Rachmaninoff haters

[scarbo87]

"The piano reperitoire is vast and there is no time to waste on Rachmaninoff"
      -Alfred Brendel

"I don't know why you guys had me do Rachmaninoff, you could have choosen something DECENT!"
      -Andrie Gavrilov

"It's Okay....It's not at all the greatest music ever written
and lacks depth"
      -Janina Fialkowska

"The Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto is no where near the artistic heights of the Beethoven 4th"
       -Horacio Guttierez


....There's a LOT more of where that came from

Why? Why is this? Why is Rachmaninoff so often tossed away as some gushing,Semi-Popluar composer??...He is often accused of
having too much sendiment.. How can you say that Chopin's etude op. 10 no. 3 or raindrop prelude are not this low??

Something that I don't understand is going on here....Rachmaninoff is being treated as one of the lowest composers out there, as shallow and sendimental.  

Rachmaninoff is NOT sendimental...he dominated the very last romantic throne...he was really the last great romanitc composer. I don't understand, for instance, why his 2nd and 3rd concertos are basically considered crap in the face of the Tchaikowsky concerto..which is 10 times more sendimental.

I do,however, understand, on some degree, what people mean when they say this, after all his music is not Contrapuntal perfection....but other than this...why is Rachmaninoff the only one accused of this? I think Liszt and Tchaikowsky would rank much higher in the category of Sendimental and shallowness than Rachmaninoff.

So yes...someone plez fil me in...

btw-sorry if this topic is kinda poorly organized, im half awake right now

Scarbo

[Rob47]

Here's a thought. (Yes I have been drinking, and it is 2:26 am on  Saturday and I am Rob47.....) Anyway, that's just what 3 reputable pianists had to say about Rachmaninov.  I personally think his works are incredible. His subtle jazz influence in EVERY one of his compositions make them all works of pure genius.

His 3rd concerto IS the greatest work ever written for the piano. Hands down.  MAny people would believe its his second concero.  Myself  I think the Cadenza in the 1st mvt of his First concerto is incredibly underrated.

And for the record Chopin is a little b1tch, compared to Rachmaninoff.  Seriously.

[Rob47]

p.s.  What the hell do you care what Brendel and such have to say? You seem distraught by all this! F*** it!  As a musician YOU do what yo uwant to do! F*** Brendel. Yes he is one of the greatest pianists we have recorded knowledge of but F*** him!  If you like Sergei that's all that matters.

[fnork]

Funny to hear such a comment from Gavrilov, who has recorded 2nd and 3rd concert, plus Rhapsody on a theme of paganini and a lot of solo works (moment musical, etudes-tableaux, preludes etc etc).... I have a double-CD from EMI where he plays, and he does a good job. If he doesn't like Rachmaninov, how come he plays him so much? I think it's wierd. Really wierd.

[nick]

p.s.  What the hell do you care what Brendel and such have to say? You seem distraught by all this! F*** it!  As a musician YOU do what yo uwant to do! F*** Brendel. Yes he is one of the greatest pianists we have recorded knowledge of but F*** him!  If you like Sergei that's all that matters.

I agree. I love Glenn Gould, and he made the comment that he couldn't understand how anyone could like Beethoven's 3rd movement to the Appassionata! I love that piece and if he were alive I would explain it to him. Doesn't really bother me as we all react in a unique way to music.

Nick

[kempff]

hating is not a correct word. Not understanding is better. Rachmaninov was a genius and wrote beautiful great music, but some pianists understand it and some don't that's all. And please respect other pianists, specially Brendel. I, myself, don't understand Rachmaninov music they way I mix with Beethoven or Schubert, but I'll never say i hate him. Infact Rach3 is one of the greatest piano concertos written for the instrument, but I like Beethoven 2nd concerto more. That doesn't mean I hate Rach3, I just can't comprehend that much notes and that style. What i believe is, you are not forced to play things you don't understand. I will never go to Rachmaninov, but I go to Beethoven, coz I understand him

[scarbo87]

I understand that I cannot let influences of other musicians corrupt my love of Rachmaninoff's music (like you others,  I think the third concerto is the greatest ever written).And I never will.

