Rachmaninov Sonata Op36 no 2 Allegro molto

[lostinidlewonder]

I'd like peoples opinions on this recording what is bad or good

Thanks

[rachfan]

Hi lost,

I believe you're playing the revised 1931 version of the sonata.  Once you're ready to record the entire piece, you might want to title it "Rachmaninov, Sonata, No. 2, Op. 36 (1931)".  For decades most pianists were using this same version, but since the "hybrid" Horowitz performance and recording, the original 1913 version is cropping up more frequently.  So making that distinction is probably more important now.

Other than playing around with the sonata at the piano, I've yet to discipline myself to actually learn it. So I really cannot get down to a micro level of critique.  Overall though, I think you've accomplished a great deal in the "allegro molto".  You've sorted through the tricky rhythms, articulations, and musical lines to produce a very cogent performance.  It still needs to be a little more convincing, but that will take care of itself with more time and practice.   At the macro level I would make just two suggestions that struck me while listening.  

First, insofar as your having attained much precision in the rhythmic elements, which is a good thing, my suggestion would be to avoid their becoming too "square", as there can be a tendency for a figure here or there to become seemingly not-quite-blended into its context.  I think it's more important to round them a bit and meld them into a seamless, natural flow and continuity.  At the moment it sounds somewhat careful and cautious, but only because it's a work-in-progress recording.    

My other suggestion is this: At the "a tempo meno mosso", I would not classify this section as hyper-romantic music.  Instead, I interpret it to be ultra-romantic music!  It calls for more freedom, more sensuality, an even more ravishing beauty, feeling and expression in sound. This is an emotive Rachmaninoff at his best.  It's impossible to play this music in a cool, objective manner from the outside in--that is, attempting to decipher Rachmaninoff's programmatic vision from his musical notation on the page; rather, it can only be played from the inside out, that is to say, from the innermost psyche and vision of the artist himself, drawing on his own life experiences as encouraged by the composer.  Let your own individuality and inclinations enter the performance while still respecting the composer's overall intent and design. It is not so much a matter of re-creation, but rather co-creation of the musical idea in sound.

Again I believe you're doing fine work preparing this piece.  I realize my critique may be somewhat abstract (or maybe abstruse ), but hope it might be helpful.

    

[lostinidlewonder]

Rachfan thanks for your ideas. I should have clarified that it isn't me playing in this recording but a pianist I know very well and whom I respect a great deal. As a prelude to studying this sonata I have been listening to a number of interpretations (all that I can find online so far!) this interpretation to me quite different and which I have not found online but would like some peoples opinions on. Please anything you guys wanna say please say I need perspectives and things to look at more closely in this recording.

[rachfan]

Hi lost,

Ha!  I thought that was you playing!    I know you're very capable, so that's a compliment to you.

Here is my thought on the matter, sharing my own experience.  When I decide to prepare a new piece, I try NOT to listen to ANY recordings.  This is doubly difficult, as you can imagine, when playing neglected or unknown works like Catoire's, for example, as there are no known, extant performance practices lying around.  So I try to form my own interpretation from scratch, commune with the composer over the difficulties during practicing, form a concept and approach to the music, and bring the piece to completion accordingly (although it's true that no pianist ever really "finishes" a piece during his lifetime). At that point I do listen to someone else's recording to see if I hit a wrong note anywhere (or if the other pianist did so).  That's it as far as other recordings go, at least for me!  

So if, for instance, my interpretation of a Catoire piece is considerably different from Marc Hamelin's or a Bortkiewicz piece as played by Cyprien Katsaris or Koji Attwood, (totally discounting the fact that they are professionals and I an amateur), then I believe that's a very positive development!  It simply means that there is a wide range of possibilities for interpretation which makes the music far more interesting to listeners.  I've had people email me and say something like "Your interpretation is different from Pianist X, as you two emphasize different things in the music, but I like them both!"  For me comments like that are very affirming indeed.  If I can put my own stamp on a piece, so much the better.  But if I were first to listen to many other recordings of a work, they might influence me one or more ways thereby making it much harder for my own individuality to emerge in the performance.  To me that would be a troubling danger.

Lost, from the above, you know what I'm about to suggest: Put those recordings away!!!  You already know how the piece goes to the point where you can probably sing it in your head.  Just start practicing, rely on your own analysis and instincts, and see where it all takes you.  I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised.  

David

[lostinidlewonder]

First, insofar as your having attained much precision in the rhythmic elements, which is a good thing, my suggestion would be to avoid their becoming too "square", as there can be a tendency for a figure here or there to become seemingly not-quite-blended into its context.  I think it's more important to round them a bit and meld them into a seamless, natural flow and continuity.

