninov (1873-1943) was the giant among the last generation of Russian composers fully to develop their style before the turn of the century.  Rach was also the last important representative of late Russian Romanticism....he was a masterful pianist with formidable technique and unusually large hands and long fingers that enabled him to reach an eleventh with ease.  His playing was characterized by precision and clarity, rhythmic drive, and a smooth legato touch.  His approach to performance was to identify the major climax of the work being performed and then to gear his interpretation entirely to and from that point.  His own compositions were all written with similarly carefully defined climax points.'

[pianistimo]

Oh.  And he had Alexander Siloti for a teacher.  He can't be that bad!  Just too much of the Dies Irae theme.  What I like to hear in Russian music that you can't get anywhere else is the bass line.

[popdog]

Your loss GWK

[retrouvailles]

In total: I have now heard three Rachmaninoff pieces.

G.W.K

Not enough. Listen to the piano concertos.

[mikey6]

ok...and I was thinking why did this get moved to students corner....

[aslanov]

nah we wanna assume things. you cant stop us. we have the right, u cant take my rights away....see, we can all be like u.
why are u turning this into a personal thing?
first u assume we're offended by someone who doesnt like rachmaninoff, which isnt true, im sure most of us couldnt care less about someone who refuses to get beyond a piece or two. we're only trying to help you, so u dont miss out on music thats truly amazing. its your loss if u dont come into it open minded. i can only assume u started this thread to trying and convince others why u're rite in not liking rachmaninov, in whcih case, stop wasting our time, u can waste urs all u want. beethoven has written a couple of things i just dont wanna listen to, doesnt mean ill dismiss all his other work based on it. u asked for help, we tried, u refused to listen. u cant start off and listen to his more complicated works and assume to understand it or even like it on a first, second, or even third listen. dont be so obtuse.

read my first post, and listen to those pieces, if u still dont like it, so be it. but dont bring ur negativity to those who truly love and enjoy rachmaninov's works.

[G.W.K]

nah we wanna assume things. you cant stop us. we have the right, u cant take my rights away....see, we can all be like u.
why are u turning this into a personal thing?
first u assume we're offended by someone who doesnt like rachmaninoff, which isnt true, im sure most of us couldnt care less about someone who refuses to get beyond a piece or two. we're only trying to help you, so u dont miss out on music thats truly amazing. its your loss if u dont come into it open minded. i can only assume u started this thread to trying and convince others why u're rite in not liking rachmaninov, in whcih case, stop wasting our time, u can waste urs all u want. beethoven has written a couple of things i just dont wanna listen to, doesnt mean ill dismiss all his other work based on it. u asked for help, we tried, u refused to listen. u cant start off and listen to his more complicated works and assume to understand it or even like it on a first, second, or even third listen. dont be so obtuse.

read my first post, and listen to those pieces, if u still dont like it, so be it. but dont bring ur negativity to those who truly love and enjoy rachmaninov's works.

Read my further posts: I listened to them. Also read my other posts where I say I approached Rachmaninoff "open-minded". I'm not trying to turn this into a personal thing, I just find your style of writing very hostile.

I would suggest reading this entire thread again and pick up on the moments where I say I did listen, I did approach open-minded, I did listen to those pieces that others suggested.

G.W.K

[a-sharp]

Honestly - I love Rach 3 ... And one of the Etude Tableaux's (I know there is more than one, but forget which one), but, I don't love ALL Rach. However, I am the first to admit, I VERY often change my opinion over time - and things grow on me, and I'll suddenly love them - and also grow tired or bored of others. I have yet to classify a composer as ALL anything yet. Interestingly (or not) - I also am rather neutral - on Chopin lately. Yes - it is beautiful music - maybe I'm just bored with what I've heard SO much for SO long, I don't know. Then, as soon as I say that, I'll hear one of his nocturnes, and hear it differently, and love it. I do love lots of the etudes though...

GWK - I just encourage you to have your opinion, but keep an open mind. Few humans remain the same with the same opinion from year to year, let alone from day to day (or less).

Cheers.

[aslanov]

Read my further posts: I listened to them. Also read my other posts where I say I approached Rachmaninoff "open-minded". I'm not trying to turn this into a personal thing, I just find your style of writing very hostile.

I would suggest reading this entire thread again and pick up on the moments where I say I did listen, I did approach open-minded, I did listen to those pieces that others suggested.

G.W.K

i have read them. u've listend to a etude or two, but like i said in my previous posts, those are harder to understand than the others that i originally recommended. the etudes u can feel and understand on like a 4th or 5th listening (with the exception of a few)

honestly,if i didnt know any better, i'd say u were 12.

[G.W.K]

i have read them. u've listend to a etude or two, but like i said in my previous posts, those are harder to understand than the others that i originally recommended. the etudes u can feel and understand on like a 4th or 5th listening (with the exception of a few)

honestly,if i didnt know any better, i'd say u were 12.

LOL...you definately don't know any better! 

G.W.K

[communist]

i thought you liked prelude op.32 no.10?

[concerto_love]

How about Rach's Vespers? Pretty like it... ^_^

[communist]

How about Rach's Vespers? Pretty like it... ^_^

yes Vespers (All-Night Vigil) and the Bells are great choral works

[cmg]

To convert anyone to Rachmaninov, only one composition is necessary.  The Second Concerto.  If this doesn't prove the worth of Rach to you, then, you simply are having a negative transference to his music.  That can't be helped and you're not to be blamed.  Only pitied . . . 

[mikey6]

Not necessarily. The late stuff turn away from the obvious melodious romanticism - the Symphonic Dances or The Bells don't really have any memorable themes such as the 2nd PC yet are still entirely Rachmaninoff.  Even the Paganini variations are without the strong melodramatic lyricism except for the 18th but it's still an amazing work!
It's like saying the only side to Beethoven was the uptight/grouchy/angry 5th symphony composer when there was the humorous/light hearted bagatelles composer too.

[retrouvailles]

I think Gary here just is too new to classical music listening to even go near Rachmaninoff. He considers it noise! That is quite a weird assessment. Perhaps it is better to start off with Mozart and Bach rather than jumping into our friend Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff is still great though, even if a Scotsman isn't satisfied.

[G.W.K]

I think Gary here just is too new to classical music listening to even go near Rachmaninoff.

Wrong.

G.W.K