On the other hand, I am not going to be as arrogant as to say that I know more than Brendel, not to mention many others...
and I am curious to know as to how a composer of such greatness and such magnitute can be shown in such a dim light......especially when he is considered worse than LISZT!!!!!!!!!!

[bernhard]

"The piano reperitoire is vast and there is no time to waste on Rachmaninoff"
      -Alfred Brendel

And let us not forget that Brendel found time to record Fur Elise…

[chopinsetude]

And let us not forget that Brendel found time to record Fur Elise…

Indeed.  I recently encoded some performances of music that my 9-year-old daughter has been working on.  This includes Fur Elise, some Anna Magdelana notebook stuff, Mozart C major pieces.

Interestingly enough, nearly all were recorded by Brendel.  Well, that's fine if he prefers to record 2-pagers from "My First Piano Recital", but when it comes to technically superior works, Rach owns it.

(disclaimer: I understand Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven wrote technically advanced works as well.)

[xvimbi]

Indeed.  I recently encoded some performances of music that my 9-year-old daughter has been working on.  This includes Fur Elise, some Anna Magdelana notebook stuff, Mozart C major pieces.

Interestingly enough, nearly all were recorded by Brendel.  Well, that's fine if he prefers to record 2-pagers from "My First Piano Recital", but when it comes to technically superior works, Rach owns it.

Objection! This comment indicates to me that you may either have no idea of Brendel's accomplishments or a low opinion of them.

I am always thrilled to see top-notch pianists record the so-called easy pieces, be it Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikowski, or any other composer. Brendel is not the only one. This makes them human for me. Or maybe not, because often enough, these pianists can turn even the easy pieces into works of marvel - just listen to Kissin play the Moonlight Sonata.

More importantly, it shows that they are really interested in the music and not in showing off their virtuosity. Some of those artists are of course also interested in increasing their revenue from selling the recordings; Brendel could be accused of that.

Brendel is an incredibly insightful musician. Perhaps, only one out of ten pianists in that category will actually analyze the pieces they play in such depth as he does. That does not mean one has to agree with his interpretations, but it means that they have true opinions and are ready to explain them. As always, one must have compelling reaons why one likes the music of a certain composer and why one doesn't. Brendel is renowned for, among others, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann and Liszt, arguably among the most difficult repertoire out there, both musically and technically. I'll take him anytime over such "hot-shots" as Lang-Lang or Stephen Hough (who just recently completely butchered the beloved Rachmaninoff Concertos - just wait until the record comes out in November).

[DarkWind]

His 3rd concerto IS the greatest work ever written for the piano. Hands down.

I really wouldn't go as far as to say it's the greatest work written for piano. Besides, it also requires an orchestra. There are quite a few other works I would choose to listen over the concerto anytime of the day. But I still love his music, and I can't believe how such good pianists could say his music is terrible.

[Spatula]

I agree. I love Glenn Gould, and he made the comment that he couldn't understand how anyone could like Beethoven's 3rd movement to the Appassionata! I love that piece and if he were alive I would explain it to him. Doesn't really bother me as we all react in a unique way to music.

Nick

What the ***!??!!? Glenn G actually said he didn't like appassionata...? 3rd movement?

WOW (normally I'd say for him to rot and die in hell ..but) I'll just say that people have EXTREMELY different tastes.

I don't want to say GG should go to hell because anyone else has the same right to say that to me because I'm not a bartok fan.  

So I'll keep my pie hole shut and not start any flame wars.

[liszmaninopin]

I really don't think it's a good practice to insult any composers or pianists.  Share your enthusiasm for those you like!  However, if you don't like a particular composer/pianist, it's best to say nothing or criticise in a very polite way.  With all due respect to the pianists who made those remarks about Rachmaninoff, they indicate a lack of tact and social taste, if nothing else.  

[chopinsetude]

Objection! This comment indicates to me that you may either have no idea of Brendel's accomplishments or a low opinion of them.

I understand your objection after going back and reading my post.  I came across wrong, spurred on by Bernhards post.... but I did put a disclaimer in there for a reason.

I know that Brendel has recorded most if not all Mozart and Beethoven works, and many are complex and require virtuosity.

And I agree that it's refreshing to hear top-notch players play the more elementary piece.  It's funny, as I read your objection I was listening to Martha Argerich play Schumann's Traumerei.  Brillliant.

