# Rachmaninov's Repetitive Sentimentality



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Am I hearing things, or is it just always the _same_? There are certain things I love about Rachmaninov, but I don't think he does touching/sublime/soft-and-pensive very well.

Not more than once anyway. If you take the following examples in isolation, they are all actually quite moving. But, once you've heard one of them, you've practically heard them all. The melodies are obviously very different, and the contours aren't quite the same, but I can't help but hear that the character is identical in every one, and I find it tiresome. Am I hearing things?

*Exhibit A* - 1:07-1:35





*Exhibit B* - 0:00-1:00 (_etc!_)





*Exhibit C* - 1:17-1:37


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Am I hearing things, or is it just always the _same_? There are certain things I love about Rachmaninov, but I don't think he does touching/sublime/soft-and-pensive very well.


what about All night vigil?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

norman bates said:


> what about All night vigil?


Spiritual is excluded from my description.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Hey, Poles, I wanna have what you're having! Don't see it, buddy! Na, I'm just playing. I know exactly what you're talking about. Actually, the two piano piece showed some signs of the PC2 finale. That's why we is who we is. We each got a trademark and habits when we play that make us who we are and those nuances are some of the Drac's.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Yes, Rachmaninoff is repetative and can be counted among composers who "wrote the same work X times".


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Subtlety, dear children. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, you will learn to appreciate it.

:devil:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2011)

Rachmaninoff has an easily recognizable style, yes. Like Bach and Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky and Xenakis and hundreds of other composers. And he used some of the same tunes, too, in different pieces, like Beethoven and Berlioz and Prokofiev and hundreds of other composers.

I think one could pull out little snippets of things from any composer and come up with similar results.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Am I hearing things, or is it just always the _same_? There are certain things I love about Rachmaninov, but I don't think he does touching/sublime/soft-and-pensive very well.
> 
> Not more than once anyway. If you take the following examples in isolation, they are all actually quite moving. But, once you've heard one of them, you've practically heard them all. The melodies are obviously very different, and the contours aren't quite the same, but I can't help but hear that the character is identical in every one, and I find it tiresome. Am I hearing things?
> 
> ...


You also have many works not as repetitive. E.g. concerto no. 3, his operas are quite good... His songs are awesome.






Ciao!

Martin


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

I think his best works that are not sentimental in my opine, are his great number of Preludes for Solo Piano and the recording by Alexis Weissenberg is the benchmark recording.


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

Sort of excluding the Prelude in C# minor - it can be off-putting - it was his least favorite, and most famous solo work. All the rest are magnificent. Esp g#minor, Bb major, e minor and a dozen more at least!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

jdavid said:


> I think his best works that are not sentimental in my opine, are his great number of Preludes for Solo Piano and the recording by Alexis Weissenberg is the benchmark recording.


The worst recording Weissenberg ever made. The bench that is marked is out by the woodpile, waiting to be made into kindling.

!!


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I don't think you made your case very well! There's just some mysterious x-factor to his work (repetitive sentimentalism is your only cogent description here, although I've seen you criticize Rachmaninoff in other threads) that couldn't also be ascribed to Chopin, Brahms, or a host of other great composers whose bodies of work could for the most part fit into a very vaguely described mood? Not really buying it. I get the sense Rach isn't "en vogue" in some circles because he didn't die before the 1900s. Kind of the truer-than-thou indie attitude of classical, in a way.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

You guys obviously aren't getting my point because you're too blinded by Rach-love. 

Of course composers have styles unique to themselves that, over the course of their life, they will naturally use repeatedly and, duh, sound like themselves in all the pieces they write. Thanks, I'm not a moron.

What I'm saying is that Rachmaninov sounds _uninventively formulaic_. Other composers obviously sound similar to themselves, but they do so with unique musical inventions, so that they always present you with something new, even though you know who you're listening to. With Rachmaninov, however, whenever he wants slow-sentimental, to my ears he just adopts the _same_ tone and character throughout pieces because it's a winner. It sounds lazy.