That is what I find peculiar about this recording that I find in no other, how it is sectioned up and played in extremely "square" phrasing. As a matter of study I find this extremely interesting, although some might no agree with its musical context (and I have to say I enjoy the more big wild Russian interpretations)

Ha!  I thought that was you playing!    I know you're very capable, so that's a compliment to you.

Cheers It was my fault for not being specific enough.

When I decide to prepare a new piece, I try NOT to listen to ANY recordings.  This is doubly difficult, as you can imagine, when playing neglected or unknown works like Catoire's, for example, as there are no known, extant performance practices lying around.  So I try to form my own interpretation from scratch, commune with the composer over the difficulties during practicing, form a concept and approach to the music, and bring the piece to completion accordingly (although it's true that no pianist ever really "finishes" a piece during his lifetime). At that point I do listen to someone else's recording to see if I hit a wrong note anywhere (or if the other pianist did so).  That's it as far as other recordings go, at least for me!  

I have my own idea of how the piece should be interpreted already but some choices are ambiguous and I could go for several options. As a matter of phrasing I found the recording above very interesting, because most recordings melt everything together, it is interesting to see someone section it up in portions although the musical value might suffer somewhat (the unorthodoxed restraint however opens up a different perspective on the score for me). When I listen to recordings it is like a giant stream of information pertaining to the individuals musical voice. I have always been very particular about phrasing in music, the loud soft, fast slow never bothered me, its those subtle points of musical breath, when there is no sound! For me it is just a wonderful experience to hear people phrase their music whether I agree with it or not, I guess that is the teacher coming out in me. Once I get to a saturated point mentally considering a difficult piece I like to consider other peoples approach more closely before setting out to work on the task.

So if, for instance, my interpretation of a Catoire piece is considerably different from Marc Hamelin's or a Bortkiewicz piece as played by Cyprien Katsaris or Koji Attwood, (totally discounting the fact that they are professionals and I an amateur), then I believe that's a very positive development!  It simply means that there is a wide range of possibilities for interpretation which makes the music far more interesting to listeners.  I've had people email me and say something like "Your interpretation is different from Pianist X, as you two emphasize different things in the music, but I like them both!"  For me comments like that are very affirming indeed.  If I can put my own stamp on a piece, so much the better.  But if I were first to listen to many other recordings of a work, they might influence me one or more ways thereby making it much harder for my own individuality to emerge in the performance.  To me that would be a troubling danger.

I think if we all started copying our favorite recordings then the world will produce pretty boring music. Although no one can really exactly mimic what is recorded by another but follow a similar line thus we will always be somewhat different. Personally I love it when something different is done in a recording however sometimes the different might not be as good as the standard. But what is "good"? I have always said a "great" thing is something that changes your perspectives on things, it changes you, allows you to look outside of your little box whether for the good or bad.

Lost, from the above, you know what I'm about to suggest: Put those recordings away!!!  You already know how the piece goes to the point where you can probably sing it in your head.  Just start practicing, rely on your own analysis and instincts, and see where it all takes you.  I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised.  

Alas I listen to too much piano music, I am afraid the damage has been done as I've been listening to them for most of my life, only now starting to listen to them closer I guess I approach piano very similar to my engineering/computer science years. We build on what people have already done, improve, make more efficient, rarely do we work from scratch we always are building ontop of already solved problems and create new problems out of them and solve them to develop a better product or process.

I believe listening to people play has been a part of my learning experience since I was young, I still do hate learning pieces I have never heard before that is written in technically difficult form. Listening to people play there are points of their playing where I get goosebumps or feel very emotional, these are things I like to steal from them and then mould my own way. I guess I don't steal it from them, it just makes me aware that this part here needs attention and investigation because here is a wonderful example of someone doing a fine job of it.

In the olden days piano players would die just to listen to a great master play the piano, nowadays we can listen to recordings, share our playing and it is too easy to do so. But with this information overload we have to be wary not to lose our own voice and ideas. When it comes to the Arts this is even more important, although not everyones idea in Art is to have their own voice (most professionals and advanced amateur desire their own voice very much).

 I have had students who try to mimic great pianists but in the end they are just 2nd rate shadows of what they are trying to aspire to. If you do not understand the emotion or expression in a piece there is no chance of you trying to reproduce it in any form. Understanding the emotion for me has always been some emotional reaction from the inside from the sound, I have no words to explain it but there are just emotional tugs when you get to parts, it is interesting to see if this tug effects other people by listening to their recordings, and sometimes it is even more amazing to see passages which you didn't think where very focal points brought out. That is why I need to listen to recordings to see the many perspectives and how people knit things together, what combination they chose. It just sets my mind at ease when I cultivate my own interpretation.

