# Rachmaninoff: Symphony no. 2



## Waehnen

For a long time I have not heard a symphony that strikes me this much at the first listening! And I had thought Rach was kinda not a top composer. This is intelligent, beautiful, skillful, stimulating and expressive! 

(This is way better than the concertos, piano sonatas or piano trios imo.)


----------



## EdwardBast

I'm incapable of giving an objective opinion on Rachmaninoff's Second because, having grown up on the cut version, the complete version sounds exceedingly flabby to me. In the complete version of the first movement, for example, there are several passages that go nowhere harmonically, serving no purpose but to prolong the spinning out of sequential patterns. All are cut in the short version. Most important, two large scale repetitions of themes were removed from the final sections of both the scherzo and the finale. I can't help hearing the symphony as flawed, despite the cut version having been an early favorite of mine as a teen.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardB has put forth cogent points with which I agree...plus
Rach-y Sym 2 = way too long, way too thick and muddy, way too often programmed....

I dread performing it, or listening to it....


----------



## Waehnen

Thanks, Edward and Heck! I am not yet familiar enough with the piece to start dislinking it, but maybe I will come to the same conclusion soon.  There was some nice motives and themes, though. Lots of energy!


----------



## mbhaub

Well I like this symphony a great deal; it's one of my favorites. I probably have collected some 20 versions by now. Like almost everyone now on Social Security, I got to know the symphony from a cut version. Back then they were all (well almost all) cut, and the cuts were all different. My first recording was the Ormandy. Then I got the Paray and was immediately confused since they made different cuts. Then along came Andre Previn with his much hyped, and rightfully praised, "complete" version (he omitted the first movement repeat). It took getting used to, but now I find the cut versions really annoying. I really like the absolutely complete versions like Zinman on Telarc. I don't find the orchestration muddy or thick or dense - it just needs a conductor who is careful to get everything balanced, to keep the tempo moving. I shouldn't have written this; now I have an urge to put it on. I'll dig out Slatkin/St. Louis.

There is another thing about performances of this symphony that is a real annoyance with me: some conductors seem to think the last note of the first movement needs a whack from the timpani; that the basses alone aren't sufficient. I think Rachmaninoff knew exactly what he wanted. That deep grunt is perfect. So many otherwise fine performances are ruined by that one foolish amendment. The new Robin Ticciati recording is so good, the sound spectacular; he claims to follow Rach's score as closely has possible, to clear away the cobwebs ... and then he does that. So much for textual accuracy.

Anyway, it's a great symphony, the work of a genius. It's got it all: great tunes, beautiful counterpoint, brilliant orchestration. I love playing it, too.


----------



## Vasks

mbhaub said:


> I got to know the symphony from a cut version. Back then they were all (well almost all) cut. My first recording was the Ormandy. Then along came Andre Previn with his much hyped, and rightfully praised, "complete" version (he omitted the first movement repeat).


LOL! That's exactly me. I enjoy both versions.


----------



## EdwardBast

Waehnen said:


> Thanks, Edward and Heck! I am not yet familiar enough with the piece to start dislinking it, but maybe I will come to the same conclusion soon.  There was some nice motives and themes, though. Lots of energy!


I'm not saying I dislike it. It has really strong bones. The thematic transformations and quotations uniting the movements are subtle and perfectly planned. It's a work well worth knowing. It's just that I'm enthusiastic about a version, the cut one, that's completely out of favor and likely never to be performed again. No one agrees with me, so pay me no heed. Just enjoy it.



mbhaub said:


> Well I like this symphony a great deal; it's one of my favorites. I probably have collected some 20 versions by now. Like almost everyone now on Social Security, I got to know the symphony from a cut version. Back then they were all (well almost all) cut, and the cuts were all different. My first recording was the Ormandy. Then I got the Paray and was immediately confused since they made different cuts. Then along came Andre Previn with his much hyped, and rightfully praised, "complete" version (he omitted the first movement repeat). It took getting used to, but now I find the cut versions really annoying. I really like the absolutely complete versions like Zinman on Telarc. I don't find the orchestration muddy or thick or dense - it just needs a conductor who is careful to get everything balanced, to keep the tempo moving. I shouldn't have written this; now I have an urge to put it on. I'll dig out Slatkin/St. Louis.