For reference, I also find a disappointing formulaicness in my second favourite composer, Dvorak. I think his symphonic slow movements are all rather similar in terms of structure and character; they each have discernibly different melodies, but they all go in the same predictable directions with the same moods.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I don't think you made your case very well! There's just some mysterious x-factor to his work (repetitive sentimentalism is your only cogent description here, although I've seen you criticize Rachmaninoff in other threads) that couldn't also be ascribed to Chopin, Brahms, or a host of other great composers whose bodies of work could for the most part fit into a very vaguely described mood? Not really buying it. I get the sense Rach isn't "en vogue" in some circles because he didn't die before the 1900s. Kind of the truer-than-thou indie attitude of classical, in a way.


Rachmaninoff has never been 'in vogue in some circles'. His music is too honestly tied to the 'simple' sentiments, the crash-bangs and discords missing, the crescendos in their place. Subtle harmonies_ among massed strings _for cripes sake - who pays notice to those!

The 2nd movement of Piano Concerto No. 2 - there's nothing going on in there - no Action - it might as well be the 3rd movement of the Hammerklavier!

No, Rachmaninoff's music is for old, tired, sentimental folks, who have forgotten anything they _may_ have known about _*Music*_.

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2011)

I would agree that Rachmaninoff at his worst is unbearably mawkish. And I would agree that the examples you chose show him at his most mawkish.

But that's not the whole story. There are analogous passages in the third and fourth piano concertos and the first and third symphonies and in the Symphonic Dances and the Paganini Variations that do not support your thesis. They do however support your other thesis: "Other composers obviously sound similar to themselves, but they do so with unique musical inventions, so that they always present you with something new, even though you know who you're listening to." Aside from "always," this applies equally to Rachmaninoff and to Dvorak. Indeed, I would say that "always" doesn't apply to Beethoven or Bach or Mozart, either. Or to anyone else.

My only disagreement is this, that Rachmaninoff does not always do the same thing in his "slow-sentimental" bits. Often enough to annoy, but not always.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> You guys obviously aren't getting my point because you're too blinded by Rach-love.
> 
> Of course composers have styles unique to themselves that, over the course of their life, they will naturally use repeatedly and, duh, sound like themselves in all the pieces they write. Thanks, I'm not a moron.
> 
> ...


I can agree that some of Rachmaninoff's solo piano music in particular has this apparent "formulaic" approach you speak off. I recently listened to the rest of his lesser known solo piano works (after going through a box-set of his entire solo piano oeuvre) and found he definitely wrote/found a voice in his compositional style that was pure pianistic in idiom. He "really wrote it" for the piano and it seemed his thinking was highly focussed at that, unlike other composers who could stretch their talent onto a broader level, which is not to suggest any weakness on Rachmaninoff's part. Though you could also say Bach's harpsichord music also has this highly structured and densely thought out counterpoint that might be considered "formulaic". But many won't necessarily point it out that way because, as you agreeably mentioned, we are blinded by composer-X-love (Rach in this case).


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I was not convinced by Rachmaninoff for a long time, mostly because I was not into romantic music and the style of phrases and melody seemed too loose, like a mix between something extremely advanced and extremely simple. But at his best, there is something uniquely powerful about the simple thematic boldness combined with the highly elaborate harmonic underpinnings. I am not blinded by Rach love, and never fell for Chopin the way many do, but Rach does it for me more than Chopin, his stuff can just be so rich in a way that really makes yer eyes squint.

Also, the formulaic can be nice once you come to terms with it, the classical era is full of the formulaic with inventiveness layered on top of it, so is the rag time music of Scott Joplin and the music of the baroque and renaissance. Our friend Medtner even has it to a degree, his themes and modulations can be observed many a time in action and once you know the Medtner oevre, his structure is highly unpredictable in many ways, but his themes and chord choices in certain spots have Medtner written all over them to the point where you think you've heard it in another of his works sometimes.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^*clavichorder's* post made me realise, I was listening to Dvorak's _Piano Trio in F minor, Op. 65 _last night, and the first time I listened to the opening movement, I thought "this is Brahms rehash." It's only when I went back and played the first movement again that I heard it was nothing but pure Dvorak to the max. Your line about "the formulaic with inventiveness layered on top of it" made me have these thoughts now...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Yep... you're right. Rachmaninoff's not Brahms.














