The fascination with Rachmaninoff?

[csharp_minor]

im on the verge of emoti-slapping you, quite frankly, but you are new to rachmaninoff, and there's need to get angry.

Yeah, give it time you might even end up liking Rach one day! Personally I didn't like Rachmaninov or Chopin at one time . I think because I listened to a rubbish cheap cd of it. But since I got back into learning the piano I have approached music with a more open mind.

I haven't even listened to enough of Rachs music either ( I have only just got into Chopin! so Im bussy discovering his stuff ), I would say have another listen to some other pieces he did, you might even find just one you like?! 

[G.W.K]

I would say have another listen to some other pieces he did, you might even find just one you like?! 

I intend to do so soon. Thank you for your input.

G.W.K

[retrouvailles]

Wrong.

G.W.K

How incredibly eloquent of you. I can see the famous Scottish wit in this response.

But seriously, Rachmaninoff is just one composer that a pianist has to appreciate. Do try again.

[aslanov]

How incredibly eloquent of you. I can see the famous Scottish wit in this response.

But seriously, Rachmaninoff is just one composer that a pianist has to appreciate. Do try again.

or dont man. your the one missing out.
i cant even imagine not liking rachmaninoff now. my entire appreciation of classical music started with rachmaninoff. it was because of his music i started listening to classical music and its why i started teaching myself to play piano last year.

[end]

Rachmaninoff made some of the most fantastic music one can hear. If you listen carefully (paying attention to the music, I mean), you'll surely discover emotions you didn't even know existed.

As far as I'm concerned, when I listen to his music, I feel privileged.

[G.W.K]

Look: I will listen to every, single piece Rachmaninoff ever composed (that I can get hold of). I will listen to it with an open mind, I will even listen to the ones I have said I don't like. And then I will make a final judgement on him, in my opinion.

That is the best I can do.

G.W.K

[nyonyo]

Wrong.

G.W.K

Gary,

Don't you start realizing that you do have unusual views compare to main stream people's? What most normal people like, you usually do not like.

Do you have problem socializing outside of your house? Do normal people like you?

[retrouvailles]

Do you have problem socializing outside of your house? Do normal people like you?

Took the words right out of my mouth. This isn't a personal attack or anything, so don't take it as such.

[end]

G.W.K:

you're entitled to your opinion, of course. And we all respect that. If you don't like Rachmaninoff, fine. There's loads of other music out there. Taste's something mysterious and it's a good thing we don't all like the same things. Diversity makes us (humans) special.

[G.W.K]

G.W.K:

you're entitled to your opinion, of course. And we all respect that. If you don't like Rachmaninoff, fine. There's loads of other music out there. Taste's something mysterious and it's a good thing we don't all like the same things. Diversity makes us (humans) special.

Thank you, end.

Gary,

Don't you start realizing that you do have unusual views compare to main stream people's? What most normal people like, you usually do not like.

Do you have problem socializing outside of your house? Do normal people like you?

Nyonyo & retrovailles: You're attitudes are so alike. I have no problems whatsoever, and if you can't accept the fact that I don't like something that "normal" people do, tough luck. As "end" said, diversity makes humans special...unique.

I'm not taking it as a personal attack, it's probably the first time you've seen someone with different views to you. However, I have no problems emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. I just don't like Rachmaninoff. Neither does it give you the right to label that person as "not normal".

And if people are going to continue posting how unusual it is: there's no point continuing this thread. I've made my point, I've stated why I don't like Rachmaninoff. This thread was actually created to find out why YOU like Rachmaninoff, not to analyse me. So, unless you have anything useful to contribute, Happy New Year.

Regards,

G.W.K

[communist]

you should also listen to him play other works not by him as he is a fantastic pianist especially listen to him play the carnavel by Schumann

[healdie]

Thats better Rachmaninov playing Schumann
so listen to Schumann instead 

but i Don't agree that a pianist has to appreciate Rachmaninov I am a pianist (granted not a good one) but i struggle with listening to rachmaninov

[retrouvailles]

Nyonyo & retrovailles: You're attitudes are so alike. I have no problems whatsoever, and if you can't accept the fact that I don't like something that "normal" people do, tough luck. As "end" said, diversity makes humans special...unique.