I first heard it by the Pittsburgh Symphony under Steinberg in what had to be the most fully cut version. Repeating the exposition is absurd.


----------



## ScottK

mbhaub said:


> Well I like this symphony a great deal; it's one of my favorites. I probably have collected some 20 versions by now. Like almost everyone now on Social Security, I got to know the symphony from a cut version. Back then they were all (well almost all) cut, and the cuts were all different. My first recording was the Ormandy. Then I got the Paray and was immediately confused since they made different cuts. Then along came Andre Previn with his much hyped, and rightfully praised, "complete" version (he omitted the first movement repeat). It took getting used to, but now I find the cut versions really annoying. I really like the absolutely complete versions like Zinman on Telarc. I don't find the orchestration muddy or thick or dense - it just needs a conductor who is careful to get everything balanced, to keep the tempo moving. I shouldn't have written this; now I have an urge to put it on. I'll dig out Slatkin/St. Louis.
> 
> There is another thing about performances of this symphony that is a real annoyance with me: some conductors seem to think the last note of the first movement needs a whack from the timpani; that the basses alone aren't sufficient. I think Rachmaninoff knew exactly what he wanted. That deep grunt is perfect. So many otherwise fine performances are ruined by that one foolish amendment. The new Robin Ticciati recording is so good, the sound spectacular; he claims to follow Rach's score as closely has possible, to clear away the cobwebs ... and then he does that. So much for textual accuracy.
> 
> Anyway, it's a great symphony, the work of a genius. It's got it all: great tunes, beautiful counterpoint, brilliant orchestration. I love playing it, too.


I love this symphony!!! Got to know it on Previn and heard Slatkin live. But I don't have the dfference between to the two versions in my head. I want to!

Can you recommend a cut version and a complete version?


----------



## mbhaub

The cut version I think works the best is, unsurprisingly, Ormandy on Sony. Go for the stereo version, not the mono. Another one that really is quite good is Rodzinksi with the NYPO. Paray with Detroit might be easier to find and is excellent.

Complete versions abound. The Slatkin/Detroit version on Naxos is just superb in every way and lacks nothing. If SACD is your thing, try to get the Fischer/Budapest recording on Channel Classics.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I was unaware of there being a cut version. Is there a time difference? My Ormandy is CBS/Odyssey not Sony. A quick crude count to nearest minute) has total time for my Rach symphony 2 recordings:

Ormandy 48
Anissimov 58
Ashkenazy 55
de Waart 55
Dutoit 57
Kogan 54
Slatkin 59
Zinman 61
Downes 61
Previn 59

By the way, #2 is my least favorite as I don't have a lot of patience and seem to get more satisfaction from #1, #3 and Symphonic Dances. I consider Symphonic Dances and The Bells as symphonies, so count 5 total for Rach.


----------



## Waehnen

I have a Steinberg/Pittsburg version on an old CD. I wonder if this version is cut or not. This is 4 movements in over 40 minutes.


----------



## Vasks

The uncut is an hour or longer.

The Previn/Telarc is 62 minutes


----------



## SixFootScowl

Vasks said:


> The uncut is an hour or longer.
> 
> *The Previn/Telarc is 62 minutes*


My Previn is EMI. Here are the times on my media player:

19:10
10:10
15:45
14:17

About 59 minutes


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I'm incapable of giving an objective opinion on Rachmaninoff's Second because, having grown up on the cut version, the complete version sounds exceedingly flabby to me. In the complete version of the first movement, for example, there are several passages that go nowhere harmonically, serving no purpose but to prolong the spinning out of sequential patterns. All are cut in the short version. Most important, two large scale repetitions of themes were removed from the final sections of both the scherzo and the finale. I can't help hearing the symphony as flawed, despite the cut version having been an early favorite of mine as a teen.


I too grew up with the cut version (Ormandy), and was surprised to discover how much longer the uncut version was. When that happened - in my thirties, maybe? - my appetite for Rachmaninoff was limitless, and I wanted to hear every note. Some of the cut bits are nice in themselves; the extra bars in the middle section of the adagio - sequences over descending scales in the bass - were a particularly pleasant surprise (an interesting way of using that recurrent scale), and the various repeats were a more-than-welcome opportunity to hear much of the work twice in one sitting (a prospect that didn't seem tiring when I was forty years younger).