I'm a little miffed by Brendels quote, though.  Rachmaninov is superb and definetly not a "waste of time" as Brendel suggests.  Re-re-re-recording the likes of Fur would be MORE-SO in my opinion.

(and I'm not a brendel fan to begin with)

No offense I hope.

Eric

[brewtality]

Myself  I think the Cadenza in the 1st mvt of his First concerto is incredibly underrated.

IMO this is greatest thing he ever wrote. My favourite part of my favourite piece  
oh and i am very dissapointed that da gavinator would say that about da rock especially since i just got his recordings of the preludes and moment musicaux  

[min@m]

I love Rachmaninoff as well, but I can't stand Brendels playing.  He is so boring.....

[jlh]

Brendel is renowned for, among others, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann and Liszt, arguably among the most difficult repertoire out there, both musically and technically. I'll take him anytime over such "hot-shots" as Lang-Lang or Stephen Hough (who just recently completely butchered the beloved Rachmaninoff Concertos - just wait until the record comes out in November).

Now wait just a minute!  How the heck do you know if he butchered the Rachmaninoff Concertos or not???  The CD is not even available for purchase yet!  I had the opportunity to attand one of Hough's concerts last year and was greatly impressed with everything he brought to the performance.  I'd put his musicianship against just about any other great pianist of this century or last.  Please think before slandering pianists based solely on your ignorance.

[Tash]

ok so what have we learnt from this whole experience??? people like different things and see/hear things differently. my shade of the sky is probably different to the shad of blue you see. so some people didn't like rachmaninov, that's completely understandable. there isn't a single person/thing in this world, past, present, future, that EVERYone likes, so we must learn to deal with this. personally i saw stephen hough play a few months ago and i can't say i completely loved his playing, but there are other people who think he's completely bril, so good for them, i'm glad some people adore his playing. we all hear things differently, so just accept this thought even if you don't understand where the hell they're coming from

[xvimbi]

Now wait just a minute!  How the heck do you know if he butchered the Rachmaninoff Concertos or not???  The CD is not even available for purchase yet!

 I had the opportunity to attand one of Hough's concerts last year and was greatly impressed with everything he brought to the performance.

Only one? You've got my pity. By the way, I was referring specifically to his Rach Concertos.

Please think before slandering pianists based solely on your ignorance.

Please think before slandering other posters based solely on your ignorance.

[cziffra777]

"The piano reperitoire is vast and there is no time to waste on Rachmaninoff"
      -Alfred Brendel

In other words, "I can't play Rachmaninoff, so I will cut him down".  Brendel doesn't have the technique or sound for Rachmaninoff.

"I don't know why you guys had me do Rachmaninoff, you could have choosen something DECENT!"
      -Andrie Gavrilov

This surprises me, because Gavrilov has made some excellent Rachmaninoff recordings. Maybe the comment was taken out of context.

"The Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto is no where near the artistic heights of the Beethoven 4th"
       -Horacio Guttierez

I agree. He isn't saying that the Rachmaninoff Third is a bad work.

[xvimbi]

In other words, "I can't play Rachmaninoff, so I will cut him down".  Brendel doesn't have the technique or sound for Rachmaninoff.

Out of curiosity: what special technique do you think is required to play Rachmaninoff as compared to, say, Beethoven and Liszt?

[kempff]

Out of curiosity: what special technique do you think is required to play Rachmaninoff as compared to, say, Beethoven and Liszt?

I agree. If Brendel wanted to play Rachmaninov, he could have done it with ease. He certainly has the technique and sound for it. Horowitz once said: I don't play Beethoven, because it doesn't interest me. Does that mean that Horowitz doesn't have the technique to play Beethoven ?

[cziffra777]

Out of curiosity: what special technique do you think is required to play Rachmaninoff as compared to, say, Beethoven and Liszt?

None. Unfortunately, Brendel doesn't even possess the technique to play Beethoven and Liszt correctly.

[cziffra777]

I agree. If Brendel wanted to play Rachmaninov, he could have done it with ease. He certainly has the technique and sound for it.