Thank God.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I can agree that some of Rachmaninoff's solo piano music in particular has this apparent "formulaic" approach you speak off. I recently listened to the rest of his lesser known solo piano works (after going through a box-set of his entire solo piano oeuvre) and found he definitely wrote/found a voice in his compositional style that was pure pianistic in idiom. He "really wrote it" for the piano and it seemed his thinking was highly focussed at that, unlike other composers who could stretch their talent onto a broader level, which is not to suggest any weakness on Rachmaninoff's part. Though you could also say Bach's harpsichord music also has this highly structured and densely thought out counterpoint that might be considered "formulaic". But many won't necessarily point it out that way because, as you agreeably mentioned, we are blinded by composer-X-love (Rach in this case).


Harpy is very correct in this point - Rachmaninov's piano music is first and foremost intended to be extremely idiomatic and virtuosic. Occasionally I feel as if the music is of secondary importance (take Prelude Op. 23 Nos. 2 and 7), but other times he can create something very beautiful out of it (Preludes Op. 23 Nos. 4, 5, and 6, for example). At worst it sounds like one of the more plain Chopin Etudes, at best it sounds like a Tchaikovsky symphony.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

I like Rachmaninoff and find most of his piano works very beautiful, but maybe I've been listening to the Classical composers too long to distinguish subtlety in later composers. I always thought his music pretty straightforward in its emotion, and subtle in the same way a dump truck driving through a nitroglycerin plant is subtle.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> *Exhibit B* - 0:00-1:00 (_etc!_)


Ylech! Listening to that was similar to eating 5 cotton candies. It's too sweet it makes me want to throw up. The only difference is that I don't get a sugar rush from listening to that.

I'm a fan of Rach's piano works (especially his Etude-tableaux and preludes), but I can't stand most of his works for an orchestra/plus chorus.

And now...
The Bells 'Schmells'


----------



## sYnapse (Oct 20, 2011)

Noticeable similarities like that wouldn't really surprise me coming from any artist; it's very difficult to imagine a radically different idea in every new piece. Sure, you can criticise him for it, but personally I don't find it tiresome if it's done in moderation and if there is a good balance of novelty and familiarity.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Rachmaninoff has never been 'in vogue in some circles'. His music is too honestly tied to the 'simple' sentiments, the crash-bangs and discords missing, the crescendos in their place. Subtle harmonies_ among massed strings _for cripes sake - who pays notice to those!
> 
> The 2nd movement of Piano Concerto No. 2 - there's nothing going on in there - no Action - it might as well be the 3rd movement of the Hammerklavier!
> 
> ...


This is stupid and offensive--but probably reflects the writer !

1


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

moody said:


> This is stupid and offensive--but probably reflects the writer !
> 
> 1


Woah.....I don't know if you are joking or not but....not cool man.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Rachmaninov's Repetitive Awesome.*


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> Rachmaninov's Repetitive Awesome.*


How....clever.....:clap:


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I do think it's ironic Rach haters explain their case in the same sort of touchy-feely way that they're trying to criticize. He "sounds" this, "I feel that..." Nothing concrete. No action in the second movement of the second concerto? What does that even mean? It doesn't mean anything! Lordy.

Also, Hilltroll was the one who put in a roundabout personal attack/character judgment first, so don't blame moody too much.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I do think it's ironic Rach haters explain their case in the same sort of touchy-feely way that they're trying to criticize. He "sounds" this, "I feel that..." Nothing concrete. No action in the second movement of the second concerto? What does that even mean? It doesn't mean anything! Lordy.
> 
> Also, Hilltroll was the one who put in a roundabout personal attack/character judgment first, so don't blame moody too much.


Aha! We have now identified two members who are weak in the comprehension of written caricature. Any more volunteers?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Aha! We have now identified two members who are weak in the comprehension of written caricature. Any more volunteers?


OH! So hilltroll was just pretending to type like someone who describes the music they listen to in hard to grasp, vague emotional stereotypes far too often?...when actually he agrees with you Regressive! I think...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> OH! So hilltroll was just pretending to type like someone who describes the music they listen to in hard to grasp, vague emotional stereotypes far too often?...when actually he agrees with you Regressive! I think...


Seems to me that I have expressed my admiration for Rachmaninoff's music in enough posts to provide the necessary background for a little caricature. Maybe it's an attention span thing? Or maybe most of my posts go unread... Aha! That must be it!