Over time I've come to prefer music with less fat on its bones, and the sharper, terser, subtler, more colorful language of Rach's later works, the 3rd Symphony and Symphonic Dances in particular, pleases me more than the darkness, weight and expansiveness of the 2nd. I have to agree with your assessment of some of the redundancies of the 2nd, particularly those sequential extensions of material in the first movement that hold up the music's forward motion. Still, though I rarely listen to the piece now, I don't mind hearing all, or at least most, of it. It helps to have a conductor who can keep things alive and moving, and project the work's emotions "on the fly," without dithering and wallowing, as Rachmaninoff himself could as a performer.


----------



## mikeh375

I have the Previn EMI uncut with the LSO and love it. I'm a sucker for Rach's emotive sequences.


----------



## RobertJTh

I've got St. Petersburg/Jansons, which clocks in at 54:46.
Maybe it's recommendable too, got good reviews and comes cheap on Brilliant Classics, but I don't have other recordings to compare it wicth. Not a big Rach fan.


----------



## Subutai

Waehnen said:


> (This is way better than the concertos, piano sonatas or piano trios imo.)


Can't speak for the sonatas, but Rach's Symphony 2 is not better then either Piano Concerto 2 or 3 (and I prefer symphonies above all other genres of Classical). I prefer his 1st to his overplayed, over-orchestrated 2nd.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

My favorite complete recorded version is Ormandy/Philadelphia produced on RCA in 1975. I also had the pleasure of seeing them perform the work live in concert in Miami a number of years back.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I like Rachmaninov's 2nd symphony quite a bit I must say, although I would say it's performed/recorded way too often. I have purposely avoided the workhorses in my daily listening and with good reason, I don't want to wear out their welcome. This said, I can listen to Rachmaninov's 2nd or Tchaikovsky's 5th with a freshness for precisely the reason I mentioned. I see some listeners here listen to the same works over and over again and, for me, I feel I'm doing a huge disservice to so many other composers that are just as worthy of my time. I don't normally comment on other people's listening, but people often wonder _why_ they're not getting the same kind of magic they once were from Rachmaninov's 2nd symphony and it simply boils down to overplaying it.

My favorite performances of Rachmaninov's 2nd symphony are Ashkenazy/Concertgebouw, Previn/LSO and Rozhdestvensky/LSO.


----------



## golfer72

I have the Telarc one with Previn. Actually never heard a cut version. Great symphony.


----------



## EdwardBast

I don't think anyone has pointed out that at the time Rachmaninoff was composing the Second he was obsessed with Wagner, particularly Der Meistersinger, and was also under the influence of Mahler, whose Fifth Symphony he had recently heard in Dresden(?) (I think — going from memory). The influence of Mahler's Fifth is particularly obvious: In the coda of the second movement we get a chorale destined for a glorious reprise at the end of the finale. The same thing happens in Mahler's Fifth: chorale in an unfulfilled version at the end of the second movement, a glorious reprise at the end of the finale. If one believes Rachmaninoff's Second is a bit overstuffed, it might have to do with the composers occupying his attention at the time.

I heard Previn conduct the Second in Pittsburgh ages ago. The tempo he chose for the finale was excruciatingly slow. I found myself grinding my teeth and pushing on the arms rests at Heinz Hall trying to get it to go faster.


----------



## hammeredklavier

9:00


----------



## SixFootScowl

Just queued this one up. Is said to be the full symphony. One commenter on Amazon says, Zinman "does take repeats as indicated in the original, full-length score, including a rarely observed one in the 1st movement." It also gets a blessing from David Hurwitz, for what that is worth:


> This is an outstanding performance of Rachmaninoff's most popular symphony, from a source that you wouldn't necessarily expect. David Zinman sees the work much as the composer himself might have. There's no Russian heaviness; he lets the gloom and doom speak for itself. Rather, he keeps textures light and supple, rhythms exciting, and goes for broke at the climaxes. He also manages to sustain the finale better than most of the competition, never making it sound like the main theme coming around one time too many. He's aided to no small extent by the excellent sound, and by playing that clearly establishes the Baltimore Symphony as a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Rachmaninoff was obsessed with Wagner, and was also under the influence of Mahler


I've thought parts of Rach's 3rd piano concerto are reminiscent of Wagner








and to a lesser extent, Mahler


----------



## Coach G

Waehnen said:


> Rachmaninoff: Symphony no. 2: For a long time I have not heard a symphony that strikes me this much at the first listening! And I had thought Rach was kinda not a top composer. This is intelligent, beautiful, skillful, stimulating and expressive!
> 
> (This is way better than the concertos, piano sonatas or piano trios imo.)