I'm not taking it as a personal attack, it's probably the first time you've seen someone with different views to you. However, I have no problems emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. I just don't like Rachmaninoff. Neither does it give you the right to label that person as "not normal".

And if people are going to continue posting how unusual it is: there's no point continuing this thread. I've made my point, I've stated why I don't like Rachmaninoff. This thread was actually created to find out why YOU like Rachmaninoff, not to analyse me. So, unless you have anything useful to contribute, Happy New Year.

Ah, I missed you, Gary the traffic cop. But in all seriousness, I would like to know specifically what pieces you have heard, in how much depth you listened to them, and what exactly you do not like about them. I've played a lot of Rachmaninoff, and I know many people have here and are very familiar with him, so if you provide us with this information, we can tell you what pieces of his to listen to specifically. Perhaps you are just going about this all wrong. People may have different tastes and such, but Rachmaninoff is just one of those composers that everyone (almost literally) likes, so it makes a lot of waves when there is one who really really doesn't like him.

And, for the record, I HAVE met people with different views than me. It actually happens all the time, given my controversial musical tastes. I don't go through this whole charade for everyone though, because some of my tastes are controversial as I said. And, again for the record, my attitude is nothing like nyonyo's. We just agreed on one thing.

[healdie]

but Rachmaninoff is just one of those composers that everyone (almost literally) likes, so it makes a lot of waves when there is one who really really doesn't like him.

Maybe thats exactly why he doesn't like him

[edwardweiss]

 Of course, G.W.K., we might be better able to communicate our esteem for Rachmaninov both as a pianist and a composer if you would tell us what you DO like, and whether and how well you can play the piano. For me much of the appeal is the feel of the music under my fingers and the tremendous sounds written there-and the severe challenge of getting it right. Perhaps you would do better to get to know some pieces by Busoni and Max Reger first-then try the piano sonata by Jean Barraque. That will surely solve your problem with Rachmaninov! I would suggest Busoni's Fantasia Contrappuntistica, then Reger's Introduction, Passacaglia and Fugue Op.96, and lastly the Barraque. Should work a treat!

[communist]

do not forget he was also a great conductor

[G.W.K]

Yes, I'll agree with that communist: he was a great conductor. I have heard a lot about that.

I will post an entire list of everything I have heard and my entire thoughts/feelings on Rachmaninoff as-soon-as-possible.

Of course, G.W.K., we might be better able to communicate our esteem for Rachmaninov both as a pianist and a composer if you would tell us what you DO like, and whether and how well you can play the piano.

edwardweiss: I can play the piano, even though I am self-taught. I regard myself as quite a good piano player though the most advanced thing I can play so far is Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (as communist likes to mention sometimes ). I like Debussy, Chopin, Pachelbel (well he only made a few), SOME of Liszt and many more.

G.W.K

[communist]

Mr. i had not heard a single piece by Medtner Communist had me listen to some wonderful pieces by him 

[G.W.K]

Mr. i had not heard a single piece by Medtner Communist had me listen to some wonderful pieces by him 

Have a confession to make communist...I never listened to them, I was busy with something else. However, SO FAR this Rach. piece that you introduced me to is good.

There is hope yet...

G.W.K

[G.W.K]

CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)

G.W.K

[communist]

CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)

G.W.K

do i get a gift basket for my success

[G.W.K]

do i get a gift basket for my success

You get a Rep. point. That's good enough since I don't really give them out much.

G.W.K

[retrouvailles]

CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)

G.W.K

Bravo! Now you can stop with this nonsense that Rachmaninoff isn't a great composer.

Which recording, btw?

[aslanov]

CONGRATULATIONS "communist"! You have successfully introduced a Rachmaninoff piece to me that I actually LIKED! "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2" (All parts)

G.W.K

did u listen to anything i suggested in my first post?
get on it, quick.

[communist]

Bravo! Now you can stop with this nonsense that Rachmaninoff isn't a great composer.

Which recording, btw?