There is many dangers relying on recordings 100% (but that rarely happens in practice we like to pick and choose what we steal/develop) however to develop your own interpretation of the piece. If you do so robotically without understanding WHY they use such devices and why the music moves in a particular direction then you are missing out on much. But if from listening to the recording it makes you aware of the musical value and you can also translate that into the score and to your hands, then you have learnt something, and something which during the pre-recording years was sort after so much. Just to catch a glimpse of a masters technique was a rare occasion and taught a lot (so much so that some top pianists of that day use to hide their fingerings from the audience to avoid their secrets being found out!).

[rachfan]

Hi lost,

On those very square rhythms that don't blend the way they should, I have a theory.  The pianist, finding that some of them treacherous, probably intensively practiced any troublesome measures to get them accurate, taking a micro-sectional approach to practicing.  Then when he dropped the measures back into the flow, they stood out from the context.  A way to overcome this is, of course, is to not simply extract the measure itself, but to include some lead-in notes from the prior measure as well as some notes beginning the following measure.  That way the measure and linking portions of the context are included in the practice exercise.  The reason we like those "wild Russian interpretations" you mention is because of the word "wild"--they're played with freedom and confidence, not with an over-cautious, prissy concern for precision, which is closer to mathematics than musical expression.

I think the reasons that phrasing is so interesting is that a chosen phrasing might or might not conform to the composer's legato markings.  As you know, the reason is that the phrase often transcends the legato figuration involving dropping into the keys, playing/pedaling for the smooth connection of notes, with a lift-off of the wrist at the end.  Rather, some additional factors sometimes enter the decision--e.g., voice leading, consideration for the longer musical line, the dynamic contour, etc.  Sometimes there are more than one or two phrasings that can all be rationalized and defended by the analysis of the score, which makes decision making even more interesting.

I totally agree with your statement that "we will all be somewhat different" in our interpretations and renditions.  The fact is that if you hand out the same urtext edition for a piece to six different capable pianists who swear that they will faithfully learn and perform the piece in accordance with the composer's wishes, in the end the six renditions will all have differences.  That in itself assures a healthy individuality in performances.

There are indeed revelations to be found in recordings, such as a gorgeous but never-before-noticed inner line, or the opportunity for a beautiful nuance, as examples.  I admit that one might learn a piece and not detect those particular options.  Then again, your recording made without the benefit of listening to those of others, might have facets that other pianists had never considered either.

Your mention of the old artists concealing their fingerings from the audience and especially other concert pianists... the eccentric Vladimir de Pachmann comes to mind!  

Well, I guess this discussion shows how different pianists go about their work from different angles sometimes.  But it's really no different from composers.  One might compose by first improvising at the keyboard like Poulenc, next try out the improvs with a few friends listening, and, if there was enthusiasm, would then transform them into scored piano pieces.  What a contrast to Prokofieff who had no piano in his study, had not one but many scores in progress simultaneously on a very large work table, and who would hear all the music in his head, then pen it onto the scores, moving around the table visiting each one as he worked.  And we greatly enjoy the compositions of both.  

A most interesting discussion!  
 

[ted]

Although I do not regard myself as a particularly competent interpreter this discussion seems to me quite fundamental to all musical processes. In particular, there exists a convention that actual creative processes ought to be concealed, and a musical result presented as if by magic. It is all rather like the mathematical tradition of presenting a discovery in a formalised, deductive proof, whose form gives absolutely no indication of how the author came upon his ideas. I have known one or two prominent composers, and when the subject of process as opposed to result is mentioned, they invariably respond like stage magicians desperate to preserve the secrets of a trick. I have never really fathomed why this is so. Of course the argument can be made that the result, be it an interpretation, recorded improvisation, composition, proof or whatever is all that matters, but I cannot help thinking this is not the real reason. I think there is a desire to preserve mystique and enigma, to appear to possess channels forbidden to readers and listeners.

I suppose if they just said something like, "Well, I didn't know what on earth to play/write next so I just had something to eat and fiddled around trying things for half an hour", it wouldn't exactly enhance their mystique as purveyors of transporting sound, would it ! Why ? Because everybody would say, "Is that all he did ! Perhaps I could write a sonata too !" And I think the fact is that everybody prepared to work at it can indeed think and play creatively. The mystique is a completely negative inhibition, which thankfully I am not subject to, and which I do not inflict on sincere enquirers, to whom I reveal every prosaic wart.

Of course I know it isn't going to change in a hurry but I still wish that attitude would disappear. Just my usual peculiar response to an interesting topic.   

[liordavid]

great performance level recording and playing