He has neither the sound nor technique. Brendel has an ugly, harsh sound. He is not capable of properly voicing chords and different lines between the two hands. He also lacks the interpretive skills required in Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff's music is passionate and dramatic. The same could be said of Beethoven. If Brendel can't bring these qualities out in Beethoven, how is he going to do it in Rachmaninoff?

Horowitz once said: I don't play Beethoven, because it doesn't interest me.

Horowitz did play Beethoven. He made a number of very good recordings of assorted sonatas and the fifth concerto.

Does that mean that Horowitz doesn't have the technique to play Beethoven ?

No, but we are discussing Brendel. Brendel's technical equipment is not even close to that of Horowitz.

[xvimbi]

None. Unfortunately, Brendel doesn't even possess the technique to play Beethoven and Liszt correctly.

Damn! Anybody interested in buying 5 Brendel CDs (half prize)?

Who should I get instead?

[Nightscape]

The problem with quotes though... is that they reflect an opinion of the person that can change.  Perhaps these artists were having a bad day, or had become frustrated with a poor performance of a Rachmaninoff work, for example.

I know that on some days I would rather not listen to Bach, for instance, but others I will be thrilled by his music.  People can be tempermental, and its wrong to judge someone based on a single quote - something that could just a momentary error of judgement.

[Derek]

You think those pianists were rachmaninov haters?

I took a music history survey course as a gen-ed lately, and its textbook had PLENTY OF SPACE for John Cage, Schoenburg, pictures of them, discussions of their music and so forth.

but not a single mention of rachmaninov.

to me, this represents the height of academic snobbery and pretense in the editing of a textbook. "diversity" is more important to these whack jobs than beautiful music.

[kempff]

Damn! Anybody interested in buying 5 Brendel CDs (half prize)?

Who should I get instead?

I would buy for 10 times over that price

[DarkWind]

You think those pianists were rachmaninov haters?

I took a music history survey course as a gen-ed lately, and its textbook had PLENTY OF SPACE for John Cage, Schoenburg, pictures of them, discussions of their music and so forth.

but not a single mention of rachmaninov.

to me, this represents the height of academic snobbery and pretense in the editing of a textbook. "diversity" is more important to these whack jobs than beautiful music.

Maybe you could realize that, as much of a great composer Rachmaninoff was, he wasn't a very important composer in regards to the advancement of music. Schoenberg, he created 12 tone serialism and atonality, which basically punched music in the face and made it go around in circles. It inspired a great many composers, including Ravel . Then we have John Cage, he was a genius, although not creative. His teacher, Schoenberg, told him he had absolutely no feel for harmony (kind of ironic, eh?) and wasn't a very good melody maker. Cage relied on his intellect. He created aleatory music, the prepared piano, and a bunch of other things, that has helped shape modern music. Rachmaninoff? He just composed great music, nothing much to say about him. I know that if I was writing a book on the history of music, I would surely not have much use to mention Rachmaninoff, save for the fact that he was the last true composer pianist. He really didn't influence anything involving modern music.

[Nightscape]

True, but I'm sure that same music textbook had plenty of space for composers like Mozart, Schubert, etc.  These composers really didn't advance music experimentally either (and I think Schubert was practically unknown while alive) but textbooks still include them in the history of music, because although they themselves did not advance music theory or performance practices, they influenced later composers (like Mozart influencing Beethoven).  It is my belief that Rachmaninoff should be mentioned because he plays a very important role in the history of music.  Although his music did not dissolve into intellectualism, an entire generation of pianists looked to his playing as influence.  Notably his style and the highly sentimental nature of his music have provided an incredible amount of music, and not just to the realm of classical music.  Rock and pop tunes frequently quote melodies from Rachmaninoff pieces.  And surely the neo-romantic composers drew inspiration from Rachmaninoff - look at Lowell Liebermann's music, one of the most important composers alive today.  The style is that of Liebermann, but he must have been influenced by the sheer power and "Rachmaninoff" style of composing and playing music.

Modern Music History textbooks have unfortunatly fallen into the trap of being "politically correct" - this is why you have composers like Amy Beach and Scott Joplin who have huge sections devoted to their music just because they were women or minorities.  In fact, if Wagner was not practically indespensable to music history, he probably would have been left out completely.  It is my belief that music should transcend race and gender, and should be judged on its own merit - composers like Rachmaninoff and Scriabin who are frequently ignored, should be placed above composers like Fanny Mendelsson where they belong.