Alexis Weissenberg's with Herbert von Karajan

[aslanov]

baaah humbug.

i prefer richter's/berezovsky's/ashkenazy's

[popdog]

The second piano concerto is the first Rachmaninov piece I liked as well.  I would have suggested this as your best bet. 

Glad to know you enjoy something he wrote.  Of course he wrote a lot of other stuff which is great too.  Try his other piano concertos if you want. 

I'm quite keen on his prelude op.23 no. 3.  You might like this.  Don't listen to his 2nd piano sonata, I put it on to sleep to and had dreams of demons and chaos, hell and fire...

I guess I got what I deserved for trying to sleep to his music.

[mikey6]

Now explain to me how you can like the most characteristic/popular of Rachmaninoff works and not like Rachmaninoff?  Coz if you like the second, the first and third should follow, the second symphony, some of the preludes and etude-tableux - some are really quite strange though and are really not characteristic of the 'popular' Rachmaninoff.
What had you heard that you didn't like?  Who was the pianist - this especially matters if it's the first time you hear the piece.
I'm not being aggressive in anyway - just interested.

[christalia]

try to listen this piece : Prelude in G minor op  no 5   

[aslanov]

try to listen this piece : Prelude in G minor op 23 no 5   

thats better

[retrouvailles]

Alexis Weissenberg's with Herbert von Karajan

I was actually asking him which recording he listened to. I actually don't like that recording. Something about Weissenberg's playing bothers me, and I won't speak of Karajan's flat conducting.

Which recording did you listen to, Gary?

[pianowolfi]

Just too much of the Dies Irae theme. 

Can that ever be "too much"? 

[imbetter]

I don't want to sound stupid but what's the "Dies Irae" theme

[gerryjay]

dear gwk:
first and foremost, if you are new to a composer, remind your opinion but give him/her a time. i do firmly believe that only after knowing for real a composer's output you can actually make a valid statement.

there is a great reason to that: we are, in various degrees, influenced by our emotions. from happiness to prejudice, it's very difficult to ignore those elements when listening to music. furthermore, the discussion of how subjective you can be is important: as a naive listener, you are absolutely free to listen once and say "i don't like, period". in the other hand, this is an impossible attitude to anyone who wants a serious approach to both music and music making. my point is: only after listening to the same work several times you are really able to tell if you like it or not. furthermore, it's very important to listen to several players playing the same music, because it's very easy to get annoyed due to the performance, not the music (and rach suffers very much from that);

considering you are in the "serious" path, there is a second reason: you must know a representative portion of the composer's output. this is also related to knowing how many approaches there is to his music, which is a complicated multiplier. taking rachmaninoff as an example, i would make the following basic list:

- the second symphony;
- the third piano concerto;
(notice that listening to all symphonies and concertos is a small step further. to a pianist, i'd consider fundamental knowing all his piano-orchestral works);
- the paganini rhapsody;
- the symphonic poem the isle of the dead
- the opera francesca da rimini;
- the choral work all-night vigil and/or the liturgy of st. john chrysostom;
- the second suite (opus 17) for two pianos (if you want to know his "mixed" chamber works, try the trio élégiaque, but this is not a field of particular interest);
- a handful of songs (nothing in particular);

then, you come to the piano list:
- morceaux de fantasie opus 3 (not only the prelude);
- moments musicaux opus 16;
- preludes opus 23;
- preludes opus 32;
- etudes-tableaux opus 33;
- sonata opus 36;
- etudes-tableaux opus 39;
- variations opus 42 (corelli).

notice that for a non-pianist, i'd recommend only a small selection of his preludes and etudes, but for a piano player, it is fundamental to know them all. this can easily take a couple of years to know. add to this task some background reading, about both the composer and his environment, and you're done.

*******

if you want now my opinion about him, i think that any pianist see rachmaninoff as a greater composer than he really is. any instrument have composers who have a great importance in its boundaries, but outside there means much less. of course, due to the fact that the piano is the principal concert instrument (together with violin and voice, i believe), his music is played often in the most prestigious venues around the world. anyhow, he's a second class composer and could never ever be compared to his great compatriots and contemporaries prokofiev and stravinsky. [btw, with stravinsky happens exactly the contrary: he's one of the three most important composers of the first half of the 20th century (the other two being debussy and schoenberg), but his piano output is absolutely secondary considering his complete production.]
anyway, i like some of his works, although i don't have any inspiration about playing it.