It's a great symphony and to my ears it has a lot of Tchaikovsky in it; and is worthy in it's rich melodies, lush orchestration, and sad. Russian soul, of the comparison. If Brahms' 1st was once hailed to be Beethoven's "10th"; then Rachmaninoff's 2nd is Tchiakovksy's "7th" or "8th" if you count _Manfred_.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"The Adagio from Rachmaninoff's Symphony no.2, Op.27, performed by the Philadelphia Orchestra conducted by Eugene Ormandy, recorded in April 1959. The recording is accompanied by a collection of home movies of Rachmaninoff and his family."


----------



## OCEANE

Waehnen said:


> For a long time I have not heard a symphony that strikes me this much at the first listening! And I had thought Rach was kinda not a top composer. This is intelligent, beautiful, skillful, stimulating and expressive!
> 
> (This is way better than the concertos, piano sonatas or piano trios imo.)


Similarly, for a long time I haven't listened to this symphony but it's always one of my favorite symphonies. This 1994 version was my first collection which gave me the first impression of this great work.


----------



## OCEANE

Ivan Fischer and his Budapest Festival Orchestra's Mahler symphonies all good to me ....maybe No. 7 is a bit rush.

I highly recommend Ivan Fischer's Rachmaninov Symphony and particularly BFO's string section who hold tightly the flow throughout the performance without being over sentimental.


----------



## Strange Magic

I am pleased with the Jansons and the St. Petersburg Philharmonic at about 55 minutes. Regarding Rachmaninoff's orchestral writings, be they concertos or symphonies or such as the Symphonic Dances, I am on board with all of them, early or late..The man's music, like Sibelius', has a distinct sound that is easily recognized and it is a sound that suits me. I never tire of it--it's comfort music for those with shattered nerves.....


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Love the symphony and have heard numerous excellent readings of it, both in concert and on CD - personal favourite Ashkenazy and the Concertgebouw. Surprisingly perhaps in view of what some have said above, I've found I don't take to Previn's EMI version (haven't heard his others) which came across to me as a bit slick and superficial, whereas Ashkenazy and his players really dig into the music. But _vive la différence_.


----------



## EdwardBast

OCEANE said:


> View attachment 165429
> 
> 
> Ivan Fischer and his Budapest Festival Orchestra's Mahler symphonies all good to me ....maybe No. 7 is a bit rush.
> 
> I highly recommend Ivan Fischer's Rachmaninov Symphony and particularly BFO's string section who hold tightly the flow throughout the performance without being over sentimental.


I'll have to hear that. Ivan Fischer has impressed me in everything I've heard him conduct.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Rachmaninoff's Second has long been a favorite work of mine. My preferred version is Ormandy's with the Philadelphia Orchestra from 1975 on RCA. It is uncut. Since the conductor had performed the piece numerous times in live concert, one of which I had the good fortune to see and hear, I believe it was one of his favorites as well.

Several years back, I also attended a performance of this symphony at the Brevard Music Center in North Carolina. The conductor was JoAnn Falletta, conductor of the Buffalo Philharmonic, and former conductor of the Virginia Symphony. Her performance was one of the most impressive I had ever heard. She has made a good number of recordings on the Naxos label, and has received widespread acclaim.


----------



## mbhaub

Brahmsian Colors said:


> Rachmaninoff's Second has long been a favorite work of mine. My preferred version is Ormandy's with the Philadelphia Orchestra from 1975 on RCA. It is uncut. Since the conductor had performed the piece numerous times in live concert, one of which I had the good fortune to see and hear, I believe it was one of his favorites as well.