[zemos]

what's with you guys?! brendel is one of the greatest in all times!! with no competitor in mozart, beethoven or schubert! so what? he just likes to play them more than Rachmaninov. i love Rachmaninov, but it is my opinion... so i'll hear Rachmaninov played by Horowitz or Ashkenazy, and Mozart by Brendel.  i don't care the opinions of any of them, it's how they play that matters. Kempff, for example said once- "if there's a Jew in the audience, tell me and i won't play to him." i think it's disgusting! but i won't stop listening to Kempff plays beethoven because i like it. think about it...
oh and btw, i would like to buy your discs of brendel.

[cziffra777]

what's with you guys?! brendel is one of the greatest in all times!! with no competitor in mozart, beethoven or schubert! so what?

You haven't listened to many pianists, have you? There are tons of pianists who play those composers better than Brendel. Here's a list off the top of my head:

Mozart
Horzowski
Horowitz
Haskil
Yudina
Feinberg
Eschenbach
Neuhaus
Sofronitsky
Lipatti

Beethoven
Nat
Horowitz
Schnabel
Sofronitsky
Michelangeli
Levy
Casadesus
Yudina
Malcuzynski
Rosen
Fiorentino
Richter

Schubert
Sofronitsky
Eschenbach
Bashkirov
Richter

[brewtality]

i'd add arrau, gilels for Beethoven

[min@m]

with rachmaninoff you need great tone color and technique.  brendel has neither.  he is a very boring pianist and I cant stand his playing.   To those who think Rachmaninoff wasn't a  progressive composer, listen to his 4th piano concerto....and yes he was a great pianist. (kinda dry, but could be his recordings that were bad)  I think Van Cliburn's 1958 recording of his 3rd concerto was really good.  To me a great pianist needs natural timing and unlimited amounts of tone color. 

[DarkWind]

True, but I'm sure that same music textbook had plenty of space for composers like Mozart, Schubert, etc.  These composers really didn't advance music experimentally either (and I think Schubert was practically unknown while alive) but textbooks still include them in the history of music, because although they themselves did not advance music theory or performance practices, they influenced later composers (like Mozart influencing Beethoven).  It is my belief that Rachmaninoff should be mentioned because he plays a very important role in the history of music.  Although his music did not dissolve into intellectualism, an entire generation of pianists looked to his playing as influence.  Notably his style and the highly sentimental nature of his music have provided an incredible amount of music, and not just to the realm of classical music.  Rock and pop tunes frequently quote melodies from Rachmaninoff pieces.  And surely the neo-romantic composers drew inspiration from Rachmaninoff - look at Lowell Liebermann's music, one of the most important composers alive today.  The style is that of Liebermann, but he must have been influenced by the sheer power and "Rachmaninoff" style of composing and playing music.

Modern Music History textbooks have unfortunatly fallen into the trap of being "politically correct" - this is why you have composers like Amy Beach and Scott Joplin who have huge sections devoted to their music just because they were women or minorities.  In fact, if Wagner was not practically indespensable to music history, he probably would have been left out completely.  It is my belief that music should transcend race and gender, and should be judged on its own merit - composers like Rachmaninoff and Scriabin who are frequently ignored, should be placed above composers like Fanny Mendelsson where they belong.

I'm not sure about Schubert, but I know that Mozart was actually a very important composer and helped change music a lot. He introduced German, basically, as an accepted language to Opera. He had many radical ideas of his time which seem normal to us nowadays. Also, it seems kind of dissapointing that they left out Scriabin, as he was the first true atonalist. Anyways, when you said that Schoenberg's Music and Cage's Music isn't beautiful, it really actually is. Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, for example, influenced an incredible number of pieces, one of the most famous being none other than Gustav Holst's The Planets. Anyways, as for including composers like Scott Joplin or Amy Beach, I can agree with you there on the minority remark. It's kind of annoying that they mention them, although Joplin did help shape some of the music like Gershwin's.