*******

best!

[nanabush]

The thread maker is crazy!  His concertos are to die for, and his preludes/etudes are incredible.  There's so much drama and depth in his music, I can't get enough of it.

[pies]

a

[gerryjay]

And what's this with idea of listening to most of the works before making a judgment?  This is such an odd concept... replace Rachmaninoff with Sorabji, Xenakis, or some other modern giant.  Then everyone would be quick to judge!

dear pies:
this is only my approach. it's very academic, i know, but it works fine to me. 

i just don't understand your point about replacing rach with xenakis: why people would be quick to judge? could you please develop that?

best!

[pies]

a

[gerryjay]

Well, if you've read any of the long arguments in the modern music threads here, lots of people will listen to only a piece or two by Xenakis et al and decry it as crap and then extend this opinion to virtually all modern music.

thanks. for one moment, i thought you'd gone mad...

best!

[mlhf_michelle]

Rachmaninoff..

Hmm.. I have just heard his name for the first time when I watched a Japanese drama, Nodame Cantabile. This guy, Chiaki were asked by his teacher to play Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No.2 for the teacher's orchestra. It is the first time for me to see that a piano could join an orchestra and I always thought piano couldnt join an orchestra.

I only have heard this piece only so I do not judge many of him. The piece seems so sad, depressed somehow.

I hate to bash the historians because we cant change the history and we cant blame them for making a miserable piece. Please dont bash Rachmaninoff here.

Try to read at Wikipedia about him or more of his compositions. In that way, you could understand more about him and his feelings towards his pieces.

[chozartmaninoff]

We'll i think everyone has there own opinions and everyone has different tastes, however i think instead of calling a world renound very successful, loved by millions composer Rubbish basically you could have at least said "I didnt enjoy his music, what about it do you like"

Afterall your no judge to what is good compositions, you can only say what you like and dont.

[a-sharp]

I'm going to eat my words & say - I just saw a fab. performance of Rach 3 (the first time I'd seen it live), and I *loved* it!! IMO - there is beauty in that simple ascending melodic line in the 2nd mvmt. That is just my opinion of course - but it was so great!!

[soitainly]

 I have to admit that I don't really care for Rachmaninoff much either. I am new to piano and am discovering lots of music that I like, some of which I hadn't heard or at least payed attention to before. I have Heard Rachmaninoff pieces for many years on the radio, don't ask me which ones but I am sure I have heard alot of different ones.

 I can see how piano players would be drawn to playing technicaly demanding works. Musicians have always had a penchant for virtuosity, especially on their own instruments. Rachmaninoff is certainly not "bad" music. It is well structured, creative, and really makes full use of the pianos sonorities and techniques. But as a listener, I just don't enjoy it. To say it is just noise might be oversimplification, but there just aren't any melodies or motifs (what in pop music you would call a hook), that make any of the pieces memorable to ME. It sounds like random arpeggios and modulating chord changes without anything resembling a tune. Another way of putting it is that everything I hear seems to sound like a bridge, where as it is supposed to be connecting two parts of a composition, but In Rachmaninoff where are the parts being connected. I am not saying this is wrong, I just don't like it.

 It is really interesting to hear serious musicians discuss what they like and why. Everyone has a different background, and what musicians like is often a product of a long stream of being exposed to certain types of music at a specific time in their development. I am certain that Rachmaninoff fans hear some "hooks" in the music based on their experiences. I guess it would be a boring world if everyone liked the same things.

[baham99]

I have been listening to classical music all my life (not that old though) and have listened to piano pieces mostly in the past few months since picking up the piano again (not that good).  Ever since I began reading this forum (and others), I decided to gain as much as knowledge and appreciate as I could, as I really value the opinions of the members here.  However, I too cannot stand Rachmaninoff.  At first, I thought it was just bad.  Then I realized it was complex, but not my taste.  Finally, I think I've come to the realization that I am just not musically sophisticated enough to appreciate it.  Perhaps it is like caviar...one needs refined taste buds...can appreciate the subtleties and nuances...I guess my musical palate just isn't fine enough to "get" Rachmaninoff.