It was one of his favorites - in the cut version. He never performed it complete and only recorded at the insistence of RCA. At the time it came out it there were several new recordings and one of the marketing devices used was that the new version was the "complete version". The likes of Previn, Temirkanov, Slatkin, Farberman and others were making the older, incomplete versions obsolete and RCA had the ideal conductor and orchestra not to mention the great clarinetist Anthony Gigliotti. Despite all that, I think Ormandy's complete version isn't all that well done; he was just uncomfortable with the previously cut passages and hadn't integrated them into his interpretation.


----------



## dko22

I've always found Rachmaninov a curious composer. He wrote two wonderful symphonies and The Bells (which he regarded as his masterpiece) and.... very little else of interest to me. No.3 and especially the Symphonic Dances, I find much shallower. I think the first is probably the greatest but both 1 and 2 are borderline top 10 symphonies. Still, the ravishing slow movement of no.2 has a modern rival in the form of Brincken's 4th. 

I disapprove of cuts in general and hate to see even such a great conductor as Kurt Sanderling making one or two in Rach 2. Fortunately the tendency finally seems to be away from this now.


----------



## mbhaub

If you are interested, here's a document that details the different cuts taken by different conductors.

http://www.orchestralibrary.com/Nieweg%20Charts/Rach2cuts-Whitaker-Nieweg.pdf


----------



## Torkelburger

dko22 said:


> I've always found Rachmaninov a curious composer. He wrote two wonderful symphonies and The Bells (which he regarded as his masterpiece) and.... very little else of interest to me. No.3 and especially the Symphonic Dances, I find much shallower. I think the first is probably the greatest but both 1 and 2 are borderline top 10 symphonies. Still, the ravishing slow movement of no.2 has a modern rival in the form of Brincken's 4th.
> 
> I disapprove of cuts in general and hate to see even such a great conductor as Kurt Sanderling making one or two in Rach 2. Fortunately the tendency finally seems to be away from this now.


What do you find of interest in the symphonies that you don't in say, the piano concertos, Vespers, and Cello Sonata?


----------



## golfer72

hammeredklavier said:


> 9:00


What is this? Cto #5 ? 2nd Symp with piano added?


----------



## mbhaub

golfer72 said:


> What is this? Cto #5 ? 2nd Symp with piano added?


That abomination was made in 2007 by pianist/arranger Alexander Warenberg. It's depressing that it's still around and there's more than one recording of. He cut the symphony down by some 40% to create the horror. Some people seem to really like it. Maybe they like Rach's concertos 2 and 3 so much and want more, and the "5th" is more like them than the composer's own 1 and 4. But if you know Rach's concertos and the glorious symphony well, as I do, you come away knowing it sounds little like Rachmaninoff.


----------



## dko22

Torkelburger said:


> What do you find of interest in the symphonies that you don't in say, the piano concertos, Vespers, and Cello Sonata?


quite simply emotional depth and directness. The piano concerti are more decorative and sentimental in my view. The Vespers are fine -- I sang them once. The cello sonata I'm afraid I can't remember at the moment.


----------



## golfer72

mbhaub said:


> That abomination was made in 2007 by pianist/arranger Alexander Warenberg. It's depressing that it's still around and there's more than one recording of. He cut the symphony down by some 40% to create the horror. Some people seem to really like it. Maybe they like Rach's concertos 2 and 3 so much and want more, and the "5th" is more like them than the composer's own 1 and 4. But if you know Rach's concertos and the glorious symphony well, as I do, you come away knowing it sounds little like Rachmaninoff.


Thanks for explanation! Love Rach and have no interest in this


----------



## hammeredklavier

mbhaub said:


> That abomination was made in 2007 by pianist/arranger Alexander Warenberg. It's depressing that it's still around and there's more than one recording of. He cut the symphony down by some 40% to create the horror. Some people seem to really like it.


But what makes it "abomination", "horror" exactly? "It's depressing that it's still around"? O com on, it doesn't really deserve this much hatred, does it?


----------



## mbhaub

hammeredklavier said:


> But what makes it "abomination", "horror" exactly? "It's depressing that it's still around"? O com on, it doesn't really deserve this much hatred, does it?