[fnork]

Maybe you could realize that, as much of a great composer Rachmaninoff was, he wasn't a very important composer in regards to the advancement of music. Schoenberg, he created 12 tone serialism and atonality, which basically punched music in the face and made it go around in circles. It inspired a great many composers, including Ravel . Then we have John Cage, he was a genius, although not creative. His teacher, Schoenberg, told him he had absolutely no feel for harmony (kind of ironic, eh?) and wasn't a very good melody maker. Cage relied on his intellect. He created aleatory music, the prepared piano, and a bunch of other things, that has helped shape modern music. Rachmaninoff? He just composed great music, nothing much to say about him. I know that if I was writing a book on the history of music, I would surely not have much use to mention Rachmaninoff, save for the fact that he was the last true composer pianist. He really didn't influence anything involving modern music.

This is a kind of pointless statement. I mean, you could easily say that some of Beethovens late piano sonatas were nothing new if you had heard his earlier sonatas. You'll hear the same "kind of Beethoven" in Appasionata as in his first f-minor sonata or in Pathetique, right? With your logic, this means that Appasionata wouldn't be worth mentioning because it wasn't anything new. (maybe Appasionata - Pathetique wasn't the best comparision, but you get my point) And did Bach really have to write so many fugues and preludes for WTK? Wouldn't it be enough with one book? What new does the second book tell us? Jesus christ, we all know how Bach sounds already! With WTK book 1, he would have done enough for the world, and everyone would remember him for what he is. Why did he have to write another one? I mean, the second book isn't much different than the first one, right?

There's a lot to say about Rachmaninov I think, especially since he's so appreciated by audiences. His music is still played often and remains a part of the piano reportoire. Perhaps there's nothing "new" about it in the same way as with Schoenberg or Cage, but it's good music nevertheless and people like it. Isn't that what matters?

[cziffra777]

This is a kind of pointless statement. I mean, you could easily say that some of Beethovens late piano sonatas were nothing new if you had heard his earlier sonatas. You'll hear the same "kind of Beethoven" in Appasionata as in his first f-minor sonata or in Pathetique, right?

I hear a very different Beethoven in those two sonatas.

With your logic, this means that Appasionata wouldn't be worth mentioning because it wasn't anything new.

I'm shocked that you think that there is nothing new in the Appassionata.

There's a lot to say about Rachmaninov I think, especially since he's so appreciated by audiences.

Sure, there is a lot to say about Rachmaninoff, but nothing that belongs in a book about music history. Music would have developed pretty much as it did even without Rachmaninoff. Don't misunderstand me, I love Rachmaninoff's music, but he didn't add much to the development of future music.

[Nightscape]

True, but I'm sure that same music textbook had plenty of space for composers like Mozart, Schubert, etc.  These composers really didn't advance music experimentally either (and I think Schubert was practically unknown while alive) but textbooks still include them in the history of music, because although they themselves did not advance music theory or performance practices, they influenced later composers (like Mozart influencing Beethoven).  It is my belief that Rachmaninoff should be mentioned because he plays a very important role in the history of music.  Although his music did not dissolve into intellectualism, an entire generation of pianists looked to his playing as influence.  Notably his style and the highly sentimental nature of his music have provided an incredible amount of music, and not just to the realm of classical music.  Rock and pop tunes frequently quote melodies from Rachmaninoff pieces.  And surely the neo-romantic composers drew inspiration from Rachmaninoff - look at Lowell Liebermann's music, one of the most important composers alive today.  The style is that of Liebermann, but he must have been influenced by the sheer power and "Rachmaninoff" style of composing and playing music.

Modern Music History textbooks have unfortunatly fallen into the trap of being "politically correct" - this is why you have composers like Amy Beach and Scott Joplin who have huge sections devoted to their music just because they were women or minorities.  In fact, if Wagner was not practically indespensable to music history, he probably would have been left out completely.  It is my belief that music should transcend race and gender, and should be judged on its own merit - composers like Rachmaninoff and Scriabin who are frequently ignored, should be placed above composers like Fanny Mendelsson where they belong.