I see no changes in my 'style' coming, but my understanding of *my readership* is increasing.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

^^

I knew that's exactly what it was, señor. I even committed that mistake with you before I got to 'know' you. I just didn't wanna speak for you so I waited for you to post yourself.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I can't even tell anymore. Poe's law.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

kv466 said:


> ^^
> 
> I knew that's exactly what it was, señor. I even committed that mistake with you before I got to 'know' you. I just didn't wanna speak for you so I waited for you to post yourself.


Excellent. If my 'style were _completely_ impenetrable, I'd be forced to modify it.


----------



## Shostakovichiana (Nov 7, 2011)

I openly admit that I am blinded by Rach-love.. I find that his symphonies and piano concertos, and certainly many of his piano works, are full of beautiful melodies and harmonies. I don't see the "sentimentality" which every one who has a clue about music seems to go on about. Maybe it's because I am not an expert on music myself? But I am learning-- wonder if I will learn to disapprove on Rachmaninov's music as time goes? I hope not. The music gives me too much...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I can't even tell anymore. Poe's law.


You are not alone, _regressive_. I can tell you this much: my policy is to never knock a composer (s/he put more effort into the composition than I am willing to, maybe). Musicians I am less careful with, but not much less. Other member/posters are fair game, within the confines of civil discourse, and my estimate of what they can handle. Unfortunately, my 'estimates of what they can handle' are frequently too optimistic.

I am a dedicated humanist; I do not dump on people - though maybe it seems that way.

[Hah. That last reads like an attempt to be granted license. Not my intent, but if you are willing... ]

:devil:


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2011)

Your mileage may differ, but this is what happened to me.

When I was a kid, Rachmaninoff was my favorite composer.

When I was in college, I despised Rachmaninoff.

When I was in grad school, I ignored Rachmaninoff.

After school, I listened to some Rachmaninoff and liked it again.

Now? I don't think he's the bee's knees, but I don't dislike his music, either. There's plenty of music to do that "giving you much" thing. I wouldn't worry about it one way or another.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Rachmaninoff belongs to "Tier 1" of 20th century composers, which is a small group (along with Richard Strauss, Bela Bartok, for example). After these folks, the quality drops down sharply.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

The Drac sucks!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Rachmaninoff belongs to "Tier 1" of 20th century composers, which is a small group (along with Richard Strauss, Bela Bartok, for example). After these folks, the quality drops down sharply.


"The quality drops off sharply" in any period, near as I can tell. I suspect we are too close to the 20th C. to tell whose music is going to stick. Maybe it will be Kernis, Lazarof, Lees who the mid-21st C. will honor? Their music has exposure that lesser known composers never got in earlier centuries; maybe it will resonate in the minds of my grand-nephews' children.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "The quality drops off sharply" in any period, near as I can tell. I suspect we are too close to the 20th C. to tell whose music is going to stick. Maybe it will be Kernis, Lazarof, Lees who the mid-21st C. will honor? Their music has exposure that lesser known composers never got in earlier centuries; maybe it will resonate in the minds of my grand-nephews' children.


Dropping off sharply is all relative. I mean, at least lower tier folks of the Romantic, for example Louis Spohr (whose music I thoroughly enjoy), didn't cause pain to my ears with industrial noise.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

jdavid said:


> Sort of excluding the Prelude in C# minor - it can be off-putting - it was his least favorite, and most famous solo work. All the rest are magnificent. Esp g#minor, Bb major, e minor and a dozen more at least!


What's off-putting about it, it is a magnificent piece of music. It was his least favourite work only because audiences demanded it of him wherever he went.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

violadude said:


> Woah.....I don't know if you are joking or not but....not cool man.