However, I'm very stubborn.  When I find myself at odds with the mainstream, especially with those whose views I value and respect (as members here), I make it a point to arduously obsess and endure (whether it be a novel, film, piece of music, etc.) until I can reach an epiphany and understand what it is that makes a work brilliant.  In some areas, I have had some success.  Works, art, literature, etc. that I begun hating I learned to appreciate.

There are two exceptions to this:  James Joyce's Ulysses (considered the greatest novel of the 20th century - hate it / don't get it) and Rachmaninoff (don't enjoy listening to him...doesn't not make me feel good...)

My ill-feeling towards his music has been further frustrated by the fact that I so earnest tried to figure it out.  I listened to the pieces that has been recommended in this thread again...one of the reasons I finally signed up here was to post this reply in defense of the original OP.

I think...while acknowledging the objective greatness of an artist, I think it's fair for individuals to subjectively feel averse to his or music.

[communist]

I was actually asking him which recording he listened to. I actually don't like that recording. Something about Weissenberg's playing bothers me, and I won't speak of Karajan's flat conducting.

Which recording did you listen to, Gary?

ya. thats the one he listened to

[aslanov]

ya. thats the one he listened to

did i mention how much i hate that recording?

[communist]

did i mention how much i hate that recording?

no you did not

[josh h]

I hate Rachmaninoff...live with it. G.W.K

I'm doing just fine, I promise.  You're the one who started this thread, you big troll.

[maestroanth]

Rachmaninoff made some of the most fantastic music one can hear. If you listen carefully (paying attention to the music, I mean), you'll surely discover emotions you didn't even know existed.

As far as I'm concerned, when I listen to his music, I feel privileged.

Sorry if this annoyingly bumps up an old topic, but I find myself at a lost for liking Rachmaninoff as well.  I think part of it is the reasons I always hear from Rach fans is the 'emotional' one. Emotions by definition of the word are extremely subjective so it's unfair to extrapolate as an objective criterion for defining 'good music'.

 But I'm a big hater of the empty virtuoso wishy-washiness of the high romantic period in general. Liszt is my favorite composer because of that piano sonata, but I even hate that same aspect of him too. It's just that Liszts thematic transformation style is the closest thing an attitude of mine can get to liking that style which is a very hard thing to do from my perspective. If I were to continue as a composer, thematic transformation would be what I do minus the empty virtuosity that gets stale.

My favorite concertos of all time were Mendelssohn 2 piano and one violin. Those were pieces I felt were extremely organized, I knew exactly where I am in the pieces (beginning middle or end) by just the sheer form aurally, it's a catchy constant melodic writing that burns in my mind where I can hum all 20 min of a given concerto, similar to Mozart melody but for me, better. And has the heightened virtuosity for neat climaxes which Mozart was of course limited with, but I felt he'd do if born 75 years later.....

I guess that's the kind of music I like. I don't get emotional feelings unless it shows a certain logic my brain can follow which I don't see in Rach pieces. Like at all.

[mysterioso777]

maestroanth: I know this topic is old, but I just want to address your comments. The only Rachmaninoff piece I'm familiar with that's guilty of what you're saying is his 3rd piano concerto. I'm not familiar with the 1st and 4th concertos, but the 2nd has very little empty virtuosity and is actually pretty neatly structured. I could also hum you that entire concerto, the melodies are pretty easy to follow imo. But pieces like Vespers, the Bells, Isle of the Dead, the Etudes Tableaux, etc don't seem, at least to me, at all like you're describing. Yes, his piano pieces are very virtuosic, but in most cases the virtuosity is either to create a texture or is actually counterpoint or derived from earlier motives.

To me, though, I can feel emotions from music without having it logically make sense, even though I could dissect his pieces and explain them away. According to what you wrote, you can't do this, but I still don't see how that stops you from appreciating Rachmaninoff's music, because it still makes sense. Not everything in a piece of music has to be connected to the primary motivic material for it to make sense.