Yes, it does. Riding the coat tails. Standing on the shoulders of giants. Whatever it is, I despise it when people take the glorious work of others and try to make a name for themselves. The arranger is obviously a no-talent who craves attention, so what does he do: rip off the work of a genius. And, the symphony is one of most beautiful and sincere works the composer wrote. Leave it alone. Write your own damn symphony or concerto and let's see what you got! The pop singers who rip off Rach are no better. They get the credit and the money - the real composer is shunted to the side. In this particular case, someone (you know who) is getting royalty checks every time this Frankenconcerto is played or recorded. Rachmaninoff gets nothing. I'm going to have a drink. I just hate it when someone benefits from the hard work of others. And it's a lie, too: there is NO Rachmaninoff piano concerto no. 5.


----------



## Strange Magic

mbhaub said:


> Yes, it does. Riding the coat tails. Standing on the shoulders of giants. Whatever it is, I despise it when people take the glorious work of others and try to make a name for themselves. The arranger is obviously a no-talent who craves attention, so what does he do: rip off the work of a genius. And, the symphony is one of most beautiful and sincere works the composer wrote. Leave it alone. Write your own damn symphony or concerto and let's see what you got! The pop singers who rip off Rach are no better. They get the credit and the money - the real composer is shunted to the side. In this particular case, someone (you know who) is getting royalty checks every time this Frankenconcerto is played or recorded. Rachmaninoff gets nothing. I'm going to have a drink. I just hate it when someone benefits from the hard work of others. And it's a lie, too: there is NO Rachmaninoff piano concerto no. 5.


What are your views of the Broadway musical _Kismet_, the original soundtrack a treasured favorite of mine. It produced several lovely songs that were quite popular in their day: Stranger in Paradise; And This is My Beloved; Baubles, Bangles and Beads The album jacket states, in small type to be sure, that the score is largely "Music from Alexander Borodin".


----------



## mbhaub

Strange Magic said:


> What are your views of the Broadway musical _Kismet_, the original soundtrack a treasured favorite of mine. It produced several lovely songs that were quite popular in their day: Stranger in Paradise; And This is My Beloved; Baubles, Bangles and Beads The album jacket states, in small type to be sure, that the score is largely "Music from Alexander Borodin".


You have to ask? Yes, I hate it, very much so. Prince Igor I love. I also can't stand Song of Norway. There are plenty of great and original musicals without having to rip off greater composers.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

mbhaub said:


> Yes, it does. Riding the coat tails. Standing on the shoulders of giants. Whatever it is, I despise it when people take the glorious work of others and try to make a name for themselves. The arranger is obviously a no-talent who craves attention, so what does he do: rip off the work of a genius. And, the symphony is one of most beautiful and sincere works the composer wrote. Leave it alone. Write your own damn symphony or concerto and let's see what you got! The pop singers who rip off Rach are no better. They get the credit and the money - the real composer is shunted to the side. In this particular case, someone (you know who) is getting royalty checks every time this Frankenconcerto is played or recorded. Rachmaninoff gets nothing. I'm going to have a drink. I just hate it when someone benefits from the hard work of others. And it's a lie, too: there is NO Rachmaninoff piano concerto no. 5.


OK, now tell us what you really think.


----------



## Strange Magic

mbhaub said:


> You have to ask? Yes, I hate it, very much so. Prince Igor I love. I also can't stand Song of Norway. There are plenty of great and original musicals without having to rip off greater composers.


Of course I have to ask. _Kismet_ just may have made millions(?) happy but also introduced millions(?) to A. Borodin's music and to CM in general. What about every poem set to music: _Jerusalem, Midsummer Night's Dream,_ dozens more? Words set to music vs music set to words.


----------



## mbhaub

There's no underestimating public taste! Here's something to research: of the millions of people who watched Kismet in the theater or the movie somewhere, how many said "wow, that Borodin is great! I think I'll go out and buy the second symphony, Prince Igor and the 2nd string quartet?". I have no trouble with setting poetry to music. My issue is with performers and arrangers ripping off the work of a great composer (public domain notwithstanding) and hogging all the credit. There are still people there who think that Marvin Hamlish wrote the music for the movie The Sting; they know nothing of Scott Joplin. I know people, I live with one!, who think that Eric Carmen wrote "Never Gonna Fall in Love Again". Rachmaninoff who? There's another rip off that I find utterly horrible: Carmen Jones.