I'm not sure about Schubert, but I know that Mozart was actually a very important composer and helped change music a lot. He introduced German, basically, as an accepted language to Opera. He had many radical ideas of his time which seem normal to us nowadays. Also, it seems kind of dissapointing that they left out Scriabin, as he was the first true atonalist. Anyways, when you said that Schoenberg's Music and Cage's Music isn't beautiful, it really actually is. Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, for example, influenced an incredible number of pieces, one of the most famous being none other than Gustav Holst's The Planets. Anyways, as for including composers like Scott Joplin or Amy Beach, I can agree with you there on the minority remark. It's kind of annoying that they mention them, although Joplin did help shape some of the music like Gershwin's.

I didn't say that their music wasn't beautiful.... I don't think I even mentioned Shoenberg or John Cage.  I haven't heard a lot of Schoenberg, though I have heard an excerpt from his opera Moses und Aron, and it was spine-tingling!  Although for the record I do think that John Cage's music is very humorous (like ASLAP and 4'33'').  You are right about the german opera thing though... I didn't think of that, I was only thinking from a harmonic and melodic standpoint.  I forgot about Gershwin too.... there's another composer who is often dismissed becuase his music is catchy or likeable- great works like An American in Paris and Porgy and Bess cannot be dismissed as banal or trash.

[maxy]

"The piano reperitoire is vast and there is no time to waste on Rachmaninoff"
       -Alfred Brendel

"I don't know why you guys had me do Rachmaninoff, you could have choosen something DECENT!"
       -Andrie Gavrilov

"It's Okay....It's not at all the greatest music ever written
and lacks depth"
       -Janina Fialkowska

"The Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto is no where near the artistic heights of the Beethoven 4th"
        -Horacio Guttierez

Ok Brendel may not be one of the most exciting pianists around, but he is certainly one of the best.  If he feels that Rachmaninov is a waste of time: fair enough.  I would assume he finds Rachmaninov lacks structure.  In a way, it is true, in general Rach is more about gesture than structure.

Gavrilov is full of himself... He is certainly not a humble pianist but once again: fair enough.  He is quite good.   It's not a surprise to hear that he would bash on some composers.  Still it's funny because he played a lot of Rachmaninov and he plays it well. He always gets insulted for no reason.

But now, when it comes to Fialkowska... it is quite a sad story.  "lacks depth" : that could be said about her own playing.  I do not find such a statement from her has any credibility.

Guttierez?  can't say he is wrong.  Beethoven 4th is possibly the "jewel" among all piano concertos.  What applies to Rach 3 would also apply to a lot of other concertos.  It is not actually saying Rach 3 is bad...

I would also add that Rachmaninov himself did not particularly show any respect for most of his fellow pianists nor for some composers (Brahms comes to mind).  I personally have no problems with Rach haters as long as they know what they are talking about.  It is rarely the case...

[kempff]

I agree.

Rach3 is a true masterpiece. Hands down. There is no doubt about it, but Beethoven 4th is more structured. Remember the period each of them ( Rach and Beethoven) lived in.

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

His 3rd concerto IS the greatest work ever written for the piano. Hands down.

Yes!! I've been trying to convince this to people forever, but everyone seems to prefer his 2nd concerto. I can't see why. It is beautiful, but the 3rd concerto is much more emotionally powerful and interesting, and the end gives me the chills.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks this.

- Ludwig Van Rachabji

[rohansahai]

Approach it this way!
Whenever I don't like a composition or a piece, I take it as MY INABILITY to understand the composer's intentions. For instance, first I used to HATE Rachmaninov, but as it stands now, he's my favourite composer. I used to HATE Prokofiev too, but now I seem to like him! The only reason I can put is that I didn't understand the different harmony and style of these composers as opposed to the more conventional Mozart etc.
Remember that the composer got worldwide acclaim for his works, and if you don't like it, there must be something wrong in you!!

[DarkWind]

His 3rd concerto IS the greatest work ever written for the piano. Hands down.

Yes!! I've been trying to convince this to people forever, but everyone seems to prefer his 2nd concerto. I can't see why. It is beautiful, but the 3rd concerto is much more emotionally powerful and interesting, and the end gives me the chills.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks this.

- Ludwig Van Rachabji

There are many other pieces better than the Concerto, besides, as I said before, it also requires an orchestra. Also, most prefer the 3rd from my experience. The 2nd is so much better, much more hummable themes.

[Antnee]

There are many other pieces better than the Concerto, besides, as I said before, it also requires an orchestra. Also, most prefer the 3rd from my experience. The 2nd is so much better, much more hummable themes.