No my friend, I was not joking at all let me assure you !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Polednice, your remarks and examples are not convincing nor can I hear the identical character in every one of the chunks that you find tiresome. ( Now Hilltroll 72 is really tiresome, like a fly buzzing against a window.) I think some people are missing the point or are purposely being obtuse. Rachmaninoff was the last great representative of Russian romanticism, but he was not much of a figurehead for romanticism. Tall, dour and always unsmiling he approached music very seriously and logically. As a pianist he had one of the colossal techniques in pianistic history and some say he was the greatest ever, and just like Liszt he composed for his technique .He studied composition at Moscow Conservatory and when he graduated he received the Great Gold Medal--the highest honour--he was 19 years of age. Therefore I think we can say he was no slouch when it came to composing the orchestral parts for his music.Whilehe was a student he met Tchaikovsky who became his mentor, he was also influenced by Rimsky-Korsakov and Scriabin.There is no kitsch or overt romanticism in his recordings, he plays his concerti straight as he does Chopin's funeral March sonata. The only other pianist who approaches his method is Earl Wild. But remember he was a Russian and Russians are a romantic race and that is what attracts people to their music. It is also the reason that his Second concerto is probably the most popular of all. You see threads asking : What about Medtner ? How about Malipiero ? The public are not interested--but they are in Rachmaninoff ! The first piece of his I heard was Polichinelle on a British black label Columbia 78 rpm disc and the pianist was Leff Pouishnoff (!!!) that was in 1946 and I was eight.If you look across his works at the second symphony, the Isle of the Dead, his songs , piano transcriptions, piano works it is impossible not to be impressed. His third concerto is quite amazing and the first movement very frightening. Some of the pianists who have specialized in his music include : Garrick Ohllson, Martha Argerich, Moiseiwitsch, Gina Bachauer, Peter Katin, Horowitz, Earl Wild and Ruth Laredo, not a group to be taken lightly.
If you are not keen on romantic music don't listen to Russian composers.
Now as you know, I am old, sad and have forgotten what MUSIC means. But some of my favourite composers include Beethoven, Mozart, Scarlatti, Soler, Ravel, Schubert, Verdi and Rossini. In the short time I've been involved here I've seen very little about l ieder except " what is a lieder " and " I like Grieg's Lieder " bit worrying among so many experts !


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> that was in 1946 and I was eight.


Aha! A whippersnapper! What I figured.

Bzzz Bzzz


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Rachmaninoff belongs to "Tier 1" of 20th century composers, which is a small group (along with Richard Strauss, Bela Bartok, for example). After these folks, the quality drops down sharply.


I'm not sure what you mean. Then again, I just hope Medtner is included in this first tier. I'm crazier about Medtner than some people are about Jesus.

And in more direct response, I believe William Schuman, Walter Piston, Alexander Tcherepnin, and Arnold Bax are great examples of excellent "second tier" composers.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. Then again, I just hope Medtner is included in this first tier. I'm crazier about Medtner than some people are about Jesus.


That's not saying much considering some people hate Jesus with a flaming passion.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> That's not saying much considering some people hate Jesus with a flaming passion.


I had thought about that, hmmm, I love Medtner more than a Jesus lover loves Jesus? No, I suppose that would be too extreme. I love Medtner as much as Huilunsoitaja or Tapkaara love Glazunov and Sibelius(respectively)?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I had thought about that, hmmm, I love Medtner more than a Jesus lover loves Jesus? No, I suppose that would be too extreme. I love Medtner as much as Huilunsoitaja or Tapkaara love Glazunov and Sibelius(respectively)?


How about we just say, you are the biggest Medtner fan alive today.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I remember one or two RMCR posters who were higher than decorum prefers on Medtner. _clavi_ may only rate 'big'.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. Then again, I just hope Medtner is included in this first tier. I'm crazier about Medtner than some people are about Jesus.
> 
> And in more direct response, I believe William Schuman, Walter Piston, Alexander Tcherepnin, and Arnold Bax are great examples of excellent "second tier" composers.


No worries. I like Medtner's piano pieces. It doesn't matter what tier I rank composers in. I thoroughly enjoy composer's music whom I myself rank in "lower tiers". Enjoyment and ranking are both fun!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> How about we just say, you are the biggest Medtner fan alive today.


Probably not true though. I hope not! There's got to be someone who gives him more appreciation than I do, someone who makes some grandiose and unrealistic claim about him, there are always those right? That's assuming you don't think my claims are grandiose and unrealistic?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

rach's moments that i like-love:

(from 0:44 to 1:38, absolutely brilliant, the theme itself, the variations of the theme, the chromatic cadenzas, etc)






Rach's moments that sometimes i don't like (not always, depends of my mood ) :

(from 3:08 to 3:45)


----------