----------



## Strange Magic

mbhaub said:


> There's no underestimating public taste! Here's something to research: of the millions of people who watched Kismet in the theater or the movie somewhere, how many said "wow, that Borodin is great! I think I'll go out and buy the second symphony, Prince Igor and the 2nd string quartet?". I have no trouble with setting poetry to music. My issue is with performers and arrangers ripping off the work of a great composer (public domain notwithstanding) and hogging all the credit. There are still people there who think that Marvin Hamlish wrote the music for the movie The Sting; they know nothing of Scott Joplin. I know people, I live with one!, who think that Eric Carmen wrote "Never Gonna Fall in Love Again". Rachmaninoff who? There's another rip off that I find utterly horrible: Carmen Jones.


"Full Moon and Empty Arms". Andre Rieu. Victor Borge. PDQ Bach. Gerard Hoffnung. All part of a vast conspiracy to degrade CM, cheapen it, soil it. A delicate flower so easily crushed. Steadily working to reduce the audience for CM.

I don't think so.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> "Full Moon and Empty Arms". Andre Rieu. Victor Borge. PDQ Bach. Gerard Hoffnung. All part of a vast conspiracy to degrade CM, cheapen it, soil it. A delicate flower so easily crushed. Steadily working to reduce the audience for CM.
> 
> I don't think so.


What annoys me has nothing to do with the fate of classical music or its fan base. It's just the scumbag mentality of people who take credit for the work of others. Isn't the money enough? Equally annoying when perpetrated by, for example, Led Zeppelin.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> What annoys me has nothing to do with the fate of classical music or its fan base. It's just the scumbag mentality of people who take credit for the work of others. Isn't the money enough? Equally annoying when perpetrated by, for example, Led Zeppelin.


Doesn't this topic belong in the Non-Classical forum? Where it has been discussed _ad nauseum._ And what do you think of _Kismet_ where the music is clearly attributed to Borodin with the usual adaptations for a Broadway musical? In the album notes, Wright and Forrest clearly identify from which Borodin pieces they have extracted and modified melodies for the theater.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> Doesn't this topic belong in the Non-Classical forum? Where it has been discussed _ad nauseum._ And what do you think of _Kismet_ where the music is clearly attributed to Borodin with the usual adaptations for a Broadway musical? In the album notes, Wright and Forrest clearly identify from which Borodin pieces they have extracted and modified melodies for the theater.


I have no problem, other than (potentially) aesthetic ones, with credited adaptations. And the topic is related to this thread because of the direct ripoffs of Rachmaninoff's Seconds cited above.


----------



## Marsilius

A review of the Rachmaninoff "piano concerto no. 5" that appeared at the time of its first CD release: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2008/june08/Rachmaninoff_pc5_8900.htm


----------



## GraemeG

Strange Magic said:


> "Full Moon and Empty Arms". Andre Rieu. Victor Borge. PDQ Bach. Gerard Hoffnung. All part of a vast conspiracy to degrade CM, cheapen it, soil it. A delicate flower so easily crushed. Steadily working to reduce the audience for CM.
> 
> I don't think so.


Sorry - with the last three at least you're drawing an entirely false parallel. They are in no way an attempt to pass off the work of others as original - they are relying on knowledge of the originals (where modified) for comedic effect. Not the same thing at all. Rieu is just a standard orchestra with a lot of lights and silly costumes and schmaltzy patter; there's no attempt to disguise the composer, is there?

I don't think Hoffnung, PDQ or Borge (or Rieu) changed the CM audience size one iota in either direction.


----------



## Strange Magic

GraemeG said:


> Sorry - with the last three at least you're drawing an entirely false parallel. They are in no way an attempt to pass off the work of others as original - they are relying on knowledge of the originals (where modified) for comedic effect. Not the same thing at all. Rieu is just a standard orchestra with a lot of lights and silly costumes and schmaltzy patter; there's no attempt to disguise the composer, is there?
> 
> I don't think Hoffnung, PDQ or Borge (or Rieu) changed the CM audience size one iota in either direction.


Thank you. I think you've helped make my point. Except for your final sentence where your "I think" is based on no data and where the likelihood of your being wrong is far greater than you being right. Common sense.


----------