I Agree. The second is much better. People like the third one mostly for the infamy that goes along with it. Not that it isn't a great piece of music, but I do think the second is more enjoyable.

[Motrax]

If we measured pieces by their hummable themes, Rachamninoff's 6th Etude Op. 33 would reign supreme. It's so catchy...  

rohansahai makes a very good point. Music requires as much effort from the listener as it requires from the performer to become beautiful. An unwilling listener will detest any piece from the outset, and an uneducated listener (which is most of us the first time we listen to a piece) will certainly have trouble enjoying a piece with which they cannot relate or understand. I listened to Stravinsky's Firebird a great number of times coming out of my computer speakers, and never really liked it much. But after seeing the ballet live, the piece suddenly took on a powerful new meaning, and now I feel I really understand the music. Similarly, Rachmaninoff's 4th concerto remained a quaint, complex, and ultimately meaningless interplay between piano and orchestra for the first five or ten times a listened to it. But I was driving my car on one stormy night with the windows open (as enjoy doing when it's warm outside, despite the rain), and suddenly this somewhat cliche atmosphere gave meaning to the piece. I got a number of very powerful images while listening, and I now hold the piece in highest regard.

I am surprised any pianist who really loves music would make a comment like Brendel did. However, I'd like to know when he said that, and why. I find myself joking that Prokofiev's sonatas are trash, and maybe Brendel wasn't being as serious as the quote might have one believe.

[Antnee]

That's what I think. Brendel probably was probably being sarcastic or not entirely truthful. And as we all know, sarcasm doesn't go over well in print, and Brendel has probably been bashed for it, but we don't know if he was serious.

[Nightscape]

I don't think music is measured on it's hummability.... sure it's nice, but the real art of composition isn't coming up with a melody or a harmony, its expanding on those basic materials.  In that regards, one would have to say that Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto is a more mature and certainly deeper work than the already mature and deep 2nd concerto.  Even Rachmaninoff though so - and most professional musicians beleive this too.  Just look at how the thematic material is used throughout the concerto - you won't find such a device in the 2nd concerto.

To me, while I absolutely adore the 2nd concerto, the 3rd overall is a more unified, structured piece that has a greater sense of a personality than the 2nd.  This might be due to the fact that the 2nd concerto was constructed in parts, with each movement more or less standing on it's own.  The 3rd concerto was envisioned as a single work from the onset- the three sublime movements rely on each other to give themselves meaning.  I loved this piece long before I watched "Shine" or even knew that it was that technically difficult.  It is my favorite concerto (with Rachmaninoff's second concerto coming in a close 2nd.)

[Rob47]

I'm sorry for repeating myself.  Please.  Whoever is reading this...throw on Horowitzs' Rach 3 right now and honestly listen to it.  No recorded performance of ANYTHING comes close to this.  REALLY. IT IS THE BEST PERFORMANCE OF ANYTHING, EVER.  I know comments like "THIS IS THE BEST" instigate argumentative behaviour in alot of you but, seriously, Horowitz playing Rach 3 is what piano is all about. period.

your friend who loves you very much,
Rob

[cziffra777]

I'm sorry for repeating myself.  Please.  Whoever is reading this...throw on Horowitzs' Rach 3 right now and honestly listen to it.  No recorded performance of ANYTHING comes close to this.  REALLY. IT IS THE BEST PERFORMANCE OF ANYTHING, EVER.  I know comments like "THIS IS THE BEST" instigate argumentative behaviour in alot of you but, seriously, Horowitz playing Rach 3 is what piano is all about. period.

your friend who loves you very much,
Rob

 

[kempff]

I'm sorry for repeating myself.  Please.  Whoever is reading this...throw on Horowitzs' Rach 3 right now and honestly listen to it.  No recorded performance of ANYTHING comes close to this.  REALLY. IT IS THE BEST PERFORMANCE OF ANYTHING, EVER.  I know comments like "THIS IS THE BEST" instigate argumentative behaviour in alot of you but, seriously, Horowitz playing Rach 3 is what piano is all about. period.

your friend who loves you very much,
Rob

 

Isecond that. But i agree Horowitz Rach3 is one of the best.